Reviews

30 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Tenet (2020)
7/10
I don't know why stuff happened, but was impressed with how it did
11 May 2021
I know stuff happened but I'm not exactly sure why or how, possibly because the lead character -- literally named Protagonist -- is one of the worst written and performed action leads in the modern era. It's a weird choice for Nolan to have the lead character be the least interesting piece of a time-bending action epic, but at least it's offset by some supporting performances that mostly make up for it.

No matter how convoluted and messy the movie is, Nolan's ambition keeps Tenet watchable.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Slender Man (I) (2018)
3/10
Best Left Unseen
4 August 2020
Even if "Slender Man" wasn't tasteless in its own existence - coming a few years after a group of young girls stabbed a girl due to a belief that Slender Man was real - it wouldn't change the fact that "Slender Man" is an abysmal piece of cinema.

The real character of Slender Man is sort of a fascinating take on modern myth, the internet and how stories spread in a modern digital age. It could work in cinema in many ways. Unfortunately someone at Sony thought they needed to ripoff "The Ring" but for teen girls rather than do something original.

Four stock small town teen girls having a slumber party decide to summon Slender Man via haunted YouTube video because, um, reasons? Honestly I don't know why they did but hey maybe teenage girls in these days love their psychosis causing monstrosities. This Slender Man is some sort of supernatural being that drives people who look at him insane, or just kills/abducts them, or something - honestly his motivations are never explained other than being evil. How everyone seems to know about him is another question I had but, again, bad movie logic. Of course they brush it off as an internet hoax until they start suffering nightmares and the "get me out of this town" girl Katie (Annalise Basso) disappears on a school trip to a cemetery. Remaining friends Hallie (Julia Goldani Telles), Wren (Joey King), and Chloe (Jax Sinclair, netting her a Razzie nom) investigate and find out that Katie was into the occult and wanted Slender Man to take her away. Why she needed a group is anyone's guess.

So down one friend, what do our somewhat disinterested teenage girls do? Summon Slender Man again in order to get back Katie, of course! You can see where this film is going. Unfortunately rather than play with the idea of a spirit haunting our teenage girls and slowly twisting reality until they break was beyond the scope of the writers so instead they opted for the most mundane path they could find. This isn't so much a slow delve into insanity, but rather a "make the lights flicker a bit and throw on some kaleidoscope filters" demonic haunting. The film isn't even 90-minutes long but it feels like an eternity.

"Slender Man" is a passionless film. Director Sylvain White has a decent eye for filming but if he took this project with any level of enthusiasm it is painfully absent. There is the fleeting interesting segment that is immediately undone by actors who look disinterested in their apparent terror. No one ever seems invested in their paper thin roles, and not even a patented Joey King freakout can evoke a sense of panic. The titular villain himself is barely menacing due to his seemingly random interest in haunting our heroes. Writer David Birke just grabbed an unused "Rings" sequel script and copy/pasted some generic teen characters in there after watching "Blair Witch", but didn't know how to make anything scary at all.

Not helping matters is the unavoidable fact that "Slender Man" is borderline unwatchable. No, it's not unwatchable as in being a bad movie, it's unwatchable because the lighting it atrociously bad. Never before have I seen a film so devoted to shadowy style that it shoots its leads in darkness on a sunny day. It's as if thick cloud hovers over our heroes despite the sun beaming on all around them. The night scenes in the woods - and boy are there many of those - are so darkly shot that I honestly had a difficult time telling what was going on. It's annoying because there is clearly a decent eye behind the camera with how some scenes are framed, but it's next to impossible to appreciate given its devotion to darkness.

It's also painfully obvious that "Slender Man" was released in an incomplete form. Sony Screen Gems apparently feared a backlash due to controversy and had horrid test screenings so they edited it down and rushed it out after failing to sell it to another studio. Characters and plot points just vanish. Death scenes are off-screen or just assumed to have happened. Several of the horror scenes that made it into the trailer never appear in the final film. Hey you know the terribly acted Chloe who we were all begging to see die like in the trailer? Not shown at all - she just vanishes from the movie midway through. I don't think the film would ever be good or enjoyable if the missing scenes were returned, but at least it could have been a passable horror story rather than the forgettable disaster it is.

"Slender Man" is just a mistake of a movie. It rarely-if-ever attempts to be scary and offers nothing to differentiate itself from the vastly superior films that do similar things. I just don't know how a film as disinterested in its backstory got made. You can quite easily make a movie about Slender Man and have it be unique. Take advantage of its internet-based history and make it a horror story about the original creation of the Slender Man - perhaps its "creator" was manipulated by supernatural forces to spread it online.

I guess the only positive thing I can say about "Slender Man" is it's not quite as bad as "The Bye Bye Man" in terms of terrible attempted franchise starters, though it is easily more forgettable. "Slender Man" is a film that arguably should not have been made, and definitely one that will be shortly forgotten. This is a bare-bones attempt to squeeze some money out of a decade old internet meme that doesn't take advantage of its origins in any way. Slender Man may drive you insane you if you see him, Slender Man's film may bore you to death instead.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tully (2018)
6/10
A Touching Tale, A Terrible Twist
24 July 2020
Tully ruins "Tully."

That statement will make sense later, I think.

The third collaboration between director Jason Reitman and writer Diablo Cody after "Juno" and "Young Adult," and the second starring Charlize Theron, "Tully" delves into a deeply personal take on motherhood when it's lost its luster. Cody's one-liner snarky style remains, but it's also matched with a far more subtle approach than her previous efforts. Well, until the film decides to get cute with its themes and drives off a bridge, literally.

Marlo (Charlize Theron) is days away from giving birth to her third child - an unplanned pregnancy at the age of 40. Marlo's a former New York hipster that got knocked up and lost her mojo along the way. Her 8-year-old insecure daughter is pretty tame but her 6-year-old son Jonah has a developmental disorder that's getting him kicked out of a private school because he is, as stated multiple times, "too quirky" for his teachers to handle. Marlo's husband Drew (Ron Livingston) is no help due to being swamped with work by day and disappearing to play video games at night. To say Marlo looks overwhelmed is an understatement and a testament to the ability of Charlize Theron to effortlessly glide between roles where she is an ultra-sexy secret agent in "Atomic Blonde" to being a disheveled wreck in this film. Theron nails this role - you can see her desperately trying to cover the cracks and keep it together even as the fissures start getting wider.

Marlo's wealthy brother - married to a younger millennial hipster who had a much easier time with pregnancy and who had the joke subtlety of a sledgehammer to the uterus - offers to pay for a night nanny as a baby shower gift. Marlo refuses at first, but once her new kid arrives and the realities of 24-hour, zero sleep mothering take their tole on her she relents. Then, one night, Tully arrives.

Tully (Mackenzie Davis) is a manic pixie dream girl of the nanny variety. A millennial Mary Poppins, Tully descends into Marlo's life and gives her exactly what she needs. Tully is a no-fuss, energetic, young beauty who is there to look after Marlo in every manner one can. Her entire job is to make Marlo feel alive again. Marlo and Tully have an instant connection which is solidified by the absurd chemistry of the two leads. They are a joy to watch together.

Marlo's life immediately becomes better and it benefits the entire family. Marlo becomes more active, is better socially and even has the outward appearance of a parent who has it all under control. It's a rather shocking transformation; that one single person can affect another life so greatly is remarkable. Then, um, Tully happens.

Not to give away the details, but for some absolutely absurd reason Diablo Cody decided a film about a mother needing help wasn't enough and had to get cute with a twist ending. Up until the last moments "Tully" was a pretty decent movie about accepting help and the need for self-care; unfortunately Cody must have just finished watching a certain other movie when writing the twist that wrecks "Tully." It's one of those twists that is sort of hinted at throughout the movie but does make some scenes make zero sense in retrospect. It's also a twist just for the sake of having a twist - you could easily have this movie exist without it. Maybe if "Tully" handled this better rather than just slapping it on I'd be okay with it, but Cody's choice does leave a rather abrupt sour taste in my mouth about a subject matter that could have been handled a lot better.

I'm not the biggest fan of Diablo Cody's writing style but for the most part "Tully" worked well because it was so much more reflectively honest rather than trying to be a comedy. You can instantly tell "Tully" came from a very personal perspective. Theron's immense talents make Marlo relatable even without knowing much about her, and when she finally gets to act opposite Davis the screen becomes alive with these two ladies learning what drives them. There's a lot of good stuff here that illuminates a subject few films touch on. Well, it works as a character/theme piece, not so much a film about mental health. I wanted more of the parts that made "Tully" good, and less of the parts that accidentally turn serious mental health issues into a whimsical thing. Marlo is clearly a character who is struggling immensely - quite visibly at times too - yet Cody/Reitman treat this as hidden from everyone other than the audience and Tully.

"Tully" is also unexpectedly short. Most of the many subplots just get dropped about halfway in, with characters just vanishing and seemingly important developments left hanging. Marlo has the weight of the world on her shoulders as evidenced by how many subplots she juggles in her busy day, but the second Tully shows up these multiple plot threads either get forgotten or resolved in ways that are comically fast. The abruptness of the conclusion is almost shocking; it seems like it's missing a final act. "Tully" is barely 90-minutes and it needed another half-hour to feel like a whole movie.

It's hard to fully recommend "Tully" without a few caveats, but it's worth a watch to see Theron and Davis' wonderful chemistry. I personally don't think "Tully" quite reaches the heights its pedigree would indicate, but it's still a worthwhile exploration of an aspect of parenthood that movies rarely touch on. Reitman and Cody give us an intriguing portrait of modern motherhood, but can't quite get the whole to reach the sum of its parts.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tomb Raider (2018)
3/10
A Descent Into Banality
17 July 2020
Can a movie that cost $100-million also be zero effort? "Tomb Raider" seeks to answer that question.

Riding off the success of the 2013 "Tomb Raider" video game reboot in which Lara Croft gets a "realistic" makeover, a blander personality and exaggerated daddy issues, the 2018 film adaptation of "Tomb Raider" by Norwegian director Roar Uthaug is about as lazy of an action-adventure film as I've ever seen. It's not bad, it's just a checklist.

Starting off we're given narration covering a legend about an ancient Queen Himiko who had the power to kill all she touched and was entombed in a remote island to protect the world, and that Lara's father abandoned her in order to find it first. This is trademark terrible cinema 101 material right here: opening narration that will be repeated in-film by the end of the first act. That or someone forgot to film a proper opening.

Immediately we jump to a plucky Lara Croft (Alicia Vikander) getting her butt kicked in a gym (a running theme). An heiress Richard Croft's (Dominic West) gigantic fortune, Lara refuses her inheritance because she believes her father is still alive after going missing years ago - living her day-to-day life as a poor bike courier for no good reason. I guess they made her "poor" for 15-minutes because it would make her "relatable" (despite her reason for not having money making little sense) as opposed to her previous screen incarnation which was bordering on goofy. Oh and a bike chase scenes because why not. After a run-in with the law Lara seems to accept her father is dead to claim her inheritance (after a totally-not-evil relative manipulates her), until she finds a key and learns of a "secret" her father was looking to find to "protect" the world - namely, Himiko and some vaguely defined evil group named Trinity seeking to use her power. Richard's message warns Lara to destroy everything related to Himiko so her power could never be used by Trinity. Lara, of course, ignores this because she wants to see her dad again. Golly, I wonder where this is going ...

Picking up Richard's trail - as in the one clue that leads straight to him with zero investigation needed - Lara travels to Hong Kong, gets into trouble and runs into a drunken Lu Ren (Daniel Wu). Lu Ren is son of the man Richard had hired to take him to find Himiko who was also named Lu Ren (comedy?) and the pair go off to find their fathers in the Devil's Sea. Their boat gets wrecked near the island and everyone who played the 2013 video game is immediately having flashbacks. Lara manages to find her way to the beach only to get captured by the generic movie villain Mathias (Walton Goggins) - the man who has spent years on the island looking for the same treasure Richard was afraid would fall into the wrong hands. Oh no, Lara accidentally might have doomed the world!

A few stolen scenes from the 2013 video game and some blatant "Indiana Jones" thievery later and Lara figures out her place in the world and sets up a probably terrible sequel.

"Tomb Raider" is without a doubt one of the laziest action-adventure screenplays I've seen put to film. It is designed to be the most "okay" movie it could possibly be with zero chances taken, zero prospect of enjoyment and zero attempt to capture what made "Tomb Raider" an iconic franchise. Roar Uthaug and his three story/screenplay writers created this hollow shell of a movie; "Tomb Raider" has nothing going on under the surface. This is screenplay-by-checklist of things that "need" to be in a "Tomb Raider" film - namely the good action bits of the 2013 video game - and then padded to get to an acceptable length. The script is purely functional with zero real emotion or coherence, with a few one-liners that you can see Vikander's contempt for. Vikander is an immensely talented actor who is slumming it in this mess of genre tropes and a script that can at best be described as functional.

"Tomb Raider" also skips over character development in favor a predictable "daddy issues" backstory for Lara Croft because, well, 2013 Lara has little personality. Lara's only character trait is her need for her father - she has no identity outside of that. The closest thing to personality she has is the occasional joke in the first half before her new defining characteristic is getting the crap beat out of her. Most frustrating is that Lara remains silent for most of the final act while her father and Mathias deliver all the exposition - making Lara into a supporting character in her own movie. Lara's lack of personality might have to do with this version of Lara having zero friends or compatriots to bounce off of - seriously "Tomb Raider" has at most 4 plot-relevant characters, including Lara! The only moment I liked Lara Croft is when she was bartering with the distracting cameo of Nick Frost as a pawn shop owner, perhaps because Nick Frost is just that awesome. Alicia Vikander at times looks like she is trying to drag "Tomb Raider" out of the mud with her abilities and charm, but like Lara somehow surviving lethal injuries multiple times, by the end it looks like she's had enough of it.

If you played the 2013 "Tomb Raider" video game you've already seen the best bits of the "Tomb Raider" movie, and it's the only time "Tomb Raider" feels like it has life. The film borrows a lot from that game once it (finally) gets to the island, including the almost absurd levels of abuse Lara gets subjected to. Bonus points for not having an "about to get raped" scene like the 2013 game did. At all other moments "Tomb Raider" is a slog; there is almost an aversion to fun.

Oh, and most infuriating, the tomb. It seems that zero effort went into making the Tomb and puzzle sequences of "Tomb Raider" anything other than boring. The film features literally a single trap sequence that will give you "Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade" flashbacks. Heck, eagle eyed viewers who know anything about color mixing will see that the one puzzle-based trap features a glaring mistake - trying to make Lara look smart made the writers look dumb. I know that the 2013 "Tomb Raider" game virtually eliminated the puzzle/trap aspect, but the movie's attempt to rectify that mistake was lazy at best.

Even if "Tomb Raider" is derivative as hell, at least it's functional. The action scenes tend to be pretty well done despite the shoddy CGI and zero investment.. The scenery on the island is nice to look at even if it takes far too long to get there. Vikander does look the part of a muscular reboot Lara Croft and should probably be able to slaughter her way through this entire militia if the script didn't randomly make her lose fights all the time. "Tomb Raider" is a by-the-numbers retelling of the beloved franchise that sadly takes a lot of what made the games memorable out of the story, but for those who just wanted a generic action-adventure flick to sit back and watch there are far worse things to put on.

I can pretty safely say that in a week I will barely remember "Tomb Raider." Usually in a bad movie with a big budget you can kind of see what they were trying to do - with "Tomb Raider" there is nothing. It's such a bland mix of generic scenes and borrowed setpieces that I question if any effort was put in making this movie outside of Alicia Vikander getting buff. Making a "Tomb Raider" movie is not rocket science, but somehow Uthaug and his compatriots managed to find a way to make an exciting game into a bad "Indiana Jones" ripoff. Vikander seems to be the only person who took this project seriously, and at times you can almost see her annoyance with what "Tomb Raider" became.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Christine (2016)
8/10
A Gripping, Empathetic Look At Depression
9 July 2020
Warning: Spoilers
The tragic live-broadcast of the suicide of Christine Chubbuck is something that's hard to fully comprehend, let alone try to make a movie about that doesn't sensationalize her end. Director Antonio Campos and writer Craig Shilowich somehow manage to navigate this complicated story with grace and tact by focusing on the person and not the incident. They let Rebecca Hall immerse herself in this role as Christine slowly reaches her ultimate choice, giving us a moving and empathetic performance that tries to make us understand her depression without turning her into a martyr.

"Christine" is hard to watch at times, but difficult to look away from.

As we open to a 70s world of browns, oranges and yellows, we are introduced to television reporter Christine Chubbuck (Rebecca Hall) as she's making a film of her pretending to interview Richard Nixon. She's immediately concerned over her physical presentation and how to appear more natural. She lists her relatively mundane goals on a piece of paper, starting with the line "be bold, be brave." She volunteers at a children's hospital giving motivational puppet shows often mirroring the lessons she wants to believe herself. Campos wants us to know that this is a woman who is trying to be normal but doesn't know how.

Christine Chubbuck is a soon-to-turn-30 TV field reporter working for a local news program in Sarasota, Florida. She mostly wants to focus on small, positive human interest stories, despite her boss Michael Nelson (Tracy Letts) insistence on increasing the coverage of crime which helps drive in the ratings. Though her job is to talk to people, her only real friend is her camerawoman/editor Jean Reed (Maria Dizzia) who tries to support her however she can. Christine has a crush on the lead anchor of the news station George Peter Ryan (Michael C. Hall, who is honestly fantastic), despite him being uninterested in her. Unfortunately, Christine gets a medical diagnosis that she must have an operation that would significantly weaken the chances of her ever becoming pregnant, a punch made more potent by the fact that Christine is a virgin as she was waiting for Mr. Right to come along to start a family. Christine lives with her mother Peg (J. Smith-Cameron) who she's at odds with after an "episode" in Boston caused her to relocate to a much less ideal situation she finds herself in, as Peg has no real clue how to handle her daughter.

The news stations owner Bob Anderson (John Cullum) comes around and offers up a promotion to one of the Sarasota team to go work at his new, far more prestigious station in Baltimore. Christine knows that she has to "follow orders" in order to get ahead rather than doing what she believes in.

Life, unfortunately, comes crashing down on Christine. All at once it looks like her dreams are evaporating while other people achieve what she has been unable to. She lashes out at her boss when her attempts to make more 'blood and guts' content fall flat, and her friend Jean gets her own segment that replaces the one Christine was working on. Peg tries to introduce her new boyfriend to Christine, which is met with accusations of abandonment and blame on Peg's inability to 'fix' Christine's hurt.

On the night it looks like Christine might finally get what she's been wanting, the rug gets pulled out from under her by people who don't know her pain but are trying to help. The last of her dreams just fade away, despite everyone trying to reassure her that she's capable of great things. After a conversation with the station boss she gets left with the mantra of "follow your gut." Sadly, she does.

Alas, we know how this story ends. Just watching the moment when Christine, silently, appears to decide to take her own life is almost beyond description - Hall's acting through her eyes alone is awards worthy. Campos handles "Christine's" concluding moments with quiet dignity. "Christine's" final act is mostly of hidden turmoil and sadness, and Hall captures this perfectly with the subtleties of every motion. The moment she pulls the trigger is done astoundingly well, with an emphasis on shock and bewilderment on what actually transpired.

There's not enough words I can write to fully appreciate the work Rebecca Hall does as Christine Chubbuck. She just feels like a real person with real damage, and not one that is simply made up for dramatic purposes. There's a beautiful attention to detail about the way Christine simply tries to navigate this world, down to her physical mannerisms - you can see behind her eyes the thoughts coming racing through her mind before every single line she says, as if trying to calculate each move. Her moments of lashing out feel real and heartbreaking, even over small things such as the fake flowers on her interview set. She comes across as that awkward teenager in high school looking to fit in and is disappointed that she doesn't know how. The few moments where Christine isn't trying to act as normal as she can you really can feel the frustration in her not knowing what would make her happy.

Campos does make a very thoughtful decision in how he films the "character" of Christine: we're meant to empathize with her but not necessarily like her. At one point Christine's boss calls her "difficult" and, well, yeah she kind of is. Christine doesn't like following orders and is brisk with everyone. She's humorless and cold, and I have no idea how she managed to keep the job she has which relies on on-air charisma. We know she's smart - even the boss who argues with her calls her the smartest person at the station - but her social deficiencies do illuminate why she lacks the friends she so desires. Campos is bold to show Christine as she was rather than romanticize her. There is this underlying feeling that we're supposed to want her to get better, but we know how this story ends.

Something that is bound to frustrate some people is that Campos seems completely uninterested in making "Christine" about depression as a whole; it's much more about Christine as a person. At times the movie is as cold as Christine is, with odd bits of humor sprinkled throughout. It's far more subtle than most movies these days that deal with such subject matter. "Christine" is not a fun movie at all, and at times is hard to sit through. It's a character portrait rather than a dialogue, and personally I feel it's the only way to do justice to Christine Chubbuck without exploiting her memory.

Even though I find the individual pieces of this story come together to make a fully-formed picture of Christine, they don't particularly work well together as a narrative. Campos wants to show all the parts of Christine's life that lead to her ultimate choice, but doesn't do enough to make them fit together naturally. From what I've read about the real Christine Chubbuck these multiple threads of despair took place over a much longer period than the few weeks "Christine" takes place in, and the need to place them all in the movie feels a tad misguided. It's the 70s during Watergate and the movie feels like it is of that era, right down to (somewhat random) part where Christine's boss lashes out at her for being a feminist. It juggles workplace sexual politics, reproductive issues, depression, familial drama, tabloid news, and other things that affected Christine, but they don't real congeal to form a strong narrative. Honestly at times the order of scenes seem random, and the script's inability to connect these disparate parts makes "Christine" somewhat hard to follow.

It would have been far easier to make "Christine" be a soapbox movie about depression, but Campos' dedication to telling the harsh story of the final days of Christine Chubbuck is both cold and necessary. Campos treats history with a brutal honesty and respect, and Rebecca Hall's unsettling, masterful portrayal of a woman being torn apart by despair is almost hypnotic. While the narrative might not match Hall's performance, Christine is nonetheless a worthwhile endeavor in telling the story of a long-suffering person who loses her battle against her own thoughts.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hereditary (2018)
7/10
A Good, Somewhat Familiar Haunting
7 July 2020
I'm unsure how I'd feel about "Hereditary" had I not read all the hype around it. The hyperbolic statements calling it a generational horror movie created an awfully high bar of which to be judged. As a fan of horror cinema, my interest was quite piqued. As a person expecting the best, I was left wanting.

"Hereditary" is the much-loved and much-talked-about supernatural domestic horror film by writer-director Ari Aster that at times feels like a refined version of a 70s supernatural thriller, while at other times is a familial drama about grief. It got glowing reviews calling it a modern classic. I saw it long after the hype had died down and was left wondering what exactly it was that made this movie stand out so much.

As we open to the funeral of the family matriarch Ellen Leigh, her daughter Annie (Toni Collette) delivers a eulogy riddled with hints as to the troubled nature of this family. Annie is a miniatures artist who seems to use her art to tell her own personal (disturbing) trauma. Annie's 13-year-old daughter Charlie (Milly Shapiro) is especially devastated as she had a deep relationship with her grandmother, to the point of feeling like Annie wasn't capable of raising her at all. Their older child Peter (Alex Wolff) was kept away from Ellen due to Ellen and Annie's fraught relationship, and spends his days doing drugs. Oh, and Annie's husband Steve (Gabriel Byrne) is, um, around? Seriously Steve is barely a factor in this movie.

The family is clearly messed up in many ways. Annie lies to her husband about going to the movies in order to go to a bereavement group where she reveals that most of her family suffered from severe mental disorders and fears she'll suffer from them too. Peter just wants to party and get high while avoiding everyone. Charlie cuts the head off a dead bird and sticks it in her pocket as she crafts figures using the dismembered animal part, and draws disturbing images as she's tormented by some sort of light on her walls. Steve, um, exists.

That's about as far as I'll take the plot as the rest would instantly spoil most of what drives this movie forward. Needless to say, it goes into dark territory.

First and foremost, "Hereditary" would be nothing without Toni Collette. Collette gives this movie everything she has, and it's impossible to think about "Hereditary" without her. She brings Annie to life, and her descent into madness is both organic and riveting. She starts off as a frustrated and tired mother, but ends off in this manic "you've got to believe me even though I sound crazy" tone that propels this story from beginning to end as she slowly unravels the events occurring around her. The rest of the cast are secondary to Annie, and all scenes without her are pretty much just filler in my books.

Part of the absolute focus on Annie being the emotional linchpin of "Hereditary" is that all the other characters suffer from a lack of screen time. Peter's scenes where he's supposed to be terrified have no weight because we don't really get to know him at all beyond his dealings with the supernatural, and I just never managed to feel invested in his character at all. Charlie's an interesting mystery but that's about it - her disturbed state is permanent and unchanging. Steve is just there to fill the realists' role and honestly Gabriel Byrne looks like he wants to be anywhere else than in this movie. When other characters outside the family show up they are either completely flat or "they are obviously evil why is no one in the family seeing this" territory.

Performances are just one part of the layers of fear here - "Hereditary" is a master class on visual oppression. There is rarely a shot in this movie that isn't trying to unsettle you in some way. The lighting, camera, and even the color choices are all meant to make you feel like something is off. Aster loves the long, slow shot that makes you get drawn into the frame only to wish you could be anywhere else. To go along with this the soundtrack also at times is overbearing in its attempts to get under your skin, especially in the first act. Ari Aster knows how to manipulate the audience without saying a word, and to some that will be enough.

Now, I know I just said that this was an incredibly unsettling movie, but it also feels forced at times. There isn't a moment that is allowed to be, well, natural. Everything about "Hereditary" is harsh. I personally find it too much and takes away from the moments that are supposed to be shocking. Aster never sets the dial below an 8 for this entire movie, so when the climax ramps it up to 10 it just doesn't leave the impact I think that it should have. It's also about 15-minutes too long; the long buildup to the climax loses some oomph. It's in those final moments that the leaky plot starts to sink under the weight of its own mythos as the pieces get slapped together rather than falling into place. I just feel that if it had instead gone for a level more akin to Robert Eggers' "The Witch" it might have been more successful in what it was trying to do, at least for me.

The thing that left me most intrigued with "Hereditary" was not the actual horror aspects of it, but rather the fact that Aster made a family/parenthood drama that just so happened to coincide with supernatural events. The supernatural forces at times are like adding Swiss Cheese on an already delicious hamburger. Her relationship with her children is disastrous to say the least, and reflects on how horrid she feels her mother treated her - the fact that evil forces surrounds them is barely relevant to the drama. No matter who you are, some part of you can relate to the people in this family. Well, other than Steve, unless you relate to someone not wanting to be there. These different elements however create some odd tonal shifts when flipping between the supernatural and the familial, but by grounding the story in a frame most people can relate to Aster did at least cement his movie as being timeless.

"Hereditary" is not for everyone and can easily disappoint those looking for a film in the vein of what usually passes for horror these days. It's an old-school horror movie that's built on dread and tone rather than jump scares and gore. Ari Aster spends almost as much time in supernatural suspense as he does on family drama. It also got hyped so much that I honestly felt like the critics ruined the movie watching experience; hyperbolic statements saying "Hereditary" is this generation's "The Exorcist" or "Rosemary's Baby" didn't help much either (I'm looking in your direction too, "The Babadook").

While I admit that there are a lot of good things about "Hereditary", I was just left wanting. It's a better version of a lot of movies that came before it - specifically a lot of 70s and 80s low-budget horror movies - but it's supernatural story is a bit too familiar at times. I know some claim it's the best horror movie of a generation; I was left wishing it had more to set it apart.

"Hereditary" easily is among the better made horror movies of the decade, but I just felt like it lacked the identity that it needed to make it stand among the greats. In terms of other recent horror flicks I'd rank it under the likes of "The Witch" or "It Follows" - movies that had their own uniqueness to them - though "Hereditary" is miles above "The Babadook" (seriously, I hate that movie). If it wasn't for Toni Collette "Hereditary" would be easily forgotten, but her dedication elevates the product to places its run-of-the-mill setup would languish in. If you want to see a good, somewhat familiar horror movie then "Hereditary" is an easy recommendation; those wanting something more will be left wanting.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I Am Mother (2019)
4/10
Twists Trump Thought In Another Messy Netflix Release
6 June 2020
What if Ex Machina and Moon had a baby? What if this baby was raised on I, Robot, The Matrix, The Terminator and Oblivion? Then you wrap that child up in a blanket made up of 10 Cloverfield Lane? What you get is one of those weirdly trying-to-be-new-but-actually-not-really Netflix Original science fiction movies that come out every few months. In this case: I Am Mother.

I Am Mother is yet another in a long line of mainstream science fiction movies that attempts to provoke the viewer to think philosophically, but unlike the films it borrows from it doesn't quite know where to draw the line.

An opening text dump reveals that humanity just suffered an unknown extinction event. A robot named Mother (creepily voiced by Rose Byrne) awakens in an underground compound to give "birth" to an embryo kept in storage that eventually grows up into Daughter (Clara Rugaard). Yes they are called Mother and Daughter because why not. Over the years Mother raises Daughter until she grows up into a soon-to-be 18-year-old (I think) who is about to take some sort of important test. Daughter spends her time practicing ballet (...why?) and watching old talk shows to learn about humanity, while sometimes questioning why a facility capable of housing thousands only has her and Mother despite the goal of repopulating the planet which is "contaminated" and lethal to humans. I think it's at this point I can safely say that what comes next is plainly obvious to the point of parody.

One day while Mother is recharging/sleeping Daughter finds a human named Woman (Hilary Swank) knocking at the compounds door. Woman (again, no real name) has been shot and says she was being hunted by other machines like Mother, and that there are other survivors. Thus begins the twists that make up the majority of the plot and where I will stop describing what haphazard story I Am Mother tries to tell as going any further would give away the multitude of twists that writer Michael Lloyd Green crams into this story. Oddly for those who pay attention to small details a lot of these "surprises" are spoiled in the first few minutes, which has to be an intentional choice by director Grant Sputore made to please those eagle-eyed viewers.

I Am Mother is a movie about the twists, not about characters or world. Very little effort is spent trying to make the characters feel fleshed out, with the humans we are theoretically supposed to root for coming across as hollow shells for which plot points are to happen to. In reality the character I felt the most attachment to was Mother - despite her looking like GLaDOS from the video game Portal mated with a T-800 from The Terminator. It's clear the only character in this movie that has anything interesting about them is Mother, and no amount of "bonding" between Woman and Daughter can cover that up. The movie doesn't care about Woman at all, so why should I? As the final reveal came along all I could do was let off an exasperated sigh because it's one of those movies where the end result makes you question the stupidity of all the events leading up to it and why we should care given our attachment to the hero is non-existent.

The movie quickly falls apart once it gets into piling on the twists. It leaps around trying to upend the story every 10-minutes without regard for characterization or plot - slapping together elements that entire other movies were working towards without the feeling of satisfaction of getting there. It's as if writer Michael Lloyd Green just binge-watched dozens of dystopian movies in a row and wrote down what worked. When the final moments arrive and all the pieces are put together it comes at the expense of both logic and emotion - an end point that didn't need all the hoops being jumped through. It's a series of twists more designed for the audience than the characters living in this world. In fact some of the twists make certain earlier scenes completely pointless. I think most fans of science fiction will see every reveal coming from a mile away given that I Am Mother is derivative of many classics.

I admit I enjoyed the first act of I Am Mother despite its faults. I liked the look of a clearly militaristic robot raising a child to adulthood. It was both beautiful and harsh. Instead of making Mother look like anything remotely resembling a caring creature they instead opted to make her look like something that should be hunting down the last remnants of humanity. Honestly if this was a short film with a similar setup I'd find it very appealing; heck it could easily have been part of The Matrix short-film anthology The Animatrix. The aesthetic choices are pleasing to say the least for a thought provoking movie - too bad it had to go beyond 20-minutes.

I desperately wanted to love I Am Mother. The performances are relatively solid by Swank and Rugaard, though I feel like Rose Byrne's voice was utterly disconnected from Mother's mannerisms in a way that was not intentional. The film has a rather sleek look and moments that hint at being something more akin to the far better movies it is trying to imitate. There are glances at the profound, but I don't feel like Grant Sputore or Michael Lloyd Green figured out how to actually convey them in this overstuffed story built around throwing the kitchen sink at the audience. Had the movie held its cards closer to its chest - and perhaps only playing a few rather than many - instead of relying on twist-after-twist to carry it I think it would have been far stronger. It's an hour-long plot stretched to bursting with a lot of artificially padded action scenes that didn't need to exist.

Perhaps the worst failure I Am Mother manages is that it never gets to the place it desperately tries to on a philosophical level - despite namedropping Immanuel Kant and having an extended discussion on the transplant version of the Trolley Problem in the opening minutes. It is thought provoking, but doesn't really do much with the questions it raises. Just when you think it might settle down for some real deep look at the human condition it then jumps to artificial intelligence or the morality of murder. For some that might be enough, but for myself I thought Michael Lloyd Green went about two steps too far with his approach - burying a central premise under too many twists that undermine the questions being raised.

I guess I might just be the wrong audience for I Am Mother. I've seen too many films. I've seen elements of this movie done in far superior ways. I know I Am Mother is not a bad movie by any means, it's just a highly derivative one. To someone who doesn't have a shelf populated by many classic and not-so-classic Science Fiction tales I Am Mother is likely a great and worthwhile experience. I just can't bring myself to recommend it over those other stories.

I Am Mother is a thoughtful but extremely messy product that aims high but shoots itself in the foot by being too clever. It has elements of greatness but needed to be less in order to be more. Simply put: there's too much going on for a story that should make the viewer reflective on their own experiences. It's worth a watch for those that want to think for a minute about the ideas being raised, but I can list almost every movie I Am Mother reminds me of as being ones I'd rather sit through.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Still Alice (2014)
5/10
Moore alone cannot save a bland, clichéd melodrama
6 May 2020
When I first saw the trailers for Still Alice all I thought of was "well, Oscar bait." It had all the signs of such a film. Yet another solo starring vehicle for someone previously nominated for several Oscars where our lead actor has some sort of mental/medical illness with family struggles that mostly get pushed to the side in favor of tugging at the heart?

Still Alice is a very deliberately crafted movie around a striking central performance by Julianne Moore that can't elevate itself to match Moore's dedication. It won Moore that Oscar she deserved a decade earlier, but the film around her is nothing special. It's a shining example of how great actors can't help save a mediocre script.

Alice (Julianne Moore), a linguistics professor recently celebrating her 50th birthday, begins to notice her memory slipping. She forgets simple things like a word in a lecture and gets lost running through campus. I'm not jumping ahead, this is the first 10-minutes of the movie. One trip to the doctor and she's quickly diagnosed with early onset familial Alzheimer's. Her husband John (Alec Baldwin) tries to do as best he can with Alice but struggles - he's a researcher drawn to a new challenge while being pulled back by Alice's plight. Her son Tom (Hunter Parrish) and pregnant daughter Anna (Kate Bosworth) both get tested for the disease, but her vaguely black-sheep daughter Lydia (Kristen Stewart) - who didn't go to college and moved away to chase a career in acting much to her mothers' disappointment - chooses not to. Lydia and Alice's relationship is honestly the heart of this story, and I wish there was more time spent on it.

Directors Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland take this story and paces it exactly as needed to maximize the emotional weight. As the disease progresses, Alice tries desperately to hang on to her memories, but realizes she's not going to win this war. Her family, sadly, seem at a loss for how to deal with Alice as she's becoming less and less herself. It's a rather tragic decline, as Alice struggles to remember where things are placed in her home or even who her children are. As someone who has had family members suffer from a similar condition I appreciate the care placed on treating Alice's decline seriously. As with life there is no cure for Alice as she slowly vanishes - what's left is a shell that people still care for.

This of course begs the question of who Alice even is. Our knowledge of her only starts when she begins to lose her memories - she's almost told through story. There's little grounding for the person, we only know her through her struggles. The story of Still Alice is exclusively about Alice's battle, and is crafted in such a way that it's meant to be familiar to the audience rather than making us learn about Alice at all. We understand her pain by placing ourselves in her shoes; who Alice even is as a person is perhaps not even relevant. Still Alice is oddly only 95-minutes long without credits and really needed another 20-minutes at least to actually have character; part of me thinks its minuscule length is a cover to hide how bland the story actually is.

Compounding this is the fact that Still Alice, while solely being about Alice, relegates her family's struggle to cope with her to the background. There's no attempt to put importance on the care of those who are affected by this terrible condition, and it makes most of Alice's family out to be heartless - which I cannot tell if that was the point or not. Alec Baldwin's John in particular feels like a missed opportunity to show the hardships people go through for love, and his eventual defeat should be more tragic than it is. By not showing John's turmoil he just comes across as a workaholic who's more concerned with his new job than his ailing wife. This is Alice's story and those around her should be a part of it - pity that the importance of caregivers is lost.

I just feel like Still Alice needed an auteur director to show Alice's decline in a more visual way. We see Alice's struggles as an observer rather than being a part of her journey. The blows to Alice are always softened by sentimentality over what she's had taken from her. It gets lost in the past while not showing the now. I don't feel like I've learned anything about this condition any more than what I've read in a brochure at a doctor's office; Still Alice is a missed opportunity to spread understanding.

The direction could also use a tad more subtlety and less heavy-handed pulling at the heart strings. It's manipulated for sure, but nonetheless effective. The sad moments at times feel forced rather than organically part of the story, and several of the moments meant to make you feel uplifted just come off as manufactured to do so. You know what scenes will come: you know Alice will mix up names, forget people, not remember how to put on clothes, etc. You know there will be a moment before the final fall into memory loss that she'll have one last speech to show you that she's a fighter and will live life to the fullest and hope for a brighter future for her children (and win an Oscar for it too).

Even behind all of these flaws, Julianne Moore as Alice is superb. Moore's attachment to making Alice feel like a real person losing identity shows through every mannerism, every twitch of her face, every word she both utters and even moreso the ones she forgets. You feel for her as she's desperately grasping for memories that are just out of reach, as well as how absent she is when she doesn't realize she's forgotten something cherished. It really is a tragic presentation of deep, unknown loss - one that you can't help but feel attached to and identify with.

To go alongside Moore's wonderful performance is a criminally underused Kristen Stewart giving one of the better supporting roles in a movie like this. Lydia, despite her differences with her mother over her life, is the one and only voice that seems to love and care for Alice throughout her struggles. I almost wish this story was more about this relationship being mended as Alice slips away.

Oh, and I'll give some marks for making the product placement of Words With Friends actually plot relevant, though it was incredibly distracting. The rampant Apple and Pinkberry stuff though ...

Still Alice is a mediocre movie elevated by a couple of superb performances by Moore and Stewart. It's lacks storytelling subtlety in favor of manufactured moments that never allow us to get into Alice's world. There's so little time spent on anything other than Alice's decay that all the dropped plot points (lost job, children inheriting the disease, husband moving away, etc) start adding up to become a distraction that either should have been expanded on or just simply cut. Still Alice only lands out of the negative side of the ledger due to Moore's profound skills, as otherwise it's just a run-of-the-mill melodrama filled with cliché after cliché.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Don't expect softcore porn, but expect a delightful Canadian film about sex being awkward
25 April 2020
First off, I feel like this movie instantly gets 50% better if you're Canadian. It's cast is made up entirely of a "oh right, I remember her/him from X tv show" for most people in Canada.

Also, for those expecting a softcore porn film starring alumni from Ginger Snaps, Firefly, Private Eyes and Mutant X I'll say right here you will be very disappointed. Despite the title this movie is mostly about the "planning" part of the orgy rather than the orgy itself. Other than one topless scene with a non-leading actor there's zero nudity. Oh, there's a couple of dudes butts. If you wanted porn there's an entire internet of it out there.

How To Plan An Orgy In A Small Town is just one of those films where it seems like everyone was having fun making it and enjoying the simple premise to its fullest. Performances across-the-board are rather made-for-tv but given that this isn't a film meant to take seriously it does actually work in the movies favour. There's just enough ham in the delivery that makes the film work but doesn't delve into self-parody.

The premise is rather simple: sex columnist Cassie returns to her small town that she was shamed out of town years ago, and in order to prove that the town isn't as dull as Cassie has described it as (in the article that made her famous) her old teenage rival wants Cassie to help plan an orgy. Of course several people have their own reasons for wanting to be in the orgy, and the natural awkwardness is what drives like half the plot.

Again, this is a very Canadian film. There's just something innately funny about the way people try to be polite about describing the "stank" of an orgy. I can see how this type of comedy might fall flat if you expected a film with this title to be more vulgar -- the laughs do come from a place of niceness.

Helping matters is that the ensemble is rather strong. The entire cast fit their roles perfectly; no one is acting outside their comfort zone. Jewel Staite really does nail the role of Cassie, and it helps that she is so naturally easy to root for no matter what role she plays. Every character is rather one-note but their notes are solid. Bonus points for having Katharine Isabelle not be wasted in this movie.

It's a small film with a simple premise, don't go expecting anything more. If the trivia is to be believed it was filmed in just over 2-weeks, mostly in a few houses that are close to each other. Pay attention to the title!

I'd say definitely give this a watch if you just want to laugh at the natural awkwardness that comes from trying to plan an orgy with people who are completely alien to the concept, or are a fan of any of the actors involved. It may take awhile for the ultimate "climax" but the ride is enjoyable.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
I honestly am amazed this was aired
17 March 2020
When sitting around with family someone for some reason turned this on. To say I was mystified was an understatement.

I get that Hallmark likes to release a dozen of these types of series a year based on some lady budding her way into crime investigations who works in a usually unrelated field, but this one is easily the worst I've seen. It just seems like the entire main cast doesn't want to be there.

The acting was wooden and lines were delivered in the flattest way possible. The plot depends on the bad guys being idiots and relies on so many overused Hallmark mystery tropes that I called the bad guy and their accomplices within 2 seconds. Seriously, why is it that the bad guys explain their entire plan, never shoot the hero and then trip over something just as the cops arrive?

Seriously, stick with the better Hallmark mysteries that have stars that look like they want to be there.

The only saving grace I found with this, other than it being hypnotizingly bad, was that some of the supporting actors were having a good time.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Bones of a good film, just lacks the polish to make it one
2 March 2020
"That house seems to be bad news for straight men." Yeah, you could say that again.

Girl On The Third Floor is first time director/writer Travis Stevens' attempt at some social commentary about toxic masculinity being allowed in society and having it meet justice via a haunted house. It's a trendy thing for sure, but also done with the tact of a semen dripping from an electric socket.

Who better to cast as the lead in a movie about ghosts punishing a shining example of toxic masculinity than former wrestler, extremely straight edge and anti-establishment CM Punk/Phil Brooks? Wait ...

Ex-lawyer Don Koch (Phil Brooks) and his pregnant wife Liz (Trieste Kelly Dunn) just bought a dilapidated house on the outskirts of Chicago, with Don's intent being to renovate it himself without any help before Liz moves in too. Their reason for the move relates to wanting a fresh start after Don somehow avoided jail time for screwing over a lot of people. Don is kind of an egomaniac and somehow believes a drill, screwdriver, and hammer are all he'll need to completely remodel this house in about a week, alone - yeah, the symbolism is strong with this one. As you can guess, this 100-year-old house located across from a church is clearly evil. Right from the get-go Don besieged with signs this house is possessed - the walls bleed, the sockets leak something that looks like semen, mysterious marbles keep showing up out of nowhere, etc. Oh, and of course a totally not evil mid-20s blonde lady named Sarah (Sarah Brooks) shows up saying how much she loved the house as it was and flirts with Don. Heck, even the pastor across the street basically gives the Friday The 13th "you're all doomed" speech to anyone setting foot in the house. Red flags my friend, red flags!

As it goes with every haunted house movie, our hero doesn't listen and falls deeper into his own bad habits. Don begins to drink and smoke weed after he promised his wife that he'd stop. The mysterious Sarah keeps showing up and seduces Don into having an affair after about 5 sentences - a problem Don has apparently had multiple times in the past. Even after Don grows a conscious the next day, Sarah keeps appearing in the house in ever changing attire. Random black friend Milo (Travis Delgado) shows up to help the renovation along and chastises Don over his unpreparedness to fix up his house and life. When confronted by Milo over his cheating, Don's justification for the affair seems to simply be he "earned it" in his own words. It's a growing trend in movies these days that want to add some social commentary without trying to upset anyone by making the primary victim of violence be an unrepentant jerk bolstered up by society. I know what Travis Stevens is going for here - a pseudo take on "toxic masculinity" culture where a haunted house dishes out the justice society has failed to- but without any reason to want to see Don survive his ordeals it comes across as hollow.

As time goes on and Don repeatedly lies to Liz via phone as he breaks every promise he makes, it becomes harder and harder to get over the feeling that the symbolism has overridden the plot. Evil things keep happening, Don slowly gets more twisted by the house, but no attempt is made to explain the happenings until Travis Stevens remembers that the film needed a story in the third act. Liz finally shows up and things finally start get pieced together. It goes from slow-paced into full on gonzo climax. When the supernatural malevolence goes into full effect the movie has to rush out multiple exposition dumps to explain how the house got haunted, why the house is punishing whoever lives there and what Don actually did to get him to this point; it just feels like something a better movie would have been doing over the prior hour. It's overly complicated for such a simple premise.

Easily the biggest problem with this movie is in its screenplay. Casting Phil Brooks, noted straight-edge wrestler, as a former high-powered lawyer is debatable; but then having him be an alcoholic stoner with DRUG FREE tattooed on his hands and STRAIGHT EDGE on his chest is hilarious. The movie is blunt and unsubtle in almost everything it does, and having its actors speak almost directly to the camera compounds this problem. It borrows from a lot of better movies and has nothing new to say besides making Don be a more modern social commentary. The dialogue just comes across as someone hurried out a script in a day, and is performed as if the actors didn't get direction as to what the heck the tone is supposed to be. The last act is so rushed and expository that it almost becomes a comedy. As well, the movie seems to use it's anti-toxic masculinity climactic message to treat women like meat for almost its entire runtime until the final moments where the message is, again, explained to us.

Not helping matters is that despite the house being filmed as this supernatural menace, the methods used to evoke terror are, um, off. The gross-out effects are well done and indeed unnerving, but have zero actual connection to the ghosts; it's as if Stevens was trying to distract the viewer from the lack of substance. The choice of marbles as the houses trademark gimmick is less scary and more comedic. As well, I hate to be mean, but Sarah Brooks just cannot muster one bit of menace in her performance as Sarah - it's like she's channeling a flat Ali Larter that occasionally breaks into a Wicked Witch Of The West cackle. She certainly can be the seductress, but her attempts to be evil range from wooden to hysterical.

I guess on the bright side is that Phil Brooks/CM Punk is clearly having fun here. He definitely acts the part of a "bro" extremely well, and at times you can tell he's using his former wrestler training to be larger-than-life about it, though the sight of this heavily tattooed "lawyer" who used to "run Chicago" is a tad funny. Don is basically a frat-bro sexist moron who uses his charm to get away with things and Brooks pulls that off well. Brooks is trying to channel a Matt Dillon-type performance that at times feels like it belongs in a different movie. The script lets him down, but I could see this performance working in a more Sam Rami-styled film.

It's clear that Travis Stevens has visual talent and can create a haunting atmosphere in which our characters meet their end. I just think that perhaps this script needed another pass to polish the dialogue to match the haunted surroundings. Stevens tries to merge a gross-out horror, a ghost story, a psychological thriller among other things but the result doesn't gel. The film opens well but just falls apart as it careens towards it's rushed conclusion. I should be disturbed, not holding back laughter.

Girl On The Third Floor just doesn't really have anything going for it other than a few bits of okay gore and some gross-out stuff. It's stylish and shot well, but is populated by characters saying some painful dialogue that fails to match the visuals quality. The bare pieces of a good movie are there but not assembled in a way that satisfies, but I can easily see Travis Stevens' next film putting it all together. It's a noble attempt by Stevens to put modern social commentary into a haunted house flick, but with the subtlety of a hammer to the face it lacks the tension to unnerve.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Misplaced Sympathy Towards A Monster
29 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
For some ludicrous reason there were two Sylvia Likens based films released in 2007. One was decent, one is disgusting. An American Crime is the disgusting one. I'm not going to lie, An American Crime pissed me off.

An American Crime tries to tell the story of Sylvia Likens being tortured by Gertrude Baniszewski in a much more dramatic and true-to-life fashion than The Girl Next Door (2007). Director Tommy O'Haver (Ella Enchanted, Get Over It) and co-writer Irene Turner deliver a more historical account of the events that befell the Likens sisters in 1965 based on court transcripts, but unfathomably decide to tell this story mostly from the perspective of Gertrude - who is portrayed as a sympathetic woman who men had taken advantage of.

I've seen a Sylvia Likens analogue be mutilated in The Girl Next Door and yet this is the film that sickens me more.

The film begins with Ellen Page as Sylvia narrating a piece of her childhood at a carnival - as if she were to somehow survive the events that historically ended in her torture and murder. As their parents go away for work, 16-year-old Sylvia and disabled 15-year-old Jenny Likens (Hayley McFarland) get placed in the care of Gertrude Baniszewski (Catherine Keener) for a weekly payment after they befriended some of her children at church. It starts off swimmingly, with Sylvia and Jenny having a fun time with their new friends, but things take a turn for the worse when the first a cheque arrives late, causing Gertrude to believe the kids were dumped on her by their father so she takes it out on the two sisters. Gertrude is struggling financially as she's given birth to her sixth child, this time to a younger man named Andy (James "what am I doing in this" Franco), and is trying to keep her several daughters away from boys so they don't suffer the same fate. Keener does really convey this well, with a sense of fragility at her situation that turns to blinding rage at whomever runs afoul of her house - namely, Sylvia.

Things escalate when Sylvia becomes the target of Gertrude's eldest daughter Paula (Ari Graynor) when Sylvia reveals that Paula is pregnant, forcing Paula to assert that Sylvia is a rumor spreading liar. When Gertrude thinks Sylvia was flirting with Andy she has her do something unspeakable with a coke bottle (offscreen of course), and then locks her in the basement for her demented children to use as a play-thing; including daily burnings and beatings. Sylvia's torture becomes a daily routine for the family and neighborhood kids as a way for her to "learn her lesson". Gertrude, however, keeps getting presented as sympathetic - a broken woman who has crossed over the edge of sanity due to struggling to be a good mother. Again, Keener does a fantastic job of portraying a character who desperately wants her family to be kept together and fears what Sylvia is doing to them; but this is still a story based on an absolute monster of a person who the movie is trying to portray as an anti-villain. Oh, and it also makes Paula out to be someone who regrets her actions rather than being one of the primary abusers of Sylvia.

An American Crime is relatively close to how this story ends in real life. Sort of. Sylvia's torture is rather toned down compared to reality - a choice probably made for the MPAA and awards. There's also this absolutely idiotic choice by O'Haver and Turner to have an hallucination escape sequence where Paula helps Sylvia out, culminating with Sylvia returning with her parents to confront Gertrude only to see her dying body on the ground - which again tries to spin some hope of a happy ending and attempts to hide how much of a real-life villain Paula was. Much of the last few minutes are straight from the real court case. Oh, except for the part where Gertrude tries to apologize for Sylvia's death to Sylvia's ghost in her cell, as Sylvia narrates about how she now feels safe after her death. An American Crime just can't seem to respect its historical background.

Okay, with all of that out of the way, the way An American Crime sidelines Sylvia and Jenny in favor of making the story about Gertrude is bordering on offensive. There is basically no attempt at characterization of either of the two sisters who fell victim to Gertrude, but Gertrude gets presented as a deeply flawed and caring mother who punishes the sisters in order to save her children. Sylvia's only characteristic in this movie is being too good of a person, but once she hits that basement she turns into an afterthought for the writers as a means to showcase Gertrude's turmoil in her and her children's continued punishment of Sylvia. Say what you will about The Girl Next Door using a true story as an excuse to show a girl getting tortured for 45-minutes, it at least knew that it shouldn't make the main villain into a sympathetic character.

Despite An American Crime being an oddly well made and acted movie for its subject matter, it is also absurdly boring. For the most part this is more of a bad character drama than a horror story, even though the subject matter is torture. It plays it too safe with its true crime story - barely attempting to be provocative in favor of letting Gertrude monologue. Almost all of the actual torture is off-screen and the results are hardly as barbaric as they were in reality. The only moments where this film tries to be anything but an historical account is, um, the scenes where Gertrude is delivering a monologue about her damage; a move that more-or-less is in line with the story that the director was more interested in. This is one of the most grotesque crimes in American history and deserves to be treated with respect and not a toned-down and misguided movie release.

Having seen both An American Crime and The Girl Next Door it presents a fascinating juxtaposition. On one hand with An American Crime you have a movie that attempts to tell an as-it-happened account of such an horrendous crime, but also somehow is a film about the torture of a teenage girl that would rather be a character drama. On the other hand, The Girl Next Door does not care about or believability at all, and instead tries to show a more realistic take on the suffering inflicted on its victim. One presents the villain as somewhat sympathetic, the other presents them as a monster. Personally I feel that despite An American Crime being the better made movie with higher production values and an oddly good supporting cast (seriously why are James Franco and Bradley Whitford in this), The Girl Next Door is a far more effective movie in what it's trying to do; it may be disturbing as hell but at least it knows what it is.

Neither of the two movies released in 2007 really do justice to Sylvia Likens, but An American Crime is so borderline disrespectful that it left more of a sour taste in my mouth than The Girl Next Door - and that film featured a blowtorch .

I'm just mad with An American Crime. It had no courage to tell the real story. It watered the tragic events that befell Sylvia. It tried to make Gertrude into a complex, sympathetic character which the cynic in me says was only done for the sake of trying to win some awards. Just, have a spine and treat a real crime with respect.

An American Crime is a well-made drama but an abysmal retelling of a true crime. I admit that watering down a tragedy is a major pet peeve of mine, and An American Crime is one of the worst offenders I've seen in a while. Had this not been based on one of the most horrifying events in American history I might say that this was a decent, but sometimes dull movie with a strong anti-villain performance by Catherine Keener. But no, this film takes a tragedy and warps it to make real-life convicted murderers out to be someone we should feel a bit of pity for. I've rarely been this angry with a movie.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Designed To Disturb And Not Much Else
24 February 2020
Do you want to see a film based on an historical crime that is about a teenage girl getting shamed and later tortured for its entire runtime? Well, The Girl Next Door (2007) might be your cup of tea. Based on the 1989 Jack Ketchum book of the same name which was loosely inspired by the murder of Sylvia Likens, The Girl Next Door is what you get if you wanted to make a realistic torture movie that was designed more to disturb than to shock. Directed by Gregory M. Wilson, The Girl Next Door knows what it wants to be, and that's one of the most graphically haunting movies ever made.

In some ways I feel like the historical connection is what saves The Girl Next Door from being labeled as one of the most offensive pieces of media ever conceived. It was crafted to stick in your mind.

Beginning in 2007 with old-man David (William Atherton) saving a hit-and-run victim while other onlookers do nothing (it's New York, what do you expect), we then immediately flash back to 1958 and see the 12-year-old David (Daniel Manche) meet the new girl in town Meg (Blythe Auffarth) who just moved next door. Meg and her sister Susan (Madeline Taylor) recently got in a car accident that killed both there parents and are now living with their 'popular' Aunt Ruth (Blanche Baker) - an oddly charming lady who lets the neighborhood kids over to smoke and drink beer. Ruth, who loves her boys, absolutely detests and horrifyingly berates Meg and Susan for, basically, being women. I find this odd because she has no problem with the neighborhood girls, but maybe they were more 'traditional' women that bowed to her.

What starts as insults where Ruth calls Meg and Susan promiscuous evolves into physical torture of Meg after she dares to tell a cop about Ruth's treatment of her and her sister. Ruth, her children, and some of the neighbor kids all take turns cutting, burning, beating, raping and even more to Meg - all while our 'hero' David sits back and watches. Sure, David does half-heartedly try to tell his parents about the crimes, but that's about it. David tries a couple of times to help Meg out a bit, but for the most part he's a passive observer to unspeakable atrocities. As you can guess, due to the real life story this is inspired by, The Girl Next Door does not end happily for poor Meg, as we question why the hell David didn't do more. Oh, and back to the 2007 framing narrative for some reason because this was all a life-lesson about helping people apparently.

The Girl Next Door is extremely effective in designed discomfort. I've seen countless horror movies and this is easily one of the hardest films I've ever sat through due to the violence depicted rather than simply implied. The absolute focus is on showing the mental and physical torture of Meg. The Girl Next Door might be the closest thing to a snuff film I've ever seen from a studio release. As well, this film doesn't get stuck in the overly stylized gimmicks that a lot of "torture porn" movies used at the time, so its ultra realistic feel adds to the lingering effect. So I guess if you desperately want to see a teenage girl get tortured for 45-minutes this would suit the bill, though I pray that there isn't an audience for that out there.

This emphasis on suffering is also a problem for The Girl Next Door - it's a film about torture with little grounding. We never know why this group of kids, including a 6-year-old, all just want to treat Meg as a thing to inflict pain on aside from Ruth encouraging it. It just jumps straight into the torture without cause. The only vague motivation for Ruth that's given is that she's basically the most misogynistic woman ever to be put to film - stating after physically mutilating Meg's "cute" and "sexy" body, that "a woman is better off loathsome in this world" because all women are disgusting to her and female pleasure should be punished. Because of the lack of story or progress of character The Girl Next Door is an oddly boring movie at times; it's just too passive in its escalation. There just not much driving me to want to watch more of it aside from knowing at some point Meg will finally be put out of her misery.

The choice of having David be the main character is, um, odd. The true crime that this movie is loosely based off of is horrifying, but the way they choose to add David is sloppy at best. He's a passive observer for almost all of Meg's suffering, and just chooses to do nothing even though he knows that it's wrong. He never calls the cops and tell them that Meg is being tortured in the basement or gets his parents to do so - nope, he just passively watches while not really seeming overly bothered by what's happening until it reaches the level of physical mutilation. This seems like a choice that might work better in written form when you might better understand why David just stands around and does nothing. Is David supposed to be an allegory for society standing by and doing nothing to save people right in front of them? Maybe, but there's a difference between watching a person get hit by a car and doing nothing (see the 2007 scenes bystanders) and repeatedly returning to see your friend and love interest be tortured for days even though you know you need to stop it.

Not helping matters is the fact that the performances is all over the place. Despite spending half the time tied up and bleeding I thought that Blythe Auffarth's performance as Meg was the only commendable one in the movie - ignoring the fact that she's a 21-year-old playing a 14-year-old falling in love with a 12-year-old. Blanche Baker as Ruth gives an oddly haunting-if-unsubtle performance; her ability to intimidate with her physical presence is impressive. All the child actors are pretty bad here, and their delivery of lines as if they were part of the Sawyer family in Texas Chainsaw doesn't help. Yeah, this is not a well scripted movie, especially for the children, but it does know how to be unsettling at times.

Honestly The Girl Next Door could have been a horror classic had it spent more time getting the viewer invested before diving headfirst into uninhibited viciousness. It's plot is bare-bones at best, some of its performances feel at odds with the tone and it's defining characteristic is how disturbing its torture scenes can be. The Girl Next Door is a thoroughly unpleasant sit that should not be watched lightly. It's grim, dark and bloody, and seems to relish in disturbing the audience every way it can - a choice I commend it for as few films dare to go where this one does. The Girl Next Door is effective in what it sets out to be - a truly bleak tale of brutality inflicted on a teenage girl - but I can't help but feel like this movie could have been so much better if Wilson spent as much time with character development as he did in showing the worst in humanity.

3 out of 5
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Wish Upon (2017)
4/10
Bad horror movie, but an okay accidental comedy
19 February 2020
When looking at Wish Upon you first expect it to be just another bad teen horror movie that was clearly trimmed down to a PG-13 rating. When you find out it's directed by John R. Leonetti, a man who was mostly an okay cinematographer but who also directed Annabelle and Mortal Kombat: Annihilation, you know you're in for a "treat."

Wish Upon is a somewhat beautiful piece of bad cinema. It's premise seems to be having a teenage girl's escapist fantasy turn into a horror story, except the horror is just random tacked on death scenes. You can clearly tell this film borrowed from Final Destination and The Monkey's Paw, set in the backdrop of a catty Mean Girls ripoff. Leonetti and writer Barbara Marshall take what could be a neat idea - one that had the screenplay on the 2015 Black List - and just screw it up along the way. It has one of the most unlikable leads in cinema, but I'm not sure the film is even aware of this. Wish Upon can be viewed as a comedy even though there are few jokes. It's kind of special that way.

Delightfully we begin with a young Clare witnessing her mother committing suicide - I guess so you know it's a horror movie since we teleport to Mean Girls in the next cut. Flash forward a decade and teenage Clare (Joey King) is the pretty-but-unpopular highschool kid who lives with her dumpster-diving father Jonathan (Ryan Phillippe). It seems her mother came from extreme affluence as she has a rather wealthy uncle, though she's apparently poor. Being such a "loser" Clare gets picked on at school a lot by stereotypical movie bully Darcie (Josephine Langford) but she gets as good as she receives and starts a fight with her.

On one of his dumpster diving trips Jonathan comes across a Chinese wishing box and gives it to Clare for her birthday - seeing as Clare is taking a "Chinese" course in her Ohio high school. Clare, annoyed at Darcie, makes a wish for her to "rot" and wouldn't you know it, Darcie develops necrotizing fasciitis. Honestly I was less more flabbergasted by Clare's two friends Meredith (Sydney Park) and June (Shannon Purser) gloating about the prospect of Darcie being horribly disfigured, and for Darcie's friend who instantly took a photo to post on Instagram. Later that day Clare's dog ends up dead, which totally has nothing to do with the box (*wink*). Clare wishes for more things and then suddenly some of her friends and relatives end up dying in "accidents" that are, again, "totally unrelated." The box appears to have the powers to grant whatever you wish, but one of your loved ones ends up in a bad Final Destination knock-off. The horror!

While starting off with Clare being just ignorant of the cost each of her wishes has, that quickly changes and reminds you that Clare really is the villain of this movie. Clare gets help translating the messages on the box from her classmate Ryan (Ki Hong Lee), which lets her know that every wish has a price, and after seven wishes the demon in the box will take her soul, with the only way to stop it is to give up the box and thus have what she wished for go away. But even with it spelled out in front of her she keeps on wishing for selfish things and watches as her friends and loved ones die. Every person she tells about the box point out how selfish she is and that she's basically a murderer but Clare still makes more wishes. What makes it frustrating is we are given no reason to believe that the otherwise nice and likable Clare would ever be so, um, villainous.

That's it really for Wish Upon. It's a story of a girl who keeps wanting more no matter what it costs those around her. Loved ones meet their end due to Clare's obsession with herself. Aside from one brief sequence late in the movie where Clare has a self-aware breakdown fueled by denying her addiction to the power the box grants, it's pure (pardon me) wish fulfillment. It's boring and predictable in plot, but the execution is where most of the ironic enjoyment can be had.

Wish Upon is a movie where quite clearly the Leonetti doesn't know what how to get the disparate parts of this screenplay to work together as a cohesive horror movie. Wish Upon borrows from better sources in multiple genres without understanding what made them effective in the first place and jumps around in tone so much that it creates whiplash. You want a Monkey's Paw plot in a Mean Girls setting? Sure, sounds fun. It's always fun to see how wishes get twisted in a horror movie. Wish Upon doesn't do that. The sole source of horror is the random death scenes that Clare is barely aware of, and lack all tension because the audience knows what's going to happen. It's amazing because Leonetti has worked on a lot of horror movies but somehow that didn't translate in his realizing how to, um, make a film scary!

At the center of all this ironic enjoyment is Clare - our hero? Villain? I don't know. I don't think Leonetti knows either. Joey King can be a talented actress, but she's working with nothing here. Clare is at times almost a character out of an 80s after-school special about not taking things for granted. She's written as this vapid, self-centered, unknowing psychopath but is directed as if she's the "hero" of this movie. She has reckless disregard for the consequences of her actions up until literally the only consequence she cares about happens - as if this one last murder was the tipping point to make Clare regret what she did and become a good person. It's not like the writers weren't aware that Clare was a terrible person - having her friends point it out and having her become an addict to the box - but Clare's complete lack of likability almost makes her enjoyable ironically.

The thing that sets Wish Upon apart from most generic teen horror movies is that it is a borderline comedy. The odd flips between it's Final Destination and Mean Girls plots are jarring to say the least - like having a shopping spree scene set to a blazing pop song immediately cut to a scene where a character gets her hair stuck in a garbage disposal! The wish box's magical powers seem unrelated to the deaths; like the wish box made a lady trip on a rug. Somehow Clare's wishes rarely backfire, despite that being the key part of any Monkey's Paw plot. As an example of a missed opportunity, at one point Clare wishes her dad was less embarrassing which makes Jonathan a "sexy" jazz musician, and then Clare's friend June says he's "Sriracha hot" with a lingering shot of June pining for him; I desperately wanted those two to end up sleeping together because that would be hilarious. Oh did I not mention that this film's writer Barbara Marshall might be a space alien who only understands teenagers through Instagram comments? I mean, besides calling someone "Sriracha hot" as above, I sure know how kids these days say that their friend is a "*word IMDB doesn't like* for wontons" and while using multiverse theory as a means to flirt. Don't worry, if the dialogue is too much for you they have an incredibly laughable pop soundtrack with lyrics synced to tell you how you're supposed to feel, and then lower the color saturation when when Clare is supposed to be sad. Actually, now that I think about it, was anything in this movie right?!

Wish Upon really is such a comical screw up that one cannot help but laugh at its quality. If it had been remotely self-aware it could have been a great time in the vein of Sam Rami's Drag Me To Hell. To be clear, I don't think Leonetti made this film for anyone other than 14-year-olds who are too young to have seen the movies he's borrowing from, so judging it based on adult standards might be unfair. If you go into your viewing knowing that this is a bad movie you might get a chuckle or two out of its oddness. However, general audiences will never get anything out of this limp horror movie with no real selling point other than how much it fails to deliver.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A terrible movie, but an unforgettable perplexing experience
17 February 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not sure if I'm amazed or appalled. Maybe a bit of both.

As I sit here, after seeing The Book Of Henry, I feel like I've just experienced something truly unparalleled. This is the rare movie that makes you lean back and wonder for all the wrong reasons. Director Colin Trevorrow (Safety Not Guaranteed, Jurassic World) dusted off Gregg Hurwitz's 20-year-old screenplay and filmed what can only be described as one of the most disastrous sentimental Oscar-bait family dramas ever put to film. Why was there no one around to stop him?

It's hard to even begin putting this madness to words. I just have to start at the beginning and hope I can convey a semblance of the catastrophe I just witnessed. This has to be more spoilers-heavy than I usually like, because there's no way to convey just how absurd this movie gets without detailing it.

Henry (Jaeden Martell) is your typical movie-genius 11-year-old kid. He's quirky and wise beyond his years - building random Rube Goldberg machines, acting as a master in day-trading on the stock market ($680k cash, more than that in stocks, though no one uses it) and as an advisor to his mother Susan (Naomi Watts) and younger brother Peter (Jacob Tremblay). His mother respects him as a genius but sometimes struggles to be a parent to him - spending her evenings playing Gears Of War on XBox instead (...seriously). The Book Of Henry starts off as something innocent - a slice-of-life story with a touch of imaginative whimsy, but with grounding in Henry's morality on being concerned for other people. In particular his concern for his neighbor's daughter Christina (Maddie Ziegler, a Dance Moms alum who has under 10 lines despite being central to the plot). Henry might be a genius, but he doesn't really understand how people work.

Now we get to the thriller part of The Book Of Henry. You may want to sit down for this, I'm not kidding. Henry's concern for Christina is rooted in the fact that her father Glenn (Dean Norris), the police commissioner and 'upstanding citizen' according to the school principal, is abusing Christina (note: they never show the abuse or even bruises). Henry had previously tried to get the local authorities involved, but it turns out Glenn's ties run deep in the local area and no one is going to stop him. Rather than trying to find concrete proof of the abuse, Henry just jumps straight to the conclusion that murder is the only option and begins planning out how to kill Glenn without getting caught. But oh no, Henry gets sick and can't do it himself! Thank God for stopping this madman!

You can't have a family drama without dying children, or at least that's what most Oscar bait movies have taught me. Unfortunately, Henry's mild headaches that he's been suffering through turn out to be something far more serious: death by plot contrivance. The tone immediately shifts into pure drama and the whimsy stops dead. With the prognosis of imminent death due to brain cancer (hello Dr. Lee Pace!), Henry uses what little time he has left to try and make sure his struggling mother and brother will be okay after he's gone. When he finally does pass it is a sad moment that reminds you that even if he's an adult-talking genius that he's also just a child with a mother who loved and needed him. It's a rather well done sequence of events showing how grief can overcome us, no matter how hard we deny it.

Then, the last 45-minutes happen. If you weren't sitting down before, please do so now.

This is where the titular Book comes in. Henry, knowing Susan will better cope with his death if she has something else to focus on decides to give her one last task from beyond the grave: murdering Glenn so she can adopt Christina via a forged custody document. If you have to pause for a second, I understand.

The plan written in Henry's book is basically a step-by-step guide for a targeted assassination, including pre-recorded audio instructions down to the minute! Susan is dismissive at first, but after finally seeing Glenn hurt Christina (again, we only see Susan's reaction) she immediately jumps on the murder train. I am not kidding, this really happens. A sentimental story of a small family struggling with grief within a few minutes turns into a story about a kid's elaborate plan to murder a police commissioner. I was on the edge of my seat for all the wrong reasons.

Oh, and this assassination climax, shot as an action-thriller now, is cross-cut with a school talent show featuring burping the alphabet and tap dance. Thankfully Susan starts using her brain again - aided by a random Rube Goldberg contraption showing her kids photos - so no murder, but the result is basically the same. As the movie ends, with the clear expectation that the audience should feel uplifted by this "moving" tale, the only thing I felt was bewilderment and disgust.

This is the kind of mind-numbing insanity that one cannot believe is happening. You just give in to the madness that plays in front of you. Colin Trevorrow plays this story so straight that it does legitimately come across as if it he's advocating this murder for the longest time. That first hour wasn't anything overly special, perhaps your standard award-chasing screenplay that hopes to find its way to some film festival Jury prizes while some reviewer calls the film "profound and moving." The last half of the movie, though, is so ill-conceived and mystifying that it almost transcends taste.

The Book Of Henry has no business attempting to hide behind the guise of a quirky family drama. It's almost disgusting to think about the way Trevorrow attempts to manipulate the audience into siding with Henry's plan. I had to just laugh when the pieces of the murder plot were being put together - how much thought went into this one act of violence arranged by an 11-year-old boy for his own mother to complete. With a less competent director this might have played out more as a dark comedy, but it does feel like Trevorrow truly thought he was making something profound. The key tip-off for Trevorrow's love of this screenplay is in its use of technology, or should I say, lack of use - Henry uses a Polaroid camera and never video tapes Glenn's crimes, despite cellphones, laptops, and iPads being around - all because Trevorrow didn't want to change a thing. Trevorrow makes this the best movie he can; this earnestness is the movies most worrisome aspect.

In a way I have to praise The Book Of Henry for its madness. Where other films might have just stopped at having Henry collect evidence, this film goes out of its way to make the manipulation of a grieving mother by their dead child seem right. It's just bizarre to see so many skilled actors, in a pretty well made movie, never bat an eye at what they are doing. When young Jacob Tremblay, who at the time of filming was 8-years old, literally ran down the stairs and proclaimed to his mother "I think Henry wants us to kill Glenn," I burst out in laughter even before Susan's 'comedic' response. This movie is in so many ways morally reprehensible, but it's an unbelievable experience to watch it.

The Book Of Henry is something I'd say you have to see to believe, but only those die-hard fans of bad cinema can ever appreciate how off-the-rails this movie gets. The ill-conceived message it presents is flabbergasting to sit through. The Book Of Henry is so tonally inconsistent and at times repugnant that I honestly feel sorry for all the actors in this movie. One can easily rewrite this movie into a murder mystery thriller, or just a straight family drama about grief; it should not be both of those things. In terms of misguided efforts, The Book Oh Henry is in the top-tier of disasters. The Book Of Henry is a total catastrophe wrapped in the disguise of a noble message, done in by a lack of ability to just be one thing.
16 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Life (I) (2017)
5/10
Okay, but far inferior to the movies it blatently rips off
12 February 2020
Is it weird to call a movie painfully okay?

Life (2017) is director Daniel Espinosa's (Safe House, Child 44) foray into the space horror genre which can best be described as an adequate disappointment. Yes, that makes sense, let me explain.

I can say that without any doubt that you have seen this movie before. Oh, probably not Life (2017), but I mean the numerous other films that it is either homaging or just plain ripping off. The primary film is, of course, Ridley Scott's class film Alien with a sprinkling of Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity in there too. There's also a lot of elements from the criminally underappreciated Danny Boyle meditative space thriller Sunshine (2007), and I'm not just talking about the fact that Hiroyuki Sanada is somehow in both.

It's sometime in the near future and a probe from Mars is returning home with soil samples that contain micro-organisms which are the first sign of life outside of Earth. Our intrepid crew - includes Ryan Reynolds, Jake Gyllenhaal and Rebecca Ferguson - all race to catch this craft aboard the International Space Station. It's confusing what's going on as we've never been introduced to any of these characters, and this long tracking shot of events does both intrigue and befuddle me as no other shot afterwards ever does this (yay Gravity I guess). Things go as well as can be and surely enough they bring a single-cell Martian life form back from the dead. It's an interesting few moments - a chance to reflect on what pure discovery is, and one about the very nature of life itself. When the film does slow down it does so in smart, sometimes provocative ways.

This being a monster movie, you know that Calvin will, of course, not remain the most friendly of creatures. When the lead scientist makes one small error and Calvin returns to sleep, the trained experts aboard the ISS come up with a solution: electrocute it with a handheld cattle-prod. I'm sure you're as shocked as I am that this was, perhaps, not the best of ideas.

Calvin wakes up, gets defensive, and attacks the scientist via the most aggressive handshake I've seen since the classic film Hot Shots. It gets out because this "quarantine lab" has a vent system that's hooked up to the rest of the station, then proceeds to start munching on whatever food it can find and grows up to the size of an octopus. Seriously, this station's idea of "quarantine" is a single door and a glass box with rubber gloves.

What follows is a bog-standard Alien knock-off, complete with things being shoved down throats and a "no matter what, we can't let this thing get to Earth" moment. As they hunt Calvin it's clear that these characters are ill-prepared and inept to the point of farce. They try to burn it, suffocate it, blast it into space, all with disastrous results for them, including screwing up the ISS's orbit and making it fall towards Earth - thus potentially threatening all of mankind. I get that the film wanted stakes higher than just the safety of the crew, but could you at least somehow have Calvin be the instrument of the impending doom, not the characters doing it themselves?

In the end, of course, when it's down to our final characters, Life (2017) presents us with exactly what everyone in the audience saw telegraphed. It oddly didn't rip off Alien's end - instead going for a more The Outer Limits finale. After the final shot fades away and the credits begin, it's almost gleeful in the way it cuts to one of the most inappropriate end credit songs I've ever heard - almost the only original thought the movie had. Life (2017) may finally have ended, but if a film leaves zero impact, did it really happen?

You notice how I didn't bother to name the characters? Yeah, that's for a reason. The crew aren't really made up of characters, more like they're made up of three actors you recognize, and three that are 100% part of the dinner menu. We know their profession - with Rebecca Ferguson reminding us she's a quarantine officer every chance she can - but otherwise they're just random people. I do wonder if the first ten minutes of the movie are just missing due to the lack of setup. Heck, a defining trait of one of the characters is that they are paralyzed from the waist down; a revelation made about halfway through the movie which reinforces my belief that scenes are just missing.

That leads me into something else that bugged me throughout my entire time with Life (2017): I just didn't care if our heroes lived or died and felt no fear for their safety. Life (2017) is made up of many scary parts. Space, being trapped in confinement, aliens, imminent death, all of those things are scary. They just don't work here. In Alien we knew who the crew were with their unique looks and personalities; it gave us a long and proper introduction to them and we feared for them as they faced down death-incarnate. Life (2017) never gives us a chance to know who we are supposed to worry about. The creature, too, doesn't really become the thing of nightmares it's supposed to; if the crew never really look terrified of it then why should I?

Remember how I called Life (2017) painfully okay? Yeah, for me this film at times was agonizing because it's just too competent. The film itself, in isolation, is decently acted and paced, and has a few moments that do utilize its setting rather well. Absent other films I would be fine with recommending it as an enjoyable piece of science fiction cinema. In a different universe I'd probably even like Life (2017). The pain comes from knowing that this film exists in the same universe as far superior ones, and no amount of competent filmmaking in Life (2017) will stop me from saying that you should just see Alien instead. This is the rare movie that I'd say would be a better film if it was worse.

If there's a word to describe my feelings sitting through Life (2017) it's this: melancholy. It's one of the most "okay" and least original movies I've ever seen and it doesn't ever try to be anything more. There are some tense scenes, it's relatively well made, and I can't really say I ever got bored by Life (2017), but I just didn't enjoy it as much as the stuff it's blatantly borrowing from. I was just left with the feeling like I should go watch Alien, Gravity, or Sunshine (2007) instead; Life (2017)'s only impact is to remind you of better movies.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Snowman (2017)
3/10
A Confusing, Horribly Edited Waste Of Talent
10 February 2020
I have rarely ever been baffled by a movie. The Snowman baffled me.

Oh, I'm not saying that the mystery in The Snowman was so elaborately crafted that it kept my guessing the entire time. The Snowman is a borderline incomprehensible mess of a film that one must see to even understand that it was allowed to exist. Wikipedia describes it as a "psychological crime horror thriller" which ... um ... there's a killer and some gore, but it is not thrilling or psychological in any way.

The Snowman is director Tomas Alfredson's (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Let The Right One In) adaptation of the seventh novel in the detective Harry Hole series by Jo Nesbo. Now, I have no idea why they chose to adapt the seventh book specifically, I just assume it's because it had a marketable (if highly comical) gimmick and that it had been a while since the post-Se7en serial killer fad died down. Plus maybe they wanted to make a Norweigian Dirty Harry-esque series with Michael Fassbender, fresh off an Oscar nomination, to be the face of a revival of a long-dormant genre.

Brilliant, alcoholic and horribly depressed Norwegian detective Harry Hole (Michael Fassbender) is dealing with the break-up between him and his girlfriend Rakel (Charlotte Gainsburg) and their teenage son Oleg (who for some reason doesn't know Harry is his father?) as Rakel has moved on to a new husband. Harry gets a mysterious letter that has a crudely drawn snowman on it just as a woman goes missing. A new police officer named Katrine (Rebecca Ferguson) tags along as the number of missing persons rise, and a link to a decade-old case in another town come up involving another legendary alcoholic cop Gert Rafto (Val Kilmer). Of course all is not as it seems, as Katrine is also tailing businessman Arve Stop (JK Simmons) for some secret reason. Is this all connected? What is the significance of the snowman? Why do these scenes barely connect? Is this even the plot?

With that out of the way, The Snowman is a mesmerizing mess of editing. In fact it might be one of the worst edited movies I've ever seen. Even if the director didn't announce that a chunk of the script was unfilmed you can easily tell by the way this Frankenstein's monster is stitched together. Scenes just happen with zero establishing. Subplots are added out of nowhere just to be dropped and forgotten - I'm looking at you, mold. The editing is so chaotic that at some points it looks like Michael Fassbender can teleport. Characters are set up and just vanish with no explanation. All the few scenes with Val Kilmer are just randomly spliced into the movie at unconnected moments and could easily have been cut out. The film has a cold opening scene that feels like it was pieced together with several different scripted versions of it. I could go on for days on how random this film can be but I'll leave it at that.

In one of the weirdest things I'll ever say (thanks The Snowman!): while I know what happened in the movie, I'm not sure what the plot really was. I did my best to cobble together what was going on, but between the editing and missing scenes at times I needed to jump to a synopsis to understand what I was seeing. The basic detective plot would be enough for the movie, akin to David Fincher's Se7en, but with the half-dozen subplots being spliced in at seemingly random times with little-to-no relation to the investigation it's beyond lunacy. The Val Kilmer scenes in particular could and should have been cut because they do nothing but make the film more confusing. The revelation of the killer is almost an afterthought and comes across as the film picking a name out of a hat. It's hard enough to figure what is going on in a scene due to the editing, but juggling so much story makes The Snowman incomprehensible at times.

I'm not sure what the heck was going on with the direction of Tomas Alfredson and the team that made The Snowman, but there's something just off with the execution. An all-star cast was assembled but all other choices are wrong. The performances of all our leads are in that "just read the lines as written" style with no one really trying to emote - more akin to a 1980s Italian horror film than a major Hollywood production. Accents are all over the place - JK Simmons in particular is sporting a "British" accent more at home in a Saturday Night Live sketch. There's a child actor that I'm convinced wasn't aware their character was supposed to be grieving for their dead mother. It's just inexplicable.

It's hard to even recommend The Snowman ironically; there's no joy here, only bewilderment. Moments of filmmaking madness are sprinkled throughout; it's a film that should not have been released as is. You don't even get Fassbender acting with any of the raw intensity; he seems annoyed that he's stuck playing a nothing character. The only reason I was able to get through this is because I was fascinated by what painful decision the production would make next. There might be a good film buried underneath layers upon layers of bad choices. It almost comes across as an act of self-sabotage when you get those small glimpses of competence immediately followed by a terrible edit or soundtrack choice (the killer's signature song is Popcorn by Hot Butter, seriously). In some ways this movie should be studied as a master class on how to waste talent.

The Snowman made me sad. I love Michael Fassbender. I love JK Simmons. I love Rebecca Ferguson. I loved Se7en, Saw and a lot of the films that ripped them off. I enjoy the serial killer sub-genre. The Snowman should have been a new film to call my own.

The Snowman should be far better than it is. Superb casting could not save a movie where I legitimately wonder if it was cursed by a witch. Whatever could have gone wrong, did go wrong. A thriller without thrills, a horror without scares, The Snowman left me wishing I was anywhere else. The Snowman is incoherent, badly edited, blandly acted, and a chore to sit through. There are times I thought a good movie was trying to peak through this blizzard of badness, but it just couldn't find its way out. I'm certain that someone with a clear vision could make a good movie or miniseries based on the Nesbo series of books, but The Snowman is as big of a misfire as I've ever seen.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
IO (2019)
2/10
A Pretty Waste Of Time
6 February 2020
Style over substance can only get you so far. Style with no substance gets you nowhere.

IO is one of the countless film-of-the-week that Netflix put out last year. I almost watched it back then due to it's trailer looking neat, but something triggered my alarm bells. A post-apocalyptic film starring only two actors with no excitement in the trailer that sat around for ~2 years before release? A film that's original stars and director were replaced just before filming? The new director (Jonathan Helpert) has mostly only done short films before? This is sure to be ... fun?

I only caved because star Margaret Qualley was in Once Upon A Time In Hollywood, she was amazing in it, and I wanted to see what she'd done in a lead role. I regret that choice.

Some time after the environmental apocalypse where Earth's atmosphere became toxic at low altitudes, Sam Walden (Margaret Qualley) is one of the few people remaining on the planet. She lives alone on a mountain above the deadly air, and spends her time trying to breed a queen bee resistant to the pollution that can clean the air by pollinating plants. She has a boyfriend who lives on a space station near Jupiter's moon Io and is told that soon the last shuttle evacuating survivors is going to depart. Just then a man named Micah (Anthony Mackie) arrives via helium balloon demanding to see Sam's (dead) father who has been sending messages of hope to the world. The two talk, talk, talk, bond, etc until Sam is forced to confront her own life's choices.

First and foremost, IO is a slow burn. It attempts to bring you into this apocalyptic world by making you languish in it with our characters. IO likes to take its time and let the viewer get brought into a scene by trying to evoke a gritty, muted, and almost depressing cinematographic style. It does draw you into this world through the visuals. I admit I was fascinated by this almost hypnotic presentation of survival, even if it's not exactly a unique one. It reminds me of moments of The Road or even the more action-orientated Oblivion. Honestly the cinematography is the best part of IO and perhaps the only reason I'd ever recommend it.

Sadly this slow burn comes with barely a singe. IO is protracted and hollow to a fault. Where other methodical films like Silence use their stagnation to help you delve into character and theme, IO does nothing with its emptiness. As we get dragged along, watching Sam essentially repeat the same day over and over as her experiments prove fruitless, one can't help but feel like her and our time could be put to better use. IO has an ambition to be something thoughtful, and perhaps in a more condensed form it could convey that more acutely, but as presented the film does accidentally evoke the exact same despair that is experienced by its two leads as we wait for something, anything to happen.

I sat there in front of my computer screen, a beer in hand, and just feel sorry for the actors in this movie. They deserved better. I'll give credit to Margaret Qualley as Sam in that she acted like she didn't care while playing a person that didn't care. Sam's crisis in living a monotonous, isolated life while all but giving up on hope is interesting, but she isn't compelling. Anthony Mackie's Micah would usually be the agent by which Sam would realize her self-imposed isolation is slowly killing her - that is if Micah didn't seem annoyed that Sam exists. Micah is the thing that moves the plot forward, but he does so by dragging Sam along; Sam just doesn't want change and seems resigned to a lonely, slow death. I was just waiting for someone else to pop up, some interesting character to bring some joy or drama to this movie - but no, we're stuck with two actors who act like they don't want to be there. Goody gumdrops.

Throughout my entire viewing of IO I kept returning to a single thought: "I bet the people behind this thought they were making something far more profound." IO is the opposite end of the spectrum from films such as the recent Black Christmas remake where the message was beaten over your head repeatedly to the point of farce. IO is a film with a message but just doesn't know how to convey it at all. When looking up this film I found some early press release that called it a post-apocolyptic, coming-of-age environmentalist science fiction movie and boy did they miss the ball on all of that. It wants to be a deep, philosophical look at human interaction and our relationship with the world around us, but just comes across as a forgettable environmentalist version of I Am Legend.

After I finished the movie, though, my thoughts switched to another thing: did what I watch make any sense? I remember the opening narration talking about how Earth was evacuated and the survivors escaped to our already existing space station around Io ... so I guess the film takes place around 2070? If that was the case, then why did the technology look mundane by even today's standards? Well, I guess mankind can master the stars but lacks the ability to genetically engineer an ammonia-breathing bee - or maybe they realized breeding a single queen bee is pointless given you'd need a few billion of them to even make a dent. I again think back to far better films that, while also being flawed in a lot of ways, could at least entertain.

Now to stand on one of my personal pet-peeve soapboxes: can movies like this stop having the actors who clearly have no chemistry and visibly hate each other end up in bed?! Sam is socially challenged due to her longtime isolation and Qualley does convey this to her credit, and Mackie's Micah does literally look like he does not want to sleep with her ... but of course he does. Oh and at the time Qualley was 21-22-years-old (being able to pass for 17 easily) and Mackie was 38, so the 'romance' had that level of awkwardness added on top. That scene made me uncomfortable, the actors acted like they didn't want to film it, and the end result of this embarrassing tryst is more laughable than laudable.

IO is bland, boring and impossible to recommend seeing on a platform that features countless better uses of your time. It attempts to provoke but all it does is numb. Io is neither enlightening or entertaining. The things that IO is trying to convey aren't difficult to understand, but the film lacks the vision to tell it. Even if it is well shot, all you will think about during IO's (thankfully) short runtime is how many better films it takes elements from that you could be watching instead.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Sucker Punch (2011)
3/10
Ambitious, but incredibly flawed and messy
18 January 2020
I hesitate to say that Sucker Punch is a terrible film ... but man does it feel like one.

Sucker Punch is the rare non-adaption from director/writer Zack Snyder that showcases his visionary talent while also highlighting all of his worst habits.

Pretty film with creative action scenes? Yes!

Bad plot, character development, pacing, etc? Yes!

Switch out Snyder for a better director and Sucker Punch might have been a radical vision of trauma, escapism and gender roles on par with Pan's Labyrinth - a film that tackles similar themes but is done far better in almost every single way, and one I feel Snyder was heavily inspired by. I admire Snyder's ambitions a lot, I just question the execution.

For the record I'm only talking of the theatrical cut, not the extended cut or the recently announced "Snyder Cut."

Sucker Punch is the 1960s tale of Babydoll (Emily Browning), a young lady who is put into an insane asylum by her evil stepfather after she gets blamed for the death of her sister. The father pays an orderly named Blue (Oscar Isaac) to forge documents to get her lobotomized at the "orders" of the chief psychiatrist (Carla Gugino) as she's the sole witness to her sister's death at his hands, as well as the sole beneficiary of her recently deceased mother's will (it's the 1960's, lobotomizing young girls was a lot easier back then). When this is about to happen Babydoll starts to fantasize that she's in a brothel run by Blue and has several other of the asylum members in the dream as sex slave dancers (Abbie Cornish, Jena Malone, Vanessa Hudgens, Jamie Chung) and plans to escape her captivity. So they devise a plan to steal items to help them escape, as Babydoll uses her mesmerizing dance skills to distract people ... which is interpreted on screen as another fantasy which involves stuff like dragons, steampunk nazi zombies, gigantic magic samurai armor creatures ... I need a drink.

Okay, so the first thing that stands out about this film is that while I watched it is I had literally zero investment in the fantasy plots - you know, the entire selling point of the film and the reason a studio put money into it. We know that in reality Babydoll is a second away from getting a lobotomy, so what's the interest in seeing the last dream of someone who's about to suffer a cruel fate? Heck the reality part lasts all of 10 minutes at most, with the vast majority of the runtime spent on a hallucination. The dream story itself might have worked okay without the framing narrative, but it's too many layers that don't matter.

This lack of weight to the, admittedly, wonderfully choreographed action setpieces does bring the whole of the film down. All the fantasies relate in some way to the theft of the items that Babydoll and company will need to "escape" but their own logic fails. For example: stealing magic crystals from a dragon in an orc-filled castle equates to pick pocketing a lighter. We know that whatever happens against the dragon means nothing and affects nothing, it's merely an overlong romanticized visual of a mundane act. Did Snyder just come up with a series of disconnected action scenes that he had to somehow build a story around? I have no idea, but he did somehow make steampunk nazi zombies fighting a giant mech and 5 young girls dressed more to titillate than protect somehow be boring.

Sucker Punch is also very messy with its message. A lot has been written about the way this film treats its female stars; it's either a sexist tale of men oppressing women while being a faux-feminist action-fest meant for horny teenage boys, or a story of female empowerment against the male forces that hold them down. Oh, and the film features girls kicking ass in a fantasy when in reality they are being abused over and over again (rape, sexual assault, murder, etc). Yay for imaginary empowerment?

I honestly don't know how to deal with Sucker Punch's dismal delivery of themes. Does Sucker Punch use sexist images to subvert those very same sexist images? Can a film that checks all the boxes of being sexist not be sexist because it was being sexist on purpose to show how sexist the world is? All I know is Snyder doesn't have the best reputation in regards to how he features female characters, and Sucker Punch does sort of fit that mold.

With all this messy, boring, and borderline offensive material I can still see how some people have come to love Sucker Punch. The "attempt" at delivering a message is noble - albeit heavily flawed. The film does feature Snyder's trademark ability to direct a stylish action scene like few can; these are scenes that are completely unique and creatively done by a man who built a career off his eye for action. The concept itself is interesting even if it borrows from far superior sources. Sucker Punch does have some good things in it, they are just buried under a lot of mess.

There was clearly passion put into Sucker Punch; passion that doesn't always end in great results. It seems all involved were heavily invested in the project and wanted it to succeed; it's failure made more tragic for those who didn't realize the flaws in its design. Sucker Punch is a boring, messy, convoluted, and at times unpleasant piece of cinema with failed aspirations to be something so much more. Had Snyder not fallen yet again into the traps of his works he might have come up with a modern masterpiece of surreal images conveying a deeper, disturbing look at society. Sucker Punch is the cinematic equal of going to a fine art gallery that reeks of rotting food, has a leaky roof, and you have to wade through sewage on the way out.

With better direction and a more refined vision Sucker Punch could have been miraculous. As it stands it's nothing more than a failed attempt at auteur cinema from a director that's own bad habits got in his way.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A good film, though it's inferior to Chapter 1
28 November 2019
It's rare that a sequel almost completely abandons the tone of a blockbuster success, but It: Chapter 2 does so to varying degrees.

To be fair, the "part 2" of It was always going to be less scary, but It: Chapter 2 went in so many different directions it's almost unrecognizable at times that this was by the same director. It: Chapter 2 is clearly a product of Andy Muschietti, but it's almost like he directed it to be as different as he could.

Blending elements of horror, action, fantasy and comedy, It: Chapter 2 concludes the story of the Losers Club and Pennywise in a way that fans of the book can probably be happy with, but I think the general public will be in for a letdown.

Picking up 27 years after It was temporarily defeated by the Losers Club, It is back to feast on the town of Derry. The one remaining Loser in Derry, Mike Hanlon, calls out to his fellow Losers to fulfill the oath they took all those years ago: if It came back, they'd finish the job. So our band of merry folk return, only to realize that since they left Derry all those years ago that they have lost all memory of It, but they slowly come back once together again. In his obsessive years of research Mike has learned of a Native American ritual that can force It to reveal its true form and thus defeat it once and for all. Will the Losers finish this clown for good? Will it turn out to be a giant spider? Will fortune cookies end up killing them all?!

So first off It: Chapter 2 is barely a horror movie. There is no sense that the town itself is hostile anymore. The Losers are now adults so they aren't really the target of It, though It does like to taunt them. There are a couple of scenes where It picks off random people but there's no reason to care about the victim's safety. There is really only one segment of It: Chapter 2 that attempts to be a horror movie - about 45 minutes of flashbacks to It terrorizing the young Losers during that time between them breaking up and when Beverly is kidnapped (although honestly the creepy CGI de-aging was more terrifying). Oh, and the fun-house scene that was in all the trailers where Bill attempts to save a kid from It; I liked that one a lot.

It: Chapter 2 might not be scary, but it at least has some decent laughs and action. Bill Hader as the grown up Richie really does nail all the comedy bits as he's thankfully grown out of all the sex jokes. In fact some of the "scary" scenes elicit more laughs than screams which had to be intentional (giant lumberjack statues are not scary!). It: Chapter 2 is oddly fun when it chooses to be.

Even though the film constantly jokes about weak endings (remember, Stephen King is notoriously bad at them), I can say that the ending of It: Chapter 2 wasn't that weak. As a lot of people know the ending of the original It is, well, not good. It: Chapter 2's ending is far more action-orientated, blends in elements of It's reality-warping powers, and really emphasizes that the Losers' own bonds were what saved them all along. Also, It doesn't just transform into a giant spider animatronic ... thank god.

The most common criticism of It: Chapter 2 is that it is almost 3-hours long; that length for a "horror" film is almost unheard of. There's a rumored 4-hour long cut of the film too! It seems like the main reason for this extended length are the scenes of the younger Losers which honestly feels out of place. I'm sure the studio wanted the kids to come back in a meaningful way, but man does it feel unnecessary. The film really should have been at most the same length as the original, though I admit I'm interested in seeing the 4-hour cut to see exactly what the hell they they filmed but didn't include from Stephen King's notoriously long novel.

In a way It: Chapter 2 is oddly streamlined despite the length. It all but eliminates the subplots that took up a lot of It, as well as the ones that could have been in Chapter 2 regarding the new spouses of the Losers. Maybe the extended cut has more of Bill's wife being kidnapped by Beverly's abusive husband, but I'm glad they cut it here.

Even if you can criticize a lot about It: Chapter 2, its cast isn't one of them. Bill Skarsgard is back as Pennywise, and he yet again delivers a masterful performance as the nigh-omnipotent menace. The young cast from the first It is back (sometimes creepily CGI'd to death), as well as some great casting choices for Chapter 2 with James McAvoy as Bill and Jessica Chastain as Beverly (didn't they just try to kill each other in Dark Phoenix?!). These two get the most screen time due to their A-list pedigree, but the rest of the cast match up with their younger parts well. The obvious standout is Bill Hader as Richie who steals every scene he's in; there is no one else who could have played this part as well.

It: Chapter 2 is flawed, but I still enjoyed it. I wasn't going into the film expecting a horror movie as I was somewhat familiar with the source material, but I was pleasantly surprised at how well Muschietti executed a difficult adaptation. While it was way too long, It: Chapter 2 moved fast enough that I didn't find myself glancing at my watch. I am a gigantic fan of horror films but rarely if ever get scared by them, so the lack of scares wasn't a detractor for me. For those that wanted a copy of the first film, It: Chapter 2 may disappoint.

No one will ever say It: Chapter 2 is a better film than It, but that's not to say it's a bad movie. It: Chapter 2 is the slightly inferior little brother to a surprise hit that no one expected to be as good as it was. It: Chapter 2 is well made, has loads of laughs, great performances, an ending that doesn't suck, but just doesn't have It's magic. If you enjoyed It then Chapter 2 is a no-brainer, but for those on the fence I'd say just float on. (I apologize for that joke immediately)
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Excision (2012)
8/10
A Film Far Better Than The Sum Of Its Parts
28 November 2019
Well, that was certainly new.

Based on an earlier short film of the same name, Excision is director Richard Bates Jr sometimes mundane, sometimes twisted look into the psyche of a fully deranged young girl lost in a sea of apathy and neglect.

Excision is the type of movie that could easily have gone off the rails; it balances disturbing and dull with little room for error. It's an odd mix of dark humor and surreal horrific imagery that goes into places that few films would think of going.

It won't work for everyone, but Excision achieves this odd, mesmerizing balance that I found hard to look away from.

Excision is the tale of Pauline (AnnaLynne McCord) - a disturbed 18-year old girl with psychosexual fantasies and desires to become a surgeon. She's the loner psychotic in a town made up of normal people. There isn't really much plot here besides Pauline's turmoil with trying to please her overly controlling mother Phyllis (Traci Lords), and Pauline dealing younger, ideal sister Grace (Ariel Winter) who is slowly dying of cystic fibrosis. It's more of a character study of a troubled mind in a world that either doesn't understand her or refuses to realize her damage.

First and foremost, Excision is not designed to be pleasant. The film starts off as almost a sadistic dark comedy but as time goes on it becomes more of a character study of the disturbed. This one of the few films I've ever seen where the tone shift works so well; the absence of the humor has weight. By the time the end credits role you might even forget you laughed at all due to the darkness you just witnessed.

Excision is also a film that almost goes out of its way to make you loathe its lead characters. Pauline is a horrifying person who in reality should have been diagnosed with any number of mental ailments - an odd fact that Pauline herself illuminates as she reaches the tipping point. Her mother Phyllis is domineering towards Pauline but caring towards Grace, which would make you think she's supposed to be the voice of reason but then she is vile in other ways (yay random racism!). Pauline's father Bob is a doormat. Grace is at times too angelic (naming symbolism aside) but is also a hormonal teenage girl. Honestly this family is just all sorts of messed up.

Beyond the unlikable leads, there is a lot of dark stuff to see here that may disgust you. To put it lightly, Pauline is messed up. The opening minute of the film will tell you what you need to know about Pauline's mental state. Excision is bloody, gory, twisted and touches on many taboo subjects in society. Most of the bloody images come from visions of Pauline's dreams and to say she might make Freud run screaming for his mommy is an understatement. If you have a weak stomach I'd honestly stay away from Excision.

If you can tolerate the repulsive then you are left with a rather engrossing performance by AnnaLynne McCord as Pauline. The story of Excision is seemingly your typical girl-who-nobody-understands frame but the picture inside it is one of pathologic horror - Pauline is the Mona Lisa of madness here. McCord really nails Pauline's subtleties of a twisted mind fighting to find fulfillment. If you've seen McCord in anything else you likely know she does not naturally look like an acne covered teen that probably smells of stale death - this is a truly transformative performance. The more Pauline becomes unhinged it feels like McCord is breathing even more life into this character in ways a lot of typical genre flicks akin to Excision fail miserably. Pauline is a fully realized psychopath.

While Pauline might be a fully realized character the same cannot be said about those around her. Bates' style calls for a lot of direct expository dialogue, which leaves the majority of the supporting cast in shallow roles. It's difficult to find anything to like about characters like Phyllis when all she does is complain and nag. Bates' later works fixes this problem, but be warned that Excision never really gives Pauline someone equal to stand against or beside.

It's really hard to describe the trance Excision put me in. Any given description isn't sufficient to adequately state how a work including such vile and horrible things can somehow pull you along for the ride in a way that makes you tolerate all its flaws. It's stylized cinematography and direction do help elevate what would otherwise be just another low-budget horror movie.

Had Excision been more refined and not filled with excess plot and an odd amount of distracting cameos (hey Malcolm McDowell) it might have became a genre classic. There are aspects of Excision that work phenomenally well, while others feel like a director struggling to adapt his former short film into something much bigger. No matter what I have to commend the film for going as dark as it does in the last act; honestly I didn't know if I was meant to scream or cry ... and that's a good thing.

Excision really is greater than the sum of its parts. Aside from the fantastic performance of AnnaLynne McCord and the visceral direction there's really not much that is extraordinary here - but I still found it highly enjoyable. Excision is twisted, gory and relishes in making the viewer uncomfortable in ways that make you want to see more. Any fan of character-flicks with a dark edge should definitely give Excision a shot.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
68 Kill (2017)
4/10
AnnaLynne McCord is great, pity the film around her fails to match her intensity
28 November 2019
68 Kill is one of those films that is bad in ways that annoy me the most - it shot itself in the foot.

Directed by Trent Haaga who is known mostly for his low-budget horror film works, 68 Kill aims to be some odd mix of gore-horror and sleazy dark comedy but lands in neither camp. It comes across as a film that needed to be tightened up or have another set of eyes fix its glaring flaws.

I honestly only watched this film because I liked AnnaLynne McCord in Excision and saw she was playing a crazy lady again.

McCord I liked, the rest of 68 Kill however ...

68 Kill is the story of Chip (Matthew Gray Gubler ... um, that smart guy from Criminal Minds with the weird hair) - a timid dude working a dead-end job who's been in a 6-month relationship with his crazy-hot and crazy-abusive girlfriend Liza (AnnaLynne McCord). Liza learns that the dude she prostitutes herself to has a big wad of cash - $68,000 exactly, hence the title - so she convinces Chip to help her steal it. The plan goes bad when Chip learns that Liza is, in fact, a psychotic murderer who also partakes in all sorts of insane stuff with her brother Dwayne (but not incest, she makes that clear). The pair kidnap a woman named Violet (Alisha Boe) who witnessed the aftermath of their crimes, and Liza wants to sell Violet to Dwayne so he can rape, torture, and dismember her. So Chip takes the money, tries to get away with Violet in the trunk of his car with Liza in hot pursuit, ends up dealing with other crazy ladies, makes every wrong choice you can imagine, and I felt like I needed a drink at the end of it.

First off, 68 Kill is incredibly boring once Chip leaves Liza. The opening act is actually rather fun as Chip and Liza's relationship works well in this darkly comedic bit. Once Liza vanishes all the comedy leaves with her. The film grinds to a halt and becomes almost a road-movie for a time; except lacking the promised insanity and instead going for an odd coming-of-age vibe with rednecks thrown in. The elongated scenes of Violet and Chip are particularly grating due to a completely unwarranted romance subplot where Violet is supposed to be some sort of savior to help Chip become a man (while also being psychotic herself). The jokes cease, the fun ends, and then we just have an unlikable lead to follow for an hour.

Chip is himself a timid little mouse of a character - a dude who seems afraid of everything and constantly gets stomped on. Chip is impossible to root for as he lacks any charisma at all. When Liza was around in scenes his demeanor worked better as it bounced off Liza's weird crazy-sexual-abusive attitude, but with all the other characters Chip is a doormat. Even his "savior" Violet feels less like she's helping him and more like she's just another person manipulating him. I think Gubler does an okay job here given what he's working with, I just feel the film around him doesn't support him.

68 Kill tries to go for some dark, sleazy, shocking images but it just didn't go far enough. A few times the disturbing images work - such as seeing what Dwayne does to women for "fun" - but it's almost always done in the background. The fleeting moments of the sleaze I wanted out of 68 Kill are, again, all in the opening act and final moments when Liza and Dwayne are around, and even then its often played for laughs. 68 Kill would honestly been so much better had it been consistently repulsive.

Then there's the odd fact that the film can't figure out what movie it wants to be. Chip is one of those leads who is that mix of dumb and ignorant, and through this the entire plot of 68 Kill relies. The story goes from a twisted dark-comedy breakup/heist film, to a road movie about becoming a man, to some sort of redneck-themed revenge story. The overall theme: Chip's problem with pretty women. Not to get into spoilers, but if 68 Kill was more well known you'd see dozens of articles calling it "problematic".

Easily the biggest mistake in 68 Kill is that AnnaLynne McCord is sidelined for half of the film. McCord really nails this sleazy, sexy psycho lady who literally does whatever she feels like is fair for her with no regard for society's morals or the lives of others. McCord is almost bursting with energy in this performance when Gubler is holding back; it's a pairing that works. When McCord is on-screen the film is easily a hundred-times better. Had the film maintained the quality it had in the opening act where McCord got a chance to shine it would have been a sleazy classic, but trading Liza for Violet was like going from a Ferrari to a Honda Civic - you'll get to your destination, but one way is a lot more fun.

68 Kill needed to be much faster in order to make this world of insanity work. It slows down too much and wallows in its flaws. There is absolutely no reason this film needed to be 90-minutes long. Trim it by 15 minutes, turn the sleazy stuff up to 11, tighten up the editing, give it a jolt of Crank-style pacing, and you've got yourself a better film. Maybe a complete rewrite of the second half of the movie too, as that's where the film just stops dead.

There are aspects of 68 Kill that work well - particularly AnnaLynne McCord, the opening act and final moments - but on the whole it isn't worth the trip. 68 Kill is just overly long, boring and wastes a fun premise for just another run-of-the-mill attempt at shocking-sleaze that numbs rather than excites. 68 Kill is definitely not the worst film I've seen recently, but it might be the most frustrating to think about.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A Festive, Zombified Delight
28 November 2019
I love Anna And The Apocalypse.

... thank you for reading my review, exit is on the left.

Okay, I kid. I feel like I must elaborate in a way to make one understand the sheer bliss that is this movie. Anna And The Apocalypse is an impossible task done right. It's a film filled with heart and a loving dedication to its outlandish premise. A lesser film would have fallen into that annoying "meta" category that way too many terrible horror-comedies fall into - thankfully Anna And The Apocalypse has its own identity. Making no attempt at being a horror movie, Anna And The Apocalypse manages to somehow be one of the best musical comedies of the last decade.

Anna And The Apocalypse is what happens when a coming-of-age teen comedy runs into a zombie film ... with musical numbers ... during Christmas. It's a few days until Christmas and Anna is struggling with trying to break away from her small town life and wanting to see the world; all while her widowed father Tony is afraid to lose her. Anna of course has her friends to help her, including her terminally-friendzone'd BFF John, her not-really-boyfriend-but-pseudo-ex jock Nick, sickeningly romantic couple Chris and Lisa, and a random American-in-Scotland social outcast Steph. While dealing with typical highschool drama - such as the almost-Headmaster Mr. Savage's tyrannical ways and college applicaitons - a zombie outbreak occurs. Will our lovable group of teens make it out okay? Will Anna 'Break Away' and have a 'Hollywood Ending' or will she be forced to 'Give Them A Show' and slaughter the undead to save her friends like a 'Soldier At War'?

I know what you're thinking: given the premise, how is it possible that the musical elements aren't terrible? I'm here to tell you that the songs featured in Anna And The Apocalypse are arguably better than most modern Hollywood musicals. The musical numbers in Anna And The Apocalypse range from okay to "this song will not leave my head for days." Seriously, there are songs songs in this film are so ear-worm-y that you'll be humming stuff like 'Hollywood Ending' for weeks. Not joking here: Anna And The Apocalypse is more of a lyrical musical than La La Land was. (La La Land had more dance numbers, Anna And The Apocalypse had more songs). It's like a Disney film had a baby with Shaun Of The Dead, but it was then adopted by the musical episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

The true strength of Anna And The Apocalypse are the characters. It is physically impossible to not love and root for Anna. Ella Hunt is masterful in this role; she's easily one to look out for in years to come. Anna's like a Disney princess in some ways - the standard dreams of getting away though mostly just for the sake of seeing the world with only minor family drama - but with complete determination and more badassery. All the supporting actors nail their roles so solidly that there is honestly not a single character I wished to see eaten by the undead. Even the characters we are supposed to hate have this surreal charm to them. Honestly this just feels like a production where everyone was having the time of their lives.

Without going into spoilers I'll say this: Anna And The Apocalypse managed to make me emotional in a good way. You'll laugh, get overwhelmed with joy, and also feel deep sadness. This is a genre mash-up that mixes a lot of competing elements while somehow maintaining a firm structure. It's remarkable how well this film handles all its diverse elements. Remember folks: Anna And The Apocalypse is a zombie film set during a coming-of-age Christmas story that also incorporates musical numbers. It is tonally all over the place but remains consistently enjoyable.

I can't believe how much this film just works. Anna And The Apocalypse is honestly the type of film I expect to fail 99% of the time. I can easily list scores of horror-comedies that attempt to match Anna And The Apocalypse's tone that fail miserably. I've spent years trying to find a movie like this; wasting countless hours on stuff like Life After Beth (too stretched out and too indie), Burying The Ex (too many bad jokes and oddly cheap), and Suburban Gothic (too confused on its tone), but somehow Anna And The Apocalypse hits on all cylinders.

The real pity of Anna And The Apocalypse is it never got a major international release. I knew about the film through word-of-mouth, but had that not been the case I might have missed what is a delightful journey. It lacks any notable stars, but it is nonetheless a fantastic piece of cinema that I'm sad never hit the mainstream. I wish Anna And The Apocalypse finds a second life on streaming services because it deserves an audience.

Beyond everything else, Anna And The Apocalypse is just a treat. It's a great musical. It's a great Christmas film. It's a great comedy. It's a great coming-of-age film. It's just a great film. Anna And The Apocalypse is fun, festive, and downright delight to sit through. It's a film I've been searching for all my life and it finally arrived now that I'm well over a decade beyond the age I wanted it at. It's so rare to find a film with this much love behind it. Terrific performances, catchy songs, complete dedication to its premise and an absurd amount of heart mean that Anna And The Apocalypse will become a holiday staple for anyone who discovers it.
4 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
A funny buddy action flick that falls short of the Fast franchise standard
26 August 2019
The Fast And The Furious movie series is approaching 20 years old and I'm surprised it took them this long to start milking it dry.

Hobbs & Shaw is the first spinoff of the The Fast And The Furious franchise. It uses the Fast series' trademark gigantic action scenes, but changes things up ... um ... sort of ... not really.

Director David Leitch seems to have taken what he learned from Deadpool 2 and Ryan Reynolds' style of comedy and tried to meld it with the Fast-formula. It works for a time, but then just gets lost along the way.

Hobbs & Shaw is a buddy action film that leans heavily on the chemistry of Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Shaw (Jason Statham) as they attempt to save the world from cyber-enhanced super soldier Brixton Lore (Idris Elba) - who Shaw has "history" with - as he tries to acquire a programabble super virus named 'Snowflake' for terrorist group Eteon. You know the drill: kill the weak, reshape the world, etc. Shaw's sister Hattie (Vanessa Kirby) gets involved too by infecting herself with Snowflake to stop Brixton from getting the virus in the opening scene. Oh and Hobbs' previously unmentioned gigantic Samoan family shows up at the end for ... reasons. As a Fast movie, of course it's really all about #family. (I ironically use that #family joke because it's so overused in the Fast series that I laugh at it every time)

First off, yes this is plot does oddly sound like Mission: Impossible 2 had a baby with Tango & Cash.

Hobbs & Shaw is a Fast movie so you know what that means: explosions, car chases, #family, big action, etc. It delivers on those, but doesn't elevate it beyond what you'd expect beyond more emphasis on fisticuffs. It's a tad too safe. Of course the bad guy is defeated by Hobbs and Shaw working together ... because #family.

The thing that sets Hobbs & Shaw apart from the other Fast movies is how comedic it is. Hobbs and Shaw simply don't like each other - in fact several extended jokes are just them telling each other how much they would like to punch the other dude in the face. Hattie also brings a lot of levity with her witty banter - making fun of the two leads as much as possible. The jokes work well when the film remembers to be funny. Unfortunately the laughs all but die out when we get to the final act and it becomes another #family action climax. Seriously, Hobbs & Shaw starts off as a buddy cop comedy but then for some reason abandons it ... well, until the 4 mid-credits scenes.

The real standout for Hobbs & Shaw is Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Yes she's technically way too young to play Jason Statham's 2-years-younger sister, but I'll forgive that as Statham hasn't aged since 1997. She brings some much needed life to Hobbs & Shaw that alleviates the constant dick-measuring that our title characters do. She's basically a more comedic version of Ilsa Faust from Mission: Impossible (ironic since Kirby's character in Fallout wanted Faust dead). I'm glad Vanessa Kirby is getting more exposure because she's the type of actor who can have chemistry with a turnip. I'd totally be down with her being in more of these films.

The other big new character here is Idris Elba as the villain/rival Brixton Lore. As much as I love Idris Elba, I just wish his villain was remotely intimidating. Brixton is essentially a dark-Shaw ... wait Shaw was a villain until popularity made him an anti-hero ... um, Brixton is that dragon that forces the heroes to put aside their differences and work together. He works okay, but too often his fight scenes end with the heroes getting away and he pouts back home to his bosses. He's talked up as some sort of unbeatable behemoth, but he comes across as just another tough guy to fight. Oh and he's just a pawn for some other new big-bad-boss out there; so that's two new big bosses in the last two Fast series films?

I hesitate to call Hobbs & Shaw boring when it features gigantic explosions and Hobbs literally pulling a helicopter to the ground with his muscular arms ... but it doesn't leave an impression. As a spinoff, you know that they are saving the "big" stuff for the main series, and Hobbs & Shaw lacks the series trademark action insanity. Other than Hobbs' muscles there's really no standout scenes like the classic over-the-top stuff we've come to expect from the Fast movies.

Oh, and I guess I'll state that I honestly don't feel like this film had to exist at all. The characters start off hating each other, they end off hating each other, and aside from introducing a couple of side characters I don't think fans skipping Hobbs & Shaw will have missed anything once Fast 9 shows up. (The Fast Nine? The Fine And The Furious? 2 Fast 2 Fine?)

I can't say that I hated Hobbs & Shaw, but I can't say that I'd really be inclined to recommend it to people outside the Fast fandom either. Hobbs & Shaw gives fans of the Fast series exactly what they would expect out of a film starring two characters measuring their dicks against each other for 2-hours: lots of punching and hostile banter. Hobbs & Shaw is a loud, testosterone-filled series of action scenes with loads of comedy sprinkled throughout, but I just don't think it stands up compared to the mainline Fast movies now. It's a fine way to mindlessly spend 2-hours, but there are far better action films out there.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Not The Conclusion We Were Promised, But One Hell Of A Ride
11 June 2019
In this modern age of gigantic blockbusters being the only real successful action films the John Wick series is a marvel (...no pun intended). John Wick is the lone bright spot in the mid-budget action genre that stands out among the crowd. We're in an era where Jason Statham and Liam Neeson release 1-2 generic action films a year with the odd gem intermixed (The Grey is amazing), but somehow Keanu Reeves' titular John Wick stands at the head of the crowd - while also putting a bullet through the skull of all who stand in his way.

John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum (...I'll just call it John Wick 3 for short) is what was originally rumored to be the climax of the John Wick saga; a series that it was widely reported that several people in the production were afraid it would overstay its welcome. John Wick 3 isn't the end of Wick's story; though the end is in sight. Director Chad Stahelski instead uses John Wick 3 to set up what promises to be a highly entertaining finale to the series; John Wick 3 is definitely worth the watch but it might disappoint anyone who expected a firm conclusion.

Following the events of John Wick: Chapter 2 where Wick killed a member of the High Table on Continental grounds, Wick is declared Excomunicado and has his Continental privileges revoked while also having a High Table endorsed $14-million bounty on his head. Wick must then fight his way through New York with no Continental safe-harbor, hundreds of assassins hunting him, and seemingly no hope. Meanwhile the High Table has sent an Adjudicator to pass judgment on Wick's allies who helped him kill and walk away from his murder of a member of the High Table. Will Wick make it out alive? What does the High Table have planned? Well, there's a John Wick 4 coming so you can guess part of that.

I find that John Wick 3 is the first time this series has actually dealt with the entire world of this assassin order, and it makes for a much more interesting film. The High Table was brought up in Chapter 2, but here it is this unstoppable force that binds the universe and dispenses punishment that most are too afraid to resist. The line "rules and consequences" is repeated throughout by many characters; the bill comes due, always. Most consequences involve those who have dealt with John Wick, whose own "angel of death" mantra now applies to those who dared to help him. It was lightly touched on in Chapter 2 where Wick's past came back to bite him in the ass, but in Chapter 3 it seems that no one is safe from the harm that simply being associated with John Wick incurs. It's a neat development for the series: the world finally starts to fully take shape.

I wish to cut down the fears of those that had doubt that the series could keep up its torrid pace: John Wick 3 continues the series' trademark stylized action set pieces in glorious and unexpected fashion. This series rivals the Mission: Impossible films in terms of somehow providing you with things you've never seen before. While one might have expected the series to somehow have Wick headshot his way to the top of the Statue Of Liberty, it instead remains grounded; though there are sets in this movie that are astoundingly beautiful to just look at. The cinematography and sets are still top-rate and really do cement this as the best series of action films to just look at and enjoy. Helping matters this time is that Wick actually has some help in some of the fight scenes so it ups the ante with Wick fighting alongside people who also can kick ass; Halle Berry and her pair of pups are by far the standout.

Keanu Reeves remains his gloriously stoic self as his bodycount reaches the hundreds. At this point Wick might have surpassed Neo as the iconic Reeves character; with a few emotional scenes highlighting the inner struggle that Wick faces throughout the carnage. Reeves' ability to perform such intense action scenes while remaining as, well, Wickian as he is is perhaps the most underrated part of this film. Ian McShane gets a lot more time to chew the scenery as Winston in his vaguely maniacal hotel owner role - long overdue if I say so myself for his role to become central to the plot. Lance Reddick finally gets to do things in this film as Continental concierge Charon, and as a Reddick fan I am appreciative of him finally getting a chance to kick ass. Lawrence Fishboure returns as well for another cameo and my word do I want to see a film about The Bowery King and his pigeon armada. Most of the new characters fit well in this world, with the highlights being Halle Berry's Sofia and Mark Dacascos' Zero getting the most deserved attention. However, I feel there is one addition that detracts from the whole.

The biggest distraction in John Wick 3 is Asia Kate Dillon's performance as the Adjudicator. She looks the part of some cocky, evil judge and jury; but she lacks the finish as an executioner. Dillon's voice and body language don't intimidate at all in a role that I feel should have gone to someone like Tilda Swinton, Lena Heady, or Lauren Cohen - you know, actors who naturally intimidate you. All the other pieces fit perfectly in this world - hell Angelica Huston's Ruska Roma ballerina assassin teacher even makes sense - Dillion just feels like an actor desperately trying to channel something that doesn't come naturally to them. The Adjudicator's only defense seems to be that she knows that she can't be harmed, lest the High Table take action; this makes her as imposing as your boss's nephew. She's essentially the main antagonist on paper, and her lack of presence hurts the film in ways that could have been avoided. Santino D'Antonio in Chapter 2 was similar but at least he had the slimey, charismatic personality to add to the performance; you feared him because he himself showed the power he had control over. Maybe if they had her doing anything remotely intimidating it would work better, but instead she has hired goons do her dirty work out of the fear of the High Table's power, not herself; and the goons are a thousand times more awesome than her!

John Wick 3 is easy to recommend to fans of the series, or fans of action in general; but it did leave me wanting more in an annoying way. John Wick 3 might be the best of the series, but it also is the one that left me feeling the most empty. Large parts of John Wick 3 seem like they are color to fill out the world but remain pointless and could have easily been cut out in favor of delivering a satisfying story. The Ruska Roma part for example only adds flavor to the universe as well as fills in a tad of Wick's backstory, but you could cut those 10 minutes and lose nothing (note: yes I know of the rumored Ballerina film that this segment might have loosely set up, but my point remains). At the end of John Wick 3 it sets up a film that I honestly thought that John Wick 2 had set up - it's a fun ride but it feels like it went back to where we started.

John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum delivers yet another cavalcade of headshots and beautifully choreographed action set pieces that are among the greatest in modern action cinema. Any fan of action cinema will not be disappointed in spending 2-hours sitting back and having Wick showcase just why he is so feared. The only letdown is that it doesn't conclude the promised "trilogy" but rather sets up another film - a film that I suspect every Wick fan will see opening weekend in a few years. In a way John Wick 3 is the Avengers: Infinity War of the Wick universe, and we all know how amazing Endgame turned out to be...
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed