I am a self proclaimed cinephile with an extreme love for horror films and movie musicals. Though I also enjoy other genres like: comedy, adventure, action, rom-com (sometimes), documentary, Disney, and any other genre you can think of. Basically, I'll watch anything and then I'll talk about it on this here blog. I hope you enjoy what I have to say! And if not, that's cool too.
Director: Richard Bates Jr. Cast: Matthew Gray Gubler & Kat Dennings Synopsis: Raymond (Matthew Gray Gubler), a man with a prestigious MBA degree, struggles to find work so is forced to move back in with his parents. Back in his hometown he meets Becca (Kat Dennings) and they enter a world of paranormal weirdness together.
I'm conflicted about this film. While it had me laughing non-stop when it ended I still felt unsatisfied with the story. I think I just had really high expectations, that honestly, probably could never have been met. For the most part, though, I enjoyed Suburban Gothic.
So this is a horror comedy, which might be one of my favorites of the horror sub-genre's. This film in particular employs that kind of hipster, witty, clever quip type humor with some fun-poking at stereotypes. That might be off putting to some viewers, but I didn't have much of a problem with it, especially since the one making most of the stereotype judgments was coming from a man who everyone called a dick. Anyways, what makes me laugh the most in the film is Raymond's over the top, excessive reactions to the supernatural incidents. He has this childlike, pterodactyl squeal that is the perfect response to the paranormal. Matthew Gray Gubler's portrayal of Raymond and demeanor of a real life hipster (is it a portrayal? he might have not been acting in this) is spot on and hilariously made fun of by everyone in his small town, most notably his "European" style of dress. And all the dialogue between him and his father might be some of the most deadpan sarcasm I've heard in a good while. Plus I'd like to add that Matthew Gray Gubler is so gorgeous in a quirky way, I love him. Kat Dennings as Becca is wonderful as well. Her deadpan delivery of everything she says is something to admire and what makes her character so lovable/unpleasant.
The direction that Suburban Gothic has by the hand of Richard Bates Jr. is fantastically bizarre. There are all these strange surreal elements such as toenails dancing to a nice piano song. Yeah, it gets that kind of weird. Additionally, all of the moments that involve a ghost or spirit have a strange dreamlike quality with floating heads, stripteasing zombies, and a weird allusion to ghostly ejaculation. All of these peculiar details displayed make for a movie that is truly outlandish. Plus the way everything seems to be shot through with a high saturation filter adds to the overall dreamlike, kind of Burton-esque aura of the film.
Like I said before, I laughed tons throughout Suburban Gothic but I was still left wanting something more. I think the movie just got so tied up in it's own desire to be this bizarre, indie, horror-comedy that there wasn't enough effort and/or focus on the ghost story at hand. But, n the end, it was still good. Did I love it? Not at all. Would I watch it again? Hell yes, if not for Matthew Gray Gubler, then for the immense laughs!
Director: Juan Solanas Cast: Jim Sturgess & Kirsten Dunst Synopsis: Adam (Jim Sturgess) and Eden (Kirsten Dunst) fell in love as teens despite each being from adjacent worlds,both with their own gravitational pull, and now must forge a way for them to be together.
Ohmysatan! Upside Down had such promise and failed miserably. I wanted to like it so fervently and I've waited forever to see it and it was just a huge disappointment. Perhaps I hyped it up too much and that's why I feel so disgruntled with it, but this is still an undoubtedly boring and confusing movie.
It starts off really good with a nice prologue that explains the physics and the basic rules of the two adjacent worlds, which are: 1) All matter is affected by the gravity of it's home planet, and not the other. 2) Anything of matter can offset it's gravitational pull with matter from the opposite world, known as inverse matter. 3) Prolonged (after an hour, I believe) exposure between matter and inverse matter causes the inverse matter to catch fire. This is an interesting concept, though slightly confusing as I had to keep going back to the beginning to relearn the rules.(More on my confusion later) Anyways, after the prologue, things just start to go downhill from there. Yup, after the first few minutes the movie just plummets and never climaxes. The first thing that bothered me: Adam and Eden's childhood romance. What was the point? Them falling in love as teens didn't propel the movie forward, only slightly, but it could've just as easily started from when they are already in their late twenties and there would've have been any effect on the rest of the movie. I just didn't understand it, and the whole amnesia bit was just as unnecessary. It literally wasn't even an obstacle in their budding relationship. Again, that could've been scrapped during the screenplay editing and the final product would have been better for it and a lot fucking shorter in running time. Upside Down is a two hours long, TWO HOURS!! And what it boils down to, without the marvelous setting (I'll get to the setting later) and interesting concept, is another boring star-crossed lovers tale that isn't at all interesting in the slightest and undeserving of the two hour long run time. In addition to the romeo-and-juliet style romance, there's a subplot regarding magical pink bees who gather pollen from both worlds. Adam uses (what does he use? I have no idea. Is it the pollen? The honey? The bees themselves?) some component of the pink bees to mix together an anti-aging cream. This actually seems like the main plot for the film because there is so much time spent and focus on it, except the cream never comes to fruition and then it's simply dropped. Like what? Again, what was the point of bringing this into the story if it serves no purpose? And the ending is absolutely ridiculous. All of the "obstacles" that our characters face aren't resolved until the last six minutes. Yes you saw that right: the last six minutes! And they're all resolved by divine destiny or happenstance or whatever you wanna call it, either way it's silly. It's as though the writers realized that the movie was going to run too long so decided to just slap some random ending on to tie up loose ends. That's bad writing in the flesh, my friends. Okay, back to my confusion regarding the rules. The first rule I don't have a problem with, I understand it completely: you can only be pulled by the gravity of your own planet and never the other. Got it! It's the other two rules that kept confusing me. When it says matter I assumed it meant matter as in anything that has mass and takes up space (Physics, y'all!), but that doesn't seem to be the definition that Upside Down uses. I've come to this conclusion due to a few occurrences throughout the film that don't follow the last two rules. One thing that confused me is a scene where people from Up Above (the two worlds are titled Up Above and Down Below, how original!) are drinking liquid presumably from down below as they appear to be floating due to being pulled by it's home planet's gravity. So if this is true, why does the liquid not burn up inside of them? Wouldn't the liquid be inverse matter since it is from the other planet? It takes a couple hours for liquids to pass through the body, so it would be dangerous to drink anything from the opposite planet, right? And that's just one thing, there are plenty others but to talk about them I would basically have to describe the entire movie and I just don't have time for that nor do I want to. Then, as a child of science, I simply couldn't wrap my head around the idea that a planet would have such a weak gravitational pull that it didn't affect a plane that is maybe a mile away from another planet, yet be strong enough to hold people on it so that they can't be influenced by the other planet. Because of these confusions and failure to understand the physics and rules of these planets I spent a lot of time trying to sort out and make sense of everything instead of actually watching the movie.
The only saving grace of Upside Down is the magical setting. The CGI and special effects work on this movie is phenomenal. The way the movie is shown through blue hued filters gives it a crisp and wondrous feel. The expansiveness felt with the use of wide range shots of the shared sky was beautiful and grand. There was a lot of effort put into the magnificence of these twin worlds which may be the downfall: there was little to no effort put into the story and the development of the characters. At the end of the movie I didn't care if Adam and Eden ended up together or not because I never really got to know them. And also because their story is boring. This is a setting that demanded a grand, extraordinary tale to go along with it... a tale that wasn't delivered. *Sigh* You know I read that Juan Solanas' inspiration for the movie was the unequal relationship between North America and South America, and that idea is present as Up Above is host to the upper class people while those from Down Below are in poverty. I would've much rather watched a movie about a revolution of the Down Below people fighting for a way to be a part of the Up Above world, or to be just as well off. That would have been infinitely more interesting than the story that is delivered and not to mention more deserving of the wondrous setting and running time. Also let me just say that the performances by both Kirsten Dunst and Jim Sturgess were not their best performances. I respect both actors and tend to like them in their other films, but this just felt like they were only sort of trying to do a decent job.
Finally, this movie is all about the looks. It is pure eye candy for any one who loves films with luxurious, well-crafted settings, but its also boring clichéd nonsense for anyone who wants a deep meaningful story. Would I watch this again? No, plain and simple.
Directors: Justin Benson & Aaron Moorhead Cast: Lou Taylor Pucci & Nadia Hilker Synopsis: After losing his mother, Evan (Lou Taylor Pucci) goes to Italy to relieve himself of his grief and while there he enters a whirlwind romance with the mysterious, closed-off Louise (Nadia Hilker).
I really wanted to like Spring. I had heard so many great things about this film from fellow cinephiles, so when I finally saw it available on Amazon Prime video I was pumped! And for the most part I do enjoy the film. It's original and creative with a strange blend of sci-fi and romance. I'm not too keen on the romance aspect, which is where my disappointment lies. Let me first tell you what I admire about Spring. Spring has the most creative, original story I've seen in quite some time. I can't discuss too much about the plot, because it would take away the surprise and awe of this amazing film and I won't deprive you of that. But I will say that it is amazing, though it is more of a romance than it is a sci-fi horror. Walking into (figuratively walking, as I watched this movie in the comfort of my room) this film I was expecting something with a bigger horror bite and a small romance nibble, hopefully significantly less romance. I was wrong, but I still watched and I was enamored. The setting is beautiful. It's filmed in Italy, and the gorgeous, easy-going atmosphere present really allows the film to blossom in a whirlwind of wonder and horrific fantasy. The aerial shots of crisp blue waters of the nearby beach are stunning, ominous, and always mirror what is happening in the story. When the water is calm and in it's most beautiful hues of blue, Evan and Louise are compatible and loving towards one another and Louise is stable: when the waters are choppy and angry, Evan and Louise are fighting and Louise is losing control. It's a wonderful parallel that the director's chose to utilize. In addition to the shots of the ocean, there are other shots of the beautiful scenery that Italy has to offer, especially the farm that Evan begins working on, including vivid close-ups of insects and bugs. These are important as there is a lot of discussion about nature and it's evolutionary timeline and how everything is connected. And on top of the evolution of nature, there is real conversation about religion and it's relationship with science, a conversation that doesn't disqualify or attempt to trivialize either subject but to marry them together. It's an intriguing mix, one that I have always been interested in. The acting is good. Lou Taylor Pucci is an adorable guy and his performance of Evan, a grief-stricken, romantic who wants desperately to understand Louise and win over her affection is believable. Nadia Hilker is gorgeous and has this air of dignified grace about her, even when she is being elusive and strays away from Evan's adoration. Her conviction to herself and to keeping her secrets is what sends Evan over the edge which in turn leads to Louise finally revealing her secrets. Their compatibility seems strange, but believable as part of the whole opposites attract theory.
What I didn't like: the romance which in turn ruins the ending for me. You, know I don't mind the falling in love aspect like some IMDb members who are dumbfounded at how a woman with Louise's level of intellect would fall in love with a guy like Evan, who is dumb (not really, but he's not book smart like Louise). I can understand that, Evan is charming and silly and a balance to Louise's strict allegiance to science and religion explaining her mysterious life. The thing I have a problem with is that I truly really wanted to see the alternate to Louise's ultimate decision and that I didn't want to see the happily ever after Disney ending. I wanted to see a truly fantastical ending to a truly fantastic film, but was instead delivered a clichéd, typical ending that is a little sloppily explained in my opinion. I just wasn't into it, though I know some people will enjoy it.
Spring is amazing and awe-inspiring. It's genuinely an original concept, though I could be wrong. If you know of another movie that is similar to Spring but maybe with a better ending, let me know! But I did enjoy Spring and would still recommend anyone who hasn't seen it to see it. It's a different kind of love story that has most likely never been told before. Would I watch it again? Definitely!!
Director: Jonathan Glazer Main Cast: Scarlett Johansson Synopsis: An unnamed woman (Scarlett Johansson) preys on men in the streets of Scotland but soon begins to understand what it means to be human.
Under The Skin is not a film for everyone. There is no plot, little to no dialogue, and if focuses on one character for the entirety of the film. With that being said, I enjoyed this film. It had it's moments where I was a little bored, because, let's be honest, it's an hour and forty-five minutes of nothing happening and no answer-giving to any of the numerous questions that you will undoubtedly develop while watching. But that doesn't render it a bad film. In fact, what I most respect about this film is how it studies and showcases human behavior from the perspective of an outsider (i.e. an alien). In it's entirety, it is the study of humanity and how we place so much effort and value on the superficial rather than the internal and what effects that has on the choices that we make. Or, at least, that's the takeaway I got from it. Oh, before I forget, Under the Skin is based on a book of the same name written by Michel Faber, and apparently the screen-writers didn't stay true to the content of the story. I have yet to read the book, so I can't make any comparisons. Okay, onward we go.
There is a real juxtaposition in Scarlett Johansson's character (which I will refer to as The Woman from this point forward) that is both charming and unsettling. She is much like a child being exposed to the world for the first time: she is curious and amazed but also weary and just unaware of human customs and civilities. Yet, naive as she is, she is a calculated predator as well, intent on luring men to their demise. It's a strange mix, and Scarlett Johansson pulls it off well. Though The Woman doesn't speak much, all the acting is within the mannerisms and facial expressions. Her movements are jerky as she learns to host this new human body and her face is sculpted into forced polite expressions but usually remains completely blank as though she feels and sees nothing. It's just bizarre to see her feign kindness and friendly conversation while deciding whether or not this man will be her next victim. And there are so many scenes that showcase this complete lack of empathy and human connection, it's perfect. Adding to that, The Woman displays a slow arc from her apathetic disposition to become more human with a range of emotions such as love(?) and empathy, but it is a painstakingly slow arc as we watch her do some heartless things in the beginning, like a certain scene with a baby.
Since there is little dialogue, the dark atmospheric tone the movie builds relies heavily on the score. And let me tell you, the score is absolutely fantastic! It's soft, eerie and otherworldly. Take a listen:
I listened to this song in particular about a thousand times in one day, it's just that good! And, like I said, it's truly what creates the aura of extraterrestrialism (that's my new cool word, spread it around darlings) that is ever present in this film.
Now, the cinematography. The director and the cinematographer did an absolutely brilliant job at manifesting such strange, horrific beauty through gorgeous shots of lush countryside juxtaposed with shots of an industrial Scotland city that mirrors the polarized nature of The Woman. Not only the setting, but the scenes of the men's deaths are creative and like nothing I've ever seen. The originality that is present is priceless; with alien movies you can always expect to see similar things like a large beam of white light, but not with this one. And what I love most about the death scenes, or the whole movie actually, is the simplicity of it. The lack of embellishments is refreshing and I just fucking love it. But just because it's simple doesn't mean it's not effective; I was genuinely intrigued and entranced by the bizarre beauty of it. What I also love about the directing is the immense symbolism that is shown through certain scenes that I really like such as the cake scene. There is a scene where The Woman is about the eat a slice of delicious-looking chocolate cake but as she begins to chew it she realizes that it's actually disgusting and so spits it out: this scene shows how we, humans, gauge the quality of things on the superficial aspects of it rather than what it actually has to offer. It's an interesting scene, one that many people (according to IMDb) think is pointless, but I think it's necessary in The Woman's slow transition from non-human to human.
Now onto components that I didn't like about Under The Skin.!!! Spoiler Alert !!! (Not sure if any of the following are actually spoilers, but just in case, you know?) One, there are so many unanswered questions. I'm all for ambiguity in movies and symbolism as they allow the viewer to have discussion and debates about what they mean— like if you don't agree with my symbolism of the cake scene tell me let's have a discussion about it—, but there are events and elements presented that are never explained which need to be. Example: the motorcycle men (as I like to call them), who are they? Are they aliens as well? Or are they just people who help The Woman? I don't know and I doubt we'll ever find out, unless they are explained in the book in which case I will find out when I read it. Two, we see as the second man descends into The Woman's viscous, dark liquid chamber that the first man's meat is literally sucked out of his skin and is then sent down a conveyor belt of sorts into a slit of red light, but what for what purpose? It is never said or shown what the purpose of the human meat is for. Do The Woman's alien species eat it? Is it for fuel? Is it to create offspring? I have no clue, but this leads me to the third thing I don't like. Three, why men? Why does The Woman only lure men into her trap? I guess you an go by the logic that only men can be seduced by her, but that is flimsy logic as there are lesbians in the world. And why does she have to seduce them anyway? The Woman could just as easily pick up a woman off the street with the pretense that it's unsafe for a woman to walk home alone at night, or even a child. (I'm not promoting child/woman abduction, but for the realm of the movie it could have been done) Also, it seems like there is some kind of thought process in deciding who she will kill, so what is the criteria the men must fit in order to be picked? Four, the ending. The entirety of the film is muted, subdued, and metaphorical but the ending is so tangible which makes it seem displaced. And I know it's to show the ultimate cruelty of humanity as The Woman finally finds empathy and love(?), but still it doesn't sit well with the rest of the film.
Overall I like the film despite all of it's unanswered questions and the elements that I didn't like. It's weird, original, and a definite slow-burner and a slow-dissolver, which you know (if you've been reading my other reviews) I really love. It's definitely slow and not something a lot of people will like or appreciate. But if you're a person who likes a movie that makes you think and ponder your own possession or lack of humanity. Would I watch it again? Yes, definitely!
Director: Stuart Murdoch Main Cast: Emily Browning, Olly Alexander, & Hannah Murray Synopsis: Eve (Emily Browning), a girl with emotional problems, begins writing songs in order to help her cope and meets two other musicians in the process with problems of their own.
Let me first explain that the director and writer of this film is Stuart Murdoch, the singer and songwriter of the indie-pop band Belle and Sebastian. The songs used in this film is from his side project God Help the Girl. This is his first attempt at writing and directing a film and it is very apparent. That doesn't mean it's not good, it's just not as polished and well put together as it could have been. There is a very flimsy plot in which the story flows, it's almost non-existent. I mean, it's there but isn't necessarily what drives the story along, because it almost seems lost in the middle of the movie or muddled rather. I thought, and what seems apparent at the beginning, is that Eve is trying to start a band while also dealing with some deep-rooted emotional problems. But then, towards the middle that's not really what the movie becomes about. I don't know, it's just kind of disjointed in the way that it's written, but still I applaud the effort. Another things that bothers me a bit is the weird timeline, like I'm not sure whether the timeline of the story is over the course of a few days, a few weeks, or a few months. It's just never stated and that bothers me because I can't tell if the drama between the characters is justified because they've spent so much time together and have become s involved in each other's lives, or if they all rushed into a strange relationship with each other and are now suffering the consequences of becoming so emotionally involved over such a short period of time. It's disarming. And because of such a flimsy plot, the musical numbers seem out of place and disjointed. The reason musical movies work is because the music expands upon an already strong story, but here, in God Help the Girl, it's obvious that the songs weren't written in the context for a musical but rather as just a concept album. While, yes, the songs tell the story of a girl and her band of misfits, the actual movie relays no cohesiveness due to lack of fully fleshed out ideas and concepts. Really, this movie is like a bunch of music videos being strung together by quirky dialogue and random characters that never play a real part of the story. But none of this excludes the greatness that this film has to offer.
What I love about this movie is the very real chemistry between the characters. Eve, James (Olly Alexander), and Cassie (Hannah Murray) are all indie hipster type kids who find comfort in each other as they navigate this new terrain known as adulthood. They fit well together. James is an over-thinker, Eve is a realist, and Cassie is a dreamer: they all balance each other out. And all of their weird adventures and discussions about musicianship and creating great pop songs are spot on while also slightly distorted. Their whole relationship is genuine and authentic. And as far as the acting, it's wonderful. Olly Alexander fits James' character so well. James' dialogue and ideas are so interesting and yet seem like they could just as easily be the way Olly feels about music, his portrayal is just that effortless. Hannah Murray as Cassie is quirky and silly and slightly aloof, which is supposedly similar to her character in Skins (I wouldn't know as I've never watched the series), but, as with Olly, she pulls it off so effortlessly that it seems she is not even acting. And then Emily Browning... ♥ I have such a huge crush on Emily Browning and I think she's an amazing actress. And in this movie, she is just extraordinary. She's very subdued but driven to make a great pop album, but also to cure herself of her emotional distress. But what I love most about the characters and story is Eve's total rejection of being James' manic pixie dream girl: she has all the qualities and that's what James wants from her but she wants nothing of it and I love that. The cinematography of the whole thing has the quality of a Beatles film. It's got that vintage vibe with that soft, fuzziness of older movies that I really appreciate. Last but not least, the songs. While the songs are disjointed with the overall story of the movie, they truly are great contemporary pop songs and I love them. I couldn't tell you how many times I listened to the soundtrack after viewing the film (I watched this way back in August). I mean it was on repeat for days and days and days. I love it that much.
God Help the Girl is a fun movie filled with wonderful songs. Is it something you should watch if you want a great musical with a great story? No, definitely not. The story isn't really there, but it's shot wonderfully and has wonderful acting within. I've watched it multiple times since the first viewing and I've gotten over the flimsy plot line, though I know that is something that most people can't get over. Do I recommend it? Yes, but take that recommendation with a grain of salt. Don't expect brilliance. Would I watch it again? Uhh, yeah I just told you I've watched it again since the first viewing. Go ahead, give it a watch, see what you think of it.
Director: Trevor Matthews Main Cast: Ali Cobrin, Adam DiMarco & Slaine Synopsis: Kylie Atkins (Ali Cobrin), a young college student struggling to pay tuition, moves into a house with 24/7 cameras that stream content to an x-rated website, but an obsessed subscriber (Slaine) with a hacking know-how is about to terrorize these girls in a bloody killing spree.
I am pleasantly surprised with Girl House. It's not innovative, but it is a nice modern take on the slasher flick. Basically, Girl House is a house that has cameras all around the property in order to film the girls every minute of every day for a loyal fanbase of thousands to watch. It is not required that the girls do anything of sexual nature on camera, but it is suggested. The website is supposedly the "Fort Knox of websites" and the location of the home is kept secret in order to protect the girls. Though we all know no place, virtual or real, can be one hundred percent protected. I like the set-up: the idea of an adult site being the victim of a deranged killer is interesting and new. There's this creepy notion of always being watched that is rather unsettling. I fully appreciate that strange element, that the people who've been watching the girls have sex and masturbate are now witnessing the most personal of all things, their deaths. Really fucking cool!
The acting is awesome. All the girls in the house, including Kylie are likeable. Of course, they are all attractive and scantily clad for the majority of the running time, but that doesn't take away from this familial, comfortable environment that is ever-present in the house. Sure, some of the girls think of others as competition, but ultimately they all share a home together and get along. They all bring their own charisma to the group and are believable as real young women of the 21st century. And you have no idea how much I admire that, that they are so relatable and genuine and that is the work of great writing and great acting. Superb! Ali Cobrin, the star of the movie and Girl House, is wonderful as a shy newcomer trying to find her way and become uninhibited. And she's particularily awesome as she comes face to face with the obsessed subscriber who goes by the user name of Loverboy. Slaine as Loverboy is the epitome of a man who is socially awkward with women, which is why he's turned to Girl House for virtual companionship. And as a deranged killer he is brutal in his murdering methods and it is amazingly painful to watch! Then there's Adam DiMarco as Ben Stanley, Kylie's boyfriend. He is believable in his desperate attempt to help Kylie and the girls fight off Loverboy. All around, the acting is A+.
What I also really appreciate about Girl House is that the killings don't start until about an hour into the movie. Well actually there is one kill scene within the first fifteen minutes that show where Loverboy's seed of wariness towards women and his birth as a cold-blooded killer. But other than that, we don't see another kill until the seventy minute mark. I really freaking like that! This allows for an actual story to be told and some character development, which is rarely demonstrated in slasher flicks, so I am very appreciative of this! Props to the writers, once again! And while it does take some time for the movie to pick up pace, as for the first hour it's just set up, when it finally does get to the killings it's amazing. They are gruesome and gory and vengeful and complete overkill for the most part. Loverboy was letting some real aggression out on these girls, but Kylie is much stronger and smarter than he is.
Overall, the movie is great. Is it the most fantastic thing to grace the screen? No, but as a slasher movie, it doesn't need to be. It has great production, despite it's small budget and it's well written and acted. And while I do know that some people may not be as impressed with the developing first hour of the movie, because most slasher fans just want to see blood, but trust me the killings are worth it. And if you don't want to see all the character development and story-telling of the first hour, just fast-forward it to the good parts! Haha. Would I watch this again? Hell yes, I would!
Director: Michael Dowse Main Cast: Daniel Radcliffe & Zoe Kazan Synopsis: Wallace (Daniel Radcliffe), a man fumbling through life, begins to fall for Chantry (Zoe Kazan) whom is in a committed relationship.
Oh look at that, another movie starring Daniel Radcliffe. Can you really fault me for loving him? I hope not! Anyways, so you know that I'm not a huge fan of rom-coms, they're sappy and predictable and this movie is no different. But I actually found myself liking it. I think it's mostly due to the quirky, off-beat, humorous dialogue throughout that truly made me laugh and appreciate this movie.
So let me get the obvious things out of the way: This is 100% predictable. Of course Wallace and Chantry are going to fall in love. Of course there are going to be rough patches that make you think otherwise, though you know in your heart that they will end up together. And while the skeleton of the story is rather formulaic, it is the meat and flesh that really allow the story to be unique and likeable. Daniel Radcliffe as Wallace is meekly charming, he is confident yet unassertive which makes him totally adorable. Zoe Kazan as Chantry is confident and excessively sure of her relationship with her boyfriend (or is she?). And their friendship is one to admire. Together they have this steady, back-and-forth banter that is amusing and showcases how they're quite compatible with one another. And the way each actor can so effortlessly deliver theses playful lines without it seeming forced and sound genuine shows their acting chops. Applause applause! Also the secondary characters deliver good lines as well and really drive Wallace and Chantry to their separate realizations that they do want to be romantically involved and not just friends. Something else that I admire about What If is that there is real character development for both characters. They are not just people drawn up for a movie, they are real people with realistic struggles and ambitions and lives. I see them existing outside of the movie and that's rare with the typical rom-com characters. That is the display of fantastic writing, so congrats writers! Another display of great writing is how all the characters are likeable. There is not one character who I don't like. Even Chantry's boyfriend, who according to other rom-coms, should be a douche-bag who doesn't deserve her yet he's not. He's a good guy and everybody knows it, which is the conflict here. Both Chantry and Wallace realize that Ben (Rafe Spall) is a wonderful guy and doesn't deserve anything bad such as Chantry breaking up with him or Wallace wedging himself into their relationship. And I like that. Oh, and I forgot, there are all these cute little animations that are used throughout the movie that Chantry's character created (she's an animator) and I just like that animation mixed with real life aspect. Fun!
In conclusion, I like What If. It was fun and quirky and cute. They're not your usual couple and I like them for it. It's predictable but worth watching and it poses some good questions about love and relationships like: can women and men be friends without developing feelings? Or how can you balance relationships and careers in a way that works? Or is it ever okay to break up a relationship, especially if a person in said relationship is your soulmate? How do you handle finding the right person at the wrong time? They're not philosophical, answers to life and the universe questions but they're relevant to our time and people in general. Would I watch this again? Yes, I would!
Director: James Watkins Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Ciarán Hinds, & Janet McTeer Synopsis: Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe), a young lawyer and widower, travels to a remote village to go over the documentation of a deceased local, Mrs. Drablow, in her home the Eel Marsh house. While there he discovers something strange happening to the children in the village all leading back to the Eel Marsh house.
I realize that this is an older movie, but I plan on watching the sequel soon so I thought I'd tell you what I think of the first one before I tell you about how I feel on the second one. Anyways, I'm a bit conflicted with this movie. There are definitely some elements that I appreciate about it, but there are also things that I don't like which lead me to not care too much for the movie. Though I'm still kind of on the fence about it.
Let me start with the things I liked. It's an old fashioned ghost story. There aren't too many bells and whistles needed to pull off the horror of it. It's simple, with a intriguing story that needs solving: children of the village are committing suicide— the locals have an inkling why they do it, but Arthur Kipps needs some convincing— and someone must do something in order to stop it. It's straightforward enough and it pulls you in with the very first scene in which three young girls are playing and then suddenly get up and jump out a window to their death, and as the camera pans out you can just see the silhouette of a woman in black. It' the perfect opening scene; it's chilling and let's you know of the terror that is to come. The Edwardian Era time period is something I absolutely love and lends itself to the overall creepiness of the film: there's no cellphones, and due to the age of the house, there's no electric lighting, and transportation is still horse and carriage though Ciarán Hinds character does own a car. It just has this old-timey feel that works well with ghost stories. Adding to the time period, the remote village is too a good tool in crafting an aura of creepiness as the villagers are wary of outsiders and make it known that Arthur is not wanted there. Plus the acting is superb. Daniel Radcliffe is awesome and I love him in this film. He does well as a single father and as a perturbed man trying to solve this paranormal mystery that he finds himself entangled in. Ciarán Hinds as Sam Daily is wonderful and somber. He is the only kind person Arthur Kipp meets in the village and the only person willing to help Arthur in his quest to stop the woman in black from killing more children. And Janet McTeer as Elizabeth Daily, Sam Daily's aloof wife is wonderful as well though she doesn't receive much screen time. She also aides Arthur in his quest.
Now things that I didn't like. Which there aren't a lot of things that I don't like, but for me they're big things that bring down the effect of the movie. For one thing, the woman in black. We see too much of her. And y'all know how I feel about seeing the monster/ghost/alien/whatever too much in a film; they lose their scare factor. And for a while I was okay with her constant appearances, because I thought "oh well they're not showing her face, it's covered by a veil, so maybe her face will be horrific when it's finally revealed", but no it's just the pale face of a woman. And honestly, she's really not even shown that much, but there's just no payoff when we finally see her entirely, so I think that's what annoys me the most. In line with that, The Woman in Black isn't as scary as I would like it to be. I realize that it's a PG-13 movie, so there can't be too many terrifying things within it, but even so it's just not scary. While I like the setting and time period and the acting, there was never a real fearful aura about the movie. It has creepy, eerie elements but it just never went into that truly terrifying territory that I wished it would have. And the ending wasn't satisfying in the least, and it also feels kid of rushed. I mean after about seventy-five minutes of buildup, there is only fifteen minutes left to tie up the movie and it was laced up poorly. There are too many things that happen and it's all kind of thrown at you. When it ended I was just kind of like "oh, okay. I guess..." like it's not note-worthy or anything.
Overall, I still can't decide if I like The Woman in Black or not. It's got pieces that I really love an appreciate, but it just wasn't as scary as I wished it to be. Would I watch it again? Yeah. probably but not out of a desire to be scared, rather a desire to see Daniel Radcliffe...
