Change Your Image
OpaqueOne
Favorite American Film: Psycho
Favorite Foreign Film: Eyes Without a Face
Favorite Genres: Suspense, mystery, horror, psychological thrillers
Reviews
Last Seen Alive (2022)
B-level Butler. Last seen as....
This is not a bad movie. It is just too familiar. Run-of the-mill. As many have said, it treads the same or similar territory as several better films in the sub-genre. The Vanishing, Breakdown, or even another Gerard Butler film that I found a more intriguing watch.
I won't shy people away from seeing this film. One could do worse. Instead, to see Gerard Butler in a less derivative movie, watch 2007's Shattered, also starring Pierce Brosnan and Maria Bello. It has a kidnapping, more vibrant cinematography, a nuanced score, and a compelling screenplay that is not so blatant about lifting from other films. Plus a twist ending. See Shattered 2007 instead.
Saw X (2023)
Saw 6....4 Grey's Anatomy Fans = Saw X
This is a well made film. Trouble is, is does not FEEL like a Saw movie. It feels like a character study turned into a Saw movie by writers who haven't written a Saw film-not a good one, anyway. They gave us Jigsaw and Spiral, two sub-par entries that work better as standalone films than Saw movies.
Saw II began as a spec script, but it was worked into a film with substantial connectivity to Saw and it had the pace, tension, and traps to make it intriguing. Most important, it had a good ending that paved the way for the next installment. Saw X fails to do those things. It is titled Saw X and set between I and II, so it's not attempting to stand alone.
This does reference the 'doctor in Norway' in Saw Vi, but the tone of the film and its off-kilter traps make it a bumpy ride to the lackluster ending. It feels like these writers don't understand what makes a Saw movie hum. For instance, in my opinion the reason we never got a Saw movie with Jigsaw front and center for the full movie is because he's the criminal mastermind. What do criminal masterminds do? They pull the strings, make the plans, set wheels in motion and let their disciples do the dirty work as they' stay mostly behind the scenes. That worked in this series. Saw II had enough intrigue and tension and didn't overexpose Jigsaw. Here they overexpose him. The writing also relies on unrealistic contrivances to set up the final act, which ends up fizzling. Jigsaw's boy pal shows up in the dead of night to play with his ball right where the final confrontation is set, right in time to be taken?
Saw 6 felt much more like a Saw movie and it carried things out at a brisk pace as the tension was ratcheted up, putting various people in danger, with some of the best traps in the franchise due to medical corruption at John Kramer's expense. Here, we have a similar central idea that unfolds at a snail's pace with Jigsaw front and center, but the characters, pacing, traps, and resolution feel more akin to a medical drama made by student filmmakers...instead of Saw vets making a film about con artists.
The things this film gets right are mostly from a practicality standpoint (camerawork, set, filming shots) but do not serve a horror-thriller with an established template that calls for high tension and thrills aplenty. I give Tobin Bell credit for one of his best performances in the series as Jigsaw, but Shawnee Smith has one of her worst performances here. The Saw series needs to be left alone at this point, but due to the profit upwards of $100 million, I doubt it will get to rest.
I can only guess that, much like Halloween 2018, this got good reviews for two reasons: 1, the previous couple movies were bottom of the barrel and 2, people were excited for another movie in the series. Bad forerunners and recency bias. Let it rest!
Orphan: First Kill (2022)
A rushed prequel with a good concept, but no quality control.
The first Orphan was a good movie. It had a sense of style, deliberate pacing, and genuine unsettling atmosphere . The director, Jaume Collet-Serra, infused the film with artful shot composition, solid performances, and even pacing that allowed viewers to invest in the character-driven thrills being shown on screen.
Most of that is missing here, thanks to William Bell. Isabelle Fuhrman, who was a standout in the original, is great again here as Esther, but everything else is a cut or two below the first movie. For starters, this is a movie that was released 13 years after the original. There is no need to RUSH anything. In the rare case of a surprise smash that leaves viewers hanging for a sequel after a huge profit (such as Scream), a rush to capitalize on an idea while the iron is hot can be understood. Here, the star is over a decade older playing a younger version of herself (not the best idea in the first place). So, why did Mr. Bell feel the need to zoom through a quick 1-2 month shoot? It is rushed, and it shows.
The script is mostly schlock that veers into B movie territory. It is titled Orphan: First Kill, but we don't get Esther's first kill. Nor do we get an origin story. Why not call it 'Orphan: Escape' instead? To begin, we see a fairly entertaining opening scene in which Esther breaks out of the mental institute in Estonia. After that, however, it's hokey, uneven performances scattered throughout a campy horror-comedy with a twist for a soap opera that just about kills our main character's momentum. The opening scene was fine, but the mood is killed as it cuts to the son fencing with a misplaced song clip that feels like it belongs in a coming-of-age teen comedy. (Titled Evil, but a laughable scene).
The family's reaction tips the twist too early. Between the mother, her husband, and the son, the characters behave too off to suspend disbelief. The son, in particular, was cringeworthy in his line reading and over-emoting. I also didn't buy the father's complete and total submission to Esther's wiles without the depth to his performance.
To compound this, we get a warp-speed third act that doesn't allow us to revel in any of the characters' emotional conflicts or quandaries. The father turns on a dime when he sees his wife and adopted 'daughter' both hanging onto the roof and as soon as her fake teeth drop out he calls her a monster. The flip of a switch and he's already turned? Also the fact that one of the characters falls robs us viewers of what could have been a suspenseful, gut wrenching scene in which the man would have to choose who to save--at least who to save FIRST. Many scenes were so rushed they did not allow for suspense and/or emotional buildup. The whole movie felt hurried, last act most of all. Another 20 minutes would have helped.
Finally, despite the campy tone, the too-quick pacing, the underdeveloped script, and the washed out cinematography, the director decided to make matters worse by using child stand-ins for the wide shots of Esther and to give the cast lifts to make them appear taller and Esther shorter. It felt contrived and obvious when there were no full body-comparative shots and no long takes of Esther unless she was the only one in the frame. To be blunt, the first Orphan had better craftsmanship. This director didn't quite have the chops to pull off a prequel of equal quality.
Again, this is needlessly rushed. They could have taken 6-8 more months to flesh out the script, to compose better looking shots, and to realize not every scene needs to be supernova-bright. Mix up the ambiance a little. Isabelle Fuhrman has the facial structure of a an adult. Too much sleight of hand going on when a more artistic eye and some room to let the characters breathe would have worked wonders.
Except for Isabelle Fuhrman's performance, this was a disappointment.
Inland Empire (2006)
A raw, unfiltered descent to the core of the psyche
Whether you love Lynch's films, hate his films, or fall somewhere in between, it's hard to deny his deliberate attention to detail and potent symbolism. I discovered it early on in my journey through his discography. Due to this, I never bought into the beliefs that 'there is no plot' or 'Lynch is just plain strange' or 'it's not meant to be interpreted'. I agree his films ARE meant to be felt & experienced, but if you fail to follow his intricate construction you are robbing yourself of the full enjoyment his movies offer.
Here is my take. This strikes me as Lynch's most personal film. A lot of you ask 'Why digital video?' I had to recall something an English professor told me years ago about one of my own papers. "It ventures deep and far into halls of private vibration, and may occasionally lose sharpness as a result." This teacher allowed artistic freedom and I often found myself 'painting with words' in his assignments. THIS is what Lynch seems to be after here. The DV allows him to go to the deepest, darkest places in the mind. It is raw, unfiltered, even primal, and it isn't meant to be polished. The close ups and grainy focus are the most personal we can get with the Lost Girl and the various personas she has become. The long hallways and dark rooms each represent the journey to different components of her mind, each a piece of her fractured psyche.
What Lynch started with Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive he finishes here. In those films he dipped into the water partway--now he has taken the plunge with his approach. We get the protagonist's view of it all.
The blonde character isn't the actual protagonist. She is the most identified piece of the Woman in Trouble. The real protagonist is Lost Girl, the brunette seen crying in interludes as she watches the snowy TV set. She is reliving the tragedy her life became in her mind over and over, in torment, searching for an ending that frees her from her anguish.
THE PERSONAS: Lost Girl, housewife, actress and whore.
THE TRAGEDY: She had an affair with her co-star, got pregnant, killed her abusive husband after an argument and miscarried her love child.
THE TROUBLE: She has punished herself for killing her husband plus the unborn child's death, and sees herself as a failure for straying. In her mind, she is a double-murderess and whore who has also failed @ her Hollywood dream.
THE RESOLUTION: When she confronts the Phantom (most likely her abuser when young) and kills him, symbolically she is confronting the demon that started it all and grew out of control: failed marriage, failed @ motherhood, failed @ Hollywood dream. She stabs herself with the screwdriver(attempted abortion?)and slowly dies.
THE CLEANSING: As she is now free from her demons, blonde and brunette personas kiss--this is her way of forgiving her lost self for the unspeakable infidelity and murders. Lost girl is reunited with her dead husband and son.
This feels like a culmination by Lynch and may be the last film he ever makes. The end credits suggest it's a personal goodbye to his viewers with the appearance of some past cast members. My verdict? This is a remarkable achievement. I'd have shortened some of the still and silent passages and dove into the fracture a bit earlier. Could be 15-20 minutes shorter. Otherwise, well done. Lynch trusts his audiences to figure out the meaning for themselves if they wish (some may not wish to and that's okay). Don't short change this intricate tale of a woman in trouble by not going through the 'trouble' of soaking up everything you see, hear, and feel.
Saw II (2005)
S.A.W. II (Such A Waste It Is)
Wow. While I enjoyed the first Saw, let me say this sequel was an utter disgrace. If its title were an anagram, as in my heading, it would be more honest. This movie was an exercise in shock video, not a horror film. Believe me, there is a difference. It looks like today's audiences have forgotten, or, judging by some poster's ages, never gotten the chance to experience, what a true horror film is.
Some reviews which gave this high ratings said they did so because it had "more movement", was "more gory and bloody" and "leaves it open for the next installment." Well, none of those suggests a superior piece of cinema. The script was poor, editing was spastic, and the characters were absent. Even in this age of sequels, need we be reminded a 90 minute film is not an episode? This is a clumsily slapped together torture fest which is missing the mystery, the characterization, and the human element of the first. Horror needs pacing, buildup, and subtlety. Apparently, bloodshed, arguing, and a tacked on twist ending which made little sense scare people nowadays. And I haven't even delved into plot yet!
In short, Saw II takes the could-be mystery and shines a light on it, takes the entities and blurs them, takes the audience and leads us by the hand to a ridiculous ending. Save your time and money, and watch some old horror on DVD instead.