I am a self proclaimed cinephile with an extreme love for horror films and movie musicals. Though I also enjoy other genres like: comedy, adventure, action, rom-com (sometimes), documentary, Disney, and any other genre you can think of. Basically, I'll watch anything and then I'll talk about it on this here blog. I hope you enjoy what I have to say! And if not, that's cool too.
Director: Richard Bates Jr. Cast: Matthew Gray Gubler & Kat Dennings Synopsis: Raymond (Matthew Gray Gubler), a man with a prestigious MBA degree, struggles to find work so is forced to move back in with his parents. Back in his hometown he meets Becca (Kat Dennings) and they enter a world of paranormal weirdness together.
I'm conflicted about this film. While it had me laughing non-stop when it ended I still felt unsatisfied with the story. I think I just had really high expectations, that honestly, probably could never have been met. For the most part, though, I enjoyed Suburban Gothic.
So this is a horror comedy, which might be one of my favorites of the horror sub-genre's. This film in particular employs that kind of hipster, witty, clever quip type humor with some fun-poking at stereotypes. That might be off putting to some viewers, but I didn't have much of a problem with it, especially since the one making most of the stereotype judgments was coming from a man who everyone called a dick. Anyways, what makes me laugh the most in the film is Raymond's over the top, excessive reactions to the supernatural incidents. He has this childlike, pterodactyl squeal that is the perfect response to the paranormal. Matthew Gray Gubler's portrayal of Raymond and demeanor of a real life hipster (is it a portrayal? he might have not been acting in this) is spot on and hilariously made fun of by everyone in his small town, most notably his "European" style of dress. And all the dialogue between him and his father might be some of the most deadpan sarcasm I've heard in a good while. Plus I'd like to add that Matthew Gray Gubler is so gorgeous in a quirky way, I love him. Kat Dennings as Becca is wonderful as well. Her deadpan delivery of everything she says is something to admire and what makes her character so lovable/unpleasant.
The direction that Suburban Gothic has by the hand of Richard Bates Jr. is fantastically bizarre. There are all these strange surreal elements such as toenails dancing to a nice piano song. Yeah, it gets that kind of weird. Additionally, all of the moments that involve a ghost or spirit have a strange dreamlike quality with floating heads, stripteasing zombies, and a weird allusion to ghostly ejaculation. All of these peculiar details displayed make for a movie that is truly outlandish. Plus the way everything seems to be shot through with a high saturation filter adds to the overall dreamlike, kind of Burton-esque aura of the film.
Like I said before, I laughed tons throughout Suburban Gothic but I was still left wanting something more. I think the movie just got so tied up in it's own desire to be this bizarre, indie, horror-comedy that there wasn't enough effort and/or focus on the ghost story at hand. But, n the end, it was still good. Did I love it? Not at all. Would I watch it again? Hell yes, if not for Matthew Gray Gubler, then for the immense laughs!
Director: Juan Solanas Cast: Jim Sturgess & Kirsten Dunst Synopsis: Adam (Jim Sturgess) and Eden (Kirsten Dunst) fell in love as teens despite each being from adjacent worlds,both with their own gravitational pull, and now must forge a way for them to be together.
Ohmysatan! Upside Down had such promise and failed miserably. I wanted to like it so fervently and I've waited forever to see it and it was just a huge disappointment. Perhaps I hyped it up too much and that's why I feel so disgruntled with it, but this is still an undoubtedly boring and confusing movie.
It starts off really good with a nice prologue that explains the physics and the basic rules of the two adjacent worlds, which are: 1) All matter is affected by the gravity of it's home planet, and not the other. 2) Anything of matter can offset it's gravitational pull with matter from the opposite world, known as inverse matter. 3) Prolonged (after an hour, I believe) exposure between matter and inverse matter causes the inverse matter to catch fire. This is an interesting concept, though slightly confusing as I had to keep going back to the beginning to relearn the rules.(More on my confusion later) Anyways, after the prologue, things just start to go downhill from there. Yup, after the first few minutes the movie just plummets and never climaxes. The first thing that bothered me: Adam and Eden's childhood romance. What was the point? Them falling in love as teens didn't propel the movie forward, only slightly, but it could've just as easily started from when they are already in their late twenties and there would've have been any effect on the rest of the movie. I just didn't understand it, and the whole amnesia bit was just as unnecessary. It literally wasn't even an obstacle in their budding relationship. Again, that could've been scrapped during the screenplay editing and the final product would have been better for it and a lot fucking shorter in running time. Upside Down is a two hours long, TWO HOURS!! And what it boils down to, without the marvelous setting (I'll get to the setting later) and interesting concept, is another boring star-crossed lovers tale that isn't at all interesting in the slightest and undeserving of the two hour long run time. In addition to the romeo-and-juliet style romance, there's a subplot regarding magical pink bees who gather pollen from both worlds. Adam uses (what does he use? I have no idea. Is it the pollen? The honey? The bees themselves?) some component of the pink bees to mix together an anti-aging cream. This actually seems like the main plot for the film because there is so much time spent and focus on it, except the cream never comes to fruition and then it's simply dropped. Like what? Again, what was the point of bringing this into the story if it serves no purpose? And the ending is absolutely ridiculous. All of the "obstacles" that our characters face aren't resolved until the last six minutes. Yes you saw that right: the last six minutes! And they're all resolved by divine destiny or happenstance or whatever you wanna call it, either way it's silly. It's as though the writers realized that the movie was going to run too long so decided to just slap some random ending on to tie up loose ends. That's bad writing in the flesh, my friends. Okay, back to my confusion regarding the rules. The first rule I don't have a problem with, I understand it completely: you can only be pulled by the gravity of your own planet and never the other. Got it! It's the other two rules that kept confusing me. When it says matter I assumed it meant matter as in anything that has mass and takes up space (Physics, y'all!), but that doesn't seem to be the definition that Upside Down uses. I've come to this conclusion due to a few occurrences throughout the film that don't follow the last two rules. One thing that confused me is a scene where people from Up Above (the two worlds are titled Up Above and Down Below, how original!) are drinking liquid presumably from down below as they appear to be floating due to being pulled by it's home planet's gravity. So if this is true, why does the liquid not burn up inside of them? Wouldn't the liquid be inverse matter since it is from the other planet? It takes a couple hours for liquids to pass through the body, so it would be dangerous to drink anything from the opposite planet, right? And that's just one thing, there are plenty others but to talk about them I would basically have to describe the entire movie and I just don't have time for that nor do I want to. Then, as a child of science, I simply couldn't wrap my head around the idea that a planet would have such a weak gravitational pull that it didn't affect a plane that is maybe a mile away from another planet, yet be strong enough to hold people on it so that they can't be influenced by the other planet. Because of these confusions and failure to understand the physics and rules of these planets I spent a lot of time trying to sort out and make sense of everything instead of actually watching the movie.
The only saving grace of Upside Down is the magical setting. The CGI and special effects work on this movie is phenomenal. The way the movie is shown through blue hued filters gives it a crisp and wondrous feel. The expansiveness felt with the use of wide range shots of the shared sky was beautiful and grand. There was a lot of effort put into the magnificence of these twin worlds which may be the downfall: there was little to no effort put into the story and the development of the characters. At the end of the movie I didn't care if Adam and Eden ended up together or not because I never really got to know them. And also because their story is boring. This is a setting that demanded a grand, extraordinary tale to go along with it... a tale that wasn't delivered. *Sigh* You know I read that Juan Solanas' inspiration for the movie was the unequal relationship between North America and South America, and that idea is present as Up Above is host to the upper class people while those from Down Below are in poverty. I would've much rather watched a movie about a revolution of the Down Below people fighting for a way to be a part of the Up Above world, or to be just as well off. That would have been infinitely more interesting than the story that is delivered and not to mention more deserving of the wondrous setting and running time. Also let me just say that the performances by both Kirsten Dunst and Jim Sturgess were not their best performances. I respect both actors and tend to like them in their other films, but this just felt like they were only sort of trying to do a decent job.
Finally, this movie is all about the looks. It is pure eye candy for any one who loves films with luxurious, well-crafted settings, but its also boring clichéd nonsense for anyone who wants a deep meaningful story. Would I watch this again? No, plain and simple.
Directors: Justin Benson & Aaron Moorhead Cast: Lou Taylor Pucci & Nadia Hilker Synopsis: After losing his mother, Evan (Lou Taylor Pucci) goes to Italy to relieve himself of his grief and while there he enters a whirlwind romance with the mysterious, closed-off Louise (Nadia Hilker).
I really wanted to like Spring. I had heard so many great things about this film from fellow cinephiles, so when I finally saw it available on Amazon Prime video I was pumped! And for the most part I do enjoy the film. It's original and creative with a strange blend of sci-fi and romance. I'm not too keen on the romance aspect, which is where my disappointment lies. Let me first tell you what I admire about Spring. Spring has the most creative, original story I've seen in quite some time. I can't discuss too much about the plot, because it would take away the surprise and awe of this amazing film and I won't deprive you of that. But I will say that it is amazing, though it is more of a romance than it is a sci-fi horror. Walking into (figuratively walking, as I watched this movie in the comfort of my room) this film I was expecting something with a bigger horror bite and a small romance nibble, hopefully significantly less romance. I was wrong, but I still watched and I was enamored. The setting is beautiful. It's filmed in Italy, and the gorgeous, easy-going atmosphere present really allows the film to blossom in a whirlwind of wonder and horrific fantasy. The aerial shots of crisp blue waters of the nearby beach are stunning, ominous, and always mirror what is happening in the story. When the water is calm and in it's most beautiful hues of blue, Evan and Louise are compatible and loving towards one another and Louise is stable: when the waters are choppy and angry, Evan and Louise are fighting and Louise is losing control. It's a wonderful parallel that the director's chose to utilize. In addition to the shots of the ocean, there are other shots of the beautiful scenery that Italy has to offer, especially the farm that Evan begins working on, including vivid close-ups of insects and bugs. These are important as there is a lot of discussion about nature and it's evolutionary timeline and how everything is connected. And on top of the evolution of nature, there is real conversation about religion and it's relationship with science, a conversation that doesn't disqualify or attempt to trivialize either subject but to marry them together. It's an intriguing mix, one that I have always been interested in. The acting is good. Lou Taylor Pucci is an adorable guy and his performance of Evan, a grief-stricken, romantic who wants desperately to understand Louise and win over her affection is believable. Nadia Hilker is gorgeous and has this air of dignified grace about her, even when she is being elusive and strays away from Evan's adoration. Her conviction to herself and to keeping her secrets is what sends Evan over the edge which in turn leads to Louise finally revealing her secrets. Their compatibility seems strange, but believable as part of the whole opposites attract theory.
What I didn't like: the romance which in turn ruins the ending for me. You, know I don't mind the falling in love aspect like some IMDb members who are dumbfounded at how a woman with Louise's level of intellect would fall in love with a guy like Evan, who is dumb (not really, but he's not book smart like Louise). I can understand that, Evan is charming and silly and a balance to Louise's strict allegiance to science and religion explaining her mysterious life. The thing I have a problem with is that I truly really wanted to see the alternate to Louise's ultimate decision and that I didn't want to see the happily ever after Disney ending. I wanted to see a truly fantastical ending to a truly fantastic film, but was instead delivered a clichéd, typical ending that is a little sloppily explained in my opinion. I just wasn't into it, though I know some people will enjoy it.
Spring is amazing and awe-inspiring. It's genuinely an original concept, though I could be wrong. If you know of another movie that is similar to Spring but maybe with a better ending, let me know! But I did enjoy Spring and would still recommend anyone who hasn't seen it to see it. It's a different kind of love story that has most likely never been told before. Would I watch it again? Definitely!!
Director: Jonathan Glazer Main Cast: Scarlett Johansson Synopsis: An unnamed woman (Scarlett Johansson) preys on men in the streets of Scotland but soon begins to understand what it means to be human.
Under The Skin is not a film for everyone. There is no plot, little to no dialogue, and if focuses on one character for the entirety of the film. With that being said, I enjoyed this film. It had it's moments where I was a little bored, because, let's be honest, it's an hour and forty-five minutes of nothing happening and no answer-giving to any of the numerous questions that you will undoubtedly develop while watching. But that doesn't render it a bad film. In fact, what I most respect about this film is how it studies and showcases human behavior from the perspective of an outsider (i.e. an alien). In it's entirety, it is the study of humanity and how we place so much effort and value on the superficial rather than the internal and what effects that has on the choices that we make. Or, at least, that's the takeaway I got from it. Oh, before I forget, Under the Skin is based on a book of the same name written by Michel Faber, and apparently the screen-writers didn't stay true to the content of the story. I have yet to read the book, so I can't make any comparisons. Okay, onward we go.
There is a real juxtaposition in Scarlett Johansson's character (which I will refer to as The Woman from this point forward) that is both charming and unsettling. She is much like a child being exposed to the world for the first time: she is curious and amazed but also weary and just unaware of human customs and civilities. Yet, naive as she is, she is a calculated predator as well, intent on luring men to their demise. It's a strange mix, and Scarlett Johansson pulls it off well. Though The Woman doesn't speak much, all the acting is within the mannerisms and facial expressions. Her movements are jerky as she learns to host this new human body and her face is sculpted into forced polite expressions but usually remains completely blank as though she feels and sees nothing. It's just bizarre to see her feign kindness and friendly conversation while deciding whether or not this man will be her next victim. And there are so many scenes that showcase this complete lack of empathy and human connection, it's perfect. Adding to that, The Woman displays a slow arc from her apathetic disposition to become more human with a range of emotions such as love(?) and empathy, but it is a painstakingly slow arc as we watch her do some heartless things in the beginning, like a certain scene with a baby.
Since there is little dialogue, the dark atmospheric tone the movie builds relies heavily on the score. And let me tell you, the score is absolutely fantastic! It's soft, eerie and otherworldly. Take a listen:
I listened to this song in particular about a thousand times in one day, it's just that good! And, like I said, it's truly what creates the aura of extraterrestrialism (that's my new cool word, spread it around darlings) that is ever present in this film.
Now, the cinematography. The director and the cinematographer did an absolutely brilliant job at manifesting such strange, horrific beauty through gorgeous shots of lush countryside juxtaposed with shots of an industrial Scotland city that mirrors the polarized nature of The Woman. Not only the setting, but the scenes of the men's deaths are creative and like nothing I've ever seen. The originality that is present is priceless; with alien movies you can always expect to see similar things like a large beam of white light, but not with this one. And what I love most about the death scenes, or the whole movie actually, is the simplicity of it. The lack of embellishments is refreshing and I just fucking love it. But just because it's simple doesn't mean it's not effective; I was genuinely intrigued and entranced by the bizarre beauty of it. What I also love about the directing is the immense symbolism that is shown through certain scenes that I really like such as the cake scene. There is a scene where The Woman is about the eat a slice of delicious-looking chocolate cake but as she begins to chew it she realizes that it's actually disgusting and so spits it out: this scene shows how we, humans, gauge the quality of things on the superficial aspects of it rather than what it actually has to offer. It's an interesting scene, one that many people (according to IMDb) think is pointless, but I think it's necessary in The Woman's slow transition from non-human to human.
Now onto components that I didn't like about Under The Skin.!!! Spoiler Alert !!! (Not sure if any of the following are actually spoilers, but just in case, you know?) One, there are so many unanswered questions. I'm all for ambiguity in movies and symbolism as they allow the viewer to have discussion and debates about what they mean— like if you don't agree with my symbolism of the cake scene tell me let's have a discussion about it—, but there are events and elements presented that are never explained which need to be. Example: the motorcycle men (as I like to call them), who are they? Are they aliens as well? Or are they just people who help The Woman? I don't know and I doubt we'll ever find out, unless they are explained in the book in which case I will find out when I read it. Two, we see as the second man descends into The Woman's viscous, dark liquid chamber that the first man's meat is literally sucked out of his skin and is then sent down a conveyor belt of sorts into a slit of red light, but what for what purpose? It is never said or shown what the purpose of the human meat is for. Do The Woman's alien species eat it? Is it for fuel? Is it to create offspring? I have no clue, but this leads me to the third thing I don't like. Three, why men? Why does The Woman only lure men into her trap? I guess you an go by the logic that only men can be seduced by her, but that is flimsy logic as there are lesbians in the world. And why does she have to seduce them anyway? The Woman could just as easily pick up a woman off the street with the pretense that it's unsafe for a woman to walk home alone at night, or even a child. (I'm not promoting child/woman abduction, but for the realm of the movie it could have been done) Also, it seems like there is some kind of thought process in deciding who she will kill, so what is the criteria the men must fit in order to be picked? Four, the ending. The entirety of the film is muted, subdued, and metaphorical but the ending is so tangible which makes it seem displaced. And I know it's to show the ultimate cruelty of humanity as The Woman finally finds empathy and love(?), but still it doesn't sit well with the rest of the film.
Overall I like the film despite all of it's unanswered questions and the elements that I didn't like. It's weird, original, and a definite slow-burner and a slow-dissolver, which you know (if you've been reading my other reviews) I really love. It's definitely slow and not something a lot of people will like or appreciate. But if you're a person who likes a movie that makes you think and ponder your own possession or lack of humanity. Would I watch it again? Yes, definitely!
Director: Stuart Murdoch Main Cast: Emily Browning, Olly Alexander, & Hannah Murray Synopsis: Eve (Emily Browning), a girl with emotional problems, begins writing songs in order to help her cope and meets two other musicians in the process with problems of their own.
Let me first explain that the director and writer of this film is Stuart Murdoch, the singer and songwriter of the indie-pop band Belle and Sebastian. The songs used in this film is from his side project God Help the Girl. This is his first attempt at writing and directing a film and it is very apparent. That doesn't mean it's not good, it's just not as polished and well put together as it could have been. There is a very flimsy plot in which the story flows, it's almost non-existent. I mean, it's there but isn't necessarily what drives the story along, because it almost seems lost in the middle of the movie or muddled rather. I thought, and what seems apparent at the beginning, is that Eve is trying to start a band while also dealing with some deep-rooted emotional problems. But then, towards the middle that's not really what the movie becomes about. I don't know, it's just kind of disjointed in the way that it's written, but still I applaud the effort. Another things that bothers me a bit is the weird timeline, like I'm not sure whether the timeline of the story is over the course of a few days, a few weeks, or a few months. It's just never stated and that bothers me because I can't tell if the drama between the characters is justified because they've spent so much time together and have become s involved in each other's lives, or if they all rushed into a strange relationship with each other and are now suffering the consequences of becoming so emotionally involved over such a short period of time. It's disarming. And because of such a flimsy plot, the musical numbers seem out of place and disjointed. The reason musical movies work is because the music expands upon an already strong story, but here, in God Help the Girl, it's obvious that the songs weren't written in the context for a musical but rather as just a concept album. While, yes, the songs tell the story of a girl and her band of misfits, the actual movie relays no cohesiveness due to lack of fully fleshed out ideas and concepts. Really, this movie is like a bunch of music videos being strung together by quirky dialogue and random characters that never play a real part of the story. But none of this excludes the greatness that this film has to offer.
What I love about this movie is the very real chemistry between the characters. Eve, James (Olly Alexander), and Cassie (Hannah Murray) are all indie hipster type kids who find comfort in each other as they navigate this new terrain known as adulthood. They fit well together. James is an over-thinker, Eve is a realist, and Cassie is a dreamer: they all balance each other out. And all of their weird adventures and discussions about musicianship and creating great pop songs are spot on while also slightly distorted. Their whole relationship is genuine and authentic. And as far as the acting, it's wonderful. Olly Alexander fits James' character so well. James' dialogue and ideas are so interesting and yet seem like they could just as easily be the way Olly feels about music, his portrayal is just that effortless. Hannah Murray as Cassie is quirky and silly and slightly aloof, which is supposedly similar to her character in Skins (I wouldn't know as I've never watched the series), but, as with Olly, she pulls it off so effortlessly that it seems she is not even acting. And then Emily Browning... ♥ I have such a huge crush on Emily Browning and I think she's an amazing actress. And in this movie, she is just extraordinary. She's very subdued but driven to make a great pop album, but also to cure herself of her emotional distress. But what I love most about the characters and story is Eve's total rejection of being James' manic pixie dream girl: she has all the qualities and that's what James wants from her but she wants nothing of it and I love that. The cinematography of the whole thing has the quality of a Beatles film. It's got that vintage vibe with that soft, fuzziness of older movies that I really appreciate. Last but not least, the songs. While the songs are disjointed with the overall story of the movie, they truly are great contemporary pop songs and I love them. I couldn't tell you how many times I listened to the soundtrack after viewing the film (I watched this way back in August). I mean it was on repeat for days and days and days. I love it that much.
God Help the Girl is a fun movie filled with wonderful songs. Is it something you should watch if you want a great musical with a great story? No, definitely not. The story isn't really there, but it's shot wonderfully and has wonderful acting within. I've watched it multiple times since the first viewing and I've gotten over the flimsy plot line, though I know that is something that most people can't get over. Do I recommend it? Yes, but take that recommendation with a grain of salt. Don't expect brilliance. Would I watch it again? Uhh, yeah I just told you I've watched it again since the first viewing. Go ahead, give it a watch, see what you think of it.
Director: Trevor Matthews Main Cast: Ali Cobrin, Adam DiMarco & Slaine Synopsis: Kylie Atkins (Ali Cobrin), a young college student struggling to pay tuition, moves into a house with 24/7 cameras that stream content to an x-rated website, but an obsessed subscriber (Slaine) with a hacking know-how is about to terrorize these girls in a bloody killing spree.
I am pleasantly surprised with Girl House. It's not innovative, but it is a nice modern take on the slasher flick. Basically, Girl House is a house that has cameras all around the property in order to film the girls every minute of every day for a loyal fanbase of thousands to watch. It is not required that the girls do anything of sexual nature on camera, but it is suggested. The website is supposedly the "Fort Knox of websites" and the location of the home is kept secret in order to protect the girls. Though we all know no place, virtual or real, can be one hundred percent protected. I like the set-up: the idea of an adult site being the victim of a deranged killer is interesting and new. There's this creepy notion of always being watched that is rather unsettling. I fully appreciate that strange element, that the people who've been watching the girls have sex and masturbate are now witnessing the most personal of all things, their deaths. Really fucking cool!
The acting is awesome. All the girls in the house, including Kylie are likeable. Of course, they are all attractive and scantily clad for the majority of the running time, but that doesn't take away from this familial, comfortable environment that is ever-present in the house. Sure, some of the girls think of others as competition, but ultimately they all share a home together and get along. They all bring their own charisma to the group and are believable as real young women of the 21st century. And you have no idea how much I admire that, that they are so relatable and genuine and that is the work of great writing and great acting. Superb! Ali Cobrin, the star of the movie and Girl House, is wonderful as a shy newcomer trying to find her way and become uninhibited. And she's particularily awesome as she comes face to face with the obsessed subscriber who goes by the user name of Loverboy. Slaine as Loverboy is the epitome of a man who is socially awkward with women, which is why he's turned to Girl House for virtual companionship. And as a deranged killer he is brutal in his murdering methods and it is amazingly painful to watch! Then there's Adam DiMarco as Ben Stanley, Kylie's boyfriend. He is believable in his desperate attempt to help Kylie and the girls fight off Loverboy. All around, the acting is A+.
What I also really appreciate about Girl House is that the killings don't start until about an hour into the movie. Well actually there is one kill scene within the first fifteen minutes that show where Loverboy's seed of wariness towards women and his birth as a cold-blooded killer. But other than that, we don't see another kill until the seventy minute mark. I really freaking like that! This allows for an actual story to be told and some character development, which is rarely demonstrated in slasher flicks, so I am very appreciative of this! Props to the writers, once again! And while it does take some time for the movie to pick up pace, as for the first hour it's just set up, when it finally does get to the killings it's amazing. They are gruesome and gory and vengeful and complete overkill for the most part. Loverboy was letting some real aggression out on these girls, but Kylie is much stronger and smarter than he is.
Overall, the movie is great. Is it the most fantastic thing to grace the screen? No, but as a slasher movie, it doesn't need to be. It has great production, despite it's small budget and it's well written and acted. And while I do know that some people may not be as impressed with the developing first hour of the movie, because most slasher fans just want to see blood, but trust me the killings are worth it. And if you don't want to see all the character development and story-telling of the first hour, just fast-forward it to the good parts! Haha. Would I watch this again? Hell yes, I would!
Director: Michael Dowse Main Cast: Daniel Radcliffe & Zoe Kazan Synopsis: Wallace (Daniel Radcliffe), a man fumbling through life, begins to fall for Chantry (Zoe Kazan) whom is in a committed relationship.
Oh look at that, another movie starring Daniel Radcliffe. Can you really fault me for loving him? I hope not! Anyways, so you know that I'm not a huge fan of rom-coms, they're sappy and predictable and this movie is no different. But I actually found myself liking it. I think it's mostly due to the quirky, off-beat, humorous dialogue throughout that truly made me laugh and appreciate this movie.
So let me get the obvious things out of the way: This is 100% predictable. Of course Wallace and Chantry are going to fall in love. Of course there are going to be rough patches that make you think otherwise, though you know in your heart that they will end up together. And while the skeleton of the story is rather formulaic, it is the meat and flesh that really allow the story to be unique and likeable. Daniel Radcliffe as Wallace is meekly charming, he is confident yet unassertive which makes him totally adorable. Zoe Kazan as Chantry is confident and excessively sure of her relationship with her boyfriend (or is she?). And their friendship is one to admire. Together they have this steady, back-and-forth banter that is amusing and showcases how they're quite compatible with one another. And the way each actor can so effortlessly deliver theses playful lines without it seeming forced and sound genuine shows their acting chops. Applause applause! Also the secondary characters deliver good lines as well and really drive Wallace and Chantry to their separate realizations that they do want to be romantically involved and not just friends. Something else that I admire about What If is that there is real character development for both characters. They are not just people drawn up for a movie, they are real people with realistic struggles and ambitions and lives. I see them existing outside of the movie and that's rare with the typical rom-com characters. That is the display of fantastic writing, so congrats writers! Another display of great writing is how all the characters are likeable. There is not one character who I don't like. Even Chantry's boyfriend, who according to other rom-coms, should be a douche-bag who doesn't deserve her yet he's not. He's a good guy and everybody knows it, which is the conflict here. Both Chantry and Wallace realize that Ben (Rafe Spall) is a wonderful guy and doesn't deserve anything bad such as Chantry breaking up with him or Wallace wedging himself into their relationship. And I like that. Oh, and I forgot, there are all these cute little animations that are used throughout the movie that Chantry's character created (she's an animator) and I just like that animation mixed with real life aspect. Fun!
In conclusion, I like What If. It was fun and quirky and cute. They're not your usual couple and I like them for it. It's predictable but worth watching and it poses some good questions about love and relationships like: can women and men be friends without developing feelings? Or how can you balance relationships and careers in a way that works? Or is it ever okay to break up a relationship, especially if a person in said relationship is your soulmate? How do you handle finding the right person at the wrong time? They're not philosophical, answers to life and the universe questions but they're relevant to our time and people in general. Would I watch this again? Yes, I would!
Director: James Watkins Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Ciarán Hinds, & Janet McTeer Synopsis: Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe), a young lawyer and widower, travels to a remote village to go over the documentation of a deceased local, Mrs. Drablow, in her home the Eel Marsh house. While there he discovers something strange happening to the children in the village all leading back to the Eel Marsh house.
I realize that this is an older movie, but I plan on watching the sequel soon so I thought I'd tell you what I think of the first one before I tell you about how I feel on the second one. Anyways, I'm a bit conflicted with this movie. There are definitely some elements that I appreciate about it, but there are also things that I don't like which lead me to not care too much for the movie. Though I'm still kind of on the fence about it.
Let me start with the things I liked. It's an old fashioned ghost story. There aren't too many bells and whistles needed to pull off the horror of it. It's simple, with a intriguing story that needs solving: children of the village are committing suicide— the locals have an inkling why they do it, but Arthur Kipps needs some convincing— and someone must do something in order to stop it. It's straightforward enough and it pulls you in with the very first scene in which three young girls are playing and then suddenly get up and jump out a window to their death, and as the camera pans out you can just see the silhouette of a woman in black. It' the perfect opening scene; it's chilling and let's you know of the terror that is to come. The Edwardian Era time period is something I absolutely love and lends itself to the overall creepiness of the film: there's no cellphones, and due to the age of the house, there's no electric lighting, and transportation is still horse and carriage though Ciarán Hinds character does own a car. It just has this old-timey feel that works well with ghost stories. Adding to the time period, the remote village is too a good tool in crafting an aura of creepiness as the villagers are wary of outsiders and make it known that Arthur is not wanted there. Plus the acting is superb. Daniel Radcliffe is awesome and I love him in this film. He does well as a single father and as a perturbed man trying to solve this paranormal mystery that he finds himself entangled in. Ciarán Hinds as Sam Daily is wonderful and somber. He is the only kind person Arthur Kipp meets in the village and the only person willing to help Arthur in his quest to stop the woman in black from killing more children. And Janet McTeer as Elizabeth Daily, Sam Daily's aloof wife is wonderful as well though she doesn't receive much screen time. She also aides Arthur in his quest.
Now things that I didn't like. Which there aren't a lot of things that I don't like, but for me they're big things that bring down the effect of the movie. For one thing, the woman in black. We see too much of her. And y'all know how I feel about seeing the monster/ghost/alien/whatever too much in a film; they lose their scare factor. And for a while I was okay with her constant appearances, because I thought "oh well they're not showing her face, it's covered by a veil, so maybe her face will be horrific when it's finally revealed", but no it's just the pale face of a woman. And honestly, she's really not even shown that much, but there's just no payoff when we finally see her entirely, so I think that's what annoys me the most. In line with that, The Woman in Black isn't as scary as I would like it to be. I realize that it's a PG-13 movie, so there can't be too many terrifying things within it, but even so it's just not scary. While I like the setting and time period and the acting, there was never a real fearful aura about the movie. It has creepy, eerie elements but it just never went into that truly terrifying territory that I wished it would have. And the ending wasn't satisfying in the least, and it also feels kid of rushed. I mean after about seventy-five minutes of buildup, there is only fifteen minutes left to tie up the movie and it was laced up poorly. There are too many things that happen and it's all kind of thrown at you. When it ended I was just kind of like "oh, okay. I guess..." like it's not note-worthy or anything.
Overall, I still can't decide if I like The Woman in Black or not. It's got pieces that I really love an appreciate, but it just wasn't as scary as I wished it to be. Would I watch it again? Yeah. probably but not out of a desire to be scared, rather a desire to see Daniel Radcliffe...
Director: Ajmal Zaheer Ahmad, Cast: Dominic Rains, Serinda Swan, Ray Park, & William Atherton Synopsis: A man discovers he is from a long line of cursed men who must fight the evil jinn (beings made of fire by God). Will he succeed? Or fail like the others before him?
There is a lot to dislike about this movie. And I mean a lot. The plot is flimsy, the acting is a little wooden and unabashedly cheesed, and the whole movie seems a little wishy-washy like it doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a sci-fi? Is it a horror? Is it fantasy? Is it suspense? After viewing it I'm not sure I can definitively say any of those genres. It's kind of just a messy, watered down conglomerate of all of them. Despite all this, I still found myself enjoying the movie.
Even though the acting isn't great it also isn't horrible. The main character, Shawn Walker (Dominic Rains), though dumb his lines may sound and most of his over dramatic actions may seem, he acted all of it well and made all the silliness seem intentional (which I desperately hope to be true... no scriptwriter would actually this movie in seriousness right?) Actually I was fairly impressed with all the actors portrayals. Ray Park as Gabriel, a good jinn determined to assist Shawn defeat the evil jinn, is wonderfully enchanting. His cool-guy demeanor and willingness to go against his own for the good of humanity is something to admire. William Atherton as Father Westhoff is perfection. He has this nurturing aura about him, but with harder edges so as to push Shawn towards his true destiny of fighting to the jinn. The only character I didn't care for much is Jasmine Walker (Serinda Swan), Shawn's wife. For me, she is the character with the most cheese-filled lines and overacting. She is absent for most of the movie, so I don't have much to complain about.
The one thing I appreciate most about Jinn is that it has this 80's fantasy, anime feel to it. My absolute favorite scene, and best example of this is, is when Gabriel battles against an army of evil jinn that have possessed mental patients. The whole scene is overly CGI'd, ballet-like choreographed, 100% ridiculous, and with this odd song as the background music, it just adds that extra amount atrociousness that makes it wonderful. In fact, most of the battle scenes are impressive, whether they are physical battles of mental ones, they are all over-produced. Which, in all honesty, I like.
Overall, this is junk-food cinema. There is nothing deep about it, though it really could have been. There are small gems of inspiration throughout, especially this idea of combining all the Abrahamic religions together or not having such harsh distinguishing lines between all the religion sects. If they had gone a little further with that line of thinking and crafted a quality film around it, it really could've been great. But really, Jinn is just an hour and a half long commercial for the Firebreather car, that just so happens to be designed by the director. Frankly, this movie tries to be different with it's mythology of the jinn rather than the demons of hell we're used to, but it is so generic and formulaic that it's basically like all the others. Even calling Jinn an enjoyable movie is kind of a stretch for most. I mean I like it's cheesiness and 80's fantasy production, but I do realize that most people don't feel the same way. Just check out the IMDb user reviews: all negative. If you're going to watch this movie, don't expect this great, action-packed, horrifying, suspenseful thriller. Would I watch it again? Of course I would, I love the strange fantasy of it. But do I recommend you to watch it? Nah. Watch at your own risk!
Director: Justin Benson & Aaron Moorhead Cast: Peter Ciella & Vinny Curan Synopsis: In an attempt to save his junkie best friend, Mike Danube (Peter Ciella) chains Chris Daniels (Vinny Curan) up in an isolated cabin to force him to go cold turkey, but something more is happening.
I almost didn't watch this movie. I'd had it on a to-watch list that I wrote a while back (yes, I like to makes lists), but when I read the synopsis for it on Netflix I thought it sounded dumb. But I gave it a chance anyway, and I'm so glad I did. This might be one of my favorite modern horror films. Anyways, the premise sounds a little weird and, honestly, it's kind of difficult to describe this film without giving too much away or just sounding absolutely mad. So I won't even try. I'll just tell you what I appreciate and respect about the film.
Resolution is filmed in such an odd way. I can't even explain it, but it feels like you're witnessing a chunk of someone's life; like a camera crew just plopped down in front of random people and started filming. Like we're spying. And because of that filming style, it leaves an unsettling tingle in the pit of your stomach that never wanes. It just digs deeper and deeper into your psyche while the film progresses. On top of the strange way it's filmed, there are also a series of bizarre characters— who inhabit the surrounding area of the cabin— that we're introduced to throughout the film: None of which play a huge part in the story line, but they all leave an eerie impact. Plus all these weird little clues that Mike finds or, rather, the clues that are mysteriously left for him to find add to the overall disturbing aura of the film. The whole time you're wondering who is doing this, is there someone watching them, trying to kill them? Are all the bizarre things actually happening? Are they going crazy? Everything is unraveled in a gradual manner which allows for an effectual frightening atmosphere to build and for us viewers to become truly familiar with the characters. Speaking of the characters, Peter Ciella and Vinny Curan both did an amazing job in their respective roles and are believable. Mike Danube (Peter Ciella) is the do-gooder type who just wants to help his best friend while also being scared by all the clues and weird things that are happening to them. Chris Daniels (Vinny Curan) on the other hand is shithead who only cares about his next high and is completely indifferent to Mike's concerns about him and the mysterious clues. I wasn't familiar with these actors before Resolution, but due to their impeccable performances I have since been watching out for them and other movies they're involved in. In addition to all this, there are moments of wonderfully crafted, eerie symbolism and dialogue that, again, are truly unsettling.
This is not a film for all horror fans. It's a slow-burner horror without the ever-present in-your-face terrifying moments of most modern horror flicks. I think there is only one jump scare, but other than that Resolution is a muted, subtle film. The ending is a little rushed, but I can overlook that: It's not what I expected and definitely a unique concept. I definitely will watch Resolution again, no question! I can't even say any more about this movie (it's hard to explain why you love something, right?) so just go watch it!
Director: Antoine Fuqua Cast: Denzel Washington, Martin Csokas, & Chloë Grace Moretz Synopsis: Robert McCall (Denzel Washington), a man with a mysterious past, decides to help a young girl (Chloë Grace Moretz) who is being controlled by Russian gangsters.
This is a movie for pure pleasure. It's not thought-provoking or any deeper than what is displayed on screen. It's action-packed, fast paced, and with an undoubtedly happy ending: The type of film I like to call "junk-food cinema". Because, like junk food, the movie provides no sustenance but it's still good. And for being such a movie, it is a tad bit long. It definitely could've been shortened, but I can deal with the running time. This is the story of a man who thought he had left a brutal past behind to live a quiet life. But after witnessing some good people being treated badly by bad people, he has to muster that brutal past up in order to help save the good, set things right. By the way, this movie is based on a TV series of the same name that ran in the 80''s; I've never seen the show, but I think the movie might have actually done it justice.
At first I was a little annoyed with Denzel's character. There was no defining reason why Robert McCall, a meek man who works at a home improvement store, should possess the types of skills that he has. So I was just kind of thinking this was another movie involving a hero-figure who has no apparent training but can withstand and outsmart any obstacle that comes his way *yawn*. But it is later implied that he used to have some type of government job where he needed to have those types of skills; skills that, you know, allow him to take down about six men in twenty-eight seconds. Impressive! After I was over that annoyance with his character, I could finally appreciate his badassery (yes that's a word!). He is impeccable in his timing and always calm and collected. Any surprise that came his way, he met with a poker face. Though he doesn't speak much— speaking is unnecessary when you're kicking ass— when he does, it is with purpose and mostly to give the "villains" a chance to redeem themselves, usually to no avail. Denzel Washington did a fine job as Robert McCall, a true hero, doing what he can for all the good people. And it was a joy to watch him in all his bloody glory (there is quite a bit of blood in the fighting sequences. YASSS!!) and triumph! Martin Csokas also did a fantastic job as Teddy, the guy sent by the Russian mob to take care of things when the American sect of the mob can't do their job. He is callous and a true counter-part to Robert McCall, except he is fighting in the name of the bad people. And I was just so impressed with is ability to show such heartlessness seconds after being completely composed. He is an amazing character to watch. I was sad, however, that Chloë Grace Moretz's character didn't have as much screen time, though she doesn't really contribute to the overall story. She is mostly just the catalyst to Robert McCall's evolution to finding his true self hidden under the meek façade that he had created. Even still, I love Chloë Grace Moretz and would've liked to see more of her.
Overall, The Equalizer is a good movie, not without it's hiccups but they can be overlooked. It kind of has this overall message that in this life you have to be who you were meant to be, even if it's something you're afraid of. So I guess it has a little sustenance, not entirely empty. Would I watch it again? Yes, I would. Also, there is a sequel coming out next year, I believe, so I will definitely be seeing that as well.
Director: David Gelb Cast: Olivia Wilde, Mark Duplass. Evan Peters, Sarah Bolger, & Donald Glover Synopsis: A group of medical researchers discover a way to bring the dead back to life.
This isn't a horrible movie, but it also wasn't great. On one hand, it's just a simple little cliché horror film and on the other hand it's a movie that questions the morality of the progression of medical science in regards to religious beliefs. So for some time while watching, I was thinking they were going to delve deeper into this idea of how to blend science and religion to create a truly complex story. But it quickly becomes clear that that's not where the writers wanted to take this movie. And that leaves me wondering why they even plant that seed of thought in the first place? I mean it's even titled The Lazarus Effect, which Lazarus taxon is a term commonly used in science to describe organisms that reappear after they were thought to have been extinct but it also refers to a bible story about a man, Lazarus, who was brought back to life. Even the Dean of the school mentions that they are playing "God with a bunch of dead animals". There's also mention of hell and how it punishes it's inhabitants. Yet the religion aspect is never really examined, so again, why bring religion into it in the first place?
The acting in this movie is great. Olivia Wilde as Zoe— the one who developed the Lazarus serum and who is later brought back to life with it— delivers a compelling performance as a woman who has to maneuver through all this new found strength she now possesses and becomes a terrifying super-human in the process. Mark Duplass as Frank, Zoe's fiance, is dedicated to his research and a pretty sound guy up until he decides to bring Zoe back to life, which if I'm going to be honest, doesn't seem like something a guy like him would do. If this were reality, a scientist who doesn't know the true implications of a drug wouldn't subject their significant other to it, not only is that immoral but there is also no way of helping her if things go awry because there is no precedence to her condition. But, I do realize that this is just a movie, and there wouldn't even be a movie if Frank hadn't given Zoe the Lazarus serum, so moving on. Evan Peters as Clay is nothing to talk about; he is the douchey guy of the group and he does a fair job at it. Donald Glover as Niko does a good job at his role, though his character doesn't contribute much to the story, same as Evan Peters' character. Sarah Bolger as Eva is fantastic as well and delivers such an honest performance with real emotional depth, we can feel her fear. As a group, they have a dynamic that is rooted in reality; they butt heads, they contribute, they work together, they are a team. And it really worked as the movie progresses and we see the characters feelings and thoughts mirror each others', yet can't decide how to deal with the situation.
They are some effects in the movie that I think it could've done without. For example, these:
The peeling, fiery skin just looks silly and not scary. And the whole 'person being magically pulled from behind' effect has been done a million times before that's lost it's wow factor. There's also some scenes shown through security-cam footage, which to me just seems dumb. There's no reason for those scenes to be filmed that way. There are quite a few jump scares (we all know i hate jump scares), that of course lose their scary element after about the third time. Also the jump scares are seen from about a million light-years away before they happen, so even the first few weren't a surprise.
I believe that The Lazarus Effect could've been a really great movie had they focused on the religion vs. science theme and been a bit more thought provoking. Further, had it been done without all the bells and whistles of the special effects and been more about atmosphere it could've been better. As it is now, it's a decent horror flick that , honestly, no one will remember a year from now. Would I watch it again? Nah, I'll pass.
Director: Tom Elkins Cast: Abigail Spencer, Chad Michael Murray, Emily Alyn Lind, & Katee Sackhoff Synopsis: A family moves into a historic home in Georgia, only to be terrorized by it's ghostly inhabitants.
There is absolutely no relation between this movie and the first Haunting in Connecticut other than they are both based on episodes from Discovery Channel's series A Haunting. And let me say, the episode— which happens to be one of my favorite episodes of the series— is so much better than the movie and with a lot more horror. Also, the episode has a much more endearing story, whereas this movie is more sinister in nature and not in a good way. Adding to that, Ghosts of Georgia really just tried to cash on the relative success of the first film and failed miserably. The first one, as clichéd as it is, had atmosphere and a truly chilling performance by Kyle Gallner. This movie, on the other hand, is just silly and takes no time to build any kind of story or a fearful atmosphere. It's just jump scares, jump scares, jump scares over and over, which is only "scary" the first time. And due to the constant jump scares, we see too much ghost! Literally every five or ten minutes there is a jump scare with some ghostly figure manifesting itself. Seeing the ghost that many times renders it useless; it no longer has a scare element to it. And then the effects are shitty and something you'd expect of a TV movie (think the SyFy channel or the Chiller network). Every time one of the female characters (who all have the ability to see ghosts) sees a ghost, it is in a weird, blurred, vignetted filter which just looks dumb and is unnecessary. The story itself is okay, but strays far away from the actual story, which I guess is to make it more believable of the south (there are slave ghosts). But if they were going to go into that kind of dark historical southern territory, I wish they would've gone all in. If they were going to include slaves, then that should've been the horror of the movie: the atrocities that they had to endure, the struggles they went through. Instead we get a story that includes slaves but doesn't touch on any real slave struggles. I don't know, to me, it felt kind of halfhearted to bring in the slave element just to make the story more "southern". I wish the script writers would've just kept to the original story instead of taking such creative liberties that, in the end, brought that movie down.
The acting in the movie, however, is solid. Little Emily Alyn Lind, who played Heidi Wyrick, is a fantastic child actor who portrayed true terror and as a viewer I felt scared for her. Abigail Spencer as Lisa Wyrick, Heidi's mother, also did an amazing job as a mother trying to do right for her child, even though every choice she made wasn't always a good choice. Chad Michael Murray as Andy Wyrick, Heidi's father, is great. He showed real desire to protect his child, even though he didn't always understand what was going on with her. Katee Sackhoff, playing Joyce, Lisa's sister, is probably the only performance that comes off as a little forced and silly, but despite that she still did a good job. There is a particular scene that I liked Katee Sackhoff in, which is the scene that I have pictured above: she has threads coming from her mouth that are tacked to the ceiling and it just looks really cool.
In conclusion, this is not a good movie. It is boring and not suspenseful in the least. There is no real scare element and when they finally find out the truth about the land they're living on I didn't even care. I was so done with the movie by that point. And with all the silliness involved in this movie, I don't understand how it is rated R... I wouldn't watch it again.
Director: Brian O'Malley Cast: Pollyanna McIntosh, Douglas Russell, Hanna Stanbridge, Bryan Larkin & Liam Cunningham Synopsis: A stranger wanders into a quiet police station and brings havoc with him.
I wasn't expecting much from this movie. A wandering drifter bringing with him destruction is hardly a new concept. In fact there is a movie titled The Traveler starring Val Kilmer that is basically the same as this movie, except Let Us Prey is far better than that one. Everything about this film— the acting, the setting, the score, the overall production— is fantastically executed and makes it a superior film within the "drifter" trope.
Pollyanna McIntosh as the troubled, straight-laced police constable Rachel Heggie is amazing. She is tough but also fair and believes in her purpose to provide justice where justice is due, she is a true heroine. Douglas Russell as Sgt. MacReady is also phenomenal. He is a truly terrifying character in his strict demeanor and skewed guidance by the old testament. The cop partnership between Jennifer Mundie (Hanna Stanbridge) and Jack Warnock (Bryan Larkin) is unrelenting in their loyalty to each other and their abuse of power as police officers. Liam Cunningham as the unnamed occupant of cell six (from this point on, I will refer to him as Six), the drifter, is fabulous. He is calculated and does everything with unwavering purpose. Even the secondary characters, Ralph Beswick (Jonathan Watson), Caesar Sargison (Brian Vernal), and Mulvey (James McCreadie) as the other criminals being held at the police station are wonderful and all demented in their own rights.
There is religious overtone throughout the film that I quite like. Though I'm not a religious person myself, I can always appreciate movies, art, books, etc. that include religion in their storytelling. Religion, especially Christianity, being brought into the story manifests an idea of good vs. evil. The beauty of this film is that for a while it is unclear who is good and who is evil. Not only that, but it challenges our stereotypes of good and evil; the people we believe to be the good of society (cops, teachers, doctors) are also the people performing heinous acts we expect from the dregs of society, they are the sinners. And because of this juxtaposition of elements within these various characters it allows for us to see how being an entity of good doesn't mean your behavior is exclusive to good acts and vice-versa with an evil entity. In the end, even the good must atone for their sins.
Initially, I didn't realize how dark this film was going to get. It's gruesome, brutal, and very bloody (which, by the way is a huge plus for me). And the way that the all of it, especially the brutality, is displayed is horrifically magnificent. I mean, it is excessive and over-the-top and may be hard for some people to watch, but it's so necessary to the film. It manifests a harsh distinguishing line between the savage cruelties performed by the sinners and the muted subtle workings of the mysterious (otherworldly?) Six. Due to the strangeness of Six and all the things he is capable of doing there is also a fantastical element to this film, but it's not an overpowering sense of fantasy. And I really like that aspect.
Overall Let Us Prey is not a award-worthy film, but it is good. It's got gore, it's got a real story line and a few jumpscares (not too many, thank goodness), everything to please a range of horror fans. I am definitely planning on watching this again. And I suggest you take a look at it too!
Cast: Saoirse Ronan, George MacKay, Tom Holland, & Harley Bird
Synopsis: An American teenager (Saoirse Ronan) sent to the English countryside to stay with relatives (George MacKay, Tom Holland, & Harley Bird) finds love and purpose while on the brink of World War 3.
I've yet to read thebook in which this film is based on, but after viewing this I think I might have to. It's an interesting story and was told masterfully. Also Saoirse Ronan stars in this film, and she is an amazing actor so of course I had to watch it.
There are quite a few things I like about this film. First being the weird genre melding. This is a true teenage romance, sappy and intense, with a gritty backdrop of war and societal change, with also a bit of sci-fi (mind-reading, telepathy) thrown in. What I appreciate most about this is that the genres are truly blended together to create a layered story rather than each genre fighting for center stage. This is a refreshing commodity mainly because most directors/writers who attempt this, do it badly. This film knew what it wanted to be and achieved it perfectly. The second thing I like about this movie is the acting. I've already mentioned that I think Saoirse Ronan is a great actor and she truly is in this film. As Daisy, Saoirse performs this really beautiful character arc of going from a remarkably unlikable character who is rude, standoffish and closed off to a character who is brave, relentless, and caring, more open. It was amazing to witness this transition and even more-so to see Saoirse Ronan pull it off so well. George MacKay as Eddie has the opposite character arc; he goes from being the leader of the family, caring, and encouraging, and open to being distant, closed off and detached from the world and those he loves. And although we don't see the actual transition, he played both parts very well. Tom Holland as Isaac didn't have a large part in the film, but he was just as important; he is the funny bone of the body of this group. He is smart, funny, and sometimes crass, but, most importantly, always loving. And his departure in the film is genuinely heartbreaking. And my biggest applause goes to Harley Bird who portrayed the youngest character, Piper. Child actors are always a little tricky, especially in roles that require them to be in dark, intense situations, but she does an amazing job. She is believable and adorable and wistful. I was oftentimes worried about her character and whether she was going to make it in this war-torn society. The third thing I liked about this film is the production. The way in which the director chose to film the different parts of the story fits so well. The beginning is shot showing beautiful landscapes and this loving group of cousins who have to fend for themselves in this new era of war, but it's never dismal. But when the group is split up and forced to either fight in the war (the boys) or work on farms (the girls), all the scenes are shot very sharp and realistic which held the tone of terror and fear that Daisy feels and heightens her distress at keeping her promise to Eddie to make her way back to their farm. And in the end, when all is resolved, everything is shot with a softness that mirrors the struggle being over and time for healing. The fourth thing, and this is small, but the soundtrack is awesome!
Now for the things I didn't like. As you may or may not know, I'm not a huge fan of romance movies, and while this isn't necessarily a romance film, there is still a romance angle that I don't like (oops, how many times can I say romance in a single sentence?). The time span in which Daisy and Eddie fall in love is like three days, so way too fast! And I understand that on the threshold of war (impending doom) that emotions are heightened and felt more deeply as compared to normal times, so I can understand how they fell in love so quickly, but I still don't like it. It just really rings out as puppy love and extremely silly, especially since they're teenagers. Really, though, the romance angle may just be an annoyance to me. Another thing I don't like is how there's really no backstory to Daisy. For instance, her name isn't even Daisy, it's Elizabeth, but she doesn't explain why she has renounced that name. Also, it seems as though she has OCD or high anxiety or something, because she is constantly hearing negative affirmations in her head that leave her feeling frazzled and "cursed". And I just didn't understand where this came from. Or why her father sent her across the Atlantic ocean to live with family that she's never met, and more importantly why she refused to go back to America when she had the chance. I don't know. And I know that knowing any of these details wouldn't change the outcome or progress of the film, but I still would've liked to know. Another thing left unexplained is the mind reading that Eddie possesses. It is never even said out loud that he has this ability, it's just inferred. Where did this ability come from? Along with the mind-reading is the odd telepathy that Daisy and Eddie have while trying to find each other throughout the film, mostly through dreams, but how are they doing it? Is it only one-sided, or are they both experiencing it? In speaking of the dreams, I liked most of the dream sequences except for one: there is a dream in which Daisy is running through the forest naked yelling our Eddie's name. While I don't mind the dream itself, I don't like the way in which it was filmed, it just bothered me and doesn't fit well with the rest of the film.
Ultimately I like How I Live Now, it's an interesting blend of hyper-realism mixed with fantasy and drama. And while I had questions left unanswered, I am okay with that and okay with the outcome of the film. Would I watch it again? Yes, I definitely would watch it again!
Director: Michael Winterbottom Cast: Steve Coogan, Imogen Poots, Anna Friel, & Tamsin Egerton Synopsis: Paul Raymond (Steve Coogan) reflects on his life as an entrepreneur in the erotic arts and as a father.
Let me start by informing you that before watching this movie I had no idea who Paul Raymond was, but I was drawn to the movie due to the era and the burlesque-style of his shows that we see in the trailer. I was intrigued. After viewing it though, I don't really know how I feel about the movie.
First off, the acting is superb. Steve Coogan as Paul Raymond is perfection. Again, having no knowledge of the real Paul Raymond, I can only judge Coogan on his acting rather than on how accurately he depicted the real Paul Raymond. But he was awesome; he is charming, aggravating, a womanizer, a loving father, an absent father, all of it. And Coogan is able to genuinely capture all those characteristics into his portrayal without it seeming forced. Imogen Poots, who is so adorable, was awesome as Debbie Raymond, Paul Raymonds doting daughter. I had only seen her in That Awkward Moment, which I can safely say is probably not her best work, but even in that movie she shined. And in this film, she shone even brighter; she has the emotional depth to easily pull off a complex character such as Debbie Raymond who is insecure and kind of child-like yet also confident and driven to achieve her dreams. Anna Friel as Jean Raymond, Paul Raymond's ex-wife is a wonder as well, though she was only present in the first thirty minutes and again in the last thirty minutes. She didn't need any more time than that to leave an imprint; she was warm at first, despite Paul's incessant cheating, and then cold later after Paul leaves her and especially at the devastating end of the movie. As a viewer, I felt her anger and heartbreak. Tamsin Egerton as Amber then later Fiona Richmond, the homewrecking, spritely muse to Paul Raymond is fantastic as well. She is first bubbly and fun and outrageous, but quickly becomes weary and drained as she realizes Paul's inability to change for the sake of their relationship. Like Imogen Poots, she is an actress that has the emotional capacity to really reach in a become a multifaceted character. All are remarkable at portraying their characters and I applaud them for it.
While the acting is good, the movie itself is a little wonky. It starts off great, introducing us to Paul Raymond and the work that he does while showing us that he is also a husband and father. And so it conveys that the entirety of the movie is going to be about his life, a biopic. But then, around the forty minute mark, when Debbie, as an adult now, comes into the movie, it kind of becomes about their close father-daughter relationship. And yes, obviously, that is a crucial part of his life and should be included in a biopic of him, but this relationship somehow becomes the focal point of the movie and never veers back into being just about Paul Raymond. And because of this development, the second half of the movie loses steam, fast. It loses focus. And on top of that, the movie spans about about thirty years, so it can be expected that some moments and events in Paul's life aren't going to be explored fully, but this movie literally explored nothing. Everything is so dermal, we never get to the meat and bones of this man. It's like we just have to accept that Paul Raymond is a womanizer and that he has a uniquely close relationship with his daughter without any real affirmations to show us so. It just didn't delve deep enough into the psyche or emotions of Paul Raymond. Adding to that— and this might just be me nit-picking— there is weird editing at the end of the movie that are choppily done and unnecessary.
The Look of Love is splendidly made and looks phenomenal throughout, it is just the indefinite way in which the story is told and the odd editing at the end that really lowered my fondness of the movie. Would I watch it again? Ehh, maybe.
Director: Tim Burton Cast: Amy Adams & Christoph Waltz Synopsis: Based on the true story of artist Margaret Keane (Amy Adams) and her husband, Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz), who took credit for her work.
This story is interesting. As an artist myself, I was heartbroken for Margaret as she had to stand in the shadows while her husband took all the credit and received all the praise for her artwork. Art is personal and sometimes intimate and it just kills me to think of this woman not being able to take pride in her work. In essence, I liked the story that is the backbone of Big Eyes. Somehow, though, there wasn't enough soul to make this film have a true impact on it's viewers.
Christoph Waltz and Amy Adams are wonderful actors, and their acting in this film is no exception, though I will say that Christoph Waltz stole the show. But I suppose that is intentional. Margaret Keane is humble and modest and accepts when people aren't willing to pay her asking price, because she is just happy to paint for them. Whereas Walter is a true salesman: he can make any one feel like they need whatever he is selling and does it with ease and eloquence. That is how he so easily walked over Margaret, he convinced her that him taking credit was better for them and she, being unassertive, agreed even though she didn't feel right about it. So Christoph Waltz's portrayal of Walter is perfect, he oozes exuberance and charm that initially makes him likeable. And Amy Adam's portrayal of Margaret Keane is effortless, for the entirety of the film she is Margaret Keane. She is first humble and passive and then as she grows wary of Walter and his unending desire for money and glory, she realizes her strength and becomes determined to take back all she allowed him to take from her. It's a glorious character arc that really showcases Adam's talents as an actor.
The cinematography is wondrous and in true Tim Burton style, though a little watered down in order to allow the story to be at center stage rather than crazy and elaborate sets. There are rich, vibrant colors that are highly saturated and at times cartoonish, but still stunning. Also, there are small, sporadic moments where, through Margaret's perspective, we see people with enlarged eyes to mimic her painting style. Those are the only true Burton-esque elements of the film. While I did enjoy those elements, it wasn't enough. It seems like Burton, in an attempt to edit himself, lost the passion. And that's what deeply troubles me about this film; It's beautifully shot and well-acted but it lacks heart. There's no drama. From the beginning of the film, we already know that Margaret is going to come out on top in the end, so there's just no tension or uncertainty about it. Then when she meets Walter, it is apparent that he is a phony, so again there's never a moment where we're wondering if he's really a nice guy or if he's evil from the start. And while I did mention that Waltz did well in his role, it might be the actual role that comes off as silly. He's not silly in the beginning, though, it is only towards the end of the film that Walter takes on this villainous caricature that just becomes too childish to take seriously. In the end, there is just no significance.
Overall, this movie is beautifully shot and an interesting tale of a fantastic artist, but it's not one of Burton's best work. Without all the whimsy and fantasy of his previous films, it's just dull and half-hearted. Already the film's small impression is fading. Would I watch it again? Probably not. This is the type of movie that only needs to be viewed once.
Cast: G.J. Echternkamp, Valerie Hurt, Michael Traynor, Matthew Tilley & Konima Parinkson-Jones
Synopsis: A documentary following a film student (G.J. Echternkamp) shooting his own documentary following a suicidal individual (Matthew Tilley) in his last days before committing his final act.
THIS IS NOT A REAL DOCUMENTARY. There is some confusion for some viewers whether this is real or not. For me, it is fairly obvious that this isn't real, but I can see how some people could believe that it is. But it's not, it's a mockumentary. And a pretty good one, if you ask me. A Necessary Death takes a real, controversial subject matter and brings it to the forefront to be discussed and pondered over. Is suicide okay? If yes, under what circumstances? Does there even need to be a reason? Could this ever be a personal choice that is not looked down upon (i.e. euthanasia)? what are the religious concerns? Should religion be brought into the debate? And all of this is done in a documentary format which really works. Because instead of focusing on the pathos that is usually pushed forth in a narrative film, this is like looking at the subject through a magnifying glass. Suicide is being presented through an objective perspective. This film does move along at a slower pace, but, again due to the documentary style, it works. And it also allows for the emotions and concerns that all the characters feel about it as they film assume genuineness and truly mirror real emotions regarding the subject: sadness, anger, disappointment, pity, confusion, disgust, etc. Considering all this, for me personally, this film had a more severe resonance and impact.
The actors did phenomenal. I've stated before in previous reviews that when it comes to found-footage, or in this case mockumentary, dialogue is key. If the dialogue sounds scripted or just not how people really talk to one another it loses that reality essence the director is going for thus ending the fantasy of the film. G.J. Echternkamp as Gilbert is a real person, I've met this person before: a person so engrossed and dedicated to their work that he/she will go through any obstacle to achieve it. There was nothing fake or forced about the character. Mathew Tilley as Matt is effortless. He was convincing as this near-death, cancer-stricken individual who wants a dignified death before he is ravaged by cancer. And Valerie Hurt and Michael Traynor as their characters did amazing as Gilbert's sounding board and moral compass. And then Konima Parkinson-Jones as Matt's stepsister was perfect at asking the hard questions of the group and forcing them to see their own immorality at this project. All together they each represented the different viewpoints regarding suicide, and particularly in this film, euthanasia.
The moment the documentary style starts to disintegrate is when the narrative of the story really begins to play a larger part than the subject matter of suicide. The film really starts to delve into a drama and a love-triangle that just isn't necessary. And because of this drama, the ending loses what could have been a very poignant and heartbreaking moment and turns into something that is just silly. It became less about the choice of suicide, of when death comes and became more about revenge and anger between two people. The ending is really the only thing that I dislike about the film, because up until that point I really enjoyed it.
I enjoyed this film as a mockumentary. Like I said, it forces viewers to really think about suicide and euthanasia, to really question whether it's moral. It starts a discussion about these topics that really need to be talked about. There is still so much controversy and disagreement about this subject. And honestly, A Necessary Death could have really been a film of reference about the subject if it weren't for the stupid love-triangle ending.
Cast: Stella Maeve, Alexander Nifong, & J. Mallory McCree
Synopsis: While on a camping trip on a remote island, three friends, Tracy (Stella Maeve), Craig (Alexander Nifong), and Derek (J.Mallory McCree), break into a cabin near the campground only to discover something strange has happened to the couple who lived there.. and something strange is about to happen to them.
There are plenty of movies about clones: horror films, comedies, sci-fi thrillers, dramas. So while this idea isn't new, this is definitely an interesting take on the idea. That doesn't imply, though, that Cloned: The Recreator Chronicles isn't without it's fair share of clichés and silliness.
The dialogue is atrocious. There is not one line that anyone speaks in the entire movie that sounds real and/or unique. Everything is so generic and over-explained and over-simplified, that it's like watching a movie for toddlers. You know, easy to comprehend. And honestly, I'm not sure if the script was intentionally written in an over-the-top fashion so as to poke fun at the sheer ridiculousness of the movie or if the writer wrote it in a dead serious way. Either way, the dialogue is something to laugh at. The acting wasn't that great either, though they weren't horrible. I mean each actor had to portray two separate characters. That's gotta be tough. But really, I think it might've just been the writing that was so cookie-cutter and plain that the only way to give their characters some life was to be a little over dramatic and silly. I don't know, I wasn't impressed though. I also spoke of the typical clone clichés, the most important and prevalent in most movies of this genre are the clones' desire to overtake the originals' lives and do whatever it takes to do so. This is definitely apparent in this movie as the clones think of themselves as superior to the originals and believe they deserve a chance at life, one that they won't screw up as the originals have done. But even this isn't a surprise, or rather there is no suspense building up to this conclusion. Within the first ten minutes, or so, we see the couple who live in the cabin being murdered by their clones. So s viewers know how the rest of the movie will play out, which begs the question: why even watch?
As I mentioned before, there is an interesting idea used within this movie that I have to acknowledge. The way in which they became clones (and this is not a spoiler as it is easily figured out fairly early in the movie, though our main characters don't figure it 'til much later) is through a toilet. Yup, a magical toilet. No, I'm kidding... about the magical part, not the toilet. The sewage line, I assume, is somehow contaminated by a some scientists experiment to create clones. So their clones were made from their excrement. Interesting but not necessarily an ingenious idea and not executed very well. I feel like maybe if there had been a better director and/or writer this movie could have been great, but alas we are left with this silliness. Oh, but on a good note, the production value of this movie is top notch. It doesn't look like some low-budget, cheap sci-fi movie. A+ for production.
I understand that this is Gregory Orr's first venture into writing and directing a feature-length fiction story, so I laud him for his efforts and what he accomplished with this film, but next time he better try just a little bit harder. As for this movie, it was somewhat enjoyable, especially if you go into it without many expectations. The silliness of the whole thing might be a little off-putting especially if you're not expecting it. It's not listed as a horror comedy, so that might confuse some viewers. Anyways, would I watch it again? No, definitely not. But I also won't deter yo from watching it.
Director: Rodney Ascher Synopsis: A harrowing glimpse into the phenomenon known as Sleep Paralysis.
I saw the trailer for this documentary a while back and thought it looked amazing; the way they intertwined the commentary with intense, surreal reenactments, it looks terrifying. I've experienced sleep paralysis myself and I wanted some kind of insight into the condition, which is what I hoped this documentary was going to accomplish. And so you can only imagine how excited I was when The Nightmare finally became available on Netflix. And after watching it, I am only left feeling dissatisfied.
The film starts off good. There are a handful of people describing their experience with sleep paralysis, how it started and what their specific visuals/sounds are during it. But after about the seventh persons retelling I was already bored. All their stories, while slightly different, are basically the same: they feel themselves drift off to sleep, yet their awareness is still there, then they see the "shadow-men" and feel terrified and now have to force themselves awake in order to stop it. I kept watching, though, hoping that the movie would build upon these stories, but it never went any further than their retelling. This is literally an hour and a half of the same handful of people discussing their various and numerous experiences with sleep paralysis. And this is fine, but I wanted there to be some exploration into the scientific side of the condition as well as the spiritual side. While they do mention some lore and myth surrounding sleep paralysis from different cultures and regions of the world, it wasn't enough. It' maybe discussed for five minutes and then dropped. They also all mention their experience with trying to get some answers from doctors about it, but it is all chalked up to stress or their lifestyle. And again, that's it, it's never talked about again. Like what? I wanted to actually hear and see a doctor discuss sleep paralysis. Perhaps have one the participants (or someone who experiences sleep paralysis) get a brain scan during the sleep paralysis and compare this to a brain scan while they're not to see how they differ: what parts of the brain are lighting up during the experience, what does that tell us? Or maybe have scientists who are studying sleep paralysis or sleep disorders discuss what they know to be true about sleep patterns and dreaming and how this relates to sleep paralysis. I wanted to hear a more in-depth telling of the lore and myth about sleep paralysis with an anthropologist's educated opinion about why this phenomenon is so globally experienced and why the experience is so similar across all cultures. Bring a sleep therapist, have them discuss how this disorder can occur in conjuncture with other disorders and why this might be a danger to the person. Have someone relay ways to prevent sleep paralysis, possibly with lucid dreaming techniques and/or ways to calm the mind before sleep, something! None of this is explored, though, and just left the film feeling one-noted. I really didn't need to hear multiple stories of the same phenemonen over and over for an hour and a half. In the end, it just seemed unfinished. I was no more enlightened about the subject matter than I was before watching The Nightmare. The whole documentary just seems like a waste.
I did, however, enjoy the reenactments. They did their part to scare me and remind me of my own experiences with sleep paralysis. They were surreal and bizarre leaving me feeling uneasy. But unfortunately that wasn't enough to redeem this documentary. If you like to listen to people tell their personal stories, then this movie might be for you. If you're someone like me who wants a more well-rounded look at a subject, a more analyzed and dissected inspection, from all angles, of the phenomenon, then this movie is not for you. You will not gain any further knowledge about sleep paralysis, just a collection of stories. Ehh, I wouldn't watch it again, but I also won't tell you not to watch it. It's decent in it's own right.
Synopsis: Cheyenne (Sean Penn), an aging rockstar, returns home after his father's death to complete his quest to find a Nazi war criminal.
I don't know what I was expecting before watching this film, but this wasn't it and I'm glad for it. There are so many good things about This Must Be The Place that I almost don't even know how to describe it nor do I desire to: I want to keep this treasure to myself. Also, the fact that the entire story/plot makes absolutely no sense doesn't even make a dent into the glorious-ness of what this film is. What this lacks in plot and story makes up in character development. This is character development at it's finest and I love it. Almost a coming-of-age tale, except our protagonist is well past his prime for coming into adulthood, but his age is only an outward detail. At his core, he is a child who has gone astray and must now find his way back in order to move on with his life.
What is most beautiful about this film is the symbolism, the philosophy, the journey. Cheyenne is on this journey to find a Nazi war criminal who humiliated his father in Auschwitz, and yet that isn't even the most important journey at hand: What is most wonderful about the physical journey is that it doesn't change anything about his life, it doesn't add anything to the movie. But the physical journey is a direct parallel to what is happening within Cheyenne's spirit. The weather and atmosphere of each place symbolizes something in his emotional journey. The bright sunshine of New York is like the epitome what childhood is, the epitome of where Cheyenne is. The rain in Michigan is like his indulgence in his sorrow and depression. The desert of Arizona is where the sorrow in him is drying up, growing up. The icy mountain of Utah is where the child dies. It's all so simple and yet adds so much depth to Cheyenne as a growing soul. Along with this easily recognized symbolism of the journey, there is an endless amount of symbolic imagery within the film, that if I watched this movie everyday for a month I probably still wouldn't catch all of it. And for some that might be a bad thing to have a loose story so shrouded in metaphor, but I fully enjoyed it. Adding to the awesome imagery, there are many life philosophies said and pondered throughout, and all of them are right and all of them are wrong. All the dialogue of deep thought require us viewers to decide if we believe that or not, or to simply think about life in those terms. Probably my favorite lines of the entire movie is this: "Without realizing it, we go from an age where we say 'my life will be that' to an age where we say 'that's life'". That is a perfect way to describe life, an observation that is both true and false. And it left such an enticing taste in my mouth, I want more. Too, there is so much odd dialogue that, were it any other movie it would seem stupid, but with this it only adds more charm. Literally, the characters could talk about a peacock, and somehow it would make sense in this film; This Must Be The Place is genuinely that absurdly wonderful.
The cinematography is wondrous and something to be treasured. There are so many different landscapes shown and various weather conditions and they're all shot with such a peculiar eye, it is truly a delight. And even just all the angles at which certain things are shot creates a distorted yet clear perspective of how Cheyenne perceives life at the many different points in his journey. Layered on top of this beautiful and vibrant imagery and cinematography is the most insane score and soundtrack. The score is this loud and almost horror-movie-sounding score and it'so jarring when it's accompanying a gorgeous scene. The lingering, melancholy score mixed with the such vibrant visuals left me feeling a bit disoriented and I like it. Also the soundtrack is amazing with music by The Pieces of Shit (fake band made for the film), David Byrne of The Talking Heads (who also composed some of the music for the film), and Iggy Pop. All played at just the right times in the movie.
I realize that I, in no way, can give due justice to this film. What I have described here may not be an alluring description that begs you to watch This Must Be The Place. This might not even give you any hint as to how amazing this film is. It's strange, odd, confusing, unnecessary, enlightening, encouraging, saddening, everything. It's certainly not for everyone, I know many people will probably watch this and think "WTF??", but I don't know I am peculiarly captivated by it. I will watch this film again and again and again, if only to dissect and analyze all the symbolism and metaphor sprinkled throughout!
