Given the lasting popularity of film genres like horror within cinema, finding new and original ideas for stories can become a very tall order. However, it is not only a matter of originality of these films, but also of quality. The Netflix International film, “Cadaver,” certainly does bring some freshness to the genre. “Cadaver” (Norwegian: “Kadaver”) is a Norwegian horror film directed and written by Jarand Herdal. It depicts a post-apocalyptic society in the aftermath of nuclear disaster, where famine is widespread. Leonora (Gitte Witt), along with her husband Jacob (Thomas Gullestad) and her daughter Alice (Tuva Olivia Remman), struggles to continue on within this cruel environment, until one day they receive an opportunity to attend a theatre night at a hotel run by Mathias (Thorbjørn Harr), where they are promised a free meal. The theatre event is interactive, spanning throughout the hotel, in which guests are enabled to follow whichever actor they choose and must wear a mask to distinguish themselves from the actors. However, after some time, it is revealed that this event is much more sinister than Leonora or her family had initially realized.

The premise of the film is certainly unique. What especially helps “Cadaver” in this regard is the ways in which the movie sets up the atmosphere and the world in which the protagonists live. The film does a good job of showing, not telling, especially regarding the city landscape where you can see run down buildings, dead bodies littering the streets and the fog that constantly surrounds the city. Life is miserable here, and the film shows it.

The cinematography also deserves praise for helping set up the atmosphere. The panning shots of the city emphasize how life in general has declined in this reality and the outlook of everyone is in despair. Conversely, the tracking slow motion shots of the hotel not only serve to establish the order of the hotel, but how unnatural and creepy the hotel actually is. The change in color scheme between the locations in the film also helps to keep them distinct. Shades of greys surround the city to emphasize the dullness of life, whereas combos of red and black within the hotel’s halls communicate a sense of imminent death within the hotel.

The clear stand out character within “Cadaver” would have to be Leonora. Gitte Witt’s performance conveys to the audience a mother who wants nothing more than her family, particularly her daughter Alice, to experience happiness. It is her belief of imagination and innocence that leads Leonora to choose to attend the theatre event to please her daughter, though at the end it is her resilience that makes her a character the audience wants to root for.

However, this is where “Cadaver” begins to fall apart. While Leonora is a great character, none of the other characters within the movie feel compelling. Jacob, Leonora’s husband, really only has one facet to his character—serving solely as a generic father—and lacks much of the complexity that makes Leonora interesting. Mathias, the antagonist of the film, feels somewhat similar to Jigsaw from the Sawfranchise. However, the lack of a compelling backstory for his life outlook just makes him feel less captivating as a villain. The other side characters, like Lars (Kingsford Siayor) or Katherine (Maria Grazia Di Meo), are also just kind of there, not really engaging in any particular way.

The story, while unique, also gets rather predictable at times. From the very beginning when Leonora and her family are invited to the hotel for the play, there are all sorts of tell-tale signs foreshadowing what’s going to happen. They are given tickets at whatever cost they can afford, Mathias allows their daughter Alice to enter even though children aren’t initially allowed, and other attendees also reveal a differing experience about how they came to see the play. This information is communicated way too early on, leaving it no secret what is going on in the hotel. The film also ditches the “what is real” motif about midway through the movie, diminishing the intrigue of the story. Overall, “Cadaver” is a mixed bag. If you want to see something a little different, watch it. Otherwise, stay away.

This story was originally published on Nov. 11th, 2020 on unewsonline.com. Click here to view the original story.

“Books of Blood” was the anthology book series that helped to launch now famous horror novelist Clive Barker into the forefront of the horror genre. Now, Hulu attempts to adapt Barker’s work into an original film for their streaming catalog. Directed by Brannon Braga, the film, similar to last year’s “Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark,” is split up into several separate segments that all end up connecting to one another. The first is about a young woman named Jenna (Britt Robertson), who suffers from misophonia, the extreme irritability towards particular everyday noises, on the run from her controlling mother which leads her to a strange and disturbing bed and breakfast. The second is about Mary Florensky (Anna Friel), a psychic researcher, who enlists the help of Simon (Rafi Gavron) to communicate to her deceased son Miles (Etienne Kellici). Simon claims to be able to talk to the dead. Lastly, the third segment is about a hit-man named Bennett (Yul Vazquez) and his hunt for the legendary Book of Blood. 

If there was a word to describe the overall feeling of Hulu’s adaptation, it would most certainly be dull. Nothing about this rendition of “Books of Blood” feels engaging, and instead just feels like any other generic horror film. A big part of this feeling stems from the acting within the film. Nearly every single character within the film, regardless of which segment they’re in, is portrayed in the most monotone way possible and displays nothing that even resembles emotion. For instance, within the second story regarding Mary Florensky’s quest to communicate with her son, there are several scenes in which she is supposed to feel anger and distress regarding attempting to communicate with her son and whether or not his messages are real. However, Anna Fiel’s performance within these scenes never feels genuine, and as a result the viewer does not really care about Florensky’s struggles. The only individual that does somewhat succeed in conveying some emotion is Britt Robertson’s portrayal of Jenna, namely when she tries to escape from the tortuous location she winds up in. However, even this can only demand so much praise as it has been done in other horror films and has been done better.

The music also contributes to the generic feeling of the film. Even though it initially gives off eerie vibes during the early stages of “Books of Blood,” as the film continues on the initial eerie feelings become lost as the viewer gets acclimated to the music and as there’s no real variance within the music, the overall atmosphere of the film shifts from somewhat disturbing to extremely bland. This also makes every one of the three stories feel exactly the same, in spite of how different these stories are. Jenna’s struggles to get away from her controlling parents should feel unique from Mary’s wishes to talk with her son, yet they do not.

While on that subject, the biggest overall issue with “Books of Blood” is the stories themselves. There is no real coherency even within the individual stories themselves, instead appearing as if events are occurring at random. One notable example of this happening occurs within the third story during Bennett’s quest to find the Book of Blood. His partner, Steve (Andy McQueen), eventually ventures off within a haunted neighborhood because he claims to be talking to his deceased mother. This detail pops up out of nowhere, making the event just come off as a forced way to deliver some uneasiness and scares within the third story. Pacing is another issue that is prominent throughout the film. The first story with Jenna drags on too long, soaking up around 46 minutes of the film, with the other two stories taking less time than that. 

In fairness to this movie, some aspects of the sound design, particularly how it portrays Jenna’s misophonia by emphasizing sounds like chewing, is kind of clever. At the end of the day, though, Hulu’s “Books of Blood” does the unthinkable: it makes Clive Barker boring. For casual viewers and horror buffs alike, there are better ways to be spending your October.

Originally posted on Oct. 27th, 2020. Click here to view the original story.

Few TV series have the ability to stay on the air for 20 or more years, yet one show that has managed to outlast its competition is Survivor. First hitting TV screens back in the year 2000, Survivor captivated audiences with memorable castaways and various layers of social strategy. Fast forward to December 2019, Survivor announced that, to celebrate the show’s 20th anniversary, the 40th season would consist entirely of previous winners. Expectations were understandably sky-high, as an all-winners edition of Survivor was something that has been discussed by fans for years. Now that all episodes of the season have aired, it must be said however, that “Winners at War” just didn’t live up to the hype.

*Some Spoilers Ahead*

The first issue to be had with “Winners at War” is that it doesn’t quite feel like it celebrates all forty seasons of the show. For one, the imbalanced chosen cast of 12 “new-schoolers” to eight “old-schoolers.” To be clear, “old-school” Survivor refers to the first 20 seasons of the show (from “Survivor: Borneo” to “Survivor: Heroes vs Villains”) and “new-school” Survivorrefers to the later 20 (“Survivor: Nicaragua” to this season). The two categories have differing aesthetics and types of twists. The two are also different in how they choose to highlights players, and to an extent in the strategy (though there’s overlap). So, when the show casts more newer winners than older—there’s only three winners from the first 10 seasons, but seven winners from the last 10—with two old-schoolers winning in more modern seasons, it just gives off the sentiment that the show is more so celebrating the latter half of its history. The second reason for this sentiment comes from the challenges. Even though host Jeff Probst in pre-game press described the challenges hailing from all past seasons, a majority either originate from the latter 10 seasons or are the most recent variation of the challenge. This is an issue, as many of the newer challenges lack variety: the pre-merge challenges are typically all obstacle courses followed by a puzzle, and the post-merge challenges are mostly individual endurance tests. This ends up making the challenge segments really repetitive and boring.

The second major knock against this season is the editing. There’s no real coherency between episodes and as a result you don’t feel like you’re getting the full picture of what transpired in the game. Alliances are created seemingly out of the blue, alliances fall apart without any real indicator as to why, and massive in-game threats fail to bet targeted without any reason. The presentation of the social strategy feels sloppily stitched together, instead favoring to highlight less interesting aspects like the advantages.

Speaking of which, there are way too many twists and advantages within the game. This article isn’t going to explain what each one does as that would take a while, but some of the many twists included: 10 immunity idols, a lot of Fire Tokens (the new in-game currency), the Safety Without Power Advantage, the Steal-A-Vote Advantage, an Extortion Disadvantage, a Challenge Disadvantage, and the Edge of Extinction. A vast majority of these twists aren’t interesting, and instead soak up time from what the viewers want to see: the players. The draw of the season is to see these all-stars from different periods—like Boston Rob and Jeremy, Kim and Tony, Yul and Sophie, etc.—interact and play with each other, not what they thought of all these advantages.

In fairness to this season, there were some positive aspects to it. Watching the gameplay of Tony Vlachos, Kim Spradlin, and Michele Fitzgerald was a treat. Seeing them navigate their way through the various game scenarios, especially as the former two overcame big targets on their backs, solidified their status as great players. The premiere episode was great, the confessionals were amazing, and the winner was satisfying. However, as a whole, “Survivor: Winners at War” was a letdown, especially considering the hype preceding it.

Originally posted on Oct. 7th, 2020. Click here for the original story.

Despite sharing a name with the 2010 video game “Transformers: War for Cybertron,” the first chapter of Netflix’s anime miniseries trilogy bears no connections. However, the premise of both mediums is the same: a telling of the events during the waning days of the War for Cybertron that took place between the Autobots and the Decepticons. In spite of a delayed release as result of the current COVID-19 pandemic, Allspark Animation’s and Polygon Picture’s six episode miniseries, “Transformers: War for Cybertron Trilogy-Siege,” is now available for viewers on Netflix. Fortunately for fans of the long running series, this new retelling delivers on multiple fronts.

The first thing to bring up is how surprisingly deep the story is. Both sides of the Autobot-Decepticon conflict view themselves as the heroes of the story, the ones that will ultimately restore Cybertron for the betterment of all. This is made explicit through tellings of life before the war: the social stratifications between the Autobots and Decepticons, the origin stories of Optimus and Megatron, who individual players (like Ratchet or Impactor) were before the war and much more. 

As the war carries on, continually ravaging the planet while also depleting their energy reserves, both sides grow more desperate and turn to more extreme solutions, causing much dissension between the ranks of both sides of the conflict. None of this ever feels hamfisted, instead drawing one into the events that transpire within the six episodes that comprise this first chapter. 

The viewer really ends up getting a sense of everyone’s viewpoint and their status within the conflict. They begin to understand the tension between Optimus and Megatron, why some Transformers like Ratchet end up staying neutral, why some subsections like the Decepticon Seekers end up fostering much dissent and more. By the end, the viewer becomes so invested within the story that they end up wanting more, which is the ultimate sign of great worldbuilding and storytelling.

Speaking of characters, Netflix’s rendition of the titular franchise doesn’t disappoint in its depiction of the iconic cast of Autobots and Decepticons. For the most part, the characterizations of both sides are on point—remaining faithful to previous iterations of the characters as well as adding new facets to some iconic characters. Some good examples include Optimus Prime, who is portrayed as a more inexperienced leader, yet still just as stoic; Starscream, who’s deceitfulness is portrayed in a moral realistic manner this time around; and Megatron, who’s portrayal as a violent revolutionary is a welcome addition. However, not every depiction is perfect, most notably the voice work of Soundwave by Edward Bosco leaving a lot to be desired.

Of course, “Transformers: War for Cybertron Trilogy-Siege” is a CGI Anime series, and for the most part, it looks pretty slick. Everything from the movement of the characters, the rendering of the environment and the action sequences are great. The fight scenes in particular make use of some clever choreography that make use of each character’s abilities like Mirage’s illusions and Jetfire’s flight. Overall, “Transformers: War for Cybertron Trilogy-Siege” is a solid new adaptation of the Transformers. With solid worldbuilding, believable characters and overall great visuals, Netflix’s rendition of the Robots in Disguise is certainly worth a watch. For longtime fans and series newcomers, definitely give this one a watch.

Originally posted on Oct. 6th, 2020 on unewsonline.com. Click here for the original story.

After failing to move forward with the Dark Universe of classic monsters, Universal Studios rebounds with more individualized storytelling in their latest rendition of “The Invisible Man.” Loosely based on the H. G. Wells novel of the same name, the film depicts Cecilia Kass (Elisabeth Moss) and her struggle to get away from her abusive boyfriend, Adrian Griffin (Oliver Jackson-Cohen). After Cecilia manages to get away with aid from her sister Emily (Harriet Dyer) and their childhood friend James (Aldis Hodge), Adrian takes his own life, but leaves Cecilia a large portion of his fortune. After a series of bizarre events unravel, it soon becomes evident to Cecilia that Adrian may not be as dead as she thought and is now tormenting her.

This movie excels in its creation of tension through its score, its handling of scares and the cinematography and camera work. The way scenes are set always gives the eerie feeling that someone is watching. Long shots and unbroken shots are used to great effect, often showing Cecilia or one of the other protagonists from another room or following them through the environment. This creepy feeling is also aided by the movie’s soundtrack. The slow-burning music, aided by clever usage of instruments like piano or violin, helps to keep you at the edge of your seat. Given that this is a horror movie, the scares have to deliver, and for “The Invisible Man,” it does. Moving items, Cecilia and crew being attacked despite no visible danger, reveals of the Invisible Man and a particularly unnerving scene involving a phone call help add to the eerie presence of our antagonist.

Of course, a technically well-made movie is not worth much without solid acting, and in that regard, “The Invisible Man” also doesn’t disappoint. Aldis Hodge is believable as the childhood friend to the Kass sisters, a cop and the father to Sydney (Storm Reid). Oliver Jackson-Cohen and Michael Dorman both do a solid job as the film’s antagonists, bringing sinistry and uneasiness to their to the story. However, the standout is without a doubt Elisabeth Moss. She anchors the film with her convincing performance of a victim of an abusive relationship, someone looking for escape. She really begins to hit her stride toward the climax of the film when her character is sent to the asylum, as you can see through her facial expressions that she has been through hell, that she is emotionally fractured, yet can still recover to be a fierce and determined individual. If there is a weak link in the cast, that would easily be Harriet Dyer as Cecilia’s sister Emily. When she is helping Cecilia, you really are not that convinced that she cares for her younger sister, and when she begins to distance herself, you also don’t quite buy the fact that she is angry with Cecilia.

While on the subject of the movie’s weak points, the ending of the film leaves a lot to be desired. There’s a difference between a complex ending that gives thought towards the film and a sloppy finish, with “The Invisible Man” falling towards the latter of the two. The twists that director Leigh Whannell throws seem to attempt to mirror his previous work with “Upgrade” (2018). However, the twist this time feels just, well…what?! The film ends much more naturally on the scene after the final confrontation, but what continues afterward feels really unnecessary and calls into question previous events in the film. There are also a couple scenes, particularly near the end, where it was obvious to viewers that security cameras would catch Griffin as he begins to kill people in front of them.

Overall, “The Invisible Man” is a good movie, but short from great. While it is technically well made, has overall solid performances and plenty worthwhile scares, several story elements that arise toward the climax of the film prevent it from reaching its full potential. If you’re a fan of horror movies or just want something decent to watch, then this film will be worth your time.

Originally posted on Mar. 4th, 2020 on unewsonline.com. Click here to see the original story.