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

Also, I think it's interesting that they omitted (as in, filmed but did not put in the final cut) a sequence where Porter beats up his wife. What's left (him breaking into the house, her sort of crying, then jump cut to him carrying her to bed) is so weird and I couldn't figure out why. Well, now we know! He beat the crap out of her and then lovingly carried her to bed.

I think that kind of sums up for me why the film doesn't work. It wants to let these silly elements (the bozo kid, the running joke about the money, the over-the-top dominatrix, etc) sit next to darker elements (Porter beating up his wife, the torture stuff), and it just doesn't mesh.

A Dark Place, 2018

When a young boy is found dead in a river, garbage truck driver Donald (Andrew Scott) becomes fascinated by the case, even more so when local officials seem determined to chalk the death up as an accident with basically no investigation. As Donald navigates a strained relationship with his daughter, Wendy (Christa Beth Campbell), he becomes more and more fixated on the mysterious death and getting to the bottom of the mystery.

A strong central performance doesn’t quite balance out an uneven screenplay.

There are two very strong elements of this film, the first of which is Scott’s performance as an autistic man who is high-functioning enough to hold down a job, but whose single-mindedness and lack of social nuance make his investigation a dangerous one for himself and anyone else involved. While his accent is, at times, a bit wobbly, the overall feel of the character is there.

Scott captures a dynamic that I have seen many times in people with autism: a desire to belong and connect with others, but an inability to hold those connections. Donnie is particularly hurt by the dismissive, at times disgusted, way that Wendy’s mother talks about their brief relationship. Donnie is often on edge, and the stress of the investigation pushes him past rationality. As Donnie learns more about the details of the boy’s life, it is hard to tell if the grief he feels is due to his own sense of right and wrong, or possibly his own personal trauma. Possibly a mix of both.

The other aspect of this film that I really enjoyed was the ambiguity of the middle act. The film hinges on the question of whether the boy’s death was accidental or something more nefarious. Once he decides that it was a murder, every fact he learns pushes Donnie further into his theory. Is Donnie right and there’s a big cover-up happening? Or is he simply reading too much into innocuous details? The strongest part of the movie is when it lets you sit in this uncertainty, not knowing if you are watching a man get justice for an innocent victim, or watching a man foolishly endanger himself and others over an unfounded conspiracy theory.

The setting and characters do, for the most part, have a nicely lived-in feeling. The film captures the vibe of a rural small town.

Unfortunately, the film doesn’t quite cohere as it tries to find its way to an ending. Certain characters behave in ways that just don’t really make sense once the truth about the boy’s death is somewhat settled. Some of the ways that Donnie is able to learn more information about the boy and the townspeople are just a bit too far-fetched.

A decent mystery-drama, but it doesn’t all come together in the end.

Nature of the Beast, 1995

Two major new stories are dominating the airwaves: a large sum of money has been stolen from a casino, and a serial killer known as the Hatchet Man is slicing and dicing travelers on the roadways. Jack (Lance Henriksen) is making his way across Nevada when he crosses paths with Adrian (Eric Roberts), an off-kilter young man who coerces Jack into giving him a ride. As the two continue their demented road trip, bodies start to pile up.

A lackluster thriller with the ignoble distinction of being directed by a convicted child rapist.

Victor Salva has been on my director No Fly list for ages, and I’m annoyed that I didn’t bother checking out the credits more carefully when picking out this movie to watch. On what I suppose is the bright side, I didn’t think much of it before learning about its creator, and so there’s not much to feel conflicted about.

The best thing that the film has going for it is the way that Adrian’s sort-of-gay, unhinged wild man routine perpetually unnerves Jack. While I mostly thought that the repeated implication of Adrian being gay was stupid---and something the movie seems only comfortable implying, lame---I did enjoy Henriksen’s portrayal of Jack’s discomfort and the way that Adrian continues to push boundaries with him.

But aside from a few nicely tense moments between the two main characters, this one is a dud. Jack’s inability to shake Adrian feels incredibly contrived. We know from the first ten minutes that we’re building toward a showdown between the two of them, and I got impatient waiting for that showdown to arrive. There’s very little character development or even escalation of tension between the two men.

Then the last act comes and, meh. This story would have worked much better as a television episode.

Watched a Victor Salva movie by mistake.

LOL, I wondered what was up. I thought "THIS is the film she broke her rule for? Nature of the Beast?!?"

Ah, that makes some sense too. I was seeing this as a young man in a post-Pulp Fiction world. I really reveled in the deconstructionist school of crime movies. The running joke about how he only wants $70,000 and they keep trying to give him $130,000 and James Coburns suits mixed with the incredibly abrupt way he kills his former partner ("You got a light? Then what good are you.")
At the time, obviously, Gibson was not the scum of the Earth he was like the biggest star in the World, the movie was just fun for me, and I hadn't seen a movie it was a remake of.

Fair. I mean, it's not like I don't understand the theoretical charms of it all. It just really didn't work for me story wise, tonally, etc.

Have you seen Point Blank? I think it's pretty incredible.

From '67 or '19?

Dude videotaped his rape of a child and got off after 15 months to continue making films, including those produced by Coppola and I'm blocked by half the Twitter for saying dogs are better than cats!?

How come he doesn't play "The Creeper" in Jeepers Creepers anyway?

__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.

1967. Lee Marvin is great in it and the visuals/color scheme are fantastic.

I know that the world is full of people who have done very bad things but who now are out there doing jobs and whatnot. (And generally speaking, I don't think that infinity incarceration is the best solution, so fine). But I literally cannot imagine showing up to work every day, knowing that the person in charge is a child rapist. And that goes double for every person in that cast who had the financial flexibility to not be a part of it.

And then I also think about his victims, just randomly scrolling Netflix or Tubi or whatever and coming across their attacker's name in credits and, yeah.

Any chance you have a review of it somewhere?

Jungle, 2017

Yossi (Daniel Radcliffe) is a young man from Israel, traveling through South America in the early 80s. While in Bolivia, he befriends gentle Swiss schoolteacher Marcus (Joel Jackson) and brash American photographer Kevin (Alex Russell). When Yossi meets enigmatic Austrian explorer Karl (Thomas Kretschmann), he is promised a trip to find a lost tribe of indigenous people deep in the jungle. Yossi persuades his two new friends to accompany him, but the realities of a jungle on the verge of the rainy season proves a formidable foe for the four adventurers.

Great performances and beautiful-but-deadly scenery make this worth a look, though it is an uneven effort overall.

Over the years, Daniel Radcliffe has turned into one of those actors on whose name alone I will check out a film. In this biographical adventure, he plays a more prickly character than usual, imbuing Yossi with an interesting mix of optimism and jittery energy.

The rest of the cast are also very solid. It’s obvious from the get-go that Jackson’s gentle Marcus is not going to do well on this trek, but Jackson really captures the wounded, depressed state that Marcus transitions to as his soft, easy personality becomes a liability is really heartbreaking to watch. Russell and Kretschmann both play the kind of swaggering, arrogant guys who get in over their heads out of a combination of overconfidence and a need to one-up the other guys in the room. Instead of working together to make sure that everyone makes it out of the jungle alive and intact, the men all jockey for dominance to the detriment of the whole group. It’s a maddening dynamic to watch, and yet it feels real.

The setting is also appropriately beautiful and grand and frightening. At certain moments, the characters will stop and the camera will do a little pivot, reminding us that they are not on a path of any kind, and only the river is keeping them oriented in any way. Part of the appeal of their little adventure is conquering the wilderness, but the film shows us how a single insect or a faster-than-expected river current can prove deadly.

Unfortunately, there’s something a bit off about the pacing of it all, and I was not a fan of the inclusion of several flashback sequences. The film also has a less than enlightened attitude toward its female characters, all of whom serve only to take their clothing off---one flashback sequence in particular feels shoehorned in just for this purpose. There is one female character not included for this purpose: an indigenous woman Yossi stumbles across deep in the jungle. And his immediate reaction is to lecture her and talk about how he is going to protect her. Um, here’s a thought: perhaps this person who has lived in the jungle might have a few pointers for you? Might know the way to safety? Might know about finding food/shelter?

I was unimpressed by the notion of “being a man” expressing itself mainly through mutilating/killing animals in the jungle. At one point, the film seems to recognize the cruelty behind this framing of adventuring, but at other moments, it seems to revel in it. There is a lot of killing and/or cruelty towards animals in this film (hopefully simulated, though I haven’t seen information either way).

The story itself is interesting, and the performances are good, but it all adds up to something less than compelling.

Lost to the void, sadly! But it's free on Tubi, and seriously it is really good.

No, I just watched it and I'm kinda baffled so I was looking to see what you had liked about it.

Just wanted to second this. He's done so much weird stuff and a surprising amount of it has worked. Swiss Army Man was obviously the turning point where I achieved that same level of perk-up-ed-ness for any project just because he's involved, second only to his supporting role on Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, of all things.

When years ago I read that he was doing Equus on-stage, I was like, okay. Clearly someone making a statement about not just being a kids-movie one-off.

It helps that in interviews he just seems like an incredibly nice person. What If? was the movie that made him a must-see for me. Just a really great amount of nuance brought to what could have been a typical rom-com performance. Swiss Army Man was also great. He's been in a lot of films (like Jungle) that don't seem to make the most of his talents.

Have you seen Guns Akimbo?

He and Emma Stone (another of my must-see people) are two actors who could just coast on being attractive and charismatic, and instead push themselves in odd or unexpected directions. With Radcliffe, though, my brain has decided that he's a teenager, when in fact he's just a few years younger than I am.

I'll give it a rewatch here soon and write something up. It's been quite a few years. I just remember loving the color scheme, the imagery, and the way that the staging of scenes played on his strong emotions.

The Meg, 2018

Jonas (Jason Statham) is a deep-water rescue specialist who is still haunted by a mission that resulted in the death of several of his colleagues. When his ex-wife (Jessica McNamee) becomes trapped in a deep sea trench on a research mission, he is persuaded to come and assist in the rescue. But the deep sea exploration unintentionally releases a prehistoric megalodon into the ocean, and Jonas must work with the research crew to prevent massive bloodshed.

Silly, but mostly in an affable way, this is a passable big shark movie.

I think that this film got a bit of a boost in how I received it because my expectations were pretty low. Maybe the biggest relief is that the cringe humor stays at acceptable levels, and the adorable, slightly precocious child is actually likable.

You know what? I’ll go a step forward and say that I found a surprising proportion of the characters likable, even if they’re saddled with slightly-stupid dialogue at times. Winston Chao as the expedition’s leader, Zhang; Bingbing Li as Zhang’s daughter and love interest for Jonas; and the very precious Shuya Sophia Cai as Zhang’s granddaughter. My experience with Statham vehicles is that the worst ones tend to have weak scripts and just rely on Statham giving a wry smirk to the camera. There’s a bit of wry-camera-smirking here, but not nearly as much as I expected.

When it comes to the titular giant shark, I thought that it looked pretty good. There’s something very funny about how often a creature the size of a large bus is able to sneak up on people. I always struggle a bit with films about “evil” animals, because they are just doing what their instincts tell them to do. And here we have the added bonus that the protagonists are the ones who unleashed the shark in the first place. I was genuinely sad about the idea of them winning by killing the shark, and of course the film isn’t creative enough to do anything but that.

While overall the cast of characters is enjoyable, there are definitely a few duds thrown in there, and the movie doesn’t even have the decency to feed most of them to the meg! There’s enough action and movement to the plot that the film doesn’t quite get weighed down, but at the same time it does feel like it’s about 20-30 minutes longer than it should have been.

Nothing to write home about, but enough shark-related thrills to be worth a watch.

Knuckleball, 2018

Twelve year old Henry (Luca Villacis) is dropped off at the rural farm of his grandfather, Jacob (Michael Ironside) so that his parents can attend a funeral in the area. But when Jacob suffers a medical incident, Henry finds himself at the mercy of Jacob’s disturbed neighbor, Dixon (Munro Chambers). With no way to call for help, Henry must survive the day and the night in a battle of wits, all the while learning more and more about the unsettling relationship between Jacob and Dixon.

Some promising early character work gets lost in a muddled, strange final act.

What this film eventually, unsurprisingly devolves into is Home Alone with an R-rating. There have been quite a few horror/thrillers that have gone that direction in the last few years, and it’s a very passable plot trope if you aren’t expecting too much.

The shame in this case is that the first act set up a promising foundation for some eerie, dark-family-secret stuff. Villacis is good in the lead role as Henry. There’s a really strong, short sequence early in the film that establishes some interesting character dynamics with him. Henry is sent out to a woodpile, where he discovers a feral cat. Henry sets up a simple trap and captures the cat. After regarding the upset animal for a few moments, he sets the animal free. Henry is smart and has some of that capacity for unkindness that is common to kids/teens, but he isn’t a sociopath or a sadist. I liked this scene a lot, because it establishes the elements we might see later as Henry fights for survival.

Michael Ironside is also very solid in his role as Henry’s grandfather. Jacob is welcoming of Henry, even showing him how to throw the titular knuckleball, but knowing how to throw a baseball and being a good person are two VERY different things. Jacob is blunt and gruff, and there is a nice ambiguity around his character. Is he just a reserved guy? Or is there something else going on?

The turning point of the film comes when it shifts gears from an atmospheric drama/thriller to outright thriller/horror. Jacob suffers a medical emergency and Henry must seek help next door from Dixon. Due to a combination of bad luck and a blizzard, Henry cannot call for help and it doesn’t take Dixon very long to show his very creepy true colors.

The second half of this film is like watching a small child try to make a cake. They just . . . keep . . . adding . . . more . . . stuff! There’s a decently tense sequence when Henry first goes to Dixon’s house for help. Dixon’s weird insistence that Henry not look at his computer. Dixon’s barely concealed obsession with Jacob. I always appreciate it when thrillers present you with a scenario where there isn’t an easy or obvious action that the character should take, and it’s not at all clear what Henry should be doing in this uncomfortable, possibly dangerous situation. But once Dixon makes it clear that he’s out to get Henry, things escalate to the point of absurdity.

An unfortunate side effect of everything stuffed into the second half is that it makes elements of the first half seem downright unbelievable. We learn that Jacob once told Henry’s mother that he’d shown his wife “who he really was” and that she’d been so overwhelmed she’d killed herself. Like, I’m sorry, but who would EVER trust their child into the care of someone who would say something like that? Every new piece of information we learn makes it more and more improbable that Henry’s parents---who do not actually seem to want their child to be murdered---would leave him with Jacob.

The last act also wants to have things both ways. It wants to throw outrageous violence around---and particularly at Dixon---but also be gritty and realistic. This contrast reaches its breaking point with one last reveal that’s so bizarre it totally derails any of the good stuff that came before it.

Somewhere in the first half was the makings of a dark, eerie thriller. It’s a shame the rest of the film didn’t follow suit.

Yeah, I remember this, mostly because it got a lot of coverage, as it was clearly designed to. I kinda rolled my eyes at it at the time, because it's a standard move for someone in his position to signal to the public and/or industry at large that they're not a kid any more. And that kind of move usually involves overcompensating to counteract whatever childlike thing they first became famous for. Anne Hathaway did something similar with Havoc and Brokeback Mountain after Ella Enchanted and the two Princess Diaries films. Miley Cyrus used inanimate tools like wrecking balls and Robin Thicke.

So I assumed it was just kind of a flail, a desperate attempt to start a second career that, frankly, usually doesn't amount to much. But the choices that have followed have been not just good, and not just weird, but both--a pretty rare combination. Interestingly, I'm not sure I'd say he's a great actor. But he's a good one, and at this point I pay more attention to a good actor who makes interesting choices than I do to a great actor that makes more conventional ones.

No, but it looked fun! Somehow I've never quite gotten around to it. Worth it?

Yeah, the thing about Swiss Army Man wasn't just that it was weird, which isn't necessarily all that risky. It was that it was gross and, on paper, even stupid (note: I say this as someone who loved it). It was actually risky, actually brave, contra a lot of roles that read odd but actually are still pretty safe.