Rest Stop: Don't Look Back (2008)

AUGUST 14, 2008

GENRE: BREAKDOWN, CRAP, GHOST
SOURCE: THEATRICAL (PRESS SCREENING)

I fucking hated the first Rest Stop, for a number of reasons. One was its almost unparalleled amount of padding to make it a feature length film. Another was its incredibly unlikable “heroine”, played by Jamie Alexander. A third was the incoherent nature of the film’s villains. Were the inbred religious nuts in the motorhome working with the guy in the truck, or against him? Did they even know each other? Did it fucking matter?

Well apparently, which is why we now have Rest Stop: Don’t Look Back, which features a Return of the King style opening flashback that explains the origin of one of the villains, before heading into sequel mode, as Tom (the brother of the dude in the first movie), and his girlfriend go looking for them. As I sat down, I was prepared to submit “Better Than The Original!” as a quote for the eventual DVD cover, but as the movie unfolded, I realized that simply wasn’t going to be true.

Unlike the first movie, which had some decent scenes (the ones where Alexander wasn’t talking) and a somewhat admirable 70s feel, this one just has absolutely nothing going for it. When a horror movie’s best scene involves a guy driving along talking to (actually, AS) the toy dinosaurs that litter his dashboard, there’s something rotten in DTVmark.

The guy I refer to is Tom’s friend, played by Graham Norris. This may be the most useless character in horror movie history. The movie is about a road trip, more or less, and when he makes it clear that he is coming along, Tom’s girlfriend Marilyn protests. “It’s a long drive, we’ll need all the help we can get,” Tom explains. Fine, but the guy takes his own fucking car! If anything, he even slows the process down because every time he needs to stop to piss or fix his shitty car, the heroes (you know - the ones who actually have a stake in the quest) have to stop too. Real helpful, douchebag.

Then again, their journey doesn’t really make sense in any area. Even if we buy that the guy really thinks he can find his brother after a year of other people looking (he was in Iraq until now, so I guess he was off on another fruitless search), why bring two others along when all signs point to foul play? And their starting point is a bit unclear, but he hopes to make it to El Paso, TX on the first night, so... let’s just say Alabama, for argument’s sake. But on the first night we see them cross into California before stopping for the night. The next day, they drive for what seems like hours and are still in the desert, even though if you’re traveling from Texas to California, you’re probably on route 15 and thus you got about 3 hrs’ driving tops from the border to well populated civilization.

They also draw the ire of the trucker before they even stop at the titular locale. We are told that he only goes after sinners, but I guess that would be a pretty demanding job given the relative proximity of Las Vegas. And even though their sins are incredibly weak (the girlfriend drank and fooled around with a guy while Tom was overseas, big whoop), he manages to single them out before they even get to his hunting ground? What an asshole.

They also fail to get more use out of the most interesting characters: the family in the RV. Whenever the creepy little midget or the even creepier Ian Somerhalder clone twins are on screen, the movie is kinda interesting, because you’re never quite sure what they’re up to. Maybe they plan a 3rd film that focuses entirely on them, but it’s still a wasted opportunity for this one. Especially when the people we DO spend most of the movie with are as generic and uninteresting as horror movie characters get.

The only time (other than Dino-talk) that I enjoyed the movie was near the very end. Apparently, Tom’s army unit allows him to take home heavy artillery from the war, as he pulls a couple of handguns and a gen-yoo-ine assault rifle out of his trunk and begins blasting at the yellow truck. It’s so goddamn stupid that I had to laugh.

The movie’s biggest blunder, however, is introducing a supernatural angle to the proceedings. In this movie just about everyone is a goddamn ghost (the kind that can be seen and interacted with until the plot just has them vanish into thin air), and there’s some supernatural nonsense about having to burn the eyes so that the ghost’s soul can rest (and by rest they mean stop running people over in his truck, which is also a ghost, apparently). This culminates in a scene where Marilyn KNOWS that the eyes are inside an RV (it might be the same RV, I couldn’t tell and didn’t care), so she and Norris look around for it. They eventually just blow the whole thing up, which is what they should have done in the first goddamn place, but then how would the movie live up to the original in terms of needless padding? Besides, maybe I’m just too dumb to understand how 2-3 minutes of looking in hilariously stupid places (kitchen drawers, the glove compartment) for a pair of eyes that were cut out 35 years ago is actually vital to the film’s plot.

And it doesn’t work, apparently, because at the end the ghosts are still driving around the deserted “Old Highway”, and while no one is ever actually killed on screen in this fucking movie, we find out that pretty much all of our heroes are now ghosts too. Whatever. This is one of the most pointless movies I’ve ever seen; its only reason to exist is to get people to say “Hey, maybe Rest Stop 1 wasn’t THAT bad.”

Oh, and even Alexander, who starred in Hallowed Ground, had enough good sense not to return for this one, so her role (another fucking ghost) is played by someone else, with all the footage from the first movie edited in a way that we never see her face. So an actress decides not to return, and rather than just write her character out, they have someone else play it, even though any sane person would realize the role is fucking stupid anyway and should be removed entirely.

I want to close by pointing out that I have seen both Rest Stop films, which pretty much exemplify why DTV gets a bum rap, in theaters. And I’m such a moron I’ll probably go see the third one (god help us all) if the opportunity arises.

What say you?

20 comments:

  1. this looks like shit--the first one wasn't that great. are there any tits in this flick? .

    ReplyDelete
  2. i want to read your review, BC!!! :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why do you keep putting off this review?

    ReplyDelete
  4. When a movie is not yet released and I see it for press, then I can't post a review until it's released.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm a little confused what you mean about seeing it for press. Is it different than seeing it at a screening or online? What exactly does it mean?

    ReplyDelete
  6. If the studio invites you to see one of their movies, you are obligated to follow their rules concerning when reviews are published... I don't see why this is hard to understand. It has been the case on this site for a long time - I have reviews from back in May that I still haven't been able to post. If I see the movie on my own dime (like the Last House on the Left test screening), I can post whatever the hell I want, but when it's a press screening that I am invited to (either for Bloody or for HMAD), then I have to go by their rules. The movie comes out Sept 30th, my review will be posted around then.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I just started reading your reviews, so I didn't know. Anyway, thanks for explaining. I guess I'll check back September 30. I bet it it's hard sometimes not being able to post a review of a really great movie to encourage people to go see it or of a really shitty one that's a waste of money.

    ReplyDelete
  8. i don't get why studios require you to wait to post reviews (though i understand that you can't) is it being reviewed earlier going to kill it's profit? (i guess in this case it could but we know it's going to be a piece of crap anyway even without you saying so) but particularly in cases where you say it's good, why make you wait?
    ...and even more why not let you tell us the title? (most retarted hold ever!)

    ReplyDelete
  9. When it's good I usually can... there have been some odd exceptions (Repo briefly, but that was also a test screening so I can understand in a way). Red was another, not sure why on that one but I can put it up now (later today if I remember, I'm swamped lately). But yeah if its bad - they just don't want bad word of mouth spreading stemming from someone they invited to see it. Also it's an advertising thing - good or bad, they want the review up when the movie is out so people can read it and be like "I HAVE to see this!" even if you say its the worst thing ever, and then go out and buy it right then (rather than wait 3 months and forget about it). HMAD is just a unique entity because I still post the name of the movie just to have the daily entry. Bloody and Shock, for example, have seen it too, but you wouldn't know it until week of release.

    ReplyDelete
  10. can't you get in trouble for telling that it sucks though?

    ReplyDelete
  11. it is blasphemous to call the Wrong turn 2 better than orignal..i understand that it had better kills and more body count..but the 1st part was grim..way grim compared to the 2nd one..it was much more intense and well acted..i loved Wrong Turn 2..but i loved it as a entirely differnt film and not seeing it in the same light as the first part..

    However with your views about this film ..i totally agree..
    :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. The first rest stop was awful.. awful. I couldn't believe how bad it was. It was flicks like that and the TCM remake that really told me 'hollywood' has lost it for horror. I don't even watch new horror films anymore. I just watch the old classics, or go back into the past for films I haven't seen before.

    Your review for this one pretty much confirmed what I would expect from the people who brought us the first rest stop.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Like you, I also hated the 1st one, and again, like you, I suckered myself into watching this one, and once again, like you, I agree 100% - Both of these movies are absolutely horrible!

    ReplyDelete
  14. "The movie’s biggest blunder, however, is introducing a supernatural angle to the proceedings" - Huh? Was the supernatural element in the first movie not a big enough supernatural element for you to notice it was a supernatural element? :P I thought the first 'Rest Stop' was pretty poor, although I quite liked the Driver as an antagonist. You never could tell what he looked like, and that last shot of him, with the sun behind his head, was quite eerie. Unfortunately, when he returns in the sequel, he's been reduced to a bland, ordinary-looking guy with a porn moustache - Bah! And yes, the sequel is even shittier than the first one.

    ReplyDelete
  15. they were all ghosts in the original? i dont remember that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yep, everyone in the first movie was a ghost (apart from the couple in the car, of course :)). The Driver, the people in the motorhome, the girl locked in the restroom. All ghosts. Even the motorcycle cop who came to the assistance of the heroine turned out to be a ghost.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hahahaha, wow. Why dont I remember that? Weird.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hey I'm a ghost too, writing this on my ghost keyboard!

    ReplyDelete
  19. in defense of both rest stop films, i thought they were way better made than most straight to dvd or crappy cheap horror movies. they are just meant to be wild campy fun and in that i think they succeeded. apparently, i've seen many more worse movies than you guys. lol.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thanks for the heads-up. I was fooled into watching the first one by a review on the DVD cover saying "'Rest Stop' is hauntingly realistic ... in the style of the original
    version of 'The Vanishing.'" -- Marla Newborn, Fangoria TV

    It was a million miles from The Vanishing, I usually don't like supernatural themes because they're usually used as gimmicks to fix a faulty plot, but nothing can fix Rest Stop, the villain and the victim are so mundane it's blood chilling.

    ReplyDelete