Head Above Water (1996)

Directed by: Jim Wilson

Starring: Harvey Keitel, Cameron Diaz, Craig Sheffer, and Billy Zane

Genre: Comedy / Dark Comedy, Thriller

Rated: PG-13

A Remake of the Norwegian Hodet Over Vannet (1993)

While her husband is away on a fishing trip, Nathalie’s ex lover, Kent, shows up and surprises her. Kent does his best to charm and seduce his former flame but Nathalie resists his advances, ending the night sleeping on the couch while Kent takes the bed. Unfortunately, Kent passes away during the night, leaving Nathalie to discover his nude corpse as her husband and friend are returning from sea. What ensues is a comedy of errors as Nathalie tries to hide Kent’s body, get rid of any evidence he’d been there, prevent her jealous husband from getting upset, and keep her head above water.

I remember watching this as a tween and being confused by the plot. I was also heavily grossed out by the age gap between Nathalie and George, as he is old enough to be her father. Now, at thirty five, I found myself thinking about this flick and wondering if it was still as weird as I remembered it. Spoiler Alert: It is … and far creepier too.

When Nathalie states in her opening narration that she’s “always had terrible luck with men,” she’s not kidding. Sadly, she thinks the men currently in her life are the exceptions, when, by the end of the movie, both make it clear they are not. When it comes to George, it’s not just the age gap that is problematic – it’s everything about their relationship. He’s the Superior Court judge who presided over her charges of drug possession and domestic disturbances. I assume the relationship sparked during that time, creating an unhealthy power imbalance between them and an ethical issue with his involvement in her case. She also claims he’s “helping her get over her addictions,” but she’s still popping pills in secret and there is a wide assortment of alcohol in the home. As someone who grew up around addiction, I know how important it is to keep a booze-free home when living with an addict so as not to tempt them. Instead, she just has to refrain from drinking while it surrounds her, telling Kent, “George doesn’t like me drinking.” That’s not fair to her, and it seems that she might not be the only one with a substance problem in their marriage.

As far as her best friend Lance, he, for the most part, just seems clingy and caught up in his long standing unrequited love for Nathalie. It’s cute at first, knowing that they’ve been friends since childhood, but unfortunately for him, she sees him as an older brother figure, rather than a romantic prospect. It isn’t until he says some ultra creepy things to her at the end of the film that the viewer realizes his feelings aren’t so innocent and Nathalie may not be as safe with him as she thought.

Maybe the story was more comedic in the Norwegian version (currently impossible to get without a VPN for those of us in the US), but it doesn’t translate well to American culture. From the reviews I’ve seen by those able to compare the two, the Norwegian version is far superior. I hope to be able to see it someday and learn how the story was meant to be told. Here, it’s more of a thriller than a comedy. Sure there are some light comedic moments, such as the scenes between Diaz and Zane or the over-the-top ridiculousness of the runaway chainsaw and exploding boat at the climax. However, the majority of the film is scary from the perspective of a woman: being stuck alone on an island with an ex that is heavily laying on the charm in an attempt to seduce her; his sudden and unfortunate death; the subsequent fallout of her husband discovering the body and losing his mind; and her history of addiction and mental health issues being used against her when she’s reaching out for help. The “needing to get rid of a body” dark comedy trope has been done better in other films (Moving Alan comes to mind), but here it spirals into a mediocre suspense film with limited comedic elements.

I feel like this film would have been more successful had it either leaned further into the comedic elements or taken a darker route through its thriller side. If aiming more toward comedy, there should have been more emphasis on the obstacles thwarting the disposal of Kent’s body. If going for more of a thriller, the writing should have delved into the psychological effects on the people involved as well as the darkness within the male characters. As it stands, it’s a poor representation of either genre.

Nathalie, herself, is a decent protagonist. She’s definitely naïve with terrible taste in men, but she is also smarter than given credit for, clever and highly resourceful. As she finds herself in deeper and deeper trouble, she also finds a way out of it, if only temporarily, especially in the final third of the film when she keeps having to make numerous escapes from her rapidly unraveling husband. She is a sweet girl-next-door type that, despite a likely privileged upbringing, strayed down a bad path, and seemed to encounter nothing but creeps that want to take advantage of her.  

Nathalie (Source)

The acting is alright. Cameron Diaz is unable to flex her comedic talents as much as I would like, being stuck in a slightly straight-man role as Keitel and Zane get to ham it up around her. She has to go for more dramatic and even traumatized as the movie progresses, but that doesn’t stop her from bringing sunshine to every scene she’s in. She also has great chemistry with Zane and Sheffer, but not enough with Keitel to make Nathalie and George a believable couple.

I Just Don't Buy It ... (Source)

Billy Zane is charming and handsome as always – it’s easy to see why Nathalie and Kent had once been an item. Even when he’s being pushy and not respecting her boundaries, he’s still annoyingly likable.

Much More Believable (Source)

It’s too bad he’s in so little of the movie. An easy paycheck for him but his absence is felt once Kent passes on. Still his corpse is more likable than either Lance or George, both of whom we’re stuck with for the duration of the film.

Yup, Still the Most Charming Man in the Movie 
(Source)

Harvey Keitel will never not be intimidating. I’m not sure if the audience is supposed to be uncomfortable with him from the outset, but George never comes off as the wholesome loving husband Nathalie claims him to be. His concern appears more like condescension, but, again, this could be intentional considering how the character devolves by the end of the movie. 

George (Source)

Keitel does lend dark humor to the dialogue, and he makes it very obvious the judge is compensating for his insecurity about both Kent and Lance – two much younger men that want his beautiful young wife. He also seems to be having a blast portraying George’s descent into madness, mixing fun with his seemingly natural formidable persona.

Unhinged George (Source)

Craig Sheffer emphasizes Lance’s apparent harmlessness and lovelorn dedication to Nathalie. He’s ever-present, always there to offer a hand to help her or a shoulder to cry on. He has his suspicions of George but makes an effort to be friendly with him for Nathalie’s benefit. He’s obsessed with her and bases all of his art on her. It’s only when Lance’s darker side briefly shows itself that Sheffer doesn’t feel as convincing.

Lance (Source)

The setting of the film is beautiful, being based in and filmed off the coast of Maine. As a lifelong Mainer, it was fun seeing our gorgeous state and hearing some well-known coastal towns mentioned in a film not based on a Stephen King novel (although, Nathalie’s ordeal easily could be the plot of one.)

The Cottage and a Little Phippsburg Coastline
(Source)

Having spent a fair amount of time in Camden and Rockland, Nathalie and George do seem like the type of yuppie tourists that frequent the area. Lance is also often rocking the Mainer uniform of a plaid / flannel shirt, but foregoes the typical jeans for khakis – close but not quite there.

Lance's Version of the Mainer Wardrobe
(Source)

This mediocre dark comedy / thriller delivers few laughs and leaves the viewer curious about its Norwegian counterpart. The acting is fine, the characters range from annoying to somewhat endearing, but the likability factor definitely stems from the actors and not the writing. The setting is beautiful and the cast is talented, but the film only offers minimal entertainment.

5.5/10

Spread (2009)

 

Directed by: David Mackenzie

Starring: Ashton Kutcher, Anne Heche, Margarita Levieva, Sebastian Stan and Ashley Johnson

Genre: Comedy, Drama, Romance

Rated: R

Nikki is a womanizing playboy sleeping his way through LA. An attractive man in his late twenties to early thirties, he lives out of a backpack, seducing older, successful women in order to find a place to stay. The film follows him and his current conquest, Samantha, a beautiful, wealthy attorney with a mansion and a Mercedes. He quickly wins her over at a club and worms his way into being her kept boy, living in her house, spending her money, and cheating on her whenever she’s not around. It isn’t until he meets Heather, a waitress that rebuffs his attempts to woo her, that he decides he might want something more. Can he change his womanizing ways and get the girl or is there more to Heather than he expected?

Ugh, the shit I will subject myself to when I really like an actor – I will literally watch anything that person is in. 

Damn it, Sebastian!

I was bored, it was late at night, and this was free on Tubi, so I figured ‘what the hell? Could be okay.’ It wasn’t.

Ashton Kutcher leads the film as Nikki and I honestly didn’t find him that believable. He is objectively attractive but his charms and the voice he chose to use for Nikki don’t work for me. (Someone on IMDb described his voice as a Lifetime movie drug addict, and yeah, that’s accurate.) However, I’m not sure another actor could do much better considering how Nikki is written. The actors can only do so much with the script and direction they’re given.

It doesn’t help Nikki’s likeability factor that he narrates the film so the audience is in his head hearing whatever insipid thought and Pick Up Artist bullshit he comes up with. He’s such an arrogant asshole throughout 75 – 80% of the movie. He treats women as disposable sex toys and his one true friend like his personal assistant. I don’t see how he has so many women falling all over themselves to be with him or how he’s gotten away with literally treating everyone so poorly, when almost everyone he encounters is a better, more successful person than him.

Nikki is a hobosexual in designer clothes with a supposedly silver tongue and he's annoying as hell. By the time his world begins crashing around him, I was giddy at the thought of him finally getting his comeuppance. The attempt at a redemption arc is weak because it feels forced – the first half of the film gives no indications that Nikki would ever want to give up his lifestyle. He does because he runs out of options.

Anne Heche’s Samantha seems way too smart to fall for Nikki’s advances. She tries to get away from him more than once, but I guess she finds his persistence charming and endearing rather than irritating and creepy. He wins her over in a matter of minutes and she takes him home where they have lots of sex and he explains in a voiceover how he works his way into staying with these women long term. I don’t find it realistic that a woman like Samantha would be so easily duped. The story leans heavily on the idea that Samantha is very insecure and Nikki definitely takes advantage of that, using her feelings for him and her insecurities against her whenever he gets caught doing something shitty. After she catches him cheating, they fight then have make up sex, and she continues to let him stay. At that point I stated out loud to my empty living room, “The dick can’t be that fucking good! Kick his ass out!” She even gets vaginal reconstruction surgery to “tighten her up” down there – I guess she thinks he prefers the younger women he cheats with because they are tighter? 

He cheats because he’s an asshole using you for your money. He doesn’t respect you and definitely doesn’t love you.

The somewhat pathetic actions of this character contrast with the way Heche plays her. Heche gives her a strong, confident air that gives the impression she doesn’t put up with anyone’s shit. Nothing in what she says or the way she carries herself as the character would indicate any weakness or self doubt. She made Samantha feel like an actual person when the script didn’t call for her to do something ridiculous like jump the bones of the man she just caught cheating or get vaginal reconstruction surgery out of nowhere. Samantha deserves better.

Eating lunch in a diner, Nikki’s wandering eye lands on Heather, his waitress who is very unimpressed with his efforts to flirt with her. She continues to impress him by thwarting all of his usual techniques. At first I thought she was messing with him, giving him a taste of his own medicine since he wouldn’t take no for an answer and leave her the hell alone. Sadly, that is not the case. The two do engage in a whirlwind romance, despite him being creepily pushy and, on the night it seems like he’s getting what he wanted, calling her a whore because he thinks she has a boyfriend and kicking her out of Samantha’s house. Hypocrite, much?

The Only Appropriate Response to Nikki ... Ever

Margarita Levieva brings charm and sass to the role of Heather. She gives Heather an assertive exterior, one that isn’t easily ruffled by weak pick up lines and cheap tactics. She’s fun at first, but she has her share of secrets too, secrets that push her and Nikki closer together. Levieva also breaks this façade to show vulnerability when the occasion calls for it. The issue is there isn’t much chemistry between her and Ashton Kutcher. That on top of his character being an absolute dickhead really makes it hard to root for them as a couple.

The character that gets screwed over the most is Harry, Nikki’s best friend, loyal to a fault and treated like shit. Anything Nikki wants, Harry will do. You need me to drive this drunk ex fling home so she won’t talk to the other girls you’re trying to hook up with? Fine. You need me to be your wingman while you try to hook up with the waitress at the diner? Sure. You need to store your belongings at my apartment while you live as some rich lady’s boy toy? Okay. Time after time he does what Nikki asks and Nikki is a dick to him, teasing him about his shyness with women and his pet frogs, whining about how his things smell after being stored in Harry’s apartment, bossing him around. I was so happy when Harry began to stand up for himself. I feel like nothing good really happens for Harry, but I want to believe the last scene with him and Eva awkwardly staring at each other led to them getting together.

The hardest thing to believe about Harry is that women never approach him. He’s played by Sebastian Stan and this film wants us to believe he can’t catch a single woman’s attention? 

You mean to tell me THIS GUY can't attract a woman?!
Whatever you say, movie. (Source)

Yeah, okay. I get that he’s shy and quiet, but I guarantee there would still be a line of women hoping to break him out of his shell.

I know who I'd choose. However, I too am very shy. 
On the odd chance there was a mutual attraction
we'd probably stare awkwardly at each other forever.

While Harry is a stalwart and true friend to Nikki, Sebastian Stan gives him an undercurrent of being sick of Nikki’s shit. Its exhausting being Nikki’s best friend and Harry begins to let his irritation with Nikki show more and more with each scene they share. When Harry finally blows up at Nikki, the only one surprised is Nikki. 

Gif Source

------------------------------------

I was so proud of him here.
(Gif Set Source)

Harry could have been a one note character, and with another actor portraying him he might have been, but Sebastian Stan has such an attention grabbing presence even a rather boring and flat character on paper can feel like a real person.

Ashley Johnson shows up in the last act as Heather’s stoner roommate Eva who agrees to help Nikki in the cliché rom-com trope of chasing Heather down to prove his love for her. She’s bubbly and cute, providing a little bit of comic relief, but Ashley Johnson is what makes the character memorable.

While this is marketed as a sex comedy, I was absolutely not prepared for just how much sex there would be. The first half of the movie is mostly sex scenes with Nikki banging various women in Samantha’s house. There are a lot of naked women, with a very unexpected and graphic close up of Anne Heche full frontal being pleasured, and a few shots of Ashton Kutcher’s bare ass. It’s basically a soft-core porno with a minor amount of plot for the first forty minutes or so. How this managed an R rating is beyond me. 

At about the halfway mark the film switches gears and becomes more of a drama as Nikki’s reality begins to crumble. There is little to no comedy to be found.

The film seems to be trying to comment on the shallow, vapid lives of the wealthy and those who long for it, but the attempts fall flat. It focuses too much on Nikki and his conquests, spending so much time depicting him as an obnoxious douche bag the viewer can’t stand him and doesn’t care if he finds a way to win the girl and redeem himself. Women are all portrayed as gold diggers willing to give it up to any rich man or as lonely middle-aged women, who despite all their successes rely on young men to silence their insecurities by treating them as sexual objects. We’re nothing if men don’t want to have sex with us, don’t ya know?

The cinematography is nice with pretty shots of the LA skyline and the set for Samantha’s house, while too modern for my tastes, was still very beautiful. Aside from that and the few decent performances listed above, there’s nothing good about this movie. The plot is weak, the main character unlikable at best, and the rest only elevated by the aforementioned performances. Unless you’re a huge fan of one of the actors involved and insist on seeing everything they’ve ever been in, skip this one.

4/10

Barbarian (2022)

Directed By: Zach Cregger

Starring: Georgina Campbell, Bill Skarsgård, and Justin Long

Genre: Horror / Thriller

Rated: R

In town for a job interview, Tess pulls up to the Airbnb she rented only to discover it has been double booked with a man named Keith. As it is late at night and storming outside he invites her in to investigate the problem further. With no luck reaching the rental agency and no hotels available in the area, Tess reluctantly accepts Keith’s offer to stay the night. Within the next twenty four hours, Tess will discover the true horrors lurking behind the walls of this seemingly innocuous house and it will take everything she has to survive.

Upon first seeing the trailer for this film, it appears to be a straight forward horror take on the typical “Oops, two people are double booked in the same cottage” romantic comedy trope. While this is definitely where the film starts, there is so much more going on and the viewer is never quite sure where the film is going to go next. There is a lot of subverting expectations – you know Tess is walking into a dangerous situation, you just don’t know what. Is Keith really a serial killer? Have they both been lured there for a purpose? Are they alone in the house? Every time you think you have the answer, the story diverts in a new direction.

One major area where these expectations are subverted is with the casting of the movie’s two main male characters, Keith and AJ. Bill Skarsgård, who has the tendency to play darker characters, plays Keith – the character you expect to have nefarious intentions. Justin Long typically acts in goofy comedies or as well-intentioned characters that land in bad situations when it comes to horror. Here he portrays AJ, an entitled douche bag actor under investigation for the sexual assault of his costar. Did he do it? Will his role in the terrible events that unfold prove him to be a good person or is there truly a dark side to him?

The small cast does well in carrying the storyline along. Tess, Keith and AJ are the central characters in a bizarre labyrinth of a plot. Tess is an interesting lead with ambition who tries to make the best decisions given her odd circumstances. She has a caring nature that sometimes acts before her intellect though, and that can lead her into some scary situations. Despite the occasional poor decision, her character is still one worth rooting for and she is pivotal in holding the story together. Georgina Campbell’s performance makes Tess a likable and compelling character – you genuinely want her to have a good life, get the job she’s excited about and find a healthy relationship with someone.

The chemistry between Campbell and Skarsgård make it seem like the latter might be a possibility, assuming Keith’s not secretly a murderer and/or they both make it out of the house alive. Despite the awkwardness of the situation, the two stay up late into the night talking and over tea and wine. 

That Chemistry Though

There is even a cute scene where they are making the bed together and he shows her his trick for putting on a duvet cover. 

(My husband (teasingly): “You find that cute?” 

Me: “Yeah, so?” 

Husband: “Pfft, I was won over by him making tea.” 

Me: “And that’s how you end up drugged and chained up in some serial killer’s basement.”)

Skarsgård’s Keith is both charismatic and suspect. He seems like a nice enough guy on the surface, offering tea and wine, being completely understanding at Tess’s apprehension of taking a beverage offered by a strange man, making her comfortable enough to relax and talk with him, and giving her the bedroom because it has a locking door. Still, he seems like he has a darker undercurrent to him – it’s something the viewer can’t quite put their finger on, but it’s there just enough to keep the audience from trusting him completely.

Justin Long seems to be having a blast with the extreme douche that is AJ. At times the character is over-the-top and comical with how ignorant his selfishness renders him. He’s whiney and unable to take accountability for anything, blaming everyone else when things go wrong while using others to meet his own needs. As mentioned above, the horrific events he experiences provide a possible path to being a better person should he choose to learn from them, but will he? Are these simply characteristics of a spoiled man-child or something worse?

The two male leads are only one tool of subverting expectations. Another is the contrast between Tess’s initial reaction to the neighborhood homeless man (fear, suspicion of mental illness) trying to help her versus her trust in the local police who turn out to be worse than useless. The house itself is so much more than a cute little one bedroom in a rough neighborhood, though that in and of itself is unexpected given the surroundings. Also the flashback scenes that provide the history of the property’s previous owner who showed the world one persona while harboring another.

The film also tries its hand at social commentary and is moderately successful. There is the question of “who is the real Barbarian?” that seems to be silently raised multiple times throughout the movie. There is blatant acknowledgement of violence against women being a major problem – this is a discussion between Keith and Tess where she tells him if their roles were reversed in their current scenario, she would not have let him in; Keith’s understanding of Tess being wary of any open beverage he offers her; AJ being accused of sexual assault and subsequent consequences he faces in reference to the “Me Too” movement. There are also allusions to racism, exemplified in the flashback scenes where middle aged white dudes grumble to each other about “the neighborhood falling apart” with black people and other people of color moving in. It is also shown, to a lesser extent, in the way Tess, a black woman, is treated by the police when she attempts to get their help – though this could be based on a accumulation of factors including gender, race, classism (she was running out of a rundown and impoverished neighborhood) and possible ableism (the likely assumption that she is mentally ill).

As for the horror elements themselves, there is plenty of tension throughout as the viewer never knows what to expect. There are a few decent jump scares and the atmosphere, especially in the hidden tunnels beneath the house, is fairly claustrophobic and creepy. The deaths are few as are the supporting characters, however that does not detract from their brutality. The special effects as far as gore and prosthetics/make up are well done.

The only aspects of the film that negatively impacted it for me were the dropped plot threads, foolish decisions from otherwise smart characters, and some jumpy editing. There were things I would have liked more follow up on such as Keith’s night terrors, the reason Tess took a picture of Keith’s drivers license (I assumed for a possible background check but nothing comes of it) and her potential new employer’s confusion/concern over Tess’s current lodging arrangements (Again, not pursued).

Tess makes some decisions and does things that she seems too smart to be doing, like these actions are contrived to push the plot forward rather than a natural move for the character. For instance, she allows Keith to talk her into staying in the house while he investigates the basement after she informs him of the freaky stuff she found down there. No way in hell would I stay there after stumbling upon what looks like a potential snuff film set.

The Room in Question.

I concur, Tess.

Sorry Keith, you’re probably a great guy stuck in the same weird circumstances as me, but I can’t take the risk that the obvious prison room belongs to you. I’ve seen enough horror movies and true crime documentaries to know that a room like that leads to a bad end for me. Peace!

The last drawback to the movie was the jarring jump cut toward the middle of the film. It cuts from a dark scene with Tess in the tunnels she and Keith discover in the basement to AJ happily singing in his car on a bright sunny day. It’s a complete shift in tone and the introduction of his character which is a little confusing when the viewer has been so invested in Tess’s plotline. I get that this is once again playing with audience expectations but it takes you out of the film for a second until you adjust to AJ’s story and it converges with hers.

This is still one of my favorite horror films to come out this year. It has an unpredictable story with interesting characters, social commentary, great acting, creepy atmosphere and fun deaths. It may be slightly flawed, but is still a strong film and recommended for at least one viewing.

7.5/10

Don’t Worry Darling (2022)

 

Directed By: Olivia Wilde

Starring: Florence Pugh, Harry Styles, Chris Pine, Nick Kroll and Olivia Wilde

Genre: Drama, Thriller

Rated: R

In the idyllic 1950s desert community of Victory, housewife Alice begins to suspect all is not what it seems. The town is an experimental utopia centered around a mysterious company with a vague mission that employs all the husbands. While the men work their wives are left home to tend to the house and children, attend exercise classes and do the shopping. After her friend Margaret starts acting strangely and Alice has some experiences she can’t explain, she can’t help but ask questions. Is there something sinister about the town of Victory or is it all in Alice’s mind?

This film has received a lot of hate and I’m not quite certain as to why. It’s not a perfect movie by any means but it is far from bad. I know there are rumors of serious drama behind the scenes and an animosity toward Olivia Wilde herself, but none of this affects the movie on the whole.

The acting from Florence Pugh is truly what carries the film. Her emotions are tangible – her happiness, her confusion, her fear, her desperation. She makes Alice believable; a character to care about and root for despite the fact the audience is unsure if Alice is a reliable narrator. We want to believe her; we want to solve the mystery; we want her to be okay. I have yet to see a performance from her that I don’t love.

I was surprised by Harry Styles’s performance as I honestly didn’t know he did acting, having only known him as a member of the boy band One Direction, a solo artist and Taylor Swift’s ex. He and Florence Pugh have decent chemistry which is another element that held the story together as they, as a couple, are kind of the lynchpin to making it work. At first his character, Jack, is the loving, devoted husband that simply enjoys his life with her, but this façade begins to wear away the more Alice pushes to uncover the truth. He pulls off the charming, sweet and seductive husband as well as the more selfish, angry and whiney manchild and the devolution in between.

The only other stand-out performance is Chris Pine as Frank – the charismatic founder of The Victory Project that everyone in town seems to worship. He’s arrogant and gives frequent speeches consisting of propaganda and empty words that no one else seems to see through except Alice (and Margaret before her). I did have a bit of a hard time seeing how everyone could be falling all over themselves for this man, sucking up to him, hanging on every word he says, changing their attire to match his style. Sure he’s handsome and somewhat charismatic, but he’s also a conceited douche that talks and talks but has nothing to really say. It seems that Alice, Margaret and the audience are the only ones that can see this while everyone else absorbs the bullshit he spews and it does feel intentional. It’s obvious, at least through Alice’s perspective, that this man is not on the up-and-up. He’s also a creep who watches people have sex and tells women they’re “good girls” for cooking dinner.

The rest of the performances aren’t particularly memorable but neither are the characters. Considering the film’s major plot reveal, I believe this is also intentional. Going into the discussion any further would risk major spoilers.

The story is definitely derivative of The Stepford Wives with a more modern twist. Sadly, this concept is still terrifyingly relevant; this era of the 1940s – 1960s is romanticized by many who weren’t alive for it or led privileged lives during it. Aside from the risk of being drafted into war, this era was really only good for white, heterosexual, cis-gender men. Many modern women / femme presenting people /people assigned female at birth find the idea of being forced into that kind of life horrifying. This film reflects that fear and comments on the rise of inceldom and “alpha male” podcasts. It also feels like a commentary on how empty and boring the lives of women seemed to be in that era.

Having a woman as the director, the film is clearly shot with the female gaze. No objectification of anyone, male or female – the sex scenes sensual and hot without nudity. The sex scenes are also based solely on the woman’s pleasure which I’ve never seen in a film before between a heterosexual couple. In the two we are given, Jack uses his mouth and fingers on Alice, but she never does anything to reciprocate and they never engage in intercourse. I found that interesting and wondered if there was a point being made there, but that particular question is never answered.

My only theory is this focus on female pleasure early in the film is a tool to show the devolution of their relationship as the story develops. When Alice is being the perfect little housewife, keeping the house clean, making extravagant meals, happily greeting him at the door impeccably dressed, coifed and made up, and being the supportive submissive arm candy at parties, she’s rewarded. (Although, I have to say I would be quite pissed if the delicious meal I spent hours cooking was knocked off the table because my horny husband wants to ravish me. I don’t care how good it’s going to feel, I spent all day on that! What the hell man?) It could also be an aspect of control, as when Jack goes for a quickie at his boss’s house during a party he doesn’t stop when she protests. It’s still about her pleasure, but he decides when and where he wants to give it to her. Jack also does this annoying thing where he thumbs her bottom lip – watching it irritates me so much I want to bite him. Alice seems rather indifferent to the gesture but it is so cringey to me.

The cinematography and soundtrack also boost the film. The imagery is beautiful, including, and maybe especially, the weird flashy hallucinations/dreams Alice seems to have. The music aids and influences the mood. The setting feels very retro and of-the-time despite being shot through a modern lens, which, again, knowing the twist, feels like an intentional contrast.

For me, the film’s biggest issue is the numerous unanswered questions. Once we learn what is really happening, the story kind of rushes to a close without explaining much. I get that the runtime was already slightly over two hours, but I’d rather watch a longer film in order to have my questions answered. To list them would be to spoil the entire reveal, but there are numerous aspects of the plot I was left wondering about.

To me this was worth the watch. I found it suspenseful and fun with a strong heroine to root for and follow. I was never bored, the strange occurrences and mysterious projects kept me guessing along with Alice as to what was going on. If it didn’t leave so many things unexplained I would have rated it a bit higher. Still it is not as bad as people say – strong performances, especially from Florence Pugh, engrossing storyline, great soundtrack and nice cinematography make it a decent film, but it could have been better.

6.5/10

Jack-O (1995)

 

(AKA Jacko Lantern)

Directed by: Steve Latshaw

Starring: Linnea Quigley, Maddisen K. Krown (as Rebecca Quicks), Gary Doles, Ryan Latshaw, Catherine Walsh, Rachel Carter, Cameron Mitchell and John Carradine

Genre: Horror / Slasher / Horror-Comedy

Rated: R

During the early years of the twentieth century, sorcerer Walter Machen was lynched by the men of the Kelly family for his crimes of magic use and murder. At the time of his execution, Machen cursed the Kelly family, swearing a demon would rise up and take his revenge. Not long after, many of the Kellys are brutally murdered by said demon, but not before one of them is able to put an end to the creature’s rampage. Decades later, a group of partying teens unwittingly release this entity, now dubbed The Pumpkin Man, from its consecrated grave and it returns to its mission of vengeance upon the town. It is up to the descendants of both the Kelly and Machen clans to stop it once and for all.

I saw this as part of a cheesy horror triple feature at the Drive-In on Saturday night, and good Lord, it was terrible. This is bad in the “actually awful” sense, not the guilty pleasure or “so bad it’s good” way. My husband and I were able to riff on it enough to make it somewhat bearable, and there are some fun moments, but for the most part you’re not missing anything if you skip this one.

First and foremost, the acting is atrocious from almost everyone involved, the exceptions being Quigley and Carter as the Miller sisters. The child actors seem to be trying their best, but they are obviously very inexperienced and lacking proper direction. The casting of Ryan Latshaw as the young protagonist, Sean, feels like a bit of nepotism on the part of the director (they are father and son). Ryan is adorable but his performance is rather flat and lacks the energy and personality it takes to carry a film. The rest of the cast sound like they are simply running lines in the initial read through rather than performing actual takes while filming. Many lack any sort of inflection in their tone while reciting dialogue – like they are simply regurgitating statements robotically. Even veteran actor John Carradine appears to be phoning it in, although, to be fair, his scenes are stock footage from 1985, shot three years prior to his death in 1988, so he probably wasn’t at his best and likely thought the scenes would never be released. The actors playing the caricatures of the conservative couple and Rush Gingbaw (parody of Rush Limbaugh) seem to be having fun, at least.

The opening is weird, depicting Sean sitting by a campfire in the woods with a strange knife-wielding man insistent upon telling him a ghost story. 

 “Please, Mister, if I listen to your creepy story will you let me go home?” - My husband 

While it is never clarified, I believe the opening scene is one of many nonsensical dream sequences the film subjects the audience to throughout its short run-time. The man in this scene shows up again later as a very weird neighbor that cannot contain his obnoxious, maniacal laughter. Both this character and the first scene could have been cut entirely as they don’t add anything to the storyline. The movie probably could have opened with the original attack in the 1900s and done a time skip to present day, dropping the unnecessary beginning and character altogether.

The special effects are pretty laughable, but at least the film seems aware of this and appears to poke fun at itself in this department. From cartoonish lightning bolts and electric currents to an over-the-top burnt corpse one IMDb user described as a “flame broiled Muppet” and an obviously fake severed head that is gritting its teeth in a grimace,

This HAS to be a Knowing Wink, Right?

all effects seem to be a knowing wink to the audience that the filmmakers understand how cheesy they look. 

The deaths were also relatively silly, but at least entertaining. The Final Destination style death by toaster is hilarious, as well as an actor very obviously spitting fake blood out of his mouth when his character is supposed to be dead. That had to be intentional, right? If not, the editor is either really lazy or trolling the audience.

Toaster Death Complete with Terrible SFX

With deaths like those described above and the lackluster special effects, I suspected this had to be intended as a horror-comedy rather than a straight slasher flick. I had to dig and read other reviews to confirm this theory however, as both IMDb and the film’s Wikipedia page only list the genre as horror. Maybe the other reviewers and I are simply giving this film too much credit, but I will give the flick the benefit of the doubt and infer the comedy was intentional until I learn otherwise from a credible source.

Of course, as this is a low-budget B-Movie starring Linnea Quigley, she gives the expected nudity the target audience is looking for. She has a gratuitous shower scene that lingers heavily on her breasts and butt as she slowly washes herself. The scene has no point to the story and could easily have been cut, but obviously we need something to drag in an audience. There’s also a bonus topless scene from Rachel Carter, so there is plenty of nudity to appease the audience members attracted to women. It still doesn’t make the film worth watching. You can probably find screen caps, gifs and/or videos of these scenes via Google if you’re that desperate to see them.

I am surprised that the movie doesn’t fall victim to the “onscreen nudity and/or sex equals death” trope. Neither girl is “punished” for her sexuality, which is a nice change of pace in B-grade slashers. Sadly this doesn’t prevent them from being hit on by perverted middle-aged men, such as when Sean’s father tells him ‘You can look but you can’t touch’ while giving Carolyn an overt once-over – referring both to Sean’s interest in Jim’s motorcycle and his own interest in her. 

Gross! Like him being married is the only reason he can’t be with Carolyn and she would be interested at all. 

Bro, that’s Linnea-freaking-Quigley, you don’t stand a chance. Sorry, not sorry.

Carolyn's face says "I'm uncomfortably humoring you, Mr. Kelly."

Sean’s dad, David, certainly seems to consider himself quite the ladies man, which is a bit optimistic on his part, considering his average middle-aged appearance. He flirts with both Carolyn and Vivian, both of whom are far out of his league. He makes no attempt to hide this from his wife, and while she teases him about Carolyn as she’s aware he doesn’t stand a chance with her, his friendship with Vivian does make her suspicious. Vivian’s only interest in David is his heritage and the connection between their two families as she is a descendant of Walter Machen, and it will require them to work together in order to lay the killer demon to rest.

The characters themselves aren’t bad, but they are very one-dimensional. Sean seems like a sweet kid who always tries to do the right thing and both his parents seem like good people (with the exception of David’s wandering eye) who turn their garage into a haunted house each Halloween for charity. Carolyn is probably the most likable and well-rounded character, taking her job as Sean’s babysitter seriously and doing her best to protect him when they find themselves in the sights of The Pumpkin Man. The conservative couple neighboring the Kellys, Carolyn, and Vivian is nasty and annoying, though it is very obvious they are supposed to be, and it is pretty satisfying when we’re rid of them.

According to the Wikipedia page, per the audio commentary on the tenth anniversary DVD release, this film is supposed to be a statement on the “’political polarization and the culture war in 1990s America’ through its conservative suburbanite characters.” An attempt was definitely made, especially with what at the time would have seemed like over-the-top stereotypes of conservatives and the in-movie version of Rush Limbaugh they worship being contrasted with their charitable and loving neighbors. If this was released today, the right wing would definitely be decrying it as garbage created by the “woke left.” (We can agree that it is garbage, just not the reason why.) However, while the attempt at political/social commentary was made, it didn’t really succeed in actually saying anything. There are many great horror films that succeed in this area, but this is definitely not one of them.

This is a skippable attempt at a supernatural slasher horror comedy. The acting is bad even by B-movie standards, the effects subpar and the story bland. There are a few fun scenes and the typical nudity expected of a movie like this, but it’s nothing worth seeking out.

3/10

Fresh (2022)

               Directed by: Mimi Cave

Starring: Daisy Edgar-Jones, Sebastian Stan, Jojo T. Gibbs, Andrea Bang, Dayo Okeniyi and Charlotte Le Bon

Genre: Horror / Thriller / Dark Comedy / Horror Comedy

Rated: R

Noa is fed up with the dating scene. Online dating apps seem to only result in lack luster text conversations, unsolicited dick pics, or dates with losers. Just as she’s decided to step back from dating, she meets Steve in the produce section at the grocery store. Steve is charming, funny and attractive, and Noa ends up giving him her number. What follows is an adorable whirlwind romance, but things aren’t all that they seem, and Steve is harboring some dark secrets. When Noa learns the truth, she must fight to survive.

I didn’t know what to expect going into this movie last night. Initially I thought it might be interesting and put it on while folding my laundry, only to find myself enjoying the hell out of it. I was fully invested from beginning to end. It has everything I like in horror – dark humor, strong heroine, interesting villain, some disturbing themes, some gore, and social commentary done right. The fact that it was written and directed by women, a rarity in the genre, is a bonus.

The performances from the leads, Daisy Edgar-Jones (Noa) and Sebastian Stan (Steve), really sell this film. These two have amazing chemistry despite the sixteen year age difference between the actors. You don’t even question why these two would be together, they just seem to click. There’s an obvious attraction, but they also share the same sense of humor, appear to have similar backgrounds, and he seems to bring out her more adventurous side. This chemistry continues throughout, despite the dark turn in their relationship, and I think that is what truly carries the film. Without it, I don’t believe the final quarter of the film would have held up, as the ending depended on it.

Just look at these two!

These performances extend beyond when they are together, of course. Both stand just as well on their own. Edgar-Jones brings Noa to life, despite the fact that we know little about the character – not her interests, not her job, etc. We mostly see her in how she relates to those around her, whether it’s a lousy date, her encounters with Steve, or her interactions with other women, like her best friend, Mollie, or Penny, a fellow victim of Steve. Her moments alone are rarely depicted, but when they are she easily displays what the character is thinking without having to say anything at all. Stan is ridiculously charming as Steve, even after his true nature is revealed – to the point where I feel uncomfortable with the fact that I still like him. (Damn it, I don’t want to be attracted to this sick individual! Stop doing things that would be hot or romantic in a consensual setting.)

Another great performance is given by Jojo T. Gibbs as Mollie. I love the friendship between her and Noa because it is depicted as a normal, real life friendship. These two love and support one another. They laugh and joke together, discuss the dating scene, act as a safety when the other goes on a date with a practical stranger, and protect each other. Mollie is a devoted and loyal friend who has Noa’s back no matter what, and by the end of the film, Noa proves she is the same for Mollie. These two are a team. Separately they’re strong individuals, but together they’re unstoppable. 

My Favorite Spoiler Free Mollie and Noa Interactions:

Noa: "I don't know how you do it, Mollie."
Mollie: "Do what?"
Noa: "Dating people. And I always end up alone. Which, by the way, I am very okay with."
Mollie: "No. No. What? You do not need a man, okay? Or anybody, for that matter. It's just the way we've been raised since fucking Disney movies."
Noa: "Yeah. Fuck Ariel."
Mollie: "Fuck her. Stupid bitch left the whole sea for a man. Come on, now. Like, fuck Beauty."
Noa: "Yeah, fuck the Beast. I am the beast."
Mollie: "You are the Beast!" 

 

Mollie: (talking about Steve and acting every bit like my sister-in-law) "What's his Instagram? I want to stalk a little bit."
Noa: "Oh, he doesn't have one."
Mollie: "Say what? What do you mean? Oh no. See, that's shady. I'm sorry. Red Flag." 
Noa: "Okay. Whatever. Stop raining on my sex parade."  

 

Noa: "I'm going away with Steve for the weekend."
Mollie: "What? Where?"
Noa: "It's a surprise."
Mollie: "Hold on, Noa. Uh-uh. A surprise? I don't like that."
Noa: "I'm just going to go for it. You said, 'fuck it,' remember?"
Mollie: "Girl, you're all dickmatized, and I haven't even seen this dude."

When Noa goes missing, Mollie refuses to give up looking for her, as any true friend would, and will not be appeased by the “she’s just off with her new boyfriend,” story. Good, so many films have “friends” ignore someone’s disappearance because of some BS story and nothing good ever comes from that.

Mollie knows something is not right. 

I’ve seen a few complaints about the character of Penny, a fellow captive of Steve that Noa befriends as they converse through the vents / walls between their cells. The criticism of her stems from the fact that she comes off kind of bubbly and good humored despite the trauma she’s endured. I disagree that this is a drawback to her character. I feel her sense of humor is a coping mechanism, so she doesn’t lose her mind due to the circumstances. Another unseen character named Melissa has this misfortune, and Penny has been there long enough to hear Melissa descend into madness. Her humor and spirit also help Noa maintain a clear head and strategize. I feel Penny plays an important role and don’t think Andrea Bang’s performance was too bubbly – there are definitely times when it’s obvious the character is struggling but manages to bring herself out of it with some humor in order to uplift and advise Noa. I liked Penny a lot, and didn’t feel she was a throwaway character as I’ve seen other reviewers claim. Without her, I’m not sure Noa would have the strength she does.

My Favorite Spoiler Free Noa and Penny Interactions:

Noa: "I want to hurt him, Penny."
Penny: "It's all I think about."
Noa: "I can't believe I slept with him."
Penny: "Wait, you fucked him? I never did. I don't think any of the others did either. I am not slut-shaming you, by the way. I'd say it's a compliment."
Noa: "I'm so fucking stupid."
Penny: "No, you're not. It's not your fault, Noa. It's always theirs." 

 

Penny: "I'm done, Noa."
Noa: "No, you're not."
Penny: "I don't even know who I am anymore. I hope he fucking chokes. And then he gets a fucking tapeworm and it just eats him from the inside, slowly. And that all his weirdo friends shit and puke out of their eyes until they all fucking die." 
Noa: "You're such a sweetheart, Penny. Just stay strong, okay?"

 

Penny: "You know, the other night, I was thinking of how nice it's been to talk to you. But then I was like, what if you're not real and I'm just going crazy? Like Melissa. But I feel like if I had an imaginary friend I wouldn't name her Noa. It would be like Sean Connery."
Noa: "I wish I could see you."
Penny: "Me too."

I do, however, agree with the criticisms that some characters are underutilized. Paul, the bartender, seems nice enough and has a good sense of humor, but I feel could have been used better as Mollie’s backup in her search for Noa. While he has a funny moment toward the end where he realizes he’s in a horror movie situation, remembers how well black characters tend to fare in such films and gets the hell out of dodge, it renders the scenes leading him to this one pointless. With this leading nowhere, all the scenes with him outside of the bar could have been cut and nothing would have been lost.

The character of Ann also didn’t seem to serve much purpose other than to represent Steve’s other life as well as women who hurt other women to benefit themselves. There are interesting aspects about her that I wanted to explore but ultimately were never developed upon or explained. Her entire character could have been removed from the film and nothing would have really been lost.

The story progression and style is interesting. The film begins like a romantic comedy with the title card and opening credits not showing up until thirty-three minutes into the film, right as the plot begins to take a dark turn. There are hints that something isn’t quite right with Steve, but it’s easy to see how a woman on a date with him may not pick up on them. He uses charm and humor to cover what would possibly be red flags on someone else. Still, there’s enough that the viewer isn’t really surprised when the tone shifts from light rom-com to dark comedic horror. The film eases you into the darkness, slowly getting more uncomfortable and disturbing, but not so slowly that the viewer loses interest. The pacing is fairly spot-on and kept my attention for the entire hour and fifty-four minute run-time.

The violence and gore are fairly minimal, but no less uncomfortable when depicted. Much of the horror is psychological – the isolation, the knowledge of exactly what is going to happen to you, literally being awake paralyzed by an epidural while a part of your body is cut off (not shown, the viewer just has a close up of the victim’s terrified face as it’s happening, and that is somehow almost worse), knowing you’re being fed something heinous and having to eat it anyway. The eating scenes made me particularly uncomfortable. In the hands of someone else, I fear this would have been little more than an exploitative gore fest a-la the torture porn of the early to mid 2000s. Here it is tastefully done with lasting impact, no excessive gore or nudity needed. 

The final act leading up to the ending is fairly predictable but still manages to sneak in a few surprises. Noa’s strategy for attempting escape is pretty obvious to everyone except Steve but I was cheering her on none-the-less. She has more strength than I would in her shoes and forces herself to do what she has to in an effort to survive.

This is a feminist horror film done right. Where many others have failed (looking at you, Black Christmas [2019]) this one thrives. Firstly, the female characters seem like real people, not caricatures and stereotypes. The female friendships are strong and founded upon building each other up. There is no belittling, judgment or slut-shaming from the regular characters (with the exception of Ariel from the above quote) and very minimal derogatory language from the villain(s). This is a film about women leaning on each other to fight against oppression and survive. It’s filmed from the female gaze with no sexualizing of the characters, even during the sex scenes or when there is brief nudity. It explores many fears women have of the dating scene and the ridiculous crap we have to put up with before we find someone we think is worthwhile. (I’m so glad I’m married and out of the dating game.)

This is a fun feminist horror comedy that comments on the ugly side of dating and the importance to strong female friendships. It will charm you with the romance then make you uncomfortable with the horror, despite not being very graphic or gory. It is flawed. I felt some scenes and characters could have been cut and the plot was fairly predictable, but it was still an entertaining ride. This is definitely worth the watch, and I have a feeling I will be returning to it multiple times.

7.5/10