I recently received a promotional email from Shane Ryan-Reid's Mad Sin Cinema for this film, and realized I hadn't done an indie screener in a long time, so I figured I'd make this happen. After how intriguing Choke and Hearbeat were, I was excited to give this one a shot. (I also realized that I still hadn't reviewed Heartbeat yet, which I watched when it was listed in the last promotional email they sent me about a year ago, so I better get on that one soon too.)
The Wrong Sarah is about a serial killer (Shane Ryan-Reid) traveling the country killing young women named Sarah who meet a certain physical description. Hot on his trail is FBI Agent Jack, played by Jason Toler (who also wrote and directed), but he always seems to be one step behind, and every time he is, a new young lady dies. Finally he gets to Sarah Thomas (Elliott Woods) before the killer does. She's the key to him stopping this killer before he can kill again. But will even he be able to stop him when he comes back to finish the job?
While this wasn't directed by Gregory Hatanaka, he produced it, and it felt like one that he directed. Yes, there were elements that felt off, like how the characters would explain minute details about what they were going to do that they didn't need to explain. In one such instance, a man selling Sarah her security system explains that it also starts the fire pit outside. She asks why the fire pit, is that necessary? And they go back and forth a bit. It made me think "the fire pit must play a role later on," but it doesn't. So why go into that detail? On the other hand, Toler brings some of the same manic energy those Hatanaka films have, plus there's a visceral humanity to the entire thing that elevates it beyond the usual serial killer suspense yarn. In one scene Toler's FBI Agent has a soliloquy where he talks about the lives that were snuffed out by this killer, and it's not only his character reflecting on his job and the human lives behind the work he does, but it's also a commentary on the myriad "crime dramas" on TV where, really, the dead human whose crime is being solved is secondary to the actual solving of the crime--the death is just a means to an end in filling an hour in prime time, while here our hero is trying to say no, these deaths aren't a means to an end, they were human lives ended by this killer. With that in mind, I think whatever the film's flaws are, I'd rather it deliver on that humanity front, than be polished in all the other places but miss the humanity altogether.
This is possibly the first, and maybe the last time you'll hear me say this on here, but I think the film could have been longer. Shock, horror, gasp! Say it ain't so Matt, he who always complains "I can't watch a film over 88 minutes" is saying he thinks a movie should be longer? Yes, I would rather this film's 63 minutes than something in the other direction that's 108 minutes, but I think there were areas that could have been fleshed out more. For example, furthering that idea of the film trying to humanize the victims, we had two Sarahs that were killed earlier in the film that I thought were a missed opportunity for that. The first one, played by Sarah Brine from Choke, we just see being held by Ryan, screaming for help, before he sets her ablaze off-screen. What if, before he grabs her, we see her at home talking to one of her friends? In the opening credits, we see a shot of a lone black boot lying in a crime scene, which was a great image of violence and femininity. Maybe Brine is telling her friend how she bought the boots for her date with her boyfriend on Friday. Maybe there's a back and forth with the friend, then she gets off the phone, and two seconds later the lights get cut. What is that, five extra minutes? I get that with the shooting times and budgets they're working with that that might as well be 30 minutes, but the way it could have helped with the pacing and depth of the movie would have been worth it. The other one was the last Sarah to die, whom we meet in a bar. Again, five minutes before she died was all it would have taken, maybe talking to a bartender about her future goals. What have I added, ten minutes total, so we're still under 80, but I think it could've fully fleshed out the themes the film was trying to delve into.
Another thing I really liked was how the film addressed the inevitable love scene between the hero and the Sarah he's protecting. In films like this we usually see the female becoming smitten with the male lead, but here it's more the stress of everything that's going on that pushes her for some comfort and distraction wherever she can get it. It starts with her putting on his shirt and looking at his badge and gun, and the scenes of this happening are interspersed with scenes of Agent Jack on the porch having his soliloquy, reinforcing the message of remembering the humanity of the victims. Then he comes back inside, they talk, and as he walks away she grabs his wrist. After the love scene, she says flat out that she needed the distraction. It takes a common, tired trope of the girl falling for the hero, and makes something new out of it, something more human and three dimensional for the female lead, which I really appreciated.
Shane Ryan-Reid plays the killer, and while he's good, I think we could have used more of the manic energy that made him so great in Choke. I get why they didn't focus on him too much: one, they wanted to maintain the suspense of who he was; and two, as I've mentioned above, I think they wanted the film to be more about the victims and less about the killer. I get all that, but what would five minutes of Ryan-Reid going off have done to hurt that? He's exactly the person I need when I'm watching a film like this to make me uncomfortable. And if we add that five minutes, where are we at now? 78 minutes? Still really good. I looked into more of Ryan-Reid's films on his Mad Sin Cinema site, and I think they're all a bit too harsh for me, but it's that harshness that makes his roles in these Cinema Epoch films worth watching, so I'm happy for it here. (Also, I need to update his tag on here to reflect his proper name now.)
One of the things I talk about a lot is supporting indie, whether it's musicians like our friend at the After Movie Diner, Jon Cross, and his Miscellaneous Plumbing Fixtures; authors like me and my novels, Jacob Gustafson's Awful Awesome series, or our friend Mitch Lovell at the Video Vacuum and the books on horror and action he's put out like Bloody Book of Horror; or with movies like this or the other screeners I've received over the years. The thing with these Cinema Epoch films though, is I don't need screeners to do them, they're all on Tubi for the most part. If I'm Mr. Support Indie, I should just review them. I have this Tuesday spot set aside for indie films, I just need to use it more often. How can I expect people to "support indie" and buy my novels, if I'm not doing it properly myself?
And with that, it's time to wrap this up. Right now you can get this on Tubi for free, which I think is a good deal. It's not perfect, but it attacks the genre in ways that have been long overdue, and for me that made it worth the time I spent on it.
For more info: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14502754
And if you haven't yet, check out my new novel, A Girl and a Gun, at Amazon in paperback or Kindle!
No comments:
Post a Comment