Sorry, I know this Meview is long, but this is another one of those movies where I was really debating how I felt, so I ramble a bit.
Small, independent films have a lot of problems. Making a movie without money is difficult. You can’t afford to pay crew and cast for A-list quality production values. You can’t make any story you want because you don’t have the resources, legal pull, or other needs necessary to make it work. You are, by definition of being independent of the major system designed to create movies, limited (unless you’re a multi-millionaire like George Lucas or Mel Gibson).
Now, a solid director-producer team will know which scripts are within their scope, and they will gladly limit themselves to them. These teams usually turn out small, respectable pieces that are not only a nice break from the usual Hollywood fare but also great works unto themselves. Chasing Amy, Memento, Snatch, and Reservior Dogs come to mind. Some,who are particularly ambitious, will attempt to reach beyond their means and create something awful or sometimes (rarely, but sometimes) create something amazing. 6 times out of 10, however, the movies are mediocre at best, showcasing not only limited talent by directors but also short-sightedness, over self-awareness, and just plain prententiousness.
I put Behind the Mask into this last category. It’s an average outing from the Indy scene with a few good hits but a great deal of misses. The film is imbalanced, very self-aware; and in the end, completely and utterly disappointing. At least it was for me.
Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon takes place in an alternate reality–a reality in which Jason Vorhees (of Friday the 13th fame), Michael Myers (Of the Halloween films, and Freddy Kreuger (from Nightmare on Elm Street) are all nationally known murderers in the same way that Dahmer, Gein, and Manson are known in ours. In this fictional universe, there have been copycats and hacks that followed, but none have studied the art of serial killing, at least in a fictionalized Hollywood sense, as much as young Leslie Vernon, who plans to be the next great slasher killer in America. A team of graduate film students follow Leslie and interview him in hopes of discovering “the how” and, ultimately, “the why” of serial killing, only to become part of his viscious plan.
That premise carries the movie very well for two-thirds of its running time. The first act features an intro to Leslie himself, his homes, his friends, and his ambitions while the second act showcases his current plan to murder a group of young people. We are taken through the planning stages, meet mentors of serial killing, and learn a great deal about the amount of work that would be required for slashers to do what they do. It’s certainly not a subtle critique of the genre but is one that works thanks to the film’s villain, Leslie, who glamorizes the cliches and expectation of horror cinema as an important part of the human experience. He explains to the filmmakers that serial killers, in this alternate reality, choose to be who they are based on a desire to be the evil’s yin to good’s yang, because people need that for balance in the world.
This is an interesting take on the horror genre as a whole, and I was very satisfied by the first two acts of the film. The third act, however, wherein Leslie actually goes on his initial spree is not only by the numbers and suprisingly dull, but it’s supposed twists and surprises are telegraphed a mile-away; and once they are revealed, left me sighing ans saying, “I don’t believe this. What is happening?”, only not in a good way.
And that’s where the movie not only lost me, but made me look back on the rest of it with a bit disdain, asking myself, “Why did I bother with this?” Sure, I learned a few things about the genere I didn’t know. Yes, there were some devilishly clever moments. And I suppose that a movie that keeps me engaged for 2/3 of the time is good. BUT deconstruction usually requires an original ending, not a retreat to the ideas you just broke down, simply because they work. Or you know, maybe that’s the whole point, that horror cliches are so endearing because they work, DESPITE being overdone. If that is the point, I “got it”; but it’s a sad commentary on the movie that I disliked it and felt it could and should have been much better.
In all honesty, I am really on the fence on this flick. I feel as though can only give Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon a 3. I want to give it a 4 for those great first two-thirds; but the fact that the last act is such a disappointing, hackneyed trainwreck really gives me pause about saying I thought it was more than just “alright.” It’s my blog, and I can say what I want; but I really don’t know. It’s always safer to round down from the fence, so it’s a 3. Let this be a testament that, as far as this viewer is concerned, the last act and payoff MUST live up to the promise of the acts before it if a picture is going to work well–especially when it comes to a horror flic. I think that the first portion of the movie is entertaining enough to warrant a viewing but only for Horror fans who are ready for a fresh-turned-stale look at the genre.
