Review by Peter Syslo
CUT (2000 Australia) is another meta-slasher that I watched recently. In a nutshell, the film is very reminiscent of RETURN TO HORROR HIGH, MIDNIGHT MOVIE, and DARK REEL. It is one of those slasher films that plays with the stereotypes of slashers and it has a lot of surreal, “film-within-a-film” content. As far as slashers go, the film isn't that original but it is an interesting take on the “new” slasher and it even has a bit of “cult” appeal to it. For children of the 80s (like me), this movie stars both Molly Ringwald and Kylie Minogue – those two are reason enough to watch this movie and they actually help drive home that surreal, “film-within-a-film” aspect. Though the film does lack some originality, it makes up for it in the well-executed slasher content and the comedy that is thrown in adds a bit of a necessary edge to it.
CUT is directed by Kimble Rendall and is written by Dave Warner. The film stars Molly Ringwald, Frank Roberts, Kylie Minogue, and Geoff Revell.
The picture is about a group of film students who set out to finish a horror movie that was never completed. During the filming of the original, the man who played the killer (Roberts) went crazy, murdered the director (Minogue), and tried to murder the star, Vanessa Turnbill (Ringwald). Vanessa survived the attack but filming never resumed. To make matters worse, every time a crew attempted to complete the film or even screen the film, someone was mysteriously murdered. So, the confident film students try to complete it, with it's original cast member, Vanessa. Things are rocky on the shoot, right from the beginning, and things rapidly start to fall apart when the killer apparently returns and starts killing again. Is the film simply cursed or, is it possible that a killer can live within a film?
CUT wasn't bad, even though it was very derivative. Anyone who has watched RETURN TO HORROR HIGH or MIDNIGHT MOVIE will notice the similar type of content... but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. The movie opens with the circumstances of the original shoot, which lays a nice foundation. Then it moves to the present day when the film students are learning the mythology of the film and they choose to embark upon the impossible journey of completing it. As predicted, mysterious things start to happen on set and it gets to full-blown chaos when it is discovered that the killer from the original film is back in business, so to speak. Like I said, nothing really new and not a whole lot of twists and turns, but it is entertaining. I will say that a lot of that entertainment comes from Molly Ringwald. She is a very interesting choice for a slasher lead and she actually does a decent job in the film. She played the part well and for some reason she just “fits in” with the material. As I suggested earlier, perhaps her 80s icon status added to the surreal flavor of this movie and I believe that it made the “film-within-a-film” scenes more powerful. She brought that reluctant, “this is a trashy film from my past” quality to the role and it worked.
Regarding the killer in the film, the concept was the basic masked man of slasher films. He was a burned, scarred, disfigured character underneath the mask and the rubber mask on top was very clean and silver. The mask almost had an Asian “robot” look to it, which was an odd combination of elements, but it was fairly effective. Again, nothing all that original, but it was still pleasing. As for blood and gore, there is some of that included in the mix (mainly in the form of knife wounds) but it is nothing that a slasher fan hasn't seen before. On the other hand, I did like the killer's presence - which exemplified the typical silent, stalking, and deliberate murderer. Overall, the concept of the killer wasn't bad and you could even think of him as being an homage to all of the slasher heroes of yesteryear. Actually, that falls in line with the meta-slasher ideal of this past decade. Most of the slashers in this period have been an homage to and a collage of 1970-1980s slashers. There are a few new directions (such as with French horror) but for the most part, this has been the new tradition of the slasher film: pay tribute to the greats and put your individual spin on the formula. When you think about it, this was pretty much the same thing going on in the early 1980s, so it isn't a bad thing at all.
Gnawing through the flesh: If you like meta-slashers or the “film-within-a-film” type of horror movie (like the films I mentioned before) then you may like CUT. It isn't a bad film and it is a good example of the slasher formula or shall I say, the “new” slasher formula. It does deliver all that you would expect to see but I also wanted it to venture into some uncharted territory, in order to give it a unique spin. Regarding other details, I did like the Australian sense of humor and I did enjoy the cinematography of it. When the students decide to complete the shoot, it is filmed in a very close, claustrophobic sort of way which does draw you into the surreality of it. Also, I really enjoyed the shots of everyone watching the film in the screening room. I don't know why, but for some reason it really reminded me of DEMONS. All in all, the film is well-executed and it is pretty solid. It is interesting to get an Australian take on the American slasher film and it is always nice to see a tribute to the golden age of slasher films. So, if you want a slasher that is very familiar-feeling, with a bit of an international twist, then check out CUT. I give it a 6/10.