pdlussier1 Reviews

Bad Ben (2016 TV Movie)

Schlock Lovers & Haters, Rejoyce.

[6/10 · 25 April 2019]

I'm mostly an art-house and indie film lover, but I've a penchant for horror, which means I watch a lot of schlock, knowing full well that budget and star-power don't mean a thing in terms of defining "good" within this genre.

Nonetheless, a single-actor, next-to-no-budget found-footage horror film in the vein of Paranormal Activity... that's the kind of thing any rational being should run away from, expecting a painfully unwatchable and sloppily structured video akin to uncle Bob & aunt Weave's redecoration home videos.

Yet, I was intrigued. A whole series?! Some of the reviews here solidified my curiosity, so I gave it a go.

It is what it is.

Haters will hate, and whiners will whine, which says more about them and their inability to understand "niche" and "objective". If you despise found footage films, just don't watch found-footage films. Easy. Unless watching them just so you can complain is your thing, which makes you far less interesting than found-footage films.

Having said that, I can respect legitimate reasons to hate this film that anyone may express... if or when I come across them. But, if you don't mind the genre, or if you love it, I'm sure you'll want to exclaim, "Good work, Nigel!" for this surprisingly engrossing one-man effort.

Well done, Nigel!

Love (2016–2018)

Love, if Hollywood did real life.

[9/10 · 10 March 2018]

As I very happily binge-watched season 3, I found myself trying to convey to a friend the full depth of why I love this show so much within a short text.

I came up with: Really atypical rom-com; hyperrealism within a trope-oriented approach and structure. Love, if Hollywood did real life.

I feel it's dead-on albeit lacking and if dealing only in abstracts, getting nowhere near the emotional aspect that turns this into a self-reflective piece, both for its self-aware, genre-bending ways and, mostly, yet because of it, for the profound self-awareness or deeply-cutting self-examination it forces on its viewers. Carelessly thrown around too often yet perfectly applicable here: You either get "it" or you don't.

No intentions referencing "understanding" are made by, or to be inferred from, the above. Rather, simply, the story of Gus and Mickey either speaks to you, manages to touch something wholly and deeply personal--the moments surely vary depending on the viewer, but lovers will not, I'm certain, hesitate to refer to several favourite parts using a combination of words semantically equivalent to "genially authentic"--or it doesn't.

And, yes, for haters, it does have its flaws, but most of what's expressed doesn't fall in the realm of what I consider reasonable, unbiased critical thinking, in that it betrays far more about one's ignorance than it does about any genuine and valid technical/film/literary/social criticism re the work. For instance, complaints re the plausibility of a threesome involving Gus miss the mark for the many psychological aspects that underscore any non-porno version with actual women, certainly not also having grasped the well-communicated feeling of sudden liberation and wellness Gus experiences and the resulting self-confidence and magnetism one exudes at such moments; happiness is a truly attractive quality.

Further, "Love", which I consider the perfect title, has a Raymond Carver-esque quality to it, albeit lacking a refined-subtlety at times, that demands both detachment and immersion that translates to an automatic dislkike for a certain type of viewer; the full depths of the characters are defined through the sum of all we are privy to and forced to presume, not what we're told through the simulated gloss of Hollywood archetypes defining interesting people and interesting lives that can be packaged by Disney Inc.

As such, It's about the oh, so many, real-life, love-seeking, psychologically-cursed and -demanding, but also rewarding paths a great majority of us with some real-world relationship experience have been on or witnessed, and an on-key exposition of sorts for the rare one-date fairytale lovers or the inexperienced with an open mind not clouded by superficial expectations--be it for Apatow's usual humour, any strict adherence to the label "comedy" or any shallow, bipartite physical delusions/Gillian Jacobs idolatry one imposes on a couple for it to be considered believable--showcasing, amplified for fiction's sake, the best and the worst in each of us, and all our struggles and all our failings and all our weaknesses and strengths, with our heavy pasts yet primitive hopes for some future, all of it contained in, and displayed asymmetrically, from the physical to the intellectual to the temperamental, by two, wonderfully-casted and crafted persons that fit together for a better whole, but only if they're willing to work through the hard, non-idealistic, i.e. not romantic, fact that being human is synonymous with dependence, period, and that, ironically or in a deeper absurdist sense, that the truest, most-liberating Love, perhaps the greatest dependence of all, may only be attained once we're free of the synthetic ones that plague what it now means to be human, thus cementing within us a synthetic dependence for love.

Maybe I'm seeing more than what's intended, but that's what singularises art from a soulless, mere commercial endeavour; whether successful or not is another matter, though mutually inclusive in this case if willing to consider all of "Love" "at such a level, it seems, for one will inevitably be blind to any of its worth in the canon of Greatest Couples unless it managed to speak to you, which it may very well not do for valid reasons, "personal taste" perhaps being at the top.

And, in retrospect. "Love", through our own reactions, makes so very obvious what we should have done, said...

The Stylist (2016)

The Stylist - Very Well Made, Not Well Said

[7/10 · 15 February 2017]

Spoiler-free isn't easy considering the type of short it is, but here goes:

Firstly, it's a high-quality short; it reflects real talent. The director, Jill Gevargizian, leads a qualified team that complements, and contributes to, a superb eye when it comes to mise-en-scène, especially composition, which is delivered with discerning movement and framing choices and some captivating depth-of-field effects; the final cut is extremely fluid, possessing a slight colour saturation that gives the film an illusory tone. And the soundtrack, too, which is comprised of original works by Nicholas Elert, set the mood just wonderfully. All of that, sound mixing and the special effects, too: A-1. Ditto for Najarra Townsend's performance as Claire.

Where this short falls short, so to speak, is with the story itself. What's Claire's motivation? No matter the causes reasonably attributed based on what little we're given, the sentiment she manifests at the very end (crying) clashes with those and so the whole thing falls flat, for it's hard to find justification in that hidden disfigurement alone given the little emphasis placed on it in contrast with Claire's other, natural features; adding to that is her demeanor when discussing men with her colleague. Something doesn't quite jive.

Because of that, I do think the statement it attempts to make on the societal standards of beauty pressuring women doesn't come through in any poignant way, the whole message reduced to Mandy's deplorably prosaic: Women must look perfect if they're to challenge that glass ceiling. Anything more profound feels forcibly tacked on rather than sensibly interpreted.

Another low is Jennifer Plas' Mandy's reaction when she wakes up. Initially believable, it loses all authenticity by the third scream and the panic isn't enough to warrant Claire's action (being more clear involves spoilers).

That's where it loses points, writing, but keep in mind that these lows I mention have much to do with "interpretation", not "execution", and, at 15 mins, there's absolutely no reason why you shouldn't judge this horror short for yourself.

Blind Sun (2015)

Blind Sun - An Unnerving Visual Treat with a Disturbing End

[7/10 · 12 February 2017]

A slow burn. I dare say it because here it's not a metaphorical cliché, it's the actual plot of this indie!

Set in Greece in a near dystopic future, we follow Ashraf Idriss (Palestinian actor Ziad Bakri), an immigrant hired to house-sit a villa for the summer, ensuring its safety amidst rising hooliganism and brutality whilst personally suffering the oppression that attempts to counter the tense lawlessness of a heat-wave-baked world increasingly deprived of its primary resource: water.

Sure enough, the standoffish Ashraf faces increasing threats, scared to be in the villa and afraid to act after having lost his papers to a racist cop, but what's a real menace and what results out of a slowly baking brain?

Told through careful cinematography, editing, and sensibility that lean towards art-house minimalism, this first-time feature for Joyce A. Nashawati marks this Lebanese director as someone possessing tremendous flair for the deeply nuanced yet sharp socio-political allegory, the kind that lets one get away with more style then story.

The horror classification given by some (see Shudder.com) is believable. The menace that looms throughout genuinely takes hold midway and brings us to chilling moments, both of real fear and psychological unease. There's an unsettling atmosphere that reigns, set both by an intriguing soundtrack and a keen exploitation of light in establishing either the threat of a sun-drenched world or of those lurking in shadows.

A tense, unnerving visual treat with a disturbing end, my only complaint is that it's often too easy to forget just how water-deprived and hot a world Ashraf faces and it's never quite justified why he seems to suffer more than all. Watching his "burnout" is engrossing, but we never fully embark on his ride that leads to his solution, albeit we certainly do feel his relief afterwards (up to a point) for, though he's hardly the most likable and pet- friendly of fellows, he does earn our sympathy.

Well worth a watch!

Halloweed (2016)

Halloweed: Love or Hate - It's a Whole Bunch of Things

[4/10 · 6 February 2017]

A film marketed as a comedy by putting so much focus on its pot-headedness usually screams out the type of audience it targets: most teens and perpetual adolescents, spilling out to include the non-artistically-driven permanent potheads. This one's no exception, while it also tries to rope in none-of-the-above slasher fans who've come to accept that comedy is as agreeable as blood to the genre, it's attitude and the kills that define a slasher. So, that title, "Halloweed", and the cover art… Thinking "Halloween" spoof is normal, just dead wrong.

If you're part of the first group: It's set up to please from the get go; just a question of taste whether or not you love it.

For the potheads: Depends on what you're smoking, I suppose, but know that pot is hardly a part of the story the marketing leads on. You won't find Cheech or Chong.

If you're in the last group: Nothing to satisfy you here; nothing matching the intelligence of "Behind the mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon" or the slapstick silliness of "Tucker & Dale vs Evil" though it does match its crassness and actually has a musically-denoted Benny Hill moment. Murder is part of the story, and it's handled in classic slasher fashion, this time sporting a baby-head mask, but the scenes are few and killing is just one of those things, like too many, that float in the background but never really seem to be a part of the plot, much like a "Scary Movie" spoof but, again, not.

No 80s nostalgia here, itself refreshing, and yet I was reminded of 80s fare by the generically unsophisticated absurd-is-normal plot developments, tropes, and resolution that were a hallmark of that period, right down to the caricatured baddies and the foul elderly semi- sidekick. If you were around, you'll know what I mean.

The first ten seconds past the titles establishes the vulgar humour to come, and, certainly, the mindless jokes are there and even set the pace for much of the first third but, surprisingly, never delves close to the level of gross or childish one would expect, minus one anal-cavity search. Thankfully, it manages to rise above and out of the toilet crassness after a while, offering a more pleasant level of humour that arises out of the whole rather than isolated jokes, but which never really hits the gut for anyone hoping for mature humour. Nonetheless, you're starting to care.. And that's when it strikes you: it's more enjoyable because it focuses primarily on Shannon Brown's more sympathetic Trent Modine and it's been a while since the juvenile pot- & penis-obsessed Joey (played by Simon Rex) was on screen. A rewrite that excludes this character would be easy but I'm certain fans will disagree, for, after all, there's no "teen" or "pothead" humour without him.

There's also a meta attempt that weakly rears its head at times but is so unbalanced and flat it stands out as lazy writing that adds nothing.

From what I've mentioned you may have deduced its biggest problem: It's highly uneven. In tone, in comedic approach, in structure, in focus, techniques, sound integration, and the plot is a patchwork of divergent elements with minimal significance to the running narrative or interwoven conflicts that never peak to any importance. The bigger-name stars have no real screen significance, cast simply in minor roles that don't, arguably, qualify as cameos. And pot or Halloween are hardly prominent, same for the gang/turf-war aspect or the slasher element or the serial-killer-dad past or the mayoral race or the love hurdle or… and are brothers brothers or the bad guys such bad guys once you get to know them?

Surprisingly, it all comes together; things happen and life is composed of a whole bunch of elements, some that matter more than others, sometimes not… such is life. In that sense, I honestly see no wrong with the story's direction as it is consistent throughout, often avoiding the expected in the process.

However, albeit the palatable layer that emerges, it fails to satisfy fully since, through the fog of sporadic variation it thinly coats or lumps over it, it's all too clear, title & marketing included, that the makers were more focused on trying to please as many as possible, not trying to tell a good story in a unique way. An art-house exploration of "spoof" this ain't!

That said, any reviews preaching either extreme says more about the reviewer than the film. Where in the spectrum of mediocrity you place it is up to you.

Sun Choke (2015)

Sun Choke. It took my Breath Away.

[9/10 · 15 November 2016]

Firstly, if you: Considered Lynch's "Lost Highway" / "Mulholland Drive" or Lyne's "9 ½ Weeks" to be pointless, plot less & boring drivel in any way; Prefer reading cereal boxes over poetry any day; Think that anything not plot driven is pretentious;

Then: This one's not for you. Move on and spare us from yet another barrage of unwarranted "Boring" and "Goes Nowhere" posts and reviews identical to all those that litter every independent film's page.

For the more adventurous viewer: Ben Cresciman's "Sun Choke" has absolutely no clear-cut links with the aforementioned films—they're the better-known examples that readily came to mind--but if you enjoyed some aspects of those, then the story-telling mode employed here will definitely not feel alien to you or be an obstacle to the film's many appealing qualities.

And no, being a fan of poetry is not necessary, but keep in mind that this film, like a fine poem, demands a certain degree of patience, receptivity, and abandon if the viewer is to reflect any meaning upon the prudently crafted images that play upon our senses; if anything, this film positively drips sensuality, though one that never draws its potency from sexuality/eroticism albeit the actual, eye-appealing nudity, which there's plenty of.

Of course, composition and framing are a big part of Cresciman's success in that respect, but it is in fact, contrary to most who've dealt with such a subject, the use of a highly-curtailed palette that moves heavily towards light and limited contrasts, rather than darkness, that establishes him as someone with a clear intent and a firm control over his medium; this alone is a refreshing change for the genre. Combine this with remarkable, understated performances and the overall effect hypnotizes as it seeks to quietly unsettle. Barbara Crampton discreetly gives life to a character none of us would want in our lives even if no one can satisfactorily explain why, and images of Sarah Hagan, who plays the unstable lead hauntingly, will surely linger in your mind for some time.

Despite all that, I don't entirely feel comfortable limiting Sun Choke's scope to art house or character study. Certainly, exploration is a big part of it, but not in any narrowly definable way; suggesting it's an examination of lunacy and control dynamics (as seen through the interplay of three women) Is entirely accurate, but also feels deeply lacking. Still, even if blurred, narrative and genre are patently excluded from this examination. So, why have I avoided discussing the story line up to now?

Well, at this point, I'm assuming you've already read at least one synopsis and my goal isn't to tell you the story—the film does that— but to help you decide whether you should invest time and attention watching it. For that reason, and the fact that I sincerely believe that the story presented is so dull it doesn't even warrant mention, I strongly encourage anyone who's not put off by anything I've mentioned so far to forgo any attempts to learn more re the plot until you've given it at least one view.

Despite what's being said, all the story elements are there; we don't need anything more. Sure, our mind, preoccupied with the details, seeks answers and is left unsatisfied. That's our problem, not the filmmaker's, for the story is that banal and can't be improved with details. Accept it. In a way, it's similar to Aronofsky's "Requiem for a Dream", which presented nothing but the clichés associated with an already overdone subject,but did so by focusing on a slew of fresh technical aspects, the sum of which gave us something that felt so very new.

Here, through Cresciman's work, we're granted a highly intimate and revealing view of insanity, one that lets us access new feelings, but only if the viewer willingly accepts that uncertainty vis-à-vis reality along with a marked irrationality (i.e. unjustifiability of actions) are part and parcel of psychosis… Isn't madness to absolutely want to apply logic where none can be had?

Nonetheless, those desperately seeking to piece together, and cling to, some deep, hidden meaning have plenty to work with—all the elements are there for that as well—though I suspect you'll never find satisfaction if taking that route.

Is "Sun Choke" the result a fluke, or does it herald a new, bona fide artistic force? I, for one, am anxiously looking forward to Ben Cresciman's next project.

Psycho (1998)

Artistry in cloning?

[4/10 · 27 December 2012]

Original? Reverent? Nope! Don't know what Van Sant was thinking, but it was a bad idea... And any differences mentioned really aren't enough to label it a unique re-interpretation, but, given the status of the original, I doubt most would have accepted a new vision anyhow; a big risk either way. However, I have little respect for those merely aiming to make a buck out of a faithful reproduction of the glories of past artists. I've never understood things like Australian Pink Floyd, for example, whose sole purpose is to recreate the all of what other people have done. Imagine, your entire musical and "artistic" career devoted to a precise reproduction of every minute detail of someone else's artistic expression; that's just sad. Sure, for some audiences, it may be a fair replacement for not being able to access/live the original, but honestly, is there any artistry in cloning?

This remake, which is nothing more than an attempt to contemporize an ageless and accessible classic (for a buck?), is Van Sant's foray into that 'sad' territory. He's a decent director, for sure, but the whole project was a terrible idea. I'm not amongst those who believe that the original is untouchable, but this version was utterly pointless.

Giving it a 4. The idea for this may be as intelligent as creating a bike with no seat, but the execution still deserves a few points as it will no doubt please non-purists and anyone who hasn't seen the original.