 I have to admit, it has been quite some time since I've really thought about action superstar director John Woo. So, it was pretty refreshing to see trailers for this action movie with a Christmas theme. However, I did start to fret that perhaps the almost annual Christmas action movie was starting to become a fad between 2020's 'Fatman,' 2022's 'Violent Night' and now this. That's not to say that I have a problem with this concept, but if I'm honest, 'Violent Night' was the only one that has really stood out for me, including this title.
The film hits the ground running (literally) as we are introduced to our film's hero, Brian Godlock (Joel Kinnaman), and just to get this out of the way real quick, it is my opinion that if the MCU needs a new Wolverine, this guy's a pretty good place to look based on this overall performance. But I digress. He's running to catch up to gang members driving like maniacal cartoon characters, firing at each other from their respective vehicles. Because of this gang war shootout, Brian and his wife, Saya (Catalina Sandino Moreno), end up losing their son, Taylor (Alex Briseño), in the crossfire. Once catching up to one of them, he finds himself at the business end of gangster Playa's (Harold Torres) bullet. He's shot in the throat and rushed to hospital, where he ultimately survives and has to learn how to do a lot of basic skills again as he recuperates. The gunshot wound leaves Brian mute and, therefore, distant as he mourns both the loss of his son and his voice, along with all of the frustration that comes with getting back on his feet. He also takes up drinking quite heavily and broods about as much as one would expect from such a series of events. But eventually, his mind focuses on one thing and one thing only: revenge for the careless and needless murder of his son. He then takes to training himself up over the next year to carry it all out, including bodybuilding, learning defensive techniques, learning how to fire a gun and a few other helpful things to aid him in his upcoming mission. The goal is to "Kill Them All" on Christmas Eve of that year. Throughout this process, he also does a bit of a "Batman" by gathering evidence on Playa's gang and delivering it to Detective Dennis Vassel (Kid Cudi), a detective who has offered to help with Brian's son's case. The action is slightly slow-moving at first despite a pretty grand opening. A solid chunk of this movie is just Brian recuperating and planning revenge. But it's important to realize that this guy is supposed to be an everyday guy. His actual job is that of an electrician. Taking its cues from 'Die Hard' (even though we now know Bruce Willis as an action hero, it wasn't so back then), it solidifies Brian's overall humanity just a little bit more and allows for more empathy. Although I've gotta say, the film does go out of its way to steer you in that direction. Sometimes, one "gets the point" long before a scene ends. What's unique about this movie is that it follows its namesake to a tee, as there is no dialogue throughout. I have to give some solid credit to any film that can use silence to its advantage and still tell a good story just by using things like body language. These films are few and far between, like 'The Artist' (which still uses title cards) or 'Shaun the Sheep' (which still has a touch of talking in the end), but I feel like this is the first time I've seen one with absolutely no talking at all of any sort. So, after all this praise, why doesn't it stick out for me among the new trend of Christmas action movies? I think for as fun as it is, that's essentially all there is to it. This is a neat project for John Woo, and it does a fine job for what it is, but it's a pretty simple story of revenge with titles like 'John Wick' to compete with. On top of that, the idea of Christmas being present is exceptionally vague, aside from Brian's sweater (a bit of ironic fun) and Christmas Eve being the night of his revenge. This is good if you want to sit down and watch a good revenge flick, but it's not something like 'Violent Night' or 'Die Hard,' which I will be eager to return to every holiday season. 3/5
0 Comments
 I haven't been paying close attention to the slasher genre lately, and I have more than bloody likely missed out on some gems I have yet to explore (like most horror movies in my life, it's usually about catching up). But I can say that speaking for myself, this is one of the best slasher flicks I've seen in a long time. There's something about it that feels more of the 80s slasher genre I love so much, as it's complete with a sense of humour, has a cheesy edge to it, and has a 'Scream' feel to it; a movie which parodies 80s horror altogether!
Like with most slasher horror out there, plenty of critics will give it some digs, but if there's one thing I know about director Eli Roth, he's not in it much for critical recognition as opposed to making his fans cringe in all the best ways possible. With that in mind, my overall familiarity with the man was the torture porn bar-raiser, 'Hostel,' the film that ultimately made me realize torture horror was not for me. Although I still say the ending of it was kinda badass. Anyway, I kinda thought I would be getting more of that here. But I was pleasantly surprised! It's not without a bit of the torture that makes me so squeamish, but Roth otherwise does a great job with the variety in his kills here. It's definitely one for the gore hounds! In Plymouth, MA, on Thanksgiving, 2022, a crowd gathers outside a "RightMart" department store, positively rabid for a Black Friday sale. The crowd then notices off to the side that film lead Jessica Wright (Nell Verlaque), daughter of store owner Thomas Wright (Rick Hoffman), lets her boyfriend, Bobby (Jalen Thomas Brooks) and friends Evan (Tomaso Sanelli), Gabby (Addison Rae), Scuba (Gabriel Davenport) and Yulia (Jenna Warren) in through a side door. This invokes a riot, chaos happens, and it's a brutal reminder of why shopping online for Black Friday is a much better idea. It may not be as big a problem now, but I still can't be mad at Roth for putting his horrific spin on the concept. One year later, as RightMart prepares for another sale, ignoring what happened the previous year and ignoring protesters, mostly fuelled by Thomas' new wife, Kathleen (Karen Cliche) and her desire to put money above anything else. Meanwhile, a social media post tags Jessica and her friends, showing a Thanksgiving table with place settings with their names on them. It's soon discovered that this poster is a mysterious man dressed as John Carver, who is seemingly getting some kind of revenge on several people involved in the Black Friday sale of the previous year, according to town sheriff Eric Newlon (Patrick Dempsey). I think that perhaps the biggest standout of this movie is the kills themselves. As morbid as it may sound, this brings some originality and "Hollywood Meat" to the forefront and does a great balance between making you cringe and making you say "Oooh! Damn!" This is just a me thing, but I would say that I haven't seen kills this original since probably 'Final Destination 5', which did an amazing job with its fake-out kills. But again, remember that the horror I've missed over the past few years could probably fill half a video store (for those of you who remember them). But on top of a bunch of crazy kills, it should also be noted that there's a pretty solid comedic aspect to this flick as well. One scene in particular, around the middle of the movie, is almost guaranteed to have a laugh to lighten the mood. I won't say what it is, but you'll know when you see it because it stands out that much. But even with the solid kills and sense of humour, Roth still expands on things with a touch of father/daughter drama that takes nothing away from anything and a climactic scene that allows Roth to turn up the intensity levels. Before wrapping this review up, I have a few things for readers to consider. For starters, this feels like a major callback to the era of 80s slasher, where viewers come to see some kills and not take the film seriously. You're not going to have much fun with this if you're going to try taking anything about it seriously. It's pure horror entertainment at its finest, and one can think of it almost as a 'Scream' movie with the gore factor cranked to eleven. This is definitely one for fans of the slasher horror genre who aren't looking for any kind of seriousness attached to it because, after all, this DID come from a 'Grindhouse' trailer in the first place. 4/5 NOTE: The following review will eventually be moved to a special 'Saw' page.  When it comes to my familiarity with the 'Saw' franchise, it goes a little something like this. I've seen parts 1-3, missed parts 4-7, and seen 'Jigsaw' and 'Spiral.' I quoted the last two as "just another 'Saw' movie" and "Fine if you're into that kind of thing." Speaking personally, I felt it lost its overall quality during the third one, in which *SPOILER ALERT* John Kramer (Tobin Bell) passed away due to his brain cancer. From there, I just kind of wondered why they bothered to keep going other than the obvious "cash-in."
The franchise carries on from there, and to be fair, I didn't really bother with it at all, and a lot of that was because John died - a character who, by the way, I strongly considered the next big thing in horror after Part 2. I figured the rest were pretty much more of the same thing - torturous traps that the victim has to put themselves through to survive with an underlying message of appreciating the life that one is given and not wasting it on whatever crimes or wrongdoings John has you trapped for. I can appreciate the tactic these traps use in which the victim CAN ultimately survive; they just have to sacrifice something big to do so. 'Saw X,' thankfully for yours truly, presses the rewind button and gives us back the somewhat brilliant mind of John Kramer with a story taking place between Parts 2 and 3. This movie is far less about Jigsaw's traps (even though there's plenty here for those who have come to see some new inventions) and more about the man himself. Until now, I always found the first two to be my favourites (out of the five I saw), and the second is high on the list for allowing us to see John Kramer, aka "The Jigsaw Killer," and the way his mind works. This aspect returns in this film but humanizes the man even further. In the film's beginning, Kramer is told that he only has a few months to live. Later, at a cancer support meeting, he meets a man named Henry Kessler (Michael Beach), who is also evidently terminal. A short time later, John and Henry cross paths, and Henry tells him of a miracle cure he had done to him conducted at a research facility so secluded that we find out they basically have to stage a kidnapping just to bring you there. Interested, John calls Dr. Cecelia Pederson (Synnøve Macody Lund) and is scheduled to travel to Mexico City to complete the procedure. Without major spoilers, however, let's just say things don't go as planned. Now, I should probably forewarn the people here who come to see the torture porn that, even though the traps come, it is a bit of a slow burn for the viewer to get there. This is frankly something I admire, but not everyone will be into it, and I totally get that. But I will say that it makes room for some kind of empathy towards John Kramer, someone we know as a really twisted sicko at this point. But we see him engage in casual conversations about hope; he befriends and helps out a child with his bicycle, and we get more of his human, relatable side. And when you really give that some thought, that's scarier than any trap. To expand on that a little bit, this movie drives home the point any true crime podcaster has officially absorbed: the typical psycho killer usually wears a friendly face, and they're not the physical monsters movies make them out to be. Remember, even Ted Bundy had an insane amount of charm. So, for me, the film's true quality shines with the study of John Kramer's character instead of the creativity of some of his traps. While the horror aspect is most definitely still here, I daresay that this might be the only 'Saw' movie that adds a good dramatic edge to it. I might suggest that this isn't exactly your typical 'Saw' movie, and the viewers will have to decide for themselves whether they appreciate the fact that there's depth to this chapter. As far as I'm concerned, these movies have a weird connection with me in that Jigsaw is one of my all-time favourite movie villains, but the 'Saw' franchise is far from my favourite horror franchise. Jigsaw is one of those villains, like Thanos, in that you understand what he's doing. You might disagree with him, but you get why he's doing it. There's a "point" to it all. And this movie reinforced my appreciation for this particular villain for the first time in years! 4/5  I can still remember a time when the idea of gathering a dream team of action heroes from films from my generation's childhood and our parent's adulthood was an amazing concept. And I have to say, the first couple of them back in 2010 and 2012, respectively, are still a hell of a lot of fun. By the third, I wondered if perhaps it was getting out of hand, but in fairness, it was the third of a box office money-making franchise of epic proportions, and it was still released in 2014. At that point, things really should have probably just stopped.
Here we are, almost ten years after 'Expendables 3' for a fourth chapter that, as far as I can tell, not many people were asking for. Now, I'll be the first guy to admit that I enjoy a fun action romp of epic proportions, even if a lot of it is "bad" in its own way. This could have fallen into that category if only I didn't have that very concept and drive it into the ground when it already worked fine for the first three films. When it's all said and done, this is a simple revenge movie with a twist ending that will make you want to rage-throw your popcorn at the screen. No spoilers, just a fair warning. The Expendables team is sent to Libya to intercept a nuclear weapons thief named Suarto Rahmat (Iko Uwais), who is stealing some warheads for a terrorist known only as Ocelot - a name any 'Metal Gear: Solid' fan might cringe at as it feels so very stolen. The mission brings back old favourites Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone), Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), Toll Road (Randy Couture) and Gunner Jensen (Dolph Lundgren). It also introduces us to the noobies Easy Day (50 Cent) and Galan (Jacob Scipio). So, thank God, at least a few of them have made a return. Everything's business as usual, but in the firefight, Rahmat shoots down the Expendables' plane, only to leave one of the team members dead (without throwing too many early spoilers at you). The CIA reveals that the Expendables will go after Rahmat to finish what they started and get revenge without Christmas, as he apparently jeopardized the mission. Insult to injury is added when Christmas is replaced by Gina (Megan Fox), his former lover, who, herself, brings in Lash (Levy Tran), another talented female operative. As the Expendables tackle the mission, Christmas tracks them, knowing he'll be needed more than they think. I really wanted to have more fun than I did with this. It carries a feeling of "too little, too late" with it (especially with the first three being a solid 2 years apart from each other), and the casting kind of throws away what made these movies so good to begin with and I'm afraid this is where I have to get into a bit of controversial territory. But the fact of the matter is, the original 'Expendables' concept was that it was a testosterone-loaded action flick that starred all of our favourite action heroes, and its main target was definitely dudes. This is absolutely not to say that women can't or shouldn't enjoy these or be a part of them. But when Megan Fox takes the lead AND brings on another woman, which feels a bit forced, things get a little too "woke" when they don't need to be for a film that was always initially catered towards men. I'm all for an all-female action movie with a stellar cast that shows the strength of women without forcing things to be perfectly clear. It just felt very out of place here, especially with someone like Megan Fox, who I've never considered an action star. Even if I were to accept all of that and take it with a grain of salt, it wouldn't change the overall poor execution of things. At best, I can say that if you just feel like some high-octane action, it still delivers on that level fairly well. But the writing and dialogue are pretty rough, and, again, it ends on such a "middle finger" note that leaves you sitting there wondering, "Wait, that's it?" For my money, the first two of these are still a great time, and the third is okay, just for fun. But this felt altogether completely unnecessary. 2/5  It could be said that director Robert Rodriguez is a bit on an acquired taste. Having said that, I think the first thing I should lay out about this movie is that one probably shouldn't be on the lookout for a solid Ben Affleck movie so much as a decent Rodriguez movie. If you want a good Affleck movie, hit rewind just a little bit and check out this year's 'Air' (now streaming on Prime). Otherwise, even as a Rodriguez film, we don't entirely get the epic, Grindhouse-like fun here we do with most of his films either.
We follow Austin PD detective, Danny Rourke (Affleck), who we learn from the get-go has a missing daughter, Minnie (Ionie Olivia Nieves) 7 years old at the time of her abduction. This leads to his marriage eventually falling apart; thus, we have our fairly typical brooding movie cop. He's picked up from his therapist by his partner, Nicks (JD Pardo), who has received an anonymous tip about a bank robbery, which leads them to seeing a mysterious man (William Fichtner) seemingly giving random people odd orders, and these random people carry out said orders. Danny eventually connects this with the possibility that it could have something to do with his missing daughter, so investigates further. His investigation soon leads him to fortuneteller Diana Cruz (Alice Braga), whom the mysterious man seems to have been a client of. She reveals that his name is Lev Dellrayne and that he and Cruz are actually powerful hypnotics who have managed to escape a government division specializing in mind control. This is obviously something we've seen a bunch of times before in some way shape or form - the escaped "superpower" people. Perhaps the most recent and best example is Eleven from 'Stranger Things', but odds are, my readers have seen something along these lines before. Anyway, it's not long before all the puzzle pieces start falling into place, and to some degree, the whole thing becomes fairly predictable. Although I will say that it takes a couple of interesting turns here and there, in the end, nothing really catches you off-guard or surprises you as things go. The film even brings the superhero (or at least superpower) element into it all, adding once again to a piling list of things to add to people's exhaustion. Granted, I'm generally not one of these people. But I can't say it's not blatantly obvious that the superhero thing has sincerely taken things over, and even I'm getting a tiny bit tired, especially when it comes from examples like this. Not only does this play with that superpower element, but it also feels like it takes from many different things. I've already mentioned 'Stranger Things', as far as the corporation trying to create super-humans goes. But then the movie also plays with the idea of the lead having memory problems, the mistaken identity, etc... you know, that whole 'Bourne Identity' concept, at least to some degree. It's another one of these dark mysteries that has a better version of it, or at least, something like it, to watch somewhere else. Having said that, I didn't hate the movie. I just think it would have done better to come straight to streaming because it's nothing special. So, just in case you're sitting there reading this, asking yourself "What even is this movie?" this is thanks to a complete and total lack of advertising for it. I was only really interested because of Rodriguez's name being attached to it, and I wondered how he'd handle something like this. Not something I was psyched for, but mildly curious for. Also, it opened alongside 'Book Club 2', and that one's just not in my wheelhouse. But if you can believe it, this was actually the worst opening weekend of both Rodriquez and Affleck's careers, being a fairly considerable bomb, coming in at #6, opening weekend. So, if you're still curious about it, it'll likely be streaming soon enough, somewhere. I'm gonna go ahead and say that this is the first mildly bad movie I've seen this year if only because so much of it was me going "Oh, we're doing this again?" Even still, I'm not gonna sit here hating on it. It was just too familiar to me is all. If you're into this kind of thing, it might be fun to check out on a lazy Sunday afternoon on some free (or perhaps not-so-free) streaming platform. But I would say that Rodriguez fans might come out of it more disappointed than some. Again, this is a completely different style for the guy. But as far as Affleck goes, 'Air' is still the title to watch this year. (so far... expect a review sooner or later!) 2/5  If you're currently on the lookout for something new in the thriller/comedy genre, look no further than 'Cocaine Bear'. While I can easily say the film is far from perfect, I do still feel that one can go into this and just have fun with it. All this really ends up being is a modern B movie, and should not be looked at as anything much more than that. This is a bear equivalent to 'Eight-Legged Freaks' or any number of shark movies they need to take a breather on one of these days.
As far as the "true story" goes - one day a black bear ingested a bunch of cocaine, and that's about the extent of it, as far as I can tell. All this did was throw meat into the raging bear's path. The real story is... well, it's really just sad, as the poor bear died after overdosing. However, I can see why the idea of creating a semi-horror movie about a crazed, cocaine-addicted bear can come to mind fairly easily after reading a short article about what really happened. It all starts sometime in 1985 when famed drug smuggler, Andrew C. Thornton II (Matthew Rhys) drops a shipment of cocaine from his plane to lighten the load before parachuting. Soon enough, a bag of coke is found by a black bear, who ingests it and becomes highly aggressive, and ready to take out anyone standing in its way of looking for more (of which there is now a lot, scattered around the area). Meanwhile, a local detective named Bob (Isiah Whitlock Jr.) who finds out about the lost coke and assumes that it's probably from St. Louis kingpin, Syd White (Ray Liotta). So the "primary" situation, as I might call it, mostly involves Syd looking for his lost goods through his "fixer", Daveed (O'Shea Jackson Jr.) and Daveed's recently heartbroken friend, Eddie (Alden Ehrenreich). Meanwhile, Bob is trying to make an interception to take them down. Little do either know what's lurking in the woods, however. Our secondary story (although one could easily argue this is more the primary) involves middle schoolers Dee Dee (Brooklynn Prince) and Henry (Christian Convery) who decide to ditch school one day in order to paint a picture of the local waterfalls. Both are eventually found by the bear, and Dee Dee ends up missing as a result, leaving a fretful mother, Sari (Keri Russell) to go searching for her along with Henry. Sure enough, it's an eventuality that everything ends up crossing paths, but the main focus for the audience can be equated to your average 'Friday the 13th' film; "Where is that monster, what's it gonna do next, and how gruesome is the kill gonna be". I have to admit that I am quite impressed with Elizabeth Banks' directorial work here. I can't speak to anything she's done before this, but if I'm blunt, there's not a whole lot of her previous directorial work that jumps out at me as something I really want to see. However, as soon as I saw the trailer for this, I knew I was 100% in for it. I do love when a trailer comes along to offer up a heavy dose of comedy within something that's otherwise horrific. I'm almost always in for these kinds of movies. Realizing that Banks directed it, however, made me even more curious. I do not know Banks at all, but from what I've gathered from what I have seen her in, I wouldn't have thought that a comedy-fuelled gore-fest was really in her wheelhouse. Who'd have thought I'd be proven wrong about that? I'd love to see her do more stuff like this and make a name for herself in this B movie genre. 'Cocaine Bear' gave me quite a few laugh-out-loud moments, and it's all padded with rather brutal bear attacks that I'm frankly surprised got as gorey as they did. Add a whole bunch of one-liners to it, and here we have one of the most fun movies of the year so far for something in the R-rated comedy/horror/thriller category. I may go a little bit against the grain on this one, as I do have a bit of a bias for movies like this. Comedy/horror and comedy/thriller are by far my favourite subgenres, and I love a movie that delivers the laughs as well as the gore while taking no part of itself seriously. While the real story of the cocaine bear does end sadly, it managed to provide us with this movie that almost portrays a sort of Jason-like revenge from the bear for introducing it to such a terrible substance for it. Perhaps that's reading too much into it, however, and at the end of the day, one should probably just take this for the fun thrill ride that it is, and not much more. 4/5  When it comes to the twist-fetish director, M. Night Shyamalan, I have a very "hit-or-miss" opinion of him. I quite like a handful of his movies, a few are decent, but some are just bad. Because of this, I tend to go into any one of his movies with the expectation that it could be just as bad as 'Lady in the Water' (which I consider his weakest work), and I don't look for the next 'Sixth Sense' (which I consider his strongest work). Speaking personally, Shyamalan has established himself as the epitome of a "middle-ground" director.
With that in mind, 'Knock at the Cabin' is the epitome of one of Shyamalan's middle-ground movies. For one, I'm admittedly not usually that good at calling movie twists, but this was one I managed to call from the get-go to some degree, and the actual twist isn't all that shocking. It's also a fairly basic plot, and I have to admit that the way it ended kind of left me wanting much more detail about what the hell just happened. The silly thing is, there are explanations for everything, but the explanations don't feel like enough or are even kind of cheap. Eric (Jonathan Groff) and Andrew (Ben Aldridge), dual fathers to their adopted daughter, Wen (Kristen Cui) are vacationing at a remote cabin in the woods. While Wen is outside catching grasshoppers, she is met by a man named Leonard (Dave Bautista). Although a threatening presence, Leonard actually comes across as quite friendly, and soon explains that he needs her and her parents' help to save the world. But when three others start approaching with what look like weapons, Wen runs back into the cabin to warn her parents about the creepy strangers. However, it's all for not, and eventually, the surefire home invasion aspect comes into play. Leonard, along with three others, Sabrina (Nikki Amuka-Bird), Adriane (Abby Quinn) and Redmond (Rupert Grint) explain that in the last week, the four of them have been having rather specific visions of a forthcoming apocalypse, and some unknown force has led them to this cabin to find this family. They further explain that in order to save all of humanity, the family must sacrifice someone. If they don't, the three family members can continue to live, but the rest of the world falls apart and leaves them alone to walk the earth. With each failure to say "yes" to this sacrifice, one member of the invading group has to make their own sacrifice, and a part of humanity is judged, leading to some kind of horrible global disaster. In the end, this really just felt like a movie's take on one of those impossible questions; in this case, if it meant saving the world, would you kill a family member? And of course with that are all of the questions that come with it, which are pretty well answered throughout the film. But one should know that it's a very basic premise with not a whole hell of a lot of depth to it. The film goes by pretty quickly and gets to its final point, and even when it gets there and it's all one saying what it needs to say, somehow it feels like there's something still missing. It's the type of movie that ends and you say "oh, is that it?" even though when you think about it, they've actually covered everything. I think if I was to say that anything stood out in the movie, it would probably be the acting involved. We're not talking about Oscar-worthy performances, necessarily, but it is a film that allows us to see a bit of range on some of the bigger names like Bautista and Grint. But beyond that, I sort of admired the acting chops of young Kristen Cui, who gives us a pretty damn convincing performance. I've done this a couple of times before and been right about it, but I do predict big things for this girl's future, just as I did with Hailee Steinfeld after seeing 'True Grit', and Saoirse Ronan after seeing 'The Lovely Bones'. Now, Saoirse has four Oscar nominations under her belt and Hailee is a part of the MCU AND 'Transformers' universes. Anyway, the film is by no means what I'd consider "bad", but it's an extremely middle-ground movie for Shyamalan. I took it as a bit of a cocktail of some of his other films. I saw some of 'Devil' here (with the extremely predictable twist), some of 'The Village' (with a world of unseen and unknown surrounding them), and some of 'The Visit' to some degree (questioning who you can trust). In the end, it's by no means a great movie, but it's definitely not the worst thing Shyamalan has come up with either. Quality-wise, I might suggest this is one of the most middle-ground films he's ever made. The ideas are cool, the acting is well-done, and I daresay it does make one think. Worth checking out of you're a Shyamalan fan, but it may be for the more dedicated fans than the merely curious. 3/5  Some of you may very well remember a movie from a few years ago called 'Searching', starring John Cho as a man named David Kim, actively trying to find his missing daughter through all sorts of internet resources. The film was a bit of a new twist on the found footage genre but stuck to computer screens, webcams and phone cams, much like this one does. 'Missing' is the third part of an apparent anthology series about missing persons and using one's knowledge of social media and internet access to help solve the case.
We open things with a brief but well-done explanation of the passing of James Allen (Tim Griffin), father to our film's lead, June (Storm Reid) and husband to the loving but perhaps overbearing Grace (Nia Long). Several years later, Grace leaves for a vacation with her new boyfriend, Kevin (Ken Leung) and leaves Grace in the care of her friend, Heather (Amy Landecker) - this is where the "overbearing" part comes in, as June is actually 18 and frankly doesn't need a babysitter. Anyway, as it would go with most situations like this, while the happy couple is on their vacation, Grace manages to have a pretty epic party. The whole time, it should be noted that she is snubbing her mother's attempt at communication with her. The following week, June is supposed to pick them up from the airport upon their arrival, but neither of them shows up. As June's concerns begin to mount on the whereabouts of her Mother and Kevin, June makes contact with the FBI about the missing persons, and she delves into her computer and phone to investigate even further, trying to pick up on any hints that may lead to her mother's whereabouts. She even hires a Colombian investigator named Javier (Joaquim de Almeida) who works for a small fee. It doesn't take long before June is pulled down the rabbit hole, and the more she searches for answers, the more unexpected details are unveiled, and the more she gets to wondering who it is she can really trust. I haven't delved deep into any details about it, but there's a little-known factoid about the film 'Searching'. If you pay attention to a lot of the stuff besides the stuff you're supposed to pay attention to, you'll find evidence of an alien invasion. The signs aren't in-your-face obvious, but here's a nice little YouTube compilation I've found of the hints in question. I was looking for something like that with this film too but didn't manage to find any of it. Although, it seems that according to sources, the alien invasion subplot is going in here too. These kinds of things give both films a certain rewatchability, allowing the viewer to work on potentially solving two mysteries at a time instead of just the main one. The best thing to compare these movies to in that sense is probably the 'Cloverfield' anthology ('Cloverfield', '10 Cloverfield Lane' and 'The Cloverfield Paradox'). They are all different stories, but all essentially share a universe that allows the viewer to piece clues together and try to solve, or at least theorize what the Cloverfield aliens were all about. The big difference there is that I'd highly recommend 'Searching' or 'Missing' much sooner than I'd recommend any of the 'Cloverfield' movies (except the first one, which I still say is awesome). The idea of using screens to tell the whole story may not have started here, but I think these movies perfected the concept. While the whole background alien invasion thing is fun, the fact of the matter is, the main plots of both of these movies are very exciting. They are both great examples of how to tell a good story with limited resources. They're both surprisingly exciting, bringing you closer to the edge of your seat than you'd think from a simple computer screen. Both hold a good twist or two, and both are somewhat participatory. A big catch for these movies is that we know just as much as the lead knows going into it - nothing more, nothing less. It's fun in that regard to be following along, trying to make predictions and trying to get to the bottom of things yourself. These are pretty damn good for anyone seeking out a different kind of mystery. In the end, the stories of 'Missing' and 'Searching' end up being about the same things. To some degree, both are cautionary tales about how easy it can be to hack into something if you just have access to the right materials. The thing is, it's our heroes who are doing this, so it goes against the idea that that's only a bad thing and makes one think. Further to that, they are about the rocky relationships between parents and children but told from different perspectives. So, theme-wise, extremely similar. But to give both films the credit they really deserve, I will say that at least they both executed their stories very differently, and the thrills weren't lost on me this time around. Both are well worth it for a good mystery thriller! 4/5 |
RSS Feed