Movie Appraisal: Moon (2009)

Moon, directed by Duncan Jones, is a film I've wanted to see for a good long while. And now that I have seen it, I must admit that it's been worth the long wait. I don't know how much I consider this a horror film, even if it does have elements of horror, including gore, tension, claustrophobia, and ultimately death. I think I could put it into that genre of space horror, so often maligned and so often incredible. I can see it in the same genre as smart space movies like Sunshine, and maybe that is where it aptly should sit forever as an idol to what space movies can and have achieved.

Again, I'm not sure how horrific this movie is or how well it would fit in a horror review month, but I think that enough elements are there that if somebody complains I can defend myself by saying, "Look, idiot, this is my review month. I thought this was tense and creepy at times. It could be pretty scary if you look at it the right way. So, deal with it, fool."

This, ultimately, is a movie about love, loss, drama, tension, clones, capitalism, the horror of losing oneself and one's mind, and psychology. There is radiation sickness, seeing what you used to be laid bare, seeing lies and knowing you're powerless, and the moon, always the moon, featured.

M-O-O-N that spells Moon, a movie about a man working on a space station on the far side of the moon, mining helium-3 and mainly being there to oversee the big machines that mine it. He is alone for three long years and starts losing it little by little. Then one day, when he is only two weeks from leaving the moon base, he gets into an accident and wakes up with no memory of what happened. Kind of.

You see, this is where the early twist comes into play. The man who wakes up is not the Sam Bell we started the movie with, but rather a clone, woken up because the other one was "lost." This new clone feels that something's wrong and goes to find what's up only to find the earlier Sam still crashed in the lunar vehicle. He saves him, brings him back, and they learn from each other and figure out a plan to do something memorable.

I don't want to say much more about the plot. It's incredible and worth the watch, even absolutely worth the watch. If there's a single film about space you should watch in your life, it should be this one, absolutely this one, even over 2001: A Space Odyssey. The movie is poignant at times, showing that love is something beyond the mortal bounds, showing that there is more petty evil that humans are capable of than there are stars in the sky. And yet there is also heroism, caring, and again, that love that so often drives us to do stupid things.

The story is meticulously pointed out and paced, so much so that it is as close to perfect as a story can possibly be. It's very tight at times, but it does what it needs to do to tell the most convincing story possible. This is a memorable film, and one I certainly will never forget. I put it up there with Ink as one of the most affecting standalone movies I can think of. It's a bit of a life-changing movie, but one without the great punch of an ending I really wish it would have.

Sam Rockwell shines in his role as Sam Bell, as does Kevin Spacey as GERTY, the AI companion to Sam that seems to know much more than he tells and is much less malicious than HAL, even though the comparisons are certainly apt. Both actors do a great job in being their characters absolutely. Sam Rockwell plays several clones of his own character. His portrayals of the two main Sams is actually incredible, showing both as physically and mentally very different and yet fundamentally the same.

I really want to mention the subtle love story this movie has in it. I don't usually like love stories all that much, but the tragic ones often hit me rather hard, even though the ones with happy endings rarely do anything to me at all. The tragedy here is palpable, nearly breaking one of the Sams, who had waited for three years to go back and be with the woman he loves. The love between Sam and  Tess is absolutely wonderful... but also tragic in every way possible. Again, another comparison to Ink, but one I'd rather not go into very much depth with since its a spoiler for both movies.

Maybe this movie hit me so hard because of its themes of isolation, of psychological torment brought on by loneliness, and by the main character truly loving and missing his partner in love. To me those moments worked so well to bring about some kind of emotion, to evoke a response in me. I like bringing personal input into these reviews, telling why this stuff affected me, why I personally love it or hate it so much. I know a ton of people expect bare bones facts, telling about what the movie is and interpreting it and saying exactly what's going on, and telling EVERYTHING FACTUALLY. Because that's important for some reason.

The thing is, I'm not like that. I meander and go off on other topics. And I don't like people telling me how to write or how to review. This movie, Moon, affects me personally, in a personal way. And maybe that's why I like this movie so much and why I can view it as psychologically horrific. You see, I'm engaged to a woman who lives 200 miles away from me, working a job that leaves me nearly completely alone for ten-twelve hours six days a week. I spend a lot of time by myself. And I spend a lot of time missing the person I love so much it numbs me. So, this movie hits me hard because it's so easy to see how Sam feels, and it's so easy to respond in kind.

I bring all this review stuff up here because I can't stand it. I hate when people expect me to give them answers to movies that are ART that don't necessarily have a singular answer to them. Especially these more psychologically minded movies. Lately I've even gotten people being rude to me, demanding answers to movies, or screaming the answers at me saying I didn't get it. The worst is when people demand I keep personal feelings to myself when reviewing citing it being unprofessional or wrong or just me specific.

Yes, that's the idea, numbnuts. I am personally reviewing and analyzing these movies for me. What I liked and what I didn't like. Seriously, there are many blogs out there to read, many reviewing similar things to what I review. Go ahead and check them out if you don't like the way I review. To me this is fun, watching great or crappy or mediocre movies and just writing about them, talking about them, and having people read them. It's relaxing to watch a movie or read a book or play a video game and then talk about it. It's nice. I like interpreting, but more than that I want to talk about how something hit me about the fiction. Did I like it? Why? Did I hate it? Why?

So, I liked Moon so much because of its story, characters, and setting, certainly. But I loved it so much because it affected me in a more personal way, like Ink or 1408 or other movies that I view as much deeper and more personally affected me than just a movie.

I'm somewhat sorry to get into this in this review, but it's a great movie and I guarantee someone would say something about how this isn't a good review because I should be focusing on the movie, not my feelings on the movie. But that's so dumb. Yes, the movie is about the moon, good old Luna in the sky, but its also about a person, a personality, love, loss, and realization, horrific and disheartening realization. I think this is one of those movies I'll rewatch every once in a while. It's way too good to not watch.

Obviously I recommend this movie. If you haven't seen it already, go find it immediately and watch it.

Movie Appraisal: The Dead Zone (1983)

The ICE... is gonna BREAK!

A "horror thriller film," eh? This is where I'm supposed to roll my eyes and wonder how people put movies into genres in the first place. Calling a movie a horror thriller is like calling it a thrilling suspense. It's absolutely redundant. The "horror thriller" line is from Wikipedia. Just ignore that website when it comes to most of these movies. It's a terrible website to get information from in the case of 90% of the stuff I review.

Anyway, this is a "horror" movie by absolute technicality. The director, David Cronenburg, does an absolutely fantastic job of capturing the horror of a terrible curse... or a wonderful gift... whichever you'd like to take it as. It's not precisely a horror film in the classic sense. It's never scary, never terrifying, never really all that horrific. The terror comes from what Johnny sees, and what he goes through in the course of the story. The original novel, also billed as horror, is much of the same way. There is no true horror. The realism is always there, but it is realism with a twist of the supernatural. This film is also a great adaptation of the novel, something I rarely have the chance to say.

The Dead Zone is mostly a collection of vignettes told in a rough story arc. Johnny Smith, played by Christopher Walken, gets into an accident, loses five years of his life to a coma, loses the love of his life, and loses most of his reason for living. He keeps pushing on, but as half a man, one lose to time as much as he is lost to life itself. The story very much pushes the fact that he really dies when he gets into the accident. Sure, five years later he goes on living, but it is no longer him, but a man given a gift, who is eventually told to give his life for the gift anyway.

This movie is not as fun as Graveyard Shift instead relying on serious performances rather than over-the-top ones, and sad moments rather than great lines. I don't know if this is the best adaptation of a Stephen King novel to screen, but it is damn well one of the best. The serious tone mixed with great performances by almost everybody in the film brings this movie to the forefront as a brilliant one from beginning to end. That being said, it's not precisely a horror film in execution, but rather a horror film by premise... if that makes any sense. It probably doesn't. My point is that this won't keep you up nights afraid... but it will make you wonder what you might do if you were given the "gift."

David Cronenburg is at the height of his game here. Coming in the midst of some of his greatest films of all time, and directly after Videodrome, this movie, while a more more "normal" film, does exactly what it needs to do, being both a fantastic and beautiful film as well as a depressing story of a man with a terrible gift. The little stories, all taken from the novel, are incredibly well done and well paced, with the beginning of the movie being nearly heartbreaking. Christopher Walken's performance is easily the best performance I've ever seen by him, and easily one of the most emotionally investing performances I've seen in a long time. Watching the struggle of a man trying to heal his shattered body, then trying to heal his shattered mind is both upsetting and heart-wrenching  Watching as he decides to give up his own life to the greater good is damn near hard to watch. This is a man who could do a lot of good for the world, and he does, but nobody will ever know but him.

Strangely, despite being both a huge fan of David Cronenburg and of Stephen King movie adaptations, I have never seen this movie, although I have owned it for years without watching it. I should have watched it long before now. It was a wonderful experience, and while not precisely the classic horror movie, it really does bring about a melancholic feel to me in late October, a feeling I kind of like this time of year. The Dead Zone, strangely, was one of the last non-recent Stephen King novels I read as well. Not sure why I waited so long for either, but I'm glad I finally read/watched the story unfold. It was really worth it to experience.

I don't have much else but praise for the movie. Sean Sullivan plays the perfect father to Walken's Johnny. I saw that exact man when I read the novel originally, and I felt he was perfectly cast to the role. Walken, although not precisely what I expected for Johnny, worked well here. I had kind of expected a younger man to play the role, but by the end, he really worked for me. He worked especially well after the accident. You really start to feel for him. He is a broken man, and a man who you could easily feel pity for... and so much remorse as well. He's nearly dead... maybe even should be dead, but he isn't. He keeps on living through the pain, through the problems, through losing the love of his life. He loses almost everything but keeps carrying on until he has no choice anymore but to do what needs to be done. And he is easily the most likable man in history. I was endeared to him in good-bye scene to Sarah after the carnival. He walks her to her door, she asks him inside. It starts to rain. And he says no. "Some things are worth the wait." I can't help but like him after that. And when he finally does get passionate when people might die, it's almost heart-wrenching  There are times you want to punch the people who won't listen to him in their faces. Walken and Johnny are really the centerpieces of the movie and they both pull off their jobs amazingly, with Walken acting brilliantly and Johnny being one of the best characters in a movie I have ever seen.

Saying that... Brooke Adams, playing Sarah Bracknell also worked decently, although I never really saw the chemistry between her and Walken, not as much as I thought I should see. Then again, I've never really liked her character, even if I understand her decision to marry someone else; it's still a cruddy decision for her to make. Martin Sheen plays a role he was basically meant for, a corrupt and overbearing politician, Greg Stillson, who has hopes for the White House... and even more hopes to basically destroy the damned world. He works well here, both sleazy and charismatic enough to pull off this political powerhouse of a man.

While some of the scenes happen fast and others take a long time to get anywhere at all, I do believe the movie is well-paced. I don't think a knowledge of the novel itself is needed when seeing the movie either, although in my case I definitely appreciated the background the novel provided. I do somewhat wish the movie had been slightly more fleshed out, with a little bit more added into it, maybe a little bit more establishing or something, but that is a very weak complaint, and really only says that I only truly wished for more. I guess that's why a television series of The Dead Zone existed.

I guess all I can say is that I just reviewed two excellent Stephen King movies in a row, both of which I recommend heartily despite both being completely different types of movies. While this is serious and more thrilling and suspenseful than horrific, it does have its moments. It's a good watch and probably one of the absolute best quality movies I've reviewed this October at least. Give it a watch if you haven't. It's definitely worth your time.

Movie Appraisal: The Tall Man (2012)

Bait-and-switch thy name is The Tall Man. So, while I'd rather not spoil this movie, I think I'm going to go and say what this movie is and what this movie isn't. It is an incredibly thoughtful film that works on many different levels, both moralistic levels and philosophical levels. It is a mystery story without any real mystery... I mean, you'll figure out what's going on before it's spelled out, but you have to go along with the ride for a while. It's a really, really good movie. It has some great acting in it, primary from Jessica Biel, who is fast becoming one of my favorite actresses (I also love her performance in The Illusionist.) and Stephen McHattie, who was absolutely wonderful in this movie and another movie I loved called Pontypool. This movie is not a horror film, although it has elements of a horror film. It is not a thriller psychological or otherwise. It is not a film unwatchable in the depths of night. There is no real fear here despite the tagline of the movie being "FEAR TAKES A NEW SHAPE." No it doesn't movie. You are misdirecting and lying to me. If you're going into this thinking, "OH BOY! This is an adaptation of Slender Man!" you are going to be sorely disappointed. It's a classic bait-and-switch. You say it's going to be Slender Man and then change it up so that it's a rather intriguing and screwed up plot.

I can't even go and say much about the film. I wish I could, but it would be such a disservice to the two major twists in the plot. Suffice it to say that the plot here is literally fantastic. It drives a point home... kind of... and the heroes and villains... well, it's hard to tell which is which by the end. There's definitely a gray area there... you know, instead of being a movie with EVIL SLENDER MAN STEALING THE BAY-BAYS. The movie is quite brilliant though. Despite not quite being a horror film, it's certainly billed as such. I was slightly disappointed in the film- the lighting was too bright and everything was really confusing- until I realized it was not the kind of film I had expected. Once I knew it was a different film my expectations changed, and I started to change my tune about the film. I never once thought that this was a bad film though, rather I wanted more thrills but was instead rewarded with thoughts swimming into my head. Not a bad trade truth be told.

The directing here, by Pascal Laugier, is well done and unobtrusive. He allows the actors to do what they do best while doing very few fancy tricks. The well lit scenes betray that this isn't quite a horror movie, but he can be forgiven for that. It isn't a horror movie. As for the actors themselves, Jessica Biel shines so brightly in her part of Julia Dunning. She makes a complicated and complex role have many different facets and work as both character and person, something very few movies seem to be able to do. I felt for her character at times. And her performance stunned me. I cannot say enough good things about Ms. Biel. I hope she continues getting great roles for years to come. Stephen McHattie also shines as the lieutenant investigating the missing children. This guy has such amazing acting chops. He puts almost any other actor to shame. I thought he was great as Grant Mazzy in Pontypool and Hollis Mason in Watchmen, but here is another wonderful performance here. He has an interrogation scene that is almost perfect in its execution. I basically wish he would play every character in every movie ever. He's just absolutely a joy to watch act. I should also mention Jodelle Ferland, who seems to have found a niche in "horror" movies with Silent Hill, The Cabin in the Woods, and now this one. Her acting isn't anything to be blown away with here. She has very few lines despite being one of the most featured members of the cast. But her acting is very competent, and for a young actress- well, I have to believe she's the best of her age group by far.

So, I'm not going to say much more. I really enjoyed this movie and would suggest it to anybody who likes movies in general. While it's not precisely a horror movie, I am going to bill it as such here. It's marketed as one and does have some elements of a horror film, particularly in the earlier parts of the film. It's a movie that also really requires multiple viewings to see the whole picture. I seriously cannot recommend this movie enough. With a great plot and some wonderful acting, makeup (Oh, I didn't say it, but the makeup effects are amazing here.), and messages I think this is easily one of the best films I've seen this year.

Movie Appraisal: A Tale of Two Sisters (장화, 홍련) (2003)

I like how there are times when the poster tells you just about everything you need to know about a movie. Well, this poster certainly does, and that's kind of fantastic.

A Tale of Two Sisters is a Korean psychological horror film (eventually remade into an American horror film called The Uninvited) which tells a modern version of an old folktale called "Janghwa Hongryeon jeon." Honestly though, this movie is a pretty loose adaptation of that story and knowing it won't actually spoil the ending to this movie.

Anyway, as a psychological horror film, I really have to judge this film on everything it offers. I thought it had some great elements in it. The acting was superb. I mean that. Watching the main two females act against one another is a joy to behold even if it is in a language I don't understand. You can feel the tension, the hatred, and the struggle between the two women. You can also tell that all is not right.

The mood of the film struggles between serious, somber, and incredibly realistic at times. You never really know what kind of story the movie is trying to tell, be it a ghost story, a psychological story, or a story of an evil stepmother. That makes it very difficult to interpret this film and even more difficult to look at it with a discerning eye. The movie does offer some pretty heavy psychological horror elements to it and does deserve the title, for whatever that's worth. It is a very good psychological horror movie and is often incredibly effective even if it is somewhat predictable at times.

The scares are not amazing, and I say that after watching it alone in the middle of the night as I usually do with these kinds of films. It had a few decent scares, but nothing that I really fell in love with and wanted to scream bloody murder about. It was a tense film more than anything else, one that feels as if something is very wrong, but you just can't place your finger on it.

I believe that this film has at least... oh, let's say three twists to it, and they vary in how well they're all pulled off. I easily called two of them fairly early on from the way that the film was shot and handled more than anything else. It seemed pretty obvious what was going on if you're paying any kind of attention. I also had no idea what the movie was about or what to expect going into it, so being able to find a predictability to the horror and the story was somewhat disappointing, but I do see a lot of these movies and there are only so many twists a psychological horror movie can pull.

The movie is pretty effective overall though and does happen to have a better story and much better acting than most other horror movies out there. The cinematography is quite well done too, often focusing on nearly silent scenes and characters, making that tension really fly off the charts at times. There are even a few very interesting one scene or even one shot scares that really add to the undeniable creepy elements of the movie. There's one scene that involves Eun-joo (played by Yeom Jeong-ah) checking under the kitchen sink only to find a girl behind her as she moves her head. She never sees this girl though since the camera and Eun-joo pan the other way, the girl is gone. It's a quick element and one that has very little to do with the plot, but it works very well in the movie.

The music, when it shows up, is also very good. It doesn't really fit with the horror movie setting at times, but works in its own twisted and special way. I really liked it and thought that both the music and the long periods of silence (without any musical score at all) really added to the aesthetic of the movie overall.

So, I've talked about a lot of great elements of A Tale of Two Sisters, but did I like it? Yeah. I enjoyed it certainly, but not really as a horror film. To me it wasn't scary. It was way too predictable with the scares easy to see long before they happened. There were some decent horrific scenes, but they fell a little flat for me even thought they were decent. Most of the tension comes from the lead actresses, and although they are often very good at what they do, they are simply not scary at all to me. Again, I've never been scared of skinny, decent-looking women, and I don't think I ever will be. All of that being said, the stepmother of the film is pretty decent at being the antagonist here... well, kind of...

I don't want to spoil anything, so I'm keeping pretty quiet on the plot, but I think the director did a great job at keeping everything both consistent and malleable. There are multiple interpretations to the movie and its ending, and because of that I have a hard time classifying this movie into a specific genre. One thing that I will admit is that I grew lost int he movie's almost labyrinthine ending, to the point where I was pretty sure I had no idea what was going on anymore. I still had a decent handle on it, but I did have to reassure myself as to what the hell was going on. I found it not only very confusing, but also a bit too much information all at once at the very end.

I think the movie is overall very good. The acting and directing are both very solid. The story is very interesting to say the least. The ending and the revelations will have you guessing and wishing for more. It isn't very scary though, but does work very well as a tense psychological or ghost story. In general it works pretty well, and when I stopped watching it I was pretty content with the time I spent watching it. I will say that I like this movie a bit more as a bit of a ghost story, and if I have a way to choose to interpret it, I would have to say that having be at least partially a ghost story works better for me than having it all be psychological... but that's just me. Others may disagree. That's cool too. Anyway, yeah, it's a really good movie, and I really hope to see more like it soon. 

Movie Appraisal: No Way to Treat a Lady (1968)

I saw the stage version of No Way to Treat a Lady a few years ago and fell in love with it. I mean seriously the sense of humor, the story, and the characters were all so fantastically done. The writing was fantastic, and the acting and the singing happened to be pretty good as well. It was easily one of my most enjoyed theatre watching experiences I've ever had. I loved the music (the stage version is a musical by the way, in case you didn't catch it) and the plot. Man, it was intense and funny in all the right parts. Absolutely fantastic.

Well, the movie predates the stage play, which itself is predated by a novel of the same name by William Goldman, better known as the writer of The Princess Bride  novel. Now, William Goldman can certainly write a certain kind of very well done humor, dark and fantastic in all the right ways.

Anyway, No Way to Treat a Lady is essentially a movie about a serial killer and the detective who is trying to find him. Arguably it can be seen as fairly serious in some ways, at least with the subject matter of a man killing older women across New York City. The film features the detective and the killer as the leads of the production. The detective, Morris Brummel (played by George Segal), is a Jewish cop who seems to have a very certain way of living his life. He has no girlfriend, lives with his mother, and seems altogether to be a slight be of an oaf. And yet he is extremely likable, similar to any shy man who has ever existed. He starts investigating the case and falls in love with the first witness Kate Palmer (played by Lee Remick). The love story is altogether kind of sweet. Kate is shown as a lady on her own who can take care of herself. She is often forward where Morris is embarrassed, nervous, or seems just plain terrified at the prospect at talking with a woman who isn't his mother. A good portion of the plot deals with his relationships between the two female characters in his life and how he has to learn to act around them. He falls in love with Kate over the course of the movie just as she falls for him. And it's really kind of sweet. I'm not usually a sucker for love stories because seriously, screw love stories, but this one works for me. Maybe it's because it feels realistic, or maybe it's simply because these characters remind me of actual people. I don't really know.

The rest of the story is about the serial killer proper, Christopher Gill (played spectacularly by Rod Steiger), a well-to-do Broadway theater owner who recently lost his famous actress of a mother. He kills older, often middle-aged, women by strangling them, seemingly envisioning his mother as he does so. Mr. Gill showboats his accomplishments, phoning the police after his murders. He eventually targets Morris, and they speak with one another from time to time, eventually they grow to have a strange rapport with one another. This is certainly more on Gill's side than Morris's side, but it's interesting to see the progression of open hostility at first to almost a strange friendship of sorts. I think it's portrayed spectacularly in the play version, but the movie does have some of it as well, although it is a great deal subtler, which I think is to the film's detriment even if the play came afterward.

The main premise of the film is that Gill dresses up and acts as different personae to get into these women's apartments. The whole first scene of the movie is Gill as a priest talking with and eventually strangling an ex-Catholic widow. He also plays a German plumber, a seemingly gay hairdresser, a terrified woman, and even goes as far as imitating Detective Brummel. He affects different accents and intonations when becoming these characters, and the acting from Steiger is a real treat to watch. He pulled off a fantastic performance here. The problem is that his own pride at his acting ability and accents does really give him away in the end. He almost has to be some sort of actor. And his own hubris is what finally fingers him for the crimes. He wants to be the gentleman killer, who murders only his chosen victims. When another murder is attributed to him, he flies off the deep end, almost getting himself caught because of it. Eventually the game of cat and mouse between Morris and Gill reaches a head with Gill unhappy about the dangerous games that Morris seems to be playing with him, and Gill decides to play his own game of setting a meal up for Kate so that he can kill her.

His plans don't work out as they should though, and Kate survives. He flees to his theatre and Morris meets him face-to-face, eventually deciding that this is his man after seeing a portrait of Gill's late mother with the same lipstick on her own lips that Gill placed on the victim's foreheads. Morris asks Gill for the keys to the costumes, and knowing that the costumes he used would be right there on display, Gill gives the key to Morris only to intercept him in the darkness below the theatre, trying to kill him with throwing lights at him and such. Morris eventually shoots Gill and Gill knocks Morris out. Gill staggers on stage, becoming each of the characters he had acted in turn, remembering the murders, and eventually, when confronted with his crimes, asking Morris for forgiveness, calling back an earlier scene where Gill asked for forgiveness from Morris after yelling at him over the phone. Morris does not forgive Gill, who has finally been captured.

This movie is really good in general. The pacing and the plot are incredibly well done. And this movie really seems to foreshadow some of the dark comedy murder mystery-like television shows that would come out long after this movie. Hell, there are some Psych episodes that certainly have a similar feel. My point is that this movie actually works as both a serial killer film with a certain darkness that those movies have in them and as a comedic film with almost romantic comedy elements to it. In general this is a great film for anybody to watch. The acting is superb, the story is both tense and incredibly funny, and the movie is a really fun watch in general.  It was an enjoyable experience. I'd certainly watch it again if given the chance or if I was in the mood for it. So, I have to say that I would recommend it. If my description sounds intriguing, go and check it out.

Also, and just a last remark here, I compared this movie to The Princess Bride in my head before I wrote this review,and I just find it funny that two very different movies can be compared together so easily on issues like tone, humor, and enjoyment. Honestly, if you like The Princess Bride, you'd probably like this movie too.

Movie Appraisal: Possession (1981)

So, I was about to watch and review the American version of Dark Water and then, seeing as how that movie is pretty terrible, almost ridiculously painful to watch, I stopped and decided to watch Possession instead. So, I'm watching this movie, intrigued by its style and a very young Sam Neill as the male lead, and my mouth drops open, my eyes as wide as they could be, fear and bile are rising in my throat and a thought comes into my head, a thought that seems to be the driving force behind this movie: OhboywhatdidIgetmyselfintohere?

Okay, I think if the image above doesn't tell you that this review may involve some graphic images, then I'm certainly telling you now. The movie is fairly graphic at times, with some of the hardest scenes to watch that I've seen in a very long time. Slasher movies with unrealistic gore and all those gorn films that exist out there have nothing on the methodical and paranoid way that this film drives its creepiness and blurs the edges between reality and fiction. And it does it in such a subtle way, causing the watcher to be dropped down a rabbit hole from which there is no escape. With Sam Neill and Isabelle Adjani in the starring roles, this movie has a brilliant cast, amazing acting, and a story that screams paranoia and distress through its every pore.

The cinematography is unsettling to the extent of making the audience itself feel unease at what is coming next. I kept thinking about the scenes that might be coming next, what could happen. And the fact is that this movie surpassed every expectation by bringing out something more disturbing than I had in my own mind every time. The fears and threats that are brought out in this movie incredible. I don't know if I've ever seen a movie that works quite like this or that even feels quite like this one. Everything makes you squirm, from the simple environment to the ways characters act. The character of Anna, the wife, is particularly hard to watch or to be involved with at all. Any person with a significant other who happens to be female will find fear in that character, the cold-bloodedness, the insanity, the beauty mixed with the absolute danger. I've never found myself frightened of small and pretty women, but with the acting here blended with the utter insanity of the character, Anna has entered my own personal nightmares as a demon herself. A man-killing demon.

In some ways I think this movie may in fact be unreviewable. I spent half of the movie (at least half) with my mouth or eyes as wide opened as they could be, both shocked and awed by what I saw. It's so unlike anything else. It's like a movie about insanity that actively involves the viewer in that insanity. I'm not comfortable enough with my own sanity to watch this movie with discomfort. I don't think anybody is.

This movie seems to be an allegory of a disintegrating marriage, separation, and the fact that some people can never work out as a couple, but the movie is damn well near impenetrable at times anyway even with that knowledge. I mean I simply think back on Anna's apartment and the scenes therein or the calm way characters deal with absolute terror, murder, and the most twisted sorts of acts imaginable, and I find this movie viscerally mind-shattering. The twisted and complicated plot, the doppelganger characters, the way that characters react to problems, and the horrific elements of the film are all very intense and are all very confusing, and create a story that literally feels more terrifying than most other movies, even without absolutely horrific images, monsters, or... My point is that there is a subtle horror here, one that hits a person in the back of the mind rather than in the front of the eyes. Focusing on this movie, I found myself needing a break from the intensity, only to find myself drawn back in for another round. Movies like this are very few and far between for me, and that makes it even harder to say that I have no idea whether I liked the movie or not.

I think a few good comparisons in films might be Mulholland Drive by David Lynch or Lost Highway by the same. Possession has a very Lynch-like feel to it despite being a much creepier and crazier ride than either of those movies. Although I will admit that I had a very similar feeling to Mulholland Drive after watching it as I did to Possession. Both films gave me a lot to think about, and both were not necessarily a film I came out loving. In some ways, to a video gaming crowd, the film also reminded me of Silent Hill 2 and its plot. I can't really explain the connection except that the feeling of the two movies somehow seemed similar to me. I really can't say why, just a brain thought I had, I guess.

Andrzej Żuławski directs this film beautifully and almost sadly. There is an intensity to every scene, and it is also very hectic even while nothing is actively going on. The filming itself is very different, evoking Lynch and also other directors who have chosen to explore the mind and its facets. The imagery is wonderful, blending mundane and absolute horror without alienating itself. It's very reminiscent of Jacob's Ladder is some very specific ways and that is probably the strongest comparative piece I know of. I have heard that Repulsion by Polanski would be a similar comparative piece, but although I own it, I've never actually watched it. So, I have a very hard time comparing it.

I had never heard of Possession before, even being the psychological horror fan that I am. I'm incredibly glad that I found it and could watch it, but at the same time it's almost as if my brain has gone through a change by watching it. I feel like I'll never be the same, never look at a relationship... or for that matter a woman... the same way again. There is such an emphasis on a lack of knowledge between two people, lack of trust as well, showing both as hypocrites looking for perfection and instead getting a normal person as a spouse or significant other. It's a very powerful message, one that I have a hard time not squirming at in one way or another.

I don't know how much I should actually say about the movie. It's heavily metaphorical, but plays as if it is a plotted out story. The problem is that although the story is not hard to follow, the captivating element is not the story or the plot, but rather the interactions between characters and those characters interacting with their environments as well. Mark, played by Sam Neill, plays an undeniably Sam Neill role, both crazy and sane, hero and villain, blending the lines as he has proven time and time again that he can do so well. This is certainly a wonderful preview of the things that would come from his career. The way he nonchalantly cuts himself on the electric steak knife, cold eyes, no wince in pain... that image will stay with me for a very long time.

To point out just how... how tough this movie is to review and watch and... and enjoy, I guess... I'll describe a scene: Anna moans at a statue of Jesus while holding a bag for a straight minute, begging or pleading perhaps. Then a scene goes by and she absolutely freaks out in a subway station for minutes as liquid pours out of her. This is the story of her miscarriage. Think about that for a minute. Those first two sentences are literally Anna telling Mark how she miscarried. Oh my... how can I even, for a minute, begin to express words that mean anything to this movie? How can I go and say I understand it as well as I should?

It's a brilliant movie, in my opinion, but difficult to follow. I assume with repeat viewings I'll get more out of it, but I'm going to find myself hardpressed to watch it again anytime soon.

Anyway, I recommend it to people who like psychological horror, but with the warning that it is a really screwed up movie, one that really might affect you in an unexpected way. I think I liked it, but I really can't promise that I did. That's weird when I can't even decide whether I liked it or not. Really weird...

Anyway, I've been doing this blog for two years today. I've had a crazy time doing it. I really wanted to get a review out today and since Dark Water sucked pretty badly (although I'll probably review it) I thought that an actually deep and interesting movie would be a good one for a two year review. Oh, and if any readers have any questions on the movie, ask in the comment section, and I'll try to answer as best as I can. It's a really cool movie to debate and talk about.