How goddamned stupid are we horror fans?

I can't think of a more undistinguished group than us - ready to swallow up absolutely anything labeled “horror,” without paying attention to the actual potential of the film, and sometimes, even absorbing a product of obvious poor quality. I've seen every Leprechaun film. I mark down MGM's Midnight Movie release dates on my calendar, no matter if I've seen the film or not. Uwe Boll, you say? I'm in.

Perhaps the horror community has a never-ending, frighteningly naive supply of optimism. You don't see fans of the drama genre seeing every drama film being released in theaters. You don't see comedy fans saying things like, “I must simply follow up this screening of Tomcats with the films of Preston Sturges.” Horror films? Shove it under our noses and we'll lick the plate clean. For example, when Reeker was offered to me for review, I took it without having ever heard of the film to begin with. Who cares, it's horror, right?  

Ripped straight from the headlines via a time machine sent back to 1996, Reeker concerns a group of college buddies on their way to a desert rave with a backpack full of X and an uptight blind guy in the passenger seat who provides uncomfortable comedy relief. In fact, get ready to start hating the disabled if you already haven't, because every time Blind Guy is onscreen, the conversation revolves around just how blind Blind Guy is (it turns out he's very blind). 

After a minor inconvenience that involves urinating during an earthquake, the group of plucky (read: irritating) 20-somethings end up in the middle of nowhere with nothing in sight but an abandoned dingy motel and restaurant. In fact, it almost feels like this young and vibrant (read: fucking irritating) band of kids is cut off from the entire world - every manner of communication, be it telephone, CB Radio, and even television is inoperable.  

But don't worry; the Reeker is here to save you from the monotony of having to watch another group of pasty-white, shirtless, CW pilot co-stars stumble around in the dark with flashlights in-between the inevitable sexual tension - which, by the way, doesn't even include nudity. 

For those who can't really put it together, the Reeker is an updated Grim Reaper - Reaper 2.0, featuring an entirely flash-based interface including streaming video and audio capabilities, if you will. You see, instead of a skeleton in a spooky cloak, it's a rotting corpse in a spooooooooooky cloak. The Reeker is also equipped with a ton of torture implements pulled right out of the Saw films, ready to be plunged into the guts of the people we're being asked to identify with, despite the fact that, if such people actually did exist, we'd rightfully shun them to the best of our abilities. 

Is Reeker that bad of a movie? No. But it is a waste of time. Poorly plotted, paced, and ending with a Carnival of Souls fake-out ending easily spotted from a mile away, the only thing that justified my one and probably only viewing of the film is the mean-spiritedness of the gore, which approaches Sleepaway Camp II levels of unpleasantness. Even more ugly is the film's fixation on scatology - full of scenes of urination, defecation and whatever other bodily fluid you can throw in that isn't blood, Reeker comes off as outright juvenile.  

But hey. Horror fans are horror fans, and Reeker has already gained enough momentum to warrant a sequel that is already being filmed as I write this, if the Internet Movie Database is to be believed.

Presentation
If you've kept up on my reviews - not that I think you have, but hypothetically speaking, if you've kept a running tab on them - you might notice one stunning similarity running through all of my reviews: I suck at the technical aspects of DVD. I've been stuck with some horrible equipment in the past, and continue to watch films on a tiny little portable DVD player due to being broke. But I must stand up and say this loudly and with authority: this film looks like shit. 

Washed out, murky, full of noise, and with combing issues, it's surprising to see a big budget studio releasing a film in this condition. I'm shocked that the film even comes in anamorphic widescreen. Is it problems with the original film's limited budget, or arethey trying to pull off that sepia-smeared style that seems to be the 'in” thing for recent horror films? Either way, it's not fun to look at. 

The audio is much better in comparison, coming in a basic stereo track and a 5.1 remix. The traditional horror soundscape dominates the track up until its final act, where the Reeker lets out a bevy of howls, screams and whirring dental equipment.

Extras
Thankfully minimal, Reeker comes with a Making-Of documentary featuring people so happy with what they've accomplished, I wondered if they were talking about the same movie. “Take it to another level,” 'edgy” and “hip” are some of the words you'll hear in this featurette, and after hearing them, I bet you'll never want to use them in your conversation ever again.

Also included is a photo gallery, and trailers for The Roost and The Curse of El Charro - which stars Lemmy from Motörhead, which automatically means I'll be watching it as soon as it's released. 

…Goddamn horror fans

Overall
Let's take a look at the back of the box for a second: 

Led by a blind grad student with heightened senses, they must survive the night and confront what appears to be a terrifying abyss between the living and the dead.  Those strong enough to survive are left to answer the burning question: what the hell is the Reeker? 

This perfectly sums up how non-committed and apathetic Reeker is. While it might brighten up at times with some vicious bits of blood 'n' guts, the film is ultimately a drag. Woo me with great visuals and storytelling, repel me with vile displays of bloodletting - just don't bore me.