Here's new review for MARK OF THE BEAST, a low budget horror flick based on a story by Jungle Book author Rudyard Kipling. Shawn Francis got to check it out and you can read his review after the jump.
Written By Shawn Francis
I
have heard of Rudyard Kipling, but only in conjunction with “The
Jungle Book,” and was never aware he had penned a horror tale
during his lifetime. I become aware of this earlier this year when I
visited a horror movie site and found a gruesome photo of this
severely leprous individual. This photo was the sole reason why I
wanted to review this movie.
The
second thing that grabbed my attention about this flick, now that I
think about it, is that Ellen Muth is in it. I remember her from a
Showtime series I used to love called, DEAD LIKE ME (2003-2004),
and I don’t normally associate her name with horror movies.
Incidentally, on the behind the scenes featurette she even states
this is her first horror movie.
One
more thing I need to throw out there before I get into the film—Muth
is not the lead; she’s a supporting character, with not enough
screen time, if you ask me. Debbie Rochon and Dick Boland are the
main characters here, with Dick playing, Strickland, the town Sheriff
and Rochon playing a civilian friend.
On
first impression the movie appeared to be set in Lovecraft’s
territory of New England, 60s or 70s, to be more precise, but even
though it was filmed in Connecticut, it’s not set there. Rochon,
Boland and their friends at one point celebrate New Years Eve, and
with no sign of Winter in sight, I can only assume the local is
supposed to be in the South. This was confirmed later on when I
listened to the commentary.
The
mood is instantly set with some nice aerial photography of the deep,
dark woods and Rochon’s antiquated narration that sounded like it
was taken right of the Kipling’s story verbatim. Which also made me
wonder if H.P. Lovecraft was influenced by Kipling’s work. I’m a
big fan of Lovecraft’s tales, and some of the movie adaptations
that have been done on them throughout the years, but don’t know
that much about him as a person. The opening narration sounds very
“Lovecraftian.”
The
story revolves around a prickish friend of theirs named, Fleete, who
gets a curse put on him when, drunk one day, and in the process of
being escorted home by Boland and Rochon, he decides to piss off the
“local native’s” god by putting out his cigar on an effigy they
stumble upon in the woods. This curse is delivered to him through
horrific physical contact by a half naked leper who lurches out of
nowhere.
This
“curse” seems to mimic your generic demonic possession, but it’s
one they can’t expunge with your generic exorcism. What they resort
to is going out into the woods, locating this wondering, mindless
leper and forcibly taking him back to their home, tie him to a chair
and torture him until he relents and removes the curse.
I
was pretty much on the side of Boland and Rochon, until they decided
to engage in some “torture porn” to get their friend’s soul
back. And then when the deed is done and their douchebaggian friend
is back, they think they can amend the situation by bandaging the
leper’s wounds and sending him on his way. This movie has a nice
twist, though, at the very end, where Karma decides to pay them a
visit. I dug it, and it works. I was kind of puzzled, though, in the
process of capturing the leper, why they were making so much contact
with him, isn’t leprosy contagious?
Anyhow,
the movie falls nicely into that rural horror category which does
double duty of fascinating and repulsing me at the same time,
probably because I myself am rural based, and doesn’t the most
shocking and weirdest shit happen in the country?
The
angle of having “natives” in the woods, especially a leper, in a
60s, 70s American setting seems a bit odd, I can only guess that’s
probably due to the original story’s setting being in India, and
the filmmakers not having the funds to actually replicate that exotic
locale. Regardless, I still dug the period piece they made, even
going so far as to replicate the look in the 1.78:1 transfer of the
film stock, too.
The
only thing that doesn’t quite work is the score. It’s fine for
the opening and ending credits and for certain moments in the film,
but there are other times when it feels intrusive, not to mention
being out of place. It sounds like something you’d hear in an
action movie, or, had the India setting been replicated, it would
have fit that movie perfectly. The directors, on the other
hand, talk about the score in the commentary, and in their eyes they
think it fits the movie perfectly.
The
film is short; running only 72 minutes, and comes with some decent
extra features. First up is a commentary with the directors, Jon
Gorman and Thomas Edward Seymour, which touches upon everything about
the film and what inspired it. Like me they are fans of those 60s
horror films (i.e. Hammer, Corman, etc.) and deliberately wanted to
homage them with this one. Next is an 11:28 minute Behind-The-Scenes
featurette that chronicles their first and last days shooting the
movie. Even the leper is interviewed and his FX is chronicled. For a
low-budget film they pulled off a really good-looking “creature,”
I must say. Two trailers of the movie are included, and a section
titled, Student Trailers, houses a teaser and a full trailer, the
creators of which were the winners in a contest that was held to see
who could deliver the best looking ones.
I’d
love to see these guys tackle an actual adaptation of one of
Lovecraft’s tales. Until that happens MARK OF THE BEAST is a
good substitute.
No comments:
Post a Comment