Mar 16, 2017
It's been, almost, five days since the last movie I reviewed. I've watched four films since then (including this one). Three of the weren't available on here, therefore I did not review them. For those curious (ie: none of you) those movies were: The Innocents (Argentinian horror movie), A Touch Unseen and Proof Of Innocence (both from South Korea). I started watching another movie yesterday, but it was so awful that I switched to this one. My Guardian Angel was the awful movie in question and it's on Amazon. I find it, legitimately, surprising that a movie as awful as that also has an accompanying series with the same terrible actors from the movie. Anyway, so this was the movie I ended up watching and I have quite mixed feelings on it. On one hand, I don't think that the movie, at least from reading the consensus on Rotten Tomatoes, should be criticized for the fact that it is campy. I think that the movie was intended to be campy and criticizing it for that is pointless. It's like criticizing a comedy for being TOO funny, you know. Now, you might say, that I missed the point of Snakes on a Plane because I said it tried so hard to be 'so bad it's funny' that it was just bad and not what it actually it was intended to be. That would be a fair point, but the intention was for the movie to be bad, but it failed at even that. This movie is meant to be campy, so I don't know how you use that as a negative. Any movie that has Keanu Reeves literally begging for his life, doing more acting than he ever has attempted at any point prior in his career is clearly MEANT to be laughed at and not necessarily meant to be taken completely seriously. On the other hand, part of me wasn't that into the movie or the characters. The concept is certainly interesting enough and there were clearly a lot of talented people behind the scenes and in front of the cameras. They obviously worked very hard to make the best movie they possibly could. But, if I'm being honest, I already saw this movie over 10 years ago (and I re-watched it again a couple of months ago) and that movie is called Hard Candy. The similarities are so apparent that it's impossible, if you watched both films, to compare this, unfavorably, to the superior Hard Candy. There are differences between each movie, of course. Hard Candy focuses more on the torture that the lead character inflicts on the suspected pedophile. This movie, while there are certainly some violent scenes, focuses more on the head games that Bel and Genesis play with Evan. The girls lead him to believe that they are underage, therefore Evan has to do pretty much everything they say or else they'll ruin his life. This is kind of weak when you take into consideration that, really, Bel and Genesis don't look like they're underage, at all. You can notice from a plane that these two women are several years above the legal age limit. I suppose you could explain it away by saying that Evan isn't thinking rationally and is only worried about coming out of this situation with the least possible harm done to his perfect family life. It was still a weak explanation, but it's something that people will let them get away with. Admittedly speaking, I don't think this is a bad movie. It might be similar to Hard Candy in its concept, but I do legitimately think that the movie has a good concept, because it does. It attempts to subvert the usual tropes associated with torture horror. And there's some clever moments in the film. I just don't think the movie has enough of these moments to carry it past the level that it reaches. The level that it reaches, to me, is just average. I just felt that the movie could have been even crazier than it was. All things considered, given everything that DID go on here, this feels a little bit tame. I know that's a little weird given the amount of sexual content that is here, but I feel that the movie could have been a little crazier and even more subversive. Honestly, this just plays out in a fairly predictable manner. Bel and Genesis play with Evan, fucking with him every chance they get, just because they want to teach mean who cheat some sort of fucked up lesson. But Bel and Genesis are characters that are written in such a way that you wanna see them get their comeuppance. And it didn't even have to be Evan who did it, if you wanna keep the women strong, it could have been Evan's wife who came home and did something to them. I suppose that would have messed with the satirical tone they were going for, but the story comes to a fairly unsatisfying conclusion. Bel and Genesis, honestly, aren't that interesting of characters, at least when you compare them to the main character in Hard Candy, who could get away with what she did because she was such a complex character. Bel and Genesis are just two unlikable people who have nothing better to do than to fuck with people's lives just to prove a point. If the characters had a bit more substance, then it would have been better, but there's no substance. And, don't get me wrong, Lorenza Izzo and Ana De Armas (Genesis and Bel respectively) are actually really good here. Keanu Reeves goes Nic Cage batshit crazy in some scenes. So the acting, to me, is the most entertaining part of the entire movie. I just wish the characters would have been more interesting, the narrative would have felt more satisfying at its conclusion if they were. I got some entertainment from the film, to be sure, but it's just not a movie that I feel comfortable calling good. You can certainly do worse, I tried a worse movie yesterday prior to this one, but there's really nothing to see here. Hard Candy is so much better, so watch that instead. Unless you want more sex, then this is your movie and not Hard Candy.
Verified