Reeker

Posted by Mister Hand (misterhand@filmschoolrejects.com) on September 25, 2007

Does anyone remember Jarts? They were large darts with metal ends. You set a target in your yard, hurled the lawn dart in the air, and hoped it landed within the target. One of the few times Reeker tickled my imagination was in a scene where a blind man describes how he was blinded by a Jart, leading to a recall of the item.

“That was you?” a companion asks, with an accusatory tone, as if to say, “Hey, man, you screwed up my Jart fun!”

The part where the item was recalled is true, and a new version of the toy was issued with a plastic end. It wasn’t the same.

It used to be that horror films, like Jarts, were dangerous. They were subversive and antisocial. And by being so, they provided commentaries on the state of our society. Reeker is not one of those films.

What you get with Reeker is the story of a group of college kids setting out on the road to attend a celebrated bash called “Area 52.” The kids are generally likeable. One has acquired a motherload of some sort of new ecstacy drug by nefarious means. Then there’s the aforementioned blind kid, the peppy cheerleader type, the level-headed friend of the ecstacy thief, and the driver. The driver is supposed to be a sort of a tough broad who “doesn’t take anyone’s shit,” but the only early indication we get of that is that she is Australian and not as conventionally attractive as the cheerleader-type chick. The kids find themselves stuck at a roadstop in the desert and mysterious things start to happen. Then, one by one, the kids die in various grisly ways. Well, some of them do, anyway.

The film takes on some conventions of the zombie sub-genre, but at it’s heart, it is what Roger Ebert would term “a dead teenager movie.” And, as the story progressed, I came to conclude that it was an above average entry into this recently-revived cinematic archetype. But even then the movie displayed a fatal flaw in the form of a CG effect that looked like it was lifted straight from an early episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation. Just when the film would begin to build some genuine tension, it was completely undone by this cheesy process.

Despite that, I found myself mostly enjoying the film. I was intrigued throughout to find out exactly what was going on and I actually did care about the characters, even when I was asking myself, “Now why is he/she doing that?” Moreover, Reeker boasts decent production values, a cast of eager actors, and a director who has some apparent sense of style (his taste in CG effects notwithstanding). So by an hour and twenty minutes into the film’s running time, I’m thinking in the back of my mind that Reeker is a solid C+ and, depending on the ending, possibly a B- on the Film School Rejects grading scale.

And then do you know what happened? Basically, the film put on a pair of smelly sweat pants and said, “Okay! Now I give up!” This happened when Reeker decided it really didn’t want to be a dead teenager movie and aspired to be something more–and failed miserably.

What I write next may very well be considered spoiler material, but I believe it’s in the public interest, and instructional for aspiring filmmakers, that it be read. If you like, watch Reeker, and then come back to reference this review if you want the experience of coming to the end of a movie and realizing it has completely wasted your time. If that’s you, then for now, skip the next paragraph:

**SPOILER WARNING**

The ending of Reeker is the sort of travesty that makes you want to pick up something and throw it at the television screen after watching it. It’s a “twist” that was unoriginal and predictable when Jacob’s Ladder did it. It wasn’t so predictable, but just as boringly derivative and utterly idiotic when it was done again in Eye of the Beholder. In fact, for all of the movies that have tried some variation on this ending, it has never, ever worked. The only time it worked was in 1890 when Ambrose Bierce conceived it for his short story “An Occurance at Owl Creek Bridge.”

**END SPOILER**

By the conclusion of its 91 minute running time, it is sheer laziness that makes Reeker come undone, opening itself up to reviews with titles like “Reeker Reeks” or “Don’t Fear the Reeker” (both of which I considered). I suspect the makers of Reeker were really impressed with themselves as they conceived the story’s final ten minutes of running time. As they dreamed it up, they said to themselves, “Boy, they’ll never see this coming!” And they would have been right. You’ll never see it coming because every indication you’ll have up to that point is that this movie doesn’t totally suck.

The Upside: As mentioned, respectable production values, likeable characters, passable acting, and decent direction. Other than that, the story plays out an intriguing mystery. You will be eager to discover exactly why everyone is dying, and how.

The Downside: The ending makes the whole movie a waste of time. You find out why everyone is dying and how only to realize you’ve been cruelly cheated.

On the Side: Not only were Jarts recalled after causing some injuries, they were banned. From Wikipedia: While the tip may not be sharp enough to be obviously dangerous, when misused, these darts [lawn darts, or Jarts] can cause skull punctures and other serious injuries. On December 19, 1988, all lawn darts were banned from sale in the United States by the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Shortly after, in 1989, they were also banned in Canada. Lawn darts, used in an outdoor game, have been responsible for the deaths of three children, the latest being in early 1997 near Elkhart, Indiana.

| | Read more articles by Mister Hand