The Coroner's Report
After Dark Horrorfest: Mulberry Street
Posted by Robert Fure (robert@filmschoolrejects.com) on June 6, 2008
Moving right along with our continuing coverage of the After Dark Horrorfest, we come to the campy, low budget Mulberry Street. I hadn’t heard all that much about this one before seeing it, but from reading its description I knew it was probably best for me to treat this one as a rental, rather than a purchase.
The film follows a group of people as they try to survive a night where an infection has gone rampant through New York, devolving everyone infected into violent rat people. It’s not quite as cool as it sounds. Our characters are mostly forgettable, with some kid, some single mom, some over-the-top homosexual, a former boxer who punches ratpeople, his veteran daughter, and a couple of old farts. Substitute “zombie” with “rat people” and you basically know the plot if you’ve ever seen a zombie movie - people are trapped by the hungry villains and have to survive the night.
Kills
There is a decent amount of mayhem going on and a lot of people bite the dust. I’m not sure on the final count, but at least a bar full of people are munched on, random street goers are torn down, and an apartment complex gets ravaged.
Ills
The blood work is pretty good and we get to see a fair amount of it. There are scratches, bites, and face smashes. It’s not overwhelmingly good or even all that memorable, but while watching the film it was enough to keep me watching. There aren’t too many notable kills that make you scream “YESSSS!” but its pretty good for what it is.
Lust
Nothing really. Disappointing. There is one half-hearted sex scene near the start of it all, but this movie is not about showing the good stuff.
Learning
New York sucks. Ha! One common idea in infestation-type horror flicks is that you don’t want to be in a city. There are very few routes of escape and you end up on a roof of a high rise at some point, cut off from freedom. You also probably better off not listening to or interacting with old people, who make poor decisions, or caring about anyone enough to risk your own life, as that person will probably end up dead anyways.
Review
I didn’t really like this film, but you’re probably starting to get a sense of that already. There just wasn’t that much going on. Sure, there are rat people, but the direction lacked tension and the acting was passable, but nothing more. There were a lot of dumb character moments, the gay guy was waaaaay too over the top, and the ending was one that tried to reach for the stars but didn’t get its hand out of the gutter. Nick Damici as “Clutch” was pretty ok and I wouldn’t mind seeing him in something else, but overall, the film is totally “eh.”
When compared against the rest of the installments of After Dark, it probably ranks a few steps up from the bottom, but that’s because of weak rivals, not any strength on its own. Watch this only if you’re a completionist or if you have some sort of rat people fetish. The low budget (which really shows in the film/video quality) is a real hinderance and despite my kind nature (heh) there’s just nothing here that makes me want to recommend this to you.
Read more articles by Robert Fure
4 Comments
June 6th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
After Dark Horrorfest was in November of 2007. Is there any particular reason this comes out 8 months after the film debuts?
As for your review, are you really marking down a horror film because there’s no sex? Was there sex in The Exorcist? Was there sex in The Descent? Was there sex in Alien? I am in no way advocating that Mulberry Street belongs in the upper eschelon with those films, but sex isn’t necessary to complete a horror film.
“New York sucks?” That’s the lesson you get out of this film? This film is supposed to be a celebration of New York and the idea of unity despite diversity. Look at the characters assembled: an Italian ex-boxer, an easter European single mother, a gay black man, an elderly WWII veteran…a motley crew of characters you would see on every street corner in New York that are working together to protect each other. You’re going to fault them for barricading themselves in their apartment building and trying to protect their livelihood? We’re lead to believe that most of them have probably never lived anywhere else but Brooklyn and if they’re going to die defending their homes, then damn it, they’re going down fighting. Are you going to criticize the characters in “Night of the Living Dead” for barricading themselves in a house where there are “very few routes of escape” as you say?
But of course “Night of the Living Dead” was a seminal film, pregnant with socio-political commentary. Well guess what? “Mulberry Street” has that too. Open your eyes.
My mind is also futilely trying to comprehend the higher score you gave to “Nightmare Man” recommending it for “those who get off on low budget horror.” Seriously? You’re going to recommend it despite the predictable ending, the bland cinematography, the undergrad caliber acting? If you like low budget, why not look at the mere 60k “Mulberry Street” had for their budget only after Jim Mickle was done with it, it didn’t like it was shot on low grade DV. “Nightmare Man” had nudity sure, but that was also to distract you from the shitty acting and boring characters. If you only have “Mulberry Street” a D, I shudder to think at what you ranked at the top of the list.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Nice to see Jim Mickle reads FSR.
And you’re a bad man Fure. Making people shudder… should be ashamed of yourself.
June 6th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Fure, your anti-rat people agenda has been apparent for too long.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Haha. I’m not actually Jim Mickle though I do know him and interviewed him shortly after the film came out. I guess I should differentiate myself from the 6 or 7 other Jims in the world by more than just a first name.