PEEPHOLE REVIEW: Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)

Get your paws off my damn dirty sequel!!

I am a huge fan of the POTA films.  Have been ever since I saw the original 1969 Planet of the Apes at the Central Drive-in when I was all of seven years old.  Every since then, they've become a touchstone of my movie watching experience throughout the rest of my life.  I'd always enjoyed the marvel and excitement of the Ape world, but, as well, I've come to deeply appreciated the commentary the films provide.  Even as a 7 year-old I could see that something else, besides action and adventure, was going on in those stories.  The imagery, the words, all looked and felt familiar.  I may not have understood a lot what was going on at age 7, but with the wisdom of years, the older I got, the more I understood the deeper messages of the POTA films.

The huge POTA fan that I am, however, I am not wrapped up in the so-called mythology of the series.  I don't theorize how the Earth was taken over by Apes, or try to map out the genealogy to trace Cornelius back to modern day, or theorize on Ape history and culture.  I never felt the need to wrap myself up within that world.  I just love watching the movies and analyzing the commentary.  The mythology aspect seems to be the hobby of the newer generations, where shows like Lost require mandatory Internet research, and true fanmanship is gauged by your CosPlay status.  It's this over-involvement in things other than the story that eventually eroded my overall enjoyment of Rise of the Planet of the Apes. So much attention is given to the invention of a new franchise backstory and hidden clues, and tying them together with the homages to the original POTA series, that it felt as if the actual story being told on the screen was second hand business.

Take your social commentary and shove it!

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is not without its merits.  Like the original film, Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a visual treat.  The cinematography is wonderful, and the visual effects are astounding.  You may already know this about me -- that I am not a big special effects kinda guy -- so, for me to sit back and enjoy CG animation, it's a big thing. I have always been fine with the rubber masked look of the original Apes -- and the transparency of all the effects of those days -- because I've always felt that it was all a part of the showmanship.  The Harryhausen models never looked so real, but in my imagination.  For me, that was the point of movie magic, that we understood it was all fake, yet we were still so taken.  The updated effects of the 2011 film are surely a treat, though.  Caesar was done with such CG artistry that I fell for him as a full on character.  The only flaw in the CG effects came with some of the peripheral creatures.  With much effort and attention given to the main Ape characters -- Caesar, the gorilla, the orangutan... --  the supporting cast of monkeys seemed wooden at times, their movements not jibing with the masterful animation of the main cast.

Story-wise, Rise of the Planet of the Apes did hint at some good ideas... or a good idea. Caesar, the central chimp of the story, asks "What is Caesar?"  The simple question is asked of his owner, scientist Will Rodman, played by James Franco.  Will has sneaked Caesar out of the labs at Gen-Sys, where he has developed a drug for Alzheimer's called ALZ-112.  Caesar's mother was the primary lab animal being tested by Will's team, who has discovered that the drug has improved the chimp's brain functions.  When the chimp, named Bright Eyes (get it?) goes ape in Will's sales pitch meeting with the pharm companies, Bright Eyes has to be put down, with all the rest of the lab chimps.  It's at this point that Will discovers that Bright Eyes has been hiding something in her cage... a baby chimp.  So, it wasn't the ALZ-112 that made her violent!  She was only trying to protect her baby.  Wracked with guilt, and not prepared to put a baby chimp down, Will takes the chimp home to raise it on his own.  Will's father, played by John Lithgow, in the early stages of Alzheimer's himself, names the chimp Caesar (another get-it?).  Caesar becomes not just their secret pet, but more of a son and grandson.  As Caesar grows older, he progresses in intelligence, even developing communication skills with Will through sign language.  But then, when Will requests that Caesar wear a leash while on one of their regular visits to the Muir Woods, Caesar is saddened and confused, asking that disheartened, but all-encompassing question: What is Caesar?

Anyone see my purpose?

The question is pointed at the fact that Caesar is confused as to whether he is a pet that needs to be collared and leashed, or is he something more... maybe Will's "son"?  The question also means something more: what are animals to humans?  In the opening sequence we watch as men cruelly hunt down chimpanzees in the jungle, capturing them in boxes and exporting them to the labs at Gen-Sys, to be lab test animals.  Is this the purpose of animals on Earth, to be whatever humans want them to be?  A pet?  A lab animal?  Not only is Caesar asking about his own identity, but he is speaking to the greater arrogance of humankind -- who are we humans, to take charge of creatures below us in the food chain, just because we can?

Caesar's self-awareness question is unique to this movie, but the message of human arrogance is one that is borrowed from Rise's POTA predecessors.  In the 1968 film Heston's character, Taylor, speaks quite boldly of his contempt for humankind, and the arrogance that humans display by going to war against their brothers, and starving others while building wealth and glory.  However, unlike Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the original Planet of the Apes demonstrates its commentary with much more discussion, and sharper writing and skilled character development. The undeniable references to the social upheaval of the 60s -- race relations, Vietnam, class struggles, the environment -- are deftly interwoven into the story, adding an element of urgency -- images of Taylor being hosed down mimic the news footage of black Civil Rights protesters being hosed by police; Zira's words "All humans look alike..." mimic the words we've all heard from our friends or acquaintances -- which, if only as a historical lesson, are still resonant today.  Rise of the Planet of the Apes lacks this urgency.  The message of how we treat animals is certainly a current issue, but it's delivered with the biased punch of a PETA ad -- bad people are being cruel to animals!  Besides this message, there is nothing more that really resonates to the current events of the day.    

And this is the major flaw of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, that it didn't dig any deeper than that simple question.  Just here, in this review, I've invested more into that little question of Caesar's than the filmmakers did.  Unlike the 1968 Planet of the Apes, there doesn't seem to be any urgency to Rise of the Planet of the Apes.  God knows, there's so much that can be discussed related to the notion that humans arrogance has grown more intolerable since the 1970s.  We're in the midst of another tangled mess of a war. There's global warming, and the "green" movement.  Racism is still very much (and sadly) alive.  There is so much that the original POTA films (along with the TV Drama and cartoon) tackled, that I can't help but feel cheated by this latest re-imagining.

Instead of depth and conversation, Rise of the Planet of the Apes throws down a pile of characters who do nothing more than demonstrate that stale idea that humans can be assholes, or that humans can be complacent.  The neighbor next door to Will is prime example.  The man apparently lives for no other reason but to be a total and utterly un-compassionate prick.  He threatens Will when Caesar breaks out of the house and winds up on his property, and then humiliates and berates Will father, when, in a cloud of confusion caused by his Alzheimer's, he tries to drive off in his car.  Oh, and he also yells at people who come to Will's house and knock on his door.  Then there's the folks at the San Bruno Primate Shelter, where Caesar is sent after protecting his "grandfather" and assaulting the mean neighbor, after the whole incident with the car.  What the purpose of the shelter is is pretty vague,  but for some reason the family who runs the facility (headed up by Brian Cox) aren't big fans of primates.  They have elaborate dwellings for the primates in their care, decked out in trees and rocks and all kinds of things the primates love.  And they show it all off with such pride to Will, when he comes to deliver Caesar.  But them, when all the people leave, the primates are chased through a labyrinth of tunnels to be cruelly boxed up in tiny cages.  But why?  What's worse is that one of the kids watching over the primates has an unsavory anger towards the monkeys.  But, here's the thing.  The kid treats the primates as if he's a bully in junior high.  He yells insults at them and mocks them terribly... but, um, they're monkeys.  Insults and mockery don't really come off as cruelty, when it's animals who are being called names.  But, with that aside, the vile anger this kid has towards the animals is never explained, so his cruelty towards them is shallow.  Then there are the policeman, who have to deal with the rogue monkeys when they break out of the shelter.  There never seems to be a moment of confusion or bewilderment from the officers.  They simply attack the apes with impunity, mowing them down with machine guns and charging at them with helicopters.  The anger towards the animals, in every aspct, is just plain confusing.  People are bad...animals are good.  Check.  Here's a bad human -- he talks naughty to monkeys.  Here's a bad human -- he talks nasty to his neighbors.  Okay, we get the point... humans can be pricks.  Now... what else you got?

What is frustrating about these stereotypes and their useless behavior, is that there are name actors in some roles that should really have had more meat on their bones.  Why are award winning actors like Frieda Pinto and Brian Cox delegated to roles where their shining talents aren't even used, let alone needed?  Maybe they could've been used in the other roles, where they could've put some edge to the stereotypes?  For some reason, I think these actors' talents may come up in the already planned sequels.  Let's hope so.  And let's hope that the future new POTA franchise films will be stronger in commentary and story, as they are in visual wonders.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes is simply too wrapped up in the mythology of itself, painstakingly paying homage to the originals series and their creators, and fashioning a history for the new franchise. This is probably why Rise of the Planet of the Apes comes off as incomplete.  Planet of the Apes was its own story, with a beginning, a middle, and and end.  They didn't tie their writers up with leaving room for a sequel, yet alone a franchise.  But Rise of the Planet of the Apes seems to have dropped off after a third act that seemed more like a second act plot point.  Instead of making a nice third act, one that would wrap the story up, we're left, instead, with all but a to be continued tag on the screen.

Lancelot LINKS: snubdom's review of classic TV movie Bad Ronald

I came across a link to Rick Tremble's website of wild, trippy illustrated movie reviews -- and other stuff -- snubdom. It's a funhouse full of subversive movie reviews, music, comix and other shit.  I parked myself down in the review archives for a couple few, I was having such a blast!  And, while reading my way through, I came across this review -- Bad Ronald! 

Undoubtedly, one of my all-time favorite TV Movies of the Week.  Scared the cripes outa me as a kid, and still puts the willies in me when I see it now.  It's not your traditional horror fare -- more a suspense thriller -- so it's not full of big frights or leaping cats.  What got to me was the brilliant perforance by Scott Jacoby as Ronald.  When he finally takes that turn into insanity, he is simply a big creepy creepster.

So sacred this movie is, to me, that I have not yet done a review of it, myself.  I figured I'd ask Rick if I could post his unique review here.  He said I could.  And I thank him greatly.  Enjoy!

REVIEW: Frozen

Frozen... left out in the cold.

There's a shared phenomenon common amongst all who've either strapped on a board or snapped into skis -- and that's the stalled chairlift.  It could be that some doof fell trying to get on or off the lift, or some technical glitch.  Whatever it was, if you've ever visited the ski slopes, you know the feeling.  You're 30 feet in the air, your toes are getting numb, and their itching to angle down the slope -- the minutes seem endless waiting up there for the lift to continue up the hill.  But in Frozen, they're asking you to imagine what it's like to be, not just hung up for a few annoying moments, but stranded up in the air, lights shut off, patrons and staff all gone, and the resort shut down... for a week.  Now, that would be a real drag.

It's a terrific idea for a fright flick. Some of the best thrillers have taken place in such limited settings.  Rope, 12 Angry Men, Lifeboat, Cube. These films used the feeling of isolation, abandonment and entrapment to heighten the suspense.  In Frozen, three college age friends decide to take one last run down the mountain before the slopes shut down.  They convince the attendant to turn the lift back on, only to have it shut down by another attendant while the threesome is only halfway up.  Abandoned, the kids try to flag down an aloof snow groomer, stave of frostbite and a pack of hungry wolves.  But most of all, they try and contain the mounting jealousy and issues between themselves.

Get me outta this movie!

 Like I said, it's a killer idea for a good film.  Only problem is, Frozen's director and writer Adam Green doesn't have near the talent of the makers of those other one-location films to pull off the gimmick.  It certainly isn't for lack of enthusiasm.  He and his fellow crew members speak of the film's premise with such excitement that you can feel their energy and passion for the project.  It's the same vibe they gave out with Green's previous genre flick Hatchet.  Green and co. touted that as the second coming of the 80s slasher flick, and promised that their bad guy would join the ranks of Freddy and Jason in horror film notoriousness.  That flick turned out to be a weak sppof of the real deals.  But again, you couldn't help but appreciate their enthusiasm. 

Just as Hatchet was in love with being the "return of the slasher flick", Frozen is in love with the mere simplicity of its own predicament.  Unfortunately, the gimmick doesn't evolve into much more than just that.  The three main players aren't very interesting, and the predicaments they face are either overwrought or underplayed.  The effort is there, as Green attempts to make his characters more dimensional, and create tension through their tenuous relationships. But again, they're just ideas of what more evolved characters should be.  There's hints of tension between the friends, when one guy tries to bring back the old days, before his best bud had the girlfriend.  But it never plays out with any real emotion.  In fact, the entire first act comes off more as a teen comedy, with pranks and witty banter.  So when all those personal tensions finally explode later in the film, at a very crucial moment, the idea of an emotional avalanche turns out to be about as moving as a soggy snowball.

You can just see Green's list of gimmicks ticking off as you watch, but those ideas don't amount to anything that we can care about.  The guy putting the girl in a veritable headlock so she can't watch her lover being eaten by wolves. The girl's hand freezes to the safety bar as they sleep, and her flesh tears as she pulls it off.  But why doesn't she tell anyone about it?  And why didn't her injury have any effect on their fight for survival?  Why do they all just sit and whine about regrets instead of doing something to get the hell off the lift?

I understand that Green was trying to create a more inward tension with all the contemplative dialogue, and with the tense friendships issues.  And I appreciate that.  I love character studies, so I dig it when personal quirks and personality issues get in the way of things.  These characters are people, and people fail miserably at shit all the time.  But in the end, it's gotta mean something.  It's gotta draw the audience in on a real gut emotion level.  So, when the two remaining friends have a petty argument about whose fault it was that the third died in a failed rescue attempt, and who was the real friend and who wasn't, it's downright tedious.  Like much of the emotion in this film, it comes off as terribly forced. When the fallen guy is being eaten alive by the wolves, the other dude holds the girlfriend's head, preventing her from looking, and all we really hear is the two of them crying and sobbing.  This misses the mark by a mile!  This isn't a teenage love story.  It's a horror flick! Let's feel the flesh being ripped as well as the hearts being broken. (For a good laugh, check out the alternate edit of this sequence with the boyfriend screaming "Don't let her look!" as he's being eaten).

Hey, where's all the tension?

Outside of the attempts to capture our emotions, Green's imagination for frightening scenarios is as limited as the settings.  He spent his load trying to create inner turmoil, but did very little at creating outward suspense.  His idea of mounting tension is by having one of the guys talk about how he heard somewhere that the ski lift cables are sharper than knives, and... well, gee, I guess I'm supposed to be shocked when the other dude gets his gloves torn when he attempts to shimmy across one.  Green also dips into the killer-wolves well a whopping three times.  It barely worked once, so when the pack reappears, I couldn't help but wonder how many more times they'd be back.

I really do get disappointed when you come across these flicks that create buzz on the mere idea of the premise.  It really does take more than a gimmick to capture the audience.  And with such a strong gimmick as was in Frozen, I wish that Adam Green had the sense to hand off the premise to someone with more talent at storytelling.  I'd love to have seen Frozen as a nice taut white-knuckle ride.

REVIEW: After.Life (2010)

Happy Birthday Suit Christina Ricci!
There's been a pleasant resurgence of genre flicks that have opted out of the once trendy twisty-turny-try-and-fool-ya plot gimmicks, and are delivering simpler stories that build suspense. The emphasis is a swing back to the story, and away from the storyteller.

But, let me welcome back another horror staple, a once prominent element of horror flicks that sadly went missing in the post-Scream era. Nudity!! It's returned in such a fashion that it's almost a movement. A revolution! Okay, yeah... some movies were a tad overzealous and blatant in their displays (the Friday the 13th and My Bloody Valentine remakes). But, either way... welcome home.

Afterall, what are we so uptight about, still? Nudity is on network TVs across the world, while we still giggle and peek (giggle giggle).

The story follows Anna (Ricci), a young woman unable to find the joys in life. Then suddenly-- she's dead. After a horrific car accident, she "wakes up" while Eliot the funeral director (Liam Neeson) is preparing her body for her own funeral. Anna is convinced that she's still alive, but Eliot explains that her confusion is not all that uncommon, and he's heard it many times form the bodies he's prepared over the years. Creepy, eh?

Well... the premise on paper if a lot creepier than the action in the film. It's not for the lack of the performances. Neeson is as good as he always is, giving the creepy mortician a shade of sorrow [it should be noted that filming had already wrapped on After.Life a few months prior to his wife Natasha Richardson's fatal ski accident, but her tragedy oddly resonates throughout the film and his performance]. Justin Long (on his quest to be in every movie ever made) plays Anna's grief-stricken boyfriend, with the standard long-faced confusion. But -- hello Christina Ricci!
It's difficult to judge a movie like After.Life, when the young starlet decides to parade around full frontal for the entire second act. Did I really enjoy the movie as a whole, or did I just enjoy watching Christina Ricci putting herself on display? The fact is, the nudity was a bit more enjoyable in the end.

The script was clean of overt cleverness, but it lacked genuine creepiness. Eliot's weirdness is already evident in the fact that he "speaks" to the dead. And the element of suspense lies in whether he is telling Anna the truth, that she is really dead and is not being held hostage. But, his wall of snapshots, cataloging the cast of bodies he's prepared and helped usher into the afterlife, is too deliberate and hokey. However, the relationship he broaches with a young student of Anna's (Chandler Canterbury), a budding ghost whisperer himself, seemed a more interesting avenue to exploring Eliot's character.
Director Agnieszka Wojtowicz-Vosloo (who also wrote the script with Paul Vosloo and Jakub Korolczuk) has an interesting style, using colors or word phrases as motifs. The environments in which Anna lives in, and where Eliot works, are sterile white, brightly lit, or shiny clean. Red is a symbol of death -- or is it life? These are the bits where the direction is solid. But, the building of suspense or mood-- and again, this may have just as much to do with his script -- is lacking.

REVIEW: Sorority Row (2009)

Frat Girls Go To Hell!!
Wow! What a stellar opening sequence! Big time one take shot that moves through a killer frat party. Hot!! Girls dancing with their bums hanging out. Sweet!! An impromptu dance number! Boing!! Half nekkid chicks getting their bellies painted. Why wasn't I ever in a frat? Wait... what's that you say? This isn't a frat party? It's a sorority party? What! But all the frat sisters are talking smut and slamming shots and funneling beers and showing each other their puppies. You sure this ain't a frat party? What's that you say? Oh yeah, you're right... It's a frat boys wet dream.
What a ridiculously moronic movie this was. Yeah sure, hot girls trotting around in drool inducing wardrobes -- I get it! I like it!! I'm not a dick. But please, if there is ever a court trial that will forever outlaw horror remakes, I'm gonna put on my tightest, shortest Ally McBeal courtroom dandy outfit and enter Sorority Row as Exhibit A B C D E F and G. What a load of wasted DNA.
As the wild party drills on, the top dog Sisters gather to toast their graduating and moving out into the real world to be possible future Real Housewives cast members. To top off their night they prank one of the Sister's beaus. He's been a naughty bird, pecking around another girls seedlings, and so, as the Sisters say, you don't mess with a Beta Phi -- or whatever the eff frat they belong to. Anyway, they pretend that he's OD'd his girlfriend with roofies, and convince him that they need to bury her body to avoid ruining their lives. Nice prank, eh! Only the doofus wants to make sure the girl is totally dead by driving a tire iron into her breastbone. Dun dun dah!! What follows is the worst bit of screenwriting ever imagined. Instead of being just scared, stupid, vapid girls trying not to shit their spankies, the writers (I won't embarrass them by revealing names) trot out the most ridiculous speech about damaged images and ruined careers and scarlet letters. But wait -- they didn't murder the girl. The stupid tweaked out boy did. They're scott-free, if they just had any sense. But the more they discuss the situation, the more convoluted it gets. So, long and short -- the Sisters start getting texts (how absolutely trendy) from the dead girl.Oh snap! Who's sending them? Is it the hot little sister of the dead Sister? Is it the disgusting, smelly janitor who peeks in the windows at their pillow fights (never happened) or is it the boyfriend of the heroine, who is so obviously the killer, because he is so obviously the least likely to be the killer -- oops! I mean spoiler alert.
Sorry, didn't mean to ruin the, um... surprise ending. Oh hell -- I totally meant it. Seriously, I would say don't bother with this flick... except for all the girls. There is some good acting here -- especially Leah Pipes as the head bitch Jessica. She gives a performance that was a throwback to the nasty bitch girls of the 70s and 80s slashers, even though the writers crafted her as yet another Mean Girlesque knock-off.
The direction and writing was def Zeta grade. You can just imagine the writers high-5ing and bumping tummies as they write the words midriff and breasts, and dream up tired, played out kill sequences. I actually have no idea why this even shares the name Sorority Row. It bears no resemblance to the classic original -- aside from the obvious. Is the title suppose to draw the over 40 crowd who would likely have seen the original? Were 20somethings just chomping at the bit, screaming about wanting another remake of a horror flick that they have no prior knowledge of? Honestly, I think they have an octopus on staff, who presses IMDb buttons to select the next candidate for a worthless remake.

REVIEW: Speak (2004)

I wanted to see this flick when it was originally aired years ago, but never had the chance. I’d read about it and it sounded interesting. Plus Kristen Stewart, then quite the up-n-comer, was impressive for a youngster in the other films I’d seen her in. So, now with the Twilight craze in full tilt, with the latest movie in the theaters, Lifetime Movie Channel leaped on the bandwagon to show this Stewart starring vehicle about a young girl who has trouble speaking up for herself.

What could’ve been easily an After School Special knock-off or an HBO Families In Crisis scare tome… or a standard Lifetime moral play, SPEAK turned out to quite moving. Stewart plays Melinda, a young girl alone. Once she had wonderful friendships, but (as we learn in flashbacks) she had a falling out after calling 911 to break up a summer time party – a party where, it’s revealed later, something so traumatic has happened that Melinda locks it deep inside her. Now she walks hurriedly through the halls, hollow eyed, holding her books tight to her chest to keep the taunting kids from knocking them away. Her parents are too wrapped up in their own worlds to notice their daughter is depressed, her teachers think she’s trouble, and a new friend (the new girl in school, who isn’t aware of Melinda’s troubles) who cares more about expanding her pool of friends than actually bonding. The only one around who shows any interest in her is the rebellious Art teacher, who notices not only her budding talent, but the troubled soul that needs to be released through expression.

Stewart delivers an impressive performance, one that eclipses (hehe, I’m so clever) her now moppy turns as the popular but limiting Bella Swan of the Twilight series. Watching Stewart move through this world of pain and secrets, she makes you want to reach out and take her hand, to sit her down and let her pour out her feelings, so she can once again smile. And what a moment it is when that happens at the end of the movie, when she finally reveals her inner self through her art. Steve Zahn, as well, gives a top performance as the Art teacher who helps Melinda free her “voice.”

For a Lifetime movie, SPEAK lead the trend away from the literal woman-in-peril tomes that became iconic for the cable channel, moving the network towards more meaningful, less heavy handed projects [The film was picked up from the festival circuit by both Lifetime and Showtime to be premiered simultaneously]. The direction by Jessica Sharzer, and screenplay, co-written with Annie Young Frisbie, is subtle but hard, and never retreats to a safer route. They don’t go for weeps or shocks, or hit on the trendy high school clichés. The characters aren’t stereotypes or caricatures, but fully realized people whom we could all relate to, in one way or another. The nasty girls aren’t just Mean Girls whose bitchiness comes off as so-cool-you-wanna-be-her, but rather reflects an honest, fully developed character who has her own real worries.

Sharzer is ther kind of director Stewart needs to work with more often. Stewart does a great job as the inward tortured soul, so great that she is asked to do that very role in just about every movie she’s in now. She’s a fine actor, with obvious talent and charisma. She just needs directors with more ambition and talent, themselves, who draw out better performances, like this one in SPEAK.

SPEAK is the kind of movie that I will let my two girls watch when they get a little older. Forget Kristen Stewart’s tortured Bella Swan of the TWILIGHT SAGA. Her portrayal as the individual, but troubled Melinda Sordino is the kind of character teen girls should really take to for inspiration.

REVIEW: Salvage (2009)

SALVAGE (2009 Revolver)

In this pop culture landscape, the panic that once swept over us post 9/11 has all been eased by an inexhaustible wealth of diversion. Why worry about the tensions in the Middle East when you can watch The Daily Show in the palm of your hand? Why worry about diminished security all around us when you can “Like” a FB page snickering at shots of boobs and willies taken with the new high tech airport X-ray. Yeah, we all have it pretty good, as long as someone else is taking care of them nasty terrorists “over there.”

But, what if something happens right here… in your neighborhood? That’s the white-knuckle predicament posed in the Brit horror/thriller Salvage. On the morning of Christmas Eve, a suburban Liverpool neighborhood is thrown into turmoil when an unidentified storage container washes up on the shoreline nearby.

But, before all the panic sets in, Beth (Neve McIntosh) is having her own major crisis in her own home – her teen daughter Jodie (Linzey Cocker), who was expected for a visit, has just walked in on her and a strange man having sex. It’s more than an awkward moment, since mum was expecting her daughter’s arrival. She just figured she’d extend her one-night-stand with a morning quickie before she had to fulfill her mommy duties. The ensuing argument spills out onto the block when Jodie storms off to a friend’s house, and mum goes banging on the door, demanding her daughter to come home. And then, suddenly, the skies overhead are roaring with the noises of military ‘copters. The streets are filled with soldiers, slamming by her, barking orders, swarming everywhere. Within seconds a neighbor, a Middle Eastern man, emerges from his home, covered in blood and holding a kitchen knife, muttering something. He’s gunned down, in full view of the people of the neighborhood. The guns then are turned on the neighbors, and commands are shouted for everyone to get inside and stay inside, under threat of death. Merry Christmas!

The fears and paranoia of a post 9/11 world come crashing down on the people of the tiny cul-de-sac, as they try to figure out just what is going on. Beth’s lover, Kiernan (Shaun Dooly) is convinced the Middle Eastern man down the street is a Muslim terrorist after news breaks of the washed up shipping crate. Regardless of any of this, Beth has only one focus – to get to her daughter.

There’s a wicked twist involving the shipping crate that is revealed in the final act, which catapults Beth’s mission into one of maddening life and death.

Salvage has a lot of good things going for it, one of which is a great script by Colin O’Donnell (the story was created by O’Donnell, along with Director Lawrence Gough, and Alan Pattison) that creates chaos with an ever evolving action, moving from domestic drama to a paranoid thriller and finally exploding into bloody horror. But most interesting is the characters of Beth and Kieran, both introduced in full Monty, stripped naked to the world. Exposed. But neither is what one would expect, by outward appearances. Kieran seems the usual barfly sex nut when, after Beth has her row with her daughter, he brilliantly asks “Can you finish me off now?” Little did she know, or cared to ask, that Kieran is a “happily married” man, with young children who adore their pop. It’s not a shock that he doesn’t want to have his tryst known to them, but it’s his willingness to put Beth and her daughter in jeopardy to keep his secret. His actions at the climax, as well, when everything lays upon his shoulders, is the emotional moment of the story.

And then there’s Beth, a woman who is introduced as something of an anti-hero. At the outset, Beth is just the mom of a disgruntled teen, who is so self involved that she brings home strange bedfellows instead of preparing for her daughter’s arrival, and then battles with her neighbors for bragging rights for her. She’s clearly not a well respected woman by her peers, and whose neighbors have no qualms about telling her to sod off. But now, suddenly, when it’s seemingly the end of the world, she will risk her own skin to save her daughter.

Salvage is one of those flicks that seems to annoy some horror fans (check out some of the blogs to hear the whining), because it has the unmitigated gall to develop characters and story before hitting the horror notes. I mean really… The nerve! So, for those who like to get drawn into a story and enjoy some great bloody mayhem, Salvage is a wicked ride, filled with twists and shocks. For those who just want eye popping bloody fun – well, this is a flick for you, too. So, stop whining and enjoy.

Check out Revolver to order.