reVIEW (9)
HIDE AND SEEK

Hide and Seek is the story of psychologist David Callaway (Robert De Niro), whose wife (Amy Irving) loses her life suddenly and tragically, forcing him to not only cope with the loss, but care for their little girl Emily (Dakota Fanning). One move to upstate New York later, and Emily is having visitations from her new friend Charlie, and the expected strange goings-on begin.

The central riddle of Hide and Seek, of course, involves Charlie and his true nature. Is it supernatural, natural, or psychological? The big problem with the film is, the answer is painfully transparent, and the underlying reason for it, ultimately prosaic. To the credit of director John Polson (Swimf@n) and scriptwriter Ari Schlossberg, the clues are present, but there really isn’t much of a mystery here. A senile Angela Lansbury could solve this one without breaking a sweat.
And the red herrings are, at best, negligible. Admittedly, I’ve seen worse: the awkward and obvious herrings of Jane Campion’s In The Cut and Robert Zemeckis’ What Lies Beneath readily come to mind. And though a mystery’s red herring is supposed to distract you from the real solution, the herrings in Hide and Seek are instantly dismissable, as not only do they cross into the too-obvious zone, but the true answer is just so evident, that once you’ve latched onto it, you’ll be like a dog reluctant to give up its bone.

One of the other tragedies of Hide and Seek is that not only is talent of the caliber of a De Niro wasted here, but that of Oscar nominee Elizabeth Shue (for Leaving Las Vegas) and Famke Janssen (who did more as Michael Douglas’ injured wife in Don’t Say A Word than she ends up doing here) as well. Shue and Janssen don’t really play characters; they play plot necessities, the possible romantic interest, and the younger colleague/former student. We don’t really know much about them beyond the barest skeleton of a thumbnail sketch, and their on-screen time is limited, at best, visible only when the story’s events require their presence.
The lion’s share of Hide and Seek is handed over to De Niro and Fanning, which wouldn’t have been such a bad thing, if only De Niro had submitted more than the passably serviceable performance he gives here, and Fanning had done more than just steal a page from Christina Ricci’s Wednesday Addams, looking all gloomy and morose, like a pre-teen believer in heroin chic. One never really gets the sense of the presumably tremendous psychological weight these characters must be toiling under. In the end, everything is terribly mediocre and not very thrilling.

Interestingly enough, the space in which Hide and Seek operates is the same territory masterfully staked out by a certain kind of film from the recent Asian horror cinema boom. However, there is far more style and flair in Kim Ji-woon’s Janghwa, Hongryeon (A Tale of Two Sisters) or Park Ki-hyung’s Acacia, than in this piece of assembly-line Hollywood masquerading as a thriller.
Polson’s direction is casual when it should be taut. There is never any sense of something extraordinary taking place here. Instead, due to the throw-away manner in which the material is approached, it’s almost as if the filmmakers are saying, Nothing to worry about, this happens every day.

Any film should be involving, a mystery perhaps even more so. It should have the ability to suck you into its world, to subsume the audience into its twists and tangles, making you wonder, all the way until the final frame. It should be able to get you to participate in its game, get you to try and solve its riddle, to look as hard as you can for the hidden solution.
In Hide and Seek, with its answer plain to see, Polson and company don’t seem to care, one way or the other, if you choose to play their game. Well, all I can say to that is four simple words: sit this one out.

(The above review was previously published under the title “Sit This One Out.”)

(Hide and Seek OS courtesy of impawards.com.)

THR3E
(Review)

Based on the Ted Dekker novel and directed by Robby Henson, Thr3e opens with a prologue introducing us to police psychologist Jennifer Peters (Justine Waddell), who is being terrorized by the Riddle Killer, a serial loony who’s taken offense to Peters’ writing.
Ending with the prerequisite tragedy which will ensure the character’s investment in the subsequent narrative, this opening sequence gives way to seminary student Kevin Parson (Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s Marc Blucas), whose thesis on the nature of evil is nearly overdue. Just when he’s about to get cracking on it though, he is inexplicably targeted by the Riddle Killer, who blows up Parson’s car to prove he means business.
We then quickly make the acquaintance of Parson’s teenhood friend and sweetheart, Samantha Sheer (Laura Jordan), and his aunt, Belinda (Three’s Company’s Priscilla Barnes) and her terminally dysfunctional household, as the film steadily gets into gear and moves towards its marginally effective climax (whose plot twist may or may not grab you, depending on how closely you’re paying attention, and how familiar you are with this type of psychological thriller).
And given the presence of that last minute plot twist, it’s clear that this is the kind of movie that hinges entirely on whether that curve ball works for you. Personally, I thought it was handled a lot better here than in other films (Hide and Seek, for one).
It is, however, a success both qualified and relative.

The effectiveness of Thr3e’s climax is compromised by a number of things.
Firstly, there is no art at all to the narrative structure, and the proceedings are riddled with awkwardly placed flashbacks.
The flashbacks are then made even more problematic by terrible performances from the supporting cast playing the younger versions of some of Thr3e’s main characters.
Wince-worthy performances can also be found amongst much of the rest of the supporting cast, including Waddell and Barnes. When the Riddle Killer (whose voice distorter gimmick comes off as a lame rip-off from far superior grandmasters like Scream’s Ghostface and Saw’s Jigsaw) calls Peters a bad cop who wrote a bad book, he neglected to mention, “Oh, and by the by, you’re a bad actress too.”
Barnes meanwhile, acquits herself far better in Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfield (reviewed here: Archive March 2007). As Thr3e’s loony Belinda, she’s mostly borderline burlesque, as are the other members of the nuthouse she calls home. Here, the dysfunction feels more contrived than authentic, again diluting the potency of the story’s climax.

Beyond the bland storytelling and the largely questionable performances, there is also the particular problem of having a climax that by its very nature, has to be talky, as opposed to one characterized by action. Even if you didn’t see the plot twist coming (and you can, if you take careful note of the peculiarities of how some characters act), it’s still a distracting thing to be conscious of the fact that, Boy, these are some Chatty Patties, huh? (And when one of the characters is played by Bill Moseley, who on occasion sounds like Tom Gottlieb—who does VO work for You Don’t Know Jack and trashy reality dating show, The Fifth Wheel—the distraction level gets pretty high.)
There are also some details that aren’t even addressed, such as how Kevin’s stalker became so knowledgeable about explosive devices. (Of course, I guess all that was required is a copy of The Anarchist’s Cookbook, but I would have appreciated a mention at the very least.)

Fortunately, there are a couple of good things to write home about. Laura Jordan as Sam is possibly the best actress in the lot, and Blucas is at least tolerable as the film’s protagonist. Though they don’t completely make up for the majority of bad performances in Thr3e, they at least go a long way to making sure the audience isn’t constantly groaning and rolling its eyes in exasperation.

Ultimately, Thr3e is not as bad as many of the other psychological thrillers of its ilk, though it could have been significantly more effective had the direction and acting been given more attention.

Parting shot: Thr3e is from FoxFaith, Twentieth Century Fox’s faith-based division handling the company’s “growing portfolio of morally-driven, family-friendly programming,” their tagline: “Films You Can Believe In.”
It’s funny though, the fact that Home Alone and Home Alone 2 are part of that portfolio.

(Thr3e OS courtesy of wildaboutmovies.com.)