Skull And Bones The Movie

The 2007 independent film “Skull & Bones,” directed by T.S. Slaughter, presents itself as a potentially provocative work, demanding a closer look at its creation, narrative threads, character portrayals, and its place within the often-challenging landscape of independent cinema. While readily available information about this particular film is scarce, a thorough examination piecing together existing fragments can offer valuable insights into its ambitions and reception. This review aims to dissect “Skull & Bones” through a critical lens, focusing on the nuances of its production, the depth of its characters, and how it was received by both critics and audiences within the context of its independent nature.

The Genesis of “Skull & Bones”: Indie Production and Intentions

The production history of “Skull & Bones” remains largely shrouded in mystery. Given its classification as an indie film in the user’s query and its low average rating of 2.5 out of 10 on IMDb , it is reasonable to infer a production operating with significant budgetary constraints and likely facing the typical hurdles of independent filmmaking. T.S. Slaughter, the director, appears to have helmed this project relatively early in their directorial career, with another film, “The Gays,” released in 2014. The production company associated with the film is listed as BTB Productions , an entity for which readily accessible information is also limited, further underscoring the film’s independent origins. Filming took place in New Haven, Connecticut, USA , a location that directly corresponds with the plot’s setting at a college in that city.

Several sources point to the film’s extremely low budget. IMDb mentions its “very low budget,” featuring a “small cast of unknowns” and “so-so effects and clunky props,” including the notable detail of a “cardboard coffin” . The use of such makeshift props strongly suggests a production that had to prioritize resourcefulness over lavish production design, a common characteristic of micro-budget horror films. This environment often necessitates a reliance on the core elements of storytelling and performance to engage the audience. The motivations behind creating a film with such a premise—”A Tale of Homo-cidal Mania!”—and the director’s subsequent work suggest a potential interest in exploring controversial themes and pushing the boundaries of conventional cinema. One reviewer even described it as a “satiric, micro-budget, queer class-war revenge fantasy,” indicating a possible intention to blend social commentary with its shocking content. This ambition to be transgressive and perhaps satirical, despite the limited resources, forms a crucial backdrop against which to analyze the film.

Delving into the Depths: Plot and Character Analysis

The narrative of “Skull & Bones” centers around Nathan (Derrick Wolf) and Justin (Michael Burke), described as gay college students residing in impoverished New Haven, Connecticut, who share a deep fascination with the genres of slasher, vigilante, serial killer, and zombie films. Bored and frustrated with their lives at what is referred to as an obscure college, they make a fateful decision to “teach a self-important classmate, Andy (Jared Blake DiCroce), a lesson by raping him” . This drug-fueled act of violence, however, takes an unexpected and deadly turn, resulting in Andy’s death. This accidental killing appears to ignite a dark passion within Nathan and Justin, leading them down a path of escalating violence and a “career of serial rape, murder, torture, and kidnapping” . Reviews suggest their motivations extend beyond mere boredom, encompassing a desire for increasingly extreme thrills.

Adding another layer to their violent spree is an element of class conflict. Nathan and Justin, students at a less prestigious institution (Shoreline Connecticut State University) , begin to target students from the more affluent “Ivy University” . This targeting is rationalized by Nathan as a form of public service, aiming to eliminate some of the privileged elite. A recurring and particularly striking motif throughout their crimes is the use of political masks. Nathan and Justin are reported to wear masks of prominent political figures such as Bill Clinton and George W. Bush Sr. while committing their acts. In one instance, Nathan even dresses a victim in a manner resembling Monica Lewinsky. The film culminates in what has been described as a “ludicrous finale” involving snakes and tarantulas. Overall, the film is presented as an outrageous and offensive work that deliberately pushes the boundaries of taste, even being described as more extreme than the works of Larry Clark.

The characters in “Skull & Bones” are largely defined by their roles within this violent narrative. Nathan (Derrick Wolf) emerges as the instigator and driving force behind the horrific acts. His motivation stems from a disturbing obsession with violent films and true crime, including a collection of serial killer memorabilia. Justin (Michael Burke) appears to be the more passive of the two, often echoing Nathan’s sentiments and actively assisting in their crimes, including procuring necessary substances. Andy Morgan (Jared Blake DiCroce) serves as the initial victim whose death sets the stage for the subsequent violence. Chad Phelps-Davenport (Ryan G. Metzger) and Brooks Peters (Matt Van Bockern) are mentioned as examples of the “Ivy League snobs” who become targets of Nathan and Justin’s class-fueled rage, often subjected to the disturbing political mask motif during their murders. However, one critical review points out a significant flaw in the film’s characterization, noting that the “Ivy boys” are depicted as “broad-stroke caricatures” rather than fully realized individuals. This lack of nuanced character development extends beyond the victims, potentially hindering the film’s ability to effectively deliver any intended satire or explore deeper themes. The protagonists themselves are described as “utterly pathetic, uncharismatic, not-very-smart serial rape-murderers,” further suggesting a lack of depth.

A Critical Look: Reception from Reviewers

Critical reception for “Skull & Bones” was overwhelmingly negative. The reviewer for Dread Central described the film as an “unintelligent, insulting, despicable mess” that offered “no redeeming quality” . This scathing review specifically criticized the film’s “horrendous gay clichés,” “atrocious acting,” “ridiculous editing,” and “laughable violence.” The reviewer also raised concerns about the film’s “Gay Theme,” suggesting it might be exploitative and contribute to harmful stereotypes rather than offering a meaningful narrative. The attempt at political commentary was also deemed a failure, with the film simply coming across as unintelligent.

Another critical voice from 1000 Misspent Hours echoed this sentiment, highlighting the “near-total failure of the satire” despite the film seemingly sacrificing any potential as a horror movie in its pursuit. This review likened the film to “The Undertaker and His Pals, only with butt-fucking and a virtually all-male cast,” emphasizing its crude and ineffective shock value. A recurring point of criticism was the lack of any sympathetic characters, with both the perpetrators and the victims being portrayed in an entirely negative light, leaving the audience with no one to root for. The IMDb rating of 2.5 out of 10, based on a limited number of critic reviews , further reinforces this negative critical consensus.

Gauging Popularity: Audience Response and Ratings

Audience response to “Skull & Bones” appears to align with the critical assessment, though with some nuances. The user rating on IMDb mirrors the critics, also standing at a low 2.5 out of 10, based on 159 ratings. While IMDb indicates only two user reviews are available , Amazon customer reviews offer a slightly broader picture, with an average rating of 2.8 out of 5 stars based on 43 ratings. These reviews on Amazon reveal a highly polarized audience. One reviewer unequivocally labeled the film as “TRASH” with “NOTHING redeeming or even fun,” while another simply stated “Good times,” suggesting that the film may have found a small niche audience that appreciated its extreme or campy elements. Information regarding audience reception on platforms like Letterboxd and Rotten Tomatoes is either limited or inaccessible based on the provided material.  

Behind the Lens: Cinematography and Visual Style

Information regarding the cinematography of “Skull & Bones” is scarce. However, inferences can be drawn from its low-budget nature and the critical feedback. Given the “very low budget” and “so-so effects and clunky props” mentioned on IMDb , it is likely that the visual style was rudimentary and lacked polish. The Dread Central reviewer’s description of the editing as “ridiculous” further suggests potential technical shortcomings in the film’s presentation. The self-proclaimed “campy” nature of the film might have also influenced the visual choices, possibly leading to an intentionally over-the-top or low-fidelity aesthetic. Paul Serrano is credited as the cinematographer , and while information about their specific work on this film is not detailed, they are also credited on “The Gays,” suggesting a continued collaboration with T.S. Slaughter.

Commercial Performance: Box Office and Distribution

Assessing the box office performance of “Skull & Bones” requires considering its status as a very low-budget independent film. Reliable box office data for such productions is often difficult to obtain. There is no information in the provided snippets to suggest the film had a traditional theatrical release. Given its content and overwhelmingly negative reception, it is more probable that “Skull & Bones” went directly to video or DVD. Evidence suggests the film was indeed available on DVD. Listings on platforms like Amazon show the DVD being sold at various price points , and its presence in Best Buy’s catalog indicates some level of distribution, however limited. Interestingly, the film achieved a relatively high Best Sellers Rank in the LGBT Movies & TV category on Amazon , which, despite the negative reviews, could point to a niche interest within that community for its controversial themes or camp aesthetic. Data regarding the film’s streaming performance is not available, which is typical for an older, obscure independent film of this nature.

Conclusion: A Descent into Homo-cidal Mania

In conclusion, “Skull & Bones” (2007) appears to be a product of very low-budget independent filmmaking that aimed to shock and provoke with its tale of violent, homo-cidal college students. While the film seemingly aspired to deliver social commentary through satire, critical reception indicates a significant failure in its execution. Reviewers found the film to be offensive, poorly made, and lacking in any meaningful substance. Audience response, while showing some signs of a niche appreciation for its extreme nature, largely mirrored the negative critical consensus. The film’s visual presentation likely reflected its budgetary limitations, and its commercial performance appears to have been confined to a limited DVD release, finding some unexpected traction within the LGBT film market. Ultimately, “Skull & Bones” serves as a cautionary example of the challenges in effectively tackling controversial themes without a strong narrative, compelling characters, and competent technical execution. Unless one possesses a specific interest in truly transgressive, micro-budget cinema and a high tolerance for potentially offensive content, this is a film best approached with extreme caution.