trypanophobic34 Reviews

Peacock (2010)

Great performance by Cillian Murphy

[8/10 · 19 May 2010]

I'm not sure why this has such a low rating. It's not perfect, or a mind-blowing experience or something, but I thought it was a really interesting story, well-acted, especially with a wonderful performance by Cillian Murphy. It's sort of a Psycho-like story, without ever venturing into suspense or horror.

It's about an incredibly socially inept, anxiety-ridden young man named John, whose mother has died a year previously and he's been traumatized/psychologically damaged by the loss. He seems to have been both coddled/protected and smothered/extremely isolated by his mother's hermetic, semi-abusive love. She was all he had, exactly because of the way she raised him and formed his relationship to the world. Her upbringing of him, and also to a smaller extent her subsequent death/taking away of herself, both contributed to cripple him in his relationships with others. Not that much is revealed about her even by the end, and I would have liked to know more.

Cillian Murphy is so interesting and engaging to watch as the Willardesque character John, and the completely different female character, Emma, who is mild, benignant, with a quiet strength. I didn't ever not sympathize with Emma, even though I knew she was calculating. I pitied John, whose face is like a parade of his shifting emotions: his neurotic shyness, anxiety, almost childlike anger, and emotional frustration.

Cillian even looks different as John; he changes his appearance through his acting: through the way John purses his lips, carries his body, and his nervous facial tics, etc. (you will see what I mean when you see it). When he's Emma, he also looks different in accordance with her different personality. It's not like anything I've ever seen before! He must be doing something right, to be playing a character so different from his usual self, and two characters who are so different from each other, in such a thoroughgoing, immersive way as to be utterly convincing as each. It's like he completely becomes John, and then becomes Emma, and neither is at all "Cillian."

I think this movie deserves at least a 7. Some people have said that the story isn't that credible, but I didn't find anything wrong or that off about it (it's just that it doesn't really explain everything about his mother or her "true" nature, ultimately), and the protagonist himself is the driving force behind the movie, as he should be. Besides, it's a shame when people can't suspend their disbelief just a little when it's not really that central to the point of the movie and recognize the merit of it. I couldn't help thinking that maybe some people just don't like to see Cillian Murphy in a more humbling or "weird" role, and that's why they didn't enjoy it more.

I think a better title would have been "Emma," it's simple yet it really suits the movie and makes more of a point than "Peacock," which doesn't really evoke anything apart from just being the name of the town.

Paranormal Activity (2007)

Worth seeing...

[7/10 · 10 October 2009]

FOR ME the scare factor for this was highly overrated. It's kind of creepy, but it's never really outright scary, it nowhere near plumbs the depths of terror. I would say the movies that have scared me the most are The Ring and The Orphanage. I think maybe why it isn't very scary is because it's not visually explicit/vivid so it lacks real terror - that doesn't mean every horror movie needs to have an actual monster depicted or ghastly-looking things happening, but it is why Paranormal Activity isn't anywhere near as scary as horror movies can be. This does have tension building up sometimes, but trust me, it's not exactly a visceral, super powerful, heart-pounding kind of experience like people have been saying. I would say the scariest part of it was in the last few minutes.

I don't think what this movie does is that original, the personal-camera-perspective thing is a bit like movies like Cloverfield. And the dialogue is not super intelligent. But I do applaud their making a movie entirely without special effects, other than a few visual tricks, and leaving the horror entirely implicit. It's not really anything like The Blair Witch Project, I don't know why people are comparing it to that other than the minimalist/non-explicit aspect.

The guy, Micah, is kind of stupid and annoying, grossly insensitive to his girlfriend at times, and therefore not realistic in that way. I don't think he should have acted as he did, and he's just not a very strong part of the movie. That's not to say he's just totally an idiot that we can't relate to. But I think the strongest part of it is actually Katie's performance towards the end, her reactions to the hauntings as they become more personally targetted and escalated; it really is how you would feel and act. I really felt for her then, I was sorry for her. To see someone in so much suffering and horror is very moving.

So is it scary? Not really. But it's still worth seeing, pretty enjoyable, and a little bit different, despite the moderate weakness of the dialogue and Micah's acting/behavior.

Jennifer's Body (2009)

The trailer does no justice to it at all!

[8/10 · 4 October 2009]

I don't know why the trailer, especially the shorter one, is so awful, except maybe as a cheap lure for wider audiences or something. But it doesn't really tell you anything about the movie. That cheesy "I will finish you. -Okay, you can't even finish gym class" line doesn't appear in it. I thought this movie would be really bad from the trailer, but I still kind of wanted to see it for a few laughs, though I wasn't even sure it'd be entertaining because it seemed so bad. But what I got was something immensely enjoyable - definitely a nice surprise.

Jennifer's Body is very well-done for its kind. And there's not really any other movie MUCH like it. Sure, it's a little cheesy, and overloaded with ridiculous teenage slang that no one even ever uses in real life, but that doesn't really detract from it. The movie has style, it's pretty dark, and it shows a wider slice of high school life than it might seem. Its value isn't just limited to teens, either; I think it has a wider appeal, again, than it might seem.

The performances are great. Unlike in the trailer and most other movies like this, the characters actually respond to weird and horrible things that happen to them instead of it just kind of happening and them moving on with the action. The movie is much more emotional and realistic in this way than the trailer shows. Amanda Seyfried was wonderful as Needy, and Megan Fox gave a strong and captivating performance; she shows her acting abilities much more than in the Transformers movies. I heard some people on these boards before the movie was released talking about how they were just going to watch it to see Megan Fox topless - and I thought these were horrible and shallow people. Seriously... If that's all you're there for you probably won't get the movie. Her role in the movie is NOT just as some passive eye candy, with no acting, depth, or character.

Jennifer is a likable character. She has some element of the bitchy vain hot girl in high school, but not a lot; there's more to her than that. She's not really a mean person. I felt for her. What I thought happened in the movie didn't exactly happen. Yeah, she's a demon or something like that, but it's not that she was always evil and Needy was just friends with her for some inexplicable reason or that she became an entirely different person. The real explanation they provide makes much more sense, and is much deeper and sadder; it's actually a good storyline. And I think the title "Jennifer's Body" will make more sense in the context of that explanation, rather than just seeming kind of blatant and referring to Jennifer's sex appeal.

Most of the characters were pretty likable, including victims. Needy's boyfriend Chip is so nice, and a memorable character. The movie is not nearly so shallow in not going into people's real characters, emotions, and reactions. Again, I don't know why the trailer butchered it so much and showed the worst possible put-together glimpse of it. Even the visuals with Jennifer's demonic appearance aren't as cheesy as they look in the trailer.

In conclusion, this movie is definitely worth seeing. It's different from every other movie, it's not exactly for everyone, not a "Mean Girls" sort of movie - only with demonic eating of boys or something. I think this is one of my favorite dark teen comedies. That might seem like a narrow category, but this movie is NOT narrow. It's interesting, engaging, well-done visually and story-wise, well acted, with depth and uncommon style, and totally enjoyable. I'm so glad I caught it instead of passing it over! I will definitely want to see it again.

Bright Star (2009)

A thing of beauty is a joy forever

[9/10 · 19 September 2009]

I just had the pleasure of seeing Bright Star tonight. I was hoping it would be as good as the trailer, and it was. The trailer is not misleading in this sense but a pretty good representation of the movie.

Most of the negative reviews I've read for this have something to do with how the film is "little" or "slow." Rarely, they comment that it's "melodramatic." Which it's NOT by any means. It is not mawkishly sentimental at all. It's not epic, it is small in a way, and there's never any seizing moment of action. That doesn't make it boring; it's engaging throughout.

This is different from any period film I've ever seen, or really, imagined. It's not like typical period pieces in trying to wow you with its aesthetic recreation of the time, it's not so much about the visual splendor, though it looks very lovely and is thoroughly convincing as a representation of that period. It's visually quite different from other period pieces, it has a more realistic and kind of earthy look rather than pastel-colored and with a glow around everything. There are slums and less-than-palatial places. This isn't Pride and Prejudice. Neither does it have sort of a broad, sweeping narrative. At heart it's a deep love story about famed poet John Keats and his love and muse, Franny Brawne, whose relationship was cut short by a tragic death. It delves deeply into the small details of their courtship, and is pretty involved psychologically.

These people are portrayed realistically. Even the more minor characters, they all seem to be real people, with actual personalities, rather than caricatures or types of stuffy Regency people who are preoccupied with propriety and good marriage matches. Fanny's mother is nice, the main issue with her marrying Keats is that he literally can't support her, and the people they know aren't mindlessly concerned about it. They actually have FUN and do more interesting things than stand at ballroom dances and sit at dinner. Who would have thought people in a Regency period movie could actually climb trees, walk in the mud, or do quirky, whimsical things? Their ease and naturalness and relative candor in moving around, interacting with, and talking to each other was refreshing and definitely different from the idea you generally get. And this is the first period piece I've ever, ever seen where anyone has actually picked up and held their pet cat and treated it like you would your pet. You can actually hear it purring, it's a real part of their surroundings. I liked that cat, it was cute.

The dialogue was superb. It wasn't this sloppy, general, or comical/absurd stuff. It was precise, clear, charged with personality, and often beautiful. When you hear the conversations between Fanny and John, it's brilliant, real, and a pleasure. I have never seen such intelligence, subtlety, or elegance in a movie in this way. To hear Fanny respond to something John said, even just a word, as if she were actually thinking about it, as would happen in real life, as if she were an intelligent, feeling, witty person, was so nice. And so DIFFERENT. It's a little hard to explain if you haven't seen it. Suffice it to say, the dialogue is delicate and nuanced. They are articulate but not pretentious, they are sensitive, individual people - not unreal types who don't pick up on details. And it being about Keats, the characters have a lot of literary intelligence. You will enjoy the poetry in the movie.

The acting was great. Keats - I would probably fall in love with him, too. He seems like such a sensitive, romantic, and intelligent guy. Ben Whishaw was perfect for him. And Abbie Cornish as Fanny is wonderful - while not extravagantly gorgeous exactly, her face has such clear features that she has an extraordinary appeal. She is a very striking character, and deeply feeling about Keats. You get a real sense of love, real responses to grief instead of just a pretty swoon. It was a real romance - their tender kiss was beautiful, the things they said to each other, and the things they felt.

This movie is one of those rare films that are almost perfect to me. That doesn't make it my favorite movie, but it means I didn't find much wrong with it. The emotion isn't overwhelming, it's not exactly visceral, but it's moving and penetrating, it has its own style. It's NOT sappy or conventional. The extreme intelligence, realism, and emotional depth of this movie truly set it apart from all others. I heard a review say something like about how it's just about "old British speech and mannerisms," which couldn't be farther from the truth. It is NOT driven by quaintness or generic period speech like other period films. The dialogue is not stiff, pretentious, or artificial, though it's accurate. Sweet, moving, and intelligent, Bright Star has rare depth. It's definitely like no other movie. You should go see it if you think you'd be into it at all, by any stretch. You might not like it - it is rather "slow," but very interesting, at least for me - but it would be a thick or insensitive person indeed who couldn't appreciate it in some way. It's like how Keats described Fanny - "the brightest, most delicate thing."

My favorite quotes are:

"A thing of beauty is a joy forever. Its loveliness increases. It will never pass into nothingness."

"I almost wish we were butterflies, and lived but three summer days. Three such days with you I could fill with more delight than fifty common years could ever contain."

There are many others, much of Keats' letters to Fanny is so beautiful, but I can't remember them off the top of my head. These are two that appear in the trailer.

Battle for Terra (I) (2007)

Beautiful and original

[7/10 · 28 April 2009]

I really like this movie. It's a fantastic, beautiful, and otherworldly experience. People have said that the animation style resembles a combination of Star Wars: Clone Wars and Antz or something, which is kind of what it's like, but I think it's a unique and beautiful, somewhat innovative style. It achieves imagery and a visual atmosphere that I'm not sure could be done through live-action with CGI. I especially like the scenes at the beginning depicting Terran life, which is a truly unique experience and probably the strongest part of the movie. I loved seeing all the details of Terra, how Mala had an anatomy diagram, her tools and all the things the Terrans used, the sky-whales, the lovely, fantasy-like, airy landscape where everything seems up in the sky - I thought it was kind of ironic that it was called "Terra," since it seems so ethereal and not earthy. Rarely have I seen a whole alien world articulated so well.

As is often the case the dialogue is weaker than the visual aspect, but I guess you have to remember that this is a kids'/family movie with a clear message. I don't think there was anything amiss with its message, it was subtler than, say, Wall-E. I have to admit that I have a problem with the way environmental politics have been propagandized so much and become almost a cliché, or fad, in very recent years. That doesn't mean that I don't think there needs to be anything done about it, it's just that it seems very sudden, unsubtle, and commercial to me, fed to the masses at an accelerating rate. But this movie was okay. There was nothing wrong with what it was conveying to us. There were some things that were off with the logic of the humans (how the President and lady didn't even bother to contact the Terrans, or voice the obvious idea of building an air dome instead of just saying "There are alternatives," until the General got impatient), the plot or actions, etc., and how the Terraforming device is supposed to transform the whole planet in like 5 minutes (I'm exaggerating, but you know), but the greater - and important - part of it is good. Another highlight is the robot, who I liked.

Someone who commented complained that the movie "advocates suicide attacks" because Jim flies his plane into the Terraforming device in the end. Um, I don't think the message of the movie is really "you can get what you want by being a suicide bomber," I think it's a vastly more important and selfless thing if by doing it you can save two whole species. It made sense to me.

So in conclusion, this is a great and really interesting animated film that's definitely worthwhile to see. It is kind of dark, different, and more mature in tone, but it's still basically a movie for everyone - kids or whoever. I think everyone should see it, as it's an environmentally-oriented film that's in tune with the current concerns and not frivolous or slapdash but has a kind of different take on it, and something to contribute and to do differently with the theme of future worlds with environmental/humanist issues.

Eraserhead (1977)

A very interesting, creative piece,

[9/10 · 17 March 2007]

I'll make this short. Eraserhead is surreal, absurd, bizarre, eerie, beautiful, artistic, experimental, and original. It has the reality of an anxiety-dream. It's both minimalist (particularly the acting, dialogue, etc.) and expressionist. The lighting and mise-en-scene are striking. Henry lives in a strange, cramped, monochromatic world of aloneness, emptiness, silence, doubt, unease, and horror, which has no logic or rationality and seems more a reflection of his mind than of external reality. None of the characters is likable (in my opinion); in fact, they're strangely emotionally shallow and small-minded, and they would be mundane if they weren't so bizarre; but all are interesting. Some parts are rather grotesque/disturbing, but it's not a horror movie in the conventional sense. It's a very different art film, and not everyone would be able to appreciate it, but I think it's wonderfully creative, dark, and strange.

Zodiac (2007)

Interesting but not dark or thrilling

[7/10 · 4 March 2007]

I'll make this short and sweet. Zodiac engrosses you in the case. You find yourself drawn into it and keeping up with all the details. It's not "exciting" or "thrilling" like a more horror-oriented movie on a similar subject might be, but engaging; not deliciously dark or psychological like Se7en, but rather very realistic and analytical about the investigation itself. The acting is great; as many other people have mentioned, Robert Downey Jr.'s performance is notable, very similar to his persona in Wonder Boys. All the characters are likable or at least not dislikable. You even get a feel for the first few victims. You should already know this, but the Zodiac is not a cultivated, cultured, intellectual killer like Hannibal Lector or Kevin Spacey's character in Se7en; so don't expect that romantic or intriguing aspect of the killer himself. The movie does not focus on him, anyway. What else? It's very '60s- and '70s-ish. With a lot of movies that take place decades earlier, it feels kind of anachronistic despite the costumes, surroundings, and overall efforts to make it feel of the period it takes place in. Zodiac really does seem like it's set in the periods in which it's supposed to.

I can understand people being bored with it, but it was engrossing for me, at least, and should be for people who don't go into it wanting it to be a thriller or a highly fictionalized sensational story or anything like that. I don't think the trailer is misleading in that respect - it is obvious the movie focuses on the investigation.

Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Visually luscious and irresistibly charming...

[6/10 · 30 August 2005]

Moulin Rouge is one of those movies that depend on style over substance. It is very simply a love story that has been told many times over, and throws no fresh light on said love story and provides no original insight. It has not much to do with the actual club Moulin Rouge, which serves simply as a setting for the love story the movie centers on, with a few characters drawn from history (such as the "dwarf" Toulouse-Lautrec) and thrown in for comical effect.

That being said, the sets and costumes and saturated colors in the movie are very appealing to the eye and, combined with the rather touching romance between Satine and Christian (interesting choice of names, by the way...) and quirkiness of the characters and dance numbers, are enough to hold your attention, especially once the movie gains momentum (it comes off rather strange and random at first and takes some settling into). Nicole Kidman is, of course, dazzling in the role of the sultry Satine, and her voice is quite good. Ewan McGregor's, while not as melodic as Kidman's, is good enough to serve the movie's purposes, and I'm sure a great many women have swooned/will swoon over his character. It is impossible not to be warmed at least a little by the two's secret love, although I was not quite sure why they fell in love in the first place...

The dance numbers that are drawn from an amalgamated variety of modern songs are rather tacky but manage to work (some of them are barely pulled off, in my mind, and some are quite good). "Roxanne" is definitely my favorite in the movie (as many people will agree), probably because it's in the more conventional and serious style of musical numbers.

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)

Not absolutely dreadful but quite unfortunate...

[3/10 · 16 August 2005]

I don't know why Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is receiving so much praise, apart from the fact that it brings Tim Burton, Danny Elfman, and Johnny Depp together again, as well as being based on the long-loved story by Roald Dahl and preceded by Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Because of this latter reason, it was guaranteed a certain amount of success and bound to draw fans of either the old movie or book, or both. Because of the former reason, it was also guaranteed a healthy measure of success and fans of either Tim Burton, Danny Elfman, Johnny Depp, or all three. I'll tell you why it doesn't deserve praise: Most of the time, it's just plain boring. It started off well, with sweet little Charlie and his family in their quaint, lopsided hut; they obviously suffer from indigence and Sickeningly Sweet Syndrome. Everyone is kind and loving and selfless and supportive of each other, etc. etc., and it's all quite corn-fed, but that's all fine and well; it can only be expected. Grandma Bucket with her "I love grapes" line was even funny and endearing. The movie begins to go downhill after the discoverer of the first Golden Ticket, that rotund German boy, is shown.

The plot is all too predictable. You knew from the start that Willy Wonka hated all the children and their parents except Charlie and Grandpa Bucket, and that the rest of the movie would consist in him knocking them off one by one, until only Charlie & Co. were left. That's all it was really about; the process of elimination. While we're on the subject of elimination, what the hell did Willy Wonka get rid of that angry video game child for, being smart and making comments to which Wonka had no reply? Indeed, he made the only solid point of the movie in saying, "Why is everything here so pointless?" I know that it's a children's movie, but they could at least mix things up a bit so you don't find yourself reminded of preschool shows on TV, such as Dora the Explorer or Blues Clues, which feature cyclical journeys.

Speaking of young audiences, the movie was childish. Yes, yes, it's a children's movie, but it was childish even for a children's movie. I know that I found even Edward Scissorhands a bit childish, but I liked it anyway for its charms. And I like Tim Burton, don't get me wrong, but does he think everything a happy dark fairy tale? Nothing's ever that complex in his films; he relies more on visuals and a sort of magical atmosphere.

Speaking of visuals, I wasn't all that impressed by those in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I thought the seahorse-shaped boat they rode in down the chocolate river looked particularly fake; like cheap plastic, really. None of the scenery was spectacular. I didn't like how near the beginning, when they were introducing the four other children who found a Golden Ticket, their skin and features were so obviously computer-"enhanced" that they looked cartoonish. Not to nitpick.

A more major thing is that I didn't like the character of Willy Wonka himself, which is like a fatal stroke in the world of film. You have to like the main characters, or at least approve of them to some degree, to appreciate a movie, and Willy Wonka was just rude, hypocritically judgmental, lacking in depth and complexity (the whole "I have flashbacks of being traumatized by my father" thing didn't cut it), and - forgive me - dorky. Not quirky in a good way. I didn't even like the way he looked or that exceedingly silly haircut he had. He said nothing very interesting or that would make me take more kindly to him throughout the movie. None of the other characters were great/engaging or very well-played, either, including Charlie and Grandpa Bucket.

The Oompa Loompas' several songs celebrating the riddance of each child were annoying, seemed to be added simply to kill time, and only drew your notice more sharply to the cyclical, repetitive nature of the plot. I wanted them to shut their minuscule, identical noise tubes.

Last of all but not least, it didn't leave me with a "warm, fuzzy feeling inside" as might be expected. There didn't seem to be any moral to it, except perhaps, "Candy doesn't need to have a point, and neither does this movie, apparently," or, "If you're a poor, goody-goody child, all your dreams will come true because you'll get to inherit a chocolate factory full of magical goodies, not because of any talent or ambition but simply because you're the least spoiled of five randomly selected children who all like to eat chocolate." There was no real bond between Wonka and Charlie, as might also be expected, and, like I said, there's nothing special or particularly warming about Willy Wonka. There's no "magic" to the movie as there is to other Burton films. It leaves you only dissatisfied and feeling very much like you have just seen it exactly for what it is, nothing more: nothing memorable. It has no heart or vivacity in it, and that is probably why, above all else, it falls flat.

That being said, I'm sure you'll have a lovely time at the theater with your kid(s)/spouse/friend(s)/yourself, enjoying the pointlessness and vapidity that is Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

It's okay to watch. Really. Just don't expect anything special or heart-warming or graphically fabulous. I'm sure little kids won't even notice the difference. I felt impelled to write this heavily negative comment only because: 1) it's my actual opinion, and 2) I was seeing all positive comments about how delightful this little movie is.

3) And yes, I am a cynical bitch. It's not touching, heart-warming, or sincere, yet still very corny, and I demand to have my cold heart thawed and de-barbed by happy children's movies, I say!

The Village (2004)

The Village: a lesson in morals and fears (spoiler)

[8/10 · 10 July 2005]

I think there were two lessons M. Night Shyamalan (cool name, by the way!) was trying to t/preach: People won't know what they don't want to know and look around you at the world today. There were no monsters. Only people. That was what they really feared all along, right? People. Someone pointed out the fact that not all the people in the Village looked young enough to be offspring of the Elders. In reality, I guess they just couldn't find enough actors young enough to look like kids or grandkids of the not-so-old-looking Elders. If you look at it from a philosophical standpoint, which I do, you can explain it like this: Maybe the Elders weren't the only ones to first settle in the Village. They all lost someone, right? The others could have gone through similar experiences as the Elders and made the same decision, to go to the Village. There they maybe, over time, forgot their other lives, and that there was any outside world at all. They didn't want to remember it, at least. Eventually they could even have convinced themselves that the "creatures in the woods" were real, as people will believe what they want to believe and can thus delude themselves into solidifying their fears into real, physical form, and a real, substantial reason for keeping inside the Village forever. The later generations would have nothing to say to the contrary of the established beliefs, not remembering any other kind of life. If they're aware of the logic flaws in their little Village, maybe they like to keep them quiet and live in this kind of delusion. They all suffered at the hands of the world, somehow, and they decided they'd rather be completely isolated from it than continue to belong to it. So they built this kind of utopia in the middle of nowhere, unreachable by most of the population, their main goal being to "preserve innocence," as Walker says in his long, corny speech in the movie. And to keep the truth about the creatures quiet. They think the world has become too evil and, WORLDLY in general, and the only way to keep things pure is to go rustic, back to the simple ways of 1897, somehow missing the obvious fact that the world was just as worldly, men just as greedy, back then. Why don't we just go back to the ways of the cavemen, because then we'd be really pure? Also, when M. Night makes his cameo as he always does, as the head park ranger guy reading the newspaper whose reflection you see pretty obviously in the cabinet glass, he's listening to the radio and it's talking about how some people were killed or something, some bomb explosion, and the newspaper says that some other little girl got murdered, etc. It was pretty much staring you in the face, the moral lesson there. Can you be more subtle?

Speaking of that too-long speech, one of the Elders (Noah's father, I think) said that "heartache is the same everywhere." He also said to Lucius near the beginning, if you remember, something like, "Sorrow follows you wherever you go. There's no hiding from it," and looked at the box in the corner where they kept their "dark secrets." I think he understands that you can never really escape from sadness and that the idea of the Village itself is a sham. And speaking of Noah's father, I think Noah knew all along that the creatures were fake. I think he was the one who killed the dogs, too. If he didn't have much trouble killing Lucius, whom he seemed to have had some fondness for, I don't see that he would have had any problem skinning a few dogs. As a kind of sick prank. Walker said one of the Elders might have done it, but it seems unlikely; they couldn't have gained much by it, and none of them seemed like the dog-murdering type. Also, when the Elders go into the "quiet room" and discover he's gone and the floorboards dug up, one of them cries out, "Oh...the animals!" And if you remember, Noah always used to laugh at public gatherings, etc., when people thought the creatures were around, as if sharing some sort of funny secret with himself. You thought at first it was just because he was the village idiot and all and didn't understand the implications, when he was laughing delightedly and going, "They're coming! They're coming!," but it was still a bit suspicious. He could have discovered the costume beneath the floorboards or gone into the "forbidden storage shed" long ago, and so found it funny that other people were scared of the monsters. Sometimes things just work out that way, that the village idiot knows the truth when all the rest are deluded... Also, it was clear he'd gone into the woods before, to fetch the "bad-colored" berries and whatnot, so maybe he made a habit of dancing around in the woods in his creature costume.

Anyway, the film is good and rather simple (everything moves in one direction and I felt the message was pretty straightforward), as well as a little thought-provoking. Although there is not much action, it's entertaining enough, and I liked the setting. I also found the monsters to be a little creepy, even though they looked fake and moved clumsily; I can't explain it, exactly, but they are eerie.

May (2002)

May (spoiler)

[7/10 · 6 July 2004]

"May" is about this girl named May, who works at a veterinary clinic. She was born with a "lazy eye" and her mom made her wear an eye patch to cover it up. She never had any friends and was ostracized from the other children because of her eye disorder, and one day for her birthday her mother gave her this doll named Suzy in a wooden display case, whom she made herself. She said to May: "If you can't find a friend, make one. Suzy was my friend for many years, and now she'll be your friend, too!" Also she tells May that she can't take her out of the box because Suzy's "special" and she can only look at her from outside. As a result of her sad, lonely childhood she is a very shy and awkward person and very strange as well. She sees all these perfect body parts -- but no perfect whole people.

After a strange relationship with this guy named Adam and also one with a girl named Polly go wrong, she sort of turns her back on the world which can't accept her and decides to "make her own friend"; i.e. to make a doll -- out of human parts. She lashes out at the people who were attracted to her weirdness at first but can't really accept it and takes the parts of them that are perfect, and sews them all together to create her own doll. Suzy is gone by now, ripped apart in a sad incident at a daycare center, and it's very disturbing at the end when she's sewed together her friend and she thinks there's something missing and cries, "See me. Why can't you see me?" and does something a bit horrible to herself...I won't tell you what!

You feel sorry for her, though, because the parts when she's sad she's so emotional and miserable and lonely. And she doesn't win, in the end. She killed everyone but she still didn't win. I think she died, too...and at the very end you see the arm of the "doll" move towards her and stroke her face like it's trying to comfort her but this is probably just May's "last dying hallucination." She also hallucinates sometimes, I think, that the glass on Suzy's display case cracks as if Suzy's trying to get out or keep her away from Adam. I think it's supposed to represent her "cracking under pressure" as things go worse and worse for her.

There is also a scene at the daycare center for "special children" when May takes Suzy there as a sort of "show-and-tell" thing, and Petey and the other kids start demanding to take her out of the box, and even tugging at it, until finally it crashes to the floor, shattering glass and finally exposing Suzy after all these years. And the kids start crawling on the glass, cutting themselves and crying and tearing at the doll, while May runs fingers down her face smearing blood across it and desperately tries to hold onto her only friend. That part is disturbing.

It's definitely not your conventional horror movie, or even a horror movie most of the time. Only towards the end does she begin to foster homicidal tendencies towards the people who couldn't accept her and come up with the idea of creating her doll. It's a drama, horror, and indie film, with a bit of black humor thrown in. I guess the only thing that isn't good about it is that it doesn't really appease you...doesn't show you what you want to see. May never wins. It's not at all what you like, all the things that happen to her, and it's very morbid that way. Also, it's a low-budget movie, meaning don't expect any great special effects or filming quality or anything. Not exactly what you'd expect. Not what I expected, anyway. Nevertheless an interesting, somewhat original, and worthwhile movie to entice your darker tastes, and Angela Bettis pulls off the role of May quite well.