What should the American Dream look like? Beautiful, big two-story house outside the city? Prestigious, respected work? A friend who always gives you good advice? Beautiful wife and two kids on the couch in front of the fireplace? All this is in abundance with the main character named Don. But behind the apparent well-being lies a sick, perverse model of relationships, when one of the spouses is a psychopath. Usually, powerful psychopaths depict men, but this film examines a completely different (but no less common in life) model of relationships in a married couple: when the husband is a hen-heeled man and a rag, and the wife seems to have returned from an easy walk from the most northern and cruel corner of Hell.
The craving for total control over others, setting goals and tasks that should not be prevented by any living soul, coupled with a complete lack of empathy, such human qualities as compassion, mercy, kindness and... love! These are the hallmarks of the psychopath Mona (actress Catherine Heigl, outwardly somewhat reminiscent of Charlize Theron).
In the calm, unhealthy family life of the Champaign couple, a sexy beauty Dusty intervened (Jordan Brewster, you may remember for her role in the fantastic film of the 90s “Faculty”. By the way, externally it has not changed much. An official romance inevitably threatens the emergence of a love triangle, although the word “love” here should be taken in quotation marks. Heroes try to manipulate each other, as a result, these dangerous “games with fire” inevitably entail dramatic consequences for everyone involved. The lid from a bottle of champagne with a whistle flies out, and the bubble liquid pours out, it is not possible to return it back... “Don’t pour into yourself” – practical advice was given that was not heard.
We have a semi-comedy with the habits of the crime drama. This is one of those films whose mix of genres led to a failure in the implementation of each individually. In the end, there was no fish or meat. The first half of the film is much funnier and more interesting than the subsequent events, going as if by inertia.
An easy one-time movie to watch and forget. In my opinion, the actors played too playfully (except for Dusty, because the role was supposed to be so), which completely loses the realism of what is happening. It's not a comedy movie either. Katherine Heigl strongly faked what is happening on the screen do not believe, in the end the film looked far-fetched. It's funny that Catherine was nominated for the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Actress. So I'm not the only one who noticed.
5 out of 10
A good and funny thriller with admixture of a comedy about how one hen-heeled man twisted an affair, after which his iron and crazy wife began to slice people to death to get rid of the blackmail of her husband’s passion. The plot is similar to “Gone” Fincher, not to say very unusual, but the film looks easy and unstressed, the actors play well, the main character is just a monster of determination and rigidity. Overall, it’s quite a normal movie.
The picture, although from the category of exaggerated, malicious jokes, nevertheless, there is no doubt about the realism of its presentation. Characters, despite some detachment from reality, are not so, in fact, detached from it, since the thoughts of murder, not to mention the intention (and murder itself) in the name of saving the family idyll, exist in life, although it looks more prosaic and less fun than it seems to experienced Hollywood humorists.
It is necessary to pay tribute to their ability to throw out sometimes something really lively and hilariously funny, although, perhaps, this is largely due to the actors’ ability to understand and convincingly convey the kaleidoscope of neurotic perceptions inherent in their characters, in which Patrick Wilson in a pair of Catherine Heigl discovered incredibly stunning acting qualities.
In general, it is very difficult to evaluate the genre, where ' dramatic' plots, can not be expressed otherwise than in the form of black humor, murder, dismemberment, etc. In whatever humorous form it is served, if within the framework of the main purpose of the comedy genre, the creative team and actors in particular, fail to reveal and ridicule the absurdity and absurdity of the presented images and at the same time, pour all the blood under jokes and sarcasms, then, IMHO, such works cannot be the subject of artistic evaluation. If, on the contrary, the actors succeed, then, any, even the most gloomy & #39; black & #39; as it turns out, has a chance to become a real, worthwhile film masterpiece.
The movie is good and very funny! Probably thanks to a competent script or, most likely, thanks to the amazing acting of Patrick Wilson with Catherine Heigl. It's been a long time!
Hollywood stars Patrick Wilson and Catherine Heigl in a very dark parable about sociopathy, the midlife crisis and the vicissitudes of family life. It would seem that what else does a man need in life, if he has a clean job, and the house is full of boxes, and his wife is beautiful? But -- boring. And now the official affair for the head of the family Don ends with an office hooker, blackmail, threats and other troubles. But people say, “I will not let you down.” And now, having gathered all his will into a fist, Don tells the faithful about the disaster that fell on him. What was his surprise that she, not at all embarrassed, simply offered him ... to poison his rival, dismember the carcass and dispose of it as a household waste! Now it's Don's turn to complain about marrying such a bitch, but where does he go? Meanwhile, once violence has started, it is very difficult to stop - and the spouses have no choice but to pile up troupes again and again. And isn't family life hell after that? The ending of the kintz is curious, but quite natural. Watch it for yourself, though the film is not for the faint of heart.
Before our attention is the second film directed by Anthony Burns, which like the first is something dubious and controversial. The black comedy called "Home Sweet Hell" attracts attention due to the participation of such famous stars of big cinema as Patrick Wilson and Catherine Heigl.
At first I was interested in this film, and at first I thought the film would be original and curious. The beginning was successful, and the viewer plunged into the criminal story with black humor and lust of the main character. But then the plot becomes completely insane, and the movie turns into something completely implausible and even stupid.
The main character (married man, father of young children) starts an affair with a hot employee at work. A love affair and betrayal of his wife turns out to be a real chaos and madness for the main character, because soon everything gets out of control, and events are gaining a very gloomy character.
This black comedy is pure for one-time viewing, and then for an amateur. Examining it to the end, does not leave the thought “what nonsense show”. The outcome of the plot is terribly implausible, and everything gives falsehood. It couldn’t be, so it looked stupid. Cinema turns out to be a bitter candy that you chew, chew and for some reason do not spit out.
You don't spit it out because of the actors. Patrick Wilson made me laugh in this movie. He played his cowardly and weak hero ironically, openly, just hilariously. That's how he played. He is a charismatic actor and I appreciate him. In the background, it was nice to see Jordan Brewster. The star of “Fast and Furious” and “Faculty” I remember since childhood, and causes only positive emotions in me. Also in the background lit up the Scottish actor, star of “Grey’s Anatomy” Kevin McKidd in the image of a near bandit.
As for Katherine Heigl, this is a separate topic. I always have mixed feelings for this American actress. I’ve loved it since childhood, since the movie “Make a wish”. Then in "Grey's Anatomy" she just wonderfully played her surgeon character. Then Heigl started acting in commercially successful films, became mega popular, and something went wrong. I mean her acting. Katherine often overplays badly. You don't believe her. It feels false, improbable.
Take even her performance in this movie. His despotic, mad maniac Heigl outplayed. There was a lot of her in this movie. There was a hint of falsehood again. Looking at everything, I thought, am I the only one who sees that she is overplaying, playing terribly bad. But then I learned that the actress was nominated for Golden Raspberry for the worst female role, and calmed down.
"North of Hell" is an American, black comedy with a taste of drama and thriller in 2014. At first I was sure that I would react positively, then somewhere in the middle of the viewing it was already neutral, and after looking to the end I was convinced that only negatively. The picture is extremely dubious and implausible, and I say no to it. The movie didn't work.
Common ideas about the underworld are drawn to us by the omnipresent hell with devils scurrying back and forth, frying sinners in pans. If by this picture we understand the red-hot equator of hells, then in its north there are probably several “cooler”. Cooler than a chilling space freezer can be comfortable in hell.
But whatever the associations with the mystical otherworldly world, the version of the “family idyll” presented to us is quite capable of claiming life realities, even taking into account the degree of artistic fiction and the presentation of the “home scenario” exaggerated for the bulk of the audience, so that the bulk of the people have “legitimate” reasons to distance themselves from what is happening “in the cinema”, and calmly go to bed, wishing their spouse (to emphasize) sweet dreams and hiding the knife under the pillow.
Quiet masterpieces continue to be born and live in obscurity, away from ratings, advertising and recognition by elite tabloid critics. Such are the laws of the development of a cultural pragmatic society—inconvenient hints that we are all naked under clothing—are ruthlessly blocked by the defense mechanisms of the most “developed” psyche in animal nature.
The ingeniously played characters of Wilson and Heigl, showing us an alleged “accident”, are so frank that they include simultaneously the mechanisms of projection, transfer, displacement, introjection. The weaklings (whose way of life is most identical to the plot) bluntly turn on denial and they defiantly declare rejection and NOT involvement in what is happening on the screen, than they betray themselves with their heads. The rest feverishly realize that the plot perversions somehow begin to seem ordinary, because the naked features of the characters, albeit indirectly and not quite mirror, but dig their own skeletons out of the depths of the subconscious.
Mona and Don are far from being stupid and self-deceived, which destroys the viewer’s defenses by forcibly involving them in the sado-masochistic game. Attempting a therapeutic injection, addressed to Mona’s childhood, followed by her reaction, is essentially the culmination for the heroes and a catharsis for the viewer – the finale is already predetermined and inevitable. It doesn’t matter that moral boundaries prevent most people from going beyond them for their own well-being. The only question is, will these boundaries be maintained with confidence in their impunity?
Anthony Burns is a real discovery for the world of cinema. Combining thrash comedy and drama seems like an impossible task, but he succeeded. Wilson is the best role, an incomparable tortured smile, poor Yorick. It was nice to see Belushi.
The trailer is a powerful weapon in skilled hands. To be honest, “The North of Hell” attracted me with its trailer. To be honest, the film didn’t disappoint.
The plot of the film is quite simple. It does not chain you tightly to the screen, but there is no desire to turn off. Everything goes smoothly and smoothly. In my opinion, the whole film was made by the actors. I want to watch them more than the film itself. Because, frankly, it's pretty meager. It is much more interesting to observe how the screen space of Jordan Brewster leaves the screen space. By the way, the film was not as bad as I imagined it to be. Of course it is, but inserted in the right places and in moderation.
Actors.Patrick Wilson has recently become a fan of three movies. The most recent ones include: "Kill Ward's wife", earlier "Driver for the Night" and "Space Station 76". By the way, "Let's Kill Ward's Wife" in the plot is similar to "North of Hell", although in the first film, the hero of "Wilson" was the most courageous and frostbitten of the killers, here he is in the form of a rag. Wilson managed to very successfully convey the image of smear, which can not make a decision himself, and for him it makes a maniac wife. The whole movie, he just walks around and drools. The final transformation to the face of the hero Wilson. Katherine Heigl has a rather unusual image. From the very first appearance in the frame, it was clear that her head is not all right. What we actually see in the future. I immediately remember David Fincher's "The Disappeared One." Some of these characters are similar. However, here the finale is more fair was not stung by Fincher. Jordan Brewster is here as a sexy employee who shows us her forms most of her screen time. I don’t know what inspired her to participate in this project, but she has a very brave role. I'm talking about how her character left the movie. But as they say, work is work to do.
In general, decide to watch or not to watch. For the name of the main character (Don Champagne), perhaps a point to throw
If the comedy wasn’t black, choosing to watch it would have taken an hour and a half of my time. The expectations were largely met.
Too sweet and sweet described the life of the wealthy Champaign family. Even yesterday, a salesman of supported cars, today Don owns his own furniture and carpet store. And then there were the first doubts - well, it can not all go so well!
Mona is represented by a tyrant, not hard, but soft. These are the kind of wives who slowly but surely drip their husbands on their brains. And they are trying to control everything: today we mow the lawn, and the day after tomorrow we will have sex with nine. All the opposition of the spouses is reduced to the eternal struggle of characters - a rag-husband and a clever wife, who increases her self-confidence at his expense. However, it is not easy to become a real man when she always saws and remembers the merits of her parents who attached him to a good position.
No, Don is unlikely to change. This confirms the further development of the plot. Dusty's seductive assistant tries to provoke him, which is extremely important with the cold in the family bed. A man-cable, who just found a way out of his needs, is drawn into the games of a calculating bitch.
Once again, the key line takes us back to Monet Don. The apogee of their confrontation reaches the top when she proposes to end the mistress in a very straightforward way. It is clear that he is not capable of offending a fly, while Mona coldly dismembers the rival. Many scenes could be avoided, if not shown. Then the wife is excited - she is ready to repeat the fate of Dusty with those who deserve it. And by and large, they are all random passers-by.
Funny how her addiction to getting rid of unnecessary people is shown. The activity is so fun for Mona that you quickly think about her unhealthy mental state. On the other hand, for all the tediousness Mona idolizes the image of husband and family, she will not allow anyone and nothing to spoil their lives. At this point, a tumbler is triggered in her head. The punishment becomes a challenge for her, awakening the dark sides.
Jordan Brewster is perfectly matched for the role of mistress. Dusty came out just like this: at first simple, kind, and only after a lustful girl who decided to cut down money on the heel heel. Patrick Wilson looks plausible in the role of a loser husband, especially after "The Conjuring" and "Astral". His sex scenes with Dusty aren’t as pleasingly exhilarating as those in Kate Winslet’s Little Children, but they certainly appeal to the actor. The film itself is similar to his other film – “Kill Ward’s wife”, which was released at the same time.
Katherine Heigl is somewhat reminiscent of "A Very Dangerous Thing." Although there are no parallels with these films, I draw parallels in the unsuccessful selection of roles. However, if the actress did not count on seriousness, then this picture is for her.
The film is full of black jokes. There are almost no funny scenes. References to Uma Thurman and "Kill Bill" remained unclear when Mona dressed in a similar home suit and picked up a dagger. After Mona (and Don too) got excited, the finale was expected. Want to know how much more and how it will end? The ending is in its own style.
I think the movie will be a failure in many ways. It also has the potential to be misunderstood by the audience. If it's a comedy, please make me laugh. And then he absorbed the features of a thriller and drama, mixing into an incomprehensible porridge. No, the painting definitely carries something. If desired, you can dig deeper and find a lot of interesting things to think about. I just wanted to laugh.
I think a lot of people underestimated this movie. Why did I personally like him? It's very simple. Because I know what a marriage is, in which a man is under the yoke of a woman, and a woman is ready to do anything to preserve the idyll she created.
There is a lot of blackness in the film, but there is a lot of sparkling humor that so easily fits into the bloody scenes of violence and horror. The actors are carefully selected to create images of two “perfect” spouses who do not fit into this terribly dirty imperfect world.
She is a despotic wife, used to do everything with a needle, a kind of perfectionist in the square, not without deviations of course.
He is a typical weak-willed heeled husband, afraid to lose not so much his wife in a divorce, as money and status.
One day, she will go to extreme measures that are tolerable for her world to preserve the perfect picture to which she is accustomed. We just have to see what happens...
Very funny movie and at the same time, you can draw many conclusions. Marriage is not a mukhra.
P.S. I recommend watching with the other half for more excitement.
It is always a pleasure to discover new talents in cinema. For me, literally today, that discovery was Anthony Burns. In 2010, he made his first film, Skateland, which will now have to be read. And if he makes a proper impression, as “the North of hell”, then his work will definitely need to be followed further.
The first third of Hell’s North didn’t really impress me. It would seem that the moral of the film is simple: married men, do not walk left, it can end up with big problems for you. We have seen this before, and more than once, for example, in The Price of Treason (2005) by the Swede Mikael Hofström. But, surprisingly, Burns offers us a completely different development of events, which is very exciting, and does not let go until the very end.
Here in the prestigious quarter lives an outwardly benevolent Champagne couple. He is the director of a furniture store, she, the daughter of very wealthy parents, is a housewife raising children.
Everything looks very decent. Mona teaches her daughter and son French, in front of her husband walks in a peñoir, exciting his masculine dignity, and writes all her affairs in a diary, up to intimacy by minute. Her husband, Don, is a heeled man, but life controlled by his wife is boring him. He wants sex like any normal man, not on the 9th between 16-30 and 16-50, but now that his wife has undressed and gone to bed with him. In this scenario, it generally becomes surprising how they generally lived together for several years and gave birth to two more children.
But here he has a new employee Dusty in the store, which Don pays attention to. She lures him into her networks, the relationship between them swirls at the speed of a centrifuge, and here's the natural ending: she says she's pregnant and wants to keep the baby. Don understands that the despotic Mona can take everything from him if she finds out about his affair, suffers for a long time, and, in the end, having fallen into a completely hopeless position, since Dusty’s cohabitant, who lives at her expense, blackmailing such rich husbands, decides to tell about Monet.
And then, dear reader, the swelling begins. It turned out to be a long, but foreplay. The history of family relations develops into a real thriller, presented in the key so camouflaged irony that it is not immediately recognized. I love those tastes so much in movies that “Hell’s North” came as a pleasant surprise. Of course, there are a couple of moments that are quite on the verge of a foul, for example, the masturbation of Don in Dusty’s photo, turning the portrait of Mona. But, in general, the film has a minimum number of sins, and looks, albeit not immediately, but fascinating.
Katherine Heigl (Mona Champagne) - I haven't seen a movie in a long time. The last time I saw her was in A Little Pregnant (2007), where she didn’t make a big impression. She doesn't play well here. Her emotionlessness at the beginning of the picture, and the breaking emotions at the end produce, in general, the proper effect. But, I would like to see the struggle of feelings on his face in the scene of Don’s confession of his betrayal, and not a wax mask.
Patrick Wilson (Don Champagne) liked it. He doesn't overdo it as he feared. He showed very well the type of man who, to stay in a warm place, agrees even to murder.
Jordana Brewster (Dusty), known primarily for the series “Fast and Furious”, nothing so played. I mean, nothing special, but not bad either.
James Belushi (Forest) - thickened. He has a supporting role here, which he handled quite well.
In general, I expected a family drama from “Hell’s North”, and got a thriller in the package of a family drama. I'm quite happy with that.