Change Your Image
MrJustRight
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againOr if they are aimed at the masses they still maintain that unique feel akin to a classic or hidden gem.
This list contains films from all genres though you’ll notice that most fall under the horror genre as that genre just so happens to contain most of these hidden gems. Quite a few may also fall under the LGBTQ genre which I noticed happens to have a lot of hidden gems as well.
All of the films on this list contain to a certain degree the X Factor which I look for in films, some more than others.
Part of what qualifies as X Factor material for me is firstly not censoring and secondly not pushing anything. So there must be a mix of not forcing anything upon the audience but also not withholding anything from the audience.
Reviews
Skinamarink (2022)
True "Horror"
{Film viewed in theaters 01/29/2023}
I want to start with the obvious: this film is not for everyone. The theater was rather packed at the beginning of my viewing, mostly with adolescents, but at the end of the film there were only four viewers remaining: a rather young couple to the left of me, a middle-aged woman by her lonesome sitting in the row down from me, and myself, sitting in the top row on the seat furthest to the right, per usual.
The adolescent couples sitting next to me at the beginning of the film say guzzling down their drinks, stuffing their faces with popcorn, checking their phones, and even vaping. Unimpressed by the slowness of the film and perhaps by the lack of action, they eventually arose simultaneously to leave the theater in youthful defiance. Meanwhile, another young couple who sat some rows down from me, probably approaching their late teens or possibly their early twenties, left later on, the boyfriend contemptuously exclaiming, "My gawd, this film sucks!" as he left the theater - yet this was not his grand exit, for he came back to retrieve some items either he or his girlfriend left in the theater; as did some of the other adolescents before him. It should be noted that this young couple entered the theater in a bad mood, with the girlfriend reprimanding the boyfriend for something (who knows what) and pointing her finger at him. Perhaps the boyfriend's exclamation was partially driven by his domineering girlfriend's influence over him; since he felt unable to rebel against his girlfriend, he used the film as something which he could rebel against... But that's all psychoanalysis.
The film....
The film utilizes sound very interestingly. Whereas most horror films use sounds in jump scares after periods of silence to startle viewers, this film has a static noise playing throughout, and as I recall has only two periods of silence which interrupt this incessant static noise; one moment of silence occurs during the film, and the other occurs at the end. These moments of silence highlight the creepiness of the film.
This is a film to be watched by one's lonesome in my opinion. That's because it's a film that creeps under one's skin in a psychological manner similar to The Ring. I noticed that the couple to the left of me would cough, laugh, or whisper anytime the film was becoming increasingly uncomfortable. The youth who left the theater near the beginning of the film were probably looking for some action-based horror or something, who knows.
But that's why this film is so brilliant. It takes one to the darkest crevices of his imagination, which are scarier than any typical cliche jump scares offered by other more mainstream horror films.
I've seen just about every horror film there is, with some exceptions perhaps, and none have gotten to me like this film. This film was so creepy and just unsettling that I'd add it to my hierarchical trinity of cult horror. Perhaps the three most unsettling films I've seen are The Ring, Hereditary, and this film, Skinamarink.
This is a true horror film, like The Ring and Hereditary. True horror unsettles, unnerves, perhaps even excites, one's spirit. There is something "unholy" about these three films, and this metaphysical bizarreness is palpable.
It almost feels like one is traversing through his darkest childhood nightmares, and is forced to face them, which is more unsettling than any typical serial murder spree one might see in mainstream horror.
I did find the end to be a tad pretentious, as the abrupt silence followed by the lettering, "The End," didn't really work.
Another facet of this film was the highlighting of inanimate objects as sources of horror, such as the children's toys. This was brilliant, as oft times it is these items which arise uncanny sensations in people, as if, should these toys or dolls be analyzed long enough, one might discover that there is more to them than meets the eye.
This film is really meant to be watched in private by oneself; it is not a film for theaters, especially when younger audiences come in looking for excitement. This is a rather mature film which focuses on the metaphysical and psychological; thus it is not relatable to everyone, at least not on the surface. I found this film to be a deeply satisfying inward spiritual journey; a search for life's deeper meanings, beyond all the noise.
What We Have (2014)
The Homoerotic Version of Lolita
Many parallels can be drawn between this film and Nabokov's work, the most obvious connection being the age difference, but a plethora of others can be drawn as well: while at first the older gentleman is the pursuer, the younger paramour of interest ends up pursuing the pursuer by regurgitating the romantic and sexual interest emanated by the older gentleman. Not to mention the professions of the older gentleman revolve around teaching, and prominent scenes feature stage performances, though Nabokov sees Lolita performing on stage whilst this film sees Maurice as the performer yet Alan takes an interest in Maurice's stage performing. Perhaps most prominently, however, both stories end rather tragically. Lolita gets married and bears a child with another man, whilst Maurice leaves Alan -- they both end in separation.
In both stories we see an effervescent mother who is hellbent on keeping the male encroacher, though reasons vary ; Nabokov's Charlotte is smitten with Humbert Humbert whilst this film has Alan's mother seemingly only interested in hiring the best tutor for her son (but perhaps there is more than meets the eye to this line of story).
We also see flashbacks to Maurice's childhood in a similar fashion that Adrian Lyne opens his 1997 remake of Lolita, showing a fourteen-year-old Humbert Humbert and what drove him to be the man he is today. It is revealed in both stories that the men's childhoods are responsible for their tragic attractions to minors: Humbert Humbert lost his childhood sweetheart to illness, whilst Maurice was sexualized by his stepfather.
In my opinion this film is a true masterpiece. It rings pangs of truth which strum at one's heartstrings. Whilst it is a homoerotic film, it goes far deeper than that. Notably both Lolita and Alan are missing fathers, and Maurice himself had a stepfather. It speaks to the pains of fatherlessness, and the consequences of it. While these consequences may seem painful, they can also be beautiful, as evident in both "Lolita" and "What We Have." Beautiful, even if in a tragic way.
To paraphrase the character Lana Lang from Smallville, "Change can be painful, but it can also be beautiful. Many times it is both."
That is what this film is: Beautiful pain, painful beauty. Life.
We see a defiance of societal norms in both stories, both men turning down women their age; H. H. turns down Lolita's mother Charlotte whilst Maurice turns down his female costar on stage. These men reject what perhaps most men would readily grab should they have the chance (well, perhaps not Charlotte).
X (2022)
Really?
I was drawn to this film as it seemed like a novel horror film which I've been longing for.
But really? The old woman's face looked like one of those latex masks you'd find at, I don't know, Party City, or Spirit Halloween.
I was hoping for something unique regarding this rather odd old couple but really they just envied the youth and their hypersexualism.
Most of this film consists of bland, subrate, partially censored adult film content and that's really all this is.
I thought going in that the adult film stuff was just a front for something special, but no, that's really all this film is. Yes, the lone survivor girl (oh, how original - yes it's the girl in the poster smh) turns out to be the daughter of the religious preaching nutter on the tele -- But, may I ask, who cares??? It's just a stupid film to be blunt.
Infinite Storm (2022)
Letdown
This was the first film I've seen starring Naomi Watts which let me down.
I told my mother to come see this film with me since she loves true stories (I love horror) and I told her wait till she sees Naomi Watts (she's not big on Hollywood names).
Anyway the film clearly tries to be ultra-realistic, featuring scenes of Watts belching whilst guzzling beer from the fridge and binging on pizza, then bathing. In other words it tries to come off as something that happened in the life of a woman, a tad dramatic but nonetheless down-to-earth. Yet it just comes off as toxic realism.
The film starts off with its little timestamps as if foreboding something momentous, and viewers might think, "Oh gosh, here we go..." But none of the sort occurs, and experienced film-goers such as myself know this at the very beginning just by sensing the tone of the film.
We know the setup and buildup will lead to nothing even without knowing the story it is based upon.
I believe the filmmakers were going for this "just some crazy day in some woman's life" kind of feel but it just doesn't work.
Watts was fine, and my mother told me I was right that she was a good actress (her male counterpart actor was substandard).
But overall the film is just bleh -- that's really all that can be said.
Suffice it to say theatergoers were shocked or perhaps confused when it was revealed that Pam's children were in fact dead, but this dramatic occurrence also seemed pattered down and bleh
I don't know, it's just a so-so film.
Oculus (2013)
Good doesn't always prevail
Very pleasant surprise. A good psychological thriller/supernatural horror. I like how the film's ending sees the mirror win. Far too often we see horror films with unrealistic (aside from the fact that these films are unrealistic to begin with) endings where which the protagonists overcome evil and the audience rejoices. Those endings have become so tiresome and cliché that it's nice to see a change for once with Oculus. The director touches upon this in the film commentary available on DVD.
These are the films I'm looking for. Not cliché films seeking for audience approval by way of a heroic knockout of evil.
Scarred (2016)
I'm scarred, not scared
This film is so bad and not in a laughable way. Almost every single acting performance is insanely awkward and honestly pathetic. Furthermore, the SOUND. I watched this film on DVD (bought it for a dollar at Dollar Tree) and the imbalances in sound were horrendous.
The plot itself was just overtly cliché. Slaughter scenes were conducted mostly off-camera. Girls' screams were obnoxious. Ending was rushed (but at the same time couldn't come soon enough).
Part I enjoyed the most was a deleted scene where which a few actors sit smoking a pipe and discussing religion, the afterlife, and Lent.
Why did I watch it? My internet went out....
Dýrið (2021)
Nothing. Ever. Happens.
I figured going into the theaters that this film was merely teasing us with the mild trailer. Or perhaps rather hoping?
Being interested in Icelandic culture and the language, not to mention having a recent strange obsession with Baphomet, this film was a must-see for me.
But... It's probably safe to say the most climactic scene in the film was shown in the trailer: Where the "mother" of this goat humanoid shouts to the goat mother to "go away."
Whilst sitting in the theater you could literally hear a pin drop throughout the majority of the film; that's how quiet a film it was. I saw two people get up and leave as well. I am used to artistic films starting off slow and quiet and all that jazz, but the build-up amounted to NOTHING.
The ending makes no sense either, (unless they decide to have a sequel?), but I still don't get it. I probably would've preferred seeing Ada as a creature composed of a goat body with a human head, don't know. And really? I thought it was to be expected but why have this Baphomet-like figure shoot the husband at the end? It kind of takes away from the mystery.
Anyway, the film tries to be artsy and everything but it just doesn't work. There is little build-up and the build-up that exists leads to nothing, as said.
Very acute letdown for me, as have been the last dozen or so films I've seen in theaters recently. Am I missing something here? I doubt it.
Point of my review: I sat waiting... and waiting.... And waiting....... But NOTHING. EVER. HAPPENS.
Busanhaeng (2016)
Don't Listen to Negative Reviews
I just saw this film at the theater as part of AMC's Thrills and Chills Surprise Screenings. The film might seem to start off slow, but once it gets rolling it is really an engaging non-stop rollercoaster of a film.
Incidentally I recently watched Quarantine 2: Terminal, and this film seems to be a complete rehashing of that film except instead of happening on a plane it takes place on a train (obviously), or rather multiple trains.
The original Quarantine film which I never watched was released in 2008, the sequel which I did watch was released in 2011, and this foreign-language (Korean) film in question was released in 2016. I would be surprised if this film was not influenced in any way by those two films or at least one of them.
On another note, sitting in the theater, not knowing which movie was to be played, it was a bit eerie seeing the subtitle "Quarantine" whilst watching a film occurring in East Asia, as we are still in the midst of the pandemic. I wonder if there was any forethought along those lines as part of the reasoning behind playing this film...
Titane (2021)
Another Statement on Gender
I watched this film as I was a fan of the director's previous film Raw (2016) and noticed a familiar face by the way!
I was expecting... Well, at least hoping for, graphic hardcore stuff I suppose. Whilst some of that was present, we are taken on a pointless detour wherein a still-grieving father becomes the star of the show and two tales intertwine.
It is obvious to me that this film, above all, is a statement on gender. We see the star swap gender roles back and forth, and the "father" negates the true gender of the "child" in favor of hope or blind love. Obviously the film points toward a whole new idea of "gender" which of course is why we came to see this movie. A combination of woman and machine. But this idea took a back seat throughout the majority of the film, becoming almost an afterthought, forgotten due to the aforementioned pointless detour of a mourning father.
Only at the end of the film do we see this birth, and quite honestly it was disappointing. It wasn't clear to me what this film was trying to achieve. Am I supposed to be interested in this cyborg or the grieving father?
What started off as an intriguing film and concept ended up as a film that simply made me go, "Meh," by the end. That said, the best moments of this film were in its gender constructions or perhaps deconstructions. Particularly the scene of the "girl" dancing as a "boy" in the manner of a "girl" - Watch it then this'll make sense.
EDIT: Obviously, SPOILERS, the absolute best moment in this film was the apparent intercourse between the star and the car. But then... What the heck? It goes nowhere 🤷
It was an EPIC moment, but sadly the film just went on that nonsensical detour as mentioned above. Such a shame 😔
FINAL EDIT: I just wanted to add some thoughts on the idea of gender in this film. The main character (cyborg) was seemingly unloved by her father. She needed a father. The grieving father whom assumed her as his "son" needed a son. Her giving birth to a "son" seems to me now to be an act of martyrdom. She sacrifices herself, even if unwillingly, to provide a "son" for this grieving father. It seems the message here is possibly a feminist one, or one that points to the negation of woman to child. That is, the misogynistic notion that women are here solely to reproduce, and the film seems to point to this in perhaps a critical way. But it just doesn't work for me. We even had this cyborg kill both men and women previously, including "her" paramour from "her" ephemeral lesbian affair. But "she" could not bring herself to slaughter "her" "father." And the "father" could not bring himself to accept the reality that his "son" was a strange "woman." But where this cyborgism comes into play is a tad unclear to me at the moment. There is a sense of shame emanating from the cyborg when "her" "father" sees "her" breasts, indicating this suppression of female identity. But then "she" gives birth, uncontrollably unleashing "her" true nature. Perhaps I'm reading more into it? Anyway, regardless, the film was a letdown.
FINAL FINAL EDIT: THE FILM WAS A LETDOWN BECAUSE I DID NOT COME TO SEE A STATEMENT ON GENDER. I CAME TO SEE A DIVERSION. FOR THOSE INTERESTED ON THIS IDEA OF GENDER OR SEX AND HOW IT RELATES TO CYBORGISM I RECOMMEND READING DONNA HARAWAY's (I believe that's the name) WRITINGS ON THE MATTER (I believe her writings are from the eighties). I WROTE A PAPER ON HARAWAY's NOTION OF CYBORGISM AND HOW IT POINTS TO THE EMASCULATION OF MAN VIA MACHINE THROUGH ABNEGATION (self-abnegation). I would be surprised to learn that the director of this film was not influenced by Haraway. We even see the birth as a form of emasculation as the supposed "male" reverts back to "female" before giving birth.
Another note: In the bus scene we see a sort of silent understanding between the two "women" as the lot of oligophrenic men talk about sticking it in any hole. Obviously this film is a statement on gender/sex.
Enough is enough in my opinion!
5/10.
Old (2021)
Meh
Interesting plot, but the denouement where which we are watching an experiment is a tiresome cliché. Subrate acting abounds, inconsistent character growth (yes, inconsistent even for inconsistent character growths), cliché after cliché, just a plain bad film.
Some scenes were good and sufficiently creepy, and I sensed some Lost vibes as well. But it was overall just a shameful attempt at cinema, and self-promotion on the director's part.
The Night House (2020)
Lost Potential
Out of the three films I've seen in theaters this week: Old, Don't Breathe 2, and this film, The Night House, this is the best overall, hands down. But that's not saying much either.
What had the potential to be a truly good horror film turned back to tiresome clichés and recycled denouements, including an abhorrent ending reminiscent of just about a thousand other "horror" films.
What happened to the whole voodoo thing? Sitting at the theater I just knew there would be some mention of voodoo, don't ask me how. When she subsequently discovers the voodoo sculpture in an abandoned house, then hears confirmation from her neighbor, I thought to myself, a smile escaping from my lips, "Now this is getting good!" I was wrong. It went all downhill from there. The film went from strange identity thriller to feel-bad-for-the-husband-and-watch-the-wife-overcome-evil bore. Yay, the wife wasn't "tricked" - Who cares???
This could've been a brilliant film akin to The Double, Enemy, or a plethora of similar films exploring double identity. But it wasn't. It was awful and the second half to third quarter of the film was atrocious. Shame.
Hereditary (2018)
Rip-off
Rips off the film White Noise starring Michael Keaton. Literally a whole section is choreographed based upon that film. Why does no one notice this?
It's a decent film but give credit where it's due.
Cupid (2020)
More F-Rate Acting
Here we go again, another film with horrendous acting. Incidentally, here on IMDb, this is the third film I'm imbuing with a 1-star rating, after "Itsy Bitsy" (2019) & "The Bone Box" (2020), thus ranking it among the worst films I've seen.
The award for the worst acting performance in the film goes to whoever played Mr. Jones, I don't care enough to know his name. He can hardly get sentences out, his face never accompanies the onscreen action, he's definitely in the wrong profession, just as his character was in the film, for those daring enough to waste their time watching it in its entirety.
The film is supposed to be another demon-summoning revenge flick, akin to "Pumpkinhead" (1988) & "Devil's Domain" (2016), along with a plethora of others. The best, which isn't saying much, part of the film is its beginning, wherein the origin story of Cupid is explained. After that, it's all downhill.
If there was an option to give films negative ratings here, I would. That's how bad a film this is. I won't even get in to the tiresome promotion of biracial romance, which would be acceptable if the acting wasn't so insufferable.
Suspiria (2018)
The Witch Hunter
The first time I saw this film was at the theater. At the time I found it a breath of fresh air. By chance I had just watched Argento's original from 1977 & was excited to see this remake. Very satisfied I was. Stunning visuals, captivating audio, entrancing acting. Though am I alone here, or does anyone else find the lead's performance underwhelming? There is a certain feigned enthusiasm emanating from her, and I much prefer the lead from the original film.
I refer to this film as "The Witch Hunter" because, for those who watched the first film, imagine the male witch expert suddenly becoming the star of the show. Here that male witch expert is modified to be a pseudo-psychologist and doctor. Throughout the film, even upon a second viewing, I'm sitting there wondering why in the world I should care about this man and his lost wife when I should be watching the witches and dancers, after all the title "Suspiria" refers to, in this remake, Mother Suspiriorum, one of the Three Mothers.
The worst part of this film is its denouement, wherein Suzy Bannion is revealed to be Mother Suspiriorum, or something like that. It was hard to take her seriously when comparing her with the haggard hag with sunglasses and an uncanny sonority. "I am she," says Suzy... Yeah, I'm not buying it, thinks I. The absolute worst part of the film, now viewing it more from a detached and therefore critical position, is when Mother Suspiriorum sits at the doctor's bedside and explains to him how his wife died. Who cares? What are we watching here, a film about witches or a doctor who lost his wife in the war?
Most of the music is great, but the reoccurring theme with a male lead singer is cringeworthy and does not match the onscreen action or theme.
Dead End (2003)
Stunning
On rare occasion have I seen a film which keeps its viewer so perpetually on edge. One of the most absorbing, engaging, and psychologically disturbing films I've seen, right up there with and emanating reminiscent tones of The Ring (2002) in its creep factor.
The cast is impeccable, the script is thoroughly and spectacularly twisted, and the cinematography is beautiful. So engaging was the film that I wasn't able to move until all of the credits were finished rolling ; there's a shout out from the filmmakers to audience members who sat through the credits, there's my proof.
A must see.
The Human Centipede (First Sequence) (2009)
Misunderstood Masterpiece
Reading through some reviews, I feel this film is misunderstood. First off, regarding the acting, which has taken some heat, I must commend Dieter Laser's performance as Dr. Josef Heiter -- a better acting performance you will not see. Yes, the girls' performances are sub-rate, but this is to be expected, and it seems almost like an homage to classic horror films, almost like a way to slightly desensitize audiences from much care, or perhaps a way for some to relate. Incidentally, the rather poor performances of the two female leads lend to a greater fear for the main attraction, seemingly bolstering Laser's performance.
People also complain about the script, or rather the lack thereof. That, to me, is part of what makes this film such an original masterpiece. The forming of "the human centipede" is all the more frightening without solid explanation or understanding. It's organized chaos, like music -- Dr. Heiter dances at the completion of his "centipede," notably without music accompanying the dance. It's horrific precisely because this "madman" takes pleasure out of doing this, without any condolences or cares.
The film noticeably focuses a long time on one of the lead girls trying to escape before the experiment. Watching this film multiple times, this becomes tedious, as I'm just waiting for the experiment to begin, and it's unbearably cliche. However, to first-time viewers, this is hope-building. It gives viewers the perception that they may be watching a classic Hollywood horror film in which the protagonist(s) escapes the villain. This makes Dr. Heiter's conquer and subsequent success evermore disturbing, and what makes an otherwise typical horror film legendary.
The ending of the film is particularly masterful. A sole survivor, stuck hopelessly between two dead counterparts, without rhyme or reason. The total absurdity of what happened sinks in, as the camera lifts above-ground and into the sunny nature, contrasting two worlds, one of horrific inexplicable tragedy on the ground, and one of indifferent harmony in nature. The indifference of nature beckons Dr. Heiter's indifference to his victims, or perhaps slightly hints at a mocking of his victims, wherein the sun glimmers despite the situation on the ground, without care.
People too often need to see a film with an understandable ending, something where they can go home and say, "so that's what happened." This film goes deeper, it hits one on a deeper level, not everything must be "understood" in a pleasing way, or even in a displeasing way. What's the point of her suffering, people may ask at the end of the film, what was the point of what I just watched, they may say -- the point is that it was pointless, as was her suffering, but in a harmonic way, in a musical way, much like life.
The Bone Box (2020)
Whoever digs a pit will fall into it
The film opens with this quote from Proverbs 26:27. Unfortunately, it is true of the film. By far one of the worst films I've seen - The acting is subpar, awkward and unengaging, with the exception of Maria Olsen's performance as Aunt Florence. However, Olsen's solid performance does little to help drag this film out of its pit.
The film is about a graverobber who sees visions of the people whose graves he robbed. His partner in crime serves as his plea to sanity, seeking to convince him that it's his guilt that's stirring the visions.
Everything that occurs in the film can be seen coming from a mile away. When the graverobber's partner drops the photographs of the people whose graves they robbed, and the graverobber is supposedly in shock, the viewer can't help rolling his eyes. I'd rather not use the term, but I can't refrain - Cliché - That just sums the film up. The main character sees a painting changing, how original. It's not just the unoriginality of it all, but the lead actor's performance is truly lackluster. He seems to be thinking about something else during the film - Aunt Florence calls him "distant," but that term doesn't do him justice, the acting is just atrocious. His female counterpart does alright, but this does not rectify the awkwardness of onscreen relations.
Furthermore, the film is all over the place. Constant flashbacks of his wife run through the lead's mind, which are similarly unengaging and downright boring, not to mention they do nothing to contribute to the script. It's clear the idea was for the lead character to have some sort of cathartic experience by realizing his guilt and owning up to it, but the horrendous acting, along with the cliché scares, unengaging script, and just about everything else make this film a shameful attempt at cinema.
At least there are films of such low status to fill the 1-star rating slot.
La montagna del dio cannibale (1978)
Killer Kane's Nightmare
Of the string of Italian cannibal films I've watched thus far - Ruggero Deodato's Cannibal Holocaust (1980), Umberto Lenzi's Eaten Alive! (1980), and Umberto Lenzi's Cannibal Ferox (1981) - I believe this, Sergio Martino's Mountain of the Cannibal God (1978) to be the greatest. (There's also Eli Roth's The Green Inferno (2013) but that is not part of the Italian string of cannibal films).
All four films are eerily similar, with many scenes even being duplicates, such as a monkey being devoured by a snake, a caiman eating a rafter alive only to be killed by a fellow rafter, a snake dueling with an eagle.... Of the four films this film is the most graphic: Bestiality is not withheld, a castration is shown in its entirety....
Thematically, all four films are similar as well: Rational civilization versus superstitious primordiality. This particular film sees a trip from London (civilization) to the jungles of New Guinea (the wild). Where this film seems to differ from the others, however, is in its depiction of the cannibals as the true savages. The other films make it unclear whether the true savages are the native cannibals or the foreign encroachers, whereas this film, although highlighting the encroachers as lying & ignoble humans, does not paint the encroaching civilized peoples as monsters to the same extent as the later films.
For those curious as to the title I chose for this review, I recommend watching The Ninth Configuration (1980).
Frozen (2010)
Frozen - Unnaturally
Hey, the two male leads look so familiar... Where do I know them from? That's right, they were both in Smallville! (I think)
I was originally going to give this film 8 stars. However, its poor ending, coupled with its cliché discussions, were enough for it to lose two stars.
This film psyches its viewers with its original ski lift pause. Now, this is by no means original, as many films have a Goosebumps-like psych. However, it would've been interesting to see everyone else stuck on the ski lift along with the three main actors, thus I was hoping that the pause would be the actual "freeze." Interestingly, the first pause occurs naturally, more in line with the title of the film, while the actual pause happens because the workers not only abandoned the lift, but actually stopped the lift manually, which I found quite displeasing.
The film has certain tones reminiscent of a Final Destination film, where viewers are aware that the forces of the universe are gradually coming together to create a tragic event. First the three folks convince the ski lift operator to let them aboard, but not before he lets them know that the weather is getting worse. Of course, the characters pay this bit of information no mind, but viewers begin sweating as they know this is a foreboding. Then, with the three characters aboard the ski lift, the operator is told he's needed inside by a coworker. Viewers' hearts begin palpitating. This new operator appears to be a slacker, and this diminishes any hope the audience had. Dismissing the former operator's instructions to wait for the three skiers to come down, he gets a call telling him to go home, and he shuts down the operation. This shutting down, as I mentioned before, was disappointing. It would've been more pleasing had the operator been distracted by some external force and the ski lift "freeze" naturally.
What makes this film so hard to watch is the constant feeling of hope that it imbues its audience members with. This hope is a theme throughout the film, and that makes what unfolds all the more crushing. The lights turning off is a momentous occasion, as now the characters become aware of what the viewers already knew all along: they've been abandoned. The most excellent scene in the film is when one of the skiers decides to jump off the lift - everything about this scene was constructed masterfully, from the exchanging of glances between him and his two counterparts, and the "frozen" moment of staring into his friend's eyes before he jumps, as if waiting for an objection, waiting for his friend to say "No, don't do it." One can easily imagine in this moment the jumper's entire life flooding through his mind before he jumps, and it's fairly obvious that nothing good awaits him upon his fall - it seems he knows this, yet he does it anyway.
This film loses points in part because of its cliché and irrelevant script, particularly while aboard the lift. There's constant reminiscing about the past, talking about what they'll do when they escape. It's clear the writers were trying to have relatable characters, but it doesn't work on the level it should've. The characters' relations with each other on screen were good enough to have audience members care about them and their fates. Who cares about the girl's dog that she left alone when her boyfriend has just been devoured by wolves? Although it's an interesting parallel to draw between their own starvation and her dog's. Continuing with the script, there is constant alpha-male nonsense stemming from the second character to die, and this is just painful to watch. It could be some kind of hinting at the arrival of the wolves, which the character says are "more afraid of you than you are of them," but overall it's plain nonsense and script-filling.
The ending is what really upsets me, and what turns a great film into an average film. Firstly, it turns out to be another feminist film, wherein all the male characters die, only to have a sole female survivor, whose last thought before the film ends is the words of her ex-boyfriend, telling her "you'll be okay, baby," or something like that. Endings like this I've seen one too many times. They are cliché, predictable, and boring. In fact, I was pretty sure that's how this film would end as soon as the first male lead decided to jump.
May (2002)
The Female Dahmer-Pygmalion-Frankenstein
It seems at the beginning of the film, May's eyepatch covers her left eye, yet later on, with the eyepatch off, it's her right eye that's lazy... Although before the eyepatch it was shown that she stabbed her left eye...
This film has great attention to detail. May, unsatisfied with the entirety of people, seeks to take separate parts and amalgamate them into one perfect being. For example, a coworker of May's (May works at an animal hospital) has a beautiful neck, or so May believes. However, her hand has a displeasing mark, according to May. Regarding the mark, the coworker says that her grandmother believed it is the imperfections that equate to true beauty, or something like that. May doesn't agree. So here is May's creation:
1. The neck of her coworker
2. The ears & earrings of her ex-paramour's girlfriend
3. The hands of her ex-paramour
4. The tattoo of Juju Beans Guy (and presumably his arms)
5. The legs of her coworker's paramour
But May was unsatisfied with this creation. Why? Because although May could admire its beauty, it couldn't see May. So, logically, May gauges out her left eye (or was it the right eye?) and plops it onto the left side of her creation's head, but not before first trying glasses.
Here's where the film gains points for attention to detail. First, upon entering her paramour's abode, a poster of Dario Argento's film Opera (1987) is clearly visible. In that film, a serial killer places blades below an opera singer's eyes every time he commits a murder, so that she has to see everything in all its glory. Hence May's frustration when her creation can't see her.
Furthermore, Juju Beans Guy's tattoo was of Frankenstein's Monster. Interestingly, May (2002) ends with the right arm of May's creation reaching out toward her, akin, and perhaps alluding to Frankenstein's monster coming to life. The right arm that reaches out to caress May is the same arm on which the Frankenstein's Monster tattoo resided on Juju Beans Guy.
Like Pygmalion, May sought to create a lover perfect in her eyes. Hence her rearranging of the letters MAY to AMY at the end of the film, indicating the doll's newfound sentience in this new carnation.
Like Dahmer (interestingly, the film Dahmer came out the same year as this film), May has an intense desire for closeness, as is witnessed firsthand by Juju Beans Guy, upon seeing a cat in her freezer. When he sees this, May proposes they be best friends, a role previously upheld by her doll, Amy. This proposal hints at her gauging her eye out in that her best friend needs to see everything she sees. Hence her scolding Amy for not looking away when her paramour was over: She was perhaps hopeful that her paramour could fill this role.
It's details like these that make films great.
Itsy Bitsy (2019)
Utter Trash
I watched this film for two reasons, the first being Bruce Davison. I enjoyed his performances in Dahmer (2002) & Willard (1971). Serial killers, rats, and now, the second reason, spiders. I've been looking for more insect-themed horror films. Dario Argento's Phenomena (1985) is one of the only adequate insect-themed horror films I've seen thus far. The Human Centipede trilogy is alright but doesn't delve enough into insects; although I applaud the second sequence's allusions to the centipede, but more on that in another review. The Collector (2009), The Collection (2012), and Arachnophobia (1990), are some other examples of insect-themed horror films that I've watched. Then, of course, there's The Fly (1986). But on the topic of spiders, I've been awaiting a true horror film.
The film opens by showing tribal rituals, in which, viewers later find out, a spider goddess is being worshiped via sacrifices. "Okay, this is interesting..." was my first reaction and hope. That hope was soon extinguished. The film, supposedly about... what was it about again... spiders? No, that's not it... something about a woman losing her child in a car accident, relocating to take care of an elderly man, having multiple nervous breakdowns, smacking her son in the face, overloading on pills, stealing pills from the elderly man and then rubbing in the fact that he needs someone else to wipe his own a$$. But at the end she realized that family was important, and united once and for all with her two children. Oh yeah, at the end of the film there were some spiders crawling around in a replica playhouse.
Waste of time.
Dahmer (2002)
Solid Film
The headline for this review was close to being "Mediocre Film," but it was a tad too good to be labeled "mediocre." All in all, the term "solid" seems to encompass the entirety of this film. Jeremy Renner does a superb job playing Jeffrey Dahmer, from his Milwaukee accent to his nigh lackadaisical persona. Artel Kayaru performs exceptionally well as Rodney, a would-be Dahmer victim. The role of Lionel Dahmer is fleshed out nicely by Bruce Davison, and a certain chemistry exists between Renner & Kayaru, and Renner & Davison.
While the film is eerily accurate in its attention to detail in some ways, such as including the "box incident," an event discussed by the Dahmers in a Stone Phillips interview (albeit in a modified way: in actuality, in addition to the box containing a severed head, it also contained severed genitals, a fact omitted by the film) and highlighting Dahmer's predilection for smoking cigarettes, there are blatant vacancies and omissions, perhaps most notably that of cannibalism. Dahmer's affinity toward photographing his victims is shown in the film, but without follow-up it seems void. The script for this film colors Dahmer as a misunderstood homosexual nihilist. He relates to his first victim the notion that marriage is a fascist institution. Then the script becomes particularly cringeworthy when Dahmer tries to implement cliché psychological tactics on Rodney, again painting the picture of the individual versus society theme (Rodney is a homosexual black man, "bottom of the bottom," in Dahmer's words), and directly implying that Rodney has murderous intent - "It ain't like I'm going around thinking about how I can chop up my mom and pops," says Rodney, which is followed by "You must of been thinking pretty specifically about it because I didn't ever say it," from Dahmer. This back-and-forth is utter nonsense and seems like a time-filler rather than poignant scripture.
Also comically cringeworthy is Jeffrey's back-and-forth with his father, Lionel, in which Jeffrey takes on the persona of a rotten teen: "If I can't get any privacy this is not worth it to me," says Jeffrey in a whiney tone. Soon after his father responds in a demeaning voice (demeaning because it's as if he's talking to a small child), "Jeffrey, open the box or I'm going to take it downstairs and pry it open." In the film, the "box incident" is long and drawn out, ending when Jeffrey feigns there being "pornographic material" within the box, whilst in actuality, Lionel stopped his prying upon seeing his son becoming noticeably disturbed.
Overall, Dahmer (2002) illustrates to viewers a cunning and manipulative man who deceives people to get his way. While these attributes may be applicable to Jeffrey Dahmer, the film's marketing - "Evil has a name" - is rubbish in that not only does the film paint Dahmer to be, as aforementioned, a nihilistic homosexual, it also shows his drinking and hints at his disposition to examine roadkill with the crow/raven scene at his grandmother's home (in the film he merely placed the bird in a box). In fact, the film shows how Dahmer had to drink excessively in order for him to be able to dispose of, via dismemberment, his first victim's body. In other words, an all-too human, hardly "evil," illustration is concocted.
The bar scenes are perhaps the best-constructed in the film, meshing attractive visuals with time-appropriate music, although again the scenes show Dahmer to be hell-bent on sex, disregarding his deepest desires. Yes, the film hints at this, particularly near the end of the film, where Dahmer slices through the abdomen of a young victim of his, though aside from this act and a few others, no distinction can be made between this "evil" man and a dozen other gay rapists.
Note: There is a scene in the film where Dahmer eats a burger with a bit of difficulty, as if he bit on something unpleasant. Could this be a reference to his cannibalism?