Ibiza (aka Ibiza: Drunk Love)(2018)

Director: Alex Richenbach
Writer(s): Lauryn Kahn
Starring: Gillian Jacobs, Vanessa Bayer, Phoebe Robinson and Richard Madden

After wading through a bunch of corny holiday rom-coms, sometimes it’s refreshing to clear our palates with some less family-oriented fare. And after searching through Netflix for what felt like an eternity, we stumbled upon Ibiza: Drunk Love, which is certainly one of the worst titles ever thrown together by modern man.*

First things first, the movie was the center of controversy upon its release, but it has nothing to do with the film's occasional gross-out content: Instead, the actual island of Ibiza itself took offense to two things: 1.) The film's "negative" portrayal of the party island (there's honestly nothing negative about it, unless they just want to distance themselves from the whole "party image" entirely); and 2.) The fact that it wasn't filmed in Ibiza at all, but rather Croatia. I have a feeling their anger was actually a fit of jealousy that mainly arose from point number 2. Nevertheless, it seems to be all water under the bridge, because after news reports that the island was actually going to sue Netflix for the above reasons, no further action seems to have been taken. (Or could it just have been publicity for the then-newly released movie? Hmm....)

Harper is a twenty- or early thirtysomething gal who is sent by her boss to Spain, for work. Her two best friends, Leah and Nikki, pretty much weasel their way in to going with her, figuring they can chill while Harper is busy securing an account, or whatever vague thing she’s supposed to be doing there. It really doesn't matter, because the focus isn’t on her job (surprise!) but rather Leo West, a world-famous DJ with whom Harper spends an awkward moment.

There are immediate sparks between the two, who go their separate ways before sharing so much as even a kiss. Nevertheless, the seeds of love have been planted in Harper’s mind, so she vows to track him down once again so they can push their platonic friendship into boyfriend-girlfriend territory. Her friends are there to offer moral support, and of course, comedic moments, as the three get into all sorts of trouble involving “residual jizz”, hallucinogens, and plenty of stuff in between.

I’m honestly confused with all the hate leveled its way. Sure, it’s a by-the-numbers “love” story that sometimes sinks to crude depths to gain a laugh or two, and sure said laughs are largely predictable, but it’s rare that a cast comes together with this much chemistry. And no, I’m not talking about the interplay between Harper and Leo, which is “sweet”, but not really worth the time spent “harping” on it. (Get it? Her name is Harper, haha.)

Instead, I’m talking about the combination of Gillian Jacobs, Phoebe Robinson and Vanessa Bayer, who play Harper, Leah and Nikki, respectively, and whose friendship actually spans most of the movie’s running time. In fact, the “romantic” portion almost functions as bookends, with the two would-be lovebirds forging a connection early on, and then Harper spending the rest of the time searching for Leo, until they are reunited in the end. Instead, it mostly comes off as a "buddy comedy" with some "romance" sprinkled in in an attempt to capture the attention of a wider audience. It should come as no surprise, then, that the best parts of the movie involve watching the three girls make fools of themselves in a variety of weird situations.

Michaela Watkins is also perfect as Harper’s foul-mouthed boss, whose brutal quips frequently go over the edge from merely being “mean”, into flat-out abusive. Yet she does it with such ridiculous verve that it’s almost hard not to “like” her, somehow...deep down, maybe. It’s just a shame she’s not in it much after an initial appearance in the beginning, although there are plenty of laughs in between to prevent you from missing her too much.

Let’s be honest here: This is nowhere close to a classic comedy. It’s crude, it’s rude and it derives much of its laughs from predictable situations. But thanks to the cast, it’s an above-average one, with excellent moments of comedic timing and enough laughs to keep most comedy fans satisfied. Like most films of its ilk, it does delve into dramatics occasionally, but thankfully those moments are few and far between; so few and distanced, in fact, that it honestly seems weird to even include the whole love angle at all. (It was based on the writer's actual trip to the island, so maybe she actually did find true love there? I dunno.)

In the end, if it’s a romance you’re looking for, you’d be better off looking elsewhere. But if you like your comedy awkward and occasionally over-the-top, then ignore all the negative reviews, and take this trip to Ibiza...for some Drunk Love? I still don't get that stupid title. 

RATING: 6/10.

*For reasons unknown, the title was originally just the much better Ibiza. In fact, that's still the title in a vast majority of marketing materials, such as the above poster image. For whatever reason, at some point after the movie's release, the Drunk Love subtitle was added, a change that makes sense for virtually no reason, considering the "romance" centering the story has nothing to do with being drunk. 

TRAILER

Till Death (2021)

Director: S.K. Dale
Writer(s): Jason Carvey
Starring: Megan Fox, Eoin Macken, Callan Mulvey and Jack Roth

Till Death is one of those movies with a plot so preposterous that seeing it is the only way you could believe such a thing exists. It's a mix of ridiculous and fascinating and really opens the door for a lot of things to happen between its vague plot line.

Megan Fox plays Emma, a woman unhappily married to a rich douchebag. He's a type of character that the film goes to great lengths to let you know is a villain, as everything he does is questionable and sleazy. Why can't bad guys be normal people? Why do they always have to be so terrible that it's completely obvious? Maybe it's because the filmmakers don't want anyone to be able to identify with such terrible characters; make them likable and it insinuates anyone could be evil and - while that’s the truth - it isn’t the right mood for entertainment.

Anyway, as the film opens Megan Fox is telling her lover that she can no longer see him. Her reasoning is that today happens to be her anniversary, and she wants to spend it with her husband for reasons unknown. 

At any rate, Emma's douchebag husband takes her on a getaway to an isolated cabin in the middle of nowhere, during the winter season. He frames it as part of her anniversary gift. But things take a dark turn when she wakes up chained to him, and is forced to watch as he blows his brains out inches in front of her. 

Shackled to her dead husband, and in virtual isolation, she must find a way out of this nightmare scenario. Unfortunately for her, he was almost as smart as he was douchey, removing all sharp objects from the house, destroying her phone, and making things as hard for her from beyond the grave as he did while he was alive.

Really, it's a plot that sounds limited and stupid at first glance, but the potential complexity of it kind of grows on you after a little while. You think about all the things you take for granted, like being able to walk around freely, and then have to think about doing all that stuff with 200 lb of weight attached to you. At its best, it almost manages to be intelligent, but it's unfortunately done in by a number of copouts and groan-inducing sequences that break up the momentum, and take the viewer out of the story.

You know the scene in movies where the bad guy is looking for the protagonist, who is hiding around the corner inches away, yet when the bad guy turns the corner, they’re suddenly gone? Even though there was no possible way they could escape, or move so silently, in such a short amount of time? That’s basically the whole damn movie. It's true that horror movies and thrillers rely on this a lot, but it’s usually at least kept to a minimum. Till Death uses that device no fewer than five times, with increasingly ridiculous results every single time. It’s like the writers painted themselves into a corner, and rather than think of a logical way out, just defaulted to that over and over again.

There is some suspense, but not as much as there could be, thanks to the rather predictable nature of the script. Every event is pretty clearly foreshadowed, so as long as you're paying attention you'll know pretty much exactly what's to come and what you can expect. 

Megan Fox is clearly one of those actresses who's made it as far as she has based purely on looks, but she turns in a competent performance here as the damsel in distress. No, she's obviously not going to win any awards for her performance, but it’s the kind of role that proves she’s more than just a pretty face. The rest of the cast follow suit, almost making the material convincing despite its flaws. Unfortunately, the issues behind the camera doom Till Death from blooming into the cult classic - or even minor classic - it could have been.

RATING: 5/10.

TRAILER

Saint Maud (2019)

Director: Rose Glass
Writer(s): Glass
Starring: Morfydd Clark, Caoilfhionn Dunne, Jennifer Ehle and Marcus Hutton

Maud is a newly-devout Christian nurse who gets a job caring after Amanda, a retired dancer who wants to spend her final days living life to the fullest that she can. The two strike up an almost immediate friendship, but soon Maud’s religious lifestyle starts to interfere with their once-strong bond. 

Mainly to blame for that: Carol, a prostitute whom Amanda pays to keep her company. Carol is loose, and fun, two characteristics that scare away religious extremists. With her, Amanda feels like she can truly be herself and let down her guard. Just the idea of this bothers Maud, who gets it in her head that her current mission from God is to “save” Amanda before she passes. 

Her hatred for Carol reaches a fever pitch when she catches her talking to a friend on the phone. Her tone insinuates that she doesn’t really care for Amanda, and that she’s just doing it for the money, which shouldn’t really come as a surprise, since that’s the entire idea behind that line of work. But Maud doesn’t take kindly to the idea of someone “using” Amanda, and she confronts Carol, telling her to stay away.

This upsets Amanda, who finds out the reasoning behind it, but who refuses to buckle to Maud’s controlling behavior. She throws a birthday bash, inviting all of her friends, and Maud is disgusted to find that Carol is one of them. Maud confronts Amanda, but is taunted by the partygoers, who aren’t impressed with Maud’s devotion to a higher power that most of them don’t believe in. Unsurprisingly, a short while later, Maud is fired.

We also learn that Maud has a secret history, through her interactions with an old friend, Joy, who calls her “Katie”. The two exchange pleasantries (well, the “pleasantries” are mostly one-sided), and Joy is somewhat shocked to learn that Maud is still working as a nurse, following a terrible accident that resulted in the death of a former patient. “Katie” was also promiscuous party girl, who would go out drinking and frequently engage in casual hookups. Presumably, it was a combination of these two things that lead her down the path of righteousness. 

It’s the type of film one would expect from studio A24, which rose to prominence in horror circles following the release of the divisive folk horror tale The Witch. That attention was only magnified when they brought Hereditary to the masses, an equally alienating tale that probably shouldn’t have played in wide release. Love them or hate them (and I’m actually somewhere in the middle), you have to give them credit for their dedication to producing and distributing challenging, thought-provoking stories that exist well outside the mainstream.

Saint Maud follows their horror formula down to a “T”, by focusing on a consistent atmosphere of unpredictable dread, rather than gore or jump scares (although there is one fantastic jump scare late in the movie that caught us both off guard). Also true to their formula: It’s not a film for everyone, especially those who prefer action over slow burn stories. Watching Maud’s slow descent into madness leads to a crescendo of expected violence, but the “fun” - if that’s the right word - is how it gets there. 

One of A24’s strengths is in the casting, and once again they knock it out of the park. Morfydd Clark’s performance, as the titular character, is powerful stuff, and a direct reason the material works as well as it does. She is a woman who truly believes she is doing the Lord’s work, and will do anything she can to succeed in her “mission”, a chilling notion that’s made all the more chilling when you realize there are actually people like this in the world. 

When Saint Maud is effective, it’s effective. When it’s not, it’s actually kind of - dare I say it? - boring. There are a few transitional stretches that just aren’t really all that interesting, mainly focusing on Maud as she tries to find meaning in her life following her unexpected termination. I guess it’s all a part of the “slow burn” atmosphere, but it loses its footing, and spends a good amount of time trying to get back on level ground. 

To the surprise of no one, this one was a critical darling, packing in just enough philosophical scenes to appeal to the critics who feel like they have to praise anything that feels higher-brow than a slasher (or that is released by A24). It’s yet another divisive entry in the studio’s canon, and yet another one that didn’t quite hit as hard as it wants to. There are powerful scenes, sure, but as a whole, it feels just like good ol’ Maud herself: A well-intentioned mess struggling to find meaning in life. 

That being said, the final shot packs one hell of a gut punch. If only the rest would have followed suit.

RATING: 5.5/10

TRAILER

The Perfection (2020)

Director: Richard Shepard
Writer(s): Shepard, Nicole Snyder and Eric C. Charmelo

Starring: Logan Browning, Allison Williams, Steven Weber and Alaina Huffman

If you were to believe the marketing materials for The Perfection, you might be led to believe that it's a violent grotesque film that led to several audience members leaving or passing out. If that is truly the case it wouldn't be because of the film's level of violence, but rather the lack of a visual trigger warning as the film deals with some pretty heavy themes, albeit quite poorly.

It all centers on Charlotte and Elizabeth Wells, two members of an elite music school for cellists. Actually, Charlotte was a former member who left to take care of her sick mother 10 years prior, and is returning because her mother finally passed. So great was her gift that she is welcomed back with open arms, and paraded around by the mysterious Anton. She seems to take an immediate liking to Lizzie, and vice versa - before you know it the two are making love in a hotel room.

As it turns out, it’s a case of perfect timing: She is getting a week off - her first one in a long time - and doesn’t seem to even have a grasp on how to spend it: she has lived and breathed music for so long that there hasn’t been any time to think about anything else. Charlotte suggests they get away for a little while so that she can clear her mind. But during the long bus ride, things quickly take a turn for the worse. Lizzie complains that she doesn’t feel well and starts to vomit. She’s in pain to the point that she feels like she’s dying. Charlotte tries comforting her, but to no avail; eventually, they cause such a commotion that the bus driver kicks them off the bus in the middle of nowhere. 

This leads to a shocking act of violence that comes complete with computer generated bugs (?) and that will eventually test the newly-formed bond between the two. But is everything as it appears to be? Or is there more to the story that we might not know about? 

The Perfection is one of those movies that seems to think it’s cooler than it actually is. During a couple points, after a revelatory scene, it rewinds back in time to show what actually happened to lead us up to that point. It’s kind of a neat narrative trick similar to the one used in Funny Games, only it’s less necessary here; the details are often pretty obvious beforehand, which means the “rewinding” only hammers home what we already pretty much assumed. 

It’s also broken down into four separate sections, presumably because the director saw this idea used in other movies and thought it was cool. Once again, it’s completely pointless: The chapters don’t break the story down in any meaningful way, and actually become more of a distraction than anything else. 

The performances are good, and about the only reason that one should even bother sitting through this mess. The “twist” is timely, but it completely missed the mark for me. Maybe it’s because the route the story takes to get to where it’s going is completely nonsensical. It’s the central act of violence - and most of the events thereafter - that relegate this one to the garbage bin. Not at all because it’s shocking, but because the sequence feels like a cheap attention grab; an irrelevant moment that easily could have been replaced with something less...tacky that still could have propelled the story forward in a much more meaningful way.

And maybe that would have even given the revelation the proper attention it deserves. It could have made it the most powerful moment, instead of just feeling like another tacked on attempt to be relevant. I'm not at all saying the attempted message isn't worthwhile, because it absolutely is. But when the trailer focuses on the "appalling" violence, and makes it seem more like a slasher than one that carries weight, it cheapens the effect, almost making it feel exploitative. 

Then we get down to the finale, and are treated to yet another “rewind” moment that shows us exactly how the characters ended up in the predicament they’re in. And all I could think about is how I wish I could steal that remote, and rewind back to a time before I suggested we watch this mess.

RATING: 3.5/10

TRAILER

Spontaneous (2020)

Director: Brian Duffield
Writer(s): Duffield
Starring: Katherine Langford, Charlie Plummer, Yvonne Orji and Hayley Law

Spontaneous is the kind of film that will either win you over or turn you off based entirely on its synopsis: “When students in their school begin exploding (literally), seniors Mara and Dylan struggle to survive in a world where each moment may be their last.” That’s right, the entire thing is about high school students exploding in a cloud of blood at random times, and for seemingly no reason.

I mean, that’s pretty much it for the plot. There are really no villains, or other obstacles that get in the way of the main stars’ quests for love…although, I guess randomly exploding is problematic enough. It’s just about two lovebirds navigating through the uncertainty of a high school life made even more uncertain thanks to an unidentifiable epidemic. They know they can be taken away from each other at any given time, so they decide to live life to the fullest.

Of course, detonated teenagers aren’t the sole point of the movie: Like Ginger Snaps - which used the bite of a werewolf as a metaphor for a teenager experiencing her first period - Spontaneous uses its gruesome setup as an allegory for…well, a lot of things. There’s the awkwardness of high school, the joys of love, the ups and downs of life in general, grief, dealing with loss, rebelling against authorities, etc., all from the perspective of a group of teens who are on the precipice of adulthood. And it deals with those things with a knack for tossing in some humor to soften the potential edges of such a weird, dark premise.

Mara is played by the lovely Katherine Langford, now blonde, who was memorable as Hannah in the dramatic series “13 Reasons Why”. Here, she plays a very similar character, although she gets a lot more screentime, seeing as how, you know, she’s not dead. She has a natural charm about her and uses it to full effect here. She’s the type of actress who’s just instantly likable the moment she appears onscreen; she has an understated personality that wins you over without the appearance of her even having to try. 

It helps that she’s surrounded by a capable cast, including Charlie Plummer as Dylan, the guy with whom she forges an almost immediate bond (once they actually talk to each other). He’s got an innocence about him, a boyish charm that never forces him to resort to being the “bad boy” in order to keep his girl's attention. Their chemistry feels natural, which only helps to make the weird material around them work better than it should. 

Also refreshing: Mara’s parents (played by Rob Huebel and Piper Perabo, in a rare post-Coyote Ugly appearance). They’re the cool parents who let her do what she wants (within reason), because they trust that she won’t do anything stupid. That makes some of the later scenes between them all the more powerful, as their once-relaxed demeanor changes into desperation once Mara's behavior takes a turn for the worse. 

The relationship between parents and their children are where coming-of-age films (and movies in general) frequently miss their mark, but that might actually be the most impressive thing about Spontaneous. They strike the perfect balance between being her friend and letting her navigate through life on her own, but also provide emotional support when she needs it. And when she takes things too far, they aren’t afraid to put their feet (foot?) down. There’s a feeling of effortlessness in their scenes together that is so smooth, you wouldn't be surprised if they were relatives in real life. 

It’s far from perfect - Mara’s bombastic final monologue is almost cringe-inducing in its delivery and message - but Spontaneous provides a surprising amount of charm to balance out its bloodletting. And the comedy, which is often genuinely funny, manages to keep things feel as lighthearted as a movie about exploding teenagers can be. There’s some heartfelt moments, sure, but it somehow never veers into dark territory. 

That’s what makes this a great date movie: whether you’re into horror or romance, chances are you’re going to find a lot to like here. There’s enough blood to satiate the horror fans, but enough genuine emotions and connections to satisfy those looking for a good love story. It might not excel at either, but it pulls the combination off well enough to warrant a viewing to those looking for a unique experience that, like its characters, is more than happy to exist outside the norm.

RATING: 6/10

TRAILER

The Harder They Fall (2021)

Director: Jeymes Samuel
Writer(s): Samuel and Boaz Yakin
Starring: Jonathan Majors, Zazie Beets, RJ Cyler and Edi Gathegi

The Harder They Fall opens with an act of brutal violence: A man enters the home of a family who has just sat down to dinner. He acts like he is only coming to talk, but before we know it, he is gunning down the mother and father in cold blood - right in front of the eyes of their young son, who is forced to watch it. The man then makes his way over to the kid, and instead of finishing him off, carves a cross in his forehead, before leaving just as quickly as he came. 

Flash-forward to the present day. The kid - who goes by the name Nat Love - has grown up, but he clearly hasn’t forgotten the events from a decade prior: When we first see him, he makes his way to a church, where he guns down a preacher. But we’re informed this wasn’t just some random killing: The preacher, who has clearly cleaned up his life and become a “different man”, was the one who forced Nat to watch the murder of his parents. Clearly, he is out for retribution, and while the murder of the preacher is a good start, he has his eyes set on someone much higher.

That man is Rufus Buck (Idris Elba), who clearly hasn’t changed his ways. He is the type of man where the mere mention of his name is enough to strike fear in the hearts of any who hear it; to see him is to know that you’re dead. In the beginning, he is on his way to prison, but so great is his reach that he is officially pardoned in mid-train ride. That doesn’t stop his group from gunning down the military men whose job it was to transport him to jail. 

Nat gets wind that he is out, and the rest of the film is a very slow build-up to the inevitable showdown between the good guy, and the man who murdered his parents. 

The idea behind this Netflix production is to take a look at the Wild West from the perspective of Blacks, featuring characters who share the name of actual outlaws during that time. But, aside from the racial switch that was no doubt precipitated by public outcry regarding a lack of minorities in film instead of just being the norm all along, it’s a rather disappointing, all-too-predictable effort that basically takes the formula of a “white” western, and replaces it with people of color. And it adds a hip-hop soundtrack and plenty of bad language to give it a more “woke” feel. 

It might just be me, but I feel like the recent slate of films made by Blacks, females and those in the LBGTQ+ community are more of a Hollywood PR campaign in disguise as a genuine interest in putting minorities behind the camera. The film industry has long been the target of people who felt like their voices weren’t being heard; talented minority filmmakers who weren’t given an opportunity just because they weren’t the “right” race, or the “right” gender. And what did they do? Ignore them. Sure, maybe they “tossed a couple” projects their way just to make it look like an effort - no matter how half-assed it was - but they did nothing to truly change the culture of an industry in desperate need of a change.

Until now. A time when people can collectively unite over the internet and have the power to make change. Until the voices grew so loud that they could no longer plug their ears and ignore it. Until the public demanded something be done about the archaic way Hollywood has done business, and wouldn’t take no for an answer. It’s disgusting, really, but this is the world we live in. 

And maybe I’m way off base. After all, as a white male, what right do I have to speak on behalf of those who have actually faced bias, and racism? Those who have been slighted? Those who have been turned down of opportunities simply based on the color of their skin, or their gender? None, really. 

I’m not at all slighting the people who made the film. The cast is uniformly excellent, especially Jonathan Majors as the outlaw Nat Love. While he’s mostly the cool, calm and collected Western “good guy”, who straddles the line between what’s right and wrong (and sometimes crosses over into the latter), there is a moment toward the end of the film when his emotions finally catch up to him. He’s broken down, his mask of “coolness” completely removed and replaced with a flurry of emotions that you not only clearly see on his face, but that you can feel. It’s rare for a moment of acting to send chills down my spine, but he manages it.

Idris Elba (who is made to look like a star in the trailer, but plays more of a supporting role) is also solid in another villain role as Rufus Buck. As usual, he is always relaxed even in moments of extreme stress; it actually feels kind of like a retread of his character in “The Wire”. He’s the type of villain who oozes evil, the type of person who functions as almost soundproof evidence against those who feel like “there is good in everyone”. 

Aside from the cast, though, the story is too predictable, and the 2-hour plus runtime is completely unnecessary. A couple of the action scenes are riveting, but the final gunfight - which should be the pinnacle of any western; the entire setpiece that the story is leading up to - is shockingly ho-hum. I expected something that would justify its duration, and was instead met with a disappointing finish that

It’s just a shame that, as brilliant as the cast is, not even they can overcome a derivative script that, despite its alternate viewpoint of the Wild West, feels way more familiar than it ought to.

RATING: 5.5/10

The Dark and the Wicked (2020)

Director: Bryan Bertino
Writer(s): Bertino
Starring: Marin Ireland, Michael Abbott Jr., Julie Oliver-Touchstone and Lynn Andrews

The Dark and the Wicked, at its core, is a somewhat familiar tale of a family who live in an isolated farmhouse. Such stories are becoming more and more commonplace with the recent success of films like The Witch, and this one feels like it was inspired by Robert Eggers' popular horror film: aside from the location, the film's droning score and constant sense of dread feel very similar. However, whereas The Witch is a notorious exercise in slow-burn horror that certainly isn't for everybody, The Dark and the Wicked - once it gets going - is an almost unrelenting attempt to terrify and shock its audience. 

This film centers around two siblings who are summoned to their parents’ house to care for their dying father. One would think their mother would be happy to see them, but she constantly appears nervous and on edge; like someone - or something - is always on her mind. So anxiety-ridden is she that she constantly warns them to leave, and tells them that they shouldn't have come. It doesn't take long for them to see why: Almost immediately strange things begin happening, and as we can tell from the frequent shots of the prone father lying in bed, chances are good he somehow has something to do with it. 

The relatives brush it off at first, but they can only brush it off for so long. It starts off as merely creepy happenings - chairs moving around, lights turning on, and far-off sounds in the distance; things that can be nervously laughed away. But eventually, the innocent happenings take a turn for the sinister, and the siblings realize they should have heeded their mother's warnings. Is all of this linked to the dying man lying in the bedroom? Or are the dark forces that are lingering around after someone else entirely? 

There aren't really many twists to the basic storyline, but the story isn't really the film's focus. Much like the plotlines for slapstick comedies are just a way to throw in as many jokes as possible, or the setups for porn are just excuses to have people copulate in a variety of interesting ways, the sole reason for The Dark and the Wicked's threadbare plot is to disarm the viewer with an almost unrelenting series of inexplainable phenomenon: Once the scares start - and they start fairly early on - they rarely let up. 

Part of its effectiveness is that it doesn't rely much on jumpscares, which is a welcome change from the norm. However, the sheer effort it undergoes to petrify its audience actually works to its disadvantage at times. While that might not sound like a legitimate issue - this is a horror film, after all, and horrifying the audience is the name of the game - the attempts come so often that we almost become desensitized to them. Don’t get me wrong, the experience as a whole is frightening, but it becomes slightly predictable within its own universe as it wears on. Furthermore, some of the scare sequences just feel like lazy writing: In what could probably be considered a minor spoiler (so don't read it if you don't want to know anything about it...and you shouldn't), hallucinations make up a good portion of the terror sequences in the second half, and it kind of feels like a copout at times. The scenes are really well done - and a couple are beyond effective - but it's also further proof that the story really doesn't mean anything.

That being said, there’s an atmosphere of dread that permeates virtually every scene, and the film does a great job of pulling you into its world; it's the kind of film where your heart sinks every time the sun goes down, because you know something terrifying is going to happen. I haven't felt that feeling since I saw the original Paranormal Activity over a decade ago (during its limited release and before it blew up and went viral).

Surprisingly, at least to me, this was written and directed by Brian Bertino, the man responsible for The Strangers. Outside of one or two scenes in that one, I wasn't very impressed with the end result. Here, he proves he has the capability to maintain a sense of dread throughout the entire runtime. Even during the sequences where you know something is coming, he still manages to make the payoffs work more often than not.

If you're a fan of horror, this is almost required viewing. It builds up - and more crucially, maintains - the dread of a "slow burn" tale, while throwing one malevolent scene right after another at the audience. It doesn't always work, but it works well enough that, chances are, there will be at least one scene that sticks with you when the memory of the rest fades away.

RATING: 8.5/10

The Love Witch (2016)

Director: Anna Biller
Writer(s): Biller
Starring: Samantha Robinson, Jeffrey Vincent Parise, Laura Waddell and Gian Keys

There aren’t too many movies like Anna Biller’s The Love Witch, a film that she not only wrote and directed, but also produced, edited, and scored. It’s a rather bizarre comedic throwback to ‘60s horror. So unique is it that it’s rather hard to explain to those who have not been cast under its spell. 

Samantha Robinson is the beautiful Elaine, a witch who doesn’t seem to have much luck with members of the opposite sex, despite her frequent use of love potions and spells. So she kills them, before almost immediately moving on to the next one. She reeks of desperation, falling immediately for man after man and hoping that they will simply return her love and turn her into a housewife.

Unfortunately, Elaine’s witch instincts are rather poor; she often “overdoses” her subjects with spells that are too strong; as a result, they turn from “typical” cold-hearted men, into sappy, oversentimental babies who become too dependent on her. This, we quickly learn, is a turnoff for our protagonist: Even the desperate have their limits, after all.

No one seems to notice her killing spree (when friends ask, she merely tells them that she had to call off the relationship because they were too clingy), allowing her to continue with reckless abandon. There’s a hilarious scene in which she seduces - and then kills - the husband of a close friend while she is out of town, then keeps trying to change the subject when her distraught friend tries to tell her about her husband’s murder. 

Of course, all “good” things must come to an end; soon, she discovers that a police detective is hot on her trail. He is good-looking and confident, the way all men “should” be, which naturally makes him an ideal mate. She manages to seduce him…with unintended results. Is the man tasked with taking her down the man of her dreams? Or will he be just another victim to her ongoing scheme?

What’s refreshing is that this isn’t some cliched story about a woman who’s carrying out premeditated murder. Well, I guess it’s premeditated in that, at some point, she knows she’s going to carry it out, but Elaine goes into each relationship actually hoping that she has just met “the one”. She’s ready to settle down with any man who succumbs to her charms, which is also a reference to the male-dominated world of the ‘60s. 

Where the film gets its charm is from its trippy aesthetic: characters dressed in ‘60s style attire, are surrounded by decor and paraphernalia from the same decade, yet it’s actually set in the present day. Adding to the film’s sense of style are the “theatrical”, stilted performances - done intentionally in yet another homage to the style of the ‘60s - which somehow feels appropriate and is well-executed, although it certainly won’t be to everyone’s taste. 

Robinson is perfectly cast as the sultry seductress. At the risk of sounding shallow (I know, I know, looks aren’t everything) it’s easy to see how she could lure so many men under her spell. She does have a natural presence about her that also puts the viewer under her spell; we cheer for her to find her soulmate, even as it becomes more and more evident that such a man might not exist. She’s charming and likable; even we are willing to overlook her murderous streak, in the hopes that she finds her Mr. Right.

Its sole downfall is that it is painfully overlong, clocking in at exactly two hours. While that might commonly be seen as a minor transgression in most films, it’s a rather large one for a film like this, where the hammy acting and campy style all starts to lose its luster and become rather tedious. If the length felt necessary to fully explore the story, that’s obviously one thing. Yet its plot is simple enough that it easily could have been trimmed of some of its “fat”, without ruining the story or breaking its momentum. It never fully qualifies as “boring”, but it surely comes closer to eliciting that emotional state than it should.

Despite that, I’m certainly recommending The Love Witch to anyone looking for a unique spin on the horror genre; especially those who are typically not fans of such films. Those devoted to the genre might be off-put by the weird style, and lack of focus on the horrific elements (which are often played for lighthearted laughs), but for anyone with an open mind, The Love Witch provides enough character to distinguish itself in an overcrowded genre.

RATING: 6.5/10.

Triangle (2009)

Director: Christopher Smith
Writer(s): Smith
Starring: Melissa George, Joshua McIvor, Jack Taylor and Liam Hemsworth

Look up a list of the best horror movies of the 2000s, and you just might find Triangle amongst other well-known classics. Yet it’s virtually unknown here in the United States, despite a fairly well-known cast (Melissa George is one of those actresses that you might not know her name, but chances are you’ve seen her before; a pre-fame Liam Hemsworth also has a supporting role), and unique storytelling structure. This is mainly because it inexplicably never received a theatrical release in the U.S., despite theatrical runs in the U.K., Belgium and the Netherlands.

I suppose it makes sense that it never reached U.S. shores in theatrical form, because it’s exactly the type of movie that only would have made it to the arthouses: It’s a twisty, sometimes confusing, but always engaging film that defies description. In other words, it's the exact antithesis of American cinema, which tends to require straightforward, linear stories that are neatly tied up by the end. 

In what seems to be the norm for me as of late, it is yet another film where discussing the plot at virtually any length risks spoiling many of the surprises; actually, I would say this film virtually demands you to go in without any former knowledge. 

Melissa George is Jess, an overwhelmed single mother with an autistic child. She clearly needs a break - something that’s painfully evident from the way she handles her son accidentally spilling some paint - and so a getaway on a sailboat with some friends seems to be just the thing she needs to help clear her mind. Only, things aren’t right from the start: she seems dazed and out-of-it from the very beginning…maybe this trip wasn’t so good for her after all.

A few minutes into the groups’ sailboating expedition, a sudden storm seems to come out of nowhere. Far from shore and caught off guard by the inexplicable change in weather, death seems inevitable for the group. That is, until a large ocean liner happens to virtually appear before their very eyes. The stranded group boards the large ship, expecting to find some people that can help them; they are shocked when they discover the vessel is completely abandoned. But Jess’ behavior only gets weirder from there…

Ignore the simple, mundane setup, because Triangle is anything but mundane: Once the story gets going, it’s one virtually unrelenting twist and turn right after the other. I always harp on how many genre films lack originality and are cliched in one way or another, but Triangle is one of the most unpredictable movies I’ve ever seen, with a story that grips you and never lets go. Everything seems resolved within the first 40 minutes, leaving the viewer wondering where the plot can even go for the remaining hour. it seems backed into a corner, with no way out. But not only does it keep chugging along, but it does so without a narrative misstep, or any over-the-top scenes that cast the viewer from its spell.

The “feel” of the film has been compared to the works of David Lynch, but that feels more like a copout than anything else. Why do people always feel the need to lump unique things into categories? It feels like a coping mechanism for critics to deal with something that they can’t fully understand. Triangle has a feel all its own; not once was I reminded of Lynch, or really anyone else for that matter. It has shades of Memento (a film which writer/director Christopher Smith acknowledges was a main influence), but it’s not even content with taking that film’s unique storytelling structure, without deconstructing it and turning it on its head. 

For being a “horror” film, it does manage to touch on some pretty weighty themes, such as the difficulties inherent of raising a special needs child, and how we as humans fall into seemingly unbreakable cycles, to name just a couple. Through one woman’s story, it summarizes a lot about the darker side of human nature; at the risk of offering up a very minor spoiler, I will say it’s certainly not a film for anyone who favors happy endings.

Actually, come to think of it, it’s not a film for anyone looking for an ending, period. I mean, sure, the movie ends, in the way every film has to. In just about the only cliched scene, it even ends the way most films do: with a cut to black and credits rolling across the screen. But, just like the events that precede that, the ending is ambiguous, with even the writer/director himself stating that there is no “right” answer: We are presented with clues, and then formulate our own opinion based around those clues; that’s often the mark of challenging, thoughtful cinema.

And challenging, thoughtful cinema has no place in cinemas here. 

RATING: 9/10

Final Destination (2000)

Director: James Wong

Writer(s): Wong, Glen Morgan and Jeffrey Reddick

Starring: Devon Sawa, Ali Larter, Kerr Smith and Kristen Cloke

Aaaah, Final Destination: One of those “classic” teen horror films, and arguably the first one of the new millennium. Even as a teen myself during those years, I was never interested in the mainstream (I’m still not), and so - despite the popularity and being a part of its target demographic - I had no problems ignoring it until the buzz died down.

However, there is one person that’s capable of melting my cinematic snobbery: my wife. So when she revealed that it was one of her favorite horror movies (she was a whopping 11 years old when it came out, although I think she watched it one or two years later), I set aside my superiority complex, and decided to lower my expectations to that of the commoners (this is all in jest, in case that part's not coming through).

I’m late to the party, so describing the plot seems unnecessary at this point; I’ll just deliver a truncated version: Devon Sawa sees strange visions of people dying, and attempts to save his friends from meeting their ultimate fate. It all starts on a plane, when he has a rather lucid “dream” that the plane will go down, and that there will be no survivors. He creates a scene, gets off the plane, and gets a few other students kicked off with him. Sure enough, moments after takeoff, the plane explodes, killing all 280-something on board. 

His uncanny accuracy catches the attention of the FBI who, naturally, see him as a person of interest. Their interest in him only grows, as he starts to piece things together: since the students who exited the plane cheated death, death comes after them, one by one, in the order they were sitting on the plane. And when he appears at every crime scene - only trying to help the victims - their mounting case seems to be more and more foolproof. 

Can Devon (obviously not his name in the movie) save them all before it’s too late? Or will death have the last laugh? I think we all know the answer to that one.

Really, this is one of those ideas that is brilliant and ludicrous, both at the same time. I mean, as far as slashers go, having basically an unseen, supernatural force offing people is actually pretty refreshing, as there’s no cliched villain to hate; its characters are up against “fate”, a natural part of death’s design. But that’s also where it’s a little ridiculous, after after a modicum of thought: if it’s really time for these people to die, then why does death offer them enough clues to avoid it? 

Unsurprisingly, given the target demographic, the rest of the movie is bundled in cliches, and its structure only makes it easier to tell who’s going to live and die. But working in its favor is that it’s not always clear when or how: there is one death in particular that caught me completely off guard (even though I’m pretty sure it was in the marketing for it). 

Some of the characters are also interesting, namely the FBI agents tasked with keeping an eye on Devon. At first, they think he might be behind the killings, which would be natural given his propensity for being at virtually every crime scene. But gradually, and against all logic, they start believing him, much to their own chagrin. It’s a welcome change from the norm, where the police have to be hotheads who constantly hound the protagonist, only believing them when faced with clear evidence that exonerates them (and even then, usually reluctant to believe it).

Aside from a couple variations, it’s basically your typical exercise in teen horror, but the mostly likable cast and characters make it easy to root for them. The death scenes are also pretty well done, and while not all of them are bloody, they are gruesome (and drawn out) enough to appease most slasher fans.

It’s not a classic horror film, but it may very well be a classic of teen horror, that watered-down subgenre made to appeal to the masses. Sure, it carries an "R" rating, but there's really nothing here that's going to scar anyone for life, or that's going to make anyone but the most squeamish of people look away. I’m not sure I’m all that interested in experiencing the entire five-film series - I can't fathom how they would change things up enough to keep it fresh - but this is a worthy, above-average exercise in teen horror.

RATING: 6/10

NOTE: I would be remiss if I didn't mention the co-writers of this, Glen Morgan and James Wong, previously worked on the second season of "Millennium", the vastly underrated, criminally underseen television series helmed by Chris "X-Files" Carter. It's not available on any streaming services, and has seemingly dropped through the cracks, but any fan of bleak crime dramas should hunt it down. It's a series well ahead of its time.

TRAILER

We Summon the Darkness (2019)

Director: Marc Meyers
Writer(s): Alan Trezza
Starring: Alexandra Daddario, Keean Johnson, Maddie Hasson, and Amy Forsyth

We Summon the Darkness is yet another movie that prevents me from going into much detail about the plot, without the possibility of ruining a key plot twist that - admittedly - isn’t entirely unforeseen. However, the marketing details intentionally go out of their way to avoid mentioning it, so I will respect their wishes and do the same.

Alexis and Val are two heavy metal-obsessed gals who take a third, Bev, under their wing. The three of them travel the city, attending music concerts. During one gig, they bump into three boys at the same show; there’s undeniable sparks between a couple of them. So the girls decide to host an afterparty at Alexis’ dad’s house, which the boys agree to attend…and that’s when all hell breaks loose.

Oh, and perhaps I should mention that there have been a string of satanic-themed murders gripping the town; the body count is up to 18, and leaving the community stricken with terror. Of course, this will play a role at some point. (While this is also left out of marketing materials, this isn’t really a spoiler since it’s mentioned within the first five minutes.)

Plot twist aside, We Summon the Darkness is woefully predictable and average in just about every regard, with a feeling of deja vu permeating every scene; there’s nothing here that anyone with any experience in horror hasn’t seen before. Since the "big reveal" is disclosed somewhere around the half-hour mark (maybe a little sooner), the filmmakers play their entire hand early, then let the film slowly run out of gas the rest of the way. That being said, there are some appropriately gushy gore sequences that should manage to satiate fans of that kind of thing, at least for a short while. I would definitely consider myself among the ranks of such fans, but the blood - while bountiful - wasn’t frequent enough to completely hold my attention.

The acting is pretty good across the board, but the real surprise is Alexandra Daddario as Alexis. I first saw her in an episode of “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” and let’s just say, to see her is virtually to fall in love with her. She has a unique look, one that stands out from the rest of Hollywood sameness, yet is captivating nonetheless. Here, she really gets to flex her acting muscles in an unexpected way, and I have to say that it caught me off guard. I expected a more subdued effort - the way big name actors always seem to approach horror films - but she clearly gives it her all, with impressive results. She still has the safety net of a horror movie with comedic elements (where solid acting is never a requirement), but her performance would feel just as home in an exercise in pure horror. Johnny Knoxville is also good, but in a much more muted role. Who knew he could act in genre fare?

Unfortunately, any momentum it manages to create is completely undone by its fervent monotony. What is it with horror films these days retreading each other in such uninspired fashion? I suppose it’s not just an epidemic limited to the horror genre, but it’s a disappointing state of affairs for cinema in general. I would chalk it up as a result of the pandemic - where people are just happy to go out and see anything, since they couldn’t for the longest time - but this was actually made in 2019, before that was even a thing. We should honestly be demanding more out of our movies besides the same ol' thing.

If you’re a die-hard fan of Daddario, I would say there’s enough here to justify a watch, especially if you’re also a fan of the horror genre. However, just about everyone else should probably take a pass…Netflix’s library is too expansive to waste your time on below-average efforts like this.

RATING: 4.5/10

TRAILER

Slumber Party Massacre (1982) (aka The Slumberparty Massacre)

Director: Amy Holden Jones
Writer: Rita Mae Brown
Starring: Michelle Michaels, Robin Stille, Michael Villella, and Andree Honore

I was in the mood for a horror movie, but also something that was completely mindless...up until a few years ago, I feel like most movies in the genre would have fit that bill. But now that horror movies seem to be gradually rising the ranks from “cult” genre, to one that mainstream audiences are increasingly flocking to, it comes as no surprise that many horror movies are becoming more "complex", in order to cater to the ever-evolving tastes of the theatergoing public.

But there’s one subgenre that will mostly forever remain “mindless”, and that’s the slasher film. There really isn’t much room for cerebral excursions within a structure that mostly just tries to kill as many people as possible within a confined running time. And yet, it’s also shocking just how many movies have failed with that basic premise. You can certainly add Slumber Party Massacre, to the list.

This is a movie I probably wouldn't have even thought of to watch, had I not remembered frequently seeing the cover art as a kid, during my many trips to the local video store. I have to admit, there's just something...fascinating about the combination of scantily-clad women at the mercy of a man wielding a large drill. It encapsulates the entire slasher subgenre better than almost any other singular cover, and it is for that reason the image has always stuck with me. 

Trish is a high schooler (who looks 24) looking to throw a big bash while her parents are away. She tries inviting Valerie, the shy new girl, but considering Valerie overheard Trish trying to convince her friends to let her come over, fears that it’s a pity invite, and declines the offer. It doesn’t really matter, though, because the two happen to be next door neighbors, a little fact we don’t learn until later. Meanwhile, a man convicted of murdering five people escapes from prison...and we can already see where this story is headed.

One of the main problems I have is that, despite a couple (lackluster) kills early on, the entire middle of the movie sags under the weight of its poor acting and clunky dialogue. That’s when there’s an attempt to set up a “story” that’s literally as threadbare as they come; there’s also the addition of horny male characters who mostly end up as fodder for the killer. Obviously, I don’t require my horror movies to be Oscar contenders, but they should at least be entertaining; outside of some bad dialogue and unintentional laughs, this one falls well short on almost every front.

The gore, which should be the main focus in a slasher film, is every bit as uninspired as everything else. There are a couple graphic shots of drill bits exiting victims, but most of the kills leave a lot to the imagination. And that's a big no-no in this type of movie, which should aim to revel in all the yucky details.

I think the most impressive thing is just how unimpressive this whole production is as a whole. The story plays all of its cards early, showing the killer within the first few minutes, thus eliminating the possibility of any tension later on. It even goes one step further by lingering on the unmasked bad guy during the kill scenes, once again throwing out the window the potential for any red herrings or plot twists. It can't even qualify as mindless entertainment; it has the "mindless" part down pat, but very little of it is actually entertaining.

There are a couple minor positives here that prevent it from gaining a big fat goose egg: Despite the lack of tension, I actually thought Michael Villella as the killer is one of the bigger bright spots. Sure, his performance mostly consists of chasing (supposedly) teenaged girls with a large drill while maintaining a stone face, but there are occasional moments where he smiles during the hunt, as if he’s truly having fun. This gives him a rather psychopathic quality missing from other on-screen killers, especially the ones who feel the need to hide behind a mask.

There are the obligatory boobies, which in a film desperate for positives, I guess counts as one. The cast is overall unremarkable, both in looks as well as acting chops, but Robin Steele as Valerie and Andree Honore as Jackie (who looks black but is apparently not) are the two notable exceptions to the rule...thankfully, they each get a good amount of screen time (though only Steele bares her breasts, in an early high school gym shower scene). This would be the first, and most notable, role for Steele, who appeared in a handful of other movies through the ‘80s before the offers dried up; she turned to drinking and ultimately took her own life in 1994, at the age of 34. (Her single sentence obituary that appeared in the L.A. Times is incredibly sad. It was as if she was already forgotten by a world she so desperately wanted to leave a mark on.)

The only other tidbit worthy of note is that this (as well as the first sequel) is one of the few ‘80s horror movies directed by a woman. You can’t really tell it from the story, but the fact that it’s maintained cult status throughout the years in spite of that fact makes it feel like somewhat of a minor triumph, as now female-directed films are all the rage. (And that director is none other than Amy Holden Jones, who has gone on to create the popular medical drama “The Resident”, one of many shows my wife watches on a regular basis. Who’d have thunk it?)

In the end, though, this is a subpar effort with little redeeming qualities that even devout horror fans would do best to skip.

OVERALL: 2.5/10

TRAILER

Haunt (2019)

Directors: Scott Beck and Bryan Woods
Writers: Beck and Woods
Starring: Katie Stevens, Will Brittain, Lauryn Alisa McClain, and Andrew Lewis Caldwell

Stop me if you've heard this one before: Six people looking for an adventure stumble upon a mysterious haunted house, where they quickly learn that the sinister forces inside are interested in much more than merely scaring the hapless collection of good-looking visitors...

It's an idea that's been done millions of times before, and that will no doubt be done a million times more. But the main frustration with Haunt is that, while it does build up an unnerving atmosphere and has some effectively “icky” kills, it doesn't really aim to be anything more than that. Which is a shame, because underneath its predictability is a truly classic film waiting to be born.

Katie Stevens is Harper, a young woman who is trying to get out of an abusive relationship with her controlling boyfriend. In order to help take her mind off things, she reluctantly agrees to hang out with some friends—and in the process, of course, meets Nathan, an attractive, athletic man who quickly takes a liking to the freshly single lady.

The group head off to find a haunted house, and instead stumble on one when Harper suddenly feels like she is being stalked by her boyfriend. As they sit off to the side of a dark road in their old van, a “Haunted House” sign suddenly lights up, and the group has very little qualms about entering an otherwise unpromoted haunt. From there, the red flags continue to pile up: the bizarre man at the gate who requires no money; the seemingly vicious torture of another soul unlucky enough to wander in; the bloodcurdling screams heard off in the distance; but these are just explained away as completely normal events for a random haunted house off the side of a mostly abandoned road that no one knows about.

I think we all know where this is headed: the creepy masked “characters” in the haunted house are more than they seem, and the characters get picked off one by one in gruesome ways. Can anyone put a stop to the bloodbath? Or will all of them meet their end inside the abandoned building?

The synopsis itself reveals the underlying problem: it's all too familiar. For a film that seems hellbent on throwing up some shocking violence and maintaining a tense feeling of unease—two things it does rather well—there's just too much straightforward, linear storytelling to truly elevate it into the higher echelons of the subgenre. It's pretty obvious from the get-go who's going to survive and who's going to die, and the filmmakers show no real intention of subverting that tired formula. Most of the side characters are still stupid caricatures who do stupid things to put themselves further in harm's way, making the jobs of these murderers way easier than it should be. Even during the meandering finale—which goes on about ten minutes too long—when the audience is no doubt expecting one final, decimating twist to justify the elongated length, we basically just end up with the ending we already had ten minutes prior, with nothing shocking or necessary details added.

And can we stop with the trend of horror movies half-heartedly trying to pull on heartstrings? In this case, we not only have Harper dealing with an abusive boyfriend, but also a backstory involving an abusive father that's never resolved. There's no doubt that horror movies can effectively deal with heartrending issues (see The Orphanage for a perfect example, and to a lesser extent, The Babadook), but it takes complete commitment from the creators for that to work. Here, Harper's troubles feel thrown in more as an afterthought, as a cheap way to give her character more dimensionality, while the lack of resolution is ultimately a slap in the face to the viewer.

That's not to say at all that it's a bad film—in fact, I would definitely say it's still above average for what it is. The acting really carries it, with no one turning in a poor performance, while Katie Stevens absolutely steals the show as Harper. It's certainly not her fault the floundering backstories fail to resonate with the viewer, because she does her part to sell them: she cries, cowers, screams, or acts confident, all to the whims of the script, and with a clear commitment to the material that's sometimes missing behind the scenes. She better watch it though: her 2019 output includes two horror films (this, along with Polaroid), which just might pigeonhole her into the genre; she's more deserving of greater chances than that.

The effects work is also excellent: although limited to quick shots, the film's use of practical effects gives the death scenes much stronger impact than any amount of computer generated imagery could provide. The kills really help to carry the tense mood along, even as the characters seem to get dumber and dumber, setting themselves up for easy—though often predictable, as is par for the course—demises.

In other words, Haunt works when it's doing what the title implies, but falls off the rails in the fleeting moments when it feels like it has more that it wants to say. This is a good movie full of “what ifs” that will leave you pondering just how much better it could have been.

OVERALL: 6/10

No One Lives (2012)

Director: Ryûhei Kitamura
Writer(s): David Cohen
Starring: Luke Evans, Gary Grubbs, Adelaide Clemens, and Derek Magyar

Pretty much the only thing you need to know about No One Lives, and the type of person it was created for, occurs within the first thirty seconds, even before the opening credits start to roll. That’s when a familiar, and rather unexpected, logo pops up from one of the production companies: WWE Studios. Yes, that WWE; as in, “World Wrestling Entertainment”, where big meaty guys fake beat on other big meaty guys.

Well, obviously that describes pretty much every action movie, but it especially describes this action movie, which, just like wrestling, frequently alternates between “wow, that was incredibly stupid” and “wow, that was kinda cool”—oftentimes within the same five second span. A perfect example: there’s a scene where a character, hiding from some bad guys who want to do him in, hides inside the dead body of another criminal. It’s one thing for someone to come up with that idea, but what kind of person would actually include it in the script? And yet, as completely illogical and ignorant as it is, there's a small part of me that can't help but think it's a ballsy move that borders on brilliant.

I can’t divulge much information about the plot, which offers up an initial twist just a few minutes in that completely changes the story (and that you should probably avoid reading about until after a watch), but basically it involves Luke Evans playing an untitled character (known only as “Driver”) who kills anyone who gets in his way. However, unlike Downrange, also directed by Kitamura, the violence is meant to be so over-the-top that you can't possibly take it seriously (as you can tell from the above example).

That's pretty much it. Think of it as an action movie by way of slasher: the movie gets all its kicks from delivering a variety of ways the Driver can off the stereotypical collection of bad guys. While that might sound pretty cool (and will no doubt appeal to a certain percentage of the masses), the unfortunate side effect of this is that there's literally no tension whatsoever. None. The Driver dispatches his foes with the utmost ease at every turn, making you wonder just why anyone thought dragging this out to feature length was a good idea. The end result is an uneven blend of boundless stupidity and occasional brilliance, simmered in a broth of almost mind-numbing monotony.

The one thing that still impresses me about Kitamura is his propensity to “play” with the material, and challenge audience expectations in a way few filmmakers seem to want to these days. For example, you think this is just going to be a straightforward “couple gets abducted and he fights back” tale, but there are so many story shifts—both major and subtle—that you eventually just stop guessing what's going to happen next, and submit yourself to Kitamura's wiles. Granted, his “twists”, while unpredictable, don’t actually always work within the confines of the story, but bless him for at least trying to tread new life into tired ideas…that’s more than I can say for many of these cookie-cutter “action” directors working today. (Also, at least it's not another officially-licensed superhero movie.)

I suppose I can kind of see its appeal, and how some people can be won over by its formula, but ultimately, I simply found it to be too stupid for its own good. So much so that not even a solid director with a unique approach—and admirable visual flair—can save it from itself.

RATING: 4/10

TRAILER (RED BAND)

Parasite (2019)

Director: Bong Joon Ho
Writer(s): Ho and Jin Won Han
Starring: Kang-ho Song, Sun-kyun Lee, Yeo-jeong Jo, and So-dam Park

What could I possibly add to this conversation that the 400+ critics on Rotten Tomatoes (plus hundreds of others outside that network), many of whom are far more educated than I, haven’t already said?

This is impeccably-crafted, transcendent cinema; that rare movie that tears down global lines and proves that, at the end of the day, we not only belong to one world and not just one continent, but that we are all human. What other foreign movie, perhaps since Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon two decades prior, have forced large quantities of mainstream American cinemagoers to face the unimaginable torture of having to read subtitles for two hours? And, even more amazingly, left them wanting to discuss it with anyone who will listen immediately thereafter?

That alone should tell you everything you need to know about Parasite. Forget whatever qualms you have about the director, or subtitles, or foreign cinema in general, or whatever else is stopping you from watching it, and just go see it. The only tip I have is to go into it as clueless as possible. You may watch the below trailer, because it does a good job of piquing interest without revealing any spoilers (surprisingly), but outside of that, read nothing else; let director Bong Joon Ho be your guide through his twisty, genre-bending mashup.

It doesn’t matter where your movie preferences lean, because Parasite has a little bit of everything. There’s some suspense, creepiness, and violence, but all those things play second fiddle to the human aspect; almost every single character, no matter what “side” their on, feels like a real person that we could get to know. This gives them a natural likability that is only strengthened by the frequent moments of (sometimes dark, but often hilarious) humor. It also gives us a wider net to forgive the more far-fetched ideas that Joon-ho presents, which largely go unnoticed (or, at the very least, unscrutinized) thanks to the film’s many strengths; it’s almost as if he somehow programs his scenes to bypass the “logical” center of our brain, and head straight for the “emotional” section…and it works.

Seriously, if you consider yourself a fan of movies at all—whether in a spectator or creator role—just see it. There’s inspiration here for almost everyone, thanks to a prodigious filmmaker who, we have to assume, is at the very peak of his craft—and at a level far beyond what many could ever hope to achieve.

RATING: 10/10

TRAILER

Downrange (2017)

Director: Ryûhei Kitamura
Writer(s): Kitamura, and Joey O'Bryan
Starring: Kelly Connaire, Stephanie Pearson, Rod Hernandez, and Anthony Kirlew

Downrange is a movie for people who aren't interested in wasting time on things like “characterization” or “context”: within the film's first five minutes, the story is completely set up for us. And a simple story it is: Six carpoolers, most of whom don't know each other, and who are each headed to their own unspecified locations, blow a tire in the middle of nowhere (with—surprise!--no cell phone signal) and are then picked off one by one by a former military sharpshooter hiding somewhere in the surrounding trees.

With this simple setup, director Ryûhei Kitamura subverts audience expectations, delivering a devilish film that's a grueling exercise in bloodshed and tension, even for more “advanced” horror fans. I imagine many of the poor reviews of this are from people who expected a more “lighthearted” killing spree, but Kitamura's focus on the heartless, cold-blooded killer who, we can only assume, lies in wait for “prey”, allows him a virtually blank canvas to destroy long-held taboos: children are murdered, a dying character gasps for breath (which I've since learned is a Kitamura trademark), people helplessly look on as loved ones die, and every murder is carried out in excruciating, almost-too-graphic detail, from a nameless murderer with no feeling or remorse or sense of mercy, and whose backstory and motives are never revealed. It's almost the antithesis of what horror movies have become, but what they should always have been: actually horrifying.

Unfortunately, Kitamura's commitment to the visceral aspects don't translate to the writing, which presents the same standard collection of cardboard cutouts for its characters: there's the token black man, the young lovers, the good-looking single guy, the tough knowledgeable woman, and the timid, shy female. Many of these characters are so annoying that you're begging for the killer to off them as quickly as possible. (And, of course, the two worst offenders are the ones that make it the farthest, adding a dose of anger to the proceedings on the part of the viewer.) The acting is also hit-or-miss, though I would venture to say that, at least for a horror movie, the cast is above-average overall.

While those issues certainly knock the film down several pegs, preventing it from being the classic it could have been with a more experienced cast, there's no denying that this is a brutal film that takes horror back to its roots. It's primitive, ugly, and violent, and overall accomplishes the basic things that it sets out to do.

RATING: 7/10

TRAILER

Midnight Meat Train (2008)

Director: Ryûhei Kitamura
Writer(s): Jeff Buhler, based on the story by Clive Barker
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Leslie Bibb, Vinnie Jones, and Brooke Shields

Well we’re just continuing down the Kitamura rabbit hole, aren’t we? After being moderately impressed—and in mostly different ways-- with the previous two efforts I’ve seen out of him (Downrange and No One Lives), I was somewhat looking forward to seeing his most well-known effort. After all, my biggest consistent complaint from the two movies I saw was related to the B-grade acting: I even wondered aloud in a previous review how much better his movies would be with a better cast.

You know, it’s funny how things work out sometimes, because he was finally given an A-list actor (in Bradley Cooper), and even some A-list material (it is based on a short story by none other than Clive Barker), only to let us down with a final product that’s relatively pedestrian, at least as far as Kitamura is concerned. It occasionally bubbles to life in fragments, hinting at something worthwhile that never fully develops, and ultimately leaving us with a disappointing final product that falls well short, especially given the considerable talent involved both in front of, and behind, the camera.

Cooper plays Leon, a wannabe photographer looking for his first big break. He’s referred to the owner of an art gallery (Susan Hoff, played by Brooke Shields), who sees promise, but is ultimately uninspired by the bland presentation of his photos. She urges him to get to the “heart of the city”, because that’s where she feels he will start to see success.

He does as suggested, wandering the streets—and eventually the subway—of New York at night (that’s a death wish) to find darker, more “raw” material. That’s when he eventually crosses paths with Mahogany, a brutal murderer who stalks a nightly train and offs its inhabitants with a meat hammer. Leon eventually becomes so obsessed with stalking the murderer that it creates more than a little tension between him and his girlfriend, Maya, a supportive gal who is being dragged beyond her breaking point.

The murders, while incredibly graphic, are placed sparingly and sporadically throughout, and also suffer from one of the worst fads of the 2000s: CGI blood. As much as I hate the stuff (it’s ruined many a movie), I feel like it almost works here, with such copious amounts of it that it looks like a digital painting—although probably unintentional, it certainly fits with the “artist” motif that surrounds Cooper’s character. But notice I said “almost”, because it’s still computerized, and it’s still completely hokey; I’d be interested to see just how much of an improvement practical effects would be. (Although in one ingeniously disturbing moment, a woman is decapitated in first person, her head laying to rest within sight of the rest of her body, before the camera pans out of her eye to reveal the disembodied head making one final groan.)

Unfortunately, outside of the kills, the rest of the story feels half-baked. There are no reasons offered up for why Mahogany does what he does; only vague “hints” that are never even lightly explored. On the “human” side of the equation, Leon’s descent into madness feels sudden and forced, and wastes the talents of both Cooper and Leslie Bibb as Maya, who would have been more than capable of putting more humanity into their roles. There's no gradual buildup in tension between the two: it's just her going from encouraging to disgusted by his actions, with no growing sense of alarm in-between. And while I’m a huge proponent of leaving as much to the imagination as possible in film, there are moments when it’s absolutely necessary; I would say centering a movie around a killer, and then even going through the trouble of offering up some clues as to why he’s doing what he’s doing, would be one of those cases. Instead, we’re just left out in the cold, with nothing to really even go off; it doesn’t feel so much a mystery as it does complete laziness.

In my opinion, this is Kitamura’s least engaging movie, and one that really shows more of his weaknesses as a director: he just doesn’t seem all that interested in developing the scenes in between the moments he can cause hell to break loose. And considering he doesn’t get as many chances to do that here as he does in his other films means Midnight Meat Train is every bit as bad as its title.

Okay, maybe not that bad, but pretty darn close.

RATING: 4/10

TRAILER

BONUS CLIP (Aforementioned POV Decapitation)

Braid (2018)

Director: Mitzi Peirone
Writer(s): Peirone
Starring: Madeline Brewer, Imogen Waterhouse, Sarah Hay, and Scott Cohen

Braid has a good cast, excellent production design, and gorgeous photography: all it’s missing is an idea. It feels like a random collection of images and partially-realized sequences, held together by an ambiguous, threadbare plot, and an ending that never actually seems to arrive. I don’t like to throw the term “pretentious” around very often, and while I think I would stop short of actually putting that label on this one (I think it's at least trying to be genuine, rather than being artsy for artsy's sake), I have to admit it’s a word that popped in my head more than once.

Two girls--who are on the run from the police after a drug bust destroys their only source of income—decide to revisit their psychotic friend with whom they have fallen out of touch. The reason? Somewhere within her oversized mansion is a safe, and inside that safe is a lot of money. Enough, they figure, to pay back all the money they owe for their confiscated stash, while also leaving some to live off of, at least for a while.

But Daphne isn’t a typical friend: she’s a full-on psycho. And in order to get the money, they must enter the imaginative world the three of them created when they were younger. This world has three rules, which we are repeatedly beaten over the head with, lest we forget: Rule #1: everyone must play; rule #2: no outsiders; and #3: no one leaves.

Well, that doesn’t sound like a very fun game, and it only takes us about ten minutes before we first realize that this was probably the least practical way they could have accessed the cash. I mean, robbing a bank would probably be a more simple approach than having to deal with Daphne, who clearly gets macabre joy out of watching others suffer, and who pretends to be the mother she could never be, what with her barren womb and all. And while the final “twist” seems to excuse many of the film’s narrative weaknesses, it doesn’t change anything at all about how boring it is to slog through.

Unsurprisingly, it’s a critical darling, because it’s exactly the type of movie to appeal to that crowd: a story with great visuals, and an ambiguous story that they can discuss at length over rounds of craft beers and overpriced wines. The kind of movie that they all pretend to “get”, so they can continue to appear “hip” and “trindie” (a mix of “indie” and “trendy”) to their fellow peers. Yet what's on screen seems like the end result of a group of friends shooting random footage in a cool location they secured for a day, then attempting to piece together a sensical narrative based around those random sequences at a later time. It’s rarely gripping, and even by the time we get to the obligatory bloodshed—which just feels like it was thrown in to “wake-up” its dozing audience—it’s long past the point of redemption.

I’m completely shocked writer-director Mitzi Peirone hasn’t worked on music videos (at least, per her IMDb page), because there are many sequences that recall the type of quick-cut editing and visual flourishes from that type of media. I think she would flourish in a medium like that, where stories have to be summed up in around five minutes, and she can run wild with the visuals. Indeed, she has an eye for composition and production design because—no matter what you personally think of them—you can't deny she produces some striking imagery.

However, she seems to think that all you need to create a dreamlike atmosphere are bright colors and altered audio effects. Actually, in some ways, creating an “accurate” dreamland is even more difficult than creating a linear reality, in that the random sequences have to feel like they make sense together, even if they don’t (to the viewer). Take the works of David Lynch as one example: A film like Mulholland Drive works because, even through its fractured, confusing storyline (that may or may not even exist), there are enough “callbacks” and similarities between scenes that not only do you get to know the main characters (or at least think you do), but you can tell they are a part of the same cinematic universe.

That's not so here, and it's also the main reason why Braid's 85 minute runtime somehow manages to not only feel stretched by at least twenty minutes, but also longer than some that run two hours. 

RATING: 4/10

TRAILER