Unhinged Review

Russell Crowe is having a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day in "Unhinged," the first new movie to be released only in theaters here in the states since the pandemic shut the world down. He stalks a divorced mother Rachel, played by Caren Pistorius, who is also having a not so pleasant day, after a bit of road rage during rush hour.

There's a level of subliminal irony at play here, as the only way to see a road rage movie is to go on the road! Whether its to a traditional sit-down theater, if you're brave, or to a drive-in like me, viewers must potentially put themselves into a situation where they can encounter a man like Crowe's character. It's a relatable premise, far more believable than ghosts or possessed dolls, and it's appeal boils down to whether or not you, yourself, have ever contemplated laying on your car's horn at another driver.

I know I have. On my way back from the outdoor cinema, I drove behind an eighteen wheeler who slowed to about 35mph on a 65mph highway. I thought to myself, what's going on here? Should I pass him? Should I honk? The driver eventually sped back up, and I just kindly kept behind the trailer, with the memory of "Unhinged" so fresh in my head. We all encounter times like this on the interstate, but for a film this neanderthal to stick with me after the credits rolled speaks to its inherit terror we all always have behind the wheel, and the unconscious potency of the filmmaking on display.

Crowe plays Tom Cooper, a divorcee himself who hacks his ex-wife and her new lover with an ax, before burning their house down, in the movie's opening moments. He is already unstable, and by the time he encounters Rachel, he is a full-blown slasher villain. The camera lusts over his face, crawling from his twitching eyes to his curled lips as he contemplates each kill, during each kill, and after each kill, and Crowe relishes in the chance to play such a psychotic person. The Oscar-winning actor is too good for material like this, but that's kinda the point- he hams it up with an almost sensual pleasure, chewing not only the scenery but the entire production, right up to the film reel.

He crashes into dozens of cars in pursuit of his victim, runs over people, stabs some and burns others, all in broad daylight- this guy is a maniac! He always knows where Rachel is (thanks to phone tracking), but even once she realizes this and smashes the cell, he's always just behind her. The police of course only show up when its a convenience to the plot, and just about every cliche imaginable is written into the script as if by the law of screenwriting. But none of that has ever mattered in a slasher film, which this very much is, and director Derrick Borte works beyond the limitations set by writer Carl Ellsworth by staging the carnage with professionalism and style. The car chases are clearly shot, and there is genuine suspense we anticipate Cooper's next move and inherit slaughter.

At just over ninety minutes, "Unhinged" is a terse, brutal, stupid, and, for all measures, bad film, but it works. It is your quintessential B picture: telling a familiar story in the rare "road rage" genre, a pulpy production that milks the audience for every emotion you expect to be milked. You yell at the screen every time someone does something dumb, you wince when Rachel's son Kyle (Gabriel Bateman) is in danger by the hands of Crowe (along with some electrical wire to boot), and you just don't feel like driving once it is all over, and there is something to admire about that. Do I recommend "Unhinged?" Did I like it? Is it good? Is it bad? It doesn't matter; it sets its goal low then leaps high over it with finesse. Anyone who's looking for an exploitative tale of violence is in for a satisfyingly deranged time, wait for it, at the movies. When was the last time we could say that?

Project Power Review

Person A: "I saw the new superhero movie on Netflix"
Person B: "The one with Charlize Theron?"
A: "No, the one with Jamie Foxx"
B: "There's one with Jamie Foxx?"
A: "There's one with Charlize Theron?"

End hypothetical conversation.


That is how I imagine most exchanges about Netflix's new superhero movie "Project Power" will play out, coming out only about a mere month after their previous superhero flick "The Old Guard." Without question they are dominating the genre in 2020, as the pandemic continues to shut down theatres across many of the big markets, and you have to wonder how this will change the landscape once the Batmobile can come back out, safely.

Is "Project Power" better than "Wonder Woman" or "Thor: Ragnarok," two movies I disagreed with... everyone about? How many stars should it get? 2 stars? 3? Does it even matter? There is nothing else for people to do with their time, and therefore we view the limited excuses of entertainment from a wildly different angle. If the world wasn't closed down and this was released in the normally crowded theaters, "Project Power" would be just another minor bleep on the moviegoers radar. But it's not, and in a world where the most fun we can get finding a face mask with a cool pattern, it is the closest thing we can get to experiencing a slice of "normal" mass-marketed filmmaking.

It starts with a brilliant premise, pills that give anyone five minutes of superpowers. What are the abilities? Everyone has one, but you don't know until you try it. You could become invisible, become bullet proof, or even explode into a bloody pulp (I imagine that last one won't be made into a kid's Halloween costume). Then it throws millions of dollars in special-effects at the screen and finally, it benefits from the natural charisma of casting Jamie Foxx and Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the leads. Audiences are treated to plenty of scenes of gunplay and fisticuffs, as the plot swerves from drug dealing, corrupt cops, noir, politics, redemption, family, and a whole lot more.

This is where I'd normally criticize the picture, as it never really follows through with any of the numerous ideas it tries, but hey, at least it's trying. It's all too common for movies, particularity in this genre, to hardly try, and here, we have one that goes for everything in the "how to write a screenplay" guidebook. It's messy, unorganized, and uneven, but it is never boring, and sometimes, even surprising.

Take, for example, how it treats all superpowers as evil, since you need to swallow a pill to get them, equating it to taking any illegal substance. There are no "good superheros;" no "Superman" saying that he uses his powers for good and that you should trust him. Again, this isn't something explored fully, but as one of the probably dozens of concepts here, it leaves you thinking about it once the credits roll. For how long after you ask? That depends on how much you want a sequel, for which there will surely be one. And if they can't afford to recruit Foxx or Gordon-Levitt back, no problem, just write new characters that have the same powers.

Sputnik Review

Most movies try too hard, feeling the need to over-complicate even the slightest detail in a well-worn idea. I've watched a lot of dreck (and reviewed some of it), but why is that? Maybe there are no more new ideas in Hollywood, or at least, no new "bankable" ideas. Perhaps that's why we turn to Russia for an eagerly competent science-fiction horror film "Sputnik," which comes to US audiences only through subtitles. This is a no-frills treat packed with government conspiracy, bloodshed, science, fiction, and yes, a nasty little creature that comes from space.

In 1983, after a day without contact, a Russian spacecraft lands back to Earth, with one passenger dead, one alive, and one new, sleeping inside the living. What is it? What does it want? How did it get inside him? Can we remove it? The answers to those questions, the last one in particular, are tasked to Tatyana (Oksana Akinshina), a disgraced doctor who's career is saved by Colonel Semiradov (Fyodor Bondarchuk), after her risky practices threatened a patient's life in an offscreen event. If you're going to ask what the Military wants with an alien, then you have not seen a lot of movies.

This creatures lives inside and outside its host, though only for about an hour a night, and the cosmonaut remains under heavy guard as scientists work to study the parasite. (Or is it symbiote?) Expect the obligatory scenes where someone "wants to take a closer look" and the even more obligatory consequences.

I wish I could say the narrative is something best kept a secret, so that you, the viewer, could be surprised, but the only way to be shocked would be to have never watched 1979's "Alien," any of its sequels, or any film it inspired (or inspired it). But part of the fun of these pictures is seeing all the neat new twists play out; everyone knows, or at least thinks they know, what's going to happen, who's gonna die, and how it all ends. You sit in suspense, waiting for that part you just know is coming, all the while sorta hoping to be wrong. "Sputnik" offers everything you want in an creature feature, all thrills and trimmed of most unnecessary fat.

Most unique here isn't its characters, plot or even monster- it's its setting. The industrial Russian facilities casts a damp coldness to every shot, one that to American's feels almost as alien as the alien itself; everything looks like Earth, but something's not quite right. A detached emptiness fills you with dread- this is a place where you know bad stuff has happened and is going to happen. And bad stuff does happen, and then happens again, and again.

The lack of an English dub ends up being an unintended brilliant move, a cost-saving measure that gives the production a sort of pseudo-documentary feel; your eyes dart quickly over the subtitles and then scramble back onto the screen, wishing not to miss chance to get lost in the bleak craftsmanship. For all its gloominess, there is somewhat of a happy ending, but with the world in its current state, I'm not sure we need something this gloomy to begin with.

Black Water: Abyss Review

"Black Water: Abyss" is a peculiar name for this movie, which is ultimately just another man-eating crocodile flick. There are plenty of shots of the water, but it's never black- brown would be more accurate, murky would be even better (it even turns red in a few moments, but I digress). What does this have to do with the movie? Nothing, but I couldn't get over it. Why, I'm not sure. Perhaps I felt mislead, but then again, maybe questions like this shouldn't be asked when the narrative follows the exploits of a very hungry crocodile.

The "crocodile movie" subgenre is a finicky one, packed with entries but none with the impact "Jaws" had for shark movies. But "Black Water: Abyss" is no masterpiece like "Jaws." It's not the surprisingly decent "Jaws 2." It's not the "so-bad-it's-good" Jaws 3-D and it certainly is not the "so-bad-it's-great" "Jaws: The Revenge." It occupies somewhere aside that franchise, repackaging its ideas and slapping them onto concepts from other places, namely "The Descent," which itself was a repurposing of themes from other films.

This results in something that isn't very bad but isn't very good either. Then again, there is no standard for crocodile movies, unless you count "Lake Placid," but that's remembered only for its idiosyncratic humor and Betty White. I found myself wishing for humor here, any kind of humor. The dialogue here consists of emotional baggage and the obligatory "get out of the water" kind of screams.

The cast is kept small fortunately, as two couples and a makeshift guide go spelunking in an unknown cave. The closest thing we get to a main character is Jen, played by Jessica McNamee, who in her first scene is snooping on her boyfriend Eric's phone (played by Luke Mitchell). This sets her up to be either jealous or instinctive, which plays into the drama once everyone lands in the cave; an undercurrent of suspect and deception with everyone involved. Problem is, we've seen this all done before, and done with more wit and carnage in Neil Marshall's aforementioned cult hit.

The human turmoil, as familiar as it is, comes close to the cusp of working, but it shortchanges you without any commitment. There is no resolution to the late revelation, people die and other don't. Even the false-ending doesn't offer any satisfying conclusion. But, who are we kidding? No one rents a movie (or goes to the theater, if your country is so lucky) like this and expects to be invested in anyone who's not a semiaquatic monster.

Much of the film is spent in a large cavern, which suddenly floods and caves in (like all movie caves do) and introduces the main star, Mr. Crocodile. We don't get very many clear shots, only brief flashes of his teeth and head poking up from the water. I'm guessing its low budget keeps the special-effect shots down to a minimum, so we're left with the suggestion of the crocodile beneath the still water. This is more of a detriment than a benefit, as the small amount of suspense developed from what you don't see is ruined by the cartoony CGI shots that you do see. What a waste of the computers who generated this imagery. We came here for cheap thrills and bloody kills, but "Black Water: Abyss" is just cheap, without many thrills, blood, or kills.