Friday, October 14, 2016

“The Accountant” – Two is the only number that matters.

On the Movie Fixers podcast, we have started a list of unforgivable sins, i.e. things that should never happen in movies. One of those things is not double-tapping an enemy. If you’ve seen a horror movie at any time in your life, you know what I’m talking about – the hero takes out the bad guy, but doesn’t hit/shoot/crush him again to ensure he is dead. Inevitably, that bad guy “comes back from the dead” to wreak more havoc. This does not happen in The Accountant. Ben Affleck (playing the title character), double-taps, and sometimes even triple-taps every bad guy in his wake. The best part is that my friend and I weren’t the only ones in the theater to cheer for this. I heard at least two other people literally say “double-tap” and I’m I could feel them fist bump from several seats away. It was glorious.

(SPOILERS coming, but they will be mild and few. You can count them if you like.)

But that’s not the only reason I liked The Accountant. It’s a pretty good action flick that makes the most boring profession on the planet (sorry, Dad) interesting. Affleck plays Chris Wolff, an autistic accountant who specializes in finding money. You read that right – autistic – and this isn’t solely to give Chris a quirk/superpower. It’s used to great effect to develop his character, comes into play with regards to at least one reveal, and makes you realize they are paralleling Leon in Leon: The Professional. Most of Chris’ clients are drug lords or weapons dealers or other uncouth characters, but he decides to take on a seemingly straight-laced job working for a robotics company helmed by Lamar Black (John Lithgow). One of their employees, Dana (Anna Kendrick), discovered some missing money during her accounting and Lamar brings Chris in to find it. After a night of going through the books, Chris has confirmed that money is indeed missing, but is shut down by the company before he can figure out where it went. And if anyone is going to be bothered by an unfinished money puzzle, it’s an autistic accountant.

The boring part.

The movie kicks into action gear as the people who know about the missing money start getting gunned down by Brax (Jon Bernthal) and some other hired mercenaries. I don’t need to tell you what happens for the rest of the movie because it should be fairly obvious. Action, action, and more action, completed with the missing pieces to the money puzzle. We also get treated with how an autistic accountant is also an insanely dangerous assassin and it’s very believable. I know – I was surprised as well.

As much fun as all of the action and mystery was, the movie has a secondary plot involving US Treasury agents Ray King (J.K. Simmons) and Marybeth Medina (Cynthia Addai-Robinson) trying to identify and track down the accountant (it’s more fun to call him that than Chris, which is why they refer to him like that so often in the movie). Unfortunately, this plotline is as pointless as the cops in Fargo and No Country for Old Men – the cops never really get close to catching their quarry. To be fair, in all these cases they are used to further develop the main characters or villains, but they end up never really mattering to the plot. They are basically us (the audience), but getting paid better. Simmons owns every scene he is in (because of course he does, the man kills it in insurance commercials), so the scenes are enjoyable. The problem is they bring the movie to a standstill and never advance the plot. I think the tension of the movie could have been ratcheted up had the agents actually gotten into it once or twice with the accountant. It could have been worse though, as Terminator: Genisys so aptly proved.

The not-boring part.

Before I go, I want to leave you with an observation and lack thereof. There’s a clever little reveal at the very end of the flick that I didn’t pick up on. My friend was surprised that I missed it and my reason was that because the conflict was over and the movie had been resolved, I had stopped thinking about the movie. It’s not a great reason, but there it is. However, he was still a little incredulous so I pointed out a clever little bit of filmmaking that he missed – early on when Chris first goes to the robotics company’s building, he is standing in front of a picture of a human hand touching fingers with a robotic hand. Chris is placed in front of the robot hand and Lamar is placed in front of the human hand. See? Clever. My point is that this movie definitely had some thought put into it and that’s why I think it was very good. That and the double-taps.

Rating: Ask for one dollar back for the Treasury agent’s scenes. They shouldn’t have been the most boring thing in a movie about an accountant.

Thursday, October 6, 2016

“The Girl on the Train” – If that didn’t happen, and that didn’t happen, then what did happen?

The easiest comparison for The Girl on the Train is 2014’s Gone Girl. Both are based on books, both feature a messed-up title character, and both are thrillers revolving around murder. The big difference is Gone Girl gives up its big reveal just forty minutes in, while The Girl on the Train saves it for the climax. The bigger difference is that I knew how I felt immediately after watching The Girl on the Train (unlike with Gone Girl in which I’m still unsure how good that movie was) – I liked it quite a bit. Moreso, in fact, than Gone Girl.

(Mild SPOILERS ahead.)

Have you seen this girl?

As stated, the biggest reason I liked The Girl on the Train more is because the suspense of the murder is kept up for the entire film. On top of that, the movie keeps throwing curveballs to keep the viewer from guessing which of the four major characters is the actual murderer. Granted, I managed to guess who it was before the reveal, but that’s only because I’ve seen hundreds of movies and have learned to spot the little things that foreshadow reveals. Though, it wasn’t so much that I figured out who the killer was, it was whom I was able to eliminate early on. But enough patting myself on the back (you’re welcome), let’s talk about the meat of this film.

Was it she?

The girl on the train is Rachel (Emily Blunt), an alcoholic divorcee living with her sister (Laura Prepon). Every day, her train ride takes her past her old home where she sees her husband’s new wife, Anna (Rebecca Ferguson), and their baby. In addition, she sees the neighbors, Scott (Luke Evans) and Megan (Haley Bennett), who she fantasizes as the perfect couple with the perfect love. One day, while staring at Megan, she notices that the man with her isn’t her husband. She gets off the train, has a confrontation with a blond woman (who could be Anna or Megan), then wakes up much later on the side of the road. She goes home, only to discover that Megan has gone missing and eventually turns up dead. Right away, you’re probably doubting that she had anything to do with it because that is your natural inclination toward the main character of any film. However, the film spends a good amount of time convincing you that she is a terrible person fully capable of such dastardly deeds. Yes, I said dastardly.

Was it he?

Just when you start to think that Rachel might just be the murderer, the film starts throwing those curveballs and they have some nasty bite to them. As the second act moves along, we get far deeper looks into Scott, Anna, Megan, and Tom (Justin Theroux), Rachel’s ex-husband. There are affairs, abuses, haunted pasts, shady therapists (Edgar Ramirez) – essentially the full gamut of soap opera plot lines, but with much better execution and writing. A character will start off as either likable or unlikable, then the movie will try to convince you otherwise. By the end of the second act, if you haven’t noticed those subtle little clues, you will equally suspect Scott, Tom, and Rachel, as well as Anna to a slightly lesser degree (though equally as plausible). Even as sure as I was about my guess, I was still on the edge of my seat because of the suspense. They even pull that stunt with Rachel’s previously mentioned confrontation, causing you to keep second guessing what really happened.

Surely not her?

There isn’t much more I can tell you without ruining the film, but I can tell you that the acting was superb, most notably by Emily Blunt. It shouldn’t come as a surprise that Blunt is fantastic, but she’s somehow one of the most underrated actors in Hollywood. She pulls off beat-down alcoholic as well as anybody’s proverbial drunk uncle. And kudos to the hair and makeup people who had the daunting task of making Blunt’s appearance match her performance. She looks at least a decade beyond her actual age (33) and I could almost smell how bad she looked.

Possibly him?

Like I said, the easy comparison to this movie is Gone Girl, but I think The Girl on the Train is much more interesting due to the whodunit nature of the plot. That’s not to say Gone Girl was an uninteresting movie, it just wasn’t as suspenseful. Personally, I enjoyed the subterfuge and mind games The Girl on the Train plays with the audience. In short, if I’m picking between these two films to rewatch, I’m picking The Girl on the Train.

Rating: I wouldn’t ask for any money back, but if you think Gone Girl is better, ask for a dollar back because it’s very close.

(Note: A quick shout out to comedian Mike Birbiglia, who is the originator of my tagline.)

Thursday, September 29, 2016

“Masterminds” – The good, the bad, and the ugly.

I’ve made no secret of my disdain for Saturday Night Live alumni, its writers, or its producers. I stopped watching the full show in college (we would watch the opening segment, then ignore it until Weekend Update when Jimmy Fallon and Tina Fey were crushing it), then quit altogether due to a combination of Fey and Fallon leaving the show and the show becoming the least funny thing on television, which includes those animal commercials from Sarah McLachlan. Perhaps my biggest problem with movies written for and by SNL people is that most of the jokes seem like they are either really long setups with little to no payoff or inside jokes between the cast and crew. And we know this is likely to be the case because every one of their films include production notes or interviews describing all of the improvisation going on throughout production. Just once, I’d like to see the screenplay for one of these films to see how much of it was flat out ignored because there is no way you will convince that every movie featuring Wiig wrote down that she should sing at some point during the film.

The good news is that I’m willing to give these people repeated chances to impress me rather than just being a curmudgeon. Jason Sudeikis won me over after Horrible Bosses and We’re the Millers and is one of the main reasons why I decided to give Masterminds a chance. Kristen Wiig is slowly improving in my book, as I may or may not have made a voodoo doll of her after Bridesmaids. While she can’t carry a movie, she’s decent in supporting roles and delivers well when restrained by good writing and directing. Toss in Zach Galifianakis and Owen Wilson and Masterminds seemed like it might have a chance with me.

There was a time when I'd be rooting for her to shoot herself.

More good news is that this movie does have some funny content. The movie is based on the true story of a man named David Ghantt (Galifianakis), a Loomis Fargo employee, who (with several other people) decided to rob Loomis Fargo and got away with more than $17 million dollars, though all of them were eventually caught and most of the money recovered. You should always beware of films claiming to be “based on a true story,” and this one is no different, but to its credit, the film keeps the major plot points intact (if you want to read about it, the wiki page is pretty good, as are many other search results). My favorite factoid is that local residents came to refer to as “the hillbilly heist” and that’s where the film gets its real inspiration, though not the better parts of its comedy. For me, the film got funny when unexpected things happened, which is basically the opposite of what happens on SNL. Just to ruin one joke, Wiig takes a punch to the gut as she is standing next to a door and David is trying to open it from the other side. And, no, it’s not just because Wiig got punched.

This is where the unexpected happens.

The bad news is this movie is very obviously SNL-inspired. Or maybe that’s good news for those of you who forgot what good comedy looks and sounds like. It features jokes that take way too long to develop, including walking meme, Kate McKinnon, playing David’s fiancé Jandice. She delivers every line through clenched teeth and a sociopath’s smile and literally has nothing to do with the plot. She is used as nothing more than an elaborate setup for a fight involving vagina cream (I am not making that up) and David’s crush, Kelly (Wiig). What’s odd about this fight is that the two women have never met (at least that the audience is aware of), yet Jandice jumps her like a mountain lion when they meet at a department store. It features gross-out gags (diarrhea in a pool, among others), one of which is far funnier in the outtakes than in finished film. It features uncomfortable/awkward humor, including pre-wedding picture-posing by David and Jandice and a how-we-met story that makes you die a little inside. In other words, it’s a great reminder of why I don’t watch SNL any more.

The ugly news is that the film features hammed up costumes, makeup effects, and accents (or lack thereof). Of all of the true components to keep, the fact that the actual heist took place in 1997 is probably the last one that should have been kept. Since the movie takes place in a North Carolina trailer park and Mexico, two places where time stopped mattering long ago, trying to be authentic with the visuals doesn’t add to the comedy, but does make you wonder when this movie really is taking place. All of the sight jokes involving looks they go for fall flat, from David’s Lord Farquat haircut, to Steve (Owen Wilson) and Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Ellis) Chambers’ teeth and braces, to all of their bad clothing. Considering I am the target audience for those jokes (I was in high school in 1997), I can definitively say that 1997 didn’t look that way. And as for those accents, either do them or don’t do them. Galifianakis’ and Sudeikis’ held steady, but Wiig’s went in and out, and Wilson didn’t even bother. That’s the sign of a director who was hired basically as nothing more than a manager to make sure everyone showed up for work every day.

Our reasons for watching, despite their looks.

Despite all of that, the movie was better than I expected, especially considering it featured three-fourths of the cast of the Ghostbusters remake. I found myself laughing at times and never thinking about how to get hair from the actors in order to make more voodoo dolls. Galifianakis and Sudeikis make the movie worth watching and the film refrains from making Ghantt a total idiot (which would have ruined the movie outright). It’s by no means good enough to make me want to sit through another SNL skit (let alone an entire episode), but it could have been a lot worse – it could have featured four-fourths of the cast of the Ghostbusters remake.

Rating: Ask for 4 dollars back. I’d say it was slightly better than meh.

Friday, September 23, 2016

“The Magnificent Seven” – Yee *snore* haw.

If there’s one thing about being a movie critic that is annoying it’s when people get all incredulous when I tell them I haven’t seen . It’s usually a movie that happens to be their favorite movie, so life stops making sense to them when I have the temerity to tell them I haven’t seen their favorite movie. Or every movie ever made, for that matter. This is always immediately followed by “well, you really need to see it.” This is a good time to remind you, dear shocked readers, that I am only thirty-seven years old and “movie critic” is not currently a paid job that I hold. I do this in my spare time and I watch roughly 70 movies released each year. I’ve even added an extra movie a week with my Movie Fixers podcast (shout out to my two friends that co-host with me), which means I’m watching 120-ish movies a year and given that movie watching schedule, I don’t really have time to watch everyone’s favorite movie. I’m fairly certain you aren’t watching that many movies, so you probably don’t want to start a game of have-you-seen-this-movie with me.

I bring this up because I’ve never seen the original The Magnificent Seven. No less than two people were surprised by this, even though the original came out 16 years before I was born. Granted, according to a little research, it’s the second-most shown movie on television (behind The Wizard of Oz), but it’s not like The Wizard of Oz is shown on a daily basis. Plus, the original was considered a box office disappointment (just $2.25M in the US) and is really only well-known for its musical score. It might even be more of a surprise if I had seen the original.

Anyway, this year’s remake of The Magnificent Seven is what you would expect from a remake – uninspiring and not an improvement on the original (so I was told), which explains why it was released in mid-September despite starring Denzel Washington and Chris Pratt. The plot was tweaked from “seven gunman protect Mexican town from pillaging bandits” to “seven men protect farming town from pillaging gold mine owner.” While I don’t have any problem with the overarching plot – it’s standard fare for Westerns – the details left a lot to be desired.

The biggest problem with the film is the severe lack of character development. All seven of the magnificents were nothing more than cardboard cutouts, as was the woman who hired them, Emma (Haley Bennett), and the villain, Bogue (Peter Sarsgaard). You root for or against them for the most basic of reasons – Bogue is greedy and kills people, Emma’s husband was murdered by Bogue’s men, and the magnificent seven are the titular characters. Beyond that, you have no reason to care about any of them when the bullets start flying, and you won’t care when the bodies start piling up (on both sides, including some of the seven). Bigger than that is that all seven of these guys are hinted at being shady characters, yet all of them join this most righteous of crusades with little-to-no convincing required. For the lack of information given on any of them, it’s just as easy to believe these guys are in it simply to kill people as they are to help out the townsfolk.

1, 2, 3, yep - that's 7.

Just to linger a moment on motivations and relationships here, we have no idea why Sam Chisolm (Washington) picks most of these guys. We hear a piece of a war story that connects him to Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke), but nothing to explain why they decide to hug each other at their reunion (they fought on opposite sides of the war). Besides Goodnight (and, yes, that’s his actual name), the rest join simply by being in the right place or because Chisolm once heard of them. None of them have any special or unique skills which means we’re in for a very generic gunfight in the climax.

Who are you supposed to be again?

Much is going to be made of the diversity of the casting of the seven (Washington, Pratt, Hawke, Vincent D’Onofrio, Byung-hun Lee, Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Martin Sensmeier), but shouldn’t change an opinion of the film when all seven characters are interchangeable, one-dimensional gun slingers (though Lee gets a knife skill and Sensmeier is a Comanche wielding a bow and arrows)? It’s hard to get excited about the lesser-known actors when the writers don’t bother to give them any backstory to speak of. Plus, why isn’t Emma part of the seven? She seems to be nearly as good a shot as any and is the only person who seems to actually give a damn about saving the town. She shows more emotion than the entire seven combined.

The Seven are long as we aren't counting women.

What this boils down to is this film is another ho-hum remake a long list of remakes this year that nobody asked for. If you are into throw-back westerns and high body counts, this movie is for you. If you expect more than that out of a movie, especially one that wastes Chris Pratt’s comedic talent (the jokes are there, but the seriousness of the movie steps on most of them), you’ll be bored by this film.

Rating: Ask for seven dollars back and I won’t get mad at you for being shocked that I’ve never watched a Clint Eastwood western.

Friday, September 9, 2016

“Sully” – Sweet dreams.

If you are the type of person who gets nervous or anxious when flying, you probably hate me. I’m the guy sitting next to you sleeping through take-off. While I won’t apologize for that, I will apologize for any snoring that may occur. Also, you should not watch Sully. You may know the story of the Miracle on the Hudson, but you don’t want to see it happen in living color. It’s bad enough that you probably already have nightmares involving airplanes; you don’t need to add to them by watching this movie.

Back in 2012, Denzel Washington starred in Flight, Sully’s spiritual predecessor. They are basically the same movie – an airline pilot saves everyone on board a failed airplane, then that pilot faces investigations by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Sully is the movie Flight wanted to be, even to the point of coming out just three years after Captain Sullenberger successfully landed an airplane on a river. The difference is that Sully is a very good movie and Flight is, at best, meh.

The biggest thing that makes Sully a much better movie than Flight is that you care about Captain Sullenberger (Tom Hanks). Denzel’s pilot is a drunk cocaine user, including when he is piloting aircraft. Sullenberger is our kindly, straight-laced grandfather. So, when the NTSB investigators start digging into Sully’s actions, there is never a moment where we are actively rooting for the investigators. The movie even helps us out by sharing Sully’s nightmares of crashing airplanes to induce more sympathy. Incidentally, Sully’s nightmares are the other reason you folks with a fear of flying should not watch this movie. You definitely do not want to see a jetliner trying to thread through skyscrapers.

He's calm now, but he doesn't know about the upcoming nightmares.

The other thing that makes this movie great is the pacing. It’s short (just 96 minutes), so it doesn’t waste time focusing on things of little importance, and it does a good job of building up the suspense. No, not the suspense of if he saves everybody (you smartass), but how the investigation turns out. As in Flight, the point of the NTSB investigation is to determine fault and the investigation skews heavily toward pilot error. So, much of Sully is spent in meeting rooms where the investigators (Anna Gunn, Mike O’Malley, and Jamey Sheridan) keep telling Sully and first officer Skiles (Aaron Eckhart) that they could have landed safely on a runway at one of two nearby airports and Sully and Skiles insisting the investigators and computers (algorithms and simulations) are wrong.

The film (directed by Clint Eastwood) also does a good job of switching between the investigation and the crash over its duration. The constant transitions keep the movie from becoming monotonous, which is exactly what turned Flight into a slog (not to mention Flight’s overly long 139-minute run time). Eastwood also sprinkles in the nightmares and some short scenes with Sully’s wife (Laura Linney) to complete the humanization of Sully. This is an absolute must because if you don’t know anything about Sully beyond his water landing, you come into this movie imagining him as an impervious hero. In order for the film to work at a dramatic level, Sully has to come off as a regular human and one that might have made a mistake. Serious kudos should go to Eastwood because, after watching him lecture an empty chair four years ago, I never would have thought he’d still be capable of putting together a coherent movie, much less a great movie with exceptional drama.

Clint's still got it.

After watching the film, there was one question it raised that I was very curious about – have there been other successful forced water landings by similar aircraft? I’ve personally logged around a quarter of million air miles (as a passenger, not a pilot) and not once have I ever believed I would actually utilize my seat cushion as a floatation device. The good news is that there have indeed been successful forced water landings besides Sully’s. The bad news is you can count them on one hand. I know that doesn’t help your flight anxiety, so I’ll just go back to sleep. Wake me when we land.

Rating: Don’t ask for any money back unless you paid for the in-flight snack. What a ripoff.

Friday, September 2, 2016

“The Light Between Oceans” – It’s okay to cry.

If there is one cliché about parenting that is absolutely true, it’s that there is nothing that can fully prepare you for it. You can read books, take classes, babysit your sister’s kids, or even intern at an elementary school, but there is always something that will completely surprise you. Every parent can tell you at least one thing they’ve said that they never imagined would be a single sentence. Something like “son, please don’t throw Fig Newtons into the shower.” One thing nobody warned me about was that random things now have the potential to make me tear up or cry. I’m not talking about typical tragedies or severe injuries or extraordinary joys; I’m talking about crescendos in songs I’ve heard a hundred times. And, I know exactly when those man-walls-of-toughness I built up over my early years were demolished into a fine powder – the day my son was born (a little over four years ago). Now, I can’t watch The Lego Movie without yawning to cover up my glassy eyes and even mentioning Hans Zimmer terrifies me.

The Light Between Oceans is exactly the kind of movie I never would have teared up at before parenthood. Don’t get me wrong, it’s definitely a tear-jerker; I just didn’t use to well-up at obvious tear jerkers. This film features a married couple, Tom (Michael Fassbender) and Isabel (Alicia Vikander), living alone on an island where Tom tends a lighthouse. A couple of days after her second miscarriage, they spot a boat drifting near the beach and discover a baby and the dead body of the baby’s father. In her inexplicable grief, Isabel sees this as a gift from God while Tom sees it as an event that must be reported to the mainland immediately. Isabel convinces Tom not to report it and they decide to raise the baby as their own. After a couple of years, they return to the mainland to christen the child and Tom discovers who the child’s mother is (Rachel Weisz), and that she, Hannah, visits the grave of her daughter and husband every day. The guilt he felt before was nothing compared to the level it ratchets up to upon seeing Hannah in the cemetery. It’s the kind of guilt that not even Catholic or Jewish mothers can inspire (though not for lack of trying).

The full guilt hasn't kicked in yet.

I won’t tell you anymore about the plot and what I did tell you is on the back of the book this movie is based on (same title), so no whining about spoilers. However, I will tell you that the story is really about love, more specifically what parents will do for their kids and what spouses will do for their partners. In this scenario, the child is just the catalyst for the choices forced upon these three people. Think of this as the worst multiple choice test you’ve ever taken and multiply by Romeo and Juliet.

At this point, you probably have two questions. Question One – why would I review a movie like this when I typically review movies featuring robots, car chases, explosions, or exploding robot car chases? Answer – Rachel Weisz, Michael Fassbender, and Alicia Vikander. All three of those actors are near the top of my list of actors I will watch in anything, and they did not disappoint. Pay special attention to the scene where Isabel is pleading with Tom not to call in their finding and watch their faces. If you didn’t know what anguish looked like before this film, you will after that scene.

Question Two – did I really cry? You’ve probably already guessed that I did, but you’re not sure how much. Answer – I did, but not in the theater. I held it together through a combination of determination and raw, manly toughness. Think Tim Allen and his barking and multiply by Arnold Schwarzenegger. Then, I got in my car and made it about five more minutes before my parent brain kicked in and wept like a bride on her wedding day. Really, that’s all you need to know about this film.

Rating: Don’t ask for any money back, but do ask for some tissue for the drive home.

Friday, August 26, 2016

“Don’t Breathe” – Happy Thanksgiving

That tagline will make sense later, but for now let’s talk about the latest horror flick to cross the silver screen – Don’t Breathe. Also, this is the earliest SPOILER alert you will ever get from me.

The premise is simple – three young burglars pick the wrong house to rob. The plot is also simple – will the burglars survive the night in the house or will the blind, Iraq-war veteran (Stephen Lang) who lives there kill them all? It’s your standard slasher, cabin-in-the-woods flick with very morally ambiguous characters. The real question you will have is who to root for? On one hand, the burglars deserve what’s coming to them. It takes a special kind of asshole to rob a blind war veteran, especially, a blind war veteran whose daughter was killed in a car accident. And, yes, the burglars know all of this information prior to the burglary because their goal is to steal the settlement money the man got from the family of the girl that killed his daughter. On the other hand, the movie will reveal some very disturbing things about the Blind Man (I’d love to tell you the Blind Man’s name, but it is never given, his character is literally listed as The Blind Man in the credits) that will make you think twice about rooting for him. In other words, flip a coin.

There's a turkey baster in your future.

Of course, that coin is weighted. Of the three burglars, only one of them truly deserves death – Money (Daniel Zovatto). Yes, that’s his real name and the first glimpse we get of him is during an earlier robbery in which he is breaking things for no reason and pissing all over the kitchen. He comes by his assholery honestly and is purely in this for the money. Conversely, Rocky (Jane Levy) is just trying to score enough money so she can take her young sister to California to escape her dead-beat mother. She’s the easiest one to root for as our third burglar, Alex (Dylan Minnette), doesn’t seem to have a motivation at all. His dad works for a home security company and they seem to be doing just fine, especially considering this is happening in Detroit. Alex uses his dad’s access (in the form of passwords, remotes, and keys) to target and rob homes that use said security service. The best motivation I can come up with for Alex is an apparent crush on Rocky (whose boyfriend is Money), but that’s a pretty thin reason to commit larceny. He’s also the brains of the outfit, constantly reminding the crew what they should and shouldn’t do in order to avoid felony charges should they be caught. He even warns them against robbing the blind man, initially refusing outright, and then ditching them during the penultimate robbery when Money brandishes a gun. Plus, he’s also cautioning them that he doesn’t want to get his dad in trouble, which begs the earlier question – what the hell is Alex even doing this for?

Dick move, bro.

As a standard slasher flick, the movie is pretty tight, but not without flaws. They avoid several of the standard horror movie clichés, but not all of them. A great example is the lack of a double-tap. At one point, Alex clocks the Blind Man in the head with a hammer, twice, then handcuffs him in the basement. The problem is that the Blind Man regains consciousness extremely quickly and even holds a conversation with the remaining burglars before they attempt their next escape. The obvious fix for this is to just leave the Blind Man unconscious because, either way, we know he’s not done. It’s just more believable my way.

If there’s one major flaw with the movie, it’s in the unevenness of the directing. Parts of the movie are masterfully done to create great levels of tension and misdirection while other parts come off like an elementary school play. There are unnecessary zoom-ins on props and set pieces that scream “this will come into play later,” robbing the viewer of any kind of satisfaction of recognizing those things without prompting. There is the terribly misused “let’s show the viewer something at the beginning of the movie that actually happens much later” technique that serves no purpose other than to tell the viewer that a character is going to make it at least until you see that scene again, thus destroying the viewer’s belief that said character might die at any moment. Finally, there are lots of plot elements that you have to just live with if you want a chance to enjoy the movie. (Again – SPOILER ALERT) Don’t ask how a blind man managed to kidnap the girl who killed his daughter. Don’t ask why the Blind Man is the only resident in an entire neighborhood filled with abandoned, dilapidated homes (his home is just fine). Don’t ask why the Blind Man’s senses seem to come and go as the plot requires (he can smell stinky shoes, but not stinky feet. He doesn’t notice or hear the person in the hallway that he misses running into by less than an inch). Don’t ask why a guy holding a hostage in the basement would have an alarm system capable of alerting the police. Don’t ask why security-service-dad keeps a drawer full of keys to his clients’ houses in his desk at home or why said service would have those keys at all (would you trust ADT with the keys to your house?!) And don’t ask why the news report following the conclusion doesn’t mention the weird room in the basement.

No way this works.

But, like I said, there are great elements in the movie as well. The best is when the Blind Man kills the power and we are treated to him hunting Rocky and Alex in his maze of a basement, shot in grey night-vision. There are long takes of the burglars exploring the house upon their initial entry that lend depth and direction to the house. And then there’s the turkey baster scene that will make you fear Thanksgiving for the rest of your life. All I will tell you about it is that the entire audience realized what was going on in unison, uttering a theater-wide groan in revulsion at the revelation. Yes, I said turkey baster.

Rating: Ask for two dollars back. My “don’t ask” questions can’t be completely ignored.