Category Archives: 00 – Current

“Queen of Earth” (2015) REVIEW

queen1

I don’t like writing bad reviews; they’re a waste of time. If I don’t like a movie and the general consensus seems to share the same opinion as me, there’s really no need for me to write 800 words about what we all already know. The only time I feel the need to publish negative reviews is when I see overwhelmingly positive responses to a movie I didn’t enjoy. Not to knock the movie down a peg and not to be the sole dissenting opinion, but to offer an alternate viewpoint in the face of unanimity. Many times I’ve been encouraged to see a movie based on the amount of glowing reviews it received, only to end up agreeing with the scant bad reviews it got after I finished watching it. Long story short: if you generally agree with my good reviews, then perhaps my occasional bad review will save you the time and trouble of seeing something you probably won’t like.

That all said, I watched Queen of Earth because people had been saying such good things about it. I’d seen the trailer – which I didn’t like; always trust your gut, you idiot – but I decided to give it a shot, anyway. The movie centers around two friends, Catherine and Virginia (Elisabeth Moss and Katherine Waterson, respectively) spending a week together at Virginia’s lake house. The story follows their now-strained friendship and Catherine’s eventual mental breakdown.

queen2

Now, I’ve seen great “is she crazy, or isn’t she?” films – y’know, classic Hysterisplotation. Films like Repulsion, A Woman Under the Influence3 Women, and Possession, just to name a few. Films that, despite their often unconventional artistic choices, manage to devastate, shock, and sometimes revolt the audience. And regardless of their age, these films still resonate with modern audiences today. Powerful films from powerful directors.

Queen of Earth clearly wants to be like these films, and on the surface it succeeds. Director Alex Ross Perry has done his homework, drawing a lot of inspiration from Altman and Cassavetes. Tight close-ups, long uncut takes, and that wonderful slow zoom-in technique that was so prevalent in ’70s independent cinema. But unfortunately, superficial tricks are where the similarities end. Perry may have the technical aspects down but he’s unable to tell an engaging story the way those masters of the craft did.

queen3

I have two issues with the film. First, both characters are incredibly unlikeable. From the get-go it’s clear that Catherine and Virginia despise each other. We never really find out what the basis of this animosity is, but they take umbrage with every single thing the other person says. Every. Single. Thing. We’re given glimpses of their relationship in the past through flashbacks, and even then they still seemed to resent each other. How these two could be deemed friends – or why they’d agree, year after year, to meet for a secluded week at this lake house – is beyond me. And seeing as this film is firmly rooted in reality – as opposed to say, 3 Women or Possession, both of which feature several surreal scenes – I am unable to suspend my disbelief or lose myself in the story the way I did with 3 Women and Possession. Everything in Queen of Earth is presented in a very straight-forward manner, so to believe that these two would be hanging out is completely unbelievable. Adding to the unlikeable-ness of the characters, the movie is filled with lines no normal human being would say and reactions no normal human beings would have. It’s borderline repellant.

My second issue is that there’s no story development whatsoever in its 90 minute runtime, and what is revealed is often confused and muddled. We know Catherine is depressed from (literally) the opening scene. And that’s it. Catherine is depressed, and maybe a little crazy. She goes on the annual trip to her friend Virginia’s lake house. They find childish things to argue about – as they apparently have always done – and Catherine sinks further into her depression. But none of it matters, ultimately, because there’s no culmination. No pay off. Even when things that should carry weight are revealed – like the fact that Catherine’s father also suffered from depression and committed suicide – we the viewer aren’t intrigued the way we should be; we’re not worried about what might happen to Catherine, because despite all of her crying and fragility, she never displays any suicidal tendencies throughout the movie. She just acts a little loopy, bouncing between laughing maniacally and sobbing. There is never the threat/hint/promise of anything happening other than ‘sad woman berated by mean woman’.

All that said, there are a few positives: Elisabeth Moss is terrifyingly good at portraying a mentally broken woman and she pretty much carries the movie. And the score – sparse, plinking piano – does its best to steer the movie in suspenseful direction. And as I said earlier, technically the film is great – great shots, great framing.

I feel like all the positive reviews for this movie have come from people who haven’t seen the classics yet. Whether you’ve watched this movie or not, do yourself a favor and seek out these great films to see how it’s done.

 

“In Their Skin” (2012) REVIEW

skin1

I’m going to keep this review a little more succinct than usual seeing as this movie came out almost 4 years ago and probably isn’t at the top of everyone’s ‘to watch’ list. I just happened to catch it last night and felt the need to review it, because, well, that’s kinda what I do. Right?

Anyway, for those who don’t know, I love home invasion movies. They are tied with ‘hillbilly horror’ for my favorite horror sub-genre. And if you combine the two — say, Peckinpah’s Straw Dogs — well then, I’m one happy pup. (In fact, Straw Dogs might’ve even been the movie that really solidified my love of both sub-genres.) That being said, there isn’t really a hell of a whole lot you can do with either of those genres outside of the most simple, straight-forward storylines, especially now — some 40 years after they made their entrance into the scene. The basics work best, but again — if you’ve seen one, it’s pretty safe to say you’ve seen them all.

With that in mind, In Their Skin is a fairly standard entry in the home invasion genre, one that I’ve seen a million times before.

A couple and their young son move into a wooded lakeside cottage for a temporary break from life. The couple’s daughter was just killed in an accident, so they’ve gotten out of the city and secluded themselves in hopes of facilitating the grieving process. Soon after settling in, there’s a knock at the door and they’re greeted by an almost identical family — mother, father, and son, all roughly the same age — who apparently live on the other side of the lake. They make plans for dinner that night, and well, you can see where this is headed. After dinner, the ‘neighbors’ reveal their true intentions and the grieving family finds themselves in for a night of torture.

skin2

Everyone does a great job in their respective roles (the evil couple’s son is particularly nasty), but the movie itself is another story. It is occasionally entertaining and even manages to ratchet up some tension with some awkward, uncomfortable scenes early on, but ultimately it suffers from stringing together one too many tired plot devices — everyone seems to be afflicted by “delayed reaction time” — to be thoroughly enjoyable in the end. I hate the “delayed reaction time” device. Characters who have the opportunity to run, but don’t; antagonists who have the opportunity to kill the protagonist, but don’t. Look, I am willing to suspend disbelief for zombies, monsters, and ghosts. But home invasion is supposed to feel real. Having your characters do unrealistic things in a realistic situation is a cop out.

Finally, the end is surprisingly abrupt. Hurried, even. For all its build up, you’d think the movie would be headed toward a nail-biting climax. But it doesn’t. The ending almost feels tacked on or improvised. It’s very strange and I can’t help but wonder if it was a decision by the studio to alter the ending. Also, there are hints at a subplot involving Selma Blair’s grieving mother character, possibly carrying on an affair? It’s very odd and seems to have been edited out in post, but there are remnants scattered throughout the film that suggest it. Only adds to the head-scratching.

Oh, and the movie is super desaturated. Easy on the color grading, guys.

My Obligatory “Best of 2015” List!

As 2015 comes to a close, it’s the perfect time to look back and share what I thought were the standout films of the year. The criteria for making the list was simple — I had to give it 3.5 stars or more on my Letterboxd account. Oh by the way: I have a Letterboxd account where I keep track of every movie I watch; there were many films I watched in 2015 that didn’t make the list, and you can find them (and all the others) over on my Letterboxd account. Did I mention I have a Letterboxd account yet? Continue reading My Obligatory “Best of 2015” List!

“Krampus” (2015) REVIEW

kram3

If I don’t see a new release within a week of it hitting the theater, it usually finds its way into my “I’ll get to it…eventually” pile, only to really be seen when it hits DVD or VOD. With this in mind, I decided Sunday was the day to see Krampus, come hell or high water. And while high water didn’t come, rain sure did — while I was biking to the theater, no less. Damp but not deterred, I got in a line that wrapped around the block (“Must be for The Good Dinosaur.” I thought to myself, naively.) My friends were already inside saving me a seat, so I wasn’t worried about that. But as I approached the ticket window I was greeted with a sign no moviegoer wants to see: “SOLD OUT”, slapped above the 2:30pm showtime of Krampus. Goddamn. So there I was, wet and out a movie, with two hours to kill until the next showtime. Thankfully, the theater was directly across the street from one of those massive liquor outlets so I headed over and killed time by perusing their endless aisles of stock. I eventually left with several of those little booze bottles you get on airplanes (“snooters”, as I’ve so lovingly nicknamed them.) Specifically, they were Peppermint Schnapps — to help get me in the holiday mood. And let me say: Krampus was a blast on a belly full of mint liqueur!

kram2

While the movie revolves around an entire family, the main protagonist is young Max (Emjay Anthony), a kid who is at the age where he knows Santa isn’t real…but he still kinda believes in him. Keeping the faith (and mostly just wanting to keep the tradition alive) Max pens a letter to Santa — not asking for toys, but asking for the type of Christmas he remembers growing up; one where the family gets along.

Soon after penning the letter, Max’s relatives and in-laws show up and we see why Max wants a normal Christmas so badly: country-fried gun nut Howard (Dave Koechner) belittles Max’s dad, Tom (Adam Scott); drunken Aunt Dorothy (Conchata Ferrell) complains about the food prepared by Max’s mom, Sarah (Toni Collette). And then there are Howard and Linda’s (Allison Tolman) kids: two of them are fine, but the other two — sporty sisters — find Max’s letter and read it aloud at the dinner table. Max, embarrassed and angry and hurt, snatches the letter and runs off to his room where he tears it up and tosses it out the window. What he doesn’t realize is this act summons Krampus, an evil Christmas spirit who punishes those who lose their love of the holiday. Soon, the power is out and there’s clomping up on the rooftop, and well…the family is in for a long night.

kram4

There’s a lot to love about Krampus. Right off the bat, the movie opens with a hilarious montage that takes a stab at the modern state of consumerism. It’s a simple yet clever opening, and it immediately reassured me that I was going to be in good hands for the next 90 minutes. And while the characters may seem stock (redneck cousins, alcoholic aunt), they’re all played in ways that make them feel fresh. Everyone’s individual performances are spot-on, especially Dave Koechner and his rightwing clan (especially his sporty daughters, perhaps the most brilliant casting of 2015.)

In addition to the great performances the movie is visually stunning. From the massive snowstorm outside to the collection of evil toys that spring to life to the character design of Krampus himself (itself?), everything looks spectacular and is exciting to watch. Krampus does a stellar job of blending CGI and live action stuff almost flawlessly.  They did a great job of making sure Krampus looked real in all the close-ups, and used the CGI to their advantage when creating lifelike environments. Your senses won’t be assaulted like with most modern CGI trash — here it’s artfully handled and executed with the perfect amount of restraint.

kram1

Lastly, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the sound design in Krampus. I read a positive review of the sound design somewhere online, and about halfway into the movie I realized exactly why. Krampus is a big, hoofed, noisy beast, covered in chains and bells. Whether he’s thudding around on the roof or trying to make his way down the chimney, the dude makes a lot of noise. The sound designers for Krampus totally killed it; they were able to make the titular character’s presence sound scary.

There are a glut of really bad Christmas horror movies out there, but thankfully Krampus isn’t one of them. Give it some time and it could become a classic. Check it out!

“Kristy” (2014) REVIEW

2

As someone who reviews horror movies on the reg (that’s ‘regular’ for you lame-os out there) it’s really important that I see as many horror movies as I can, whether it be at home or in the theater. However, like most normal civilized human beings I have the typical 40 hour work week with the occasional hobby and scant social interaction tossed into the mix. This means I have to be particularly selective about the movies I do see when I get the chance. I know that doesn’t sound very impartial or objective, but it’s all about logic: I stick to stuff I have a specific interest in (crime, suspense, psychological stuff) and I avoid the shit I hate (hauntings, found footage, mumblegore), and for the most part it works out in my favor; I end up seeing movies that I end up liking. Occasionally I’m thrown a wildcard, like a movie I should like but have reservations about (Cooties, for example), but trusting my gut has never failed me me once and my batting average for “think it looked like crap and, surprise, it ended up being crap” is near flawless. (For those wondering, yes, I ended up watching Cooties despite my better judgment and, of course, I ended up disliking it.) Continue reading “Kristy” (2014) REVIEW

“Tales of Halloween” (2015) REVIEW

1As I laid on my couch last night, despondent over Halloween’s ghost quickly disappearing in my rearview mirror, I decided to watch the recently released horror anthology, Tales of Halloween, if only to keep the festive embers glowing just a little bit longer. It wasn’t something I had planned on watching; despite its voluminous cast and the certified Grade A horror pedigree involved, the trailer looked like the typical low-budget shot-on-digital crud that you’d expect to see being funded via Kickstarter. Alas, I was desperate for one last shot of Halloween, so I turned it on. Continue reading “Tales of Halloween” (2015) REVIEW