"Behind The Candelabra" (2014) Of Opulence and Love

The Trailer:

Director: Steven Soderbergh
Cast: Michael Douglas, & Matt Damon
Plot Summary: The tumultuous relationship between Liberace (Michael Douglas) and the young Scott Thorson (Matt Damon) is recounted in this biopic.

Okay, so I'm not very familiar with Liberace's work. I wasn't alive during his lifetime and the only things I knew about him prior to watching this film was that he was an opulent, extravagant, over-the-top, closeted gay man with lots of wavy hair (Mister Sandman lyrics, y'all). But other than that I knew nothing. And this film, while not an entire record of his life or career, I suppose helped me understand him a little more.

The fact that the film focuses little on Liberace's career may be disappointing to some, but since it is based on Scott Thorsons tell-all book, which details their relationship, I don't mind that there's no details about his career and/or stage presence. Behind The Candelabra is a film that highlights what being gay was for a celebrity in those days; always in fear that someone was going to find out. It's also a cautionary tale about what money, fame, and drugs can do to a person and their relationships with others. But mostly it is a tragic love story between a man who wanted the love of millions and a man who only wanted the love of one. From the moment the film started I could see heartbreak written all over it, mostly for Scott. Liberace, as shown in this film, was a playboy; he wanted new young things and didn't mind getting rid of an old fling to do so. It was sad to see Scott drawn into Liberace's opulent lifestyle, knowing that it wouldn't last. That's the heart of the story: how Scott, a young, inexperienced, man was brought into a world where love was promised only to receive a man who didn't know how to love. I felt every emotion along with him. I was bedazzled in the beginning when he first encountered Liberace. I was swooning when Liberace was trying to woo Scott. I was disgusted when Liberace began to physically alter Scott's appearance through plastic surgery .I was angry when Liberace began to pull away from Scott. I was heartbroken when their relationship was over. It's an emotional roller-coaster, this film, but I loved every minute of it.

The acting throughout the film is phenomenal. Matt Damon and Michael Douglass are perfection together. It's hard with any on-screen couple to display authentic chemistry, but Matt Damon and Michael Douglass, both acting with such conviction and dedication, make it look so effortless. It's easy to imagine them as a real couple despite their age difference and the fact that neither of them are attracted to men in real life. And though Michael Douglass is the brightest star in the film, Matt Damon is just as dazzling. As I stated before, every emotion he depicts, I felt it along with him. Matt Damon is just that good. My heart was warmed as I watched their characters fall in love, and then broken when they began their downfall. And now let me give credit where credit is due, Michael Douglass is amazing for taking on such an iconic persona and performing it with such grace and ease (After watching the film, I watched videos of Liberace to compare to Michael Douglass' performance). He really captured the essence of Liberace, his mannerisms, the intonation of his voice, everything! There is no one more perfect for this role, the casting directors did a fantastic job. Ooh, and I have to mention Rob Lowe, even though he only played a small role as Dr. Jack Startz, the plastic surgeon. I could not get over his face. Any time he was on screen, I had to giggle at his ridiculous eyes.I mean just look at him:

Haha! Anyways, the cinematography is perfect as well, with it's bright sunny, Vegas glamour of the late seventies shining through to create an authentic visual of what life must have been like through the eyes of Scott Thorson, who was new to that kind of lifestyle. It is alluring and bewitching. The sets were beautiful and true to the kind of gaudy decor expected of Liberace.

Behind The Candelabra is a great film. My interest never waned and I was so completely invested in their story. As I've been writing, I've felt myself wanting to cry just thinking about how sad I was upon the ending of the film. This film has that staying power that hurts long after it's over. Though, if you're seeking a film that is a timeline of Liberace's life and music career this will definitely not be the film for you. Also if you're a homophobic prick, you probably shouldn't watch this. Would I watch this film again? Yes, but not for some time. I don't need that kind of heartbreak in my life right now.

"Gabriel" (2014) A Sad, Troubled Man

The Trailer:

Director: Lou Howe
Cast: Rory Culkin, David Call, & Deirdre O'Connell
Plot Summary: Gabriel (Rory Culkin), a young, emotionally disturbed man visiting home, goes on an obsession-driven quest to find his first love, Alice.

Hmm, Gabriel is an interesting film. At times I liked it at other times I though it to be tedious. It is described as a taut, psychological thriller, but I disagree. Taut? There is rarely any suspense or tense moments that would require the label "taut". And thriller? Again, there is no excitement or suspense, his journey to find Alice isn't suspenseful so much as it is disturbing. I would call it a psychological drama.

Gabriel, who prefers to be called Gabe (which is how I will reference him from this point forward), is coming home after some time in a halfway house (it is implied he was in jail or a mental institution). He is a depressed, anxiety-ridden guy wanting to be better, but doesn't know how to do it. In his delusional mind, he believes that if he finds Alice they will fall in love, get married, have children and then he will be cured. He is an overwhelmingly sad, fragile man who is on a downward spiral trying to fill the voids within himself, to no avail. In his process to find Alice, he becomes the worst parts of himself and loses the best parts. To be honest, it's difficult to watch this character mirror my own struggles with depression and anxiety, though his struggles are to a much higher degree than my own. Due to being able to relate to Gabe so well, I was totally absorbed by his journey, hoping that he would find what he needs, even if it's not what he wants. On top of Gabe's own struggles, there's the family dynamic that is just as troubled as Gabe is. His mother, Meredith (Deirdre O'Connell), is the best characterization of a mother who doesn't know how to help her son. She fears that the decisions she makes for him won't be to his benefit. She loves him to a fault; it is because of her love that she unknowingly becomes an enabler. When she realizes that what she's doing for him isn't making him better, she is more broken and confused as to how she will help him. Gabe's brother, Matthew (David Call), on the other hand is supportive of Gabe but only so much. He is a firm enforcer of tough love and just wants Gabe to be better, even if that means having to put him away again. The way that they all genuinely love and care about each other displays the best of familial love. And knowing how much Matthew and their mother truly care about Gabe, watching them lose hope in Gabe's recovery is heartbreaking. It's not easy to watch a loved one fall into a pit of darkness that they can't climb out of, it's even harder when you realize that you can't help them. I think most people who've seen the consequences of any mental illness, either firsthand or secondhand, will be able to relate to the hardships that Gabe and his family face.

The acting throughout is solid and raw. I can only praise Rory Culkin, as his performance is completely enthralling, I couldn't take my eyes off him. His ability to wear this layer of overwhelming sadness without it looking forced is truthful and easily relatable. It also helps that Rory Culkin is absolutely gorgeous! Deirdre O'Connell's performance as Gabe's mother is poignant and tragic, and she does it with such conviction and love that it feels real. David Call as Matthew is wonderful as well. Even Emily Meade as Alice is amazing. She is only in the film for the last fifteen minutes and, even in that little time, she amazes me with her talent; she is able to wear a mask of love and fear together without it looking fake. The cinematography holds just as much weight as the acting. During Gabe's search for Alice, everything is gray and gloomy, a reminder that he isn't in a great mindset. When he finally finds her, the world is bright and full of joy, a glimpse of hope for our protagonist. All scenes are beautifully shot and make an effort to show how Gabe's surroundings affect him.

Gabriel is one of those films that requires only one viewing because of how harrowing it is. Watching it again would be like ripping stitches off a wound that isn't yet healed; it would be that painful. I'm not saying everyone will appreciate and/or understand this film, and that's okay. It's not meant to please people, but to show us the hardships that a troubled individual and his family face. I definitely recommend y'all to watch it.

"C.O.G." (2012) Child of God?

The Trailer:

Director: Kyle Patrick Alvarez
Cast: Jonathan Groff, Denis O'Hare, & Corey Stoll
Plot Summary: On a harebrained journey to find himself, David (Jonathan Groff) comes into contact with a slew of people who don't quite understand him.

This is one of those indie-dramas where nothing really happens and yet you enjoy it all the same. It's funny, quirky, and full of heart. And while yes I did say it's funny, it's not a comedy: it is a drama through and through, a coming-of-age tale. A tale that I enjoyed every minute of.

C.O.G. isn't even a complete story, but more like a chapter of a larger story, and while that may be troublesome to a few viewers, for me, it's a format that I appreciate. (Side note: this film is actually based on a chapter/essay from David Sedaris' autobiographical book Naked, I haven't read the book so no comparisons will be made) The idea that there is a before and after of what we see on camera is delightful and discussion-worthy. I want to know what sent this naive boy onto a self-discovering journey, why is there a strain in his and his mother's relationship, why is he using an alias (we find out very early on that his real name is Samuel). These aren't questions that if answered will affect the film in any way, but the sheer mystery of this character is intriguing. And then the after: after all the events of the film take place what comes of David? Does he return to Yale? Does he mend his relationship with his mother? Is he better because of what happened, or worse? Again, it's not necessary to know any of these answers to enjoy the film, but it allows for discussion and for us to view David, not as a fictional character, but as someone who exists outside of this. Adding to that, because of this chapter-like format, it allows for the emotions and reactions to all the events within the film to truly crack open into very real human experiences, something we can all relate to. So I applaud David Sedaris for his essay and for Kyle Patrick Alvarez for adapting it to film, it was done wonderfully.

The theme that is the constant throughout the film is finding yourself in a world that doesn't understand and/or care about you. And to convey this particular theme in this story is David, a young, gay man looking for acceptance and self-enlightenment in a small, religious, farming town. In his attempt, as callow as it is, he finds a genuine inner-strength and a real sense of humanity, but not without also encountering the worst qualities of humanity. And most times, the good and bad qualities aren't mutually exclusive, a reminder that sometimes people commit horrid cruelties in the name of good intentions. And Jonathan Groff as David does an amazing job as this naive individual with a sincere, but ill-conceived intention of self-discovery: he is, at times, callous, apathetic, cynical, but mostly he is endearing and lost. His ability to convey a range of emotions without the use of too many words is phenomenal and a result of his many years of stage acting.  Then there's Denis O'Hare as Jon, the epitome of a Child of God (hence the title of the film). He preaches to whoever will listen and has a strong, but sometimes skewed idea of the Lord's will. And as the charismatic antagonist, he is perfection, he's done that role multiple times but never fails to impress and to do it with originality every time. Then there's Corey Stoll as Curly, and though he only plays a small part, his part is an important one: he is the catalyst for David's venture into religion. Though David's belief in God is merely a false belief, it is where he finds some of the good that humanity can offer. All the characters are real, relatable, and complex which I can certainly appreciate.

What I like and dislike most about C.O.G. is it's ability to be enlightening and also feel pointless at the same time. When it is over there is a sense of "what was the point?", but also like you got to peek into a moment in someone's life which makes you feel kind of special. I'm sure in context of the book, some parts of this film may make more sense, but taken out of context, it is still a stand-alone piece that speaks for itself. It is a story of trying to find who you are and where you fit in the world, and who can't relate to that? I thoroughly enjoyed it, but I'm undecided if I would ever watch it again.

Side Notes (I don't know where to include in my review):

• Don't be fooled by the trailer, Troian Bellisario is in the film for less than fifteen minutes.
• Apparently the film score is annoying to some, but honestly I didn't even noticed it.
• Have you heard Jonathan Groff in Hamilton, the musical about Alexander Hamilton? If not, you definitely need to listen to his songs on the cast recording, he is amazing!!

"Ginger & Rosa" (2012) Best Friends Forever?

The Trailer:

Director: Sally Potter
Cast: Elle Fanning, Alice Englert, Christina Hendricks, Alessandro Nivola, Timothy Spall, & Annette Bening
Plot Summary: In 1960's London, a friendship between Ginger (Elle Fanning) and Rosa (Alice Englert) is pushed to the limits amid the backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Hmmm, what to say about Ginger & Rosa? There's a lot to like about this film as there is a lot to dislike. While a good chuck of the foundation that was laid out was promising, the film never reached its full potential. It remained rather shallow throughout, though it did make slight dips into more complex issues.

Let me start out by stating the most obvious misstep of the movie: the accents. The accents aren't terrible, but they're only okay. Elle Fanning's accent is acceptable, but Christina Hendricks' accent is the one that is most distracting: it sounds too forced. Another misstep, for me personally, is the backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis (which I will now refer to as the Crisis). With such a tense moment in history, there should've been more put into how that near-destruction fear shaped these two teenage girls and their futures, yet the Crisis is only a mirror to the impending detonation in the relationships between various characters. The Crisis has no real impact on the story. Which is unfortunate because I think that would've been a more interesting story than the one we got. Third misstep, the characters. Did the writer intend for all the characters to be utterly unlikable? Rosa and Ginger are annoying, whiny, bratty, rude, disrespectful teenagers. And while this is an authentic reflection of real teenagers, it was still difficult to watch them because they were so dang annoying. Ginger is most annoying in the fact that she complained about her mother being a "depressed monster" and yet she was no different: Ginger was depressed because she feared a world that would continue on without her, figuratively and literally. Rosa is annoying because she thinks she is so grown up and believes she can put together the broken pieces of Ginger's father, Roland (Alessandro Nivola). But she does this at the expense of her friendship with Ginger. Roland is annoying because he becomes romantically involved with his daughter's best friend. Like how could he not know what kind of effect that would have on Ginger and his marriage to Natalie (Christina Hendricks)? Actually all the characters aren't completely detestable. Natalie's only faults are being married to an unfaithful hypocrite, and having had Ginger when she was sixteen.She has since tried her best to prevent Ginger from the same fate. She isn't a terrible woman, but lost. Anoushka (Jodhi May), Rosa's mother is absent for most of the film, and we only get details about her through Rosa's poor opinion of her. What we do see though is a woman who has tried her best, even though she is a single mother with a ungrateful daughter. I especially loved Tomothy Spall's character of Mark, Ginger's Godfather, and Annette Benning as Bella. Both characters become the moral compass with their impeccable wisdom and sincere advice. They are the only people who can coax Ginger into facing her fears and defeating them.

What I did like about the movie is the story, though I say like loosely. The story, stripped of it's embellishments, is one we've seen before: two friends toeing the line between adolescence and adulthood, begin to drift apart as their interests differ. Rosa is interested in boys and making out and smoking and drinking, eager for a future where she can be away from her mother: what is typically expected of a rebellious teenager. Ginger on the other hand wants to make a change, to ban the bomb, and to begrudgingly accept her father and Rosa's relationship while also being terrified that there will be no future. Their common thread is the fact that they both despise their mothers. And while I usually appreciate films that test a seemingly solid friendship, I wasn't entirely impressed by this. The girls are friends by circumstance as it was their mothers who were friends first. And throughout the film there is a strained, passive aggressive toned dialogue between them as though this rift widening between them has been there for some time. It seems as though they've remained friends for this long only because they are afraid of a life without someone to depend on, not necessarily because they truly like each other. Though I did like the ideas that sprang up through their conversations, such as religion, politics, feminism, pacifism, becoming part of a movement, growing up too fast, and etc. Rosa's seemingly odd belief that God will find a way to make things better is a complete contrast to the rebellious, "troubled" life she leads. Ginger's beliefs on feminism stem from her father's skewed idea of what a woman should be. Also Ginger's complete dedication to the movement to ban the bomb is admirable, but without depth, She only becomes intensely invested in the movement as a way to avoid having to think about Rosa and Roland's relationship. Another aspect that I appreciated was that in the end nothing was resolved. There was no great happy ending, only the hope that one day everything will be forgiven and forgotten. And the most fantastic ingredient of the film is the acting. Every single actor gave absolutely amazing, raw, truthful performances. And even though I didn't like certain characters, I was still impressed by the actors' ability to so completely embody them.

Overall Ginger& Rosa is a decent film. It's subtle and simple. And while I feel it had so much potential, in the end it fell flat. I wasn't particularly moved or impacted by the film and I'll probably forget about it in a few weeks. Would I watch it again? Nah, I'll pass.

"Would You Rather" (2012) I'd Rather Not

The Trailer:

Director: David Guy Levy
Cast: Brittany Snow, Jeffrey Combs, Enver Gjokaj, Robin Lord Taylor, Sasha Grey, John Heard, Charlie Hofheimer, Eddie Steeples, & Rob Wells
Plot Summary: Struggling to care for her ailing brother, Iris (Brittany Snow) is offered an opportunity to receive help from the mysterious Lambrick foundation to which she agrees, unaware that her decision will put her at the mercy of a sadistic aristocrat.

Would You Rather is a step below (or above, depending on your opinion of) the Saw franchise. It's the type of movie where the antagonist never actually harms any of the victims, but makes them harm themselves. It's okay in regards to the story, kind of interesting, but ultimately it's forgettable.

To elaborate on the rules of the game, each character is presented with two equally horrid actions and must decide which to carry out. The choice of actions given are subtle compared to the types of torture we've seen in other films of the genre. But by no means are any of the choices easily made, except by one character. Even still, the movie kind of drags on a bit and is repetitive. It gets boring after some time of watching these characters have to make a decision, because we know that there is inevitable pain coming to either themselves or to another dinner guest. Don't get me wrong though, I still tensed up every time a person was faced with a new decision, but I wasn't as intrigued by the time the fourth challenge came around. I kept watching though because I wanted to see how far the torture was going to go. There is definitely a lot of blood which is nice, if you like that sort of thing (I most certainly do). And there is a bit of a twist at the end, but if you're an analytical movie viewer the way I am (or perhaps even an amateur movie watcher, the twist really isn't that hard to figure out), you'll see it coming about a mile away. I did enjoy the absolute joy and pleasure that the Lambrick's (father and son) and their staff had as they watched this horrid game that they'd carefully orchestrated: Their sadism is horrifying yet entertaining.

The acting is average. Nobody goes above and beyond, but nobody absolutely sucks either. I was impressed with Brittany Snow's performance the most. Though I am aware of her impressive list of acting jobs, I have only seen her in her two most popular films, Pitch Perfect and John Tucker Must Die, to which I am not a huge fan of either (well John Tucker Must Die isn't so bad, but her performance there isn't award-worthy). But here she did a decent job as a scream queen and as the final girl (that's not much of a spoiler as it's expected, amIright?). Robin Lord Taylor as Julian Lambrick, the son of Shepard Lambrick, is annoyingly attractive. Annoying because, he is the epitome of a disaffected, rich kid. He's a downright douche-bag! Everyone else did okay performances, nothing award-worthy, but good.

Now for the things that just bother me about this movie. For one, Shepard Lambrick, the one in charge of the whole dinner party and game, is a characterization of the evil villain. He seems silly in most circumstances, kind of like a parent who has always been the fun parent but now has to, ineffectively, lay down the rules.He's hard to take seriously. Second, the character of Julian Lambrick is absolutely pointless. He is more of a plot device than a character who adds substance to the story. And once he's used for his plot-device-purpose, he is dismissed from the rest of the movie. I don't know, I was just annoyed with it. Third, each character was given a chance to leave the party before the game officially started and none of them took it. They saw how cruel the Lambrick's are when Shepard Lambrick bribes Iris with ten thousand dollars to eat meat after she mentioned that she is vegetarian, also when he bribes another guest with fifty thousand dollars to drink scotch after sixteen years of sobriety, yet no one said "hey maybe I don't want to be here". Fourth, it is implied that the Lambrick's have done this type of dinner party before (maybe multiple times), so how come no one knows what is going on? I mean none of the previous winners have come forward and told authorities what really happens at these dinner parties? And what about the losers of the previous games— the ones who've died—, how are none of their families worried about what happened to them? Also, I didn't see Iris or any of the other guests sign a non-disclosure agreement or anything of the sort, so what's to keep them from telling anyone what has happened? What kept previous winners from saying anything? I suppose you can reason that by the logic of "you don't bite the hand that feeds", but still NO ONE said anything?

As I said before Would You Rather is a perfectly average horror film. It's got okay acting, a decent story, blood, tension, all the ingredients for something good, yet it is positively forgettable. Would I watch it again? Nah, I'd rather not.

"Goodnight Mommy (Ich seh ich seh)" (2015) Dream or Nightmare?

The Trailer:

Director: Severin Fiala & Veronika Franz
Cast: Lukas Schwartz, Elias Schwarz, & Susanne Wuest
Plot Summary: Twin brothers, Lukas (Lukas Schwartz) and Elias (Elias Schwarts) fear, after their mother (Susanne Wuest) undergoes reconstructive surgery, that the woman under the bandages is not their mother.

Let me first say that Goodnight Mommy is definitely not for everyone: It's a subtle, psychological, chilling, unsettling tale. It's not a jump-scare, extravagant, Hollywood horror flick. This movie strips itself of all the bells and whistles expected of the horror genre, and instead lends itself to raw, sterility that allows for it's suspense to steep, slowly, into our minds. Oh, another reason why it may not be for everyone: it's a foreign movie with subtitles (ahh, the horror!).

The usage of twins will always be creepy, and here in Goodnight Mommy that is no exception. The boys, who, at first, appear to be innocent children trapped in a home with a monstrous, less-than-loving mother transition into monsters in their own right. Their relationship with each other is one of dependence. One brother is always clinging to the other, as though they can't be separated, they are all they have. And when they are separated, there is a sense of loss and longing. And the two young actors, Lukas and Elias Schwartz, are an absolute joy to watch, since they are real brothers it's easy to believe that what we are shown through the film is who they are and how they act outside of it. Then there's the mother whom is distant and cold. It's apparent why the boys are afraid of her, this woman who is hidden behind a mask, who seems to always be adjusting to a life that she doesn't seem to fit in. There is a certain predictability to the movie (I'll get to that later) and yet there is still this tight-lined tension and sense of foreboding that is a constant.

Throughout the film we begin to question what we think we know of their reality. Nothing is as it seems, everything has a tinge of bizarre, strangeness to it. I began to question my theories and hypothesis that I'd made early on in the film, because every time I thought I had it all figured out, I was wrong. It was a tug-o-war of "what's going on" and "oh, I know what's happening". There are a lot of elements that lead to the unsettling feeling throughout, such as the setting. The house they live in is huge, but empty. There is an echo of what life was like before the accident (an ever-alluded to accident that is never explained), but has since been forgotten by each of the characters. There are each like ghosts living in some world that doesn't exist anymore or doesn't exist yet, it's hard to tell. Plus, their home is completely isolated and surrounded by a deep wood. They don't exist in a world outside of each other. As time goes on, the fear that the boys have of living with an impostor becomes overwhelming, it is a solid mass that gets bigger and bigger, and you'll start to fill with fear along with them. The subtle differences they begin to notice about their mother are strange, and since we have no knowledge of what she was like before her surgery we have to trust that there are differences present. And so every piece of evidence they find to support their case, we grow more and more wary with them. But then, there are subtle clues that the twins might be the ones faking. There are too many moments where their relationship just seems off and with that comes this strange feeling of distrust between us viewers and the protagonists. This fear that each one of them may be an impostor settles heavy down in our stomachs. Additionally, if you are an entomophobiac (a person with a fear of bugs), this may not be the movie for you. Though bugs, roaches more accurately, aren't shown often there are weird scenes with them included, so beware. The cinematography is also quite fantastic in creating an aura of fear. Like I mentioned before, everything is very sterile, crisp and without color in the house. Outside, mostly everything is too bright and over-saturated with color, a clear juxtaposition with what is happening inside the house.

I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of Goodnight Mommy. It is creepy with an organic, artistic edge to it. The acting's great and the story is bare, but worthy. It is as much a psychological horror of two brothers warring with their own imagination and reality as it is a tale of how sometimes the fragile line of trust between parent and child can be easily broken. I will warn, though, that the ending doesn't answer any of the questions that you'll likely have. Actually, the ending will muddy up what you thought was going on. You'll be left with more questions, which for me is a good thing, but for some that is not satisfying. I would definitely watch this again. And I suggest you watch it too, even if you don't like foreign movies. Just give it a try, ehh?

Spoilers??? 
Okay, this is a spoiler, but kind of not. I have to believe that the writers of the movie wanted us to know that Lukas was dead, I have to believe that or else I have to face the fact that they hid that detail poorly. There are too many obvious clues that point to it for it not to be intentional, you know? But even with that "twist" (if it is a twist), there are still too many unanswered questions. Like what the fuck was with the mother when she walked into the woods naked? And who killed the cat? Was the mother an impostor? What's with the weird reunion in the cornfield at the end. I do have a theory that answers that one question, at least.
After about thirty minutes of mind-numbing torture to the mother (oh yeah, the movie jarringly shifts from psychological horror to torture horror), Elias then sets the house on fire with the mother in it. It appears that he escapes, but I actually don't believe he did. I think he died in the fire as well and in the end the family is finally united together, happily, in the afterlife. Or maybe there is more to the story. It's just a hunch, but somehow at the end in the reunion between the mother and the twins, it seems as though they are smirking, like their laughing at us. They tricked us somehow, but I'm not sure exactly how, you know?

"The Quiet Ones" (2014) Quiet and Boring

The Trailer:

Director: John Pogue
Cast: Jared Harris, Sam Claflin, Olivia Cooke, Erin Richards, & Rory Fleck-Byrne
Plot Summary: Professor Joseph Coupland (Jared Harris) along with two of his students— Krissi Dalton (Erin Richards), and Harry Abrams (Rory Fleck-Byrne)— conduct experiments on Jane Harper (Olivia Cooke) at a remote house all while another student, Brian McNeil (Sam Claflin) films it.

If you're looking for a less than decent horror film then The Quiet Ones is the movie for you. There is little horror and a somewhat interesting story that might keep you watching until the end, but maybe not. The premise is kind of cool, though and the actors give solid performances. The cinematography is fairly good as well.

To add to the plot summary, Professor Joseph Coupland believes Jane to be possessed with an evil spirit, named Evey. He hypothesizes that he can convince Jane, through various experiments, to channel Evey's evil energy and place it into an inanimate object. When the entity is in the inanimate object, they can then destroy said object thus eradicating the entity entirely. Sounds cool, right? Like a kind of evil scientist mixed with paranormal elements, but they just didn't pull it off in an original way. And that's disappointing, man, because this movie could've been awesome and totally new territory for the horror genre, but, instead, it fell flat with a generic, whatever, blah, backstory. Another disappointment of The Quiet Ones is the fact that literally every "scary" occurrence is shown in the trailers, so there's never a surprise with any of them. Lame!

The acting is great, which makes it a waste on such a average movie. Professor Joseph Coupland is charming, cocky, and completely indifferent about Jane's condition. Jared Harris is perfect for this role as he's got that perpetual raised eyebrow and a face that dares others to challenge him. Sam Claflin as Brian McNeil is endearing and sympathetic to Jane's predicament: it is written all over his face every time he doesn't agree with what Professor Coupland is doing or when he is genuinely terrified of Jane. Olivia Cooke as Jane Harper is sincere and small, like a frightened child, yet can also be manipulative and terrifying. Krissi Dalton played by Erin Richards is the pretty, brainy girl with too much adoration for her professor: She wants to impress him in order to get closer to him, though he doesn't seem to be interested. Harry Abrams, played by Rory Fleck-Byrne, has the most gorgeous blond curls I have ever seen, but that's beside the point. His interest in the experiments seems to stem from his desire to be a apart of something groundbreaking rather than a desire to actually help Jane, but even still he doesn't seem all that interested in them. Both Harry and Krissi are like eager children wanting to please teacher, but both seem like they don't really know what they're doing and how any of these experiments will affect Jane. Overall, the acting is good and credible.

The cinematography is phenomenal. Since the film is set in the 1970's, the cinematographer really tried to capture that fuzzy warmth of seventies films and photographs. Especially when we are seeing through Brian's camera as he's recording the experiments, it's reminiscent of old home movies but not a replica. And the clothes worn are realistic to the time frame, but not costume-y. Which is nice, as with some movies set in earlier decades we see kitschy, over-the-top costumes. Then of course we have the big, dilapidated house where the majority of the movie is filmed; it's got this creepy abandonment, isolated aura about it that sets the tone for what is to come after they move into it.

The Quiet Ones' biggest flaw is it's lack of innovation. It had a lot of good going for it. There's a lot of build-up without too many in-your-face scares, it has a static creepiness throughout, and the story is fairly new, but then the end comes and tries to tie up the film in this convoluted explanation that doesn't work. I mean, after all that build up and interesting story, we get some run of the mill, b-horror movie ending. And, initially, I was a bit annoyed by it. I couldn't believe that I'd invested my time and interest in this movie only for it to utterly fail me in the end. Actually, I'm still a little annoyed, even months after my initial viewing. It's just disappointing because there was such potential, you know? Also, the weird, sexual tension between Jane and Brian seems kind of gross and weird. Like he's attracted to a mentally unstable, sometimes childlike girl. It seems weird and never comes to fruition, which is kind of another annoyance. Why place it in the story when it doesn't make a difference one way or another?

The Quiet Ones is a decent horror film for those who don't particularly like to be scared. But for those of who want more creativity and depth to a horror film with real terror, this is not the movie for us. I don't regret watching it but I wouldn't watch it again. Side note: what was with the incessant playing of Cum on Feel The Noize? They couldn't afford rights to any other song? Not that it's a bad song, but hearing small snippets of it over and over again is a bit annoying.

"Grease: Live" (2016) Born to Hand Jive!

The Trailer:

Director: Thomas Kail & Alex Rudzinski
Cast: Julianne Hough, Aaron Tveit, Vanessa Hudgens, Kehter Donahue, Keke Palmer, Carly Rae-Jepson, Carlos PenaVega, Jordan Fisher, David Del Rio, Andrew Call, Elle McLemore, & Noah Robbins,
Synopsis: After a summer romance, Sandy (Julianne Hough) and Danny Zuko (Aaron Tveit), are reunited at Rydell High but with some hiccups while Sandy adjusts to life with the Pink Ladies and the T-Birds.

Wow!! Grease is one of my favorite musical movies ever. And because of this hopeless devotion (<--Haha, see what I did there) for the movie, I was a little wary of how FOX was going to pull off a live production without messing it up. Not that I don't have faith in the live musicals that TV networks have recently presented— contrary to popular belief, I don't think NBC's live productions of Sound of Music and Peter Pan are terrible— it's just that having a movie that I grew up with and that I have an immense appreciation for, there's this notion that FOX can't possible get it right. But, man, was I wrong. I mean, Grease: Live is in no way any where near as fabulous and memorable as the movie, but it is great in it's own way.

First let me talk about the casting choices made. All of them are perfect, save for two (I'll talk about them later). All of the actors involved are great and each put on solid, true to form performances. And while everyone is fantastic, Vanessa Hudgens as Rizzo and Jordan Fisher as Doody both really stole the show. Let me emphasize once again that everyone put on an amazing performances, but those two had such conviction and likability in the way that they depicted their characters, I was absolutely blown away. Vanessa Hudgens putting on such a great performance after her father died the night before is definitely something to commend, but not the only reason why you should pay attention to her. Her depiction of Rizzo is true to the film: she's feisty, prickly, but ultimately has a heart of gold. But instead of attempting to simply recreate the role, Hudgens takes the time to make her portrayal of Rizzo her own with a little more edge, a bit more sex appeal (necessary for a character like Rizzo) and a lot more emotional impact. Jordan Fisher as Doody, the happy-go-lucky, guitar playing, wannabe rock star is so adorably cute and probably has the best song in the entire thing: "Those Magic Changes". That being a song that we don't hear in the movie, well only in the prom scene but more as background music, so it was nice to hear it as part of the story. Plus the fact that in that single song, he performed in multiple settings, with multiple guitars, and with multiple costume changes is an undeniable feat that demands applause. Plus, he's so dang attractive. *Sigh* can you say dreamy? Now for the two actors who I wasn't impressed with. First, Haneefah Wood who played Blanche. I know Blanche doesn't have a huge role, but every scene with her made me cringe. That may be a bit harsh, but the way she portrayed Blanche came off too silly and without the same lovable traits that film version of Blanche had. I could've done without her. Second, Keke Palmer who plays Marty. Ugh, and this kills me because I know Keke Palmer is a great actor and she has an amazing voice, but her depiction of Marty was too posh for my taste. We just can't have it all, can we? But I suppose the sheer love, respect, and chemistry that is apparent between the characters, and actors. more than makes up for those two missteps in casting.

Now for everything else. What isn't there to like about the production Grease: Live? The costumes are incredible: they're durable enough to not fall apart with any of the dancing but made so that they can easily be changed out of for the quick changes between scenes, or even within one scene. The multiple sound stages are intricately designed: the outside of Rydell High, the hallways, and the auto garage are all so perfect and yet designed so as to seamlessly blend together as one school. The dance sequences are phenomenally choreographed and expertly executed: my particular favorite dance sequence being during "Greased Lightnin'". And most importantly the singing, from all characters, is marvelous: mostly everyone got a chance to shine with their own solo song. Not to mention that Jessie J came in to perform "Grease is The Word" at the beginning of the show, how amazing, right? Everything, every single scene from beginning to end has all the things that continually build upon this great production. Oh and the tv/movie magic that happens throughout is truly magical because I honestly have no idea how they did it. Example: during the "Greased Lightnin'" performance we see the car as a "hunk o' junk" and then the camera pans away for a second, then goes back to reveal the shiny, red beauty that is Greased Lightnin'. Did they switch out the whole car? Did they simply place some kind of cover over the car? I have no idea, and I don't want to know. That would ruin the magic. What's also impressive about Grease: Live is how the writer's and director masterfully blended the film version and the original stage production of Grease to create it. That's awesome and a good use of the multiple source material they have to go on. I especially loved the small nods to the film. Like having the film version's Frenchie (Didi Conn) and Doody (Barry Pearl) play small parts in the show and then during the ending bows, both of them coming out wearing their original Pink Ladies and T-Birds jackets from the film production. That's awesome and I love shit like that! Even better, all of this being done in front of a live audience is courageous and worked in so many ways. I was impressed with all aspects of the production of Grease: Live.

Overall Grease: Live is a wonderful revival of an iconic film and stage production. There were a few missteps, but that is to be expected from a live show. So I can't even complain about it. Also, there are a few moments that seem be awkwardly long, like maybe a few seconds too long, but enough time to allow for an awkward silence or two. Again, though, being a live production there's not much that can be done to remedy that. The biggest disappointment might be the race at thunder road, but then there's the limitation of the sound stage so not much could've been done to make the scene better. Despite those small glitches, though, I would definitely watch Grease: Live again. It's a ball of fun and nostalgia. I most certainly suggest you watch it if you've yet to do so! So go on now and get your hand jive on!

!!!Bonus Video!!! One of my favorite songs from the movie, and now the live tv production, as sung by Julianne Hough

"Starlet" (2012) To Find Friends in Strange Places

The Trailer:

Director: Sean Baker
Cast: Dree Hemingway, Besedka Johnson, Stella Maeve, & James Ransone
Synopsis: Two unlikely women, Jane (Dree Hemingway) and Sadie (Besedka Johnson), become friends after Jane finds a stash of money in a thermos she bought from Sadie's yard sale.

I didn't know what to expect when going into Starlet. and I especially didn't expect to love it as much as I do. Well, I think love is too strong of a word, but appreciate, admire, adore are all good substitutes. Starlet is a marvelous, in-depth character study of two vastly different women who bring such meaning to each other's lives.

To continue with the synopsis: with the help of her slacker roommate, Jane comes to the conclusion that she should get to know Sadie in order to determine if she should give the money back or not. If Sadie is struggling financially, Jane will return the money, but if not Jane will keep it. So that's the beginning of their friendship. As mentioned before, they're very different women. Jane is a ne'er-do-well, living with two like minded people, Melissa (Stella Maeve) and her boyfriend Mikey (James Ransone). They all seem to just sit around all day, getting high, and playing X-box: it doesn't become clear until later what they all do for a living. Jane in some ways seems naive and childlike and in other ways she is the adult of her friend group, the stable one. Which says a lot since she is directionless and complacent of her place in life. Additionally Melissa and Mikey don't put off real friend vibes, you know? Especially Melissa— a whiny girl whenever she doesn't get her way— who feels she deserves something out of the friendship other than companionship, she's selfish in her motives for friendship. Anyways, then there's Sadie, a sour elder woman with no friends and whose only source of fun is bingo on Saturdays. She is curt and stays safe in her home surrounded by her wall of a garden and her Paris memorabilia. Due to both character's environments, filled with fake people or no people at all, both are equally lonely. Which kind of eludes to an undercurrent of urban loneliness, of being in a big California city full of people but not being genuinely connected to any of them. And so when they meet, they are both, unknowingly, yearning for real human connection. But because of their inexperience with genuine human beings, they both struggle to make a connection with one another. Through their friendship, though, they realize how empty their lives were before and how much they truly care about each other. And then there's Starlet, Jane's adorable dog, and the film titles namesake. I believe that the writer's chose to title the film after the dog, because like Jane and Sadie, Starlet is this symbolism of complacency (having a "feminine" name while being a male dog, but not being bothered by it) and he's also the catalyst for a lot of the discord between various characters in the film.

The actresses put on dazzling, genuine performances. Dree Hemingway, whom I had never seen before, is amazing as Jane. She has this California drawl that is both slow and laid back that emphasizes Jane's lackadaisical lifestyle, yet she's also endearing and sweet which allows us to empathize with her. Even when we know that her reasons for befriending Sadie aren't the best, we see how she actually begins to care for her. And the late Besedka Johnson (she passed away a short time after the release of the film) is illuminating as Sadie. Johnson has this stoic, dignity about her which is perfect for Sadie, this somewhat bitter older woman. Both of them together have this real chemistry. Their personalities bounce off each other and create this space of love and adoration. Stella Maeve as Melissa is scary reflective of young, ambitious girls of today. Well not all ambitious girls, but the type of girls that are indifferent, selfish, willing to step on others to get ahead, and immensely cruel to others when they see they are doing better than them. Maeve has this valley girl/surfer accent that is both annoying and convincing, and works with her whiny, California girl character. James Ransome, though a small almost insignificant role, is also a mirror of ambitious young men who will pander their own friends/partners in order to gain success. Example: he installs a stripper pole in their house so that Melissa can work on her stripping skills to dance at clubs and make a profit for himself (since he handles her finances). All in all the acting is good and believable. A+, man!

I enjoyed Starlet, it's interesting, sometimes funny, sometimes sad, enlightening, and joyous. I love watching films about unlikely friendships, or films simply about a budding friendship. It fills me with such happiness when everything is good, and such sadness when things go wrong. The performances are dazzling and the story is intriguing, though may not be everyone's cup of tea. Also, I will warn you that ending is an ambiguous one, there is no real conclusion. If that's not something you like, then don't even watch it because you will be left with many questions. But if you like films that are thinkers, and allow you to discuss the whys and hows of various events of the film, then Starlet is for you. Would I watch it again? Of course I would.

!!!Spoiler Alert!!! I have a theory about the ending. If you've seen the film, you know Melissa discloses to Sadie that Jane had only been friends with Sadie because Jane had her money. And instead of telling Jane she knew, Sadie asks Jane to take flowers to her late husbands grave before they leave for Paris. At the grave Jane sees that Sadie had a child, a daughter, who died also. This is important as Sadie had told Jane earlier in the film that she didn't have children. My reasoning for this being significant is because I think it showed that Sadie, too, had been in the friendship with a ulterior motive other than just having a friend. Sadie wanted a daughter figure in her life and was more than happy to have Jane fill that role for her. Or it may be Sadie's way of hurting Jane, like "see I lied to you too, how does it feel?". Either way I think the ending poses the question: even if we have an agenda for a relationship with anyone, does that make the love and affection gained any less real? You decide. !!!Spoiler Alert Over!!!

"The Road" (2009) Bleak Nothingness

The Trailer:

Director: John Hillcoat
Cast: Viggo Mortenson, Kodi Smit-McPhee, & Charlize Theron
Synopsis: In a post-apocalyptic world, a Father (Viggo Mortenson) and Son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) journey south to the sea.

This is a two hour long heart twister. I have never watched a film so desolate, lonely, and bleak. My heart was in it from the moment it began and was crushed ever so slowly up until the very end where it was shattered completely. Every element of The Road is wonderfully crafted and spectacularly made. It's a truly remarkable film.

The basic plot is a Father and Son— whose names are never revealed— traveling south to escape the increasingly cold winters they've been facing since the apocalypse. It is also never revealed what happened to leave the world in such a desolate state. It just is and we have to accept it. That's a good choice on the writer's part to leave that out, as the story isn't meant to focus on that, it's meant to focus on the ever-changing bond between Father and Son during their journey. It's also a smart choice to leave out the names of our protagonists because this Father and Son could be any father and son, could be any parent and child. The Road is a reminder of the lengths a parent will go to in order to protect his/her children from the dangers of the world, not just a post-apocalyptic one. And how in most cases the parent will become exactly what they are trying to protect their children from. It's a sad and strange dichotomy to be both protector and monster. This theme is brought up often throughout the film: is the Father a good guy protecting his son or is he a bad guy doing terrible things in the name of survival? It's a debate that the Son has to grapple with quite often, and is sometimes left in shock at the answers he comes up with. At times the Son believes his Father to be good, other times he is afraid of what his Father is becoming. This leads to the Father having to constantly explain himself to the Son. And we are heartbroken at seeing this constant flux of trust and mistrust between them, because we can see why the Father does the things he does and we can also see why the Son is upset by them. Viggo Mortenson as the Father is fantastic. You can see how easily he conjures up sadness, and pain, and anger as this lonely father who carries guilt with him for raising his child in such dire conditions and knowing that one day he will no longer be there to protect him. Kodi Smit-McPhee is wonderful as this sheltered child who carries with him this hope that once at the sea, everything will be better, though at times he can be a tad bit annoying with his whiny-ness and incessant need to validate their roles as the good guys. In any case, both put on brave, realistic, performances worthy of applause. Charlize Theron portrays the Boy's Mother who is both detached and guilt-ridden for bringing a child into this desolate world. Though she is only on screen for a short time—for about the first forty minutes or so, and only through flashbacks—, she is just as impressive as Viggo Mortenson as a parental figure.

The visual of the film can be a bit overwhelming at times as it is so depressing and monochromatic. There is nothing to excite the eyes, except for a few fleeting scenes of life before the apocalypse. The world is all brown and dark and grimy. It's lonely, save for a few sparse gangs of cannibals or thieves. This is a realistic look at an apocalypse. Both Father and Son are filthy, emaciated, and genuinely look as though they've been without food and shelter for years. But due to this earth-toned monochromical filter and the constant struggle with no hope in sight, the film can feel a bit long. It's never boring, but it's also never fun, you know? Also, my biggest question during their journey was: what was their endgame? What were they anticipating to discover at the sea? My question was never answered, which bothers me even now.

Other than that, I was pleased with The Road. It's not some action-packed zombie apocalypse, or 'let's-overthrow-the-government" apocalypse, or even an alien invasion apocalypse. It's the poignant story of a father's unending love for his child, and who will do anything to ensure his child's future. It's a great film, but the kind of movie that only needs to be viewed once. I mean, who wants to watch such heartbreaking, bleakness more than once? Not me. But I do recommend you watch it if you've never seen it.

"June" (2015) Oh Look, An Evil Kid with Black Eyes!

The Trailer:

Director: L. Gustavo Cooper
Cast: Kennedy Brice, Eddie Jemison, Victoria Pratt, & Casper Van Dien
Synopsis: June (Kennedy Brice), a young orphan with a bizarre past, is adopted by Dave (Casper Van Dien) and Lily (Victoria Pratt). But when things begin to go awry, they start to wonder if the adoption is really what they want.

Oh man, what a shitfest. There is not one moment where June is remotely scary. If you're looking for a terrible horror film then this meets all the requirements. Let me see there's bad acting, a dumb story, slow beyond belief, no excitement, a constant build-up with no climax, oh and the cherry on top, an evil child whose eyes go black from time to time. What a bore! I know the horror genre is so hard to get into as, literally, everything has been done already. There's little room for new voices in horror. But as an avid horror fan, let me plead with you future horror directors, writers, whatevers, STOP MAKING FILMS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE BEFORE!! Anyways onto the movie review...

The plot, story line, whatever you want to call it is atrocious. My satan, this could be a lifetime movie. Title it "An Evil Adoption" and it will be shown on LMN every October. There is no originality. To summarize, there's this girl June, who has been in a slew of other foster homes which she has been removed from due to strange accidents that occur, accidents that June claims to be caused by her imaginary friend Aer (pronounced Airy). It is shown very early on that she has does indeed possess some kind of magical power that can hurt people, though she doesn't mean to. Finally her case worker, Victor Emmanuel (Eddie Jemison), puts her with a loving family looking to adopt in hopes that she'll finally find a happy home. Everything is going as to be expected: a little awkward as June, Dave, and Lily get to know one another. As things begin to get better, June, or Aer to be exact, begins to hurt Dave. That's when things start to get out of hand and rift is formed between Dave and Lily as he wants to send June back to the agency and Lily wants to keep her. Lifetime movie material, am I right? This is the basic plot, but also included in this unlucky find are cults, strange witchcraft, the use of gusts of wind to signal the presence of something evil, the sound of flies to indicate when June is about to use her powers, and floating objects. Oh let me stop there so you can catch your breath from all that terror (that's sarcasm for those who can't see it dripping from my words). There's also an anticlimactic twist that explains everyone's true motives in June's adoption, but by that point I didn't even care about that, I just wanted the movie to be over. Oh, another random but useless feature is the use of a voice-over in various events of the movie, but for a while it was unclear who was talking. And really, it was pointless, there was no need for anyone to narrate and/or share their thoughts about said various events. Adding to the boring, played out plot, is the horrid acting, which I mentioned earlier. Again, this fits into my theory that this could easily be played on Lifetime or LMN. Actually,nope, that is an insult to Lifetime, as they've had a fair share of decent horror films so I won't even say that. And you know, really, the biggest reason why June is so disappointing to me is that for a while it feels like there is a lot of build up towards a grandiose ending, but there is no pay off. The end is flat and lacking any excitement. It's just shit ending, and then it's done. *Sigh* Truly, there are only two good aspects of June that I can think of: the score and the visual effects. The score is reminiscent of 80's horror film scores, with the nice piano sounds and some synth thrown in, it's nice but frankly a waste on this movie. And the visuals and CGI look amazing and expertly done, yet there are just dumb effects. Like lightning bolts shooting from June to harm someone, they're just silly.

Overall this isn't a great horror in any sense of the word. I was never scared, not even once. If you want to watch an evil kid movie, I'd say skip this one. It's not worth the watch and I'm angry for having wasted my time on it. I suppose it could have been done better, but since this evil-kid adoption formula has already been done before a number of times, I doubt it. So would I recommend it? Nope, not a chance. Would I watch it again? Watch what again? This ridiculous movie has already floated off into the ether, out of my memory forever.

"Little Birds" (2011) Such Potential with Little Payoff

The Trailer:

Director: Elgin James
Cast: Juno Temple, Kay Panabaker, Kyle Gallner, Carlos Penavega, & Chris Coy
Synopsis: Lily (Juno Temple) and Alison (Kay Panabaker), two friends from the Salton Sea, follow a group of boys to Los Angeles where a rift forms in their friendship and their lives are forever changed.

I really wanted to like this movie more, but there's just too much missing from it. Don't get me wrong, the story is interesting and harrowing because of it's parallels to reality, but it just didn't hit me in the way that I thought it was going to. I wanted more from it, and was given little.

So we have two friends. Lily and Alison, who are friends only by circumstance. If you know anything of the Salton Sea, you know that it's basically a wasteland. And this being the city in which our protagonists reside, isolated from the rest of the world, they are all they've got. But even still we see how Lily and Alison vary in character. Lily is emotionally unstable, with a less-than-perfect family, and she has hardened because of it. Lily is cruel, daunting, daring, naive, a follower, and terrifying. Juno Temple's portrayal of Lily is spot on, she possesses a wildness about her that fits well with Lily's whirlwind emotions and skewed perspective on life. Alison on the other hand is soft, kind, caring, cautious, smart, subtle, and loyal. Kay Panabaker is perfect for this role as she has a baby face that, as Alison, can be mistaken for gullibility but we see as the movie progresses that within her resides a quiet strength. I love the contrast between these two characters: they don't match and yet they compliment each other perfectly. It's a strange friendship. Kyle Gallner plays Jesse, the boy Lily goes to LA for. For the most part Jesse is a one-dimensional bad boy with a good heart. There's no depth to his character, even when he reveals some background about himself, it seems very cliché. Kyle Gallner does a good job, though, with the less-than-stellar character he is given. David (Chris Coy) and Louis (Carlos PenaVega) are the most one-dimensional characters I've seen in some time. They are the epitome of bad boys with charm. They make their bum lifestyle seem alluring to girls like Lily. And really that is all they do, they just reinforce their immoral, illegal lifestyles throughout the movie: every action of theirs is worst than the last. No rhyme or reason for it, they are just bad. But both actors do a fantastic job at playing apathetic, nihilistic teenagers with no vision for their lives, so I'll give them that. All in all, the acting is decent and above, there is no bad acting in Little Birds.

The story. I like how the movie starts with Lily and Alison only having each other to depend on, but that friendship quickly dissipates as Lily begins to choose the boys over Alison. Lily begins to take part in the boys' taunting of Alison's goody-two-shoe nature. We begin to witness a transition from emotionally unstable, slightly cruel girl into a monster with little regard for others and who basks in the immorality of the boys criminal lifestyle. We see how easily it is to be drawn into a world of corruption, to allow our peers to pressure us into doing horrible things in the name of fun or their survival in a cruel world. And while I like this type of message in a film, here in Little Birds it begins to feel a bit like an after-school special: "Don't fall into peer pressure or this may happen to you". And the one dimensionality and clichéd nature of the characters only reinforce that after-school special feel. Towards the end of the film everything that happens begins to feel forced and too ridiculous that the whole movie begins to lose its authenticity. I began to question why Alison stays loyal to Lily, even when Lily starts to treat her horribly and allows for the boys to be cruel to her. And then the big climax is too serendipitous and the ending is too "ahh and then they were cleansed of the horrors that they witnessed". I didn't enjoy it. Little Birds fails because of it's lack of character development. I mean, I get why the writer's did it in this way as they wanted to demonstrate how this can happen to anyone not just these girls with their specific circumstances, but it didn't allow for anything to be genuine. All of the dialogue between Lily and Alison, the transitions that both characters experience, their pain and anger, all of it's emotional potential is lost because of the lack of depth to the characters. There is so much potential here in this movie, but it's never put into motion.

Overall, Little Birds starts off well, introducing us to two interesting characters, but goes no where. All the events of the movie happen too fast and without explanation. There are characters that serve no purpose like Lily's mother played by Leslie Mann and Lily's aunt played by Kate Bosworth. I feel if they had focused on Lily's home life, the movie could have been great but as it is now it is only decent. And while it does exhibit a harrowing parallel to how teenagers are today—careless, apathetic, no respect for life and getting worse and worse with every decade— it just didn't do it for me,  I haven't recommended it to anyone, nor do I plan to. Would I watch it again? No, plain and simple.