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.”

Keanu Reeves performs his roles very well, but his choice in movies that can be slightly better. “Replicas” is not a garbage movie, but it is just very cheesy. I felt like I was watching “Ex Machina” (2014) meets “Premonition” (2007). There is a tragic incident, and tons of experiments to bring people back to life after death is what the main character sees the resolution to be. Yes, it had my attention, but a majority of the time, I was just thinking to myself that a majority of the film is typical science crap including robots, chemicals, and all other kinds of fancy technology that does not really add up that well. For Reeves, this type of movie just makes me more excited for his next “John Wick” installment.

Ok, so I will give a brief description of the plot (even though I really was not fond of this movie). Reeves is Will Foster (a scientist) and him and his family is abound for a vacation by driving. All of a sudden, there is a car accident and he survives, but the rest of his family does not (his wife and two kids). Now he should call an ambulance and such, but he does not. Instead he has his colleague Ed (Thomas Middleditch) help him out with using his scientific crafts, technology, and knowledge to try and bring his family back to life. However, with doing this type of experiment, both Will and Ed can get themselves with the law in terms of government-controlled technology.

As the film progresses on with the experiments for Will to bring his family back to life there are realizations that do not make sense. I will not explain what they are, because I believe people should watch “Replicas” to see what I mean by that. Just the science behind Will’s theories of how certain elements are the answers to getting his family back seem to not be explained or shown properly. That is why, when I was watching “Replicas” I would ask myself, “What just happened again?” It is a film with many unanswered questions.

I feel though, for Reeves, that “John Wick” is basically his successful series that fans are going to remember him for the most after “The Matrix” films. That is because I find most of his previous films (including “Replicas”) to be quite forgettable. They are that way because most of his films recently have just been poor ridiculous. I am only going to give “Replicas” one half star.