Spring (2014)

Summary
A young man in a personal tailspin flees the US to Italy, where he sparks up a romance with a woman harboring a dark, primordial secret.
 
Genre : Horor/Romance/SF
Country : USA
  
Cast :
Lou Taylor Pucci : Evan
Nadia Hilker : Louise
Vanessa Bednar : Gail

Director : Justin Benson, Aaron Moorhead

My opinion 

"I’m half undiscovered science, a bunch of confusing biochemistry and some crazy hormones."

"Spring" isn't really a horror film. It's a rather mythological love story with a "not so bad" twist. A story about how true love can overcome obstacles and how that makes you choose irreversible options. And this interspersed with sometimes lurid and bizarre scenes. There are several moments in this film, which also proceeds painfully slow (the only flaw I could think of), where you are wondering what the hell is actually going on. And when everything is explained in detail, you frown and instantly you think "What the f * ck was that ?". I admit that the whole metabolic explanation went over my head the first time, but after a while it became really clear and I realized it was dead simple. Ultimately it was a film that took me by surprise, despite its long playing time, and unexpectedly continued to fascinate me.

The beginning of this remarkable film is I could say brilliant. A scarce setting. Young Evan (Lou Taylor Pucci) at the bedside of his dying mother. A joke. A blank stare. A final sigh and then ... finito. The day of the funeral ends with an out of control bar fight. To avoid problems with the local police, Evan decides out-of-the-blue to book a plane ticket and travels to distant Italy. Once there, he ends up in the company of two British loudmouths whose main interests are : pouring as much as possible alcohol in their throat, using gore language and constantly trying to seduce an Italian girl. The day they scram and leave Evan behind, he's determined to get acquainted with the beautiful Louise (Nadia Hilker) with whom he briefly made eye contact, somewhere at a village square. He offers his services at some farm in order to pay for his stay and slowly the two grow closer together. What emerges is a not so obvious relationship. The mysterious and impulsive Louise isn't exactly making it easy for Evan and soon the viewer is fully aware that she's hiding a terrible secret.

What is it that makes this film so unique? Several things as I look at it afterwards. The casual and spontaneous way these two people interact, converse and let love flourish between each other. Not with contrived and forced dialogues. It seemed as if their love game unfolds naturally before your eyes and you witness how two charismatic individuals whirl around each other in a flirting way. You wouldn't say that Evan has charisma. He looks more like a meaningless, unqualified,miserable fellow who has no specific goal in his life and also has a limited wardrobe. Yet he came across as profound and intellectual during philosophical conversations with Louise. And certainly the speed at which he could grasp the whole explanation, proves there's a sparkle of some intelligence. Conversely Louise is a chunk of charisma. A mysterious character who Evan can't get hold of and whose reasoning and reactions raises questions. The reason why she is confusing at times and stands aloof, becomes clearer as soon as the terrible secret is revealed. Superb performances without a doubt.

Also cinematically it's a bit different. The camera movements and positions are sometimes surprising. The bird's-eye view sometimes delivers beautiful images such as the boat trip. These splendor images are regularly interrupted by short shots of all kinds of flora and fauna. Bizarre and sometimes incomprehensible. But all this is ultimately connected with the big secret. The most successful scene is when Louise explains the whole mystery to Evan. Although she doesn't want to explain it initially, she changes her mind and she does it while Evan is on its way through the narrow streets of the Italian village. And while stumbling over the cobbles he listens to the eerie tale. I would have preferred that she'd tell this complicated story calmly at a table because the pivoting camera and flashy long sequence demanded all my attention. And this ensured that the final message didn't directly hit me and sounded pretty hazy. The horror clips are scarce, sometimes unclear and sometimes with pretty ugly CGI. Is this done deliberately? Were the resources limited? I have no idea. But ultimately it all fits perfectly with the rest.

Maybe there's a moment when you're wondering where exactly the romance is hiding ? Maybe you dropped off because it's pretty surreal and it all looks strange. And yet you should do the effort to sit through the movie, because the final denouement is pure romance. This is the epitome of true love. Maybe I raved about this film, but I've never seen the concepts life, love, death,pregnancy and rebirth flow into each other in such a subtle way. A simplistic love story with a quirky twist which eventually ends in a way you hoped it would end. A beautiful, unique film that briefly will resonate to some.

My rating 8/10

Links : IMDB

Exodus : Gods and Kings (2014)

Summary
Epic adventure Exodus: Gods and Kings is the story of one man's daring courage to take on the might of an empire. Using state of the art visual effects and 3D immersion, Scott brings new life to the story of the defiant leader Moses as he rises up against the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses, setting 600,000 slaves on a monumental journey of escape from Egypt and its terrifying cycle of deadly plagues

Genre : Action/Adventure/Drama
Country : USA/UK
 
Cast :
Christian Bale : Moses
Joel Edgerton : Ramses
Aaron Paul : Joshua

Director : Ridley Scott
 


My opinion 

“Follow me and you will be free. Stay and you will perish.” 

I have a feeling that the Catholic Church has done quite a bit of lobbying in Hollywood, after noticing that their fanbase started to dwindle. First there was the biblical story "Noah" with the famous boat builder who started constructing a huge ark, insisted by "The guy upstairs", just so he and his family could withstand the announced tidal wave together with a pair of every animal species. And now they even convinced Ridley Scott to make a film of the incomparable epic story of Moses who guided his people through the desert to absolute freedom (It's clear he hasn't pointed out the right place, because they still haven't found the right spot). Ultimately, this film won't convert me (it didn't appeal to me either), but I did expect great things from this pimped version of "The ten commandments" from 1956. In the end it was just a boring spectacle in which the whole bag of CGI tricks, special effects and contemporary modern camera technology was opened, to ensure a stunning visual show. I couldn't find any added value compared with the original film from 1956. Indeed, it was dead boring and disappointing with some non-impressive performances in comparison with those from "The Ten Commandments".

Writing a spoiler-free review for a film like "Exodus" isn't really difficult, because most of us know the initial story. In contrast to the story in the Bible with everything miraculous, wondrous and divine described, this film looks at it from a scientific perspective. There's a meaningful explanation for every Egyptian plague. Even the highlight with the Red Sea didn't look as if the hand of God was in play. As Scott announced it himself, the intention was to give all miracles a scientific twist. Similarly, the big trick with the Red Sea. A giant tsunami caused a drawback of the Red Sea. As a realist, I can live with this, and it's a more plausible explanation for the course of events. As an avid movie lover, this was a rather disappointing choice. In my honest opinion this ruined the magic of the movie. To be honest, my high expectations about this scene made sure I persisted in looking further to this rather miserable-long film. I was expecting an impressive fragment (compared to that of the film of 1956) but was treated to an empty, muddy seabed (and judging by the immense noise of the flying birds, it was swarming with air gasping fish) which got flooded again by huge tidal waves. So it wasn't an impressive moment with a sea opening itself. Waiting impatiently for this moment was just a waste of effort.

The performances by Christian Bale (Moses) and Joel Edgerton (Ramses) were sometimes flatly embarrassing and totally unconvincing. Bale really wasn't believable as the famous Moses. As would-be Egyptian, he looked youthful and virile in the beginning. As Moses, he also looked like a virile person, but with a fake beard. Also, he wasn't confident and he even dared to accuse God of going too far. Compare him with Charlton Heston. Now THAT was a real Moses : his stature, the impressive beard, that appearance and he was a perfect example what leadership is all about. Also Edgerton as the cruel ruler Ramses looked downright ridiculous. The moment he lays aside his dangerous sword, being part of "The Village People" wouldn't be out of place with the thick applied mascara and his shiny bald head. Remember Yul Brynner ! Yes, he looked like a dangerous and cruel Egyptian pharaoh. For the supporting roles they recruited some big names like Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley, Aaron Paul and John Turturro. Obviously neither cost nor effort was spared and this served merely to give the whole spectacle a Hollywood status. The only one who didn't disappoint me was Kingsley, although there is a little wear on the routine of facial expressions by him.

Is there anything positive to report ? Yes of course. Visually it is a feast for the eyes: the whole decor, the costumes, Memphis and the surrounding slums were impressive on screen, the monuments and the ongoing labor, the mandatory large-scale battle scenes (I got that "The Lords of the ring" feeling again), the Egyptian plagues look slick and some images are real gems. The subtle interpretations of the biblical story, were surprising. Firstly, He-who-always-talks-with-a-reverberating-voice is represented by an irritating young boy who speaks with a British accent (Not an uninspired burning bush). He's a real brat who gets terribly worked up when his demands aren't met. I'm not a religious type and certainly no expert when it comes to the content of the Bible, but I'm pretty sure that while His Holiness let the 10 plagues rage over Egypt, he still was working on the 10 Commandments, because the rule "Thou shalt not kill" and the concept of "to love thy neighbour" wasn't applied here. The term "turn the other cheek" apparently wasn't customary either. He rather used the slogan "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" I guess. But that's a subject for a theological debate. Furthermore, I think it's wonderful that Moses had to chisel the 10 commandments into the stone tablets himself, instead of "The Big Chief" using some lightning.

Yet I ask myself why Ridley Scott, still one of my favorite directors who produced a series of superb films (Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Hannibal, Black Hawk Down, Matchstick Men, Prometheus) why he has choosen this project at the age of 77. Maybe he wanted to come to terms with God! Conclusion: a visually successful film but substantively it's as empty as the desert during a hot summer. The only thing they need to make is a soft erotic drama about Sodom and Gomorrah, a thriller about the fate of Lot and an adventurous movie about Samson and Delilah, and I think they would have covered the most thrilling parts of the Bible.

PS. It's certainly not my intention to offend those who believe. Who am I to judge if believing is a good or a bad thing. That would make me God, God forbid. But let me quote Ridley : "Religion is the source of all evil. Everyone is tearing each other apart in the name of their personal God". Ultimately, this film will cause a fuss among the devout audience. For me it was simply a simple story.

My rating 4/10

Links : IMDB

VANish (2015)

Summary
A kidnapped young woman is forced on a road trip full of murder and mayhem that takes place entirely in her captor's getaway van.

Genre : Action/Crime/Horror
Country : USA
 
Cast :
Maiara Walsh : Emma
Danny Trejo : Carlos
Austin Abke : Jack

Director : Bryan Bockbrader


My opinion 

“Max, hide the beers.
I mean, who gives a shit, man. The whole fucking van smells like pot and alcohol.”

Seeing the title of this movie, it inevitably made me think of the legendary polish product, used to remove stains. I must admit that as the film progresses, and especially during the rough and gore climax in the end, they sure could use a shitload of this product to remove the resulting stains (blood stains that is). Eventually, the initial meaning of the movie title will be a reference to the fact that the entire film almost solely takes place in a van. "VANish"  surely can be considered as a low-budget film that was made in an unreal short period. In 13 days they've made the whole thing and in a way you'll notice that.

Despite the low budget, the film still looks surprisingly fresh and professional. In terms of images anyway. The sultry and hot desert environment where everything happens, shimmers of the screen. Everything is soaked in warm colors. And although it's a simple story that was filmed in a driven way, there are some shortcomings in it. I'm a fan of low-budget movies. And after watching all these million dollar blockbusters, it's sometimes a relief to see a minimalist creation. It's the purity of such movies that intrigue me and not the dizzying special effects or the exuberant paid movie stars who appear in it. That this film won't be nominated for an Oscar is obvious of course, but usually there is still a revelation to discover in such a creative product. In "VANish" this is without a doubt the actress Maiara Walsh who plays brilliantly the part of Emma: a brave young lady who, even though she finds herself in a dire situation, continues to provoke and belittle the three kidnappers. A funny rendition that guarantees hilarious conversations now and then.

Another highlight is the brief appearance of Tony Todd, who I'll always remember as the imposing and frightening "Candyman" from the eponymous movie. A central interlude so absurd that it made me think of "Pulp Fiction" and the character of Todd  as intimidating as ludicrous. I'm sure Tarantino could appreciate this fragment. Besides that, I think you can compare "VANish" with "From Dusk Till Dawn" (except that the latter with regard to the finishing touch and elaboration surely is from a different level). At first glance you might think that this is yet another Danny Trejo one-man-show. Are you a hardcore Trejo fan, then you'll be deeply disappointed, because he appears only for a few minutes (which I didn't regret). He might be a crucial part of Jack's (Austin Abke) established plan, but the final emphasis is on the interaction between the four protagonists and the hidden agenda of Jack.

The biggest disappointment was the denouement. In line with the slasher films of the 90s, this film ends in a huge bloodbath and the shown violence reaches excessive proportions. But ultimately, these violent scenes aren't really innovative and they look just as old as those of the good old days. Nevertheless you would expect them to be more realistic and credible with today's technology. It seemed as if the staff used buckets of fake blood on the set. Also, the three kidnappers Jack, Max and Shane were at one time really irritating. Admittedly, Shane (Adam Guthrie) and Max (Bryan Bock Brader, Director) weren't really sane (drugs, alcohol and PTSD are most likely the cause of this), but gradually they became more and more schizophrenic and hallucinatory insane. In contrast, Jack is an example of self-control. That's why a visit to his pissed girlfriend, who broke up with him for unknown reasons, during the abduction is plain normal (for me this was a bit exaggerated).

Perhaps the biggest plus of this film is the simplicity of the story: two perfectly normal looking weirdos (a kind of "Dumb and Dumber"-types) abduct the daughter of a drug baron for ransom, the trip to the meeting is fairly chaotic, one of the kidnappers seems to have a different motivation, the denouement turns out to be quite bloody. And that's perhaps the downside of the film. A too simplistic story. Perhaps they should have extended that period of 13 days a little, to embellish the story a bit and improve the gore, bloody scenes. The movie isn't that bad, but maybe they rushed it a bit as if all hell would fall on them.

My rating 5/10
Links : IMDB

We still kill the Old Way (2014)

Summary
When retired East End villain Charlie Archer is murdered by a feral street gang, his brother Ritchie returns to London from Spain to investigate.

Genre : Action/Crime
Country : UK
 
Cast :
Ian Ogilvy : Richie
Danny-Boy Hatchard : Aaron
Alison Doody : Susan Taylor

Director : Sacha Bennett


My opinion 

“They are nasty little piglets. And I really like to hear them squealing before the end.”

When I looked at the cover of this film for the first time, an old-fashioned-looking layout with two evenly sized areas where some veterans are shown above a group of fearless teenagers, I was expecting some kind of third-rate B-movie that you can buy after a while for a bargain price in your local supermarket or which you can get with two big packs of paprika chips in a promotional package with the slogan "eat-some-crispy-chips-with-this-bite-sized-movie". In hindsight, I thought this movie didn't deserve that cheap status. It's a reasonably entertaining movie about contemporary youth who have more respect for their iPhone than for a war veteran's hard-earned medals, who are harshly dealt with by some old gangster veterans. The sometimes rather brutal scenes go hand in hand with subtle humor, which I found a wonderful cocktail.

Don't expect an intricate storyline with thoughtful subplots, but a straightforward crime story with respect, loyalty and correctness (if you can call it that way) diametrically opposed to debauchery and vandalism. A kind of "Expendables" which are spring cleaning a suburb in London (East End) because the brother of Richie Archer (Ian Ogilvy) terminates a gang rape in some alley and is being killed by Aaron (Danny-Boy Hatchard), the leader of the gang of those young punks. After the news is being told by an old friend from the neighborhood, he flies over from Spain to take revenge, with the help of some companions from the past.

It's again a crime movie in which the familiar clichés aren't shunned. The youngsters are depicted as stupid nobodies who can't say two sentences without overloading them with swear words and whose situation obviously is the result of a bunch of hopeless social circumstances. Police and investigators are again ignorant and so terribly stupid that their research doesn't progress a bit. The most outstanding example is superintendent Susan Taylor (Alison Doody). I am categorically convinced that her cup size surpasses her IQ score without any problems. A police detective who doesn't even know that her daughter is involved with the leader of the gang. And finally the retired ex-gangsters are presented as saviors of the past. Three times they are portrayed as the local scouts members who ensured the disappearance of scum of the street, so everyone could walk at ease on the streets during the night. After seeing some scenes I'm sure they weren't members of the "Vienna Boys Choir" in their time.

But it was the cast that charmed me the most. Especially Ian Ogilvy sparkled on the silver screen. A sort of Roger Moore with a grayish beard who speaks all the time with a kind of Sean Connery accent. A quiet man who oozes authority. A superb acting performance by someone who surely has a legendary list of performances and participations in all kinds of television series. The three companions fit perfectly in that picture: three ruthless, tough elderly who flinch for nothing (but apparently after some efforts suffer from some physical ailments). Those four blood brothers dressed identically and looked like a senior version of "Reservoir Dogs" to me. The torture scene I thought was the highlight of the film: sadism mixed with cynical, sarcastic humor (the metaphor of the modern drill compared to the old-fashioned hand drill was obvious) .I chuckled and gloated at the same time. The youngsters weren't bad either, although it sometimes seemed as if they wanted to copy the American slums. Danny-Boy Hatchard is great as riotous Aaron who doesn't care about anybody and seems fearless, but on second thoughts he's more of a coward who rather sends out his followers instead of a direct confrontation. His way of acting is sometimes exaggerated, especially the language irritated me after a while.

"We still kill the old way" has its charms and its shortcomings. The ending is a bit abrupt and sometimes quite naive performed. Some movie sequences look artificial like the dialogue between Richie and Susan in the pub. But overall in my opinion this was a successful British film and I wouldn't have a problem if they brought up the old guard again to implement the idea suggested by Richie at the end.

My rating 6/10
Links : IMDB

Whiplash (2014)

Summary
A young and talented drummer attending a prestigious music academy finds himself under the wing of the most respected professor at the school, one who does not hold back on abuse towards his students. The two form an odd relationship as the student wants to achieve greatness, and the professor pushes him

Genre : Drama/Music
Country : USA
 
Cast :
Miles Teller : Andrew
J.K. Simmons : Fletcher
Melissa Benoist : Nicole

Director : Damien Chazelle



 My opinion

“The truth is, Andrew

I never really had a Charlie Parker.
But I tried.
I actually fucking tried.”

"Whiplash". You could think that this film tells the story of a drummer (the movie poster is a bit of a spoiler when it comes to this) who has suffered this injury by violently playing his instrument. Or he lost control of his car while drumming rhythmically on the steering wheel and crashed into the car driving in front of him. You could link the movie title to these assumptions, because the arrangements that Andrew (Miles Teller) has to play in this masterful and highly rhythmic film may result in a neck injury. And when it comes to losing that control ... well ... then you should go and watch the movie to find out yourself. Anyway, the film title refers to a song written by the American jazz composer Hank Levy. The central theme of the film is about the influence you can have on someone and drive that person to exceed certain inhuman limits of his own ability. Now, for me you're already a top musician when you know the complete arrangement of "Whiplash" and "Caravan" (written by Duke Ellington) by heart. Even if there's a little mistake here and there or you are little bit offbeat, eventually I will have a boundless admiration for the musician after completing such a superhuman performance.

I've never had such a desire to pull someone through the screen and then smack a huge cymbal against his face as now with the presumably extremely talented music teacher Fletcher, brilliantly played by JK Simmons. A man who lives for his music and has a huge passion for it. It's a bit exaggerated that passion though. Exaggerated to such extent that it exceeds the limit of human dignity and by his passion for creating a perfect musician, his way of teaching tends to be sadomasochistic. A kind of militaristic attitude towards his traumatized and frightened students who are wary of any unexpected outburst. A disrespectful howler, suitable as "drill sergeant" in the US Army, and first-class bully, who suddenly swings around music stands, slaps his students in the face and throws out a member of his orchestra, just because he plays a bit out of tune . Afterwards, the accused doesn't appear to be the culprit, but he's just thrown out of the classroom because he didn't know he wasn't the one playing out of tune. A worse stain on the reputation of a professional musician, according to Fletcher.

That's also what Andrew, an ordinary American teenager who studies at the Shaffer conservatory and whose only envisioned aim is to be the best jazz drummer ever, undergoes. The moment he's being asked to join Fletcher's school orchestra, which only consists of a select group of musicians, it becomes the best day of his life. His confidence gets such a boost that he even overcomes his shyness and dares to ask a girl, who works at the cinema, on a date. That it's subsequently leading to a veritable psychological warfare, goes beyond his wildest dream. Gradually the terror policy of Fletcher drives him to the utmost to meet Fletcher's expectations. Even his relationship with Nicole (Melissa Benoist) is terminated abruptly by him. The love for music is displaced by a bloody battle for a wanted spot in the orchestra. The obsessional takes the upper hand, tending towards self-destruction.

I'm not exactly an expert myself when it's about jazz. And I've read reviews where it's suggested that the essence of jazz is completely misrepresented here : "The idea about jazz in this movie is brought in a grotesque way and looks like a ridiculous caricature". The whole history about Charlie Parker and the anecdote Fletcher tells everytime, apparently isn't exactly true at all. Could be, but for me the jazz section wasn't of essence in the story. It's the emotional and physical brutality that Fletcher uses to bring students to a higher level. In this way Fletcher tries to create "HIS Charlie Parker". The whole movie does follow the rhythm of the used music: uplifting, rhythmic and intense. Only the end was predictable and presented us of course the well known rule that the oppressed kicks the oppressor's ass again. Actually I hoped Andrew would put his drumsticks there where the sun doesn't shine at Fletcher.

The performances of Teller and Simmons are obviously extremely stunning. It took me a while before I realized that I've seen Teller in "That awkward moment". A movie I wanted to forget about as soon as possible. Here, however, I thought he was brilliant. And apparently he's an avid drummer and he did all the drumming himself. Hats off and respect ! But the most brilliant achievement was undoubtedly that of Simmons. What a great character sketch with lots of charisma. A character that scares you. Someone you start to hate thoroughly after a while. But in the end I understood a bit what drove him to this behavior. He won an Oscar for this role and in my opinion well deserved. An energetic musical thriller, with a fairly predictable outcome and which is so extremely rhythmic you can't sit still. Highly recommended!

My rating 7/10
Links : IMDB

October Gale (2014)

Summary
A doctor takes in a mysterious man who washes ashore at her remote cottage with a gunshot wound. Quickly they both learn the killer has arrived to finish the job, while a storm has cut them off from the mainland.

Genre : Drama/Romance/Thriller
Country : Canada
 
Cast :
Patricia Clarkson : Helen Matthews
Scott Speedman : William
Tim Roth : Tom

Director : Ruba Nadda


My opinion 

“Helen, if you let him in, we are both dead.”

What do I remember of "October Gale" after watching it ? Strange but true, the soundtrack eventually made the biggest impression on me. Melancholic piano music wonderfully fitting the state of mind of Helen Matthews (Patricia Clarkson) . The entire film is carried by the compositions of Mischa Chillak. And especially the beautiful and fragile number "Close Watch" of Agnes Obel playing at the beginning of the film, while Helen navigates her boat over the huge lake to civilization, was perfect at that moment in the film. The modest and understated performances by Clarkson and Speedman (William) were outstanding. And afterwards I also had the desire to travel to such a remote island where you can stay undisturbed. But these are ultimately the only positive things I can think of. It's a fairly empty and uninspired film. "October Gale" is being described as a thriller, with a touch of drama and romance in it. But ultimately it's only a brief sketch about Helen's process of handling the loss of her husband, with varying emotions coming up. There was a brief moment of romance in the present and a lot of it in the flashbacks. And to label it as a thriller, they really should have come up with a bit more tension since that section was extremely limited.

Helen Matthew, apparently a doctor, goes to an island in Ontario where she and her late husband James (Callum Keith Rennie) used to spend their weekends and holidays in a weekend cottage that has been already 100 years in possession of James' family. Apparently, the only purpose of this trip is to finally clean up that cabin and come clean with the past. An entire cleaning operation so to say. This is accompanied by painful memories and tangible confrontation with the past. When it's all a bit to much to her, she decides to go and buy a new fuse. After some delay she returns to the island, while a powerful storm arises. In the course of the evening she finds the wounded young man William (Scott Speedman) with a gunshot wound in his shoulders and who gives, after being taken care of, a vague explanation about what happened to him.

A simple story which is shown on the big screen in a simple way. At first I thought it was intriguing and fascinating. I was waiting for how the story would develop. But in the end I realized I was still waiting for it. By the time the denouement with the ultimate confrontation came, it was finished before I knew it. If you think this movie will end with a bang, I can already tell you that the curtain will fall with two modest bangs. There were also some dubious facts that made me frown my forehead. Most of these seemed to be rather far-fetched, and some weren't very logical. I found it odd that there were no spare fuses in the cabin, but the moment Helen takes care of the injured William, she magically pulls out a complete surgical equipment with all kinds of forceps, scissors and disinfectant. Did they have that cottage already when she was an intern in a hospital? Did she use these instruments to practice on her boyfriend at that time? Or is it simply too dangerous to stay on this island? And the way James exchanged the fuses afterwards made me chuckle. A university degree is no guarantee for thinking logical and practical apparently.

The fact she couldn't connect with her cell phone, while this really wasn't a problem in the beginning, made clear that communication waves in these parts of the country aren't really weatherproof and are blown to all directions at the slightest storm. It was also totally incomprehensible to me where those emotions between the two protagonists suddenly came from. There was no apparent reason for that. Perhaps the intimacy during the operation and the additional care, created the charged atmosphere and ensured the chemical reaction between Helen and William. And apparently it's custom in those parts that after getting punched in the face, you'll make some coffee for the attacker. But the most annoying thing was the fact that the whole affair about William wasn't explained. Eventually I wanted to know what had happened and what caused it.

"October Gale" feels like an admirable attempt. But this attempt to make something of it, fails unfortunately and results in a calmly developing film with a mix of emotions. The melancholy and letting go of the past, the absence of affection and the moment someone can feel it back again and the ultimate suspense with vengeance as a central motif. The performances weren't the problem. Especially Clarkson provided a serene and wonderful performance, despite the limited script. Even Speedman sparkled at times, but I guess he was necessary to attract a female audience. The only one who was pretty disappointing (his limited role probably had something to do with it), was Roth. He acted as if he had just flown over briefly to finish the job.
Conclusion: Cinematographic sometimes a joy to look at, but the content missed a little panache and passion.

My rating 4/10
Links : IMDB