Review of Dead Birds (2005) by Diana S — 12 May 2005

In continuing tradition, Friday the 13th for me and mine has always been Bad Horror Movie Night. The goal is to browse the shelves and find the worst cover or worst sounding horror films and give into a night of reveling in just how awful something can be.

This time around, I had scheduled a slew of interesting titles to come from Netflix, but they didn't make it in time, so I wandered the isles of Blockbuster until I found a couple of suitable offerings. I found both in the new release section.

I began with Dead Birds, chosen for both it's cover box and it's strange title. Set in the 1800s, the story revolves around a group of bank-robbers, lead by none other than Henry Thomas ("I Capture the Castle") and who will be referred to from here on out as Elliott. Elliott, for some unknown reason, is the leader of this outlaw band, even though two of the guys are way more sinister and older. The group also consists of a woman (Elliott's girlfriend), Elliott's younger brother (played by Patrick Fugit, "Saved," who will be know for my purposes as that annoying kid from "Almost Famous") and an ex-slave.

The group robs a bank and then heads to a deserted farm house to hole up for the night before riding on to Mexico. As they enter the property, they are attacked by what they decide is a skinless mountain lion. After they kill it, even though it is really, really freaky, they just shrug it off and head onto the house. Mistake one. Then in the yard, Almost Famous boy steps on a dead bird. This is the only dead bird in the entire film, so the meaning of the title still eludes me.

I won't go into that much more plot detail, but of course, the house is not all it seems. It's plagued by ghosts, or demons or some other supernatural phenomenon that is only vaguely discussed in the story line.

But, story gaps and poor acting aside, I actually kind of enjoyed this movie. The music is creepy, the camera angles good and the director, Alex Turner ("Disposal") spends some time setting an eerie mood before he gets down to the killing.

My second film of the night, Bram Stoker's The Way of the Vampire, did not turn out nearly so well. I'm pretty sure the film was straight-to-video, since when I looked it up to give it a rating here, it's not even on the RT list.

I guess what made Way of the Vamp so bad is that it possibly could have been good, if the story had made it into the right hands. The plot is based on a short story by Bram Stoker and it follows Van Helsing's life after he defeats Dracula. The Knights Templar offer Van Helsing immortality until he kills the last vampire prince. At first, Helsing refuses, but when the vamps kill his wife, he vows vengeance. This decision sends him fighting the undead through the years until we come upon our story in modern-day Los Angeles. Here, Helsing believes he has found the last vampire prince and prepares for the last battle of his life.

I found the story quite intriguing. (I've always had a thing for vamps.) However, the acting and dialogue, though at times tolerable, mostly fall into the pit of melodrama. And the directing, I don't even know where to start. It screams "film school" at me, mostly with shaky cameras and weird voice distortion when the vamps are roaring. I did, however, enjoy the b&w during the flashback sequences.

I looked up the directors on imdb and they haven't really done very much before this. I guess that explains it. For a rating though, I'd give it a 2/10.