Possessor.

Review #2131: Possessor.

Cast: 

Andrea Riseborough (Tasya Vos), Christopher Abbott (Colin Tate), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Girder), Sean Bean (John Parse), Rossif Sutherland (Michael Vos), Tuppence Middleton (Ava Parse), Kaniehtiio Horn (Reeta), Raoul Bhaneja (Eddie), Gage Graham-Arbuthnot (Ira Vos), Rachael Crawford (Dr. Melis), and Gabrielle Graham (Holly Bergman) Written and Directed by Brandon Cronenberg.

Review: 

“I never made a conscious decision to embrace horror specifically. It’s just where my instincts are right now. I’m making films that are honest and creative impulses. One of the things that I like about horror is that it explores parts of the spectrum of human emotion in a way that other genres don’t. That’s satisfying to me. I don’t want comfort food when I’m sitting down to watch a film. I want to be pushed into a different headspace."

Okay, to get it out of the way: like father, like son. Brandon Cronenberg was actually interested in books growing up in Toronto as the first-born son of David Cronenberg and Carolyn Zeifman. He thought about being a writer, painter, or a musician, but he soon found that film was his real interest in terms of study. As such, he studied it at Toronto Metropolitan University. He made his first feature with Antiviral (2012), a Canadian/French production that came out of his 2008 short Broken Tulips involving injecting viruses harvested from celebrities that was inspired by an infection he had when in film school. The time between that film and this one saw time spent developing the script to the latter along with doing a short film with Please Speak Continuously and Describe Your Experiences as They Come to You (2019). The idea for the film essentially came from his experiences in promoting his first film in public (and a few other things) that had him think about personal identity within public personas in the media self with its own life without oneself. 

Oh sure, you could probably say that you've seen films before that engage with acting in someone else's body, such as say, Being John Malkovich (1999). But it is a fascinating subject when in the hands of someone who clearly is interested in showing a horror far beyond just being wrapped in someone else's body: the reality that is to befall the one who ends up actually keeping control of said body when all is said and done. You have an assassin with an interesting relationship with violence (specifically when it comes to methods of choice or in general) to go with a wandering grip on reality. Oh, and there is a handful of practical effects utilized for wonderful execution. The opening sequence isn't the big highlight of the film, but it gets the film on the right foot as a testing ground for what is next to come in terms of clinical effectiveness of possession in the ideal sense of chills on the inside (complete with a tear right before a suicide by cop). It is a grisly and bleak film set in a distinct type of setting where the best assassins are left to their devices to basically serve as actors for a time in the most cynical and clinical way imaginable for the clean kill. Just like in life, the best type of actor really does endure the longest above all, I suppose. In that sense, Riseborough and Abbott have the best type of challenge possible for a film like this, since by the time we are introduced to the latter (not particularly too long into the 104-minute runtime), one is seeing a mesh of puppeteer and puppet that jumps in definition depending on who looks in control. It might feel like a bad case of phantasmagoria, but it is a very apparent nightmare for our lead focus. The most interesting sequence to show this challenge might be the "data mining" sequence involving Abbott's character that is trying to do descriptions involving drapes in the background of certain videos, which at one point involves zooming past sex. The assassins and data miners are more alike than they wish to admit when it comes to paring people down to simple data points. I also particularly like the sequence involving Riseborough trying to practice the dip back into mother and wife for a couple of (on-screen) minutes that is full of great artifice. One can only be playing with fire when it comes to how long they spend acting as someone else right before they violently kill that part off, especially when they undergo evaluation each and every time when one finishes a job (in this case to see if they still regret killing and mounting a butterfly when they were young). Leigh makes a suitable logical master of puppets, if you think about it, since one never sees a veneer of grimace at the very nature of the character besides wanting the best in a certain type of labor. Bean isn't exactly in the movie too long, but he makes the kind of craven type that would find someone to kill off as a threat just as much as he would be a target of himself. Of course, the sequence involving the melting of one's face to reveal the other when it comes to that fateful possession is a damn great one in squirm-inducing curiosity that throws you in the right loop. Regardless of what you would expect for its ending, it makes for a suitably satisfying note to close such great horror in terms of identity that has managed to find just one thing at the end of confronting attachments and logic: death. Possessor is the kind of body horror film that makes you wonder aloud just what you possess about yourself as a person and the people that you associate with in labor and beyond. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Next: Cronenberg-Cronenberg for the big 40. 

Flesh and Blood.

Review #2046: Flesh and Blood.

Cast: 

Rutger Hauer (Martin), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Agnes), Tom Burlinson (Steven), Jack Thompson (Hawkwood), Fernando Hilbeck (Arnolfini), Susan Tyrrell (Celine), Ronald Lacey (Cardinal), Brion James (Karsthans), Bruno Kirby (Orbec), Simon Andreu (Miel), John Dennis Johnston (Summer), Marina Saura (Polly), Kitty Courbois (Anna), Jake Wood (Little John), and Nancy Cartwright (Kathleen) Directed by Paul Verhoeven (#002 - RoboCop, #632 - Total Recall, #1922 - Starship Troopers)

Review: 

"The triangular relationship [of] Martin–Agnes–Steven is now the main story line, but in retrospect I think we should have stuck with Hawkwood and Martin. The failure of Flesh and Blood was a lesson for me: never again compromise on the main story line of a script."

Admittedly, it is probably easy to forget that the second phase of Paul Verhoeven's career that saw him leave his native Netherlands started with Flesh and Blood (1985). He started making films in the 1960s, with only a spell in the Royal Dutch Navy in between this, and it was his efforts in directing the television series Floris (featuring Rutger Hauer as the star) in 1969 that was set in the early 16th century during the country's Guelders Wars that took inspiration from earlier TV programs such as Ivanhoe. Business is Business (1971), his first feature, wasn't successful, but Turkish Delight (1973), featuring Hauer, still ranks among one of the most famous films made in the country. Hauer and Verhoeven would work together for three of the next four films that the latter made in the Netherlands, which included another famous film with Soldier of Orange (1977). Anyway, after 1984, Verhoeven had received offers from Hollywood to direct but was debating whether it was necessary to leave his native country. As such, he described this film as a "compromise", one that was shot in Europe that was a multi-country production with primary funding by Orion Pictures. Originally, the film was to be about the gradual disintegration of the friendship between the characters ultimately played by Hauer and Thompson. However, the producers pushed introducing a love interest within the character of Leigh that would create a love triangle (Hauer-Leigh-Burlinson), which he went with, much to later regret, although the ensuing troubled production did not help matters. Gerard Soeteman, who had developed the aforementioned Floris and had written a handful of scripts such as Turkish Delight, co-wrote the film with Verhoeven. Made on a budget of $6.5 million, an absolute shoddy promotion effort by Orion led to the film being a flop with audiences.

Wait a minute, people didn't go for this kind of film? A film set in the Middle Ages (1501) that is thrust with plenty of unwieldly characters involving swordplay and wonderful design? It might not have the most conventional of leads to follow, but who the hell cares? Granted, medieval fantasy can be one to favor in entertainment with good ol' swordplay, but with the right execution, you can lend a dose of reality to that hodgepodge, especially with Verhoeven and his approach to violence. In other words: death will happen in the Middle Ages, and it will rarely happen naturally. Well, that, and folks love God. This was the fifth and final film collaboration between Verhoeven and Hauer. During production, the two had such a disagreement with how the lead was supposed to be played that it led to a rift in which they never worked together again, because the former favored moral ambiguity while Hauer did not wish to play such a scoundrel given that he was just breaking into more mainstream features (such as The Osterman Weekend (1983), for example). While I can certainly see Hauer's point, time has clearly favored Verhoeven. The moral ambiguity that Verhoeven aims for when making a Middle Ages tale of such odd people is especially right for Hauer and his rough exterior to make a useful rogue rather than if he had tried to play it with any sort of heroic bent. He is supposed to lead this band of undesirables, and he leans into it with great conviction that is a brute through and through to the worthiest endgame. Verhoeven obviously had an interest in showing a confident woman with convictions that want to go anywhere to get their goal, as represented by Leigh. Consider how she handles her first scene where she consults her maid-in-waiting (Cartwright) about how one, well, has sex. She watches for a bit and then goes to hit her to put it to a stop. The way she deals with both Hauer and Burlinson is exquisite in its cat-and-mouse game of who ends up playing who, one who sells the act as more than a mere observer. Burlinson is undoubtedly the lesser of such a lofty triangle, but being warped by the mesh of trying to seek reason in a world that desires swift retribution does at least make for some sort of interest. I can't imagine the disappointment that could come from Thompson in going from a potential lead to basically support, but he at least makes a worthy character presence that obviously merits curiosity (I should mention his name happens to be the same as a 14th century mercenary leader). I enjoy the atmosphere of the film, because it never betrays the ambition in 126 minutes to make a suitable tale of, well, flesh and blood mixing for craven desires that deserved better marketing. The film doesn't skimp on the brutality that obviously had to happen in a time like this, and it reflects well that one enjoys the supporting cast for as long as they can. The real adversary is the ambition for the flesh to draw blood and not have it be their own, regardless of if the rich person happened to be sending someone off to do their battles for them or not. As a whole, it is a triumph of a movie in excruciating grit, one that dares to show the flesh and blood of the Middle Ages with wonderful design and devastating consistency for a brutally good time.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Annihilation.

Review #1581: Annihilation.

Cast:
Natalie Portman (Lena), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Dr. Ventress), Gina Rodriguez (Anya Thorensen), Tessa Thompson (Josie Radek), Tuva Novotny (Cassie “Cass” Sheppard), Oscar Isaac (Kane), Benedict Wong (Lomax), Sonoya Mizuno (Katie / The Humanoid), and David Gyasi (Daniel) Written and Directed by Alex Garland (#884 - Ex Machina)

Review:

"I try to figure out: What is the thing that I'm adapting? And in this instance, it was the feeling, the experience of reading the book; it was the atmosphere of the book. That was the thing that I was concerned about."

One never can hurt to find a worthy director within being a writer as well. Alex Garland fits the requirement since his first publication nearly 25 years ago. He was a graduate of the University of Manchester after studying History of Art. In 1996, his first novel was published with The Beach, based on his travels across Europe through backpack (which he described as satire against backpacking) that became a hit based on word-of-mouth praise - to the surprise of everyone, including Garland, which included a subsequent film adaptation that Garland observed its production (it was seeing the collaboration between the screenwriter, producer, and director that he felt looked like fun). Although he would write two more novels, he decided to take his interest to screenwriting with 28 Days Later (2002). He followed this up with work on Sunshine (2007) and Never Let Me Go (2010) before taking an "unorthodox collaboration" with writing Dredd (2012). Ex Machina (2014) was his first breakthrough as a director (alongside writing duties), a science fiction film achievement. One of the producers of that film (Scott Rudin) later approached Garland to read a particularly recent book named Annihilation (written in 2014 by Jeff VanderMeer), which he described as a "really strange, really quite beautiful book". It was the first of a trilogy of books called the "Southern Reach Trilogy", although Garland wrote the script when only one book had been released. He wrote it as a "memory of the book" that wanted to make a dreamlike kind of film.

What we have here is a fascinating movie that surely deserved better upon release. A dispute with the head of Skydance Media (one of the production companies behind the film) and leaders at Paramount Pictures meant that the film would have just under three weeks of release in theaters before it was readily available on Netflix to stream (a terrible decision, for those who desire cinema releases as first priority). Take one good guess why this occurred: imagine funding a science fiction film and then deciding it is "too intellectual" and "too complicated". This is literally the same major studio distributor that allowed mother! (2017) to go along unscathed without preview screenings, but here we are. One does not get the feeling of being talked down to here within its mix of science fiction and horror, this much is true. It most certainly is not too complicated to elude interest from an audience (older audiences might see an unintentional relation to Predator (1987), while most would note familiarity with H. P. Lovecraft's "The Colour Out of Space"), because it most certainly is an entertaining and useful experience in the means of human nature with self-destruction with a shimmer of terror. It isn't a film with an easily defined monster, but there is one easy detail to keep on the toes: the only thing that survives is the frightened pain of those who are taken by it, one that has turned the environment around it into something extraordinary and frightening at the same time. One works the film out on its own terms for 115 minutes with carefully planned unraveling, which makes for a wonderfully strange time to build towards pondering the means to get to its ending, for better or worse. Portman does pretty well with handling the capability of self-destructive nature around her with useful regard to the surroundings around her that isn't lost in a show of effects. Leigh keeps it carefully on-key with quiet planning for the inevitable, while Rodriguez and Thompson each do fine with building the layers of shaky chemistry between people entering the unknown with fears and interests to go alongside it all (which works mostly without a hitch). The others are fine, including Issac and his carefully constructed post-escape act between here and there. It proves efficient with visual sense to go alongside a fairly well-crafted atmosphere to inspire a few questions (mostly on the inquisitive side, although it could also prove interesting to pick at, such as its ultimate fate) that rewards those with patience to make it a worthwhile sophomore film for Garland. It wasn't a huge winner at the time of its release, but only time will tell how it does with those curious enough to look upon it somewhere in the margins for horror or sci-fi.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Jacket.

Review #1142: The Jacket.

Cast: 
Adrien Brody (Jack Starks), Keira Knightley (Jackie Price), Kris Kristofferson (Dr. Thomas Becker), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Dr. Beth Lorenson), Kelly Lynch (Jean Price), Brad Renfro (The Stranger), Daniel Craig (Rudy Mackenzie), Steven Mackintosh (Dr. Hopkins), Brendan Coyle (Damon), and Mackenzie Phillips (Nurse Hardling) Directed by John Maybury.

Review: 
The Jacket certainly has an interesting premise to it, with a story from Marc Rocco and Tom Bleecker that was turned into a screenplay written by Massy Tadjedlin. Maybury stated that the film was "loosely based a true story that became a Jack London story." The story he is referring to is the 1915 novel The Star Rover (known as The Jacket for its release in the United Kingdom), which is a novel about a man put into a canvas jacket while in prison that tightly laced his body. The description of the device were based on interviews with Ed Morrell, a convict who was subject to the device during some of his time at San Quentin State Prison in the late 19th century/early 20th century. In any case, this is a movie that certainly likes to think of itself as one step ahead of the audience, although I would like to argue that the film actually staggers along with the audience while dangling some keys in front of them. Perhaps you manage to get more out of this psychological thriller/horror film than I do, because I found this to be a pretty average experience that doesn't stand out as much as it probably should.

Brody heads the cast, and he is occasionally effective, such as with the scenes at the mental institution and the jacket sequences, certainly looking the part. However, I don't find him to be as interesting to follow along with in the other sequences in "2007", being a bit too underplayed. Knightley does alright for what is needed, but this is a movie that perhaps needs a duo a bit more interesting to follow along with, especially since their chemistry is quickly established, and yet it doesn't feel particularly convincing. Think about this - Brody's character meets her character as a kid in 1992, then "meets" her again in 2007 - and they unite to solve a mystery surrounding the former character - and then they fall in love with each other, somehow. Kristofferson doesn't have as much to do as one would expect besides a few scenes that don't make him out to be too particularly menacing. A film like this really needs someone to rally around and rally against (while presenting some sort of interesting ideas to think about), and this one doesn't have much for either. Leigh is fine, having her own subplot that comes and goes with about as much effect (read: minimal) as you would expect. The other cast comes and goes, but Craig stands out with some charm that comes through in his few scenes  The plot involving the jacket and the mystery about Brody's character are occasionally intriguing, but it seems to stick out more for its style shots than anything while trying to play some tricks with the narrative. Instead of being compelling or chilling, I felt more a tinge of passiveness that could've been worsened to boredom, especially since there seems to be a skeleton of a film that can really make a winner. By the time that the film sinks itself into a climax, my mood wasn't so much one of disappointment as it was just one of slight apathy. If I don't care too much about what happens with these people, is the film really worth it? On some levels the film works out fine, and there are a few times that it is creepy, but other times I just couldn't find myself buying into it fully. Despite being 103 minutes long, there just isn't enough effective moments that last enough to really make this something I can recommend definitively.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

eXistenZ.

Review #1127: eXistenZ.

Cast: 
Jennifer Jason Leigh (Allegra Geller), Jude Law (Ted Pikul), Ian Holm (Kiri Vinokur), Don McKellar (Yevgeny Nourish), Callum Keith Rennie (Hugo Carlaw), Sarah Polley (Merle), Christopher Eccleston (the Seminar Leader), Willem Dafoe (Gas), Robert A. Silverman (D'Arcy Nader), Oscar Hsu (Chinese Waiter), and Kris Lemche (Noel Dichter) Directed by David Cronenberg (#816 - Crimes of the Future)

Review: 
Believe it or not, this review has been delayed quite significantly by roughly a week. It was supposed to be completed before the review of Legacy of Blood. However, I found that it was easier to come up with thoughts for the plethora of reviews that have come out in the past week. I hope that this review is satisfactory to the standards that I try to have for this show. 

What does it mean to live in reality? Particularly in our day and age, where virtual reality seems more than just a pipe dream? For something like this, a science fiction body horror film, eXistenZ likes to throw questions and gooey things at its audience, and it is the ways that it plays games with its viewer that help in seeing if the film actually succeeds in telling its intriguing ideas. It's a mind-game of a movie, filled with gooey imagery and a fairly game cast willing to showcase this weird world and its situations, and it isn't hard to see why this could be considered a cult classic. For me, it borders on the line of average, but there are aspects of the film that are fairly interesting, along with parts that aren't as bright. Undeniably, the best one to shine in this film is Leigh. She has a certain energy to her that has its shares of cynicism and intrigue (such as when talking about the plot) that makes her a person worth following, which makes sense even now with how people treat creators of things that certainly spring creativity of any kind - whether in technology or some other field.

The same can't be said as much for Law. Perhaps it is the nature of the character that makes him a dry one to follow (being a PR guy) that makes him not as interesting to go along with, although Law can prove decent at times at reacting to the weirdness that this film can verge itself into. Holm and McKeller prove okay, providing the kind of support you'd expect in a situation presented like this (if that makes sense, anyway). Dafoe proves a fine highlight for the time he is on screen, being the most interesting person playing off Leigh and Law for most of the film. This is a movie where people put squid-looking things in their lower back. In an age where people like wear big headsets to experience "VR", who can judge? People certainly love the creations that invite creativity and imagination, whether it blurs the line between fantasy and reality or not, much like how a filmmaker creates the world that encompasses a movie. The film moves at a casual pace in its 97 minute run-time, having a look and feel that plays against expectation that feels welcome in a sense. Where one might expect darkness and jargon, one finds a different sort, a weird energy of events and things that has a fine cinematography from Peter Suschitzky (who had done work on films such as The Empire Strikes Back and other previous Cronenberg films such since Dead Ringers in 1988) to go with it. The ending likes to twist itself with a sort of relish for trickery and mystery, and while I'm not the biggest fan of it, I will say it ends the film without turning it into a joke.

The best way to describe the film is to imagine a philosophy lecture with a professor that happens to have goo in its presentation. For a general crowd, it could prove frustrating, particularly if one doesn't have much patience for something that is suited for examination and discussion a bit more different than a usual talk about a general movie. It certainly isn't something like Tron or The Matrix, that's for sure. But if one takes the film and looks under the surface, I think they will find something that is worth the game it wants to play with the mind.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

Review #982: Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

Cast: 
Sean Penn (Jeff Spicoli), Judge Reinhold (Brad Hamilton), Jennifer Jason Leigh (Stacy Hamilton), Robert Romanus (Mike Damone), Phoebe Cates (Linda Barrett), Brian Backer (Mark "Rat" Ratner), Amanda Wyss (Lisa), Ray Walston (Mr. Hand), Forest Whitaker (Charles Jefferson), Scott Thomson (Arnold), Vincent Schiavelli (Mr. Vargas), and Lana Clarkson (Mrs. Vargas) Directed by Amy Heckerling.

Review: 
By sheer coincidence, the 35th anniversary of the release of this film was yesterday, and it only makes sense for me to get around to doing this movie, seeing how I am so clearly the type for coming of age high school comedy films. But in any case, this is a fine movie, encased in a time capsule of its own doing that will serve as decent entertainment, mostly because of how the cast pulls itself together. This was adapted from the book Fast Times at Ridgemont High: A True Story by Cameron Crowe (a future film director), who posed as a high school student at Clairemont High School in San Diego, with the book having been published one year earlier. The movie does have raunchy elements to it (hence why it was rated R), but it isn't merely just a romp through a high school year, although the plot admittedly does not have much depth to it. It tells a story much like how one would look back at a high school yearbook, with varying success depending on the investment one has in the story told. For me, it does have enough charm and moments to push it to the finish line capably. Obviously the highlight of the film is Penn and his relatively charming stoner character that serves for some decent laugh inducing moments, complete with Vans shoes. Reinhold clearly seems like he is having fun with his role; Leigh does a fine job as well, having a charm that makes her character worth watching. Romanus and Backer have a fine chemistry with each other, being a fairly capable duo. Cates is also pretty decent, mature along with fun. Walston is enjoyable to watch in how he contrasts with all of the other characters, with him being the only adult among all of the teenagers (except for Schiavelli, though Walston has more screen-time), with his scenes opposite Penn being especially amusing. It is interesting to note that the film also features Forest Whitaker (in his second film role) along with small appearances by Eric Stoltz and even Nicholas Cage (credited under his real name of Nicholas Coppola). The soundtrack is pretty good, with "We Got the Beat" from The Go-Go's being a fine opening song (along with being catchy). It isn't a great comedy nor even an exceptional coming of age high school flick, but it is certainly an entertaining experience that stands along with other films of its ilk that soon followed in the decade, all with their own kind of flair.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.