|
 t's
safe to assume that almost everyone in the
developed world is overly familiar with the
slasher movie formula. Normally, a group of
promiscuous high school/college students travel
into the mountains or countryside for some reason,
get lost, then all but one or two of them are
horribly killed off. This formula has produced
some modern classics ("Texas Chainsaw
Massacre"), but has also been responsible for
some horrendously bad films ("Jeepers
Creepers 2"). Because the structure of
the common slasher flick is so recognisable, the
only merit a slasher film can really obtain is how
innovative it can be within the confines of that
given structure. If there's one thing that can be
said for "Reeker", it's that it at least
tries to do something new.
"Reeker" starts off in a familiar way: a
group of college students head off into the
Nevada
desert for a party at Area 52 (apparently Area 51
was booked that weekend). Among the group are the
usual archetypes of the slasher genre: two dumb
college guys (Trip and Nelson), the ditsy blond
(Cookie), the slightly more intelligent brunette
(Gretchen) and the one guy who is slightly
different from everyone else (in this case they
chose a blind guy instead of the token black guy
or invalid). On the way to the party, the gang
experiences some strange things: mild earthquakes,
the inexplicable smell of death, and visions of a
hooded figure. Predictably, they run out of gas
and have to stop at an abandoned motel for help.
And, also predictably, they are hunted down by the
mysterious hooded figure and maimed with large,
drill-like tools.
To "Reeker's" credit, it manages to
offer up some decent scares and some good
characterisation in spite of its seemingly
Godawful premise. The sense of claustrophobia
brought on by the motel, coupled with the gang's
tendency to take mind-altering substances, make
"Reeker" a lot more suggestive than most
slasher flicks. The possibility that the visions
experienced on the doomed road trip are in fact in
the group's collective mind lingers over the film
for some time. Also, the addition of a blind guy
gives "Reeker" a new edge. A particular
sequence where we see the horror through his eyes
(opaque as they may be) is probably the scariest
thing in the film, and shows us that it's even
scarier when you don't see the killer.
However,
any creativity and innovation that
"Reeker" possesses dwindles after thirty
minutes of screentime when the deaths start
happening. Don't get me wrong; "Reeker"
starts off pretty well, and is pretty damn
original compared to the usual MTV-styled slasher
flicks, but all of that fades away after the first
death, when the director starts to put as many
singular images on the screen at one time as he
can. While the killings themselves are not
entirely unoriginal, the order of the deaths is so
predictable that even a slasher novice could see
it coming.
On top of this, the acting is
pretty bad. Apart from David Gummersall, who plays
the blind Jack, the rest of the cast seems to have
been plucked from an acting class in the YMCA. The
worst has to be Tina Illman (Gretchen), who has
the fakest Australian accent I've ever heard.
Nearly all the way through I thought she was
English, until she mentioned her Aussie lineage,
then I became pissed off on behalf of the
Australian people. Why the filmmakers couldn't
have hired an actress who could put on an
Australian accent rather than just get a girl who
could do an English accent and try to convince
everyone that she's Australian, I don't know.
The twist ending of
"Reeker" is by far the worst thing about
the movie. It seems like writer/director David
Payne just tacked it on because he couldn't decide
how to finish his movie. Still, Payne deserves
points for effort in at least trying to invigorate
a tired genre. Even though it isn't a great movie,
I would still recommend "Reeker" to any
avid fan of slasher films, or horror in general.
It's a step in the right direction, even if it
does flounder somewhat in its execution.
|
