Connect with us

Movie Reviews

‘History of Evil’ review: Powerful horror movie is an enjoyable and uncomfortable watch

Published

on

‘History of Evil’ review: Powerful horror movie is an enjoyable and uncomfortable watch

History of Evil is a haunted house story with an added layer of hate. In 2045 America has become a theocratic police state. A main figure of The Resistance named Alegre Dyer (Jackie Cruz, Orange is the New Black) has broken out of political prison and reunited with her husband Ron (Paul Wesley, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds) and daughter Daria (Murphee Bloom). The rundown house they have hidden away harbors a dark past that begins to eat away at Ron.

The initial moments paint a dystopian picture that is eerily close to coming into focus in the real worl. Terms like “un-American” are casually thrown around, radio broadcasts attack anyone who thinks differently, and though it is never explicitly stated, the state police seemed to be called the J6, a possible reference to a very real travesty. This immediately gives History of Evil an oppressive atmosphere that never goes away. The now North American Federation is a hostile society run by a misguided sense of nationalism and religion.

Writer-director Bo Mirhosseni was inspired by his parent’s who were activists during the Iranian Revolution and human rights is a major part of his film. In an interesting twist, the bleak setting serves as a backdrop to what is can be described as a straightforward horror movie. Which is not to say that History of Evil downplays its deeper message. Instead, it is a story of all kinds of terror – real and supernatural.

Advertisement

The tension Mirohesseni creates in the early moments due to political turmoil morphs over the course of the plot. The group are on the run and are always in danger from their pursuers, but their internal struggles ensure the audience never has a chance to breathe easy. The past is as much of an enemy as the J6. Mixed in with some excellent jump scares and tried and trued horror tropes, and History of Evil is a enjoyably difficult watch.

History of Evil comes to Shudder February 23

Join the AIPT Patreon

Want to take our relationship to the next level? Become a patron today to gain access to exclusive perks, such as:

Advertisement

  • ❌ Remove all ads on the website
  • 💬 Join our Discord community, where we chat about the latest news and releases from everything we cover on AIPT
  • 📗 Access to our monthly book club
  • 📦 Get a physical trade paperback shipped to you every month
  • 💥 And more!

Sign up today

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: In '28 Years Later,' a zombie pandemic rages on

Published

on

Movie Review: In '28 Years Later,' a zombie pandemic rages on

Most movies are lucky to predict one thing. Danny Boyle’s 2002 dystopian thriller “28 Days Later” managed to be on the cutting edge of two trends, albeit rather disparate ones: global pandemic and fleet-footed zombies.

Add in Cillian Murphy, who had his breakout role in that film, and “28 Days Later” was unusually prognostic. While many of us were following the beginnings of the Afghanistan War and “American Idol,” Boyle and screenwriter Alex Garland were probing the the fragile fabric of society, and the potentially very quick way, indeed, horror might come our way.

Boyle always maintained that his undead — a far speedier variety of the slow-stepping monsters of George A. Romero’s “The Night of Living Dad” — weren’t zombies, at all, but were simply the infected. In that film, and its 2007 sequel “28 Weeks Later” (which Juan Carlos Fresnadillo helmed), the filmmakers have followed the fallout of the so-called rage virus, which emptied London in the first film and brought soon-dashed hopes of the virus’ eradication in the second movie.

Like the virus, the “28 Days Later” franchise has proven tough to beat back. In the new “28 Years Later,” Boyle and Garland return to their apocalyptic pandemic with the benefit of now having lived through one. But recent history plays a surprisingly minor role in this far-from-typical, willfully shambolic, intensely scattershot part three.

The usual trend of franchises is to progressively add gloss and scale. But where other franchises might have gone global, “28 Years Later” has remained in the U.K., now a quarantine region where the infected roam free and survivors — or at least the ones we follow — cluster on an island off the northeast of Britain, connected to mainland by only a stone causeway that dips below the water at high tide.

Advertisement

Boyle and cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle, who innovatively employed digital video in “28 Days Later,” have also turned to iPhones to shoot the majority of the film. Boyle, the “Slumdog Millionaire,” “Trainspotting” filmmaker, is an especially frenetic director to begin with, but “28 Years Later” is frequently gratingly disjointed.

It’s a visual approach that, taken with the story’s tonal extremes, makes “28 Years Later” an often bumpy ride. But even when Boyle’s film struggles to put the pieces together, there’s an admirable resistance to being anything like a cardboard cutout summer movie.

The recent event that hovers over “28 Years Later” is less the COVID-19 pandemic than Brexit. With the virus quarantined on Britain, the country has been severed from the European continent. On the secluded Holy Island, 12-year-old Spike (Alfie Williams, a newcomer with some sweetness and pluck) lives with his hunter father, Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), and bedridden mother, Isla (Jodie Comer).

The scene, with makeshift watchtowers and bows and arrows for weapons, is almost medieval. Jamie, too, feels almost like a knight eager to induct his son into the village’s ways of survival. On Spike’s first trip out off the island, his father — nauseatingly jocular — helps him kill his first infected. Back inside the village walls, Jamie celebrates their near scrapes and exaggerates his son’s coolness under pressure. Other developments cause Spike to question the macho world he’s being raised in.

“They’re all lyin’, mum,” he says to his mother.

Advertisement

After hearing of a far-off, supposedly deranged doctor whose constant fires mystify the townspeople, Spike resolves to take his mother to him in hopes of healing her unknown illness. Their encounters along the way are colorful. Ralph Fiennes plays the doctor, orange-colored when they encounter him; Edvin Ryding plays a Swedish NATO soldier whose patrol boat crashed offshore. Meanwhile, Comer is almost comically delusional, frequently calling her son “Daddy.”

And the infected? One development here is that, while some remain Olympic-worthy sprinters, other slothful ones nicknamed “Slow-Lows” crawl around on the ground, rummaging for worms.

Buried in here are some tender reflections on mortality and misguided exceptionalism, and even the hint of those ideas make “28 Years Later” a more thoughtful movie than you’re likely to find at the multiplex this time of year. This is an unusually soulful coming-of-age movie considering the number of spinal cords that get ripped right of bodies.

It’s enough to make you admire the stubborn persistence of Boyle in these films, which he’s already extending. The already-shot “28 Days Later: The Bone Temple” is coming next near, from director Nia DaCosta, while Boyle hopes “28 Years Later” is the start of trilogy. Infection and rage, it turns out, are just too well suited to our times to stop now.

“28 Years Later,” a Sony Pictures release, is rated R by the Motion Picture Association for strong bloody violence, grisly images, graphic nudity, language and brief sexuality. Running time: 115 minutes. Two stars out of four.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Dragonfly’ Review: Andrea Riseborough and Brenda Blethyn Dazzle in a Bleak British Shocker

Published

on

‘Dragonfly’ Review: Andrea Riseborough and Brenda Blethyn Dazzle in a Bleak British Shocker

It’s always risky to mix genres, but some movies pull off the trick with more skill than others. Dragonfly, which had its world premiere this week in Tribeca, starts as an intimate character drama, with two Oscar-nominated British actresses — Brenda Blethyn and Andrea Riseborough — at the top of their game. (They were given a joint acting award by one of the juries at the festival.) Paul Andrew Williams’ movie unfolds at a fairly leisurely but rewarding pace until an event occurs that unhinges one of the characters and turns the movie closer to the horror genre, with a blood-splattered finale. Reactions will surely be mixed about this surprise tonal shift, but there is no doubt that the film sticks in the memory.

Blethyn plays Elsie, an elderly woman living in a drab housing complex and tended to by caregivers who do the bare minimum to meet her needs. Her next door neighbor Colleen (Riseborough) senses that Elsie may require extra help and tries to intercede, offering to do shopping and cleaning. Elsie’s son John (Jason Watkins) makes occasional appearances and seems suspicious of Colleen, but he clearly does not want to take on much of a caretaking role himself.

Dragonfly

The Bottom Line

A bloody good two-hander.

Advertisement

Venue: Tribeca Film Festival (International Narrative Competition)
Cast: Andrea Riseborough, Brenda Blethyn, Jason Watkins
Director-Screenwriter: Paul Andrew Williams

1 hour 38 minutes

The friendship between the two neighbors makes us uncomfortable from the start, and the presence of Colleen’s large, menacing dog does not calm our fears. When Elsie gives Colleen money to do some extra shopping for her, we can sense that Colleen may have motives beyond pure altruism in looking after her neighbor.

The first part of the movie, sketching in the friendship, is paced a tad too slowly, but we are aware that the situation is unstable and the two actresses help to keep us riveted. Blethyn earns our sympathy without begging for it, and Riseborough is always commanding. Her surprise Oscar nomination for To Leslie a couple of years ago, aside from being the result of savvy campaigning, was confirmation of the skill that she has demonstrated over the last decade. (Her outstanding performance in a recent Masterpiece Theatre production, Alice & Jack, in which she costarred with Domhnall Gleeson, also was evidence of her vigor and versatility.)

Advertisement

The script for Dragonfly could have provided a bit more background for Colleen. We can understand that Williams didn’t want to construct a labored psychiatric case study, but he might have sketched in more of her history to prepare us for the shift that takes place in the final third of the movie. That includes a couple of gotcha shock moments that had the Tribeca audience literally gasping and screaming.

Is this tonal swerve a little gimmicky? Probably, and the film will not be to everyone’s taste. But it is a skillfully rendered exercise in terror. Williams has studied a couple of Hitchcock movies, and he has absorbed sly lessons from the master.

This is a slight film, but the jolts do stay with you, and the two stars offer a humanity that many horror movies lack. Some smart distributor should snap it up.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

'Pavements' review: Far more than just a music documentary

Published

on

'Pavements' review: Far more than just a music documentary

Pavements – Alex Ross Perry

I’ll start with a disclaimer: before I had settled into my cinema seat at the press screening of Pavements, Alex Ross Perry’s unorthodox new documentary about Pavement, I’d never really listened to their music. Of course, I’d heard a few songs, I’d heard the band name, but I’d never delved deeper. These things often fall into a trap. Who are music documentaries for? Only for the fans? The whole point of Pavements was to avoid that, so I was sent in as a test. 

“For Pavements, I was always trying to not think about the fans because that’s your worst audience,” Alex Ross Perry told Interview. With this new and admittedly odd movie about Pavement, he was doing everything possible not to make a classic fan-focused music documentary because, as a music fan himself, he was sick of it.

Advertisement

“So few bands want to do anything different now. It’s become so flat and uninteresting. Now it’s all about making a valuable piece of marketing,” he complained, not wanting to chain himself to that narrative. It’s something he’s been trying to avoid doing for a while now. As he’s also been working on a Metallica movie for some time, he’s been thinking this one thought a lot: “I want to make a good movie that grapples with a lot of this and isn’t fan service”.

So given that Pavements is purposefully not fan service, I felt fine to go in blind, to see what I’d learn and simply to find if it holds up as a film for someone outside of the band’s world. In short? It does.

Pavements is odd, really odd. It feels like a music documentary made by Nathan Fielder, as I know that if I had access to my phone, I would have quickly been googling, “Is Pavements real?”, “Was Joe Keery scripted in Pavements?”, “Was the Pavement musical real?” 

Because it’s a wild web and you’re never quite sure what’s real or not. Not only does the movie tick the box of giving a good and thorough overview of Pavement, letting me leave the cinema now knowing a lot about the band, aware of a general timeline of their career, and with an insight into key moments and an understanding of the players, but it’s so much more than that. It feels like a movie, more so than a documentary, so I’ll call it that. The movie centres on these three points, all happening at the same moment; Alex Ross Perry is creating Slanted! Enchanted! A Pavement Jukebox Musical, he’s also cast actors who are preparing for their roles in Range Life, a classic biopic of the band, and Pavement, the actual band, are preparing for their actual reunion tour.

It’s a lot, but it’s brilliant. The moments focused on Range Life are genuinely laugh out loud funny, especially the bits showing Joe Keery’s melodramatic journey to becoming Stephen Malkmus, taking the piss out of method actors. There’s a nod towards Austin Butler’s obsessive Elvis transformation as Keery sits stoicly with an accent coach discussing his desire to get a photo of Malkmus’ tongue and later freaking out when he cant stop doing the slurring Stockton, California accent. It’s moments like these that make Pavements a worthwhile movie, totally independent of the band, because it makes it something way bigger. 

Advertisement

Obviously, this is a film about Pavement, and it does hinge on real-life footage of the group and always comes back to an investigation into them and their success. But it’s more than that. In fact, I’d say it is a movie about music documentaries as a whole. It’s about music movies, or the way bands’ becomings are mythologised into somewhat of a fictional account, when their art is taken and twisted in that way. That is especially shown in two of the film’s most interesting moments. 

The first is merely a gag. At one point, it breaks apart, pauses to show the ‘For Your Consideration’ banner of the movie as a joke about how the Oscars eat music biopics up, layering these fake clips of the fake film with melodramatic piano music as a piss-take of the genre.

The second is a more nuanced critique. After recounting the moment the band were pelted with mud and rocks during a 1995 Lollapalooza show, the screen splits in two. What the audience hears is the scene in Range Life where the band returns to their dressing room and falls into a dramatic depression, once again with some sad music on top as they launch into a heavy conversation about splitting up. But on the other side of the screen, you can see the real-life band joking around. It’s moments like that where Perry shows his focus, and it’s less on the band and more on making things interesting. 

“The stories you hear, you know they never add up”: These are the words that appear onscreen at the start of the movie, pulled from the band’s track ‘Frontwards’. As someone who didn’t know the band and so didn’t know the song, that lyric merely became a kind of warning-slash-mission statement for the film. It’s as if Perry is using it to comment on the entire genre of music films, or the entire history of how bands are treated, the way their stories naturally become twisted, dramatised and fictionalised to a degree, over time. 

From what I learn from the actual clips of Pavement in the movie, the overwhelming characteristic of the band is just sheer normality. They were a group of utterly normal people just wanting to make music, but found themselves at the centre of a storm of obsession that would never just settle for that. By building such a baffling and interesting nest around them here, bringing in the phoney movie and the wild musical, Perry allows the group to be the most normal part of it. This allows their actual story to be told purely because the entertainment and the drama are elsewhere. Not only is it somewhat genius, it’s also just a lot of fun—even if you’re not a fan.

Advertisement

Related Topics

Continue Reading

Trending