A QUIET PLACE (2018)

Review written by Raul De Leon

A Quiet Place (2018)

Shhhhhh! You better keep quiet or it’ll be your head! The Office star, John Krasinski takes us into an unfamiliar terrorland where making a sound louder than a whisper means a date with death. As lead actor, co-writer, and director, Krasinski proves himself to be a well-rounded talent with this one-of-a-kind horror-suspense film that is sure to make you jump out of your seat.

Every minute of everyday is survival in a world that is dominated by sound. With virtually no exposition, we are placed in a nearby future date where humans are hunted by deadly, sightless, creatures who ruthlessly attack noise. The Abbott family of four live on a remote farm that is rigged for protection against the lethal audio-hunters, but the property can only form so much security. Lee (Krasinski), his pregnant wife Evelyn (Blunt), their deaf daughter Regan (Simmonds), and their young son Marcus (Jupe), whisper, use sign language, and tread softly with constant attention to their mortality. Any sound over forty decibels is a foot in the grave for the characters and some serious nerve-tingling entertainment for us.

Starting in the sunlight, with family background and an introduction to a cautious lifestyle in silence, the first half-hour stands rather ordinary, holding our interest only because of the unique situation we are in where nobody can make a peep. Shortly, the law of the land is broken, the sun sets, and we’re thrust into a whirlwind of tension, suspense, and fright that lasts for the remainder of the film. Your eyes will be super-glued to the screen as you jump and nibble your nails because these creatures are intense and the situations are agonizing.

The noiseless atmosphere is the soul of the film, and is what truly makes this a standout and memorable movie-going experience. It wouldn’t be right to not explore the element of sound, and Krasinski does it fantastically. Thanks to numerous smart choices, the final two-thirds of A Quiet Place never, not even for a second, loses hold of its audience. Having a deaf main character adds a whole dimension of anxiety while being an imperative factor in the story’s development. And you might imagine how a mother carrying a child can increase the unease.

One sequence in particular boasts a tremendous amount of writing, directing, and editing skill, in which every character is individually placed in a crucial situation that directly effects every other character’s safety. It puts the questionable relationships among the family to test, with the ultimate need; survival. Editor, Christopher Tellefsen (Moneyball, Capote) may very well earn a nomination next Oscar season for this Eisensteinian string of fearful adrenaline. And I wouldn’t be surprised if Krasinski sits beside him.

Being a unique horror film that is created by a familiar face with a background in comedy, A Quiet Place is naturally going to draw comparisons to Jordan Peele’s 2017 success, Get out. Krasinski’s movie may not have the brainy social commentary that Peele’s does but it does possess emotional depth in family bonding and unspoken love. Its sentimental moments create a big gap from itself and the countless horror releases that live purely off of scare tactics.

A Quiet Place began as a brilliant idea to be a movie that breathes in silence, and it made the precise creative decisions to accentuate that vision. It’s a movie experience like no other, that will be remembered for its innovative use of noiselessness. If you can only handle one scare-show this year, make it this one.

---

If you liked A Quiet Place, you might also like, Get Out (2017), The Descent (2005), [Rec] (2007), It Comes at Night (2017).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: Rauloncinema.com

A BAG OF MARBLES (2018)

Review written by Raul De Leon

A Bag of Marbles (2018)

Is it possible to smile through war? Through courage and endurance, ten-year-old Joseph and twelve-year-old Maurice, manage to be merry through the toughest of times. A Bag of Marbles is the true story of two young Jewish brothers evading capture in Nazi occupied France. Although full of tears, Marbles reminds us to be gracious and relish in life whenever possible.

Many films on the Holocaust have been made but very few incorporate a hearty seasoning. Roman, the father of the two young boys, as well as two young men (Albert and Henry) makes dire decisions to keep his family safe while demonstrating to his children to never live in fear. When the German military takes over France, the boys worry for their safety, and their father flips the stress with a pillow fight. But when the Nazis start to rally up the Jewish people, Roman and his wife Anna, separate from their boys, sending Joseph and Maurice off together to better their chances of reaching the safe zone of Italy.

In a long, emotional journey, desperate times are nerve-racking and family times feel like Christmas. The Joffo family’s big smiles and hugs can be a tad much here and there, but this is director Duguay’s way of letting us know that love wasn’t completely vacuumed by the genocide. When death lurks, it lurks heavy with intimidating interrogations and flying bullets. To see that two boys have to endure this hell, will surely form a break in your heart.

Joseph and Maurice stood toe-to-toe with the school bullies who picked on them for their yellow badges. Now their toughness is met with the most cruel test. In unfamiliar territory, the boys must constantly lie, hideout, steal, run and fight, in hopes of seeing their family again. Throughout all the misery, Joseph keeps a special blue marble close, in memory of the time when he traded his Jewish badge for another kid’s sack of marbles, anchoring his memory in worry-free times. He’s a gallant fighter in critical moments but also a cry-baby in Maurice’s eyes. Maurice is the most you could expect a big brother to be. He teases his little bro out of obligation of being older, but protects Joseph with his life. These two boys, Dorian and Batyste, are phenomenal in challenging roles that demand a plethora of emotions. Hats-off to the kids with surprisingly minimal acting experience; they made Marbles the success that it is.

It shows that Duguay worked out his vision with his team in a fine manner. His ample use of close-ups keeps us in touch with characters, allowing the theme of family to thrive. Sunshine heavenly dances off of people and scenery, permitting light emotion to gleam through the devastating tragedy. Marble’s final moments features a genius mix of sound and picture editing that brings the film to its apex of emotion. It’s safe to say that Duguay’s talents have come a long way since Scanners II (1991) and The Art of War (2000). A Bag of Marbles is an outstanding feat.

Laughter, sunshine, desperation, and devastation; Marbles is unique among historic tragedy films in the sense of covering the full spectrum of emotions. It isn’t the best in its genre but its love and empathy calls to everyone one us. Bring yourself a box of tissues because you’ll need it.

---

If you liked A Bag of Marbles, you might like; Life is Beautiful (1997), The Boy in the Striped Pajamas (2008), The Pianist (2002), Schindler’s List (1993).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: Rauloncinema.com

THE DEATH OF STALIN (2018)

Review written by Raul De Leon

The Death of Stalin (2018)

Did you know Stalin pissed himself when he died? I didn’t. But Ianucci and his fellow writers made sure to point that out to us with drolling gags over the dictator’s unconscious body. Is it insensitive? Well one could argue, but if political humor gets under your skin then this British farce reel isn’t for you. The Death of Stalin makes contemplative points on the Soviet’s transition away from Stalin’s reign of terror, with laughs the entire way through.

If you need a brush up on your history, I’ll give you a quick recap: Josef Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union from the mid-1920’s, through World War II, and up until his death in 1953. Even though he and the Soviet Union deserve much credit for defeating the evil Nazis, Stalin is pretty much unanimously perceived as another Hitler; a malicious and powerful politician who we have no remorse for. So just like it’s okay to see Hitler thrashed by a close range machine-gun in [Title of movie removed due to Spoilers], it’s also okay to watch politicians comically fuss while standing over Stalin’s lifeless body and brain-exposed head.

Stalin’s in the mood for a late-night screening of a cowboy picture, so his Central Committee members watch alongside him while they fall asleep in their chairs. They don’t want to be there but what can they do? If they don’t watch the movie, they might be shot. If Stalin suspects them as betrayers, they might be shot. If the doctors diagnose Stalin with an illness, they might be shot. If the guards outside Stalin’s room enter when they hear him fall from his stroke, they might be shot. Everyone, everyone, lives in fear of their lives, and it’s hilarious.

After Stalin’s death, the Central Committee of seven nervously reorganize and push the Soviet narrative forward, but they don’t know what one another’s agendas are, nor where each other stands. Nobody wants to be singled out, so they nervously follow each other’s lead to keep themselves under the radar and out of sight of the crosshairs.

Malenkov (Tambor) becomes the new Premier and First Secretary, but he’s weak and completely depends on his comrades, comically contradicting himself to adhere to their say. Beria (Beale) is a brute, disguising himself as a savior to the Soviet public in order to save his skin and control the state. Khrushchev (Buscemi ) is the hope out of autocracy but is belittled by his comrades. Vasily Stalin (Rupert Friend) frantically tries to rule like his father, but he receives not even an ounce of respect from the lowest Soviet guard. It’s laughable how powerless he is compared to his authoritarian father.

Paranoia feeds the committee’s indecisiveness, hesitancy, and concealment of their true feelings. These are the people that are supposed to be ruling a nation and they’re completely out of whack. Just like Kubrick with Dr. Strangelove, Ianucci makes total fun of very serious politics.

One scene in particular sums up the screwy spectacle that is, The Death of Stalin: A team of soldiers seize a government building and execute one person after another, including workers and guards. At the end of the seize, the military vehicles roll out, and a soldier turns his pistol on his comrade (who looked to be orchestrating the seize in the first place), and fires at his head. It’s absurdist humor used to reflect an equally absurd governing body.

I found myself laughing out loud at the ridiculous circumstances, just like Adrian McLoughlin (Stalin) laughs out loud in a thick British accent before he croaks. Ianucci is more than aware of how ludicrous his picture is and equally aware of how ludicrous some horrendous political rule on our planet has been. So my advice is; don’t be offended like Russia (who banned the film in their country), and let the wisecracks roll.

---

If you liked The Death of Stalin, you might also like; Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964), Wag the Dog (1997), In the Loop (2009), The Dictator (2012).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: Rauloncinema.com

FILM REVIEW – PHANTOM THREAD (2018)

Phantom Thread (2017)

We’re used to a story-deficiency that is overcome by strong, complex characters with director Paul Thomas Anderson (Inherent Vice, The Master). Phantom Thread‘s Woodcock (Daniel-Day Lewis) and Alma (Vicky Krieps) are a curious couple but they’re not pronounced enough to save the film from its exhausting monotony.

A plot-less film about a dressmaker is not the most enticing idea to begin with. But PTA is a promising talent so we brush that stodgy trailer aside with a leaning assurance that he and DDL will wow us again in one way or another. This time, Anderson’s dysfunctional lead is Reynolds Woodcock; an Englishman who runs the dressmaking trade of House Woodcock where stars and royalty seek to be tailored. Woodcock brings a sweetheart named Alma into his house, but cannot love her because of a psychotic inability to step outside of habitual life arrangements. Woodcock himself, actually has no objective as he wishes to remain living in a sterile comfort zone, but Alma wants nothing more than to gain Woodcock’s tenderness and warmth. Their relationship, and Woodcock’s unofficial illness can be entertaining but is mostly watered down by a dry and tiresome atmosphere.

Anderson intends a blanket elegance by setting his story in 1950’s London with courtly characters, and playing Jonny Greenwood’s (Radiohead) soft piano score throughout just about the entire film, but he mistakenly emits a continuous air of pompousness instead. Its attempt at charm is far too obvious and redundant to flourish as a true mood piece. There is a stillness and quietness that looms over every scene and lies ingrained in every character that makes for a static and unsettling watch.

Characters and acting bring the film to the edge of redemption but not quite to the other side. Preferably, Daniel Day Lewis’ swan song would consist of more range. He plays Woodcock marvelously, but the character lacks the excitation that would allow Lewis’ performance to stand out. Krieps (Alma) and Manville (Cyril Woodcock) lie in the same boat – both are excellent performances but played in calm waters.

Phantom Thread is at its best when its over, and I don’t mean that condescendingly. Anderson lays out some life concerns and character peculiarities to think over when the film is finished. Woodcock’s gracious confidence is contradicted by his weakness toward change and his boyish dependency on his sister. A cloudy past episode concerning his deceased mother incites a mysterious hint into Woodcock’s queer nature and also the film’s title. Alma’s love for Woodcock is arguably harmful and wrongful on both ends, raising questions on what true love is and how we may fall into love for the wrong reasons.

Once again, Anderson gets a check on ‘character’ and not on ‘story’. The in-film actions of the characters are not as lively or arresting as Daniel Plainview or Freddie Quell or Doc Sportello, but they hold a particular mentality that rivets your own lifestyle the more you pick at it. Give Phantom Thread some time to marinate and you will find some of that PTA magic that made us brush off that arid plot in the first place. Too bad, it just isn’t enough to save Phantom Thread from its empty trite.

---

If you liked The Phantom Thread, you might also like; The Age of Innocence (1993), Brooklyn (2015), Pride & Prejudice (2005).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.

FILM REVIEW – 1945 (2017)

1945

Being a Hungarian art-house film with a limited release, 1945 will not get many views this year. For the few that do get the opportunity at a ticket, they are in for a special treat. With captivating black and white photography and a powerful, simplistic story, 1945 firmly stands as one of the best art films of the 21^st century.

1945 is the year World War II came to an end. The Kingdom of Hungary fought alongside the Axis powers (Nazi Germany and Italy) up until the final years of the war. Hungarian born filmmaker Ferenc Torok takes a look back on his roots and composes a hammering allegory to his nation’s emotion during the tail-end of the ruinous war.

The plot is as simple as it needs to be; two Jewish strangers arrive in town, and the town’s citizens panic in fear of the worst. What the townspeople suspect is that the Jewish men are back to claim property that is rightfully theirs. As the two men peacefully continue through the village, it’s as if an emergency alarm has been set off; people break down, relations fall apart, and business nears its collapse.

What makes this such a brilliant watch is the town-wide reaction to such a non-occurrence. The Jewish men arrive casually and remain inactive, and it lights a scorching fire under the village seat. Consequently, we get an intimate look into a number of individual lives and family/friend relationships.

The primary lead, Istvan, is the town clerk whose overlook of local affairs is characterized by an amount of egotistic control. He carries himself as a confident, charismatic, upper-class leader, yet it is he who especially panics and aggravates a town-wide anxiety attack. His son, Arpad, is to marry in just a few hours, but the arrival of the Jewish strangers, is impeding on the ceremony. Andras is a fellow of the property scheme who claims he was forced to sign accusations, but he can’t put the bottle down since the Jews’ arrival.

A darkness looms over the heads of the Hungarian people that evokes their inner emotion. When face to face with the people who they have wronged, lives flip out of control. Fear, guilt, remorse, hatred, shame – the exact source of their excitability and woe cannot be pinpointed. Their interiors are lost in it all and their exteriors try to cope. And none of it offers reparations to the real victims of the situation.

The title, “1945“, frees a wide ground of exploration for the viewer to dig – “1945” is beyond Hungary; it’s a worldwide phenomenon. Torok paints such an open metaphor on such a quintessential time, that the interpretations induced, inevitably reside in the bosom of global consciousness. Just like all the best pieces of art, 1945 holds high value in its ambiguity. You’ll be stirred in the dramatics of the film, and then the end comes and your soul is swept. Thereafter, a repeated viewing will be needed to study 1945 with context.

---

If you liked 1945, you might also like; The White Ribbon (2009), Ida (2013), The Man From London (2007), The Tree of Wooden Clogs (1978).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.

FILM REVIEW – THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI (2017)

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)

Martin McDonagh’s (In Bruges, Seven Psychopaths) latest indie film is a weighty black comedy that takes place in America’s modern south. It’s funny, it’s sentimental, it’s brass, and it takes a pensive perspective on today’s southern culture.

When the the hot-tempered, middle-aged Mildred comes across three dumpy, abandoned billboards, she rents them and renovates them into an audacious non-ad that is sure to agitate some of the town’s residents. Mildred’s signs shame local Sergeant Willoughby for not finding the culprit to Mildred’s daughter’s rape and murder. Ebbing being a (fictional) small town in Missouri, everybody knows of the case and of Willoughby, and so naturally hostility forms among the townsfolk, the police force, the ad agency, and Mildred’s family, forming a divisive mess.

The plot itself tells you the sort of film you’re getting into. Publicly humiliating an officer over the most serious offenses is ballsy as hell. Three Billboards is full of wincing moments backed by wry humor. Some jokes are forced and some dialogue is lame. Where Three Billboards does excel is exactly where you would expect a McDonagh film to – in culture and character.

Easily the most stand-out aspect of the film is Mildred. She wears a bandana with her chin high and her spine erect. She punks the cops, takes revenge on school kids, and mars her dentist. This isn’t Frances McDormand out of Fargo, this is McDormand straight out of the penitentiary. She’s intimidating, but she’s much more than just some thug. What brings her character to the next level is her inborn humor and her shielded gentle side. Mildred’s bold and forward attitude brings in lots of laughs, and simultaneously her pain as a grieving mother remains visible.

A surprise character with a an impressive and dynamic arc is officer Dixon. He’s a stupid, racist, white trash drunk who only gets to keep his badge because of the town’s low standards. It’s fascinating, how believably dumb Sam Rockwell plays this nitwit. The air between his head and the gun on his hip make for a scary combination that is around the corner at all times. His unforeseeable development makes for a good mixing that keeps the film from sliding into a stale good vs evil scenario.

Three Billboards thrives off of round, cultivated characters. Their personalities, their pain, and their actions bring the town to life as a full-fledged culture. Social matters, politics, and everything in between becomes apparent through the study of character. It makes the town itself a character of its own, that is quite alien to the urban man.

With an increasingly polarized United States, McDonagh delivers a potent view of the South for us all to think over. Being such a deep immersion into a southern community, it ironically remains rather apolitical on the surface. Below that, there is something to contemplate.

Three Billboards is an okay story with fun, standout characters. It’s guaranteed you’ll have a ball with Mildred and Dixon, but the same guarantee cannot be made for the film as a whole. With his latest film, Martin McDonagh makes like the Coen brothers, but just a rung lower on the ladder of expertise.

---

If you liked Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri, you might also like; In Bruges (2008), Burn After Reading (2008), Hell or High Water (2016), Seven Psychopaths (2012).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.

FILM REVIEW – LADYBIRD (2017)

Lady Bird (2017)

For the third time in her career, twenty-three year old Saoirse Roman (Atonement, Brooklyn) gives an Oscar worthy performance, among a brilliant supporting cast, to elevate Lady Bird to the sky heights of this century’s coming of age films.

“Lady Bird” is high school senior, Christine’s given name that was “given to [her] by [her]”. She is a self-assured, straightforward, ‘speak my mind’ kind of girl who hard targets an independent life. Of course, at her age, she bends and bruises along the way due to the pressures of high school conformity, immature romantic relationships, and conflict with parents. She especially struggles with her loving mother whose longing to keep her daughter close may be overruling her wish for her daughter to mature and succeed. “Lady Bird” attends a Catholic school in Sacramento, California, but she’s dying to get away. She wants to attend a college on the east coast “where culture is… where writer’s live in the woods”, to escape all that she thinks is holding her back. She’s the type of girl you’ll find in the school play, but she desperately wants a serious relationship and acceptance from the in-crowd.

Cool kids, geeks, house parties, prom… Lady Bird has got all of the stereotypes of a high school movie, but it never once feels cliche. It keeps its composure as a character film enveloped in an authentic high school atmosphere with true high school mentalities. In a witty, self-reflexive way, it actually pokes fun at its teen-flick cliches. Growing up is serious but we can’t take teenagers too seriously, can we? That’s the mindset writer/director Greta Gerwig has in approaching her film.

It must be noted that Gerwig has got raw filmmaking talent. In her own unique way, she composes a deep and rich depiction of a young woman’s growth that finely maintains a comedic spirit. Lady Bird is a controlled frenzy, abruptly moving from one scene to the next without feeling rushed. Any other filmmaker telling this story would have taken two hours, but it works better at an hour and a half. Gerwig’s quick-paced style fluently retains the comical side through all sincere moments. It makes for a really fun watch yet genuine testament to maturity and womanhood.

Thankfully, you don’t have to worry about high school kids looking like college grad students. The entire cast is believable in their part. Saoirse Roman continues to impress with a demanding performance that the film couldn’t do without. She has a notable scene with Laurie Metcalf that will bring pressing memories to anyone who fought with their parents at a young age. The reminders of our shaky and heated teen years arise from strong casting.

Using relatable issues regarding family, self-discovery, and peer pressure Lady Bird contains a bit of every emotion. The fine balance of laughs and sentiment make this a very likeable film for all ages and genders.

---

If you liked Lady Bird (2017), you might also like; Juno (2007), 500 Days of Summer (2009), Garden State (2004), Pretty in Pink (1986).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.

FILM REVIEW – MY FRIEND DAHMER (2017)

My Friend Dahmer (2017)

Jeffrey Dahmer, ‘The Milwaukee Cannibal’, was a real-life man who raped and murdered 17 boys and men, and engaged in cannibalism and necrophilia from the years of 1978 to 1991. He was a walking horror story and My Friend Dahmer is a chilling lesson that covers the high school years leading up to his devilish spree.

Marc Meyers’ film is based on the graphic novel of the same name that is written by Dahmer’s high school friend, John ‘Derf’ Backderf. Backderf recounts Dahmer’s life with a perspective that presents the cause and origin of Dahmer’s psychical deformity. Meyers adapts Derf’s outlook while smartly muzzling the lecture aspects, and allowing Dahmer’s actions to speak for themselves.

The film tracks Dahmer’s senior year of high school to illustrate how all of Dahmer’s attributes combine and build as one dangerous pressure cooker. We sympathize with him for the difficulties he must tolerate; argumentative parents, a prescription-pill popping mother, and an inability to comfortably fit in with his high school peers. We’re weirded out by his obsession with animal anatomy and the abnormal things he does with their bodies. It’s a type of rise into adulthood that you don’t want to ever see. Watching Dahmer’s transformation take place is not comforting.

We’re used to seeing Disney star Ross Lynch happily singing and dancing. Now he’s sensually dissecting animals, guzzling liquor bottles, and sexually fantasizing about murder. I think it’s safe to say he did a complete 180 turn for this one. Good. I like him better this way. Although I didn’t quite believe his arms-forward leaning posture, Lynch absolutely proved to Hollywood that he’s an actor to be taken seriously.

My Friend Dahmer is put together as a character study, mostly absent of dramatic build. It begins and ends without ever striking your emotions, completely lacking any ‘wow’ factor that may leave some viewers unsatisfied. What does make this a satisfying watch is the psychology of the character. You are probably going into the film, knowing who this guy is and what he has done. What you don’t know is his life and how the monster was produced. So throughout the film we get a gutty unsettling anticipation of what we know is to come. This queasy feeling, some solid acting from the cast, and the underlying lesson at-hand, is what makes the film.

Meyers brings something of extreme importance to our attention; mental derangement and sinister actions derive from normal human tendencies. Dysfunctional parents, closet homosexuality, social aberration, drunkenness, a passion for biology, and a compulsive sexual appetite are not traits that are foreign to us. The only thing alien is the severe outcome of their dramatic blend. Millions of high school kids today don’t fall far from the Dahmer tree, and that’s something to think about.

Just as Dahmer’s history teacher states, our past is important so that we can better understand who we are, and avoid the same mistakes. I’m certain that nobody will view Dahmer as a truly ‘great’ film, but what it undoubtedly is, is important.

---

If you liked My Friend Dahmer (2017), you might also like; The Deliberate Stranger (1986), Monster (2003), Kids (1995), Bully (2001).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.

FILM REVIEW – THE KILLING OF A SACRED DEER (2017)

Review written by Raul De Leon

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)

Being familiar with director Yorgos Lanthimos, I knew of the weirdness that I was getting myself into. What I was not expecting was an empty shell of a movie that gets off to its own peculiarity. The Killing of a Sacred Deer is an off-the-wall comedic horror film that tortures both its in-film characters and its audience.

The world of Deer is like a kooky Pleasantville, until terror strikes the Murphy family. Life becomes hell for Steven and family, when Steven’s teenage friend Martin seemingly takes revenge on the Murphy’s for killing his father. Martin’s father was a patient of Stephen’s who died from complications during heart surgery. Martin gets close to the family and develops a relationship with Steven’s daughter Kim, and then one by one, the Murphy family starts to perish in a paranormal manner that is somehow connected to Martin.

Life was hell for me as well as I sat in the theater, forcing my eyes open. Now I know what Alex in A Clockwork Orange felt like. Any escalation is undermined by Lanthimos’ decision to remain ridiculous. His peculiar stamp works against him, and I watched unterrified and uninterested. The film was dull for the large majority because of a lame story line, plain and redundant sets, an unchanging cinema-palette, and an ineffective, annoying ‘horror’ score. Lanthimos misfired on all rounds putting together a boring and inadequate scare.

Unlike The Lobster, the comedic and satirical weirdness here felt painfully forced and thoughtless. Most of it is situated in the way people talk to and act around one another. When Martin meets with the Murphy kids for the first time, he shows pre-pubescent Bob his armpit hair and Kim tells Martin that she started getting her period – not exactly considered normal by modern society’s standards. Additionally, everybody speaks with a lack of emotion and an overdone politeness. The other weirdness lies in the horror-trap that strikes the Murphy’s. They’re not chased by a psycho, or haunted by ghosts, or running from zombies. They just get sick, and it’s unexplainable how. It’s not the weird that blemishes the film but the lack of its depth.

Even though I strongly disliked the film, I refuse to believe that Deer is completely meaningless. In my review for The Lobster (2016), I talk about how Lanthimos raises questions about the nature of modern romantic relationships. Lanthimos’ voice is a lot less apparent with Deer than it is with Lobster. For the most part, the social oddity is to support an overall eeriness. Lanthimos wants his horror embedded in discomfort. But naturally we are still going to question the unexplained paranormal activity and the ambiguous title. “Sacred deer” implies mythology, religion, and/or indigenous culture. The plague that falls upon the Murphy family follows an aboriginal understanding of the world that only Martin comprehends. Which begs the question: Is Martin even doing anything to the Murphy’s or is nature just taking its course?

Although, there is room for thought, The Killing of a Sacred Deer is still rather shallow. Unfortunately it also completely fails as a horror film, unless Lanthimos meant to torture his audience by making a bad movie. If that’s the case then Deer is a huge success.

---

If you liked The Killing of a Sacred Deer, you might also like; Black Swan (2010), Antichrist (2009), The Village (2004), other films by Yorgos Lanthimos.

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.

FILM REVIEW- MAUDIE (2017)

Review written by Raul De Leon

Maudie (2017)

It’s been days since I watched Maudie and I am still touched. This is a prime example of the value of independent cinema.

Maudie is the lovely autobiographical story of Maud Lewis; a folk art painter who was born with rheumatoid arthritis. After her brother sells their house and leaves town, Maud looks for work in hopes of becoming independent. She answers an ad from a grumpy fisherman named Everett Lewis, who is looking for a live-in housemaid. Everett hires Maud and from there on out, we watch a rocky, yet delightful romance grow from two standout characters, and an inspiring art career flower from dirt.

I have to say that Maud might actually be the most likeable character I have ever seen on screen. Her brother and aunt do not believe in her, Everett treats her worse than his dogs and chickens, and her handicap is seriously imposing on her life, but none of it holds Maud back. Instead, she pushes forward as if she were perfectly healthy and loved. Watching Maud mushroom into a take-charge, no-nonsense woman will put a smile on your face. She’s gentle, soft-spoken, and always acts with a warm heart. Watching her behave in the way she does while carrying a disease that impairs the very way she walks will make you fall in love with her.

Everett is a different story. He’s an old man who seems to have nothing to offer the world other than his grumpiness. But when Maud becomes a part of his life, we see the light that’s buried inside of him and begin to love him too. He’s just as in need of love and affection as Maud is and its wonderful to watch him embrace it.

Performances are crucial in a film like this. Sally Hawkins delivers an Oscar worthy performance and Ethan Hawke impresses outside of his comfort zone. If an actor playing the part of a handicap fails to convince the audience of their illness, the movie is dead. This movie doesn’t have that problem. Hawkins is so damn believable, that those who are not familiar with her, will think that she really has severe arthritis. The way she walks, talks, paints, and hunches over is too real. Hawkins is completely immersed in character; think Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot (1989). I cannot say enough about Hawkins and the sunshine she brings through Maud. Hawke surprised me with his role as the grumpy old man. Initially, I thought Hawke was going to be a miscast and overact the role, but he actually played in appropriate moderation and grew on me as the film went on. Thanks to a convincing character arc, Hawke gets to play beyond a one-dimensional “grumpy old man” and really create someone distinct and special.

Sherry White puts together a presentable script and director Aisling Walsh beautifies it. As imperative as Maud’s sickness is to the story, the film never forces it onto you. This is what separate’s Maudie from other films alike. Rather than trying to make you feel bad or rub the severity of Maud’s arthritis in your face, Maudie carries on like a poetic Terence Malick flick (Days of Heaven, Badlands). Aisling Walsh proves herself to be a true artistic talent, capable of surrounding her cinema with a natural aura. Her naturally lit exteriors of the earth whisper a serene mood that allows the film to carry on with a touching gentleness.

Maudie wins your hear right from the beginning and keeps it until the very end. Just as the heart of the film’s Grinch, Everett, grows, your heart may grow three sizes too. Walsh poeticizes an affectionate story and Hawkins makes us fall in love. When it’s all over, you may be sincerely saddened that you have to leave these characters behind.

---

If you liked Maudie (2017), you might also like; My Left Foot (1989), A Woman Under the Influence (1974), Days of Heaven (1978), Betty Blue (1986).

Check out the rest of my reviews on my website: cerebralfilmreviews.com.