FILM REVIEW: Peter Rabbit (2018)

Directed by Will Gluck

* * 1/2

The wonderful story of the mischievous Peter Rabbit and his trespasses into Mr. McGregor’s garden needs no introduction. Beatrix Potter’s book was published in the early 20^th Century. Now, it is 2018, and Peter is still up to his mischief, thieving the vegetables from Mr. McGregor’s garden in the new film, simply titled Peter Rabbit, a sort of adaptation/sequel to Potter’s work. Right from the beginning, it sets the tone and style quite perfectly. It’s energetic, rambunctious, and quite charming. That said, some of its expository establishments are rather unflattering, and all of these qualities – the good and the bad – will maintain throughout the entire duration.

So, Peter Rabbit opens up with our titular rascal (voiced by James Corden) terrorizing Mr. McGregor’s garden yet again. Then enters an understandably angry Mr. McGregor (Sam Neill – wait, that was Sam Neill!?). He manages to outsmart Peter and next thing we know, Peter is in his grasp – literally. How will Peter get out of this one? Turns out, in a most unexpected way: Mr. McGregor falls over, having died of a heart attack.

Peter, his sisters, and all the rest of the animals in the neighborhood rush over to the now empty residence of McGregor, partying and pigging out on the riches in the garden. But all good things must come to end. Enter Thomas McGregor (Domhnall Gleeson), Mr. McGregor’s nephew. Thomas has inexplicably inherited his great uncle’s house (he never even knew he had a great uncle).

Thomas is the perfect kind of villain for a film like this. He’s the kind of silly antagonist that’s hard to love, but harder to hate. He is awkward and lanky, a neat-freak with OCD tendencies. He is terminated from his job at a toy company due to a tantrum after being denied a deeply-desired promotion. Reluctant to abandon the neat tidiness of London, he moves out to the countryside house. He is greeted to the shambles left by meddling animals, all of which are vermin to him.

Now it’s war, and from here Peter Rabbit becomes about what you’d expect – a series of hearty exchange of slapstick cat-and-mouse hijinks in a modern attitude to cater to a modern audience. As alarming as that may sound, it’s actually nothing to worry about too much.

Yes, there is some pandering once in a while, but the film is never desperate in its mission to appeal to everybody. At the same time, trying to appeal to everybody becomes somewhat of a problem. While Peter Rabbit never over-indulges in the cutesiness of the story to prevent alienating older audiences, it is sometimes a bit too crude for kids. One joke in particular, which occurs about ten minutes in, left my mouth agape in disbelief of the sheer inappropriateness (no children’s film should ever make a joke about shoving a carrot up a man’s bum).

If the humor’s not being inappropriate (which is very rare, in all fairness), then it’s usually being forced. Many a time, a joke (commonly Meta) will overstay its welcome and linger way longer than necessary. Luckily, they never stay to the point that the joke becomes ruined, at least for me anyway. I did have many a laugh at Peter Rabbit, most of the times at jokes that were funny while they lasted. Once in a while, though, there would be a genuinely clever moment. My favorite is when Peter and his sisters find themselves riding the back of Thomas’s pickup into a nearby small-town. The rabbits are convinced they are in London – one of them even points out Big Ben (which is actually a grandfather clock).

Of course, what is a movie like this without a little bit of romance? A rather lovely Rose Byrne is Bea, the McGregors’ neighbor. She is a painter – a bad one at the film’s admission, save for the paintings she has done of the local rabbits. She has a huge place in her heart for wildlife, which she channels into her best work. The paintings are actually the illustrations found in the original book. It may be pandering for some, but I thought it was a nice touch. She begins interacting with Thomas, and romance ensues, albeit rather awkwardly. I just couldn’t tell if there was chemistry between them or not, but that doesn’t matter too much, because here sets up plenty of wonderful comedic potential. As far as how that results, see my remarks above about the quality of comedy.

Peter Rabbit hybridizes CG animation and live action, a technique that doesn’t usually work for me as the CG is always just a little too cartoonish (part of the reason I was never too fond of Avatar). Luckily, Peter Rabbit kept me pleased, visually. It’s certainly not award-worthy animation, but it was never too cartoony nor too realistic. In spite of this, Peter Rabbit isn’t always much to look at, as there’s a lot of gray textures in the film. Perhaps the UK wasn’t the best setting.

Now here is something I never thought I’d comment on, but must. Be sure you stay for the end credits, where animations in the style of Potter’s illustrations unfold on the screen. It is so adorable and done with such love for the source material that it’s worth the price of admission alone.

While my verdict is final, I still feel split between a 2.5 and a 3 for Peter Rabbit. One can tell that everybody involved was having fun making this, and I must say that I was won over by the charming characters and rambunctious energy. But the issues glared just a bit too bright. It’s modernization of a timeless and classic story will generate plenty of detractors, but I found Peter Rabbit just enjoyable enough to be worth hopping into, but its confusion in demographics leave me wondering who will get the most enjoyment.

FILM REVIEW: Threads (1984)

Directed by Mick Jackson

* * * 1/2

The unyielding perseverance of humanity – our greatest blessing as a species? Or perhaps the heaviest burden of all? I am unsure, and I would prefer not to speculate much more. To argue otherwise would paint me unpleasantly pessimistic. I would love to believe that no matter what hammer-blow of a tragedy strikes us next, we will get through it. That said, Mick Jackson’s Threads presents one hell of an argument otherwise. From start to finish, this is one of the most agonizing movies I’ve ever experienced.

Threads was produced by the BBC and aired on British TV in 1984, subsequently aired in the United States the following year (Ted Turner fronted his own money to ensure an uncensored, uninterrupted broadcast in the States). In spite of the tremendous impact of its time, Threads fell into somewhat of an obscurity for two and a half decades with no home video availability in the States (save for a shabby VHS tape). Over the last few years, I have taken note of a resurgence in popularity – probably due to its 30^th anniversary back in 2014. Here we are now in 2018, and a brand-new 2K restoration on Blu-Ray is available for purchase, courtesy of Severin Films.

The fear of incoming war steadily intrudes into daily existence as tensions mount. TVs and radios remain exclusively tuned to the news. It is soon reported that the unthinkable occurs: two nuclear devices are detonated in the Middle East. Panic ensues. Supermarkets are flooded with customers but not enough food to go around. Citizens begin packing their belongings and head for the countryside. Those who remain in Sheffield are subjected to the eerily monotone Protect & Survive programs, a series of PSAs that detail tips for surviving a nuclear strike and its aftermath. It is some of the most unbearable slow-burn terror ever put on screen.

And then it happens. It actually happens. The bombs fall. Shrieks of terror permeate the air. A middle-age couple rush to construct a makeshift shelter. A woman wets herself upon seeing the mushroom cloud in the distance (one of the most devastating images I’ve ever seen in a movie). Eventually, 80 megatons fall on the UK, and Sheffield is obliterated. I would give anything to say that Threads ends here, but there are survivors. I’m not sure whether to follow that with ‘fortunately’ or ‘unfortunately’.

Even if one knows exactly what they’re getting into with Threads, it will not take long to forget that this is a film about nuclear annihilation. The characters are everyday working class people, and they are presented in such a way – it is almost disconcerting in just how unremarkable they are. There is no need for a compelling character-driven narrative here.

There is somewhat of a protagonist in Ruth (Karen Meagher). While Meagher is exceptional, I don’t feel much point in going too much into her story. The people who populate Threads only serve as a means of bearing witness to the various perspectives of such an unimaginable catastrophe. It doesn’t matter what kind of people will suffer – what matters is that people will suffer. Period.

Threads takes us into a world where survival is the equivalent of trudging through hell, where death is something to be eagerly awaited. When I say that this film takes us into this world, it really takes us in. It is well-known Threads was written by Barry Hines, the man responsible for writing Kes, perhaps the quintessential British realist “Kitchen Sink” drama.

The “Kitchen Sink” attitude, as well as the aesthetic, are carried over into Threads. It is shot in grainy hand-held with an urgency that leads the viewer to believe that the action on screen is actually happening. There are also a lot of moments filmed in tight close-ups and enclosed spaces. Even among the wasteland, a sense of claustrophobia perpetuates.

The film goes on and on, observing humanity’s survival up to 13 years after the attack. At this point, the population reaches minimal levels, and society has been reduced to a medieval-like existence. The generation born after the bomb are pretty much Neanderthals, lacking in any kind of emotion and communicating in caveman-like dialect. Here is a scenario so inconceivable to us, and Threads makes it completely believable.

Adding to the merciless realism of Threads is the use of input from various scientists in the field of nuclear research (one such consultant was the late Carl Sagan). The film periodically cuts to black and will display text that briefly and objectively states what is happening and what is going to happen – FALLOUT IMMINENT: FIRE-FIGHTING AND RESCUE ATTEMPTS UNLIKELY. LIKELY EPIDEMICS: CHOLERA, DYSENTERY, TYPHOID. It is actually one of the most unique and frightening techniques I’ve seen. Once in a while, a narrator throws his two cents in as well. I think a narrator is a little unnecessary, but it is not distracting.

Threads is not 100% perfect. Many a time, a scene will fade in only to fade out just seconds later, making the pacing choppy at times. Being a television production, of course the budget is limited, and there are times when the budget shows – the result is less than flattering. In particular, there are these establishing shots of a house, and I swear all we are shown is a painting with some post-production smoke added. Other than that, though, the film thrives in spite of its budget. It actually looks fantastic and convincing.

Needless to say that Threads is a product of its time, but does that make it outdated? Absolutely not. Regardless of world affairs, as long as nuclear weapons exist, Threads will remain relevant. Personally, I hope to see a world where Threads will be outdated. Until that day (if it comes), Threads should be mandatory viewing for all.

FILM REVIEW: The 15:17 to Paris (2018)

Directed by Clint Eastwood

* * *

At the core of The 15:17 to Paris is, very simply, nothing more than an inseparable bond between great friends. This is also the key to its power, as I was moved to tears by the film’s end. What is even more amazing is how 15:17 perseveres with this sense of camaraderie in spite of a first act that put this remarkable material at serious risk of ineffectiveness.

The true story about three men who heroically thwarted a terrorist attack on a Paris-bound train in 2015, 15:17 traces their nexus ten years prior. At this point, Anthony Sadler, Alek Skarlatos, and Spencer Stone are students at a Sacramento Christian school. They frequently find themselves in trouble, whether it be for being late for class, swearing, or other such signature activities of boys. It’s a very interesting cycle, now that I think about it: the very catharsis of boyhood that gets them through the day is also what continuously brings them trouble.

Eventually, they separate – Anthony strives to become more than a boy (his sights are particularly fixated on prom and the opposite sex); Alek moves to Oregon. Spencer, awkward and overweight, is saddened by this separation, now left to his own devices. He perseveres, though. When adulthood arrives, he enlists in the Air Force. He proves to be a rather troubled recruit, though. He is punished twice in the span of a few minutes when A) he is late for class and B) his assignment isn’t up to par. He takes his punishment as if nothing’s happening, and moves on.

Perseverance is a recurring theme in 15:17, which is more prevalent in the former half of the film. The theme fits considering the do-or-die nature of the climax, but 15:17 seems to be more interested in the odds of opposition. It doesn’t necessarily get off on their suffering, but we never get much of a chance to revel in their accomplishments. We watch the obstacle block their path, they spend much time conflicted on the next move, and then they make their next move. Cut to next scene.

Wait, did I say “their”? I meant to say Spencer. Once adulthood is reached, most of the focus seems to be on Spencer, and here is perhaps my other major criticism. He winds up being the film’s protagonist, when all three men should be treated with the same respect.

But then they get to Europe, and it is at this point in the review when I almost regret giving my criticisms. It is all beautifully uphill from here. They decide to meet in Italy and backpack across Europe. They journey throughout various European landmarks, seeing the sights, taking selfies, and just…bonding. For a film that leads up to a white-knuckle finale, 15:17 spends zero time rushing to get there, and enjoys the company of these three friends as much as they do, and relishes in the beauty of living in the now to the fullest (there’s a sequence in an Amsterdam club that captures this perfectly without a single line of substantial dialogue). Many will probably feel misled by the trailers and subject matter, and the generic quasi-existentialist musings spoken won’t help. As for me, I felt like I was backpacking Europe right there with them, and I rather enjoyed myself.

But it is time to move on to the crux of 15:17, which is the showdown on the train. I’m happy to report that my praises continue from here. There’s a surreal quality to this sequence because of its realism (if that oxymoron makes any sense). Everything happens so quickly and suddenly, and the same goes for when it is over. It works so well because it is treated with maturity and respect that heroic stories deserve. There is no insulting over-production for the sake of dramatic effect. The subject matter is dramatic enough as it is, and director Clint Eastwood knows this. Like his approach to American Sniper, everything is presented rather objectively, which I applaud. There is no need to glorify heroic deeds – true heroism should speak for itself, and it does so in 15:17.

One of the biggest selling points of 15:17 is also its biggest gamble. Portraying the roles of Anthony, Alek, and Spencer are themselves. It is risky enough casting non-actors, but the stakes are even higher when casting non-actors in biographic roles – to ruin a true story worth telling with bad acting is unforgivable. There may not be anything Oscar-worthy 15:17, and Spencer can be underwhelming at times, but the three men all capture themselves exceptionally well.

Clint Eastwood is not displaying the top of his form with The 15:17 to Paris, but it is an ambitious undertaking for a mainstream film with its sort-of docudrama approach – I was reminded of the Iranian docudramas of the early ‘90s, a fascinating period in cinema history (Kiarostami’s Close-Up in particular was resonant here). There have been mixed reviews all across the board, and the majority of the criticisms are justified. As I mentioned earlier, I was almost crying during the final scene where they are honored by the French government for their actions. For this to happen, there must have been something good going on, right?

FILM REVIEW: Fifty Shades Freed (2018)

Directed by James Foley

* *

Yet again, I return to a franchise I have little knowledge of whatsoever, but at least I read the plot synopses on Wikipedia this time. Nonetheless, take everything that follows with a grain of salt. So, I have subjected (and subsequently confounded) myself to the massively popular Fifty Shades saga and its latest and final entry, Fifty Shades Freed. I can’t exactly say I went in with high expectations, considering the saga’s track record (just look at their scores on Rotten Tomatoes).

I won’t be part of the approving crowd, but I will say right off the bat that I was surprised and somewhat taken by Dakota Johnson. I could tell that she gave the character her all, and the result was rather charming (that might be prurient interest talking, though). No matter how much I might have enjoyed her, nothing – nothing – could ever distract me from the one question that raced through my mind for the entire duration of the film – “Just what in the hell does she see in this Christian Grey shmuck?”

Freed opens with the two getting married in an underwhelming and weightless excuse for a wedding scene. Perhaps I would feel a bit more had I seen the previous films, but the scene moves so quickly and is edited in such a way that I seriously thought I was watching a teaser trailer, but I digress. They love each other? Fine. They want to get married? Fine. But the problems that soon follow put these newlyweds in such significant proximity of a divorce I can’t seriously believe there was a compelling romance that preceded.

They go on their honeymoon. At the ocean-side resort, Ana (Johnson) wants her back rubbed with lotion, but Christian (Jamie Dornan) goes laughably overboard with his insecurity – he won’t untie her bikini because to do so would be too revealing. Reminder: she’s on her stomach where her breasts aren’t in public view. They go back home. Ana talks about wanting kids, Christian protests. You really expect me to believe a couple serious enough to get married never once discussed children?

This ineptitude perpetuates throughout Freed, and the result is one of the most pathetic couples I’ve ever seen in a film.

Danger arises, though. There is a break-in at Christian’s corporate office, and the culprit is Jack Hyde (Eric Johnson), a sort of rival to Christian who also longs for Ana, from what I could gather, anyway. Christian is worried about Ana’s safety, always leaving her with a handful of bodyguards while he’s away on business (which is almost all the time). There are some car chases. There’s a break-in at the Greys’ penthouse (which has a legitimately funny line about “restraints”). And then there’s a climax with Jack near the end that ends rather anticlimactically.

You’ve probably taken note of the complete lack of attention or care in my breakdown of these events. I wish I could for the sake of a better review, but I wasn’t given much to work with. Freed is much more concerned with everything in between. Christian goes away on business, comes back; Ana runs her publishing company, has drinks with friends; the Greys and friends go away on vacation, and so on. It is shamelessly superficial with zero substance whatsoever, to the point where I might as well have been watching a blank screen. The clunky pacing just makes this all the more tough to sit through, as you could probably imagine. The sinister shenanigans just pop up once in a while. I could almost hear the film itself saying “Oh, I forgot, all this bad stuff is supposed to be happening.”

I’ve mentioned that Dakota Johnson has something going for her, but everybody else is…ugh. Jamie Dornan has zero charisma or enigma that a character like Christian Grey requires a lot of. Eric Johnson is hilariously bad as the villain, projecting zero menace and giving a performance that rocks back and forth from over-the-top to clearly-doesn’t-care. It really compliments the cardboard character and his phenomenally bad dialogue.

But does the sex at least have anything to offer? After all, the appeal of the Fifty Shades saga seems to come from its steamy kinkiness. Well…at first, they’re treated like the thriller moments in that they just show up once in a while and end before any sexiness can really carry over to the audience. The sex becomes more and more frequent at a bizarre pace, not to mention that the kink factory seems to be there as a token. There are a couple of moments that had potential to be enjoyably titillating (particularly a scene involving ice cream), but they’re all marred by Freed’s sappy soundtrack. Speaking of music, I noticed that Danny Elfman – the same man responsible for the brilliant score for Batman – scored Freed, and I wish I could say more, but none of his talent was present.

While not obscenely bad, it is clear that I didn’t particularly enjoy Fifty Shades Freed. Whether it be fellow critics or those critical of its idea of kinky sex (the latter being a notably common criticism), Freed will probably continue to compel detractors to attempt at steering mainstream audiences away. It is in my confident opinion that the saga will be remembered as only a blip on the radar for years to come, so I say let the people enjoy the series wrap up for now. As for me, purchasing a ticket as a lone single male was an embarrassing experience (especially being only one of two men in the entire audience), but at least I will never have to do it again. 

FILM REVIEW: Bilal: A New Breed of Hero (2015)

Directed by Khurram Alavi & Ayman Jamal

* * 1/2

It is not my place to vouch for or object to the religion of Islam, but Bilal: A New Breed of Hero is a noble enough story (albeit, done to death) that I won’t object too much to the subject matter. It’s nice to see that this film exists. Bilal is a prominent figure in Islam, territory that rarely makes its way to commercial audiences in the United States. What I do object to is just how much its messages on freedom and equality are hammered in.

As you’ve probably gathered by now, our hero is the titular Bilal. He and his sister, Ghufaira, are thrown into a life of slavery. They spend much of their lives bearing witness (as well as enduring) to what taints the world around them –oppression, corruption, charlatanry, and greed. As an adult, Bilal grows tired of it. He fearlessly stand up for his beliefs and values in the face of what persecutes him. In the face of death, after angering his masters, Bilal is saved by a man known as the Charlatan Priest. He buys Bilal’s freedom and teaches him the universal messages of love, freedom, and equality. And thus the chain reaction of flaws begins.

Be ready for the lessons in Bilal, because it will make sure you know what its message is. I would estimate that 95 percent of the dialogue is some sort of sermon on love and peace (I assure you that 95 percent is a very fair estimate). I wouldn’t have as much of a problem if it was at least written in a unique way, but it is all about as generic as you could possibly expect. Sometimes it feels like the same lines are recycled over and over again, and sitting through these lectures becomes a torturous eye-rolling experience. As for the villains, those against freedom and equality, everything they say is taken straight from the Animated Bad Guy Playbook. It’s almost insulting just how stock their dialogue is. Considering the Islamic roots, at least it wasn’t pious (save for a couple of moments).

In turn, there is little to no memorability in the film’s characters. It is evident that the writers were so concerned with spreading their good word that they forgot to give their characters their own identities through their vocal mannerisms. At best, the characters in Bilal exist only to teach the film’s lessons. At worst, they’re just in the background. There is a blacksmith character (I cannot recall the name) who I think had only one line of dialogue in the entire movie, which is to introduce himself. He stands alongside the heroes throughout their arduous journey as if he’s this significant character, but in reality, he’s just there.

Bilal is the first feature from Barajoun Entertainment, and there is enough potential that it’s worth seeing what they will bring next. At times, the animation is beautiful, rich in texture and filled to the brim with the smallest details. There are some truly stunning and spectacular moments in Bilal. The opening sequence alone would make a remarkable short film – it rapidly bounces back and forth from a young boy innocently imagining himself a warrior to a fast-approaching cavalry of hostile forces (of an almost demonic quality).

But even the animation can’t be completely counted on, because the character animations are a whole different story. They don’t look finished, lacking in the rich detail that the surrounding world is packed with. They look plastic and dollish. When they move, there’s this stiff jaggedness that perpetuates, and it’s creepily unnatural.

Even if the animation were fully developed, I would still have criticisms. Just by looking at Bilal, one would think this is a kid’s movie, further evident by the handling and delivery of its lessons. I actually had no idea that I walked into a PG-13 rated movie until afterward, because this is one grisly movie. A sequence where Bilal is nearly crushed by a boulder walks the line enough, but for a PG-13 movie debatably targeted for kids, the climactic battle at the end is brutal. Additionally, all the stylization applied to the unpleasantness tends to nullify the film’s message – for an anti-violent message, it bore too much resemblance to 300 much of the time.

There are enough admirable and honorable qualities in Bilal: A New Breed of Hero that I have no hesitation in commending it to a certain degree. That said, my commendation is only on a circumstantial, perhaps even superficial, level. While not a failure, there’s glaring a lack of development, from the varying quality of animation to the uncertain target audience. Ultimately, it’s still a story we’ve heard time and time again. For those holding out for a hero, keep holding out – it’s unlikely (s)he’s here.

FILM REVIEW: Winchester (2018)

Directed by Michael & Peter Spierig

* 1/2

I think Winchester may have broken a record for me: the quickest a movie got me to stop caring. Seriously; it only took the first 10-15 or so minutes before I decided it’s not worth getting invested in. I’d express congratulations, but then I remember that I had to sit through the rest of this thing, and what I got was a horrendously trite experience that possessed me to check my watch periodically – make that more than periodically.

At its best, Winchester is a bloated episode of a paranormal docudrama show you’d find on the Discovery Channel with all of the documentary portions removed. At its worst, it is just an advertisement that really wants you to visit the Winchester Mystery House. Unfortunately, the latter is more evident than it should ever be – I was expecting some sort of logo to fade into the bottom corner of the screen half the time.

Without further ado, gather ‘round the campfire for a spooky story, I guess.

San Jose, 1906. There is great concern of the mental wellbeing of Sarah Winchester (Helen Mirren), heiress of her namesake’s firearm business, as she believes she is cursed by the spirits of all who have died at the hands of a Winchester rifle. Enter our hero, Dr. Eric Price (Jason Clarke), a psychologist grief-stricken by the loss of his wife. Price is a vice-ridden man, his spare time spent with drugs and prostitutes.

Is there any potential here worth mentioning? There might be. I don’t know, and, honestly, if nobody involved seemed to care, why should I? Zero passion was put into the making of Winchester. But was I at least scared at any point during Winchester?

Is that a real question?

I’m just going to address the elephant in the room right now: jump scares, on their own, are not scary, and Winchester is overflowing with them. See, here’s how it works – jump scares work when there’s a sense of dread prevalent throughout the film (the blood test in The Thing is the most exemplary jump scare I’ve seen). There is not only zero dread in Winchester, but the film doesn’t even give a chance for tension or terror to build up. When things do hit the fan, we’ve been duped so many times that we don’t care at this point, and we’ve been duped a lot before “scary” stuff actually happens.

It doesn’t help that it’s kind of difficult to care about any of the characters. Not that there’s anybody despicable or anything like that. But, with maybe the exception of Sarah Winchester, every single character is practically devoid of any kind of unique identity. The script is insufferably lazy, with dialogue that is not necessarily generic or laughable, but just…stodgy. What is laughable, however, is Winchester’s attempts at being poignant. Winchester is a superstitious woman, Price is the complete opposite. So, there are many a debate about the paranormal, illusion vs. reality, the necessity of letting go of the past, and maybe a few other topics that are escaping memory, but zero effort is put into actually making such topics interesting.

In turn, there is nothing noteworthy or commendable in the performances, though I am a bit more forgiving of this. Though there’s nobody prestigious involved, Jason Clarke and Helen Mirren are competent enough actors, and they must have known just how half-baked their material was – I can almost see then rolling their eyes in between takes, eager for this production to end already.

If there is anything noteworthy in Winchester, it is the fact that it was filmed at the Winchester Mystery House in San Jose, but this actually becomes a detriment. Of course the house has been refurbished and renovated over the years – it’s a tourist attraction, after all. Unfortunately, this results in the movie looking way too glossy and plastic with no foreboding qualities whatsoever. The dull and careless cinematography doesn’t do anything to compliment the horror.

With absolutely nothing to offer, there is no reason for anybody to watch Winchester whatsoever. Horror fans will be utterly bored – there’s no legitimate horror or funny horror to revel in at all. Even haunted house enthusiasts will sigh in disappointment at the complete lack of interest the film has in its subject matter. Just be grateful that Winchester didn’t have the cynical audacity to cash in on Halloween season.

EDITORIAL: Welcome to Red Eye

Seven movie reviews in and I haven’t said a word about myself or the site. How rude.

Why ‘Red Eye’? Well, as the subtitle of this site suggests, I watch too many movies, and I think my eyes aren’t exactly pearly-white. Who knows, though? Maybe I drink a ton of red eyes at Black Crown Coffee (if I ever go into cardiac arrest, I will spend zero time questioning the culprit). Maybe I really, really like that song ‘Red Eyes’ by the War on Drugs. Maybe all of the above. Maybe it just sounds cool.

I’m Jakob, the sole writer-editor-ruler of the site. I have recently rediscovered my love for writing, and I have lately been putting a lot of thought into a career in film criticism. With Microsoft Word, Internet access, money in my pocket, and time on my hands, I decided there is no reason not to start now. The editorial you are now reading is simply an introduction and an overview of what to expect from this point forward.

Other personal qualities and characteristics are for another time. 

*  *  *  *  * 

FILM REVIEWS

I rate films on a four-star scale. You’ve already seen seven of these, so I don’t think there’s too much introduction necessary. However, I do have a few notes I want to address:

I try to review movies as soon as they are released. However, this is a bit more difficult with the independent/foreign/art house scene goes. I am currently confined to Tucson, as far as seeing movies is concerned. This means that I don’t have access to the big film festivals (save for the local Loft Film Fest) and have to wait until they make it here, and sometimes that can take a while. For example: Michael Haneke’s latest film Happy End has been reviewed and discussed many a time already, but I can’t see it until February 9 at the earliest. I know everybody in the film world has already talked about it, but I haven’t seen it yet, and I intend on seeing it as soon as I get the opportunity, so at least I have an excuse.

The majority of the time, my reviews will be of new releases as I believe it’s mostly meaningless to review past films that have most likely been talked about time and time again. That said, I will give past films a review if I have good reason. For example; last August, there was a nationwide theatrical rerelease of Terminator 2: Judgment Day. It may be from 1991, but because it was such a huge film for its time, and considering there’s an event surrounding its rerelease, per se, that calls for a review.

These kinds of reviews are not exclusive to theatrical releases. I have Threads from 1984 slated for a review, as it is about to make its way to home video in the States for the first time ever. Once again, its impact/significance combined with a noteworthy release, I think it deserves a legitimate review.

Whatever it takes to talk about movies without it being too arbitrary.

EDITORIALS

These will most often either be some sort of update on the site, or some sort of musing on the art of cinema that I love so deeply (I know, I know, the latter sounds pretentious). Under normal circumstances, there will be one per month, and they will be published the first of every month - in the event that this isn't so, I will specify why.

GREAT FAVORITES

I have a list of films I call ‘Great Favorites’ – films I not only love with every fiber of my being, but also films that I genuinely believe are masterful achievements in the art of filmmaking. Every now and again, there will be an addition to the catalog with my thoughts on the film in question. There should be no question that every film among the Great Favorites is a four out of four.

THE UNSUNG

Many a time, I think we all see a film that absolutely blew our minds. Yet why does nobody talk or know about them? The Unsung is a series on, well, some the most unsung achievements in cinema. I am unsure whether or not to include movies I find to be over-criticized.

UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

Entries of ‘Under the Microscope’ will be my most ambitious undertaking as far as the site goes. These will be my thoughts, theories, and in-depth analyses on choice films. As far as the type of films to expect, I have Kubrick’s The Shining and Tarkovsky’s Stalker in mind. These will not be common entries.

CRITERION FOR STARTERS

I am a religious devotee to the Criterion Collection. Anybody interested in the realm of foreign and art films need not to look further than Criterion, and in a catalog of 920 spine numbers and counting, ‘Criterion for Starters’ is a roadmap of Criterion’s quintessential titles for newbies.

*  *  *  *  *

For most of these, except where specified, I don’t know how often these will be posted. Since I’m just starting this whole film criticism thing, I’m trying to take it one step at a time. I have a few more ideas for series’, but I haven’t fully decided if I want to do them yet. Maybe more to follow, maybe not.

So, with all that said, thanks for visiting, thanks for reading, and welcome to Red Eye.

P.S., never hesitate to drop me a line at jakob.redeye@mail.com.