The Hamiltons
April 19th 2007 00:19
I’m losing faith in the modern horror film. It seems to be a dying art. I’m feeling increasingly old fashioned in my sensibilities. Or is it simply that more and more crap gets released which never should have seen the light of distribution? The latter has more of a dark ring to it.
I’ll be the first to admit I’m a sucker for cosmetics. I don’t mean I enjoy applying eyeliner, mascara and lipstick (although I did swing that way a little during my New Romantic period in high school, but that’s an entirely different kettle of fish). I’m attracted to the packaging of a movie’s DVD cover art and sometimes I’ll even fool myself into believing the movie might actually be good, because the artwork is.
Everyone can be gullible in that respect, that’s the whole point of cover art; to lure potential viewers with seductive and alluring photography and graphics. This also includes buzzword quotes from “respected” media companies. And therein lies The Rub; a film critic you respect, a magazine you subscribe to, or an online site you frequent has quoted how rockin’ a flick is.
“One of the best Indie horror films in a great long while,” quotes Film Threat. “In the tradition of Tobe Hooper … The Hamiltons refuses to play by most of the genre rules,” reads Variety. “A truly unique horror film … One final moment that is sure to leave you in a state of shock,” states bloodydisgusting.com. And a winner at two American film festivals.
This is the second movie released down under from the U.S. Horrorfest collection (eight theatrically screened movies that normally go straight to video). The Hamiltons (2006) was considered the best of the eight films according to a number of imdb.com viewers. I thought the first release Zombies (2006) was pretty bad. The Hamiltons is worse.
Without necessarily blowing my own horn, but I can gauge a movie pretty damn quickly; stylistically, within a minute or so. The writing takes a little longer (generally once the dialogue kicks in). But one of the main crunch factors is the acting, and where this really counts is when a director is making a “serious” film (nevermind the tongue-in-cheek, spoofy cheese fests).
Co-writers and directors The Butcher Brothers (already they reek of pretentiousness) have made a movie that wants to be taken seriously. The Hamiltons wears its influences like a ketchup stain on its sleeve: seminal movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986), but twisted into American Beauty meets TV’s Party of Five. It’s a hopeless cringe-inducing hotchpotch.
Nearly all the actors overact or have been given way too much direction. Only Cory Knauf as introspective Francis and Jena Hunt as unfortunate Kitty display any subtlety. The dialogue is trite. The main location – the family home - looks like a rehearsal space. Continuity is out the window. The suspense is tenuous at best. The horror element is tedious and ineffectual. And as for the narrative revelation near movie’s end, ‘tis amusing at best, but poorly executed. There’s also a “monster” reveal which is utterly risible.
The Hamiltons is like a student film with grand illusions which had a few extra dollars pumped into it (just a few), and the directors raided the local university’s drama classes for wannabes or used their friends when they couldn’t get any interested parties. To be honest I’ve seen worse films, but it’s these tryhard “I wanna shock you” movies that grate on me the most.
Oh, I forgot … what’s the premise? David (Samuel Child), Wendell (Joseph McKelheer), Darlene (Mackenzie Firgins) and Francis Hamilton (Knauf) are orphans. They move homes regularly. David, the eldest (20-twentysomething) and the wet one, holds the family together. Wendell and Darlene are livewires with an incestuous bond. Francis is the runt with the digi-cam, capturing the Hamiltons.
Wendell brings home victims he’s seduced, some are killed outright, some are tortured and held prisoner in a large basement next to the family “beast” locked in a large cubbyhole. It seems the Hamiltons are serial killers … or maybe something else.
There, I’ve devoted enough space to this annoying pantomime. I just needed to purge my grievance over the increasing number of straight-to-video (DVD) worldwide releases that should’ve stayed confined to the directors’ suburb.
* images on this page courtesy of www.sffilms.tv
I’ll be the first to admit I’m a sucker for cosmetics. I don’t mean I enjoy applying eyeliner, mascara and lipstick (although I did swing that way a little during my New Romantic period in high school, but that’s an entirely different kettle of fish). I’m attracted to the packaging of a movie’s DVD cover art and sometimes I’ll even fool myself into believing the movie might actually be good, because the artwork is.
Everyone can be gullible in that respect, that’s the whole point of cover art; to lure potential viewers with seductive and alluring photography and graphics. This also includes buzzword quotes from “respected” media companies. And therein lies The Rub; a film critic you respect, a magazine you subscribe to, or an online site you frequent has quoted how rockin’ a flick is.
“One of the best Indie horror films in a great long while,” quotes Film Threat. “In the tradition of Tobe Hooper … The Hamiltons refuses to play by most of the genre rules,” reads Variety. “A truly unique horror film … One final moment that is sure to leave you in a state of shock,” states bloodydisgusting.com. And a winner at two American film festivals.
This is the second movie released down under from the U.S. Horrorfest collection (eight theatrically screened movies that normally go straight to video). The Hamiltons (2006) was considered the best of the eight films according to a number of imdb.com viewers. I thought the first release Zombies (2006) was pretty bad. The Hamiltons is worse.
Without necessarily blowing my own horn, but I can gauge a movie pretty damn quickly; stylistically, within a minute or so. The writing takes a little longer (generally once the dialogue kicks in). But one of the main crunch factors is the acting, and where this really counts is when a director is making a “serious” film (nevermind the tongue-in-cheek, spoofy cheese fests).
Co-writers and directors The Butcher Brothers (already they reek of pretentiousness) have made a movie that wants to be taken seriously. The Hamiltons wears its influences like a ketchup stain on its sleeve: seminal movies like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) and Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986), but twisted into American Beauty meets TV’s Party of Five. It’s a hopeless cringe-inducing hotchpotch.
Nearly all the actors overact or have been given way too much direction. Only Cory Knauf as introspective Francis and Jena Hunt as unfortunate Kitty display any subtlety. The dialogue is trite. The main location – the family home - looks like a rehearsal space. Continuity is out the window. The suspense is tenuous at best. The horror element is tedious and ineffectual. And as for the narrative revelation near movie’s end, ‘tis amusing at best, but poorly executed. There’s also a “monster” reveal which is utterly risible.
The Hamiltons is like a student film with grand illusions which had a few extra dollars pumped into it (just a few), and the directors raided the local university’s drama classes for wannabes or used their friends when they couldn’t get any interested parties. To be honest I’ve seen worse films, but it’s these tryhard “I wanna shock you” movies that grate on me the most.
Oh, I forgot … what’s the premise? David (Samuel Child), Wendell (Joseph McKelheer), Darlene (Mackenzie Firgins) and Francis Hamilton (Knauf) are orphans. They move homes regularly. David, the eldest (20-twentysomething) and the wet one, holds the family together. Wendell and Darlene are livewires with an incestuous bond. Francis is the runt with the digi-cam, capturing the Hamiltons.
Wendell brings home victims he’s seduced, some are killed outright, some are tortured and held prisoner in a large basement next to the family “beast” locked in a large cubbyhole. It seems the Hamiltons are serial killers … or maybe something else.
There, I’ve devoted enough space to this annoying pantomime. I just needed to purge my grievance over the increasing number of straight-to-video (DVD) worldwide releases that should’ve stayed confined to the directors’ suburb.
* images on this page courtesy of www.sffilms.tv
| 67 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog

























Comment by KylieW
Celebrity Obsession
The Butcher Brothers? Please tell me that Butcher is their real surname and they are not such massive tossers that it's just how they like to refer to themselves.
Now, I'd like to see you manage to work in some pics of you in your New Romantic phase into one of your reviews! lol.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Humans rememver the very bad more than the very good. Statistically customers tell twenty people when they get jerked around and only 5 when they get good service. But I digress.
The poster looks good. The bloody bath looks like someone has been to the trick shop and bought that artificial blood that never looks like blood.
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
And yes, they are officially tossers; real names Mitchell Altieri and Phil Flores. Apparently they cite their influences as Tobe Hooper, David Cronenberg and David Lynch. Excuse me, I need to go barf!
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by Anonymous
-lilith
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile
Comment by JohnDoe
Film & TV on DVD
Comment by Bryn
Horrorphile