Take Shelter: Are The End Times Nigh?

Take Shelter is a psychological thriller drama film directed by Jeff Nichols. The story revolves around family man Curtis (Michael Shannon), who starts having nightmares about the end of the world as the film progresses these nightmares get worse and start to bleed over into his real world and Curtis becomes convinced that something bad is going to happen.

I appreciate Jeff Nichols; he is one of the most consistent but also incredibly underrated filmmakers working today: check out his whole filmography to see what I mean. What I think Nichols does so well is deal with complexity, in his films nothing is ever clear cut, nothing is ever as it appears. In relation to this film, we are never given an answer one way or the other whether Curtis is getting visons of the end of the world if he is suffering a mental break. The film ends and then it is up to us to draw our own conclusions.

Normally, I would hate that kind of ending I would say it is pretensions and a sign of someone who can’t write an ending. However, here it works, the ending fits nicely with the overall feel of the movie; it is natural. Something that again helps to get rid of any notions of pretentiousness is how down to earth this film feels, everything about it seems set in our world with characters that could easily exist. This is very true of Shannon’s Curtis as well as Jessica Chastain’s Samantha, both feel very real and fleshed out and both actors give magnificent performances.

Overall, this is a terrific film, it is genuinely tense and surprising throughout. My one issue with it is that it does feel a little drawn out and could probably do with a much tighter edit to trim it down. A lot of fun all the same.

Pros.

Chastain and Shannon.

The ambiguous ending.

The tension.

Cons.

It is too long.

A lot of the supporting cast is very forgettable.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Valhalla Rising: The Meek Shall Inherit The Earth

Valhalla Rising is an English language Danish film directed by Nicolas Winding Refn. The plot, as far as I could understand, is about a nameless warrior called One Eye (Mad Mikkelsen), who befriends a young boy and together they travel. The become entangled in a crusader quest to the Holy Land that goes badly wrong and the men end up far away from where they were meant to go; finding themselves outnumbered they must choose to fight or die.

I am a Nicolas Winding Refn fanatic, he is an acquired taste for sure, but for the most part he is a great, visionary director. However, even I must say this is a miss. Much like Only God Forgives, a later film of his that would prove to be incredibly divisive, this film feels like the definition of the saying style over substance.

A lot of the time you will have no idea what is going on as there is very little actually said and you can never be sure if what you’re seeing is real or one of One Eye’s visons; that he has frequently but the film never really clarifies. To say it is confusing would be kind.

It is also painfully slow, to the point of you wanting to turn it off. It goes on and on and you’re left begging for something to happen because it has become tedious.

However, there are some positives. If you like Refn’s style then there is a lot of it on display here, it is a very stylish film; that is something I enjoyed about it. Also Mikkelsen is also terrific, he has a great physicality and is very believable as a nomadic warrior, this film will make you want to see him in more action roles.

Overall, despite the coolness and Mikkelsen’s performance this is a bad film. It is overly long, boring and confusing. So pretty much a fail across the board, if you’re a die hard Refn fan then you might maybe find something of worth here, but it is doubtful.

Pros.

Mikkelsen.

Cons.

It is too long.

It is boring.

It is confusing.

Defines the phrase style over substance.

1/5

Reviewed by Luke

Swallow: Prepare To Wince

Swallow is a horror thriller film directed by Carlo Mirabella-Davis. The plot sees often pushed to the side wife Hunter (Haley Bennet), start to eat inedible objects as a coping mechanism for her failing marriage and her fears about giving birth to a child. The horror comes from the very real situational drama/ tension and Hunter’s descent into mental illness.

This film will make you wince, watching a pregnant woman eating a nail is an uncomfortable sight and it only gets worse from there. I think calling this film a horror film might be a misclassification, which might be reductive to the film overall. I certainly understand how people could view it as a horror film, but it fits far better as a drama thriller.

This film has a very similar vibe to The Invisible Man from earlier this year, it deals with very similar themes. Hunters relationship with her husband starts off bad and ends up hellish. The real ‘horror’ of the film as I said would be the way Hunter’s husband and his family treat her; cycles of abuse and escape are both key themes to this film.

I think though this film certainly is original, I have never seen anything like it before, there isn’t enough plot to really justify the runtime. I often pick apart films because of pacing issues and I do this because I think an overly long film is terrible and turns me off. All the best films are tight, every second counts, you can’t look away, however that is not something I can say for this film. This film could have done with a tighter edit, it had some pacing issues, but they weren’t terrible.

Overall, it is a deeply unique quirky film, that I think is wrongly classified as a horror, though there certainly are many horrifying parts of it this is far more of a drama; if slow burn is your thing, I would say it is a must watch.

Pros.

Haley Bennet is good.

The themes.

The uniqueness.

It makes you wince.

Cons.

It could have been tighter, and some bits made me lose interest a bit.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

Assault On Precinct 13: Hold The Line

Assault On Precinct 13 is a neo-noir, action, thriller film directed by John Carpenter. The plot sees a group of local drug warlords swear a blood oath against the Los Angeles Police Department as well against the citizens of LA. This culminates in an intense shootout at the titular Precinct 13, between the police and the gang.

This film is John Carpenters take on 70’s era exploitation movies. It has a very urban, very lived in world, which is added to by the way it is filmed with it having a rough around the edges look to it. As such a lot of the scenes, especially the violent ones, feel eerily realistic; the scene when members of the gang are driving down the street looking for people to kill will send chills down your spine as it is all too real.

My one complaint about this film is that the initial 20 minutes are quite hard to follow. I don’t know if it is because a lot of things happen in a short space of time, or because of the way it is structured, but I found myself at the half hour mark not really having a clue what was going on. However, the rest of the film reminded that.

I think this film has a lot of iconic moments and characters that are destined to leave an impact on you after you have watched. The final showdown between the gang and the police at the end of the film is really well done and very tense, however I think the best scene in the film is the initial storming of the police station; Carpenter at his tension inducing best.

Overall a classic for a reason, though it might have a few storytelling issues especially when looked at through a modern lens; despite this it holds up.

Pros.

A great feel to it and sense of atmosphere.

The tension.

The final showdown.

Cons.

It is quite slow.

It is hard to tell what is going on in the beginning.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Red Dragon: Replacing Clarice Again

Red Dragon is a crime thriller film directed by Brett Ratner; serving as a prequel of sorts to the Hannibal films. Obviously, Ratner is a very troubling person for a lot of reasons, but I will try to look past that for the purposes of this review. The plot this time around focuses on the man who caught Hannibal Lecture (Anthony Hopkins), Will Graham (Edward Norton). Once again, an FBI agent needs Hannibal’s help to catch the latest twisted serial killer; they really need to start paying him to consult.

I would rank the Hannibal films I have seen so far in this order, descending in quality, Silence Of The Lambs, Hannibal, Red Dragon. I don’t by any means think this is a bad film, far from it in fact, I just think it can’t hope to compete with the others. The relationship between Norton’s and Hopkins’ characters is interesting, but it is no will they Clarice and Hannibal; though I did enjoy that little tease at the end.

My thoughts on the film’s villain The Tooth Fairy (Ralph Fiennes), are the complete counter to what they were when I reviewed Hannibal. I think unlike in that film, where Gary Oldman’s character was pushed to the side in favour of Hannibal, this time it is the other way around. For a Hannibal Lecture film we get surprisingly not a lot of him, Fiennes is definitely the main focus. Hopkins gives his all when he is onscreen, which is commendable as always.

The balancing act between Hannibal and whatever serial killer him and his FBI associate are trying to catch is always the crucial thing with these films and it goes both ways, neither good, with the only film in the series to get the balance right being The Silence Of The Lambs, but that is a hard film to follow.

Overall, it is still good, just not as good than the film that proceeded it.

3.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Hannibal: A Maddening Romance

Hannibal is a crime thriller film directed Ridley Scott. The plot follows Hannibal Lecture (Anthony Hopkins), as he lives as a freeman in exile, keeping close tabs on special agent Clarise Starling (Julianne Moore), who has fallen on hard times and become disgraced. As forces rise to bring the two back together again, Lecture’s thirst for blood leads him to come back out of retirement.

Firstly, if you expect me to believe Hollywood that Jodie Foster aged into Julianne Moore then you expect too much. If they had created a new character it would work better, but clearly, they wanted to carry on the Lecture/Starling relationship from the first film; and Foster wasn’t game. That I can understand, as the relationship between the two is the key piece of these films.

Moore for the most part is terrific, I prefer Foster’s performance, but Moore is giving it her all here. She has great chemistry with Anthony Hopkins and has almost a sexual tension with him whenever the two of them are on screen together; adding another twisted angle to their dynamic.

On the casting front, I feel Gary Oldman was wasted as Lecture’s only surviving victim Mason Verger. He brings a presence, but he does very little and has very little screen time. I understand why from a plot perspective his character is needed, but in every other aspect he feels unnecessary, as he fades into the background with Moore and Hopkins taking centre stage. The same can be said of Ray Liotta.

Overall, this is still a mostly good film, it has a few issues that are more noticeable when compared to the near excellent first film, however few films could live up to that. A slightly disappointing sequel, that suffers for the lack of Foster.

Pros.

Anthony Hopkins is still great.

The Clarice/ Lecture relationship is fantastic.

This feels like an ending.

It feels like a natural sequel.

Cons.

Oldman and Liotta are wasted and feel unnecessary.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke

A History Of Violence: How Well Do You Know The People Around You?

A History Of Violence is a drama thriller film directed by David Cronenberg. The story begins when two hitmen decide to rob the restaurant of former mob moss Tom Stall/ Joey Cusack (Viggo Mortensen), who has spent the last few decades pretending to be someone else. After Stall deftly kills both the hitmen it starts off a chain of events that bring both of his lives to the brink; proving that one can never escape their history.

I have been meaning to watch this film for some time and now I have, I am pleased to say it is terrific. The violence in this film feels so real and visceral that you can’t hope but stand up and take notice. It feels really well done and brutal, in many ways it reminds me of something like John Wick or The Raid; it never stopped being shocking.

Mortensen plays both sides of his character with flair, he is charming and paternal when he is playing Stall; embodying small town charisma. He also plays Cusack with an unpredictable, threatening menace that will send chills down your spine, you never know when he is going to snap into a violent rage. The real merit of Mortensen’s performance is the fact that he manages to bring both of these fantastic separate performances together into one whole character.

I think there is a real sense of tension to this film, as the two personalities become more and more out of control and Stall/ Cusack’s relationship with his family becomes more and more rocky. The scene between Tom and his wife on the stairs has aged poorly, but it show everything I am talking about, it is uncomfortable and hard to watch.

Overall, I think this is one of Cronenberg and Mortensen’s best films and is a must watch.

Pros.

The performance of duality.

Viggo Mortensen.

The tension.

The violence.

Cons.

That scene between Tom and his Wife on the stairs has a few issues.

4.5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Wolf Creek: The Australian Michael Myers

Wolf Creek is an Australian horror thriller film directed by Greg Mclean. The plot follows a group of tourists that become targeted by a demented xenophobic serial killer who hunts them down with the intent to kill them. This film was based on a series of real-life backpacker murders that happened in Australia a few years before the film was released.

In horror circles, this film has a reputation, it is held up as being a great slasher film and one of the best Australian horror films. However when I put it on I was incredibly disappointed with it. I thought it was boring and that it couldn’t hold a candle to other Australian horror gems like The Babadook and Boar.

I thought the only redeemable thing about this film is John Jarrett. Jarrett is an Australian national treasure and his involvement with this is the thing that got me excited for it. He plays the evil killer Mick Taylor and he gives the best performance he can, he is manic and off the wall and his character is the only really memorable part of this film.

My issues start with the fact that this film is boring, there is only about 10 minutes of it that are actually interesting and watchable. This film suffers from some of the worst pacing issues I have seen in a long time, the first act is a chore to get through and makes you want to turn it off and it doesn’t pick up until the last 10 minutes; even they aren’t worth the wait.

The characters are bland and forgettable and the based on true story bent to it has been done to death and this film is not doing anything new or interesting with it.

Overall, this film is a bore and one that is a test of strength to finish

Pros.

John Jarrett.

Cons.

It is boring.

It does nothing new with the format.

The characters are paper thin.

It takes a lot to finish it.

1/5

Reviewed by Luke

The Silence Of The Lambs: A Nice Cut Of Meat

The Silence Of The Lambs is a thriller film directed by Jonathan Demme. The plot follows young FBI recruit Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster), as she attempts to track down the newly infamous serial killer Buffalo Bill and save a senator’s daughter. During the course of her investigation she turns to deranged cannibal phycologist Hannibal Lecture (Anthony Hopkins), for advice and help and the two then go on a twisted journey into madness and the evil that lives within.

This is a cinematic classic, for good reason, however until recently I had never seen this film before, so I decided that I would fix that mistake and it turns out this film is as excellent as everyone says it is. It is an acting masterclass and it is one of the best thriller films I have ever seen before in my life.

Firstly, the performances are great, Hopkins is of course the best and manages to give genuine chills every time he is onscreen being a truly menacing presence. However Foster is also an incredibly compelling lead and one that you want to see win. Also Ted Levine is terrific as sick, twisted, skinner Buffalo Bill he is convincing but also strangely sympathetic in his gender struggle.

The best thing about this film is the tension that courses throughout it. From the minute the investigation begins you can’t look away, you need to see it through, you want the answers as much as Foster’s character does. What’s more, the conversations between Lecture and Clarice are also incredibly well done and manage to be effortlessly dramatic and intense despite never becoming more than just a conversation.

There is no flab on this film’s run time, every second is vital and used to the fullest; that is the best compliment I can give this film. A true classic.

Pros.

The tension.

The acting.

The characters.

The mystery.

You can’t look away.

Cons.

None.

5/5

Reviewed by Luke

Fantasy Island: Lucy Hale Redeemed?

Fantasy Island is a fantasy horror film directed by Jeff Wadlow. The plot sees a group of people go to an island which can supposedly make their greatest desires come to life, whether that is to settle down and have the life they always wanted, or to punish a high school bully. Surprisingly once people start getting what they want, things start going badly wrong; the island is far more sinister than it first appeared.

Before I put this film on I had incredibly low expectations, I had heard nothing but bad things about this film and was expecting the worst, however I was pleasantly surprised by this film. It wasn’t the best horror film I have ever seen, or the scariest, but it is a very interesting concept and it is surprisingly well executed.

The main red flag for me was the fact that Lucy Hale has a main role in this film, Hale for those of you that don’t know has been in such great films as Truth Or Dare and Fear Island, and for some unknown reason Blumhouse keep putting her in films even though she is terrible. She is one of the worst, least convincing actors working today, her acting ability is a joke. However, she is passably okay in this film. The twist ending when it is revealed that she is the evil force behind it all is well done, she is believable as someone who has been hung up over one thing her whole life and has become insane.

Even though she is passable in this film, her sub-par acting is highlighted by good performance given by Maggie Q and Michael Pena. Both are great, especially Pena, he plays the calculating evil mastermind well and he also plays the hero well. He manages to have the most charisma in the film easily. When the film ends, he is the only character you want to see more of.

Overall, this film is better than it has any right to be, and the film itself is intriguing and raises some great questions.

Pros.

A good premise.

Interesting questions.

Lucy Hale is actually okay.

Maggie Q and Michael Pena are good.

Cons.

It is not scary in any way.

4/5

Reviewed by Luke