Mr. Jones

Right up until its final act, "Mr. Jones" (2013) amazed me by how good it was. Here was a creative, thoughtful and extremely frightening found-footage horror movie. It was so damned good that I was surprised that I hadn't heard about it before.

The story idea was fresh and interesting — a young couple moves to an isolated forest cabin, only to discover that a mysterious neighbor is "Mr. Jones," a legendary anonymous folk artist. This hermit produces grotesque artworks — "scarecrows," totems and dreamcatchers that he then mails to apparently random recipients around the world. Not all of them are pleased with their macabre gifts, and their benefactor's identity and motivations become the stuff of urban legends. (Try to imagine H.R. Giger with a modus operandi like Banksy.) There is a lot more going on here than a cliché yarn about a supernatural bogeyman.

The script is smart, the story is well developed, and the tension builds slowly and effectively as the tale unfolds for our two protagonists. My only quibble is that the couple does incredibly stupid things, and are cheerfully curious about discoveries that should scare the hell out of them. But that is a failing of so many horror films that I decided not to let it bother me.

Then the movie loses its way. I'm disappointed to share here that this otherwise great film suffers because of its disjointed, meandering and consequently frustrating climax. It's too long, it's too confusing, and it spends far too much time repeating redundant shots and scare-moments.

We see one character, for example, pursued by multiple adversaries … repeatedly. Well, these adversaries stop being scary when the viewer eventually arrives at the conclusion that either A.) they can't catch this person or B.) they can't hurt this person.

At another point, a character must do something urgent, but receives contradictory instructions from different sources. This plot development could have been damned unnerving in the context of our story, but it's nearly lost in a confusing barrage of repetitive images and sounds. Writer-director Karl Mueller strives to immerse the viewer in a kind of surreal "nightmare." But he makes a mistake that is common for surreal horror films — portraying confused and disoriented characters does not always require the viewer to be confused and disoriented. A shorter, sparser, cleaner script would have saved what might have been a classic.

Oh, well. This movie was still fun enough. Again … much of it is quite excellent. And another viewer might not be as turned off by its conclusion as I was. I still recommend "Mr. Jones," if a little reluctantly. I'd rate it a 7 out of 10.

Mr. Jones is now streaming on Netflix, and when I came upon it I think I was taken in by the striking cover art (it's not the one listed here on IMDb). It's of one of the "statues" in the movie, silhouetted against a plain background, with some relatively cheery looking writing underneath it. It's a hell of a poster, and a great advertisement for the film.

It's a pity I can't say as many good things about the film, because I really wanted to. Something about the film doesn't quite click, and it's hard to pinpoint exactly what it is. The action is good, the villain is creepy, and there's a good story. All ingredients that a horror movie needs to nail. Even the acting is good, much better than it needs to be.

As I said though, it just doesn't... click. The format chosen for this film was a really, really bad choice. It's completely overdone, and it doesn't suit many films at all(I can think of 2 films where this choice worked). All it really does here is serve to rip us straight out of the action on screen, made even worse by those obligatory moments where the camera dramatically cuts out and random, documentary-style interviews littered throughout the middle sections.

The closing sections of the film are also strewn with bad choices. It slips into a slinky, Lynchian nightmare for the last half hour, which is good on a purely visceral level (it's well made) but it feels practically unrelated to the rest of the film and offers us no progression on what we've already seen. It's all style and no substance, which is a shame when the film actually sets itself up so well.

This is a film that may be enjoyed by some, but not by most. Some films don't need an ending, and do well by leaving out a definitive one. This is not one of them.

I am writing this after watching Mr Jones. I don't write many reviews, only about a dozen in a few years and only when something really interests me. Mr Jones falls into this category.

To begin with I found the introduction a little thin. A guy wants to create a nature documentary so uproots his life and with his girlfriend they go into some rural wilderness. So lets assume that they have the money to do this.... then what? There is no mention of a pending deal with a film distributer, and from what I can tell the 'wilderness' is not really wild; there is hardly anything that warrants a nature doco. And his girlfriend Penny is really going to put of her photography dreams for this!? As I said, thin.

We learn that the Scott is on 'meds' which he decides he doesn't want to take while out there, which causes him to become sullen and lazy, and his documentary falters.... until one day whilst filming some one dressed in what looks like black robes takes his bag and runs off. Does Scott chase him? Sure, but he has to get his girlfriend first! Together they break into the house of this person who after looking at some of his 'art' Penny identifies (without a doubt) that the person is the infamous and illusive Mr Jones, an mysterious artist from the 70's who created dozens of pieces and mails them to different people around the world.

Of course Scott believes her and takes off for NYC to interview a number of people with some knowledge of Mr Jones. Must be great being rich! Of course he leaves Penny there alone. I know I would knowing there is a strange man wondering around who makes strange 'art' and has already stolen from them, and knows they were in his basement.

From here the movie turns. The best way to describe it would be to possess the body of some one having an acid trip. Though experiences and those of others it is expressed that the art are Totems or Talismans and for some reason the characters who are sent the art start experiencing bizarre images and dreams. Wont say more as it would give away to much. The best comparison would be yellowbrickroad.

Premise aside the movie is quiet decent. The character of Penny is much easier to watch and care for then Scott who comes across as a pretentious selfish prat. The tone and atmosphere presented is very successful and I was brought into the movie. The overall direction is convoluted and a straight out film may have worked better then the handycam nonsense that hasn't worked for me since the The Last Exorcist (though Paranormal Activity 5 is a guilty pleasure).

Overall I give this film a 6.

I have mixed feelings about this found-footage-esque experimental drama-horror film. On the down side, it often blurs the lines between a nightmare and real happening horror, which is disturbing at times. I didn't get really tense in the moments I should've because It kept me asking whether it's just in their minds or really occurring and it got worse towards the end. Also the fact that it has a very ridiculous beginning with soundtrack and all..very unappealing. On the up side, there are some decently creepy moments and it does get more sinister as it progresses. It doesn't follow the general lines of other same category movies, and does a good job on the overall level. The couple, when together, is sometimes idiotic and unconvincing, but separately they make pretty satisfying performances. Still, it has some flaws regarding the title's mysteriously sinister character and about the origins and aspect of the entities that manifest through out the whole film. The main issue,for me I guess, remains that it tries too hard to be stylish and artistic, also making the movie too deep for what it really wants. The surreal manages to scare away the horror. The last part of the movie is messy and very little frightening. Disappointment is the major mood this film induces. Still, I give it a 6 for the effort..

As you can tell by my opening line I am NOT a fan of found footage films. To me it is a gimmick, not a genre as people keep asserting it to be, and more often than not used to pass talentless schlock which can't get any funding off to the public. Despite this I HAVE seen many, and I always watch whatever I start to the very end, even if I find the experience painful.

With that said I will admit that Mr. Jones pulled it off for me. The plot is a little off beat, the acting is decent even if not brilliant, and the setting and atmosphere move solidly into the realm of creepy quite successfully. It uses found footage in a plausible way... the protagonists making a movie for a legitimate reason just as Mr. Jones does what he does for a legitimate reason. What started as a simple documentary turns surreal also for a legitimate reason. People who, as a rule, really enjoy the majority of found footage films, might not like it, and judging by the mixed reviews I would say this is so, but I think it is because it does defy conventional found footage stereotypes. There is not a lot of running around and screaming, and people frantically looking into the camera and blubbering. There are no scenes of what is happening in their rooms while the people sleep, which I think is the allure this gimmick offers to the fans of it. The 'watch what happens when no one is looking' appeal... 'it could also be happening to YOU!!!' It actually offers a surreal Hollywood ready story, with all its narrative elements boldly displayed on the surface, in a found footage format... and while I don't always love Hollywood either, in this case it was a relief to get a half decently crafted tale instead of the... you know... usual.