Julia (2015)

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

At least that film was an experience that cannot be forgotten easily. The main point I didn't like with Julia is the shoddy execution of the script. Any capable director would rise to the occasion, but debutante director Matthew A. Brown fails to make any headway with his film.A really poor cast of characters, with no veteran player to lead them. The background sound-effects are mediocre and do not produce any thrills. The photography and lighting are excellent, but because of the dull plot, all the efforts that were spent by the cameraman are wasted.The film is about a woman called Julia (Ashley C. Williams) who arrives at someone's apartment and is invited in. Probably she may have been dating the guy through the internet, but this is never revealed in the film. This man gives Julia a drink spiked with succinylcholine. As she lays totally incapacitated, some friends of of this man arrive. Later on, while fully aware but paralyzed, she is brutally raped by this man and his friends. Afterwards, these men dump her near a riverfront and depart. Julia slowly recovers after the drug wears off. She manages to make her way home, where the viewer discovers that Julia has spent most of her life being abused by various tormentors and has turned to self-harm as a result. Later Julia overhears someone discussing a therapy that has rape victims taking back power from their attackers. She's introduced to Dr. Sgundud (Jack Noseworthy) through the mysterious Sadie (Tahyna Tozzi) and through Sgrundud's teachings Julia begins to target various men as a way to empower herself by humiliating them. Julia eventually decides to use Sgrundud's methods to seek revenge against her rapists. But unknown to her, Dr. Sgundud has a secret agenda of his own...Watch the film to see what happens next.Verdict: See the above mentioned films if you haven't already. Some more recommendations: Wolf Creek 1&2, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre franchise of films(there are too many to list), Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes And Sequel, Eden Lake, Dean Koontz Intensity(1997), High Tension(2003), Inside(2007), James Wan's Saw And Its sequel films by different directors and Eli Roth's Hostel (2005).

6.5 of 10. While the Saw films accomplished the same modern-day, reality-based blood and gore, the extremes and contraptions involved took a willingness to fantasize to believe something like that could happen. With Julia, there's no need for imagination or fantasy and nearly everything that's left to imagination in other films is visualized on screen.Amongst other parts of it to enjoy are the soundtrack integration and the focus of the film. It doesn't try to be something more or imply something other than what the story is about.What's missing seems to be pacing and acting and a few unedited non-sequiturs. Otherwise, you get a goth/emo-chick horror with some mystery without suffering through make believe monsters or heroes.

One of the worst films I have seen this year, it is just ridiculous that people get away with making these types of abominations. We have seen the set up before; mousy girl is raped, physically and mentally damaged, seeks revenge. It was done in I Spit on Your Grave, Last House on the Left, etc. and there is a reason why these movies simply retread the same territory with little variation. Where you can vary (such as inventive kills), the movie skips these over almost completely, instead opting to showcase the aftermath. Why make a revenge film if you are going to censor it so heavily? Give me something visceral, gut wrenching and horrific, not this made-for-Chiller-T.V. snooze fest that left me with more questions than I started out with. The acting was decent (surprisingly), and the only real stand out was the soundtrack; Japanese vocals, heavy bass and inventive rhythms make this an audible treat. But the movie itself is so utterly banal, that I was exasperated mind way through at the lack of anything interesting happening, and by the end I was just glad that it was over. Disappointing is an understatement. It was just a weak experience overall.

Newbie feature director Matt Brown clearly saw this as his "breakout" work.Other IMDb reviewers have covered the basic story arc. Sort of an "I Spit on Your Grave" #45, with long stretches of zero dialog, lots of goofy lighting, editing so frenetic you might think you imbibed a forbidden substance before viewing -- even if you did not -- and lighting that favors the dark end of the spectrum, which simply adds to the mayhem that is this very forgettable film.Not to mention that, if the film should bomb financially, it could be re-packaged as a Youtube how-to on male castration.So, since we are already knee-deep into this review (or, at least, knee-deep into SOMETHING) let's go a bit deeper.The core problem with this kind of film -- AND THIS IS IRONY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL -- is that, if you are a film-maker with artistic aspirations, globalization (where films made in one country are intended for distribution in another) has wiped out what used to be called, in decades past, the "art house" market.Note that even Tarantino tried to point this out in his own work by trying to "bring back" the genre.So -- here is the premise of the review, please work with me on this -- even as Modern Society has become so homogenized that opportunities for archetypal rituals of male bonding have been reduced or disappeared, the entertainment biz has similarly reduced or disappeared the opportunities for a film-maker to produce something done primarily to exhibit artistic expression.To simplify: Limited male bonding opportunities in modern society (can't go to the nearest village ... and pillage) have left (sad to say) gang-rape as one of the few activities that can be attempted today. Even if the aforesaid participants did not really want to commit the act in the first place.Limited genres of commercially accepted film have left the so-called horror film as one of the only remaining genres in which a director with artistic intent can unleash that intent with any expectation of commercial success ... even if he did not actually want to make a horror film in the first place.So, the ultimate irony, you have men committing an act they did not actually want to commit (because of limited opportunities) and film-makers memorializing said act because there is no opportunity to make the film they really want to make.Alternative point of view: if you consider the above to be overkill, let me simply say this is a terrible movie and if you want to see the same theme done correctly, find a copy of American MARY.