timthhyconrad

The 2024 Filipino film Outside, directed by Carlo Ledesma, attempts to merge the zombie apocalypse genre with a deep psychological exploration of familial breakdown. However, despite its ambitious premise, the film falls short due to its shallow execution and questionable narrative choices.

The movie centers around a family of four who flee to a remote farmhouse to escape the chaos of a zombie outbreak. Rather than focusing on the external threat of the zombies, Outside delves into the unraveling of the family, particularly the deteriorating mental health of the father, Francis, played by Sid Lucero. What could have been a compelling psychological drama is ultimately undermined by its excessive runtime and weak character development.

Francis is a deeply flawed character whose unresolved childhood trauma, exacerbated by his strained relationship with his father, causes him to spiral into paranoia and authoritarian behavior. The idea of a father figure attempting to hold his family together during an apocalypse could have made for a gripping narrative, but Francis' character lacks the depth needed to make his struggle believable or sympathetic. His controlling and abusive tendencies are presented in a way that feels forced, detracting from the emotional weight of the story.

The film also introduces other characters, such as Francis' wife Iris and their two sons, Josh and Lucas, but they too suffer from the same lack of depth. Iris, portrayed by Beauty Gonzales, is given hints of a more complex backstory, but the film fails to fully explore her motivations or the impact of her past indiscretions. Similarly, the children are used more as emotional pawns in the narrative rather than fully realized characters.

One of the movie's biggest flaws is its pacing. At 142 minutes, Outside drags, with long, drawn-out scenes that add little to the overall narrative. The zombie outbreak feels like an afterthought, tacked on to create tension, but it never really becomes the focal point. In fact, the film would have likely benefited from completely removing the zombie element and focusing solely on the psychological horror of a family falling apart. The zombies serve more as a backdrop rather than an active threat, which makes their presence feel unnecessary and distracting.

Visually, the film does attempt to create a sense of dread and isolation, using the secluded farmhouse and the surrounding desolation to build tension. However, even the cinematography feels derivative at times, relying on clichéd horror tropes rather than offering anything fresh or innovative.

On a positive note, Sid Lucero's performance as Francis is noteworthy. His portrayal of a man slowly losing his grip on reality is convincing and, at times, chilling. Lucero brings a raw intensity to the role, but the script's limitations prevent his character from reaching the emotional depth the film desperately needs. The supporting cast, particularly the young actors Marco Masa and Aiden Tyler Patdu, also deliver commendable performances, adding a layer of innocence that contrasts with the growing horror around them.

In conclusion, Outside is a film that suffers from trying to do too much without the necessary focus or depth. While it may have had potential as a psychological thriller, its superficial exploration of trauma and family dynamics, combined with its unnecessary zombie subplot, results in a frustrating and ultimately shallow experience. The strong performances can't save what is otherwise a disjointed and unengaging film.

Ep 1 attempts to set the stage for a new Star Wars adventure, but it feels more like a stumbling first step than a grand beginning. The narrative pace is sluggish, making it difficult to stay engaged. The characters, though diverse, come across as flat and unmemorable, lacking the depth one would expect from a Star Wars series. The visuals, while impressive, can't compensate for the underwhelming storyline and wooden dialogue. It's as if the creators were more focused on ticking boxes than delivering a truly compelling tale. Perhaps the series will find its footing in later episodes, but this debut is more of a misstep than a triumph.

"Scream IV" attempts to resurrect the innovative spirit of its predecessors, aiming to blend meta-horror commentary with the visceral thrills of a slasher film. Unfortunately, despite its ambitious intentions, the movie falls short, becoming a pale shadow of the original films that captivated audiences with their cleverness and suspense. This review delves into the various aspects where "Scream IV" fails to deliver, making it a disappointing entry in the iconic series.

**Lackluster Plot and Predictability**

One of the most glaring issues with "Scream IV" is its plot, which feels both recycled and uninspired. The film attempts to navigate the fine line between homage and innovation but ends up treading too heavily into familiar territory. The predictability of the storyline severely undermines the suspense and shock value, elements that are crucial for a successful horror movie. The narrative tries to comment on the era of reboots and sequels but does so in a manner that feels more self-congratulatory than insightful, missing the mark on the clever critique that made the original "Scream" a genre-redefining masterpiece.

**Character Development: A Missed Opportunity**

Character development, or the lack thereof, is another significant shortcoming of "Scream IV." The returning characters are stripped of depth, reduced to mere caricatures of their former selves, while the new characters lack the compelling backstories necessary to make the audience care about their fates. This shallow character portrayal results in a detachment from the on-screen events, as viewers struggle to invest emotionally in the survival or demise of key players. The film's failure to develop its characters meaningfully is a missed opportunity to add complexity and emotional weight to the narrative.

**Direction and Cinematography: Uninspired Execution**

The direction and cinematography of "Scream IV" also leave much to be desired. While the original films masterfully balanced tension and release, using innovative camera work to enhance the storytelling, this installment feels surprisingly flat. The direction lacks the inventive flair and meticulous craftsmanship that Wes Craven brought to the series, resulting in sequences that feel more like going through the motions than crafting a thrilling cinematic experience. The film's visual aesthetic does little to elevate the narrative, with many scenes feeling underlit and unimaginatively shot, contributing to the overall sense of disappointment.

**Failed Attempt at Meta-Commentary**

"Scream IV" endeavors to continue the franchise's tradition of self-awareness, aiming to critique the state of horror movies and their reliance on sequels and reboots. However, the execution of this meta-commentary is both heavy-handed and ineffective. Instead of offering sharp insights or a refreshing perspective, the film comes across as trying too hard to be clever, ultimately feeling dated and out of touch. The humor and references that are meant to be witty often land with a thud, failing to resonate with audiences or add any real depth to the film's critique of the genre.

**Conclusion: A Disheartening Sequel**

In conclusion, "Scream IV" is a disheartening sequel that fails to capture the magic and innovation of its predecessors. With its predictable plot, lackluster character development, uninspired direction, and failed meta-commentary, the film is a missed opportunity to revive the franchise in a meaningful way. Instead of reinvigorating the series with new energy and insight, "Scream IV" serves as a reminder of the challenges inherent in trying to recapture the essence of originality and surprise that made the original "Scream" a landmark in horror cinema. Fans of the franchise may find some moments of nostalgia, but ultimately, the film is unlikely to satisfy those seeking a worthy successor to Wes Craven's legacy.