The ABCs of Death (2013)

A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

A 26-chapter anthology that showcases death in all its vicious wonder and brutal beauty.Right now, not having seen the second anthology, my thought is that if the bet of both films were edited into one picture and the rest were tossed, this would be a strong anthology. That, of course, will not happen, and we are stuck with this movie as it stands.The first problem is the length, which is unavoidable when you have 26 segments. But the bigger problem is the sheer number of weak segments. Ti West, one of the rock stars of the genre, creates one of the worst segments. The only one that I can say is objectively worse is "G is for Gravity", which was pretty awful and if the director was truly given $5,000 to make it, that went right into the pocket.Adam Wingard, another rock star, provides one of the best segments. I found it both clever and amusing, as well as nicely shot. I have been slow to embrace Wingard because I did not are for "Pop Skull", but with a short like "Q is for Quack", he more than makes up for any faults.

This was a good idea in theory, but in practice it was a borderline unwatchable train wreck. There were a couple of shorts that were actually good, but the majority were either not even remotely scary or just completely insane (and not in a good way).I tried to watch this with my friend. We gave up halfway through. She hates leaving movies unfinished, but we just couldn't finish this one while sober. A month later, we finished it while intoxicated. The level of intoxication required to finish this movie was rather high, and the movie was still terrible. We just didn't care anymore. I temporarily forgot how to walk, but I've never been more relieved in my entire life to be utterly wrecked.

This film contains 26 different segments by 26 different directors,some up and coming, others well known. They were assigned a letter and given 5k to make a short film involving death and something beginning with that letter. They were given complete freedom as to what they wanted to do with this budget. Many of them were disappointing or simply awful, some were quite good. It was interesting to see how a portion of these directors just ended up making something completely insane and not really having much to do with horror or the likes of it. For this review I suppose I'll talk briefly about each short. A had nice effects and a reveal at the end, kind of cool I guess, good start. B was underwhelming, a bit funny I suppose, pretty okay. It seems over thinking went on with C resulting in something bad. D was quite good, the budget was put to good use and resulted in a quality short film. The production value of E wasn't too good, nice concept, but didn't work for a short. F, don't know what to say about it, given the premise of the word chosen, I would have done it differently, but whatever, it was kind of a waste, but also kind of interesting. G was the 2nd worst one, pathetic. H was bonkers, a lot better things could've been done with that letter, at least it was entertaining. I didn't bring much to the table, but was a good effort. J was kind of funny, but really, what was picked for J doesn't belong. K was stupid, really not good. L was my favourite, I really liked the idea, the production value, and the content, but found the ending a bit rushed. M was the worst, kind of baffling how terrible it was. N wasn't that good either. O was useless, but the style was cool. I liked P a lot, well made with a nice story. I liked the idea of Q, but the ending was REALLY weak, so I found it to be a disappointment. I really liked R, I would also like for the director of it to make some more films, because he has a lot of potential I think. S was really bad. T was great, nice animation, made the most of the budget. U was forgettable, not so much bad, just uninspired. V might have been an okay idea, but the execution was lame. W was one of the worst. X was fantastic, what I would expect from the director. Y was enjoyable. Z was what it was, I don't want to call it good or bad, and okay is too mediocre of a word to use for it. So that's what I think about these shorts, I see a lot of wasted potential mixed in with some good stuff.

If you are a fan of farts, miscarriages, turds, a human versus dog fight, or a woman indulging a man's crush fetish, than perhaps this movie was made for you. Otherwise, even the most seasoned horror fans are likely to be disappointed with this one. Despite more than 2 hours of run time, each segment feels very brief and unable to create anything of substance. At the same time, many of the segments are so unbearable that the next and possibly less god-awful short cannot come soon enough. I have been a tremendous fan of horror my entire life. As well, I am a proponent of creative integrity and freedom from Hollywood's repetitive idiocy. However, if this is what these directors came up with with "artistic freedom" then perhaps they should try another line of work. I find nothing about this film terrifying, humorous, or entertaining in any way. Rather, each segment was dull, predictable and seemed more interest in pushing the boundaries of the grotesque rather than trying to create something interesting. One can only assume that an incredibly cheap production cost is what lead to a sequel to this disaster of a collection. Hitchcock would be rolling over in his grave if he knew this abomination passed for "horror."