I'm kind of curious how Exeter came to be. Netflix Instant was pretty intent on me watching it (despite thinking I'd give it one-and-a-half stars, it was on my little featured list for some time). And while it's not a Netflix Original, I don't recall it having a notable release. Not that I have my finger on the pulse of DTV horror or anything, but it at least looks like an expensive enough film - and has enough big names involved behind the scenes - that I don't get why there wasn't a minor theatrical push. (For the record, it was produced by Jason Blum, of "a shitload of horror movies" fame, and directed by Marcus Nipsel, who helmed the Texas Chainsaw Massacre & Friday the 13th remakes.) I'm not saying Exeter is good or anything, but it seems like the studios (often correctly) think they can just put whatever horror crap out and it will make money.
That's not an endorsement, by the way. The big issue with Exeter is that it has some aggressively grating characters. Honestly, aside from our lead, there are maybe two other characters (if you're being generous) that aren't nails-on-a-chalkboard annoying. There are a couple of things in the film that made me wonder if it was even supposed to take place in the real world, or if it's supposed to be some kind of horror-film parody or something. You've got the HORRIBLE supporting characters, and the speed with which they are able to throw together a MASSIVE party at an old abandoned orphanage was just crazy. Our main dude Patrick has some ins there - he's helping restore it for his church group. No sooner than Patrick says "no man - we can't party there!" - there's like a thousand people there, doing hard drugs and rocking out to a loud sound system. All they needed was some whooshing sound or something on the soundtrack to complete the effect.
Anyways, the whole deal is that this old orphanage has a (surprise!) questionable history. Patrick is helping renovate it (for Jesus), and when his shitty friends find out there's an isolated location where they can party, they waste little time in getting seemingly everyone in town there. It's a crazy party - the type where they are literally destroying the place. To be fair, it's already pretty crappy to begin with. It looks more fit to be the setting for a ghost hunting movie than a new Church venture. But whatever. The horde of partiers magically disappear (I mean, they just leave), and we're left with Patrick's closest, shittiest friends. And the new girl he's trying to win over. They accidentally summon a demon playing "light as a feather/stiff as a board," who possesses Patrick's brother (whom I like to call the Littlest Jason Mewes). The demon also does the whole haunted house bit where it more or less traps them in the building. They quickly realize they picked the wrong place to party!
Other than the obnoxious characters, the most notable thing about Exeter is the gore. The blood splatters about pretty freely, and there are couple of unique (if not fakey) kills that perked me up towards the end of the film. If anything, Exeter ends on a relatively high note - the last half hour when all of the shit goes down is relatively entertaining.
And it just looks good. Nipsel's films have always had a good looking sheen to them, and Exeter is no different. The film manages to look grungy but slick at the same time, and the action/kill scenes are well put together and easy to follow. I think it's the art direction and the effects are the only things that make this film even passable. The story is not that good, the characters mostly suck, and plotwise the ending is kind of a groaner.
So yeah, I didn't think too much of it. And perhaps it wouldn't have made any money in the theater... it's a little too bleak and bloody (not to mention screamy) to be "fun" - it's maybe a little too gross for teenage couples to go to, you know? In the flipside, it's too dumb and obnoxious to work as a Good Film. So maybe those studio executives know what they are doing after all.
I would not recommend this film.
No comments:
Post a Comment