Creepy scares--and quite a bit more--inhabit Jeremy Dyson/Andy Nyman's GHOST STORIES

If you're looking, as TrustMovies often is, for a worthwhile and different "scary" movie, I'd highly recommend a new one entitled (not especially originally but no matter) GHOST STORIES. The ghosts here are quite interestingly connected -- and guilt-generated -- even though they appear in what initially looks like several different tales. The link between them is one of those parapsychology "experts" dead set on exploring and then debunking what might appear to the untrained eye and mind as "other-worldly."

The writer/director purveyors of this strange and alternately entrancing and disturbing movie are Jeremy Dyson (shown at left) and Andy Nyman (shown below), the latter of whom may be more familiar to viewers as an actor, which he is again here, essaying the leading role of Dr. Goodman, the fellow who would like to debunk the various tales we're going to see. How the good doctor goes about this and what happens then makes up the meat of Ghost Stories, a kind of anthology movie that turns out to be but a single story, after all.

The connections in the three-tales-within-a-tale are both obvious and barely there, but by the finale of this 97-minute movie you may be surprised at how many more associations and relationships are present here than you'll have first imagined.

By the time of its conclusion, the movie has offered a good deal more surprise and depth than expected in what would initially seem to be a mere genre piece.

The three let's-debunk-this-nonsense tales involves a night guard (Paul Whitehouse, above) at a closed-up sanitorium, a very odd and maybe paranoid young man without a driver's license (Alex Lawther, below) and a highly entitled, upper-crust twat about to become a father (Martin Freeman, two photos down).

The three give as fine and specific a performance as can be managed in the short screen time and limited character development provided. But that's quite all right because the filmmakers also offer up the requisite scares and fright along the way (nothing we haven't seen before, but nicely done) and most important a compelling and increasing sense of absolute dread -- of what, we're not even sure.

Storywise, the movie's all over the place, and yet it manages to somehow cohere, while visually it seems dark and foreboding, even in the daylight scenes. Judaism, the faith and culture, are important, too -- how much so we don't quite understand until the finale.

Oddball but finally memorable, Ghost Stories, I think, will slowly build a following and someday perhaps take its place as a kind of minor genre icon. Released via IFC Midnight, the movie opens in New York City at the IFC Center this Friday, April 20, and in Los Angeles next Friday, April 27, at the Landmark NuArt. Simultaneously with its theatrical release, the film will also be available via VOD.

Teen trauma and horror haunt David Robert Mitchell's nightmarish follow-up, IT FOLLOWS

Despite its title sounding a bit like what you'd hear during a lecture in your course on logic, IT FOLLOWS -- the follow-up film to David Robert Mitchell's very well-regarded first feature, The Myth of the American Sleepover -- is actually a horror movie in which the "it" does indeed "follow," while wreaking quite a bit of havoc along the way. Whether or not Mr. Mitchell, shown below, and his quiet, naturalistic tone work as well in this genre as they did in in his teens-come-of-age movie is another matter.

There are some marvelous moments and a few genuine and surprising scares in It Follows, but the film works best as a rather pushy metaphor for the fear of sex. Think of "it" as the worst STD of all time: Herpes, Syphilis, even AIDS are pikers compared to this one. If sex as the harbinger of fear and loss, decay and death seems especially appealing, you're gonna love this movie. Even if your tastes run to the lighter and brighter, I suspect you'll be impressed with what Mr. Mitchell, as writer and director, can ferret out of his strange concoction.

After an opening designed to let us know that something truly foul and frightening is afoot (and to give us a good taste of screams and gore, which the filmmaker then does not have to repeat, which allows him to concentrate on suspense and atmosphere instead), our pretty blond teen gal Jay (Maika Monroe, above, center, and below) and her friends sit around and kibbitz. Then Jay goes out on a date with an "older guy," in which a couple of odd (but not awful) things happen. After which comes the "sex scene " --  rather lush but distanced and quite nicely done, followed by a few moments of post-coital semi-bliss (below). Be grateful for these because they're the last that either we viewers or Jay herself are allowed to experience.

In the twinkling of an eye, as it were, all turns horrific, beginning with a ream of exposition that, in most movies, we would never tolerate. Here, however, both we and our heroine must hear this explanation in order to know what's going on. From there onwards, the movie crests and falls, builds then slows until, at the end of a too-long 100 minutes, we arrive at a certain point that hits us somewhere between annoying and satisfying, depending on what you demand of your "scare" movies. As usual, the set-up is much better than the play-out, and there's a scene in a swimming pool toward the finale that is more ridiculous than frightening.

Performances are naturalistic to a fault, with the idea being, I guess, to show us what our typical teens might do when confronted by something alien or supernatural. They don't quite rise to the occasion. But maybe that's the point. And Ms Monroe, whom I've now seen in leading roles here and in The Guest, does not strike me as an actress who holds the screen very well. Her face is pretty but empty and she is not given to much variation. After a time her blank look begins to pall. The rest of the cast do better, actually, bringing some liveliness to the proceedings.

Filmed in Michigan (the Detroit area, I think) and with a production design that seems not to be occurring in any specific time, the film is always visually interesting. It has something of the feel of a nightmare in which logic doesn't much matter and from which you would dearly like to waken. Overall, I'd call it a mixed bag, but with enough good things to warrant a visit if you're an aficionado of this genre.

From RadiusTWC, It Follows opens this Friday, March 13, in New York City at the Angelika Film Center and in the L.A. area at the Arclight Hollywood. It will also open at Laemmle's Playhouse 7 on March 20. Click here to learn if and when it's playing in your neck of the woods.

A monster UNDER THE BED? Yes--and he's a scary one in Steven C. Miller's fright flick.

The bed as a gateway to hell? I suspect many of us have symbolically discovered that this is so, but in UNDER THE BED, the new scary-monster-movie from Steven C. Miller, that entrance lies literally below the bed. I am probably giving away too much already, but since Mr. Miller is content to keep his primary scares under wraps for quite awhile, this should clue like-minded audiences into the fact that the film does indeed grow more action-prone and special-effects laden as it reaches its rather bizarre conclusion.

The filmmaker, pictured at left, begins with a reunion of sorts and an exquisitely realized sense of dread. A frightened-to-near-crazed older brother, Neal (Jonny Weston, below), is reunited after some time with his sweet younger sibling, Paulie (Gattlin Griffith, kneeling, further below), his generally unhelpful father, and a new stepmother (his own having died in circumstances about which we learn only dribs and drabs). Note Neal's entrance into the house, handled quietly and very effectively. The filmmaker's budget was no doubt a small one, but he has put it to good use with a screenplay by Eric Stolze, which, if it isn't all that informative nor comprehensive, is at least smart enough to keep us hooked and a tad unhinged.

The dialog is always serviceable, and the events slowly coalesce into increasing menace. The direction is quite good, too, making the most of that small budget in production design, technical details, good performances from the entire cast, and finally some special effects that may be, overall, on the cheap side but that do the job at hand remarkably well.

On the minus side, some questions do arise that are never intelligently answered: How come the adults on hand don't hear all the noise coming from the kids' room? Just how powerful is this creature? What and what not can he do on his own? And exactly what did happen with stepmom and her foray into the garage-cum-laundry room?

We never get answers, but also, fortunately, we never get bored because Miller keeps little scares happen-ing at a good clip, before bringing out the big ones and allowing that creature to come to full-on life and begin his reign of death.

Who it kills and how -- neither kids nor parents are safe -- are certainly enough to have gotten the film an "R" rating (I don't recall seeing any rating for this movie).

Performances are about all they can be, given the state of the screenplay and the need to get on with the grizzly gore. Weston and Griffith make properly scared and loving bothers; Peter Holden proves a useless dad and Musetta Vander a warm stepmother.

As the would-be girlfriend, Kelcie Stranahan (above) is pretty and underused, while Ivan Djurovic's model-gorgeous good looks are completely covered up in the role of the Creature.

Under the Bed, from XLrator Media and running 87 minutes, opened theatrically yesterday, July 18. The horror film has also been playing on VOD since July 3 and has a DVD coming out on July 30. I'm checking now for a list of theatrical playdates -- which I'll post as soon as they arrive. Sorry to get these up so tardily, but here are the theaters, a bit after the fact: on July 18 only at Laemmle's No Ho in Los Angeles;  July 19 only at the Clinton Street Theater Portland; July 19 and 20 only at the Zeigeist in New Orleans; and July 20 only at Facets in Chicago.

BENEATH: Larry Fessenden's smart/funny/ nasty teens-in-jeopardy movie opens @ IFC

It's good to have a Larry Fessenden film back in theaters. Been awhile since 2006's The Last Winter appeared, though Fessenden has been busy, meantime, with both acting and producing. With BENEATH, he's back in the director's chair and has cranked out what looks, initi-ally and deceptively, like a by-the-numbers monster thriller about a group of just gradu-ated high school friends who go out on a lake in a boat. They mostly stay there throughout nearly all of the film's 90-minute running time, during which they are threa-tened by a rather too-large and too-toothy underwater creature.

That fish is just fine (in fact, you may start rooting for him, as we did, to get the job done), but it's the group of "buddies," both girls and guys, who take center stage in the film and help carry it, surprisingly quickly and nastily, to a conclusion that is satisfying in a manner that most of the films in this genre don't get near. Fessenden (shown at left), his writers (Tony Daniel and Brian D. Smith) and his very game cast manage to create a group of characters who come to life quickly and believably, then unveil themselves to us in very interesting layers as the plot and threat thicken.

Information spills out piecemeal, and pretty cleverly, too, as tension and tempers rise. Thankfully, the behavior of these kids is only now and then dumb. Mostly, they act as most of us would under this sort of trying circumstance.

The budget here is low but put to very good use, and each cast member distinguishes him/herself properly in roles that are typical, all right, but are then given an extra goose so that each cliché spins into something a little different.

As the boy who we imagine will be our put-upon hero, Daniel Zovatto (above, center) combines charm with buried sex appeal and a smart diffidence,

while Chris Conroy (above) parlays his hunky body and laid-back machismo into something not quite what we expect.

Bonnnie Dennison (above) makes a pretty blond heroine with all sorts of stuff up her non-existent sleeves, while Mackenzie Rosman turns her role of second-string female into something touching and real.

Completing the array are Jonny Orsini as the little brother who tries harder, and Griffin Newman (above), who takes the standard role of the nerdy friend with the ever-present videocam to new heights (and depths).

Definitely a B -- hell, maybe even a C -- movie, Beneath offers such smart, nasty and sometimes darkly funny fun that, while I might hesitate to recommend the cost of a theatrical visit, this is definitely one you'll want to see on VOD, DVD or streaming. The movie, from Chiller Films, opens this Wednesday, July 17, in theaters (here in NYC, it plays the IFC Center) and can be seen simultaneously via VOD. (That's Mark Margolis, above, in the role of, yes, the old-man-who-warns-kids-of-bad-things-to-come.)

The photos above are from the film itself, 

with the exception of that of Mr. Fessenden, 

which comes courtesy of Indiewire.com 

Smart scares, leavened with wit and humor: Rodrigo Cortés' RED LIGHTS; Interview with filmmaker and his star

Ever since seeing the first full-length film from Rodrigo Cortés (the writer/director is shown below), The Contestant (Concursante, click and scroll down) -- premiered in the USA as part of the FSLC's 2007 Spanish Cinema Now series -- I've been waiting for a follow-up to this sensationally good, genuinely original and funny/smart/emotionally involving movie. His next film -- Buried -- though interesting for a number of reasons, didn't provide that follow-up (the filmmaker explains why, in one short sentence, during my interview with him, below). Now comes RED LIGHTS, his newest work: The follow-up at last is here.

One of the more sophisticated and intelligent movies in the paranormal (or fake paranormal) genre that I have seen, the film begins with a wonderful pre-credit sequence that ends with a great line of dialog, setting us up for some of the wit and fun that ensues. Dr. Margaret Matheson (Sigourney Weaver, two photos below, and what a treasure this actress remains!) and her assistant Tom Buckley (the ever versatile Cillian Murphy) are on their way to a supposedly haunted house to do their job: debunking phony ghosts and what-ever other would-be para-normal activity is going on.

This first segment (the seance is shown above) is delightful: a little scary, but mostly Señor Cortés uses it for "play." He sets it all up around Weaver's character and by the end of it, she is shown as smart, strong and immensely likeable. Murphy, on the other hand, remains a bit of a cipher. For its first, maybe third to half-way point, the movie maintains a wonderful sense of menace -- but menace outwitted, overcome. The film's first hour is consistently riveting, keeping us pleasurably off-balance yet always alert and interested.

Then, slowly, that menace begins to grow, building into something triumphant. This is quite unsettling, and it's a move that many filmmakers don't manage very well. Cortés handles it expertly. For awhile at least. It is not unusual in films of this genre that the build-up often outdoes the explanation/finale. For some of you, this will be the case with Red Lights. Even I, who mostly loved the film, found the ending a bit disappointing, if still surprising. So be warned. Yet the movie remains so good, in so many ways -- well acted, written and directed -- that I call it a don't-miss. If you fail to see in in theaters (it's getting a pretty limited run), be sure to stick it on your DVD-or-later list.

In the sterling cast, appear a very well-, if briefly-used Robert DeNiro (above, with Joely Richardson, who plays his assistant) as the supposedly greatest "paranormalist" in existence (he's blind, and his detractors have a way of dying off); and the delightful Toby Jones (below), as one of Ms Weaver's professional colleagues at the university, who seems to get all the funding.

On the basis of this film and Concursante, I would say that Cortés' movies, while not overtly political, go right to the heart of how we live now. We're a populace always looking for the easy out, and our "keepers" are more than willing to provide this. Consequently the university where our two profs teach is willing to spend much more money on a department (Jones') that sets out to prove the existence of the paranormal, rather than on the department (Weaver's) that debunks this.

Also in the cast is Concursante's leading man, Argentine heartthrob Leonardo Sbaraglia (above), as another, noticeably less clever charlatan; and American up-and-comer Elizabeth Olsen (below), who is equally good here, with less screen time, than in either Silent House or Martha Marcy May Marlene.

In the pivotal role, there's Mr. Murphy, below, who again proves himself so very skilled at assuming yet another odd role -- Red Eye, Breakfast on Pluto, In Time -- and bringing it fully to life. This time the actor plays a character who is learning what's going on at approximately the same time as the audience is learning it too, and the effect is surprising, stunning.

Red Lights, 113 minutes, from Millennium Entertainment, opens this Friday in New York City at the AMC Empire 25, and in the Los Angeles area, too -- but at what theater? At this point in time, I cannot locate one. Click here, get rid of the trailer, then click on CITIES AND THEATERS to see all other currently scheduled playdates and cities.

******************

TrustMovies sat in on a roundtable with half a dozen other movie journalists, as we spoke with writer/director Rodrigo Cortés (below, right) and his star Cillian Murphy (below, left). Cortés proved to have an excellent command of English, nicely accented via his Spanish heritage. Murphy -- with those incredibly large, luminous blue eyes and the highest cheekbones this side of the Andes -- being Irish, spoke English quite well, too.  Both men were relaxed and easy, answering any and all questions, the first of which had to do with their own experiences regarding the paranormal. Both declared themselves virgins to any kind of supernatural experience.

Cillian Murphy: I am a rationalist and skeptical, I’m afraid. I am open and curious, But I wouldn't personally subscribe to any belief in the paranormal or put my faith in anyone claiming to have supernatural powers. But you can see why it is so right for drama, and such a compelling subject.

 Rodrigo Cortés: I am exemplary boring. But I wanted to explore two things in this film: the idea and possibility of the paranormal --magic which cannot be explained -- and then the idea of the hoax: lying, which is very physical, touchable. I am more interested in understanding than in believing. And it is about the understanding rather than the believing that is important to the film.

How did you become attached to this project?

CM: In the usual way, via the script. What I loved about the script was that I could not tell at all where it was going. Unfortunately, with so many scripts these days, you can easily predict where they are going.

Had you also seen Rodrigo's Concursante? 

CM: You mean The Contestant? Yes. That, and Buried, together with this script, hooked me. For me it was never just a “twist” movie, because it is so much more than that. You have to just play the character as you find him and take him on that arc. It’s a story of self–acceptance and obsession.

Do you feel you are influenced by Alejandro Amenábar?

RC: Not really. I have never worked with him. But I think that, because we are around the same age, we probably have the same influences from other directors like Scorsese and Kubrick and so on.

What was it like to work with DeNiro? 

CM: He and Sigourney were very giving and generous with their time and their efforts. I think people like that tend to recognize the effect that they and their status have on people like me. I mean, they are living legends. They could not have been nicer and more supportive. Consequently, you just do the work and do the acting. And then you go home that night and say, Wow--I just did a scene with Robert De Niro!

Does the movie have a basis in fact? 
RC: Well, everything you see in the film is based, not on actual facts in the usual sense, but on things that have actually happened regarding the paranormal (or hoaxes about the paranormal) from the 1970s through the present time.

Do you have a fascination for certain types of characters?
CM: I just am drawn to good stories, that’s all. Every project seems unique for me. I don’t see any connecting threads.

Has your growing fame become difficult?

CM: Not at all. I think that If you behave normally, then people will treat you normally.

It seems to me you’re a very versatile actor. So I wonder if it’s a matter of your choosing roles for their versatility, or it is merely luck.

CM: The constants for me is that you have to be really brave And also that you don’t repeat yourself. If I read something and then say, I wonder if I could do that. Then I’ll want to try it.

Do you like to let your actors improvise? 

RC: You work a lot on what you do an you reflect a lot. But you have to be alert, too. Movies are a learning process. If an actor tells you, Iwould prefer to switch it this way, you say, OK: Let's try that. At the end of the day it is kind of collaboration. Ninety percent of actors may not know about storytelling, or about structure. But they do know about language. That’s what they work with. That’s their material. So you’d better listen to them.

CM: It’s exactly what he said. It’s all about making dialog sound truthful.

Do you have any inclination to direct?

CM:  Not for awhile. What will happen, a friend told me, is that you will get a script that means so much to you, that’s when you’ll have to do it. So far, that has not happened. In any case, they say it take 20 years to make a good actor, and I’ve only been doing it for 15. So I have a ways to go there.

If you both had one supernatural power to posses, what would that be?

RC: The ability to cut my nails properly.

CM: That was what I was going to say! No, there's nothing I'd want, really. I’m just fine with the five senses we already have.

********************

After the roundtable, yours truly got a few minutes for a one-on-one with Rodrigo, whom I had not seen for nearly five years. We first met at a luncheon for Spanish Cinema Now, where we talked at length about his then new film Concursante. Since then, he's made Buried and Red Lights, as well as writing a script for the film Apartment 143, which we haven't seen over here as yet.  He also looks totally different from when I last saw him. I could have passed him in the street and not recognized the man.

Rodrigo, your life must have changed pretty staggeringly since the first time I met you – when Concursante was first shown in the USA at Lincoln Center, what? 4-1/2 years ago, right?

Yes – about 4 or 5 years ago. But no. I don’t think my life has changed that much because it has been years of just working. When I look around (he laughs, shaking his head), I see exactly the same things, because I just worked and worked and worked.  For instance: the day after I finished the promotional push for Buried was the day I started work on Red Lights. 

Wow.

Yes, I really started work on this film exhausted. But in the meantime I had written a screenplay for and produced another film called Apartment 143.

Ah, yes: but that one you didn’t direct….

No, I just wrote and produced. So I didn’t have time to change anything in my life. I was… exactly where I was. Everything has to do with perceptions -- meaning, I think, my perceptions of how I imagined his life must have changed -- but perceptions are not reality.

It’s funny. I would have thought that more would have changed for you.  (I look at him more closely) One thing that has changed is your look. This new look is much, on one level, better for what you are doing and what you are. The look you had before  -- it was very unprepossessing.  This look makes you look stronger, bigger, all kind of things; You used to have that long hair and beard and all.

(He laughs) Yes.

Who is, what is, Cindy Cowan Entertainment. I’ve never heard of that name or seen it until this movie.

She is an American producer, and she joined us at a certain point in the financing. Actually, about 90 percent of the film’s financing comes from Spain, and 80 percent of the film was shot in Spain.

Ah! I thought that as I was watching, particualry the schoolroom scene. 

The other 20% was shot in Toronto.

Yes, where just about everything is shot these days. Now this movie, for me, felt like the real follow-up to Concursante. In this film, you are really working with a terrifically high quality set of actors, international actors like Leonardo Sbaraglia, whom you also used in Concursante, and Cillian, Signourney and DeNiro. And Toby Jones!

It is odd. You don’t know how these things happen. Everything starts, you hope, with the wrtiting. That’s the only tool you actually have. In a way I have been protected by my actors. So that nobody has been able to challenge certain ideas, which means that, in a way, that certain executives would would have loved to change them… (he laughs)

Did you have problems like that on this movie?

No. No, no no -- because actually I have creative control of this. Which is not always something you can afford.

Really!

I also had it on Buried, and on Concursante.  I have been very lucky so far. I can only do things if I thoroughly believe in them. I need to put all my energy there—my blood and muscles and bones and skin…

Have you been able to totally support yourself through your moviemaking over the last few years?  I mean,  you’re not like Magic Mike, a stripper on the side. Or anything like that…  (We laugh)

No. But I never did stop working all the time... I didn't do anything but working. There were no free times.

Do you have anything in the works now.

No, I am not thinking on my next obsessive idea yet. When I finished Concursante, I started writing Red Lights, actually, right away.  Even before Buried.

Oh, that may be why I see a connection between these two films.

Also, I did not write Buried.

Of course! That’s right: You didn't.

No: Chris Sparling is a very brilliant writer from Providence.

Rhode Island?

Yes. So when I finished Red Lights, which was a very difficult to pull together project because it has a certain level of budget, well, that is when the script of Buried appeared. And that began to obsess me: to try to do something like that had never been done before. Really challenging. And then, when I finished that, I went back to Red Lights, which was then easier to bring together, I guess, because of the reaction to Buried. And probably because of Sigourney and De Niro and Cillian.

Did they all sign on easily and quickly?

Yeah it was very quickly. With actors it is usually quickly -- or it never happens. Which is another possibility: the actors’ response to the material. I felt really privileged, really flattered by their response. It was a kind of compliment.

It is a compliment, but it is also deserved.

I don’t know. It is nothing you can take for granted.  When you write the script, you don't know.

This has opened in Spain, right. How did it do there?

Very well. And now it also opened in the U.K., and then pretty much in the rest of the world. About 60 countries, I think.

The publicist tells us we have time for one last question.

Let me think – Oh I know what: When you write, you write in Spanish first?

Yes.

Do you translate them yourself or..

Oh, no. My English is not that good.

I think your English is very good.

Well. But when I write in Spanish, I write differently if I know it is going to be spoken in English or Spanish. Because there are different ways of thinking and of expressing. And the philosophy is different.  When I write in Spanish to be spoken later in English, it is what I call my “American Spanish.”

So Concurantae, you wrote in Spanish knowing it would be spoken in Spanish. But Red Lights you wrote in a different Spanish because you knew it would be spoken in English.

Exactly. Because it is a different kind of writing in terms of the lines. Then later I can work with the translator. 

And this work for films in Spanish or in English?

Yes, I haven’t yet tried anything in Japanese….

After Concursante, which I thought was a very political film, I was wanting something more political from you. And with Buried, while the subject of the film could be seen as political, the movie wasn’t. And now Red Lights doesn’t seem, on its surface, to be, either. But in some ways, it is.  The whole thing thing about the university paying to prove the paranormal exists but having no money to pay for debunking it. That, in its way, strikes me as a political statement about the society in which we live and work.

I like very much political thrillers, and in Red Lights you can find the genetic code for DNA of a political thriller -- in terms of atmosphere and so on. But I am not interested in political truths in ideological terms. Because political truths tend to last only a couple of years.  They are not real truths. I like things in allegorical terms. To talk about universal thigns. Like when you read Richard Matheson, for instance: I Am Legend, The Shrinking Man, Duel, Hell House.  They seem to have very small premises, but you feel they are talking about human nature.  But not putting them on the nose. Small premises not done like big deals. But the way they root inside you and they flourish you in multi-layered levels. That’s what I try to achieve in a way.

And I think your movie does just that. So thank you, Rodrigo, for your time -- and your films. 

Eduardo Sánchez's LOVELY MOLLY scares a bit & stars an impressive Gretchen Lodge

The new film from Eduardo Sánchez, the co-director of The Blair Witch Project, begins with a bit of near-horror -- a crazed young woman video-camming herself while holding a knife to her own throat. Then we shoot back in time to her wedding and slowly work our way toward to the present once again. This sort of approach ensures that we know immediately we're in "scare territory." Hardly subtle, it does prime us for things to come. Come they do, helped along in no small measure by the superlative sound effects (Matt Davies) and the music (by Tortoise), which, in its way, seems just another, odder sound effect.

Ever since Blair Witch, TrustMovies has had it in for movies that are mostly self-video-cammed. It just seems to him too cheap and easy (and boring) a manner in which to film. It has its occasional uses, however, and I am happy to report that Mr. Sánchez (shown at right) only descends to this technique now and again during the film. Yes, his movie involves mostly hand-held camerawork, but that annoying little red "rec" light isn't always on. (This clever-once-but-once-only technique worked best in [REC], less so in its offshoots.)

Post-wedding, our twosome (Gretchen Lodge, above, left and Johnny Lewis, right) moves into the house formerly occupied by her family. Mistake: as we (and they) soon learn. Our heroine, Molly, has no excuse for not knowing this from the beginning, and unless this character has it in for herself (ah,but she does, she does!), there's little logic in choosing this house as the spot to set up housekeeping. But they do, and from night number one, complete with the requisite things that go bump, they -- and we -- get a little scared.

So much of these scares are provided by sounds, so fraught are the faces of our couple as they listen and try to ascertain, and so creepy is the house itself that the filmmaker sets up a highly economical premise that initially works better than any of the other recent scarefare -- Silent House, The Inkeepers or Insidious. For awhile, at least.

The movie also manages to reflect the state of our current economy (he's a long-distance truck driver, she works cleaning/maintenance in a large office building in the nearest town); nobody's doing well financially. The backstory of Molly and her family comes out slowly and relatively believably in dribs and drabs at the same time as something/someone takes hold of our heroine. The gears mesh rather well -- if rather obviously -- and then....

Yuuuch. Just more of the usual. Possession may be nine-tenths of the law, but I would say it constitutes an even larger percentage of the horror movies we see. Around the midway point it becomes clear that the filmmaker and his movie are vamping -- i.e. killing time with repetition and more-of-the-same antics until he can hit the 90-odd minute mark and bring the movie home.

Along the way, we do get a few good scenes -- one of these during a Sunday Church service that is strangely and un-showily, as scary as anything else in the film. When Pastor Bobby (a creepy Field Blauvelt) makes a house call, and Molly pulls a Sharon Stone, things move quickly into overdrive. Ms Lodge does a yeoman job here, moving from sweetie-pie newlywed (above) to a one-woman Psycho Bitch Party (below). She even gets a humdinger of a full-frontal nude scene, which she handles like a pro.

Lodge is well supported by Mr. Lewis and by Alexandra Holden (below) as her troubled, implicated sister. Nice touches occur along the way -- how this possession initially takes hold -- and the violence is well-chosen and handled as much for suspense and shock as for blood and gore (though there's plenty of that, too). Overall, though, as good as some of its pieces may be, Lovely Molly finally offers maybe 60 minutes of content in a long, 99 minutes of movie.

The film opens this Friday, in limited release, in various parts of the country. Visit the film's web site or click here to learn where -- and how to get tickets.

All photos are from the film itself, except that of Mr. Sánchez,

which is by Kim Hairston, courtesy of The Baltimore Sun.