Luz

If anyone is like me, you do a small amount of research before going into a film. Check how well received it was by our peers both numerically, and of course, by comments.

I know taste is subjective, you can't make all people happy all the time. If you don't have the proper expectations going into a film, it will not end well. People think horror, and sadly, the western stylized formula is what a lot of loud and unhappy reviewers will show up. They go in with the wrong ideas and end up hating a film.

I look at movies like anything else in my life, what am I in the mood for? Going into new films I keep all plot related stuff a mystery, I just try to grab a feel for how people received it.

I grew up in the 80s. I've seen a stupid amount of data. After you have seen enough movies, you end up back to where all these other highbrow reviewers like Siskel and Ebert talk about hating. They can get quite passionate. That's a good thing.

Incase most haven't really paid attention, new movie ideas are like kidney stones, so imagine. You can have a really good one, it's rattling around just causes lots of fuss. You keep trying to get it out; but sadly, it will arrive in its own time. So that means there is a lot of wasted, uneventful happenings before you can take notice.

Everything is a re-make, re-imagining, re-monetizing of a property until its been worn out. Wait a few years, then it's re-boot baby. That's why films like this need to be appreciated. To go back to my stone analogy, when you get a great film, it changes you. Now, I'm not talking evangelical hand to head, 'ya-healed!' style of change. No. The change I mean is, it effected you in a very real way. It caused you to feel. Sure, you don't always end up feeling like you wanted, but that's the joy of movies!

If you go in with expectations for whatever braindead Rock and Hart (I love them both, but let's be real. They ain't brought in to reinvent the wheel. They are purely there to show they change ish up.) project we get every couple months. Studios are the devil. They want more and more, so they will George Lucas/Disney the ish out of an idea. Then when it's dead, they go and play around in their toy box of "safe bet" movies, change the lead to a POC or someone that is supposed to embody a minority group, add more females, and strain their o-ring until it gives up.

That's not change. That's not paying attention to the real problems. Yes there are groups under-represented; but that doesn't mean you just take a classic, paste different faces, and expect big box office numbers. Then you're angering the group being used as a prop to show how "woke" they aren't, and then you have the people who don't like all that change and come from a different time, being angry because it just looks like appropriation.

Yes we all have things to learn from one a other, period. Unfortunately you can't force it, because somehow a closed mind gets even more closed than their wallets.

You're wondering what that has to do with this movie, and I get it. It's not just about this movie tho. It's a trend in reviews period. We have a vocal group of people that are very closed minded and don't like different. They think the anonymity of the internet means their "expert" opinion needs heard.

Yes this is a unique movie. No, most won't like it. You have to understand and appreciate films. Yes, films always comes off pretentious, but it is an art form. Not everyone gets it. I'm hoping maybe someone will see this review and give something a real chance, or actually reevaluate their life choices.

If you always do what is safe, you get SW Ep 7. It takes all the cool things we loved growing up with, and tries to copy that. A copy of a copy, isn't as sharp. Multiplicity taught me that long ago. If you just copy, you are doing no effort. You're a lazy c unit that just wants money.

The 80s were the best time for movies because people did coke, and they tried crazy stuff! Sure, they kept trying to bleed the stone in some cases, but they tried different things that worked. It was big, loud, and unapologetic. We have lost that loving feeling.

This film is a movie, told like a play. Chances are, if you got this far, you're the type to watch this film. If you bounced pages back, you are happy in your bubble, so kudos.

It is a small budget independent film, and indi is movie for heart. They are projects someone cares about so deeply, they have to get it out there. Look at vintage Kevin Smith, or Sam "The Man" Raimi. They had a dream. They saw it clearly and they went for it. Sure it could look a bit Velveeta; but they become classics because true believers can always see the heart. Rocky Horror, Marvel and Stan. These dynasties that were a project of love that came from humble beginnings.

So this film is about possession, and they take the most unique way of telling a story. It doesn't hold your hand, as all good movies should not. It's not like next level Nolan mind bending, but it is still out there deep in right field. It is an experience. If you are sitting there going, "wtf?" that is a feeling. That's the movie speaking to you. I look at it like, the more violated and emotionally charged I am coming out, the more successful that story was at being told.

Sure this film feels slow, meandering. Much like my reviews... But it's a crazy ride. It has you off balance the whole time. It is an atmospheric piece. It reminds me of late 70s horror. The music, the way the set pieces made you feel. It was all part of the story, and built that level of suspension of disbelief.

How you tell stories involves how you set the parameters. There has to be rules. Like back in the day sunlight, garlic, stake to the heart. Don't fall asleep. Don't have premarital relations, especially in groups, in school, or out camping.

When we have the rules, we have the parameters to let us get in the headspace needed to fully appreciate and be in the film. Movies like this, or Mr. Weird & son, Cronenberg. The movie plays out in all of like, one location, but the way its framed, it's constantly changing and feels exactly like where you should feel. It plays on the theatrics that made Shakespeare so popular.

To tell a story you have to connect with the audience. By making the movie play out like theater, it grounds it in a reality that's perfectly normal, and yet very odd.

Not a large ensemble, a handful of characters. The story is the one trying to be a star, and it uses whoevers body to tell it.

If you go in looking for Exorcist, you'll be disappointed. If you are a student of story; and/or appreciate set pieces instead of flashy effects, you should come away appreciating what they did. It's not some game changer, but there aren't that many of those that happen often. It's that rarity that makes it such a winning high. It still takes a story we've all seen and heard before, and it owns it. It grabs the idea and makes it manifest.

Just because it isn't something I'll be thinking about long after, like It Follows, Antlers, Hereditary, Serbian Film, or Human Centipede, but it was more than adequate as an adventurous watch to be enjoyed.

I see how this film could be a near perfect little film, or a complete bore, depending on the viewer, so to qualify my comments let me make two observations right up front: this is a film about the supernatural - not the ghostly or the horrifying or the bloody, but the mystery and menace of something that is beyond the natural as we know it. That moment when you realize you might be part of something you never thought was "real" as opposed to being chased by monsters (although there is some blood, and some violence to be fair). And if you are not a viewer who is attuned to the sense of disquiet, or who can find suspense in seeing something not quite right and wondering why or where it may lead, then this movie will not resonate. Do not bother. You'll get impatient or be bored. But if you find yourself intrigued and captivated when, say, someone's behavior in a bar seems weirdly unnatural, then drop everything and gives this film a chance! It is like the best of the early David Lynch before he become a terrible parody of himself; when he could imbue a doorway or a radiator with menace by the intensity of his gaze and the music and sound that accompanies it. In this film, more often then not, it is in the eyes of the characters and how long they stare before they speak. If you are attuned to such nuance this movie will creep you out from the very first shot.

A comment by another reviewer perfectly sums up the difference between potential viewers: they said that one scene was a man "pointlessly" setting up chairs; however if you are the kind of viewer who would immediately notice he is arranging the chairs like a taxi cab for some sort of re-enactment, and start wondering how any role-playing is going to tie in and where will it lead, then this is definitely your kind of movie.

I loved every minute of it and I was greatly impressed by the increasingly clever manner in which a simple set-up was being developed. I don't want to spoil any surprises by even hinting at what I mean by that statement; for the right audience the best way to experience this film is in complete ignorance of where it is going and how its going to get there. I had heard only that it was frightening, but it is more of the disturbing uneasy variety as opposed to the jump-scare traditional fashion and I, for one, found it legitimately suspenseful throughout (and that even includes the lengthy single take set-up at the very beginning). Excellent performances, assured direction, effective use of limited locations - this film has everything going for it in addition to a familiar concept developed in a completely original and stimulating fashion.

For the right audience, that is.

I give Luz a 5 out of 10. I do this because I at least owe the makers of this movie their due. I think they did what they set out to do. The problem is that they didn't include the audience. A movie can be a lot of things; smart, angry, dijointed, simplistic, action packed, erotic, whatever.... But doesn't it still have to be appealing? Otherwise what's the point?

Trust me. Whatever underlying tones or metaphors are present with this movie will not be reached by hardly anyone. And I would contest that those who claim to understand what's going on with this movie are fooling you and themselves.

These art movies can continue to be produced the way they are. That's fine and even great, but give the audience a payoff, or something. Anything at all. This movie doesn't deliver anything for the effort you will put into watching it.

The visual look of Luz is out of this world and has a vibe all its own. If you just happened upon this film on cable one night, you could easily think someone like Dario Argento had a hand in producing this at some point in the mid or late 80's. It has a gritty, 16mm aesthetic that's hypnotizing and makes the film hard to shake once its over. I only wish I could say the same about the threadbare story that does anything but linger with the viewer.

Acting is strong across the board with everyone giving convincingly wild and bizarre performances and there are some great images that will stick with you, but Luz could have used a few more drafts of the script before it went into production. Also, at barely 70 minutes, there are moments of the film that seem endless. It's pretty lightweight in terms of story, but it's a great exercise in style and mood.

... by a self help group from a secure psychiatric asylum to replicate the images they live with when not on their prescribed medication. That, or the cast and crew had discovered and used LSD just before filming began. You may need to do the same to make rhyme or reason of any of this.