I took in the recent lame-brain remake of 'The Evil Dead' hoping that it was going to produce something magically mind tingling centred around the 'book of the Dead' only to witness another pointless gore-fest that is now so old hat and expected of this type of thing that the gory parts are now simply accepted as in-fills for a movie that you would expect to give you a whole lot more above and beyond mere buckets of blood and chainsaws and the like. Where's the imagination? Ha ha! found it guys. Lurking on the top shelf and behind the pomp of the huge budget flashy array of celluloid pulp that, in my mind, really does not befit the horror genre sits this remarkable thought provoking film called 'Skew' beautifully engineered by sevé Schelenz squeezing as much as he can (and a whole lot more) out of a tuppence ha'penny budget but delivers a mind- blowing punch on every twist and turn of the camera taking you through a well written story in it's own right that will leave you with more questions and answers on the first viewing that will surely get you reaching for the replay button just so that you can sit back, take in what you have just watched (again and again) to fill in the jigsaw that has been left building in your mind. Don't expect buckets of blood or 'jump out of your pants' scares in this but if you want your mind to 'skew' then sit out this slow boiler (and all the better for it) to the end and then go back for more.

Seve Schelenz's Skew, made in 2005 and just released on a semi-wide scale in 2011, makes two very bold statements on the subjectivity of the viewing experience.Firstly, you don't have to share the exact same world view as the filmmaker. His or her art either inspires, provokes, or in some other significant way touches you, or it doesn't. His idea of the film's plots, themes, and character motivations may or may not coincide with yours. But if the film is made well enough, that shouldn't matter. Secondly, never assume your narrator or hero is reliable, well-adjusted, or sane.This last point is especially significant as Skew is told from the point of view of a camera-addled, eerily withdrawn, and uniquely deluded protagonist named Simon (Rob Scattergood), and the road trip he embarks upon with two friends, Eva and Richard (Amber Lewis and Richard Olak). With the exception of a scant few shots, most of the film is shot from Simon's POV behind the camera. It isn't found-footage --- there are jumps to other perspectives beside Simon's --- but we're definitely inside his mindset for most of the film. This provides a special challenge to us, as viewers. We're given several keys to the "puzzle" of Simon, but then put "inside" Simon, or the puzzle, to figure it out.To call Simon an obsessive is an understatement. His face is literally buried in the camera for the entire trip, shooting anywhere between seven and ten tapes per day. He starts to find faces of certain subjects skewed or twisted as he records their images, often times seeing very vivid phantoms through the viewfinder but then not able to validate any of this when rewinding and playing back the tapes. Almost inevitably, the subjects with the "blurred" faces wind up dead. This led me to believe Simon was either killing all these people or aiding in their deaths in some way. Well, as it turns out...not quite. The truth is actually even a bit more chilling. The best way I can think of to describe Simon's relationship to his camera is to compare it to Anthony Hopkins' relationship to his ventriloquist's dummy in "Magic." The camera and the dummy are both shields, weapons, and the primary tools of the protagonist's destruction.The first time I saw Skew, I came to the wrong conclusion. That is, what I thought was going on by the end of the film didn't quite coincide with the director's intention (for Schelenz's full explanation, see http://coolawesomemovies.com/director-seve-schelenz-explains-skew/). Did that make the film any less interesting, compelling, or downright disturbing for me? Not in the least. Skew still contains some very jolting, jump-out-of-your-seat moments and the tension between the actors is very palpable and nicely played (Olak, in particular, voices the audience's growing frustration and irritation with Simon to particularly good effect).Simon --- not the camera --- is "skewed." His perception of reality is off---way, way off. His fascination with Eva, who doesn't share his feelings in the least, is probably the most blatant indicator of this delusion. His self-hatred --- taken to the extreme point where he can't bear to be photographed, videotaped, or even to look at himself in the mirror is another.Skew blatantly defies all traditional expectations of the psychological horror film, yet still leaves us with a very stark, vivid impression of derangement. It has it's flaws and Schelenz is not a perfect filmmaker: there are many ways he could have made his point in a much clearer and coherent manner and there is one scene in particular, in a police interrogation room, that blatantly doesn't work. It seems it's intention was to mislead but it only winds up confusing us. Despite these flaws (which Schelenz readily acknowledges in the link above, and kudos to him for that), Skew does work. It unsettles you and stays with you for quite some time. I wish there was more like it.

I, like many others, visited the forum boards to make some sense out of the ending. I got a lot of "you just have to think about it" and "it isn't found footage".OK.The only way this movie makes sense is for this to all be a hallucination. There is no camera. There is a camera. Which is it? If there is no camera, why are characters asking for the camera and reaching out their hand as if the camera is changing hands? In some scenes, the camera does change hands.. from the back seat to the front. If there is no camera, how is this happening? Or is this change in POV to throw off the audience? If so, that is highly lame. Especially when the explanation for all of the confusion is "just think about it." Not a found footage? Okay. Well I'm having a hard time understanding how this film explains the numerous camera effects and sounds that all direct the viewer to understand it is a camera. Wiping off the lens, water on the lens, lens cap on the lens, digital tape stress, rewind effects and noises. And yet, Simon doesn't have a camera in the mirror.Okay.Most people don't enjoy movies that are confusing and touted as intelligent. If it is intelligent in design, there needs to be a director's cut to clear up a myriad of details.

I really enjoyed this film. I expected the same old hand held crap that we've seen over and over again but this one had something different. Granted, it took a bit to get there. You have to wait about a half-hour in and then it really begins. That's where the fun actually starts. Because at this point I was glued due to the, "What the hell just happened there?" factor. As a matter of fact, I had to go back and watch the first part again when the film was over because I had so many questions, and quite frankly, I wanted to see if the film followed its own rules and dropped any hints along the way. It did!I know this movie won't be for everyone. To be honest, those who like found footage films may not actually like it. It's the audience that has never seen a found footage film that should watch it. In a weird way, it reminded me a bit on Nolan's Memento or even Inception. Not for the quality, which is fine here due to the "video camera look", but for the story-line. It's just very well thought out.For those who want to see a good film that actually makes you pay attention, watch Skew. You won't be disappointed.