No is the story of the beginning of the end for Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. It wasn't done with a violent rebellion, outside intervention or a coup but through an election. The film is, however, not about the plebiscite but mostly about the commercials used to influence voters.

It is an interesting angle. Pinochet, no doubt, sought the "yes" or "no" vote to legitimize his ten year dictatorship. As an egomaniac he likely felt certain of a victory and also could point to economic progress in the country. He hoped the cowed population, many of whom were possibly better off than they had been, would either not vote or vote for him.

And if all else failed perhaps he could just steal the election.

All of this is background for a film that deals almost entirely with the construction of the opposing "commercials" for the "yes" and "no" side. Each side was to get 15 minutes a day for a month.

One of the interesting things about the film is that there are numerous characters and maybe two or three are even given a chance to develop.

Gael Garcia Bernal (Amores Perros, Y Tu Mama Tambien, Motorcycle Diaries) plays René Saavedra, an advertising expert recently returned from exile (presumably for his or his family's leftist leanings). He works for Lucho Guzmán, who is from the other side of the political fence. In the first scene a pitch to a client is interrupted by a visit from a "communist." Of course anyone with a whiff of skepticism over the Pinochet regime be they Christian Democrat, socialist or actual communist might find the term hung around their neck.

The meeting leads to Saavedra working on the campaign for the "No" side. The government hires an Argentine (for SHAME!) to do their production. It is insinuated later that no creative types in Chile would get on board with "yes."

Guzmán, played by Alfredo Castro in an excellent performance, alternates between helping his young protégé and threatening him. The interplay between the two may be the best part of the movie. When he intimates to a government minister that the opposition producers need to have their danger brought home he is cautioned that is a door that, once opened, cannot be closed. Nonetheless, later, he says, basically; we need to fuck them up.

The word "fuck" is basically the reason for the R rating. No reason a young adult cannot see this movie-- aside from an addiction to CGI.

Bernal is a wonderful actor who can convey emotion without a word. This is a role without much over the top emoting but you get Saavedra as a man. No spends little time on his relationship with his ex-wife but you understand the depth of feeling there from one short, poignant scene alone. Had there been no other such scene the audience would have felt it.

The film mixes archival footage in with the new footage--and this is done seamlessly.  Its rough sketch of the history will leave the curious, those unfamiliar with the period, heading to the history books. But the story the film is trying to convene is told in full. This isn't about the 1973 coup. The film also has a rough look to it but this enhances rather than detracts in this case. Not everything has to be Life of Pi.

In one brief scene in the film Savaadra and Guzmán discuss which side the Americans are on. Both insist they are on theirs. The curious thing is that in 1973 the USA was certainly on Pinochet's side. Everyone knows the USA didn't just support the coup but was complicit in it. But the notion that the USA was still in the dictator's corner in 1988 is wrong. The USA is no different from any other country. Who we support depends on perceived self-interest (ask Saddam Hussein).

This illustrates all the small bits of subtext that seem to float through this film. If it all sounds sort of dour and serious? That is not how this is presented at all. The film is full of sly humor and clever repartee. In that respect it is like the "No" commercials; it takes something serious and narrows it down to a single aspect. That aspect is then explored in a broad wash.

At the conclusion, in brief sequences, we see how Chile moved past this dark spot in its history but it is again done subtly. A scene from one of the commercial bits shows police in riot gear beating a man with a voice over singling out the victim and one police man. The voice says that each man wants peace, each man is Chilean and that no Chilean should fear another.

Sort of goes for all of us, everywhere, regardless of nationality.

Chan-wook Park‘s first English-language film, Stoker, is one that fans of his well-known trilogy of Korean films may have awaited with equal part eagerness and trepidation. How would the director of Oldboy fare in Hollywood, even in a relatively “small” film? Would they make him include fluffy bunnies? Would he be allowed to show characters cutting out their own tongues?

The answers to these questions are—no and sort of. The story told in this film is as disturbing as his previous films but it is a clearly and drastically different approach. This movie has less violence and it builds suspense. The slow winding up of the suspense in this film recalls Dario Argento but where Argento’s films are dark visually, this one is bright. Even at night the film is never murky, always clear.

The Argento comparison is not really a compliment. Often Argento’s films build suspense that is a let-down in the end. In Stoker the let-down is less pronounced because the buildup is more subtle but it is something of a let-down. When there is such a slow paced, subtle build up, there is bound to be at least some disappointment.

This isn’t to say Stoker is subtle from beginning to end; there are scenes, one at a piano in particular, where you will slap yourself in the forehead and shout “we GET it” about half way through. And this scene isn’t the only one where the symbolism is obvious. There are a few other such moments.

Most of the film, however, reins in these exceses and it looks great. Certainly there are some gimmicky shots in it here and there. These are the sorts of things that worked better in Park’s earlier films than they do here; a slow motion swinging light, changes in angle seem a tad out of place at times. This, however, might be intentional. This is a film that may leave you a little unsatisfied at the end but it will also stick in your mind and keep you thinking about it. The feeling that there is more to it, that there is something missed in it that is almost palpable.

It does a great deal right. It avoids spending too much time on the “strange girl at school” part of the film. A little goes a long way there. There is also some gruesomeness that is left to the imagination which is almost more disturbing.

The film’s actors all turn in, at the very least, above average performances. Mia Wasikowska handles her role as you would expect an actor with her impressive resume. She has turned in fine, if small, performances in Lawless, Defiance and Albert Nobbs. In the lead here she has to be subtle (yes that word again) but she manages to show something of a character that is supposed to be enigmatic, the audience recognizes the archetype through her skill as an actor.

Nicole Kidman also makes the most of her screen time. No back-story is given for us to see her relationship with her husband (it is giving nothing away to say he dies, as the film opens with his funeral more or less). Yet she conveys what that relationship was in a few lines.  She is a vulnerable, hollow woman who doesn’t even know who her own daughter is.

Matthew Goode as the wild eyed performance as the vaguely menacing and mysterious uncle plays the role so we know there is something not right. There is something obviously wrong with him. The audience almost want to say; “Err, ladies, this guy is NUTS.” But that is, again, all part of it.

It is sort of curious that in this film, set in the USA, none of the three principle actors are American. Two Australians and an Englishman are tapped for the roles. What? Daniel Day Lewis playing Abraham Lincoln? Rick on The Walking Dead, Dr. House, The Mentalist and now THIS!

While there is nothing wrong with Wentworth Miller III’s (remember the idiotic show Prison Break? He was on it) screenplay you have to wonder what Park would have done had he written it. This appears to be Wentworth’s first stab at a screenplay so maybe cutting some slack is warranted.

An interesting film, an interesting debut for Park in the USA but not a great movie in any sense but a good movie in almost every sense just the same.

The Last Exorcism was a surprise. It was clever, it was scary and it made you care what happened to the characters in the film. The original Last Exorcism even managed to make the, by now, tired “reality television” way the film was shot effective.

It was a surprise. It was a good B horror film that mixed scary with creepy and made you overlook small flaws.

The Last Exorcism Part 2 is not a surprise. You do have to give credit for it not being called, simply, The Last Exorcism 2. That would be like Final Fantasy 2--oh...wait.  But you get the point, the people marketing the movie, at the very least, got that “last” didn’t fit with “2.”

And the film deserves more credit than simply that.

It is well-paced, especially in the first half, and the star, Ashley Bell is a truly unique actress. She looks plain one second and beautiful with a smile. A lot of her shifts between girl next door beauty and haggardness are doubtless due to talented make-up artists but a good portion is also due to the actress herself. It is to be hoped she winds up in films beyond B-horror fare --not insulting B-horror at all but she seems to have talent beyond simply that.

The film itself follows its predecessor immediately. Bell’s character, Nell, is the only survivor at the end of the first film and she has been brought to a house for girls in New Orleans. She still has the naïveté displayed in the first film but after being possessed by a demon and witness to a slew of murders this seems a little unlikely (on close examination but, of course, close examination is unwise in horror films).

As you might expect the demon hasn’t headed back to hell but is still on the hunt for—something. The baby in the first film might be expected to play a major role. It doesn’t (and it, it is, no sex is assigned). But that is a minor quibble.

The film is chock full of little jumps and it tries to keep continuity and does so, more or less. It lacks any real surprises though nor does it have any performances that elevate the film. Everyone is professional and solid but no one is given an opportunity to shine except Bell. There is barely another character in the film that couldn’t be described as “generic.” Credit is due for the across the board professionalism, often lacking in horror movies, which are so often just a cheap production aiming at a quick profit. They put some effort into making this work.

But maybe not enough to elevate this sequel to the exalted title of “good.”

It lags about half way through, tosses in the obligatory exorcism--mostly performed by characters that appear at the moment the audience knows an exorcism is to be done--and then ends. The film is a notch above the average horror film but nothing to get terribly excited about. It is to be hoped that this ends the series because anything that follows is bound to be convoluted.

After several years of early in the year horror films that stood out? This year has been less outstanding.

What makes a movie succeed or fail?

That is a question that folks counting beans in Hollywood have asked since Charlie Chaplin was still performing on the stage in London. And the answer has usually been; who knows?  But what about what makes a movie GOOD? That answer is not nearly as elusive.

 You have to be entertained, the film has to be well-paced and written, the acting has to be decent and you have to, to some extent, care what happens to the characters.  And horror films have some other criteria—one being that they have to be scary or, at least, creepy

Unfortunately the recent film, Dark Skies, has a plethora of movie killing traits; it starts slow, it relies on obvious attempts to scare that will draw yawns from horror veterans, the audience cannot possibly care what happens to the characters and, finally, the film is poorly paced.

Poor pacing can kill any movie and it is particularly deadly in a horror or suspense film. The run of the mill set up in Dark Skies (oooh! Something messes with the fridge! Saw that last year in The Possession) is meaningless and seems an afterthought. The characters inspire no emotion (despite the pretty solid acting). It just all seems formula. There are also lots of red herrings and side plots that are totally irrelevant to the plot moving forward. Nothing brings a horror film to a screeching halt faster than a visit from social services because of the abuse the ghost/demon/alien has visited upon a child character. What is worse than that? Bringing such a visit up and it never happening.

There is one scene where the family discusses their past over dinner in a house boarded up to keep the aliens out. Is it an homage or rip off of M. Night Shymalan? Who knows but it just makes the observant viewer recall what a good suspense director Shymalan once was and how hollow and weak Dark Skies is.

The aliens don’t look scary, the plot twist is predictable (it is all predictable) and the movie just exudes arrogance, some sort of “the audience is stupid” vibe. Sure low-budget horror almost always makes money so we are suckered into heading into the theater to see them. Sometimes the films are good--Insidious or The Last Exorcism for instance—and sometimes the films are not so good. But at least give us some indication of mental effort on the part of the director or writers. That is what kills this movie—the boring writing, the mediocre direction.

Sure the aliens look cheesy. So what? The demon possessed people in The Evil Dead look cheesy too but we all, justifiably, love that film. A low budget is no excuse for slapdash execution. The audience pays the same whether the movie cost 1 million or 300 million to make.

Audiences need to pay attention to who makes the movies. Usually Blumhouse Productions make good B horror but this film isn’t good.  Everyone misses (can you say Paranormal Activity 4?) but recalling Insidious, the first three Paranormal films and Sinister it is easy to have hope for future Blumhouse films. The director of this film, Scott Stewart, also directed the silly but watchable Legion and the totally unwatchable Priest. He doesn’t have a huge directorial track record so even a look at him on IMDB shouldn’t scare you. But usually? It helps.

Watch who writes and directs. Save yourself nine bucks.