Across the Hall
3/4
Starring: Mike Vogel, Danny Pino, Brittany Murphy
Rated R for Language Throughout
"Across the Hall" is a mostly well-constructed little thriller that builds on coincidences and its ability to toy with the viewer. Like "The Debt," what we see may not be what really happened, or why.
Julian (Vogel) is soaking in a bathtub when he gets a call from his best friend Terry (Pino). Terry is convinced that his fiancee, June (Murphy) is cheating on him. Julian has heard this before, but Terry has followed June to a seedy hotel, and has stolen his friend's gun. Now Julian must go to the hotel to try and talk Terry out of making a huge mistake.
One thing I liked about this movie is that it's smart. It goes in unexpected directions and doles out a number of surprises. You really can't see where this movie is going until the final few minutes. This is because Alex Mirkin has a good sense of sleight-of-hand, although there are times when it becomes apparent that he's struggling to hold it together.
The performances are very good. Mike Vogel, who was the runner-up to be Captain Kirk in J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" reboot (he lost out to Chris Pine), is terrific as Julian. He brings an incredible sense of verisimilitude to the character; at one point he tells Terry that they're going to laugh about this whole thing tomorrow over a couple of drinks, and Vogel is good enough that I was able to vividly imagine this. Danny Pino, a TV actor, is also good as Terry. It's a low-key portrayal, but we can feel his simmering intensity. The late Brittany Murphy is also good as June, who is suddenly caught in a dangerous situation. The only other character of any importance is The Porter, creepily played by Brad Greenquist. It's a good performance, but it kind of belongs in another movie. Not that that should be construed as it being detrimental to the film.
Alex Mirkin does a good job of creating atmosphere. This is a dark and claustrophobic thriller with a set design that resembles a 40's noir film. Although not as visually interesting as "The Lodger," there are some similarities.
Unfortunately, the film gets off to a messy start. In an attempt to set the stage while still keeping viewers guessing, Mirkin resorts to dozens of storytelling tricks that are really unnecessary. There are numerous point of view storylines, things go backwards and forwards, and so on. While it's pretty easy to follow after a few minutes, it is frustrating and it distances us from the characters. Surely there was a more economical way of presenting the same material with less confusion. In fact, I'm sure that a more straightforward approach would have only strengthened the film.
Fortunately once the stage is set (about twenty minutes into the proceedings), things are pretty straightforward, and that's when the film takes off. I do recommend the film. It has a trio of good performances, a plot that manages to both engage and surprise and a good sense of atmosphere. That alone makes it worth your while.
I'm still trying to figure out my feelings about the ending. Without giving anything away, I must be vague, but I'll describe them the best I can. It ends on a note of irony, but I think it works in a way that Mirkin did not intend. Perhaps he meant for me to feel differently about one of the characters because of how things are presented, but I dunno. If I were to take this point of view, the movie doesn't work at all, but since it does, I must use my own interpretation. Whether or not Mirkin meant for me to view it this way is irrelevant to my enjoyment of his film.
Starring: Mike Vogel, Danny Pino, Brittany Murphy
Rated R for Language Throughout
"Across the Hall" is a mostly well-constructed little thriller that builds on coincidences and its ability to toy with the viewer. Like "The Debt," what we see may not be what really happened, or why.
Julian (Vogel) is soaking in a bathtub when he gets a call from his best friend Terry (Pino). Terry is convinced that his fiancee, June (Murphy) is cheating on him. Julian has heard this before, but Terry has followed June to a seedy hotel, and has stolen his friend's gun. Now Julian must go to the hotel to try and talk Terry out of making a huge mistake.
One thing I liked about this movie is that it's smart. It goes in unexpected directions and doles out a number of surprises. You really can't see where this movie is going until the final few minutes. This is because Alex Mirkin has a good sense of sleight-of-hand, although there are times when it becomes apparent that he's struggling to hold it together.
The performances are very good. Mike Vogel, who was the runner-up to be Captain Kirk in J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" reboot (he lost out to Chris Pine), is terrific as Julian. He brings an incredible sense of verisimilitude to the character; at one point he tells Terry that they're going to laugh about this whole thing tomorrow over a couple of drinks, and Vogel is good enough that I was able to vividly imagine this. Danny Pino, a TV actor, is also good as Terry. It's a low-key portrayal, but we can feel his simmering intensity. The late Brittany Murphy is also good as June, who is suddenly caught in a dangerous situation. The only other character of any importance is The Porter, creepily played by Brad Greenquist. It's a good performance, but it kind of belongs in another movie. Not that that should be construed as it being detrimental to the film.
Alex Mirkin does a good job of creating atmosphere. This is a dark and claustrophobic thriller with a set design that resembles a 40's noir film. Although not as visually interesting as "The Lodger," there are some similarities.
Unfortunately, the film gets off to a messy start. In an attempt to set the stage while still keeping viewers guessing, Mirkin resorts to dozens of storytelling tricks that are really unnecessary. There are numerous point of view storylines, things go backwards and forwards, and so on. While it's pretty easy to follow after a few minutes, it is frustrating and it distances us from the characters. Surely there was a more economical way of presenting the same material with less confusion. In fact, I'm sure that a more straightforward approach would have only strengthened the film.
Fortunately once the stage is set (about twenty minutes into the proceedings), things are pretty straightforward, and that's when the film takes off. I do recommend the film. It has a trio of good performances, a plot that manages to both engage and surprise and a good sense of atmosphere. That alone makes it worth your while.
I'm still trying to figure out my feelings about the ending. Without giving anything away, I must be vague, but I'll describe them the best I can. It ends on a note of irony, but I think it works in a way that Mirkin did not intend. Perhaps he meant for me to feel differently about one of the characters because of how things are presented, but I dunno. If I were to take this point of view, the movie doesn't work at all, but since it does, I must use my own interpretation. Whether or not Mirkin meant for me to view it this way is irrelevant to my enjoyment of his film.
Comments
Post a Comment