 So remember how I praised 'Dahmer' in my last review? It did a great job of working on the audience psychologically by getting us into Jefferey Dahmer's head. It was dark, atmospheric, disturbing, suspenseful, and showed us Dahmer the person a little more than Dahmer the psychopath. Something like 'Gacy', on the other hand, is an example of one of the films I mentioned that drags the factoids across your eye from start to finish and then you think to yourself "I could have seen a much better documentary about this".
We kick things off here by seeing Gacy as a child on a fishing trip in 1953 with his abusive father (Adam Baldwin) to see a very brief example of the abuse he suffered as a kid. Fast-forward to 1976, and we hit the ground running so quickly that we almost trip over ourselves. Gacy and the family are constantly interrupted by neighbours who complain about the foul stench coming from his crawlspace. So there's really no lead-up to anything at all, and it all takes place a little more near the end of everything associated with the Gacy murders. The interesting thing about it, however, is that as famous as Gacy was as Pogo the Clown; an image even used for the film's poster, there's basically NO Pogo going on in this, save for a few home videos and a couple of slight nods to it. I realize how that must sound, considering the film is about the man and not the clown, but I have to say I'm a little surprised at how little of it there actually was. And my God, when you see him in the clown makeup for the first time, it's actually kind of hilarious when it's supposed to be creepy. He's a little more reminiscent of the intoxicated clown from 'Uncle Buck', and it's all made even funnier when you realize Gacy is played by Mark Holton; someone we know a little bit more from comedies, but is above all else, Francis from 'Pee-Wee's Big Adventure'. So just think of Gacy saying something like "I know you are, but what am I?" and it's very hard to take him seriously here. As far as the rest of the film goes, it's pretty much a Hollywood adaptation of what we know, and like 'Dahmer', it changes things up a little bit to make it a work of fiction, but everything you need to know about Gacy is still there. Considering this, it's much easier for me to recommend a few documentaries on the actual case much, much higher. I could say the same thing about 'Dahmer', I suppose, but at the very least, 'Dahmer' provided a good story that one could latch onto out of interest in the case. 'Gacy', in a way, moves too damn fast. It covers bare basics, and perhaps what stood out most as a difference was the quality in acting. 'Gacy' feels a little more like a college play. One big reason for these comparisons to 'Dahmer' is the fact that they come from the same source of DEJ Productions. They pretty well both open with the same, or at least very similar text as well, stating in so many words that "the following is an act of fiction based on real events". So, as with 'Dahmer', I'll give it credit for that, at the very least. But the fact of the matter is, that's just not enough to save it. This wasn't anything truly psychological (although it tried at several points) so much as it's just a movie about a killer who we all know is doing the killing as he hides in plain sight. So my basic conclusion is, quite honestly, that there's extremely basic thriller entertainment value to this one, and just about every doc I've seen about the case overshadows this so heavily that it might as well not eve be there. 2/5
0 Comments
 I'm gonna go ahead and clear the air about something before I get into this. Typically speaking, I don't think the serial killer biopic is a genre that's all that great. I find, in general, they tend to get a few facts right and sort of glorify all of the kills more for horror purposes than anything else. That sounds dumb, I know, but think of it this way - typically, you're getting a Jason or Freddy in the form of a real-life serial killer, but the only thing really scary about anything is that these people once existed.
So what is it I want from a good serial killer movie? I'm gonna go ahead and say I want something like this! 'Dahmer' is a film that gets us inside the killer's head in a big way, and that's the thing that makes this movie scary - as long as you can ignore the fact that Dahmer is played by Jeremy Renner, or as we all know him now, Marvel's "Hawkeye" (or former Hawkeye, anyway). I can see that adding to some idea of not being able to take him very seriously here, but trust me when I say he pulls off the role incredibly well. If you've ever wanted proof Renner can really act and not just be an action hero, this is it. The film itself follows Jefferey Dahmer, living alone in Milwaukee, WI, as we are essentially shown how he did what he did. We get several flashbacks throughout the film that go back to his teenage years. One such memory involves his first kill in Bath, Ohio, and more consist of his relationship with his parents; namely his homophobic father, and his alcoholism. The main focus is generally the present day when Dahmer brings back a young man named Rodney (Artel Great) to his apartment with the intent to kill, but it also shows a firm example of his, shall we say, mixed feelings towards his murders, as there's clearly something between them. Now, to make one thing clear about this film - it is a very uncomfortable film, both in the atmosphere and a lot of the physical activity going on, on different levels. It's darkly lit for the most part, with eerie music throughout, and the tension keeps building through it. But there's also almost a sort of twisted artistry to it. Now, I can stand to sit through a lot, but this does provide a pretty good test of the viewer's nerves. It's sincerely not even something I'd dub a horror movie so much as it is a dark drama, but I have to say, there were some scenes that made me squirm here. But the beauty of it is that it was all done without him just being some angry dude with a gnarly weapon. We really get to know Jefferey here, and it's great to see another one (like the last one) that isn't just a list of facts acted out (like the next one). I'm going to suggest this mostly to anyone who is really into any sort of true crime involving high-profile serial killers. If you're interested in Dahmer in particular (duh), I'd recommend it even higher. But truth be told, it's quite a bit to get through. It's not long, but it's very dialogue-heavy with a lot of disturbing scenery within. This one seems to be made to play on the psyche with the way Dahmer thinks much more than to say "Hey, here's what he did". It's also one the critic will probably appreciate more than the average moviegoer, but I think this has the potential to appeal to the right audience. Either way, if you have yourself a Prime subscription, it can be found over there right now! 4/5  I seem to have picked a pretty good place to start with this month's theme of real-life serial killers brought to the screen in some way shape or form. Therefore, I'd like to take this opportunity to state that if you're no fan of true crime, or indeed, if any of this may be triggering in any sense of the word, one may wanna skip over these next four reviews. However, I will try to refrain from such things as much as possible. We kick things off with a release from just last year, 'No Man of God', centring on who may very well be the poster boy for serial killers in general, Ted Bundy.
There are a few Bundy titles out there, but this one grabbed my attention after hearing it referenced on a certain true crime podcast I listen to. What struck me about it was the idea of it being based on real transcripts chosen from conversations between Bundy (Luke Kirby) and FBI Special Agent Bill Hagmaier (Elijah Wood), ranging from 1984 to 1989. The pair form a complicated relationship during Bundy's final years, and here we see a pretty damn solid case of hero-relates-to-villain, as seen perhaps most famously in the movie 'Heat', but has been done a number of times before. Having said that, I should probably say that as far as the hero and villain in this case are concerned, the film does a wonderful job of humanizing them both. There are moments they just have a laugh, moments that almost (they don't though) allow you to empathize with Bundy. One great moment in the film involved Bundy asking Hagmaier if he could ever kill someone, and I won't spoil anything, but let's just say the response is rather interesting. And again, don't get the wrong idea here, Bundy's where he needs to be right now. But this does provide an interesting look into Bundy's psyche, which is what it's all about, to begin with. Right off the bat, I'm going to say that this is a film for the real die-hard fans of true crime who could be interested in something like this. While there's a nice change of pace from the typical Hollywood glorification of these serial killers here, there was something very real about this one in that it's pretty much all talking. The film is essentially one long interview, stitched together with a whole bunch of metaphorical imagery, giving the film a very artsy feel in a sense. But if you can allow yourself to sink into it, the performances are well worth the trip. Luke Kirby does an amazing Ted Bundy here, and Elijah Wood does a good job of flexing his acting muscles here, not so much being the Frodo he's become known as. I think of all the movies I have on this particular list, this is the most real, and far away from any sort of "Hollywoodification". If you're interested in true crime stuff and have any sort of particular interest in Ted Bundy, then this could very well be the film for you, being just on the edge of documentary-style, and above all else, using real transcripts of the convos between these two. It's a pretty neat delve into the human psyche altogether - not just into Bundy's, but I do have to warn that it is very dry. When I say it's like one long interview, I do mean that. There's a break here and there, but if you want to see a serial killer movie for any sort of thrill, this is not the one to pick. Personally, I was pretty lukewarm to it. It's very interesting stuff, but I can't deny getting bored along the way either. So where's the line for me? The next film is a pretty "Dahm" good example of it. 3/5  Despite this one being located "under the radar", it seems pretty evident that there are a lot of people out there who are familiar with this title. Personally, I've known of its existence since its 2017 release. Word spread about it being an absolutely solid Japanese horror/comedy flick, but for whatever reason, I just never gave it the time of day until now. My final conclusion though, spoiler alert, is that this is a unique example of how to take two completely overdone horror clichés and make something really good out of them.
This film manages to blend the concepts of found footage and zombie films and create what could be considered a work of directorial art from them... and that's just the first part of it. With that said, I'm going to try my best to keep this as spoiler-free as possible, and that is going to be extremely hard. So perhaps focus should mostly go to this first half. It entails a hack director, Higurashi (Takayuki Hamatsu) who gets frustrated with his film's actors, and we see him storm off. Meanwhile, we learn through actors Chinatsu (Yuzuki Akiyama) and Ko (Kazuaki Nagaya) along with makeup artist, Nao (Harumi Shuhama) that the abandoned water filtration plant they're shooting in has a pretty horrific history. This history, of course, involves human experimentation and the eventual lead to zombification. Before long, the zombie film 'One Cut of the Dead' within the zombie film 'One Cut of the Dead' turns from fantasy to reality, as actual zombies terrorize the set. This, in turn, actually results in a pretty wonderful combination of comedic moments and high adrenaline. The comedy comes from zombies often being mistaken as actors, but the adrenaline comes from what is essentially a 40-minute single shot of zombie action, complete with chase scenes, gore and things that would be very hard to do in a single take. So huge kudos to these guys for managing it! As far as the second part of it goes, that's where things get extremely tricky. There's a big reveal, and it gets way too deep into spoiler territory, but I will say this about it - it's very clever! If you want to know what's what and don't care about spoilers, then I'd urge you to take a look at the Wikipedia plot synopsis for this because from my perspective, I'd sooner highly recommend just watching the movie. It's a Shudder Exclusive at the moment, so if you don't have Shudder, you may be SOL. But if you can find a way to watch it, I'd say it's worth the approximate hour and a half, if only to refresh one's perspective on found footage and zombie films. To top everything off, this is also a film largely dedicated to people who are into filmmaking and the whole behind-the-scenes process of everything. It has some truly unique ideas, it doesn't hold back on making you laugh, and it's also just very impressive filmmaking altogether. The one-cut concept already makes the movie pretty awesome, but then when the tables turn on the film, and the reveal happens, it's enough to make one want to applaud the real writer/director of this, Shin'ichirô Ueda. Once again, I'm happy to say that my mind is opened just a little bit more after checking this one out. If you enjoy found footage and/or zombies on any sort of level, this one comes recommended highly by yours truly. 5/5  Generally speaking, I'm a pretty big fan of British comedy. But sometimes a title comes along that's pretty well-renowned as something that almost should be much more up my alley than it ends up being. 'Withnail & I' happens to be one of these movies. Let me be clear that I didn't hate, or even really dislike it. But it's a very well-reviewed title, the concept sounded fun, and upon this first viewing, I came out of it just kind of shrugging my shoulders at it. It's a good movie, I just didn't fall in love with it like so many others.
The story here involves The exuberant Withnail (Richard E. Grant) and the rather pensive Marwood (Paul McGann); two unemployed, actors living together in a nightmarish flat in Camden Town, London, in 1969. A fairly hardcore drug dealer by the name of Danny (Ralph Brown) is their only visitor, and it's not long before the pair feel cooped up enough that they want a holiday. The destination is a rural cottage owned by Withnail's Uncle Monty (Richard Griffiths), to which Monty eventually gives Withnail the key. Soon, the pair find themselves in what could very well be a worse situation than being cooped up in their mess of a flat all day. Upon their arrival, they find the cottage to be in bad shape and without any provisions, the locals to be unpleasant - namely a rough-looking poacher named Jake (Michael Elphick), and the weather to be very dreary for their stay. Not surprisingly, it ends up being a situation where everything bad about their stay keeps escalating. Such situations include having to cook a chicken, dealing with a potential stalker, and of course, each other. But while I may shrug this one off a bit more than others, I can certainly appreciate what makes it "one of Britain's biggest cult films", according to the BBC. I think my biggest takeaway from this is the idea that the grass isn't always "greener" on the other side of the fence. However, that's more of a surface thing. This also has a lot to do with the strained friendship of the titular twosome. And without spoiling too much, I'll just say that the way this ends almost defines "bittersweet" and pretty relatable, on the whole. For me, it's actually the way this ends that makes it worth the watch. In its own right, it's a bit of a work of art - cliche as that may sound. So believe me when I say that I can most certainly appreciate this one for what it is. With all that said, however, I'm not sure why it didn't quite stick out for me. It's something I feel like I need to give a few viewings before really enjoying it, which is not unheard of for me. Even 'Monty Python and the Holy Grail', which I now consider my favourite comedy of all time, was a movie I thought had a "bunch of boring scenes". Nowadays, if you skip those same scenes, I feel like I want to lecture you on why those scenes are hilarious. I do get the impression that with enough viewings, this one could also grow on me quite easily. It's definitely not without the dark humour I appreciate so much, and the cherry on top of it all is Ralph Brown. For those of you who may not be able to place Ralph Brown, check out 'Wayne's World 2' again - he played Del Preston, Jim Morrison's former roadie. If you recall the character, you'll remember how funny he is, and this is basically the exact same character. Del Preston could totally be Danny, and that's actually kinda fun to think about. For yours truly, his brief appearances are the real comedic highlights of the movie. I will go ahead and recommend this to try out if you're into any sort of underground British comedy. As I said, even after all my praise for it, there's still a little something I don't quite get that others seem to. But again, I don't think this will be my one and only viewing. 3/5  Here's a rather hilarious title that still floats under the radar for most people I talk to about it. This comes to us from writer/director Chris Morris, who, if you can't quite place the name, played Denholm Reynholm in 'The IT Crowd'. Also, if you've never watched 'IT Crowd', do yourself a favour and check it out - bloody hilarious.
But getting back on track, 'Four Lions' focuses on a group of radicalized British Muslim men living in England who want nothing more than to become suicide bombers. So right away, one might want to think of this as a sort of British 'Team America'. It's very much a satire on the average terrorist mind, and it does it all very unapologetically. One might call it "edgy", but if you know anything about Chris Morris, this will come as no surprise. Also bear in mind that no one actually gets harmed in this movie. A sheep is credited to have been harmed, but be at peace that this is a fake credit. Among the four are Omar (Riz Ahmed), our story's lead who's very critical of Western society; the bad-tempered Barry (Nigel Lindsay), the token dimwitted character, Waj (Kayvan Novak); and the ever-naive Faisal (Adeel Akhtar). Just to give some faces to these characters, Ahmed was Bodhi Rook in 'Rogue One', Akhtar was Naveed in 'The Big Sick' and Lestrade in the recent 'Enola Holmes', and one might recognize Novak as Nandor in the 'What We Do in the Shadows' series. Lindsay's a bit harder to place as this is the only thing I would probably know him from, but rest assured, his character is one of the best parts of the film; short-tempered at everyone else, but keeps screwing up, himself. While Omar and Waj "answer the call", and head to a training camp for al Qaeda in Pakistan, Barry attends a conference and recruits a fifth member by the name of Hassan (Arsher Ali - who I'd probably only know from 'The Ritual'). Disaster hits the training camp by Omar's own hand (in a pretty hilarious scene, I might add), bringing the pair back to Britain, but Omar with a new attitude of authority with the group. The rest of the film pretty well involves them bumbling with plans for a bombing while ideologies are constantly clashing. But what takes you by surprise is some of the underlying concepts the film has to offer, like bringing Omar's loving wife and child into the story. So, I'm not going to say that the film is "full of heart" while being a knee-slapping comedy, because it's definitely the latter first. I might also say that at this point in time it could be considered "dated", but it's comedic, slap-stick look at terrorism without causing any actual harm to anyone but themselves is almost something to be admired. It's not saying "look at these terrible people" so much as it's saying "look at these idiots". The way the film ends, as well, is (at least to me) enough to redeem a lot of the edgy, dark humor throughout the film. It proves the film still has some heart, and is actually still asking a lot of the same questions we've been asking about terrorism this whole time. This might not be what I would consider a masterpiece of comedy like so many other reviewers seem to be doing. It's not something I'd be able to throw on just any old time, and I feel like I'd have to be in the mood to watch something along the lines of "World's Dumbest Criminals" to do so. But it does a good job at satirising something that, in essence, is mostly untouched in a comedic fashion. Again, 'Team America' is about all I can think of, and even then, the satire leans more on the American side of things. It's worth checking out if you want a good laugh based on this sort of thing. 4/5  I may have mentioned this already, but Taika Waititi has grown over the years as one of my favourites when it comes to directing. He's a fine example of someone whose material that I have seen, I've never really been disappointed in. From 'What We Do in the Shadows' to 'Thor: Ragnarok' and even a bit of TV with 'Wellington Paranormal', he seems to hit the mark every time. The man knows how to entertain, my fandom for him just keeps growing, and this movie is no exception. It just makes me want to see more.
We meet a juvenile delinquent named Ricky Baker (Julian Dennison), who has been given a new home through child welfare with his kindly new foster aunt, Bella (Rima Te Wiata), and her crotchety husband, Hector - nicknamed "Hec" (Sam Neill). Bella is very successful in forming a relationship with Ricky, but Hec really keeps to himself, and even sees the boy as a sort of unnecessary burden that he's putting up with. One day, things fall apart when Bella suddenly passes, and Hec prepares to give Ricky back to child services. This leads to Ricky faking suicide and running away with his dog, Tupac. Soon enough, however, Hec finds the lost Ricky in the bush, and an injury to Hec's ankle has the two of them camping out for a little while. Meanwhile, back at the house, authorities find it abandoned, with some damage to the barn (caused by Ricky's fake suicide) and conclude that a bereaved and unstable Hec has kidnapped Ricky. But while authorities search for the pair, Hec has a nasty criminal record and Ricky's fate if brought in by authorities at this point could only be bad. With that, the two decide to head into the woods together; fugitives of sorts, ducking and dodging authority figures. And don't worry, the movie has a better explanation than I do about why these two are being chased. With all of that, hopefully, I didn't spoil too much in my description. But anyway, essentially we have Alan Grant of 'Jurassic Park' trying to take care of and bond with the pain-in-the-ass kid from 'Deadpool 2'. I mean, it already sounds kind of fun, doesn't it? Especially when all he wanted to really do in the first place is get rid of the boy. That's nothing against actor Julian Dennison, but he manages to find himself somewhat typecast. Between this, 'Deadpool 2' and 'Christmas Chronicles 2', he seems to always land a role as a kid we're supposed to get irritated with, yet sympathize for. I think he's got talent, but he needs to land something where he can really flex his acting muscles. With that said, however, this predates other things I've seen him in, so it could be said that the trend started here. It's also fitting to play off of Sam Neil's character. Their chemistry is honestly quite good here. I like the idea that this takes the father/son concept and makes it completely reluctant. Neither Ricky nor Hec want to really be with each other here, but they're forced to be and made to look out for one another. What gives it the extra "zip" is that these two aren't lost, scared and alone so much as they're survivors on the run from authorities. It often results in hilarity, but it's balanced very well with a good amount of drama. As far as Taika Waititi's material goes (that I have seen), I would put this level to something like 'Jojo Rabbit'. All in all, it IS a drama, but it's a drama that's full of laughs that can STILL manage to make you tear up. Waititi seems to be very good at being able to gauge our every emotion, even though he leans towards comedy first. After seeing this, I've convinced myself that I need to check out some of his material that I haven't seen yet. For any fans of his who haven't checked this title out yet, I'm gonna highly recommend it. I may have liked 'Jojo' a bit better, but this is very close in comparison, especially with such a good soundtrack full of indie music. 4/5  This one represents the directorial debut of a more common actor, Peter Stebbings, who one might know from a variety of TV dramas such as 'Murdoch Mysteries' (as James Pendrick), 'Nurses' (as Dr. Thomas Hamilton), and 'Bates Motel' (as "Trespasser"/"Bob's Employee"). Interestingly enough, this one predates the more popular 'Kick-Ass' as the portrayal of a "real-life" superhero, using nothing but wits along with little fighting skill, and getting his ass kicked appropriately in the process.
'Kick-Ass', however, still has a very comic-style feel to it. As "real" as it's meant to be, it's still an obvious work of fiction. There's something about the genuine harshness of 'Defendor' that stands out, making it really quite realistic all over. It even gets pretty deep at times and speaks to some out there who would love to get away with being a superhero. To be quite honest, despite any of its brutality, the bottom line of the film is actually pretty inspiring, as if to say even us little guys can be heroes. All it takes is the right frame of mind, and the understanding that the word "hero" doesn't have to be attached to the word "super". The film opens with a man named Arthur Poppington (Woody Harrelson) talking to a psychiatrist named Dr. Park (Sandra Oh). Arthur has been sent to see her and be interviewed about his assault on a Mr. Debrofkowitz. The story is then told as a flashback interview, where we see Arthur taking on the role of "Defendor"; a hero out to stop his nemesis "Captain Industry", whom he believes is responsible for his mother's death. This leads him to a corrupt detective named Dooney (Elias Koteas), who Arthur thinks must work for Captain Industry. After a confrontation and a good beat-down from Dooney and his friends, he meets a prostitute named Angel (Kat Dennings). Angel, not living up to her name, convinces Arthur that she knows who Captain Industry really is, and leads him on a not-so-healthy path, all the while spending Arthur's money. Meanwhile, Arthur's friend and boss, Paul (Michael Kelly) becomes increasingly concerned about Arthur's well-being, both mentally and physically. Eventually, it leads the viewer to question whether what "Defendor" is doing is really wrong or perhaps just a little justified. While one is bound to go into this expecting much more of a comedy (again, similar to 'Kick-Ass'), what we get instead is actually a bit of a pleasant surprise. This movie takes into consideration things like the mental health part of a superhero. While Batman is quite often said to have issues or be "crazy", it's never really analyzed on a level quite like this. Beyond that, it's a matter of how far one would take the hero role before getting into trouble, and indeed, is any of the vigilantism he displays actually justified? It's a pretty interesting character study altogether. 4/5  The found footage genre is very hit-or-miss when it comes to my own taste. A lot of people just can't really do it, and that's something I understand. But if it's done creatively enough, I tend to really like quite a few of them - one of them being the now unbelievable 10-year-old 'Chronicle'; the found-footage take on obtaining superpowers for lack of a better term. And, funny story, two of these actors would go on to feature in mainstream Superhero movies.
As all found-footage movies go, our basic setup is seen from the get-go where our lead, Andrew Detmer (Dane DeHaan), decides he's going to film "everything" from now on. A good chunk of this is due to his abusive, alcoholic father, Richard (Michael Kelly) who blames Andrew for literally everything, including Andrew's mom, Karen's (Bo Peterson) illness. Andrew also gets bullied at school, but one has to admit that to some degree, he's not really the most likable person. But no worries, as this character was actually well-formed that way for good reason. Andrew's cousin, Matt Garetty (Alex Russell) invites him to a party one night, in order to mingle and try to get himself out there, meeting people. There, things don't go too well, but he eventually meets Class President hopeful, Steve Montgomery (Michael B. Jordan). Steve brings Andrew and his camera to meet up with Matt in order to explore a very mysterious cave that seems to have appeared out of nowhere. Upon exploring, something unknown happens that seemingly leads the trio to obtain telekinesis. One thing I do love about this movie is the way this power works. Things seem to come with limits, and it acts a lot like weight-lifting. The more they do it, the better they get, but if they overdo it, things result in a pretty bad nose-bleed. As they videotape all of the cool stuff they learn how to do throughout the film, things don't exactly go without incident, and soon enough we see the difference between having the power to help others and having the power to help oneself. If you gained such an ability yourself, would you abuse it if you were really good at it? Or would you only use it when and if it was asked for? One word of warning I'll give about this, along with most found-footage films, is that there's really no explanation as to how they really got these abilities. Something happens, we don't know, and we're not meant to know. One thing I appreciate about this genre is the lack of explanation. One can use imagination to fill in the blanks, and to some degree, it almost doesn't make any sense to offer up an explanation, as we're supposed to be experiencing things through the eyes of the cameraman. I do get people being somewhat miffed about that, considering a lack of structure. But for me, found footage is almost meant to be more of a theme park ride experience than an actual solid film. There are a few examples of found footage that I'd say are really well done, and I have to say that this is one of them. It's a fun and quick way to tell a superhero story while being original, but also offering up the two paths someone with special abilities can go down. It sort of begs the question of what one would do if they had this power. For me, I like the idea of using it for mischief. You're not being a good guy, but you're not exactly being a supervillain either. There's a whole bit here where you see them do just that, and though you feel kind of bad for the people they are messing with, it does give one a pretty good chuckle. As for the two who went on to star in mainstream superhero movies, Michael B. Jordan is likely the obvious one, as Killmonger in 'Black Panther' AND Human Torch in 2015's 'Fantastic Four'. Dane DeHaan also went on to be a crappy version of the Green Goblin in 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2'. But what's odd is that Alex Russell doesn't seem to (unless I missed something) have credit for anything like that. The guy has potential though, so we shall see if he gets added to anything in the near future. Anyway, if you ever wanted to see where at least Michael B. Jordan came from, this is an interesting watch nowadays. If nothing else, it's a cool take on not only the found-footage genre, but the superhero genre as well. 4/5  This one has been on my to-see list for a while now, so I was pretty excited to finally get into it after so long. One part of me expected the same old typical ghost story, but another part of me was focused on the imagery along with the concept. It seemed to be a film meant to make one scared of the dark again. I can't say it succeeded in that for me, but I also can't deny that I still enjoyed it.
A young woman named Rebecca (Teresa Palmer) is called to her half-brother, Martin's (Gabriel Bateman) school due to him constantly falling asleep in class. His lack of sleep is due to his and Rebecca's shared mother, Sophie (Maria Bello), who stays awake talking to someone invisible; her friend; resident ghoul, Diana (Alicia Vela-Bailey). Unlike the way things like this would normally go down, Martin talks to Rebecca about Diana, which causes a flood of horrible memories from Rebecca's childhood to come back. Evidently, she has been in his shoes. All the while, they are aided by Rebecca's boyfriend, Bret (Alexander DiPersia) who, thankfully, instead of brushing the half-siblings off as nuts, supports and helps them through this. As Rebecca digs deeper into research on Diana, she soon uncovers a dark history, and a tie to her mother that not only explains her behavior, but shines a light on who the spirit haunting them really is. This Diana character comes as a sort of tormentor for this particular family, taking out anyone who may be in the way. She's fairly reminiscent of Samara from 'The Ring' in that she not only looks fairly similar (a little more ghouled up) but also has the ability to physically harm the living. Interestingly enough, there's a scene where Sophie says that Diana isn't a ghost - however, at the same time, she can't explain what she is. She's not a demon, per se, either. Just a strange entity who likes to scratch things. Although it doesn't come without a few horror cliches, and I wouldn't call it perfect, I did have a lot of fun with it. Running at only an hour and twenty minutes, this manages to be a sort of campfire ghost story brought to life on screen. And that's honestly what I did enjoy about it - its simplicity. The filmmakers are here to tell a quick ghost story, and avoid certain stereotypes through role reversal. The Mom is the one talking to imaginary friends as opposed to the kid. The boyfriend listens to his partner and helps instead of thinking she's just out of her mind. You've got to appreciate details like that, because that simple move makes things new and different to some extent. Personally, I thought it was fun, and I didn't feel like it was anything that was taking itself seriously. Like I said, this is a campfire story come to life. It's not without a fair share of decent scares, but it's another one that uses its atmosphere to increase the tension, and that's something I always enjoy. Nothing gets cranked to eleven, mind you, but it's a fun ride with a somewhat interesting ending to say the least. If you're on the lookout for a good, quick scare, I could recommend this. It's haunting, twisted, creepy, performances are decent, and it doesn't get too deep with things. It's a funhouse ride with some disturbing imagery and a nasty ghoul who just might make you afraid of the dark one more time. 4/5  For the final movie of this second "Ghost Month" installment, I thought I'd take a look at a Spanish film, brought to us from executive producer Guillermo del Toro. There are many avenues in horror I haven't explored yet, and Spanish horror is most definitely something I've been meaning to delve a little more into. While I don't consider the film to be a total original, it's still quite well done, and does a good job of blending very different types of horror into one movie.
Thirty years after an orphanage adopts Laura (Belén Rueda), she returns with her husband, Carlos (Fernando Cayo) and young son, Simón (Roger Príncep). Now closed, Laura plans to reopen it as a facility for disabled children. While settling in, Simón says that he has befriended a boy named Tomás (Óscar Casas); a boy who evidently wanders around wearing a sack mask. We later learn that Tomás was a kid who was facially deformed, taunted by other kids, and ended up drowning as a result of their shenanigans. This, to any real horror fan, sounds all too familiar, as Jason Voorhees once met the same fate. You might as well just say "he died in a car crash" as far as unoriginality, but I digress. Thankfully, this little nitpick didn't ruin things for me. Simón soon teaches his mother a game, following clues around the house. Upon winning the game, your wish is granted. It is during this that Simón gets into a fight with his mother after apparently learning from Tomás that he was adopted, and Laura wasn't his real mother. Eventually, during a party to celebrate the opening of the new facility, Simón goes missing. As the months pass, and Carlos loses hope that their son is still alive, Laura does whatever she can to find her missing son, even if it includes breaking the boundaries of reality and playing a game with Tomás and the rest of Simón's imaginary friends to find him. When all considered this doesn't entirely feel typical of a ghost/haunting movie, but one can't deny how much it seems to borrow from, either. Aside from the 'Friday the 13th' pull, I'd also throw in dashes of material from movies like 'The Others' and even perhaps a touch of 'Trick 'r Treat' considering Tomás' look being very reminiscent of Sam's. However, being released the same year, that's perhaps a bit of a stretch. Perhaps most interesting of all is that it dabbles in 'Peter Pan' (knowingly) and the concept of the Lost Boys. It all comes together in the end to make for a pretty solid movie, despite a few weak points in the beginning. Much like with 'The Others', there's definitely a creepiness to it, but it's not entirely on the horror side of things - it just has horror elements. Perhaps most impressive to me here, however, were the performances. It's not often you can cast a child actor and have them pull off something kind of amazing. Roger Príncep does a great job here as Simón, especially for being around 8 or 9 years old at the time of filming. He carries a lot of personality, and expresses himself very well. I like that he's not afraid of these ghosts, but at the same time, they don't give him any sort of creepy edge. He's just a kid convinced he's hanging out with other kids, and does a much more casual job of it than say, Zachary David Cope in 'Stir of Echoes'. I was actually quite impressed, and have learned that he has been nominated for various awards for this role. While little Roger steels the show here, Belén Rueda certainly holds her own as well. She plays the ever-caring mother type, and wants her kid to be happy but safe all at once. However, she's never overbearing while he's still in the picture, and when he disappears, she suddenly turns into a lioness on the lookout for her missing kid, never willing to give up, but never completely breaking down in the process. She didn't spray tears quite as much as say, Joyce Byers in Season 1 of 'Stranger Things', and she's willing to do whatever it takes, even if it means getting into the supernatural as an act of desperation. It may not be a film that's altogether mind-blowing or even amazing, but it certainly holds its own and has a very well thought out ending, in my opinion. It's strangely haunting but charming all at once, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't actually really enjoy it despite any flaws. 4/5  Have you ever realized that mainstream ghost/haunting/supernatural movies seem to come and go in phases? One of the longest lineups of them seemed to exist in the late 90s and early 2000s before 'Paranormal Activity' resurrected the obsession in 2009. But this was part of that ghost phase that existed beforehand when none of it was great, but there was a creepy fun factor to them and we'd now watch them as "average at best" nostalgic films. Lucky for me, I can still get a kick out of some of these earlier works, but I can't deny that we've come so far that this era simply isn't scary anymore.
The film takes place one year following a bad car accident, where a former cellist named Claire Spencer (Michelle Pfeiffer), and her husband, Norman (Harrison Ford), send their daughter, Caitlin (Katharine Towne) off to college. Caitlin's absence seems to strain the couple's relationship, and matters are made worse when Claire suspects their neighbor Warren (James Remar) of murdering his wife, Mary (Miranda Otto). Strange, supernatural occurrences further her suspicions, as so many signs point to the house potentially being haunted by Mary's ghost. However, when Mary is revealed to be alive, the paranormal activity continues, and Claire continues to dig until she finds the eventual, disturbing truth behind the spirit lurking in their house. I think that for its respective time, in the year 2000, this really isn't bad. But I will say that to watch it now, it seems pretty typical and even predictable with its twist ending. It's also not a haunting movie in nearly the same sense as more of the modern stuff. Really, this is a little more of a mystery with a paranormal element to it, fueled by the two leads' names. Back in 2000, Pfeiffer and Ford were well-known in the industry, so they certainly add some pizzazz to the whole deal. That said, I have to say that nowadays the film would probably work better as a straight-to-Netflix miniseries or something along those lines. Ghost-related movies have come a very long way since this, and there's simply no scare factor here anymore. I'd even call it kind of dull, if I'm honest, which sucks because I remember enjoying this when it was initially released. I placed this one "Under the Radar", despite it being fairly well-known, because no one ever talks about it anymore. I wanted to revisit it in order to ponder why that might be. My conclusion is that I think it's one of those movies where once the ending was out, the "spoiler twist" just wasn't "twisty" enough. Bear in mind that this was released a year after 'The Sixth Sense' as well, which pretty well set the bar for a good twist ending to a ghost movie. This plain and simply didn't quite meet the bar, partly due to predictability, and party due to it having very little impact. It's mildly interesting anymore at best, at least as part of the late 90s/early 2000s supernatural craze. It's even parodied in 'Scary Movie 2', which set its focus on the same craze. I guess if you can find it, and you're looking for something creepy but simple, it could be worth checking out. It's certainly not without its moments, but it is relatively slow-moving and I wouldn't say things really truly pick up with any sort of intensity until about three quarters of the way through. The climax to this is quite well done, but it's a long way to get there - like having to walk a few miles for a pint of cold beer, but it's local beer and nothing fancy. I don't consider this a bad movie like many seem to, but it's still just average at best, and some of the technology dates it horribly. You should get a load of their car phone. Anyway, check it out if your curious to see a ghost movie before they got terrifying. Otherwise, it's perfectly skippable, and its stars shine better elsewhere. 3/5  Here's a title several people probably remember from when the 21st century introduced itself. In the past twenty years, it has seemingly gone unnoticed and/or tossed aside. Most people I talk to either haven't heard of it, or think I'm referring to the fairly fresh 2019 drama series of the same name. This all frankly sometimes surprises me, considering it's a movie that features Nicolas Cage in the lead role. But perhaps it's just that he's not quite "Nick Cage" enough for viewers here. Indeed, it's one of those times he plays it more serious, so if you wanna see whacked out crazy Cage, you're out of luck.
Cage plays the role of a Wall Street Executive named Jack. He, and his long-time partner, Kate (Téa Leoni) are parting ways at JFK Airport, as Jack is headed to London to take up a twelve-month internship. The fear of his leaving hurting their long-term relationship, however, gets to her. Then, as though it's already the end of any typical romance movie, Kate asks him not to go. She gives a short but pretty convincing speech about staying with her to start a nice, peaceful family life. He reassures her that their love will last through the worst, and takes off anyway, leaving her heart-broken at the terminal. So, right off the bat, we see who these people are - their introductions are quite solid for being so quick. Thirteen years pass, and Jack finds himself living a carefree bachelor lifestyle. Things are going quite well for him; he's a successful go-getter on Wall Street, and loves what he does, making him the cocky type who cares a little more about his lifestyle than other people. This comes right down to Kate who evidently tries calling him, but despite the fact that he remembers her, he doesn't answer the phone. He leaves work one night, and heads into a convenience store where an average young New Yorker named Cash (Don Cheadle) tries to claim a lottery ticket that the clerk refuses, accusing him of cheating with it. This leads to an interaction of Jack attempting to find Cash some help, but little does Jack know what's about to happen. When Cash asks Jack if anything is missing from his life, and he responds by stating he has everything he needs, the magic begins with the offer of a "glimpse". Jack awakens the next morning next to Kate, in a lovely house with two happy children. For the first while, as anyone probably would he goes around town freaking out just a little bit at the fact that people aren't recognizing him, or at least not recognizing him correctly. He's suddenly married with children and working as a car tire salesman, with people being a bit more friendly than usual towards him. He soon comes to realize this "glimpse" is what he could have had if he stayed behind from his opportunity in London, thirteen years ago. The big question is, which lifestyle does he want more?; the swinging lifestyle of a bachelor Wall Street executive, or the simple life of a "family man" where love and good memories is all one needs to be happy? Just to get it out of the way, I found myself enjoying this quite a bit. It takes some of the best aspects of 'It's a Wonderful Life', sort of flipping it, and I'd even go so far as to say there's a bit of 'Christmas Carol' here just as well. It's a neat take on the idea, and the point that money can't buy you happiness is abundantly clear by the end. All in all, it's a film that goes from very cold to very warm, and things flow pretty well. It may not be entirely original, but it's sweet. It's a good film to make one appreciate what they have in the way of love and affection. It also puts the idea forth that being rich and successful are all well and good, but what if it makes you miss out on the love of your life? It's a good way to analyze the different paths we choose in life. The film isn't without a couple of nitpicky flaws, but at the end of the day, that's exactly what they are - personal nitpicks. I think the prime example for myself is that the daughter (Makenzie Vega) was made a little too cute - almost as though she was a cartoon character. So there are certainly those aspects thrown in there just to make things sappy. But with that said, I was impressed at how much Cage was able to bring himself down, and how much Leoni was able to bring herself up. I tend to like Cage at his "Cagiest", but this was a role that proves he can settle his ass down for a couple of hours if need be. Leoni was someone I was never a big fan of, mostly because I find her to be very one-note and bland with almost no character in almost anything. But here, she shows some of her range, and I admit I was impressed. The real takeaway here though, is the story. Once again, it's not entirely original, but it is some of the best aspects of some of those Christmas classics we all know and love. Regardless of anything, it's a movie that teaches the right lessons, it's warm, it's sweet, and it's something one could easily cuddle up with their partner to watch by a cozy fireplace in these cold December days leading up to Christmas. I wouldn't place it at the top of my list of Christmas recommendations, but it's certainly not something I'd try to steer people away from as a waste of time. It's quite good for what it is, and I enjoyed how sweet it was, so for many, it could be worth the watch. 3/5  For the month of December, of course my focus is gonna be on films that float under the radar around Christmastime. We kick things off with 2005's 'The Ice Harvest', directed by Harold Ramis, and its probably one of his darker movies; although it maintains a sense of humor. Indeed, this is one of those movies where a lot of the humor lies in the darker aspects of it, like working for the mob and all that entails.
As the film opens, we're introduced to a couple of criminals; mob lawyer Charlie Arglist (John Cusack) and a pornographer businessman named Vic Cavanaugh (Billy Bob Thornton). They have stolen about $2 million from mobster Bill Guerrard (Randy Quaid), who also happens to be their boss, and are amped for an easy getaway. However, an icy rain comes along making the roads far too dangerous for driving. Vic takes the money for safekeeping, and they both try to evade capture and potential torture from Roy Gelles (Mike Starr), one of Guerrard's thugs, through this bitter Christmas Eve night. With Guerrard finding out their scheme, it seems to be only a matter of time. The main backdrop of the movie is the Sweet Cage strip club, which Vic owns, run by Renata Crest (Connie Nielsen), the object of Charlie's affection. There's a whole "take the money and run" subplot going on with them, as she finds out about the money and essentially wants to get away from the lifestyle she's living. There's another subplot involving Charlie's friend, Pete (Oliver Platt), who happens to be married to Charlie's ex. Honestly though, it's hardly worth mentioning, as it's kind of crowbarred into the film. There is a reason for it, but by the end of it all it seems almost unnecessary. There's not a lot of charm to the Platt stuff, not so much because of Platt, but because his character is just perpetually drunk for laughs; he's the guy who doesn't know when to stop. A lot of the stuff involving Charlie and whatever it is he wants to do with the money, is pretty good stuff though. There's not a whole lot of laugh out loud moments here, but it certainly got a few giggles. I generally really enjoy a good dark comedy, but this is one of those movies you have to be in the right mood for. A lot of it feels more serious than it probably should, and as a movie with a Christmas backdrop, it doesn't really use it a lot other than people humming Christmas carols the odd time. Not that a movie like this should feel "Christmassy", but it doesn't use enough elements from the holiday to consider it any sort of Christmas movie. I refer readers to 'Die Hard' which uses Christmas all throughout its action as a prime example of how to do it right. The film is not, however, without a certain charm to it. It was interesting seeing Ramis take a darker look at things, and the weather sets the mood for the film almost perfectly. For those of us familiar with the idea, a winter rain is just awful. It's cold, wet, grey, slushy, slippery, and even dangerous under certain circumstances (like driving). It's the type of weather that has snow-haters saying "I wish this was snow". To be honest, I can't think of a lot of movies that use this type of weather for atmosphere, so points for originality. It's a good way to trap everyone in the same town and have to wait things out. The performances here are pretty 50/50. I wasn't a fan of Platt's drunken schmoe character, and I didn't think there was a whole lot of personality to Renata other than being that "tease" type towards Charlie (in more ways than one). But I did enjoy Charlie, as this sort of awkward character who didn't fully know what he was doing, and Vic was just about as Billy Bob as Billy Bob can get, which is always great - imagine 'Bad Santa', just without all the alcohol. So, while the main cast and overall setting is enough to keep things entertaining, it's not entirely a must-see either. Not much sticks out, it's a touch forgettable, and I kind of get why it's a film located "under Santa's radar". Give it a shot if you have an hour and a half to kill, and your curiosity gets the better of you - just remember that it doesn't necessarily have to be seen around Christmastime either. 3/5  A few years before Elsa was telling us all to "Let it Go", this was the film people would refer to if they ever asked you if you've seen 'Frozen'. Nowadays, this had been swept under the rug almost completely, because let's face it; "Have you ever seen 'Frozen'?" only ever seems to point to Disney's modern classic. This version is a harrowing survivor story involving three young adults stuck on a ski lift, up against some of the harshest conditions nature can throw at them.
The aforementioned trio consists of Dan Walker (Kevin Zegers), his girlfriend, Parker O'Neil (Emma Bell) and the totally ironic third wheel, Joe Lynch (Shawn Ashmore, who once played Ice Man in the 'X-Men' films). They head to the hills to do some skiing and snowboarding, but are jerks about the mountain having to close early for the week. They convince the ski lift operator to allow them one last run, but due to some confusion down below, the ski lift stops and the resort closes, leaving all three of them stranded up high in a ski chair. Together, they struggle to survive sitting in one suspended spot knowing that the resort doesn't open back up again for another week. Speaking for myself, this movie gave me the same kinds of feelings I got with 'The Edge' the first time I saw it. It really portrays nature working against these people, with cold, bitter winds that whip icy snow at their faces and a pack of wolves down below waiting for an easy meal. I won't spoil too much, but things get pretty brutal. I can say with all honesty that if you're someone who can't stand things like broken bones, skin peeling off, or even the picking of small blemishes (in this case, frostbite), you might very well decide to skip this one. I was cringing a LOT during this, but in all the right ways, considering what the film was trying to do. One thing some people know about me when it comes to movies is that I'm not the biggest fan of the vilification of wolves. Wolves are my favorite animal; so much so that I have one tattooed on my right arm. There are plenty of documentaries out there that show just how interesting they are as a species, and ALL of our favorite dogs have descended from them. Perhaps that's why they are used so often - it's the idea of "man's best friend" turning on you. There was something about this time around though - I found them convincing. They don't just show up to attack, they show up because something happens to lure them in. It is scary stuff, but to me, this felt like a justifiably dark take on wolves. It's almost like the movie scares you into respecting them, and it feels like one of the more realistically dark takes on wolves I've seen. Putting the wolf pack aside, though, it's also just an interesting take on character development. While suspended up there, they get to talking and bringing up some stuff that really pulls at your heartstrings. Admittedly, sometimes that heartstring pulling is pretty forced, but some of it adds character to some of these... characters. The mood is set immediately when they start talking about the worst way to die, which actually has a pretty funny punchline, but it's definitely some heavy foreshadowing. As soon as the lights shut off on the slope, you get this sense of foreboding, and it doesn't help that they start freaking out a little about it. I have to admit that this was a movie that was effectively scary to me. Things get very cleithrophobic (the fear of being stuck, often confused with claustrophobia; the fear of being closed in small spaces), and having my personal crippling fear of heights, it just worked. I was at the edge of my seat, cringing, wincing, even routing for them a little bit. It's movies like this that make me glad I never took up skiing or snowboarding, because I would NOT do well on a ski lift on the best of days, let alone getting stuck up there, even for an instant. I think if you don't mind some of the more gruesome stuff, and you're on the lookout for a harrowing suspense thriller, it's definitely worth checking out. 4/5  When it comes down to Man vs Nature films, there are only a few I may find more thrilling than 'The Edge'. I saw this one in theaters back when it was released in '97, and it has held a special place in my heart since. Believe it or not, this is also the film that made me appreciate Anthony Hopkins as an amazing actor. This was before I finally saw 'Silence of the Lambs', which everyone else loves him for, which is kind of funny, as he plays a hero of sorts here.
The film starts out innocently enough with a billionaire named Charles Morse (Hopkins), happily married to model, Mickey (Elle Macpherson). Along with photographer, Bob Green (Alec Baldwin) and his assistant, Stephen (Harold Perrineau), the group take a trip to a remote cabin in an Alaskan village, and are hosted by knowledgeable woodsman, Styles (L.Q. Jones). He's here to be a bit of a harbinger, as he foreshadow the horrors of a bear attack, which would soon become relevant. The reason for the trip seems to be for a photoshoot, which includes Bob photographing Mickey, all the while seemingly flirting with her. However, Charles keeps his cool, engrossed in a book about survival. Eventually, Bob, Stephen and a reluctant Charles go on a flight in search of an Alaskan man, Jack Hawk (Gordon Tootoosis), who has a connection to Bob and his photography. Their plane crash lands in the middle of nowhere, and th trio soon find themselves engrossing in the Alaskan wilderness, having to hike their way back. All the while, a gigantic grizzly bear tracks and hunts them, and the concept of survival gets cranked to eleven. In the meantime, an unspoken thing between Charles and Bob, involving Charles' wife, adds to the intensity of the situation. We know this is a man vs nature survival film, but we further get that it's gonna be man vs man in a matter of time. The cool thing about it is, right up until the end, the film studies human nature more than just making them "bad guy and good guy". Speaking of "bad guy", the main antagonist of this movie is the grizzly bear. Little known fact about this guy, he's actually a pretty famous actor, and is thanked at the end of the film as the credits begin to roll. Played by "Bart the Bear", he has appeared in numerous other titles including 'The Great Outdoors' (as the bald-headed bear), 'White Fang', and 'Homeward Bound' (1 and 2) just to name a few. Sadly, he passed at the age of 23 back in 2000, but he certainly left behind an impression. Cards on the table, even though this isn't considered a horror movie of any sort, this bear kind of traumatized me during one particular scene, and it seem that this scene is still pretty bothersome to me. So kudos to Bart the Bear for being one of the most intimidating on-screen presences through my history of movie-watching. Some of you may be reading this wondering why I have it "Under the Radar". After all, it was a wide release at the time, stars an A-lister duo, and it's just a well-told story. The fact is, however, most people I ask about whether they've seen this movie simply haven't heard of it, or have, but don't remember it at all. Although I will grant that some of the survival techniques in this could be a bit off, including what they let them get away with. But when it comes down to the story, characters, and all around suspense, I think it does a really good job. As long as you can stomach some of the brutality from the bear, this is a solid, intense watch, and I recommend checking it out if you're looking for something dark, but still solidly dramatic. 4/5  Today, we take a look at a biopic that depicts woman vs. nature. This film focuses on American writer Cheryl Strayed, and her memoir 'Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail.' For myself, this was essentially like checking out 'Into the Wild', but with a female lead. That said, I must admit that I didn't quite get as much out of this one for subtle, perhaps even nitpicky reasons. But it's nevertheless a pretty inspiring story about a woman overcoming the odds - especially when it comes to things like meeting strangers along the way.
Even though lacking in experience, Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) decides to leave Minneapolis to undertake a 1,100 mile hike on a big chunk of the Pacific Crest Trail. Being that it follows a divorce from her husband, Paul (Thomas Sadoski), as well as the tragic passing of her mother (Laura Dern), this is a therapeutic journey. The hike will offer her the chance to not only heal from her recent wounds, but find herself as well. These events also follow the more destructive path she initially took, involving a lot of anonymous sex and heroin. Some of this anonymous sex even lead to an abortion, which seems to have been her real deciding factor as an opportunity at redemption. So yeah, there's quite a lot going on under the surface for our lead character. They do a pretty good job here at making sure that they don't overdo it, but throw danger in her path every now and then. There are moments like one where she has to face off against a rattlesnake that don't really lead to anything. But there are others, especially with the people she meets, that are enough to make you fear for her safety. She often makes decisions one might consider pretty dumb, but having said that, she does seem to learn as she goes. The whole thing about this is that she's inexperienced, and perhaps some of these decisions are simply made because they might lead to food and/or water, maybe even tips on how to better her hike. So it's kind of this weird "who can you trust" thing, and though the threats are always potentially there, not a whole hell of a lot happens. In fact, throughout the film, the worst enemy she has is essentially herself. There's a moment or two of doubt about people, but there's not much to fear here if you don't wanna catch some creepy 'Last House on the Left' vibe (thank God). Interestingly enough, I don't remember this movie ever being a thing. It was likely that I wasn't interested and therefore didn't bother and forgot. However, to its credit, this has done fairly well for itself. It was nominated for two Academy Awards for both Reese Witherspoon and Laura Dern for their acting skills (losing to Julianne Moore for 'Still Alice' and Patricia Arquette for 'Boyhood', respectively). There was a Golden Globe nomination for Witherspoon on top of that as well. It seems to have sort of dropped under the radar since then, as I hear no one talking about it, ever. Having said that, however, I think it might be worth a look if you can appreciate things like nature and poetry and the artsy side of filmmaking. Personally speaking, I probably wouldn't include this one in my favorites as far as... let's say "Person vs Nature" films go. There's nothing I'd say is particularly bad about it (although, again, a lot of her decision making is questionable) and most of what I could say against it would be a nitpicky criticism. If you're willing to get a little bit deep with a film, it's a pretty inspiring story about a woman overcoming quite a lot. It does feel a bit heavy-handed at times, but that's probably also the point. The film goes through her struggles up until the end, which I won't spoil, but it's a happier ending than 'Into the Wild' that kind of makes you think. I liked it, and I'd probably watch it again to see if it ends up growing on me. But for now, it's just an interesting story about someone I never knew existed. Now that I do, I'd be curious to read some of what Cheryl Strayed has actually written. All in all, she's an inspiring person. 3/5  Those who know me well know that my favorite animal on this planet is the wolf. I find them hauntingly fascinating, seemingly very neutral creatures. Hell, I've even got one inked on my right arm. So naturally, when I came across this title, it wasn't hard to add to the list. I wanted to do something involving wolves that didn't vilify them in any way, and lo and behold, I came across this apparent Disney classic that I had no idea existed.
This one is an adaptation of researcher Farley Mowat's autobiography of the same name. The book has been credited for dramatically shifting the worldview of wolves from a vicious and almost monstrous one to a much more positive one. This is a book I just learned about, and I am totally intrigued to see how well this matches up. The film does the same thing, and does so in a way where it doesn't exactly sugarcoat them either. Wolves are animals living the circle of life just like everything else, and certainly do not have a profile that could be matched with that of a murder hornet. The film opens with an effort to find out why the caribou population is dying off in the Canadian Arctic. A young biologist named Tyler (Charles Martin Smith) is sent to study the area, as well as the wolves who live nearby. He's brought to the icy climate by way of a trashy bush plane, piloted by "Rosie" Little (Brian Dennehy), and left to his own devices with whatever research gear he was given. He is soon helped by an Inuit man named Ootek (Zachary Ittimangnaq) who helps him with his shelter, but then he disappears, leaving Tyler to face the elements and nature alone. This is where the movie gets pretty fascinating, as Tyler soon encounters two wolves and their cubs. Approaching them little by little, he eventually establishes a relationship and names the two George and Angeline. The bond itself isn't quite as fascinating as how it develops though. We see Tyler adapting to the wild in such a way that his social exchanges with the wolves involve "marking their territories", creating trust and respect. As Tyler continues his research, and develops his relationship with these animals, he soon uncovers the truth behind the loss of caribou. And although one may sit, reading this saying they know the big reveal due to its obviousness, I've gotta say it's still a great movie. Perhaps I am a bit bias due to my love for wolves, but I enjoy that this is a movie that doesn't paint wolves in an evil light. I've always kind of felt that wolves get a bad rap in storytelling for the most part - especially if your story involves a dog. What I like about this is that it starts out claiming things like fear and mystery behind these animals, but soon the veil is pushed aside and we are able to see wolves here in a positive light that isn't really force-fed to us. We just see nature happening here, and a lot of it is quite beautiful. But I will say, a lot of it can get kind of gross too - although this is Disney, 1983, so it's certainly not nightmare fuel. I'll be honest, I hadn't heard of this title until I started looking for "Man vs Nature" films for this list. That's sort of surprising to me at this point considering it's highly regarded among critics, has cast members I recognize, involves wolves, and even got nominated for an Oscar - it was for Best Sound, but still. It comes from Carroll Ballard; director of 'Fly Away Home' and 'The Black Stallion'. Between those two titles alone, you know this is a man who can capture nature in a very captivating way. This film is no exception to that. The camerawork and imagery can be pretty breathtaking a lot of the time, and he does a good job at making you feel like a part of things. It's not without a few bumps, but for me they would be minor nitpicks. There's a bit of gross out stuff one can let slide, as it does add to the story, and I think my biggest complaint is how predictable it is. But this was also 1983, and I don't know if a lot of this kind of thing was really covered by then. Regardless of any of that, there's a certain comfortable Canadian beauty this movie carries with it, and there's oddly something about it that feels a bit like home. It's the kind of thing to cozy up to a nice warm fire to with a cup of hot chocolate and just relax and enjoy. 4/5  This was a title that passed me by, back in 2010, when it was initially released. It was very limited, and though I knew about it, it was really just another title I didn't feel like bothering with. Ironically, the main reason i decided not to watch it is actually what makes the movie pretty damn good. Essentially, they took 'Zombieland', replaced zombies with vampires (although they might as well be zombie here), and made it much more dark and serious. At the time, I dubbed it a 'Zombieland' ripoff, and just let it be.
In my search for "vicious vampire movies", however, I happened across this title which I had long since forgotten about and thought I'd give it a chance once I saw that it received some generous ratings from various sources. Watching it as a horror fan, I have to say that I enjoyed it. One thing I attribute to good horror nowadays is when the filmmakers make sure we give a damn about the characters, putting them in a bit more peril than they would be if they were Jason fodder. They do a good job of it here, and there's a 'Walking Dead' vibe in which this is so much more about the people than the threat at hand. We meet a young man named Martin (Connor Paolo) whose family is viciously slaughtered by a vampire, and they take it to such an extreme that it made me respect the movie instantly. I won't go into the gory details, but it dares to put something rather graphic on screen to let you know that unlike 'Zombieland', this movie is NOT messing around, and no one is safe from the get-go. Upon discovering his family, Martin is rescued and taken under the wing of a rogue vampire hunter simply known as "Mister" (Nick Damici). Like just about every zombie invasion film that has ever existed (seriously, these vampires are so close to being zombies, it's almost ridiculous), the end goal is a rumored-to-be untouched safe place, here known as "New Eden", somewhere north. Mister takes Martin along for the ride, keeping him safe and training him to be a tough, badass vampire hunter just like him. The general rule is that vampires are vicious, dangerous, horrible creatures who will feast on your flesh at the drop of a hat and the only way to survive is to get used to brutally killing them. However, the film's simplicity wanes when certain characters are introduced along the way. One character, a nun who is only ever referred to as "Sister" (Kelly McGillis), still sees something of a human side to these creatures. Thankfully, she doesn't preach away on the subject as the annoying "holier than thou" character, but we get where she stands, and she's pretty easy to empathize with, all things considered. Another character they pick up on their journey, eventually, is the young and pregnant Belle (Danielle Harris); another soul hoping to make it to New Eden to have her child safely. Of course, none of this would be complete without a primary villain. In this case, we have the leader of a fundamentalist militia known as The Brotherhood, Loven (Michael Cerveris) who considers all of this vampirism they are surrounded with as an act of God. So soon enough our small team of travellers find themselves trying to survive against more horrors than just a horde of zom--- vampires! I keep forgetting. I might say that's my first real complaint about the film.It really and truly does come off as more of a zombie survival film than a movie about a horde of vampires. There's no real intelligence attached to these creatures, they're just bloodthirsty monsters. More criticisms I have on the film aren't many, but one of the fatal flaws, has become a huge pet peeve of mine, and I don't think I stand alone on it - the tone of dialogue. I have come to hate this, not enough to fully ruin a movie for me, but enough to make it lose a point or two. What I mean here is when characters just mumble through their dialogue. They speak in some toned down, dramatic voice, to where it's damn near whispering, and you just miss everything they say. The latest example of something that irked me with it recently was 'Tenet'. I get that it's supposed to add a dramatic and perhaps more realistic tone, but movies have been doing great for decades without the need for that. I wanna understand what I'm hearing. I'm not even kidding, I had to bring it back several times and throw on subtitles. Criticisms aside, I still had a great time with this movie as a solid story. Interestingly enough, there's not a lot of new or different stuff here, but the characters are easy to empathize with, the atmosphere of it all gives you a sense of dread, and the score is so melancholy that it manages to strike this chord of hopelessness, helping you to feel for these characters. There's a good range of these characters as well, and the horror aspect is spot on. Once again, one of the first deaths you see is so brutal that it makes you wanna pay attention - like a car wreck you can't turn away from, even though you know you don't need to see such things. It's horrific, brutal, dramatic, sad, action packed, and it's got one of those great endings where the movie just kinda stops and you, the audience, have to try to fill in the blanks with your imagination. I now people hate that kind of thing, but I eat it up, so good on it... but maybe one day I need to check out 'Stake Land II'. All in all, I had a good time with this, even if it was moderately unoriginal. 3/5  Just a heads up, you're probably about to get into a review that isn't me at my best. The reason being, I don't know how I feel about this movie. It gets such critical praise, but damned if I don't see it as anything particularly special. Which is not to say it's bad, but do I daresay, perhaps a little overrated for what it is? Perhaps it's a timing thing on my part though. Some things are brilliant for their time, and this was a revenge film far before the 'John Wick' series (in my humble opinion, the epitome of revenge films).
To be fair, I didn't fully know what I was getting into either. It's classified so often as an action movie that I was expecting something a bit more wild. In actuality, the violence in this tends to lean a little more towards torture porn, but tolerable torture porn. For my money, the most cringe-worthy thing that happens is the ripping out of someone's teeth, so I've seen worse. However, I'll cut this some slack, being that it's a Korean film and my mind is perhaps a little too set on North American thrillers. In other words, maybe I just don't quite get it, and that's on me for perhaps not paying enough attention. The film opens in a grungy city, in the late 80s. A man named Oh Dae-su (Min-sik Choi) is arrested for being drunk in public, and misses his daughter's birthday. He's bailed out by his friend Joo-hwan (Dae-han Ji), but while the two are on the phone with Dae-su's family, Dae-su is kidnapped offscreen, waking in a sealed-shut hotel room. He is fed through a trap door, and has a TV to watch, which sadly delivers the news one day that his wife has been murdered, and he is apparently the prime suspect. He gets revenge on the mind, and spends day after day, year after year for 15 years plotting a revenge, digging an escape tunnel and shadowboxing a lot for exercise. Then just as soon as he's about to escape, the movie gets confusing (at least for me). Skipping through a few odd things, Dae-su finds himself on a mysterious, grassy rooftop, and soon enough his revenge seeking begins. This is not before he runs into a girl named Mi-do (Hye-jeong Kang), who takes him in out of pity. There's a whole sex thing going on there where she wants to succumb to his now animalistic appetite, but after she gets to know him better. For me, this is a little crow-barred in there, but if I give things like this enough though, I can come up with a reason for it being there. Like I say, I don't think it's so much the movie as me. For the most part, I think that the film is trying very hard to put you into Dae-su's shoes. As the film continues to unfold, there's more and more to empathize with him about. Unlike John Wick, he's only really skilled in his 15 years of shadowboxing in his enclosed hotel room. There's something a little more real about this movie, and it's very cool that they make Dae-su perfectly human. He hurts himself when he throws punches, he doesn't always win at what he's doing, he's fallible. If I had to guess why everyone sees this as such a solid film, it likely has something to do with all of that. We're not empathizing with a superhero, we're empathizing with just some guy. It's not for the squeamish. There's quite a bit of closeup, cringe-worthy kinda stuff. Again, I have seen worse, but it doesn't mean it isn't there. I think my final opinion on it is that of a "dirty movie", but not in the sense that it's pornographic. It's that kind of movie you wanna watch once, then take a shower afterwards and maybe not return to it until you're ready for it to be brand new again. I can appreciate fans of this movie, and I wouldn't argue with them for a second that this is bad. I just don't think I can really count myself among them. Plain and simply, it's not really for me, but it has my respect. 3/5 |
RSS Feed