RELEASED ON DVD IN 2015, "The Downfall of Mr. Difford" chronicles events when the titular serial killer is interrogated by two police officers and a psychologist wherein the psycho details several of his disturbing murders.
I'm a fan of micro-budget indie horror flicks and am well aware of their typical limitations (bad sound, dubious 'acting,' shaky hand-held cameras, bad editing, unconvincing gore, etc.). Despite these usual problems, indie horror CAN be entertaining, whether the creators shoot for campy & amusing, like "Backwoods Bloodbath" (2007), or thoroughly austere, like "Butchered" (2010). But both of these movies cost quite a bit more than the mere $2000 that "The Downfall of Mr. Difford" cost, likely somewhere between $10,000-$50,000, give or take (I'm guessing). Of course, the bulk of the cost of these movies goes to cast wages, lodging and catering. Two great examples of micro-budget indie horror are "The Lonely Ones" (2006) and "Another Kind" (2013), which cost $100,000 and $120,000 respectively.
So let's consider an indie slasher that cost closer to the amount of "Mr. Difford." "A Bothered Conscience" (2006) only cost $2300 and it effectively proves that a quality horror flick can be made with just a few thousand dollars. I'm not saying it's great and it has its problems (like tedious redundancy in the first 50 minutes), but it has a professional indie air from the get-go with a superlative score, not to mention it effectively creates an ominous sylvan ambiance, including one great sequence in particular (see my review for details).
As for "Mr. Difford," it features a serviceable Gothic score and contains a pretty well-done sequence where the eponymous character is tormented by specters of his victims in a shed; plus the black cop and the psychologist perform pretty well for amateur actors. The sound is decent too. Outside of these positives, though, it doesn't work as a slasher/horror/thriller. Beyond the obvious problems of bad acting, blatant plot holes (e.g. the psychologist personally escorting an inmate, not to mention without proper security) and unconvincing gore (to be nice), the story simply isn't interesting. Difford (the character) typically shoots people square in the head (he must do a lot of target practice in his spare time) in order to draw their blood for his own secret reasons; sometimes he hacks the bodies up. The last act hints that he may possess supernatural powers or BE supernatural.
This presents another problem for the movie: It ends ambiguously without tying up loose ends, which is inexplicable since it only runs 1 hour. Now the director might argue that he has a sequel planned, but a no-budget film like this demands to be self-contained. I'd explain but it's not worth it (it's obvious anyway).
I commend the director/writer for finishing his movie project (too many wannabe filmmakers don't even make it that far), but if he continues to make slasher/horror films I encourage him to learn to spice his flicks with highlights that will likely engage his viewers. The aforementioned "Backwoods Bloodbath" (2007), "Butchered" (2010) and "A Bothered Conscience" (2006) all managed to do this. Here are examples from these three films of what I'm talking about:
The first one was spiced with genuinely funny humor whereas the second two took the serious horror route and succeeded. At least two of the three included excellent songs from local musicians for their soundtracks, such as "Whiskey Morning" by 8 Hours of Violence in the first movie and "When I Awake" by Hollow Earth Conspiracy in the third. The first two feature quality females in the cast and were sure to showcase their beauty (and I'm not talking about nudity, although the first one has a little of that). Even the third movie throws in a quality female at just past the hour mark. Furthermore, they all contain convincing gore. And, lastly and most importantly, their stories were generally interesting and, even when they weren't, they made up for it with one or more of the noted highlights, or others, like foreboding forest atmosphere, etc.
If the director learns to make his movies entertaining by improving the scripts and including these types of staples it'll do wonders for his future works. As it stands, this one should've never been released on DVD; it's not worthy of that honor. It should've never even be listed on IMDb; it's THAT amateurish and tedious. He should've used "Mr. Difford" simply as a means to improve his craft, wisely keeping it from the eyes of micro-budget horror fans or anyone else (except maybe his relatives & close friends).
Another reviewer on IMDb posted an incredible 10/10 Star review, which shows that he/she must be related to the director or was connected to the movie somehow. It also shows complete detachment from reality.
I'm a fan of micro-budget indie horror flicks and am well aware of their typical limitations (bad sound, dubious 'acting,' shaky hand-held cameras, bad editing, unconvincing gore, etc.). Despite these usual problems, indie horror CAN be entertaining, whether the creators shoot for campy & amusing, like "Backwoods Bloodbath" (2007), or thoroughly austere, like "Butchered" (2010). But both of these movies cost quite a bit more than the mere $2000 that "The Downfall of Mr. Difford" cost, likely somewhere between $10,000-$50,000, give or take (I'm guessing). Of course, the bulk of the cost of these movies goes to cast wages, lodging and catering. Two great examples of micro-budget indie horror are "The Lonely Ones" (2006) and "Another Kind" (2013), which cost $100,000 and $120,000 respectively.
So let's consider an indie slasher that cost closer to the amount of "Mr. Difford." "A Bothered Conscience" (2006) only cost $2300 and it effectively proves that a quality horror flick can be made with just a few thousand dollars. I'm not saying it's great and it has its problems (like tedious redundancy in the first 50 minutes), but it has a professional indie air from the get-go with a superlative score, not to mention it effectively creates an ominous sylvan ambiance, including one great sequence in particular (see my review for details).
As for "Mr. Difford," it features a serviceable Gothic score and contains a pretty well-done sequence where the eponymous character is tormented by specters of his victims in a shed; plus the black cop and the psychologist perform pretty well for amateur actors. The sound is decent too. Outside of these positives, though, it doesn't work as a slasher/horror/thriller. Beyond the obvious problems of bad acting, blatant plot holes (e.g. the psychologist personally escorting an inmate, not to mention without proper security) and unconvincing gore (to be nice), the story simply isn't interesting. Difford (the character) typically shoots people square in the head (he must do a lot of target practice in his spare time) in order to draw their blood for his own secret reasons; sometimes he hacks the bodies up. The last act hints that he may possess supernatural powers or BE supernatural.
This presents another problem for the movie: It ends ambiguously without tying up loose ends, which is inexplicable since it only runs 1 hour. Now the director might argue that he has a sequel planned, but a no-budget film like this demands to be self-contained. I'd explain but it's not worth it (it's obvious anyway).
I commend the director/writer for finishing his movie project (too many wannabe filmmakers don't even make it that far), but if he continues to make slasher/horror films I encourage him to learn to spice his flicks with highlights that will likely engage his viewers. The aforementioned "Backwoods Bloodbath" (2007), "Butchered" (2010) and "A Bothered Conscience" (2006) all managed to do this. Here are examples from these three films of what I'm talking about:
The first one was spiced with genuinely funny humor whereas the second two took the serious horror route and succeeded. At least two of the three included excellent songs from local musicians for their soundtracks, such as "Whiskey Morning" by 8 Hours of Violence in the first movie and "When I Awake" by Hollow Earth Conspiracy in the third. The first two feature quality females in the cast and were sure to showcase their beauty (and I'm not talking about nudity, although the first one has a little of that). Even the third movie throws in a quality female at just past the hour mark. Furthermore, they all contain convincing gore. And, lastly and most importantly, their stories were generally interesting and, even when they weren't, they made up for it with one or more of the noted highlights, or others, like foreboding forest atmosphere, etc.
If the director learns to make his movies entertaining by improving the scripts and including these types of staples it'll do wonders for his future works. As it stands, this one should've never been released on DVD; it's not worthy of that honor. It should've never even be listed on IMDb; it's THAT amateurish and tedious. He should've used "Mr. Difford" simply as a means to improve his craft, wisely keeping it from the eyes of micro-budget horror fans or anyone else (except maybe his relatives & close friends).
Another reviewer on IMDb posted an incredible 10/10 Star review, which shows that he/she must be related to the director or was connected to the movie somehow. It also shows complete detachment from reality.
