Category: Review

Reviews from all of the movies we have seen lately, including everything in theaters and on DVD.

THE WRETCHED – Review

C’mon film fans. let’s shake off the stuck-at-home isolation blues with this week’s new release. Yup, it’s not an “indie” full of despair and drama. So, it’s a rollicking comedy? Well..uh uh. A toe-tappin’ musical, perhaps?, Nah…it’s a horror flick. Well. at least you can feel good that all the weirdness isn’t directed at you as you stare out the window (hmm, the hero spends lots of screentime doing just that). And this is indeed an independent film, another in the subgenre of “art-house” horror led by THE WITCH, THE BABADOOK, and the very recent THE OTHER LAMB, though, in spirit, it may be closest to the retro thrills of IT FOLLOWS. This one owes a lot to that 70s homage, though it has more of the 1980’s thriller vibe of the Netflix hit “Stranger Things”. So with all the real-world scares outside can THE WRETCHED deliver the shivers?

Speaking of that past decade, the story begins with a flashback to a gruesome graphic incident in 1985 (it looks like an “afterschool special” no network would run). Jumpcut to today as teenager Ben (John-Paul Howard) gazes out the window of the bus taking him to a sleepy lakeside town somewhere in the US. After his folks split, this is where dad Liam (Jamison Jones) landed, running the local marina. And since Ben is spending the Summer with him, he’s got a job there. He’s not too keen about taking grief from the local rich kids, nor is he thrilled about Dad’s new girlfriend Sara (Azie Tesfal). But at least he’s made a friend, his cute and snarky co-worker Mallory (Piper Curda). And then there’s the weird next-door neighbors, Summer renters: affable beer-guzzling Ty (Kevin Bigley), doting mother Abbie (Zarah Mahler), grade-schooler Dillon (Blane Crockarell) and baby Sam. Everything changes when Abbie brings home a deer carcass in their truck (it was an accident…sure…). But they get much more than fresh venison. Then Ben observes some strange stuff. Ty’s in a stupor while Abbie’s wardrobe goes from “biker chick chic” (jean shorts, heavy metal T’s, and plaid) to flowing sundresses (with prominent crimson coloring). Ben discovers that Dillon is sleeping in one of the kids’ rental boats. And that baby’s awful quiet now. It all adds up to a sinister plot, but how can Ben get anybody, Mallory and especially his pop Liam to believe him? And what can he do before “whatever’s out there” gets to him?

At first, Howard appears to be doing a riff on the clean-cut all-American teen trapped in a supernatural web, but Ben seems to have his own inner demons. He sports an arm cast through most of the story, making us curious until midway in the film when he reveals that a botched drug theft (the opioid crisis rears its ugly head) caused it. His parents’ split has done some damage, as he lashes out, verbally berating his “laid back” papa, giving a Ben a “chip on his shoulder”. Even before he’s aware of the creepshow next door, he both hates the rich taunting “townies” and wishes he were part of their orbit. Curda’s quite charming as his best bud, “sounding board” and caper cohort (a mix of Daphne and Velma). Mallory’s a likable take on the “girl next door” (or work-pal) who helps ground Ben during some of his manic rants. Jones makes Liam a sympathetic single dad, especially when he gifts Ben with a bicycle (it’s got a basket already) and learns that his ex has already promised him her old car. Luckily he gets his confidence back in order to deal with his boy’s erratic behavior. The cast’s other stand-out is the main villain. Mahler’s Abbie seems to be the ultimate “cool mom”, who can rock a cradle while suiting up for a motorcycle jaunt. Then it’s as though she’s taken a variation of Jeykll’s formula. Without raising her voice, Abbie’s running ‘the show”, gliding from room to room, and house to house, purring threats to Ben through a flimsy screen door as she floats away in her billowy long red dresses (or is it a shroud). Ole’ Ty doesn’t stand a chance against her new sultry sinister self.

With their first film since the 2011 zombie flick DEADHEADS, the brothers Pierce (Drew T. and Brett) have crafted an engaging homage to the VHS classics, which probably were stacked around the family VCR. That’s not to say that their script is a Frankenstein cut and stitch job since the plot does go in several surprising directions (a late in the third act “curveball” is quite a risky jolt of energy). And their direction has just the right balance of atmosphere (can’t go wrong with the woods and all those dark dank basements) and frantic action set pieces (with that arm cast Ben is a challenged protagonist). Yes, it’s a bit bloody, but there’s also buckets of oozing dark sludge that fill the screen. Speaking of balance, the Pierces do use some nifty CG effects while giving us some variations of the type of practical make-ups inspired by the 82′ THING and the original HOWLING (Baker, Bottin, and Savini would be pleased). And there’s a bit of Hitchcock-style paranoia as Ben fails to convince any adults of his observations (a tip to another 80s classic, the original FRIGHT NIGHT and a nod to REAR WINDOW). The only time the story really stumbles is with a clumsy pool prank on Ben which takes us away from Abbie’s antics. And though both actors are terrific, there’s little romantic chemistry between the Ben and Mallory characters, as they work better as a Hardy boy teamed with Nancy Drew. But that’s a minor quibble because THE WRETCHED really delivers those “old school” thrills and chills. And, as always, don’t go in the basement!!!

3 out of 4

THE WRETCHED opens May 1 at drive-ins everywhere. It is also streaming through digital and cable platforms including VOD, iTunes, VUDU, Amazon Prime, GooglePlay, and YouTube

ROBERT THE BRUCE – Review

Angus Macfadyen as Robert the Bruce, in the historical drama ROBERT THE BRUCE. Photo courtesy of Screen Media.

ROBERT THE BRUCE is a historical drama that follows up on BRAVEHEART, Mel Gibson’s epic about William Wallace, about the contender for the Scottish throne who finally won Scotland its independence and became its king. A legendary figure in Scottish history, Robert the Bruce was a great king, one known for his great heart and his devotion to his people.

This sequel of sorts to BRAVEHEART stars Angus Macfadyen, who played Robert the Bruce in that film, and is being released video-on-demand on various platforms starting April 24. The film has no connection to Mel Gibson or his film beyond the subject matter, and Angus Macfadyen, but it would be natural to expect this historical follow-up to also be an epic, filled battles and the sweep of history, in the style of Gibson’s film, or even just a biography of this legendary king. While there are a few fight scenes in ROBERT THE BRUCE, this is not an epic nor a biography but a drama focused on a relatively small portion of time, albeit a pivotal moment, and more on an ordinary Scottish family than the future king himself.

One of the film’s pleasures is its beautiful photography, with aerial shots of a rugged landscape that give the drama an epic gravitas as well as a stern beauty. Some American viewers might find the heavy Scottish accents challenging, and might want to opt for subtitles where available when viewing it. Yet, oddly, this is not a Scottish production but an American-made film, directed by Richard Gray, with a script written by Eric Belgau and Angus Macfadyen. The film does have some gorgeous photography, with beautiful sweeping vistas of a snowy mountainous landscape, but that footage was shot in Montana, not Scotland. Still, Angus Macfadyen is so good reprising his role as Robert the Bruce, and the drama so sincere in its affection for Scotland, one might overlook some of that.

Robert the Bruce is certainly a worthy subject for a film, not only as the king that won Scotland its independence but as a man Scots counted as a great king. A full biography of Robert the Bruce starring Angus Macfadyen would have been a wonderful thing, particularly given the less successful attempt of THE OUTLAW KING a couple of years back. Alas, this film is not that.

That is what it is not, let’s talk about what it is. ROBERT THE BRUCE is a thoughtful, heartfelt little drama that focuses more on the longing of the Scottish people for freedom, and their affection for Robert the Bruce, than on the future king himself. In fact, Macfadyen plays almost a supporting role, as the drama focuses more on this one rural Scottish family and their struggles. It is well-intentioned film, a drama with a lot of heart, with some nice performances. Without the expectations created by promoting it as a BRAVEHEART sequel, that it might be enough to win an audience.

The film opens strong, with a terrific scene of a pivotal confrontation between Robert the Bruce (Macfadyen) and his chief rival for the crown, John Comyn, played with swaggering bravura by Jared Harris. The two are supposed to talk truce but the treacherous Comyn tells Bruce he intends to kill him instead. Harris and Macfadyen are marvelous in this scene, playing off each other skillfully and creating an atmosphere that crackles with tension. As the two men who would be king cross swords, Comyn taunts the Bruce, saying he knows Bruce’s greatest fear: that he will never be a William Wallace. The jab clearly hits a nerve, but while Bruce is staggered, he still proves the better fighter, and bests his opponent.

This opening fight scene is electrifying, with terrific work by both Harris and Macfadyen, setting expectations high. The fight scene is narrated by, and alternates with scenes of, an impoverished young Scottish widow (Anna Hutchison) recounting the tale for her young son Scott (Gabriel Bateman) and other children in her care, like a bedtime fairy tale. The other children are orphans in the care of the widow Morag and her teen nephew Carney (Brandon Lessard) in her tiny rural home. The narrator is the widow of a soldier killed fighting for the Bruce, as was the father of the other children, meaning the tale is more than the stuff of myth for this family.

After the fight, Robert and a handful of supporters are forced to flee before Comyn’s army arrives. On the run from Comyn’s supporters and with a bounty from the English king on his head, Bruce and his few retainers hide out in the snowy Scottish wilderness. Doubts begin to consume the future king, leading to a betrayal that leaves Robert wounded and alone. The unconscious injured king is discovered by the children who had been listening to tales of him, and the family takes him back to their tiny woodland home to nurse him back.

The greatest strength of this drama is Angus Macfadyen. Historically, the events in this film take place only a couple of years after the death of Wallace but the film makes no mention of that and clearly more that a couple of years have passed since Macfadyen played the role in BRAVEHEART. But Macfadyen is so good in the role that the film is easily forgiven its departure from history. In fact, the added years give Macfadyen a particular gravitas which works in the film’s favor, as he broods over whether fate intends him to be king. Before being found by the family, the Bruce takes shelter in a cave, where he grapples with his fate, as a complex mix of emotions and pain play across the actor’s face.

Sadly, there is not enough of Macfadyen in this drama, as the king spends a lot of time unconscious and relatively little time grappling with his fate and self-doubts. Instead, the drama mostly gives us a tale of various family members, although none of these subplots or characters are as fully developed as one might hope. It turns out one of the Bruce’s faithless followers, Brandubh (Zach McGowan), is the brother of the widow’s husband, and turns up with clear thoughts of taking his brother’s place, as he also searches for the wounded king with hopes to collect the English bounty. There is a side story about the king’s sword, about a witch’s prophesy, but none of it really comes together as well as it might have. Patrick Fugit plays another of the former followers of the Bruce, a particularly nasty one, and Kevin McNally plays a small role as a skilled sword maker.

Overall the cast is good although it seems rather small, one of the things that makes the drama feels too constrained for its historic subject. While the film has its good point, is sincere and has a certain gravitas, one can’t escape the sense that it was hampered by a small budget, too much of which went for those beautiful helicopter shots of the windswept scenery. With a few more extras and a battle or even a larger skirmish, the film could have opened up a bit, had a little more historical epic feel, and delivered a drama more like what audiences might expect for such a legendary king. Hopefully someone will make that connection, and cast Angus Macfadyen in the larger role that this film should have given him but didn’t.

ROBERT THE BRUCE is a small but well-meant historic drama, focused on a brief if pivotal point in the life of Scotland’s first king. But the title, the references to BRAVEHEART, and having Angus Macfadyen reprise his role from that earlier film, all seem to promise far more than this modest drama delivers.

RATING: 2 1/2 out of 4 stars

BAD EDUCATION – Review

BAD EDUCATION can currently be viewed on HBO

Review by Stephen Tronicek

If the standard of a great scene is one where you can watch the external action and see everything going on within the internal life of the characters, then every scene in Cory Finley’s sophomore feature, Bad Education, is a great one. Whether it be the cast, the editing, the direction, or the sound, what Finley’s debut feature, Thoroughbreds was missing in subtlety Bad Education has in spades. It’s one of the most satisfying films over the year. 

Admittedly, Bad Education is the type of story you can’t help but fall in love with. Follows the true story of the investigation of a huge embezzlement scheme at Roslyn High School in 2002, perpetrated by Frank Tassone (Hugh Jackman) and Pam Gluckin (Allison Janney), uncovered by a student at Roslyn who “followed the money,” (Geraldine Viswanathan). It’s the type of story that prioritizes character and craft over the stylistic trappings of Thoroughbreds.

 The pared-down, realistic style of Bad Education is immediately useful to the storytelling. Everything feels so business as usual, that Finley and scriptwriter Mike Makowsky are able to hide so many pieces of information in specific details. It’s a film that asks the audience to figure it out.

It also serves to be familiar, to anyone who has stepped foot inside of a public school. There’s a quiet tension to the way that human flaws are sitting beneath the professionalism of the environment and all that paper. So much paper just rotting away. Bad Education thrives on details like this, the camera focusing on a waterlogged ceiling or a modern art painting hanging on a wall it shouldn’t be on. 

Similarly, Bad Education is focused on the details of a character’s face and how much of the face we can see. Early in the film, Frank and Pam are shot from behind, later they are seen in profile, and lastly, devastatingly, they are seen straight on. Jackman and Janney take those close-ups and run with them. They are so good, very specific line readings will become lodged in your head, so illuminating of the characters that they transcend the physical action of the scene. It’s not just Jackman and Janney though. Viswanathan is incredible, Ray Romano continues his fantastic career renaissance in a small role and Hari Dhillon shines in a few scenes as Viswanathan’s father. There’s such kindness to their scenes together that contrasts brilliantly with the pitch black storytelling (on that note watch out for the smoothie Jackman is drinking). 

When all of this detail comes together, it’s pretty much unstoppable. There’s a scene near the beginning of the second act where Viswanathan’s student reporter speaks to Allison Janney, that is so excellently crafted from all the parties involved that it becomes a wonderful surprise that the film is only getting started.You’d be hard-pressed to find a better film than Bad Education right now. It’s a wonderful reminder that films like this can not only still be made but also excelled at. As much as the trailers might suggest, this isn’t a funny film. There’s no element of ironic wit to be found here. Just true to life wit that takes its characters and craft seriously.

4 1/2 of 5 Stars

HUMAN NATURE – Review

Dr. Jennifer Doudna, in the documentary HUMAN NATURE, in her lab at the Innovative Genomics Institute in Berkeley, CA. Doudna has tried to call public attention to the ethical implications of the CRISPR technology she helped invent. Photo courtesy of Greenwich Entertainment.

The documentary HUMAN NATURE, which is available on Amazon Prime, offers an accessible, accurate explanation of CRISPR, the molecular biology discovery that gives scientists a way to correct and cure genetic diseases, among other potential uses, but acting like molecular scissors to cut out and replace defective genes. The beautifully shot, well-researched HUMAN NATURE presents a mostly balanced picture of this groundbreaking discovery.

CRISPR is often called “molecular scissors” for its ability to alter DNA sequences, even down to changing a single base pair, the “letters” of the DNA alphabet, a level of precision never before possible. HUMAN NATURE does an excellent job of covering the basics of DNA and describing what CRISPR is and why it is such a game-changer, with enormous potential for the treatment of genetic diseases and even cancer. But the documentary stumbles a bit into bias when it later discusses its potential for its misuse, not sufficiently clarifying what risks are specific to CRISPR and which are inherent in other genetic techniques such as in-vitro fertilization and genetically modification of organisms.

Director Adam Bolt presents the topic in a straight-forward way without oversimplifying. The topic was inherently of interest to me personally, as I have a degree in genetics, but this is an important topic that should interest everyone, because the discovery of CRISPR has the potential to change medicine and many things about our world is that great. The information is clearly and accurately presented and the presence of a great number of well-respected authorities adds to the depth of the information. Yet HUMAN NATURE is an engaging film, drawing the viewer in and presenting both the science and the historical context in an lively, visually strong fashion.

It does a good job of balancing interview sequences with other footage, keeping a brisk enough pace to keep the audience involved. The material it presents in describing the science and both the promise and questions it poses for society are well crafted and edited. Among the experts who speak are Jennifer Doudna, one of the developers of the CRISPR technology, and David Baltimore, a Nobel Prize winner and leader in the field of molecular biology. Unlike many documentaries about science, it is clear that scientists played a big part in creating this film, which is one greatest of its strengths.

Where HUMAN NATURE does best is in its first half, covering what CRISPR is and why it is so revolutionary. It does an outstanding job to conveying how remarkable and game-changing this new technique really is. The documentary has just the right amount of information to give audiences an understanding of genetics and DNA without getting too sidetracked into detail to take the focus off the central topic. It describes how CRISPR works in a clear but scientific manner, letting scientists and doctors speak, but also focusing on patients with genetic diseases, the people it has the potential to help. It does an outstanding job to conveying how remarkable and game-changing this new technique really is.

HUMAN NATURE does an excellent job in this first portion where it examines what CRISPR is and its great promise for humankind. One of the strongest voices in this first segment, and actually throughout the documentary, is a teen suffering from Sickle Cell Disease. He is a well spoken, well-grounded and personable young man who is both likable and wise beyond his years. The documentary uses the sickle cell as a example for many of the points it makes about the potential good in CRISPR and some of the questions it raises. When someone inherits two copies of the gene, the result is Sickle Cell Disease, in which misshapened red blood cells cause painful and sometimes life-threatening symptoms, but when an individual inherits a single copy of the gene, there is evidence that it confers some resistance to malaria. The genetic trait is common in Africa and some areas around the Mediterranean.

Where the documentary falters a bit is in the second portion where it turns to potential dangers. Like every tool, CRISPR has the potential for misuse in the wrong hands or if used without ethical or legal guidelines. The guiding principle here, for CRISPR or any powerful tools, is that old saying “Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”

However, what the documentary does not make clear is that most of the dangers it presents are already with us, largely from the already on-going use of in-vitro fertilization and the unknowns in genetic modification of organisms (a subject the documentary does not even touch on). The risk for unscrupulous use already exists with IVF, which can be used to select for one gender over the other, or for height or eye color, or eliminate embryos with genetic diseases or any trait the user might deem “undesirable.” While research scientists follow rules of ethical behavior that are enforced by peer-reviewed journals and some countries ban some actions, their is no international rule on this. A debate on it is underway in academic circles but less so in governmental ones. The risk comes less from academic research, which operates under ethical constraints, but from private companies, where the profit motive drives decisions and the ultimate constraints are legal. While most scientists agree on what is ethical use, the legal rules vary country to country, with some things banned in some countries but allowed in others. With or without CRISPR, the documentary is right to call for some international rules for ethical use of the genetic manipulation, particularly when a powerful technique like CRISPR moves from a pure-research setting to a commercial one.

CRISPR is indeed a powerful advance, and there is one aspect to CRISPR that presents a unique risk: its potential to change the germ line. meaning its changes would be inherited by the next generation. CRISPR gives scientists the potential to not only cure someone with a genetic disease, such as the boy with sickle cell, but to ensure that the trait is not passed down to his offspring. The documentary is right to sound the alarm on this aspect, as the law of unintended consequences looms large when one begins to manipulate the evolution of humankind.

HUMAN NATURE presents a fairly good discussion of this danger, focusing on the fact that there is still much that is unknown about human genetics. While eliminating human suffering by getting rid of a genetic disease like Huntington’s or a cancer is enormous appealing, there is considerable risk of long-term unknown results. We do not know if we might accidentally eliminate another trait, such as musical talent, at the same time we eliminate a defective gene, because there are too many unknowns about the influence of one gene on another.

That danger argues for a go-slow approach and much more research. The documentary presents an informative and engaging discussion on this double-edged sword aspect of CRISPR, although it makes some strange choices on what the filmmakers see as risky. For example, it focuses with alarm on a researcher with an interest recreating Ice Age mammoths, which might be possible, and repopulating the steppe with them, which seems unlikely to happen. On the other hand, the film shows us a start-up company already trying to use CRISPR to grow organs for human transplants in pigs, by replacing large sections of pig DNA with human DNA to create a pig-human hybrid organism. The filmmakers seems less worried about this commercial operation, despite the many more red flags it seems to raise.

Overall, HUMAN NATURE is a polished, well-researched and informative film about a groundbreaking discovery that has enormous promise for the human species, but viewers need to give careful consideration to the questions raised about it so as to neither “throw the baby out with the bathwater” nor plunge ahead into a brave new world of unintended consequences. As in most things, the middle way is best.

Although it is not a flawless film, HUMAN NATURE is a lively, visually colorful, engaging documentary that respects the audience’s intelligence. It is a breathe of fresh air in a world where reporters rarely cover science well and too many anti-science voices dominate.

RATING: 3 1/2 out of 4 stars

VIVARIUM – Review

VIVARIUM is now on Digital VOD and available on Blu-ray and DVD May 12th

Review by Stephen Tronicek

Lorcan Finnegan’s Vivarium takes place in an ever-expanding closed loop of a suburb called Yonder.  In Yonder, all the houses look the same as something has been copied and pasted over. That’s a pretty good way of describing the film. Sadly, after a strong start, Vivarium soon starts to copy and paste elements of sci-fi horror onto a weak frame propped up by great actors playing noncharacters and some incredible production design. 

That frame is built strongly at the start. Gemma (Imogen Poots) and Tom (Jesse Eisenberg) are a couple looking for a new house. When they are lead into the Yonder development, they are left in house #9…and they can’t leave. Soon, whatever is running the place leaves them a “child” to raise.

This is a really interesting premise, one that could either go the nasty simple route or one that could expand into trying to say something about the heavy-handed suburban themes that the film’s premise necessitates. Vivarium opts for the nasty simple route, which there’s nothing wrong with. Many films that take the nasty simple route to access wider thematic themes work out just fine. In fact, that may be the preferred route to do so…but the good ones have a clear escalation of conflict and actual characters at the center of them. 

This is where Vivarium starts to fall apart. While the wonderfully hazy production design creates a solid mood, two of the best performers working today throw what they can at the material, and Finnegan lends some solid direction it becomes apparent by the hour mark that Vivarium doesn’t have an interest in an escalating sense of conflict. The middle act starts well enough but soon crumbles as the repetition starts to expand.

 It doesn’t help that certain elements of the film feel rehashed. The suburban imagery, the still hypnotic framing that doesn’t ask us to engage with the characters, and the creepy but sparse score all suggest better sci-fi horror films. By the time the film drags itself into the third act, it goes full-tilt in a way that seems overdone and far more terrifying elsewhere, even if the actors try to sell it. 

Vivarium certainly tries its best to outrun the story problems at its center but it can’t quite. Instead of creepy and alive, it feels stagnant and reheated. By the time you get to the top of the frame, there’s nothing there. The final images of the film only seem to suggest meaning, rather than containing it. 

2.5 out of 5

CLOVER – Review

(l-r) Jon Abrahams and Nicole Elizabeth Berger in CLOVER. Photo courtesy of Freestyle Digital Media.

CLOVER is a crime action/comedy about a couple of Irish American brothers on the run from a Italian American crime boss, in the company of a precocious girl named Clover. The girl is there to make us think of KICK ASS, but CLOVER mines a host of other films in the crime action/comedy genre, pretty much to a fault. While the tropes are familiar, CLOVER puts them together well enough to present a serviceable popcorn entertainment for some audiences. It’s no SNATCH, but it might do in a pinch for an afternoon of stay-at-home distraction, if you don’t expect too much..

CLOVER is not as clever as it thinks it is but it benefits from a strong cast, who provide much of the reason to watch it. Directed by Jon Abrahams (All At Once) with a script by Michael Testone (Mercy), it is well-edited and technically-polished enough to provide some serviceable entertainment, but it could have been better with more work on the script and a bit more care. Where the film is strongest is in its cast, with entertaining work from Mark Webber and Jon Abrahams as the bumbling Irish American brothers at the center of this tale, and nice supporting work from Chazz Palminteri and essentially an extended cameo by the always-wonderful Ron Perlman. Erika Christensen and Julia Jones contribute too, playing contract killers, and Jessica Szohr and Tichina Arnold also pitch in. play an ex-girlfriend and an old pal of the brothers who get embroiled in the mess. One of the comic standouts is Jake Weber, who plays crazy cousin Terry who has some mad skills and a knack with science, if a tenuous grip on the present. In fact, the whole film has a tenuous grip, on its time period and other matters – more on this later.

The film opens with Ron Perlman as a wealthy guy in a mansion explaining, in pompous, ruling-class detail, to an unseen assassin he is hiring, exactly why this particular target needs to be killed to restore the order in the world. It is a bit overblown and mysterious, and the film quickly switches more familiar crime thriller territory. Jackie (Mark Webber) and Mickie (director Jon Abrahams) run an Irish bar that has been in their family for three generations but it is now in danger due to debts they owe to the local crime boss Tony Davolo, played with growling menace by Chazz Palminteri. The girl Clover (Nicole Elizabeth Berger) comes in when the brothers, who are clearly out of their depth, are sent on a job for the crime boss, one that goes oh-so-very wrong.

CLOVER is packed with overworked crime film bits but also the kind of crime film stereotyping about the Irish and Italians common in films of the 1970s. But that latter seems to make a kind of sense, because the story seems to be set in the 1970s. Everyone dresses like the ’70s, the cars are from the ’70s, the decor is ’70s and story seems to fit a 1970s crime genre film pattern. Then someone pulls out a cell phone.

Granted, its a flip phone, so maybe we are in the 1990s and all this takes place in a kind of cultural backwater, But then the time period gets murkier, as more contemporary cars and props turn up, and you can’t help but wonder, when the heck is this story taking place. That thought keeps intruding, and maybe if the story were stronger, it would distract one from thinking about it. But it’s not.

Was there an intention in the murky time period thing? Who knows. Later in the film, it drifts into a kind of contemporary girl power theme, so maybe it is meant as a clever time period twist. However, that does not really work, and the film is not nearly as clever as the filmmakers thinks it is. The story is full of twists and surprises but while the twists are sometimes unexpected, they are also often remarkably far-fetched. The story does eventually get back to the Ron Perlman character in the opening sequence, a sequence that seemed to have no connection to the rest of the tale, but again the connection presented in overly contrived, barely explained and hardly believable. CLOVER ends with tying itself up in a self-satisfied bow, a rather sloppy one.

CLOVER can be a serviceable bit of crime thriller/comedy entertainment, if expectations are not too high. It is a technically well-crafted film with a better-than-expected cast, but it is a fairly well-acted crime yarn whose script could have done with more work. Still, it can offer a bit of entertaining distraction, something we all need in these trying time. CLOVER is available on demand on several video platforms.

RATING: 2 out of 4 stars

RED ROVER – Review

Review by Stephen Tronicek

RED ROVER premieres On Demand May 12 from Indiecan Entertainment.

Red Rover is not a film about traveling to Mars. Instead, it is a film about a man named Damon (Kristian Bruun) who is living in the basement of his ex-girlfriend. Eventually, he meets Phoebe (Cara Gee), a fantasy woman, who pushes him out of his everyday routine by proposing he join the Mars project. 

Red Rover didn’t need to be about traveling to Mars.  When you’re working within the framework of the independent film, the budget simply doesn’t exist to create a larger film with a lot of VFX work. Unfortunately, Red Rover is just a horribly derivative version of a “man getting back his mojo” movie. 

The above-average aspects of the piece do show at least a little inventiveness, though. Shane Belcourt directs the film well and the actors are all in for the haphazard storyline. Brunn turns in a largely thankless performance that does its best to reconcile some of the cringy dialogue. On top of that, the concept of a major Mars mission being a transitional phase for somebody’s life isn’t a bad idea. The same goes for a pretty good set up and pay off of Damon’s metal detector search on the beach each day. At the moments when Damon chooses to change, the film actually comes alive. The problem is that often there’s not a choice to what Damon is doing. 

Red Rover often robs Damon of his own agency, while not giving Phoebe any valuable agency of her own. Phoebe exists within the narrative simply to change Damon. Any type of characterization given to her doesn’t rise above the typically adolescent fantasy of the girl who simply has only your interests in mind…and sings cute indie music, It’s a truly unfortunate trope that was long ago pushed to the point of parody. As mentioned above, the dialogue often reads as the cringey fantasy of someone hoping for Phoebe to show up, not something Phoebe would actually say. 

While not a complete loss, Red Rover is just another high concept romantic drama in a sea that can’t manage to transcend the common problem of character agency. There are some moments of interesting change, but they are not profound. They don’t ring true. They are as far away as Mars. 

TROLLS WORLD TOUR – Review

TROLLS WORLD TOUR serves up a disposable abundance of flash and sparkle with a smorgasbord of dancing and music. This animated sequel (originally scheduled for theatrical release) offers enough kaleidoscopic visuals and good-hearted platitudes about tolerance and celebrating differences to earn the trust of parents who need something new to park their 5-year olds in front of during the pandemic. That said, don’t sit with them. This over-bright sugar-rush of a film is a brand-driven cash grab, the equivalent of having glitter blown in your face for an endless 95 minutes.  

When TROLLS WORLD TOUR starts off, all seems to be well in Troll Village with bouncy Queen Poppy (voiced by Anna Kendrick), and her downer wannabe boyfriend Branch (Justin Timberlake). Before long the pair discovers there are five other Troll clans, each of whom is trained in a different style of music. There’s Funk (represented by the voices of Mary J. Blige, George Clinton and Anderson Paak), Classical (violinist Gustavo Dudamel and Charlyne Yi),  Country (Kelly Clarkson, Sam Rockwell, and Flula Borg), Jazz (Jamie Dornan) and Techno (Anthony Ramos). That sort of musical diversity doesn’t sit well with Queen Barb (Rachel Bloom), a Hard Rock-loving Troll who decides no other musical forms are acceptable and attempts to do away with them. But Poppy and Branch attempt to unite the remaining groups and prove that all Trolls not being the same can be a good thing.

I missed the first TROLLS, though perhaps an animated Hip-hop musical based on weird cute/ugly dolls that were a fad many decades ago could be fun, and maybe it was. But TROLLS WORLD TOUR is almost non-stop musical numbers, mostly classic rock standards (and some new tunes), but no matter the pedigree of the artists they’ve hired, all the songs sound like earworm Kidz-Bop covers. Vast amounts of money and expertise have been poured into the film which boasts a star-studded voice cast and animation that strives to be expressive despite hideous character design. The cast does their best (though Timberlake is an awful voice actor) but they have almost nothing to do here save for fitting the requirement for singing all these pop covers. The writing is lazy in terms of developing these characters, so they emphasize their feelings through one trite song after another. There’s no heart or any kind of emotion behind the story, just so many shallow and simple ideas about happiness and acceptance. Toddlers will eat TROLLS WORLD TOUR up like candy so I’ll give this one more star than it deserves for being a decent distraction for them.

2 of 4 Stars

TAPE – Review

Isabelle Fuhrman as Isabelle in Deborah Kampmeier’s harrowing, true-story based #MeToo drama TAPE. Photo courtesy Full Moon Films.

TAPE opens with images of the mutilated character Lavinia from Shakespeare’s “Titus Andronicus,” followed by horrific footage of a young woman strapping a camera to her belly to film herself engaged in self-mutilation. The scene looks like something out of a horror film but the film shifts gears, as she turns her camera towards secretly filming a predatory male director/producer as he moves in on a young actress, with a pretense of coaching her acting. The echos of Harvey Weinstein and his ilk are unmistakable, and this based-on-a-true story about a Me Too experience offers a harrowing journey with a gut-punch ending.

The fact that it is based on a true story adds power to director/writer Deborah Kampmeier’s taut drama TAPE, is a chilling drama for the MeToo era, with an actress tracking a predatory director’s moves on another young actress. “I would never want you to do anything that made you uncomfortable” is the prelude to “but if you want a career” pressure. It is a familiar theme in the era of Harvey Weinstein but watching it unfold step-by-step in this taut tale is more disturbing than one might expect.

Deborah Kampmeier is known for her feminist films, and while this one fits neatly into that group, it is also a rallying cry on a timely topic. Most powerfully, it is a step-by-step examination of how young women are lured into these kinds of destructive situations, by someone playing on ambition and skilled in manipulation.

Although the film was clearly shot on a shoestring budget, that fact does nothing to diminish its impact. The film’s edge-of-your-seat effect is largely thanks to following the subjects step-by-step descent into the trap, and the emotionally-jarring final sequence. That effect is greatly aided by fine acting by the trio of performers at its center.

Annarosa Mudd plays Rosa, the woman with the camera, who pierces her tongue, shaves her head and cuts her wrists in an homage to Shakespeare’s’ Lavinia, before setting up camera and strapping one to herself, as she stalks a young actress named Pearl. Rose seems unbalanced, obsessive, maybe jealous, until we gradually see what is really happening. Her searing performance and haunting screen presence grips us, so we cannot look away.

As Pearl, Isabelle Fuhrman wavers between self-assured and confident in her own values, and an ambitious performer driven to seize every opportunity. Pearl is also pursued by director/producer Lux (Tarek Bishara), with praise of her talent and offers to mentor her. As handsome, charming Lux, Bishara veers, in astonishingly convincing manner, between a charismatic mentor who seems only want to guide her to the full expression of her talent, and a selfish predator bent on his own seamy goals. Their dance along the knife edge of truth and deceit is truly harrowing to watch.

This is not an easy film to watch but it rewards the audience with its thought-provoking content. Even though the Covid-19 pandemic has pushed all other issues to the side for now, the issue of abuse of women in the entertainment and other industries has not gone away and will resurface again. This gripping drama gives compelling insights how a reasonable young woman might find herself drawn into this destructive situation.

TAPE begins streaming Friday, April 10, on Amazon, iTunes, GooglePlay and Microsoft.

RATING: 3 1/2 out of 4 stars

SEA FEVER – Review

SEA FEVER will be available on Digital and On Demand on April 10th.

Review by Matthew Lowery

Stories about aquatic terrors are certainly nothing new, dating back to the ancient Greek legend of the Hydra. Authors like H.P. Lovecraft, Jules Verne, and Herman Melville became famous for writing such tales about underwater monsters. In films, there have been tons about undersea creatures terrorizing people, most famously being Spielberg’s 1975 classic, Jaws. However, after the release of 1979’s Alien, people were more focused on outer space terrors than those from the depths. Around the late 1980s, there was a string of underwater creature films released, including The Abyss, Leviathan, and Deepstar Six. Most recently, we had the surprisingly effective deep-sea thriller, Underwater, and now we have another one straight from Ireland. This time, it’s from writer-director Neasa Hardiman, who previously directed TV shows like Happy Valley, The Inhumans, and Jessica Jones. She’s now making her feature film debut with the ocean-based thriller, Sea Fever.

Marine-biology student Siobhán (Hermione Corfield) is tasked to embark on a week-long trip aboard a rusty old fishing boat. Headed by husband and wife Gerard (Dougray Scott) and Freya (Connie Nielsen), she’s tasked with photographing their catches for anomalies. During the trip, the crew discovers a giant creature underwater has attached its tendrils to the boat, stranding them. The creature eventually frees them, but not before leaving behind some sludge carrying some deadly parasites that begin to spread. Crew member Johnny (Jack Hickey) ends up getting infected and dies, making the rest increasingly paranoid about who’s next. To make matters worse, the parasites have taken over their water supply, making it easier to infect the crew. Against all odds, Siobhán must overcome her shyness and win the crew’s trust if they’re going to survive. Who will live through this, and who will be the next victim?

Sea Fever certainly takes influence from other, better movies, but it’s well-crafted and well-acted enough to stand on its own. Given she had more experience directing for TV, Hardiman’s direction is surprisingly decent, using tracking shots and some dynamic lighting. Performance-wise, everyone delivers a solid performance, especially lead actors Corfield, Nielsen, and Scott, who all help to carry the film. Corfield adds a very human element to the proceedings, and Nielsen and Scott feel like a couple with a history. There are some nice practical effects used, and the digital effects work used for the undersea creatures isn’t too bad. Sea Fever does take time out to develop the characters, even if things don’t pick up until halfway through. Once it does, it becomes an intense thriller where you’re not sure who’s infected, who’s safe, and what’ll happen next. It’s a solid effort for a debut feature film.

As I alluded to earlier, it’s easy to draw comparisons between Sea Fever and various other films of similar ilk. Structurally, the film feels like a cross between Alien and The Thing, with some elements of Jaws also thrown in. There’s the undersea creature terrorizing people, the crew growing paranoid over one another, and even scenes reminiscent of those films. Then again, a film taking influence from other films is nothing new, so long as it ends up being good. In this case, Sea Fever is an impressive horror thriller with enough style and acting to keep one’s interest. Plus, at a brisk 97 minutes, the film doesn’t outstay its welcome and moves at a solid pace. It won’t set the world on fire or have a major impact, but it shows that Neasa Hardiman has potential. Overall, Sea Fever is an ocean-based thriller that’s worth one’s salt.

3 out of 4 stars