Another attempt at nouveau horror in Philip Gelatt's 2-character creep-out, THEY REMAIN

Somewhat similar to last year's all-atmosphere/low-on-plot-and-characterization movie, It Comes at Night, this new film -- the sophomore effort from Philip Gelatt (The Bleeding House) entitled THEY REMAIN -- relies on quite a lot of exposition coupled to an attempt at slow-burning suspense and creepy behavior (from both its protagonists and from the animal/insect life on view). TrustMovies admits that he is impressed by the continuing attempts of filmmakers to find new ways to tell the same old stories. But for every Babadook or Creepy that appears we seem to get a double dose of the very labored, tiresome and ultimately annoying movies such as It Comes at Night, Daguerrotype, and now this one.

On the plus side, Mr. Gelatt, shown at right, sets most of his movie in daylight, in a quite beautiful, autumn-colored countryside in which the bad things that will soon happen take place in often the brightest of sunshine and greenery. The plot, such as it is, has to do with a couple of scientists/researchers that have been sent to this site by a "big corporation" (yes, feel free to read oh-oh! into this) in order to study the "animal life," which we soon learn is behaving oddly.

Because, I am assuming, of his very low budget, Mr. Gelatt does not allows to see this odd behavior on view. Instead, we're told about it secondhand, via the researchers. Oh, we do see a small animal skeleton, and a dog who actually seems to be behaving pretty much like dogs often act. But, again, since we're getting most of this via exposition, we'd best try to read something into all this.

The movie is mostly what they call a "two-hander," meaning we have only two characters on view: our researchers (played by William Jackson Harper, above, and Rebecca Henderson, below) who, it tuns out, have had some kind of past relationship that must have ended badly. So now they can spend the movie being vaguely annoyed with each other until, yep, they start having sex again. Or do they? As the movie moves along, it grows more difficult to detect dream or fantasy from reality.

Our pair knows from the outset that the site upon which the are doing their research doubles as the place where a series of grizzly mass murders occurred some time back. So now the animal life is affected? Is it the soil? The water? Or our researchers' imagination? Maybe even that naughty corporation, the representatives of which -- a pilot who flies in supplies and a disembodied voice we hear only over the phone -- are clearly assholes. Perhaps our two protags are simply going nuts, all on their own.

Whatever it is, it seems to take for-fucking-ever to make itself known. Meanwhile, we get lots of wandering-thru-the-woods and unpleasantness between our two lead characters, who actually don't seem to have much "character" of their own. We also get some very clunky exposition about their respective family life (wouldn't they have told this to each other during their earlier relationship?) but little else except increasing arguments, paranoia and a some now-and-then sex.

Oh, yes: A word or two ought to be said about the use of nightmare/intuitive memory flashbacks that help fill in plot-lines. Either find a better way to include these tiresome tropes or, better yet, leave them out altogether and come up with a entirely different way to inform your audience of "what happened earlier." Here, we see that naughty cult at work with snippets that increase in length but don't add much that's worth our energy or concentration. Plus, the POV for these flashbacks/fantasies seems more than a little "iffy."

By the time we've reached the end credits, the "they" who "remain" are unlikely to be the annoyed audience members who paid good money for their tickets to this nonsense. The poster (shown top) by Jeanne D'Angelo, however, is lots of fun.

From Paladin and running about 20 minutes too long at its 102-minute length, They Remain opens this Friday, March 2, in New York City at the Village East Cinema and on the following Friday, March 9, in Los Angeles at Laemmle's Music Hall 3. A national release (probably highly limited) is said to be upcoming, as well.

Trey Edward Shults' IT COMES AT NIGHT -- Atmosphere: 10. Characters, pacing, story: 3

As sloppily silent as his earlier Thanksgiving-family-trauma movie, Krisha, was sloppily talkative, the new would-be horror movie from the hailed-as-a-wunderkind Trey Edward Shults (shown below) turns out to be one of the most disappointing entries into the apocalyptic, end-of-civilization genre TrustMovies has yet seen. Derivative, tiresome, repetitive and paced like molasses-on-ice, the film's worst sin is to trap us with a sextet of characters for 97 minutes and yet provide none of these protagonists with any real character. They're frightened, and they're distrusting, and that's about it. IT COMES AT NIGHT turns out to be as clichéd as its silly title, the "it" of which comes, well, just about anytime at all. But, hey, darkness (including via cinematography) can cover a multitude of sins, don'cha know?

This movie is actually so bad -- super high on atmosphere and dread but super low on any of the specifics and details that might give credence and meaning to its poorly conceived plot -- that I think it is practically spoiler-proof. I will still honor the element of surprise, however, and keep my mouth shut (and fingers tied down) so as not to ruin what little there is here. It is safe to say that some kind of non-specific plague has evidently decimated humanity, but one family has persisted out in the wilds, though as the film opens we see that poor Gramps is a goner, leaving mom, dad and son alive and presumably well. Soon a would-be break-in via an intruder leads to another mom, dad and son joining the little group.

So far, so-so, with nagging little questions regarding what possible good those silly gas masks can do (perhaps the infected let out some nasty farts?) and exactly how long it takes for symptoms to show up (somebody mentions their being fast-acting, but, hmmmmm...).

Not that any of this matters, for soon we're being treated to the requisite gooey/scary special effects (above and below), which of course come via the also requisite nightmares -- which are required because, otherwise, there would be no special effects to speak of at all, and our current idiot audiences absolutely demand these. But I digress.

I do question the need for such a first-rate cast -- Joel Edgerton, Christopher Abbott, Carmen Ejogo and Riley Keough, with an especially promising young actor, Kelvin Harrison, Jr., (at right in the penultimate photo) as the older of the two sons -- since no character trait whatsoever (other than being scared) has been provided them by the filmmaker.

Yes, the movie flirts with themes of trust and betrayal, the wisdom of helping others, family comes first, and that the horror may actually come from within. But it is all flirting -- with no real depth, let alone consummation.

So on we go. Until we don't. In its way, this is the perfect film for our Trumpian times: The situation is dire, and there's no hope.

Finally little other than a load of been-there/done-that crap, the movie is more than mere disappointment: It's a harbinger of our critical establishment's increasing placement of atmosphere above intelligent movie storytelling. If you are looking for a truly interesting, surprising, unusual and oddly fulfilling end-of-time/apocalypse film, I suggest that you watch The Girl With All the Gifts, available now on streaming and DVD.

Meanwhile, from A24 and running a snail-paced 97 minutes, It Comes at Night opens nationwide this Friday, June 9. To find the theaters near you, simply click here.

The "big" stars are barely there in John Hyams' latest UNIVERSAL SOLDIER chapter

Have there really been six -- count 'em, six! -- movies in the oddly enduring, if not endearing, Universal Soldier franchise? US was the movie that paired martial arts star Jean-Claude Van Damme with Dolph Lundgren (see photo at bottom for a walk down memory lane), and after it spawned its first, and barely so-so follow-up, this movie-goer opted out. He hadn't realized that four more films had followed until he was invited to a screening of the latest -- UNIVERSAL SOLDIER: DAY OF RECKONING -- which is actually receiving a limited theatrical release. (Several in the series, I believe, went straight to video.)

From the looks of the latest addition to US, the franchise has increasingly devolved into a merely martial arts action free-for-all. Maybe it always was thus, but I dimly remember a little more plot on view.  US: DOR offers a stab at plot: the US-ers want to take charge of their own lives -- how sweet! -- but the damned government always stands in their way. Yet this plot, such as it is, is delivered in muddy shorthand. Well, maybe you had to have seen all six in the series to fully appreciate its subtlety. As directed by John Hyams (son of Peter), shown above, the movie does indeed have some very good action scenes. And that's pretty much all it has.

After a certain number or these scenes -- unless you are a die-hard action fan, of course -- the mind cries out for more, but is left, as something Biblical has told us, crying in the wilderness. So you might as well just get used to all the rough and tumble and go with it. And this is very rough and tumble.

It is also, shall we say, a tad misogynistic. Not only do a bunch of women get shot up in grizzly fashion early on, there is literally only one woman of any note as a character in the movie -- and she simply trails along to scream and flee and occasionally bop a bad guy on the bean. (Worse, she cannot be found in a single photograph on any of the sites I've explored.) No, this is a guy's guy movie in which females are simply "beards" to cover up the implicit homosexuality certainly found in an all-male, maximum-testosterone situation like this one. The unusual thing about the one major young woman on view (not the young lady above, but the attractive Mariah Bonner, a photo of whom, among the nearly 60 stills, I cannot find!) is that -- shock of shocks -- her breasts look real and relatively small. Good for you, Mariah: Stick to your guns!

As to the above-the-title "stars" of this film -- Van Damme (above) and Lundgren (at right, two photos up) -- the former has but one long fight scene (the least interesting in the movie) at the finale, while the latter has several very short scenes that are nearly dispensable. In one of these, he babbles a bunch of exposition and rouses his men to rant a bit; in the others, he all but disappears. If you've come to see these guys, save your money.

The real star of the show is a fellow named Scott Adkins, shown at left and evidently known to martial arts enthusiasts but not to me. He is young, cute and hunky (a huge improvement over the two "stars" who definitely should not be doing this sort of movie much longer), and he knows his way around martial arts moves. He is given a set-up "backstory" that we see taking place at the film's beginning and then over and over again throughout the movie until we're ready to send an emergency email to the filmmakers explaining that, yes, we get it, so enough already.

But they don't care. Nor does their core audience for all this blood and guts and heavy-duty, man-on-man combat. That audience will sit there, drinking it all in, waiting for the next big fight. Which is due any second now....  WHOMP! SPLATTER!

Universal Soldier: Day of Reckoning -- from Magnet Films and running 114 minutes, which is way too long -- has been available via VOD for some time now and opens this Friday, November 30 in Hollywood, New York and Austin, and on December 14 in Tucson. Click here to see specific theaters.

And now, as promised above: Remember these guys? Ah, time. It changes, and then obliterates us all, eventually....

Dementia, family, humor, humanity, art: Schreier/Ford's singular ROBOT & FRANK

On its own merits -- and there many of them -- the new film (his first full-length) from director Jake Schreier and writer Christopher D. Ford -- succeeds mightily. What makes ROBOT & FRANK so particularly surprising and welcome, however, is how it avoids the trap of sentimentality that seems to be waiting around every corner in this tale of an old man's renewal via -- yes -- a robot.

This old man, Frank, is played by Frank Langella (above) in perhaps the first screen role in which he manages to completely curtail his penchant for grand-standing. An actor with roots planted firmly in the legitimate theater, Langella, with his extra-long body, bedroom eyes and mellifluous voice, has always commanded the stage, from The Immoralist through Dracula and beyond. So while grand-standing may have come easily, it has always arrived. As the actor has grown older, we've seen less of it (on film, at least; I no longer attend legit theater), though it still popped up a bit in his relatively recent Starting Out in the Evening. There's usually always a whiff (or more) of self-satisfaction in his presentation.

In Robot & Frank, however, the peculiar combination of character (who Frank is spills out slowly, piecemeal) age, condition and circumstance allows the actor, with the help of his writer/director, to remain strong and commanding, even as he is failing and flailing. This mixture is dynamite; it keeps us forever on our toes, just as it does the actor himself -- who is as good here as he has ever been. Surely, "Oscar" will come calling, once the New Year arrives.

The film is set, as a title card tells us up front, in "the near future." Senior citizen and full-time curmudgeon Frank needs help, but his son Hunter (James Marsden, above, right) has grown tired of the long trip back and forth to see him. Daughter Madison (Liv Tyler, below, right) spends her time traveling the world "doing good." So Hunter brings dad a very complicated but helpful robot (voiced immaculately by Peter Sarsgaard) to take care of him.

Frank, of course, is having none of this. So, do we simply twiddle our thumbs until the feel-good, man-loves-robot ending arrives? Hardly. Nothing is quite as it seems at first glance in this film. As writer, Mr. Ford (and my apologies to this guy, as I earlier mistakenly attributed the screenplay to the film's director) is constantly surprising us and pulling us up short, even as he entertains us. And if filmmaker Schreier, shown at right, still has things to learn in the directing department (and of course he does: this is his first full-lengther), fortunately he's also gifted enough at this point to handle his directing duties with an aplomb that carries us over the finish line.

Schreier draws fine performances from his entire cast, which includes smart turns from Jeremy Sisto as the town's sheriff, Jeremy Strong as the town's yuppie du jour, and especially Susan Sarandon (above, right) as the town's friendly librarian.

Since this is a "robot" movie, you'll expect of course a theme involving humanity.  You get it -- and more -- but it won't come via any heavy-duty "message." Everything's embedded in the believable, often funny dialog, and that "humanity," when it arrives, is all concerned with Frank. The rush of emotion you may feel over the concluding few moments, I think, will have less to do with anything so standard as a feel-good message and more with having witnessed a piece of very fine film-making.

Robot & Frank -- 90 minutes long and from Samuel Goldwyn Films -- opens this Friday, August 17, in New York City at the Paris Theater and the Angelika Film Center. The following week it hits L.A. and environs and will then make its way across the country in the weeks to come. Click here to see all currently scheduled playdates with cities and theaters.

AGE OF THE DRAGONS, popular Syfy channel film, makes its digital debut

TrustMovies has rarely-to-never watched the newly-named Syfy (formerly known as the Sci-Fi Channel). Now that he has viewed AGE OF THE DRAGONS, he better understands why. According to GoDigital Media Group -- which, along with KOAN, is distributing this film -- the little movie has received the third highest rating of any Syfy film this year. 'Nuff said. If this is the level of entertain-ment Syfy viewers want, count me out. Though based on/inspired by/stolen from -- use whichever you prefer -- Herman Melville's classic novel Moby-Dick (talk about provenance!), the movie drops enough "Moby" references to probably entice aficionados. Once you're actually watching the film, however, you can only be disappointed at the little use made of most of them.

Directed by a fellow named Ryan Little, shown at left (from a screenplay by McKay Daines, who had some "story" help from Gil Aglaure and Anne K. Black), the pacing is ponderous, with interior photography generally dark and confusing (exteriors are sometimes a bit brighter) and a screenplay that is not just simple but simple-minded. The movie is not that long -- a mere 92 minutes -- but it feels like forever, as it plods along with a noticeable lack of incident and little real story.

What story there is is set off by young Ahab losing his little sister to The Great White Dragon (above) and then, as an adult played by Danny Glover (shown below, who is clearly wasting his time and talent with stuff like this) tracking the nasty beast over hill, dale and decade, as he seeks revenge.

Instead of taking off Ahab's leg, as in the original, this movie's Moby, being a fire-breathing dragon, has simply "flamed," and therefore scarred, the guy something fierce. Hence the revenge. Or is that really what Ahab is doing? (Granted, the motivations of Melville's Ahab has been called into question plenty of times, but this movie's big revelation about the hunter is paltry by any standard.)

As for that dragon, we really don't see all that much of him. I have heard that Sufy doesn't like to spend a lot on big special effects, so that may be one reason why this Great Off-White Dragon sometimes looks gray (or darker). His best scene, shown above, comes as he camouflages himself rather cleverly, I think, in order to trap one of the bad guys.

Among the good guys are Corey Sevier (shirtless, above right: You can call him Ishmael) and John Kepa Kruse (center left) as his pal Queequeg. As the love interest -- love interest? In Moby Dick. Of course, and you knew it was coming, too: this is Syfy, right? -- Sofia Pernas (shown above, center right and at bottom of post) provides good looks and a little action as Ahab's sort-of adopted daughter, who can fight her way out of most any situation -- except a poorly handled, would-be rape that adds little to the movie's second half.

The wonderful Vinnie Jones (above, right) brings a nice air of professionalism to the proceedings but is still wasted as the short-lived Stubb (almost all the movie's characters are given names directly from Melville), who here appears to be Ahab's second-in-command.

The most interesting portion of the film has to do with the use of the dragons' vitriol (that glowing fluid in the photo at left: think of it as equivalent to whales' ambergris), which is extracted from the beasts and then marketed for coin. There's a grizzly-but-fun scene of the removal of one dragon's vitriol ball. Otherwise the movie pretty much plods along. When I was a kid we had Classics Illustrated -- comic-book versions of the great novels -- which of course our English teachers all disparaged. Were those teachers alive today, I'll bet they'd prefer them to the likes of TV-level movies such as this.

Filmed entirely in Utah (these are Mormon dragons?) Age of the Dragons can be viewed now on iTunes, YouTube Movies, and CinemaNow. Look for the addition soon (these may have been added already) of further venues such as VUDU, Amazon, Playstation and Cable VOD.

On-Demand: DON'T LOOK BACK--de Van's diabolical use of Marceau & Bellucci

Back in 2002, a filmmaker named Marina de Van appeared to burst upon us with an odd and creepy movie called In My Skin, devoted to the story of a young woman with deep psychological problems who cuts herself. Yet Ms de Van, no beginner in the least, had been working with Ozon for some time as both actress and writer, as well as doing her own films, mostly shorts, since 1993. Approaching 40, this writer/director should have hit the big time with her newest movie DON'T LOOK BACK (Ne te retourne pas), considering that it's a genre-jumper that succeeds in each of its several genres -- thriller, sci-fi, psychological tale -- and also stars two major European actresses, Sophie Marceau and Monica Bellucci, both working at or near the top of their form.

Perhaps Ms de Van (shown at left) has bitten off more than today's dumbed-down audiences care to chew, because the movie has gone straight to On-Demand and will probably appear on DVD eventually -- in both of which venues it should find a small but devoted following who don't mind engaging in intelligent puzzlement grounded by a firm understanding of the psychology of the abandoned. Although the movie is one of those, during which, for a full half to two-thirds, you may  be muttering, "WTF is going on here?", I think you will not for a moment be tempted to stop watching.  So well set-up is the premise and follow-through, and so expertly does Ms de Van create her very odd and disturbing scenario (a woman's entire life -- including her apartment, husband, children and even her own image -- begins to change into something else), you'll want to stick around, if only to discover to which genre the movie actually belongs.

Is the writer/wife/mother played by Ms Marceau (above) being somehow "gaslighted," and if so, by whom?  Or is she truly going mad -- or into Alzheimer's?  And yet so real and befuddling are the changes around her -- the placement of a table, the color of one's eyes -- that "reality" is something the viewer begins to question as fervently as does our heroine.

Ms Bellucci, for her part, does a very good job of being mysterious. Of late I have found this actress less riveting than in former days when she seemed to house considerable emotion, as well as the ability to demonstrate it.  Yet, here, in a role that calls for hesitance and quiet discovery, she seems as commanding as ever (every bit as beautiful, too).

The supporting cast is well-chosen and delivers what's necessary (sometimes playing dual roles).  Especially authoritative is Brigitte Catillon (above, left) as an oddly distant "mom," while Andrea Di Stefano (atop Bellucci, below) entices, doubling as one of the hubbies and later as a very hunky waiter.

Don't Look Back (not to be confused with that earlier Bob Dylan movie) is available On-Demand all summer, through September 23, via IFC Films' Festival Direct program.  Click here for instructions on how to get it.