Reviews

Mickey Santini (Ben Silver) is a hitman on the verge of retirement. However, after a meeting with Carlos Rudinski (John Altman), he's pulled in for one last job. Unfortunately, the job doesn't seem to be up for negotiation either, because he's the only person who can do it and if he can't then his life is on the line.

All he has to do is to go to a house in the countryside and finish off the unfortunate business that has happened there. Although when Mickey gets there, he meets Charlotte (Amber Doig-Thorne) and realises that he's not been told the whole truth. In fact, what's really been happening is that there is a demonic making human sacrifices in the woods and if he's not careful, Mickey could be their next victim.

Demons at Dawn is a British crime thriller turned supernatural horror story directed by Randy Kent and written by Chris Sanders. Clearly taking inspiration from British crime thrillers, Demons at Dawn sets up its premise which is quite original for the horror genre, but it doesn't seem to able to let it go.

This means that most of the movie could be seen as a gangster movie without anything particularly scary happening.

In fact, it goes on for so long that those who are led to believe that they are going to watch a horror movie may be bored by the time anything supernatural occurs. Also, those fans of horror may be equally disappointed if they stuck it out, only to be met with a visual effects budget of an average episode of forgotten 70's children's show, Rentaghost.

This flick (not to be confused with "film") reminds me of Monty Python's sketch about Hitchcock's "Rear Window." The latter runs 1 hour and 12 minutes as the "hero" - confined to a wheelchair - investigates (via his friends and girlfriend) what he thinks is a murder he saw. In the Python sketch the "hero" see the murder and calls the police; the "film" ends in about 1 minute. Here the robbery that sets off the bulk of the film occurs 17 minutes in. In the nonsense that follows - which could have been avoided by a simple phone call to the police, we are treated to class warfare, revenge killings, gratuitous sex and general stupid behavior. Even allowing for hot-blooded emotional people the actions they take are absurd. For example, how any man who is severely wounded (much less dying) can engage in sex (even with his partner doing most of the work) stretches disbelief to the breaking point. This travesty is little more than a soap-opera played out by morons with guns and their victims. In fairness, I give it one star for the lead actress having a nice body and being willing to show it. AVOID.

A bunch of people, as we know from the synopsis are poisoned and mull about waiting to die...and do so. Oscar Wilde received complaints from critics that in the first act of his play Lady Windermere's Fan "nothing happened." In response in his next play (A Woman of No Importance") he made sure that absolutely nothing happened at all: the players simply sit around talking the usual witty Wilde dialogue. However, because Wilde was a literary genius, the play is both worthwhile reading and watching, while this has only - as one reviewer pointed out - Jessica Messenger's "boobs" to recommend it. Surely you have something better to do... I have the television on when I'm writing because the distraction helps me concentrate; in this case I looked up occasionally then when the flick was over, fast forwarded through it (Thanks Tubi TV) to help those of you who may be fans of such limited entertainment as seeing Ms. Messenger display her limited assets, said visuals may be found at approximately the following minute marks: 2; 47; 67; 75.

I'm in such shock...perhaps "numb" is the fitting word to apply...that I don't know where to begin. This would be laughably bad if it weren't for the incredible disappointment that this flick brought. The character of Jack Frost consists principally of a rubber Halloween mask (the mouth of which does not move when he speaks...although the mask itself is impressive) and 2 "frosty" hands (gloves that are unwieldy and inflexible at best). The acting and direction is I suppose passible, but the script and action (and lack thereof) is so bad that if the acting was terrible one wouldn't notice. If you're looking for entertainment, real entertainment that engages you and makes you glad to be a participant in the experience of watching a movie, this IS NOT what you want. Please, find something else to do.

Anyone with any experience of cheap, popular movie entertainment can predict the movements of this like a chess-master watching a well-played game. There are 5 stock character: the wimpy guy, the black guy, the muscular white dude, the blonde girl and the brunette girl. All victims get eaten in appropriate order (wimp, black guy, blonde girl and hero - who as we can guess - sacrifices himself in the nick of time to let the brunette escape). . The minute I saw the cast I knew the basics of the plot. Still, it isn't the worst shark flick you'll ever see. If you like shark flicks, or beautiful views of the ocean (and who doesn't like the latter), put your mind on hold for a bit and give it a try...but don't expect not to get bored between munchings.

I didn't. I found the constant badgering of the character Seamus Monkton to be annoying beyond belief. (Apparently the right to have an attorney present during questioning doesn't exist in the Irish judicial system). The bulk of the flick is divided between interrogation of the old fella and a couple running though the landscape. If you're seeking entertainment, turn the sound off, skip through the interrogation scenes, and focus on the wonders of the Irish landscape. The muted colors and windswept fields and bogs are lovely to behold.

...I got it, and I almost NEVER like horror-comedy. The cast did a great job of acting, the direction (staging, blocking, edit cuts) was well done, the humor was both character-based and funny. Above all this is CHARACTER-BASED; if you like people (although that can be difficult at times, like them on the whole) you'll appreciate the eccentricities and understand how they play into and further the plot. For example, the small asides between the gay couple or the transformation of the classic "loner." I would always be suspicious of anything rated a "10" and anyone rating an offering a "10", but if you look at my roster of reviews, I take great care in shooting down fake 10's. Not the qualifier at the heading: If you get it, you'll love it. If you don't get it (and DO NOT expect a standard werewolf flick) you'll dislike it intensely.

Given the premise we should expect some interesting, creative use of the idea; think of all the origin in Alice in Wonderland, or Batman comic books that riffed off the character of the Mad Hatter (Jervis Tetch). The acting is passible (although the characters are warmed-over tropes). The direction is serviceable (although nothing to brag about). The story is all but worthless (and confusing...or perhaps better described as boring...or both. In an effort to be a "horror" movie some zombies are thrown in near the end, for about - not kidding - 10 seconds for no more purpose than to motivate a chase scene which leads to nothing...). In short, AVOID this flick (not to be confused with a "movie") if you value your time and/or are looking for entertainment. If I could give it a "0" I would.