The Gravedancers (2006)

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Absolutely the worst movie.

When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

A solid premise, some decent twists, OK visual effects, and a very sexy female cast. On the flip side, there's the cheesy dialogue that alternates between unfunny intentional "humour" and almost funny unintentional humour.The other downside is the same thing I can say about the vast majority of horror films these days: the damn lack of colours.At some point about 10-15 years ago it became hip to make greenish-blueish movies devoid of reality-based colours. The look of most horror films nowadays is depressing, gloomy, unappealing, and unrealistic. Dark-blue, filth-green and pale-yellow seem to dominate; other colours are a no-no. This destroys the visual fun of watching movies. Compare the typical lively-coloured 70s or early 80s flick with almost any made this century, and the huge quality drop becomes even more apparent. Hopefully, just as cheesy 80s synth-pop went out of fashion eventually, perhaps film-makers will finally realize that they don't HAVE to apply new computer software gadgetry to EVERY damn movie they make. Just because a new technology is on offer doesn't mean it should become your only bread-and-butter, while ignoring all other options and avenues.

When it comes to horror movies, I'm not very demanding. It probably helps that I'm spooked pretty easily. Rating a horror movie is never done in the way one rates "serious fare," such as "Atonement," or "Casablanca," which is another reason. The rules that govern movies such as my given examples do not apply to the horror genre. That being said, horror movies have to deliver the goods that they promise. "The Gravedancers," one of the "8 Films to Die For" in the 2006 AfterDark HorrorFest, contains some spooky and freaky moments, but it is by no means an unqualified success.After the funeral of one of their college friends, Harris (Dominic Purcell), Sid (Marcus Thomas) and Kyra (Josie Maran) find a note amongst the flowers with a poem telling the to "celebrate life." To that end, they dance on some graves (all three of them are completely wasted at this point). Unbeknownst to them, they have subjected themselves to a curse by the graves they danced on, which include: a pyromaniac, a murdering adulteress, and a sadist. They seek the help of a pair of parapsychologists, Vincent Cochet (Tcheky Karyo) and Frances Culpepper (Megahn Perry) to help them survive.Acting is never a definitive requisite for horror movies. Protagonists usually take the form of the "average guy," and this makes less interesting (this doesn't just apply to horror movies; most movies that have "average guy" characters as leads suffer from this problem). Additionally, most horror movie villains don't talk, which eliminates this problem (although there are exceptions). Therefore, acting ability only matters so far as we can care about their fate, or failing that, they aren't so annoying/badly acted that we actively wish for them to die (women have an additional requirement: good looks and the ability to belt out a great scream). The acting in "The Gravedancers" is on the lesser side of the in between. Dominic Purcell is so low-key that he's just dull, and his cursed co-stars don't fare much better. Tcheky Karyo is an interesting character actor in his own right, and would seem to be right at home in his role as the wannabe Ghostbuster. Sadly though, it is immediately clear that he does not want to be a part of this film, and plays his role as if he were forced to do it. The bright spot in terms of acting is Meghan Perry, who is delightful as the somewhat sassy and sarcastic Frances.The most important part of creating an effective horror movie is generating an ominous atmosphere and properly pacing the story. Director Mike Mendez tries to do both, but fails. He lays the atmosphere on thickly, but it isn't effective. The first part of the film is poorly paced, and that is the film's biggest flaw. In order to generate tension, it must be built slowly. Even the all-out action thrillers like "The Descent" or "Aliens" (which was a sequel, so audiences were already freaked out by the aliens before they walked into the theater) had a starting point for the thrills. "The Gravedancers" doesn't do that. It skips the build-up and goes straight for the scares. Pacing issues are resolved one Vincent and Frances enter the picture, but suffice it to say, the film doesn't get off to a good start. Worse, he uses some quick cuts to "build tension" in some scenes, but thankfully, he doesn't do it often, and never during the action scenes (which begs the question why he would do it in the first place...) Although it's not a classic, it's watchable and contains a few good spooky moments. If anything, it's a outlet for those who like their horror violent, and with actual blood.

I admit I haven't seen too many of the "8 Movies to Die For" and overall, from the three I've seen, I have not been that impressed. On one hand I kind of like the idea of rehashing some old school horror for the general public, but on the other I felt there's been something missing.I really tried liking Gravedancers, mainly cause I love ghost stories and this film actually has some pretty good stuff in it.After a friend's funeral our main characters find a card on the tomb containing a bad poem. Apparently they're just partying next to the grave late at night, or something. I didn't find they seemed that distressed over his loss. Many he was jerk or something? Who knows.. so they do a dance on a few graves, read the poem (which sounds like a spell from Sabrina the Teenage Witch) and end up waking a few spirits, who were all mental patients before they died, of course. You know standard stuff.There is a lot of effects, and many of them are well done, considering the budget. They are well executed, well placed and even the CG isn't too bad (from me that's saying something). The ghosts look spooky and there's some good atmosphere. It's a very formulaic film, contrary to other reviews I've read. I was able to predict pretty much every death, every jump scare and even the who will be standing at the end of the movie. But that in itself is not a bad thing. Many horror films are formulaic and still good. Sometimes it's that familiarity that gives some horror movies that level of comfort you need to find them entertaining. Like I said I tried to like this film. I just hated the characters, and if you don't like the characters in a ghost story your attention begins to wane. It's not like the acting is bad either. Lets put it this way, "there is even a love triangle in the plot". Like come on. Maybe I'm too insensitive about these things, but I just didn't care. I must admit I didn't mind the heroine till she started to act like every other heroine in a modern western horror movie, and the hero just was there. The film could have killed him off on the first scene I would have not even have noticed. I had other minor complaints, but most of them stems from the characters. If you can't stand the character, or don't care about them, then you start looking for things to hate. It's also not creepy, which for me, a good ghost story should be. It is exiting, and it never really dragged. There is something to like here. It's one of those, "I didn't like it, but you might" movies. I give it 2 bad poems out of 5.

**SPOILERS** After the funeral of a man three of his buddies--Harris (Dominic Purcell), Kira (Josie Maren) and Sid (Marcus Thomas)--get drunk and dance on some graves in a graveyard late at night. It turns out they unwittingly resurrected some evil ghosts who go after the people who disturbed them.This was barely released back in 2006 but it actually isn't half bad. The bad points are: the movie has those stupid jump scares; some of the acting is pretty bad; it has a totally pointless beginning (which the director rightly protested) and a frustrating ending. The good: there are likable characters; there's some good acting; the story sounds far-fetched but they put it across and it has some VERY scary moments. The ghosts aren't actually even seen till the end and believe me--they are frightening! There are three horrific standouts here: the first view of the ghost in Harris' bed, a sequence in a graveyard halfway through and the all out assault at the end. The special effects are excellent and it truly scared me--there aren't many films I can say that about! Some bad acting by Purcell (who can be good) lessens the full effect but everybody else is pretty good (especially Clare Kramer as Harris' wife). So a good strong ghost movie. Turn off all the lights and pop this into the DVD player! I give it a 7.