Celluloid Soapbox: Am I The Only One?

Celluloid Soapbox is a new feature on SOC.  Normally I keep things pretty positive around here.  Every now and then, however, I need to blow off a little steam.  From now on, any time you see the words "Celluloid Soapbox," you'll know that I'm about to launch into an angry tirade about someone or something that I feel is a blight on horror movies or the horror community.  I warn you Cellmates, it's rant time...

As I read reviews of You’re Next, a movie that I enjoyed, I’m noticing something that, in all honesty, has irked me for a long, long time.  There’s an element in that film which illustrates a trend that I feel is a cancer eating away at the heart of modern filmmaking.  It’s something that has all but ruined the fine art of cinematography and threatens to negate the artistry of fight choreography and visual effects in general.  What bothers me most is that I don’t see anyone else mentioning this blight on modern cinema.  I’ve been accused quite a few times of sounding like a broken record about this subject, but as long as it persists, I’m going to call it out.  I’m speaking, of course, about shaky cam and the silence of my fellow shaky cam haters.

As a FFF, Cloverfield gets a pass.

I do have to qualify my hatred a bit.  While I’m not a big fan of most found footage flicks, that’s not what I’m talking about at all.  You see, when the film is shot from the actual perspective of a character in the story, it makes sense.  Even in a movie that’s not a FFF (found footage flick), if we’re supposed to be seeing the action from a character’s point of view, it makes sense.  When the camera is the omniscient cinema gaze of the audience, which is a pretentious, film school way to say that the camera is outside of the action representing the viewer who sees it all, there is no excuse for it to be bouncing around like Mohammad Ali shot it.

I get the theory behind why people do it.  It’s supposed to make the scene seem frantic and intense by not allowing the viewer to get a good look at what’s going on or take in all of the information on the screen.  You know what else that’s a description of?  Poor framing.  Bad camera work.  Crappy directing.  If your camera tricks basically have the same effect as a good old-fashioned Ric Flair thumb to the eye, maybe you shouldn’t do it.  Actually, the real reason a lot of directors employ this technique is to mask their inability to build tension or properly choreograph an action sequence.  Yeah, you heard me.  Most of you use shaky cam because you suck.  Here’s a rule of thumb; if you take 10 screen shots from any scene, you should be able to tell what’s happening in at least 8 of them.  In You’re Next, there were times when you couldn’t even tell what character you were looking at.  Is that really supposed to add realism?  Sorry, but at the first sign of danger I don’t suddenly turn into an epileptic bobble-head.

For those of you who say that it really does lend energy to a scene, I want you to watch this.  In my mind, this is one of the greatest action sequences ever filmed.  It’s from The Wild Bunch.  Just watch…

What did you see?  Motivated camera movement.  Rapid fire editing with expert timing.  Amazing shots.  A truly adrenaline-pumping action sequence.  You know what you didn’t see?  Shaky cam.  Now explain to me again how you need it to convey the intensity of a scene.  Name ONE action sequence where some inept cameradolt is shakin’ it like a Polaroid picture is as effective as that.  Yeah, that’s hat I thought. Make an actual shotlist, hold the damn camera still, and have a little respect for your craft.

I’m well aware that shaky cam is not a new phenomenon.  Hell, its use was being argued in Cahiers du Cinéma decades before I was even the fetus of Celluloid.  The difference is that back then it was used occasionally.  Now virtually every new film I see employs it to some point.  The vast majority of what I watch is horror, so logically that’s where I ‘m assaulted by it the most. Honestly, what percentage of kill scenes in horror flicks from the last 10 years didn’t have shaky cam?  Ten?  Twenty?  It’s a freakin’ epidemic!  The first time I really noticed it was in 28 Days Later, a film that many consider a modern horror classic.  I can’t stand it.  I remember leaving the theater and saying “why the hell did they spend money on good zombie makeups and not even let us get a good look at them?

Chernobyl Diaries, a definite shaky cam offender.

Shaky cam action/chase/kill sequences aren’t even the biggest offense.  What makes my blood really boil is when nothing is happening and the camera is wobbling.  Even if you subscribe to the argument that shaky cam helps action, what’s the excuse for that?  If two people are having a calm conversation, the camera should not be bobbing and weaving.  That’s just bad camera work.  You used to get  fired if you couldn’t hold the damn camera still. Now it’s a prerequisite.  If you want to shoot hand-held, find someone who can do it well.  Otherwise, bite the bullet and get a tripod.  Don’t tell me it’s a budgetary constraint.  You can get one at Walmart for twenty bucks.

Don’t get me wrong; there are rare occasions when shaky cam can be effective in the hands of a skilled craftsman.  There’s shaky cam in Dr. Strangelove.  It fit the gimmick of Natural Born Killers perfectly.  The Cohen Brothers use it with varying results.  The opening battle scene of Saving Private Ryan is brilliant.  Kinji Fukasaku used it in almost all of his movies, from the underrated Battles Without Honor and Humanity to the landmark Battle Royale.  Then again, shaky cam also caused his prostate cancer.  No, seriously.  It actually says so on his Wikipedia page.  Look it up.  You can always trust Wikipedia, right?  Anyway, the difference is that they used it to flavor already great films/scenes.  Take the Saving Private Ryan scene for example.  The shots themselves, the editing, the sound design, the performances; they were all great without the shaky cam.  It wasn’t the driving idea behind the look or action.  In far too many scenes these days, shaky cam is the only thing it has going for it.  If the camera was still, it would look like shit.  Then again, there are some otherwise great scenes that are ruined by it.  I guess what I’m saying is that it can be good as an occasionally used tool.  The problem is, it’s the only thing in a lot of filmmakers’ toolkit. In cases like Michael Bay, shaky cam is a lame-ass tool weilded by a lame-ass tool.  I couldn’t resist that one.

Maybe I’m just behind the times and just not down with the way movies are made these days.  Am I just an old schooler yelling at those damn kids on my lawn?  I mean, people in the 30’s said James Whale was destroying the art form by moving the camera too much. Today, film buffs, including me, consider him a visionary.  In his heyday, people said Mario Bava’s swooping, flowing, fluid camera work would make people sick.  The maestro’s camera acrobatics are a far cry from the quease inducing extent it’s gone to now.  These days there are filmmakers who build an entire career out of looking like their cameras are mounted on jackhammers.  And NO ONE calls them on it.  That’s how bullshit like Battle Los Angeles happens. 
Side note, I'm not even taking into account all of the issues raised by movie goers who are susceptible to motion sickness.   That's a whole different can of worms.  I'm just arguing for those who, like me, are sickened by crappy craftsmanship on the screen.

So I guess my question is this… am I the only one who loathes third person shaky cam?  I never see it mentioned in reviews, and I can’t help but wonder why.  Do you truly think it’s an effective cinematic technique?  Do you just ignore it?  Have you just accepted that it’s the way things are and there’s no point in bitching about it?  Is there a widespread Parkinson’s outbreak among cameramen and I’m just being an insensitive asshole?  These are not rhetorical questions, Cellmates.  I implore my fellow movie fans to sound off.  I want to know what you think about this.  If you’re sick of it like me, let’s take shaky/wobble cam to task.  Let’s do our best to drive it back to the cinematic hell it came from.  If you’re not, please enlighten me as to the style’s merit.  In the meantime, I’m going to keep the horror world accountable.  Edmund Burke once said “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”  Shaky cam is a true evil (and not in a good way) threatening the artistic medium I love.  As long as hack filmmakers use it to hide laziness and good filmmakers kowtow to the trend, I’m going to do the only thing I can… continue to be the lone voice crying out in the wilderness.

Review: Area 407

Recently on the Son of Celluloid facebook page, I made the statement that until Paranormal Activity 4 comes out, I will not watch or review any found footage ghost movies. I believe that everything that can be done with that particular subgenre has been done. Repeatedly. I’m just sick as hell of them. Then, I heard about Area 407. It’s a FFF (which means found footage flick for those of you who are new ‘round these parts) with dinosaurs. Ok, that’s original, I’d love to check it out. Dinosaurs rule! Well folks, after watching this flick, I’m amending my statement. Until PA4 is released I intend to not watch any more FFFs at all. That’s right, I’m done with found footage. If you’re thinking about sending me a screener of your latest found footage opus, first ask yourself “did I make something absolutely earth-shattering?” If not, don’t bother. So, Area 407, what have you got for us?

First the synopsis: “After taking off on a flight from New York to Los Angeles on New Years Eve, the passengers of Flight 37A are soon sent into shock and alarm as the plane experiences severe turbulence. The relentless weather attack causes panic and terror amongst the passengers until the plane ultimately crashes in a remote government-testing reserve, AREA 407. Through footage captured by two teenage sisters, the accident and crash lead to further events that should not be viewed by the faint of heart. As they continue to film, it becomes apparent that the remaining survivors of Flight 37A may not survive the night.”

Before we talk about the actual movie, lets talk about trailers for a minute. Class, what is a movie trailer? That’s right, it’s a tease to make you want to see the movie. You guys have been studying. Basically, a trailer is saying “So, you think this stuff’s cool? Well, this is the free stuff. You should pay to see the rest of the cool stuff that we’re not showing you.” That’s the basic understanding between viewer and trailer. This is going to be a spoiler, which I normally hate doing, but in this case I think I’m doing you a favor. Ready? Ok, here it goes…every shot of the dinosaurs that is in this movie, EVERY SINGLE ONE, is in the trailer. If you watch it, you have seen every iota of dinosaur footage there is. Even the film ending money shot. It’s in there. This movie is sold on the promise of dinosaurs. There’s a huge freakin’ dinosaur eye on the poster. I was expecting what I saw in the trailer to be a taste of what I was to see. Instead, that was all I saw. That’s what’s known as a bait and switch. That’s ripping the audience off. Had they given us one fleeting dino-shot in the trailer and not the money shot, it still would have been a huge let down, but it would at least be playing fair with the viewer. I didn’t come for the shaky cam, I came for the dinos, and that was a damn dirty trick. Shame on you.

Actually, the fact that we never saw the dinos aside from the 10 seconds in the trailer could have something to do with the way this thing is shot. We all expect shaky cam in a FFF. Hell, aside from POV shots in regular movies, it’s the only time shaky cam is acceptable. Here, the little girl filming swings that camera around like a booger that she can’t get off her finger. If Blair Witch made you seasick, have your Dramamine ready before you hit play on this one. We also expect whoever is holding the camera to act illogically and unrealistically in a FFF. That’s kindof a necessity, since rational people would throw the camera down and run, but then you don’t have much of a movie now do you? Here, though, it gets taken to a new level. The characters spend a ridiculous amount of time pointing at weird noises off in the distance or seeing something moving and screaming “What is THAT!” Everyone’s looking. The little girl with the camera, however, is still staring at the other survivors. I want to see what they’re looking at. Why is the one with the camera the only one not looking in that direction? Doesn’t she want to know what’s out there too? When someone does get attacked, the cameragirl seems to be doing everything in her power to point the camera anywhere but at the action. She will intentionally move from an angle where we might actually see something for once to one where our view is blocked just as anything remotely interesting begins. This happens multiple times. If you care enough about this footage that you’re going to risk your life to get it, wouldn’t you do your damnedest to get as much of the action on screen as possible? Apparently not this annoying little scamp. I won’t go into how annoying some of the rest of the cast is, particularly Charlie.

The flick isn’t all bad though. Actually, everything up to the plane crash is handled quite well. We get a good idea of who all the characters are though their interactions on the plane. It’s not in depth character building, but it certainly does the trick. Unfortunately that’s as far as most character’s development really goes. That’s not to say that there aren’t good characters. There are actually two that I rather enjoyed. Samantha Sloyan is excellent as Lois the flight attendant. The way she tries to keep everything together after the crash is an interesting play on what flight attendants are trained to do in that situation, and watching her fight to keep her composure is fascinating. Great performance. The other bright spot is James Lyons as Jimmy. Jimmy is a likable guy, an ex combat journalist in Afghanistan and Iraq, and ends up playing the “hero type” quite effectively. The plane crash itself is handled very well. That moment was a study in making a low budget work for you. That plane crash, without having to have expensive special effects, was as realistically portrayed as any I’ve seen. That was awesome.

As far back as Blair Witch, one of the criticisms I’ve heard people throw around about FFFs is that “nothing happened in that movie.” Never before has that been truer than in Area 407. The problem is, they had so many interesting ways they could have gone with it. The most obvious is, well, dinosaurs. With more dino action, this could have been a lot of fun. That’s the hook for this movie, and if they would have delivered, the other faults could have been easily forgiven. That, of course, was probably a budgetary issue. Maybe they just should have dropped the dino angle altogether and done something they could afford to do right. Lets say, however, that you keep the dino angle. There’s other stuff you can do to make the flick more interesting. You have a character that is a former combat photographer. Why the hell is he not the one with the camera? That’s an interesting angle that I don’t think has been used before. How about digging a little into why there’s a military area housing dinosaurs in the first place? That could have been seriously intriguing. Instead of any of those, all that happens from that excellent plane crash onward is running, yelling, and crying in the dark, along with characters fighting amongst themselves, more running, yelling, and crying in the dark, repeat, repeat, repeat.

This is one of those films with a killer premise that just falls flat. There isn’t any suspense, there’s precious little action, and there’s even less freakin’ dinosaurs. I’m guessing the end was supposed to be some kind of twist. If so it was both badly telegraphed and given away in the trailer. I had such high hopes for this flick. I was hoping it would prove me wrong and show me that there are still things left to do with the FFF gimmick. Instead it just put the final nail in the coffin of my patience with this played out subgenre. IFC distributes some great films normally. Someone must have been asleep on the job when they picked this one up. One severed thumb down. The first twenty minutes are pretty damn good, so Nathan says check that part out. Then go watch Carnosaur instead.

Review: Cold Creepy Feeling

This review courtesy of filmarcade.net

I’ve said many times that while, like everyone else, I like good movies, I like bad movies too. I find a lot of bad movies just as much fun as the good ones. I can forgive a lot in a bad movie as long as it’s entertaining in some way. There is one unforgivable sin however, and one thing that I will never EVER forgive a movie for being, and that is boring. I hate to say it, but that’s exactly what Cold, Creepy Feeling is; boring.

The synopsis: A young couple, Chloe (Lisa Younger) and Jason (Jared Vandenberg), escape the Los Angeles rat race for the quiet life in Joshua Tree, California but paranormal visions and voices quickly turn the house of their dreams into a house of nightmares. They enlist the help of a spiritualist, Alex Damiano, to help exorcise the premises but this only awakens and angers the demonic presence that lurks within. When the town Sheriff (Dennis Woodruff) becomes involved, he discovers that another family mysteriously disappeared 10 years earlier without a trace and he also becomes entangled in the web of evil horror.

The problem with this movie is that nothing really ever happens. So much time is wasted on things that have nothing to do with what very little plot there is. It takes them about 20 minutes to get to the damn house in the first place. This includes the couple in the car talking, a pointless stopover in a ghost town where they just play around, and a lot of shots out the window. It’s like watching a stranger’s vacation tapes. It’s freaking tedious. Then, when they get there, they explore the grounds for 10 minutes. Then the happy couple settles in, has a couple of drinks, and starts getting it on in the new house. At this point, the scary stuff should finally kick in, right? Wrong. There’s a false scare here involving a spider, which was the best scene in the film by far as it’s the only one with any originality, humor of the intentional variety, or drama. Then they go out to a bar. THEY GO OUT TO A BAR! In a horror movie, if someone is having sex in a haunted house, that should be the start of something oh, I dunno, creepy maybe? You know, creepy? Like we were promised in the freakin’ title? Anyway, when they eventually get home and go to bed, they hear a weird noise and Lisa has a weird dream. Finally something is happening! Did I mention that the movie is literally halfway over at this point? It’s got to pick up now, right? Well, they spend the next 8 minutes taking turns reading posts on a message board about ghosts. I’m not kidding. We are now 55 minutes into this film’s 86 minute running time. Are you starting to get the picture of how this flick is going?

We have about 15 minutes of shots of stuff, meaning nothing is happening, it’s just filler footage of plants, buildings, the sky, traffic, or whatever they could pad this flick with. We get a performance from Dennis Woodruff as the town sheriff that is so bad that it does have humor value, but it’s not worth sitting through the flick to get to. The final reveal is supremely inadequate considering what we sat through to get there.

Cold Creepy Feeling is sort of a combination of regular narrative film and found footage film. The problem is that when they’re not boring us to death with the “vacation footage” I mentioned earlier, they try to use the first person camera as a special effect. They employ the night vision thing to deliver the only two scares in the movie, and they fail badly. The whole night vision first person thing is so cliché by this point that if you’re going to use it, you’d better show something innovative or it’s going to fall flat on its face. Here, it’s like they think the technique is still unique enough to enhance the weak…I was about to call them jump scares but they’re so unfrightening that I’m honestly not 100% sure they were meant to be scares. While we’re on the subject of not using clichés, if you’re going to have someone perform an exorcism, which literally lasts less than a minute, DO NOT say the words “the power of Christ compels you” unless you’re going for laughs. That line is too much of a punch line to ever be used in a serious context again, especially twice. The song that’s playing when they are dancing in the bar deserves a special mention too. Holy crap it’s terrible. The rest of the music is decent if a bit generic but that song is just terrible.

I can’t wrap the review up without saying something good, so I’ll say that I did enjoy the tarantula scene. As I said earlier it was the only really good moment of the film. Lisa Younger and Dennis Woodruff as the young couple are at least somewhat likable. Given better material, they might have been effective. Well, that and Miss Younger has a fantastic ass. Just saying.

I believe this was writer/director/editor/effects (what effects?)/ sound/cinematographer Keith Kurlander’s first attempt at a feature, and unfortunately it wasn’t a successful one. The directing wasn’t necessarily bad, the problems primarily came from the story, so maybe if he stuck to directing someone else’s script and got some other artists to collaborate with, he could turn out a winner. Honestly folks, I hate writing reviews like this. Every time I get a screener of an indie flick I’m rooting for it, because I know that people put their hearts and souls into these things. Unfortunately, Cold Creepy Feeling failed to deliver even a moment of the titular sensation. Ladies and gentlemen, this is a historic moment, because I am about to type these words for the first time in my year and a half of reviewing horror flicks…two severed thumbs down. Nathan says do not check it out.

Weekend Upcoming Horror Flick Bonanza: Area 407

You all know from reading the blog that, in general, I'm kinda sick of found footage movies, but here's one I actually can't wait to check out. Remember, when I was talking about Rec 3 I said that I think the found footage gimmick is played out? As long as they keep making money and costing next to nothing to make, though, the market is going to continue to be over saturated with them. What that means to me is that if a FFF is going to catch my interest, it's got to offer something I've never seen before. So many movies are just the same old shaky cam ghost hunt. Well, Area 407 is offering up something I haven't seen before in a found footage flick...dinosaurs. Freakin' dinosaurs! No one, and I mean NO ONE, can deny the sheer coolness of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are awesome, and that's all there is to it. We need more dinosaur movies in fact. Well, here's the first one in a while, and I for one am excited. Jurassic Activity anyone?

Here's the synopsis: After taking off on a flight from New York to Los Angeles on New Years Eve, the passengers of Flight 37A are soon sent into shock and alarm as the plane experiences severe turbulence. The relentless weather attack causes panic and terror amongst the passengers until the plane ultimately crashes in a remote government-testing reserve, AREA 407. Through footage captured by two teenage sisters, the accident and crash lead to further events that should not be viewed by the faint of heart. As they continue to film, it becomes apparent that the remaining survivors of Flight 37A may not survive the night.

And here’s the trailer…

And, since IFC Midnight is hooking y’all up, here are a couple of clips…

AREA 407 is currently available on IFC Midnight Cable VOD and Digital Outlets (SundanceNOW, iTunes, Amazon Streaming, XBOX Zune, Playstation Unlimited) and in select theaters. Check your local listings to find it in a theater near you (if you’re lucky) or watch it on VOD. I should have a review up eventually. Did I mention that it’s got dinosaurs in it? Dinosaurs rule!

Review: Skew

I’ve said before that there are some movies where the credits are the best part. Usually I’m saying that the movie sucked, but sometimes I mean something entirely different. As much as I hate to sully the good name of a flick I liked by bringing up an M. Night Shamwow film, do you remember the first time you saw The Sixth Sense? Once you found out that Bruce Willis was dead, you went back over the movie in your mind and started picking out the clues. You’ll be doing the same thing with Skew. As much as I dug the movie, the most enjoyable part for me was during the credits when I began to go back and process the film in light of the final twist, putting all of the pieces together. That’s the sign of a well written film.

In Skew, Rich, his girlfriend Eva, and their friend Simon set off on a road trip to a wedding. Laura, Simon’s girlfriend, has decided at the last minute not to go. Simon brings his new camcorder and is constantly filming, much to the annoyance of Rich and Ava. Tensions begin to mount as we slowly discover that there may be more to the three friend’s relationship than meets the eye. Further complicating matters is Simon’s camera. It distorts people’s faces. Then those people die. Then the camera shows their ghosts. Is Simon losing it, or is the camera, which he just can’t put down, really showing him these things? As nerves fray and people die, can the three friends survive? Who’s next? What happened with Laura? What’s up with that camera? Is it still under warranty? Did Simon keep the receipt?

According to the press kit, Skew was filmed in 2005. That fact is very important to my enjoyment of the film. I have made no bones about the fact that I am absolutely sick of found footage movies. It’s like any cinematic or musical genre. The first wave was mostly good. Then we got the imitators, which were a mixed bag at best. Now we’re seeing the imitators of the imitators, and in some cases the imitators of the imitators of the imitators, and their originality and quality have suffered accordingly. Since this was filmed in ’05 however, that puts it way ahead of the curve. It was after Blair Witch in ‘99 but before Paranormal Activity and Cloverfield in ‘07. In fact, the only FFFs I can think of made between ’99 and ’05 were The Last Horror Movie and the August Underground flicks. Watching the conventions of the subgenre, like night vision or the slow pan around the room culminating in a jump scare, is incredibly irritating when watching one of the third or fourth generation flicks. Watching this and knowing that it was innovative at the time makes these things impressive. It’s a damn shame that post production and distribution took 5 years, because if this had beat the FFF glut it would have been a big hit.

The best thing about this movie is that it’s smart. Extremely smart. It has the kind of plot that you get on a surface level while it’s going on, but you really get when you ponder it later. The way we slowly find out about the underlying tensions and sub-plots between the three main characters keeps the tension high and the revelations coming. This is the only time I’ve ever seen a found footage movie where the audience is not sure if what we’re seeing is real. We see the footage being rewound, so are we seeing through the camera or the eyes of the cameraman? The strange stuff is gone when it’s rewound, so was the camera really showing it or was it just what Simon was seeing through it. It would seem that questions about visual identification wouldn’t lend itself to this subgenre, but this flick plays with the concept perfectly.

This would probably be more accurately described as a psychological thriller than a straight ahead horror flick, as it focuses more on the story and less on visceral shocks. When the film did go for a jump scare, however, they were great. There’s one in particular that is one of the most original “startle shocks” I’ve seen in a long long time. I’d much rather a movie show me a few scare moments done well than rely on constant cheap jump scares throughout. One performance stood out as particularly good, that of Amber Lewis as Eva. She came across as very genuine. She kept an air of mystery about her character that helped the subplot of…wait…I’m not giving that away. Almost slipped up there. Anyway, she’s very good, Taneal Cutting is good (and really hot for the record) as Laura, and Rob Scattergood does some good voice acting as Simon, who we never really see. Richard Olak, who played Rich, was pretty good for the most part, but there are a few moments where he’s looking into the camera while Simon is talking, and I have no idea what emotion he’s supposed to be conveying. Honestly, he looks like he’s taking a dump a couple of times there. At the end when he confronts Simon, his performance felt kinda restrained.

I did have a bit of a problem with the pacing of this movie. It’s slow. I mean really slow. I have no problem with a slow burn, but there were parts of the movie where it drug. The back of the DVD describes it as “steady-paced.” I think that’s stretching it a bit. It does a good job of holding the tension about 85% of the time, but I think a couple of minutes trimmed from certain parts would have kept things moving at a steadier clip without sacrificing the deliberate pace. The movie could have benefited from being tightened up a little. A couple of these spots that could have been tightened up involved the camera being put down pointing at nothing while we hear the action going on off camera. I see and dig what they were going for here, basically turning it into a radio drama and making us imagine what’s going on, but I think that technique would have been more effective if it had been used more sparingly.

This flick has been making quite an impression on the festival circuit, and I can see why. Smart storytelling like this is, sadly, getting more and more scarce in the horror genre. Skew rises above the POV-shot pack to deliver an atmospheric, intelligent, well made independent thriller that’s definitely worth seeing. I know, I’m burned out on found footage flicks too, but don’t let that stop you from seeing Skew. It’s damn good. It’s one of those movies where you realize just how intricate the seemingly simple plot is after the finale. Pay attention, just about everything in this movie means something, from major occurrences to little seemingly insignificant lines. It does get a little slow in places, but the payoff is worth the wait. Just don’t watch the trailer before you watch the movie. I’m serious. In fact, I IMPLORE you not to watch the trailer. Remember those really good shock scares I was talking about? The trailer gives most of them away, and they’re too good for you to want to spoil. Trust me. To tell you the truth, the production stills and press photos reveal too much. In fact, just avoid any press about this flick until after you see it. Well, except for this review. It’s a little late now, isn’t it? Oh well. I don’t believe it’s available commercially on DVD yet, but it is available on Netflix. One and a half severed thumbs up. Nathan says check it out.