BORGMAN – The Review

BORGMAN_Bedroom: A naked Borgman (Jan Bijvoet) crouches over Marina (Hadewych Minis) as she sleeps in Drafthouse Films’ Borgman. Courtesy of Drafthouse Films.

Most of us think we have a solid grasp on the definition of good and evil. This is good and right, but that over there is so bad and evil. I’m good because I do this, but what they do over there is evil. We like to throw these labels around like they are black and white, carved in stone and not at all subject to interpretation or context. At this, I laugh heartily with the best of intentions. One of the many things I love so much about cinema is the freedom it gives the artist to explore sides of humanity that most of us would otherwise dare not even think of acting out in real life. Nor would most of us ever wish such things on others, but there is something to be said for exploring such things on a philosophical and artistic level instead of avoiding and ignoring the urges and curiosities.

BORGMAN is written and directed by Dutch filmmaker Alex van Warmerdam. The film begins harmlessly enough, with a small mob of angry men and their dogs led by a priest carrying a shotgun. Nothing out of the ordinary. The priest and his posse appear to be hunting a vagrant who has ingeniously dug out an underground home for himself beneath the forest floor, complete with a hidden entrance and furniture. The vagrant’s name is Camiel Borgman, played by Jan Bijvoet, and he will prove to be much more complex than he appears at face value. Camiel is a relatively small, skinny man, filthy and unkempt with long ratty hair and beard. Despite our first impressions, there is something about the way Camile moves and carries himself, right from the beginning, that sets him apart and conveys an unmistakable intelligence.

BORGMAN_Emerging2

Having caught wind of the intruders, Camiel abandons his home and warns his neighboring vagrants as he stealthily retreats from the oncoming threat. He happens upon an upper class home nestled within the woods and takes it upon himself to knock upon the front door. Richard, played by Jeroen Pereval, answers and with perfect politeness, Camiel asks the man if he may take a bath, or even a shower would suffice, as its been ages since he’s had the opportunity. It may come with great shock when Richard refuses, politely enough at first, but this is when things really begin to get interesting. Masterfully improvising as he goes, Camile begins to spin a seemingly believable tale of how he knows Richard’s wife Marina, played by Hadewych Minis. This, of course, reestablishes Richard’s interest which ultimately leads to Camiel receiving a testosterone-fueled beat down from Richard on his front lawn. Shocked and genuinely concerned for his health, Marina feels drawn to help Camile and make up for the barbaric display of masculine pride her husband has bestowed upon him. After all, Camiel appears harmless enough, right?

With each step he takes and boundary he pushes, Camiel reveals more of his true nature. Simultaneously, Marina — an artist — falls deeper and deeper into his spell as we watch her loyalty shift. Meanwhile, Richard’s corporate career is falling apart and their family life is beginning to crumble and Camiel leaves out of boredom. As a crucial turning point, Camiel returns to Marina’s house as their new gardener. He is cleaned up, almost unrecognizable except to Marina. With him Camiel brings a motley crew of fellow confidence artists who share his diabolical taste for manipulating others’ lives and, in some cases, ending them as well. Pascal, Ilonka, Brenda and Ludwig — played by Alex van Warmerdam — are a team of brilliant misfits who thrive on anarchy and deception. As the new gardeners, they begin constructing their intricate design which will forever change the lives of Marina and her family. Equally disturbing, but on a much less noticeable scale than Camiel, is the quietly discomforting performance given by Elve Lijbaart as Isolde, Marina’s blonde-haired white-skinned daughter. Isolde gets credit for the most shockingly unexpected and disturbing moment in the film, revealing that perhaps she too is predisposed to being a sociopath.

BORGMAN_Isolde_Victim2

BORGMAN is rich with dark details and curious notions. Camiel comes across as some mysterious Loki-like deity of mischief, playing with peoples’ lives like so many fragile tin soldiers in a young boy’s toy chest. Camiel operates with a malevolent modesty that is disarming. He picks and chooses those he knows he can control and discards those he chooses not to control, instead toying with them first like setting ants on fire with a magnifying glass. They slowly feel the burn, not knowing the source, then suddenly they are dead. Warmerdam leaves plenty open to interpretation and discussion. While BORGMAN has a complicated but accessible plot, there are many elements that raise questions rather provide answers. Pay close attention to these key moments in the film and enjoy discussing them with fellow viewers afterwards. Few films since PULP FICTION have provided this caliber of debatable cinematic content.

What begins as a dry, quirky tale of a homeless man rapidly escalates and transforms into something more sinister. BORGMAN is often surreal and edgy, never ceasing to surprise the viewer as Camiel gradually unfolds his devilishly wicked wings from beneath his mild-mannered cloak. Such a change might prove too much and over the top, but Warmerdam does it with such subtlety and attention to keeping the tone of the film calm and almost meditative, that the transition from good to evil appears almost seamless and natural. In a sense, BORGMAN attempts to blur the lines between what is good and evil. Marina and those close to her are Camiel’s playthings and Camiel is the filmmaker’s master of puppets in his deadly and seductive game of chess.

If you enjoyed Michael Haneke’s FUNNY GAMES, I highly recommend Warmerdam’s BORGMAN, as it falls somewhere on the slightly less psychotic end of the scale for such films.

BORGMAN opens theatrically in NY on June 6th, 2014 at Lincoln Plaza & IFC Center with an expanded release on June 13th & 20th, 2014

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 Stars

BORGMAN_Theatrical_Poster

THE BIG ASK – The Review

thebigask_image

I am going to share with you a hypothetical scenario. As I do, imagine yourself in this scenario. You can choose to be any one of the characters involved in the scenario, but I challenge you not to feel the raw emotion of the moment…

Andrew is suffering from the loss of his mother, who recently died of cancer. At Andrew’s request, his girlfriend Hannah, his two best friends Dave and Owen, and their two girlfriends Emily and Zoe, all meet up at a rented house in the rural desert to support Andrew in his time of grief. What they all find out is that Andrew, as a way to cope with the pain and sadness of his loss, would like to sleep with all three women, Hannah, Emily and Zoe, simultaneously, in an effort to help him heal, emotionally, by submerging himself in overwhelming love.

Now, in whose shoes are you standing? How do you feel? Awkward. Embarrassed. Angry. Betrayed. These are all emotions explored in THE BIG ASK. Right in the beginning, it takes no time at all for Andrew to pop the question to his friends, honestly and straight forward, but humbly, he makes his case. Initially, they all think he’s joking, except Hannah, before they realize he’s serious, perhaps even a little crazy. This is why the film succeeds. It immediately gets the baggage out of the way so that the exploration of the characters’ relationships can begin.

Written by Thomas Beatty and co-directed by Beatty and Rebecca Fishman, THE BIG ASK is a fresh comedy that is slightly skewed towards being a romantic comedy in a very unconventional way. However, just beneath the surface of the humor, there are some powerful dramatic themes. Consider the crossing INDECENT PROPOSAL (1993) with BOB & CAROL & TED & ALICE (1969) and you have a beginning framework for what’s about to take place, thematically. This is a very well-written film, with a strong moral inquiry, but is approached with an appropriately ambiguous attitude. We would like to think the answer to Andrew’s question would be simple, immediate. In real life, there is no black and white. Whether we expect it or not, there is always a gray area, and that is precisely where this film dwells.

thebigask_image3

Andrew, played by David Krumholtz, is certainly not the textbook example of the average woman’s dream guy, but he has a certain charm about him that allows us to somehow, somewhat play along with his outlandish request. Audiences may best remember Krumholtz as Barry Schweiber from the TV series Freak & Geeks. For some, this may paint a very vivid picture. Dave, played by Zachary Knighton, and Owen, played by Jason Ritter, are Andrew’s childhood friends. Despite their clear reluctance to Andrew’s proposition, its apparent that their love and concern for their friend overrides and jealously or macho defiance that would be considered commonplace. Dave seems to have the most level head about the ordeal while occasionally having to keep Owen in check, whose emotions and self-control prove to be less mature than Dave’s.

When Andrew is around his male friends, having guy time, he seems to find his inner child and loosens his grip a bit on this far-fetched dream of having an orgy with the three women. However, when Andrew is alone with one of the women — rarely is he alone with them all at once — we get to see a more pathetic, manipulative side of Andrew. His false confidence comes out, disguised in a charming sweetness that borders between nerdy cuteness and uncomfortably forward. Hannah, played by Melanie Lynskey, is quiet and unassuming. As much as can be expected, she is surprisingly patient and understanding with Andrew. Most women would have left, protested or even caused bodily harm to their boyfriend, had he just openly and directly propositioned two other women right in front her.

Hannah may not be a supermodel, but she has a simple, natural beauty that softly radiated whenever she’s on film. It takes some time before she finds the strength to speak up and tell Andrew how she really feels. In stark contrast to Hannah is Emily. Played by Gillian Jacobs, best known for her role as Britta Perry on the TV series Community, Emily is an outgoing, new age hippie kinda girl with a free spirit and boundless energy. Her playful, loving nature shows when she is the first one to admit being open, albeit reluctant, to Andrew’s proposition as she feels obligated to help Andrew, even if she has no physical attraction or desire for a sexual encounter. Zoe, played by Ahna O’Reilly, is new to the group and something of a wild card. She maintains an impartial bias to Andrew’s proposition, fueled somewhat by disbelief. Zoe also maintains a bit more distance from the rest of the group as she contemplates another proposition from Dave. Of the entire cast, Zoe is not only the least engaging of characters, she is also the least significant to the story. Honestly, by simply being there, Zoe ups the ante from being a mere a menage-a-trios to something a bit more risque and taboo. With that said, Hannah and Zoe truly carry a great deal of the on screen chemistry in the film, dramatically and comically.-

thebigask_image2

Another subtle element to the film’s success is the use of visual storytelling. Little things that make a subconscious impact, such as confining the characters within a relatively small space, juxtaposed against such a vast, seemingly endless landscape like the rural desert. A large nearby rocky outcropping occasionally serves as another setting where the characters take to hiking. From the top serves as a vantage point, a way of looking down at them selves and out over the vastness of everything, themselves being minute in comparison. Even the framing choices in the film are often highly suggestive or contemplative in subtle ways. Where the characters are physically to each other, how they’re positioned or what they’re doing. This all plays into the overall visual storytelling. Adding to the success of the film are the notable supporting cast appearances from Ned Beatty as Old Man Carl and French Stewart as Rich, owner of the house the couples have rented.

THE BIG ASK proposes a simple question in less simple terms. This isn’t just a stranger asking another stranger to have sex. This is one man asking an unbelievably difficult favor of his friends, testing the strength and intimacy of their relationship. There is more at stake that petty high school things like desire and attraction. Andrew’s state of mind and emotional well-being is a very real and legitimate concern for his friends, who also struggle with whether they can help or if his condition goes deeper and requires more professional help. Krumholtz is enigmatic in his role. We’re never sure if this is all a hormone-driven con or deeply seeded cry out for help. Andrew seems so calm about the whole ordeal, albeit unnervingly so, until the final act when tragedy takes his recently befriended local mutt away and Andrew finally shows some sense of normal human pain and emotion.

The film is set almost entirely within or around the grounds of the rented house. This helps by creating a tangible enclosure of intimacy. There are no fences or barbed wire, but the film still feels as though the characters are bound within an emotional octagon tasked with slugging out this moral dilemma until a victor is born. This match is rigged and Andrew is meant to be the victor, but how that looks in the end will be determined by the players within the ring. The result is a film that feels very real. Despite the initial shock, THE BIG ASK feels like something that could actually happen. This is raw emotion without the melodrama. This is you, me, and the average Joe played out on screen.

THE BIG ASK is available through Video On Demand and opens in select theaters on Friday, May 30th, 2014.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

thebigask_poster

DON PEYOTE – The Review

DON_P_257-600x337

For the sake of full disclosure, I would like to begin by declaring that I am not now, nor have I ever been, a participant of the pot smoking culture. Why am I declaring this, you may ask? Simple. This movie is, essentially, all about smoking pot. Wonderful. Another DAZED & CONFUSED you say? Wrong. With that said, DON PEYOTE is also much more, but the weed certainly plays a major role.

Please, do not misinterpret my opening remarks. I hold no personal or political grudge against anyone for partaking in this extra-curricular activity. I only bring it up to make a point, as indulging in the great green pastime may certainly influence how the film is experienced. So, as you read this review, keep in mind these are merely the opinions of a critic who was not under the influence during the viewing.

In so many ways, watching DON PEYOTE is like watching Terry Gilliam’s FEAR & LOATHING IN LAS VEGAS, only a bit more insane and with a definite indie flair. Instead of the central character being a gonzo journalist who thrives on anarchy, Warren is a struggling graphic novelist who thrives on paranoia. Both characters share a relentless taste for getting high, but after doing so, Warren delves into the colorful world of conspiracy theory, sinking deeper into its crippling grasp with each hit on his improvised apple bowl.

I’m sure you can already sense what’s in store with this film. Whatever you’re thinking, you’re not wrong. Or, you are. It all depends on how far removed from reality you currently claim to be. That, my friend, best describes DON PEYOTE and how best to determine where you may stand at the film’s completion. Just food for thought. Beware, and enjoy.

DON PEYOTE is about Warren, played by Dan Fogler, who fills the unknown void in his life with marijuana. He enjoys a relatively modest life, albeit with a borderline career and a relationship built on an unstable footing. His fiance wants a child, but fails to recognize she’s about to marry one, then when she does finds Warren completely surprised by her willingness to abandon their bond. Warren surrounds himself with friends, all of whom are equally out of touch and similarly self-destructive on a subconscious level, as he makes his way through this psychotic warm and fuzzy trip.

Let me stop you here, before we go any further. If you’re seeking a clearly structured, linear film with a concise story in three simple acts and a well-defined, low mess ending… turn around. Just, stop. Go home. Give up now. These things, you will not receive. DON PEYOTE, more or less, breaks all the rules of conventional filmmaking, but does so with such energy and bravado. The film appeals to just about every genre. Comedy, drama, mystery, horror… it even has a musical number.

DON PEYOTE is many things, but it is not a low-budget half-ass mockery designed only to get your money. Well, actually, it is, but the difference is that Fogler’s film delivers instead of just luring you in and then letting you down. The cast alone is as amazing as it is overwhelmingly surprising. Each moment of the film is like finding one prize after another, all within the same box of Cracker Jacks!

Allow me to elaborate. Anne Hathaway. Need I say more? Fine. Anne as a mysterious dream agent. Not hooked yet? Josh Duhamel returns* along side Dan Fogler. [*Please refer to SCENIC ROUTE (2013).] Jay Baruchel plays a drug dealer. Topher Grace plays Fogler’s agent, that’s right. Fogler, not Warren. (See the film for clarification.) Wallace Shawn plays Warren’s psychotherapist. Abel Ferrara plays a taxi driver… alright, this one’s not much of a stretch, but still… Abel Ferrara!

Perhaps my favorite moments in the film occur once Warren is committed. Mentally, not emotionally. For an indie film, DON PEYOTE has some incredibly imaginative imagery and the production value follows suit without straying from the indie core of the film’s appeal. Fogler is clearly having fun with this film, but worked extremely hard at making it so. Aside from starring as the cuddly, yet troubled central character, Dan Fogler also co-wrote and co-directed DON PEYOTE with Michael Conzoniero. Fogler is so confident with his vision that he frequently breaks the fourth wall, addressing the audience directly. Ballsy.

Fogler himself, as an actor and comedian, I am beginning to see him as something of a modern-day Chaplin. Talented, funny and smart, hard working and yet playfully driven. That’s impressions I get from watching his work, but DON PEYOTE really gets to the heart of this notion for me. The film oozes pet project, a labor of love. These are the kinds of films I love to see being made. Kudos, Mr. Fogler.

Personally, I enjoyed the frantic, disjointed nature of this film. I was refreshed by the utter lack of accurate expectations I had for DON PEYOTE, but with that may come a limit to its adoring audience and to the level of its viewers’ understanding. Try and look past this, if you will. Live a little. Enjoy the ride.Warren is a character that endures a lot of chemically-induced hardships for your entertainment.

DON PEYOTE is available through Video On Demand and opens theatrically on Friday, May 16th, 2014.

Overall Rating: 3.5 out of 5 Stars

Don-Peyote-PosterLRR2

TRUST ME – The Review

TFF Trust Me

Clark Gregg may not be a household name now, but that will soon change. Undoubtedly best recognized as the loveable Agent Phil Coulson, Gregg has captured the hearts of comic book fans by perfectly personifying the character on the big screen in movies including THE AVENGERS, THOR and IRON MAN, as well as on the small screen in the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. television series. In retrospect, it could be said that making your name in such big blockbuster movies would pigeonhole an actor, but TRUST ME is proof that such tried and true assumptions are always subject to exceptions.

The truth is, when you are as multi-talented as Clark Gregg, you become nearly impervious to the typical industry stereotypes. TRUST ME is a film as fascinating behind the scenes as it is a fascinating story, but you can do your own Google search to read about the making of the film. A truly indie film that maintains studio production value, TRUST ME is a dark comedy with a touching dramatic flair. Clark Gregg stars as Howard Holloway, a former child star turned Hollywood agent for child actors. Fulfilling one minor legendary stereotype, Howard struggles to regain that sense of importance and fame vicariously through his young clients. The trouble is, he hasn’t enjoyed any notoriety since he was 15 years old and at the top of his acting game.

Poor Howard is truly a good guy, sometimes slightly misguided, but ultimately holds true to having the proverbial heart of gold. TRUST ME is a film whose central character is repeatedly pummeled by misfortune and bad luck. As an audience, we feel every single scrape and blow as if it were our own. Howard is one of those underdog characters we cannot help but empathize with and root on, no matter what the odds. From the very beginning of the film, Howard gets stepped on, most frequently and cruelly by his arch nemesis Aldo Shocklee, played by Sam Rockwell with a marvelously subdued flamboyance. Aldo, fulfilling the film’s other primary stereotype, is a successful big shot agent with deep pockets and absolutely no ethical code of conduct. Howard finds himself constantly in battle with Aldo, having to defend each of his rarely acquired clients from Aldo poaching them with more money, extravagant gifts and outlandish promises.

Lydia, played by Saxon Sharbino, is a promising 14-year old actress being groomed by Howard for a new romantic fantasy franchise based on a popular series of books. A major studio has tapped Ang Lee to direct and has eyes for Lydia, but Howard stumbles upon some secret family issues that may not only threaten Lydia’s chances, but also change Howard’s own perspective on his purpose in life. Sharbino is a rising young star with a short but surprisingly diverse and impressive resume. She has that quintessential girl next door appeal, but has the flexibility to shift into complex dramatics on a dime, exerting what appears to be minimal effort in making it look and feel natural. This plays a pivotal significance in the film’s third and final act as the truth about her character is revealed.

The relationship that develops between Howard and Lydia is honest and rich with depth of character, even if it does ultimately prove destructive. Gregg is absolutely compelling, given an opportunity to explore a more textured role than superhero movies can allow. Gregg nurtures this relationship between Howard and Lydia, resulting in a sweet and dangerously innocent chemistry between the two actors. TRUST ME is a film driven by honest performances, enhanced by Clark Gregg’s personal touch both in front of and behind the camera. Gregg not only stars in the film, but also wrote and directed the film, making it a tremendously important notch on his journey of becoming a respected and influential storyteller.

Consider this… how many creatively successful films can you name that have the same name credited as writer, director and star? Charlie Chaplin’s CITY LIGHTS. Orsen Welles’ CITIZEN KANE. Woody Allen’s ANNIE HALL. Sylvester Stallone’s ROCKY. Clint Eastwood’s UNFORGIVEN. This is a small list, and by no means complete, but when you consider the members of this rather exclusive club, it’s a pretty amazing accomplishment to be included. If this isn’t enough to convince an audience to seek out this relatively small film, perhaps you may be convinced by TRUST ME’s supporting cast that includes Amanda Peet as Howard’s love interest, Felicity Huffman as the studio’s executive producer, Allison Janney, Molly Shannon and William H. Macy. TRUST ME, this film aims to please and hits the bull’s eye.

TRUST ME is available May 6th, 2014 through Video On Demand and iTunes, with a limited theatrical release scheduled for June 6th, 2014.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 Stars

TrustMe_full

WOLF CREEK 2 – The Review

WolfCreek2_Phillipe Klaus as Rutger and Shannon Ashlyn as Katarina_hitch hiking

I feel its time to update the standard rules for what not to do in a horror film. Along with not going into the dark basement to check out the mysterious sound and not having per-marital teenage sex in a tent or cabin, we should now officially add not to hitchhike whilst secluded in a remote, unfamiliar land. Going all the way back to THE HITCHER (1986) and overseas to HOSTEL (2005), the ground work has been set for Mick Taylor to put the proverbial nail in the coffin of making this officially a new rule.

We first met good ol’ Mick Taylor, played by John Jarratt, back in 2005 with WOLF CREEK, a film that introduced audiences to an altogether new kind of serial killer. Allegedly inspired by true events — therefore making the film all that much more terrifying — WOLF CREEK unleashed one of the most refreshingly entertaining horror movie villains in years. Devilishly cunning and sadistic, yet playful and humorous, Mick Taylor is a slasher that brings some of what made Freddy Krueger a household name to a monster based in reality.

In true horror franchise fashion, WOLF CREEK leaves the audience with an open ending, ambiguously leaving the fate of Mick Taylor uncertain. As should only be expected, WOLF CREEK 2 opens more or less where the previous film left off. For those familiar with the first film, this continuity is upheld by a comment from a police officer insinuating Mick’s truck looks like it was driven off a cliff. If this doesn’t make sense to you, that tells me you need to rush out and rent WOLF CREEK. Honestly, you won’t regret the $3 or $4 investment.

Director and co-writer Greg McLean, also known for killer ‘gator flick ROGUE (2007), knows how to make genre fans happy, bringing back one of the first truly popular horror villains in recent memory since the heyday on the mid-late 80s. McLean’s direction along with Jarratt’s sense of humor and uncanny ability to charm or frighten the audience on the turn of a dime, makes for quite an unnerving ride through the Australian outback. One moment Mick’s friendly and funny, in a backwoods redneck sort of way, and the next thing you know he’s deadly serious, straight-faced and ready to snap. Armed with two trust weapons of choice, a large hunting knife and a scoped hunting rifle, Mick once again sets out for tourist season in the hot, dry Australian desert.

WolfCreek2_John Jarratt as Mick Taylor 10

WOLF CREEK 2, for those who may be concerned, is not the same film rehashed purely for box office profits. No, this second installment does have a decidedly different feel, where its necessary. What remains the same is Mick’s twisted take on being a civilized enforcer of decent human character, and of course his trademark laugh. Once again, you’ll know what I mean the moment you hear that chuckle. For a deviant murderer, Mick is surprisingly patient and courteous, that is until you cross him or offend his sense of civilized behavior. However, one of the things that has changed with WOLF CREEK 2 is Mick’s level of patient and tolerance. Can we really blame him, though? After all that those ungrateful tourists did to him and his property in the first film, how could a man not be a tad short-fused?

With this subtle but apparent shift in Mick’s mood, WOLF CREEK 2 does lose just a touch of the charm we experienced in the first film. As much as we love Mick for who he is, the added bitterness to his character and urgency to his need to fulfill his violent nature does detract a touch from the thrill. Then again, what charm is lost here is made up for by Mick’s increased ingenuity in torturing and terrorizing his victims. Part of Mick’s appeal is that he’s smarter than the average hillbilly persona he conveys, making him all the more dangerous. WOLF CREEK 2 focuses more on the cat and mouse aspect of Mick’s relationship with his victim, the thrill of the chase, so to speak, whereas the first film spent more time introducing us to what makes Mick tick.

WOLF CREEK 2 still maintains that wonderfully demented sense of humor, but draws back on the laughter a bit from the first film. Mick just seems a level or two more serious about his work now, which means bad things for the hitchhiking foreign couple who have the misfortune of meeting Mick. Where so many slasher films focus on body counts and creatively excessive gore — not that there’s anything inherently wrong with that — WOLF CREEK 2 pays more attention to the details, the subtle nuances of deceiving, terrorizing, capturing and torturing one’s victims. Where’s the fun in simply killing your victims the first chance you get?

WOLF CREEK 2 is currently available through Video On Demand and will open in U.S. theaters on May 16th, 2014.

Overall Rating: 3.5 out of 5 Stars

wolfcreek2

OCULUS – The Review

oculus_image

Scaring people has become a lucrative business over the years and decades since Hollywood first embraced the concept of fear for fun. Some of the most profitable contemporary films in terms of investment-to-return ratio have been horror films. In theory, this sounds like a good thing. Unfortunately, profitability does not always equate to a film being a creative success. For those looking for casual scares that appeal to little more than our base reflexes, similar to riding a roller coaster, there is no shortage of options on the market. However, for those of us looking for something more in our horror films, the selection is more limited.

I am happy to report that OCULUS satisfies that craving rather well. No. It’s not a perfect film, but few are these days. That really should go without saying anymore. The film’s marketing proudly announces “from the producer of PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and INSIDOUS.” Try your best to take this with a grain of salt. Each of those films carry their own merit, and certainly fit well within the same genre wheelhouse, but refrain from allowing the franchise stigma to cloud or influence your opinion before seeing the film.

OCULUS is not the most original story at its core, playing on a number of popular and recognizable themes. However, the method by which the story is told is rather unique and definitely engaging. Far from linear and disjointed by design, the film leaps forward and backward in time between the present day and childhood for our two main characters. Kaylie, played by Karen Gillan, is an attractive young redhead engaged to the owner of an auction house by whom she is employed. Tim, played by Brenton Thwaites, is her slightly younger brother, recently released on his twenty-first birthday after having spent time under psychiatric care.

Kaylie and Tim have a secret. As children, their parents died and, despite the incredibly horrific events that led to their deaths, Tim ultimately was blamed for murdering his parents. The fantastic truth landed Tim in a mental hospital and prompted Kaylie to commit herself to keeping the siblings’ promise to destroy the entity responsible for the death of their parents. Kaylie’s journey of supernatural vengeance begins with a beautifully dark and ornate antique mirror that once adorned the wall of her father’s home office and has recently been sold by her fiancé’s auction company.

Directed and co-written by Mike Flanagan, who last previously ABSENTIA (2011), OCULUS works on the viewers’ mind in much the same way the mirror twists and pries on Kaylie’s and Tim’s minds. Truth and reality, time and memory, these are tools by which the entity uses to protect itself and wreak havoc on the lives of those who possess the mirror. The origin and story of the entity, for the most part a great mystery, does have a name revealed most briefly and without much ordeal. Marisol. Perhaps the filmmakers felt this was of little importance, but I feel if more attention had been given to the antagonist’s back-story the film would have been that much more engaging.

Steven Spielberg’s classic JAWS comes to mind, not directly, but when explaining the relative absence of Marisol from the film. Like minimizing our visual exposure to Bruce the shark, the viewer is not overexposed to Marisol, instead leaving much to the imagination and focusing on the mystery and suspense that actually drives the film. OCULUS does not delve too deeply into the back-story of Tim’s and Kaylie’s lives, outside of the events that led to their parents’ deaths. The frightening flavor of the film is not seasoned so much by knee-jerk scares and cheap thrills, but rather by a sense of the unknown powered by disorientation and distraction. Just as Marisol keeps the siblings’ distracted from their goal of destroying her, the film keeps the audience distracted from its flaws and weaknesses by immersing the audience into a more cerebral and visceral experience.

For the wannabe ghost hunters out there, pray you never encounter the likes of Marisol. One of the most intriguing elements of OCULUS is how formidable a foe she turns out to be, as creative and patient as she is brutal. Despite its correlation to films such as PARANORMAL ACTIVITY and INSIDIOUS, OCULUS actually has far more similarities to that of THE RING, both in it’s evil antagonist and in the type of fear the film instills in the viewer. The modern meets Gothic mood of the film is enhanced by the cinematography of Michael Fimognari, experienced in the genre, and original music from The Newton Brothers.

In retrospect, given time to reflect and analyze the film, OCULUS is engaging as an in-the-moment cinematic indulgence. It will surely hold up to a second viewing as a way to watch for details missed in the original viewing, but I question the longevity of the film’s ongoing appeal. Ultimately, how the film ends in general is more predictable than the details of how that ending plays out. From early on in the film, the audience gets a sense of what must inherently happen, but it’s the thrill of watching that inevitability unfold before us that is as enticing as it is appalling, but isn’t this truly at the core watching any good horror film?

Overall Rating: 3.5 out of 5 Stars

oculus_poster

THE RETRIEVAL – The Review

retrieval-nate-will

It’s unusual to experience both a deep sadness and feel uplifted at the same time, but THE RETRIEVAL manages to accomplish this flawlessly. There is no shortage of well-made films to make us happy and inspired, there is even a great selection of stellar films that leave us feeling depressed and miserable, but how many films have you seen that actually, in some strange way, leave you suspended in an emotional juxtaposition between the two extremes?

Written, directed and produced by Chris Eska, this gem of last year’s SXSW film festival (2013) stands as a beacon of powerful storytelling shining brightly through the dark veil of history from which it is born. THE RETRIEVAL takes place in 1864 in the midst of the Unites States Civil War. This is the story of Will, a 13-year old boy left behind by his father to be exploited by Marcus (Keston John). Marcus works as a bounty hunter, employed by an unstable white man named Burrell (Bill Oberst, Jr.) to retrieve runaway slaves and return them to their masters for cash rewards.

Will, played by Ashton Sanders, is quiet and innocent with a good heart, but is surrounded by terrible influences and without a true father figure. When Burrell sends Marcus out to retrieve a man worth more than several of their usual targets, he takes Will with him to serve as bait to lure their mark into a trap. Nate, played by Tishuan Scott, is a big, strong man gone north to work and live as his own man, free to do as he pleases but still haunted by his past, keeping him from returning home to the south. Will is fully aware that his and Marcus’ actions are wrong, but has succumb to the tell-tale symptoms of someone abducted becoming attached to their captor for survival and security. This all slowly changes for Will the moment he first meets Nate.

THE RETRIEVAL is a tale of morality, intimate and personal. The film feels small in comparison to the scale of violence and hatred that make up the backdrop to the story. Eska remains diligently focused on the relationship that builds between Will and Nate, despite the horrible things we all know are occurring around them. Eska understands we are well aware of those more visceral, disturbing details of the Civil Ware era, instead choosing to leave that mostly to imagination. With that said, there are still a few moments when Eska throws in a shot or a brief scene just to keep us properly grounded in the reality of the world in which Will must develop into a young man.

From the very first shot of the film, THE RETRIEVAL is saturated with a melancholy resignation. Visually, the film is constructed of simple, geometrically straight-forward shots. There are an abundance of static shots and long takes. Color is nearly absent from the film, washed out and nearly monochromatic. Much of the film seems hidden within a shroud of fog or smoke, literally or figuratively. This sense of loneliness and resignation carries over into the film’s sound as well, with frequent pauses and long moments of silence built into the dialogue, masterfully integrated by the cast for maximum effect. One secret drives the film’s plot. On that note, much of the story is driven not by what is spoken but by what needs to be said and is kept silent. Distant gunshots and cannon fire occasionally break up the deafening silence that invades Will’s universe, where he’s torn between his fear and curiosity about the war that rages around him.

At its most primal core, the film is about a young man learning right from wrong and that life is not black and white, but muddled forever within an endless swamp of gray area that has no true boundaries. Will is without his true father, is manipulated into seeing Marcus as his surrogate father for the wrong reasons, but is symbolically adopted by Nate, a man seen by most as a criminal. As the two journey together to an uncertain end, Nate grows ever more fond of Will as the son he never had and Will discovers a new view of life through Nate that will stay with him and change the course of his life forever. The relationship between Nate and Will is nourishment to the soul. Hardship, misunderstanding, fear and anger. All of these things make up Nate’s life but he instills none of this in Will, instead seeing him as a young man in need of the teaching of a good man, a side of himself Nate may damn near have lost sight of if not for Will entering his life, even by misguided intentions. Ultimately, and in very different ways, Nate and Will save each other.

THE RETRIEVAL is quite possibly one of the most intelligently conceived, beautifully and truthfully rendered films about life during the United States Civil War and the culture of slavery in America ever made. Overshadowed by similar films with bigger budgets and higher caliber star power, THE RETRIEVAL succeeds on the back of a thoughtful, visionary filmmaker with an independent spirit and a devoted cast of wonderfully talented actors who put an emphasis on connecting personally to their characters.

THE RETRIEVAL opens April 2nd, 2014 in NYC with an expanded theatrical release on April 18th, 2014.

Overall Rating: 4.5 out of 5 Stars

TheRetrieval-Poster-L

ROB THE MOB – The Review

robthemob_image2

There are many ways a person can commit suicide, quick and easy or long and slow, but the end result is all the same. One way, for example, would be to deliberately do something to royally piss off the mafia. Yes, that would just about guarantee your own demise. With this in mind, let’s talk about a film, based on a true story…

By its title, ROB THE MOB does sound like it should be a comedy about the mafia. In fact, it is actually a very funny film. I’d even say it holds its own against MY COUSIN VINNY (1992). As appealing as that is on the surface, it gets better. Not only is this a funny, entertaining movie, but it’s also based on a true story. The events in this film, or at least parts of it, actually happened… in real life!

So, why am I making such a big deal about this? Let me explain. ROB THE MOB is about a couple from Queens, New York who decide their big break will be to steal from the mafia, i.e. “Rob the Mob.” Sounds pretty straight forward, right? That’s how Tommy and Rosie feel about their master plan to make it big and live the high life. Tommy, played by Michael Pitt, is a stick-up man and his girlfriend Rosie, played by Nina Arianda, is the getaway driver. Together, they are a match made on the mean streets and a modern-day Bonnie and Clyde.

Tommy and Rosie both get pinched, do their time, then make an effort to live a straight life once out of the slammer. By chance, or by twist of fate, this coincides with the trial of notorious modern-day mob boss John Gotti. Tommy gets the idea to attend the trial as a spectator where he learns about mafia social clubs peppered around New York City where gangsters hang out and no guns are allowed. Unfortunately for Tommy, a light bulb goes off and his big plan is hatched. He’ll knock off a mafia social club, because mobsters always have lots of cash, no danger of getting shot, and no danger of getting caught because a mobster isn’t going to call the cops. On the surface, this is a brilliant plan. The problem, of course, is that neither Tommy or Rosie are the sharpest criminals.

ROB THE MOB, written by Jonathan Fernandez and directed by Raymond De Felitta, pulls headlines right out of the newspaper that scream to be glamorized on the big screen. Many of those very headlines may have actually existed, as written by journalist Jerry Cardozo, played by Ray Romano. Tommy and Rosie actually succeed in this insane endeavor, at first. However, as greed sets in as it so often does, the best laid plans go to waste. Tommy and Rosie get sloppy, overly confident and seduced by fame. Michael Pitt and Nina Arianda play fully into their roles and there is no doubt in the viewers’ minds that the characters were anything other than the World’s Dumbest Criminals candidates they appear to be on film. With that said, you can’t hep but fall in love with them and root for them as they continue on they Robin Hood spree at the mafia’s expense, all while certain tragedy lies waiting just around the dark and violent corner up ahead.

Big Al, played by Andy Garcia, plays the mysterious mob boss running the show in the absence of John Gotti. Despite the unbelievable antics and humorous real-life scenarios taking place, Big Al — despite his stereotypical nick name — provides a dramatic, philosophical element to the story that helps to level off the humor and grounds the story in a lesson of morality. Garcia is magnificent as the calm, mild-tempered mob boss who has a secret past and an unconventional view of the family’s future. Perhaps the best performance, however, is a rather short one provided by Burt Young as Joey D, an aging mobster who holds the key to the mafia’s survival or downfall. In this key scene, whereas Joey D encounters Tommy in one of the mafia social clubs, emotions run high, tension is taught and someone gets beaten like a sack of potatoes. If not for being such a short and limited scene, I’d already be screaming for a Supporting Actor Oscar nod… but, let’s be realistic.

Music. It plays a key role in ROB THE MOB as well. The film takes place circa 1992(ish) but the music is much more timeless, evoking an era far more indicative of the mafia’s hay days. Stephen Endelman composes the original music while accompanied by tracks from The Staple Singers’ “City In the Sky” and Wilson Pickett’s “Somethin’ You Got.” The opening sequence of the film, however, oddly sets the mood in an unexpected use of Deee-Lite’s “Groove Is In the Heart.” Trust me when I say it sounds odd at first, but quickly makes sense and certainly amps the viewer to the appropriate energy level for what’s about to take place.

ROB THE MOB ends on a bitter-sweet note. The film tells a story that is both funny and tragic. A story of two young lovers whose hearts are in the right place but at the expense of their intellect. A story of two reckless dreamers who steal from those far worse than themselves, but are abandoned by those sworn to protect them. BONNIE & CLYDE, TRUE ROMANCE, NATURAL BORN KILLERS… all films with a similar theme and sense of moral ambiguity, but none will capture your heart in quite the same way as Tommy and Rosie.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 Stars

ROBtheMOB_KA

HAPPY CAMP – The Review

happycamp_image

I am reminded of growing up in the late-80s, watching Unsolved Mysteries on prime-time television. Intrigued by commercials for Time Life’s Mysteries of the Unknown, an encyclopedic series of books about everything supernatural, extraterrestrial and any other unproven or unexplained phenomena, I recall begging my parents to buy me the books about alien abductions, Stonehenge, and mythical creatures that live in our backyards. Sadly, they never did, but I did manage to find the random torn and battered volume available at the local library.

HAPPY CAMP, directed by first-timer Josh Anthony, stirs these nostalgic memories of an era defined by the weird, abstract and unusual. The film is about a man named Michael, played by Michael Barbuto, who returns to his small home town 20 years after his brother went missing as a child. Michael is accompanied by his girlfriend Anne, played by Anne Taylor, and two friends named Teddy (Teddy Gilmore) and Josh, played by writer-director Josh Anthony). Anne wants to shoot a documentary about Michael and the mysterious disappearance of his brother twenty years ago, so the four of them hop into a massive old RV and road trip into the remote wilderness town of Happy Camp, California.

This group of relatively happy young adults quickly discover they are about as welcome in Happy Camp by the locals as they are aware of what they are soon to discover about the disappearance of Michael’s brother. In fact, Michael’s brother is only one of over 600 people who have gone missing from Happy Camp, many of them “flat landers” visiting from out-of-town. Anne and her rag-tag crew of documentary filmmakers set out with their handheld camera, asking colorful backwoods local characters about the disappearances, getting colorful backwoods responses, all of which are either typically vague or embarrassingly obvious in their exposition.

Herein lies the primary flaw and underlying reason for the film’s failure to succeed. Writing. HAPPY CAMP is constructed on the premise of being an actual documentary being shot, but never finished by the original filmmakers. Rather, this is the footage they did obtain, compiled after the fact by someone who happened to find the footage left behind by the filmmakers. In other words, this is yet another entry into the “found footage” genre of horror/thriller filmmaking that has become so popular since the stellar box office success of THE BLAIR WITH PROJECT (1999) opened this fickle can of worms for movie audiences.

I have nothing against the found footage genre. There are many creatively successful films that have experimented with this style of storytelling, such as the REC (2007) franchise, and a few have even been major box office hits, such as CLOVERFIELD (2008). However, just like any genre, there needs to be a compelling story behind the film for it to engage its audience and, unfortunately, HAPPY CAMP does not deliver. The concept is there, in its essence, and the film even has a fairly commendable production value for what appears to be a relatively low-budget endeavor, but the writers make two fundamental errors. First, the film is beyond predictable. I would argue that anyone who hasn’t figured out the entire premise of HAPPY CAMP within the first 15-20 minutes should avoid recommendations to refill the blinker fluid in their car. Everything is laid on the table, all the cards are shown and nothing — I do mean nothing — is left to the viewer’s imagination. There is an effort to disguise the mystery and protect the film’s secret, but the veil is left so thin by the characters’ dialogue that it might as well be made of plastic wrap.

HAPPY CAMP, roughly broken down into its simplest parts, is 33% setup, 33% pointless arguing and excessive use of the F-bomb while aimlessly chasing one another or running from and/or towards strange noises, and 33% actual story progression and conclusion, in that order. The remaining 1% got lost somewhere on the cutting room floor. Surprisingly, the third act of the film (being the ending) is the best and most promising part of the film. Despite so much being given away in the film’s dialogue, the filmmakers manage to hold back and not reveal too much of the [fill in the blank] that is the cause for all the missing people. What? Just because the film gives away its own ending, doesn’t mean I’m going to do the same. With that said, the special effects are, by far, not the worst I’ve ever seen on film.

Overall, the film is worth a good time late night viewing with friends of a similar sense of humor and a few beers. Laughter will ensue, not by intention, but the film does have its merit. HAPPY CAMP is not a painful movie to watch. I can see the film possibly garnering a cult following, like Tommy Wiseau’s THE ROOM (2003) or James Nguyen’s BIRDEMIC (2010), but with a decidedly higher production value. I would not hesitate to compare the film to those of Uwe Boll, in that it strives to accomplish something bigger then itself, but just doesn’t have the inherent substance to reach its intended goal.

Overall Rating: 2 out of 5 stars

Available nationwide On Demand and on iTunes, Time Warner, ComCast and DirecTV, among other platforms on Tuesday, March 25th, 2014.

happycamp_poster

A BIRDER’S GUIDE TO EVERYTHING – The Review

birders_image

Birds are fascinating creatures. This is true, but most people take birds for granted, so many of them flying about overhead. Birds are everywhere, and as creepy as that thought may be to some, they are always watching over us, constant spectators of the human experience below. Her on planet Earth, we go though life struggling primarily to answer two questions… who am i and what should I do with this life i have?

It’s no wonder there are some drawn in by a fascination for these feathered friends of ours. Those who watch, track and seek out birds of all species are generally referred to as “birders.” The term’s definition may be argued by some, including those in the film A BIRDER’S GUIDE TO EVERYTHING. Directed and co-written by Rob Meyer, this film is a coming of age story about an awkward 15-year old boy named David Portnoy.

David, played by Kodi Smit-McPhee, is grieving the loss of his mother, even as his father Donald plans his upcoming marriage to Juliana. David struggles with this rapid change in his family life. As a way to distract himself, and perhaps feel closer to his late mother, David takes up birding with two fellow enthusiasts at his school. David’s mother was a birder and accomplished researcher in the field and David shows a compelling level of knowledge and passion for the hobby in general.

A BIRDER’S GUIDE TO EVERYTHING is not about birds. Yes, the film contains many references to birds, jokes about birds, even bird metaphors, but the film is about David dealing with his teenage emotions regarding loss, love and growing up. Donald, played by James Le Gros, is understanding and patient at first, but as his wedding approaches he becomes less tolerant of David’s birding ways. Juliana, played by Daniela Lavender, was the nurse who cared for David’s dying mother. Despite her caring, warm spirit and genuine love for Donald and David, this fact clearly makes the situation that more unnerving and difficult to grapple with for David.

David’s journey of self-discovery begins, by chance, as he spots what he believes to be an extinct species of duck. Having snapped a blurry photo f the mystery bird, David seeks the opinion of renowned birder Lawrence Konrad, played by veteran actor Sir Ben Kingsley. David then enlists the help of his small school birding club to find the elusive bird and make what could be the greatest birding find of his generation. Along with his two nerdy birding companions, of whom have equivalent social personalities of Sheldon and Howard from The Big Bang Theory, they reluctantly allow Ellen, a student photographer, to accompany in exchange for the use of her telephoto lens.

Ellen, played by Katie Chang, clearly has an interest in David early on, but it takes some time and circumstances for David’s eyes to open and for the teenage hormones to kick in, despite Ellen’s thinly veiled, but equally awkward efforts to test the terrain. Together, the four adventurers head out into the Connecticut woods from New York in an older teenager’s “borrowed” convertible. Some mishaps occur on the way, but the journey allows for the viewer to get a strong sense of what David is going through, internally and with those around him. Chang’s mellow, almost neutral performance compliments Smit-McPhee’s uneasiness. Chang gives Ellen a nerdy, but confident worldly edge which plays well against, and ultimately alongside the textbook skinny, socially awkward David.

As usual, Ben Kingsley is a joy to watch. Invoking his trademark vocal traits and mannerisms, Kingsley lends a role model type figure to David’s story. This is crucial, especially since his father is preoccupied with his upcoming wedding. A BIRDER’S GUIDE TO EVERYTHING feels a bit like STAND BY ME, only nerdier, and without a dead body. One thing the film succeeds at is showcasing the birding hobby as a storytelling device, much in the way THE BIG YEAR did, starring Jack Black and Steve Martin, except with a more intimate, realistic approach that allows the film to feel more dramatically accurate, whereas THE BIG YEAR just felt like a vehicle for blockbuster comedy.

The small, independent spirit of A BIRDER’S GUIDE TO EVERYTHING carries a lot of weight for the film as the script is lacking in areas. Some of the more emotional moments in the story fall a little flat, perhaps partially due to a mostly young cast, but writing is always where these issues begin. Visually, the film does not feel amateurish and the film is accompanied by an equally enjoyable soundtrack, which also conveys a similar independent spirit. This independent spirit is another character trait of David’s, and perhaps what makes his story so intriguing.

A BIRDER’S GUIDE TO EVERYTHING does not break any boundaries. It does not redefine any genres, nor is cause for any controversy. The film is simply a pleasant exploration of a boy’s journey from innocence to an opening of himself to what can be, what will be and what is most important in life.

A BIRDER’S GUIDE TO EVERYTHING is currently available on Video On Demand and in Theaters beginning Friday, March 21st, 2014.

Overall Rating: 3 out of 5 Stars

birders_poster