Review of Dreamaniac

Dreamaniac (1986)
3/10
"Mondo bad planning, Jodie!"
10 May 2022
"Dreamaniac" is apparently the first non-pornographic movie David DeCoteau made. Unfortunately he had certainly not found his feet as a director of mainstream films when he made it. The movie is stylistically indistinguishable from porn: filmed claustrophobically in only one location, poorly shot apparently on video with badly lit scenes, and even the dialogue is badly recorded like in a porn flick, either mumbled and hard to make out because it was recorded on scene, or much too loud and ear-jarring because it was obviously re-done in post-production.

We only know it's not a porno because it doesn't feature actual sex. It seems like DeCoteau decided to use the location and crew from one of his porno flicks to try and see if he could make a feature film. It's as though after the cast/crew from his previous "New Wave Hustlers" or "Boys Just Want to Have Sex" had gone home, DeCoteau called up some friends in the night and asked them to come over to make his dream of mainstream film direction a reality.

This is not to say that the movie doesn't have any sex. It has so many sex scenes it could almost be softcore porn, except for the fact that there's no attempt at eroticism, and no female nudity. That's right: it's a low-budget slasher without boobs. All the nudity is male: bare butts, and of course DeCoteau using the opportunity to indulge his tighty-whitie fetish. You can barely see any nudity anyway, because the movie looks like it was filmed through mud and shot exclusively at night with barely any lighting. In one scene, characters were supposed to be having sex, but then I realised the actress was still fully clothed.

The plot is allegedly about a heavy metal musician who summons a succubus with some candles and spooky words and she helps him get girls so she can kill them. This plot sounds like b-movie gold, but the movie doesn't bring it to life. The guy seems to have a girlfriend, so apparently he doesn't even need any supernatural assistance in getting female attention. Obviously they should have made him a clueless yet charming dork, desperate for love, so that we could understand his motivations and maybe root for him, and also understand the movie itself. Instead the whole thing is really distancing.

When the succubus or whatever she's supposed to be starts killing people, it's typical low-budget, shot-on-video slasher movie fare, with extreme close ups of the victim's faces with blood sprays to hide the lack of any real gore effects. But get this: half way through the movie we see someone getting stabbed in the eye in a close-up. Did they spend all of the movie's $500-or-so budget on that one shot?

Nah. There's actually a couple more gore shots toward the end, with a drill bit going through a guy's hand, and a late-term decapitation. Then there's some attempt at a twist ending that no one ever would have seen because no one possibly could have been paying attention by that time. I know I wasn't. This movie taxed me. I'm glad it's over.

I was going to watch more David DeCoteau but now I don't know if I have the endurance for it. This was a horror movie but its only sense of tension was gained from the fact that it being entirely shot on video in a house made me feel like I was stuck in the house with the people in the movie. Like I, too, was having to take part in making this garbage. Nightmare fuel.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed