Thursday, June 17, 2010

THE COOK (a review)


Another straight to dvd horror movie, but this has a twist...the director actually is pretty good.
The story: at a sorority house a replacement cook comes in over a holiday weekend where he goes crazy and begins killing all the girls.
Was it good?
No.
It was as ridiculously stupid as you would think, but the difference here is that if you watch the movie you get the feeling that the director is actually good. This is a case where you really, really can blame the script. So why is it that the director seems good and the script seems bad? Well, let's start with how obviously the script is bad. You can hear it in the set up -- a sorority that has it's own cook? And a replacement cook just happens to come in on a holiday weekend? So clearly this isn't going to be a scary horror movie. And yet it's not really a comedy since none of that is actually funny, just stupid/ridiculous. So right away you have a movie that you can bet isn't going to be scary and probably isn't going to really be funny. This is the kind of movie you write when you think horror movies are stupid so just make it as ridiculous as possible because since you think horror movies are stupid clearly the only reason to watch is to see how stupid it is going to be. In other words: it's written by a smart ass who looks down on the audience. And by smart ass, I mean the guy is a dick.
The rest of the movie is what you expect. The girls are all stupid except the boring ones who just want to study all the time. The cook is weird and over the top, but none of the girls notice. Throw in a couple random showers and some lesbian stuff. The killing isn't scary and there's nothing actual funny because the movie isn't about anything other than people playing outrageous stereotypes.
In short: it's crap.
Now that actually might be harsh. After all, I'll admit this would be a fun movie to work on -- some hot girls, lots of blood and is stupid enough that you wouldn't have to worry about anything other than hitting on/eye humping the girls. Some people think these low budget movies are made by socially retarded nerds as a way to meet hot girls and try to get laid. I think this movie proves those people right.* In other words: a pretty fun gig. But if you are actually looking at the script it would be a piece of *%*&#
* I don't actually know that making this movie got anyone laid. But it really is the only explanation.
The director: so if the story is so bad, why do I say the director have talent? Well, it's tough to say. It often is hard to seperate the director from the material. But it's a matter of getting good shots (instead of going to shots you want that you can't pull off), of getting shots that will edit together right and of giving a certain consistant feel to the work. Knowing when to play with the camera angle, when to keep it simple to keep attention on what's happening in the frame. What hampers him the most is the material is just so ridiculous that there isn't much for him to do story and character-wise except embrace it and let the actors go for it. If there were any semblance of a story -- if any of the characters were dealing with anything other than whether or not they should experiment with lesbianism, if any of the characters weren't written as an over the top stereotype -- then you could see how he can handle actual story and charaters. But aside from that it's a question of the shots and how they look (which is also the cinematography) and do the shots build...and in this case they do. From the first aerial shot that gives this very enclosed movie a nice big, open feel, to the character introductions with have a light, comedic feel -- the beginning plays better than the material should...a sign of a good director. Unfortunately even a good director can't overcome bad material and by the 30 minute mark when there hasn't been anything more than the typical B-crapfest that the movie becomes doomed.
Too bad.
*** AVOID ***

No comments:

Post a Comment