Possession

...

Rating 1 (2 on second viewing)


Directed by Joel Bergvall and Simon Sandquist

Written by Michael Petroni, based on the film‘Addicted’, written by Byun Won-mi

Starring Sarah Michelle Gellar (Jessica), Lee Pace (Roman), Michael Landes (Ryan), Tuva Novotny (Casey), Chelah Horsdal (Miranda), Dhirendra (Dr Rajan) and William B Davis (Hypnotist)


Jessica and Ryan are happily married, although Jessica is not as attentive to the marriage as her husband. His troubled younger brother Roman, who has recently been released from prison following a six month conviction for aggravated assault, is temporarily living with them, an arrangement that Jessica finds increasingly difficult. Following a freak automobile accident that leaves both Ryan and Roman in a coma, Roman awakes, now claiming to believe that he is Ryan, leaving Jessica to try to come to terms with her own feelings of guilt and loss.

...


‘Possession’ is an American remake of a 2002 South Korean film called ‘Addicted’ (or ‘Jungdok’). The film was first announced in 2006 and originally set for release in February 2008, but when the production company Yari Film Group experienced financial problems it resulted in a number of delays, until finally it was released direct to DVD in March 2010.

The film is a melancholy psychological thriller with supernatural overtones that follows a similar pattern to previous Sarah Michelle Gellar films ‘The Grudge’ and ‘The Return’. However, unlike those two films, it just does not work. There is little suspense or foreboding and there does not appear to be much obvious on-screen chemistry between Gellar and Lee Pace, both of whom are competent actors who give uninvolving performances here. The film is rather threadbare and somewhat botched and quite simply fails in almost every aspect.

I consider myself to be a fan of Sarah Michelle Gellar’s work and although the last film in which she took a starring role that made any appreciably commercial impact was ‘The Grudge’ in 2004, I think she has made some very worthwhile films since that time, even if she seems not to attract much critical support for her choices. However, ‘Possession’ is very poor, much like ‘Suburban Girl’ in 2007, another rare Gellar film that was, I concluded, somewhat less than inspiring.

Additional: Having watched the film for a second time, some of my previous criticisms no longer apply. It is, I have decided, not as bad as my initial impression of it suggested and both Sarah Michelle Gellar and Lee Pace give better performances than I had at first concluded. However, I do feel that the film fails to fire on all cylinders - it seems largely stuck in second gear and rarely gets any further than third. Perhaps my biggest criticism is that the portrayal of Ryan’s undying love for Jessica in the opening scenes comes across not so much as romantic and inspiring, but overly sentimental and even a little creepy.

Original review posted 7 March 2010 - additional comments added on 10 March 2010


...

Veronika Decides to Die

...

Rating 3


Directed by Emily Young

Written by Roberta Hanley and Larry Gross, based on the novel by Paulo Coelho

Starring Sarah Michelle Gellar (Veronika Deklava), Jonathan Tucker (Edward), David Thewlis (Dr Blake), Melissa Leo (Mari), Erika Christensen (Claire), Florencia Lozano (Dr Thompson), Erika Gimpel (Nurse White), Rena Owen (Nurse Josephine), Victor Steinbach (Veronika’s father) and Barbara Sukowa (Veronika’s mother)


Veronika attempts suicide by taking a large quantity of prescription pills mixed with alcohol. She wakes up from a coma two weeks later to discover that she is in a privately funded psychiatric hospital, paid for by her parents. She is told that the effect of the pills has caused irreparable damage to her heart and she only has weeks left to live. Her first reaction is anger and a second attempt at suicide, but then she becomes increasingly drawn towards another patient, Edward, who is very remote and never speaks, but who seems to have paid particular notice of her arrival.

...


‘Veronika Decides to Die’, directed by the British film director Emily Young, the daughter of the late political journalist Hugo Young, is based on a successful novel by the Brazilian novelist Paulo Coelho, which was first published in 1998 and has previously been adapted for the theatre several times. The 2005 Japanese film ‘Veronika wa shinu koto ni shita’ is also based on the book, which I have not read.

I approached the film with a degree of bias. I am very fond of the actress Sarah Michelle Gellar, partly because of ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’, but more so because I like her acting and I like many of her previous films, despite widespread opinion that her film career has so far failed to impress. It has often been claimed that she has done little more than appear in a succession of horror films, although in fact she has made comparatively few of these. ‘Veronika Decides to Die’ is attractively made, with some really rather good opening scenes to set the tone.

Veronika’s anger perhaps didn’t always come across as strongly as I felt it might have done and her subsequent realisation that with no future to hold her back she could do anything without the fear of consequences, at which point she began to find a reason to live, wasn’t as profound as it needed to be to avoid becoming a tab glib. The unorthodox methods of the hospital’s chief psychiatrist Dr Blake were presented in a such a subtle manner (the denouement aside) that it almost became undercooked, but David Thewlis made it work with a finely judged performance. The significance of the letter Veronika wrote after taking the pills almost seeped away without fully making its point, much like the anger she felt towards her parents and the anger she directed at herself for feeling anger towards them. Likewise, the comparisons we were invited to make between the situations of Veronika, Edward and Claire. This decidedly quiet approach to the subject almost escaped me at first, but was ultimately rather attractive and appealing.

What perhaps was lacking to some degree was a clear enough motivation for Veronika to became so quickly drawn towards Edward and he towards her, the central thrust of the story. We can, however, surmise the affinity she initially felt towards him because he had deliberately shut himself off from the world around him. She, in turn, gave him something finally to want and need, bringing him back to a point where human contact became important, but this aspect of the narrative sometimes seemed a little unfocused. Veronika’s bleak and entrenched belief that life was not worth living was, I am inclined to say, too easily changed.

The film possibly needed a bit more substance. However, my only real gripe is that I quickly guessed where the story was headed and how it would conclude and I didn’t find it an entirely satisfying end on this first viewing. Perhaps it works better in the novel.

Sarah Michelle Gellar has not had much luck since the 2004 box office hit ‘The Grudge’, making interesting choices that have failed to match the success of that film. ‘Veronika Decides to Die’ is no exception and despite being a very good film it has not so far found a distributor (or, at least, a release date) in either the US or in Britain.

The original music for the film is by Murray Gold, whose name has become familiar in recent years because of the huge success of the revived BBC television series ‘Doctor Who’. David Thewlis has had a long and successful career in films and in theatre. His partner Anna Friel recently had a lead role in the ABC Network series ‘Pushing Daisies’.

Review posted 5 December 2009


...

The Air I Breathe

…

Rating 2¾


Directed by Jieho Lee

Written by Jieho Lee and Bob DeRosa

Starring Forest Whitaker, Brendon Fraser, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Kevin Bacon, Andy Garcia, Emile Hirsch, Julie Delpy and Clark Gregg


I wrote a review of this film after I chanced to see it, “on-line” so to speak, when it was given a limited theatrical release in America at the end of January 2008. The film attracted largely negative reviews, although when it was premiered at the TriBeCa Film Festival on 29 April 2007 it had been received more favourably. Subsequently, it received the Special Jury Award at the Courmayeur Noir Film Festival in December 2007 from jury president Dario Argento, one of Italy’s most celebrated film directors.

The film has now been given a limited theatrical release in three London cinemas, providing me with the chance to see it on the “big screen” and write this second review. Once again, the reviews have been negative. In fact, British films critics have savaged the film. Steve Rose, writing about it in The Guardian newspaper, calls it, “This comically awful movie.”

Is the film really comically awful? He clearly thinks so, but his review suggests, rightly or wrongly, that he barely paid any attention to it past the first five minutes. He also refers to it making, “Matters even worse by dividing its trite fables of city life into sections entitled things like ‘Beauty’ and ‘Sorrow’.” The film is divided into four sections and these cast a light on each of the four main characters; ‘Happiness’ (Forest Whitaker), ‘Pleasure’ (Brendon Fraser), ‘Sorrow’ (Sarah Michelle Gellar) and ‘Love’ (Kevin Bacon). There is no section entitled ‘Beauty’.

Is it necessary for Rose to be able to report accurately about the content of the film to have a fair-minded negative opinion of it? Not at all. If he did not like the film it is understandable that his attention would have wondered elsewhere while watching it. In any case, his is just one of many negative reviews. Edward Porter, reviewing the film for the Sunday Times observes about the actors, “No doubt they felt good about themselves for appearing in a small, offbeat work by a first-time director; for the rest of us, however, the movie is no fun at all.” This does not tell us much about the film. It does, on the other hand, tell us something about Porter’s apparently low opinion of actors in general.

‘The Air I Breathe’ is based on an ancient Chinese proverb in which happiness, pleasure, sorrow and love represent the four cornerstones of life. We never learn the real names of the four main characters, although Sarah Michelle Gellar’s aspiring pop singer is referred to by her stage name, Trista. She refuses, however, to divulge her real name, other than to whisper it, unheard, into the ear of Brendon Fraser’s character. Sorrow is the odd one out here. The others are searching for the emotion used to describe them, but she is trying to escape it. However, all four are trapped in lives they would not choose for themselves.

The film opens with Forest Whitaker, playing ‘Happiness’, a sad and lonely bank worker who sees the happiness he seeks in the shape and form of butterflies. In his desperation to escape his seemingly empty life he comes to the attention of ‘Fingers’, a ruthless and brutal gangland boss played by Andy Garcia.

From here we meet Garcia’s enforcer and debt collector ‘Pleasure’, played by Brendon Fraser, a monosyllabic henchman who is able to see tiny glimpses of the future. This changes when Fingers forecloses on a debt and becomes the new manager of Sarah Michelle Gellar’s shallow pop starlet ‘Sorrow’. Pleasure is unable to see Sorrow’s future and this new experience, the pleasure of the unknown, is compounded when his glimpse of the immediate future of Tony (Emile Hirsch), the impulsive and distinctly repellent nephew of Fingers, proves to be a false omen of things to come. Sorrow’s redemption comes in the form of Kevin Bacon’s hospital doctor ‘Love’, who harbours unspoken feelings for Gina (Julie Delpy), the wife of his best friend.

The film tells its story in 95 minutes. The characters are ciphers. ‘Happiness’ is an interesting if somewhat glib opening sequence; greatly enhanced because Forest Whitaker is a very likeable actor. The same can be said of Brendon Fraser. This middle section of the film that combines both ‘Pleasure’ and ‘Sorrow’ is somewhat derivative and two-dimensional in terms of its depiction of the underbelly of illegal gambling and Mafia-style protection rackets. Andy Garcia is perfectly cast as Fingers, but perhaps too much so, and having this character called ‘Fingers’ is a little hackneyed, if we wish to find fault. What we do get, on the other hand, are the two most believable characters (even allowing for the ability of Pleasure to see the future) and genuine screen chemistry between Fraser and Gellar, although she is perhaps a touch too old for the role.

The film does, in truth, begin to unravel with the arrival of ‘Love’. This final section is not only too unbelievable and corny in its succession of coincidences; it also feels rushed and underdeveloped. Even the ever-dependable Kevin Bacon is unable to make much of his flimsy character.

‘The Air I Breathe’ is not a great film, but it has been pieced together with some skill and the script has been written with an attempt at a degree of originality. It also has the advantage of a skilled and likeable cast of actors. I have no qualms in saying my opinions are always at least partly subjective. I am influenced by numerous factors that will often make me biased in support of particular films. In this case, I consider myself to be a fan of the work of the actress Sarah Michelle Gellar and I am likely to look upon films she appears in more favourably than I perhaps otherwise would do.

Is ‘The Air I Breathe’ comically awful? I don’t think it is. It is not the best film I have ever seen, but it certainly isn’t the worst – by any means. If I were given to awarding star ratings out of five I think I would give this film two-and-a-half stars. Deduct the half to allow for my likely bias and two out of five is probably not unreasonable. Is it enough? Well, I think it’s good enough to make it watchable and that is more than I can say for at least one film that is widely considered to be an all-time screen classic.


Screencaps taken from smg-italia
Original review here


…

The Air I Breathe

…

Rating 2¾


Directed by Jieho Lee

Written by Jieho Lee and Bob DeRosa

Starring Forest Whitaker, Brendon Fraser, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Kevin Bacon, Andy Garcia, Emily Hirsch and Julie Delpy


First time director Jieho Lee made this film in Mexico City, although the setting is not important, since it seems to be doubling for a characterless and unnamed American city. That’s a pity. The setting might have added another layer to the story. Based on an ancient Chinese proverb, it tells the interweaving story of four characters, who individually represent happiness, pleasure, sorrow and love.

Forest Whitaker is the unremarkable office worker who gambles with his very life in search of happiness. Brendon Fraser is the henchman of a ruthless local crime boss (Andy Garcia) who begins to question his own actions and morality. His quasi-mystical gift, allowing him brief flashes of the future, is also his curse. He is pleasure and Sarah Michelle Gellar is sorrow, playing a temperamental pop star who is empty inside. Kevin Bacon’s character is a hospital doctor who seeks love, but also shies away from it.

The film unfolds in four interconnected segments. This does mean the story of each character is told in quite a short timeframe (about 25 minutes per segment). The final part in particular, concentrating on Kevin Bacon’s character, seems very rushed and underdeveloped, but the same could be said of all four characters, Brendon Fraser’s mobster perhaps excepted.

Some aspects of the story don’t quite succeed. Pleasure and Sorrow are immediately drawn to one another and we learn that they share a similar tragedy in their childhoods, seen via flashbacks. This is perhaps not explored as well as it might have been and flashbacks do tend to inhabit a fine line between being inventive and trite.

The crime boss is searching for Sorrow, but, despite his obsession, when she is in hospital he doesn’t bother to have one of his men watch her. When she winds up back in hospital, in circumstances that would be guaranteed to attract the attention of the media in these celebrity-obsessed times, he is seemingly entirely unaware of her whereabouts.

The film is well made and, as might be expected from this cast, it is well acted. Brendon Fraser, I think, is probably the pick of the bunch. The message, if there really is one, seems to be that, to quote a Neil Young song lyric, “It’s better to burn out than to fade away.” Or maybe it’s telling us that happiness, pleasure, sorrow and love are more than skin deep.

It isn’t a great film, certainly not one destined to be remembered in years to come, but it’s worth watching at least once. It doesn't cover any new ground, but the appalling reviews that announced its brief American cinema run are somewhat mystifying.



…

Suburban Girl

...

Rating 2


Directed by Marc Klein

Written by Marc Klein from the novel by Melissa Bank

Starring Sarah Michelle Gellar, Alec Baldwin, Maggie Grace, James Naughton, Jill Eikenberry and Vanessa Branch


This light romantic film, based on two chapters/stories in the Melissa Bank novel ‘The Girls Guide To Hunting and Fishing’ (‘My Old Man’ and ‘The Worst Thing a Suburban Girl Could Imagine’), is described as a romantic comedy, but that is not what it is. At the same time, it is too frothy to call a drama. It has something of the feel of lightweight 1950s films like ‘Roman Holiday’ and ‘Sabrina’, although this is not my attempt to suggest that Sarah Michelle Gellar should be thought of as the new Audrey Hepburn.

‘Suburban Girl’ had successful screenings at the TriBeCa Film Festival in April and May 2007, but was then released direct to DVD. The film is just about of cinema-release standard, despite the ridiculous wig Gellar is required to wear in the opening scene, but even with her name attached to it I don’t imagine it would have made much of an impact at the box office – and neither is it likely to make enough of an impression to rid us of the on-going misconception that she is typecast as a horror “scream queen”.

Although she is clearly too old for the role, Gellar puts in a perfectly decent performance in the role of Brett Eisenberg, a somewhat insecure and sometimes almost childlike associate editor in a small publishing firm. She is undoubtedly the best thing about the film. Alec Baldwin plays Archie Knox, the older man she falls in love with when he takes her under his wing.

The potential ick factor of the relationship between the young woman and older man is largely held at bay, although I am not sure what qualities Brett sees in Archie to make her fall for him so completely. Presumably, she is looking for a father figure; something the film vaguely touches on in her relationship with her actual father – not to mention Archie’s power, wealth and apparent sophistication. However, I cannot escape the impression that he is persistently borderline condescending and patronising, something that I also felt came across in the book.

Sarah Michelle Gellar is one of the most non-sexual actors I can bring to mind. It’s difficult to put my finger on exactly what it is, but this is something I have always felt about her. It is not intended in any way as a criticism – Gellar is an actress I like very much. However, it could get in the way of a film dealing with a romantic/sexual relationship. In the end, it doesn’t prove to be an obstacle here, even if once again I don’t really see what attracts Brett to Archie so much, although the older man taking the easy route with his young conquest is plain enough.

The film contains every cliché possible. The characters are tissue-thin, with only Brett and Archie given any kind of substance. Maggie Grace is wasted in the role of Brett’s best friend. Vanessa Branch does nothing with the role of Brett’s new, predatory editor, coming off like a caricature out of ‘Ugly Betty’, rather than someone capable of making or breaking a career in the publishing world.

I would have liked to see Brett’s relationship with her father and her family explored in more detail. There was a rather strange publicity still released prior to the DVD that shows Brett sitting in the child seat of a supermarket trolley being wheeled around a store by her father. The story references her father’s view of her as a “child”, but thankfully, this particular piece of decidedly odd imagery did not make it into the film itself.

I think the film in general would have worked better given a more serious approach. Having said that, it was easy enough to watch and I quite enjoyed it, more so in the second half when the story began to adopt a sharper tone. It’s another half-decent addition to Gellar’s portfolio of films, but I hope that one day she finds a film role to genuinely make the most of her quirky screen persona.

To put my comments into perspective, my partner thinks the films is a “sack of shit”.



...

Southland Tales

...

Rating 3½


Written and directed by Richard Kelly

Starring a cast of thousands, including Dwayne Johnson, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Seann William Scott, Justin Timberlake, Mandy Moore, Kevin Smith, Bai Ling, Holmes Osborne, Nora Dunn and Cheri Otari


Had Francis Ford Coppola been a cyber-geek and made ‘Apocalypse Now’ in 2005, rather than in the late 1970s, it would have been called ‘Southland Tales’.

That is my first impression of this strange film, Richard Kelly’s belated follow-up to his 2001 cult classic ‘Donnie Darko’.

I have also identified a touch of the Coen Brothers about it, particularly during the musical sequence featuring Justin Timberlake’s character, which put me in mind of the surreal musical-dream sequence in ‘The Big Lebowski’. There are many other films that could be referenced – I’ve heard mention of ‘Dr Strangelove’ and ‘Strange Days’. I can understand this.

I suspect the main thing that will come to mind for anyone who knows anything about ‘Southland Tales’ is the savage reaction it received when a work-in-progress copy was screened at the Cannes Film Festival in May 2006. Most critics dismissed it as an abominable disaster. Kelly re-edited the film and secured funding to complete the special effects and other post-production work. It was finally released into American cinemas in November 2007 and in Britain a little under a month later.

The reviews this time were still negative, although not as hostile. They all referred to the screening at Cannes and it does seem as if it will never now be viewed without pre-existing bias, apparently negative in most cases.

I haven’t read ‘Two Roads Diverge’, ‘Fingerprints’ and ‘The Mechanicals’, the three comic books that form the backstory to the film, except for the extracts that have turned up on-line. Having seen the film, I don’t think is necessary to do so – and having no interest in comic books, it is not something I am planning on doing. I didn’t find the film difficult to follow or think the message was particularly complicated.

Either this means I am a genius, which I most certainly am not, I am a simpleton who managed to arrive at a meaning by the very virtue of not understanding the complexity of it all, or the film is nowhere near as convoluted and difficult to follow as the critics have led us to believe. I think the last suggestion is the most likely.

It is unfocused - and I will want to watch it a few more times - but it wasn’t any more “out there” than ‘Donnie Darko’. It shares with that film references to theoretical physics, time travel and religion. What it perhaps lacks is the same emotional resonance that Kelly achieved in his first film. There was a real substance and heart to characters like Donnie and Gretchen, but that is harder to find in this new film.

It is too long. There is nothing wrong with a film lasting over two hours. Many films last over two hours. The Paul Thomas Anderson film ‘Magnolia’ is over three hours long and worth every minute. However, in the case of ‘Southland Tales’, I think twenty minutes could easily have been shaved off the running time without compromising the story. It does flirt with tedium in places and it did start to drag a little bit towards the end.

I went in biased in favour of the film, and not just because I like Sarah Michelle Gellar. I am always suspicious of very hostile reviews, which I tend to think often harbour an underlying agenda. Having said that, I was a little bit worried that the film would prove to be as bad as some of the reviewers have suggested.

At first, I wasn’t sure about all the cyber stuff. I found it distracting and visually chaotic to the eye, but I soon got used to it. The film dragged a little bit at times – and my viewing pleasure wasn’t helped by the uncomfortable cinema seat and lack of decent leg room (I am very tall). Also, someone in the audience nearby constantly crinkled sweet papers, which I found diverted my attention away from the screen. Usually, these things don’t bother me, but this is a film that does require concentration. Roll on the DVD release!


The acting is fine. I don’t have a problem with anyone, although I do find Bai Ling rather odd – and not especially likeable, to be honest. Justin Timberlake impressed me. Equally, I thought Mandy Moore did a good job. Dwayne Johnson did what was needed of him in the lead role. I thought he was very good. I also thought Seann William Scott was excellent.

I knew this wasn’t a vehicle for Sarah Michelle Gellar, but I was a little bit disappointed that we didn’t see more of her. Krysta Now is a fabulous character and when I came out of the cinema I couldn’t help but think it would have been interesting to have the whole film devoted to her. As it exists, it is not a meaty role, but once again Gellar proves that she is a decent and underrated actress.

‘Southland Tales’ is not, I suspect, a classic film. It is not a great film. At least, based on one viewing that is my initial impression. However, it is an interesting and unusual film and it is a lot better than the critics would like us to believe. Contrary to some opinion, it doesn’t prove that ‘Donnie Darko’ was a fluke.

It might be a film of limited appeal, but it cannot be faulted for its endeavour to do something unusual and thought provoking. Richard Kelly probably has stretched himself too thin here and tried to create something too ambitious, but if it is a failure, it’s a fascinating one.



...

The Grudge

...

Rating 3½


Directed by Takashi Shimizu

Written by Stephen Susco, based on 'Ju-On: The Grudge' written by Takashi Shimizu

Starring Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jason Behr, William Mapother, Clea DuVall, KaDee Strickland, Grace Zabriskie, Ted Raimi, Bill Pullman and Ryo Ishibashi


Sarah Michelle Gellar has said she was taken by surprise by the long hours films crews are expected to work in Japan, compared to their colleagues in America. Takashi Shimizu has admitted it took him a while to get used to the working practices of the American actors because it conflicted with his usual working methods. He has also said he was initially surprised that Gellar took such a keen interest in every aspect of the filming process because Japanese actors are not expected to have much involvement in the production other than acting their parts in accordance with the instructions of the director. Gellar has said everyone was extremely polite and kind to her, but she did quickly notice that members of the film crew seemed slightly uncomfortable when she asked them questions -- and Shimizu would look on with benign amusement when she made suggestions to him about various things.

“In Japan actors and actresses can work all day. As long as we put them in a taxi and they get home safely after working, that’s fine. But here, American actors have only a certain amount of hours they can work in a day; then that’s it. It was really hard for me to work around that -- the scheduling, the timing -- with those actors. Other than that, the actors themselves were great. It was a really great experience for me to work with them.”
Takashi Shimizu: horror.com

Gellar was the last of the American actors to be cast. She says a friend sent her the script together with a DVD copy of ‘Ju-on: The Grudge’, which she found waiting for her when she returned home from a brief vacation. She read the script and watched the DVD that same evening and personally contacted Sam Raimi the following day, making known her interest in the central role of Karen Davis. Raimi has confirmed this story, saying he was initially reluctant because he didn’t think the budget would accommodate her involvement. However, she persisted, and Raimi claims it was her unrestrained enthusiasm about the film and her willingness to audition for the role that eventually won him over.

‘The Grudge’ had a $10 million production budget. Executives at Sony Pictures Entertainment later stated that their ‘best scenario’ prediction was for a $15 million opening weekend. The final worldwide gross exceeded $187 million, making it one of the most profitable films of 2004.

When I read the shocking reviews ‘The Grudge’ received I am absolutely mystified. As ever, there were some good reviews, but many dismissed the film as a worthless piece of garbage. Gellar came in for a lot of criticism for her performance. Roger Ebert has been quite supportive of some of Gellar’s films in the past, but he considers ‘The Grudge’ to be one of the worst ten films of 2004. I don’t agree with this, but it’s a perfectly valid, if subjective, opinion. However, in his review of the film he claimed the non-linear timeline employed in the narrative is impossible to follow. I find it surprising coming from a film critic and writer of Ebert’s experience and reputation.


“The Grudge has a great opening scene, I’ll grant you that. Bill Pullman wakes up next to his wife, greets the day from the balcony of their bedroom, and then - well, I, for one, was gob-smacked. I’m not sure how this scene fits into the rest of the movie, but then I’m not sure how most of the scenes fit into the movie… I eventually lost all patience. The movie may have some subterranean level on which the story strands connect and make sense, but it eluded me.”
Roger Ebert: Chicago Sun Times

There is not a great deal of difference between ‘Ju-on: The Grudge’ (Shimizu’s Japanese original) and the American-financed remake. I think the original is the better of the two films. It has an atmosphere that is both foreboding and alien. Compensating for this, the remake does attempt to show that the American characters feel a sense of displacement within Japanese culture and I think this works very well, although there is no great emphasis placed on it. In both films the characters are merely part of the fabric of the story. Their presence and personalities always remain very sketchy as they are sucked into the unfolding horror. This is very deliberate, but it’s one of the things that some critics reacted against.

“…The pacing is so slow and the actors so numb and uninvolved that the horror elements are lost in a fog of dullness. Lo and behold! Gellar cannot act. Miraculously coasting up until now, The Grudge solidifies Gellar’s status as an actress in need of acting lessons. Instead of expressing emotions, she makes amateur grimaces. She is not in touch with her character. In fact, no one is. And, since for the first half of the movie the camera is trained on Gellar’s frozen face, this is not good. The most important expression in a horror movie – fear - is never seen… Is Karen happy in Japan? Does she like her job? What are her feelings about weird things? Is she a survivor? Is she smart or just a dumb young lady getting by in Tokyo? Gellar is out of her element here.”
Victoria Alexander: Films in Review

All the performances in ‘The Grudge’ (and in ‘Ju-on: The Grudge’) are quite similar. There is a kind of ennui that envelops each character. It could be argued, as many critics who reviewed ‘The Grudge’ have done, that this is simply down to bad acting. On the other hand, it might be suggested that these actors are giving the performances asked of them by the director, who is attempting to create a very specific atmosphere in the film. Effectively, it’s a mood piece.

I must make a special mention of Ryo Ishibashi, in the role of Detective Nakagawa. I think this is a great performance. Ishibashi imbues his character with a quiet dignity, but also a sense of sadness and resignation about the inevitability of the terrible events that are unfolding around him.

Maybe it’s just me, but I think this is a really good film.



...

Scooby Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed

...

Rating 2½


Directed by Raja Gosnell

Written by James Gunn, based on the characters created by William Hanna and Joseph Barbera

Starring Sarah Michelle Gellar, Freddie Prinze Jr, Matthew Lillard, Linda Cardellini, Alicia Silverstone, Seth Green and Peter Boyle


The second ‘Scooby Doo’ film went on general release in America in March 2004. It failed to perform as well as the studio had anticipated, but still grossed $181 million at the box office. However, with a production budget thought to have been as high as $80 million and with a box office take $100 million short of the first film, it was deemed in some quarters to have been a flop. Having said this, to claim that ‘Scooby Doo 2’ was a box office disaster, as some have suggested, is, I think, stretching the truth just a little bit.

Sarah Michelle Gellar was very quick to announce that she would not be involved in a third film. She also seemed very half-hearted during her promotional duties, happier to enthuse about her time in Japan and how she was really excited about ‘The Grudge’. Subsequently, she has been very specific about saying that she was contractually obligated to make a second ‘Scooby Doo’ film, but now that she no longer has a commitment to a TV show she has greater freedom to pick and choose her film roles, allowing her to pursue more off-beat, quirky projects that really interest her. However, she did fly over to Britain to attend the London premiere.

What do I think of ‘Scooby Doo 2’? In truth, it has very little to recommend it. What we get is one noisy, special effect laden set piece after another. Matthew Lillard was great fun to watch in the first film, but he does become a little bit irritating here at times. It isn’t a particular good film, but it’s harmless fun and I still like it.

What can I say; I’m a sucker for Sarah Michelle Gellar films!



...

Scooby Doo: The Movie

...

Rating 3


Directed by Raja Gosnell

Written by James Gunn and Craig Titley, based on the characters created by William Hanna and Joseph Barbera

Starring Sarah Michelle Gellar, Freddie Prinze Jr, Mathhew Lillard, Linda Cardellini, Isla Fisher and Rowen Atkinson


Let’s get the facts and figures out of the way first. ‘Scooby Doo’ went on general release in America in June 2002, one month after the release of another Sarah Michelle Gellar film, ‘Harvard Man’. It had a sizeable production budget, said to have been in the region of $60 million, and generated a $276 million box office gross.

The film opened to generally appalling reviews, although as ever some film critics liked it, content to view it for what it is. Gellar later admitted in interviews that she was hurt by some of the comments she had read and had taken the criticism very personally. Most people agreed that the casting of the four main characters was at least on the button, with special mention being made of Matthew Lillard’s scarily accurate portrayal of Shaggy.

I think this is a perfectly decent film that actually could have been really good. Proof of this can been seen in the deleted scenes featured on the DVD. Had these had been kept in the film I think it would have been much better. It is what is: a big, loud, dumb, live-action version of an affectionately remembered kid’s cartoon. Where it falls down is that it gets trapped between two stools. It can’t quite decide if it wants to appeal to adults who might be attracted to it because they have fond memories of the cartoon from their childhoods or simply go straight for the kid’s market. In the final analysis, it doesn’t quite get the balance right.

I was a fan of ‘Scooby Doo’ when I was young and I like both Gellar and Matthew Lillard, so I am already biased towards it. I will say that the farting scene bores me senseless. Farting is no doubt hilariously funny, if you happen to be five-years-old. After that the humour of it does start to wear off a little bit and this particular scene seems to go on and on and on interminably.

As it is, the film is still absolutely fine in its own unapologetic way. In the end, it’s just a fun film. I have an enormous capacity to watch films like this and I enjoyed it. There is no point expecting a cinematic classic. For goodness sake’s, it is ‘Scooby Doo’!



...

Harvard Man

...

Rating 4


Written and directed by James Toback

Starring Adrien Grenier, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Joey Lauren Adams, Eric Stoltz, Rebecca Gayheart and John Neville


“The money to make ‘Harvard Man’ came into place after she came aboard, but not once did she try to exploit her centrality to the financing of the movie. A lot of times in cases like this, actors will be quick to point out on the first day of shooting that they’re the reason the film got financing and that it’s their show... Not so with Sarah, and she was well aware that she was the deciding factor in getting the film’s $6 million budget approved.”
James Toback

“I made ‘Harvard Man’ for personal reasons. I wanted to challenge myself; I wanted to work with Jim. And I had a great time.”
Sarah Michelle Gellar

James Toback is a New York-based independent filmmaker whose first film (as a scriptwriter) was made in 1974. He has subsequently followed an erratic career as a writer and director. His single brush with the mainstream was his script for ‘Bugsy’, but he is probably most celebrated for his collaborations with the electrifying actor Robert Downey Jr on films such as ‘The Pick-up Artist’ and ‘Black and White’. Toback has his supporters, but he has never really been a consistent critics’ favourite and much of his career has been pursued in semi-obscurity.

Sarah Michelle Gellar is a fan of his films. Allegedly against the advice of her agent, she helped to resurrect ‘Harvard Man’, a surreal autobiographical film script that was once given the green light with Leonardo DiCaprio in the lead role. When DiCaprio pulled out, having been cast in ‘Titanic’, the film was shelved.

Toback, who has been described as a compulsive gambler, a theme of several of his films, and once taught English at the City College of New York, loosely based the script on his experiences in the mid 1960’s when he was studying at Harvard for a degree in philosophy. Specifically, it is based on his drug experimentation. He suffered a severe psychotic episode after ingesting a huge quantity of LSD to find out what would happen. Into this autobiographical theme, he adds a surreal subplot about a tornado in Kansas (the reference to ‘The Wizard of Oz’ is obvious), promiscuous sexual behaviour, illegal gambling, the fixing of a college basketball game, and various shenanigans involving the FBI and the Mafia. Gellar plays Cindy Bandolini, the dangerously amoral daughter of a notorious Mafia boss.

The film was finally released in America in May 2002, one month prior to the release of the first ‘Scooby Doo’ film, and had a box office gross of just over $56,000. It remains, in my opinion, possibly the best film Gellar has made to date.

“For me, it wasn't kinky, it was awkward. Jim’s movies are sexually free… but he never asked me to push the line. He was always incredibly respectful. I’m not in a place where I’m comfortable doing nudity… What’s sexy is when sex is left to the imagination. I love when it’s implied. I roll my eyes and yawn at gratuitous sex.”
Sarah Michelle Gellar

The actual plot is outrageously far-fetched, but it doesn’t purport to be anything else and is filmed with all the usual Toback trademarks: eccentric editing, split-screen multi-scenes, uneven pacing, sketchy characterisation, weird story structuring and bizarre dialogue centred around philosophical discourse. It’s what happens after the plot has been established that is really surreal. The film begins to concentrate on Alan’s (the lead character based on Toback) acid trip.

The world as he sees it becomes a nightmare of melting faces, figures walking out of paintings and becoming real and constant swirling voices in his head that multiply and grow into an unbearable cacophony of sound. While this happens, the existing plot continues to unfold. He is being pursued by the FBI, two comical Mafia hitmen, Cindy (Gellar) and Chesney (his philosophy lecturer and lover). Everything is strange and fragmented, intended to heighten and emphasise Alan’s descent into drug-induced temporary insanity.


Toback seems to have deliberately cast the film with several actors who are unsuited to their roles – and he provides them with idiosyncratic personality traits and places them in entirely implausible scenarios. For instance, Joey Lauren Adams is not the first person you might think of to play a philosophy lecturer at Harvard University and Sarah Michelle Gellar doesn’t immediately come to mind as perfect casting for the daughter of a Mafia boss. To emphasise this even more, Toback cast Gianni Russo, who appeared in the first two ‘Godfather’ films, as her father. Eric Stoltz and Rebecca Gayheart are the most unlikely FBI agents this side of David Duchovny’s transvestite character in ‘Twin Peaks’ and the jittery Adrian Grenier doesn’t exactly have an obvious physique for a star basketball player, even at college level.

Many film critics were hostile towards the film and pointed to the casting as evidence that Toback is a hopeless and wilful incompetent. Others applauded him for the bravery of his casting, observing that it worked to the advantage of the film because it confounds the expectations of the audience and is suited to the surreal and improbable scenario into which the characters had been placed.

I think ‘Harvard Man’ is genuinely a quite brilliant film, although I fully appreciate that it would not be to all tastes. As I’ve already mentioned, it is probably the best film Gellar has made so far, although not necessarily my favourite. However, I have watched it on half-a-dozen occasions and I continue to come away impressed every time.



...

Cruel Intentions

...

Rating 3


Directed by Roger Kumble

Written by Roger Kumble from the book Les Liaisons dangereuses by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos

Starring Ryan Phillippe, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Reese Witherspoon, Selma Blair, Joshua Jackson, Eric Mabius and Tara Reid


This is the film that good proportion of Sarah Michelle Gellar’s hardcore fanbase loves and the comparatively low box office gross can perhaps be explained in part by the fact that it was given an ‘R’ rating in America, making it largely inaccessible to a sizeable number of her fanbase at the time. Having said that, Gellar does have an erratic box office history, being best known for her lead role in the cult television series ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’, and the substantial success of the 2005 film ‘The Grudge’ was probably largely down to a fluke of timing.

‘Cruel Intentions’ is probably best known for the so-called lesbian kiss. I have always assumed this scene is included in the film primarily as a means to generate publicity and provide a bit of titillation. It was a very clever piece of tacky manipulation and it worked.

What do I think of the film? To be honest, I can never fully make my mind up about it. It’s a clever take on ‘Dangerous Liaisons’, although I’ve always found the final scene rather shockingly over-cooked. It’s perhaps a little bit too flashy and superficial for my liking, although I hardly fall within the demographic of its key target audience.

Gellar would subsequently be criticised by her detractors for her next project, ‘Harvard Man’, but ‘Cruel Intentions’ is undoubtedly a more ethically debatable film and I think the character she plays here is far more sexually provocative. Gellar’s performance certainly taps into her character’s loneliness and emptiness. There is a real sense that Kathryn feels she has been abandoned and is inwardly crying out for someone to genuinely love her. Although she is a dangerously manipulative sexual predator, she is also strangely childlike. Whether or not this is something that successfully comes across to many fans of the film is a moot point. Are they interested in Kathryn’s motivations for her actions or do they just enjoy watching her at her most maliciously scheming, something the film undoubtedly encourages?

It has, in the past, been noted that she is playing against type in ‘Cruel Intentions’, meaning that she is playing a character quite unlike Buffy. And yet there were tribulations to secure the ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ role. The producers, so it has been said, had some qualms about Joss Whedon’s plans to hire her, arguing, amongst other things, that he would be casting her ‘against type’ because of her three-year role in the daytime soap opera ‘All My Children’; the scheming and malicious Kendall Hart.

‘Cruel Intentions’ received very disparate reviews. Some critics thought it utterly reprehensible and calculatingly tacky. Terry Lawson, writing in the Detroit Free Press, described it as “vile and vacuous.” John R McEwen of The Republican makes clear that his intense dislike of Gellar in ‘Simply Irresistible’ was no one-off (and maybe suggests that his antipathy has deeper roots than a simple criticism of her acting skills).

“I thought Gellar was bad in Simply Irresistible, but watching her make pastries is infinitely more enjoyable than squirming through her attempt at evil refinement. Apart from spreading her legs and opening her blouse, her portrayal of Kathryn contains nothing that is remotely impressive… The performances by Witherspoon and Blair are not terrible, but they can’t save the film from Gellar.”

Once again, though, the respected veteran film critic Roger Ebert was much more amenable to both the film and Gellar’s performance.

“The movie is at its best in the scenes between Gellar and Phillippe, who develop a convincing emotional charge, and whose wickedness seems to work as a sexual stimulant. There’s one scene where she persuades him, emotionally and physically, to do what she wants, and we are reminded that slow, subtle eroticism is after all possible in the movies - even though recently it has been replaced by callisthenics. Gellar is effective as a bright girl who knows exactly how to use her act as a tramp, and Phillippe seems cold and detached enough to make it interesting when he finally gets skewered by the arrow of true love. The best parts of the movie allow us to see how good it might all have been with a little more care...”
Roger Ebert: Chicago Sun Times



...

Simply Irresistible

...

Rating 3½


Directed by Mark Tarlov

Written by Judith Roberts

Starring Sarah Michelle Gellar, Sean Patrick Flanery, Patricia Clarkson and Dylan Baker


‘Simply Irresistible’ is, as far as most people who have seen it are concerned, a turkey -- and I absolutely adore it!

During her break following the end of production on the second season of ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’, Gellar filmed ‘Cruel Intentions’ in New York City and then joined the production of ‘Vanilla Fog’, a romantic comedy, also shot in the city. To ensure that filming was completed before Gellar’s commitment to the third season of ‘Buffy’, the first-unit production was wrapped-up very quickly. The intention was always that the film be ready for release in February 1999 to coincide with Valentine’s Day and cash-in on Gellar’s increasing “teen appeal”, which was then at its peak.

With a change of title to ‘Simply Irresistible’ (personally, I think they should have stuck with the original), the film opened in America on 5 February 1999 and had a domestic box office gross of less than $4.5 million, against a budget of $6 million. Oddly enough, the target audience for ‘Simply Irresistible’ was probably largely stolen by the Freddie Prinze Jr film ‘She’s All That’, a film in which Gellar makes a cameo appearance, which was released one week earlier and went on to pull in $103 million at the box office.

‘Simply Irresistible’ was written by a film industry lawyer and first-time writer, Judith Roberts, and directed by her husband Mark Tarlov, a former speech writer for the Chief Justice and producer of the films ‘Mortal Thoughts’, ‘Serial Mom’ and ‘Copycat’. Gellar has subsequently said she made a mistake signing to make the film, giving a number of reasons including the fact that she was simply too young and ill-equipped at that time for the role. There is undoubtedly some justification in her comments but I do think she is being overly self-critical. Its weaknesses are very evident, but this film really isn’t all that bad.

With a few exceptions, critics didn’t savage the film, although there were the predictable comments that it was ‘simply resistible’. Whoever came up with the change of title really should have seen that one coming. They merely gave it muted reviews, pointing out that it’s very derivative (several made reference to the similarities to ‘Like Water for Chocolate’) and meanders along without ever really going anywhere. Gellar, in general, got fairly good notices, although there were critics who took the opportunity to really stick the knife in.

“A graduate of the head-tossing school of acting with no depth and the emotional palette of a tuna fish, Gellar is not suited for the romantic lead… It is astonishing that Gellar, apparently unable to produce any range of emotion at all, was chosen by director Tarlov as the lead in this highly emotional story. But perhaps it was intentional; maybe we’re supposed to guess her feelings by her food, in the absence of any other clues… The love story of Simply Irresistible is satisfying in an offbeat way, and the film is visually mouth-watering, but the terrible juvenile Gellar’s lacklustre performance brings it down several steps from what it could and should be.”
John R McEwen: The Republican


So what’s it about? It will hardly come as a surprise to learn that it’s a bog standard rom-com storyline. Two people from very different backgrounds meet and fall in love. They become estranged (in this case, he thinks she’s a witch), but circumstances conspire to bring them back together and everyone lives happily ever after.

The celebrated New York fashion designer Todd Oldham designed Gellar’s wardrobe for the film. His designs were criticised for being wilfully garish and idiosyncratic, but they are typical of his style. I really like them, not that I could exactly be called a fashion expert! They do fit in nicely with the autumnal setting and the many visual references to Art Deco to be found in film. These days, Oldham has turned his attention to furniture design.

‘Simply Irresistible’ is not a great film. It is probably not even a very good film. However, it certainly isn’t a terrible film by any stretch of the imagination and it is genuinely and unashamedly warm-hearted. Gellar is very engaging in the lead role. It’s not an acting tour-de-force by any means, but it’s a nicely judged performance that plays to many of her strengths as an actor. She possesses something of the magnetic quality that many of the iconic film stars have, although I am not suggesting for one moment that she falls within this category. However, she does genuinely have the ability to project a very strong presence in front of the camera. What is perhaps lacking here is much in the way of any real chemistry with her co-star Sean Patrick Flanery.

In the end, had more time been spent polishing the script, had the production not been so rushed and had the ‘magic conduit’ not been a crab seemingly controlled by puppet-strings (I am not joking), ‘Simply Irresistible’ would have undoubtedly been a better film. Aiming a ‘grown-up’ rom-com at a teenage audience was perhaps a mistake, but the film was trying to cash-in on two affordable young actors who were both creating names for themselves in TV shows at the time. It is what it is and it has its own genuine charm.

“Simply Irresistible is old-fashioned and obvious, yes, like a featherweight comedy from the 1950s, but that’s the charm. I love movies that cut loose from the moorings of the possible and dance among their fancies… It’s not a great movie, but it’s a charmer.”
Roger Ebert: Chicago Sun Times

The picture scans from 'Simply Irrestistible' used here were scanned by Jules for smg-pix.com



...

Scream 2

...

Rating 3


Directed by Wes Craven

Written by Kevin Williamson

Starring Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courtney Cox, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Rebecca Gayheart and Portia de Rossi


“I didn’t have to push very hard because we fell in love with her, too. It’s a juicy little part and she’s rocking. I want her in every one of my movies because you know when you hire her to do a job she’s not going to be in her trailer complaining about everything. She’s going to be right out there giving you the tenth take in the freezing cold.”
Kevin Williamson (talking about Sarah Michelle Gellar)

‘Scream 2’ was released in America in December 1997 and took $172 million at the box office, making it the fourteenth biggest box office hit of the year. Sarah Michelle Gellar comes in for quite a lot of criticism online and her films are often alleged to have been flops, commercially as well as artistically. I fully accept that the box office success of a film is no indication of its artistic worth but I’m just putting the record straight.

Gellar is not a big star and I have serious doubts that she will ever join the ranks of the so-called Hollywood ‘A-list’. However, overall she actually has one of the best box office records of any female actor working in Hollywood at the moment. Having said that, I appreciate that she is not the actual reason why films like ‘I Know What You Did Last Summer’ and ‘Scream 2’ were successful at the box office. She does bring a fanbase with her, but she is certainly not the over-riding factor when assessing the box-office performance of genre films like this; films that already have a built-in audience. In any case, at the time these films were made Neve Campbell and Jennifer Love Hewitt were undoubtedly equally well known and popular.

Gellar’s role in ‘Scream 2’, playing Casey ‘Cici’ Cooper, is a small one, but it’s also one of the highlights of the film. I like it but I do think it’s just a bit too knowingly clever-clever at times. For me, it’s not close to being as good as the first film, which, of course, has the added attraction of Drew Barrymore, who I have a great deal of time for, and a rollicking, over-the-top performance by the wonderful Matthew Lillard.



...

I Know What You Did Last Summer

...

Rating 3½


Directed by Jim Gillespie

Written by Kevin Willimason from the book by Lois Duncan

Starring Jennifer Love Hewitt, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Ryan Phillippe and Freddie Prinze Jr


‘I Know What You Did Last Summer’ was released in America in October 1997, one month after the start of the second season of ‘Buffy’.

Written by Kevin Williamson (the creator of ‘Dawson’s Creek’) and coming on the back of the enormous critical and commercial success of his film ‘Scream’, this one received mixed reviews at the time but was a sizeable box office hit, grossing just under $126 million. Opinion about the film seems to have become increasingly negative in the years since then; partly because Williamson’s reputation has declined, partly because slasher-movies in general are to some extent out of fashion, but largely I suspect because the main cast (Sarah Michelle Gellar, Jennifer Love Hewitt and Freddie Prinze Jr in particular) have all become somewhat contentious figures in recent years.

This is not a piece of high-art cinema but it’s a perfectly decent and well-acted film. In fact, I would be inclined to count it amongst my own personal favourites. Gellar and Ryan Phillippe, in particular, both give excellent performances. Although Gellar’s character, Helen Shivers, is vacuous and self-absorbed, Gellar successfully taps into her vulnerability, especially after her friendship with Julie (Jennifer Love Hewitt) has been irreconcilably damaged.

The film also features Anne Heche, who I happen to like. She might have had her troubled moments, but that has got nothing to do with her talents as an actor. Also, a favourite band of mine, Southern Culture On The Skids, is briefly featured during the beach party scene, another reason why I feel pre-disposed towards the film.



...

The Return

...

Rating 3½


Directed by Asif Kapadia

Written by Adam Sussman

Starring Sarah Michelle Gellar, Peter O'Brien, Adam Scott and Sam Shepard


The numerous reviews and many of the posting board comments made by people suggest that, with ‘The Return’, Sarah Michelle Gellar has made yet another nondescript, pointless, bland, utterly non-scary horror film for “teenage girls who don’t like horror films” (a criticism also directed at ‘The Grudge’ and one that I think displays blatant sexism), and has given another woeful performance in which the nearest she comes to acting is employing her “thousand yard stare”.

This is absolutely true, except in just about every aspect of the interpretation. ‘The Return’ is not a horror film. To give them their due, Rogue Pictures have never described it as such. They called it a “psychological thriller”. However, the marketing clearly tried to link it to ‘The Grudge’, which wasn’t a great idea, although I suspect it didn’t make a lot of difference to the box office performance, which stands at around $10 million.

As to Gellar’s performance, I would describe it as detached and uninvolved. However, it was not intended as a criticism, as I will explain, although I can understand why people who don’t like Gellar or don’t like her acting style might resort to the “thousand yard stare” jibe.

‘The Return’ has clearly been tinkered with, probably at the insistence of the studio following the test screenings. It could well be that they concluded there was a need to make a film that would appeal to the same audience that went to see ‘The Grudge’ - and to Gellar’s fanbase. That being the case, they made a mistake. ‘The Grudge’ was a fluke, the right film at the right moment, but that audience isn’t a constant. To all intents and purposes it doesn’t really exist now (the first film grossed nearly $200 million at the box office, but the sequel levelled out at $65 million). Gellar’s core fanbase more or less will watch anything she is in, but perhaps isn’t anywhere near as big as the box office performance of some of her previous films would suggest.

‘The Return’ does not impress as a “great” film – whether it be something like ‘Kiss Kiss Bang Bang’ that immediately dazzled on a surface level because of a great acting partnership between Val Kilmer and Robert Downey Jr, both firing on all cylinders, or ‘Junebug’, thanks to a tremendous and at the time unexpected performance by Amy Adams, or ‘Mulholland Drive’, which might not be to all tastes, but is a certainly a great film.

None of this means that ‘The Return’ does not have any merit, although the vast majority of reviews would suggest it is utterly worthless. Even a vaguely positive review such as the one that appeared in The Guardian Guide described it as, “Artfully done but fairly generic.” The Guardian’s senior film critic Peter Bradshaw, on the other hand, thought the film to be worthless in every way, based, I suspect, on his hatred of new Hollywood horror films and his dismissal of Gellar as an actress utterly devoid of any redeeming qualities.

I’ve watched ‘The Return’ several times now and enjoy it a great deal. That doesn’t really mean very much. I’m entirely biased and even without the presence of Gellar it would still be the kind of film I like. It has its faults. It’s not giving us anything new, if that is deemed to be a fault. A word frequently used in reviews is “generic”. The studio required director Asif Kapadia to dramatically trim down his original version, to the extent that several clips used in the trailer don’t actually appear in the film at all.

I have to admit I am hoping the DVD will carry some deleted scenes that help to give more of a flavour of what Kapadia originally intended, or that there is a “director’s cut”, although I suspect that is extremely unlikely. Having said that, I thought the film worked rather well. It’s very compact and it doesn’t outstay its welcome.

Gellar’s character Joanna Mills is in virtually every single scene, which isn’t exactly a hardship from my point of view. This character aside, the others are sketchy at best and some come and go in no more than one or two brief scenes that perhaps leave little more than the very vaguest impression of their purpose, always to provide us with more information about Joanna. In that respect, it certainly isn’t a great character study. There isn’t a huge amount of dialogue.

We learn that Joanna is, to all intents and purposes, estranged from her father (played by Sam Shepard, who is certainly underused, although his presence adds a little bit of gravitas to the film). They are clearly uncomfortable around each other and don’t communicate well. We also learn that Joanna had apparently been in an abusive relationship, and it is suggested she was a willing participant at one time, although it’s somewhat underdeveloped and vague. There is a lot of that in the film and perhaps it is intentional, allowing us to pull together unfocused snippets of clues to form an impression of this character as the mystery slowly unravels. It’s probably not entirely successful, but that might be a consequence of the cuts.

Gellar’s performance here is very much in keeping with the performances she gave in late ‘Buffy’ and in ‘The Grudge’. Joanna shares with Buffy and Karen a detachment from the world around her, a sense of not belonging, which she projects almost as a kind of melancholia. Gellar portrays the detachment by stripping everything back and giving a perfomances that suggests she is not involved in what is happening around her. I think it works very well. Obviously, a lot people would disagree with that.

Joanna cuts herself – there is a specific reason for this within the context of the storyline, although it’s not one she knows herself. At first we see a nearly healed cut on her upper leg, with no reference to how she got it. Later on, she wakes up in a barren field in a wintery rural Texas landscape and the cut has been re-opened. It is clear that she has lost time, several hours it appears. Finally, we do see her cut herself, apparently while she is hallucinating. I already knew about this aspect of Joanna’s personality. I’d seen some stills and I’d read an interview with Gellar in which she said it was one of the things that first drew her to the character, because she saw it as a challenge to portray.

I didn’t give it much thought, but I suppose I expected something intense and violent. Instead, Gellar plays it with a kind of detached disinterest. She’s got a knife and she cuts herself in a decidedly non-aggressive way (although the act itself always has a degree of aggression to it, the desire to self-harm) and seemingly she’s virtually unaware that she’s doing it. The first time I watched the film I was inclined to think that just maybe she could have been a bit more animated about it. The second time I felt differently, concluding that Gellar approached this in exactly the right way for the character she was playing. Quite frankly, I have no idea how people go about cutting themselves and what prompts it, but I’m sure it is not all about extreme and aggressive Ricky Edwards-style “4-Real” statements made for the benefit of idiot music critics.

Perhaps Gellar’s detached under-stated performance doesn’t quite allow her to project the fact that Joanna is seriously screwed up. She deliberately takes a job that puts her constantly on the road, meaning that she never has to face up to the need to settle down somewhere and make some kind of stable life for herself. As I’ve already mentioned, it would seem that she had been in a relationship in which she allowed herself to be physically abused. She routinely cuts herself. Her relationship with her father, who is apparently her only family member, is non-existent. A more animated performance would have brought a different dynamic to the character, but the juxtaposition between this person who detaches herself from everything around her and is effectively always running away and the same person who becomes obsessed with solving a mystery that she barely even knows how to make sense of is interesting.

The one scene in which Gellar didn’t entirely convince me was when she was making a hard sell to a particularly difficult and hard-nosed potential client on behalf of the trucking company she works for. It wasn’t so much the performance, just the ease with which she was apparently able to convince him - she neither “looked” nor “sounded” the part.

Visually the film looks great. I think Gellar carries it very well, without giving a really meaty performance that demands attention. Although she is supposed to have grown up in Texas and is now based out of St Louis she makes no attempt at a Texan accent, which I personally think is by far the best approach unless you really can pull off the accent. The numerous American actors who seem intent on subjecting us to an Oirish accent at least once in the career might want to take note.

The acting is absolutely fine throughout. As I’ve mentioned, there is perhaps a sense that Sam Shepard is underused. The Australian actor Peter O’Brien, in his first American film, gives a perfectly decent performance in a role that doesn’t give him much to work with. He looks great, in a grizzled handsome-ugly way.

The closing scene is nicely low-key, harking back to 70’s American cinema and films like ‘The Long Goodbye’, although it perhaps doesn’t warrant too much deliberation. A part of me cannot escape the thought that it’s potentially just a little bit icky.



...