kim_smoltz Reviews

The Lodge (2019)

Bring a warm blanket or a sweatshirt

[7/10 · 6 November 2019]

I attended the east coast premiere of "The Lodge" a few weeks ago and can say it will most likely be 2020's most polarizing and divisive horror release.

If you've seen Franz & Fiala's last film, "Goodnight Mommy," you'll have an idea of what to expect in terms of tone and themes. The cinematography is breathtaking, and Riley Keough's performance is unbelievable. Like "Mommy" the central characters are two siblings who are up against some sort of unknown/unstable maternal presence while existing in isolation. Instead of a vast, lonely European farm, "The Lodge" features exactly what the title suggests -- a mountain lodge in the middle of nowhere. It's so well done that you can almost feel the icy frost in the theater as the film progresses.

Franz & Fiala take a lot of cues from Ari Aster, ESPECIALLY "Midsommar," in depicting sudden tragedy and brutal, existential grief that consistently drips off the screen. Additionally, there are underlying themes of mental illness and psychosis that are done really well and tactfully -- although I might add it may not seem so at first. Sorry if that's cryptic, I just don't want to give any spoilers. The ending will knock you on your ass. I couldn't move after the screening, I was frozen for half the credit roll, and couldn't stop thinking about it for days.

I highly recommend "The Lodge" for fans of Aster's work, or if you liked "Goodnight Mommy" and want more of the same slow-burn insanity.

The Villainess (2017)

Stylish, bloody, emotional, and unique -- with a few flaws

[8/10 · 16 September 2019]

"The Villainess" is an ambitious film, gathering influences from several established genres and styles including Scorsese-like gangster, Fast and Furious style car chases, classic femme fatale, Takashi Miike-style hack and slash, and revenge thriller. Director Jung Byung-gil wraps all of these into a tightly-knit ball, signs it with his own name, and delightfully throws it at the audience. It explodes with confetti and blood, and everybody cheers.

Sook-hee (Kim Ok-bin) is a professional assassin, trained from a young age, who has spent her life tracking down her father's killer. After a rampage, she is captured by South Korean intelligence, who recruits her as an asset. From there, the tension increases, and the mystery becomes more and more complex.

The cinematography is astounding and uses frequent color contrasts, quick panning, and three staggering long cuts (one of which is the opening scene, which digs its claws into the audience, demanding their attention for the rest of the film). These long cuts are shot in a way that is reminiscent of an action video game, kind of like a supercharged version of Gus Van Sant's direction in his "Death Trilogy." Each of them showcase the protagonist's rage, and the incredible direction of the sequences shows valuable insight into her mind.

The story is also very engrossing, and keeps the attention of the audience for its 120+ minute runtime. The film relies heavily on flashbacks of Sook-hee's life, and these flashbacks are blended into present-day in a way that resembles transient thought -- as if one is thinking about the past while living in the present. For example, most flashbacks occur suddenly and without warning, often within the same cut while using a great visual transition. The editing in these sequences is superb.

While Act 1 of the film is nearly perfect, Act 2 is a marked departure from the action-packed sequences of the first part of the film. Impressively, the cinematography changes to mostly classical Hollywood style with medium close-ups and simple art direction / mis-en-scene. It matches nicely with the tone of the second act, and Jung (the director) really knows what he's doing. The flashbacks continue, but unfortunately are far less clear in Act 2 -- they are still presented in the same "transient" format, but their content is much more important to the plot. While it sounds like a good idea to keep up consistency, the developments in Sook-hee's history become muddled and difficult to understand. I feel like the flashbacks in Act 2 should have been compiled together and left as one long sequence; it may have even fit nicely with the "calmer" atmosphere of Act 2.

Act 3 heavily draws on the themes introduced in Act 2's flashbacks, and therefore the comprehension of the film begins to slowly bleed out. While the resolution of the film is clear, it is difficult to fully appreciate it because of what went wrong in Act 2. The director clearly knows how to craft a film, but I feel like his choices in depicting flashbacks may have been a mistake in some parts of the film.

I think that the film deserves a second watch -- after knowing the resolution and ending, Act 2's flashbacks may become more clear. But for a first-time viewer, be aware that you may have to pay really close attention once the film "calms down" a bit.

Despite all that, "The Villainess" is an excellent and rare thriller that should've received a much wider release. Overall, I loved it, and can't wait to see it again.

Cam (2018)

Unique blend of techno-thriller, erotica, and existential terror

[8/10 · 16 September 2019]

Like a 94 minute Black Mirror episode, "Cam" whips its audience through a fast-paced roller-coaster of technological terror that will be undoubtedly appreciated by any fans of that show, plus films like "Unfriended" and "Searching."

Alice (Madeline Brewer), who goes by the name of Lola, is a full-time cam girl who is desperately trying to break into the Top 50 category on the website she uses. Despite this obsessive goal, she's got her personal rules and abides by them steadfastly, which ultimately hinders her ability to climb the ranks. She also has a family -- a mom and a younger brother, from whom she hides her high-income job. One day, she finds herself locked out of her account, replaced by an identical version of herself who is willing to do everything Alice isn't...and more. We get to watch as Alice desperately attempts to save her own identity, tracking down the source of the hack, while an unbearable amount of existential terror mounts in her head.

Daniel Goldhaber (in his directorial debut) is a powerhouse, and he is absolutely a name to watch in the future. The film is also written by Isa Mazzei (also her feature debut), partially inspired by her own experience as a cam girl. The two of them are seemingly unstoppable and are able to execute a mystery thriller in a manner you would not expect from two freshmen. The editing is tight and quick, jumping back and forth from "Unfriended" style computer shots to traditional shots. The lighting is incredible and meticulously designed for every scene, making heavy use of lush, blended colors Finally, the score of the film is mostly electronic -- ranging from rich soundscapes (a la Tangerine Dream) to upbeat and daunting. It is present throughout the entire film, enclosing it in a snare of suspense and dread. This film is flawlessly produced and everyone who worked on it deserves a round of applause.

Madeline Brewer (The Handmaid's Tale, Orange is the New Black) delivers a fantastic performance. She is the only actor who is heavily featured in the film; all other characters are support roles. Brewer steals the show and was an absolute perfect actress to fill the role of Alice.

While Acts 1 and 2 of "Cam" are almost perfect, Act 3 veers off into a different direction and introduces some surrealism that kind of clashes with the plot devices that have already been set up. The final act, plus the ending, is undoubtedly polarizing. For me, it was somewhat disappointing, but seems to culminate in a critique of cam culture and the malevolent "forces" behind the websites. It's difficult to explain this without spoiling the ending, but it does offer a healthy dose of surrealism which definitely throws the film off-balance. If Act 3 was set up in a different manner, this would be an easy 9/10, but I had to take a star away. Despite this, the film overall lands on its feet, and is probably still the best techno-thriller I have ever seen. It's probably worth a second watch to see if anything else can be pulled out of the cryptic ending.

Overall, Goldhaber and Mazzei have delivered a fascinating and unique film that pushes new boundaries while engaging in the emerging techno-thriller trend. I absolutely recommend it to anyone who thinks they can handle it.

Long Day's Journey Into Night (2018)

Truly dazzling and unforgettable, yet lacking in plot delivery

[7/10 · 3 June 2019]

"Long Day's Journey Into Night" is a dazzling and captivating look into the mind of one man's obsession with a woman who disappeared inexplicably from his life several years ago, and his odyssey to uncover her current location. As China's most financially successful arthouse release in history, foreign audiences will be equally captivated by this admittedly strange film's humanity, surrealism, and bizarre familiarity.

I first came to hear of this film after reading the extraordinary hype around its cinematography, which features a staggering 55-minute long cut that continues until the end of the film. Let me be abundantly clear that every ounce of this hype is deserved; perhaps even an understatement.

"Long Day's Journey" is quite possibly the most aesthetically beautiful film I've ever seen. If not, it is certainly in the top five. Nearly every single frame of this film looks like it could belong in an art museum. It is shot impeccably, without error, for its entire 133 minute runtime. The cinematographers -- of which there are three -- heavily rely on color contrast, distortion in the shape of oscillating water, gorgeous close-ups, and slow dollying. It attaches itself effortlessly to the film's dreamlike tone, like two perfect jigsaw pieces. It's a platitude, I know -- but it has to be seen to be believed. If there's any justice in the world, "Long Day's Journey" will be shown in college cinematography classes around the world for decades to come.

The film jumps back and forth from present day to roughly 20 years prior, when our protagonist Luo Hongwu (Huang Jue) was spending time with his since long-lost love, Wan Qiwen (Tang Wei). The cuts that change time periods are not always recognizable, and the overall delivery of the plot is muddled at times. I think that these subtle cuts were an intentional decision by the director, Bi Gan, to preserve a sense of dreamlike continuity that works in favor of the film's tone. Unfortunately, it messed with the overall comprehension of the plot -- at times it was unclear if the action on-screen was supposed to be occuring in present day, or in the past. About 30 minutes into the film, I noticed that Hongwu's facial hair was slightly different depending on the time frame; once I figured this out, the unclear timeline wasn't a huge issue for me. At the same time, I can completely understand why some would be utterly baffled by the film because of this. The two poor people who sat behind me never figured it out, frequently making comments about how confused they were, and I can't blame them.

But at the same time, "Long Day's Journey" isn't truly about the plot. It's about a man's mind, and the feelings of beauty, pain, darkness, and light that comes with the notion of loving someone you should've moved on from a decade ago. In a way, the cinematography and the fantastic score are the true "directors" of the film, and bring these themes to life even more than the plot itself.

The final 55 minutes of the film -- the long cut I mentioned earlier -- is a clear break from the rest of the film; an "epilogue" if you will. It is entirely surreal, perhaps even nonsensical, and heavily alludes to themes and symbolism from the first 90ish minutes...similar to a dream you might have about the day you just lived through. The ending of the film is ambiguous and open to interpretation, like all dreams are. To that end, if I had to describe the entire film in one word, it would certainly be "dreamlike."

This isn't a film for everybody, and that's okay. If you're turned off by nonlinear storytelling, "Long Day's Journey" won't do you any favors; it's not nearly as cohesive and accessible as other films that use the same format. However, I'd reckon that even if you had a difficult time understanding the plot, the overall tone and cinematography will guide you through the rest of the film. If you leave with nothing else, you'll have seen one of the most visually beautiful films of all time.

Take it to the bank, you'll see this film in the running for Best Foreign Film at the Oscars next year.

Aniara (2018)

Disjointed and tiresome (mild spoilers)

[3/10 · 23 May 2019]

Contains mild spoilers.

"Aniara" is an ambitious film project that attempts to bring Harry Martinson's eponymous poem to life on the big screen. At an unknown point in the future (likely several hundred years), Earth is no longer hospitable due to climate change, and humans have begun full colonization of Mars in an attempt to escape inevitable extinction. The method of transportation is a 3-week "space cruise" on the luxury craft Aniara. Sadly, the ship is knocked off course and is doomed to drift indefinitely until the ship runs into a celestial body, at which point they hope to use gravity to slingshot the ship back into orbit.

Full disclosure: I have not read Martinson's poem, or had even heard of it until this film was released. I am going to review this film solely on its own merits. Unfortunately, my work is cut out for me.

The plot is undeniably intriguing, especially to the sci-fi fan, or the dystopian future buffs. As it so happens, I fall into both categories, and I was really excited to see how this extremely limited release film would capture my attention.

80% of "Aniara" did the exact opposite of this, due to a few reasons. The most thrilling moment in this film is when the captain announces that the ship has gone off course, which is met with an audible gasp by the passengers. You can watch that in the trailer. After that, things sort of return to normal. People play mini golf, drink at trendy clubs, shop for suits, and have sex with each other. This served to completely remove me from the claustrophobic themes that are supposed to be present. In the very few scenes where people are shown to be in physical danger or in existential panic, things are resolved neatly and quickly, again cheapening the experience.

The film is divided into chapters (think Lars von Trier) that skip ahead several years each, and we are supposed to fill in the blanks of what goes on in between chapters. There are very few (maybe four?) main characters, whose story arcs are cheapened due to lack of character development caused by these giant jumps in time. I'm a fan of dividing films into chapters, but when it is a choice made at the expense of character and plot development, it falls on its face. This is made worse by the fact that the key interpersonal relationship in the film -- Mimaroben (Emelie Jonsson) and Isagel (Bianca Cruzeiro) -- seems to blossom without the audience giving a chance to learn about the characters. There is supposed to be a strong emotional impact based on this relationship, but I couldn't feel a thing because I knew next to nothing about them. There were so many moments in the film I wished I could rewind to a scene they never shot. I can't tell whether the characters are stale and one-dimensional, or if this was just a massive blunder on the directors' part.

More themes are introduced in each chapter, seemingly out of nowhere:

The most brazen example is a bizarre and completely unnecessary ritualistic orgy scene (pretty much ripped from Stanley Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut") that is never explained or mentioned again. Speaking of graphic sex and nudity, there's a ton of it, and none of it seemed to be relevant or necessary. It seemed to be shoe-horned in for a bit of eye candy, which is just annoying and stale to me.

Another great example is the idea of running out of food -- it's mentioned early on that eventually the passengers will need to survive solely on algae (yes, algae), and they recruit passengers to work on the algae farms, but there is no depiction of panic from running out of actual food. The movie just goes on, business as usual. Wouldn't that be a good thing to focus on in this movie that is supposedly supposed to be about a space disaster?

Yet another example is how an AI entity on board suddenly goes rogue for no reason, takes on a speaking personality, and then is shut down because it's malfunctioning. It's just never explained or mentioned again.

I could legitimately go on with several more examples, but you get the picture.

I hate when I start waiting for a film to end, but that's what happened to me and "Aniara." Eventually I just checked out. There are a bunch of quality sci-fi disaster films that deal with isolation, existentialism, and claustrophobia in a much better manner. You can skip this one.

Escape Room (I) (2019)

An impossibly frustrating mess of a movie

[4/10 · 8 May 2019]

Some may call this movie a "roller coaster ride," and I would be inclined to agree with that, but in a far different context -- instead of it being a case of a film taking me on exciting twists and turns on a fast paced level, it was my overall enjoyment of the film that took so many sharp turns. In the end, it just left me with a massive headache.

Let me get right into this: the writing in this movie is excruciatingly awful. It was the first thing that immediately caught my attention in the first ten minutes, and it almost made me want to turn the movie off. Not only is the dialogue abominable and awkward, the screenplay just makes me want to scream. We all expected "Escape Room" to be an updated and remastered version of "Cube" (1997), yes. The screenplay tries to achieve this and then shoots for the moon by trying to include "Final Destination" type mythology in the final thirty minutes. It fails spectacularly, and the ending of the film is simply incomprehensible.

There are plot holes so huge, you'd think there were several pages missing in random locations of the final screenplay and they just decided to go ahead with filming anyway. Remember the episode of "The Simpsons" when the popcorn truck hits the giant pothole and all the popcorn erupts over the street? Yeah. Reminds me of the writing in this film.

In most scenes, the acting doesn't mitigate any of the horrible dialogue. There are a few exceptions due to solid performances by Deborah Ann Woll and Danny Khan. They brought enough to the table to give their own brand of life and personality to their characters; for the rest of the cast, their acting ranged from average to borderline dismal, rendering their characters stale and at the mercy of the terrible screenplay.

Despite all of this, the film succeeds in having fun while we are locked in the rooms (which thankfully make up almost the entire movie). I'd be lying if I said I wasn't enjoying myself during most of these sequences. The danger is real, but instead of relying on "Saw" type threats that end with maximum torture and bloodshed, the deaths in "Escape Room" are tamer and yet just as (or more) effective. There are some really suspenseful moments that are directed well -- not enough of them -- but they are there. If you can ignore the terrible writing (as I tried to do), it's easy to have fun with the movie during the bulk of it. Plus the cinematography is really solid, and for two of the rooms, is absolutely genius. The production design is also great across the board, and enhanced the level of fun.

So this is what I mean when I say there were moments that had me rethinking my overall thoughts on the movie. "Wow, this is getting much better now!" is swiftly replaced with "This is excruciatingly awful," and it went back and forth like a ping-pong ball. When the atrocious ending sequence begins, everything just goes out the window, and the rest of the movie is pretty much spoiled. I envision the screenwriter finishing the last page and then just throwing everything into the air.

It's impossibly frustrating, as impossible as some of the puzzles depicted in the movie. "Escape Room" could've been great. As a wide release PG-13 horror thriller, it could have been "Cube" for Generation Z. The production team was clearly capable of it.

But it wasn't. So go rewatch "Cube" instead of this.

Climax (I) (2018)

Bonkers

[9/10 · 9 March 2019]

"Climax" is less of a film than it is a visceral experience, and that will immediately turn off a good population of moviegoers who will invariable dismiss it as "artsy garbage." If you're one of these people who can't stand films made by "artsy" directors, what are you even doing going to see a Gaspar Noé movie?

But whew. If you appreciate film or dance, you are going to be blown away by this masterpiece. This is "Step Up" on crack cocaine.

A group of young people who subscribe to an underground dance culture meet for a three-day weekend of intense rehearsal. On the final night, during their closing party, someone spikes the sangria, and well....best not to say much more.

The first 45-60 minutes of the film are made up of impeccably choreographed dance sequences that had my eyes glued to the screen like I had just rail-lined a bunch of Ritalin. Some may call this "boring" but I found it to be electrifying and mesmerizing. The music in the film is constant, like you're watching it in a nightclub instead of a theater. Electronic powerhouses such as Thomas Bangalter, Giorgio Moroder, and Aphex Twin contribute to the dazzling soundtrack. After the first dance sequence, which lasts about 10-15 minutes, I wanted to stand up and applaud. Then I forgot that I was in a movie theater.

I especially enjoyed the cast of characters, which reminded me so much of my days doing musical theater in high school. If you've done performing arts in either high school or college, you will appreciate "Climax" on an entirely different level. The awkward politics of being in such a troupe come out in full force -- while everyone is generally nice to one another, rivalries and furious envy exist in the shadows, in addition to cutthroat attitudes and the occasional best friend / power couple dynamic. When things go wrong after the sangria is spiked, these politics are blown up into a larger than life spectacle. It was a neurotic joy to watch unfold.

And boy do things get wild. The key theme once the action begins is pure, unadulterated panic. Gaspar Noé's trademark direction brings us back to the chaotic, irregularly lit sequences seen in "Irreversible." The action is so dense. Some keep dancing. Some commit acts of violence. Some have passionate sex on the dance floor. Your eyes and senses are overwhelmed and you have no idea where to look, until a fast camera pan takes you to a completely different part of the room.

Speaking of which, the cinematography is top notch (although that's a running theme in Noé's repertoire). You've got all kinds of shots here -- dutch angles, long cuts that contribute to the chaos, even slow inversions that make you feel as if you are in a fun house at the Jersey Shore. It's incredibly disorienting, nauseating, and a whole lot of fun.

While watching, I also noticed a lot of similarities to Aronofsky's "Black Swan." If you enjoyed that one, definitely check out "Climax."

The ending of the film seems less complete than it should, but it's really no big deal, and does not spoil or ruin the rest of the film.

This is one roller coaster I'd happily ride again, and I'd say it is destined to become a midnight cult classic. Keep on dancing.

Sorry to Bother You (2018)

A uniquely American portrait of personal success amidst the flimsy morals of capitalism

[7/10 · 23 February 2019]

Hilarious, bizarre, and endearing, "Sorry to Bother You" is one of the most unique films I've seen in years.

Cassius 'Cash' Green (Lakeith Stanfield) is broke, unemployed, living in a garage, and four months behind on rent. He's got an ultra left-wing girlfriend named Detroit (Tessa Thompson) who is an experimental visual artist. When given the opportunity to start a grunt career at a telemarketing company, Cash exceeds all expectations and begins to climb the ladders to the elite telemarketing world. And that's where things get weird. Really weird.

This is Oakland, California -- but not the Oakland (or the United States) that we know. Early in the film, it's established that this is somewhat of a parallel universe, a surreal and exaggerated version of our current country. This "distant but nearby" environment carries through the film and only gets stronger and more in-your-face, in a surrealist way that almost reminds me of a Tim & Eric sketch. For example, the hottest show on television is a reality show called "I Got the Sh@t Kicked Out of Me," where people are literally beaten for comic effect.

There is a whole lot to unpack in "Sorry to Bother You." The very relevant American sociopolitical theme is front and center, and the plot revolves around unfair labor practices (although "unfair" would be putting it lightly), protests, left-wing resistance, and the complete inefficiency of the U.S. legislature. These familiar issues are then blown up to larger-than-life proportions -- and both hilarity and horror ensues. "Sorry to Bother You" asks relevant and difficult questions; as a disenfranchised person, how far will you go in your career despite your moral compass? How much dirty capitalism can you withstand? How much money is worth being a part of something that disgusts you?

This is a black comedy, but it's super fun and over-the-top, never losing sight of its razor-sharp wit. There are some scenes that border on upsetting, but this isn't "Dogtooth," so if you're not into black comedies normally, it's still something worth checking out. If you're a fan of dry, surrealist humor, are into left-wing politics, or just fed up with the banality of your work life -- do yourself a favor and watch this movie.

Nothing else should be discussed in a review for this movie. I'll leave the rest for your viewing pleasure. Enjoy the ride!

Kidnapped (2010)

A far above-average home invasion thriller

[7/10 · 25 January 2019]

I consider a home invasion to be one of the most paralyzing fears existing in the dark recesses of our minds. I'm not the quiet family type either, but the mere idea of it has always made me deeply uncomfortable.

In "Kidnapped," director Miguel Angel Vivas has succeeded in bringing the horror, confusion, and chaos into full lens view of what this may look like for a well-to-do and quiet family unit. Once the stage is set and hell breaks loose, the underlying theme of this film is head-spinningly chaotic.

The film follows the archetype of many of its genre predecessors: a perfectly normal (if not mundane) opening, initial chaos, breakdown of the plan amongst its instigators, and a fitting climax. If you've already seen a bunch of similar movies and are sick to death of the formula, you can skip "Kidnapped." I'm comfortable saying you wouldn't enjoy it.

But if you are like me, and are overcome at the deeply horrifying notion of the home invasion, and you are intrigued at the ways artists bring this to the screen -- you will find something much deeper, genuine, and unsettling about this movie than in your previous pursuits.

The winning ingredient is Vivas's seamless direction, weaving an excessively intense story over twelve long cuts (no "A" and "B" cam here, folks). It contributes to an almost voyeuristic nature that the film harbors, in which you are attracted to something horrifying you are seeing with your own eyes, and cannot look away. Because of these long shots, the acting is often sustained over periods of several minutes, delivering what true and uninterrupted fear and shock may look like in this scenario. Action sometimes happens only intermittently; for example, scenes of extended quiet sobbing are ferociously punctuated by a gunshot or a threat, in a way that constantly demands the audience's attention. The cinematography, editing, and score are up to par with Vivas's vision, and rope everything together to create scenes of unbearable tension.

As far as home invasion films go, "Kidnapped" may be the most flawlessly produced film in its genre.

Unfortunately, I found the final fifteen minutes of the film to descend into a level of violence and absurdity that does not match with the rest of the film's style. The false ending and subsequent conclusion ended the film on a gimmicky platform that left a bad taste in my mouth. To explain fully, I would need to give away the ending -- but hopefully you'll see what I mean.

To the genre fan, the sloppy ending should not deter you from seeing "Kidnapped." This is an overall captivating movie, and should absolutely be on your radar.

A quick note -- seek out the Spanish-language version of this film. In order for the director's vision to shine through, you need the original dialogue. The English-version dub is awful and will take away from your viewing experience.

Bird Box (2018)

Solid post-apocalyptic tale brought to life by Susanne Bier

[7/10 · 2 January 2019]

In a very polarizing genre, where most films seem to be hit or miss, Susanne Bier has delivered a solid post-apocalyptic offering in "Bird Box." While the source material may be somewhat stale, Bier is able to weave a convincing web of dread, danger, and suspense to keep us on our toes. A strong ensemble cast fills in the rest.

I haven't read Josh Malerman's novel (released in 2014), but this particular tale of the end times -- in which people start dying inexplicably by suicide -- has been seen before, perhaps most notably in M. Night Shymalan's "The Happening" (2008). To bring a fresh film adaptation of "Bird Box" to the table is therefore an ambitious project, but director Susanne Bier has really hit all the marks with this one. Maybe we can all forget that "The Happening," er, happened? Because this is just a far superior film all-around.

"Bird Box" is presented in the familiar flashback format. In present day, we have Malorie (Sandra Bullock) desperately escorting two children down a dangerous river; in flashbacks, we learn of the events of the past five years. Like a lot of post-apocalyptic films, there are lots of questions, and not too many answers. But the audience is thrown enough of a bone to satisfy our natural curiosities -- we see the breakdown of society in some very harrowing sequences, which leads way to a cast of characters being isolated together in one household in a southern California neighborhood. Bier takes enough time to foster just enough character development to make things interesting without venturing into "filler" territory -- and this is supported by strong acting from Bullock, Malkovich, Howery, and others. While the unknown apocalyptic force is referred to as a "creature" or "creatures," none of this is seen, and there is little if any evidence to prove the exact nature of the threat. Some people seem to be immune, or even attracted to this dark force. To my disappointment, this particular concept is never really fleshed out in the film, and seems to almost be a forgotten subplot. Nevertheless, it adds mystery and tension, and ultimately ends up working in the film's favor.

Once the flashbacks end and the film enters its climax, it starts to lose a little bit of steam. There are a few sequences towards the end that reminded me of a bad episode of "Lost," and the ending itself is underwhelming if a little bit contrived. Like I said, the source material doesn't seem to be groundbreaking -- but director Susanne Bier has done some really admirable work with what she was given, and was able to successfully bring this story to life on screen.

All-in-all, it's a great effort, and I'm excited to see what she does next. We'll all probably end up remembering "Bird Box" for the memes it has inspired over it's actual substance, but it's a solid film, and absolutely worth watching on Netflix.

Satan's Slaves (2017)

Direction falls short, however a high-production value and solid acting makes it worth seeking out for the genre fan

[6/10 · 7 September 2018]

Indonesian cult filmmaker Joko Anwar's fourth directorial feature is a myriad of horror elements delightfully wrapped up in a neat little package, sure to please the occult horror audience. Rini (Tara Basro) is a young woman living with her father and terminally ill mother in the removed suburbs of Jakarta, along with her three younger brothers. Due to Mother's (Ayu Laksmi) lengthy treatment, the family has fallen on hard times, with much of the burden falling on Rini and Father (Bront Palarae). Upon the death of Mother, strange occurrences and apparitions appear in the family home, prompting a film noir style investigation into the family's history with the occult.

If this sounds like Ari Aster's recent effort "Hereditary" (2018), that's because it really is a similar movie. It also blends in a healthy dose of atmospheric suspense, brought to life by cinematographer Ical Tanjung, who expertly knows his way around lighting. To that end, "Satan's Slaves" will be very much enjoyed by those who liked "The Conjuring" (2013) and "The Woman in Black" (2011); the theme of a gothic-style maternal figure coming back to haunt the living is the film's principle set-up, and much of the film's true terror comes from the grotesque depiction of Mother's spirit. In addition, mysterious cult-like home invaders made me think of "You're Next" (2011) and -- far more obviously -- "The Void" (2016).

Despite the high production value of "Satan's Slaves," Anwar's direction falls short, never quite hitting the mark of enough originality to warrant close attention. The premise of the film is by no standards original, and much has been borrowed without giving the audience something fresh. I found the film to often trip up over its own influences and drag along often, with many scenes of dialogue losing the suspense momentum that the rest of the film steadily builds up. In addition, despite the overall strong acting from the entire cast, scenes where Rini and her brothers expressed fear seemed forced and awkward. Palarae's excellent performance as the protective father never disappoints, and is perhaps the strongest actor in the film.

While the film's North American distribution status remains to be seen, if it does make its way stateside, I'd recommend seeking it out for fans of the type of horror shown in the films mentioned in this review. It's far from an original effort, but it's made well, and there are a few scenes that will certainly cause your head to turn away from the screen.

*Screened at Philadelphia Unnamed Film Festival 2018.

Love (II) (2015)

Well-made project but ends up tripping over its own interpretation of reality.

[6/10 · 16 July 2018]

Overly ambitious project about a millennial love arc that ends in heartbreak, but what are the lessons learned? Murphy (Karl Glusman) is an open-minded film student in Paris who meets Elektra (Aomi Muyock), and the two embrace their high sex drives with giddyness. However, after the relationship embraces polyamory and swingers culture, only one of the two is emotionally stable enough to handle it.

The film is directed really well by Noé, who by now should know well enough how to make it all super claustrophobic and uncomfortable for the viewer. The cinematography is good but relies too heavily on saturation but it's never really an issue. Nonlinear storytelling is clear, concise, and there's some really neat editing at parts. The story does drag often, and the film overall could've cut out 10-15 minutes of filler.

The real issue with "Love" is the lack of chemistry between Murphy and Elektra -- we just don't see it, pretty much ever. The writing is there, but the actors just cannot grasp it. This is largely because -- are you ready? -- they aren't actors; Noé met both Glusman and Muyock in a club one night and asked them to star. It's clear that he wanted to achieve the most organic and natural relationship dynamic on-screen by not using "real actors" -- but in what is supposed to be an emotionally charged film, that just doesn't work.

In fact, in a sort of disturbingly surreal manner, the very same issues that the film is trying to highlight in millennial relationships (emotional maturity and boundaries over sex) seem to show up in the unsimulated sex scenes between Glusman and Muyock. Glusman constantly falls out of character, allowing his own sexual desire to ruin the scene and any emotional impact Noé was looking for. Muyock seems bored and uninterested -- and who could blame her? -- likely due to Glusman's obvious zeal about getting paid to fuck her. I'm not sure he entirely understood the fact he was in an art film, and in remaining ignorant, he ends up verifying Noé's entire thesis: young adults, especially men, get lost in the idea of sexual nirvana over the thing that truly matters: love.

The second half of the film lifts the veil on Murphy's narcissistic and emotionally abusive behavior in the relationship, and tragically, Glusman is a good actor when portraying an unstable douchebag (and Muyock is phenomenal when screaming at him).

The film finishes the same place it starts, seeming to depict Murphy at rock-bottom in a horrible and accidental family dynamic: a fitting bookend to a relationship that was destroyed not by too much sex, but his own fear of it. The ending is eerie and powerful, and hints at the generational ripples that will be felt for decades because of his own actions. It's a great story, and sort of well-acted, but it ends up merely tripping up on its own interpretation of reality instead of offering us anything particularly new.

Bad Samaritan (2018)

Flawed, formulaic game of cat-and-mouse spearheaded by strong acting

[5/10 · 14 May 2018]

In a world of mediocre thrillers, "Bad Samaritan" will likely be forgotten alongside the majority of them. What starts as an interesting, engaging premise quickly travels down a formulaic and predictable path -- and by the climax, you'll be amazed at this film's parabolic fall from grace.

"Bad Samaritan" is a cat-and-mouse thriller set in current-day Portland, Oregon, concerning a young man who attempts to expose a psychotic billionaire, who has a lady chained up in his house. The kicker (and this isn't a spoiler; you see it in the trailer) is that the aforementioned young man discovers the captive while he is in the middle of robbing said billionaire's home. It sounds unique enough, and was definitely interesting enough to warrant a matinee screening. Plus, y'know, there is the matter of David Tennant.

Speaking of whom -- let's talk about acting, which I think this film excels at. If you've only seen David Tennant in Hamlet or Dr. Who, you will be delighted at just how evil he can be. His performance is excellent, and he burns up the screen every moment he is featured. If you're a Tennant fan (and really, who among us isn't?), you'll get a kick out of "Bad Samaritan" for this reason alone. Robert Sheehan (of "Skins" fame) delivers a pretty good performance as well, although his poorly written character doesn't let his full acting skills shine through. Carlito Olivero, in one of the film's many insignificant supporting roles, is less impressive -- but, again, how much of it can you blame on terrible writing?

Now I'd like to talk about the film's most obvious issue, which is its 100% pure recycled "damsel in distress" theme. Sheehan's character becomes a white knight, desperate to save this woman whose only purpose in the film is to be chained up (in the film's climax, she has a "victory" moment that is just as cliche as the rest of the film). Even the backstory as to why Tennant's character is keeping her there is foggy; a bizarre sequence of flashbacks attempts to shine light on why this guy is who he is, but nothing beyond that is explained.

Look closely while watching this film, and you'll realize that overall its script romanticizes the male "savior" complex and has absolutely no significant female roles. The FBI agent (portrayed by Tracey Heggins) seems to have her head on straight, but even she answers to a man who questions her ideas (who is played by -- get this -- the writer of the film). The one female character who is somewhat independent gets violently assaulted (non-sexual), rendering her character useless. Although the film doesn't seem to include sexual assault as a theme -- it heavily alludes to it in imagery, prompting the uncomfortable idea that the writer of the film originally wanted the film to feature even MORE unnecessary violence against women. To that extent, there is another scene in the film -- occurring in a college classroom -- that deals with sexual humiliation in the most bizarre, unrealistic way possible. It's supposed to be very serious (I think?), but it plays out in such a cartoonish way that it speaks volumes about the writer's lack of understanding of these sensitive issues.

All of the above aside, the film isn't even that good. It does start strongly, and the first act has some measurable suspense that had my eyes glued to the screen. This dynamic unfortunately breaks down in the second act, prompting some necessary "suspension of disbelief," and completely fails in the third act, almost becoming a parody of itself with multiple instances of deus ex machina, horrible dialogue, and a sappy ending that just reinforces all the "male savior" ideas fed to the audience the entire film.

Worth seeing? If you're a Tennant fan, go ahead. At least watch some of his scenes online if you can find them -- his performance is really spectacular. It's a shame that it went to waste on such a terrible script.

Best F(r)iends: Volume 1 (2017)

A surrealist, neo-noir love letter to a great city and a greater friendship

[7/10 · 20 April 2018]

** Official Selection - Screened at Cinedelphia Film Festival 2018 **

Though both a perfect companion to "The Room" and a standout film in its own right, "Best F(r)iends" overall seems to be a meditation on the past fifteen years of Greg Sestero's life. But, that sentence should mean something to you before you watch this movie. Don't see this film yet if you haven't. It won't do anything for you, and worse, you'll never appreciate what inspired it. It says so right at the beginning of the film -- "Based On True Events."

This two-volume film (which has a clear "intermission" moment at the end of Vol. 1) is really the final film in a loosely bound trilogy, which came together accidentally and incredulously.

Now, if you are already well-versed in the mythology behind Sestero and his unforgettable counterpart Tommy Wiseau, you should see this film. I would go into it not knowing anything -- but the plot is classic California neo-noir and involves detailed, interwoven subplots. It's also a tribute to the beautiful city of Los Angeles, and the significance of Sestero's time there versus his time in San Francisco.

Despite being a cult figure for fifteen years, this is Sestero's debut screenplay. At the wonderful Q&A I attended, he admitted that the script was written in only a few days, and inspired by both a fond (yet bizarre) memory and a cannabis edible. It lives up to this story and unfolds in a dreamlike manner, in which situational tones change rapidly and unexpectedly. Although clearly made on a limited budget, the film has simple yet effective cinematography. The direction is perfectly suited for both Sestero's script and Wiseau's acting, and there is a surprisingly great score by Daniel Platzman (of Imagine Dragons).

It's a good movie. It's not an amazing movie, but that hardly matters. The important part is that you will discover there is major talent behind Sestero (who hopes to next write an unrelated horror-thriller). It's clear that he has the capability to become more than "the guy who played Mark," and this is him getting his feet wet. This his him laying "The Room" to rest. It's a first effort, and an impressive one.

At the Q&A, Sestero explained that he wrote the characters of Jon and Harvey to be played specifically by himself and Tommy Wiseau. It was actually initially inspired by a memory of the two of them taking a road trip up the California coast, and Wiseau becoming paranoid that Sestero was going to kill him. Let me make myself abundantly clear -- there is absolutely no possible way for the characters in "Best F(r)iends" to be portrayed by other actors. The film would never work. To this point, it is clear that the film is a deep meditation on the complex relationship between these two men; one that has not always been great.

Given this context, I personally found the first volume of "Best F(r)iends" to be beautiful and poetic. It's somewhat over-the-top; Wiseau really shines when he is playing a character that was (quite literally) written for him -- it's clear he's having fun, and it's refreshing to see him take on a more serious form of acting. He also seems to be acutely conscious of his image and the way his adoring fans see him, and is embracing his naturally eccentric personality. It's not ridiculous to say he can and will appear in more films in various roles. And the guy earned it.

"Best F(r)iends" seems to suggest there is not much more to be said about the friendship between Sestero and Wiseau. It will always be there, and this two-part epic is its tribute. At the same time, it is being laid to rest in the cult circuit -- the memories will be there forever, but it's time to part ways and focus on the potentially incredible things that they create independent of one another.

I am enthusiastically looking forward to Vol. 2.

The VVitch: A New-England Folktale (2015)

Like a nightmarish bedtime story

[8/10 · 17 April 2018]

From the moment the film begins, you're trapped in a spider web of dread.

This is the tale of a deeply religious English pilgrim family who is exiled from their community, and made to start over alone in the countryside with nothing. From there, things go from bad to worse. That's all I should tell you about plot.

For right now, let's talk about the overall aesthetic of the movie.

"The Witch" is one of the most deliriously gorgeous films I've ever seen, owing most to its impeccable direction and production design. This is a movie that could potentially unseat "Eraserhead" as the most atmospherically bleak, unsettling, tense, and hopeless film ever (okay, at least for me). The experimental, string-based score ropes everything together -- deafening crescendos are shuffled with uneasy undertones and moments of paralyzing silence. The acting is excellent on all fronts; my only slight complaint being Ralph Ineson's overall diction, which seemed forced at times and occasionally muddled his line delivery.

But for all intents and purposes, this is an incredible movie. The reason for my 8/10 and not any higher is because it just isn't accessible to most people. Despite its stunning design and direction, many will be left unsatisfied or feeling stupid because they feel like they don't "get it." Probably like you, I hate movies that make me feel stupid. When I saw "The Witch" in theaters when it first came out, I felt stupid. I thought the movie was terrifying, but I felt stupid.

After a rewatch two years later, I finally understood why it's so scary, and why none of us should feel stupid, whether you've already seen it or not. I'll explain.

This is a movie that has been lambasted for being "slow," "boring," and having little to no discernible plot or explanation. While the film is admittedly a slow burn, you have to be prepared for what you're getting into. The hint is in the movie's subtitle: "A New England Folktale." That's exactly what this is -- it's a period piece, and a culmination of extensive research into the behaviors and speech of 17th century settlers in New England (look for an interview with director Robert Eggers with the British Film Institute). Much of the script is in an early-modern dialect, which can be confusing at times. Some of the themes could initially be dismissed as laughable; for example, the idea of a witch stealing an infant being both fathomable and deeply horrifying.

It's easy to see why many wouldn't be engaged by this movie beyond its production qualities. But we mustn't forget -- this is the era of Puritans and the Salem trials.

Let's get some context.

The correct mindset to watch this film in is thinking about it as an experience similar to reading "Macbeth" in high school. The cool thing about early-modern literature is that we all experienced it the same way -- whether we're currently 18 or 80, we all read that play in high school and were probably initially bored by it, despite understanding its importance. It's something that we imagine was probably terrifying and original a few hundred years back, but today seems stale. In truth, it was the written/oral product of King James I's obsession and fear of demonology and witchcraft. It was the real deal back then.

Meanwhile, the Puritans are settling in New England because they don't think the Anglo-Catholics are taking God seriously enough. The seed of witch hysteria across the Atlantic is planted, and we all know how things go in Salem.

The United States wasn't introduced to Shakespeare until the 1800s, long after this time period. But if they could've read/seen it, would "Macbeth" had been scary to the deeply religious Puritans? Maybe. What if they could experience a terrifying folktale as we experience movies today in the 21st century? Would they run screaming?

Today's horror films that are watchable mostly use (or at least attempt to use) original ideas and themes. "The Witch" isn't that. It's a folktale. It's written and shot like one. This isn't "It Follows;" there is no deep, allegorical connection to be made. It's a bedtime story told to impressionable little children by candlelight.

Dark folktales are never exactly masterpieces of plot and thematic structure, and this movie isn't one either. It has a very simple plot that isn't very scary (at least by modern standards). What's scary is the way it's delivered. Don't go into this movie like you're a snob and grasping at straws to develop "hidden meanings" or whatever. If you're really into film, this is probably ingrained in you whether you like it or not. Get rid of it before watching this. There is no hidden meaning to this film. It's not pretentious -- you're just thinking too hard.

Relish in the atmosphere. Go where the film takes you, even if it's confusing or nonsensical. It's okay to be confused. Being confused can be scary and uneasy. The monster under the bed is scarier if you don't know why it's there or where it came from.

Experience this movie in complete darkness and with the best possible sound system.

Infinity Baby (2017)

A darkly absurd examination of apathy

[7/10 · 15 April 2018]

While not exactly a masterpiece, "Infinity Baby" takes on a social issue that many are too self-conscious to examine for themselves -- when does not caring stop being cool?

Babies that don't age is a funny premise that initially drew me to this film. It's funny and oddly disturbing, and so is "Infinity Baby." Without spoiling what is a slow burn (despite it's tiny 80 minute runtime), I can tell you that the film is absurd and hard to piece together for the first hour or so, and takes a swift and dark turn for its climax.

The characters are wonderfully scripted, and all are memorable (although some roles are much smaller than others). A stellar cast full of energetic actors delivers an overall incredible performance, all while preserving a sense of spontaneity that matches nicely with the film's black-and-white tone. Despite having a plot that seems to be on par with those of "Black Mirror," the film never loses awareness of its own quirk and is consistently funny (although in more of an Andy Kaufman way and less of a Kevin Hart way, if you get me).

Those who enjoy criticism of social issues, absurdism, and who appreciate a slow-burn should definitely check out this film. While not game-changing, it's an enjoyable and brief watch.

A Quiet Place (2018)

Michael Bay dips his toes into isolation horror. Your mileage may vary

[3/10 · 8 April 2018]

Have you ever seen "It Comes At Night" (2017)?

While both that film and "A Quiet Place" are overall different enough to be judged on their separate merits, both films do have striking similarities; each involve a broken family trying to survive in the wilderness under extreme circumstances after a mysterious and unknown disaster. There is also a looming danger of major catastrophe in both films -- in "A Quiet Place" it is a physical alien-like entity existing outside; in "Night" it is something more internal. This trending niche is what's referred to in horror circles as "isolation horror." It takes a lot to pull off a great isolation horror film, and a lot of moving parts to ensure are working with synergy. "It Comes At Night" pulled it off with near perfection.

You know who's NOT great at making movies like that? A man by the name of Michael Bay.

Yes, I know Bay didn't direct or write "A Quiet Place," and I know he's an easy and overused target. And I will judge John Krasinski as both the filmmaker and actor that he is on his own merits, I promise. But after sitting/cringing through the entire film, I have to tell you -- when the credits rolled and I saw "Produced by Michael Bay" light up the screen, I was completely unsurprised.

Michael Bay is not an idiot, and he's pretty much the master of his trade. I forget the exact source, but I remember seeing/reading an interview with him in which he explained that he KNOWS the movies he both makes and produces are supposed to be fun, popcorn flicks over anything else. They're big, in-your-face, IMAX-worthy extravaganzas that may not have the best acting or writing, but they deserve a spot in the cinema for their crowd. It's no wonder Michael Bay loved this movie and decided to throw it cash.

With isolation horror films becoming more and more popular with mainstream cinema, there have been some really decent ones in the past few years. I'm sort of baffled as to why "A Quiet Place" is being the most universally acclaimed of all of them, because it just fails in so many places.

Before I tear into it, I want to point out that there are some good things about the film. I absolutely loved that the majority of the dialogue was in American Sign Language, and the sound editing and cinematography were both impressive. But unfortunately, those all take a backseat for what's really important. Things like character development.

There are so many problems with the characters in "A Quiet Place." Krasinski's character is the expected hardy, grizzly father surviving in the words who apparently has multiple Ph.Ds in areas such as hearing aids, radio technology, and keeping infants alive in shoeboxes for hours at a time. There is just no explanation at how he built and kept up an elaborate farm/science lab hybrid in this kind of danger all by himself. Who is this guy, Dr. Evil?

Then there's the wife, played by Emily Blunt (who is Krasinski's actual wife), whose sole purpose in the entire film is to be pregnant. She doesn't do anything else and is pretty much constantly in danger because of her condition. Why would I care about her? Just because she's pregnant? If she's going to be a co-star, there needs to be more than that.

And finally -- oh god -- the children.

I appreciate Krasinski's efforts to cast a deaf actress to fill the daughter's role, and I'm sure she did the best with what the script gave her, but her character was just a disaster. The girl is angsty because she thinks her father doesn't love her (why is this exactly? Is it because he was too busy building the International Space Station for so long and didn't pay attention to her? Either I missed it or it was never explained; the dad didn't do anything to warrant this kind of hostility).

And finally then there's the brother, who is just irrationally terrified of everything all of the time and has no other discernible personality.

And that's it for dramatis personae, folks. A movie is going to automatically fail if the audience doesn't care about the characters, and that is 80% of what is wrong with "A Quiet Place." I've seen a lot of people praising the characters. I'm not sure what I'm missing here.

The remaining 20% are issues that made Michael Bay excited to get involved with this movie. I really like isolation horror films where the danger is not so clear and explicit ("It Comes At Night" excelled in this department). I have enjoyed similar films where this wasn't the case, but oh my god -- the monsters in this film look like that thing that attacked Anakin Skywalker on Geonosis in that awful Star Wars prequel. And they have GIANT EARS! Get it?! Cause they can hear really well! Would that be fun in a casual, B-movie horror flick? Yes, it probably would be. It's not fun in a movie that is otherwise supposed to be very serious and intense -- it just looks ridiculous in this context.

Finally, to top it all off, the ending is supposed to give you the 'feelies.' My definition of 'feelies' is an sad climax and an optimistic resolution. I know it's not a horror film, but think about how "Forrest Gump" ended. Guys like Spielberg and Zemeckis are good at the 'feelies.' You know what the secret ingredient is? Characters you actually care about!

The only 'feelies' I had at the end of this movie was needing to use the bathroom after my overpriced and comically oversized Coca-Cola Freestyle beverage.

Clearly, not one of my favorites. But, like I say in my title, your mileage may vary -- isolation horror is a particularly favorite niche of mine, and I've seen it done really well. If you don't often get to see a horror film that relishes suspense over slashing, you may really enjoy "A Quiet Place." It's watchable, and far from the worst horror movie ever. But if you want to see it done way better -- "It Comes At Night," "Don't Breathe," "Hush," and "Inside" are my picks.

I Melt with You (2011)

Unlikable characters and sloppy direction ruin an otherwise interesting, nihilistic tale of middle-aged regret

[5/10 · 9 February 2018]

Deep, soul-crushing regret is something many of us as humans share -- whether criminal, interpersonal, or career-oriented, we carry this baggage with us everywhere we go. It penetrates our psyche, our relationships, our friendships, and the way we carry on daily life. It can drive people to do things suddenly and out of impulse, often to the destruction of everyone around them.

Welcome to "I Melt With You." This artistic, visually stunning drama takes four middle-aged college friends, each with their own baggage, to the coasts of central California for a rowdy reunion of one week. Rivers of bourbon will flow, casual sex will be had, and -- oh yes -- there will be drugs. Lots of 'em.

Things take a nasty turn, however, when an oath made their senior year of college resurfaces. Unfortunately, to say any more of the story would be treading in "spoiler" territory. Therefore, I apologize in advance if this review seems disjointed. For such a mediocre film, there is a lot to say about it, and not a lot of spoiler-free foundation on which to base a review.

"I Melt With You" works in a few very key ways, and utterly fails in many others. The cinematography is absolutely stunning -- the film is shot on location with a digital camera and makes use of gorgeous vistas, colors, and surrealist imagery. The acting is also very strong and every one of the four main actors deliver their absolute best with the material they were given to work with. And the soundtrack is absolutely killer -- 80s post-punk and indie rock may as well be another character in the film when you consider how frequently and effectively the soundtrack is used.

Now let's move onto what doesn't work. Immediately, the excessive partying displayed by the four characters bothered me because it just didn't seem realistic. I get that these four guys are each carrying around some serious baggage and are displaying some behavioral issues, but at least 1/3rd of this film is made up of sequences of pill snorting and partying. If these sequences were shortened by 50%, there would be no effectiveness lost to the film's message and there would've been ample more time to develop more likable characters.

And man, trust me when I say that these guys are some real Grade-A douchebags. This film is supposed to depict the self-destruction of four otherwise likable guys from regret and past mistakes. I think the viewer's heartstrings are supposed to be tugged on, and maybe we're supposed to develop sympathy (or even empathy) with these characters. But with these jerkoffs it just never happened for me. Instead of examining some of my own guilt in life and thinking "wow, this is eerily close to a fever dream for me, please show me more and help me hate myself" (because THAT would be a good movie), I'm thinking "oh. that sucks. sorry, why do I care?"

Therefore, without this very crucial piece of foundation, the film falls apart. This isn't "Requiem for a Dream" or "Trainspotting" where we actually get to know and care about our protagonists. We don't feel sorry for the characters in this film. Well, maybe some do...I didn't. If you are a 44-year-old man who snorts coke with his college friends and never reached emotional maturity, then maybe you'll relate.

Overall, yes, this film offers some good things but they're nothing that can't be had in better and larger quantities in other great addiction dramas. Unless you're a total cinematography nerd, it's not worth the watch in my opinion.