The Daily Grindhouse: The Lashman (dir by Cameron McCasland)


339542_242684609106121_126435694064347_676919_7608822_o

It’s been a while since I’ve down a Daily Grindhouse review here on the Shattered Lens and shame on me for that!  Fortunately, I recently saw a film called The Lashman, a film that may have been released in 2014 but which serves as a tribute to the low-budget, wilderness slasher spectaculars that played at so many grindhouse and drive-in theaters in the 70s and 80s.  After watching the film, I knew that I had seen the perfect film with which to relaunch this feature.

The Lashman was directed by Cameron McCasland and filmed in Kentucky.  As I’ve said many times in the past, I love local horror films.  These are films that are made on location, outside of Hollywood and which often utilize local talent, both behind and in front of the camera.  Along with reminding us that no one location has a monopoly on American filmmaking talent, these locally made horror films also feel a lot more authentic than the slick, “mainstream” films coming out of Hollywood.  This is horror taking place in the real world, as opposed to on a sound stage.  “Authenticity,” that belief that what you’re watching could happen just as easily to you as it could to the people onscreen, is one of the keys of effective horror cinema.  If you can’t relate to the fear of the characters or believe that the film’s threat — no matter how outlandish — might just happen to be waiting for you in the shadows, then the film is not going to work.  Grindhouse horror films, with their rough edges and their cast of often unfamiliar faces, worked precisely because they felt authentic.

I think this especially true for slasher films.  As unfairly critically reviled as they may be, the slasher film is based on a horror that we can all relate to.  We all know that there are disturbed people out there.  We all secretly suspect that we’re more vulnerable, both mentally and physically, than we like to pretend we are.  And, as much as we like to shout back at the screen and complain about how slasher movie victims are always doing something stupid, we all know that we have no idea how we would react if we ever found ourselves in the same situation.  Most of us secretly know that we’d never survive a slasher film.  I know I wouldn’t.  I’d be the girl wandering around outside in her underwear, saying, “This isn’t funny!,” and then spraining my ankle as soon as I tried to run away.

The Lashman is a throwback to those old grindhouse slasher films, a loving homage to films that may have never been critically embraced but which remain undeniably effective.  The film’s story is simple.  Five students spend the weekend at a cabin in the woods.  Lashman, who is rumored to be the malevolent spirit of a man killed over 100 years before, shows up.  People die.

Our five students are all traditional slasher movie victims.  In fact, they share the same basic relationships as the five victims from the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre.  There’s two couples, Stacy (Stacy Dixon) and Billy (David Vaughn) and Daniel (Jeremy Jones) and Jan (Kaylee Williams) and then there’s Stacy’s awkward misfit of a brother, Bobby (Shawn C. Phillips).  (Much like poor wheelchair-bound Franklin from Texas Chainsaw, Bobby spends a lot of time complaining.)

Out of the cast, Shawn Phillips is the one who I immediately recognized because he’s appeared in several low-budget and undeniably fun horror films, with Ghost Shark being a personal favorite.  However, all five of the main cast members do a good job.  I’m jealous of the screaming abilities of Stacy Dixon and Kaylee Williams and David Vaughn made for a good “nice guy” hero.  However, special mention has to be made of Jeremy Jones.  One of the unwritten rules of the slasher genre is that one of your main victims has to be a totally obnoxious jerk and Jeremy Jones deserves a lot of credit for the total commitment that he shows to that role.

The Lashman is a film that will best be appreciated by those who know their horror movies and who can appreciate that McCasland has essentially crafted this film to be a valentine to the entire genre.  Everything about the film — from the beautifully shot opening where two anonymous teens fall victim while the moon beautifully glows down on a lake to the final chase through the woods between the Lashman and his suddenly partially undressed final prey — feels like a tribute to the classic grindhouse horror films of the past.

Finally, as I wrap up this review, allow me to share just a few more thoughts:

This film was produced by Red Headed Revolution Pictures.  As a redhead, I appreciated that.  It was also co-produced by Lee Vervoort, who was one of the directors on Volumes of Blood.

The token crazy old man character (every slasher film has one and nobody ever listens to him when he attempts to warn them) is played by an actor named Larry Underwood, who is a horror host (under the name Dr. Gangrene) and a Rondo-winning horror blogger.  (That said, I should admit that the main reason that I initially smiled when I saw his name in the credits is because I just started reading Stephen King’s The Stand.)

Director Cameron McCasland has a cameo appearance in the film and is credited as playing Handsome Bartender.

The end credits declare, “A good cast is worth repeating!”  If you’ve seen any the great Universal films from the 30s and 40s, you will immediately recognize the phrase.  When I was a kid and I would watch any of the old monster movies, I always loved seeing that “a good cast is worth repeating!”  In a weird way, it always made me feel happy for the cast.

 

Film Review: Volumes of Blood (dir by Jakob Bilinski, P.J. Starks, Nathan Thomas Milliner, John Kenneth Muir, Lee Vervoort)


volumes-of-blood-banner

One of the best things about being an independent film reviewer is that you get the chance to try and make sure that good films don’t end up flying under the radar.  Let’s face it — hundreds of worthy films are made every year but many of them never get the attention that they deserve.  They get pushed to the side while critics concentrate on the big studio films with the huge budgets and stars who are usually a year or two away from starring in their own reality show.  Far too often, truly independent films get pushed to the side.

That’s why I love reviewing independent films.  If I can encourage you to seek out (and yes, you do have to be willing to make the effort to seek out good films) and support these films by watching them, then I’ve accomplished something more with my writing than just indulging my own ego.  Of course, the independent films that I recommend have to be good and they have to be entertaining.  If you’re just recommending a film to be nice or because you want to get quoted in a press release, then you’re doing it wrong.  You have to be honest in your reviews because only then will your readers have any reason to believe you when you recommend a film to them.

Take, for instance, Volumes of Blood.  This new horror anthology is currently making the rounds of the festival circuit.  I was lucky enough to get a chance to view a screener.  Was it good?  You bet it was.  Was it entertaining?  Yes, it was.  And that’s why I’m recommending that you keep an eye out for Volumes of Blood and that you make the effort to see it.  The fact that recommending Volumes of Blood also means that I get a chance to support a truly independent film is just a nice fringe benefit.

Volumes of Blood is a horror anthology, a collection of short but loosely connected horror stories.  It starts with a nicely satiric scene of two “teenagers” being menaced in a parked car by your standard knife-wielding maniac.  (I put teenagers in quotes because it’s obvious that neither actor is a teenager and, even more importantly, the film goes out of its way to make sure that you see that neither one of these two are teenagers.)  This scene of slasher film menace leads to a college classroom where a professor with a truly impressive pompadour talks about urban legends.

(No, I’m not going to tell you how the film gets from a slasher film to college classroom, other than to say that it’s a lot of fun.)

We then switch scenes again, to a public library.  Four students are making up urban legends of their own.  Each story is set in the library, each story features a twist at the end, and each story both celebrates and pokes some knowing fun at the conventions of the horror genre.  The first story deals with an energy drink that will literally blow your mind.  The second story — and my personal favorite — is a ghost story.  (Seriously, I jumped when the ghost first appeared.  The entire film really makes good use of that library setting, with its long rows of books and creepy atmosphere.)  The third story is a monster tale.  And then the fourth story deals with what happens when a depressed librarian makes the mistake of wishing that her dead boyfriend could come back to life.

(The fourth story also features my favorite line.  When asked if he really believes in demons and witchcraft, a character replies, “I’m Irish luv, we invented this shite.”*)

And then, after the fourth story, there’s a huge twist and I really wish I could tell you all about it because it’s really clever and it leads to some of the film’s best metatextual moments.  But I’m not going to spoil it for you because I want you to track down this movie and be surprised by it like I was.  So, I’ll just say that you won’t see it coming and it elevates the entire film.

It may seem strange to use a word like “likable” when talking about a horror movie but that really is the best way to describe Volumes of Blood.  It’s a film that was obviously made by people who love horror films and who understand that the best response to someone mentioning The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is to reply, “You don’t have to go to Texas for a chainsaw massacre.”  The film is full of references to other classic horror movies and it even mentions an imaginary film — The Dewey Deathmal System — that I personally would love to see.

Check out its Facebook page by clicking here and keep an eye out for Volumes of Blood!

safe_image—-

* My apologies because I originally misquoted that line.  It’s still my favorite line, though!