Mulberry Street Reviews

  • Sep 07, 2017

    The nightmarish cinematography adds horror to a rather silly idea...it also manages to make much of the film confusing.

    The nightmarish cinematography adds horror to a rather silly idea...it also manages to make much of the film confusing.

  • Oct 12, 2015

    Short, quick, and simple indie horror. It was sometimes unintentionally funny and sometimes creepy and gory. I appreciated the characterization efforts. The sound mixing and audio track was awful but the creature effects were pretty great and it had spirit.Terrible ending. 5.5/10

    Short, quick, and simple indie horror. It was sometimes unintentionally funny and sometimes creepy and gory. I appreciated the characterization efforts. The sound mixing and audio track was awful but the creature effects were pretty great and it had spirit.Terrible ending. 5.5/10

  • Apr 13, 2015

    I loved Jim Mickle's most recent 2 movies, and stake land was still damn good, so i was interested in checking out his first film, and despite the low budget its by no means bad, he still maintains the somber serious tone thats present in the rest of his films, all the tenants of the apt building are sad lonely cases just trying to get by, and then rats start biting people turning them into mutants, he does a good job making it seem the whole city is shut down, despite obviously not having the budget to do so, there are some suspenseful scenes, it did get a bit weak at the end, like they ran out of money and then just had to end it suddenly, still for a first movie made for 60 grand apparently it's well done

    I loved Jim Mickle's most recent 2 movies, and stake land was still damn good, so i was interested in checking out his first film, and despite the low budget its by no means bad, he still maintains the somber serious tone thats present in the rest of his films, all the tenants of the apt building are sad lonely cases just trying to get by, and then rats start biting people turning them into mutants, he does a good job making it seem the whole city is shut down, despite obviously not having the budget to do so, there are some suspenseful scenes, it did get a bit weak at the end, like they ran out of money and then just had to end it suddenly, still for a first movie made for 60 grand apparently it's well done

  • Feb 28, 2015

    Jim Mickle's directorial debut is a good horror for a low budget film. For a relatively of new actors, they were quite good. The characters are fine and simple, and there's some scares that are effective. It can be suspenseful at times, and it has some creepy make up in it. I thought it sounded stupid at first and it could've been something out of a B movie, but it's actually playing it straight and serious which actually worked for me. It's not exciting however, and I didn't care that much about it. It has some chuckle moments, and it has a bit of a surprising, but a bit anticlimactic, ending. But for Mulberry Street, it's just trying to be a horror film with a simple plot that's just enough for it, no more, no less.

    Jim Mickle's directorial debut is a good horror for a low budget film. For a relatively of new actors, they were quite good. The characters are fine and simple, and there's some scares that are effective. It can be suspenseful at times, and it has some creepy make up in it. I thought it sounded stupid at first and it could've been something out of a B movie, but it's actually playing it straight and serious which actually worked for me. It's not exciting however, and I didn't care that much about it. It has some chuckle moments, and it has a bit of a surprising, but a bit anticlimactic, ending. But for Mulberry Street, it's just trying to be a horror film with a simple plot that's just enough for it, no more, no less.

  • Jesse O Super Reviewer
    Feb 16, 2015

    I think a lot of people are, unfortunately, likely to pass on this film based on its appearance. I'm not gonna sit here and suggest that this was a great film, or even a good one, but it's definitely better than I think the audience reaction would imply here. Or at least the score, because people can score a film without reviewing it. I'd like to think the reviews are a little more thoughtful. Jim Mickle has gone on to directed several films I've enjoyed. Those being Stake Land and We Are What We Are, the latter being the better of the two. I, unfortunately, have not had the pleasure of watching Cold in July just yet, but I definitely want to. I thought this was honestly gonna be something along the lines of CHUD. Like a cheap low-budget, B-fest, with ridiculously over-the-top moments. But this was honestly, and bear with me when I say this, closer to 28 Days Later than it was to CHUD. 28 Days Later is one of my favorite horror movies from the 2000s, so this isn't a comparison I make lightly. Even with the concept of rat-people who act like zombies, this is treated as something that is serious. Not too pretentiously serious or anything like that, since this is STILL a movie with rat-people that act like zombies, but it's certainly a refreshing way to tell this story. The characterization is also supremely well-done. These characters aren't cliched or stereotypical. They may not be the most intricately written characters, but there's a certain reality in how they interact with each other. They're a small tight-knit community of tenants all sharing the same building, that they're being evicted from. They all have distinct personalities and you come to like them in their own way. So Jim Mickle and Nick Damici, who acted and co-wrote the film, already had a handle on how to properly frame their characters to make the horror of what happens to them be truly effective. With that said, I do think that the characters themselves, while likable, needed a little bit more depth. The movie is quite short, but they really do the best they can with what they're given and I cannot hold that against them in the least. The movie is well-paced, it doesn't feel longer than it should've been, and it climaxes perfectly. The ending itself is very poignant, particularly for this type of film. I think the horror itself, while decent enough, wasn't as effective as it could've been. This is, again, budgetary problems. I'm not holding it against them, but in a way I am given the score I'm giving it. It's just not what I would call a good movie to be honest. This was just a way to get Jim Mickle's foot in the door into a bigger independent spotlight and this early film proved him to already be adept at characterization and atmosphere. Something that was very useful in a film like We Are What We Are. I wouldn't exactly recommend this to just anyone, but it's pretty decent all things considered. It's not pretty, but it's got more than enough under the hood to keep one intrigued.

    I think a lot of people are, unfortunately, likely to pass on this film based on its appearance. I'm not gonna sit here and suggest that this was a great film, or even a good one, but it's definitely better than I think the audience reaction would imply here. Or at least the score, because people can score a film without reviewing it. I'd like to think the reviews are a little more thoughtful. Jim Mickle has gone on to directed several films I've enjoyed. Those being Stake Land and We Are What We Are, the latter being the better of the two. I, unfortunately, have not had the pleasure of watching Cold in July just yet, but I definitely want to. I thought this was honestly gonna be something along the lines of CHUD. Like a cheap low-budget, B-fest, with ridiculously over-the-top moments. But this was honestly, and bear with me when I say this, closer to 28 Days Later than it was to CHUD. 28 Days Later is one of my favorite horror movies from the 2000s, so this isn't a comparison I make lightly. Even with the concept of rat-people who act like zombies, this is treated as something that is serious. Not too pretentiously serious or anything like that, since this is STILL a movie with rat-people that act like zombies, but it's certainly a refreshing way to tell this story. The characterization is also supremely well-done. These characters aren't cliched or stereotypical. They may not be the most intricately written characters, but there's a certain reality in how they interact with each other. They're a small tight-knit community of tenants all sharing the same building, that they're being evicted from. They all have distinct personalities and you come to like them in their own way. So Jim Mickle and Nick Damici, who acted and co-wrote the film, already had a handle on how to properly frame their characters to make the horror of what happens to them be truly effective. With that said, I do think that the characters themselves, while likable, needed a little bit more depth. The movie is quite short, but they really do the best they can with what they're given and I cannot hold that against them in the least. The movie is well-paced, it doesn't feel longer than it should've been, and it climaxes perfectly. The ending itself is very poignant, particularly for this type of film. I think the horror itself, while decent enough, wasn't as effective as it could've been. This is, again, budgetary problems. I'm not holding it against them, but in a way I am given the score I'm giving it. It's just not what I would call a good movie to be honest. This was just a way to get Jim Mickle's foot in the door into a bigger independent spotlight and this early film proved him to already be adept at characterization and atmosphere. Something that was very useful in a film like We Are What We Are. I wouldn't exactly recommend this to just anyone, but it's pretty decent all things considered. It's not pretty, but it's got more than enough under the hood to keep one intrigued.

  • Feb 10, 2015

    Good plot, good actors and it's not another silly zombies film.

    Good plot, good actors and it's not another silly zombies film.

  • Apr 18, 2014

    Nice try on a low budget, but the shaky camera work and poor lighting made it really hard to follow and keep up with it.

    Nice try on a low budget, but the shaky camera work and poor lighting made it really hard to follow and keep up with it.

  • Apr 17, 2014

    This horror film definitely has a solid concept, nevertheless the execution has problems that limit the well realized characters and themes.

    This horror film definitely has a solid concept, nevertheless the execution has problems that limit the well realized characters and themes.

  • Feb 21, 2014

    As a low-budget indie horror flick this film has admittedly creepy makeup designs, yet delivers exactly what's expected of an infection gone haywire thriller, nothing more, nothing less.

    As a low-budget indie horror flick this film has admittedly creepy makeup designs, yet delivers exactly what's expected of an infection gone haywire thriller, nothing more, nothing less.

  • Cynthia S Super Reviewer
    Dec 10, 2013

    Part of Horrorfest 8 Films to Die For. They are independent films, and you can't usually expect very high quality. This one is no exception. I half enjoyed it, though. It is filmed rather darkly, so you can't really see everything 100%. Plus, they do that shaky camera thing during some graphic, or action scenes. BUT, I love creatures, and monsters, so I sort of got a kick out of it. The ending, however, wasn't very creative...

    Part of Horrorfest 8 Films to Die For. They are independent films, and you can't usually expect very high quality. This one is no exception. I half enjoyed it, though. It is filmed rather darkly, so you can't really see everything 100%. Plus, they do that shaky camera thing during some graphic, or action scenes. BUT, I love creatures, and monsters, so I sort of got a kick out of it. The ending, however, wasn't very creative...