Tag Archives: Movie Reviews

Bone Tomahawk (2015) a (mildly) belated review

When word came that veteran actor/full-time bad-ass Kurt Russell was starring in the latest Quentin Tarantino film, a western called The Hateful Eight, I was soooo eager to see it.  Alas, the movie’s runtime (over three hours) and my inability (as usual) to find the free time to go see it meant I’d have to wait for the movie to hit the home video market.

But as that movie neared release, seemingly out of nowhere I saw a listing for Bone Tomahawk, another western starring Kurt Russell.  Intrigued, I read up on the movie and found, to my delight, that it was not only a western, but a horror film as well.  Two very intriguing genres mixed together.

Naturally, I put the movie on my Netflix cue but it popped up for free viewing for Amazon prime members so, last night, I watched it.

With some caveats which I’ll get into later, for the most part I really liked what I saw.

As eager as I was to see the film, going into it I was also a little worried.  With Bone Tomahawk we have yet another of those low budget direct-to-video type movies and, unfortunately, my last experience with one, the horrid Killing Season (read all about it), wasn’t a ringing endorsement for these types of films.

Bone Tomahawk starts with a pair of bloody “bush-whackers” (David Arquette and Sid Haig in what amount to cameo roles) attack and kill a group of three campers, their intent being to rob them of whatever possessions they carry.  However, in the course of the robbery a gunshot is fired and that brings someone on horses (the law?) their way.

Fearing being discovered and arrested, the duo head deep into the bushes and, while they lose their would be captors, hear eerie shrieks in the wind.  They eventually stumble upon a strange rock formation surrounded by the skulls of animals and…humans.  Once past that formation they are attacked by strange, shadowy figures.  One of the bushwhackers is killed while the other, younger bushwhacker stumbles away.

Eleven days later, that younger bushwhacker makes his way to a town and raises the suspicions of Chicory, the town’s deputy sheriff (Richard Jenkins).  He and Sheriff Hunt (Kurt Russell) confront the man in the town’s bar and rapidly determine he is a criminal.  The Sheriff shoots the man in the leg as he tries to flee and takes him to jail.

To treat his injury, the Sheriff asks dandily-dressed Brooder (Matthew Fox) to get the town’s doctor.  It turns out the doctor is Samantha (Lili Simmons) who is married to Arthur (Patrick Wilson), a man currently recovering from a broken leg sustained while trying to fix their home’s roof during a storm.

Samantha tends to the bushwhacker and is left with a third deputy to care for the man overnight.  It is during that night, however, that those eerie howls are once again heard.  The shadowy creatures that attacked the bushwhackers have followed the surviving man to the town.  In the morning, the Sheriff finds a stableboy viciously murdered and the bushwhacker, the third deputy, and Samantha are gone.

The Sheriff finds an arrow left behind by the kidnappers and determines they were Indians.  Not just any Indians, though, but “troglodytes”, a cannibalistic, animalistic group that is as far removed from civilization as can be.  Sheriff Hunt, Deputy Chicory, Brooder, and the injured Arthur ride out toward where the troglodytes are supposed to live, intent on rescuing Samantha from their clutches.

The remainder of the movie involves the trip to the troglodyte’s home and what happens there.

Though the film is touted as a horror/western, the movie’s structure mostly recalls the classic John Wayne film The Searchers married, toward the end, with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

As with The Searchers, our heroes set out to find and rescue a kidnapped woman.  The trip involves diverse characters whose interactions form the backbone of the story.  We feel for these characters which makes the dangers they face toward the end all the more terrifying.  The concluding act of the film, as mentioned, plays out like The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and we’re given one particularly gruesome killing (if you’ve seen the movie, you know what I’m talking about) along with a really bizarre human subculture.

As I said above, I generally enjoyed the film but I can see why the studios were hesitant to release it to theaters and spend the large amount needed to advertise the product.

At a runtime of two hours and twelve minutes, Bone Tomahawk is an awfully long film to sit through and I’ll be very blunt here: It is at least twenty minutes or so too long.  There are some scenes here and there (including a love-making scene between Arthur and Samantha and a somewhat humorous appearance by the town’s Mayor and his domineering wife) that could easily been trimmed from the feature without audiences missing them.

Further, though the film is touted as a horror/western, the reality is that other than the opening and climax the film plays out more like a semi-comic (there are some very funny lines) and slow moving walk through the woods to get to the bad guys and rescue the damsel in distress rather than an actual horror film.

According to IMDB, “the final movie represents the first draft of the script”.  Though I don’t know how many times the author went over that script before delivering this “first draft” and while I really enjoy the way the characters talk (the dialogue in the movie is a highlight), I’ll repeat what I said above: This movie maybe could have used a couple of more drafts to trim some of the fat and tighten the story’s focus.

Ultimately, Bone Tomahawk is an odd, but certainly not unpleasant bird of a film.  An at times very laid back comic slice of life western which features a genuinely gruesome horror movie climax.  I don’t think Bone Tomahawk is for everyone but if what you’ve read above intrigues you, you’ll want to give the film a look.

Killing Season (2013) a (mildly…and pointless) review

In this era of movies released directly to video or pay-per-view, there are times you’re startled by the actors involved in said features.  If memory serves and strictly going by that memory, I can think of direct to video/pay-per-view films featuring among others Bruce WIllis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, Hugh Jackman, Charlize Theron, Samuel Jackson, Kevin Bacon, Kurt Russell, Nichole Kidman, and Nicholas Cage (ok, perhaps this one is expected).

The 2013 film Killing Season was released to theaters in the U.S. (and, according to IMDB grossed a whopping $27,713 in its apparently very limited release) but, for all intents and purposes, it is another of these direct-to-video/pay-per-view features in my mind.

The only thing that distinguishes it from so much other forgotten fare is the fact that it stars Robert De Niro and John Travolta.

While its tempting to say something along the lines of “my, how the mighty have fallen,” especially when I’m feeling like cutting to the chase and noting Killing Season is almost complete crap, the movie’s conclusion nonetheless makes you see what might have interested these two recognizable stars’ participation in this almost comically silly project.

The plot goes like this: Benjamin Ford (Robert De Niro) is a veteran soldier -and pretty much a walking cliche- who lives a stoic, solitary existence in a cabin in the woods.  His son’s baby is about to be baptized and he wants Ford to come see the child but, being all stoic and unemotional and what-not, Ford puts them off.  Clearly he’s fighting demons related to some traumatic event in his previous life and that has driven him away from people, just like all good stoically-cliched characters are want to do.

When his jeep conks out while driving off into the woods one rainy night, Ford encounters a man walking alone who offers to help start the jeep.  The man, Emil Kovac (John Travolta, sporting what looks like spray painted jet black hair while speaking in an accent that would make Borat proud) gets the jeep running and Ford drives off.

However, the stoic unemotional man stops, backs up, and offers Kovac a ride.  They go to his cabin in the woods, talk about good times, and drink down waaaaay too much liquor.  In the morning, they head into the woods to hunt deer.  Turns out Kovac is good with arrows, just like Ford.

While on their hunting expedition, Kovac’s true intentions are revealed.  He hunts and captures Ford and then tortures him.  He claims to want Ford to reveal his sins.

While the opening minutes of the film are almost interminable -filled with cliches and the type of danger that everyone but the protagonist can see coming- it is this section of the film that becomes unintentionally hilarious.  To wit, this is how the film goes:

Kovacs captures and tortures Ford.  Ford escapes and captures and tortures Kovacs.  Kovacs escapes and captures and tortures Ford some more.  Ford escapes and captures Kovacs and…

I’m being dead serious here.

After a while, it was like watching an old Wile Coyote/Road Runner cartoon, except in this case we had two Wile Coyotes banging their heads against each other and inflicting as much pain as they can.  Adding to the craziness is the amount of injury each sustain in their encounters.  Very conveniently these injuries, in particular the ones Ford receives, seal themselves and their characters somehow doesn’t bleed out during the course of the night.

As if you didn’t know by now, Kovacs is a one-time Serbian soldier and Ford was in Bosnia during the war and the two share a common experience from that deadly time.

As downright stupid as most of this film is and as I mentioned above, I found the very ending, which comes after a particularly idiotic scene involving Ford pulling out old shrapnel from his leg and using it as a weapon (I can’t make this stuff up!), offers us the best and only part of this work I somewhat enjoyed even though it too was so much silly fantasy.  I don’t mind SPOILING things here because I doubt there are many out there dying to see this film.

Anyway, the movie’s ending has our one-time adversaries forgiving each other and finally moving on with their lives.

There.

I’ve just saved you ninety minutes of your life.

In sum, even if you’re a fan of Robert De Niro and/or John Travolta, seeing them face off against each other in the supremely silly Killing Season is waste of your time.  Please don’t be like me.  Please just step back and forget there ever was a film named Killing Season out there.

You’ll be glad you did.

Momentum (2015) a (mildly) belated review

While I can’t remember when/how I first heard of the 2015 film Momentum, I do recall seeing the trailer and thinking it didn’t look too bad:

Then, shortly afterwards, appeared reports the film was given a very limited release in England and flopped.  Hard:

Hardly a blockbuster! Morgan Freeman thriller Momentum makes just £46 from its opening weekend at cinemas across Britain

The above article, from dailymail.com, notes the film was released to only 10 theaters as well as simultaneously being available on demand.  Therefore it is possible those interested in seeing the film watched it from the comfort of their homes rather than heading out to the theaters (It is also my understanding the film was dropped into theaters without any advertising which is a sure fire way to generate a cinematic bomb).

Regardless of the bad press, I remained curious to see the film and yesterday had a chance to do just that.

So, was the film a decent enough action/adventure time killer or a waste of time?

As it turns out, all the above.

Momentum, despite its $20 million budget (this is according to IMDB), “feels” like a cheaply done film.  Yes, there are special effects and stuntwork but the overall look of the film is surprisingly dreary for a relatively higher budgeted film.  Comparing the “look” of Momentum with that of, for example, the also low budgeted The Frame (you can read my review of that here) and there is no comparison at all.  The Frame looks gorgeous while Momentum…doesn’t.

The visuals aside, how does Momentum fare as a movie?

Well, it starts off rather silly, with a bank robbery wherein the perpetrators, including our hero Alex Farraday (Olga Kurylenko, looking as beautiful as ever), perform a bank robbery while wearing high tech but ultimately silly sci-fi looking costumes.  How silly are these costumes?  When any of the members of the robbery team talk, a band of lights come on where their mouth is to indicate who is speaking.  Was that really necessary?

Anyway, you get glimpses of the costumes in the above trailer and, while they may look neat, other than showing us who is speaking with those fancy lights and hiding their looks, one wonders why the thieves didn’t save their money and get some cheap Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan masks…or something.

The thieves wind up robbing a security box of its diamonds but within the box is also a computer chip.

This computer chip becomes the movie’s “MacGuffin“.  On the chip is information that can take down a powerful and very corrupt U.S. senator (Morgan Freeman in a role that it looks like he did over a day or so while nowhere near any of the other actors).

What happens is one of the thieves, Kevin Fuller (Colin Moss), ex-lover of Alex and the man who brought her into this job against her wishes, was always after this chip and, by extension, the Senator.  Alex winds up in the cross hairs when a “cleaning squad” led by the deadly Mr. Washington (James Purefoy, looking like he’s enjoying himself while playing a slimy bad guy) shows up to take out Kevin and another person working for him while Alex hides and witnesses the whole bloody affair.

Of course Alex becomes Mr. Washington’s target as she winds up with the chip and what follows is the best part of the film, an open air version of Die Hard with Alex on the run from the bad guys.

We’re soon introduced to other characters, including Kevin’s wife (given the fact that Alex is Kevin’s ex-lover, she has good reason not to like Alex) while mayhem follows in their wake.

I won’t go into too many more details but a little after the halfway point of this film the (ahem) momentum sputters and some really stupid things happen that call into question Alex’s plans for taking down these bad guys.  Without giving too much away, we have another of those cliched “character gets captured on purpose to effect her plan” and, given what Alex goes through in this section, she’s either a masochist or stupid or both.

Despite all that, the movie manages to salvage a pretty good climax involving, of all things, Mr. Washington’s tie.

Yes, I’m serious.

In the course of the movie Alex references Mr. Washington’s “ugly” tie a few times and as a viewer I thought it was one of those throwaway “humorous” lines.  Yet these seeming throwaway lines wind up having not one but two terrific -and very clever- payoffs in the movie’s climax.

Again, I’m being dead serious here.

It is the cleverness of these payoffs that makes me wonder if Momentum’s script might well have been far better than the final product suggests.

Unfortunately, the movie doesn’t quite end with that second tie payoff (but it should have!) and in the movie’s closing minutes it is clear the makers planned Momentum to be the first in a series.  Our evil Senator is still out there as is Alex and the envisioned -but seriously doubtful to be made- sequel would likely feature the two on a collision course (hey, maybe that was the name they would give the film!).

Considering the amount of money the theatrical release in England didn’t make, don’t hold your breath waiting for the sequel.

Momentum wound up, to me, not being a total waste of time but neither is it a movie worth recommending.  While I felt the cast in general did its work, the people behind the scenes, including the director and, in particular, cinematographer could and should have done better.

A real shame because there are parts in this film that lift it from your typical brainless action-fest.

The Frame (2014) a (mildly) belated review

As much as one loves them, it is easy at times to become frustrated with movies.  If you see enough of them, you pick up on certain familiar storylines and characterizations and long for something new.  Something original.

Yesterday I was in the mood for something genuinely different and scrolled through some of the movies available free to watch through Amazon Prime.  I found the film 2014 film The Frame and read the short description of it.  It went like this:

From Jamin Winans, writer and director of the cult smash hit, INK, comes a mind-bending science fiction thriller about two strangers who find their lives colliding in an impossible way.

Not a whole lot to hang on to here, but the movie’s poster looked kinda cool…

The Frame

…and I wasn’t doing much else so I sat back and watched it.

Wow.

Where to begin?

The film looks really nice.  The cinematography and effects (though limited) are incredible for what I’m assuming is a low budget film.

The story, however, is the main draw and it is fascinating.

The movie opens with Alex (David Carranza), in a parking lot looking out at a city before him.  He watches the city and the (ahem) framing of the shot is quite striking.  After a while, he walks through this parking lot, pulls out a slim jim, and breaks into a car.  He takes off with the stolen vehicle (after, tellingly for later in the movie, turning off the radio) and we watch as he becomes part of a warehouse heist.  These scenes show us that Alex, though a criminal, is both smart and cool under pressure and DOES NOT believe in violence.

The movie then abruptly switches to Sam (Tiffany Mualem), an EMT Paramedic who, in her opening scenes, is filmed at the same angle as Alex was in his.  We watch as she intrepidly enters a home where an abused wife lies bloody and unconscious on the floor while her daughter cries and her abusive husband is about to get violent again.  As with Alex’s opening scenes, these scenes serve to introduce us to Sam and show that she is also intrepid, smart, caring, and cool under pressure.

And then the movie connects these two characters in a most interesting way.

I’m tempted to stop my description of The Frame right there.  I’ll mention a little more, but it will involve SPOILERS so I’ll do so after the trailer is presented below.

The Frame turns out to be a riveting sci-fi/fantasy about the connection between two very flawed yet very sympathetic characters and the bizarre worlds they live in.  What’s perhaps most incredible of all is the actors who play Alex and Sam have an incredible on-screen chemistry even though they (MILD SPOILER) share no more than a few seconds of time together within the film itself.  And when they do, and provided you get as into the movie as I did, you will tear up.

The Frame is a mind-bender of a work and and I must congratulate not only the actors involved but writer/director Jamin Winans for creating such a unique, thought-provoking, and ultimately emotional work.  I’ll have to check out his other works.

Highly Recommended (Some SPOILERY thoughts follow the trailer)

BEWARE!

SPOILERS BELOW!

You’ve been WARNED!

The big twist of The Frame is that Alex and Sam are actually characters in their own TV shows and that they see each other as fictional creations.  Alex watches Sam in her EMT show while Sam sees Alex in his.  If the movie has one flaw it is that Sam’s show is perhaps not as compelling as Alex’s and it would have been nice to see two equally compelling shows within the movie.

But that’s a minor complaint.

The “fictional” characters of Alex and Sam wind up -though it is never explained why- actually talking to each other through their respective television screens.  This understandably freaks Alex out.  Being a thief, he at first worries of being surveyed by the cops.  Sam, on the other hand, wonders if she’s showing signs of severe mental illness as she’s talking to the TV and its talking back to her!

These are delightful touches that only add to the overall picture.  When Sam realizes Alex’s TV show is about to reach its series finale, she fears for his life and tries to save him even as time may be running out for both of them.

As I said above, I highly recommend The Frame.  It is perhaps more a fantasy than science fiction but it presents some very strong emotions along with mind-bending concepts.

At the risk of repeating myself: I strongly recommend it.

The Final Girls (2015) a (mildly) belated review

Can’t recall where I first heard about The Final Girls, a gentle tribute to and comedy related to the “slasher” films of the 1980’s -and more specifically Friday the 13th– but I was intrigued enough to put it on my Netflix que and yesterday finally got a chance to see it.

The Final Girls starts with our two main characters, Amanda Cartwright (Malin Akerman playing -and succeeding- in the most challenging roles in this film) angrily emerging from an audition and meeting up with her waiting daughter Max (Tarissa Farmiga) in their car.

Amanda, we find in short order, is a frustrated actress quite literally haunted/typecast by her most famous role, that of a camp counselor/victim in the “classic” Camp Bloodbath, a fictional 1980’s film which is very obviously is based on Friday the 13th.  Though bitter and knowing that her most current audition went nowhere (“He said he’d keep me in mind”), Amanda clearly doesn’t want to bring her daughter down.

It is during the first few minutes of the film, where we see the dynamic between Mother and Daughter, that the film succeeds the most.  In those very short scenes we discover that Max is very much a realist while Amanda is a free spirit who recognizes she’s made many mistakes in her life but clings to her one very bright success: Her daughter.

Which makes what happens next all the more heartbreaking (Mild spoilers, although the trailer pretty much gives this away and it does happen within the first five or so minutes of the film): Amanda wrecks the car and we’re rapidly transported to three years later.  Amanda, we find, died in the car accident while Max survived.

Now living with her aunt, Max is a high schooler who still misses her mother greatly.  When she learns there will be a theatrical presentation/tribute to the Camp Bloodbath films, she at first doesn’t want to go.  The reasons are many and obvious:  Seeing the movie means Max sees her beloved mother in the role that typecast and ultimately stunted her career.  Further, she is a victim of the slasher killer…why would she want to see her mother die all over again?

Nonetheless, she is convinced to go to the film and, while with her friends, watches along.  When the movie comes to the scene where her mother is about to be killed by the slasher, Max needs to leave the theater.  However, just as she heads to the exit a fire breaks out and, with her friends in tow, they “escape” the theater through the projection screen…

…only to find themselves within the Camp Bloodbath film!

The Final Girls cleverly and at times hilariously explores the conventions of these slasher films.  The “real” people try their best to help out the movie characters to survive and, ultimately, kill off “Billy Murphy”, the Jason-like machete killer targeting everyone at the camp.

While the film is at times quite funny, there remains the bittersweet/sad undercurrent of Max meeting up with her mother once again, even though this time around she really isn’t her mother but rather Nancy, one of the soon-to-be victims in the Camp Bloodbath movie.

I don’t want to give too much more away but the film is a pleasant, very good comedy that falls just shy of being great.

Where does it fall short?

I think part of the problem lies in the film within a film needed to be a bit closer in its look to the actual Friday the 13th films.  By that I mean there needed to be a greater sense of darkness and foreboding, something the Friday the 13th films did even when not showing graphic violence.  Speaking of which, some have argued the film should have gone the “R” rated rather than PG-13 route, that if you’re making a “tribute” to the slasher films of the 1980’s there should be nudity and graphic violence.  Given the sadness which lies beneath the laughs, I’m not sure about that.

People might have been turned off had Amanda/Nancy actually stripped or been shown graphically murdered.  Further, once I got to know some of the other characters in the movie within a movie, I felt for them and worried about their predetermined fate(s).  I didn’t need to see them then die in very graphic ways…then again, that’s just me.

Regardless, The Final Girls is very much worth a look, especially if you are familiar with the films it most gently -and at times hilariously- skewers.

Recommended.

Phantoms (1998) a (very) belated review

When one thinks of the movie 1998 movie Phantoms, I suspect its more for this very funny self-referential line delivered by one of the movie’s stars, Ben Affleck, in the film Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back:

“Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms“.

Funny stuff and one suspects that Mr. Affleck (given how his character in this scene takes down the critically acclaimed Oscar winning -for him!- film Good Will Hunting just beforehand) doesn’t think all that much of Phantoms and/or his acting in it.

I have only a vague recollection of Phantoms coming out in theaters back in 1998.  I didn’t see it then because I had read the 1983 Dean Koontz novel the movie was based on a couple of years before and found that although Mr. Koontz’s story started off extremely well, its second half/resolution proved a big disappointment.

Why see the movie version of a novel that disappointed you?

I nonetheless caught bits and pieces of the movie on TV in the intervening years and found what I saw neither terribly bad nor incredibly good…even though the film did indeed feature the “bomb” presence of Mr. Affleck.

The other day one of the cable stations was airing Phantoms and I decided to finally sit down and watch the whole damn thing.  By now enough years had passed and my distaste for the novel’s conclusion had evaporated and I could watch the film “fresh”.

And what I saw wasn’t all that bad.  That’s not to say the film, except for that great Ben Affleck quote, is a “forgotten” masterpiece in horror.  It isn’t, but its a decent enough time killer.

The plot of the movie (as with the book) goes like this: Dr. Jennifer Pailey (Joanna Going) brings her younger sister Lisa (Rose McGowan) from L.A. to the quiet and small town of Snowfield, Colorado.  There is tension between the siblings but it is forgotten very quickly when they arrive in town and find that it appears completely deserted.

There is absolutely no one to be seen and when the sisters get to their house, they find a corpse and realize something very sinister is afoot.  Soon, they are joined by some deputies who have just arrived in town (including Mr. Affleck and Liev Schreiber playing a whacked out weirdo Deputy).

Eventually the group is also joined by Dr. Timothy Flyte (Peter O’Toole looking shockingly old and frail…I can’t help but wonder if he was experiencing some health issues while making this film).  Flyte is a disgraced academic scientist who is now forced to write for a “National Enquirer” type rag wherein he espouses theories of a mysterious creature that lives underground and may be responsible for the disappearance of entire cultures/cities/groups of people in the past.

Guess he was on to something, no?

Anyway, Phantoms’ story plays out like a cross between Alien and The Andromeda Strain.  You have your mysterious/unbeatable monster who’s hunting people down one by one and you also have the town whose inhabitants mysteriously perish, along with a “scientific” resolution to the problem.

The movie presents some good shocks but isn’t overwhelmingly gory.  There are also several very effective creepy moments sprinkled throughout.

On the minus side, there are also plenty of logical holes in the story.  One of the bigger ones: Why exactly does the creature leave certain people alive, especially after they’ve served their purpose (I’m trying to dance around SPOILERS)?  And if we are to believe the creature is capable of doing what it does, why would it allow our heroes any movement, especially the ability to find a way to defeat it?  I suppose what I’m really saying is this: Dean Koontz created a creature that was simply too powerful to be defeated in any logical way.

There are also too many characters populating the film.  When an author writes a novel, they have as much time and space as they desire to breathe life into their characters.  Unfortunately, when producing a film, you have a limited amount of time to tell your story and sometimes streamlining characters/events helps to tell a more effective story in the allotted time.  In the case of Phantoms, one of my complaints is that it felt we were dealing with too many characters.  While, I have nothing against either Joanna Going or Rose McGowan or their acting within this film, Phantoms might have been more effective film if it merged their two characters into one.

Anyway, the bottom line is this: While not the greatest horror film in the world, Phantoms is among the better adaptations of Dean Koontz novels.  If you’re in the mood to see Ben “the bomb” Affleck as the hero in a horror film, you’ve certainly come to the right place.

Found in Time (2012) a (mildly) belated review

I absolutely love the concept of time travel and feel it makes for some wonderful storytelling.  In fact, of the short stories I’ve written, my favorite is Dreams Do Come True, which happens to be a clever (IMHO!) take on time travel/revenge.

I’ve heard it said never to write a time travel story, that so many people with incredible talent have taken on the subject that the likelihood of you doing something original and/or interesting with a time travel story is virtually nil.

I don’t agree though I can see the point.  There have been an awful lot of time travel stories made and, as with all things, many of them are at best forgettable and at worst terrible.

But when they’re good…

Found in Time (2012) is a very low budget time travel film that, I take it from the closing credits, was made through crowdfunding.  The low budget, for the most part, doesn’t hurt what we see with one major exception (I’ll get to that in a bit).

The plot of the film, in some ways, reminded me of the oddball structure of Terry Gilliam’s Twelve Monkeys, even as the central plot doesn’t come close to Gilliam’s apocalyptic urgency.

The film follows Chris (MacLeod Andrews) an oddball “psychic” vendor who lives in a weird pseudo-New York.  He lives with Jina (Kelly Sullivan) a girlfriend he intends to propose to while working on a street corner next to RJ (Derek Morgan) and, eventually, Ayana (Mina Vesper Gokal).

Psychic vendors, we learn, are people who have a unique talent for figuring out what others need and giving it to them.  RJ, for example, offers cups of coffee that he creates which help people with their current needs, whether it be humility or pep or strength, etc.  Chris, on the other hand, collects oddball items, from small rubber balls to postcards to string to rocks to (significantly) nails and magically knows when people will need these items.

Chris, as it turns out, is also stuck out of time.

His world moves illogically and he may suddenly find himself a day into the future or past.  Further, he eventually finds he can dictate the future based on his actions in the past.

As mentioned, he lives with Jina but, as we eventually find, she isn’t all she appears.  The whole “stuck outside time” problem Chris has sometimes causes him great headaches and he controls this by using drugs.  Jina insists he see a Psychiatrist specializing in people like him and, we find, she works in that field as well.

Is she with him because she genuinely loves him or is he a subject of her studies?  And what happens when Chris discovers he’s about to commit a crime…can he alter his past to allow himself a brighter future?

As I mentioned before, Found In Time is a very low budget affair but the lack of special effects is unimportant.  In fact, the one “effect” the movie does give us, a bizarre safety mask worn by the psychiatrists, is rather laughable and probably should have been discarded as it was truly unnecessary.

Instead, we’re given a film that features a bizarre yet recognizable New York setting and a society and characters that are intriguing enough to propel us through the film.

Is Found In Time a great work?  I don’t think it quite reaches that point.  The story is at times a bit confusing although after the viewer gets his/her bearing they should understand what’s going on but in the end what you’ve witnessed isn’t necessarily earth-shattering.

Still, Found In Time is an intriguing yet small film that dares to explore a well worn topic in a unique and interesting way.  While it may not be a great film, it is good enough to give a try, especially if you’re looking for something different.

The Brood (1979) a (horribly) belated review

While casual moviegoers today may be most familiar with director/writer David Cronenberg’s A History of Violence, Eastern Promises, Cosmopolis, or his most recent film, Maps of the Stars, there was a time not so very long ago he was known for creating some very edgy horror films.

These same casual moviegoers may recall his 1986 remake of The Fly, a movie made very near the end of his “horror” producing phase…

While he would go on to make the chilling psychological horror-themed Dead Ringers (1988), Mr. Cronenberg’s subsequent films tended to move away from the horror genre from that point on.

If you found The Fly intriguing and were curious to see Mr. Cronenberg’s earlier horror efforts, you should begin with 1975’s Shivers and 1977’s Rabid.

It was the success of these two early horror films that gave Mr. Cronenberg the clout to make the next step in his directing career: Create larger budgeted movies featuring veteran and sometimes very well known actors.  And so his next feature, 1979’s The Brood. is arguably the start of this phase which continued with Scanners (1981), Videodrome (1983), The Dead Zone (1983) and finished off with either The Fly or Dead Ringers.

Featuring starring roles for veteran actors Oliver Reed and Samantha Eggar, The Brood is a great example of David Cronenberg’s disturbing brand of horror.  Having said this, watching the film the other day was a curious experience.  I recall first seeing it when either when it was originally released or shortly thereafter and finding the entire experience terrifying.

Watching the film now, however, I found most of the graphic material not quite as chilling but the movie nonetheless presents a very deep and (here I go using this word again) disturbing vision of a family breakdown.  Today, the movie’s horror is therefore more psychological than graphic, though the film’s most graphic scene, presented toward the film’s end, retains its power even today.

The movie’s plot goes like this (and I will try to avoid major spoilers):

“Every-man” Frank Carveth (Art Hindle) shows up at a remote psychological retreat run by Dr. Hal Raglan (Oliver Reed) to pick up his daughter Candice (Cindy Hinds).  We find that Frank’s wife, Nola (Samantha Eggar) is in therapy with Dr. Raglan and, while their marriage is crumbling and she is isolated while in therapy, she has visitation rights.

We further find that Dr. Raglan’s brand of therapy is very much “out there”.  It involves a great deal of theatricality, role playing, and outbursts of rage.  Dr. Raglan’s ideas fall on almost Lovecraftian lines for the rage he forces his patients to unleash, he has discovered, sometimes manifests itself physically.

After Frank takes Candice home, he discovers she has bruises and cuts on her body.  He is outraged by this and knows his wife is responsible for this abuse.  However, as she is in isolated therapy, he cannot see her and is forced to confront Dr. Raglan about this abuse.  He demands the visitations be discontinued.  Dr. Raglan notes that Nola has the right to see her daughter and rejects as harmful terminating the visitations.

Thus rejected, Frank leaves Candice with her grandmother -Nola’s mother- and visits a lawyer.  He finds that terminating visitations is a tricky thing and could work against him.

However, while he’s away, Candice finds and goes through old photographs of her mother and grandmother.  She finds that as a child, Nola was often “sick” and hospitalized.  Further, we find her grandmother is a heavy drinker and the implication is clear: The grandmother abused Nola as a child, just as Nola is doing the same now.

And then things get very strange…

Something appears in the grandmother’s kitchen and tosses plates and food onto the floor.  The grandmother goes to investigate and is attacked by what appears to be a Candice doppleganger, a blond child with deformed features.  This creature viciously kills the grandmother but leaves Candice alive, and the mystery begins…

As I said, I don’t want to go into too many spoilers (other than what I’ve just mentioned above) but the most fascinating element of The Brood is that while it is a horror story, at its heart it is about familial dysfunction.

Oliver Reed delivers a terrific performance as Dr. Raglan.  He is a calm, cool character who nonetheless can act out in therapy sessions to bring out the rage in others.  By the time the film’s over we realize he’s essentially a modern day Dr. Frankenstein, a man who pushed the limits of science and decency and, ultimately, must pay the price for his hubris.

Even better is Samantha Eggar as Nola Carveth.  She is equal parts frightening, pitiful, enraged, jealous, and protective.  Make no mistake: Ms. Eggar had a very tough role to play in this movie and I doubt many other actors could have done what she did here.  In this movie conveys so many different -and at times paradoxical- emotions, sometimes within the very same scene.  Despite her monstrous nature, in the end we can’t help but feel pity for her as she’s very much a victim of her abusive upbringing and inner madness rather than some crazed monster that needs to be “taken down.”

While The Brood likely won’t make your heart race like it did when originally released, it remains a startling journey through psychological horror made real.  If you can handle the film’s slower pace, you’ll be treated with a very deep disturbing film.

Highly recommended.

Terminator Genisys (2015) a (mildly) belated review

This is something one doesn’t say that often regarding a would be summer action blockbuster: Terminator Genisys’ biggest failing (though there are others I’ll get into) is that, story-wise, it was overly ambitious.

Seriously.

I know what follows is going to sound like a litany of what’s wrong with the film and you’ll be forgiven for thinking I absolutely hated it.  But it isn’t the case.  In spite of the fact that so much went wrong, I’d give the film a thumbs up.  A mild thumbs up, I grant you, but a thumb’s up nonetheless.

The biggest draw of Terminator Genisys, of course, is the return of Arnold Schwarzenegger in his most famous role as a robotic killer from the future come back to the “present” to either kill or protect (he’s done both) someone whose life has a great bearing on an apocalyptic future.  Upon its initial release, Terminator Genisys (TG from now on) received mediocre reviews from audiences (58% positive) and generally poor reviews from critics (28% positive) over on Rotten Tomatoes.  Further, the film, which was originally planned to be the first of a new trilogy of Terminator films, also didn’t do as well in the U. S. box-office.  My understanding is that it made good money overseas and therefore likely earned a decent profit for the studios.  However, I’ve heard the profit was not enough to continue the series as originally planned and therefore we will likely not see a TG 2 and 3..

When I heard this film was conceived as the first part of a trilogy, I was very worried.  Would this film deliver enough of a story on its own or would we have all kinds of cliff-hangers/plot points left behind to resolve in future films?  And if there is no next film, as it appears at this moment (this could, of course, change), will audiences be left frustrated and angry?

To allay that worry, let me say this: TG presents a for the most part very complete story.  There is at least one major plot issue left unresolved (and it is a big one) but its unresolved nature doesn’t destroy what you see here.  (I’ll reveal that point after the trailer below)

Now that I’ve finished my preamble, let’s get to the movie itself…

While it pains me to give away much of the movie’s plot, I give tremendous credit to the screenwriters of TG.  Instead of giving us a by the numbers sequel, they presented a story that doubled back in time and created a fascinating alternate 1984 universe.

The first part of TG takes place in the apocalyptic future we’ve come to know from the previous Terminator films.  We witness the defeat of Skynet at the hands of John Connor (Jason Clarke) and Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney taking over for Michael Biehn) before moving back to this alternate original Terminator timeline.

In this vastly different 1984 we meet up with Sarah Connor (the role made famous by Linda Hamilton is played by Game of ThronesEmilia Clarke this time around) who is far from the meek waitress presented in that film and more like the battle ready version in Terminator 2.

Those opening scenes, which confound our expectations, are among the movie’s best but, unfortunately, this is also when the film starts to go off the rails.

As clever as this twisty-turny alternate timeline concept is, the screenwriters lamentably decided the dialogue between Sarah Connors and Kyle Reese should be “cute” and “humorous” and, for the most part, it is neither.  Worse, when all is said and done there wasn’t all that much chemistry between these two actors versus the originals.

Still, the concept of this new alternate timeline kept me interested in the goings on. We’re given an “older” Schwarzenegger Terminator and this aging is explained quite well.  We’re also offered some more surprises in the movie’s second half but, unfortunately, several of the movie’s trailers gave at least one of the biggest surprises away (Why would they do that?!  Why?!).  The international trailer I’ve embedded below, thankfully, keeps the surprises to a minimal.

As I mentioned above, the movie suffers from being too ambitious and I’ll get to that now.

To begin, the film introduces us to waaaay too many characters.  For example, we get a great actor like J. K. Simmons in a smallish role that, while interesting enough, could nonetheless have been eliminated entirely from the film with absolutely no ill effects.  We’re also introduced to several law enforcement/homeland security types, along with the a couple of high-tech scientists/industrialists, who have a few short scenes which also could have been eliminated or trimmed significantly.  Then there’s ex-Doctor Who Matt Smith’s role.  While important to this story, it amounts to (I kid you not) maybe two or three scenes for no more than 3 minutes of screen time in total.  Did he take the role because it would be more prominent in the theoretical second and third TG movies?  One wonders.

In fact, there’s so much storytelling and introduction of characters going on that at times the movie’s main draw, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Terminator, fades into the background.  Sadly, his function in this film is to be involved in the action sequences and, when things are slow, provide yet more “humor” bits, many of which are forced and/or not all that funny to begin with.

Clocking in at a little over 2 hours, its clear that as clever a concept as TG presents, the film’s script could have used another pass to tighten it up but, of course, that was not to be.

In sum, Terminator Genesys is a decent though very flawed action film whose greatest triumph is in the way it cleverly reworks the previous Terminator films’ well-worn concepts and therefore tries to give audiences something surprising and new.

Sadly, because of bloat, I can only offer a mild recommendation.  It’s a decent enough film but it could have been –should have been- great.

Ok, now about that plot point that is left dangling…

SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!

 

You Were Warned!

Still there?  Ok, here goes…

So in this alternate 1984 we have a Sarah Connors who is fully aware of Skynet and her role in the revolution (ie, as the mother of John Connors and with an awareness that his father, Kyle Reese, is about to appear from the future).

She came to this realization, we find, because when she was a young child her parents were killed and this Schwarzenegger Terminator appeared and, apparently, rescued her and became her surrogate father.  He was the one that subsequently trained her to become the warrior she was and prepared her for the arrival of Kyle Reese and the other (bad guy) Terminator in 1984.

But these bits of the past are presented in a very nebulous way within TG. and we’re never told who sent this now older Schwarzenegger Terminator to “save” Sarah Connors when she was a child.

Note how I put the word save in quotations.  I do so because as a viewer I was left wondering if he actually did save her or, perhaps, was the one who killed Sarah Connors’ parents so that he could then raise her?

We never see who attacks and kills Sarah Connors’ parents when she was a child, only that the Schwarzenegger Terminator subsequently appears and takes her away.  Did he kill Sarah Connors’ parents because this allowed whoever sent him back to create this alternate timeline or did he fight off other Terminators?  If he did, who sent them back?

Alas, there are no answers provided within the movie itself and the older Schwarzenegger Terminator states that his memory of who sent him back was wiped out, presumably to keep the information away from Skynet.

What actually happened?  Nobody knows.

Dark Places (2015) a (mildly) belated review

Whenever a movie has a very limited theatrical run and/or quickly appears on direct-to-video services, one can usually guess the studios decided -whether right or wrong- said features are not strong enough to spend the extra money in promoting it and having a full theatrical run.

These films most certainly could be good but, perhaps even more easily, might be a complete bust.

Often direct to video films star lesser known actors and are low budget affairs.  This happens frequently but not always.  Sometimes these movies may surprise you by featuring one time very big name actors.  Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger, a trio of such big league actions stars, have nonetheless each had films released via this format.  In their prime, this would probably never happen, but time passes and these stars no longer command the best and brightest directors and writers for their work.

There are other exceptions to be found, and one of the strangest of them all, to my mind, is the film Dark Places.  Why do I feel this is a strange case?

Because the film features a very hot “A” list star in Charlize Theron who just appeared as what was arguably the star of one of this summer’s biggest box office/critical successes in Mad Max: Fury Road.  Further, the film she’s in is an adaptation of a currently very hot author’s novel.  Finally, the story featured in this movie may have drawn Ms. Theron because it touches somewhat on her own personal tragedy when growing up, which means Ms. Theron might have given the role an extra effort in the realization, perhaps something along the line of her critically acclaimed work in Monster.

If there were ever enough ingredients to expect a film would at the very least be a sure fire theatrical release it was this one.  Yet Dark Places, as mentioned, only received a very limited theatrical release before being thrown into the home video market.

With all that in mind, I nonetheless remained curious to see the film and, when given the opportunity yesterday, I did just that, though I lowered my expectations even more than usual.  So, was the film a bust like the studios felt or were they wrong in showing such little faith in this movie?

Read on…read on…

Based on the novel by Gone Girl author Gillian Flynn, Dark Places is the story of Libby Day (Charlize Theron) a woman who, as a young girl, had her mother and two sisters brutally murdered by what was believed to be her then 15 year old brother.  She was the only one to escape the massacre and, in court, fingered her brother for the crime.

Now an adult, LIbby is a woman who has benefited from the notoriety of this sensational crime.  She’s made money by releasing a book (she later claims she never read it and didn’t write it) and, for a time, also received money from well wishers.

But twenty eight years later, the money is drying up and Libby is in deep financial straits.  Her rent hasn’t been paid for two months and electricity to her house has been cut off.  Her financial adviser presents her with some letters from organizations and groups interested in paying her to appear at their events, events that deal with crimes.

Desperate to score money, Libby agrees to meet up with Lyle Wirth (Mad Max: Fury Road co-star Nicholas Hoult) who runs a “Crime Club”.  Though not interested in re-living the tragedy of her past, she accepts money from him to attend what turns out to be a fractious meeting of his Crime Club.  The members of the club, Libby finds, all believe her brother innocent of the murders and want Libby to re-examine the crime.  Libby tells the members off but something awakens within her.  Later on she again contacts Wirth and, while insisting this is all about money, agrees to allow him to “hire” her for 3 weeks time during which she will go over her case.

What follows are flashbacks and detective work performed, for the most part, by LIbby.  She re-establishes contact with her brother, who remains in jail.  She is terrified by him yet he doesn’t appear to be the monster she expected.  Nonetheless, the now grown man refuses to tell Libby whether he committed the crimes and that makes her believe there’s more to the story than what she remembers.

Despite lowering my expectations waaaay down with Dark Places, the movie proved a slog.  Clocking in at just over two hours long, the film feels overlong yet curiously underdeveloped.  The main mystery is never as intriguing as one would hope and the revelations, when they come, rely too much on coincidence.  Without getting into too many SPOILERS, suffice it to say that the night of the crime several events magically lined up to create this singular event…and its a whopper of a thing to swallow, as much of a whopper to swallow when all is magically uncovered all those years later.

Despite a strong cast and decent acting, Dark Places is too slow, too un-involving, and ultimately too coincidental in its resolution to accept.  It’s therefore not too terribly surprising the film wasn’t given a broader release.