DVD Review: Behind the Mask

Nice review, boss. Sorry you didn't like the flick as much as you wanted to. I've been wanting to see this for some time now, ever since Devin covered it on the main site, and it looks like I'll finally get to see this over the weekend. Hopefully I won't be disappointed.

I assume the lack of gore in the third act was due to budget restrictions. It just doesn't work as a stylistic choice.

I've been debating blind buying this flick, but it looks like I may just go the rental route now. It does sound pretty good though.

I found the lack of gore and odd reliance on neck-snapping to be out of place, and I thought the last act had a hard time keeping up with the rest of the film. Regardless, I loved the Leslie Vernon character, and the scene with his mentor alone gives the movie high marks.

I feel stupid saying it needed gore, but it really did. When he stabs some dude in the back of the neck or whatever, and you just cut to splashed blood all over the guys neck and the scythe tip barely tapping him and being pulled away as if it was piercing something earlier... it becomes distracting. It was one step away from having someone with a knife under his armpit and saying "a hit! a very palpable hit."

I watched the first 30 minutes of this last night, but then had to leave the house unexpectedly. I thought what I had seen so far was nearly-terrible, so I have reservations about finishing it...

Do you like slasher movies, Andrew? I can see this playing poorly to folks who aren't fans of slasher movies.

Yeah, I love slasher movies.

F13's, Freddy, Maniac, Halloween's, TCM's, Prowler, etc
as well as Man Bites Dog and Horror films and Documentaries in general.

My only real issues (keep in mind I only saw the first third) were the quality of the acting seemed VERY amateurish and self-conscious (I can buy bad acting in normal slasher/exploitation movies -- in faux doc-style things it comes across to me like the "movies" me and my friends have made with the old MiniDV cam), and so far the gimmick seems schlockingly obvious and unentertaining.

I am finishing it tonight with an open mind, I'm sure I will have enjoyed it by the time it ends.

yes, excluding Wilson most of the the actors are too self conscious for it to work properly as a fake doco. they're not real enough. I love this kind of thing when done well, and I can't help comparing it to superior stuff like Series 7: The Contenders, where the casual mockumentary discussion of murder is much funnier, or the superb Street Thief (in many ways the same film as Behind the Mask only minus a sense of humour, but it has such attention to detail and is so well executed and so utterly REAL that it pretty much ruins the viewer for all other mockumentaries)

I don't dislike this film. I can't, the references are too endearing and it has Zelda Rubinstein plus Englund channeling Loomis. But it's not quite as funny or clever as it thinks it is, a classic example of a bunch of ideas that probably work better on paper e.g. mixing in the generic slasher film bits with the documentary bits when the right thing to do would be to pick a style and stick with it.

I've been wanting to see this film since Devin's review a while back, and I got the last copy at Best Buy. The guy who helped me find it was pretty surprised as well (he said they initially got in close to 100 copies).

I watched it with some friends, had a few beers, and overall I enjoyed it thouroughly. I did feel that the mockumentary side of the film was stronger and more entertaining than the slasher portion. Although, when Leslie is chasing the cameraman, and he's pleading "C'mon Leslie, it's me!" while trying to take off Leslie's mask was pretty chilling. Espescially Vernon's face after the mask was lifted, and he was devoid of anything resembling a sane person.

Also, I suppose I was waiting for that one spectacular kill, but it never showed itself. Oh well.

So I watched this the other day, and while I liked it for the most part, I was a bit underwhelmed by it. I agree that the film would have probably been stronger had they picked one style (mockumentary or straight out slasher flick) and stuck with it. Overall, this was a good, but not great film.

If you pick one style, you kill the film. The melding of the two is the whole point of the enterprise.

So, its no Man Bites Dog? I actually have this right now, but haven't watched it yet.

I finished it and agree with Disciple's assessment.
I actually liked the filmed slasher finale more than the videocentric lighthearted first half. I enjoyed Englund a great deal, as well as the kill with the heart in the hand. I didn't like the ending, thought it could've been taken one or two steps further - but overall: overrated, creative, slightly fun, and "OK".

Am I alone or crazy in feeling that Englund overacted far worse than anyone else in the film?

I thought the dude who played Leslie was solid.

Englund was overacting as an homage to Pleasence overacting.

Leslie was trying to act like a regular candid guy in a documentary, but most everything he did seemed quite "acted".

I disagree. The character design was more of homage to Sam Loomis than Englund's take on it. And Pleasence's acting in Halloween fits perfectly with the style and mood of the film. His "the blackest eyes" speech is one of the strongest moments and that is saying something. Also, check his eyes and expressions as he returns to Michael's house as well as the scene where the station wagon nears the gate in the rain. The only part I can think of where I can understand it being too much for some people may be his "The evil is gone - moment." For me, it fit perfectly.

S'truth!

of course it's the whole point. but it doesn't work. switching from mockumentary to slasher and back again undermines the mockumentary bits (which aren't that weighty to begin with, already weak from too much self awareness)

How does the switching undermine the documentary bits when you've already agreed that that is the point? The documentary isn't being filmed in our world. It's being filmed in a world where Freddy Krueger, Michael Myers and Jason Voorhees actually exist. It's being filmed inside an actual slasher film. It's not so much about switching styles as it is perspectives. You aren't really aware of this until the film fully switches into slasher film mode, drops the documentary angle and reveals the interviewer as the survivor girl and her crew as potential victims. I don't see how the two perspectives hurt the film when it is what sets it apart in the first place.

I think that if you put reality scenes and slasher scenes in the same flick and you somehow manage to make them flow in and out of each other like they could be happening in the same world, you'll likely end up with something like Halloween Resurrection- not a great movie, but at least the reality tv scenes feel like part of a cohesive whole when you're watching.

with Behind the Mask, the original intent was clearly to marry self aware mockumentary with slasher in order to create something a bit different, but it's impossible for me to see it as "switching perspectives" because the mockumentary parts never feel like they belong with the slasher parts. the mockumentary parts seem to be happening in some odd little horror cinema verite world where the slasher figure is humanized and trivialized, where you expect Freddy, Jason, and Michael to actually be fairly regular guys living fairly mundane lives (all that pesky killing aside) just like the Scott Wilson character, and where the traditionally unexplained tricks of the slasher trade are explained away like a bad "magic secrets revealed!" show. it does not work. for me, at least.

I agree with Alex's review 100%. I was expecting to be blown away (as per Devin's assessment) and merely came away pleased.

The acting is a little "cute" (avoiding the term amateurish) and self-aware. Leslie reminded me of Jim Carrey and thankfully did not break into "Cuban Pete" upon donning the greenish mask.

I'm glad I watched all through the credits (awesome use of the Talking Heads), but I was disappointed by the lack of gore. I thought of Scream the entire 3rd Act, however thought it didn't quite reach the visceral competence of Craven's. I really liked the background details (cameos, explanations, etc), mentor scenes, and the setup... just felt like the climax didn't quite hit the mark.

No love for the post-hole-digger death?

And what the hell were the news crew expecting to be able to do with the footage? Wouldn't they be accessories to serial murder?

this was really talked up and so I felt it was highly overrated. so what if it's better than scream, that's not hard. it's not that much better than scream! I didn't think it walked the line between comedy and horror very well, it was more on the funny side and whenever it tried to be horror it just didn't work at all

I saw it the other night. It entertained me, but it was in no way the work of genius Devin made it out to be.

I don't know if it was mockumentary with a slasher film tacked on at the end, or a slasher film that used a mockumentary as setup. I liked it well enough, but I don't know what exactly I was expecting.

I saw it the other night. It entertained me, but it was in no way the work of genius Devin made it out to be.

I don't know if it was mockumentary with a slasher film tacked on at the end, or a slasher film that used a mockumentary as setup. I liked it well enough, but I don't know what exactly I was expecting.

You guys are a bunch of curmudgeons. I was built up by Devin's praise of this film, and I still loved it. Seriously, everything you guys have mentioned as criticisms strike me as nitpicks. I'm not sure what you were expecting, but this is something we almost never get: an original idea for a horror film. To think that some of you who are tearing this movie up actually liked The Descent blows my mind.

I really don't understand the attitude that one can be disappointed by a movie that you've admitted you enjoyed. That's just plain weird. It falls under the category of allowing the opinions of others to dictate your experience.

I liked it, but the script is far too clever for it's own good at times. Almost self-consciously meta without paying off satisfactorily in that way. On the plus side, there are great moments throughout, and I respect that. The script was a couple of drafts away from being great, methinks.

I think I'd rather watch a film that was too clever for it's own good than one that wasn't clever at all. To me, the most interesting thing that the movie proposes is that there may not be anything supernatural about Jason, Freddy and Michael Myers. That, like Lesile, they are just people that took local legends, adopted the names and modus operandi, and through a series of clever misdirections have built a supernatural mythology around their otherwise explainable murder sprees. When Leslie references horror movie cliches, it isn't because he has watched the Friday the 13th, Nightmare or Halloween film series, it's because he has studied the actual cases of Jason and Michael and come up with his own theories of how it was done. The movie is his attempt to establish his own mythology. He isn't undead at the end of the film. He just wants people to think he is. So, while you can look at it as being meta-fiction, it's important to remember that the characters aren't necessarily winking at you, or trying to beat you over the head with self-referential horror cliches, it's an acknowledgment that these slashers exist and their kill sprees have actually taken place in the world the film exists in. Leslie was able to deconstruct the scenarios and exploit them for his own use. It can be looked at as a deconstruction of the genre, but to me, and what strikes me as the actual point of the film, is in giving a clever explanation for these unstoppable murderers who always seem to be one step ahead of their victims.

The fact that the filmmakers implemented the actual style of slasher films when not in documentary form is just them saying that you could apply the concept to any slasher movie. What if the Friday the 13th films took a moment between kills to show behind the scenes footage of Jason in his down time. He's not really some undead mongoloid, he's just a guy wearing prosthetics underneath a hockey mask( hey, just like part 5!), and clever enough to have set up each of his murder sprees to resemble a Rube Goldberg-esque scenario. Including, and most importantly, his own death at the hands of a pre-chosen survivor to help further his legend.

To me, it works on both levels. There's plenty of clever little nods and in-jokes hidden throughout the film, but I view those separately from Leslie's ruminations on the art of being a successful masked serial killer. If there are any winks by the fimmakers, it is those( the Hellraiser puzzle box, the address of Nancy's house from the first Nightmare on Elm St. Hell, I had to look those up since I didn't even notice them while watching the film). But since you're not beat over the head with their inclusion, and there is no neon sign pointing to them, they really didn't take me out of the world the film was trying to establish.

If you can't tell, I loved the shit out of this movie.

Excellently said, and just what I thought. No offense to Alex, but I think that comparisons to Scream are a little wrongheaded. It's the obvious go-to, but they really aren't doing the same thing at all. And I don't understand how anybody could not be impressed by Nathan Baesel's performance. I can't wait to see more from him, myself.

I really don't get horror fans sometimes.

It's the complaints about the acting being too self-conscious and aware that I don't understand.

The characters aren't acting self aware as a tip-off to the viewer that they know they are in a horror film. They are just acting like anyone would if they existed in a world where the events of Friday the 13th and Halloween were natural and well documented occurrences. A world where a serial killer can fall in love with his pre-chosen survivor girl and wind up marrying her.

Look at a film like Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The characters co-exist with cartoons, so you can take a lot of the clever nods and in-jokes as a wink to the audience, but they are also natural observances by the characters of the reality they exist in. It's the same in Behind the Mask.

I kinda wanted to see this from the first, Al's criticisms being grains of salt to be taken therewith. But now I REALLY wanna see it based on Amphib's eloquent post. Good show.

I think Alex's review was pretty dead on. I also really enjoyed the first 2/3rds of the film but was very disappointed by the end, and yes, more gore was needed.

However, most of the film IS funny and clever. I can see myself watching it at least a couple more times. Leslie's explanation of how serial killers keep up to their victims when they always appear to be walking slowly was fucking hilarious.

I can see the complaints about the third act more than I can people's problems with the film switching back and forth from documentary to slasher film and the self awareness on the actors behalf. If the third act suffers, it is because we lose the most interesting character of the film. Leslie has been completely lost to his creation and the amusing insights and energy he brought to the first 2/3rds are literally replaced with an emotionless mask. I found it slightly disturbing that this character we had been amused by and, in an odd way, grown to like suddenly disappears and you are left to wonder if the personality that he displayed in the first half of the film was just an act. A way of luring the documentary crew into a false sense of security as he maneuvers them into their preconceived roles. That's what kept the third act interesting to me, the reveal that the documentary crew were being set up as a part of the scenario all along, even though it does essentially become just another slasher film at that point. I just saw it as slasher films 101 in which you are given an actual slasher film in the third act as a way to refer back to what you have already learned over the course of the film. All the hints were there that this is how the film is going to end, so I don't see how it could have been handled any differently and still followed through with the set-up.

I agree completely. One of the things I loved about the first two acts was the way that, while seemingly just joking around and riffing on slasher cliches, it's actually setting up everything you need to know for the character to be terrifying in the third act.

i thought the third act completed the movie. I enjoyed the contrast and thought it worked well. and i also thought the character was terrifying in the final act.

Absolutely. When Leslie takes his mask off to stare in the cameraman's face....that's a chilling moment.

Leslie also drops Chucky's name, who has to be supernatural, right? I think the Roger Rabbit comparison is apt, but in this case, the film sort of fails on the scope of it's premise.

Not necessarily. The myths of these characters exist in Leslie's world, but that doesn't mean the films do. Chucky could just have been a guy that constructed a radio controlled animatronic that had microphone in it. Some kid spins yarns about a doll that kills people, when in actuality it's some nut that sneaks in, kills a few people, and having propagated an elaborate story through the doll, has set up his own unique mythology. The same for the Hellraiser puzzle box seen in the background. The events of the Hellraiser films aren't canon in Leslie's universe. A group of people construct a few puzzle boxes, attach a supernatural origin to them, and then, while dressed as Cenobites, stalk and gruesomely kill whoever happens to acquire them.

Chucky (AKA Charles Lee Ray) was a killer before he became a doll, so there's some gray area there with regards to that name dropping.

Also, another interesting question presented by the film is what Leslie intended by involving the documentary crew. He would be hard pressed to continue using the story of Leslie Vernon as a cover since the three survivors (Halloran, Taylor, Doug) know that he's actually Leslie Mancuso and have plenty of footage to prove it.

I figure Mancuso never gave a shit about establishing a slasher persona around the story of Leslie Vernon. It was just a random urban legend he chose to aid him in exposing how killers such as Jason and Michael operate, while also helping to further his true agenda. When Leslie calls Doc Halloran his Ahab, it isn't because Halloran has come to Glen Echo to stop Leslie Vernon. Halloran has come to stop Leslie Mancuso.

So when he seemingly rises from the dead at the end of the film, he hasn't established an unstoppable aura around the legend of Leslie Vernon. He's established one around his true identity. He's the Masked Magician of serial killers. For all we know, Leslie was disgusted that these killers were going to so much trouble to establish false personas and not actually getting any credit for their hard work.

I can't understand someone saying that the film fails to deliver on the scope of its premise. Was it simply because the film lacked the right amount of gore? The movie can not only be viewed as a deconstruction of the genre, but if taken at face value, the reality established in the movie cleverly and amusingly calls into question the true nature of the supernatural attributes of all the famous slashers. It's also a pretty interesting character study if you go over what Leslie truly had planned from the beginning. Not only was he setting up the documentary crew to be a part of his massacre, but he was also using them as a means to expose the trade secrets of serial killing as a way to demystify them while positioning himself as a truly unstoppable mad genius. And looking at the third act, the filmmakers were actually able to deliver on a slasher that was truly scary after building toward the planned massacre night. Not because of the mask he wears, but because when the mask comes off there is nothing there of the person we grew to like in the first 2/3rds of the film. That's a lot of things this film was able to deliver on.

Could it have used some more gore and tits? Sure, but what film couldn't?

Shit, I wish I'd seen this film so I could join in on this cerebral discussion. Sounds like my cup o' joe.

And I think it's safe to say, and I almost can't believe I'm actually typing these words, tehre were enough tits in one movie anyway: Showgirls.

I enjoyed it. I'm not a connoisseur of slasher movies, but I've seen my fair share and have actually gotten into them the older I've gotten. The guy that played Leslie kept bothering me because he reminded me of someone, then I realized it--he looks like "Will" from Will & Grace, but his personality reminded me of Dane Cook. Which kind of made the movie funnier for me. I may have to buy it. I've had it from Netflix for like 2 weeks and finally got a chance to watch it, but my wife isn't here, and I'd like her to see it.

And talking about the "spectacular kill", I thought the post-hole digger scene was a pretty cool kill. And Robert Englund should have played Loomis in the new "Halloween". Heh.