Boom. Crack. Crunch. That’s the nature of Trigger Warning, starring an in-form Jessica Alba as an active-duty Special Forces commando, Parker, who comes to her hometown after her father’s demise. Alba performs throat-slashing, bone-crunching stunts in some supremely well-executed action sequences. In one scene, after saving her male friend, Spider (Tone Bell), she quips, “Sup! Damsel in distress.” There is a lot to like in this action thriller, even though it occasionally suffers from some convenient writing and perhaps has a protagonist who’s almost invincible.

Director: Mouly Surya

Cast: Jessica Alba, Anthony Michael Hall, Mark Webber, Jake Weary, Gabriel Basso

Streamer: Netflix

We first see Alba’s character, Parker, as she is in mid-combat, trying to take down terrorists. Parker, who has an espionage background, suspects that there might be foul play around her father’s death. The truth about it unravels around all the mayhem. The violence is not all about the gun. In an impactful stunt scene, after her rifle is knocked down, she coolly grabs a knife and stabs him in the heart. Soon enough, we understand where she got the knife from, and why there’s some poetic justice being dispensed as she wields it to threaten intruders, slash tyres, and more. For the first half hour, the film maintains an aura of suspense about the protagonist’s personality and motives, but once the cat gets out of the bag, the rest of the film, even if with enterprising stunt scenes, turns into a routine revenge thriller.

Once perpetrators get identified around the halfway mark, it’s just a matter of scores being settled. It’s here that the convenient writing proves to be a bit of a dampener. We learn early on that Spider is good at cyber-hacking, but later, how this skill comes in handy isn’t exactly a great moment. A bigger issue perhaps is how Parker is invincible. Even when unarmed and handcuffed, no enemy can truly dominate her. This means that when she does slide out of tough spots, it’s not exactly a surprise.

All said, Trigger Warning does have quite a bit going for it. The writing, for instance, ensures that Parker isn’t just fighting a personal battle. Her resistance is also for the greater good of the country, resonating with her values as a soldier. So, even if it’s a film with flaws, Jessica Alba’s stunt dynamism is eye-catching. If you are considering checking this film out, just remember that it’s about a protagonist that shoots first and asks questions later. 

We need to talk about the critic reviews for The Acolyte. Critics and audiences have been at war for years.

Audiences usually accuse critics of being either out of touch or biased because they tend to downplay the quality of popular movies and shows. On the other hand, critics have a reputation for assigning ridiculously high scores to content audiences could not care less about.

I usually defend the critics even though I rarely agree with their opinions because audiences have a ridiculously warped perception where this topic is concerned. First of all, audience and critic scores are not quite as divergent as online conversations suggest.

Check Rotten Tomatoes. You might be surprised to learn that most shows and films have similar audience and critic ratings. Generally speaking, audiences and critics like the same things. Those significant differences people obsess over only emerge in rare instances.

Unfortunately, those are the cases audiences highlight because they concern highly publicized films and shows. But even if those differences were more common than the evidence suggests, you can’t accuse critics of being ‘out of touch with the public’ because they are not paid to be ‘in touch’ with anyone.

Are some critics biased? Definitely, but they are the minority. That said, the divide between critic and audience scores for The Acolyte is astounding. Right now, the show has a critic rating of 85 percent and an audience score of 14 percent on Rotten Tomatoes. Naturally, some people blame the abysmal audience score on review bombing.

That term refers to a situation where large groups of people assign a negative score to a movie or show without watching it because they want to make a point. You can’t dismiss the review bombing allegations because a rabid section of the Star Wars fanbase continues to express its desire to destroy The Acolyte’s reputation online because of the social and political messages it peddles.

But even if you eliminated the trolls, the show’s audience score would most likely peak at 30 percent. In that regard, I would expect the critic rating to settle in the 60s, showing that critics are not blind to The Acolyte’s weaknesses, but they also appreciate subtle strengths such as the acting and production values.

An 85 percent rating is pure madness. It says that critics absolutely love a productthat audiences completely despise, and that does not make sense. You expect to see that sort of discrepancy with artsy indie projects that critics typically swoon over, not big-budget shows that are explicitly designed to appeal to mainstream audiences.

Before you argue that Rotten Tomatoes does not accurately reflect the critical response to this show, no one cared about The Acolyte. In fact, viewers initially rejected the show because of the lackluster trailers.

Remember Episode 3 from a week ago? Diehard Star Wars fans nearly rioted because it supposedly broke Star Wars canon by hinting at Mae and Osha’s immaculate conception. Casual fans like me don’t care about Star Wars canon. We thought the episode was boring.

And critics? They had early access to the episode and praised it as one of the most mind- blowing 35 minutes of Star Wars they had ever seen. Clearly, something is amiss. It is almost like audiences and critics are watching two different shows. I can’t help but wonder whether the online conspiracies are correct and Hollywood critics are only impressed by The Acolyte because of the diverse cast.

If you argued that the presence of minority characters (black female leads, Asian Jedi, lesbian witches, etc) was actively swaying their opinions, I would have a difficult time disputing your claim.

I agree that art is subjective and some viewers have genuinely enjoyed The Acolyte thus far; however, the drastic difference in audience and critic scores shows that Disney (and Lucasfilm) took a wrong turn somewhere.

katmic200@gmail.com

An intriguing romantic relationship but also a series of issues in Ben and Suzanne: A Reunion in Four Parts

Shot in Sri Lanka, “Ben and Suzanne” is a film that unfolds on a number of levels, from a tour guide to the country to the exploration of a rather complicated relationship. It is Shaun Seneviratze’s feature debut and it was shot mostly with local non-actors.

Ben Santhanaraj travels to Sri Lanka in order to reunite with Suzanne Hopper, who works for a local NGO, after a long separation. However, although his plans were to see the country and have a good time with her, she is stuck with work, which comes up at any given time. As time passes, their relationship is being tested by both the fact and a number of other episodes, while the ego and individuality of both seems to place another set of burdens.

Allow me to start with the negative. There are two archetypes of Western people living in Asian countries, or even simply staying for a bit. The one is the ‘savior’ who probably works for a Western NGO and tries to help, considering their effort life-altering for the locals, in a most of the time rather big misconception. The second is the ‘tourist’ who just wants to have a good time inside the usual bubble tourists experience, retaining as many of the tendencies they keep in their country of living, frequently complaining about everything. These two rather annoying archetypes do not represent everyone of course, but are quite prevalent, and they are also exactly the personas of the two protagonists. Suzanne is the ‘savior’ and Ben is the ‘tourist’.

Expectedly, and considering they both consider their wants as above everything, they soon find themselves clashing, with each one, but particularly Ben actually flaunting the aforementioned to each other, in probably one of most entertaining and realistic aspects of the narrative. At the same time, though, and in a yet another annoying aspect of the movie, there is no indication why those two ever got together. They seem to have nothing in common, or ever had for that matter, maybe except from the fact that he likes to make her laugh by clowning and she is quite susceptible to it. Whether that is enough for a relationship does not sound like a question with a positive answer.

The above essentially makes the whole approach of the movie somewhat naive, particularly because it also includes an outsider’s epidermal view of the country, especially when one compares it with a similar film we watched recently, “Paradise” by Prasanna Vithanage, or any other local films for that matter.

There are, however, a number of things that do work for the film. For starters, the chemistry of the two protagonists is impressive, with Anastasia Olowin as Suzanne and Sathya Sridharan as Ben presenting the fact that they have known each other for some time and that they both have changed quite eloquently. Their rapport is quite entertaining to watch, particularly in the erotic scenes and the moments they have fun with each other. Their fights could have been handled a bit better, but overall, this aspect is one of the best of the movie.

Check also this video

The same applies to the cinematography, with the 1:1 ratio giving a very appealing retro essence to the movie, and the overall capturing of the country by Molly Scotti is occasionally impressive to watch, despite the focus on realism. Joe Violette’s editing could have been a bit better in the succession of the scenes, but the overall pace is definitely fitting.

“Ben and Suzanne” has its merits, and the relationship in its center is appealing to watch. However, it frequently feels as a film that was supposed to be shot in the US, just found itself in Sri Lanka without being able to realize the difference or what to do with the fact.