Romeo’s Distress is a film that isn’t easy to classify as it does not fit neatly into a single genre. It’s not horror but more of a drama that’s heavily laden with dread and intrigue but also does get into more horrifying territory as it approaches the climax. As with any micro-budget film it’s success is going to be dependent on the level of innovation and creativity it brings to the table rather than high production values. So, is this film that was made for the shockingly low price tag of approximately $2,500 and shot well outside the studio system in New York state create an experience worthy of devoting eighty minutes of your time to? Well, let’s discuss.

The story follows James, (Anthony Malchar) an eccentric young man that spends his time taking pictures in graveyards, playing his ukulele and trying to dodge ass beatings from an angry jock named Bobby (Adam Stordy). When he isn’t going to court-mandated therapy or taking care of his senile grandmother, he gratefully escapes into his idyllic dreams of Jane (Kimberely Peterson) the girl he professes to love. Is he just a nice, misunderstood outsider….or is there something more sinister going on?

That’s about as much as I want to reveal of the plot because this is truly a film that is best viewed through fresh eyes. From very early on, writer/director Jeff Frumess establishes a sense of underlying menace and the feeling that there is much more to these characters than initially meets the eye. Indeed, the real fun here comes from seeing where the story will go as more and more information about who these people really are and the true nature of their relationships is slowly revealed.

Romeo also succeeds where many indie films fail by virtue of the fact that it doesn’t feel cheap. In fact, Frumess’ clever use of camera technique and color palette show an advanced sensibility and serve the story very well. The film is primarily shot in black and white with a few choice scenes, such as the dreams, bursting into vibrant color. Using black and white is certainly an artistic gamble but in this case it pays off beautifully and the film would not have worked nearly as well without it. The same can be said about the camerawork which utilizes close-ups and occasional high-contrast lighting to effectively give the film a tone that is subtly surreal.

Despite one or two weak links in the casting, the performances are generally very solid and well beyond what can normally be expected from a film of this budget. Malchar, for one, does an excellent job embodying a character that is quirky and eccentric while simultaneously being filled with sad desperation and rage. The real standout in this film however is Jeffrey Solomon who brings tremendous gravitas to the role of Jane’s father, Dale. He subtly and effectively communicates a genuine sense of menace and repressed emotional anguish that is simply mesmerizing to watch.

Now, despite the numerous positive aspects of this film, it does also have the unfortunate distinction of being one of those movies that continues past the point where it should have simply stopped. I of course won’t spoil it for you with the details but suffice to say the ending only works to the detriment of the overall story. It’s not a deal breaker by any means, but if the film had simply faded out two minutes sooner it would have immensely strengthened the overall production. But don’t let that deter you because, if you can find it, this is a cinematic journey worth taking and an experience that is well worth your time.

“Are you ready for this? I’ve got a concept that’s going to blow your fucking minds! A bunch of attractive college kids go camping in the woods and then….get this….are killed by a deranged murderer! What’s that? It’s been done!? Impossible! What……how many times? Too many to count!? Well…..fuck it, let’s roll anyway!”

That’s how I like to imagine the conversation went down at Zell-Koj Studio when they decided to roll out the most well-worn concept in horror filmmaking as their debut feature. Okay, so obviously that’s not how it was but any time I hear that plot line being dusted off again it fills me with the same skepticism as when I hear someone is making another zombie film. But to be fair, there is a lot room within those basic structures to incorporate some very interesting and unique ideas. Films like Wyrmwood and You’re Next are a testament to that. So, does Dark Forest flex it’s creative muscles to bring us a fresh and interesting take on a tired subgenre or does it sink into a sea of mediocrity along with countless other forgotten slashers? Well, let’s discuss.

The story follows Emily (Laurel McArthur) who goes on a camping trip with her three friends to relax, reconnect and to temporarily escape from her abusive boyfriend Peter (Dennis Scullard). When Peter learns that she has gone away without him for an entire weekend he flies into a murderous rage and quickly heads off to the woods to exact his horrible revenge on Emily and her friends.

According to Zell-Koj Studio’s own press release, this was made as an 80’s inspired slasher but I take issue with low-budget horror films that simply try to co-opt that identity in order to justify campy acting and low production values. Even though the film employs the same plot devices that have been in use since Friday the 13^th, the rap/techno soundtrack, prevalence of smartphones and a music video style bikini montage give it a distinctly modern feel. Stranger Things this is not.

For the most part though, the acting is serviceable for what it is and Scullard’s portrayal of the psychotic Peter does stand out as a highlight even though he isn’t given much to work with from a character standpoint. I am certainly willing to overlook a lot when it comes to the practical shortcomings of a micro-budget film but what is particularly aggravating in this case is that the film doesn’t even aspire to be anything more than a generic Hollywood slasher with a fraction of the budget. Nothing about the film even hints at attempting to be original and even a best case scenario version of this would have been nothing more than soulless entertainment.

Speaking of entertainment value, most of the kills are solid and appropriately bloody, even if the blood itself looks distractingly fake in some scenes. Unfortunately, they are presented without any suspense or tension as Peter seems to teleport around as required to kill off the expendable characters. Now, to it’s credit, the film is competently shot but then again so is Hollywood garbage like Transformers and Big Momma’s House. Competently shot should not be the single bar that a film aspires to clear.

My hope is that Zell-Koj will branch out into more innovative directions with future projects that at least attempt to break some kind of new ground. At a time when we have a virtually endless supply of genre films to watch, filmmakers need to bring something new to the table instead of just showing up with a pale version of something we are already tired of seeing.

Let me start by saying that The Laughing Mask is actually not a horror movie in the traditional sense, more of a dark thriller with horror elements. That being said, it is certainly an alternative, indie film that remains relatively obscure, like so many other micro-budget titles. So, the question is “Is this film a hidden gem that deserves to be uncovered or just another run-of-the-mill low budget flick drowning in a sea of it’s peers?” Well, let’s discuss.

The plot centers around the exploits of a mysterious vigilante killer known as “The Laughing Mask”. Jake Johnson (John Hardy) is a writer who’s wife was murdered and daughter abducted by said vigilante and has now written an inflammatory book on the subject in hopes of drawing him out into the open. Homicide detective Katherine O’Malley (Sheyenne Rivers) is also relentlessly pursuing the Mask in hopes of stopping his onslaught of murders as well as figuring out the deeper connection between them.

There are certainly a lot of things to like about this film. The Laughing Mask himself is an interesting character, a well-dressed psychopath with a creepy mask and a penchant for depression-era music. I also enjoyed his lair where he doled out his own brand of vigilante justice to guilty people who have skirted legal ramifications, via elaborate punishments based on their crimes. In addition, the use of creepy, old timey cartoons intercut into a few scenes actually works quite well as does the early twentieth century music that plays throughout. The film also doesn’t shy away from brutality and features numerous bloody kills.

Unfortunately, these positive elements are overshadowed by large, fundamental problems with the film itself. The most glaring issue here is the acting. Hardy actually stands out as the only one from the principal cast able to really deliver a believable performance. Most of the other actors sound like they are doing their first ever table read of a script and their stilted performances destroy any chance for the audience to suspend disbelief. This problem is only made worse by scenes where writer/director Michael Aguiar attempts to inject humor or snappy dialogue into the script, which inevitably fall flat. I also had some big issues with the flawed ending but going into further detail would require revealing major spoilers.

There is definitely some fun to be had with this film but ultimately with pacing that drags far more than it should and a lack of realistic characters to engage with, this film falls far short of what it might have been. With some more attention given to the script, as well as the casting, a very different outcome could have been produced. As it is, I don’t see The Laughing Mask breaking out of it’s obscurity to become a cult hit any time soon.

When creating a Christmas-themed horror film there are certainly a lot of different approaches you can take. Perhaps the most interesting and unconventional though, is the storyline for the Finnish film Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale, which goes far beyond the standard Santa-themed slasher to bring you a story that is relentlessly bizarre and incredibly engaging.

High in the Korvatunturi mountains a foreign company unearths the ancient, frozen body of the original Santa Claus. However, this creature is a far cry from the jolly, westernized version of the endlessly generous elf that we’ve all come to know. This Santa doesn’t just give presents, he also demands the blood of the children who have misbehaved and with his army of creepy elves at his command he’s sure to get it. Now, it’s up to a young boy (Onni Tommila) and a small band of reindeer hunters to try and save Christmas, and the world, from Santa Claus.

While the idea of Santa as a demonic, otherworldly creature that rewards good children and severely punishes the bad may seem strange to many American moviegoers it certainly wasn’t created in a vacuum. The film itself was actually preceded by two shorts by writer/director Jalmari Helander Rare Exports Inc. (2003) and The Official Rare Exports Inc. Safety Instructions (2005). It also draws inspiration from classic figures of European Christmas mythology such as Joulupukki and Krampus.

Right from the opening scene it’s clear that this is a well-made film. Despite the very modest budget of 1.8 million Euros it boasts gorgeous cinematography, flawless performances and high production values. As the wonderfully strange story unfolds, Helander immerses the audience in the bizarre and surreal world he has created with well-defined, unconventional characters and an unpredictable plot that will hold your attention throughout. This is a clear example of an artist-driven project that was created without the kind studio tampering so prevalent in Hollywood films, which is why this is far more entertaining than the cheap clutter that litters much of the American box offices year after year.

Now, I should mention that this is by no means a straight horror film but rather a bloody, genre-blending mix of horror, fantasy, thriller and comedy elements that make for a unique experience that is well worth the time. So, strap on your kengät and put the Reikäleipä in the oven because it’s time to indulge in some quality entertainment from the land of reindeer. A rare export indeed.

When it comes to generating controversy, you’re unlikely to see a Christmas-themed horror film that ever stirs up as much as Silent Night, Deadly Night did upon it’s 1984 release. Despite the fact that a very similar film, Christmas Evil, had come out just four years earlier with little fanfare, groups of self-imposed arbitrators of morality fought hard to get this Santa-themed slasher pulled from theaters as quickly as possible. Even though they were successful at this and the film was removed shortly after it’s release, that didn’t stop it from crushing the box office while it was there. Despite the controversy, or more likely because of it, the film saw profits that more than tripled the original budget, even outmatching the seminal slasher A Nightmare on Elm St which was released the same week. Ya know, the film where a disfigured man’s restless spirit murders teen in their sleep with his razor-fingers. Apparently that was far less shocking to some than a killer with a fake beard and a red suit.

The plot follows the sad, tragic life of Billy Chapman who is put into an orphanage after witnessing his parents’ murder on Christmas Eve by a criminal in a Santa suit when he was five. As he grows up with the memory of that horrifying event repressed deep inside him, his trauma is further exacerbated by the abuse he suffers in the orphanage at the hands of the stern Mother Superior. Although he is able to hold on to his sanity through his late teens, a series of events finally trigger his psychotic break causing him to go on a murderous rampage dressed as Saint Nick.

Even though the plot may sound a bit silly out of context, the film plays it surprisingly straight. One of the things I was most impressed with is how well it sets up and justifies events in the story. In situations where lesser movies would simply throw an event in to move the story along SNDN really goes the extra mile to make sure that actions are logically grounded and explained. For instance, the original Santa killer doesn’t just appear out of nowhere, he is established in a previous scene as are the series of events that lead to Billy’s mental snap.

The film also takes a very interesting and unusual perspective in the way it is presented, which undoubtedly added to the controversy. Rather than having the killer be the mysterious antagonist hiding in the shadows to strike at unsuspecting teens, he is front and center as the protagonist which is a perspective that makes audiences far more uncomfortable. In addition, he is also a very sympathetic victim of horrible circumstances and the scenes of his tragic childhood are truly sad and upsetting. However, rather than dwelling on long scenes of exposition SNDN provides just enough information to build the story to it’s inevitable outcome and doesn’t get bogged down in filler that slows the momentum.

The film also gives you a great sense of the characters who all feel like real, fleshed-out people rather than two-dimensional stereotypes, regardless of the size of their roles. This adds more dramatic weight to the kills when they occur and keeps the story far more interesting. Also, the kills themselves are brutal and pulled off incredibly well, especially the classic antler-impalement scene that is not only iconic, but chillingly beautiful in it’s execution.

All in all, an excellent addition to any horror fan’s Christmas list and well deserving of annual viewing to really get you in the mood for the season of mall Santas and commercial excess.