Change Your Image
mitchw-61-305942
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Leave the World Behind (2023)
Leave the movie behind
Maybe this film sounded good when it was just a script? I don't know why actor royalty like Roberts and Hawke would sign on to a film like this. Maybe they know the director.
I fell asleep two nights in a row attempting to watch this film. It initially piqued my interest with an ominous premise and a deer in the headlights on the billboard advertisement outside my apartment.
A stylish set. The house had more talent than the acting. The dancing scene made me cringe. When Roberts' character was reluctant to allow the visitors inside, I thought 'this might be one of those films with relatable, and likeable, characters'. It isn't. There's a thrilling oil ship scene early on. The film fools the viewer into thinking the film will have some sort of wow-factor, but it doesn't.
The characters were not very likeable, except Ali's ... and only some of the time. Bacon's cameo was enjoyable albeit just another filler scene attached to the filler scene before it and the filler scene following.
Giving this film 2 stars may sound harsh, but I can't think of a reason to give it more. I was bored. I was irritated. I was disappointed. At times I was intrigued, but the experience was like opening a birthday present to find an empty box inside.
Some clever ideas are on display here. And as always, well done to all those involved in the production of the film. It's still an achievement to make a film.
Margaux (2022)
Interesting Premise FULL STOP
I thought AI was meant to be smart ...perhaps AI can produce, direct, and act in the next film about a smart house.
Some cool scenes. Genuinely creative ideas. A concept for a Black Mirror episode.
On IMDB, the film is listed as a horror thriller. I think horror comedy may be more accurate, though there isn't much to laugh at except for lame, would-be day time soap opera dialogue, ineffective satirical interpersonal relationships, and average acting. The stoner dude's acting was decent, and I thought he was really sexy. For a movie that potentially had boundless opportunities, budgeting may have stifled the final product. It was even a little boring, at times.
The main female character was very "marshmallow", and long-haired protagonist dude was a square, and his hair was annoying. The kinky couple were also superficial. There're several lines in the movie that refer to human's as complex multicellular organisms, but this crew are unicellular binary codes. Sexy stoner's character is affectionately portrayed for the viewer, and it worked on me.
The screenplay required clever nuance and it doesn't deliver in sophistication except for the set. The very small surprise twist at the end worked on me though - I will admit. Twists, no matter how obvious, easy or bland usually get me. I'm left confused about one character's denouement. Not sure what happened to him, or when.
Ostensibly, there appears to be some screenwriter IA knowledge or research sketched within the dialogue, however, I wouldn't know if any of it is remotely accurate.
Opening scene was underwhelming but potentially awesome, and I think that's the reality of the entire film.
As I always say, well done for making a film. I haven't made a film and I respect the effort.
The Exorcist: Believer (2023)
It didn't need to be a sequel to The Exorcist
The Exorcist: Believer is a sequel only because of Ellen Burstyn. Without Chris McNeil's character having a small role in the film, it is just another film about possession with an exorcism at the end. The film does not explore demonic possession further or offer contemporary societal views on possession or even capture the suffering and fear of the superior original. Producers are masters of finding cash cow opportunities.
Believer is mild and watered down compared to its predecessor. The process of possession is almost instantaneous. The 13-year old's go missing in the woods, they return, they behave abnormally in one or two scenes, and then they're thoroughly possessed.
Much the same as the two family's response to their children's metamorphosis. I thought the parents grieving and terror was very one dimensional, both in the way of acting and the script. One parent declared quite early that she thought her daughter was possessed of an "unclean spirit", I think were the exact words. Alrighty then, better find Chris McNeil, some random Priest, along with a few other spiritual healers, and move straight on to the exorcism scene. There was very little in the way of any medical or psychiatric intervention.
The film would have been a decent film on its own without being part of the Exorcist franchise. Other than Burstyn and the surprise, was anyone else involved from the original movie to justify this movie being part of The Exorcist universe?
Fear Factor: I jumped once. I was not in suspense often. The violence was mild. I didn't get the impression many of the characters felt fear or sadness. It felt more like they had a problem to solve and there wasn't time to grieve or feel much distress.
Had this film been a movie in its own right- without borrowing from one of horror history's greatest, the creators would have earned more of my respect. The opening sequence was solid and provides an apt little twist during the exorcism scene. The girls acting was believable. The initial medical response and police involvement was appropriate. All of these elements are fine for a movie that's not a sequel to The Exorcist. Make the process of possession more nuanced and longer - with more suspense and family development - skip over Chris McNeil, develop an actual character to be the Preist rather than a paper-thin cardboard cutout, and tac on that exorcism scene to finish of the film - done. You'll have a pretty solid film without the criticism and comparison to the original.
There are some crafty offerings from the director and novel pockets of fun to make this film okay, but instead it attaches itself to an all-time classic for a big payday. I think Green has done better work here than with Halloween. They were complete trash.
Till Death (2021)
A different take on Weekend at Bernie's
A neat narrative! The film is straightforward with a few surprises, and it makes for an entertaining 90 minutes.
I would have preferred a different leading actress; someone more relatable and sympathetic. Our protagonist doesn't elicit sympathy, nor does she make the audience root for her demise. She's an ordinary, upper east side princess, bored with her husband and materialist lifestyle. She may have paid for her make-up to be tattooed on, as well, I'm not sure. It never smudges. It's way too caked. Fox is a pretty lass. She would look much better el naturale.
Jack Roth was one of the best features of this film. I thought he was very believable in his role. With all the unbelievable near miss, evading, stealthy manoeuvres by furtive little Fox, the film needed to be balanced out with a character who resembles a human being. The bad guy with a conscience is tired, though, and it's not scary.
And, as many would agree, it would have been easy to hunt down Fox as she drags around a body leaving a trail of blood behind her. Her character must be a sociopath because I don't think her heartbeat got above 90 bpm. Her reaction to this situation was more like one of inconvenience.
I think the snow, icy setting was effective. The atmosphere was never fully utilised, but it was initially romantic and then isolating, and conveyed lifelessness. Of course, dragging a dead body through icy snow would lead a robber straight to you but thank God for last minute, convenient ideas or devices to save your neck.
I won't watch it again. This would have been a great project for a more seasoned actor in the lead role to give a robust, emotional performance. Suspend your belief like we had to do for Weekend at Bernie's, albeit there isn't too much to laugh about here, or fear.
Insidious: The Red Door (2023)
A not-so-much mystery drama movie
I can't remember Insidious 2, so I don't know how much the basement scene is new or just cut from the second movie and pasted into this film, with an overlay of Dalton watching in "horror".
I never liked the concept of The Further. I enjoyed the original film as a whole because of the events / story prior to Patrick Wilson entering The Further to locate and rescue his son. The Further and astral projection was an unfamiliar concept at the time (for me anyway), but it didn't - and still doesn't - blow my skirt up. Going too far into The Further ... as Elise would say is understandable for the first film, and I suppose if they hadn't had their memories wiped/supressed, maybe Dalton and daddy wouldn't have gone wandering off again as their memories start coming back.
The Red Door is not thrilling. It felt more like a father-son drama with a few horror elements, and a tiresome father-son storyline for that matter. I think the script required much more substance and psychology for the drama to have been meaningful or intriguing.
Dalton's character is unsympathetic. I didn't care about his plight. I liked the character that stood up for his artwork in the very first art class. Good on you, mate. A pompous and delusionally self-righteous art teacher and kiss my ass.
Rose Byrne was likely bribed to make her 10-minute appearance in this film, and I'm sure she was paid handsomely.
The film felt very slow, yet the time went rather quickly. I think that's because I was in anticipation the entire time, expecting more.
The Further and the connection to the living was starting to become incomprehensible, involving a painting, and a father character that was malevolent in one scene and then helpful near the end of the film, and blurred realising of how these dimensions are interacting.
I enjoyed the make-up and costumes. I don't usually find these types of antagonists scary in "ghost films", but they were creepy.
I also didn't mind the tension destroying female friend. Her antics and attempts at humour were a welcome relief from the drab storyline and uninteresting dialogue.
I'm giving the film a 4 mostly because I like seeing the original characters return for a conclusion, story arc continuity, set design, make-up, and a few good scares.
True Story (2015)
Average Story
A touch of pretentiousness. A vision of averageness.
As a viewer, I care very little about the relationship between journalist and murderer, and more about the tragedy of these deaths.
Jonah didn't blow my skirt up.
James was convincing as an unsympathetic, unemotional, impenitent, self-serving human. I'm not sure how much skill is required to act in a role that requires a vacant stare and monotonal voice. Perhaps there are indiscernible micro-expressions being utilized to make an impression on the audience. I wouldn't know.
The true crime events are certainly a serious topic and I think that story deserves to be told. The story of the mother and her babies deserves to be told. Not the story of a relationship between Michael and Christian.
The movie is initially intriguing, with the premise set-up reasonably well. I was engaged. The real drag was the unconvincing relationship between the leads. Was Michael really that credulous? Was Christian really that transparent? The character reeked of ingenuity and b.s. From the start. Christian's attempts at flattery and romanticism are obvious.
I hope the portrayal of this relationship is a lie story because if it isn't, it's a tad embarrassing. The contrived scene in which Jill visits Christian is the biggest punch the film delivers, including the toilet cubical tantrum.
Still, I always praise everyone involved in this production for doing something I couldn't be bothered doing and giving me something to watch. Thank you.
Bird Box (2018)
Blindfolded Bird Box
Good production value.
Good acting, for the most part.
Entertaining, for the most part.
Bird Box would likely have been better received if it was released further after A Quiet Place.
The antagonist is a mystery, and the film doesn't attempt to explain it beyond what the characters can imagine. The "criminally insane" become allies with the unsympathetic "force". I've read that some viewers proclaim it stigmatises mental illness, however, that was not my impression. The only mention I recall from the movie was that these people were "criminally insane", like a person incapable of human empathy, imprisoned for a heinous crime. The film doesn't mention "mental illness" at all.
The opening sequence was sensational.
The secondary characters have their purpose in the film, albeit small and seemingly insignificant. They each added flavour to the film, even if it's just for comical relief or a sex-in-the-pantry scene.
I don't think the film attempts to deliver a message about society. It does attempt to entertain, thrill, sadden, and offer a somewhat happy ending. I think it delivers what it intended to, and I'll give 7 birds to this box, I reckon.
Living Dark: The Story of Ted the Caver (2013)
Well, at least it's not pretentious trash.
I saw a few positive reviews on IMDB so I watched the movie.
I'm not familiar with Ted the Caver. The film was just a film for me.
I'm giving 1 star for the effort and determination it would take to produce a movie. I'm giving another star because I jumped during a hallucination sequence ... and I'm very impressed with that.
I think editing and directing contribute just as much to acting talent as the actual talent. If I watched these actors in a well-financed film/tv show with adequate directing, a better script, and effective editing, they'd probably appear to be better actors. There were several scenes or lines where the "acting" was too obvious. Other times, they were believable.
I'm not sure how Uncle Charlie managed to fit through the hole or why he went down the shaft - the viewer doesn't get to see this. If I had to use my imagination, I would guess some other entrance to the cave besides the too-small-for-Charlie-to-fit-through hole, and that he was lured or dragged by the creatures living in the cave.
I enjoyed the gas station character. He gave the movie more realism and an element of humour. The brothers were serious and mawkish too often.
Irrational decision-making is usually a facet of storytelling that I do not enjoy. I could tolerate the brothers initial intrigue and sense of adventure, but when you're screaming and terrified, you'd be contacting authorities rather than returning to a cave hole time and time again, alone and ill-equipped.
The fatalities in the film were also completely avoidable. In the final scene - deep in the black hole - there was so much motion and movement I wasn't sure what was happening. I figured that sensitivity to light was keeping them at bay, but a single torch pointed in one direction wouldn't scare off the number of creatures surrounding them for long. Sure, scream for some drama, but the characters behaviour bordered on silly hysteria and madness rather than adrenaline and natural survival instinct. At one point the brothers stop and sit to talk about how they really love each other for an excessive amount of time, without being attacked, then they stand up and the creatures are right there ... as if they were giving them 'moment'.
I'd like to see the cast in something else to see if more production value and better editing improves their talent, and as more the writer, producer and director ... everyone starts somewhere.
Evil Dead Rise (2023)
Evil Dead in high Rise LA apartment
I viewed Evil Dead Rise twice in the cinema.
I have never seen the originals with Bruce.
The 2013 Evil Dead genuinely frightened me on a few occasions. The Mia character possessed by the demon was much more effective than the mother character in Rise. She did a damn fine job as an actor however the demon wasn't very scary. In real life - absolutely. I think I may have desensitised myself to this film watching the trailer 50 times before seeing the film. The trailer gives too much away. I think the scariest scene in this film is when mumma demon pokes her head out of the bathroom.
Perhaps there was too much demon dialogue. A horror film villain is scarier when they don't say much, imo.
I think the flow of the story was unrealistic. There's no way I'd be letting any of the kids out of my sight if there was a demon behind the front door. Yes, the protagonist yells from the window for help once, but not again? I didn't feel much emotion towards the characters. I didn't in the 2013 movie either, though, except for Mia.
I did not enjoy watching the family be a family in the apartment before estranged, guitar engineer sister shows up. They're all in separate rooms doing their own thing, having a rant about laundry not being washed or DJ-ing to an imaginary crowd. I felt a cringe in my body.
I'm not entirely sure why one of the characters doesn't get possessed despite incurring an injury from the demon twice - hand and belly. There's a scene with a tattoo needle. The demon mother scratches herself with it before her victim. That makes sense, like passing on a virus, but that's not how the demon took possession of the characters in the 2013 film, and I can't say with certainty that all the characters in this film that were possessed had demonitis transferred in this manner.
I also didn't think that the reactions from the characters were plausible. For example, there are some pretty equanimous moments between the brutal violence, mayhem, and death of loved ones. I also thought the neighbours in the film was a nice touch, but they were under used, and when they all "rise" and start chanting, I felt an eyeroll coming on. The demon's metamorphosis for the final scene wasn't scary at all. Looked like a big bug.
I liked the earthquake, the opening scene was okay - it should have been longer, the title rising from behind the trees was great, and all artistic cinematography and movie making qualities were solid ... and appreciated.
How did the downstairs neighbour not hear any of the noise from upstairs? The rain and thunder? There were gun shots, screaming, thuds, running. I can hear my upstairs neighbours stand up from the dinner table in a thunderstorm. Maybe she was a few floors down. Let that one go.
The film was entertaining, I'll concede to that. II think distribution companies need to withhold more of the storyline in trailers, or I need to watch less of them. I hadn't seen the trailer before I saw the 2013 Evil Dead.
Scream VI (2023)
If Scream (1996) is a 10, this would be a 4 or 5
I'm giving Scream VI a 5/10 because it was relatively entertaining, and I enjoyed the Gale Weather's chase scene, albeit she must have metal plates in her gut to have survived.
I think I'd need to see this film again to give it a fair review - just saying.
In my opinion, the film isn't suspenseful. I don't think many in the franchise are. The Drew Barrymore opening scene of the original Scream sets the bar. I think more suspense would be a useful element to add to the franchise if it's going to continue.
The first kill in this movie is brazen for a Ghostface-in-training, and the decision-making by the victim is nonsensical. The plausibility of Ghostface managing to kill someone, unseen, with so many pedestrians walking past was incredulous.
I'm not fond of the lead character, Sam. She is bland and reminds me of a soap opera character. I like the rapport between the four young survivors of the previous film so that's cool. I'm still warming to them as individuals.
A huge negative from me was the ability for every character to be stabbed viciously multiple times and yet continue to stand up & run, even survive! The visual effects for the kills were fantastic but the unrealistic subsequent functionality and ability of the character's was eye-rolling.
Of course, it's a shame not to see Sidney P, but honestly, if she is able to survive one more movie, I wouldn't believe that either. I know we have to remember this is a fictional MOVIE but I also think that realism and plausibility in horror cinema is something viewers value and it increases audiences respect for the genre. I don't enjoy action films because they are generally completely unrealistic. Scream VI is the slasher version of an action film.
Cool to see Kirby and the vocation she's pursued.
I liked the Ghostface reveal too. 1, 2, 3, more fun for me. At various points throughout the film, I think most characters cross my mind as being Ghostface, but I never know for sure, and I don't try to.
And to end ... as a psychologist myself ... the quack Sam sees in this film is a charlatan. When writers create mental health professional characters, I do wish they would get mental health worker advisors to assist them on how to conduct therapy sessions more accurately.
The End.
Pepsi, Where's My Jet? (2022)
Another "Listen to this amazing story" conceited rag documentary
People talk about their personal experience about a time and place in history that may interest a few people who are cynical or like Pepsi, Jets, corporate deception, and/or gossip.
You can put anyone in front of a camera and squeeze their life drama's out for a profit.
Human behaviour is truly amazing and disturbing. My Leonard finally got his fifteen minutes of fame
And throw in Cindy Crawford to attract some more viewers. Doco's like this remind me of my mother reading Woman's Day when I was seven.
There may be some historical value here but isn't it just one story. There a more important stories that need to be heard, in my opinion.
I'm cynical. I watched 2 minutes.
Halloween Kills (2021)
Halloween Kills my Halloween spirit
There was a plethora off irrational decision-making in this film - same with the characters in the story. This film is lightyears behind the original Halloween. Bringing back original characters was nostalgic but I found it odd that nurse Marion was written into the storyline as a friend or acquaintance of Tommy Doyle and Lindsey whatever-her-name-is, plus some added character that was apparently involved during the original film however he's character was only created for the purpose of this film - a film which didn't seem to add much purpose. I heard an interview at the end of the movie (bought the DVD after missing it at the cinema), and he says (paraphrased): If Hollywood can still profit off an original film, it's going to make another one. I think this is disappointing for fans.
Major disappointments:
- Michael Myers is in multiple situations that he would easily be overpowered in, and killed, but he manages to kill everyone else. Yes, he's "Not human". I suppose he's superman. Then why are we bothering to try?
- I recall several characters who literally just stand across a room from Michael and wait for him to approach them and brutally kill them. Perhaps they are frozen by fear, next to an exit door.
- One of the escaped patients riding along in the bus from Halloween (2018) makes an appearance, and for some incomprehensible reason, the town of Haddonfield believe this is Michael Myers, and Laurie's daughter tries to save him by locking him (or rather, trapping him) in a corridor in the hospital where Laurie is doing nothing. This patient bares no resemblance to the stature or physique. And even if one doesn't know what Myers looks like, why are people chasing around a plump fella in a white gown? Several characters try to explain Myers influence on the townspeople developing a mob-mentality. Didn't buy it.
- Why is Laurie jabbing herself in the arse with some pain relief medication, then kneeing some random person and ripping her surgical sutures? Is she suddenly dense?
- And even if you're killed in Halloween, chances are you're alive in Kills because movie makers can do this, but when they really want you dead, Myers will snap your neck.
I enjoyed the flashback to the 1978 film. I thought the added storyline for the cop worked. It was as though this film wasn't about Laurie at all, but about how Michael has affected the town, and suddenly, everyone wants to be a hero.
The best scene was with the grand daughter and her boyfriend - the one who kissed some other girl in Halloween, and she quickly forgives him in this film. The acting from Dylan Arnold was terrific.
I didn't mind the couple living in the original Myers house. I probably cared about them the most because the audience got to be a wallflower in their home. But if there's an intruder in your home, whether you think it's kids or not, call the police and leave.
You have to suspend all realistic beliefs for this film. I think many fans will be disappointed.
The gore is high and dramatic. Remember how much gore was in the classic 1978 original?
Midnight Mass (2021)
MASSively depressed pity-party, at Midnight
I want to praise the dead woman which regularly appears in Zach Gilford's (actor Riley Flynn) trauma-induced imagination. I don't think I've seen anything so creepy in years. Even when I knew it was coming, she was disturbing.
Clearly, this production was decently financed. The setting is authentic and effective. Kudos! The mood is set well. I don't pay much attention to cinematography. I didn't notice anything poor re camera angels, movement or positioning so I'll say that's pretty decent.
Why have I given this mini-series four stars?
I admire and enjoy probably 50% of Mike Fanagan's work and I really enjoy character-driven films and tv shows. I can't put my finger specifically on why this one fell so flat for me. I think it was the supposedly philosophical, endless and dull, talking between the characters. Woe is me, comes to mind. And yes, they have things to woe about, but when it's nearly every character, it gets tired. Last night I was skipping scenes with Erin Greene (actor Kate Siegel) and Zach's character because they were as dull as dishwater. And I don't think they have effective "chemistry" in the show. I'm very interested in philosophy and nihilism so perhaps it's not so much the content of their chats (though the philosophy is only surface level), but rather the characters and the acting. I was embarrassed for them. I cringed. Occasionally, Siegel's character has moments of feistiness, which is a sweet relief, but her scenes with Flynn are unentertaining.
I wasn't impressed with the Hill House series either, also created by Flanagan and has some of the same actors used in this show.
I will praise the character Warren Flynn (Igby Rigney) for keeping things somewhat chipper. Generally, I enjoy morose films. I don't require humour or optimism, but this was just bland and bleak more often than not. And the old woman who lived downstairs Mildred Gunning (actor Alex Essoe) looked pretty good for a senile geriatric before she went through the change. It would have been better to have an age-appropriate actor to use with a likeness to Essoe.
I also enjoyed Hamish Linklater as Father Paul, though, in reality, I don't think people would find him charismatic. I don't know what was meant to be charismatic. He was transparently coercive though I think he was meant to be covertly coercive. And Zach's mother is such a darl. She reminds me of my mother; trying to make sure everyone and everything is okay to ease her own discomfort.
The doctor was okay too. She could have had a larger role and that may have improved the series. And how could I forget the evangelical, up-tight Bev Keane (actor Samantha Sloyan). Her character was entertaining and annoying simultaneously, as intended I'm sure.
If the characters speech wasn't so monotonal and they weren't so self-absorbed in their misery, I could have given this a 5 or 6. And God, God, God. I'm pretty sure pious folk talk about other things, or no?
I recommend a watch. There are moments that make the series tolerable and enjoyable - just cut the long-winded crap.
M.O.M.: Mothers of Monsters (2020)
Interesting, pertinent concept with a mediocre execution
There were creative ideas for the story line. I liked:
- single mum, perhaps an alcoholic?
- psychopathic uncle / genetics of psychopathy
- brief psychiatric intervention via webcam
- challenging of raising a teenager
I was a youth worker for 5 years, and I experienced far more violent, volatile, manipulative, abusive behaviour than what this movie demonstrates in the first half of the film. The mother has concerns her teenage son is showing symptoms of homicidal behaviour. I feel like these moments required a more refined, dramatic effect. Yeah, the mother appears disturbed by her son throwing items from the closet across the room - but he also apologises to her while she asleep on the lounge and cleans up the mess. This demonstrates remorse which I don't think psychopaths are able to distinguish within themselves.
I was rather bored for the most part of the film. The mother's lines were delivered in a way that made me cringe, and the actor playing the son also struggled to elicit any emotional disturbance in me. There were brief moments of fine acting from mother and son however this was seldom. The actor playing the mum has a a great face for staring into the camera looking exhausted and disturbed. And I will also credit the film for the ambiguity as to whether the mother or son or both are criminally insane.
I don't think the found-footage approach helped the movie tell a story with the depth required for it to make an impact on the audience. And there wasn't much evidence to suggest the teenage son had fallen between the cracks of the system.
A weak movie, with potential for effective entertainment and thought provocation. I'm not an actor, or director, or producer, so I always like to give credit to the people who contributed to the production and making of the film. I admire your skills and drive to do what you love.
The Lodge (2019)
Intriguing, albeit not very entertaining.
Characters: unrelatable. I felt very little empathy for any of them. I was sympathetic towards the father mostly, sometimes Grace, and sometimes the kids, but overall, i felt frustrated with them. Grace's character was the most interesting but her backstory wasn't explored enough. I felt compassion for Silverstone's character, too. Great start to the film!
Storyline: premise was cool. The movie lacked normality for me. These people are odd. On the other hand, it's refreshing not to see the conventional stepmother trying to win the kids over by being friendly in a corny way. Grace isn't someone I'd warm to if I were stuck in a cabin with her. So, the narrative is interesting, but i think other elements of the film make it dark, slightly dull at times, and off. I thought the twist, if you can call it that, was good. I said in my head "you gotta be kidding me". It made me frustrated a little.
I didn't like how dark the film is. More lighting was needed. I didn't like the cinematography for the most part, sometimes it was very effective. I prefer films with more close up shots and dialogue I can relate to. These characters felt very foreign to me, except for good ol' Dad, who's only in the film for 20 minutes at the start and 10 at the end.
There's a few instances in the film where the ambiguity felt pointless. It seemed to be included to confuse the audience, and even when the film was over, I was left unsatisfied with any possible interpretation of the strange occurrences.
Acting was great! That lead actress is someone to keep on my radar. The daughter was pretty good to for her age.
I recommend that people watch it, esp. horror/drama fans, but I think most will be left wanting something more familiar and not so melancholic.
The Open House (2018)
The Open Mind required for Open House
Movies have kind of programmed our minds over the years to take on many styles of storytelling - linear, non-linear, found-footage, follow one character, follow one character then a second for the same story offering surprise shifts in perspective etc. Mixed with vastly creative directing, editing techniques, and camera shots, movies are making magic whether they're original or not.
I enjoyed this film, and here's why -
1. I could follow the story line. I like a simple chronological narrative.
2. There were the weird characters that I assumed would be involved in an amazing "ah haa" ending that would offer a lasting impression (because these types of characters are in my thriller/mystery films). I don't necessarily like characters like this but I expect them in mystery films. (Spoiler for remainder of point 2.) What I liked most about these characters is that for once, they didn't have anything to do with explaining the ending. They were just weirdo people. No links to the confusion of the film other than themselves being a little odd.
3. I think the strange occurrences in the house were reality-based i.e., the characters could realistically 'get away with' thinking they're not losing their minds enough to go down the supernatural path.
4. I think many of the character's choices in response to ominous situations were realistic, because it's easy to rationalise away these simple strange occurrences. For example, "I thought I put my phone there. Hmmm. Now it's not. Okay, probably left it somewhere else". Rationalised - easy-peasy.
5. The film held a consistent tone of unease thanks to the camerawork, direction, score, lighting and editing. The production of this film is pretty effective.
6. Decent acting. Not over-the-top or unbelievable or cringe-worthy.
7. The final act gets pretty brutal. The ending will feel unsatisfying for most viewers but I kinda like that for a change.
The story line is so basic, really.
I suppose I'm giving the movie only four stars because I am someone who likes a satisfying ending. The movie suggested there would be some amazing explanation by the end, or did it really? I've seen so many mystery/thriller films that I've come to expect twist endings, or a real Woooooow Wow ah-huh moment. When I got over my little hollywood brainwashed disappointment, I was left feeling sad for the characters and proud of the films creators.
I See You (2019)
And I'd see you again
I See You has a few interlocking narratives throughout. It's as though several subplots connect the film into a whole. While watching the film, I felt some frustration and disappointment because I wanted to see at least one story play out in detail. However, it was satisfying at the end when I understood this was the films intention.
The camera work was effective.
The music was effective.
The acting was solid.
Everything that makes a movie a movie was done well and professionally.
So that leaves my impression. There was one scene with Helen Hunt at work, which was very short. I wasn't sure it was necessary for the film, except to give her character a bit of depth. In order to do this, I think there needed to be another scene of her at work. Perhaps it was to demonstrate her ambien dependency (if it is a dependency). This storyline here doesn't have much relevance either. There was relational drama between the characters which felt short and abrupt. I wanted this to be explored more.
When the film made a dramatic shift in storyline and cinematography about two thirds through the film, I felt a little disappointed because I had to get familiar with new key players. That being said, it was this shift that explained much of the mystery in the first half of the film.
Throughout the film, I didn't know who's side I was on. The protagonist and antagonist in this film is not consistent, which is the point. It may have been difficult when writing the script and editing the film to avoid plot holes. Fortunately, I didn't identify any, but there were probably minor discrepancies.
I'd say the characters were underdeveloped but the suspense and overall production of this film is well done. Interesting twists. By the end, I definitely wanted more from the film. I wanted more reaction from the characters when all is revealed to everyone. The credits role instead. Bum.
Halloween (2018)
Messy Myers Movie. Oh My Laurie!
I'm re-watching this for a 3rd time.
What wasted talent. Jamie Lee is a strong actress. She should have written the movie.
The plot and dialogue is terrible.
Whoever the casting director was made terrible choices for the Dad in the film. Unlikable, unsympatheic, unfunny hick. I like Judy Greer but her character could have been written with some assistance from psychologist who know more about parent-child dynamics with her and Laurie's history.
Grandaughter was a nothing role. Neither likeable or unlikeable.
Idiot character choices. Unrealistic character decisions. Their stories could have been fleshed out so audiences could empathise with their deaths. The blonde chick was okay, but it's as though the writers over-stereotyped teens today, and how childish or pathetic they are.
They were like cartoons!
No decent chase scenes.
One scene kills for no reason.
Michael's psychiatrist's storyline was cheap. Maybe could have worked with some insight into psychopathic doctor's.
As if any criminally insane facility would allow journalists to interview Michael, with his mask, in a courtyard in front of other criminally insane inmates!! I liked the reporters deaths, though. I thimk theirs was the only death scene I enjoyed.
And the father and son who see the bus breakdown with people in white suits walking around ... call for help, you wouldn't go take a look at night on an empty dark road. Pfft.
Maybe 911 will send a whole ONE officer, again, for every call out. Get some cops to tell you how it's done writers.
Shame. Disappointed.
The pros ... there was good use of effects, Jamie can act, I like Judy Greer though her character was disappointing. I can't even recall her character, or the granddaughter caring that the husdband/Dad was killed. All good work by supporting departments wasted on crap script / storyline and directing.
Oh my Laurie.
Super Dark Times (2017)
Where did that come from?
I got the impression the film was made on a low budget. That's cool. Sometimes the lower the budget the better the film. The 2 male characters were established well (in the beginning - I'll come back to this). I don't know whether the supporting cast were kept two-dimensional for a reason, but it gave me the impression that I was living the life of the male lead in this film. We meet some of his random friends, his love interest, but their characters depth was not revealed to the audience. You know how in high school, you run into a few people you get along with throughout the day, then you don't see them again for the rest of it? Well, there were plenty of people in this film that popped up for two or three scenes, appeared to be a significant character but didn't really contribute much at all by the end. That had their place, albeit short lived.
I enjoyed the realism of the initial two thirds of the film. It was kind of slow but I liked that. I liked how the teens go home to mum and dinner of a night, and parents get worried for their kids. I felt the main characters mum was going to have a significant moment in the storyline but that never came. She was very involved in her sons life, and when his mood and behaviour changed due to an unfortunate event (his dirty secret), I got the impression she could sense something was up but this was never explored.
My main concern with this film is the so-called antagonist. I don't think he was set-up well to become the antagonist. I noticed the protagonist becoming concerned about his mates behaviour - the few times he saw him. I'm guessing it was because the protagonists' friend was distancing himself so much after their dirty secret, that was the most concerning for the protagonist, and later his paranoia or suspicions that his friend might be involved in some other dirty deeds - which for me, seemed well out of character for the antagonist.
I paused the film twice to go out for a smoke and I was wondering if I'd skipped a huge part when I reached a scene towards the end and the antagonist has become homicidal. Since when? Why? I can guess why but there wasn't much of a story to support it. If there had been, I'd be giving this film a 7 out of 10.
The characters were likeable, and everything else in the film worked well for me. The teenage parties reminded me of the teenage parties I attended, weirdo's at school, chicks acting a little weird with pens etc. The opening scene may seem irrelevant to the film - BUT, on reflection, I'm inclined to believe that this may be the work of the antagonist who was may have always been a sociopath with a katana (Japanese sword).
Geostorm (2017)
Gee, only $120 mil production for this?
Hello.
I didn't expect much from this movie. I wanted to be entertained, and I didn't want to have to think too much. Geostorm was entertaining enough for me to watch it until 5 minutes before the end. I had to end it when they're sitting on the dock fishing and the corny lines and family bonding was ultimate cringe matertial - I couldn't take it. I'd sat through the whole movie trying to dodge cringe bullets. Damn, I couldn't take it another second.
Um, so I don;t know much about the movie business. When I read that $120 million dollars was spend on this production I thought of all the wasted talent and the wasted good money like this can do for people's lives.
There's no wit, no class, very little skill. It's like everyone was doing the bare minimum thing. I didn't think the CGI was very good either. I watch a lot of films - some of them are magical - and that can make the less magical movies look like garbage, and it sucks to say that because I bet some people on this production may have done their best.
I don't care about the science and logic in the plot - it can be a completely unbelievable idea, as long as it is convincing enough. I thought, "sure, nets over the globe controlling the global warming crisis - I can get on board". But the acting was cringe worthy (except the blonde agent chick. she's a push over to her fiance in the film, but I like the actress) and unrealistic.
I suppose I was entertained enough to give it 4 stars, out of 10 though. It's like Geostorm tried every trick in the film industry book to blow Hollywood away. I think it just blew away $120 mil and some of the audience. Maybe it made a profit ... hope so for them.
Cheers.
Take Shelter (2011)
This storm is ominous
Michael Shannon is fantastic. So is Jessica Chastain. To be fair, this is Shannon's show. He's character is in 90% of the movie. The audience just follows him around and gets to experience the challenges and isolation of acquiring a "possible" schizophrenia disorder. Last semester at UNI I took Abnormal Psych and discovered there's actually a spectrum for psychotic disorders, from Brief Psychotic Disorder to Delusional Disorder to Schizophreniform Disorder to FULL ON Schizophrenia. It's also common to mistake symptoms for another mental health condition and vice versa. However Shannon's character really does his homework, to the surprise of his Counsellor on his first visit.
The supporting characters were solid. I will just mention them briefly. There is their young daughter, who Shannon and Chastain are hopeful will be having a cochlea replacement soon using Shannon's work health insurance. Shannon's work colleague and friend, his boss, and some friends and acquaintances. Shannon is incredibly believable as his condition becomes more obvious to his wife and work, the more he tries to hide it. His anxieties make him behave strangely, the most obvious being the extension of the storm shelter in his backyard. His construction job is compromised by his behaviour, and I will just leave it there.
The pace of the movie is extremely well done and the score really pronounces this sense of dread. I felt very uneasy watching Take Shelter. The theme was so serious, and Shannon's nightmares were quite terrifying. Both Shannon and Chastain have incredible emotional acting abilities.
The script was well written. Often in movies I think "Well, why didn't s/he say this or do this?" but I never had those thoughts with Take Shelter. I don't know a whole lot about directors but I know they contribute immensely to a movie, so I take my hat off to Jeff Nichols. I think he also wrote the script. What he created was masterful.
The ending left me feeling very sad. Before reading ANY reviews I believed the ending to be literal and I was just crushed. The family were so far away from his storm shelter. I just hoped there was one near the holiday home by the beach, not that it would do much good from what I saw. After reading some reviews I had many other ideas about what the ending could have meant. So the ambiguity worked well for me, and to stop the feeling of sadness I decided to go with The Wizard of Oz.
Recommended by me.
Cake (2014)
This cake does not have candles on top, or icing
Hi readers. I liked cake for what it was, so I will start with the good things first. I find characters like Aniston's hilariously funny - because of her sarcasm and quick wit - and when the movie called for drama, she pulls heart strings. I've seen The Good Girl (TGG), which also stars Aniston, and I find these two characters to be similar in many ways. I enjoyed TGG more than this film, however more of Aniston's drama skills are demonstrated here. I only wish there had been more of it. I felt her character to be quite strong and driven, trying to make sense of a young woman's suicide, and contemplating her new life after an accident left her in chronic and emotional pain.
The script goes about Aniston's day to day errands, which doesn't bore me, but I had higher expectations because of the trailer. Not too much happens. It makes the movie incredibly realistic, because life can feel a little slow a times, especially if you have a mental health condition like depression or PTSD. Felicity Huffman is a great actress. She deserved an Oscar for Transamerica. Here, her character doesn't have much purpose, other than to tell Aniston's to F off from the support group she facilitates. I think she's only in two scenes. After seeing Lucy Punch in Bad Teacher, she's now on my radar, and made the 30 seconds of screen time she had in Cake pleasantly humorous. The maid/unofficial nurse to Aniston was solid in her role. Her character isn't developed too much, but we know she has a family of her own, and she dedicates a lot of her time to a women who she obviously cares so much for, even though Aniston can be rather snappy with her over trivial things. Her devotion brings meaning to their relationship, and that was the purpose of her character.
Anna Kendrick and the widower husband were good, but they really didn't need big names for these roles. Kendrick is very pretty in this movie, probably overly so to make the audience wonder why someone this lovely would jump off an overpass, especially when she has a beautiful young boy and a husband, who can only be described as a gentleman. Oh yeah, and William H Macy has 30 seconds of screen time in a scene I thoroughly enjoyed because we finally see some raw emotion from Aniston. Who else? Mammie Gummer plays Aniston's aquatic rehabilitation instructor. Her character is needed because of the point she makes to Aniston. I think she has two scenes like Huffman.
I never comment on the score because I can never remember it, or cinematography. I would recommend seeing the movie, just don't expect to be blown away by an emotionally gripping, tear jerking, in-depth drama.
Now go eat some cake.
Would You Rather (2012)
A sparkler but not a firework
If I could, I would give the movie a 5.5. It doesn't quite make it to six. Would you Rather evoked the same emotional response in me that a family game of 'would you rather' would. I have played this game with my family, albeit not in the sadistic way we're privy to here.
I liked the beginning - how the story was established, and how it introduced it's main character and her situation. The invitation to dinner for an life changing opportunity would be too enticing for many to refuse. Brittany Snow delivers a good performance. She was convincing and likable. I would have liked to have seen more character development from the only sadist dinner guest, Amy, played by Sasha Grey. I enjoyed seeing the Dad from Home Alone. His presence, though brief, was a delight. Good actor. The old lady added dynamic to the 'players' and the rest gave good performances. I enjoyed the aristocrats character, and he played it well, as did his son Julian (Robin Lord Taylor). Nothing felt ominous, perhaps because the villain(s) is so omnipresent. I suppose that creepy vibe wasn't the director's or writer's intention anyway.
I was left with a feeling of, what's the point? Just for fun I suppose. I don't mind movie's where the antagonist has no motive but for some reason this one just felt empty. There was very little action - chasing, running, hiding, fighting - which I think would have boosted this movie up to a 7 for me. I just didn't empathize with these characters much, only Amy a little bit.
The shock ending didn't have much effect on me, probably because there wasn't much character development. I didn't care. This isn't an objective review, it's subjective. Still give this movie a watch. It provides entertainment and it's intention.
Come Back to Me (2014)
Can't resist the cookie jar
I enjoyed this film. I'm going to talk about the plot as vaguely as possible so if you haven't seen the film or watched the trailer, you'll know a bit about it if you decide to keep reading.
So ... Low budget. Jaw dropping shock ending. Mystery movie. My curiosity grew steadily as I watched this film. I had seen the lead actress in the very first episode of The Good Wife and I liked her character/acting in that, so I looked her up here, on IMDb, and that's how I stumbled onto the film. I thought she did a decent job. She worked well within her range, and followed many directions from guess who? The director. I've read other reviews that said she was a little annoying and obnoxious, but I think I would be too in her situation, so I disagree with those opinions. I'd probably have myself committed, or have gone to the police with the video footage she recorded. I was a little disappointed - at first - with the reoccurring freak-out wake up scenes, until they were justified with answers.
The car accident - the one that we're virtually told nothing about - was a good pre-storyline for an initial explanation to her night terrors.
I liked the side stories with her husbands jealousy and medical issues, and the surprise little twist with the pregnant, doctor friend. I felt her character kept the film 'grounded', so to speak. She was logical, positive, reassuring and the voice of reason .. until she was out of them. The neighbour/grocery clerk did a fine job. Socially awkward. He made me feel uncomfortable - so, well done brother! And the scares, though few, I found to be pretty creepy. I never jumped out of my jocks but I had the occasional "Oh Sh!t" moment a couple of times. The score complemented them film well, I felt. I don't know much about cinematography so I couldn't find any fault there.
Great ending. Worth watching. Keep in mind it's a low budget film and they worked pretty well within their limits. Good job!
Annabelle (2014)
A Big Problem
This movie could have been much better if we had some decent actors. They can act, they just can't act well. The only cast members who could act were the shop owner, Evelyn, played by Alfre Woodard, and the neighbours played by Kerry O'Malley and Brian Howe. The neighbour's dialogue was a bit off, but they can still act. The parents were dreadful in my opinion. They were "acting", and it ruined everything.
The script was okay. It could have been better. I think there was realism there, just not enough, especially the dialogue between the parents. Perhaps it was just their acting that made their interactions so contrived. Maybe if the acting was better the script wouldn't seem so mediocre.
I did like a few of the scares. Scares do not have to be original to be scary, just as long as they are well formulated and executed. There were startles that worked really well. It's hard to be truly original these days. There are more movies being produced than ever before.
What else can I say? I can't remember the score, so I suppose it was neutral, and the cinematography was good. I didn't find anything creepy about Annabelle. I do not find dolls scary. Nor do I think Chucky is scary. Actually, I never saw Chucky because it looked ridiculous. This movie only appealed to me because it was advertised in relation to The Conjuring. They got me.
Overall, a disappointing film with a dumb doll at the antagonist.