Kika Magalhaes as Francisca Olivia Bond as Young Francisca Paul Nazak as Father Will Brill as Charlie Diana Agostini as Mother
Release Date
2016
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
TLDR
The 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.
Rating
9.7/10
Grade
A+
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
George MacKay as William Schofield Dean-Charles Chapman as Tom Blake
Release Date
2019
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
TLDR
1917 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.
Rating
9.2/10
Grade
A
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Mackenzie Davis as Kate Finn Wolfhard as Miles Brookylnn Prince as Flora Barbara Marten as Mrs.Grose
Release Date
2020
Language(s)
English
Running Time
94 minutes
January horror is something special. The Grudgedisappointed 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
TLDR
The 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.
Rating
5.5/10
Grade
F
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
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
TLDR
The 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.
Rating
9.9/10
Grade
A+
Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report .
NOTE: The review contains minor spoilers for the movie. They’re nothing that would spoil your entertainment of the movie (unlike trailers which will mislead you). Everything I spoil is fairly obvious and necessary for me to give a more coherent review.
I love both Requiem for a Dream and Black Swan, the latter of which I found so entertaining that I wrote my first (and currently only, I promise I’m writing more) piece of analysis on it. So when I saw Aronofsky was directing another horror movie with Jennifer Lawrence as the lead, I was all in. Unfortunately, after my first viewing I was kind of let down, especially after I read the director’s interviews about the movie. I just felt like the experience chalked up to a whole lot of nothing. A year later, I came upon the movie again and just ended up watching it on a whim – maybe it was the Hunger Games binge I was on, but that’s a story for another day. Anyways, I watched it again, this time fully aware of the allegory and the authors intent, but this time I liked it a lot more. It was strange how much I ended up enjoying certain sequences. I could swear it was like I was watching a different movie. Aronofsky ‘s allegory is a lot more interesting and provocative than I first thought, even if it feels a bit myopic, but it requires a certain frame of mind.
The story of mother! follows her (mother) and Him, the latter being a famous poet trying to finish his a new work and the former being the keeper of the house, decorating and furnishing it. As mother goes around the house she sees a strange heartbeat in the house. Soon afterwards, a guest comes over and slowly all hell breaks loose and mother finds herself dealing with unwanted visitors. The movie is allegorical- that’s not a secret. There’s the story of Adam and Eve, Abel and Cain, the old vs New testament, the birth of Christ, and everything in between. The imagery is obvious and incredibly visceral, leaving a deep impact on the viewer. Him is God and the mother is Earth, so the movie is also an allegory of the relationship of Earth to religion and people. If this summary seems too pretentious or full of itself, then skip the movie. You probably won’t like it. The psychological horror in the movie is subtle and slowly evolving until it crescendos in the third act. If you don’t like “slow burners” you might also want to skip this one. For those of you left, you’re in for something gorgeous.
I love weird movies like this. I think my initial irritation with the movie came from the mis-marketing of it ( I thought it was going to be some kind of normal home invasion story) and a misunderstanding of the cool interactions between the different themes in the movie. Yes, there’s the obvious one that Aronofsky tells us, but if you take that together with other smaller moments you get a neat looking picture. The connection between religion, sin, forgiveness, and the environment is provocative. My only real issue is that it all feels a bit too nihilistic. If there was a bit more characterization during certain parts, then I think the movie could’ve done something truly masterful, but as it is, it paints a pretty pessimistic picture of the world with no way out.
This movie is definitely a horror movie. I’ve seen a lot of people saying the opposite, which I think is kind of ridiculous. There are harrowing sequences that are both grotesque and intended to disgust and shock the audience. The pacing and editing in the latter half of the movie create a real tension. Yes, you know where the movie is going to go but it does a hell of a job at ramping up the absurdity of its allegory at every turn. The movie is mainly shot from the perspective of her – either behind her or looking at her face. The audience is along for the ride, so as mother gets more tense and harrowed, so do we. It’s confusing, chaotic, and disturbing, and in its own way beautiful. You really feel for her. Sound design is the main reason this works so well. It’s minimalist, so the normal barrier erected between the audience and the screen feels gone. The sounds of the house are what come out distinctly. Put together, the experience puts you directly with the character in horrible situations. If you let yourself experience the movie, instead of just watching it, you may enjoy it a lot more. I think that’s why I liked the movie a lot more the 2nd time.
The main problem with the movie is it only works at the level of allegory. I wish it was more a home invasion movie or even a psychological horror in the more traditional sense with the allegory working on less “literal” level. The best movies can tie in a fully formed plot and tap on the allegory/metaphors as another layer – so the movie can be viewed in a traditional sense, and also in whatever subtext the director/viewer extracts. This movie only works as the latter which is why it may not work for a lot of people.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
mother! is a thought provoking allegory about God, the environment, humanity and the way their respective relationships intersect. If you like purely allegorical movies then this should be straight in your ballpark. I wish it was less nihilistic, but I’m nonetheless impressed with the creativity on display.
Rating
9.2/10
Grade
A
Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report .
A girl walks along the side of a road. A car drives down the the road. The girl disappears from view. The girl runs in front of the car. The car crashes against a tree and the girl walks towards the front seats of the car. The red colored tite card appears in silence. The movie starts with a jolt in the form of a car crash. A young woman appears for a moment. A car shows up. The woman is gone. Then as the sound of the car gets nearer she jumps out and causes the vehicle to swerve and crash. The sound of strings get more intense as she approaches the front doors of the car….and then silence. The title card comes in in bright bloody red.
A young woman walks down a long road, seemingly fading into the trees around her. A cut reveals a car coming from the other side of the road. However, when the camera cuts back, the girl is now missing. As the sound of the car approaches the frame, the girl runs out from the trees, jolting both the driver and the audience. The car swerves to try and avoid her but ends up crashing against a tree – the previously alive members of the car now rendered pieces of flesh. The girl lies for a few moments before getting up and walking towards the car and opening up a front door; her movement is accompanied by harsh strings which burst to a crescendo before dissipating into silence as the blood red title card bursts onto screen.
Justine (Garance Marillier) asks for food and declines any meat. Her visage is covered by the reflection of the flesh she’s refused. Justine(Garance Marillier) realizes some meat has gotten into her food and informs her mother (Joana Preiss) and father(Laurent Lucas). Justine(Garance Marillie) and her father(Laurent Lucas) exchange a smile as her mother berates the restaurant for the slip-up. The family is vegetarian and meat is inexcusable. Justine (Garance Marillier) looks out, bracing herself for her future college experience. She notices her mother(Joana Preiss) and father(Laurent Lucas) lovinly regard one another. Justine(Garance Marillier) puts her hands between her legs and starts to rub them in anticipation? Justine’s dog comes into the frame and disrupts her sense of zen. Justine (Garance Marillier) is left alone in the parking lot of her school with her sister nowhere in site. This moment of violence is juxtaposed by a scene of innocence. A young woman, Justine, gets food with her parents at a restaurant. She tries to avoid getting any meat on her plate but despite making her intentions known, flesh still makes its way into her mouth. She informs her mother who berates the restaurant over causing her vegetarian family grief, before then departing with her family to be dropped off for her first year at veterinary school. While they drive along, she notices passions between her parents, passions which engender an idyllic state of peace. This moment of comfort is interrupted by her dog which leaps into the frame, marking the end of her “childhood” and the start of her coming-of-age journey as she’s dropped off at her new school, forced to make her way without parental help anymore.
The film cuts to another young woman, Justine (Garance Marillier) purchasing food and the burst of violence which came earlier seemingly bears no relation. Justine is framed against a glass counter; her image has an assortment of meats projected against it – an image of flesh rendered from an animal juxtaposed against an image of flesh moving in the form of a human. The food worker asks Justine if she wants protein to which Justine responds she doesn’t want meat. However, as she sits down with her mother (Joana Preiss) and father (Laurent Lucas) to eat, she notices something off with her food: the presence of animal flesh. Quickly, she informs her mother of the issue who promptly gets up to ream the kitchen staff over their mistake: her family is vegetarian and the meat should have never been there. Justine and her father exchange smiles with one another; this situation is one that is familiar to them and they’re both used to Justine’s mother’s militant reactions.
After the debacle, the family unit makes their way to drop Justine off at veterinary school for the start of her first semester. As the drive unfolds, Justine notices the warmth her parents have for one another and feels the rays of sunshine brush over her. She places her hands between her legs and starts rubbing them, but her idyllic moment is interrupted by her dog who starts to lick her face – this time a live animal present in the family unit. Her parents inform her of the location of the grocery store, the morgue, and the medicinal area: a factory of flesh where bodies are rendered as food, as cadavers, and as patients to be treated.
The duo drops Justine off under the assumption that her sister, Alexia (Ella Rumpf), who also attends the school as a sophomore, will pick her up despite commenting that Alexia’s tendencies make her hard to control. Consequently, after her parents leave, Justine is made to walk to school herself, her sister nowhere in sight, the first of many hurdles to come.
Adrien (Rabah Nait Oufella) introduces himself to Justine (Garance Maraillier) as her roomate. He explains he’s queer while holding a green ski-pole. Justine (Garance Marillier) and Adrien’s (Rabah Nait Oufella) room is ransacked by masked “terrorists” who break and destroy everything while forcing the two of them out. The first years are forced to crawl in their undergarments – a process of humiliation……which is then revealed to be nothing more than hazing. After completing the first part of the initiation, the first years are invited to a rave. Justine (Garance Marillier) walks through the maze of carnal pleasures. She notices Adrien (Rabah Nait Oufella) making out with another guy. Justine (Garance Marillier) runs into Alexia (Ella Rumpf) at the party. Her sister didn’t have time to pick her up but is here at a rave. Burts of light reveal that Justine (Garance Marillier) and Alexia’s path goes through rooms filled with animal monstrosities including a mock-up of a spider-sheep. Alexia (Ella Rumpf) shows Justine (Garance Marillier) a picture of their parents after having done their own initiation. Justine (Garance Marillier) tries to get some rest after spending the entire night partying, but her efforts to get some peace and quiet are thwarted when she hears Adrien getting ready to have sex. Justine’s first day proves to be unadulterated chaos. Instead of getting a woman as a roommate, she gets a queer man. Then her possessions and room are broken into and ransacked by masked hoodlums who force her and the other first years to engage in humiliating trials before then revealing that this is just part of a hazing initiation. Upon finishing the first task, the students are invited to a rave. The torrent of pleasures is too much for Justine to handle given her disposition and she stumbles to find a foothold. It’s at this point she runs into her sister, Alexia, who offers her a respite from the rave in the form of a vision of the future. Alexia shows Justine a picture of their parents who also finished the same initiation Justine is going through now – a sign of approval.
Unfortunately, this is the smallest of Justine’s problems. As night falls, she’s woken up by a man, Adrien(Rabah Nait Oufella) who intrudes her room holding a ski pole. She asks him what he’s doing and he informs her that they’re roommates. Given that she requested another woman for a roommate, she’s understandably upset by the presence of a man, but Adrien immediately attempts to assuage her concerns by admitting that he’s queer, offering his sexuality as an explanation for why the college would place them together. According to the system, woman and queer man are interchangeable, or so he suggests.
However, before Justine can process this new revelation, her dorm room is broken into by a wild horde of masked bandits who force all the first-year students out into the hallway after throwing their possessions out of the window. Like the car crash that inaugurates the film, this burst of violence is random and seemingly lacks purpose. The fresh batch of students are forced to strip down and crawl in humiliating fashion by the masked group, who then reveal that the absurd theatrics are just part of a hazing ritual; the violence is thus rendered coherent by social practice. Upon finishing the first part of the ritual, the group is invited to a rave, which cinematographer Ruben Impens gloriously captures in a one take that follows the innocent Justine as she’s thrust into a realm of excessive enjoyment.
Vibrant blues and reds color the walls, disorienting a Justine who desperately seeks footing in the sweaty, chaotic, throng of bodies. Every extra on the screen moves and dances with such passion that the rave scene gains a vitality of its own, moving and proceeding in such a way as to swallow Justine. First, she sees Adrien and moves towards him but backs off after seeing him in passionate throws with another man. Eventually as she traverses the labyrinth of pleasure, she runs into her Alexia and embraces her. Finally, the sisters are united and Alexia excitedly takes her little sister to another location to show her something.
The students tranquilize a horse to get it ready for a procedure. The horse’s eyes show a vitality that persists in spite of its incapacitated nature. Justine (Garance Marillier) showcases a similiar vitality behind her eyes, as she stands shocked at the nature of the procedure and the gaze of the horse upon her. The powerful beast lies fully immobile and gazes onwards. Justine’s first lesson has her witnessing a horse being tranquilized for a procedure. The majestic beast capable of immense strength is immediately rendered immobile. However, it’s vitality persists and is rendered in its gaze, a gaze which Justine seems to share as she stares at the creature frozen in fear herself.
Classes begin and the students witness a surgery procedure done on a horse. Ordinarily so energetic and powerful, the creature is reduced to a passive state via tranquilizers. However, the vitality driving the horse is still very much present in its eyes, which gaze directly at the screen. Justine’s shocked expression at the situation strikes a parallel – both gazes reveal an animalistic drive waiting to be released. Consequently, the green background takes on a feeling of domesticated vitality. Green is both “alive” and “in control”.
Justine (Garance Marillier) notices a splotch of red liquid drip onto her white coat as she takes her class picture. The splotch turns into a barrage, as a torrent of of blood falls onto Justine (Garance Marillier) and her class. Justine (Garance Marillier) and her classmates’ faces are coevered in blood. The class photo is taken. This group isn’t traitorous. Adrien (Rabah Nait Oufella) eats his rabbit kidney as Justine (Garance Marillier) protests eating the same due to her vegetarian diet. Alexia (Ella Rumpf) eats the rabbit kidney instead of supporting her sister like their mother would have. Alexia(Ella Rumpf) feeds Justine (Garance Marillier) the rabbit kidney. Adrien (Rabah Nait Oufella) helps Justine (Garance Marillier) as she recoils from the impact of ingesting meat. Justine’s class experiences first a baptism by blood followed by sacrament in the form of rabbit kidneys as proof of their commitment to the initiation. While Justine accepts the former, she refuses the latter on the grounds of her vegetarian beliefs. She calls out to her sister for help in the same way she called her mother at the start of the film. However, unlike their mother, Alexia has no interest in helping Justine regulate herself and force feeds her sister the piece of flesh. The experience both disorients and traumatizes Justine, who is forced to rely on Adrien to stay on her feet afterwards.
In comparison, the color red, while also being “alive”, is far from control and expands excessively. As Justine stands with the other first years for their photo, she notices a drop of red fall on her bright white coat before suddenly being engulfed in gallons of blood along with her classmates. Now her years picture has been finished; so far, she is not a traitor. She too is marked and the red blood her parents and sister were marked by in the past.
She and Adrian make their way to a line serving “something” all conscripts have to consume. When Justine gets to the front of the line, she figures out that the “something” is nothing other than a raw rabbit kidney. In protest, Juliet argues she’s a vegetarian and should not have to engage in the deed, going so far as to call Alexia to confirm their family’s dietary restrictions. Her outburst makes sense given her orientation towards the non-human: she believes non-human animals have rights and dispositions that would render harm done to them as ethically problematic as harm done to humans. If she eats rabbit flesh, what’s to stop her from eating human flesh?
However, Alexia is not Justine’s mother; instead of helping Justine out, she instead eats a piece of the rabbit kidney and then feeds an emotionally devastated Justine another piece – baptism by meat. With her strict vegetarian lifestyle and ethical orientation now cracked, Justine’s sense of self and appetite are unbound – the barrier to a whole realm of actions are now open as her ethical consistency allows her to logically engage in more obscene interactions with flesh.
Raw is thus, in both a metaphorical and literal sense, an exploration of the limits of the body and the way violence to it is rendered coherent or excessive. Flesh is what holds the metaphorical trappings of the film together: animals and humans become the same through their capacity to be eaten and be sexualized. Practices towards flesh are rendered acceptable or unacceptable, not based on harm, but based on coherence with social norms.
At a visual level this is established in the colors themselves – both red and green represent an orientation towards vitality. The difference lies in obscenity – green is domesticated and red is excessive. It’s no coincidence that greens coincide with vegetables and red coincides with meat. As a vegetarian, Justine is virginal, innocent, and child-like. The first time the viewer sees her is dressed in a white unicorn t-shirt while being protected by her parents.
Then, as soon as Justine gets to college, she’s forced to grow up and deal with a world that tells her to enjoy at the cost of everything else. There are no parents left to demarcate and keep her insulated. In an environment filled with alcohol, sexual relations, ritualistic proceedings, and meat, it’s easy to see how someone could lose their grasp and succumb to the injunction to enjoy. Her cannibalistic desires are not merely excuse for gory violence but rather represent her longing to find herself. They come up at the same time her sexual desires awaken. Both desires related to the flesh arise in an environment where flesh is ubiquitous: college students looking to fornicate, animals waiting to be treated, cadavers lying in a morgue. Thus, Justine is forced to navigate the corporeal matrix of bodies in as many manners as she can, to get a better grasp on herself.
In this way, Raw rides the fine line between coming-of-age story about a young woman trying to find her place in world at large and David Cronenberg-esque body-horror that seeks to locate the line where animal instinct ends and human behavior begins. As a result, the story is able to both shock the audience with playful gore, but also play off those macabre moments in comedic fashion. A “seven minutes in heaven” session, which would be normally be an anxiety fueled place of hilarious sexual blunder, becomes darkly comedic when amped up with the possibility of cannibalism. An already awful situation just gets amped up to the next level which reveals something about the nature of the activity itself.
Through constantly juxtaposing both accepted and non-accepted forms of relationality to flesh, director and script-writer Julia Ducournau is able to demonstrate how the condemnation against something as seemingly excessive as cannibalism, is nothing more than an arbitrary construct. How is it bloodier than eating meat from an animal? Why is ethically more invasive than recording people’s downfalls and posting them online? What trait makes the practice more egregious than the hazing committed by the school’s seniors? These questions gain traction because Ducournau sequences the movie by first exposing a “prohibited” relationship to the flesh, demonstrating a counterpoint to that relationship that’s socially accepted, and then using then having the first relationship bleed into the guise of the second. Because she focuses on the body in such careful and clinical fashion, even the obscene relationships it brings about are rendered cognizable and comparable to more commonplace relationships. These connections are made all the more apparent because non-human animal bodies are present in abundance, providing a variety of counterpoints to the relations being shown.
Furthermore, the distinctive manner in which Ducournau directs the bodies of her actors highlights a corporeal malleability. In scenes with extras, everyone moves organically with explosions of difference happening in the tapestry of the frame. This ability to create points of difference extends to even the facial movements of the actors. In particular, Garance Marillierenlivens Justine in the subtle ways she intensifies her gazes, shifts her eyebrows, and re-centers her body weight transforming from dainty waif to predator. The corporeal possibilities inherent in the body become “actualized” which in turn gives the films themes a heftier flavor.
By quite literally showing the ways people mark one another in their actions via cannibalism itself, Raw serves as a powerful reminder of the way our bodies are constantly open to and in proximity of other bodies, rendering both avenues for enjoyment and suffering based on the orientation we approach them. Ducournau’s debut feature majestically weaves through the contours of the body to reveal the contingencies of our relationships, both to ourselves and our notion of humanity proper. And it somehow manages to do all this while remaining a charming and cognizable story that anyone, sans the extremely squeamish, can watch and enjoy.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Raw is an underappreciated horror gem of the 2010’s that deserves more recognition not only for its fresh and innovative take on women’s ability to relate in and to the world, but also for its perfect use of cannibalism as both horror and tool for metaphor. It’s a film that shocks, but then asks the viewer what exactly was shocking , forcing the viewer to confront the way they’ve normalized structured of discipline and violence.
Rating
10/10
Grade
S+
Go to Page 2for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Natalie Portman as Lena Oscar Isaac as Kane Jennifer Jason Leigh as Dr. Ventress
Release Date
2018
Language(s)
English
Running Time
115 minutes
If you haven’t already seen this movie, avoid the trailer because it spoils so much of the movie that I don’t understand why or how it was released.Now that I got that out of the way, Annihilation is one of the most ambitious science fiction movies I’ve seen in recent memory. The story follows a group of 5 scientists as they’re tasked with entering a zone enveloped by an alien aura known as “The Shimmer”.
This movie is a big discussion on creativity and its relation to the death drive. The Shimmer is filled with mutations that are either beautiful, horrifying, or some mixture of both. These creatures are not only meant to be horrifying, but are also used to provoke discussion on the nature of the alien substance. There are answers to its nature (the movie is fairly up-front about it), but the end of the movie is open enough to allow discourse on the meaning of it all. It’s a great movie to watch with friends and talk about afterwards because the movie does a great job of balancing giving direct answers and hinting at answers with multiple meanings. You could watch the movie straight up as a horror sci-fi movie with crazy sequences , but that would be a disservice to the layers going on. I’m not going to pretend to act like I got all of this on my first view. Honestly, the first time I saw this movie I really disliked a subplot focused on Lena, our protagonist. But on later viewings, I came to appreciate how it added to multiple themes in the movie. I still think it could’ve been done better, but I appreciate the reasoning behind it. Big Lovecraftian energy.
For those of you who are looking more for the sci-fi or the horror in the movie, don’t worry. The movie has them in spades. The movie might start off slow for some. There’s a lot of character work done (mainly exposition and introduction) here that pays off later, so I think it’s worth it, but I can see how it can feel grating. Thankfully, the movie soon transitions into “The Shimmer” and everything goes off the wheels. The visuals are jaw-dropping and watching the alien substance interact with everything is something you can’t stop looking at. Not to mention, the movie has one of the scariest creature moments in recent memory. It really stays with you. Once the 3rd act is underway, everything gets amped up another notch. The story and its themes come together in an audio-visual experience that’s wholly unique. In fact, the climax of this movie is a moment that’s stuck with me from the moment I watched it. It feels like a vision fully realized from the visual effects, to the art design, to the way that dialogue gives way to otherworldly tunes.
Every scientist feels developed and the audience gets a good insight into each of their personalities (even if some of that is done via the characters analyzing each other)They’re all good enough for the story and I could remember bits and pieces of them after I had first seen the movie. The cool thing about them is how the movie uses them all as foils to Lena which not only makes her decisions more interesting, but also nicely develops the themes.
The only issues with the film are some strange narrative choices. There’s a really odd framing device that’s used to explain a lot of the narrative. It feels almost like someone didn’t trust the audience to put the pieces together (which is false), so a lot of the movie comes to a painful standstill so that Lena can explain what we just saw to a room of people. It makes the movie feel bloated and I really wish it wasn’t there at all. The ending also feels odd – like it was tacked on to please audiences (which based on what I’ve read about production seems true). I don’t dislike it now, but I remember really thinking it was wonky on my first viewing.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Annihilation is a thought provoking look into humanity’s destructive and creativive capacities. The eye popping visuals are there to augment, not distract, from the cerebral sci -fi mystery. There are some story issues that make pacing a bit wonky, and the story takes a bit to start up, but once it does you’re in for something that can’t really be explained.
Rating
9.6/10
Grade
A+
Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report .
One day while randomly browsing YouTube, I found an raw trailer for this movie and was left in shock. It looked cutesy but then devolved into seemingly disparate situations of violence. I knew that I had to see what it was all about, so I waited till it came out with subs and proceeded to experience an audiovisual piece the likes of which I’ve never seen before.
The story picks up on Mitsuko, a shy high-schooler who’s busy writing poetry as she and her classmates head off on a trip. However, soon after this start, a gust of wind comes through and kills everyone on the bus besides Mitsuko. Streams of blood and guts envelop the screen and Mitsuko is forced to run away from the wind to survive.
What follows is a story that never lets up with WTF moments and sequences. Every time I thought I had a grasp on what the movie was, it went in a completely different direction, each as violent as the one preceding it. If you’re someone who likes having answers immediately, then this movie is going to get under your skin. Answers only come near the end of the third act and they’re still ambiguous at that. It’s a movie that assaults the senses with gore and absurdity while dragging the audience at breakneck speeds through a story that seemingly makes no sense. However, once things start clicking, the movie becomes something else entirely. I was floored with everything I had seen. The movie takes a lot of risks and I thought they more than payed off by the end.
Without getting into spoilers, I can say the movie’s analysis of agency is interesting and provocative. Just like Mitsuko, the audience never has a stable foundation to begin to determine what is and isn’t real. That’s because those perceptions are conditioned not only by our perspectives of ourselves but by the perspectives of those who control the levers of society. If we’re taught that certain protocol is the only way forward, then it becomes easy to see how true freedom can become hidden away. Sono takes this idea and then wonderfully infuses both a queer and feminist subtext into it, giving the idea a sense of nuance that most movies can only dream of. Multiple people can watch this movie and all of them can come away with different interpretations (outside of the blatant message of the movie). Even now the ending gets to me and makes me really think both of the meaning of the story and the way I contribute to a society that strips people of agency.
Now for my more squeamish readers, you might want to watch this one with a friend who can let you know when the gory stuff is over. The movie is filled with splatters and grotesque murders. The first time I watched it, I had to look away a few times because of how visceral the experience would get. I think it gives the movie a really distinctive feel, but I can see how it could turn people away.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Tag is a movie that deserves to get seen by more people. It’s a masterclass in storytelling and has one of the most unique plots I’ve seen in a story. The way the mystery builds and resolves itself is shocking and thought provoking. If you like gore or art-house movies, you owe it to yourself to watch this.
Rating
9.8/10
Grade
A+
Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report .
Kotaro Daigo as Hodaka Morishima Nana Mori as Hina Amano Shun Oguri as Keisuke Suga
Release Date
2019
Language(s)
Japanese
Running Time
112 minutes
I’ve always liked Shinkai’s work (5 Centimeters per Second, The Garden of Words) but I’ve never fallen in love with anything in the same as I did with Your Name.Like tons of other people around the world, I couldn’t stop gushing over the 2016 runaway hit. As such, I came into this movie with high expectations. I know ,I know, bad idea. Thankfully, Lady Luck was looking out and I got more than what I expected. I haven’t been able to stop thinking about the way the movie ended or been able to stop humming the main theme, so suffice to say I think it’s pretty good.
If you haven’t seen trailers- don’t. I think most trailers for this movie spoil too much and the experience will feel more magical if you go in “blind”. The story follows Hodaka, a high-school boy, who runs away to Tokyo and runs into Hina, a girl with the magical power to change the weather. Such an ability would be an amazing in the ordinary, but in this world where huge downpours and flooding are commonplace, a ray of sunshine can mean the world. The movie explores homelessness, climate change, and humanity’s spiritual connection with the environment with almost seamless execution while telling a fun fantastical romance.
I really like the post-apocalyptic/slow apocalyptic feeling the movie has. Hope in spite of the crushing weight of everything is something that I can relate to, especially in relation to the climate crisis we’re in that shows little hope of being reversed. Eventually, when events like mass flooding become more commonplace ,humanity is going to be forced to adapt or be eliminated. Can there still be hope and optimism in a world where everything is slowly being subsumed ,doomed to eventually disappear? Is a world like that tragic or can life still be happy in spite of it all? The story does a good job introducing these beats and developing them in ways that are bittersweet.(Mostly) Nothing feels unearned or easy.
The movie is gorgeous when it wants to be (so most of the time). There are scenes from the 3rd act that I don’t think I’ll be forgetting any time soon. Backgrounds look life-like and the rain is mesmerizing. The sheer power of nature comes through each and every frame. There are a few moments of CGI that feel abrupt and really took me out of the movie. The movie is just so beautiful that any incongruous element feels even more off putting than it would be normally. If you liked the soundtrack from Your Name, you’ll be pleased with what RADWIMPS has cooked up for this story.
My problems with the movie lie with the execution of certain sub-plots. The issue is most of the plot lines in the movie are executed almost impeccably. The moments and relations are grounded even though they’re mystical at the same time. Unfortunately, one of the more important plot threads for the third act falls short of the above. It’s not given the same sense of realism and feels more gimmicky. It’s not that big of an issue because thematically the thread is great. I just wish it didn’t come at the cost of the meticulous sense of consequence that had been building up till that point.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Weathering for You is a beautiful fantasy romance that delivers a thematically rich story with wonderful characters. There are only a few plot issues, but by the end of the movie you won’t be thinking about them. If you liked Your Name, check this out. If you’re looking for a meaningful tale about our relationship to the planet , I’d also recommend giving this a view.
Rating
9.3/10
Grade
A
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Kristen Stewart as Norah Price Vincent Cassel as Captain Lucien T.J. Miller as Paul Jessica Henwick as Emily
Release Date
2020
Language(s)
English
Running Time
95 minutes
After the disappointment that was The Grudge, I wasn’t that excited to see another January horror movie. So I set my expectations to 0 and went into Underwater with an open mind.I’m really glad I did, because the movie is a hell of a lot of fun. Yes, it’s an Alien derivative that doesn’t push the monster survival genre in any unique ways, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a fun time.
The movie is paced phenomenally. It doesn’t bloat the run time with a bunch of useless information or tired sequences – instead, it starts off with immediate action. Norah, a mechanical engineer aboard a corporate underwater drill, has to act fast when a breach in her station threatens to flood and destroy everything. Her and a few survivors have to band together and find a way to get out of the situation, but unbeknownst to them there’s some beasts lurking in the sea waiting to strike. Once the action starts it rarely lets up and I was surprised at how interesting the movie was. I never felt bored once, which I think is a mark of success for a thriller/horror.
All the members of the crew are adequate. The pacing of the movie gives little time for character development and it definitely feels like some of them are underutilized. This doesn’t mean there’s no character work – watching the characters deal with the stress of the situation in different ways definitely keeps the movie feeling fresh. Emily’s constant over-analysis or need to explain versus Paul’s humor add some levity to an otherwise tense and claustrophobic experience.
Performances are decent all around. Stewart does a great job as Norah projecting vulnerability and a resolute bad-assery. She’s the only character with a real arc, and it’s satisfying to watch it play out. Everyone else is just kind of along for the ride, so they don’t really get opportunities to add a lot of their own flair to their characters.
The movie is shot way better than I thought it would be. It’s only shaky when it needs to be which keeps the chaotic moments feeling distinct. There’s a great use of darkness and the movie follows the cardinal rule of not showing the “shark” too early. The creatures are hidden until they need to come out so I always felt tensed when I saw something flicker on the screen. The color palette is also murky and has a submerged feeling to it. Some people might be irritated by that. I personally wish it was used less, but it never felt like an issue.
The only real issue the movie has is a lack of purpose? I put a question mark here because I think the ending hints at a more complex “story” which would resolve this issue, but I can’t know until a sequel comes out. This is written with that in mind. Even though the movie is shot and executed well, outside of some awesome moments in the third act, there’s nothing really here that’s unique. It’s not bad- but if you want to see something that completely re-invents the Alien style of movie, you won’t find it here. Instead, you’ll find a competent thriller that’s action packed from beginning to end.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Underwater is a tense,claustrophobic, and exciting from start to finish. It may not reinvent the wheel, but it’s a well executed thriller with some incredible moments in the third act. If you like Alien derivates or underwater thrillers, you should check it out!
Rating
7.5/10
Grade
C+
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
