Christmas 2020: Fatman (2020)

Sometimes, a movie comes along with such an unbelievably bizarre premise, that you simply have to see it to prove that it exists. A few months ago, a trailer for a film called “Fatman” surfaced. The movie starred Mel Gibson as Santa Claus and, in many ways, seemed to be a typical Mel Gibson movie. That is, with lots of shooting and killing. Not exactly your traditional Christmas faire. Now, I have a complicated relationship with Mel Gibson. Being someone who was raised loving “Lethal Weapon” and “Mad Max,” I have a certain nostalgic fondness for his action hero glory days. At the same time, Gibson's disgusting personal views – and, speaking as a half-Jew, especially his unapologetic antisemitism – has made it hard to enjoy anything he's in anymore. At the same time, I just knew I wouldn't be able to resist “Fatman” this December. 

Santa Claus is old and tired. The world is getting increasingly cynical and there are more bad kids than good ones anymore. Loans are coming due and he doesn't have the cash to pay them, forcing Ol' Saint Nick to take a contract with the U.S. military, much to his chagrin. Meanwhile, spoiled rich kid Billy Wenan – already willing to use intimidation and violence to get what he wants – receives coal for his Christmas present. He recruits a mysterious hit-man, with a lifelong obsession with Santa Claus, to hunt down the mythical figure and put an end to his life. It's not too long before Chris Cringle will have to defend himself from this unhinged killer.

In the world of “Fatman,” Santa Claus isn't just real. He's an accepted fact of daily life. The U.S. government is aware of his existence and partially supports his endeavors. He works with toy companies to fulfil orders and remembers the names of every kid on his list. The elves, given military-style designations, work around the clock to create toys. He's never depicted flying in his magical sleigh, though we briefly meet the reindeer. He lives in a ranch house in the Alaskan wilderness. He's a grouchy old man who is weary about the future of the world. His beard is misty gray and his red suit is very faded. This is a take on Santa Claus so grounded and realistic that, yes, his relationship with Mrs. Claus is romantic and pointedly intimate. 

Trying to do a gritty and grounded take on the most whimsical of childhood fantasies is, of course, a ridiculous idea. On paper, “Fatman” sounds like a parody of dark and edgy reboots. There are times when the filmmakers seem to acknowledge how goofy this whole presentation is. When the military takes over the elves' operation, they are forced to cut the jingle bells off their pointy shoes. Despite that, the General is quickly won over by the holly jolly lifestyle. There are goofy jokes where Mrs. Claus insists Santa checks his list twice and so on. Despite the comedic premise and a number of funny scenes, “Fatman” largely plays it straight. The result is a very odd tonal balancing act. It's as if the movie wants the viewer to react with confused looks and expressions of “They know this is silly, right?”

“Fatman” even attempts a theme and moral. Throughout the film, the bad behavior of children around the globe is referenced. Santa repeatedly wonders if he's even needed anymore. On Christmas Eve, he's actually shot at by some sociopathic kids. This sense of a loss of innocence extends to its demented villain. His bloody attack on Santa's workshop results in lots of R-rated action movie violence, elves getting gunned down in droves. Soon, we discover the personal reason why he has such a grudge against Santa, which links his own violent obsession with the holidays with childhood trauma. The film seems to suggest that childhood innocence is always slipping away but that idea, of believing in charity and giving, is worth holding onto. Which is pretty heady stuff for a film about a Santa Claus that packs heat. 

In order to bring to life such an eccentric script, that is ridiculous and sincere and violent and low-key, a top-shelf cast is required. Mel Gibson plays Santa as, well, a modern Mel Gibson character. He's a grouchy old man who expounds on the woes of the world. At the same time, he does bring a certain gravitas and a quiet humor to the role that works decently. He also has good chemistry with Marianne Jean-Baptiste as Ruth, the sweet if resourceful take on Mrs. Claus. If Gibson and Jean-Baptiste are muted, Walton Goggins chews the scenery as the antagonist. He glares wickedly and schemes villainously when hunting for his next target. The film also has a pretty good spaghetti western style score, which escalates the faux-seriousness of the situation.

Ultimately, I'm really not sure what to make of “Fatman.” It's about as odd as you'd expect from a movie about Santa with this many squibs and gun fights. The movie is not good enough to make its tone, taking the bizarre premise mostly but not quite serious, entirely successful. It's largely the premise and the cast that distinguishes it from your typical direct-to-VOD Saban Films action flick. Yet a part of me has to admire the audacity of even making a movie like this. In the pantheon of Christmas action movies, “Fatman” is unlikely to become a classic. At the same time, I'm sort of glad it exists. [7/10]

Christmas 2020: Let It Snow (2020)

North America basically invented the slasher movie. Yes, Italy made the first ones and the genre has its roots in Italian gialli. Yet the slasher movie never would've become the phenomenon it was without “Halloween.” In the intervening decades, the slasher disease has even spread to other countries. We've seen Japanese slashers, Indian slasher, and Norwegian slashers. Now a film with a masked terrorizer wielding bladed weapons has emerged from the Ukraine and Georgia. “Let It Snow” isn't just the first stalk-and-slash flick from this region of Eastern Europe, it's also a Christmas-set horror flick. So, even if the reviews were pretty soft, I knew I had to give it a look.

Mia and Max are American thrill-seekers on Christmas vacation. They have traveled to the snowy mountaintops of Georgia for a weekend of high-risk snowboarding. Max intends on proposing to Mia on this trip. They seek out an especially isolated peak known as the Black Ridge. Despite numerous warnings from the locals, about how many people have disappeared or died on the Black Ridge, the couple ventured ahead anyway. Soon, the two are separated and Mia is pursued by a threatening person on a snowmobile, in a concealing black ski suit. She attempts to survive the harsh environment, and her pursuer, and find her boyfriend. 

It's easy to see why someone would look at the snowy mountaintops of Georgia and decide to build a horror movie around it. Those endless slopes of pure white snow, far from civilization and stretching in all directions, is certainly striking. In its best moments, “Let It Snow” utilizes that vast and intimidating emptiness for a chilly sense of isolation. Shots of people, seeming so small, wandering across the snow, are certainly effective. Sadly, “Let It Snow” is not always so well shot. Director Stanislav Kapralov sometimes slips into disorientating shaky-cam. The decent use of lighting, such as in a scene set within the killer's lair, can't make up for a big flaw. That, when Kapralov wants to turn the tension up, the film becomes hard to follow.

“Let It Snow” was sold to me as a slasher flick but this is, ultimately, an inaccurate description. This is a body count flick with grand body count of one. The film has a cool looking villain. A killer clad totally in black, save for an identity-concealing helmet and goggles, is memorable enough. Especially when set against all that pure white snow. Yet the masked marauder never actually does anything. Mia spends almost the entirety of “Let It Snow” wandering away from her attacker. Since there's not much to do on an icy mountain, that means very little actually happens in “Let It Snow.” The film is less than ninety minutes long but feels far longer, thanks to a general lack of interesting events. 

Truthfully, “Let It Snow” is better described as a survival film. The film hopes to derive tension from Mia's predicament, as she wanders through the harsh wilderness and attempts to survive. There's a big problem with this though: Mia isn't very interesting. Ivanna Sakhno seems like she could probably give a decent performance. Yet Mia is such a thin character. We never learn why she's attracted to Max, their love being more informed than shown. Her back story is never elaborated on and we learn very little about her personality. It's hard to be invested in whether someone will live and die when we hardly know them. 

You get the impression that the filmmakers behind “Let It Snow” had a killer location and tried to weave a story around it. No clear identity ever emerges from the film. Early scenes in the hotel lay down the foreboding foreshadowing too much. Divergences on the mountain top feel like hopeless padding of a thin premise. The Christmas setting is cool but doesn't amount to much besides the occasional sighting of a tree or the title-lending carol. It's a movie that's overall quite dull, that has very little to offer. Hopefully, the next slasher flick to come out of the Ukraine is better than this one. [5/10]

Christmas 2020: Hanukkah (2019)

In 2009, director Eben McGarr released indie shocker “Sick Girl.” Despite its obvious flaws, I was a fan of the serial killer character study. In 2009, McGarr directed “House of the Wolfman,” a homage to classic Universal Monster movies that definitely had its heart in the right place. Not too long after that, McGarr started to hype his next project: A slasher movie called “Hanukkah.” I think Jewish horror fans have long awaited a horror film centered around our own winter festival. Some hilarious poster mock-ups, inspired by classic slasher flicks, were soon released. After that, there was no news about the project for over a decade. For a long time, I assumed McGarr's “Hanukkah” simply wasn't going to get made. Finally, a few years back, filming started. “Hanukkah” had a limited theatrical run before arriving on VOD back in February. Now, as 2020's Festival of Lights begins, I decided to sit down and watch the long-in-development feature.

Thirty two years ago, Judah Lazarus – dubbed the “HanuKiller” by the press – murdered a dozen people. A fanatical Orthodox Jew, Judah was driven by voices from God to murder what he deemed to be “bad” Jews. Cops shot him down just as he was about to sacrifice his son, Obediah. Three decades later, Obediah has grown into a man determined to carry on his father's work. A group of Jewish twenty-somethings gather as Hanukkah starts to throw a party. After they get stranded at a friend's house, Obediah arrives to punish all he deems as violating the rules of the Torah. 

As previously established, I like the cut of Eben McGarr's jib. The guy is obviously a real horror fan. You can see that in “Hanukkah.” The movie loads its cast with familiar faces. A frail looking Sid Haig plays Judah in the opening. P.J. Soles has an amusing role as the mother of a character, getting to quote two of her iconic “Halloween” lines. This is far from the only explicit shout-out to Carpenter's classic. Genre regulars like Dick Miller and Caroline Williams also have small roles, while Kane Hodder and Felissa Rose had behind-the-scenes roles. Veteran “Friday the 13th” composer Henry Manfredini provides the score. In its best moments, “Hanukkah” captures a classic slasher atmosphere by lighting its scenes in intense reds and blues.

However, for far too much of its run time, not a whole lot happens in “Hanukkah.” McGarr feels the need to stretch his story out for as many of the eight nights as possible. This means there's a Shabbat in there where Obediah has to rest. Meaning he must refrain from killing. So the film's gang of slightly obnoxious characters have to hang out in one location for several days. With no other options, McGarr has to pad the movie out with increasingly tedious relationship drama. Characters cheat or attempt to cheat on one another, arguing about their various entanglements or other petty bullshit. None of it is all that involving and the movie frequently feels like it's just killing time until the next murder scene.

At least, that's what I would assume but most of “Hanukkah's” murder scenes happen off-screen. A foul mouthed Santa Claus is slashed while several members of the far-too-large cast are vanquished in-between scenes. When “Hanukkah” does provide gore, it's similar to the graphic torture scenes McGarr utilized in “Sick Girl.” A graphic skinning is not so much the kind of cheap thrills I had hoped for from a Hanukkah-themed horror flick. (Though the movie piles on the sex and nudity.) The movie is at its best when utilizing its Jewish roots. Such as when Obediah makes a kippah from a victim's scalp or uses a dreidel to decide someone's fate.  

Ultimately, “Hanukkah” can't help but feel half-formed. The movie's climax is an ethical debate about the tenets of Jewish faith between Obediah and the film's other most prominently Jewish character. What follows is an incredible sloppy resolution, that does little beside raises more questions. “Hanukkah's' end credits then promises a sequel, “Day of Judgment,” which would presumably resolve the plot points raised in those final minutes. Once again, I have to applaud McGarr for having his heart in the right place. “Hanukkah” is a great idea for a horror movie. It turns out, the traditional rabbinical outfit – fedora, tallit, payot curls, black overcoat – makes for a cool slasher villain look. Yet the actual “Hanukkah” falls short of that potential. Let's light a candle and prayer someone takes another try at this irrepressibly trashy premise some day. [5/10]

Director Report Card: John Landis (1983)

7. Trading Places

In 1982, John Belushi died of a fatal drug overdoes. His hard partying ways had finally caught up with him but the entertainment world mourned the loss of a great talent. Yet the same show that brought Belushi to fame, “Saturday Night Live,” would also birth another great star in the early eighties. After becoming popular on the sketch comedy show, Eddie Murphy would co-star with Dan Aykroyd in a John Landis film, much like Belushi did before him. The three would collaborate on “Trading Places.” Originally conceived for Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor, it would instead become another early success for Murphy and another iconic comedy hit for its director.

Louis Winthorpe and Billy Ray Valentine could not be more different. Winthorpe is the manager in the employ of Randolph and Mortimer Duke, two obscenely wealthy commodity brokers. He lives a life of refinement, with his money and high society girlfriend. Valentine is a homeless con man, who pretends to be a double amputee blind veteran to panhandle for cash. After a chance encounter between the two, the Duke brothers decide to make a wager. One brother believes success is entirely genetic, while the other thinks circumstances plays a role. So they ruin Louis' life, framing him for theft and drug dealing, stripping away his entire fortune. They grab up Valentine and teach him how to be a commodity dealer. Soon, Louis is living with a hooker and plotting murderous revenge, while Billy Ray adapts to the rich life with ease. However, the two men cross paths again and realize they've both been screwed by the Dukes, deciding to take revenge.

“Trading Places” largely concerns itself with the idea of nature vs. nurture, a debate people have been arguing about for hundreds of years. It's pretty clear which side of that argument the film comes down on. His riches and life of luxury being torn away leaves Louis a broken mess. When given all the opportunities money can provide in America, Billy prospers. The film exaggerates this idea for comedic effect. Within the span of weeks, Louis is a drunken Santa Claus grunting nonsensically while stealing whole plates full of food. A degree of fish-out-of-water humor arises from Valentine's initial induction into his new life, an inspired gag involving a vase. Yet he's soon chastising his old friends for their behavior in his new house. Though it plays these changes for laughs, “Trading Places” clearly makes its point.

Yet the film is truly not too concerned with the age-old question of nature vs. nurture. A life of disadvantages leading someone to desperate decisions is almost self-evident. Instead, “Trading Places” targets the rich and powerful. The Duke brothers are cartoonishly evil. They treat other people's lives like a game. As ridiculously rich as they both are, it's still not enough for them, as they plot throughout the film to make themselves even more money. Louis' friends are no better. The minute he falls on hard times, they – including his fiance – abandon him. The message is clear: If you're not part of the elite class, the rich don't even see you as human. Oh, and did I mention that this is a Christmas movie, this story of greed playing out against the season of giving and consumerism?

This, secretly, makes “Trading Places” a hugely prescient film. The original script was entitled “Black and White.” In a revealing moment, one of the Duke brothers drops a racist epitaph. That makes it astoundingly clear that the lower class that the rich dismiss obviously includes any one who isn't white. Billy ended up in jail by simply walking into a rich, white man. The cops, of course, believe Louis' story over Valentine's, the black man being accused of a serious crime simply by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The film presents a world in which racist old white guys operate under a philosophy of unfettered greed and needless cruelty. It is, in fact, our world. By humiliating this system, John Landis makes his most anti-authoritarian film yet. It was subversive in 1983 and, as things have gotten worst, has only become more relevant.

Putting all politics aside, “Trading Places” is also valuable for showing the world how damn funny Eddie Murphy could be. The film proves definitively that Murphy knew how to deliver the hell out of a line. Simple little moments – a glance in a bathroom, a series of questions to a limo driver – are turned into huge laughs by Murphy's smart-ass delivery. Murphy is perfectly cast as a con man, as someone who can outsmart most anyone with his sheer gumption and guile. Murphy was also an incredible physical performer. Whether it's playing the part of a limbless vet or a Camaroon exchange student, or the way he steals stuff that is technically his, Murphy reveals a smooth confidence in his abilities. He's frequently hilarious, perfectly suited to the part.

Dan Aykroyd is equally well cast as Louis Winthorpe. As displayed in “The Blues Brothers,” Aykroyd's particular ability, always slightly off-beat and stiff, makes him an ideal straight man. That inherent weirdness makes him well suited to stuck-up rich guy, who seems like he's from a different world because he basically is. Watching that facade of civility crumble as Louis suffers one misfortune after another also reveals Aykroyd's fearlessness as a comedic performer. He has no problem letting a little dog piss on him or pocketing a slice of roast beef. I'm surprised Akyroyd and Murphy didn't do more films together, as their energy compliment each other so well.

Presumably after working together on “Coming Soon,” Jamie Lee Curtis would re-team with John Landis here. From a certain perspective, it's not the most flattering of parts. Curtis' Ophelia is a stereotypical Hooker with a  Heart of Gold. She lets Louis into her apartment, out of sheer kindness. Though we never actually see them get sexual, it's heavily implied the two are sleeping together soon enough. She doesn't do drugs or have a pimp – the “distasteful” parts of being a sex worker, I guess – and is smartly saving her money. Especially from a modern perspective, this is an embarrassing reductive roles, both objectified and put on a pedestal. Yet you can hardly care about that stuff because Curtis is so damn charming. No wonder Louis falls in love with Ophelia. Who wouldn't?

Backing up these three wonderfully effective leads is an equally strong supporting cast. Two cinema legends play the Duke brothers, Ralph Bellamy and Don Ameche. Both are nicely relaxed in the roles of unrepentant greedy old snobs. Ameche is even sort of likable, with a gleeful spark in his smile, even if he's playing a totally despicable character. Bellamy is more self-assured in his greed, which is ideal for the part. Also quietly hilarious is Denholm Elliot as Coleman, Winthorpe's butler. The contempt with which he regards his boss, quietly shown through snide asides. As Coleman becomes a participant in the scheme to defraud the Duke brothers, Elliot's performance happily goes to even more ridiculous levels. Paul Gleason is also nicely cast as the Dukes' henchman, the actor having no problem playing a huge asshole to the hilt.

In many ways, “Trading Places” has aged really well. Its politics couldn't be more relevant in the modern day. Even its racial elements are less clumsy than you'd imagine. Valentine is never a stereotype. Even the goofy supporting characters of color are funny more because of absurd gags, like the burly black guy who only says “Yeah!” Landis, being a sexploitation filmmaker at heart, can't help but get as much gratuitous nudity in the film. Yet one scene, in particular, has aged really badly. During the extended confidence act in the film's last third, Dan Aykroyd dons black face, a dreadlocks wig, and an embarrassing Jamaican accent. Yep, there's just no getting around that. It's awkward, to say the least. I wish I could say it fits into an overall feeling of absurdity within the film but, even playing by the world of 'Trading Places'” own rules, it feels out-of-place.

“Trading Places” generates most of its laugh from great comedians knowing their way around clever dialogue and increasingly silly situations. In its last third, that goofy streak goes to previously unseen level. That unfortunate moment of black face is part of a whole series of cultural stereotypes displayed in quick succession. That also involves an obnoxiously broad Jim Belushi, appearing in a minor role most probably meant to be played by his late brother. The calculatingly broad physical comedy and disguises climaxes with Paul Gleason being raped by a gorilla. Which would be offensive if the entire situation wasn't so ridiculous. The gorilla even makes goo-goo eyes at the disguised bad guy, as if the sequence couldn't get anymore cartoonish.

“Trading Places” is set in Philadelphia. They provides another ironic layer to the story, the premise of men being betrayed for greedy reasons playing out against the City of Brotherly Love. Landis sets up both the theme of class division and the urban location with the opening montage, which contrasts the soup kitchens, adult bookstores, and pawn shops with the fine dining and fancy nightclubs. This gives us an idea of the two worlds the film occupies, which are also the two worlds the city is made up of. The sweaty and gritty streets provide gives us a sense of Billy's world, while the bustle of the trading floor and the fancy clubs tells us what Louis is about.

Though he didn't write “Trading Places,” John Landis thoroughly makes the material his own. There's the aforementioned gorilla. Bo Diddly has a cameo as a pawn shop owner. “See You Next Wednesday” appears in the background, as some sort of melodrama. The soundtrack, when not focusing on Elmer Bernstein's classical-influenced (and Oscar nominated) score, is filled out with golden oldies. Despite getting a little too goofy for its own good in its last act, and loosing sight of its own moral a bit with that final scene, “Trading Places” is a satisfying and often hilarious comedy. Audiences in 1983 agreed. It would become the fourth highest grossing film of the year, quickening Eddie Murphy's ascent towards superstar status. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Cate Shortland (2017)

4. Berlin Syndrome

Throughout her still developing career, Cate Shortland has flirted with the thriller genre. "Somersault" had that one, brilliantly tense sequence. “The Silence” hovered around being a thriller without ever succeeding at it. “Lore” was certainly grim and unsettling, though not exactly in the way you expect from a genre effort. All along, the director was clearly showing mastery of the various building blocks necessary to make good suspense. With her fourth feature, she would finally commit. “Berlin Syndrome,” based on a novel by Melanie Joosten, sees Shortland moving in a more commercial direction without leaving behind the ideas she's explored in her previous films.

Clare, an Australian backpacker, travels to Berlin in hopes of photographing the sights of the German city. She meets a handsome man named Andi, a teacher. The two spend the night together. The next morning, Andi goes to work and leaves Clare locked in his apartment. At first, she assumes this was a simple mistake. After Andi returns, acting as if nothing unusual happened, it becomes increasingly clear to Clare that he doesn't plan on letting her leave. He restrains her, threatens her with violence, and attempts to manipulate her. Clare quickly discovers that she is not the first girl Andi has captured either.

After quickly deducing that Andi has trapped her, Clare smashes a window with a chair. The glass is double-pained. Later, she injuries Andi and makes a run for it. He immediately scoops her back up. While out in public, she attempts to alert a young boy of what's happening. The kid doesn't speak English. After successfully alerting a bystander, Andi kills the man before he can rescue Clare. Is this frustrating for anyone else? That's precisely the point. “Berlin Syndrome” puts the audience in Clare's place. She is trapped in a seemingly inescapable hell. The viewer is trapped with her. An atmosphere of grim tension quickly overtakes you, as you wonder if there's any way out of this prison.

How you feel watching Clare's escape plans get continually dashed is how every woman trapped in an abusive relationship feels. That is what's most unsettling about “Berlin Syndrome:” There's nothing extraordinary about Andi's abuse. He repeatedly gaslights her, ignoring her concerns and treating this situation as normal. When doing horrible things to her, he insists it's her fault. He neglects her when she doesn't interest him, leaving her locked inside the apartment without power for days. When she bonds with a pet dog, he quietly, remorselessly kills it. My mom's first husband, a piece-of-shit who beat her regularly, did that too. Even the suggesting of leaving the apartment is met with a threat of violence. A girl I knew in college had a boyfriend do that to her as well. “Berlin Syndrome” is a horror movie not in spite of but precisely because of how totally plausible its horror is.

It's a horror movie for other reasons too. While Clare is trapped inside her room, she slowly uncovers clues that Andi is a serial killer. Hidden throughout the apartment are remains of the last girl Andi did this to. All of these discoveries are the kind that make you squirm: A scrapbook full of nude photographs, a lock of blonde hair fished out of a shower drain, a bloody fingernail stuck into a floorboard. You feel the same sort of revulsion Clare feels as she finds these gruesome hints. “Berlin Syndrome” shows that Cate Shortland actually has a pretty good grasp on a disquieting, even gross, type of horror.

When not suggesting acts of brutal violence, “Berlin Syndrome” occasionally actually shows them. A notable moment has a screwdriver being slammed into Andi's hand. He counters this by smashing Clare's hand into a door. Her hand is broken throughout most of the rest of the film, the camera lingering on the slow recovery and pain she must be in. This is only the second most unnerving incident of violence in the film. The most is even more subtle. After having a simple conversation with her, Andi shoves Clare in the trunk of his car in a deeply blunt fashion. The violence in “Berlin Syndrome” is realistically savage, giving it even more impact.

The film's title brings Stockholm Syndrome to mind. There are certain points throughout the movie where you wonder if, maybe, Clare has successfully fallen under Andi's unhinged spell. After his father dies, she comforts him. During a Christmas celebration, she seems to actually enjoy his conversation. At one point, she willingly consents to wearing lingerie for him. The question one must ask is this: Is Clare becoming psychologically dependent on her captor? Or is she merely playing the long con, hoping to catch him with his guard down? It's good for a thriller to have that level of uncertainly, for the audience to be kept guessing until the final reveal.

What makes Andi's psychosis and Clare's dire predicament all the more upsetting is how genuinely steamy their initial pairing is. He's charming. When they first meet up, they have some pretty hot sex. They do it again the next morning. Shortland shows a previously unnoticed skill for eroticism, in these moments. Of course, that's what allows senselessly abusive men like Andi to get away with it for so long. They are charismatic, handsome, and likable. It's another example of how all of “Berlin Syndrome” functions as a metaphor for the entire idea of an abusive relationship. The film itself lures you in with the sexy sex, before revealing the horror that hides underneath.

Though it shows her moving towards a different genre, “Berlin Syndrome” definitely looks like a Cate Shortland movie. The handheld camera work isn't present as much as usual. However, the overcast and gritty colors are definitely present and accounted for. The film has a uniformly gray color palette. Save for the occasional burst of color from some Christmas lights, which happily recalls the more colorful moments from “Somersault.” Shortland also just can't let go of the slow motion. That appears during a montage of Clare photographing herself for Andi's amusement. It's good to know the filmmaker has kept some consistent qualities along the way.

For the majority of its run time, “Berlin Syndrome” is a two person show. Teresa Palmer plays Clare. She has a lot of heavy lifting to do as an actress here. Her character spends most of the film in an extreme emotional state. When she's not outwardly panicking, she's panicking internally too. At the same time, you can spy the gears turning inside, as she tries to find some way out of a seemingly impossible situation. Clare is a girl constantly breaking apart and then coming back together again, Palmer taking us through the steps every time they happen.

Max Riemelt is the other half of that two-hander, as Andi. Riemelt is very good at something that makes Andi an even more chilling character. Most of the time, he seems perfectly normal. When talking with his dad or teaching his class, there's nothing unsettling about his behavior. When he comes home to the apartment, with flowers for Clare, asking her if she likes pesto, you're not even sure if he knows what he's doing is wrong. All of this is before he reveals the depth of sociopathy, when he coldly considers killing Clare or sets a body on fire without even pausing. There's no mask of sanity and that's the creepiest part. Every awful thing Andi does is totally justified in his own mind. Riemelt portrays all of this fantastically.

If you're looking for Shortland's pet themes in “Berlin Syndrome,” you can see some of them. Andi's relationship with his father, and his even more implied relationship with his mother, follows the theme of parenthood that has run through all her movies. Yet there might be some headier themes in “Berlin Syndrome.” Berlin is obviously a city with a long history. The story of a person being held against their will, totally under control of a homicidal and psychotic madman, seems to present certain parallels with Berlin's fascist past. Some with a better understanding of Berlin's history and location might be able to speak to this stuff more. It went over my head a little bit, I'm thinking.

It's fair to say that “Berlin Syndrome” is my favorite of Cate Shortland's films, so far. I'd argue its her best film. It is a taunt execution of a creepy premise, that is full of deeper angles worth exploring. Both lead performers do a wonderful job, Palmer creating a heroine you can root for and Riemelt creating a very disturbing antagonist. Maybe the threads of melodrama that undid Shortland's previous films for me work better with the horror/thriller genre, where heightened emotions are expected and perfectly understandable. However you slice it, “Berlin Syndrome” is a deeply unnerving and effectively grim picture that will send the kind of shiver up your spine that lingers for quite a while. [Grade: B+]

Having watched all her movies now, I'm kind of surprised that Disney chose Cate Shortland to handle a big budget action-fest. Her previous four features aren't exactly commercial. They have almost no action sequences or special effects in them. Aside from having female protagonists and her last two movies being set in Eastern Europe, I don't really see any direct line between her previous films and “Black Widow.” Which, weirdly, makes me far more interested in what's to come. I'm genuinely intrigued how these indie sensibilities will adapt to blockbuster fare... Ya know, assuming the world ever settles down enough for superhero movies to get released again.

As for my opinion on Shortland overall, she's interesting. She's got some impulses I'm not a fan but others that draw me in. I'm not sure yet if she's a director I would've jived with otherwise, at least based on her first three films. Her career is still early enough that it's possible Shortland has a masterpiece in her. “Berlin Syndrome” is getting there. I suppose, for going in blind on this one, things turned out pretty well.