Reviews

As everyone is probably aware, this movie is about human trafficking. However, the people who are getting kidnapped are unsympathetic and clueless. The kidnappers are unsympathetic and inept. When the clueless people suddenly grow brain cells and realize that they are being "kidnapped," they grow braincells more suited to conscientious objectors--suddenly they're pacifists who can't kill the inept people who are causing them to drop like flies. And the inept people have to be grateful for that issue, because they lose control of their situation no less than three times.

It's better, then, to think of this movie as a metaphor. The two targeted women are Everywoman who might be targets of this industry. The two kidnappers aren't inept at all. They are the sex trafficking industry: every time we think we have it beaten, it comes back to claim another victim. The face of the industry is actually many faces. It can be innocuous, hiding its evil under trappings of bland diversion, or it can be overtly evil, inexorably striking out at everyone who fights against it.

Did I love this film? No. Even as a metaphor the concept is better than the finished work. It is an atmospheric movie and tensions remain high throughout. The dialogue is mediocre in most places, but never becomes laughable, save for when a character is supposed to make the audience laugh.

Overall, I would say that this movie is better at evoking emotion than a lot of films made after 2000. It is also less formulaic than many, leaving many current film-making boxes unchecked. I would hesitate to recommend this film to my fellow horror-loving film viewers, but I would recommend it with little hesitation to those friends who enjoy thrillers or action films.

I was a big fan of Friday the 13th when it first came out. I'm less of a fan now, now that I know the snake was really killed, but it was my introduction to the genre. This movie was clearly supposed to be a spoof on that movie. To a certain extent, the movie succeeded in its goal. All the trappings were there: references to cabins and to canoes, a cranky cook, the docks and the raft. And, of course, there were the randy camp counselors "getting the camp ready to open." The camp was surrounded by the by-the-numbers woods, which were just thick enough and deep enough to provide a sense of isolation. There was even a campfire scene. The cinematography was decent and there were enough plot elements to keep the movie somewhat interesting.

However, even in Friday's opening scene, in which First Girl died, there was more characterization of a more decent character than in the entirety of this movie. If you're going to make a comedy, then you need to develop characters who can pull off the lines. Not a single one of these characters had any redeeming qualities, not even the "sympathetic" Tiffany. Every one of the characters was an angry, foul-mouthed, cretin, except for Tiffany, the main girl; Donnie, a man in a wheelchair; and maybe one of the supporting characters. Some of the characters went beyond silly or flaky to simply obnoxious and disgusting (I'm looking at you, Larry). The obviously deranged sheriff was a light spot in an otherwise disturbing group of people. He provided most of the movie's humor, in my opinion, simply because he was so campy and over the top. His deputy was an excellent straight man, usually dragging the sheriff into this little place called "reality."

One of the major problems that I had with the movie was that the killer became obvious about halfway through, particularly if you thought back to something that was said at the first campfire. While it was nice to see the unpleasant characters get picked off, very little was keeping the people on the grounds except for the mean and controlling camp owner and his right-hand woman. At one point, one of the characters mentioned that it was a ten-mile hike to town, but the weather was good and the food was lousy. You wouldn't catch me sticking around!

A couple of other things really bothered me. The first was the audio quality. The audio had a tinny sound to it throughout much of the movie. I suspect that part of the problem was that they were filming outside, but they should have taken steps to correct that. The second was the ages of the actors. Tiffany was supposed to be 20, but she looked more like she was 30+. One of the men looked like he was the same real age as Tiffany, but had a curly Arnold Horshack wig on to make him look, what? Younger? And another, Roger I think, kept speaking in an unnaturally high-pitched voice in an attempt to make it sound as if it were cracking. I really wanted to like this film, but only feeling exhausted and under the weather kept me from expending the energy to change to another movie. It was nothing to write home about, but a good-enough time waster on a dreary afternoon.

I love a broad range of horror movies. The original "Candyman" movie is one of my all-time favorites, probably making my top five list of its type (the more gory horror, as opposed to psychological horror). The horrifying image of the painting of Candyman in that movie, Helen walking through its open mouth, is absolute nightmare fuel. There is nothing in this soulless reboot that even comes close to that moment.

This movie could have been so much more than it was. The backstory was beautifully done and explained SO much. Unfortunately, that's what it did explain. There was way too much exposition and not enough actual action. I don't mean there wasn't enough killing. The body count was high enough to make most gore horror fans fairly happy and blood abounded. However, the killings were the only action. In the original movie, Helen did things. Her decision-making skills were poor, but things happened on screen. All Anthony does is paint and whine and hallucinate until he becomes the Candyman. It's really too bad, because in those first few minutes I really grew to like the couple. They were fun and relatable. After the first killings nothing was fun and after the first half of the movie, neither of them were relatable any longer. The ending, in which Brianna avoids becoming a victim despite summoning the Candyman was a cop-out. She might have wanted revenge on the police who killed Anthony, but she avoided having to make a sacrifice for it.

Finally, I think that this movie suffers from the same issue that affects most recent movies. It's too Woke. Don't give me the nonsense about "respecting" Clive Barker with an interracial gay couple. No one watches horror movies for interracial gay couples. Interracial couples, gay couples, and slapping white people down are all part of the formula now. I am white. I LOVE the genre, no matter who stars in the films. I think that Tony Todd has left a brilliant legacy with his contributions to the horror genre. However, this movie taints that legacy by its adherence to the "evil white police officer" trope (when at least 20 percent of Chicago PD is black and about 45 percent is comprised of black or Hispanic officers) and all of the other stereotypes that got screen time. I won't be back for a second installment, as I don't bother myself with consuming anything from people who have (at best) distaste for me.

The writer and the director wanted to go in too many directions with this story. First, there was the obligatory "anti-religion" theme. Second, there was the obligatory class disparity theme. Third, there was the obligatory bias theme. Fourth, there was the obligatory abuse theme. Fifth, there was the victimized female theme. Finally, there was the obligatory poorly thought-out homicide theme. All these themes were loosely bound by the frame story in the book Mary' father owned, which in itself was poorly explained. A much better story could have been told with three of these themes eliminated. It doesn't matter which three, as long as there was additional room to explain the frame story of the book.

Better characterization would also have been nice. The only empathetic character in the story was the little boy and he had two very minor scenes before the end scene. One of his scenes was, you guessed it, poorly explained. It seemed to exist only because someone needed to know the boy left the house. Neither Elizabeth nor Mary were pleasant people. It would be impossible for me to explain their attraction to each other, other than they needed to be attracted to move the plot forward in the manner the director desired. The guard did everything that could have been expected of his character, but again, he was a mere plot device. With a tighter plot, his role could have been expanded a bit more to give him enough backstory to make him even slightly rounded as a character. The same for the wandering stranger. He showed up when the writer and director needed for him to show up, without benefit of foreshadowing, with the exception of five seconds display of a book illustration.

One thing the director did well was to create atmosphere. Movies filmed in the dark have been done to death. However, being a period film and many scenes necessarily taking place at night, the candlelight was perfect for scene-setting. I would have liked to see a contrast with bright daylight (continuing the idea of "healing" the girls with sunlight being the best disinfectant), but that's me. I also would have liked to see a better explanation of the end. Mary's twitching finger suggests that she survived the hanging and the mutilation, but was it due to the old woman's/father's book? Or was the connection to Elizabeth's smile and her failure to answer Mary, suggesting that she was more than she appeared to be?

Overall, I think this story had a lot of potential, but suffered due to the convoluted twists and turns needed to fill all the boxes the writer and the director felt obligated to check. It was not a bad effort, and I don't regret watching it, but I feel it could have been a much better film.

I am definitely not the market for "stoner" films. I rarely take anything stronger than ibuprofen for my arthritic back (from a slip and fall injury). At first, I was going to lose patience with this story, given that it was driven by a drug-fueled narrative. I'm glad that I didn't.

As mentioned, this story bears a bit of resemblance to "The Butterfly Effect," in that it explores several possible realities for the main character, based on his choices. There seem to be several seminal moments in his life, the turning points at which the choices will drive him to poverty, drug use, paranoia, or success. Sometimes, these story lines seem to merge: in one, Fred seems successful, but in reality, he has failed at achieving his dreams and is falling deeper into despair. The viewer never knows which of these stories is the "real" story and which ones are the deviations from the mean. Then again, neither does Fred.

As another viewer mentioned, the reality of "Cindy" was never ascertained. Was she just a bad drug memory? Someone he met in one of his realities who bled into another? Someone who had been real, but had met an unfortunate end? Was she an angel? A demon? The viewer never knows. Ultimately, she is unimportant. Fred recognizes this. When he lets go of her, that is when he can make his own decisions and create his own reality.

Similarly, his seemingly unimportant mother is the one who has the most importance. In his earliest memories, Fred's mother snatches him away from the staircase, which is hidden through the darkness behind the open door. I was an English major, so I came to see and appreciate symbolism. When his "memory" of being snatched back from the stairs and her panicked scream is the one at the forefront, he is panicky himself and loses himself in his panic. His choices were removed from him early on, replaced by fear. It is when his mother allows him (as an infant) to make his own choice, placing him between her and that open door, saying "remember what happened last time?" that he is happy. He crawls to her, not toward the darkness and is rewarded by his mother's warmth and praise. That memory set him on a path of making good choices, not the feeling that he had no choice to succeed in his life at all.

As I said, this movie was a tough one. I actually talked myself up to a 7 from a 6 as I wrote this review because I found the ending hung together really well. I removed a star for some of the supporting acting and, at times, Fred was a bit over the top. I removed another star for some of the action being too muddled even for a psychological/philosophical thriller. I know that the horned man and the one with all the piercings and so on had meaning, but the viewer was never given enough information to make sense of them.

The final star was removed for having a mixed message about illicit drug use. In some scenes it is normalized. In others, it is made interesting and attractive. In other scenes, it is made ugly and undesirable. I would have liked to see a more central concept in terms of the drugs, although, because he has success after he rejects Cindy and that lifestyle, it seems that ultimately the movie rejects it, too.

It was indeed a tough movie to watch and one in which I feel my time was well spent. It's not simply a film for someone who wants simple entertainment, it can be seen as that by someone who "just" wants a stoner film. It's not something I would ordinarily have chosen to watch and I might not choose to watch it again, but I'm glad that I watched it till the end.

I enjoyed the film as a stand-alone product. If you go into the movie cold, without knowing about the Thai film, it is a tense, creepy thriller that is not quite "horrible" enough to be a horror film. The characters are fairly typical of Americans in remakes of Japanese/Asian films: attractive, if somewhat generic, and uneven in their abilities in their new country. The film would lose a few steps if she spoke Japanese as well as he did. Because she does not, she relies on her husband, an unreliable narrator at best, and the viewer can empathize with her unease at the knowledge she is not aware of everything that is going on.

One thing that makes this film enjoyable is that the viewer can see the relationship eroding over time. Originally, the couple was very much in love. However, as the spirit makes herself known and the killings begin, the viewer can see the tension--and the doubt--spread between husband and wife. The ending demonstrates quite clearly how the intention to deceive can destroy everything and gives a unique interpretation of a depressed person carrying weight on his or her shoulders.

I enjoy this film well enough to look for it as part of my annual October viewing, as a prelude to Halloween. It's definitely not for Asian film aficionados, but is enjoyable enough as an American film to watch on a windy, rainy October night, when the spirits are on the move.

The movie had a few really good moments. It opened up with a really adorable Biewer terrier peeing on his (movie) owner and progressed from there! The other reviewers mentioned some implausibilities, so I won't waste my time repeating them. There were many, many flaws that could have made this movie unwatchable if not for the genre; however, it was, simply "torture porn" of a weaker-than-Saw variety. I have to admit that I watched till the end to find out what happened to the dog. Yes. I'm one of "them."

Anyway, it's a good enough movie for popcorn and a hot chocolate on a cold October night while doing a 30-day countdown for Halloween. I probably won't include it next year, though. Congrats to Chico, a cute little pug (mix maybe), who got out while the getting was good. :)

"But you scored it an 8? What gives?"

Because, seriously, the way our "leaders" are acting and with China acting big over Taiwan, I'm pretty certain this scenario has at least a smidge of plausibility. More than a smidge, really. So, while I'm sitting here worrying about beating my best Woodoku score, it occurs to me that there was a pretty good reason for me not to choose the Huawei telephone a few years back. I'm typing this review on a computer with more than a few Chinese components, so, really, how sure can any of us be that we can't have our country "repossessed" due to debt?

Realistically, the whole repossession thing was just a point to jump off, a story starter. The fact is that China doesn't need an excuse. They're just going to do what they do because they have the power and want to get it done. While we are worrying about gender equity in the military and rooting out "white supremacy," they are building bigger, better equipment with stolen plans and reverse engineering. They are training bigger, meaner soldiers. And, above all else, they are taking advantage of a self-hating culture in the United States determined to destroy itself. All they have to do is wait for the inevitable collapse and pick up the pieces.

Now, about the film: there was plenty of stupid stuff. This guy is from an alphabet agency and he doesn't have basic survival skills? Granted, he was a desk jockey, but it's possible to condense water from the air using only a hole, a container, plastic wrap, and a rock. He was sharing a house with a Mexican national and never thought to ask if the guy could get his family out of the country? If they could reach the border on a single tank of gas in a beater truck, then Mr. Alphabet Agency wasn't too smart. Until he was forced to put one on, none of the family were wearing wristbands and would not have been affected by them. He had NO plan of action? NO idea of how to get his family out? We're just going to wait for the cavalry to come over the hill while we die of dehydration? That makes about as much sense as Harry Potter fighting the basilisk while Potter is wearing dress shoes.

The writer also missed a great opportunity with the child. If the family was going to try for Mexico in the end, why not do a little foreshadowing with the child and the renter? Children her age pick up new languages like Hoover picks up dirt (take that any way you will). Instead of have her constantly whining about story time. And then, seeing that he crossed the desert to get to the United States, he could have told HER how to get water with a hole, plastic wrap, a container, and a rock.

Overall, it was a great idea with poor execution. The high score is strictly from throwing all storyline expectations into the wind and accepting that it was a popcorn movie, like the original "Red Dawn," intended to have viewers think, but not too hard. Try not to think of why a remote house in the woods doesn't have more supplies or water purification tablets or a few 55-gallon drums of purified water. Try not to think of why it was an 18-mile walk to town, but that the guy can leave mid-morning, take no bags for supplies that he expects to find, and returns to his place before dark empty-handed? However, if you can take the movie as a primer of what needs to be done in a remote location or what to think about in the case of any emergency, then it's a good story. It's tense, it's interesting, it doesn't have a lot of gore, and the emotions are raw and real. Enjoy it for what it is, not for what it should be.

The title of the movie intrigued me: after all, how could a horror movie that looked at the inner workings of The Mad Hatter NOT be fun and scary? Even the Disney version of the Mad Hatter was creepy in his own right. But this movie followed the pattern of The Black Dahlia, using what should have been the main focus of the film as a set piece on which to hang the suggestion of a plot. It was truly an embarrassing effort turned out by people who should know better. Speaking of "people who should know better," I should have known better than to stick around when the professor described the hatter's parties as "drug-fueled orgies."

No effort was made to give any dimension to the hatter. At one point, he was described as "the best hatter." At another, it's explained that he may have gone mad because he lost his business. No explanation was given for any of it: did he have innovative designs that somehow went wrong? Did someone die from one of his creations? No one expects a lot of character development in a horror movie, but devoting more than two lines to his life history might have been nice. How about a few facts slipping their way in? The hatter could have gone mad simply BECAUSE he was so successful. The chemicals hatters used to cure hides for their hat-making were, in fact, poisons. Mercury could be considered a cause for his madness. Think about how much better this could have been: the popular and successful hatter invites the wealthy people of the area to his house for a fancy dress ball. A few people in the scene comment about how his behavior has changed and it's good seeing him get "back to normal." Instead of the house getting burned down, he poisons them all and watches them drop, one by one. What he didn't notice that one of the party-goers has given his daughter a poisoned petit four. She dies, too, as he cradles her in his arms. Then, having eaten nothing during his party, he goes into the dining room, props her up in a chair with food on her plate, and sits near her to consume a feast. THEN he intentionally burns the place, to "purify" it.

Dang, I might have to write that myself.

It would have taken just a few minutes to give the plot a strong premise, one that would have worked so much better. However, it's 2021 and 2021 seems to demand wokeness and debauchery. What a shame.

I also added another star after I saw the ending. Like the other posters, I thought of Frequency as the movie progressed. However, the resemblance to Frequency pretty much ended with the idea of corresponding with a loved one over the radio across time to change the future. That's a pretty basic premise and similar things have been written over the years using the same premise. As a writer, I know that the same premise can be used to create many different stories, so I don't fault that. One big difference between the two films is that in Frequency, the main character knows he is speaking with his father throughout much of the movie and in Dead Air the main character does not know that the person with whom he speaks is in the past.

The movie is clearly not done on a summer blockbuster budget, but I never got the feeling it was "shot on an iphone 3." The direction appeared to be good and, while the shots were simply done without many effects, I thought they were effective. Everything had a clean feel, with sets being spare and the story carried by the characters, which I enjoyed. The characters unfolded over the length of the movie, becoming more well-rounded over time. The big reveal at the end is not a shocker, but rather a carefully crafted event. It's been set up with hints (some stronger than others) over the first two acts, so that the view is almost begging for the director to confirm what the viewer suspects he or she knows.

The acting, to put it gently, was not on the level of a summer blockbuster either. Kevin Hicks seems less comfortable in front of the camera than he is in front of it and in one scene the girls seem to be overacting just because they can. Unlike some movies, though, William was never supposed to be anything other than a simple person--educated, well-traveled, but down-to-earth and unsophisticated--and his daughters were just young girls at the stage when bratty defiance is the name of the day. Eva was an intriguing character with a lot more subtlety about her than the first viewing of the movie implies at the outset. Of all the characters, I think she was the best-acted. All the same, none of the characters were mere cardboard cutouts and by the end the viewer can feel empathy for everyone involved.

I truly enjoyed the film and really want to give it even more stars. The lack of preachiness was a breath of fresh air and both Kevin and Vickie Hicks deserve a huge thumbs up for it. All of the storylines were pretty well tied up at the end, without anything seeming terribly forced. I also liked that the entire movie was not filled with profanity and cursing. Strong language was used effectively, accentuating the anger that people were feeling or their despair. The film left me with the desired effect, emotionally, at the end. I was perhaps a little wistful rather than "blown away" by the "what ifs" at the end, but I imagine that Vickie Hicks would be satisfied by my reaction both as a writer and as an actress. I might have added another star if I were more "blown away," but I was not disappointed by the outcome.

Overall, I think the film was credible, with a lot of things going for it. I won't say that it was correctly classified as "horror," and not simply because of its lack of supernatural monsters or gore. Dead Air is a creepy think piece, a paranormal thriller, but not strictly horror. I think that it would be more fairly reviewed as a suspense or thriller film, either of which contained paranormal elements.

Kevin Hicks has directed other films that seem to fit the paranormal thriller subgenre better than they do horror. I plan to check them out to see how his direction (and Vickie's writing) are progressing with their projects. I think Hicks would be a decent director for major films, given the chance and the budget, based on what little I've seen so far. It is, in my mind, a solid seven, knocking on the door of an eight. I've given "summer blockbusters" a similar score (for different reasons), so I should be saying "thank you" to the Hicks team for a movie I enjoyed a great deal without suffering through pretension to watch.

And, as John Shooter (speaking through Morton Rainey) once said, the ending is the only thing that matters. The acting was slightly cheesy in the beginning part of the film, but it improved as it went on. Most of the characters seemed like they fulfilled roles rather than being actually rounded themselves, but a few of them seemed very realistic (such as the junky kid) or endeared themselves to the viewers. And yes, to me, David seemed like a very real, very flawed, human being.

The spoilery part:

But yes, the ending bothered me quite a bit. Just by its nature, it was obvious that the box would pick off the characters one by one. It's at this point during which the viewer could have used a bit more backstory with the characters, to understand their motivations. However, as it was never intended to be an Oscar nominee, the viewer could probably forgive this issue. The ending was, no doubt, truly a lazy ending because of the "mysterious" finding of the box in a grassy area at the close. I was disappointed that David actually died at the end--but he did the right thing and the brave thing by killing himself in an effort to combat the box. I wanted him to live, but a lot of films seem to go with the depressing ending these days, rather than what people consider the "Hollywood ending."

Overall, I enjoyed the film. I may have gone as high as an 8 with a different ending.

This movie was definitely not good. It wasn't absolutely horrible, in that elements were interesting. The kid who played Tom did an EXCELLENT job. The boy who played Garret as a child was also very good. However, none of the adult characters were the slightest bit interesting or empathetic. It was obvious that Garret was unbalanced from the very beginning, just by his appearance. There was nothing subtle about him at all. There was nothing sincere about his desire to recover his memory. There was nothing sincere about his relationship with his girlfriend. There was literally nothing at all to like about him. Claire, the girlfriend, was simply there. Garret has a diatribe about her repetitive platitudes and, unbalanced as he is, you kind of understand where he's coming from. She's completely one dimensional and her hiding under a blanket like a five-year-old child did not contribute to making her impressive. My guess was that the other woman at the lake was not real. Oops. My mistake. Wrong cliche.

All in all, the story was fairly predictable, particularly after the birthday party scene. The ending was somewhat satisfying, even though that too was somewhat predictable as the final scene progresses. What the film does well, it does well. There is no "horror" to speak of (other than the clown. I hate clowns). However, there were many unsettling scenes that let to an undercurrent of unease that lasted the entire movie. A lot of people have compared this movie to a combination of "The Shining" with "It." I would suggest that it's more like a combination of "Needful Things" combined with "It," with a bit of sociopathy tossed in for good measure. It was not a good film, which is a shame because the elements of a good film were there. I'd love to see a remake of it in a few years with a bit more character development and a few more things better explained.

I wouldn't pay big money to see it, maybe I wouldn't even retrieve a CD out of the $5 bin. However, this movie is a fine way to spend a rainy afternoon or evening in front of the television without expending a lot of mental power.

The story is a familiar one: a group of young people go into a building to die. Sure, there's always a reason for them to be there to die, but even though the reasons vary, they are there to die. In this case, the story behind them being there is thin: Jacob needs to prove his aunt is dead by retrieving a death certificate.

As other people have pointed out, this proof of death would probably already have been recorded. However, given the almost-immediate occurrence of the fire following his aunt's death and considering how thoroughly some bodies may have been consumed, I'll give the film makers that one. The problem is not so much then, that Jacob must retrieve proof of her death--it's just that he doesn't want to wait to do it. His sense of entitlement is what leads to everyone's death. Without that sense of entitlement, the woman behind the desk would not have given him "admittance," which would have kept him, at least, from being consumed by the hospital.

A lot of people had complaints about Jacob's friend, Dell. Dell was nothing more than a stereotype, according to these complaints--however--he was exactly the type of person that Jacob would have kept around him. An entitled person like Jacob wouldn't care very much about another person's ethics, as long as he could benefit from the other person's abilities and associates. Dell was there to provide Jacob with whatever he needed and, in the movie, he was there to provide Jacob with the ability to break in and to steal something. He was willing to do something for Jacob because of money, not due to any fealty to Jacob. Each was using the other. Dell could have been any race or either sex--it was simply unfortunate that the producers chose the most stereotypical of the types (then again--diversity, you know).

I think that the story was interesting enough, as far as it goes. The back and forth through time made it something of a poor person's "The Shining." This back and forth made the story seem more complex than it actually was: Jacob was admitted to the hospital to make amends for his being removed in the first place. It was an inevitable end the second he received permission to enter, when the form "admitted" him to Eloise. Remember what the film said--once you're admitted to Eloise, you can never leave. The others were just collateral damage. The homeless man was not Dr. Greiss, as another poster pointed out. Rather, he was the orderly that grabbed Jacob and pulled him back into the building and back into the past. He didn't say anything to Jacob when they encountered each other at the beginning of the movie, but the orderly somehow recognized him for who he was--perhaps due to the admittance form.

The movie relied to heavily on chance encounters. However, it seems entirely possible that, if you go back to Jacob's father's death, their encounters were not as random as you might expect. Could it be possible that the suicide set things in motion? Is it possible that the suicide was not a suicide at all? After all, the blood was fresh when Jacob found it. Either the blood was fresh because his father was newly dead or the blood was fresh because the event was supernatural (discounting film maker error, of course). With this theory in mind, then nothing was a coincidence and everything was enacted to bring Jacob back to the hospital, where he could be contained as he "should have" been all those years before.

The biggest problem with this movie, for me, was that none of the characters were particularly likable, with, perhaps the exception of Scott. Every one of them was self-centered and unpleasant, although Pia could be somewhat excused for wanting to protect her brother. Scott was also annoying, until the viewer came to realize that the pictures of him getting lobotomized were real memories and not simply something created by the hospital to frighten him. Of all of the characters, he was the most empathetic. It's too bad that he was not permitted to survive the film, which I think would have made a better ending.

As others have said, this movie was practically a one-man play. I'll say off the bat, this movie is not my usual taste in movies. There was enough jargon and enough numbers to make my head spin. Much of it was subtitled and I'm not a fan of foreign films. I'm a horror buff and this movie showed, instead, the banal cruelty of humans over humanity. While I am not one that requires a film to have a happy ending, all wrapped up in a bow, this movie had a bleak, abrupt ending leaving the viewer aware that no character would have a happy ending if the film were extended to show their lives.

Despite all that, I was blown away by the intensity of the film. At no time was I left with more than a second to catch my breath before the next thing happened. Even when the probability of an event was telegraphed to the viewer (such as when the plane is about to crash), the tension is high and the viewer is all but begging for something, anything, to happen to end the suspense. Even when an event reaches an inevitable conclusion, the viewer is never let down--the tension just increases until everything comes to an end and only one sound remains, in the darkness.

I'm certain that there are many flaws. I've never given a 10, because there is no such thing as a perfect film. I am giving it a 9 because one character came skirting close to being a stereotype in an otherwise wonderfully character-driven plot. One thing that made this movie sing for me was that there was no "super" character. The captain was an older man who bravely sought to keep his first officer and passengers calm. The first officer was an ordinary man who was easily injured and who often fought from a position of physical and mental weakness. The hijackers were just average people, caught up in zealotry. The one we see the most was just a boy who was too afraid to die.

This movie is not a shoot-em-up movie. It's not a traditional action film, because it takes place in the confines of the cockpit. It's got a "body count" for the type of person who wants one, but most of the killings are off-screen and those that are on screen are swift and brutal with a minimum of blood. This movie is not for the person who wants loud explosions or chase scenes. What it is, is a fantastic examination of characters experiencing fear. Fear, after a certain point, contaminates every action and leads to the inevitable conclusion.

Wow.

See it. If you like character-driven movies, you won't be disappointed.

Let me state right off the bat that this movie wasn't horrible. Neither was it really good, hence the 5. It was a fairly solid little thriller wanting to be a horror movie, so it had the trappings of horror. Where this film failed, largely, is that millennials lack imagination. They don't understand what makes a good story or how to pull the threads of the story together at the end to create a solid ending. Virtually every "scare" in this movie has been seen before, done better.

That in itself is not an issue. There have been so many stories told since Gilgamesh that it's impossible to create a completely original one. The problem is that the viewer has no idea what kind of story is being told. The viewer thinks it's going to be a simple "oops, we didn't say goodbye with the spirit board, so bad things are going to happen" movie. We know that there is a subplot going on and suspect some kind of abuse from the start. The question is, why don't her friends suspect it, too? While Maren, the possessed girl, chews the scenery and makes the story about her, the true main character is Jo. The story opens and closes with her.

When "Maren" is asked why she is doing what she is doing, the demon inside her proclaims that it is vengeance. That's all well and good, given that Maren has been wronged by any number of people in the circle. However, "Maren" also takes vengeance against Jo, the one person who has been physically harmed by at least one person and who has been mentally harmed by other people in the circle, as well. It is difficult to see how forcing an abused person to slit her own throat is appropriate, when it was creepyboyfriend who stood Maren up at the prom. And, as "Maren" kept insisting, Maren no longer exists. What does the demon get out of destroying anyone other than creepyboyfriend, who honestly wasn't that horrible of a person?

The film did some things quite well. Many of the relationships seemed natural, even when strained. The characters didn't live in impossibly grand houses or drive unaffordable automobiles for their ages and stations. The atmosphere was tense and there was a good balance between psychological scares and gore. It definitely earned its stars with those good things.

The film does some things very poorly. The circular ending was unexplained. The Bible-quoting demon was confusing. The "reasons" for the vengeance were negligible. I mean--if a demon were to manifest every time someone broke a spirit circle because he or she found out his or her partner was cheating, dang . . . there wouldn't be anyone left in college. Spirit circles, whether with candles or Ouija boards or whatever are practically a rite of passage, at least in horror movies. Cheating, along with the drinking and the drugs, seems to be ordinary behavior among dissipated horror movie youth. Wasn't that the point of virtually every horror movie since the original Friday the 13th?

When examined as a treatise on domestic violence, the film is marginally better. The viewer gets to question Maren's motives for inviting Jo. What does she know and when did she find out--and is she, somehow, one of Jo's tormentors? As someone before me pointed out, domestic violence is a perpetual thing. Living with domestic violence is like living in a movie with a circular plot. No matter how many times you get up in the morning, it seems as though your next day is identical to the previous day. The horrors just continue. If that plot was what the film intended to convey, then it needed to be more explicitly done: more than one iteration of Maren's possession and more than one iteration of Jo's suffering needed to be shown As with other things in this movie, it's been done before. However, the movie would have been the stronger for it.

As a free movie for a lazy afternoon, this movie wasn't atrocious. It was not, however, terrific. I was a bit turned off by the sex scene to open the movie (why do directors feel compelled to open with such a scene!), but because it actually had something to do with the plot, I ignored it as I got coffee and prepared to watch the movie. There was a decent uptick in quality after that point.

The plot did not, however, make a lot of sense once Georgette got to the building. The movie seemed to want to be "1408," without the budget, cast, or quality of script. However, for what it was, "American Exorcist" had a few good scenes and concepts. I wouldn't spend a lot of money renting it, maybe not even from Red Box, but it's not a bad way to waste a bit of time if you have nothing better to do.

Minor Spoiler

The automatic writing scene is pretty intense. It definitely created an aura of tension that had not existed previously, even after the failed exorcism that introduced Georgette and her sister. In my opinion, it was the best scene of the movie.