"Innocence" (2014) Maybe Too Innocent

The Trailer:

Director: Hilary Brougher
Cast: Sophie Lane Curtis, Kelly Reilly, & Linus Roache
Synopsis: A young girl, Beckett (Sophie Lane Curtis), and her father, Miles Warner (Linus Roache), move to New York where she begins attending a posh prep school with a dark secret.

I admit, I may not be the intended audience for this movie, and for that reason I think I may be a little biased in my opinion of the movie; biased in the fact that I may be too old to be intrigued by it. I mean, the PG-13 rating should've given me an idea of the wholesome-package that Innocence tries to wrap itself in. Within the first ten minutes it is clear that the teachers are strange and will become the villains later on. And in case you missed the not-so-subtle hints, everything is practically spelled out for us later. The way the movie is directed and written, it seems like it was made by Lifetime. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Lifetime movies, but they're all mostly corny, over-exaggerated, silly movies. Especially the "horror" movies made by Lifetime. Which basically equates to: this movie is lame. Everything just happens too fast for no reason and all the characters are just limply saying lines. Beckett, for example, is probably the most annoyingly apathetic characters to ever grace the movie screen. The whole time she seems so disinterested and just so blah that I was actually hoping for her character to die at the hands of the teachers. She smiles maybe once or twice throughout the entire movie, and only in passing. Ugh, instantly annoyed. And just the fact that everyone, namely Beckett's father, is so oblivious to everything that is going on around them screams "PARENTS JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND! SO YES I, THE APPARENT HEROINE, MUST FIX WHAT THEY REFUSE TO SEE", too teen angsty for me. Like, why was Beckett's father, Miles, not questioning the school nurse, Pamela (Kelly Reilly), and her strange sudden taking to Beckett. Her relationship with Beckett is too close and weird that I was left with a giant question mark over my head. Actually all the characters are dumb. Because then we have Beckett's friend, Jen (Sarah Sutherland) as the classic, clichéd outcast bad girl reminiscent of the early 2000's— which actually lead me to believe that this movie was made in the early 2000's— and really just comes off as foolish and overplayed. Further on Miles, Beckett's dad, his acting is so forced and quite laughable actually. There is a scene where is angry at Beckett for staying out too late and while he is yelling at her he wags his finger in his face and I swear he is on the verge of laughing at how ridiculous he knows he must look. This is disappointing, because I know that Linus Roache is a good actor and he really could've added some more dimension to the character. I believe the only commendable performance is probably Kelly Reilly, but it's still nothing to talk about. Moving on. There's also too many questionable things that occur that I have to stand up and say "MY SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF CANNOT STRETCH THAT FAR, ARE YOU INSANE?". I will give a few examples, but within the movie there are plenty more. One, The fucking school counselor prescribes medication to the students. What? In what school system is that even okay? None! Two, I mentioned before the inappropriate relationship Pamela has with Beckett, but let me give a little more detail. The whole movie seems to happen over the course of a couple of weeks, so the fact that Pamela, the school nurse, is already in a relationship and living with Miles and Beckett by the middle of the movie, is so bizarre. And how Pamela became involved with Miles is by her constant visits to check up on Beckett. I don't know, but if I were a parent I would be worried about why the school nurse is so concerned with my child. Maybe that's just me. !!!Spoiler Alert!!! Three, after we discover that the teachers are in fact villainous vampires (immortals? I don't know it's never really explained, but the gist is that they need to drink a virgin's blood to keep their immortality), we can inquire that they've been doing this for quite some time—since the opening of the school— yet no one ever questioned why so many young girls were dying over the years? !!!Spoiler Alert Over!!!

After watching Innocence, I found out that it is based on a young adults novel by the same name, which is supposedly more of a psychological thriller (I've never read the book, just the reviews for it) but this film adaptation didn't even touch on that idea, or barely. In the end, this isn't much of a horror or a drama or a fantasy as IMDb labels it. It's just a bore with no suspense  and no guessing in the least. From the very beginning of the movie we know what's going to happen. But I guess points for effort. Would I watch it again? Hell no!

"Very Good Girls" (2013) Good at What Exactly?

The Trailer:

Director: Naomi Foner

Cast: Dakota Fanning, Elizabeth Olsen, & Boyd Hollbrook

Synopsis: Two friends, Lilly (Dakota Fanning) and Gerri (Elizabeth Olsen), make a pact to lose their virginity before they head off to college and end up falling for the same guy, David (Boyd Hollbrook).

I'm going to tell you right now, I don't like this movie. It really could've been great, but the writing was just not up to par with the abilities/skill of the actors showcased. And it is apparent as they scrabble to capture something genuine in their characters only to leave as little an impact as possible. Literally all the characters are just stereotypical archetypes: the stuffy, distant parents, the hippie parents, the outgoing friend, the shy girl, the heartthrob. And instead of building up on these archetypes, the writers just decided to leave them as is, thus creating one dimensional, flimsy characters. In continuing to talk about the characters, I didn't like either Gerri nor Lilly; both annoyed me. Gerri annoyed me because she became oddly obsessed with David rather quickly and was obvious in her attempts to make him like her. Her young-adolescent-esque crush on David makes it seem as though he is the first boy she's ever come across in her life. And then Lilly annoyed me because she was so wishy washy in all her actions and statements. Example: after her mother kicks her father out for his infidelity, Lilly fights for him to stay, yet she won't even speak to her dad. Why fight for someone who you can't even look at or speak to?? Also, the way she treats her mother is so disrespectful and cruel. And then, also the fact that she falls so madly in love with David, who (in my eyes) is the creepiest dude. When David is introduced into the story, he is rude and bitter sounding, not the type of guy who I would want around. But alas, he is attractive which is apparently all that matters because he's also fucking weird! Let me elaborate. First of all, he takes photos of Lilly as she walks away from him upon their first encounter, then he watches her the next day to see which way she walks to work/home in order to post said pictures in places she'll see them. I get that this is supposed to be some romantic gesture, but it's just plain weird to me and maybe that's just me. Additionally, there is a strange scene where he asks Lilly to read to him. Again, I realize that this is somehow supposed to be romantic, but it just comes off as odd. I don't know, I just wasn't feeling this guy and didn't understand why both Gerri and Lilly were so infatuated with him. Come to think of it, all the men in this movie are creepy and weird and I don't know why. And finally, I just felt no connection to any of the characters. Since they were all so one-dimensional, I didn't care about any of the heartbreak, the grief, the betrayals that any of them felt. Blahh..

I suppose the theme of the movie is secrets and what they do to us, how they cause great rifts between people that is hard to repair. Or when we go searching for something, will we be truly fulfilled when we get it? I don't know, but both themes are never fully developed within Very Good Girls leaving me question upon the end "What was the point?". The only thing that is commendable about this movie is the music. I won't watch this movie again, and I suggest you don't watch it all. Side note: I'm sad that Peter Sarsgaard didn't have a bigger role, because I absolutely adore him. Okay, end, I'm done talking about this disappointing piece.

"Byzantium" (2012) Love Knows No Bounds

The Trailer:

Director: Neil Jordan
Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Gemma Arterton & Caleb Landry Jones

Synopsis: Eleanor (Saoirse Ronan) and Clara (Gemma Arterton), mysterious women who don't speak of their past, move into a coastal town where their secrets unravel.

Byzantium is a wonderfully crafted, beautiful, dark vampire film. It is more a drama than a horror, perhaps a gothic horror. Either way, I am quite impressed with it. The leading ladies, Saoirse Ronan and Gemma Arterton, fantastically capture their roles and execute them with such ease that it seems that they are Eleanor and Clara. Frank (Caleb Landry Jones) is a sickly boy with whom Eleanor establishes a relationship with. Jones was the perfect person for this role with his pale pallor and soft voice, so it is easy to believe that he is sick. Speaking of casting, even the secondary characters are cast to perfection. It is evident that there was real thought in who the casting directors chose for the roles. Another smart choice on the movie-makers part is how they entwine Clara and Eleanor's past into the present. There isn't a stark contrast between the two timelines, instead they're blended together seamlessly and it works, really well.

The real beauty of the story lies in Clara's intense love for Eleanor and the sacrifices she makes in her honor. It is the love of a mother for her child, and like most parent-child relationships there is a disconnect to Eleanor as to why her mother, Clara, makes such bewildering decisions in a effort to protect her. Also, the tragedy of their lives and their ability to persevere is something to admire in both of them, though Clara and Eleanor choose to deal with their troubles quite differently. Which begs of us viewers to discuss is there a right way to live life? How, when faced with choosing between two evils, can we make the best decision, even when it doesn't align with our own desires? Especially in regards to parenting your children, how do we raise them right, even when we have so little to offer them? And that's what I appreciate about Byzantium the most; it is more like a study of the human condition, but told through the lives of immortal women faced with adversity. Poignant, profound, and harrowing.

Now for the vampire aspect of the film. I was pleasantly surprised with how unlike other vampire films Byzantium is. It doesn't follow the usual rules of vampirism (is that a word?). First, the act of becoming a vampire isn't a simple one: You have to travel to a remote island and enter a strange stone-hut like building, enter it without fear of death and then you're a vampire. Second, these vampires don't bite, but instead their thumbnail grows into a sharp point in which they puncture their victims with and then suck the blood out. Third, both Eleanor and Clara don't seem to possess any supernatural powers (i.e. mind, control, super speed, etc.), except for higher pain tolerance, perhaps? (This is never stated or shown really in the film, but is somewhat implied). Fourth, they are not hindered by sunlight. These details combined make their story more believable somehow. Because instead of just cruising through their eternal lives, compelling people to their desires and needs, they actually have to struggle to survive. Sequentially this leads to Clara and Eleanor clashing over how to survive thus creating the conflict and drama of the story.

Byzantium is a superb film, with heartache and a darkness that builds up into light. Also, which I have forgotten to mention, the red waterfall of eternal life (a title I gave it) might be my favorite effect used in the film! I would most assuredly watch this film again... and again... and again. I suggest you watch it too.

"Late Phases" (2014) Beware the Werewolf!!

The Trailer:

Director: Adrián García Bogliano
Cast: Nick Damici

Synopsis: After moving into a retirement community, Ambrose (Nick Damici)—a blind, Vietnam veteran— begins to suspect that there is a werewolf attacking his new neighbors.

There is a real effort to make this movie something more than just any run-of-the-mill werewolf flick, which I will applaud. Most importantly, this isn't a movie focused on young kids or teenagers forced to accept that (1) there is a werewolf and (2) destroy it. This movie is set in a retirement settlement, so obviously all the residents are older people. In regards to horror movies in general, this is a nice change of pace. From our protagonist being an older man, we get a sense of wisdom know-how: he's not some clueless kid just trying to survive. Adding to that, since he's older, we get an idea that perhaps he's not afraid to die having already lived life, and so will do what it takes to save the people of the community. Ambrose is a Vietnam vet, which at first kind of just seems like a random detail to give him depth, but this fact actually adds depth to the story and creates parallels between him and the werewolf. In the war, Ambrose thought he was going to be a hero and save lives, instead he was forced to take lives, therefore leading to a transformation within himself; a transformation from hopeful to bitter. Further, because of Ambrose's bitter disposition, he becomes a beast, if you will, among the community. All the other residents are afraid of him, want him gone, like they should feel towards the werewolf except they don't know the werewolf exists. All of this builds an actual story. Rather than simply focusing on the horror of the werewolf, we are forced to recognize how the cruelty of life can make a beast of us. And the movie is filled with philosophical and abstract thinking that I just loved: there are questions of faith, pondering of what makes us do the things we do as humans, the consequences we deserve, salvation and absolution. Truly profound.

While I did wholly appreciate the weight and depth of the conflicts Ambrose is experiencing, there are some questionable things that take place. Sometimes, especially in the beginning, the dialogue seems a little silly. But, really, that can be overlooked. And I suggest you do, because the dialogue gets better as the movie progresses, especially between Ambrose and Father Roger. Another thing that I questioned was how Ambrose so quickly realized that there was a werewolf in their midst. Literally, as soon as he moves into his new home he is already beginning to suspect some kind of beast attack. I have two guesses why: 1) Ambrose has encountered a werewolf before in his life or 2) due to his blindness, his other heightened senses have keenly identified the beast that attacks his neighbor to be that of a werewolf. I can be okay with those explanations, though it still kind of irks me that I don't know. Moving on. The one thing I disliked most about this movie was the werewolf: he just looked like a weird furry elf or, uhh, I don't know. But he wasn't scary looking. However, I did genuinely like the actual human-to-wolf transformation. It was kind of a throwback to 80's special effects and it is awesome! Furthermore, the infection (is that the right word to use?) of the werewolf isn't directly explained, it's said more in a allegorical tone and not super in your face, dumping a bunch of info at you! I liked it.

Finally, Late Phases isn't what one may be expecting out of a werewolf movie: it's not intensely scary and there are rarely any suspenseful moments. Despite that, though, this is definitely a movie worth watching. It's subtle and steady throughout, only becoming slightly intense within the last twenty minutes or so. Plus, there are rarely any dumb horror clichés in this movie. That is always a plus! I would most def watch Late Phases again!

"Mercy" (2014) Have Mercy On Your Souls!

The Trailer:

Director: Peter Cornwell

Cast:Chandler Riggs, Shirley Knight, Frances O'Connor, Joel Courtney & Dylan McDermott

Synopsis: After her mother (Shirley Knight) suffers a stroke, Rebecca (Frances O'Connor) and her two sons, George (Chandler Riggs) and Buddy (Joel Courtney), move in with her and discover she may have magical powers.

This movie is based on a Stephen King short story, and it is obvious... Obvious that this is based off a short story, that is, due to the numerous filler scenes throughout and just plain weird scenes that don't offer anything to the story. What I assume was the magic and suspense of the original tale is lost in an attempt lengthen it with random details and unnecessary silliness. And for the most part, this just isn't scary in any way. It's really just stupid. The dialogue between the brothers, especially their little brotherly arguments, sounds ridiculous and forced. Actually, most of the dialogue throughout the movie sounds dumb. Maybe it's the casting or the writing, but I'm leaning more towards the writing. I think the writers tried to add a backwoods, "hill folk" dialect, but it's just laughable. But, that's also not to say that the actors didn't play a part in the dumbness of the dialogue: for the most part the actors talk with such an non-enthused tone that it's unbearable to listen to them. Now, some emphasis on the filler scenes and unnecessary details. In the beginning it's mentioned that that Buddy is a young aspiring chef and we see him prepare some meals and bring his own spices for his lunch, but then it is never mentioned again. What was the point of adding this detail to the story? I have absolutely no idea. Another unnecessary detail: George can play the violin. I really think this detail was only mentioned so that he could have a dramatic moment hitting a bully over the head with his violin case filled with rocks. But, again, this detail is never mentioned again. Perhaps these details are just added in to give the illusion that these characters have a life out of this horror-story but it doesn't even really accomplish that. Filler scenes... oh I'm already bored writing about this movie. Anyways, there is a random romance angle between Rebecca and a married neighbor, Jim (Dylan McDermott) that never comes to fruition, which honestly I didn't much mind. But if nothing was ever gonna happen between the characters, why include this? Oh yeah, to take up some time while the grandma is wasting away becoming some kind of demon. Oh right, it is discovered that the grandma dabbled in dark magic as a younger woman and now she must pay the price. Hence the "horror" aspect of the movie. There's also mention of a "death wolf" myth that seems like it's going to become a tool in saving the grandma's soul, but nothing ever comes from it. Anyways, mostly the entirety of the movie is just a bunch of hoopla to waste time until the last twenty minutes or so that has the bulk of the "scares". And I mean that ironically, because it's not scary especially for a rated R film, which this is. In addition to all this, there's a voiceover from George at the beginning and end of the film that I really just find to be sappy annoyances. Bleh.. 

Even though I have all this criticism about the movie, I did however like some things. The score is fitting and reminiscent of older horror flicks. I also really liked the opening title sequence which showcases dark, Gothic artwork that I would more than happily like to hang in my house. And I also really love Chandler Riggs, which I realize is kind of a polarizing statement. People either really like him or really hate him. Whatever, it was nice to see Carl not being Carl. And the dementia-like symptoms of the grandma kind of struck a chord with me due to my own grandma falling victim to dementia and Alzheimer's which caused her to sometimes act cruelly towards us.  

The few things I actually like about the movie definitely do not outweigh all the things I didn't like. It just feels like it could've been good as a short, but not a feature length film. The story becomes too stretched and thin that it's barely there. I wouldn't watch this again. 

"Eden" (2012) Land of The Gods and Monsters

The Trailer:

Director: Megan Griffiths
Cast: Jamie Chung, Matt O'Leary, & Beau Bridges

Synopsis: After being captured by domestic human-traffickers, Eden (Jamie Chung) aligns herself  with her captors in order to survive.

Let me first start off by stating that though there is controversy over whether the events that take place in the movie are actually based on real-life events, I will not comment on that aspect. I am simply going to review the movie as though it were a work of complete fiction, okay? Okay. Let's move on.
Eden is a a terrifying glance at the horrors of sex-trafficking on American soil, because that for sure is a sad reality. I was definitely appreciative that the people doing the sex-trafficking were shown to be well-to-do Americans rather than scary-looking foreigners as with most movies made on this topic: it is an eye-opener, especially those who refuse to believe that such atrocities can happen here in the land of the free.The tone throughout the film is bleak, desolate and isolating. But it is also a story of bravery, endurance, and ultimately triumph. Jamie Chung does a fantastic job as Eden, a naive girl who finds herself in the midst of a prostitution ring: she is young but she is also determined and realizes that in order to win her freedom, she is going to have to do things she isn't proud of and give it some time. In fact, all the actors do a phenomenal job at the characters they're playing. Especially Matt O'Leary as the junkie controller of all the girls in this particular prostitution ring, because though he is mostly cruel he is also somewhat kind towards his charges. Beau Bridges as the dirty police chief is also an interesting and cruel character portrayal that I thought was done perfectly. Aside from the great acting, the setting is also a great asset. The warehouse that the girls are kept in is dismal and dark, but also a a well-oiled machine. With the girls hygiene of utmost importance and an on-site doctor and/or nurse to do regular check-ups, you have to wonder why any of the people working there of their own will chose to do so? Like the nurse lady, why is she working there when it's obvious she has real medical knowledge? Why agree to be a part of a business that is selling underage girls? I just don't get it. But I guess these questions could be asked of real sex-traffickers, and there probably isn't a sufficient answer. Though the movie is fairly good throughout, there is some time in the middle where is seems to drag on for awhile, seemingly without direction, but it does pick up in the end during Eden's escape.
I was enthralled from start to finish with this movie and was sincerely anxious as to whether Eden was going to escape or simply become a true piece in the machine that robbed her of her life. I had true heartache for Eden and her predicament. And while yes, I am not sure of the validity of the story behind the movie, I am sure that it has opened discussion of the very real problem of sex-trafficking here in America. Would I watch this again? Maybe, but not for a long while.

"Wetlands (Feuchtgebiete)" (2013) Not Wet, But Not Completely Dry Either...

The Trailer:

Director: David Wnednt
Cast: Carla Juri, Marlen Kruse, Meret Becker, Axel Milberg, & Christof Letkowski

Synopsis: Helen (Carla Juri), a sexually liberated, unhygienic girl, seeks to bring her divorced parents back together under unusual circumstances.

This film is not for everyone. I repeat: THIS FILM IS NOT FOR EVERYONE. If you're easily disgusted by bodily fluids such as period blood, vaginal secretions, and semen (discussed or shown) stay away from this movie. If not, like myself, this movie may still not be for you. If you're expecting some sexy teen comedy, turn around, this is not the movie for you. This film is perverse, disgusting and absolutely gross, but rarely sexy. And I like it all the more for that reason. Wetlands doesn't portray sex in an unrealistic, glamorized, humorous way as is the form of most teen sex comedies. The sex in this film is a direct, distasteful, painfully truthful depiction of what sex is in real life. And better for it. Instead of funny sex, we get moments of sexual experimentation that is curious and exploratory and awkward like most of my own sexual awakening; I could relate to it. Though I did cringe at some of the things Helen does, I never felt the need to look away because what I was seeing was real and genuine, Furthermore, while the films surface focus was on the sexual exploits of Helen, it is also a complex study of the human desire to feel whole, and our unrelenting need to punish ourselves in the wake of our mistakes and/or guilt. I mentioned that I cringed at some scenes, I also laughed and cried and felt an undeniable empathy with Helen.

Speaking of Helen, Carla Juri did an amazing job portraying this character, As did all the actors shown in this film. Meret Becker is phenomenal as Helen's distant, false-happy mother with an unwavering guilt all her own. Axel Milberg as Helen's father was funny and open and encouraging to Helen, and yet he always caused her pain. Marlen Kruse, though had only had the small part of Helen's best friend, Corinna, she did her job well as the naive student and the knowledgeable teacher to Helen. And then there's Christof Letkowski as Robin, the endearing, abashed hospital nurse who aides Helen in her recovery after an unfortunate surgery. The cast was chosen well.

I love Wetlands. Though it is slightly disturbing and gross, I was enthralled with Helen's character and couldn't get enough. It's dirty, perverted and lovable. I love this movie and I would absolutely watch it again. Maybe not for a long while though, I still have to let my stomach settle after all that bodily grossness...

"As Above, So Below" (2014) Create Your Own Fear

The Trailer:

Director: John Erick Dowdle
Cast: Perdita Weeks, Ben Feldman, Edwin Hodge, François Civil, Marion Lambert, & Ali Marhyar

Synopsis: Continuing her father's lifelong search for the Philosopher's Stone, Scarlett (Perdita Weeks) enlists the help of fellow archaeologist George (Ben Feldman) and french locals to scour the Paris catacombs hoping to find it, all while being filmed by documenterer, Benji (Edwin Hodge).

Let me first start off by mentioning that this film is a found-footage film, which, as you may or may not know, are not my favorite. But I made an exception for this movie because it looked so tempting. And I am so glad I did. Unlike most found-footage films, the camera isn't too shaky throughout, so that is a huge plus. Also, the story is quite interesting if not original and creative. There is something already disturbing about the catacombs beneath Paris, what with all the skeletal remains one can only imagine the type of residual energy that is there. So that existing dismay and apprehensiveness one might feel about the catacombs is used quite well in the film. Add to that the claustrophobic atmosphere that the catacombs possess creates a truly unsettling tone throughout. It is apparent that the group entered hell during their walk through the catacombs, and what I loved most about this is that they didn't use any typical hell imagery. Each person created their own hell with whatever has been haunting them throughout their lives. And while the memory/tragedy seen in this hell is of their own manifestation, it can still cause physical harm and/or death if the person allows it to. Each individual has the power to overcome their guilt and to get out alive. This idea of hell is executed so simplistically and impeccably, that I can only give praise and applaud the director and writers for this approach. In addition to the impressive story and atmosphere of this film, the actors did amazing jobs. The dialogue, especially the arguments, between characters are realistic and not forced, which for some reason is rarely present in found-footage. This film impressed me as a horror fan, however there are some mishaps. I know for a fact that an archaeologist would ever be so destructive in a quest for something, yet here we have Scarlett breaking stone slabs with ancient texts all over them and not keeping any written documentation of these findings. Also, why not go to the European Association of Archaeologists and tell them of the suspicion that there may be an important stone within the catacombs so that the group wouldn't have to go in there illegally? As an anthropology major, this irked me a bit in the movie but I could overlook it. To answer my own question and concerns I came up with an answer: Scarlett had become so obsessed with her quest to find the Philosopher's stone that she didn't want to deal with the red-tape of trying to get permission from the Parisian government to go through uncharted, cordoned-off areas of the catacombs. I'm okay with that explanation. Another thing that bothered me is how they always figured out the clue correctly. This is a trope that bothers me in anything I watch, whether it's a movie or tv show. It's uncanny the way Scarlett and George come to all the conclusions that they do. I mean, they're smart, but not that smart. And some of their inferences are incorrect in real life, but magically make sense in the logic of the movie. I am also left with some questions about certain occurrences, but I won't bore you with those because there are a lot, and honestly if answered wouldn't change much of the movie. The ending is also a wonder. It can either be taken at face value or it can be ambiguous. Either way, I thought it was a good close to a good movie.

Overall I absolutely enjoyed this movie. It was interesting and without obnoxious horror elements. It's simple in its storytelling and relies mostly on the setting and fears that are already familiar to us viewers to create terror. For it being a Hollywood movie and produced by Universal Pictures and Legendary Pictures, I was pleasantly surprised at the lack of over-the-top scare tactics. Would I watch As Above, So Below again? You betcha!

"Tusk" (2014) "I Am The Eggman, They Are The Eggmen, I Am The WALRUS"

The Trailer:

Director: Kevin Smith

Cast: Justin Long, Michael Parks, Haley Joel Osment, Genesis Rodriguez, & Johnny Depp.

Synopsis: Howard Howe (Michael Parks) is a Canadian, has-been seafarer with lots of stories to tell. Wallace Bryton is a podcaster who traveled to Canada in search of stories to relay to his listeners. Their serendipitous encounter is almost like a wish come true for Wallace, but is it?

Hmmm, I'm not sure what to make of this movie. It made me laugh. It made me shudder in fear. It made me question what it means to be human. Yet, I don't know if I like it. For the most part, the humor of the movie lies in the irony of the situation. We have Wallace (kind of rhymes with walrus), with a walrus mustache, who is turned into a walrus. Haha, how clever! There are also some jokes that poke fun at American stereotypes, like when Detective Guy Lapointe (Johnny Depp) tells Ally (Genesis Rodriguez) and Teddy (Haley Joel Osment) to grab some guns that he has provided for them, Teddy refuses, then Guy Lapointe says "You don't want a gun? What kind of American are you?". Along with that are also jokes that poke fun at Canadians too. Also, the sheer ridiculousness of the movie is something to laugh at. I mean, come on, a man turning another man into a walrus to relive some weird human-walrus companionship from ages past, it's absolutely mad! The horror aspect also lies in that human to animal transition. Getting turned into a horrifying monster at the hands of a deranged person might be one of my new fears, after seeing the Human Centipede and especially now after seeing Tusk. Haha, I'm kidding, but seriously imagine being surgically altered to look like an animal against your will? Isn't that a little terrifying? But even with all the insanity and absurdity that occurs in this movie, there are also some dramatic moments. Through the beginning of the movie, and through some flashbacks of his life before leaving to Canada, I don't like Wallace very much. He is crude, selfish, and heartless especially to his girlfriend, Allison (Genesis Rodriguez). But as he becomes more and more walrus on the outside, he becomes more and more human on the inside. It's strange. He is such an animal on the exterior and yet he has found his humanity inside the skin of the walrus.

Again, I can't tell you whether I like this movie or not. It's bizarre and profound all at once. It's silly and serious and tragic. It's the story of a man who had become so callous that it takes losing his outward humanity to find his compassion once again... when it is already too late. Is it the best movie in the world? Definitely not? But did it make me think and wonder? Yes, it did. Would I watch it again, though? Most likely not.

"Animal" (2014) I'm Not An Animal

The Trailer:

Director: Brett Simmons
Cast: Joey Lauren Adams, Thorsten Kaye, Amaury Nolasco, Elizabeth Gillies, Jeremy Sumpter, Keke Palmer, Parker Young, & Paul Iacono

Synopsis: When a group of friends plans for an outdoor adventure go awry, they are left stranded in a remote woods with a hungry predator on the prowl.

Being produced by Chiller, I didn't expect much from this movie. And somehow, I think my low expectations are what lead me to be so impressed by the movie. Animal is not Oscar-worthy, obviously, but it does have some good moments that actually made me jump. Therefore, it's okay in my book. Don't mistake me, though, there is a lot wrong with this movie... like a lot! For starters, the monster, animal thing; at about twenty minutes in we get a crystal clear view of the animal.And I, for one, like there to be a little more mystery to a monster when it comes to monster movies. Anyways, this first viewing almost seems like a blip, though, because throughout the rest of the movie the animal is shown only in shadow, or slightly hidden behind a door or something of the sort. He is never shown fully, again, until the end of the film. My gripe is: why did they show him in full at the beginning of the film and then spend the rest of the film trying to hide him? I would've preferred that we see only glimpses of the animal throughout the film and then in the end, get a full view of him, but alas I am merely a reviewer. Also, after seeing how massive and muscular the animal looks, we are supposed to believe that he can't break into cabin windows that sparsely boarded up with flimsy wooden planks? Sure, but here we are viewing the animal struggle with their boarded up barricades, and yet, later he breaks through them like nothing! Yeah, okay screenwriters. There is also misguided logic, that I'm not quite sure if it's meant to throw us off or show how intelligent the animal is. Carl (Thorsten Kaye) says that he believes the animal loses energy after feeding, but later we see the animal feed and then attack right after. So, was that logic just a red herring? Or was it to prove that the animal knew how to manipulate the group into thinking that they understood it's habits? Who knows! Whatever! Moving on. The thing I appreciated most, and was impressed by most in this movie is that the characters aren't overtly stupid. Yes, this is a cliché cabin-in-the-woods movie, but the characters aren't clichéd. For the most part they all make logical, sound decisions for the survival of the group and rarely stray into idiot territory. There are only a few hiccups in their plans and logic, but they can all be mostly overlooked. There are also some profound moments of realization for some of the characters such as when Sean (Paul Iacono), after having a close call with the animal, admits to Mandy (Elizabeth Gillies) and Alissa (Keke Palmer) that there are secrets he has kept that he doesn't want to die with. I though that moment was a true moment of poignancy and human awareness in the face of death that I wish would have been more prominent throughout the film. I mean since we saw the animal in the beginning, the focus shouldn't have been on the animal at all, but rather the struggle this group of friends face knowing there is inevitable death ahead of them.

All in all, the movie wasn't fantastic, but for being a Chiller movie I was impressed. There were a lot of areas where it could have been improved, but I liked it anyway. And the production is solid. The animal looks realistic and not heavily CGI"d, which I'm sure it was but you can't tell. The actors did good. It's not a horrible movie,

Would I watch it again, though? Probably not.