#Horror (2015)

The Trailer:

Director: Tara Subkoff
Writer: Tara Subkoff
Cast: Sadie Seelert, Bridget McGarry, Blue Lindeberg, Mina Sundwall, Emma Adler, Haley Murphy, Chloë Sevigny, & Timothy Hutton
Plot Summary: A group of adolescent girls— Sam (Sadie Seelert), Ava (Blue Lindeberg), Francesca (Mina Sundwall), Georgie (Emma Adler), and Cat (Haley Murphy)— are celebrating their friend Sophia's (Bridget McGarry) birthday at her grand, art-filled house. Between Sophia's mother, Alex (Chloë Sevigny), being careless in her parenting as she's more concerned with her own issues and Cat's father, Dr. Michael White (Timothy Hutton), with his maniacal calmness, there isn't a lot of stable parental guidance at hand for these young girls. And as the night wears on and the girls become more detached from the world outside the large emptiness of the house, it is clear that something isn't right.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you that #Horror is some cinematic horror masterpiece, because it's not. This film suffers from a few issues, but had it not it really could've been a modern horror classic. There is so much potential here and it's so disheartening that it just couldn't quite reach greatness. The acting is superb, the cinematography is haunting, and the setting (the house) is a character all its own. The only problem (and it's kind of a big problem) is how it is all constructed.

The young actors we see are impressively fantastic. They hold their own up against the heavy weights of the film: Chloë Sevigny and Timothy Hutton. The young girls are the callous stars of #Horror. Perhaps it is because they are so young and malleable that they can be directed so easily or whether they each possess a natural talent, I don't know, but they each have a moment that is theirs alone to shine through. To talk about each of them individually would be too much and mostly repetitive. What I have to say about one is nearly the same as what I have to say about another, so I won't bore you with details about each of them. Collectively, they accurately and genuinely portray innocence and sweetness yet are stained with brutal adolescent cruelty. Each of them possess this weird dichotomy of opposing characteristics. At one moment they are compassionate, protective of one another, and devoted to their friendship: the picture of girl empowerment. And then in another instant they are tearing each other to shreds; their words are spiked with venom, they force each other's insecurities to the surface in order to crush their spirit, they single one girl out and gang up on her. It's madness that is totally jarring to watch, yet, while a bit exaggerated, a mirror to the cold reality of adolescence. Which, especially prominent here in this film, has only been amplified with the advent of the internet and the consequential birth of cyber-bullying (we'll get back to this idea later). Each of their abilities to portray, and most probably draw from their own lives, the struggles of being a teenage girl in this social media driven society we currently reside in is beyond believable. They each give a jarringly potent performance. I definitely believe that each of these girls will have a soaring career and we should definitely all look out for future films featuring them.

As you may or may not know, I am a total sucker for a visually striking cinematic experiences... In other words, great cinematography. #Horror may be lacking in some areas, but it does not skimp on the visuals. The entire production is artistically crafted with stark aesthetics in mind. Every single frame in this film is a masterpiece: there's odd angles, bright artificial lighting (which plays into the tone of the film), just overall gorgeous camerawork. In fact, not only is the camerawork amazing, but all the details to create a visually stunning picture are perfection. To contrast with the richness of the blood, the colors of the film are quite bland: lots of greys, dark blues, and stark whites. The girls throughout the film have a few costume changes, yet are always dressed alike which creates a sense of unity or conformity, depending on the tone of the scene. Then there's the animations: #Horror utilizes two very different kinds of animations to evoke two very different reactions. First there are the phone app game looking animations that are used sporadically throughout the film. These animations create a sense of fun and are used in a more satirical sense, like look how much our phones have become so integrated into our lives that we are basically living in a giant game. While I do like these animations, I wish they had been utilized better and with more consistency. Second type of animations are the artwork animations, and these ones are creepily amazing. These animations gradually build a sense of unsettling, eeriness and the feeling of constantly being watched. Among these animations, my favorite has to be the egg-face animation (an Urs Fischer painting come to life... Eeeek!), where the boiled egg masked over someone's face starts to beat like a heart. It's weird and makes this strange fear that settles deep in my stomach. Also, there are other art pieces of people (paintings, sculptures, etc.) where the eyes move. This is where the idea that the house is its own character comes into play. With all the artwork essentially coming alive to torment the girls, if only in their minds, then there's also this large house that we learn has separate entrances for each member of Sophia's family. So even when Sophia's mother, Alex, is home it feels as if they're alone because everyone has their own separate quarters that don't intermingle. This instills an air of abandoned fear for the girls and for us viewers. All of this adds to the overall theme of the film: that with technology we have isolated ourselves, creating small bubbles in which others cannot permeate and while this may sound safe we've actually created more dangers for ourselves. Another layer of the film focuses on how we've become completely jaded with real life beauty, that we fixate on the fake worlds and illusions we build around us (i.e. filters on photos, making it seem like our lives are so great via instagram and facebook). Francesca even states at one point "Fake is better", and while yes she is talking about e-cigs, there is so much more that is being said in that statement.

And now we come to the issues I have with this film. #Horror, with all of its great attributes fails with its lack of focus and a storyline that just seems to spiral out into the abyss with no direction. From early on it is clear what is happening, so there's no suspense. And when the big "twist" is revealed, it's just like "oh we already knew this". Further there are events that occurred prior the present time in the film that are vaguely discussed, but I wish had been exposed in full detail. Like Timothy Hutton's character, Dr. Michael White, keeps mentioning a bullying episode executed by the other girls a year before that emotionally damaged his daughter, Cat. What happened in this situation, we never find out which is bothersome because it would've given a weightier context as to why Cat treats the other girls the way she does. Another thing is Sam's "sensitivities", which are never fully disclosed. This bothers me because it feels as though this is important information that we are going to find out, but instead it is simply stated that she has "sensitivities" and then static, never mentioned again. This detail almost feels like a red herring, but I don't think that it is intentionally so. There's a lot in this film that feels that way, actually. Like small details and occurrences that are supposed to throw us off the figurative scent, but really I think it's just too many ideas being pumped into the this movie and then not having anywhere to take them. So we end up with a film that has an abundance of ideas, but not enough of them are tied together in any coherent way. If I'm being honest, though, the story is not the point of this film and I don't think Sara Subkoff was too concerned with the aspect of plot. The story is just a conduit to display a bigger statement on the current state of society, and how this current state is molding our youth. So, while I can get over the fact that the plot is more fluidic and less structured, I know that this may be a dealbreaker for some viewers.

Overall I really really like #Horror. It's got the visuals and a kind of cautionary tale thing going for it. It is a wake-up call to the horrors of the internet and technology when used with malicious intent. Plus it's just creepy and weird and it feels fresh in a world were horror films are being pumped out as though on an assembly line. In other words, they're all the same. Would I watch it again? #Yes

"The Theory of Everything" (2014)

The Trailer:

Director: James Marsh
Writer: Anthony McCarten (screenplay) & Jane Hawking (book)
Cast: Eddie Redmayne, & Felicity Jones
Plot Summary: The story of Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) and his first wife Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones) and how their love, hope, and loyalty in one another allowed for Hawking to become to world-renowned physicist he is today, consequently resulting in their rocky marriage.

People seem to believe that science paints the world in black and white, creating neat little compartments for everything in the universe to fit in. That there can be no magic in a world that is ruled by scientific discovery and evidence. But what most people fail to recognize is the wonder, curiosity and mystery that is science: there is never any truths in science because what is proven today can be disproven tomorrow. Science is an ever changing, evolving subject. What makes it so wondrous is it's ability to inspire hope and to be discovered through hope. And The Theory of Everything encapsulates the spirit of hope in science and life perfectly. I have no complaints about this film—well maybe one, but we'll get to that later—, it is poignant, beautifully crafted, and gorgeously told.

I haven't written about Eddie Redmayne in any previous posts, though I have seen him in a few movies such as Hick, Black Death, and My Week With Marilyn and he has been amazing in each of them. He is a true artist in his craft and I can't even begin to explain to you what makes him good, he just is. But if I ever had to give an example of one of his dazzling performances to prove his acting credibility, I'd say it is in The Theory of Everything. Playing a role based on such a well-known person will always be difficult, I think, for any actor. There's the matter of resemblance, capturing mannerisms, speaking in a similar intonation, taking on the personality and/or persona and knowing that if you fail to perform one or all of these parts correctly, you will take viewers out of the illusion that you're trying to create. Not to mention that you will be criticized for not paying enough homage to the real life person you're impersonating (Have y'all heard of the backlash following Zoe Saldana portraying Nina Simone?). My point is is that Eddie Redmayne astoundingly cloaks himself in Hawking's characteristics that it's near impossible to tell actor from character. Watching Hawking's transformation from a generally healthy young man to a man succumbing to the crippling effects of ALS through Redmayne's portrayal is genuine and without being insensitive. I can appreciate and respect that. But let's not forget the graceful Felicity Jones. I haven't seen her in any of her other films, so I didn't know what to expect from her. Actually, I had no expectations for her, really other than for her to be a good counterpart to Redmayne's performance. But I was blown away by how much heart and soul she brought to this film. In most instances, like the real Jane Hawking (maiden name: Wilde), Jones is the backbone of the film. Next to Redmayne's absolute portrayal of Stephen, Jones' emotionally charged yet fierce portrayal of Jane is complimentary. Jones and Redmayne have such a genuine chemistry that allows for us viewers to become completely engrossed and invested in the story they're telling. So bravo to both actors.

Now the story. The Theory of Everything is a testament to what hope, love, and mutual encouragement can accomplish in life. It's heartbreaking, tear-jerking (I guarantee you will cry with this one, or at least tear up), and inspirational all at once. We see how the challenges Stephen Hawking face have no bearing on his career and his passion for his family and how Jane's resolute bravery and strength through it all results in a film of tremendous highs and soul crushing lows. Place pathos aside for a minute, though, and I have some concerns. The film in all of its glory and beauty seems to lack a focal point other than the relationship of Stephan and Jane. And while this isn't necessarily a bad thing, there is still something missing. The Theory of Everything is based on a book by Jane Hawking, so it would be assumed that the film would focus more on how her life changed and how she dealt with Stephen's disabilities and his celebrity, yet that's not the case. Instead we get a film that doesn't delve too deeply into either of their psyches during their marriage, which is a bit disappointing. There's also the sense of trying to cram a span of thirty years into a two hour runtime, which leaves everything feeling a bit shallow. And most importantly, I would've liked for there to be a bit more detail about Stephen's scientific discoveries. Yes, I realize that that isn't the point of this film, but his physicist accomplishments are only ever mentioned in passing.

Other than that last paragraph, I found The Theory of Everything to be an enjoyable, heartfelt film. I wish there was a bit more to it, but as it is now it is a masterpiece of a biopic about a truly great man. I cried about every five seconds, and for me, that solidifies it as a film that will always hold a special place in my cinema heart. Would I watch it again? Yes, but not any time soon because I can't put myself through that kind of heartbreak again!

"Project Almanac" (2015)

The Trailer:

Director: Dean Israelite
Writer: Jason Pagan & Andrew Deutschman
Cast: Jonny Weston, Virginia Gardner, Sam Lerner, Allen Evangilista, & Sofia Black-D'Elia
Plot Summary: A group of friends— David Raskin (Jonny Weston), Christina Raskin (Virginia Gardner), Quinn Goldberg (Sam Lerner), and Adam Le (Allen Evangilista)—, after discovering footage that suggests time travel, create their own time travel machine. Over the many trials to perfect it's functioning they inadvertently bring an outsider into their group, David's crush, Jessie Pierce (Sofia Black-D'Elia), who eventually convinces them to discontinue their trials and go directly to testing out the device on themselves leading to a series of events that cause terrible changes they didn't foresee.

I absolutely love how the found footage idea is seeping into other genres, it's really quite lovely... NOT. *Sigh* When did found footage become the most innovative, original story-telling technique? I have absolutely no idea, but I'm not a fan. You know, it's not even that I don't like found footage— in some instances, the found footage aspects succeeds in adding a level of reality to a film—, but it's the shaky camera (that makes me nauseous) and the fact that it adds no depth to the film. Project Almanac could've just as easily been filmed in a regular film style and the story would've remained the same and probably would've been better relayed to us viewers. Plus the production seems a bit too polished to be found-footage, you know what I mean? Especially since the movie is supposed to have been filmed on an old camcorder from the early 2000's. Like really, the image is going to be super crystal clear? I don't think so. Plainly, there is no need for this movie to be found footage. No need other than the creators wanting to add some "freshness" to an overdone concept. Because, really, have we not had enough time travel movies? Don't mistake me, I appreciate a well crafted time travel movie, but this is just silly teenager, junk-food cinema. And not even good teenager junk-food cinema, mind you.

Adding to my dislike of the found-footage-thriller genre this movie places itself in, I have some other issues as well. Mostly with the story, the details, and the logic of the movie. The story itself of four friends, plus the crush of our protagonist, developing a time machine isn't all that interesting. In fact, it's a bit underwhelming. Again, since this time travel idea is not a new concept, we're fairly familiar with the formula of similar movies. It goes something like this: time travel machine is built, the builders go back in time to change things that will benefit themselves in the present, soon they realize that the small changes they made had disastrous effects on the present, now they must find a way to fix it. Actually there are a few templates a time travel movie could follow, but this is the most basic and overall accepted formula. Anyways, my point is that it's not a surprise when shit starts getting out of hand because of the changes they made in the past, which leaves little suspense for the movie to hang on. And instead of trying to create a more suspenseful sub-plot, we're fed a regurgitated teenage, boy meets girl romance. Ugh, why??? Out of all the things the movie could've been focused on— like why David traveled back to his 7th birthday party in the first place (the footage they found)— the writers chose to focus on the most mundane, boring, melodramatic teenage romance there ever was? What a fucking waste! I was annoyed as soon as I saw Sofia Black-D'Elia's pouty, perpetually-on-the-verge-of-tears face because I knew right then that this movie was going to turn into a sappy romance of David trying to impress Jessie Pierce with his time traveling abilities. And that's exactly what the movie turned into. And on top of that, none of the characters are well-developed or compelling, even. I wasn't interested in any of them. All their motives are simply chalked up to teenage naiveté, which by itself is just a superficial characteristic. Further, I was angry at David's lack of forethought. Like David, Christina, Quinn, and Adam were all for scientific experimentation to ensure the safety of themselves and anything else that might be affected by the time traveling. So they experimented with inanimate objects to see if 1) the time machine works and 2) what effects the time travel had on the object and/or time space continuum. Yet when pouty Jessie Pierce says hey we should forgo experiments on smaller living organisms and just go straight to us using the time machine, they abandon scientific method and just hope for the best. For me, a child of science, I can't accept this. Time travel, though it seems completely implausible right now, if it were possible, it would be necessary to consider all outcomes of it's use. So it seems unlikely that David, a seemingly smart kid (he got accepted into MIT) would know that and wouldn't be swayed by the charms of some stupid school crush. I just won't accept that and it angers me that that's what happened. Then there's a logic set up for how this whole time travel thing works in the realm of this movie, and yet that logic isn't consistently followed throughout the film thus creating some GAPING plot holes. I won't indulge on the plot holes as they would obviously give away too much, but let's just say that with the logic that is set up, this movie shouldn't have happened.

While it seems like I liked nothing about Project Almanac, I do appreciate some things though I wish they had been further explored. Example: the friendship. I am all for movies and books and any other story-telling mediums out there that are centered around a group of friends going through a life-changing experience together. There's a lot of emotions that can be pulled from that: All the trust, love, compassion, fear, anger, etc. that can happen in a situation like this. Plus the fact that no matter what happens to this group of friends in the future, they will always have this shared moment between them that they can look back on in nostalgia and reminiscence. All of that makes for a textured story, yet Project Almanac barely delves into any of that. All we are told is that these people are friends and that's it, we just have to accept that. We're never given any details about their friendship, about what holds them together, about their loyalty to one another. Nothing and it's disappointing. Despite all that, I do appreciate that the friendship is at the center of the movie, and though it is never fully explored, we do get a sense that this group would do anything to protect each other. Also, though I did mention this as a negative earlier, the production is pretty good. For a found footage, it's too good, but just as an overall piece of work it's good. Also I really like all the various settings: the school, the house, Lollapalooza, the streets in general. It all lends itself to the feeling that this takes place in a real town with real people and I can respect that.

Ultimately Project Almanac is a solid two star movie, more stars if you could get over some of the things that I couldn't. It's okay, nothing special, definitely nothing that anybody is going to remember a few months after they watch it. And actually the more I think and write about it, the less I like it so I'm just going to stop writing about it now to keep intact the little liking that I do have for the movie. Would I watch it again? Only to have as background noise.

"The Zero Theorem" (2014) What's The Point?

The Trailer:

Director: Terry Gilliam
Writer: Pat Rushin & Terry Gilliam
Cast: Christoph Waltz, Mélanie Thierry, Lucas Hedges, Tilda Swinton, & Matt Damon
Plot Summary: Qohen Leth (Christoph Waltz), a socially awkward but computer savvy man is asked by Management (Matt Damon) to prove the Zero Theorem, which states that the Universe will end in nothing rendering everything meaningless. On his tireless attempt to prove the theory he is given advice by a computer genreated therapist, Dr. Shrink-Rom (Tilda Swinton), propositioned by a cyber-prostitute Bainsley (Mélanie Thierry), and aided by a young hacker, Bob (Lucas Hedges).

The Zero Theorem is one of those films that you either like or you you hate. There's no in between, unless you're me. Reading the reviews for it on IMDb and Amazon, it's clear that most are upset with the ending, or lack thereof rather. But I have a different view on that, which I'll get to later. Mostly, I like the film, but there are some factors that leave me puzzled.

First, the things that puzzle me. Or, actually, they don't puzzle me so much as they don't resonate with me. The overall kind of retro-futuristic look the film has going for it is not my favorite thing. And I get that it's kind of the style of Terry Gilliam— he makes these weird, fantastical films that are really outside the box—, but it just doesn't sit right with me. The story has such poignancy and depth that the cartoony look and style of the future takes away rather than adds or compliments. Don't get me wrong though, I'm all for a fun, kooky futurism appearance just not with the context of this film. To be fair, not everything about the setting bothers me. There are certain details and/or behaviors of the people of the future that I can understand how it is the evolution of things we have or do today. Example: there is a party scene in which everyone is individually listening to their own iPod looking devices rather than collectively participating in the party. And I can see how our dependence on phones and tablets right now,in the present, could eventually transform into us not having real connections with others even in a party atmosphere. Therefore, I can appreciate and respect certain creative ideas regarding the future in this film, just not all of them. Oh, you know, now that I think about it there are things that puzzle me. Throughout the film various characters use terminology that is unfamiliar to us outside of their world, yet they're never explained. Some of them have implied definitions, others still baffle me. Like entities? Are they talking about spirits, souls, some kind of transient being? I have no idea. It's not really important that we understand the vernacular, but it would still be nice to know.

The plot is a little wonky and is without a definite end or conclusion. In the beginning we are plagued with wondering if Qohen is ever going to figure out the Zero Theorem, but towards the end question is placed on the back burner. While for some this might be annoying, because why invest in a story line when nothing is going to come of it? But if you take a closer look, you'll see that though this is the main plot it isn't what the film is about. The film's theme is much grander than that and hidden just beneath the theory proving veneer. Instead of investing in the plot we are weened into focusing on this man, Qohen, and his empty life: he is so afraid of everything and nothing all at that same time that he has detached himself from the world, but not completely. In his attempt to finally shut out the world completely eventually leads to various others intruding on his life. Further, the reasons he had for staying away from the world begins to muddle as he makes connections with these new people around him. Without giving too much away, the film forces us to examine our own motives in life. Why do we do the things we do? Is it for ourselves or for some one else? Perhaps a divine being. Can we be certain that our beliefs will carry on with us after we've come to an end, after the universe has come to a end? And if it's all meaningless, what's the point? Some of these questions, upon the conclusion, are answered while others are left for us to figure out. Even the ones that are answered can be taken apart an answered again with a completely different solution. In the end, there is no right answer. That's what's important to remember as you watch The Zero Theorem, there is no right way or wrong way for it to unfold, it just does. You know what I mean?

Now for the acting. Christoph Waltz is a masterful actor with such an enormous talent for taking a character that potentially could've been very silly and a caricature and instead gave Qohen an endearing human side. Qohen, to me, was never too detached to resonate with me: He had real fears, he lives a life that is not unlike some people in the real world, he still possesses decent-human-being qualities despite being a bit eccentric. Christoph Waltz never makes Qohen someone to pity, but instead someone to sympathize with. But, really has Christoph Waltz ever been terrible in a film? Not in my book. Then we have Mélanie Thierry who plays Bainsley, the sort of cyber-prostitute/stripper (in their world it's rather difficult to decipher what she does exactly). And while she doesn't have a lot of depth, I still find myself liking her. While her motives may be questionable, she is still charming in her own way: She forces Qohen to wander outside of his comfort zone and see what he's been missing. She is bubbly and fun, but not without a sense of sadness. Lucas Hedges plays Bob, Management's son and, also, a computer hacking genius. He, with his carefree and somewhat obnoxious attitude, becomes Qohen's only friend. Tilda Swinton plays Dr. Shrink-Rom, and is absolutely glorious at it. Though she's only on screen for a limited amount of time, she captures this kind of quack-doctor vibe sprinkled with false optimism that is strange and intriguing. Then there's Matt Damon who plays Management. Management is this near-fable like person. People are weary of him, yet no one ever really talks directly with him. Again, only on screen for a small amount of time but what he does in his screen time is great: he is this imposing figure who seems to have little interest in the way of the world and yet he watched everyone and everything via camera. Overall the acting is superb and wonderful and fantastical. What more could you want?

The cinematography, oh what a beauty. This film is saturated in color, dripping in color even. It's filmed on film rather than digital which is what allows for the richness and depth of the colors to truly mesmerize the viewers. If you're not gonna watch for the story, at least watch for the sheer beauty of the film. Furthermore, the direction is spectacular. Again, with Terry Gilliam you wouldn't expect less. He is a master of creating these fantasy worlds with the use of interesting settings, colors, and costumes. Additionally, he utilizes off-kilter angles to kind of dizzy the viewers, to create a sense of... of I'm not sure what of but it makes you feel off. Like there's something not quite right. Oh, and then the constant allusion to this black hole that is shown frequently throughout the film is amazing. There's this weird sense of sadness and loneliness that is felt because of the black hole and I don't know where it comes from. I've seen photos videos of black holes a million times over, yet in the context of The Zero Theorem, there is a depressing shadow cast over them: a reminder that this world will end and we won't matter.

I know The Zero Theorem is not for everyone. I mean it's pretty obvious by the way people have reacted to it on IMDb and Amazon. It's a polarizing film, and I happen to be on the polar side that likes it. But if you're someone who wants a movie that contains a plot with a beginning, middle, and end this is not the film for you. Would I watch it again? Yes, definitely.

"Burying The Ex" (2014) Dead But Still Here

The Trailer:

Director: Joe Dante
Writer: Alan Trezza
Main Cast: Anton Yelchin, Ashley Greene, Oliver Cooper, & Alexandra Daddario
Plot Summary: Max (Anton Yelchin) quickly begins to question the future of his relationship with his girlfriend Evelyn (Ashley Greene) after she moves in. To make matters worse, she dies on the day he plans to break up with her and comes back to life as a zombie hellbent on keeping the relationship alive.

What, a movie with a girlfriend dying then coming back to life? We've seen that before in a little movie called Life After Beth (which I wrote about just this past January). And if you read that little blog post, you'll know that I didn't think Life After Beth to be that great. In fact, I think I called it boring. So when I saw the trailer for Burying The Ex I thought "well this can't be any worse", and thankfully I was right. This film is infinitely better that Life After Beth, but it's still not great, not even good really.

First, let's start with the things I like. The production and special effects are awesome. Production wise, this is a solid piece of cinema. From Voltage Pictures, the production company, you shouldn't expect less. Cinematography is good, nothing spectacular but it gets the job done. The direction from Joe Dante is great with the practical effects and the kind of subdued weirdness that has come to be expected of him. The special and/or practical effects of Burying The Ex are phenomenal, as they are reminiscent of 80's horror. The blood, the makeup, the costumes are all real and they each really work well to compliment the story. Also, the score is fantastic. Again, there is this throwback to 80's horror with the score, with the intense violins, a big build-up, and with a loud "dun-dun"for the scares. It's cheesy and wonderful, and works for the overall quirkiness of the film. Awesome job, production crew!

Now for the things that I'm on the fence about. The humor is there without being too powerful or in-your-face. There are a slew of foreshadowing statements that are more ironically funny than they are laugh out loud funny, you know?  But there's definitely some over-the-top silliness that occurs as well. So you have a nice mixture of both irony and slap-stick, but all with a hipster, indie flair. That's where I begin to question whether it is quality humor or just overdone comedy. I have watched many a horror-comedy in my day and I have to say that the more and more they are made the more they start to emulate each other in terms of comedy: they all present this hipster, one-liner, obvious humor that, honestly, I'm getting a little bored with. After a while of seeing it time and time again, it loses that little spark that made it special. So, while I laughed at some bits, I couldn't help feeling like I'd already heard that joke. Moving on, the acting. Anton Yelchin has this perpetually sad-looking face and wimpy disposition that works well his character as Max: Max is miserable in his relationship with Evelyn, and then he's in mourning for months after her death. The sad face works if not a bit irritating to have to watch for 90 minutes. He reminds me of real people I know who are intense horror film buffs who know everything from the most popular horror films to the most obscure. So in a nutshell, he's a bit annoying as real-life film snobs are (uh-oh, do I fall into that territory?). Ashley Greene as Evelyn is obnoxious as the demanding, discouraging girlfriend. She has her positives, like her complete dedication and activism for the environment and... that's about it. In general, she is a totally unlikable, despicable character. She has no respect for Max's interest in horror cinema, and is outright mean and self-important. Which begs the question, how have they stayed together this long? Why would Max allow himself to be in such a suffocating relationship that doesn't let him be his own person? Oh yeah, because he's got a wimpy disposition. Anyways, Alexandra Daddario, as Olivia, is the perfect choice for the role, though yet again a bit annoying. She is the ultimate alternative girl, with her punky, novelty ice scream store (called "I Scream"), her compatible knowledge of horror films, her awkward disposition, topped off with purple streaks in her hair. She's so cool, right? And the fact that she can finish Max's sentences when discussing films is adorable, right? Wrong, it grates on my nerves. *Sigh*. And then there's Oliver Cooper as Travis, who is Max's sloppy, unkempt half-brother who somehow always gets the girls. He usually brings the comedic relief when the film is getting a bit stale in it's more dramatic moments, so I actually applaud him. The reason I'm the fence with this because on one side we have these actors who did a phenomenal job at portraying their characters— so phenomenal, in fact, that I hate them— and on the other hand these characters are the most irritating group of people that a movie could center around. It's such a shame because had they been written differently, I might've actually cared, but as they are I was just done with them as soon as I met them.

Now for the thing I didn't like: the substance. I don't mean the concept or the content, I mean the actual movie. Let me explain. Apparently Burying The Ex is based off a short film of the same name that was made in 2008. I cannot find this short film anywhere. I've looked on YouTube, I've scoured google and I've found nothing. But that's not the point. The point is that it is obvious this movie is based off a short film. You know how it's obvious? It feels like the creators took a concept/theme and stretched it to it's absolute limits so that now it is completely thin and barely there. There is an abundance of fluff and unnecessary moments within the movie that are sleep-inducing. Okay, maybe I'm being a bit harsh. The movie really isn't that bad, but if you're going to take a short film and bring it to feature length, make it so impeccably that viewers aren't going to wonder if the short is better. At this point, with how empty this movie feels, I am so curious about the quality of the short film. Plus the story has been done before, and will probably be done again, and again, and again...

I did say that this was better than Life After Beth and I still stand by that, even after I've just told y'all how annoying and empty Burying The Ex feels. It definitely made me chuckle more than Life After Beth did and is a lot more appealing to the eyes. But for the most part, I didn't like it all that much. It's just alright. Though I have my qualms about it, I would probably still watch it again.

"Para Elisa" (2012) For Who?

The Trailer:

Director: Juanra Fernández
Main Cast: Ona Casamiquela, Jesús Caba, Luisa Gavasa, & Ana Turpin
Plot Summary: Ana (Ona Casamiquela), a young college student strapped for cash, takes a job as a nanny for a Diamantia (Luisa Gavasa), a world-renowned pianist. Things quickly go south as Ana realizes that Elisa (Ana Turpin), Diamantia's daughter, is not a child but a grown woman.

Being named after one of the greatest, most beautiful masterpieces in history (Okay, maybe not the greatest, Beethoven has many a great compositions) you'd expect this to be a masterpiece of cinema, but I'm here to tell you folks you'd be wrong. OHMYSATAN, this film is terrible. No, not terrible. That's too harsh, but it's nowhere near good, or decent even. It has the bones for a really great movie, it just wasn't well executed. I will say, though, that the acting is solid, some might even say good.

Where to start? I guess we can start off with how our protagonist is a completely and totally unlikable, flimsy character. The movie starts with Ana complaining to her mother that she doesn't send enough money for her to live off of while she's in college, and how she simply can't work because she's too busy with school. Her horrid mother won't even pay for her class trip to Madeira, oh that cruel mother of hers!! She also possesses this snarky attitude that rubs me the wrong way, you know? And I'm not talking about when she's snarky to her on again/off again boyfriend Alex (Jesús Caba), though, as he seems like a shitbag and shouldn't be treated nicely. Which leads me to another reason I don't like Ana: her and Alex have an argument ending with his hand gripping her throat and she just nonchalantly keeps flirting/bickering with him afterwards as though it wasn't a big deal. Even further, said argument is about her not wanting to forgive him for not inviting her to live with him, and when he finally says hey let's go look for a place she says "I don't want to live with you". What? Yet at the end the aforementioned choking, it seems like she forgives him but is just trying to give him hard time. Girl, you're so hot and cold, how is anyone supposed to know what you want? I don't know, she annoys me, you know? She just has this air about her that she's better than everyone else and it's aggravating. Another particular moment in the movie that pisses me off is when Ana goes to Diamantia's home for the first time for her interview and absentmindedly touches a doll Diamantia has on display. When Diamantia scolds her for touching it and letting Ana know that it is a rare and expensive doll, she doesn't even apologize or acknowledge Diamantia's words. Yes, it's a small thing, but think about it: This is the woman you're trying to work for and you're just gonna go into her home and offend her and then totally disregard her when she tries to correct you? Dude, learn some fucking manners! It's safe to say that I don't like Ana as a character, which makes it hard for me to sympathize with her when shit starts to go down.

The pace at which the plot moves is exceedingly fast with no buildup, so when "crazy" stuff starts to happen you're just like "wait, why is this happening, I don't get it?". It feels as though the writer couldn't think of any good plot devices or plot points to move the movie along so everything is just happening. And that works for some movies, but definitely not with this one. It's clear from the beginning that shit is supposed to get crazy, but when it does it's too tame. Yes, that's the problem. Since there's no character, plot development, or atmosphere it is generally expected that the gore and blood is going to be extreme. Think of films like Human Centipede or Cannibal Holocaust, they have little in terms of  substance but they don't need it as their gore and violence more than makes up for it. But here in Para Elisa, there is no story, or the story that is presented is dull, and there's no gore. To further discuss the story's lack of gasp moments, it also dips very deep into stupid territory. Example: Ana, at her first chance of escape, has an opportunity to use the phone and instead of calling the police (you know someone who can actually help her) she calls her fucking shithead boyfriend! Are you serious?? And even worse, at that point in the movie we've discovered that Alex is even more of an ass than we initially thought through a completely unnecessary sub-plot that involves him sleeping with Ana's friend. It's all such a shame because the beginning of Para Elisa shows such promise. When we are introduced to Diamantia, I was hooked. I wanted to know more, to get a glimpse inside this woman's seemingly cool and collected head that is only a facade to her cruel brutality. I wanted to know the history of her and Elisa's life that led to such insanity. I wanted to know more about the other girls that Diamantia and Elisa have done this to (it is casually mentioned that there are others, but is never mentioned again). There was so much to explore and the writer chose not to and instead make a run-of-the-mill, "gory", slasher (?) flick. *Sigh* What a waste!

There was so much that could've been done to make Para Elisa better, but unfortunately it just didn't happen. And come to think of it, I'm not sure if Für Elise is even used at any point in the movie. How can you not pay homage to the namesake of the movie? I don't know. There is potential here, but it didn't come together in a strong story. Would I watch it again? Nope, not even für Elise. (haha, I make myself laugh)

"Devoured" (2014) They'll Eat You Up

The Trailer:

Director: Greg Olliver
Main Cast: Marta Milans
Plot Summary: Lourdes (Marta Milans), an immigrant woman whose son is severely ill and requires an operation, is working as a cleaning woman in a New York restaurant. Before long, she begins to suspect something sinister is happening within its' walls and is determined to find out what.

I won't say that Devoured is a horror masterpiece, but there are sparks here that say it could've been. There's a lot that isn't great about the film— the makeup/special effects are a joke, unnecessary jump scares, and sometimes sloppily tied together details and things that don't make sense at all— but the story and overall atmosphere make watching it worth it. There is real potential here, a nice jumping off point for the young director in his venture into horror and for the writer, Marc Landau's first movie.

Let me get the bad out of the way. The makeup and or special effects on this movie isn't great. Granted there aren't too many scenes that involve any grotesque makeup of special effects, so it really isn't that big of a deal. And for the most part, the makeup is really good. There is just one small exception, and honestly I don't even know why it bothers me so much but it does.

Do you see this guys Night of the Living Dead (the 1968 original, duh!) makeup? It's not even remotely scary or good. And for some reason this bothers me to no end. I think it's mostly due to the fact that this ghost-man is an unnecessary scare in the film. There are so many scenes that conjure suspense and terror with the use of atmosphere and the score and just general tension-building throughout the film that this visual manifestation of fear feels like an afterthought. Like the writer and director had a conversation that decided the viewers were going to be stupid to pick up on the nuanced atmosphere and story they're trying to tell, so decided to throw in some cheap scares to really get the point across. This and a few other visual scares, like jump scares, are add-ons that didn't need to be. Which is a little bit disappointing, as without them the film would've been better off. Though, I will admit that a few of the jump scares are good and should be praised. One of my particular faves is a scene involving her locker; if you've seen the movie you'll know what part I'm talking about, or if you've yet to watch it, you'll know when you see it.

Moving on, the sloppily tied together and perplexing details about the film also knock it down a bit in terms of rating. The one thing I kept asking myself over and over again is why did Lourdes choose New York? We find out that Lourdes is from El Salvador (her mother and ill child still live there), which is closer to the southern border of the U.S. than New York, so why choose to go somewhere so far? She could have just as easily chosen to live in Texas or Florida, even. Perhaps she knew she would make more money in New York, but she would also have to pay more money for rent, so...? I don't know. Anyways, there are other moments in the film that upon the conclusion seem to have no purpose. Which leaves me wondering now as I write, why they were put in the film in the first place? Additionally some of these details don't make sense. Like mister ghost-zombie man up there, he is an apparition that we see fairly early in the film, but with the timeline of the story his appearance in the beginning doesn't make any sense. I won't go into detail on why it doesn't make sense as that would give away the twist of the film, but just know that it doesn't. In line with that paranormal detail, some of the other paranormal occurrences become moot upon the conclusion of the film, but then why did they occur? I suppose it is to confuse us viewers as to whether we're watching a paranormal horror or a psychological thriller. Or a little of both, perhaps? While in hindsight these details bemuse me, during the viewing of the film they are what created the unsettling creepy tone and atmosphere.

The atmosphere of Devoured is phenomenally dark, disturbing, and isolating. Lourdes is a foreigner in a new country, in a new big city. She has no friends, no relatives there, and little interaction with people other than her co-workers, which isn't great. Her boss is a snarky woman who seems to be jealous of Lourdes for no apparent reason and then the cook is a gropey, gross guy who won't leave Lourdes alone. Her entire life here in New York is devoid of love, compassion, or acceptance. And then we see glimpses of her life in El Salvador with her son that are all sunshine and warmth and love, which she desperately yearns for and that makes us realize how shitty her life is presently in comparison. When weird little things begin to happen around the restaurant, she has no one to confide in, which makes her fears all the more isolating. Not to mention that the restaurant itself is it's own bizarre entity. The restaurant is in an old building that just has that air about it that says it has a long, gritty history. You know what I mean? Decorating the walls of said restaurant are photographs and paintings of people that seem to be staring right at you. The feeling of being watched is consistently referred to throughout the film, with the paintings, with the handsy cook, with scenes shot through a doorknob hole, which is so disconcerting and makes your skin prickle. Don't even get me started on the cinematography. Let me just say I never knew the act of slicing vegetables and meat could be so gorgeous while also conjuring up such visceral sickening-ness. Oh, I love it!

Now for the plot and story. Devoured is simple tale and, ultimately, what drives the film. We know Lourdes needs to raise enough money for her son's operation, which is why we can understand her willingness to put up with her shitty boss, her gropey co-worker, and that creepy restaurant. It also kind of gives the feeling of time ticking down, like a timer. So, nothing too crazy happens regarding the plot to muddle up the film, which is great. Also, because of the basic plot the film can focus on Lourdes' character and her decent into madness at the hands of the paranormal happenings in the restaurant. It allows us to focus on how Lourdes, through all the weird shit happening becomes more and more detached from reality with only her son to ground her. We witness her meek resilience morph into a fed-up, hostile, strength to return to her son at last. It's a beautiful arc, and even more beautiful upon the conclusion of the film.

Again, Devoured is not a masterpiece, but it is really good. I didn't expect much from it and was pleasantly surprised at it's dark charm and subdued terror. I definitely believe that this director is one to look out for, the writer as well. They each can be the next great voices in horror. Would I watch this wonderful horror film again? Uhhh, yeah!!

"The Den" (2013) You're Internetting Too Hard

The Trailer:

Director: Zachary Donahue
Main Cast: Melanie Papalia
Plot Summary: Elizabeth Benton (Melanie Papalia), a woman studying the habits of web cam chat room users, witnesses an alleged murder online and subsequently places herself in the cross-hairs of anonymous web users.

I seem to recall a Criminal Minds episode with a similar concept. I won't indulge y'all in the concept, though, as it would ruin the "twist" of this movie. Anyways, I know that there is a niche of viewers who would enjoy a movie like this, but I am just not one of them. The format is similar to most found footage films of late, except not as shaky due to the camera being a web cam and not a handheld camera. I'll explain a little later why I don't particularly like this format either. Also, I wasn't entirely entertained by the actual story either. But aside from those, I think The Den has a good concept, good acting, and a certain sense of originality in style (which I'm not sure if I like or not).

Let's start with the good. The concept of The Den is great: being cyber-stalked and terrorized is terrifying. The internet is so vast and easily manipulated by hackers that it makes it near impossible to track down these internet abusers. The internet, though it feels like it's been around forever, is still fairly young, and with it being so young and new, there is little knowledge of how to control it and keep it safe. Even with all the cyber-laws that have been passed recently, there is still a little something called the Dark web, where literally any terrible thing you can imagine is being bought and sold and shared. To even think about all theses terrible things is overwhelmingly stomach churning. So the fact that this movie is a venture into the dark corners of the world wide web and what can happen when you become involved in it is scary in itself. However, a good concept does not a good movie make.

The acting. So there are a slew of actors in The Den in order to make the whole video chat room believable. And while there are a few secondary characters who spend more than five minutes on screen altogether who do a decent job, the shining star of this movie is Melanie Papalia. Since this is kind of found footage-y, the actions and reactions of Elizabeth have to appear and feel real enough that we can suspend our disbelief into believing it is real. And Papalia does an amazing job at creating and portraying a character that is easily believable. Not only can she appear as though she is genuinely afraid, she also makes the most idiotic decisions out of her heightened emotional state with such pure conviction that it has to be real, you know? Suffice to say, I was impressed by Melanie Papalia's acting and her ability to bring the character of Elizabeth Benton to life.

While I am aware of other films that chronicle the horrors and hazards of internet use, I appreciate that the writers, while staying true to other cautionary tales of this sort, went a little bit further so as to highlight our complete dependence on the internet. The fact that The Den takes the time to show how easily the internet can be used for terror, and without consequence because of how hard it is to track these things, is enough to demonstrate how the internet has completely overtaken the world. But also, the fact that the writers and directors chose to showcase the accessibility of all kinds of things on the internet is just as important at showing how we've succumbed to the ease of the internet. I mean, we're talking about the deepest, darkest, immoral fantasies and desires of people throughout the world being accessed with a click of a button, that is truly frightening! Further, this isn't like other found footage films where a group of friends go on some adventure or whatever and end up, unrealistically, carting around a hand-held camera for the entirety of the film which leads to shaky, pixelated footage. No, The Den's footage is all shot through a web cam, and sometimes the camera of a phone, which for me is better than shaky, can't-really-see footage but is still not my favorite format to view a movie.

Because of it mostly being shot through a laptop's webcam, we only see what the laptop's camera sees. There are moments where our characters go completely out of frame and we can only hear what they're saying/doing, which honestly is kind of annoying. Granted, there aren't too many scenes like that, but it's still a nuisance. Also, of course, there is unsteady footage from when Elizabeth is running around with her phone with the camera on, which is beyond annoying and dizzying. Like, really how can anybody watch that? Doesn't it make you dizzy or nauseous?(By the way, what reason would she have to have her camera on during these parts? She could have easily just used the light on her phone if she needed a flashlight. But of course, for the sake of the movie she needs to use her camera). Furthermore, because of the movie being filmed, for the majority, through her laptop webcam there is just too many scenes of Elizabeth's face. I know that may sound weird, because while she is an attractive woman, I don't want to spend an hour and a half of just looking at her face react to the various things she's witnessing. It gets a little boring after a while seeing her laugh at a ridiculous penis puppet video. Yes, there are various scenes that contain a penis puppet video, which aren't even funny.

Now for the story and, more importantly, the actions of our protagonist. The story of this woman studying the habits of video chat room users and then being terrorized by some anonymous group is okay, but when it comes to her not doing anything to distance herself from it is where the story gets silly. Like seriously, after you've witnessed a possible murder, you still don't end the study? After you've been hacked and are being terrorized by some anonymous group, you still don't stop going on the chat room? No, instead you just go deeper and deeper into the weird shit of the internet and end up burying yourself in it without any way out. That is completely ridiculous. Like come on, man! You see how fucking insane this shit is getting and you still keep going back to the site to Sherlock Holmes your way into finding your boyfriend? And the worst offense is how she cut off the one person who could help her: her friend who is some kind of amateur, hobbyist hacker. Like are you dumb? Out of all the weirdos and people who you interact with, you choose to stop talking to guy who's trying to help you just because you don't like what he's advising you to do? Girl, bye! Overall I was annoyed with her character, through and through. Every decision she made was stupid and completely ludicrous. Believable, but insanely stupid.

In the end, The Den itself isn't very scary. The thoughts and ideas that it conjures up is terrifying. To think that things like this are actually happening is enough to make me not want to use the internet for forever. (Because with all the terrors of the dark web, I'm sure this film doesn't stray too far from reality) But funny enough, look at me still using the internet. Anyways, it's a decent movie. Not memorable, but not terrible. Would I watch it again, though? Probably not.