I have seen Nicole Kidman do a variety of different roles, and a majority of them have been serious, but not to the extend of her performance in in Karyn Kusama’s “Destroyer.” Kidman is definitely transformed in this film which is psychological, suspense thriller. She has the glassy eyes, the faded skin, the dirty hair, and she is not the cop to mess with. I feel like she is going the Jodie Foster route in terms of acting, because “Destroyer” seems almost like she is playing Foster’s character in Neil Jordan’s “The Brave One” (2007). Both are vindictive and have similar traits but in different terms of conflict. In “The Brave One” Foster seeks revenge for the gangster thats murdered her boyfriend, and in “Destroyer” Kidman tries to make peace with her enemies from the past.

Erin Bell (Kidman) is an LAPD detective who deals with harsh cases that start to impact her personal life. There is a point in her life where she once was set to be part of a gang undercover in the deserts of California. The results of her of job went wrong when she was in that position. However, years go by, and one of the leaders of that gang comes back to haunt her. With this happening, this leads Bell down a dangerous path where she has to start speaking to negative influences again to get her issues resolved. However the hard aspect of this for Bell is that messed with her mental health and her past, and it is a door she has to open back up.

The film as a whole I will say is good, but not great. Kidman delivers a stellar performance and the film has moments of action, but the trailer for the movie was somewhat false. The trailer makes its audience assume immediately that there is going to be consistent shooting scenes, car chases, and tons of violence. Now the violence is fairly strong, but there is not a lot of that. The more suspense in the movie is the dialogue between Bell and the gang members. Also, I would say that Kidman’s attitude was also the suspense. In this film she is not soft, she is hardcore with tons of pervasive language that leaves viewers to wonder what else she is capable of as the film progresses.

For Kusama, I am finding it quite common of her to direct films that focus on tension. She used a heavy amount of tension in “The Invitation” (2015) which was slightly more gruesome than “Destroyer.” Kusama likes to build tension with conversations and have the violence be a result of that, or kick in later based on information that was found out. “Destroyer” has many scenes where Bell visits bars and discusses with people where certain criminal activity will take place, and she acts on it with violence. I like how Kusama sets up her climax moments with a majority of her films. “Destroyer” though, I just felt the trailer was not faithful to the movie very much.

Now this film is not an Oscar contender or anything, but it is still fairly decent, but requires patience. I was amazed with Kidman’s performance, it was just the film itself that tended to drag at some moments. However, a majority of the scenes served a purpose for its conflicts. I will say that Kidman is capable of playing vindictive characters, and I believe she can do many more roles in that category. I will give “Destroyer” a solid two and a half stars.

Lars von Trier has always had the guts to make a film both psychologically and artistically disturbing. I felt “Nymphomaniac Vol. 1” and “Nymphomaniac Vol. 2” (both released in 2013) already went overboard with consistent scenes of graphic content and haunting elements that left audience members in shock. “The House that Jack Built”  also leaves audience members to feel that way, but more in terms of the main character’s structure, his violent background, and his rituals of being a killer. This is definitely a much heavier role for Matt Dillon. Even though he has starred in many serious films around heavy subjects ranging from “Wild Things (1998), “Deuces Wild” (2002), and “Crash” (2004), “The House that Jack Built” is one where he is not the Matt Dillon we know. Dillon has the shady looks that definitely makes him look to be a serial killer in this mind-boggling, horrific horror flick.

The film takes place in the 1970s and follows our main character Jack (Dillon) through a time frame of twelve years and there is a structure to how Jack builds up over time being a serial killer. In the murder scenarios, he treats them all as in they are his art and that, he is developing something artistic for himself. The more killings he does, the authorities get closer to him. Given it is the 1970s, the benefit that Jack has over the police is that they do not have the advance resources to solve he is the murder quickly, where as now most crimes are solved faster than people expect. The does not stop Jack from being obsessed with killing people, because he feels the deeper he goes with this very bad element of himself, the more he feels he is going to create an ultimate form of art with his killings. The different murder scenarios get even more gruesome as the film continues.

There is a moment where Uma Thurman is in the film, but she is not the violent actress as we remember from Quentin Tarantino’s “Kill Bill” (2003). She is one of Jack’s victims and she starts to feel not safe with Jack based on his negative attitude, him being opinionated, and very self-absorbed to a concerning extent. I did like seeing Thurman playing someone who is afraid for a change, and that is because in a majority of her films she is quite vicious (especially in “Kill Bill”). For many of her roles when it comes to violence and suspense, Thurman is the one who is all for doing the dirty work. In “The House that Jack Built” the only one doing the “dirty work” is Dillon, so do not expect Thurman to be the one fighting for revenge.

“The House that Jack Built” is poetic in the same sense as “Nymphomaniac Vol.” and “Nymphomaniac Vol. 2.” Lars von Trier has the same aspect as he does with these two films in “The House that Jack Built” and that is the film being told and shown more through our main character’s inner mind. However, as the story is being told (there are some narrations), that is when the grotesque fragments of Jack’s murder scenarios do happen. The director is not afraid to push the elements of what can scare his viewers. There is also allusions that are historical that he adds and this is what also makes “The House that Jack Built” a movie that will grasp viewers attention.

I found the film to be slightly like the showtime series “Dexter” (2006-2013). Dexter though only targeted murders to kill, Jack targets anyone he finds to be an easy kill or that is vulnerable. Jack also does not play nice guy during the day, he intentionally shows his negative sides to people, Dexter plays very nice guy during the day, but at night time he is the killer that is talked about but is good at hiding that he is the killer. From this, I mean that many films now gearing on the subject of serial killers have the killers have a target of the type of people they go after. Jack goes after everyone practically. As soon as viewers realize he comes to a new conversation with someone in the movie, they quickly wonder if that person is the next victim to be the unlucky one to suffer.

In terms of cinematic factors, I felt the lighting was set to a tone where it was faded in the moments of violence. That would create Jack’s world to make his viewers feel they are deeply in his mind and his inner world. Overall, it is a treat that will definitely be one to not to be missed. “The House that Jack Built” has all of the elements of a perfect horror movie, and one that is actually good and not made for Hollywood. The artistic value of Lars Von Trier will grasp viewers to want to follow Jack into the underworld of his art and his obsessions that are dark and haunting. Four stars.

When it comes to remakes, I found the french version “The Intouchables” (2011) slightly better than “The Upside.” “The Intouchables” was a film that stuck well to the actual story between a quadriplegic and his caregiver. “The Upside” is the same but is made more to be a Blockbuster film and cares much more about the comedic moments instead of the importance of the story. “The Intouchables” is also much more realistic than “The Upside” because it was a very independent film made on a low budget. That low budget aspect (I believe) is something that serves as a value to the “The Intouchables” successful box office record overseas because that is generally an element that makes directors focus on to make their films successful. “The Upside” had a high budget, which is not surprising because of it stars Bryan Cranston, Kevin Hart, and Nicole Kidman. This remake does not really ruin the true story of the actual quadriplegic and his caregiver, it just makes viewers appreciate “The Intouchables” more.

The film focuses on a man named Dell Scott (Hart) who is divorced with a son, has tons of financial problems, and is desperate for a job. He comes across a job opportunity with a quadriplegic billionaire named Philip Lacasse (Cranston). Lacasse wants someone to help him with his daily routines. Lacasse and his assistant Yvonne Pendleton (Kidman) review Scott’s background, and with it being kind of messy and all over the place, Pendleton is against the idea of hiring Scott. Lacasse takes the chance and hires Scott anyway. Lacasse does not feel his life is worth living, and even though in the beginning Scott and Lacasse do not get along, they come to realize that there is more positivity in life than they think.

I did enjoy “The Upside” but like I said earlier, I feel that it is not as faithful as “The Intouchables.” I remember “The Intouchables” did not really heavily focus on the life outside of the caregiver, its primary focus was the caregiver being with the quadriplegic man he is hired to take care of. “The Upside” I felt was too made for Hollywood because of how it has common relationship problem setup as most dramas in blockbusters have. That drama is one parent trying to prove they are worthy to their kid and fighting for them. Then after there is some reconciliation, then there is another problem, and eventually a climax. Just as I was watching “The Upside” I felt part of the film was predictable and kind of trying to repeat some but not all of “The Intouchables.”

Now to try and focus on positive elements of “The Upside” I felt it was heartfelt and touching at moments. It does do a good job at showing why it is important to establish positive connections with other people we come across in our lives. Also how to experience to the fullest despite our challenges. Hart and Cranston are quite talented at playing people that come to realizations of mistakes they made in life. These mistakes are elements viewers can find out about if they decide to watch “The Upside.”

I felt that for Kidman that this role was a good change of pace for her. She generally does a variety of roles, but it was nice to see her perform in a charming comedy, because I think it has been a while since she has done a film like this. Generally, I am use to seeing her play darker roles in her films. For Cranston, I felt it was a different, but good character for him to play as well. He was not the crazy Walter White running around cooking up drugs in trailer parks in this one, Cranston was someone  who has anger in this film, but cannot express it physically based on playing a quadriplegic. Finally, Hart was average for the role, I feel he can do a whole range of movies. I will say this was probably the first movie I have seen him do where it is a dark comedy, because literally all of his films are either slapstick comedy or of course him taping his stand-up specials and putting them into cinemas.

I am not saying avoid “The Upside” but I will say watch “The Intouchables” before checking this one out. That is because “The Intouchables has also more Oscar-worthy performances and top-notch acting, and “The Upside” is (I might have explained this earlier in this review) typical and obvious. “The Upside” is not bad whatsoever, just there was more added to this story for blockbuster value, but that is how I feel. Overall, I will say two and a half stars for “The Upside.”