Review Quickies: Hell or High Water, High-Rise, Hush and Morgan
As I work my way through 2016, I find myself being severely behind on the films that I was excited for at the beginning of the year. I'm still catching up on things I missed in 2015, 2014, 2013....it's insanity. Sometimes I feel like there's just entirely too much content and it's borderline impossible to get through everything that I'm interested in. However, I'll never be one to complain about the ever increasing deluge of film each year. I know some people think the pool is becoming more and more diluted, but as someone who'll never get enough of the medium, I welcome it. Something I'd like to try more often is a compilation post here or there, detailing my thoughts on 3-5 films that I've caught recently that I missed on opening weekend or just didn't have a theatrical run in my city. These reviews will be smaller than my usual ones so these can more digestible rather than exhausting. Today I'll be focussing on four films in total; two I saw in the theaters, one I caught on Netflix and one I bought on Blu Ray. First up:
"A divorced father and his ex-con older brother resort to a desperate scheme in order to save the family's ranch in West Texas"
Directed by David MacKenzie and written by Taylor Sheridan, "Hell or High Water" is a staggeringly gorgeous western that slips in under many radars to quietly be one of the best films of the year. Is there anything original or unique about it? Not especially but sometimes all that matters is a taut film and damn this film personifies that. There are really no holes to be found here. It's a gripping, tense and slow burning drama that unfolds into a gripping thriller in its last act. The action never seems over the top and the cast of characters are some of the realist you'll see in a film all year. It drips with authenticity, from the striking shots of a dry and poverty stricken West Texas to the people who inhibit the film. I'm not specifically talking about the main cast, who I'll get to, but the people who fill in the periphery of the film. Cowboys and ranchers and police officers and waitresses, all seemingly real human beings who happened to walk onto a movie set. You're immersed instantaneously because of how well MacKenzie reigns the film in. This film is very much a western but it never feels grandiose or too large for its own good, instead letting the film play out the way it probably would in the real world. Sometimes too much naturalism can be grating and take you out of a film cinematically but here, you're fully immersed. You can practically feel the West Texas heat baking your skin, you can smell the sweat dripping off the criminals as they make their getaway and you can taste the Shiner Bock as Jeff Bridges downs it. It's a truly special film that comes alive and keeps its brisk pace for the duration of the run time.
The three leads, Chris Pine, Ben Foster and Jeff Bridges are outstanding. In a fair world, Foster and Bridges' names would be circling the Oscar talk right now. This year has a ton of Lead and Supporting Actress roles to spare but the male categories appear to be quite limited so I'm going to throw Ben Foster's name into the ring for Supporting Actor as a dark horse. A dark horse is being unkind though because this is one of best performances of the year. He takes glee in hurting people and he's a spark plug of energy from the minute he's on screen. However, in a lesser actor's hands, the psychopathic older brother would be an over the top lunatic. In Foster's hands, he's a man so broken by familial drama and societal abuse and he's now hardened into a ball of passion, hatred and fury who feels that he only has one path he can follow: Crime. His love for his brother is palpable though. You feel it in every scene. He knows what he's doing isn't for him and he never makes the robberies about himself. He implicitly does what his brother asks him to do, never once considering what will happen to him on the other side. It's a special performance from a special actor. Jeff Bridges as a Texas Ranger brings a performance that's equal parts boisterous and stoic. Bridges has been chided in recent years for becoming a caricature and sometimes mumbling his way through a movie. It's become so easy to forget how great of an actor he is. Thank god this movie exists because he's the best he's been in years. Jeff Bridges is one of the finest actors to ever grace the screen and when he's on, he's way on. There's a sadness behind his eyes that expresses a man who's tired and weary of a world that's slowly crumbling around him. However, he manages to remain so charismatic and excited throughout the film. He's locked in the cliche of "last big case before retirement" but he rolls with that carries that tired trope with gravitas more gravitas than it deserves. Chris Pine is the backbone of this movie. The guy has been quietly one of the stronger actors working but seems to work better as an interesting character actor than as a leading man. As a leading guy he kind of blends into the background but when he does work like this he's so solid. He still has trouble not being handsome, no amount of grime and lack of grooming and do that but that doesn't matter because he's a guy at the end of his rope and without options. He's not giving the best performance in the film but he quietly carries the film on his shoulders. While Foster is chewing scenery and Bridges is classing it up, Pine is the guy holding it down. Back in the day, SNL cast and crew called Phil Hartman "The Glue" because he was always the most solid guy in every sketch he was in. I think that nickname is apt for Pine here. Without him the film has no soul.
There is one problem I have with the film and it's really not a huge problem but one that sticks out to me. Jeff Bridge's ranger has a Native American/Mexican partner and they have this rapport with each other like most law enforcement officers do. They chide each other and make fun of each other but Bridges is pretty racist about it. Now, that isn't necessarily the problem. He's coming from a place in the world where that's seemingly pretty common. I'm not going to get up in arms about it because Bridges' character isn't hateful or doing it because he think his partner is beneath him. However, what is a little unfortunate is that his partner seems genuinely unhappy about it every time. He comes across less like trading friendly jabs and more like he's actually uncomfortable. Sure, he chides Bridges for being old and tired but he never seems to get one over on him. You never get the feeling that he's ok with it. I'm just not sure what the film is trying to do here because usually it's obvious that the film thinks the one making the racist remarks is wrong. Here though? It's just kind of the norm and not in a comfortable way. Again, it's a small thing that isn't a huge problem or even a problem at all, just something odd that stood out to me.
Overall though? This film is damn near perfect. It's a gorgeous Neo-Western, soaked in sweat, whiskey, beer, despair and grime. It's a relevant story of men resorting to the worst possible solution because of how profoundly corrupt the banks and economy are. They're "bad" guys but who can blame their decisions? The bank is stealing from them and millions of people like them. The town they live in is the definition of poverty and the film drives that home. Debt solution billboards litter the highway, dilapidation is everywhere, old and tired men and women are scraping to get by. It's an intense film that forces you to understand the struggle of these people. It practically pushes your face into and says "You don't get to ignore this." Nick Cave's haunting score adds to the despair and the hope of that one quick fix. That's not to say you'll leave feeling depressed. For as heavy as this all sounds, MacKenzie and Sheridan fill their film with so much levity. You'll find yourself laughing one minute and gripping your seat the next. A standout performance from Ben Foster and a return to form by Jeff Bridges drive this over the fence to be one of this year's best films. It may be out of theaters by now but as soon as you can, catch this when it's available to stream or own.
Sadly, it's a pretty mixed bag. I haven't read Ballard's novel but I've heard multiple people talk about how it's almost impossible to adapt. It's a surreal trip that kind of veers many directions. In a way the film honors that pretty well but in a novel it's easier to digest a narrative that can be directionless at times. A film only has about 2 hours to work with, give or take, so you kind of have to reign things in. I think Wheatley gets too caught up in staying true to the novel that the film suffers for it. I found the film to be pretty plodding and it meanders way more than a film show. That's not to say that I'm not down for a thinky kind of movie but the middle portion of "High-Rise" sometimes slows to a screeching halt because it wants you to take in the scenery. I wouldn't call it pretentious navel-gazing but it comes dangerously close. I love Wheatley's other films, especially "A Field in England" but that film called for this kind of slow storytelling. Here, when everything is descending into madness, you want a little more bang. That's not to say that most of the film doesn't work. I found the focus on material products and how that focus causes us to lose sight of what's truly important to be so striking.
The filmmaking is what really makes this film sing more than it snoozes. Wheatley is one of Britain's brightest talents and remains an important voice in filmmaking. He makes the luxury high-rise look absolutely beautiful. It's set in the 70s and everything about the film is period perfect. The gardens are lush and vibrant, the women's fashion is stunning and even the grocery store inside the high-rise is lined with colorful, yet generic food. He makes great use of visual storytelling in differentiating between classes in the high-rise. The lower level citizens live in apartments that appear a bit more cluttered than usual and the colors don't jump out at you the way the top floors do. The people who live in the higher floors live in more minimal, almost sterile conditions. He really drives home just how disparate the classes are here. That's really what makes the film work much better than it doesn't. Even as it meanders along, it has quite a lot to say about society and the class struggle that's still going on today. Seeing people scrape at the bottom of the high-rise until they can't take it anymore and revolt seems so prescient for conditions today. We hear a lot about the Occupy Movement and the 1% vs the 99% and here having that battle bottled up and contained into one building works so well. The tensions boil over so quickly and the descent into chaos is stunning. You can't look away as the beautiful interiors become covered in grime and dirt, as the men and women become covered in blood and sweat. The trash chutes become clogged, the electricity stops working and people go insane. The world continues to turn and go about its daily business around the high-rise but inside society has devolved into madness.
On the whole, I liked "High-Rise" more than I disliked it but I still can't shake the feeling of disappointment. I'd definitely recommend it because you won't see anything like it this year but be prepared for some ponderous filmmaking that doesn't mind slowing down a bit too much. It's definitely a film that I want to see again and again because I have a feeling that it's one that needs to sink in a little more. As it stands now it's a little lackluster but I think it's going to age well for me.
Moving on, here's my take on one of the best home invasion thrillers ever:
"Morgan" isn't the worst thing I've seen this year but it's one that left me feeling pretty cold. I went int expecting much more than I was given. Aesthetically, Luke Scott seems to have a bright future as a filmmaker even if his debut veers a bit on the generic side. I hope that he's able to fine tune his future films and allows them to be a complete entity rather than trying to hodgepodge two things together that are so tonally different. As it stands, "Morgan" is a brainless "think piece" and a toothless slasher that's barely saved by two strong leading women.
The three leads, Chris Pine, Ben Foster and Jeff Bridges are outstanding. In a fair world, Foster and Bridges' names would be circling the Oscar talk right now. This year has a ton of Lead and Supporting Actress roles to spare but the male categories appear to be quite limited so I'm going to throw Ben Foster's name into the ring for Supporting Actor as a dark horse. A dark horse is being unkind though because this is one of best performances of the year. He takes glee in hurting people and he's a spark plug of energy from the minute he's on screen. However, in a lesser actor's hands, the psychopathic older brother would be an over the top lunatic. In Foster's hands, he's a man so broken by familial drama and societal abuse and he's now hardened into a ball of passion, hatred and fury who feels that he only has one path he can follow: Crime. His love for his brother is palpable though. You feel it in every scene. He knows what he's doing isn't for him and he never makes the robberies about himself. He implicitly does what his brother asks him to do, never once considering what will happen to him on the other side. It's a special performance from a special actor. Jeff Bridges as a Texas Ranger brings a performance that's equal parts boisterous and stoic. Bridges has been chided in recent years for becoming a caricature and sometimes mumbling his way through a movie. It's become so easy to forget how great of an actor he is. Thank god this movie exists because he's the best he's been in years. Jeff Bridges is one of the finest actors to ever grace the screen and when he's on, he's way on. There's a sadness behind his eyes that expresses a man who's tired and weary of a world that's slowly crumbling around him. However, he manages to remain so charismatic and excited throughout the film. He's locked in the cliche of "last big case before retirement" but he rolls with that carries that tired trope with gravitas more gravitas than it deserves. Chris Pine is the backbone of this movie. The guy has been quietly one of the stronger actors working but seems to work better as an interesting character actor than as a leading man. As a leading guy he kind of blends into the background but when he does work like this he's so solid. He still has trouble not being handsome, no amount of grime and lack of grooming and do that but that doesn't matter because he's a guy at the end of his rope and without options. He's not giving the best performance in the film but he quietly carries the film on his shoulders. While Foster is chewing scenery and Bridges is classing it up, Pine is the guy holding it down. Back in the day, SNL cast and crew called Phil Hartman "The Glue" because he was always the most solid guy in every sketch he was in. I think that nickname is apt for Pine here. Without him the film has no soul.
There is one problem I have with the film and it's really not a huge problem but one that sticks out to me. Jeff Bridge's ranger has a Native American/Mexican partner and they have this rapport with each other like most law enforcement officers do. They chide each other and make fun of each other but Bridges is pretty racist about it. Now, that isn't necessarily the problem. He's coming from a place in the world where that's seemingly pretty common. I'm not going to get up in arms about it because Bridges' character isn't hateful or doing it because he think his partner is beneath him. However, what is a little unfortunate is that his partner seems genuinely unhappy about it every time. He comes across less like trading friendly jabs and more like he's actually uncomfortable. Sure, he chides Bridges for being old and tired but he never seems to get one over on him. You never get the feeling that he's ok with it. I'm just not sure what the film is trying to do here because usually it's obvious that the film thinks the one making the racist remarks is wrong. Here though? It's just kind of the norm and not in a comfortable way. Again, it's a small thing that isn't a huge problem or even a problem at all, just something odd that stood out to me.
Overall though? This film is damn near perfect. It's a gorgeous Neo-Western, soaked in sweat, whiskey, beer, despair and grime. It's a relevant story of men resorting to the worst possible solution because of how profoundly corrupt the banks and economy are. They're "bad" guys but who can blame their decisions? The bank is stealing from them and millions of people like them. The town they live in is the definition of poverty and the film drives that home. Debt solution billboards litter the highway, dilapidation is everywhere, old and tired men and women are scraping to get by. It's an intense film that forces you to understand the struggle of these people. It practically pushes your face into and says "You don't get to ignore this." Nick Cave's haunting score adds to the despair and the hope of that one quick fix. That's not to say you'll leave feeling depressed. For as heavy as this all sounds, MacKenzie and Sheridan fill their film with so much levity. You'll find yourself laughing one minute and gripping your seat the next. A standout performance from Ben Foster and a return to form by Jeff Bridges drive this over the fence to be one of this year's best films. It may be out of theaters by now but as soon as you can, catch this when it's available to stream or own.
8.75/10
Up next, it's Ben Wheatley's latest:
"Life for the residents of a tower block begins to run out of control."
Ben Wheatley is easily one of the most interesting filmmakers working, British or otherwise. His filmography is insanely prolific with "Down Terrace" being a brutal crime drama, "Kill List" being a tense, frightening thriller, "A Field in England" being a bizarre, mushroom trip of an adventure and "Sightseers" coming in as a hilariously scary adventure. Dude's even done an episode of Doctor Who. The man is nothing if not inventive and never tells the same story twice. That's why I was ecstatic when I heard that he'd taken the directing reigns of the classic J.G. Ballard novel "High-Rise" which had been in development hell for decades. His sensibilities could not be more perfect for the bizarre, brutal and existential nightmare of class warfare that ascends from the ground up. From the minute he signed on to direct I was on board. So how did it turn out?
Sadly, it's a pretty mixed bag. I haven't read Ballard's novel but I've heard multiple people talk about how it's almost impossible to adapt. It's a surreal trip that kind of veers many directions. In a way the film honors that pretty well but in a novel it's easier to digest a narrative that can be directionless at times. A film only has about 2 hours to work with, give or take, so you kind of have to reign things in. I think Wheatley gets too caught up in staying true to the novel that the film suffers for it. I found the film to be pretty plodding and it meanders way more than a film show. That's not to say that I'm not down for a thinky kind of movie but the middle portion of "High-Rise" sometimes slows to a screeching halt because it wants you to take in the scenery. I wouldn't call it pretentious navel-gazing but it comes dangerously close. I love Wheatley's other films, especially "A Field in England" but that film called for this kind of slow storytelling. Here, when everything is descending into madness, you want a little more bang. That's not to say that most of the film doesn't work. I found the focus on material products and how that focus causes us to lose sight of what's truly important to be so striking.
The filmmaking is what really makes this film sing more than it snoozes. Wheatley is one of Britain's brightest talents and remains an important voice in filmmaking. He makes the luxury high-rise look absolutely beautiful. It's set in the 70s and everything about the film is period perfect. The gardens are lush and vibrant, the women's fashion is stunning and even the grocery store inside the high-rise is lined with colorful, yet generic food. He makes great use of visual storytelling in differentiating between classes in the high-rise. The lower level citizens live in apartments that appear a bit more cluttered than usual and the colors don't jump out at you the way the top floors do. The people who live in the higher floors live in more minimal, almost sterile conditions. He really drives home just how disparate the classes are here. That's really what makes the film work much better than it doesn't. Even as it meanders along, it has quite a lot to say about society and the class struggle that's still going on today. Seeing people scrape at the bottom of the high-rise until they can't take it anymore and revolt seems so prescient for conditions today. We hear a lot about the Occupy Movement and the 1% vs the 99% and here having that battle bottled up and contained into one building works so well. The tensions boil over so quickly and the descent into chaos is stunning. You can't look away as the beautiful interiors become covered in grime and dirt, as the men and women become covered in blood and sweat. The trash chutes become clogged, the electricity stops working and people go insane. The world continues to turn and go about its daily business around the high-rise but inside society has devolved into madness.
As for the acting, our lead Tom Hiddleston is good as always. Not quite as big or brash as he is as Loki but his role of Dr. Laing doesn't call for that here. He's more of an observer, meant to watch the coming and goings of the inhabitants and slowly lose it himself. The real scene-stealer is Luke Evans, a guy that I always thought had talent but was never cast in films to display it. He's excellent here. He plays a lower class citizen who becomes obsessed with uncovering the conspiracy to hold he and his follow lower inhabitants down. At one point Laing remarks "He's the most sane person in the building." and it's hard to argue. He may seem like a bastard and a lot of times like the worst person in the building but he's the only one with a sense as to what's going on. He's quite good here and I'd love to see more meaningful roles given to Evans.
On the whole, I liked "High-Rise" more than I disliked it but I still can't shake the feeling of disappointment. I'd definitely recommend it because you won't see anything like it this year but be prepared for some ponderous filmmaking that doesn't mind slowing down a bit too much. It's definitely a film that I want to see again and again because I have a feeling that it's one that needs to sink in a little more. As it stands now it's a little lackluster but I think it's going to age well for me.
6.5/10
Moving on, here's my take on one of the best home invasion thrillers ever:
"A deaf writer who retreaded to the woods to live a solitary life must fight for her life in silence when a masked killer appears at her window."
I'd heard quite a bit about this one for a long time and my interest immediately picked up when I saw that it was sitting at a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. As a Netflix exclusive this one flew under a lot of people's radars and if you're a Netflix subscriber, I suggest that you fix that ASAP. "Hush" is a pretty bare bones home invasion thriller but clocking in at a brisk 81 minutes, sometimes that's all you need. What it lacks in production value it makes up for in sheer tension. As soon as the action kicks in (which is about 15 minutes in, if that) you're gripping your seat for the duration of the film. The film starts with Maddie (Kate Siegel) hosting her neighbor at her secluded house. Maddie is deaf and lives in isolation, trying to make her career as a writer pick up more steam. Her neighbor leaves and Maddie sits down to Skype her sister and then to try to write. All of a sudden we cut to her neighbor running back to her house, bleeding and screaming for help. She pounds on the door which is is mere feet from Maddie but Maddie can't hear a thing. A masked man appears behind her and stabs her countless times and she dies on Maddie's doorstep. The man sees Maddie sitting with her back to the door and for a moment hesitates but after pounding on the window, he realizes that she's deaf. He walks right in, steals her phone and makes his presence known to Maddie, who is able to lock him back outside. It's here where the film really gets going and it never stops.
As mentioned, this film is super sparse. It's a two-hander taking place in the woods with minimal dialogue. When done well I love these kind of films. Director Mike Flanagan makes an excellent choice in revealing the killer right away but what's even better than the reveal is the fact that Maddie has no idea who he is. That's what horror is all about and when it works the best, the sense of mystery. She's being hunted by this man and has no idea why and neither do we. Nor should we, this is a game of cat and mouse. This is a clearly disturbed man who enjoys the hunt but he doesn't expect Maddie, a deaf woman, to be so resilient. Maddie is what takes the film over the top for me. I've never seen Kate Siegel in anything (she's also the co-writer with Flanagan) but she's incredible in an (almost) wordless performance. She sells every emotion with her face better than most actors do when speaking. You feel her fear and then you feel her resolve even more. In a moment of real creativity, when Maddie understands how to beat this man, you get to hear her voice. I don't really want to tip how it's done but I really appreciated getting to hear her speak before the film ends. It's an emotional scene that doesn't go the way you expect but works beautifully. As for the man, he's played by John Gallagher Jr.. This guy is having quite the year albeit quietly. He's the antagonist here, he's the third lead in the excellent "10 Cloverfield Lane" and he stars in the upcoming "Belko Experiment" which is also garnering rave reviews. He's so strong in this film though and really sells how dangerous he is despite being a pretty small, average looking guy. There's a deadened look in his eyes that just gives off a menace that you can't quite put your finger on. He cocks his head like a curious animal as Maddie scrambles in terror. He revels in the fact that this woman is his prey. He gives no reason for why he's doing this, he just does. That's what makes him so eerie. A guy like him can be hiding in plain site right next you. He could me next to me as I type this up in this crappy Starbucks. He's a psychopath and Gallagher Jr. is excellent. He's never too large or over the top. He doesn't scream or laugh maniacally nor does he chew any scenery. He's just a dude who's compelled to kill and that's frightening.
Other than the two leads, the expert build of tension and the excellent use of budget the other thing the other thing that drives this film is the realism. Now, I've never been hunted for sport by some dude in the woods so I'm only going off of what I perceive to be fact but damn this film is brutal. The man has a crossbow and when he connects you feel it. You also feel the knife wounds. The sounds those make are so unnerving, the flesh being severed and blood trickling out is all just so uncomfortable. The most unsettling moment is when someone has their hand crushed by being stepped on. I have a pretty strong stomach for horror and gore but even I cringed at the sound of bones being mangled. This film isn't a gore fest but when it happens, you feel it.
"Hush" is a masterclass in high tension and the benefit that a low budget can afford you. It doesn't try to be flashy or overdo anything because it knows exactly what kind of movie it is. It straps you in from the beginning and never lets you catch your breath. Even when you think you're getting a breather the film pulls you back into the hunt and you're off running again. Flannagan is now a name that I'm going to watch and it's a shame that his tiny masterpiece didn't get a theatrical release. Seeing this on the big screen with a crowd of people would've been a thrill. As it stands though it's a wholly engaging thriller that I can't recommend strongly enough. Is it one of the greatest films I've ever seen? No but it IS one of the greatest thrillers I've ever seen. Sometimes you need a little quiet for things to become really scary.
9/10
Now to finish up, let's take a look at a real disappointment for me, Luke (son of Ridley) Scott's:
"A corporate risk-management consultant must decide whether or not to terminate an artificially created humanoid being."
"Morgan" is a film that jumped onto my radar earlier in the year when I saw the trailer and its cast. Kate Mara is one of my favorite actresses on the planet and Anya Taylor-Joy is one of my favorite up and coming actresses working. After seeing "The Witch" I was convinced that Taylor-Joy could do anything and I was excited to see her face off against Mara. Add in Paul Giamatti and this creepy sci-fi looked to be right up my alley. What a disappointment. The basic premise is that Kate Mara plays a representative from "corporate", Lee Weathers, sent to a remote laboratory after an experiment has gone awry. That experiment is Morgan, an artificially created human that has been lashing out at her handlers. Weathers is to evaluate Morgan and see if she's fit to continue on. The problem is, Morgan and her handlers have developed deep, familial bonds and it's not going to be easy for Weathers to properly assess the situation without potentially disingenuous input from Morgan and her "family." This has all the makings of what could've been a fascinating character study and a mediation on what it means to be "human." Instead we're given a cheap, schlocky slasher flick that takes way too long to get going and offers no meaningful payoff.
Luke Scott, like his father Ridley, seems to be interested in the humanity of inhumanity in his feature film debut. Ridley explored that to legendary effect in "Alien" and "Blade Runner" and to varied results in "Prometheus" and here his son Luke tries to get to the root of those same themes. The problem with "Morgan" is that the film never commits to having a real or honest conversation about what humanity is. We see flashbacks of Morgan as a little girl playing with her handlers and we hear constant speechifying of what she means to her family but it's never genuine. The film is in a constant state of exposition until it all turns to shit in the last 20 minutes. Every character gets a chance to tell us what Morgan means to them and sometimes those characters get to say it again. And again. And again. The only time we're ever treated to a real, believable between Morgan and a family member, is when she's taken to a stream by Dr. Amy Menser (Rose Leslie). This tiny interaction is the crux for why Morgan is lashing out. Dr. Menser has promised to take her there again and when that doesn't happen, Morgan begins attack her family. It seems like such a small thing to cause so much carnage over but remember, Morgan is basically an artificial child. She grows up at an exponential rate so while she looks like an 18 year old and she's extremely intelligent, her base instincts are that of a child. Again, a better film would explore this more. It would comment on this. "Morgan" is only concerned with that on the surface. It's trying to to make these heady observations about humanity vs inhumanity, nature vs nurture and doing absolutely nothing interesting with them.
Which brings me to what the film actually is: A Slasher flick and a gutless one at that. "Morgan" doesn't work because when it doesn't fully comment to being a smart, thoughtful sci-fi film, it's not committing to be a breezy, schlocky slasher film. It wants to be the former but plays more like the latter and at a certain point you just wish it would've committed to being a dumb, fun horror film. The last 20 minutes contain some brutal moments but as every lame character is getting picked off, you've been checking your watch for the first 75 and it just doesn't matter. Every character is a copy of a copy of a copy and none of them matter. None of her "family" gets to really do anything meaningful so when she kills them who cares? In other, trashy slasher flicks there are at least base-line archetypes for our killer to go through. This film features almost none of that. Aside from Lee Weathers and Morgan, every other character does nothing nor do they say anything that makes them stand apart from one another. Some talented actors like Toby Jones, Jennifer Jason Leigh and Paul Giamatti (in an admittedly fun scene that Paul G chews up) are generally left stranded by an aimless plot and no character. The only highlights are getting to watch Taylor-Joy and Mara interact. Mara is generally overshadowed by her Oscar-nominated sister, Rooney but Kate is excellent here. She plays cold, calculating and driven very well. Her intensity is a breath of fresh air in a film that is as dry as sand paper. I'd love to see her in more lead roles, she has the chops. Taylor-Joy is having something of a break out year. I think her performance in "The Witch" was revelatory and is still one of my favorite of the year. She's very good here despite having a pretty flat character. She conveys childlike wonder so well and the glint of rage that flickers across her eyes, the way a child's sometimes do when they don't get what they wanted, is chilling. She's an absolute natural onscreen and I can't wait to see what she does next.
"Morgan" isn't the worst thing I've seen this year but it's one that left me feeling pretty cold. I went int expecting much more than I was given. Aesthetically, Luke Scott seems to have a bright future as a filmmaker even if his debut veers a bit on the generic side. I hope that he's able to fine tune his future films and allows them to be a complete entity rather than trying to hodgepodge two things together that are so tonally different. As it stands, "Morgan" is a brainless "think piece" and a toothless slasher that's barely saved by two strong leading women.
4.5/10
Comments
Post a Comment