Tag: what to watch

Juror #2

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.primevideo.com/

Rating: 2 stars out of 5
Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Toni Collette, J. K. Simmons, Kiefer Sutherland
Where to watch: Prime Video
To watch or not to watch: This is movie is like a motley teenager who thinks they are the President of the United States. The result is the same. The fact that it is directed by the acclaimed Clint Eastwood can be easily ignored.

In a small town in Georgia USA, a murder trial is going on to determine whether James Michael Sythe, abusive boyfriend of the victim Kendall Cater is the perpetrator or not. On the jury are people from different walks of life, with different life priorities, including Juror #2, Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult), whose wife is in a high-risk pregnancy, and he would like nothing better to be excused so he can spend time with her. But as luck would have it, he is a part of the jury nonetheless, and he is a sticky situation, because it turns out he is real perpetrator of the crime, but the police stuck to the theory of the abusive boyfriend being the perp. A fellow juror Harold (JK Simmons) has doubts about the police investigation and he mistakes Justin’s discomfort with the case as doubt into the conviction. The public prosecutor Faith Killebrew (Toni Collette) is standing for elections and is determined to convict Sythe to win the votes basis the fight against domestic violence. The defence attorney Eric Resnick (Chris Messina) is helpless because even though he is convinced of his client’s innocence, there is no way to prove it. It is upto to Justin to sway his fellow jurors away from a guilty verdict all the while walking the tightrope of not implicating himself.

This movie is thankfully not the swan song of the brilliant Clint Eastwood, it would have been a tragedy otherwise. This is a not a good movie. There is no other way to put this.
It might be a spiritual remake of 12 Angry Men, and it does turn into that movie during jury deliberations, it is trying too hard. On the one hand, the importance is on the fact of the situation of Justin Kemp, of course, who could have thought a juror is the very criminal in the case!? Brilliant premise, but somehow the reveal of the fact in the beginning (so early that it is also in the trailors) takes way from the fact. Now Justin is not a slick human like Danny Ocean that he can get away from the scrapes he gets into. He is a recovering alcoholic and a doting husband. And that is another problem – while the fact he is real perp is bang in the beginning, his recovering alcoholism is like a big secret that is hinted at for a long time till it is told (“in case you didn’t get the hints, here is what we were trying to tell you all along”). Weird, confusing, unnecessary and totally unproductive.

A movie with the promises of Eastwood, Collette, Hoult, being disappointing makes one feel hopeless for other releases which are much low on the star power. To be fair, it wasn’t the star power which was a let down, it was the writing. Or rather the confused vision on what the movie wanted to be. Lack of clarity of thought has brought down nations, and this is just a movie. And acting is not a cure, contrary to the movie makers’ belief. They are a tool to bring the vision to life, a face to the written word. There are many instances where a now popular character was earlier planned for a big star, but was given to someone less known and now we cannot imagine that character being played by anyone else. Because actors in a movie can be replaced, thanks to make-up, direction and writing. But there is no cure to bad writing. If anything, a good actor will make bad writing stand out in stark relief.
Not a good movie. Watch 12 Angry Men instead.

Wicked Little Letters

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.primevideo.com/

Rating: 3.5 stars out of 5
Starring: Jesse Buckley, Olivia Colman, Timothy Spall, Anjana Vasan
Where to watch: Prime Video
To watch or not to watch: It is a funny movie starring some of the best actors telling a story on a deep subject. Why not to watch!

The movie is based in 1920 England, where a lonely, devout spinster Edith Swan (Olivia Colman) lives with her overbearing father and gentle mother, next door to a single, Irish immigrant mother Rose Gooding (Jesse Buckley). Not only is Rose a single mother, but she is also living in sin with her partner Bill, swears like a sailor, and has a jolly good time at the pub with the other patrons, all actions not approved by the tight laced Edith. But Edith has another problem, she has been receiving poison pen letter, filled with profanity, which disturb her parents to no end, that too 19 in total! And not just Edith, the who’s-who of the village have had something vile said about them! The nerve! Who could have done such an evil trick, and who has such a potty-mouth? Why, Rose of course, with her new age ideas and little regard to propriety, she is the right suspect for this deed which has troubled the good Christians no end. Rose is thus arrested and having no money for bail, has to spend time in jail, more now that Edith’s poor mother died of a heart attack upon reading one such letter. There is also Gladys (Anjana Vasan) who is assigned this case, pays little attention to this claiming there is more serious crime to be investigated – and rightly so, she is very good at her job, but her misogynistic boss doesn’t recognise her talent. That is, until she decides to give this quickly spiralling case her full attention.

The premise of the movie is hilarious and the execution even more so. Anything which has either Colman or Buckley is a treat in itself and this one has them both. Add to this mix Vasan (of We Are Ladyparts fame) and you get a cherry on your cake you did not know you needed. This movie has some fantastic dialogue writing and a bit of on-time slapstick comedy which makes it an ideal viewing pleasure. The movie touches on a topic, or rather, a side to human nature we all know and talk about but has never given the center stage or a de-facto position it deserves. And that is the real feat of this movie. Anyone who has ever had someone out to get them should come back to this movie and understand the underlying reason for such malice. It might help to understand the other person and maybe lessen their burdens a bit.
On the other side, the story and performance can only do so much. They are not the salve for the wounds caused by sloppy screenplay. Things suddenly take a turn and it is revealed who has been actually writing the letters, and while it deserves a slow camera pan-up to the face of the criminal, and its own crescendo in the background, it gets none of that, but rather a reveal which is more matter-of-fact. That take away from the almost 50% of the runtime build-up we have been viewing and waiting for. And the climax, while totally funny (ngl) is make out to be this big curtain drawing moment, which we saw coming a mile away.

It is confounding to realise why people can be so bitter about themselves and their lives that they have to take it out on others who have absolute zero contribution in their misery. Their only sin is that they have something the bitter person covets. And don’t all humans covet something they see others enjoying? So when does this scarcity give rise to such acid in their nature? Is there a trigger or is this something that builds up slowly, was always there and was only looking for an opening to rear its ugly head? On the flip side, what is stopping anyone from changing their lives, little bit at a time, because afterall it is the little things that matter, that one can control? Or is the effort in making that change so daunting, so scary, and turning into a harmful part of humanity so easy and satisfying, that it becomes the immediate choice? Is it a choice? Maybe it is. Comment if you have any answers to these questions?
This movie is a light-hearted, but deep movie which comes rarely on the screen, and has all but one pillar working for it. It can be a family movie too, if the family has members above the minimum age of voting, or driving, at the more adult’s discretion. The dialogues and the letters are so ridiculously out-there, they are laugh-out-loud. Jesse Buckley’s character’s free way of life is so inviting, all of us would want to be there with her, but we would need to build our characters strong enough. It is uplifting. Watch it!

Ela Veezha Poonchira

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.cinemaexpress.com/

Rating: 4.5 stars out of 5
Starring: Soubin Shahir, Sudhi Koppa, Jude Anthany Joseph
Where to watch: Prime Video
To watch or not to watch: A must watch for your Friday night intense watch! Fresh and brilliant!

Madhu (Soubin Shahir) is a police constable posted at a hilltop to maintain the lines for wireless signals and keep people away from the area as it is frequently struck by lightning. He is accompanied by another younger constable Sudhi (Sudhi Koppa) who has a rather cavalier attitude to Madhu’s more serious, withdrawn, quiet persona. Madhu cooks chicken curry for Sudhi, cleans up after him, tells him off from watching a couple having a private time among the bushes on the hill, all in all, a fair balance. In the opening scene we learn that there are dismembered body parts found all around the hill, and leads to an investigation that the two constables can follow through the wireless. But along with this, there is a simmering tension under the surface of Madhu’s quiet exterior visible through his furrowed brows, pinched mouth and staring eyes. With that is the mounting tension of the murder investigation, which then reveals itself to be the one missing puzzle piece which makes sense of the seemingly simple narrative.

This movie is largely a two-parter with very few supporting cast members, in fact, it won’t be wrong to say that Soubin Shahir is the Atlas who carries with him the weight of the narration. It is such an easy, simple narration, driven by dialogues, daily life events and, as mentioned before, a simmering tension. People complain about unfaithful wives, upset stomachs, normal police functions, etc. with nothing indicating the weight of the world waiting for the viewers at the end of the movie. But there are breadcrumbs spread all across the movie – from the opening scene, to a seemingly innocuous pregnant woman, a man masturbating, and so on. And when it all comes together, it is such a revelation to see the entire picture come to light. Very satisfactory.

In this era, when everyone blames huge productions like MCU for the high budget and claim the difficulty in products, we have a simple, poignant and deep movie like Ela Veezha Poonchira. The screenplay and cinematography are so tight and well executed, it is a masterclass in filmmaking. It is one of the best directorial debut movies and one of the reasons it feels so authentic is Shahi Kabir, the director, has been a police officer himself. Add to that the acting by Soubin Shahir – man! He conveyed so much by just subtle expressions – expressions of a man trying to hide his emotions in a setting where emotions have little place. This movie is a study in humanity and yes, filmmaking. Film makers, take note. Film viewers, don’t miss this one.

The Residence

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.theguardian.com/

Rating: 4 stars out of 5
Starring: Uzo Aduba, Giancarlo Esposito, Molly Griggs, Ken Marino, Randall Park, Susan Kelechi Watson, Isiah Whitlock Jr., Edwina Findley
Where to watch: Netflix (8 episodes, 50-odd minutes each)
To watch or not to watch: A closed mansion mystery with multiple suspects and Rian Johnson style storytelling. It is highly recommended for fans of typical whodunnit.

It is the night of Australian state dinner at The White House, rather THE WHITE HOUSE, where Hugh Jackman and Kylie Minogue are also present. In the middle of this, they find the chief usher AB Wynter (Giancarlo Esposito) dead on the third floor. The chiefs of all the major intelligence/security/investigation agencies are at the scene and are quick to call the death a suicide, except Cordelia Cupp (Uzo Aduba), the greatest detective in the world (not unlike Poirot, only she is female and has less differentiated mannerisms) is called upon. She declares the death a murder and presents compelling evidence or lack thereof to boost her statement. What follows is a non-linear sequence of statements, evidence, lies, corroboration, congressional committee, exposure of personal lives and bird-watching to arrive at the truth. Oh! And Kylie Minogue performs. She is chiefly assisted by Susan Kelechi Watson (Jasmine Haney) who was Assistant Usher until Wynter’s death, and Edwin Park (Randall Park), an FBI special agent. Did Jasmine murder Wynter to quicken her promotion, or was it Harry Hollinger (Ken Marino) who was suspected of having a fight with the victim sometime before the “incident”, or was it the drunk butler Sheila (Edwina Findley), or even the pastry chef?

The brilliance of the series lies in the manner of storytelling ie, the pacing. It is quite like Knives Out, with the opening scene being the discovery of the body, fun quick cuts to scenes which lead to non-linearity and dizziness in the viewer, also making the viewer’s attempt to solve the crime difficult. Cordelia follows clues, which are lost on everyone, gets people to talk by not asking questions, push people into the corner by questioning everything, all in all, the fast-paced movement of scenes and dialogues and characters themselves, make for a really fun viewing. There are multiple characters and storylines, complicated by lies and small incidents deemed insignificant but turn out to be the real crux of the matter, Cordelia’s shifting focus to bird-watching, ensuring the viewer is kept on their toes. The show doesn’t take itself seriously and is self-aware enough to acknowledge the heavy borrowing from Christie and Johnson and what-not, it is funny despite the fact it is based in The White House, not because of it.

This show is a brilliant first watch, testing the viewer’s willpower to not binge it in one sitting, but only the first time. After that, the plot holes, the ridiculousness of the setting and extravagant mannerisms are easy to see through as distraction tactics. Aduba is good at her job and has an engaging screen presence, but someone alluding to her ability to solve unsolvable cases is not entirely believable, we are expected to just accept it. Then there is a whole origin story in the middle of the series, which was only a filler to make it last 8 episodes. The uncovered truth about the murder and the murderer is underwhelming so adjust the expectations accordingly. This is also the point where the series loses a score in the rating. There is so much underhanded display of female empowerment, that it is tiring. If you want real female empowerment in cinema, start paying equal wages, but putting men down only reverses the problem. Sigh!
Shonda Rhimes has made women-centric content in the past, while they were highly superficial, this is much, much better than the convenient, self-congratulatory plotlines of series like Scandal. It is flawed, but there is progress. And it is a good watch for all the mystery-starved people out there.

Kishkindha Kaandam

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://maktoobmedia.com/

Rating: 4 stars out of 5
Starring: Asif Ali, Vijayaraghavan, Aparna Balamurali, Jagadish, Ashokan
Where to watch: JioHotstar
To watch or not to watch: This movie is like an onion – it has layers and will make you cry

Ajayan (Asif Ali) is a forest office who lives close to a reserved forest with this second wife Aparna (Aparna Balamurali) and elderly, retired army officer father Appu Pillai (Vijayaraghavan). Ajayan’s first wife passed away a couple of years back from cancer and his son is missing. Ajayan travels far and wide across the country everytime he gets any news of his missing son. Recently his father, who used to be very alert and sharp, has shown tendencies to forget things, even his licensed revolver has gone missing and there is an investigation underway. Aparna has noticed Appu write things in notebooks and then burn them after a month or so. She discusses this bizarre behaviour with her husband but gets more questions than answers.

It is difficult to describe what happens in this movie, it is all a bit bizarre, until the last act when everything comes together quickly and quietly, like a puzzle piece and it all makes sense in an “Ahhaa” way. The three main characters are believable and understandable – the proud old man unwilling to bend to the effects of old age but unable to stop them, the concerned son with the weight of the world on his shoulders and his new wife who is trying to understand her new environment and adjust to it all like a true superhuman. Along with them are some friends of the family who together fit into the puzzle too.

There is a certain simplicity in good Malayalam cinema which lends a sense of reality to the movies. And this is specially true for Kishkindha Kaandam – the actors depict a very average socio-economic stature and lifestyle. Their characters have friends they have known all their lives and who know them in turn. Despite that there are undercurrents throughout the movie related to the characters differently. Goes to show the wide expanse of human relations and emotions. There are also some deep-rooted moral questions faced by the characters, which they cannot reveal to others because there is humanity, love and sense of protection. As much as the movie is about the thrill, it is more so about the humanity of it all. It will require patience as it is a slow burn, but the understated climax makes up for it.

Sookshmadarshini – an entertaining, fun thriller

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://arynews.tv/

Rating: 4.5 stars out of 5
Starring: Nazriya Nazim, Basil Joseph, Akhila Bhargavan, Merin Philip, Deepak Parambol, Pooja Mohanraj
Where to watch: JioHotstar
To watch or not to watch: Oh it is a must watch. It is a fun and thrilling ride.

Priya or Priyadarshini (Nazriya Nazim) is a homemaker and an aspiring professional who lives in harmony with her husband, daughter and group of ladies around the neighbourhood, where they are always into each other’s business. When a new neighbour Manuel (Basil Joseph), with his sick mother, moves next door to Priya, her curiosity peeks its head. Manuel is a people pleaser and very well to do, managing his family’s bakery. His mother is said to have dementia and is thus a recluse. Priya finds that suspicious as she has seen the mother walking around their property, seemingly in full control of her senses. One day the mother walks out of the house and is subsequently lost, but Priya is sure she has seen her in the house, leading her to conclude that Manuel is holding her captive, but none of her friends believe her. In the parallel, Manuel is indeed cooking something with the help of his uncle and his doctor friend who is treating his mother. What is the plan? And why such elaborate facade in a gossipy and nosy neighbourhood?

This movie is not trying to hide things. We know there is something crooked about Manuel, we know Priya has seen his mother easily carrying out daily tasks without any hint of confusion and that he has fed a monitor lizard as beef to his neighbours in a party (gross!!!). But there is still a sense of urgency, a sense of confusion and an eagerness to know the truth throughout the film. Priya appears to be a very loving mother and wife, who is frustrated at not being able to bag a job and is bored as a homemaker. It is understandable when people don’t believe her, but as an audience member you get frustrated on her behalf. This is movie is that engaging. It is so much fun too, as Priya makes a cartel of sorts of the other stay-at-home ladies of the neighbourhood to aid in her investigation. It goes to show that minds can work in mysterious ways.

The end of the movie is gratifying, though albeit convoluted. It is wasn’t for some of the overdone climax twists, this movie would have been a 5/5, hands down. This is a fresh take on the whodunnit trope which can only be experimented in the Malayalam film industry. All the other regional and national movie makers need to stop what they are doing and really, deliberately take notes of what is being done right. This movie’s budget is 10 cr or approximately $1.2 million and what it produced is pure entertainment. Yes, it is not a thought provoking, moral preaching movie – it is a fun, entertaining watch which delivers the thrill it promises the audience.

Strange Darling

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.primevideo.com/detail/

Rating: 4 stars out of 5
Starring: Willa Fitzgerald, Kyle Gallner
Where to watch: Jio Cinema/Peacock Network and Prime Video
To watch or not to watch: This non-linear, largely two-hander is using your conscious mind and societal standards in the best way possible to give this fun ride of a movie

The movie opens with Willa Fitzgerald’s character named Lady running away in a car from Kyle Gallner’s character (Demon) who is snorting coke and loading a gun to shoot at Lady. They both met through a dating app and decide to hook up and things turn for the bad. What follows is a chase littered with cold-blooded murders, car chases, makeshift bandages for gaping wounds, and basically a short sprint for survival (the movie covers barely 2 days).

This movie has the shortest summary in the history of this website till now. And that is because the real meat of the movie is revealed in the first few minutes of the movie, and any description beyond that would be a buzzkill. But still this movie works and the reason is the non-linear storytelling style employed here. The whole movie is divided into chapters and the opening chapter sets the tone of the movie while some of the following chapters are shocking and thrilling. It is true that the non-linear storytelling is a cop-out making an otherwise bland, run-of-the-mill story into something more than what it is, simply by jumbling the parts that make it a whole. But this movie, and by extension the director, is aware of it. The parts are labelled as chapters and are revealed in piecemeal basis the emotion that needs to be extracted from the viewer. It is this awareness which subconsciously sets the expectation from the movie, and the movie rises to meet it.

Finally Kyle Gallner gets some of the recognition he deserves. He was brilliant in The Haunting in Connecticut, which happens to be one of the best horror movies (Rotten Tomates and IMdB disagree), and he is perfection in this one. This movie also does something which is turning to be commonplace and that is subverting the genre (anymore said on this will be a spoiler). It is not not done before, nonetheless, it is being done quite refreshingly here. There are multiple (intentional or unintentional) instances which have a deeper meaning to the scene and it is fun to rewatch and learn more about it. All in all, time well spent. Highly recommended.

Nosferatu

Published on by cinemadilemma1 Comment
https://www.imdb.com/title/

Rating: 4 stars out of 5
Starring: Lily-Rose Depp, Nicholas Hoult, Bill Skarsgård, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, William Dafoe
Where to watch: Playing in theatres
To watch or not to watch: A fitting and honest tribute to the 1922 movie and 1897 book Bram Stoker’s Dracula. But it is not for everyone

It is 1830s and Elle (Lily-Rose Depp) is widowed at a very young age and is terribly lonely. To alleviate the loneliness, she makes a deal with the devil, and in this case Count Dracula, and pledges herself to him eternally. But time passes, she gets married to Thomas Hutter (Nicholas Hoult) and they are quite happy together in Wisburg, though rather poor. Hutter gets a quite lucrative job at a real estate agent, and the first order of business is to deliver the documents of a castle to Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgård) in Transylvania, leaving Ellen with his friend Friedrich (Aaron Taylor-Johnson). He finds the menacing presence of Count uncomfortable and tries to escape, but he keeps falling more and more sick (because the Count is feeding on him). Thomas ultimately escapes the castle and is nursed back to health by nuns living in an orthodox convent, meanwhile Orlok travels to Wisburg in a ship to be with Ellen. On meeting Ellen, he gives an ultimatum that he will kill everyone in Wisburg in three days if she refuses to be with him, and he has already killed half the population by spreading plague. They manage to find an ostracised scientist named Von Franz (William Dafoe) who believes in occult and has more answers than they have managed to find with conventional medicine, and they can actually win against the devil.

This movie is not for everyone – the dialogue is not in the linear, conventional English we know and use, but rather poetic, true to the time in which the movie is based. There are also a lot of dream sequences as Dracula visits Ellen in dreams for more than half the movie, which is interspersed with the real life having the same characters. The movie is grey-green-blue toned, whenever it is not out and out black-and-white. Despite all this (and maybe because of this), it is a masterpiece! Can this type of movie be scary, in the true sense of horror that we have come to expect? Not really, no. The story is well-known (adaption of a 1922 movie of the same name which in turn was adaption of Bram Stoker’s book titled Dracula) so it is not a surprise element which can work in this case. What can work is the portrayal of the story, the ability to elicit the emotions different from what has been done and maybe give a different perspective. And this movie delivers! Thanks to (in no small measure) Bill Skarsgård’s portrayal. He has the ability to go beyond himself and totally into the character where it becomes difficult to ascertain if he is even there or is it wholly the devil. This performance is closely followed by Hoult’s as a naive husband (who is so ripped, by the way) looking at his wife getting sicker and in a twisted way more pleasure from Orlok than him. Depp on the other hand, is a one-dimensional figure who is unfortunately central to the movie and sticks like a sore thumb. She lacks the range which a character like Ellen requires, and most of the sympathy falls to every other character, which doesn’t really tie with the story.

This movie is divisive and it takes no stretch of imagination to understand the other side of the opinion than the one listed above. It is only a matter of focus – focus on the colour scheme, the on-the-nose size and accent of Orlok, confusing dream sequences mixed with real life, and the weird English, and you won’t like this movie one bit, even move out halfway. But keep in mind that this is a nod to the 1922 movie, keeps true to to the book and is not necessarily reinventing the wheel, and you will see the charm and what it brings to the table. At the time of this post, the Google review is 3.0 whereas some of the movies reviewed on this site and have received 2 stars have received 4 stars and above. Eggers in general has been divisive. While The Vvitch is often lauded as one of the best horror movies of this generation, it lacks any definitive storyline, open so much to the interpretation that without the requisite mindset, it will fail to register with 90% of the audience. Keep an open mind with this one and you will definitely enjoy it.

The Day of The Jackal

Published on by cinemadilemma1 Comment
https://www.lifestyleasia.com/

Rating: 2.5 stars out of 5
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Lashana Lynch, Chukwudi Iwuji, Úrsula Corberó, Khalid Abdalla
Where to watch: Jio Cinema/Peacock Network
To watch or not to watch: Disappointing at multiple levels. What a crime against the book

The Jackal (Eddie Redmayne) is one of the best snipers in the world and he is using this talent as a hit for hire. He has a beautiful wife Nuria (Úrsula Corberó) and a 1 year old son. He is hired to kill a German politician, which he does with a slightly round-about but terribly brilliant way, which took MI6 some time to figure out. Also, the kill was at a record distance, which set him apart from 99% of other snipers in the world (and hence easier to identify). A firearm expert at MI6 named Bianca Pullman (Lashana Lynch) is intrigued by this shot and takes it upon herself to find out who the sniper is. This results in an expected, typical and cliched cat-and-mouse chase, only the mouse was smarter but made a dunce, the cat incompetent but blessed with a ton of luck.

The series is true to the book in only the essence, that is, an assassin with military background aiming to assassinate a prominent figure. While in the book that figure was Charles de Gaulle, in the series, it is to assassinate a tech billionaire Ulle Dag Charles to stop him from releasing a software which will disrupt the finances of the world, by somehow publishing the finances of billionaires to everyone??? And there is no more thought put into explaining it or why it would merit $100Mn as assassin’s fees. And The Jackal forgot all about his safety protocols because his greed took over??? He also has no deterrents installed in his home office which stores his passports, cash in different currencies, his tools of disguise, etc, so that even his toddler son could walk in and dismantle his castle of sand. And if this is not enough, the agent in-charge of the investigation is doing so on a prayer. She has caused more harm to innocents without any consequences to herself, is clearly incompetent and has very one-dimensional “I am important” stance at her home with daughter and husband. The only good thing the show does is the elaborate design of the assassination plot, they were truly a treat to see and made the show slightly fascinating.

Eddie Redmayne’s acting chops made something of the character and script which otherwise would not have passed the audience test. Looks like the writers are still on strike because this script could only have been written by 5 different AI tools stitched together by an underpaid human who couldn’t be bothered to check for continuity. There are phases where the Jackal is overcome with remorse to the point of inaction, only to go ahead and unnecessarily kill bystanders to show his brutality. What is the message for the audience, because we already know his profession and all that it entails? And all that is wrong with Bianca cannot even be summarised in one post – it needs to be taken apart scene by scene. What a waste of a good, concept, good book and a good actor. This is a crime against humanity. And it gets renewed for season 2 when Maigret is cancelled? Make it make sense!

Longlegs

Published on by cinemadilemmaLeave a comment
https://www.imdb.com/

Rating: 2 stars out of 5
Starring: Maika Monroe, Nicolas Cage, Blair Underwood, Alicia Witt
Where to watch: Amazon Prime Video
To watch or not to watch: What the hell! Stitch together incoherent pieces together and you get this rag doll. Yea… no.

The movie is set in the 1990s where Agent Lee Harker (Maika Monroe) is with the FBI, is awkward, socially inept, a loner and is discovered to have uncanny “psychic” powers. For this ability, she is pulled into the investigation of a crime 3 decades running, where the patriarch of a totally normal family suddenly goes violent on his family and butchers them all. Her supervisor William Carter (Blair Underwood) wants to solve this case and things that Harker’s psychic abilities might aid in the endeavour. And she does help, as she is able to crack the code on the letters left by an unknown entity known as Longlegs at the murder sites, claiming credit for the murders. The investigation takes Harker to one of the survivors of the annihilation, an in-execution annihilation where a life size doll of the girl child is discovered with a mysterious metal ball in its brain, and back to her own childhood. We do see Longlegs before long and its… interesting? Anyway, the movie is not.

What an utter ridiculous farce of a movie. A wanna-be Silence Of The Lambs, without the substance. Or rather scattered substance which changes tone without so much as a “Hey” and goes about as if nothing has happened. Kinda like that co-worker who has made a mistake which affects the project but is entirely unbothered. (Mild spoilers follow)
The villain/evil character has a Satanic bend and is able to twist the patriarch against the family with the girl child in some sort of trance. But why? Is the agenda to kill all normal families? Why? Is the idea to kill God fearing Christians? Again, why? And these questions stare into the abyss which is the travesty of a horror movie. So much so, that it might have been slightly better if it had stuck to the tropes and made it a cliche. It starts ok, you can see there is something off about Harker and Carter is like a father figure to her, looking beyond the awkwardness and seeing the person, but then enters Alicia Witt as Harker’s mother and then it is throw-everything-to-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks.

The direction of the movie is good. Genuinely. It is specially visible in the first act with the dark yellow and brown tones, slow pace, few dialogues. The choice of a wide angle camera for shooting most of the movie was a good artistic choice, without which they wouldn’t have even enough marketing material. And it so far removed from the promises made during marketing that a case can be made for false advertising. “The sample doesn’t match the final product delivered”. The wide angle remains throughout the movie but it cannot take the place of a story or script or screenplay or agenda. Cage has turned out a good performance (though not many people agree with this), it is not creepy. It gives the vibes of a sad, lonely, retired circus performer who is fighting to make ends meet and is losing sanity due to loneliness. This theme is a social issue, not necessarily a horror movie subject matter. Go back in time and undo this movie. It should not have happened