Post by Casablanca on Jul 12, 2009 21:50:36 GMT -5
The House on Riley Road
This film features some of Bucksfan’s most grounded and impressive camera work to date, with the possible exception of “NOE 2”. It is consistent, solid filming with little to complain about aside the periodically shakiness which all too easily befalls any attempt to track a shot. One sequence, involving mantel piece horns, is a brilliant piece of MR video, with a nicely added eye frame. In fact, shot after shot keeps us in tune to the movies motives and story, and while it may seems that they, and they alone, are what hold our attention to the twenty minute or so film, it is enough, and creates a unique suspense of its own, topping off with a mesmerizing last minute of wondrous technique.
As I stated above, there is little character or complexity to sift through, making the film relatively effortless to push through, but at the same time, it isn’t “exactly” unmemorable. There are parts I will recall later, but only in concept. The use of eyes intrigues me, as do the two large doors at the end, but will I have a film to place and set them in? No, just a series of horrific scenes with some, well, allright acting with a, well, allright script; albeit an wonderful illusion/reality suggestion.
This, call it if you want, suspense, I mentioned, is intense, indeed. The film’s pace is really to blame for this, that and the zooming, but nothing touches me better then the tilted or sweeping angles. It both gives the movie a surreal, eerie mood while providing some light on the façade we are shown, let’s say “The Nightmare on Riley Road”, a title more fitting with execution taken in mind.
Hearing of a sequel, I am both interested and put off. This didn’t strike me as being either awe inspiring or all that worth anticipating. To me, it felt like nothing but a nice show case piece, a prelude to a larger film, one with good plot and good thrills. Perhaps that is what this is. Maybe it is practice, maybe it is a screen test, or maybe it was intended as a feature film, and failed, but boosts enough great images to succeed on different turf.
Overall, to end a short film with a short review, some critics may seem misguided with what to see. Some may pay notice to the acting, the plot and the script, but why do that when you have so many nice things in so little time. It isn’t a film for anyone, no, but for those interested in directing and camera work, it is a nice experimental piece to show you how tension and nervousness can be created in oh so little things.
And just saying, I would have made the film MUCH longer and more though provoking, but it was for a film competition and it had to be under 12 minutes long. But the sequel is WAY longer. It takes 20 minutes before the opening credits even start, no joke. I'm estimating it will be about 60-70 minutes long.