Movie Review: "Lo"
Lo is a film about a guy who summons a demon, but it's more than that-it's a romantic drama with horror undertones, a comedy with gore, a musical, and a stage play captured on film. It's not without flaws-some serious, others forgivable-but it's difficult to look at what Betz has achieved on what was surely a miniscule budget and hold those negatives against him.
Justin (Ward Roberts) is an awkward guy drifting aimlessly through life-until the day he meets April (Sarah Lassez). This odd, yet charming, young woman changes Justin's life-teaching him about love and happiness and all those other good things he was missing out on. Unfortunately, April is kidnapped by demons and whisked off to Hell. Justin can't let the love of his life go so easily-so when he finds a book of hers filled with magical rituals, he constructs a pentagram and contacts the demon Lo. He has one command for his new minion; bring April back from the pit. But, as anyone who's followed demonic fiction knows, dealing with demons is never an exact science. Can Justin outwit Lo, stay alive, and save his lost love, or this there a darker revelation lurking in the bowels of Hell waiting for the most devastating of moments to be revealed?
To be honest, a plot synopsis really doesn't do Lo justice. The story of Betz's film is certainly an important component of the viewing experience, but the devil, as they say, lies mostly in the details. The interaction between Justin and the elaborately crafted demon Lo (played brilliantly by Jeremiah Birkett) is where the film really shines. This is a dialogue driven film, featuring lengthy conversations about love and life and suffering that are punctuated by silly re-enactments of events from Justin and April's time together. Anyone expecting a gory demonic thriller with elaborate set-pieces is going to be let down-that's not what Lo's about. Instead, it's more content to exist as a stage play (reminiscent in its approach to last year's other oddly endearing limited location, dialogue heavy horror film Pontypool).
Betz films Lo on what is essentially a single set. Many of the scenes consist of little more than Justin sitting inside an elaborately drawn pentagram while Lo lurks outside. The scenes are pitch black-in lighting and occasionally tone-save for a single spotlight illuminating the two actors. This high school drama production aesthetic runs throughout the film. When scenes shift to the re-enactments, it's merely a matter of adjusting the camera, turning off one set of lights and turning on another. The low-fi approach is a huge part of the film's charm for me. Some will no doubt be turned off by the simplicity of the sets, but to the crew's credit, they've gone the extra mile to make each location look visually appealing in spite of the budgetary limitations. I'd not want to see every low-budget film take this approach to set design, but in this story, it's a complement to the tale being told.
If the film's unique imagery and staging doesn't draw you in, then perhaps the performances and writing will. Lo's script is surprisingly good-filled with witty and thoughtful dialogue that took me by surprise. The exchanges between Justin and Lo are the kind of deft verbal sparring we see far too little of in films, where the art of writing conversation often feels as though it's been reduced to penning catch phrases and trailer soundbytes. Still, even the best dialogue loses its power if the actors delivering the lines can't present them with the proper inflection and conviction. Luckily, Roberts and Birkett are more than capable performers. Each performance is successful, but for entirely different reasons. Roberts does lovesick doofus well, even evoking memories of Bruce Campbell in his performance (especially during the early scenes where he draws the pentagram and a sequence involving his talking hand). It's not a rip off of Campbell's iconic Evil Dead character Ash-but more of a subtle homage in certain sequences.
Birkett is just as impressive, maybe even moreso since he spends his screentime buried in elaborate demon makeup and crawling around the darkened set (his legs were damaged-he reveals the story behind how this happened during the film). Birkett captures the seductiveness of Hell's angels perfectly-Lo is a terrifying creature when he wants to be, but he's got a silver tongue and a devious mind, and he's not afraid to use them when the situation calls for it. Birkett has essayed one of the more interesting indie film character portrayals in recent years and certainly deserves recognition for his efforts.
Quantifying Lo's flaws isn't as simple as championing its successes. While I generally admire the aesthetic decision to go with a stage play approach to the story, it doesn't always work. There were times where I wanted Lo to be a bigger film-to be more ambitious, to break out of the rotating light routine that transitions us from one scene to the next. At the same time, the film's dialogue is well written-but with so much of it, there are bound to be some clunker lines. Lo has a good line to bad line ratio of like three to one, but some of the dialogue still feels forced on occasion. The film also feels drawn out at some points-like Betz was padding his run time in a bid to reach a respectable feature length. There are scenes and sequences in Lo that feel unnecessary and they detract from the experience as a whole. Some of the comedy doesn't work, either.
Despite these flaws, it's hard to look too harshly upon Lo. The film certainly isn't for everyone (I'd not recommend it to most of the horror-loving audience-not because it's a bad movie, but because it's a very different one), but adventurous movie fans who enjoy dialogue heavy films that look like stage plays should put this one on their viewing list.