"Jinn" (2014) Be Prepared for Absurdity

The Trailer:

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!

"Resolution" (2013) Not What You Expect

The Trailer:


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!

"The Equalizer" (2014) Doling Out Justice Like a Boss

The Trailer:


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.

"The Lazarus Effect" (2015) Bring This Movie Back From The Dead...

The Trailer:


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.

"The Haunting in Connecticut 2: Ghosts of Georgia" (2013) Ghosts, Ghosts Everywhere!

The Trailer:



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.

"Let Us Prey" (2014) To Pray or To Prey, That is the Question

The Trailer:

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!

"How I Live Now" (2013) But How Did You Live Before?

The Trailer:

Director: Kevin Macdonald

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! 

"The Look of Love" (2013) It Appears So, But Only on The Surface

The Trailer:

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.

"Big Eyes" (2014) Big Eyes But Small Heart

The Trailer:

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.

"A Necessary Death" (2008) Necessary But is it Moral?

The Trailer:

Director: Daniel Stamm

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. 

"Cloned: The Recreator Chronicles" (2012) Cookie Cutter or Just a Clone?

The Trailer:

Director: Gregory Orr

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. 

"The Nightmare" (2015) A Nightmare That Never Ends

The Trailer:

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.

"This Must Be The Place" (2011) Where Something is Wrong, I Don't Know What

Trailer:

Director: Paolo Sorrentino

Cast: Sean Penn

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! 

"Beneath"(2013) Diamonds Require Some Pressure

The Trailer:

Director: Ben Ketai
Cast: Kelly Noonan, Joey Kern & Jeff Fahey

Synopsis: Samantha (Kelly Noonan), a New York environmental lawyer, decides to descend into the coal mines with her father (Jeff Fahey) and his crew on his last day before retirement where they become trapped after a collapse.

A+ for effort. Beneath isn't a new or particularly original concept. A group of people get trapped underground and now must find their way out. Sounds familiar, right? Well that's because there are so many movies with the same plot that it almost seems like a waste to watch yet another one. But alas, I watched and was impressed.

Because of the underground, crevice-like tunnel environment, there is a claustrophobic feel that is the foundation for the fear that is later built upon. The first moment I admired—and realized that from this point on this is going to different, though I don't know how I knew— is that upon entering the tunnels for the first time Samantha looks behind her at the morning peak of sunlight and Randy (Joey Kern), a crew member and ex-boyfriend, tells her "Say goodbye to the daylight". That line right there is what births this strange anxiety and worry that somehow she might not see the daylight ever again. To add to that newly born fear, a different crew member giving Samantha a tour of the mines mentions that a strange creaking noise is the sound of the mountain pressing down around them, an unspoken reminder that the tunnels could collapse at any moment. A truly great way to build up the tension and anxiety in our protagonist and us, the viewers.

The acting is nothing extraordinary, but it is believable. The dynamic between the crew members a prime example: they all shit-talk each other, but it's clear through their actions that they truly care for one another and would risk their lives for each other.I can only assume that this is the relationship between any group of people who willingly go into a dangerous situation together. Anyways, as I mentioned, it isn't great acting though. One actor in particular made me laugh at his forced, unbelievable screams of anguish. He was just kind of like "oh god, someone help me", I just cracked up. But other than that, collectively, their panic and and anxiety over what is happening to them is all believable. The moment when they're all yelling and wanting to blame one another seems plausible in this high-anxiety situation. This discourse is really what rooted Beneath into a likely reality.

What I also think is a smart choice on the writer's part is that they utilized what we know from all the trapped-underground movies we've seen before. They realize that their movie is not a new concept and use the common tropes in those movies to further confuse us. The face-distortion and the urban legend tale of miners who went missing in these same mines years earlier and the fact that now everyone seems to gain this "every man for himself mentality" muddles what we think is happening and what is actually happening. For me, I was constantly trying to figure out what was true and what was fantasy. And while I did have an idea of what was going (which turned out to be correct) I was still just as impressed by this tool that the writers exercised. This simple and brilliantly executed strategy raised this movie to a slightly higher level of sophistication.

While Beneath did have some downfalls —that I chose not to mention, because I truly believe that it's high marks should be highlighted— it is a decent horror movie that deserves a watch. I would certainly watch it again.