Cold War (2018)


A really bad cold can just knock you out.

(2018) Romantic Comedy (Stadium Media) Madeline Walter, Michael Blaiklock, Gail Rastorfer, Antoine McKay, Kenneth Yoder, Rammel Chan, Deanna Reed-Foster, Antoine Pierre, Scarlett Harper, Shirl Shang, Sara Sevigny. Directed by J. Wilder Konschak and Stirlling McLaughlin

 

Moving in with someone is a big step. Not only is it a transition from just dating to be a couple, it is the last step before getting married. It is also a big step into uncertainty – living with someone is a whole lot different than hangin out with them.

Maggie (Walter) and Jonathan (Blaiklock) are taking that step. Maggie, a nurse, works for Dr. Galoup (McKay), the husband of her patrician best friend Ollie (Rastorfer). It is at work that she contracts the Raccoon Flu, an influenza of epic proportions. Unable to function at work, she is sent home where she promptly infects Jon with it. What’s yours is mine and what’s mine is yours after all.

Confined with one another, their love for each other is immediately put to the acid test. It doesn’t help matters that their philosophies to handling sickness couldn’t be more different; Maggie with her medical background puts her faith in doctor visits and pharmacies. Jon prefers home remedies and herbal concoctions. She wants zero contact with people while he happily plans a themed housewarming party.

In an atmosphere like this with both parties feeling like crap, everything is magnified. Little petty disagreements become declarations of war. Innocent remarks become deadly insults. Suddenly home becomes a battlefield with an interloper your deadliest enemy; the two are inexorably drawn into conflict. Battle lines are drawn in this engagement in which no quarter can be given and no prisoners can be taken.

In many ways it’s hard to believe that this is essentially a local (Chicago) production. This is far funnier and of better quality than a lot of major studio productions. The humor begins as fairly low-key and ratchets up by the end of the movie but oddly enough, the final third of the movie loses its edge and degenerates into downright silliness. Most of the rest of the way though the movie takes affectionate pokes at real relationship issues, like bed etiquette. Anyone who has had the sheets pulled off of their bodies in the middle of the night will relate.

Walter and Blaiklock have some sitcom and webisode experience but they act more like seasoned pros. Both have a ton of screen presence, much more than I expected. Walter in particular has enormous potential as a comic actress; she seems to  be heavily influenced by Julia Louis-Dreyfus (and indeed resembles the former SNL comedienne facially) with the wry overtones of a Tina Fey. I get the sense that as an actress she is virtually fearless; she’s not afraid to appear as a cast iron bitch nor as an object of desire.

This is one of those pleasant surprises that sometimes come along in this job. This isn’t a film that redefines the genre of romantic comedies but at the same time it is solid entertainment that is worth an hour and a half of your time. Comedies are in fact the hardest kind of film to make; humor is not necessarily universal and what is funny to one person is absolutely not to another. I don’t know that every audience will take to this film like I did but for what it’s worth I most certainly did take to it and if I did, it stands to reason that others will too. Maybe you’ll find it as funny and as enjoyable as I did; there’s only one way to find out.

REASONS TO GO: Walter and Blaiklock are far more charismatic than you normally find in a movie with this kind of budget.
REASONS TO STAY: The comedy descends into silliness in the final third.
FAMILY VALUES: There is some sexual content and brief nudity as well as profanity.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The script was inspired by a situation that Konschak and his then-girlfriend (and current wife) experienced when they first moved in together.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Amazon, Fandango Now, Google Play, iTunes, Steam, Vudu
CRITICAL MASS: As of 5/26/18: Rotten Tomatoes: No score yet: Metacritic: No score yet.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: War of the Roses
FINAL RATING: 6.5/10
NEXT:
Love Always, Mom

Advertisements

Trouble is My Business


A tough-as-nails gumshoe waits for the right dame to come along.

(2018) Mystery (Random Media/Lumen Actus) Tom Konkle, Brittney Powell, Vernon Wells, David Beeler, Mark Teich, Jordana Capra, Ben Pace, Benton Jennings, Steve Tom, Mollie Fitzgerald, Paul Hungerford, William Jackson, E. Sean Griffin, Laine Scandalis, Carl Bryan, Ksenia Delaveri, Pete Handelman, Steve Olson, Doug Spearman, Lauren Byrnes. Directed by Tom Konkle

 

Of all the art forms cinematic, one of the greatest – and hardest to do right – is film noir. Most of us when we think of noir think of classic films like The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity and Out of the Past and writers Dash Hammett, Raymond Chandler and Mickey Spillane. While the heyday of noir ran from the 1930s through the early 1950s, from time to time attempts have been made to resurrect or at least pay homage to the genre, sometimes effectively (Chinatown, L.A. Confidential), other times not so much.

In a world of corrupt cops and hard-bitten detectives, Roland Drake (Konkle) has seen it all. Once one of the best missing persons men in the business, his reputation has been tarnished by a botched job in which Natalia (Delaveri), a missing girl, ended up dead and the newspapers blamed Drake. Business has dried up, his partner Lew MacDonald (Beeler) has moved on to start his own agency and he’s about to be evicted from his shabby office.

Then in comes Katherine Montemar, a sexy brunette with a sob story; her father has disappeared, the police are dragging their flat feet and now it appears someone is targeting the Montemar family because her uncle has disappeared as well. One thing leads to another and she spends the night with Drake. When he wakes up in the morning, there’s an ominous pool of blood next to him and no brunette.

That might have been the end of it but Katherine’s sister Jennifer (Powell) shows up with incriminating photos of Drake’s roll in the hay with Katherine and a .38 special. Eventually Drake takes on the case and runs into a variety of characters; Jennifer’s overbearing mother (Capra), the cross-dressing and likely insane butler Rivers (Teich), Jennifer’s handsome but inept boyfriend (Pace) and most ominous as well, the corrupt and vicious cop Barry Tate (Wells). They all are revolving around a missing black book and a fabulous diamond that is priceless. Drake will have to think fast, talk faster and know how to use his gun if he’s going to get out of this one alive.

Konkle is a bit of a triple threat man here, directing, starring and co-writing (with co-star Powell) and probably sweeping the floors after shooting. He certainly has a good knowledge of noir tropes and uses them effectively for the most part. He creates a dark and dangerous atmosphere and I certainly won’t complain about the production design although sometimes it is a little obvious that green screen is being used.

The script could have used some polishing. The rapid-fire patter of typical noir dialogue is present but Konkle and Powell are no Raymond Chandler or even Elmore Leonard. The dialogue is generally okay but sometimes it sounds a little clunky and forced. Not every line needs to sound like it’s being uttered by Sam Spade. Also the score is like a Mikos Rosza score from back in the day, only played on synthesizers like a bad 80s thriller. It totally wrecks the mood; the score is also constantly playing. In this case, a little dead air wouldn’t have hurt.

Some critics have judged this a comedy although I don’t think that was the intent of the filmmakers, although there are some fairly funny lines throughout. I do think that this is occasionally over-earnest, sometimes star-struck but never anything but a genuine tribute to a style of film which has become truly a lost art. While I can quibble with the execution in places, I certainly can’t fault the intentions

Oh, and for those who like choices the DVD/Blu-Ray of this release (available on Amazon) comes with both full color and Black and White disks. For my money, the Black and White version is much better, much more authentic. Purists should go for that; those who dislike black and white can always go for the color edition, but I think you miss something that way.

REASONS TO GO: The aesthetics are done just right.
REASONS TO STAY: The dialogue is a bit clunky and delivered stiffly.
FAMILY VALUES: There is some sexual content as well as more than a little bit of violence.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Lumen Actus is a production house that not only makes films but does all their special effects in-house. This film is the first of two productions they are working on.
BEYOND THE THEATER: Amazon, Fandango Now, Google Play, iTunes, Microsoft, Vudu, YouTube
CRITICAL MASS: As of 4/5/18: Rotten Tomatoes: No score yet. Metacritic: No score yet.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Mulholland Falls
FINAL RATING: 4.5/10
NEXT:
Black Panther

A Suitable Girl


In India, marriage is almost compulsory and the pressure to be a bride enormous.

(2017) Documentary (The Film Collaborative) Amrita Soni, Dipti Admane, Ritu Taparia, Seema Taparia, Keshav, Janardan, Kara Devi, Nishu, Neha. Directed by Sarita Khurana and Smriti Mundhra

 

In recent years there has been more interest in the United States about Indian culture. As more natives of the subcontinent have gone to school here and established careers here, there has been a resulting influx of Indian cuisine, Indian films and music here in the States.

One thing that has remained true about Indian culture is the importance of marriage. The pressure on young people to get married once they reach a certain age (for young women it can be as early as 14 years old) grows more intense the longer it takes for them to find a life partner. A whole industry has arisen in India to help Indian men and women find suitable mates. These marriages are generally arranged, as they have been for centuries, by the parents rather than on the young people themselves.

This documentary focuses on the distaff side of things (a BBC documentary, A Suitable Boy, is forthcoming with similar attention on the male point of view) and in particular three women at various stages in the process. Amrita, from New Delhi, has a nice career in the financial business, an industry where women have actually made some inroads. However, she has found a husband – young Keshav who is taking his bride from urban Delhi to rural Nokha – where she believes her experience will help her father-in-law’s business.

Dipti is a bright young teacher who at 24 is in danger of becoming an old maid. She doesn’t have the svelte figure Indian men are fond of; she’s curvy and a touch on the heavy side but still beautiful. Her attempts to find romance through classified ads have generally gotten her nowhere and she has turned to a swayamvar which is something of an Indian speed dating service to improve her chances – more on that in a moment. Finally there is Ritu, a worldly and beautiful young woman who has a thriving career at Ernst and Young in Mumbai. Her mother Seema works as a matchmaker which one would think would improve her chances but she turns down most of the prospects she is introduced to. Seema isn’t actively looking for her daughter – she feels that it would be akin to a surgeon performing surgery on herself – which raises a few eyebrows amongst their circle of friends and family.

For Amrita, her new life isn’t what she envisioned it to be. For one thing, her father-in-law falls ill within months of her arrival and most of her time is spent doing more domestic chores. Because her father-in-law is a more conservative traditional man, western clothes are absolutely forbidden (although she has a stash of them to wear when she visits her parents) and she is under constant criticism by her new mother-in-law, who refers to her as Keshav’s wife (to which she gripes “I have a name. Call me Amrita”). Despite the fact that her new parents have plenty of money, a beautiful house and servants, she feels that her life has taken a turn for the worse.

The swayamvar is actually an eye-opener for the viewer. The men who attend are asked to share personal details about their lives, their finances and what they’re looking for in a mate. It is almost like a cattle call audition and the event is attended mainly by divorced men who are far from desirable in Indian culture; most of them are much older than what Dipti is looking for. Discouraged, she turns to online dating services but as rejection piles upon rejection, her self-confidence takes a big hit.

Ritu eventually finds someone suitable but he is working in Dubai, which distresses her parents. Ritu will move thousands of miles away from her parents. In fact, in Indian culture, the bride moves in with the groom and often into the home of the groom’s parents. This becomes her family and while she doesn’t cut off all contact with her own parents and family, it is expected that her focus will be on her new family. Accordingly, the weddings – which are elaborate affairs – are a time not only of joy but also of sorrow for the bride’s side of the ceremony.

It is a very different process of finding a life partner (a phrase used often in the film) than we’re used to here in the West. Here, generally the young people search for themselves, relying mainly on physical attraction to select their husbands and wives to be. For the Indians part, they tend to point to our high divorce rate here when defending their own system. One wonders, however, that as the roles of women change in India as they invariably will how this will affect the current system of arranged marriages?

The documentary itself is decent enough, in a cinema verité style following the women over the course of three to four years. One of the objections I had was that often that things were going on that aren’t explained by voice-over or graphic. I have a passing familiarity with Indian culture but there were times that I was completely in the dark about things and had questions; for example, at one point Seema visits a “face reader” with pictures of various suitors for Ritu, all of whom are rejected by the face reader. Are visiting these face readers a common practice? What kind of training do they undergo? How legitimate are they? You won’t find out here. However, it should be remarked that the filmmakers show a very even hand in showing the various emotions of the women they are following; there is no judgment and the audience is left to draw their own conclusions.

The subject is a fascinating one. Arranged marriages are still practiced in India and among ex-pats here in the States and elsewhere. While there are plenty of Bollywood films that cover the process, this is one of the few documentaries that walks us through the process from the bride’s point of view. For that alone it’s usefulness is invaluable.

REASONS TO GO: The stories of the various women are pretty interesting.
REASONS TO STAY: A lot of things go unexplained during the film, leaving the viewer frustrated unless they are fairly well acquainted with Indian culture.
FAMILY VALUES: There are some adult themes.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The two directors shared the “Albert Maysles Best New Documentary Director” award handed out at the 2017 Tribeca Film Festival.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Amazon, iTunes
CRITICAL MASS: As of 4/2/18: Rotten Tomatoes: 83% positive reviews. Metacritic: No score yet..
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Love and Marriage in Little India
FINAL RATING: 6.5/10
NEXT:
The 15:17 to Paris

Caught


You never know what you might have caught.

(2017) Horror (Cinedigm) Mickey Sumner, Ruben Crow, Cian Barry, April Pearson, Aaron Davis, Dave Mounfield. Directed by Jamie Patterson

 

There are doubtlessly readers old enough to remember the Grindhouse films of the 70s and 80s; movies that played in decrepit theaters and rarely saw the light of day in the local multiplex. They were mainly genre films and generally were the cinematic version of fast food; a bit greasy, not at all pretty to see and the consumer was better off not knowing too much about the product.

Caught is a British ode to the movies of that era and that classification. Set in 1972 in the wilds of the moors of Sussex, the film follows married journalists Julie (Sumner) – the writer – and Andrew (Crow) – the photographer. They’d noticed some sort of military activity going on in the normally peaceful neighboring moor and are trying to convince their London editor to run the story. The two work from home, Julie having sent off their son Toby (Davis) off to school while their infant daughter sleeps.

Then a strange couple approach. Introducing themselves as Mr. (Barry) and Mrs. (Pearson) Blair, the two wear neatly tidy matching suits (his and hers) and are impeccably coiffed. Because of the strangeness of their dress, Andrew at first mistakes them for religious proselytizers but they soon tell him they’re “from the moors” and have a few questions to ask. Andrew, thinking he and Julie can get some information out of them as well, invites them in. That turns out to be a very bad idea.

Most of the talking is done by Mr. Blair in stilted, almost robotic speech. He seems to have trouble with certain words and phrases, as if English is not his first language. As the questions grow more and more bizarre and Mr. Blair seems to have an unhealthy focus on when Toby would be home from school, the journalists at last realize something is amiss. By that time, it’s far too late.

Patterson certainly references grindhouse films of the era from the weird and unsettling atmosphere to the score that sounds like it was bought from a generic film score supplier. The former is welcome; the latter is not. Often the music is incongruously energetic when the overall tone of the scene is low-key, proving to be a jarring combination as if the composer hadn’t bothered to watch the film or the editor didn’t quite match up the score to the proper scene.

Fortunately there are some very satisfying performances from Barry, Pearson, Sumner and Crow. While none of them run away with the movie, the first two particularly portray quiet menace that suddenly morphs into screaming violence without warning while Sumner and Crow manage to give a realistic portrayal of terrified parents who realize that the people they’ve invited into their home are not normal at all.

Who the Blairs really are is never fully explained. Are they demonic in origin, or garden variety invading aliens? Are they merely psychotic? One of Andrew’s photographs has the answer but we are never allowed to see it; instead, we see the reaction of Andrew and Julie to it. Generally I applaud filmmakers brave enough to let the audience’s imagination fill in the blanks but some may find the lack of information infuriating.

The trailer for this film is much better than the film itself; Patterson and writers Dave Allsop and Alex Francis never really go anywhere with the concept. Patterson does a great job of building up the tension but then it seems to plateau. One of the biggest issues I had was that it never felt like Andrew and Julie ever had a shot at getting away so there’s a lot less dramatic tension than there might have been. When the ending comes, it seems pretty much inevitable.

That’s a shame because there are a lot of worthwhile elements here, but sadly not enough for me to recommend this with any enthusiasm. Fans of grindhouse movies of the 70s though might get a kick out of this one.

REASONS TO GO: This is a seriously weird movie with a very bizarre tone. The four lead actors deliver strong performances.
REASONS TO STAY: The violence was unconvincing. The retro-style score was often annoying..
FAMILY VALUES: There is profanity and violence.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Sumner is the daughter of producer Trudie Styler and rock musician Sting of The Police.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Amazon, Fandango Now, Google Play, iTunes, Vudu
CRITICAL MASS: As of 4/2/18: Rotten Tomatoes: 80% positive reviews. Metacritic: No score yet
COMPARISON SHOPPING: The Strangers
FINAL RATING: 5.5/10
NEXT:
A Suitable Girl

Suburbicon


Matt Damon is having a really bad night.

(2017) Black Comedy (Paramount) Matt Damon, Julianne Moore, Noah Jupe, Oscar Isaac, Richard Kind, Gary Basaraba, Leith Burke, Karimah Westbrook, Tony Espinosa, Glenn Fleshler, Alex Hassell, Don Baldaramos, Ellen Crawford, Megan Ferguson, Corey Allen Kotler, Steven Shaw, Steve Monroe, Allen Wasserman, Rupert Pierce, Pamela Dunlap, Biff Yeager, Lauren Burns. Directed by George Clooney

 

Suburbicon is a black comedy. Suburbicon is a treatise on social injustice. Suburbicon is a crime drama. Suburbicon is a period piece. Suburbicon is all of those things and none of those things. It’s a pastiche of different things that flutter through the proscenium and then wither on the screen. It’s one of the most disappointing movies of 2017.

Based on an unproduced script by the Coen Brothers, Clooney and writing partner Grant Heslov have added a bit of contemporary social commentary – white racists in a suburban planned community in the Northeast talk endlessly about erecting a giant wall around the home of the first African-American residents of the community but this is no mere Trump-bashing exercise although it is that too.

The arrival of the Meyers family into  lily-white planned suburban community in the Eisenhower 50s only shows the insidious racism lurking just beneath the surface of America’s golden age – and by implication, continues at present. However, that’s not the only story going on here. During a home invasion, Rose Lodge (Moore) dies of a chloroform overdose, leaving her grieving husband Gardner (Damon), son Nicky (Jupe) and twin sister Margaret (Moore again) to pick up the pieces.

Much of the comedy centers around the blatant consumerism of the suburban 50s and as well there are certain Coen moments (like an oily insurance investigator (Isaac) who figures out what’s going on or a chase scene between a thug (Fleshler) and Gardner in a VW and child’s bike, respectively) that will delight their diehard fans. Still, there aren’t enough of them to overcome the curiously flat energy and the wildly all-over-the-place script that derails the project despite the presence of high-wattage stars. There are enough moments to make it worth checking out, but not enough to go out of your way to do so.

REASONS TO GO: Matt Damon plays way against type. There are some occasional moments of offbeat humor.
REASONS TO STAY: The comedy is scattershot and the energy is flat. The soundtrack is annoying.
FAMILY VALUES: There is plenty of violence (some of it graphic), profanity and some sexuality.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: This was the first time Clooney directed a film in which he did not also appear as an actor.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Amazon, Fandango Now, Frontier, Google Play, iTunes, Paramount Movies, Vudu, YouTube
CRITICAL MASS: As of 3/31/18: Rotten Tomatoes: 29% positive reviews: Metacritic: 42/100.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Downsizing
FINAL RATING: 6/10
NEXT:
Finding Your Feet

War Machine (2017)


War is an all-American pastime!

(2017) Dramedy (Netflix) Brad Pitt, Ben Kingsley, Tilda Swinton, Topher Grace, Anthony Michael Hall, Scoot McNairy, Lakeith Stanfield, Alan Ruck, Will Poulter, Nicholas Jones, Meg Tilly, Josh Stewart, Tim Downey, Richard Glover, Griffin Dunne, Andrew Byron, Daniel Betts, John Magaro, RJ Cyler, Emory Cohen, Rufus Wright, Sean Power, Sian Thomas, Paul Hickey, Georgina Rylance. Directed by David Michôd

 

Netflix has been producing original movies for several years but their Adam Sandler comedies aside, their first serious attempt at a blockbuster of their own was this fictionalized Brad Pitt film based on a non-fiction book about the War in Afghanistan. It is not a promising start, although they have several films that have been released since then that are far better and far bigger.

The movie is meant to be a black comedic commentary on the nature of 21st century war as practiced by the United States. It moves at a kind of snail’s pace (at roughly two hours long, it is about a half hour too much) through a bloated script full of unfunny bits. The fault here isn’t Pitt’s although this is perhaps his most deranged work yet; his General Glen McMahon is a walking tic machine, exhorting troops that “We WILL prevail” at the same time expressing frustration with the bureaucracy he has to deal with. His square-jawed expression is the epitome of every Hollywood American military commander yet his odd gait looks like he has some sort of wound in his genitals.

Despite having a cast of some of the best actors and character actors working today, there are simply too many roles and you forget who is who after about five minutes, leading to further confusion that the screenplay hasn’t already caused itself. This has all the earmarks of moviemaking by committee.

I liked the concept and thought that given the pedigree of Michôd (Animal Kingdom) that this project had promise but it pretty much falls apart of its own weightiness. I get the sense that the filmmakers were told to make a comedy, then told to make a commentary on war, then told to make a drama by the powers that be. What they ended up making was a mish-mash that is neither one nor the other but is a tedious waste of two hours. I expected much better

REASONS TO GO: Even at his most subdued, Pitt still exudes star power.
REASONS TO STAY: The film is bloated and dreadfully unfunny.
FAMILY VALUES: There is war violence and profanity.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The film references actual events that took place during the command of Stanley A. McChrystal between 2009 and 2010.
BEYOND THE THEATER: Netflix
CRITICAL MASS: As of 3/28/18: Rotten Tomatoes: 50% positive reviews. Metacritic: 56/100.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Wag the Dog
FINAL RATING: 5/10
NEXT:
Suburbicon

The Family


Introducing the children of the corn.

(2016) Documentary (Starz) Sung Yun Cho, Jordan Fraser-Trumble, Anne Hamilton-Byrne, Bill Hamilton-Byrne, Roland Whitaker, Elizabeth Jean Whitaker, Anouree, Nick, Rebecca, Anthony John Lee, Peter Spence, Marie Mohr, Leeanne, Michael Stevenson-Helmer, Fran Parker, Barbara Kibby, Dave Whitaker, Lex de Man, Philippe de Montignie, Raynor Johnson, John MacKay, Margaret Brown. Directed by Rosie Jones

 

The rise of quasi-religious cults in the 1960s and 1970s was a worldwide phenomenon. In Australia, one of the most notorious of these was a Melbourne-based cult known as The Family. Founded by psychologist Raynor Johnson as a means to a healthier lifestyle, he soon fell under the spell of former yoga teacher Anne Hamilton-Byrne, a beautiful and charismatic blonde who had a way of charming everyone around her.

Her idea of family was a literal one; dozens of children were adopted through dodgy means and born to existing members. Hamilton-Byrne preached that she was the reincarnation of Jesus Christ and that there was a holocaust coming; the kids would rise as the leaders of a post-apocalyptic civilization. She was obviously a wack job but as cults go that doesn’t seem to be too terribly different.

In 1987 the cult’s Ferny Creek compound was raided and six of the children were removed and placed in protective custody and soon the horrifying truth began to emerge. The children had been physically abused, manipulated, and lived in a state of constant fear. Forced to dress alike and have their hair dyed blonde (as Hamilton-Byrne’s was) they were robbed of their individual identities. They were given LSD often without their knowledge or consent and they were often starved as a means of punishment.

One of the officers who was on the raid, Detective Sgt. Lex de Man, was clearly haunted by what he saw and observed. He acts somewhat as a narrative guide but also was a consultant on the documentary. Some of the stories told by the now-adult former cultists are heartbreaking and/or hair-raising. Many of the kids required therapy once removed from the clutches of the cult.

Jones is something of an Errol Morris disciple in terms of her style. There are plenty of interviews buttressed with home movies (which are chilling) and recreations of certain events. Rather than as a typical documentary, she gives it a kind of a 48 Hours spin, presenting the events as an unfolding mystery. For American audiences, it truly is – although the story was huge in Oz back in the late 80s and early 90s, it scarcely made a ripple on various American news sources. The film is slickly made with a brilliant atmospheric score and while the ending doesn’t have the smooth pacing of the rest of the film, there is at least a satisfactory wrapping up although to be fair the issues that the survivors have is ongoing. Believe it or not, the cult still exists today and Jones does speak with a current member for perspective.

The documentary has won awards at Australian film festivals and received a limited theatrical release there last year. Here in the States, it’s available on Starz and on their companion streaming app although for how long is anyone’s guess. It is certainly worth looking into, particularly if you’re into true crime documentaries.

REASONS TO GO: A chilling story of the horrors perpetrated on children within a notorious cult.
REASONS TO STAY: The ending is a bit choppy.
FAMILY VALUES: There is some adult content including some sexual references.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The score was composed by Amanda Brown, a former member of the wonderful Australian band The Go-Betweens.
CRITICAL MASS: As of 3/27/18: Rotten Tomatoes: 100% positive reviews. Metacritic: No score yet.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Prophet’s Prey
FINAL RATING: 6.5/10
NEXT:
Winchester