IkkegoeMikke's My Opinion as a Movie-Freak

As suggested I'll start a single thread where I'll post my reviews of movies I've seen. Makes it a bit easier for me and I won't be flooding the forum with new threads
I hope to get some interaction plus advice .... Enjoy reading it !

Late Phases
2014
Adrian Garcia Bogliano

Exquisite acting, lousy werewolf ...

"So we suggest during the day you don't walk by the perimeter of the woods if you're alone. And at night, please, stay in your house, keep the doors closed and the windows closed until we sort this out. Okay? Starting now."


It looks as if there's a revival of the werewolf genre. Granted, it's nothing special what's being produced in this area. "Night Wolf" was abominably bad. "Wolves" was a failed attempt to launch a commercial teen product. And "Wer" was an original attempt to revitalize the genre. The first two monstrosities excelled in terrible renditions, ridiculous grime and unabashedly exploiting this sub-genre with the ultimate goal to initiate a commercial and profitable franchise. "Wer" was an original concept in which the werewolf type didn't answer to the clichéd representations as in older movies. "Late Phases" is situated somewhere in between. On the one hand it's successful when it comes to the acting and the approach. But on the other hand it's a complete failure when it's about the appearance of a werewolf and also the total lack of tension. And that's exactly what I'm always looking forward to, when watching a werewolf movie.

Let me start of with the positive part of this would-be horror: the acting performance. Indeed singular because the whole film is dominated by Nick Damici as Ambrose McKinley, a blind Vietnam vet full of resentment and hatred against society. It's not explicitly said like that in this film, but the way he deals with people and hearing his biting, sarcastic tone says a lot. He has nothing good to say about his own son either. The only living beings he can deal with very well is his guide dog Shadow and a female neighbor whom he met when he moved into his little house at Crescent Bay, the last stop for the elderly. Now believe it or not, exactly these two fortunate are torn to pieces the first night that he's there. According to the local police they get such reports from Crescent Bay on a regular base (and what's even more weird it's once a month) and they assume these are wild dogs or something in that nature that attack the defenseless elderly. So, close doors and windows, stay inside and you definitely shouldn't go wandering in the dark. That's their advice. Our war veteran, who's obviously clever enough, immediately draws the correct conclusion and knows that it's obviously something else than some petty predators.



Nick Damici is amazing in his role as the gruff and grumpy blind antisocial veteran. And that's where the praising of this movie stops. The rest of the cast fails in every area. Most of them are just fake, one-dimensional characters. From the dressed up tea-party ladies who need to poke their noses into everything all the time to the son Will (Ethan Embry) and his wife who exhibit utter outrage about the rhetorical gift of Ambrose. Even the arrogant guard and tactless police officer aren't missing. The only one who gave some splendid counteraction towards Ambrose was the officiating Father Roger (Tom Noonan) who always listens to the tirades of Ambrose with an amused smile.

The fact that the main topic of the story (a werewolf) is revealed in a very early stage in the film, doesn't contribute to the building up of a certain tension. From there on it's just a guessing game of who's the person in the community who suffers from terrible hair growth when there's a full moon. And that leads us to the phenomenon of the werewolf. What a carnival show this was. A Halloween costume party is nothing compared to it. I liked the costumes from the Muppet Show a lot better. Especially when I saw these striking tufts on the ears, I totally got the giggles. And then a golden tip for future directors who try to produce a werewolf movie. If you can't even succeed in creating a transformation scene as terrific as in "An American Werewolf in London" (for me THE example of an excellent werewolf film), please let go of the idea and don't consider even on starting with it. Because that scene in "Late Phases" was terribly amateurish. Even the camera angle from above was recycled. Only there was nothing more to see than a bunch of hairs. Even the original scene with the steel lung couldn't make up for it.



Ultimately, it was (thanks to Damici's masterful performance) still an enjoyable movie (even though I found the discovery he made at the beginning a bit exaggerated and I had to chuckle a moment about the fact that despite his blindness, he still could aim miraculously well). There were also too many irritating ridiculous glitches (Here's another one. His son is worried about the amount of money his father is carrying around, but that one's intestines are scattered around a whole house and dear father has an arsenal of heavy guns in his house, turns out to be quite normal). Even the symbolic meaning of Will's action in the end, remains a mystery to me. I hope to see a more convincing werewolf next time, with such an appearance that I don't have the feeling that I'm observing a masked ball.

Seventh Son
2014
Sergey Bodrov

˝You've spells, boy. What kind?
Sometimes I...I see things. Things that haven't happened yet.
Could be useful. Not the passing out part of course, but the visions.˝


Take the cartoon "The Sword in the Stone", add in a few ingredients of "Willow" and use a diminutive small portion of "The Lord of the Rings" and you'll get "Seventh Son" as a result. The umpteenth adaptation of a series of youth books and again a contribution to the fantasy genre. Now, I'm a huge fan of fantasy. Start a movie in which knights, magicians, dragons, trolls, witches, gnomes and other mythological creatures are introduced and I will be completely absorbed in this fairytale world. Unfortunately, this film is a huge mishmash of multiple facets of previously released movies (which at first sight shouldn't be a problem) .The biggest problem is the storyline. What an incomprehensible tangle this is. Had the seventh son of the seventh son seen this in his visions , he would leave without notice to an unknown destination and never be in touch again.


It's certainly not the overly present CGI which is disappointing, although it doesn't look smooth all the time. It's mainly the interpretations that started to annoy, with frontrunner Jeff Bridges as Master Gregory. This mumbling pub visiting magician, better known as a Spook, is doing his utmost to come across as an unpleasant person. It seems like Bridges just copied his character from ˝R.I.P.D.˝. A mix between Catweazle and Gandalf but with a huge toothless lower jaw which ensures you can only hear an unintelligible stream of mumbled words coming from under his D'artagnan-like mustache. Besides a few witty and sarcastic quotes, you shouldn't expect any serious dialogues of this character. Ben Barnes interprets the lucky apprentice Tom Ward. A person without charisma who acts and looks quite dull and colorless. The only thing you can admire him for, is the fact that he worked his way up to savior of the world in a record time (the previous unfortunate was already 10 years an apprentice. He had to master it in 3 days. Respect!), because mankind is about to meet again with a gang of villains led by Mother Malkin. Julianne Moore attempts to depict Mother Malkin as a demonic witch who can transform effortlessly into an invincible flying dragon. However, it remains an attempt because she doesn't really look that frightening. As a person she looks to ordinary and her cleavage impressed me more at times than her acting performance. The fact that Bridges and Moore acted together in ˝The Big Lebowski˝ as The Dude and daughter of Jeffrey Lebowski, probably made for a lovely reunion.


But the biggest problem in ˝Seventh Son˝ was undoubtedly the total absence of any explanation. The seventh son of a seventh son has access to magical powers. I guess we have to take that for granted ? Gregory knew to outwit Mother Malkin one way or another in the past and saw a chance to lock her in a cave somewhere in a high mountain. He used a huge iron gate to close it completely. Apparently at that time Mother Malkin wasn't powerful enough to beat Master Gregory. That's quite obvious to me, since he was able to carry that huge fence together with her up the mountain. In the wake of Mother Malkin there was also an army of invincible figures. Probably they were at that moment astray I guess. And the term invincible is also something you should take with a grain of salt. They were eliminated without too much trouble. The multi-armed Shiva-like swordsman looks dangerously but disappears out of the picture in a ridiculous way. The course of the entire history is nowhere deepened and logical explanations remain off. Eventually you don't bother about the whole story anymore and continue to watch in a haze of total indifference with this recurring thought ˝Oh well, I guess it ought to be like this and it probably will be obvious to the savvy viewers. I'm obvious not part of that group.˝


The CGI looks stunning but occasionally it simply sucks. The dialogues are quite comical at times, but mostly they feel contrived and uninspired. The whole is extremely predictable and some developments are downright ridiculous. That the half-witch Alice (Alicia Vikander) seduces Tom with a single glance. Now that's what I call magic. Ingenious opening sentences and flirting techniques aren't necessary those days I guess. The release of this film was delayed by one year. That alone you can interpret as a bad omen. It's pretty unlikely that they are going to make a motion picture of the subsequent books. Well, I'm not eagerly looking forward to that.

American Heist
2014
Sarik Andreasyan

“It was always me and you against the world.”


Are you expecting a good movie after seeing who's playing the main roles, then I'll warn you already now : This is a woefully bad movie. Adrien Brody, Oscar winner for his brilliant performance in "The Pianist", and Christensen, who's undeniably a virtuoso in handling a lightsaber but exhibits a présence that can be surpassed without a problem by Chewbacca, aren't a guarantee for an enjoyable film. The movie poster on its own is an indication that it could be a faded B-movie. And despite the tattoos of those two guys and the use of a vocabulary after which an average rascal would turn pale, they nevertheless still look like two wimps.


The day Frankie (Adrien Boyd) gets released from prison, he returns to his brother James (Hayden Christensen), who now leads an ordinary life and works as a car mechanic. James and Frankie both have an extremely troubling past. Frankie just served 10 years of imprisonment. James tries to pick up the thread. He's getting closer to Emily (Jordana Brewster) and dreams of owning a garage. Frankie wants to persuade his younger brother to start a business involving real estates. Afterwards James comes to the conclusion that again he's involved in a suspicious affair where robbing a bank is the objective.


I'll briefly numerate the negative points of this pathetic end result. First of all the performances. As I mentioned earlier, the two protagonists aren't convincing. Only the moment Brody describes the miserable conditions in prison and defines a reasonable graphic image about the contacts he had with the other inmates (whereby a tube of toothpaste was a necessary tool in those circumstances), you saw briefly a glimpse of the capacities Brody possesses as an actor. Only this scene was a bit messed up by Christensen who doesn't exactly know how to react to this confession, and therefor just looks a little dazed. Incidentally, he uses that look constantly throughout the whole movie : that dazed look where it seems as if he could burst out into tears any moment. And even if the two tough looking brothers use expressions like "f*ck", "****", "Motherf*cker" and "Bro" in their conversations, they still are and remain two dorks.


Also the two would-be business partners Ray (Tory Kittles) and Sugar (Akon who's also a known hip-hop and R & B star) are ridiculous persons. They may have the attitude and looks that would classify them immediately as riff-raff. But when Ray starts to quote statements of Thomas Jefferson about how dangerous banks are (they are even more dangerous than the army) and that they're going to start a revolution, they turn into two clownish wannabe gangsters. Brad Pitt's rant at the end of "Killing Them Softly" was acceptable. That was clearly a socially critical message. And Dominic Purcell in "Assault on Wall Street" having a go at complete Wall Street, after losing everything that was dear to him, is also understandable. But Ray suddenly striking off a few political quotes is totally implausible. But then again, it fits here.


And then the story itself. This is put together so ridiculous and painfully bad, you need a painkiller afterwards because of your painful neck you got after shaking your head repeatedly. I still can't understand how on earth James could believe the real estate story Frankie told him. Even though there's an intense family bond, he'd better struck him with a crankshaft that was lying somewhere in the house. At least I would have done that. Especially if he's the main cause why James has to endure a bleak and difficult existence now. No, he still teams up with his brother and ends up in deep trouble again. The bank robbery was so amateurish and illogical. The intervention of the police was feeble-minded, to say the least. They are handling the bank robbery and seem to have it under control, but the exit at the side of the building, they've overlooked. Then a gunfight starts and you are wondering if there's even anybody who has any practical experience in handling a firearm. The final denouement is even more ridiculous.


If it was a low-budget film, I would forgive them. But if you look at the budget they've spent making this trifle, then you really wonder what it was used for. The wages of the two protagonists? The high-tech camera that was attached to an actor's chest to get a close-up of his face? Or was it an expensive soundtrack made by Akon ? God knows. Yet one last advice. You want to watch an entertaining movie about a bank robbery ? I suggest you watch "The Bank Job".

The Atticus Institute
2015
Chris Sparling

“We don't control this, it's not just us who will be at risk.
And if you do control it, then who will be at risk?”


You like to watch documentaries about the supernatural, alien sightings or other unexplained phenomena on "National Geographic", then you should see "The Atticus institute" since this is a documentary-style film about a scientific study in an institute led by Dr. Henry West. The research is focused on paranormal activities such as ESP and psychokinesis (using the power of the mind to cause the movement of matter at a distance). The film is described as a mockumentary found footage horror. It's certainly not based on true facts, but I wouldn't look at it as a parody or satire, because even though it looks like a documentary, it's reasonably successful. Fortunately, the found footage was reduced to the minimum, and the whole movie is a collage of interviews, eyewitness reports and video recordings (both fixed cameras that capture the experiment and in a limited extent some home recording).



You can compare it a bit with "The Quiet Ones". Only the latter is not really a documentary that's made of videotaping, but just an ordinary horror film. Both films are set in the 70's which can be clearly seen in the decoration and the overall appearance. Especially the VHS look is typical for that period. But both films excel especially in the total absence of tension or frightening scenes. Or it should be you are easily scared and shake like a leaf after witnessing a curving card, a tray opening suddenly or a chair sliding away by itself. Anyway, it looks less creepy than implied by the previous testimonies which they always show.



The eventual story isn't that original. Today you're overwhelmed with horror films with possession as a central theme. The starting point is an institution in Pennsylvania where Dr. West (William Mapother) and his team of researchers test certain persons to investigate and capture psychokinetic activity. Unfortunately they also get fraudsters between the study objects until Judith Winstead shows up (Rya Kihlstedt). At first sight it seems like an ordinary woman who probably needs some psychological counseling, but gradually they come to the conclusion that she has inexplicable powers. When the official authorities are called for help after they've noticed that the phenomenal forces aren't controllable, those authorities see an opportunity to use this to their advantage and they try to isolate the supernatural power that resides in Judith.



In addition to the total lack of tension, there's also the fact that the surprise effect is totally negated by the testimonies. One can already predict which direction it's going and what the outcome will be. Even the warning to the filmmakers and those who watch this film is a little bland. Isn't this already been used somewhere else ? Saying that by watching a video or movie, this will invite evil ? The moments we witness the demonic events, are quite sparse. But those sporadic moments are still thrilling in a certain way. I'm not really a fan of this type movies (I mean the documentary part) and yet I was fascinated by it. There wasn't a single moment that I felt the urge to turn off the film. Rya Kihlstedt doesn't look as if she is possessed and eventually she suffers more because of the human intervention than by the demonic force that has her in its grip. Don't expect a woman who's spitting green slime, swearing, screaming,spouting profane language all the time and staring with a devilish glance. But I thought that Kihlstedt was convincing enough and acted with the right look and feel : that of a desperate woman who's physically and psychologically tormented. The only weak point and still farfetched item was the final plan of the US government. But to know what their intentions were, you have go and see the film for yourself. Although this topic is widely used, Chris Sparling manages nevertheless to turn it into an original movie.

The Theory of Everything
2014
James Marsh

Jane : What are you ?
Stephen : I’m a cosmologist
Jane : What’s that ?
Stephen : It’s a kind of religion for intelligent atheists.


I must admit that I've seen this film a while ago. Probably the fact that Eddie Redmayne was nominated for an Oscar, prompted me to see if he was a worthy contender for the coveted golden statuette. And the only thing I can say is that he totally deserved to win with his magnificent performance. I love to watch a biographical movie now and then. The only drawback is that I'm always a little bit disappointed about the subject covered in such a biopic and that the emphasis lies on something I wasn't looking for. In "jOBS" I missed the philosophy this visionary had about the Apple phenomenon and the development of the applied interface (which is currently perfectly normal for everybody). The clash between Jobs and Gates was cited as a fait divers, whereas that interested me. Also in "The Theory of Everything" the focus was on other facets of Hawking's life. What applies to both these films is the fact that the protagonists physically look an awful lot like the corresponding character. It's creepy to see how they both manage not only to capture the emotional part, but also to match the characteristics and physical traits of these famous people. "The Imitation Game" is obviously also a biopic which, however, had a more adventurous twist rather than being a purely biographical sketch.


You must admit that the performance of Eddie Redmayne is simply magnificent. Both excerpts from the college years, where he's still healthy,lively and the way he finishes his studies in a nonchalant manner, as the portrayal of a genius who's struck by a muscle disease, are brilliant and striking. A series of events wonderfully visualized using a variety of intense colors at certain times. The university professor who looks surprised at the solutions scribbled on the back of a timetable (10 math assignments which are almost impossible to solve I suppose, of which Stephen could ONLY solve 9). A family dinner Jane was invited to and where you already can get a sense of the intellectual atmosphere. The contradictions between Jane and Stephen when it's about religion. Hawking who excludes everyone after hearing the terrible verdict and the determination of Jane. These fragments stayed with me and made it a fascinating film.


Which theories the brilliant mind of Hawking produced in that cripple body, isn't explained in detail. Here and there black holes, big bangs and the concept of time is mentioned, but eventually I was wondering what exactly Stephen Hawking's ultimate contribution was to mankind. What Jobs achieved you can discover in any computer shop. And from Turing we know that he has broken the Enigma code. But what abstract evidence Hawking delivered, wasn't clear to me. From one moment to the other he's a celebrity and a much sought-after guest speaker. That a woman who lives together with a paralyzed person can't really enjoy a thrilling,romantic life and that she's actually the person who's responsible for all practical matters in a marriage, is of course obvious. And that's the central theme of this biopic: a loving relationship slowly falling apart because of a fatal disease, the awareness of limitations and the danger to seek solace in someone else's arms. So it's mainly a biopic about the wife of Hawking, instead of about Hawking himself. An insight into the life of mathematical genius, who could explain the mystery of the origin of the universe by using his phenomenal intellectual brain, is thus transformed into an ordinary dime novel about an unhappy woman who feels abandoned by her ever loving husband. And that's something I wasn't waiting for.


Despite the romantic approach, I think it's an admirable film. The situation Hawking is facing during his life, ensured that other qualities came up : humor and willpower. These two qualities are subtly incorporated into this film. Even the choice Hawking made at an older age about his marriage, took me by surprise (actually it wasn't much I knew about the life of Hawking). Once again this proves that he sees himself as a normal functioning man. "The Theory of Everything" is a beautiful film that actually moved me and should serve as an example to show what one can achieve with the right attitude and a big portion of perseverance.

Clown
2014
Jon Watts


Perhaps you have nostalgic memories about attending a circus when you were young and you had fun while watching the clowns act. My advice. Don't watch "Clown" because these idyllic reveries won't be the same anymore. And also, were you scared of clowns and thought these were horrible impersonations, you definitely shouldn't watch. I guarantee you the phobia will grow out into clownish proportions. For me who has no emotional connection with clowns and enjoys a ghastly horror, it's mandatory to watch this movie. Just one thing worth knowing. If you're wondering which movie is shown in one particular trailer and the thought of plagiarism comes to mind, I can tell you that this is a fake trailer created by director Jon Watts. The moment Eli Roth saw this trailer, he couldn't restrain his enthusiasm and the only thing he wanted to do was to turn it into a feature film with himself as a producer. Although Kent looks rather ordinary as a clown in the initial stage, the final transformation ensures a grim and frightening character. He can join the club of creepy clowns like those in the movies "IT" (Stephen King) and "All Hallow's Eve" (A trashy tale, but with an ultra-scary clown as main character). I am convinced that there exist other horror movies with a creepy clown in the lead.


The trouble starts when Kent (Andy Powers), a real estate agent, is forced to replace the clown who was booked to perform at the birthday party of his son Jack (Christian Distefano) and whose schedule got mixed up a bit. Luckily he discovers a complete clown outfit in the house of a client, in a chest that is chained to the wall (what a coincidence). Kent appears at home dressed as the clown Dummo and ensures a spectacular birthday party for his son. The next morning, however, he comes to the conclusion that he can't take off the costume: it seems to be merged with his own human skin, the wig is suddenly his natural hair and he can't get rid of the clowns nose despite all efforts. Ultimately he discovers that the costume is made off the skin of an evil demon, called "The Cloyne". Kent gradually transforms into a bloodthirsty Killer Clown with an insatiable appetite.


The initial idea isn't so bad, but the final result is a bit too soft in my opinion. But rest assured, there are plenty of "suggestive" thrilling moments and gore scenes, but it's never straight-in-your-face horror violence what you'll get to see. And yet I enjoyed watching this film (despite the linear storyline with a predictable ending). There are some funny moments, like the clumsy way Kent tries to get rid of the suit and the sublime decapitation mechanism Kent designs, which provides a very different outcome. There are also some subtle fine details elaborated, showing that the makers have looked further than their (red?) nose. Just as Derek in "Afflicted", Kent is unable to take his own life. The only thing that was added to this fact was the confetti. Quite funny and a proof that creativity was indeed present.


There are some gruesome scenes (for experienced horror fanatics still a bit soft) and the atmosphere is sometimes really unnerving. The part that takes place in the indoor playground was extremely thrilling and creepy. You can be sure that you'll be looking at a ball pool in a different way from now on. For me this was the most magnificent moment of the entire movie with claustrophobic images in a labyrinth of corridors, shown in an explosion of colors. But as mentioned before, the central theme around which everything revolves, isn't explicitly portrayed. If you want to promote a creepy and gruesome horror movie, you have to have the guts to handle this in the whole story. Now the most gruesome scenes are handled off-screen and your imagination has to provide the missing images. The inner struggle that Kent should engage with the demon, who tries to change his personality, takes up a large portion of the film. Perfectly outlined but maybe it was still a tad overemphasised. Most horror fans will say that the transformation unfolds way to slow and that they rather saw Kent appearing as a bloodthirsty killer clown much sooner.


In terms of performances, there is no one who excels or disappoints. Andy Powers (unknown to me) manages to show the creepy clown in a convincing manner and with its various facets : entertaining, sad and desperate, resisting, fighting and finally sneaking around as a maniacal killer, looking for victims to satisfy his hunger. Laura Allen plays the desperate wife Meg who (obviously) must face the ultimate confrontation with her "transformed into a not so cheerful clown" husband. Christian Distefano evolves from a clown lover to a frightened little boy who eventually throws his plush clown in the bin. Who wouldn't ? The most amusing supporting role is played by Peter Stormare as the pretty disturbed Karlsson. The Swede Stormare is such an actor who takes care of small roles in many films (The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Armageddon, Bad Boys II, Get the Gringo, The Last Stand, Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters ...). His contribution in this film is of greater importance.


"Clown" has its good sides and lesser sides. Unfortunately, there won't be much publicity about this film and most likely you'll only see it on DVD. The idea and the development of the theme about the clown is rather successful, but the final result is still just an average movie. I have enjoyed myself while watching it, but I'll still go to a circus without any worries or fear. And I'm surely not going to run away in a panic when the clown act begins.

Spring
2014
Justin Benson, Aaron Moorhead
"I’m half undiscovered science, a bunch of confusing biochemistry and some crazy hormones."


"Spring" isn't really a horror film. It's a rather mythological love story with a "not so bad" twist. A story about how true love can overcome obstacles and how that makes you choose irreversible options. And this interspersed with sometimes lurid and bizarre scenes. There are several moments in this film, which also proceeds painfully slow (the only flaw I could think of), where you are wondering what the hell is actually going on. And when everything is explained in detail, you frown and instantly you think "What the f * ck was that ?". I admit that the whole metabolic explanation went over my head the first time, but after a while it became really clear and I realized it was dead simple. Ultimately it was a film that took me by surprise, despite its long playing time, and unexpectedly continued to fascinate me.


The beginning of this remarkable film is I could say brilliant. A scarce setting. Young Evan (Lou Taylor Pucci) at the bedside of his dying mother. A joke. A blank stare. A final sigh and then ... finito. The day of the funeral ends with an out of control bar fight. To avoid problems with the local police, Evan decides out-of-the-blue to book a plane ticket and travels to distant Italy. Once there, he ends up in the company of two British loudmouths whose main interests are : pouring as much as possible alcohol in their throat, using gore language and constantly trying to seduce an Italian girl. The day they scram and leave Evan behind, he's determined to get acquainted with the beautiful Louise (Nadia Hilker) with whom he briefly made eye contact, somewhere at a village square. He offers his services at some farm in order to pay for his stay and slowly the two grow closer together. What emerges is a not so obvious relationship. The mysterious and impulsive Louise isn't exactly making it easy for Evan and soon the viewer is fully aware that she's hiding a terrible secret.


What is it that makes this film so unique? Several things as I look at it afterwards. The casual and spontaneous way these two people interact, converse and let love flourish between each other. Not with contrived and forced dialogues. It seemed as if their love game unfolds naturally before your eyes and you witness how two charismatic individuals whirl around each other in a flirting way. You wouldn't say that Evan has charisma. He looks more like a meaningless, unqualified,miserable fellow who has no specific goal in his life and also has a limited wardrobe. Yet he came across as profound and intellectual during philosophical conversations with Louise. And certainly the speed at which he could grasp the whole explanation, proves there's a sparkle of some intelligence. Conversely Louise is a chunk of charisma. A mysterious character who Evan can't get hold of and whose reasoning and reactions raises questions. The reason why she is confusing at times and stands aloof, becomes clearer as soon as the terrible secret is revealed. Superb performances without a doubt.


Also cinematically it's a bit different. The camera movements and positions are sometimes surprising. The bird's-eye view sometimes delivers beautiful images such as the boat trip. These splendor images are regularly interrupted by short shots of all kinds of flora and fauna. Bizarre and sometimes incomprehensible. But all this is ultimately connected with the big secret. The most successful scene is when Louise explains the whole mystery to Evan. Although she doesn't want to explain it initially, she changes her mind and she does it while Evan is on its way through the narrow streets of the Italian village. And while stumbling over the cobbles he listens to the eerie tale. I would have preferred that she'd tell this complicated story calmly at a table because the pivoting camera and flashy long sequence demanded all my attention. And this ensured that the final message didn't directly hit me and sounded pretty hazy. The horror clips are scarce, sometimes unclear and sometimes with pretty ugly CGI. Is this done deliberately? Were the resources limited? I have no idea. But ultimately it all fits perfectly with the rest.


Maybe there's a moment when you're wondering where exactly the romance is hiding ? Maybe you dropped off because it's pretty surreal and it all looks strange. And yet you should do the effort to sit through the movie, because the final denouement is pure romance. This is the epitome of true love. Maybe I raved about this film, but I've never seen the concepts life, love, death,pregnancy and rebirth flow into each other in such a subtle way. A simplistic love story with a quirky twist which eventually ends in a way you hoped it would end. A beautiful, unique film that briefly will resonate to some.

I can understand why you started giggling when you saw the tufts on the ears of the werewolf. They look ridiculous in that picture.

Late Phases sounds like something I might take a look at, though. Werewolf films are, with sadly few exceptions, usually pretty awful.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Chappie
2015
Neil Blomkamp

What do you mean, "reprogram him"?
Don’t play dumb! You know exactly what we mean.
Turn that robot into the illest gangsta on the block.


The number of robots used in a science fiction is uncountable. Some of them can easily be classified under the label "A sad, technical case". R2D2 in "Star Wars" was a pathetic robot most of the time. Twiki from "Buck Rogers" was a helpless phenomenon. David from "AI" was a terribly sad cyborg with the sole desire to become a real boy. Even Ava in "Ex Machina" was a sad piece of electronics searching for freedom. But "Chappie" (so called because allegedly he was "a happy chappie") easily beats them all when it comes to pettiness. I almost fell sorry for him. For the first time the gloomy existence of a robot was displayed. Doom and gloom all over the place. Chappie the outcast who began his career as an intervention robot to protect the civilian population against the ever rising crime, and whose final destination became the scrap heap after another impact of an explosive. And he ends up as a helpless artificially intelligent robot in the midst of a group of gangsters who start educating this childlike electronic device to become a gangsta. Just so he can help out in repaying a debt.


The last year there were quite some movies about artificial intelligence and the emergence of a consciousness in mechanical and electronic creations. "The Machine", "Automata" and "Ex Machina" are recent films using this main theme. The ability to transfer one's consciousness to a storage medium or an operating system such as in "Transcendence" is the other part which is subject to speculation. That's the leitmotiv throughout this cyberpunk story of Neill Blomkamp, the creative director from South Africa who tried to convey a socially critical message in "Elysium". Personally, I thought "Elysium" was a pretty good movie (I haven't seen "District 9" though). To quote myself : "A first-rate SF with extremely titillating images with a social message and mixed with a touching theme that calls for a happy ending. ". Obviously I was looking forward to "Chappie".


Visually it looks pretty decent. "Chappie" itself is one elaborated robot. Just look at the eyes formed by small pixel-like animations on two screens. A kind of extended "Short Circuit" robot, but without caterpillar tracks. No human appearance, but ultimately there are some kind of human feelings inside that metal body. Unfortunately, the similarity to the story of "Robocop" is a little bit too obvious. The rivalry between Deon (Dev "Slumdog Millionaire" Patel) and Vincent Moore (Hugh Jackman) was also used in Verhoeven's film. Deon is the designer of the successful robots like Chappie. And Vincent is trying (in a somewhat violent way) to impose his design called "Moose", a machine controlled by a human operator. The similarities between the "Moose" and the ED-209 are striking. The inevitable clash is more realistic, looks flashier and more action-packed than in "Robocop", which is again a plus.


There's one thing that leaves a lot to be desired. The interpretations. Dev Patel was an excellent choice for the naive, nerdy Deon. But Jackman looked more like a Michael Dundee, with his khaki shorts, participating in an "Indiana Jones" movie. The only thing missing was a fat cigar in his mouth. Him being the developer of such a sophisticated technology, seemed utterly impossible. Sigourney Weaver also played a meaningless small role as Michelle Bradley, the hard-hitting CEO of Tetra Vaal, who I'm sure has an impeccable career path, but still sweeps aside Deon's proposal to install an update so the existing robots could grow a consciousness. As CEO, I would at least form a workgroup to research that proposal. And then we have the gang of criminals. Probably I'll sound old fashioned now, but I'd never heard of the South African rap group "Die Antwoord". They are probably excellent when it's about rapping. The acting part though was something else. But despite their lack of experience and the amateurish look, they did a fine job as educators for Chappie and as low-skilled rabble that pushes the poor robot on the wrong track.


In hindsight this was an entertaining film where action and brutal violence was mixed with touching and even humorous passages. Although the latter actually is pure laughing at "Chappie". Aside from "Chappie" being composed of electronic and mechanical components, the reactions and the course of action still looks human. A pathetic robot in the hands of a few half-idiots whose own education failed. And despite the deep philosophical approach and serious themes, this film was not a boring affair full of intricate digressions. A trashy cyber spectacle with flashy action, a comfortable pace and fine SE's which make Chappie's look lifelike and after a while you actually forget you're watching at a computer animation.

Exodus : Gods and Kings
2014
Ridley Scott

“Follow me and you will be free. Stay and you will perish.”


I have a feeling that the Catholic Church has done quite a bit of lobbying in Hollywood, after noticing that their fanbase started to dwindle. First there was the biblical story "Noah" with the famous boat builder who started constructing a huge ark, insisted by "The guy upstairs", just so he and his family could withstand the announced tidal wave together with a pair of every animal species. And now they even convinced Ridley Scott to make a film of the incomparable epic story of Moses who guided his people through the desert to absolute freedom (It's clear he hasn't pointed out the right place, because they still haven't found the right spot). Ultimately, this film won't convert me (it didn't appeal to me either), but I did expect great things from this pimped version of "The ten commandments" from 1956. In the end it was just a boring spectacle in which the whole bag of CGI tricks, special effects and contemporary modern camera technology was opened, to ensure a stunning visual show. I couldn't find any added value compared with the original film from 1956. Indeed, it was dead boring and disappointing with some non-impressive performances in comparison with those from "The Ten Commandments".


Writing a spoiler-free review for a film like "Exodus" isn't really difficult, because most of us know the initial story. In contrast to the story in the Bible with everything miraculous, wondrous and divine described, this film looks at it from a scientific perspective. There's a meaningful explanation for every Egyptian plague. Even the highlight with the Red Sea didn't look as if the hand of God was in play. As Scott announced it himself, the intention was to give all miracles a scientific twist. Similarly, the big trick with the Red Sea. A giant tsunami caused a drawback of the Red Sea. As a realist, I can live with this, and it's a more plausible explanation for the course of events. As an avid movie lover, this was a rather disappointing choice. In my honest opinion this ruined the magic of the movie. To be honest, my high expectations about this scene made sure I persisted in looking further to this rather miserable-long film. I was expecting an impressive fragment (compared to that of the film of 1956) but was treated to an empty, muddy seabed (and judging by the immense noise of the flying birds, it was swarming with air gasping fish) which got flooded again by huge tidal waves. So it wasn't an impressive moment with a sea opening itself. Waiting impatiently for this moment was just a waste of effort.


The performances by Christian Bale (Moses) and Joel Edgerton (Ramses) were sometimes flatly embarrassing and totally unconvincing. Bale really wasn't believable as the famous Moses. As would-be Egyptian, he looked youthful and virile in the beginning. As Moses, he also looked like a virile person, but with a fake beard. Also, he wasn't confident and he even dared to accuse God of going too far. Compare him with Charlton Heston. Now THAT was a real Moses : his stature, the impressive beard, that appearance and he was a perfect example what leadership is all about. Also Edgerton as the cruel ruler Ramses looked downright ridiculous. The moment he lays aside his dangerous sword, being part of "The Village People" wouldn't be out of place with the thick applied mascara and his shiny bald head. Remember Yul Brynner ! Yes, he looked like a dangerous and cruel Egyptian pharaoh. For the supporting roles they recruited some big names like Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley, Aaron Paul and John Turturro. Obviously neither cost nor effort was spared and this served merely to give the whole spectacle a Hollywood status. The only one who didn't disappoint me was Kingsley, although there is a little wear on the routine of facial expressions by him.


Is there anything positive to report ? Yes of course. Visually it is a feast for the eyes: the whole decor, the costumes, Memphis and the surrounding slums were impressive on screen, the monuments and the ongoing labor, the mandatory large-scale battle scenes (I got that "The Lords of the ring" feeling again), the Egyptian plagues look slick and some images are real gems. The subtle interpretations of the biblical story, were surprising. Firstly, He-who-always-talks-with-a-reverberating-voice is represented by an irritating young boy who speaks with a British accent (Not an uninspired burning bush). He's a real brat who gets terribly worked up when his demands aren't met. I'm not a religious type and certainly no expert when it comes to the content of the Bible, but I'm pretty sure that while His Holiness let the 10 plagues rage over Egypt, he still was working on the 10 Commandments, because the rule "Thou shalt not kill" and the concept of "to love thy neighbour" wasn't applied here. The term "turn the other cheek" apparently wasn't customary either. He rather used the slogan "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" I guess. But that's a subject for a theological debate. Furthermore, I think it's wonderful that Moses had to chisel the 10 commandments into the stone tablets himself, instead of "The Big Chief" using some lightning.


Yet I ask myself why Ridley Scott, still one of my favorite directors who produced a series of superb films (Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Hannibal, Black Hawk Down, Matchstick Men, Prometheus) at the age of 77 years has choosen this project. Maybe he wanted to come to terms with God! Conclusion: a visually successful film but substantively it's as empty as the desert during a hot summer. The only thing they need to make is a soft erotic drama about Sodom and Gomorrah, a thriller about the fate of Lot and an adventurous movie about Samson and Delilah, and I think they would have covered the most thrilling parts of the Bible.

PS. It's certainly not my intention to offend those who believe. Who am I to judge if believing is a good or a bad thing. That would make me God, God forbid. But let me quote Ridley : "Religion is the source of all evil. Everyone is tearing each other apart in the name of their personal God". Ultimately, this film will cause a fuss among the devout audience. For me it was simply a simple story.

VANish
2015
Bryan Bockbrader

“Max, hide the beers.
I mean, who gives a ****, man. The whole ****ing van smells like pot and alcohol.”

Seeing the title of this movie, it inevitably made me think of the legendary polish product, used to remove stains. I must admit that as the film progresses, and especially during the rough and gore climax in the end, they sure could use a ******** of this product to remove the resulting stains (blood stains that is). Eventually, the initial meaning of the movie title will be a reference to the fact that the entire film almost solely takes place in a van. "VANish" surely can be considered as a low-budget film that was made in an unreal short period. In 13 days they've made the whole thing and in a way you'll notice that.


Despite the low budget, the film still looks surprisingly fresh and professional. In terms of images anyway. The sultry and hot desert environment where everything happens, shimmers of the screen. Everything is soaked in warm colors. And although it's a simple story that was filmed in a driven way, there are some shortcomings in it. I'm a fan of low-budget movies. And after watching all these million dollar blockbusters, it's sometimes a relief to see a minimalist creation. It's the purity of such movies that intrigue me and not the dizzying special effects or the exuberant paid movie stars who appear in it. That this film won't be nominated for an Oscar is obvious of course, but usually there is still a revelation to discover in such a creative product. In "VANish" this is without a doubt the actress Maiara Walsh who plays brilliantly the part of Emma: a brave young lady who, even though she finds herself in a dire situation, continues to provoke and belittle the three kidnappers. A funny rendition that guarantees hilarious conversations now and then.


Another highlight is the brief appearance of Tony Todd, who I'll always remember as the imposing and frightening "Candyman" from the eponymous movie. A central interlude so absurd that it made me think of "Pulp Fiction" and the character of Todd as intimidating as ludicrous. I'm sure Tarantino could appreciate this fragment. Besides that, I think you can compare "VANish" with "From Dusk Till Dawn" (except that the latter with regard to the finishing touch and elaboration surely is from a different level). At first glance you might think that this is yet another Danny Trejo one-man-show. Are you a hardcore Trejo fan, then you'll be deeply disappointed, because he appears only for a few minutes (which I didn't regret). He might be a crucial part of Jack's (Austin Abke) established plan, but the final emphasis is on the interaction between the four protagonists and the hidden agenda of Jack.


The biggest disappointment was the denouement. In line with the slasher films of the 90s, this film ends in a huge bloodbath and the shown violence reaches excessive proportions. But ultimately, these violent scenes aren't really innovative and they look just as old as those of the good old days. Nevertheless you would expect them to be more realistic and credible with today's technology. It seemed as if the staff used buckets of fake blood on the set. Also, the three kidnappers Jack, Max and Shane were at one time really irritating. Admittedly, Shane (Adam Guthrie) and Max (Bryan Bock Brader, Director) weren't really sane (drugs, alcohol and PTSD are most likely the cause of this), but gradually they became more and more schizophrenic and hallucinatory insane. In contrast, Jack is an example of self-control. That's why a visit to his pissed girlfriend, who broke up with him for unknown reasons, during the abduction is plain normal (for me this was a bit exaggerated).


Perhaps the biggest plus of this film is the simplicity of the story: two perfectly normal looking weirdos (a kind of "Dumb and Dumber"-types) abduct the daughter of a drug baron for ransom, the trip to the meeting is fairly chaotic, one of the kidnappers seems to have a different motivation, the denouement turns out to be quite bloody. And that's perhaps the downside of the film. A too simplistic story. Perhaps they should have extended that period of 13 days a little, to embellish the story a bit and improve the gore, bloody scenes. The movie isn't that bad, but maybe they rushed it a bit as if all hell would fall on them.

We Still kill the Old Way
2014
Sacha Bennett

“They are nasty little piglets. And I really like to hear them squealing before the end.”

When I looked at the cover of this film for the first time, an old-fashioned-looking layout with two evenly sized areas where some veterans are shown above a group of fearless teenagers, I was expecting some kind of third-rate B-movie that you can buy after a while for a bargain price in your local supermarket or which you can get with two big packs of paprika chips in a promotional package with the slogan "eat-some-crispy chips-with-this-bite-sized-movie". In hindsight, I thought this movie didn't deserve that cheap status. It's a reasonably entertaining movie about contemporary youth who have more respect for their iPhone than for a war veteran's hard-earned medals, who are harshly dealt with by some old gangster veterans. The sometimes rather brutal scenes go hand in hand with subtle humor, which I found a wonderful cocktail.


Don't expect an intricate storyline with thoughtful subplots, but a straightforward crime story with respect, loyalty and correctness (if you can call it that way) diametrically opposed to debauchery and vandalism. A kind of "Expendables" which are spring cleaning a suburb in London (East End) because the brother of Richie Archer (Ian Ogilvy) terminates a gang rape in some alley and is being killed by Aaron (Danny-Boy Hatchard), the leader of the gang of those young punks. After the news is being told by an old friend from the neighborhood, he flies over from Spain to take revenge, with the help of some companions from the past.


It's again a crime movie in which the familiar clichés aren't shunned. The youngsters are depicted as stupid nobodies who can't say two sentences without overloading them with swear words and whose situation obviously is the result of a bunch of hopeless social circumstances. Police and investigators are again ignorant and so terribly stupid that their research doesn't progress a bit. The most outstanding example is superintendent Susan Taylor (Alison Doody). I am categorically convinced that her cup size surpasses her IQ score without any problems. A police detective who doesn't even know that her daughter is involved with the leader of the gang. And finally the retired ex-gangsters are presented as saviors of the past. Three times they are portrayed as the local scouts members who ensured the disappearance of scum of the street so everyone could walk at ease on the streets during the night. After seeing some scenes I'm sure they weren't members of the "Vienna Boys Choir" in their time.


But it was the cast that charmed me the most. Especially Ian Ogilvy sparkled on the silver screen. A sort of Roger Moore with a grayish beard who speaks all the time with a kind of Sean Connery accent. A quiet man who oozes authority. A superb acting performance by someone who surely has a legendary list of performances and participations in all kinds of television series. The three companions fit perfectly in that picture: three ruthless, tough elderly who flinch for nothing (but apparently after some efforts suffer from some physical ailments). Those four blood brothers dressed identically and looked like a senior version of "Reservoir Dogs" to me. The torture scene I thought was the highlight of the film: sadism mixed with cynical, sarcastic humor (the metaphor of the modern drill compared to the old-fashioned hand drill was obvious) .I chuckled and gloated at the same time. The youngsters weren't bad either, although it sometimes seemed as if they wanted to copy the American slums. Danny-Boy Hatchard is great as riotous Aaron who doesn't care about anybody and seems fearless, but on second thoughts he's more of a coward who rather sends out his followers instead of a direct confrontation. His way of acting is sometimes exaggerated, especially the language irritated me after a while.


"We still kill the old way" has its charms and its shortcomings. The ending is a bit abrupt and sometimes quite naive performed. Some movie sequences look artificial like the dialogue between Richie and Susan in the pub. But overall in my opinion this was a successful British film and I wouldn't have a problem if they brought up the old guard again to implement the idea suggested by Richie at the end.

Focus
2015
Glenn Ficcara,Rodrigo Santoro

"When you have their attention, you can take whatever you want. You have to be safe."


"Focus" is a romantic crime movie in which the art of pickpocketing, manipulating and swindling is the point of focus (how appropriate). The end result isn't memorable cinema, but a typical popcorn movie with a scam duo fluttering around each other as lovestruck butterflies, playing a masterful game of seduction. Or is it also a con game? The whole film is a succession of ingenious orchestrated scams and ruses. Unfortunately, the ultimate scam is explained in detail very early in the film, so you can predict which direction its heading. Although, it's as entertaining as "Ocean's Eleven", filled with illusions as in "Now You See Me" and with a romantic storyline squirming itself through it.


It all starts in a restaurant in New York where Jess (Margot Robbie) tries to get rid of an annoying date by using Nicky (Will Smith) as a way out. What she doesn't realize is that Nicky is an experienced swindler who knows all the tricks of the trade and who recognized the subsequent attempt to defraud him immediately. Jess manages to become an apprentice of Nicky. Afterwards, they end up in New Orleans, the place to be at that time to steal as much generously stuffed wallets and other trinkets. Only Jess realizes too late that the personal world of Nicky is all about telling lies and cheating. And also that there's no place for romance in this life full of trickery. And certainly not, as his father taught him, with someone from the same milieu.

After the appalling movie "After Earth", Will Smith is back to give shape to this crook (a kind of mature version of The Fresh Prince). Luckily he hasn't invited one of his offspring to participate in this stylish film with enchanting interiors, glitzy hotels, luxury clothes and haute-cuisine scenes (before you know it Jaden could appear in it, while wearing a skirt). And he's accompanied by the breathtaking and tantalizing Margot Robbie, who previously showed her sensuality in "The Wolf of Wall Street". And this also happens to be a brilliant film with conning people as main topic. Besides being amazingly beautiful, this Australian actress can act too. Next to these two main actors, there were some who seemed familiar to me, but I couldn't place them immediately. Except BD Wong, who recently played the chief geneticist Henry Wu in "Jurassic World". He's the eccentric Chinese gambler Liyuan.


And Liyuan was also the key figure in the most (in my opinion) fascinating scene of this film. The Asian gambler who'll bet on anything. The crazier, the better apparently. This crucial scene shows what Nicky is capable of. How he manipulates his victims and indoctrinates them in a psychological way. As he recites somewhere in the movie : "You have to get inside the head of your victim.". But at the same time this also shows the weaker portion of the film. At a certain moment this film becomes highly confusing and it's getting more difficult to discern the difference between truth and deception. The first part is better than expected and sometimes brilliantly portrayed. For example the part where Nicky and his gang hit the streets of New Orleans and demonstrate their palette of pickpockets techniques. The second part looks nice when it's about scenery (which is really beautiful) but lacks passion. Hopefully there aren't any individuals who are going to bring, what is shown here, into practice on a large scale !

Whiplash
2014
Damien Chazelle

“The truth is, Andrew
I never really had a Charlie Parker.
But I tried.
I actually ****ing tried.”


"Whiplash". You could think that this film tells the story of a drummer (the movie poster is a bit of a spoiler when it comes to this) who has suffered this injury by violently playing his instrument. Or he lost control of his car while drumming rhythmically on the steering wheel and crashed into the car driving in front of him. You could link the movie title to these assumptions, because the arrangements that Andrew (Miles Teller) has to play in this masterful and highly rhythmic film may result in a neck injury. And when it comes to losing that control ... well ... then you should go and watch the movie to find out yourself. Anyway, the film title refers to a song written by the American jazz composer Hank Levy. The central theme of the film is about the influence you can have on someone and drive that person to exceed certain inhuman limits of his own ability. Now, for me you're already a top musician when you know the complete arrangement of "Whiplash" and "Caravan" (written by Duke Ellington) by heart. Even if there's a little mistake here and there or you are little bit offbeat, eventually I will have a boundless admiration for the musician after completing such a superhuman performance.



I've never had such a desire to pull someone through the screen and then smack a huge cymbal against his face as now with the presumably extremely talented music teacher Fletcher, brilliantly played by JK Simmons. A man who lives for his music and has a huge passion for it. It's a bit exaggerated that passion though. Exaggerated to such extent that it exceeds the limit of human dignity and by his passion for creating a perfect musician, his way of teaching tends to be sadomasochistic. A kind of militaristic attitude towards his traumatized and frightened students who are wary of any unexpected outburst. A disrespectful howler, suitable as "drill sergeant" in the US Army, and first-class bully, who suddenly swings around music stands, slaps his students in the face and throws out a member of his orchestra, just because he plays a bit out of tune . Afterwards, the accused doesn't appear to be the culprit, but he's just thrown out of the classroom because he didn't know he wasn't the one playing out of tune. A worse stain on the reputation of a professional musician, according to Fletcher.


That's also what Andrew, an ordinary American teenager who studies at the Shaffer conservatory and whose only envisioned aim is to be the best jazz drummer ever, undergoes. The moment he's being asked to join Fletcher's school orchestra, which only consists of a select group of musicians, it becomes the best day of his life. His confidence gets such a boost that he even overcomes his shyness and dares to ask a girl, who works at the cinema, on a date. That it's subsequently leading to a veritable psychological warfare, goes beyond his wildest dream. Gradually the terror policy of Fletcher drives him to the utmost to meet Fletcher's expectations. Even his relationship with Nicole (Melissa Benoist) is terminated abruptly by him. The love for music is displaced by a bloody battle for a wanted spot in the orchestra. The obsessional takes the upper hand, tending towards self-destruction.


I'm not exactly an expert myself when it's about jazz. And I've read reviews where it's suggested that the essence of jazz is completely misrepresented here : "The idea about jazz in this movie is brought in a grotesque way and looks like a ridiculous caricature". The whole history about Charlie Parker and the anecdote Fletcher tells everytime, apparently isn't exactly true at all. Could be, but for me the jazz section wasn't of essence in the story. It's the emotional and physical brutality that Fletcher uses to bring students to a higher level. In this way Fletcher tries to create "HIS Charlie Parker". The whole movie does follow the rhythm of the used music: uplifting, rhythmic and intense. Only the end was predictable and presented us of course the well known rule that the oppressed kicks the oppressor's ass again. Actually I hoped Andrew would put his drumsticks there where the sun doesn't shine at Fletcher.


The performances of Teller and Simmons are obviously extremely stunning. It took me a while before I realized that I've seen Teller in "That awkward moment". A movie I wanted to forget about as soon as possible. Here, however, I thought he was brilliant. And apparently he's an avid drummer and he did all the drumming himself. Hats off and respect ! But the most brilliant achievement was undoubtedly that of Simmons. What a great character sketch with lots of charisma. A character that scares you. Someone you start to hate thoroughly after a while. But in the end I understood a bit what drove him to this behavior. He won an Oscar for this role and in my opinion well deserved. An energetic musical thriller, with a fairly predictable outcome and which is so extremely rhythmic you can't sit still. Highly recommended!

October Gale
2014
Ruba Nadda

“Helen, if you let him in, we are both dead.”

What do I remember of "October Gale" after watching it ? Strange but true, the soundtrack eventually made the biggest impression on me. Melancholic piano music wonderfully fitting the state of mind of Helen Matthews (Patricia Clarkson) . The entire film is carried by the compositions of Mischa Chillak. And especially the beautiful and fragile number "Close Watch" of Agnes Obel playing at the beginning of the film, while Helen navigates her boat over the huge lake to civilization, was perfect at that moment in the film. The modest and understated performances by Clarkson and Speedman (William) were outstanding. And afterwards I also had the desire to travel to such a remote island where you can stay undisturbed. But these are ultimately the only positive things I can think of. It's a fairly empty and uninspired film. "October Gale" described as a thriller, with a touch of drama and romance in it. But ultimately it's only a brief sketch about Helen's process of handling the loss of her husband, with varying emotions coming up. There was a brief moment of romance in the present and a lot of it in the flashbacks. And to label it as a thriller, they really should have come up with a bit more tension since that section was extremely limited.


Helen Matthew, apparently a doctor, goes to an island in Ontario where she and her late husband James (Callum Keith Rennie) used to spend their weekends and holidays in a weekend cottage that has been already 100 years in possession of James' family. Apparently, the only purpose of this trip is to finally clean up that cabin and come clean with the past. An entire cleaning operation so to say. This is accompanied by painful memories and tangible confrontation with the past. When it's all a bit to much to her, she decides to go and buy a new fuse. After some delay she returns to the island, while a powerful storm arises. In the course of the evening she finds the wounded young man William (Scott Speedman) with a gunshot wound in his shoulders and who gives, after being taken care of, a vague explanation about what happened to him.


A simple story which is shown on the big screen in a simple way. At first I thought it was intriguing and fascinating. I was waiting for how the story would develop. But in the end I realized I was still waiting for it. By the time the denouement with the ultimate confrontation came, it was finished before I knew it. If you think this movie will end with a bang, I can already tell you that the curtain will fall with two modest bangs. There were also some dubious facts that made me frown my forehead. Most of these seemed to be rather far-fetched, and some weren't very logical

The fact she couldn't connect with her cell phone, while this really wasn't a problem in the beginning, made clear that communication waves in these parts of the country aren't really weatherproof and are blown to all directions at the slightest storm. It was also totally incomprehensible to me where those emotions between the two protagonists suddenly came from. There was no apparent reason for that. Perhaps the intimacy during the operation and the additional care, created the charged atmosphere and ensured the chemical reaction between Helen and William. And apparently it's custom in those parts that after getting punched in the face, you'll make some coffee for the attacker. But the most annoying thing was the fact that the whole affair about William wasn't explained. Eventually I wanted to know what had happened and what caused it.


"October Gale" feels like an admirable attempt. But this attempt to make something of it, fails unfortunately and results in a calmly developing film with a mix of emotions. The melancholy and letting go of the past, the absence of affection and the moment someone can feel it back again and the ultimate suspense with vengeance as a central motif. The performances weren't the problem. Especially Clarkson provided a serene and wonderful performance, despite the limited script. Even Speedman sparkled at times, but I guess he was necessary to attract a female audience. The only one who was pretty disappointing (his limited role probably had something to do with it), was Roth. He acted as if he had just flown over briefly to finish the job.
Conclusion: Cinematographic sometimes a joy to look at, but the content missed a little panache and passion.

Nice to see someone else appreciate Spring. I was under the impressions it was going to be a horror, which it definitely wasn't, but ended up quite liking it regardless.

I added Vanish to my watchlist; it looks like something I'd enjoy. Keep up the good work!

There's plenty to add here

To be honest, this one took me by surprise. I wasn't expecting much from it, but it stunned me in a way !