30 Days of Night

Starring: Josh Hartnett, Melissa George, Danny Huston Directed by: David Slade

Thanks to Twilight, True Blood, and perhaps even lingering effects of Interview With the Vampire, the pale undead are more sexy than scary, snuggly than snarly.  Able to contain their thirst, sparkle in the daylight, and flash their fangs to charm rather than chew…these vampires are nowhere to be found in 30 Days of Night.

Matching the harsh and wild winter of Barrow, Alaska, the pack of vampires roaming the frozen darkness is more animal than human.  Very few of them speak – mainly their leader Marlow (Danny Huston).  Mostly, they just stalk around with bloodstained chins, scream like tortured bats and attack humans with ravenous abandon.

The premise is simple – in the dead of winter, the sun won't rise in Barrow for a whole month because it is so far up north.  Quite a few people leave town, or at least intend to – including Sheriff Eben Oleson's estranged fire marshall wife Stella (Josh Hartnett and Melissa George, respectively), who has only been in town briefly due to a safety check she had to run in Barrow.

While Eben is out investigating a number of weird occurrences about town – cell phones destroyed, sled dogs murdered en masse, a helicopter vandalized and put out of commission – Stella misses her plane.  Other than a man (Ben Foster) appearing mysteriously in town, acting weird and speaking cryptically of the townsfolk never being able to escape 'them,' no one has a clue what's going on.

Soon enough it becomes clear the remaining citizens of Barrow are meant to be a month-long snack for the group of vampires that has swooped in.  It's never really clear how many vampires there are – perhaps 15-20ish, give or take – but nevertheless too many for the core group of humans to take on.  They have to make several moves throughout the month of darkness to get supplies, switch locations, and basically attempt to keep one step ahead of the vampires.

At nearly two hours, this movie felt like it took 30 days to watch.  Though there are some excellent action scenes – particularly one involving about six ways to kill vampires with a snowplow and ending with an explosion – it is pretty boring.  Visually, dark snowy streets get pretty dull.  Josh Harnett grows gross scraggly facial hair over the course of the movie.  Everyone mostly sits around in their parkas and tries to figure out how to outrun the vampires – not even destroy them, just outrun them to survive until sunrise.

If you:

• Prefer the unfriendly vampire creature to the romantic ones
• Like a movie that moves very slowly to highlight the tension of hiding and fear of discovery

Put it in the queue!

However, if you:

• Are used to the human hero surrounded by vampire constantly working on some type of innovative way to slay the enemy (seriously – the odds were much worse in I Am Legend and he was always pottering around gathering samples, running experiments.  Even the kids in Fright Night did a little plotting and just didn't give the heck up.)
• Like reading, and suspect perusing the original graphic novel might be both more expedient AND more enjoyable

Don't put it in the queue!

Written by Jennifer Venson

Xtro

Starring: Philip Sayer, Simon Nash Directed by: Harry Bromley Davenport

Here’s the tagline for Xtro: “Some extra-terrestrials aren't friendly.”  As this film was released in 1983, less than a year after a certain other extraterrestrial-based film, one starting with an “E” and ending with a “T,” I can only assume this tagline is making reference to its other, slightly more popular, cousin.

Here’s one thing you can be assured of, however, the films bare absolutely no resemblance.

Xtro opens with Sam Phillips (Philip Sayer) and his son Tony (Simon Nash) playing with their dog in the back yard of their vacation cottage on a sunny summer afternoon.  Sam throws a stick up in the air, assumedly so the dog will chase it, although it actually appears as though he is trying to throw it on top of the house.  The stick freezes in mid-air, explodes, the day turns instantly in to night, and Sam is quickly and efficiently abducted by aliens.

As Tony is the only one to witness this affair, it is believed the boy has created a rationalization to deal with his father leaving him and his mother, Rachel (Bernice Stegers).  Everybody is on board with this explanation, from the doctor to the mom to the new boyfriend Joe (Danny Brainin) to the extremely attractive French housekeeper Analise (Maryam D’abo).

However, three years after his disappearance the alien ship reappears, crashing into a forest, and what I can only assume is Tony’s now mutated alien father crawls from the wreckage.  In the brief snippets we get he appears to be a mix between an H.R. Giger painting and Sloth from “The Goonies.”  Except he crab-walks on all fours.

He saunters out to a road, where he is hit by a car.  When the man who hit him gets out to investigate the damage, the alien kills him by licking his eyes.  He then makes his way to the nearest house where he knocks a woman out and impregnates her by placing some sort of tentacled appendage over her mouth.  A few minutes later a fully-grown, completely human Sam Philips crawls out of her womb, bites through his umbilical cord, and goes to steal the dead man’s car.

All of what I have currently explained occurs in the first twenty minutes of the film.

After all those shenanigans occur, there is a marked lull.  This is due to the reintroduction of Sam in to the family, the questions of where he’s been, the obvious unease it causes between Rachel and Joe, and so on and so forth.  I started to become concerned “Xtro” would turn in to a tired mistaken identity film, where everybody believes Sam is Sam, but he’s actually an alien in human’s clothing.  My fears were heightened after Tony catches Sam eating his pet snake’s eggs.

Tony, worried maybe dad is acting a little weird, attempts to run away but Sam catches him in an alley.  He bends down to console his son with a hug, then promptly injects him with alien juice by sucking his shoulder until it becomes a festering pustule of evil.  Later that night, Tony starts to make some of his toys move with his mind.  It appears as though the injected alien juice is displaying itself in young Tony as telekinesis.

And then the film becomes an incomprehensible mess.

Here’s the rundown.  Dad is an alien, the son is a telekinetic who can not only move things with his mind, but can actually turn them to human form, the most prominent of which is a wooden clown that manifests itself in the form of a psychotic midget.  There are plenty of deaths from here on out, some people are simply killed while others are turned in to alien surrogates.

The longer the film runs, the more incoherent it becomes.  The “plot,” such as it is, begins to dissolve into more and more fantastic visuals……it just so happens they are also completely nonsensical. There are just too many ideas, and the paper-thin plot doesn’t even really bother trying to tie them together in any manner.  Yet, for all of its flaws, the direction isn’t bad, the acting is actually pretty good, and the soundtrack is filled with keyboards that sound so 80s you would swear it’s somebody in the year 2011 trying too hard to sound like keyboards from the 80s.

I guess what I’m really trying to say here is, if you are a fan of 80s horror, this is a film YOU HAVE TO SEE.  It makes no difference if it’s incoherent, or low budget, or has some of the absolute worst editing I have ever seen in my entire life.  It simply has to be seen for the pure oddity of it.

Written by Ryan Venson

Frailty

Starring: Bill Paxton, Matt O'Leary, Jeremy Sumpter, Matthew McConaughey Directed by: Bill Paxton

Zombies, vampires, werewolves, cave monsters, demons, ghouls and the like are the typical horror fare.  What's even scarier than that?

Someone with the absolute conviction God speaks to them in a dream and tells them to kill people.  And  even seeks mystically-provided weapons that should be used in carrying out these deeds. Such is the premise of Frailty.

FBI Agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Boothe) receives a visit from a young man (Matthew McConaughey) claiming he has information about the God's Hand Killer (presumably Doyle has been assigned to this serial murderer).  This man, identifying himself as Fenton Meiks, claims his brother Adam is the perpetrator.  He narrates a tale of two young boys in small-town Texas, raised by their widower father (Bill Paxton).  They lived a self-sufficient, quiet life until their father shakes them out of sleep in the middle of the night to announce God has just spoken to him in a dream. This revelation actually includes the whole family – per God, the mission of the three Meiks is to collect three holy weapons to be revealed in the coming days and destroy demons masquerading as humans.

Adam, age 7-ish, embraces the new family enterprise with enthusiasm, while the pre-teen Fenton remains a skeptic.  To his increasing dismay and discomfort, his father soon brings home several items (an axe, gloves and a lead pipe) to carry out the divine mission.  To make matters worse, Fenton's lack of belief in God – much less his father's visions – earns him several punishments the modern perspective might classify as abusive.

Doyle patiently listens to this tale, agreeing to go see the location where Adam's victims are buried.  Fentoncontinues his tale, noting the willingness with which Adam accepts his father's increasingly bizarre revelations – including a list of names of seven demons the Meiks family must destroy.  When their father purchases a utility van and starts bringing home the terrified 'demons,' Fenton cannot hide his revulsion.  Torn between the family he cherishes and his growing horror at their wholehearted belief in this divine mission, Fenton must choose to participate or figure out a way to escape.

Most of the film is spent in the past, centered on the three Meiks and particularly Fenton's dilemma.  I had serious misgivings about this movie before I saw it, but was surprised how much I enjoyed it.  It's not always an easy movie to watch, but definitely rewarding if you like a good thriller.  And the thrills are constantly buried, like mounds of earth covering a grave dug for the Meiks' victims.  You never quite know what demons are on the other side.

If you:

• Have ever wondered if what some dismiss as insanity was actually truth.
• Like a movie where the horror comes more from the psychological aspect than visual gore.
• Like characters with ulterior motives.

Put it in the queue!

If you:

• Are expecting to spend a lot of time ogling Matthew McConaughey
• Believe religion alone is an excuse to terrorize people.
• Don't like movies based on narrated flashbacks.

Don't put it in the queue.

Written by Jennifer Venson

I Sell the Dead

Starring: Dominic Monaghan, Larry Fessenden Directed by: Glenn McQuaid

On the surface, “I Sell the Dead” seems like a can’t miss vehicle.  It’s about two grave robbers, Arthur Blake (Dominic Monaghan) and Willie Grimes (Larry Fessenden).  The two have been “framed” for murder, and after Willie’s execution, Arthur is stuck in his cell with Father Francis Duffy (Ron Perlman), spilling his guts about his wacky grave-robbing high jinks.  Apparently, in Ireland in the mid-1800s, stealing some dead bodies could lead to some loot.

While stealing, and selling, dead bodies, the boys are also occasionally called upon by Dr. Vernon Quint (Angus Scrimm) who, as my understanding goes, blackmails the fellas in to giving him bodies for free lest he go to the local constable and rat them out. My first problem with the film lies here.  Why would anybody ever pay for a dead body if you could just say, “Uh, no, you can give it to me for free, or else I will alert the police.”

Maybe I missed some detailed minutiae explaining that one away.  It’s hard to say since I was in a state of tedium-induced coma throughout most of the film.

Eventually Arthur and Willie dig up a corpse with a stake sticking out of it.  They pull the stake out, only to discover the corpse to be undead, as it limps up and stretches out.  In which case I’m not sure it should be referred to as a corpse.  But you probably get the point.

The duo soon find there is even more money to be made selling the UNdead.  And so it is they fall in to their new line of work as zombie sellers.  Where the term zombie is used loosely to incorporate all undead beings.

This movie has a lot going for it.  A great cast, including Monaghan, horror cult icon Scrimm and even Ron Perlman!  It has a great concept and is currently sitting at 75% on rottentomatoes.com.

The problem with this movie is that it sucks in almost every way conceivable.  When I think of “horror-comedy” I automatically think of “Evil Dead 2” and “Shaun of the Dead,” two of my favorite films.  And they are damn near gut-busters, with a little fright and terror thrown in, and a healthy dose of directorial ingenuity to boot.

Most of “I Sell the Dead” is dialogue leading up to a scene.  Arthur will tell Father Francis in painful detail everything they did leading up to stealing a dead body, which mostly included sitting at the pub and talking about stealing bodies.  Then they go to steal bodies.  Then they steal them.  Nothing funny ever happens, nothing scary ever happens, it really feels as if nothing ever happens.

Take the scene where they find the first undead woman.  They pull at the stake, they get scared and run around a bit, they put the stake back in her and she dies again.  And scene.

It feels like there is a great idea here, they just didn’t know what to do with it.  Most of the scenes really just involve mind-numblingly dull patter between Arthur and Willie.  I guess it’s supposed to be funny, but I don’t know who would find it as such.  It’s simply dialogue.  Mostly talking about drinking or stealing bodies….you know, every day talk between companions.

There’s really nothing here to recommend.  There’s no so-excessive-it’s-silly-gore, there’s no scares, there’s no jokes, there’s very little humor, visual or otherwise.  If you’re looking for a new horror-comedy to see this Halloween, you’d probably be better off watching some unintentionally funny SyFy original.  Like “Hammerhead Shark Frenzy”  or “Pterodactyl.”

Written by Ryan Venson

Attack the Block & Tucker and Dale vs. Evil

attack

tucker

We don't want you to think that we have sold out, only doing big budget, wildly popular films, like Tree of Life. To help out our indie cred, we watched Attack the Block, a British alien invasion movie, and Tucker and Dale vs. Evil, not British, no aliens, but rather hillbillies and a twist on the horror genre. You may have to work a little harder to if you want to watch these movies, but sometimes movies are worth a little extra effort. Don't worry though, we do spend a few minutes talking about Over the Top for those people who like their movies packed with arm wrestling and Kenny Loggins music.

White Zombie

Starring: Bela Lugosi, Madge Bellamy Directed by: Victor Halperin

Zombies.  Often associated with the zombie apocalypse, the result of some horrific virus, or Night of the Living Dead.  Few connect them to Voudou, or to the casual scholar, voodoo. Probably even fewer have seen White Zombie, the 1932 film starring Béla Lugosi (aka Dracula) and some fake facial hair as the evil Murder Legendre, zombie master.

White Zombie, wasn't that a metal band?  Yep.  Lead singer Rob Zombie, who now makes horror films himself, names his band after this movie.  Now on to the plot.

Nearly-weds Neil (John Harron) and Madeline (Madge Bellamy) are to be married in Haiti.  The sound quality of the movie was pretty terrible, so I'm not entirely sure why they were there or why Madge and Charles Beaumont (Robert Frazer) travelled on the same boat and met.  The short version is that Chalres has fallen in love with Madeline, and is willing to take some drastic measures to take her away from Neil.

Even though the local Hatians are terrified of Legendre and his legion of shuffling, unblinking zombies, Charles approaches him and asks for a solution to his romantic dilemma.  Legendre gives him a potion – probably the same stuff Friar Laurence gave to Juliet in ye olde Verona – and tells him to give a few granules to Madeline either in a flower so she will inhale it, or in a cup of wine she will drink.

Madeline gets a whiff of the potion, then goes to tell her new hubby's future in a cup of wine later that evening.  At which point she's confronted with the creepy eyes of Legendre.  Staring at her in a cup of red wine.  Which really isn't a bad special effect for 1932.

This “living dead girl” is buried (without even getting for formally consummate her marriage, poor thing), though spirited away by Legendre and Charles shortly thereafter.  Is Charles happy now?  Um, no.  Though she still can wander about Legendre's castle (conveniently located on a cliff high above some point rocks and rough water) with a vapid stare and play "Libestraum" on the piano for everyone's enjoyment, Charles is not satisfied.

While Charles whines, Neil and the local minister (Joseph Cawthorne) hatch a plot to go rescue Madeline (given she is squirreled away in Legendre's castle).   When they get there, many shenanigans ensue.

Is the movie kind of goofy?  Of course.  Does it seem like the only requirement for playing Madeline is to have huge eyes?  Sure.  Does is appear that Mr. Lugosi has furry caterpillars masquerading as his eyebrows and a very strange beard?  You bet your bottom dollar.  Is this a decent way to spend an hour?  Oh yeah.

If you:

• Like film history
• Need something to discuss with Rob Zombie, should you even meet him
• Are a little bit obsessed with zombies/necromancy

Put it in the queue!

However, if you:

• Think zombies need to be half rotted and hungry for brains to be entertaining

You may be right.  But that doesn't mean you shouldn't put it White Zombie in the queue anyway.  It's only an hour long!!

Written by Jennifer Venson

A Tale of Two Sisters

Starring: Kap-su Kim, Jung-ah Yum, Su-jeong Lim, Geun-Young Moon Directed by: Jee-woon Kim

A Tale of Two Sisters is about, well, two sisters.  They travel to their home after what seems like some time away in a hospital to live there with their father and stepmother.  Or maybe it’s just his lover.  I’m not sure it’s ever expressly spelled out.  While there, some weird shit happens.

*sigh*

Look, I know, at this point, how a movie review is supposed to go.  I’m supposed to give a succinct synopsis about the film’s plot to whet your appetite, so you know whether or not you are interested in viewing it based on your taste in film.  After said synopsis, I am to give you my opinion on the film, ranging from entertainment value, plot, script, dialogue, and technical aspects, including, but not limited to, direction, cinematography, and special effects.

Here’s the thing about A Tale of Two Sisters, which illustrates a reoccurring problem in horror/thrillers.  After sitting through the film, I felt as though I had seen it before. In order to try and give a plot synopsis I would probably need to trot out the rote “it’s hard to give you a summary without ruining the twists in the film” cliché.

The film shares so many aspects with films like The Ring or The Grudge or The Sixth Sense or The Others or Identity or a number of other films I won’t name here because it is too much like them and would give away the plot of the entire film, that I don’t know how, if you watched it today, you could help but come away feeling as though you’ve already seen it.  You know, the old, “things are not as they seem” angle.

And while I understand this film came out either before many of those films or around the same time as many of those films, it doesn’t change the fact I didn’t see it until after I had seen ALL of those films, as well as many others similar ones, and if you are reading this review looking for guidance as to what to watch this Halloween season, you have probably seen a great many of them as well.

It isn’t to say the film is poorly made.  It’s well acted and directed, if a bit overlong, but, again, I had already guessed both of the twists well before they happened based on some clues I may not have picked up had I not seen films so similar.  This may allow me to give the plotters and scriptwriters pats on the backs for being properly subtle without repeat viewings, but to already know what’s coming in a film built around the emotional resonance you are to feel when the surprises in plot are revealed leaves the rest of the film feeling a bit flat.

It’s a recommendable film if you are a horror/thriller fan, with the caveat being you are a horror/thriller fan who hasn’t seen most of the best horror/thrillers filmed in the past decade plus.

Written by Ryan Venson

Isolation

Starring: Essie Davis, Sean Harris Directed by: Billy O'Brien

As last year's October reviews included the ever-popular Black Sheep, I wanted to make sure this year's batch had sufficient representation of mutant livestock flicks with Isolation.

This movie's first fault is spending pretty much no time on setup, other than a shady bovine geneticist is running the experiment. Its second fault is spending far too long on a calf birthing scene.  I’ll be the first to admit I know nothing about animal husbandry, but the idea of swinging a newborn calf around one's head in a circle to get it to start breathing seems ludicrous. Apparently the calf didn't like it either, as it immediately bit off the caretaker's finger.

For safety's sake, the vet puts the calf down and decides to do an impromptu dissection.  Inside they find enlarged organs as well as spiny little mutant fetuses encased in the calf's wombs.  This experiment in highly accelerated bovine reproduction has already been a crashing failure – plus the vet warns there may be danger of infection.

It just gets better when one of the exoskeletal monsters slithers off the table and into a grand adventure of exponential growth. Sadly, the critter can't wreak much entertaining havoc when there are only four people – two of which have already been bitten – on the farm.

If you:

• Need an excuse to consider becoming a vegetarian
• Aim to reinforce a deep mistrust of what Patton Oswalt refers to as "Science:  coulda, not shoulda"
• Need a cheesy monster thriller fix and are stranded without Syfy or a copy of  Mosquito

Put it in the queue!

If you:

• Prefer filmmakers to actually put some effort into their monsters and have some pride in their craft rather than just showing some half-ass, fast-moving, partially visible critter
• Like continuous action
• Think a film ridiculous enough to have mutant cow fetuses running around feeding on cows and humans in order to rapidly grow should also include some creatively over-the-top death scenes

You will be very disappointed.  Don't put it in the queue

Written by Jennifer Venson

Hush

Starring: William Ash, Christine Bottomley Directed by: Mark Tonderai

The movie Hush is a lot of things.  Low-budget.  Absurd.  Scary.  Suspenseful.  Cat and Mouse. British.  Gritty.

But, above all, Hush is a movie you have probably seen before.

Hush starts with couple Beth and Zakes (No, really, it’s Zakes.  I checked IMDB as I was watching the film, thinking I was mistaking his thick accent.  No sir, I was not.) on a road trip.  Zakes has the unenviable job of being the guy who changes the posters on the walls at gas stations and rest stops.  In order to prove his job complete, he takes a picture of each one with Beth’s phone.

On the way to their eventual (somewhat ambiguous) destination, a cargo truck cuts in front of them.  As it does so the back door flies open for a fleeting second and Zakes sees a woman tied up in a cage.  After calling the police Zakes pulls over to make the next stop on his job route.

He and Beth have a bit of a falling out at this particular stop, and Beth contends she will simply call her friend Sarah to come pick her up.  Zakes stalks out to the car to pout and wait for Beth to change her mind.  Meanwhile Beth is, of course, busy getting kidnapped by the cargo truck driver who has just happened to stop at the same location.

Zakes realizes all this and speeds after our antagonist in a stolen car as the game of cat and mouse begins.  If all of this sounds hauntingly familiar that’s, quite frankly, because it is.  In plot it is very similar to films like The Hitcher, or Breakdown, or Joy Ride, or Duel, or even something like Wolf Creek or Wrong Turn.  But more than anything it reminds me of a little film called High Tension, a pitch perfect French horror/thriller that completely craps itself in the final act.

Luckily, though, Hush doesn’t fall victim to the same contrivances.  Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of familiar “He would never do that!” or “Why would he do that?!” or “No way in hell could he kick that out so easy!” devices, but they all play out with just enough of a twist and more than enough directorially infused suspense.

And at a budget of only $1,000,000 (well, actually, pounds, but I can’t find the pound insignia) the direction in this film is well above average.  Almost every scene is gritty and taught, and there are a couple unexpected set pieces.  In addition gore is kept to a bare minimum.  The acting is nothing to scoff at either, but movies where your primary function is to yell and drive, you don’t exactly have to be Bill Paxton.  Or maybe you have to be almost exactly like Bill Paxton.  Depending on what you think about Bill Paxton, I suppose.

In the end, for a low-budget, straight to video, familiarly-plotted film, this is a very recommendable piece of work.  While nothing remarkable, almost every aspect is well above the average of similar, larger-budgeted Hollywood productions.

Written by Ryan Venson

Night of the Demons (2010)

Starring: Monica Keena, Shannon Elizabeth, Edward Furlong Directed by: Adam Gierasch

Last year we started the Halloween festivities with a review of an old movie (Fright Night), which has since been re-made and released this year.  This year we start with the remake of Night of the Demons.

What's in the cauldron for this film?  Take an old legend about six missing guests and a suicidal hostess all last seen together in a creepy old plantation house (surprisingly well-depicted with a scratchy sepia-and-beige silent film-style flashback), a bunch of modern twentysomethings ready to go party down, and mix in Halloween.  Throw a trio of nobody actresses into the mix (two parts trampy and one average 'everygirl') two male stoners (one hot, one not), a has-been actor (Eddie Furlong as Colin) and a stereotypical hot chick actress (Shannon Elizabeth as Angela).

Here you have Night of the Demons. A wild Halloween party engineered by Angela (and attended by the six others mentioned above) gets shut down by the police.   For ridiculous reasons – a friend passed out behind the sofa, needing to retrieve some drugs that urgently need to be sold from the furnace duct in which they were shoved when the cops showed up – our main characters are among the last to leave the house.  Then a locked outer gate that can't be opened from the inside provides a thinly-veiled excuse for all seven of them to spend Halloween night in this haunted house.

While searching for dealer Colin's drug packets, the group stumbles upon a grouping of six skeletons placed in a circle in a hidden room in the cellar.  They theorize these could be the missing guests from the legend surrounding this rented house.  Angela bends down to inspect a strange glowing object on one of the skeletons…and it bites her.

And then things start to get weird.

Turns out the former owner of this home was contacting the spirit world and accidentally unleashed seven demons who are all big jerks and can only re-enter this world if they possess seven humans on Halloween night.  The gang's all here, and Angela's ready to start a demon party.

The shenanigans involved in turning the stranded partygoers into demons – generally biting or sex – are actually a little disturbing.  One of the most cinematically interesting scenes in the movie (in terms of lighting, mood and use of levitation) is a demon-turning to the tune of "Black No. 1" by Type O Negative.

For a while, it seems this movie might buck the usual 'last one standing' theme in scary films.  In fact, the movie drags a bit during the standoff between the three humans safe – yet trapped – in a magically protective room, but then the balance – or rather, imbalance – between evil and good is restored.

Overall, rather a diamond in the rough among the horror fare available for instant viewing.

If you:

• Like a rocking soundtrack to your scary movies
• Feel like ogling some hot chicks in skimpy cat costumes (until they turn into hell beasts with a taste for blood, a Skeletor face and/or slimy tentacles they can shoot from their boobs).
• Have about an hour and a half to spare for a B movie that has a moderately decent plot and special effects

Put it in the queue!

However, if you:

• Cherish your memories of the 1990s Eddie Furlong and would be crushed to see him looking more like Fat Elvis than young John Connor.
• Prefer your B movies to only be stupendously bad enough to be good (i.e. nothing of merit except sheer ridiculousness).
• Will only tolerate creepy orchestral/organ music in your scary films instead of punk and metal.

Don’t put it in the queue!

Written by: Jennifer Venson

Real Steel

Directed by: Shawn Levy Starring: Hugh Jackman, Dakota Goyo

Summer’s end is fast approaching, and soon the award season will take over your local cinema. Low and behold a movie arrives and tries to push the sun back into the sky and gives us one more summer blockbuster. Of course I am talking about Real Steel, and while its status as a blockbuster is yet to be seen, this movie definitely fulfills the role of a summer movie.

Many people I know have already referred to Real Steel as the “Rock’em Sock’em Robots” movie, and while this isn’t far from the truth, the story does have a little more meat. To fulfill the people’s constant desire for destruction and violence, robot fighting was developed.  The casualties of the ultra-popular new sport, besides the losing robots, are the human fighters who once thrived. In walks our star, a washed up boxer and now failing owner of a robot fighter, Charlie Kenton (Jackman). Charlie finds out that a girl he knocked up has recently died, and that he must assume responsibility for his young son, Max.

First, let’s talk about what is wrong with this movie. My biggest complaint is that a movie about fighting robots shouldn’t be 127 minutes long. I don’t care if you are trying to develop a story; a movie of this ilk overstays its welcome around 100 minutes. Next, we have not yet developed the ability to insert the fine acting chops of Daniel Day Lewis into a child, so instead we have to watch inexperienced children on screen, and while this is a sometimes fine, there are other times when it is annoying as hell. Still my complaints are meager at best.

Real Steel is fun - not amazing, not life changing, but fun. The effects are impressive and the fight scenes are exciting. The heavy lifting done in this film is achieved Hugh Jackman, as a broken man looking for redemption not only for his child but also for himself. While the movie becomes cliché in a few places, it also manages to sidestep many of the Hollywood trappings. In the end the story feels inspired more by  Rocky than Transformers.

What I was most surprised by in Real Steel was how beautiful it was to watch. The movie plays like a love letter to America. In following Kenton from small town fairs to big city fights, every location is thick with color and gives off an entirely classic feel to a film driven by technology. While the story hints at a handful of things that man lost with the advancement of technology, the cinematography shows us a world that, while still in existence, seems to be fading from our memories.

As I am writing this piece, Rottentomatoes.com has yet to post a single review yet for Real Steel. I don’t know how the reviews will turn out when everything is said and done. I am grateful that I was able to watch and enjoy this movie before too many people told me that I shouldn’t. I can’t guarantee that you will like Real Steel, but maybe, if you let it, Real Steel could surprise you.

Written by Drew Martin

Cowboys and Aliens, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Dream Home

cowboys

apes

I know it has been a long time since we posted a show, but Ryan is just now recovering from Cowboys and Aliens. I think you will find that this show was worth the wait. Where else are you going to find out about Dream Home? Ebert? Not likely. You also get a little ape action too. This is a fine show with which to say "goodbye" to the summer. Enjoy

Hotel Rwanda

Starring: Don Cheadle, Sophie Okonedo Directed by: Terry George

Nearly a year ago, I went to the National Underground Railroad Freedom Museum in downtown Cincinnati to seen an exhibit on terrorism and the US.  There were other exhibits as well, including one on the types of human trafficking and slavery existing in the world today – including a section on the actions we all can take to help stop the problem.  Writing letters, being very careful to not buy good from companies that use slave labor and making donations tocertain rescue organizations were among the suggestions.   My quarrel with the exhibit is that they didn’t really address the underlying problem.  Until the willingness of people to exploit other human beings for profit ceases to exist, it will continue in one form or another.

I'm not saying it's fruitless to make donations, be mindful of where companies source their labor, or even hope that someday there will be no human trafficking.  The moral of the story is people can control how they treat others if they have enough courage to be a good person when it's easier to turn the other way.

Hotel Rwanda focuses on Paul Rusesabagina (Don Cheadle), a successful and charming hotel manager.  His job focuses on making guests feel as though they are in an "oasis" of calm and civility, even though there is serious political unrest.  Fine single malt Scotch, Cuban Cohiba cigars, attentive staff and loads of Heineken are the tools he plies to ensure his beverage supplier and ranking United Nations guests are compliant and happy under his watch.  His political status as a Hutu keeps him in good social standing, particularly as the Hutu are in conflict with a rebel militia from the Tutsi party.  An old grudge over political power during the Belgian colonial years has not gone away, and the Hutu are spoiling for a reason to skirmish.

That reason comes sooner rather than later with the assassination of the Hutu president.  Paul's Tutsi wife Tatiana (Sophie Okonedo) and neighbors are immediately at risk; he barely manages to bribe a group of Hutu soldiers with enough personal belongings and money from the hotel safe into leaving them alive at the hotel he manages. Chaos continues to break out around the city as Hutu militants capture and kill 'Tutsi cockroaches' under the guise of searching for rebels – but really out of sheer hatred.

Paul remains responsible for entertaining UN peacekeepers, journalists and European travelers, charged with keeping up the façade of civility while innocent people are being beaten and killed in their homes less than a mile away.  Even video footage of the atrocities and arrival of UN soldiers is no relief to the Rwandan refugees. Colonel Oliver (Nick Nolte) angrily informs Paul that global racism dictates only the European-born will be rescued – the black African refugees will be left to fend for themselves.

Drawing on his intelligence and creativity, Paul manages to sidestep an attempted Hutu raid and rallies those compatriots with sufficient connections and resources to find ways out of the country.  All the while he continues to take in displaced people and negotiate with both the UN soldiers and Tutsi militia.  Though his life is often in danger and political status evolves into 'traitor,' Paul refuses to turn his back on the displaced Rwandans.

Inspiring isn't really a robust enough word to describe this film.  Simply, it showcases humanity at its best and worst.  Best in Paul, who isn’t a completely selfless crusader.  He's a regular guy who doesn't intend to become a hero…he just keeps choosing to open his heart and use the power and resources to which he has access to do good.  Don Cheadle does a phenomenal job of portraying a conflicted man – one who has worked very hard to build his reputation and provide notable UN guests with the best personalized treatment, only to be labeled a traitor and refused help by the dignitaries he served because his skin color and nationality were not the right kind.  He struggles to summon the resources to protect so many refugees, but neither can he turn away in good conscience.  Worst are the militants willing to indiscriminately kill people because of their ethnic background, even though they cannot really get the revenge they seek for injustices of the past.

If you:

• Like Don Cheadle
• Need some suggestions for doing good deeds (like supporting the Red Cross, taking in those who need shelter, adopting an orphan or using your influential connections to call off machete-wielding bad guys)
• Like to believe there is some good in the world

Put it in the queue!

If you

• Are an intolerant, racist, prejudiced, bigoted jerk looking for revenge ideas

Don't put it in the queue.

Written by Jennifer Venson

The Lives of Others

Written and Directed by: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

Drew sent me “The Lives of Others” for his new project called Play It Forward. I’m really excited about this project (even though it’s been a while since he sent me the movie - sorry!) and can’t wait to start reading other reviews as they come in.  I’m looking at you lil’molly!

“The Lives of Others” is a German film set in 1984 East Berlin. So, picture a grey, depressed city with an ominous sense of dread in the air. The Stasi, or State Secret Police, keep everything under strict surveillance and have a professed mission “to know everything.” Not pleasant. The movie focuses on three characters, a Stasi policeman, a famous playwright, and the playwright’s girlfriend - a famous actress.

I loved the way the settings and color match the mood and personalities of the characters in this movie. Wiesler, the Stasi policeman is a stoic, methodical, and diligent character. The film reflects his personality by always surrounding him with a simple, monochromatic setting.  He’s like a machine. Dreyman, the playwright, and Christa-Maria, his actress girlfriend, are the complete opposite. They’re artists and lovers who are trusting and playful. Their lives are portrayed with warm brown and tan colors. As the characters become more affected by one another, these colors and settings begin to mix more and more.

The plot: Wiesler becomes suspicious of Dreyman and is told to monitor his apartment. He listens and records Dreyman’s life, looking for any evidence of disloyalty. However, as he listens, he begins to feel more empathy for Dreyman’s situation. One of Dreyman’s friends, a blacklisted director, commits suicide which prompts Dreyman to voice his growing unease about East Germany in an article published in the West under a pseudonym. Of course, the Stasi aren’t happy about this article and make every effort to try and find out who wrote it. Wiesler, having become more aware of his own loneliness and unhappiness is forced to either hide what he knows about Dreyman, or turn him in.

I was struck by the evolution of Wiesler’s character throughout the film. After the blacklisted director kills himself, there’s an amazing scene where Dreyman is playing a piece of piano music that the director had given him shortly before his death. The piece, called “Sonata for a Good Man,” beautifully captures the despair and sadness of the moment. Wiesler, becomes visibly affected by it and begins to cry while Dreyman says to his girlfriend, “Can anyone who has heard this music, I mean truly heard it, really be a bad person?” That, and other poignant moments in the film show Wiesler as he awakens to the world around him, his ideals challenged. I don’t want to write too much more about the story because it’s a thriller, and let’s just say, it has a great ending.

I definitely recommend this movie to anyone who loves a dramatic, historical movie, with amazing character development. The visuals and sound design are also incredible. The second time I watched this film, I plugged in my good headphones and was really impressed by the precision of the sound and soundtrack.

At 2 hours 17 minutes, it’s not an quick watch, but The Lives of Others is a beautiful portrait of humanity in a dark period of recent history.

-Chad Jewsbury Chicago, IL

Freeze Frame

Starring: Lee Evans, Rachael Stirling Directed by: John Simpson

Freeze Frame is the story of a man accused, wrongfully, he contends, of a triple murder.  The case is dismissed due to lack of evidence, so the accused, Sean Veil, does what any rational person would do.  He starts to tape himself 24 hours a day to assure if he is ever again accused of such a crime, he will have the evidence with which to exonerate himself.

He has cameras in his bedroom, his foyer, outside his door, cameras in the room where he monitors the cameras, even cameras in the loo.  When he leaves the house he straps a giant camera to his chest.  Questions like, “What in the hell does he do when he goes to work?” aren’t really bothered with.

Eventually Detective Louis Emeric and Forensic Profiler Saul Seger, the duo responsible for accusing Veil of the original crime, make another appearance at Veil’s house.  They want to know where he was on a specific date in the middle of October five years ago.  They have found a dead body and believe Veil to be the culprit yet again.

Lucky for Veil, he keeps tapes of all day every day in a giant vault, all he will have to do is retrieve the night in question.  But, lo and behold, when he goes to collect them the night in question has disappeared.  Veil escapes the police through a trap door and spends the rest of the film trying to clear his name.

Lee Evans does a fantastic job as Veil, a neurotic, tightly wound paranoid who keeps you guessing about his innocence until the final frame.  The direction is solid, and nicely balances a mix of film and “documented” footage.

That’s about where the niceties of this particular film end.  The supporting cast are mostly a mediocre lot, although I’m unsure how much is their fault and how much is poor scripting.  The main portion of the plot, Veil’s 24-hour surveillance of himself, which seems engaging and original, quickly turns in to more of an afterthought.  It starts as a way to examine the psyche of our (anti?) hero, only to quickly devolve into a vehicle by which the characters in the film can explain things they would never usually have any way to explain.

The plot spends so much time focusing on Veil and so little time focusing on either of the crimes that, by the time it comes to reveal whodunit, the filmmakers have to resort to one of the worst story devices in order to clarify the convoluted plot:  Just have somebody sit down and explain it for no apparent reason.

I was pretty engrossed in this film for the better part of an hour, despite some plotting that seemed a little forced.  Then, when the final act comes , the explanation is illogical, the acting is wooden, and the dialogue is forced and stilted, but mostly because it was written that way and not because the actors aren’t trying their damndest.  It is most unfortunate as an intriguing premise and a great lead performance are wasted.

Written by Ryan Venson

Red

Starring: Irène Jacob, Jean-Louis Trintignant Directed by: Krzysztof Kieslowski

Of the Trois Couleurs trilogy, I do believe Krzysztof Kieslowski saved the best for last.

Red is powerful because it is understated and deliberate.  Normally red signifies power, fire, passion…bold forces that impetuously sweep through with sound and fury (such as Dominique from White).   The main storyline in Red actually unfolds very simply.

Valentine (Irène Jacobs) meets an older man (Jean-Louis Trintignant) with a seemingly indifferent outlook on everything after she accidentally hits his dog with her car.   He tells her to keep the dog, but it ends up running away from her in the park and leading her back to him.  The bond that develops between Valentine and this man – a former judge – is very subtle.  It develops over time, like a Polaroid photo, rather than emerging in a flash.

Red explores other types of relationships – shades of romantic, familial – but primarily at a distance. Valentine's boyfriend is traveling abroad, so their only connection is through a phone calls.  The Judge listens in on his neighbors' calls, which contain both conversations with illicit lovers as well as conversations between a young couple who are very important to the storyline as well without even knowing it.

Even more than the other two films in this trilogy, Red really stood out as artistically spectacular, particularly in visual composition:

• Lighting: the sun through a window, the sunrise through a gate, traffic lights blurring against the night, spotlights highlighting models on the catwalk, silhouettes in the dark.
• The storyline of Valentine's neighbor Auguste (Jean-Pierre Lorit), often in her periphery but an integral part of the overarching tale.
• Valentine herself as both glamorously poised and emotionally vulnerable, bringing a different kind of beauty to both.

I wonder if this movie would have been as good if I hadn't seen the other two.  I certainly wouldn't have found the ending quite as entertaining, but I can't say for sure if the context is really necessary.

Overall, I would like to thank Daniel Ferreiro for insisting that I watch these films.  Even if I did not love Blue, I certainly did like White quite a bit and absolutely loved Red.

If you:

• Like a story within a story
• Like visually striking cinematography
• Like the idea of a non-traditional love story

Put it in the queue!

If you:

• Don't like symbolism
• Need a drama to be REALLY dramatic
• Don't like dogs

Don't put it in the queue.

Written by Jennifer Venson

Netflix is an Unconscionable Monster

Here’s the kind of thing that makes my blood boil. Netflix raising its rates.

Well, not that, in and of itself.  Rather the never ending tirade of assholes airing their grievances in a number of the most asinine ways.  Whenever I read thousands of negative comments, an extraordinary amount of negative backlash, and, worst of all, “writers” questioning the “reason” Netflix would raise prices, I want to stab a baby.  Make that three babies.  And a kitten.  It confuses me when a concept as simple as this one is met with a fury of utter disbelief.

To the population who just can't understand: The “reason” Netflix raised its prices is SIMPLE ECONOMICS.  Seriously, I was taught (and, I suppose, learned) simple economic principle in high school, albeit by one of the three most worthless teachers I have ever had in my life (she was a HOME economics teacher teaching regular economics, and was still number three after Mr. Green who taught my zoology class and based an ENTIRE SEMESTER of grades on one “vocabulary list,” and Mr. Clark, the basketball coach who taught my SENIOR LEVEL history class….and no, this isn’t based on an episode of the Simpsons……you know, the one where the teachers go on strike because Bart pits Mrs. Krabappel against Skinner because he doesn’t want to go to school but then Marge ends up being one of the replacement teachers which, of course, is no better, so then Bart has to trick Krabappel and Skinner again in order to bury the hatchet and get the regular teachers back in to the classroom.  You know, that episode.)

I have yet to find a single article on all of the internet which explains it as such, and if one of the three people who reads this piece can find any such article, please forward it to me so I can immediately amend what I have written here.

Here’s the deal folks.  According to Netflix’s (man, say that possessive out loud.  Sounds terrible.)  website, they have just over 23 million customers in the US and Canada alone (http://ir.netflix.com/).  Let’s just say the number is exactly 23 million.  For the sake of a whole number.

Now, let’s say the most popular Netflix choice is having one DVD out while also being able to have unlimited streaming.  How about 60% of the 23 million, or approximately 14 million, hold this particular option?  I have no idea what the numbers actually are, but for the sake of this exercise it is fair enough.  The price was $10 a month, and now they have raised their rates 60%, to a staggering $16 a month.

First I would say not too long ago we were all renting videos from a video store, where prices were probably somewhere around $4 for new arrivals and $2 for older videos.  If you were renting one new arrival and one old film a week, you were spending $24 a month, and that doesn’t include TV shows, which often had to be rented by the disc, or any late fees you might accrue, or films “rented out,” or movies simply not available in the inventory.  If that seems more efficient to you, I suggest you high tail it to the nearest Blockbuster or simply use movies on demand.

Secondly I would argue $6 a month is $72 a year or, even at the middling sum I am paid, not even a full day’s work.  Stretched over the course of a YEAR.  If you can’t find a way to squirrel away an extra $6 a month, maybe you shouldn’t have Netflix at all.

Here are some other numbers for you to give a little thought.

Using the 14 million customers posited earlier under the $10 a month plan, the amount Netflix would be raking from those customers alone would be $140,000,000.  At an increase to $16 a customer, in order to match that amount, Netflix simply has to retain approximately 63% of its customers.  That means it could afford to lose about 5,250,000.  For those of you who have trouble deciphering numerical characters, that’s over FIVE MILLION CUSTOMERS.  They could completely LOSE that amount and still be exactly where they are right now.

So let’s say ONE MILLION people are so upset about having to pay an additional $6 a month they completely quit the service.  One MILLION people.  Just think about how many that is for a minute, and then let me assure you one million people are not simply going to quit using Netflix over $6 a month.  But, just for the sake of everybody crying in their beers, let’s say a million.  Now they have a lowly 13 million customers at $16 a month.  That’s $208,000,000 a month.  That’s an increase of SIXTY-EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS, and that’s if they LOSE ONE MILLION CUSTOMERS.

For everybody trying to figure out a “reason” or claiming they are slapping their customers in the face just for the sake of it or one of the other ridiculous notions I have read over the course of the last few weeks on the interwebz, I have to simply say that most of you, at least are getting it right; it’s mostly greed.  You are looking for some deeper meaning where there is none.  But please also remember people, this is one of the main downfalls of the economy.  You want Netflix to charge you nothing, but you also want them to be able to pay for streaming rights, movies for the library, AND employ the masses at a liveable wage.  Don’t ask for too much, eh.

Why in the hell are you looking for a deeper reasoning in the rising cost of an entertainment sundry?  It’s a business, it’s Capitalism, it’s the very, very, very, very, very, easiest, simplest idea of economics, the most basic economic principle to comprehend.  It’s supply and demand people.  I assure you, if Netflix raises their prices and lose eight million customers, the price will come down.  If not, then it won’t.  It’s that simple.  They are trying to maximize profit, trying to reach the equilibrium pricing for their product.  That’s what you do, as a business.

They aren’t going to shed a tear at the loss of a handful of customers  who in absolutely no way effect their bottom line.  It’s want vs. need.  It’s a luxury.  Of course you don’t WANT to pay more, but such is Capitalism.  You’re simply fooling yourself in to thinking these pointless diatribes on your favorite social networking site actually mean something to Netflix, or losing a customer….or a couple thousand….impacts them in any meaningful way.  Maybe it makes you feel better to voice your opinion (as it does me) but maybe it should be done in a more respectful, knowledgeable voice.  Also, if you think you are actually effecting anything, dear friend, you are incorrect.

So go ahead, punish yourself.  Fool yourself in to thinking Blockbuster streaming is just as good, or the $6 extra a month just “isn’t worth it.”  Complain for the sake of complaining.  That’s fine for you.  Me?  I think it’s still a pretty fair price, so I’m going to go stream the next episode of “Buck Rogers in the 25^th Century” directly to my 42” HD television wirelessly via my Sony Blu-Ray player.  Just because I can.

Biddi biddi biddi biddi  Buck.  Biddi biddi biddi.

Written by Ryan Venson

Sherlock Holmes

Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams Directed by: Guy Ritchie

Not having read many of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, I normally picture the eccentric and brilliant sleuth as an introspective, pipe smoking, violin playing guy who doesn't do much else than solve crimes in his deerstalker hat and hang out in his study.

Certainly I was among those who saw trailers of Sherlock Holmes featuring action sequences, including the hero himself using carefully calculated ninja skills, taking out the bad guys, diving out of windows being in near proximity to explosions.  I approached the movie with caution – interested, but unsure it would really deliver.

The most surprising part of the movie was the acting.  Robert Downey Jr. was completely amazing as a Sherlock Holmes who is physically as well as mentally sharp, a complete disaster that can pull himself together to be a charmer in short order, and all with a wonderfully dry sense of humor. Basically, he adapted Sherlock Holmes to be Robert Downey Jr.

Jude Law undergoes a more impressive transformation playing Watson.  This is the first movie I can think of where he hasn't been a womanizing dandy – he's somewhat romantically awkward as Watson, Holmes' partner in crime-solving adventures.

The storyline is a bit mediocre, or at least very typical of ye old late 19^th century/early 20^th century British literature.  (For the record, I have been on quite an Agatha Christie kick lately, and she also uses some similar devices).   Immediately as the movie starts, Holmes and Watson capture a fellow who fancies himself a sorcerer and is about to offer up a female sacrifice.  He is carted off to jail, hanged and buried…and then busts out of his tomb. Literally.

With the seemingly supernatural Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) on the loose and threatening to take over the world, the game is afoot.  The film is stuffed with a secret society, a mysterious and not quite trustworthy former flame (Rachel McAdams) of Sherlock's who returns to both confound the detecting process and offer some clues, and evidence that makes no sense until Sherlock explains it.

Visually, the movie is interesting.  My favorite scenes are those illustrating Sherlock as he is in the middle of an action sequence, and the audience is treated to a snapshot of his thinking through the next four or five hits necessary to knock out or 'neutralize' the target. Similarly, scenes when he analyzes a person – such as Watson's lady friend – are hilarious. The action sequences are believable – Sherlock has some chops, but within reasonable limits.

In short, I am very much looking forward to the sequel.\

If you:

• Like an action film with a brain
• Like a good mystery
• Like Robert Downey Jr.

Put it in the queue!

If you:

• Prefer a more scholarly Sherlock
• Prefer a more seductive Jude Law
• Are unduly irritated when you can't figure out a mystery as the clues are being revealed (i.e. you can't deduce as well as the detective)

Don't put it in the queue.

Written by Jennifer Venson

Rifftrax

Many years ago, my buddy Ash and I went to the video store in an attempt to find something we hadn’t seen yet. What we settled on was Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie. Making Comedy Central available was not a big priority in my small town, so I had never watched an episode of the television show, and had no idea what I what to expect. MST3K: The Movie made me laugh harder than I could remember, and it instantly became one of my favorite “go to” movies. For those of you who don’t know what the show is; it is basically a man and two puppet robots that watch terrible movies and make fun of them. Simple and brilliant. Sadly, like most television shows, MST3K had to come to an end. And while there are almost 200 two hour long episodes, I found that after a few years I wanted something new. Luckily I wasn’t the only person who felt this way, and where there is demand, supply usually follows. What was born was Rifftrax. Rifftrax is made up of several of the people who made fun of movies on MST3K, and is essentially the same formula of making fun of movies. What makes Rifftrax different is that they are no longer bound, mostly because of copyrights, to just watch bad older movies. The cast takes on current and classic blockbusters like the Star Wars films and the Harry Potter series. They sidestep copyright laws by just recording a commentary that listeners can download and play along with the film. It is kind of like the whole Dark Side of the Moon/Wizard of Oz thing, but much cooler, and fewer velvet black light posters.

On occasion Rifftrax will also do live events that are streamed into theaters around the country. I have been fortunate enough to attend a few of these screenings, and they do not disappoint. Most recently I went to see them make fun of a movie that I used to watch all the time as a child, Jack the Giant Killer. This certainly isn’t as famous as many of the movies used by Rifftrax, but it still holds a special place in my heart. It turns out the movie wasn’t as good as I remember it being when I was 7 years old, but it provided perfect fodder for the Rifftrax crew. Explaining the show would be too difficult, so just watch the clip below, and visit Rifftrax.com when you get a chance. They even show you which movies are available on Netflix streaming in case you don’t own every movie they riff about.

I do appreciate that my last post was about how much I hate people talking during movies, and then follow it up with a post about how much I love certain people talking during certain movies.

The Exterminating Angel

Starring: Silvia Pinal, Jacqueline Andere, Enrique Rambal

Directed by: Luis Buñuel

What does it take to strip away the trappings of civility and reveal the true nature of people?  The Exterminating Angel (El Ángel Exterminador) attempts to do this by showing just how thick – or maybe how thinly – humans lay on the social graces.  The premise is simple: a wealthy couple invites 10-15 of their friends over for a dinner party.  Before and during the party, most of the servants find excuses to leave the house, ultimately leaving only one butler.

This isn’t really the problem, however.  Once the guests retire to the parlor to chat, play the piano, sing and generally socialize, they can’t seem to make their way out of the room.  Several attempt, but then get sidetracked as soon as they approach the threshold.

What follows over the next week or so is pretty much a sociology experiment. How do the hosts respond to their guests far overstaying their welcome past the respectable social hour?  Will the guests understand forces out of their control are at work, or will they blame their hosts? How will the engaged couple trapped in the room deal with the delay of their wedding?  How will the guests react to the illness of a guest with a heart condition?  How will these pampered socialites deal with hunger, thirst, temptations and the inability to have all their immediate needs met by servants – especially after the one remaining butler gets stuck in the enchanted room as well?

These and other key questions are answered. It’s almost like the Real World of the privileged class – the audience waits for the group to stop being polite and start being real so we can watch the train wreck.  However, the movie also generally questions how ‘civilized’ are we in the first place, especially as it only takes a relatively short period of irritation to blow up at each other and a proper society matron carries around chicken feet in her handbag just because she had the feeling occult talismans might be needed at a dinner party.

If you:

·         Like existential literature/film.

·         Like to ponder symbolism and philosophical elements in film.

·         Like reality shows that stuff a bunch of vaguely associated people together in close quarters just to see them have meltdowns

Put it in the queue!

However, if you:

·         Prefer a more action-packed film

·         Are not interested in watching a sociology experiment because Lord of the Flies was convincing enough for you

·         Are creeped out by people letting unusual pets (i.e. sheep) roam about the house

Don’t put it in the queue.

Written by Jennifer Venson