Splatter Movie: The Director's Cut (2008) Horror Slasher

Splatter Movie: The Director's Cut - It's a film about a fictional independent horror crew shooting a movie about a crew of fictional filmmakers shooting a movie at haunted house attraction. What a movie within a movie within a movie sounds sort of confusing but really this is just a clever idea pulled off with precision by Amy Lynn Best and Mike Watt through their Happy Clouds pictures. Sprinkle in appearances by Debbie Rochon and Tom Sullivan with a competent cast and you have a slightly off kilter slasher that surprises where it can and fulfills expectations. The somewhat cynical approach the characters take when talking about what is involved in making independent horror brings a savory satire to the affair that promises a cliche but delivers something unexpected.
  In 2008 the film was featured in a Sirens of Cinema article and since Mike Watt was a contributor to the Magazine (maybe more I don't remember) and Happy Cloud Pictures were often covered I can understand the attention. These two have been making quality independent horror for a couple decades. In that article Best expressed her happiness with the set at the Hundred Acre Manor haunted attraction in Pennsylvania. A large facility with completed rooms made for a set that came ready for order. She and writer, partner Mike Watt spent a weekend looking at the location that Best described as "It went on forever and had some of the most wonderful sets." (Sirens of Cinema, vol 2 no.10 Identity Crisis: Dissecting Splatter Movie the Director's Cut by William Wright). They also worked on the script and the set dictated a lot of what they could do. It expanded and changed but remained a very character based story.
The film that came out of this experiment in meta film making is Splatter Movie: The Director's Cut and it is an surprising in its simplicity while still being complex in its structure. The story of  a film crew lead by Amy Lynn Parker (Best) as she directs a crew at the haunted attraction. There is this commentary on the what is needed to make an lower budget horror film. As Parker says in one of the in film interviews with her character. "When we first started making movies all you needed was a shower scene. Now you have to have a minimum of a shower scene and at two lesbian sex scenes, a randomly placed naked tits, we've been trying to figure out how to motivate everything and still mix it up." Since this is a movie in a movie this is the director character talking about the movie they are filming Tesseract, but also about the low budget movie realities. Sure there are lots of horror movies that do not follow this formula but for real horror junkies, myself included as you move down the food chain of more and more limited budgets there is the choice to increase the nudity as the money gets smaller.

   There is an argument to be made that this is a choice that the movie makers are limiting themselves to. Then by including the nudity and sex that the film makers are creating the environment where that is expected by the fans. Or you could say they are playing to a particular audience and could instead choose a different audience that loves horror but is the 'show me some titties' crowd.  It may also be a matter of scale because what I consider a small or micro budget may be giant to a company like Happy Cloud. Consider The Signal (2007) made for 50k and took in more than 500k, this seems like a low budget film but what could they have done if the only had 10k, would the film still be as successful? Or the the example everyone knows about Paranormal Activity (2007) that was make for 15k and has pulled in 193 million. What is the difference between these films that did not smear the screen with sex and nudity and the low budget films that feel the need to have a couple women in nightgowns making out and heavy petting? Is this an issue where the movie makers are boxing themselves in or are the returns on the films they made dictating the content? This film manages to not only have the conversation about nudity in the inner film Tesseract but also includes it in the outer film Splatter movie under the guise of playful actresses and crew. So is the point to complain within the inner movie while doubling the thing you are complaining about in the outer film? I am really not making an argument either way but it seems a conversation I would not mind hearing on a panel horror convention.

  Best for her part attempts turn expectations sideways  even if still participating in the exploitation. The rape scene as it place out in the inner film with Debbie Rochon playing herself  and a character that is a jaded stalking fan seems to be a pretty shocking and  an F-U to the viewers who are waiting for there misogynistic fill of violence against women. The film though is not preachy it really is a look behind the scenes of a micro-budget film making. While doing so it gives the viewer some tense moments where the killer is making a mess of the production. Finishing with a twist the film leaves the viewer in a place they did not expect to be. Now you may notice I watch a lot of Amy Lynn Best films. Something about her that just strikes me the right way. We really should be friends and probably wopuld be if we lived closer to each other. So check out the list of movies or search her name and see what else you can see that she had a hand in. As I have done so far this year; I am doing as an experiment my Twitter account @Soresport is dedicated to following and being followed by people in and behind the scenes. Then I am also hoping some of them follow me back. I do fear that Twitter has become too much of a promotional tool for people in film to actually get those follow backs but hey its an experiment. Now since the last post I have been followed back by Southbound's @HiRadioSilence and @BettinelliOlpin showing that they are not too into self promotion to put up with my tweet's about beer and food and horror movies. Thanks guys!

Severe Injuries (2003) Horror Comedy

Severe Injuries (2003) - Melvin Hubble (Charlie Fleming) is a very unsuccessful serial killer, in overalls and a welders mask and toting a machete, in the first scene we see him chasing down a woman in the woods. Like in all classic slasher films she falls as he closes in ready to dismember her. Wait though she grabs a stick and attacks, the best defense is a good offense, she is successful in beating him silly and getting away. Melvin downtrodden from his failure has to tell his Dad (Bill Watt) of his failure and wonders aloud if he is suited for mass murder. It is the way of the family explains his father, a family tree full of lunatics but no relatives that were good at becoming mass murderers.  He humorously goes through several of the ancestors and even explains how he failed in his attempt at mass murder. When Melvin hands him the fork his Dad uses to accidentally electrocute himself on the toaster his father is so proud. His son killing him, things are looking up for the family. Now it is up to Melvin to carry on the family tradition of wanting to kill kill kill. You know from these opening scenes that this is a comedy based on slasher films.
It is not a film that will take itself serious and that light hearted direction is what makes this film fun to watch.  Off to the Ro Ro Ro (your boat) sorority for a weekend of partying and maybe murder. Its a Friday night and the girls at this college want to party, Suzie (Robyn Griggs), Tina (Stacey Bartlebaugh-Gmys) and Amber (Jenna Bull-Trombold) invite their guys over for a party. They will even include the older sorority sister Lauren (Amy Lynn Best) in their plans. This weekend they are trying to make their feminist literature Professor (Debbie Rochon is an amusing cameo) proud by following the lead of Lysistrata. Basically not allowing the men in their live to have sex for the weekend. The guys, Ed (Francis Veltri), Steve (Bill Hahner) and Brad (Michael Athey) as well as Ed's brother Neal (Bill Homan) can't be happy to learn that the party is going to turn into a night of popcorn and chick flicks. Of course that's not the only problem for the guys, and the girls for that matter. Stalking them all is Melvin and he is determined to finally be the killer his father always hoped for.
  It is important to point out now before I start talking about what I like and dislike that this is not a good film. It feels more like a bunch of friends getting together to have some fun spoofing slasher films.  I have a dilemma on one hand I really enjoy sort of poor horror if there is personality to it. On the other hand if I recommend a film that fits just my tastes and everyone hates it I lose credibility as the reviewer. So this film will probably have a low score but I thought it was kicks.  The sound quality is poor and the framing is not particularly interesting. The script is a bit juvenile with cartoonish characters and silly comedy.
That said I get a certain enjoyment from this type of film that no normal person should. I like it all, the father talking to Melvin about his less than stellar lunatic family, to Melvin's ridiculous stalking of people on the way to Ro Ro Ro, or the worst thing of all the house mother man dressed in drag playing the old lady. Seeing the "Moron's guide to the Clifford notes of Lysistrata I laughed. My daughter Joy watching with me just rolls her eyes and leaves the room but me I can't wait for the next bit. The twist of the two killers where every time Lauren seems to be making progress with Neal he needs to sneak off for a fresh attempt at a kill is great. Or the bit where one of the girls talks about the sorority's promises during the non-sexual paddling. You see my problem, most of this stuff is cute but not great. There are some intelligent exchanges between Lauren and Holly (Lilith Stabs) but most of the female characters are drawn to be ditsy young college girls. The guys as hormonal clods have just a poor development and really only Neal is even remotely intellectually astute, and he is a killer maniac. I guess if there is one thing that comes out of this film to take away it is the three rules of watching a chick flick with your girl. Even still writer Mike Watt needed to get the rules more defined than they were.
  The competing killers are funny and the idea is a solid one. Melvin probably the first sympathetic serial killer in film finally succeeds in his dreams of mass murder. Once he gets that first kill he really gets rolling too. In the end the house was really much more full of people than first thought as easily 6 additional bodies are shown in the climax even though those characters never existed. When the final girl Lauren finds her way to Holly's room she struggles for survival. Luckily for her her roommate rides her boyfriend in a cowgirl suit and with loaded six shooters. The final two scenes with the indomitable Lloyd Kaufman and Brinke Steven's (in her last shower scene ever?) were a cute addition. So you see I am torn, I really had fun with this film and have a soft spot for really independent no budget horror films. A lot of the ideas although cute are juvenile humor so most people will hate them. The lighting is almost non existent and the sound is poor but the crew seems to be having a good time. Still I think 70 percent of people who view this film will absolutely hate it.
Rating (3.7) 5.0 and up are recommended, some more recommended than others.