FILM REVIEW: Lost River

(Rated R for graphic violence, graphic language, and disturbing imagery) 

After a pile of disparaging reviews at Cannes, I was skeptical after seeing this film's trailer. The film's reception had led to only getting limited theatrical releases throughout early 2015, and the movie otherwise was placed straight-to-DVD and video on demand. These are very bad signs for almost any movie.

Despite these factors, there seemed to be tons of promise in what was presented. I anticipated the movie with a skeptical mind until I finally managed to catch in the 10th. The result? Well, I'm glad I saw the movie.

The film's narrative is split between two different plot lines that rarely intersect, but still have a deeper connection. The first plotline is about a boy named Bones (Iain De Caestecker) trying to help his mother (Billy) pay off their mortgage. He does so by scavenging copper from abandoned houses, but eventually, a man by the name of "Bully" proclaims himself the ruler of this unnamed Detroit-like dystopia. Bones drops his bag and runs after a brief stare down between the two. 

Bones foolishly goes back to get his copper back and succeeds. Yet, he finds that he can't sell it, and he learns that Bully can do much more than scream through a megaphone declaring kingship.

(Matt Smith as the chilling and unhinged "Bully")

This plot line offers both stronger and weaker aspects to the film. While there's plenty of memorable stuff in here, including a monologue by Bully about "Living life like a bull in the wind", the audience is subjected to an incredibly tedious scene involving Bully arguing with some random lady in a parking lot while Bones and his girlfriend Rat (Saoirse Ronan) are hiding from one of Bully's henchmen. It's... terrible. Really. One of the stupidest, most ill-placed scenes I've ever seen in a movie.

But the film manages to quickly bring it back with a scene that closely resembles one from David Lynch's "Blue Velvet", where Ben Mendholson's character sings Bob Nolan's "Cool Water". This is far from the only similarity to "Blue Velvet" in this film, but it's probably the most obvious homage, especially in the context of the film and the horrifying scene that follows.

On the other side of the movie, you have Bones' mother Billy (Christina Hendricks of Mad Men fame.) She loves her old home and she's willing to do almost anything to keep it for the sake of her two boys. This includes taking a vague job from a partially-deaf, ill-mannered banker by the name of "Dave". 

The job she takes is at a violence-oriented nightclub that features a fantasy-like hologram/projection device that allows women to "mutilate" themselves whilst sealed within a shell device. The banker seems to have an interest in Billy, and his creepy demeanor serves to make the scenes at this nightclub even more disturbing than they already are. 

(Ben Mendholson as Dave, a slimy banker with ulterior motives.)

Like with Bones' storyline, Billy's has its own scene that felt unnecessary in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps the fact it felt so out of place is because it's a scene where explicit amounts of blood is shown, which is something the film otherwise doesn't go for. It's a movie that likes to show a split second of a violent act happening before cutting away, then cutting back to show an obscured aftermath. To call the violence "graphic" may even be wrong, but it has an even more disturbing effect than what would've been had it explicitly shown all of the bloody violence. 

This is helped in part by the eerie, unsettling soundtrack that plays for most of the film. Because of it and the unpredictable nature of the villains in the odd environments our protagonists are in, the film never ceased to be intense for me. I have a feeling a second watch would be totally different because the film really only delivers on that apocalyptic feel in the last act. 

Not only that, there are several visual cues. When watching the film, I never understood what the burning bike meant until I learn how keen towards arson Bully is. The same applies to the graffiti. You'll notice plenty of sprayed images of scissors, and one comes just after the film's most unsettling and disturbing scene. It serves as some sort of haunting reminder to what took place, almost as if it was engraved as a piece of history on the ancient and abandoned town the film takes place in. 

This is the kind of film where you'll forget quite a few scenes after finishing it, and that's the ultimate flaw. You'll get introduced to a memorable scene you'd swear would be in an Oscar-worthy movie, but it's proceeded by tedium that you'll hate while watching or you'll even be cringing at. The script is as weak as it is strong in numerous spots, and the film feels bloated and underdeveloped as a whole.

Most underdeveloped is the film's very namesake. The original title of the movie was "How to Catch a Monster", and... that title didn't fit either. In fact, "Lost River" makes sense purely since that's near the setting, but the legends about a curse, and the plotline involving Rat and her grandmother feel almost forced onto the film. 

Without it, the film would've been totally focused on the well being of a poor family trying to keep their house in some sort of fantasy world. With it, it feels like there's shades of a third plotline that doesn't come to fruition. It could be as simple as it is,and have no deeper meaning, but it also could be that there's some symbolism at the end of the film I'm not getting. 

I think highly of what got the film right, and I believe Ryan Gosling has a bright future in directing. I just think the film has quite a few flaws. But, sans the aforementioned parking lot scene, I think even the film's flaws are fascinating and worth discussing. It's a well-crafted and very genuine debut of someone who loves art.and I look forward to his future releases. 

7/10. 

My Most Anticipated Movies of 2015

It's about that time. Quarter one has just about passed, and it's starting to get into the season where a lot of good movies come out. Some indie, some blockbusters, some eventual award winners - and I'm here to list and discuss some my most anticipated.

I'll probably release more lists later in the year before the fall/winter season happen. I'm excited for films like "Snowden", "The Revenant", and "The Hateful Eight", but there's simply far too little info about them to be able to comment about at this point in time.

One note: I don't list "Age of Ultron" here because after two hours of trying I simply couldn't find anything to write about it. It's one of my most anticipated, but there's little for me to speculate or discuss. It's more likely I'll write an entire article on Phase 2 of Marvel's film series just before or after I see Age of Ultron.


SPECTRE
(Directed by Sam Mendes. Not yet rated. Release Date: November 6th.)

I haven't exactly seen many Bond movies. In fact, besides the Craig films, I've only seen Goldfinger. Skyfall was the very first Bond film I ever saw, and I was blown away by it. The atmosphere, the acting, and Roger Deakins' perfect cinematography built up to a really well done spy thriller movie well worth the praise it gets.

With the same director on board for Spectre, I'm excited. Even better, they're getting Christoph Waltz to play what appears to be the main antagonist. If Waltz' recent roles in Tarantino movies are any indication, he'll be a great villain that could even surpass Havier Bardem's role in Skyfall. Honestly, if it comes within even a mile of Bardem's role, it'll be outstanding.

The teaser recently came out, revealing that Bond seems to be searching for a lost family member or childhood friend. There seems to be some fallout from the events of Skyfall, and things lead eventually seem to lead to the discovery of an organization called "SPECTRE". It's hard to tell, but the trailer makes it seem as though Christoph Waltz' character leads the organization, or at the very least, has a pivotal role in it.

Despite the absence of Deakins for this film, the cinematography still looks absolutely chilling. They hired another noted cinematographer known as Hoyte van Hoytema, known for directing acclaimed films like Her and Let the Right One In. He also was the cinematographer for Interstellar, which was a beautiful and well shoot film in its own right.

I'm anticipating things and I have very few reservations. Craig has played a good aging Bond and sans Quantum of Solace this iteration of Bond has the villains down quite well.


LOST RIVER
(Directed by Ryan Gosling, Rated R. Release Date: April 10th, video on demand.)

After starring in roles in films like Only God Forgives and Drive, it seems Gosling is making an attempt at directing to be what appears to be a tribute to both Nicolas Winding Refn and David Lynch, among other directors known for style and complex storytelling.

Based strictly on the trailer, the film seems to be some magical, dystopian thriller about a mother protecting her children, a crazed self-claimed ruler, and some sort of flooded utopia named "Lost River".

The film's most intriguing aspects come from the smooth electronic soundtrack and the stunning visuals mixed with incredible looking cinematography. Nicolas Winding Refn is probably one of the most skilled directors of our era, and I can only hope Gosling learned well enough to emulate the likes of Refn's best. As Gosling's directorial debut, I don't expect absolute perfection - but the film has a lot of promise and might set the stage for future dream-like movies.

There will be a review of the film on my blog as soon as I see it in a week.


STAR WARS EPISODE VII: THE FORCE AWAKENS
(Directed by JJ Abrams. Not yet rated. Release Date: December 18th.)

With serious reservations, I'm anticipating the continuation of the films. It's been ten years since the prequels went by, and that subject is still very fiercely debated. I didn't find them to be competent films at all, but they still hold nostalgia value for me since I enjoyed them growing up.

But, George Lucas doesn't appear to be in control anymore, and most detractors of Return of the Jedi and the prequels note that the worst things tended to happen when nobody stepped up and told Lucas when it was time to stop. Now, we have a director known for his work with the new Star Trek universe. JJ Abrams must be the luckiest director of all time. He gets to direct films from two of the biggest sci-fi cultures ever.

But, that comes with concern. The Star Trek movies, put simply, weren't really Star Trek. Star Trek is about philosophy in the science fiction realm, it's about exploring and finding new things, often about peaceful resolution whenever possible, etc. It's frequently talky and minimalist, but besides the technobabble, the dialogue is noteworthy for helping to create a vast reach of intricate, beloved characters and putting them in situations that became classic science fiction.

Not to say that action is prohibited from occurring in Star Trek, but it's about the characters first. One of the biggest mistakes made by the Next Generation films is that they mostly betrayed Picard's character and made him a bumbling old action hero. The JJ Abrams Star Trek movies don't stray very far from that action-adventure element that the previous films failed at, and in the process, they didn't really feel like traditional Star Trek.

They worked as films, and I mostly enjoyed them, but there was always a feeling as though they created a new Star Trek in-name-only. This couldn't be more apparent in Into Darkness, where they insert a character specifically because they can, even if he bears no resemblance in any given way or form to his namesake.

That's my worry for these new Star Wars movies, but the Star Wars is primarily an action-adventure story. There were plenty of people comparing the new Star Trek movies to Star Wars, and I think that's a positive thing going into The Force Awakens. Yet, based on the paragraphs above, I'm worried Abrams might somehow miss the point and try and do something different for these movies.

These are the perfect movies to just do what he's been doing, but I know that directors can get antsy about that. They might not want to bore audiences, so they do something different so people don't negatively say "These two franchises Abrams directed are the exact same."

Through all the debates on minor details like the claymore saber Kylo Ren has and the details over what the roles of Luke and Han or going to be, all I can really think of is if Abrams is going to get the tone we saw in A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back right. A film that isn't too serious and can be enjoyed, but one that still carries meaning and emotion with a bright and well constructed cast.

This is something Abram's Star Trek movies did well, but it still brings in one final concern. Both of those movies had very convoluted plots that were filled with holes and inconsistencies, and Abrams is known for his complicated plots. He's the guy that helped start LOST, and he ran with Alias for years. I hope that doesn't spill too much over into Star Wars, because he doesn't tend to create fluent, mind-bending plots that make sense by the end.

I like some of Abram's works, but he's going to helm a flagship of cinema that last left us with what many consider to be one of the worst and most disappointing trilogies of all time. He has a lot of pieces to pick up. I believe he can do it, which is why I'm anticipating this movie, but I'm not going in with blind hype. I know well that Abrams could botch it, or make it far less than it could've been. Here's hoping it'll be the best since Empire.


CRIMSON PEAK
(Directed by Guillermo del Toro. Rated R. Release Date: October 16th.)

With a wealth of acclaimed movies and cult classics, Guillermo del Toro seems to be trying his hand at writing, directing, and producing once more. The last time he did this was the fun and visually pleasing Pacific Rim, and before that, the striking dark fantasy Pan's Labyrinth.

Del Toro is now aiming to create a gothic thriller of sorts by mixing classic sets, gothic fiction, and inspiration from movies like The Exorcist and The Shining. He wants to get away from the found footage genre of today, and have a callback to older classic horror. But, he still promises very few but effective scenes that he describe as "...really, really disturbing in a very, very modern way."

The plot is vague, but the setup promises for something terrifying. A newlywed wife (Mia Wasikowska) comes to visit her husband (Tom Hiddleston) in an old, decrepit mansion. She discovers there's more to him, and the trailer shows haunting images of some sort of otherwordly creature wandering through the mansion. Of course, this all appears to be set during a long and violent snowstorm, most likely trapping the inhabitants in with whatever lurks the mansion.

Del Toro has proven he can honor a genre when he honored the Mecha genre in 2013 with Pacific Rim, but Crimson Peal has the potential to make that small fry in comparison. The big question is if he can honor horror classics and create something unique. I believe he can, but we'll find out in October.



MAD MAX: FURY ROAD
(Directed by George Miller. Rated R. Release Date: May 15th.)
























The post-apocalyptic genre in this form seems like a rare breed nowadays. You see elements of it in films like Interstellar, but last year's Snowpiercer seems to be the closest thing that's been made in a while to emulate the chaos and insanity of the world on its last legs.

I've never actually seen the original Mad Max films, and this is something I intend to fix before this movie is released. Though, judging by the trailers, this (potential reboot?) seems to be intended for the current generation in some capacity, and I doubt that viewing of the previous films will be required to watch or understand this one.

George Miller has claimed that the film is is mostly using practical effects over CGI, which should alleviate concerns that the film might appear fake. There's a few things shown in the trailers that are clearly CG, but it blends nicely due to the repetitively colored environment.

Now, colorless environment such as the wasteland of a desert featured may seem dull, but it does two things - it helps highlight the designs of the vehicles, and it helps create a sense of helplessness. This seems like a smart directing choice, making this long road seem like an ocean that you'd die in if you fell off your car. The emptiness of the desert only further helps to highlight how vast it is just at a quick glance.

Miller has stated he intends this film to be a visual experience, and one that you could understand even if you spoke a different language. By that measure, I expect a simplistic plot (Miller even referred to it as a unique sort of Western) but that the film will be visually striking.

One of my biggest hopes for this is that George Miller can effectively convey emotion and chaos through his directing. Based on a few shots from the trailer, this seems like he may well succeed. Because of that, I consider this one of my most anticipated films of the year. Beyond how well directed and visually striking it may be, it looks like a total blast.