Her (2013)

 

We are living in a technological age in which computers are rapidly advancing in terms of speed, intelligence, and independence, with no signs of stopping. It began with virtual pets such as Tamagotchis, in which the user is responsible for the care and well-being of a digital creature that can die if neglected. Then it progressed to AI chatrooms such as Cleverbot, the “bot” that learns speech from the users that talk with it. Eventually, we will reach a point where we can date and have a relationship with an artificial personality. Spike Jonze decided to make a film that centers on this scenario, and that film has the very simplistic title of Her.

Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix) is an awkward introvert with a unexciting job—working for a company that composes personal letters for clients that are unwilling to write them—and an upcoming divorce from his wife, Catherine (Rooney Mara). Theodore has few friends, and struggles with dating and love. An operating device available for all electronics is released that has the capabilities of learning and adapting to each user’s needs and personality. Theodore acquires this OS, which names itself Samantha (Scarlett Johansson) and begins to bond with her. Eventually, Theodore and Samantha begin to develop a romantic relationship—a relationship that transcends technology and programming.

Let us be honest and realistic here. Very little people, if anybody, came to this film totally okay and sold to the concept of a man having a relationship with his computer. Admittedly, when I began watching this film, I was expecting to hate it based on the synopsis. When someone sees someone who is romantically/sexually attracted to his computer, one will think that this man is suffering from a mental disorder of sorts. Because of this, Her faces the challenge of painting this relationship in such a way that the audience is not repulsed by this setup.

So how does Spike Jonze, who not only directed but wrote the screenplay for Her, succeed in making Theodore and Samantha’s relationship something that audiences can not only accept, but also feel empathy for? It is primarily because of the way Samantha is written, and I mean in terms of both screenwriting and computer coding. Samantha is very complex character in that she has very human emotions and reacts to events in a very human manner, yet we are aware that Samantha is a computer program built on a set of codes. Perhaps it is because her reactions and emotions are so human and full of life, that we forget that Samantha is a man-made computer program designed to perform tasks. In fact, we probably intentionally ignore the fact that she is not a living being.

It is as if Samantha’s programming is designed like a human brain. The human mind constantly adapts and evolves depending on its experiences and surroundings. Samantha’s programming does exactly the same thing. The only difference is that Samantha is much faster at this than a human is. If it can be argued that these OS’s are no different than a human brain aside that one is mechanical and the other is biological, then more people are willing to accept the concept of human/computer romantic relationships.

But unfortunately, that is one of the only problems with Her. A man having a computer as a girlfriend is a radically new concept in this universe. Surely this will be greeted with a wave of criticism, skepticism, and a new version of technophobia. However, it seems that the general populace in this universe is totally okay with human/computer relationships. The only person who expresses disgust with Theodore and Samantha is Catherine. A large part of it could have been because Catherine had a prior relationship with Theodore and is insulted that she is being replaced with a computer. But considering that there is a large percentage of the population that is terrified of change, new ideas, and adjustments to social concepts and expectations, it is difficult to accept that human-computer relationships are instantly socially acceptable.

Yes, I admit it. I was prepared to despise this film. But I could not find a reason for me to hate this film, thanks largely to how Samantha is written and how her personality is possible. You can still say “Yeah, she sounds and acts human. But she is not human. She is a computer. And to fall in love with a computer is unnatural and wrong”. If that is your argument, then more the power to you. Her had a very difficult challenge, in that it had to make an abnormal relationship believable and likable. Not only did it succeed at accomplishing this, it exceeded at this.

	Her
Story/Plot	9
Pacing	9
Direction	10
Cinematography/Visuals	9
Editing	9
Sound Design	10
Acting	9
Theme/goal	9
Entertainment Value	8
Rewatchability	8
Final Score	9.0

 

 

12 Angry Men (1957)

 

In 2007, the Library of Congress added the 1957 film 12 Angry Men to the United States National Film Registry. For a film to be included in the registry is to say that the film is “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant” and is considered a major figurehead in American film culture and history. Henry Fonda’s classic film deserves this kind of recognition for every reason imaginable.

Adapted from the teleplay of the same name by Reginald Rose, 12 Angry Men centers around a jury deliberation regarding the trial of a Hispanic 18-year-old boy accused of murder. Shall the boy be found innocent, he shall be set free. However, if the jury reaches a guilty verdict, the boy will be sentenced to death. The unnamed Jurors (in numerical order: Martin Balsam, John Fiedler, Lee J. Cobb, E.G. Marshall, Jack Klugman, Edward Binns, Jack Warden, Henry Fonda, Joseph Sweeney, Ed Begley, George Voskovec, Robert Webber) vote on a verdict, with eleven guilty votes and one not-guilty vote. The single not-guilty voter, Juror 8 (Fonda), wishes to deliberate on the boy’s fate rather than jump to a guilty verdict. The twelve jurors bicker, fight, and debate for their one hour deliberation time, slowly finding out aspects of the trial and murder that they had missed. Slowly, each juror begins to question whether this boy is as guilty as the trail made him out to be.

The main character in this film is Juror 8, since he is the instigator of the main conflict and the focus of attention for the remaining characters. There are some jurors that get more screen time and dialogue than others, but each and every character contributes to the story and moves the plot along, like good characters should. They are not plot devices, they are fully fleshed out characters—they are people! Each juror has their own personalities, quirks, and mannerisms that make them distinguishable from the other jurors. There is the timid Juror 2, the irate Juror 3, the wise and kind Juror 9, as well as many other distinct individuals with a wide range of traits and characteristics.

Watching these characters transform not just in terms of their vote, but also in terms of their character, is what drives this film. Some jurors are more dominant and aggressive than other jurors, and in some scenes there is a status change that flips the dominance power of each juror. Because of this, how jurors react or view each other changes drastically. Sometimes, this change lasts a single scene, but in other instances it changes the course of the film. My favorite shot in 12 Angry Men is when a single juror becomes absolutely furious at how the deliberation is going and goes on a long tirade. While this occurs, the other jurors stand and turn their backs to him one by one. This is one of the most powerful shots in the film, as it non-verbally shows that this particular juror is in the wrong and has lost the respect of the rest of the jury. We also observe the juror slowly begin to realize this while he experiences a multitude of emotions: first anger, then confusion, then desperation, then defeat. This reduces the juror to a sort of comatose shock that has him almost silent for the remainder of the film.

It takes great writing skill to be able to craft twelve unique and interesting characters and have each of them be memorable, important, three-dimensional, and relatable. It takes even more masterful writing to take these characters and build different intervening arcs and transformations that drive, affect, and contribute to the plot and outcome of the story. Hollywood has a hard time doing this for the movies of today. For each year in cinema, one can probably count somewhere between 3-5 wide release films that have at least three characters as well written as the characters in 12 Angry Men. Hell, most films nowadays have a hard time fleshing out ONE character.

12 Angry Men is considered a classic and a masterpiece by many, including both critics and audiences. It is very easy to see why this film deserves that title. There is hardly any fault in this film, and the faults that do exist are so minor that they are barely noticeable. It would take an entire book to discuss this film in full, including its political connotations and its commentaries on the legal system. I will discuss these aspects, in full, another day. In the meantime, I urge EVERYBODY to take a look at this film. This old black-and-white flick is captivating enough to hold the attention of past, present, and future generations. It’s not only a “must watch”, it’s a must “own”.

	12 Angry Men
Story/Plot	10
Pacing	9
Direction	10
Cinematography/Visuals	10
Editing	9
Sound Design	9
Acting	10
Theme/goal	10
Entertainment Value	10
Rewatchability	10
Final Score	9.7

 

Interstellar (2014)

 

Christopher Nolan’s lastest epic, Interstellar, has astonished many people. It is considered a grand masterpiece, the next 2001: A Space Odyssey, and an obvious choice for Best Picture. These future-DVD-cover quotes are nothing but grand over-exaggerations.

In the near future, severe crop blight threatens the existence of mankind, which has now become a society of farmers. Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) is a former NASA pilot who runs a corn farm with his father-in-law and his two children. The daughter, Murphy (Mackenzie Foy) discovers a “ghost” in her room trying to communicate in Morse code and binary, which leads her and Cooper to a secret NASA facility run by Professor Brand (Michael Caine). NASA has been secretly sending scientists to a series of planets orbiting a distant black hole, hoping that one of them is hospitable enough to be the new home for humankind. The only way to get to this planetary system is through a wormhole placed near Saturn by unknown beings (referred to as “They”). Brand offers Cooper the job of piloting a craft to these planets along with scientists Amelia Brand (Anne Hathaway), Romilly (David Gyasi), and Doyle (Wes Bently), and a robot called TARS (Bill Irwin). Not sure when or if he will return, Cooper leaves his family and his farm in order the find a new home for mankind.

Interstellar has many good things to appreciate. Take one look at the trailer, and it is clear that Interstellar is a visual spectacle that will have space fanatics, astronomers, and astrophysicists giggling with glee. The film is littered with high-definition images of celestial bodies throughout the universe, with one of the only CG rendered images being a wormhole near Saturn. As explained in the film, the wormhole is actually a sphere that one enters to reach another part of the universe. The Wormhole sequence is one of the most beautiful, astonishing, and thrilling scenes in the film.

Interstellar has been praised by many for it’s faithfulness to scientific accuracy. Theoretical physicist Kip Thorne acted as executive producer and scientific advisor for the film, and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson praised the film for its non-stereotypical portrayal of scientists and interpretation of science.  A film that takes the extra effort to be as scientifically realistic as possible deserves some recognition and praise in an age where Hollywood favors fantasy over realism. Interstellar is bound to fascinate and inspire people into having more interest in science and astronomy.

Another high point in Interstellar is the acting. The film is lathered in tear-jerking, emotional scenes that will have the audience crying with the characters. Mackenzie Foy nails the role of Murphy, especially in the scene in which Cooper leaves on the mission. Murphy is distraught over Cooper leaving because of the uncertainty behind the mission—he does not know when he will be back…if he ever comes back. Foy does an absolutely amazing job in this scene as Murphy cries and pleads for Cooper to stay. This scene is definitely one of the most emotional scenes in the movie (and believe me, there are many emotional scenes).

Unfortunately Interstellar suffers some major flaws that are blatantly distracting and ruin the experience. One of the biggest flaws is the story. There are moments where characters act with little motivation, and there are many characters that could have been written out of the film. One of these characters is Cooper’s son, (Timothee Calamet as child and Casey Affleck as adult), who contributes nothing to the story other than to pester Murphy as a child. The entire film could have been done without this character and nobody would know the difference.

The film is also very slowly paced. So much that audience may catch themselves snoring during dialogue scenes and even some action scenes. Imagine taking your friend out grocery shopping, and your friend spends a minimum of 15 minutes visiting each and every aisle while you beg for him/her to pick up the damn speed. That is what watching Interstellar feels like. This 169 minute film could have easily been condensed to 2 hours if Nolan spent less time explaining things we already knew and more time concluding a scene and moving on. Entire scenes could have been removed and the film would not have been ruined.

Predictability is another problem. Early in the film, Murphy complains of a “ghost” in her room trying to communicate. This ghost speaks in both Morse code and binary, both of which provide important information to the story. Many audiences will have a pretty good guess as to who this “ghost” is, and it will not be a huge shock once the grand reveal is made. To be fair, however, the reason that this “ghost” is possible is extremely mind-bending and interesting.

One of the themes of this film is love. Good ol’ sappy love. Amelia Brand states “Love is the one thing that transcends time and space”, and I swear my entire theater groaned when that line was uttered. Throughout the rest of the film, the idea of love being a tangible and powerful force is use to the point that it become a plot device. You can have a film about love, that is totally fine. But when you explicitly state it in the film and then have it become a sort of deus ex machina in the end, that’s when the message becomes forced and cringe-inducing. I have imagined Nolan beating me in the head with a giant mallet labeled MESSAGE ever since that scene played out. Come on, Nolan. Film messages and morals are better when they’re subtle, and you know this.

There is so much more that I want to talk about in regards to Interstellar. I can add so much more to my opinions on the story, the visuals, and the acting. However, I operate on the rule that a review must be as barren of spoilers as possible. Interstellar is one of those films that has many major plot points, turns, and twists, as well as astonishing and shocking moments, that I am horrendously limited to what I can talk about. Interstellar is a good movie that I recommend to sci-fi lovers, space fanatics, and those who can remain seated through the 3 hour runtime of the film. I have mixed opinions regarding Interstellar, but I still believe that it is something that must be seen.

	Interstellar
Story/Plot	6
Pacing	5
Direction	7
Cinematography/Visuals	8
Editing	7
Sound Design	8
Acting	10
Theme/goal	5
Entertainment Value	8
Rewatchability	4
Final Score	6.8

 

 

Oculus (2013)

 

An oculus is an opening in a roof or a wall that is in the shape of circle. Oculus’ were common in Roman architecture, with the most famous example of an oculus being the one in The Pantheon. It only makes sense to make a film called Oculus and have it be about a supernatural mirror. If this mirror functioned as a window, much like the purpose of an oculus, this would make sense. In Oculus, this Is not the case.

Oculus follows related narratives involving the Russell family. One narrative focuses on the Russell family moving into a new house in 2002. Alan (Rory Cochrane) purchases an antique mirror to decorate his office. Not long afterwards, Alan and his wife Marie (Katee Sackoff) suffer from delusions, irritation, and irrational behavior as the mirror slowly gains influence over them. The second narrative takes place 11 years later with the Russell siblings, Tim (Brenton Thwaites) and Kaylie (Karen Gillan), trying to figure out how the mirror works in order to destroy it. But they too become affected by the mirror’s presence, and lose sense of what’s real and what isn’t real.

In full honesty, hating this film for having an odd title is a bit nitpicky. Oculus has the really great elements of a horror film—creepy, atmospheric, and unpredictable. Jump scares are not abundant, and are only used to prime the audience for the next scare to come. There are some shock horror moments, including some fingernail horror and a sequence of mistaking a light bulb for an apple, but they are quite subtle while still being creepy.

The main problem in this film is the plot and story. As far as horror films go, it is not a badly constructed plot. It’s a decent plot. There are some minor plot holes and moments that will leave the audience thinking “wait, why don’t you do this instead?”. The climax of the film attempts to mash both narratives into one sequence, nay, the entirety of ACT III, and the end result is a giant soggy pile of confusing action sequences and overlapping storylines. Eventually this climax leads to a rather disappointing and predictable conclusion.

Oculus is one of the better horror films to have come out in recent years, but it is unlikely to be acclaimed as a classic horror film in the coming years. It’s a good film for scary movie nights and Halloween parties, but despite the good visuals, good acting, and creepy atmosphere, it’s not likely going to age well due to the confusing plot and the weak ending.

	Oculus
Story/Plot	6
Pacing	8
Direction	8
Cinematography/Visuals	7
Editing	8
Sound Design	8
Acting	8
Theme/goal	7
Entertainment Value	8
Rewatchability	7
Final Score	7.5

 

 

 

 

Lost Highway (1997)

 

I had the privilege to see a 35mm print David Lynch’s Lost Highway at my university’s student cinema with a friend of mine. After the film, while hanging out in the lobby of my friend’s dorm, another person approached us. He asked what the film was about and if we liked the film. Our response was 1) we have no idea and 2) it was pretty good.

Lost Highway opens with Fred Madison (Bill Pullman) and Renee Madison (Patricia Arquette) receiving a VHS tape on their doorstep, which depicts the interior of their home. The next day, they receive another VHS tape, this time containing shots of the two asleep in bed. A third VHS tape arrives, which Fred watches alone and is horrified when the tape shows him killing Renee. After Fred is arrested, the story then shifts to a young auto-mechanic named Pete Dayton (Balthazar Getty). Pete becomes involved in an affair with Alice Wakefield (also played by Patricia Arquette), a mistress to gangster Mr. Eddy (Robert Loggia). As the relationship progresses, Pete and Alice fear that Eddy is onto them, and plan a scheme to leave town before it’s too late. Throughout both of these narratives, an omnipotent individual known only as The Mystery Man (Robert Blake) appears to Fred and Pete, inquiring cryptically “We’ve met before, haven’t we?”

This film makes absolutely no sense, and it’s not supposed to. If you go into this movie expecting every mystery and element to be explained or resolved, you will be disappointed. You WILL be confused and, as if the title was trying to warn you, you WILL be lost. But that’s the whole point. You are not expected to understand Lost Highway after the first viewing…or first three viewings…or first twelve.

Why did David Lynch make the plot of Lost Highway such a complicated puzzle? Lynch never released a statement fully explaining Lost Highway, thus suggesting he wants the viewer to come up with their own conclusions. There are many YouTube videos trying to make sense of the film’s events, and some theories better explain the film than others. However, there is no correct theory. There is no Book of Lynch that gives a definitive answer to the message and symbolism of Lost Highway. The interpretation is up to the individual, and thus every viewer experiences the film is vastly different ways.

And it only benefits the film. You will find yourself mulling about this film for weeks trying to figure out what the line “You will never have me” means, what The Mystery Man represents, and what the Hell was up with those damn VHS’. If I had my way, I would like everybody I know to see this film and report back to me their interpretations (I’m curious).

Now granted, this film is not without serious fault. The pacing can get quite slow, with some shots lasting well over 30 seconds for no reason. The ultra-surreal plot will make the viewer feel confused and cheated. And some of the cinematography makes the image hard to interpret due to poor lighting and harsh filters. These elements can be distracting and ruin the enjoyment of the film, but Lost Highway has enough twists and turns to have the average audience forget about them.

Lost Highway is a must-watch for people who enjoy puzzle-movies, are big thinkers, and love abstract ideas. However, I must give a word of advice which involves updating an old saying: “There are three things you should never discuss with friends–religion, politics, and David Lynch films”.

	Lost Highway
Story/Plot	8
Pacing	6
Direction	9
Cinematography/Visuals	7
Editing	8
Sound Design	8
Acting	8
Theme/goal	8
Entertainment Value	7
Rewatchability	9
Final Score	7.8

 

The Fifth Element (1997)

 

In the year 2263, cities are caked with loud and blinding color, nearly every female dresses like a low-rate prostitute, and Chris Tucker has a radio show. At least, that’s what The Fifth Element seems to predict. Thankfully, we should all be long dead by the time this all occurs.

Korben Dallas (Bruce Willis) is a taxi-driver/former special forces major who is dragged into a whirlwind of trouble after a half-naked Leeloo (Milla Jovovich) crashes through his taxi roof. Leeloo is a personification of “the fifth element”, and is sought after by Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg (Gary Oldman) under the instruction of The Great Evil. Dallas, Leeloo, and a group of sidekicks–two bumbling priests (Ian Holm and Charlie Creed-Miles), a empty-headed general (Brion James), and a cartoonish radio show host (Chris Tucker)—must search for the other four elements in order to destroy The Great Evil.

The Fifth Element cannot decide if it is an epic space opera/action flick—like a 90s version of Star Wars or Blade Runner—or an over-the-top, rambunctious parody of itself. There are some memorable moments and excellent action scenes that will leave you at the edge of your seat. However, the film opens with some of the most horribly designed aliens in cinema history, setting the bar low for the rest of the film. These Monodoshawans appear to be the love-child of a scarab beetle and a Vogon from The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. The colors in this future are so loud and clashing, it’s almost nauseating. It’s as if the film was shot in black-and-white and then colored in with highlighters and Crayola markers. But one of the more glaring problems with this film is its interpretation, or should I say manipulation, of gender roles in action films.

Korben Dallas is given the illusion of grandiose masculinity due to the remaining male characters being played as incompetent, weak, or overly flamboyant. No supporting male is exempt from these characterizations except for The President of Earth (Tom Lister Jr.), who unfortunately has very minimal screen-time. I’m not saying these character traits are bad and should be avoided by aspiring screenwriters. But when these traits are used as a ploy to make another character more masculine, then it becomes an issue.

Along with the demasculinization of the male cast, virtually every female character is hypersexualized to the point where it becomes disgusting. The costuming of the female characters makes everyone with two x chromosomes look like a dancer in a run-down club or brothel. Again, these costuming choices are not necessarily bad. But when EVERY female character is designed as a sexual object rather than a human being–save for one butch character played for a silly and somewhat insulting punch line—then there’s something to be said about how females are used in the film.

Leeloo, the human embodiment of the fifth element, is supposedly the femme fatale of this story. She does nothing but look pretty and perform as a MacGuffin, despite being able to break through glass, fall from great heights, and read an entire web encyclopedia in minutes. She eventually fights an entire room of evil aliens all by herself, and yet that’s the only time she is seen performing as an independent, strong, female lead. For the rest of the film, Leeloo is nothing more than a package to be protected and a prize to be obtained.

I would also like to nominate Ruby Rhod as one of the top three most annoying film characters of all time. Ruby Rhod’s is a fast-talking, hyperactive man-whore who is the host of a popular radio show. Rhod’s first appears in the middle of the second act for about two minutes. Then you think his contribution to this film is done. But no. Rhod the becomes the reluctant sidekick who does nothing but avoid being shot and screaming “Oh my God oh my God oh my God oh my God”. Then Ruby Rhod is involved in one of the final scenes for no reason other than to be a failed attempt at comic relief.

There are, however, some really great elements in The Fifth Element. The visuals and CG are astonishing for 1997, and are still very impressive by 2014 standards. Zorg is one of the most memorable characters in the film, in large part due to Gary Oldman’s performance. The cherry scene between him and Father Cornelius is one of the best in the film, as it plays on the power each character has over the other. This scene is not the only great scene, however. When the film decides it wants to have fast-paced action, it goes for it and it does it well. Scenes that involve characters discussing film events are interesting and attention grabbing, due to the busy nature of the blocking and movement of the actors.

Overall, The Fifth Element is a nightmare for feminists and people who are generally annoyed by Chris Tucker, but there’s something good here and there that The Fifth Element has to offer.

	The Fifth Element
Story/Plot	4
Pacing	7
Direction	3
Cinematography/Visuals	7
Editing	6
Sound Design	6
Acting	7
Theme/goal	3
Entertainment Value	4
Rewatchability	4
Final Score	5.1

 

The Wild Hunt (2009)

 

 

Live Action Role Playing (LARPing) is essentially what nerds do when they want to play the epic fantasy video game The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim in real life instead of on a gaming console. And thus these fantasy aficionados construct costumes and weapons using household items and whatever can be found at the Dollar Tree, and then engage in combat with each other using their own definitions of wounded or dead. That is the very, very basic explanation of LARPing, which is also the main theme in Alexandre Franchi’s 2009 drama/horror film, The Wild Hunt.

Erik Magnusson (Ricky Mabe) and Evelyn (Tiio Horn) are struggling with their relationship due to the burden brought on by Erik’s ill father. Evelyn finds escape in a massive LARPing group isolated in the middle of the woods. Erik arrives at the LARPing game in order to mend their broken relationship and to bring Evelyn back home. But as Erik quickly finds out, this group of LARPers takes their craft very seriously, and they do not take lightly to interruption. Luckily, he has the help of his brother (Mark A. Krupa), a “referee” (Claudia Jurt), and a small group of willing players to navigate the rough terrain of medieval war, LARPing rules, and angry geeks.

To approach this film from a critical standpoint, it is important to divide the elements into two separate categories: Creative Elements (acting, story, design, etc.) and Technical Elements (editing, cinematography, etc.). The reason for looking at The Wild Hunt in this way is because the level of quality of one category is inversely related to the other category. In other words: one sucks and the other does not suck.

The Creative Elements are well done for a film of this budget (C$500,000). All actors brilliantly perform their roles as young adults playing medieval fantasy, and they evidentially have fun doing so. There are instances in which you forget you’re watching adults in costume and feel like you’re watching young children play make-believe. When the plot calls for comedy, the actors exhibit a good understanding of comic timing and delivery. As for drama or horror, each actor does a believable job expressing fear, stress, anger, and grief. The bonfire sequence at the conclusion of the second act is brilliant, as it shows the transformation the characters go through despite being absolutely soaked in symbolism.

The set for the LARP festival is constructed well, as if built by actual festival organizers instead of a low-budget film crew. Costumes are well designed and fitting for each character; the costume design does a good job in making believable medieval gear while keeping in mind the amateurism and budget constraints in real-life LARPing construction.

The script and story begins with a bit of a stumble, but quickly dusts itself off and builds to a thrilling ending. We are introduced into the LARP culture without being confused as to how things work and why these people take these things seriously. It is crucial that we see the passion these individuals have for this pastime, or else we will not understand most of the reactions that occur towards the film’s climax and third act.

The major problems with The Wild Hunt lie within the Technical Elements of the film. The editing is standard, uninspired, and lazy. Transitions are non-existent, confusing the audience as the whether or not we’re still in the same scene or even in the same location. A choppy training montage occurs at the beginning of the second act that is horribly unneeded and unnecessary. Cutaways lack purpose and disrupt the flow of the sequences they reside in—so much so that one thinks “…was that really necessary”. Blocking and character position is difficult to perceive, as the final cut lacks establishing shots (assuming that establishing shots were indeed filmed).

The cinematography is definitely the weakest point of The Wild Hunt. The quality of the composition is like that of a student film. Lighting is almost purely environmental (sun, moon) or is only there so we can see the characters faces, and thus has neither style nor inspiration behind it. Twilight scenes are painful to watch as the entire frame is washed over with a sickly grayish-blue hue preset that makes the image difficult to interpret. The composition has absolutely zero depth to it, making the images flat and difficult to process. The film appears as if it was filmed on a consumer camcorder rather than a professional camera.

However, despite all the elements mentioned above, there is one very important aspect that must be considered: the genre. The Wild Hunt is advertised as a drama/horror film, suggesting it mashes dramatic elements with scares. The drama genre is very obvious in this film, as the plot operates on character decisions, struggles, and emotions. At times, we feel frustrated with the characters and we feel angry at the characters. We feel bummed when things don’t work out as planned and we feel happy when things go pleasantly well. However, the horror genre is entirely nonexistent, as the audience receives no feeling of terror or fear unless it is because a character may get hurt. The third act’s attempt at being a horror film plays out more as a drama film with all cylinders running. In short, The Wild Hunt is a drama film, but it does not deserve the title as a horror film.

The Wild Hunt is a film that is for a certain audience. LARPers may find the film relatable and entertaining, while the standard audience would only be entertained by angry nerds being angry nerds. While it does has several redeeming factors, the shortcomings are numerous and distracting. Just don’t expect to get any scares from this, and you might be amused by it.

Consensus: The Wild Hunt seeps with creativity and fun, but is harmed by its technical incompetence. 6/10