Review: Burning Bright

Review: Burning Bright

Taking its title from a William Blake poem (why?), Garret Dillahunt stars as a man who buys a tiger (from an uncredited Meat Loaf, no less!) for his own safari park. He uses money that was meant for his stepchildren, I might add. He keeps the animal locked up in a trailer, and being the idiot he is, keeps depriving it of food. Oh, that’s a smart idea, fella. One night, which has become dark and stormy due to an oncoming hurricane, sees the tiger come loose from its cage and entering the house, whilst Dillahunt’s stepdaughter Briana Evigan and her severely autistic brother Charlie Tahan sleep. Well, they won’t be sleeping for long I guess. Oh, and for some reason the house has been boarded up, with seemingly no room for escape. Did I mention that the tiger’s a bit hungry?

This 2010 thriller from director Carlos Brooks (a relative newcomer) never quite worked for me, despite terrific use of the ‘central animal gone amok’. The set-up, for instance is the most ludicrous imaginable manner in which to get our protagonists and the tiger together. It’s stupid as hell, and ends up having the tiger almost act like Michael Myers, really (Compare that with the underrated “Cujo”, where a St. Bernard was a far more plausible domestic intruder, if a bit less deadly). Why choose the most ridiculous manner in which to get a tiger to stalk the main characters? Who was the bright spark who decided to set this thing indoors, for cryin’ out loud? I know there’s a bit of a plot reason involving Dillahunt’s character, but even that could’ve been worked around. Maybe if it had escaped from the zoo, I could swallow it.

Secondly, Briana Evigan (fresh from the awful “Sorority Row”) plays one of the most selfish and least sympathetic protagonists I’ve ever come across. On paper, she’s a wonderful, selfless human being who looks after her autistic brother. Unfortunately, whether by design or in interpretation by Evigan, that’s not how the character is played. I don’t mind her nerves being tested by him when the situation has become more tense with the introduction of the tiger, but even before that, she doesn’t seem likeable at all. She comes across as someone who is long-suffering, yes, and in a tough spot, but there are plenty of people in her situation who have a much sunnier exposition than Evigan presents here. Plenty of people give up their lives to look after disabled relatives (I know this because I’m physically disabled myself) unable to look after themselves to one degree or another, and by and large, these people do not complain. It’s probably a very hard life, but they keep their frustrations to themselves. Realistic or not, the decision to show a dream/nightmare/vision of Evigan smothering her brother to death made me hate her guts for the rest of the film, and Evigan never manages to make me feel that she was anything other than selfish. We get no real back-story, and Evigan is a shit actress, so we have to accept things as presented, and as presented, I wasn’t entirely sure if the reason she wanted that money was for the kid, or maybe just for her. Maybe she wanted the money so she could escape and leave the kid behind. I mean, the money was meant to put the kid in some kind of facility, so she was kinda leaving him anyway. I’m not sure if I was meant to think that way about her, but I did (Mind you, this is a kid that requests sandwiches be cut into six pieces, so I’d have had pause to dump him too. I mean, who the hell does that? No one, autistic or not!)

The other issue I have with this film, and it’s not a new one for me, is the choice to shoot this thing on video. If you’ve read many of my reviews either at this site or elsewhere, you know I’m not a fan of video, and I don’t care if celluloid is on the out or not. Even more than usual, this decision was a poor and infuriating one from my perspective. Can’t afford to make the film using celluloid or the better quality stuff? Then too bad, don’t make the movie. This film is ruined by truly awful, muted visuals, and that’s a damn shame. There’s no need for this story to be done in handheld video format, all it does is alert you to the technology being used. Some of the angles and shots here would look absolutely amazing...in any other format. Despite having a bit of a slasher vibe, the POV shots are really creepy, actually, but it looks so ugly. If this were done on celluloid or at least better quality video, it’d be well-shot and well-directed, but because it’s not, it takes away from the cinematography and direction considerably. It took me out of the film, a film which had already alienated me a bit with its bizarro plot set-up and unsympathetic lead. Oh, and good luck seeing things in scenes with little to no lighting, which is not the same as a celluloid-shot film where it’s in darkness and you’re not meant to see anything. This is meant to be a little brighter so you can see things, but because it’s such cheap quality, you can’t see a damn thing. I also think there’s something wonky about the sound, at times I was hearing things akin to when you put a seashell up to your ear. I don’t live anywhere near the beach, and this film wasn’t set near the beach, either. Weird.

It’s so frustrating, because there is genuine promise here. This is mostly evident in how the tiger (or tigers, three were used) is used in the film. There’s a little CGI here and there most likely, and some of the composite shots are a bit obvious (perhaps that’s why the film needed to be so murky, but once again I say don’t make the damn movie!), but for the most part the tigers are real (but not really there with the actors) and really, really effective for a likely low-budget. This is mostly due to how little we actually see of them, just a bit of their body here, a quick headshot there, etc. It’s scary, or at least dangerous. The tigers and Evigan’s hot body (in tight underwear- yay!) are the film’s chief...erm...assets. But here’s a film where scary isn’t enough, because it just looks so awful that I couldn’t enjoy it.

If you don’t mind bitchy girls, silly premises, or films shot on murky video, you’ll like this more than I did. I think it was a case of some good ideas and bad execution, outside of the tigers themselves.

Rating: C+