Director Report Card: Lucky McKee (2022)

9. Old Man

I've been a fan of Lucky McKee since 2003, when “May” was released and instantly became one of my favorite movies. In that time, he's released seven more movies without a single one of them really crossing over into mainstream success. His last movie – which was pretty good! – went straight to the Lifetime Network. Despite this, McKee has continued to get a new feature released every few years. His latest work, “Old Man,” is among his strangest and most insular projects yet. Like nearly everything he's done, it's been met with a divisive reaction even among the people who are fans of the director. Yet I liked it!

An old man in long johns awakens in his cabin, in the middle of the woods. He looks for his dog, Rascal, which has pissed on his floor and disappeared. Despite his isolation, there is a knock at his door. A man named Joe, who claims to be a lost hiker, has found his way to the man's abode. He regards Joe with suspicion, interrogating him and holding him at gun point. Soon, the two men begin to reveal more about each other, learning they have more in common then they at first assumed. 

“Old Man” is, essentially, a two-man play. For nearly the entire run time, Stephen Lang's old man and Marc Senter's Joe are the only characters in the film. The cabin is basically the only location. With no prior backstory on either of these men, we have no idea who to trust or believe. The old man certainly seems unstable and dangerous, considering the ease with which he threatens people and the stories he tells of torture. Yet there's something shifty about Joe as well, his story often not lining up either. This is a set-up that draws tension from uncertainty. The audience is never sure which of these guys is crazy, or crazier at the very least. Who is a threat to whom? It's a simple premise that allows for a surprising amount of tension to build.

Adding to this suspense is just how isolated the entire film feels. We only get the briefest of shots of the forest beyond the old man's door. The glimpses of trees and sky were obviously added with green screen. The cabin is an obvious set, an intentional sense of artificiality being added to the proceedings. The effect creates an almost apocalyptic sense of solitude. For most of the story, it feels like the two principal characters might be the only people left alive in the world. Once a thunderstorm kicks in overhead, the oppressive emptiness only increases. It all adds to the movie's sense of unease and the focus the audience has on these two characters.

Despite shooting in such a limited location, “Old Man” is still fairly dynamic looking motion picture. It begins with a cool tracking shot, creeping over to Lang asleep on his bed. Frequently, there's some good use of camera movements. A slow pan over to a mounted cougar's head is one of the prettiest shots in the film. McKee even employs some dream-like colors are the film progresses. The camerawork is expressive but also emphasizes how cramped this location is, continuing to further the feeling of cramped unease. The cabin itself is meticulously designed, to feel both clattered and cramped, while also leaving enough room to be full of the kinds of shadows and visual depth needed to generate thrills. 

Stephen Lang has risen through the character actor ranks and attained a decent degree of star power. His titular role in “Old Man” seems similar to his part in “Don't Breath,” on the surface. Both are stories of creepy old men with intruders into their houses. Yet Lang really leans into the “old” adjective in the title. He begins the film mumbling, coughing, and drooling like an old coot. This proceeds a level of mega-acting that I haven't seen from the performer since “The Hard Way.” He hams it up to glorious, grotesque heights as he spins a yarn of torture and abuse and has frenzied conversations. Eventually, a pathetic side emerges as well, Lang doing a good job of showing the character loosing his bearings. It's a compellingly bizarre performance and shows that Lang is more than capable of carrying a whole movie.

Starring opposite Lang is Marc Senter. Senter has appeared in several Lucky McKee adjacent projects, like “The Lost” and “Wicked Lake” but starred in his “Tales of Halloween” segment. Senter often reaches for Crispin Glover-levels of twitchy weirdness in his performances. You can still see that element to his role in “Old Man.” Joe seems like a normal fellow, an average traveler with no ulterior motives. Yet the off-beat quality that always floats under Senter's quality definitely gives the idea that he's hiding something, which is perfectly suited to the story's needs. Joe is hiding something, we eventually learn, but the audience can't defeat the creeping suspicion that this is the case even before the reveal. In other words, Senter is perfectly cast. 

“Old Man” isn't just a creepy thriller about two guys with dark secrets, stuck in a cramped location with each other. Early on, Lang tells a rambling anecdote about a Bible salesman who came to visit him once and the violence that followed. He expresses his atheism during this speech, denying a belief in the existence of an “old man in the sky.” Considering the film's title, that line couldn't have been an accident. Later on, Senter has a similarly strong monologue, in which he describes how the stresses of life can build up on you, how bad luck never lets up some times. The characters may deny that they believe in God yet the misfortune piled up at their feet suggest fate is at play... Unless every man is his own “old man in the sky” and builds his own tomb from his own misdeeds, an idea the film returns to more and more as it goes on.

Throughout their conversation, the old man references his ex-wife with the kind of disdain you'd expect from a typical codger. At first, Joe claims to have nothing but respect and love for his own wife. Yet, as the evening winds on, he reveals secrets of his own. It's unsurprising that a story concerned with two guys, arguing and bickering about the problems in their lives, would eventually center around a mutual hatred of their old ladies. McKee's films have often studied the mechanisms of misogyny and this is at play in “Old Man” as well,  as the men quickly come to blame everyone but themselves for their crimes against women. 

If the presence or absence of God is another theme in the film, you can see this in the role ever watching eyes play. That mounted cougar head watches over the old man. It always hovers overhead from its corner of the cabin, watching everything that happens, the camera often centering in on its unending gaze. As the story continues, the lioness is quickly aligned with the wrath of a vengeful woman. This is made all the more apparent when an eye emerges from a fatal wound. It seems, if God exists in this universe, he's not an old “man” in the sky.

The somewhat surreal element to “Old Man” only increases as it goes on. In the last act, the film makes an unexpected turn towards magic realism. The old man begins talking about a magical purple water that can restore youth. This brings another interesting thread into the film, adding more layers to the title. We are all going to run out of youth someday. Most of us will become old men eventually. Joe is a man in the prime of his life while the title character is a doddering, old coot whose best days are behind him. By introducing the element of a fountain of youth into the story, it draws attention to how old principal characters are at opposite ends of the same journey. 

All of this proceeds an ending that I probably should have seen coming, that takes some of the subtext and integrates it into the actual narrative. The dream-like quality of the story becomes more blatant as the film heads into its increasingly surreal finale. At this point, any of the inconsistencies and strangeness that came before come into sharper focus. The ideas of youth, resentment towards woman, and the discussion of God all make a lot more sense as the credits start to roll. It may feel like a cheap, narrative rug-pull to some. Yet I found it to be a satisfying way to bring everything full circle, somewhat literally. 

I've probably made “Old Man” sound more pretentious than it actually is. That's what I like about the film. It is both a very simple story, merely about two guys in one location talking to each other. Yet a number of intriguing ideas are incorporated into a story that gets weirder as it goes on. I guess how much you get out of the film will depend on your willingness to play along with it. I'm not surprised to have seen some bad reviews for it. Maybe it's just because I'm already a Lucky McKee fan but I got a lot of it, in addition to enjoying Lang and Senter's performances. Whether it'll acquire the cult followings McKee's best films have, I can't say but I think I'm likely to revisits this particular little offering in the future. [Grade: B+]

Director Report Card: Lucky McKee (2019)

8. Kindred Spirits

Sometimes, I feel like I'm the biggest Lucky McKee fan in the world. I'm sure that's not true, that some obsessive person outstrips my fandom for the filmmaker. McKee has been making films for almost two decades, some of them accumulating cult followings along the way. Nobody gets labeled a “Master of Horror” without accruing a certain level of fame. At the same time, McKee is not a household name even among movie nerds or horror fanboys. His latest film, “Kindred Spirits” was released last year with almost zero advertising. To the point that the director himself put out an open invitation on Twitter for any sort of press. Which is how I ended up (very nervously) interviewing McKee earlier in the year on this very humble blog of mine. And now the time has come for me to actually give “Kindred Spirits” a proper review. 

Chloe had her daughter, Nicole, when she was only sixteen. Which means that her sister, Sadie, is only a few years older than her niece. When Nicole was a little girl, Aunt Sadie saved her life by pulling her out of traffic. Years later, Chloe is a struggling single mom and Nicole is a troubled teenager. After Nicole gets expelled from school, she comes home to see that Sadie has suddenly moved in. The aunt and niece renew their bond quickly. However, Sadie soon begins to act strangely. She pretends to be a teenager. She learns secrets, such as Chloe dating the father of Nicole's best friend, and manipulates those around with this information. Eventually, someone is going to die.

Almost all of Lucky McKee's movies are about outsiders, struggling to find their place in the world or some pre-existing social structure. “Kindred Spirits” applies the same idea to the premise of a fractured family. We never learn much about Chloe and Sadie's parents or their childhood but it soon becomes apparent that Sadie never felt accepted anywhere but with her sister. She created a fantasy world, via a doll house, acting out her fantasies with a fictional family. (Not dissimilar to May's elaborate, doll-filled inner life.) She returns home because her personal life, we learn in vague terms, has fallen apart. Yet Sadie soon finds her perfect fantasy world, with her sister and niece, ruined by a changing situation. “Kindred Spirits” takes us inside the world of someone so broken, they can't even return home peacefully.

Home isn't the only place Sadie is eager to return to. In one key sequence, she complains to her sister that she feels old because she's in her twenty. At a party with Sadie, she pretends to be a teenager and even makes out with a younger boy. After she patterns her hair after Nicole's, Sadie even begins to seduce her niece's hunky-dumb boyfriend. It's apparent that Sadie is feeling her youth slip away. You get the impression that Sadie's teen years probably weren't great. She's eager to return to that time, to get a re-do on a fraught period of her life. This is an impulse I think most of us can relate to, wanting a chance to return to our younger days with the knowledge we have now. Sadie, of course, takes things too far.

One of the best moves “Kindred Spirits” makes is slowly revealing exactly how crazy Sadie is. At first, she seems simply eccentric, perhaps a bit manic. As her lies and fantasies start to pile up, it's becomes apparent how disconnected Sadie is from reality. The film peppers in vague allusions to her past, never making it totally clear, leaving us unprepared for what's to come. She crosses boundaries with ease, assuming another persona with ease. It's an unsettling to watch, especially once Sadie starts to put herself and others in danger. A moment involving a kitchen counter is especially effective. “Kindred Spirits” does a good job of drawing the audience in and continuously surprising us with each new, unhinged reveal.

“Kindred Spirits” isn't just a “Single White Female”-style story of a lonely psychopath lashing out when her world starts to crumble. Watching Sadie degrade into a killer, hurting the people she ostensibly loves, is engrossing because time is invested in making the characters real. "Kindred Spirits" is especially good at creating a lived-in, lovable sort of feminine bonding. When Sadie is having a bad day, Chloe's anecdote for the blues is junk food and junk television. We are greeted to an adorable scene of the sisters reclining on the couch and watching trashy reality shows. When Sadie and Nicole hang out, we are treated to similarly adorable moments of them bonding. McKee and co-writer Chris Sivertson successfully capture a very specific, and specifically feminine, type of togetherness.

Even though “Kindred Spirits” belongs soundly to the “thriller” side of the horror/thriller equation, Lucky McKee is still a Fangoria fan at heart. He knows when and how to deliver the gross-outs. And “Kindred Spirits” contains a good one. The film doesn't stop with a shovel smashed over someone's head. The metaphor of Sadie's perfect fantasy world being crushed becomes rather literal, as someone goes head first into the dollhouse. McKee doesn't stop there, as he follows that up with debris being picked out of a brain. It's pretty sick, continuing the filmmaker's talent for squirm-inducing gore effects. McKee has always been good at creating novel violence, finding ways to make the internal external in inventively graphic ways.

McKee hasn't just always shown a knack for creating good stories for women. He's also always found strong female performers. Caitlin Stasey, previously of “All Cheerleaders Die,” is excellent as Sadie. While not doing a great job of disguising her Australian accent, Stasey manages to make a complex, nuanced character. Sadie isn't a two-dimensional psychopath. She's someone with a sad inner-life, driven to do crimes out of loneliness and a need to belong. She also projects a certain vulnerability, making it clear why she can lure people into an assailable state. Sasha Frolova is similarly good as Nicole. Nichole is struggling with typical teenage problems, testing boundaries with her mother and other authority figures. Frolova has a natural charisma that attracts the viewer's eye, making you want to follow her and her character on this journey.

The only marquee name in “Kindred Spirits” is Thora Birch, as Chloe. Birch, who certainly has first-hand experience with messed-up families, plays Chloe as a single mom struggling to make ends' meet. Her daughter's trouble distresses her greatly, as much because she fears her child is drifting away from her as for her problems at school. Birch is convincing and likable, making Chloe fully-formed even if she probably has the least interesting role in the film. Macon Blair, best known for appearing in Jeremy Saulnier's films, also shows up as Chloe's boyfriend. Blair is amusingly avuncular, as a normal guy who doesn't realize the trouble he's getting into until it's much too late.

Throughout his career, Lucky McKee has maintained certain visual quirks. Such as a strong use of color. This continues in “Kindred Spirits.” In one particularly note-worthy moment, red lights shine through a predominately blue colored room. In general, “Kindred Spirits” is a nice looking movie. Largely shot on interior sets, McKee creates a real intimate feeling throughout most of the film. I've always found McKee's movies to have a lush feeling, creating something beautiful out of every day settings. The film also has a lovely and evocative score from Joe Kraemer, which adds a wonderfully personal feeling to much of the story.

Other times, however, “Kindred Spirits” feels exactly like the low-budget production it is. More than once, the movie employs disappointing visual tricks. Like slow-motion addled montages, which occur several times. This is really noticeable in several flashback sequences, which have that cliched flashback style glow to them. While McKee makes excellent use of color in some scenes, other sequences look somewhat washed-out and plain. The film's various flaws become truly apparent in the last act, where the climax is somewhat visually muddled and even includes some awkward editing around a throat slicing.

On the festival circuits, more than one reviewer compared “Kindred Spirits” to a Lifetime Movie. I can't say I watch a lot of Lifetime Channel movies but I think I understand what they mean. The film features many scenes of relationship melodrama, especially once Sadie starts to play Nicole and her friends against each other by reviewing secrets. Teen girls and adult women getting upset because private business is being aired seems to fit the stereotype of “women's television.” (I don't think most Lifetime movies, however, feature heads getting smashed open. But I could be wrong!) 

Perhaps fittingly enough, “Kindred Spirits” actually would make its debut on the Lifetime Channel, with a surprise premiere during last October. This was a surprise even to Lucky, who was not made aware of the television screening until a few hours before it happened. “Kindred Spirits'” proper debut would happen on video-on-demand a few months later. Considering the film's release would receive almost no advertising, the showing on Lifetime probably exposed the movie to a far wider audience than it otherwise might've received. (Though I do have to wonder what that network's regular viewers thought of this one.) If “Kindred Spirits” attracts the same cult following as McKee's earlier films, I don't know. However, I suspect it will. It's a nicely acted and amusingly twisted riff on the themes McKee has been working with his entire career. [Grade: B+]

INTERVIEW: Lucky McKee Talks About His Career and His New Film, “Kindred Spirits”

Anyone who has been following “Film Thoughts” for any amount of time knows I'm a big fan and longtime supporter of Lucky McKee, the filmmaker behind such deranged classics of indie horror as “May” and “The Woman.” They are films I've written about extensively, recently even, and I'm constantly recommending them to friends.

Lucky's latest film, “Kindred Spirits,” recently became available on video-on-demand and digital rental. McKee has been doing a lot of guerrilla marketing for the film through his Twitter account. When he asked if anyone was interested in giving the movie some free press, I immediately jumped at the chance to interview a writer and director I've greatly admired for over a decade at this point. Soon enough, we were chatting about his career, his frequent collaborators, rumors, and how “Kindred Spirits” came about.

I've never done an interview of someone whose work means so much to me before, so I was both elated and extremely nervous to be talking to Mr. McKee. I don't know if I avoided coming off like a nerd or a weirdo but hopefully this interview will get a few more people to check out “Kindred Spirits.”

Zack: Wow, it's very exciting to be talking to you. I'm a huge fan.

Lucky McKee: Awww. Thanks for saying that.

Z: Let's start with something I've been curious about for years... I believe on the audio commentary for MAY, you mention an earlier short film that touched on some of the same themes you explored later on, about an angry doll attacking a man. (I want to say the title was "Fracture") I've often wondered if this still exist in any form.

LM: A black and white Hi8 short called FRACTURE was indeed the first iteration of the MAY story. I still have it! Been thinking of putting out a collection of weird shorts I’ve made over the years. Also, the short where a doll attacks bites my friend Ben Boyer’s dick off is a whole different short!

Z: That would be amazing! I've often hoped one of the boutique cult movie labels - Arrow or Scream Factory or the like - would give MAY the special edition Blu-Ray release it deserves, I know there was a lot of behind-the-scenes footage on Youtube and other sites like that at one point in time. Do you know if anything like that has ever been attempted?

LM: The little bits of footage that were on YouTube are the tip of a massive iceberg. I have maybe 50 or 60 hours of BTS footage from that whole experience! I’d love to make something happen with it someday but haven’t had the right opportunity.

Z: MAY is so clearly a deeply personal film. It certainly touched me in a very personal way when I first saw it as an incredibly socially awkward teenager. Did MAY's themes of isolation and alienation grow out of personal struggles of your own?

LM: Well, it was written by an incredibly socially awkward college kid so that tracks! To answer you second question, absolutely 100% yes.

Z: It's still an all-time favorite film of mine. I actually re-watched it this past October and still discover new details I've never noticed before. Polly's line about imperfections making people special seems to be a key moment, that directly connects with May later plucking out her own eye to bring Amy to life. As someone who has struggled with OCD and perfectionism, the film struck me more than ever as a story about self-acceptance. Is the ending to be read as tragic or hopeful?

LM: Polly’s line is for sure a key moment. Isn’t Anna great in that part? As far as the ending, how the ending is read depends on the viewer. Ideally they feel different about it each time they watch it.

Z: Yeah, Anna is great, a very underrated dramatic performer.

Z: I do have some questions about the original ALL CHEERLEADERS DIE. Obviously, you and Chris Sivertson have a long working relationship, from that first film up through KINDRED SPIRITS. How did you two first meet and what is your process like?

LM: Chris and I were neighbors on the dorm floor our freshman year at USC. We became fast friends and have been making movies together ever since our late teenage years. We learned how to make movies together and share a strange sense of humor. It’s always a blast working with him. He’s one of the funniest, sharpest people I’ve ever know. A true brother.

Z: Presumably ALL CHEERLEADERS DIE grew out of these early films you two made together? When was the decision made to create a bigger budget remake?

LM: Making the first CHEERLEADERS a year after graduating film school was our way of teaching ourselves how to make a feature film from soup to nuts. We shared all duties, from producing, to writing, directing, camera, sound, and editing. A full meal of an experience. It was a great way to make a first film with a partner like that. We learned twice as much by sharing that experience. After that we were able to kickstart our solo careers and years later decided to revisit the core idea of ALL CHEERLEADERS DIE and reimagine it using whatever we’d learned from our first decade of making movies. It’s cool to see the contrast between the two versions. It was also important to me personally at that point in time to work on something light and fun after living in the dark world of THE WOMAN for the two previous years.

Z: Speaking of THE WOMAN. The great Jack Ketchum was another frequent collaborator of your's. Was THE WOMAN conceived as a novel or a screenplay first?

LM: It started out with me pitching a sequel to the producer of the OFFSPRING film. I pitched it to Ketchum around the same time and we decided to write both the book and the screenplay together. It was all part of a wonderful collaborative run we had together for many years.

Z: Obviously your partnership with Ketchum was a fruitful one, as you went on to write two more novels together. What was the collaborative process like with Jack? How did you two split the writing duties? How much of "I'm Not Sam" and "The Secret Life of Souls" was "your's" or "his?"

LM: Ketchum and I worked remotely. Phone, email, instant messenger. Occasionally we'd be lucky enough to hang out in person, but we are both homebodies with our writing work so we were usually communicating from our respective caves. We would hash the broad strokes of a story out together, then one of us would go off an write pages. If I was writing the first draft pages, it would be in screenplay form, if he was writing first draft pages, it would be prose. We gave each other notes, rewrote each other. It was such a smooth collaboration. I cherish the time I had working with him. He was an amazing thinker, mentor and friend. I am still working to get everything we wrote together made into films. I miss him every day.

Z: I'm sure you get asked this a lot but... What exactly happened with RED?

LM: The production ran out of money halfway through the shoot. I disagreed on how to correct the problem and get the film finished. Ultimately I was replaced. It was a crushing experience that almost made me quit the movie business for good. Thankfully, THE WOMAN rose from the ashes of that clusterfuck.

Let me be clear though... RED falling apart for me was as much my fault as anyone else. I didn't see it that way at the time, but I see it that way now. Hubris did me in, but I learned some valuable lessons.

Z: Another project of your's that there doesn't seem to be much behind-the-scenes information on is BLOOD MONEY. How did you get involved with that and how much input did you have on Jared Butler and Lars Norberg's screenplay?

LM: BLOOD MONEY was a director-for-hire job that kept the lights on when I really needed it. I rewrote the script a zillion times in the year and a half leading up to the shoot. I loved working with the three lead kids. Willa Fitzgerald is so damned special. It's a shame the final film doesn't honor her hard work. With that film, I did the best I could with the resources, moral support and creative control that were not provided.

Z: I think that one is pretty good, a solid thriller. I definitely feel the “Lucky McKee sensibility” inside it.

Jumping back in time a little: I love your “Masters of Horror” episode. Was it intimidating being listed as a “master” alongside some of the most well-known and beloved directors of the genre? And did you ever attend any of the legendary dinner parties the series spawned from?

LM: It was quite an honor. It was supremely intimidating to be invited but that just made me work harder. The work of all those veteran directors was such a huge part of what made me want to make movies in the first place. It was surreal to be apart of that experience. Another bonus with my episode is that many of my good old friends were allowed to contribute. I turned 30 as were finishing up the sound design in Vancouver. I felt like I had pulled off some sort of trick and fooled everyone. Major feelings of impostor syndrome.

I went to many of those dinners. My friendship with Tobe Hooper was crystallized at those get togethers. We became such good friends. He was a wonderful mentor to me. I miss our long, crazy, enlightening talks.

An early TOOLBOX MURDERS poster possibly featuring Lucky's face.

Z: There’s a rumor you were originally going to play the killer in Tobe’s TOOLBOX MURDERS remake. Is that true?

LM: Yes. We did make-up and camera tests, it was all set to happen and then my movie THE WOODS was greenlit and I had to back out. I wish it would have panned out! A lot of my crew from MAY worked on that film.

Z: While we are on the topic of rumors, here's two others I was wondering if you could confirm or bust. At different points, you were supposedly attached to a remake of FIEND WITHOUT A FACE and an adaptation of Brian Harper's novel SHIVER. Any truth to that and, if so, why did those projects never get made?

LM: I worked on FIEND with Adam Gierasch and Jace Anderson (the writers of TOOLBOX) for a brief period. I think my take was a little too outlandish for folks to get their heads wrapped around. I wrote a little treatment, but nothing ever happened with it.

I was attached to SHIVER for quite some time, but ultimately parted ways over creative differences. The film was eventually made but I haven't seen it. I was really into Richard Fleischer's great serial killer movies at the time so the hope was to make something of that ilk. Just didn't work out. It's too bad it would have been fun to make that type of film.

Z: Something I've always admired about your films is that almost all of them revolve around female protagonists. This continues in KINDRED SPIRITS, your latest exploration of the secrets and intimacy of sisterhood. Do you find women easier to write than men? Where do you find such insight into the feminine mind?

LM: Any character I write is going to have little fragments of me buried in them. It doesn't matter what gender they are. I always work with actors on a heart to heart basis. We almost never rehearse, we mostly talk about why a character is saying or doing what they do. We ask each other tough, challenging questions and just explore the given subject matter together. It can be a very rewarding, intimate, enlightening process if the actor is game.

Z: How much do you storyboard? There's a real visual preciseness to your films - seen in the dreamy asides of MAY, the spooky witch sequences in THE WOODS, and now in KINDRED SPIRITS - that I've always been keen on.

LM: Some films I storyboard more than others. There is always a shot list. On the kind of budgets I usually work with I have to be flexible and adapt to the given situation so a lot of times I only get about 60-70% of what I initially hope to do. I feel like I shoot in a pretty old fashioned sort of way, but try to push myself where I can.

Z: There's always been an element of dark comedy and interpersonal drama in your films and KINDRED SPIRITS sees that moving towards the forefront, in that it's less of a horror film than some fans may expect. Was this an intentional move or where you just following your muse where it took you?

LM: I simply responded to Chris's script. As I said before, we share very specific mutual sense of humor and I just felt like I "got it". My year was coming to a close and the opportunity to make the film came along and I just jumped on it. It was good group of people to work with. We had very little time to shoot (15 days) and very little resources (well under a half million budget), but I feel like we did what we set out to do which was to make the type of pulpy character driven thrillers the studios used to make in the late 80's/early 90's.

Z: The film made its surprise debut on Lifetime last October, which is rather ironic considering more than one review described it as an especially dark Lifetime movie. How did that debut come about?

LM: The company I made the film for makes a lot of low budget movies for Lifetime, so I always knew that possibility was in play. No one thought to tell me it was going to air. My producer just happened to find out with a random internet search shortly before it played. I think it's super cool that my work was seen by a whole new type of audience. There's a huge fanbase there and, if you take a step back an think about it, my sort of work pretty much fits it like a glove.

Z: Before we wrap up, I am curious: What is next for you? I know you have a segment in the to-be-released DEATHCEMBER.

LM: Yes. The next piece of work to be released is my anthology segment in DEATHCEMBER. I made an odd little black and white western short! It was super fun to work with Sean Bridgers again and his co-lead Justin Stone is magnificent. Very proud of that one. Excited for folks to see it.

Z: A black-and-white Christmas themed horror/western? That sounds amazing!

Thank you so much for talking to me, Lucky! It really means a lot that you took the time to do this interview. I've been a fan and champion of your films from the beginning, so getting to talk to you has been a real treat.

LM: No problem man. My pleasure. Thanks so much for helping spread the word!!!

Director Report Card: Lucky McKee (2017)

7. Blood Money

Over the years, I've sung the praises of Lucky McKee quite a bit. “May” is one of my favorite movies and I recommend it whenever possible. “The Woman” is a brutal, powerful piece of subversive horror. I've even grown to like “The Woods” over the years, despite its flaws. But the director's last few films have disappointed me. McKee's remake of his own “All Cheerleaders Die” tried to do too many things. His “Tales of Halloween” segment struck me as forced. When it was announced that his next movie would be a direct-to-video thriller starring John Cusack, I didn't get my expectations up very high. “Blood Money” is still not McKee operating at maximum power but, let's give credit where credit is due, it was better than I expected.

Every year, three friends meet in the woods to go rafting, hiking, and camping. Lynn, Victor and Jeff have been friends since high school. Lynn and Victor had a romance many years ago, which Vic still has regrets about. Now Jeff and Lynn have begun dating, which they're attempting to keep a secret from their third friend. Meanwhile, pilot Miller has stolen several million dollars from his airline. After a parachute-assisted escape, his bags of cash have disappeared in the woods. The trio of friends discover the bags, Lynn deciding to take them for herself. But Miller is soon on their trail.

Another reason while I had muted expectations for “Blood Money” was because of its generic title. Though a slight step-up from the film's working title - “Misfortune” – it's still not a very unique name. There's been at least one other movie released this year with the same title. The premise is hardly anything new as well. It's derivative of “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre,” “A Simple Plan,” and probably several other films. For extra measure, screenwriters Jared Butler and Lars Norberg season in a little “Deliverance.” The hiking-trip-goes-wrong, rafting scenes, and the role of a hunting rifle seem to purposely recall John Boorman's classic.

My big concern about “Blood Money” is that too much of the film would be devoted to one of my least favorite horror/thriller cliches: Jerks bickering in the woods. And, indeed, the movie has its share of that. The bitterness between Lynn, Victor and Jeff's friendship begins to simmer to the surface almost immediately. Before even finding the money, they are arguing. They argue about the romances in their past and in their present. After the cash is discovered, the three quickly begin fighting about what to do with it, whether to keep it or leave it or go to the cops. None of this stuff is especially compelling and “Blood Money's” desire to feature so much of it is its biggest flaw.

Nearly all of Lucky McKee's films have featured female protagonists. The inner lives of women is clearly a topic of interest for him. “Bloody Money” is mostly an ensemble film but Willa Fitzgerald's Lynn emerges as the strongest personality. She's a woman at the center of a love triangle and she does not care for this at all. As the film progresses, she becomes more and more aggravated with her male cohorts. She tells Vic that she preferred their friendship before she entered puberty. Before he only saw her as a potential sexual conquest. She is fed up with men fighting over her, considering her an object to be won. This is a surprisingly sharp perspective for the movie to take, a refutation of various “nice guy” philosophies.

As interesting as this dynamic is, “Blood Money” still treats Lynn as more-or-less the story's villain. She is the one who insists on keeping the money. She wants to pay off her college tuition, after loosing a scholarship because of a bad knee. However, her true motivation – simple greed – soon reveals itself. As the film goes on, Lynn becomes a bigger threat to her friends than Miller. Willa Fitzgerald starts out playing the character as a girl taken apart by her concerns. As her mad greed takes over, Fitzgerald turns Lynn into an evil bitch beyond redemption. I wonder how much of this was McKee's work and how much came from the screenwriters. I can imagine McKee inserting more depth into the evil women character.

Further boosting Lynn, suggesting she's meant to be sympathetic, is how doofy her two suitors are. “Boyhood's” Ellar Coltrane co-stars as Victor. Coltrane plays Vic as a constant sad sack. He's clearly possessive of his ex-girlfriend, resents her new boyfriend, and proceeds to mope about it. Vic's big plan to win her back – buying himself and Lynn matching monogramed knives – is the most blatant example of his foolish personality. Jacob Artist as Jeff isn't any sillier. He's responsible for loosing half of the money. His insistence on rafting home through a certain path nearly gets the three caught. By the end, he's been reduced to a weeping baby. Both actors give decent performances, trying to breath some life into the thin characters.

The marquee name in “Blood Money” is John Cusack. The film is the latest in a long line of direct-to-digital, low budget titles Cusack has lent his name to. The actor has clearly entered the Nicolas Cage portion of his career. Despite this, Cusack is having fun in “Blood Money.” He brings a lot of humor to the part. He has several sarcastic one-liners. Miller's villainous determination ends up playing more as comedic exasperation, not unlike Cusack's more famous turn in “Grosse Point Blank.” (Which is slyly referenced in dialogue.) He's not a wicked villain, just a regular guy with really loose morals. Cusack ends up elevating the film quite a bit.

Aside from “Red,” which was finished by another director, “Blood Money” is McKee's first effort outside the horror genre. Though just barely. The thriller premise – of a determined hunter chasing after his victims – isn't totally dissimilar to a slasher movie. Moreover, McKee's treatment of violence remains very intense. An early moment, where a man trips and smashes his head onto a rock, is cringe inducing. Later, a bullet to the head produces a startling amount of blood. Yet sometimes human bodies are surprisingly resilient  Later, one of the trio is grazed in the head by a bullet, bleeding profusely but not dying. The director clearly still has a talent for creative carnage.

“Blood Money,” for the most part, looks and feels like a Lucky McKee movie. It's hard to pin down but something about the general appearance of the film, from its opening shots of cascading countryside to more intimate moments inside a tent, seems abreast with his earlier films. McKee incorporates a few cool shots, from the perspective of Cusack's rifle. Sadly, there's several moment of hard-to-follow, shaky-cam direction in the movie. I hope that was a second unit's fault or something. There's nothing matching the beauty of “May” but “Blood Money” is a generally alright looking movie.

As a thriller, “Blood Money” produces an occasional moment that's thrilling or kind of neat. The way Cusack's killer turns from casual to predatory, once he realizes Victor has some of the money, is a solid sequence. The chase that follows builds some minor intensity. In its last act, “Blood Money” shifts location to an underground tunnel. This is an atmospheric setting for the long chase scene that comprises “Blood Money's” last act. In particular, a tangled mess of branches leads to probably my favorite scene in the film, when a body is tugged by two people between the branches.

“Blood Money” also moves along at a decent pace. The film runs under ninety minutes. It doesn't take long to get going. Once the movie starts, “Blood Money” remains speedy. After the story wraps up, the movie ends immediately, not bothering with any long-winded resolution. McKee's long time collaborator, Zach Passero, handles the editing. Which might explain why this feels so much like a Lucky McKee movie. The script is clearly pulpy but the director makes sure it doesn't overstate its welcome.

“Blood Money” has another distinction. It's one of the better Saban Film releases I've seen. The House the Power Rangers Built has recently distinguished themselves as the distribution company of choice for low budget, low expectations, straight-to-digital action flicks. Perhaps the bar being set so low is why my impression of “Blood Money” is more positive than expected. This is destined to be one of McKee's forgotten films. I'm not even sure it's a good movie, per say. However, it's mildly entertaining and functions fairly smoothly. When it's 2017 and your movie stars John Cusack, that's really the most you can ask for. [Grade: B-]

Director Report Card: Lucky McKee (2014)

6. All Cheerleaders Die 
Co-directed with Chris Sivertson

“May” was the break-out film for Lucky McKee and the foundation for the director’s loyal and growing cult following. This is good because “May” is brilliant. However, true McKee fanatics know that it wasn’t his first feature-length film. That honor falls to oddball, micro-budget zombie riff “All Cheerleaders Die.” Co-directed by McKee’s buddy Chris Sivertson, whose promising career was unfairly jackknifed by that Lindsay Lohan stripper movie, the original “All Cheerleaders Die” is fun but not much more than a goofy, extended in-joke. For followers of the director though, it’s fascinating. Even that early in his career, the themes that would reoccur throughout all of McKee’s films were present. So when news trickled out that Lucky and Chris, wiser and more disciplined now, were reuniting to direct a new version of “All Cheerleaders Die,” I got excited. Excited enough that the film topped my list of most anticipated films this year. This is before the middling reviews started to roll in. Actually sitting down to watch the newest version of “All Cheerleaders Die,” I kept my expectations measured.

For a low budget horror movie that’s a remake of a lower budget horror movie, “All Cheerleaders Die” has a surprisingly complicated plot. The film begins with obnoxious cheerleader stereotype Alexis dying in a brutal accident, all caught on-film by her childhood best friend and would-be cheerleader Maddie. A year later, Maddie integrates herself into the cheer team, planning to take revenge on the insincere cheer bitches. Instead, she becomes genuine friends of the other girls and even starts a budding lesbian romance with cheer captain Tracy, much to the chagrin of Maddie’s wiccan ex-girlfriend Leena. After getting the squad to collectively turn on the football players, especially the overly macho leader Terry, all four girls get run off a cliff. Using crystal-driven witchcraft, Leena resurrects all four cheerleaders as blood-sucking revenants. Magical mistakes and bloody vengeance, wrecked by both genders, follows.

As a remake, “All Cheerleaders Die” is actually fairly successful. The original revolved around the cheerleaders and the football players taking a retreat into the woods and playing a game of “boys vs. girls” that soon turned deadly. The only female survivor of the massacre, a foreign exchange study with magical powers, returns a decade later during the high school reunion to revive her fallen comrades as vicious zombies, who tear apart their killers in bloody ways. The remake, smartly, rejects the time jump, which was one of the original film’s biggest problems. The football players facing off against the cheerleaders is maintained but only as a thematic concept. The witchy exchange student becomes a witchy outcast, which probably makes more sense. Many of the character names are reused and one of the original’s nastiest gore gags, involving a bear trap, is ramped up to include four bear traps. 2014’s “All Cheerleaders Die” is certainly bigger than its predecessor.

But at what cost? The tilt-a-whirl tone of “All Cheerleaders Die” is established early on with its opening scene. The film begins with a barrage of obnoxious rap music and shaky hand-held camera work. Alexis introduces herself in as hateful a manner as possible. She insults a zit-covered outsider, displays an anti-intellectual attitude, dresses in revealing clothes to distract her teachers, and is an all-around queen bee super bitch. When the opening scene ends with her taking a head-first swan dive into the football field, sickening cracking sound included, I was revealed. Thank God we won’t be spending the whole movie with this character, I thought. Obviously, McKee and Siverston are making a statement with this opening, that “All Cheerleaders Die” is a movie that won’t tolerate mean girl bullshit. Yet a first scene this off-putting is likely to send audience members fleeing.

It takes time for the viewer to ease into the film. We are introduced to enough characters in a short enough time span that the audience is thrown off. Blonde Tracy has inherited Alexis’ queen bitch position as cheer captain, as well as her star jock boyfriend Terry. Maddie’s motivation, joining the cheer team with the intention of ruining Tracy and Terry’s senior year, is established early but doesn’t inform most of her actions. Sisters Martha and Hanna are reduced to broad stereotypes. Martha is a devout Christian, an attribute we don’t hear about until Terry mocks her for it. Hanna, meanwhile, is the school mascot and always in her big sister’s shadow. Leena floats along the edge of the story, cradling a dead cat, until she becomes important at the half-hour point. With so much going on, the film doesn’t have time to even give the football players broad stereotypes. “All Cheerleaders Die” is jam-packed with stuff and, considering its 89 minute run-time, doesn’t have time to explore it all.

All of this is before the supernatural juju is activated. After bringing the girls back from the dead, the movie throws in even more weird shit. Hanna and Martha switch bodies, the shy little sister now in her hotter older sister’s body. She immediately takes advantage of this by jumping the bones of Martha’s patient boyfriend. The original “All Cheerleaders Die” featured an incredibly awkward sex scene. The bathroom-set fucking session featured here is nearly as badly framed, including an obvious body double shot. For vaguely defined reasons, the five girls share intense emotions. So when Martha gets off, they all get off, no matter how inconvenient it might be. The shared consciousness subplot comes up a few times and never feels like more than a contrived plot device. The girls are resurrected by magical stones, still embedded in their bodies, that glow when intense emotion is felt. Surely there would have been a less clichéd way to show that the five zombie cheerleaders share a connection.

Which isn’t to say that “All Cheerleaders Die” doesn’t feature some agreeably gonzo humor. Upon being resurrected, Tracy turns her nose up at Leena’s goat milk and seeks subsistence across the street with her sleazy neighbor. This leads to the zombie squad claiming their first victim. One of the most inexplicable sequences in the film has Tracy joining the high school’s resident stoner in his pot van. The two get high together which, combined with Martha/Hanna’s magically shared orgasm, causes Tracy’s stone to exit her head, fly across the van, and bullet itself through the stoner’s brain. It doesn’t make a lick of sense but provided a refreshing amount of “what-the-fuck” for this viewer. The sister swapping subplot, though totally unnecessary, leads to a few laughs as well. When Martha-in-Hanna’s body confronts her boyfriend about sleeping with Hanna-in-Martha’s body, the boy’s genuine confusion produces a chuckle or two. The last act escalates in such ridiculous ways that the viewer might find himself laughing in disbelief that the movie chooses to go there.

Calling “All Cheerleaders Die” a horror-comedy is a correct assessment. The movie freely mixes morbid plot points and blood and gore with surreal laughs. Except when it doesn’t. The first half-hour follows the expected plot beats of a high school drama, with bitchy betrayals and budding romances. The big car crash that follows is a grim moment of horror, showing how easily cruel sexism is supported by the high school system. The screw turns again the next day, with the film completing its transition into out-there horror/comedy. In the depth of the last act, the film attempts serious horror again. We discover how deep Terry’s villainous streak goes and a horrifying memory from Maddy’s past is revealed. The bluntness of the reveal is near tasteless and the way the film goes back to its high-strung genre shenanigans left this watcher with tonal whiplash. Lucky McKee is a smart guy and has pulled off successful genre mash-ups before. I can only assume he did this on purpose.

That last act proves especially problematic. I’m uncertain how to feel about Tom Williamson as Terry Stankus. As a misogynistic high school jock, he’s most effective, casually dismissing the women in his life and not pausing to use violence. Even after committing murder, he remains steadfast in his casual sexism. However, upon discovering the girls’ secret, Terry becomes a full-fledged supervillain. That’s not an exaggeration either, as a last-minute plot twist has him gaining genuine super powers. Just as the audience is becoming invested in the cast members, Terry slashes through the girls with a knife worthy of Michael Myers while throwing out lame one-liners. The resolution of the plot involves another character discovering mind-blowing magical abilities. After building him up as a serious villain, Terry is bluntly disposed of.

Nearly all of Lucky McKee’s films are characterized by themes of gender relations. “All Cheerleaders Die,” for its myriad of flaws, doesn’t back away on that. The villain is an unrepentant sexist and he attempts to drag his cohorts down into the same venomous mindset. This is best displayed when Tracy confronts Terry about his disgusting attitudes, causing the jock to strike his (soon-to-be-ex)girlfriend. The movie also boldly features three lesbian, or at least bisexual, characters. McKee has featured lesbian romances in enough of his films that you could makes accusations of him fetishizing it. Yet he always cooks up organic reasons to feature girl-on-girl love. The romance that develops between Maddy and Tracy, and the feelings still lingering between Leena and Maddy, are some of the more natural parts of “All Cheerleaders Die.”

The movie is also a proud member of the high school horror sub-genre. A less squirrely film probably would have focused more on how Maddy, formally an outcast, infiltrates the cheerleading squad so easily. Here, it only makes up one or two scenes before the film has to move on to other business. One of the sharper critiques comes when Terry, newly freed of his girlfriend, decides to manipulate his way into some freshman girls’ panties. Maddy appears and quickly defuses his attempted seduction. Once again, the movie has to get to more things before this plot point can develop any breathing room. “All Cheerleaders Die,” had it been more focused, could have been a biting horror-satire about cliques and social ladder climbing, a horror-riff on “Heathers” if you will.

There are other minor complaints too. The film is full of overly obvious musical cues which has, admittedly, always been something of a problem with McKee. Even the musical score, which blatantly quotes “Rosemary’s Baby,” isn’t free from this problem. The film also lacks much of the visual sense McKee has displayed in his previous films. The colors are muted and, save from one surprisingly frank lesbian encounter, the film’s direction is lacking in energy and intimacy.

The cast is a mixed bag as well. Brooke Butler gives probably my favorite performance in the film. Tracy starts out as a typically vaporous blonde. As the film goes on, she reveals a vulnerable and honest soul. After coming back from the dead, she even displays an upbeat, chipper attitude, which wrings laughs out of the highly uneven material. Sianoa Smit-McPhee is also decent as the gothy Leena. She certainly has no problem playing quirky. Reanin Johannink and Amanda Grace Cooper both show off some decent comedic chops. Tom Williamson can’t make Stankus’ last minute shift into cartoonish super-villainy work but, before that, he’s perfectly convincing as a sexist d-bag. Sadly, the film centers itself around one of its weaker performance. Caitlin Stasey is never convincing as a high school outcast. The character’s revenge quest plays such a small role in the final product that, even if the actress could have made it work, I doubt it would have had much effect on the viewer. Stasey is, basically, another bland leading lady.

“All Cheerleaders Die” doesn’t know what type of movie it wants to be. It’s an outrageous horror comedy, an indictment of male entitlement, a roasting of high school bullying, and a big-and-bloody genre exercise. Unlike McKee’s best films, he can’t balance these ideas into a coherent whole, producing a jittery, highly uneven final film. Maybe the addition of Chris Sivertson threw the equation off. The movie ends on an unpromising sequel hook. Hopefully, that’s only a joke, as I imagine McKee’s time would be better served on a different project than “All Cheerleaders Die II: Cheer Harder.” [Grade: C]

Director Report Card: Lucky McKee (2011)

5. The Woman (2011)
As a huge fan of Lucky McKee and someone who generally enjoys the work of Jack Ketchum, I was eagerly anticipating their latest partnership. It’s a true collaboration too. McKee’s screenplay for “The Woman” and Ketchum’s novel were written at the same time and the two manuscripts influenced one another. Despite having not read the books “Off Season” and “Offspring,” nor seen the latter novel’s film adaptation, I considered myself familiar enough with both director and author to know what to expect.

But I sure didn’t expect this. “The Woman” is the most brutally horrifying film I’ve seen this year and maybe in years. It’s not an exploitation movie, but rather a movie about exploitation. McKee combines his feminist angle with Ketchum’s trademark brutality. Ketchum often writes about violent sociopaths barely concealing their psychopathy under a smile of civility. That concept is presented in a story about a dysfunctional family barely held together by fear and a tyrannical patriarch. McKee then injects the whole thing with his themes of how twisted masculinity has subjected, objectified, controlled, and abused women throughout the decades. The movie would almost play like a perverse satire if the horror wasn’t presented in uncompromising, sickeningly tense detail. The movie isn’t subtle, but sometimes subtly isn’t necessary.

McKee continues to suppress and refine his style as a director. As far as stylistic excesses go, the movie peaks in the opening minutes, in which it shows the ferocity of the titular Woman visually. Lucky refrains from the colorful flourishes of “May” and “The Woods,” instead recording most of the movie with a blunt, matter-of-factness. After that brief prologue, the movie settles in on its family.

Father Chris smiles and nods, seeming much too content and happy with his life, as if he’s working overtime to exude a sense of normality. He has a passive-aggressive, vaguely predatory tone with everyone in his life, from his neighbors to his secretary to, especially, his family. Wife Belle is obviously tightly-wound, a nervous wreck barely holding her self together. Teenage daughter Peggy is depressed, failing in school, dressing frumpily, and avoiding her social life. Son Brian shows affection for a girl in his class by sticking gum in her hairbrush. Even the otherwise normal youngest daughter Darlin seems blindly happy.

Obviously there is something very wrong with this family even before the father sees the untamed Woman in the woods. He is smitten with her immediately. (The movie illustrates this by playing a rock song over the first sighting, an admittedly heavy-handed moment. The movie generally leans on its soundtrack a bit too much.) By her nonchalant sexuality? Or by the opportunity to build his own girl from the ground-up, without any of society’s built-in attitudes? Dad captures the Woman, takes her back to his home, ties her up in his tool shed, and goes about his plan of “civilizing” the cannibalistic female. He involves his wife and children in this endeavor right from the beginning, having the kids treat this human being little better then a pet.

The Woman soon goes on to acerbate the all ready tense family situation. Her wildness seems to inject a dose of chaotic imbalance to the sterile family life. It’s not her anarchic, untamed femininity but her ability to read people with a glance, to know what they’re feeling and thinking. And why she rarely comes out and says it, just her unblinking glares are enough to pass judgment, to plant the seed of rebellion or guilt. Belle has an opportunity to stop the madness and Peggy’s kind, snooping teacher provides her with an out as well. But neither go for it, so tight is Daddy’s lease, even with the Woman casting confrontational stares from the tool shed.

The movie lays down its cards slowly, building upon the abuse inch-by-inch. Emotional blackmailing and strangulating oppression soon gives way to slaps and then much worse. In keeping with the Jack Ketchum brand, the real monster aren’t the cannibal cave people in the woods, but the smiling Stepford people in the suburbs, using their psychological powers to inflict much worse damage on their victims then a bloody wound. As the story builds, the intensity builds. A fever pitch is reached in the last fifteen minutes, when emotions come out, bounds are broken, and we realized just how much of a monster Chris Cleek really is. The climatic twist is shocking, disturbing, and completely unexpected. In another movie, it might pushes thing too far over the top, but by this point, the viewer is sucked in, dragged along uncontrollably by the movie’s unblinking eye. And then The Woman, locked away like so much boiling rage and fear and suppressed hate, is let loose. Like a lawnmower blade wielding hurricane, she expresses all those hindered emotions physically, viscerally, in a way the suppressed women of the family can not. The final act of the film is horrifying and captivating. You can not look away, no matter how much you’ll want too. And you’ll want too.

The cast is indeed impressive. Pollyanna McIntosh in the title role takes a penetrating glower and runs with it, doing a lot with a little. It’s not hard to imagine why the filmmakers would decide to build an entire movie around her or why the characters would be so obsessed with her. Sean Bridgers embodies the grinning madman of Chris Cleek a little too well. I can’t imagine being in a room with this guy, acting like this. You understand how evil he can be but also why he can be so completely in control of those around him. Angela Bettis puts her slender, fragile form and shaky delivery to good use as the constrained wife. She’s utterly kowtowed and completely reigned in, constantly afraid that anything will set off the monster(s?) in her home. (Until she finally snaps, which is cathartic, but goes about as well as you’d expect.)

If McIntosh isn’t the break-out star of the picture, it’s definitely Lauren Ashley Carter. With her big doe-eyes, cutie-pie lips, and general pixie cuteness, Carter certainly makes you want to protect her. She runs through the cycle of guilt and horror the character requires fantastically. Hopefully, she has a long, successful career before her.

Sadly, not every performance in the film is great. Zack Rand as the son is a little too flat. Perhaps intentionally. But his character is definitely the least defined of the family and, when the script calls on him to do big things later on, it’s the only time the movie feels engineered.

My reaction to “The Woman” was obviously very visceral. I was left disquieted and unnerved by the film. Clearly, I wasn’t the only one to have a strong reaction. But the movie isn’t a misogynistic shock machine like that one viewer believes. It’s a thoughtful treaty on gender relation, abuse, and control. When it’s shocks, it’s for a reason. In a Lucky McKee movie, an eye-gouge is never just an eye-gouge. Horror has always been the genre that sneaks social commentary in under pulp trappings. “The Woman” is a proud continuation of that tradition. It’s Lucky McKee’s best film since his debut, his most effective as a horror film, and an incredibly bold statement in an all-too-often routine genre. [Grade: A]

Director Report Card: Lucky McKee (2006-2008)

3. The Woods
When “The Woods” first came out, I was disappointed. I found the story to be overly vague. I found it lacking in the intense visual style of “May” and generally paling in comparison to that film. Perhaps I was predestined to have a low opinion after such a great debut. That the movie sat on a shelf for over a year certainly didn’t help any preconceived notions.

Re-watching it now a few years removed from my initial anticipation, my view is more positive. “The Woods” still isn’t a great picture but it does manage to bring the creepy several times throughout its runtime. It has often been compared to “Suspiria.” That’s apt. We all ready know Lucky is an Argento fan and the witches/isolated girls school combo is a deliberate reference. More then anything else, it’s the sound design that recalls Dario’s often touted classic. There aren’t any swirling Goblin synth but creepy, whispered voices (provided by none other then Angela Bettis) fill out the background sounds. “Witch!” is even shouted once. The music, with its female crooning, also helps the feel. (Who knew Lesley Gore could be spooky?)

To say that Lucky has lost his style by transferring to a bigger studio was wrong. It’s his style that provides the movie with the atmosphere it has. The shadows of the woods and the school’s hallways give off an unsettling vibe. The music hall, in particular, is awfully moody. The big finale, which also recalls “Suspiria,” proves to be the spookiest bit in the movie as the past, present and some gross gore come at us in quick succession. One of my preliminary issues was the story seemed to have a lot of mysterious things planned but left most of these threads unexplained. Reevaluating now, I find a lot more is explained then I’d realized. All the puzzle pieces are presented and it’s up to the audience to put it together.
When the movie is focusing on creepy shadows and paranoid conspiracies, it’s relatively successful. When the CGI tree monsters start to attack, that’s not so successful. The attack that leads to the climax almost works but the other two tree sequences, in particular the one involving the cop, fall laughably flat.

The cast is solid enough. Agnes Bruckner is a likable lead, Patricia Clarkson underplays a little bit but has a few moments, Lauren Birkell and Rachel Nichols do well in their respective parts of best friend and queen bitch. And Bruce Campbell, god bless him, actually acts this time, expanding pass his Ash persona to play a worried, pushover Daddy, before picking up an axe again at story’s end. It’s one of his best performances.

Ultimately, my biggest problem with “The Woods” remains. Against “May,” a layered, powerful, personal horror picture, “The Woods” seems thin in comparison. It’s an atmospheric dark fairy tale without much more to say beyond a few fun lesbian undertones. (It’s a McKee film, after all.) Good to watch but never a big favorite. [Grade: B]

4. Red (with Trygve Allister Diesen)
“Red” was a very troubled production. Lucky McKee, obviously a big fan of author Jack Ketchum after producing the adaptation of “The Lost,” has been wanting to make the movie for years. Things eventually came together with a great cast and everything seemed to be going well. And then, after more then half of the movie was shot, Lucky was fired. Nobody involved with the decision seems interested in saying why he was let go. Either way, about a year later an unknown Swedish director named Trygve Diesen was brought on to finish up the movie. In the end, both directors were given credit. Nobody has seen anything Diesen has done before this, but he seems confident. You certainly can’t tell that this is the product of two different directors.

I’m a fan of Ketchum and “Red,” despite being a fairly simplistic morality play, is probably my favorite writing of his, out of what I’ve read. The old adage of the movie never being as good as the book proves true but it seems silly to criticize the differences in media. The movie is very faithful, only cutting out a few characters and removing an unnecessary romantic subplot.

The biggest coup here is Brian Cox in the lead. Mr. Cox is a great character actor and too rarely given a lead role. He’s perfectly cast as Avery Ludlow, an old man who has lost a lot in his life and is only asking for those who have cause his pain to own up to it. Cox is quiet and his blue eyes convey a lot of sorrow. Halfway through the movie, Cox delivers a deeply affecting monologue. Instead of cutting to a flashback, the movie wisely decides to focuses in on his face as he tells his sad tale. None of the other characters are as developed as Ludlow but there is still some talent in the cast. Kyle Gallner is the best of the supporting turns, while Tom Sizemore plays his typical asshole part and Robert Englund and Amanda Plummer stop by for cameos. Kim Dickens is good enough but I would have preferred to have seen what Angela Bettis, who was originally cast in the part, could have done with the role.
The direction is low key, lacking some of the stylistic flourish of McKee’s past films, but it goes with the quiet tone. Dogs are a reoccurring symbol here, representing kindness and unconditional love in comparison to the senseless cruelty and ignorance of mankind. I also like the fades to red that are used a few times.

The finale probably should have been more suspenseful. I do love the resolution, which nicely shows how hope springs eternal. “Red” is a quiet and thoughtful production, more of a drama then a thriller, with a great lead performance and some resonating concepts at its center. [Grade: B]

So, what's Lucky been up to recently? Well, he made a short for X-Box Live along with a bunch of other neat directors. I haven't seen it because I don't have a fucking X-Box 360. Beyond that, it's kinda' quiet. He's been linked to both a remake of "Fiend Without a Face" and an adaptation of Brian Harper's novel "Shiver," but nothing's come of those yet. He is supposedly writing something for Chris Sivertson called "Hippy" that was starring Lindsay Lohan at one point. I'm not sure if that's actually getting made. Whatever he does next, I'm probably going to support and watch it. You should too!