Tired of being all cooped up in your home? Well, that’s a ridiculous thing to ask. Most of the national parks are closed off, so how about a cinematic foray into nature, eh? Ah, but Hollywood has taught us that the forest is just full of unspeakable menace. Yes, it’s a familiar backdrop for lots of horror tales, especially those lower-budgeted “chop jobs” (they don’t have to build elaborate haunted castles and mansions). And yes, this new release can be considered a thriller, but it’s more atmosphere than gore. That’s because this flick’s monster is not a ravenous mutant-bear nor a masked maniac slashing frisky teens with a big blade. No, his weapon is his mind as he manipulates and exploits others. And at the center of the story is one of his “followers” who realizes that she is THE OTHER LAMB.
It does begin deep in the woods as we observe a group of women (including a toddler) going about their daily chores: washing linens and clothing, sawing wood planks, repairing the roof of a shack (decorated with a face resembling Christ), preparing food, and tending to a herd of lambs. The women are divided by the color of their clothes (dresses that cover their bodies from the neck to the ankles with sleeves ending at the wrists), but all of them wear their hair in tight buns and braids (no loose strands down the neck). As they talk we learn that deep cobalt blue color denotes a daughter, while a red-tinged magenta is worn by wives. And what of the fathers and sons. No, there is just one, a man who the women call “Shepherd” (Michiel Huisman), the aforementioned mural face. He presides over this cult with his “herd” taking care of his every need, sending them into a fevered frenzy with his sermons and lectures. The daughters (the youngest seem to be his actual offspring) can graduate into wives. That’s the only goal for teenager Selah (Raffey Cassidy) who will push any of her “sisters” aside to gain favor with the Shepherd. But she’s tormented by nightmares full of strange visions (floating figures and lots of blood). Speaking of which, Selah tries to hide the onset of her period (they are considered “unclean” by the “sin of Eve”). But that’s of little importance when the Shepherd announces that they must vacate their home (the previous night Selah saw him talking with a policeman near his parked patrol car far away from their quarters). This begins a long arduous trek, one that will test their faith in all, and who, they believe. But could those dream images be a warning to Selah?
As the tale’s main focus Selah, Cassidy portrays a heroine with a most complex and compelling character arc. In the beginning, she’s very unlikable, with no real concerns for anyone else in the family save its leader. It’s the title role in ALL ABOUT EVE if it were about a shadowy cult rather than Broadway (hmmm, maybe not that much of a leap), as she will tread over anyone in the way of her goal. Then she has an awakening as she must deliver “leftovers” to those formerly in her master’s good grace. This new found empathy opens her eyes and Cassidy adjusts her body language, striding with more confidence and purpose. This occurs even as she subtlety questions “him”. Huisman, in that role, tempers his fervent energy and laser-point charisma, twisting the “wild maniac” crazed cult-leader cliche of many films. His quiet demeanor seems to draw in the flock. Then he’ll flash a smile that burns right through them. It adds more power to his intimate nights with those “chosen” as his tender caresses suddenly turn sadistic as his beefy hand clamps down on a pale throat and his fingers reach into their mouths, making his lambs gag and choke. He’s no loving messiah, but rather a cruel deviant predator. Denise Gough is superb as one of the former favored wives, Sarah, who is part of Selah’s “wake up call”, especially as she shows her disgust with the Shepherd by yelling out his “real” true name. In fact, all the wives and daughters are quite convincing as they literally sing his praises after his “blessing’ has swept them up in a wave of screeching hysteria.
Director Malgortza Szumowska, working from a script by feature film newcomer C.S.McMullen, wraps the story with an atmosphere of sinister, cold dread. That’s especially true in the exchanges between the family members and Shepherd, whose responses are unpredictable. A gentle brush against a pale cheek can switch to a brutal slap. The dream sequences are also a roller coast ride, as the tranquil floating angelic figures cut to crimson-splattered visions of women and beasts. And just what is going on with the twine and string going from tree to tree. Are the women entangled in Shepherd’s web of deception? This is all heightened by the soft, moody cinematography from Michal Englert. Unfortunately, the sluggish pacing may frustrate many viewers as will the somewhat abrupt and ambiguous end scenes. But for those wanting to get a good slow scare and a general sense of off-kilter unease all wrapped up in backwoods cult mania, then THE OTHER LAMB may be just the vicarious cure for “cabin fever”.
2.5 Out of 4
THE OTHER LAMB is available as a Video on Demand on most cable, satellite systems, and streaming apps and platforms.
Recalling the classic movie monsters of Hollywood’s Golden Age, visions of those hardworking actors (Karloff, Lugosi, the Chaneys, etc.) suffering through hours of cumbersome, often restrictive make-ups spring to mind. Ah, but one didn’t occupy “make-up marvel” Jack Pierce’s “barbershop” chair. Why? Because he wasn’t “there”, aside from a wig, bandages, dark sunglasses, and hard molded rubber nose. Springing from the imagination of celebrated science fiction/fantasy author H.G. Wells in 1897, “The Invisible Man” joined Universal’s “gallery of the ghoulish” (Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster, and the Mummy) in James Whale’s 1933 classic. And, as a twist on the old saying goes, you can’t keep a good “creep” down. The unseen fiend returned with four follow-ups (well, more like spin-offs) in the 1940s before Abbott and Costello met him in 1951, as TV beckoned. At least four action/adventure series began in 1958 (one was a secret agent code-named “Gemini Man” in 1976, no relation to the recent Will Smith feature flop). But the movies weren’t done with the “concept”. It was mined for laughs in 1983’s THE MAN WHO WASN’T THERE and 1992’s MEMOIRS OF AN INVISIBLE MAN with Chevy Chase. The serious scares returned with 2000’s HOLLOW MAN and its 2006 home video sequel. Universal’s now teamed with “scare studio” Blumhouse on a modern take. So, will Twenty-First Century audiences still shudder at the transparent terror of THE INVISIBLE MAN?
As with many a “spook story”, this one begins on a “dark and stormy night”. The camera pans over the violent surf to the ultra-modern mansion overlooking the crashing waves. Cecilia Kass (Elisabeth Moss) awakens and slides away from her sleeping (we see that she “Micky-Finn-ed” his glass of water) spouse, Adrian Griffin (Oliver Jackson-Cohen). Near silently, she evades the many surveillance cameras, tiptoes past his high-tech home laboratory, and enters a lush closet to retrieve the “flight bag” she has stored inside a vent shaft. Cecilia climbs over a wall and runs into the night until spotting the most-welcome headlights of her sister Alice’s (Harriet Dyer) car. It’s then off to her boyfriend’s house, where Cecilia will “hide out” with police detective/single dad James (Aldis Hodge) and his teenage daughter Sydney (Storm Reid). A few weeks later, Alice makes a surprise visit with the news of Adrian’s death, a suicide. A letter soon arrives from his brother and attorney Tom (Michael Durman) about the reading of the will. It seems she has been quite financially rewarded. But Cecilia still feels his presence as the strange noises during the night increase. After a nocturnal “tug o’ war’ with her bed blanket, she comes to a startling conclusion. Adrain somehow faked his demise and found a way to become invisible. Can this really be true or has she given in to a grief-inspired paranoia? Sure he was a brilliant inventor, but it’s impossible, right? Right?
Though the film’s title reflects the masculine protagonist (really, a monster in all aspects), at its heart is the story of courage and survival of a woman, Cecily, portrayed by Moss is a “movie star”-making performance. Over the last couple of decades, she has riveted TV audiences with superb work in many series, from “The West Wing” to “Mad Men” and continues to garner acclaim and awards for “The Handmaid’s Tale”. The “big screen” hasn’t served as well despite supporting roles in several “indies” and studio films like GET HIM TO THE GREEK and last year’s disappointing THE KITCHEN. This role is a game-changer as we live the horrors of Cecilia through Moss’s expressive, haunted eyes. We’re rooting for her in the opening scene as she escapes the opulent but cold fortress that was once a home. She describes the trauma of that abusive life to her sister with a powerful delivery, though her inability to embrace what should be “good news” speaks volumes. Even as she realizes the new terror in her life, Moss shows us that Cecilia has a fierce intelligence, her sense of survival kicks into high gear as that “ghost’ force tightens around her throat. When she shares her concerns with her friends, her eyes dart about, looking for that unseen demon, but also fearing that anyone hearing her ideas will think she has “snapped”. Moss is a smart formidable, relatable warrior against this unknown evil, more action hero than “scream queen” (though she can heighten the tension with an ear-piercing wail). The flick works due to her considerable acting gifts. And her castmates are no “slouches”. Particularly Hodge as the amiable cop pop, quick to help Cecily, but gobsmacked by what he perceives as her plunge into madness. He’s also got a terrific screen rapport with Reid as his fiesty but still endearing “Daddy’s girl”. Dyer is tough but compassionate as Cecily’s no-nonsense sibling. Dorman is a skeevy white-collar weasel as the estate lawyer and brother to Griffin (nice tie-in to Welles’ literary creation and Claude Rains in the 1933 original), who is pure menace as he teeters the line between distraught apologetic beau and controlling brute ready to strike at the least offense.
That recent label that movie-marketers dreamt up a few years ago, “re-imagining” has gotten a bad rap of late because of the dismal, uninspired remakes (the original word that’s now shunned) and re-do’s (mostly rip-offs). Now writer/director Leigh Whannell has given that phrase legitimacy because this take on the nearly 125-year-old tale is truly imaginative and inspired, offering a fresh “spin” that hooks into current concerns. Rather than a hunched over scholar laboring over bubbling test tubes, a youthful tech guru (probably on the cover of “Wired”-style magazines or websites) has used computer-enhanced “nano-gizmos” for his discovery. But unlike the usual “mad scientists”, he’s not out to rob banks or conquer the world (as in James Whale’s flick), this Griffin creates it for his own warped personal agenda. It’s an SF-spin on recent stalker thrillers like ENOUGH and SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY, but also a commentary on the use of new conveniences to enable the controlling of others (you’ve heard of young girls having to “check-in” digitally with their beau or suffer their wrath). Aside from his personal “cloak”, Griffin also masters the web to “suffocate” and isolate Cecily, sending hate-spewing emails in her name. This is not to get too much into the “message” aspects since it’s also a tense, edge-of-your-seat exhilarating thrill ride. Whannell frames much of the action “off-center” to have us, like Cecily, to wonder if something’s in that empty corner or vacant space. Plus there’s a restaurant sequence that will go down as a “classic” horror movie moment. And of course, the special effects are state of the art (as is the gore, hence the “R” rating) with no floating objects wobbling with their attached strings. This a rollicking entertainment with a not so subtle message about abusive relationships (and summoning the strength to go forward). Scuse’ the pun, but THE INVISIBLE MAN is really something to see.
This week brings another interesting pairing of actors. It was just a week ago that Angelina Jolie and Michele Pfieffer squared off in MALEFICENT: MISTRESS OF EVIL. Now the new film is not nearly as family-friendly though it too has moments of fantasy and fantastical beings. Oh, and there’s nobody else around (for 95 or so percent of the running time). Really, only the two men, bringing to mind both movie versions of the play SLEUTH, though the setting this time is not nearly as cozy and comfy as an English country estate. Its proximity to the ocean might be appealing for many (several of these structures have been converted to homes and vacation rental spots), who have made it a staple of nautical art (you might see one in a painting hanging at a library or hospital). Ah, but back in the late 19th century, there was nothing quaint about them, as these two gifted actors show us. Life was brutally difficult working and living in THE LIGHTHOUSE.
The title structure is located on an island on the Atlantic (the filming location was Cape Forchu in Nova Scotia, Canada). The time is 1890 as a medium-size boat (a bit bigger than a canoe) breaches the shore. Two figures walk out of the lighthouse’s front entrance as two men drag their duffel bags up the trail. The new occupants are Ephraim Winslow (Robert Pattinson) and his supervisor Thomas Wake (Willam Dafoe). Over supper, we learn that the duo will be stationed there for the next four weeks. A conflict quickly arises when Ephraim declines to share a bottle of booze with Thomas in a toast (the younger man believes it will violate the “rulebook”). Thomas then lays out the daily routines. He will man the spinning light through the evening hours as Ephraim sleeps. With the dawn, he will tend to the chores, shoveling coal, cleaning the tower, sweeping out the quarters, while Thomas rests, though he will inspect and supervise in between his slumbers. Tensions begin to mount early on as the elder accuses the younger of sloth and poor work habits, threatening to “dock” his pay. The frustrations, paired with the nasty cold weather, chip away at Ephraim, whose only retreat is his dreams of a lovely mermaid. Soon he begins to have a difficult time separating fantasy from reality (the pesky aggressive seagulls aren’t helping). As the end of their tenure approaches, he joins Thomas on a booze-filled bender. But the wind is changing as the gauges indicate a storm on its way. If this jeopardizes their departure, will the solitude lead to madness and murder?
This edgy indie thriller provides a great platform for the two actors of different decades or even centuries. Pattinson is a star for this new century, earning early stardom as the lead sparkly vamp in that (unmentionable) young adult novel film series. But rather than go the easy, safe heartthrob route, he’s been choosing several really adventurous roles, some (like this) are truly “out there”. From the first silent moments of the opening scene, his haunted, dark eyes draw us in (much like the “pre-talkie” screen icons), making us wonder what’s going on behind them. For the next act or so he lumbers about the settings, leaving the verbiage to his co-star. But as he goes about the grueling daytime hours we see him tense up, his reserves gradually crumbling away by the elements and his relentless overseer. The slow, slow burn adds to the shock of his eventual outburst, reminding us of a certain famous sailor’s mantra, “I’s has all I kin’ stands, an’ I can’t stands no more!”. His inner monster, despite the mermaid’s high-pitched screech, is free, and no one will chain him again. Particularly his tormentor boss, Thomas is played with gritty gusto by Dafoe, representing the previous century (his screen work goes back to 1980, nearly four decades). His Mr. Wake is a riff on classic seafarin’ salts, one who spouts endless ocean cliches after a mug or two of liquor (his “toasts” with odes to King Triton feel endless). Immediately his rejection of hygiene (watch Ephraim wince as the elder’s every step emits a new round of flatulence) is a prelude to his irritating demeanor that leads to the bullying of his “charge”. There’s a gleam in Dafoe’s crinkled eyes as he delights in new humiliations for Winslow. His only moments of joy are those spent bathed in the tower’s blinding light (is that his naked form in silhouette), somehow free of his infirmities (part of a lower leg is in Davy Jones’ Locker). When the food runs out, and the back-up case of booze is dug up, Dafoe shows us that Wade is in complete freefall, embracing Winslow as a son, then pushing him aside. Add this to Dafoe’s already impressive roster of roles.
In the opening moments, the viewer is plunged into an almost alien world, thanks to the nearly square screen ratio (1:19 to 1) and the harsh black and white cinematography by Jarin Blaschke, utilizing many antique lenses and filters. This accentuates the rough textures of the island, but also of the actors (every bristle of Ephraim’s mustache, and every wrinkle on Tom’s sea breeze-beaten face). And that ratio adds to the claustrophobia, a disorienting choice from director Robert Eggers in his first film since the similarly off-kilter THE WITCH. Like that thriller, Egger gets us inside the heads of his characters, showing us how the harsh environs can make you question your senses and eventually lose all touch with reality. The flights of fancy have a true threatening feel with a sea beauty suddenly delivering more pain than pleasure. Observing all are the dead-eyed gulls, a squawking “Greek chorus”, hovering and threatening an attack (Hitchcock was on to something). The script (co-written by Robert’s brother Max) is too slow-moving at times and indulges in a few too much gratuitous scatology (really, emptying bedpans), but this steady descent into madness (a longer journey than JOKER) is one that may haunt your dreams, thanks to the remarkable work of these two gifted actors. Strangely THE LIGHTHOUSE illumianates the darkness of the two characters’ souls.
3 out of 4
THE LIGHTHOUSE opens everywhere and screens exclusively in the St. Louis area at the AMC Dine-In Theatres West Olive 16 and the Hi-Pointe Theatre
In time for Valentine’s Day comes HAPPY DEATH DAY 2U, a sequel to the 2017 horror/comedy HAPPY DEATH DAY. College student Tree (Jessica Rothe) is back for another day of repeated deaths, but this time it is someone else stuck in the loop of a repeated day. Nonetheless, it is still fierce sorority girl Tree, who went through this before, who must solve the mystery and stop the murderous loop.
Audiences don’t really have to have seen the original to follow the story in the sequel, as HAPPY DEATH DAY 2U provides a quick little recap of the first film, as Tree explains the situation to the new guy caught in the death day time loop. Briefly, in the first film, Tree keeps waking up on her birthday, in the dorm room of a guy she met at a party the night before but does not remember. The rude, self-centered Tree makes her way back to her sorority and goes through her day, only to be killed by someone in a demon baby mask (the college’s weird sports mascot) on the way to another party. But then, like in the Bill Murray comedy GROUNDHOG DAY, she wakes up again on the morning of her birthday and relives the day. The premise, of course, is that Tree has to solve her own murder and prevent it, to get to the next day.
This time the victim is Ryan (Phi Vu), the roommate of Carter (Israel Broussard), in whose dorm room Tree kept waking up in the first film. We quickly learn Ryan is part of a trio of students working on science project that caused his troubles as well as Tree’s. Naturally, the relentless Tree sets out the solve the mystery, with the help of Carter and Ryan.
HAPPY DEATH DAY 2U is placed firmly in the long genre tradition of horror comedy films, and seems aimed mostly at a younger audience with a taste for horror films as date movies. As a sequel, it is not as inventive as the first one but it is not bad either. As genre stuff, it does not offer much for more sophisticated audiences but for those looking for basic popcorn entertainment, it works well enough.
Christopher Landon directed both films, which are from Blumhouse, the studio that gave us GLASS, THE PURGE and GET OUT. While neither HAPPY DEATH DAY films are anywhere near the same league as GET OUT by any means, the first film was a hit and it was rather clever, recycling the idea behind GROUNDHOG DAY while playing with horror film tropes. The best twist was the sorority girl character at the center of it, who, instead of being a screaming victim, is a don’t-mess-with-me hellion.
There is plenty of death and violence in both films but not a lot of blood and gore, with even less in the sequel. HAPPY DEATH DAY 2U adds a new film reference to the GROUNDHOG DAY idea, mixing it with BACK TO THE FUTURE. With the help of Ryan and his nerdy science major friends, Tree time-travels back to her own death day to try to fix the problem, needing more than one trip. The time travel means some scenes from the original are repeated, but instead of re-shooting them from a new point of view, the sequel just lifts the scenes from the first film, both a clever idea and a cost-saving one.
Jessica Rothe reprises her role, and the cast of the first film returns as well, with new characters added. Rothe again does a nice job as the relentless Tree. Like the Bill Murray character, Rothe’s character goes from a jerk to a better person in the first film, and builds on that growth in the sequel, becoming even more resourceful. Broussard is likable again as Carter, with Phi Vu fine as Ryan, as are Suraj Sharma and Sarah Yarkin as his comically nerdy friends. Rachel Matthews is even more obnoxious as sorority president Danielle, Ruby Modine remains mysterious as Tree’s mismatched roommate Lori, and Charles Aitken is even ickier as Prof. Gregory.
For those looking for a scary/funny movie for Valentine’ Day date, HAPPY DEATH DAY 2U would do nicely. HAPPY DEATH DAY 2U opens Wednesday, Feb. 13, at multiple area theaters.
Sure Halloween was a couple of days ago, but I’d wager there are still lots of film fans eager for a new scare. After all, audiences have kept the sequel/reboot of HALLOWEEN at the top of the box office for the last several weeks (probably this coming week also). This week’s new fright flick also has its roots from the same late 1970’s time frame, but it’s no follow-up. We’re talking a flat-out remake, or as the marketers like say, a “re-imagining” (fancy, schmancy I say). The original actually beat the John Carpenter classic to theatres by nearly a year. Oh, and it was made by one of Italy’s most acclaimed thriller directors, Dario Argento. Now, this new take is also by an Italian director, Luca Guadagnino, who last year at this time released the Oscar-winning, coming-of-age romance CALL ME BY YOUR NAME. Oh, that original had one English actress, while the 2018 edition features three (still a few subtitles, though). Having never seen the earlier flick, this is all new gore to me, so let’s enter the nightmare world of SUSPIRIA.
The story’s setting is Berlin, specifically East Berlin, a few years prior to the fall of that wall. A young woman makes her way past protestors to the walk-up office of an elderly psychotherapist, Dr. Josef Klemperer (Lutz Ebersdorf). Patricia (Chloe Grace Moretz) is in a panic and babbles about escaping from her tormentors. Meanwhile, way across the pond in Ohio USA, a young woman leaves her strict religious family farm home as her mother succumbs to disease. Cut to an elite dance academy back in Berlin, where that same young woman climbs the stairs to the rehearsal space. Susie Bannion (Dakota Johnson) has come there specifically to study with the famous Madame Blanc. Ah, but first she must audition for some of the other teachers. Blanc (Tilda Swinton) arrives near the end of her performance and is wowed. Susie is assigned a room and becomes fast friends with another student, Sara (Mia Goth). Early the next day, Susie joins the rehearsals of Blanc’s lauded ballet “Polk”. The lead actress is upset that she is replacing her friend, the missing Patricia, and leaves the hall. As she departs, she takes the wrong exit and is trapped in another dance space. As Susie performs the lead in “Polk” (she watched the videotape many times back home), the music and vibrations cause the trapped dancer on the floor below to contort, her bones twist and shatter as she literally folds in on herself. As she breathes her last, several of the teachers rush in and brutally move the body out of sight. Soon Sara’s curiosity is aroused when she sees two police detectives (investigating Patricia’s disappearance) are put in a trance by some of the dance teachers. This prompts Sara to visit Josef and eventually venture into the dank basement of the school building. Just what deadly secrets are the faculty keeping from the students? And could Susie be their next target?
As the queen choreographer Blanc, Swinton projects a cold aloofness, deftly alternating between cruel taskmaster and encouraging, sympathetic mentor. With a costume of flowing red robes, hair tightly pulled back, and always clenching a half-sized cigarette, Blanc is like a smoldering crimson manta ray, sweeping in to teach and berate her young charges. Of course, her main focus is Susie, played by Johnson as a fragile, wide-eyed innocent, though at times she seems a tad too mature for this ingenue role. But Johnson has the determined, confident body language of a gifted ballerina. Moretz in her scant screen time (much like PYSCHO’s Marion Crane she sets the events in motion, as her presence is felt long after her exit) helps establish a mood of mystery and paranoia. Goth makes a most diligent Nancy Drew-like seeker of truth, hoping to protect her new “sister” from the school’s secrets. The best work is from screen newcomer Ebersdorf who is almost a Van Helsing in a battle against forces beyond his comprehension. Though age has slowed him…I’ll stop now, since the cat has long been out of the bag. Swinton does double duty as the frail, kindly doctor with his own hidden past. Thanks to some excellent make-up, and Swinton’s skill this becomes more than a mere “stunt”.
Guadagnino envelopes the story, smothering it in gloom and shadows, The colors are muted, the lighting (save for the dance rehearsals) dimmed, often with figures emerging from deep, long shadows. “Old school” horror fans will be pleased that most of the more squeamish sequences rely more on prosthetic make-up effects and puppetry rather than CGI. This is particularly true of the film’s first big death sequence in which a young woman’s face contorts and her bones crackle while pushed against a mirror by unseen forces. For much of the second act, the threat of violence hovers, especially in the big group scenes with the unhinged unpredictable staff and faculty. Their meals and meetings tend to get ugly very quickly. The “Polk” performance is a compelling bit of dark dance with the ladies attired in red strings and strips of clothing and tassels that recall blood streaks. This is just a peaceful prelude to the “go for broke’, bonkers finale, a fever dream orgy filled with hellish deformed creatures and rivers of plasma and bile. There are attempts to explain the connections between events and characters, but we’re left with more questions than answers. Often sadistic and brutal, with haunting oddly lovely imagery, this over-stuffed (152 minutes) nightmare is for “gorehounds” who wants something beyond those lumbering masked madmen. But for the squeamish, SUSPIRIA serves up some pretty sick stuff.
Okay, so last Friday was the thirteenth, but that doesn’t stop the studios from releasing a new horror/thriller into the blockbuster-heavy Summer movie marketplace. Well the film itself is new, but it’s a follow-up to a modest hit from way back in 2015. So, is this set in a creepy old castle, or in a decaying and crumbling moldy mansion? No, those settings are passe and a tad tame for modern scary stories and their fans. The really terrifying backdrops aren’t “Camp Crystal Lake” or even the “House on Haunted Hill”. Here’s a hint: you’re there at this moment. Of course, the new hang-out for goons and monsters is the internet. It’s not a huge stretch to think of a web portal as a long hallway leading to a dungeon with tabs and ads popping up like zombies and ghouls. In this sequel (in name only), the forces of evil are streaming (and screaming) through your router in UNFRIENDED: DARK WEB.
Actually the whole story is told on the screen of a laptop. First we see an unseen user trying to access the laptop by making several password guesses. After a fairly short time, he’s in. Soon a video screen tab pops to reveal the person at the keyboard, Matais (Colin Woodell). He makes a Skype call to his hearing-impaired girlfriend Amaya (Stephanie Nogueras). He’s eager to show her the voice to type chat program he’s rigged up (she has trouble reading his lips and he washed out at learning sign language) with this great laptop he bought on Craigslist. When the program stalls, frustrating Amaya, she starts to click out, but Matais reminds her that it’s game night via video chat with their old college buddies. Suddenly the small video screens begin popping up. From England there’s the bespectacled hunk Damon (Andrew Lees). Back in the states, there’s the conspiracy theory motormouth Aj (Connor Del Rio). Music mixologist Dj Lexx (Savira Windyani) chimes in. Finally the final tab contains the newly engaged couple of Serena (Rebecca Rittenhouse) and Nari (Betty Gabriel). As they begin playing “Cards Against Humanity”, Matias continues to try and get a response from Amaya, but he’s also curious about the laptop’s former owner. He’s still able to access the Facebook account of “Norah”. Once he logs on, Matias is bombarded by urgent messages from woman around the globe. Then the more threatening messages begin. Seems that Matais is not quite telling the truth about his new acquisition, which soon draws him along with all his online pals into a shadowy world of Bitcoin-base butchery and vile video voyeurs.
Well kudos to the producers for at least footing the bill so that the real world apps aren’t replaced by distracting fictional brands like “Facegroup” or “Skyview”. This does help to add a sense of reality to many of the fantastical goings-on. As for my “sequel” comment, this has nothing to do with the events and characters of the 2015 original. There are no vengeful ghosts going after cyber-bullies. The one thing in common is that everything we see is on the desktop screen, so the “Unfriended” refers to the story-telling method and setting rather than a continuing cast of characters and locales. Screenwriter Stephen Susco in his feature film directing debut ably amps up the tension, juggling the myriad of popping tabs and video screens (which get just enough of the action), while fiddling with sound (no real score other than some current top 40-style tunes) to hammer the shocks. Unfortunately the in your face tabs, flickering arrows, and spinning color wheels get very repetitive and claustrophobic. We hope for a “break-out” from the tech tube that never occurs. Still, some of the actors are able to shine, making them more that thriller type “cannon fodder”. There’s a nice cozy chemistry between Rittenhouse and Gabriel (in her second Blum House flick after her powerful work in GET OUT), plus Del Rio is a a loopy and oh so smug “s*%#-stirrer”. And Woodell is all sweaty panic as the flawed hero. Still, it’s tough to really get to know them in the split/screen “real time’ constraints of this extremely downbeat, nearly hopeless tale of cyber-cruelty and crime. The baddies really seem to be able to do anything technically (even making themselves into scratchy specters on any monitor) and are literally everywhere at once. Perhaps the next in this “series” will delve more into the inner workings of these underground overlords. As for this one, I can’t hit the like icon for UNFRIENDED: DARK WEB, though I’ll not click the brown, “swirly-headed’ guy either.
Ah, it’s another special Friday, a day to avoid black cats while walking around a ladder in order to see a new horror flick at the multiplex. On this thirteenth, we’re not getting another incarnation of Jason Vorhees, or Freddie, Leatherface, or Michael Myers (the Halloween guy, behave!). Nope this flick is in a part of “Scare City” that’s a bit more genteel than where those dudes do their mayhem. That’s because (speaking of the thirteenth) this movie’s rated “PG-13”, an area that’s more in the wheelhouse of the company known as Blumhouse. Just in case you were thinking they’ve gone all “respectable’ with their Oscar win (Best Original Screenplay) for last year’s smash GET OUT, here’s another movie for teens who love to see slightly older, very photographic young adults in jeopardy. And just so you don’t confuse it with that ancient 1990’s Madonna documentary, the studio’s moniker precedes the title in all the marketing with Blumhouses’s TRUTH OR DARE.
The frights begin with a scene of savagery down south of the border prior to the title card. Cut to a sun-speckled college campus just north of said border, probably California (USC Sunnydale, perhaps). Perky, bright-eyed brunette Olivia (Lucy Hale) is speaking into her laptop screen, imploring the followers of her You Tube channel to join her for Spring break at a Habitat for Humanity site. Not so fast. Her roommate and BFF Markie (Violette Beane) insists that Olivia join the gang on a Spring break trip to Mexico. As Olivia hesitates, Markie and friends agree to work at the next H4H project (“Twelve hands are better than two”). And so, they pile into the gas-guzzlin’ vehicle. Markie’s got her beau (for whom Olivia secretly pines) Lucas (Tyler Posey), there’s another couple, hard-drinking Penelope (Sophia Ali) and shady drug dealer (he’s got a prescription pad) Tyson (Nolan Gerard Funk), along with the closeted (from his clueless cop dad) Brad (Hayden Szeto). After countless selfies and cell phone videos, the group convenes at a beach-side bar for the last night of the “vacay”. Unfortunately Olivia bumps into obnoxious party dude (same school) Ronnie (Sam Lerner) just before she meets the mysterious hunk Carter (Landon Liboiron). Darn, it’s last call, but Carter knows a secluded place where they can keep the party going. Wow, it’s a super-creepy old run-down church. Inside, Carter suggests they play a game of Truth or Dare. He ducks out quickly as the game reaches an uncomfortable end. Or has it? Back at school, seemingly possessed strangers (with sunken dark eyes and Joker-like grins) continue the game with the group. Some find out the hard way that you’ll pay the ultimate price for refusing to play. Oh, and lying in “truth” mode gets you killed. As does refusing a “dare”. As the bodies begin to pile up, Olivia realizes the game is cursed and tries to convince her friends as she figures out a way to end the game before it claims them all.
The simple plot is pushed forward mainly by the tag-team efforts of the film’s two main actresses. Of course, the central heroine is Hale, her sharp-angled bobbed do’ and accented eye shadow making her resemble an anime star, who has the difficult job of not only figuring out the deadly on-going game, and then struggling to convince those around her of the deadly danger. Unfortunately her role is too “squeaky-clean” with almost new flaws or foibles. Most of those are loaded onto the Markie character played with great energy by Beane (so good as Jesse “Quick” on TV’s “The Flash”), Still reeling from her father’s demise, Markie throws herself at any man, even grinding up against a stranger on the dance floor mere feet from her dull-witted steady guy. She’s the story’s true “wild card”, threatening Olivia, then refusing to the ‘dare’ to smash her hand minutes later.. The others are mainly “creepshow cannon fodder”, popping up to display bad behavior, then pay for their “dirty deeds”. We’re left to wonder why Penelope boozes to extreme excess. Why’s her man Tyson nearly as big a jerk as that lunk-headed horndog Ronnie? Plus it trivializes Brad’s big decision subplot. And why does it seem that Carter wondered in from a more interesting recent horror flick, IT FOLLOWS (he should be wearing a T-shirt with “bait’ printed in blood-red letters across the chest).
This trite exercise is a real step down for director and co-screen writer Jeff Wadlow after his last theatrical feature five years ago, the flawed but often entertaining KICK ASS 2. Of course, he’s loaded this up with telegraphed scares, fake-outs, and sound manipulations, which is still more watchable than the mind-numbing vacation montage that precedes the fateful night. At least the writers thought ahead and inserted a new rule that there could be no more than two “truths” before a deadly “dare”, which makes some characters go for the danger to spare the next player. Plus, the “ghoulish grin” CGI effect is powerful the first couple times, but its repetition blunts its impact. Those death punishments have none of the “Rube Goldberg” zaniness of the FINAL DESTINATION franchise. By the third act, Olivia and her pals are hopping back and forth over the border so frequently that we wonder why the border security didn’t hold them for questioning. It all winds up back at the now crumbling church that’s falls apart much like all the big estates and mansions at the end of the Corman Price/Poe pictures from the 50’s and 60’s. The finale is so muddled and clumsy that the set-up for a sequel is laughable. The producers will discover that those playing this game of TRUTH OR DARE will probably pass on another round.
Left to right: Javier Bardem and Jennifer Lawrence in mother!, from Paramount Pictures and Protozoa Pictures.
Darren Aronofsky’s new film MOTHER! is a nightmare of a movie, but it is intended to be. It is like going over a waterfall – sudden, terrifying, exhilarating, disorienting, an assault on the senses, but not what one would call fun. Still, if one survives, a few might want to do it again.
MOTHER! is not a film for everyone but it is a brilliantly made bit of cinema, filled with haunting images, moving performances and intellectually intriguing themes. Those who have seen Aronofsky’s films know that he can go dark and surreal – think of “Black Swan,” parts of “Requiem of a Dream.” This film takes you further down the rabbit hole – much further. It is sometimes like walking through a painting by Hieronymus Bosch, a landscape of symbolism. Some will be intrigued by that idea and others won’t but, regardless, it is a film that will stay with you.
MOTHER! (in the posters, the title is written in lowercase and always with an exclamation point) is like experiencing a nightmare. In dreams, as in this film, sometimes things seem ordinary and make sense, then they become surreal and strange. Sometimes you notice the strangeness while others in the dream do not. Symbolism is everywhere, and the line between what can happen in the waking world and what happens in dreams is ever-shifting. You might want to wake up but you can’t always. Sometimes it returns to the ordinary, sometimes it takes bizarre turns, but it tends to get stranger as it evolves. In BLACK SWAN, Aronofsky gave audiences an anchor in the real world by implying the dancer was descending into madness but in this film, the director gives no such safe haven. Like a vivid nightmare, it is not necessarily an experience you want but you might learn something when you wake up – or in this case, leave the theater.
MOTHER! is the kind of film that invites discussion and analysis, even between those who liked it and those who didn’t, the kind of film that stays with you and has layers upon layers of meaning to be peeled back. The symbolism and allegory exist on many levels, from the cosmic to the global to the personal. It is packed with Biblical references, commentary on fame and on obsessive artists, references to myth and archetypes, creation and destruction, the environment, and even, possibly, Aronofsky’s relationship with former lover Rachel Weisz. All these interpretations have been suggested for the film, and each can make a valid argument without excluding the others.
The film begins with a brief wordless sequence, in which time is reversed and a house destroyed by fire is restored to its pre-destruction state. In the restored Victorian house, a young woman (Jennifer Lawrence) awakes and goes to look for her husband (Javier Bardem). He is a writer, older than her and apparently famous, who is working on his next project while she works on restoring the old house damaged by fire. Their life looks quiet and idyllic, a rural paradise. The house is surrounded by green grass and trees, with neither neighbors nor roads in sight. Suddenly, unexpectedly, a man (Ed Harris) turns up at their door, saying he had been told the house was a bed and breakfast. She wants to send him away, but her husband, who apparently had met him in town, invites him in. Her unease is heightened when his wife (Michelle Pfeiffer) arrives as well, expecting to stay. Having opened the door to them, more people soon come in. What starts as a tense situation quickly escalates into nightmare.
That is a pedestrian description of a film that is anything but. However, further description won’t help; this surreal wild ride has to be experienced. The cast also includes Domhnall Gleeson, his brother Brian Gleeson (the play brothers in the film) and Kristen Wiig. The characters have no names, although later in the film Bardem’s character is call the Poet and Lawrence is called the Inspiration, and in the credits they are listed as “mother” and “him.” Who they are or what they represent is open to endless interpretation. The story is told mostly from the point of view of Jennifer Lawrence’s character. There are murders, brother against brother, fame and crazed fans, bizarre events, violence, love, betrayal, and birth. Given the title, there had to be at least one mother, but the title could easily mean Mother Earth or Mother Nature instead.
MOTHER is being presented as a horror film, and in a way, it is – certainly horrifying things happen. But it is a horror film for thinking people, for those with a taste for myth and symbolism, for puzzles that cry out to be unraveled. It is also a kind of ghost story, a feverish nightmare, a creepy psychological thriller, a mythic tale, and an allegory on many things including cost of fame, and maybe a symbolic cautionary tale on looming environmental danger. It is also a kind of retelling of creation. That is a lot for one film. Jennifer Lawrence, who is the writer/director’s girlfriend as well as the star of this film, has hinted at an environmental/Mother Nature interpretation, but there are several possible meanings for the film.
Where one likes the film or not, MOTHER certainly has the intellectual goods, and the artistic ones. Visually, the film is gorgeous, alternating between pleasing symmetry in the house, its graceful furnishing, and pleasant natural setting, and the dark, haunting Gothic nightmare images that invade. Aronofsky calls on all his skills to create that kind of world which he showed us in BLACK SWAN, and then takes it up a notch. The photography is excellent, special effects perfectly creepy, and pacing just right to keep us on edge. Although the story spins us around (as it does Lawrence’s character), one always is aware that the director, the story-teller, is in charge.
Jennifer Lawrence may well earn an Oscar for this performance. At the beginning of the film, she plays an un-demanding wife, deferring lovingly to the wishes of her older, famous husband. As he starts to allow people into their isolated little paradise, she objects gently at first. He seems able to leave for the larger world but she does not (is it agoraphobia, we might wonder) and wants to stay home. She is afraid of his crazed fans and he tells her he shares that concern, but then seems to bask in their adoration. The characters and their relationship evolves, or maybe is just revealed, throughout the film. Lawrence exudes a mix of sweetness and love, but with a sense of power underneath. She is a woman of many skills, renovating the old house on her own – plumbing to plastering – something she proudly proclaims at one point, but she acknowledges it is his house she is rebuilding. Lawrence’s luminous face often fills the screen, and feelings of doubt, love, fear, or confusion play across it. At times, we wonder if she is losing touch with reality. Bardem’s character is more opaque, more mysterious than Lawrence’s open one. There are repeated references to their age difference, and his fame (and his handling of that) looms over their home. She wants it to be just them, but Bardem is clearly drawn by the siren call of fans, energized by their praise even while aware there is danger. What his intentions are, his inner thoughts, are not clear until the film’s horrifying end.
The rest of the cast provides strong support. Ed Harris is a man who seems to be one thing but is revealed to be something else. His easy bond with Bardem’s character unsettles Lawrence, but it is the intrusive, demanding character played by Michelle Pfeiffer that is most upsetting, a woman who seems no boundaries. Other actors turn up and play out their dramas in her house, dramas which Lawrence’s character is powerless to stop.
Symbolism and allegory fill this film. Myth and the natural world touch in this film. Hexagons appear everywhere in the house, in the windows, doors, even the shape of the entry hall, and in the frame of a photo of Javier Bardem’s character that his adoring, crazed fans carry. It is a geometric shape common in nature (think honeycombs but also in soap bubbles), one that confer structural strength. There is a paradise lost theme, a cycle of life, history repeating, creation and destruction cycle underlying things. There are plenty of Biblical references but there are references to other religions and mythologies as well. One of the characters carries a lighter with a symbol on it, an ancient rune called a Wendehorn, a symbol from German history with links to the occult. The Wendehorn combines the symbols for life and death and represents a uniting of opposites like life and death, light and dark, order and chaos, good and evil. It also is associated with the Norse goddess Freyja, goddess of love, fertility, battle, and death – all of which are part of this film. Many religions have forces of creation and destruction, order and chaos, light and dark, themes about finding balance between them, which is part of physics too. There are themes of Nature versus Man, leading some viewers to read the events in the film as symbolizing the destruction of the natural world. These are just some of the elements present, there are plenty more to unearth.
Like a nightmare, there are times when it is hard to tell what is going on because the story is told from the point of view of Jennifer Lawrence. We know what she knows, the confusion is her confusion. The film unfolds like a bizarre clockwork, beautifully structured and folding back on itself in a brilliant way. Things are made more clear by the end, although nothing is spelled out.
Some film-goers feel that movies should entertain and that if they strive to be art, they are breaking the rules somehow. Others are open to wider view, that film can be art too. MOTHER is not a non-narrative film, it has a plot and story but it is the kind of story you find in myths, fairy tales and fantasy, one filled with allegory. Those who like a smart, artistic film where not everything is clearly spelled out or even grounded in everyday reality, will relish this film, even if the experience cannot be called “fun.” But then again, what is it that draws people to scary movies, to roller coasters and risky thrills?
If all that complexity sounds intriguing, then MOTHER! is a trip you want to take. It is not for everyone, and plenty of people will hate it, but even then most will have to admit its a brilliantly built bit of cinema.
We’re nearly halfway through July, but somehow, here at the ole’ multiplex, there’s a distinct chill. No, it’s not somebody tinkering with the thermostat. It could be this new horror flick, perhaps. Although it’s not the good chill as in a memorable “spine-tingler”. No, it’s as if this wannabe’ thriller somehow escaped the dumping ground of mid-January, or a Friday-the-thirteenth weekend, or sometime close to Halloween. It’s squarely aimed at the pre-teen and teen set since it’s got the PG-13 rating, so it’s a bit scary, just not too intense or “gory gross”. And it features a cast from other young adult flicks and TV shows for audience identification. And what’s the added incentive at the top of the poster, the nudge that’ll put behinds in the seats? “From the director of Annabelle”…really. That’s something to boast about? Oh, and there’s fairy tale elements to the story, too. It’s about a magic gizmo that grants your every desire, but, of course, the film’s heroine has to learn the hard way to, everybody now, “Be careful what you wish for” when you decide to WISH UPON (and not upon a star, Mr. Cricket).
The story begins with a gruesome, traumatic childhood memory that makes high-schooler Claire (Joey King) wake up screaming, bolt upright, her eyes nearly popping out of her head. Ah, but it’s time to head for school as she bids goodbye to her pop Jonathan (Ryan Phillippe) and jumps on her rickety bicycle. As she helps her wealthy uncle retrieve his morning paper at the driveway of his ritzy estate, Claire is nearly run down by school diva, that mean blonde b..witch, Darcie (Josephine Langford), who’s taking her fawning “squad” to school. But things don’t get better for Claire once her trek is done. Right outside the campus, she spots her dad “at work”. He may call himself a “professional recycler”, but to his daughter (and her classmates), Jonathan and her bud Carl are “dumpster divers”. Luckily Claire has her own support team, BFFs Meredith (Sydney Park) and June (Shannon Purser). But Darcie is not through taunting Claire, and the two get into a brawl in the school cafeteria (where were the faculty lunch monitors, visiting another district?). That night, Jonathan tries to cheer up Claire with an unusual gift, something he grabbed during the day’s ‘scavenging’. It’s an octagonal wooden box, about the size of a..well..breadbox, decorated with Chinese characters carved into its sides. Claire thinks into weird and cool. As she gets ready for bed, Claire recalls her arch-nemesis, and (while holding the box) says, “I wish Darcie would just…rot!”. Naturally Darcie wakes up the next day and is horrified by the divot in her check and her decaying leg. Word travels fast later at school as Claire learns of Darcie’s “medical emergency”. Meanwhile in Claire’s bedroom, the top of the box opens up and emits a musicbox-like tune. Then the family dog goes missing. Luckily Claire is taking a Chinese language course, so she asks her platonic pal Ryan (Ki Hong Lee) to decipher the box. He consults his aunt who says that the box promises to grant seven wishes from its owner. However (and isn’t there always an “however”), a blood ‘debt’ must be paid. Someone close to Claire must perish.And so she gets rid of the cursed lil’ wooden box, right? Of course, not! The flick would be a short subject then!
Joey King does her best with the fumbling script which wants us to root for Claire while being frustrated with her impulsive selfish choices. At least one of pals calls her out (“You could ask for world peace or cure cancer, instead you want to be popular?!”). King is quite convincing as the conflicted kid, but her abrupt shifts in motivation make for a confused center of the story. Purser, the beloved Barb from the Netflix sensation “Stranger Things” has a more consistent character arc, though she’s often the snarky bystander. Park has the more “in your face” attitude, though she’s saddled with some truly inane dialogue (“You’re a big, heaping bowl of b*%#h sauce!” Who talks like that?) and an obsession with a popular ‘app” that now feels as relevant as a pet rock (google it). Lee is good as Claire’s moral voice (there’s Jiminy again), but his unwavering devotion feels to similar to the relationship in last year’s vastly superior EDGE OF SEVENTEEN. As in that film, Claire is lusting after the utterly “adorbs” hunk Paul, played with boy band dreaminess by Mitchell Slaggert. Oh, and Langfield is a more vicious and violent version of Rachel McAdams in the (once more) vastly superior MEAN GIRLS. So is anybody in this flick over 25, you may ask? Oddly, the producers have cast two 1990’s “objects of adoration”. Phillip is almost unrecognizable as the scruffy “junkman”, until one wish, not kidding, turns him into a sexy saxophone player (I keep thinking of Jon Hamm as SNL’s Sergio) that arouses June (ah..hem). And “Twin Peaks” and TWO MOON JUNCTION sex kitten Sherilyn Fenn is the nurturing “Earth mother”neighbor, complete with long braided ponytail (it’s important later), who’s given little to do as we count the moments till she’s history (if she were in “Star Trek” she’d be wearing a red shirt beneath her cozy sweaters).
Of course this cautionary tale is a familiar one with roots going back to the classic short story “The Monkey’s Paw” and the story of the Djinn of “The Arabian Nights” (not the fun, friendly blue genie of Aladdin, nor the sexy navel-hiding Jeannie of 60’s sitcom fame), but seldom has the story been told in such an awkward, clumsy fashion. But hey, we got seven wishes, not three (to up the body count). It soon gets repetitive with wish, box opens, death. The film makers borrow heavily from the more engaging FINAL DESTINATION series, but the “accidents” never quite achieve the goofy “Rube Goldberg-like” comic inventiveness. And, because of the kid-friendlier PG-13, rating, there no goofy gory payoffs. Although the lead-ups almost have a satirical bent (close-up of big boiling pot, cut to garbage disposal with badly installed power switch…which will do them in?). The soundtrack is filled to the brim with indistinguishable pop tunes that interrupt the story to make “mini-music videos” (the plot is stopped dead in its tracks for …the “make-over montage”). Real horror aficionados will be put off by that rating, since no demise is shown too long and many are fairly …tidy (really, some of the locales would be drenched in plasma). As a result of the tame tone (there were “afterschool specials” more gruesome..and that’s one to grow on!), the overwrought dialogue, and ill-defined characters the movie is almost ‘high camp”, particularly the final denouncement. It was intended as a grim, sobering shocker, but it had the screening audience howling with laughter. Ultimately the film’s not even in the “It’s so bad, it’s good” fun to laugh at, guilty pleasure variety of time-wasters. It’s a ludicrous mess I wouldn’t WISH UPON anyone. 1.5 Out of 5
The French-language horror film RAW has been called a coming-of-age story and, in a way, it is – if you might be a cannibal. Written and directed by Julia Ducournau, RAW is one gripping horror film. In her debut feature, the writer/director does an excellent job creating an unnerving scary atmosphere, and inserting layers of symbolism under the horror.
Gruesome, gory and intelligent, cannibalism is a central part of this disturbing thriller set in veterinary college in a French rural location. The film can be seen as a metaphor of sorts for the excesses of college freshman, once parents are far away, but few party schools can match the excesses of this vet school. Unlike horror movies where the gore is the whole show, RAW adds in layers of depth that make it a much higher caliber of horror. This is one scary, disturbing movie, but one that gives the audience something to think about too.
Young, innocent and brilliant Justine (Garance Marillier) is a committed vegetarian like her doting parents. She is the family’s star, the brilliant straight A student who is about the start schooling to become a veterinarian. Her older sister, the family rebel, is already studying there, also training to become a vet like their parents.
When her parents drop Justine off at the college, which is in a remote location, her sister is not there to meet her as she had promised. Still Justine makes her way to her room, and meets her assigned roommate, a gay man named Adrian (Rabah Nait Oufella). Once in her room, her wilder older sister Alexia (Ella Rumpf) does appear, both teasing Justine and helping her.
Classes start right away, and so does the hazing that the freshmen are expected to endure. Unlike in American schools, hazing is still an old tradition new students must endure. Since these student are studying to be veterinarians, it shouldn’t be surprising that gory stuff is part of that hazing.
Being doused with animal blood (evoking images of CARRIE) and then photographed for a class photo in their blood-soak lab coats is one the hazing traditions Justine’s parents told her to expect. A strict vegetarian, she is less prepared to be expected to eat a raw rabbit kidney. She has never eaten meat before, and the taste of raw flesh brings out a strange reaction in Justine, sending her to the health clinic. It also awakens a hunger she has never known.
There is a vampire-type theme to this tale along with the cannibalism that crops up. There is also the usual coming-of-age experiences that expects at college, and the kinds of excesses that the over-protected are especially prone to.
Besides the hazing, veterinary education includes plenty of gory stuff – hands-on lab work including surgery, treatment and dissections of animals such as horses, cows and dogs, besides the lectures on physiology and all the tests. Justine’s reputation as a scholar has proceeded her, raising expectations from faculty but doing nothing to impress her fellow students. She’s just another freshman who has to endure the hazing.
Her sister Alexia seems to show little sympathy – she already endured it herself – but eventually takes little sister under her wing, in her own brash, rebellious way. Still, the sisters retain a kind of sibling rivalry, and the older one alternates between ignoring the younger one and showing her the ropes of college life, Meanwhile, Justine bonds in particular with her handsome roommate Adrian, who becomes her study partner, and goes clubbing with her and on runs to a local convenience store/ truck stop to get fast food.
With the remote location and the vet school’s inherent carnage, sheltered good girl Justine starts to lose her footing. Marillier’s delicate, innocent face helps in drawing us into this unfolding nightmare, and her reserved demeanor is perfectly contrasted by Rumpf’s more demonic character. When midway through the movie, Justine becomes what we would call a monster, Marillier has built up such sympathy for her with the audience, that we are torn by the change, just as Justine herself is.
Alexia has developed some unsettling habits at school, and after an accident in which Justine discovers a horrifying craving, Alexia decides to introduce her sister to her new hobby. The scenes are some of the most chilling of an already chilling film.
Throughout, Ducournau shows herself a master of pacing, and of what to reveal and when. Visual imagery adds to the eerie feeling, whether open, empty landscapes, stormy skies, or claustrophobic darken night spots or sterile cavernous dissection labs.
It is hard to find a fresh take in the horror genre but RAW succeeds in doing just that, in grand creepy fashion. One thing is certain after seeing RAW: you will never look at vegetarians the same way.
RATING: 4 1/2 out of 5 stars
RAW opens in St. Louis March 31st exclusively at The Chase Park Plaza Cinema
