Review: Dogs Don’t Wear Pants is a twisted love story about broken souls
If there’s anyone who watched Fifty Shades of Grey and was unsatisfied with…well, everything, then I advise you to check out the Finnish film Dogs Don’t Wear Pants. Co-written and directed by J.-P. Valkeapää, it’s the BDSM love story that people (or maybe just a few select people) have been waiting for.
I’ll be blunt here; this film is not for everyone. It would be shunned by “normies”. The village people will come with their torches and pitchforks if recommended to them. It’s not only extremely sexual in nature but also a bit grotesque, small stuff that will make you squirm (nail pulling, wax melting on a person’s skin). However, don’t let that or the leather-clad woman that could be Pinhead’s niece on the front cover fool you. This is not a horror movie.
I know some might assume that it is because it’s on Shudder and deals with sadomasochism, but Dogs Don’t Wear Pants is not horror. Although it is exceptionally dark. The horror presented in the story comes from emotional turmoil and mental anguish.
The lost connection
A widower, Juha (Pekka Strang) is unable to move on after his wife’s death. Years of loneliness makes him desperate for an intimate connection with another human being. The film opens with his wife (Ester Geislerová) going for a swim in a lake outside their house while he’s sleeping. He’s awoken by their crying daughter and realizes that his wife has gotten trapped in their fishing net.
By the time he realizes this it is too late. She’s drowned, and he almost drowns trying to save her. Suffocating underwater, tangled in both her hair and the net, he imagines swimming beside her as he drifts towards death. That’s the moment a fishing boat hauls him up, saving his life.
His existence then comes to a halt. Not just because he’s lost his wife, but because he feels that he should have died with her. Even though he has their daughter to care for, death becomes an anesthetic fantasy for Juha.
Here, pain isn’t pleasure but a reminder
In the beginning, Juha is very robotic. He cleans the house, does his job, and speaks to his daughter as if he’s never 100% present; he has forgotten how to feel. Although he continues to crave his wife’s presence, he’s grown accustomed to life without her. He’s losing more and more and soon, there’ll be nothing left. Things change, however, when he meets Mona (Krista Kosonen), a mysterious dominatrix that, at her core, is as vulnerable as Juha. By the way, if the title doesn’t make sense to you, it will once you see Mona and Juha’s first “session”.
Through Mona, Juha is able to temporarily reunite with his wife to the point where the lines start to blur. His mind and heart begin to see Mona as the woman that he’s lost. It’s an extremely unusual form of therapy. Mona is no dummy by the way. She can see that Juha wants to die, that he misses someone, and it breaks her heart. They’re two broken souls looking for love.
Their relationship is treated almost like an addiction, and just like any other addiction, the question of their next fix is always on their minds. More so in Juha’s case, but there’s a complication in the form of his alienated daughter Elli (Ilona Huhta). He tries to maintain an aura of normalcy around her but he fails spectacularly. Hard to act normal when you come home every day covered in bruises.
Elli is actually the one thing I would change about this movie. A potentially vital character reduced to a background display. She’s a lonely teenager with a father who skips her music concert to be strangled by a dominatrix. She’s used only to further deepen the weight of Juha’s home life.
Wicked but beautiful
This is a twisted movie. There is no other way to say it, though it’s not what I expected. The same way you’d break away a shell to see what’s inside, the characters tear away their former identities to get at the untouched being hiding underneath in a most uncomfortable way.
The force behind Mona and Juha’s connection is almost overbearing. Just the way the heroine slaps her clients, Dogs Don’t Wear Pants slaps you hard across the face, or whips you across the face. Whichever you prefer. In the end, Juha doesn’t reunite with his wife, but he gets a proper goodbye. A way to move on.
Aside from Elli, the only other character the film should have spent more time on is Mona. She’s the center of Juha’s world but we hardly know anything about her. She has her own troubles. That much is clear, but the film keeps her at a distance. Treating her like a mythical creature that Juha comes across and worships. The rest of the film is great though. A true arthouse production.
(3.5 / 5)
All photos are property of Shudder and the Helsinki Filmi production company
Released in 2011, Grave Encounters is one of the better-liked-found horror movies by both critics and horror fans alike. At least, that’s the opinion of the few who’ve seen it. For some reason, it’s not as well known as many others in the genre. So today, let’s spread awareness for this overlooked spooky gem.
The story
We begin our story with a TV executive, talking about an ill-fated reality show named Grave Encounters. He explains that everything went south during the taping of episode six. While the footage was retrieved, the ghost hunters were not. Our TV executive assures us that what we are about to see is not a movie, and has only been cut for time.
We then dive into the footage collected from episode six. The ghost-hunting team will spend the night in an old mental hospital called Collingwood Psychiatric Hospital.
During the night, the team does see a few eerie things. A door slams shut. A wheelchair moves on its own. Fairly standard ghost-hunting fair.
The real horror starts when the team isn’t released from the hospital in the morning. Because morning doesn’t come. The sun doesn’t rise and the doors don’t open to the outside world. Lance, TC, Sasha, Matt and Houston are all trapped inside an ever-changing hospital, with the patients who remain even in death.
What worked
The first thing I want to talk about, and the part that attracted me to the film in the first place, is the parody element. Fans of ghost-hunting shows like Ghost Hunters will recognize many of the same elements. The title even has a very similar font. As someone who loves a good ghost hunt, but often finds that these shows take themselves a little too seriously, this was quite enjoyable.
Another thing I loved about Grave Encounters was the effects. The ghosts were shocking, not just the first time we saw them but every time. This is even more impressive when we remember that this movie had a budget of $120,000. The creators taught themselves how to do these effects, and most of them are practical, not CGI. This would have been impressive if the effects were just passible. And they were far more than that.
Finally, I want to talk about the character development. We start the film without much sympathy for our characters. Especially Lance. Lance was so punchable at first. He was flippant about others’ pain. He was clear that he’d make up evidence if he couldn’t find any. And he didn’t seem too interested in listening to his team.
By the end of the movie, though, we care about him and the rest of the team. And it takes so little time for us to change our minds. We see TC talk to his daughter, and realize he’s never going to get home to her. We see Sasha care about the people lost in the hospital. We see Lance protect Sasha and the rest of his team. We see that these people, as willing as they are to financially benefit from other people’s pain, actually do care about each other. No one is a coward. No one is leaving people behind. That’s admirable. And that makes me give a damn about them.
What didn’t work
All that being said, it wasn’t a perfect movie. To start with, there are some questions we don’t get answers to. And not in an acceptable way. It’s okay that we don’t know what really happens in the end. It’s okay that we don’t know how the spirits manipulate time. It’s not okay that one character is simply eaten by fog. That scene, close to the end, just felt lazy.
I will also say that some of the acting wasn’t great. Especially from Sasha, played by Ashleigh Gryzko. I won’t say she was terrible. But her acting was overdone. She was also a bit of a scream queen. We didn’t learn much about Sasha, except that she’s the token girl. Her character could have been fleshed out a bit more.
Overall, Grave Encounters is a great film. Whether you’re a fan of found footage, ghost hunting, or just spooky stories well told, this is one to put on your TBW list sooner rather than later.
For Haunted MTL, this is Nicole signing off.
(4.5 / 5)
Episode four of Agatha All Along started on a sad note and ended on a shocking reveal. Can we really ask for anything more?
The story
We begin this episode, as mentioned, at the graveside of poor Sharon. She’s the first to pass away on The Road, but I’ll be quite surprised if she’s the last.
It’s one thing to have died. But it’s quite another to have died surrounded by people who don’t really care and won’t really mourn you.
After that, we continue down The Road to find another house. This one appears to be familiar to Alice. She tries to turn around and go the other way, but The Road won’t let her escape that easy.
What they find inside is the home Alice shared with her mother. They also find a record of Alice’s mother’s version of the Ballad. After the coven starts experiencing Alice’s family curse, they realize the only way out is to sing The Ballad that can protect them. One that’s been protecting Alice for most of her life.
They do escape the house, but not unscathed. Teen is badly injured. And we see another side of Agatha. Maybe even one she didn’t know she had.
What worked
This aspect shocked me, but Agatha is a good team leader. This is undercut because we all know she doesn’t care about her team. But twice now she has stepped in and helped when a member of the coven was struggling. She didn’t do it with love but with honesty. And sometimes that’s what we need.
Another thing I want to draw attention to is the sexual tension between Agatha and Rio. However, they’re doing a fine job drawing attention to it themselves.
It is killing me.
There is so much history between these two characters that we just don’t know yet. But we want to know. This is one of the biggest drives to watch the next episode, at least for me. While at first, it seemed like Agatha was to blame for their riff, it appears after this episode that it might have been Rio. Or, frankly, it might have been both of them. All I know is that I am constantly reminded of Rio’s question to Agatha from the first episode.
“Do you remember why you hate me?”
Finally, I thought the 70’s vibe of this episode was very fun. I especially liked the camera shots that were quite reminiscent of old 70’s show. The split screens, the quick gasp shots. It reminded me of Scooby Doo and Jabber Jaw in the best way.
What didn’t work
I don’t have much negative to say about this episode. The only real complaint I have is that I didn’t like this new version of The Ballad. It’s fine, but it isn’t nearly as cool as the first.
All in all, this was a great episode. I have so many questions about Teen, about Rio, and about what The Road has in store for the rest of them. And I can’t wait to see what’s next.
(4.5 / 5)
Movies n TV
Evil: “A is for Angel” (S2E2)
“A is for Angel” is an episode of the supernatural drama, Evil. The assessors investigate a potential angelic possession.
“A is for Angel” is an episode of the supernatural drama, Evil, created by Michelle King and Robert King. The central cast includes Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi, Michael Emerson, Christine Lahti, and Andrea Martin. It originally aired under CBS before moving to Paramount+. As of this review, it’s available through Netflix and Paramount+ and its add-ons.
The assessors investigate a potential angelic possession. David (Mike Colter) meets a helpful nun (Andrea Martin as Sister Andrea). Kristen (Katja Herbers) talks to the police. Sheryl (Christine Lahti) takes out her frustration on someone who deserves it. Leland (Michael Emerson) makes a haunting confession.
What I Like about Evil: “A is for Angel”
While “A is for Angel” fears depicting a biblically accurate angel, it still evokes a haunting terror such angels evoke. Brandon J. Dirden’s Raymond/Archangel Michael provides an unsettling performance that directly comments or alludes to actions that angels take in the bible.
This episode introduces Sister Andrea, who will become a key character of the series, acting as a spiritual advisor and mentor to David specifically. She’s interesting enough to evoke lasting memorability, given more attention than debut characters in their introductory episodes.
Leland’s confession to David gets dark, revealing much of the personal relationship the two had before the series began. While nothing remains confirmed, and Leland clearly aims to antagonize David, David’s reaction suggests that some truthful admissions linger within the deception. However, it’s ultimately a viewer’s decision to weigh these claims.
“A is for Angel” creates a rather terrifying dynamic that evokes a haunting narrative. Where the previous episode focused more on what comes next, “A is for Angel” dives into the horrific implications of the procedural plot.
Tired Tropes and Triggers
As mentioned earlier, the procedural plot involves an angelic possession and some Old Testament godliness, which might upset some viewers. Some points suggest sexism and abuse, but little of this receives attention beyond the claim.
A character potentially murdered their wife, suggesting spousal abuse, but the reality of the situation seems blurred. Regardless, the victim tries to leave their abuser, which is a common source of abuse in domestic violence.
While nothing remains confirmed, a child molester apparently receives angelic punishment. The viewer takes the word of the angel’s supposed host on this claim, which hardly means an absolute confirmation.
Suicide, potentially assisted suicide, is another plot point alluded to in the episode. Little remains a proven fact, but the suggestion seems plausible considering what the viewer knows of the situation. As this remains the only confirmation, the claims seem interpretable.
What I Dislike about Evil: “A is for Angel”
Again, “A is for Angel” puts a lot of focus on the horrifying concept of an angel but doesn’t try to depict a biblically accurate angel. Frankly, it’s a wasted opportunity, considering the haunting nature of their descriptions. Such descriptions rival that of Lovecraftian abomination in horrifying potential. It seems like a perfect opportunity for a show or film like Evil. Even as “A is for Angel” challenges the depictions, it hesitates to open its’ trillions of eyes to the opportunities available.
Leland allows the assessors into his home and leaves valuable evidence for the team to find. For such an intelligent character, these oversights seem uncharacteristic. Viewers might assume this frantic response is a ploy, but his reactions suggest otherwise.
Final Thoughts
“A is for Angel” returns Evil to the horror roots that the previous episode hadn’t lingered on. The episode unravels some mysteries of the past that better contextualize relationships. If you’re eager for Old Testament godly intervention, this episode brings out a proper dose of it.
(3 / 5)
