Greg Jardin's "It's What's Inside"

TONIGHT’S FILM.

WHAT IT IS.

A spoiler-free description of the movie.

Old college friends get together for a pre-wedding reunion. Things get weird.

IF YOU LIKE.

If you like these things, then you’ll like the film. If this movie isn’t for you, you can explore past recommendations or this week’s community rec column.

▶ Brain teasers. The sort of film that makes you want to solve the puzzle, or guess what’s going to happen next.

▶ Personality clashes. You sort of wonder how any of the main characters became friends. But then you stop, because, whatever. It’s a movie.

▶ Fun. Bright colors. Novel concept. Whimsical score. Funny characters. It’s just a fun movie.

MY TAKE.

What I liked about it.

Something is bothering me. When I googled Greg Jardin’s “It’s What’s Inside”, it was listed as horror film.

I love scary movies; but many people refuse to watch them. This movie is funny and tense and, if you need to put it in a box, it’s more of a psychological thriller. It is not scary. It is NOT a horror film.

Further, after Netflix acquired this movie at Sundance for $17 million, their fast fashion approach to content rendered the film a lost artifact of its bloated carousel. Supplanted by whatever Netflix’s “Nobody Wants This” or “Running Point” was at the time. For the record, I’m guilty of enjoying both of these shows. That’s not my point.

My point is: between Netflix’s inability to promote it, and Google’s horror classification, “It’s What’s Inside” may have missed its moment with viewers. So, here I am on the top of my little mountain, doing my part. Don’t thank me; it’s my job.

“It’s What’s Inside” is one of those films that serves as a reminder of how fun a movie can be. The lighting and set design is expressive and vibrant and full of color. Scenes are draped in red, green, or blue hues, invoking the red-tinted visuals of classic Giallo films like “Suspiria”. The score has a sort of conniving quality to it.

The (necessary) expositions that set the stage for the story are dressed up with a visual technique Jardin refers to as “Photoshop on crack”. ¹ His approach to exposition, in fact, turns the oft maligned storytelling tool into something visually eccentric and, well, funny.

The camera work is playful. Sometimes a proud arbiter of chaos, spinning and spinning until its surroundings are a blur. Other times, slowly pushing in on its subjects from afar, giving one the sense that they’re eavesdropping; that no “private” conversation between characters is safe from being overheard.

The characters are factory-ordered to be at odds with each other. The central plot device (a literal sci-fi device) is a novel, quirky method of exploiting their feelings of love, lust, jealousy, and resentment. And with each turn, Jardin deftly backs each character into tighter and tighter corners.

Is it a perfect movie? No. Will it change your life? I don’t think so. Though, I suppose that depends on what your threshold is for life-changing content.

Admirably, though, “It’s What’s Inside” is a creative, distinct entry that seems more concerned with having fun than anything else. Because of this, I’m hopeful that the film finds an audience within our growing community. And that we’ll see Greg Jardin’s name more often in the coming years.

OH, NEAT.

A fact or two about the production that makes you say “oh, neat”.

▶ This film was shot in 18 days. For less proven directors, shooting a film into one location and an abbreviated schedule can be the difference between being able to make the movie, and failing to secure the funding. It also requires a ton of pre-planning for the cast and crew. ¹

▶ After its premiere at Sundance, “It’s What’s Inside” prompted a bidding war that was settled in three days after Netflix acquired it for $17 million. The director was hoping someone would buy it for around $2.5 million. ²

THE ONER.

The film summed up a single sentence.

THE COMMUNITY REC.

Each week, I’ll ask you to reply to this email with your favorite movies that fit an arbitrary theme. The following week, I’ll share the recs with the group.

Last week’s category: Movies with titles that start with the letter “B”.

▶ Burning (2018). If you’ve ever felt like you just wanted Steven Yeun to think you’re cool. Rec by Phil M.

▶ The Beekeeper (2024). If you’re a fan of “Jason Statham gets dragged back in” movies. Rec by Phil M.

▶ Batman Begins (2005). Because Christian Bale is awesome, and it has Cillian Murphy in it before he became the superstar he is today. Rec by Monish M

▶ Baseketball (1998), Beerfest (2006). Silly, unique storylines. Rec by Bill D.

▶ Blank Check (1994). I've been awaiting the sequel for 30 years, Blank Check 2: Mr. Macintosh Goes to Mars. Rec by Keith S.

▶ Back to the Future (1985). Or, as Clark put it: “Back to the motherf****** Future!” Rec by Clark M.

Next week’s category: Non-Mission Impossible Tom Cruise Films.

▶ Reply to this email with your recommendation and why we should watch it. Include your first name and last initial.

▶ If the movie doesn’t comply with the category, I will spend years creating a social media presence that amasses millions of followers. After earning their trust with high quality content and developing a fierce loyalty, I’ll tell all of them about how you provided a movie that one time that didn’t comply with the category. And we’ll all have fun laughing at your expense. So, ya know. Follow the category.