Directed By Dave Franco

Starring – Dan Stevens, Alison Brie, Sheila Vand

The Plot – Two couples on an oceanside getaway grow suspicious that the host of their seemingly perfect rental house may be spying on them. Before long, what should have been a celebratory weekend trip turns into something far more sinister, as well-kept secrets are exposed and the four old friends come to see each other in a whole new light.

Rated R for violence, adult language throughout, drug use and some sexuality

POSITIVES

– Fresh eyes. While there’s very little originality about the kind of themes and presentation that Franco harvests in his directorial debut, one can’t debate the lucid substance that he articulates in playing against type for the movie’s posh and luxurious one stage setting. Almost immediately, there’s a dark and foreboding circumstance to this place that outlines its ulterior motives, and vulnerability in isolation that leaves these couples constantly fighting against the odds. On said isolation, Franco’s wide angle establishing shots capture the immensity of the land, all the while capitalizing on the beauty of the scenery that vividly illustrates why such a place is so easy to fall in love with. Finally, it’s Dave’s clever use of shadow-play and fog that he instills to each exterior shot that constantly maintains our attention, and plays into the air of secrets that emerge the more time we spend with these anything but honest protagonists. It cements the air of promise from an aspiring filmmaker that just touches on enough substantial filmmaking to spike our curiosities, and makes us anxious for a second delve, even if horror might not be the best avenue of expressive travel.

– Fully realized characters. This is very much a film whose experience relies heavily on the investment that the audience plays towards its characters, but thankfully, good or bad, there are many benefits that come with each respective side. If you enjoy these characters, then their dramatic uncovering’s playing out in real time will sizzle the proverbial steak, bringing moments that are every bit juicy as they are nourishing for the way they tease and anticipate what’s inevitably forthcoming. If you detest these characters, the movie has a bluntly therapeutic way of handing each of them karma in its most physically constricting circumstance. This allows the haters to enjoy seeing each of them pay their respective pipers, all the while sifting through the adversity of honesty, which stacks up to drowning levels of claustrophobia by the film’s climatic third act. It guarantees satisfaction regardless if you take to these people or not, and brings forth some compelling drama in the way of its storytelling regardless of which avenue your choice takes you.

– Two halves. For my money, the movie worked better as a dramatic character study during the movie’s first half, where paranoia and consequence doesn’t manifest in physical form like it does during an adjacent horror-driven second half. There’s something extremely simplistic yet undeniably satisfying about a group of friends’ whose own worst enemy conjures up with being forced to endure a weekend together, bringing forth no shortage of dramatic tension to play into the proximity of the truth being uncovered by someone else under the same roof at any moment. Drinking and drugs also play a convenient character during said time, which could account for much of said paranoia that seemed to unjustly come out of nowhere long before the blanket had been pulled back at who commands the strings within this house. If the movie continued in this direction, It could shapeshift horror in another unconventional way that prescribes realism in the frights being that of a series of past decisions coming back to haunt us, but unfortunately the slasher agenda takes over, and leads us to a laundry list of problems that I will get to later.

– Believable performances. There is no shortage of chemistry or character dynamic between these four respective actors that allows each of them to play off of each other, and nuance their way through a series of performances that do the job of evolving in a way that naturally progresses. For Stevens and Brie, that transformation feels most evident, humbling this happy couple in a way that brings to light each of their biggest fears, and steering the latter toward a mental frailty that casts the actress in lights that I haven’t before seen her. Vand and on-screen beau Jeremy Allen White are equally indulgent, elaborating towards two people who probably shouldn’t be together regardless of the love they share for one another, and bringing each of them to the forefront of the script’s creativity that offers each of them a turn to shine at the forefront of the audience’s attention. Vand heavily bears the burden of poor judgment with a facial resonation that mirrors the regret playing out internally, and White reminds us that the quiet ones are often the most dangerous, playing through a ball of nerves that confront him head-on when the character is at his most vulnerable.

– Bodily exposition. Easily my favorite aspect of the screenplay and performances cohesively is the naturalistic flow of information conveyed in an exchange that chooses to show rather than tell. I mean, sure, the dialogue is commendable enough, feeling fleshed out with a range of authenticity between two brothers and their respective girlfriends that never feels leaning towards elaborating at entirely important information, but the body language delivered through these character interactions is nothing short of brilliant when painting the whole picture for what happened before we came into the lives of these characters. This is especially prominent during the film’s first initial meetings with them, where the slightest nuance of bumping or proximity in personal spaces alludes to the bigger picture playing off in the distant of our perceptive minds. It’s this beautiful audible-less exposition that foreshadows where the movie’s 88 minutes takes us through, and proves that the heaviest baggage to these couples weekend away might not be tucked away in the trunk compartment of their carriage to karma.

NEGATIVES

– Tonally convoluted. To say that this movie doesn’t know what it wants to be is the understatement of the year. So instead I will say that there are as many as four sharp tonal shifts in the movie’s emotional atmosphere and creative direction that overcomplicates the execution of a film whose simplicity is easily its most satisfyingly distinctive feature. Awkward humor gets shoehorned into these scenes that are supposed to be tense and full of anxiousness playing out in the forefront. Likewise, the film has as many as four different genres that it sloppily executes in tying together. There’s the drama in the opening act of the movie, which by itself is the highlight of the movie’s displaced creativity. But then it quickly becomes a psychological thriller, complete with a shadowy figure in the distance making their presence felt. Finally, the movie’s final act aims to be a slasher horror that it never fully commits to nor attains even in the slightest. It’s a bit surprising that only two men (Franco and Joe Swanberg) wrote this screenplay because the disjointed storytelling direction makes it feel like as many as four people had a pen at any given time, and halted any momentum whenever any one of them started to roll.

– Skewed logic. The biggest cliche in all of horror cinema even makes a surprise cameo, this time deviating from these logically driven characters in ways that feels convenient for the duration of the plot. This is seen through each of the four protagonists at one time or another, but none more than White’s Josh, who condemns his friends and brother in ways that were unnecessary with a particular confrontation. Aside from this, the ways that each of them fight back against this newfound masked antagonist brought forth a couple of slaps across my head, if only for the way they played into this voyeur’s hand time and time again for advantage. It’s bad enough that none of them ever have the brilliant idea to stick together and fight against their stalker, but it’s even worse when one of them finds the center for the operation, and does nothing to use it and turn it against their opposition. The smartest killers don’t need assists from their prey, they need intelligent protagonists that render them all the more powerful when they finally do outsmart them. Write that down if it’s too difficult to remember.

– No scares. I have to commend the movie for at least not being desperate enough to indulge in cheap jump scares, but unfortunately there’s nothing else of substance in its thrills to make the absence credible in the slightest. For one, Franco often forgets as a screenwriter to convey this unspoken language between killer and audience that is used to intensify anticipation in their movements. This is non-existent in “The Rental”, as the only time we truly see the killer is when they jump out at these timely and choreographed moments that are as predictable as they are unfulfilling. In addition to this, there’s nothing of graphic imagery or testing violence that I feel ever truly earns its coveted R-rating, and gives even more proof for the pudding of why this film should’ve just been a couples drama that deconstructs their once prosperous love stories.

– Flailing subplots. For my money, I feel like “The Rental” could afford to demand another twenty minutes of additional screen time to further flesh out some of the characters before their weekend getaway, as well as some of the subplots, which are introduced then left by the wayside of the bigger picture. One such example of the latter deals with a supposedly racist host of this air bed and breakfast who collides with Vand’s character over pre-reservation details gone awry. It’s one of the many subplots that never amount to anything substantial, and could either afford to be cut or inflated with more on-screen attention to define its purpose. Simultaneously, if the characters are fleshed out better in the film’s introductory minutes, it better sells the contrast when their relationships head south, encouraging the audience to invest in them after being able to better comprehend the highs and lows of their relationship.

– Third act misfires. This is where it really gets ugly, as the combination of anti-climatic drama and rushed pacing sets in on a movie that writes itself in a corner to an intentionally frustrating finale. For one, there’s no shortage of ambiguity, both in the killer and the set-up. Ambiguity isn’t a problem for me if its answers take away from the mystique of the shadowy figure. But the lack of anything rewarding never materializes in better understanding the why or how, two measures of the storytelling that are pivotal when needing to suspend our disbelief for what’s probable. Without question, however, my single biggest offense comes at the lack of weight or consequences delivered at this wonderful first act drama that was developed, instead serving as an afterthought to the newly-emerging killer who keeps each of them on their toes. This arc would’ve been the most rewarding to me in terms of being the only thing with long-term story building, but unfortunately it is stitched together at a time when too much else already has the focus of the screen, and undercuts its value during a closing fifteen minutes that never takes a breath for all of the wrong reasons.

My Grade: 5/10 or D+