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

Intruder (2016)

Directed by: Travis Zariwny

Starring: Louise Linton, John Robinson, Moby, and Zach Myers

Genre: Horror, Thriller, Suspense

Rated: Not Rated

A violent Oregon storm is blowing in for the weekend and young cellist, Elizabeth, is home enjoying some time alone. Unbeknownst to her, someone has entered her home and joined her in her weekend of solitude.

Meet Elizabeth, an orchestra cellist who has the strength to manhandle such a large instrument, but cannot manage to carry two trash bags to the can outside. Elizabeth only listens to cello music, is unique because she has an old-school answering machine, and often does security sweeps in her home that just happen to miss the intruder's very obvious clues and hiding places. Meet the Intruder who is obsessed with Elizabeth, hides in her closet, leaves finger prints and DNA EVERYWHERE, and acts more like an angsty teenage boy than a grown man. Also there's a creepy music instructor, an overly at-home boyfriend, and a cute cat named Ozzy that will be the only character you like in this entire film.

The movie literally opens on a cliché - a 'dark, stormy night' with a young woman alone in her big house realizing she's not alone. We know, since it's the beginning of a horror film, that she's going to die, but her death is sudden as she is grabbed from behind in a jump scare complete with orchestra swelling music. A thin white plastic trash bag is pulled over her face and she makes no attempt with her free hands to remove or rip a breathing hole in the material. Instead she dies (within a minute of being grabbed) with her hands reaching out for nothing in front of her.

Seriously? Poke a hole in that flimsy plastic! Use your fingers, your teeth, anything! Where's your will to live?!

Apparently stalker boy gets off on dark stormy nights, because when he decides to become Elizabeth's uninvited new roommate, it is once again, a dark stormy night. He sneaks into her apartment when she's taking her second trip to the outside trashcan (why the director thought showing her make two trips to the trashcan was necessary is beyond me) and hides in her closet for most of the movie. Aside from the creep factor of him being there without her knowledge, lurking near her towels when she takes a shower, and touching her face while she sleeps - the intruder isn't very scary, with the exception of his manners. The first night, he raids her fridge (eating cottage cheese from the container with his fingers!), takes a bite out of an apple and leaves it in her fruit bowl, and urinates in her dirty dishes. All of this goes completely unnoticed by Elizabeth the following morning. (Girl, you can't smell the URINE in your sink?!)

The movie basically just follows Elizabeth through her boring, mundane life. The viewer watches her go to cello practice, fight with her boyfriend, baby sit her friend's cat, shower numerous times, change clothes numerous times, have sex with her boyfriend, video chat with her Mom, fix a light bulb, do her laundry, and sleep. The viewer also watches the intruder watch her do these mundane tasks. Eventually he just becomes part of the scenery. When he finally makes his move, the screen cuts to black and the credits roll - just long enough for the viewer to scream, "I WASTED AN HOUR AND A HALF FOR THAT?! NOTHING HAPPENED!!" Never fear, friends, the credits break to reveal the real ending, which is only a little less unsatisfying than the fake one. There's no big showdown between Elizabeth and stalker boy, and, quite honestly, the real ending doesn't make much sense based on stalker boy's previous modus operandi.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I cannot be scared for characters that I dislike - and this movie does absolutely nothing to make them likable. Elizabeth only seemed concerned with her own needs and couldn't understand why her boyfriend wouldn't give up his tenured position as a university researcher or professor to follow her to England for a few months while she plays with the Philharmonic Orchestra. (That Bastard!) I was hoping she'd make a journey of self-discovery through this horrific experience, maybe come into her own as a badass and overtake the intruder - but sadly, no such luck. The only character I was anxious for was the cat, and thankfully, the film did avoid the cliché of killing the pet for shock or to torment the victim. (Only because the intruder did NOTHING to her throughout 95% of the film.)

The acting was mediocre. Louise Linton's natural Scottish accent can be heard sporadically throughout her dialogue, confusing the viewer as to whether she is supposed to be an American or someone from abroad studying music in Oregon. Moby only had two scenes and not much of a character to work with, so this film probably isn't the best specimen from which to judge his acting prowess. John Robinson and Zach Myers gave decent performances as her neighbor, John, and her boyfriend, Justin, respectively.

I did like the setting. I loved Elizabeth's apartment, it had personality (unlike her), and seemed like a cozy place to relax for a weekend. Her  neighborhood was cute and quaint. It felt inviting. A perfect contrast to a suspense / horror themed plot - if the horror actually decided to show itself.

There were a number of things I hated about this movie. I hated that every man Elizabeth encountered came off as a threatening creep in some way. I hated the unnecessary shots such as the aforementioned trash sequence, the pervy downward pan of Elizabeth's naked body while she washes herself in the shower (nothing against her, she has a beautiful figure), the unnecessary male nudity, and the cinematic montage at the fake end of the film where Elizabeth sees the intruder's face and immediately attaches it to all the actions he did without her knowledge. How is she having a realization flashback montage when she had no idea he did ANY of those things?! I hated how every time Elizabeth is close to discovering the intruder or something that would reveal she is not alone in her apartment, she just happens to be distracted and pulled away from what she was doing. I hated how sloppy the intruder was and how blind Elizabeth was to this sloppiness. The guy relied on sheer luck to not be found out. Lastly, I hated the scene where the intruder kills someone in Elizabeth's apartment with a knife - not a single drop of blood hit her pristine cream colored carpet. How is that possible?

Overall, this is one of the lamest entries in the 'Home Invasion' subgenre of horror/thriller films I've ever seen. The characters are dull and uninteresting, even anger inducing. Clichés abound. Nothing happens for the majority of the film, and when it does happen, it's not very satisfying. I would only recommend this film if you like spending 90 minutes watching some creep watch some girl do mundane things and enjoy a really slow build up to practically nothing in the end.

3.5/10

Trailer:

Playing House (2010)

AKA: Homewrecker

Directed by: Tom Vaughan

Starring: Mayra Leal, Matt Lusk, Sarah Prikryl, and Craig Welzbacher

Genre: Thriller, Suspense

Rated: Unrated (R equivalent)

Newlyweds Mitch and Jen McKenzie have just bought their first house. Danny, Mitch’s best friend, moves in to help out with the mortgage payments. All is well until Danny meets Blair, a beautiful young woman who is soon over at the house all the time. Blair claims to be in love with Danny, but she is after more than she is letting on, and that puts everyone in the house in danger.

This film is very predictable. It is yet another “crazy girl wants man and will destroy whatever gets in her way” flick, and poorly done at that. Blair is so obvious about her intentions; I don’t understand how the other characters are so fooled by her. She blatantly flirts with Mitch the minute she meets him, right in front of Jen. She sashays around the house in her underwear or a button-down revealing her cleavage, and nothing else; swims naked in the pool; uses every opportunity to create chaos within the household, and uses her looks and silver tongue to manipulate everyone. Jen is the only one who sees through the act to some degree, and that is because she feels her relationship with her husband is threatened by Blair’s presence. I assume she doesn’t speak out because she’s afraid she’ll seem jealous and paranoid, but she should have because she had every right to feel those things. It’s obvious from the beginning who Blair is REALLY after, and it’s not Danny.

The men in this film are incredibly stupid – Mitch more so than Danny. With Danny, it’s understandable. He has a gorgeous girlfriend who loves to cook for him, play video games, and have lots of sex. He’s smitten. Mitch is just fooled by a pretty face and a “please take care of me” pout. Jen is intelligent and independent. She is a successful chef who has recently been offered her own restaurant. This upsets Mitch because he wants to spend more time with her, and Blair is there whispering in his ear that a good wife is home when her husband arrives and makes an effort to enjoy everything he does. How Blair is able to talk him into doing some things is beyond me - and somehow this man is a doctor.

There are just too many moments of idiocy to make this a decent film. If you suspect a person of murder and have let them on to that suspicion, why would you allow yourself to be alone with them? How did Blair clean up gallons of blood with one large kitchen sponge? It’s pretty clear she has no idea how to clean up a crime scene, yet the tile is spotless. Why would you allow a woman you know nothing about to move into your home? A woman who seems to have no job or means of paying rent? At least Jen was in her right mind about not wanting Blair to move in, but once again, Mitch makes her feel like an ass and she backs down.

The acting was okay at best, with Prikryl and Lusk being the most believable. Leal does well with the seduction scenes, but she’s rather laughable when committing murders. I’m sorry, I’m not buying her as a sociopathic killer. Welzbacher is probably the worst of the lot, being rather stiff in his portrayals of most emotions. Unless he’s conveying anger in some capacity, it’s hard to tell what his character is supposed to be feeling. Is he stressed? Is he happy? Who knows?

All of the kill scenes are done out-of-frame or off screen, so the viewer skips out on most of the violence. There’s also little to rate the special effects by, but the pool of blood was done well. There is plenty of nudity from Mayra Leal, for all of you hoping for some T & A. Otherwise, the film has very little to offer.

Overall, another weak, direct-to-DVD/Blu-ray entry into the thriller genre. It has quite a bit of nudity, which might appeal to some, but otherwise it is predictable, full of stupid characters and off-screen kills. Skip it.

3/10

The Virgin Spring (1960)

Directed by: Ingmar Bergman

Starring: Max Von Sydow, Birgitta Valberg, Gunnel Lindblom, Birgetta Pettersson

Genre: Drama, Suspense, Crime

Language: Swedish (Subtitled)

Rating: Not rated

I had been very curious about this film for a long time before I finally got to watch it. Knowing that it was the inspiration for Wes Craven’s Last House on the Left, my interest was piqued. So, the other night, after I discovered it on Netflix Instant Watch, I settled in with this well-noted classic. (*Note: I know I would normally lump this in a post with Last House and its remake, but this was never directly remade. Last House is not an official remake of The Virgin Spring.)

The story is set in Medieval Sweden following a small farming family. Karin (Pettersson) and her servant Ingeri (Lindblom) are sent off to deliver candles to the church to celebrate the Virgin Mary. On the way there, the girls have a falling out, and Ingeri stays behind while Karin goes off on her own.  A ways up the road, she comes across a small group of shepherds, and kindly invites them to share her lunch with her. During the meal, the two men attack Karin, raping her and eventually killing her. Later in the day, the men unknowingly take shelter at the home of Karin’s parents – a mistake they will soon regret.

The plot is very similar to that of the film it inspired – though this one focuses more on the characters and less on the horror aspects of the incident. This film focuses heavily on guilt – many characters feel it for different reasons throughout the film. For example, the small boy with the two older shepherds witnesses the crime and wants to tell someone – he can’t eat or sleep and becomes physically ill at the thought of what was done to this lovely girl. He even tries to cover her corpse. Several other characters are also physically and even violently affected by their guilt over the incident and what occurs afterward. The emotion is tangible in many scenes.

The film also deals heavily with religion – specifically Catholicism. Guilt is a factor often associated with Catholics (ex: the saying “Catholic Guilt.”) There is also an emphasis on virginity. There’s the celebration of the Virgin Mary. The family berates Ingeri for being pregnant out of wedlock, calling her a “disgrace” and telling her they never should have taken her in. Karin is celebrated for her purity – she is the favorite among her family. Her virginity and honor are stolen from her.

I also saw a theme of the Seven Deadly Sins within the film – most notably vanity, envy and wrath – and each person possessing this sin is punished. Karin is wearing her best clothes on her journey – wanting to look her best, and she falls victim to men who rob her of her riches, her maidenhood and her life. Ingeri’s envy of Karin is what leads to their fight and Karin going off by herself. Lastly, Karin’s father’s actions toward the end of the film are the epitome of “wrath.” 

The cinematography is beautiful, which gives the film a twisted element. The viewer is sitting there wondering how these horrible things can be done to this young woman in such a beautiful place. It reminds people that something like this could happen to anyone at any time, anywhere. The rape, while not incredibly graphic, is fairly hard to watch – it’s also more brutal than many films of that era. The sets seemed authentic and the costumes believable.

Lastly, the acting was decent. The characters of Karin, her father, and the small boy were played perfectly – you could really feel their emotions. The other actors offered decent performances, but they fell to the background in comparison.

Overall: Though it is not my typical taste in film, it is very good and lives up to its reputation as a classic. Well-shot and acted, with a lot of religious themes laced within, this is worth at least one watch for all film buffs out there.

7.5/10