"Hush" (2016)

The Trailer:

Director: Mike Flanagan
Writer: Mike Flanagan & Kate Siegel
Cast: Kate Siegel, & John Gallagher Jr.
Plot Summary: Deaf author, Maddie (Kate Siegel), living in the woods to write her new novel must use her quick wit to fight against a masked killer (John Gallagher Jr.)

You know, home intruder/invasion films might be some of my unwitting favorites within the thriller genre. It's rarely a type of film that I ever desire to watch (not like how I desire to watch atmospheric, suspenseful, psychological horrors), but when I do I am always completely fulfilled and entertained. And isn't that all that matters? Anyways, most home intruder films possess a tight-string of suspense that almost always works: there is the question of whether or not the protagonist is going to survive, and not only will they survive but will they have a true prey-becoming-the-predator transformation that us viewers root for, and why did the intruder pick this home? Though, not all questions will be answered,  most home-invasion films end with some kind of happy resolution (save for films like The Strangers). Recently, though (I'd say since the early 2000's) there has been and influx of home invasion films, and with that comes overused tropes and clichés. The spark that made them great originally, is now a common, highly used formula that becomes boring, albeit still entertaining. So I was intrigued, as was the entire horror-lovers community, about this film that utilizes the protagonist's deafness as a way to up the ante of Hush, a film that could've otherwise been just another "boring" movie in a stagnant film genre.

First let me talk about the acting, because if the acting had been terrible the movie would've failed completely. Since there are only two characters, each of them have to have a strong credible air about them in order for us to be fully engulfed in their world and I'd say that Kate Siegel and John Gallagher Jr. did a far better job than I could've hoped for. Kate Siegel playing Maddie, an author struggling with writer's block, is amazing. Right off the bat we discover that not only is Maddie smart, but she has a quick wit, and she is capable: if need be, she can handle her own. I instantly knew that she'd be a total badass and be a real threat to the masked killer. John Gallagher Jr. as the masked killer (who I will henceforth refer to as The Man) is just as amazing. There is this aura of controlled instability about The Man that Gallagher so easily portrayed. I was afraid. With his actions we were enlightened to the probable fact that this is not The Man's first time doing this: he is patient, skilled, and without remorse for his actions. Throughout the film, their relationship grows increasingly intimate (not in a romantic way, but personal): both of them are set on survival and become well acquainted with each other's weaknesses as well as their strengths. Chiefly, this is what I appreciate most about Hush: the strange dynamic between prey and predator and how sometimes that line becomes blurred with the threat of death. Amazing acting leads to great characters which leads to a great story.

Now for the actual story. Overall, I love the movie but that doesn't mean it's without it's hiccups. There are a few plot devices used that in the end seem a bit too convenient for my taste. And generally, as with all horror movies, there are a lot of stupid decisions made throughout the film (i.e. Maddie making the MOST FUCKING NOISE during one of her attempted escapes! Like, girl, he can hear you!!!). But all that aside, Hush  is a solid thriller that genuinely terrified me. You know, there's always that part in a horror film where the killer/stalker/predator is standing literally right behind its next victim and you're wondering how on earth can this person not hear the killer/stalker/predator walking towards them, breathing, etc.? Well here in Hush the anxiety builds from us knowing that The Man is right behind Maddie, knocking on her window, walking over the gravel outside her home and she as no idea that he's there because she literally cannot hear. You don't know how many times I yelled at the screen "Girl, turn around!! He's right behind you! Satan, how do I sign "there's a fucking killer behind you" in sign language?" I mean her being deaf not only brought a minority character (it's rare for a protagonist in a film to be deaf) to the front and center and give the deaf community their visibility. but it actually worked as a detail in the film to catalyze more scares. I am truly impressed. Also, Maddie is not invincible. Too often in films the protagonist can be shot, stabbed, knocked out, whatever, and will continue on throughout the rest of the movie as though nothing happened, but not in Hush. Maddie gets hurt at one point and the effects of her injury start to weaken her and not only does she recognize this as a problem, but we witness it too: we see how she begins to waver in and out of consciousness, how it is a real struggle to stand/walk/fight, how she just generally loses a bit of the strength that she originally possessed. I was genuinely scared for her.

If there's one home invasion film that you should see, it's Hush. I was entertained and completely enjoyed it through and through. It's different and fresh and creative. It features a badass protagonist and a creepy, but strong antagonist. What more could you want from a thriller? Watch it, watch it NOW!!! Would I watch it again? Most definitely!

"Pontypool" (2008)

The Trailer:

Director: Bruce McDonald
Writer: Tony Burgess (screenplay and novel)
Cast: Stephan McHattie, Lisa Houle, & Georgina Reilly
Plot Summary: A radio talk-show host, Mazzy Grant (Stephan McHattie)— along with his sound engineer, Laurel-Ann Drummond (Georgina Reilly), and his producer, Sydney Briar (Lisa Houle)— is broadcasting live when a deadly virus breaks out in their small Ontario town, affecting all the residents.

Hey y'all, it's been a while since I've posted anything here: life's been hectic. But, hopefully I'm back in the game for a good while before life comes stomping it's destructive foot down on my impeccably kept lawn of plans. Anyways, without further ado, the review:

Yes, I realize Pontypool was released a few years ago — eight to be exact— but I've come to find that not many people have seen it. That's a shame, because this film has what is so rarely seen in horror nowadays: originality. Admittedly the concept of zombies (in case yo didn't know, Pontypool is a zombie flick... of sorts) isn't new, in fact the whole zombie sub-genre has been completely beaten to death in all mediums of creativity (i.e. movies, books, tv shows), yet here is this film that took that zombie concept and created an amazing film. It has it all, a great story, fantastic acting, suspense, terror, and a great director. What more could you ask for?

Let me first say that this film, though filled with suspense, is a bit of a slow-burner. There's little action throughout, though that's not a bad thing. In fact I am one hundred percent on board with that. As of late, the horror genre seems to think that there needs to be loads of stage blood and gruesome deaths to incite fear in its viewers, but I say nay to that. Although I do love a gorgeously shot blood bath, I much prefer a film that has depth within an actual story. The blood and all that should be an extension to a story and not the star of a story, you get what I'm saying? And this is where Pontypool truly shines. The entirety of the film is shot in a radio station within the basement of a church, therefore we never see the outside. The only connection our characters have to the outside world are from listeners calling in detailing the disturbing things they're seeing and/or hearing, and the radio station's weather guy, Ken Loney (Rick Roberts) who reports from the "sunshine chopper". With such little visual aid, us viewers are left to fill in the figurative blanks and try to paint a picture with the descriptions we're given from the listeners calls.  But the listeners can only tell so much, consequently making the virus a sort of enigma: what is the virus, what does it do to its victims, is it contagious, how does it spread? These are the sort of questions that our vast and endless minds can concoct all sorts of answers to. Usually with grisly results. That, for me, is some of the best kind of storytelling: not showing too much, resulting in triggering the imagination of the viewers to participate in the storytelling as well. Ahh, refreshing isn't it? So A+ for that Pontypool creators!

The acting is phenomenal. Having so few characters in the film allows for the writers to fully flesh out each one, giving each depth, personality, and characteristics that shine through in every moment of the film. And the writers did just that in Pontypool. Mazzy Grant, though obnoxious as he is, he isn't intolerable. Actually, he is the life of the bunch with his quick wit and no-nonsense attitude— he doesn't like to sugarcoat anything, much to the chagrin of his producer Sydney Briar. Stephan McHattie pulled off this character so well that I almost believe there is a real radio DJ out there named Mazzy Grant. Balancing Mazzy Grants off-the-cuff antics is Sydney Briar who constantly has to reel him in with little help from Laurel-Ann Drummond. She's takes her job seriously, but not so much so that she is overbearing: she simply wants things to go according to plan and having someone like Mazzy Grant doesn't always allow that to happen... not without a fight, that is. But she is also kind and compassionate and genuinely cares about the people she works with. Lisa Houle is perfect for this role: she's got the air of a caring, mother who wants the best of her kids which truly works with this character. And then there's young Laurel-Ann Drummond, the town's hometown hero— though young, she is an army veteran who fought in Afghanistan—, who encourages and finds humor in Mazzy's spontaneity. But because of her military background, there is an aura of alarm around her as the calls start coming in regarding the virus: she is on alert, ready to take action against whatever is happening. And though her character doesn't get as much screentime as Stephan McHattie and Lisa Houle, Georgina Reilly does just as good a job as they do. So bravo to the writers for writing such compelling characters and bravo to the actors for bringing these characters to life!!

I truly do admire much of the originality of the film, however there is still something that bothers me. !!!Spoiler Alert!!! After all the suspense and mystery surrounding the virus, it is simply explained that somehow it's being spread through infected words in the english language, particularly words of endearment (i.e. honey, sweetie, baby, etc.): once the word is said, the person's brain starts to malfunction and then they turn into a zombie-like creature that eats humans. And while, yes this is a completely new idea in horror, it has this sort of gimmicky quality to it. After all is said and done and a cure is found, it just seems kind of silly to think that an infected word would lead someone to become a cannibal (though they express characteristics of a zombie, all infected persons are still alive, so they're technically not a zombie). I can't wrap my head around it. I guess I wish that there had been a little more explanation as to how the words got infected in the first place and why only terms of endearment. Perhaps the book explain it. Oh yeah, did I mention this film is based on a book? Well it is. !!!Spoiler Alert Over!!!

In the end, I still totally love this film. It's intriguing and new and not like anything that has come out in recent times. And there probably won't be anything like it any time soon which is both a shame and a good thing. A shame because the horror genre is perpetually being tossed under the bus by terrible films. And a good thing because if more movies were to be made with the same non-conforming hand as Pontypool, this film would lose it's spark. And so I wrote this review (can we even call what I write 'reviews'? I feel like I just talk about movies, not necessarily review them, you know?) to let anyone know who hasn't seen Pontypool to watch it. Would I watch it again? Yes is no and blue is red.

"The Falling" (2014)

The Trailer:

Director: Carol Morley
Writer: Carol Morley
Cast: Maisie Williams, Florence Pugh, Maxine Peake
Plot Summary: At an all girls private school in 1960's England, Lydia (Maisie Williams) and Abbie (Florence Pugh) are best friends. But after tragedy pulls them apart, a strange, mysterious fainting epidemic travels throughout the school, crumbling the strength any of the girls had.

I know I say this often, but this is definitely not a film for everyone. If you go into it with the trailer alone as your only source of pretext for the film, you'll surely be disappointed. The trailer gives the impression that this is some sort paranormal, occult, mystery film, but I can tell you right now that it's not. However, it's not a terrible film. . . As long as you don't have any high expectations for it. If you simply watch it and lets it's strange, hazy beauty wash over you you might even enjoy it like I did.

What I appreciate most about The Falling is the strange female energy that bursts from the center of it: it's intoxicating, erotic, euphoric, envious, and disturbing. There is a barely-there plot that will annoy some, but I happened to like that. It's the atmosphere that breathes life into the film. It is the actions of the girls, the teachers, the parents that drives the story along. And even when you come upon the final answer to everything, though moot it may be, you won't feel cheated for having watched it. The Falling is special in that way: it gives you a problem and instead of unraveling it and trying to find a solution for it, it veers into this other, weirder, stranger territory that is surreal and haunting. You get this bigger picture of the vulnerability of girlhood, of how easy it is to let yourself be swept away by a seemingly organic phenomena and not being able to pull your way out of it, to become so involved in something that it's impossible to get out. It is a marker of the strengths that young girls can give each other, of the bonds formed between them that verge on romance, and of the puberty-driven, lustful needs that motivate a weird sort of competition between them. It's also a vivid picture of how, when given something to grant them substance, these young girls will cling to it with everything they've got. The Falling is also a reminder of teenage angst; the feelings of anger towards the world, the desire to be part of something, the need to fit in, the thirst for something more. But even further, not only does The Falling expose the angst of teenagers, but of girls. And in the 1960's context, we are given a more oppressed version of teenage girlhood that forces the girls to conform to strange standards in which they all deal with independently. There is a constant tug-o-war between desperation and liberation that is interesting. All of these elements combined make for a bizarre display of the graduation from girl to woman, from child to a being of complexity.

Not only are we given a picture of the puzzling struggles of girlhood, we are forced to become completely isolated just as the girls are. At their prep school, they are only exposed to female energy— except for the few male teachers they have and Lydia's odd brother. Not only are they isolated in that sense, their school is located in the middle of a ominous, dense forest that completely closes them in. While on that topic, the forest is filled with writhing, gnarled trees that almost look human— suffering humans— that create thick, dense shadows. The forest is a symbol to remind us of past horrors and tragedies that have been buried and kept secret. Which only adds to the feeling of isolation. Actually, isolation is probably the most recurring theme throughout the film, that and the need to break free from that. There's this fluttery sense of freedom felt whenever one of the girls has a fainting spell that evokes a nostalgic suggestion of teenage blooming that is sometimes forgotten in adulthood. But opposite that, the film also travels to some dark places. I can't talk about those dark places too much as it would expose some of the more pivotal moments of the film, but just know that it gets disturbing. Really, really disturbing.

I'll be honest, The Falling is perplexing. Even after its conclusion, I sat there saying "what the fuck just happened?". Actually, I said that multiple times throughout the film. There are many moments that seem to serve a far greater purpose that is never revealed. But I can't help but truly like this film. It's darkly, grotesquely beautiful. The cinematography is fantastic, the direction is better, and the acting is the icing on the proverbial cake. Maisie Williams is the undeniable star of the film. She gives the most memorable and haunting performance of a girl lost in the world. I absolutely enjoyed her portrayal of Lydia, and is in fact the only reason I continued to watch the movie after my first "what the fuck" thought. Anyways, The Falling is, again, not a film for everyone: it's weird and without a solid plot (maybe its biggest flaw), but if you like films that have deeper, more profound textures and makes you think and question your own life, then The Falling is definitely for you.

"In Your Eyes" (2014)

The Trailer:

Director: Brin Hill
Writer: Joss Whedon
Cast: Michael Stahl-David, & Zoe Kazan
Plot Summary: While living two totally different lives, Dylan (Michael Stahl-David) and Rebecca (Zoe Kazan), realize that they somehow have a strange telepathic connection that allows them to see, feel, and hear what is happening to the other person. With this connection they create a bond that will take each of them to the their limits and force them each to make decisions that will change their lives forever.

A sci-fi romance, you say? Well in theory that sounds good. Actually, I can think of a few films that pull off this genre-bending (is it really genre-bending?) well, but In Your Eyes is not one of them. In all honesty, though, I think it is merely a matter of taste in which my taste isn't shitty as fuck. Haha, I kid, I kid. I just don't like romance movies, simple as that. So why, you might ask, did I watch this particular movie? Well I thought it could be interesting with a fairly original concept and all, but it ended up being the same sappy, eye-roll inducing, ridiculous story as all the rest. But if that's what you're into, then be my guest. Go ahead and watch it, cry your gross tears and let your heart fill with joy at this marvelous never-before-told love story. Like I said, it's a matter of taste.

You know, I would delve into the plot and all that but really, like I mentioned before, it's the same basic outline as any other romance movie ever made: person A meets person B, instant attraction, their love is impossible though as one/both of them has a partner already (or some kind of obstacle is in their way), but their love cannot be denied so they eventually end up together. Trust me, that's not a spoiler... Unless you've never seen a romance movie in your entire life and this is the one that you were going to watch to introduce you to the romance cinema world, in which case, I'm sorry I shouldn't have told you that they end up together. Haha, but no, seriously, it's never a question whether these two people are going to end up together. It's obvious it's going to happen, so the only reason to watch it is to see how their story will unfold. Especially because Dylan and Rebecca have never actually met each other, and have only had contact with one another telepathically. Which is where most of my grievances lie. My first issue is how they come to realize what is happening to them. Though they've had the telepathic connection all there lives it seems, they never realized it until this one day (It's never disclosed why they hadn't realized it earlier and what made this particular day special, which is a bit annoying). And when coming upon the realization they both immediately believe it to be true, that they do have some weird, unexplained telepathic connection with the other person, but their acceptance is too quick. If some crazy shit like this ever happened to me, the first thought I would have is that I'm hallucinating, or schizophrenic, or something! I would demand proof that this person who I'm telepathically communicating with is a real person and not just in my head. Good ways to prove it might be a phone call, a text message, a facebook message, but nope, Dylan and Rebecca just accept that this is fact and that their not having auditory hallucinations. Okay, whatever! My next issue is their complete lack of discretion. Whenever they speak to each other, they have to do it out loud (they can't hear each other's thoughts), so it would seem that it is of utmost importance to make it seem as though they're not talking to themselves while out and about. But do either of our protagonists do this? If you said no, then you'd be correct. I mean seriously, would it have been that hard to remember to hold your iPhone to your ear or even wear the earbuds with a microphone on it so that people don't think you're crazy? But no, our little idiot protagonists talk away to one another without a care in the world all the while everyone around them is freaked out because their talking to themselves. Which consequently leads to troubles in their respective lives. My third issue is how cookie-cutter Dylan and Rebecca are. Rebecca is the wholesome, skittish, step below the manic-pixie-dream girl; she is a damsel in distress (her husband is a total jerk and treats her like a child). While, Dylan is the at-heart good guy disguised as a bad boy: the ultimate hero. Again, I may only be annoyed because I loathe romance movies so much, but seriously, did they have to be so goddamn perfect for each other? All through the movie I kept wondering how the movie could've been different had either Dylan or Rebecca had a connection with someone else like an older person, or someone who has an adventurous life, or a famous person, or someone living on the other side of the world, or a murderer. Any one of those options would have been infinitely more interesting, though not as romantic which is what the creators were going for, I suppose. And my last issue with the movie is the sheer ridiculous, convenient, stupid ending. !!!Spoiler Alert!!! You know I can suspend my disbelief to buy the whole telepathy thing between Dylan and Rebecca, but I can't and I won't sit here and believe how 1)convenient it is that Dylan is an expert lock pick and, low and behold, Rebecca needs to pick a lock to escape the mental institution her husband has committed her to (wow, what a great Shyamalan-esque twist, much creativity) and 2) how Rebecca, who is known to be abundantly un-athletic, can outrun multiple institution staff during her escape when she didn't have a head start or anything. Really, no one believes that. Then there's an unnecessary and completely ludicrous car chase scene with Dylan and the cops while he's on his way to save Rebecca from her mental institution nightmare! Oh please, could there have been anything more stupid to add to the ending? Oh, and then both Rebecca and Dylan jump onto a moving train and escape to Canada (I think). !!!Spoiler Alert Over!!! Up until the moment right before Rebecca's great escape, the movie was okay. I could accept what was happening and was expecting them to eventually come together in real life and have their happily ever after, but no. The creators didn't just want a simple happy ending, they had to have a conglomerate of cheesy, ridiculous, action-packed moments to end the movie with a bang. Mostly, though, it just weakened the story as a whole. You know, for the most part, I can see why the creators chose such cliché characters and storyline—they knew that with such an odd premise, there needed to be some familiarity so as not to off-put the viewers—, but they could've done something else to tie up the movie in a neater fashion. That's all I'm sayin'.

Overall, In Your Eyes is a decent love story with a bit of a sci-fi twist. It's nothing special or groundbreaking, but something to watch when you want to see the beauty of a budding relationship. The acting is great. I've written about Zoe Kazan before in my post about What If in December 2015: she was lovely there and she's just as lovely here. Michael Stahl-David does a solid job as Dylan. It's a good story if you're a true romance fan. So go ahead and watch it if that's what you're into. Would I watch it again? Nah, I'll pass.

#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.