fewald139 Reviews

Don Jon (2013)

An important message about addiction

[7/10 · 6 November 2021]

With the ever-prevalent rise and availability of internet porn, more and more men are experiencing erectile dysfunction, relationship dysfunction, and the consequences of addiction far worse and far younger than ever before. Don Jon confronts the realities of porn addiction on the young male mind. While it does not delve into the more severe side effects of porn addiction (like PIED), it does have an important message to convey and does it quite well.

Joseph Gordon Levitt plays Don Jon (and directs), a deplorable man living in New Jersey. Don Jon has the cringeworthy qualities of modern day pick-up artists: he is unchaste, disrespectful of the women he watches and meets in real life, and views sex as a wholly selfish endeavor (expects oral, does not like to give it). His friend group refers to women as numbers (she's an 8), "things" (using words like "it"), or disrespectful nicknames ("ponytail"). When Jon meets Barbara (Scarlett Johansson), he falls in love with what he calls "the most beautiful 'thing' I've ever seen." Barbara expects more of her men: she expects to be wooed, doesn't sleep with him right away, and flips out when she catches him watching porn. Barbara herself is not without her flaws; most of all, she is certainly naive, expecting a selfish dude-bro like Jon to respect monogamy being one mind-boggling assumption she makes.

Don Jon explores more than just porn addiction; it also explores nature v. Nurture. Jon himself claims his addiction is normal for men (obviously believing it to be in his nature), but we see glimpses of his home life (where his father continuously disrespects women in front of his wife) and friend circle (where his friends are incapable of treating women like people rather than objects to be conquered). Don Jon also hints at Barbara being conditioned to want the "perfect" relationship based on her obsession with romance movies, which few men (but in particular someone like Jon) could hope to compete with. When Esther (Julianne Moore) character comes into the focus of the story, the movie's once unlikable protagonist finally begins to see hope. Esther is arguably the most important character of all, helping Jon to realize his porn addiction is the main source of his poor sexual performance, and helping him mature from a porn-sick little boy into a man with some amount of promise.

While Don Jon covers a lot of territory and themes that most movies wouldn't dare touch, it doesn't quite make any daring or definitive conclusions. It also manages to be triggering to the same audience it is trying to reach. I am a former porn addict myself, and there are enough flashes of what appears to be actual porn in the film that could threaten the sobriety of any current or former addict. Be warned! Otherwise, Don Jon is a fairly good drama (I would not call it romantic or a comedy by any stretch of the imagination given its serious and bleak themes) about the addiction that is the least spoken about in modern society, and I recommend it to current addicts or the victims of addicts.

Charlie Says (2018)

A Harrowing Take on Brainwashing

[8/10 · 22 September 2021]

Charlie Says is yet another take on the Manson cult/murders, but it offers a fresh perspective using a unique method of storytelling. Whereas most media about the Manson family focuses on the murders, Charlie Says is told from the perspective of the.women involved in the crimes, particularly Leslie "Lulu" Van Houten (played by Hannah Murray), and its main concern is the build-up to the crime and the aftermath. Director Mary Harron shines a spotlight on life in the cult, Manson's charming but increasingly crazed antics, the ease of brainwashing lost and traumatized youths, and the difficulties in getting these women to see their crimes for the horrific acts they truly were.

The biggest draws of the film for me were some of its actors. Matt Smith plays Charles Manson to perfection, highlighting his charisma, eccentricities, and slow spiral into increasing violence; wisely, the cracks in his charismatic armor start small and widen over time, once his followers are already sucked into his version of the world. He is at once irresistibly charming, intriguing, and yet off-putting and fearsome, showing moments of love, care, and other moments of domestic abuse and overt control. Merritt Wever plays Karlene Faith, a graduate student sent to the Manson women in prison in order to give them an education, and she serves as a mirror for the audience as she struggles to understand the women's continued insistence that they believe Charlie's visions will come to pass despite all evidence and odds. Merritt's disbelief and overwhelming frustration is played wonderfully, as is her struggle with seeing these women as both murderers and lost souls who were taken advantage of by one of America's most infamous cult leaders. Finally, Sosie Bacon plays Patricia "Katie" Krenwinkel, one of the Manson women, and goes through such believable phases of intense emotion, both in and outside of the cult.

Some reviewers have stated this movie seeks to empathize with the killers, and I found that to be untrue. These women are guilty; there is no doubt about that, and the movie does not argue otherwise. In fact, the climax of the film sees the women having to face the fact that they did horrific crimes because they were told to, not because they had to. Karlene even says earlier in the film that by making them understand that, she will essentially doom them to bear that weight the rest of their lives. She is conflicted over this, but the movie never dares suggest that isn't what they deserve. Still, people are not so easily defined, and the movie makes the case that women who are victims in one sense (of brainwashing and a cult) can also be perpetrators in another (burglary and murder), and the two identities can absolutely be connected. It is worth questioning how that connection is made and what we can do as a society to keep the traumatized from becoming abusers themselves.

As for negatives, one or two line readings from the lead actress, Hannah Murray, were stale and could have been delivered better. While I mentioned this movie does not glorify the crimes, it does have two scenes of violence relating to a few of the murders for those who wish to skip true-to-life violence. Like most depictions of the Manson family, a little "too" much attention is given to Sharon Tate versus all the other victims, though that isn't much of a negative because she is in the movie for a total of two minutes or less. She was beautiful and famous, yes, but let's not forget the others who senselessly lost their lives to this cult.

Overall, Charlie Says is a welcome addition to the media about the Manson family, if only because it has new questions to unwrap and perspectives to offer. I almost skipped it because of its mind-boggling lower score, but I'm glad I didn't. It became my favorite Mansion family-related movie to date. I highly suggest you give it a watch if you are interested in the Manson family, true crime, or cult behavior.

Priest (2011)

Stakes on a Train

[7/10 · 2 July 2020]

Priest was recommended to me by my late brother, whose love of vampires was only second to his love of gothic fashion. Inspired by a graphic novel series of the same name which was itself inspired by the fantastic video game Blood (1997), Priest is a glorious mix of fantasy/sci-fi/western themes and environments with just enough corniness to make the average graphic novel fan or gamer settle in with popcorn and have a good time.

Paul Bettany plays Priest, utilizing a wonderful Western-esque American accent and looking fine as Mr. Tall, Blonde, and Broody. He lives in a religiously-themed authoritarian city reminiscent of the walled cities in Attack on Titan, where the only thing darker and stinkier than the gritty streets is the Order he has dedicated his life to, led by the always-talented Christopher Plummer. When word gets to him that a family member is in peril after a vampire attack, he rebels against his Order's wishes and goes on a mission to save her, picking up two companions along the way.

Priest starts out a little slow at first before we get insight into Bettany's character, but once he flees the city the film is a feast for the eyes if you love dark, gritty environments. There are also a few bright, post-apocalyptic vistas here, with giant deserts and canyons, fallen city husks, and giant, worn religious monuments. The action scenes stretch the boundaries of realism at times, but always in a fun "Wait, he did WHAT?" kind of way rather than a distraction. Priest has a variety of weapons, gadgets, and moves at his disposal, though Priestess (played by Maggie Q) has the honor of executing the best kill of the movie in its climax. How they must have cleaned up the scene to keep the movie PG-13!

Speaking of the rating: though low on gore, Priest never felt particularly tame or stunted due to its low rating. The more gore and giblets the merrier, but its absence wasn't missed here, aided in part by the film's overall dark tone. Other reviews lament Priest's lack of gripping story; I never had a problem with its straightforward nature, though I liked the movie enough to wish for further films in the franchise (at this point, unlikely).

Some high points of Priest for me: Karl Urban, who intrigues me in everything he does, brings out his inner sass to play the wonderfully intimidating Black Hat. The vampires (save for Black Hat) are creatures, not sensual humans with funny accents, which is my favorite rendition of the myth that is rarely done in modern media. Brad Dourif (Chucky from Child's Play) has a fun bit role as a sleazy salesman. And lastly...vampires are cool, but what's even better? Trains. That's right, folks, the climax features one determined steampunk-esque locomotive, and that just lit a spark in my little girl heart.

I understand why many don't consider Priest one of their favorite movies, but its low score baffles me. There are things Priest could have done better, sure. There are deeper stories to be told in this unique and interesting universe. But Priest was never offensively bad or even mediocre, and as a fan of both video games and graphic novels, it provided something special for me. To my brother: I'm sorry I didn't watch this before you passed, but you were right about Priest. I really liked it.

A Secret Love (2020)

Beautiful documentary of love, prejudice, and growing old

[8/10 · 29 April 2020]

"You kind of broke the rules your whole life." "Yes, I have," Terry replies. "That's why I'm happy."

A Secret Love is a documentary about the love of two women--Pat and Terry--that started in 1947 and continues to this day, regardless of the limited time mortality gave them. It gives backstory for both these remarkable women, and it also delves into the history of prejudice in regards to LGBT couples (one example being bar raids which were efforts to apprehend possible LGBT people by judging their attire). The documentary is filmed in the late 2010s, covering the end-of-life plans of the couple and giving us their history along the way.

Pat and Terry's story is beautiful, as is the love their most open-minded family members give them as they grow comfortable with coming out completely in an era where it's acceptable. A Secret Love should also be commended for its focus on the heart-breaking reality that all lives must come to an end, and we must adequately prepare for that. The couple's move from their own home to assisted living is documented here, as is the crushing decision to go through all their belongings and decide how to part with them.

A Secret Love isn't a comprehensive documentary on the history of LGBT prejudice in America, but it is a personal and intimate look at two amazing women who had to hide who they truly were most of their lives in order to be happy. At times heart-breaking but always beautiful, A Secret Love at least promises a happy ending to seven decades of dedicated love between these two. If you have any interest in true love stories or LGBT history in America, A Secret Love is worth your time.

The Last Kingdom (2015–2022)

A must-see for historical fiction fans

[10/10 · 29 April 2020]

The Last Kingdom is my personal favorite show of all time. Set during the invasion of the Great Heathen Army and its aftermath, it follows Uhtred, a warrior born as a Saxon but raised as a Dane, as he treads the line between the warring factions while going after his own stolen birthright. It's also based on the Saxon Stories by Bernard Cornwell and follows the storyline quite faithfully by most accounts, though I haven't read the books (I can't get through a Cornwell book without being bored to tears).

Gratefully, The Last Kingdom is far from boring. It treads many years of political strife, the rise and fall of many well-developed characters of all moral persuasions, and showcases many heart-pounding battles with historical relevance. The culture of both Saxons and Danes is highlighted here, as is the era's Christian influence and Norse mythology. Never before have I been so immersed in any show, let alone one with a historical context; every time I binged episodes I found it hard to get into anything else. Aiding this immersion is a tear-inducing soundtrack, characters you learn to love, gorgeous vistas, and a sense that you've been uprooted and transported to a vastly different time.

Let me double down on the "great characters" bit for a minute: the characters here are what differentiates The Last Kingdom from many shows that try and fail to reach its heights. I could be here all day listing characters and why they're enticing, but I'll settle for this: Uhtred is a tragic hero that is also a puzzle, Brida's character arc is as full of rises and falls as she is of powerful warrior moments, Aethelwold is the sneakiest snake that ever sneaked and was a joy to love (or hate), Alfred the Great (played to perfection by David Dawson) is an intriguing yet troubling juxtaposition of kindness and betrayal, and each and every antagonist of the series is interesting, even if they don't last very long (Haesten, Aethelred, Cnut, Skade, Erik, Bloodhair, the list goes on). The Last Kingdom is notorious at killing off its characters, but it develops them so well that with each death the viewer feels either grief or the sense of the end of an intriguing era. This show is simply magic.

My only criticisms of the show are nitpicky. At times it's obvious they use a filter to darken scenes with a gray-blue tint because natural lighting didn't fit the mood. Some fighting scenes were filmed in such a way that it's hard to grasp what's happening (usually during the large-scale battles involving clashing armies). However, this lasts for a few seconds out of the occasional episode, so it's not an issue. Another reviewer mentioned how frustrating it is that Uhtred is constantly treated horribly by the people he tries to aid and ally with, and I agree it can get frustrating. But without conflict, the show wouldn't just be boring, it wouldn't exist at all.

The Last Kingdom is a masterpiece of historical fiction that all lovers of history owe it to themselves to try. Many have likened it to Game of Thrones despite the genre difference because of its nasty game of politics, but the difference here is that The Last Kingdom keeps its quality consistent throughout its seasons. As old characters die off, those who have been rising in the background take center stage until the cycle begins anew. Watching this show feels like a journey because its plotline continues to develop in new and intriguing ways, mercilessly pulling its transformative cast along with it. Netflix, thank you for bringing this show back for a third and fourth season, but Uhtred's story is not over. You are lucky to have such a show under your control; don't drop it.

Amazing show, and the only one I can in good faith give a 10/10. Please support it!

Chambers (2019)

A mysterious story of organ transplants, hippie cults, and possession

[8/10 · 23 April 2020]

Chambers is hard to define. Set in the gorgeous southwest, it follows the story of Sasha, whose heart stops on one fateful night at seventeen. After receiving a heart transplant from a girl her own age (Becky), she begins experiencing odd visions while slowly becoming suspicious of Becky's friends and family and the circumstances surrounding her death. I normally hate YA entertainment because most of it is surface-level, focused on unnecessary romance, and has few real consequences, but I'm happy to say Chambers avoids all of these tropes and feels very adult despite featuring adolescents. I finished the show in 24 hours. Here's why.

The show is categorized as drama, fantasy, and horror. It's low on horror elements, and I'd say it hits the notes of a slow-burn thriller more often than horror. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. For the first two episodes, I really hated Sasha's character, yet the story, side characters, and gorgeous visuals kept me watching. I'm glad for it, because Chambers turned out to be one of the more unique viewing experiences I've had in recent years. While I will not spoil the course of the story, Chambers touches upon many intriguing concepts: cult behavior, narcissism, drug addiction, spiritualism (particularly related to Native American culture), possession, anxiety, and the paranormal. It also respectfully delves into the grief of Becky's friends and family as they deal with Sasha's eerily familiar habits, quotes, and flashbacks that mimic Becky. Over the course of the series, Sasha becomes more likeable. Once an ungrateful teenager, she grows and matures over the episodes, and in the later installments when the climax builds up to its max, her actor (Sivan Alyra Rose) delivers a fantastic emotionally-charged performance I didn't expect from an unknown. In terms of established actors, Uma Thurman not only plays Becky's grieving mother, Nancy, but she also had a hand in the show's production. Because Chambers is such a breath of fresh air, I hope she continues to tend to this other artistic ability.

It should be said that Chambers is absolutely beautiful. Not only does it have stunning cinematography, but it focuses on gorgeous locales, from western vistas to interesting, unique architecture. Even scenes shot inside buildings are interesting because the homes are beautiful. Even if the show made little sense and I hated all the characters, I admit I would have kept watching if only for the visual feast. On the same note, there is plenty of eye candy here. Griffin Powell-Arcand (who plays TJ, Sasha's Native American boyfriend) is gorgeous, as is Elliot (played by Nicholas Galitzine, who I last enjoyed watching in the appropriately-named LGBT film Handsome Devil). Put these young men in more things, please!

While Chambers does tie up many mysteries by its finale, there is much left unfinished and left up to the viewer's imagination. I was all for most of its conclusions until the final two minutes. Let's just say that things turned from the vaguely paranormal to straight-up supernatural, and I'm questioning how that fits with the story and world they've built thus far. After researching it, I've just learned that Netflix officially canceled the show, so there's no hope for a season 2. That's a shame, because this is a quality little show with top production in nearly every aspect. If you're reading this review trying to gauge whether Chambers is worth watching in its incomplete state, I'd say yes. Despite the cliffhangers, I feel season 1 is enough of a satisfying, complete story to enjoy on its own. If anything, the visuals alone are worth the ride. The talent behind this project blows a lot of Netflix's originals out of the water; as a cynical person, that helps me to understand why Chambers got booted. To its creators: there are people out there who appreciate your art. Don't let Chambers lack of success dissuade you; many of its viewers just got to it late.

Black Summer (2019–2021)

Above average zombie show with many hits and misses

[6/10 · 22 April 2020]

Black Summer is a lower budget zombie series produced in part by the Asylum (yes, THAT Asylum). It's filmed with gritty, documentary style cinematography, features mostly unknown actors, and gives its writers true artistic liberties--which sometimes pays off spectacularly, and sometimes risks cohesion and entertainment value.

The series itself is so uneven the viewer risks hurting their neck from the whiplash. Let me explain: the first episode was magnificent. It slowly introduces each character, one by one, in clever set-ups during a neighborhood evacuation. Characters part, unite, and cross paths in various perspectives (some of them to be reunited in the later episodes). One particularly well-done scene shows a hunt-and-chase from a newly turned zombie's perspective. The characters weren't particularly well-developed, but that didn't bother me. The second episode picks up where the first left off, following the survivors as they split into groups forced by their circumstances. The general gist is that they all need to get downtown to the stadium, where there is some kind of quarantine. Episode 3 was review bombed for its subject material, but I actually quite liked it for reasons I gave in my standalone episode review. Eventually, Episode 6 comes by like a slap in the face; the viewer is thrown into a situation with no explanation, many steps ahead of where the previous episode left off. Most viewers were left totally confused and lost (check the reviews). Honestly, I skipped most of the episode after realizing I had no idea what/where/how/when/why, and I was no worse off. That speaks to heavy issues with the show's consistency. After Episode 6, some twists and turns show up in the final two episodes, but their effects on me were dwarfed by my dwindling interest. And that's a shame; with some tightening of the script, this show would be a full-on hit.

Black Summer is more concerned with survival than non-stop action, showcasing its characters struggling just to get down a street, or loot food from a grocery store. It also does something The Walking Dead was notoriously terrible at: it kills its main characters left and right, without mercy or build-up. That lack of character development I mentioned earlier? This is why it doesn't bother me. Most characters aren't here to stay; like a real survival scenario, Black Summer focuses on passing the torch from casualties to newcomers, and even episode regulars are not immune. Black Summer was review-bombed by fans of The Walking Dead, which is part of the reason why I tried it (anything that gets review-bombed is worth a shot, since it's likely controversial and thus juicy). Still, the two series are vastly different, despite both being so-called zombie shows. The zombies in Black Summer are fast and super-powerful, taking multiple gunshots to bring down. Characters in Black Summer are more realistic and human, making mistakes during fight-or-flight situations that most people would make, even if they like to pretend otherwise while sitting safely in armchairs. Even the leading lady of the series bears the scars of an anti-hero, not thinking twice before pulling off a brutal move in the final episode that spelled the demise of my favorite character of the series. In these ways, Black Summer shines. But its flaws are vast and many; in addition to the inconsistency mentioned earlier, information about pivotal details is often left unattainable to the viewer, and if you know anything about guns, the final few episodes will make you grit your teeth to hold back corrections. Given its low budget, sometimes scenes leave much to be desired: a stop-and-go car scene from Episode 2 was particularly egregious, as the van was clearly traveling slowly the whole time while the characters over-reacted to faux abrupt changes in momentum. This could have been filmed to feel more realistic and at higher speeds, but it just...wasn't. There were a few moments like this in the series that cheapened the experience.

Overall, Black Summer is a totally watchable zombie series whose potential overwhelmed the final product. A season 2 has been confirmed. Whether or not I'll watch it remains to be seen; here's to hoping season 2 goes back to the show's gritty and coherent roots.

Black Summer: Summer School (2019) Season 1, Episode 3

Little Lamplight in a zombie apocalypse

[6/10 · 21 April 2020]

All right, I had to review this episode of Black Summer in particular after seeing all the negative reviews. After watching it, I'm not sure what everyone had a problem with. Children are not innocent. Kids are by far the cruelest, most scheming human beings in existence; perhaps most adults don't remember this from their real-life childhoods, so they can't accept it in fiction. That children are the manipulators in this episode was not only a realistic and underutilized concept, but it also reminded me fondly of the Fallout video game universe, where pockets of demented child-led cults thrived without adult supervision in an apocalyptic wasteland.

This episode had its problems: I personally would have loved to see more than a few underage casualties, and that the adult characters didn't kill their children captors irked me, particularly because this episode sees the death of more than one main character at their hands and it would have been more than justified. Spears shone as a man of reason and logic in this episode, so I look forward to seeing how he handles future hurdles (if he lives long enough to see them).

Overall, Black Summer impressed me by tackling this controversial subject; it's just a shame its characters didn't have the balls to defend themselves against so-called "innocents."

The Haunting of Hill House (2018)

The true horror is the human psyche

[9/10 · 20 April 2020]

The Haunting of Hill House is one of the highest rated horror series on Netflix, and after finishing the series, it's easy for me to see why. The Haunting of Hill House has stellar performances, talented cinematography, and it elicits legitimate feelings of terror and grief in even the coldest viewer.

Buckle in for the first few episodes: the series jumps back and forth in time, showing the house and the build-up to one particularly horrific night where the main characters are children in one timeline, then the children as adults dealing with unsettled issues stemming from the house and the events that transpired there. One is never sure where the story is headed here: there are ghosts, spotty memories, alternative viewpoints for every event, and enough mental illness sprinkled throughout its characters to continuously keep the viewer guessing as to the true horror. There are a few jump scares throughout the series, which is something I hate because it's such a cheap, manipulative trick. To be fair, the series does feature the best jump scare I've ever seen (in episode 8); I knew it was coming from reading a review spoiler and still was startled. Otherwise, The Haunting of Hill House avoids most horror mistakes and builds undeniable tension: by utilizing the back-and-forth timeline, we are introduced to tragic concepts that we must see play out in later episodes, including deaths, confrontations, and even that last tragic night at the house. To say I waited with thick apprehension in my chest for things to play out is an understatement.

Rarely do I watch horror and get legitimate chills, but the last five minutes of Episode 5 had me shaking and brought tears to my eyes. Never have I seen such a terror-inducing portrayal of grief and the inevitability of one's death put to film, and the fact it was wrapped up in a twist that had built for half the series made the payoff even better. I'd venture to say it's the best episode of any show I've ever seen; its contained story is absolutely beautiful and heartbreaking. The series as a whole has many high points, but this episode is its highest.

Much has been said about the series finale; while the scares, twists, and turns have calmed down by the final episode, I have to disagree with the consensus and say I thought the finale wrapped up the series well. It fit. It may not have been the most entertaining of the series, and its reveals tugged down the horrific highlights of previous episodes just a bit when we get to experience the truth behind every character's ails. Having exposition dumped through dialogue (particularly from the unlikely characters who do so) could have been handled better. Still, all in all, The Haunting of Hill House is an outstanding achievement in horror. If you love horror, particularly of the psychological kind, you owe it to yourself to watch this. Also, read up on the series after you watch it to unveil theories and deeper meanings of its themes and characters (particularly its connections to the five stages of grief, which can transform one's viewing).

The Car: Road to Revenge (2019)

Sassy gothic villains and cybernetics can't save this mess

[3/10 · 17 April 2020]

Despite The Car: Road to Revenge's low review score, I wanted to give it a try since I love so-bad-they're-good movies, gore (mentioned in other reviews), and hot cars. The Car showed potential at first; everything's clearly low budget, and one particularly bad CGI moment early on made me cringe, and I love cringing. Unfortunately, the film ended up being too boring and lackluster to recommend even to those who like bad movies.

Here's the story in a nutshell: a district attorney named Caddock is murdered by some criminals, becomes one with his car after death, and hunts down his killers in a rampage of revenge. Caddock's character is underdeveloped (as proof, the IMDB summary doesn't even use his name, just his DA title), but what we do know about him before he dies and is rebirthed as a vengeful car is that he's a crappy human being and potential domestic abuser. I love anti-heroes, but there was no rhyme or reason for it here that I could really get behind. Honestly, I don't understand why the director bothered with such a complicated backstory. I would've enjoyed just a random possessed homicidal car more than this get-up (which is apparently the story behind the 1977 original, which is reviewed far better).

The murderous car itself (a heavily modified Chrysler 300, which is immediately obvious to all us car gals out there) is attractive and intimidating. Other than the car, only one other character intrigued me: a nameless gothic villain with a top hat played by Keith-Lee Castle who has as much sass as eye makeup and a robotic-enhanced pointer finger that stabs people. This character was eccentric and interesting, but the filmmakers don't give him the time he deserves (as evidenced by the fact that the movie's credited cast does NOT include either the character's name or this actor). This is mind-boggling, and once this character kicked the bucket halfway through the film, I called it quits. He was the only enjoyable aspect of it other than the car, and the car already had plenty of screen-time.

A few short tidbits: the gore in this isn't particularly impressive. There are no giblets or prolonged torture scenes; when people die you just tend to see a splash of CGI blood. As a gorehound, I was immensely disappointed. The whole film has this cheap, low-lighted, bluish-tint that ended up fatiguing my eyes after a few scenes. If you're looking for a movie that's actually good and has cybernetically-enhanced people fighting it out in a sci-fi setting, I recommend Upgrade (2018). The Car: Road to Revenge attempts this and fails, and in many ways I see how they attempted to imitate Upgrade.

I don't recommend this, even for those of us who like bad movies. All its potentially enjoyable aspects are cut too short to matter. On the plus side, now I know about the original movie from 1977, so I've added that to my watchlist.

Terrifier (2016)

Copious gore and dark humor make this grindhouse B-movie worth the watch

[7/10 · 16 April 2020]

To pull off many scenes in Terrifier, most of the people involved in its making have to fall on the sadist spectrum--which is great news for us gorehounds. Filmed with a budget of just $100,000, Terrifier is surprisingly impressive and entertaining.

There isn't a complicated story here. Terrifier doesn't need one. The film basically follows a day-in-the-life of the homicidal mischief-maker, Art the Clown, as he causes shenanigans that end in a laudable kill count. If you like splatter films, you'll love this. As expected on a budget like this, sometimes things fall short; the acting, while competent and better than most films of this caliber, leaves much to be desired when people are screaming (I never believed these people were actually in danger or pain). Sometimes you can tell the practical effects are special effects, if only because bony body parts "squish" a little too much or open cavities have an absence of chunky viscera. The film never scared me, and the gore never felt overly realistic, but it's amazing that Terrifier has better kills than the vast majority of modern horror films with a fraction of their budgets. The third on-screen kill of the movie is quite possibly the most gruesome and dementedly creative I've ever seen put to film. Kudos!

Terrifier's shining star is Art the Clown, played by David Howard Thornton, an ex-mime in real life who is having so much fun in the role. I need more of this character! Art combines his sadistically brutal murder methods with dark humor by mocking victims with dances, creepy-cheesy grins, and child-like little waves that had me grinning and chuckling out loud quite a few times. He is quite the little stinker, and I found myself rooting for him just to see more.

I hope to see Art the Clown return in future films. Until then, Terrifier entertained me with its unique mix of copious gore and dark humor more than other B-movies of its type have, and I recommend it to anyone with the stomach for splatter and gorno films. Special shout-out must go to James A. Janisse from the Dead Meat YouTube channel, whose video on Terrifier talking about its kills got me to put this on my watchlist.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967)

A time capsule into 1960s race relations that holds up surprisingly well

[8/10 · 13 April 2020]

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner deals with an issue that's a non-issue today: a black man, John, falls in love with a white woman, Joey, and the two wish to be married. Most of the film deals with the emotional struggle and aftermath of this news being delivered to both sets of parents. Set in its time of racial tensions and civil rights strife, such a plot becomes compelling.

I was worried going into this film that it would be far too dated to take seriously. For reference, I'm 31 and not the biggest fan of classic movies. There are some cases where even the most progressive characters sound dated (like when John talks about how marriage obviously means children, like parenthood isn't a choice). But this is a sign of its time. The film demonstrates its time period well, allowing insight into racial tensions in the '60s even among the most open-minded of folk. Furthermore, the film remains highly relevant in modern standards. In an intense rant that made me a fan of Sidney Poitier as an actor, John tells his father that children don't owe their parents anything, even explanations for their choices, while parents owe their children everything for bringing them into this world. And he also expresses frustration over the dated mentality of his father's generation and speaks the truth that some biased judgments only die with the people who hold them. Both these arguments struck a chord with me even now in 2020 and made the movie feel far ahead of its time despite its main plot.

Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is full of enjoyable moments. Whether it's watching Katharine Hepburn tell off a busybody with the confidence of a madwoman, enjoying the bickering and banter between the film's two main couples (Joey and John, and Joey's parents, Matt and Christina), or laughing at the absurd spontaneous dancing scene between two rockin' teens. The faux backgrounds were rarely noticeable because the content in the film was so engrossing. The dated ways of speaking never irk, both because it's natural for the time and the actors delivering lines are all great (particularly Poitier and Hepburn, though Spencer Tracy is also fantastic). Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is an important piece of cinematic history that now serves as an enjoyable blast from the past that still has plenty to say.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

Interesting new spin on Freddy can't save this boring mess

[4/10 · 9 April 2020]

After recently checking out the 2009 remake of Friday the 13th (which actually had a few decent kills), I decided to give this a go on Netflix. I'm not a long-term fan of slashers, though I'm an avid fan of the YouTube channel Dead Meat, whose Kill Count videos on this series were my favorites aside from the Final Destination series. A Nightmare on Elm Street has some creative kills and an interesting backstory for its joke-spewing villain--at least, it used to.

I won't get into specifics for the plot. It loosely follows the original, but I'm here for the kills. Freddy Krueger's look here is far more accurate to burn victims than the original look, which I give them kudos for. They've changed the character here--he now touches children in addition to killing them. A lot of fans hated this change, but I quite liked it. In a remake that never scared or even remotely intrigued me, this added a creep factor that was sorely needed. However, the repercussions for this trauma on his victims is never explored psychologically, which would have been interesting.

Let's talk about the kills. Blah. Some heavy references to classic kills of the franchise are redone poorly with excessive CGI (Freddy coming through the wall is the most egregious example, before the laughable CGI for the final moments of the film). Other kills, while at first shocking, run low on creativity. Freddy doesn't toy with his victims much here, nor does he use the dream world in new and interesting ways. This is a horror film about a villain who kills his victims while they dream...it should be full of creative kills.

I found this film to be more of a waste of time than offensive. Many times I switched tabs from Netflix to check my email or do other things because the movie didn't hold my attention. The reasons I didn't rate it lower were twofold: one, you can tell there was some semblance of caring in the making of the film, given its level of detail to Freddy's physical appearance, its homages to previous films, and its cast of mostly competent actors. Two, there were a surprising number of characters I learned to care about here. In a genre that loves to try to make you care about loathsome characters, this was appreciated. (Special shout-outs go to Kris and Quentin in particular, as Rooney Mara's Nancy was well-acted but a drag.)

The Rover (2014)

Beautifully bleak in the outback

[8/10 · 30 March 2020]

Set in a near-future post-apocalyptic Australia, The Rover follows Eric, a gruff anti-hero played by Guy Pierce (in fact, the role was written with Pierce in mind). When Eric's car is stolen by a trio of opportunists in trouble, he goes on a persistent rampage to get it back, picking up the injured and left behind brother of one of his targets (Rey, played by Robert Pattinson). The two unlikely companions slowly come to terms with each other and even bond as they hunt down the car and those in possession of it, leaving chaos and blood in their path.

The Rover has been on my watchlist for a while, but I can't remember why I added it. Possibly because I love bleak post-apocalyptic films, or possibly because Robert Pattinson is becoming one of my favorite actors working today. Regardless, I wasn't disappointed in either sense. Pattinson plays a demanding role here of a young man with mental deficiencies, and he absolutely shines. (Similarly, he worked with this same director on a more recent film, Netflix-exclusive The King, where he played a surprisingly intimidating antagonist.) Of course, Pierce is also fantastic in his own role, and the two characters slowly make sense with one another as the movie progresses.

The Rover is gritty, bleak, but also believable the entire way through. The locals look like real locals, violence is abrupt, graphic, and not obsessed over. Altercations come and go with little regard, innocents are slaughtered, teases of bonding with fellow survivors are ripped away to reveal the brutal reality of selfish survival. Someone's review mentioned Pierce's character is unlikable, but I disagree. In such a wasteland, I could easily see myself becoming like him to survive. Compassion will get you killed. In that sense, I never had trouble following Eric or his actions or reasoning the whole way through. The ending is as bleak as the rest of it, making this film one heckuva package that is just my cup of tea. The only thing that grated on me was the repetition of dialogue. Because characters constantly distrust others they meet on their journey, there are a lot of questions, dodging of answers, repeated questions, and more dodging. This started to get a little repetitive, but it's realistic considering the situations and our straight to-the-point protagonist who repeats questions with increasing force until he gets his answers.

Overall, I really enjoyed The Rover. The performances are fantastic, the environment is gorgeous and bleak, and it's really a wonderful time to spend in a wasteland. Highly recommended.

Paid in Full (2002)

A cautionary tale of drugs, money, and murder

[8/10 · 27 March 2020]

Paid in Full is the true story of three drug dealers in '80s Harlem, and the screenplay is written by the real-life protagonist. It follows the rise and fall of Ace, a young man who does honest work for a living before getting caught up in the drug trade. The film does a great job at showing how appealing this criminal lifestyle would be to impressionable young men struggling to live in poverty. At first, the flashy aspects of the lifestyle are highlighted: brand new cars, being a local celebrity, wads of cash. Once Ace gets himself directly involved, however, the unfortunately brutal consequences to such a careless line of work quickly catch up to him.

Paid in Full wisely avoids glorifying the crimes within; in fact, many of the real crimes claimed more victims than those shown in the movie, and only one crime is changed for effect (the revenge murder of a character near the end). Ace is the perfect protagonist; he plays the game but understands its danger, choosing not to flaunt his wealth or status and avoiding doing drugs himself. Still, one is left to ask: why? Why get involved in such a trade that you know puts your entire community in danger? This is also the purpose of the writer, who has written one heckuva cautionary tale. As he says late in the film of the game, "It's all fake." The money, new clothes, cars, and hordes of women mean nothing when so many lives are at stake. The characters here are real, with understandable motivations, particularly Ace and Mitch, played by the always-fantastic Mekhi Phifer. My only complaint of the movie was that it was at times hard to understand, given all the street lingo; yet, because this was to be expected, I can't fault the movie for its realism.

This movie was a surprisingly good crime drama that has a lot to say. Rather than glorify drugs and the lifestyle involved, it serves as a dire warning.

Mad World (2016)

A riveting and brutally honest look at severe mental illness

[9/10 · 27 March 2020]

Whilst perusing Netflix to find an Asian drama, Mad World popped up in my recommendations. Considering mental illness is still rather hush-hush in the east, I didn't have high hopes that Mad World would cover the topic with subtly and honesty. Color me surprised; after spending the last hour and 41 minutes with my eyes glued to the screen, I realized that not only is this one of the best portrayals of mental illness (Bipolar Disorder, specifically) I've ever seen put to film, but Mad World now competes for the best movie I've watched yet this year. How this film isn't more well-known and awarded flabbergasts me.

Mad World follows the broken perspective of Tung, a man suffering from Bipolar Disorder in Hong Kong who is released from a mental institution and forced to integrate once more into society and the shattered life he's left behind. We aren't clued in to all the details of Tung's life and unhappiness right away; we know he's depressed, missing his fiancee, and that he has a strained relationship with the father he comes to live with. Further details are lovingly sprinkled throughout the film in heart-wrenching flashbacks with perfect timing; never was I confused about the order of events or the impact they had on Tung's psyche. I come from a family plagued with mental illness; Bipolar Disorder affected both my mother and brother, and contributed to the far too early demise of my brother just last month. The manic/depressive phases of this horrific illness are both laid out here in all their painful, raw glory; the highs are sky-high, and the lows are in the pits of depressive purgatory. It isn't just Tung who suffers; his mother clearly has mental difficulties as well, and the other brother and father have their own realistic ways of dealing with it.

The performances here are all stellar. Tung's blank stares of utter hopelessness perfectly mimic those I have seen (and given) time and again when dealing with similar illnesses in my own life. Tung's father's helplessness comes through in many scenes, and his well-meaning but misguided attempts to soothe his adult son are all too realistic to what many of us suffering from depression hear: "Why can't you just be normal?" and "Why are you like this?" and "Can't you try to be cheerful?" The judgements of others play a large role here as well: Tung's fiancee accidentally makes a tense situation worse in a pivotal scene, while leering bystanders see mental illness as a spectacle to jeer.

Mad World is not a "fun" movie to watch, nor is it heartfelt in the way that most would hope, with everything being fixed at the end and tied up nicely with a neat little bow. Parts of it angered me. Depressed me. Saddened me. But most of all, as someone who has dealt with this personally, it made me feel like I am not alone. Mad World does not sugarcoat the ugly parts of mental illness, whether they are born out of the ill or those who try to support them. It is for this reason that I found it an absolute and ironic breath of fresh air, for it is depressingly beautiful in its candor.

Some last minute thoughts: the camerawork was particularly interesting here, aiding the film's dreary atmosphere. For one example, it utilized long shots of the small apartment to make you confront its claustrophobic and cramped nature. The music was perfect: it fit the mood and was used sparingly. The movie felt a bit longer than its runtime, but since every minute was engrossing, I can't fault it for that. Lastly, the characters don't grow much--if at all--during the movie. While this normally would be a flaw, it makes sense for a film about mental illness. Sometimes those affected cannot strive for higher goals--sometimes they just need to learn how to *deal* to make it through the day and get to tomorrow alive. Mad World isn't a film about a man's journey to overcome his mental illness; it's more of a day-in-the-life, where we experience what he goes through for a short time and can only hope for the best for him by the time the credits roll.

Mad World is a beautiful film that I recommend to anyone with mental illness, who knows someone with mental illness, or is open-minded enough to try to understand what living with it is like. Make sure you're in the mood to watch it, however, as it's so effective at what it does it might make you feel worse.

My Suicide (2009)

A dark and surreal experience that treads the line of comedy and tragedy

[9/10 · 28 January 2020]

Thank you, Netflix, for introducing me to this little gem. Archie's Final Project (or, listed on Netflix by its original title, "My Suicide") caught my eye due to its themes of teen suicide and school controversies; I was the subject of a similar school controversy myself at 12-years-old that resulted in my expulsion and attempted suicide before such things were really discussed and explored in depth. Thus, anything that features these important themes attracts me like a fly to light.

Gabriel Sunday plays Archie Williams, a 17-year-old media geek who announces to his media class that his final project will be to film his suicide. He also seems to believe his entire life is a movie--as another review said, this is another interesting take on the Truman Show delusion that serves its own twists and turns. Thus begins one of the most unique and interesting movies I've ever seen. My Suicide is filmed almost like a documentary, as if we are, in fact, watching Archie's final project after his planned suicide. Interwoven between scenes of the aftermath of Archie's suicide film announcement are montages of colorful teenage visual ramblings, further character development of Archie and his troubled crush Sierra, and bursts of dark comedy. Sunday is absolutely mesmerizing to watch as Archie; he was just 19 when he played the role, and he plays it so believably. Undeniably charming, troubled, awkward, odd, yet fantastically skilled at playing both sides of the line between comedy and tragedy, Sunday is nothing short of amazing, and his few film/TV credits since this are baffling to me. Why in the world isn't this man in more stuff?

A total surprise to me was Sierra's inclusion in the story (played by Brooke Nevin). At first, I thought she would distract the film from its suicidal/teen angst themes and instead focus it on teenage romance. While there is an undeniable romantic connection between Archie and Sierra, it is realistically grounded in tragedy, a skewed immature teen vision of love (shown perfectly in a surprisingly intimate mutual cutting scene), and a shared troubled mental state. My Suicide is at times hard to watch because you are watching confused teens make bad decisions or simply refuse to take important decisions seriously with lax attitudes at the risk of fatal consequences; yet, because of that, it is utterly realistic and devastating. This movie made me both laugh out loud and dread the eventual ending as I feared these characters would make the ultimate decision. Without spoilers, I can say that at least one teenager in the movie commits suicide; while the act itself isn't shown, the aftermath is (including the body) and it's soul-wrenching. It's a depressingly beautiful scene that wallows in its finality and shocking morbidity; as someone who has attempted suicide, I appreciated the way this scene was handled.

My Suicide appears to have been quite the indie darling upon its release in 2009, evidenced by its many awards at multiple film festivals. It deserves them all, though they clearly didn't give the film the exposure it truly deserves. At times delightfully comedic and at other times oppressively tragic, My Suicide starts out like a teenager's school project and seems to mature along with its protagonist as the seconds go by and the darker themes crawl over each scene like an oppressive fog. Every second of its journey is interesting and hit me close to the heart.

Duck Butter (2018)

It's like watching children try to play house

[4/10 · 21 January 2020]

Duck Butter intrigued me because it delved into LGBT romance and starred an actress I greatly admire, Laia Costa (I've watched her in both English and Spanish movies and she's always great). The concept is simple: Naima (played by Alia Shawkat, an actress I was unfamiliar with before this role) and Sergio (Costa) decide on a whim to spend 24 hours straight with each other soon after they meet and become intimate based on initial attraction. Sex, intimate conversations, and shenanigans ensue.

My biggest problem with Duck Butter is that it features two of the most immature, emotionally-stunted characters I've ever seen in a movie like this. The movie doesn't fully explore why these two women are so outlandishly emotionally stupid save for some scant background details about poor parental relationships, nor does it offer any solution by way of character growth or learning from past mistakes, save for one consequence Naima suffers in her career for acting unprofessional (the email scene and its conclusion). Naima is immediately unlikable; she is introduced first, immediately acts pretentious at her job, then preaches about politics to some clearly unimpressed ladies at a gay bar a scene or two later. While her character does become a little more tolerable as the movie progresses, by contrast Sergio starts out charming and energetic and devolves into an even bigger mess by the movie's conclusion. At their worst, Naima is groan-worthy and Sergio teeters on the edge of psychotic; at their best, these characters are groaning their way through some entry-level sex scenes in which we feel nothing, for the mutual attraction between them is never explained, felt, or fully understood.

That's not to say these actresses did a bad job; both Costa and Shawkat do the best with the material they're given, but their characters are simply so unlikable and dull that the performances aren't particularly memorable. This is coming from someone who has seen Costa's other angst-filled, young love drama Newness, which is a movie whose characters are at times immature, but at least that film had something to say. Duck Butter dwells in the infantilism of its leads without coming to any conclusions or even appropriately exploring the nuances of such disturbed characters to make them interesting enough for the screen.

As a last note, much has been said about the movie's odd obsession with scatological references and attempts at humor. I'm someone who can appreciate good juvenile humor, but the references here just seemed odd and out of place. Overall, the only good thing I took out of Duck Butter is that while I still like Laia Costa, I'll also keep on the lookout for Alia Shawkat. She's uniquely beautiful and did her best with the material here, and I hope to see her in new (and better) films.

1917 (2019)

Breath-taking and intimate slice of World War I

[10/10 · 19 January 2020]

From the first trailer, 1917 mesmerized me in a way few movies have. My husband and I waited with almost comical anticipation to see this in the theater; both of us are lovers of history and find World War I to be terribly undervalued in modern media. After having just come back from the theater, I am left shaken and utterly moved by the experience.

1917 follows two British soldiers who must deliver a message by crossing perilous ground to save not only one of their brothers, but 1600 men walking into a trap while under the impression the war is nearly won. Never before have I seen a war movie so effectively grounded and clinging to the perspective of the leads; this first-person perspective delivers a brutal raw, gritty, personal feel that I wish more movies would emulate. This intimate perspective is aided by continuous shot film-making; while the movie is not, indeed, one shot, the majority of it certainly feels so, keeping us gripping on to the task at hand with merciless abandon as if the viewer is the one delivering the message. The majestic yet dark tone of war is consistent, gripping, and enthralling. Often we are taken through the post-apocalyptic feel of a ruined battlefield; the camera passes over masterfully placed corpses of both man and beast without much thought to linger, giving the lives lost just as much attention as the shells, shots, and foes that snuffed them out. It is utterly devastating and depressingly gorgeous, and that's not even touching upon the battlefield scenes at night, where the moving lights of flares and fire kiss the wasteland of mud and stone with such grace I was brought to tears.

As someone who rarely cries even when a person close to me has passed, I am somewhat embarrassed to say 1917 brought me to tears three times, unlike any movie which came before it. It's not an intentionally heartstrings-tugging movie; however, as a lover of history, this absolute love letter of a film filled me with such wonderment I was left feeling a sense of awe and overwhelming sympathy for the men who were once asked to do unspeakable crimes and heroic actions for their fellow men. The two leads here are interesting and likable, though they are just developed enough so that it feels like they could be anyone's child, lover, brother, or father. In this way, 1917 manages to be both deeply intimate and all-encompassing, succeeding at an immensely difficult task that few other war movies--if any--have accomplished before it.

Rarely have I watched a movie that has affected me to this extent. I will be thinking about 1917 and its lasting impact for years to come.

The Most Hated Woman in America (2017)

Fantastic true crime infused biopic

[8/10 · 4 January 2020]

The Most Hated Woman in America follows the life of Madalyn Murray O'Hair (played by Melissa Leo), an American activist most well-known for founding American Atheists and fighting to uphold the Constitution (particularly when it came to religious freedom and freedom from religion by removing mandatory prayer from public schools for one example). I nearly passed on watching this given its lower score, but I'm glad I watched it anyway. It ended up being one of the most entertaining films I've seen in a while.

Though this is a biopic that follows a story that ultimately ends in tragedy, it is short in length (at just 1 hour 31 minutes) and light in overall tone. Madalyn is an absolute spitfire, and Leo does a phenomenal job playing her. Her snarky and spunky nature leads to a surprising amount of sarcastic and dark comic moments that were an absolute joy just to experience; this is a woman I would have loved to have spent time with. The movie follows her life from a young mother to the aforementioned tragedy (I won't give spoilers here in case you are unfamiliar with the outcome), and every minute of it is entertaining and full of a variety of interesting characters with varied viewpoints who either cling together or clash. My main criticism of the film comes from the fact that it's so fantastic, because it does itself a great disservice: it's too short. Like another review said, the film introduces us to these interesting historical battles of religious freedom and these wonderful true life characters, but it never delves deep enough to fully explore them. What it DOES show is fantastic, but this story easily calls for another 30-45 minutes of run-time. A LOT happens in the film, most of it merely mentioned: marriages, divorces, family drama, the rise of American Atheists and its inner turmoils, charity work, legal battles, a kidnapping and true crime case followed closely by a reporter. This movie could have been two plus hours long and it wouldn't have bored me. Instead, they played it safe, cut it short, and it's such a shame. All the pieces for this movie fit perfectly: the actors all do great jobs (and I was surprised by seeing some of the actors I didn't know were in this: Adam Scott, Vincent Kartheiser, Josh Lucas), the setting immerses you in the time period, and the true-life story is fascinating. It's like getting a fabulous stew in a tiny salsa bowl. It's delicious, but there's so little of it.

Nonetheless, I still gave this movie an 8/10 because I enjoyed every second of it, and I would've rated it higher had it gone into more depth. This is a story that deserves a longer movie, but the one we got is wonderful in its own right. This is one of those true stories that you'll want to read up on afterwards if you're the least bit interested in Constitutional rights, the history of religious freedom in America, or true crime and what motivates people to do heinous deeds. Highly recommended.

A Single Man (2009)

Beautiful, heart-breaking story of love, loss, and the finiteness of life

[9/10 · 18 December 2019]

Set in 1960s LA, A Single Man has multiple avenues to explore when dealing with the rise and fall (through death) of a loving m/m relationship. Colin Firth plays George, a lonely college professor who struggles to deal with the loss of his long-time partner, Jim (played by the charming and lovable Matthew Goode). This death comes as a shock in many ways--for not only was Jim far younger and more optimistic than George on the outlook of life and happiness, but the aftermath is brutal: George cannot even attend Jim's funeral, for example, because it is reserved for family. The reality of LGBT relationships in this era is absolutely heart-breaking, and A Single Man manages to show this heavy emotion without beating the viewer over the head with moral absolutes.

George essentially decides to commit suicide (not a spoiler, it is clear from the first few minutes of the film's run-time). The film then follows him through what he plans to be the last day of his life, unraveling the people, situations, and places in his life like ribbons of detail on a wonderfully packaged gift. Some people stick out more than most: Julianne Moore plays Charley, one of George's oldest friends, and she is a treat while on the screen. And the heart-wrenchingly gorgeous Nicholas Hoult plays Kenny, a student of George's who sees through his professor's morose demeanor and reaches out to connect with a fellow lonely person. The events and people who affect George during these pivotal hours guide his final outlook on love and life. Without spoilers, let me just say that the ending to this film was beautiful, poetic, and nearly brought me to tears. It was fitting considering the somber outlook on life that both George and the film has, even if moments of brightness shine through.

I watch as many m/m romance movies as I can, which might be why Netflix recommended A Single Man to me. But make no mistake: this is not a romance film. It's a study of the human condition, of love, of terrible loss, and of trying to come to terms with tragedies and moving on. There are no sex scenes in the movie, though there is some non-sexual male nudity and tastefully done slow takes on parts of men (like lips, eyes, etc.) as George struggles with his loneliness. A Single Man is very artistic at times, lingering on some shots to hammer in a mood, but it never overstays its welcome.

If you like films about the human condition that delve into realistic somber territory, A Single Man has a lot to say. Anyone who has ever loved, lost, or even lived life to its fullest can appreciate its beautiful tale. I enjoyed this film even more than I expected to. If A Single Man is a testament to Tom Ford's directorial skill, I hope to see far more films coming from him in the future.

Last Knights (2015)

Interesting first act, yawn-worthy second act, and fantastic third act

[7/10 · 12 December 2019]

If this whole movie were as fine as its third act, I would have given it another star or two and added it to my (very small) DVD collection.

Last Knights is a very different take on the story of the 47 Ronin. The director Kazuaki Kiriya's entire roster of films has been on my radar for quite some time, but due to limited availability this is the first one I've watched. Last Knights has the gritty, fantastical feel of a dark fantasy movie; it has no magic, but its diverse cast and vague politics give it an otherworldly feel that I greatly enjoyed. Clive Owen plays Raiden, a retainer to Bartok (Morgan Freeman). After Bartok is killed and dishonored, Raiden and his men form a plan to avenge their former master despite very real and sometimes fatal consequences.

As stated in the title of this review, the first act is interesting in its own right. We are introduced to the characters and the political game they play that sets up for the entire movie. It's not complicated and easily accessible. The second act (after Bartok's demise) slows the movie to a crawl, made worse by the fact that there are very few action scenes in the entire movie (only two worthy to really be called scenes at all, and the only one of length is saved for the third act). Without delving into spoilers, I can say that Raiden's darker character arc here dragged on for me. He became truly unlikable, and whether or not you can guess the "twist" leading into the third act, it was still a drag. Nevertheless, we are shown more insight into how things have progressed for both sides of this political divide.

My eyes were glued to the screen for the entire third act. We are treated to a wonderfully long action-oriented build-up as Raiden's men infiltrate and fight their way through a fortress utilizing stealth and finesse. Some recognizable characters die heroically here, but as wonderfully as these death scenes are handled, they would have made me far more emotional had the second act delved more into character development for these men (rather than focusing on Raiden). Other than that criticism, I can totally see myself re-watching the third act for this entire sequence alone; if you like watching takeovers, sieges, or infiltration missions in general like I do, Last Knights is not a movie to miss.

All the actors do a fine job here. Payman Maadi sounds a little stilted as the Emperor, but his accent usually sounds stiff (I recently saw him in the film Camp X-Ray and I think this is just the way he talks), and at least he ain't bad to look at. Speaking of which, there are a surprising number of actors here who I'll be looking out for based on eye candy alone (Ihara Tsuyoshi, Michael Lombardi, Noah Silver, among some others). Aksel Hennie plays the sneaky snake Geza Mott, who is a delight to watch (and hate). There are two gorgeous decapitations to look out for, neither of which I saw coming (and neither did they, ha). It's rare that a movie portrays mutilations with such swift beauty, but this one does it twice. Finally, the winter vistas and gritty atmospheres on display here just sucked me right into this world and didn't let up until the credits rolled. Bravo.

Overall, Last Knights has flaws that some won't get past, but that its critic Metascore is so low reinforces my distrust of critic reviews. It may not be the most original story put to film, and viewers may disagree with the creative changes made to a well-loved story. Yet, I enjoyed it immensely and will put some of its finest clips on my favorites list on YouTube to watch repeatedly. Lovers of dark fantasy and/or dark historical films: don't miss this.

Horns (2013)

Delightfully weird, dark, and original

[9/10 · 20 November 2019]

Horns is a crime thriller with a fantasy twist that I thought would be a simple time-waster and ended up being one of the few movies I couldn't look away from. Daniel Radcliffe plays Ignatius Perrish (yes, really), a man ostracized by his friends, family, and hometown because they suspect he killed his girlfriend. His regrets, doubts, and inner anger manifest into a set of horns that offer him some unique ways of solving the crime. Some people can see the horns, others can't, and others don't care as they spout all their most macabre or depraved inner demons at him, oftentimes without being asked. This leads to some fantastic dark comedic moments and thoughtful commentary on what those we love the most truly think of us if they're being completely honest.

The dark comedy in Horns does not undermine that it is a crime thriller at its core, complete with nostalgic coming-of-age flashbacks that provide more background into Ignatius, his deceased girlfriend Merrin, and their circle of childhood friends. How this group develops and degrades is fascinating to witness, particularly since there is a foreboding sense that the killer is someone close. At times I also suspected Ignatius himself, for he admits to black-outs and moments of insanity in the film. This focus on the nostalgic elements of childhood and growing up with people who will become adults you barely know or still don't understand brings a sad undercurrent to an already dark movie. There are no morally righteous characters here (save for Merrin, arguably), so you may suspect one or another at random times throughout the movie; yet, because they are so real and meaningful to Ignatius, I found myself hoping every suspicion wasn't true. The dark tone of the movie remains until seconds before the credits; there is no true happy ending, and some characters meet undeserved graphic demises. I applaud this, for having an ending where all characters happily skip off into the sunset would have felt unearned and out of place.

Daniel Radcliffe does a phenomenal job here; his pain, anger, and desperation for answers are just as well-acted as his American accent. The other actors are great considering I knew none of them before this (save for Heather Graham, who has a small role). The atmosphere is dark without seeming forced; while some movies use tints or unrealistically dark sets to set a tone, it is done here with emotional consistency and by focusing on Washington's forested beauty while overcast. The soundtrack has some surprisingly good tunes ("Where Is My Mind" by Pixies, anyone?). At many points it is legitimately sad or upsetting when it comes to the crime, its build-up, and its consequences. There are some delightfully weird scenes that are a joy to just experience; including the dark comedic scenes early on, the "Terry faces his demons" scene for its weirdness, and the fantastically gory climax of an ending. The fantasy elements are based in Christian mythology (focus on demons, blessings, church, and the Christian cross), but never once is it preachy and it's arguably used in a metaphorical sense. Horns is one of those rare films that is arty without crossing the line into pretentiousness; I will most certainly be looking up theories for this movie after posting this review, but as I sit here now pondering the film I'm not frustrated by its ambiguity, just curious and thirsty for more.

Horns is based on a novel written by Joe Hill (Stephen King's son). While I've never cared for King's work, I read Hill's entire Locke & Key graphic novel series and enjoyed it quite a bit, though I found it a bit derivative of his father's favorite cliches. Yet, Horns is so unique and interesting in its approach that even though it hits many of the same plot points as other crime thrillers, it feels like I've never watched anything like this before. In a way, I'm interested in the novel after watching the movie, but at 464 pages it's convincing me to stick with the movie. It's a good thing the film's fantastic.

Takers (2010)

Enjoyable, if generic, action flick featuring a diverse cast

[7/10 · 15 November 2019]

Takers looked like a generic action movie, but I'm a simple woman. I see a line-up of good-lookin' dudes and say, "Plot? Why?" Takers has an impressively diverse cast: Matt Dillon (love), Chris Wife-beater Brown (ugh), Hayden Christensen (yum--don't judge me), Hayden Christensen's epic hat, Michael Ealy (beautiful), Paul Walker (meh), Idris Elba (a little too classy for me), and T.I. (handsome if you conveniently forget his recent comments involving his real-life daughter). All these men (save for Dillon) are a group of successful bank robbers looking to pull off a multi-million dollar job, but Dillon is the detective working double-time to bring them down.

Takers is surprisingly competent, though it seems to think it's a lot cooler than it is. It has a few trendy tunes and a number of nice shots and set pieces that help to set the mood of a heist in the big city. Plot-wise, it's fine. It's a generic plotline of progressively dangerous crimes, gathering intel, setting up the pieces to the crime puzzle, and detective/criminal chasing. Everything's easy to follow. Most of the characters aren't well-developed, which is a shame. I wished to spend more time with the robbers and figure out their quirks and relationships. The character we learn most about is Dillon's, and he's mostly built from cliches (detective that works too much, isn't there for his kid, stretches the line of the law, etc.). The largest problem with Takers is its cinematography; there are so many over-dramatic shots used that it's actually quite comical. There are tons of shots where the camera zooms across a landscape before finding the subject of interest and zooming in (resulting in blurred images, tons of zooms, etc.). Every time it happened it made me chuckle a little; it was like the cameraman zoned out, woke up, and went, "Oo! What's that?!" Some of the action scenes are filmed poorly as well. There are lots of quick cuts, shaky cam, blurred shots, etc. Thankfully, save for the first bank robbing scene, the poor quality of the filming didn't get in the way of understanding the scene.

Most of the actors put in good performances. Paul Walker...shows up. T.I. is surprisingly believable in his part and manages to be intimidating in a few key scenes. Hayden Christensen has one particularly noteworthy fun scene where he manages to use a baseball bat and a broom to take on multiple guys in a fight and win. There's an interesting parkour chase scene featuring Chris Wife-Beater Brown late in the movie, but some of it is a jumbled mess because of the choppy camerawork. My favorite character kicked the bucket in a climactic scene near the end that had the oddest sound design choices for an action scene I've heard in some time (and I don't say that particularly favorably). Actually, to be frank--many characters die in this, which I give the movie total credit for. It gives this movie a more realistic edge than most crime films with the same amount of characters, and there were a few moments that I felt genuine sadness for deaths even if the characters weren't as developed as I would have liked.

In the end, I enjoyed Takers for a lot more reasons than its eye candy. I argued with myself over a rating of 6 or 7, but I enjoyed this too much despite its flaws to rate it a 6, so 7 it is.

Death Bed: The Bed That Eats (1977)

Legitimately one of the worst movies I've ever seen

[1/10 · 1 November 2019]

For context, I watched this with my best friend with the full expectation that it was going to be "so bad it's good." I mean, it's a movie about a bed that eats people! That's utterly ridiculous. The fact that it wasn't released for decades after production just made it more enticing.

But my GOD. Death Bed: The Bed That Eats is a pretentious arthouse film dressed up as horror. (There are many arty films I like, by the way, so this review is not a critique on films as art, just on Death Bed.) It's 77 minutes, but it feels many times that length. Watching it was a torture that physically affected me. I felt so frustrated and impatient and angry with it that my chest still feels tight thinking about it. Why?

Death Bed is a movie that believes it is intelligent highbrow art; it seeks out the lost souls among us who are so desperate to find meaning in life that they'll sink their teeth into something meaningless just because it is eccentric. It starts out like the bad horror movie you expect, following a couple as they inexplicably walk up to an abandoned house to have sex and a picnic. Due to some door-locking shenanigans, the bed draws the couple into its chambers. The bed cannot move, but it does laugh and moan, which is funny the first few times before your own psyche degrades as the minutes drag on. We are subject to watching multiple takes of the worst kisser in history (seriously, this guy sucks on the woman's chin with his flappy lower lip; it's actually nauseating) as the bed starts by eating the food they've brought to the picnic, and then it eats them. This is done by having its food sink into the sheets into a yellow vat of acid until foam bubbles up over the bedspread. Again--some of this is legitimately chuckle-worthy. The problem? This movie believes in cycles. You will see the same scene about a dozen times in excruciating, long-winded detail. It never changes. It never stops. What could have been an interesting (if ridiculous) concept is stretched so thin that it loses all value until it regresses into a void disrespectful of the viewer's time.

...Yet, the movie continues. Three vapid characters are introduced, and the cycle begins anew. Who are they? It's vaguely explained in thought-narration (which is 90% of this movie's dialogue, by the way; characters will exposition-dump everything, even going so far as to explain the current happenings a handful of times as if the viewer is too stupid to catch on) that two of these women work together. Does it matter? No. Why are they coming to this abandoned mansion? I don't know. The women show up and the bed's hungry. So we're subject to over an hour of watching these women walk around and stare while listening to their "thoughts" telling us things we already know until someone's eaten. A good chunk of this time is spent in flashbacks as the man the bed is holding hostage in the wall (yes, really, I don't have the motivation to explain this, I'm already reviewing Death Bed for crying out loud) tries to figure out why the bed eats people and gives him trophies of its kills. We watch--over and over and over and over--people throughout history lying in the bed, having orgies in the bed, and sitting on the bed--then get sucked into it and slowly eaten by the acid. It's the same scene. We get to watch it over and over and over and over--and each death isn't quick. No, director George Barry thinks he has a masterpiece on his hands, so he lingers on each shot like a maggot on the already decomposing beaten horse. Each death has meaning because ART! so we will be subjected to each excruciating second, oftentimes while listening to the guy in the wall thought-speaking something that's already been established many, many (screams "MANY!") times.

The bed's possessed by a demon. There's a woman who has similar eyes (they're not similar at all, actually) to another currently at the house, so the bed fears her. "Why does it fear her? Why?" repeats the thought-speak, as tears roll down the viewer's face because they just don't care anymore after an hour of this hellscape. Deaths repeat. Thoughts repeat. Finally, the final act arrives as the brother of the woman the bed fears. He arrives, tries to save someone--it isn't clear who, really, since he sees only blood, no bodies, and his sister in the room and has no reason to suspect the bed--and loses his hands by reaching into the bed's belly (vat of acid). I kid you not, this guy looks at his skeletal hands with no expression. None. At all. The actor is as dead inside as the movie. There are lingering shots on this woman and her handless brother. One almost believes the end is mercifully near. Then the guy in the wall talks to the two survivors and says that now that the demon sleeps, they can prepare to kill it. How is the demon asleep now? Who knows. Why can the man in the wall suddenly speak to the people when he couldn't warn them before? Who knows. At this point, viewers stop asking questions because they are just holding out for the sweet relief of death.

The survivors gather the supplies necessary to perform the ritual, all of which come from its previous kills (so these kills were required, I assume). A woman rises from a coffin. She was clothed as a corpse, but now she's naked because ART. She walks over to where the bed teleported outside, has coitus with the handless brother, and BOOM! Bed is in flames. By the time the credits rolled, I was so exhausted and devoid of joy. I'm being completely honest when I say watching this felt like water torture. One drip (death/thought exposition/vapid character) at a time, this movie encourages you to go insane by sheer repetition of trifling drivel. This was one of the worst movie-watching experiences I've had in my life. My friend joked after it was finished, "Replay!" and I actually felt real panic. Until watching Death Bed, I didn't know a movie could make me physically ill. Now, the day after, I'm in recovery.

I'm writing this review not to be mean-spirited or simply hate on the movie, but as a public service. Please. Don't watch this unless you like pretentious arthouse films, and even then, do your research. Don't watch this because you think it'll be so bad it's good. It's not. After watching Death Bed, I feel insulted and demeaned.