Tag: psychological thriller

Bugonia (2025)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Before I move into reviews of 2026 movies, I have one more movie from last year to cover. Bugonia is Yorgos Lathimos sci-fi/black comedy based on the Korean movie “Save the Green Planet!” (2003). Will Tracy provides the screenplay, Robbie Ryan cinematography and Jerskin Fendrix, the music. The movie features a small cast with Emma Stone and Jesse Plemons doing the heavy lifting. Aidan Delbis and Stavros Halkias provide support. The Korean original is a bit of a cult classic, written and directed by Jang Joon-hwang. This version has had a number of significant changes, obviously it is set in the US, two characters are gender swapped (one each way) and the ending is a little different.

The movie follows Teddy and Don as they abduct business woman Michelle, whom they suspect of being an alien. Teddy has an alien conspiracy theory where he believes “Andromedans” roam the Earth and are controlling the fates of humanity. He intends to torture the truth out of Michelle. Don meanwhile is mentally challenged and going along with Teddy, even though what they are doing goes against his nature. It seems however this may be more personal as Michelle’s company were involved in a botched drug trial that saw Teddy’s mother fall into a coma.

Frailty Meets They Live

Effectively this is “Frailty” (2001) meets “They Live” (1988), at least that is where it starts. Combining two good ideas isn’t the worst plan, but it’s not that original. Emma Stone is a good actress, so she largely sustains most of the movie. Jess Plemons is solid too. As a small cast movie you really do need good actors, and in that regard this succeeded. However as a small cast drama/thriller it is mid tier at best. The humour is okay, but in my view conflicts with the drama. Goofy awkwardness in a battle of wits doesn’t really work that well. Overall though the first two acts of the film are pretty good and the movie was verging on a 6.5 rating with me. But then the final act happened….

Spoilers from here on out. I’m not saying specifics of what happened, but to discuss the film further I am revealing the “Truth”. Yes, the movie doesn’t leave it ambiguous (Which it probably should have), so if you don’t want to know if Michelle is really an alien or not, skip to the conclusion. Suffice to say, my rating went down from a 6.5 to a 5 because of the final act and where it went. It is also an ending that you can pretty much predict long before it arrives and one very much just par for the course for science fiction from the last decade. Sadly.

Then There Was the Ending…. (SPOILERS)

After a reasonable start as a psychological thriller/black comedy, the film devolves into the worst of science fiction cliches. That includes both classic cliches and more modern ones. First of all we have the “Alien visitor that is the judge and jury of humanity” trope. Usually with this trope someone manages to prove humanity worth saving despite it’s flaws. In the “Doomer” era though, no such luck. The 2026 version of this trope is humans are an irredeemable scourge on this planet that need to be destroyed… Yeah, this is why AI’s giving humans what they want is how you get Skynet, but I digress. The trope is a cliché and while one could argue this is a subversion it is exactly what you’d expect it to be in the current year.

The second trope is “Humans were created by aliens”, which is an overused trope but perhaps not at full cliché level yet. “Prometheus” (2012) was the last time I saw it. The most overdone sci-fi trope of all though is the “Humans were the greatest evil after all” cliché. I recall this feeling worn out back when they used it in Matrix 3 in 2003. It’s a trope so tired that Futurama mocked it openly that same year, 22 years before this movie came out and ironically when “Save the Green Planet!” came out, the movie this was adapted from. That film also features this trope, but has a somewhat less preachy version of it.

Modern Year Nonsense

But the tropes alone are not enough in 2026. It has to have a modern day progressive message to it, throwing on extra layers of cliché. First of all accusing humans of not living in harmony with nature. Yet, this alien race that accidentally exterminated the dinosaurs and literally created humans supposedly only does benevolent things in balance with nature (Like exterminate entire species). It’s the kind of illogical premise that is all too prevalent in our media today. Instead of trying to guide humans or let them figure it out themselves, they start genetically modifying humans. When the aliens also become corrupt through the power they hold on Earth, they blame it on human influence.

But it doesn’t end there. Visually, the aliens are pretty much a “United colors of Benetton” advert, but with one obviously missing demographic: White Men. It was at that moment I realized why they gender swapped the two characters (The alien was originally a male and kidnapper’s sidekick was female). So it’s not hard to see what this version of the story is trying to say. White men are the cause of all the worlds problems. More than anything else, this is itself a tired cliché that audiences have been hammered with for the last decade. I also have to wonder why the aliens all looks like specific human demographics, when all modern humans are meant to be mutants evolved from apes, not the beings directly created by Andromededans. The answer is obvious.

Conclusion

The original movie had a similar ending, but was a lot less preachy in its execution. As a result it avoided most of those cliches and managed to keep a more consistent tone, while still managing to have something to say. So it shows it wasn’t so much what happened in final act that ruins this movie, but how it was executed. This is a movie of two halves, a reasonable psychological thriller with black comedy elements that turns into a goofy, lecturing cliché-fest for the landing. Ultimately it takes the original Korean story and forces it painfully through a modern western lens, something that adds nothing and takes everything.

The absolute highest I can rate this movie is a 5/10. I don’t feel I totally wasted 2 hours watching this movie, but I can’t in good faith recommend anyone goes out of their way to do likewise. What I do recommend is watching “Frailty” (2001) and “They Live” (1988). Far better movies with more interesting things to say. I also recommend “Save the Green Planet!” (2003), though not as strongly. My final note here is to say how sad I find it that modern science fiction is no longer able to find the good in humanity. Instead it always seems to be angrily lecturing us. Classic sci-fi had it’s warnings and lectures, but usually managed to have optimism too. Not that all sci-fi has to be positive, but the negativity has become so predictable in recent years.

Rating: 5 out of 10.

Stoker (2013)

Posted on by fenrisfil

“Stoker” (2013) is a movie that’s been on my watch list for a long time. This is director Park Chan-wook’s English language debut. This is the director of “Old Boy” (2003), a deeply disturbing, yet compelling revenge thriller that takes taboo to the extreme. This movie has a number of unique elements to it’s production. While Clint Mansel provides most of the music, Philip Glass was originally on board as composer and created a key piece of diagetic music for the film. The writer here is none other than “Captain Cold” himself, actor Wentworth Miller in his screenplay debut. The core cast is Nicole Kidman, Mia Wasikowska and David Alford. All very good actors, but none were the first choice. Chung Chung-hoon, a long time collaborator of the director, provides cinematography.He has also worked with Edgar Wright on his last two movies.

On the day of her eighteenth birthday “India Stoker” (Wasikowska) and her mother “Evelyn” (Kidman) are shocked to learn of the death of India’s father “Richard” in a car accident. India is a very distant and cold young lady who rarely forms attachments and has no friends. The family are however very well off. At the wake, the pair are surprised at the arrival of Richards brother “Charles”, a man neither were aware of. Supposedly he has been traveling the world. After discussion with Evelyn, it is revealed he is staying with the family for a while. Richard is a charming man, but it becomes clear to India something isn’t quite right with him. But then the same is true of India.

The Elephant in the Room

So this is the second Park Chan-wook movie I have seen, the previous one being Oldboy. If you don’t want a major Oldboy spoilers, skip the rest of this paragraph. I find it a little odd both these movies involve incest. In Oldboy the incest was unintentional and part of a convoluted revenge scheme. Here it is entirely intentional and there is no illusion of innocence on either party. It is at least between an uncle and niece instead of a father and daughter, but it’s still incest. This is a psychological thriller of course and the pair in question are both psychopaths. So it’s not like these are characters of high morality. This is a very dark story.

So now we’ve acknowledged the elephant in the room. It’s time to talk about the rest of it. Park Chan-Wook is a very good director with an eye for detail. He can tell a dark story like this and fill it with subtle symbolism. Perhaps the problem here is that it’s a very obvious and somewhat blunt story. Unlike Oldboy there isn’t really a mystery here, at least not one you can’t guess fairly easily. It’s pretty clear India and Charles are psychopaths. The way it plays out leaves a lot of questions as to if certain things are real or not, specifically the duet piano piece the pair play, which may just be in India’s imagination. The trouble is, it doesn’t really mater.

Duet

So this is a film with a bit of a disconnect between the story and the presentation. But this isn’t really a plot based story. As I said, you can largely tell where it will all go. This is a character based horror, where the symbolism is all reflective of the mental state of it’s primary psychopath, India. Regardless of whether the piano duet scene is real or in her head, it is an incredibly scene. The piano piece was written by Philip Glass specifically for the movie. It was designed as a duet that requires one of the players to effectively embrace the other by requiring them to reach around to their other side to complete it. It’s actually an incredible piece of music in itself and easily the best scene.

That said, I didn’t find India particularly compelling as a character. She’s creepy, but also intentionally somewhat blank. Instead Charlie, who is presented as the classic charismatic, manipulative psychopath is far more interesting. But since we never really know how much of his appearance is genuine or India’s imagination, his impact is also diminished. Evelyn is also an interesting character, a woman determined to handle her burden with elegance. It’s a subtle performance from Nicole Kidman that really works. Yet she is not really given a lot of screen time. There is so much good in this film, yet the movie seems far more concerned with the incestuous romance angle.

Conclusion

The screenplay is a problem in my view. Wentworth Miller is not a script writer by trade, but obviously had an idea he thought was good. The screenplay remained unproduced for a long time but found it’s way on to the famous “Black list” of best unproduced screenplays. I can see why, it has compelling elements but also feels like something very difficult to make work. For Park Chan-wook, this is his first English language movie. Yet he is not fluent and required a translator. Between these two factors I believe this is why the film feels such a mixed bag. On one hand it is visually and socially compelling and the director got solid performances from all the actors. Hard to say if this is the director or just that all three of the leads are very good actors anyway.

Ultimately this is going to be a difficult one to rate. I did not like the story. I did not really buy India’s character or really enjoy her presentation. Her voice over also felt unnecessary. But the movie is well made from a technical standpoint. I suspect I may not have a true score for this until I’ve had more time to think on it and maybe give it a second viewing. I could end up adjusting it anywhere from a 5.5-7.5. It’s that kind of movie. As it stands, despite this review probably sounding more negative than positive, I think the movie is worth watching. This is a more likely to win awards than fill theaters. It’s sort of unpleasant to watch, yet compelling too. I’m giving it a 6.5/10.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.