I often wonder where these earnest, "rave reviews" by "raving reviewers" come from. They often appear right before or immediately after the release of a (typically low budget, usually horror) film, from accounts created (suspiciously) around the same time as the film's release. The posters review this one film, and this one film only, and then they promptly vanish into the æther forever....
Speaking of this film, it's mediocrity manifest (though not without some small measure of inspiration and merit behind it). No matter what the other "reviewers" claim, Slew Hampshire hardly breathes new life into the "People Stuck in the Woods, Horror Ensues, Commonsense Ignored" genre. It treads a well worn path; starting with a (not altogether successful) comedic tone and descends into horror. It attempts an oddly philosophic tack which I'll admit is rather interesting, but ultimately for naught. As horror films are wont to do, it tackles the darker aspects of man (rape, race, wanton violence and gruesome killings), but the film is scattered and unfocused, touching on a half-dozen genres (which I have no problem with so long as it serves the greater purposes and needs of the story while remaining entertaining; I needn't have my hand held through a film and I can certainly admire the ambition): Comedy, Road Trip, Hillbilly Horror, Gruesome Torture, Creature Feature, Exploitation.... The effects and gore were passable, though hardly does that a movie make. The cinematography was... experimental in an earnest, art-school-sort-of-way, but the filters, effects and framing were more a distraction than an aid. The acting, direction and story are at times awkward and hackneyed. The story? Well, you probably already know the story, though it does offer a few "twists".
It was written, directed, filmed, cast, and acted in by apparent hydra Flood Reed (who also went to the trouble to write a very enticing Summary of the film here on IMDb.com, as well a song on the soundtrack). Think: Joe Swanberg, but with some actual talent, vision and drive. Even in this rather disappointing film they are evident and I'll be keeping an eye on Reed as he hones his skills and develops his craft.
Speaking of this film, it's mediocrity manifest (though not without some small measure of inspiration and merit behind it). No matter what the other "reviewers" claim, Slew Hampshire hardly breathes new life into the "People Stuck in the Woods, Horror Ensues, Commonsense Ignored" genre. It treads a well worn path; starting with a (not altogether successful) comedic tone and descends into horror. It attempts an oddly philosophic tack which I'll admit is rather interesting, but ultimately for naught. As horror films are wont to do, it tackles the darker aspects of man (rape, race, wanton violence and gruesome killings), but the film is scattered and unfocused, touching on a half-dozen genres (which I have no problem with so long as it serves the greater purposes and needs of the story while remaining entertaining; I needn't have my hand held through a film and I can certainly admire the ambition): Comedy, Road Trip, Hillbilly Horror, Gruesome Torture, Creature Feature, Exploitation.... The effects and gore were passable, though hardly does that a movie make. The cinematography was... experimental in an earnest, art-school-sort-of-way, but the filters, effects and framing were more a distraction than an aid. The acting, direction and story are at times awkward and hackneyed. The story? Well, you probably already know the story, though it does offer a few "twists".
It was written, directed, filmed, cast, and acted in by apparent hydra Flood Reed (who also went to the trouble to write a very enticing Summary of the film here on IMDb.com, as well a song on the soundtrack). Think: Joe Swanberg, but with some actual talent, vision and drive. Even in this rather disappointing film they are evident and I'll be keeping an eye on Reed as he hones his skills and develops his craft.