As a Civilian, a Veteran Saves Lives in a Different Way

Joaquin Phoenix in "You Were Never Really Here"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

Thrillers of any kind that take place in an urban area are always enticing to watch.  Whether they be slow-burners or fast-paced stories, having such narratives in these types of locations offers the chance to go through a vast world as you traverse crowded streets, alleyways, grit, and grime while meeting many different characters.  Martin Scorsese’s “Taxi Driver” is a definitive example of this.  Since then, some modern examples include David Fincher’s “Seven,” Ben Affleck’s “The Town,” and Ben and Josh Safdie’s “Good Time.”

Now, director Lynne Ramsay provides us with a descent into an urban underworld with her film “You Were Never Really Here,” a heavy, visceral thriller that’s guided by Ramsay’s deep psychological examination of her main character and a top-tier performance from Joaquin Phoenix.  And, while the film may seem like it’s similar to “Taxi Driver,” there’s enough that’s different about it to help it stand on its own.

Joe (Phoenix) is a former FBI agent and combat veteran who lives in New York City and works as a hired gun to save girls from trafficking.  When he’s tasked with rescuing the abducted daughter (Ekaterina Samsonov) of a New York State Senator (Alex Manette), he soon realizes that there’s a larger conspiracy at play.

Phoenix delivers a remarkable performance as a man who’s experienced much distress in his life.  While Phoenix’s given scenes where his character has dialogue, he’s given almost just as many scenes where he doesn’t have any, the latter scenes of which fit with the loner mentality that seems to come from the effects that Joe’s past has had on him.  This aspect of Phoenix’s character helps us to sympathize with Joe and understand through what he’s going.  Phoenix makes the audience work for the knowledge of Joe’s background, which is something that wouldn’t have been as rewarding to figure out had Joe just been a ferocious justice-seeker without any depth to his character.   

One of the most intriguing parts of Phoenix’s role is how we learn quite a bit from his character just from a close-up of a jelly bean being crushed between his thumb and index finger.  This relates to Joe seeming to always have violence on his mind.  With this, we feel for Joe because, despite him using his abilities for good, it’s as if violence is engrained in him, and we’re left to wonder what kind of effect this has on him psychologically.  This all adds to the complexity of his character that keeps you absorbed in the movie.

The screenplay by Ramsay, which is based on the 2013 novella by Jonathan Ames, provides occasional glimpses into Joe’s past, which give us an idea of from where his thirst for exacting justice stems.  We understand that Phoenix’s character has a valid reason for going after these criminals and committing acts of violence, but we also have to realize that Joe’s reasoning comes from things he’s seen in his past and that he might not be mentally sound.  This all leads to a hard-hitting commentary on veterans and PTSD, which gives us clues as to why he became a vigilante.  This also touches upon that, despite his abilities, he’s not being able to save everyone, which is something that’s seen with heart-rending effect.

Just as Ramsay accomplished with her last film, “We Need to Talk About Kevin,”  she touches upon the brutal violence that can come out of everyday people and explores their psyches to figure out what drives them to these acts.  And, for the most part, we don’t see the actual violence in this film, only the aftermath.  This is an intriguing choice by Ramsay because it’s as if she wishes to protect the viewer from the psychological damage of experiencing the harsh acts of violence to which Joe has become accustomed, both before and after he became a hired gun.

“You Were Never Really Here” is a film whose effects linger in your bones.  It takes you to a place where there doesn’t seem to be much hope, but offers hints of it from time to time.  

Final grade: A

When Sound is Deadly, the World Lives in Silence

From left: Noah Jupe, Millicent Simmonds, and John
Krasinski in "A Quiet Place"
Photo credit: RottenTomatoes.com

A talented film director can come from anywhere.  What’s even more impressive is when a recognized name who isn’t known for filmmaking astounds us all and delivers something great.  For me, it’s most-notable when a filmmaker’s fresh talents emerge with the horror genre because it’s one of those genres where you can’t imagine just anyone having a chance at directing a movie.  This is what happened last year when writer-director Jordan Peele surprised us with his horror film, “Get Out.” 

Well, a horror movie has come from an unlikely individual once again; this time, with “The Office” alum John Krasinski, director and co-writer for “A Quiet Place.”  While he has two small indie films on his résumé as a director, it seems as though his filmmaking has taken off with his latest film.  Strengthened by an intriguing premise and strong emotional beats, this is a movie that shows Krasinski as a director with possibilities. 

In a post-apocalyptic world, survivors go by one rule: live in silence.  They must do so in order to avoid monsters who hunt by sound.  A father (Krasinski), mother (Emily Blunt), and their children (Millicent Simmons, Noah Jupe, and Cade Woodward) live on a farm outside of a deserted town and alter their lives to make as little noise as possible.

Given the film’s concept, the cast only has a couple of quick scenes where they use dialogue at a normal level; whereas, throughout the rest of the film, they have to use sign language and near-inaudible whispers.  Because of this, they have to mostly rely on their facial expressions and sign language to let the emotions come through, and the whole cast does superb work with this.

Having Krasinski and his wife (Blunt) portray a married couple in the film adds some authenticity to the family bonds.  Because of this, they don’t have any trouble in conveying an endearing, heartfelt bond, despite it being mostly done without dialogue.

Just like how Krasinski builds authenticity in the cast by acting alongside his wife, what also helps in the believability of the characters is having a hearing-impaired actress portray their daughter.  Simmonds is a standout in the film because while the other characters are given chances to talk every now and then, she only has non-verbal tools in order to express herself, which makes her role all of the more compelling.  The way in which her character navigates the world in the film provides us with a view of how she perseveres towards her survival and doesn’t let her disability get in the way, allowing us to feel a deeper connection to her character.  This is assisted by Krasinski’s effective use of sound because whenever we have a shot or scene that focuses on Simmonds’ character, he cuts out the sound in order to place us in her situation of living in silence.  

The screenplay by Krasinski, Bryan Woods, and Scott Beck provides a clever idea for a horror story and makes the most out of it.  But, their narrative is more than its frightening set pieces because they also create strong family drama in the middle of it all, and through this, we’re given a look at how they connect and the emotional struggles that they face in an uncertain world.  This aspect is most-notable when the movie focuses on a downplayed, yet poignant plot thread that involves a rift between the father and daughter.  There’s also some smart social commentary if you look closely enough.

Although Krasinski’s occasional use of jump scares is a bit bothersome, he makes up for it by creating some tense scenes for his characters, particularly a nerve-racking sequence involving Blunt’s character near the end of the second act.  The way in which he uses confined spaces for many of the film’s nail-biting scenes, with the help of Charlotte Bruus Christensen’s cinematography, will cause you to freeze up as the characters are placed in danger and must figure out how to outsmart the monsters.  Through all of this, Krasinski displays the ability to grip an audience and make them unable to breathe until the peril has passed.

Krasinski provides one of the most-enjoyable experiences you’ll have at the movies this season, and maybe the whole year.  You have a riveting concept, memorable frights, and characters for whom you care, all of which make “A Quiet Place” a movie about which you won’t be able to stay quiet.

Final grade: A-

When Reality Brings You Down, a Virtual One Awaits

Tye Sheridan in "Ready Player One"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

Over the last few years, there’s been a trend in pop-culture nostalgia, be it relating to the ‘70s, ‘80s, or ‘90s.  2015 brought us “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” and “Jurassic World,” both of which tapped into audiences’ love of the originals and became box-office behemoths.  2016 gave us the ‘80s-set “X-Men: Apocalypse,” a reboot of “Ghostbusters,” and the Netflix series, “Stranger Things,” the latter of which reveled in its ‘80s setting and showed a deep love for the pop culture of that era.  Then, last year, we had the live-action remake of “Beauty and the Beast,” a reboot of “Power Rangers,” the ‘80s-set “It,” and a second season of “Stranger Things.”  While this trend wasn’t as bothersome at first, it’s become a little much.

Now, let’s go back to 2011.  This is the year in which Ernest Cline released his sci-fi novel, “Ready Player One,” a story that followed an adventure that was focused on the pop culture of the ‘80s.  While the constant throwbacks to the last few decades of pop culture seem to still be climbing and still getting annoying, I’d be lying if I said that I didn’t have a blast reading the novel, which now arrives to the screen as an enjoyable spectacle from Steven Spielberg.

Wade Watts (Tye Sheridan) is an 18-year-old who lives in Columbus, Ohio, in 2045.  The world has fallen apart, and the only way how its inhabitants escape their daily struggles is by plugging into a virtual reality, known as the OASIS.  When its creator, James Halliday (Mark Rylance), dies, he reveals to the world that he’s hidden an Easter egg within the game, and whoever’s the first to complete three special tasks and find the egg will inherit the OASIS and his vast fortune.  After a few years pass without anyone making progress, Wade accomplishes the first task.  Once that happens, the future of the OASIS is put in jeopardy by Nolan Sorrento (Ben Mendelsohn), the CEO of Innovative Online Industries (IOI), who intends to beat Wade to the egg and take over the OASIS.

Although there isn’t much character development, it makes sense within the story because, since we spend a lot of time with the characters as their avatars, it reflects the characters’ detachment from reality, where we’re more familiar with the avatars then we are with the people behind their virtual selves.  Despite there not being much to the characters as humans, the acting is still fine all round, especially Rylance.  He exhibits the loneliness of reality that encouraged his character to create the OASIS, and Rylance delivers most of the film’s emotion as we learn about the dreamer behind the melancholy eyes.

The screenplay by Cline and Zak Penn deviates considerably from the source material, but that’s not a bad thing, as many of the changes provide the film with a faster pace.  Two of the most-significant changes happen with the first two tasks, both of which are constructed to add more excitement and make the narrative more cinematic.

Something else that the screenplay does well is not overload us with pop-culture references at every turn.  Although the cascade of references worked fine in the book, it would have been more distracting in a visual medium.  With the book being scaled down to fit a feature-length movie, there isn’t a chance for the characters to visit as many worlds within the OASIS in the movie as they did in the book, and therefore, less references.  However, this benefits the movie because while there are a few big scenes where the reference count is heavy, the rest of the film doles them out at a steady rate, instead of just trying to cram in as many as they can.

Spielberg’s only one of two directors that I could imagine making this movie (the other being J.J. Abrams), and he doesn't disappoint.  He’s the perfect fit for this movie, seeing as the story focuses on (mostly) ‘80s pop culture, and he directed some of the most-influential movies of that decade.  For this film, Spielberg delivers the visual extravagance that the book envisions, bringing the OASIS to realization with stunning effects.  This is done most-notably in a thrilling car race inside the OASIS, and in the final battle when the OASIS avatars fight Sorrento’s virtual army, in which we get everything from The Iron Giant blasting away at IOI soldiers to Chucky the killer doll going berserk on them to a Gundam robot going head-to-head with Mechagodzilla.  It’s all pure spectacle, but when you have someone like Spielberg at the helm and putting his heart into the work, it’s difficult to resist.

Spielberg teams up with his usual collaborators, such as cinematographer Janusz Kamiński and editors Michael Kahn and Sarah Broshar.  However, a change in his usual crew is the composer.  Instead of John Williams writing the score (he was busy working on the score for Spielberg’s “The Post,”), he uses Alan Silvestri.  Because Silvestri’s known for writing the music for the “Back to the Future” trilogy, a staple of ‘80s and ‘90s cinema (the third installment was released in 1990), it couldn’t have worked out better to have him contribute to this film. 

Even though “Ready Player One” doesn’t quite reach the heights of Spielberg’s sci-fi classics, it still has that sense of adventure that you’ll find in those films.  With that, it’s worth it to do what Wade and the other characters do, and immerse yourself in the OASIS.

Final grade: B+ 

The Death of a Dictator Begins a Race for Political Control

Simon Russell Beale (left) and Jeffrey Tambor in
"The Death of Stalin"
Photo Credit: RottenTomatoes.com

Tense eras in international politics can lend themselves well to cinematic comedy.  It happened with Charlie Chaplin in “The Great Dictator” and Federico Fellini in “Amarcord,” and to lesser, but still somewhat humorous results in Larry Charles’ “The Dictator” and Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg’s “The Interview.”  

Director Armando Iannucci, who dabbled with political satire in his 2009 film “In the Loop” and his hit television series “Veep,” returns to a different time of political upheaval with “The Death of Stalin,” a well-acted, funny, and surreal view into the events that followed the passing of Joseph Stalin.

In 1953, the Soviet Union’s under the fearsome rule of Joseph Stalin (Adrian McLoughlin). After he suffers a cerebral hemorrhage that kills him, his Central Committee is left to pick up the pieces.  When Deputy General Secretary Georgy Malenkov (Jeffrey Tambor) is chosen to replace him, State Security Administrator Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Moscow Party Head Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) each try to persuade Malenkov to enact their political views on the country.

The cast is filled with comedic performances, all of which work well together to create a laugh-out-loud portrait of the incompetence of Stalin’s committee, with the standouts being Tambor, Buscemi, and Beale.  Tambor does wonderful work in displaying his character’s cluelessness, and seeing his character attempt to navigate a job for which he’s so ill-prepared, while going back and forth trying to please both Beria and Khrushchev, makes for a lot of the film’s most humorous moments.  In regard to Buscemi and Beale, it’s a blast to watch their characters always be at odds with each other and trying to see who could come out on top. 

Other memorable performances include Andrea Riseborough as Stalin’s daughter, Svetlana; Rupert Friend as Stalin’s son, Vasily; and Jason Isaacs as Field Marshal Georgy Zhukov.

The screenplay by Iannucci, David Schneider, Ian Martin, and Peter Fellows, which is based on the French graphic novel “La mort de Staline” by Fabien Nury and Thierry Robin, does well in providing each of their talented cast members with moments to show their comedic skills.  The narrative comes equipped with many characters, which offers an opportunity to see how Stalin’s inner-circle, and a few people outside of it, handle what’s happening to their country.  And, with numerous characters come multiple layers of political intrigue, with each layer being more absurd than the last as people unite with some and turn against others.  This all puts a humorous spin on outrageous and true events, leaving the audience to wonder how such a committee people could be in charge of getting their nation back on track.

Despite this film mostly being a comedy, Iannucci doesn’t lose sight of the dangers that Russia faced when it was in the shadow of Stalin’s Communist Party, and he transitions between lighter and darker moments with ease.  The way in which he’s able to make the occasional transition between these tones is important for this type of story because when a film deals with a tumultuous political climate, it’s relaxing to be able to laugh at it, but then we also have to shake our heads as we ponder how things became that bad.  Iannucci captures all of the ludicrousness as he makes you feel as if you’re being pulled in many directions as you try to keep track of the paths of deceit that the characters travel.  Despite the way that sounds, it’s not too difficult to follow the story; instead, this is an effective way to place us in the middle of this political whirlwind and keep us invested throughout as we learn about the motives of the characters.

During our own turbulent political climate, “The Death of Stalin” exemplifies that, when we’re faced with troublesome leaders, we sometimes need to laugh while making sense out of nonsense.

Final grade: A

Outrunning a Stalker, Physically and Mentally

Claire Foy in "Unsane"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com 

There are several reasons why Steven Soderbergh is one of our most-ambitious modern filmmakers.  He achieved a double-header in 2000, when he directed the biographical-drama “Erin Brockovich” and the crime-drama “Traffic,” which resulted in him receiving two Oscar nominations for Best Director in the same year (he won for “Traffic”).  Then, he worked with an ensemble cast of all-stars for his “Ocean’s Trilogy” trilogy (2001-2007).  After that, in 2008, he directed a four-hour biopic about Che Guevara.  Then, between 2011 and 2013, he delivered the sci-fi thriller “Contagion,” the action-thriller “Haywire,” the comedy-drama “Magic Mike,” the psychological-thriller “Side Effects,” and the television biographical-film “Behind the Candelabra,” all within the span of less than two years.  After a directorial hiatus that lasted until 2016, he gave us a movie just last August with the heist-comedy “Logan Lucky.”

Soderbergh’s ambition is still going strong, as he already has a new movie out, the psychological horror-thriller “Unsane,” which he filmed with an iPhone, making this one of a few movies to do so.  Mixed with a gripping central performance and an unnerving story, Soderbergh brings us a film that keeps you tense with anxiety.

Sawyer Valentini (Claire Foy) is a young businesswoman who, despite trying to live a normal life, can't help but imagine that she sees her stalker, David Strine (Joshua Leonard) everywhere she goes, even though she’s gotten away from him.  Looking to rid herself of this paranoia, she drives to a mental hospital to receive help.  Sawyer’s then admitted against her will and soon realizes that David is working in the hospital.  However, she’s not sure whether it’s him, or her mind getting the best of her.

Claire Foy does superb work in displaying the mental anguish that stalking has had on her.  However, what makes her character memorable is that she doesn’t hold onto that anguish, but instead persists in trying to convince the hospital staff that she's psychologically sound.  Although we’re not sure until later in the movie whether or not Sawyer’s actually seeing her stalker, we’re still invested in Sawyer’s arc because of the strength that Foy puts into her character as Sawyer tries to make people believe her.  Even when the movie has you in a state of apprehension, the power of Foy’s work keeps you hopeful that her character will make it out okay.

While I can’t say much about Joshua Leonard’s role without spoiling anything, I’ll say that he delivers an unsettling performance that always hints at the menace that’s hiding behind his calm persona, whether he be real or not.

Jay Pharaoh, who provided terrific laughs on “Saturday Night Live” from 2010-2016, exhibits another side of his acting abilities as a fellow patient who helps Sawyer assimilate into the hospital.  He delivers a performance that’s understatedly witty from time to time, but one that also shows glimmers of a talented dramatic actor.

Although the screenplay by Jonathan Bernstein and James Greer is hindered by some implausibilities, the duo is still able to create a story that invests you in Sawyer’s predicament.  They accomplish this by keeping the narrative in the hospital for most of the movie, making us feel the effects that the setting has on her and the full weight of the danger that she’s in.

The cinematography by Soderbergh (under his usual pseudonym, Peter Andrews) utilizes impressive abilities to film with an iPhone.  Even though he uses a smartphone, this movie isn't meant to resemble found-footage, but is merely a movie that embraces the moviemaking capabilities of a such a device.  It feels appropriate that the film is shot on an iPhone because, in a couple of shots where it feels like we’re watching Sawyer through David’s point of view, it almost seems like someone’s spying on and recording her with a smartphone.

Because this isn’t meant to be a found-footage movie, but is still shot on a smartphone, Soderbergh has the film balance on a line between being something that’s just a movie, and at the same time, being something that feels more realistic than that.  The latter’s achieved because it seems as though the film uses little manipulation of lighting in its cinematography, and instead sticks with the eery fluorescent lighting of the hospital.

Aside from one quick scene in which Soderbergh uses unsettling camera techniques to show Sawyer experiencing the side effects to her medication, he’s restrained in the tricks that he uses to unnerve the audience, and instead uses the characters and setting to do that.

“Unsane” marks the first time that Soderbergh’s directed a horror film, and it continues his trend of being able to handle many kinds of genres.  And, at the rate in which Soderbergh’s able to come up with different projects, I hope he doesn’t take another hiatus’ anytime soon because it’s clear that he has too many ideas to let us go even one year without a new movie.  

Final grade: B+

A High-School Student Struggles to Come Out

Nick Robinson in "Love, Simon"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

The high-school sub-genre of film is something that’s seen quite a few notable entries over the last several months.  We had a fun superhero film with “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” an emotional coming-of-age story with “Lady Bird,” a wickedly funny horror-comedy with “Tragedy Girls,” and a darkly comedic thriller with “Thoroughbreds,” all of which have their characters experience high school in their own unique ways.

This sub-genre has been given another great addition with director Greg Berlanti’s comedy-drama, “Love, Simon,” a film that succeeds with its endearing cast and inspiring story.

Simon Spier (Nick Robinson) is a closeted high-school student with a loving family and a group of best friends.  He wishes to share to everyone that he’s gay, but he doesn’t know how.  When Nick falls in love with an anonymous, closeted student from his school that he meets online, he tries to figure out who this person is.  As their correspondence progresses, they will give each other the strength to come out to their peers.

Nick Robinson delivers a performance that’s rich in its sincerity.  He’s able to display his character’s internal struggle of hiding his true self from his family and friends, while also expressing relief and happiness by having an anonymous friend in whom to confide his feelings.  Robinson presents an affecting back-and-forth with the two sides of Simon’s character because we see that he’s glad to have loved ones with whom to share the good times, but he doesn’t feel like he could be his complete self during these moments due to his secret, and Robinson does superb work in conveying this dilemma with quiet, emotional power.

The cast has a handful of memorable supporting performances, such as Katherine Langford and Alexandra Shipp as two of Simons’s friends, and Jennifer Garner and Josh Duhamel as Simon’s parents.  While I wish that his parents were given a little more screen time, they each have an emotional scene with Simon that are two of the film’s best because of how you’re able to feel the unconditional love between him and his parents, a support that Simon needs and deserves.

The screenplay by Isaac Aptaker and Elizabeth Berger, which is based on Becky Albertalli’s 2015 young-adult novel, “Simon vs. the Homo Sapiens Agenda,” gives us a funny and dramatic look into Simon’s life at home and high-school, without devolving into high-school-movie clichés.  We see Simon have nights-in with his family, spend time with friends, take part in extracurriculars, and go to social gatherings.  In these scenes, we have some naturalistic interactions amongst the characters as they go through relatable high-school happenings.  And, in between these sequences, as well as during them, we have Simon’s determination as he tries to figure out the identity of whom he’s been e-mailing and when the right time will be to reveal his secret.

Aptaker and Berger provide a story about how important it is to let go of any secrets that are holding you back from being who you are.  However, they don’t just apply this lesson to Simon’s character, but to his friends and some other classmates as well, which allows us to become invested in those characters as they look for the courage to have their true selves known.  Despite the screenwriters sharing the central message’s focus throughout several characters, it never feels as though attention’s diverted from Simon’s character arc, seeing as the narrative has the arcs of these supporting characters interweave with Simon’s. 

Greg Berlanti creates a genuine coming-out story that sidesteps sentimentality.  He knows that the screenplay is already heartwarming, and the story never tries to elicit easy tears from the audience, so Berlanti lets the acting and dialogue do the work.  Because of this, he’s able to keep the authenticity of this modern high-school portrait alive.

“Love, Simon” has a heart that fills up the screen, and it’s a movie with a lot of love to give.

Final grade: A-

Two Friends Reunite Against a Wicked Stepfather

Anya Taylor-Joy (left) and Olivia Cooke in "Thoroughbreds"
Photo Credit: Imdb.com

High school can be an exciting time in anyone’s life.  You learn how to drive, visit colleges, celebrate homecoming, go to prom, graduate, and come more into your own as you approach adulthood.  There isn’t any doubt that it’s a time to remember.  However, when it comes to characters in high-school films, those four years are likely to go beyond the typicalness that we experienced back then.  Just ask Ferris Bueller.

This is the case with Cory Finley’s directorial debut for his darkly comedic thriller, “Thoroughbreds,” which soars on its gripping story and the dynamic chemistry between the two leads.

When Amanda (Olivia Cooke) and Lily (Anya Taylor-Joy) were children, they were the best of friends.  After years of being apart, circumstances arise that reunite them.  When Amanda visits Lily’s mansion for tutoring, she notices the emotional abuse from the latter’s stepfather (Paul Sparks) and proposes that they murder him.

Olivia Cooke’s character is someone who mentions that she doesn’t feel any emotions, and while Cooke does an excellent work in exhibiting Amanda’s dispassionate nature, her approach to the character has us paying close attention to Amanda as we try to figure out if anything’s going on behind her blankness.

Anya Taylor-Joy brings across Lily’s kind personality with much skill, presenting someone who makes it difficult to think that she’s friends with someone like Amanda.  When Lily makes a drastic change in her character, it’s not only certain factors in the story that make this change believable, but also Taylor-Joy’s acting abilities.  All of these elements make this a fascinating transition to watch, one that provides the narrative with some of its surprises.

Anton Yelchin (in one of his final movie roles after his passing in June 2016), provides an entertaining performance as a drug dealer who agrees to assist Amanda and Lily with their plan.  The manic personality that Yelchin gives to his role adds some unpredictability to an already-unpredictable story, and his work in this film is a reminder of his talent.

The cinematography by Lyle Vincent uses long takes throughout the film to invest us in the characters’ actions and conversations in some instances, and to build tension as they execute their actions in others.  One such instance of the former is in the beginning when the camera follows Amanda around Lily’s home for a couple of minutes as she takes in her surroundings, and it serves as a fascinating introduction to Amanda’s character.  And, all of this is lifted up by a terrific score by Erik Friedlander.

In terms of using long takes to build tension, it’s done so most-effectively in the film’s climactic scene.  I can’t say much without giving anything away, but the camera stays in one spot as a particular event unfolds offscreen, and the use of sound (Never has the sound of a rowing machine put me so on edge!) keeps you enthralled throughout.

Despite the film only having a 92-minute runtime, Finley’s screenplay does a remarkable job in taking its time with establishing the characters and their situation, while still leaving enough time for the rest of the movie to play out.  One of the many notable aspects of Finley’s story is how he doesn’t bog the narrative down by filling it with backstory about Amanda and Lily’s friendship and their separate lives, but instead offers pieces of information pertaining to those things as the movie progresses in order to enrich the plot.

As a director, Finley’s able to build suspense in several ways, one of which is through his aforementioned use of sound.  This is most-significant in two particular scenes: one is in the long take in that climatic scene that I mentioned earlier, and another involves photos being e-mailed to a character’s laptop.  It might not sound tense, but the way in which Finley lingers on an image as we’re waiting for something to happen in both of these cases shows that he has a talent for absorbing viewers and making them sit tight with great anticipation as they wait for something to happen.  

Given Finley’s writing and filmmaking abilities that are displayed here, I’m sure his follow-up project will be just as compelling as his debut.  And, with this movie’s directing, acting, drama, humor, and thrills, “Thoroughbreds” comes charging out of the stable.

Final grade: A