Review: The Autopsy of Jane Doe

*¹



The Autopsy of Jane Doe (spoilers in the footnotes)
Cert: 15 / 85 mins / Dir. André Øvredal / Trailer



A quick heads-up before we get started here, I've said this before on several occasions but it feels like I'm now past Horror™ as a genre. Not so much that I've 'grown out of it', but certainly that most of the mainstream fare I see nowadays just reminds me in some way of the utter trash I used to enjoy as a teenager. Almost like I've inadvertently spoiled it for myself. Logically unfeasible antagonists and telegraphed jump-scares no longer hold my interest, because if a film has to 'tell' you to feel scared, that's the horror equivalent of casting Kevin Hart in a comedy. But I'm always willing (time permitting) to give a movie a whirl on recommendation from friends whose opinion I trust. Anyway, I think you know why I've brought all this up first...

The Autopsy of Jane Doe follows the father-and-son pathologist team of Tommy and Austen Tilden, working in a small U.S. county mortuary and crematorium. When the body of a young woman is unearthed from a murder scene and brought in by the police one evening, the Tildens work late to try and identify a cause of death, even though there are no external signs of trauma or decomposition. As the post-mortem progresses it becomes increasingly irregular, as do the occurrences in the mortuary itself...

I've said this before as well: it all comes down to the writing. What begins seeming like an unassuming also-ran horror flick slowly turns into... an unassuming also-ran horror flick. That a pair of 'meat-detectives' would stumble across evidence of supernatural secrets as part of their work is a fair idea for a movie, but most of Autopsy… plays out like a greatest-hits reel of the genre's most over-used tropes. From the flickering lights and power-cuts, to the gathering storm outside and eerily juxtaposed songs playing unbidden on the radio*², this is a well-trodden path to be walking down. The scalpel-happy pair even helpfully write their clues on a blackboard throughout the film, just to assist with the callbacks.

Things are just about saved by solid performances*³ from Brian Cox and Emile Hirsch as the central duo, not to mention Olwen Kelly as the eponymous Jane (albeit without saying a single word). But they're struggling with a script which is as unwieldy as their business's clients, so maybe Olwen's got the better end of the bargain, here.

Writers Ian Goldberg and Richard Naing don't appear to have any significant genre-work in their CVs, so maybe this is just an early stumble until they find their feet. I hope so, because there's definitely potential here for a smarter film. At only 86 minutes it's by no means lengthy, so fair play to them for waiting until the 45-mark before the shit really hits the fan*⁴. Unfortunately, that's also when things become completely mechanical (the 'smoke' scene in particular feels like it was filmed in post-production after the budget had ran out).

None of The Autopsy Of Jane Doe is badly done per se, I just feel like I've seen it all before. Probably during the late 1980s when I'd be hanging around Ritz Video's horror-section.

This cast, this cinematographer, this director. But with a better screenplay, please…

You can tell it wants to be a modern-day The VVitch, but it's Oculus at best (and even that's far better).



Best to use your streaming service of choice; there's not much in here for repeat viewings unless you're a makeup-effects artist.



For me, no.



No.



No.



No.



Level 2: This film's got that Brian Cox in it, and he was in 1971's Nicholas and Alexandra along with Julian 'Veers' Glover.





*¹ Because I can't really complain about my local cinema not showing enough new movies and complain that I never have time to watch stuff at home, now can I? ^{[ BACK ]}

*² Why would a witch from the 17th century be fixated on a song from 1954? Really, mate... ^{[ BACK ]}

*³ Although the sight of Emile Hirsch kneeling over a body and sobbing "No-o-o-o!" brought back the one scene in Star Wars that even I can't stand… ^{[ BACK ]}

*⁴ Hang on a minute, Tommy Tilden needs to put on his glasses to read a reference book but not to dissect a body? He's meant to be looking for minute clues in the cause-of-death, here. Small-stuff. And what the fuck's he doing waving a scalpel around? I know it's not like he's going to unnecessarily injure his subjects, but I'm surprised Tommy's still got all his fingers… ^{[ BACK ]}


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Lone Survivor

Lone Survivor (SPOILERS*¹)
Cert: 15 / 121 mins / Dir. Peter Berg




First things first, Universal, you've called the film "Lone Survivor", and put a picture of Mark Wahlberg on the poster. That's not exactly awash with ambiguity, is it? There are few things which drain the suspense of a film like "waiting for The Other Ones to die", and Peter Berg's latest true-story drama waves that flag with apparently little self-awareness.

The film seems torn between wanting to be a heartfelt account of loyalty and brotherhood, and an action flick in which people get shot graphically in the head and neck. I'm not sure if you can do both, but this film doesn' t really manage it either way. An opening sequence of camcordered Navy Seal training footage leads us into the reconstructed drama where Mr Wahlberg leads a cast of actors who all look remarkably similar*² when they're wearing camouflage, sunglasses and scraggly beards. I found the opening act is reminiscent of Zero Dark Thirty, and with all the same accessibility issues, but once the four-man-team heads into the Afghan wilderness, it almost - almost - becomes great.

The quiet moments of the film are the most human, and the most well executed. The tension is undeniable as the squad lies in the undergrowth, waiting to find out if their position has been compromised. Once things inevitably go south (remember the title, remember the poster), a gun-battle and chase ensues which puts The Expendables to shame. All well and good in its place, but the camera which Tobias Schliessler used to capture some stunning (if Bay-esque) sunrises earlier in the film, seems gleefully intent on showing us Some Bullets Going In™, and it gets to the point where it begins to feel a little flag-waving, despite the third act restoring the balance somewhat.

The performances are all earnest and admirable, and I don't doubt the intentions of the cast and crew for a second. I just get the feeling that they're trying to spin too many plates at once. Ultimately, the film had spent the best part of two hours convincing me that Seal Team 10 were dedicated, loyal, determined, and human; so playing a string-quartet version of Bowie's Heroes over an extended photo-montage of the actual team seemed a little more mawkish than sincere. There's a more engaging film to be made out of this story.

Your mileage will vary.

Less 'hearts and minds' and more 'preaching to the choir', Lone Survivor feels like a great film trying to burst out of a dramatised reconstruction.

FYI, Mr Berg, the two don't have to be mutually exclusive…

Largely.



Not as much as I'd have liked.



For me, not nearly enough.



It's big, and loud enough for a trip to the flicks if that floats your boat.



No.



Doubtful.



There isn't. And obviously I understand why there isn't, but at the same time, this is the perfect film for one.

Am I the only one who was reminded of the Battlefront levels of Endor, Mos Eisley and Yavin IV during this?
Don't answer that; I know I am.

*¹ Well, I say 'spoilers', it's essentially the film poster which has done that already. Although I've probably spoiled it in some other way, too.
*² Seriously, someone tell the casting director and wardrobe department to have a word with each other. Unless, of course, the makers of the film are implying that soldiers are "basically all the same", which would be a surprising subtext, to say the least.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.