Review: Horror in the Wind (2008)

[Mark R. Leeper]

                       HORROR IN THE WIND
                (a film review by Mark R. Leeper)

     CAPSULE: This could have been a much more intelligent
     film.  A chemical intended to be sprayed all over
     the United States to suppress sexual urges instead
     reverses everyone's sexual orientation.  Somebody
     could have used this idea to make an interesting
     film, but instead we get a claustrophobic and unfunny
     piece of fluff.  Rating: +0 (-4 to +4) or 4/10

The year is 2017 and the reactionary government of the United
States--headed by President Robertson and Vice-President Dobson--
wants to suppress all sex.  Two biologists, Rick Holbrook and Ed
Picante (played by newcomers Perren Hedderson and Morse Bicknell),
have found a way to inhibit fruit-fly procreation and so save
crops.  The President wants a modified version that will be an
abstinence drug for humans.  When it is sprayed over the nation it
works, but not the way it was planned.  The chemical does not
inhibit sex at all but simply reverses everybody's sexual
orientation.  Gays turn straight, and straights turn gay.  Only
white Christians will be given the antidote.

In addition, as a wholly different premise in the script, new
scriptures are found in the Middle East that are somehow provably
the authentic Bible.  And in the new Bible homosexuality is
approved of and heterosexuality is considered bad.  Either one of
these premises could be the basis for an entire and fascinating
film.  But Max Mitchell just seems to think that the joke of gay
couples talking like they are straight and vice versa is funny
enough to be repeated over and over.  Holbrook and Picante fall in
love and their partners fall in love and go in for naked yoga.

In addition, there are other running jokes inserted that never
connect up with the characters of the main story line.  A news
announcer on the right-wing Fax Network and a really off-the-wall
Evangelistic minister comment on the proceedings or just show how
ridiculous they are.  Actually, everybody whose point of view was
different from that of the film was presented as an over-the-edge
wacko.  Mitchell does not realize that making the opposition all
wackos makes them less believable and undercuts his own arguments.
Notice how much more effective a film like TWELVE ANGRY MEN is
because some of the opposition (opposing for most of the film) seem
to be reasonable and well-intentioned, if wrong-headed.  The film
is pulling in two directions.  If Mitchell wants the film to be a
serious statement about how society treats gays, he needed to
present it differently.  If he wanted the film to be a wild farce,
he needed a more imaginative sense of humor.

It would be too optimistic to expect that an inexperienced
filmmaker like Max Mitchell could turn out a very good film on a
minimal budget, though there are many examples of inexpensive
first-films that were good.  Mitchell seems to be endlessly amused
by two males talking about their sex.  They may talk about one
putting his tongue in the other's ear.  Or he may show the
President of the United States has toenails painted black.  This
sort of thing might be amusing the first time it appears.  But by
the second time it is much less so.  To repeat such jokes half a
dozen times more is just wasting the viewers' time.  The film
becomes simply an unfunny ribald skit.  Mitchell could easily go on
to do much better things, but this film is not the most auspicious
calling card.  If I were to give him advice it would be to think
about reusing this premise in a serious film.  What would happen if
everybody's orientation were switched?  What benefits would there
be?  What problems would it cause?  Once he has thought that out,
he still could make it a comedy if he wanted, but it would be a
much more intelligent comedy.  A thoughtful or really witty
treatment of the idea of mass reversals of sexual orientation would
have been a good film and one worth considering.  This film is just
a piece of fluff and a burlesque that sidesteps having any
substance.  HORROR IN THE WIND is a film with a good idea for a
thought experiment but never given its chance to develop.  I rate
it a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale or 4/10.

The publicity coming with the film proudly states that this film
was "Banned in New Mexico."  That sounds like it was some
governmental organization saying the film could not be shown in New
Mexico.  In fact, it appears that a theater chain decided the
content was too political and chose not to book the film.  This is
hardly the same thing as banning a film.  But the film sounds more
alluring if it actually has been banned.

Film Credits: <http://us.imdb.com/title/tt1124041/>


					Mark R. Leeper
					mleeper at optonline.net
					Copyright 2008 Mark R. Leeper