Adventures in Cleaning Out The DVR: Girl Missing (dir by Joel Soisson)

Posted on November 14, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

So, I recently turned on the TV, checked the guide to see if there was anything on worth recording, and discovered, to my horror, that I only had about 5 hours of recording space left on my DVR! Making matters ever worse was that the DVR was threatening to erase the two oldest recordings in order to make more space. Terrified at the thought of losing both Bend it Like Beckham and Jesus Christ Superstar, I realized that it was time to borrow a page from the Gary Loggins playbook and starting cleaning out my DVR!

I started things off by watching Girl Missing, a film which I recorded off of Lifetime on October 25th. (What was I doing on the 25th that required me to record the movie? I was at a Halloween party, dancing in my underwear and then getting soaked while running through the rain on the way back to the car. Or, at least, that’s what I think I was doing. My memory of that weekend is hazy, at best.)

ANYWAY — according to the IMDb, Girl Missing was originally entitled Forgotten but I imagine Lifetime changed the title to remind viewers of Gone Girl. The film opens with two hunters wandering across a frozen wilderness in the snow. I point this out because the film’s opening few minutes really are impressive and visually striking. The image of those two hunters wandering across that desolate landscape have an otherworldly feel to them. Eventually, the hunters come across something unexpected — a ten year-old girl has been abandoned in a ditch.

Flash forward ten years and that girl has grown up to be Jane (Francesca Eastwood). Jane has no memory of her life before she was found in that ditch. However, that starts to change when she’s contacted by Sylvia, a wealthy New York widow who claims to be her mother. Sylvia is played by Kiersten Warren, who once played Alex in Saved By The Bell: The College Years, a series that my friend Derek and I are currently reviewing over on PrimeTime Preppie.

After traveling to Sylvia’s mansion, Jane is at first excited to finally be reunited with her mother. However, it quickly becomes apparent that not everything is as it seems. Sylvia is nervous and evasive, especially when talking about her husband’s suicide. Her boyfriend, Carlo (the wonderful Federico Dordei), gives off a vibe of pure sleaze and Jane is not happy to discover that Carlo and Sylvia’s affair started while Sylvia was still married. Soon, Jane is having sepia-toned nightmares of past violence and she starts to see a mysterious little girl wandering through the gray hallways of the mansion…

As I watched Girl Missing, with its chilly visuals and twisted storyline, I thought to myself, “This movie must be Canadian.” (And, just so there’s no misunderstandings, I totally meant that as a compliment!) However, I then checked with the imdb and discovered that no, this was not a Canadian film. Instead, it was filmed in Minnesota, which might be close to Canada but is still definitely a part of the United States.

But no matter. Whether the film’s snow was Canadian snow or Minnesota snow, director Joel Soisson still made good visual use of the frozen and desolate landscape. He also made good use of Sylvia’s shadow-filled mansion and the entire film had an enjoyably gothic feel to it. In the end, Girl Missing felt like a fun little Young Adult mystery. It was the epitome of an enjoyable Lifetime film.

Film Review: Animals (dir by Collin Schiffli)

Posted on November 12, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Animals is a pretty depressing movie and I guess that’s appropriate since it’s a movie about two heroin addicts. The script was written by David Dastmalchian, who also plays the role of Jude. Reportedly, he based the script on his own experiences with drug addiction. As a result, Animals is one of those movies that is full of believable details. I’ve never used heroin and I don’t think I ever would. However, even if there was a chance that I would touch heroin, Animals would probably change my mind. It’s a seriously dark movie.

And don’t get me wrong — that’s a good thing. If you’re going to make a movie about two people slowly killing themselves as a result of their drug addiction, the movie probably should be a bit on the dark side. But, at the same time, that doesn’t necessarily make Animals a lot of fun to watch.

The film tells the story of Jude and his girlfriend, Bobbie (Kim Shaw). They both come from upper middle class backgrounds, they’re both obviously well-educated (it’s suggested that Jude may have gone to medical school), and — even in the throes of drug addiction — they’re both still attractive enough that they can still blend in with “mainstream” society. As we see, in a handful of flashbacks, they once owned a comfy apartment together. Now, they live in a car that they park outside of the Chicago Zoo. Jude and Bobbie spend most of their time trying to figure out how they’re going to make enough money to get their next fix.

And the best parts of the film are the parts that deal with Jude and Bobbie tricking unsuspecting people out of their money. As tedious as Jude and Bobbie’s addiction-centered existence may sometimes be, it’s hard not to admire their determination. Their schemes range from the simple to the complex. They go to weddings and steal the gifts. Pretending to be a high-priced online prostitute, Bobbie goes to men’s houses and, after grabbing their money, runs outside where Jude waits for her in a running car. (Needless to say, none of the men are willing to risk the public shame of calling the police and admitting to how they met Bobbie in the first place.) Probably their most impressive scheme involves tricking a mall security guard into splitting the reward money for finding a stolen laptop. Jude and Bobbie are so good at cheating people that you do end up regretting that they couldn’t put their obviously intelligence to less self-destructive uses.

Eventually, of course, one of the two has an overdose and gets taken to the hospital. For the first time, the two of them are separated and forced to realize just how destructive and co-dependent their relationship really is. Will they stay apart and get clean or will true love (and heroin addiction) conquer all?

There’s a really harrowing scene in which Jude and Bobbie are harassed by some undercover cops who turns out to be just as brutal as the drug dealers that they claim to be fighting. And both Shaw and Dastmalchian give good performances. Even John Heard gets to play a character who isn’t a scheming and corrupt government official. There’s a lot to admire about the film but, ultimately, it’s so dark and depressing that it’s difficult to recommend. Unlike a film like Trainspotting, there’s not much going on underneath the grimy surface. On the basis of their work here, I’ll watch anything else that Schiffli, Shaw, and Dastmalchian do but Animals is one of those films where one viewing is more than enough.

Review: Ash vs. Evil Dead Season 1 Episode 2 “Bait”

Posted on November 12, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

So, I finally got a chance to watch Bait, the second episode of Ash vs. Evil Dead, and you know what? It will probably never happen because this isn’t exactly a traditional awards-bait show and, if the somber and ultraserious Walking Dead can’t get any Emmy love, I doubt that Ash vs. Evil Dead will ever do any better. But, seriously, Mimi Rogers totally deserves an Emmy for her performance in Bait.

I’m not sure which category she would win for. I guess Best Actress in a Comedy Series, though I think it’s a bit too simplistic to say that Ash vs. Evil Dead is just a comedy. It’s true that Ash vs. Evil Dead is full of funny moments and Bruce Campbell can make me laugh just by narrowing his eyes but, at the same time, there’s some pretty dark stuff going on in this “comedy.” And the Deadites are genuinely scary! It’s not just the makeup and the voices. There’s also the fact that they come to us in the form of the people that we love and, more often than not, they reveal the inner demons of our loved ones.

I mean, think about it. What if you had to choose between becoming a zombie or becoming a Deadite? I think I’d rather be a zombie. After all, a zombie is just a walking body. You may recognize the body but you know that the soul and the mind are no longer there. If I became a zombie, you could shoot me in the head without worrying about hurting my feelings. In fact, I wouldn’t even know that I was a zombie. And, if someone I loved became a zombie, I’m pretty sure that I could put them down if I had to. Because, again, a zombie is just a body without a personality. I mean, zombies can’t even talk!

But Deadites — oh my God! No way would I want to become one of those. Deadites still have a personality. You can’t shut them up. Up until they start drooling and talking in that evil voice, Deadites can still act like human beings. That false hint of lingering humanity would make it impossible for me to kill a Deadite.

I guess that’s why we’re lucky to have Ash Williams around. Ash is infamous for not being particularly smart but, as the Evil Dead franchise continually reminds us, his stupidity is his greatest strength. Ash doesn’t get caught up in the specifics. He doesn’t worry about the why. Instead, he just does what he has to do. He’s a blue-collar hero, in his way.

As for the 2nd episode of Ash vs. Evil Dead, it featured Ash and Pablo saving Kelly from her Deadite mom, played by Mimi Rogers. It took Ash a while to convince Kelly that her mom was actually a Deadite. In fact, Kelly didn’t really believe it until her mom stabbed her father in the eye with a fork.

What made this episode especially memorable was that Kelly’s mom was almost as scary when she was normal as when she was a Deadite. The scene where Ash, Pablo, Kelly, and the parents had an awkward dinner together was full of cringe-worthy moments. It was obvious that there were problems in the family even before mom killed dad. Becoming a Deadite allowed Kelly’s mom the chance to express her true feelings towards everyone.

Fortunately, Ash was there with his trusty chainsaw.

And, happily, he’ll be back on Saturday as well!

Which is good because Ash Williams may be our only hope…

James Bond Film Review: SPECTRE (dir by Sam Mendes)

Posted on November 12, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

(SPOILERS)

Three years ago, Arleigh, Leonard, Chris Mead, and I reviewed every single James Bond films up to Skyfall. Leonard often refers to this as being our Avengers moment and it remains one of my fondest memories of my time here at the Shattered Lens. It really doesn’t matter who is playing the role or what the villain’s evil plan may be, or whether the individual film was made in the 60s or just last year, the Bond films are a lot of fun. Some of them are better than others. Sometimes, you get lucky and you get something like For Your Eyes Only and sometimes you have to settle for Die Another Day. Ultimately, every Bond film is an event and, in many ways, they are critic proof. As long we hear the iconic music, as long as Bond gets a few good quips, as long as the villain chuckles while explaining his evil plan, as long as there’s an exciting chase and a big explosion, and as long as there’s a lot of gorgeous clothes to look at and at least one tastefully lit sex scene, most viewers will be happy.

If it’s not broken…

Most viewers will probably be happy with SPECTRE, the latest Bond film. I saw the film yesterday and, even if it won’t ever make my list of top ten Bond films, I enjoyed it. Daniel Craig is back as Bond, Christoph Waltz fulfills his destiny by becoming the 9th actor to play the iconic villain Blofeld, Dave Bautista is a properly intimidating henchman, and Lea Seydoux is the strongest Bond girl since Eva Green. One thing that I especially appreciated about the film is that, in the roles of M, Miss Moneypenny, and Q, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, and Ben Whishaw are actually given an opportunity to get involved in the film’s action and all three of them are a lot of fun to watch. The film has an absolutely brilliant opening, featuring Bond assassinating a man in Mexico City and destroying a city block in the process. There’s an exciting chase scene, there’s a few moments of genuine wit, and there’s even one of those patented Bond train journeys, where sex and violence are mixed with intoxicating results. And yes, the clothes are to die for…

To Die For

It’s good and undeniably enjoyable in so many ways and yet somehow, SPECTRE still left me feeling slightly disappointed. Some of that is because SPECTRE exists in the shadow of Skyfall. After Skyfall (which I feel should have been one of the films nominated for best picture of 2012), expectation were sky high for SPECTRE. Those expectations were so high that there was no way that SPECTRE could have hoped to meet them. (You could argue that Quantum of Solace faced the same problem when it had to follow Casino Royale.) SPECTRE is no Skyfall but, then again, few films are.

Speaking of high expectations, I think we were all expecting Christoph Waltz to be one of the best Bond villains. After all, Waltz is a legitimately great actor and he specializes in the type of cheerful arrogance that has epitomized some of Bond’s greatest antagonists. (One can easily imagine Waltz playing Auric Goldfinger.) Add to that, Waltz is playing Blofeld, the ultimate Bond bad guy. As it is, Waltz gives a good performance but SPECTRE‘s Blofeld just isn’t that interesting. He has a lot more in common with the generic baddie from Quantum of Solace than with Goldfinger or the fascinated Raoul Silva of Skyfall.

As well, it wasn’t just enough for Blofeld to be the leader of a secret organization bent on world domination. It wasn’t enough that Blofeld was secretly responsible for everything that happened in Casino Royale, Quantum, and Skyfall (which, as much as some critics have complained about this particular plot twist, is actually a clever reference to Blofeld’s shadowy presence in all of Sean Connery’s Bond films). For some reason, the film’s writers decided it would be a good idea to make him Bond’s jealous stepbrother. Blofeld’s past relationship to Bond feels incredibly superfluous. I like to think that I’m pretty good at suspending my disbelief (especially when it comes to a Bond film) but I have to admit that I found myself rolling my eyes while Blofeld talked about how jealous he was when Bond came to live with his family.

We all know it’s you, Christoph…

(As well, Blofeld’s jealousy was a bit too reminiscent of Raoul Silva’s jealousy of Bond. It worked in Skyfall because we weren’t expecting a Bond villain to have a vulnerable side and Javier Bardem’s perversely charismatic performance caught the viewers off guard. In SPECTRE, it just feels like something that should have been eliminated during a rewrite.)

Daniel Craig, of course, is the sixth actor to officially play the role of James Bond. It’s always interesting to see how each actor interprets the role. The most successful Bond films are always built around the actor’s individual interpretation. For instance, it would be difficult to imagine Roger Moore in any of Sean Connery’s Bond films and, at the same time, it would be hard to imagine Sean Connery in The Spy Who Loved Me. Sean Connery was the Ruthless Bond. George Lazenby was the Insecure Bond. Roger Moore was the Bemused Bond. Timothy Dalton was the Boring Bond. Pierce Brosnan was the Suave Bond. Depending on which one of his films you see, Daniel Craig is either the Professional Bond or the Whiny Bond. SPECTRE continues the pattern that we’ve seen in the previous Craig films of presenting a James Bond who is struggling to balance his humanity with his job. When it works, like in Skyfall, it’s riveting. When it doesn’t work, like in Quantum of Solace, it runs the risk of getting rather tedious. SPECTRE finds Craig in between those two extremes. It’s an uneven performance. Craig and Seydoux have great chemistry and the scenes where Craig interacts with Fiennes, Harris, and Whishaw are fun to watch. But there are other scenes where Daniel Craig just comes across like he’s bored with the whole thing. Craig’s Bond has spent four films trying to figure out how he feels about his job. If Craig returns for a fifth film (and, as of right now, that seems to be a big if), he will hopefully have finally gotten over it.

(That said, SPECTRE was definitely written for Craig’s bond. At the end of the film — SPOILER, obviously — Bond has the choice between executing a man in cold blood or allowing the authorities to arrest him. Craig allows the man to be arrested. Connery would have put a bullet in his head and then smirked about it.)

He totally would…

And if it seems that I’m being critical of SPECTRE — well, I am. It’s one of the more uneven films in the Bond franchise, one that especially suffers when compared to some of the other spy films (Kingsman, MI: Rogue Nation) released this year. But, at the same time, SPECTRE does deliver the basics of what we expect from a Bond film. It’s entertaining and it has its fun moments. It’s no Skyfall but at least it’s better than Quantum of Solace.

Incidentally, I want to be Lea Seydoux when I grow up…

Other Bond Reviews on TSL:

Insomnia File #9: Born Killers (dir by Morgan J. Freeman)

Posted on November 7, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

What’s an Insomnia File? You know how some times you just can’t get any sleep and, at about three in the morning, you’ll find yourself watching whatever you can find on cable? This feature is all about those insomnia-inspired discoveries!

If you were suffering insomnia at around 2:30 this morning, you could have turned over to ActionMax and watched the 2005 film Born Killers.

Now, probably the first thing that you noticed about this film is that the director is named Morgan J. Freeman. That J is there for a reason. In no way is Morgan J. Freeman the director related to Morgan Freeman the actor. Instead, Morgan J. Freeman is a director who has done a few indie films and who will probably never live down the fact that he directed American Psycho II: All-American Girl. According to the imdb, Freeman is also an executive producer on Teen Mom.

In other words, Morgan J. Freeman has been involved with a lot of crap.

However, Born Killers is actually a fairly good film. It’s certainly far better than anything you would expect to see from the director of American Psycho II.

Born Killers tells the story of two brothers, John (Jake Muxworthy) and Michael (Gabriel Mann). John and Michael are both killers. They call other human beings “piggy banks” and they spend all of their time murdering innocent people and then robbing them. For the wild and unpredictable Michael, it’s fun. For the coolly calculating John, it’s strictly business. They’re both sociopaths but, as quickly becomes apparent, Michael is the only one who is having any fun.

Through flashbacks, we discover that Michael and John never really had a chance to be anything other than what they eventually became. From an early age, their father (Tom Sizemore, who is absolutely chilling) taught them how to kill and steal. After their father’s violent death, John and Michael go on their own killing spree.

And everything seems to be going well for them, until John ends up shooting Michael. Why did John kill him? Even though John is narrating the story, he doesn’t seem to be sure. He admits that his memory may be fooling him. He thinks that it might have something to do with a woman named Archer (Kelli Garner), who the brothers reluctantly murdered.

With his brother now dead, John tracks down his half-sister, Gertle (Lauren German). John hasn’t seen Gertle in years and, when he first approaches her, he pretends to be a Mormon missionary. Gertle responds by leading him into her house and, after they have sex, she tells him that she knows that he is her half-brother.

Though John was originally planning on murdering her, he instead finds himself falling in love with her and even feeling that maybe his love for her would redeem him for all of his past crimes. When she tries to warn him that she has issues of her own, John replies that he knows they are meant to be together. He begs her to take a chance on him.

But Gertle, as you’ve probably guessed, has secrets of her own…

At first, I wasn’t expecting much from Born Killers. And, for the first 30 minutes or so, it plays out like your typical serial killer road film. I kept watching because of the performances but I didn’t think much of the story. However, as soon as John tracks down his sister, the entire movie changes direction and it actually starts to catch you off guard. Suddenly, you’re no longer sure just what exactly is going to happen or how it’s going to end. During the final half of the film, Lauren German and Jake Muxworthy give such good and compelling performances that you forget about the shaky first half. Even if the film’s ending is a little bit too twisted for its own good, it’s still an interesting journey.

All in all, Born Killers is not at all bad for a low-budget serial killer film airing on Cinemax at two in the morning!

Previous Insomnia Files:

Film Review: The Lovers (dir by Roland Joffe)

Posted on November 4, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

The Lovers played in theaters earlier this year but don’t be surprised if you’ve never heard of it. I hadn’t heard of it until I came across it on Showtime. The Lovers — much like Veronika Decides To Die — is one of those films that spent a while sitting on the shelf until it was almost grudgingly granted an extremely limited theatrical run. With little publicity and no critical support, The Lovers came and went and now it’s been relegated to cable and Netflix.

And watching The Lovers last night, I could see why some studios might be hesitant about it. The Lovers is an amazingly messy film, one that seems to randomly careen from tone to tone. Sometimes, it’s a romance. Sometimes, it’s an adventure film. Sometimes, it’s an attack on colonialism disguised as a history lesson. And then, occasionally, it’s even a science fiction film. It’s perhaps the messiest mishmash of themes since Cloud Atlas and that’s saying something!

And yet, despite all that, I still liked The Lovers. In many ways, I enjoyed the film despite some of my better instincts. I’m still not sure what the Hell’s going on in 50% of the film and don’t even get me started on trying to explain how the film’s multiple story lines are supposed to be connected. There’s so much that I could criticize about this film and yet, when it was over, I was not at all unhappy about having taken the time to watch it.

The story … well, it’s a little bit hard to explain. The film begins with a God-like being forging twin rings. We then jump forward a few centuries, to the year 2020. Two marine archeologists, Jay (Josh Hartnett) and his wife, Laura (Tasmin Egerton), are exploring the sunken wreck of a colonial British ship. In the wreckage, they comes across the two rings. They mention that someone named “D.E.” drowned while clutching onto the rings. When Laura gets trapped under some debris, Jay rescues her but ends up brain dead as a result. In a generically futuristic hospital, Laura has to decide whether to use machines to keep Jay alive or to let him go.

However, we don’t see much of Laura and Jay in that hospital. This is because, after Jay goes into his coma, the film’s other storyline starts up. Suddenly, we’re in India. The year is 1778 and Josh Hartnett is playing a Scottish captain in the British East India Company. When we first see Hartnett, we naturally assume that he’s playing the mysterious “D.E.” but instead, we learn that this character is named James Stewart.

(It’s not much of a spoiler to let you know right now that we never learn exactly who D.E. was or why he or she drowned with the rings.)

At first, I assumed that Jay was dreaming about being James and that the India storyline was meant to run parallel to the 2020 storyline. That, however, quickly turned out to not be the case. My next guess was that James was meant to be Jay in a past life and I still think that’s a possibility. But the fact of the matter is that the film itself never makes clear how James and Jay are related or even why we’re seeing both of their stories. In general, I like films that are willing to be ambiguous but The Lovers took it a bit too far.

James is assigned to escort an Indian princess to the capital city. Along the way, James has to protect her from both rebels and assassins. He also falls in love with one of the queen’s warriors, the beautiful Tulaja Naik (Bipasha Basu).

It’s the scenes set in India that make The Lovers worth watching. Full of opulent palaces, gorgeous costumes, fierce battles, and sexy chemistry between Josh Hartnett and Bipasha Basu, these scenes are a visual feast. Even if they don’t always make much sense, they’re fun to watch. When The Lovers concentrates on India, it’s the epitome of an enjoyably over-the-top romantic melodrama. It’s only when the film leaves India for the near future or those Godly ring forgers that its inherent messiness becomes a problem.

In the end, The Lovers is not as bad as you might think. Just enjoy it as a visual treat and don’t worry about making sense of it all.

Documentary Review: Prophet’s Prey (dir by Amy Berg)

Posted on November 3, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I just finished watching the documentary Prophet’s Prey and I have to say that it’s one of the creepiest things that I’ve ever seen in my life. As our regular readers know, I love horror movies but, in many ways, Prophet’s Prey is scarier than even the most effective horror film. Prophet’s Prey is frightening because it’s true.

Prophet’s Prey is about the secretive Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), a group that is best known for its practice of polygamy. The Presidents of the FLDS, Warren Jeffs, has been convicted of two counts of child sexual assault and is currently serving a life sentence. This documentary suggests that Warren Jeffs (who is estimated to have close to 70 wives) is still controlling the FLDS from behind bars.

Warren Jeffs’s voice is heard throughout the film. He recorded his sermons, the majority of which appeared to be about the importance of obeying his authority, and we hear excerpts of them throughout the film. What’s especially striking is that Warren Jeffs does not sound the way that we would expect him to. After hearing about how powerful he is and how the members of the FLDS continue to defend and follow him, we expect to hear a voice full of charisma and insidious power. Instead, the sermons are delivered in a flat monotone and the utter banality of his voice makes them all the more creepy. It’s the same monotone that we hear when a tape is played of Jeffs praying and then having sex with a 12 year-old that he’s just married.

We also hear a few excerpts of Warren Jeffs at his arraignment. His response to nearly every question is to softly reply, “Fifth amendment.” Even when asked if he has any remorse about his crimes, he replies, “Fifth amendment.”

We also see footage of Warren Jeffs in jail. We watches as he wanders around his tiny cell and occasionally tries to get some sleep. And again, the thing that strikes us is how ordinary and boring he looks. If you ever needed proof of the banality of evil, Warren Jeffs would appear to be that proof.

How, we wonder, did this seemingly dull and uncharismatic man become one of the biggest (and, some would say, most dangerous) cult leaders in America?

The film searches for an answer and suggests that Warren Jeffs’s power over his followers has less to do with Warren and more to do with the culture in which they were raised. The film’s best moments come when the filmmakers drive through the twin towns of Colorado City, Arizona and Hilldale, Utah. These towns served as the headquarters of the FLDS. Cameras line the roads, keeping track of strangers driving past the modest and identical houses. The people who live in town watch the cars pass with unsmiling expressions. Soon, the camera crew realize that they are being followed by another car. At one point, a member of Jeffs’s security force pulls them over and asks what they’re done before taking their pictures. With mountains rising high in the background and the blue sky seeming to go on forever, Colorado City and Hilldale seem like the most isolated places in the world.

Because it covers so much material and comes to so many disturbing conclusions, Prophet’s Prey can be an exhausting film. Along with detailing the life and crimes of Warren Jeffs, the film also details the larger history and culture of the FLDS. It makes for fascinating and disturbing history and it all ends with the ominous reminder that Warren Jeffs is still leading his group from prison.

Pair Prophet’s Prey with Going Clear for an anti-cult double feature.

So, I watched The Leisure Class…

Posted on November 3, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Well, it had to happen sometime.

After 8 weeks of showing us how the film was made, HBO finally had to broadcast the latest Project Greenlight film. Over the course of the series, we’ve watched the seemingly humorless director Jason Mann struggle to maintain his “artistic vision” while directing his first feature film, The Leisure Class. We watched as he fought for and won the right to shoot on film. We wondered if Jason would be able to pull off the film’s big stunt. Even more importantly, we watched because we were hooked on the hostility between Jason and the film’s producer, Effie Brown. Jason resented having to answer to Effie. Effie resented having to work on something like The Leisure Class. For 8 weeks, viewers were either Team Jason or Team Effie.

And through it all, we wondered — was The Leisure Class any good?

From the minute that Jason was named as The Leisure Class‘s director, I had my doubts. A comedic sensibility is something that you either have or you don’t. At first glance, there was nothing about Jason that suggested he even had a sense of humor. Once filming started, nothing that we were shown looked all that promising. The film’s trailer felt more frantic than anything else and I slowly found myself dreading the prospect of sitting through The Leisure Class.

But sit through it I did and … well, it was bad. Unfortunately, it really wasn’t bad enough to be enjoyable. Instead, it was just a bland misfire. If the film was interesting, it was because I related each scene to what I had previously seen on Project Greenlight. Wow, I thought, Effie sure was mad when they were shooting this scene. A few minutes later: Is this the scene that Jason was worried would be underlit? And then later: This is the scene where Bruce Davison wasn’t sure whether he should say pricks or dicks! I’m glad they were able to make a final decision…

As for the film itself — well, how do you describe the plot of a film that really didn’t seem to have a storyline? Charles (Ed Weeks) is actually William, a British con artist. He is about to marry Fiona (Bridget Regan), the daughter of Sen. Langston (Bruce Davison). At first, Charles was just planning on stealing Langston’s money but now he’s fallen in love with Fiona. The day before the wedding, Charles’s alcoholic brother, Leonard (Tom Bell), shows up at the Langston estate. He pretends to be Charles’s best friend. And then, Leonard gets drunk and encourages a bunch of teenagers to skinny dip. And then there’s the car accident. (This is the big stunt that Jason was so concerned with.) And then Sen. Langston gets drunk and there’s this amazingly ugly scene where he says a lot of nasty things to his wife and his daughters. And then Langston nearly murders Charles and Leonard but Fiona ends up pulling a gun on him. And then the next morning, Leonard draws on Langston’s face. There’s also a prostitute, named Carla (Christina Lakin), who shows up for no reason but at least she gets a few funny lines. The film doesn’t add up too much, with none of the characters or their actions making much sense. The script feels like a first draft and, even at only 80 minutes, the movie seems to be way too long.

The overriding theme of Project Greenlight‘s fourth season has been that Jason has gotten nearly everything that he wanted while shooting his film. Personally, it wouldn’t surprise me to discover that this season was pretty much edited to cast Jason in as negative a light as possible. (Otherwise, the HBO execs would have to take responsibility of the train wreck that is The Leisure Class.) Still, it’s impossible to deny that Jason fought a lot of battles and that none of them seem to have made much difference as far as the end product is concerned.

Jason fought to shoot The Leisure Class on film, as opposed to going digital. He even turned down extra shooting days so that he could get film. But visually, The Leisure Class is flat and boring. It may have been shot on film but it still looks like a single camera sitcom. (In fact, it’s hard not to feel that the film could have been improved if it had taken an Office or Modern Family mockumentary approach. At least that way, the characters could have explained their often confusing motivation.)

Jason got the cast that he wanted but that cast is let down by a poorly conceived script. All of the characters are so one-dimensional that it’s doubtful that there’s much anyone in the cast could have done to make them interesting. I like both Ed Weeks and Tom Bell but the film let both of them down. Meanwhile, Bruce Davison is reduced to bellowing out his lines.

Jason fought to find the perfect location and spent a lot of time talking about how the Langston estate was almost as important as the characters. The house looks gorgeous but the film is directed in such a haphazard manner that you never really get to appreciate it. For a director who spent so much time obsessing over minutiae, Jason’s film is unique for its total lack of interesting detail.

Let’s not forget — when the season began, Jason was selected to direct a broad comedy called Not Another Pretty Woman. Jason is the one who suggested making The Leisure Class instead. That said, I have a hard time believing, as some have suggested on twitter, that Not Another Pretty Woman would have been much of an improvement.

Ultimately, Jason seems to be an okay technical director. He knows how to light a scene. He understands the importance of moving the camera. I imagine he could probably spend hours explaining why he chose to use a certain type of lens. Unfortunately, there’s not a single scene in The Leisure Class that feels spontaneous. There’s no humanity to the characters. It’s a cold movie that feels more like a student film than anything else.

From what I’ve read, it appears that there will be at least one more season of Project Greenlight. And I’m happy to hear that because the show makes for good drama. I just wish that it would occasionally make for a good movie.

What Lisa Watched Last Night #144: A Student’s Obsession (directed by Damian Romay)

Posted on November 2, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

On Sunday night, I watched a Lifetime movie called A Student’s Obsession.

Why Was I Watching It?

Well, the obvious answer that it was on Lifetime. But even beyond that, there’s the fact that the title contained the word “obsession.” Anytime a Lifetime film is about an obsession, it usually turns out to be pretty good.

What Was It About?

Stephanie (Louise Lombard) is a science teacher in Florida. During a field trip to the Florida Everglades, Stephanie is kissed by her new student, James (Alex Esola). Stephanie demands that James be transferred to another science class but it turns out that James doesn’t take rejection well. Soon, Stephanie is being stalked but is she being stalked by James or by her creepy colleague, Richard (Richard Haylor)? And, even more importantly, should she be concerned that her daughter, Nicole (Ella Wahlestedt), has a new boyfriend who is named Seth but looks just like James?

What Worked?

The film was enjoyably over-the-top and melodramatic. That, after all, is what we expect from a Lifetime movie about obsession and A Student’s Obsession delivered.

What Did Not Work?

How stupid can one person be before you lose all sympathy for her? That’s the question that you have to consider while watching this film because Stephanie does a lot of very stupid things. Obviously, whenever it comes to a movie like this, you have to be willing to suspend your disbelief but this movie demanded that you do more than just suspend it. In order to take this movie seriously, you had to ignore the whole concept of disbelief. Stephanie did so many stupid things that it was next to impossible to have much sympathy for her.

Myself, I lost all sympathy for Stephanie the minute that she decided to sit in a car and have a conversation with James. This occurred right after Stephanie had been fired because of all the rumors about her and James. And yet, even though Stephanie knew that everyone was saying stuff that could possibly cause her to never work as a teacher again, she still decided to get in a car with James and have a conversation with him. And, of course, the car was parked in the school parking lot so any teacher or student could have easily walked by and seen the two of them.

At that point, I said, “Okay, Stephanie — you’re too dumb for me to care about.”

“Oh my God! Just like me!” Moments

Oh, there was so much I related to in this film and I’m not just talking about the whole experience of having to deal with creepy stalkers. For instance, much like Stephanie, I am a runner. I run whenever I’m stressed out and, when I’m running, I’m usually off in my own little world. That whole scene where Stephanie nearly got run over because she wasn’t paying attention when she ran out in the middle of the road? Done that.

(Of course, the big difference is that I yelled at the car and gave the driver the finger and everything else. Stephanie just kind of ignores the car.)

I also related to Stephanie’s daughter, Nicole. This was largely because Nicole was a rebellious redhead and so am I!

Lessons Learned

I should have gone to high school in Florida. Seriously, the school was huge and the science class got to go on a totally kickass field trip to the Everglades.

What Lisa Watched Last Night #143: Online Abduction (dir by Steven R. Monroe)

Posted on November 2, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

This weekend, as I recovered from our latest Horror Month here at the Lens, I watched the latest Lifetime original film, Online Abduction.

Why Was I Watching It?

So, as our long-time readers can probably imagine, last month was an exhausting time here at the Shattered Lens. Though I don’t have an exact count, I believe that I personally wrote over 150 reviews for October. When Halloween finally arrived I was on the verge of collapse. What better way to decompress than by watching the latest film on Lifetime?

What Was It About?

Isabel (Brooke Butler) is a teenager with issues. Her mother (Natalia Livingston) ignores her. Her stepfather (David Chokachi) is overly critical of her. Her 3 year-old brother gets the all the attention. Feeling unwanted by her family, Isabel spends most of her time online or hanging out with her friends, all of whom spend most of their time online as well.

However, one day, her little brother is abducted. With her parents blaming her and the FBI turning out to be surprisingly inefficient, Isabel takes it upon herself to find out what has happened to her little brother. And, fortunately, she knows how to use the internet to do it…

What Worked?

Most Lifetime movies are basically about unappreciated mothers whose daughters refuse to take their advise until it’s almost too late. The film usually ends with the daughter hugging her mom and admitting that she should have listened to her mother from the beginning. Online Abduction, however, tweaks the formula. This time, it’s the daughter who knows best and the mom who should have listened to her from the beginning.

As well, most Lifetime film present the internet as being an instrument of the devil. So, it was interesting to see a Lifetime film where the internet was not only a good thing but also the key to solving all of the world’s problems. (Online Abduction was pretty much the epitome of a “the internet can do anything!” movie.)

What Did Not Work?

The mystery was a bit pedestrian. I kept waiting for some big twist and it never came. Online Abduction lacked the type of over-the-top, batshit crazy melodrama that a lot of us look forward to when it comes to Lifetime movies.

“Oh my God! Just like me!” Moments

I related to Isabel. It’s not easy being a teenager.

Lessons Learned

The kids are alright and the Internet can solve anything.