 Here we have a movie that engaged my curiosity purely based on the subject matter of not unicorns but unicorns as a horror creature, a concept I first saw in one of my faves, 'The Cabin in the Woods.' It stood out because we typically think of unicorns as creatures of purity with some amount of innocence. It is hard to be taken seriously as a creature of nightmares. But despite quite a few criticisms I have for this film, at the very least, they succeeded in that. This is an interestingly balanced film to say the least.
The film opens with Elliot Kinter (Paul Rudd) and his daughter, Ridley (Jenna Ortega), headed to Elliot's boss, Odell Leopold's (Richard E. Grant) estate, mainly for a business deal but also to try to reconnect since the tragic death of Ridley's mother. On their way, during a heated conversation, Elliot slams into a unicorn foal. The pair checks on its condition as it lies dying, and while Ridley makes a cosmic connection with the unicorn, Elliot puts it out of its misery with a tire iron. Luckily for an audience of animal lovers, the thing is heavily CG'd. The Kitners arrive, having stashed the unicorn in the trunk, not quite knowing what to do about their situation, and meet with Odel's son, Shepard (Will Poulter) and wife, Belinda (Téa Leoni), to discuss whatever business they have to discuss. In the meantime, Ridley heads off to wash her face, only to realize her acne completely vanishes. Elliot's vision also fixes itself; it all comes down to unicorn blood and its healing properties. But shit hits the fan when the Leopold family finds the unicorn foal and chooses to harvest this unicorn's blood to act as a cure for Odell's terminal disease. In the meantime, two angry unicorn parents make their presence known and are out for some gruesome revenge. While Ridley tries to warn everyone about these unicorns and their history, along with her connection to the foal, she's generally ignored and patronized by the Odels, who are greed-driven and in it for money. This makes this very much a cautionary tale about killing animals to benefit ourselves. In this case, it's not just meat, clothing, or even makeup but playing God with the effects of immortality. What makes the film reasonably weak is the amount of cliches and predictability within it. There's a ton here; you can see what's around the corner at just about every turn. It's also a horror comedy that I didn't feel gave enough laughs throughout, having many of the jokes fall flat, and it always feels weaker with an all-star cast when that happens. It's a little bland as a dark comedy, but not without its charm, either - like an oatmeal cookie without chocolate chips. But it's not all bad for a horror fan like me. What I appreciated about the film was that it didn't hold back on any of the unicorns' most swift and brutal kills, the kind I like to see in a good horror movie. I'm not a huge fan of torture; I say just get it done like a good old-fashioned Jason Voorhees. And though the comedy is bland, look to the disgruntled Leopold's assistant Griff (Anthony Carrigan) for the real comedy, especially when he and Shepherd are in a scene together. Their exchanges as a "boss" and an "annoyed doormat" were my real highlights. This is one horror comedy I could give more credit to if it wasn't so predictable and if it was just a little funnier. It has its moments, and it's another one that has the potential to grow on me upon multiple views. Sometimes, comparing this to Jason Voorhees again, the predictability can be part of a horror movie's charm, and I could see this developing a niche audience over time. I have to give the movie credit for trying to make something like unicorns scary, and with some of the kills in this, it's relatively effective. It just has yet to be perfected. 3/5
0 Comments
 It is a shame that this movie's theatrical run didn't last as long as it should have, with just two weeks on the domestic box office Top 10. It's another fine example of a title that is a bit of original material that people seem to insist they're looking for but not giving a proper chance, further proving that audiences prefer their "comfort zone" titles. When people ask me to prove there are good, primarily original ideas, I tell them they just need to know where to look. 'Novocaine,' here, is one such title.
This film delivers just a little bit of everything to the audience. It's funny, has a romantic touch, and is full of action. Even some gore hounds can leave satisfied with what the film gets away with. The way it all unfolds is very satisfying for a movie-goer like myself, especially when I'm able to empathize with the main character in so many ways as he goes through the film as an improbable hero, vigilante-style, in an attempt to rescue the most important thing that has happened in his otherwise dull life. Our hero is Nathan Caine (Jack Quaid), who becomes easily relatable to me as an awkward, shy, but friendly introvert. He lives his life with a condition known as Congenital Insensitivity to Pain with Anhidrosis (CIPA), a very real but scarce condition in which the subject is quite literally numb to pain, heat, etc. Before watching this, I had seen such a thing in the William Shatner-hosted show 'The Unexplained' about "Real-Life Superheroes." I remember thinking, "They should make an action movie about this." Well, ask, and you shall receive. As an assistant manager in a trust credit union, Nathan eventually befriends his new co-worker, Sherry Margrave (Amber Midthunder). The pair go out to lunch and eventually to a bar, where, throughout their day out, Sherry opens his eyes to some of the wondrous things we take for granted, all because he's lived his life in fear. Being that numb means such things as he could "unknowingly chew off his tongue" if he eats anything and has to set the alarm for every three hours to make sure he can urinate. It's the perfect example of a superpower that is both a blessing and a curse. The following day, which happens to be Christmas Eve, a gang of men dressed up as Santa enter the credit union to rob it, and they don't hold anything back. Nathan and Sherry end up in the middle of it all, and Sherry is eventually taken hostage by the team leader, Simon Greenly (Ray Nicholson). This is where Nathan decides to use his ability to his advantage and go after her. What follows is a lot of knock-down-drag-out fights that show enough to say this may not be for the squeamish at heart. But that's also part of what makes this film so brilliant. While I love everything about the movie and its execution, what stands out for me is this concept that while we watch Nathan get severely injured time and time again, the whole time likely wincing at things we've seen in horror movies that come across as true torture, one can remember that whatever is happening to Nathan, he can't feel at all. That's also where a lot of the film's humour comes in. I won't say much about it, but an actual torture scene here happens to be one of the funniest moments in the film. That says a LOT since I've never liked a whole lot of torture in horror. What more can I say? This was something that was right up my alley, and will most likely end up on my year-end Top 10 somewhere. I enjoyed the relatability of Nathan's character, the fact that the film doesn't hold anything back, and just how funny it is on top of all of the danger involved. But again, the most brilliant thing about the film is that it tests the audience's metal. I knew that he couldn't feel any of it, but some moments still had me wincing or making some kind of uncomfortable face. I had a great time with this! 5/5  The documentary of the same name from 2019 tells the harrowing story of a rescue mission within the rough, churning North Sea, highlighting one of the most dangerous jobs on the planet - one many of us, including myself, are sort of oblivious to until a story like this comes along. We realize how these people put their lives at risk to help the rest of the world. I didn't know about this story until this film started getting advertised, and it has given me a whole new respect for these brave people we take for granted daily.
Saturation diving is a technique of deep-sea diving that allows the divers to work at crushing depths of up to 1000 ft. to maintain things like off-shore oil rigs and underwater pipelines. To explain it in more detail, just as I did for the documentary review, here's a link to the Wiki article on the subject. Beyond the basics, it's a bit complicated for me, but it seems a complex process nonetheless. The kind of process where if you screw up one minute detail, it could be considerably dangerous or even life-threatening. According to diver Chris Lemons' (Finn Cole) then fiancee, Morag (Bobby Rainsbury), saturation diving is a lot like going to space but underwater. Things start as a business-as-usual scenario as Chris boards the ship he's to work from, greeting friend and fellow diver Duncan Allcock (Woody Harrelson) and eventually meeting a rather cold individual named David Yuasa (Simu Liu), who will be diving with them on a job to repair an underwater gas line manifold. While on the job, a storm starts brewing above, but they continue, as it's still "divable." The three divers use a diving bell that fits the three of them. While Chris and David go to work on the manifold, at eerie, pitch-black depths with just a little flashlight on their diving suits to help them, Duncan stays in the bell to monitor them and feed their umbilicals, which supply a combo of oxygen and helium (heliox), warmth and communication. While they set to work, the storm makes their vessel's Dynamic Positioning System glitch, causing the ship to drift, dragging the bell with Duncan inside and the umbilicals of David, who manages to scramble back to the bell, and Chris, who isn't quite so lucky. As the ship drifts, Chris' umbilical gets caught and eventually snaps, leaving him with just ten minutes of backup air in the pitch blackness of the depths of the North Sea. His only hope is to find the manifold and climb to its top to await Dave's rescue, which is much easier said than done, considering the circumstances. The entire team pulls together to get Chris back to his fiancee alive, brainstorming what to do with limited resources due to the ship's electric malfunction. Things get pretty intense. Of course, the film takes a few liberties, but it doesn't miss either. It does a good job of adapting the documentary into a Hollywood film, and whatever liberties they seem to take make sense to try to make things more exciting. But at least they don't have, like, some surprise shark attack that never happened or something. I'm talking more about making the storm look rougher than it may have been or dramatizing the characters who participated in the event a bit more. Nothing bad at all. So, points for that. One particular thing about the documentary and the feature film is that if you don't know the story yet and are interested, I recommend checking out the documentary first. It's easy to find online if you know where to look. But it'll give you a much better appreciation for the real people involved, as you can sense the camaraderie between the divers, namely Chris and Duncan, and you'll come to notice while watching the film here that they splice in some of the actual footage from the doc to make things a bit more authentic. I'm glad I checked this whole story out. As mentioned earlier, I now have a new appreciation for these workers. 4/5  I am going to start this review off by saying that the best way to experience this movie is by knowing absolutely nothing going into it. If you have watched the trailer, then you know what this is all about. If you read the rest of this review, then you'll know what it's all about. But if one goes in blind, the film will come across as much, much better. It's the perfect example of a movie where the less said about it, the better because the film's big twist happens barely into it, but not at the end. Kinda like last year's 'Trap.'
So, if you've read up to this point, have NOT seen the trailer, and are interested in what I consider a well-paced and well-executed thriller with a side of "cautionary tale" to it, go check it out! It's only February, and it's the second film that surprised me, delivering something I didn't expect, but in a good way (the first being 'Presence'). Anyway, now that I've said my piece about that, feel free to read on, whether you've already seen the movie, had things spoiled for you by the trailer, or simply don't care. But again, the big reveal is worth going in blind for! The film opens with a woman named Iris (Sophie Thatcher), who gives us a charming story about how she met her boyfriend, Josh (Jack Quaid), while grocery shopping. It sets us up for a lovely story, but Iris' narration also foreshadows some dark things that will happen. Before long, Iris and Josh become a couple and decide to take a vacation with some of Josh's close friends to a lakehouse in the middle of nowhere, illustrated by the pair following a road that doesn't appear on Google Maps, which turns out to be a driveway. Among Josh's friends and acquaintances are the rather "catty" Kat (Megan Suri), gay couple Eli (Harvey Guillén) and Patrick (Lukas Gage), and Kat's apparent boyfriend and owner of the house and surrounding lake property, Sergey (Rupert Friend). While Iris is apprehensive about hanging out with these people, as she feels unwelcome and unliked, things don't go too badly over the first night. However, the following day, Sergey gets a bit too handsy with Iris, and, well, that's where the movie sincerely kicks off with a good amount of "wow" to it as long as you go into it blind. The trailer totally dropped the ball on how good this film could have been. The rest of the film plays out like your average bottle movie, set in the surrounding area of one particular house. It turns into a survival story, but a heist story as well, and again, a bit of a cautionary tale, all blended with little to no filler, trying to keep it interesting. I once heard someone compare the movie 'Get Out' as far as setting, pacing, quality, and pleasant surprises went, and it's almost a perfect comparison. Hell, there's even a bit of dark humour here and there, which adds to the film's horror elements. I think I'd say it's similar to 'Becky' as well. Now, for those indifferent, it's time to get into spoiler territory, at least as far as the trailer spoils things for you. In case you didn't put it together, the title, 'Companion,' relates to precisely what it sounds like it does. Iris is Josh's Companion AI who, when put under pressure by Sergey's grabby hands, commits murder, which goes against her coding. But we soon discover that Josh programmed things like this on purpose for the aforementioned heist portion of the movie. Soon, Iris finds herself on the run from Josh's control but takes his iPad, meaning she can program her settings and give her hunters more of a challenge. While it's another cautionary tale about how AI will eventually get the best of us somehow, and I've mentioned before how the idea feels very tired, I can't deny that this film did it well. I liked that Iris' supposed "glitch" wasn't part of her AI and that Iris is more like the hero here than the overplayed robot who loses control of itself and destroys all humans. I enjoyed this one. It's short, sweet, and to the point, and it turns the tables a bit on the idea of a cautionary AI story, making it go from "What if AI kills us?" to "What if AI can defend itself against us?" 4/5  I should start by pointing out one significant detail about this film: if you're anything like me and have ONLY gone by trailers, despite some elements within the film, it is by almost no means a horror movie, which is what I thought I was getting into. Often, when it comes to a trailer that feels like it leads me in a different direction, I'm disappointed with the results. I may be more forgiving than others, but it does suck to be excited about a movie, then get something completely unexpected handed to you instead.
In the case of 'Presence,' however, it's a film that didn't deliver what I expected, but in a much more positive and creative way. To be clear, this is one of the trailers I'm referring to, and that's ALL I went in with. Instead of a gripping, edge-of-your-seat thriller as one might expect, the film turns into more of a dysfunctional family drama, and it's all filmed from the ghost's perspective. It's very similar to 'A Ghost Story,' but filmed in POV rather than presenting us with the classic cartoon ghost design of some dude in a sheet. The opening brings you into the film nicely as the ghost looks out the window at what appears to be a very early dawn; the house is still dark as it roams around to a bit of haunting but lovely music. It's reminiscent of the opening to 'Halloween,' but without violence. It's more of a generous tour of the empty house, ending in a bedroom closet, where we can assume this "presence" resides, coming out occasionally to wander. That is until a family of four comes along and moves in. The key player here is daughter Chloe Payne (Callina Liang), who is still grieving over the tragic passing of her best friend, Nadia. While her Dad, Chris (Chris Sullivan), is fully supportive and perhaps the most likable character in the film, her Mom, Rebekah (Lucy Liu), is far too sidetracked by her swim-champ son, Tyler (Eddy Maday) and nurtures him much more. One can say that neither of these characters is likable, but buckle up because I haven't mentioned one particular douchebag yet. As Chloe mourns, she moves into the aforementioned room with the haunted closet and eventually feels the presence of a spirit she believes is Nadia. As the rest of the film unfolds, we see the family go through their motions: the fights, the heartfelt chats, etc. Essentially, the ghost also plays the audience. I've never seen anything like this before, and I was impressed with its overall execution. The trailer prepared me for some good, sharp terror, but I got something a little more heartfelt and relatable, which I appreciated. Back to the "douchebag," a character named Ryan (West Mulholland) eventually comes along, and he's easy to hate right off the bat. If I had beef with this movie, it had to be that character. You ARE supposed to dislike him, much like Rebekah and Tyler, and maybe it's just the kid's acting skills, but he made Anakin in 'Episode II' look like Darth Vader in 'Rogue One.' But I will be fair here enough to say that he was also given some of the cheesiest, dumbest, worst lines in the movie. If the goal was to make him awful, mission accomplished. The flip of genres from trailer to screen will bother some people and probably explains why the RT Audience Meter is significantly lower than the Critic Meter, but I have to side with the critics. I appreciated how this was something from the other side's perspective, allowing the viewer to feel everything the ghost felt while watching different scary, real-life scenarios with living people. That's the beauty of this movie. The scary parts have nothing to do with the supernatural. For me, this was an art piece more than just another movie about a haunting. 4/5  If the 'Den of Thieves' films end up being a series, it'll probably end up being one of those like 'Lethal Weapon' from my perspective in that while the films are good and entertaining, for some strange reason that I can't quite grasp, they're films I'll see once or twice and be done with them. The problem there is that I have a hard time coming to a solid critical conclusion on these films one way or another. They're both good. This one may be better, but there are other similar movies I'd go back to sooner.
Unfortunately, this is one of those areas where I don't quite understand myself. I love a good heist movie, the chemistry Gerard Butler and O'Shea Jackson Jr. have together on-screen, good action, good dialogue, and these movies have all of that. But they don't quite hit right for me. I really can't explain. But at 2.5 hours, this movie is slightly longer than it needs to be. I may also be a touch brainwashed on the idea that January is the "trash movie" release month when, in fact, there's usually a good sleeper hit or two these days among them. The second film picks up several years after the first film's events, which held a twist at its end, so if you care about seeing the first one and not having anything spoiled for yourself, stop reading now. A heist team known as the "Panther Crew" is led by a lady named Jovanna (Evin Ahmad), whom Donnie Wilson (Jackson Jr.) has become associated with for a heist job involving a red diamond, disguising themselves as a SWAT team. Little do they know just who it is they're stealing this diamond from. Meanwhile, Deputy Sheriff Nick O'Brien (Butler) in Long Beach, California, is a little worse for wear after Donnie got over on him in the last film. On top of that, he's recently divorced and only allowed to see his kid once in a blue moon. With nothing left to lose, he seeks out Donnie in hopes of joining him and the Panthers on their next heist - to rob a vault at the World Diamond Center in Nice, France. From there, you have a heist movie with an unlikely team-up and the audience questions whether or not the Panthers can trust Nick or whether or not Donnie will screw Nick over in the end. As mentioned earlier, things like length have more to do with my disinterest; otherwise, it's hard to put my finger on it. While this almost certainly won't make my "Top 10" by the year's end, I still enjoyed a few key moments within the film. In particular, and without giving too much away, one scene involves Nick and Donnie on a bit of Ecstasy, where they have a "getting to know you" conversation, and it makes for a rather poignant moment within the film, developing both characters much further in a matter of a couple of minutes. Otherwise, I don't know what else to say about the film. Much like I felt about the last movie, it's "good," not mind-blowingly great, nor is it god-awful in any way. Again, I liked other heist movies better, like 'Italian Job' and 'Ocean's Eleven,' which I can see myself returning to despite their age. But that's me. These aren't movies I'd say one should simply avoid. In their ways, the 'Den of Thieves' films have a certain quality, and the chemistry between Jackson Jr. and Butler is quite solid in both films, particularly here. This is one of those reviews where I must tell my readers they'll need to check the movie out for themselves because I can't do much to sway them either way. The good certainly overrules the bad in the 'Den of Thieves' films, and they're a good time in their own right, but they remain a bit under the radar in the grand scheme of things. I'd probably give these films a lot more credit if they were straight to streaming or something, though, because they feel about that quality to me. But again - that's just me! 3/5 |
RSS Feed