Review: Send Help (dir. by Sam Raimi)


“We’re not in the office anymore, Bradley.” — Linda Liddle

Sam Raimi’s Send Help is a nasty, funny, and surprisingly romantic little pressure cooker that strands two archetypes—the mousy doormat and the smug rich kid—on a desert island and then slowly turns the screws until the film’s “eat the rich” satire curdles into genuine horror. It is neither the triumphant, all‑timer comeback some fans might crave nor a lazy retread, but a confident mid‑budget horror‑comedy from a director who still knows exactly how to make an audience wince and cackle in the same breath.

Raimi and writers Damian Shannon and Mark Swift build Send Help on a simple but potent premise: Linda Liddle (Rachel McAdams), a meek corporate strategist and survival‑show obsessive, has been promised a promotion by her former boss, only for the new CEO—his son Bradley Preston (Dylan O’Brien)—to hand the job to his frat‑bro buddy Donovan and try to shuffle Linda into a dead‑end role. He finds her embarrassing and even comments on her smell; she swallows the humiliation until a company plane trip to a business summit ends in a violent crash, leaving Linda and Bradley as the only known survivors on a remote island in the Gulf of Thailand. Out here, Linda’s years of reality‑TV survival fandom and wilderness prepper skills suddenly matter, while Bradley’s only proven talents—golf, networking, and cruelty—are exposed as useless.

The first act, set in the office and on the doomed flight, plays as Raimi’s version of workplace horror, pitched somewhere between Drag Me to Hell’s moral fable and a nastier episode of The Office. McAdams leans into Linda’s awkwardness without turning her into a caricature, sketching a woman who has internalized decades of minor humiliations and found solace in parasocial survival fantasies. O’Brien, meanwhile, riffs on the archetype of the tech‑adjacent finance bro, weaponizing charm into something brittle and mean so that every “joke” lands like a micro‑aggression. Raimi shoots these early scenes with brisk, unfussy energy, reserving his more flamboyant camera moves for moments when Linda’s resentment starts to spike; the tonal hint is clear that the island will be where his signature style truly erupts.

Once the plane goes down, Send Help shifts into a survival thriller that gradually becomes a duel, and this is where the film finds its most compelling rhythm. Linda wakes up, builds a shelter, secures water, and—crucially—chooses to help the injured Bradley despite every reason not to, only to be met with the same entitled barking as in the office. She abandons him for days to bake in the sun and dehydrate, only to return at the brink and ration out water on her terms, turning what could have been a straightforward revenge fantasy into a looping series of power reversals. Raimi milks the island setting for physical comedy—failed fire‑starting, slapstick injuries, disgusting food gags—before undercutting the laughs with sudden spikes of cruelty and violence that remind you someone could easily die out here.

Raimi’s direction is where Send Help most clearly announces itself as his homecoming to horror. Even without demons or supernatural curses, he brings back the aggressive visual language: lunging crash zooms, canted angles that seem to tilt with Linda’s shifting moral compass, and kinetic tracking shots that whip around the camp as arguments turn into physical scuffles. The gore is heightened but not constant—geysers of blood appear at key turning points, functioning as exclamation marks on the escalating class war rather than wall‑to‑wall splatter. You can still feel the Three Stooges in the staging; even the nastiest beats often end on a punchline built around bodily fluids, improvised weapons, or the absurd indignity of almost dying because you slipped on a fish.

Tonally, the film walks a provocative tightrope between screwball rom‑com and survival horror, and your mileage will depend on how much whiplash you are willing to embrace. There are scenes that play almost like a twisted date movie—Linda cooking up makeshift dinners, trying to build a semblance of “home,” Bradley begrudgingly softening—only for the dynamic to swerve back into emotional manipulation or outright brutality. The film clearly flirts with the tradition of 1930s battle‑of‑the‑sexes comedies, but here the gender and class politics are sharper, and the potential for lethal violence never disappears. For some viewers, this constant oscillation will feel thrillingly unstable; for others, it may make the film’s ultimate stance on these characters’ relationship and culpability feel muddier than intended.

Narratively, Send Help borrows its class‑flipped survival template from the kind of satirical, wealth‑skewering stories where workers suddenly control the only skills that matter. The formerly “lowly” employee—in this case Linda rather than a bathroom janitor or ship’s cleaner—suddenly dictates the terms of existence, upending the old hierarchy once the corporate infrastructure is gone. Where broader ensemble satires linger on systemic critique, Raimi narrows the focus to a two‑hander and uses genre excess to explore how vengeance, desire, and survival blur together when the rules are erased. This narrower scope sometimes makes the class commentary feel schematic—you can spot each new reversal coming like a story beat in a screenwriting manual—but it also gives McAdams and O’Brien ample room to shade their roles.

Performance‑wise, McAdams is the film’s anchor and secret weapon. She charts Linda’s evolution from shy, apologetic office drone to ruthless island operator without losing sight of the character’s essential decency, so that her darker choices land as both cathartic and unsettling. O’Brien has the flashier arc in some ways, modulating Bradley from cartoonish jerk to scared, dependent man‑child and, eventually, something more morally ambiguous as he learns how to play the island power game himself. Their chemistry thrives on friction; the film is at its best when it lets them volley insults, bargains, and threats in long, increasingly twisted negotiations over food, shelter, and the possibility of rescue.

Where Send Help falters is largely in its final stretch, where Raimi has to decide just how far he’s willing to push the “eat the rich” fantasy and what that means for Linda’s soul. Without spoiling specifics, the climax leans into brutal spectacle and a last‑minute moral turn that some may read as a cop‑out and others as a necessary corrective to pure revenge porn. The thematic through‑line—that capitalism warps everyone it touches and that power corrupts even the formerly powerless—is coherent enough, but a few late plot contrivances and cameo‑style appearances from supporting players feel more functional than organic.

Ultimately, Send Help plays like a spiritual cousin to Drag Me to Hell: a small, mean moral tale about how a single workplace injustice can metastasize into something monstrous once the trappings of civilization fall away. It may not reinvent survival horror or class satire, and viewers hoping for the wild supernatural invention of Evil Dead II or the operatic sweep of Spider‑Man 2 might find it comparatively contained. But as a brisk, roughly 100‑minute showcase for Raimi’s enduring flair, anchored by a terrific McAdams performance and a gleefully ugly sense of humor, it is a welcome return to the genre that made his name—and a reminder that sometimes the scariest demons are just your coworkers, stripped of HR and given a machete.

The TSL’s Horror Grindhouse: Bait (dir by Kimble Rendall)


What happens when you take The Mist and combine it with Jaws?

Well, you’d probably end up with a movie that’s a lot more interesting than 2012’s Bait.

Bait opens in an Australian supermarket and it’s nice to see that supermarkets in other countries are just as bad as supermarkets in America.  Two teenagers make out in the underground parking garage.  A former lifeguard stocks the shelves.  (The lifeguard, incidentally, was previously traumatized when he saw a friend of his eaten by a shark.)  The sister of that friend who got eaten by a shark shops with her new boyfriend.  The store manager gives people orders.  Two masked men try to rob the place, which leads to shoot out with the police.  It’s just a typical day!

Until, of course, the tsunami hits!

Now, on the one hand, the tsunami hit at the perfect time because it kept the masked men from shooting anyone else.  On the other hand, the tsunami hit at absolutely the worst time because apparently, sharks can survive anything.  Not only is the supermarket flooded but now, there is now a giant shark swimming through the aisles!

Our survivors all scramble to the top of the aisles, where they find themselves stranded.  Not only is the water shark-infested but there is also the risk of being electrocuted by broken wires!  The survivors are going to have to set aside their differences and work together if they’re going to escape the deluge of sharks and bad feelings!

Of course, if you know anything about these type of movies, you know that a group of people can never set aside their differences and work together until at least a handful of them have been eaten.  At one point, our survivors attempt to escape by building a makeshift shark cage out of grocery carts.  That actually might not a bad idea but it just looks so silly!

Anyway, the main problem with Bait is that the film, much like the characters, has no place to go.  The idea of a shark invading a supermarket has potential but once everyone’s stranded on top of their aisles, the action slows down to a crawl and we spend way too much time listening to thinly drawn characters shout insults at each other.  The characters are trapped but, unfortunately, so is the audience.

I was actually far more interested in the couple that was stuck in the flooded parking garage.  Those scenes, of the two of them trying to figure out how to escape from their car, had a claustrophobic intensity that the scenes in the supermarket lacked.  Lincoln Lewis and Cariba Heine were fun to watch as they bickered with each other and debated who was more to blame for their predicament.  Perhaps because they were separated from all of the noisy drama in supermarket, Lewis and Heine actually seemed to be having fun with their roles.

Anyway, Bait is one of those films that tends to show up fairly regularly on the SyFy network.  It’s not a particularly good movie but it is a reminder that the cinematic legacy of Jaws will outlast us all.  To be honest, if the sharks ever get together and form some sort of anti-defamation league, the film industry is screwed.

Playing Catch-Up: Love & Friendship (dir by Whit Stillman)


love__friendship_poster

Earlier this week, I named Pride and Prejudice and Zombies as the worst Jane Austen adaptation of 2016.  Of course, I understand that Pride and Prejudice and Zombies isn’t really a Jane Austen adaptation.  Instead, it’s an adaptation of a jokey novel that took Austen’s characters and combined them with zombies.  But you know what?  Nobody would have given a damn if the name of that book and that movie didn’t include three words:  Pride.  And.  Prejudice.  That’s the power of Jane Austen.

But anyway, my point is that Pride and Prejudice and Zombies was pretty much a low point as far as Jane Austen films are concerned.  Fortunately, 2016 also saw the release of a very enjoyable and entertaining Jane Austen film named Love & Friendship and, even better, Love & Friendship was based on something that Austen actually wrote.

Of course, though Austen may have written the novella Lady Susan, it wasn’t published until long after her death and there’s speculation that it was an unfinished (or abandoned) first draft.  In fact, it’s debatable whether or not Lady Susan was something that Austen would have ever wanted to see published.  While it shares themes in common with Austen’s best known work, it also features a lead character who is far different from the stereotypical Austen heroine.  Lady Susan Vernon is vain, selfish, manipulative, and unapologetic about her numerous affairs.  She’s also one of the wittiest of Austen’s characters, a woman who is capable of identifying and seeing through the hypocrisies of 18th century society.

In Love & Friendship, Susan is played by Kate Beckinsale, who does a great job in the role.  One of the best things about Love & Friendship is that it serves to remind us that Kate Beckinsale is a very good actress, even when she isn’t dealing with vampires and Lycans and all that other Underworld stuff.  Lady Susan is a recent widow and has been staying, with her daughter, Frederica (Morfydd Clark), at the estate of Lord and Lady Manwaring (Jenn Murray and Lochlann O’Mearáin) .  That’s a good thing because, as a result of the death of her husband, Lady Susan is now virtually penniless and homeless.  But, once it becomes obvious that Susan is having an affair with Lord Manwaring, she and Frederica are kicked out of the estate.

They eventually find themselves living with Susan’s brother-in-law, Charles (Justin Edwards) and Charles’s wife, Catherine (Emma Greenwell).  Susan, realizing that she needs to find not only a rich husband for Frederica but also one for herself, immediately starts to scheme to win the hand of Catherine’s brother, Reginald DeCourcy (Xavier Samuel).  Meanwhile, Susan also tries to arrange for Frederica to marry the hilariously slow-witted Sir James Martin (Tom Bennett).  Needless to say, things do not go quite as plan and it’s all rather chaotic and hilarious in its wonderfully refined way.

Director Whit Stillman, who has spent his career making refined and witty movies about morality and manners, is the ideal director for Austen’s material and he’s helped by an extremely witty (and, with the exception of Chloe Sevigny, very British) cast.  In the role of Susan, Kate Beckinsale is a force of nature and Tom Bennett is hilariously dense as Sir James, the type of well-meaning dunce who is literally stumped when someone asks him, “How do you do?”  Never before has dullness been so hilariously performed and Bennett’s performance really is a minor miracle.

Love & Friendship was a wonderful excursion into Austenland.  It didn’t even require zombies to be enjoyable.

 

Review: Fury (dir. by David Ayer)


“Ideals are peaceful. History is violent.”

You know that feeling when a war movie tries so hard to be gritty that it forgets to be anything else? Fury, directed by David Ayer, flirts with that problem but mostly stays on the right side of the line. Released in 2014, this WWII drama follows a five-man American tank crew as they push deeper into Nazi Germany in April 1945. The war is almost over, but as the film constantly reminds us, that only makes the fighting more desperate and meaningless. Ayer, who wrote Training Day and directed End of Watch, clearly wanted to make a grimy, claustrophobic, and visceral experience—not a clean, heroic adventure. And for the most part, he succeeds. But the movie is also uneven, sometimes brilliant, and occasionally frustrating. One thing becomes clear early on: Ayer is not just making a war movie. He is trying to out-war the war movie that changed everything. Saving Private Ryan raised the bar for realistic combat violence in 1998, and ever since, directors have been chasing that opening Omaha Beach sequence. Fury spends its entire runtime trying to shove that bar even higher, especially in its final act, where the violence tips over from realistic into something almost performative—as if Ayer is daring you to look away.

The plot is simple. We meet Don “Wardaddy” Collier, played by Brad Pitt, as the seasoned commander of a Sherman tank nicknamed “Fury.” His crew includes Boyd “Bible” Swan (Shia LaBeouf), the religious gunner; Coon-Ass (Jon Bernthal), the volatile loader; and Grady (also Bernthal, though the character is actually Grady “Coon-Ass” Travis; the movie gives everyone a nickname). The crew loses their assistant driver in the opening scene, and they get a replacement: Norman Ellison (Logan Lerman), a young typist who has never fired a gun and has no intention of killing anyone. The rest of the film is basically a crash course in how war turns gentle men into monsters—or at least into effective killers.

What works best in Fury is the sense of being trapped inside a steel coffin. Ayer films almost everything from inside the tank or right next to it. You hear every shell clank, every engine strain, every bullet ping off the hull. The sound design is incredible—it’s the kind of movie where you feel the bass in your chest during combat scenes. And the tank battles are brutally realistic. There’s no slick choreography here. When a German Tiger tank shows up, the fight becomes static, clumsy, and terrifying. The Sherman isn’t some superhero; it’s outgunned and out-armored, and the crew wins only because they’re desperate and lucky. That sequence alone is worth the price of admission. You can feel Ayer’s respect for Saving Private Ryan in those moments—the same handheld cameras, the same sudden death, the same sense that no one is safe. But then the film goes further.

Brad Pitt gives one of his tougher, quieter performances. Wardaddy isn’t a philosopher or a hero. He’s a tired man who has seen too much and made too many compromises. He forces Norman to execute a German prisoner, not out of cruelty but out of a cold, broken logic: if Norman can’t kill, he’ll get the whole crew killed. Pitt sells the weight of that decision without grand speeches. Shia LaBeouf is surprisingly restrained as Bible, a character who prays before each battle but never preaches. The real surprise is Logan Lerman. He starts as a scared kid who vomits at the sight of corpses and ends the film doing things that would ruin anyone’s soul. His transformation is uncomfortable to watch, but that’s the point.

However, the movie has some clunky moments. One extended scene has Wardaddy and Norman sharing a meal with two German women in an abandoned apartment. It’s supposed to show a brief flash of normal life—eggs, music, a soft bed—but it feels oddly staged. The women are just props. They have no real personality except to be gentle and then get killed offscreen. It’s a rare moment where Ayer’s macho instincts flatten the story instead of deepening it. But the real problem is the final act. The crew holds a crossroads against an entire SS battalion of about 200 men, doing it with a broken-down tank that cannot move. Realistically, they’d be dead in minutes. But Ayer turns it into a grim last stand that feels more like a Western than a WWII movie. The Germans attack in waves like idiots, running straight into machine-gun fire. And here is where you sense Ayer’s real intention: he is not trying to be realistic anymore. He is trying to one-up Saving Private Ryan by making the violence not just brutal but excessive, almost numbing. Limbs fly. Faces get torn open. The camera lingers on wounds long past the point of necessary storytelling. It feels like Ayer is saying, “You thought Spielberg was intense? Watch this.” But instead of adding emotional weight, the violence starts to feel like a dare. The movie becomes less about these five men and more about proving it can stomach more than any other war film.

Thematically, Fury is about how institutions crush individuality. Norman was a decent person who typed letters and likely never hurt anyone. By the end, he is sitting in the commander’s seat, pulling triggers without hesitation. The movie doesn’t celebrate this—it presents it as a tragedy. But the final act undercuts that tragedy because it becomes so cartoonishly violent that you stop feeling for the characters and just wait for the bloodshed to end. Unlike Saving Private Ryan, which uses its famous opening sequence to establish horror and then pulls back for character moments, Fury seems to think that more gore equals more truth. It doesn’t. It just equals more gore.

If you’re looking for a clean story with clear good guys and bad guys, this isn’t it. The Germans are offscreen most of the time, and the real enemy is the war itself. Wardaddy even says, “The only thing that separates us from them is this uniform.” That’s a heavy line, and the film never really resolves it. It just lets it hang there. Some critics called Fury shallow because it raises moral questions without answering them. I’d argue that’s the point. War doesn’t come with footnotes. You just survive or you don’t. But the film’s desperate need to prove it is tougher than its predecessors does make it feel, at times, like a younger brother showing off.

On a technical level, the cinematography by Roman Vasyanov is beautiful in a grim way. Colors are desaturated—browns, grays, washed-out greens. Mud and blood look the same. The camera shakes when it needs to, but it’s not the hyperactive Bourne style. It’s controlled chaos. And the final shot, where the camera slowly pulls back from the dead tank, is haunting. It stays with you.

So, final verdict? Fury is a solid, often great war film that trips over its own ambitions in the last thirty minutes. It wants to be a small, character-driven horror show, then pivots to a heroic last stand that feels like it belongs in a different movie—one that cares more about shocking you than moving you. The comparison to Saving Private Ryan is unavoidable, and Fury clearly wants to be mentioned in the same breath. But where Spielberg used violence as a doorway into human cost, Ayer sometimes uses it as a blunt instrument. The performances are strong, the tank combat is second to none, and the atmosphere is suffocating in the best way. It’s not Come and See, but it’s also not Pearl Harbor. If you can handle the tonal whiplash and the occasional macho posturing, you’ll find a movie that respects its audience enough to leave them feeling dirty. Just don’t expect a clean exit—and don’t expect it to earn every drop of blood it spills.

Trailer: Fury (International)


Fury-2014-Movie-Banner-Poster

I must admit that World War II films are a favorite of mine. Even bad ones I tend to enjoy. Whether it’s alternate fantasy fares like Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds or something that combines historical accuracy with dramatic license like Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan, the World War II genre always manage to hit straight and true to my film wheelhouse.

This October there looks to be another World War II film that seems almost tailor-fit for me. I’m talking about David Ayer’s follow-up to his underappreciated film End of Watch. This follow-up is Fury and tells the story of an American tank crew in the waning days of World War II in Europe. Just from the two trailer released I already know that I’m seeing this. Ayer looks to be exploring the bond of a tank crew that has seen war from the deserts of Africa and now to the urban and forested landscapes of Germany.

The film is already getting major buzz as a major contender for the upcoming awards season and I, for one, hope that it’s a well-deserved buzz. Even with Shia LaBeouf being part of the cast is not dampening my excitement for this film. Even if it doesn’t live up to the hype I know that I’ll probably still end up enjoying it.

This trailer looks to be selling the utter brutality and carnage of World War II’s final days in Europe when German forces were literally fighting for their homeland and that makes for a desperate enemy (who still had weapons and soldiers that were still hands down better than what the Allies had one-on-one).

On a side note, I like the fact that the tracers in the film actually look like tracers which means they look like freakin’ laser blasts. That’s how tracers behave.

Fury is set to hit theaters on October 17, 2014 in the United States and October 22, 2014 internationally.