From the opening credits, the movie references The Shining, and has a rather goofy running and eventual death scene. It is clear from the movie's opening, tone, music, and poster that it's supposed to be a horror comedy. But there is a disconnect in the lighting and scene setting that takes away from that horror comedy 'feel', and quite distractingly sets the scene to feel more like a sitcom.
Every scene seems to have bright lighting that doesn't match the tone of the scene itself. Even in scenes with graphic violence, the atmosphere never feels scary, dark, moody, or really even different because there is always very bright and even lighting. There are almost no lighting nuances that lend itself to the horror part of this horror comedy. Even in a scene that does create a different atmosphere with lighting, the commitment to very even lighting throughout the film made the switch-up distracting rather than adding to the film. The scene was when Sam and Carla dig through the snow to get through the window. In the shot within the room, there is a darkness element that matches the panicked and dark tone of the shot, but then immediately switches to a shot from the outside looking into the room, which has the same bright and even lighting throughout the film. This stark contrast leaves a huge disconnect that is very confusing. It looks like two different scenes that are not connected to each other in any way.
Every scene seems to be shot in a way that focuses on everything within the scene without any attempts at bokeh. It subconsciously makes it difficult for the audience to decide on what to look at, should we focus on the person talking, or to the other characters reacting near them? Even outside of characters themselves, there are almost no shots where there is a depth of field, complexity, or balance between the foreground, middleground, and background. There really is no difference to any of them, they might as well all exist in the same depth of field. It makes it seem like the entire film was shot on a phone or a wide lens camera with no intentionality on focus.
These are all crucial elements that give this movie an amateurish quality of a student short film as opposed to a feature length film. I am also not sure if the poor quality of the special effects was intentionally made to be bad in a "so bad it's good" way or not.
As for the good, the acting is great. All the characters had believable lines and performances that felt real. I didn't find the dialogue and plot particularly funny or compelling, but the chemistry and feel of the characters were convincing. It's very clear that all the actors were very skilled and talented. This strength in the film is what does set it apart from a student short film where you would normally find inexperienced actors.
Every scene seems to have bright lighting that doesn't match the tone of the scene itself. Even in scenes with graphic violence, the atmosphere never feels scary, dark, moody, or really even different because there is always very bright and even lighting. There are almost no lighting nuances that lend itself to the horror part of this horror comedy. Even in a scene that does create a different atmosphere with lighting, the commitment to very even lighting throughout the film made the switch-up distracting rather than adding to the film. The scene was when Sam and Carla dig through the snow to get through the window. In the shot within the room, there is a darkness element that matches the panicked and dark tone of the shot, but then immediately switches to a shot from the outside looking into the room, which has the same bright and even lighting throughout the film. This stark contrast leaves a huge disconnect that is very confusing. It looks like two different scenes that are not connected to each other in any way.
Every scene seems to be shot in a way that focuses on everything within the scene without any attempts at bokeh. It subconsciously makes it difficult for the audience to decide on what to look at, should we focus on the person talking, or to the other characters reacting near them? Even outside of characters themselves, there are almost no shots where there is a depth of field, complexity, or balance between the foreground, middleground, and background. There really is no difference to any of them, they might as well all exist in the same depth of field. It makes it seem like the entire film was shot on a phone or a wide lens camera with no intentionality on focus.
These are all crucial elements that give this movie an amateurish quality of a student short film as opposed to a feature length film. I am also not sure if the poor quality of the special effects was intentionally made to be bad in a "so bad it's good" way or not.
As for the good, the acting is great. All the characters had believable lines and performances that felt real. I didn't find the dialogue and plot particularly funny or compelling, but the chemistry and feel of the characters were convincing. It's very clear that all the actors were very skilled and talented. This strength in the film is what does set it apart from a student short film where you would normally find inexperienced actors.