Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

Shrooms (2006)

MARCH 18, 2008

GENRE: SLASHER, WEIRD
SOURCE: DVD (OWN COLLECTION)

Sometime this week, Bloody-Disgusting will be posting a list of the 10 dumbest slasher motives in history (history being the ones I’ve seen, and then in turn, remember). Shrooms made the cut, but unlike most of the other movies on the list, I actually kind of liked the movie, so the motive didn’t really anger me.

It IS really stupid though.

I was surprised that I liked the movie at all, because all SIX of our main characters are druggies. Lame as I may be, I’m pretty much against all drug use, so giving a shit about 6 people who are SPECIFICALLY going into the woods for no other reason than to get high is asking a lot of me. But I kind of liked them to a degree, and luckily (surprisingly, in fact), little of the film is given to them sitting around eating mushrooms and “tripping” (not even as much as in The Tripper, in fact). In fact, the film had more in common with Severance, in both look (both movies look like they were shot entirely at 7 o clock in the morning) and structure (both films end in a large compound in the middle of the woods – sure, why not?). And you all know I love Severance.

However, it’s not all killing either (though there’s a lot more bloodshed than I was expecting as well). It seems everyone in this group dislikes everyone else, so there’s a lot of bickering and catfighting to put up with. In fact, I could have used a bit MORE “tripping” as a result; it was vastly more amusing to see a guy talk to a cow than listen to two girls fight over a guy who’s already dead (unbeknownst to them). There’s also a part where a guy grabs a slimy mass and says “You see this frog cum?” that had me laughing for like 10, maybe 12 seconds straight.

Also, the movie is smart enough to avoid having any of the characters fall into a giant mushroom and hallucinate for the entire episode. If you know what I’m referring to – is that also the moment you realized that show really started to suck?

In the end, my only real problem with the film was its confusing subplot of a certain mushroom giving the girl the ability to see the future. First of all, what? How the hell would that work? Second (BIG SPOILER HERE), this character turns out to be the killer! Why bother giving the one person who doesn’t have any need to prevent anyone’s demise a big idiotic superpower that renders certain sections of the film annoying/wholly implausible (plausibility being a relative term when it comes to movies like this)? Sure, it helps make the ending of the film a bit more of a surprise, but it’s still entirely unnecessary in the long run.

End spoilers.

Also, an important plot point relies on our believing that the main dude wouldn’t want to nail this girl:


Uh, no. He’s got her alone in the woods, they’re both a bit fucked up, and he’s gonna ignore her? I don’t buy it. Horror nerds may be interested to learn that she is Lindsay Haun, aka the main evil girl from Carpenter’s Village of the Damned remake. It’s good to know she grew up cute, and now there’s even more reason not to watch that movie (who wants to look at a little girl now that they know she’s going to be hot in 12 years?)

The DVD has a nice collection of extras: deleted scenes, alternate endings (which are the same in terms of who the killer is, they just have alternate epilogues), and an audio commentary that is much dryer than I was hoping for. They take the film very serious, and even though Shrooms is nowhere near as goofy as I was expecting, the track could have used the same amount of levity that the film had. And according to the track, the film was shot on HDD, and looks fantastic. More stuff like this, and maybe digital films that look good will be the rule, rather than the exception.

What say you?

Post a Comment for "Shrooms (2006)"