I can tell that Red Velvet director Bruce Dickson has a future ahead of him. His debut is a rather impeccably designed slasher tribute, headlined by some gorgeous cinematography and dynamic color scheming. And Henry Thomas (Yeah, the E.T. Henry Thomas). Thomas makes a lot of his character, but can’t quite fuel the movie on his own. Unfortunately, his costar, Kelli Garner, isn’t a dramatic equal and so their many, many scenes of discussion together often fall flat. Those sequences take up about half of the film, the other consisting of some of the most innovative and fun-loving slasher ingenuity I’ve had the pleasure of viewing. It’s this sort of 50/50 deal that makes the movie very highly recommended for aspiring filmmakers. Technically and, for the most part, artistically, Red Velvet deserves its rather impressive success and critical reception; but half of the film is bogged down by over-written dialogue and poor delivery.
To give too much away about the story would be to do a disservice to the makers and to yourselves, but the story concerns a dude and a chick, both somewhat damaged goods, who start up a pretty hostile conversation in a laundromat. You shouldn’t consider yourself overly perceptive if that sounds hackneyed. But writers Anthony Burns and Joe Moe have a pretty confident, self-knowing style. You’d be hard pressed to pick out 5 minutes in the film that doesn’t unequivocally know its audience. The majority of these cheek-poking meta moments are based around slasher movie motifs, but a few of them are laugh-out-loud hysterical, giving the movie an absurd tone not unlike a Ren & Stimpy movie directed by late-era Argento.
Speaking of Argento, it would be easy to point out the film’s obvious Suspiria influences, but Red Velvet owes far more of its disorienting pink and blue lighting schemes and editing practices to Inferno, the first of two vastly underrated successors to Argento’s masterwork. It could be argued, though, that Dickson oversteps his boundaries by his use of super crazy-ass color timing over 90% of his film. Some of you out there may be drawn in by his nearly psychotic use of digital coloring, but it had something of the opposite effect on my own viewing. There’s just a point where it gets to be a little too blatant what tools he used and where.
The gore in this puppy isn’t just damn impressive, it’s ingenious. Every kill seems more inventive and gratuitous than the last, and even the first kill is insane enough to be the highlight of most other movies. Very rarely do the effects seem phony, either, and even when they do it somehow seems to serve the toothy-grin tone the movie regularly shoots for. Like I said, what it does well, it does exceptionally well.
Unfortunately, when one of your two leads can’t hold their own, it dampens your movie tremendously. As far as direction of actors go, Red Velvet really disappointed me. I don’t know, maybe I’m being overly critical, but Kelli Garner's performance just seemed so… average, so “Film School,” for an actress nearing her 30th feature. It just seemed like there had to have been a better take of at least a third of her lines. I just don’t believe that Dickson could be totally happy with a lot of the stuff he shot with her. Regardless, it’s a good thing there aren’t too many other problems bogging the film down, so I can still give it a confident recommendation.
Honestly it’s a real shame how for everything Red Velvet does far better than the average indie horror flick, it does something a little bit worse. It’s a real game of give and take, but honestly it’s an enjoyable 86 minutes, and it’s got a cheesy end credits theme. Now who doesn’t love a slasher throwback with a cheesy end credits theme?
"Red Velvet" is on sale September 8, 2009 and is rated NR. Horror. Directed by Bruce Dickson. Written by Anthony Burns, Joe Moe. Starring Henry Thomas, Kelli Garner.
