Thoroughbreds (2018)

Score: 5 / 5

Though the title refers most directly to horses -- a symbol both of freedom and potential eroticism in the form of pure-blooded animals -- Thoroughbreds primarily focuses on the young, wealthy, and unhappy. Interestingly, the film combines many genres, so much so that it can hardly be called pure in any aesthetic sense; and yet the story is so fresh and the style so gorgeously specific that it never feels less that original, authentic, and engrossing.

Anya Taylor-Joy plays wealthy and academic Lily, who lives with her mother and stepfather in a beautiful mansion on the water. Its meticulously maintained gardens and facade -- and pristine interior -- set up a brightly lit stage for the horror lurking in the hearts of its inhabitants. This estate is no home; it's an idolatrous altar to the power of money and class and niceness. Lily has apparently been suffering some Hamlet-like melancholy (due no doubt to her father's passing and her mother's marriage to another man whom Lily hates), and though she functions well socially, it becomes clear that she harbors dark designs.

Enter Olivia Cooke as Amanda, who seems to suffer some mental disorder that prevents her from experiencing any emotion. Her mother has paid Lily to socialize with Amanda -- which the girl knows full well -- but it doesn't take long before their childhood friendship rekindles and the two spend lots of quality time together. Amanda's amoral and occasionally bloodthirsty interests pique Lily's latent passions, though the latter has the potential problem of actually feeling all the complex emotions involved in interacting with other people.

I don't want to spoil the story any further. A few added twists and turns make what is already a fairly original story riveting and unpredictable. People lie and tell the truth and we don't always know which. Anton Yelchin shows up for a few deliciously funny scenes that remind us of how horribly soon he was taken from us. But the joys of this film are manifold, in its killer screenplay, its deft direction, and some amazing performances. The two leading women perform at their usual world-class level, and their chemistry together is magnificent.

Thoroughbreds becomes a Leopold and Loeb story about women, about money, about social norms, about mental illness, and about the violence hidden just behind the veil of old money. What's fascinating to me is that we see these young, wealthy, intelligent girls as ruthless killers and yet, by the end -- which is neither tragic nor totally unrealistic -- I felt deeply moved by their relationship. Of course, I was also deeply moved by how pretty the film is and how each shot has been so carefully calculated. Hitchcockian in the best sense, the film unfolds in an inevitable march toward homicide. It's a similar aesthetic to recent A24 films, and more than once I thought of Yorgos Lanthimos; this film's rigid sense of time and place and purpose keeps everything at once sterile and layered, clean and uncanny, simple and endlessly complex. A haunting score interrupts lengthy periods of near-silence, highlighting the sudden and percussive nature of violence in the world of the film.

Dissect it, or don't. It's also just a hell of a good time.

IMDb: Thoroughbreds

Green Room (2016)

Score: 4 / 5

You say you never expected a movie pitting cowboys against aliens. I say I never expected a movie pitting rock musicians against neo-Nazi skinheads. But here it is, and it's awesome.

A wry, witty first act sets up the film to be something between dark satire and absurdist thriller. Our protagonists, "the Ain't Rights" band members, find themselves wandering the Pacific Northwest on their down-and-out tour. A seemingly fortuitous opportunity arises, and the band go to a remote bar deep in the woods. Upon recognizing its clientele as neo-Nazis, the band provoke the crowd before performing their concert, and then prepare to depart. They accidentally find a murdered woman in their green room, and immediately find themselves held at gunpoint by the bouncers, who confiscate their phones. The night quickly explodes into violence and ushers in a surprising bloodbath that lasts a better part of an hour.

If you know me at all, you know I don't handle body horror well, and as soon as we see bones break or skin tear, my mind turns to mush. I wasn't expecting it, so you can be sure my consciousness was in question for most of this film. From what I can recall, the both the story and its characters are thin: It's a strange sort of reverse-home-invasion plot featuring little more than adrenalized bodies ready to be "cut the fuck up" (as Jada Pinkett Smith says in Scream 2).

The interest here is in the excellent presentation of the proceedings. It's not exactly an unknown story, and between the genre and its tropes, the film could be a big yawn. Director Jeremy Saulier pulls the film taut, keeping everything clear and clean in a world of little but gore and grime, and indulging in the smallest of visual pleasures. Machetes and pit bulls and fire extinguishers and shotguns and pocket-knives are all used with indiscriminate violence as the players launch themselves upon the others. There's not a moment when Saulier himself gets caught up in the horrors and the frenzied kinetic action, rather keeping a calculated and distinctly rhythmic eye on everything. His unnerving sense of atmosphere and pace keep things totally accessible and even believable; even the obvious spectacular, shock-value scares are truly shocking because we can believe in the horrors we're witnessing.

Anton Yelchin and Patrick Stewart play the respective leaders of the opposing factions, and together they carry the film. Sean Porter's cinematography and Julia Bloch's editing keep these two men at the center of our attention, and they help focus a film that could have easily sunk into confused waste. Instead, they and director Saulier craft a fierce, fevered foray into hell that raises questions about savagery and brutality, and when fighting back can be the only worthwhile response to the same.

IMDb: Green Room

Star Trek Beyond (2016)

Score: 3.5 / 5

Finally, the summer blockbuster we've been waiting for. Tarzan failed miserably, and the last good major flicks were from Marvel. In a hot season this devoid of decent action movies, just about anything might have done the trick. And while the newest Star Trek certainly delivers in all the crucial ways, it also leaves me feeling a bit underwhelmed.

As someone who has never seen anything Trek-related besides these reboot films, I may not speak with the most authority on these matters. I've heard that the film works best with its nostalgic, retro vibes and its pervasive senses of joy, humor, and adventure. We get more of the Spock-Kirk-McCoy bromance, the Spock-Uhura drama, and some nice insight into Sulu and Scott. This picture, far more than the first or second installments, fulfills the franchise's promise for exploration, adventure, and wonder. All fun, all the time. I totally get that. It's a rapturous fantasy, dazzling and wondrous in scope, layered with hue upon hue, vibrant and explosive, original and utterly absorbing.

The mind-numbing CGI and whirling cinematography through amazing alien worlds do their trick too: distraction. I've heard it argued both ways, and convincingly, but after the emotional and intellectual power-punches of the first two, this film really lets its heart take a break. Perhaps that was the smart decision, as the emotional climax of Into Darkness was so intense. But even what could be character-building arcs here are sacrificed in favor of blatant gags and quirky one-liners. The revved action sequences and heated style render the more sentimental dialogue tepid at best. And maybe that's okay for what amounts to a placeholder film in a franchise as extensive as this. But I just spent the time thinking and typing all this out to say that I'm just not sure, which may suggest the filmmakers weren't sure either, either in conception or execution. My bet is on the latter. Why? Because even some basic plot devices are illogical and filled with holes. I know I missed some, too, because of the frenetic pace of the film, but one that really pissed me off occurred when Scotty tells the captain that the dilapidated spaceship is impossible to fix, and in the next scene everything is fine and they're blasting off.

And that's to say nothing of the action sequences themselves, which are occasionally stupid and usually incoherent. They're a hell of a lot of fun, but I had trouble lining up placements and even location. Not that it even mattered most of the time; the film is so full of salvific coincidence and that it's hard to care much how our heroes escape or succeed because we innately know they will. Important plot pieces just click into place as they are needed with little or no explanation beyond screenwriting laziness.

For all that, though, it's a hell of a picture, and loads of fun. I'd watch it again, and be happy the whole time. It certainly whetted my appetite for another rollicking adventure. Tempered, I might add, by remembering that Anton Yelchin won't be there. Rest in peace.

IMDb: Star Trek Beyond