thriller movie review

Movie Review: A Kind of Murder

I’ve been neglecting this blog, I know, but I’m back with a new routine and a vengeance. This time around, I’ve got a bit of a change for your reading pleasure. Instead of a horror movie review, I have a bit of a thriller review.

Title: A Kind of Murder

Starring: Patrick Wilson, Jessica Biel

Based on Patricia Highsmith’s book, The Blunderer

Summary, from IMDB:

In 1960s New York, Walter Stackhouse is a successful architect married to the beautiful Clara who leads a seemingly perfect life. But his fascination with an unsolved murder leads him into a spiral of chaos as he is forced to play cat-and-mouse with a clever killer and an overambitious detective, while at the same time lusting after another woman.

Now, an admission: there are two reasons why I chose this movie. First of all, the filmed is based on a book by Patricia Highsmith, author of The Talented Mr. Ripley and Strangers on a Train. The second reason is Patrick Wilson, who is kind of adorable, in a calmly pleasant kind of way.

The film itself is a period piece, which takes place in the early sixties. As a fan of Mad Men, I love the clothes, the cars and the absolute devotion to smoking these “Old” movies have. Men wore hats, women wore crinoline and the cars were simply awesome.

As much as I have love for Highsmith, Wilson and the early sixties, I had a lot of trouble with this movie. It was beautiful to look at: winter, dark brooding scenes and it even had a smoky, bohemian bar with a torch singer. I liked watching it, but at the end, I felt like I had learned nothing and had merely spent my time leafing through a 1962 Life magazine.

The buildup was everything. A depressed wife, a frustrated husband in a gorgeously designed house (very sixties) and a mysterious murder that the husband (a writer when he’s not being an architect) becomes obsessed with. There’s even a rare bookstore with a mousy, kind of weird owner.

Another thing that I liked about the movie was that it was pulpy. It put me in mind of Double Indemnity. Very “noir-ish” and rather unsettling in parts.

As you can tell, I’m writing a lot about what I saw and not a lot about what I felt. The story rolled along nicely, but, as I hinted at above, never really came to a solid conclusion. People died, people were injured, but…..yeah, okay. The movie was kind of “meh”. I’d watch it again, however, simply to catch set and costume details that I might have missed the first time around. The story left a lot to be desired.

Do I recommend it? If you’re a fan of period pieces and Patricia Highsmith, this would be for you.

3 out of 5 stars just for good looks.

Thriller Movie Review: Kidnap

Kidnap: Every Parent’s Horror Movie

In the US, a child goes missing every 40 seconds. You never think it will happen to you. Until it does. Alone and scared, Karla Dyson (Halle Berry) is unwilling to leave the fate of her son’s life in someone else’s hands. When she catches a glimpse of the abductors speeding away, she decides to fight back. In a heart pounding race against time, Karla begins a high speed pursuit and will stop at nothing to save her son’s life. Written by https://teaser-trailer.com

Remember that time you stepped off to the side in the store to take a kind of important call and you got so engrossed you took your eyes of your child for more than a couple of minutes? Yep. That’ was Halle Berry’s mistake in Kidnap. But boy, does she make up for it, if I may say, in spades.

Berry plays single mother Karla Dyson, who’s set up in the movie is done quite well. She works at a diner in a thankless waitress job, as demonstrated by one snooty patron, and is looking forward to a well deserved break at an amusement park with her son, Frankie. But what should be an idyllic afternoon between mother and son turns into the worst of nightmares, as Frankie is spirited away under his mother’s nose and she’s helpless to stop it.

The film is non-stop action. The moment Frankie is stuffed into that car, Halle Berry goes full tiger mom mode. Without stopping to call the police, she makes an attempt at stopping the kidnapping right away and chases the villain’s car in her minivan. This begins a cat-and-mouse game, which keeps you on the edge of your seat the entire movie.

The story is told from Halle’s point of view and that’s all the insight we need. In such an impossible situation, she knows the police will move too slowly and that it’s up to her to save her son. She digs deep down and finds the strength to chase her son and his kidnappers all the way into the Louisiana countryside.

Halle carries most of the movie, both in talking to herself and screaming in frustration at the kidnappers. As a mother, I felt her pain every step of the way. Not many people want to see a child in danger or hurt, and it was harrowing to see Halle’s near misses at getting Frankie back. Though the villain remains unseen for most of the movie, just the fact they’ve kidnapped a kid launches them into full-on villain status. There are no gray areas in this movie, and Halle is justified in the things she does.

It’s also refreshing to see a woman of color in a lead role in a thriller. Instead of playing the “girlfriend” or the “woman who sits home and frets”, she takes an active role in reclaiming her child. Digging deep for the reserves of power and ingenuity within her, there’s nothing she won’t do to get him back. I simply love how she goes all out in pursuit. No minivan ever has seen such action!!

For steady movie goers – you won’t see anything new in this movie. However, Halle puts a fresh spin on the “child in peril” movie and seriously owns some of the scenes in it. Is it a great movie? Not at all, but it is entertaining, and isn’t that what we go to the movies for?

All in all an effective thriller with great car chases and a heroine you can root for.

[wpdevart_youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Ht8VRPRvU[/wpdevart_youtube]

SPOILER FOR THOSE SENSITIVE TO CHILDREN IN PERIL

No children were hurt or harmed in the film. There are some scary situations, yes, but no children were harmed.

Thriller Movie Review: The Towering Inferno

Title: The Towering Inferno
Genre: Thriller, Action, Drama
Director: Irwin Allen, John Guillermin
Writers: Richard Martin Stern … (novel) Thomas N. Scortia … (novel) and Frank M. Robinson … (novel) Stirling Silliphant … (screenplay)
Stars: Paul Newman, Steve McQueen, Faye Dunaway, Robert Vaughn…..
IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4392454/

HERE MAY BE SPOILERS

Portions of the movie may or may not be revealed.

Synopsis:
At the opening party of a colossal, but poorly constructed, office building, a massive fire breaks out that threatens to destroy the tower and everyone in it.

“To those who give their lives, so that others may live
– to the firefighters of the world –
this picture is gratefully dedicated.”

I decided to watch this one yesterday afternoon. Why? I had seen an article on “Airplane” and that got me thinking about the seventies disaster movies. I had two hours with nothing pressing to do, so I turned it on. The movie is over two hours long, which may be a little too much for those weaned on Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich. However, The Towering Inferno sticks to the seventies formula of disaster movies wherein it develops its characters, then does its best to kill them off.

Inferno also includes the list of Hollywood A-listers (for that time) such as Faye Dunaway, Richard Chamberlain, Steve McQueen and Paul Newman (who my children know only as Doc Hudson from Cars), “faded stars” such as Jennifer Jones, Fred Astaire, William Holden as well as a few “in the background, I know that guy/gal: O.J. Simpson, Robert Wagner (Hart to Hart), and Gregory Sierra (as a child of the 70s, I know him from Sanford and Son as well as Barney Miller). They all interact in one way or another, giving the audience snippets of their personal drama.

By the time we get to love/hate the characters, the real villain of the movie, the fire, is in full force. While the special effects are a little spotty, I have to say, this movie does a lot better with its accurate portrayal of fire and people on fire than some of the movies today. Sure, you can see the stuntman’s gloves as he’s engulfed in flames, but I’m so impressed that they actually SET SOMEONE ON FIRE to get a shot, I don’t even care. It is a movie after all.

Since you get to know the characters (and are not a cynical person), the deaths aren’t throwaway set pieces. I mean, the scene was set so well, and the people involved were portrayed as real human beings, I found myself yelling at the security guard “Don’t open the damn door, can’t you see the smoke?”

It had been so long since I’d seen the film, I wasn’t sure who was going to live or die, which added to the suspense. The movie was well paced, in that it balanced action scenes with quick bits of drama and further character development.

The effects and shots of the burning tower were quite realistic: kudos to the model makers and special-effects photography – it’s a sight better looking than anything produced by the SyFy channel. In fact, I found myself so engrossed with who was going to live/die, that the effects were secondary, but quite convincing.

Is the movie dated? It depends, I suppose on your point of view. I went into the film to enjoy it, not to point out flaws or issues. I simply set all that aside and kicked back. Certainly, some of the fashions will make you look twice and comparisons to 9/11 are inevitable, but all in all, it’s a pretty good movie, even over forty years later.

Grade: A – Watch it for nostalgia, stay for the action and drama.

Horror Movie Review: 13 Cameras

Title: 13 Cameras
Genre: Horror
Director: Victor Zarcoff
Writers: Victor Zarcoff
Stars: Neville Archambault, Sarah Baldwin, Sean Carrigan
IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4392454/

HERE MAY BE SPOILERS

Portions of the movie may or may not be revealed.

Synopsis:
Claire and Ryan, a newlywed couple, move into a new house across the country, only to find out that their marital issues are the least of their problems.

You can't deny the creep factor — You can’t deny the creep factor

This…ah…..film popped up on my Netflix queue and I clicked on it just to see what was up. I like the “secret watching” horror flick, whether it be through a window or hidden cameras.

Well. Well. Well. (big sigh)

The first thing I do when I turn on these movies is to turn off my over-40 brain and get into the shoes of the protagonist. The, I turn off my writer brain and simply follow the narrative. If I watch a film with any of these personas turned on, I end up either being overly critical toward the characters “I would never do that.” or overly critical toward the writing “I would never write that.”

I want to enjoy/be scared by/wonder at a movie. And I can’t do that when I’m twisting my mouth up in disgust. I will say, however, it is the writer’s business to get the viewer to at least sypathize withe the protagonist.

This movie did not do that. You know that gut feeling you get when you visit a house to buy or an apartment to rent or a place to stay (even if viewing it on a computer)? Most of the time sane people pay attention to that instinct. The female (pregnant) protag in this movie does not. And that’s where I had trouble with the movie.

But, since I was still intrigued by the premise, I watched on. (Cue bigger sigh)

The movie wasn’t a disappointment. It delivered all the creeps and chills you would expect from a movie where a weirdo landlord has installed cameras everywhere. The expected climax at the end takes place in near darkness and is rather scary.

What annoyed me about the movie:

Who moves into a house where you don’t have access to every room and closet? I mean Landlord indicates something is a locked “Owner’s Closet”…..nah, man, you might have drugs or a body or something in there.

If the landlord/handyperson gives you the creeps, why rent the house? The characters gave no overwhelming reason as to why they want the house. Give me a REASON folks, as to why you are gonna rent this damn house from this weirdo. Because I would have been like…umm nope.

The husband was a jerk and the pregnant wife was a whiner. The rest of the actors had little to no personality, leaving you to focus on the creepy landlord.

And the ending. Sorry, give me a break. I don’t mind suspending disbelief, but come on now. That ending required me to surgically remove my brain.
I won’t go on and on about the film. I will say the actor playing the landlord was excellent in his role. He gave me the shivers through the TV screen.

It’s on Netflix, so feel free to watch….but don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Grade: D – Watch it if you’re bored and need a distraction.

Horror Movie Review: Session 9

Title: Session 9
Genre: Horror
Director: Brad Anderson
Writers: Brad Anderson, Stephen Gevedon
Stars: David Caruso, Stephen Gevedon, Paul Guilfoyle
IMDB Link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0261983/

HERE MAY BE SPOILERS

Portions of the movie may or may not be revealed.

Synopsis:
Tensions rise within an asbestos cleaning crew as they work in an abandoned mental hospital with a horrific past that seems to be coming back.

As you can probably tell, I do love some movies. Older movies, awesome. Newer movies, not so much. I take that as a sign of the times. Most of the movies do not target my demographic as a woman of a certain age, so I don’t fault them in the fact that they don’t reach me. I’m no longer part of the teenage early twenty crowd, and many of the actors I admire and look for in a film are, gulp, retired.

But sometimes there comes a movie that’s not so flashy, not so over-promoted to the point where you’re sick of it. It’s a quiet movie someone mentions on social media and gives just enough hints to draw one’s interests.

Session 9 is one of those movies. I saw a online friend of mine mention it in a post, and I had to check it out.

David Caruso is the biggest name in this movie. I’m no Caruso fan, but “abandoned mental hospital” had me hooked right away.

The film involves an asbestos removal crew comprised of pretty ordinary Joes. The company seems to be on the edge of folding – there is a lot of talk about shut downs and how the asbestos business is drying up – regular folks with regular problems and families. The catalyst is the mental hospital where all these bubbling personal issues come to a head.

While I do enjoy the movies which take the most cliched characters of all time and dump them into trouble within the first ten to twenty minutes of running time, there’s something to be said about a slow bulid of horror/disquiet coming at the expense of a character who works for a living and hefts a beer at the end of the week. Chances are, if you asked this guy if he believed in ghosts or spirits, he would laugh in your face. The only thing this guy believes in is a steady paycheck.

This is what’s at play here in Session 9. These are hard working men, barely able to pay their bills and the air of desperation to finish the job in record time is thick around them. However, the mental hospital (much like the Overlook Hotel), has other plans for them, and these plans have nothing to do with asbestos abatement.

The setting couldn’t be a better one. The hospital is eerily frozen in time, as if everyone was ushered out of there at once, with no time to pack their things or tidy the rooms. Some of the patients rooms still have newspaper clippings and disturbing illustrations pasted to the peeling walls. Operating rooms still hold the tools for surgeries other procedures performed on the mentally ill at that time.

The performances by the (mostly) male cast are quite good, and their working class chatter and sniping at each other rings authentic, adding another layer of reality. I mean, this hospital is just a place where they’re taking out the asbestos, right? There shouldn’t be anything to fear….just another job that might put them in the black for the time being, right? Right?

I won’t give too much of the movie away, but suffice to say Session 9 delivers on creepiness, shadows, jump scares and gross-out factors. It’s slow, but it’s steady and satisfying.

Grade: A: recommended!!