Into the Storm (2014)

Summary
In the span of a single day, the town of Silverton is ravaged by an unprecedented onslaught of tornadoes. The entire town is at the mercy of the erratic and deadly cyclones, even as storm trackers predict the worst is yet to come. Most people seek shelter, while others run towards the vortex, testing how far a storm chaser will go for that once-in-a-lifetime shot.

Genre : Action/Thriller
Country : USA

Cast :
Sarah Wayne Callies : Allison
Richard Armitage : Gary
Jeremy Sumpter : Jacob

Director : Steven Quale


My opinion

“Look at the size of that thing!
We're gonna be YouTube stars
for the rest of our lives!
Better than sex, Donk!
How would you know?”

Tornadoes, hurricanes and typhoons. Divorced men sometimes even compare them with their ex-wife: they appear suddenly, they disappear suddenly and before you know it you lost everything and are left behind penniless. So these are phenomena you don't want to encounter too much. Apparently it's the fault of a global warming (which must be in other corners in the world because where I live it's still cold, chilly and mostly wet) that causes tornadoes to appear so often and primarily plague the US mainland. Here in Europe fortunately we have less problems with it. Eating soup with brown beans will cause more commotion and turbulence than these natural phenomena. The tornado you can admire in "Into the storm" is of an exceptional caliber and you can hardly call it a "storm in a teacup". But if it was the intention to surpass the movie "Twister" from 1986, then they failed in all areas. It's a sad attempt, stuffed with boring cliches, terrible performances with boring and sometimes idiotic dialogues, now and then really bad CGI and nonsensical situations.

Pete (Matt Walsh) and his team are a group of professional "Storm Chasers". They have been on the road for a terrible long time, trying to film the eye of a hurricane. Apparently he has contracted the wrong academic counselor because Allison (Sarah Wayne Callies), a single mother and climatologist,  succeeds in sending them in the wrong direction every time. So they always show up to late and the devastating hurricane already packed his bags, to the annoyance of Pete who sees his financial sponsorship gradually drying up due to the lack of results. Eventually they end up in Silverton where a super-storm apparently will strike. Here we meet a typical family with the death boring father Gary (Richard Armitage) and his two teenage sons Donnie (Max Deacon) and Trey (Nathan Kress). You can say that their family situation is quite stormy.

First, lets start with the positive things.
The opening scene was perfect. A tasty begin that made me lean back in anticipation of an entertaining evening while watching a natural disaster. A bunch of teenagers swallowed by an oncoming tornado, led directly to the right atmosphere. Unfortunately, however, it remained with this particular moment.
The two hillbillies took care of the hilarious part. Two clodhoppers racing through the countryside with a quad, handling a handy-cam and smartphone so they can make the perfect film of the storm, which they can post on You Tube so they become world famous and rich. A splendid duo that made me think of a "Dumb and Dumber" variant located in a disaster movie.
Some sequences with the raging tornado was eye candy. It looked real and the made destructions were imaged effectively. Especially the airport scene was prime. I was just wondering why such a small village needed such a mega-airport.

Which part was bad in this film? Actually, just about the rest. First, the untold number of cliches they swept together. A short list: the disinterested father coping with his sons, the son who's still dealing with the loss of his mother and blames his father, the impossible love who looks down on the nerd Donnie (with such an indignant look) at the beginning and you already can guess how this eventually will work out, trees that just happened to be blocking the last bus in a long line (and only the protagonists were sitting in it initially. Perfectly organized !), the father who's dominated by the headmaster but in the end puts him in his place, again a single mother and a lonely father and how they grow to each other is also so predictable. Secondly, the poor performances. Some dialogues felt so forced and uninspired. Sometimes it seemed like a soap opera that took place in a disastrous situation. With the ultimate heartbreaking moment when Gary saves Donnie and they fall into each others arms. The fact that most of them are only known from TV series, says enough.

Third, one can't exceed such a brilliant film like "Twister", which was impressive and original even though it's a film from the 80's, by simply showing four tornadoes raging simultaneously on the screen. And the way they appeared and disappeared, was also a bit exaggerated. And who remembers the flying, mooing cows in "Twister" ? Such hilarious moments were non-existent in "Into the Storm". Fourth, the CGI was not that impressive. A heap of Dinky Toys models that were blown together and buildings looking like cardboard boxes being destroyed. Fifth: the end with the immense pipeline under the road was too bizarre for words. Due to the immense suction, everyone had to cling onto something. But still there was someone standing in the background, filming everything. Astounding! 
 

Conclusion: A faint duplicate of the movie "Twister", without conviction and swagger. It was even necessary to take part in the "Footage" hype of today. The dumb duo was the only bright spot in this film in my opinion. So, you have some spare time and nothing to do, then this is an alternative to waste your time. But there's really nothing in this film that will blow you away .... 
 

My rating 3/10
Links : IMDB
 

Noah (2014)

Summary
A man is chosen by his world's creator to undertake a momentous mission before an apocalyptic flood cleanses the world.

Genre : Action/Drama/Adventure
Country : USA

Cast :
Russell Crowe : Noah
Jennifer Connelly : Naameh
Emma Watson : Ila

Director : Darren Aronofsky


My opinion 

“We broke the world - we did this. Man did this. Everything that was beautiful, everything that was good, we shattered. Now, it begins again.”

I really wonder what's so terribly bad about the movie "Noah". Granted, it smells a bit like commercializing the book of all books (And I think this still is the most ingenious elaborated marketing plan ever devised in human history. This marketing plan made sure a book was written that will dominate the list of bestsellers in perpetuity. Probably until the end of the world ...) in compliance with all film adaptations of other literature (some great, some bad). After "The Lord of the Rings", "Harry Potter", "The Hunger Games", "Divergent" and other similar books susceptible to commercialization, it seems like Hollywood has found a Biblical gap in the market. End of this year Christian Bale will be wandering through the bone-dry desert like Moses (also with a trimmed beard) in "Exodus: Gods and Kings". Darren Aronofsky's religious story "Noah" is of a moister content, with Russell Crowe hammering together a huge boat, so he can defy the salt water (God sprinkled the earth's surface liberally) together with his offspring and all species living on earth, except for the water creatures, because they feel comfortable in this huge bathtub. But isn't it so that it should be freshwater instead of saltwater with all that rain ?  And aren't there two types of aquatic animals ? Those who survive in saltwater and the others ? How was this crucial problem tackled ?

Anyway, despite the practical issues, this was a highly entertaining spectacle with an abundance of special effects and water (They used about 83,000 liters water in this film. A quantity that would make the average Ethiopian farmer really jealous ... ). You could expect the Christian community not being happy about the making of this film. Isn't it sacrilegious to turn this pious story into a mega spectacle and create it like contemporary fantasy films? (Sarcastic tone) I suggest they redesign the interior and decoration of churches, so that it would be a reflection of this rather epic-looking film. There's a high probability that one could reach a new fan base and the population of the group of churchgoers could grow again. I have no idea if this version of "Noah" follows the original story faithfully. The only thing I knew about it, was that an ark full of animals,which drifted on an immense ocean, played a major role. I don't know if the family troubles as presented here, correspond to the biblical story. It would be just a simple,short film if Aronofsky remained faithfull to the biblical version, because that story about the adventures of Noah is not that big of a deal.

And that's probably the Christian audience's key problem. The whole story is firmly filled up with profound special effects and great battles. A bold yet extremely successful choice was the introduction of "The Watchers". A collection of fallen angels who mutated into rocky beings. The comparison with "The Lord of the Rings" is made quickly . In particular, the movement of The Watchers is very similar to the way "The Ents" moved. Difficult and slow but at the same time, they can strike in a devastating way. The moment these "moving masses of rock" start to protect the Noah family against the onrushing crowd, with a fair part of the crowd being violently crushed and spinning through the air after a massive draw with their blocky fists, you could easily compare it with the attack on Minas Tirith (not the same size but with the same amount of adrenaline). Also the Ark is visually excellent developed. An apparently gigantic freighter with an entire zoo on board. Beautiful images and realistic created animals. Even the devastating flood was successful shown and was less fake as the one in "Evan Almighty".

Maybe it was the acting? Honestly I can't say anything wrong about that either. Ok, Russell Crowe doesn't really look like a devout man and the way he declares biblical phrases, seemed like a market vendor who tries to sell fake products convincingly. And yet he did it properly and the matter of conscience he was struggling with in the end, was sublimely interpreted. Only the emerging fanaticism started to bother me. But ultimately this is a tedious facet that's part of a religion. Although Jennifer Connelly, Naameh the wife of Noah, was limited seen in the picture and didn't play such a big part in the whole set-up, she was still the driving force that propelled Noah in the right direction. Anthony Hopkins, the helpful grandfather Methuselah who yearns for berries impressed me. And Ray Winstone as the warlike king Tubal-Cain, represented evil. The rest of the cast was necessary, but not particularly memorable.

"Noah" turned out to be an average disaster movie with a serious family conflict which could eventually become a family drama. Maybe it wasn't quite literally as written in the Bible, but in the end it was not sacrilege. And there is certainly no profanity. Maybe Christian representatives could be a little less narrow-minded and give this interpretation some credit. Eventually the sequence Aronofsky used for the creation of the Earth is also just a guess. No living soul can conclusively prove that this is the ultimate truth. Indeed, it's not a film where a funny giraffe and roguish elephant  cosily sit alongside each other and look over the railing to the rising water. It's rather a gloomy and depressing picture about humanity who lives in sin being swept of the earth by "The Creator", because he's sick and tired of it, so He can start over with a clean slate. But with whom? That's another theological riddle, I suppose.

Finally, some elements that seemed disturbing and a bit implausible. That the Ark was immense, I can imagine. But that it's of such a size that a stowaway hasn't been discovered after a year, seems a bit exaggerated. Knowing that the stowaway isn't vegetarian, wouldn't  that be detrimental to the resting flock ? The pregnancy test made me frown. And the final denouement is entirely hallucinatory. Eventually Noah didn't need to worry about anything in the end, because the offspring was the solution on their own. And otherwise I need to think twice next time, before I use the word "inbred".

All in all, it's an enjoyable film (despite me not being that religious) with a few little miss, but still a stunning visual presentation with beautiful, serene interpretations. For those who started tearing their hair and protesting against it (even before there was any finished material): isn't it written in the Bible "For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. (Matthew 6:14)" ? I suggest you forgive Aronofsky's artistic freedom and approach this interpretation with a more open mind. That would be nice example of "loving one's neighbour". Amen !

My rating 6/10
Links : IMDB
 

The Babadook (2014)

Summary
A single mother, plagued by the violent death of her husband, battles with her son's fear of a monster lurking in the house, but soon discovers a sinister presence all around her.

Genre : Horror
Country : Australia

Cast :
Essie Davis : Amelia
Noah Wiseman : Samuel
Daniel Henshall : Robbie

Director : Jennifer Kent


My opinion

"If it’s in a word, or it’s in a look
You can’t get rid of the Babadook.”

For a horror to be successful, there are several opportunities for hands. Either you use gore elements in such a way that blood, guts and all sorts of other slimy ingredients start dripping, slipping and flowing from the screen. Either an old known creepy veteran (vampire, werewolf or serial killer) shows up and during nocturnal activities scares the shit out of people. Or you use a busload of "from the underworld" derived demons, who take control of a weak person or some ramshackle building and should be exorcised by applying religious rituals what leads to objects flying around and an in foreign language speaking monstrous-looking possessed person. "The Babadook" has none of this. This subtle horror story uses dark corners and grim,sinister sounds. It's a story that can be interpreted in different ways and in which the phenomenon of "The Babadook" appears by reading a children's book which popped up suddenly in Samuel's bookcase. It's the same as in "Candyman" where the legendary figure Candyman appeared when chanting his name five times in front of a mirror or as in "Evil Dead" when the demons were released after a tape with ancient ritual texts was played.

Six years after the fatal accident that killed her husband Oskar (Benjamin Winspear), Amelia (Essie Davis) is still processing this heavy loss and tries to make ends meet as a single mother, together with her son Samuel (Noah Wiseman). The accident happened on the way to the hospital when Amelia was about to give birth. A traumatic experience that disrupted her relationship with Samuel. You can be sure that Amelia is torn by guilt and her feelings for Samuel balances between affection and blame. Samuel also did not emerge unscathed from this life event and is anything but an easy boy. At a certain moments I assumed that the unruly and hyperkinetic child Samuel, was the thread in this horror. What a nightmare it is to raise such a hysterical child! The hysteria is also fueled by the irrational fear Samuel has for monsters, what leads to a daily ritual of checking closets and other spaces, the inability to control him, Samuel who can't function in a normal way in a group with all the consequences and the sleepless nights. And when "The Babadook" even starts to wander in the dark corners of the house of this dysfunctional family, total insanity is not far away and Amelia is on the verge of a complete nervous breakdown.

The Australian writer and director Jennifer Kent manages to mix the well-known "fear of monsters under the bed"-item with traumatic life events and an emotional state of mind into a dizzying downward spiral that leads to total insanity. It's not horror elements and terrifying frights that enables this, but the excellent performances of Essie Davis and Noah Wiseman. Essie Davis plays an extremely complicated character who, as the film progresses, degenerates psychologically and needs to drag herself fatigued,depressed and hopeless through life. Kent clearly focused on the portrayal of this mother-figure and very minutely Amelia's psyche is exposed. Noah Wiseman manages to portray Samuel as a very annoying, uncontrollable and confused boy with an obsession for weapons, which he needs to defeat the evil monsters with. This obsession gets him expelled from school and injures the snooty daughter of Amelia's sister. With his bulging eyes and pale skin, he looks sick and obviously you have both pity on him and on the other hand he's so unbearable that you would prefer to smack his head against a brick wall. Just as his mum wished to do at a particular moment. Would he be such a brat in reality than this performance is nothing special. Otherwise it's a masterful acting performance. "The Babadook" is ultimately a kind of "Edward Scissorhands" dressed like a magician. A caricature as pictured in the inky pop-up book.

"The Babadook" is not your average horror and was subtly elaborated. It can easily be called the most original and bizarre horror of the year. The seasoned horror fans will not find it truly terrifying and some patience will be asked from the impatient horror fans to endure the slow build up. But put that aside and you can enjoy an excellent psychological horror that'll still haunt your thoughts for some time. It's your choice to decide whether this film is an observation out of the perspective of Amelia or whether it's a manifestation that arose from her psychological mess. I thought there were some hints that suggest that we are witnessing the nightmare Amelia lives in.  Or "The Babadook" is just another bogeyman that can be placed in the gallery together with his colleagues.  

"Ba-ba-ba ... dook! Dook ! DOOOOOKH ! "

My rating 8/10
Links : IMDB

Stonehearst Asylum (2014)

Summary
A recent medical school grad who takes a position at a mental institution soon finds himself taken with one of his colleagues -- though he has no initial idea of a recent, horrifying staffing change.

Genre : Thriller
Country : USA
Alternative Title : Eliza Graves

Cast :
Kate Beckinsale : Eliza Graves
Jim Sturgess : Edward Newgate
Michael Caine : Dr. Salt
Ben Kingsley : Silas Lamb

Director : Brad Anderson


My opinion

“The satisfaction of helping those in hell.
See, of all the afflictions, I can think of none more, more cruel than madness, sir.
See, it robs a man of his reason, his dignity, his very soul. And it does so, so slowly, without the remorse of death.”

Can you remember Ben Kingsley in "Shutter Island" as head of a psychiatric institution dressed up in a white overcoat ? In "Stone Hearst Asylum" he took that white overcoat back out of the closet and while smoking a pipe with a pensive look, he's extensively lecturing about the revolutionary method he applies at psychiatric patients. It's a movie based on the short story "The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether" from 1845, written by the supreme master of horror stories, Edgar Allan Poe. This master of the sinister and macabre, who used the dark depths of the human soul and primal fears as a foundation, situated this story in the south of France in those days. An institution used an unconventional way to treat internees. Instead of locking them up, they allowed patients to empathize with their delusions and their madness.

The whole story is relocated to Britain in the Victorian era. In that time psychiatry still used inhumane methods such as bloodletting, rotational therapies and outright torture by use of electrocution or near-drowning. It's in this period that Dr. Edward Newgate (Jim Sturgess) arrives at the quite spooky looking and secluded Stone Hearst Asylum. A Victorian building that easily could be used as background for an old horror movie and resembles Count Dracula's castle in Transylvania. Newgate wants to gain clinical experience in this institution. A tour of Dr. Lamb shows that the psychiatric treatments used look pretty bizarre. Soon however, he's warned by Eliza Graves (Kate Beckinsale), a gifted pianist who looks absolutely beautiful and immediately arouses Newgate's curiosity. She urges him to leave Stonehearst as soon as possible.

And then we're off for an old-fashioned detective thriller where Newgate is trying to figure out what hidden secrets there are within the walls. A costume film with lots of candlelight and draughty corridors and dungeons. A sad fact is that very early in the film the greatest secret is revealed, so the tension actually gets badly mauled. It's not a real nail-biter anymore afterwards and eventually it evolves into a dated suspense film with a touch of romance, a spark of excitement and a bit of comedy. Nicely designed though, but at the same time as gruesome as an episode of Sesame Street. However, the final denouement was still Poe worthy and fairly surprising.

Brad Anderson can be highly thankful for getting together such a star cast for this movie. Celebrities like Ben Kingsley and Michael Caine are not just any actors. Unfortunately Caine's contribution is fairly limited. That's because of the circumstances in which he finds himself and afterwards because of his mental state. Kingsley can indulge himself in his role as the fairly unstable and unpredictable Dr.Lamb. A role with emotions swinging back and forth like an old fashioned pendulum clock. But the most I enjoyed the character Mickey Finn, played by David Thewlis (Better known as Remus Lupin from Harry Potter). A fairly disturbed figure with murderous thoughts. Kate Beckinsale provides the visual delight with her beautiful appearance. Although she's actually the most normal looking person among all the other crazy characters, I always felt like watching at Keira Knightley in "A dangerous method". An expressive facial expression accompanied by a lot of sighs and groans. Jim Sturgess was predominantly in the picture, but actually didn't make an overwhelming impression.

In the end it wasn't an earth-shattering movie. Amusing yes. And there are worse ways to spend your time. What stays with you are the odd personages who roam through the corridors of this institution: the man who thinks he's a horse and only meekly follows orders when he's being threatened that his next comb-over will be skipped, the nymphomaniac nurse and the Frankenstein-like wild man locked in a dungeon. The wise words told to aspiring psychologists at the beginning  "Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see.", is indeed applicable to this film, because there are some whoppers of story twists in the end. Final tip : don't watch any trailer, because they give away too much !

My rating 6/10
Links : IMDB

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

Summary
A growing nation of genetically evolved apes led by Caesar is threatened by a band of human survivors of the devastating virus unleashed a decade earlier. They reach a fragile peace, but it proves short-lived, as both sides are brought to the brink of a war that will determine who will emerge as Earth's dominant species.

Genre : SF/Action
Country : USA

Cast :
Gary Oldman : Dreyfus
Jason Clarke : Malcolm
Andy Serkis : Caesar

Director : Matt Reeves


My opinion 

"I always think... ape better than human. I see now... how much like them we are."

After the magnificent "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" from 2011, Caesar the legendary ape who started the revolution for his species, can show up again in this sequel. It's 10 years later and the world has been decimated thanks to the Simian virus. This flu originated from a genetically engineered virus and ensured that the apes became systematically wiser. The magisterial beginning shows Caesar in close-up and from there it's a run-up to an amazing first 20 minutes in which no human is seen and we witness the ins and outs of the apes commune, who communicate by use of a kind of sign language. They have retreated into a mountainous forest near San Francisco, where they have formed a primitive society with Caesar as the absolute leader. They lead a peaceful existence, not aware of the fact that humanity has survived the pandemic. Until such underdeveloped biped turns up one day and immediately shoots an ape at first sight. And that's the beginning of a very interesting struggle for power between two different cultures with survival instinct, self-preservation and demarcating the territory as a central issue. Eventually you start to wonder who really is a primitive species.

Is it necessary to see this movie in less than no time because of the original story with surprising twists? Nope, not at all. It's not really that exciting and even a normal chimpanzee can predict the outcome. But, it's the amazing design of the apes and the sometimes real human actions and emotional traits that they show. Probably the fact that the actors are "motion captured" has something to do with it, but it's still breathtaking to watch. At certain moments the CGI wasn't quite correct. Especially the fragments of the horse riding apes. You can notice sometimes that these were computer animations. But that's really nitpicking. The Most part looked lifelike and one can only conclude that the authentic episodes of "Planet of the Apes" from the 60's were irrefutable populated by costumed actors.

The final confrontation between humans and apes, with Caesar, again played by Andy Serkis (who formerly also performed as Gollum in TLotR), and Malcolm (Jason Clarke) as the two righteous leaders of the two parties, is of course inevitable. Clearly a sociopolitical theme was ingeniously woven throughout the cheap, ordinary Hollywood entertainment. The mutual distrust with revenge as the cause for the sneaky tricks and treachery. One group is pissed off because the apes are supposedly the origin of the extermination of mankind. The other group is unnerved by the years of abuse in laboratories and a doomed life in captivity. The result, of course is a clash with also some internal feuds and conflicts.

 

Unfortunately after several memorable and downright masterful film clips, we're treated with some ordinary, cheap action movie scenes. A kind of "Expendables meets The A-Team" with heroically swinging of automatic rifles, rockets whizzing around the ears as if the third world war just began and even a tank broke loose. Next to that a big can of sentimentality is pulled open quickly leading to an engaging conversation between Caesar and his son. And then the curtain falls across this magnificent epos with a picture of a real Messiah who parades among his followers. An open end that yearns for an overwhelming third part. But beyond this kitschy final offensive you can admire a few cinematic gems like the appearing of the apes colony in the big city, where they speak to the crowd in an admonishing tone. You could feel the consternation of the crowd after hearing the first words of Caesar. And also the magnificent mimicry Koba used at one time to deceive two armed men. A moment where CGI and facial expressions blend effortlessly. Yes, that's the reason why you should watch this movie.

My rating 7/10
Links : IMDB

Mindscape (2013)

Summary
In the near future or an alternate reality, there are memory detectives, people who have the ability to enter other peoples' electronically aided memories. They often are used to resolve psychological conflicts, and sometimes to exonerate someone from a crime. John was at one time the top in this field but he has been recovering from the death of his wife, and a stroke. To get back into work the head of the small firm he works for offers him what is supposed to be a simple job, getting 16 year old Anna to start eating again. However, the "simple job" turns into his most challenging.

Genre : Thriller/Mystery
Country : USA/Spain/France

Cast :
Mark Strong : John
Taissa Farmiga : Anna
Brian Cox : Sebastian

Director : Jorge Dorado


My opinion

“If you ever find me particularly attractive in  a memory …it’s probably because I made that up too”

There's this saying "A penny for your thoughts". And sometimes it's better not to know what someone's thoughts are. John Washington (Mark Strong) experienced that firsthand. John is a "Memory detective", working for Mindscape Company, and has the ability to penetrate into the memory of people in order to figure out what's going on in the psyche. This procedure is sometimes used in court cases to determine whether the accused is indeed the culprit. It's still not totally valid but the technique is preferred to be used instead of a lie detector test. But John himself is also a tormented spirit and during a session he got confronted with his own memory of his deceased wife and he got a mild heart attack. He's mentally unable to perform his work as "Memory detective" and he goes on a well-deserved rest. The lack of money becomes a problem and he's forced to return to his boss Sebastian (Brian Cox) who gives him a seemingly simple case in which a teenage girl refuses to eat. John needs to find out whether she is a brilliant sociopath or a traumatized teenager.

 
The movie "Mindscape" (also known as "Anna") balances between the classic detective and the modern science fiction genre. Immediately "Inception" comes into your mind as a comparison. And despite "Mindscape" using the principle of dream layers (but here it's applied to memories), it doesn't feel like a real SciFi. It's rather the unraveling of a complicated puzzle. I think the film is more like "Extracted" although the latter was a major disappointment when it's about the level of tension. Although John has the ability to explore someone's brain cells, it seemed he himself had a shortage of those. I was surprised that he was a notorious "Memory detective", because although the clues were so crystal clear (the signature for example), he didn't seem to notice them. Did he need huge fluorescent arrows to point it out for him ? And apparently the writers thought that the audience watching this movie stood at the end of the line during the dispensation of brains, because there were really huge whoppers of errors and improbabilities in the end.

But despite the disappointing end and the illogical conclusion, it was an exciting and dark film. While John digs deeper into the memories of Anna, he becomes more and more embroiled in an ingenious spun web of misleading events and mysterious developments. The story reveals the different pieces painfully slow. Mark Strong has that look that perfectly suits the person John Washington : confident and focused, smart enough to make the right associations (but yet not smart enough to interpret the obvious clues correctly. Too evident probably.) . And yet he looks like a fragile and vulnerable person who exudes a kind of melancholy and gloom. This will probably be a typical trait of Strong, cause he also looked like that in "Welcome to the Punch".

Taissa Farmiga, the intelligent Anna who balances between trauma and violence, was an undeniably perfect choice for this role. For me, a rising star of the same level as Saoirse Ronan: an innocent look with a certain sensuality and yet frighteningly dangerous. She looked familiar to me and afterwards I read she played Sarah in "Jamesy Boy". The conversations between John and Anna were pleasant to hear and sometimes put together in a very clever way, with John trying to uncover the truth, while Anna quirky parries these attempts by using her intellect. It's a pitty that the intellect of reasoning and conversing wasn't used in the overall storyline. Because despite a slasher-like start that turned into a psychological thriller, was the ending still pretty disappointing. The rendition by Farmiga was impressive. The storyline however will only be a memory after a while .... 
 

My rating 6/10
Links : IMDB