Lethal Eviction

This throws so very much at us in no time at all. We're introduced to a colorful cast of characters right off the bat, and learn that this is an especial boon for fans of Jennifer Carpenter since she gets to have fun in two different roles. We're introduced to the new landlord indicated in the premise, and in the very first moments that we meet them (and in every scene thereafter) we get confirmation of the real-life truism that landlords are trash and should be abolished. We also get racism, transphobia, homophobia, misogyny, and toxic masculinity, and hypocrisy from a judgmental religious zealot, all within the first twenty minutes. There's a forewarning (and subsequent content warning) for animal cruelty, and no ready indication of where the story is going to go - the killer in this thriller could well be anyone, and most of the characters seem to readily deserve to be knocked off, too. 'Lethal eviction,' also known as 'Grayson Arms,' is promising at the outset, and one way or another it is a bit of a ride - but at that, while not necessarily outright bad, unmistakably uneven and troubled.

Screenwriter Gary Barkin has penned characters with plentiful personality, as suggested - though not necessarily especial depth, so it seems difficult at some points for actors to find the exact right tone or balance for their performance. As dialogue follows from the characterizations, and many of these figures are decidedly unlikable, the language is somewhat unsavory to say the least, though in fairness, perfectly suitable in terms of the narrative. That narrative, and the scene writing that lays the groundwork, is duly compelling, keeping the course of events enough of a mystery so that even as bits and pieces are fed to us to build the plot, viewers are kept in the dark up to the last act as to what exactly is going on. And so it is with other facets of the feature - direction, cinematography, editing, music, and so on all demonstrate basic capability for the most part, though they are also not at all remarkable. More interesting is the work of production designer and art director Carlos Osorio, costume designers Matt Berger and Laura Flett, and the hair and makeup artists. What sparing effects or stunts are employed look good.

Mind you, I've used some qualifying words and phrases here, and not without good reason. I do think 'Lethal eviction' is passably enjoyable, but as the digital timer advances it becomes more and more clear that it's less than perfect. The major red herring in the plot is too obvious to be of specific value, and we can readily guess at the twist that comes around the start of the third act (even if it seems for a time, earlier on, like that trope isn't being used after all). The killer's motivations aren't exactly strong in terms of cinematic storytelling, and even if we accept them at face value, they feel so specious that after watching I found myself second-guessing if they were established at all. It's also worth observing that while all the fundamental components of film-making are just fine, at the climax especially the cinematography and editing become pointedly overexcited and self-indulgent; there was no need for the flourishes to which we're treated, and the inclusion thereof is mildly aggravating. And when it's all over, the ending accentuates that one character has survived as though we're supposed to sympathize with them, even though it's been thoroughly cemented that they're awful - and the very last moments of dialogue, serving up one last twist, just seem too on the nose to pass muster. The screenplay needed to be tightened, and in many regards the feature could have benefited from more mindful self-restraint.

For those movies that exist somewhere in the middle of a spectrum between "totally excellent" and "totally rotten," I commonly find myself thinking that however good it might be, the title might be most recommendable for those who are particular fans of the cast or someone else involved. I think that's even more true here: at large the acting is nothing special, yet even as some distinct moments don't come off well, for the most part it's just fine. One's favor in this capacity, and with respect to the feature overall, might well be swayed by how much they like one actor or another; sometimes it can be fun to watch someone even if the film they're in is less than stellar. I freely admit that I like Carpenter, so there's the biggest factor for me even as I somewhat sort of kind of appreciate what this tried (with mixed results) to do. With that said, for general audiences - well, you could do better, and you could do worse. There's certainly no need at all to go out of your way for 'Lethal eviction,' though if you happen to come across it, it's alright so long as you keep expectations in check. In fairness, for a thriller with slasher aspirations, that level of quality might well be exactly par for the course.

I caught this film on Showtime - it's a tight little thriller with lots of twists and turns - some were obvious, others definitely were not. The plot revolves around a run-down apartment building where the tenants start meeting their makers after a new landlord buys the place. I loved Jennifer Carpenter's performance (I'd never seen her before), who had the tough job of playing two very different twin sisters, one of whom is completely psycho. Judd Nelson is also a nice surprise as a creepy psychiatrist who moves into the building. Most of the characters are interesting and the story moves quickly. The surprise ending is completely unexpected - I didn't see it coming at all. Definitely rent this film or catch it the next time it plays on cable. Well worth the 90 minute running time!

Okay, to me personally Michael Learned's performance was HORRIBLE, not 'Brilliant', as another reviewer here has stated. Interestingly, the Direction was just about the ONLY thing that was actually pretty good. The visuals, camera work, framing, editing, etc. weren't really bad at all; there were some nice transitions and the look and mood of the film were pretty decent. BUT... that was just about it... The acting was NOT 'Passable'; overall it was horrible with moments of okayness (okayness...?) Anyway, YES Judd Nelson was indeed sleepwalking through this; you could almost hear him saying to himself ('I'm getting paid for this; I'm getting paid for this...')

Normally, I give a LOT of slack to this kind of film. My 2 favorite directors (dead and alive, respectively) are Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch, so I'm no stranger to the 'Strange'...

But... this script was REALLY bad; man oh man, was it bad.

So, perhaps if the script and the actors had been better, THEN MAYBE with the above average direction and the half way decent concept, I think it might have had a good chance to come out a LOT better...

Pros: We get a chance to see early Jennifer Carpenter at work, and it is very interesting to say the least. This movie is worth it for that reason alone. The actual script had potential, as far as the storyline goes, but no budget to speak of I imagine.

Cons: Everything else. Oh, it's Judd Nelson alright, but it ain't vintage...

I whole heartedly recommend this for Jennifer Carpenter, she has some serious chops. She's kinda hot in this movie, too, depending on what character she is playing.

Get it, you have nothing better to do.

Surprisingly, this movie was entertaining! It is a little slow in the beginning but as the movie progresses, it keeps your attention.

The movie has many twists that will at some point have you thinking you know who the killer is and then all of sudden, you think it's another tenant when all along it was the least suspecting one.

The movie lacks some directorial flaws and a few common sense errors when eluding a killer but aside from these minor details, the movie was suspenseful.

I didn't give it a 10 because I didn't like the direction the the director chose to go with th ending. However, I would recommend you see it.