eytand94 The slasher genre is filled with clichés and the viewer is often left longing for something new. However, if you can make a horror film that makes up for clichés with genuine fear and dread, audiences will enjoy it. Stevan Mena's 2004 film "Malevolence" is a stand-out among the disreputable rip-offs. It's not without its flaws, but for a low budget film that got the direct-to-DVD treatment, it's much better than one would think. And much more creepy, as well.The plot is fairly simple: after four people rob a town bank and take a mother and daughter hostage, they hide out in a deserted, lifeless house, hoping to figure out how they will handle the money. What they don't know is that a few houses down, a killer is hiding out, and has set his eye on his new targets.Stevan Mena has an obvious love for the more classic horror films of the 70's/early 80's, when such movies as "Halloween," "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," and "Friday the 13th" came out. And with that, a low budget, a nifty choice of a photographer, and some eerie music(by Mena himself, who also edited and produced the film, and wrote the script), "Malevolence" scores big on the genre scale.The setting of a little town that is right next to a slaughterhouse sets the tone for a "Texas Chainsaw" style horror film. The film is a lot like Tobe Hooper's film in that it is brutal, but not in the way "Hostel" was brutal. Actually, most of the violence is quite minimal. Mena favors tension and atmosphere over splashes of movie blood.The film's tone is also a highlight. Nothing is particularly fun about "Malevolence," and neither was "Texas Chainsaw." Right from the start, the mood is heavy, and we're in for a frightening ride.Lighting is also key to the horrific experience that "Malevolence" offers. The film mostly takes place at night, and instead of staying in pitch blackness, the movie's moon sends a glowing ray of light onto the scenery, bringing more atmosphere to the film.Mena has crafted an excellent, foreboding score that is not overly used. There are moments when the music will instantly echo John Carpenter's score for "Halloween," and I love that. The music is original and disturbing. More points for Mena.Now, here's where "Malevolence" is flawed. There's only one quirk that can be found here, and that is in the casting. The acting is decent, but nothing particularly special. In such instances of danger or horror, the cast delivers the screams and the struggle for survival. But when it comes to the more dramatic situations, mostly involving the robbery, the cast can be slightly wooden.Otherwise, there's really not much wrong with this film. It is malevolent enough and made well enough to get a good recommendation, and for a film that went straight to DVD, that's rare. For Stevan Mena, "Malevolence" is a very good first impression. It doesn't beg for attention, but it definitely deserves it.

nigedoc1 This movie has a lot of mixed reviews so I thought I'd review it and have my say.First off this is your average slasher movie which as far as slasher movies go is not that bad a movie, it's very similar to a lot of other movies I have seen and your not going to get anything new here although if you enjoy the 'texas chain saw massacre' type of movie then you will enjoy this one too. The characters in the movie are played OK and I've seen a lot worse in my time, they do justice for this type of B movie and budget. The story is predictable and you'll know whats going to happen a lot of the time but I feel movies like this are more about blood and cuts rather than making you think a lot. Overall it's not bad and will pass a couple of hours on a night, it wont win any awards but as far as this type of slasher movie goes its not bad

tdeladeriere In between the backwoods, slasher & maniac sub-genre effortlessly navigates this great indie horror film whose only failure is its very generic choice of title.The plot is minimal, like most great horror movies by the way, and reminds of another recent movie, "Freak". Both are obviously very influenced by raw horror from the late 70's and early 90's. Much like "Freak", the unlikely heroines here are a middle-class mother and her child, thrown into a cavalcade of horrors in the middle of nowhere because of an unfortunate encounter with felons. Even the ending was similar.No, 20 minutes of exposition is not too much. My beef would rather be the ending, which genuinely felt like padding, and the last-minute twist, that's completely out there. The soundtrack can feel outdated at first, with an electronic theme and belching strings that come right out of your early 80's slasher, but retrospectively, that was probably the point.For the obviously restricted budget, I never once felt ripped off and the director made the most of what he had. The tension left me riveted to my screen and I never once wandered off to the kitchen to grab a smoke, which I guess is the best compliment I can make to a movie. True horror connoisseurs will appreciate.

Santa Claus Oh. Dear. Lord. This movie is painful to watch.After a failed bank heist, Mary and Some Guy Whose Name I Don't Think Ever Gets Mentioned (so, of course, he lives through pretty much the whole movie) scream at each other for what feels like hours (but, seeing as the movie's only 85 minutes long, it's probably only a little more than an hour) about how everything got screwed up. Mary and Some Guy even change their arguments and switch sides repeatedly, just so they'll be able to keep screaming at each other. It's like Revolutionary Road but without the capable actors.(And why is it every time there's a Mary in a horror movie, she's a bitch? Jerry always dies and Mary's always a bitch.)Anyway, eventually they have to save Some Lady and her daughter Courtney from a guy who's going around killing people (including the bank heist partner who kidnapped Some Lady and Courtney). The whole masked killer aspect of the movie is an afterthought to Mary and Some Guy's shouting matches. 'Cause people watch horror movies to watch people argue, obviously.First of all, I figured out who the killer was before the movie even really started. Oops. Next time, guys, don't hammer obvious answers in our faces.Second of all, there's a character we see at age six and age seventeen. At six his eyes are such a dark brown they're almost black. At seventeen his eyes are almost bluer than mine. People's eyes don't change colors; have the filmmakers never heard of vanity contact lenses?Third of all, are we supposed to be rooting for Mary and Some Guy? 'Cause I hate them. Mary especially, but Some Guy is no picnic. And their relationship is ill defined. I think they're supposed to be a couple because in the scene that introduces them Mary kisses Some Guy's neck a couple of times. If it weren't for that, though, I would have never made the connection because they don't seem to like each other at all. And it really, really rings false when Some Guy is all sad when he finds out Mary's been killed. You'd think he'd be relieved that she isn't around to insult him anymore. I know I was relieved.My last big complaint about the movie is that it ends and then there's about five minutes of unnecessary exposition. And then there's another ending featuring two jump scares, one of which shouldn't have been.Okay, sorry, no, I have one more big complaint about the movie. All the parts that would have been actually pretty atmospheric and creepy are completely squashed by obnoxious jump chords, just so the audience knows absolutely for sure something creepy is going on. It's as though the filmmakers don't trust their viewers enough to see what's going on, so they put a blast of music in there for good measure. Unfortunately, all that did was destroy any moment that would have been effective.Jump chords aren't scary, people. They're annoying, and they force reactions. I hate jump chords. They're proof that filmmakers think their audience is stupid.