It’s hard to believe it’s been almost a decade since the New French Extremity—a group of French genre films united by, to put it simply, a lot of disgusting gore—exploded with titles like Frontier(s), Inside, and Sheitan coming out over a short time span. In 2008, the movement reached its peak with Martyrs, Pascal Laugier’s controversial take on martyrdom that had people fleeing for the exits. Martyrs has gained a strong following since it came out, partly because of how it transcends the expectations of an exploitation film. It’s a film that shows women being systematically tortured, but labeling it as “torture porn” would be wrong. Laugier examined the meaning of being a martyr, along with the connection between immense suffering and transcendence through pain. Martyrs stuck out not just because of its gore; it was a philosophical horror film, one with significant ambitions that combined intellectual themes and the kind of horrifying content associated with the lowest common denominator. Even the film’s harshest critics couldn’t deny that Laugier, despite his methods, was trying to say something.

So what happens when US filmmakers take Laugier’s work and adapt it for English-speaking audiences? After several false starts, this new Martyrs has finally come to fruition via the help of directors Kevin and Michael Goetz, The Revenant screenwriter Mark L. Smith, and horror “it” producer Jason Blum. Blumhouse, the production company responsible for the Paranormal Activity and Insidious franchises, is known for its successful approach to making horror films: make a film for a low budget, then have major studios pick up and release them. It’s a successful model because it takes advantage of horror’s self-generating interest (genre films don’t need big stars to attract moviegoers) while providing big profits given the low production cost. That is, in a nutshell, the model behind multiple horror success stories over the past several years, including films like The Purge and Sinister.

Blumhouse has tweaked and perfected a micro-budget machine, and as much as the company can tout its increased creative control or ability to produce outside of the studio system, it’s still a machine. Laugier handled writing and directing duties on the original Martyrs, and it’s obvious that it’s a film with his individual stamp on it. With the remake, the Goetz brothers and Smith transplant Laugier’s work to a format more focused on quick returns and basic thrills, a change that’s like shoving a square peg into a round hole. The set-up is more or less identical to Laugier’s film: Lucie (Troian Bellisario) claims she was kidnapped and tortured by a group of people as a child before escaping, although police found no evidence backing up her story. Fifteen years after escaping, Lucie finally tracks down her kidnappers—a seemingly ordinary couple with two teenage children—and ruthlessly slaughters them in their own home. She calls on Anna (Bailey Noble), her best friend growing up at the orphanage, to help her remove the bodies, although Anna starts doubting Lucie’s sanity given she just gunned down a family without remorse (fair warning: those unfamiliar with either version of Martyrs should stop reading here unless they want to be spoiled).

Since this is a horror movie, Lucie’s claims turn out to be true. The people she killed did, in fact, torture her as a child, and Anna soon discovers they were part of a cult dedicated to creating martyrs in an attempt to understand what lies in the afterlife. Smith’s screenplay, in what some might point to as a true example of what “Americanizing” something means, dumbs things down to make the religious themes impossible to miss, whether it’s having the cult’s leader (Kate Burton) spell everything out or using the image of a woman burning at the stake. At the very least, Smith does try to change things up from Laugier’s original screenplay in the latter half, honing in on Anna and Lucie’s friendship instead of the barbaric plot they’ve become a part of. But that focus only muddles the thematic content that made up the backbone of Laugier’s film, and Smith makes no efforts to adjust the rest of the source material to his changes.

What Martyrs amounts to is a cheap mess, an attempt to adapt a work more focused on ideas into something designed to provide thrills and action, and the clash between the two modes is an ugly one. The Goetz brothers, try as they might to claim they’re doing their own spin on the original, settle into what feels like a shot for shot remake; the punishing final act of Laugier’s film, designed to make its climactic moment of transcendence all the more powerful, gets replaced by a vengeance-fueled firefight instead; the violence gets toned down significantly, a choice that could have worked had it not reeked of the producers trying to ensure they’d get an R rating; and the ending tries to maintain the original’s ambiguity while tying up Anna and Lucie’s storyline in a way that betrays the film’s own themes. Martyrs is nothing more than a complete waste of time, a remake whose own irrelevance dominates every frame. Rather than try to respect the original content beyond its gory surface, Martyrs prefers to trace over its more violent moments, cherry picking what it needs to make something more inclined to entertain than provoke. Unlike Laugier’s unforgettable film, it’s best to forget this version of Martyrs ever happened.

Andrew Fleming’s Barefoot falls short of being both an intriguing and emotionally moving film.  Coming from a director credited for cult classics such as The Craft and Dick, I had a level of expectation for this film, which by the end of the 90 minutes was not met. Barefoot left much to be desired. While it has some of the essential ingredients to be a perfect indie rom-com; a spoonful of  Evan Rachel Wood‘s kewpie, doe-eyed, Daisy, and a dose of ne’er-do-well bad boy with striking good looks, Jay, played by Scott Speedman, the film lacks the spark necessary to really label it a success. The pair is brought together through a seemingly subtle twist of fate; Jay owes some very “bad” people a lot of money and needs to charm his father (Treat Williams) into giving him the necessary funds to repay the debt. What better opportunity to ask for the loan then his brother’s upcoming wedding in New Orleans.

In order to do so he needs to convince his father that he has cleaned up his act and is ready to settle down. How do you convince your parents that you’re ready to settle down? With a serious girlfriend, of course. Unable to find a suitable stand-in girlfriend from among his stripper acquaintances, Jay finally settles on heading to the wedding on his own, until one evening when he rescues Daisy at the mental institution where he works as a janitor. Daisy is beautiful and upon seeing her, Jay feels that she would be the perfect candidate for his plan . There is a catch, Daisy is a patient at the mental institution. Once Daisy follows him and sneaks out of the hospital, Jay has no choice but to take her under his wing as they embark on a roller coaster of an adventure across the country.

Throughout the course of their journey together, Daisy reveals that she is not like most girls, having been raised by an overprotective mother who kept her sheltered from the outside world for much of her life; she has grown up lacking the social skills and worldliness necessary to get by in society. I am a fan of Wood’s previous work, think Thirteen, Across the Universe and even recent indie rom-com A Case of You alongside Justin Long. However, Wood portrays Daisy’s childlike nature with such overemphasis that it is difficult to believe the naiveté in her actions as she experiences many firsts–her first time flying on a plane; her first time drinking champagne; her first time on a roller coaster. Her behavior comes across as trite, and insincere. Speedman has an easier time portraying Jay, though only because there really is not much to his character. Displays of cliché bad boy behavior are present–a one night stand, gambling issues, visits to the strip club and of course the presence of the gangsters to whom he owes the debt, as mentioned in the outset. The various cliches of the film are so blatant throughout that their obvious emotional responses seem almost dictated. But they result in only general detachment.

The characters and the storyline are underdeveloped which result in the lack of any emotional connection to either of the protagonists, or even an understanding of their connection. As much as the director is telling me to root for them to be together, and as much as I would like to believe that Daisy is just the change Jay needs to turn his aimless life around, it’s all just wishful thinking.

Barefoot trailer

Romantic comedies. Who do they think they are? They come in here with their big name stars and their shitty contrived plots and make our wives and girlfriends swoon. Is love not funny? Does every love story have cliché plots in real life? Did I miss the part where I had to pander to my wife’s sassy black friend? Or misinterpret something so drastically, I have to redeye to New York to win her back from some studly yet somehow misogynist or majorly flawed hunk? Where are the real stories of couples having interesting and real conflicts? Where are the movies that depict the female as something more than a cookie cutter “everywoman”? If I see one more romantic comedy where the woman is a helpless stooge despite the fact that she has a high up managerial position, I’m going to write letter to the editor of my local newspaper. And it won’t be even toned.

What ho? What’s this? The ghost of Rom Com past dropping off a movie theater ticket to 2 Days in New York? Sigh… I suppose I could give this one a shot. Julia Delpy, writer director and star, I trust you. Don’t break that trust.

Release the doves! Sound the horns! I finally found a bench setting romantic comedy that I loved. 2 Days in New York is everything I hoped it would be. Fleshed out characters, real conflict, real humor, minimal clichés and most importantly, no helpless woman lead that needs a man to sort things out for her. I have to admit however, I did not know this was a sequel to 2 Days in Paris until afterwards but it is not necessary to watch that film to understand or appreciate this one. 2 Days in New York simply relies on strong characters and strong writing to propel the film into greatness.

Written and adapted for the screen by Julia Delpy, she also directs and stars in the film which co-stars Chris Rock as her boyfriend Mingus. The conflict is established right away.  Marion’s (Delpy) family is coming to visit from Paris and unbeknownst to Mingus, is bringing a lot of emotional baggage to disrupt Marion’s normally calm demeanor. Marion’s sister Rose brings a dimwitted loser, Manu, along for the trip who is enthralled with the multiculturalism of America and stereotypes all the minorities he encounters.  Rose herself is an opinionated free spirit who irritates Marion to the point of violence. Her father Jeannot, played by her real life father Albert Delpy, is recovering from the loss of his wife and is much happier being around family. He is a source of radiating silliness throughout the film.

The problem lies when Mingus is driven to distraction by the family’s inability to keep their emotions in check coupled with Manu’s awful behavior in front of Mingus and Marion’s kids from past marriages. It may sound like a typical formula for a romantic comedy involving in-laws, but the strength of the film is that it knows how to balance the characters’ screen time and to use the characters to move the plot forward instead of relying on a drop-in, replaceable and boring MacGuffin to move things along. I’m looking at you When in Rome.

The characters are clearly the strength of this film. No one is zany, no one is over the top, everyone is real, and relatable. Jeannot is still in mourning from the passing of his wife of many years but since he is around family, one could hardly tell by the way he acts. He is a constant source of silly physical comedy and his commentary on America through the eyes of a Frenchman makes for some funny moments. The script for all the characters were thoroughly thought out and there is no vacant and deadlines in the entire film. It makes for a very enjoyable 96 minutes.

The only thing I could take issue with for the film is simple. For most of the film, I really didn’t know what the movie was about. But that is a product of its pace and chemistry. 2 Days in New York doesn’t come right out and tell the viewer how they should feel or what they should expect. It does have some classic narration throughout the film but it is only there to provide a little insight on some of the characters. At about three/fourths the way through, I finally understood that the movie was simply about a weekend where the main character’s family was in town and how much it threw her off. It wasn’t about some impending wedding that everyone had to be on their best behavior for or some zany situation that is about as probable as throwing magic coins in a fountain in Rome and suddenly having six hunky guys chasing after you. I’m looking at you When in Rome.

2 Days in New York was organic, it was funny and most of all, it was believable. I might have to expand my viewership of her movies. If all of her films carry this much manic comedy, I will definitely consider myself a fan.