Malignant
Gillipedia Official Rating: It’s time to cut out the cancer!
That is not something I came up with.
It’s a line said about 4 times throughout the film, including the very first
scene. Malignant was a film I knew next to nothing about. I had seen a
15-second spot of a lady running around a house with the camera from the
perspective of a high ceiling, it advertised the film as the new vision from
James Wan who truly is behind the most popular mainstream horror films of
recent years, and I had seen the poster. And honestly, the marketing was pretty
bad for the film, but I think it makes sense because describing this film is a
weird thing to do.
The film starts with a mental hospital
at night along a cliffside. Then, without showing the culprit, most of the
staff is murdered, and we get a quick glimpse of some… thing, and we get that
line. The film then switches over to our main character Madison, played by
Annabelle Wallis. I was not familiar with her, but she is the best actor out of
the cast. She gets in an argument with her boyfriend, and that night a
malevolent force terrorizes them. After this incident most people think that
Madison is crazy, but as the movie goes on, she starts realizing that she is connected
to this malignant creature and has to figure out why and how to stop it.
Before going any further, I really
have to address something. At the 15-minute mark, I was ready to stop watching.
The film was so campy. And I wasn’t expecting that—I was settling in for The
Conjuring or Insidious with some creepy thrills, but instead was
being treated with overacting and bad dialogue. And it was a strange
combination because director Wan still had some cool camera tricks he was
showing off (like the shot from the trailer). But I kept with it, and as the
real story started to unfold, my interest grew.
I’m not going to say too much more to
avoid surprises and spoilers, but I do want to mention that this film has one
of the coolest effects of recent memory. You’ll see it a couple of times, but
Madison starts to realize her connection to the supernatural killer thing because of what I'll call the morphing effect. She’ll be in a room but then is paralyzed by fear, and the camera moves around her 360
degrees as the room melts away and a new room appears in a morphing fashion. I have an idea of how they did it, but one
reason I really enjoy the shot is the fact that I’m not 100% sure on how they
pulled the shot off and that always intrigues me.
Also, this film is bonkers. The villainous
presence is a cool character with some basic motives, but there are some gnarly
kills. As the film goes on, so does the entertainment value. You’re given some
puzzle pieces to solve, but the film goes in an unexpected direction. The
acting aside from our protagonist is still atrocious, but at least the film
gets better.
Once the final act arrives, expect a
bunch of nutty R-rated gory fun. And, unlike many horror films, the ending is
satisfying. I started off the film expecting to do a scathing review, but I
ended up enjoying myself in one of the most unique films of the year. It doesn’t
excuse the really rocky start, but it does make it stand out from a typical
horror film with slightly supernatural elements. I enjoyed it, but it’s not a
film for everybody.
Cry Macho
Gillipedia Official Rating: Clint Eastwood goes from The Man With No Name to The Man Who Can’t Remember His Name
Yo, Eastwood is old. This man has no
business doing anything besides rocking in a chair and napping to the golf channel.
He was already super old for The Mule a couple years ago, but it fit his
character. Here, I hate to say it, but he truly is too old for the role.
Taking place in the late 70s, Eastwood
plays Mike, a widower who spent his life dedicated to taking care of horses and
other livestock. His egotistical boss lets him go after his string of shirking
duties and being late. Add insult to injury, the boss comes by later because he
needs to hire Mike to rescue his half-gringo, half-Mexican son from his ex-wife
across the border. There’s no mention of Eastwood’s slow pacing, softer voice,
and hunched back. They just play it off like this guy really has the capability
of traveling across the border and kidnapping a tween boy back.
The opening is exposition heavy, the
boss is a really bad actor, but at least the story is at a relatively brisk
pace. Eastwood makes it to Mexico and meets the crazy ex-wife that attempts to
seduce him and admits that if he’s not cockfighting, she has no idea where her
son is. First off, she lives in a huge house and Mike strolled right in. Then,
in the next scene, Mike is (slowly) strolling along, and happens across a
cockfight where the son is. Conveniences like this push the story along, but it ruins some realism in how this should really play out. Anyways, the son too proves to be a subpar actor, and it isn’t
too long before Mike has convinced him to come along. But after taking him to
be a bit of a punk, the son then has to convince Eastwood to take him along.
But that only lasts a scene.
The bulk of the film is basically Cars
where their car breaks down, and they have to find shelter in a small town.
Characters bond, Eastwood meets a Mexican widow that doesn’t speak English and
is much too young for him, it’s all good.
Eastwood both directs and stars as he
has done in multiple projects before. I think he should’ve stuck to directing. We
see a compassionate side to him we haven’t really seen in his films before, but
he’s still not the right actor for the role; despite some good lines, his
delivery is a little slow for maximum impact. Plus, I believe if he was able to
focus on directing, he would’ve been able to catch some of the bad acting (even
if Eastwood is infamous for using the first take he gets and moves on).
Watching this film really only made me
think about better Eastwood films, in particular Gran Torino and even a
bit of Unforgiven. If you want a film that will affect you emotionally,
you have to watch Gran Torino. Cry Macho is a sweet film. There
aren’t egregious errors to it, but you don’t fall in love with any of the characters,
except possibly Marta (the widow) and her family. There are a couple plot
holes, some of the acting is pretty poor, and the formulaic story has some of
Eastwood’s deft directing touch, but it’s not all there. I have seen this man
in front of and behind the camera in so many films, and some of them are right
near the top of my list of GOAT. I feel a slight tinge of pity as I say that Cry Macho is not on that list.
In
Brief:
- I watched the very European film In Bruges. Highly critically praised, it was fine. Some clever stuff, but the humor hasn’t aged well and took a while to get going.
- October is looking to be full of films I’m excited for. Lots in store.
No comments:
Post a Comment