Wild West A very strange movie came to me tonight. It is not clear where he came from, even without a normal cover on Kinopoisk. Timekeeping - 73 minutes, after wasting I realized that the typical amateur video, the picture is square, blurred. In short, I put the film in a long box and just now decided to watch. Well, I'll say this: as a lover of microbudget films, I liked something. But everything in order.
So, here we have the horror Kevin Bernbaum "Nemesis: Payment for sins". Recently I wrote a review of one horror film, which was shot in the Wild West scenery and released by Lizard – this is the Horseman of Darkness, which turned out to be an incredibly dull spectacle, stretched for 107 minutes. It’s a little over an hour, so let’s see what happens.
The plot of the film is as follows: a dangerous criminal Redding is tried, who allegedly killed two women. Redding admits he's a murderer, but he didn't kill women. Also responsible for the narrative is the Marshal, who was supposed to accompany Redding to the court. And they begin to tell their story. They walked, walked, and entered a town of three houses, where suddenly food, drink and women appeared. It turns out that Nemesis herself is responsible for order in the city, who looks like an elderly lady from a brothel, but it does not matter. It is important that the guys got a little wrong.
In general, the first 20 minutes to watch even a little interesting. But the fact is that the scenery of the film is the same, there are very few actors, and the story must continue, so the film is gradually declining. To the final, of course, a real Red Nemesis appears, but it does not carry any value for fans of cheap production. It’s not that the movie is downright boring to watch — someone who watched 20 minutes will pull the other 45 (the rest are credits). The closest example I can give you is that I wouldn’t be surprised if the directors had David DeCoto’s name on them. Here's his style - no special effects, a bunch of murder, immortality, illusions and witchcraft. Typical techniques, minimum decorations.
What's also interesting is that there's always a 2007 release date, but I often watch the movie to the end because there's always some kind of screw-up about the year of release in these low budgets. I watched one movie – it was stated that 2005, and in the credits was written 2008. This is a leap forward, even though Kinopoisk claims to have a world premiere in 2005. So why is this – in the credits it is generally written that the film was shot in 1993. You can believe it, because Tim McMillan (he's just a musician) looks pretty young here. As for the cheap picture, I’m not sure if York is still making it, but overall it’s very similar to 1993. Even more interesting – if you want to know how to shoot “zero-budget” movies in the early 90s – you can safely start watching. I was surprised when I found out the year.
Summing up. The actors in the film can be counted on the fingers of a broken hand. The film from the first frames beats even the most sophisticated fans of cheap production with its blurry, fuzzy and “square” 4:3 picture. All special effects are in the appearance and disappearance of people. The narrative as a whole is original, but tiresome by the middle. Who should I recommend? Well, there's only real fans of low-budget, to see how in 1993 it was filmed. To be honest, I’ve seen more movies. “The Horseman of Darkness” is a total hell. And then 73 minutes, it has just begun and is already on its way to the final.
Thank you for listening.
6 out of 10