Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cocaine Bear (2023) in Movies
Mar 21, 2023
A Ton of Fun
When one decides to watch a film entitled COCAINE BEAR, one pretty much knows what one is getting themselves into.
And, fortunately, Director Elizabeth Banks knew exactly what type of film she was making and her (and her game cast) were up to the challenge…and the fun.
Based on a true event, where a cocaine smuggler fell to his death when his parachute failed to open, COCAINE BEAR posits the “what if” position of what would happen if a Bear ingested it and became aggressive and addicted to cocaine? This fun film takes us through that scenario.
Banks (Director of the PITCH PERFECT films) is the perfect person to helm this film, for she has her tongue planted firmly in her cheek and wisely walked the line between making it violent enough for idiots like me to enjoy and not TOO violent so that the target audience – I would assume that would be teenage boys – can attend as well. She paces the film briskly enough for the audience to not ask too many questions, and the film is short enough to be enjoyable, without beating the premise into the ground.
Jesse Tyler Ferguson (MODERN FAMILY), Kristofer Jivju (Tormand in GAME OF THRONES), Isiah Whitlock, Jr (BLACK KKKLANSMAN). and O’Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON) are all in on the fun and they look like they are having a GREAT time playing in this sandbox. As do Keri Russell, Matthew Rhys and the always-great Margo Martindale (forming a mini THE AMERICANS reunion). Martindale almost steals the film from the COCAINE BEAR…almost.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Aiden Ehrenriech (erstwhile Hans Sole in SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY). He is one of those performers who looks like he is trying too hard to please, but not in this film. He looks comfortable and relaxed and this just might be the best performance of his career. The same can NOT be said for the late Ray Liotta (in his last film role). While not his best performance (that would be GOODFELLAS), it is a “classic Liotta” in that he plays the drug dealer who is looking for his lost cocaine with zest, energy and unapologetically. It’s a shame that we lost this wonderful film presence.
But…all of these performers play second fiddle to the titular character – the CGI creation that is COCAINE BEAR. Bravo to the company that did the effect in this film, they make the out-of-control bear believable while the character is doing unbelievable things.
A fun “B” flick in every sense of the word – COCAINE BEAR is a ton of fun (I laughed out loud LOUDLY a couple of times). Just know before you view it, what kind of film you are watching.
Letter Grade: B (of course)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And, fortunately, Director Elizabeth Banks knew exactly what type of film she was making and her (and her game cast) were up to the challenge…and the fun.
Based on a true event, where a cocaine smuggler fell to his death when his parachute failed to open, COCAINE BEAR posits the “what if” position of what would happen if a Bear ingested it and became aggressive and addicted to cocaine? This fun film takes us through that scenario.
Banks (Director of the PITCH PERFECT films) is the perfect person to helm this film, for she has her tongue planted firmly in her cheek and wisely walked the line between making it violent enough for idiots like me to enjoy and not TOO violent so that the target audience – I would assume that would be teenage boys – can attend as well. She paces the film briskly enough for the audience to not ask too many questions, and the film is short enough to be enjoyable, without beating the premise into the ground.
Jesse Tyler Ferguson (MODERN FAMILY), Kristofer Jivju (Tormand in GAME OF THRONES), Isiah Whitlock, Jr (BLACK KKKLANSMAN). and O’Shea Jackson, Jr (STRAIGHT OUTTA COMPTON) are all in on the fun and they look like they are having a GREAT time playing in this sandbox. As do Keri Russell, Matthew Rhys and the always-great Margo Martindale (forming a mini THE AMERICANS reunion). Martindale almost steals the film from the COCAINE BEAR…almost.
Special notice needs to be made of the work of Aiden Ehrenriech (erstwhile Hans Sole in SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY). He is one of those performers who looks like he is trying too hard to please, but not in this film. He looks comfortable and relaxed and this just might be the best performance of his career. The same can NOT be said for the late Ray Liotta (in his last film role). While not his best performance (that would be GOODFELLAS), it is a “classic Liotta” in that he plays the drug dealer who is looking for his lost cocaine with zest, energy and unapologetically. It’s a shame that we lost this wonderful film presence.
But…all of these performers play second fiddle to the titular character – the CGI creation that is COCAINE BEAR. Bravo to the company that did the effect in this film, they make the out-of-control bear believable while the character is doing unbelievable things.
A fun “B” flick in every sense of the word – COCAINE BEAR is a ton of fun (I laughed out loud LOUDLY a couple of times). Just know before you view it, what kind of film you are watching.
Letter Grade: B (of course)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Abyss (1989) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: The story focus on many different vision people have of something happening, we have the military view, the scientist view and the everyday workers view. Each one if different because each shows fear, interest or curiosity of the unknown. Everything comes together nicely without leaving you asking any questions, which in today’s film industry is a normal to get you coming back for more. This was ground breaking for its time and will always be considered a classic. (9/10)
Actor Review
Ed Harris: Bud the lead engineer on the underwater oil rig, he knows how to handle his team to get the most out of them and has all their respect. The whole team supports him over his ex-wife Lindsey, he is also one of the most experienced divers and believes in what he can see. Good performance from Harris showing he was going to be a lead actor for years to come. (9/10)
Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio: Lindsey ex-wife to Bud and creator of the underwater rig system, she is more interested in investigating what is going on rather than just blowing it up and hoping for the best. Good performance in a difficult role which needed her character to be hated. (8/10)
Director Review: James Cameron – Cameron has been behind some of the most ground breaking films in history and this is right up there with his best. (9/10)
Sci-Fi: A sci-fi film that isn’t about a bleak future or space travel, this really is a rarity in the business. (9/10)
Settings: The isolation adds tension from start to finish. (10/10)
Suggestion: I think this is a film that everyone should see at least once in their life time, it will surprise you the quality even after 25 years. (Watch)
Best Part: The water creature investigating the rig.
Worst Part: It can seem long.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: Yes
Oscar Chances: Won an Oscar for Visual Effects.
Box Office: $90 Million
Budget: $69 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 26 Minutes
Tagline: A place on Earth more awesome than anywhere in space.
Overall: A Forgotten Masterpiece
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/08/16/the-abyss-1989/
Actor Review
Ed Harris: Bud the lead engineer on the underwater oil rig, he knows how to handle his team to get the most out of them and has all their respect. The whole team supports him over his ex-wife Lindsey, he is also one of the most experienced divers and believes in what he can see. Good performance from Harris showing he was going to be a lead actor for years to come. (9/10)
Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio: Lindsey ex-wife to Bud and creator of the underwater rig system, she is more interested in investigating what is going on rather than just blowing it up and hoping for the best. Good performance in a difficult role which needed her character to be hated. (8/10)
Director Review: James Cameron – Cameron has been behind some of the most ground breaking films in history and this is right up there with his best. (9/10)
Sci-Fi: A sci-fi film that isn’t about a bleak future or space travel, this really is a rarity in the business. (9/10)
Settings: The isolation adds tension from start to finish. (10/10)
Suggestion: I think this is a film that everyone should see at least once in their life time, it will surprise you the quality even after 25 years. (Watch)
Best Part: The water creature investigating the rig.
Worst Part: It can seem long.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: Yes
Oscar Chances: Won an Oscar for Visual Effects.
Box Office: $90 Million
Budget: $69 Million
Runtime: 2 Hours 26 Minutes
Tagline: A place on Earth more awesome than anywhere in space.
Overall: A Forgotten Masterpiece
https://moviesreview101.com/2014/08/16/the-abyss-1989/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Feb 10, 2022
Stewart's Performance Elevates a Mediocre Film
Pablo Loraine’s SPENCER is not a subtle film, it shows the confinement and suffocation of Lady Diana Spencer under the watchful eye of the British monarchy and is not shy about who the bad guys are.
This sort of one-sided-ness of storytelling does not a compelling film make, but what does make this film compelling is the outstanding performance that is at the center of this film, Kristen Stewart as Lady Diana Spencer.
Telling the tale of the last Christmas that Diana spent as a member of the Royal family, SPENCER shows a a person in mental distress, living an ordered life that leaves little room for spontaneity or originality - things that Diana had in spades.
The only thing that makes this film work is the Oscar Nominated performance of Kristen Stewart as Diana. The way this movie was filmed, it would have been very easy for Stewart to portray Diana as a one-note victim, by she embodies this character with joy, sorrow, love, anger, depression and acceptance - sometimes at the same time. It is a tour-de-force performance that is well deserved of the Oscar nom.
What doesn’t work is the perspective of the film by Director Pablo Larrain (who also Directed Natalie Portman to an Oscar nom in JACKIE). He, clearly, had a vision and the look of the film is strong. What isn’t strong is the characters apart from Diana. The Royal family (especially Jack Farthings’ Prince Charles and Stella Gonet’s Queen Elizabeth) are mustache-twirling villians, Diana’s sons William and Harry look like they came out of the “Weasley Family” casting agency, while terrific character actors like Sally Hawkins, Timothy Spall and Sean Harris have almost (but not quite) interesting characters that don’t quite gel with what is going on.
But that is besides the point, for this is a story about Diana and Stewart is front and center in almost every scene - and is fascinating to watch - especially as she embodies Lady Diana in the marvelous costumes by Jacqueline Durran.
Come for the look at the Royals, stay for the performance by Stewart - one that I would not be suprised is honored come Oscar night.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This sort of one-sided-ness of storytelling does not a compelling film make, but what does make this film compelling is the outstanding performance that is at the center of this film, Kristen Stewart as Lady Diana Spencer.
Telling the tale of the last Christmas that Diana spent as a member of the Royal family, SPENCER shows a a person in mental distress, living an ordered life that leaves little room for spontaneity or originality - things that Diana had in spades.
The only thing that makes this film work is the Oscar Nominated performance of Kristen Stewart as Diana. The way this movie was filmed, it would have been very easy for Stewart to portray Diana as a one-note victim, by she embodies this character with joy, sorrow, love, anger, depression and acceptance - sometimes at the same time. It is a tour-de-force performance that is well deserved of the Oscar nom.
What doesn’t work is the perspective of the film by Director Pablo Larrain (who also Directed Natalie Portman to an Oscar nom in JACKIE). He, clearly, had a vision and the look of the film is strong. What isn’t strong is the characters apart from Diana. The Royal family (especially Jack Farthings’ Prince Charles and Stella Gonet’s Queen Elizabeth) are mustache-twirling villians, Diana’s sons William and Harry look like they came out of the “Weasley Family” casting agency, while terrific character actors like Sally Hawkins, Timothy Spall and Sean Harris have almost (but not quite) interesting characters that don’t quite gel with what is going on.
But that is besides the point, for this is a story about Diana and Stewart is front and center in almost every scene - and is fascinating to watch - especially as she embodies Lady Diana in the marvelous costumes by Jacqueline Durran.
Come for the look at the Royals, stay for the performance by Stewart - one that I would not be suprised is honored come Oscar night.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Belinda Blake and the Snake in the Grass
7.0
Rate It
Book
When exotic pet-sitter Belinda Blake moves into a carriage house in tony Greenwich, Connecticut,...
Darren (1599 KP) rated Aftermath (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: Aftermath starts by showing us a man struggling to walk through an abandoned landscape. We then flash back to one month earlier where we learn about an ongoing war between America and Israel. We meet or protagonist Hunter (Thomason) as he listens to the ongoing war before nuclear explosion hit leading him to rescue a young family. The group also meet another survivor in the road but find a place to stay underground in a farmhouse with another small group of survivors. Hunter explains they will need to spend at least a month underground while the fall out of the nuclear attack settles. We follow the group through the month as tension rise over time.
When I saw this and the title I was actually looking to settle down and watch a horror like film, but what we got was so much more. First off there is no horror involved, it is all tension building character development. We see the group over 30 days and how their situation gets worse as each day goes by, with only the radio to update them. We get to see how the radiation slowly changes and infects them while others try to get in. it plays on a range of emotions and comes off very bleak. This is a great story of the struggle to survive after a nuclear attack from the point of view of the innocent victims. (7/10)
Actor Review
C.J. Thomason: Hunter doctor and survivalist who leads the group of survivors as they try to make it through the attack in a farm basement. He tries to treat everyone who has issues but even with his skills he can’t save everyone from the situation. C.J. gives a good performance as a reluctant leader. (7/10)
hunter
Monica Keena: Elizabeth stranger picked up on the side of the road, she stays with the group and sometimes looks out for younger members by her calm nature. Monica gives a solid performance but sometimes struggles in the action scenes. (6/10)
monica
Edward Furlong: Brad over protective redneck who doesn’t want to let the group in and is always against the decision to let them in. he is a hot head but as the time goes by he wants to look after the group as much as the rest. Edward gives a good performance and does a good job with the only character that shows full emotion. (7/10)
ed
Support Cast: Aftermath’s supporting cast is mainly extra people in the basement who go through the struggles but also includes the people outside who are too far gone to let in.
Director Review: Peter Engert – Peter does a good job directing Aftermath creating genuine tension throughout. (8/10)
Action: Aftermath only has a few action scenes and they are quick, but each comes off desperate like the situation the people are in. (7/10)
Thriller: Aftermath really pulls you in as you want to know what happens to the group and feel for them when things start to get worse. (8/10)
Settings: Aftermath uses its isolation setting that the group creates for themselves to survive really well, as it keeps us unaware of what is going on outside. (9/10)
Suggestion: Aftermath is worth watching, but I do feel like the casual fan might not enjoy this, it really will appeal to those who enjoy a solid drama about survival. (Try It)
Best Part: The bleakness that surrounds the story.
Worst Part: Aftermath can come off feeling a little bit slow.
Believability: Aftermath tackles a potential real problem the world could face. (7/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 32 Minutes
Overall: A Great Unwatched Thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/24/aftermath-2012/
When I saw this and the title I was actually looking to settle down and watch a horror like film, but what we got was so much more. First off there is no horror involved, it is all tension building character development. We see the group over 30 days and how their situation gets worse as each day goes by, with only the radio to update them. We get to see how the radiation slowly changes and infects them while others try to get in. it plays on a range of emotions and comes off very bleak. This is a great story of the struggle to survive after a nuclear attack from the point of view of the innocent victims. (7/10)
Actor Review
C.J. Thomason: Hunter doctor and survivalist who leads the group of survivors as they try to make it through the attack in a farm basement. He tries to treat everyone who has issues but even with his skills he can’t save everyone from the situation. C.J. gives a good performance as a reluctant leader. (7/10)
hunter
Monica Keena: Elizabeth stranger picked up on the side of the road, she stays with the group and sometimes looks out for younger members by her calm nature. Monica gives a solid performance but sometimes struggles in the action scenes. (6/10)
monica
Edward Furlong: Brad over protective redneck who doesn’t want to let the group in and is always against the decision to let them in. he is a hot head but as the time goes by he wants to look after the group as much as the rest. Edward gives a good performance and does a good job with the only character that shows full emotion. (7/10)
ed
Support Cast: Aftermath’s supporting cast is mainly extra people in the basement who go through the struggles but also includes the people outside who are too far gone to let in.
Director Review: Peter Engert – Peter does a good job directing Aftermath creating genuine tension throughout. (8/10)
Action: Aftermath only has a few action scenes and they are quick, but each comes off desperate like the situation the people are in. (7/10)
Thriller: Aftermath really pulls you in as you want to know what happens to the group and feel for them when things start to get worse. (8/10)
Settings: Aftermath uses its isolation setting that the group creates for themselves to survive really well, as it keeps us unaware of what is going on outside. (9/10)
Suggestion: Aftermath is worth watching, but I do feel like the casual fan might not enjoy this, it really will appeal to those who enjoy a solid drama about survival. (Try It)
Best Part: The bleakness that surrounds the story.
Worst Part: Aftermath can come off feeling a little bit slow.
Believability: Aftermath tackles a potential real problem the world could face. (7/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 32 Minutes
Overall: A Great Unwatched Thriller
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/03/24/aftermath-2012/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Commuter (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“This train is freaking me out”.
“The Commuter” is not a good film. You know that I’m not a prude about action films: “Die Hard” is one of my all time favourites and I even gave this actor/director combo’s previous outing – “Non-Stop” – a rather generous three Fads. But like many of my commutes, this is a hundred minutes of life that I won’t get back again.
Liam Neeson (“A Monster Calls“, “Taken 3“) plays Michael MacCauley an insurance salesman (no, I’m not making it up) who of course used to be a police officer with a certain set of skills. With advancing years, a couple of mortgages to keep up and a son about to go to college, he is financially rather exposed.
“Give me a sausage roll off the trolley…. NOW damn it”.
When a bad day turns worse, the commuting MacCauley is approached by a mysterious woman (Vera Farmiga, “The Judge“, “Up In The Air”) who offers him a financial bail-out for doing “just one small thing”. No, it’s not for sex in the toilet… it’s to use his familiarity with the train and its normal passengers to find the person that ‘doesn’t fit there’. For there is a lot at stake and MacCauley is drawn into a perilous game where his own life and the lives of his son and wife Karen (Elizabeth McGovern, “Downton Abbey”) are put at risk.
Vera Farmiga has a proposition for Liam Neeson.
What the inexperienced writers (Byron Willinger, Philip de Blasi and Ryan Engle (“Non-stop”)) were clearly shooting for was a Hitchcockian “ordinary man in deep-water” style flick of the James Stewart “North by Northwest” variety…. but they really miss this by a mile. With the 65 year old Liam Neeson – here playing 60 – performing acrobatics on, under and across an express train, belief is not just suspended – it is hung drawn and quartered! The action is just ludicrously unrealistic.
Unfortunately, Neeson – although still looking remarkably good for his advanced years – is increasingly is starting to look like Roger Moore in “A View to a Kill”: its time to hang up the ‘action hero’ coat and focus on more character acting pieces (this was the man who gave us Oskar Schindler after all).
A chain defies all the laws of physics… train guard Colin McFarlane tries to help Neeson avoid disaster. A green screen is obviously not evident!
The plot also has more holes than a moth-eaten jumper. Omnipotence of the villains is evident, but never explained, and while they are fiendishly clever in some aspects they are face-palmingly stupid about others. (No spoilers, but the threat to MacCauley’s family is mind-numbingly foilable).
It was fairly obvious that Obi Wan Kenobi was out of place on the train. No.. of course not… this was just MacCauley’s commuting pal Walt (Jonathan Banks)
A ‘major event’ at the end of reel two (if you’ve seen the spoilerish trailer you’ll know what this is) leads – notably without any ‘consequence’ – into a completely ridiculous final reel that beggars belief. It also includes a “twist” so obvious that the writers must have assumed an IQ of sub-50.
What’s the great Sam Neill (“Jurassic Park”) doing in this mess?
This is a film that melds “Taken”, “Non-stop”, “Unstoppable”, “Strangers on a Train” and – most bizarrely and cringe-worthily – “Spartacus” to create a cinematic mess of supreme proportions. I put director Jaume Collet-Serra’s last film – “The Shallows” – into my Top 10 films of 2016. He’ll be lucky if this one doesn’t make my “Turkeys of the Year” list for 2018.
Avoid!
Liam Neeson (“A Monster Calls“, “Taken 3“) plays Michael MacCauley an insurance salesman (no, I’m not making it up) who of course used to be a police officer with a certain set of skills. With advancing years, a couple of mortgages to keep up and a son about to go to college, he is financially rather exposed.
“Give me a sausage roll off the trolley…. NOW damn it”.
When a bad day turns worse, the commuting MacCauley is approached by a mysterious woman (Vera Farmiga, “The Judge“, “Up In The Air”) who offers him a financial bail-out for doing “just one small thing”. No, it’s not for sex in the toilet… it’s to use his familiarity with the train and its normal passengers to find the person that ‘doesn’t fit there’. For there is a lot at stake and MacCauley is drawn into a perilous game where his own life and the lives of his son and wife Karen (Elizabeth McGovern, “Downton Abbey”) are put at risk.
Vera Farmiga has a proposition for Liam Neeson.
What the inexperienced writers (Byron Willinger, Philip de Blasi and Ryan Engle (“Non-stop”)) were clearly shooting for was a Hitchcockian “ordinary man in deep-water” style flick of the James Stewart “North by Northwest” variety…. but they really miss this by a mile. With the 65 year old Liam Neeson – here playing 60 – performing acrobatics on, under and across an express train, belief is not just suspended – it is hung drawn and quartered! The action is just ludicrously unrealistic.
Unfortunately, Neeson – although still looking remarkably good for his advanced years – is increasingly is starting to look like Roger Moore in “A View to a Kill”: its time to hang up the ‘action hero’ coat and focus on more character acting pieces (this was the man who gave us Oskar Schindler after all).
A chain defies all the laws of physics… train guard Colin McFarlane tries to help Neeson avoid disaster. A green screen is obviously not evident!
The plot also has more holes than a moth-eaten jumper. Omnipotence of the villains is evident, but never explained, and while they are fiendishly clever in some aspects they are face-palmingly stupid about others. (No spoilers, but the threat to MacCauley’s family is mind-numbingly foilable).
It was fairly obvious that Obi Wan Kenobi was out of place on the train. No.. of course not… this was just MacCauley’s commuting pal Walt (Jonathan Banks)
A ‘major event’ at the end of reel two (if you’ve seen the spoilerish trailer you’ll know what this is) leads – notably without any ‘consequence’ – into a completely ridiculous final reel that beggars belief. It also includes a “twist” so obvious that the writers must have assumed an IQ of sub-50.
What’s the great Sam Neill (“Jurassic Park”) doing in this mess?
This is a film that melds “Taken”, “Non-stop”, “Unstoppable”, “Strangers on a Train” and – most bizarrely and cringe-worthily – “Spartacus” to create a cinematic mess of supreme proportions. I put director Jaume Collet-Serra’s last film – “The Shallows” – into my Top 10 films of 2016. He’ll be lucky if this one doesn’t make my “Turkeys of the Year” list for 2018.
Avoid!
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Light of My Life (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
It is difficult to talk about Casey Affleck in a positive light as a movie-maker without mentioning the heightened media storm that surrounded him in 2017, at the time of #metoo and his own moment of personal glory in winning the Best Actor Oscar for his excellent performance in Manchester By the Sea. The Oscar was deserved, as was the criticism. The latter affecting the sweetness of the former entirely, and perhaps explaining why a recent Academy Award winner would be so quiet for the next 3 years.
The facts are that he settled out of court for two sexual harassment claims, that in interviews later he would admit some guilt and shame towards. He never tried to hide it and seemed genuinely regretful of his part in whatever crimes took place. He never tried to deny it or belittle it or excuse it as something small and insignificant, he owned up and hung his head.
For which I’d be tempted to say, yes, he behaved like an asshole and abused his position, but is worthy of forgiveness, on probation that he learned from the mistake and never remotely did anything like it again. However, the media doesn’t forget, and in a personal and professional way he has been persona non grata ever since.
Like many others in the spotlight before him for nefarious reasons, I believe emphatically in saying it is possible to separate a person from their work. If someone has done something where they need to be in jail, then let the system take care of it, otherwise let them get on with life and continue to work. Affleck is such a talented actor that it is his performances that spring to mind above anything else by far, and that probably won’t change. I’d absolutely hate to think his negative reputation prevented him from doing the best work of his life.
One way to ensure some relative solitude and privacy whilst remaining at work, then, is to write, produce, direct and star in a small personal film about a father and daughter, alone for 90% of the movie, in a post apocalyptic wilderness. Affleck is the nameless “dad” to the pre-teen daughter he dotes on and will do anything to protect, named “Rag”, for reasons that are explained beautifully in the narrative.
Played by promising newcomer Anna Pniowsky, it is a testament to Affleck’s skill and sensitivity as actor and director that Rag always feels as important and centre stage as the “star” of the show. The film begins very unusually with a 7 minute static dialogue between the two, which demonstrates the relationship and energy of the film perfectly, and in such an interesting way. Pniowsky gives as good as she gets in terms of detailed characterisation, and the dynamic between the two is an absolute delight.
Inevitably, this film is always going to be seen as a poor cousin to The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen, from 2009. It is very similar, it can’t be denied. Even the idea of the parent ensuring “the light / fire” is kept alive within the child, considering that the survival of humanity in all senses is paramount, and supercedes the notion of survival at any cost. Dignity, kindness and non-violence must be maintained, or they will be lost. It is a message worth passing on – enough to make Affleck want to fly so close to the themes and tone of a bigger, well liked film. He must certainly have been aware of how similar they are.
It doesn’t always work, and I did find myself wishing for more action, or at least incident, rather than all the static talking scenes. Although they were often beautifully done, there were just one too many of them to keep the film fully engaging. The use of flashback, where we see the past they came from and the absent mother (presumed long dead) played by Elizabeth Moss, who does not get enough screen time to leave a mark, also doesn’t fully ring true.
Where it does work is in the simple beauty of the relationship between father and daughter. Her innocence and growing curiosity about the tainted world she is inheriting, and his single minded insistence on teaching her things his way and keeping her oblivious to the harshness of life for as long as possible. We begin to suspect his methods are not always the best, and that inevitably the time is coming where for good or bad she will have to find her own path without him.
Which leads to a very touching last 20 minutes I can’t possibly explain without leaving spoilers. If it wasn’t two hours but 90 minutes I believe the idea would have had more impact and not outstay its welcome. As it is, it is just a little flabby in the edit to be described as “great”, and might be otherwise described as slightly indulgent and naive, directorially. It is a tough one to pin down, because whilst I don’t think there is much wrong with it, I also don’t think there is enough right to fully recommend it to a wide audience.
I’m putting this one in the box marked “little seen gems”, intersecting with the one marked “near miss with potential”. When in a patient mood, this could be a film you relate to and enjoy. Just don’t go in expecting too much to happen and concentrate on what it means to be a parent in a cruel world. In that sense it has a lot to say and is well worth your time.
The facts are that he settled out of court for two sexual harassment claims, that in interviews later he would admit some guilt and shame towards. He never tried to hide it and seemed genuinely regretful of his part in whatever crimes took place. He never tried to deny it or belittle it or excuse it as something small and insignificant, he owned up and hung his head.
For which I’d be tempted to say, yes, he behaved like an asshole and abused his position, but is worthy of forgiveness, on probation that he learned from the mistake and never remotely did anything like it again. However, the media doesn’t forget, and in a personal and professional way he has been persona non grata ever since.
Like many others in the spotlight before him for nefarious reasons, I believe emphatically in saying it is possible to separate a person from their work. If someone has done something where they need to be in jail, then let the system take care of it, otherwise let them get on with life and continue to work. Affleck is such a talented actor that it is his performances that spring to mind above anything else by far, and that probably won’t change. I’d absolutely hate to think his negative reputation prevented him from doing the best work of his life.
One way to ensure some relative solitude and privacy whilst remaining at work, then, is to write, produce, direct and star in a small personal film about a father and daughter, alone for 90% of the movie, in a post apocalyptic wilderness. Affleck is the nameless “dad” to the pre-teen daughter he dotes on and will do anything to protect, named “Rag”, for reasons that are explained beautifully in the narrative.
Played by promising newcomer Anna Pniowsky, it is a testament to Affleck’s skill and sensitivity as actor and director that Rag always feels as important and centre stage as the “star” of the show. The film begins very unusually with a 7 minute static dialogue between the two, which demonstrates the relationship and energy of the film perfectly, and in such an interesting way. Pniowsky gives as good as she gets in terms of detailed characterisation, and the dynamic between the two is an absolute delight.
Inevitably, this film is always going to be seen as a poor cousin to The Road, starring Viggo Mortensen, from 2009. It is very similar, it can’t be denied. Even the idea of the parent ensuring “the light / fire” is kept alive within the child, considering that the survival of humanity in all senses is paramount, and supercedes the notion of survival at any cost. Dignity, kindness and non-violence must be maintained, or they will be lost. It is a message worth passing on – enough to make Affleck want to fly so close to the themes and tone of a bigger, well liked film. He must certainly have been aware of how similar they are.
It doesn’t always work, and I did find myself wishing for more action, or at least incident, rather than all the static talking scenes. Although they were often beautifully done, there were just one too many of them to keep the film fully engaging. The use of flashback, where we see the past they came from and the absent mother (presumed long dead) played by Elizabeth Moss, who does not get enough screen time to leave a mark, also doesn’t fully ring true.
Where it does work is in the simple beauty of the relationship between father and daughter. Her innocence and growing curiosity about the tainted world she is inheriting, and his single minded insistence on teaching her things his way and keeping her oblivious to the harshness of life for as long as possible. We begin to suspect his methods are not always the best, and that inevitably the time is coming where for good or bad she will have to find her own path without him.
Which leads to a very touching last 20 minutes I can’t possibly explain without leaving spoilers. If it wasn’t two hours but 90 minutes I believe the idea would have had more impact and not outstay its welcome. As it is, it is just a little flabby in the edit to be described as “great”, and might be otherwise described as slightly indulgent and naive, directorially. It is a tough one to pin down, because whilst I don’t think there is much wrong with it, I also don’t think there is enough right to fully recommend it to a wide audience.
I’m putting this one in the box marked “little seen gems”, intersecting with the one marked “near miss with potential”. When in a patient mood, this could be a film you relate to and enjoy. Just don’t go in expecting too much to happen and concentrate on what it means to be a parent in a cruel world. In that sense it has a lot to say and is well worth your time.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Russian Doll in TV
Jun 20, 2019
After the success of both Parks and Recreation and Orange is the New Black, I was intrigued by a new Netflix series created by Amy Poehler and Natasha Lyonne. Many fans know them as Leslie Knope and Nicky Nichols, and I’m sure we can all agree they’d make a very interesting duo.
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Immediately after seeing the promos for Russian Doll, it was clear that this was going to be a very different tone to their previous work, and felt incredibly offbeat and quirky in nature. The series follows a woman named Nadia Vulvokov (Natasha Lyonne) as she finds herself in a time-loop after she is hit by a taxi and dies. Unfortunately for Nadia, she has to relive her 36th birthday party over and over again. It’s Groundhog Day on speed, which is an utterly delightful concept.
Whilst it may sound similar to Groundhog Day, it’s actually a very unique story. At first it’s easy to worry about the repetitive nature of the series, considering Nadia spends most of her time dying and reliving the same moment. Somehow it manages to stay funny, fresh and watchable throughout all eight episodes. The pacing is spot-on and keeps you guessing, as you follow Nadia’s journey into discovering why she’s found herself in this loop. On this journey, she’s joined by a number of characters including her ex-boyfriend John (Yul Vazquez), close family friend Ruth (Elizabeth Ashley) and a stranger named Alan (Charlie Barnett) who is closer to this situation than he originally realizes.
As the series progresses, we begin to delve into some pretty heavy stuff. Without giving away spoilers, the episodes start to question morality, ethics, the past, and the future. Each character is so well fleshed out and we want to know more about them. It’s easy to become sucked into the world of Russian Doll, and trust me when I say it’s a binge worthy series. You won’t want to stop until you have answers. It’s a show that knows how to balance comedy and drama effectively, delivering laugh out loud then heart-wrenching moments in quick succession. You feel sorry for various characters and loathe others, and it’s an incredibly well fleshed out series.
In terms of its visuals, Russian Doll is a gritty, psychedelic glimpse into the lives of various New York City residents. We see rich and poor, confident and timid, good and bad characters as they go about their daily lives. It’s fascinating to watch and each location has been crafted to give you more insight into the characters in this world. From quirky high-rise apartments to homeless shelters, this series shows it all. It’s the Big Apple in all its glory, whether that’s good or bad.
My advice would be to walk into Russian Doll knowing as little as possible, allowing yourself to approach the situation in a similar way to Nadia. It’s a comedy, thriller and mystery all rolled into one, with each genre complementing the other superbly. As far as Netflix Originals go, this is one of the strongest ones I’ve seen so far. Eight episodes is just enough to keep you entertained, whilst still giving enough backstory to make it a compelling tale. Just when you think you know a character, the tables are turned and your jaw is on the floor.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/07/tv-review-my-thoughts-on-russian-doll/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Invisible Man (2020) in Movies
Feb 27, 2020
Cecilia Kass (Elizabeth Moss) is a woman living in fear. Despite living a life of wealth and privilege in a seaside home; she is ready to take drastic steps in her life.
Cecilia is trying to escape from her controlling and abusive husband who despite being considered a wealthy genius in the field of Optics; has made her life a living hell and forces her to make a daring escape that has her barely getting away with the help of her sister Alice (Harriett Dyer).
The film picks up two weeks later where Cecilia is hiding with a friend of her sister Officer James Lanier (Aldis Hodge) and his daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). Cecilia is scared to even leave the house and do simple tasks such as checking the mailbox and is livid when her sister comes to visit as she is sure that her husband will find her by tracking her Sister.
Alice informs Cecilia that her husband has killed himself and she is now free to live without fear. Cecilia gets a letter informing her that she is to receive 100K a month to the sum of five million dollars as part of her husband’s will. The fact that nobody should have her mailing address does seem odd to her as does that fact that the estate is being handled by her ex’s brother Tom (Michael Dorman).
With her new wealth Cecilia gifts James and also sets up a school fund for Sydney and begins to emerge from her shell.
It is around this time that unusual things begin to happen to her. A lost item from the night of her escape shows up and a mysterious kitchen fire starts. Cecelia also wakes up to find the covers off the bed and what appears to be something unseen standing on the blankets when she attempts to pull them up.
When she expresses her concerns to James that her husband is alive and exacting revenge, both he and Tom ignore her and when things begin to escalate, Cecilia is the one who starts to look more and more unstable as the tormenting continues and her life spins out of control.
The film is Written and Directed by Leigh Whannell who rose to prominence as one of the co-creators of the “SAW” franchise. The film is the perfect example of how to do a film of this sort as it is very clever in how it is paced and allows for the suspense to build without relying on many of the standard Horror Film staples.
The film is also good about having things happen before it pulls back so it is not an extended series of intense moments but several incidents between the tension and setup.
The cast is very good and what is amazing is that the film was made for a $7 million dollar budget yet looks every bit of a major studio film.
There are some interesting twists along the way as while I was able to predict two of them; the others were a very nice surprise.
It is so refreshing to see a film like this come along as in many ways it can help redefine the Horror genre and proves that you can make a quality movie that is also scary and intense.
I for one hope we see more from this franchise in the near future.
4.5 stars out of 5.
Cecilia is trying to escape from her controlling and abusive husband who despite being considered a wealthy genius in the field of Optics; has made her life a living hell and forces her to make a daring escape that has her barely getting away with the help of her sister Alice (Harriett Dyer).
The film picks up two weeks later where Cecilia is hiding with a friend of her sister Officer James Lanier (Aldis Hodge) and his daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). Cecilia is scared to even leave the house and do simple tasks such as checking the mailbox and is livid when her sister comes to visit as she is sure that her husband will find her by tracking her Sister.
Alice informs Cecilia that her husband has killed himself and she is now free to live without fear. Cecilia gets a letter informing her that she is to receive 100K a month to the sum of five million dollars as part of her husband’s will. The fact that nobody should have her mailing address does seem odd to her as does that fact that the estate is being handled by her ex’s brother Tom (Michael Dorman).
With her new wealth Cecilia gifts James and also sets up a school fund for Sydney and begins to emerge from her shell.
It is around this time that unusual things begin to happen to her. A lost item from the night of her escape shows up and a mysterious kitchen fire starts. Cecelia also wakes up to find the covers off the bed and what appears to be something unseen standing on the blankets when she attempts to pull them up.
When she expresses her concerns to James that her husband is alive and exacting revenge, both he and Tom ignore her and when things begin to escalate, Cecilia is the one who starts to look more and more unstable as the tormenting continues and her life spins out of control.
The film is Written and Directed by Leigh Whannell who rose to prominence as one of the co-creators of the “SAW” franchise. The film is the perfect example of how to do a film of this sort as it is very clever in how it is paced and allows for the suspense to build without relying on many of the standard Horror Film staples.
The film is also good about having things happen before it pulls back so it is not an extended series of intense moments but several incidents between the tension and setup.
The cast is very good and what is amazing is that the film was made for a $7 million dollar budget yet looks every bit of a major studio film.
There are some interesting twists along the way as while I was able to predict two of them; the others were a very nice surprise.
It is so refreshing to see a film like this come along as in many ways it can help redefine the Horror genre and proves that you can make a quality movie that is also scary and intense.
I for one hope we see more from this franchise in the near future.
4.5 stars out of 5.