It wasn’t that long ago that horror anthology films were far less common than they are today. They never went away entirely of course but once the 90s rolled around they were pretty much relegated to cheap, straight-to-video cash grabs, most of which have been deservedly forgotten. That all changed with the success of modern anthology horror like Trick ‘r Treat and The ABCs of Death which revitalized a subsection of films that seemed destined for irrelevancy. As someone who is a big fan of anthology films, I couldn’t be happier with the unprecedented quality and abundance of these films today. Of course not all films are created equal and today we’ll see if The Forces of Horror Anthology feels more like a product of the modern anthology renaissance or a throwback to the dark days of the ’90s.

As so many anthology films do, TFoHA uses a wrap-around story as a framing devices for the shorts contained within. In this case, it centers around a 7^th grade girl named Libby (Gracie Whitton) meeting with her therapist Dr. Svengali (Lance Eakright). The short films themselves consist of the four disturbing dreams that she discusses with him throughout the session.

Putting aside, for the moment, any discussion of the actual quality of the writing or acting, the first issue I need to address here is the film’s length. Clocking in at the incredibly awkward fifty-six minutes, this can neither be considered a short nor a feature, which tends to add an unnecessary level of additional difficulty when trying to distribute a film. Honestly, at this point writer/director Roger Sampson would be better off shooting additional footage to expand it to feature length or even chopping it down to short film levels of under thirty minutes. As it is, it doesn’t feel like there’s enough there to be satisfying as a feature but is still too long to pick up and watch as a short.

I wish I could say that the length of this film was the only significant issue here but unfortunately that’s just not the case. I wouldn’t say the acting is bad but as so often happens with indie films this one is yet another example of “everybody’s trying but nobody’s killing it”. TFoHA isn’t exactly killing it in terms of cinematography either, as the flat lighting and static camera give the film a look that’s more ’90s than modern day. Given that the core of the story is focused on dreams themselves, it would have been nice to see Sampson apply a bit more experimentation and creativity to the visual style, especially during the dream segments. This would have also helped to juxtapose them with the visually stark office of the therapist.

On a positive note, this film does get some important things right. I was initially skeptical about the seemingly low-stakes concept of having all the central action being confined to a series of dreams but the wrap-around story actually ties them in in a way that justifies the concept. The effects here are clearly DIY but solid overall and result in some nice use of blood and severed body parts.

In any anthology there is bound to be a range of quality and this one is certainly no exception. The first dream may start out a bit slow but builds to the best and most horrific ending of the four. The second dream, involving zombie parents, is the weakest of the group while the fourth, featuring a man and young girl whose car breaks down, is merely adequate. However, the third segment does utilize the concept of a little girl being terrorized by a monster in her room to create the most effectively ominous and creepy moments of the entire film. So, while it may not exactly be The Theatre Bizarre or V/H/S it’s not Snoop Dogg’s Hood of Horror either, and there’s something to be said for that.

It takes an unbelievable amount of work to make a feature length film and of course the longer your film, the more work it requires. This is why it’s unusual to see films venture past the standard ninety to a hundred five minute window, and downright rare for scrappy indie productions to attempt it. But this is exactly what writer/director (Jakob Bilinski) did with his ambitious and, uh, interestingly titled Three Tears on Bloodstained Flesh. Now, ambition is good, but it’s only half the battle so the real question here is, “how well does he pull it off?”

When a young woman named Lexie (Sidney Shripka) is murdered near her small town home, her last act is to get a letter out to her uncle Dominic (Bill Gobin) asking him for help. Now Dominic, with his unwilling teen daughter in tow, must return to the place he thought he’d left for good and figure out the truth about what happened to Lexie.

The title seems intended to evoke the idea of this as a kind of American giallo. However, this doesn’t so much read authentic giallo to me as just “revenge thriller with a dusting of horror.” Still one thing that’s apparent right from the beginning is that this film has a real visual flair. Some scenes feature quick cuts and use handheld to great effect to give a stylish and authentic sense of movement. Other times the scenes are appropriately stoic and carefully framed but throughout, the film maintains a rich quality image with excellent and inventive use of color.

I also appreciate that this film doesn’t shy away from violence and a couple of scenes in particular that feature graphic disembowelment and fingernail torture stand out as delightfully grotesque. However, for a film so willing to go all in on the blood, it remains perplexingly chaste about the nudity. Despite featuring multiple sex scenes and spending a significant amount of time in a strip club, TToBF never quite manages to get up the courage to bare any flesh, bloodstained or otherwise.

Of course, the amount of nudity in a film is a minor factor, but length and pacing on the other hand are major ones. While there are certainly a lot of positive aspects to this film, the most significant issue it bumps up against is the runtime. Clocking in at a staggering two hours and twenty minutes (!) this is one film that is absolutely begging for an aggressive re-cut. The story itself is interesting and enjoyable to watch unfold, which is why it’s frustrating to see it weighed down by an excessive amount of scenes that are redundant and/or don’t advance the plot in a meaningful way.

Gobin puts in a solid effort as the lead but just isn’t quite able to get to the point of coming across as a genuine character rather than an actor going through the motions. This makes the multiple scenes of emotional torment that Dominic goes through feel more like a chore than a journey and I wish that Bilinski had taken a leaner, subtler approach and trusted the audience more to connect to the story without being led by the hand. In general though, a lot of solid casting choices and Jim Dougherty’s portrayal of the abrasive small town sheriff stands out as a highlight.

Overall, certainly a film worth watching and viewers who do take the journey will be treated to a great visual experience with some satisfying, brutal kills. This is a solid movie with an even better movie buried inside, just waiting to shed it’s fat and come out.

Creating a film that inspires a genuine sense of dread and tension, with a small cast and limited locations, is no easy task. There is no sure-fire recipe for success with this, but there are two components that are required if a film is to have even a remote chance of working. The first is a genuine sense of realism, regardless of how fanciful the story, and the second is characters you can truly connect to as human beings so you are invested in their struggle. It sounds simple yet it’s amazing how rarely it’s pulled off effectively. So, does director Corin Hardy (great name btw) manage to succeed with his Irish folktale inspired film, The Hallow? Well, let’s discuss.

The film centers around Adam (Joseph Mawle) a British scientist whose work with plant and fungal life requires him to move to a remote Irish village along with his wife Clare (Bojana Novakovic) and their baby son. Adam is initially dismissive of the locals’ warnings about the supernatural presence inhabiting the woods near their house, but before long finds himself and his family in a fight for survival with malevolent forces they can scarcely comprehend.

Right from the opening shots, this film does an excellent job transporting the viewer into the world of the story, through the gorgeous cinematography that showcases the emerald forest of Ireland in exquisite detail. As I previously mentioned, realism is an essential part of immersing the viewer in the experience and the rich, detailed image quality found in every shot is largely responsible for the excellent sense of realism that Hardy brings to the project. Of course, a quality image is only one piece of the puzzle but luckily the entire cast, down to the smallest role, is able to deliver top-notch performances that keep the viewer thoroughly engaged in the story as it unfolds.

Since the film itself is built on such a strong foundation, the scares have far more impact and I felt myself genuinely invested in the horrific ordeal the characters were facing. I am a firm believer that practical effects should be utilized over CGI whenever possible and this film is a shining example of how well that can work. Because of this, the creatures have a tangible, living quality to them that is far more menacing than the cartoony CGI abominations that pollute so many other films.

On top of all these other important attributes, this film has the most important of all, a tight, well-paced script that will keep you engaged and entertained throughout and makes you care about the characters without resorting to cheap, melodramatic dialogue. Overall, a great film that hits all the marks and will make you think twice the next time you want to take a walk in the woods.

Some films throw logic and reason right out the window and subscribe only to the bizarre new reality they have created. Films like that can be difficult to critique because the acting, continuity, special effects and even the plot itself are so askew that you can’t judge it’s success or failure by any standard measurement. As someone who loves unconventional, surreal cinema, I’ve seen a lot of films in this category and have found that they inevitably fall to one side of the quality spectrum or the other. Either a film succeeds wildly as an innovative, daring work of creative brilliance or it quickly becomes clear that the filmmaker has simply slapped together a bunch of nonsensical images without any meaning or intention. So, where does the utterly surreal insanity that is Hectic Knife fall on that scale? Well, let’s discuss.

The plot, such as it is, follows Hectic Knife (Peter Litvin), a knife wielding vigilante in a long blonde wig who has become completely frustrated and disenchanted with his brutal and relentless life of crime fighting. Things get even worse for Hectic when one of his only friends is murdered by the sinister Piggly Doctor (J.J. Brine), a super villain who seeks to dominate the world itself. But first he will need to get through a blonde maniac with a pair of knives in his belt and a score to settle.

Even though the summary sounds (mostly) like your standard anti-hero action flick it doesn’t even begin to describe the surreal madness that permeates every frame of this movie, and that’s what makes Hectic Knife work so incredibly well. Director Greg DeLiso commits so fully to the unhinged lunacy of the world he’s created, that the movie isn’t simply weird, it’s authentically surreal, nearly reaching Japanese Splatter Cinema levels of gleeful insanity. There are just so many little touches that keep the viewer unbalanced but utterly engrossed and curious to see what unpredictable direction the film will veer off into next.

From the small things like the living room couch that’s inexplicably vertical, the deliberately strange and repetitive dialogue, a character stopping in the middle of a fight to do a stand-up comedy routine complete with a laugh track, this entire experience feels like a stream of consciousness dream that only kinda obeys the laws of reality. One of my favorite scenes is when this black and white movie pulls out to reveal a random couple in full color watching and disparaging it. They in turn have their own scene that is just as intensely bizarre and violent as the rest of the film, but otherwise serves no purpose but to add yet another level of insanity to the experience.

In a film full of strange and surprising scenes, by far the most surprising of all, is how effectively funny it is, and I don’t mean in an unintentional The Room kind of way, either. Hectic Knife knows exactly what it’s doing and it’s fucking hilarious! This is not something I say lightly, as I am rarely amused by the antics in most films that are attempting to be funny, but the humor in this was so goddamn absurd and unpredictable that it had me laughing out loud the entire way through.

Of course, this film is what it is, and while the ride is an incredibly enjoyable surreal trip, there isn’t anything here that’s going to shatter your reality with its depth and significance. Still, I could go on for pages about the multitude of wonderfully strange touches in this movie, but truly there is no way to do them justice on the page, and this is one experience that has to be taken firsthand. This film is certainly not for everyone and definitely not something that mainstream movie goers are going to be able to appreciate. But for those of us who want to strap in for a unique experience of creative insanity, get the fuck in line for this one because Hectic Knife has “underground cult classic” written all over it.

When a horror movie has a holiday-themed premise, especially holidays other than Halloween, that’s often a sign that the audience is in for a campy ride that is going to play up the novelty to extreme proportions. Of course, that’s not always the case and some notable exceptions include the well-crafted, emotionally developed slasher Silent Night, Deadly Night as well as the incredibly creative and bizarre Rare Exports. Today, I discuss whether or not Once Upon a Time at Christmas falls into the category of holiday classics or if it’s just another poorly crafted product that falls apart almost immediately.

The story is set in the small town of Woodbridge New York where a maniacal couple in Santa suits (Simon Phillips) and (Sayla de Goede) begin a murderous rampage a few weeks before Christmas. Now it’s up to the local sheriff (Barry Kennedy) and a group of high school students to try and find out the reason for the killings and stop them before it’s too late.

When judging whether or not a film works, you really have to take into account what the director was going for in the first place. Clearly, in this instance, this is a film that’s intended as a fun holiday slasher, so judging it in terms of it’s realism isn’t a fair assessment. But even when viewed through that lens, there are some significant issues that prevent this from succeeding.

I don’t require a lot from a campy slasher to be entertained, but if you are going to ask me to sit through a silly premise with flat, generic characters that only exist to be slaughtered, then you at least need to bring the fucking blood. There are a lot of kills in OUaTaC, but for some baffling reason, director Paul Tanter takes a very timid approach to the violence. Even though numerous people are axe murdered, burned alive, or dispatched in other brutal ways, most of the violence occurs off camera or with very little blood. When the blood splatter does come, the film commits the egregious sin of using cheap CGI in place of a simple practical effect.

These kinds of half-measures are indicative of the film’s general approach to any remotely edgy content. This is perhaps best exemplified in the strip club scene that features zero nudity. Why even have it in there? I honestly don’t understand these half-hearted attempts at adult content that stop short of anything even slightly provocative. Why not just bleep out the fucking swears too, while you’re at it?

These issues of self-censorship wouldn’t be glaring if the overall film had a more solid foundation. Unfortunately, with so much cringe-worthy dialogue and uninspired characters, the film doesn’t really have a leg to stand on. Even for a slasher, the Claus’ near supernatural ability to appear wherever they need to is pushed to utterly absurd levels, and when the primary concept is finally revealed, it’s so goddamn silly that you’ll want to stab your eyes out with a candy cane.

It’s not all bad though, from a technical standpoint the film is well-crafted and some of the characters do put in solid performances, the sheriff and his deputy among them. The Claus’ also clearly get it and commit to their scenery chewing mayhem with the kind of unhinged enthusiasm that perfectly fits the tone of the film. And that’s the thing, there is fun to be had here and I wish there was a re-cut version that leaned into the gruesome madness instead of shying away from it. Had that version existed I would have wholeheartedly recommended it as a fun Xmas slasher, but as it is, this feels like the film equivalent of unwrapping a pair of socks on Christmas morning.

A good opening scene that grabs the viewers attention is very important for setting the tone of your film, especially in a horror movie. Conversely, when the opening of your film is so misguided that the audience is already rolling their eyes at minute one, you’re not off to a great start. Unfortunately, this is the case for Twelve Pole, which makes an incredibly lame attempt to be edgy by opening the film with a voice-over, warning the viewer about how graphic the movie is. Problem is, actual warnings like that aren’t a thing! Legitimately hardcore films don’t bother with such gimmicks, and for a film that doesn’t even qualify as Extreme Cinema, they’ve got some nerve pretending that a warning is required. Still, you can’t judge an entire film by a single misstep in the beginning, so let’s see how well the film itself holds up.

In a plot that can be best summed up as “Redneck Amityville Horror” a group of good ol’ boys purchase a dilapidated house in order to fix it up themselves and sell it for a profit. The fact that a violent crime had been previously committed on the property means that the house is a real steal, but naturally, it isn’t long before the cursed property starts affecting the men in strange and horrifying ways.

The first thing I have to say about this film is that at least everybody tries, which is not something to be taken for granted. Being that it’s a micro-budget film, the acting is bound to fall on the wrong side of realistic, but there is at least a sense that the cast is fully committing. I also appreciate that, while it may not be the most ground-breaking concept, at least it doesn’t take place in the fucking woods, and the story itself is something that is well suited to a single primary location and a small central cast.

There is certainly nothing wrong with a classic haunted house set-up, and the fact that certain characters start behaving in drastically different ways after being in the house too long, is a time-tested concept that is effectively unsettling. In fact, the overall concept is a very solid one, and basing a film around real-world anxieties, such as buying a house, is a smart, logical setting for a horror film. Unfortunately, Twelve Pole also makes some very illogical choices, such as having two of the characters spend the weekend in the abandoned house to guard it (!) until the locks are changed. That’s also not a thing! Why would you need to guard an abandoned house that sat there untouched for years and doesn’t even have any of your stuff in it yet?

There is one key area that this film does really deliver in though, and that is the gore. While this may not be an example of Extreme Cinema, there is no denying that it is plenty bloody. That, in and of itself, isn’t always a wholly positive trait in micro-budget films, but what sets Twelve Pole apart from many of it’s contemporaries is that it pulls off the effects very well. From a gloriously realistic hanging to ripped out throats, graphically broken limbs, barbwire strangling, disembowelments, and so much more, the uncompromising violence is by far the best part of this experience.

Since the gruesome parts of this movie are so well done and many of the scenes in between are weighed down with lackluster static shots and awkward, stilted dialogue, I honestly feel that this would be far better if it was trimmed down to a short film. At 20-30 minutes Twelve Pole could be a visceral, kick-ass ride that grabs the audience by the throat and gets right down to business. As it is, the good parts are there, but the lack of convincing characters and a less than compelling plot make it hard to justify waiting for them.

*Reviewer’s Note: After my review posted, I was contacted by the film’s director, Sam Hodge, who let me know that he will be removing the opening warning from the final version of the film, which I think will be a substantial improvement.

Establishing the proper tone for a film can be very difficult to get just right, especially when your film incorporates elements of black comedy as well as horror. When it works it can be a very entertaining blend of genres that properly balances both, and when it doesn’t, it quickly devolves into a confused mess that serves neither. Today we’ll see if Murder Made Easy is able to strike the right balance with its modern take on an Agatha Christie style murder mystery.

A year after her husband Neil’s death, Joan (Jessica Graham) and her good friend Michael (Christopher Soren Kelly) invite several of their friends over for dinner to discuss and remember Neil. Of course, as the title clearly suggests, there are far more nefarious elements at play here. That’s about as specific as I can get because with a film like this, twists and revelations are a big part of the central experience.

This film definitely does wear its theatrical influences proudly on it’s sleeve, even name-checking Mousetrap several times throughout. In fact, the experience of watching it was very reminiscent of watching a play, and with its heavy emphasis on dialogue and single location, this is a film that could very easily be adapted into a stage production. To be clear, this is not a negative, and the superb acting and engaging plot make use of the single location in the same manner that great theater productions do. 

Since theater itself, and in particular a specific production of Mousetrap, are integral to the plot, the centralized location actually works in service of the film to help establish the desired tone and feel. Director David Palamaro is clearly shooting for a specific aesthetic and is able to capture the look and feel of a classy murder mystery incredibly well. The use of music here is spot-on and the different elements of horror, thriller and black comedy are well balanced to create a cohesive experience. Well, mostly…

While I can see why the overall plot itself was structured the way it was, the very device of having sequential guests show up does make much of the general plot rather predictable, and even a bit repetitive. Fortunately, as more of the larger story is revealed most of the characters have enough substance and variety to keep the interactions entertaining throughout…..with the notable exception of Cricket (Emilia Richeson). While most of the other characters are represented as slightly heightened archetypes, Cricket is full-blown New Age stereotype and her segment is the film’s most overt (and misguided) attempt at comedy, and a clear low point in the overall film itself. Had she simply been rewritten as a slightly more realistic character, her segment would have worked far better.

Regardless, this is a very entertaining film overall that knows what it’s going for and embraces it wholeheartedly. Well acted and enjoyable to watch, this is one dinner party you won’t want to be late for.

Ahhh the woods, the go to, ready-made set that is the favorite location for countless indie horror films. I understand the practicality of using this as a primary location, but aspiring filmmakers would do well to keep this advice in mind before they start lugging their cameras into the wilderness: If you are going to set your teen-massacring film in the woods, as we’ve seen countless times before, you’d better bring your fucking A game and show us a very creative and interesting twist on the most tired premise in horror. Otherwise, don’t bother showing up. So, even though it’s utilizing the most played out concept in horror cinema does The Small Woman in Grey elevate itself above the masses with a quality script and innovative filmmaking? Well, let’s discuss.

The film centers around a group of teens who go into the woods to party. Coincidentally, they happen to run into a man who got separated from the rest of his broad daylight ghost hunting group (!) and is conveniently able to tell them all about the ghost that allegedly haunts the woods. Predictably, it’s not long before members of the group start dying mysteriously, and it’s up to the remaining survivors to try and figure out why before it’s too late.

So, clearly writer/director Andrew Sean Eltham-Byers wasn’t looking to break any new ground with the concept here. But, even a film about (yawn) teens partying in the woods until a mysterious stranger imparts plot exposition can still be worthwhile if the characters are well-crafted and compelling. Well, that’s unfortunately not the case here because while the characters aren’t the overt caricatures we sometimes see in these kinds of films, they are still completely insufferable and uninteresting. The fact that this is a micro-budget film means that the painfully amateur acting is somewhat forgivable….but the generic, plodding script is not.

Still, I’ve seen plenty of films that may not have had the most innovative plot but still managed to deliver a high level of entertainment value through well-crafted kills scenes. Sadly, this is where Eltham-Byers commits the most egregious cinematic sin and opts for bargain-basement CGI effects over practical ones. Shame! Shame! Shaaaaame! Seriously, this is a decision that I can’t even wrap my head around. I mean, even CGI effects on multi-million dollar productions often end up residing in the dreaded uncanny valley, but when your budget is next to nothing, the chance of pulling off convincing CGI is about the same. It’s a lot smarter move to scale back your set pieces to what you can effectively execute so you don’t end up with cartoony graphics that look like they were made on a home computer in the 90s.

Okay, this film has a lot of self-inflicted wounds but there were still some aspects that I did genuinely appreciate. For instance, it was refreshing to see a film where the primary romantic subplot involved a homosexual couple but was presented as casually as a heterosexual relationship, which was a nice, progressive touch. There are also a few times that the film was effectively creepy, but they were the all too infrequent times that Eltham-Byers opted for the subtler, less-is-more approach. Any scenes where the ghost was on full display in all her CGI glory were just awful, but the couple of times she was limited to a sinister voice and a shadow crossing the scene were (not surprisingly) far more effective.

Between the terrible pop music, worse special effects, lame script and unironic use of montages there isn’t really anything about this film to make it worth recommending. It is clear that everyone involved put a lot of effort into the production, but if Eltham-Byers had spent a little more time on the script and effects and a little less time on figuring out how to make text bubbles pop up on screen then perhaps it would’ve paid off with a better finished product.