Tag: revenge

Black Doves

  By

★★★★
“Never bet against black.”

This was my favourite new television show of 2024, and might have been my pick overall. It’s a very strong mix of action and drama, with a fabulous cast of characters. I think I might have to go back to the first season of Killing Eve to find anything as good in our genre, and it’s not dissimilar in other ways too. Helen (Knightley) is married to Britain’s Minister of Defence, Wallace Webb (Buchan). But unknown to him, she is a Black Dove, mining information from him to pass on to her handler, Reed (Lancashire), for sale to the highest bidder. She’s also having an affair, but her lover is killed, along with two others, in murky circumstances. 

Reed calls in her top assassin, Sam (Whishaw), to protect Helen, fearing she might also be targeted. He has a history with Helen, dating back to before the birth of her children with Wallace. Things spiral out of control, involving the suspicious death of the Chinese ambassador, his missing daughter, a previous hit Sam botched, and Helen’s relentless pursuit of revenge, while trying to keep her family life intact. It’s a lot of balls to keep in the air, but the script does a fine job of avoiding confusion, with the wrap-up proving particularly admirable in its clarity. While I’ve read complaints about it being implausible, I have definitely seen worse. There’s room for both this, and more grounded spy shows like Slow Horses.

If you’re looking for strong female characters, there are a slew here, beyond Helen and Reed. Indeed, it feels like the entire underworld, criminal and intelligence, is run by women, while the “above ground” apparatus is male-dominated. The one I liked best was acerbic Irish killer Williams (Ella Lily Hyland), whose loyalties are uncertain at first. However, all the supporting cast are solid, and the relationship between Helen and Sam is among the best non-romantic ones I’ve seen recently between a man and a woman. Should mention: Sam’s gay. Very gay, to be honest. This annoyed the people that always annoys. But to me, it didn’t feel done for DEI purposes, or get in the way of the story.

It has been a while since we have seen Knightley here: Domino was the best part of two decades ago. Since then? Some slight sword-waving in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, and that’s about it. However, they do a good job of making up for lost time [note: she is not pregnant for the bulk of her action, despite the picture!] There are an especially good pair of fights against assassins sent to take her out, the second of whom is a self-professed big fan. Williams and her female partners also unleash hell, though in her case it tends to be more bullets than punches. A critical and popular success, a second series was already commissioned before the first had aired. If it can maintain the same high standard – unlike Killing Eve – there’s a good chance it’ll be among the best of… well, probably 2026. Can’t wait.

Creator: Joe Barton
Star: Keira Knightley, Ben Whishaw, Sarah Lancashire, Andrew Buchan

Dominique

  By

★★★★
“Ukraine 1, Colombia 0.”

We’ve been keeping an eye on the career of writer-director Ojeda since Savaged, more than a decade ago. We last saw his work with The Russian Bride, which shares the same star in Orlan, but I do feel the pieces have finally come together. Sure, this is imperfect. However, the positives are pretty damn impressive, and as a throwback to the action golden era of the eighties, this is close to spot-on. It begins with a plane crash, as the aircraft piloted by Dominique (Orlan) is shot down in rural Columbia by the local cartel. Their effort to loot the wreckage goes wrong, because Dominique is not dead, and quickly demonstrates the skills she had in a previous life as a Ukrainian assassin. 

She was badly injured in the crash, and ends up taking shelter in the small town of San Lucas, at the home of police officer Julio (Carvajal) and his family. He’s gathering evidence against his corrupt boss, Chief Santiago (Compte), who’s working with the cartel. When Julio is exposed, Santiago decides an example must be made of the informant, wiping out not just his employee, but his entire family. The only thing standing between them and annihilation is Dominique. After she successfully repels the initial assault, she has to fortify the family home, and prepare to fend off everything Santiago can throw at her. Which is a lot of cannon fodder. Most of it tactically inept, I must say.

The character work in this is strong, on both sides. Santiago is spectacularly evil, to the point he could have been a caricature. Yet Compte’s performance keeps it just human enough to be truly scary, due to his complete disregard for life. On the other side, Orlan keeps things very subdued, to the point of seeming dead inside, due to past trauma. Is this limited acting range? Or a very subtle performance? Could be either. In any case, it works, tiding the viewer over until the extended eruption of violence, which occupies most of the movie’s second half. As noted, it does rely on the attacking forces underestimating their opponents, to put it mildly. But Ojeda mixes the combat up nicely, and it’s a blast to watch.

The ending. Hoo-boy. It does one thing right, both brilliant and terrible at the same time. But it then bails out, what should have been the climax, is literally run underneath its end-credits. This is a brave choice by Ojeda. It didn’t work for me, and I’d rather have seen one final spasm of ultraviolence from the heroine. That it still was good enough to get our Seal of Approval says something. If it had sealed the deal, the movie could have ended up making my top ten for the year. It remains a film I enjoyed watching, and would definitely not mind seeing Dominique in action again in future. Or whatever Ojeda comes up with: I’m down for that too.

Dir: Michael S. Ojeda
Star: Oksana Orlan, Maurice Compte, Sebastian Carvajal, Alanna De La Rossa

Bang Bang Betty: Valerie’s Revenge

  By

★★½
“To lose one partner may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness.”

This one ends by informing us definitively that “Bang Bang Betty will return.” The statement may cause some confusion to viewers in this installment, because Bang Bang Betty is not present to begin with. No, this sequel to Bang Bang Betty is entirely Betty-free, without any real explanation as to why. I can only presume the actress involved was otherwise engaged. Instead, it focuses on Valerie Mendez (Hernandez), who was a prosecuting attorney in the first one, but now seems to be an undercover detective. She is investigating the drug trafficking activities of Sanchez (Soria), when her partner and fiancee, Beatriz, is killed in a gun-battle with Sanchez and his men.

This forms the dramatic impetus for the rest of the film, in which Valerie goes after Sanchez. Though since in this installment, we go from cold open to lesbian canoodling in under two minutes, then Beatriz getting fridged before the ten-minute mark, the emotional impact on the audience is limited. It does solve the purpose of justifying the title. Valerie then seeks vengeance in ways which don’t exactly stand up to scrutiny in terms of police procedure, to the point where “international incident” might be closer to the truth. Her motto appears to be ,”You can’t spell jurisdiction without I and N-O”, charging across the border into Mexico with help from her replacement partner, and DEA agent Richard Cross (Caliber), whose partner also fell victim to Sanchez. What are the odds?

I’ve a feeling this might have been filmed back-to-back or close to with its predecessor, and has many of the same strengths and weaknesses. The performances are decent, with a special shout-out to Padilla as Sanchez’s brutal henchwoman, Lola. The action is a bit up-and-down, and we never get to see the brawl between Valerie and Lola that I was expecting – and, to be honest, anticipating. It’s Cross who ends up getting that, and the film does nothing to defray the usual problems when there’s such a size discrepancy between opponents. The CGI blood remains as poorly-executed as before, which does the entire movie a disservice, leaving it looking cheap and rushed.

It’s a shame, because there are occasional moments which are genuinely impressive. For instance, a well-staged shot of Valerie cradling the dying Beatriz in her arms, while the gunfight goes on in slow-motion behind them. Or the unexpected Debussy which pops up on the soundtrack, as she raids one of Sanchez’s drug houses. These are moments which are likely better than anything in its predecessor. However, they are countered by the weakness of a plot which feels very much a downgrade: it’s implausible at best, and too often topples over into ridiculous. Overall, it comes in at the same grade, and I find myself, once again, cautiously looking forward to a third installment. Hopefully, this time the plot will receive as much effort as the characters.

Dir: Alexander T. Hwang
Star: Emily Rose Hernandez, Hector Soria, Kevin Caliber, Mariah Padilla

El Jardinero

  By

★★½
“Better late than never”

Well, that only took… twenty-one years. Back in 2003, I watched and reviewed El Jardinero 2, with the help of Chris, because it came on a Mexican DVD with no English subtitles. Imagine my surprise, therefore, when I booted up Tubi the other day, and found its predecessor streaming. No English subs – but there were Spanish ones. Nowadays, Google Translate offers a half-decent ability to convert into English, even if I ended up having to apply a lot of polish to the idiom. At least I didn’t have to bother Chris. Still, here we are, and… Well, it probably wasn’t worth all the effort, to be honest. It is another cheap slice of Mexploitation, with too much talk and not enough action, though like its successor is reasonably entertaining.

It turns out I misspoke in the sequel, when I described Pablo Moreno (L. Reynoso) as the husband of Lilia Gallardo (Herrera). It’s a bit more complex. Lilia returns from abroad to her home town in rural Mexico to discover her father has been murdered by drug dealers. Worse, her mother has taken up with the head of the clan, Adan Moreno. Lilia is unimpressed, and in the resulting fracas, shoots Moreno dead before fleeing. The family kinda blames their rivals, and Mom goes to her grave rather than implicate her daughter, despite brutal treatment at the hands of the gang’s enforcer, Mario Argumedo (Pineda). Dismissing the concern of her godfather, Lilia decides to infiltrate the family, do as much damage as possible and take her revenge.

Vengeance is a long time coming, shall we say. She has to befriend Pablo, posing as an out-of-towner (I guess she must have been abroad for a long time, since he doesn’t recognize her), and using her womanly charms to get an invite to stay on the ranch. She then uses this access to figure out where their poppy fields are located, and recruits her godfather to set them on fire one night. There’s also dissent in the ranks between Pablo and his brother Gabino (H. Reynoso – no clue if the actor is related to his on-screen brother), with the latter unhappy about the influence Lilia is having on his sibling. It doesn’t stop Pablo from inviting her to help out in the family business.

And this is how we eventually get back to where we came in for the sequel, with a gun-battle between the two sides, roughly eighty minutes after the first time we see Lilia shoot Adan. It feels more like a feature-length telenovela, with all that implies. I’d be hard-pushed to call this good, yet it did manage to keep my interest, with things like how the small country towns is basically run by the Moreno cartel, with the police chief utterly in their pocket. None of the locals seem bothered. It’s certainly a bit different, though much as with the sequel, I wish Lilia had been as much of a bad-ass as the cover again implies.

Dir: Enrique Murillo
Star: Lorena Herrera, Salvador Pineda, Luis Reynoso, Héctor Reynoso

In the Eyes of the Prey

  By

★★½
“The eyes have it.”

New rule. If ever I become an evil, kidnapping overlord, I shall be sure not to leave potentially lethal power-tools left lying easily accessible, around the place where the abductee is being kept. This is just one of the many mistakes made by the criminals here, in what could be an instructional guide on how NOT to execute a kidnapping. Admittedly, they weren’t aware that their victim suffers from multiple personality disorder. The alternate version is more than happy to wield the aforementioned power-tool – specifically, a nail gun – with extreme prejudice. It helps that these grown men and hardened criminals make it remarkably easy, for a 110-lb woman to overpower them in various ways.

Let’s rewind though, because it takes a while to get to the nail gun carnage, the reason why we’re here. Laura (Calamassi) is the victim, having been kidnapped by a gang led by Santiago (Massaria). These are the usual mix of tropes from this kind of movie. There’s the nice one, Benedetto (Badea); the pervy one, Lupo (Potenza); the fiery hot-head, and so on. Meanwhile, we get far too much back story about Laura’s mental health history. This includes an assault on an art teacher, sessions of therapy, and childhood trauma where she saw her mother gunned down in front of her. Exactly how this triggers the splitting off of PsychoLaura is unclear. I suspect the film is equally reliable in the fields of aberrant psychology, and as a “how to kidnap” manual.

If the script is flimsy and not very interesting, the film does rebound somewhat in the performances. Calamassi delivers good work when going Full Gollum, tussling with her internal demons, and if the supporting cast aren’t given much to work with, they do what they can. Things liven up when PsychoLaura takes full control, but here the limited budget (only fifteen thousand Euros) comes into play. That’s why we only get told one of her victims suffered 90-100 stab wounds and has a saw sticking out of his forehead. Or when someone else is decapitated with wire… it’s nowhere near as cool on screen as it sounds. Pro tip: if you can’t afford to show it, don’t include it in your script. 

Conversely, the sole female member of the gang is included to no real purpose. She’s initially set up as another victim, yet once the truth is revealed, nothing much happens. The scenery is very nice. Wherever it was filmed, seems like a lovely place to visit – whether or not you happen to be hiding out with a mentally deranged teenage girl you have kidnapped. So when the story doesn’t manage to retain your interest, you can admire the setting. Well, during the second half, when both the film and Laura escape the confines of the house. Everything ends in an uncertain manner. I’d probably have been disappointed in it, if I had felt any more than marginally invested in the final outcome. 

Dir: Leonardo Barone
Star: Laura Calamassi, Gabriel Dorigo Badea, Paolo Massaria, Jerry Potenza
This review originally appeared on Film Blitz.

Vengeance Turns

  By

★★
“Turnabout’s fair play.”

The film opens with a caption, “The first feature film from Robert Christopher Smith,” and it’s largely superfluous. Because, to be brutally honest, you can tell. It’s filled with choices which virtually scream, movie-making debut. That it’s a passion project for Smith is clear, and the persistence with which he pursued his vision is clear, and highly laudable. Perseverance can only take you so far, however, and is no substitute for skill and experience. It does feels this was a learning experience on the fly, with a palpable improvement over its course, and Smith left the production a significantly better film-maker than he came in, I suspect. At least it does tell a fairly complete story (glares over at Gold Raiders).

We first meet heroine Rebecca Falcon (Luelmo), arguing with other locals outside the town store in the 1876 Western town where she lives with her husband and two children. The topic is the local Kumeyaay tribe, whom most regard as savages, and blame for a series of recent violent incidents. Rebecca disagrees: for her it’s personal, since she’s one-quarter Kumeyaay herself, though few know it. Her home is the next invaded – not by the natives – with Rebecca left for dead, and her family brutally slaughtered. She is rescued by Simon (Vecchio), who is actually the son of the group’s leader Jefferson Coletrain (Gardner). Nursed back to health by the real Kumeyaay, Rebecca vows to take vengeance on Jefferson and his gang.

This was split into two parts for release, but is very much one film. and at two hours forty minutes in total… Yeah, it’s definitely overlong, especially in the first half. While relatively quick to get to the reason for revenge, proceedings then grind to a complete halt while she’s recuperating with the Kumeyaay. You’re left hanging out with characters sporting names like “Delicate Poison” (Jaffer) and – I wrote this down – “Ghost with Silent Knives Protects”. The former is played by a Pakistani-Norwegian actress with a clipped British accent. The weird thing is, Jaffer seems a good performer, just wholly inappropriate for this role, to the point I genuinely felt embarrassed for her.

If you have the mental stamina to reach Volume Two, things do improve. Rebecca’s vengeance proves somewhat unfocused initially, though like other threads e.g. her being part-Kumeyaay, nothing much comes of this. It’s clear she is basically deranged, though this is depicted mostly in Luelmo speaking… slowly… and… slurrrrrring her words. Still, things actually happen, and the arrival of batshit crazy Chinese cannibal lady Gloria (Catherine Bo-Eun Song) adds entertainment value. There are technical issues, not least with the audio: one scene on horseback is almost inaudible, between the hooves and the wind. However, there are also scenes that work, such as the brutal interrogation of a prisoner by Gloria and Delicate Poison, or our heroine’s confrontation with an old “friend”. Copious room for improvement, to be sure, yet not without merit. Everyone has to start somewhere.

Dir: Robert Christopher Smith
Star: Paola Luelmo, Azeem Vecchio, Jamald Gardner, Kelsey Jaffer

Duchess

  By

★★
“Largely ignoble.”

Marshall has been involved in our genre back to 1998, when he wrote Killing Time. Since then, there have been some classics (The Descent), but the trend has been gently downhill. Of late, he seems to be doing a lot of work with wife Charlotte Kirk (a mere 22 years his younger). The last here was The Lair, which Kirk co-wrote with her husband and starred in. The same is true for this, just to slightly lesser effect, and with even more derivative results. This feels in particular like an early Guy Ritchie film, with larger than life underworld figures, hyper violence and snappy dialogue. Well, those are the goals, anyway. Execution is a different thing, to varying degrees.

The heroine is Scarlett Monaghan (Kirk), rescued from her low-rent pickpocket career by international man of mystery, Robert McNaughton (Winchester), and whisked off to a life of luxury in the Canary Islands. Turns out her new boyfriend is a diamond trafficker, and that’s a very risky business to be in, given the huge profits to be made. While he has a loyal cadre of associates, such as Danny Oswald (Pertwee), not everyone in his circle is trustworthy. After an associate tries to rape Scarlett, and is killed by her, the violence and treachery escalate to the point where she and Robert are left for dead. She isn’t prepared to let it lie, and comes back from the grave to take revenge on those responsible.

Bits of this work reasonably well, with Kirk making a good impression. [Also: you’ll understand why the director married her… I now move rapidly on!] Monaghan is a character with a rough-hewn charm, and a fierce loyalty to those for whom she cares, be that friends, family (with the exception of her father, played by Colm Meaney) or Robert. The big problem here is pacing. The movie is almost two hours long, and barely the last twenty minutes are involved in the interesting stuff: Scarlett’s vengeance. Even when this shows up, it’s hardly The Bride taking on the Crazy 88’s. Indeed, you could argue the most fun action is the opening scene of the movie, which then rolls into a flashback of how we got to that point.

Some of the violence is striking. Scarlett goes to extremes to extract information, and veteran actress Stephanie Beacham, playing Robert’s business partner, goes full Colombian necktie on a minion who tries to steal from her. This does feel at odds with the overall tone. It’s quite light in its atmosphere, populated by larger than life characters – Beacham’s sweary boss is the most obvious example – rather than aiming for gritty realism. This did a barely passable job of holding my attention. It probably should have joined proceedings considerably later, with all Scarlett’s London life largely irrelevant. Did appreciate the Peckham mentions though, having caught the train to work daily from there, back in the nineties. That I was more excited by this than 95% of the film, is likely a warning. 

Dir: Neil Marshall
Star: Charlotte Kirk, Philip Winchester, Sean Pertwee, Colin Egglesfield

Martingale

  By

★★½
“Double or – more likely – nothing.”

It’s probably symptomatic of… something, that the film’s title is never explained. With the main character working in a casino, I presume it’s a reference to the Martingale betting system, where you basically double your bet after every loss. It guarantees a profit – unless you hit such a long losing streak you run out of money entirely. Its relevance here is uncertain, and I doubt most viewers would know what a martingale is either. But then, the film is very good at not explaining stuff. Another example would be, what the scam is supposed to be with Andi (Sullivan) collecting left-behind cash-out casino slips and handing them to a collaborator, Whit (Melikhov). These are for trivial amounts, so why bother?

When not bilking her employer out of pocket change, Andi’s main obsession is investigating the death of her daughter, a year previously. She had overdosed in a drug house, but the police were unable to press charges on anyone. Andi is not put off, and is intent on finding the boy whom she blames for her child’s death, and making him suffer in a similar way. Her investigation proceeds with the increasingly reluctant help of local private eye Levi (Adkins), and brings her up against the powerful and evil Harland (Shockley). Turns out, it was his son Robby who was with Andi’s daughter. Neither parent is prepared to back down and give up on their offspring, so eventually, something will have to give.

The tagline on the release poster was changed to “Revenge is a deadly gamble,” which does at least tie in with the title. But the original one of “Revenge is a real mess,” might be more accurate, with Andi stumbling into increasing trouble, and refusing to accept the very sensible advice, just to let it go. While her persistence is the heroine’s most admirable quality, the film itself is also a real mess in some aspects, with plotting which is often as obtuse as its title. While Harland does project a certain menace as the villain, I found it hard to take anyone seriously as a bad guy, when he looks like James May out of Top Gear. 

Nowhere is the vagueness more apparent than at the end. There’s a knock at the door and… That’s it. We never learn who it is. The makers were clearly going for ambiguity, but if you hated how The Sopranos ended, this might well have you lobbing pets, living-room furniture or small children through your television set. If the script leaves plenty to be desired, at least the performances are decent, and a bit like in Adrenaline, you do get a sense of turning over a societal rock, and seeing the less than pleasant results beneath. As a heroine’s journey, it’s a trip into the underworld, though I would be hard pushed to tell you how Andi was changed by her experience. I certainly know I was not.

Dir: Jeremy Berg
Star: Kelly Sullivan, William Shockley, Jason Adkins, Konstantin Melikhov

Mehndi

  By

★★½
“This path she has chosen will burn her to ash.”

When judging film for inclusion here, I always want to take into account location and era. The bar is generally lower for older films, those from a time when action was largely male territory. And other cultures also have different opinions on gender norms, so what can seem very mild sauce here, can be pushing the envelope for women’s roles somewhere else. This would be a good example of the latter. In 1998, the year this came out, Hollywood was releasing the likes of Mulan, The X-Files and Wild Things. Bollywood… was not, and it’s important to remember this as we look at a heroine Lifetime might decline as too much of a doormat.

She is Pooja (Mukerji), who has just been married off into the Chaudhary family, and specifically to Niranjan (Khan). The problem is, they are much more interested in her dowry, and when this isn’t as big as they want, the abuse from her in-laws starts. It doesn’t help that her husband is no good, but Pooja remains loyal, even when after he is accused of murder. A mysterious man shows up, promising evidence to free Niranjan… if Pooja will spend one night with him. She does, though nothing sexual happens, and her husband is indeed acquitted. However, the Chaudharys now consider her “soiled”, toss her out and seek a divorce. 

Worse is to follow as, in court, her father pulls a gun and is shot down by another member of the Chaudhary clan [courtroom security in nineties India must have been really slack – later, an attorney stabs a defendant dead!] Finally, even Pooja has had enough, and vows to destroy every one of her in-laws. Though this being Bollywood, that includes a musical number, apparently titled The Evil In-Laws, where she turns the whole village against them with lyrics like, “The evil in-laws! They’ll make your life a living hell. The evil in-laws! They commit great sins.” It’s partly why the whole thing runs 160 minutes, and would be palpably improved at half the length. Bollywood is much better now at integrating the songs, and the occasional attempts at comedy are both utterly misplaced and thoroughly unfunny.

Why Pooja puts up with so much is explained by a line during the marriage ceremony: “My husband is my god.” But it’s a concept which seems utterly alien to a contemporary Western audience – and even to some in India now. The line is revisited later, Pooja now refuting it by saying, “No. My husband is a sinner and a demon.” Pity it took so long for her to realize what’s apparent to the audience almost from the start. There is some power in these later scenes, with Mukerni able to put over the character’s rage, and I liked the way the mysterious man returns to help her. It remains a shame that she appears to be considerably more interested in taking revenge for her father, than on her own account.

Dir: Hamid Ali Khan
Star: Rani Mukerji, Faraaz Khan, Pramod Moutho, Himani Shivpuri

Apaches: Gang of Paris

  By

★★★
“Creuser deux tombes”

I guess the title is trying to riff off Gang’s of New York, though this is set significantly later. It begins in 1884, when the Apache gang run the Parisian underworld. Young orphans Billie, Paulie and Tricky are on the fringes, until Tricky is killed when forced to play Russian roulette by the gang’s leader, Jésus (Schneider). Billie is framed for the death by a corrupt cop, and spends fifteen years in jail. When she gets out, now a grown woman, Billie (Isaaz) seeks revenge on all those responsible for Tricky’s death, infiltrating the Apaches to get close to Jésus. Matters are complicated, by the presence in the gang of Paulie (Paradot), who was brought up by Jésus, and also by the seductive nature on her of the Apache lifestyle. 

There’s a fair bit of truth to the history here. From what I’ve read, the Apaches were a force to be reckoned with in Paris, from about the turn of the century through the outbreak of World War I. They valued style as much as savagery, preying on the middle- and upper-classes. I’ve not been able to find any indication women were a significant part of the Apaches, beyond using prostitutes as decoys to lure and distract the intended targets of a mugging. Still, can’t argue Billie makes the necessary impression, stabbing the Paris police chief (who is also the man who framed her) to death in a cinema, when she was indeed supposed just to be there as bait.

To this point, the film has done well at generating the atmosphere of a wild, anarchic setting, and populating it with interesting characters. It even manages to overcome the deliberate use of anachronistic songs on the soundtrack, opening up with the not-so sultry 1880’s sounds of… um, Iggy Pop? The problem is, the further in we and Billie get, the less interested she appears to be in her vengeance. The turning point might be when she goes after someone who has abandoned the Apache lifestyle entirely. My reaction to this was, “Oh. Is that it?” – and not for the last time either. You may well find yourself saying the same thing when the end credits abruptly roll.

The problem is less her diversion from revenge, than the absence of anything significant to replace it. I’m usually the last person to want romance in a genre film, but that would at least have helped explain her growing indifference to something which clearly sustained Billie through her fifteen years in jail. The nearest is when Paulie tries to kiss her and she repels her advances. It’s only when Jésus gives her an order she can’t obey, that Billie remembers why she’s there, though what results is hardly redemptive. I’ve read the budget was 4.5 million Euros, and if that’s true, I’m very impressed, since it looks consistently good. With a decent lead performance too, it feels they were just half a script short of having a successful feature.

Dir: Romain Quirot
Star: Alice Isaaz, Niels Schneider, Rod Paradot, Artus

[A version of this review previously appeared on Film Blitz]