Sienna, stuck in a hospital bed regales her interviewer with her tale of how she ended up there. Months earlier, her and her friends are vacationing in a charming isolated castle not realizing that a enigmatic man is following them in the hopes of harvesting their organs to sell on the black market. There more to it, but that's the general gist.

The acting is sub-par but in this genre on this budget that's easier to overlook. Something i can't though is the story which is haphazardly sutured together. Granted this seems to be more of a deliberate decision than general sloppiness, but this doesn't make the movie any easier to digest. Couple this with a nonthreatening Gothic type bad guy and a nonsensical 'twist' ending and you're left with a movie that's simply not the sum of its parts.

My Grade: D+

Eye Candy: Kate French (?) gets topless

Sure, there are a handful of horror movies out there worse than SUTURES. Between them, Uwe Boll and Ulli Lommel have phoned in dozens of misshapen monstrosities in the name of fright, after all. But, as Gertrude Stein once said, a turd is a turd is a turd, no matter what else you may care to label it as. Apparently the producers of SUTURES thought they were making a campy version of DALLAS, in which multiple generations of "doctors" built up a financial dynasty based on the black market for stolen body parts. In actuality, they ended up with a poorly-acted flick totally lacking in continuity. Though it comes off more like an effort at HOSTEL-style torture porn, the confusing plethora of "doctors" (no less than 16 are credited at the end of this feature, not to mention 4 nurses and 2 orderlies) indicates that filming was so confused even the extras were quitting mid-scene (no doubt muttering "I'm not getting involved in crap like this!" as they stormed off the set). Nick Holmes, as one of the six road trippers at the core of this story, apparently walked out on his death scene, as he just "disappears" without a trace early on. The twist at the end of this flick makes absolutely no sense, if you consider it for two seconds or longer. The basic premise of the movie is scripted out of the final two-thirds, as the stolen body parts are left to decay in a WRONG TURN-type hillbilly pantry while the dozen-plus doctors compete to see which can elicit the most pain from "victims" before that group of actors can enjoy the only reward SUTURES offers: release from the clutches of a totally incompetent crew.

*******spoilers, lots of 'em************ I always want to root for indie films, but this is just bad, I mean insultingly bad. Not the kind of bad that's so bad it's good, but the kind of bad that makes you wonder how the crew, especially the writers and director, are still working. The script is horrible. The story doesn't make sense, probably because it was likely never revised or shown to anyone who understands how to write for the screen.

The premise is interesting. The story, however, is all over the place and badly imbalanced, especially the whole subplot with Alexander Tatum. Tatum is a mopey guy with daddy issues who is not at all scary. He dresses like an extra in The Crow, and spends most of the movie lurking and feeling sorry for himself. He then disappears for half the film, and at the end, we're told (literally, by several characters) that Tatum is Scary Guy Numero Uno. No mention by anyone about the psycho doctor who runs the organ-harvesting operation, just Tatum. Nevermind that Tatum has been mostly absent for much of the middle of the film, and that the doctor takes center stage for a long time. The way the other characters talk about Tatum, it's clear we're supposed to think he's the stuff of legends. It would be easier to believe he's the stuff of legends if the story actually centered around him or didn't abandon him completely for half the film. But just having other characters tell us he is? And mostly within the last five minutes, as if this is an afterthought? Not convincing.

The acting is okay during the few moments when it's actually being consistent, but most of the time, it's atrocious. And it's not just confined to one character-- it's like the actors were left to their own devices with no direction, and none of them had any idea what the tone of the movie was. But it's hard to blame the actors entirely when it's the director's job to well, direct them. Though there are a few performances that stand out as really really painful to watch, I won't name names. If you sit through this movie, you'll know exactly who I'm talking about. Ultimately, it's the director who failed to at least let the actors know what her vision for the film was. But with a script so muddled, she probably didn't know either.

And back to the writing again... A major fail in the script is the constant exposition. When the characters constantly have to explain major plot points to each other but the audience doesn't see it for themselves, a screenplay generally stinks. This is telling us what you should be showing us on screen, and that's basic filmmaking 101. Anyway, this script needed a major overhaul before it ever was allowed to go in front of the camera. Sutures starts out like a thriller, but quickly descends into a bad combination of a daytime soap and a badly-done and obvious ripoff of Hostel. The twists at the end, and the end itself, are all so tacked-on and badly thought out, they defy explanation. Just because a film is destined from the beginning to go straight to DVD, does it *have* to be bad? As I'm writing this, I wonder why I sat through the whole thing, but I guess it was just one of those movies where by the time you accept how rotten it is, you have already watched enough that you want there to be some kind of a payoff. That payoff never comes in this film, and I should have known better and turned it off before wasting all that time I'll never get back. I give it three stars and I'm being generous. The locations were pretty good and there are a scant few actors who actually gave it their best. But overall? Eeeegh...