FITFUL is a pitifully poor indie thriller without any kind of thrills or real story. It's a two-hander set on an old hulking ship. A historical inspector turns up to check out the site and write a report but while there she meets up with a creepy caretaker who seems to be hiding a dark secret. The only interest here lies in the presence of former XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS starlet Renee O'Connor as the protagonist; she's aged remarkably well but this effort is beneath her, an entirely boring and pointless enterprise.
12 Reviews
THERE'S A LOT OF WEIRDOS OUT THERE.
nogodnomasters21 April 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Paula (Renée O'Connor) is an inspector for a historical society, looking for sites to preserve. She visits an old ship and parks her car under the proverbial suspended piano with expected results. Fortunately only the car is hurt as she meets the very personable Vigs (Larry Joe Campbell) perhaps the best reason to watch the film.
As her car cannot be driven, Paula opts to spend the night on the large ship. Weird things start to happen. Is it the eels? The food? The residual antifreeze in the water? As she sleeps she wakes up then something weirder happens, but it is only a dream. This goes on constantly until the point of viewer frustration.
Things are cleared up at the end, although they don't spell it out for you. Not really a horror film. Available on a 30 Horror Film collection.
Parental Guide: No f-bombs, sex, or nudity.
As her car cannot be driven, Paula opts to spend the night on the large ship. Weird things start to happen. Is it the eels? The food? The residual antifreeze in the water? As she sleeps she wakes up then something weirder happens, but it is only a dream. This goes on constantly until the point of viewer frustration.
Things are cleared up at the end, although they don't spell it out for you. Not really a horror film. Available on a 30 Horror Film collection.
Parental Guide: No f-bombs, sex, or nudity.
Needs more Campbell!
dadoffourcs17 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I got to see a preview screening of this the other night, as it was filmed locally. The packed audience consisted of many people involved with the production, such as caterers, support crew, and parents of the extras. The movie looked mostly finished, though some sound and editing issues could be cleared up.
O'Conner plays Paula, a woman who works for a preservation society, reviewing and researching old buildings and landmarks to determine if they should be named as National Historic sites. Campbell is Vigs, the caretaker of an old ship that has been nominated for such status. Through a series of plot twists, Paula must spend a night on the ship alone with Vigs. Or are they alone?
What follows is a series of Paula's bad dreams. We are left to wonder whether she is dreaming or is what's happening reality. We see her waking up startled from a dream at least a dozen times - and after the first few times, where you feel cheated by the feeling of "it was just a dream," the series of dreams get stranger and stranger.
The big problem - some of the dreams just go on too long, with labored shots of Paula sloooowly waking down the hallways of the empty ship, peeking in staterooms, and doing the same things over and over. A few of the dreams give some creepy jump-style "gotcha" scares, but most of the tension has no payoff. I saw the ending coming a mile away, and it was not the ending I wanted.
O'Connor isn't very noteworthy as Paula (I kept wanting to call her Gabby!), but Larry Joe Campbell's character of Vigs is the one reason to watch the film. His creepy / crazy mannerisms brought consistent laughs from the crowd, and I wish there was some payoff to his character. Unfortunately, there isn't. When he's on screen the film is watchable.
Also - the puppy! Not too spoil too much, but an early scene involving a puppy is just wrong, and though it is explained (sort of) later, it puts an air of unbelievability to the rest of the proceedings. As cute as the puppy was, I'd encourage the director to cut it from the film altogether.
O'Conner plays Paula, a woman who works for a preservation society, reviewing and researching old buildings and landmarks to determine if they should be named as National Historic sites. Campbell is Vigs, the caretaker of an old ship that has been nominated for such status. Through a series of plot twists, Paula must spend a night on the ship alone with Vigs. Or are they alone?
What follows is a series of Paula's bad dreams. We are left to wonder whether she is dreaming or is what's happening reality. We see her waking up startled from a dream at least a dozen times - and after the first few times, where you feel cheated by the feeling of "it was just a dream," the series of dreams get stranger and stranger.
The big problem - some of the dreams just go on too long, with labored shots of Paula sloooowly waking down the hallways of the empty ship, peeking in staterooms, and doing the same things over and over. A few of the dreams give some creepy jump-style "gotcha" scares, but most of the tension has no payoff. I saw the ending coming a mile away, and it was not the ending I wanted.
O'Connor isn't very noteworthy as Paula (I kept wanting to call her Gabby!), but Larry Joe Campbell's character of Vigs is the one reason to watch the film. His creepy / crazy mannerisms brought consistent laughs from the crowd, and I wish there was some payoff to his character. Unfortunately, there isn't. When he's on screen the film is watchable.
Also - the puppy! Not too spoil too much, but an early scene involving a puppy is just wrong, and though it is explained (sort of) later, it puts an air of unbelievability to the rest of the proceedings. As cute as the puppy was, I'd encourage the director to cut it from the film altogether.
Avoid at all costs! Seriously.
w0rm919119 June 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I'm normally not compelled to write reviews for the movies I watch, even considering the vast amount of garbage I've seen. But this movie...
The acting? Not the most horrible I've seen but nothing any major studio would ever pay anyone money for. The camera work? Passable. Neither the best nor the worst of anything I've seen before. The plot? Was there one? Watching this film felt like somebody did a 3 page treatment or short story and decided to stretch it into a 90 minute movie.
My desire to be a completionist and stick with movies without quitting really does me no favors in the end sometimes. It's a rare movie that I've quit watching without getting to the end, but this is one of them. I just kept hoping for something to happen and it never did.
As someone on the message board said, nothing really happens within the first half hour & it's all downhill from there. Never ending dream sequences that I feel would make Gandhi himself use an expletive and demand a refund.
There's no back-story, no character development, and the male lead (while maybe a finer actor elsewhere) annoyed the hell out of me for at least eighty-eight minutes.
The Wicker Man with Nicholas Cage used to be the movie I quoted as the worst I had ever seen, but it has now officially been dethroned by Deadrise.
For the sake of your sanity, please avoid watching this movie. If this review can save just one person from having to go through what I did then it was worth the time it took to write.
The acting? Not the most horrible I've seen but nothing any major studio would ever pay anyone money for. The camera work? Passable. Neither the best nor the worst of anything I've seen before. The plot? Was there one? Watching this film felt like somebody did a 3 page treatment or short story and decided to stretch it into a 90 minute movie.
My desire to be a completionist and stick with movies without quitting really does me no favors in the end sometimes. It's a rare movie that I've quit watching without getting to the end, but this is one of them. I just kept hoping for something to happen and it never did.
As someone on the message board said, nothing really happens within the first half hour & it's all downhill from there. Never ending dream sequences that I feel would make Gandhi himself use an expletive and demand a refund.
There's no back-story, no character development, and the male lead (while maybe a finer actor elsewhere) annoyed the hell out of me for at least eighty-eight minutes.
The Wicker Man with Nicholas Cage used to be the movie I quoted as the worst I had ever seen, but it has now officially been dethroned by Deadrise.
For the sake of your sanity, please avoid watching this movie. If this review can save just one person from having to go through what I did then it was worth the time it took to write.
Wasting Time
Luxetveritas2722 March 2012
There are so many ways people may fritter away excess time. Watching trash television. Trimming ones toenails. Checking up on old rivals on FaceBook. Ridding their refrigerators of green, fuzzy, slimy things. Smoothing out and folding used pieces of tissue paper. Organizing ones music collection alphabetically (or by genre and then alphabetically). Please believe me when I tell you that all of these things are preferable to wasting even a moment of your life watching this movie.
The storyline is non-existent. It isn't suspenseful – it is irritating. I spent most of the film waiting for a climax that never happened. The characters have no depth and no redeeming value. The wardrobe is dated and odd (I thought it was impossible to make Renee O'Connor look frumpy but it is apparently achievable). Overall the movie is aesthetically unappealing: poor camera work, halting timing, and terrible direction are at the core of the long list of problems.
Deadrise is a case study in what a narcissist who isn't the slightest bit creative or talented may churn out given the time, space and finances to do so. If pumping out garbage like this is what the Michigan film incentive is enabling, then I say do away with it quickly.
The storyline is non-existent. It isn't suspenseful – it is irritating. I spent most of the film waiting for a climax that never happened. The characters have no depth and no redeeming value. The wardrobe is dated and odd (I thought it was impossible to make Renee O'Connor look frumpy but it is apparently achievable). Overall the movie is aesthetically unappealing: poor camera work, halting timing, and terrible direction are at the core of the long list of problems.
Deadrise is a case study in what a narcissist who isn't the slightest bit creative or talented may churn out given the time, space and finances to do so. If pumping out garbage like this is what the Michigan film incentive is enabling, then I say do away with it quickly.
The re-edited version under a new title ends on the right note.
iffershortt20 March 2012
Clever and engaging; watch every moment carefully to get the most out of the piece. The details matter. It's fun trying to make sense of the neo-Gothic journey the heroine takes. She willingly enters a world that is visually impressive, spooky, surreal. I was disappointed in the original film's ending and a few of the plot points leading up to it. I didn't predict it for the simple reason that I could not believe so predictable a conclusion for an otherwise engrossing film. Then I saw the revamped version. The retooling pays off; Deadrise tells a stronger, albeit darker, story, and so it is a better movie than in its first incarnation. The acting, which is a bit campy or stagy at times, generally serves the film well and is even quite compelling in places. The characters fit the action, the cinematography is stunning, and a better set would be hard to find. In order to preserve the suspense, I am unwilling to say much more about the plot details, which a movie-goer can find in other reviews. Having come up myself with a more satisfying conclusion to the original film, I'm happy to report that I don't even remember now what it was. Deadrise ends in just the right key.
Interesting, but no sense of completion.
oldkingsol20 June 2011
I give it 7 out of 10 not because it was that appealing to me, but because I think it set out trying to be "something", and whatever that "something" is, it did a fairly good job. For my own taste preferences, I'd rate it at maybe a 4 or a 5.
It's about a woman called to do a report on an old ship to see if it qualifies for "historical site" status. Once there, a piano falls on her car & she can't leave. She meets creepy caretaker Vigs who's clearly at least mildly retarded (in the technical sense of the term, not the derogatory one). Through a chain of events with unexpected details but easily predictable results, she's forced to stay the night on the ship. She's awakened to some strange noises and then her nightmare begins. She keeps experiencing the strangest encounters with Vigs and an occasional 2nd dude (Semperton, who appears in all of 2 scenes), suddenly finding herself waking up just as the scene reaches a climax. From this point on, you won't know if she's really waking up this time, or if it's another dream sequence beginning.
Revealing more than that would be spoiler territory. There are icky scares, startle scares, gotcha' scares and a few others, many involving repeated loops, funky-tasting "sausage" and blood-sucking parasitic eels.
It's very difficult to grasp what is -really- happening, here. When it ended, I felt no sense of completion. If you're very attentive to detail and quick of wit, you might be able to get it the first time. But I had to do a second viewing (in parts, that is - skimming through the movie to see if I could find scenes to explain the questions I have). After that, I did finally manage to work out what happened, and can tell you that everything you need to know to put all the pieces together for yourself happens within the first 10-15 minutes. Everything after that seems to flow from the various elements of those first few scenes.
I recommend it if you like puzzlers, though it is very slow-paced. It's not "non-stop thrills & chills" by any stretch, but it is non-stop "creepy and ominous". It's also quite likely that you won't quite grasp the full details of events on a first viewing either, which if that's the case, you can probably get all your questions answered by watching just the first few scenes again - everything up to her drive on the way to the ship. If you pay attention to those scenes carefully enough, I think you'll be able to put it all together.
That's not for everyone, though - that's more than just watching a movie, that's also solving it.
About the only thing I would've really changed (other than perhaps making the opening few clues a bit more noticeable) would be Paula's confusion with the repeating dream sequences. But then again, it was pretty much like a real dream tends to unfold - you wake up and think you're in the real world, only to wake up again. I do this over and over again sometimes, and sometimes, I'll believe I've awakened "for real" every single time, and not be too bothered by the repeated awakenings. So that aspect of it - it would've seemed more logical if that "bothered" her in some way, but yet it technically is more realistic that it didn't.
So like I said, not for everyone but engaging for more thoughtful, speculative movie watchers.
It's about a woman called to do a report on an old ship to see if it qualifies for "historical site" status. Once there, a piano falls on her car & she can't leave. She meets creepy caretaker Vigs who's clearly at least mildly retarded (in the technical sense of the term, not the derogatory one). Through a chain of events with unexpected details but easily predictable results, she's forced to stay the night on the ship. She's awakened to some strange noises and then her nightmare begins. She keeps experiencing the strangest encounters with Vigs and an occasional 2nd dude (Semperton, who appears in all of 2 scenes), suddenly finding herself waking up just as the scene reaches a climax. From this point on, you won't know if she's really waking up this time, or if it's another dream sequence beginning.
Revealing more than that would be spoiler territory. There are icky scares, startle scares, gotcha' scares and a few others, many involving repeated loops, funky-tasting "sausage" and blood-sucking parasitic eels.
It's very difficult to grasp what is -really- happening, here. When it ended, I felt no sense of completion. If you're very attentive to detail and quick of wit, you might be able to get it the first time. But I had to do a second viewing (in parts, that is - skimming through the movie to see if I could find scenes to explain the questions I have). After that, I did finally manage to work out what happened, and can tell you that everything you need to know to put all the pieces together for yourself happens within the first 10-15 minutes. Everything after that seems to flow from the various elements of those first few scenes.
I recommend it if you like puzzlers, though it is very slow-paced. It's not "non-stop thrills & chills" by any stretch, but it is non-stop "creepy and ominous". It's also quite likely that you won't quite grasp the full details of events on a first viewing either, which if that's the case, you can probably get all your questions answered by watching just the first few scenes again - everything up to her drive on the way to the ship. If you pay attention to those scenes carefully enough, I think you'll be able to put it all together.
That's not for everyone, though - that's more than just watching a movie, that's also solving it.
About the only thing I would've really changed (other than perhaps making the opening few clues a bit more noticeable) would be Paula's confusion with the repeating dream sequences. But then again, it was pretty much like a real dream tends to unfold - you wake up and think you're in the real world, only to wake up again. I do this over and over again sometimes, and sometimes, I'll believe I've awakened "for real" every single time, and not be too bothered by the repeated awakenings. So that aspect of it - it would've seemed more logical if that "bothered" her in some way, but yet it technically is more realistic that it didn't.
So like I said, not for everyone but engaging for more thoughtful, speculative movie watchers.
Director's note
Brauer27 March 2012
Even though our films are small, we compete with mainstream filmmaking, without the resources, so we make films that Hollywood won't. That's the independent spirit. When we offer sneak preview of our new films, we run the risk of the audience thinking that it is the final cut. We listen to the audience react (or not) and make changes as we feel are consistent with the temperament of the film. Having said that, anyone who saw the unreleased sneak preview version of Deadrise, then titled FITFUL, really needs to see the final released product. There are no dogs anymore, and the ending has been changed from a "Oh, you got me" to a "DAM!". The dream sequences have new meaning, and our main character Paula, has a considerably bigger surprise waiting for her at the end of the film. Additional final tweaks also included enhanced music and sound. It is safe to say that the entire context of this non-traditional suspense thriller has been nicely modified prior to its final worldwide release as DEADRISE.
Take a chance on this fun film
rick-130121 March 2012
Enjoyed the film. Nice job to the production crew who put all the money on the screen.
Acting was well done.
Fun film to watch.
This is a Michigan Film which I always enjoy and the producer and director was able to utilize good Michigan background shots.
The story takes us in circles, which is always good as we try and figure our the mystery of the film.
I would recommend this film, even if you don't live in Michigan and want to enjoy the deja-vu. In summary, take a chance and spend time on this fun flix.
Acting was well done.
Fun film to watch.
This is a Michigan Film which I always enjoy and the producer and director was able to utilize good Michigan background shots.
The story takes us in circles, which is always good as we try and figure our the mystery of the film.
I would recommend this film, even if you don't live in Michigan and want to enjoy the deja-vu. In summary, take a chance and spend time on this fun flix.
Interesting setting and characters, multi-layered dream-scape
noahsdad-31-28560823 March 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Full disclosure: The producer/director of Deadrise film is a friend.
My wife and I saw the premiere of this film (then titled "Fitful") at the State Theater in Traverse City, Michigan. The cut at that time was much longer, with the puppy scene still intact, and a very different ending than the DVD version. It's my understanding the DVD release has a much stronger resolution.
At the premiere, we left the theater impressed with the acting and cinematography, but somewhat confused by the story. The multiple layers of dreams left us wondering which scenes were actual experiences, and which were the result of spicy food. Some were obvious, others less so. The lack of visual or other clues to create a dream-state distinction make sorting it all out a bit challenging.
Larry Joe Campbell's role as the creepy caretaker of a retired Car Ferry is exemplary. Who knew that such a comic genius could pull off a lovable but darkly mad character like Vigs? At one point, Larry asks a question about Renee's daughter which literally caused the entire theater to simultaneously gasp. Renee O'Connor's tip-toeing and peering around corners gets a bit repetitive, but her emotional expression is near flawless.
The real star of the show is the ship itself, which is not a Hollywood set piece. It's an actual old steam ship that resides at a dock on the Great Lakes. The contrast of the ship's cavernous spaces, varnished wood paneled cabins, spooky companionways filled with shapeless shadows, and cramped mechanical compartments slick with oil and other dark liquids, combine to create a rich feeling of imprisonment and isolation.
If you're seeking out the next big indie masterpiece, you probably should look elsewhere. If you simply want a clever story, beautifully filmed and sure to inspire conversation after the credits, give Deadrise a shot.
My wife and I saw the premiere of this film (then titled "Fitful") at the State Theater in Traverse City, Michigan. The cut at that time was much longer, with the puppy scene still intact, and a very different ending than the DVD version. It's my understanding the DVD release has a much stronger resolution.
At the premiere, we left the theater impressed with the acting and cinematography, but somewhat confused by the story. The multiple layers of dreams left us wondering which scenes were actual experiences, and which were the result of spicy food. Some were obvious, others less so. The lack of visual or other clues to create a dream-state distinction make sorting it all out a bit challenging.
Larry Joe Campbell's role as the creepy caretaker of a retired Car Ferry is exemplary. Who knew that such a comic genius could pull off a lovable but darkly mad character like Vigs? At one point, Larry asks a question about Renee's daughter which literally caused the entire theater to simultaneously gasp. Renee O'Connor's tip-toeing and peering around corners gets a bit repetitive, but her emotional expression is near flawless.
The real star of the show is the ship itself, which is not a Hollywood set piece. It's an actual old steam ship that resides at a dock on the Great Lakes. The contrast of the ship's cavernous spaces, varnished wood paneled cabins, spooky companionways filled with shapeless shadows, and cramped mechanical compartments slick with oil and other dark liquids, combine to create a rich feeling of imprisonment and isolation.
If you're seeking out the next big indie masterpiece, you probably should look elsewhere. If you simply want a clever story, beautifully filmed and sure to inspire conversation after the credits, give Deadrise a shot.
A Most Original and Unique movie
mattpaulkinne20 March 2012
Although Rich Brauer can be considered a Michigan filmmaker, DEADRISE will appeal to anyone who likes mysteries, or those with a warped sense of humor. Paula goes through a series of odd events while she is trying to get some rest on-board an out-of-service transport ship, that she is inspecting for the Historic trust. Is Captain Vigs who he says he is? Is Paula really dreaming or is this reality? What is really going on here? These are the questions you'll ask yourself as you watch DEADRISE. Although some may compare this to INCEPTION or another Nolan directed film MOMENTO, it is an original, unique and strangely compelling movie experience. I don't recommend this movie for people who do not like eels or big, spooky ships.
The perfect amount of suspense!
gmb1410 January 2013
I greatly enjoyed the complexity of this film. This writer/director does such an amazing job with his films. Though they are not the huge, money intense flicks that most of us are accustomed to, they will leave you feeling exactly what Brauer intended, whether it be intrigued, satisfied, on the edge of your seat, or just plain happy. I believe it is much more difficult to create a great film when you do not have millions of dollars to aid in the creation, and for this I admire this movie. I love it when films make you believe you have figured them all out, and then toss a twist into the plot. If you are looking for a suspenseful, clever, and interesting film, look no further.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
