crumbsroom wrote: ↑
Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:27 am
It has considerably more craft than most give it credit for, it has a sense of humor, and it also is stupidly ridiculous at times (which I like, since I'm fine with drastic shifts in quality and tone from scene to scene).
It was a lot better than I expected based on what you'd said about it. I would say that the main reason I'm not a fan of tonal shifts, especially in lower-budget films like this, is that it feels like it implies a lack of control or focus from the filmmaker. The film is already kind of "fighting" the stuff that comes with a lower budget (not as good supporting actors, cheaper looking sets/costumes, etc), and the tonal shifts to me often convey a sort of amateurism. But I think that the film is actually better
than what it shows in those sillier moments. Like that part where the news reporter is interviewing people and he gets talking to the older lady (and if she is an actress she deserves an award--I kind of assumed she was a real person they found while filming) and she goes into a classic "older person telling a long story" mode and the reporter eventually has to be like "SO ANYWAY!". To me that was intentionally funny. But the monologue with the weird accent? That was more like, "Did the actor make that choice? And did the director really think that was cool?".
I also don't feel the violence is overly exploitative and more hints towards ugliness than actually shows it. While I didn't actually expect you (or anyone) to watch it, I felt that its use of violence wouldn't be something you would find as bothersome as you might in similar films.
Well, like I said, the film never treats the killings as opportunities for tearing the clothing off of the women. Aside from seeing the first woman's underwear while she struggled on the bed I don't even remember there being nudity. And the film makes the very important distinction that it's not the women who are at fault or to blame for the killings. The first woman is defending herself. The prostitute is just trying to be kind to someone who looked troubled. One victim is just a secretary trying to do her job. It's clearly the killer who is the problem here, or the "alternate self" that came to the forefront after he lost his eye. And ultimately the killings are in service to his own ego as an artist.
All the overtly hostile criticisms to it, even from within the horror community, once again make me feel that too many people are really unable to separate what works in films like this from what doesn't. It's easy to just look at it and make assumptions that its lack of sheen or its primitivism directly translates to garbage. There is a legitimate attempt to do something here, regardless of their financial and sometimes artistic limitations.
It surprises me that people wouldn't like this or at least appreciate what it's after. It feels like a distant cousin to something like God Told Me To
. It's low budget but it's not inept and it manages to work in some effective scenes of horror/gore. I agree that you can tell there is effort. I do still think that the sillier stuff hurts the film because it blurs the line between which parts of the film are intentionally funny and which are "so-bad-it's-funny". Had they just done away with a few of those elements, I think it would actually be a much more effective film. The killing of the prostitute is really the standout sequence for me (spoon self-defense notwithstanding), and the progression from humor to horror is really well done. So, again, why did we have to get a monologue with a silly accent? Why not take a little more time to explore the fact that he says he wants people to appreciate his art, and yet a single person complimenting his work sends him into a crazy emotional tailspin?