Archive for July, 2015

Quick update

Posted: July 24, 2015 in Blog
Tags: ,

Hello all

I trust all is well?

Please note that there won’t be any reviews for around a three-four weeks. I sustained an injury to my right hand whilst at work on Thursday evening that prevents me from closing my hand, gripping objects, writing and typing (I am dictating this to a friend to type for me) within being in quite a lot of pain, and quite frankly typing my usual 1,000+ word reviews would take far, far too long with just one hand.

I still intend on watching a lot of films over the next few weeks, so when my hand is fully healed then I will hopefully have a lot of reviews in a short amount of time.

In the mean time, please feel free to read the reviews already on the site and I will hopefully return to reviewing as soon as my hand is healed.


He looks like a gay skeletor!10959955_10152700010107473_3193791095247802319_o

Year Released : 2015
Director : AJ Wedding
Cast : Nathan Reid, Gabriel Tigerman, Luis Jose Lopez, Dante Spencer and Jen Yeager

How often do you hear about an independent film where a sequel has already been confirmed before the first is even released? I had no intention of watching The Jokesters before I read that fact because it’s a sign of overwhelming confidence and arrogance. Whilst I can understand mainstream films confirming that they’ll be part of a series before the first is even released, such as films based on books (Hunger Games, Twilight, etc) or the Marvel Universe, an independent film doing it is very rare and I had to see if the over-confidence was justified.

It is also exceptionally overconfident when you take into account that this is a found-footage/video camera style film and they have a history of being awful, with the odd exception here and there.

To put that into some sort of context, I recently started working at a cinema and on Saturday night, following watching showings of Ant Man and Andre Rieu’s Maastricht concert, I went to watch a film from the found-footage genre that I can’t name at the moment due to contractual reasons (I’ll be name it in my end of year review of mainstream films). Beforehand I spoke to several friends that were on shift at the time and said that the genre was so predictable that I could say five things that were guaranteed to happen…..and all five happened.

I could count the amount of truly decent found footage style films on one hand and still have fingers to spare….and two of the ones that were used would be taken up by the first two REC films.

Anyway, I digress…….


Nick (Reid), Andrew (Tigerman), Chris (Lopez) and Ethan (Spencer) are creators of the overwhelming popular “Prank Masters”, a Youtube channel that sees them play pranks on each other and the members of the public, such as making one it’s members believe that he has been buried alive. The popularity of the channel continues to grow and grow and the guys meet fans each day.

After a successful latest series, Chris, Andrew and Nick decide to pull the “Cabin in the Woods” prank on Ethan following his wedding. The prank would basically be to do a home-invasion on Ethan and his wife and they picture it as the perfect way to end the series. Ethan’s wedding goes relatively well, that despite a supposedly horrendous speech from Nick (which isn’t shown). Ethan and his new wife (Yeager) go away for their honeymoon, completely unaware of the prank that awaits them.

After a road trip in which they prank each other and some girls at a convenience store, they arrive at the Cabin in which Ethan and his wife are staying. The pranks work before Ethan pulls a shotgun out and forces the group to reveal themselves. Ethan is far from impressed and it sets in motion a chain of events that will lead to tragedy.


So was it worth an announced sequel before this film was even released?

The short answer is a resounding no. Whilst Jokesters isn’t an awful or boring film, it is not fun, scary or particularly engaging either.

Let’s start with the positives and I have to open with something that I love to see in a film, especially films of this nature, the characters are grown and developed so well. In a relatively short run time of barely over 70 minutes, you learn a lot about the four main characters and considerably more than you do in a lot of mainstream films that are more than double the run time.

I felt a genuine connection with the four characters and there was an undeniable bond between them, and this is a great testament to what is a largely enjoyable screenplay. The pranks that they perform, such as letting the girls that they meet in a store do the intro, only to steal their bikini tops and drive off, are actually quite amusing and whilst it’s not something that I would personally watch on Youtube, I could imagine that channel would become quite popular.

The screenplay allows for great character development and relationship building. I watch quite a few Youtube channels on a regular basis, such as Markiplier, JackSepticEye, JacksFilms, Matthias, Steve Kardynal and Chris Stuckmann, and in many ways you gain an affinity with these people. When you see them work with each other in videos, you feel a sense of joy because you’re watching true friendships with common interests, and the film captures that so well. You like these guys and that helps you gloss over that not a lot really happens until they get to the cabin.

Arguably the biggest surprise for me in the film is that because it doesn’t really fit into the horror genre, more on that in the negative section, it doesn’t have a lot of the stigma and predictability of most found-footage films. The presentation feels free and flowing, and actually feels like a genuine piece of found footage, rather than simply something that thinks it can pass as found footage simply because it has a “Property of the xxxx Police Department” screen at the beginning of the film.

However, that’s really where the positivity ends and my biggest gripe is that the film doesn’t really fall into any genre. It advertises itself as a comedy horror, but it’s not really either. It’s not doing anything that comedies would do, other than the aforementioned pranks, and there definitely aren’t any scares or horror, at least not until the final few minutes of the film anyway. I’ve put it into the comedy horror category on the basis that that’s what it claims to be, that despite no evidence to back it up.

Whilst I praised the screenplay and character development earlier, the run time of barely over 70 minutes (from the start of the film to the start of the credits) is dominated by character development, which is fine until you realise that the ending feels exceptionally rushed. I’m not going to spoil the ending but it feels so incredibly disconnected from what has happened in the previous 65 or so minutes that it’s almost as if they realised that they were running out of time and had five minutes to do what they were going to do.


I don’t blame the writer of the screenplay for this, I blame the director. If you are going to have such a short run time, at least make the ending seem realistic and not seemingly out of the blue. I can’t tell you why it feels so out of the blue without spoiling the ending and I really don’t want to have to do that, but believe me when I say that if you do watch this film, you’ll be looking back at the rest of the film and look confused as to where it came from.

I’m not sure how I feel about various parts of the wedding ceremony, such as Nick’s supposedly horrendous speech, being cut out as I think that this would have made for a far, far better and more interesting build up to the ending. The speech left a level of acrimony between Nick and Ethan, but you never truly engage with that level of antagonism because they never show the speech.

Whilst in some films it is better to leave certain aspects to the imagination, there really wasn’t any need to do it here and it could have even helped you understand the ending even more.

And finally, other than the ending there was one thing that left me confused and that was the title. Not this isn’t something that I comment on regularly but the title of “The Jokesters” is unusual because it’s not mentioned once during the film, as opposed to at least 40 mutterings of the channel’s name of “Prank Masters”. Although it’s only a minor thing and not that important, it’s a little strange that they didn’t use that as the name.



This is the first film since I introduced the new ranking system that I can’t give a positive rating to. Whilst it’s not awful, there’s not really a story going on and it takes until the final fifteen minutes for any semblance of a worthwhile plot to emerge, and by then it’s too late.

Jokesters spends too long establishing the characters and there is a good chance that by the time something starts happening, the majority of people will have turned off by then.

I wouldn’t say that it’s best to avoid the film all together if you come across it, but be prepared to sit there for more than an hour of the 72 minute run time (from the opening to the time the end credits start) without anything really happening.

I play hockey and I fornicate, ’cause those are the two most fun things to do in cold weather.

Year Released : 1999MysteryPoster
Director : Dru Brown
Cast : Russell Crowe, Burt Reynolds, Colm Meaney and Hank Azaria

After football (actual football, not America’s glorified version of rugby), my favourite sport is ice hockey and I had been a fan of the Calgary Flames since the mid 1990s, however, other than that I hadn’t really been that into the sport until I moved to the Lancashire town of Blackburn in 2013. Whilst there, I started following the ice hockey team and even started working for them. Ice hockey took over as my go to sport for a long time and over the space of 18 months, the Blackburn Hawks won the League and Playoffs, also finishing the runner up in the latter the year before winning it.

Despite that, I hadn’t seen many films based on the sport other than the Mighty Ducks franchise and The Goon. I hadn’t even heard of many others, but then WatchMojo posted a list of the best hockey films ever, and once I saw that this film wasn’t relatively well known, I decided to watch and subsequently review it.

My one hope after my recent spell of reviewing several sports films that it is not cliche filled.


Hockey has become an obsession in the Alaskan town of Mystery. Every Saturday the ten best players and/or skaters in the town face each other in a game of pond hockey and to play in what is referred to as “The Saturday Game” is considered the highest honour in the town. Included in that group is John Biebe (Crowe), the town’s sheriff, and following on from one match he is told that it’s time for a new, younger player to take his place and he is forced into retirement.

Biebe struggles to adapt to life off of the ice, but he is given hope of a return when the community is highlighted in an issue of Sports Illustrated by Mystery born journalist Charles Danner (Azaria). The article says that the players in Alaska are a match for any team in the NHL in terms of skating and shooting ability, and the New York Rangers respond to this by challenging Mystery to a match. Biebe is disappointed when he simply asked to be a coach.

With the game being set up, several incidents put it in doubt, including cases of adultery, assault and a court case following the New York Rangers’ players refusing to play. Despite all the obstacles faced to them, the game does eventually get approved, but the townsfolk become increasingly uncomfortable with the conditions of the match constantly changing to suit the Rangers, rather than the original agreement. The townsfolk even debate whether they still want to play the match as it becomes increasingly likely that the result will be an embarrassingly high score for the Rangers.

Can the men of Mystery pull of a shock…..would it even be a shock?


So, was it cliched and was it any good?

I’ll start with the cliches and other than the odd thing here and there that happens during the near two hour run time (which I think is the longest film I’ve reviewed for this site so far), it is relatively cliche free. Yes, there are moments here and there, especially during the final game, where I successfully predicted what would happen, but I didn’t mind so much.

So let’s move onto the positive aspects of the film and I’ll start with that this really does feel like a community and that all of the actors are great friends with each other. Russell Crowe and Kevin Durand in particular seemed to have a great on-screen bond and that probably explains why this was the first of five films that the pair have worked on together to date (the others being Noah, Winter’s Tale, 3:10 to Yuma and Robin Hood).

Obviously Russell Crowe has gone on to far bigger and better things since this film, but he fits in perfectly in what is an impressively under-rated cast, also featuring Scott Grimes (who also starred in Winter’s Tale and Robin Hood with Crowe and Durand), arguably most famous for his role as the likable Dr Morris in ER.

Having seen several of the actors work together in major films since the release of “Mystery, Alaska” it was great to see that this was where the onscreen relationship between them all started and that familiarity helped with that feeling that they could genuinely be a team and a community. Normally in sports films, you get actors just randomly throw in together that have seemingly no connection of chemistry, but not in “Mystery, Alaska”.


That sense that you’re watching people who are genuinely friends really helps you get behind the characters and makes you want the team to do well. For me that is what I want out of a sports movie. I want the team that the film is following to do well, but more often than not I couldn’t give a shit because I genuinely don’t think that the filmmakers have done enough to warrant me getting behind them. For example, in the Mighty Ducks franchise, I refuse to believe that the worst team in the league suddenly becomes the best team over-night simply because they get a new uniform and are taught the very basics.

Real life doesn’t work like that. What the Mighty Ducks franchise effectively tried to teach you was that even the biggest underdog can beat the most overwhelming of odds, regardless of key factors such as pure talent. For me that is the deadly sin of sports movies and I automatically become disengaged in films like that. That’s why “Mystery, Alaska” works. It’s not overly cliched and *SPOILER ALERT* the fact that the Mystery team loses in the end almost makes it perfect for me as realistically there would never be a chance of an amateur team beating one of the best sides in the world. In the majority of cases, the underdog doesn’t win in real life, and films should reflect that more often. *SPOILER ENDS*

Visually the film is fantastic and the acoustics are exceptionally well done. Even though you’re sat in the warm whilst watching this (presumably), because of the visuals and the subtle sound effects (such as chattering teeth, the skates on the ice, etc, you feel like you’re actually there and cold with the characters. It feels like your there in person and this, combined with the community feel, brings you right into the story and the film itself.


I thoroughly enjoyed the film and it didn’t feel like it lasted two hours, but there were three major negatives that I had with it.

The first negative is a cameo from Mike Myers as a legendary hockey player, and the character is there purely for comic relief. Whilst that’s not necessarily a bad thing usually, it really doesn’t fit in with this film at all. This isn’t anything against Mike Myers at all and he does a decent enough job with the comic relief, but again there is precisely no need for the character in the film

And finally, one aspect of the film that confused me the most involved Kevin Durand. Now, I like Kevin Durand, as highlighted earlier in the review and much like I mentioned about Corey Stoll in my Glass Chin review, Durand is very under-rated in Hollywood and I loved him in roles such as Martin Keamy in Lost, Fred Dukes in Wolverine, Tucker in 3:10 to Yuma, but I can’t for the life of me figure out what accent he was trying to pull off. His accent changes several times in the film and it was kind of distracting to have a character that doesn’t say a lot, but when he does say something it is in a completely different accent to the last time he said something.

Speaking of accents, I’m curious how Colm Meaney’s character was born and raised in Alaska, to Alaskan parents, and yet had a Irish accent. Thinking of it, I’ve never heard Meaney with anything other than an Irish accent, regardless of the nationality of his character. Maybe in that sense he’s a younger version of Sean Connery, in other words someone who refuses to hide their accent for any role.



A thoroughly enjoyable sports film that almost doesn’t feel like a sports film. For long sections of the film it feels just as though that you’re there with them and you get fully behind the team, something which I definitely can’t say for a lot of sports films. approved

The cast does an excellent job, especially considering most of them weren’t particularly well known at the time and this came out before Russell Crowe hit the peak of his popularity, so at the time is was made there were no preconceptions about any of the actors and that really helps with the production and quality.

If you can ignore the minor cliches that are in the film then I think you will enjoy this film. It’s got everything that you would want in a sports film and nothing feels forced. It’s not predictable (except for small sections during the match) and you feel that the team actually has a chance.

Do you believe in fate?

Year Released : 2015suicide_theory
Director : Dru Brown
Cast : Steve Mouzakis and Leon Cain

Nothing pleases me more than when I see a film based on a relatively new idea. Hollywood has too many reboots, remakes and sequels these days and you have to filter through to find truly original stories.

For example, I have recent started working at my local cinema (hence the less than frequent reviews recently) and today, whilst I’m waiting for my new full time job to start, I decided to watch some films. I watched The Water Diviner and Still Alice. Whilst both had decent enough plots, and I especially liked The Water Diviner, I wouldn’t call either film unique and neither had truly original stories.

The Water Diviner, for example, is similar in terms of basic plot to Saving Private Ryan. Both revolve around the search for sons, with the majority being killed and them trying desperately to find the final one. Although there is more to them than that, they share a similar premise.

Now, I write this before I watch Suicide Theory, but from what I have seen this is a fairly unique film and plot. I am quite looking forward to this and whilst I don’t doubt that it will probably end up being terrible, it’s a while since I’ve gone into reviewing a film and been excited about what is about to come.


Steven (Mouzakis) is a professional assassin and he receives a phone call one day from a man that wants to die. With his curiousity peaked, Steven meets Percival (Cain), a man who claims that he can’t die. Percival’s body, especially his face, is covered in scars and burns from alleged previous attempts at suicide.  Steven refuses to believe that Percival can’t die and gladly takes the job and shoots him three times within seconds of taking the money.

Whilst on his way to his next job, Steven is shocked to see that Percival not only survived the bullets, but has now decided to jump off of a building and onto his cab. Steven is even more surprised when he sees Percival walking about normally the next day. Even further intrigued, Steven starts becoming more and more frustrated as Percival survives every single attempted assassination. Percival simply won’t die.

The two soon develop a bond as they combat their demons. When Percival is visually beaten by a homophobic bartender and his friends, Steven enacts revenge on his behalf by torturing and killing the attackers. As the two develop a friendship, will an unexpected development re-encourage Steven to fulfill the contract?


So was it original?

Yes, actually. As far as I am aware there are no other films that I have seen that are like this. I was sat watching the film for it’s 96 minute run time and I couldn’t think of anything like it. It is truly unique.

In what other film would you see an assassin that is afraid to cross the road , or more importantly, being fully intent on fulfilling his contract, all whilst developing a personal relationship with the target? The two end up going to play arcade games together, etc. I’ll go more into the relationship later but first I want to talk about my least favourite part of the film and something that always bugs me.

Now, whilst that shit might fly in the film’s native Australia, I like my films to be factually correct (obviously I’ll give it a bit of artistic licence in science fiction films, but otherwise no film gets a pass with that), so much to the point where stupid errors aren’t made because of the writers and directors not caring enough to research what they are writing.

In the first scene that he is in, Percival mentions that he tried killing himself by jumping off of the Humber Bridge in London. Now, my only issue with that is that the Humber Bridge isn’t in London, or even close. In terms of the layout of England, it’s nowhere near London. The reason I know this is because I live in Lincoln, which is around 40 miles south of the Humber Bridge….and London is a further 120 or so miles south.

I know some will look at this error as being a simple character error and leave it at that, but it’s just not an excusable mistake and there is no way that the character could make that mistake. If you’re on the Humber Bridge you’ll know you’re not in London, and if you’re in London, you’ll have a hard time finding the Humber Bridge.


But other than that complete fuck up, I genuinely enjoyed Suicide Theory. It is a brilliantly written film that isn’t driven my special effects, cliches or your typical Hollywoodisms. It’s driven by characters. Too many films these days forget the most important element of the film and that is the characters. If you don’t have good characters then why should I care about the story?

The character of Steven is introduced in the best possible fashion. The scene that he is introduced in perfect because although it’s short, it tells you everything that you need to know about the character. He is a man who can build great personal relationships, but is also a man of principles and will teach a lesson to those who are rude, obnoxious and any other similarly negative character trait.

Steven tries desperately to help Percival realise his dream of dying and does what he can to try and help, but it develops into more than a simple job. It turns almost into a friend helping out another. The two develop a genuine friendship and as the story progresses, Steven becomes a really engaging character and his growth throughout the runtime is very well done.

Percival isn’t quite as engaging as Steven, but is still highly entertaining and multi-dimensional. His desperation at losing his partner and to end his despair really bring you into his life and story. Because of Cain’s portrayal, you truly end up feeling for the character and that’s what you want when you’re watching someone in a film. You want to feel everything that they are feeling.

The story links the two together so well and the twist at the end is worth the wait. It’s a twist that you don’t see coming and leaves you wanting more….and you get that with yet another twist at the very end. The dynamic completely changes and the music helps tremendously when they next see each other. The soundtrack throughout is fantastic, but during the twists at the end, the soundtrack augments it so well.

And finally, onto the bit that I love that most about the film, both of the main characters reach a natural ending to the story. Neither of the endings for the characters feel forced or completely irrelevant to the rest of the story. Both work.



If you can ignore the basic error in geography then this film is definitely worth your time. I don’t often approvedgive my stamp of approval but I have to give it here. Infact, I approve it to such a level that I’m now introducing a literal stamp of approval. I don’t really do a ranking system in terms of scores, grades, or anything else, but on the rare occasions that I deem it necessary, I will give a film the official seal of approval.

Suicide Theory works so well because it’s such a simple premise and it doesn’t deviate from that. It doesn’t pretend to be anything more than it is and because of that it can focus of story and character development.

Whilst there are minor flaws here and there, they are countered many times over by the positives.

Year Released : 2014glasschin
Director : Noah Buschel
Cast : Corey Stoll, Billy Crudup, Elizabeth Rodriguez and Katherine Waterstone

Corey Stoll is one of my favourite under-rated actors in mainstream Hollywood today. He has had minor roles in a lot of films that I have enjoyed, such as Lucky Number Slevin, Push, Non-Stop and I am excited as to where his career will go once Ant Man is released in a few weeks, arguably his biggest role in his career so far.

Several actors have had many years playing minor roles in big films before getting their big break and then going onto considerable better things. I’ll use Jack Black as an example. Whilst he is now arguably a big star in Hollywood (despite his lack of decent movies), back in the early-mid 90s it wasn’t uncommon to see him playing minor characters in a lot of big films before then getting his big break  in 2000’s High Fidelity.

However, simply having one of the major parts in a big and successful film doesn’t necessarily guarantee a successful or noteworthy career, with co-star Billy Crudup proving that. Crudup played Dr Mahattan in 2008’s Watchmen, a role for which he gained critical acclaim for his display as a misanthropic scientist, but since then he hasn’t been in any films that were particularly noteworthy.

Anyway, I’m rabbiting on again, here’s the review.


Following on from his retirement from professional boxing, Bud Gordon (Stoll) has taken up mentoring and training up and coming talents. One day he looks over his life and how it has gone downhill since his retirement, such as the downgraded apartment that he lives in and that very few people recognise him on the street.

Whilst going through his slump, he decides to have a conversation with a local businessman by the name of J.J Cook (Crudup) and he is offered a job as a debt collector/enforcer. On his first night he and a colleague visit several people to try and collect debts, with Bud having to convince the other not to us unnecessary threats, such as killing one debtor’s cat to get the point across.

The evening seems to go well but whilst reading a newspaper a few days later, one of the men that the two visits has been murdered, and Bud quickly realises that the day he was killed was the same day that Bud visited and that the murder weapon has his finger prints, as well being caught on camera. J.J knows this and has secured the tape and uses it to blackmail Bud into convincing one of his fighters to purposefully lose a match in a specific round.


So, was it good?

Glass Chin is a very unusual film in many ways and let me put it this way, I started watching this film on Tuesday and didn’t finish it until Saturday. I was able to go in and out of it and not feel any sort of urgency to finish it, and that is never a good thing. No movie should ever make you feel like you can leave it and come back at a later time to re-pick it up. It shows that it’s just not that engaging enough and it’s a problem that can’t be ignored.

Now don’t get me wrong, the story isn’t bad but the reason that I couldn’t get truly engaged is that it isn’t an original story. Ignoring the minor parts here and there, it’s a done story. Like various found footage film, the only thing that has changed from this films and the other similar films is the character names and the location. The story has been done so many times that I predicted what would happen from the trailer and that’s not a good thing.

However, other than that lack of originally and predictability, it’s not actually a bad film at all.

It’s nice to see Corey Stoll play a likable protagonist for once. Even in the rare films where he has played a protagonist in the past, he hasn’t played a particularly likable character, but this film changes that and he’s a character that you can really get behind. It’s not until around the 50 minute mark of the 80odd minute film that he realises that he has been framed and you see the conflict as he wants to try and lead his life normally but ultimately expects the police to come for him at any moment.

I also mention camera work on a regular basis and how poor it is, but with Glass Chin it is phenomenally good and the visuals are fantastic. Scenes are shot from a single camera and more often that not it comes from set point. In one scene it seems like that just rested it on a table, pressed record and then just let the actors do their job. The transitions are smooth and in one conversation between Bud and J.J it starts as a wide angle and zooms in so slowly that by the end you’re on a close up of the latter’s face, and the strange thing is that you didn’t realise you were zooming in. It’s done in a way smart way.

And finally, the look of the film is excellent. With the infrequent snow storms provide an unusual look with Stoll running and sitting in his car as the snow slowly falls around him, whereas normally it’s like a blizzard in films, and the way that light reflects of the car makes the film look crisp and almost neo-noir in nature. I would imagine that it would look exceptional on Blu-Ray.



I know that this review is considerably shorter than normal and the reason is that there isn’t really that much to talk about really. It’s one of those watchable but ultimately throw away films. It’s a nice way to spend 80odd minutes without feeling overly engaged and never feeling the need to watch the film.

Stoll shines and will no doubt go onto big things following his upcoming Ant Man showing, and he is by far the most enjoyable thing about the film.

I’d say give it a watch, there are far, far worse films around at the moment.

Year Released : 2013Untitled
Director : Michael and Shawn Rasmussen
Cast : Evalena Marie, Michael Allen, Michael Reed, Jason Beaubien, Mark DeAngelis, Andrew Rudick and Danya Cousins

Have you seen House on Haunted Hill? Have you seen Grave Encounters? Have you seen my previously reviewed Hollows Grove? If you answered yes to any of those then you have seen Dark Feed. It is near enough the exact same plot with near enough the exact same ending, it is about as close to a blatant rip off as you can get.

Now, as you can probably tell from that, I have, for a change, watched the film before righting this review and the one thing that I will say is that I only paid £1 for the film from Poundland, and even then I feel ripped off.

Obviously I’m going to go more in depth with this in the actual review below, but I can’t help but feel ripped off in many ways.

The very fact I keep getting the name of this film wrong should tell you all that you need to know about what I’m about to say. For some reason I keep thinking it’s called Dark Reel.


A film crew has entered an abandoned mental hospital to shoot their latest movie and things are seemingly going well. Although it has slight issues here and there, the filming process is going fairly smoothly and everyone is optimistic of pulling off a classic. Things take a sudden turn though when one of the actresses has a seeming mental breakdown in a lift, claiming that she saw a figure that was dripping with blood.

Everyone dismisses it at nonsense, but as time goes on more people start to experience hallucinations and are found just starring into the middle distance, pulling off a great Arnold Schwarzenegger impression. Before long various members of the crew start disappearing, and the ones that do remaining slowly start getting involved in usual accidents.

It doesn’t take long for the remaining survivors to notice that the numbers have significantly reduced and that they need to escape before they too suffer at the hands of the force that is turning everyone else insane.



To sum up how difficult it is to write this review, I watched this film two days ago and on that day I wrote the introduction and the plot…and nothing else. I haven’t motivated myself to return to the review since then. I have not been sat in front of my laptop for nearly an hour trying to even find something to write about in the first paragraph. So, the film gave me precisely zero motivation to actually review it.

It’s never a good thing when you watch a film that you fully intended to review and it gives you no reason to do so.

I suppose I could at least try.

I’m going to start the review with something that I have never started with before, the pacing. The best horror films work because they are paced magnificently. Films such as The Thing (the 1982 film, not the prequel from a few years ago) and the first two films in the REC franchise do well because whilst a lot of characters die, it’s not all of the time.


For the purposes of this review I’m going to compare Dark Feed to the first REC film. REC was a brilliant film because it builds so well. There’s always something happening and doesn’t rely on the body count/characters getting infected to be an interesting story and if anything, you wouldn’t lose anything by taking out the infection out, that’s how well it builds. Dark Feed does completely the opposite.

Dark Feed seems to be under the belief that body count is all that matters. There is a spell of around 30 minutes where a character either dies or kills another through their new found insanity every two minutes. After a while the novelty wears off and it just seems to be killing people for the sake of killing people. The worst part is that half of the characters aren’t even slightly developed, even to the point where I couldn’t tell you what ANY character in the film is called (notice how in the plot section that I don’t mention a single character name).

Because the characters are undeveloped and they soon start falling on such a regular basis, you become desensitised to what’s happening and it loses all potential it has to be interesting. If I don’t care about the characters, how does it really impact me on any level to see them all of a sudden die or turn insane/get infected/whatever? There is only one character I actually liked, and even then I still wasn’t motivated to the learn the character’s name. I’m not even sure if he gets named.

So from pacing and poor character development, my next criticism of the film is the lighting. It’s so dark that it’s hard to see what’s happening half of the time. Now, don’t get me wrong, given that the film takes place entirely within the confines of a hospital that has no windows, I’m not expecting a lot of natural light, but they didn’t even slightly take into account that you would need more than small lights to make the characters visible.

I was struggling to see what was happening and this, combined with poor acoustics, lead to a poor experience, and that’s before I even start taking the lackluster story into account.


The only saving grace of the film is the final few minutes when the two remaining characters are being chased by the infected, and every corner that they go around reveals another person to chase them. The scene probably only lasts about two or threes but in those two or three minutes, I was considerably more entertained that I had been in the previous eighty combined.

That’s really all I can say about the film before the summary. It’s so forgettable that I couldn’t even tell you where the DVD is now and I only watched it two days ago.


I don’t think I’ve ever sat through a film and been so “meh” about it. I was sat watching it and didn’t feel a single emotion all of the way through. I wasn’t disappointed that I was watching it, but I wasn’t particularly enjoying myself. I didn’t feel scared at any point, I wasn’t , but I also wasn’t bored. The best way that I could probably sum it up was that I was just looking in the vague direction of the screen and that was about it.

This film is so forgettable that it’s beyond believe. It’s been a few days since I watched the film and I can barely recall anything other than the ending and the odd bit here and there, I couldn’t tell you what happened in the majority of the film.

It’s the ultimate nothing film.