SYNOPSIS: In “Magpie,” a new neo-noir thriller starring Daisy Ridley, and now available on all major platforms for digital rental and purchase, Ben (Shazad Latif) and Anette’s (Daisy Ridley) young daughter (Hiba Ahmed) lands a co-starring role alongside 20-something movie star Alicia (Matilda Lutz). Trouble brews as Anette, stuck at home in the suburbs with a new baby, becomes suspicious that Ben has fallen in love with the actress.
CAST: Daisy Ridley, Shazad Latif, Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz, Hiba Ahmed, Cherrelle Skeete, Pippa Bennett-Warner, Alistair Petrie. Directed by Sam Yates.
REVIEW: Based on a story idea by star Daisy Ridley, “Magpie” is a revenge drama disguised as a study of a toxic relationship.
That the self-absorbed Ben is a needy man who falls for a glamorous woman while gaslighting his wife and children is nothing new. He’s a cad who thinks his wife has changed, not him, and he’s more than open to the charms of someone younger and shinier. “You made me feel alive,” he whispers to Alicia, “for the first time in years.”
Been there done that in dozens of other movies.
What is unique is Anette’s way of equaling the playing field. No spoilers here, but let’s just say comeuppance is on “Magpie’s” menu in the form of a flashback montage that reveals what was really happening all along. It’s a satisfying way to wind up this tale of twisted relationship dynamics, even if it is somewhat preposterous.
It succeeds because of Ridley’s committed performance. Her recent work in films like “The Young Woman and the Sea” and “Sometimes I Think About Dying” displays a range and an interest in textured material. “Magpie” allows her the chance to dig into another layered character. As Anette battles depression and low self-esteem, but Ridley brings a stoic intensity that sizzles. We’re not told that much about her, but we don’t need to be, it’s all in the performance.
“Magpie” is a slow burn pulpy thriller that pays off with a satisfying third act, but you’ll need to suspend your disbelief during the not entirely believable events in the film’s last few minutes.
There blood, there’s bloody and then there’s the river of cinematic plasma that flows through the aptly named “Revenge” from first time French writer-director Coralie Fargeat. Gory and uncompromising, this is a violent vision for those with a love of Grand Guignol cat-and-mouse games and a strong stomach.
Set in a remote, desert bound luxury villa, “Revenge” is the unsettling story of three wealthy men, the arrogant Richard (Kevin Janssens) and pals Stan (Vincent Colombe) and Dimitri (Guillaume Bouchede) and one woman, Jen (Matilda Lutz). Jen is Richard’s mistress, seduced by his good looks and the perks his money offers, i.e. cocaine and private helicopters. The men are there for the good times and an annual hunting trip. What begins as a glamorous, sexy getaway turns foul when Stan sexually assaults Jen. When she tearfully tells Richard what happened he tells her to brush it off, not to worry about it. When she threatens to tell his wife about their affair unless he does something about Stan he turns nasty. And so does the movie. Chased out into the desert, Jen is pushed over a cliff, impaled on a sharp branch and left for dead.
Suffice to say that will not be the last bloodshed offered up in “Revenge’s” operatic tale of vengeance. With self-determination, a beer can and some self-surgery Jen survives with a new lease on life and vengeance in her heart.
“Revenge” is not a subtle movie. It is an exploitation flick that builds tension by taking its time between scenes of extremely graphic violence. Close-ups of fire ants swarming a rotted apple and Dimitri’s slo mo marshmallow mastication are add to the film’s disquieting atmosphere.
Clearly Fargeat has passed her days studying not only grindhouse gore but Michelangelo Antonioni films as well. The result is a blood-splattered art film that revels in its baseness.
As the title suggests “Revenge” is all about revenge but unlike most sex vengeance films this one is filtered through a female perspective. It is still hard to take but the transition from suffering to strength sets it apart from usual exploitation fare.
In the “The Ring” a cursed videotape—featuring a short movie that looks like it was made by a first year film student who had watched too many Luis Buñuel films—does the rounds, killing its audience seven days after viewing. Based on 1998’s “Ringu,” a masterpiece of atmosphere and psychological terror from Japanese director Hideo Nakata, it spawned a mini-empire with multiple movies, manga comics and television shows based on the original idea.
“Rings,” the latest addition to the continuing tale of the terrifying tape takes place thirteen years after the events of the last film. Julia’s (Matilda Lutz) boyfriend Holt (Alex Roe) has gone to college out of state. One night during a strange Skype call from his account a young woman appears. “Where is the dead man?” she shrieks. “Tell him she’s coming!” Unnerved, Julia hightails it to the school looking for answers. Seems Holt has become involved in a project to discover the meaning of the meaning of the videotape. The professor Gabriel (Johnny Galecki) thinks he can prove the tape is a doorway to the other side. If that’s true, it will also verify the existence of the soul and life after death. There’s one big problem though, his students keep dying seven days after viewing the tape. The only way out is to make a copy of the tape and pass it along to someone else. With only hours to go until Holt becomes the tape’s latest victim Julia watches, and inheriting his curse. “Whatever you were leave him alone!” she says. Instead of passing the death tape along she decides to get to the bottom of the mysterious tape and put an end to the evil forever. “No one is dying because of me,” she says.
That may protect the movie’s characters but the audience may die of boredom.
Can a horror movie that isn’t scary still be called a horror movie? “Rings” plays on primal fears of the unknown and darkness, but fails to actually make the hair on the back of your neck stand up. Some weird things happen—there is one cool image of Samara, the cursed girl, crawling out of a flatscreen TV to claim her victim—but it is mostly a collection of dimly lit scenes, loud sounds and jump scares.
More troubling than the bland leads or Vincent D’Onofrio reaching for a paycheque as the local blind man who may or may not have something to do with the supernatural goings on, is the movie’s complete lack of purpose.
Julia sets off to figure out why this videotape is a death sentence to anyone who sees it. Good idea for a movie. There is an investigation and she uncovers certain things but (THIS IS A MILD SPOILER) there is no explanation as to how or why Samara ended up on tape and how the tape was distributed. None. Things happen but they have little to nothing to do with the already established “Ring” mythology. It was as if the three—count ‘em three—screenwriters—including Academy Award winner Akiva Goldsman—lost interest in the story after the first hour. I know I certainly did.
“Rings” ends with the words “evil won’t stop.” It’s a set up to the inevitable sequel but in this case it sound more like a threat than the promise of more.
