The shot style and cinematography of For the Sake of Vicious, directed by Gabriel Carrer and Reese Eveneshen, strikes multiple nerves…and then beats said nerves into submission. It could be the sensitive underlying subject matter forming the film’s rudimentary plot or the extreme violence (who am I kidding, it's the violence) but in aggregate we are provided a fiercely fun and lively watch that feels like what it is: an independent film shot by clever and competent directors who understand how to make something from not much. It’s a taut, tightly paced, white-knuckle affair squeezing more splatter, blood and guts into 80 minutes than any home invasion/horror/exploitation film I can recall watching. In a genre not exactly known for restraint, that’s saying something. The story is mostly superfluous as the star of the show, carried out with believable intensity by talented co-stars Lora Burke and Nick Smyth, is the hyper-violence. The second half of the film is comprised almost entirely of an avant-garde style of sudden and shocking head-smashing. The proceedings demonstrate such a high degree of skill with practical effects that you'll recoil while simultaneously appreciating and noting the beauty behind the effects magic. That was my experience, anyway. Buyer beware if violence is not your thing as the film doesn't cut away from the grisly stuff. I was reminded of Ryan Gosling’s character in Drive with how Smyth turns an everyday hammer into a vessel for hand-to-flesh carnage. I often hear friends and colleagues lament the lack of originality and creative risks taken by and within the conveyor belt of superhero films, remakes and reboots coming out of Hollywood. For the Sake of Vicious flies in the face of that notion and then bludgeons it with a blunt object. It’s a slickly shot genre film accomplishing exactly that which it aspires to. It deserves a wide audience.
For the Sake of Vicious receives a score of 7/10 for general audiences with a half-point bump to 7.5/10 for fans of the home invasion genre, realistic horror, and best in class practical effects.
I’m Thinking of Ending Things begins with a warning that people tend to stay in relationships past their expiration date. Our protagonist compares it to physics - an object in motion will stay in motion unless a force (in this case, having the energy and wherewithal to go through a breakup) acts on it. This opening made me want to like and enjoy this film. I didn’t. I’m not down on experimental cinema. Quite the opposite. Film-making is an art form and art has no limits. Seeing an artist try something unique is one of the reasons we consume art. But in whatever this film was trying to do, it largely fails. The first act is promising with some interesting creative decisions at play. Our main characters, played by Jessie Buckley and Jesse Plemons, are capably acted and likable. The direction has a palpable intensity and Writer/Director/Producer Charlie Kaufman acquits himself as an auteur to be respected. That said, the movie as a whole simply doesn’t work. The marketing campaign (at least the stuff I saw going in) presents it as a horror/thriller and it is neither scary nor thrilling. I appreciate that the movie tries to tell a deeply intimate story about the human condition. That isn’t enough to keep me interested/awake. I am sure those that fully understand what Kaufman was going for will say the few narrative threads of the simple story are paid off in the final act. I won’t argue. But I was bored and thus I cannot fully recommend the film.
I’m Thinking of Ending Things gets a rating of 5/10 for general audiences and a 6.5/10 for fans of indulgent, experimental cinema.
2009’s Friday the 13th is remembered by most as a failed attempt at rebooting/reimagining Jason Voorhees, born 30 years prior in 1980, for present day audiences. The film grossed close to five times its $20 million budget - a nice haul for a horror movie. That unmistakable hockey mask comes with lofty expectations however and $92 million wasn’t enough for a return to Crystal Lake save for a forgettable 2017 video game. I’ve always found the movie eminently re-watchable. It achieves the challenging task of bringing the Jason character, played here by the hulking Derek Mears, and his three decades of increasingly ridiculous, quasi-mystical mythology and literal scars into the present day. In doing so, the film maintains Jason’s physicality, intimidation factor and great-white-shark-with-legs presence. Once you know he’s there, it’s too late. It’s a delicate balance as sharing too much about Jason’s upbringing runs the risk of humanizing him to the point where he is no longer scary and no longer Jason. By not showing too much and allowing our imagination to create specifics, the film intelligently informs of the Jason basics: his mom loves him dearly, he was born disfigured in at least a couple ways, he was once an athlete, and he experienced trauma which left him alone to fend for himself and live off the land. The film establishes Jason as smart and resourceful enough to design traps and tripwires – a plausible explanation for why he is able to pick off victims before they know he exists. Rather than changing Jason into something new and unrecognizable, the movie cleverly shows us Jason using his environment to his advantage. It has always been implied that Jason is a master of his surroundings. This movie gives just a little bit more of the how and why. It works. Add in a series of fairly rudimentary (to the overall high film series standard) but creative in their own right kills and you have a satisfying to watch Jason film with a Jason that feels like he could be lurking in the woods somewhere in real life. I certainly don’t want to run into him.
Friday the 13th (2009) receives a 6/10 for general audiences and an 8/10 for Jason/slasher aficionados. I’d love to see Derek Mears put on the mask again.
Get Out: ruining tea-time for black people since 2017. Stephen King often places supernaturally horrific boogeymen directly adjacent to regular humans committing the most terrible of acts. King does so to force us to consider the unsettling thought that the hearts of men and women can be more depraved, destructive and deadly than any imaginary monster. I begin there because with the uber-successful Get Out, Director/Writer Jordan Peele creates in his debut perhaps the most subversive and thought provoking “horror” movie ever to address racism, classism, and privilege. You don’t need me to tell you the movie is essentially perfect in pace, tone, acting and re-watchability. You know that. “High constitution” African-Americans are the target for the Armitage family but it’s interesting that Daniel Kaluuya’s Chris is targeted by Stephen Root for his eye for photography, hardly a trait associated with any particular race. It’s one of many subtle aspects of Get Out that point to systemic issues with a world where the supremely wealthy play by their own set of unchecked rules and have carte blanche to do or buy whatever they want. One scene feels unsettlingly akin to a modern-day slave trade. There aren’t a ton of movies in recent memory I can point to as having a scene full of so much suspense and mind-warping mania that I can remember with painstaking accuracy exactly where I was upon first viewing. Allison William’s Rose has no less than two such moments. These moments hit just as hard upon subsequent viewings. This is truly a timeless film…for reasons none of us should be proud of. Imagine for a moment if the neuroscience at the center of the plot of Get Out was real and some whack job was willing to perform the procedure. On second thought, don’t imagine it at all. We don’t need 2020 to get any weirder.
Get Out receives a score of 10/10. It’s that rare and special film that is great the first time, even better the second time and timely commentary at any point in American history (think about it).
Scream, directed by genre royalty Wes Craven and written by Kevin Williamson of Dawson’s Creek fame, created the genre of the self-aware teen slasher. These scary movies wink at the audience and are intentionally comedic, paradoxically sending up/sticking with genre conventions such as the final girl and rules-to-stay-alive-in-a-horror-film. It’s not easy to mash-up Horror and Comedy and have both hit. Scream pulls it off. I remember thinking to myself that while I knew it to be true from years and years of filmic evidence, I had never connected the dots that those who do drugs or have sex in a horror film tend to meet their end soon after. Scream dangles red herrings in front of us, daring the viewer to identify the killer while creating probable cause for multiple characters. It’s a well-worn and easily recognizable conceit in present day cinema. In 1996 it was groundbreaking and fresh (until they ran the franchise into the ground but that’s a story for another day). The so-simple -it’s-genius decision to have two killers allows the film to slyly present logic traps that seemingly acquit each from wrongdoing. That is, until that delicious and famous final reveal. And oh what a reveal it is. Stu is more relatable by the slightest of margins between the two movie obsessed maniacs. He openly admits to not having a specific motivation for wanton homicide other than peer pressure. I’m glad I didn’t go to THAT school. Skeet Ulrich’s Billy Loomis, the classic mommy-issues-murderer and brains of the operation is chilling. I distinctly remember thinking if he isn’t the killer, he certainly walks around like he is.
Scream receives a score of 10/10 for giving us another famous Halloween mask to go with Jason, Michael Myers and Freddy and for giving birth to the Scary Movie franchise (the first two were good).
I had no idea what to expect coming into Antebellum. I’d not seen a full trailer, only a brief television spot that was mostly Janelle Monae alternatively looking beautiful or running from an unseen threat. The film is essentially surface-level commentary on racism, classism and gender inequality. We are presented with broad caricatures of the worst kinds of people ever to exist and the film tries admirably to use their horrific acts to address societal ills past and present. The problem is Antebellum doesn’t commit long enough to any one theme or setting to leave an impression. I struggle to tell you who this movie is even for. It was marketed as a supernatural thriller of some kind and it’s not. I guess there were a few scenes that were thrilling? I kept waiting for the creative hook teased in the marketing and it never happened. Antebellum is a film where the idea for the film is more interesting on paper than in delivery. It’s always worrying when a marketing campaign centers on creative subterfuge and highlighting the creators (the same people that produced Get Out produced Antebellum!) rather than just presenting an honest taste of what we can expect as viewers. That all being said the film is capably acted and beautifully shot by talented filmmakers. Janelle Monae does nothing to embarrass herself which is worth mentioning when you look at the track record of musicians crossing over to acting.
Antebellum receives a score of 5/10 for general audiences and 6/10 for Janelle Monae fans.