p-stepien Set across three generations of inhabitants of the small town of Perseverance, comes a story not done justice by the flimsy direction and wooden acting. This eerie and suspenseful tale about a village haunted and cursed by wickedness contaminating their rain, ends up ringing hollow despite some good cast choices. Rain the purifier becomes the touch of death. The whole event is initiated in the late 1900s, as the village, led by Clive Jonis (played by the ever-charismatic genre old-timer David Carradine) enters into a pact with a devilish shaman. This in turns has bloody repercussions many years in the future as human sacrifices are necessitated by the need for rain.Inside the story lurks some great potential with a creepy top-hat taking centre stage, while Tiren Jhames as the ominous Mr Saul brings the beast delivering a superb character. However, most screen times is wasted on some truly appalling child acting, who one-by-one spiral the movie into oblivion, leaving just singular moments and short-lived spine-crawling elements. Surprisingly disjointed it also features superior technical qualities depending on specific sub-stories, with acting, lighting and overall feel superior during the turn of the century story thread.The story also becomes undone by the basic premise, which suggests that longing for life would corrupt the soul to such an extent, that mothers and fathers would willing dispose of their own kin. The concept itself seems so far-flung, thus only underlining the low production qualities, probably forced by budget limitations.

ForVirg Passable to waste time. I was sick, so have an excuse for sitting through the whole film.This film's premise is a promising one, but as other reviewers have noted, the promise isn't paid off, in part due to poor script and worse acting at times.However, being always the optimist, I did find one redeeming quality. And herein lie the spoilers: The heroine character ultimately opts to save her brother over saving her parents or other relatives. As a student of evolutionary altruism, this is one of the few films to get it right--though I seriously doubt anyone involved actually thought of this.IF there is such a thing as innate altruism, it would tie strongly to the preservation of shared genes. And because, in reality, the sister and brother share more genes than either one shares with their parents, it makes more sense from an evolutionary viewpoint for her to sacrifice herself for a brother than to sacrifice her brother for her parents.Especially since brothers are much more likely, biologically, to spread their genes than any female is. It's simply biology at work.So there you have it. The one and only redeeming quality of this otherwise useless film. Too bad. The premise, with 3 different times periods involved, could have been done so well as to make an outstanding suspense. Alas, that was not to be.

Matt Kracht The plot: A cursed town holds a lottery to sacrifice three children from every generation to ensure rain.I was kind of excited to see a movie starring some B movie legends (Richard Lynch, David Carradine, and Dee Wallace Stone), but none of them really has all that much screen time. In fact, the movie splits its time almost randomly between half a dozen characters, each of whom wander in and out of the main plot while telling their own story. A talented writer/director could have pulled this off, but it just ends up being annoying and confusing here.The story is a bizarre mix of Dark Romanticism tropes that never really settles down into a coherent story. There's a cursed bloodline, a small town with a hideous secret, Faustian bargains with malevolent spirits, some kind of demon guy who comes out of nowhere, exploited Native Americans, Machiavellian adults, and innocent children. Throw all these things together, with a few modern horror clichés (such as a deus ex machina in the form of a friendly dog), and you get... well... to be honest, I'm not sure what you get. The movie was so erratic, random, and disorganized that I was constantly wondering exactly what I was supposed to be taking from each scene.If the writer/director had just settled on telling one story without spreading the exposition through three vignettes that barely even interconnect, I think he could have had something that would be remembered fondly by B movie fans. Instead, he tries to pull off something like Pulp Fiction and fails miserably.There are some scenes that worked well, but, overall, the movie was clumsy and amateurish. As far as Shirley Jackson ripoffs go, this wasn't the worst that I've seen. It was able to channel much of her pessimism about human nature while preserving her faith in children. It also hit all the right notes that a story inspired by The Lottery should hit, though it hit them in a haphazard, lazy way, burying them under a mountain of subplots and extraneous characters.If you're into independent horror, then you're probably pretty forgiving of even the most egregious flaws. For you, this will probably seem like an enjoyable waste of time. If you're more into mainstream, big budget horror movies, I have to warn you away from this low budget mess.

e-Liza1 The makers of this film had difficulties during its production. David Carradine's death from "accidental asphyxiation" in Thailand, during the making of this movie, and money difficulties, meant that this movie could have been better than it was. So when I discovered this, I feel a bit sorry for it! But I still found it absorbing viewing - much better than a lot of movies.This movie is very convoluted, and yet, for all of the flashbacks and flash-forwards, it wasn't very COMPLEX. I was reminded, somewhat, of "National Velvet" - if a weirder, homespun, hometown struggling rural family-values version than the early sixties B&W TV series, but still "National Velvet"!I couldn't be sure whether to give it a 4/10 or a 5/10 - and when I checked the IMDb ratings stats, what do you know!: I found it had a "weighted average" of 4.5! So there you are - I suppose that's how a lot of other people feel about it, too!What really irritated me, much, much, more than the constant flash-forwards, and flash-backs - the movie is set in the town of "Perseverence" in three different time periods and alternates between three time-periods throughout - was the failure of the protagonists to do something that I could clearly see was a LOGICAL thing to do - to kill "The Saw Man", the demon with the sharp teeth, or destroy "The Hat": At one point there was, for example, the perfect opportunity to run the Hat over with a car, and then an even BETTER opportunity to run down the demon AND to flatten The Hat - at the same time. But I suppose the girl at the wheel of the car took pity on the demon, and just couldn't find it in her heart to do it! i.e. "National Velvet Time"!!!There were so many missed opportunities - and isn't that what we REALLY hate in a horror movie, those dumb people who don't think of doing something like jumping up and down on a hat and FLATTENING the curs'ed thing, for example??? (I think, maybe so!?) ... At least to TRY to do it, and see what happens?!!!I thought the special effects at the end were very good - and I liked the ending! And the ending, at least, is logical!In consideration of a possible deeper meaning to the film, I did think the way in which The Hat was carried reverentially, at heart-height, as a symbol of community-authority, was a serious commentary upon the way in which social "authority" is seen as divorced from human beings, and a powerful metaphor for the way in which people will commit any manner of evil whatsoever when a so-called "AUTHORITY" of some kind to commit those acts of evil removes, in THEIR eyes, their own responsibility for those act of evil that THEY - without ANY ambiguity ARE committing! And in this film, these people all KNOW they are doing harm to others; and, as in this movie, they club together in Churches and behave, as though they are the victims, self-righteously in doing so; and, as in this movie they invoke God and will sacrifice anything, including their own children, "for the survival of this family" - for God, the family, and the community! After a little way into the movie, I just kept wondering, why don't they just put a gun to their heads? Wouldn't it be easier than having the perennial fear of dying in horror and torment and agony, and rather than, apparently, having to kill their children in horrifying ways? And aren't there more HUMANE ways to kill them?! These are all HOLES in the story, from what I could see, and these numerous unexplored, seemingly logical inconsistencies, irritated me greatly.But still, somewhat profoundly, this movie is about patriarchal society, people owning their children and abusing them, and it is about small communities that hide and cover-up their crimes, which they commit in the sight of their God. It's American Gothic - and this movie, if nothing else, wants to indict these people, to hold them responsible for all the evil they have done, and all the evil they do, and, in the end, to PUNISH them! And that is what happens to them in this movie - not in real life, but at least in this movie!