The Admirable Crichton (1957)

The upper class Loam household has an ordered hierarchy, with Earl Henry and his three daughters at the top, and the servants, head butler Crichton included, at the bottom. Everyone seems to know their place, but after a cruise ends in disaster, everyone ends up stranded on a tropical island, far from civilisation. Here only the strong survive, and the elite may find the roles reversed...

The Admirable Crichton is a classic British comedy. Based on a play by J.M. Barrie, it focuses on the class struggles of the day, where lords and ladies were considered rightfully superior to the common riff-raff, who were expected to know their place, and be servile. Though they speak in such coarse and vulgar ways, if they're going to work for a good household they simply must improve their manner. They're still more furniture than man, but they must imitate their betters even if they are not equal. That's the way England was back in the day, and there are still traces in the present, but thankfully with far less influence as back then.

The first act of the film is devoted to introducing us to the characters, and their status quo.

Something that confused me going in was that the Earl begins the story already on board with the idea of equality among men. I figured he'd be the last person to accept that. This turns out to only be a temporary though, as for all his interest, he switches right back the moment it's inconvenient. His three daughters are the same. They may come across as nice and forward thinking girls, one even taking part in Suffragette riots, but the idea of treating their maids like real people has them acting like spoilt brats.

The Loam family and staff, plus three suitors, are soon going out for a fancy cruise, which finds trouble when the ship is capsized, and they are all stranded on a deserted island. It's here where everyone's true mettle is tested. The upper class lot find themselves utterly useless at pretty much everything, until they're told to shut up and put their back into it. The 'lowly' staff, however, are not only more than suited to both roughing it, but without the influence of modern civilisation, they have no reason to keep acting like the idle rich are genetically better than them. Here on this island, the most capable are the ones who'll thrive and endure.

Time passes, and we see an amusing and interesting reversal of roles, as everyone has become accustomed to island life. They've built low-tech versions of all their old creature comforts, and there are various romantic entanglements, before things reach a dramatic conclusion with the possibility of rescue. Now that they've accepted their new life here, do they even want to be rescued?

It's the ending to The Admirable Crichton that really loses me. Pretty much everything after the party get back to the mainland is a disappointment. The characters are all back to square 1, while the romance fizzles and is met with a downer of an ending, the final relationship feeling more like settling. It feels like the film undermines its own ending. At first you have a pretty good idea of how things will turn out, but then we get a curveball, and enjoy the new direction...But then it suddenly undoes all that and goes back to the original ending.

Overall I think it's a cowardly way to conclude the story, and the same goes for Barrie's original stage play. I don't care if it would've caused a stir back in 1902. Screw all those toffs. He shoulda stuck with his principles and given us the deserved ending.

Primarily a character piece, the collection we have here all entertain. Crichton is a set in his ways butler, who thinks only of his lord's needs. But when push comes to shove, he takes charge, and asserts his dominance. Eldest daughter Mary meanwhile is a fiery lass. The longest of the elites to hold out, before finally falling in love with her former butler. The pair have good chemistry, and are believable together.

The remainder of the characters all have their moments, even if only minor, and none felt particularly wasted, given their varying levels of importance. The 'coarse' but sweet Tweeny is a good presence, as are all the suitors who soon come to be pining for her.

The cast do a fine job, with Kenneth More doing great as a quintessential butler but also fits the part when his inner self comes out, and we see his physical side too. Sally Ann Howes is a good mix of feisty and sweet, mostly the former, while Diane Cilento is decent. Cecil Parker is as reliably good as always, and we also get a young(er) Gerald Harper, along with the remainder of the guys and girls.

The Admirable Crichton is gorgeously shot, and despite being a British film, it manages to look like there's serious money behind it. There are sumptuous manor houses, and a beautiful tropical island. The makeshift structures in the last act are great too, and make life on a deserted island not look like such a bad deal after all.

The film is also known as Paradise Lagoon, which is technically not incorrect, since there is a lagoon, and it's indeed a paradise, but that title still feels wrong. It conjures up images of South Seas adventures, and hunky romance cover men embracing women on the beach, as opposed to a British comedy on the class system.

The Admirable Crichton is plenty of fun, and a solid reminder of why the class system was always full of shit...

Stop Press Girl (1949) and Fools Rush In (1949)

Stop Press Girl

Jennifer Peters is a sweet young country girl, soon to be engaged to enterprising watch tycoon Roy. After making a less than striking impression with her uncle, he learns that all women in Jennifer's family have a strange power. Without knowing, she stops all machinery after 15 minutes-Watches, vacuums, cars, etc. He runs screaming, leading Jennifer to journey to the city, where she meets friendly reporter Jock, and gets a new job as an air hostess...

Stop Press Girl is a fun light fantasy picture. Despite its ideas, it never aims to be high concept, which is ok. For a movie like this, the light touch is appreciated. It's enough to be there, but not so much that the imagination stretches beyond the budget.

Some accuse the movie of having one joke, and running it into the ground. I disagree. Yeah, the movie has this main source of humour, but that doesn't mean it's lazy. We're not just seeing the same joke again and again either. The one element leads to many different jokes. And the movie utilises it well either, never doing too much at once. It keeps an air of simplicity that is justified, especially with the short runtime. A movie that's under 80 minutes is allowed to be simple.

Jennifer is a sweet character, innocent without being naive. It's nice following her on these little adventures, and seeing how she adapts to it all. Her uncle is amusingly business-minded, and gets some great scenes, like his interrogations/dental exams of prospective suitors.

Roy is a likeable enough boy, if not the ideal man for Jennifer. It's amusing hearing him 'smooth talk' her. "I'll be able to give you all the things you've always wanted." "And what are the things I've always wanted, Roy?" "Oh, the usual. Clothes, a car of your own, a flat in town, visits to theatres, races, and parties."

Roving reporter Jock is a more salt-of-the-earth type, and a fun bloke, but flawed enough to create tension (from his inability to just let a good story lie). He immediately gets on well with Jennifer. The pair share good chemistry, and I appreciate the movie having a Scotsman as the romantic partner!

Friendly rival Angela serves as the closest thing the film has to a villain. It's funny how the motives of both the 'villain' and Jennifer actually align. Angela believes her to be a sensation hunter and plans on killing the story. Jennifer meanwhile decidedly isn't a sensation hunter, and is just as eager to squash it. I wish a little more was done with this, like the two women actually working together, but at least it's not bad.

I was a little disappointed with the conclusion, since now no-one will believe Jennifer's powers are real. But I suppose it's ok, since she never wanted that anyway, but Jock's job will certainly be worse for the wear!

The ending itself is a funny way to close out the movie, perfectly fitting for the story.

The cast here is plenty of fun. Sally Ann Howes is a delightful lead. It's a treat seeing her this young, when all I know her from directly is Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, almost 20 years later. On that note, here as her patriarchal figure (uncle instead of dad) is James Robertson Justice! He's always a hoot, and is his typical blustery self. Doing a fine job is Gordon Jackson, coming across just as mature as his Professionals days. Nigel Buchanan is good as the beleaguered Roy. Everyone else is fun, and there are even a duo (Basil Radford and Naunton Wayne) who recur as different characters. I never even noticed! I appreciate the subtlety, even if the film might've done too good a job of it.

The visuals here are very nice. While this may have been a more lower budget film, you'd never notice, due to wise directorial choices, nifty effects, and some really neat cinematography in some shots, including a subtle but interesting shot of a lorry driving out of the night fog. The parachute scene is well filmed too.

Stop Press Girl is a charming little movie. If you're keen on early British cinema, this is perfect to check out, and for me is just as good as the likes of Miranda.

Fools Rush In

Pamela Dickson is a young girl on the cusp of marriage, but having cold feet. It's not that she doesn't love fiancee Roy, but in part due to her mother's tempestuous divorce, and her own bad habit of overthinking, Pam insists on postponing the wedding until both she and Roy really understand what it means to get married. Meanwhile, her long-absent father reappears to a mixed reception, and Pam jumps at the opportunity to get to know him. After all, if he's a rotter, the divorce makes sense. But what if he's a perfectly upstanding chap...

Fools Rush in is an example of a simple, nice comedy from England. Simple yet effective. The theme is all about the institution of marriage, and leads to some funny scenarios. It's surprisingly un-dated for it's time, with all its talk of divorce and remarriage. This is still 1949 though, and there are some scenes and exchanges are bound to cause a chuckle or an eye roll.

The story moves along at a fun pace, although I did wish it would hurry up and explain just why Pam's parents divorced, because that mystery keeps most of the cast on edge wondering, and there's no good reason to leave us hanging. If knowing the answer will set everyone's minds at ease, it's a wonder why the parents doesn't just tell them.

 

Some moments are a little cringey, but are always resolved quickly. Like when Paul gets revenge on the snooping maid by pretending to be a masher. I thought that would cause no end of trouble, but everyone catches on pretty quickly that it's all an act.

Really there was only one thing I disliked about Fools Rush In-The ending. It's hard to tell exactly what's happening, since the action is all offscreen, but either Pam is getting spanked, or...! If the former, it's not exactly fun (characters getting spanked can be an amusing comeuppance and way of ending a movie, although in this case it's a bit much for such a sweet character). If the latter though it's a really misguided and unpleasant way for the movie to wrap up!

Pam is a mixed protagonist. Nice, and surprisingly intelligent! A little too much for her own good, really, much to the frustration of all those around her. I did start to get a bit annoyed with her wishy-washiness by the last act, and was happy to see her eventually see reason. Her fiancee Joe tries his best to cope with the situation, and you feel for the poor guy. It gets to a point where he can't seem to do anything right, like going in for a kiss and forgetting to remove his cigarette.

Pam's mother Angela is naturally bewildered by her daughter's actions. She has a nice relationship with her new partner, Sir Charles. He's a decent guy, though I wasn't a fan of their split-up at the end. It felt like it only happens because the writer wanted it, and not because it was natural. Instead the film concocts a bizarrely sudden reason for them to call it quits, and Angela decides to shack back with her ex, the very same night!

Paul is likewise a perfectly amiable gentleman, and not at all the cad his daughter expected him to be. Although it's weird how there isn't anything wrong with him. He's kinda made out to be perfect, really, which is a bit disappointing. Cheeky maid Millicent gets a few laughs, especially with her scheming later on

The cast all do a fine job here. Sally Ann Howes is sweet as always, even when her character enrages, while Nigel Buchanan gets to be the main love interest this time, and is amusingly exasperated. Guy Rolfe delivers a believable performance, and the remainder of the cast is made up of fun ladies.

The dialogue is the best part of Fools Rush in, and an absolute hoot all these years later

Regarding passion: "You don't get swept off your feet by personal regard." "I prefer to say she was infatuated." "What's the difference?" "Miss Pam, I will not stand here and listen to you accusing your mother of passion."

"I know it sounds mad, but when you came in this morning you seemed so nice, and I thought well if he's a rotter it doesn't show. And that's disturbing. And if he's not a rotter, why couldn't mummy get on with him? And that's even more disturbing!"

"Pam, I will not allow the Encyclopedia Britannica to interfere with my affairs"

"Oh, that revolting old creature!" "Which revolting old creature?"

Overall, Fools Rush In isn't anything special, even among its own ranks, but it's a breezy enough watch, and has some golden dialogue to help elevate it. It's worth watching for fans of old British comedy, and doesn't fail to deliver that quaint charm, even if it isn't a classic...

Step Lively, Jeeves (1937)

After mistakenly trying to swindle each-other, two con artists decide to team up and use a new trick, duping well-off butler Jeeves into believing he's a long-lost descendant of Sir Francis Drake, and must collect on a fortune in America. They create a media storm surrounding the arrival of the new 'Earl of Braddock'. Interested in this news is Babe, a former gang leader turned society lady, who's excited to be entertaining a genuine Earl, and has her goons bring him over, much to the horror of the increasingly nervous con-men...

When it come to bad adaptions, an interesting topic is whether or not they're still good movies in spite of their disrespectful nature. In the case of Step Lively, Jeeves, this is a perfect example. The film itself is actually pretty decent. But when you consider it as a Jeeves movie, it's a total failure, in every conceivable way! Here's how bad it is. 1936's Thank You, Jeeves was an in-name-only adaption that completely failed to capture the tone, spirit, or contents of the books. And yet it is still a more loyal adaption than this!

There are a few things that hold Step Lively from feeling like a true Jeeves story. First up is the 12 minute beginning, which introduces us to the two con-artists, and our favourite gentleman is nowhere to be seen! It takes almost 1/6th of the way through his own movie before he appears! When he finally does Bertie Wooster is nowhere to be found, nor even mentioned. Jeeves is instead in the employ of some random couple.

Next up, the lack of a friendly dope like Bertie means Jeeves' personality is changed completely, to make him into a gullible fool. And last up is the change of setting to America. In fairness the Jeeves stories did sometimes go to the old colony, but when it's such a big element here, at the cost of so much else, it just feels like a typically American move-Poaching a story and changing up the setting to their own backyard.

With all of this you may be wondering, are there any familiar Wodehousian touches? For the most part, no, but there was one part I really liked, and felt would be right at home in a P.G. novel. Patricia has set herself up in the crooks' household posing as a rich girl, and when she and Jeeves meet again, he comments how good it is to see her again...which Babe takes as proof of this fine young girl's high standing.

If there is a benefit to Step Lively, Jeeves being so unfaithful, it does mean it's very easy to switch off and just accept this as its own film. And on those terms it ain't half bad. I can see why it's not more widely loved, and it's not gonna win any awards, but it's fine. Easily on par with the likes of Torchy Blane or Mexican Spitfire.

The characters here are quite decent, with exceptions. One issue is just how many there are. Jeeves, the friendly reporter and her beau, the con artists, and a band of high society crooks. It gets a bit much, especially for a 69 minute long film. It's not often I say this, since 60-70 minutes is such a perfect runtime for these kinds of films, but Step Lively, Jeeves really could've stood to be longer.

Jeeves is an alright lead in places, if you forget who he's supposed to be, but is not the strongest. He's even a bit too passive in the climax (although his honesty does shine through). Taking the action is reporter Patricia, who's a fun dame, and has a nice friendship with Jeeves. She may not trust the two con men, but she can just tell he's on the level. Her boyfriend is your typical 'You should settle down and marry me' guy but isn't too obnoxious about it, and always tries getting his way by helping rather than hindering her.

Onto the villains, the con men are a hoot! Especially the 'Russian prince', who says constant malapropisms. The pair have some great zingers too, like "Stop involving nations and cut some bread!". I like how the Prince never beaks character, almost like he's been doing this act for so long he believes it himself.

The gang of crooks are a fairly amusing bunch. Head honcho Babe is trying to make do in high society, while her hubby is trying to do his best in this ill-fitting world, as are his goons. They're lighthearted baddies, causing problems but never truly evil. The only thing I disliked was the decision to have Babe be the creator of Jeeves' famous pick-me-up! Sacrilege!

The acting in Step Lively, Jeeves is fine all round. One 'upside' to the change in Jeeves' personality is that it means Arthur Treacher gives a more appropriate and subdued performance, rather than the boisterous and bombastic one he gave in the previous film. The character as written here still means he feels unlike Jeeves, but at least his general mannerisms are more befitting.

The rest of the cast are decent enough. Alan Dinehart and George Givot are a hoot as the con artists (with Givot's accent being a particular highlight!), while Patricia Ellis and Robert Kent are serviceable as the heroic couple. The gaggle of guys playing the crooks are pretty good, as is Helen Flint as their ringleader.

Despite their differences in construction, P.G. Wodehouse and Classic Hollywood had many similarities, and these worked best when independent of each-other. Most attempts the Yanks ever made to adapt Plum's stories were groanworthy at best, insulting at worst. Step Lively, Jeeves is proof positive of this, acting as a movie that works well in its own right, but poorly as a representation of Wodehouse's fine craft. It's worth checking out if you're an old Hollywood fan, but not urgently, and it may drive you to a rage if you're a fan of the text. Ultimately, there are easier and better films to find...

Laverne and Shirley (1976-1983)

American sitcoms can be a trite and cliched territory when they're not outright garbage (yet bizarrely long-lived garbage), but there are always some that are different, or ones that stand out through sheer quality. I'd always heard of Laverne and Shirley growing up, and knew it had a big reputation, but had never actually seen it until 2014, when I caught reruns on tv. I was instantly hooked, and became a fan overnight. To this day it's one of my all-time favourite shows, and I'd like to explain why...

 

 Laverne DeFazio and Shirley Feeney are two cheeky but well-intentioned girls out in the wide world of Milwaukee, working at the Shotz brewery day in day out, and hanging out at the DeFazio pizza bowl with their friends (or nuisance neighbours). From Laverne's attempts at finding a fun date, to Shirley's attempts at finding true lifelong happiness, these girls are never short of adventure...

Laverne and Shirley is a conventional sitcom, but what makes it stand out, among other reasons I'll get into soon, is the quality of writing, and the characterization. This is an often hilarious comedy which always has fun stories of the gals getting caught up in one mess or another. The show also displays a level of character and continuity consistency that most sitcoms don't have. The writers here clearly weren't lazy, and never forgot details little or big.

This is not only a very funny show, but also one that brings a smile to one's face, which is extremely appreciated! I love when shows can make you feel happy! While it's not a schmaltzy love-in where everyone is perfect all the time, no-one ever acts truly badly, and it's always enjoyable.

The characters in Laverne and Shirley are all great! The titular duo are hilarious! Both actresses perform them and their quirks superbly, with Laverne being an immature goofball with a knack for mischief, and a hankering for the 'rodeo-do-do', while Shirley is a more reserved and serious girl, usually trying to be prim and ladylike, while at times manic. You really do get the impression that these two ladies are friends, and their relationship is the heart of the show.

As for the neighbouring pests Lenny and Squiggy, they seem absolutely grating at first, but you get used to them pretty quickly, and you even see at numerous points why Laverne and Shirley are friends with these two dopes. Scenes like that really help flesh out the character relationships, which is leagues better than shows where characters hang out with slovenly and irritating people all the time for no reason.

The rest of the cast, from Laverne's gruff but loving father Frank, his spouse Edna, and Shirley's on-again-off-again beau Carmine, are great fun, and the later additions, such as Sonny, and Rhonda, are good too, and don't come across as Cousin Oliver's. There are also really good supporting/minor characters such as the caustic Rosie Greenbaum, who's always at odds with Laverne, sparring both figuratively and literally, but is ultimately friends with her and Shirley, and then there's the tough bruiser Terri Buttafuco, who's character develops very well over her occasional appearances.

While predominately goofy, the show isn't afraid to get serious. There are some dramatic episodes, and they're really good! They don't come across as forced, and some are likely to break your heart! Minor dramatic moments are all handled well too, and the show gives good messages overall.

What's especially awesome is that this show even does gimmick episodes well! First, let's discuss the requisite clip show. Now, there's nothing revolutionary about the framing of this episode, but it has good clips, and its framing story is not only funny, but very well-done, focusing on the title duo's friends as viewpoint characters, giving their thoughts on the gals. Then there's one episode where it pulled that old sitcom staple of doing a take on It's a Wonderful Life. It's handled well here not only because of the genuine pathos the episode delivers, but also because the conceit is just a dream that Laverne has after falling asleep to It's a Wonderful Life, as opposed to other shows that just had legitimate angel visitations despite the otherwise realistic setting (I'm looking at you, Dallas! Family Ties, you get a pass by just thiiis much).

What's fantastic about Laverne and Shirley is that it also never jumped the shark! Sure, some episodes are goofier than others here or there, but they're never to the level of Happy Days' bonkers gimmick episodes (although as someone who's watched a good chunk of Happy Days, I can attest to those episodes being nowhere near as frequent as some detractors like to claim). The goofiest the show ever got was when Laverne gets mixed up in a confusion between Squiggy, and a defecting Russian ballet star identical to him. But even then, that episode is never all that far out, and even shows Laverne and Squiggy's friendship off well.

Some say that Laverne and Shirley jumped the Shark not only when it moved to California, but by that act itself, which I find to be very shaky logic. To me, the show is still just as good at that stage as previous seasons, nor is the move a bad thing. Things didn't need to be freshened up, but it's good that the showrunners decided on the change anyway, as it's never good when shows become stagnant. The sea change allowed for some new stories to tell, and new characters to introduce. As for the entire cast moving to California, well it's not as contrived as it sounds. Frank and Edna go first to open up a business there, and after being laid off, Laverne and Shirley and decide to move there too. Then Lenny and Squiggy get the same idea, and since they're slobs, they're easily able to find cheap accommodation. The only place where it starts getting a bit contrived is when Carmine moves too. That's one character too many, and while the character is still great, he doesn't appear a whole lot, making his moving too be a bit unnecessary.

There were some issues with the show's final years though. First was the departure of Betty Garrett, which was explained by breaking Edna and Frank up offscreen, which I thought was a pretty rotten move. But more infamous than that was when Shirley herself, one half of the title, packed up her bags and departed. This was because of Cindy Williams' pregnancy (among other reasons), and so she was written out, and for the majority of season 8 the show became known informally as Laverne without Shirley. Fans just couldn't take the departure of one half of the duo, understandably so, and the show never recovered from this, eventually ending in a pretty random spot, with an unsuccessful and bafflingly late backdoor pilot for Carmine. While I find the quality itself of season 8 to be fairly decent, it did have some pretty fatal setbacks, that ultimately led to the show's oncoming end.

To finish, I highly recommend Laverne and Shirley! It's a brilliantly funny comedy with likeable characters, and thankfully many (but not too many) episodes to enjoy! Go to it, and why not have a milk and pepsi on the way! C'mon, you know you want to try one! I promise they're not awful...

Loon Lake (2019)

Ansel Faraj, frontman of indie studio Hollinsworth Productions, has had a gradual trajectory over the years. Starting out with some student projects (unavailable to find anywhere, which may be for the best, even if they do sound interesting), and continuing with two of the worst films I have ever seen (and you know that is saying something). Following projects were equally bad, or mediocre, but a few were pretty decent, such as the cheap but pretty hilarious short The Family Wolff. One of his latest films is Loon Lake, which I had high hopes for right out of the gate. Does it live up to them?...

Louis is a heartbroken man after the death of his wife in a tragic car accident. Feeling empty and dissilusioned with life in the city, he moves to the small Minnesotan town of Round Lake, and soon gets to know the townspeople, and the local folklore. Louis hears about a witch who supposedly cursed the town, and kills all those who disrespect her, and comes to realise he may have already done so without noticing. Now with only three days left, if the curse is true, Louis is tormented by visions, and races to find the answers before it's too late...

My faith in Loon Lake wasn't misplaced, as it's a pretty decent horror film! It's simple, and tells a pretty common story, but it does so in an effective way.

Loon Lake is an immediate upswing in quality compared to Faraj's previous output, since this one actually uses real locations! The dialogue is also clear to make out, the editing is sensible, and no filmmaking rules are broken (in fact I admired how well they were handled here!)! All in all a great effort in terms of an evolution.

Loon Lake wastes no time in getting to business. By only 15 minutes in it's already shown the big flashback, introduced its hero, meeting the neighbours, and him accidentally desecrating the witch's grave! From here on we gradually get further backstory, and character development.

The writing is fairly decent. The flashbacks are sparse but nice, especially when their story begins to mirror that of the present. My only issue is that their story is a little unfocused here and there, and it's at times unclear how we're supposed to see the witch. Is she an innocent woman wronged? Or really an evil witch? The order of these scenes is confusing too, and at times contradictory, almost like they're different tellings of a similar tale.

The ending disappointed me most. It's a bit of a downer, it has one huge cheat, and while it's not as depressing as it could've been (Gracie is lucky she disappears before the end!), it's still a dour note to end on, and I'm not sure what's really been accomplished.

The characters are fairly decent, but many of them suffer from gaps in their screentime, so it can be hard at times getting attached. The film has a communal small town feel, and while this diminishes as the plot focuses solely on a couple of people, it was still nice.

The location here is great. Shot on location in the real life Round Lake (where the titular Loon Lake is located), it makes for some great scenery, and it's all used well, as is the local mythology. It makes for a nice curio for those from the area!

The scares here are mixed. Some are pretty good, from the obvious RAHH moments to the subtler ones, but the film does have a few too many cheap jumpscares. Sometimes the music will shriek even when I couldn't tell what was happening. Often a character will see something we can't.

Nathan Wilson's performance is understated, but fairly decent. Past performances of his left me cold, but I thought he did well here. Brittany Benjamin is nice as the love interest, while Kelly Erin Decker gives a fun and ooky performance as the witch. The real star though is David Selby, with his effective dual role as Emery, and Pastor Owen. Not only is his acting different, but his whole mannerisms and appearance! The Pastor is a tall and imposing man, while Emery is scraggly and hunched over, with an unassuming look rather than a steely gaze.

I was a mix of surprised, yet not at all when I learnt he is a Dark Shadows alumni. Ansel Faraj must have what borders on an obsession with these actors, but I am happy for it! It gives them more work, especially for their senior years, and while a bad director can hinder good actors, they could also teach him much of the craft.

The music in Loon Lake is decent. There are spooky tracks, some effective and some to the detriment of the action. There are also a few pleasant tunes, with a rural feel that contrasts well with the visuals.

The direction here is quite good! There's one particular 'Go big or go home' moment, that I was equal parts impressed and annoyed by. It's a dizzying bird's eye view of a cornfield, and it's really good at first!...But then it just keeps going...and going! It's like Faraj was so happy to pull off a shot like this he wanted to get as much as he could out of it. Good on him, but less is more sometimes. Another element I liked is the lighting, from the at times vibrant colours, to the use of shadows. The film's standout moment is the ritual flashback, with its blue, orange, and green.

Loon Lake isn't the best, and has its problems, but I found it to be a pretty good time, and a good coup for indie horror, especially folk horror. This feels like something straight out of the 70s...