This is a classic film that celebrates the French Resistance effort near the end of WWII, as the Nazi's were leaving Paris and the Allies were about to enter. "The Train" is more about the characters of the German Colonel (Paul Scofield) and the French railway man (Burt Lancaster), than the actual train or its cargo. Highlighting the bureaucracy of the German war machine, Scofield is battling his own superiors as well as the French.
Filming is in black and white, which adds to the drama. Scenes were shot with full size rail equipment. This picture was made in 1964, well before CGI.
I would not call this an "action movie", although the filming and aerial footage is spectacular. It's a drama, but it tells a compelling story of the German attempt to rob the French of artwork worth billions in 1940's dollars, and the efforts that individuals go, at the expense of their lives, to stop it.
I had just finished reviewing "Gerald's Game", a superb psychological thriller starring Carla Gugino and Bruce Greenwood, in which I mention that that film should be the standard to base all other films of this genre. Based on that statement, "Knock Knock" is barely watchable. Both films were released in the same year.
Remember when Carmen Electra was seen running from a slasher in the comedy parody "Scary Movie" and she is confronted by two warning signs: one reading "Safety" and the other, "Danger", and Carmen chooses the latter? Keanu Reeves is confronted with the same situation here: he could run from the danger, which he somewhat recognizes, or stay, and he chooses to stay.
Why does he stay? Because Keanu's "Evan" is a nice guy, with a beautiful wife and family, in a nice house, who happens to be home alone one rainy night when there is a knock on his door. Enter two young ladies in (apparent) need of help, who Evan invites in. He delivers them to their destination the following day, after drying their closes, calling an Uber, getting involved in a shower sex scene, and a bedroom sex scene, only to have them reappear at his house the next night. And this is where the psychotic aspect of the film takes off. Evan finds himself physically restrained three times, he is released once, he escapes once and ends up held at gunpoint and buried in the backyard up to his neck as the two young ladies destroy his house.
Is this a 'cautionary tale' movie? If it is, what would be the message? Don't invite strangers into your house? We all know that; well, all of us except Evan. It is defeating for the film viewer to be yelling directives at the screen for Evan to disregard, only to prove the viewer correct. When the viewer is smarter than the protagonist in the film, and the viewer hasn't seen the film, it's a bad film.
The problem is that the film lacks a hero, only villainess's and a victim. Here's an alternate solution: Suppose the wife returns home early, discovers the house under attack, with the attackers still there, and the wife goes to the hall closet and pulls out a loaded shotgun. We would then have a shootout in the house between the wife and the psychotic women, who are eventually killed. The wife then discovers and saves her husband who is still buried in the backyard, and the couple bury the women in the hole vacated by the husband. At least this ending is uplifting. The kids would no longer be needed in the film, the money saved going towards rewriting the script.
Here's the movie that all movies of this genre should be measured against. Rarely have I ever used the phrase "tour-de-force" to describe an actor's performance. Carla Gugino, who hasn't been seen in any major capacity, earns this title. Her performance is riveting. Oftentimes, characters do incredibly idiotic things that completely defy logic; in this film, the characters and the situation is very plausible, if you can believe someone getting a fatal heart attack during a kinky sex attempt. I can. This was a Netflix release; if you enjoy this type of intense thriller, give it a look.
This film falls into the category of: If you saw the theatrical performance, you will likely enjoy the film. I've seen the DVD-theatrical presentation, not live performance, and I enjoyed it. I must report though, that the narrative has no plot, other than a group of cats attending an annual "Jellicle Ball" where one cat is selected by the senior member, Old Deuteronomy, to have an additional life. For this honor, the various candidates "perform" for the group what they are each known for, such as Mr. Mistopheles, the Magical Cat, etc. It is finally Grizabella who is selected by Deuteronomy because her soul is the kindest. Neither the stage performance nor the film adaptation has any meaningful spoken dialog, (The stage version has none.) making it extremely difficult to understand what is going on.
There is extensive CGI used in the film to create the character's feline costumes, which is somewhat sad, I think, because the stage performance involved considerable make-up but created characters that were much more intimately connected to the audience. When you're watching computer generated "cats", you can't help but be continually reminded that the image is a computer enhancement.
The film includes elements that had no place in the stage performance, as if to have one more excuse for using CGI: the cockroaches in chorus having human faces. Was this really needed?