Shatter (1975) odd mixture of hitman action with Kung Fu, a strange co production of hammer house of horror and shaw brothers ,filmed in Hong kong
Saw this one while flipping through the catalogue on the Shudder streaming service and decided to give it a shot because of my fondness for the two lead actors. Hirsch gave what remains one of my all-time favorite performances in Sean Penn’s criminally underrated Into the Wild and Matichak is someone whose star should be rising astronomically after appearing in David Gordon Greene’s two Halloween films.
Son tells the tale of a single mother named Laura (Matichak) who is raising her now eight year old son David (wonderfully played by Luke David Blumm), who we see her give birth to in the film’s opening minutes while being on the run by some mysterious men. In the present day, everything seems to be going well for the mother and son. He stays with a kind neighbor everyday after school while Laura takes night classes after finishing her day as an elementary school teacher. It’s not until she hears some strange noises one night and finds a group of people standing over her sleeping son. The door slams shut on its own and she rushes outside desperate for help, enlisting her kindly neighbor babysitter to call the police. Back inside, the menacing people have all vanished, leaving David seemingly unharmed. When the police arrive, we are tread to the typical good cop, bad cop routine, with Emile Hirsch’s Paul naturally playing the part of the good cop, choosing to buy into what Laura is telling him, despite not having found any evidence of forced entry or any forensic clues inside that would point to the presence of intruders.
What follows is a film that takes its inspiration from any number of well-regarded horror films. There are shades of Rosemary’s Baby and Byzantium here as well as some of that same slow burn quality that Ti West’s The House of the Devil and The Innkeepers did especially well when the common thing for horror, or any genre really, these days is to throw everything in the viewer’s face at once rather than letting them telling the story in a more natural pace where the viewer can make their own discoveries, which is thankfully the way Ivan Kavanagh allows this film to unfold.
After the initial siege on her home, Laura finds the next day while speaking to Paul in her home that David has fallen deathly ill, having come into the room while they are talking and proceeding to vomit up a large amount of blood. In the hospital, the doctors are stumped. Initially thinking that his illness is some form of bacterial meningitis, they say that every test they’ve run, for practically every potential ailment known to mankind, has come back negative, and that she should prepare for the worst.
What follows is a gut-wrenching trip through hell in which Laura must decide to what lengths she is willing to go in order to save her son, all while being confronted by her past that she had largely forgotten but is now violently confronting her in the present thanks to the situation surrounding her son’s illness. She is faced with many moral dilemmas along the way, which present Matichak with every chance to shine, and she seizes on those beautifully.
Director Ivan Kaganagh does a brilliant job with this film in telling the story while keeping the viewer very much in the dark about whether or not what we see Laura experiencing is actually happening or if it is a figment of her imagination thanks to the trauma she faced in her childhood. There are times that you will be absolutely convinced that she’s fully present and what she says is happening truly is happening to her and there will be other moments in which you’ll swear the opposite is true, but these things never get in the way of the story that is being told. They are woven together quite well, falling in between moments of absolute gruesomeness that help to provide this film with its horror bona fides.
These types of smaller horror fare are often dependent on the ability of the leads to carry the film, and Son is no exception. Thankfully, Matichak is completely up to the task. You believe her pain, her trauma, and the conflicting emotions she’s forced to face as she deals with the situations that she’s been forced into through absolutely no fault of her own. I’ve said it before around here, but I’ll say it again, which is that I’m rather dumbfounded that Andi Matichak isn’t a massive star at this point. She is everything that you could possibly want in a young actress and it’s a shame that she isn’t getting more opportunities in larger films. At the very least, off of the back of this film and the Halloween films, she should be able to carve out a spot as this era’s premiere scream queen.
It should also be noted that Luke David Blumm, who portrays her son David, is exceptional in this film. His role is a complex one that makes many demands of the young actor, and he’s game for all of it. It’s a surprisingly physical role for a child part, evoking at times memories of Linda Blair’s turn in The Exorcist. He is another one to watch in the years to come. Hirsch, on the other hand, spends most of his time in the background, but his appearances play very important parts in the story as we learn piece by piece what is happening to Laura and her son. At first one might suspect that they’ve overcast the role of Paul by getting someone like Hirsch, as it doesn’t appear as though that role would require an actor of his caliber to pull off, but by the end, it makes complete sense why he’s there elevating this character beyond what it seems to be on the page.
Son is a terrific little horror film that satisfies pretty much every want that someone could have for a film in the genre. There’s a bit here for the fans of the gore, there’s plenty here for those that are more into the psychological aspects of the genre, and then everything else between the two. This is definitely one to check out if you are a fan of the genre, especially the smaller, more independent fare.
2 Likes
Croupier, a 1998 film starring Clive Owen. It’s very good, so why have I never heard of it? Hubby spotted it in our Hollywood Suites cable lineup. Owen plays an aspiring writer who returns to working as a croupier, then weaves his experiences into a novel he’s writing. The line between his real life and what he constructs in his novel gets very blurred. It seems fitting that Bella, another croupier, greets him with “Welcome to the cesspit!”
2 Likes
That was the movie that made the yellow press scream CLIVE OWEN IS THE NEW BOND, mainly because he wore a tuxedo in that.
2 Likes
Well, a tux does not a Bond make. However, his character was quite cold and detached throughout the film, so I can see it. On the other hand, he was so relentlessly dispassionate that I found it hard to care about what happened to him. Or anyone else, for that matter. I’m not sure what Marion saw in him, unless it was some idealized “author” vision she had in her mind. He must have really turned on the charm for her to fall for him. But charm was in short supply, from what I could see.
3 Likes
Being a Brit wearing a nice suit is enough to get that from tabloids.
4 Likes
Or even just a bow tie!
3 Likes
Vanguard (2020) can’t believe that Jackie Chan is 66 now and still doing his own stunts
It was the TV show Chancer that brought him tabloid attention for Bond first, but he always seemed a little cold and needy as an actor
1 Like
For Your Eyes Only
I’m doing a Bond marathon with my 11 year old son. He really loves them all and keeps saying each new one is his new favourite! 
8 Likes
His appearance on Curb your enthusiasm last season would underline that.
Must watch it.
1 Like
Not a movie,but a new channel 5 mini series ( if we still use that term) here In the British isles, called TEACHER.
Starring Sheridan Smith as a slightly alcoholic and promiscuous school teacher,who is accused of sleeping with one of her underage pupils,which she can’t actually remember,due to being paraletic!
1917
Or: Sam Mendes experiments with one movie, one continuous shot.
I love movies with elaborate long, unedited sequences.
Those give a wonderful sense of time and place and let you forget for a few moments that movies are constructed from many pieces.
But as with drone shots with their absolute smooth views flying everywhere you want, those continuous takes are no longer just a sign of perfect teamwork and craft. They are seamlessly edited together with CGI, just creating the illusion of what used to be conveyed by meticulous planning and execution.
1917 was excruciatingly boring for me since it became clear very soon that the (fake) continuous shot-idea did not invite me into the proceedings but only to watch and admire from an emotional distance. Which turned into not admiring.
Mendes knew that sticking with one character and one camera would make it impossible to vary lenses and shot sizes. Therefore he lets the camera follow, go ahead, accompany and go around the characters, zooming in, moving in, out - which results in one master shot which usually would be used to edit in close ups and medium shots. But the constant search for other angles while tracking the characters makes the strategy so painfully obvious that it constantly drew my attention to it, instead of making me forget it. The same applies to the casting of major stars in supporting roles. Just when I tried to get lost in the story - whoops, here is Colin Firth, then Benedict Cumberbatch and so on.
Mendes is a good director, Deakins a fantastic director of photography - but this experiment should have been abandoned after initial test shots.
3 Likes
The Owners (2020)
OK, British home invasion / horror film, starring Sylvester McCoy (from Dr Who) and Rita Tushingham (Dr Zhivago) whose house is set upon by young thugs. Amusing and interesting first 45 minutes, and then it gets a bit silly.
Dr Who fans will get a kick out of watching McCoy as a slightly different kind of doctor.
LAST NIGHT IN SOHO
Edgar Wright is absolutely top notch in telling a story visually. He always fantastically matches his images with carefully selected pop songs. He regularly casts just the right actors.
But narratively I am always having the same experience. The first hour of his movies I am captivated and splendidly entertained. And then… I get the feeling that the story was either not thought out with the same inventiveness as it started - or that it runs out of steam because it wasn´t holding up beyond that first hour.
Same applies here. The last fifty minutes become repetitive, and the denouement is, well, not so surprising. He twists and turns the story, of course, so it keeps me from tuning out, but I get the feeling that the narrative machinery is hard at work. Too hard.
So, not a bad movie in any sense. But not as good as it started. Or as it should have been.
Summary
In the end, it mixes up Ellie’s trauma with her mothers´ suicide with her own ambitions and Sandy’s dark flip side of those ambitions and forces a happy ending out of it. With just a little hint of “be careful, you still can end up like me”, but having Ellie embrace that dual side. However, what about all the dirty old men? They become poor victims who haunt the room? What starts out as an indictment of the victimization of women in late 60´s white male-dominated society gets turned into a “the victim becomes the psycho killer”-pastiche, abandoning the edge of its earlier conviction. I would have preferred Wright to move forward with this, having Ellie turn tables on men in her time. Strangely, there is only one major male character in her life (not counting the red herring Terrence Stamp) who is very nice and supportive. Where are all the white males now that still terrorize women like Ellie?
3 Likes
Annihilation (2018)
OK, psychedelic sci-fi starring Natalie Portman. Quite strange and has its moments.
An homage to Apocalypse Now.
1 Like
I really enjoyed Annihilation. It kept me guessing and on edge for almost its entire running time. And that bear sequence is some exquisite horror,
4 Likes
Just watched ‘Junior Bonner’ for the first time in a long while. So good. Peckinpah’s use of sit screens and freeze frames add a fascinating dimension to this movie about ageing, pride, dreamers and pragmatists.
Beautiful performances all round, McQueen is particularly brilliant, along with Ida Lupino.
Watched it with the kids and was struck by how much Robert Preston’s character reminded me of my Granddad. Regaling at the bar, womaniser, gambler force of nature.
Loved it
3 Likes
Ghostbusters: Afterlife
A great cast, wonderfully directed (the boy who played “Podcast” really has perfect comic timing), edited and shot - with a surprisingly good working rural setting, and a heartwarming finale.
But.
The story is just not coming together for me. The exposition was still not over after one hour. And as you pointed out, dalton, the showdown felt rushed but, IMO, also underconceived. As if Jason Reitman was more interested in the family dynamic of the teenagers and just had to slap on the ending of part one.
Summary
And the cameos - well… nice to see the original actors again. But only for about the last 10 minutes? If you have a two hour film establishing these really great young performers, put the old ones in the first hour maybe, but then let the young ones remain the only heroes to save the day. For me, it completely destroyed the balance. Because at that point I was ready to stick to the new cast… and then the nostalgia hit me and even in those few minutes the oldies stole the show.
In the end, that’s what probably made me feel lukewarm about this whole thing. “Ghostbusters” will always remain the original trio in NYC. Supernatural occurrings in a cynical place, commented on by legendary comedians - that’s what worked in part one so well. Part two will always be a typical 80´s sequel: more of the same, less inspired, basically a worse remake. Then Feig made the mistake of building the appeal of his film simply on the gender reversal - and despite the film working very well for me, it was an on the nose change that made as much sense as making James Bond suddenly Jane Bond.
Now this new one was definitely conceived by SONY as “Stranger Things” meets “Ghostbusters”, and that works, but only if the original narrative beats are NOT repeated. Too little confidence in the basic idea of a new young cast, ironically, makes this film sink under the weight of the original.
Watching “Ghostbusters:Afterlife” (and the equally constructed “Terminator: Dark Fate”, which also should have left out the original actors - because once they appear one quickly wants only them, instead of giving the new cast a chance to fresh up the formula), I also wondered: which films made in the last 10 years will be remade or get sequels in 20, 30 years?
Where are original concepts like “Ghostbusters” or “Terminator” (before they got milked and exposed as basically one or two films-worthy)?
The ideas of yesterday have been drained completely. And new concepts don’t get financed. So where does that leave us?
1 Like