Well darn, here is a vicious test screening report. But before I get into his review, let me warn you. From the sound of this movie, it seems to be a niche film. The type of movie that a select group of gore hounds would appreciate. It sounds weird as can be. Weird movies NEVER test well. It's just a rule. That's why they are weird. The reviewer admits this is the roughest he has ever seen a film. That basically means the sound mix isn't done, the score is temp, it isn't color timed, the print is scratched up, the film undoubtedly was running a bit long. Lots of these problems can be fixed up prior to release, so don't condemn the film based upon a sole review. Stay tuned for further reports from AICN or other sites. This is the opinion of one person, though he does claim the audience was... not to big on the flick. We'll see. Another thing is he does a lot of spoilers, so when he says Spoilers Below, you may want to stop reading. Ok here's the review...
Charles Driggs reporting...
First of all, let me begin by saying that I'm a long time fan of your website but have never made a contribution. I am glad to finally be able to have something worthwhile to post... I hope you enjoy this bit of news.
Tonight I attended a test screening of 20th Century Fox's upcoming dark horror-comedy, RAVENOUS at the Beverly Center theater. This was in one of the larger theaters in the complex and by that I mean that it probably held a whopping 200 people or so. The invitation sought out people between 17 and 35; I am a professional twentysomething male, but the audience seemed to skew a bit younger and more urban. I spotted some studio folk in attendance too, including the diminutive Laura Ziskin. I doubt any of the suits are sleeping well tonight, however, as it appears as if they've got a Valentine's Day turkey on their hands. (The movie is supposed to be released in February.) There were noticeable walkouts in the 100 minute or so movie, and derisive hoots and laughter were the norm. Forgive me if some of the following plot details are sketchy or vague... my attention occasionally waned. Also please note that the only character names I recall are the ones played by Guy Pearce and Robert Carlyle -- so in this review I will just use the actors' last names for the other roles.
PLOT CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!
Written by Ted Griffin, directed by Antonia Bird (a dubious choice for this sort of movie, given her fairly accomplished PRIEST and the fairly crappy MAD LOVE -- evidently she replaced the original director sometime during production), RAVENOUS takes place after the 1847 Mexican American War. Our hero, Boyd (Guy Pearce) lies in a bloody heap of soldiers' bodies at the aftermath of battle -- but soon he awakens, surprises his captors, and receives recognition for helping change the fate of the war. We are given some indication that Boyd has been freaked out by his experience and weary at the sight of blood and even meat. Soon, he is placed in command of a transitory station somewhere in the wilderness with a motley bunch of officers, including Jeffrey Jones (a captain of some sort), minister Jeremy Davies (yes, another one of his mumbling, internally tortured character studies), stoner David Arquette (who provides most of the movie's few pleasing moments), and two or three others including a pipe-smoking Indian. Arquette and the Indian's wife head off for a few days on horseback to get some food supplies for the crew. Meanwhile, a shell-shocked, near frozen stranger (Ivers?) arrives (Robert Carlyle) and the men give him shelter. When he comes to, he tells them his story -- how he and his traveling companions got stuck in the wilderness without supplies and were eventually forced to eat their horses, their clothes and shoes, and finally their slave when push came to shove. When yet another of his companions died of malnutrition in the cold, it turns out that he and the others became cannibals just to live. The men at the station are horrified -- but Boyd/Pearce seems transfixed by Carlyle/Ivers, and the movie frequently flashes back to the image of Boyd under that bloody heap of bodies. Later, while sleeping in Davies' tent, Carlyle becomes drawn to Davies' recent bloody wound and licks the bandages -- which naturally freaks everyone out.
Jones, Pearce, Davies and the others go with Carlyle to check out the veracity of his story -- they head to the cave dwelling where he lived for those months and they discover that Carlyle had indeed lied about his story. Pearce and another fellow find the skeletal remains of all 6 of Carlyle's companions -- that Carlyle had indeed gobbled everyone up. Carlyle brutally attacks Jones, kills the Indian, and devours Davies. Carlyle goes after Boyd and this other fellow (don't know who the actor is, but he's got blond hair and blue eyes -- does that narrow it down?) -- eventually killing the other guy and forcing Boyd to make a breathtaking leap off a mountaintop, a jump he barely survives. A wounded Boyd hides out in the wilderness alongside the dead body of the blond guy. In the cold Boyd reluctantly takes to cannibalism himself.
Boyd returns to the station several days later, but the others do not believe his story and think HE is responsible for the others's deaths. When Jones is presumed dead, a new captain is appointed... and it turns out to be Ivers! The scenario becomes a showdown as Ivers and Boyd confront each other in private, with Boyd trying to find proof of Ivers' treachery. Ivers tells Boyd he can't stop being a cannibal -- that eating the flesh of other men somehow makes you stronger, giving you the charactersistics of the men you've eaten. Ivers poses as an authority figure to the survivors. Arquette and the Indian return to the station...
Soon enough virtually the entire cast is picked off, including Arquette. Boyd can't figure out who killed Arquette, but it turns out that Jeffrey Jones managed to survive his attack by the cave and lived off the remains of the others -- he too has become a cannibal. Ultimately it's a three-man scenario: Boyd, Ivers, and Jones living at the station, waiting for their rations to dwindle and then inevitably seeking out new meat. They've prepared a big kettle of human meat stew which simmers in the kitchen. While Ivers steps out, Jones begs Boyd to kill him, which he does. (Jones, all of the sudden, just can't stand the thought of living the life of a cannibal.) Ivers seems pleased that Boyd has returned to his cannibalistic roots, but Boyd attacks Ivers. Just as Boyd and Ivers are finally duking it out, three figures approach the station. As Boyd and Ivers beat and stab and puncture each other to bloody pulp, one of the three figures enters and takes a sip of the tasty human meat stew that's been burning on the kettle -- suggesting that the cannibalism instinct will not die out with the deaths of Boyd and Ivers, who lie together in a heap in a beartrap's jaws.
END PLOT RECAP
Even though that flamboyant, red haired guy who always gives the little pep talk before the screening (HE SAYS THE SAME GODDAMNED THING EVERY SINGLE TIME, YET HE TRIES TO APPEAR NON-CHALANT AND SPONTANEOUS -- WHAT AN ACTOR!) told us the print was scratchy, color uncorrected, etc... I have never seen a lousier looking rough cut. It looks like a cheesy 70s B movie. There were no real titles, except for the principal castmembers and the title. Lighting was all over the map, and the direction was likewise -- too much reliance on chaotic editing. Score, which they said was temporary, was unremarkable for the most part, and also seemed to use standard horror notes in the allegedly suspenseful scenes.
The movie's tone is also bizarre, not to mention ridiculous -- it has odd touches of mordant dark comedy, with plenty of scenes of repulsive gore and debauchery. I kid you not about the gore quotient -- oodles of blood, oodles of guts, countless scenes of stabbings, oozing viscera. (If this doesn't earn it an NC-17, I don't know what will.) Towards the end especially -- when it's just the three men munching on the dead folk -- the humor takes over as the proceedings just go way over the top. But it never adds up. I am told that Griffin's script was an oddly compelling read, but it doesn't translate here to a good movie.
Performances are also uninspired. Pearce -- so charismatic in LA Confidential -- is a total blank; maybe he understands that Bird's movie stinks, that this was the only way to play it. Carlyle is adequate, but I doubt this will attract his Full Monty fans (even though we do get to see his flabby butt). Jones (yes, Jeffrey Jones of Ferris Bueller's Day Off) is also okay, but the casting choice seems like a distraction. Davies pretty much negates the terrific work he did in Saving Private Ryan -- if this movie was his agent's idea, I'd seek someone new if I were him. Arquette, as I mentioned earlier, is oddly compelling in his 10 minutes or less of screentime.
I don't know who the audience for this movie will be. The violence and gore are too repellent for mature adults, and the bizarre 19th century setting is probably too off-putting for the Scream crowd. When the movie ended, there were considerable jeers and"BOO"s from the audience that someone in the back tried to hush up before the comment cards were circulated. I've never seen a movie quite like RAVENOUS, nor have I seen this bad a test screening. (Well, maybe BOXING HELENA.)
Hope I did okay with this!
