So, why is nobody talking about I'll take your dead?

As I've made it very clear in most of my horror related posts, I absolutely adore a good ghost story, no matter the medium it's in. I've seen most films on the topic, but I'm always pleasantly surprised whenever I come across something new in regards to it. So, when my friend who has an equally big obssesion with ghosts and the paranormal reccomended me a little known (perhaps even indie) Canadian feature titled I'll take your dead (2018), I was immediately on board, despite knowing nothing about the film itself or it's surprisingly low critical and audience reception and was met with a surprsingly unique and enjoyable ghost story that didn't overstay it's welcome and is definetely above from what most reviews of it would have you believe.

Ok, so, I'll be completely honest. As you'll see in this review, the movie is far from perfect and there's loads of stuff here that could have been executed in a far superior manner (it's one of the textbook definitions of the final product not being as good as the poster would have you believe), I sincerely do believe that this movie doesn't deserve neither the hate nor the low reception, as I myself had found it to be extremely tense, well thought out and, most important of all, incredibly fun (as fun as a movie about literally making dead bodies dissappear can be lol) and possesing a certain rewatchibility to itself. In fact, it's one of my afforementioned friend's personal favorites and I certainly wouldn't say she has bad taste, even though she said the superemely underrated Don't knock twice (2016) was, quote on quote, kinda lame, but that's besides the point.

So, let's jump right in and take a look at what works and what fails in a movie that really deserves more attention, starting off with a, shall I say odd, pick, that being...

(1) The Atmosphere

I don't think this is something I had brought up in my reviews before, but, I find that the atmosphere can greatly raise the level of quality of a piece of media in my eyes. Sure, you still need good writing and an interesting premise and non-literary pieces of media also require a good cast in order to stay afloat, however, the many parts that make up a story's atmosphere (the soundtrack, the cinematography, directing etc.) and overall mood are arguably just as important in order for the story to be complete. It's kinda like a cake or burger. Sure, the dough that goes into the bisquit or bagle can be absolutely delicous (as a lover of all things bread and baking related, I should know), but if the filling isn't prepared well, it can very much sour the whole experiance. Sticking with horror, a good example of this would be the the 2013 adaptation of Carrie. Sure, it's certainly one of the more book faithful takes on the story (althought the 2002 made for TV movie did surprise me as to how loyal it was to the novel despite the low budget) and it's not one of the worst movies I've ever seen (still glad I was too young to see it on the big screen though because it would have been a waste of my dad's good money if I'm honest), but it didn't even try to create a special vibe or feel to make the whole thing stand out, resulting in a rather flat and unexciting movie already brought down by the awkward acting and bland writing. On the other hand, I'll take your dead goes pretty hard on it's atmosphere, perhaps because it reminded me a tad bit of yet another supernatural coming of age story (in style, not in quality obviously).

Whilst storywise it's far more similar to A Haunting in Connecticut (2002) and the 2020 Argentinian flick The Funeral Home (La Funeraria), whilst I was watching it, a five letter title of what's arguably my favorite contemporary vampire novel (and it's equally as impressive 2008 film adaptation) kept popping up in my head. As I'm sure some will guess from that addmitedley bland description, the work in question is John Ajvide Lindqvist's Let the right one in (2004). The monotonous, yet haunting still haunting snow covered landscapes inhabited with nothing but sheep, make for a looming backdrop, which I interpreted as being a symbolic representation of the main desire that drives the lead and her father forward, despite the dark and messed up nature of his profession. It embodies everything the characters want in life, which is what makes the arrival of demented and violent individuals who come to the lead's father seeking his assistance. Whilst at the core of Let the right one in lies a story about growing up, I'd argue that I'll take your dead tackles not only that, but also themes of maturing too soon and the unwilling confronatation with mortality, which literally begins going after our characters in the form of the various ghosts and spirits that haunt the premises of their remote farm. And, despite it's short runtime and an addmitedley not very good script, it manages to convey that vague and hard to define feeling of lonelyness, isolation and uncertainty of being an adolescent so well, just through the visual language of film that I'm surprised it hasn't recieved more awards of which it proceeded to win one. Which one you might ask? Well, that was for Steph Copeland's phenomenal score that manages to turn the feel of unease and restlessness, into one of dread and even terror, not because of the ghosts that roam the halls of the farm when the sky goes dark, but because of the evil of man, which is shown to be the story's true antagonist.

Overall, speaking as someone who loves his fair share of doom and gloom supernatural media, this movie is definetely up there with one of the more better executed titles in that respect.

(2) The Performances

When a relativeley decent budget English language production (be it an indie one or not) is as obscure as this one, that's pretty much a telltale sign that it's probably not very good, most noticeably in the acting department. Now, now, I'm not saying well known IPs are full of phenomenal performances (Fast and Furious anyone?) nor that every obscure piece of cinema had a terrible cast (for example, the British scifi show Primeval is one of the most rarely talked about pieces of TV ever if you ask me, and it's cast was largely either geniunely amazing or perfectly solid), however, when it comes to the horror genre, a large majority of the more low to mid budget pieces of media placed in the obscure category are usually forgotten or not well known for a reason (which could also explain why the majority of them get a very limited theatrical release and usually don't pop up when you look up some of the staples of the genre), with that reason usually being mediocre or straight up terrible performances delivered by meak and inexperianced actors. Fortunately, however, I'll take your dead manages to rack up a fairly solid and well rounded cast. One thing I've noticed in my many years of actually paying attention to whatever it is I'm watching is the fact that, even some truly amazing pieces of media with a phenomenally selected cast, can sometimes have that one individual who just couldn't commit to the role even if one were to shove a gun in their face, so it's particularly surprising that an indie film has manged to superceed some higher budget studio titles.

Whilst each actor manages to perfectly allign themselves with the given character and I could spend hours simply droning on and on and on about the hows and the whys of why this works, I'll simply do what I usually do and choose two of my personal favorite performances and examine why they made the film for me.

Surprisingly, my first pick would be Ava Preston who plays Gloria, the brooding, moody and slightly morbid teenage protagonist of the whole venture. As I've made it very clear in the past, I'm not a fan of child actors, mostly because, for understandable reasons, they rarely deliver a performance that doesn't fall deep into the pits of cringe territory, either through lacking charisma or the abbility to emote, or just by being extremely annoying to watch or listen to. Surprisingly, however (like with the afforementioned Swedish adaptation of Let the right one in), there are exceptions to this rule for me, with Preston's performance here hands down being amongst the more suptle and nuanced ones I've ever come across. Being heavily impressed by it, I decided to look up more of her roles and, holy smokes, she seems to have quite the extensive film and TV career in both Canada and the US, having mostly been religated to episodic roles in some of my favorite examples of scifi, fantasy and horror TV (Defiance, Lost Girl, The Strain, American Gods), as well as a few leading roles (with the only examples of those I've had some mild experiance with being the lackluster miniseries The Kennedys and it's slightly more cringey, albeit a lot more entertaining sequel Kennedys After Camelot). On the other hand, her film career seems to be far more obscure to me, albeit pretty much every feature length title starring her I have seen was either a dud (Critters Attack!), terrible made, but very entertaining to riff on, especially with your friends (Queen of Spades) or something I used to like, but don't really care about anymore (Shazam!). In all honesty, this might just be my absolute favorite performance of hers, partially if looked at objectively, and partially due to personal bias. The former because she perfectly manages to commit to the role and delivers a performance whose shere realism and emotional rawness are, for lack of a better word, extremely powerful and, screw it, I could even see myself at that age relating to this character if I had seen at that point in time. And what's the personal bias you might ask? Well, it's actually not really all that complex. As most of my readers can tell, I'm a tad bit obssesed with all things morbid, so I, simply, naturally gravitate towards liking characters with a similar palette of interests. Sorry if you expected something complex, to quote the film adaptation of Forrest Gump (1994): I'm not a smart man, Jenny.

And, of course, what's an enjoyable piece of media without and enjoyable protagonist? That role is filled by William, played by a man who, I swear to Christ, looks like Canadian Bruce Willis, Aidan Devine. As with most Canadian actors I seem to cover, my experiance with his filmography primarily consists of episodic and or/minor roles in many TV shows from various genres I've enjoyed over the years (RoboCop, La Femme Nikita, the remake of Kojak, Queer as Folk, Hannibal, Covert affairs, Killjoys, In the Dark and Murdoch Mysteries) and even two I've failed to get into (Good Witch and Designated Survivor). Like with Preston, his film career appears to be a lot more scarse, however, he did star in a few titles I have seen (those being WolfCop, Trucks and Outlander). Whilst I really enjoyed his performance in the latter, I gotta say, the role of William suits him to a T (granted, there's much less room for nuance to be found in a scifi blockbuster than in a horror film, so it's a given) and, same as Preston's role as Gloria, it might just be the best performance of his I've ever come across. I geniunely felt like I was watching a father who only surrounds himself in violence and morbidity to provide for his child, however, retaining a strong moral code in regards to his gorey proffesion nonetheless. It's by no means Oscar worthy or even perfect, however, it does have something I always appreciate in my supernatural stories; it's grounded and nuanced and, quite frankly, I do believe that he deserved an award or two just for his commitment to it.

(3) The Effects

Whilst I usually love ghosts in visual media being depicted as strange and outlandish as possible (Crimson Peak and the original Ghostbusters are some of my favorite films of all time for crying out loud), I do always have a slight soft spot for the more humanoid ones. You know what I mean, right? The Women in White of Supernatural (2005-2020), the Mongdal of Folklore (2018-2022) or, heck, even Sam Wheat in Ghost (1990). Is there a specific reason for that? Well, whilst I myself do not suffer from phasmophobia, pneumatiphobia nor spectrophobia, I'd say the main reason behind such a viewpoint would be the fact that humanoid ghosts are, for all intents and purposes, a far starker and more visceral reminder of our own mortality as a species (same goes for animal ghosts and spirits, such as the Black Schuck of Lancashire folklore). The more human and ordinary the ghost, the stronger the reminder, and the stronger the reminder, the stronger the desired fearful reaction from the audience. I could drone on and on as to why that is and how that fear works, but that's not the point of this section nor this review in general (if you're curious, in short, the answer is the fact that all humans suffer from engrained tanatophobia, we just don't know it because it's not as visceral or apparent as it is with those commonly diagnosed with it).

The ghosts of I'll take your dead don't appear much in the film itself (heck, if one were to look deeper, they could have merely been manifestations of Gloria's own personal fears and internal thoughts and not legitamate fully functioning and self-concious entities), however, when they DO show up they certainly leave an impact on the viewer. Most of the time they're shown as just humans with completely white eyes, with the only exception to this being a slightly goofy-looking demon-esque spirit the lives within a furnace whose supposed to be the main supernatural antagonist of the film, but, ends up not playing much of a part in the whole thing (however, that's a whole different can of worms, I won't get into and, if it means what I think it does, then I'm ok with the lack of envolvement of the supernatural forces living on the property). Are these designs a tad bit cliche and overdone? Does the relatively low budget of the production show within them? Yes to both. However, I've always been an advocate of the fact that less is sometimes more, especially in horror and thriller, as they're genres that thrive on minimalism. The film takes full advantage of that and tries it's hardest to make the spirits to be far scarier than they'd probably be, through atmospheric lighting, cinematogrpahy and camera angles, which, in the end, ends up achieving the desired effects of instilling dread into it's audience, which is, again, something that a good piece of the horror genre must suceed at.

(4) The Critiques

Whilst I've been nothing but positive in regards to the film so far, as I've said before, it's far from perfect, being brought down by two significant aspects I usually look for in any film or TV show I review, which my constant readers (oh wow, my second Stephen King reference in the post, who knew I could hold myself back) will be well aware off (by the way, a huge shoutout to them, they're the real heroes and not the annoying nerd writing this crap and posting it online for no one to read). I say this mostly because I don't mean anything I say in this paragraph to be intended as an offence directed towards the film's cast and crew, as I do think that the movie does have a LOT of potential and a lot of positive aspects within itself.

Whilst I do appreciate the lack of supernatural elements and the choice to go in a more thriller/melodrama direction for the story (I love my stories of the supernatural, but it's nice to see writers and directors try to mix the usual formula up a bit, you know?) and I do feel like the story flows around at a perfectly solid pace, managing to retain a strong sense of dread, tension and excitment throught it's runtime and never overstays it's welcome or adds any unnecessary surprises and twists that would prolong the film's runtime just for the sake of it. However, the film itself just isn't very well written. Whilst that in an of itself, doesn't make it unenjoyable nor does it deny the qualities of the overall production as a whole, but, let's be real here for a second, it doesn't exactly result in a good movie either. Now, I won't harp on the final product too much, as I haven't seen any other projects the writers (Chad Archibald and Jayme Laforest, with the former also serving as the film's director) had been involved in (even though most of the titles they're credited with on IMDB do indeed seem up my alley, so I will definetely be checking them out for sure), so I'm not familiar with their overall style and full extent of their skill that department, however, if I were to only judge the script of this film on it's own two feet, I wouldn't exactly be singing it's praises. Why? Well, mostly because what we do end up with is very simplistic. The dialoge touches upon a lot of very interesting themes and concepts, but doesn't do any of them any justice, mostly because the majority of it's written very lazily and amateurishly, or simply resorts to cheesy cliches that are treated like they are meant to sound menacing (for example, in the scene where the human antagonists of the film meet William, they treat him as a sort of a mystical urban legend, a trope that's been tested time and time again and has, gradually, lost any and all impact, especially within the horror genre) and scary, but end up falling flat on their face. There's also an insane amount of the writer's using one of the cardinal sins of writing for a piece of visual media: the tell don't show technique. I think any film nerd will understand as to why it's bad, so I don't think I need to explain myself any further.

The second (and also last) serious criticism I have of the film is the fact that, well, the film's action coreography is just so unbelievably sloppy. Now yes, this certainly isn't an action heavy title, so expecting something on the same level as, say, the Jason Bourne movies to be present within it so ludicrous, so color me surprised when the movie that has been nothing but a slow paced, dread filled atmospheric romp that mixes within itself the genres of horror, thriller and melodrama chooses to end on a bombastic and uber-violent shootout between the protagonists and the human antagonists of the film. Now, the fact that it was unexpected isn't what makes the scene bad (heck, it actually fits within the mindset of the gun-hoe villains from what we've seen throught the film's runtime). No, no, the scene itself is ruined by the absolutely awful action coreography. Now again, this could be the result of a small production budget (althought, frankly, I've seen big budget productions whose fight coreography was equally as bad), but, if that's the case, then the film has a problem of being too big for it's britches. Pro tip, when you're working on a visual medium, don't try to operate outside of your production budget. Sure, you have big dreams and it's great to think outside the box, but, sometimes, that very box might fall apart if you think outside of it too much. There's a reason a lot of films produced by the Asylum and Troma aren't very good. Unless you're immediately showered with massive funds, it's better to start off with smaller scale stories before you move onto the bigger and more demanding ones. Rome wasn't built in a day, and Guillermo Del Toro didn't start his career with directing Pacific Rim (2013).

So, in the end, would I reccomend watching it?

Whilst the film is plagued with a myriad of issues which range from easy to overlook to hard to swallow, the overal experaince is certainly entertaining enough for a one time viewing, especially with friends. Some horror fans might be turned off by the reliance on melodrama, however, the film does enough of a service to all of it's elements that neither of the sides that came in to watch it will see it as a dissapointment, as all of the elements are laid out in a satisfying enough puzzle. It may very much be far removed from being perfect and there are parts of it that fall into the cheesy side of things, however, it's certainly not a film that deserves to be as overlooked as it is.

Trailers: