Change Your Image
iced_heart7
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Call Me (1988)
A somewhat messy, but fascinating B-movie thriller
New York journalist Anna (Patricia Charbonneau) is in a passionless relationship with her boyfriend Alex (Sam Freed). One day, while in her apartment, she receives an indecent phone-call from a mysterious person and she attributes the voice of the stranger to Alex, in her hope that he is trying to spice up their relationship with unorthodox methods. The caller asks Anna for a meeting at a local bar and she complies, still convinced, that Alex would be the one waiting for her there. As one can guess, things don't go as planned and Anna ends up in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not only is Alex not at the bar, but during a visit to the ladies' room, she involuntarily overhears and partly sees a murder in the next door stall. For a quick second during the brutal attack next door, Anna watches through the hole between the stalls as a police badge falls to the floor and is quickly picked up by the killer. Petrified and shocked, Anna remains hidden in her stall, until she is sure the attacker has left. Knowing the killer is a cop, Anna refuses to go to the police and report what has happened, so she promptly exits the bar and goes home, but on her way out is noticed by the thug Jellybean (Stephen McHattie). Soon, Anna finds herself in the crosshairs of some very shady people. Meanwhile, she is convinced the mysterious caller is somehow connected to the events at the bar. And what is stranger still, the obscene calls at her home continue after the murder and while initially determined to dismiss the incessant caller, Anna gradually starts to feel an unexplainable attraction to him...
While "Call Me" cannot quite make up its' mind, if it wants to be an erotic thriller or a crime/action thriller, I found the film to be weirdly entrancing, especially during the increasingly uncomfortable, but also arousing at times dialogue between Anna and her
unknown caller, which culminates in a tense but exciting scene, where she is dared to use an orange to pleasure herself. The way the scene is shot thankfully never crosses the line into vulgar tastelessness and in fact the nudity in the film is quite timid, considering the genre the filmmakers were probably going for, but it more than compensates with some truly gutsy lines of dialogue, which would be surely deemed too hot for TV. Patricia Charbonneau's strong performance carries much of the movie's weight, not only during the mentioned more risque sequences (which she nails with steel conviction), but in other instances too. There is a very memorable scene, where she spots the thug Jellybean following her in his car and instead of running away, she decides to confront him and even does a nifty trick on him, that renders his pursuit futile. In another fun scene, in a fit of rage over being lied to by a man she has been intimate with, Anna forcefully pushes a home aquarium on top of the guy as it crashes in a mini-tsunami of water, glass and flying fish. Clearly a character that stands her ground, which makes her all the more likeable. Too bad she cannot catch a break, as everyone seems to want a piece of her - a sadistic knife-wielding gangster (Steve Buscemi) and a corrupt cop want her dead, the (seemingly) shy friend of a friend is trying to woo her, her boss makes inappropriate comments and the unknown caller lusts for her.
I liked the third act too, even though it felt a bit rushed and patched from another type of movie. The violent and gritty climax of the last 10-15 minutes clash with the more sensual and romantic middle part, but in this case I appreciated the contrast, as it was refreshing and the final scenes even held some small surprises for some side characters' arks.
As a whole, while its' narrative structure is definitely more on the messy side, I found "Call Me" to be a fascinating film with plenty of memorable sequences and a strong female lead performance. For a B-Movie thriller it is quite engaging and absolutely worth a watch.
Voyagers (2021)
A very surface level meditation on the theme of "what it means to be human"
In Neil Burger's "Voyagers" teenager-astronauts are sent aboard a spaceship on a mission to colonize a distant planet, as the living conditions on Earth are slowly deteriorating. Reaching their destination will require a journey longer than 80 years, which means that the teenagers will grow up and eventually reproduce on board the vessel, and one day their grand-kids would be the ones to complete the mission. But these teenagers are not ordinary humans. They have been artificially bred in laboratories on Earth and kept in isolation from the outside world for years, right until the very day of the spaceship launch, which is thought to help minimize their personal connection to their home planet and make them, in a way, immune to feeling homesick. Sent to accompany the teenagers on the mission is one lone volunteering adult Richard (Colin Farrell), a scientist who was previously working in the labs where they were bred and was an integral part of their education and preparation process.
All starts well and peaceful, and everyone on board is performing their pre-appointed roles, until the moment Christopher (Tye Sheridan) uncovers a dark secret: a hidden chemical substance in the on-board drinks, designed by the scientists on Earth to keep the astronauts obedient, calm and docile, and to suppress their sexual drive, as they are meant to one day reproduce artificially, the same way they were bred and not through physical contact. Once this information is revealed to the crew, it gradually unleashes a chaos of destructive behavior - discords and power struggles, unreasonable excesses and unchecked urges, mob-like practices, lawlessness escalating in mindless violence and murder, and people being transformed to sheep blindly following orders of the authority of the day. It's up to Christopher, his love interest Sela (Lily-Rose Depp) and a few others, to try and regain control of the situation before it is too late for everyone on board.
So, basically, "Voyagers" is a nearly two-hour long meditation on the theme of "what it means to be human" with nothing new or original to offer and add to the subject. The extreme predictability of the script, combined with some of the flattest line delivery by pretty much everyone involved and the lack of any likeable characters to root for is a recipe for designing the perfect storm, but the film manages to escape the "unmitigated disaster" territory be a very narrow margin, mostly due to a suspenseful scene or two towards the very end and a competent and intriguing soundtrack.
The majority of the film is spent on scenes with annoying characters involved in petty arguments and bickering, which dangerously tip the balance in direction of soap opera and teen melodrama territory. When the arguments eventually escalate in all out violence, we don't even get our money's worth in quality action scenes. Those are a few and far in between and the way they are shot is very workmanlike, uninspired and un-engaging with the possible exception of maybe one tension filled sequence at the very end, constituting the final confrontation.
The characters of Christopher and Sela are also quite problematic - there is just no depth to them whatsoever, and their romantic connection and chemistry is likewise very thin, undeveloped and restrained. I understand that the filmmakers were making a point of presenting the crew as being more artificial, and gradually starting to discover the nature of their humanity, but when Christopher and Sela get romantically involved, its' almost as if two androids decide to get intimate. It also doesn't help that aside from (partly) Colin Farrell's character - Richard - no one else has any backstory to speak of. Also, the attempt of the filmmakers to present the villain as intimidating and scarily realistic is grossly unsuccessful, because he crosses the line into being incredibly annoying, barbarically stupid and thoughtlessly primal.
The movie's choice to never dive deep but stay constantly on the surface level of its' otherwise interesting main theme is a baffling one. The concept provides enough possibilities for creativity and analytical approach, sadly this is not the case here. Also, the title of film - "Voyagers" - is quite misleading, as this is hardly the focus of what is depicted on screen, a more apt title would be "Teen Mutiny in Space". But then again, who in their right mind would have an interest in watching that?
"We are worth saving" - Colin Farrell's character proclaims in one of the film's final scenes, but his argument does not hit the intended mark, because by the time the movie is over, one still kind of wishes that everyone on board of the spaceship is obliterated into cosmic dust, as I already mentioned that there are no interesting characters of value to even remotely root for. If this is the intended future generation to colonize other worlds, then the future looks pretty grim.
Lo strano vizio della signora Wardh (1971)
Solid first giallo collaboration between Sergio Martino & Edwige Fenech, but not the best of them
"The Strange Vice of Mrs Wardh" (1971) is considered by many as a classic in the giallo-genre, and amongst Sergio Martino's best films. While Martino's impressive visual style and his eye for gorgeous and awe-inspiring locations (amongst which are Schonbrunn Palace in Vienna and the coastal town of Sitges in Spain), and the strong cast (with Ivan Rassimov, George Hilton and the gorgeous Edwige Fenech in the centre role of Julie Wardh) work decidedly in favour of the film, I found the overall story rather boring and the central mystery needlessly convoluted, overblown and implausible to the point of ludicrousness.
The first half of the film is positively much more engaging and memorable than the second half. In it, we are introduced to Julie Wardh, a strikingly beautiful lady, who is deeply traumatized (as we learn through flashbacks) and still carries the mental scars of a previous abusive relationship with her sadistic former lover Jean (Ivan Rassimov). Julie has recently married an older man, a Wallstreet investor named Neil (Alberto de Mendoza), who she clearly does not love, but uses as a means of building a protective wall against the dangerous Jean (who still desires her), as well as trying to reach some level of normalcy in her life with a more calm partner. Things get increasingly more complicated for Julie when she and Neil arrive in Austria on a business trip, for 3 reasons: first, Jean has followed Julie to Vienna, constantly seeks ways to confront her and keeps sending her intimidating messages; second, Julie's friend Carol introduces her to her mysterious and handsome cousin George, who is clearly smitten with Julie, and she is in turn intrigued by him; and third and most alarming of all, a serial killer in Vienna is targeting young women with a straight razor, and he may or may not turn out to be one of the many men from Julie's close surroundings. All this makes for a promising and tension filled beginning.
The film's most controversial scenes - the flashbacks through which we glimpse in Julie and Jean's sadomasochistic relationship - are also contained in its' first half, and these can be considered quite disturbing even by today's standards. I was hoping that there would be a deeper reason for introducing this subplot, than simply for a shock value - maybe a more serious and respectful study of this disturbing and harmful behavior and its' obviously traumatic effects on its' victims - but the way the plot unraveled in the second half reinforced my impression that this was done just as an exercise in outrageousness. For the most part, the second half chooses not to delve deeper in the subject and to ignore this subplot, but introduce other subplots instead and in end effect proceeds to operate as a more stereotypical giallo, focusing more on chase and attack sequences, killings, blackmails, increasingly convoluted actions and motivations, risqué affairs, double-crosses on top of double crosses, and surprise endings on top of surprise endings.
The point at which the movie totally lost me is when Julie meets with her friend Carol, after having being threatened on the telephone by an anonymous blackmailer, who demands a sum of money and a secret meeting in Schonbrunn's park, in exchange of not divulging some embarrassing facts about Julie's secret life. Julie and Carol discuss the dangers of this potential meeting and diligently note that it very possibly might be a deadly trap set by the serial killer, active in Vienna at the moment. Naturally, they decide that one of them will go to the meeting, because, well, on a second thought, it most probably won't be the killer. Well, guess what happens? But that's not all, instead of Julie going to the meeting (as it is requested by the blackmailer), Carol volunteers to do it, because...well, no reason really, she is just a good friend who doesn't care about personal safety, I guess, if that makes any sense. In any case, it didn't make any sense to me and moreover, eventually this decision proves not only to defy common logic but also to negate the logic behind the perpetrator's plans, revealed at the end of the movie. Without giving away major spoilers, one of the things that becomes clear at the end is, that the perpetrator has planned in advance to attack non other than exactly Carol at the park, which bears the question: how could the killer plan for this, if he does not and can not - in any logical universe - know that she will turn out there instead of the initially intended person, Julie.
All of this can be forgiven if the film finds a way to keep one entertained all the way through, but sadly this wasn't the case for me - I found myself increasingly more bored as the final events unfolded and the identity of the perpetrator was revealed, as were the motivations behind the crimes and the ridiculously phantasmagorical plans to realize them.
I can appreciate the impressive (for its' time) technical aspects of "The Strange Vice of Mrs Wardh", the amazing cast with the unearthly Edwige Fenech and the audacity of some of its' themes, but the overall story just didn't grab me enough. I personally prefer another entry in the giallo genre, which is likewise a collaboration between Sergio Martino and Edwige Fenech - "Your Vice Is a Locked Room and Only I Have a Key" (1972) and would recommend it as a vastly superior film. "The Strange Vice..." is still a solid first giallo attempt from Martino though and as I said in the beginning, many still view it as a classic, so check it out if you haven't - you might end up enjoying it more than I did.
Stowaway (2021)
Stayaway...probably not the first to come up with this easy joke, but, oh well...
"Stowaway" is one of those science-fiction films, in which the science element seems to oftentimes challenge the limits of plausibility, even to the average layman. I would be interested to see how an actual astrophysicist, an astronautical engineer or any scientist with a relevant knowledge in the sphere would comment on some of the things that happen throughout the movie's two hours of running time. But regardless of how believable all of the events are, one could be persuaded to look past those nagging suspicions, if there is an engaging narrative and interesting, memorable characters on display. Sadly, this is where "Stowaway" ultimately fails - apart from maybe a short 10-minute segment in its' third act, it never quite managed to rouse me from a trance of indifference or make me in some way identify with or care for any of the characters.
The basic premise is as follows: a crew of three astronauts is sent on a 2 year-long mission to a Mars colony, but before they can even reach their destination, a surprise discovery of an unconscious (at first) stowaway passenger endangers the lives of everyone aboard the spaceship. Why is the "stowaway" - who turns out to be a launch support engineer - such a jeopardy for the survival of the crew? Well, it is asserted, that the resources and living conditions on board of the ship are precisely calculated for 3 people and an extra person presents a clear problem, but on top of that, the discovery of the stowaway directly coincides with a fatal technical malfunction - the ship's device for scrubbing carbon dioxide is irreversibly damaged and as a consequence, if the crew doesn't come up with an alternative solution soon, there won't be enough oxygen for everyone.
The captain Marina Barnett (played by Toni Collette) seems to be totally unprepared for a situation, where problems with the ship's life support system pose a challenge for survival. One would think, that she and her crew would be previously trained to deal (or at least try to deal) with different difficult scenarios. Well, where captain Barnett is considered, that particular scenario doesn't seem to have been a subject of prior exercise, so after consulting with mission control back on Earth and failing to receive any solution from the base, she basically just gives up. For most of the film's run-time she appears quite fragile, bordering on whiny, and indecisive. Clearly, a great choice for a captain. I have to stress here, this is by no means a fault of Toni Collette - she is an amazing actress, it's just that her character is written that way, which is baffling to me.
The ship's biologist David Kim (Daniel Dae Kim) appears discouragingly self-absorbed, partially unfit physically for the requirements of the mission, and most alarmingly - devoid of empathy, where the lives of others are concerned. He seems to be a man unwilling to take any risks and would rather opt for the easy (for him anyway) way out. Basically, as soon as it becomes clear that the oxygen would be enough for 3 people, and not more, he doesn't have a problem with suggesting that the extra person on board should resort to suicide, as a means to save the others. Another "charming" personality.
The last official crew member on board (I'll be mentioning the stowaway person shortly) is the medical researcher Zoe Levenson (portrayed by the lovely Anna Kendrick) and she seems to be the only one on board with any constructive and clear ideas for alternative solutions on how to cope with the crisis, without having to resort to sacrifice and martyrdom, which ends up being amusingly ironic, when one considers the film's conclusion. Also, unlike her colleagues, she regards everyone's survival as equally important and seeks to unify everybody's efforts around a clear goal, qualities which define her more as a leader, than the actual leader - captain Barnett. Weird, that. Gradually, it becomes evident, that Zoe is the supposed main character. And, while she seems sufficiently sympathetic and impressively brave, especially in comparison with everyone else on board, I somehow felt similarly disconnected with her character and I believe the problem is the extremely limited backstory for Zoe portrayed on the screen. Yes, there is a small attempt of illustrating who she was before the mission (and how she became who she is), but it is through a brief description of a memory, which she herself narrates to another character. We never really experience through our own eyes even a glimpse of her life before the mission, which I think is real detriment to the building and strength of her character. A truly missed opportunity. We mainly learn about Zoe through her interactions with everyone on board the ship. Well, unlike Marina Barnett and David Kim, at least Zoe's character had (even if minimal) a backstory attempt - the captain and the biologist have exactly zilch of that.
That leaves us with the final character - the unexpected fourth member, the stowaway Michael Adams (Shamier Anderson). The circumstances of how he came to be in a way "walled in" in the ceiling of the ship during the pre-launch procedures, seem to be a bit blurry, and he himself appears quite confused and even shocked (as one would naturally be) when he regains consciousness and finds out he is now on board the ship bound for Mars on a 2 year-long mission. So, it becomes clear, that there is no fault of any malicious intent. He is just a victim of an unfortunate happenstance. Michael overcomes his initial shock quite swift, almost magically so. One would think, he would need a couple of days to adapt. But no, he almost immediately changes his attitude from shock and desperation to invigorated optimism and asserts his intent to become a valuable member of the team, by volunteering to contribute with any work deemed suitable and possible for him. At that point I thought - "Great! Here would be the chance for the stowaway to prove himself worthy, by doing things that one would surmise are not that astronomically distant from his actual job characteristics - launch support engineer - and fix the problem, that he seems to be the cause of. Things like, gee, I don't know, maybe repair the broken carbon dioxide scrubber?" Yeah! Right? Well, no, why would you think that? He is given the highly challenging task of entering data into a tablet, clearly an efficient use of his talents. Similar to Zoe's character, for Michael there was also the bare-minimum effort for a backstory, and again, it is a tragic event from his past, which is briefly narrated by himself and we don't really get to experience this first-hand. I don't think this rushed melodramatic scene brings us closer to his character. Shamier Anderson does his best to incite the required emotional response from the viewer, and again I need to reiterate - the acting is high caliber from everyone involved, it's just a shame that all characters are so bland, insufficiently formed and devoid of substance.
Towards the final half hour of the film, Michael's character has 2 more chances to prove himself and frankly, I was sure he would finally take one of these chances to try and help the crew members whose survival he inadvertently endangers. Spoilers: he doesn't do much and almost disappears in the film's third act. Another weird choice when one considers the title of the film - "Stowaway". Would it be crazy to expect that the central character would be the unexpected passenger, one who overcomes his initial insecurity and possibly becomes a hero? I guess that would be a crazy idea. So, another character becomes the hero, a decision that left me not only dumbfounded, but quite honestly very angry. Where is the movie logic behind all of this?
Also, apparently in this movie's universe, the men are physically unfit to do things like climbing a tether in open space, whereas a 110-pound girl excels at it, and does this while simultaneously being pounded by lethal radiation from a solar storm. I mean, a well trained (as should be) woman can be physically fit for the mission, I'm totally fine with that, but why would you send men, who are clearly NOT fit on an extremely dangerous mission? I'll tell you why. Because someone in the studio said: "We need to have a kickass female character". Absolutely nothing wrong with that. I love strong female characters. "Alien" and "The Terminator" are some of my all time favorite films and they both had iconic female heroes at the center of the narrative. But the way this is done in "Stowaway", is not how to achieve this goal. Making all the male characters useless and weak, does not necessarily make your female protagonist a strong, badass hero.
Add to all of these unfortunate film-making decisions, the overall sleep-inducing "snail" pace of the film, the unimpressive dialogue and the incredibly rushed (almost non-) ending and we are left with nothing much.
The positives can be exhausted in the following - one plus point goes to using a real set and not over-relying on green screen, one point goes to the aforementioned strong acting performances by everyone involved, and one point to the director Joe Penna for the engaging and tension-filled 10 minute scene, in which Zoe and David have to perform a highly challenging and vertigo-inducing spacewalk - to climb the tethers from the ship's main hull to the launch vehicle. Marveling at this well-shot, pulse-quickening segment would however turn out to be ultimately undone by the way the scene is concluded - the result of the astronauts' incredible efforts and the viewer's holding of breath during this episode are rewarded with an idiotic mistake, which renders the whole operation useless. What a letdown - which ultimately extends to the movie as a whole.
"Stowaway" had the talent behind it, it obviously had the budget for the needed special effects. As usual, the screenwriting is where it all went to hell. So many wrong decisions on this one.
The Domestics (2018)
A fun, disconnect-your-brain, violent, post-apocalyptic thrill ride
Post-apocalyptic films where most of humanity is eradicated by an extinction event and survivors have to scavenge for supplies and to fight ruthless gangs, who roam the streets, are certainly nothing new, but seem to have gained popularity in recent years, with the latest entry in the Mad Max franchise - "Fury Road" (2015), films like Neil Marshall's "Doomsday" (2008), John Hillcoat's "The Road" (2009) and especially with the clearly endless entries into "The Purge" franchise. But whereas in The Purge universe, there is an active government present, which (for some odd reason) has decided that crime is legal once per year, in "The Domestics" a phantom government has unleashed mass destruction by means of chemical weapons on its' citizens and the survivors awake to a reality, where senseless violence is a normal daily occurrence and a variety of differently operating, but equally sadistic gangs have taken over the country.
In the midst of all the chaos we are introduced to our two main characters - married couple Nina West (Kate Bosworth) and Mark West (Tyler Hoechlin). Already in the beginning we can see that their relationship is strained, but the reasons are indicated some time later in the film, if a bit too vague and non-specific ("then life got hard, all we did was fight"). We learn that just before the world went insane, Nina and Mark were in the middle of a divorce, so naturally, navigating the dramatic new circumstances together will prove to be most challenging for both, but possibly also give an opportunity for them to rekindle the magic and romance of the past and give their marriage a second chance. Mark clearly still loves Nina, as he readily agrees to his wife's request, which sounds more like a suicide mission than an action of a sound mind (Mark himself describes this decision as "the stupidest thing I've ever done") - to drive her across the country to Nina's parents' house in Milwaukee and try to avoid the murderous gangs in the process.
On the way to their destination they meet all kinds of oddball characters, all of who appear to have lost parts or all of their humanity. Even the ones who are not outright trying to kill them and do offer a helping hand, ultimately end up having ulterior (and frankly nefarious) motives. Most disturbing of all, in this bleak reality, even the young and innocent have been corrupted - we witness a kid operating a machine gun and mowing down gang members. It's a world where people resort to cannibalism to survive, snipers watch from the rooftops, members of the female sex are referred to as "merchandise", and Russian roulette and torture are a form of entertainment. Well, pretty much the standard fare for post-apocalypse flicks.
The positive thing about "The Domestics" is that it manages to maintain a quite consistent level of suspense throughout its' 95 minutes of run-time and it rarely lets up the foot from the gas. There are however some "breather" calm moments, in between the tense scenes, and in some instances I wish these were expanded more, especially when their focus is on establishing the renewed emotional connection between Mark and Nina, as they are our main characters and we are supposed to care if they will survive their ordeal. And for the most part we do care, at least I did. For example, there is a scene in which Nina finds a car in a garage of an abandoned house, which is very similar to Mark's old model. Mark is naturally thrilled by Nina's discovery, and as they sit inside the car, they reminisce about the past and soon the sparks fly, passionate kisses ensue, and they proceed to get even more intimate...but the make-up sex is interrupted by the next line of sadistic gang members who surprise them and enter the house. I feel that the "breather" moment could have lasted longer and I don't necessarily mean only the love scene. They could have had the evening and the next morning together (and even whole day afterwards) and rediscovered their marriage before the brutal action has to take center stage again. I do believe it would have worked much better, had the couple been allowed to have more bonding time on screen, more intimate conversations and discussions.
And talking about the bad guys attacking the house they are staying in, this brings me to my next point. This happens all the time - on their way to Milwaukee Mark and Nina always choose a random abandoned house to sleep in and in no time gang members arrive at the door to make their life miserable. And no wonder why. Quite honestly Mark and Nina are not the brightest characters. In a world overrun by violence, they make some quite stupid decisions - lighting a candle at night in a room with windows overlooking the street (allowing bad guys from outside to see the house is occupied - and they do), parking their quite clean looking car right in front of an abandoned supermarket (so anyone can see it, while they are both inside the store looking for supplies...and they do), separating (at one point Nina is seriously considering leaving Mark behind and going on her own, which would be another stupidly suicidal idea), drunkenly blasting heavy metal music in the house (and naturally attracting unwanted visitors). Although, I do have to confess about the last one, seeing Kate Bosworth dancing to heavy metal is one of the sexiest things ever put to screen, and I am a metal guy as well, so in a way it's actually quite brilliant, hehe....
But silly decisions aside, at least Nina and Mark haven't lost their humanity yet, in contrast with pretty much everyone else around them, which is why we get attached to them. Also illustrating the point that they are very fragile and mere mortals is the fact, that both of them get injured quite often (Nina gets shot, Mark does too, in one scene they are captured and forced to play a disturbing game of Russian roulette by means of applying a power-drill to their wrists). There is also an interesting role-reversal in Mark and Nina's relationship as the story progresses. In the beginning Nina starts out as the more shy and timid character, a bit disconnected with the grim reality around her and seemingly incapable of any violent acts, and Mark is the protective husband, who will do anything for her. In the last half hour there is a sharp turn and Nina becomes the emancipated kick-ass heroine, who would kill anyone presenting an obstacle or danger to her and Mark, without batting an eye, and Mark himself becomes the more helpless one and gets rescued by her in some instances. And while I absolutely applaud the decision to transform Nina into the undisputed hero of the film, I think it was done far from masterful. For one, it felt ridiculously swift and abrupt. Literally after one mere training practice with Mark around the middle section of the film, where he is showing her how to operate a rifle, Nina becomes an unstoppable killing machine. Yes, it's very cool, but also quite unrealistic. This should have been a gradual process, maybe a few misfires here and there - but no, by the film's finale she is mowing down bad guys without fail, throwing homemade grenades, operating explosive traps, it's unbelievable. When Kate Bosworth - one of the most astonishingly beautiful creatures on the planet - is doing all those illogical things, I am naturally inclined to forgive the obvious script failures and just enjoy the ride, but I do have to at least point it out.
And speaking of Kate Bosworth, her strong performance has to be mentioned - she was definitely very convincing as the strong heroine in the final third part and helped me overlook the previously mentioned script inconsistencies. Tyler Hoechlin is also very sympathetic as the protective husband and overall good guy, and even manages to bring a few laughs in a scene where he makes some funny comments, seconds before he has to fight a quite bulky and robust guy. Lance Reddick is also starring as a deceptively helpful guy with peculiar eating habits, as is also Sonoya Mizuno - an actress who plays an (escaped from capture) mysterious and murderously efficient ex-gang member, who gets strangely obsessed with Nina and embarks on a mission to secretly protect her, without having any logical reason to do so (besides morbid curiosity) and without ever meeting with her face to face. Mizuno manages to impress in her small role, in spite of having the increased disadvantage of having only one line of dialogue in the entire film. I wish the movie had provided more insight into her backstory, as I found her oddly alluring and interesting, and it's a shame that the script appointed her with a brisk and undeservedly bleak ending, done very matter of fact. I'm pretty sure, originally there must have been more scenes with her, establishing the character, which were sadly cut to make the film more immediate and dynamic. I would actually be interested to (some day) see a director's cut of "The Domestics", as I am convinced that if more time was allowed for the characters to breathe, the final result would have been much better.
As it is, the filmmakers race to get to the ending and to deliver an explosive finish. And that they most certainly do. The final showdown, in which not one, but two different gangs attack the peaceful neighborhood from Nina's childhood, is brutal, violent and exhilaratingly cathartic. Overall, "The Domestic" is a fun, "disconnect your brain", post-apocalyptic thrill ride, which delivers on the action and suspense. Is it done in a realistic and believable way? Not in a million years, but it's entertaining nonetheless, and in the end of the day, that's what matters most, isn't it?
The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016)
The first 45 minutes are great...the rest, not so much
Sometimes a movie viewing experience could end up being more frustrating, if the film in question actually starts quite promising and offers (at least partly) an original idea, but loses focus along the way and becomes just another example of exhausted genre-formulas, erasing any initial positive impressions, than if one is watching just a flat out disastrously bad film. "The Autopsy of Jane Doe" had the potential to be a great supernatural horror film, alas, its' intriguing story was sacrificed for cheap jump scares, illogical plot progressions and a senseless shock value-ending, which doesn't resolve anything, doesn't feel particularly earned in a dramatic way and makes the whole journey, in retrospect, worthless.
The opening is creepy and instantly engaging - police officers and crime scene specialists are walking through a house, where multiple victims of a homicide have been found. One of them is the strangely well-preserved body of a young unidentified female, with no obvious external signs of injury or trauma and this is the only victim located in the basement of the house. The police officers at the scene are at a loss to explain how the visibly untouched body of Jane Doe in the basement is connected to the brutal murders of the family members upstairs. Then one of the officers makes a chilly remark about the crime scene and victims: "Doesn't look like someone broke in. To me it looks like they were trying to break out". And that's how it's done - only 4 minutes in and my interest is piqued, because there is a promise of a mystery and a threat. And it gets better...at least for a while, before it all comes crashing down.
We are introduced to our two protagonists - experienced coroner Tommy Tilden (played by the great Brian Cox) and his son and work-assistant Austin Tilden (Emile Hirsch) and we get to see them in their place of "business" - the morgue - doing their stomach-churning (for the regular person) work routines of photographing and cutting open corpses, inspecting and measuring organs, discussing clues and theories for cause of death, etc., all while we are treated to a happy adrenaline-pumping tune as a companion background soundtrack, an idea I found strangely disturbing and satisfying at the same time. It brings a smile to one's face, when clearly one is not supposed to smile at that particular moment. Look at how cheerful and pleasant the job of a coroner is! - screams the soundtrack, and yes, the way the scene is portrayed is darkly humorous.
We get quickly attached to our two main characters, as the dialogue exchanges between them establish early on a relationship between father and son, which is grounded in mutual love and respect. Tommy is teaching his son the tools of the trade and offering in depth observations and recommendations of how to excel at the profession, while still not forgetting to offer words of encouragement to him, when he somewhat impatiently hurries to incorrectly interpret a cause of death for a body: "You did good. You'll get there." At the same time, he is respectful of his son's private life and is happy to see him in the company of his vibrant and beautiful girlfriend Emma (played by the lovely Ophelia Lovibond) when she does a surprise visit at the morgue to pick up Austin earlier for their date. Austin in turn, although visibly delighted to see his romantic interest, has such a sense of respect and obligation to his father, that he volunteers to stay longer and assist him in a late-night autopsy, when the mysterious body of Jane Doe is brought in at the last minute before the morgue is closed for the night. The sheriff, who delivers the body, insists that the autopsy cannot wait until next morning.
As father and son proceed with the autopsy, things get progressively weirder and creepier - they find out the victim's tongue has been crudely cut off, internal organs badly scarred and burned, wrists and ancles fractured (curiously with no external materialization of the trauma), and most puzzling of all, a cryptic parchment with symbols is found undigested in her stomach. Parallel to their findings, their surroundings start to grow particularly frightening as well - the radio in the room starts changing stations on its own and playing eerie songs, strange sounds and apparitions are manifesting and outside an unforeseen powerful storm is developing. And exactly at the middle, around the 45-minute mark, when I was fully engaged by the gripping mystery, things start going downhill and fast.
In the middle of the autopsy (and the unveiling of the mystery), there is a blackout in the building and then jump scares start flooding the screen, we get the frightening sound from the air condition shaft which turns out to be the home cat, we witness scary monsters which turn out to be hallucinations, we see illogical character decisions ("You want to go back in there?"), a needless "shock-value" accident-death of a character (spoilers: the girlfriend is killed, and in a very dumb way, and by our own "heroes", get this: by mistake) and we arrive at an ending so jarringly dismal and undeservedly depressing, that it undermines all the superb work presented in the first half.
I can almost swallow all the overused horror tropes, that I just mentioned, if the ending was not a total intellectual affront. What do I mean? Well, let's get into more specifics...and spoilers. It quickly becomes clear that the mysterious Jane Doe is causing the supernatural events at the morgue and her evil powers are so vast, that she can thwart any attempt by Tommy and Austin to escape the building, but for some strange reason she does not hurry to kill them: "Well, look what she can do. If she wanted us dead..." - Tommy muses on Jane Doe's motives. Great, I thought, so there must be some otherworldly message that Jane Doe is trying to convey to our characters, some secret of maybe how, why and by whom she was killed. The writers try to twist the formula a bit with the following line: "It's like there is something she doesn't want us to find", and it doesn't make much sense (because if it was true, then why are both characters still alive, if Jane Doe has such frightening powers?), but I decide to go along. Then the writers proceed to dig themselves deeper in the dirt with: "If we stay here, we're dead. If we can just figure out how she died, maybe we can figure out how to stop her." Oh, ok, so Tommy and Austin have to go back to the autopsy room and finish what they started, find out how Jane Doe died and then all will be fine, right? Well, guess what suckers, they do find out Jane Doe's big secret (this one I won't spoil), but then realize this is their biggest mistake. Now Jane can come after them, hard. Shortly before Tommy is killed, he begs Jane to have mercy and spare the life of his son. For a bit, it looks like it works, as Austin goes in the direction of the building's exit and hears the police outside the blocked doors, trying to get in. But you know what, Austin has to die too, so, startled by an apparition, he falls down to his death, and that's that. So, what was the point of the whole thing, I ask? If they stay in the same place, they die. If they try to escape (which they did, but Jane would not let them), ultimately, they will die. If they figure out the secret, they die. If they don't figure out the secret, they die. It doesn't really matter, does it? But wait, the scriptwriters retort - didn't you read the part where the characters discover, that Jane Doe just wants to punish people and exact vengeance by making innocent people experience the pain, that she has been put through? Oh, wow. So, it's basically just a curse thing. A "Grudge" thing. Whoever comes in contact with Jane Doe has to die, regardless. How very original.
And the final shot of the film, inside the back of the ambulance vehicle transporting Jane Doe's body, which shows her moving her toe, to indicate she is still alive and menacing, is so ridiculously dumb, one feels obliged to throw the expired foods from the fridge at the screen.
What a wasted potential.
And by the way, talking about wasted potential, why were the talents of Olivia Lovibond wasted? Her total screen time cannot have exceeded 5 minutes and the movie would have worked just fine without her character. If you are going to cast her (she is a great actress!), then do write some interesting character arc for her, give her a more substantial and sensible role. The way her character was written and not allowed to develop - why was she needed at all? Oh, that's right - they needed another dead body halfway through, to make things more dynamic...
Creature (1985)
We're making an "Alien" & "The Thing" fan-film on a $750,000 budget. Deal with it.
In "The Titan's Find (aka "Creature") a group of geological researchers, working for the American multinational corporation NTI, is sent on Saturn's largest moon, via the space vessel Snenandoah, to recover an organism of alien origin, previously discovered by another team of scientists, now presumed dead. Among the spaceship crew are Captain Mike Davison (Stan Ivar) and his love interest - communication officer Beth Sladen (Wendy Schaal), the stern and efficient security officer Melanie Bryce (Diane Salinger), corporate representative of NTI David Perkins (Lyman Ward), doctor and bio-physics specialist Wendy Oliver (Annette McCarthy), Jon Fennel (Robert Jaffe) and Susan Delambre (Marie Laurin). Shortly before the descent to the planet's surface, their radar locates another vessel on Titan, which they are able to identify as a model of NTI's main competitors in space exploration - the German corporation Richter Dynamics. After a problematic landing on the moon, which causes several technical malfunctions on board (the most dangerous of which concerns the supply of oxygen on the ship), Snenandoah's team now has a variety a problems: outside the ship awaits an intelligent and deadly alien creature, that can kill and reanimate its' dead, and imitate the host's speech and attitude; inside the ship, the life support system is on borrowed time; and to top it all, the scientists have to figure out a way to get off the planet before it's too late.
"The Titan's Find" (1985) is director William Malone's second horror "creature feature", after "Scared to Death" from 1980, and it plays out like a mix between Ridley Scott's "Alien" (influences from "Alien" could be found also in Malone's previous film in the design of the creature) and John Carpenter's "The Thing", but done on a much lower scale and budget. The sets used for the ship's interior and the moon's surface are acceptable I suppose, on the occasion one can discern some noticeable features in the murky, blue-tinged darkness, which dominates most of the scenes.
Although, the film's script doesn't really allow for much character development and some of the characters were interchangeable, I found the acting itself solid (for the most part) for B-movie standards. The appearance of legendary actor Klaus Kinski, as a weird German scientist with a detestable propensity for groping members of the opposite sex, is short-lived, but memorable. I wish, that the romantic relationship between Stan Ivar's and Wendy Schaal's characters was given more screen time to develop properly, as it would have given the characters much needed likeability and some depth. Beth Sladen (Wendy Schaal) as a character is a bit inconsistent - on some occasions she lands herself in situations, which require her to be saved as the typical damsel in distress, on other occasions she gives valuable ideas and advice and efficiently executes challenging commands under stress, vital to the mission's success. Captain Davison, while somewhat likeable, is mostly a stereotypical sketch of a character, and often cannot finish the fights, he lands himself in, and at least on two occasions, another character appears to help out and deliver the fatal blow. The most interesting character is the gun-toting security officer Melanie Bryce (played by Diane Salinger), because she has a certain aura of mystery around her, doesn't say much, but means serious business and does not let herself be intimidated by anyone. She should have been established as the kickass main heroine: I believe that with her strong and magnetic personality brought to center stage, the film would have worked much better. Unfortunately, she disappears for much of the third act, only to reappear again in the very last minute to save the day. A real missed opportunity here. Also, the reason given for her disappearance ("I got lost") is one of the most ridiculous things in the script, and Diane Salinger seems to be quite aware of that, as she delivers her line with an intentional and telling smirk.
One of the major issues of the film lies in the (often) languid pacing, and at 100 minutes the running time is definitely a stretch - it could have benefited from more dynamic editing. That is not to say, that there is no tension to be found here - some chase and attack scenes are quite suspenseful, and on occasion they are even accentuated by impressive special effects - one scene in particular in which Klaus Kinski's character, who has become a host for the creature and looks like a zombified mutant with a peeling face, gets his head blown off by a laser-gun and it explodes in a red fountain of bloody chunks of flesh. More graphic scenes like that or straight up "shoot'em up" action scenes could have brought the movie to another level. The idea of trying to electrocute the creature I found inappropriate and boring, especially as visually it makes for zero payoff and suspense. The overall lighting is another problem - in some crucial scenes I feel it could have been handled better, as I often couldn't quite make out what has exactly transpired on the screen.
On the other hand, despite all of this, I found myself curiously entertained by this movie and cannot help but wonder how a more action-oriented sequel with Diane Salinger in the main role would have played out, if William Malone had decided to continue the story. I think Malone was on to something with her casting, but sadly we will never find out.
Overall, "The Titan Find", as already stated, is obviously far from original, being an intensely self-aware and intentional re-imagining of "Alien" and "The Thing", but there is a charm in its' un-pretentiousness and well-meant intentions to deliver some fun moments. A clear indication for Mallone's intent to not take everything so seriously and just enjoy the ride, is another self-aware reference - this time to the director's own work: the inclusion of the book "Scared to Death" (a novelization of Mallone's previous horror film) as the choice of reading material for Wendy Schaal's character in the beginning and in the end of the film. It could be perceived as a poor, opportunistic and vain self-proclamation rather than what I believe it really is: just a joke at oneself, an example of self-deprecating humor ("That stuff is gonna rot your brain" - Stan Ivar's character jokingly exclaims, as he observes Wendy Schaal reading said book) . It is as if William Mallone is saying: "Yeah, we are making an "Alien" fan-film, and we know it. Deal with it. Might wanna check "Scared to Death" as well, while you are at it".
Il gatto nero (1989)
"What does the black cat have to do with Levana the Witch?"
Watching Luigi Cozzi's "The Black Cat" could potentially be a really confusing experience for anyone unfamiliar with the backstory of its' making. It was originally conceived as a theme-continuation of Italian cult horror-director Dario Argento's films "Suspiria" (1977) and "Inferno" (1980) - each having at the centre of its' story a powerful evil witch as an antagonist. "Suspiria" was about the mother of sighs or Mater Suspiriorum, "Inferno" concerned the mother of darkness (Mater Tenebrarum). Needless to say, there is a third witch to complete the cycle - the mother of tears (Mater Lachrymarum), because according to the original source of the story (upon which Argento's movies are based) - 1845's Suspiria de Profundis" by Thomas de Quincey - there are three ladies of sorrow (witches). So, a third film is needed to focus on the final witch. Dario Argento would eventually complete his trilogy much later - in 2007 - with "Mother of Tears", but in 1989 another Italian director and frequent collaborator and friend of Argento - Luigi Cozzi tried to contribute to Argento's universe with a film about the third mother.
In "The Black Cat" the main protagonist is Anne Ravenna (played by Florence Guerin) - an established horror actress, who is married to successful film director Marc Ravenna (Urbano Barberini) and has recently given birth to their child. Her husband is working closely with scriptwriter Dan (Maurizio Fardo) on a horror-film script called "De Profundis", about the aforementioned third witch - also named Levana. In the midst of their efforts to secure a deal with a producer and to decide on who's going to play the central character of Levana - Anne or Dan's own wife and actress Nora (Caroline Munro) - they somehow manage to bring to life the evil entity from their script. Or so it seems. Anne starts having hallucinations and dreams of an evil witch, with a blackened blister-covered face, who fancies vomiting green bile on people's faces, threatening them with promises of agonizing death and occasionally shooting laser beams out of her eyes and/or hands, which cause people's internal organs to explode. A charming creature, for sure. And her voice is so hilariously dubbed, one might think of the sound one might make, if trying to dub the part of baba yaga in a bad homemade cartoon. For some reason Levana is infuriated, that Anne is supposed to portray her in the upcoming film and starts messing with her head, sending her terrifying visions and dreams.
But is Levana even real, or is Anne losing her mind? Two words, people: who cares? This film is so poorly constructed and so many ideas are randomly thrown together and forcibly sewn in no particular order into the body of the "plot", that frankly, it doesn't make a shred of sense.
Apart from the main plot of a centuries old witch resurrected in modern times, there is the subplot of the neglected wife and the cheating husband. There is the subplot of Anne competing for the main role with an opportunistic rival actress. The one about dealing with shady producers to get a movie made. There is the idea of dualism, yin and yang, the good and evil in every human being, presented here in the form of the fairy (the good) and the witch (the evil), who are supposed to be both a part of the main protagonist. Another subplot involves an occult researcher, who is there to supply us with most of the exposition, secure an effective death scene and not much else. In theory, it probably sounds much more interesting and coherent, than it really is.
How about the title? Why is this movie called "The Black Cat" at all? In the words of the main male protagonist himself: "What does the black cat have to do with Levana the Witch?" Sure, we see a black cat with menacing eyes here and there in the film, but what is the connection? Well...none. The truth is, unbeknownst to the director Luigi Cozzi, the distributor of the film had already retitled it to "The Black Cat" as a contractual obligation to deliver an Edgar Allan Poe themed film. After Cozzi was eventually informed, he was also requested to add some footage of black cats to justify the imposed title. So, he did. And he must have filmed the extra scene with the two male leads discussing the significance of the black cat, because that struck me as very odd and questionably shoehorned in the plot. The black cats are explained as "witches in disguise", a quote attributed to Poe from the story of the same name. The opening title of the movie even proclaim: "Edgar Allan Poe's The Black Cat". And the film ends up having nothing in common with Poe's story.
So, while I can certainly understand why the forcibly inserted cat-related passages in the story didn't make sense, there is plenty of other inexcusably nonsensical stuff in the script. An example: there is an episode of the film in which Anne awakes from a nightmare only to find her baby missing from the crib. Panic-stricken, she immediately informs her husband (and her facial expression to this traumatic event is priceless - in an attempt to portray shock and being on the verge of crying, she rather looks like she is trying to hold from bursting in laughter) and the reaction of the husband is amazing. First, he says, that he intends to contact the police (normal reaction), but he then instead goes out to visit his lover for a sexy time and when asked "What about the (missing) baby?", he calmly declares: "The baby? I'm sure it's fine. She probably hid him some place". What? Who wrote that? This must rank among the top 100 most absurd things said by a character in a motion picture.
Add to the mix some shaky acting (and even more horrendous dubbing), a plodding pace and clichéd choice of main location (about half of the film takes place in the protagonist's house), the overdone to death "it's all a dream" idea, some questionable music soundtrack choices (song fragments by rock bands White Lion & Bang Tango inserted in odd places) and you get quite an unrewarding viewing experience.
There are some positives: Cozzi's visual style is not without its' merits, one of the on-screen deaths (the occult researcher) was well done and it's always nice to have the talented and beautiful Caroline Munro in the cast. And talking about Munro, I saw an online scan of an old early 90's article from a magazine, in which the actress talks about her disappointment with the movie industry and not being paid the full amount stated in her movie contract, at least at the time of the article being published, so this leaves an additional sour taste. I hope, eventually, she did get paid, especially as she might be the main (and possibly only) reason to see this film.
The Prowler (1981)
A solid entry into the 80's slasher genre
1981's horror / slasher "The Prowler" directed by Joseph Zito is a film I tend to group together with George Mihalka's "My Bloody Valentine", not only because they were released in the same year, but also due to the similarity in the overall plots - both take place in a small town with a dark past of mysterious brutal killings and both revolve around a celebration event many years after the tragedy, where college kids fall prey to a masked villain, who may or may not be the same one responsible for the original murders.
"The Prowler" is also known as "Rosemary's Killer" and indeed in the film's opening the viewer is made privy to the contents of a break-up letter sent from a woman named Rosemary to her lover, who is abroad, fighting in World War II. Sometime later we zero in on the small town of Avalon Bay on the evening of June 28th, 1945 and the graduation dance held by the townspeople. Among the attendees is Rosemary herself and she has a new boyfriend...but she didn't stop to think that her ex may have invited himself to the party, donning his full army uniform and carrying a pitchfork, which he plans to use...Needless to say, things don't end happily for Rosemary and her new boyfriend. But that is merely the beginning of the movie. Thirty-five years later the murders are still unsolved, but that doesn't stop the college kids of Avalon Bay to organize the first graduation dance, since that dark night in 1945. So, naturally, it is time for our anti-hero to put on those combat boots again and retrieve the rusty pitchfork from the garage...
The main characters here are the deputy sheriff Mark (Christopher Goutman) and his girlfriend Pam (Vicky Dawson). As the evening of the graduation dance progresses, the couple joins forces to try and stop a killer and possibly solve a three-decades old murder. There are some side characters too, but none of them are detailed well, although on the commentary track of the DVD director Joseph Zito and special effects artist Tom Savini mention, that they have tried to differentiate between the college kids, so that the viewers could get somewhat attached and care when someone is in danger. Well, they pretty much failed on that front, because apart from Pam and Mark, everyone else has maybe a maximum of 3-4 lines of unspectacular dialogue, before they are either killed or disappear from the screen. And speaking of Pam and Mark, their characters also have serious flaws - Pam appears quite insecure and needy, while Mark is often insensitive and selfish, and on several occasions even endangers Pam's life - for example while together on a mission with her, he leaves Pam alone and unprotected to investigate something (a fact which is also humorously admitted by Zito and Savini on the commentary track "this is really a good guy - to protect the girl he says: go and stay in this flimsy jeep, while I go around and I'm safe with my guns"). Pam's character though, is somewhat elevated by the movie's end, as she is transformed from the damsel in distress to the main hero, when forced to fight for her life. It is always great to see strong female characters and while she may not be as brave or independent in the beginning, by the film's finale Pam is definitely stronger. Not nearly in the same league as a Nancy Thompson, a Laurie Strode or a Ripley, but still, there is a progress there.
The first half hour of the film is actually quite dynamic and suspenseful. One of the more entertaining scenes is Pam's first encounter with the masked villain, which is relatively early in the movie and takes place in a dormitory. The tension is kept throughout the whole sequence of Pam's attempt to reach the building's exit before she becomes a victim of the pitchfork-wielding killer.
"The Prowler" loses a bit of steam in the middle section with lots of scenes involving slowly walking through rooms and corridors of houses or walking through a dimly-lit graveyard. There is a scene, in which the deputy sheriff is on lengthy phone call and nothing of note happens for the entire duration of the call - it was probably meant as an attempt at comedic relief, but ruins the overall pacing.
The filmmakers are careful to intersperse these plodding moments with a graphic kill scene every 10 or 15 minutes and here is where the movie shines. It could be argued that "The Prowler" is the Tom Savini show, because his work on the special effects is really jaw-dropping and holds up even after all those years. The kill scenes are so chillingly convincing, that they alone could be used as proof of the thesis on the strengths of classic practical effects over today's overused CGI. There are pitchfork stabbings, knives through heads, there are throat slashings, exploding heads by rifle point-blank shooting - Savini and Zito definitely didn't hold back. The only problem with these otherwise impressively realized gory deaths is the thing I already mentioned - they involve characters, we haven't had any time to connect with, to the point of really being invested in their fate. Some minus points there for suspense.
The third act of the film does however pick up the pace and manages to bring back some of the tension from the beginning, as Pam faces off against the villain in an old colonial style house.
There are some obvious influences and references to other classic horror films - we get a reimagining of the POV murder scene in the shower ala Psycho ("the shower requirement" Zito muses), we have a musical score that resembles the one from 1978's "Halloween" in the tense moments (I am not talking about Carpenter's main theme for "Halloween"), there are some scenes reminiscing of Friday the 13th (Carl's death in "The Prowler" is eerily similar to Jack's /Kevin Bacon/ death in Sean S. Cunningham's slasher from 1980). These similarities are only natural - they were all very popular at the time and an inspiration to numerous horror filmmakers. This means, that we also get some horror movie tropes - like false jump scares accompanied by loud sounds, teenagers not listening to advice to stay together ("Let's split up, so he can kill us individually" - the obviously self-aware Zito and Savini jokingly comment on that), villain who we're supposed to think is already dead, but we are really just waiting for him to get back up for a final attack - and he does, the list goes on. The important thing is if the film, aside from the obvious clichés and borrowings of ideas, can keep things interesting. And for a fair amount of time - it does so accordingly.
While "The Prowler" does not quite measure up to other examples of the genre from 1981 such as "The Burning", "My Bloody Valentine" or "Happy Birthday to Me", it is still a fairly solid entry into the slasher film niche. With some edits here and there (5-10 minutes could have been easily cut from the runtime) it might have even become a minor horror classic. As it is, the rating (for an 80's slasher film) is realistically around 6 out of 10, but I would give it an extra point for Tom Savini's extraordinary special effects.
Equinox (2020)
A tight, easy to follow mystery show with an investing story and a supernatural twist
Danish mini-series "Equinox" runs in two timelines - the first takes place in 1999 when ten year old Astrid (played by Viola Martinsen in a standout performance) waves goodbye to her older sister Ida (Karoline Hamm) - who goes on a trip with her classmates to celebrate her graduation - and never sees her again. The whole class (or almost the whole class, as we subsequently find out - there are a few survivors) mysteriously disappears. In the second timeline -twenty years later - Astrid (now played by Danica Curcic) has a kid, an estranged husband and a job at a radio station as a host of some kind of a midnight mystery show. During one of her radio shows, Astrid answers a phone call live on the air from someone claiming to be Jakob Skipper - Ida's former classmate and ex-boyfriend - who gives a cryptic message about the disappearances from 1999, which triggers a flux of suppressed painful memories and sends her on a quest to find out what happened to her sister all those years ago. As Astrid starts investigating and uncovering more details, the narrative often switches back and forth between the two timelines.
There are some definite strong points to "Equinox" which make it an engaging watch. First of all, the short format of only 6 episodes works entirely in the show's favor, as the story doesn't get unnecessarily stretched in pointless subplots or muddled with excessive secondary character drama, which plague so many other series out there. Things are kept relatively simple (although there are possibly some questions left unanswered in the series conclusion) and for the most part dynamic. In short, "Equinox" doesn't continue longer than it needs to.
The story itself, while quite straightforward on the surface, juggles many elements - it has some Lovecraftian themes (a mysterious book/grimoire, which contains possibly deadly secrets and incantations), it has elements of pagan mythology (with a cult of a menacing godlike creature and rituals connected to the vernal and autumnal equinox and to the summer and winter solstice), it touches on psychic connection between siblings, dreams and hypnotism and at times one could even notice some fairytale references. It mixes them to a satisfying result and even though at times it may feel as though the series tend to go off the rails a bit, the way in which they are finally concluded actually makes sense, when you look back at the prior events - another thing which is sadly missing from many other mystery shows.
Character development is on point as well, but as already mentioned, not so expansive as to sacrifice the whole story in favor of it. We spend almost equal amount of time with Astrid as a kid and as a grown up: we see her as an innocent child, traumatized by her sister's disappearance, her horrific visions and dreams, seemingly unlocked by that emotional turmoil and the awfully misguided and potentially damaging attempts of her parents to deal with the tragedy, to the point where Astrid herself becomes a victim; we see her as an emotionally frail adult, who barely manages to function in her daily life and grows increasingly disconnected with reality and alienated from the people around her, as she struggles to find answers to a 20 year old mystery and at the same time prove that the visions, which have plagued her childhood may not have been a symptom of a mental sickness as others have let her believe. At the same time one could argue that Astrid's sister Ida is the second main character, as there are many lengthy scenes of flashbacks into her final days before the disappearance and I found her character and story equally, if not even more compelling. Her character ties in to one of the main themes of the series - the loss of innocence and the conflict of idealistic expectations and dreams of one's future versus the state of reality (many characters often muse on this theme, sometimes quite blatant (not 2 minutes into the first episode, Ida's best friend whispers in Astrid's ear: "Do you want to know a secret? Life is a big disappointment"). At the beginning Ida seems to have it all - the perfect home, parents and friends and endless options for a hopeful future ("You've got the world at your feet" - her father proclaims), but she soon finds out not everything is what it seems to be. I liked how the narrative of Ida being slowly transformed from the popular girl in school to a social outcast, rejected by her friends and misunderstood by her parents, parallels the way Astrid as an adult is slowly alienated from the people around her, because it seems to establish the bond between the two of them even more and makes us care about both of them.
There are however some problems with the story and mainly with Astrid's character. The script asks us to accept, that Astrid is so swept up in the pursuit of the truth, that she at one point seems to forget she has a kid. She apparently has missed her sister so much, that as the series progress, her being a mother ceases to matter to her, and the end of "Equinox" emphasizes it all that much more, because it fails to even address what happens to her child. It is as if it didn't exist at all.
Another possible shortcoming is the constant back and forth of past events versus present events. The choice of including numerous flashbacks and flashforwards in a film or series has proven to be notoriously difficult to handle in a way that doesn't harm the overall fluidness of the storytelling. So many films have failed at this, a recent example being 2019's adaptation of "Little Women" by Greta Gerwig. "Equinox" handles the time jumps in a mostly acceptable way - on the negative side there are times when the frequent shifts tend to get quite annoying, but on the plus side they never get confusing. In terms of flashbacks "less is more" though. They definitely could have reduced and removed some of them, or just stuck longer with one timeline before they switch to the other one.
One last thing that stops "Equinox" from being a truly outstanding show, is the fact that it gives some of its' secrets too soon - mid-episodes 3 and 4 really feel like the climax of the story (and a really good example of visual storytelling) and the remaining two episodes, while still holding a few surprises, don't quite reach that level of dynamics and suspense.
Overall, despite these shortcomings, I would definitely recommend "Equinox" for lovers of small-scale mystery shows with a supernatural twist. It's tight, relatively easy to follow and has an investing story and fairly well drawn characters that we care about. And the conclusion while not perfect is very competent and effective. Kudos to Denmark!
Blood Tide (1982)
A sleep inducing tide
Newlyweds Neil and Sherry (Martin Kove & Marie Louise Weller) rent a boat to travel to a Greek island in search of Neil's sister Madeline (Deborah Shelton), a painter, who for some reason has broken off contact with her family. The island itself is beautiful, but the local folk seem unfriendly to outsiders and governed by superstition and strange traditions. They eventually do find Madeline, but she appears to be a bit "spaced out" and exhibits odd behavior. She has also made some quirky new friends - Frye (James Earl Jones) - a self proclaimed amateur archaelogist prone to angry incoherent tirades and excessive drinking, and his girlfriend Barbara (Lydia Cornell) - a naïve and obedient blonde bombshell, who is mainly there to parade in skimpy bathing suits, alongside Marie Louise Weller. No complaints there. All the aforementioned characters set off on exploring the diving spots and underwater caves around the island in Neil's boat, but not long after, people who have entered the waters around the island start to disappear, only to be found dead and dismembered later. Something is killing swimmers and underwater activists around the island and it's not a shark...
As an example of "creature feature"-horror, 1982's "Blood Tide", is one of the tamest and most boring in the genre. The body count is pretty low, most of the actual deaths follow the mass-copied "Jaws" pattern of people getting dragged underwater by an unseen force and subsequently the water turning red, and the actual creature doesn't make an appearance until about 65 minutes into the film, and when it does (very briefly) one cannot help but laugh at how adorably pathetic it looks. The filmmakers must have realized this, as they abstain from showing the creature again - even in the last confrontation (if you can call it that), you cannot really see it. But truth be told, I would rather prefer more screen time for the creature, regardless of how embarrassingly bad its' design is, because at least it would have provided a few laughs.
I am guessing, as budget must have been tight, the director was probably trying to concentrate more on building the atmosphere and using the natural landscape of the island on which they were shooting, but beautiful scenery can only get you so far. The story is very thin and although Greek scriptwriter Nico Mastorakis (and director of many other films, but strangely not this one - "Blood Tide" was directed by Richard Jefferies) has tried to utilize elements from some native myths (like the wide known legend about Charon and the crossing of the river Styx), it does not help matters much, because in the end we still don't know much about the creature and where it came from. It is ancient, it is evil and as the opening sequence very quickly reveals - it can be appeased by virgin sacrifice. That is the extent of details offered to us.
The characters are also quite bland, especially the main characters Neil and Sherry - they don't really do anything that can be classified as heroic or particularly smart. I guess you could make a case about recommending the film to James Earl Jones fans, because he does seem to bring in more passion to his line delivery, than his co-stars, but his character is also equally annoying and oftentimes just pointlessly wandering around with a glass or a bottle of liquor in his hand.
The final showdown with the creature feels very rushed and any chance of suspense is carefully eliminated, the only real catalyst is the immense sense of relief that this incredibly tedious film is finally over. That being said, the ending does provide a surprising "wtf"-moment, that is never really explained. After Neil's sister Madeline gets sort of rescued by him (in reality another character is mostly responsible for the mission's success, as I mentioned earlier, nothing Neil does in the film is strikingly brave), they proceed to kiss each other like lovers, implying a never before mentioned incest relationship. One does not have much time to ponder where that came from, as the film concludes shortly after that.
All in all, "Blood Tide" feels like an attempt to stretch out the runtime of the movie to 90 minutes, and even when something finally happens, it is terribly unexciting. There are some "The Bold and The Beautiful" episodes that are more engaging to watch. They are also shorter in length.
Riverdale (2017)
Season 1 : Does anyone really care who killed Jason Blossom?
Browsing through Netflix's selection of TV Shows, I landed on "Riverdale", a teen drama with a mystery thrown in, that is also based on a comic ("Archie"), which I was not really familiar with. I gave the first season a try, because I do like a good mystery. By the end of episode 13, the only mystery worth investigating was how this show was renewed for a second season (and is still ongoing as we speak, season 5 to be released in the not too distant future). Well, maybe it does get better in the next installments, but focusing on the first season, I have to say it felt like a chore getting through it.
Where does one start? The pilot episode begins with a voice-over narration from a character we see for the first time at the end of the episode - "Jughead" Jones - a weird outcast teen with writer aspirations, who informs us that we are now in Riverdale, a small town like any other, if not for the important distinction, that while it looks innocent on the surface, underneath that facade a darker reality reveals itself. While it has been done before, this sort of opening is not a bad one, on the contrary, it works well in setting a sombre tone of mystery and suspense. The narrator then proceeds to pinpoint the exact event, that kickstarts the story - the disappearance of a local teen by the name of Jason Blossom on the 4th of July. By this (very early) point my attention was won and I was thinking how the series will proceed with unraveling the secrets, what would happen and what would be the big mystery. With every consecutive episode it became clear. that nothing of great significance or logic happens. There is no big mystery. In fact, the creators of "Riverdale" seem so disinterested with the "murder-mystery" element, that they hurry to get it over with by episode 12, so the final 13th episode deals with the aftermath of the events, a decision I found curious, as it sacrifices any suspense, which might have been generated prior, albeit not a whole lot, mind you. Because "Riverdale" is not so much about the mystery, it's not really about who killed Jason Blossom, why would you think that? "Riverdale" is about confused teens, who change their minds and characters every five seconds, teens who like to play detective (everyone is an amateur detective here) and do it better than the police officers (who seem to do nothing much other than arrest people on anonymous phone-call tips and question a maximum of a person or two throughout the whole "investigation") and do outlandish things that stretch the realism factor of the show to sci-fi levels. The core of the story is rather how these self-absorbed teens struggle to figure out who they are, while falling in and out of love, going to parties, pep rallies and homecoming dances, maybe bang the sexy music teacher once in a while. Really, what were you expecting from a teen drama show, tailored for the CW-Network? (That being said, CW's "Gossip Girl" at least had some clever dialogue and some entertaining episodes in its first 2 seasons).
Let's talk characters, shall we. The main character is Archie Andrews - a red haired jock, who is also a wannabe singer and songwriter, and after one hears his pathetic attempts at making music, one feels obliged to wonder why he doesn't just stick with football. His friends (who at the beginning seem to encourage his interest in music) even tease him with a well-placed joke towards the end of the season, that his songs "make you want to slit your wrists", but in a good way?!? Is there a good way to slit one's wrists? Didn't think so... But who cares if he is talented, the most important thing is "Archie got hot! He's got abs now!". This is our first insight into his character by his "friends", who observe him through the window as he changes out of his shirt. Sexualizing characters is nothing new, but it's quite on the nose here and already in the first 5 minutes of the show, before we even hear a word come out of the main male character's mouth. And speaking about sexualized characters, interestingly enough our first glimpse of the main female protagonist - Archie's best friend, who is also in love with him, Betty Cooper - is also a bit weird - she is standing in front of a mirror in her bra and is musing about her relationship with Archie. So, it's like the writers of the show are saying: "Ok, so, let's show our viewers a bit of our main actors' bodies first, we know our audience and that's what they want". And it doesn't get any better. Archie is hand down the blandest character of all in the show, and that's very problematic, because as was already mentioned, he is also the main protagonist. At first he is conflicted about what he wants to pursue - sports or music. Then that storyline gets scrapped (he chooses music) and now he starts to navigate between different fleeting love interests, while none of them feel gradual or developed in any way. He also is very inconsistant in other actions - wants to protect people he claims to care about, but then later seems to forget they even exist. That's his whole character in a nutshell - inconsistant and bland. Almost the same can be said for Betty Cooper - the smart and pretty girl next door, with the slight difference, that she at least does some interesting things (usually some kind of mildly stupid, but adventurous mission of investigating) to propel the plot and often feels more like the main protagonist, than the main protagonist himself (Archie). Truth be told, the secondary characters here - the privileged girl from out of town - Veronica Lodge and the social outcast Jughead Jones feel somewhat more developed and engaging, as they are at least not bereft of some wit and a smart observation here and there, and have a solid backstory worth following.
But talking about characters, the best ones in the show are in the hands of seasoned actors Madchen Amick (portraying Betty Cooper's mouthy and overbearing, but also sharp and witty mother Alice Cooper) and Skeet Ulrich (playing Jughead's troubled alcoholic father FP Jones, who has lost his way and become a criminal, but actually has a good heart and follows a code of honor). Every time when these two appeared, the quality level of the show was elevated to almost Oscar material, regardless of what lines they were delivering - so experienced are both in their craft and so noticeably better than all the rest of the actors involved, one could also argue they deserve a much better material than what they were given. The production is blessed to have them, because they are giving 200% with a mediocre script at best. Especially the way Skeet Ulrich manages to portray his love for his son Jughead and his attempt at redemption for a lifetime of mistakes is nothing short of inspiring and is in fact the one story element that will stay with me when all the dust has cleared. Not Archie's musical and sexual conquests. Not Betty's attempts to prove herself worthy as a master detective or crafting a politically charged high-school speech at the end of episode 13. But the love between an estranged father and son - this is the only thing that felt genuine and noteworthy in the entire season.
But hey, who cares about the story, the important thing is to see our main character running shirtless in the middle of the night (episode 2) in the direction of his music teacher's house, because he is upset. He is in such a hurry to talk to her about something important, he somehow forgot to put on a shirt, all for our enjoyment (or dismay). Right. Someone wrote this scene and got paid for it. Bravo.
If you want to see a TV Show about a small town full of dark secrets and explore a haunting mystery and fascinating characters, do yourself a favor and watch (or re-watch if you already have) Twin Peaks, curiously another show to feature the talent of Madchen Amick. But then again, David Lynch and Mark Frost are not born everyday.
Halloween II (2009)
Way to nearly kill off the entire franchise...
While Rob Zombie's 2007 remake of John Carpenter's classic slasher film "Halloween" had some serious problems, it still managed to be somewhat entertaining. The sequel however is so inexcusably flawed that it would take 9 more years for another Halloween film to materialize on the big screen.
And just like in his first attempt, Zombie's "Halloween II" starts promising - it picks up right after the events from the first part's finale. Teenager Laurie Strode (Scout Taylor-Compton) has just shot the murderous psychopath Michael Myers and is picked up by Lee Brackett (Brad Dourif in a standout performance as the old and tired, but goodhearted town's sheriff) who then escorts her to the emergency room. Brackett's own daughter Annie (Danielle Harris) has also survived a near fatal encounter with Michael Myers and is in Haddonfield's hospital as well. The most exciting and suspenseful sequence happens right there and then - Laurie awakes in the hospital bed, only to find Michael there alive and well, and still bloodthirsty as always. The whole episode as he stalks her through the corridors of the hospital is pulse raising and nauseating, but then very abruptly the brakes are applied. Because, wait for it...the whole thing is a dream sequence. One of horror movies' most overused clichés. And it's all downhill from there. We get a flash-forward to two years later - Laurie now lives with her friend Annie in sheriff Brackett's house (her adoptive parents were killed off by Michael on that fateful 31st of October). Laurie is a nervous wreck, forever psychologically scarred by the violent events of the past and has regular visits to the shrink. In fact, she is so increasingly psychotic throughout the film that any attempt to empathize with her character becomes next to impossible. Hysterical overacting on Taylor-Compton's part doesn't help the matter either. But then again Rob Zombie chose her for her "genuine" quality and for being the least "actor-y" of all that auditioned for Laurie Strode's part. Well, I do agree about the last part. In fact, the real protagonist for me in "Halloween II" is Annie - Danielle Harris' performance by far outshines that of her colleague and her scene with Michael Myers towards the end of the film also turns out to be the one with the most dramatic effect.
But enough about the acting - the main shortcomings of the film lie elsewhere. Whereas in the first part Rob Zombie tried to compromise between the traditional story elements and his own original ideas, here he has unleashed the full extent of his visions and doesn't try to stick to the status quo established by the franchise. Which should be good news, right? Finally, something fresh? Well...no. Because in his attempts to offer something new, Zombie also tramples on some of the elements that fans of the Halloween films have come to love. Take for example Michael Myers' s psychologist Samuel Loomis (Malcolm McDowell). In the original films, he was always shown as an honorable and brave man, a sort of worthy opponent to Michael Myers. In "Halloween II" Zombie demystifies his character and envisions him as a money-hungry opportunist, content with using other people's suffering as means to sell more of his true-crime books. In fact, here he reminds me quite a lot of a character from another popular horror franchise - journalist/true crime writer Gale Weathers, played by Courteney Cox in Wes Craven's Scream. Like her, Sam's character here is intended more as a humorous distraction, than a source of increased dramatic tension. Rob Zombie seems to struggle in finding a justification for Loomis' character to be in this second film and as a result Malcolm MacDowell quickly runs out of things to do in the movie until the very end, when the ridiculous script requires him to suddenly need a reason to confront Michael Myers again, which feels very abrupt and not in tone with the events depicted prior. And talking about justification for keeping unnecessary characters in the film, it's time to mention Rob Zombie's wife Sheri Moon Zombie. While her performance as Myers's mom in the first part was quite good and of importance to the story, there is absolutely no reason for her to have as much screen time in this sequel, as she does. As her character committed suicide in part one, her appearance here is reduced to recurring dreams and hallucinatory sequences, of which Rob Zombie, for some reason, cannot get enough. Whenever she appears (which is quite often as already mentioned) the whole dynamic of the scene hits a full stop. The original film from 1978 also had a very strong psychological element to it and didn't concentrate on violence as much as in the following sequels, but...man, those dream sequences! They don't fit one bit. You want dream sequences? Here is "Nightmare on Elm Street" for you, Freddy Krueger will make sure you are entertained! And the whole idea of Michael and Laurie having some kind of shared psychotic delusion - it must have seemed already silly in written form, but on the screen the result is disastrous and vomit-inducing.
Another thing about the Halloween franchise that is quintessential is the element of suspense. Zombie had already shown in the first part serious signs of inability to keep the viewer on edge of his seat, in the way that John Carpenter could. Here Rob Zombie experiences the same problems. It's as if he is quite disinterested in the stalking and murder scenes, he hurries to get through them, so that he can concentrate on the mind of a psychopath and what makes him tick. The result is Michael Myers quickly kills off a lot of people in the film, but to tell you the truth, apart from Annie's murder scene, I can't remember any of them in details. It's all a big blur. Part of the reason is that there are mostly no real characters on display here, just cards on a board that fall one by one. A bigger part of the reason, as I already said, is how Zombie proceeds to shoot those scenes. As in part one, we get again those dizzy, unfocused, almost shaky-cam shots and choppy editing, whenever there is a violent scene, so that you are often left wondering what the hell is going on, a method that is sadly used over and over again in contemporary filmmaking. In an interview about the making of the film "Eastern Promises" and the depiction of violence in it, legendary director David Cronenberg said: "When I give you violence on the screen, I want you to experience it the way the characters really would experience it and so I don't look away, and I don't do a lot of quick impressionistic cutting, so you don't know what's going on, I really want you to see everything". Apparently, Rob Zombie does not want us to know what's transpiring in some of the crucial scenes. To each his own, I guess.
Finally, let's talk about the ending...what a travesty! I don't know about the theatrical finale, but the one I got served on the Director's Cut DVD is simply atrocious. After an unmasked Michael gets shot in front of a wooden shed surrounded by police cars, Laurie Strode walks out with a knife, attempts to stab Sam Loomis (I guess), but becomes target practice as shots echo in the air. Freeze frame of Laurie getting hit. Cut to the interior of a mental institution and Laurie grinning like a psycho and apparently having some of those hallucinatory episodes again. The end. Where does one even begin to comment on this aberration of an ending? It plays out almost like a mockery of all things that made the original Halloween so great, it's simply unforgivable. After managing to degrade the once respected character of Sam Loomis, Zombie also pulled off the impossible - he made us also hate the one character that stood out as a hero and as an antipode to Michael Myers in the defining Halloween films - the character of Laurie Strode. Way to nearly kill off the entire franchise...
Into the Dark: They Come Knocking (2019)
Chills the blood...almost until the end
After being thoroughly underwhelmed having recently watched one of the self-contained (story-wise) movie-length episodes of Hulu's Web-TV Show "Into The Dark", namely "Flesh & Blood", I was in no particular hurry to proceed with further entries, but last night as I was scrolling through the TV channels, I saw another episode playing and I decided to give the show one more chance. And as I just mentioned, each entry is (apparently) its' own thing, so I guess episodes should be evaluated separately.
"They Come Knocking" follows the road trip of the Singer family - Nathan and his daughters Maggie and Clair - planned as a way for them to get closure in the aftermath of the untimely death of Nathan's wife Val, who succumbed to cancer. The destination : an isolated, barren, desert-like area, where, some years prior, Nathan proposed to Val. They are to camp at the site, sleep in the trailer, attached to Nathan's car and at some point spread Val's ashes in the desert. But as the title hints, trouble comes knocking on the first night of camping at the site. Are the events that follow really of supernatural origin? Or are the members of the Singer family so traumatized by tragic loss, that they start experiencing hallucinations? This is the question we are left pondering by the episode's end and while I thought the conclusion was a bit too obvious and disappointing as a result, I found myself quite enjoying the journey.
First of all, I have to point out, that the overall flow of the episode was very good, events progressing at natural pace, easing us into the story, allowing enough time for us to get acquainted with the characters (but not excessive, as to subsequently lose complete interest), the weird and creepy things start happening (suddenly) right at the exact moment and the tension gradually ratchets up. We even get to a surprisingly dark and shocking moment, the kind where the thought "Wow, they really went there" flashed through my mind, but then the film sort of auto-corrects this extreme event (it was a hallucination), so in the end I was left with "OK, so, they didn't dare going in fully disturbing mode". For the record, I don't really need visually disturbing scenes in a horror film, I find the implied and cerebral terrors much more frightening, but on the other hand the dream sequences are so overdone in the genre, that I prefer: if it is decided, that something is to be shown to the viewer, at least stick with it, don't back out. Don't throw in the "that didn't really happen" trick, it kills the tension that was nicely built up until that moment of reversal. And although there are also some creepy scenes after that point, I was mostly letdown, because the film had me so hooked and on edge, just to ease me right back in relaxed mode, after which I never really experienced my "high" again.
The second positive thing was the acting - in particular I enjoyed the performance of child actress Lia McHugh, I thought she did great portraying her witty and mouthy character Maggie. Josephine Langford (sister of Katherine Langford of Netflix's "13 Reasons Why" fame) performs admirably as well, considering her character - a slightly brooding and typically angsty teenager - was written as the most stereotypical in the film, and I don't imagine the script allowed her any opportunities for creativity or spontaneity. And last but not least, Clayne Crawford was also very good as the protective father, who tries to reconnect with his daughters. In short, I cared about all three of the characters and wanted them to survive the ordeal (I must sound hypocritical after what I just mentioned towards the end of the previous paragraph, but there it is).
And thirdly, Adam Mason's quality direction of "They Come Knocking" has to be mentioned as well. The creepy imagery is handled particularly well and even the jump-scares are presented in a satisfying way. The nighttime sequences were clearly done by someone who knows what he is doing, especially the scene where the father is surrounded outside the trailer by creepy demonic kids dressed in hoodies and has to find a way to escape - it is filled with tension and although the events in the scene develop with frantic pace, I could at any given moment tell exactly what is happening. No shaky cam or extreme rapid-fire editing / messy juggling and patching up of hundred cuts crammed in fifteen seconds. The scene is intense, but comprehensible.
So, all in all, this episode of "Into The Dark" delivered on the scares and held my interest for a very good portion of its' length-time. And although the filmmakers chose an ending, that was more psychological and "soapy-drama" oriented, which in this case didn't mesh up well with the supernatural elements, I can certainly understand why they tried to tie up the story in that way - they were clearly hoping on triggering a certain emotional response from the audience and focusing on a more metaphorical examination of the theme of dealing with loss.
It's not quite perfect, but I enjoyed it and would recommend it, especially if you are alone in the house and in need of a midnight chill.
Hideaway (1995)
How to ruin a possibly captivating story
After Stephen King's short story "The Lawnmower Man" was adapted to the screen in the Brett Leonard's 1992-film of the same name and in such a way that the author himself tried everything possible to detach his name from the project, curiously the same thing was about to happen only three years later, when Leonard this time set on to direct an adaption of a novel of one of King's main competitors in the horror/thriller genre - Dean R. Koontz's "Hideaway". Koontz was likewise quite unsatisfied with the end result and one can easily see why.
"Hideaway" opens with a young man named Jeremy who has just killed his mother and sister and proceeds to impale himself upon a knife as part of a ritual to willingly damn his soul to hell and be accepted to serve Satan (or something to that extent). So far, so good. Not entirely original, but an effective and creepy opening. Then we are introduced to our main protagonist Hatch Harrison (Jeff Goldblum), of whom we know relatively little - for example the film never bothers to explain what he does for a living (in the book he is an antiques dealer). We see that he has a loving family - wife Lindsey (Christine Lahti) and teenage daughter Regina (Alicia Silverstone) and only later do we find out that Hatch and Lindsey had another daughter, who died tragically in a car accident. And speaking of car accident, shortly after we are introduced to the Harrisons (a cute little scene actually in which Regina's parents are playing a game of movie associations and try to get her to participate), another one takes place immediately after. Hatch is driving his wife and daughter somewhere in the night (we never find out where they are going), the car swerves out of the road and falls into the nearby river. Regina escapes just shortly before the car falls in the cold waters, but Lindsey and Hatch are trapped inside the vehicle. Lindsey survives the impact and manages to crawl out of the car, dragging her unconscious husband as well. It seems Hatch did not survive the plunge into the freezing waters of the river and he is now for all intents and purposes very much dead. Or is he? Later he is miraculously resuscitated in the hospital by doctor Jonas Nyeburn (Alfred Molina) and his medical team, after we find out he was clinically dead for almost two hours. Hatch has a short glimpse of the afterlife before he is brought back to the amazement and joy of his family. But not all is great. Coming back from the dead has come with a price - Hatch begins to have flashes of brutal murders as they are taking place, and seeing them through the eyes of the killer, not unlike the film "Eyes Of Laura Mars" from 1978. This is the basic plot of "Hideaway" and although the story itself is interesting, there are many problems with the film.
For starters everyone besides Christine Lahti (who really gives an amazing performance) was terribly miscast. Goldblum, while largely succeeding in making his character likeable, has many moments where he overacts to the point of parody (for instance his delivery of the line "Just listen!" in a scene, where Hatch is having an argument with Lindsey is hilarious). Silverstone likewise is a near wreck as Hatch's daughter - other than being the cliched rebellious daughter and a spoilt brat, whose interests end with techno music, there is nothing much else about her character to make us even care if she is in danger or not. True, in her case, the script didn't give her much to do, other than be a whiny silly girl, but still... Jeremy Sisto as the killer didn't convince me either - again, a rather stereotypical villain, his character ended up being mostly a very annoying pretentious prick and not the monstrous frightening figure, the filmmakers were hoping for.
Another big problem, as already mentioned above, is the script. The whole subplot of the Harrisons having lost a daughter in the past and the impact of that tragic event upon their lives, has been mostly reduced to a short single scene, where Lindsey refuses to believe her husband's horrific visions of murder and explains them with the trauma inflicted by that loss. Oh yes, there is a brief vision of the accident happening and we also get to see for a second the face of the girl in Hatch's glimpse in the afterlife, as she whispers to him : "Daddy!". That's it. Really? That's the level of creativity here? Just feel the emotional weight of that scene, I dare you. And how about the subplot of Hatch's and Vassago's (the villain) both being corporeal vessels of angelic/demonic entities in the film's climax? With no logical clues leading to that conclusion (other than a lady psychic vaguely murmuring to Hatch "You crossed over. You brought something back"), the scene where we see their spiritual essences take some hilarious CGI-form and fight to the death, is simply put - atrocious. It erases every trace of thrill or enjoyment you might have had up until that point and transforms the whole thing into a parody.
Plot-holes? Sure, here is one particularly hilarious - based on one of his visions, Hatch writes down on a piece of paper a name of a hotel, in which subsequently we find out the killer finds temporary accommodation. The name of the hotel however is incomplete. This information finds its way in the hands of a private detective, who immediately locates the said hotel, even though the name wasn't quite right. Our protagonist Hatch however isn't so lucky and doesn't find the place until much later in the film, after he eventually learns the full name of the hotel. And that's not all. A cop /Kenneth Welsh/ investigating the murders and finding Hatch's statement of acquiring his information about the killings from his visions highly suspicious - he shows up twice to ask questions, well, surely he will be seen again in the end of the film when we reach the resolution, right? Nope, he doesn't appear again at all, in fact, when the villain is eventually defeated, they don't even bother with a scene of the police showing up. No, Hatch gathers his wife and daughter and...just leaves the crime scene. Happy end. End credits. And don't even get me started on the "surprise"/hidden ending after the credits.
To top it off, in some of the crucial and tense moments in the film, someone had the bright idea to insert 90's most irritating and disposable electronic music as a way to heighten up the tension. At best, it serves as a distraction, and does not complement the scenes in any way.
The conclusion? While not an absolute disgrace (it does have some good moments here and there - the car accident scene in the beginning I thought was handled pretty well) "Hideaway" remains a justly forgotten film, because it does not know how to convincingly tell a possibly good story, populates its' world with abysmally flat characters, loses tempo along the way, just to bring us to an absurd ending, devoid of any real payoff.
Once again - not quite a disaster, but very forgettable - I myself forgot everything about this film, which I first think I saw around 7-8 years prior to this second viewing. So much for giving things a second chance.
On Chesil Beach (2017)
A frustrating drawn-out mess of a film
Well, that was an interesting theater experience tonight - only six people in the cinema interested to see "On Chesil Beach" and about half hour into the movie, four of those viewers just walked out. I stayed until the end and I wish I could say it was worth it and the people who left, hadn't given the film the chance it rightly deserves. Alas, this film starring the incredibly talented Saoirse Ronan did not possess any of the qualities that made her 2015 cinematic wonder "Brooklyn" such a rewarding, enriching and emotionally resonant experience - none of the witty and spirited dialogue, none of the well thought out, interesting and likeable characters, and no traces of its' charming poignancy and dramatic impact. Further, "On Chesil Beach" lacks any idea how to tell what could have possibly been an engaging story and to top it off has an ending that is so rushed, predictable and clichéd that it almost transforms the whole thing in the realm of parody. A tale of nostalgia for a young love lost, it's filled with scenes that seem to go nowhere and end up being either unconvincing or failing to provide a context for the story. Take the "meet cute" scene for example - the first time the main protagonist Edward (Billy Howle) sees and talks to his future love interest Florence (Saoirse Ronan). Of course, she glances at him across a room full of students, his eyes meet hers, they smile, start an awkward and barely believable conversation, devoid of any substance or wit - it doesn't convey any excitement and sparks. Another scene I found totally unconvincing and it was a key scene, because it ties to the ending of the film - the moment when Florence (who is a classical violinist and has her own string quartet) brings Edward to a famous music hall and the two lovers make promises to each other : Florence vows to one day play in this music hall and dedicate her performance to Edward, and Edward in turn promises to attend and applaud her - it was staged, scripted and acted so poorly that instead of a truly memorable romantic moment, it's one of embarrassment and annoyance. How about context? The scene in which we witness Florence's dad suddenly lashing out at her in an inexplicable rage after she makes a surprise appearance at the end of his tennis match with Edward. Sure, the scene was there to indicate that Florence's relationship with her dad could possibly be one of the main reasons for her sexual insecurity, which in turn will later push the two lovers apart, I get that. But the thing is, this moment is never referenced again in the film. Florence never comments on the episode. Edward doesn't feel the need to ask. Florence's father is never shown again. Was he abusive of her in her childhood? Was he a close-minded puritan who has previously enforced upon his daughter an idea of sex as a physically revolting act? Or was he just an angry old man, which in itself had nothing to do with anything else? Well, I guess one has to read Ian McEwan's self-titled novel, because the film doesn't provide any clarity on that. Oh yes, I am sure, it was hinted at, the viewer was supposed to figure it out by himself. Right. Let's just leave scenes hanging in the air with no further development or resolution, that makes perfect sense. Curiously, the author has written the script for this film himself, so I am even more amazed - what am I missing? The story is filled with so many holes, it becomes downright frustrating making it through this nearly 2 hour movie. There is one scene that I really liked because it worked perfectly in the film and had a great emotional impact - the moment when Florence meets Edward's family - she is very kind to his mother (who suffers complications from a brain injury) and communicates with her (when everyone else seems to have given up trying) by referencing her favorite paintings, she helps in the household and gives valuable lessons to Edward's sisters, Edward's father is also extremely impressed by her. A great little scene, that one. Well guess what, in the context of how the film concludes, this scene also in retrospect becomes absolutely puzzling. Why was it there at all? We don't see Edward's mom afterwards - what happens to her? Not important I guess. A final remark - the narrative structure of "On Chesil Beach" is a total mess. In the beginning we see our protagonists in the early 1960-s on the fateful wedding night, which is then interspersed with series of flashbacks to how they met, how the courtship progressed, how they introduced each other to their families, etc. This goes on for a punishing one and half hour. And then we get a flash-forward to 1975 which lasts for about 5 minutes. Then we get another flash-forward, this time to 2007, with similar duration. And then the movie ends. Leaving an inescapable feeling of lack of resolution and the question: "Was that all?". All that long buildup to...nothing? Well, we do see that last long shot of our lovers on Chesil Beach, slowly walking in opposite directions, in a final flashback - an aesthetically expressive decision by director Dominic Cooke, which I really like and commend, but this hardly makes up for the fact that this film is utterly disappointing and forgettable.
Another Me (2013)
Vastly under-appreciated and misunderstood
"Another Me" centers on the teenager Fay (Sophie Turner), whose life gradually spirals out of control, as she becomes convinced that a menacing doppelganger is following her and threatening to ruin her world and take her place. We are introduced to Fay at a crucial event in her life - her dad being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis - and it is exactly this event that seems to unlock the strange and eerie episodes which will haunt Sophie's character onward. In this regard, "Another Me", is first and foremost a psychological thriller with underlying dramatic nuances and not a supernatural horror movie in the most strict sense of the word, although it definitely contains some quite chilling scenes, especially the sequences that take place in a creepy underpass, which were excellently shot and realized, capitalizing fully on the perfect visual balance of light and darkness. Coixet's "partner in crime" - cinematographer Jean-Claude Larrieu did a tremendous job as usual, so that these scenes prove very impressive and memorable.
In my mind, the closest comparison to "Another Me" is the US-version of "Dark Water"(2005) - although the movies' stories are different, they occupy the same genre-niche of psychological horror, the emotions that both of these films invoke and the impressions they imprint on the viewer's mind are of the same art, and both of them were very similarly (and quite undeservedly if i might add) bashed by almost all critics and horror-fans alike. The most recent successful example in this genre would be "The Babadook" and I'm sure many people will vigorously object to even putting both of these films in the same sentence on the basis of "The Babadook" being already established as an unimaginably clever and deeply philosophical work of art among horror movies, whereas "Another Me" is supposedly not nearly that complex or "artsy". Well, I beg to differ. Coixet's film is every bit as thought-provoking and absorbing, if not more, as the Australian horror-hit, but contrary to what that film did, it does not revel in forced and over-the-top acting to get its' point across. "Another Me" is quite content in painting a seemingly calmer, but ultimately more disturbing darkness - that of the inner world of everyday people set on a collision course with inevitable tragedy, people who have lost their inner peace, but are seeking to claim it back - each in their own way. The central character Fay is a fairly normal teenager, who suffers the echoes and after-effects of her parents' collapsing marriage, brought on by her dad's looming sickness and the subsequent confusion and fear, as she realizes that a mysterious unexplained supernatural presence is following her around and often impersonating her, as if bent on claiming her life. She seeks escape in the arts - photography, taking part in a school staging of Macbeth, basically a very bright kid. Fay's dad (Rhys Ifans) is plagued by the consuming weight of guilt for a desperate decision he took in the past, in addition to the decimating effects of his excruciating condition on his physical and mental strength and his family life. There is a tangible rift between him and his wife Ann (Claire Forlani) in the days following the harrowing diagnose and the only solace he finds is in conversing with his daughter, always interested in her daily routine, in her troubles and worries. Indeed, Fay seems to be closer to her dad, especially after she finds out her mom's secret. Ann, unable to cope with the pressure and burden of having to take care of her sick husband and watch him slowly fall apart, seeks relief outside the family nest. And while her actions are of course most disagreeable, this movie doesn't aim to trample on its' characters and bluntly criticize them, it merely shows their flaws and allows you to at least partially understand them, if not condone them. This is most obvious in the scene where Fay finally confronts her mom (after she has known for quite a while) about her extramarital affair. Virtually in every other film I have seen, this type of scene is accompanied by insulting behavior, a lot of screaming and bickering is involved, subsequent sobbing, etc. In "Another Me" this scene is done in a more restrained way - Fay is clearly angry at her mom's actions, but doesn't sound disrespectful when she confronts her, in fact the dialogue between the two of them is handled in such a sense, that it seems like two adult people discussing their problems, rather than just a mother and her teenage daughter dwelling in accusations and insults.
There are of course downsides to the film and although I didn't feel they were harming the overall impression, I will nevertheless discuss. Some people mentioned the romantic relationship between Fay and her classmate Drew, in terms of it not being fully developed and in some ways distracting from/conflicting with the overall story and the tone of the film. There is some truth to that - it's there just to provide a contrast to the oppressive events depicted in the first 60 minutes and to offer its' central character her own sense of escape from reality. It could have been handled much better though, by revealing more of the reasons why Drew and Fay connect so easily, what are the special things they find and appreciate in each other. Restricted in a 86-minute format, the film doesn't have too much time to focus on that though or to show more of Drew's character. It seems decided on immersing the viewer in its' dreary atmosphere and delivering a sense of dread and unease. And deliver it does. Scene by scene the shadows move closer on its' central character and on us as viewers, right until the twist-ending, which while not being particularly original or hard to foresee, is a truly competent conclusion and it works both in the straight supernatural sense, as well as in the more metaphorical sense of interpretation.
Drinking Buddies (2013)
A boring, shallow, pseudo-intellectual piece of trash
What drew me to this picture in the first place was the presence of talented actors such as Anna Kendrick (who i thought was brilliant in "Up In The Air" and quite possibly the sole redeeming quality of the barely passable dramedy "50/50") and Ron Livingston (who was outstanding in "Music Within" and "Office Space" of course). Sitting through this movie however proved to be an extremely tedious and disappointing experience.
We are introduced to Kate (Olivia Wilde) and Luke (Jake Johnson), who are work-colleagues at a brewery and also very good friends. Later we meet their respective love-partners Chris (Ron Livingston) and Jill (Anna Kendrick) and the movie heads in a familiar territory as the two couples decide to spend a weekend together in a lake house, and not long after they arrive at the spot a spontaneous (or should i say predictable and artificial) romantic moment between Chris and Jill becomes the reason for the couples to reassess the nature of their relationships. That has been done before countless times in cinema, the difference is that in "Drinking Buddies" the dialogues between the characters are semi-improvised to make the whole situation look more "realistic" and "life-like". Well, if these conversations represent real life relationships, you might as well better be living in the land of Oz with an imaginary love interest, because if that's how young people talk and have fun, it's a real shame. The dialogues are pointless and lead to nowhere, they are not even remotely clever or funny (even though the characters are laughing all the time) and are the main reason why this movie was such a disappointment and a bore to watch. In a romantic comedy based much more exquisitely on characters and conversations and less on an actual plot, you would expect that the filmmakers would try to come up with better dialogues and character development. Nope - they didn't. This is a movie that doesn't succeed in achieving any of the goals that it pursues - the moments supposed to be funny are totally devoid of humour and good taste, the dramatic episodes (if we can call them like that) are hilariously absurd in the sense that they don't possess the slightest feeling of confrontation, threat or misfortune, and even the so-called "realistic" scenes end up being quite the opposite in some cases - for example the infamously ridiculous and unbelievably ludicrous marriage-discussions between Kendrick's and Jonhson's characters, which if taken for granted and accepted as universally valid for all couples, would be enough to discredit the whole marriage institution (if that was the point - bravo, you did great Joe Swanberg!). It is ultimately also a movie that doesn't take any risks - the aforementioned situation (two couples' relationships muddled by an act of infidelity - sort of) presents a wide field of opportunities to explore the rich and sensitive worlds of love, lust, intimacy, friendship, etc., but chooses to pursue only some of them and in a very shallow manner, which ends up depriving the viewer of any shared emotional experience whatsoever. It's just as hollow as it gets and as I already mentioned it's not even funny. An when your movie is advertised as a "romantic comedy" and neither of those elements is present, then you have failed big time.
The whole time that i was watching this disgraceful attempt at making a romantic comedy, I was thinking of another, much better movie, which came out recently and had a similar approach to characters, situations and conversations, but ended up being a great many levels of superior to "Drinking Buddies" - "Your Sister's Sister". It too had a closed environment in which most of the scenes were taking place (a summer house), it also had just a few personas (in this case it was more like a love triangle) and it similarly relied heavily on dialogues and situations more than on a particular story...but man, were these dialogues and situations a barrel of fun! That was what made "Your Sister's Sister" a great movie - the jokes were hilarious, the dialogues witty and flowing, the romance was spirited and the situations - believable or not - were made to look authentic by the power of the well thought conversations and the captivating charismatic characters. All of this was missing in "Drinking Buddies". The way in which the movie was shot doesn't help either - it looks like a student project or a bunch of home-made video scenes stitched together, except I've seen home-made films made with more heart than this piece of garbage. Even the predictable and somewhat pretentious "Last Night" (2010) with Keira Knightley and Sam Worthington was more entertaining than this, and at least had some more sophisticated (even if a bit far-fetched) dialogue, so do yourself a favour and rent it instead, or "Your Sister's Sister". Unless you're a masochist with questionable sense of humour avoid "Drinking Buddies" and have a drink with your buddies instead - guaranteed to deliver much more fun than this "film" does.
Yasagure anego den: Sôkatsu rinchi (1973)
Less classy than "Sex And Fury", but still enjoyable violent sleaze-fest
After I watched Noribumi Suzuki's visually captivating, violence-packed and sex-charged revenge exploitation film - Sex And Fury (1973) – my expectations towards its' sequel "Female Yakuza Tale" were naturally high. Unfortunately, it proves to be a considerably weaker effort compared to its' predecessor.
The mesmerizing Reiko Ike is back as Ocho – the beautiful and skilled sword-waving gambler, who, after having avenged her father's death in the first movie, is now facing a new threat – a drug trafficking ring, which has a rather unconventional way of smuggling drugs (using women's private parts as a hiding place for the drugs!). Reiko's character seems quite indestructible in this sequel which becomes evident in the fight scenes, not getting even a single bruisе (there is however a scene where she is being tortured, but only after being tricked and drugged by her enemies). The opening sequence with Reiko fighting in the open under pouring rain against countless villains after having lost all her clothes is a treat to the eyes – beautifully shot and lit and with stunning choreography and sword-play – here the director of the sequel Teruo Ishii is staying close to Suzuki's original vision and this opening scene is like an echo of the unforgettable action episode in "Sex And Fury" where Reiko is forced to defend herself again totally in the nude, after being attacked while taking a bath. But further on, Ishii kind of abandons this style in favor of showing more nudity and sleaze, and presents a story with some ridiculous subplots and quite a few faceless and weak new characters, opposed to the first movie's more simplified and one-dimensional storyline (yes, it too had some subplots involved, like the girl-spy's love story, but I think they weren't distracting at all) and its' memorable rich characters (just compare the villains from the 2 parts to see what I mean). It's like Ishii wanted to push the limits of sex and violence even more, but in the final battle scene the effect is rather exaggerated and comic – grenades are flying, guns are blazing, swords are drawn, faces are ripped apart, there is even an episode where a girl is urinating on a corpse of a man, after the groin of said corpse has been crushed by another girl (we don't see it that clearly, but do we really need to ?) so, the violently chaotic ending proves to be hilariously anti-climactic, not to mention the main villain is killed off by Reiko so easily, fast and effortless, that it makes the whole concept of having this character in the movie pointless.
That being said, the film still has its' moments, like other reviewers already mentioned, and can be amusing to watch for its sheer amount of sleaze, some quite funny and memorable lines and laugh-out-loud episodes (the scene with the guards in the mental hospital, anyone?) And once again - the captivating opening fight-scene and Reiko Ike are enough reasons to disregard the obvious shortcomings of "Female Yakuza Tale" and enjoy it fully as it is – a silly light-minded and cheap exploitative action thriller with buckets of blood and tons of nudity. That's how we like it after all, isn't it ?
Conjurer (2008)
Creepy as hell
"Conjurer" starts rather slowly, but once it kicks in full gear, it delivers the scares very effectively and keeps you on the edge of your seat until the end. Actually this is one of the best low-budget supernatural horrors I have ever seen, although originality is hardly the case here (haunted cabin, evil witch, malicious raven, etc.). "Conjurer" reminded me of thrillers like "Dark Remains", "The Shining" and "The Amityville Horror".
A lot of attention has been paid to the characters, which is always good if you want the viewer to care about them and what is going to happen to them eventually. The cast is great, Andrew Bowen in particular - he delivers a very natural performance and I like the fact that his character doesn't fall into the trap of "having answers for everything", "trying to be a super-hero" or "doing the most irrational things" in the scare-scenes.
My one and only negative remark concerns the ending of the film - as one reviewer already mentioned - it doesn't really make much sense, and I think that's because it (the ending) tries to be "supernatural" and "rational" at the same time. It's as if the creators of "Conjurer" couldn't decide between two possible conclusions of the film, so they included both of them as a result.
Anyway, if "ghost-horror" movies are your thing and you don't mind low-budget productions, give "Conjurer" a chance. After the first 40 minutes it really succeeds in scaring the living hell out of you.