Connect with us

Movie Reviews

‘Shelby Oaks’ Review: Neon’s Hodgepodge Horror Lets Chris Stuckmann Take His First Stab at Haunting

Published

on

‘Shelby Oaks’ Review: Neon’s Hodgepodge Horror Lets Chris Stuckmann Take His First Stab at Haunting

Whether you want a job done right, or just done right now, do it yourself. That’s the fearless edict uniting first-time feature filmmaker Chris Stuckmann and his headstrong final girl Mia (Camille Sullivan) in the winding mystery of “Shelby Oaks.” 

An ambitious horror exploration born of the found footage format, which honors genre but rarely attempts to subvert it, this spooky procedural unearths a new kind of cold case for Neon — this one, fittingly acquired on the heels of the viral “Longlegs,” still running away with the box office now in its second week. When four internet ghosthunters known as the Paranormal Paranoids find trouble in an abandoned town, three turn up dead and the last (Sarah Durn) is never discovered. 

'TWISTERS,' from left: Glen Powell, Daisy Edgar-Jones, 2024. ph: Melinda Sue Gordon /© Universal Pictures /Courtesy Everett Collection

Who took Riley Brennan?” graffiti across the surrounding Ohio area wants to know 12 years later. It’s very Derry and just one of many warm details that make Stuckmann’s universe, smartly but subtly shaped by EP Mike Flanagan, feel closer to a Stephen King joint than a “Paranormal Activity” successor. 

The police and public might be useless here, but Mia won’t give up. She doesn’t know if she believes in ghosts; what she does know is that her sister isn’t a liar. A true crime documentary picks up where the grainy footage recovered from the victims’ camera leaves off — examining the dead investigation through the eyes of a dogged loved one operating outside of a broken system. Something similar could be said of Stuckmann who, as a history-making champion of the Kickstarter campaign (his scrappy feature raised more than $1.3 million online), pulled off a small miracle getting his movie made this way. He’s a YouTube talent himself, known for complex video criticism and a deep love of genre. Using a story by him and his wife Samantha Elizabeth, Stuckmann makes his impressive but imperfect debut backed by a built-in fanbase already appreciative of his film philosophy.

Killers aren’t always afforded the opportunity to explain themselves, and after a movie review goes live, directors even less so. Stuckmann has made a poetic career out of appreciating the magic of production, graciously and methodically considering how a totality of factors impact what ends up on screen. Through his impassioned YouTube channel, which was founded in the very internet hey-day the “Shelby Oaks” opening recalls, Stuckmann has spent years bravely beating back cinematic shit-posting. Instead, he’s repeatedly emphasized his love of all things The Movies — rarely if ever lobbing “bad” criticism at anyone — and his mosaic-like feature reflects that affection back ten-fold. To critique his film then, it seems important and fair to say upfront that its existence is a good thing. As plainly put as a review this early can be (most audiences won’t see “Shelby Oaks” until sometime next year): Chris Stuckmann can indeed make a movie and, all things created equal, he should probably make more movies. That’s even truer if he’s able to keep his admirably pure production pipeline protected from business-minded studios.

Now, the hard part. 

Advertisement

As aggravating in its logic gaps as it is frustrating with its stop-and-go propulsion, this confused debut effort knows what it wants to be (a dryer, more cynical “Lake Mungo” maybe?) — but it isn’t that. There’s tremendous promise in the first twenty minutes, which in a bit of meta commentary has Stuckmann writing dialogue for news anchors who quietly mock viral creators and question whether Riley’s disappearance was somehow still just a hoax. (Shout out, lonelygirl15, long may she vlog!) And yet, much like a first-time marathon runner, the writer/director gets off to a stronger start than he can maintain. After a jaw-dropping opening, a collapse in the tension arrives mid-way through the second act — somewhere between Mia and her husband’s (Brendan Sexton III) second or third fight about vigilante justice and the baby they’re not having — and the suspense never recovers. 

Cops are rarely the answer to, well, anything, but it would do wonders to have absolutely anyone helping Mia get her investigation under control. Alone for most of the movie, Sullivan isn’t given nearly enough scene partners (blink and you’ll miss Keith David) and Mia wastes tons of screentime silently spinning her wheels. “Shelby Oaks” is the kind of movie that will show you montage after montage of old photographs, dream journals, and library documents — allegedly poured over by Mia for more than a decade — and then seriously ask you to join in her surprise when she inexplicably starts to piece together the facts she already had in evidence. 

The scares face diminishing returns too as Mia’s decision-making betrays her as an inconsistent, if not outright dimwitted, hero. Running through nightmarish scenes ranging in genre reference from hixploitaiton to gothic romance, the stunning surroundings photographed by cinematographer Andrew Scott Baird almost cover up for Mia’s baffling lack of intellectual direction. But what real person, pray tell, has their sister go missing for more than a complete Chinese zodiac cycle, only to spur of the moment visit a derelict prison… with an almost dead flashlight… in the middle of the night? The scene is pretty, but she seems like a moron.

It’s those obvious loose ends that allow “Shelby Oaks” to devolve into an unmotivated pursuit of an unremarkable character. The fault doesn’t lie with Sullivan (she does what she can!), but as Mia’s behavior makes less and less sense, her sister’s story grows equally confused. Pops of comedy suggest a self-awareness to some of the script (yes, at least one character will acknowledge that saying the name “Paranormal Paranoids” is orally atrocious) and yet there aren’t enough jokes throughout to classify it as a horror comedy. Toss in some well-intentioned but ill-conceived “Hereditary” inspiration that’s nothing if not gravely serious and for-the-love-of-funniness stops working as a believable excuse.  

That said, it bears repeating, Stuckmann should make movies. “Shelby Oaks” was obviously written by a critic, one with a near-legendary knowledge of the pop culture archives, and it’s directed with a palpable confidence that could lead to better things. Doubling-back to that marathon metaphor, Stuckmann finishes his race only somewhat worse for wear. He manages a beautiful final shot that, no matter what comes before it, is fun as hell and hints at what we’ll no doubt someday learn this freshman filmmaker does best. Easily the smartest journalist-turned-producer working in horror today, Stuckmann is going to be even better when he leaves “Shelby Oaks.”  

Advertisement

Grade: B-

A Neon release, “Shelby Oaks” debuted at Fantasia Fest 2024. It’s expected in theaters next year.

Movie Reviews

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man review – Tommy Shelby returns for muddy, bloody big-screen showdown

Published

on

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man review – Tommy Shelby returns for muddy, bloody big-screen showdown

After six TV series from 2013 to 2022, which caused a worrying surge in flat cap-wearing among well-to-do men in country pubs, Peaky Blinders is now getting a hefty standalone feature film, a muscular picture swamped in mud and blood. This is the movie version of Steven Knight’s global small-screen hit, based on the real-life gangs that swaggered through Birmingham from Victorian times until well into the 20th century. Cillian Murphy returns with his uniquely unsettling, almost sightless stare as Tommy Shelby, family chieftain of a Romani-traveller gang, a man who has converted his trauma in the trenches of the first world war into a ruthless determination to survive and rule.

As we join the story some years after the curtain last came down, it is 1940, Britain’s darkest hour and Tommy is the crime-lion in winter. He now lives in a huge, remote mansion, far from the Birmingham crime scene he did so much to create, alone except for his henchman Johnny Dogs, played by Packy Lee. Evidently wearied and sickened by it all, Tommy is haunted by his ghosts and demons: memories of his late brother, Arthur, and dead daughter, Ruby, and working on what will be his definitive autobiography. (Sadly, we don’t get any scenes of Tommy having lunch with a drawling London publisher or agent.)

But a charismatic and beautiful woman, played by Rebecca Ferguson, brings Tommy news of what we already know: his malign idiot son Erasmus Shelby, played by Barry Keoghan, is now running the Peaky Blinders, a new gen-Z-style group of flatcappers raiding government armouries for guns that should really belong to the military. And if that wasn’t disloyal and unpatriotic enough, Erasmus has accepted a secret offer from a sinister Nazi fifth-columnist called Beckett, played by Tim Roth, to help distribute counterfeit currency which will destroy the economy and make Blighty easier to invade. Doesn’t Erasmus know what Adolf Hitler is going to do to his own Romani people? (To be fair to Erasmus, a lot of the poshest and most well-connected people in the land didn’t either.)

Clearly, Tommy is going to have to come down there and sort this mess out. And we get a very ripe scene in which soft-spoken Tommy turns up in the pub full of raucous idiots who cheek him. “Who the faaaaaack is ‘Tommy Shelby’?” sneers one lairy squaddie, who gets horribly schooled on that very subject.

Advertisement

In this movie, Tommy Shelby is against the Nazis, and he can’t get to be more of a good guy than that. (Tommy has evidently put behind him memories of Winston Churchill from the first two series, when Churchill was dead set on clamping down on the Peaky Blinders.) The war and the Nazis are a big theme for a big-screen treatment and screenwriter Knight and director Tom Harper put it across with some gusto as a kind of homefront war film, helped by their effortlessly watchable lead. Maybe you have to be fully invested in the TV show to really like it, although this canonisation of Tommy is a sentimental treatment of what we actually know of crime gangs in the second world war. Nevertheless, it is a resoundingly confident drama.

Peaky Blinders: The Immortal Man is in out on 6 March in the UK and US, and on Netflix from 20 March.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: Here comes “THE BRIDE!”, audacious and wild – Rue Morgue

Published

on

Movie Review: Here comes “THE BRIDE!”, audacious and wild – Rue Morgue

That’s both a promise and a challenge she delivers, since what follows may rub some viewers the wrong way. Yet Gyllenhaal’s full-throttle commitment to her vision is compelling in and of itself, and she has marshalled an absolutely smashing-looking and -sounding production. The story proper begins in 1936 Chicago, which, like everything and everyplace else in the movie, has been luminously shot by cinematographer Lawrence Sher and sumptuously conjured by production designer Karen Murphy. Her involvement is appropriate given that her previous credits include Bradley Cooper’s A STAR IS BORN and Baz Luhrmann’s ELVIS, since among other things, THE BRIDE! is a nostalgic musical. Its Frankenstein (Christian Bale), who has taken the name of his maker, is obsessed with big-screen tuners, and imagines himself in elaborate song-and-dance numbers. (Considering the reception to JOKER: FOLIE À DEUX, one must applaud the daring of Warner Bros. for greenlighting another expensive film in which a tormented protagonist has that kind of fantasy life.)

THE BRIDE! may be revisionist on many levels, but its characterization of its “monster” holds true to past screen incarnations from Karloff’s to Elordi’s: His scarred appearance masks a lonely soul who desires companionship. Frankenstein has arrived in Chicago to seek out Dr. Cornelia Euphronious (Annette Bening), correctly believing she has the scientific know-how to create an appropriate mate for him. Rather than piece one together, Dr. Euphronious resurrects the corpse of Ida (Jessie Buckley), whose consorting with underworld types led to her brutal death. Previously chafing against the man’s world she inhabited in life, she becomes even more defiant and unruly as a revenant, apparently possessed by the spirit of Shelley herself, declaiming in free-associative sentences and quoting rebellious literature.

Buckley, currently an Oscar favorite for her very different literary-inspired role in HAMNET, tears into the role of the Bride (who now goes by the name Penny) with invigorating abandon that bursts off the screen. Unsure of her identity yet overflowing with self-confident bravado, she’s the opposite of the sensitive “Frank,” but they’re united by the world that stands against them. That becomes literal when a violent incident sends them on the lam, road-tripping to New York City and beyond, on a trail inspired by the films of Ronnie Reed (Jake Gyllenhaal), Frank’s favorite song-and-dance-man star.

With THE BRIDE!, Gyllenhaal has made a film that’s at once her very own and a feverish homage to all sorts of cinema past and present. It’s a horror story, a lovers-on-the-run movie, a crime thriller, a musical and more, and historical fealty be damned if it makes for a good scene (as when Penny and Frank sneak into a 3D movie over a decade before such features became popular). In-references are everywhere: It might just be a coincidence that the couple’s travels take them past Fredonia, NY (cf. “Freedonia” in the Marx Brothers’ DUCK SOUP), but it’s certainly no accident that the former Ida is targeted by a crime boss named Lupino, referencing the actress and pioneering filmmaker whose works included noirs and women’s-issues stories. Penny’s exploits lead legions of admiring women to adopt her look and anarchic attitude, echoing the first JOKER (while a headline calls them “Twisted Sisters”), and the use of one Irving Berlin song in a Frankensteinian context immediately recalls a classic comedic take on the property.

Whether the audience should be put in mind of a spoof at a key point in a film with different goals is another matter. At times like these, Gyllenhaal’s pastiche ambitions overtake emotional investment in the story. As strong as the two lead performances are (Bale is quite moving, conveying a great deal of soul from behind his extensive prosthetics), it’s easier to feel for them in individual scenes than during the entire course of the just-over-two-hour running time. The diversions can be entertaining, to be sure, but they also result in an uncertainty of tone. The dissonance continues straight through to the end, where the filmmaker’s choice of closing-credits song once again suggests we’re not supposed to take all this too seriously.

Advertisement

There’s nonetheless much to admire and enjoy about THE BRIDE!, and this kind of risk-taking by a major studio is always to be encouraged (especially considering that we’ll see how long that lasts at Warner Bros. once Paramount takes it over). Beyond the terrific work by the aforementioned actors, there’s fine support from Peter Sarsgaard and Penelope Cruz as detectives on Penny and Frank’s heels, with Sandy Powell’s lavish costumes and Hildur Guðnadóttir’s rich, varied score vital to fashioning this fully imagined world. Kudos also to makeup and prosthetics designer Nadia Stacey and to Chris Gallaher and Scott Stoddard, who did those honors on Frank, for their visceral, evocative work. Uneven as it may be, THE BRIDE! is also as alive! as any film you’ll likely see this year.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Maxime Giroux – ‘In Cold Light’ movie review

Published

on

Maxime Giroux – ‘In Cold Light’ movie review

Maxime Giroux – ‘In Cold Light’

Advertisement

The action is relentless in the complex thriller In Cold Light, a tense combination of crime and fugitive tale and family drama. It is the third feature and first English language film by Maxime Giroux, best known for a very different kind of film, the critically acclaimed 2014 drama Felix & Meira.

The tension and high energy of In Cold Light almost overwhelm the film, but are relieved, barely, by moments of character development and introspection that keep the audience pulling for the restrained and outwardly cold main character. 

Speaking at the film’s Canadian premiere, director Giroux admitted he found creating an action film a challenge. Part of his approach was using very minimal dialogue, especially for the central character, letting the action speak for itself, and allowing silence to intensify suspense. Giroux has said he likes the lack of dialogue and speaks highly of the importance of silence in cinema; he prefers using “physical aspects of communication” in his films. 

Young Ava Bly (Maika Monroe) is a competent and businesslike drug dealer, working in partnership with her brother Tom (Jesse Irving) and a small team. As the film begins, Ava has just been released from a brief prison sentence. She is hoping to return to her former position, but her brother’s associates consider her a risk due to her recent incarceration. While she works to re-establish herself, a shocking encounter with a corrupt police officer sends Ava’s life into chaos and forces her to go on the run.

Ava’s fugitive experience introduces a new character, to whom Ava turns for help: her father, Will Bly, played by Troy Kotsur, known for his excellent performance in CODA. Their first interaction is handled in a fascinating way, as Will is deaf and the two communicate through sign language. This, of course, provides another form of the silent interaction the director prefers; he explained that much of the father-daughter interaction was rewritten with the actor in mind. Their conflict is nicely expressed through a scene in which their initial conversation is intermittently cut off by a faulty light which goes out periodically, making communication through sign momentarily impossible, nicely expressing the rift between father and daughter. 

Advertisement

As Ava continues to evade danger, her escape becomes complicated by new information, placing her in a painful dilemma. We gradually learn more about Ava, her background, and her character through occasional flashbacks and glimpses of her dreams. The plot becomes more complex and more poignant, and gains features of a mystery as well as an action tale, as she is pressed to choose from among equally unacceptable alternatives.

The climax of her efforts to protect both herself and those close to her comes to a head as she meets with the director of a rival drug gang. Veteran actress Helen Hunt is perfect in the minor but significant role of Claire, the rival drug lord, who plays odd mind games with Ava in an intriguing psychological fencing match. It’s an unusual scene, in which Ava’s personality is made clearer, and Claire’s understated dominance and casual speech do not quite conceal the threat she represents. 

The frantic pace and emotional turmoil are enhanced by the camera work, which tends to focus tightly on Ava, and by a harsh, minimal musical score that sets the tone without distracting from the action. Giroux chose to shoot the film in Super 60; he describes digital as “too perfect” for the look he was going for, and since “Ava is rough,” the film portrays her better. The director describes the entire movie as “rough,” in fact, and deliberately chose a dark, washed-out look for much of the footage, occasionally using light and colour, in the form of fireworks, lightning, or a colourful carnival, to both relieve and emphasise the darkness. 

The dynamic, intense story holds the attention in spite of the lengthy, sometimes repetitive chase scenes and subdued dialogue. Ava’s predicament, and the difficult decisions she is forced to make, are made surprisingly relatable, from the initial disaster that starts the action to the surprising flash-forward that concludes the film, on as high a note as the situation could allow. Fans of action movies will definitely enjoy this one.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending