Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated I Care a Lot (2020) in Movies
Feb 27, 2021
Rosamund Pike - what Gone Girl did next (1 more)
Supporting cast: Peter Dinklage, Eiza Gonzáles and Dianne Wiest
An inky black comedy thriller
Maria Grayson (Rosamund Pike) and her colleague-cum-lover Fran (Eiza González) are running an extensive con. Through the manipulation of the Boston legal and medical systems, Maria arranges to be appointed the legal guardian for numerous older people. Packing them away to a drugged up life in a care home, the pair then plunder the estates of their wards, turning a tidy profit. The weatlhy and unattached Jennifer Peterson (Dianne Wiest) appears to be a "cherry" that can take their fortunes to a completely different level. But all is not as it seems, and Maria and Fran's evil but comfortable lives are about to be turned on their heads.
Positives:
- When I say the comedy is inky black, I mean it. It's unusual to find a movie without a single character that you can relate to or even remotely like. For some reason, it reminded me of the Michael Douglas / Kathleen Turner vehicle "The War of the Roses" in that regard. And yet, once you let the evilness of it sink in, it becomes a rip-roaring story that delights to the very end.
- Rosamund Pike delivers yet again another superb performance, making Maria an icy cold villain. The role could be summed up as "What Gone Girl did next".
- Peter Dinklage delights in portraying an evil character which, for reasons of spoiler avoidance, I shall say nothing further about. But it's a cracking performance and brilliant to see a script that steadfastly ignores his physical characteristics.
- Dianne Wiest ("The Mule") and Eiza González ("the sexy one" from "Baby Driver") also deliver strong supporting roles.
-J Blakeson - who did "The Disappearance of Alice Creed" - directs with style, and hopefully his truly novel screenplay will be suitably recognised through awards. There are some clever twists: one near the end which (Smug McSmuggerson from the University of Smugchester) I saw coming, and another one soon after that I didn't!
- Mark Canham - not a composer I know - delivers a really engaging and bouncy score that's top notch. Loved it.
Negatives:
- The plot is just SO inky black at the beginning, that some may get through the first 15 minutes and think "Nope, not for me". You should stick with it: after Peter Dinklage appears, the movie shifts up a gear and changes in tone.
- The plot occasionally stretches credibility beyond breaking point. In particular, all the characters seem to be wholly incompetent at 'dispatching people' when they have the opportunity to do so. The repetition of these failures I found to be a bit tiresome.
Summary: Finding a movie with a novel storyline is an unusual thing these days, and one that combines that with a taut and engrossing screenplay is a gem indeed. It's probably not one recommended for very elderly people to watch.... then again, perhaps with so many evil scammers around in real life, it might be considered required viewing! But, if you have one, you'll probably want to have a chat with your granny after watching this.
(For the full graphical review, check out the full review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/02/27/i-care-a-lot-an-inky-black-comedy-thriller/. Thanks).
Positives:
- When I say the comedy is inky black, I mean it. It's unusual to find a movie without a single character that you can relate to or even remotely like. For some reason, it reminded me of the Michael Douglas / Kathleen Turner vehicle "The War of the Roses" in that regard. And yet, once you let the evilness of it sink in, it becomes a rip-roaring story that delights to the very end.
- Rosamund Pike delivers yet again another superb performance, making Maria an icy cold villain. The role could be summed up as "What Gone Girl did next".
- Peter Dinklage delights in portraying an evil character which, for reasons of spoiler avoidance, I shall say nothing further about. But it's a cracking performance and brilliant to see a script that steadfastly ignores his physical characteristics.
- Dianne Wiest ("The Mule") and Eiza González ("the sexy one" from "Baby Driver") also deliver strong supporting roles.
-J Blakeson - who did "The Disappearance of Alice Creed" - directs with style, and hopefully his truly novel screenplay will be suitably recognised through awards. There are some clever twists: one near the end which (Smug McSmuggerson from the University of Smugchester) I saw coming, and another one soon after that I didn't!
- Mark Canham - not a composer I know - delivers a really engaging and bouncy score that's top notch. Loved it.
Negatives:
- The plot is just SO inky black at the beginning, that some may get through the first 15 minutes and think "Nope, not for me". You should stick with it: after Peter Dinklage appears, the movie shifts up a gear and changes in tone.
- The plot occasionally stretches credibility beyond breaking point. In particular, all the characters seem to be wholly incompetent at 'dispatching people' when they have the opportunity to do so. The repetition of these failures I found to be a bit tiresome.
Summary: Finding a movie with a novel storyline is an unusual thing these days, and one that combines that with a taut and engrossing screenplay is a gem indeed. It's probably not one recommended for very elderly people to watch.... then again, perhaps with so many evil scammers around in real life, it might be considered required viewing! But, if you have one, you'll probably want to have a chat with your granny after watching this.
(For the full graphical review, check out the full review at One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/02/27/i-care-a-lot-an-inky-black-comedy-thriller/. Thanks).
Erika (17788 KP) rated Kindred (2020) in Movies
Jul 10, 2021
Kindred is a psychological thriller/horror about the reluctantly pregnant Charlotte (Tamara Lawrance) after her boyfriend, Ben (Edward Holcroft), dies in a workplace accident. After this accident, Charlotte is taken in by Ben’s mother (Fiona Shaw), and creepy stepbrother, Thomas (Jack Lowden). They proceed to basically torture her and question her sanity.
Prior to the accident, Charlotte and Ben visit the decrepit family home to announce they’re moving to Australia for a new start. It obviously did not go over well. After this visit, Charlotte finds out she’s pregnant, and that news gets passed around the small town, and that's how Ben finds out. Charlotte expresses that she doesn’t necessarily want the baby, but it was pretty much brushed aside – red flag, RUN GIRL!
This is when the main portion of the film begins, and they take her in under the guise of taking care of her and the baby. It was pretty obvious the only reason they took care of her, because she was the incubator for the grandchild.
This was basically a 21st Century version of Gaslight (1940/1944). The film wasn’t necessarily unique, and the ending was as expected. As always with films now, it’s about the journey, since you already know the end. There was very heavy-handed symbolism with the crow, which for me, began to get a little tedious, but I understood why it was there.
Full disclosure, I only watched the film because Jack Lowden was in it. I figured, if it’s not good, at least there was someone pretty to look at. As I watched this, I asked myself, is Thomas just a really beautiful dummy who constantly announces he’s making lunch? Hmm.
Tamara Lawrance was great in the film, she was compelling, and you did hope that she would be successful in escaping from the creepy family, and wallpaper-peeling house. Also, I liked that she correctly portrayed the serious frustration of expressing concern to doctors and other medical personnel, and not being taken seriously because the issues are related to female reproductive organs.
My curiosity was what made me keep watching, but I wasn’t necessarily completely engaged the entire time. The tension didn’t really stay the entire time. Although I did have the issues with the predictability, I did still surprising like the film. I’m glad I didn’t let it Rest in Peace in my Hulu watchlist graveyard.
Prior to the accident, Charlotte and Ben visit the decrepit family home to announce they’re moving to Australia for a new start. It obviously did not go over well. After this visit, Charlotte finds out she’s pregnant, and that news gets passed around the small town, and that's how Ben finds out. Charlotte expresses that she doesn’t necessarily want the baby, but it was pretty much brushed aside – red flag, RUN GIRL!
This is when the main portion of the film begins, and they take her in under the guise of taking care of her and the baby. It was pretty obvious the only reason they took care of her, because she was the incubator for the grandchild.
This was basically a 21st Century version of Gaslight (1940/1944). The film wasn’t necessarily unique, and the ending was as expected. As always with films now, it’s about the journey, since you already know the end. There was very heavy-handed symbolism with the crow, which for me, began to get a little tedious, but I understood why it was there.
Full disclosure, I only watched the film because Jack Lowden was in it. I figured, if it’s not good, at least there was someone pretty to look at. As I watched this, I asked myself, is Thomas just a really beautiful dummy who constantly announces he’s making lunch? Hmm.
Tamara Lawrance was great in the film, she was compelling, and you did hope that she would be successful in escaping from the creepy family, and wallpaper-peeling house. Also, I liked that she correctly portrayed the serious frustration of expressing concern to doctors and other medical personnel, and not being taken seriously because the issues are related to female reproductive organs.
My curiosity was what made me keep watching, but I wasn’t necessarily completely engaged the entire time. The tension didn’t really stay the entire time. Although I did have the issues with the predictability, I did still surprising like the film. I’m glad I didn’t let it Rest in Peace in my Hulu watchlist graveyard.
Ross (3282 KP) rated The Shadow Man in Books
Feb 19, 2021 (Updated Feb 19, 2021)
Good thriller, but not a patch on Fields' other books
This standalone (as far as I know) book sits beside Fields' Luc Callanach (Ava Turner) series, again set in Edinburgh. Other than the brash Chief Superintendent Overbeck, none of those characters are introduced here. Instead, because of the workload of Edinburgh's Major Incident Team, DI Baarda has been called in from London to assist in a murder/kidnapping. Along with him is Dr Connie Woodwine, a brash American criminal psychologist. They are looking into the disappearance of one woman, and quickly link it to the death of another and find that they are on the hunt for someone with issues.
Connie is a fairly stereotypical academic, clinical type as she has virtually no people skills on the surface, issuing demands and attacking conversations head-on in a very un-British way. And yet when we see her interviewing witnesses, such as a young girl who saw a schoolmate be abducted, she is suddenly very tactful and sensitive. In this way, she is both an interesting, complex character, but also a much seen cliched one. She has a tendency to do an awful lot of telling during interviews, explaining to all in the room the theory of her approach to the interview. While this was interesting, it took me right out of the book as something completely unnatural, and read more as a brain dump of the author's research for the book. A little more show, less tell as usual would have worked well here.
Baarda is similarly familiar, a dedicated career cop with marital problems (his wife having an open affair with another officer).
Together, the pair piece together few clues and start to evolve something of a profile for the man who has been kidnapping people. However, I felt this aspect didn't yield results until quite late on, all progress up to that point (next to none) was through standard police work/luck.
The antagonist here was interesting, but nowhere near as dark and mysterious as the blurb makes him sound. We're not talking Hannibal Lecter here, just a confused man with a fairly typical upbringing. Fields essentially cottoned on to an interesting medical/psychological condition and pieced together a plot based on it. While this was enjoyable, it made it somewhat crime-by-numbers.
A good book, but left me longing for Ava Turner's more likable policing style.
Advance reading copy received from the publishers and netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
Connie is a fairly stereotypical academic, clinical type as she has virtually no people skills on the surface, issuing demands and attacking conversations head-on in a very un-British way. And yet when we see her interviewing witnesses, such as a young girl who saw a schoolmate be abducted, she is suddenly very tactful and sensitive. In this way, she is both an interesting, complex character, but also a much seen cliched one. She has a tendency to do an awful lot of telling during interviews, explaining to all in the room the theory of her approach to the interview. While this was interesting, it took me right out of the book as something completely unnatural, and read more as a brain dump of the author's research for the book. A little more show, less tell as usual would have worked well here.
Baarda is similarly familiar, a dedicated career cop with marital problems (his wife having an open affair with another officer).
Together, the pair piece together few clues and start to evolve something of a profile for the man who has been kidnapping people. However, I felt this aspect didn't yield results until quite late on, all progress up to that point (next to none) was through standard police work/luck.
The antagonist here was interesting, but nowhere near as dark and mysterious as the blurb makes him sound. We're not talking Hannibal Lecter here, just a confused man with a fairly typical upbringing. Fields essentially cottoned on to an interesting medical/psychological condition and pieced together a plot based on it. While this was enjoyable, it made it somewhat crime-by-numbers.
A good book, but left me longing for Ava Turner's more likable policing style.
Advance reading copy received from the publishers and netgalley in exchange for an honest review.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Split (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We are what we believe we are”.
M. Night Shyamalan fizzed into movie consciousness in 1999 with “The Sixth Sense” which – having rewatched it again recently – still has the power to unnerve and impress even after knowing the famous ‘twist’. Since that film and his next, “Unbreakable” in 2000, Shyamalan has ‘done a bit of an Orson Welles’ by never really living up to that early promise. Here with “Split” he returns to better form with a psychological thriller that is heavy on the psycho.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Jacket (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The human mind is a deep and complex organ that to this day is not fully understood by the best scientific minds on the planet. It is known that only a small percentage of the mind is actually used, with the vast majority of the unused portion presenting a mystery. There are those who have suggested that those individuals who show paranormal abilities are simply individuals who have learned to use areas of the brain that are normally dormant.
In the new psychological thriller The Jacket, Adrian Brody plays Jack Starks, a Gulf war soldier who is shot in the head in 1991 during combat operations.
Jack survives this ordeal as he awakens during medical triage despite being classified as dead by the attending medics. Flash forward to late 1992, and Jack is on his way to Canada through a cold and remote section of Vermont It is learned that Jack has some mental blocks in his head via a series of flashbacks, but when he comes to the aid of a stranded motorist and her young daughter, Jack soon finds his life taking an unexpected turn.
Despite being a good Samaritan, Jack is forced to accept a ride from a passing drifter miles later, when the mother refuses to assist him. Flash forward again and Jack is being charged with the murder of a police officer who Jack insists was killed by the man who picked them up. Since Jack has a mental condition, his claims of the driver who picked him up are dismissed as mental delusions.
Jack is committed to a mental institution where under the treatment of Dr. Becker (Kris Kristofferson), Jack is bound in a straight jacket and locked in a storage shelf in the basement morgue. While in the box, Jack travels 17 years into the future where he is reunited with Jackie (Kiera Knightley), the little girl he helped years earlier. Jackie has fallen upon hard times and refuses to believe that the person before her is the same Jack Starks who helped her years ago, as she claims that Jack Starks died years ago in the asylum.
As Jack comes in and out of treatment his perception of the events in the box comes into question due to his condition, and only the supportive Dr. Lorenson (Jennifer Jason Leigh), seems sympathetic to his concerns that he is going to die in the next few days.
The film jumps between the past, present, future where Jack attempts to uncover what happened to him with the help of Jackie so that he can try to prevent it from happening or at the very least, make the future a better place for those in the past who can avoid their fates.
The strength of the film is the solid work by the two leads as Brody and Knightley work well with one another and infuses their characters with compassion and humanity while showing their flaws as they attempt to deal with the hardships of their situations.
While some may take exception to the dark tone of the film, I preferred to look at the interesting twists to the story and how the film makes you think and interpret situations and outcomes rather than handing it to the audience in a tidy package.
In the new psychological thriller The Jacket, Adrian Brody plays Jack Starks, a Gulf war soldier who is shot in the head in 1991 during combat operations.
Jack survives this ordeal as he awakens during medical triage despite being classified as dead by the attending medics. Flash forward to late 1992, and Jack is on his way to Canada through a cold and remote section of Vermont It is learned that Jack has some mental blocks in his head via a series of flashbacks, but when he comes to the aid of a stranded motorist and her young daughter, Jack soon finds his life taking an unexpected turn.
Despite being a good Samaritan, Jack is forced to accept a ride from a passing drifter miles later, when the mother refuses to assist him. Flash forward again and Jack is being charged with the murder of a police officer who Jack insists was killed by the man who picked them up. Since Jack has a mental condition, his claims of the driver who picked him up are dismissed as mental delusions.
Jack is committed to a mental institution where under the treatment of Dr. Becker (Kris Kristofferson), Jack is bound in a straight jacket and locked in a storage shelf in the basement morgue. While in the box, Jack travels 17 years into the future where he is reunited with Jackie (Kiera Knightley), the little girl he helped years earlier. Jackie has fallen upon hard times and refuses to believe that the person before her is the same Jack Starks who helped her years ago, as she claims that Jack Starks died years ago in the asylum.
As Jack comes in and out of treatment his perception of the events in the box comes into question due to his condition, and only the supportive Dr. Lorenson (Jennifer Jason Leigh), seems sympathetic to his concerns that he is going to die in the next few days.
The film jumps between the past, present, future where Jack attempts to uncover what happened to him with the help of Jackie so that he can try to prevent it from happening or at the very least, make the future a better place for those in the past who can avoid their fates.
The strength of the film is the solid work by the two leads as Brody and Knightley work well with one another and infuses their characters with compassion and humanity while showing their flaws as they attempt to deal with the hardships of their situations.
While some may take exception to the dark tone of the film, I preferred to look at the interesting twists to the story and how the film makes you think and interpret situations and outcomes rather than handing it to the audience in a tidy package.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 400 Days (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: 400 Days starts with our four main characters Captain Theo (Routh), Emily (Lotz), Cole (Cook) and Bug (Feldman) being put in a social simulation for 400 days to show what it will be like to travel through space over long periods of time. We follow the four as they get put hiccups as the learn to manage them after losing connect to mission control early on but it is dealing with the psychological side of the mission that will test them the most.
When they open the hatch they find themselves questioning what happened but more worrying where they are now.
400 days really seems to be a film that is two different incomplete films, the first half is all psychological but when they leave the hatch it turns into a post-apocalyptic film that never really ends up being dealt with. Each side of the story works well as a single film but both don’t have enough time to really pull off what is really happen. As for the ending it is all left up to you what you think happens which doesn’t help and what happens to two of the character never really gets answered either. This has problems but really could have been great.
Actor Review
Caity Lotz: Emily is the medical officers who is also the former partner of Theo who has to make sure the crew remains sane over the course of the mission as well as keeping the medication up to date. Caity gives us a solid performance but really doesn’t get a chance shine.
Brandon Routh: Theo is the captain of the mission; he has to make the big decision with the information provided by his crew. He doesn’t want to be on the mission and has been on a four-day bender before the mission. Brandon continued to show why he is struggling to live up to the hype he once had early in his career.
Dane Cook: Cole is the engineer on the mission, he is easily the most unpopular on the crew and his cocky attitude leads him to become distant to the rest of the crew. Dane is another actor in this film who hasn’t made much of his career and even with this choice because he tries to do something different.
Ben Feldman: Bug is the brains of the crew making all the hard decisions and is clearly the smartest of the four crew members on the ship. He had to leave his young family behind for the mission which haunts him every day of the mission. Ben does a good job even if he does end up being a very generic character for the genre.
Support Cast: 400 days has a supporting you only see half way through the film but they end up being very generic.
Director Review: Matt Osterman – Matt brings us a great idea that doesn’t quite get pulled off effectively.
Mystery: 400 days keep you guessing what is actually happening to our characters.
Sci-Fi: 400 days puts our character in the experiment which would include space travel and a post-apocalyptic world.
Thriller: 400 days does keep us guessing from start to finish.
Settings: 400 days has two good settings the space ship which creates the isolation and the town the end up in that shocks.
Special Effects: 400 days uses the effects for certain moments but tries to keep everything need to the minimum.
Suggestion: 400 days is one to try, it does have a few flaws but you can see a couple of good points. (Try It)
Best Part: The ideas are good.
Worst Part: Not enough time for each story, both sides could have been short to increase the second one.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 31 Minutes
Overall: Something Missing but good ideas being created.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/11/02/400-days-2015/
When they open the hatch they find themselves questioning what happened but more worrying where they are now.
400 days really seems to be a film that is two different incomplete films, the first half is all psychological but when they leave the hatch it turns into a post-apocalyptic film that never really ends up being dealt with. Each side of the story works well as a single film but both don’t have enough time to really pull off what is really happen. As for the ending it is all left up to you what you think happens which doesn’t help and what happens to two of the character never really gets answered either. This has problems but really could have been great.
Actor Review
Caity Lotz: Emily is the medical officers who is also the former partner of Theo who has to make sure the crew remains sane over the course of the mission as well as keeping the medication up to date. Caity gives us a solid performance but really doesn’t get a chance shine.
Brandon Routh: Theo is the captain of the mission; he has to make the big decision with the information provided by his crew. He doesn’t want to be on the mission and has been on a four-day bender before the mission. Brandon continued to show why he is struggling to live up to the hype he once had early in his career.
Dane Cook: Cole is the engineer on the mission, he is easily the most unpopular on the crew and his cocky attitude leads him to become distant to the rest of the crew. Dane is another actor in this film who hasn’t made much of his career and even with this choice because he tries to do something different.
Ben Feldman: Bug is the brains of the crew making all the hard decisions and is clearly the smartest of the four crew members on the ship. He had to leave his young family behind for the mission which haunts him every day of the mission. Ben does a good job even if he does end up being a very generic character for the genre.
Support Cast: 400 days has a supporting you only see half way through the film but they end up being very generic.
Director Review: Matt Osterman – Matt brings us a great idea that doesn’t quite get pulled off effectively.
Mystery: 400 days keep you guessing what is actually happening to our characters.
Sci-Fi: 400 days puts our character in the experiment which would include space travel and a post-apocalyptic world.
Thriller: 400 days does keep us guessing from start to finish.
Settings: 400 days has two good settings the space ship which creates the isolation and the town the end up in that shocks.
Special Effects: 400 days uses the effects for certain moments but tries to keep everything need to the minimum.
Suggestion: 400 days is one to try, it does have a few flaws but you can see a couple of good points. (Try It)
Best Part: The ideas are good.
Worst Part: Not enough time for each story, both sides could have been short to increase the second one.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Runtime: 1 Hour 31 Minutes
Overall: Something Missing but good ideas being created.
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/11/02/400-days-2015/