Tag Archives: Horror

Review: The Guardian (1990)

DIRECTED BY
William Friedkin

STARRING
Jenny Seagrove – Camilla
Dwier Brown – Phil
Carey Lowell – Kate
Brad Hall – Ned Runcie

GenreFantasy/Horror/Thriller/Supernatural

Running Time93 Minutes

 

Being part of a pretty big family, I never had an outsider as a babysitter. Usually my grandmother would take care of me when my mom was working or out. If not her, usually my aunt and/or cousins would make sure I was okay. So I never had the real ‘babysitter experience‘ as they call it.

But if I did have a babysitter or a nanny, I wouldn’t have minded if she were anything like Camilla from 1990’s cult film by William Friedkin, THE GUARDIAN. I mean, she’s hot, has a sexy accent, and likes to bathe naked outdoors without a care in the world. Sure, she’s some sort of druid who would have probably sacrificed me to a tree guarded by wolves, but I’m sure the risk would have been worth it. Why complain?

Unfortunately, there are some things to complain about THE GUARDIAN itself in terms of its narrative, as well as other things. But hey, it doesn’t star Kevin Costner or Ashton Kutcher! That’s a tree worth growing in Brooklyn, isn’t it?

PLOT
A young couple named Phil (Dwier Brown) and Kate (Carey Lowell) have their first child before moving into their new home. Both wanting to continue their careers, despite the baby’s arrival, they advertise for a nanny. Their first choice mysteriously has a terrible cycling accident, leading to mysterious English hottie, Camilla (Jenny Seagrove), to be hired instead. Camilla moves into their home, which begins some strange things for the couple and their friends. Eventually, we learn that Camilla is some kind of tree spirit or druid that takes nanny jobs in order to find babies and sacrifice them to a tree that’s protected by wolves. Apparently this tree can also heal Camilla as she’s part of it. Can this yuppie couple stop Camilla from sacrificing their child? Or is it worth it just to see her bathe nude in the woods? As a non-parent, I’m pretty torn…

REVIEW
THE GUARDIAN brings back a lot of memories for me. I loved this film back in the early 90s, when my mom would rent it from the video store, or when it would play on a cable station. I always found it to be pretty trippy at times, as well as being content in watching Jenny Seagrove bathe in the middle of the woods nude [helped speed up puberty]. I honestly hadn’t watched this film since, probably, the mid-90s, so it was a treat to feel all nostalgic about THE GUARDIAN. While it isn’t as good as I remembered it, to be honest with you, there’s still something about it that I like even with its many flaws.

The problems for THE GUARDIAN [based on the 1987 Dan Greenburg novel, The Nanny] lie within the narrative. The way the story’s presented sets up why the story should have been better than it actually is. For a thriller to be successful, there should be a sense of mystery and suspense that will keep viewers guessing and watching. The story needs to build up to some huge revelation that will either shock the viewer or keep them satisfied if they figured it out. THE GUARDIAN bombs right out of the gate with this aspect of the narrative. Right from the start, we know that the film is about some sort of tree spirit who babysits infants in order to groom them for some sacrifice to see tree god or something supernatural like that. This is told to us via a title card, which honestly should have been shown to us somewhere within the film. Also, the very first scene before the credits is of Camilla sacrificing a baby to this very tree. Right there, the mystery is given away and there’s nothing to surprise us later on. Does the film suck because of it? No, it’s still watchable. But it would have been more effective watching our lead protagonists, or in this case the more active Phil, to figure this out and have all this revealed from his perspective. Instead, we already know the answers before anyone does. The film still is decently fun, but would have been stronger if we knew less about Camilla from the start.

Also, there’s not much depth to Camilla’s reasoning for what she does. It’s hinted that she was some sort of guardian to this tree and they’re connected physically and mentally. But it’s never really explained why this is even happening. Why is this tree being fed with babies? Does Camilla bring this tree everywhere she goes? Is she even a human being? What about the Druids – what are their roles in all this? We don’t much about anything about the supernatural stuff because it’s never really explored. We can speculate and most likely figure out what’s going on, but it would have been nice if the characters did as well and transferred that information so clueless people could get the message this film is trying to send. The supernatural aspect ends up feeling more superficial rather than deep, even if it’s still interesting nonetheless.

Also feeling superficial are the characters, especially Phil and Kate. They’re likeable, which helps make THE GUARDIAN more than watchable. But we barely know anything about them. Kate is pretty much absent or a non-presence for much of the film, which sort of weakens her marriage to Phil. Phil is the more active of the two, but besides his name and job, there’s not much substance to him. Obviously, he starts having lustful feelings towards Camilla – due to the fact that he probably hasn’t gotten laid in a while due to Kate’s pregnancy, and because Camilla enjoys being naked around him. But nothing really comes of it, so it’s just there because it’s cliche. And Ned was there just to be a victim – nothing more, nothing less. But at least the characters are likeable enough, even if they are stereotypical.

Camilla is at least interesting only because she has actual motivations and does everything in her power to make sure her goals are met. She wants to sacrifice a baby? She’ll pose as a kind nanny in order to get the child she needs. Someone in the way of that? She’ll hurt that bitch in a bicycle accident. You want to rape her? Her tree and her wolf friends will rape you. You follow her and figure out Camilla’s secret? She’ll make you remember the only way a secret stays hidden is if only one person knows about it. You got the hots for her? She’ll make you have wet dreams. Camilla doesn’t play games and will make sure she accomplishes her goals. This character drives the film and keeps it entertaining, regardless of the flaws the narrative has.

THE GUARDIAN has pretty decent special effects. It isn’t a majorly gory film, but it does have some nice stuff for those who love their blood. We get an impalement, skin getting ripped off, some chopped limbs, and even a head bashed in. The tree is pretty bad ass in THE GUARDIAN. It kills those who endanger its mission. In a great scene, it actually caresses Camilla as it heals her wounds. The location of the woods look very fantastical as well, looking beautiful and very creepy at the same time. The practical effects were well done as well. Very good production designs here.

The direction by William Friedkin, best known for his works on THE FRENCH CONNECTION and THE EXORCIST, is pretty great. Originally meant as a Sam Raimi project [would explain the evil tree], Friedkin constantly asked for rewrites in order to feel a connection to the project [which would explain why the narrative isn’t as good as it ought to be]. Even though the script ended up being pretty shallow, the visuals have a ton of depth. There’s a lot of style here, with pretty cool camera movements [very Raimi-like at times], and moments where the film feels really bleak and creepy. In fact, there are some really nice tense and suspenseful moments, especially during the final act of the film. The picture also looked quite nice, and the editing was good. The visuals are probably the best part of THE GUARDIAN. Friedkin has been hit-and-miss during his long career, but THE GUARDIAN is one of his better directed films.

The acting is okay. Jenny Seagrove steals the show in every way as Camilla. Her British accent is very alluring and sexy. She also gives the character an edge and an aura of mystery that gives her quite the presence on screen. Plus she looks great naked. I’m surprised she didn’t become more high profile because she did a bang up job in this flick. Without Seagrove, THE GUARDIAN would fall apart. Dwier Brown is decent as Phil. He doesn’t really get enough time to really shine, but plays his cliche part well. Carey Lowell is a decent actress, but she isn’t really in the film long enough to be anything substantial. Mrs. Richard Gere deserves better. It’s a decently acted him, but the star shines brightest on Jenny Seagrove here.

THINGS I’VE LEARNED WHILE REALIZING MY SPECIAL TREE SHOULDN’T BE TOUCHING ME THERE…

– Camilla sacrifices babies to a tree. That finally explains why Lisa Stansfield has been around the world and can’t find her baby.

– One of the potential nannies was killed by riding her bike over a pothole. That “Live Strong” wristband sure came in handy, didn’t it?

– Phil had a nightmare involving his son, some wolves, and a creepy tree. Well, that’s one way of getting morning wood.

– Don’t try to rape a tree spirit. She’ll find out the root of the problem and make you branch out into other activities, like dying.

– Phil had a dream about screwing Camilla. I’ve had a similar problem once. But when I heard that nasal voice and that laugh, I just ended up performing a Mr. Sheffield on myself.

– Ned was afraid of coyotes attacking him. I don’t see why he’s so worried. Those ACME products always backfire.

– Kate had no qualms about running over a wolf. She must be Team Edward, that bitch.

THE FINAL HOWL
Sometimes it sucks growing up, because I didn’t enjoy THE GUARDIAN as much as I had many years ago. Still, it’s a watchable and decent movie that does a lot of things right as much as it does wrong. The direction is great, as there is a nice amount of tension and creepy moments to satisfy fans of the genre. Plus you get a really memorable performance by Jenny Seagrove. It’s a shame the narrative didn’t have more depth and explained things better in detail, as well as fleshing out the protagonists. Definitely an average movie, but worth branching out to rent or stream if you have a thing for hot British nannies not named Mary Poppins.

Review: The Bad Seed (1956)

DIRECTED BY
Mervyn Le Roy

STARRING
Nancy Kelly – Christine Penmark
Patty McCormack – Rhoda Penmark
Evelyn Varden – Monica Breedlove
Henry Jones – Leroy
Eileen Heckart – Hortense Daigle
William Hopper – Kenneth Penmark

GenreHorror/Psychological Thriller/Drama/Evil Kids

Running Time129 Minutes

As a horror movie lover, I can always appreciate a film that involves evil children. These young people may seem cute and innocent. But if you don’t give them what they want, they may accidentally put that toy car in your path before you fall down the stairs and break your neck. Little Orphan Annie was a mean little bitch – don’t let that curly red hair and those freckles fool you!

Some of the most memorable horror films involve scary kids. THE OMEN, THE GOOD SON, PET SEMETARY, and ORPHAN prove that some kids have enough power to work alone. Other films, like CHILDREN OF THE CORN, VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED, and BEWARE! CHILDREN AT PLAY show that they prefer to hurt people within large groups. Either way, grounding these killer brats is not an option.

However, none of the films listed above wouldn’t exist if the original ‘evil child’ film wasn’t both critically and commercially successful. Every film with a child as the main antagonist owes a lot to 1956’s THE BAD SEED, a film that kicked off the trend and proved that even children can be just as dangerous as adults. 56 years later, the film is still talked about and even plans for a second remake [the first was in 1985] are in the works. Does a remake say that THE BAD SEED doesn’t hold up after all these years? Or is THE BAD SEED still the cream of the crop when it comes to its sub-genre?

PLOT
Rhoda Penmark (Patty McCormack) seems like the perfect daughter. She’s intelligent. She’s cute, with her charming smile and pig-tails. She has hard-working and well-respected parents. She also doesn’t have much of a conscience, which makes her quite the successful little sociopath.

While Rhoda’s father (William Hopper) is away on some sort of business, her mother Christine (Nancy Kelly) has to deal with the fact that Rhoda may have drowned one of her fellow classmates named Claude for a penmanship medal that Claude narrowly beat her for. When Christine confronts Rhoda about the incident, Rhoda seems indifferent about the tragedy – lying and manipulating Christine’s feelings to get her off of her back. Rhoda also twists the truth when the slow, but suspicious handyman, Leroy (Henry Jones), and Claude’s alcoholic mother, Mrs. Daigle (Eileen Heckart) approach her.

When things start coming together that make Rhoda appear guilty of her crime, she takes the matter into her own hands. More people end up dying and Rhoda continues her lying. When Christine realizes that her daughter is evil, she wonders if that trait is one of nature, or one of nurture. Is evil hereditary? Or are people made that way?

REVIEW
Every ‘evil child‘ flick owes great debt to THE BAD SEED, even though those respective subsequent films took the premise and used them in different ways. THE BAD SEED is also one of the rare horror-thrillers that managed to rack up some important Academy Award nominations, mainly for the acting. And while the film may be very campy and hokey to modern audiences, it still maintains a level of charm and the subtext still manages to resonate after all these years.

The screenplay by John Lee Mahin is based on the theater version of the story, which was written by Maxwell Anderson, which in turn is based on the 1954 novel by William March of the same name. The film version is based more on the play, as most of the actors from the stage production are in the film as well. The narrative is balanced by what THE BAD SEED is about on the surface, and the psychological subtext that the story is trying to tell its audience. Both are strongly written, but the subtext tends to overshadow everything else going on in the story.

The idea of and the debate about Nature vs. Nurture, in my opinion, is what THE BAD SEED is really about. This is a topic that still manages to capture the attention of the public, especially with all these crime and investigation programs that grab huge ratings. In 1956, this was really a huge deal as the public started to become more interested in psychology and the writings of one Sigmund Freud. Another psychologist, John Watson, talked about the way people behave and the reasons they do so respectively. He, and some others, believed that people behaved accordingly to their environment, rather than genetics. We are all born with both good and evil, as it’s human nature. But the path we take is due to our surroundings and how we’re nurtured by those around us. Even today, the debate wages on, as serial killer profiles and stories of addiction blur the lines a bit. Some serial killers, who grew up in fantastic environments, still did bad things. So were they born that way? There’s no clear answer really.

THE BAD SEED does answer the debate in its own way, which I won’t spoil if you haven’t seen it yet. But the discussions about the topic are abundant in the narrative, as Christine talks to her friends and family about what makes people do bad things – DNA or their surroundings. While the topic is interesting on its own, it’s the way the characters express their opinions that keep the film fresh. Christine’s father believes in the nurture aspect, as he doesn’t think people are born bad. He believes that people behave according to their social status, race, religion, and their neighborhood. As a WASP-y man with a lot of money, respect, and power, it’s easy to see why he would think this way. It’s all he’s ever known, or at least let himself accept as gospel. Christine’s friends, especially her landlord Monica, treat psychology as some sort of game that you play at social events or parties. She is always analyzing others, even claiming that analyzing her marriage ruined it, but doesn’t really know anything. She’s so busy being ignorant, because she believes that reading articles about psychology makes her some sort of expert, that she can’t see the psychological trauma Christine is going through and how big of a manipulative sociopath Rhoda is. In a lot of ways, THE BAD SEED was a foreshadowing to our current society. The media analyzes situations, making up stories as to why people in our pop culture do what they do without any sort of backing or evidence. We get suckered in by this and begin doing this to others, without really knowing what we’re analyzing. It’s our innate quest and hunger for knowledge. Wanting to know things isn’t terrible. But the way knowledge is used can be damaging to others.

Christine struggles because she knows the truth, but the people around her are blind to it and tell her otherwise. She questions her true parentage, feeling that her real father was a serial killer. Even though she didn’t do bad things, her daughter is committing crimes without any sense of conscience or remorse. But by knowing what Rhoda did to poor Claude and not telling Claude’s mother about what she knows, she is enabling Rhoda in continuing her behavior. And as a parent, that makes her just as bad as Rhoda. So is evil really because of our environment? Or is it in our genetic code?

While much of the film focuses on this aspect, the surface narrative – Rhoda killing Claude for an award she felt she deserved, while Christine struggles with it and begins having a nervous breakdown out of guilt, is what keeps THE BAD SEED moving. It also develops the characters in the narrative, making them all identifiable instead of stereotypes. Even though she’s a supporting character, Rhoda is the catalyst of the story. Because of her, the other characters react the way they eventually do. Rhoda is a complex character, as she shows affection to her parents and Monica, but makes you question whether or not she’s legitimate or manipulating them into getting what she wants. She’s obviously a sociopath and evil, but is subtle about it – which is the most dangerous kind. She captures the hearts of those around her, except for slow-witted Leroy, drunk Hortense, and guilt-ridden Christine herself, who all see her for who she is. We never actually see her perform the dastardly acts that she does commit, making her more effective as a villain, since it allows our imaginations run wild about her methods. Rhoda is the driving force of this film.

Because of her, Christine [instead of blaming Rhoda for what she’s done] feels guilty and blames herself and her genetics for all this. She’s a stressed out wife and mother. Her husband is never around, leaving her to raise Rhoda all on her own basically. She has no one to confide in when she learns about Rhoda, because her friends and family think she’s just overreacting. She constantly tries to push Rhoda towards the moral path, but fails each time. Christine practically gives up and enables Rhoda by lying for her, even though her emotions say otherwise. We, as an audience, feel as if Christine should punish Rhoda for her crimes. But at the same time, we understand why she’s conflicted because we don’t want our children to suffer. It’s a strong, yet flawed [in a good way], character.

Other characters struggle with Rhoda as well. Monica doesn’t believe that Rhoda is nothing more but the most perfect child, never understanding why Christine seems to detach from her daughter each day. Leroy, even slow, tries to goad Rhoda into doing something bad so she can get caught. However, since he’s seen as lower class, is never taken seriously and treated as an outcast. And Hortense, lower class as well, is portrayed as an emotional drunk by the ‘classier‘ characters, even though she’s visibly a grieving mother who wants nothing but answers about the death of her son. Interesting characters make an interesting film, which is a strong reason why THE BAD SEED still works.

Do I have any issues with the screenplay? The film is a bit dialogue heavy at times. The constant discussions over the Nature vs. Nurture issue do become a bit tiresome, even though what discussed is interesting. I think a lot of the scenes could have reached their turning points much sooner than they did. Because of it, the film is a bit too long and might turn off modern audiences.

My biggest personal gripe has to be the ending itself. I won’t spoil it, but I’m not a fan of it or the ‘epilogue’ after it. I know some people like it a lot, and I respect that. I know that the Hays Code was in place during this time in cinema, where the villain could not get away with their crime and had to be punished by the film’s end. And I’m sure back in 1956, the ending was universally accepted. But in 2012, it just comes across as campy, hokey, tacky, and however you want to call it. Yes, I understand that Rhoda needed to be punished. But couldn’t the ending be presented better? It’s too bad the ending to either the novel or the play couldn’t be used because the character arcs for both Christine and Rhoda would have been more effective. As for that little bit after the actual conclusion, I honestly can’t take it. I understand it was meant to tell audiences that no children were harmed on the set of THE BAD SEED, but c’mon! I would have accepted the ending better if this portion was left out. I just find it too silly to take seriously. If I were reviewing this as a viewer back in 1956, I wouldn’t complain. But in 2012, it leaves a lot to be desired.

The direction by Mervyn Le Roy is really great. A lot of modern audiences complain that THE BAD SEED takes place far too much inside the Penmark living room, which it does to be honest, making the film look more like a play rather than a thrilling piece of cinema. While the film is not visually exciting, I kind of like the stage look. Think about it – having much of the film take place in a single location creates a feeling of claustrophobia. We barely see the outside world, except for some incidents that involve Rhoda. But Christine is usually always inside her home, due to the traditional idea that a wife should be a homemaker and taking care of the children. She’s stuck inside with Rhoda, making her struggle about Rhoda’s behavior more effective because she’s unable to escape it without making the situation worse. It creates tension because she’s trapped inside with the monster, and she has no idea how to deal with her. I think the presentation, especially with how characters enter and exit, is interesting and doesn’t really bug me much at all.

The black-and-white cinematography looks nice as well. It was even nominated for an Academy Award, even though the picture looks pretty simple and doesn’t appear all that special. The use of not showing how Rhoda kills her victims is effective, creating an aura of mystery about how dangerous this ‘sweet‘ little girl really is. The editing is good, and while the pace is a bit slow at times, you’re never really all that bored. It’s a nice looking and well directed film.

The acting in THE BAD SEED is probably the highlight of the film. Nancy Kelly is great as Christine. The character is put through a lot during the entire film, and Kelly hits every note like a champ. You feel her guilt and her struggle in a really believable way. Her evolution from happy wife and mother to depressed and guilt-ridden is impressive. Patty McCormack is excellent as Rhoda. Even though she’s young, she plays the character with a great sense of maturity and control that many of her older peers have trouble with. She also plays with a series of emotions, all convincing. She plays both the good and bad sides quite well, humanizing what could have been a one-note performance. The other actress that makes a presence is Eileen Heckart as Hortense Daigle. Her performance of tragedy and grief is so convincing, that you feel truly bad for her. She plays an alcoholic well and steals every scene she’s in when she appears. It’s no wonder why all three ladies were nominated for Academy Awards. They’re all really quite good. The other actors, especially Henry Jones as Leroy and Evelyn Breedlove as Monica, are great as well. A very solid cast.

THINGS I’VE LEARNED WHILE THINKING DEVIOUS THOUGHTS BEHIND MY SWEET SMILE

– Rhoda was so pissed that she didn’t receive a medal that she felt she deserved, that she ended up killing her competition. I had no idea she grew up to become Tonya Harding.

– Leroy has the hots for Christine. This is the 50s version of Desperate Housewives!

– An eight-year-old boy drowned in a lake. If only those camp counselors were watching him…oh wait, wrong movie!

– Monica’s horoscope said that she should pay attention to small objects and get things done. I think it’s time for her to upgrade from Asian to African, if you get my drift.

– Rhoda wondered if it was true if police put powder on blood, it’ll turn blue. She’ll learn all about this type of chemistry when she’s 16 & Pregnant.

– Rhoda ended up burning Leroy near the incinerator. He may mow the grass, but that little girl is gonna smoke it!

THE FINAL HOWL
THE BAD SEED may be dialogue heavy and have an ending that cheapens the story [in my opinion], it’s still a solid movie that lovers of ‘evil kids‘ should watch and will most likely enjoy. Great performances and an interesting narrative makes this one stand out amongst its peers. Remember – the apple doesn’t fall too far from the tree. You better watch out before disciplining your kids. You may be the one getting punished. A basket of kisses for a basket of hugs…keep that in mind.

Review: What They Say (2011)

Reviewed By: Clifford Kiyabu
Directed by: Justin R. Romine
Written by: Kelsey Zukowski, Heather Dorff (original story)
Genre: Short / Thriller
MPAA: Not Rated
Released: 25th September. 2011
Starring: Heather Dorff, Kelsey Zukowski, Tina Renée Grace, Kitsie Duncan, Kitsie Duncan, Dave Juehring, Tyler Klunick, Jolene M. Aldus.

Plot: They thought she had the perfect life; wealthy and privileged, an honor student with her whole life mapped out. What they didn’t know was what lied inside of her; pain and anguish; tearing at her until there was nothing left. Lost and alone, the young women (Heather Dorff), finds solace in the form of a glistening blade, splitting her skin deeply. Her self-indulgent mother and obnoxious sister (Kelsey Zukowski) are completely oblivious to her inner-turmoil. She has long since become numb to the world around her, getting that sensual release, as the razor cuts deeper, watching the blood drip, is all that matters. As soon as the last drop falls, the calm is stripped away from her with it. How far will she go to silence the hunger that now consumes her? Will she be able to regain control of her life, body, and sanity?

Review: 9/10

My Thoughts: Over the course of 2011, I’ve covered the Fathead Films project “What They Say” in multiple articles throughout the spring and summer, though much of the plot has always remained vague to you, the reader and I, there was always a sense of what’s to be expected from a film such as this. From the eerie tone the movie stills displayed, to the darkly themed synapses, everything regarding this project including the gory details shown in its teaser trailer called out a darkness that was equally compelling as was seriously disturbing. But to speak completely frank here, there was no way of preparing me for what was to come next when I actually screened WTS. To try and describe what I had seen during the screening without giving away any specific details or spoilers for that matter, would be calling it twistedly delighted. Its gory visuals are bloodstained yet oddly beautiful, setting an atmospheric narrative that captivates you in a cloud of physical and emotional pain. The film’s plot is indeed astonishingly unsettling and yet weirdly enough calming with beauty.

Within the first few minutes of viewing the film it becomes perfectly clear that WTS’s plot is deeply personal from the heart and mind of the writer, the story carried such a level of remarkable storytelling that it felt rich with raw emotion, that its essence was captured from a dark place in their life. Or at least that’s what I got out of the experience itself. That’s another thing I found so compelling and deeply fascinating with “What They Say”, is that it’s hardly something that one can summed up in words. Like an emotion, it must be felt and experienced firsthand to get a full detailed understanding of the experience itself and to fully comprehend its message. Some will argue that WTS is a horror with dramatic themes, while others will say it’s a dark drama themed with horror elements. I however, would classify it as neither. The way I saw WTS play out, or at least in my opinion, was more in line of a character study into the human soul and the darkness that dwells within. A dark passenger if you will, that lurks within us all. For many that darkness is always kept at bay never seeing the light of day, but for some that darkness is always just beneath the suffice trying to scratch and claw its way out. The question this film left me thinking with by the time it was over was; what happens when that darkness suffices?

As for the acting: the acting here is quite impressive. Heather Dorff delivered an outstanding performance in the lead. Her delivery is so well done and on mark that it felt less like a role and more like the character was living through her; the way she handled herself was dignifying and graceful to say the least. Her performance expands beyond the role itself, but rather on a deeper level that brings a certain aspect to the role that one could argue was as intimately personal to a role that any actor playing a character could get. Kelsey Zukowski gave a stellar performance as a co-star alongside MS. Dorff, showing a remarkable performance for someone still fairly new to the acting scene. Aside from her astonishing writing as a screen writer and columnist, Kelsey displayed another talent to add to her résumé with acting, making her the ultimate scream queen to look out for in the near future. Tina Renée Grace also did a fine job in her performance. Though my first encounter with her work as an actress was just earlier this year with the indie short “Love is Not Enough” I ‘m very impressed with her thus far and would even consider her as one to watch!

Final Say: What They Say managed to live up the hype and so much more, in my opinion. If there’s anything I take away from watching this film, it’s that it will take you on a personal journey to the edge of insanity and show you that it’s only through the darkness that we see truth. If there’s any indie short to see this year, What They Say is it! I highly recommend it!