Change Your Image
Pjtaylor-96-138044
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Ghost Ship (2002)
It's not a titanic failure.
Even though I'd never seen 'Ghost Ship (2002)' before, I couldn't shake the feeling that it was some sort of nostalgic childhood favourite, something I'd seen on TV when I was too young to be seeing it. It doesn't make any sense, but that's the vibe that the film gives off. It has all the makings of an early-2000s cult classic, but nobody really seems to like it. It's not good, but when has that stopped something from gaining an underground following?
The film is the kind of comfortable crap that feels as though it's always belonged on a streaming service. It's not particularly good, even though it has really strong production design and a couple of satisfyingly brutal scare sequences, but it's also weirdly enjoyable in its own way, eventually overcoming most of its issues to be an overall decent experience. The acting is a little flat, especially from one person in particular, but the characters are engaging enough that you're willing to spend time with them and the premise is enigmatic enough that it remains intriguing even as it continuously proves itself to be as generic as it initially seems. The overall feature is the sort of thing that isn't cool precisely because it thinks it is, until a violent flashback arrives just before the third act and it's somehow every bit as awesome as a speed-ramped montage of merciless massacring set to the tune of a grungy rock song and including a final shot of a smirking baddie looking straight down the barrel of the lens should be. It's kind of great in its own, very specific way, an oxymoron of a movie that arguably makes it into the category of "so bad, it's good". I wouldn't rush to see it again, but I had some fun with it.
Fright Night (2011)
He won't bite... much.
'Fright Night (2011)' is the surprisingly good remake of the 1985 comedy-horror film of the same name. It tells the story of a teenager who realises that the mysterious man next door is a vampire and has to figure out how to fight the forces of darkness before they consume everyone he cares about. Although it makes some small changes, the picture is a relatively faithful adaptation of its source material. However, it has a slick, modern feeling (not necessarily a positive) and its frights take on an over-the-top digital aesthetic which makes them feel less theatrical and more unreal (not necessarily a negative). Basically, it takes the same bones and dresses them with different meat, maintaining its own identity even as it retreads familiar moments. With a nice balance of comedy and horror, the flick remains fun for its majority. It isn't particularly scary, but it has a few suspenseful sequences and a couple of moments of effective gore. The cast are all really solid, with Colin Farrell absolutely devouring the scenery and David Tennant proving that Doctor Who can actually swear (and pull off mascara). Toni Collette is great in her fairly minor role, while Anton Yelchin grounds the experience by convincingly descending into a spiral of paranoia before ultimately deciding to take the fight into his own hands. The picture has some entertaining special effects and it plays around with its vampiric concept well (there are several scenes which make fantastic use of the fact that vampires don't have a reflection, which also means they don't appear on video). There are some pretty dodgy CGI effects here and there, and some moments that were obviously designed for 3D in a way only a movie released in 2011 could be. Although the film has updated the aesthetic of its inspiration, it's still cheesy in its own way (something I distinctly remember about the original), and it doesn't take itself particularly seriously. That's a large part of what makes it so fun. It's really enjoyable, to be honest. It has its issues, of course, but none of them really dampen its overall effect. It's surprisingly solid for a remake; in fact, it's probably about as good as the original.
Darby After Dark (2024)
Video didn't kill the radio star... but something did.
'Darby After Dark (2024)' is a short horror film about a radio host who messes with forces outside her control when she participates in a game that seems to connect her with some form of spirit. Made with no real budget, the piece tells its insular story in a convincing and most compelling way. Although I don't think the narrative is as well-rounded or satisfying as it could have been, the production design and performances are pretty much perfect. Apparently, the radio station was actually a spare bedroom, which just goes to show how impressive the set design and cinematography is. The lighting, in particular, is effectively ominous, casting a red glow across the room which backlights the lead and hints towards the seriousness of her situation. The lead herself is really convincing, mixing confidence with uncertainty in equal measure. You buy that she has her own nighttime show, and also that she's becoming unsettled by the increasingly creepy things that occur around her. The callers are also really good, with the woman who introduces the game never quite making it clear if her intentions are malevolent or not.
What holds me back from liking the well-made short more is the fact that its punchline doesn't really land for me. Although it's paced well and doesn't lag, there's just not enough room to properly explore its premise. I can easily see how it could be expanded to feature-length, with the protagonist first playing the game properly and being intrigued enough to be bolder with it a second time, which results in a more unsettling result and prompts her to break its rules, causing an escalating series of supernatural events that can only lead to ruin. As is, though, we don't really get a proper sense of how the game is meant to operate, nor of what the spirits mentioned throughout actually are/ want. Instead, the picture pivots to a customary series of events and ends with a jump scare that isn't all that effective (and also reveals some relatively disappointing, albeit good for the budget, makeup effects).
Despite my reservations, this is still a really well-made short that is atmospheric and enjoyable. Its performances and production design are its standout elements, with its screenplay perhaps falling just slightly short. It's definitely worth watching.
The Jewel of the Nile (1985)
When they find out what the jewel is, they'll be in de-Nile.
'The Jewel Of The Nile (1985)' is one of those sequels that isn't as good as its predecessor in almost every individual area, but is just about as enjoyable overall. It picks up just six months after 'Romancing The Stone (1984)', essentially asking the question: what happens the day after the heroes ride off into the sunset together? Why, another adventure, of course! The piece quite boldly picks up with cocksure Jack Colton being a bit of a prick, daring to suggest that his relationship with series protagonist Joan Wilder perhaps isn't the true love it was suggested to be. It isn't long before their relationship is tested by more than opposite desires and a need to come out of the honeymoon phase, because they're both swept up on a journey to Africa and become embroiled in a brewing turmoil that seems to revolve around some sort of jewel. Although it's not slow at all, there's this weird sense that the flick is a little bit uninteresting. Perhaps that's not the right way to describe it, but it's definitely less compelling than it ought to be in theory. I'm not exactly sure why that is - after all, the cast are charismatic enough (although Michael Douglas is vaguely creepy sometimes) and there are several fun set-pieces - but a similar issue plagued its predecessor and dampened its overall effect. Still, there's entertainment to be found here and it's a well-made movie overall. It's a good effort that does pretty much exactly what you'd expect it to.
Romancing the Stone (1984)
It is a pretty sexy stone, to be fair.
'Romancing The Stone (1984)' is an adventure movie which clearly provided the inspiration for 'The Lost City (2022)'. The feature focuses on a romance novelist who travels to Columbia to exchange a treasure map for her sister's life, only to get intercepted by a corrupt(?) government official who wants the map for his own nefarious purposes. It's because of this that she meets a rugged exotic bird tradesman and is swept off her feet in a whirlwind of danger, excitement, vague racism, and - of course - romance. It's a very classic kind of feature, one that's unmistakably from the 1980s yet harkens back to mid-century cinema of a similar ilk. The easy comparison would be 'Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981)', but - although there are definite similarities between the pictures - I don't think this is just a rip-off of that more successful actioner. Instead, primarily because this focuses on an everywoman who's a definite fish out of water in her current situation, the narrative taps into the idea that something like this could happen to anyone. In this way, it doesn't make you want to be Indiana Jones as much as it makes you want to meet him. Of course, Michael Douglas isn't quite Harrison Ford, even if he's basically fulfilling the same archetype, and his particular brand of supposedly super-masculine charm doesn't really feel all that genuine. That's not a major issue, of course, and I'm also aware that I'm not the target demographic for his au naturale allure (it's not a huge stretch that Kathleen Turner would fall for him). Anyway, while the flick isn't massively compelling, it's always entertaining enough for what it is. Its story beats are mostly expected, but I do enjoy the way in which it affords its female lead far more agency than is customary with the genre and period (perhaps, I suspect, because it was actually written by a woman). There are some fun set-pieces, and everyone on screen knows what they need to do and does it well. It isn't all that gripping, but it's enjoyable and that's kind of all you need it to be. I've seen better examples of the genre, but I've also seen worse. It's a good effort.
Ging chaat goo si III: Chiu kup ging chaat (1992)
'Mission: Impossible' eat your heart out!
'Police Story 3: Super Cop (1992)' sees its protagonist team up with an officer from mainland China to take on a dangerous undercover mission and defeat a cruel drug dealer. With much better pacing than its immediate predecessor and a welcome change of scenery, the flick fully embraces the fact that its star is basically a one-man police force in and of himself. Most of the story focuses on Jackie Chan and Michelle Yeoh (two absolute icons) trying not to blow their cover, which leads to some suspenseful sequences and adds an extra layer to the expected narrative. In some ways, the plot is more straightforward than that of its predecessors because it balances its comedy and its action in a more conventional way (leaning more towards the latter and interweaving it with its set-pieces, or at least their build-ups and aftermaths, rather than having long stretches of pure comedy). It's also really breezy, to the point that you never really get a sense of what the bad guy's underling operation is actually like, just that he's a crook bloke who needs to be stopped. That doesn't really matter, though, because the story puts our heroes in perilous situations and gives them good enough reasons to be there, allowing the film itself to focus on the things it does best. Stanley Tong isn't quite as strong a director as Jackie Chan, but he still does a really good job. While it may initially feel as though there aren't as many standout set-pieces as you'd expect, eventually the picture evolves into pure action bliss. An explosive shootout segment is thoroughly enjoyable, and the final movement is a total blast that starts with a car chase, spends some time having Jackie Chan hang from a helicopter ladder as it tears through the air, then has Michelle Yeoh jump a bike onto a moving train and stages its final fistfight(s) in the same fast-moving place. The fact that it's all done for real makes it even more of a white-knuckle experience. It may not live up to the euphoric heights of 'Police Story (1985)' (even if it's arguably more dangerous), but you have to give it credit where it's due and accept that it would be mind-blowing if you didn't have that predecessor to compare it to. As it is, it's way better than the majority of action movies out there, even if it's never quite as utterly compelling as it perhaps could have been. It's fun, it's funny, it's exciting; what more could you want? It's a great movie, and it's easy to recommend to anyone who likes anything even remotely action-oriented.
Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)
If you didn't like it, the joke's on you*.
I had no real interest in 'Joker: Folie À Deux (2024)' (I was already bored of the discourse surrounding it), but morbid curiosity got the better of me and I decided (with the help of my brother) to check it out. I'm glad I did, because not only is the picture not bad, it's actually pretty good. It's not great, and it certainly has its issues, but it's far better than its reputation would suggest.
Although the meta narrative around the film does feel a bit strange, almost like Todd Phillips doesn't quite understand the point of his own picture. It is kind of a mute point to make a whole movie about how Arthur Fleck isn't the Joker - or, at least, the version many fans seem to think he is - when the ending of the first film heavily implies that he has become that film's version of the Joker. While it feels as though Phillips believes most audience members to have misinterpreted his ending, I don't think there's anything to misinterpret there. Instead, some members of the fanbase have regarded the final moments of the first flick as a victory rather than a defeat, and it's this that Phillips takes umbrage with. However, trying to claim that he never intended his version of Joker to actually be Joker (in a movie called 'Joker (2019)', by the way) is really strange, and it misses the point that both his films are - however loose - adaptations of pre-existing material. It's not that he hasn't made a movie about the Joker, it's that he's made a movie about his own version of the Joker. The fact that some fans have taken the wrong message from his derivative earlier work is nothing new (people have been claiming Travis Bickle to be an out-an-out hero for decades), but his notion that this is something he needs to personally correct may be somewhat misguided if it comes from a place of disdain. As are his claims that this second outing for his clown-faced loser isn't a musical, which simply isn't true. However vaguely shy it may be about it, there's no denying that this is a musical and there's also no need to.
While I probably haven't articulated the reasons why this project feels as though it hasn't been thought through fully (or, at the very least, isn't as clever or necessary as it thinks it is), I think I've conveyed the concept that there's nothing particularly revolutionary about any of it. It is interesting that Phillips decided to make a movie as purposefully anti-audience (or, perhaps more accurately, anti-fan) as possible and it is kind of hilarious how Warner Bros. Gave him $200 million to make something that's smaller than the first film in pretty much every way (which cost $50 million) without checking to make sure he was creating something guaranteed to net them another $1,000,000,000 at the box-office (the picture wouldn't be flopping so hard if its budget was more reasonable), the actual affair never quite gets past the promise of being something truly subversive and intriguing. It has plenty of meat, but it doesn't really have the bones to hang it on. While there are some enjoyably unexpected developments in terms of character and theme, a lot - if not all - of these aren't given the depth they deserve nor the attention they need. The technical elements of the feature are far more accomplished than the screenplay. The cinematography, performances (Joaquin Phoenix, in particular), and especially the phenomenal score by Hildur Guðnadóttir almost convince you into thinking you're watching something truly special. The musical sequences, which are typically used to clearly separate fantasy from reality here, are often muted but feel appropriate for the material, and - although there's an argument to be made that most of them don't add all that much - they're often enjoyable and give the film a distinct flavour it otherwise wouldn't have had. However, as the runtime ticks on and the slow pacing starts to create an ache in your bones, you begin to get more critical of the aspects of the feature that lurk under its pretty surface. While compelling things do occur and often surprise with their starkness, they have a tendency to come out of nowhere (at least a couple of major moments feel this way) and basically only scratch the surface of the idea they're trying to cut to the core of. Those ideas are good, don't get me wrong, and they're preferable to the more conventional concepts that would typically make their way into a comic book sequel. The fact that this is so unlike what it so easily could have been is one of its biggest strengths, and it's that which makes it potentially more engaging than its pretty cut-and-paste predecessor (even if it isn't as straightforwardly entertaining). Even when it's getting things wrong, you still want to see what it's going to do next. It's always engaging, despite its slow pace and occasional stumble.
Ultimately, it's kind of admirable that Phillips and co deliberately set out to make the antithesis of what people were perhaps expecting. To take such a huge sum of money and, for all intents and purposes, knowingly flush it down the toilet in an attempt to create something which comments on and critiques the very systems that all but guarantee its failure is a bold move. Whether or not that's giving Phillips too much credit (the meta mirroring between the movie's audience and reality's audience in terms of how they view the eponymous character could be accidental) is sort of besides the point, because that's what he's done here. It's a shame that the studio will likely take the wrong lessons from it. Although it isn't perfect (or, even, as clever as it thinks it is), it's trying to do something distinct and it's trying to actually say something. Surely we can all agree that's a worthwhile goal, even if we don't like how it goes about trying to do it and say it. Studios should be giving this much freedom to their creatives, but maybe they shouldn't be tossing this much money at something that arguably doesn't really need it. The film is way better than its reputation would suggest, but it has a weird relationship with that reputation because that's part of what makes it as keenly observed - borderline prophetic, even - as it is (okay, maybe that is giving it a little too much credit). It's not great, but it's not bad. If you didn't like it, the joke's on you*.
*You can dislike - or like - whatever you want, of course; it really doesn't matter.
The Wild Robot (2024)
Do the robot.
'The Wild Robot (2024)' is DreamWorks Animation's latest effort. It's about a service robot who wakes up on a wild island with no owner in sight and sets about trying to find someone to give her a task to complete, eventually stumbling onto a gosling and taking on the task of raising it. It's a very typical narrative in its broadest sense, playing with themes of parenthood (specifically maternity), purpose and unity, but it does take some relatively unconventional twists and turns along the way, initially being much more about the formation of a family unit amidst a society that not only marks you as an outcast but also constantly tries to kill you. It's refreshing that its natural setting isn't shy about showing the brutality of the circle of life, with predators chasing and killing prey without being overtly judged for it.
Eventually, the piece settles back on a much more conventional and far less nuanced message of putting aside your differences and working together (no matter how unrealistic that goal may be within the context of the animal kingdom). It basically anthropomorphizes its wider theming to the point where it only really works if you take the film as a metaphor for everyday life, forcing it into a human-oriented worldview that is far less refreshing than the realistically kill-or-be-killed yet gently shaded-in-grey vibe of the first half. As a result, the first two thirds are a lot more satisfying than the last, even if the final movement is still successfully entertaining and emotionally resonant. It also means that the overarching narrative feels a little bit messy in hindsight. Another issue is the fact that the humour and the heart isn't always balanced as keenly as it ought to be.
Aside from those quibbles, though, I really enjoy the picture. For a start, it looks really good, with a painterly aesthetic that calls back to 'Puss In Boots: The Last Wish (2023)' without straight-up copying it. Its texturing is allowed to flow past the edges of its models, lending the affair a storybook vibe that complements its story, and the character designs are as pleasing as they are conducive to fluid movement. Each different animal moves as you'd expect them to, striking an effective balance between stylised and naturalistic, and the protagonist navigates her environment in increasingly creative ways that make use of her malleable form and capitalise on the fact that she isn't a human (or an animal). She's animated robotically but not stiffly, remaining relatively organic as she twists her body into various formations and makes use of appendages and tools seamlessly hidden inside her friendly round form. The emotion she conveys is impressive considering the limited design of her mouthless visage, and the lenses that act as her eyes are somehow able to communicate almost as effectively as the real deal. The character is beaten up quite a bit during the opening movement, and she sustains a level of damage that makes each and every scrape feel impactful and - almost - painful. In a lot of animated movies, violence results in wounds that disappear within moments; here, her injuries remain for the duration of the affair, which increases the stakes considerably - even if you aren't consciously aware of that while you're watching - and adds weight to each and every moment of peril.
The narrative is well-paced for the most part, even if it does hit certain stumbling blocks as it transitions between its various segments and tones (as mentioned earlier). It's simple, but effective. The characters are well-rounded enough that you buy into their arcs, which are basic but effective, and the lively voice work combines nicely with the excellent animation to bring each and every critter to life. The piece has some expected but powerful things to say about choosing your own purpose and living not how you're expected to live, but how you choose to live. It's depiction of a found family is also really heartwarming, and some of its closing moments bring a tear to your eye (especially if you've ever lost someone you love). The experience is enjoyable throughout, bouncing between funny and heartfelt in equal measure. It's also as often exciting and suspenseful as it is silly and light. It's an earnest piece, one that seems to really believe in its central messages, and I can see it connecting with a lot of people, bringing the youngest and the oldest in its audience together in the way that only the best kinds of family films can. Despite its problems, it's really good.
Finding Nemo (2003)
Fish are friends, not food.
What a horrific opening, understated but just devastating.
'Finding Nemo (2003)' looks phenomenal, yet another technological and artistic leap forwards for Pixar. It really feels like it takes place in the ocean, with its lush underwater cinematography capturing a variety of deep sea environments that are as well-researched as they are aesthetically pleasing. It's a delight to watch, a peek into a typically unseen world that feels almost as alien to us as the fictional reality seen in 'Monsters, Inc (2001)' despite being located not too far from most of us. Thanks to its bright colours, bouncy animation, and familiar yet exaggerated character designs, the picture really is a feast for the eyes, as beautiful when still as it is in motion. The movement of each different creature is conveyed so well that it splits the line between cartoon and reality perfectly, fully immersing you in the feature's grounded yet cartoony atmosphere.
The narrative is really strong, with a tight grip on its potent theming and character arcs. The main players all evolve in believable and satisfying ways, and it's completely understandable why they think/feel/act the way they do at any given point in the story. The plot itself is a little more "and then this happened" than Pixar's usual stuff, but it mimics the tropes of a road movie and does what it needs to in terms of getting us from set-piece to set-piece while still keeping the feature's beating heart in keen focus. Helping to sell both the comedy and the emotion is the voice work, which is excellent across the board. Albert Brooks, in particular, excels as Marlon, capable of conveying parental anxiety and sheer panic like no other. It's also satisfying when he lets loose on occasion and finds the fun in his adventure. The cast generally all do a really good job of striking a balance between subtlety and exaggeration, often making under-the-sea life seem as mundane as the above-the-sea life we're all used to (which, in turn, makes the stakes all the more real and enables the more, I suppose, wacky events of the quest to find Nemo to feel tangible and important).
Ultimately, this is an iconic animated movie for good reason. It's energetic, exciting, amusing, affecting, and as easy on the eye as it is on the ears (the delicate score is sublime). It's simply fantastic, and is perhaps one of Pixar's absolute best.
A Bug's Life (1998)
Don't let it bug you.
I've always liked 'A Bugs Life (1998)', seemingly more than most. At the very least, I've always disagreed with the notion that it's an obvious weak link in Pixar's early winning streak. Yes, it's probably the least successful of the studio's certified classics, but it still comfortably makes it into that category. Brought to life with mostly fantastic animation that signifies a massive technological leap from 'Toy Story (1995)', the film convincingly gives us a stylised close-up into the lives of the creatures that live beneath our very feet. It doesn't have the strong beating heart typically associated with its studio, at least in the sense that it won't get your tear ducts working (and it isn't really trying to), but it's earnest and heartfelt, with themes about workers reclaiming power over their oppressors by realising that they're the more important part of the cycle they've been forced into. It's also funny, with plenty of visual gags and effective vocal performances (from an especially eclectic cast). The core of the story is sort of a riff on 'Seven Samurai (1954)', with the protagonist seeking out warriors to protect his village from an outside threat. Hopper and his cronies (cleverly coded as a biker gang) demand that the ants collect food for them, not because they need it but because they need to keep the ants under their thumb. The villains are actually rather intimidating, especially the big bad, and there are a couple of rather suspenseful scenes when the ants are under threat which add genuine stakes to the story. The customary comeuppance received by the antagonist is especially - and surprisingly - brutal, and there are also some moments in which characters are beat up quite violently. The darker moments allow the central arc - for both the protagonist and the ants as a whole - to feel all the more satisfying. Ultimately, this is a really entertaining animated affair that looks good, sounds good (the score is great), and moves at a decent pace. It's not the best of Pixar's pictures, but it's still a lot of fun.
For the Birds (2000)
To infinity and beyond...and back down again.
'For The Birds (2000)' is essentially a joke told visually instead of verbally, its every moment building to a single punchline. Thankfully, that punchline is quite amusing. Set to the tune of jazzy bird beeps, the short tells a classic tale of comeuppance as a group of little birds bully a big bird and soon get what they deserve. It's an innocent and enjoyable effort that's enhanced by its simplicity. The animation is basic but effective, and the overall aesthetic of the piece has aged really well. It's entirely 3D, but it captures the welcome feeling of a classic 2D cartoon. It's a fun little piece.
Mike's New Car (2002)
New car!
'Mike's New Car (2002)' is a bit weird in the sense that it really has nothing to do with 'Monsters, Inc. (2001)'; it doesn't expand on the themes of the film, nor show what happened to its world and characters after the events of its plot. It doesn't even use the concept of its characters being monsters. Basically, there's no real reason for it to star Mike and Sulley. However, there's also no real reason for it not to. It's a pleasant little short that's as amusing as it is inconsequential. It isn't particularly funny, but it has some nice gags sprinkled throughout and its voice work is expectedly solid. It's not great, but it's definitely good enough for what it is.
Monsters, Inc. (2001)
I wouldn't have nothin' if I didn't have you.
I haven't seen 'Monsters, Inc. (2001)' in years, yet every scene, every character, every piece of music, every moment is familiar to me. I seem to know the movie inside and out, with only a handful of jokes feeling new to me (likely because they went over my head before), but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate its each and every moment. It's one of those iconic pieces of cinema that's successfully made the transition from childhood comfort (I still have the dvd which I tore the front of through overuse when I wasn't much older than Boo herself) to genuinely great adult viewing. The movie is incredibly nostalgic for me, but it isn't good because of that (as so many childhood 'classics' reveal themselves to be).
It did occur to me this time, though, that Mike's kind of creepy looking if you think about it, and that both Randall and Waternoose are quite scary when they start slinking or scuttling around. Despite the fact that the film is set in the corporate world and tackles themes of corruption, its villains are - rather surprisingly, I'll add - no less vicious and willing to literally kill than the meanest of movie antagonists.
The well-paced picture perfectly balances its world building with its character work, its humour with its heart. It takes an outlandish concept and crafts something distinctly human from it. It's very well-written, feeling like a real movie with real characters and real arcs and real themes that doesn't talk down to its audience (sadly, a lot of family-friendly animation is designed to distract rather than enrich). It's funny, emotionally affecting, inventive, intellectually stimulating, and also really exciting (there are some great set-pieces in here, including a door-to-door chase that takes the baggage conveyer sequence from 'Toy Story 2 (1999)' to a whole new level).
The feature looks and sounds phenomenal, with excellent animation that's constantly lively and makes excellent use of the creative character designs it has to play with. It also gets a lot of mileage out of non-human faces, often choosing to convey thought and emotion through expression rather than dialogue. The casting is perfect, with John Goodman and Billy Crystal bouncing off each other fantastically and Steve Buscemi wholly embodying his character's slimy sociopathy. James Coburn and Jennifer Tilly also turn in great performances which enrich the texture of the film greatly.
This is just a phenomenal movie. It's a warm, fuzzy hug that's as amusing as it is touching. It's a supremely entertaining experience, and a lovely film all round.
Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012)
Not silly enough for its own good.
'Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012)' has a delightfully pulpy title. Unfortunately, although it is pulpy, it isn't very delightful. The main problem is that it just looks terrible, shot in its entirety like the opening montage from 'X-Men: Origins Wolverine (2009)'. It doesn't feel real, and its narrative plays out almost as a series of vignettes framed through the reading of Lincoln's diary (which also allows for near-constant narration to propel the story forwards between scenes). There's very little to hold on to here; everything is just so bland that it's difficult to remain invested in anything that's going on. Abraham Lincoln as a protagonist is really flat, although I think that's more to do with writing than performance, and you don't really get a good sense of who he is other than as this vague approximation of the legendary American president who's impossibly virtuous even when slaying undead bloodsuckers.
The picture feels a little tacky at times, too, because it directly ties its absurd 'Honest Abe vs vampires' premise into slavery and The American Civil War (the vampires use slaves as food, so get involved in the war in order to keep slavery in the South; the war, including the infamous Battle of Gettysburg, is depicted as being especially difficult because the Confederate forces are comprised primarily of vampires). It seems to think it's making some sort of statement about these issues, tied between giving its audience silly vampire slaying and a more 'faithful' account of Lincoln's rise to president and subsequent actions. The two halves never coalesce, and sometimes clash so harshly that the affair leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
It does have its merits, though. A couple of the action sequences - in particular a mansion rescue and a train-based siege - are relatively entertaining, and the pacing is more-or-less as tight as it needs to be. There's a sequence involving a stampede of horses that's possibly one of the most ridiculous and over-the-top things I've ever seen in a movie, but it simply isn't as entertaining as it should be given its luxuriously ludicrous nature. The same is true of the whole thing, really; it doesn't live up to its gleefully goofy title/ concept. It isn't the worst film I've seen, but it's definitely not good. It's a wasted opportunity.
Tarzan (1999)
Tarzan, Tarzan, Tarzan of the jungle watch out for that tree!
After being shipwrecked and left for dead, a young boy is found by a loving gorilla and raised as her own. Years later, he encounters other humans for the first time and finds himself having an identity crisis, torn between the apes he knows and the people he doesn't. 'Tarzan (1999)' makes use of a hybrid between 2D and 3D animation, with the backgrounds often being rendered with CGI while the characters are brought to life using traditional cel-shaded animation. This allows the film's jungle to take on a real sense of depth, and imbues the various set-pieces with a frantic energy that would be very difficult to pull off if everything was animated in the same way (the fast-paced, swirling camera moves, in particular, are key in giving the action its notable sense of dynamism). I like the way that Tarzan moves through the trees, not only swinging on vines but also grinding along branches as if he's Tony Hawk (the animators apparently used skateboarding and snowboarding as a reference for these segments). There's a tangible sense of physicality to the lead character and he convincingly acts as though he's been raised by gorillas, walking hunched over as he uses his knuckles to steady himself. This contrasts nicely with the 'regular' humans, which include the villainous Clayton and the bright-eyed Jane, and makes the central conflict of the film - that being Tarzan struggling to know where he belongs - all the more believable.
A lot of the narrative is conveyed through montage, but it doesn't feel like it's overly compressed. Set to the tune of some cracking Phil Collins songs, these sequences often manage to cut to the core of the exposition they're condensing by shining a light of the primary emotion of said information. A lot of the film is kind of understated, and Tarzan in particular is allowed to undergo his arc mostly internally. He doesn't have a lot of conventional personality, but his identify is showcased mainly through his movements and his interactions with those around him; he feels rounded enough to be the affair's leading man despite being less articulate than most of his counterparts. The story is fairly simple, but it's no less effective because of it. It takes some fairly expected turns, yet remains entertaining and engaging throughout. Although there are some moments where it struggles to balance its often dark, perilous tone with its moments of customary levity, it mostly carves out its own identity. It's surprisingly violent for a Disney movie, too, even though it obviously isn't particularly intense for adults.
Ultimately, this is a solid animated film with some emotional resonance and a few exciting set-pieces. Its voice work is solid, its music is touching, its animation is energetic and its well-paced plot is pretty compelling. It has some tonal issues and its simplicity sometimes works against it, but it's generally a fun experience.
Saw (2003)
They made sure the producers saw 'Saw', so we could see 'Saw'.
'Saw (2003)' is the short film Leigh Whannell and James Wan decided to make just before taking their script to the USA to seek funding for their feature film of the same name. Although it's somewhat rough around the edges (as most Saw movies are), it's remarkably fully formed and absolutely conveys the atmosphere and energy of the soon-to-be mega horror franchise it's trying to get off the ground. The success of 'Saw (2004)' is really inspiring, as Whannell and Wan really just decided to take matters into their own hands and make the movie they wanted to make. This short film shows exactly what they're both capable of with, essentially, mere scraps, and it's easy to see why producers jumped on the opportunity to fund the real deal. It's an entertaining, somewhat unsettling short with a simple but effective premise and a suitably stressful execution. It conveys the sense of grimness and grit so essential to the Saw series, all while being notably more contained and less gruesome. It's a really solid effort by all accounts, and it's doubly interesting to see as a fan of the franchise. Plus, Billy has a little hat...
Kaibutsu (2023)
The pig and the snail.
'Monster (2023)' is the latest drama directed by Hirokazu Kore-eda. It takes a puzzle-like approach to its story, presenting the same events three separate times from different points of view. Initially, it feels as though the film's primary theme is that of perspective, how we can never truly know the truth - such as it is - of a situation or a person and how that's doubly applicable if the people around us don't feel comfortable enough to tell us how they feel. The first two thirds compound this theme by setting something up, then subverting it. The final third, though, doesn't feel as though it's playing with the idea of subjective reality so much as it is presents what 'really happened' in the two acts that it follows. This isn't strictly true, as it still relies on putting us in a new pair of shoes and allowing us an insight into the internal lives of two characters previously only seen from an external viewpoint, but it definitely seems like the feature itself values this version of its events as an objective reality and, in essence, the thing the entire affair wants to comment on. Although it isn't totally divorced from the preceding movements (even if some key characters from those segments are all but entirely missing during it), it definitely seems to change gears somewhat and reveals a new thematic core. In theory, this isn't a bad thing, but in practice it just makes us wish that this core was given more time in the spotlight considering its eventual importance. The mystery of the first two acts initially seems like the crux of the film, but eventually feels like an unnecessary layer that obfuscates the beating heart of the affair. This beating heart is the most emotive element of the experience, even if it isn't exactly the most interesting and it's showcased with just a little bit too much sentimentality given its quietly devastating nature, so it's a bit frustrating that there isn't more time dedicated to fleshing it out. While frustration is an important aspect of the affair as it is, it should come from the narrative itself (as it does early on) rather than from the way in which the movie is constructed (as it does towards the end and in retrospect). There are also some small inconsistencies between the various sections, leading to some slight confusion in terms of what happens when, and some events are referenced but not shown which makes them feel out of place or even somewhat ingenuine. The film is also a tad too on the nose on occasion, something that's bolstered by the occasionally cloying score (despite being composed by the late legend Ryuichi Sakamoto).
Despite its issues, though, this is still an engaging and subtly powerful picture that looks gorgeous and features several really strong, somewhat understated performances. Although there are a few contrivances and slightly more heightened elements, the majority of the movie feels really genuine and realistic. The narrative is interesting and explores important themes without calling too much attention to itself. It's compelling and immersive in its own, somewhat delicate way. It does a good job of keeping you invested throughout its various twists and turns without ever feeling like an overtly twisty experience (as in one which exists primarily to pull the rug out from under you at certain points). It's a very well-made film in pretty much every area. Its problems don't make it bad, they just prevent it from elevating itself to the next level. It's very good, but it isn't quite great.
I know it seems like the negatives I've outlined outnumber the positives, but they definitely don't outweigh them. It's just a bit annoying that the affair essentially smashes two separate movies together - a mystery about perspective and a drama about (redacted) - and dampens the effect of both. Still, it's important to review a film for what it is rather than what it could have been. This is a well-made and entertaining experience that's emotionally impactful and consistently honest. It's compelling right the way through and touches on some important themes. Despite my hesitations with it, it's a really solid effort.
Midnight Vampire (2024)
Midnight snack.
'Midnight Vampire (2024)' is a short claymation movie about a vampire who wakes up at midnight and decides she needs something to eat. Over the course of her night, she'll find herself transitioning from predator to savior in an unexpected way. Relishing in brutal violence that's only easily palatable thanks to the fact that it's rendered with clay, the short escalates its seemingly simple setup to an action-oriented payoff yet remains oddly calm and detached throughout. It's almost as if it mimics the attitude of its central character, who treats her surely unusual night as if it's just another Tuesday. The short tells its story entirely silently, although it does make use of a few (arguably unnecessary but stylistically sound) intertitles, and it remains enjoyable and engaging for its duration. There's not all that much to it, but there doesn't really need to be. The blunt darkness of its subject matter and explicitness of its bloodshed contrasts the otherwise almost cutesy aesthetic of its characters (even the evil ones) and world, creating a unique atmosphere in which everything is nonchalantly off-kilter. The piece doesn't dwell on its darkest elements, instead using them to provide catharsis, and this allows it to stay relatively light. It's an entertaining effort, even if its simplicity is both a blessing and a curse in some ways (just like the condition of its protagonist). It's a basic but well-executed claymation short.
Bubba Ho-Tep (2002)
Thank you very much.
The synopsis for 'Bubba Ho-tep (2002)' is essentially one big joke: what if Elvis was alive and (relatively) well in a nursing home and he had to team up with someone who think's he's JFK to stop an ancient Egyptian mummy from sucking the souls of the residents out of their butts. While that premise practically promises a wacky comedy filled with bizarre what-if antics and knowingly hokey supernatural elements, the actual film takes a far more surprising route. It's actually a rather wistful, borderline poignant tale about ageing, regret, identity, and living with purpose even in your twilight years. It's far from a parody, even though it does have satiric elements and is no stranger to sometimes silly comedy. Although this may be disappointing to some people, I actually find its approach fairly refreshing. It isn't what I expected it to be, and - while that may mean its 'Elvis vs a mummy' angle is somewhat muted and, even, slightly unsatisfying - its gentle, unexpectedly sincere approach feels strangely appropriate and, in its own way, heartwarming. It's actually somewhat moving, and it still manages to scratch the genre itch its concept creates on occasion. It is rather slight, and there is a sense that it's more of a TV movie than a full-blown feature, but none of that really matters. It's fun and thoughtful. It makes some interesting choices, particularly when it comes to its editing (which emphasises its protagonist's days blurring into one as he spends most of them laid in bed), and Bruce Campbell does a great job in toeing the line between impression and performance as he blends the absurd with the honest in his portrayal of Elvis. He brings out his slapstick comedic chops when they're called for, but he also allows the more vulnerable side of his character to come to the forefront and he really grounds the film. Ultimately, this is a distinct and unexpected monster movie that's more of a drama about an ageing Elvis coming to terms with his place in the world than it is about an ageing Elvis kicking undead ass (this definitely isn't Ash vs Egyptian Dead). It sometimes struggles to balance its tone and its more outlandish elements are underplayed to the point of mild disappointment, but it's an engaging and interesting experience despite its few flaws.
P. S. The film defines 'Ho-tep' as meaning a "relative or descendant of the 17 Egyptian dynasties, 3100 - 1550 B. C." and as a "family surname of an Egyptian pharoah (king)", and 'Bubba' as a "male from the Southern U. S.". That means that 'Bubba Ho-tep' isn't just the name of the movie's mummy; it can also translate to Southern King and therefore actually refers to Elvis himself.
Villains (2019)
A dark comedy starring horror icons Maika Monroe, Bill Skarsgård and underrated character actor Jeffrey Donovan? Sign me up!
'Villains (2019)' is a comedy-horror/thriller in which two semi-bumbling criminals break into a house after running out of gas in the aftermath of robbing a store, but soon find themselves face to face with the homeowners and it isn't long before they realise they may just be out of their depth. It's the kind of film you stumble across on a streaming service and pop on out of curiosity, the sort of thing that isn't interesting - or well marketed - enough for you to actively seek out but is eye-catching enough to stop your nightly Netflix scrolling.
Although it struggles to balance its tone (which is frequently too light considering the thematic material), it's mostly a zippy and entertaining singe-location(ish) experience with solid, somewhat against-type central performances. The screenplay is halfway between something a student would write and something that would be on the Black List, the sort of thing that lives and dies by its twisty nature but isn't especially surprising because of it. It's a good effort, don't get me wrong, but it's also kind of unremarkable. It's probably not going to be anyone's favourite movie (although it currently has 85 fans on Letterboxd), but it's definitely not going to be anyone's least favourite, either. It's enjoyable enough for what it is and does pretty much exactly what it says on the tin.
The performances tend to elevate the material, with naturalistic turns from both Monroe and Skarsgård keeping things grounded and more heightened work from Kyra Sedgwick and an accent-chewing Donovan cementing this as a genre piece unafraid of its true nature. A downside to the flick is that the antagonists don't actually seem all that unstable or evil, even though they're meant to be both; they do bizarre and cruel things, of course, but the flick kind of lacks teeth when it comes to showing (most of) that stuff and its lighter tone means that it's never able to build a sense of dread. It's not particularly scary (or thrilling), but it's also not particularly funny. The latter isn't really a big issue, though, because the affair uses its humour more as a way to subvert expectation and apply a level of pseudo self-awareness to its situation - and, in particular, its protagonist's reaction to it - than as a way to provoke belly laughs.
Ultimately, although it is a little forgettable, this is an enjoyable and well-made effort that does what it needs to and does it in under ninety minutes. It's engaging and entertaining for its majority, even if it isn't particularly enthralling or unpredictable. I don't love it, but I like it. It's good.
Wolfs (2024)
Maybe the real treasure was the Wolfs we made along the way...
'Wolfs (2024)' is a quippy, fast-talking comedy in which two rival fixers begrudgingly work together after being called to the same crime scene and learn that maybe, just maybe, it's nice to have someone to talk to. Although the screenplay is fairly zippy and features plenty of twists and turns, most of the movie is carried by the playing-it-cool charisma of its two lead actors. George Clooney and Brad Pitt are both good in their roles, but something is ever so slightly off about their chemistry because even the silliest moments feel like they're played a little too straight. The banter, which includes a lot of cross talk (something that's actually rather annoying when used during exposition, even if it's meant to dull the impact of those scenes by presenting on-the-nose information in a subversive way) and insult slinging, is occasionally humorous but equally as often falls a little flat. It sort of creates the impression - or, perhaps, texture - of comedy rather than actual comedy, if that makes sense. Still, it's not the kind of film that relies solely on its laughs, so the fact that it's never hilarious isn't really an issue. There are a handful of genuinely successful jokes, but the more important aspect is the light and slightly sardonic tone. It keeps things feeling fairly fresh and entertaining, even as the vaguely formlessness nature of the narrative becomes more and more apparent and you realise you have no idea where in relation to the overarching plot a specific scene is. In a way, the picture seems as though it's sort of just going and going until it eventually stops. Perhaps that's not entirely accurate, but there's definitely a lack of escalation that makes the climax a little anti-climactic and the ending slightly more confusing (at least initially) than necessary.
Although it's generally a little dull and the outside environments don't quite look real (or, at least, tangible), the film looks a little better than most Apple original features. There's a sense that the aesthetic is something that's been achieved on purpose, rather than an after effect of - frankly - somewhat shoddy cinematography and direction. Jon Watts directs with confidence but not flair; his most stylistic moments don't quite land and the rest of his efforts are fairly workmanlike. There's nothing wrong with that, though, and a steady hand behind the camera is often what's needed to bring something like this to life. Besides, he also wrote the screenplay, so it's not just his on-set skills that are being showcased here. While the writing has its issues, it's perfectly dependable and even rather inspired on occasion; Watts may just be a better writer than director, but that doesn't mean he isn't more than capable in both capacities. Overall, the movie feels a little flat and lacks a proper sense of style. This would work better with more serious material, but the playful nature of the narrative and performances almost demand a more heightened visual approach. As is, there's nothing to make this stand out from the other efforts on Apple's platform.
Ultimately, this is a fairly fun crime comedy. It's sort of flat in a way that's hard to describe, but it's enjoyable enough for what it is. The two lead performances are entertaining, the story has some fun twists and turns, and the comedy is welcome even when it isn't successful. It's a solid, if forgettable, effort.
Demolition Man (1993)
This is the movie in which, according to Sandra Bullock's character, Sylvester Stallone licks Wesley Snipes' ass and then blows him.
'Demolition Man (1993)' opens with a bang (literally), with its killer opening movement perhaps overpromising what the rest of the picture will be able to achieve in terms of its action. Still, it makes a heck of a first impression and instantly gets you geared up for this silly yet muscular sci-fi actioner. With just a hint of subtextual social commentary, the story sees John Spartan - an elite, one-man-army cop with a reputation for causing collateral damage - get thawed out of the cryosleep prison he was wrongfully put into back in 1996 in order to hunt down a recently defrosted convict who he has history with. It's essentially if 'Austin Powers: International Man Of Mystery (1997)' wasn't a parody, but rather an explosive action movie with just a hint of fish-out-of-water comedy and a layer of satire that essentially makes the case for police brutality (yikes!). The future is a seemingly idyllic, albeit annoying (the way the characters speak is really irritating), place where peace is apparently universal and there hasn't been a recorded case of murder/death/kill since 2010. However, it isn't long before you start to see that this supposed utopia is far from perfect, with its authoritarian design robbing people of practically any choice and forcing them to live a very specific way (the way its leader wants them to) or else risk starving in the sewers. It's rightly called out as fascist by Stallone's fresh-out-of-the-fridge domestic solider, whose disregard for the rules was bad enough in a society where freedom of speech was still a thing. This dystopia is distinct because it's all so punishingly pleasant, practically the opposite to the types of gritty futures we're so used to seeing. It allows the film to be colourful, even somewhat campy, and still keep its foot firmly in the macho action genre which practically moulded Stallone's on-screen image after he was done playing that everyman boxer and that PTSD-stricken war veteran (at least the first time). The piece never takes itself particularly seriously, and - although plenty of its comedy is quite cringey (including its odd use of product placement) - there are some rather amusing moments here and there. The light, bouncy tone works well despite all the on-screen carnage, and the film is able to maintain a balance between the silly and the savage. Stallone is dependable in the lead role, unafraid of the absurdity it requires even if he shies away from it in favour of his 'hard man' persona on occasion, and Snipes is great as the chaotically comedic villain who looks like he's having a blast being bad. Bullock is also really solid, taking the ridiculous dialogue she's saddled with and somehow imbuing it with bright-eyed charm. The supporting cast is also really stacked, including Bob Gunton, Denis Leary, Benjamin Bratt, Bill Cobbs, Nigel Hawthorne, Glenn Shadix, and even brief cameos from Jesse Ventura, Grand L. Bush and Rob Schneider (who is uncredited, for some reason). It's just a really good time overall, an unserious movie with entertaining action - including plenty of explosive set-pieces and an ice cold final kill - and some funny moments. It's an enjoyable experience that isn't deep, but doesn't need to be. It's rock solid.
Nope (2022)
Just when you thought it was safe to go back on the ranch... or, You're gonna need a bigger horse.
Is it fairly slow in its first half? Yes. Are its intertitles entirely unnecessary? Yep. Do its constant cuts to black get tiresome? They sure do. Is there an entire storyline that feels sort of pointless? There sure is. Is it all just a little bit silly? Of course. Does any of that really matter? 'Nope (2022)'.
Jordan Peele's latest is a flawed but fun... well, to define it is almost a spoiler in and of itself. So let's just say it's flawed but fun. It's a colourful, IMAX-shot ode to suspenseful spectacle films like 'Jurassic Park (1993)' and 'Jaws (1975)', taking a slightly harsher Spielbergian approach to its themes of respecting nature and animals. It doles out glimpses of its true form, slowly allowing you to see and understand more of its central concept, until it eventually - if you'll pardon the graphic image - prolapses and unfurls and lays bare its every aspect in full view for the audience to marvel at. Some of its design choices are admirably bold, almost entirely otherworldly in a way that could alienate some viewers but just made me appreciate how distinct it all is. I love when movies take big swings and don't care if they get laughed at. It's this kind of authenticity that ironically makes even the most absurd things feel all the more real. Furthermore, the performances are mostly really grounded, allowing the screenplay to occasionally indulge in some quite silly comedic moments without compromising the narrative's overall integrity. When it hits its third act, everything just clicks and it becomes a thoroughly entertaining experience. Despite its growing pains, it's a really solid effort. Even the segments which feel as though Peele is just monkeying around do have an admittedly oblique but retroactively apparent thematic purpose, so - even though I'm personally not a massive fan of them nor the impact they have on the pacing - I can see why they are in here and they contribute to the affair's generally rather strange (complimentary) vibe. The movie is a little bit too long, with a first half that could have been tightened up and some stylistic indulgences which don't work as well as they perhaps ought to. However, while it is its writer-director's weakest film, it's still enjoyable and engaging for its majority. It's also pretty unique. Don't say "nope" to 'Nope (2022)'.
Speak No Evil (2024)
Tongue-tied and scary-eyed.
I kind of wish I hadn't seen the trailer for 'Speak No Evil (2024)', as it gives away some things I think would've been fairly surprising to experience with no prior knowledge. This extends even to the basic premise, as the picture makes a point of never quite letting you know the true intentions of James McAvoy's character and his seemingly idyllic family. It seems obvious that it's eventually going to go in a certain direction, but that could just be because the marketing had no qualms in basically pointing it out to you. Nevertheless, there are some twists and turns that play out more naturally. If you manage to see them coming, that's because you've put together various clues sprinkled throughout the narrative, rather than because you've been told anything outright prior to the reveals.
The screenplay does an excellent job of constantly making you as uneasy as its people-pleasing protagonists, on edge and unsure as to what their hosts are truly thinking. It wrings tension out of even its simplest scenes, and its best moments swiftly build a strong sense of suspense that keep your eyes glued to the screen. Aiding this are the strong performances, not only of the vaguely menacing yet seemingly friendly McAvoy (what was that unruly accent, by the way?) and his on-screen partner Aisling Franciosi, but also of the more subtle Mackenzie Davis and Scoot McNairy. The former may get to take the biggest swings (McAvoy, in particular) and play around with the more obviously meaty material, but the latter are really what make the affair feel as grounded and compelling as it is; they arguably get less to work with, but they turn in realistic and relatable performances that act as the bedrock of the entire affair.
Some moments are really uncomfortable simply because they mimic awkward social interactions familiar to us all, mining feelings of peer pressure and social anxiety to generate an often visceral response in the audience. A lot of it feels really real. A lot of it doesn't. Part of that is because it peels away from domestic psychological horror and veers further into traditional horror-thriller territory as it nears its last act. From what I know about the original (which I haven't actually seen), this version takes a more - I suppose - traditional approach and you can subconsciously feel that while you're watching it (even if you don't know much about its basis). Arguably, this makes for a more accessible and satisfying experience; just because it's relatively conventional, and potentially less daring than it could have been, doesn't mean it isn't effective. It also doesn't feel like a change for a change's sake, instead seeming like the natural conclusion to the affair's distinct approach to its material. Although the final act could have been a bit more bloody, it's an exciting and well-crafted segment that breaks the tension in a suitably white-knuckle way. It hits that sort of scary fun energy that the whole thing kind of exudes, meaning that even its silliest moments (which, to be clear, aren't all that silly) still work well within the established tone. Plus, McAvoy is a blast to watch when he's let off the leash. I saw an interview in which he talks about being the biggest he's ever been during the filming of this and how he slowly reveals his true size as the picture approaches its finale, and let me tell you that decision pays off because there's a point at which you realise he's gone full beast mode ('Split (2017)' pun intended) and it's both frightening and delightful all at once.
Ultimately, this is a really solid horror-thriller that deals in the horror of social awkwardness and the horror of being isolated with people you can't really trust. It's essentially a commentary on how the fear of offending someone is often greater than the fear of being in danger (something also explored in a key scene in 'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (2011)'). It's an entertaining and engaging time with strong performances and a generally accomplished aesthetic.
Strange Darling (2023)
Dodgy messaging sinks an otherwise interesting thriller.
Opening with a title card saying the film was shot entirely on 35mm is such a virginial thing to do.
'Strange Darling (2023)' is a self-proclaimed thriller in six chapters. In non-linear fashion, it essentially tells the story of a young woman trying to escape a mustachioed man with a rifle. The picture makes it clear that it has taken inspiration from 70s grindhouse cinema almost immediately, as a wall of text scrolls while a disembodied voice tells us we're about to see a dramatisation of the final killings in the murder spree of a supposedly real killer (it doesn't actually say it's based on a true story, but it kind of implies it). The opening titles are set to the tune of a song specifically created for the picture, which is true of - I believe - all the songs that play throughout the affair (even those referenced by the characters). Just after its first chapter intertitle comes on screen and it reveals that it isn't going to play out chronologically, the picture's other main influence becomes clear: this thing is desperately trying to be like a Quentin Tarantino film. But JT Mollner is no Quentin Tarantino.
As you can probably tell from this review, the flick takes ages to actually get going and throws so many stylistic flourishes at you so quickly that it's difficult to get oriented with its specific aesthetic. In fact, it kind of feels like it's trying to be quirky for quirky's sake, never truly settling into its own style and instead almost always feeling like an imitation of more successful media. Although I usually love it when films take their own approach and purposefully disregard the 'rules', a lot of this stuff feels vaguely annoying. It's almost smug, to be honest. I think that's why most of it just rubs me the wrong way. I'm less forgiving of its abrasive elements because I think the messages it implicitly conveys are fundamentally unhelpful, but I'll discuss those in more detail in just a moment.
First, I'd like to acknowledge some of its successes. The most fundamental thing it gets right is that it's never boring. Even during its most predictable or wonky segments, it's always doing something to keep you engaged. It also takes a few risks, and features some genuine surprises as its story twists and turns with each new chapter. Some of it is easy to see coming, but even the subversions that aren't as clever as they the filmmakers seem to think are mostly enjoyable. The non-linear structure is necessary for the narrative to be compelling, as the film is designed almost as a puzzle. It provides you with the pieces you need to form a picture, then gives you pieces that recontextualise what you've just put together. It repeats this cycle for pretty much its entire duration, and feels well-paced for the most part. The necessity of the non-linearity is good because it means that the chosen structure never feels like an arty afterthought, but rather an integral part of the story from its very conception. However, it's also somewhat bad because it highlights the fact that the story itself isn't particularly engaging - or, at least, it wouldn't be if it was told in a more traditional way. Still, this format is a compelling way to convey the idea that the affair is all about perception and our preconceived notions. It makes a point of subverting just about everything we might be thinking, often in a way that feels as though it's slightly for the sake of it. Still, it's an interesting approach that could lead to thought-provoking places if it were handled with more grace. Instead, it leads to those unhelpful messages I mentioned earlier (more on that shortly). The writing often isn't quite up to the mark, but the movie's strong performances tend to counterbalance its weak characters and keep you invested in its drama and thrills throughout. It's entertaining enough for the most part.
The main problem with the picture isn't its over-confidence or rough-around-the-edges writing. Instead, it's its bad messaging. Frankly, it sets the 'believe women' movement back by decades. There are moments in which we're meant to think a woman doing the right thing is stupid, meant to think someone believing a victim of an apparent sexual assault and trying to help her is being naive, meant to think we should treat women who seem to be in danger with immediate suspicion. And, when those things are proven to be 'true' by the narrative, the punchline is - on two occasions - a vicious sexist remark made by a man (who we're meant to identify with) to a woman (who we're meant to judge or, even, outright hate). On top of all that, there are even moments in which we're meant to think it's better for everyone to carry a gun (a lot of features, particularly action thrillers, inevitably fall into 'pro-gun' territory simply by necessity, but few are as overt with their subtextual right wing ideas as this ends up being). What's tricky is that the film creates a scenario in which we want to see certain female characters be punished for their evil actions. It crafts a narrative in which a woman is a manipulator, is a perpetrator of violence, is a villain, and it does so while also specifically commenting on sexual power dynamics and violence against women. There's nothing wrong with having a woman be the bad guy, but you have to be aware that doing so - particularly in this way - runs the risk of conveying a deeper message that all women are manipulators and could be killers, and that we should judge and fear women before believing them. In reality, men hurt women far more often than women hurt men. Here, it's almost like the affair is trying to invert that dynamic (and not as an act of reclamation). This movie wants you to cheer for the male characters as they hunt this woman down. It also wants you to cheer for her to escape, at least initially, but that's part of the problem: it doesn't just have this character trick the people in the movie, it has her trick the audience (or, rather, it tricks the audience on her behalf by withholding information from them). This increases the hatred the audience is meant to feel for her. It just feels icky. Really icky. It's all really misguided. There's a sense that it tries to disguise these elements as - or, less cynically, that it truly believes these elements are - part of the whole 'support women's wrongs' thing and that featuring a female baddie is inherently taking some kind of feminist angle. This isn't the case, though, and that excuse can only go so far. The representation here is ultimately really damaging. All of these subtextual issues are probably accidental (I hope), but they're still harmful. They're clearly part of the affair's desire to subvert everything regardless of the consequences, and they severely dampen the picture's effect. Some scenes are really difficult to sit through, and not in an appropriately confronting kind of way, and the whole experience just leaves a bit of a bad taste in your mouth.
I'm conflicted about the film because it really isn't all that bad as an independent thriller with a non-linear structure. It's unconventional enough to be interesting, even if its narrative is a little underwhelming and its quirks are a bit too self-congratulatory. However, its implicit messaging is really dodgy. To be honest, it's pretty sexist and that's hard to look past (even if it is accidental, as I hope). It's not the movie we need right now, let's put it that way. I like it less the more I think about it, and I didn't like it all that much to begin with. This has potential and is relatively entertaining in the moment, but its flaws are too deep-rooted for me to recommend it.