Category Archives: Drama

2010s, 2019, A+, Drama, Grade, Review, review-movie, romance, Year

Review: Little Women (2019)

Leave a comment
Director(s)Greta Gerwig
Principal CastSaoirse Ronan as Jo March
Florence Pugh as Amy March
Emma Watson as Meg March
Eliza Scanlen as Beth March
Laura Dern as Marmee March
Timothee Chalamet as Laurie
Release Date2019
Language(s)English
Running Time 135 minutes

That settles that. I’m watching Ladybird as soon as I can. After having experienced the feel-good delight that is Little Women, I’m more than excited to watch more Gerwig and am super excited for whatever she does next. I came into this movie as someone who has not read the original book or seen any other adaptation (I want to read the book now and then watch the movie again to see how it fared as an adaptation) . I only decided to see it because it was nominated for best picture and I’m glad I did.

The story is a coming-of-age story that follows the women of the March family, four daughters and their mother, Marmee, who are forced to maintain the household as their father is out fighting in the Civil War. Every single daughter is driven and has their own set of passions. Meg, the eldest, has acting aspirations. Jo, the second oldest, wants to be a author and writes stories to get money. Amy, next in line, is more spoiled and wants to be an artist. Beth, the youngest, loves music and wants to be happy with her family. The movie cuts between this past and the present (set a few years later) seamlessly, juxtaposing each of the girls idealistic younger selves with their more worn and mature selves. It creates an expectation because you know what’s going to come, but also a sense of mystery because you want to see how we go from point A to B.

This sense of mystery keeps the movie fresh from a storytelling perspective and happens seamlessly in the background, without you realizing it. I knew that we were going back and forth, but I was never focused on it. My brain just automatically accepted it. Editing and scene placement is on point and it creates a piece that seems to reveal information at precisely the right time. There are meta-narrative moments that are placed perfectly in the third act and allow for a lot of interesting interpretative leeway (I’m assuming on purpose) that I can’t help but admire, especially after reading about the movie and the stories original writer, Louisa May Alcott. Every thread comes together at precisely the right time and it makes the whole experience an emotionally satisfying roller-coaster. I would go from feeling sad, to feeling hopeful , to laughing, to tearing up, to feeling inspired, to some combination of any of these, and all the feelings in between and I never once felt any kind of tonal whiplash. The only issue I felt was ,because there’s no clear passage of time, certain character decisions in the latter portions of the movie feel rushed given the the gravity of what they are. It’s a fleeting issue that didn’t bother me too much in the moment, but after finishing the movie I did feel like some of the later portions of the movie feel less earned.

Acting, characterization, and dialogue are almost always impeccable. Every conversation feels real because each actor/actress nails their motivations from their cadence to their body language. It’s hard to praise any performance in particular because all of them, especially each of the titular “Little Women” completely feels in the moment. Saying that, I have to be honest on how impressed I was with Florence Pugh. I already thought she was amazing in Midsommar – being able to portray grief and anguish in an very visceral way. After this, I’m in awe of her acting range. She gives Amy a real brattiness and sense of indulgence in the earlier timeline and projects a lot of maturity and pragmatism in the latter timeline. It’s a surprising blend that had me rooting for her character, in spite of the kind of horrendous things her character does.

The movie is packed to the brim with tons of relatable themes. Despite having a particularly feminist flair, the movie is for everyone. It’s not trying to exclude or ostracize. It never comes off as preachy. The ways that it critiques gender roles, women’s treatment in society, and the functions of marriage are all relevant and presented fairly and naturally. I thought the discourse on marriage as a communion predicated on love versus social ladder was made even more interesting by placing it in front of a discussion of a woman’s agency. If that’s not your groove, the movie tackles common issues we’ve all gone through- being nervous of pursuing our dreams, thinking we’re not good enough, balancing dreams with financial concerns, and trying to find love in a world that often times alienates us. There’s something in here for everyone.

REPORT CARD

TLDRLittle Women is the feel good movie of 2019. The March family’s coming-of-age story has something for everyone and will have you laughing,crying,smirking, and glued to the screen the whole time. A fun time for the whole family with a ton of messages to boot.
Rating9.7/10
Grade A+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3
2010s, 2017, A, Drama, Grade, Horror, mystery, Review, review-movie, Year

Review: It Comes at Night

Leave a comment
Director(s)Trey Edward Shults
Principal CastJohn Edgerton as Paul
Carmen Ejogo as Sarah
Kelvin Harrison Jr as Travis
Christopher Abbott as Will
Riley Keough as Kim
Release Date2017
Language(s)English
Running Time 91 minutes

This is a movie I’ve seen three separate times and come away with a different interpretation of its themes each time. There’s multiple ideas I have stretching from the logistics of the plot to what thematic idea the movie most strongly ties into. None of these theories are more or less correct than the other, because the movie is intentionally ambiguous. Shults has said as much in interviews. If the idea of not having a “proper” answer irritates you, then you might want to skip the movie. On the other hand, if you’re someone who loves being forced to think and re-visit your previous interpretations, this is the movie for you. It’s slow and and purposely ambiguous, constantly acting provocative, but never pulling the trigger in giving you a coherent answer. I say this because advertising for the movie makes it seem like it’s going to be this cool post-apocalyptic creature-feature of some sorts and it’s not. The real “it” , no matter what it really is, is just a stand in for darker human thoughts and ideas.

The movie follows a family of three: Paul, the father; Sarah, the wife; Travis, the son. They live in a post-apocalyptic world ravaged by a disease that necessitates the infected be killed and then burned. The family is incredibly secure about ensuring their safety. As they meet more people and things start to go bump in the night, everyone’s suspicions rise and the misery starts to ratchet up. The movie is dark and things linger in the background. The camera cuts just when threads of the story begin to get just a bit less ambiguous . It gives the movie a frantic, uncertain vibe. Everyone’s character and their respective performance add to the mystery. All of them have understandable motivations and no one ever feels malicious. The element of fear is always present, so when revelations happen you get why everyone is so on edge. By the end of the movie, I was uncertain of who did what to whom and the feeling hasn’t changed on re-watches.

This is a tough movie to watch because it almost feels like a deep dive into peoples worst fears , the fears that paralyze action and cause social disintegration when they become dominant. Add on to that the natural decline in resources and you have a nice little state of nature. On my first view, I thought the movie was an allegory for the pitfalls of the Hobbesian state. For the unfamiliar it goes something like this – people are inherently savage and are motivated by a survival instinct. In a world without rules and assurances, they strive to maintain a hold on their resources. This leads to a state of perpetual violence because any other person is a threat to those resources and thereby the initial agents survival. Eventually, people, sick of living in constant fear, come together and form a government where a single authority figure, aptly named the Leviathan, determines what is and isn’t allowed. The movie feels like an instantiation of this larger theory and an examination of how it would eventually play out. It also feels topical given the global rise in nationalism and stirring of xenophobic fear of the Other. In a world where we’re constantly fed ideas that people from elsewhere are dangerous ,discussions like this are even more valuable. Should we be cautious and what are the costs of being too ready to eliminate difference?

What sets the movie apart from other post-apocalyptic movies is the sense of unknown. It’s established early on that the succumbing to the disease transforms you, but that transformation isn’t explained. The impact of it is hinted to be so awful that the characters are willing to drop anyone who even hints at having it. It makes you think about what it could be that’s so bad. Is it related to the night? Maybe, maybe not because the night is usually dominated by nightmare sequences. They’re shocking, but they’re not clear and leave their interpretation up to you. The movie is edited so that no definite answer can be reached. Everything blends into each other so you’re left to determine what’s real and whats fantasy. Obviously some theories seem more valid and others feel like wild conjecture, but the story is open to a lot. As such, the movie has immense re-watch value because you can always get something out of it, even if that something leaves you feeling misanthropic. This is the kind of movie you watch with friends who like to really get into making theories, because the subject matter and its presentation naturally lend themselves to being interpreted in different ways. On the other hand, if you like solid answers, the movie can come off as jerking you around. I only started to really appreciate it my third time and I think it’s one of movies that grows on you.

Given all of that, my issue with the movie is it I think it doesn’t go far enough. I’m fine with getting lost in a maze trying to figure out what’s going on, but I can’t help but feel it can come off as a bit dull the first time watching it. Unless you’re actively playing with a subtext and trying to view the movie through that lens, the whole thing can come off as hard to remember. The feelings it generates are certainly visceral, but the ambiguous storytelling makes it hard to remember finer details if you’re taking the story seriously at face value.

REPORT CARD

TLDRIt Comes at Night is a puzzling look into the darkest parts of the human psyche. If you like slow, atmosphere driven, open-to-interpretation horror you need to give this a watch. There are no routine jump scares or straightforward plot threads here.
Rating9.3/10
Grade A

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3
2010s, 2017, A, Crime, Drama, Grade, Horror, mystery, psychological, Review, review-movie, Thriller, Year

Review: 1922

Leave a comment
Director(s)Zak Hilditch
Principal CastThomas Jane as Wilfred James
Dylan Schmid as Henry James
Molly Parker as Arlette James
Release Date2017
Language (s)English
Running Time 101 minutes

As someone who actually enjoyed 1922 (the novella), I was fairly excited when I saw that Netflix was going to distribute the adaptation. I’m even happier to announce that this adaptation is not only one of the better King adaptations out and about, but is also an effective horror movie in its own right. The story follows Wilfred James, a farmer whose way of life is under threat when his wife, Arlette, threatens to sell their farm land and leave for the city. Wilfred views land as an extension of ones worth and pride. Losing it is no real option. It gives him both the ability to take care of his family and represents the only thing he can leave his son, an extension of his name, and thereby another source of pride. Fearing that his wife will make good on her word, he decides to commit the cardinal sin and permanently remove her from the situation. However, he soon learns that everyone pays for their actions one way or another.

The framing device the movie uses to tie together all its events is Wilfred in the present day recounting his experiences fighting his wife, deciding to get rid of her, and the subsequent horrifying experiences he has to go through. The movie is a case study in the deterioration that accompanies sin. Even if no one is around to judge you, you know what you did. Your sub-conscious never forgets even if you can put your actions out of your mind. The way the framing device cuts in with the progression of the main story accentuates this feeling by giving the audience first-hand feedback on how the actions ended up impacting Wilfred in the future. As a result, watching him deal with the guilt of his action is both satisfying thematically and visually. The further he falls into the cycle of guilt , the more his world starts to visually crumble. You can always tell the state of his psyche based on the environment around him. It doubles as a cool representation of his inner thoughts and a source of visual scares.

Thomas Jane does a great job as Wilfred. You can see his resolve in his voice and demeanor. He comes off as someone on edge who’s forcing himself to stay rigid and coherent for the sake of his pride. Everything is worth it if he can succeed in his job as a farmer and in his duties as a father. His lineage determines his value as a human being and anything that could harm it is an attack on his very sense of self. It’s why his guilt manifests in such a strong and profound way. It’s because his perception of his worth has shifted, even if he can’t immediately tell it has.

My issues with the movie have more so to do with the original source material and not the adaptation itself. I think the adaptation does a great job at conveying the same sense of paranoia the novella had. The issue is that like the novella, there are some story moves that ruin the ambiguity of whether or not supernatural elements are actually at play. The story wants it to be ambiguous, but the way that it progresses makes that an impossibility. I wish the adaptation just edited certain moments in a different order because it would resolve the ambiguity issue. I also think there are certain additional sequences in the story that hurt the theme and characterization of Wilfred. I was sad to see them kept in the film adaptation. But if you enjoyed the full novella, then this should definitely please you.

REPORT CARD

TLDR1922 is a twisted tale chronicling a man’s descent into depravity. By prioritizing his interests and being unwilling to compromise, he ends up slowly losing his sense of self. Though the ending kind of misses the mark, the movie should satisfy fans of dramas and psychological horrors.
Rating9.2/10
Grade A

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3
2010s, 2018, A, Drama, Grade, Horror, Review, review-movie, Science Fiction, science fiction horror, Year

Review: A Quiet Place

Leave a comment
Director(s)John Krasinski
Principal CastJohn Krasinski as Lee Abbott
Emily Blunt as Evelyn Abott
Millicent Simmonds as Regan Abbott
Noah Jupe as Marcus Abott
Release Date2018
Language(s)English
Running Time 90 minutes

A Quiet Place is that rare horror movie that unites both mainstream and cinematic horror fans. The story and its presentation is coherent on its surface level and is easy to follow so it doesn’t come off as confusing or ambiguous. The scary monster in the movie is revealed early on and isn’t kept hidden away from the camera the whole time. This makes it easy to digest for people who aren’t used to the weird places horror can go to. However, Krasinski doesn’t sacrifice artistic integrity in his pursuit of reaching a broader audience. The movie has gorgeous shots, genuinely scary scenes that aren’t cheap jump scares, and some real emotional moments.

The story follows the Abott family as they try and survive in a post-apocalyptic world over-run by terrifying alien creatures that hunt through their sense of hearing. In a world where the smallest noise has the possibility of leading to death, the family is forced to adapt to the world around them. I love how intelligent each member of the family is. None of them feel like they have plot armor and most of their actions make sense. In particular, the children, Regan and Marcus, come off as incredibly grounded and developed. Despite, their post apocalyptic grooming, they’re still developing kids with lots of growing left to do. They both strike a balance between competent survivor and child. In particular, Millicent Simmonds does a great job in portraying a teen angst and sadness against the post apocalyptic background. I was surprised at how effective it was. Normally, something like that would grind my gears.

I love how effective the creatures are in the movie. They’re used consistently so they never feel like a plot convenience. It’s demonstrated that they hone in noise, but that they don’t necessarily respond to every noise. This means that accidental noises aren’t a death sentence but are still terrifying because of their potential risks. Subtle details about the creatures’ nature and abilities are littered through the movie and I was astounded with how many clues I missed from my first viewing. I understand feeling frustrated at the early reveal of the creature. You’re not supposed to “show the shark” early because it ruins the expectation and build-up to the creature. However, I don’t mind it in the case of this movie. The decision to show them early on is done intentionally because the focus of the movie is the family and the way they grow and develop with each other in their new environment. The creatures are only a facet of the family’s respective story, and as a result they’re not the main focus of the movie.

As you’d expect from a horror movie about noise, sound design is on point. The movie actually refrains from awful jump scares and slowly builds up to its scares. Yes, there are jump scares, but they’re all justified given the nature of the plot and the way the situations come about. It’s sure to satisfy people who want to be scared and not annoy people who are put off by the horror genres increasing reliance on them. The movie is quiet for the most part, so when sound does come up its meaningful. It’s why I recommend watching this with absolutely no distractions. You want to be fully immersed so your ears can go through the experience with you. The score is used sparingly, but when it does come in its always purposeful. It always suits the mood and accentuates the emotional beat at the heart of the scene.For example, when A Quiet Life starts playing during that scene in the third act, I could feel my heartstrings being tugged at.

The movie succeeds because it gets us invested in our lead family. Despite the problems they go through and the situation they find themselves in, they never really stop loving one another. In a world ravaged by alien creatures, love is the one constant they have that can serve as a source of meaning. The way the movie tackles the love between a parent and a child and the lengths one party will go for another is touching and is something a lot of us can relate to. It’s not deep or ambiguous, but it’s poignant and resonant. This is the kind of movie that’ll make you hug your loved ones a bit tighter afterwards.

REPORT CARD

TLDRA Quiet Place is the rare mainstream horror movie that critics and audience members can enjoy together. It’s scary and coherent on the surface, but is emotionally poignant in the way it approaches its subject matter. If you can get past a few “why?” moments, you’re in for a meaningful and entertaining trip.
Rating9.3/10
GradeA

 Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2
2011, A, Crime, Drama, Grade, Horror, psychological, Review, review-movie, Thriller, Year

Review: Kill List

Leave a comment
Director(s)Ben Wheatley
Principal CastNeil Maskell as Jay
Michael Smiley as Gal
MyAnna Burning as Shel
Emma Fryer as Fiona
Release Date2011
Language(s)English
Running Time 95 minutes

I remember one rainy day in 2013 I was scrolling through the internet looking for a horror movie to watch that would be scratch a different itch from the supernatural movies I was getting used to seeing. I happened upon a Kill List recommendation, saw it was a crime film, and expected to see a typical psychological thriller. I was not ready for the ride I was getting into. This movie is a violent, adrenaline-fueled crime movie that really pushes the genre into new places. After re-watching this movie years later, I can only say my appreciation for its creativity has gone up.

The movie follows Jay and Gal, former soliders who have started to adapt to life back at home. The former finds it incredibly difficult to re-adjust to civilian life and his inability to go out and provide for the family has caused strains in his domestic life. Thankfully for him, his friend Gal comes in with a hitmen job posting. Jay and Gal receive a series of contracts and go out on a mystery laced journey, killing different seemingly disconnected individuals.

I love how the movie approaches its protagonists’ relationship to violence. Gal is more reserved , wanting to do the work because it gives him an source of income and he’d be good at it. He doesn’t want anything more to do with the job than the job itself. On the other hand, Jay is excited for the work because he misses the feeling of being in combat and persecuting the other. The idea of finding a scumbag, of being able to execute a vision of justice by taking out problematic individuals , in an almost ritualistic fervor is what drives him. Money is just the cherry on the top of it . The juxtaposition of their drives and the way their friendship operates in light of certain revelations is interesting and additionally serves as a referendum on the way that people decide to be jury,judge, and executioner in their actions. The discussion becomes more interesting as the movie delves into the identity of the contractors and the scope of their operations. As more things become revealed, the scope of this discussion becomes more ambiguous and open to interpretation. It’s fun to talk about with friends because everyone can come away with a different meaning for why everything happens.

The movie keeps the audience on its toes in how it approaches its depictions of violence. With a name like Kill List, you know that bodies are going to hit the floor. The question is how gruesome are those moments going to be. I read that Wheatley wanted to maintain a mystery about the way violence would be incorporated which is why every instantiation of it plays differently. There are cut-aways that imply the action have happened. There are also very deliberate, maddening displays of violence that will stay in your head for a while. It’s done for the sake of developing the discourse around the themes, not just for the sake of creating a visual spectacle. It manages to be visceral for the people who like to see more gruesome things and also gives people who want to imagine the depictions of violence room to enjoy things. That multifaceted approach to the issue makes it easy to watch in bigger settings. I’ve found the movie to be a good way to convert more mainstream horror/thriller fans into more out there horror movies, so if you’ve been itching to share that arthouse movie to a buddy, try this out first.

There are certain twists in the third act that I love. I can’t talk about any of them for fear of spoiling the movie, and I urge you to watch the movie without watching any trailers about it. There are some awesome sequences that I can still vividly remember. It’s shocking and should please a lot of people. However, it feels a bit rushed and that’s in spite of certain bits of foreshadowing in earlier scenes. I would have loved if the movie had developed these later elements in with the earlier discussion of violence to create a more nuanced take.

REPORT CARD

TLDRKill List is a innovative crime horror that pushes the genre into a cool new direction.It’s an interesting look into violence and the way we orient ourselves in relation to it. If you want to show your friends more arthouse horror movies and they’re already into thriller/psychological horror movies then this may serve a sa good transition point.
Rating9.3/10
Grade A

Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2
A, Black & White, Drama, Grade, Horror, psychological, Review, review-movie, Year

Review: The Eyes of My Mother

Leave a comment
Director(s)Nicolas Pesce
Principal CastKika Magalhaes as Francisca
Olivia Bond as Young Francisca
Paul Nazak as Father
Will Brill as Charlie
Diana Agostini as Mother
Release Date2016
Language(s)English, Portuguese
Running Time 77 minutes

It’s still hard for me to believe that the person who wrote and directed this also co-wrote and directed The Grudge , but after re-watching this movie I’m willing to chalk it up to an anomaly (I’ll re-watch Piercing to be sure.) This black and white horror movie is short, sweet, and to the point. It depicts a young girl, Francisca, undergoing a horrifying life changing event which triggers a psychotic break. What follows is her attempt at creating a new locus of meaning.

The plot progress through a series of chapters, each chronicling a different developmental stage of Francisca’s life. The first chapter looks at the traumatic event that causes our lead to experience a break with reality. She experiences a profound sense of alienation within herself and with the world around her, almost as if the anchor between her and the social world had been severed. As a result, she desperately looks for a replacement – either for the anchor or a replacement for the feeling the anchor provided. Most actions she ends up taking can be traced back to some earlier characteristic or moment from the movie, so the progression feels earned as opposed to just grandiose for the sake of being provocative.

Bond and Magalhaes do an amazing job as Francisca. The former portrays the slip into psychosis with natural ease like she genuinely has a different interpretation of the rules of the world. It’s disturbing at how childlike she comes off as she performs some haunting actions. The latter actress turns everything up a notch, so when things get even more demented it still all feels believable. She’s somehow “innocent” and shy, but the twists in her psyche are ever-present in everything from her actions to her dialogue. It’s like watching someone who exists in their own little world that only tangentially borrows with and interacts with our own.

The story is disturbing without being a spectacle in end of itself. Grotesque depictions of violence never happen. Instead, they’re hinted at through clever camera movement and cuts. We don’t see it happen, but imagining the brutality of events gives the movie a more transcendent sense of horror. If you’re not someone who likes to imagine the terrifying sequences the movie might not do it for you. It’s tasteful in its execution of the macabre, which gives it a clinical feeling. That juxtaposed against the sheer absurdity of Francisca’s life and actions keeps the movie feeling nauseating. You can feel the wrongness seep underneath your skin.

This is complimented by the black-and-white color palette. It gives the movie a timeless feel and accentuates its feeling as a clinical study of an analysand experiencing psychosis. It also doesn’t feel like a film-student gimmick. It’s purposeful in how it thematically reinforces the above and beautiful in the way its utilized to create stunning dynamic shots. There’s more than one slow pan across a room that reveals something unnerving made even worse by Francisca’s almost nonchalant interaction with the same. The lack of color and dynamic presentation forces you to pay attention to the disturbing visual as opposed to escaping in something more pleasant.

My only issue with the movie is how the third act /chapter progresses. Certain sequences occur that don’t match up with previous sequences from the other chapters. I didn’t care much about those issues in the moment, but looking back it’s really strange how the events of the story culminate into the climax. I don’t think it betrays the themes of the movie or its analysis of alienation and psychosis , and it definitely leaves an impact on you. It just feels like the earlier portions of it should have never happened from a “logical” standpoint.

REPORT CARD

TLDRThe Eyes of My Mother works as a perverse clinical analysis of alienation and psychosis. It’s dark and oozing with a macabre absurdism that permeates its leads every action. There are disturbing scenes, but most of the horror works on the level of imagination and grappling with the decisions the movie makes. If you have an open mind, or like chilling psychological horror movies that focus on the act as opposed to the spectacle make sure to watch this. At 77 minutes only, it’s not like you have a lot to lose.
Rating9.7/10
Grade A+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3
2010s, 2017, A+, Drama, Grade, Horror, mystery, psychological, Review, review-movie, supernatural, Thriller, Year

Review: The Killing of a Sacred Deer

Leave a comment
Director(s)Yorgos Lanthimos
Principal CastColin Farrell as Steven Murphy
Barry Keoghan as Martin
Nicole Kidman as Anna Murphy
Raffey Cassidy as Kim Murphy
Sunny Suljic as Bob Murphy
Release Date2017
Language(s)English
Running Time 121 minutes

Saying I love this movie might be an understatement. When I first saw this back in 2017, I was left completely floored. This movie goes dark, nihilistic places but is somehow hilarious in an awful twisted way. It’s one of a kind and had me on the edge of my seats up till the credits started to roll. Watching it again for this review only reminded me of how amazing it all was and I promise I’ll watch more of Yorgos’s stuff in the future (starting with The Lobster) .

The plot summary will be sparse, because watching the mystery unravel is the best part. Steven Murphy is a renowned surgeon, living the bourgeoisie American life. He has a gorgeous exorbitant house and a nice idyllic family life. After he starts a friendship with Martin, an unnerving high school student, his family mysteriously starts falling ill. As he struggles to find a way to bring them back to good health, he’s forced to confront his past and make some truly outrageous decisions.

Without spoiling too much, the movie is about revenge and responsibility. When someone is wronged, how can we rectify the scales? Who should be responsible and how should things play out? The movie doesn’t stray away from some dark explorations into these areas and watching the characters grapple with the weight of their actions is both disturbing and comedic. There’s just something funny about the lengths people will go through to deny the truth of what’s going on in front of them, and Yorgos knows exactly how to depict that absurdity in a way that’s poignant and sardonic. It’s telling of the human condition- in particular the American bourgeoisie lifestyle – in how people are willing trade bits and pieces of themselves to keep a sense of social coherence/status. People are so preoccupied with inflating their sense of self, that they lose focus of the the important things, trading their humanity for some ludicrous fantasy.

You could pause the movie at random (most of the time) and end up with a nice picturesque moment. Yorgos knows how to create tension and mood with proper shot composition. There are gorgeous tracking shots that accentuate drama. Most of the time the camera zooms in or out very slowly to show the characters relation to the situation around them. Often times, it feels like it’s highlighting isolation and their attempts at projecting outside of that. The score only amplifies this feeling. There are boisterous orchestral moments that make the movie feel like a classic, and modern touches like a cover of Ellie Goulding’s Burn (which is horrifying but catchy).

Everyone’s performance is on point, but Barry Keoghan’s portrayal as Martin is something especially noteworthy. He’s creepy – all caps. He comes off a awkward initially, but as the plot progresses he becomes incredibly versatile. He’s menacing, honest, to-the-point, dry, nonchalant,serious and consistent at his core despite shifting among these moods. If he couldn’t balance the dead-pan, serious delivery of the lines, then a lot of more more memorable scenes wouldn’t have the same impact.

I only have a few problems with the movie. Some of the loftier plot elements feel a bit too “convenient” for me to accept without any question. They’re a bit too fantastical and feel at odds with the depth of realism in other areas. Furthermore, I wanted to understand some of the main drivers of the mystery in more depth, because I thought it could add and enhance the discussion of responsibility, but the film avoids that explanation. It becomes a bigger issue because the first act feels at odds with the conclusion of the movie without this explanation.

The characters also feel a bit odd. Don’t get me wrong. They’re memorable, distinct, and definitely all have moments where they shine. They’re just not relatable because they’re all odd, both as individuals and as interconnected units. Their characterization makes the themes of the movie pop out more , but make the horror harder to relate to.

REPORT CARD

TLDRThe Killing of a Sacred Deer is a deep dive into the dark crevices of the bourgeoisie psyche. It explores themes of revenge, responsibility, and the practice of engaging in cognitive dissonance for social standings. Some of the more ambiguous elements hold the film back from fully exploring its potential, but it hardly matters. If you’re looking for a dark comedic drama with some absurdist moments, I implore you to check this one out.
Rating9.7/10
Grade A+

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3
2010s, 2019, A, Action, Drama, Grade, Review, review-movie, War, Year

Review: 1917

Leave a comment
Director(s)Sam Mendes
Principal CastGeorge MacKay as William Schofield
Dean-Charles Chapman as Tom Blake
Release Date2019
Language(s)English
Running Time 119 minutes

I don’t really like war movies. They often feel repetitive and worn out to me, never really sticking out in my head. Don’t get me wrong. Movies like Dunkirk are great. They’re just not my thing. I only ended up watching this movie because I wanted to make sure to watch everything nominated for Best Picture. Much to my surprise, I found myself thoroughly enjoying the movie from start to finish and would heartily recommend it to anyone looking for a genuinely engaging cinematic experience.

The story picks up during WW1. British soldiers, William and Tom, are tasked with delivering orders to another platoon of soldiers to call of an doomed attack. They have to dodge German traps and forces, while acting under a time crunch, to keep their brethren from dying pointless painful deaths. For the most part, the story feels horrific and realistic. The brutality of war appears in almost every moment. There are bodies that litter the battlefield, bloated in the waters, hidden beneath rubble waiting to be popped open, and so much more. Death is palpable and ever present anytime we divide into groups that seek to destroy one another.

Though the plot isn’t particularly distinct from other war stories and doesn’t have any huge twists, it’s so breathtaking to experience that you don’t mind. The entire movie is edited to look like it’s one uncut take. You follow the soldiers as a follower. There’s no escape from the war and destruction. You can’t look away because the camera is directly in the middle of all the action. There are no cuts for breaks so the action feels non-stop. However, despite this, the movie never feels like it lacks for scale. There are huge gorgeous set pieces and mesmerizing visual sequences that Mendes somehow manages to fit within the purview of the camera without ever disrupting the flow of the movie. The camera twists and turns in the environment,so despite having no “cuts” and being confined to one continuous “frame”, the movie somehow feels larger than life. The sound design perfectly compliments the way the camera ebbs and flows. It’s not super memorable, but the music did it’s job and helped amped up the underlying feeling in each scene. Sound cuts in and out exactly when it needs to which makes emotional moments more intense.

Though I loved the the latter half of the movie, I couldn’t help but notice how much it went against the realism the movie had established up till then. Acts that would have killed characters earlier in the movie feel like they do almost nothing in the latter half. There were moments where I felt some people had a bit too much plot armor. I really wish the movie had stuck with the rules and had unraveled in a more consistent fashion. It’s not that it makes the experience less fun, but it certainly takes away from the impact of the deaths and the themes at play.

REPORT CARD

TLDR1917 is a gorgeous cinematic achievement that any cinephile should watch. Taking the experience of war and portraying it “one take” captures the gritty reality and miserable affair that war really is. Though the story betrays its more serious logic in the latter half, nothing never feels boring or schlocky. There are gorgeous set pieces and action moments, and I know I’ll be purchasing the 4K when it comes out.
Rating9.2/10
GradeA

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3
2020, 2020s, Drama, F, Grade, Horror, mystery, psychological, Review, review-movie, supernatural, Year

Review: The Turning

1 Comment
Director(s)Floria Sigismondi
Principal CastMackenzie Davis as Kate
Finn Wolfhard as Miles
Brookylnn Prince as Flora
Barbara Marten as Mrs.Grose
Release Date2020
Language(s)English
Running Time 94 minutes

January horror is something special. The Grudge disappointed me. Underwater surprised me by managing to deliver a surprisingly effective thrill ride. As a result, I went into The Turning not knowing what to expect. I left the theater confused and shocked. I personally enjoyed the movie, but think the litany of flaws and issues makes it impossible to recommend outside of a few niche people that can find enjoyment in less than ideal movies.

The story follows Kate, a teacher who takes on a new position as a live-in tutor for a young girl, Flora. As she begins her position and becomes acquainted with her new student, thing start going bump in the night. Soon after, Flora’s brother, Miles drops on in and the absurdity ramps up even harder. In fact, the movie constantly builds up to its climactic reveal. There were multiple times where I thought I had a theory of what happened, but then something else would happen that would contradict what I thought. Then within the last TEN minutes of the movie, the rug is pulled out from the audience’s feet and after a few WTF scenes, the movie ends. The audience at my theater burst out into a sea of “Huhs”, “What just happened?”, and “Are you f*$king kidding me?”. I may not remember the movie, but the ending is something that will stay with me. It’s hard to even categorize as good or bad because it just is.

A lot of the issues in the movie stem from a huge identity crisis. The movie want to teeter on the edge of psychological and supernatural. It wants the audience to not be sure. The issue is that instead of ambiguous directing that hints that there might be more at hand, every hint towards one genre or the other is heavy handed. They explicitly make the genre present as opposed to debatable which takes away a ton of the nuance. This problem becomes even more egregious in the third act, where certain characters start bringing up plot points that were barely touched on before. It feels like the movie didn’t want to commit to any path so it tried to be everything. The result is a mess that’s incomprehensible. It’s disappointing because the movie does a lot well.

For example, I think all the performances are on point. Mandell starts off bubbly and enthusiastic at the opportunity to teach and it comes off genuine (if a little too excited). She slowly becomes a wreck during the movie and feels just as confused as the audience (which definitely helps you relate to her frustrations). Both Wolfhard and Prince are great as the kids. They bounce off each other well and I can totally believe their sibling relationship. I loved Wolfhard in this movie. He’s usually the nice/funny kid but here he’s a total creeper. Weird lines, ominous edge, aggressive tendencies – he displays it all with gusto. That being said, the star of the show is Marten as the housekeeper, Mrs. Grose. She rides the line between creepy and doting well enough to maintain a sense of mystery about the true extent of her involvement in the unraveling horrors.

The movie is also shot and scored well. The camera is steady and there are a lot of picturesque scenes. I expected more shaky cam and jump scares, but the movie is fairly good at scares. There are jump scares, but none of them are patently false. Scares also linger in the background with noise, so you’re always asking yourself if you saw something move. Nathan Barr’s score is also great.

If the elements were just put together in a more coherent plot, I think the movie could’ve been something special. I personally love weird, ambiguous movies that are open to interpretation. The movie either needed to commit to the heart of the mystery it wanted to tell and then make the hints related to the same OR it needed to be consistent in direction at showing certain phenomena (this makes more sense in the spoiler section).

REPORT CARD

TLDRThe Turning is a movie that tries to be too many things and fails to be anything. It’s a suspenseful, harrowing journey that unfortunately doesn’t go anywhere. If you’re okay with awful/incoherent endings or like weird ambiguous movies there might be something here for you. I liked it and still think the movie leaves a lot to be desired. I do think waiting for a rental might be the move though.
Rating5.5/10
GradeF

Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion.
Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2 3
2010s, 2018, A+, Crime, Drama, Grade, Horror, psychological, Review, review-movie, Year

Review: The House That Jack Built

Leave a comment
Director(s)Lars von Trier
Principal CastMatt Dillon as Jack
Bruno Ganz as Verge
Release Date2018
Language(s)English
Running Time 155 minutes

This movie proves immensely hard to review. I think I’ve written,deleted, and re-written this review multiple times but nothing seems to really encapsulate the difficulty that is The House That Jack Built. The movie follows Jack, a serial killer with OCD, who recounts a series of his murders juxtaposed against a discussion of art, architecture, violence, and beauty . It’s a one of the kind movie that isn’t something everyone should watch.

The movie is brutal. Not just brutal as in gore. Brutal as in some of the scenes in the movie are genuinely depraved, intentionally made to just shock you and offend your senses. There are awful scenes involving animals and children. Some people might think the movie is overindulgent in its violence. It can definitely feel misogynistic as each victim feels more and more like a caricature of women being violated. They’re nothing like real people. The thing is, that’s the point. The excessive focus on these victims is artistic preference , not a larger commentary on women. Or is it?

The movie’s violence is in service of questioning the very idea of what counts as proper art. Is it just pieces that follow the lines and dictates of a sensible society? At a surface level a lot of Jack’s tales feel incredibly unrealistic and I can see a lot of people feeling like Jack is making fun of the situations for the sake of lavish scenes with gratuitous violence. But on a closer look , it is precisely these exaggerations and flourishes that highlight just how sick Jack is. We’re never told he’s narrating these stories as they’ve exactly happened. It’s all according to his interpretation of the stories. Given his narcissistic and obsessive personality, it’s not far-fetched to assume that each of these interactions is part truth and part caricature. Figuring out what’s what changes the way these scenes play out and also what they mean in the grander scheme of what the movie sets out to critique.

The movie is edited in a way that makes the subject matter more thematically poignant. Jack narrates each of his murders in the first person to an unseen person, Verge. The murders play, but are accompanied by commentary, tangents by Jack, and cut-aways to “genuine” pieces of art(his own works included). The movie is interspersed in between these sections, almost a provocation that the movie is high art in a similar fashion. It gives the movie a strange introspective documentary feeling that keep it feeling sophisticated, while also provoking discussion on the position of the movie in relation to what we consider aesthetic.

Matt Dillon is absolutely stunning as the lead. He captures obsessive disorder combined with quirky serial killer in a way that feels like sitcom gone horribly wrong. If you’ve watched Monk by Andy Breckman, then just imagine Adrian Monk + a bucket of murder maniac + two cups of art enthusiast and you should have a close enough picture of Jack. Without his nonchalant, eccentric attitude and prioritization of issues, the movie wouldn’t work. His performance gives the movie a dark comedic feeling. He does awful things, but the way he processes and acts in regards to those actions is hilarious. There are moments where I was shocked at the violence, and then within a few minutes I was laughing again. It’s messed up.

The way that von Trier approaches violence is both horrifying and depressing. The movie constantly reiterates that violence is kind of constitutive of all human interaction. The universe is uncaring and no one out there will really help you. The way the movie hammers the point is unrelenting and I was left feeling fairly alone in a weird existential way after watching. This is not the movie you watch if you want to feel good about life.

However, the violence at some point threatens to become too distracting. I was never bored during the movie, but I did struggle to understand the point of each story in relation to the overarching narrative. There are some horrifying scenes, yes, but they felt like they did the same thing thematically. That’s kind of the point of the movie, but it came off as overindulgent to me. It’s funny because Verge, on a number of occasions, would voice the concerns I was having just as I was having them , making it feel as if I was having a dialogue with Jack and by extension von Trier. It doesn’t make me think the movie is less indulgent, but it makes me appreciate it more.

Report Card

TLDRThe House That Jack Built is as provocative piece about art, its limits, and the ever present violence in the world that seemingly never goes away. It’s excessive to the point of over-indulgence, but in a way that makes von Trier’s point nice and clear. Nihilistic and styled to a T – watch this movie if you can handle some real depravity that’s intended to offend. There’s a lot to think about underneath.
Rating9.9/10
Grade A+

Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report .

Pages: 1 2