Unhinged Review

Oh hey look! It's a movie review from this blog! This is my first review since "Onward" in March and first post of any sort since May. I brainstormed a lot of things in my head as to what to do during COVID months, but ultimately I wound up doing nothing and now I'm feeling all sorts of rusty. But the movie theaters opened up, so it's time to get back into the groove of things. Now the first thing I'll say is that if you don't feel like venturing out to the theaters again, I totally understand. I spend a lot of time hiding in my own little corner so that I don't have to deal with people who aren't being careful. And for some of you, your local theaters aren't even open yet. But in my area they are and I've been dying to have some sort of semblance of normalcy return to my life, so I've snuck out to the theaters a couple of times already. The first important thing that I will note is that I was impressed with all of the things that my local Cinemark is doing to keep people safe. Theater capacity is limited. Masks are required. They do a lot of sanitizing and cleaning. There's a whole bunch of stuff implemented. I felt safe. Again, if you don't feel safe, that's totally fine. But either way, I'm going to start getting some reviews out for you again. And we start out with one that, well... not the most optimal choice. 

On the one hand, it's kinda disappointing that my first theatrical experience in nearly six months was such a bumpy ride. But on the other hand, it makes total sense that this is the movie to be the guinea pig. "Unhinged" is a road rage thriller from distributor Soltice Studios. Never heard of them? Well, join the club. They're a brand new distribution company and this is their first release. And in a normal year, this is the type of thriller that comes out and is nearly dead on arrival. An unrecognizable studio. A no-name director. A horribly written movie that makes no sense. Critics would trash it. And it wouldn't make any money. But hey, Soltice Studios took advantage of the situation to stake its claim as the first new theatrical release and that got it attention. Smart move, I'd say. It opened to $4 million, which is normally not a great total, but as one of the only options for people who want to venture out, it's bound to have long legs, which is probably closer to the type of business we're going to see. Small openings and a long theatrical life. It might be like back in the 80s when the box office was a lot more backloaded and movies just stayed in theaters for forever. And hey, if this ended up as a financial disaster, no tears shed. Might as well experiment with the trashy films, right?

But OK, the one thing that this movie has going for it is that it stars Russell Crowe. Everyone loves Russell Crowe, right? He seems like a very nice guy and he's a great actor. Just don't let him sing in your movie. But this time around, he's very much not a nice guy. In fact, he's a crazy, evil psychopath that murders his ex-wife and her new boy thing that she left him for and burns down their house. That's how this movie opens. It definitely sets the stage for what's coming next. He's a ruthless, soulless monster that's full of rage and out for vengeance. And is somehow able to not get caught, despite being very non-subtle in his approach. So when poor young Rachel is just having a really bad day and honks at a guy who doesn't move when the light turns green, something I would personally do every single time, that guy is Russell Crowe and he decides to give her the worst day of her life. And that's our movie. When I say Rachel is "young," I mean 30s. A young mother. Going through a divorce. Accidentally sleeps in. Loses her best client. Gets stuck in traffic taking her teenage boy to school. So she just kinda loses it when Russell Crowe doesn't move at the light. I don't blame her, really. But this vendetta this guy decides to hold against her for this act is a bit baffling.

I think the biggest problem with this movie is a conflict of tone. The general premise is that of a slasher flick, essentially. A psychopath killer is hunting down this girl and killing people in the process. I mean, it's not a horror film. I'd definitely classify it as thriller. But it has the slasher vibe to it where the intensity of the film is hinged on a killer wandering around town killing people. And if it were to own up to it's absurd status as a B-level thriller that's just out to be a gory bit of fun for a certain, then maybe it could get a pass. But it doesn't own up to that. The movie takes itself super seriously. After the opening scene of "The Man," as he is credited (he doesn't get a name in the movie) killing his ex-wife and her new man, then burning the house, we get this weird montage during the opening credits full of stock footage of road rage stuff, as if the movie is trying to tell us the dangers of road rage and how violent this country has become because of that. Then it proceeds to be such a serious movie as if the writers and director made this movie to give us all a warning that if we're not careful, something like this might happen to us, too. So if the movie is going to decide to take itself super seriously, then I have to return the favor and give it a serious review instead of kicking back and enjoying. 

In giving it a serious review, the whole thing is absolutely absurd. Our main girl Rachel starts us off by making every wrong decision in the book. Not only is she completely incompetent in her daily routine as if she hasn't figured out how to do this thing called life yet, but everything leading up her run-in with this guy just makes your eyes roll. My favorite part is when she reveals to her son that she disabled her lock screen on her phone, then later leaves it in the car while she's going into the gas station, while also leaving her car unlocked. So of course that means the guy steal her phone and use it as leverage to make her follow his every command. That's the type of stupidity it comes to with this writing. On the flip side, the man deciding to traumatize this random woman makes zero sense, either. I mean, if we set him up as a ruthless psychopath, it doesn't make much sense that he would be so broken and fragile that he would completely lose his mind when someone honks at him at a green light. I mean, if we're going to set this thing up, then we've got to come up with a better inciting incident that would make for a more believable case of road rage. Give this guy a better reason to chase after a random civilian that would make for an actual intense plot.

To this movie's credit, though, it's not all a terrible mess. Russell Crowe makes for a rather terrifying presence. He pulls off crazy psychopath rather well. When he's getting angry at the girl and chasing her around, he does make you rather nervous. But then he puts on his nice face when he's walking in to "meet" the girl's friends, which makes for an intense moment because you know that this isn't going to end well. So I give him credit there for trying to make a good villainous presence. It's not his fault that he says the words the script told him to say or do the things that the script asked him to do. And our main girl Rachel is played competently by Caren Pistorius. Her making every dumb decision in the book wasn't the fault of the actress. Again, this all comes down to a screenplay that is just horrendously bad. But had said screenplay been good, the movie could've worked with Russell Crowe and Caren Pistorius both doing a fine job. And on a technical scale, the movie is competently made and filmed. The chase sequences are good. When action sequences were needed, they were choreographed and filmed well. So there's a lot of building blocks in place that could've made this a really good thriller. But when the core of the film is just such an awful stench, none of that really matters.

So yeah, like I said, this is a strange return to the theaters. And I could definitely see in hindsight that there's absolutely no risk involved here in making this be the first movie for people to return to. If it fails, it was a bad movie anyways. If it succeeds, then money was made off of a bad film that otherwise would've done nothing. But hey, it was my ceremonious return to the theaters and it was fun being back. And maybe it was also good that this was my first review back because there's other movies that are certain to get more attention when I write a review of them. I can use this thing as practice so that I'm more in the groove when better movies that people will more interested in my opinion of. But all that aside, if you're looking for a movie to go see in theaters, by the time I finally got this typed and submitted, there are other options. We have "The New Mutants," "Tenet" and "The Personal History of David Copperfield" that I'm certain will be better than this one. The latter two I will be seeing soon and the first one I have indeed seen. Or you can go see classics such as "Raiders of the Lost Arc," "Jurassic Park," "The Empire Strikes Back" and "The Goonies," all of which have been hanging around in theaters as place holders. "Unhinged" for me gets a 5/10.