Well, I watched the movie all the way through. I did.
The cinematography was interesting in places, reminiscent of Dario Argento. Very texture-laden. Cinder-block walls, brick walls, textured stucco, the sets in the Montgomery's house had a scabby, WalMart-esque organized quality in a manner. Pleasing in a way. The problem is what other reviewers saw as "grisly" or "gory" was off-screen butchery. Some of it was on-screen, but both on-screen and off-screen lacked a kinetic quality. Watch "Videodrome" and the video of abattoir had water in it, to give it kinetic quality. There is nothing in the cinematography of "Head Case" to suggest kinetic action. What makes "America's Funniest Home Videos" funny is kinetic action. "Head Case" is fake-umentary that resembles a video of a socially-awkward teenager who stammers a lot. If fake blood that doesn't seem to come from anywhere, just magically appearing is "disturbing" then this movie is disturbing.
Somebody once said something to the effect that not showing everything adds to the terror of a movie. Well, this movie has gone too far and shows nothing.
Somebody else said in a play, you have to act large, on camera, for a movie you have to be much smaller. I don't know that the director or the actors in this movie ever heard this, especially Barbara Lessin (Andrea Montgomery). The acting is far too large for this movie. Its flat and overdone, simultaneously somehow.
The actors may be improvising, but they aren't doing a good job of it. There's lots of stammering, lots of moments where it seems like Paul McCloskey doesn't quite know what to say. If they are serial killers, why are they saying things like "Ew! That's gross!" Um, yeah. I'm improvising too. The dialog is terrible.
The background score, by the way, is pointless. Why are we adding background music that leaks out of old elevators to something that's supposed to be a "pieced-together" archive? The music detracts from the movie, doesn't add to it.
I see Hershel Gordon Lewis in demented-tones of this movie, I can see similarities to Hannibal Lecter ("I prefer to eat the rude whenever possible"), I see some Hitchcock-ian female figures badgering and harassing Wayne Montgomery in the movie. I see lots of Eli Roth ala "Hostel". I see some David Lynch from some of his lesser known shorts or "Eraserhead". Why does every aspiring film director borrow from David Lynch?? No, stop don't answer that question. The movie is original-ish, but a seemingly endless parade of stammering in a background melange of borrowed pieces from other horror movies. Really, the nods to horror classics isn't too bad. Its not that the movie comes off as derivative, but it comes off as amateurish, poorly done and lacking in polish.
If you like movies with definitive endings and hate movies that leave room for a sequel (or insist a sequel exist for the sake of completeness), then this movie will really ruin your day.
Some people might see these qualities as pluses and may want to watch the movie. Feel free; I don't recommend this movie in any degree. It isn't as funny or farcical as Herschel Gordon Lewis. It lacks good taste, real gore and the things that separate boring university lectures from entertaining movies.
2/10 (For some of the lighting and the texture of the cinematography)
The cinematography was interesting in places, reminiscent of Dario Argento. Very texture-laden. Cinder-block walls, brick walls, textured stucco, the sets in the Montgomery's house had a scabby, WalMart-esque organized quality in a manner. Pleasing in a way. The problem is what other reviewers saw as "grisly" or "gory" was off-screen butchery. Some of it was on-screen, but both on-screen and off-screen lacked a kinetic quality. Watch "Videodrome" and the video of abattoir had water in it, to give it kinetic quality. There is nothing in the cinematography of "Head Case" to suggest kinetic action. What makes "America's Funniest Home Videos" funny is kinetic action. "Head Case" is fake-umentary that resembles a video of a socially-awkward teenager who stammers a lot. If fake blood that doesn't seem to come from anywhere, just magically appearing is "disturbing" then this movie is disturbing.
Somebody once said something to the effect that not showing everything adds to the terror of a movie. Well, this movie has gone too far and shows nothing.
Somebody else said in a play, you have to act large, on camera, for a movie you have to be much smaller. I don't know that the director or the actors in this movie ever heard this, especially Barbara Lessin (Andrea Montgomery). The acting is far too large for this movie. Its flat and overdone, simultaneously somehow.
The actors may be improvising, but they aren't doing a good job of it. There's lots of stammering, lots of moments where it seems like Paul McCloskey doesn't quite know what to say. If they are serial killers, why are they saying things like "Ew! That's gross!" Um, yeah. I'm improvising too. The dialog is terrible.
The background score, by the way, is pointless. Why are we adding background music that leaks out of old elevators to something that's supposed to be a "pieced-together" archive? The music detracts from the movie, doesn't add to it.
I see Hershel Gordon Lewis in demented-tones of this movie, I can see similarities to Hannibal Lecter ("I prefer to eat the rude whenever possible"), I see some Hitchcock-ian female figures badgering and harassing Wayne Montgomery in the movie. I see lots of Eli Roth ala "Hostel". I see some David Lynch from some of his lesser known shorts or "Eraserhead". Why does every aspiring film director borrow from David Lynch?? No, stop don't answer that question. The movie is original-ish, but a seemingly endless parade of stammering in a background melange of borrowed pieces from other horror movies. Really, the nods to horror classics isn't too bad. Its not that the movie comes off as derivative, but it comes off as amateurish, poorly done and lacking in polish.
If you like movies with definitive endings and hate movies that leave room for a sequel (or insist a sequel exist for the sake of completeness), then this movie will really ruin your day.
Some people might see these qualities as pluses and may want to watch the movie. Feel free; I don't recommend this movie in any degree. It isn't as funny or farcical as Herschel Gordon Lewis. It lacks good taste, real gore and the things that separate boring university lectures from entertaining movies.
2/10 (For some of the lighting and the texture of the cinematography)