2006, United States. Starring Natalie Hart, Roger Horn, Jamie Reynolds, Katie Vaughan, Pat Holt, Tiffany Shepis, Tina Krause, Enrique Camacho, J. Thomas Bailey, Angela Schmidt, Stephanie Vickers, Jamie Alford, Sarah Bloodworth, Alex Kendall. Drected by David Buchert. Written by David Meier Smith.

I'll kick this off with a disclaimer right up front: I not only know the guy who directed this movie, but have in fact known him since high school when we occasionally became involved in making videos for class projects. If you've ever looked at the AFI's list of top 100 films, you might have seen such titles as Richard the Protagonist (being a thrilling tale of the discovery of America by men who arrived in a 1986 Honda Civic) and the epic Papa MacBeth. Anyway, I'm pretty sure those are on the list, though I haven't checked myself. Needless to say, reviewing a film from someone you have known and liked for nigh these past seventeen or eighteen years (Jesus...) is tricky.

Especially when that film is a micro-budget horror film about a group of people being stalked through the woods by a maniacal killer. There's a lot of movies like that. A whole lot. And almost all of them are awful. Not just awful; torturous. They're torturous because the people making them usually have an abysmal script, irritating characters who bicker through the entire movie, slow pacing brought on as a result of incompetent editing, and nary a single instance of originality in the entire film. When you've heard the story a million times, the millionth and first time you hear it better be good, because if it isn't, then the whole thing is even more boring and tedious than it would be if you hadn't already heard the story a million times. Telling an old story well is a worthwhile endeavor. Telling an old story in an incompetent and boring fashion is something that really steams my monkeys.

I am less biased by the fact that another friend for an equally long time is seen in the pre-credit prologue getting a blow job then having his head (the one attached to his neck) chopped off. It's not that he's any less of a friend; it's just that I resent being tricked into watching any friend pretend to get a blowjob. As far as I'm concerned, he deserved to be decapitated for that.

Plus, all sex is dirty and wrong, as you all no doubt already know.

With this disclaimer dutifully laid down, allow me to issue another. In the past, I have judged micro-budget indy productions by different and far more forgiving standards than I would a glossy, polished, big-studio affair like, say, For Y'ur Height Only. To some degree, this still holds true. I don't expect modest horror films made by horror film fans to have the high-tech sheen of a multi-million dollar production, or even a million dollar production, or frankly, even and hundred-thousand-dollar production. However, what I do expect is decent writing and an entertaining time. Those don't cost very much, and a movie of any scale should be able to deliver them to me. You don't get points from me anymore for simply having made a film. I know it's hard work, and it's a great personal achievement, but if I write a shitty novel, no one compliments me on the fact that, "at least you wrote a book." So technical considerations might get a pass; entertainment value considerations do not.

Finally, I am not nearly in touch with the horror underground as I used to be, which is something I'd like to rectify in the coming months since it is as fun as it is goofy. So I'm not up on the more recent filmmakers (other than my favorite punching bag, Brad Sykes) and thus not really equipped to compare Blood Oath to, say Dante Tomaselli's Satan's Playground or anyone else who might be toiling away in the trenches. I used to know a lot about this stuff, but I've been out of touch ever since Todd Sheets and movies like Splatter Farm. I need to play some catch-up, so listen up all you budding horror film directors: send me your damn movies. Well, unless it's one of those "a chilling ride alongside a serial killer" type films. I hate those.

And with all that out of the way, we can delve into the world of Blood Oath, which fails to differ itself from the countless other "maniac in the woods" films (or in remote Texas farmhouses, since the movie owes a debt to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, among others) thanks to no real deviation from exactly the plot you expect it to have, but does differ itself by offering up undeveloped but otherwise likable characters who don't spend inordinate amounts of time yelling and arguing with each other, as well as some good direction that isn't intrusive or full of technical trickery (as in all that flashy, hyperactive editing and pointless "slow motion to super-fast motion then back to slow motion nonsense in so many horror and action movies these days).

The movie begins with a prologue in which a couple fooling around in the woods (Enrique "Papa MacBeth" Camacho and micro-budget horror mainstay Tiffany Shepis) are rudely interrupted by...a cell phone call. The fact that this guy is willing to interrupt oral sex from Tiffany Shepis in order to answer his cell phone means he's just asking for a decapitation, which is exactly what he gets. And Tiffany meets a quick and gory end as well, resulting in her part being just a cameo, but hell, she's a welcome addition to any film, even if just for a couple minutes. The scene goes on a little too long (after all, we know these people are basically out there to get killed), but not so long that it becomes infuriating. The decapitation effect is as bad as it is funny (wisely, it is the only real foray away from practical effects and into the realm of digital effects). All in all, though, it's a more promising start than in 99% of micro-budget horror films, thanks largely to the fact that Shepis is a decent actress and Camacho isn't far behind. The slightly bad news is that the film's best actors just got killed off before the credits.

From there, it's a pretty predictable script about a group of people on a camping trip who hear a legend about a murder house and the psychopath who lives there. Naturally, they go searching for it, and exactly what you expect to happen, happens. The psycho and the house are reminiscent of Leatherface and his abode in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre -- complete with gender-bending weirdness. The local legend and camping are reminiscent of (dare I invoke the unspeakable title) Blair Witch, though this movie is a straight-forward narrative and not a fake documentary, and it's not like "campers get killed" was invented by that film. Pretty much every other "killer in the woods" film shares moments with Blood Oath, since none of them ever bother to try and be the least bit different from one another. David Meier Smith's script never dares stray from exactly what you expect it to do, and this hurts the pace of the film somewhat. Blood Oath isn't actually poorly paced, but sometimes it seems that way simply because you know what's going to happen and, as a result, you tends to get impatient waiting for it to happen.

Part of the problem lies with the scenario, but part of it lies in the fact that the four principal players aren't really that interesting, so spending time with them is a little duller than spending time with someone like Vincent Price, who could be doing nothing but reading the receipt from his last trip to the grocery store and it would still seem enthralling. The leads here simply aren't very strong, and none of them are especially good actors (though most of them aren't especially bad, either, which is a welcome digression from the micro-budget norm). However, they each enjoy the saving grace of not being wretched, vile human beings.

Horror films, both big and tiny, tend to suffer from the desire to make their main group of characters as horrible, unsympathetic, and unlikable as possible, resulting in a movie full of shrieking, bitchy assholes. This is supposed to make watching them die seem more satisfying, but mostly I just find it intolerable. Rather than make the death more satisfying, it only makes it more boring since, really, why should I even give a damn? Why would anyone even hang out with most of the people in a horror film? Only reality TV manages to pack in more hateful, grating characters. Blood Oath's quartet of leads may not be developed characters, but at least you can understand why they would have friends. They're decent folk, likable even, and up until the very end, they behave like actual human beings might behave in a given situation. The male leads (Roger Horn and Jamie Reynolds) are a bit weaker as actors than the females (Natalie Hart and Katie Vaughan), but honestly, we're still light years above the average Brad Sykes actor.

And at least no one resorts of pointless "head clutching," the most ridiculous way to express "fear and panic" as discussed way back in 1998 when we reviewed Todd Sheets shot on video micro-budget horror "classic" Goblin (although there is a little too much of the runner-up, "curling up into fetal position). In fact, if you want all my reflections on DIY horror films and the trials of making such a movie, then rather than repeat myself here, I suggest you also take time out to read the reviews both of Goblin and Twisted Issues.

Actually, reflecting on Goblin and comparing it to something like Blood Oath makes me realize how far we've come in many respects. I mean, I even liked Goblin, but it's obvious Blood Oath represents a quantum leap above the beloved shot-on-video homebrew horror films of my younger days. Acting may still be bad, but many micro-budget films now have access to a network of independent horror film regulars that almost count as a professional pool of talent. Editing is light years ahead, thanks largely to the advent of digital video and editing, which frees the editor from having to deal with bulky, difficult-to-control linear VHS editing systems that meant you could only have a maximum one or two passes at a film before the VHS would degrade to the point that it would start becoming unusable.

Blood Oath does boast decent editing, better even than many of its contemporary films that tend to linger pointlessly on boring scenes because someone was too lazy to edit the scene down. The only time Blood Oath lingers pointlessly is during its gratuitous nudity (courtesy of a group of female hikers who pop up out of nowhere specifically to show their boobs and get killed), but as you all know by now, pointlessly lingering over gratuitous nudity is something of which I whole-heartedly approve.

Director Dave Buchert shows some real talent for his chosen profession. Inexperienced directors tend to either demand way too much directorial/camera intervention, resulting in intrusive direction similar to what you get in most bigger-budget horror and action films, or they set their camera up on a tripod and film scenes as if they were being acted out on a stage, with no edits and no motion at all. Buchert moves the camera around, but we're not delving into shaky-cam territory or anything. He goes for interesting angles and framing and seems to actually be trying to do a good job, as opposed to many micro-budget directors who turn in directorial jobs that stink of, "I have no talent and don't give a damn about this movie anyway." Buchert obviously has some talent, and he obviously gives a damn, and that results in a much more enjoyable movie.

The film's psycho, once revealed, is more irritating than terrifying (and the rags in which it is clad look less like the rags of a forest-dwelling psycho and more like a nice, clean patchwork quilt -- quite a feat for a freak chopping up wayward campers and with apparently only the one set of clothes), and the "final girl" twist that gets introduced doesn't really seem to have much of a point. Although the film manages to avoid eye-rolling "why the hell would anyone do that" moments for most of the running time, that starts to fall apart during the end when characters run back into the murder house for no other reason than the script demands it of them. And people do tend to linger and take a break at moments when any other person would just high tail it out of there. Once again, the predictability of the script works against the movie and one finds oneself getting impatient with the running about, since we already know where it's going to lead. I find myself sometimes shouting, "Get on with it!" even when something is happening. The script just makes it seem like the movie isn't getting on with things, even when it is.

Lest it sound like I'm kicking the screenwriter too much (writers are always meanest to other writers, after all), I should point out that, aside from decently likable characters, there are several things the script does well. For starters, it manages to generate some moments of genuine suspense. Well, maybe suspense isn't exactly the correct term. Something close to that. Although I've already picked on the fact that the plot is strictly by-the-books and thus makes the movie seem slower in spots than it really is, there are also points at which the predictability of the action contributes to heightening the tension, especially during the scenes where our intrepid quartet of Scoobie Doo kids explore the inevitable derelict farmhouse. We know it's going to end bad, and in this case -- at least for me -- that serves to make these moments sort of fun.

Of course, there's the obligatory "what the hell?" moment where, after escaping the house of terrors and the killer within, some of the characters turn around and run back inside the house. I always hate it when scripts demand that characters so something colossally stupid just to move the story along, and running back inside the house where you know a killer in a bad dress is rampaging about has got to rank up there pretty high on the list of dumb things you can do, right below killing Sho Kosugi's son or stealing something from Tony Jaa's village.

Back to the good, however, the finale is pretty well paced and well-shot, and is an example of how you can take the well-worn scene and make it good simply by executing it well. Once the film hits the final dozen minutes or so -- ie, when the action takes over from the plotting -- the editing, direction, acting, and pacing all click. How the movie is going to end was never in doubt, but Buchert and crew manage to make it a pretty fun ride regardless. Nailing the ending means that it becomes easy to forget the film's missteps throughout the rest of the running time, and the result of that is that I turned the film off, shrugged my shoulders, and thought to myself, "Well, that wasn't half bad."

Blood Oath also has the wisdom to stick to the woods and an abandoned house. Many are the micro-budget films that flaunt their cheapness by trying to pass someone's unfinished basement off as a strip club or their bedroom off as an FBI office. Horror films often stick to the woods because they're free and you don't have to do much work on sets. They allow you to mask the fact that you don't have much money by putting you in a position where you don't have to show off sets. Like Versus, Blood Oath successfully masks budgetary restraints by living within its means and not trying to pass off someone's dining room as a top secret government research facility.

At the end of the day, Blood Oath is the rare micro-budget horror film that is more good than bad, and though it has obvious flaws in the scripting and acting departments (and the acting is never so egregiously bad that I can't just roll with it), it manages to be a more enjoyable horror film than most horror films I've watched recently (and that includes not just micro-budget junk like Goth, but also big-budget junk like Hostel and those Saw movies -- oh, how I loathe you, Hostel and those Saw movies). It's well-directed, decently edited, and boasts characters you can easily tolerate. These "killer in the woods" films are sort of a horror filmmaker rite of passage. I think everyone has to make one before they can move on to anything else. Blood Oath doesn't do anything different or overly interesting with the formula, but it does apply the formula in a decent fashion. Even if Dave wasn't a friend of mine, I'd probably still be giving Blood Oath high marks for directing and overall technical craftsmanship. And even though as a writer I harp endlessly on the relative weakness of the script, I still came out of Blood Oath heaving a sigh of relief over the realization that I really did think the film was all right, and I could write an honest review of it and not feel like I was sticking a dagger into someone's heart.

Well, at least not very far.

Labels: Horror: Microbudget, Horror: Slashers, Horror: Vacation Horror, Year: 2006