Some people really enjoyed this movie, and I myself have somehow watched it three times already, but I am not a big fan. Starting off seeming like one thing, format-wise, before turning into something very different, and highly derivative, Shelby Oaks is one of the weaker slick horror movies I have seen throughout the past year.
Camille Sullivan plays Mia, a woman who is obsessed with finding out what happened to her missing sister, Riley (Sarah Durn). Riley was part of a group of YouTube paranormal investigators, which made me care very little about her fate anyway (but that's just me), and the easily-solved mysterious circumstances of their disappearance seem to lead Mia, as the title suggests, to Shelby Oaks.
Another person who made their initial connection to audiences via YouTube, director Chris Stuckmann (who also co-wrote the screenplay with his wife, Samantha Elizabeth) positions himself here as a prime example of why we shouldn't necessarily be expecting great things from everyone who has grown up with that platform and advanced level of tech-savviness. Shelby Oaks isn't an incompetent film, not by a long shot, but it's so tiresomely unoriginal and simplistic that it highlights what happens when you have someone wanting to blend their many influences without being able to add enough creative spark to the mix.
Sullivan does a good job in her role, thankfully (considering how much of the film remains very focused on her), but nobody else gets to make a strong impression. Brendan Sexton III is "the husband", and that's the sum total of his character, Charlie Talbert plays obvious pawn in the ongoing chess game between our main character and whatever she is due to encounter, Keith David appears in a role that does little more than allow horror movie fans to say "yes, Keith David", and Robin Bartlett plays someone who feels as if they've wandered in from a Resident Evil storyline. Durn doesn't get enough good stuff to sink her teeth into, sadly, and that's a real shame. Taking us on the journey alongside her would have been better than constructing a narrative that has to spend far too much time trying to ensure that viewers don't notice the blindingly obvious clues laid out like a set of super-sized arrows pointing in one direction.
I started this review by mentioning that I have watched this three times already. There won't be a fourth, unless someone forces me into a rewatch for some godforsaken reason. The reason I had to watch this multiple times is simply because I kept forgetting to write up a review for it and there was not enough here that managed to stick in my memory. At all. Even the final moment, which is clearly something that Stuckmann and Elizabeth were very pleased with.
I don't want to end on a negative though, especially after reading what Stuckmann has said about his changing approach to film criticism now that he's been able to get more insights into productions and what can go into making any feature. It's admirable that he's put his money where his mouth is, as it were, and it's more than I would manage. There's enough here to show potential, especially considering the fairly low budget, and I think Stuckmann could do much better helming something that was written by someone else. Something a bit more inventive and able to better blend familiar horror genre moments.
4/10
If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do
consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A
subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share
No comments:
Post a Comment