New Zealand was one of those countries that I checked off my list just for the sake of having it done. And why not? After all I felt very confident that they would win the Oceania region. Ever since Australia left they’ve been the heavy favorites to win the confederation, which in this case would have left them one goofy win away from furtively slipping into the World Cup. Maybe in a ‘normal’ world I might have waited to see who would win the region first and then possibly who that team would be paired up with in the inter-continental playoff before choosing to write a critique. But given the delays caused by the pandemic, this just didn’t seem like a good idea.
In any case for this selection I’ll venture into the debut offering from New Zealand director Jonathan King, who to date has only directed 3 feature length films. The film was picked up for distribution in the US by IFC films and released in June of 2007. The actual DVD that I held in my hand indicated that this was a part of IFC’s First Take program where films were given a limited theatrical and VOD release on the same day. Theatrically the film only stuck around for about 2 months in the summer of 2007. The staying power of both home media and streaming though remain. According to worldcat.org there were copies being held at 3 public libraries within a 20 mile radius of where I live. Within 40 miles I would have 7 libraries to choose from. You can also purchase a copy from online sites like Amazon, or rent it out from Facets, where I ended up getting the copy that I watched. The film can also be streamed online at sites like Tubi and Vudu. Be weary though, if your specific desires are for New Zealander horror there is another film called Black Sheep featuring American comedians Chris Farley and David Spade that you may want to steer clear of.
Based solely off the films that I’ve watched in my life I’ve acquired an impression of New Zealand as a country with an abundance of natural beauty. Many of the films that I’ve watched from the country seemed eager to show off its majestic landscapes, and I gather that the filmmakers for Black Sheep shared a similar desire. For a film that largely took place in the more rural, unpopulated areas of the country it was something that they were able to take advantage of. In fact, this film actually greeted its viewers to a pan shot of some lush, green rugged hills during the opening credit sequence. Beyond this there was an interesting establishing shot of the countryside right after one saw Tucker for the first time, and another pan shot of the terrain right before Experience spotted Tucker’s truck. Then there were the shots on the cliff which really stood out with their scenic, breathtaking panorama of the coastline. With such imagery the filmmakers showed great skill at staging their shots, and this proficiency could be seen even when capturing the natural splendor of New Zealand wasn’t the primary aim.
Simple shots like that of our three heroes hearing a strange noise in Mike’s house, or the gradual pull back shot of Henry’s taxicab completely flooded by sheep were executed well. I also enjoyed the charming flair of shots like the mutant baby sheep who suddenly appeared from behind Grant’s head. One of the better shots in the film though was that of the sheep coming over the hill towards the outdoor gathering which did a great job of building the anticipation for the film’s most intensely graphic sequence. Some of the jump cut transitions were also intriguing, especially the ones that attempted to link the grotesqueness of nature with the practice of food preparation in the various kitchen scenes. The filmmakers also did a good job with the faster paced editing and shaky-cam approach during its intense action sequences. In the barn chase scene there was something peculiar and almost maze like in how they sequenced all the various maneuvers through the barriers and the gates. This was a far more fascinating sequence then it had any right to be. Throughout the multiple different facets of the film the editing maintained a good mixture of intensity, coherence and forward movement.
It's a shame then that the film’s narrative didn’t match the quality of its cinematography. I wouldn’t say that the story was bad, but rather that it was unimaginative, formulaic boilerplate horror/thriller stuff. Nothing about the story would be considered groundbreaking. Honestly if you replaced the sheep in this film with either werewolves, vampires or zombies, the film would be indistinguishable from an innumerable plethora of cheesy American horror films from the late 20th century. Without crossing the Pacific, its lighthearted comedic tone at times suggested a slight homage to Peter Jackson’s Braindead. Although the comedic base here was vastly different. In Braindead the humor arose largely out of the occurrence of violence and bloodletting that was so extreme it became a farce. The humor in this film though was based more on its absurd, Pythonesque premise and the awkward, sardonic, yet amiable exchanges between its characters. With this latter element, the film’s dialogue was often good and full of sharp wit which supported its comedic ambitions. The exchange where Henry clarified Angus’s status as a wanker was actually pretty slick. I also like the clownish charm of Tucker’s gun safety fake out. In addition to this a later line by Tucker indicating that the trio would have to ‘hoof it from here’ ended up becoming a far more clever and salient comment in retrospect. I also thought there was good humor mined from Henry’s failed chainsaw gambit. Although one could argue that such a moment toyed with one’s expectations for the film.
In comparison to Braindead, I thought the violence in this film was much more restrained and obscured. It was more common to see the sheep chewing on the blood soaked remains of their victims then to actually see them attack anyone. As for the film’s one true moment of violent insanity, it was marred with quick jump cuts, close up shots and numerous moments of blood spraying from lacerations that conveniently occurred beyond the frame of the shot. This sequence was certainly messy and perhaps a bit disturbing, but it really wasn’t scary. If that wasn’t enough towards the end of the film there was an over reliance on crude, cheap laughs. The climatic scene in which the barn was set ablaze will only appeal to the inner sophomoric 12-year old child within us all. I also didn’t like the way the narrative was structured, specifically with the way some characters would so easily be forgotten about only to randomly appear later in the film. To me Black Sheep lost touch with the Tucker story line too much in the latter third of the film. I don’t know if this was done on purpose to add a bit of suspense near the end of the film, but honestly I was contemplating what had happened to the character and whether or not he was still alive before he re-entered the story, so for me this tactic didn’t really work. Plus the viewer was left with a lot of work to do in order to fill in the expositional gaps in his story.
As for the acting it had some bright spots here and there, but ultimately I would only consider it as modestly good. If anything, I liked the commitment early on to capture each character’s strange idiosyncrasies. Nathan Meister did a good job in playing a person with an irrational fear of sheep. The nervous pings of panic that he conveyed early in the film came across as credible. Granted the deeper you get into the film the more he appeared to lose this aspect of the character, although Meister was still very good in the film’s more intensely dramatic scenes. Danielle Mason wasn’t quite as convincing as the new-age, tree-hugger, hippie chick Experience. Generally it was a good performance, but there was one scene where she gave a long speech to Tucker, where the cadence of her speech seemed a bit too quick. It gave the impression of someone performing a rote exercise whereby they just rattled off a bunch words strictly from memory. There was just no feeling or personality behind the way she delivered the material. If I compare this speech with the one that she gave Henry about her hormonal imbalance, Mason was much better in the latter scene. In this particular scene Mason was able to effectively inject some humor into the film. While Meister was perhaps better at building the film’s dramatic intensity, Mason was definitely better at supporting its comedic bent. In what was probably my favorite moment in the film, Mason gave a perverse fist pump of joy at seeing a sheep get run over by a car. Yes, there will be complaints about how this was totally out of character for Experience, but for me it was the one moment in the film where I saw some self-awareness from the performers on how silly this whole film was. In such films I have no problem with performers who embrace the ridiculousness of the story in order to have some fun.
I think Tammy Davis also wanted to have some fun in the role of Tucker. He brought a more easygoing, fun-loving aspect to the story that was well contrasted against the more uptight, neurotic characters that he interacted with. You could almost consider Tucker as the grounding force of reality in the film, given that his character felt more in sync with the natural environment in which the story took place. It was rather strange for a story that was largely pastoral in its setting, to feature characters that predominately gave off a vibe of urban sophistication. Peter Feeney’s horribly banal performance as Angus was perhaps largely to blame for this. He played the role as a droll, nondescript, corrupt businessman rather than as a farmer. To me Angus was a rather bland character, and the only thing that Feeney did in an attempt to add some intrigue to the part was to hopelessly overact in an excessively melodramatic fashion. Tandi Wright was caught overacting a bit as well, albeit her character was far more stern and rigid. Despite this I still regarded her performance as better than Feeney’s. Wright perhaps did more to suggest that both roles might have been played in a satirical or derisive manner, but even than I did not find either character to be particularly funny or compelling. Given that Feeney and Wright’s characters were essentially the villains in the story, it’s surprising how little they did with their roles. I can’t think of many films where the heroes appeared to enjoy playing their parts more so than the villains.
In this film playing a character in a straight, serious, austere manner just didn’t work since Black Sheep ultimately was not a very serious film. And don’t get me wrong, this shouldn’t be construed as a negative comment about the film. I don’t expect every film that I watch to aim for thought provoking artistic merit or cultural relevance, and I don’t desire for every film to attempt such an objective. Some films are perfectly fine with simply being a pure entertainment spectacle. If Black Sheep’s ambitions were the latter, I think the wit and humor found in its basic premise, and in its acting performances along with the excellent cinematography would offer enough for me to think of this film as a successful one.