“Truth or Dare” Review

Truth or Dare.jpg

Some party games are scarier than others. Rituals like chanting Bloody Mary into a mirror or playing with a Ouija board already contain the risk of summoning some sort of supernatural spirit, and even ‘Hide and Seek’ has something innocently sinister about it. Truth or Dare, however, is more often used as an excuse for teenagers to reveal secret crushes or challenge each other to make out, so when a group of friends get stuck in a deadly version of the game it just raises the question of why a demonic trickster would be so invested in their sex lives.

When Jeff Wadlow’s Truth or Dare introduces its cast of stereotypical doomed teenagers I couldn’t decide which of them I hated more: The nauseatingly pure Olivia Barron (Lucy Hale) who describes how her YouTube channel is for charity while her Snapchat is for fun, or the rest of her peer-pressuring judgemental friends. While it’s common for horror films to introduce a close-knit group of characters that are gradually torn apart by horrible situations, it’s rarer for these friends to be complete assholes to each other from the beginning. Some of Truth or Dare’s main cast are so openly obnoxious that it’s like Wadlow knows we’re just waiting for them to die suitably violent deaths. Thankfully we don’t have to wait too long for that to happen, but at least the assholes are more entertaining than the bland main characters. The only one of the group who even feels like a real person is Hayden Szeto as Brad Chang, with a scene between his closeted character and homophobic policeman father being the only moment in Truth or Dare that actually had an emotional impact before it’s immediately forgotten and moved on from.

The trouble starts for Olivia and her friends when they follow a stranger going by the name Carter (Landon Liboiron) to an abandoned chapel to continue drinking and partying while on a spring break vacation to Mexico. In this dilapidated setting it’s revealed that Carter only needed someone to pass the game onto to save his own skin, in a scene resembling It Follows if it was made for fifteen year olds. From then on Olivia and her friends can be asked the question at any time by a force that can possess anyone around them. This possession turns their eyes unnaturally wide and gives them a creepy distorted grin, an effect that more resembles a Snapchat filter more than a horrifying supernatural force. I’ll admit that one of the characters in the film made this same observation, putting Truth or Dare in the odd category of films that insult themselves before critics can. There are actually multiple points that I could feel the screenwriters desperately trying to justify their own premise – with a change in the rules meaning characters can only ask for two truths before having to complete a dare, or players being texted “Truth or Dare” if there’s no-one around to be possessed. While Blumhouse Productions has found success with unusual premises in horror films like The Purge, Ouija, and Happy Death Day, trying to make Truth or Dare scary suggests they may be running out of ideas.

1 and a half stars.

“Winchester” Review

Winchester .jpg

It’s always a shame when a movie based in reality ends up being less interesting than the actual events. Such is the case with Michael and Peter Spierig’s Winchester, a film that takes the bizarre true story of Sarah Winchester and the Winchester Mystery House and turns it into a run-of-the-mill haunted house picture that seems to only exist to cash-in on the success of better movies like The Conjuring or Insidious.

Dame Helen Mirren inexplicably plays the title role of Sarah Winchester, the widowed heiress to the fortune accrued by the sales of Winchester rifles. Convinced that her family is cursed by the spirits of all who have been killed by those guns, Lady Winchester now spends all her time constructing new rooms in her elaborate mansion to keep the more violent ghosts locked away. Construction on the house is occurring at all times, with new rooms being ordered based on the trance-like visions that come to Sarah each night. This means that Oscar-winner Helen Mirren spends a significant amount of the feature flailing around, rolling her eyes, and yelling into the air as she converses with the ghosts around her. I have to assume that Mirren either needed the money or just wanted an excuse to come to Australia to agree to this role, as while her sheer presence is almost enough to elevate some scenes beyond the flatness of the script I could almost see her stop trying as the supernatural elements overpower any sense of character. Fortunately she spends most of her time draped in a black veil so could presumably palm things off to her stand-in when she couldn’t be bothered.

The job of trying to add in an emotional story instead falls to psychiatrist Eric Price (Jason Clarke), who has resorted to poisoning himself with both alcohol and actual poison after being injured in an incident that also took the life of his wife. Doctor Price is bought in by the Winchester company to assess Sarah’s mental health and determine whether or not she should remain majority owner, and as a rationalist remains completely unconvinced of the presence of ghosts throughout the house. This scepticism is hard enough to accept when he sees a ghost after roughly half an hour in the house, and becomes frankly absurd after he brushes off the fourth decayed face screaming at him before vanishing into thin air. I’ll admit that one or two of these ghoulish jump-scares startled me, but in much the same way a carnival ghost-train is capable of making me jump. There was no lasting tension or suspense, and instead of feeling spooked on my walk home in the dark I was just frustrated by how inconsistent the spectres of Winchester are. They’re locked away in certain rooms – except for when they appear out of nowhere. They want revenge on Lady Winchester – except when they don’t. Certain characters can see them – except for when they turn invisible. At no point does it seem like the Spierig brothers actually knew what they wanted to do with this film, instead just relying on what they’d seen done before.

It’s infuriating as they had enough pieces to make something great; with an interesting real-life premise, stunning production design on the house from Matthew Putland, and an interesting role for their talented leading lady; but no idea of how to properly use any of them. The real Winchester Mystery House has over one hundred rooms yet here we only see about a dozen, possibly because the budget was too low to afford any more. I was surprised when Winchester got to its climax if only because I didn’t think anything had actually happened and assumed we still had about an hour to go, but was more than happy for things to wrap themselves up by that point.

1 and a half stars.

“Downsizing” Review

Downsizing

There’s an important difference between a good premise and a good story. Alexander Payne’s Downsizing has a good premise: In order to combat over population and humanity’s global impact, scientists invent a way to shrink people down to live in miniaturized societies. A good premise, however, can only take a film so far – and while directors like Charlie Kaufman and Spike Jonze are able to take unusual and imaginative premises and use them to create stories about human connections and relationships, Downsizing is instead a mess of undeveloped caricatures and half-formed ideas that never goes anywhere or makes any sort of statement.

Matt Damon plays the main character Paul Safranek, and one of the most repeated jokes throughout the first half of the film involves people struggling to pronounce his last name correctly. I use ‘joke’ in the loosest term imaginable, as there’s no actual humour involved…it’s literally just people mispronouncing his name while he grimaces. Paul is an exceptionally dull and unlikeable protagonist as he condescends towards nearly everyone he meets, acts indecisive about every major decision presented to him, and remains self-righteous even when his actions exacerbate the problems of other characters. The only reason I find for Payne to centre the story around such a character is that he’s an average white American male and that’s somehow still viewed as a requirement for many Hollywood films.

It’s usually around this point in my reviews that I explore a film’s narrative in some way, but for the first hour of Downsizing it doesn’t even seem to have one. Paul is unhappy in his life, gets shrunk, and remains unhappy in his life – with about three immensely distracting time-jumps in between. It’s not until Ngoc Lan Tran, an activist and refugee from Vietnam who has been forcibly downsized by her government, is introduced that something resembling a plot picks up. Unfortunately this ‘plot’ is nothing more than a lazy and clichéd acknowledgement that ‘Minorities have hard lives’. Payne clearly wanted to make a point about racism, but by doing so only plays into racist stereotypes. It’s repeatedly stated that one of the appeals of being downsized is that a person’s net worth increases drastically, yet every person of colour depicted in the feature is either living in poverty or working a custodial job. Which brings us to the character of Ngoc Lan Tran. While actress Hong Chau does all she can with the part, utilising all her talents to make her easily the most sympathetic and likable character in the film, Tran is written to speak in broken English and with such an exaggerated accent that I just felt bad for the actress. I can’t say for certain if it’s a remotely accurate depiction of a Vietnamese refugee, but the script by Payne and Jim Taylor certainly doesn’t try to make her seem real – regularly using Tran’s distinctive way of speaking as a source for humour, and reducing a role that had serious potential for both Asian and disabled representation to a side-character whose own story is less important than how it motivates Paul’s growth.

There are few redeeming qualities to Downsizing, but I’ll take what I can get. Stefania Cella’s work as production designer fills the screen with clever visual quirks to remind the viewer of the miniaturized scale – with flowers the size of coffee tables and Popsicle sticks used as bedframes. Established character actors like Christoph Waltz and Udo Kier relish whatever screen time they’re given, but like much of the supporting cast never seem to exist beyond how they can serve Paul when needed. It’s immensely frustrating to see likable performers such as Kristin Wigg and Jason Sudeikis playing major parts in the first third of the film, only to unceremoniously vanish once they’re no longer relevant.

Alexander Payne has demonstrated himself a powerful director of sensitive personal stories with films like The Descendants and Nebraska, but ironically the topics he’s tackling in Downsizing feel too big for him to say anything meaningful. Themes of global warming, environmentalism, racism, and poverty are raised, but in the sense that it feels as though Payne is merely mentioning them with the confidence that someone smarter will find some solution. I’ve seen Downsizing described as a ‘satire’, but it’s unclear what exactly it’s satirizing. Materialism? Man’s ambivalence to the environment? I’m sure there are people out there who could accuse me of ‘missing the point’ Payne was trying to make, but honestly the only thing Downsizing managed to successfully shrink was my interest in the whole stupid concept.

1 and a half stars.