Fatal Affair Review

There is nothing wrong with genre movies; low on budget but high on tropes. The kind where much of the budget went towards renting the clothes actors wear or the rental cars they drive, sometimes that's all you want in an afternoon on your couch. Netflix's "Fatal Affair" simultaneously fails and succeeds as one, an effective eighty nine minute trip down the familiar lanes of love, sex, and violence that plays out so quickly you're left either laughing at the gaps in logic or believing them.

Nia Long plays Ellie who's, you guessed it, living the perfect life. Attentive husband, beautiful daughter, and of course, a successful career as a lawyer. Yet she's unhappy, for reasons unexplained outside of generic babble like "... the person sleeping next to you feels like a complete stranger."

Soon we find her on her last assignment at her current firm, before leaving to start her own, and she runs across David, played by Omar Epps, a newly hired new cyber security(?) expert. They (of course!) have a past, having gone to college together, and after a girls night gone wrong, they end up almost having intercourse in a nightclub bathroom (how romantic). This is where the movie falls apart, as it never establishes Ellie's motivation to consider the affair. Up until now (and throughout the film), her husband Marcus (Stephen Bishop) has been nothing but affectionate and understanding.

Is she bored in bed? Is he having an affair also? Where exactly is the trouble in paradise?! The filmmakers where either too lazy to consider such basic backstories, or too innocent to consider such scandalous inclinations; it's trash without being trashy, which is often the only reason to watch garbage.

It's neither smart nor exploitative, in fact, it's so devoid of vice that you find yourself wondering why this didn't debut on some basic-cable channel instead of the streaming giant, complete with a "some material may be inappropriate for children" disclaimer. Aside from some very brief shots of clothed sex, all your perverted appetite has to munch on is the suggestion that sex did happen.

There is mild salvation for Ellie once she leaves David premature, shirt untucked and all, and for the remainder of the runtime she's shown broken as she hides the liaison from her family and friends. David, on the other hand, goes from being mildly frisky to complete stalker, escalating from simply spying to dating her best friend so he can get in her house, within a matter of scenes. Omar is pretty decent here, able to show pounds of rage just beneath his calm demeanor, and he plays what little development is provided for his creeping with an understated intensity. Nia is also acceptable, keeping some level of authority in her character despite the material giving her nothing to work with except to look worried and talk on her phone.

How do you rate this film then, how many stars is fair? That's impossible since it doesn't play fair- this was obviously a "paycheck" movie for everyone, going through the motions so they can pay next month's rent in Hollywood as they wait for a better script to come. It's bad and doesn't deliver the goods, but it never insults you into hating it.

For all its wrongs, "Fatal Affair" does remain watchable. The plot, as derivative as it is, does feature several twists just to make sure you're still paying attention, and the production is relatively slick. It has the look of a more expensive film, one where more interesting things happening to better actors. But I was duped into its silliness, an hour and a half of my life gone that I'll never get back, and I slumped off of my couch not terribly upset with that.

The Old Guard Review

If "The Old Guard" has one thing going in its favor, it's that it's a superhero film without any baggage. There is no "cinematic universe" tomfoolery to hold it back, and by debuting on Netflix, there is no worry about its R-rating impacting its box office potential. It comes to our living rooms on a clean slate, the only expectations are formed by us after decades from the Marvel and DC juggernauts. No, the heroes here don't wear capes or spandex, and they can swear like sailors, but their superpowers get the job done.

This alone is a major breath of air in the crowded superhero genre, but it ends up as nothing but a fresh coat of paint on the creaky old concept. There is nothing new to watch here, because there is nothing new attempted here; it's the same old story with blood squirts and modern clothing.

You've heard this before: a small group of people, led by Andy (Charlize Theron) with unexplained powers are hunted for their unexplained powers. The powers this time is regeneration, which is shown early and often; this motley crew can't die! Get shot? The wound heals itself, shown in full with nice touches like the bullets getting forced out from the flesh. They also never get old, locked forever at the age when these vague abilities are gained. This instantly flatlines the stakes, since they're pretty much immortal, but the film attempts to fill this gap in logic by adding that they can die, but only when it's their time (i.e. whenever their injuries stop healing). When this time comes is unknown, but this doesn't cure this central problem with the action scenes.

The bad guys here are lead by Steven Merrick (Harry Melling), owner of super-generic pharmaceutical company incorporated. His goal is to cure all human disease (maybe he isn't such a bad guy), and sees the humanitarian and financial potential of these super humans and sends dozens of generic soldiers to be sliced, diced, and shot as they try to apprehend them. This leads back to the primary issue with the shootouts and fisticuffs; why should I be thrilled when I know the good guys won't lose? Who cares when they get hurt? All because the possibility that it could be their time?! Without a tangible weakness to be used to stop them, the picture fails. An action picture isn't worth its weight in bullets if the action is robbed of any and all suspense.

There are some interesting ideas buried beneath the flimsy material on the surface, but they sink like stones in a sea of familiarity. We are shown brief scenes of the heroes heroic acts in other eras, which allows for some lovely set pieces like the Salem Witch trials. I wish there were more moments like these, but we're only offered a few breaks from otherwise sterile shots of military outposts and office buildings. It's also touched upon the difficulty of "hiding" in a digital world- in one scene, Andy deletes a photo she's accidentally in by asking the group if they'd like a "picture together." Yet later in the film, she has no problem strolling down the aisle of a drug store. Yeah, I'm sure their security cameras aren't working.

Other ideas are not so welcome: there is, spoiler-alert, a double-cross in the narrative, but the "why" and "how" are never explored. Why didn't it happen sooner? (Gotta fill that runtime somehow.)

Netflix has so many subscribers, and so many folks are superhero movie fans, so they no doubt have a massive success on their hands- particularly as we live in a world where fans are starved of new Marvel and DC content. Whether or not the success is well-deserved is irrelevant when so many people are gonna watch it, talk about it online, and then wait for the next pandemic for the sequel to drop.

Force of Nature Review

"Force of Nature," featuring but hardly starring Mel Gibson, is far from a victim of the pandemic forcing movies out of the theaters. In fact, this high-concept thriller sounds, looks, and plays out like a movie destined by nature to be direct-to-streaming. That's not a bad thing necessarily, as a grimy little genre picture like this is best enjoyed in the privacy of your own home so you don't feel ashamed for having a good time.

Or at least a decent time. Look, "Force of Nature" is far from the best thing you could watch on lockdown, nor will it look particularly good on Gibson's resume, but it sets the bar low and then just barely lumbers over it.

"Die Hard in a hurricane" would be the best way to describe the concept here, with Emile Hirsch as Cardillo, filling the shoes of the obligatory sarcastic officer who doesn't want to be in the situation. Only Cardillo is no John McClane. He and his partner end up at an apartment complex as a hurricane roars behind them, trying to get any civilians to evacuate. But wait, there's more! One of the tenants is Ray (Gibson), is a grizzled ex-cop with a bad mouth and temper (hard to tell how much is acting and how much is him just being himself). But wait! There's more!

There is at least one other resident in need of rescuing, Bergkamp (Jorge Luis Ramos), but he isn't just some old guy. He possesses a few priceless pieces of art, which attracts badguy John the Baptist (David Zayas) and friends. All of this exposition happens relatively quickly, a brief appetizer to the meat-and-potatoes main-course; director Michael Polish knows he's just barely captured the interest of his audience and dives directly into the good stuff as soon as he can.

What's the good stuff? The usual shootouts, fisticuffs, and a few moments of cat-and-mouse games just to break the monotony. We watch familiar scene after familiar scene, but the real attraction is the hurricane setting and the building. The constant bang of the wind and the forever rainfall is an unbroken threat, never sure when it could interrupt the plans of the cops and robbers. The structure, on the other hand, offers unique rooms filled with possibilities; will this residence have an escape path? A weapon? Medicine?

But it is the silliness of it all that sells the material. The film touches on some unplanned timely issues but it glazes over every subject it approaches with a big grin and an equally big fist. Only I wish it was sillier. I wish it went "all in" on just how preposterous everything really is; there is a good idea for an action/disaster satire somewhere here, but "Force of Nature" hasn't found the magic combination. Or it did, but went with the more commercial route.

This is a dopey piece of genre escapism, a low-rent relic of a time where cops, natural disasters, and Mel Gibson could simply headline entertainment, not controversies. These topics don't make for a fun time at the movies anymore. (Should they ever have?) But is it fair to criticize for a product made with the innocent intentions of cheap distraction? I don't know, and my attempt at an answer is unimportant. This film is unimportant. But it is a passable way to spend an unimportant afternoon.