No.276 : Willed to Kill (2012)

Willed to Kill at the IMDb

Let’s up the ante now with this TV movie from 2013 - you get great pickings on the Sony Movie Channel!

Canada doubles for Boston in this 2013 whoisit thriller starring Sarah Jane Morris and a load of other folk you haven’t heard of but maybe vaguely recognise from other low rent offerings.

Sarah Jane is ‘Karyn’ and unfeasibly attractive homicide detective with more baggage than the carousel at Glasgow airport. Her Dad was a serial killer and that makes her really focused on catching serial killers. Can’t beat that for motivation. We open with her blowing one away in the midst of his manikin dinner party - she might have waited for the After Eights to be served. This his her third kill and technically makes her a serial killer. Her boss, who is a terrible actor, tells her to calm down, she’s got 24 hours, no place for mavericks on his force - the full cliché bargain bucket.

Karyn is concerned that two recent murders bear the hallmarks of ’The Hades Killer’ a mass murdered who claimed nine kills in six months before disappearing. Her own father was a suspect but he was too busy killing other folk, so it wan’t him.

Karyn is labelled ‘Dirty Harriet’ by her colleagues and her slimy partner who also used to be her fiancé. She’s made to take psych sessions as a result of all her killing but the Hades bodies keep racking up - as does the list of suspects.

She runs down some leads and fights off a slime ball reporter as well as the meddling FBI. Soon we’re up to six suspects - basically the entire cast.

Who can it be? The second on my list!

This was a workable police procedural with a bog standard serial killer case worked though using the tried and tested clichés of the genre - keep him on the phone while we run a trace!

They did well to have multiple plausible suspects, with my top tip of the butch woman in the parking lot proving to be a red herring. The film’s ‘TV movie’ origins we made clear with low production values and a really tame sex scene that was over before it started and with those sticky sheets that keeps everything out of view.

The lead reminded me of that woman out of ‘Criminal Minds’ and she did well with a character arc that was all over the place - she basically ran around shooting or arresting everyone she encountered.

The subplot with the ex-boyfriend partner didn’t convince, even when he said his new girlfriend was pregnant and we get a sad music cue - still a chance!

The killer, who we usually saw in shadow, was poorly developed with his killing technique being shooting people in the head - Buffalo Bill this was not.

To be fair to the film it kept me guessing - guessing how the implausible plot and thin characters made it off the script and into production!

This was a decent afternoon filler with a glamorous lead, sex free sex scenes and a plot you could drive several buses through.

W Rating 15/23 Best Bit : Rooftop dance

No.275 : Wij (2018)

Wij at the IMDb

In our never ending search for ‘W’ films we head to Holland now . If anyone thinks this shouldn’t count, the title translates as ‘We’ - so that’s a bilingual title; but does twice the title equate to twice the fun?

I wouldn’t say the film was ‘fun’ but it was interesting and engaging and, despite lots of nudity, I was able to enjoy it.

The film is told in four parts with the events of one Summer replayed through the eyes of four different characters. We open with court proceedings and then jump into the first of the four chapters ‘Simon’. We meet the 8 main characters who are a mixed sex group of teenagers on the Dutch/Belgian border. All chapters open on ‘June 10’ and we see various events in an almost random order. Key events are portrayed differently in each, but it’s more ‘Rashoporn’ than ‘Rashomon. That’s not to say it’s all about titillation, more about young free spirits who start to get out of control.

The gang take a bike ride and after flashing some motorists they take over an abandoned caravan. Things seem quite idyllic at first but the party game of ‘can you guess what’s being shoved inside you’ gives a small clue that isn’t isn’t going to be ‘Swallows and Amazons’. Well swallows maybe…

We see that the leader of the crew, Thomas, is a psycho from the start, when he grabs a dog out being walked from his moped and drags it up the street. We also see that the gang have no shortage of money and despite Thomas being from a well off family it’s not initially clear where the cash comes from.

The uninhibited troupe soon start to up the ante with full blown motorway flashing resulting in a tragedy which they are largely dismissive of. We also learn early on that one of the girls dies in questionable circumstances and we have to guess who was responsible and whether anyone will face justice. As we enter Thomas’ segment things come to a head - prostitution, abortions and home made porn all show up - it was never like this at BB camp. As the missing pieces of the puzzle fall into place we wonder if anything can mitigate the horrible events and whether just desserts will be served to the right person.

I liked this film despite its incessantly dark tone and nihilist vibe. The cast do well with a script that demands everything from them and engages them in some pretty sordid acts. Thomas was best with his thin moustache and psychotic behaviour. The jury was out on most of the gang but events towards the end, shown from his warped perspective and reality, show that he was indeed the one to watch. The film closes with some ambiguity regarding his motivations but nothing can justify the dog.

The film wasn’t that full on in respect of nudity and sex, apart from one hardcore scene where they wore masks - I’d bet some porn stars were drafted in for that. Despite that concession the rest full engaged in some brutal abuse that was hard to watch.

‘Lost youth and innocence’ are well worn tropes and there wasn’t an explanation why everyone went along with the nefarious plans. True, there were some challenges but I guess Stockholm Syndrome and the allure of easy money are pretty strong motivations to the weak willed.

The editing was good with just enough information drip fed so that you stayed engaged and invested.

Overall a good but disconcerting watch.

Best Bit : When they were all still young and innocent! 17/23

No.274 : Winchester (2018)

Winchester at the IMDb

Helen Mirren is always good value for fully immersing herself in a part and for doing what is necessary to show that she is free spirited and invested in the role. She doesn’t often let the lads go home empty handed, so to speak, This isn’t one of those films however, and I doubt she has ever been more buttoned up in her illustrious career.

She plays the title character, Sarah Winchester, who wears mourning clothes throughout this film which is set at the beginning of the 20th century. I was familiar with the premise of the story from my ‘Big Book of Weirdos’, but it’s fair to say that the writer of this effort took a few liberties with the plot and characters, hence the ‘Inspired by actual events’ title card.

The film is Australian but set in San Jose, California. I thought it was all sets and models but I see from the IMDb page that some scenes were filmed in the actual Winchester house which is now a tourist attraction. Most of the cast are Aussies however and the locations look a lot more Oz than L.A.

The real Sarah Winchester inherited the Winchester firearms fortune on the death of her husband. Her child died soon after and, feeling cursed, she set about trying to appease the spirits of those killed by her company’s products, whom she blames for her misfortunes. Rather than get in a good exorcist she chose to expand her home to allow the ghosts somewhere to stay. To keep them happy the building work continues around the clock and did so for more than 30 years before her death.

I can accept that this in itself may not be that an exciting film so the writer has chosen to imagine a lot of stuff including zombies and possession.

The story unfolds through the eyes of  Dr Eric Price, a boozed up psychiatrist who has grief issues of his own. The board at the Winchester Company are worried about the mad widow spending all their cash and hire Eric to check her out and to see if they can get her ruled incompetent. Owing to large debts Price agrees but we get the sense that despite the boozing he has retained his integrity and he won’t just rubber stamp her ticket to the Nut House, as the board require.

Price is at first sceptical, but over the course of a few days he sees things that start to challenge his pre-conceived notions. Is the house truly haunted or is he suffering the effects of coming off the booze and drugs? Sarah starts off a bit standoffish with him but after a few experiences involving her possessed nephew, some common ground is found.

Can the possessed boy Henry be saved? - get rid of those milky contact lenses for a start! - and will Sarah be removed from her sprawling home and the company’s board? Will Eric find his own redemption or is he destined to haunt some old house himself?

I quite liked this film but it was, like the house, a bit of a mess with too much stuff tacked on and other bits going nowhere. It was good that they used the original house and the bits they recreated were well realised with stairs going nowhere and doors opening onto sheer drops. The sense that work was always ongoing was well done, although there was a lot of pointless hammering and painting onto bits that had already been completed - that’s tradesmen for you I guess!

Jason Clarke as Eric was good - you’ll recognise him as John Connor from ‘Terminator : Genysis’ - or maybe not; I can’t remember it either! His dishevelled haunted drunk act was decent but he was undone by lots of cheap scares as a zombie faces poked out every time he looked through a window or keyhole. Mirren looked like she was going thorough the motions, dealing with a script that was mostly complete bollocks. They left any pretence of dealing with a woman with mental health issues to having it a full on haunted house with bogey men in every room.

I guess they’d call it a re-imagining of the story but it’s a disservice to a troubled widow to have the cast of ‘The Walking Dead’ wandering through the house at all hours. There is an element of ‘is she mad?’ Is Eric mad? Is everyone mental, especially those who stick it out to the end?

Given a true life story was used here it seemed a bit off to have such extreme elements added - why not just do an original story without making a real one seem ridiculous? It was passable entertainment with nice sets and decent straight faced performances, but overall you came out knowing less about the story, with the facts lost amid a lot of supernatural gubbins and jump scares.

Best Bit : Room full of loaded rifles? Bound to end well.
W Rating 13/23

No.273 : War Machine (2017)

War Machine at the IMDb

If you pump ‘War Machine’ into Google Images the first hits are all for the Iron Man War Machine armour. This isn’t that. And that’s a pity as it would doubtlessly be more fun than this Brad Pitt vehicle. The film isn’t bad as such, just a bit preachy and it doesn’t really go anywhere.

Pitt plays fictitious general Glen McMahon who has been put in charge of the long running Afghan war. Not being too well schooled on the subject I thought this was a bio-pic but it looks like they made a guy up so the real guy couldn’t object.  Given they had gone to the effort to create a character it’s strange they went with one who didn’t do much or have much of a personality, apart from swearing and twitching a lot.

We meet Glen as he takes office and we are introduced to his local inner circle of troops and specialists. He thinks the war in Afghanistan can be won despite the many obstacles in his path not least political indifference and a not fit for purpose U.N. mandate.

Things start out positively but soon grind to a halt when President Obama avoids Glen’s bids for ‘face time’ and the troops of other nations are less keen to get on board. To mix things up Glen leaks his own report of how things could be done better and agrees to be shadowed by a reporter from ‘Rolling Stone’ who wants to profile him.

Glens plan to get more troops in the field to win the war gets a lukewarm reaction and he has to head to Europe to secure more support from his allies there. Can the war be won or will Glen’s dreams of victory and his own place in history be scuppered by some loose lips and Tilda Swinton doing a dodgy German accent?

This was a decent effort but it really wasn’t worth the two hours that I invested in it. Pitt is adequate but his heavy accent is distracting and it wanders all over the film. His character’s motivations aren’t clear and although he is portrayed as good man with the well being of his troops at his heart he also comes across as rash and gung ho.

Obama, who is only seen fleetingly, and Washington lackey Alan Ruck are seen as nay saying liberals but at the end of the day they are shown to be correct with Glen showing serious a lack of judgement on several fronts. If this was a bio-pic it could be forgiven for showing reality, but as it was in part a work of fiction you‘d have thought they would have made the character more defined.

They did juxtapose Glen’s political manoeuvring with scenes of the troops of the ground facing the hazards of dealing with an insurgent force. I wasn’t convinced by the troops’ gun drills or tactics and for the most part they looked liked actors playing dress up, which they were. The pivotal action that saw some dead civilians was decently done but with too much hand wringing at the end.

I guess part of the character they were showing was that whilst having strong convictions Glen didn’t have the strength to see them through. His dreams of being on the cover of ‘Rolling Stone’ betrayed his vanity and became his eventual undoing. As it was, Tilda’s character profile was correct and Glen was left on the lecture circuit with his work turned over to Russell Crowe to complete, or at least drag out a bit further.

On the whole was unsatisfying and uneven - basically he came, he saw, and that’s about it.

THE Tag Line - War Machine - What is it good for? About 6/10. 14/23



.

No.272 : What Keeps You Alive (2018)

What Keeps You Alive

Canadian survival drama next, as we join a couple of married ladies on their weekend away at a remote family house. You can tell from that poster that things won’t go to plan; but who’s the danger?

The couple, Jackie and Julie, have been married a year and seem very happy although they do keep their bras on when having a cuddle! We learn snippets about their lives such as Jackie is a diabetic and needs regular insulin jabs. I knew that morsel of information would be important later.

The house was built by Jackie’s uncle who had also taught her to hunt. She recalls a time when she shot a bear and she was made to eat it over the course of several days - the attitude being that you only kill what keeps you alive - That’s the name of the film!

The girls meet up with the neighbour from across the lake who knew Jackie from years back, but she knew her as ‘Megan’. We also learn that a friend ‘Jenny’ had died in unspecified circumstances. This causes Julie to question what she knows about Jackie and starts to dig deeper into her past. Huge mistake - as Jackie throws her off a cliff in what was a surprising twist. Jackie goes home to rehearse what she’ll say to the police but when she returns to the body it has gone - Julie is alive and a danger to Jackie’s insurance scam plans.

The two stalk each other through the woods and we learn that Jackie is a grade A wack job who has had a series of wives and partners who have come a cropper. Has she underestimated Julie though? Maybe, as the injured Julie is rubbish at rowing and gets taken back to the house by Jackie with a pre-planned dinner date with the neighbours all that’s keeping her alive.

The dinner party goes terribly for all concerned with the body count soon amounting to everyone in the cast. The rest of the film twist turns like a corkscrew as each lady gets the upper hand before relinquishing it - who, if anyone, will survive? And is falling from 150 feet onto rocks really that survivable?

I liked this film despite some initial misgivings. It was set up as a mystery thriller but soon became a full on battle with some cracking bone crunching injuries and logic defying twists.

The direction was well done with some inventive angles used to convey the action; with surprises flashing in from out of frame before you get a chance to say 'for fuc…'

The two leads were great with psycho Jackie well played by Amy Adams look-alike, Hannah Emily Anderson. I liked her search for Julie as she changed from concerned to resting bitch face in a heartbeat. Brittany Allen was good too, as the put upon Julie, and despite some daft character decisions she pulled off the ‘oh no my wife is mental’ role well.

The last 20 minutes was a bit of a stretch of credibility with chances to end the whole drama being lost. ‘You know what? I’ll leave the tranquillised body there - actually I’ll drive back and have a look. What she’s gone…?!’

The only others in the cast, apart from a flashback young Julie, were the neighbours Sarah and Daniel. They were thinly drawn with Daniel a drunk (he was always drinking!) and Sarah a bit of a screamer and rightly so!

The film kept up a fair pace and although we saw that cliff top a few times too many, there was enough going on to keep me interested. A bit of tighter scripting towards the end would have helped, with the final twist well telegraphed from the start. 

Still good stuff and worth your time.

W Rating 18/23  Best Bit : Going Down!