Tag Archives: Netflix and Chills

Mr. Harrigan’s Phone Dials For Horror, Gets a Wrong Number

Posted on by
2
Advertisements

If Stephen King wrote two words down on a napkin, Hollywood would likely scramble to adapt it into a movie. Since Brian DePalma turned King’s first novel, Carrie, into a horror classic, studios and filmmakers have turned to the author’s work time and time again. Some of these efforts – The Shining, Misery, It, The Shawshank Redemption – are classics in their own right. But for every Salem’s Lot or Gerald’s Game, there’s a handful of Sleepwalkers or Graveyard Shift’s. Just in time for Halloween season, Netflix has released their latest Stephen King adaptation – Mr. Harrigan’s Phone. This one comes from one of King’s more recent works, If It Bleeds, which was a collection of unpublished novellas.

Synopsis

Even as a young boy, Craig isn’t a stranger to tragedy having lost his mother. But he finds solace in the friendship he develops with the elderly Mr. Harrigan. Three times a week Craig visits and reads to the wealthy Mr. Harrigan. Craig even introduces the lonely old man to smart phones. When Mr. Harrigan passes away, Craig places the old man’s cellphone in the casket with him – perhaps as a way to symbolically stay connected. Soon after his death, however, Craig begins to receive cryptic text messages from Mr. Harrigan’s Phone.

Mr. Harrigan’s Phone Gets a Busy Signal on The Scares

On the surface, Mr. Harrigan’s Phone has a lot going for it. After all, Stephen King is the master of horror and the premise holds some creepy promise. The casting was pretty astute and writer and director John Lee Hancock has a decent, if not unremarkable, track record. Just a few minutes into the supernatural thriller and you’ll immediately see that this isn’t cheap knock-off. But that’s about where all the positives end. With few exceptions, Mr. Harrigan’s Phone is not a scary movie and likely will disappoint Netflix subscribers looking for a Halloween fix. Maybe there’s one or two minor jumps spread across an hour and 44 minutes of movie. However, you’d be hard-pressed to describe those moments as anything other than minor. And they don’t pop up until well past the one hour mark.

With few exceptions, Mr. Harrigan’s Phone is not a scary movie and likely will disappoint Netflix subscribers looking for a Halloween fix.

This brings us to the next problem with Mr. Harrigan’s Phone. In the absence of jumps and suspense, Hancock also fails to craft anything resembling atmosphere to keep audiences on edge. To be fair, I haven’t read King’s novella yet but Hancock’s adaptation just meanders for the near entirety of the movie. Its conclusion is so underwhelming that it may actually be the most shocking part of the movie. Maybe Mr. Harrigan’s Phone was intended to be a coming-of-age drama with some supernatural elements. Nevertheless, this one fails as even light horror.

Mr. Harrigan’s Phone ‘Phones In’ Its Story and Characters

But if Mr. Harrigan’s Phone intends to follow in the footsteps of Stand By Me, it still comes up short. The story structure itself is just too familiar to really resonate with audiences. Moreover, the story doesn’t seem to have much to say about growing up in the 2000s. Occasionally, Mr. Harrigan’s Phone grasps at bigger ideas around our smart phone addiction and the ease with which information spreads. But the themes are undercooked at best and more then than not come off as preachy. Quick lines about the dangers of misinformation aren’t nearly as profound as the movie intends. Besides we’ve seen much better horror movies tackle similar themes in the last year or so.

Sutherland possesses such a commanding screen presence – he’s effortlessly intimidating or comforting depending on the screenplay’s requirements.

What’s really unfortunate is that Mr. Harrigan’s Phone wastes good performances from its lead actors. At this point in his career, Donald Sutherland (Invasion of the Body Snatchers) could phone in this sort of character. Sutherland possesses such a commanding screen presence – he’s effortlessly intimidating or comforting depending on the screenplay’s requirements. Unfortunately, Hancock’s screenplay never fleshes out Mr. Harrigan’s character aside from some expository dialogue. Likewise, Jaeden Martell (The Lodge, It) is already a pro at this sort of material. Yet in spite of his subtly strong work here, Mr. Harrigan’s Phone similarly does little to distinguish Craig from any other character in any other coming-of-age tale.

Mr. Harrigan’s Phone Dials a Wrong Number for Netflix

Regardless of how closely it follows the source material. Mr. Harrigan’s Phone is a not particularly good horror movie. There’s few, if any, scares over its near two-hour runtime. In addition, Hancock fails to generate suspense or a sense of urgency in part because the story itself just kind of meanders to its conclusion. As a coming-of-age drama, Mr. Harrigan’s Phone won’t likely have much appeal either. We’ve seen this story before many times and the supernatural thriller has nothing new to say. Though it’s a technically well-produced movie, this King adaptation is a pretty dull affair.

THE PROFESSOR’S FINAL GRADE: C+

Spell Doesn’t Have Enough Magic To Stand Out

Posted on by
1
Advertisements

A lot of movies saw their release schedule delayed in 2020 at the height of the global COVID-19 pandemic. Other movies were shuffled off to streaming platforms. One of those movies, Spell, looked like it had the production budget and potential for an October release. Instead, Paramount quietly dropped this story of Appalachian Hoodoo onto their own streaming platform before Halloween. If like most of us, you didn’t have Paramount Plus in 2020, Spell pulled a disappearing act without making much of an impression. Now Netflix has added the thriller just in time for Netflix and Chills.

Synopsis

Following the news of his estranged father’s death, Marquis Woods packs his family into a private jet to return to the Appalachians. When the weather turns bad, however, Woods’ plane crashes into the rural wilderness sprawl. Days later Woods wake up badly injured in a remote farm cabin.

Spell …

A few things are apparent pretty quickly watching Spell. First, if it wasn’t for the lockdowns that shut down theaters during COVID, Spell looks like it was set for a theatrical release. The production values here look good and all the technical aspects of filmmaking are sound. On the surface, this looks like a middle-of-the-road horror movie that would have least deserved an early January release in the before times. Unfortunately, the next thing that’s obvious is that Spell isn’t particularly scary. Director Mark Tonderai (House at the End of the Street, Locke & Key) dutifully sets scenes up while showing no real ability at crafting tension. At times, the pacing feels lackadaisical. Even scenes that should put you on the edge of your seat end up feeling perfunctory.

Unfortunately, the next thing that’s obvious is that Spell isn’t particularly scary.

And it’s too bad because Hoodoo and Voodoo practices haven’t been done to death in Hollywood horror – there’s so much potential in the premise. Occasionally, when Kurt Wimmer’s screenplay delves into Hoodoo practices, Spell instantly becomes more engaging. Yet instead of letting this aspect of the premise drive the story, Wimmer allows his screenplay to bog itself down in a dull cat-and-mouse game between captor and captive. It doesn’t help that this aspect of Spell too often reference checks the much better Misery. As for the climax, everything feels like it’s under-cooked – one can’t help but feel some vital piece of information wasn’t communicated. The result is underwhelming and forgettable.

Spell Wastes Casts and Strong Performances With a Spotty Screenplay

None of Spell’s problems or shortcoming stems from its strong cast. In between several years on critically-acclaimed series Power and last year’s Army of the Dead, Omari Hardwick makes a strong case for leading man status here. He possesses charisma and a physical presence while always adding a cerebral component to his roles. And these traits are present in Marquis Woods and, initially, it looks like the character will give Hardwick a lot with which to work. Yet something feels like it’s missing from the screenplay. Though it’s hinted that Woods’ father was not only abusive but may have had his own connection to Hoodoo, Spell never follows through on the idea. By the thriller’s climax, we’re left wondering how Woods is able to turn the tables on a Hoodoo priestess.

Both veteran performers offer the requisite screen presence demanded of the roles.

If Woods feels underdeveloped as a character, you shouldn’t expect much from the screenplay’s treatment of the supporting cast. It’s a good thing that Woods repeatedly asks about his family otherwise you’d be forgiven for forgetting all about them. Yes, they do in fact exist – Spell just does nothing with the characters. And the lack of consistent tension or scares isn’t due to a lack of effort from either Loretta Devine (Urban Legend) or John Beasley (Firestarter, The Purge: Anarchy). Both veteran performers offer the requisite screen presence demanded of the roles. As mentioned above, however, the screenplay and direction just leave Devine and Beasley’s performance in a void.

Spell Has the Right Ingredients, Can’t Work Much Magic

Despite having a lot going for it, the scares and suspense never quite materialize in Spell. From just a technical perspective this hoodoo thriller is a well-edited, slick-looking affair. And all of the central performances are quite good – or at least as good as the screenplay allows. But Wimmer’s screenplay alternates between derivative and convoluted. It feels like seeds are planted for a more haunting, psychological horror movie that are just discarded. Tonderai also never conjures up any sense of danger or urgency. As a result, Spell is a watchable, if not immediately forgettable, horror movie.

THE PROFESSOR’S FINAL GRADE: C+

There’s Someone Inside Your House: Dull Neo-Slasher Fails to Live Up To Its Title

Posted on by
1
Advertisements

Based on best-selling novelist Stephanie Perkins’ novel of the same name, There’s Someone Inside Your House arrives on Netflix with a lot of hype. So far in 2021, Netflix has already scored with one horror series, after debuting RL Stine’s Fear Street movies in three back-to-back-to-back weeks this summer. And there’s always a market for a clever update on the slasher subgenre. With what sounds like an interesting twist on the formula and a strong Gen Z cast, There’s Someone Inside Your House has plenty of potential. So are early negative reviews an anomaly? Or has Netflix gambled

Synopsis

When a masked killer murders a star high school football player, a panic ignites across the small town of Osborne, Nebraska. More victims amongst the high school’s graduating class quickly follow. And the killer seems intent on exposing their victims’ darkest secrets. New student, Makani Young, has a secret she’s desperate to hide from her friends. But when the killer targets her next she may be lucky just to make it out alive.

There’s Someone Inside Your House Has the Kills, But Lacks Real Scares

Things start off quite promisingly for There’s Someone Inside Your House. Like Wes Craven’s Scream, director Patrick Brice (Creep) kicks off his neo-slasher with a killer opening sequence. While there’s clearly some homage going on, Brice teases yet another timely update on slasher tropes. Some of that promise finds it way into what follows. Craven’s slasher revival wasn’t a particularly gory movie. It certainly didn’t rival some of the 80s more brutal entries. But Netflix’s Fear Street trilogy boasted some gruesome deaths. Similarly, There’s Someone Inside Your House delivers a handful of shocking, bloody deaths. Moreover, Brice aptly films his carnage finding a few innovative ways to keep audiences on their toes.

Yet there’s almost a complete lack of scares, suspense, or tension here.

Unfortunately, There’s Someone Inside Your House doesn’t have too much else to offer. Given his work on the Creep movies, one would have assumed that Brice could easily generate some tension. Yet there’s almost complete lack of scares, suspense, or tension here. Impressive death scenes are interspersed in a movie where it feels like not much else happens. Yes, the production values are excellent for this type of movie. Everything looks good. Nonetheless, there’s far too many stretches of what feels like dead air. It doesn’t help that several gaping plot holes abound in There’s Someone Inside Your House. This is a movie where the killer pulls off feats that make little sense. And Brice gives audiences too much time to think about it.

There’s Someone Inside The House Wastes Strong Cast On an Misguided Story

A big part of There’s Someone Inside The House’s problem is Henry Gayden’s adaption of Perkins’ novel. On one hand, there’s an excellent cast here playing some likeable characters. Sydney Park, playing the film’s lead Makani Young, and her cast of high school outcasts are compelling protagonists. It’s a diverse cast that genuinely feels like kids you’d find in a high school In addition, the bond between the main characters adds a bit of stakes to the movie and who survives and who does not. But the characters are stuck in a story that’s not only implausible but incredibly convoluted. Outside of the main characters, the supporting case is unremarkable.

To say the killer’s reveal was disappointing would also be an understatement.

One of the biggest weaknesses of this neo-slasher is its killer. Slasher movies need a distinct-looking villain with a fun twist on the modus operandi. On the surface, There’s Someone Inside The House teases an interesting play on a familiar trope with a killer exposing teens’ secrets. In a social media world obsessed with ‘influencers’, ‘likes’, and superficial image, it’s a wrinkle to the formula that should have had some bite. Instead, our characters’ secrets feel like generic teen drama. Though Brice throws some red herrings at the screen they feel fairly obvious and underdeveloped. To say the killer’s reveal was disappointing would also be an understatement. And the less said about the killer’s motives, the better. It speaks to a larger problem of narrative cohesion. Even the movie’s title feels unfulfilled.

There’s Someone Inside Your House Doesn’t Live Up To The Hype

For There’s Someone Inside Your House, sadly, the whole is not equal to the sum of its parts. In spite of some gruesome death scenes and excellent performances, Brice’s neo-slasher is a surprisingly flat effort. Long stretches of the movie are dull. Its killer – both in design and reveal – is underwhelming. And the slasher’s story is too convoluted. Too many plot holes riddle the movie, even for a subgenre where logic is a secondary consideration. Clearly, Netflix big hopes for There’s Someone Inside Your House, with it’s Halloween season release. But there’s no Fear Street franchise here.

THE PROFESSOR’S FINAL GRADE: C

No One Gets Out Alive Kicks Off Netflix and Chills

Posted on by
1
Advertisements

And as we head into October, it’s time for Halloween movie nights. Maybe you’ll tune in to AMC’s FearFest or hunker down with Shudder. Or perhaps you’ll settle for some Netflix and Chills. Aside from familiar old titles and some hotly anticipated new ones (Midnight Mass, There’s Someone Inside Your House), Netflix has already quietly unveiled some under-the-radar releases. Up first is Santiago Menghini’s immigrant horror movie, No One Gets Out Alive, which promises timely twists on familiar scares. To date, audiences seem split on this one while critics have been generally impressed.

Synopsis

After her mother’s death, Ambar, an undocumented Mexican immigrant, moves to Cleveland. She quickly finds a low paying job and a room to rent in a run-down boarding house. But with little money and only a distant cousin for support, Ambar is at the mercy of her landlord, Red. All she can do is keep her head down while trying to scrape together enough money for a fake ID and better future. Things only worsen, however, when images of past tenants and a strange stone box haunt Ambar at night. With the very real fear of deportation looming over her, Ambar faces the possibility that she may not get out alive.

No One Gets Out Alive Overcomes Its Familiarity to Offer Genuine Scares

With his feature-length directorial debut, director Santiago Menghini demonstrates an apt hand for horror. On one hand, No One Gets Out Alive trades on some pretty familiar haunted house tropes. By and large, No One Gets Out of Alive won’t surprise most horror fans. It’s Gothic horror set in a burnt-out urban district married to an immigrant’s horror tale. With its twisting staircases, peeling walls, and dark hallways, Menghini could have ripped his boarding house from any countless number of movies. Yes, Ambar’s visions – all those ghostly apparitions – deviate little from what we’ve seen in other horror movies. Nevertheless, Menghini shows a lot of confidence as he breathes genuine suspense and scares into these images. He also keeps the moving clipping along at a decent pace.

With its twisting staircases, peeling walls, and dark hallways, Menghini could have ripped his boarding house from any countless number of movies.

As its final act deviates into unfamiliar territory, No One Gets Out Alive will either win over or lose some viewers. To say that the movie’s ‘monster-in-a-box’ defies description would be an understatement. It’s either the most visually interesting creature creation since The Ritual or a laughable mess. What emerges from the stone box is a bizarre amalgamation of human, animal, and insect that should at least have audiences talking. Perhaps the movie’s inability to delve more into the story’s mythology hampers the monster’s impact. From this viewer’s perspective, however, the movie’s final act and monster elevated everything that proceeded it.

Human Characters May the Scariest Monsters in No One Gets Out Alive

Based on Adam Nevill’s novel of the same name, No One Gets Out Alive benefits from a timely subtext. And it’s a well-executed one. Jon Croker and Fernanda Copel’s screenplay slightly tweaks familiar conventions via its focus on undocumented immigrants. That is, Ambar can’t leave the house and she can’t ask anyone for help. Visons of past victims haunt her in the house, while the real fear of deportation awaits her outside. Predators, both real and supernatural, prey on Ambar as they did on the boarding house’s past residents. Like some of the best horror movies, No One Gets Out Alive feels relevant and, as a result, its suspenseful moments often feel more urgent.

Courtesy of Nevill’s original source material and the screenplay, Red is a more complex character than initially expected.

Though some viewers may balk at the movie’s monster, it’s human villains are consistently menacing. For most of the movie, Ozark’s Marc Menchaca gives off what seems like obvious villain vibes. But it’s a stoic performance that becomes increasingly more layered. Courtesy of Nevill’s original source material and the screenplay, Red is a more complex character than initially expected. This adds some surprising moral ambiguity in the movie’s final act. And David Figlioli’s ‘Becker’ brings a physically imposing presence that immediately ups the stakes. Though the brother’s dark family history adds another sinister turn for the film’s final act, the backstory and mythology behind the stone box feels too underdeveloped. As Ambar, Cristina Rodio delivers an excellent, if not understated, performance.

No One Gets Out Alive a Familiar, But Genuinely Frightening, Movie

As Netflix kicks off its Halloween Netflix and Chills month, No One Gets Out Alive quietly steps forward out of the gate as one of the better original genre movies in recent memory. Though Menghini often leans on familiar haunted house tropes, he executes them with tense precision, resulting in a genuinely suspenseful viewing experience. Horror fans wills also find enough gross-out moments in the movie’s final act to whet their appetite. Throw in a meaningful – if not obvious subtext – alongside a mesmerizing monster and No One Gets Out Alive earns a spot in your Halloween viewing roster.

THE PROFESSOR’S FINAL GRADE: B+

Would You Rather: The World’s Most Awkward Dinner Party

Posted on by
2
Advertisements

Before Blumhouse was adapting teen party games like Truth or Dare and Seven in Heaven, IFC Films released Would You Rather in 2012. At the time of its release, the low-budget indie horror film didn’t make much of an impact. It certainly wasn’t due to a lack of relevancy. The movie’s story about a millionaire exploiting down-on-their-luck characters was only a year removed from Occupy Wall Street. Since its release, Would You Rather has hung out on Netflix for a couple of years, looking for an audience.

Synopsis

Unemployed Iris struggles to carve out a living and care for her sick younger brother. But her luck looks to a take turn when she’s offered the chance to win money by eccentric philanthropist, Shepard Lambrick. The only catch is that she has to play a parlour game at dinner party with several strangers. After some harmless pleasantries, Iris and the other guests quickly learn that Lambrick’s game of ‘Would You Rather’ can only have one winner.

The Right Concept, But The Wrong Format

On the one hand, Would You Rather seemed perfectly timed to strike a nerve. We were only a few years removed from of the worst economic crises in history. Public outrage with the ‘one-percenters’ was intensifying. Yet in spite of this built-in opportunity for cutting subtext, Would You Rather feels disconnected. Director David Guy Levy’s decision to adopt a ‘Torture Porn’ approach to the material is part of the problem. By the time 2012 rolled around, the ‘Torture Porn’ cycle had long since faded away. Horror fans had moved on to found-footage and haunted house throwbacks.

…Would You Rather never fully embraces the nihilistic violence of ‘Torture Porn.’

In addition, Would You Rather never fully embraces the nihilistic violence of ‘Torture Porn.’ Though the movie threatens all manner of sadistic torture, there’s nothing committed to the screen that’s likely to shock horror fans. A character may be forced to cut his own eyeball, but you won’t see any explicit violence or gore. Lucio Fulci and Mario Bava, this is not.

Poor Execution Hurts Would You Rather

Would You Rather is clearly minimalist filmmaking. The majority of the action unfolds in a single setting. There’s virtually no music score to help with atmosphere and tension. Not much of a budget was set aside for make-up effects. Yet none of these things should have been enough to sink the movie. But they certainly were enough to expose the movie’s problems with execution. Simply put, Levy doesn’t show much innovation in staging the movie’s action. Levy films scenes that you know should feel tense and uncomfortable with all the flair of a public service announcement. There’s a dullness to the most of the movie. It’s watchable but never compelling.

Underdeveloped Characters and Miscasting Hurt

Aside from Brittany Snow’s ‘Iris’, Would Your Rather offers few relatable characters. Given the premise, this is a serious misstep from screenwriter Steffen Schlachtenhaufen. A movie about the wealthy taking advantage of the poor would be much more effective if the audience could actually identify with somebody on screen. Instead Schlachtenhaufen’s screenplay evens to build most of its characters from simplistic keywords. ‘Elderly woman in wheelchair’ and ‘recovering alcoholic’ is as much depth as you can expect. Other characters don’t seem to have much reason for being in the movie at all.

Odd casting choices only serve to further undo the movie’s paper–thin characters.

Odd casting choices only serve to further undo the movie’s paper-thin characters . Snow is perfectly serviceable, and Gotham’s Robin Lord Taylor is fine as a petulant and spoiled one-percenter. Canadian television fans will recognize Robb Wells from cult-classic The Trailer Park Boys. He’s a Canadian institution as Ricky, but feels out of place in this movie. It’s similarly jarring to see My Name is Earl’s Eddie Steeples here. Would You Rather shamefully wastes experienced character actor John Heard . Horror fans may not like to hear it, but even Jeffrey Combs doesn’t feel right in his role as the sadistic Lambrick.

Would You Rather is an Adequate Time Waster

Ultimately, Would You Rather never approaches being a truly bad movie. Words like ‘servicable’ and ‘fine’ readily come to mind. Everything chugs along while maintaining your interest. Nevertheless, Would You Rather is never rises above being an adequate time-waster. With the premise it boasted, Levy left money on the table here. Somewhere in Would You Rather was a critical and subversive horror film that could have left audiences unsettled.

THE PROFESSOR’S FINAL GRADE: C

Rattlesnake Lacks Enough Bite to Get Under Your Skin

Posted on by
Reply
Advertisements

With Halloween less than a week away, Netflix has released its latest original horror-thriller, Rattlesnake. Arguably, Netflix and Chills has underwhelmed this year. In place of The Haunting of Hill House, Netflix has treated horror fans to middling thrillers, Eli and In The Tall Grass, and the ‘candy corn’ of horror series, Haunted. Two years ago, writer and director Zak Hilditch helmed the effectively creepy Stephen King adaptation, 1922. Can Hilditch follow up on his previous success with another quietly unsettling effort? Or is Rattlesnake just a toothless thriller?

Synopsis

Single-mom Katrina’s road trip with young daughter, Clara, is abruptly disrupted when her car blows a tire. As she struggles to replace it, a rattlesnake bites Clara, leaving her gravely ill with no help in sight. But when Katrina finds a dilapidated trailer, a strange woman offers to help for a price. When Katrina gets her daughter to a hospital, Clara has amazingly healed. Now Katrina discovers the price for her daughter’s miraculously recovery – a life for a life. Haunting figures throughout the small town warn Katrina that she has until sunset to replace her daughter’s soul with another human life.

Rattlesnake Can’t Build From Its Stephen King Vibes

On paper, Rattlesnake has a winning premise. A ‘deal with the devil’, an isolated small town, and ominous warnings from the dead – it all could have been ripped from the pages of a Stephen King novel. When Zak Hilditch adapted King’s 1922, he showed a methodical, patient approach to horror. Similar to his previous Netflix offering, Hilditch again illustrates a good grasp of genre atmosphere. Rattlesnake makes the most of its sun-soaked environment, soaking itself in a quietly dreadful atmosphere. Here and there, Hilditch manages to put some strikingly creepy images up on the screen. And there’s the problem with the movie. Though it has atmosphere to spare and manages to be occasionally creepy, it’s not a scary movie.

As the movie hits its final act, most of the atmosphere and suspense has evaporated.

No jumps or jolts and just a little bit of blood, Rattlesnake is a fairly tame affair. Yes, there are a couple of genuinely suspenseful moments. Rattlesnake’s best moment emerges when Karolina lurks in an abusive boyfriend’s hallway, waiting for him to come around the corner. It’s this kind of ‘will she or won’t she’ scene where Rattlesnake excels. Sadly, there’s just not enough of these scenes. As the movie hits its final act, most of the atmosphere and suspense has evaporated. That is, Hilditch’s climax is rather anti-climatic – a surprisingly uneventful capper to the whole movie.

A Premise Barely Scratched

In spite of the interesting moral dilemma at the heart of its story, Rattlesnake never really emotionally engages. Part of this can be attributed to a screenplay that doesn’t full flesh out its main character. We never really learn much about Karolina and, as a result, it’s difficult to invest in her plight. Another problem is the movie’s pacing. At times, Rattlesnake feels like its just moving from creepy scene to creepy scene. Even with her daughter’s life on the line, Rattlesnake has a hard time creating the feeling that there are stakes. And a premise that should provoke discomfort and tension never rises above an average Twilight Zone episode.

…a premise that should provoke discomfort and tension never rises above an average Twilight Zone episode.

As for the performances, Carmen Ejogo, who plays Karolina, is perfectly fine. Based on previous roles, however, Ejogo is capable of much more. It’s a somewhat flat performance that never fully convinces that she’s a mother fighting for her daughter’s life. Sons of Anarchy alum Theo Rossi also turns up in a small role. Fans of the FX outlaw biker series know what Rossi is capable of when given a meaty role. In Rattlesnake, Rossi doesn’t get the screen time to make much of an impression. He’s more or less in the movie to satisfy a plot point.

Rattlesnake Another Mediocre Netflix Thriller

Neither offensively bad nor captivatingly chilling, Rattlesnake straddles the fence of mediocrity. To his credit, Hilditch maintains a foreboding atmosphere from start to finish. Rattlesnake has some ‘Stephen King DNA’ in it. Nevertheless, Hilditch’s movie is never really scary in spite of a few brief moments of suspense. Nothing in the movie cashes in on the potential that feels like it’s always just under the surface. What’s left is a movie that doesn’t feel all that different from an 80’s or 90’s ‘made-for-television’ thriller.

THE PROFESSOR’S FINAL GRADE: B-

AMI: SIRI Clone Serves Up Bloody Revenge

Posted on by
Reply
Advertisements

If enough people are afraid of something, chances are there’s a horror movie about it. Don’t like clowns. Well, there’s plenty of low-budget killer clown movies to accompany Pennywise the Clown (It, It Chapter 2). Apparently, technology is a lot scarier for some people than figuring out the TV remote. From killer VHS tapes and video games to online chatrooms and social media, techno-horror is a firmly established sub-genre. Now as Artificial Intelligence (AI) increasingly finds its way into daily life, horror has a new ‘Boogeyman’ (Tau). Even Elon Musk has warned us about the dangers of AI. Arriving just in time for Halloween, Netflix’s latest release, AMI, offers a look into what would happen if SIRI went rogue.

Synopsis

After her mother dies in a tragic car accident, high school student Cassie finds herself lost in aimless and exploitative relationships. An absent father, a backstabbing friend, and a cheating boyfriend – Cassie is alone. But then she downloads a new smartphone personal assistant, A.M.I. When she customizes AMI to sound like her mother, the app quickly fills a void in Cassie’s life.

AMI a Tonally Offbeat Horror Movie

For much of AMI’s runtime, it’s hard to tell just what kind of movie you’re watching. Director Rusty Nixon sets things in motion rather abruptly. Specifically, the movie’s pacing isn’t so much quick as it is jarring. At times, it feels like things are happening without much justification. And tonally, AMI is an odd movie. Neither scary nor gory for its first two-thirds or so, it’s hard to tell what effect Nixon intended. Occasionally, AMI veers into the territory of other forgettable Netflix thrillers (see Twinsanity or Bad Match). Some viewers may be tempted to jump ship before things wrap up.

Neither scary nor gory for its first two-thirds or so, it’s hard to tell what effect Nixon intended.

However, by the movie’s final act, AMI seems to settle into dark humour territory. In fact, audiences may better appreciate AMI if they buy it as an intentional attempt at sardonic commentary. Nixon, who co-wrote the screenplay along with James Clayton and Evan Taylor, has a pretty clear message. That is, AMI is a dire warning about our obsession – our co-dependent relationship – with our smartphones. That tonal inconsistency and a clunky story initially make it hard to buy that a virtual personal assistant could turn someone into a killer. But by the time Cassie’s boyfriend, Liam, is personalizing his AMI to bark orders at him like his abusive footballl coach, the joke becomes a little more obvious. Once AMI settles on a tone, it’s final act and ending feel like a big improvement.

Slaves to Our Own Technology

How attached have we become to our phones? For a self-obsessed culture, there’s no doubt our smartphones have taken on a more and more important role in our lives. Psychologists have warning us about the dangers of screen for years now. Of course, AMI takes things to an extreme. While last year’s Upgrade looked at AI literally controlling us, AMI takes a different approach. Instead, the Canadian thriller looks at how its virtual personal assistant fills a void in people’s lives. For Cassie, AMI fills the emptiness left by her mother’s death. Conversely, Liam uses his AMI to pass the time left when he can no longer play football.

It’s an ambitious concept for a lower budget thriller. And we’ve certainly filled our lives with Facebook and Instagram. A lot of family dinners are probably spent staring blankly into a screen. Despite its lofty story-telling goals, however, AMI doesn’t necessarily nail the premise. Underwritten characters and lots of illogical jumps in the story leave the idea feeling half-baked. By the time AMI embraces its own premise, things have slid into slasher movie territory.

Broad Characters and Inconsistent Performances

If AMI wanted to be a dark horror-comedy, the performances may not be broad enough. On the other hand, if Nixon intended to make a full-fledged horror movie, the performance are too over-the-top. In fairness to the actors, several characters are just so underwritten that their role in the movie is muddled. At times, I wondered if the editors cut scenes with Cassie’s dad (Philip Granger). He’s in and out of the story so much, that his appearances feel awkward. And duplicitous friend, Sarah (Veronica Hampson) backstabs Cassie so abruptly that it requires a heavy does of expository dialogue.

As Cassie, Debs Howard gives an inconsistent performance that feels forced at times. In particular, Howard struggles to convince as an unhinged killer by the movie’s conclusion. Though AMI saddles him with the broadest role in boyfriend, Liam, Sam Robert Mulk acquits himself better than his co-stars. It’s a role that requires some heavy mugging, and Mulk happily obliges.

AMI Probably Needed a Software Update

With a climax that probably saved the movie from being a total time-waster, AMI struggles to find the right tone. Even if you give the Canadian thriller the benefit of the doubt, AMI isn’t nearly clever enough to pass as good satirical horror. Choppy pacing, underwritten characters, and inconsistent performances don’t help. Someday AI may pull a Skynet and enslave all of humanity. But for now we probably don’t have to worry about SIRI too much.

THE PROFESSOR’S FINAL GRADE: C

Eli on Netflix: Where Science and Religion Meet With Mediocre Results

Posted on by
1
Advertisements

With Netflix and Chills in full swing, the streaming giant finally gives horror fans a new chiller for the season. Though Paramount Pictures produced Eli, it declined to screen it in theatres. Instead, the studio offloaded the movie to Netflix for some reason. Whatever the reasoning, Eli’s trailer promises an intriguing mix of haunts, creepy kids, and science gone awry. But does the promotional material deliver on what it promises? And will audiences have a clue what’s going on when everything ends? Spoilers follow the overall rating at the end of the review.

Synopsis

Four years ago, a rare auto-immune disorder took over young Eli’s life. Now Eli is ‘allergic’ to the outside world, only venturing outside in a full Hazmat suit. Desperate and broke, Eli’s parents take him to a secluded mansion that serves as a specialized treatment facility. Here, Dr Isabella Horn promises a difficult experimental procedure that may cure Eli. But when Eli begins seeing strange things in the middle of the night, he begins to fear that Dr Horn’s ‘treatment’ may not be intended to cure him.

Conventional Scares Hinder Interesting Premise

Director Ciarán Foy has a bit of a mixed history in the genre. His feature-length debut, Citadel, was an effectively atmospheric chiller. But Sinister 2 was a disappointing follow-up. That ‘hit and miss’ history finds its way into Eli, which relies heavily on familiar scares. A mash-up of pseudo-science and haunted house movies, Eli leans more on the latter at the expense of what’s arguably the more interesting premise. Almost immediately upon arriving at Dr Horn’s facility (that looks oddly like a haunted mansion), things start going bump in the night. And in the early going, Foy establishes some early tension and nails a few scares. Spooky, misshapen figures emerge from and disappear into shadows. Door creep open and nightmares end with jolts. Though they are indeed familiar, Eli’s story offers enough mystery alongside decent pacing to keep you watching.

Foy’s ghostly figures may serve up the jumps, but it’s the experimental treatment scenes that intrigue and repulse simultaneously.

Still one can’t help but feel there was a better movie somewhere in the screenplay. When Dr Horn starts her mysterious treatments, Eli feels like it might flirt with body horror a la David Cronenberg. Foy’s ghostly figures may serve up the jumps, but it’s the experimental treatment scenes that intrigue and repulse simultaneously. Had Eli elected to delve deeper into the ethics and side-effects of ‘science gone wrong’ a decent two-thirds of a movie might have been a good horror movie. Instead, Foy offers a curious movie with recycle haunted house bits … at least for an hour or so.

Eli Takes Bizarre Left Turn in Final Act

Throughout Netflix’s latest release, there’s eccentric plot lines dangling here and there. Any seasoned horror fan will Know something isn’t quite right with Dr Horn. As the story unfolds, Eli’s dad exhibits increasingly odd behaviour. And Stranger Things’ Sadie Sink sets off warning bells from here first appearance. Yet just when you think you know what’s going on, Eli takes an abrupt left-turn. At this point, Eli becomes almost an entirely different movie. Whether it’s better than the movie you were watching is debatable. What’s not open to debate is the nonsensical nature of the twist. Eli requires a set of almost impossible mental gymnastics to make its twist work. Everything in the final act invalidates the entire first two-thirds of the movie. At least the movie’s shift allows Foy to show off some interesting and distinct horror visuals.

Solid Cast Grounds Netflix Chiller At Its Strangest Moments

Credit to Eli’s cast who never give in to the movie’s sillier impulses. Several familiar faces keep things grounded, even as the story threatens to go off the rails. Genre veteran Lili Taylor (The Conjuring, Leatherface) menaces with a quiet demeanour. Too bad Eli underutilizes the talented actress. As a newer member of the Stranger Things cast, Sadie Sink (Hailey) impresses again with her limited screen time. Charismatic and talented, Sink has a bright future. Fans of the underrated Eden Lake and cheesy Netflix horror series, The Order, will also recognize Kelly Reilly and Max Martini, playing Eli’s parents.

Too bad Eli underutilizes the talented actress.

But it’s Charlie Shortwell, playing ‘Eli’, who steals the movie. Child actors can be hit and miss. And a lot is required of Shortwell in the movie, and he more than rises to the challenge. As the title character, Shortwell delivers a complex, layered performance. Given his illness, Eli should feel older than his age, and that’s the character Shortwell gives us. He’s sympathetic and believable throughout the movie, even when his character is stuck going through the motions of similar (and better) movies. Like his character, Shortwell’s talent exceeds his age.

Eli Offers Two Movies for the Price of One

Despite two-thirds of decent, if not familiar, horror, Eli goes off the rails in its final act. Or perhaps more accurately, Eli becomes a completely different movie. The Netflix thriller doesn’t so much deliver a twist as it just flips the script. On the one hand, Eli is never boring and offers enough scares and intrigue to keep audiences watching. Even its big reveal at least makes for a surprise in what would have been a forgettable genre movie. Nothing about the ending works, but younger horror fans my find Eli mildly distracting.

THE PROFESSOR’S FINAL GRADE: C+

SPOILERS

Eli does not have an auto-immune disorder – he’s not sick. No, Eli’s is the Devil’s son. His parents have known this little tidbit for years. Apparently, Eli’s mother – desperate for a child – turned to Satan when God wouldn’t answer her prayers. Dr Horn and her treatment team are actually nuns (though Horn herself may be a scientist as well … it’s not clear). When their medical treatment fails, Horn resorts to a good, old-fashioned exorcism. It fails miserably, and Eli leaves with his mother and Hailey (an emissary of the Devil, though it’s also unclear) to find his Father. And all the other children who died in the treatment facility – also Satan’s offspring.