We’ve seen countless killer shark movies, from “Deep Blue Sea” to “Santa Jaws.”

The sillier, the better. After all, what filmmaker can compete with 1975’s “Jaws,” the definitive shark attack thriller? 

That’s why it’s time kangaroos got a little genre love.

Too bad “Rippy,” an Aussie shocker about a rogue ‘roo, packs neither scares nor laughs. Either would have been welcome given the critter in question.

Instead, the film focuses on a hero’s emotional trauma and relies far too much on its CGI wizardry. Sadly, there’s little magic to be found.

Sheriff Maddy (Tess Haubrich) wants to be a local hero like her late, great father. She gets the chance when several townspeople are found dead, their bodies sliced to ribbons.

This isn’t your garden-variety serial killer. No dingo could do damage like this. There’s something out there, a creature that defies the laws of physics.

It’s … Rippy, a CGI beastie who can hop as fast as a speeding car.

The FX here are far from first-rate, a forgivable sin given the film’s indie roots. Why shove so many lingering closeups our way? Less is more when your FX budget is wanting. Spielberg learned that trick when Bruce the mechanical shark wouldn’t behave.

Maddy is on the case, and she gets help from her uncle Schmitty (genre fave Michael Biehn, bringing some life to the proceedings).

It’s boilerplate genre fare but director Ryan Coonan treats each “kill” with considerable respect. These aren’t faceless souls but members of a tight-knit community. We feel the survivors’ pain, a nice touch in an often remorseless genre.

Imagine if the “Terrified” franchise behaved in a similar fashion. It still can’t give “Rippy” the pulse it demands.

The marketing suggests the Aussie thriller is a comedy-horror hybrid, but mirth is in short supply. Even Coonan suggests we’re supposed to laugh and clutch our armrests.

That’s a self-inflicted advertising wound for a genre with tight resources.

The stakes couldn’t be higher throughout “Rippy,” but the main characters keep returning to their emotional wounds. Maddy mourns for her father, but the truth may be trickier than she understands. Uncle Schmitty’s monologue about war-time experiences is heartfelt and belongs in another movie.

The sparks between Uncle Schmitty and Aunt Donna (Angie Milliken) add some texture, but genre flicks live and breathe by a simpler scale. Are we on the edge of our seats or not?

You can place a Faberge egg on said edge and never knock it off.

The title creature in “Rippy” remains relentless, but Coonan can’t conjure enough scares to make his many appearances count.

“Rippy,” known as “The Red” in Australia, deserves credit for treating a grindhouse-style subject with care. You still have to bring the genre goods.

HiT or Miss: “Rippy” is mature, well-intentioned and makes us care about the lives lost in the genre melee. It’s also a well-crafted slog.

The post ‘Rippy’ Gives Killer Kangaroos a Bad Name appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

“Line in the Sand” and ‘Treason” examine stark moral questions in the handling of the U.S./Mexico border.

The documentaries reveal the agents overseeing the border and the lives affected by illegal immigration.

“Line in the Sand’s” morality concerns the hearts and minds of Customs and Border Patrol (CPB) agents. Their work, not surprisingly, consists of identifying, detaining, recording, housing and releasing human beings in accordance with orders from higher-ups.

What might be surprising are the ethical conundrums that their job puts on them and their claims of being hamstrung by agency policy.

What jumps off the screen is how torn officers are about orders from federal administrators. The conflict of conscience has reached the point that agents agree to be interviewed on camera despite serious career, legal and personal risks that entails.

That is the titular “line in the sand,” in addition to the physical border along the far southwest lands.

It’s not initially clear why CPB requires employees to keep tight-lipped secrecy, but the answers become salient as the documentary proceeds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by James O’Keefe (@jamesokeefeiii)

Directed by James O’Keefe and released on the Tucker Carlson Network (TCN), “Line in the Sand” interviews outspoken agents like Aaron Vecky. He says their professional consequences must come second to stopping human trafficking.

Footage of detainee facilities and releases blends with interviews raising further questions. How long have agents been pressured to look the other way while traffickers appear to exploit the CPB and its behavior from the head down?

The interviews explain why human trafficking shouldn’t be severed from border coverage.

If O’Keefe’s undercover reporting gathered the information seen in “Sand,” that method isn’t featured prominently on screen. This makes the film more powerful.

A moral line must be stood against boldly, and not quietly and furtively crossed.

Viewers come away wondering why inhumane conditions for detaining minors and releasing them to unknown and unverified people in the U.S. continue. Where does illicit trafficking end and the US administration begin?

“Treason” covers similar material, zeroing in on illegal immigration’s daily effects on citizens, especially the criminal elements slipping across the border.

Directed by blogger, author and 24-year Customs journeyman JJ Carrell, the documentary asks if the negative impact on Americans hasn’t compelled officials to change policies by now, then what possibility exists other than that the officials’ intents are antithetical to the republic?

The Chicago scenes are among the powerful in “Treason.” Locals are losing neighborhoods like the O Block in Englewood after receiving thousands of people from the border.

Chicago’s poor neighborhoods routinely grab national headlines, but they’re home to Americans who study, raise families, visit relatives and friends and work to improve their lives.

Foreigners arrive in huge numbers and receive free housing and other resources, The stories of crushed opportunities for Americans are heart-rending.

“Treason” interviews faith leaders like Pastor Brooks and community members who make these areas home. Their policy viewpoints have been untold.

Until now.

Clayton Morris invited us into his studio to discuss our new documentary, “WHAT IS TREASON? #INVADED” In 14 days we are going to show you what TREASON looks like. Help us save America and pre-order a copy now. https://t.co/hukW33xbvK @ClaytonMorris @JJCarrell14 pic.twitter.com/XZDVjGe5Ap

— RyanMatta (@RyanMattaMedia) October 10, 2024

Carrell challenges any American to “find one thing” that isn’t true in the documentary during an interview for HiT. He asks us to follow the evidence of surging narcotics addictions, overdoses and devastation.

The film’s message is clear: It’s hard to reach any other conclusion than a “strategic intent of treason.”

“We turn our cameras north from the border. Ninety-four executive orders on Day One of this administration were issued on the border. We’ve had at least a 400 percent increase in crossings, 20,000 or more per day for four years, including mercenary combatants. 50 million are illegally in our country.

“You’ll say ‘Oh my God.’ No nation has survived this. Name one.’ The awakening of our country is so energized, I don’t even need to hire advertising [for the documentary],” Carrell said.

“Line in the Sand”

“Treason” (available for pre-order, Oct. 19 debut)

The post Two Documentaries: Two Searing Takes on Open Border USA appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Wes Craven’s “Shocker” (1989) opens with a strong case of déjà vu.

We see the close-up of crud-smudged hands putting something together in a workshop, while a bloody knife sits unattended to the side. It looks so much like the opener of Craven’s “A Nightmare on Elm St” (1984) that only the slick cinematography and busy heavy metal soundtrack indicate we’re watching a different movie.

From the opening moments, Craven’s comic horror film declares its intentions to meet and possibly surpass the Freddy Krueger standard, as well as set itself up as a polished studio film and a possible mainstream hit.

Alas, “Shocker” did not recreate the horror mega icon of Fred Krueger and wasn’t a box office success, either. It’s a curious, often risible, but ambitious, playful work that emerged as a creative and box office failure in 1989.

Now, it’s something of a curiosity item. To be extremely generous, it might emerge as a camp classic.

Peter Berg stars as Jonathan Parker, a high school quarterback who dreams of a murderer at large killing his mother and siblings. When he discovers that his dream has come true, Parker and his police office father (Michael Murphy) close in on the local serial killer, named Horace Pinker (Mitch Pileggi, years before “The X-Files”).

Once Horace is arrested and sent to the electric chair, things only get worse, as a rushed deal with the devil allows Pinker to exist as a supernatural being who can enter the homes of his victims through their TV sets.

Tone is everything for a film like this and, as in Craven’s subsequent “Vampire in Brooklyn” (1995), the problem is that “Shocker” never decides if it’s supposed to be a comedy or a horror film. Instead of either merging genres or picking one over the other, it arches uncomfortably between broad, jokey self-parody and vicious, “Last House on the Left”-level depravity and violence.

At least Craven’s films are always entertaining, but the insanely wavering tone and creative indecision also put it alongside Craven’s “Deadly Friend” (1986) and “My Soul to Take” (2011). It doesn’t work but at least you’ll never be bored.

Until he’s reborn as a wisecracking, Krueger-esque entity who can visit your nightmares and travel through TV waves, Pinker is intimidating and unsettling. Pileggi makes him vile and loathsome.

Berg works hard to maintain the pathos of his character intact and mostly loses that battle, while Cami Cooper is striking as his ill-fated girlfriend. Years ago, while interviewing Heather Langenkamp, she admitted to me a longstanding rumor – yes, that is her under a sheet on a gurney, playing a corpse in one scene!

Craven’s screenplay takes wild swings but rarely makes sense. For example, it’s striking to see Pinker making a Faustian pact in a prison cell to a TV spirit (or something), until you stop and wonder how a convicted killer on death row was able to procure jumper cables and lit candles right before his execution!

Craven also goes with the same goofy body jump possession that marked “Fallen” (1998), a rare failure for Denzel Washington.

Craven is exploring the television obsession of the zeitgeist that would eventually become our fixation on the Internet. Here, TV sets are always on, and they provide either a literal portal for Pinker or a means of pacifying everyone else.

In terms of portraying dreams as a doorway to entering the domain of a killer, any of the “Elm St.” sequels has this beat. What makes “Shocker” fascinating is to see what “A Nightmare on Elm St.” could have been if it were made as a mainstream studio film.

The passion and psychological richness of the ’84 film is absent. While never dull, “Shocker” has lots of scenes that don’t work and come across as downright laughable.

After a solid hour of coasting from one truly ridiculous set piece to another (the highlight being Pinker’s possession of a small girl, who becomes a foul-mouthed killer who kicks Berg in the groin), Craven comes across an inspired sequence.

Late into “Shocker,” when the film is past the point of no return and seems determined to ensnare so-bad-its-good status, we get Berg chasing Pileggi through various TV shows. It’s a funny, wild bit with everyone from Ward Cleaver to John Tesh and (no joke) Dr. Timothy Leary suddenly witness Berg’s endless chase n’ brawl with Pileggi.

“Shocker” is both too much and too little, a collection of scenes to captivate in the moment but make no sense upon reflection. By the time Pinker demonically possesses a Lazy-Boy chair (I’m not kidding), it’s clear The Master of Horror took too many creative wrong turns here. N

evertheless, for a bad movie, “Shocker” does have a an awful lot of showmanship.

The post How Horror-Comedy ‘Shocker’ Drained Our Batteries appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Neil Jordan’s “Interview with the Vampire” (1994) begins with dreamy aerial shots of San Francisco, drawing us in with Elliot Goldenthal’s beautiful, melancholic score (similar to his music for “Alien 3”) and Phillipe Rousselot’s lush cinematography.

We push in on an empty room, inhabited by a bespeckled Christian Slater, playing the Interviewer, about to bear witness to the story of the lifetime from the longhaired figure staring out the window.

It’s Brad Pitt playing a vampire named Louis.

So begins “Interview with the Vampire: The Vampire Chronicles” (the full onscreen title), the most anticipated film of its year and easily among the most controversial. The latter quality came from its casting, the outcry from its author and screenwriter Anne Rice and the expectation that the film would betray its source material.

More on that later.

Louis recalls how he became a vampire in 1791, whereupon his sorrow-drenched life took a turn for the worse once he received the fateful bite of the vampire Lestat (Tom Cruise). During their years together as a pair of murdering night prowlers, they “adopt” Claudia, a child, played by an 11-year-old Kirsten Dunst.

Night after night, they drink the blood of the innocent in order to survive, a tediously cyclical lifestyle that Lestat relishes, but Louis quickly finds horrible.

The second act portrays a hidden world of vampires as thespian monsters, living in a theater that bears an awesome underground world. This extended section feels like a completely different movie, though spectacular moments carry it through to a striking finish.

The casting is key to where the film both succeeds and stumbles.

Cruise was no one’s first pick for Lestat. Indeed, Rice claimed she wanted Cruise for Louis and, at one point, Rutger Hauer for Lestat, though she defended Cruise’s performance after seeing the film.

There was even the Innovation comic book adaptation, which began in 1991 and, by the end of its run, had Louis appearing exactly like Cruise. Everyone familiar with the novel had an opinion on the subject.

Truth be told, Cruise gets into the spirit of the film, giving his all to a vile, privileged, and hateful character. The actor has given better performances, but he goes all in here.

I wish I could say the same for Pitt, whose performance is only half-there. I suspect the actor would be better at playing Louis today, whereas Cruise would likely still be a spot-on Lestat (Cruise’s ageless zeal with each passing decade is, after all, kind of vampiric).

It wouldn’t be a problem that Cruise is so robust here, and Pitt, well, isn’t, if Cruise’s performance weren’t just an extended cameo. This is Pitt’s film, and his performance is too similar to his equally uneven turn in “Legends of the Fall” (from the same year). Pitt has humbly admitted over the years that he wasn’t in a good head space when he played Louis (months of night shoots will do that to you).

Considering how gleefully nasty and funny Cruise is here, and how well he collaborated with older actors (such as Paul Newman and Dustin Hoffman), I can imagine Rice’s dream vision of this movie with Hauer and Cruise being far better.

Despite the lack of chemistry between Cruise and Pitt, Dunst’s scenes with Cruise are electric and Antonio Banderas is so hypnotic as Armand the vampire, it’s enough to make me wish the studio had kept going with The Vampire Chronicles. Stephen Rea, in a weird turn that couldn’t have been more unlike his prior lead in Jordan’s “The Crying Game” (1992), strikingly resembles Lon Chaney Jr. from “London After Midnight” (1927).

Further film and vampire history can be found in a great reference to Bram Stoker (“the vulgar fictions of a demented Irishman”) and I love how Louis is finally able to witness a sunrise, through the miracle of cinema. There’s also a funny reference to “Tequila Sunrise” (1988), only for its title (ah, to think of Mel Gibson paired as Lestat to Cruise’s Louis- another preferable fantasy pairing).

Despite Pitt’s sleepy turn, the rest of the ensemble and Jordan’s strong direction keep it moving. Dunst is amazing in her first starring role. Slater is excellent, ideally cast and filling in for the late River Phoenix, who was scheduled to play the role before his tragic death.

Many complained that the film dialed down the novel’s eroticism, particularly between Lestat and Louis and that the film was too tame. Both complaints are ridiculous, as Rice’s novel and this adaptation are about dealing with loss and guilt, not the joy of sex.

The erotic tension between the characters is addressed in the dialogue but never made explicit.

Rice’s novel was famously a means of mourning her own devastating personal loss – the film matches the book’s tone. Reports of some of the bloodier moments being cut to maintain an R-rating don’t appear to have softened the film, as the gore is frequent and disgusting.

So is the moral dilemma at hand – Louis can’t believe he has to become a killer, let alone bear witness to Lestat’s casual slaughters on a nightly basis.

Brad Pitt apparently wanted Daniel Day-Lewis to star opposite him in “Interview With a Vampire,” but Tom Cruise was cast instead. Filmmaker Neil Jordan remembers “the outrage that followed.”

“The entire world said, ‘You are miscast.’ He’s a great actor. If [Tom] says he can do… pic.twitter.com/szcAVVtgA0

— Variety (@Variety) June 14, 2024

Jordan’s film is overloaded with visionary moments, such as Louis’ initial glimpse of the world through “vampire eyes,” allowing him to see a lovely statue in a cemetery appear to judge him with a fearful glance. There’s also the repeated, knockout spectacle of vampires flying while engulfed in flames, and the staircase to Armand’s lair is jaw dropping.

Every time Cruise appears under piles of make-up to convey Lestat in a vulnerable state, the ambition of the make-up and in Cruise’s robust performance connect. Stan Winston provided some of the film’s grosser moments, of which there are many.

Like a Hammer horror film but presented as Masterpiece Theater and with a massive budget, Jordan gives it a classy presentation but, even with a pruned running time to meet the R-rating, it’s still a grisly work. That’s particularly true for a mainstream studio film opening around Christmas (!).

FAST FACT: “Interview with a Vampire” cracked the $100 million mark at the U.S. box office in 1994 – $105 million. That’s good for 10th place on that year’s box office list.

Rice’s screenplay generously truncates a busy story and helpfully leans into the morbid humor. Otherwise, it’s a dark, unsettling tale from start to finish.

Despite the strength of this achievement, Jordan’s “Mona Lisa” (1986) and “The Crying Game” (1992) are still his best films and superior works on family units that form from outsiders seeking comfort in an environment of moral rot.

As for the final scene, it’s a lot like the “Sympathy for the Devil” cover by Guns N’ Roses that plays over the credits.

It’s amusing but a little off.

The failure of the only sequel to date, “Queen of the Damned” (2002), which featured none of the original team, and the success of the 2022 AMC TV series becoming a beloved adaptation, has made Jordan’s film a once-in-a-lifetime anomaly.

While other lavish, star-studded vampire epics have emerged subsequently, Jordan’s proposed film series never got past the first entry (at least, not with his involvement). While a big hit at the time of release, it remains a divisive work and, because of how good the AMC series is, it is no longer the definitive adaptation of the source material.

There are problems with Jordan’s film, namely Pitt and the pacing. Yet, what does work (the majority of the performances, the power of many scenes and the production itself) is enough to overcome the shortcomings.

While an eternally divisive topic, Cruise’s highly debated performance holds up better than anyone remembers. Dunst, Banderas and Slater are terrific and the heartbreak and reflection on the value of life from Rice’s defining novel are on hand.

“Interview with the Vampire” isn’t fun (though it isn’t supposed to be, not really) but it is lively and maintains its ability to shock. It also allows the one-time-only spectacle of an emaciated, elderly Cruise playing a piano sonata and informing Dunst that she’s been “a very bad girl.” Jordan’s film has a sharp set of fangs – I wish we had gotten the sequels this teased us with.

Fangs for the memories.

The post Curious Casting Couldn’t Topple ‘Interview with a Vampire’ appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

The “Not Ready for Prime-Time Players” earned their nickname.

“Saturday Night,” a wild look back at “Saturday Night Live’s” 1975 debut, shows the cast careening around the studio with little idea what to do next. The same held for Lorne Michaels, the maestro behind the sketch institution.

The film’s ingenious conceit – it’s the 90 minutes before the 90-minute show’s debut – gives director Jason Reitman license to cheer counter-culture comedy in 2024.

Imagine that.

TV needed “Saturday Night Live” more than it realized. So did American culture.

Lorne Michaels (Gabriel LaBelle) agreed. It’s why he created a rag-tag showcase featuring standouts from the National Lampoon incubator.

You know the names. Chase. Belushi. Radner.

The show would break all the rules, except not everyone wanted those rules to be shattered. Michaels had to improvise the show’s set list, assuage the cast’s bruised egos and keep the suits off his back.

It’s a miracle the show actually aired, we’re told.

Reitman choreographs the behind-the-scenes madness with a firm hand. You’ll laugh, a lot, and recognize the iconic players thanks to the mostly unknown cast.

Dylan O’Brien is the most recognizable face, and his take on Dan Akyroyd is shockingly precise. The rest offer gentle impressions, preventing the film from becoming a feature-length caricature. That keeps the focus where it belongs.

This counter-culture revolution needed to be televised.

The screenplay, by Reitman and frequent collaborator Gil Kenan (“Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire“), hints at the show’s racial disparities without going the full woke. Credit Lamorne Morris, cast as the show’s first black player Garrett Morris, for treading that line while paying tribute to the real Morris’ legacy.

Morris’ take on a classic “SNL” moment (no spoilers here) may not have gone down as depicted, but it’s deployed in a way that honors both the series and the performer. 

J.K. Simmons steals the movie as Milton Berle, the literal face of Old Hollywood. He doesn’t think much of these kids rewiring the variety show template. His disgust adds a welcome layer to the film’s premise.

And, yes, another part of the Berle, ahem, legend gets mentioned.

RELATED: ‘SATURDAY NIGHT’ RECALLS WHEN LEFT LOVED COMEDY, FREE SPEECH

Willem Dafoe plays an NBC executive eager to cut Michaels off at the knees. The cast may get their first.

A subplot finds John Belushi (Matt Wood) refusing to sign his contract minutes before showtime. We all know now how combustible Belushi was behind the scenes.

At the time, Michaels and co. needed that coiled energy to power episode one.

LaBelle, who played the Steven Spielberg-style character in “The Fabelmans,” makes Michaels earnest and flexible. He’ll do whatever it takes to get his show off the ground, and his faith in the concept holds the thin narrative together.

“Saturday Night” starts as a frantic look at show business behind the scenes. What emerges is a thoughtful, even nostalgic glimpse at a comedy institution that captures the ’70s at its best. It questioned authority, uprooted the status quo and proved talent could win the day if given the chance.

For all those reasons, “Saturday Night” is a rare must-see movie in 2024.

HiT or Miss: “Saturday Night” is funny, bittersweet and always engaging. Much like the best “SNL” sketches of yore.

The post ‘Saturday Night’ – Counter-Culture Cut-Ups Crush Conformity appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Some of The Babylon Bee’s funniest work boils down to a perfect headline.

Consider:

FEMA Warns They Don’t Have The Resources To Block Humanitarian Aid For Next Hurricane

The accompanying faux news article is almost superfluous (it’s still worth a read). That one line cuts through political malfeasance like a Ginzu knife. It’s why corrupt fact checkers pounce and seize on the Bee so often.

So can the right-leaning Bee’s brand of satire extend to a feature-length film? “January 6: The Most Deadliest Day” answers that question.

Absolutely.

Babylon Bee Editor-in-Chief Kyle Mann anchors the mockumentary as ace reporter Garth Strudelfudd. He walks us through both Jan. 6 and why the media and Democrats pretend that riot was one of the worst days in American history.

Except good ol’ Garth buys into every last lie.

Mann finds the right tone for the material and never breaks character. He’s smug, ignorant and eager to misinform his “expert” guests. Said guests, including Dennis Prager, The Daily Wire’s Michael Knowles and radio talker Eric Metaxas, play along with the joke.

Again, the tone is precise and necessary.

The film offers up a grab bag of comic conceits, breaking the fourth wall one moment then uncorking “man on the street” interviews the next. News clip barrages pepper the film, reminding us that truth is not only stranger than fiction but funnier.

Crisp editing helps. So does the dense presentation. You won’t find many comic lulls here. If one gag fails, a half-dozen quickly follow. Most land with authority.

10 Deadly Days In History That Were Still Less Deadly Than January 6 https://t.co/h47pIb1Ykg pic.twitter.com/eYr4N5UFtr

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) September 8, 2024

Running gags abound, from torching the “end of democracy” blather to hunting for the QAnon Shaman AKA Buffalo Guy. The film even overlaps with Nick Searcy’s invaluable work tied to government overreach. “Deadliest Day” mocks how the U.S. Government threw the book at people who simply entered the Capitol on Jan. 6 but let far more violent progressives walk.

That’s not funny. At all. Somehow, the film makes it so.

“Deadliest Day” isn’t just consistently hilarious. It has a point to make. Several, actually. Trump Derangement Syndrome is real and lousy for the body politic.

“Trump committed horrible atrocities throughout his four years in office. He gave journalists only one scoop of ice cream when he got two. He force fed unsuspecting kids McDonald’s cheeseburgers until they all burst … to death.”

Democrats turned an ugly riot with the worst optics possible into something historically bad, all for political purposes.

And, of course, the media is awful. Dreadful. Terrible. Crooked.

We know that already, but The Bee puts an exclamation mark on the point. Several, to be precise.

The Bee, an openly Christian satire site, routinely mocks people of faith and, yes, President Trump. The film does the latter, to a degree, teasing the undying fealty MAGA nation has for its leader.

The mockumentary saves its knockout punch for the waning seconds. No spoilers here, but it might come as a shock to anyone weaned on CNN.

But wait, there’s even more. A final montage shows the Left’s hypocrisy has no bounds. We needed a movie like “January 6: The Most Deadliest Day,” and Hollywood wouldn’t deliver.

The Bee just did.

A final note: If you visit YouTube for information on the film you’ll find a Wikipedia-based “fact check” about January 6. Satire has never been more important than right now.

HiT or Miss: “January 6: The Most Deadliest Day” is smart, subversive and a necessary corrective to our warped media landscape.

The post ‘January 6: The Most Deadliest Day’ Blisters the Left appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.

Sweet Baby Ray’s tag line says it all: “The Sauce Is the Boss.”

Something similar holds for “Caddo Lake.” The Max thriller’s best asset is its title – the swampy landscape where the story takes place.

It’s a character unto itself, a sprawling vista that can swallow up someone if they’re not careful. If only the rest of the film proved as compelling.

“Caddo Lake” boasts solid acting, strong production values and a story we haven’t seen before. Yet the narrative never gets under our skin. The same applies for its small-town characters.

Young Ellie (Eliza Scanlen), is having trouble untangling her family ties in her quaint rural town. Another lost soul, Paris (Dylan O’Brien), is mourning the death of his mother. She died in a car crash following a seizure, a medical incident that doesn’t make sense to Paris.

Ellie’s sister Anna (Caroline Falk) runs off one day, sending the small town into a frenzy. They form search committees, rallying every available body to find the girl, hopefully alive and well.

Good luck. The sprawling waters would leave even the hardiest travelers at a loss. The cinematography makes fine use of that fact, creating an eerie canvas long before the girl goes missing. It only grows knottier from there.

Can Anna be found? What mysteries lurk within Caddo Lake? How do these stories intersect?

‘Caddo Lake’ Interviews: Eliza Scanlen And Filmmakers Celine Held And Logan George On Their Southern Sci-Fi Max Thriller – Punch Drunk Critics https://t.co/lzvzCHMSKX

— Punch Drunk Critics (@pdcmovies) October 8, 2024

Just know it’s no accident that M. Night Shyamalan co-produced the film. Writer-directors Celine Held and Logan George lean into that filmmaker’s vision, but they fail to replicate his sense of storytelling whimsy.

There’s little outwardly wrong with “Caddo Lake.” Solid performances. Credible production design. A setting that screams out for an unsettling mystery. The story never builds the requisite tension, and the angst in play feels secondary, in the service of a greater narrative engine that never roars to life.

All these earnest pieces can’t coalesce into a sci-fi yarn worth our time. Even scenes designed to ratchet up interest play out more like a puzzle with its pieces scattered across the room. The picture eventually comes into focus, but by then we’ve lost interest.

The real-life Caddo Lake, a cypress forest hugging the borders of Texas and Louisiana, inspired the filmmakers. That speaks to their aesthetic sense and potential. The unfolding story lacks the grit and gravitas to make the most of that unique setting.

HiT or Miss: “Caddo Lake” offers some tangled surprises but can’t sustain our attention.

The post ‘Caddo Lake’ Delivers a Cinematic Shrug appeared first on Hollywood in Toto.