The Invitation

New Site: www.themovienutreviews.com -- Please read this there!

The Invitation actualizes an internal conflict many have faced:  We think something is wrong but fear the attention, scrutiny, or embarrassment it will bring if we point it out--especially if our assumptions are false.  The film sets upon a dinner party that on the surface seems innocent enough, but underneath lies palpable terror. It is a tale steeping in paranoia, that will have you anxiously squirming in your seat. 

After not seeing each other for two years, Will is invited to his ex wife Eden's dinner party. Present there are Will and Eden's mutual friends, a culturally diverse group that would make an equal rights activist nod in approval, along with Eden's new boyfriend, David. After the initial awkward introduction between Will and David, things stay, well, awkward. We learn that Eden and her boyfriend have joined a cult and Will (understandably so) becomes immediately suspicious that there is more to this dinner party than wine and food. 

The first half is a mixture of unusual conversation regarding death and obscure flashbacks as we patiently wait for The Invitation to unfold.  It stays sealed for an uncomfortably tense first hour and I wondered if the unsettling feel was due to the film's foreboding tone,or we were just witnessing one awkward dinner party. Either way I eagerly awaited for the tension to be cut with a literal knife-- perhaps into someones stomach?  

Will's friends sense something is not right but are either too polite or too unassuming to point it out. There are enough red flags early on that would make the majority of us stand up and say "okay thats enough for me."  But they don't. Will's paranoia is founded in rational thought yet his friend's lack of concern feels rather unrealistic.

In a nut shell: For a thriller, The Invitation manages to tackle themes of grief and loss rather effectively without compromising suspense. It is dripping in an atmosphere somewhere between tense and excruciatingly uncomfortable.  At times the the film can feel like a group therapy session you desperately don't want to be apart of.  While its final moment takes the film to absurd new heights, its 3rd act still delivers and is deeply satisfying. The Invitation puts the kettle on a low flame and expects it to boil.  It eventually does, but god I wanted my tea sooner.   (2.5 out of 4)

New Site: www.themovienutreviews.com

Hush

Like an unfaithful spouse, our mind can betray us when all the lights go out.  In the darkness, as we wait for sleep, our senses fight to block out the noise of the living world.  All the creaks of the floorboard and drips from a leaky faucet, have a harmless source. But our mind's eye does not see them, rather we conjure up a man with an ax in hand, ascending the staircase to the rhythm of our heartbeat. The dark may blind our eyes, but not our imagination.  Hush, now on Netflix, reintroduces the fear of home invasion many anguish over, with a twist. It is a chilling tale that feels unnervingly familiar.

Maddie, a young novelist, spends her days in isolation, working tirelessly on her new novel.  She inhabits a home with large glass doors in the middle of the woods, that would make any predator salivate. Her communication with the outside world is limited to texts and Skype with her sister and neighbor. On a seemingly ordinary night an intruder approaches looking to kill for sport. He creeps by the windows, quietly stalking his prey, contemplating when 'The most dangerous game' will commence. Maddie initially appears to be the perfect helpless victim; she is both deaf and mute. We, like the killer, underestimate Maddie's resilience and desire to live despite her inability to hear.

The film could have easily indulged in the depraved gore so many similar flicks feel the need to explore. While Hush certainly has its moments, it stays fairly restrained-- giving the audience more suspense and dread than outright violence.  It takes us methodically through the paces of the horrific night - the killer wants Maddie dead but is in no rush--savoring the terror.  Hush allows Maddie to utilize her strengths drawn from being deaf and a writer,  giving the storytelling a uniquely satisfying spin.

In a nut shell: Hush is a horror film for 'beginners' looking to get into the genre.  It is just foreboding enough to effectively scare you without much gore and those heart dropping "jump" moments.  This is a dark film that stays in the literal shadows. It is one bloody satisfying movie that will leave you double checking your locks and windows shortly before the nightmares set in. (3.5 out of 4)


Please comment and follow!

Hardcore Henry

Hardcore Henry will be loved by some for the same reasons it will be hated by others. It is non stop adrenaline junkies' fantasy that refuses to take a breath. The film is aware of its own strengths--gratuitous violence, and spends the vast majority of time on outrageous stunts and merciless deaths. What it lacks in story it makes up for in over the top action that feels fresh.  If you have any inclination that you might like Hardcore Henry, then you probably will like Hardcore Henry.  For the rest out there, time to put down the popcorn and pick up the Advil, its going to be one nauseating ride.

With no voice and no memory from his past, Henry sets out to save his wife from the evil Akan, who bares a striking resemblance to Alex from a Clockwork Orange. Henry is assisted on his journey by scientist and certified crazy person Jimmy (Sharlto Copley). Many will remember Copley from his role in District 9.  Here he plays a charismatic contrast to Henry's bland persona. Henry, limited to hand gestures, is a rather uninteresting protagonist but the film's style and quick pace makes it hard to notice or care.

The film is shot entirely on a Go Pro, giving us a first person perspective through the eyes of Henry.  The camera shakes uncontrollably when Henry runs giving your eyes a workout they never wanted. This novel style of filming is a technical wonder and helps distinguish itself amongst the abundance of action flicks.  I just pray it never becomes the norm.

Hardcore Henry's heart is racing 1000 beats per minute but the film's soul is no where to be found. Henry is so thin on plot and character development you could mistake it for a hour and thirty minute trailer.  The filmmaker refuses to compromise his vision which makes the film intentionally inaccessible to a wide audience.  There is something to respect about that, right?

In a nut shell: Hardcore Henry never lets off the gas-- giving you little time to think and more time to soak in the violence. And it is violent. The filming techniques allow us to watch Henry punch, stab and shoot his foes up close and gruesomely personal. The music's intensity accompanies the violence to perfection. There is a lot wrong with the film, but if you can ignore its narrative shortcomings, you will have a good deal of fun. (2.5 out of 4)

Eye in the Sky

Films that blend politics so overtly into plot make assessing them, from a thematic standpoint, tricky business. Agreeing with a film's message does not always make it a good movie or vice versa. Although, it doesn't hurt. Eye in the Sky succeeds in blending a tense thriller with a relevant ethical dilemma regarding the use of drone strikes overseas.  It won't necessarily change your opinion, but it will highlight the complex nature and ramifications of these strikes. Timing is everything. Ambivalence can surround decision makers like a thick fog, leaving them hesitant and vulnerable. This is not a form of escapism, rather a glimpse into the harsh realities of modern day terrorism.

Eye in the Sky centers around a British Military operation attempt to capture two high profile radicalized terrorists-- who happen to be UK and US citizens--  in an Al Shabaab controlled section of Kenya. The situation escalates to a kill mission when two suicide bombers are spotted in the same location housing the radicals. Going in with ground troops is untenable and the use of a drone seems to be the only realistic option-- much to the detriment of innocent civilians.

The process of this mission is intentionally painstaking.  The filmmakers expertly capture the frustration government and military officials go through. Eye in the sky demonstrates multiple agencies across the globe working together like a finely tuned machine. But looks can be deceiving.  Behind these machines are indecisive human beings who do not want the culpability, almost as much as they don't want to pull the trigger.

The British are handed the keys to an American program and seem to weigh the political, legal, and moral ramifications far more than their U.S. counterpart.  The disparity between the two countries' attitude on drone strikes comes off comical in tone and brought back memories of Dr. Strangelove-- making me questions the validity of the film's portrayal.

In a nut shell: This is a tight thrill ride from start to finish. Eye in the Sky never lets up and makes the audience feel like an active participant in the decision making process. The film's strength comes from its ensemble cast whose feelings of doubt and moral reasoning are showcased through a nuanced script-- where pauses can speak louder than dialogue. The film gets bogged down in politics and at times makes the U.S look like a calculated war machine.  Despite its issues, Eye in the Sky is still a tense piece of fiction. (3 out of 4)

Please comment below!

Born to Be Blue

There is a scene early in Born to be Blue where Chet Baker (Ethan Hawke) is asked why he does heroin.  Was there something from his past so awful that only heroin could suppress? His response is one of childlike simplicity; he just really likes it.  It is a line that perfectly sets the stage for the tragic portrait of a Jazz musician who never grew up.  Chet Baker may be one of the most famous trumpet players you never heard of and Born to be Blue shows us why.

 In the 50s Chet was an iconic star in the Jazz world, but we catch up with him in 1966  when he is nothing more than a drug addicted has been. Blue is set at possibly the most pivotal point in Chet's life, where he is practically handed a chance for redemption; if only his grasp was firmer.  Born to be Blue tracks Chet's comeback, facilitated by his new girlfriend, Elaine(Carmene Ejogo) and methadone, a drug which he describes as having all the addictiveness of heroin with none of the fun.

The performance from Ethan Hawke carries what might have been a forgettable drama into a fascinating biopic. Hawke transforms himself into Chet, a reserved and soft spoken man who has a whimsical like innocence about him. I wanted to see him succeed even if I couldn't fully understand what motivated this character-- a true testament to Hawke's portrayal. The relationship between the two leads feels genuine and not overly sentimental.  He loves Elaine and playing music but more than anything Chet loves Chet...... and heroin.

What the film lacks is major conflict. Once he is off heroin, it is hard work that brings him back to relevancy, but where is the drama in that?  Chet is a man who never gets to a low enough point to drastically change. With Methadone eliminating withdrawal, he is not forced to confront his inner demons, and maybe a little pain in his life would have done him some good. There has to be more to Chet Backer than the film explores.  At least I hope so.

In a nut shell: This is the story of a selfish yet gifted man.  Loser may be too harsh a word but without his talents I believe Chet would have amounted to very little. I wanted the film to go deeper into his character, but perhaps there wasn't much more to him. Hawke's performance is remarkable and brings wit and charm to an otherwise pitiful man.  The film's second act goes on far too long and its 3rd act, which contains the films finest moments, is squeezed into the last 15 minutes.  It may not please the average moviegoer but Blue left an impact on me.  (2.5 out of 4)

Well, I guess I'm luckier than some folks.
I've known the thrill of loving you.
And that alone is more than I was created for.
Cause I was born to be blue.......  Yes you were Chet, yes you were.


Please comment below!

Superman Vs Batman: Dawn of Justice Review

Remember when product placement in film was reserved for coke, pepsi, and lucky strike cigarettes? BatmanVsSuperman takes the concept of product placement to new heights. It is more of a walking billboard promoting the expansion of DC's universe than it is a complete film.  If Coke were granted the same overt advertising the film uses on its itself, there would be a scene where Ben Affleck grabs a Coke, drinks it, turns to the camera and says, "God, I f***ing love Coke." In truth, I wanted to like this film and, with top critics most likely panning it, there is an opportunity to set myself apart.  It's looking like that isn't going to happen.

To be fair, there were two factors that hindered my movie going experience:
1. Fanboys: I'm all good with the guys who gets excited by an obscure comic reference, but the three seated behind me were annoyingly disruptive -- thereby taking me out of the moment.
2. Standard Screen: If I had to do over again, I would watch this in IMAX and just deal with the 3D.  There are scenes that look spectacular but didn't leave me as awe struck as they would have in IMAX.  See it in IMAX.

From a traditional cinematic viewpoint, this film is a disaster.  Its pacing is awkward, narrative structure incomprehensible and dialogue so generic that I wished they would stop talking and just fight the entire time.  There is such a endless supply of scenes that I found myself unable to recall which preceded which.  It is as if the director went to the editor and said "you can cut down the individual clips length, but I'll be damned if you're going to cut out a single scene."  The result is an extended director's cut version of the film, usually reserved for DVD box sets.  We see what Bruce is up to, then Clark, then Lois, then Lex--back and forth and back and forth for what felt like an eternity. When the stories attempt to intersect, BVS turns into a disjointed mess.

Surprisingly, BVS's initial premise is clever and deals with Batman's increasing fear of Superman's capabilities.  Sure, Superman is good now but what happens if he changes his mind?  Even during Superman's acts of heroism, he leaves behind a trail of destruction. Batman's point is a compelling one and makes for the strongest story in BVS. Unfortunately, the film takes an excruciatingly long time for this plot point to build and its resolution made me scratch my head.

Henry Cavil is lucky he is so damn handsome because his acting is not very good.  He plays a reserved superman who is either always deep in thought or thinking about absolutely nothing; most likely the latter.  Ben Affleck on the other hand plays a rather effective Batman and is too good for this film.  Moving on to Jesse Eisenberg. Perhaps this is hyperbole, but I think we have reached a watershed moment for Jesse.  He was great in the Social Network, but his range doesn't span far enough to encompass the eccentric genius of Lex Luthor.  This film is on such a grand scale and Eisneberg doesn't have the screen presence to pull off this menacing villain.

Having said all this, there is no doubt that comic book purists will find this movie engrossing and walk away pleased.  It has stunning visuals and its format flows much like a comic book-- jumping back and forth between multiple characters while also giving insight into the DC universe.  But this isn't a comic book; it's a movie. At the end of the day, it needs to be a film first because that's the medium in which we are viewing the story.

In a nut shell:  BVS is just too long. The first half drags and has an ending that would make only the likes of Peter Jackson proud.  Having the name Batman in the title will get most people off the couch and into the theater.  Regrettably, they will be met with a film that is so worked up in its own universe, it forgets to deliver a compelling and coherent story. BVS takes itself far too seriously and, with the obscure DC universe references, feels like insider baseball.  Regardless, this movie will be a cash cow and is just good enough to open the flood gates for spin-offs galore.  In truth, it doesn't really matter what critics say for this one; you're going to see it. (1.5 out of 4)

The Dawn of Superhero Dilution

As we approach the Batman Vs Superman premiere, a term I use loosely with the prevalence of advance screening(is nothing sacred?), I want to reflect on my growing ambivalence for the genre.  As I stand in line on Thursday at 5PM- the premiere's 'early bird special', I will be struck with one realization - I'm not that excited.

Growing up there were few things that I looked forward to more than a new superhero flick.  The anticipation of its release was tantamount to those final days of class before summer break.  As I got older that feeling began to dwindle and I no longer counted down the days for the next superhero to hit the big screens. The anticipation was as strong then as it is ephemeral now. What changed? Getting older certainly plays a role but more notable may be the over-saturation of the superhero film market.

In the past 10 years we have witnessed a surge in the Superhero film genre.  The Marvel universe, being the largest, has created a monopoly in Hollywood, manufacturing movies quicker than Apple puts out new iPhones.  There are the occasional missteps such as the Fantastic Four series which just cant seem to get it right but overall audiences are happy.  The consumer demands a product often and the distributor is more than happy to put one out, devoid of quality inspection.  So shouldn't I just be happy with the abundance?  Maybe I miss having to wait.

Waiting, remember that? We still do it at supermarkets and the DMV.  For superhero films however, waiting is a thing of the past. They come out so quickly that my reaction has gone from "Only two more months till the new .........!" to ".......is coming out next week? I guess I'll go see it."

Many of these films have become less about their own story and more a way of setting up sequels and spin offs. The end result is a product that doesn't have to fully deliver.  I remember reading write-ups on the original Captain America and Thor, the consensus being it's an adequate film on its own, but really serves more as a set up to the Avengers. They are blinding the consumer with future promises so they won't notice or care about the current film's mediocrity.  It's essentially giving the film a handicap.

That was not the case in the early 2000's. The films stood on their own and if they were bad, even in a good series, (think Spiderman 3) they got panned. Not only did we line up to see these superheroes in the theater, we eagerly awaited their DVD release. There was something special about buying the DVD. We re-watched them, showed them to our friends, and took pride in the collection we had amassed.

The superhero genre has hit the point of diminishing returns. We are so caught up in the spectacle and polish of the film's visuals that we no longer mind an average story(think Avengers:age of Ultron). That is not to say some don't excel to deliver a thought provoking story-- I am pleasantly surprised when they do. BVS may mark the beginning of the DC film expansion and I can't say I want this train to stop; I just fear the great superhero films will get lost in the crowd.  Christopher Nolan's  Batman series were more than just good superhero flicks, they were great films. The need to put out a product of such high caliber in order to be successful simply is not there. I hope we get more superhero films on par with The Dark Knight, but with the current trend, I'm not going to hold my breath. In the end I shouldn't be complaining, I'm still going to see them.

The Brothers Grimsby

Sasha Baron Cohen was once king.  He created shockingly offensive personalities that pushed comedic boundaries few have been able to emulate.  Most notably, Borat, whose film turned both Sasha and his alter ego into cultural icons. You would be hard pressed to find someone(above the age of 12) who hasn't heard the name Borat, let alone seen the film. As we watched Borat go from one crass stunt to the next we wondered "can he really get away with this?" With Borat a distant memory, Cohen once again attempts to make the climb towards relevancy with The Brothers Grimsby.  Like they say with professional athletics, the hardest part isn't getting to the top, it's staying there.  In the case of The Brothers Grimsby, Sasha isn't going to be a repeat champion.

The film centers around Nobby, (Sasha B. Cohen) a well intentioned yet bumbling moron, who has been searching for his brother, Sebastian (Mark Strong) for the past 28 years. Nobby finally reconnects with his brother only to find out Sebastian is a MI6 agent who is on the run.  The two team up to help take down a terrorist plot and clear Sebastian's name. As you may have guessed, action and stupidity ensues.

My largest frustration with The Brothers Grimsby may lie in its own mediocrity. It is by no stretch a quality film, but not quite bad enough to discount entirely.  Somewhere deep in the movie's core is a funny and surprisingly touching premise.  The brothers' relationship, when explored is rather compelling, if only it wasn't followed by jokes involving genitalia. Humorous moments are quickly overshadowed by cheap one liners, disrupting a few promising bits.  I found myself laughing, but those laughs were fleeting and by the halfway point they had almost entirely subsided.

Sasha has become his own worst enemy.  He set the comedic bar so high years back, that now anything less feels disappointing.  As usual, there is a built up expectation to shock the audience with something they've never seen before. He succeeds on that front, but with situations far more gross than funny. It is as if he fears not including 'those' infamous scenes is somehow cheating the audience.  Frankly, he isn't wrong, we expect them, making it all the more tragic when they don't work.

In a nut shell:  I don't see myself revisiting The Brothers Grimsby. Sasha has become a slave to his old formula. He has the aptitude for comedic greatness, but is so fixated on the most vulgar aspects of humor that he cannot actualize his potential. I laughed, although I can hardly recall why.  Still, the film is watchable; never did I feel bored or in a rush to leave. Many of the jokes don't land, but if you are looking for gross humor, this isn't the worst thing out there. (1.5 out of 4)

10 Cloverfield Lane

3 and 1/2 Nuts!

There is something refreshing when a film releases its first trailer less than two months before it debuts. It is a confident yet risky move, limiting both hype and expectations.  Perhaps the producer, J.J Abrams is making a statement, that a film's success can occur on its own merit without months of traditional Hollywood promotions.  Time will tell if this was a smart choice depending on box office sales. Regardless, it is a bold move on the studio's part, but one that allows the audience to go in with an open mind.  Whatever your expectations may be they will not only be met, but surpassed.

The film focuses around Michelle, who after a terrible car accident wakes up chained to a pipe in a small underground room.  It is apparent she is being held captive; however,  her captor may not be the worst of her troubles.  Within the opening minutes of the film we are thrust into this nightmarish universe via a masterful title sequence.  It is brilliantly edited, highlighting her car crash and instantly engages the audience faster than any film in recent memory.

With little backstory the audience doesn't feel forced to care for Michelle, instead it happens organically through her actions and conversations.  The dire setting of the film strips the characters down to their core leaving them vulnerable. We gain a certain feeling of closeness to Michelle and she becomes someone you care about and want to see survive.

Although 10 Cloverfield Lane takes elements from other genres, it manages to keep us guessing. There is such uncertainty in every decision Michelle makes--who she should trust and if the wrong move will lead to her untimely demise. Our protagonist's danger feels real as does her own mortality. It creates a high level of suspense, making us feel more uneasy as the story progresses.

With only three characters in the entire film,  a good deal of scrutiny can be placed on the individual performances.  All three excel, bringing to life individuals who each have emotional depth and separate motivations.  The stand out performance comes from John Goodman who turns what could have been a very one dimensional character into a complicated multilayered psycho.  It brought back feelings of the film Misery, with Kathy Bates who plays a similar role-- motherly at times but capable of snapping at a moment's notice.  This type of character's unpredictability create tension in any scene they are in.

If there is one gripe with the movie, it is that the ending goes a tad over the top, taking what is a small scale film and really amping it up in terms of scope.  Some may find this jarring but I found it gave a real sense of closure to Michelle's character arc.  

In a nut shell: This is a tremendous piece of film making. Despite the film's unfamiliar setting and circumstance, the characters still feel relatable.  Not only does it play with audience expectation prior to viewing (due to its untraditional release), it also adds a fresh twist on some ideas we have seen before.  From start to finish the score remains haunting and adds its own layer of suspense to an already tense film.  Don't be surprised to find yourself  with fists clenched and mouth ajar.   It is a great addition to what the director calls the  "Clovervesrse" and I look forward to future stories from this world. (3.5 out of 4)

Cloverfield (2008)

With the release of 10 Cloverfield Lane only days away, I felt it was fitting to take a look back at the film which shares (in part) the same name.  One can only speculate as to how much of a sequel this new film will be.  From the looks of the trailer, 10 Cloverfield Lane will have a new cast and story-line while continuing to exist in the same universe as the first.  I would be hard pressed to call this a sequel in a traditional sense of the word.  Regardless, Cloverfield is very capable of standing on its own two feet as a welcome addition to the monster/disaster movie genre.

Although I would not consider myself a fan of the 'found footage' style of filming, it can still be an effective means to engage the audience.  Maybe the novelty has worn off for most, but here the handheld camera effect created a more intense viewing experience; we feel very much a part of the disaster. This type of filming eliminates the traditional three act narrative and allows us to jump right into the action with little backstory. Instead of investing time on the character's development we are able to focus almost entirely on the terror being recorded, which is the real strength of the film anyway.

The film centers around Rob, who after a one night stand with close friend Beth, is now very much in love with her.  In the midst of Rob's own going away party, Manhattan is attacked by a vicious monster.  Rob, accompanied by his friends, set out to save Beth and get off the ravaged island. TJ Miller plays Rob's best friend and is the "cameraman" for the film. Miller does a serviceable job tracking his way through the city yet his acting leaves something to be desired.  Generally Miller is quite funny in films, although here his jokes fall flat.

The film shines through its sudden bursts of intense action.  Despite its low budget, Cloverfield is a visual triumph.  It puts the audience right at the ground level, forced to look up and witness the monsters destruction. To watch Manhattan, a city so well known, fall to chaos is both jarring and familiar.  One can feel a strange sense of déjà vu, drawing parallels to the attacks on 9/11-- only now we see what a full scale attack on our soil could look like. Replace the monster for a more realistic adversary and the films true terror message can really hit close to home.

Cloverfield's characters can be frustrating and at times downright unlikable. Their decision to go back and save Beth is almost nonsense in the face of imminent doom.  To make things worse, Rob is arrogant and selfish which makes it hard to root for his survival.

In a nut shell: While Cloverfield may not have the most likable cast of characters, it certainly has enough action and suspense to captivate the audience.  It doesn't get bogged down with an overly complicated plot and serves as a crushing reminder as to how devastating a terrorist attack can be.  It takes everyday Americans and shows that in a moment's notice their entire world can change. The trivial issues in everyday life can suddenly feel insignificant when faced with your own mortality. It's a sobering thought--one that we should reflect on more often.  (2.5 out of 4)

Top 10 of 2015

Overall, it was a  good year for film.  Although the Oscars do a somewhat decent (if not subpar) job at showing off the best in film, there are a few nominations this year that made me scratch my head. In any case, who doesn't like a good top 10 list? Be sure to comment below if you think I am missing a movie or disagree; I haven't seen them all.

1. It Follows- Maybe it's because I'm a sucker for horror but this movie took me out of my comfort zone in a way few films are able to.  It is a unique story, masterfully told, that introduces a new horror folklore we have yet to see in this genre. The film's haunting score enhances an already frightening tale into something far more foreboding.  It is a must see.

2. The Hateful Eight- Tarantino is very much in his element. It is not his best work but certainly in the top half.  Another film with a tremendous score.  Give it a listen after you see the film.

3. Spotlight- My vote for Best Picture (If I had one)

4. Sicario- You want an Oscar Snub? How about Benecio Del Toro's masterful work as the mysterious lawyer/Colombian drug enforcer/CIA agent?  An anti-hero for the ages.  The story also sheds some light on the horrors going on right across our boarders.

5. Steve Jobs- They nominated Bridge of Spies and The Martian over this? Really?!  Some absolutely iconic moments in this film and one that I look forward to re-watching.

6. Creed- The best Rocky film since Rocky.

7. The Big Short-  The performances are exceptional and a complex story is broken down for the audience in a clever way.  I will still need to watch this one again.

8. Straight Outta Compton- A very informative and compelling film about the 90's surge of hip hop in LA.

9. Bone Tomahawk- A western/horror starring Kurt Russell. It is a slow building tale with action that is so abrupt you never feel ready for it.  Might have one the most gruesome scenes in a film that I wish I could 'unsee'.

10. Ex Machina- An engrossing film on first viewing that is mysterious and unpredictable.

Honorable mentions: What we do in the Shadows, Dope, Mad Max.

An aside: I am very anxious to see Son of Saul and feel as though it would have made my list.

Movies You May Have Missed - The Babadook (2014)

The Babadook haunted me. It shook me to my core.  So much so I've watched it four times over. I'm not done, maybe I never will be, and isn't that the critical sign of a great film? The film has an ending, the credits role, but the story and its themes live on through discussion and analysis. It strikes the perfect balance of scares, to engage us on a visceral level, and enough content/ideas to keep us thinking long after the film ends. To successfully create a chilling sense of unease while also being poignant in its message is a rarity and something only a select few horror films have been able to achieve.

The film centers around a mother, Amelia, trying to raise her six year old son, Sam.  He is precocious in some ways but also lacks the social polish most other children his age have already developed. He doesn't listen, has a penchant for violence and speaks freely to everyone. It is clear Amelia is overburdened by the weight of raising her troubled child but keeps her anxiety bottled up. Because of her nature, their contentious relationship remains fairly repressed.  Things take a turn for the worse once a  demon is conjured that inflicts great horror onto the family.  I would go into further detail but any more would be an injustice to the film's ability to stay unpredictable. 

The Babadook hits on certain themes that many films are unable to properly convey usually due to a convoluted plot.  It deals with grief, loneliness and the dangers that can come along when you repress these feelings. 

There is so much content in the film just begging to be dissected -- so many moments that demand exploration and further analysis.  It can be an absolute delight if viewed with the right mind frame. It is a film that takes itself seriously and demands its viewer to do the same, therefore I recommend watching it alone. This is by no means intended for the passive viewer.

The genius of this film is in its obscurity. Is the monster a literal form or simply a conduit for the character's anxiety and fears?  Maybe it's both.  You can interpret the film however you'd like; there is enough left open ended  for viewers to engage in lively debate as to what really is taking place.  

In a nut shell: The Babadook did what few films are able to do, truly scare me. There is so much dread, such foreboding atmosphere it can feel quite unsettling. However, having a sense of dread and feeling scared, to me, are two very different emotions. Some films try to supplant one for the other but to have a perfect horror film you need both to work in congruity.  Being scared is almost indescribable. We can't show it but we can feel it.  There is a childlike innocence to being scared.  When a film can conjure back those emotions with such ease, in a way that doesn't feel cheap, we realize the awesome potential of the genre. 


Follow me on Twitter @the_movienut   

The Witch

   2 1/2 Nuts

The Witch serves as a haunting parable whose application spans two distinct time periods.  On the one hand it is a cautionary tale for early colonial America that witches are undoubtedly real, so please be advised.  Simultaneously, The Witch is a tale intended for the current generation, regarding human nature and the divisive powers of religion. Regardless of its audience, The Witch is as chilling as it is thought provoking.

The film manages to keep a steady sense of dread throughout without relying on Hollywood's typical cadence of scare tactics.  What happens off camera may in fact be more terrifying than what is viewed on screen.  Far from conventional horror films, this smaller more "indie-film", certainly does not have the "wide" audience in mind (despite being a wide release).  Many going into the film expecting big scares and a simple plot will be disappointed.  That is not to say the film does not have shocking moments; it most certainly does.

The Witch centers around one family, cast out from a plantation they were a part of, over religious differences with the other settlers. They are sent off to fend for themselves.  The husband is not a good farmer, nor a hunter both vital for survival.  It is apparent the transition borders on untenability, however, the family's trust in god keeps them going. They do not waiver from their faith even when things seem most dire.  Enter the witch, who begins to make the situation much worse by stealing and occasionally possessing the children of the family.

Folklore tales at the time helped solidify public paranoia as to the validity of witches, showing how even the most pious of families can fall to the temptations of the devil.  I do not doubt these folktales are the very same that inspired the witch trials and the murder of innocent girls. Girls stuck in the most unjust of times.

The film effectively shows how religion was everything to these early pioneers. The witch is both a literal being in the film while also serving as a manifestation of the settlers' fears and doubts of making it in America.  She represents greed, lust, temptation, all things forbidden and repressed. They have such a devotion to God that blaming him for such intense hardship wasn't possible.  (God could only be testing them so much) The witch could be that outlet.  A physical being to explain why things were so unrelentingly tough.

An aside: Quality horror films today are scarce. It's a shame. When done right, the horror genre has the ability to explore the dark depths of the human psyche while effectively engaging the audience with an original story. It makes us question what is real and creates a sense of unease to thrust you out of the mundane. This was brilliantly showcased in the past few years with two of my favorite horror films in recent memory, It follows and The Babadook. If you haven't seen those, I suggest you do.

In a Nut shell:  The Witch is a beautifully shot film and the actors do an exceptional job portraying colonial settlers.  With a 1 hour 30 minute runtime The Witch can feel slow.  For a genre that I revere (indie-horror) this film couldn't create that bone chilling feel I was craving. However, it is certainly better than most of the garbage horror films put out today. (2.5 out of 4)

Follow me on Twitter @the_movienut   

Deadpool (2016)

2 1/2 Nuts!

Well it is(was) Valentine's Day weekend and this year you once again are pretty limited in terms of quality date night movies.  But if you want to hint to your girlfriend that you don't really care what she thinks then maybe go take her to see Deadpool.  She probably wont like it, but you will.  Also what's the other option, talk? hard pass.

Deadpool is one of the few Marvel "R" rated heroes.  He's more of an anti-hero in that he kills in quite devastating ways with no remorse.  He is also an ass. This is not what most are used to getting out of a Marvel film.  With the abundance of anti-heroes in film today, the concept isn't exactly earth shattering either, we are just not used to seeing it in our superheroes.

This anti-hero notion is juxtaposed in the film through the introduction of two X-men characters (Colossus and some super/fire girl) who come to the aid of Deadpool during the film.  They encompass all the traits that make a hero heroic and show how far off Deadpool's set of beliefs are from the norm.

 Ryan Reynolds plays Deadpool to perfection.  He is bold, disrespectful, and will say just about anything that pops into his childish mind. In many ways, Reynolds plays the role with the same wit and gall he displays in most film roles he is cast in.  Here this persona works perfectly. Reynolds is able to encompass the essence of the Deadpool character so well that it feels as though he was born to play this role.

Yes, the film is violent for the sheer sake of gratuitous violence; that's how we like it.  Most moviegoers who are hoping to see Deadpool shoot and cut people up will not be disappointed.

This isn't a perfect movie but honestly who thought it would be? It suffers from some pacing issues and a love story that is simply there to move the plot along (when is that not the case?).  It is also told in flashbacks that I'm sure were done to seem clever but really only serves to break up the action.  The ending tries to send a message. Something along the lines of, beautiful people are not always superficial and that looks don't matter once you have true love. It sounds like a lot of bs but the films needs to have a happy ending, I guess.

An aside: Can these films find a plot devise that doesn't circle around a love interest? Most of the guys seeing it probably don't have girlfriends, so give them a break.

There are few times that the film pokes fun at Hugh Jackman and one of the Wolverine movies.  If you get the references,  they make for some of the funnier moments in the film.  If you don't get the references, then I'm surprised you want to see this movie in the first place.

In a nut shell: If you're looking for a movie that you can turn your mind pretty much off and just go and have an enjoyable time, this is it. With the multitude of superhero movies released in the past 10 years, Deadpool certainly separates itself from the pack.  It's audacious, outrageous, and crass.  Don't watch it with your parents or do. (2.5 out of 4 nuts)