Vampires, Assassins, and Romantic Angst by the Seaside: Takoma Reviews

I have not seen The Yellow Submarine in ages. I was probably a teen the last time I saw it. There was a cartoon tv show that I believe was based on this movie. I never saw that. I was a very big Beatles fan in my youth and saved up to purchase their records. My parents already had a couple albums, so I could get my fix without an initial investment of my allowance.

The Redeemed and the Dominant: Fittest on Earth, 2016

This documentary follows the efforts, triumphs, and tragedies of the competitors at the 2015 CrossFit Games.

It’s . . . a movie about CrossFit.

While I love weightlifting and, for lack of a better word, fun-stupid workouts, I’ve never been all that drawn to CrossFit. And yet, once every year or two, I find myself watching these documentaries about the CrossFit Games.

It’s not really a mystery to me why I end up watching these films. Give me a competition, any competition, and I will pick someone who seems nice---or, lacking that judgment, someone with the snazziest uniform--and root for them with a passion. And while I find some of the athletes and administrators a bit goofy, there are some people that I do enjoy listening to and who seem to have a good perspective on what they’re doing.

The women’s side of the competition is always more interesting to watch, because the men’s competition is perpetually dominated by Mat Fraser to the point that there is zero suspense about the outcome. There is a bit of a stir when it’s discovered that one of the contestants has been using performance enhancing drugs, and honestly a bit of comedy because there are so many interviews where the athletes swear up and down that no one in the top echelon would ever do such a thing.

Overall though . . . eh. It’s frustrating to watch from a sports point of view because all of the events are edited down or montaged--complete with slow-mo--to the point that any sense of “live” action is completely erased. Some events are totally skipped over. We’re told about points, but not given a lot of sense of how the different events weigh into their overall score. (I’m sure it’s actually pretty straightforward, but I’m never compelled to try that hard to understand).

This is also very much an “insider” documentary. There’s never actually a critical eye to the sport or how people behave inside of it. It’s like 50% documentary, 50% promotional video for CrossFit.

Overall not much to say here. If you want something with stakes you don’t have to really care about and a few teaspoons of suspense, this works just fine. Personally I’d rather put on a YouTube video of an old cricket match or something.

The Night Clerk, 2020

Bart (Tye Sheridan) is a night clerk at a hotel, where he uses hidden cameras to spy on the people who stay there. Bart has autism, and ostensibly he is using his recordings to gain insight into the way that people interact. But Bart becomes fascinated by a woman (Jacque Gray) staying overnight, and is distraught when he witnesses her murder. Unable to admit to his voyeurism, Bart becomes enmeshed in the investigation. Worse, he is drawn to an enigmatic woman named Andrea (Ana de Armas) who may be connected to the killing.

Obnoxiously plotted and centered on a lazy, offensive portrayal of autism, this thriller frustrates far more often than it generates any decent suspense.

I’m not going to pretend that I don’t understand why people writing movies or TV shows are drawn to characters with autism. People who do not respond in a typical manner to situations or who don’t always understand social cues are easy fodder for jokes. Then there’s the bonus of giving such characters basically any super-power they want under the cultural notion that people with autism are just randomly geniuses at whatever skill they apply themselves to. It’s to be expected that writers will take some liberties, fine, whatever.

But this portrayal is . . . oof. Sheridan is trying, I guess. He gives a pretty generic robotic portrayal of someone on the autism spectrum. But the writing of the character is mind-bogglingly bad. In one standout sequence, Bart begins to describe the hotel’s room using language taken verbatim from the hotel’s website. Partway through the spiel, he says, “Click to read more.” I’m sorry, but no. People with autism who are functional at Bart’s level---able to hold down a job with no direct supervision---might have aspects of OCD and difficulty decoding social cues, but they are not mindless robots.

Then there’s the fact that we’re meant to root for Bart seemingly just because he is neurodivergent. It totally falls flat for me on two fronts. The first is that he’s simply terribly developed as a character. He’s defined only in the terms of his autism. People with autism have personalities, interests, and their own sense of humor. Bart lacks these things almost completely. But the other problem is that Bart is a creep. He violates the privacy of the people who stay in the hotel. The movie carefully curates what we see of Bart’s viewing habits, but just speaking in practical terms: he has definitely filmed minors in states of undress, right? It’s so off-putting, and the excuse that he’s doing “research” into how to talk like a “normal” person doesn’t hold up to even the slightest scrutiny. With his apparently expert spying skills, Bart could surveil a coffee shop, a restaurant, or any other location where people have personal conversations but aren’t, you know, naked.

Then there’s the “mystery” itself, which is absolutely abysmal. John Leguizamo is stuck in the thankless role of the police detective trying to solve the case. This character is so stupid--at one point he gives away a ton of information to someone who should be suspect number one---that for much of the film I thought we were meant to understand that he was corrupt and deliberately trying to sabotage the investigation. From what we see in the film, the killer would have left behind a lot of physical evidence, and so the fact that it’s being investigated for so long makes zero sense.

In fact, all of the characters in this film are just bad versions of tropes. De Armas tries valiantly in her role, which is a strange mix of femme fatale and damsel in distress. Helen Hunt is saddled with a shrill, shallow role as Bart’s mother.

This is a bad movie, and watching it made me grumpy. It looks okay, I like the cast, but the writing is terrible and enamored with an outdated, offensive portrayal of autism.

Didn't hate this one, but I can't really say I was a fan of it either; not a bad movie overall, but it still felt pretty paint-by-numbers in general, as well as feeling pretty inauthentic, even before it's compared to Heat, Thief, Collateral, or any of Mann's other, more representative efforts. In that way, it kind of feels like his Spartacus in a sense, as an attempt at a greater mainstream acceptance for the director in question, an attempt that didn't really pay off, IMO... (shrug)

I thought it was grounded enough in the relationships that I didn't mind the outlandishness of the plot. I thought the sense of the landscape was excellent and an interesting variation from Mann's usual city settings.

A Girl of the Limberlost, 1990

Elnora (Heather Fairfield) lives with her mother, Kate (Annette O’Toole), still reeling from the loss of Kate’s husband and Elnora’s father. Elnora wants desperately to go to school, but her mother balks at the idea, insisting that she needs Elnora’s help to keep their farm afloat. In Elnora’s corner is nature photographer Gene Stratton-Porter (Joanna Cassidy), a woman who is shaken by the rapid deforestation taking place in the community, something that threatens to seriously harm several species of butterflies.

Hampered by a somewhat tepid overall storyline, there is some good character work here, especially from O’Toole.

Back in the good old VHS days, you watched the same trailers over and over and over again, I don’t know, maybe because your younger siblings wouldn’t let you fast-forward to the actual movie? In any event, I watched the trailer for this adaptation of A Girl of the Limberlost countless times, and when I saw it pop up on a streaming service I just had to check it out.

I read a brief review of the film on the IMDb that described some of the plot changes that were made to the film from the novel, and those changes really explain the sense that something in this film is missing. The overall trajectory of the film is simply very underwhelming. Elnora’s mother doesn’t want her to go to school, then she’s cool with it, then there’s some drama with a rainstorm and the crops, then everything is basically fine.

The strength of the film lies not in the bigger plot moments, but in the small character work that dots the film. Gene’s anguish at the felling of the big and beautiful trees of the Limberlost tells you everything you need to know about her character. Kate’s need to keep the farm afloat---not only for her livelihood but also as a way of not failing her dead husband---is something you can sympathize with even as it means that her fear keeps Elnora from school. When Kate finally relents and lets Elnora go to school, she packs her an elaborate lunch and makes sure she looks nice for school.

There’s also a pretty moving subplot about a little boy named Billy (Chauncey Leopardi---from The Sandlot!!!) who is waiting for the return of his father who is riding the rails. Billy is taken in by Kate, and he becomes a grudging member of the family. Billy has a tough exterior, but at the end of the day he’s just a little kid who needs someone to look out for him.

On the whole, though, I wish there was a bit more grit to the story. Instead, it all feels a bit by-the-numbers. Kate is threatened with losing the farm over a raised property tax, they need to get the crops in, Elnora has some trouble fitting in at school and can’t afford her textbooks, etc. O’Toole gives a strong performance as Kate and Fairfield is also good as Elnora. Cassidy does a good job of portraying a quiet but firm intelligence. They are all a bit let down by not having much to chew on in terms of their character arcs, especially O’Toole’s Kate who seems to just change her mind about things at different points.

Decent enough, but lacking in the overall story.

Trancers, 1984

In the future, a criminal called Whistler (Michael Stefani) uses mental powers to turn people into obedient, zombie-like creatures called Trancers who then obey his every command. Retired cop Jack (Tim Thomerson) is called back into service when Whistler is able to travel back in time to the 1980s to eliminate the ancestors of the current political leadership. Jack follows Whistler, landing in the body of his own ancestor, a man named Phil. With the help of Phil’s girlfriend, Leena (Helen Hunt), Jack hunts Whistler and tries to find and protect his intended victims.

Despite some imaginative elements, what should be a guilty pleasure good time is instead a bit of a slog.

I realize that this film has something of a cult following, but for me the magic simply wasn’t there. I had recommended the film The Hidden to a friend, and he said that it reminded him of Trancers. In the spirit of exchange I checked it out, hoping to find a new favorite. But sadly, this one just wasn’t for me. Watching a man romance a woman 20 years his junior while she wears a Confederate flag on her back? That ain’t it.

The story itself is really interesting. I like the idea of the time travel running backwards through the person’s bloodline. It’s the kind of premise that doesn’t need a lot of science/exposition for you to just be like, “Oh, okay.” Whistler’s powers are a bit more vague, but it makes for a great antagonist because anyone could secretly be under his thrall.

Thomerson is fine in the lead role, and I do find Helen Hunt very charismatic. It is distracting, though, how much they look like two different generations. It’s like watching a man make out with his daughter, and it’s off-putting. The characters themselves get precious little character development, and the film mainly relies on the momentum of the story to carry things forward.

The film has that 80s grungy look, something that works both for and against it. At times, it does a nice job of bridging the future and past looks of the film. But I thought that a lot of scenes looked a bit dark and muddy. That look often makes it hard for me to pay attention to what’s happening on screen, and so many of the night time sequences took effort to stay tuned into.

The effects are pretty good here, both the garish makeup for the Trancers and different scenes where Jack deploys a time-slowing device that makes for a good excuse to use a bit of creative slow-motion.

I can sort of sense the appeal here, but I was certainly not the right audience. At least it’s a brisk 76 minutes.

Strange World, 2022

In the land of Avalonia, Searcher (Jake Gyllenhaal) and his father, Jaeger (Dennis Quaid) are on an expedition to learn what is beyond the daunting mountains that surround their land. Jaeger becomes separated from the party, while Searcher returns with a plant he’s discovered that generates electricity. Years later, Searcher is a father to his own teenage son, Ethan (Jabouki Young-White). When the plants that fuels their civilization begin dying, Searcher, his wife Meridian (Gabrielle Union), and Ethan join an expedition to discover what is killing the plants, finding themselves in a strange world full of unusual creatures.

While too much of the action falls into middling contemporary visual tropes, engaging characters and a great late-film plot turn make this a fun watch.

It’s a shame that this film is being ratings-bombed on IMDb--the homophobes really turned out for this one, LOL--because I thought that this was a fun, visually engaging family adventure with a really thought-provoking final act.

As a teacher, this film was on my radar a bit more because of the Florida educator who got in big trouble for showing this to a class. The fury was aimed at the fact that the character of Ethan is gay. And you know what? I actually think that this is exactly how queer characters should be included in family films. Much like in The Mitchells vs the Machines, the teenage character being gay is almost an aside, and certainly not his defining characteristic. Ethan shares the screen with his crush for maybe 70 seconds? But in this film, Ethan being gay is a non-issue, and it’s honestly really nice. There are no fraught conversations here with his parents, and he gets embarrassing ribbing from other characters just as he would if his crush were a girl. It’s frankly aspirational, and the borderline mundanity of the character’s sexuality makes the shrill response to it look all the more absurd.

I was also very into the film’s world and the creatures that populated it. It’s the rare modern Disney film that I could actually see myself rewatching because many of the details of the ecosystem take on a completely different light with information that we learn in the last act. The film naturally can’t resist giving us an adorable critter sidekick---here a blue blob named Splat that Ethan befriends--but the rest of the animals are really interesting. I think that what I liked about them was just how wild they were---neither overtly villanous nor twee and adorable. They are simply animals, albeit alien in their shapes and some of their behaviors.

Finally, I really enjoyed the plot about the complexity of relationships between the generations. Searcher knows what it’s like to grow up with a parent who wanted him to be a different person with different interests, and yet he ultimately cannot help but do the same thing to Ethan. It’s bound up in his ambiguous feelings about his own father, and when he sees signs of Ethan behaving too much like Jaeger, he feels the need to intervene. I thought that Ethan was an interesting character, and one whose empathy made him very likable. From the beginning, he sees the strange world differently from the other people on the mission, and it’s his keen sense of observation and lack of rushing to judgment that enables him to make a critical deduction in the climax of the film.

The only downside of the film for me--and it’s a moderate complaint--was how overly familiar a lot of the action looked. It’s this modern Marvel-derived way of showing action sequences that I’m completely numb and indifferent to at this point. It’s one of my biggest complaints in general with any action-oriented fare these days. I’ll be engaged by the characters and the premise, and then some overly long and overly familiar action sequence totally kills the vibe. At least this film has better stakes in terms of those sequences, but it was still too large a proportion of the runtime for my liking.

Surprisingly good.

The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent, 2022

Nicholas Cage (Nicholas Cage) is in a bit of a slump, which includes a rift with his ex-wife Olivia (Sharon Horgan) and daughter, Addy (Lily Mo Sheen). Unsure if he wants to continue acting, Nicholas accepts a $1 million offer to travel to Majorca to be the guest of honor at the birthday party of a billionaire named Javi (Pedro Pascal). But he’s soon approached by CIA agents Vivian (Tiffany Haddish) and Martin (Ike Barinholtz), who tell him that Javi is an arms dealer who has kidnapped a young woman, and they want Nicholas to help them infiltrate Javi’s inner circle.

A fantastic cast and some great comedic set-pieces help keep an overstuffed plot afloat.

The strength of this film is the amiable bonding that takes place between Cage and Javi, oscillating between silly and sweet moments---such as bonding over watching Paddington 2---and more thrilling moments involving scaling walls and running from pursuers. Javi is determined to have Cage star in a film based on a script that he’s writing, a conceit that Cage goes along with because in discussing the movie, he can learn more about what Javi is up to. Cage and Pascal have very good chemistry with one another, both doing a nice job of subverting the action/thriller characters I normally associate with them.

There’s obviously plenty of fun to be had with the meta aspect of Cage playing a version of himself. Unlike most movies that pull this gamble, the film has to go the reverse route of toning down what we’d expect, because Cage (and many of his notorious performances) are so well known as being over-the-top. The movie somehow manages to have things both ways, giving us both an outlandish Cage and a more reserved, reflective one. The film also gives Cage an opportunity to show off some physical comedy chops, such as in a scene where he has a mishap with a slow-acting sedative.

I wasn’t sure what the overall tone and content of this film was going to be like. I was really pleased at how fun and silly a lot of it was. I guess I’d expected something a lot more mean-spirited, but overall there’s a lightness to the film and it’s not as cynical as I feared it might be. A lot of the comedy was giggle-worthy as opposed to relying on cringe-comedy or punching down. It was kind of refreshing, and the cast is absolutely on the same wavelength with that energy.

The main downside here is that there is way too much plot crammed in, and it gives the feeling of rushing from one scene to another. Just the premise of Cage being asked to spy on the wealthy maybe-kidnapper who has hired him could have been streamlined, but somehow there’s a lot of extra stuff. I love Haddish and thought Barinholtz was also very funny, but their CIA characters get way too much screen time. The sequences with Cage and Javi bonding are so endearing that every time you’re reminded that a young woman has been kidnapped it’s a bit jarring.

The end result is a bit more slight than I was hoping, but still very funny and enjoyable.

Noises Off!, 1992

In this adaptation of Michael Frayn’s stage play, director Lloyd (Michael Caine) must try to salvage a disastrous farce starring a former star (Carol Burnett), her current flame (John Ritter), a spacey actress (Nicollette Sheridan), a sensitive actor (Christopher Reeves), an elderly alcoholic (Denholm Elliott), and more. Assisted by an overworked stage manager (Julie Hagerty) and an under-rested handyman (Mark Linn-Baker), every attempt at a run-through is met with one disaster or another.

A bit cramped by an unnecessary voice over, the performances and mile-a-minute physical comedy make this a winning comedy.

Adapting a play into a film can sometimes leave you with something that sounds overly written and “stage-y”. That is a bit of a problem here---and particularly in the unnecessary voice over that runs through the whole film---but the game cast and a steady stream of quality comedy takes the edge off.

The actors are what really make this film work, and it’s hard to pick out just one person because they are all fantastic. I’m not the biggest fan of Michael Caine, but for the most part he captures someone who is both completely exasperated with a shambles of a play, but also appreciative of the humor and talent of his cast. John Ritter is probably the best in terms of having a distinct character who we then see ACTING in the play. As far as portraying someone acting, it’s pretty interesting. Hagerty is great as the put-upon Poppy, and Linn-Baker’s exhaustion-delirious Tim--who is also called on to work as a stunt double--gives another level to the on-stage madness. Reeves, whose character has just been left by his wife, brings a vulnerability and sweetness to his role that balances the ego-centrism of some of the other characters. And while she doesn’t get as many punchlines, Marliu Henner grounds the action as the in-play wife of Reeves’ character.

There’s a whole subgenre of “plays gone wrong”---there’s even a “Goes Wrong” TV show---and this film gets the mix just right in terms of prop failures, cast errors, and real life intruding into the on-stage dynamics. The film cleverly structures what we see, so that we know how scenes are meant to play out and then can fully understand the various mishaps and how the cast adapt to them in the moment. The play-within-the-play is decently funny on its own, so even when there isn’t anything going wrong it’s entertaining. There’s physical comedy built into the play (like Reeves accidentally gluing himself to a plate of sardines), and then layered on with the comedy of errors as things go on.

I’ve already mentioned the unfortunate voice-over, which feels intrusive and overly expository. The other downside for me was the relationship between Lloyd and Poppy. Caine is 22 years Hagerty’s senior, and in the context of the film he’s also her boss. This isn’t terrible when they have a winking, co-conspirator thing happening at the beginning. But as the film goes on, Lloyd just outright yells and belittles Poppy in a pretty nasty way, not caring when she’s physically injured trying to follow his directions. It feels, you know, abusive. And while it’s true that there’s this arc about Lloyd realizing he needs to be nicer to Poppy, I never felt great about their relationship and the power dynamics around it. There’s also something kind of bland and predictable about mainly using Sheridan’s role to have her running around in lingerie for the whole time. She doesn’t feel like a real character, even with how exaggerated some of the other characters are, and it feels like pandering to the male gaze in a way that’s a bit sad. Sheridan makes the most of it---including some good physical comedy around a lost contact lens---but on the whole it feels like the character is grossly underwritten.

For me, this is a great film to put on when I just need something silly. A great effort from the cast building on a solid script makes for a good time.

Scare Me, 2020

Aspiring writer Fred (Josh Ruben) has rented a cabin in the woods so that he can brainstorm and write in isolation. While on a run he meets Fanny (Aya Cash), a very successful horror writer who has just put out a bestselling novel. When the power goes out, Fanny ends up visiting Fred, and the two spend the evening telling each other scary stories as tensions and resentments between them grow.

Despite great effort from the cast, this horror-thriller never manages to make the most of its premise.

The best part of the film is easily the all-in effort by the actors, and specifically Cash and Chris Redd, who appears late in the film as a food delivery person. Redd brings his signature contained mania energy, and Cash manages to elevate some pretty middling dialogue into something interesting. Ruben, who wrote and directed in addition to starring, puts in the kind of extra effort you often get from someone starring in their own passion project.

But those performances, while the strength of the film, are also something of a double-edged sword. Cash and Redd give a great effort, and unfortunately you can sense that it’s because this screenplay requires those efforts to lift up the material.

So here’s how the movie goes: Fred and Fanny take turns telling each other scary stories, which are enhanced by sound effects and music meant to come from their imagination. Between their stories, we learn more about Fred and Fanny and their personal and professional lives and ambitions.

The real downside here is that the movie has way too many ideas that it throws out there---ownership of ideas and creative theft, the shift in what makes stories marketable, resentment of successful women--and doesn’t develop any of them in a satisfying way. Maybe the idea that is best explored is that of creative ownership. As Fred and Fanny banter back and forth, who owns the ideas they share? When Fanny gives Fred several ideas of how to improve his book idea, does that give her any kind of ownership over the story?

But the rest of the ideas stay pretty muddled. For example, Fanny frequently critiques Fred for his horror ideas being too similar in always being centered on white male characters. Her first suggestion on hearing his werewolf story is to change the protagonist to a girl instead of a boy. On one hand, she’s not wrong that most werewolf stories feature male protagonists. Or is she just doing some knee-jerk “you go girl” gender flipping? The film doesn’t seem interested in clarifying, and yet it’s kind of important in terms of understanding how both characters relate to the art they are creating. Are we meant to see that Fanny just has a better eye for storytelling (based on the stories the characters tell, the answer seems to be yes), or is she just cynically cashing in on modern sensibilities?

Where the movie really fails to dig into something interesting is in Fred’s resentment of Fanny’s success. The more we learn about Fred, the more we see that he might have some anger problems towards women in general. Then you loop in the fact that Fanny is operating successfully in the professional space where Fred is determined he’d be a smash hit if only someone would give him a chance. But Fanny is too narrowly developed as a character, and her language is almost a parody of contemporary shallow feminist rhetoric. I never knew if we were supposed to respect Fanny as a character or view her as someone who has simply learned to play the game in ways Fred just doesn’t understand.

Everything here just feels muddled, and no amount of enthusiasm from the cast can lift it into something scary, illuminating, or interesting. Points for some funny moments from Redd and some genuinely good storytelling from Cash.

Sound of Violence, 2021

Alexis (Jasmin Savoy Brown) is a college student who has grappled since childhood with a hearing loss issue. After witnessing a violent event as a child, Alexis regains some hearing. Years later, she finds her hearing threatened again and discovers that she requires the sound of violence to maintain her ability to hear. Alexis goes to increasingly extreme and cruel lengths to hold on to her hearing.

Great performances and a very cool concept are let down by hokey and unbelievable kill sequences.

I was hoping to love this film, because I think that the concept is really cool. There are plenty of horror films around, especially films that are variations on vampirism, where people must prey on others in order to survive. This film is not only unique in terms of making it the threat of losing a sense, but also has an interesting twist in that Alexis is fighting to keep a sense, not fighting for her life.

I enjoyed Brown’s performance as Alexis, not pandering for sympathy for the character who is a sociopath right from the jump. There’s no waste of time with Alexis fretting over whether or not to harm other people. When she realizes it’s what she needs, she goes about it coldly and efficiently. The only tension comes from Alexis figuring how to do what she wants and how long she can get away with it.

The film also gets a boost of charisma from Lili Simmons, playing Alexis’s friend Marie on whom Alexis has a very obvious and very powerful crush. I also liked James Jagger, playing Marie’s boyfriend, Duke. Normally the character of Duke would be a total jerk, but he feels very much like a normal dude. He’s neither a hero nor a boorish frat type. The film is wise to give us two characters we can root for, because it adds a great layer of tension as Alexis ratchets up her rampage.

And while it’s not fully developed, I think that there’s something really interesting about the fact that the main character is a Black, queer woman with a disability, and who she finds herself preying on in order to meet her needs. Alexis first tortures a homeless man, who she drugs under the guise of offering him food. Even as she offers him the granola bar, he warns her that the alleyway is unsafe. Two of her other victims are also musical artists---a harp player and a singer---and she uses their music against them in her killings. There’s an interesting push-pull with Alexis where her horrible childhood trauma and the threat of the loss of her hearing make you want to sympathize with her, but her actions are unquestionably immoral and selfish and unjustified.

In terms of the killings themselves, they are certainly memorable, brutal, and graphic. I can’t fault the effects used or the visceral impact of some of the moments.

Unfortunately, the killings themselves were where I really struggled with the film. I didn’t mind at all the premise that Alexis needs to hear pain and suffering to keep her sense of hearing. Sure. Why not. But the killings themselves are outlandish in ways that veer unintentionally into somewhat laughable territory. Alexis kills the homeless man using an elaborate torture machine that she’s synced to a drum machine. It’s graphic and terrible, but also sort of goofy looking. And each of the killings involves Alexis creating very elaborate and outlandish machines that distract from the horror of the killings. I mean, at one point she hacks a harp. The movie even somewhat lampshades this by having the detective working the case (Corsica Wilson) ask aloud how such killings are possible.

It’s also a bit disappointing that the trajectory involving Alexis and Marie plays out exactly as you would expect. There’s a good scene toward the beginning of the film where Alexis and Marie have paid a dominatrix to record the sounds of one of her sessions. Alexis pushes the dom to hit her client harder, despite him having tapped out. Alexis and Marie have a tense conversation about Alexis pushing that boundary. As Marie begins to understand that Alexis has always had an interest in causing and recording suffering, their friendship suffers. I wish that the film had stayed more with the changing relationship between Alexis and Marie, but instead it veers too much into showing us the elaborate murders, expecting us to fill in the gaps via Alexis being obviously gaga for Marie but not actually fleshing out the bond between them.

Different enough to merit checking out, but ultimately disappointing.

Noises Off is something I've been dying to see for a long time. I like to come across movies naturally (for sale on DVD, on the library shelves or on TV/streaming), but it's never been put in my path so I really should just give in and seek it out.

Scare Me seemed like a really good, original idea for a film. It's a shame the end product ended up being so middling and lacking in the kind of quality it needed in it's execution. It started to really take off when Chris Redd entered the fray, but that was so late in the movie and he's really in it for too short a time.

__________________

It's not streaming many places. I think it's worth seeking out.

I'm genuinely perplexed by quite a lot of positive reviews on Letterboxd. I admit the premise is fun, but the execution is so lacking and you can feel the strain of the actors trying to make it better/funnier.

This thread needs more werewolves.

Scare Me tried, man, it really did.

At someI gotta sit down and watch a certain Canadian werewolf movie from the early aughts

But werewolf films are notoriously crap, save the greats (An American Werewolf In London, Dog Soldiers and Ginger Snaps.) Even next tier down and we're talkiing The Wolfman or The Beast Must Die, so there's not a lot you can do unless you just want to watch bad films which don't even entertain. I know some would point at The Brotherhood Of The Wolf or A Company Of Wolves, but neither did it for me.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

I feel that Cursed (2005) is underrated but werewolves definitely fare worse than vampires and zombies.

I only saw it once, but was underwhelmed to say the least. Maybe I expected too much because it was Wes Craven? Maybe I'll check it again some day?