Molly (2017)

Just another day in the apocalypse.

(2017) Sci-Fi Action (Artsploitation) Julia Batelaan, Emma de Paauw, Joost Bolt, Annelies Appelhof, Andre Dongelmans, Arnost Kraus, Ali Sultan, Tamara Brinkman, Cyriel Guds, Shilton Chelius, Anne May De Lijser, Fransje Christiaans, Daan Colijn, Cheraine Balje, Ewald Tienkamp, Mounir Aboulasri, Remco de Ridder. Directed by Colinda Bongers and Thijs Meuwese

 

Since the Mad Max films took off back in the 80s there have been an awful lot of post-apocalypse set films, mainly shot in desert locations to show the desolation that has come out of the end of civilization. Largely most of these films have been a dime a dozen, stooping to clichés borrowed from the George Miller franchise which still remains the benchmark.

This Dutch film tries to breathe some life into the sub-genre. Molly (Batelaan) is a teenage girl wandering around the Thunderlands, the aforementioned post-apocalyptic wasteland. She has her only companion, a pet falcon, by her side, a bow and arrow and a gun with a very limited amount of ammo. She is plucky and can handle herself in hand-to-hand combat but it turns out that she is already a bit of a mythic figure – she has a superpower that allows her what appears to be a sonic scream not unlike the Black Canary.

When the unhinged dictator Deacon (Bolt) hears about the exploits of Molly, he is determined to capture her and have her fight in the Pit of Death, where humans who have been injected with a drug to make them ravening feral berserkers who eat human flesh and possess superhuman strength. Molly is not so keen on getting caught and after getting severely wounded by a Supplicant (what Deacon calls the mutated humans) she finds a hut inhabited only by Bailey (de Paauw), a young girl who is waiting on her parents to return (we discover what happened to them early in the film). Bailey helps Molly when she needs it albeit with a great deal of healthy suspicion which I would suppose would occur naturally in an apocalypse. When Deacon’s goons catch up with Molly, they kidnap the child which turns out to be a real bad move. Molly is now on the hunt to rescue her friend and by the time she’s done the industrial metal hideout of the Deacon is going to be littered with dead bodies.

To say this film was done on a shoestring budget would be an understatement; to the credit of the filmmakers the movie doesn’t look it at all except in one or two places and that’s forgivable. Considering the ambitions of the filmmakers one really has to tip one’s hat to them; they do an amazing job of putting every penny on the screen.

The directors also have the benefit of some solid performances, particularly Batelaan who is gritty but despite her character being extremely powerful retains a vulnerability that is oddly touching. Bolt chews up the scenery but not in an excessive way; his character needs to be larger than life and Bolt has the presence to pull it off. Appelhof is a Terminator-like killer with a cybernetic arm who comes after Molly relentlessly. In fact top to bottom the acting is pretty decent; that’s one area that the viewer can’t really complain about.

What you can complain about is that the movie is loaded with clichés that are common to a lot of films in the post-apocalypse sub-genre, from the costuming to the sets to the score. I would have liked to have seen something that didn’t resemble Waterworld and Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. But there’s a whole lot right here, especially the final 20 minutes which is essentially one long fight scene with Supplicants, Scavengers, Molly and the cyborg all mixing it up. It reminded me of the original Doom videogame and that’s a good thing.

For those looking for a little non-brain taxing fun could do a lot worse than this. There are no subtitles; the movie was filmed in English so there’s that. Even if some of the movie looks overly familiar, there is enough about it that’s original to give the film a solid recommendation and here’s one more thing; while other movies tend to fade from memory within a few days, this one is very much still much on my mind, leading me to increase the rating for the film. That rarely happens so take that for what you will.

REASONS TO GO: The acting is above average for a film of this type.
REASONS TO STAY: There are a whole lot of post-apocalyptic clichés present.
FAMILY VALUES: There is a whole lot of violence as well as some nudity.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The final fight scene lasts an uninterrupted 32 minutes.
BEYOND THE THEATERS: Amazon, Google Play, Vudu
CRITICAL MASS: As of 10/5/18: Rotten Tomatoes: No score yet. Metacritic: No score yet.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Tank Girl
FINAL RATING: 6.5/10
NEXT: Tea With the Dames

Advertisement

Embers

Lonely amidst the rubble.

(2015) Science Fiction (Papaya) Jason Ritter, Iva Gocheva, Greta Fernández, Tucker Smallwood, Karl Glusman, Roberto Cots, Dominique Swain, Matthew Goulish, Silvan Friedman, Derrick Aguis, Brandon Bowens, Ryan Czerwonko, Nathaniel Andrew, Kirsten Kairos, Arianna Messner, Janice Culver. Directed by Claire Carré

It is said that we are really only the sum total of our memories, and there is some validity to that. But what happens when we take memory away? Are we still the same people we were with them?

In the not too distant future, a neurological epidemic has damaged the hippocampus of most human brains, leaving the survivors unable to form new memories. Everyone is forced to live in the present other than the privileged few like Miranda (Fernández) and her father (Cots) who live in a high-tech bunker with no other human contact.

Everyone else survives in a gutted wasteland, the crumbling ruins of a society no longer equipped to maintain itself. Wandering through are a girl (Gocheva) and a guy (Ritter) who are in love, but wake up every morning not knowing who the other one is, forced to fall in love all over again. There’s also a teacher (Smallwood) who is trying to find a cure, using logic and memory aids to help him remember what he is trying to do – and what he needs to do to survive. There’s also an angry, destructive teen (Glusman) who brings chaos wherever he goes. Finally there is a young boy (Friedman) who is trying to find someone to bond with, although he isn’t all that sure why.

For first time director Carré, this might have been a daunting prospect but she wisely tackled it in phases. I can’t say that it results in a cohesive whole – some of the stories simply do not mix with the others – but the results are impressive nonetheless. In fact, most of the characters don’t interact with others for the most part and the stories remain separate, rather than an anthology in which all of the threads end up coming together. Rather here, the threads are unraveling. Good science fiction isn’t necessarily about the technology (although the bunker sequences show some off nicely) but more about exploring who we are as individuals or a society. Our connections with other humans are largely based on memory; take that away and the anarchy depicted here is almost certain to result.

There is a tone here that can be likened to a malaise, although there are moments of action (particularly when Chaos is around) and conflict (between father and daughter). There is also some heartrending emotional sequences and even occasional bits of humor. Cinematographer Todd Antonio Somodevilla utilizes a lot of blues and grays in his palate, giving the film a feeling of further decay.  It also serves to make the mood a little more depressing and it is already not the most uplifting of films, if that’s what you’re looking for.

The performances here are tight and contained with a cast that is largely unknown (other than Ritter, who bears a resemblance to Ethan Hawke here, even more than to his own famous father). In this situation, even the adults become child-like, exploring the world for the first time. Carré elicits a good deal of pathos, but while there are moments of humor, there aren’t enough of them to give the movie the variety of tone it desperately needs.

This is more a movie for intellectual stimulation than emotional, which isn’t in itself a bad thing but sometimes the viewer needs a little of both. In some ways, the movie is terrifying – I can’t imagine anything worse than losing my memories and in the process, losing my self – and in some ways, it really does ask us to define who we are without the marker posts of our memory. I can’t complain about that to be fair – I do like to be challenged at the movies from time to time, and this movie certainly does that. All in all, this is a terrific debut from a promising talent.

REASONS TO GO: Fascinating concept. Excellent set design.
REASONS TO STAY: Far from uplifting.
FAMILY VALUES: Some sexuality, rape, violence and brief nudity.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: While the events of the film theoretically occur in the same place, the movie was shot in three separate locations – Gary, Indiana, Lodz, Poland and upstate New York – in three separate sections, which were then interwoven during editing.
CRITICAL MASS: As of 5/29/16: Rotten Tomatoes: 71% positive reviews. Metacritic: No score yet.
COMPARISON SHOPPING: Blindness
FINAL RATING: 7/10
NEXT: Newman

Toast

Helena Bonham Carter’s Mad Men audition didn’t go as planned.

(2010) Biographical Drama (W2 Media) Freddie Highmore, Helena Bonham Carter, Ken Stott, Oscar Kennedy, Victoria Hamilton, Matthew McNulty, Colin Prockter, Frasier Huckle, Kia Pegg, Rielly Newbold, Roger Walker, Rob Jarvis, Amy Marston, Selina Cadell, Louise Mardenborough, Corinne Wicks, Marion Bailey, Tracey Wilkinson, Claire Higgins. Directed by S.J. Clarkson

There is an old saying that says that the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach. Personally, I don’t buy it; the way to a man’s heart is through a place lower in the anatomy, if you get my drift. Still, if you can keep a man well-fed, you have a decent shot at keeping a man once you’ve got him.

For young Nigel Slater (Kennedy), life in the late 50s/early 60s in England is blissful although flavorless. His Dad (Stott) is a factory manager with a grumpy temperament; his mom (Hamilton) sweet as can be although she has one flaw – she can’t cook to save her life. Everything she makes is boiled in a can (a pre-microwave era of making prepared foods) and when the contents of those cans came out overcooked, it would be toast for supper, something Nigel actually looked forward to.

As it turned out, his mum had another flaw – severe asthma and eventually it would take her life. Although Nigel misses her terribly, life continues on pretty much as before with dad being not much better at cooking than his late wife was.

Into their lives comes housekeeper Mrs. Potter (Bonham-Carter) who is in fact a brilliant cook – she seduces the Slaters with heavenly meringues and savory roasts. But the now-teenage Nigel (Highmore) has taken an interest in cooking himself and is jealous of the attention his father is paying Mrs. Potter – and yes, there IS a Mr. Potter. Eventually the Slaters pull up stakes and move out to the country, Mrs. Potter in tow and Nigel competes with Mrs. Potter for Mr. Slater, with Mrs. Potter having the upper hand. Nigel has also discovered his sexuality – and he is very much interested in boys, although he is too shy to approach any. What will his dad make of that?

This was originally made for British television and was a monster hit in the ratings there. Why they chose to release it in the U.S. is something of a mystery; Slater, a well-known food critic in Great Britain, is virtually unknown here across the pond.

That doesn’t mean that this isn’t worth watching. Even if you don’t know who Nigel would become, his story is still interesting and bittersweet. It’s also nice to see Britain in the ’60s, in some ways the apex of modern British culture (some might argue that the 80s were and I wouldn’t disagree) and the filmmakers capture the period beautifully here, even more so than Mad Men.

Bonham-Carter is an underrated actress who often appears in supporting roles in big movies yet almost always steals attention in a good way – see her Harry Potter appearances or Big Fish if you disagree. While I get the sense that the filmmakers aren’t quite sure what they make of the Mrs. Potter character, whether she’s an adulterous manipulative homewrecker or a woman trying her best to please a family that’s been through hell. Nigel is much more clear; he thinks she’s the former and loathes the woman although we can’t always see why. In many ways, we begin to root against the main character which is rather odd because Bonham-Carter isn’t the focus; Nigel is and the more he hates Mrs. Potter, the more we see him as a spoiled officious twit.

The movie is a bit overbearing in places and makes a lot of its points with a sledge hammer when a Q-tip would have done. I could have used some subtitles in places as some of the rural accents were a bit difficult to decipher.

There was some entertainment to be had here and there are some funny moments but by and large I found that the filmmakers didn’t appear to have the courage of their convictions. The real Mrs. Potter’s daughters (Nigel’s stepsisters) have excoriated the movie (and Slater’s autobiography which inspired it) for the portrayal both of Mr. Slater and Mrs. Potter (her name was even changed for the movie) and while they have a bit of an ulterior motive, just the way these portrayals are made in the film tell me that they are a bit skewed by Nigel’s own prejudices in the matter which is only to be expected. We all see things through our own lens of self-interest.

WHY RENT THIS: Bonham-Carter is always fascinating onscreen. Captures period nicely.
WHY RENT SOMETHING ELSE: Doesn’t use Bonham-Carter’s character well. A bit heavy-handed.
FAMILY VALUES: Some foul language, period smoking and sexuality.
TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The chef at the Savoy Hotel who appears in the final scene is the real Nigel Slater.
NOTABLE DVD EXTRAS: None listed.
BOX OFFICE PERFORMANCE: Not available.
SITES TO SEE: Netflix (DVD rental only), Amazon (unavailable), Vudu (rent/buy),  iTunes (unavailable), Flixster (unavailable), Target Ticket (unavailable)
COMPARISON SHOPPING: No Reservations
FINAL RATING: 5/10
NEXT: Get Hard