Reviews

This was a case that gripped the nation, the unforgettable agony of the boys family as year after year, they continued to bring their search for their boy to every home in Australia through the media, it was almost too painful to watch. This film captures that mood, the tension and horror, brilliantly through the angle of the people involved in the undercover sting used to capture the culprit. Joel Edgertons character represents this same grim and relentless determination in an atmosphere of almost unbearable darkness. The details of the crime itself are barely whispered in the confession, which is a metaphor for their unspeakable nature, but also these details are not the point. It is the nature of the task, and the impact on the people committed to the task, that this film conveys. Absolutely outstanding.

Alex Garland gives us yet another variation on the sexbot theme. In his fairytale, the creator of the worlds First AI has the original idea to design....a seductive, sexy female AI. Her inferior predecessors (we see a lot of their naked, perfect bodies) were fine as sex slaves but lacked sufficient brains. Apparently, in order to make her pass the test of being a 'real' AI (of the female sort), she also has to be... manipulative. Because thats what an intelligent female is, right? She is, in fact, the archetypal Eve, seemingly innocent, leading men to their doom. She aces the test, proving her AI superiority in her female way by seducing, entrapping, and murdering males. I could riff about social media data mining and memes about male desire/fear, after all director Alex Garland wants to make a statement in his fairytale about using data mining to exploit peoples (males) weaknesses, but really, this gender stereotype (beautiful, intelligent women must be sexually manipulative and dangerous) is at least as ancient as the old testament. Kinda old. Bladerunner handled a similar AI topic with far more depth and taste.

Acting, effects, cinematography etc all impressive, but the plot....not.

hmmm, lots of people loved this film...and undoubtedly it is beautifully crafted and the acting is exceptional. The whole atmosphere draws you in with both poetry and passion, stylistically it is subtle but powerful. Yet the heart of the movie is the philosophical and spiritual meaning of the mother and daughter relationship between Gwen and Jules, and here there is a paradox which is the climax of the plot, and which the entire film depends on to work. This paradox, however is glossed over. The film would've worked better had it been confronted more clearly. As it was, it strained the credibility of the message of the film.

Gwen decides she must put her daughter's needs before all else. That's understandable, she loves her daughter, they have a deep connection, and only have each other in a sterile and insecure world where the status of women depends on their marketability and connections. Nothing groundbreaking there. To help her daughter, Gwen must take action when she loses her job.

As you watch it, ask yourself: does Gwen's decision really match her deepest values as a mother? Was there really no better alternative?

Here's the spoiler:

Gwen decides to sacrifice the one thing that her daughter needs more than anything...her own mother... So that Jules can go to an elite school. Where the other mothers are horrid, vapid things, whom Gwen clearly dislikes. Can that really be the best thing for Jules? Gwen seems despairing of the way the world is. Yet she sacrifices the most precious things in both their lives so that Jules can become the same commodity that Gwen became. WTF???

Several times the question is raised: why am I here? Why am I alive? But this question is glossed over. Gwen's best answer seems to be that she didn't know what the point of her life was until she had Jules, then Jules became the point of her life. So then she sets things up so that Jules can live the same kind of pointless life? WTF???

Gwen attempts to hide the truth from her daughter. This was the weakest point in the whole script. Presumably it was supposed to highlight Gwen's understanding that the most important thing to Jules was her relationship with her mother, the most real and secure thing she had in the world. And not let her feel guilty about her mother's sacrifice. Yet Gwen's decision destroyed this relationship. And clearly a smart, sensitive kid like Jules is going to work out pretty quickly that something is seriously wrong.

The last scenes ironically show the alternative decision that Gwen could've made. A simpler life with family rather than status giving security and meaning to life. The film asks us to believe that this option wasn't possible because the chance came too late. Well, that only works if you buy the premise that Gwen couldn't imagine that Jules could've have been happier with a working class life, even home schooled, but with her real mother.

For me this film would have had a far stronger feminist message had Gwen rejected the roles that society imposed on herself and her daughter, even if it meant being poor and old.

Major spoiler:

Finally Gwen also knowingly participated in a con that not only actively encouraged many other people, especially women, to be insecure about their aging, but amounted to being an accessory to their murder. Yet the film barely touches on this, except to emphasize the sacrifice Gwen made for her daughter. Hmmm.

This film seduces the viewer but left a nasty taste in my mouth at the end.

(only contains spoilers of a general kind)

Disturbing, intense and creepy, this film at one level is a fairly straightforward story of a man who travels to his father's homeland and discovers the skeletons in the closet. Ewen Leslie as the haunted son Isaac seeking to lay the ghost of his dad Vasili in the mountains of Greece, Martin Csokas as his corrupted brother Nico and Kodi Smit-McPhee as the face of all refugee boys everywhere all do a fine job, the cinematography, score and directing work together well to create a menacing and disorienting view of the seedier side of Europe.

At another level, this film explores the moral complexities of the refugee crisis. The curse that seems to follow Vasili's family can be interpreted as the guilt that lurks behind every decision to turn your back on another human being in desperate straits. And how easy it is to do that, given their overwhelming need, their anonymity, their foreignness, and the sometimes bald ugliness of their desperation. This film takes you unflinchingly into the heart of this "blackness" that consumed the soul of Vasili and eventually his sons, it slaps you unapologetically in the face with it. Vasili himself is a refugee, fleeing the devastation of post war Greece to Australia. Perhaps there's no guilt like that of a refugee who has left others to perish.

There's no light at the end of this film, which I think is particularly fitting because there is no easy answer to the desperation of the millions fleeing to Europe and scraping an existence in the decrepit slums and alleys of the grand old cities. Just as it has for thousands of years, the situation fosters prejudice, exploitation and cruelty on all sides. You will appreciate this film, if not enjoy it, if you are interested in what is, and always has been, one of the greatest social, moral and even spiritual challenges to the illusions of our comfortable and sheltered lives.

I picked this up because it said it was based on a true story, and I enjoy movies about the strength of human spirit in adversity. However I doubt very much it really is based on a true story, it isn't possible to find any of the supposedly true life characters, and there doesn't appear to be a Mannsfield prison (although there is a Mansfield Correctional Institute in Ohio, which houses minimum security up to death row inmates). Also this is a very low budget film, shot in 14 days with some fairly amateur acting, and a very patchy soundtrack. ALL THAT SAID it is still a very entertaining story, you really want these guys to support each other and find their own justice. There is a gritty realism to the story that is more satisfying than many, the characters are strong and believable and the dialogue is mostly good. I particularly enjoyed the "boardroom scene" which allowed the characters to build on the strength of the friendship that brought them through their torture, and to discover an indomitable self worth. I've recommended this movie to my friends.

I don't mind found footage or low budget movies as long as they're not predictable, boring and plot less. I kept waiting for this movie to surprise, scare or disturb but I just kept waiting right up to the credits. The husband Kyle was annoying, he didn't react to any of the strange events but just played frustrated and distant. The wife Rachel's friends didn't even seem to notice her weird behaviour. The midwife was so non reactive that I half expected her to turn out to be an evil accomplice of the demon ala the nanny in Damien (the Omen sequel), would've been a good plot twist if she did. But no, she was just dumb. It seemed extremely implausible that this couple would attempt a home birth under the circumstances. The only thing I thought the movie did well was to have interviews with the production crew of the fictitious documentary. Because they were actually creeped-out. This was the sort of movie that you wish they had done so many things differently, small changes would've made it much better. E.g. Kyle being really scared just once would've made the whole thing much scarier. I really wouldn't bother.

This could have been a great film. With such an outstanding cast, and potentially intriguing plot, but unfortunately it is just stupid. I really wanted to like it, but I struggled to like anything about it. The script was banal and the topic poorly researched. Someone was just plain lazy putting the story together. Here are some examples that really irritated me.

Dr Matheson (Sigourney Weaver) is a psychologist who researches and debunks paranormal phenomena, in particular exposing frauds. Yet inexplicably she chooses not to investigate Simon Silver (Robert De Niro). Why? Because she has been riddled with guilt morning til night for 30 years after he made her DOUBT for a second. What??? What is wrong with a skeptic having doubts? Skeptics should have doubts, or at least be open to the possibility of having doubts. Scientists are supposed to ask questions and objectively seek evidence. You can't be objective if you have already made up your mind. Surely her momentary doubt should motivate her to investigate more thoroughly?

That brings me to the second problem. The head of the Scientific Paranormal Research Centre, Dr Shackleton, prior to running his experiments states publicly that he expects to find proof of Silver's powers. Not objective. And Silver himself gets to approve the team of investigators. Not objective. These are serious flaws in the design of a scientific experiment, which is supposed to be free from bias and where the researchers need to be independent of the subjects. Even the media, let alone scientists, would reject this "experiment" as just hype for lack of objectivity and independence.

Third irritation. Basic research would show that psychics are not a grab-bag of special powers. They claim to specialise in particular areas. But Silver bends spoons and performs psychic surgery and projects thoughts onto photographs and reads minds and levitates and moves objects. That's like making an Olympic athlete run, jump, throw javelin, swim, ski and shoot. De Niro's character would've been so much more credible had it actually resembled the behaviour of real life "psychics". Obviously films have licence to stretch the truth, especially with this kind of subject matter, but it still needs to be believable or it just doesn't work.

Finally, the twist at the end that apparently no-one sees coming. Could've worked, but handled very clumsily. Really just a poor copy of the ending of the Sixth Sense. By the time you get to the end you're expecting a twist of some kind, but at that point I didn't care enough to try to work out what it was.

Sigourney Weaver is the only reason I'm giving it 3/10. De Niro just looks silly.

you will have noticed from the deeply divided opinions of other reviewers that this is not a straight forward action thriller, horror or sci fi film, and clearly doesn't appeal to everyone. But if you don't expect it be a formulaic sexy scream fest, you might appreciate it for what it is. It is a very atmospheric film, filled with beautiful images initially of disturbing and strange events, cleverly designed to both seduce and unnerve you, just as the alien (Johansson)seduces her victims, and then later to portray the slow and unexpected awakening of her alien senses to the human world as she appears to be seduced by the frailty, warmth, compassion and emotion of the humans around her. But just as her victims meet a sticky end through their seduction by the alien, so too does the alien through her seduction by the human world. Johansson is brilliant and gorgeous as always, and the soundtrack is particularly effective, evoking a sense of understated menace. Indeed, the film relies on the soundtrack and the stunning cinematography to provide much of the emotional depth as the alien herself shows little emotion. In my opinion, this film succeeds very well and was compelling and satisfying to watch. Perhaps the only niggle is the occasional indecipherable Scottish accent but the important dialogue is clear.

no-one does dry, self-deprecating ironic humour like the kiwis. Its a unique blend of taking oneself too seriously, trying to be cool in very awkward, self-conscious way (because its not cool to try to be cool)resulting in apparently accidental absurdity known as "being a dick". A vampire mockumentary is a brilliant vehicle for this kind of humour, as vampires are supposed to have an undead, hypnotic kind of glamour which can easily be camped up without seeming to do so deliberately. The scenes where the vamps are trying to decide what to wear for a night on the town without being able to see their own reflection is a perfect example of this. This comic ethos also explains why mortal Stu is so popular with the vamps...he's very cool because he's not trying to be cool at all to the point of having no personality. Ironically he's a total nerd.

Flight of the Conchords' Jemaine Clement (as Vladislav the Poker)and Rhys Darby (as the leader of the werewolves) steal every scene they're in. Rhys' attempts to prepare the werewolves for their monthly transformation without losing their trousers whilst facing off with the jeering vampires results in side splitting chaos. The zombies and the cops are also priceless.

Watch this on DVD because you'll want to replay these scenes. And don't miss the feature Interviews.

although made in '82, this movie is an adaption of a '78 novel by horror novelist and Hollywood screenwriter Frank De Felitta, in turn based on an allegedly true story centering on events occurring in the mid '70's involving a woman called Doris Bither. Barbara Hershey does well as the victim Carla, and the acting overall is fine. Apparently Martin Scorsese found the movie very scary, but I found the shenanigans of the psychiatrist and the parapsychologists strange and amusing enough to detract from the frights. I can accept that back in the '70s, psychiatrists were more Freudian, domineering and intrusive in the lives of their patients than now, but the scene where the good Dr is shouting in the face of a traumatised rape victim about facing the abuse in her childhood made me cringe. But its the antics of the team of parapsychologists towards the end that really stretches credibility.

Without giving away too much, the idea behind their experiment was interesting, but was handled poorly. Even in the '70's, ethical approval must be obtained from universities before experiments can be conducted, especially when exposing vulnerable people to very dangerous situations. Not to mention applications for funding this very elaborate experiment. All this takes months, and anyway an experiment of this nature would simply never be allowed. Presumably this experiment was in the novel, but there's no way it's part of the "true" story of Doris. It would've been more effective and credible if they had scaled the experiment down and conducted it in Carla's home...if you watch the movie you'll see what I mean!

Overall the movie would also have worked better by expanding more on the poltergeist phenomena by going further into Carla's history and the history of her house(which according to the "true" story had a reputation of being haunted). Without the over-the-top finale, and with a less irritating soundtrack, I would've rated the movie an 8.