Flight

Logline: An airline pilot saves a flight from crashing, but an investigation into the malfunctions reveals something troubling.

Cast: Denzel Washington, Kelly Reilly, Don Cheadle, John Goodman, Bruce Greenwood

Directed by: Robert Zemeckis

It's been way too long since my last post. So much for my horror theme. I blame school.

So, why this post if school is still on? Well, I really needed to vent about this movie. I literally just finished watching this about an hour ago in theatres. I pretty much stayed clear of all individual reviews of this one. I knew Zemeckis was directing, I knew this was a movie that Denzel could really flex his acting muscles that I know he has, and I knew this was going to be a character piece dealing with severely flawed characters. For those three reasons, I was almost expecting this to be my hidden gem somewhere down the road that I tell my children about one day.

I've chosen to drop my regular structure to allow me freedom of explaining my complete thoughts of this movie.

So, Flight starts off in a hotel room - Denzel, aka Whip Whitaker, wakes up beside a beautiful naked flight attendant after a long night with no sleep and a ton of alcohol. He takes a swig of his leftover beer to clear his throat. Right from the first scene we can tell this character is flawed. This is great, because later on we can see how he's going to change and it sets up for an interesting journey.

Not long after, I experienced one of the most intense movie scenes I've ever had the privilege of viewing in theatres. The actual plane crash is phenomenal. I can't use any words to do it justice, it's really that good.

Well, the positive critique stops there. Because right after the plane crash I was so exhilarated, I didn't want to slow down. I was so happy up to that point with what I was watching, I actually stopped and thought to myself - "what the hell is going to come next?" Well, my question was slowly answered as the movie turned into 2 different plots. 1) the investigation of Whip being an alcoholic and drunk while flying, and 2) his relationship with a junkie he randomly met in a hospital stairwell. This is where Flight crashes for the second time, except this time it's not phenomenal, it's not exhilerating, it's actually rather dull and shallow.

A lot of people will watch this movie and be amazed by Denzel Washington's acting. They should. He finally stepped up to the plate and delivered a performance to go along with Training Day and American Gangster that I can actually source when talking about him as a serious actor that branches into a variety of great roles. I'm happy with that. But, his acting didn't blind me from the story's flaws.

Flight suffers from a severely poor climax. The entire movie Whip chooses to drink. There is a scene where he yells out numerous times "I choose to drink!" and explains all of the stuff he's lost. Then he continues to yell that he chooses to drink. He's given numerous opportunities to stop drinking, he's given many wake up calls, and when it matters the ABSOLUTE most to stop (no pun intended), he doesn't. That's why when he actually does quit, and it's for such a weak reason, the journey of him overcoming his addiction is capped off by an action that is not only something I didn't truly believe, but also something that was really anti-climactic. The end felt rushed and that's saying something in a 2 hour and 18 minute movie, but I felt they spent way too much time dealing with things that didn't matter rather than constructing a satisfying ending where our hero literally takes the reins of his addiction and drives it off a cliff.

They also chose to explore a new relationship, with a new character as flawed as he is, that takes us nowhere. I don't mean to spoil things, but this character leaves him and never comes back. We actually don't see her again aside from a picture at the end that Whip has. She didn't help him, she just ran away. Her purpose to the story? Still trying to figure it out. This sucks because her role is quite a large chunk of the plot. Probably should have spent more time on his ex-wife and son, considering that is his main problem/solution he needs to control in the movie outside of his alcoholism.

Consensus... well, Flight did have some interesting scenes, some funny scenes, some intense scenes, and two powerhouse performances from Denzel Washington and Robert Zemeckis, but ultimately this film suffers from a lack of pace, a confused subplot, and an really anticlimactic payoff that didn't seem real. Was it a bad movie? No, but I didn't think it was a good movie either.

The only thing I can do now is say it's worth the watch, because this movie wasn't for me, but others may enjoy it for what it does actually deliver.

6/10

Horror Theme- Pet Sematary

Logline: Behind a young family's home in Maine is a terrible secret that holds the power of life after death. When tragedy strikes, the threat of that power soon becomes undeniable.

Cast: Dale Midkiff, Denise Crosby, Fred Gwynne

Directed By: Mary Lambert

So, I reviewed a Stephen King novel turned movie in The Shining already. Why not give the king of horror another review? This time I'm going to tackle Pet Sematary, a movie that gets mentioned on a lot of top horror movie lists online.

Review

I'll admit, this was my first time watching this movie. I've heard about it and I've given it thought every year, so this time I basically said that enough was enough and put it in the DVD player.

I must say, I was severely disappointed. I've watched a lot of Stephen King novels that were made into horror movies and I can't quite recall one that was this hyped being so disappointing. I'm not sure where to start, but I was pretty bored for the first two acts. The first act sets up a mysterious cemetery behind the main family's home that has a weird native background and pertains the myth in which bodies buried there come back to life. We find out later that bodies buried there actually do come back to life, but the person that comes back with the body is considerably different and evil. We find this out with the death of the family's cat. He's buried there and comes back to life, but he's quite the evil cat and hisses a lot. The first two acts don't really have much horror.

The third act is full of surprises and is easily the best portion of the movie. A killer baby, gore, a surprising death, etc. Everything that a Stephen King piece should have is explored in the third act, but only then is the movie worth watching.

Topic of the Day

I forgot to mention that this movie was made in 1989, which leads me into my topic of the day. Sometimes movies are memorable for something that happens in a single moment that makes the audience think "did that just happen?". Pet Sematary does something which I don't think many films have done before '89. Spoiler alert: the baby of the family runs out into the middle of the road and gets run over by a transport truck - body parts are shown flying all over. This stood out to me as a "WHAT!?!?!" moment and completely caught my attention just as I was dosing off from the boring beginning. Sometimes a bold move really pays off. This time it definitely did.

Consensus

Pet Sematary is one of those movies I'll watch and forget about come next Halloween when it's time to plot out which movies I choose to watch to get into the tradition. I'll always remember the surprising scene that had me shocked, but the sequences up to that point are all quite forgettable and rather "un-scary". I'd rate this one just below average.

4.8/10

Horror Theme- The Shining

Logline: A family heads to an isolated hotel for the winter where an evil and spiritual presence influences the father into violence, while his psychic son sees horrific forebodings from the past and of the future.

Cast: Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd

Directed by: Stanley Kubrick

So I haven't made a post in quite awhile now. I was going to write an unfavorable review about Looper recently, but I had worn myself out talking about it with friends and had no motivation to rant about it on this blog. Anyways, every year before Halloween I always dive into horror movies to get into the mood. I try to find fresh ones I haven't seen before, but I always watch the classics too. The Shining is widely considered one of, if not THE best horror movie ever created. It's pretty much in everyone's top 5. I'm going to begin doing a horror theme where I will review mostly horror movies (aside from big theatre releases) for a week or two. Since my horror themed reviews are going to be scattered through time periods, I'll try my best to acknowledge when they were made.

So, The Shining. Did I like it? Read on.

Review

The Shining was made in 1980 by famous director Stanley Kubrick. This was my second time watching the movie in its entirety and probably the hundredth time I've heard REDRUM or "Here's Johnny!" in one way or another. This movie is indeed a classic for many reasons, but I can't say it soars by without flaws. At 2hrs and 22mins the length is considerably long for a horror movie. This contributed to what I thought was a really boring first 40 minutes of the movie. We're introduced to this family of 3 (father, mother, son) and we're told 2 things: the father has accepted a job to look after an abandoned hotel during the winter where no one can go in and out of easily due to the tremendous amount of snow the area gets & that the son has visions and an imaginary friend. This is a pretty sweet set up, but it takes 40 minutes to do! I'm not sure what the intention of starting his movie out so slow was, but maybe Kubrick wanted to slow burn his way into people's minds. Maybe the little horror during those 40 minutes was good enough in 1980 to keep an audience creeped. Not for me though.

Everything that happens after is both a Jack Nicholson home run of a performance and a creepy thrill ride with ghosts, demons, and a psycho. Oh, and there's a scene with a naked old lady that creeped the hell out of me. It turns into one of those movies that you can't help but love and think about for hours after watching.

Topic of the Day

I'm going to keep this one nice and short. I've mentioned it numerous times on my blog, but here it is again and I can't help but point it out. Location is absolutely KEY to making a good horror/thriller movie. You have to have your characters in a place where they can't easily escape. They should be trapped. In The Shining, the location is in an area where only certain snow vehicles can get to. When psycho Jack Nicholson rips out the engines in their vehicle, there's nowhere to go. It also benefited from the fact that an abandoned hotel is huge and creepy as it is.

Consensus

The Shining is one of those movies that stands out to many as a classic. I'd agree that for the time it was made the horror is outstanding and there are many classic quotes to go along with it that have lasted to present day, but I can't help but acknowledge the flawed 40 minutes in the beginning of the movie. I'd have this chalked as a classic if it weren't for those, but I'm forced to dock points. Still, anyone who is into horror and wants a great one for Halloween - watch this one, Jack Nicholson is at the top of his game.

8.5/10

Dredd 3D

Logline: In a violent, futuristic city where the police have the authority to act as judge, jury and executioner, a cop teams with a trainee to take down a gang that deals the reality-altering drug, SLO-MO.

Cast: Karl Urban, Oliva Thirlby, Lena Headey, Wood Harris

Directed by: Pete Travis

I wasn't sure what to expect going into Dredd 3D. Critics had given it pretty good ratings, but the only thing I really knew about Judge Dredd was the fact that the director Pete Travis is known for directing Vantage Point, which I didn't like. I also knew that it was a remake and the first version featured Sylvester Stallone - and apparently it pissed off comic fans because he took off his helmet in that one. Anyways, I don't really read comics, so this review is purely based on my knowledge as a movie watcher.

Review

Dredd....

I actually enjoyed this movie quite a bit. For a movie that I didn't see advertised much, I definitely didn't expect the quality of special effects that it had. Maybe the use of SLO-MO was used a little excessively, but they didn't get toooooo carried away with it. I'm not usually one to address special effects, because let's face it, if I did that I'd have to give Transformers 2 & 3 at least a little bit of kudos - so I digress.

The story is actually solid. It uses the exact same model as The Raid, which I reviewed awhile back. Except, Dredd is by himself with a trainee that is on her first day. Actually, she's not even a trainee really because she didn't pass her test to certify her as a Judge. So they're both stuck in a building that's on complete lockdown - and when I say lockdown I mean there is NO way out whatsoever. It's futuristic, so the building actually has lockdown mode and these barriers come down on each sides of the building. The main drug lord is a woman on a mission to kill Dredd for taking one of her men hostage - someone who knows a lot about her business that she can't afford turning on her. The movie goes through stages, raises stakes, and there's always urgency because Dredd is never given a moment to rest.

My TOTD is very spoiler heavy and it doesn't really say much about what I learnt from watching the movie, it's just something I picked up that I thought I'd mention.

Topic of the Day

I'm going to start by repeating myself... I know absolutely nothing about the comics at all, so take this as you will, it's just something I thought of during the movie that I thought was pretty cool.

I'm not sure if this was meant to be, or if everyone knew this, but I looked it up on numerous sites and found nothing on it. So, here goes... I actually think Judge Dredd could read minds just like his sidekick Anderson. In the beginning of the movie, he's looking at Anderson through a window and without seeing him Anderson was able to pretty much tell who he was. In the midst of her description, she stops and says she feels something unusual about him. Something... and it's stopped there. Later on in the movie, Dredd gets shot in the leg and falls to the ground. Then they go through that whole "wait" dialogue for a few seconds and Anderson comes around the corner and saves his life. THEN at the end of the movie, he risks everyone in the building by throwing Ma-Ma the drug lord off the top floor to her death at the bottom, calling her bluff that her heartbeat would detonate explosives through the whole building if it stopped. He actually doesn't even seem to think twice. I may be completely wrong here, but don't all signs lead to Dredd being able to read minds? Just a thought anyway.

Consensus

Dredd 3D was a surprisingly well done movie. It doesn't have the depth of such comic superheroes as Spiderman or Batman, but it's still a really fun trapped in a building movie with Gatling guns, slow-motion drugs, a bad ass main character, and a ruthless drug lord. It sucks this movie didn't do too well at the box office, it sure deserved more.

7.5/10

Trouble with the Curve

Logline: An ailing baseball scout in his twilight years takes his daughter along for one last recruiting trip.

Cast: Clint Eastwood, Amy Adams, Justin Timberlake, John Goodman, Matthew Lillard

Directed by: Robert Lorenz

I just got done saying the other day that I wouldn't have as much time on my hands with school starting and screenplay reading... and then I go ahead and do a double-header last night for both Trouble with the Curve and Dredd 3D. I was interested in this primarily because the trailer had Oscar-bait written all over it.

Review

Oscar-bait?

I really don't think so.

The first thing I have to say about this movie is the fact that I know the screenplay for it was written 15 years ago and originally had Dustin Hoffman attached. 3 years ago after Gran Torino, a friend of writer Randy Brown read this old screenplay and sent it to Eastwood's people thinking he'd be perfect for the role. Lo and behold, here we are in 2012 with a movie on our hands. You may be thinking cool story man, but why is this relevant? Well, to be honest, they didn't really change much of that stuff that was written, meaning most of the movie is filled with clichés that have been done a million times since the movie was written. Diving into a pond as a romantic "first kiss" .... Really? The only things they added were a Dr. Phil joke and a Kardashian one - both in which aren't really funny to the average person. Maybe I'm bitter. But hey, Gus Lobel the main character is so why can't I be?

The film is actually powerfully acted though. Amy Adams takes the reins and rides this baseball flick to the finish line, making every scene look EASY. Clint is pretty good too, but I expected him to be more gritty than he was. Justin is in rom-com mode like he was in Friends with Benefits, and I liked that movie, so - Yeah. All in all the acting carries the emotional scenes and makes them kind of touching. What falters is the fact that this story becomes severely predictable. Actually, I read an early draft of the screenplay for this movie and the peanut boy DOES NOT become the pitcher to make Bo Gentry strike out numerous times, and even though it didn't happen in the screenplay - it was soooo obvious it was going to happen in the movie. That's not the only thing that's predictable.

I've been pretty harsh on this so far. It's not actually THAT bad. It's not Oscar-worthy, although Adams may get a nomination (at least for a Golden Globe anyways), but it's still worth a watch because although boring and cliché at times, the movie does have a pretty solid father/daughter story full of conflict and becomes the main focus of the story's baseball centric plot.

Topic of the Day

A big pet peeve of mine is when a story turns its "darkest hour" moment and follows it up with something that's completely unbelievable, but convenient for the plot. It's like the writers got sloppy. For instance, in Curve, Mickey (Gus' daughter) walks out of the hotel after losing touch with her father and the boy she was falling for & hears this sound of a kid pitching booming fastballs and curves outside of her room. She takes this kid to Atlanta and has him pitch and he shows the scouts that Bo Gentry isn't that good to begin with & that the club should have listened to Gus all along. I mean, talk about catching lightening in a jar. Convenience is something that kills a good story for me.

Consensus

Trouble With the Curve is touted by many critics as "solid". If you're going by regular definition of solid which is probably something like: well acted, well paced, good story, good characters, all tightly packed into a movie with little error - well, I have to disagree. Trouble With the Curve is flawed with clichés, predictable storytelling, and a weak turning point that leads into its third act. However, Adams is something special and she alone made me enjoy this movie. I didn't mind it, definitely not Oscar-worthy, but worth the watch.   

6/10

Moonrise Kingdom

Logline: A pair of young lovers flee their New England town, which causes a local search party to fan out and find them.

Cast: Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Harvey Keitel, Francis McDormand, Tilda Swinton, Jason Schwartzman

Directed by: Wes Anderson

Moonrise Kingdom has generated a ton of buzz since its release. With a director like Wes Anderson (Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore, The Life Aquatic, The Darjeeling Limited) expectations were through the roof & critics have praised it for exceeding them. I actually couldn't wait for this movie.

Review

One thing that Wes Anderson understands completely is the ability to keep an audience interested through both storytelling and visuals. I would go as far as saying he's one of the most unique directors out there & considering many people, including myself, have him in their top list of directors, that's quite an achievement. I will expand on this in my Topic of the Day, but I found it necessary to bring it up in this section because it really makes this movie great, in my opinion.

Instead of using the many variations of the word brilliant, I'll just list everything in this movie that falls under that category: characters & the uniqueness of each one, humor, plot development & unpredictability, setting & visuals, goals, time stamp of when the story will end (with the biggest announced storm in the history of the setting's existence), and the overall tone of the movie - smart, quick, and paced.

I can't really dive into these too much without spoiling, but it's definitely more than well done. I think the only negative thing that I could really say about this movie without getting too critical is that it doesn't really have that umph that makes you think after it's over. It's a pretty cool story, but since the main character is a young child overcoming his outcast social standing & we never really see him in that state, it's hard to really triumph in his victory as much as we could have. The whole time our hero is funny, clever, and waaaaay too smart for his own good and we cheer for him because of that - but we never really see him as an outcast in the beginning. We just see the other boys vaguely talking about him being a weirdo. Still good though.

Topic of the Day

STYLE.

What makes Wes Anderson so memorable is the fact that he flaunts his own personal style from the director's chair. Numerous times in the movie you see two people have stand offs. They're both funny and intense + they make the scene interesting. He actually has this way about his direction that I'm having trouble describing, lol. And the soundtrack is quirky and awesome. Just watch a few of his movies and you'll get what I'm talking about. Style is a tricky subject. Think of great directors - what makes them great? They all have their own style. Think of movies that aren't made by these directors and most will come up bland. The thing with style is though, if it's not a good style, it could ruin a completely good movie. Plus, it's just another thing people can judge your movie by... I guess this is what separates the artists from the posers in the industry. This movie is a great example of a film with style.

Consensus

Moonrise Kingdom is a beautiful, unique, and interesting story about a young rebel boy scout in search of love and acceptance. The dysfunctional relationships and the witty humor combine for an interesting chase movie like one I haven't seen before. Wes Anderson impresses yet again with his great camera work and distinct directing style. This is a must watch; definitely worth a classic rating - especially for those who are fans of Anderson's style.

9/10

End of Watch

Logline: Two young officers are marked for death after confiscating a small cache of money and firearms from the members of a notorious cartel, during a routine traffic stop.

Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Pena, Anna Kendrick, Natalie Martinez, America Ferrera

Directed by: David Ayer

So, fortunately I was able to get into classes for Fall/Winter 2012-13 which means I'll be able to graduate after this year. Unfortunately for this blog, that means I won't have as much time on my hands; hence my lack of bloging this past week. My movie watching hasn't suffered though, so I do have a lot of stuff to post up. I think instead of having a schedule I'll probably end up posting casually - which means the elimination of Throwback Thursday. I'll have mostly all the new movies coming out in theatres and some on DVD. It all depends. Stay tuned.

End of Watch is directed by David Ayer. For those who don't know him, he's a highly touted writer/director for penning movies such as Training Day, Harsh Times, The Fast and the Furious, and now this. Training Day is probably one of my favourite undercover cop movies, so I was expecting quite a bit entering the theatre tonight (it has been in my "Upcoming Movies of Interest" for awhile now). I felt Ayer owed me after Street Kings.

Review

In my honest opinion, David Ayer's third effort from the director's chair is easily forgettable. It has scored high ratings on RT (85%) and IMDb (7.7/10), but I can't help but disagree. It's not a BAD movie. I'd probably say it's a bit above mediocre, but definitely not well done. Here's why...

The story has absolutely no direction for the majority of the film. It's basically like watching an episode of COPS on TV, with a bit more heart and action. Police Officers Brian Taylor and Mike Zavala are bangers. They aren't afraid to be in the line of fire, in the heat of a car chase, in the fire of a burning house - they embrace the fear and don't think twice about doing their job. This leads them into 4-5 different crime scenes which are all unique and somewhat moving, but there's no direction other than setting up the fact that policemen go through the ringer on the regular - that's something that anyone who reads the newspaper or watches COPS already knows. So, it's an ode to policemen, I guess - but where's the story that keeps me interested? I couldn't find it until the third act. COPS, COPS , Mini story. That doesn't cut it.

There are some positives about the movie though... It's actually well directed; even though the story lacks, the movie still moves along due to rapid pacing by Ayer. He films in a really intense way - kind of in your face, but not jumpy like Cloverfield. Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena are both really really good in it and they share some funny scenes (probably improved) that fall nicely as comedic relief amongst their hectic lifestyle. These two aspects kept me awake while watching. They kind of carry this movie through its cringe worthy narrative that's full of cop clichés.

Topic of the Day

Every scene should have some kind of a meaning to it. If there are a clump of scenes proving the same thing, the story gets dull and boring even if the content is realistic and moving. For example, Brian and Mike go to many different police calls to investigate the situation. Each call has a distinct issue, but all they really amount to are a bunch of scenes showing how fearless these two cops are, or how much a policeman needs to put up with. WE GET IT. 1-2 calls and it's in our heads. Sometimes as filmmakers you have to learn to cut scenes you love to add scenes you need to create. I have a feeling Ayer had his heart set on these 4-5 scenes and resisted in deleting any. It was detrimental to the story in the sense that the logline only occurs in the latter half of the second act and only really launches in the third.

Consensus

End of Watch suffers from a lazy script which takes the majority of its time floating around scenes that prove the same thing over and over again. If you're a cop, or someone who is really into what policemen do, you'll probably enjoy this movie a lot. It's basically like watching COPS on TV with more action, funny characters, and some heartfelt scenes. It wasn't bad, definitely worth the watch, but I wouldn't go as far as giving it a well done - even though the film's third act is quite touching.

6.6/10

Snowtown

Logline: Based on true events, 16 year-old Jamie falls in with his mother's new boyfriend and his crowd of self-appointed neighborhood watchmen, a relationship that leads to a spree of torture and murder.

Cast: Lucas Pittaway, Daniel Henshall, John Bunting, Louise Harris

Directed by: Justin Kurzel

So, I'm going to try something new with today's review. I'm going to skip the summary to make it a quicker read. Summaries also made the logline postings pointless; the logline should tell you mostly what you need to know.

I picked Snowtown because it's pretty new and it's another one of those movies that's generated buzz coming from Australia. It's based on true events of real murderers and is not for the faint hearted. Believe me.

Review

So, like yesterday's movie review, Wish You Were Here, this movie is one of those artsy film festival movies. It relies on capturing the emotions of characters by focusing on their face for large periods of time, it captures the setting with beautiful camera work, and basically screams "hey, I can direct! HIRE ME!" - you know?

Except, Snowtown is a bit different from Wish You Were Here. Not only does it capture emotions with focused camera work - the film pertains some gruesome scenes. For example, there is a scene where the main character gets raped on screen - man on man. There is also a scene where a dog is killed. Honestly, it's one of the most upfront and controversial movies I've seen in awhile.

The film takes a deep approach into the mind of a victimized teenager as his mentor wants to seek vengeance on "homosexuals", "addicts" and "predators". He doesn't just want to beat them up - he wants to torture them and make them pay before he kills them. He's really manipulative and it's a pretty hard story to watch because the whole while I was mesmerized by the completely gruesome images I'd been watching. It was rather captivating.

Topic of the Day

It is very rare that I watch a movie that contains scenes with blood and gore that really stick in my head. Snowtown nails this aspect through the technique of what I guess you can call "The Slow Burn Effect". Things are happening rather slow in the plot, the characters are all whacked in the head in some kind of a way (teenager raped, mentor a psychopath killer, the mother distressed). The setting is gloomy as all hell. All of these are great ingredients to set up these types of memorable scenes. But what did it for me was how slow these scenes were. They weren't quick seconds that went by before skipping to the next scene. The process of the murders dragged out. The moral questioning before killing the dog dragged out and made me cringe more than I wanted to. "The Slow Burn Effect" was used really well in this movie and although I didn't like how slowly paced the plot was, I will forever remember this movie for its slow burn mesmerizing scenes.

Consensus

Snowtown is a nice little gem that not many people know about. Ahem, actually I take that back. It's not nice. Not nice at all. It's actually brutally offensive and controversial. It captures the themes of victimization and manipulation perfectly and the two main actors nail their roles. If only this movie was a bit quicker to get to each plot point it would have scored really high. Keep an eye on Australian film, it's making its surge now. This movie is well done, but not worth the watch if you can't take the heat. 

7/10

Wish You Were Here

Logline: Four friends lose themselves in a carefree South-East Asian holiday. Only three come back.

Cast: Joel Edgerton, Felicity Price, Teresa Palmer, Antony Starr

Directed by: Kieran Darcy-Smith

This was intended to be my Monday review, but I decided to switch it up with my Friday because it is more fresh in my mind. If you tuned into the 2011 Academy Awards you might remember the Australian made movie Animal Kingdom that was nominated for Best Motion Picture. You may also be asking, what the hell does this have to do with anything? Well, the director of this movie had a role in Animal Kingdom and lately there have been a few movies generating some buzz that were made in Australia; this is one of them.

Summary

Couples Dave and Alice & Steph and Jeremy travel to Cambodia to get away from their normal everyday life. While they're there they wake up one morning and Jeremy is GONE. Literally no one has any idea where he could be and they actually end up having to return home to Australia without finding him. Kind of like The Hangover, right? Well, not really. This isn't a comedy and it's really dark. Secrets keep rising up about that night he went missing and conflict begins confusing the stories of all three people that returned.

Review

I was originally distasted by this movie due to the fact that not much happened. I still hold true to that thought, but I've since lightened up a bit.

I can spoil the first secret of the movie because it happens really early and it's crucial to my critique. Dave and Steph (yes, not Alice) slept with one another on the night of Jeremy's disappearance. To make things even more complicated, Steph is Alice's sister. AND if that wasn't bad enough, Dave and Alice have kids. Are you following? This is one hell of a dysfunctional situation. Much of the movie after that deals with that situation instead of the main problem at hand, Jeremy's disappearance. Subplots will be my TOTD, so more on that later. It doesn't help that these characters are hardly introduced before this secret. We get a scene of Alice and Dave conversing with their children at the dinner table, but that's it. So watching them deal with their situation is mainly carried by the powerhouse performances of Joel Edgerton and Felicity Price. They're both realllllllly good in this movie. 

One thing about Wish You Were Here was that it tried really hard to be a film festival movie. By this I mean that it tried really hard to be like those movies that come out of Sundance with artsy direction, capturing every emotion and making the audience visually understand what the characters are thinking. Some people love this type of filmmaking, others can't stand it. Me, I'm somewhere in the middle. If a story is fast-paced enough to keep me watching through the slow camera work I really don't mind. But if the story is slow along with the camera work, man, it's really hard to keep my attention. Wish You Were Here takes a loooonnnnggg time to develop through different plot/turning points. The premise is fantastic and I really wish they would have executed it better. One guy gone missing, 3 people holding deep and different secrets, the potential is extraordinary. Instead, Wish You Were Here plays it relatively safe and the secrets aren't that outstanding/surprising. It's actually kind of a let down.

Topic of the Day

Every movie needs subplots. If a movie doesn't have them, the audience doesn't have a chance to connect with the characters on an emotional level. In Wish You Were Here, the subplots are actually the main plot - as it regularly occurs in indie films. The first turning point of this movie is the discovery that Dave slept with Steph. I'm not so sure this was the right choice. With such a big problem at hand (Jeremy missing), much of the story is about the relationship between Dave and Alice going downhill instead of dealing with it. I'm not saying that the film didn't explore this aspect really well, it's just, with a premise like this that has sooooo much potential, the movie spent soooooo much time dealing with the first secret that it didn't have time to introduce new ones. Subplots are tricky and they need to be worked around perfectly if they're going to be the main turning points of the movie. Not often does the subplot become the most important (not saying that the main plot ever becomes unimportant), but when it does there better not be something the audience is more interested in than what is being portrayed.

Consensus

Wish You Were Here lacks good character introductions and relies on powerhouse acting and direction to make up for the lack of things happening. The subplot of Dave and Alice's relationship becomes the focal point of the movie, but there isn't much to care for them from in the start. It becomes frustrating that such a broad premise becomes overlapped by the problems pertaining to the first turning point for such a long time. In return, the ending feels rushed and empty. It's filmed well and the acting is amazing, but the story wasn't for me - the premise wasn't satisfied in my eyes. They could have done so much more with it.

5.5/10