The Blair Witch Project

Released:  July 16th, 1999

Rated:  R

Studio:  Artisan

Staring:  Heather Donahue, Michael C. Williams, Joshua Leonard

Directed by:  Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sánchez

Written by:  Daniel Myrick, Eduardo Sánchez

Personal Bias Alert:  easily scared, likes things left to the imagination

9.5 of 10

            Three college students go into the woods…  It’s a classic scary story setup, perfectly at home being told around a campfire, whispered at a sleepover, or projected on a theater screen.  I first saw “The Blair Witch Project” in a dorm room, late at night, and it scarred the hell out of me.  It was years after the film had been released, and from the cultural firestorm it had kicked up I knew how the story would end.  At the time its effectiveness surprised me, but sitting at breakfast the next morning, groggy from a fitful night, I chuckled at the simplicity of it.  It was folklore, urban legend, a tried and true method of scaring the sleep out of people.

            The students in the film allegedly went into the woods to make a documentary about a local legend called the Blair Witch and never returned.  We are told that the footage we are seeing was recovered a year after their disappearance, sans bodies.  This claim of truth is the first in a long list of urban legend hallmarks that the film utilizes, all subtly adding layers of dread during what is an otherwise uneventful start.  The next step is a series of interviews with locals regarding the legend, which because the interviewer, Heather (Heather Donahue), lacks experience, comes off as stiff and awkward.  This is the key part of the entire movie, though.  The local’s stories vary, but they manage to cobble together a loose idea of the horrors that have taken place in the woods.  That way, when things start to go down later in the film, the viewer knows enough to be plenty scarred, but not enough to know what will happen next.

            Despite the beginning claims, you aren’t supposed to believe that this story is real any more than you are supposed to believe in Bloody Mary or Hookman.  Its claim is there simply to make it possible, to make some little part of your brain pipe up with a “but what if it is” every once in a while.  You’ll quickly tamp that thought back down, but fear thrives on possibilities, and that little voice will make enough room for fear to fester in your brain.

            This film was famously made for very little money, so don’t expect any effects or fancy camerawork.  The movie is about three people who disappear in the woods, and that is what you get.  Three people, two crappy cameras, and a very muffled audio track.  Writer/directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez have a firm enough grasp on horror to know how to work this into a positive, though.  The found footage spin circumvents the need for a large crew and also whittles down the audience’s world to that of the trio.  We feel their strain, their frustration, and their growing fear as the days wear on, aided by the fact that we are often picking up these emotional signals from the disembodied voice of the cameraperson.  In a way, it’s very much like life.  We hear our own voice, see our hands and feet moving around in front of us, and because that’s all we see of the cameraperson, it feels as if we are moving around in their world.

            I recommend watching this film at night, with all the lights turned out, and the sound at a normal level.  Resist the urge to turn it up so you can hear every whisper and scratch.  Let the mystery play out, and you’ll be treated to one of the most effective horror movies out there.

            Other Notes:

Ø  I liked that they used very common names for all three characters (Heather, Michael, and Joshua).  It really lends to the “this could happen anywhere” feel.

Ø  Why did Heather take the time to sew up those pants?

Ø  I’ll be keeping the lights on tonight. 

Lucy

Released:  July 25^th, 2014

Rated:  R

Studio:  Columbia

Staring:  Scarlett Johansson, Morgan Freeman, Amr Waked, Choi Min-Sik

Directed by:  Luc Besson

Written by:  Luc Besson

Personal Bias Alert:  likes smart thrillers, knows science

4.5 of 10

            2014 perhaps best epitomizes Scarlett Johansson’s career.  She’s been in four major releases (I’m counting “Under the Skin”), which span from big summer blockbusters to science fiction art films.  Their budgets ranged from $13-$170 million and have made between $2.5 and $713 million worldwide.  Her roles have included a quipy spy, a charming restaurant hostess, and a near-mute alien discovering humanity.   My point is, it’s been varied.  Johansson’s doggedly avoided being typecast throughout her career, and while that may have dimmed her star power, it’s earned her the respect of many film fans, including myself.

            “Lucy” gives her the opportunity to be a badass, although not in the most traditional sense.  While being forced to act as a drug mule, her character, Lucy, absorbs a large amount of a new drug that allows her to access all parts of her brain.  This somehow makes her superhuman, with power over gravity, matter, and generally all rules of science.  She’s by far the most powerful person on the planet, so she’s got that calm, cool, smartest-person-in-the-room aura going on.  Add in that her rapidly increasing intellect disconnects her from human emotions, and you’ve got a character that can and does walk into a room of armed gangsters without blinking an eye.  There’s a cool badassery to that, and it’s the kind of role Johansson is definitely capable of.

            Written and directed by Luc Besson, “Lucy” exudes his trademark stylishness.  The action sequences are the focus, and while they are often relatively straightforward gunfights, Besson and long-time cinematographer Thierry Arbogast film them in such a way that they slide pleasantly along.  They’re always entertaining, but never really thrilling.  The whole film feels imbued with a sort of mediocrity, and I get the sense that that’s exactly what Besson was shooting for.  He wanted a slick little action film for an attractive actress to slink her way through, and that’s exactly what he made.

            Where this film catches for me, and where I think it will catch for anyone who keeps their brain turned on while watching it, is in the absurdity of its central premise.  The whole thing’s based on junk science, the long-debunked idea that there are parts of our brain that we don’t use.  This would be fine if it was only brought up as a way to explain her intelligence and then was quickly dropped, but no, this film keeps it at the forefront, constantly going back to it and horrifyingly building on it until nearly every plot point is based on a variety of junk science ideas.  Now I’m not arguing that Besson or anyone involved actually thinks this is real science.  No, I think they are just using it as a means to an end, an easy way to get to the extraordinary final scene.  The end sequence still makes no sense from a scientific perspective, but it’s so gorgeous to look at that I, for the first time in the film, felt a thrill.

            The scientific inaccuracies grate on me so much because I care greatly about science.  I’m aware that most people won’t have this hurdle to overcome, but I think the overall lack of care given to the story and the characters will grate on anyone who wants something with some heft.  “Lucy” is knowingly style over substance, and if that’s cool with you, then go have fun seeing this film.

            Other Notes:

Ø  I assume Johansson was told to overact at the beginning?

Ø  I think they did some ADR of Morgan Freeman explaining the ending, and it was remarkably bad.  It was far louder than any of the dialogue had been up to that point and sounded far too clean.

Ø  I’m sorry, but I have to correct this:  evolution does not have purpose.  There is no end goal in mind.

Ø  Felt like way longer than 1 hour 29 minutes.

Trainspotting

Released:  July 19th, 1996
Rated:  R

Studio:  Miramax

Staring:  Ewan McGregor, Ewen Bremner, Jonny Lee Miller, Kevin McKidd, Robert Carlyle, Kelly Macdonald

Directed by:  Danny Boyle

Written by:  John Hodge

Personal Bias Alert:  has a dark sense of humor, doesn’t do drugs

9 of 10

           Ain’t Danny Boyle great?  He’s got such flair, such style.  His films are peppy; they bounce off the walls, threatening to burst out of the screen.  He notably hopped for joy on the Oscar stage, explaining that he had promised his children to receive the moment in the spirit of Tiger from Winnie the Pooh if he was so lucky to win.  Although, he’s never apologized for his spirit.  He palpably loves filmmaking, and that energy makes me predisposed to liking his films because, hey, I love films, too.

            “Trainspotting” is one of his more effervescent directorial efforts, bounding along through its character’s lives even when there’s dark turns.  It’s easy to forget, especially early on in the film, how crappy these people’s lives really are.  They’re all heroin addicts, bumbling from hit to hit, constantly broke, willing to degrade themselves to maintain their habit.  But Boyle keeps us slightly removed from the proceedings, and the camera observes them with an arched brow, like the friend who hangs around because he finds your antics amusing.

            The main group is a volatile hoot, each so lost to their own individual faults that you know they can’t exist together for long without blowing something up.  Most often it’s their own lives that go down, and in the lesser falls Boyle and editor Masahiro Hirakubo find their comedy stride.  For instance, I was laughing aloud when main character Renton (Ewan McGregor) was listing off the things you need to quite heroin and ends matter-of-factly with “one last hit.”  We all know that attitude is a recipe for failure, and the editing and accompanying music cues invite us to laugh at Renton’s dreary situation.

            There is a turn, about thirty minutes in, when their situation stops being funny.  It’s a perfectly timed transition, having allowed us the space to connect and sympathize with the characters before the rug is pulled out from under us.  While the comedy largely gets left behind, the movie continues to amble on at its lively pace, which dulls the blows it continuously hits us with.  The events in this film are just as disturbing and hopeless as anything seen in other drug horror stories like “Requiem for a Dream” or “A Scanner Darkly,” but Boyle wisely avoids making things too dour.  We all know the destructive power of addiction, and perhaps this sort of presentation gives us a better idea of why people cling to it so fervently.  But what do I know, I’ve never been an addict.

             As I’ve mentioned before, the camerawork has a strong influence on how the audience views the proceedings.  It responds to the mood of the scene, drawing the audience along for the ride.  It jostles when a character’s excited, observes the absurd humor of a situation, and wraps you up in a rug to carry you through a high (that literally happens).  Boyle is known for his creative camerawork, and here it is integral to maintaining the film’s pace.  Through the darkest moments it tugs you right along, never allowing you to dwell on any one disaster.

            “Trainspotting” is a fast-paced little film, jamming in an absurd amount of story in 93 minutes.  The plot points aren’t always as fleshed out as they could be, but it’s an acceptable sacrifice in light of the tone the film is able to hit.  It won’t leave you smiling, but it’s one of the more enjoyable ways to spend time with self-absorbed drug addicts.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Oh Miramax, I miss you what you used to be.

Ø  Those shots of McGregor falling and hitting his head make me cringe.  How did they film those without hurting him?

Ø  “What a penetrating goal that was.”  He he, context.

Ø  Did I miss the train?

The Purge: Anarchy

Released:  July 18^th, 2014

Rated:  R

Studio:  Universal

Staring:  Frank Grillo, Carmen Ejogo, Zach Gilford, Kiele Sanchez, Michael K. Williams

Directed by:  James DeMonaco

Written by:  James DeMonaco

Personal Bias Alert:  likes Zach Gilford, likes genre mixing

5 of 10

  

            While not a smart film, “The Purge:  Anarchy” did leave me with one question:  What was it trying to be?  I was expecting a horror film, but it’s never very horrifying.  Maybe action, but then why populate your film with so many helpless characters?  Thriller is probably the best fit, but even so it too often breaks momentum to linger on a creepy set piece to really work in that genre.  And I’m not the only one who’s mildly confused.  Rotten Tomatoes lists it as horror, Wikipedia as horror-thriller, and IMDB lists the entire trifecta.  I think IMDB has it right in that it’s a little bit of all three.  This is a film that’s willing to throw whatever it thinks might entertain you onto the screen, which makes it livelier than it would have been if it had constrained itself to any one particular genre.

            “Anarchy” is a sequel to 2013’s “The Purge,” and remains in the same world the previous film set up.  There is now one night a year where all crime is legal, where you either run amok relieving yourself of pent-up frustrations or hunker down in your homes and pray you survive the night.  It’s an interesting concept, and a deep exploration of this world could easily justify a film series.  The series we’re getting, however, chooses to skirt the surface of its world’s ramifications.  I can’t help but be disappointed by this, but at the same time it’s clearly not trying to be that sort of film.  It’s happy to just give you a thrill, a chance to say “I think I would do this” without having to feel too bad about it.

            This time around we follow a five-some roaming through the streets trying to survive the night.  Four of them were forced outside, while one went out with a purpose.  The four unwilling and utterly helpless participants include a mother (Carmen Ejogo), her teenage daughter (Zoë Soul), and a separating young couple (Zach Gilford and Kiele Sanchez).  The group’s leader (Frank Grillo) is armed to the teeth, but seems uninterested in hurting random people.  His reasons for being out that night is supposed to be the big mystery of the film, but I was never really that interested.  He’s a familiar archetype, the troubled but in his heart decent guy sort, and I could tell where his story was going even if I didn’t know the particulars.

            Familiar is the best word to describe this film.  Everything about it is familiar, and yet writer/director James DeMonaco throws so much familiarity at us that it never becomes too boring.  He layers on several plot points as the film goes on, all of which even a mildly discerning viewer could figure out the payoff to, but once established they are dropped for long periods of time.  DeMonaco effectively juggles the different threads, distracting the viewer with one only to bring up another after you’ve completely forgotten about it.   It makes for a nice series of cheap thrills and prevents the thing from becoming tedious like this month’s previous horror flick “Deliver Us from Evil” did.

            The film thrives in the open world it has created for itself, allowing the group to roam the streets from one set piece to the next.  Some are disturbing (a callous, rich family praying over their soon-to-be victim) while others are just sad (a deranged woman ranting into a bullhorn and shooting aimlessly).  There are even some moments that provide catharsis to our own world’s problems, like when the group passes a strung up banker and remarks that he probably deserved it.  The world is never mined for anything more than cool-looking stuff, but it’s an effective setup that allows DeMonaco to throw everything at the wall to see what sticks.

            If you’re intrigued by the premise like I was, then you’ll likely walk away disappointed that it wasn’t used for a smarter movie.  But if thrills are all you want, then this movie will leave you pleased as punch.

            Other Notes:

Ø  The dude with the mouth drawn on his neck was creepy.

Ø  So the girl was special just because she stuck up for herself?  That is such a tired notion that I wish would get dropped already.  Women tend to stick up for themselves nowadays.

Ø  The hospital at the end should have been way busier.

Heathers (1988)

Released:  March 31^st, 1989

Rated:  R

Studio:  New World Pictures

Staring:  Winona Ryder, Christian Slater

Directed by:  Michael Lehmann

Written by:  Daniel Waters

Personal Bias Alert:  likes dark comedies, went to high school post-Columbine

6 of 10

  

            I went into this film knowing remarkably little.  I thought it was just an ‘80s movie about a clique of popular girls who are overthrown by Winona Ryder’s Veronica, so I sat down expecting a John Hughes-esque version of “Mean Girls.”  Those of you who’ve seen “Heathers” are probably laughing at me, and rightly so considering what I was getting into.

            What the film ended up being was a darkly, darkly (did I say darkly?) comic take on high school movies, eschewing the traditional lampooning in favor of some killer satire.  It doesn’t make jokes as much as it blows everything slightly out of proportion, and in the very near reality of this world everything seems a bit silly.  Veronica’s mom is constantly making pâté, the hippy teacher says things like “I want you all to feel the pathetic beauty,” and pent-up frustrations are dealt with by murdering your fellow students and staging it as a suicide.  Yep, I said straight-up murder.

            New student J.D. (Christian Slater) is behind the trend, and Veronica tentatively goes along with his plans to a point.  After several popular students appear to commit suicide, the school’s population becomes fascinated with the idea, and talking about or attempting suicide becomes almost cool.  It’s a biting indictment of trends and the mindless way some people will follow them, but the social commentary is more the filler to the comedy’s tasty goodness.  When asked the classic question against following trends, the one about jumping off bridges if everyone else did, a student responds simply and hilariously:  “probably.”

            Three paragraphs in and I’ve already thrown out two quotes.  I normally go an entire review without mentioning a single one, but writer David Newman crafted an irresistibly quotable little gem.  The film’s cult status is understandable simply by this calling card.  Remember, this movie was released before the internet was widely used, when you’d have to throw out little references in everyday speech and fish for a twinkle of recognition to find your people.  There’s no mistaking these quotes.

            Now I’m a young doe, so this film was fifteen years old when I was in school.  I didn’t watch it until long after my high school years, and I can’t help but feel that I missed the sweet spot for when this film should be viewed.  Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoyed it, but I couldn’t help rolling my eyes a bit at its over-the-top judgment of high school.  Not that I ever connected much with such depictions; my own high school experience was rather tame.  I had friends, we hung around, we fought, but the drama never really left the group.  I was by no means popular, but I don’t recall being picked on or teased.  This sort of thing must happen, though, or we wouldn’t be so inundated with depictions of high school as caddy, sadistic battlegrounds.

            “Heathers” violent streak, while oddly prophetic, doesn’t play well for post-Columbine kids like me.  The fear of gun-toting classmates was in full swing by the time I hit adolescence, and the lessons that taught me makes it hard to chuckle when J.D. and Veronica go all Bonnie and Clyde on people.  It doesn’t help that the humor is so pitch dark that it’s hard to tell when they’re joking and when they’re making a point.  Granted, those are often happening at the same time, but my brain simply has trouble finding anything funny when someone’s pulling out a gun in the school cafeteria.

Now while these violent images have taken on a new meaning, I’m sure this was still wildly inappropriate at the time the film was released.  I can imagine Newman, upon being asked why he took such an extreme approach to telling his story, shrugging and slyly answering with his own line:  “The extreme always seems to make an impression.”

            Other Notes

Ø  I’m sorry, but I can’t stand Christian Slater.  He fits the part well, but he’s just too slimy for me to understand the appeal.

Ø  So did this film kick off the overuse of “Que Sera, Sera” in female-centric movies, or was that already a thing?

Ø  Fakest cow-tipping ever.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Released:  July 11th, 2014

Rated:  PG-13

Studio:  20^th Century Fox

Staring: Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Keri Russell, Toby Kebbell, Kodi Smit-McPhee

Directed by:  Matt Reeves 

Written by:  Mark Bomback, Rick Jaffa, Amanda Silver

Personal Bias Alert:  grew up on original series, not a fan of CGI-fests

8.2 of 10

            All hail the summer movie season of 2014.  It’s not often we get treated to this many great blockbusters, and I’m far from the first one to point this out.  Still, there’s been a slew of thrilling, well-written, big-budget films that are respectful of their audience, which is something that is, sadly, not often produced.  “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” joins this year’s standouts and will be touted not only as an example of this summer’s greatness, but also as a high point in an eight-film franchise.

            “Dawn” focuses on Caesar (Andy Serkis), the super smart ape leader with a healthy respect for humanity’s diametric nature, and his struggles to lead his group through their early encounters with a decimated human civilization.  The plot follows a familiar pattern, drawing the basics from 1973’s “Battle for the Planet of the Apes” and structuring it as a straightforward blockbuster.  That’s never detrimental, though.  The story of civilization clashes are as old as storytelling itself, and the entertaining plot finds a heart in Caesar’s attempts to save all those worth saving.

            Serkis, as always, delivers a grand performance while wearing the motion-capture suit, and he’s found an equal in Toby Kebbell, who plays a mutilated former laboratory monkey named Koba.  They’re the most complex characters in the film, and their tumultuous relationship is the driving force thematically.  A misstep by either, or by the digital effects team who rendered their performances, would have spelled disaster.  Instead, we get a timeless tale of deeply scarred individuals who will never see eye to eye.

            The other characters, both human and ape, don’t fare as well.  Malcom (Jason Clarke), a peacekeeping human who works closely with Caesar, and Caesar’s son Blue Eyes (Nick Thurston) are filled out enough to serve their pieces of the story while the rest of the characters walk around with one or two vague traits.  The cast is filled with quality actors, and their talent is largely able to smooth over this flaw.  Only the most egregiously one-note character, an ape-hating jerk named Carver (Kirk Acevedo), actually took me out of the film.

            Weta Digital continues to advance motion-capture technology and here shows an astounding leap forward from their work three years ago on “Dawn’s” predecessor.  No matter how realistically rendered, I had never seen a motion-capture creature that appeared to exist in the same world as its flesh and blood counterparts.  They always seemed somewhat removed, as if something in their texture revealed the algorithms that gave them life.  Watching “Dawn,” for the first time, I was convinced that these creatures actually existed.  They were as present in the scenes as the humans, which removed what would have been a constant reminder that I was watching a film.  That’s what makes this such a grand achievement.  It pushes what is possible in reality-based storytelling further than ever before.

            The original “Planet of the Apes” film series was highly allegorical, wearing its culturally significant commentary on racism and nuclear fears on its sleeve.  The rebooted series is much less interested in modern social commentary, preferring to deliver highly entertaining pieces centered on timeless ideas.  By comparison, the newer series might seem less important than its originator, but that comparison is unfair.  Each series has succeeded at its respective goals, and “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” has earned its place in this revered science fiction franchise.

            Other Notes:

Ø  The beginning falls prey to some clunky plot points.

Ø  When Koba rode out through the flames, the lines from Caesar’s speech in “Conquest of the Planet of the Apes” ran through my head.

Ø  I’m okay with James Franco being gone, but could we at least bring back Frida Pinto?  And maybe give her something to do?

Ø  You can’t have a line like “ape not kill ape” scrawled across a wall and not have me think of “Animal Farm.”

Memento (2000)

Released:  March 16, 2001

Rated:  R

Studio:  Newmarket Films

Staring:  Guy Pearce, Carrie-Anne Moss, Joe Pantoliano

Directed by:  Christopher Nolan 

Written by:  Christopher Nolan

Personal Bias Alert:  loves “The Prestige,” not a fan of flashy storytelling that bogs down a movie

6.7 of 10

            Reverse chronology is a technique not unheard of, but not commonly used in film.  Going into “Memento,” I was told that the film was structured using this technique.  However, I quickly found that that wasn’t entirely true.  A large portion of it is told backwards, but there are also several scenes that clearly play out in a linear fashion.  Now, considering that this wasn’t my first foray in reverse chronology, I wasn’t too thrown by this.  I had previously seen “Irreversible,” a film that goes all in and tells its story entirely in reverse chronology (it goes all in in many other ways, too, so I must give a big warning to those curious about the film).  Perhaps it was this familiarity, or just my familiarity with writer/director Christopher Nolan’s later work, that made “Memento” lack the punch it seems to have for other people.

            That being said, I was very confused by the nuts and bolts of the story.  I doubt anyone figures it out on their first viewing, and considering I’ve only just watched the film for the first time, I’m not 100% sure what happened, either.  I know that our main character, Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce), is trying to track down the man who assaulted and killed his wife.  The complication is that Leonard has anterograde amnesia, which prevents him from converting short-term memory into long-term memory.  Essentially, he can’t remember anything after the attack on his wife.  There are two people currently helping him with his investigation, Teddy (Joe Pantoliano) and Natalie (Carrie-Anne Moss).

            The nuts and bolts are intentionally hazy, and many facts that you thought you knew are brought into question by the end.  Nolan makes well thought-out films, so I’m sure you could watch this movie a few times and piece it all together, but I’m not sure it would really add anything.  “Memento” ends with some very clear statements on its themes, and those are the real points of the film.  It’s much like my argument that the question left hanging at the end of Nolan’s “Inception” doesn’t matter, that the significant thing is that Cobb gave up his obsession and chose to live his life.  Here, Leonard makes a clear choice as well.

            Unfortunately, where Nolan makes a cinematically elegant statement at the end of “Inception” and, in what is in my opinion his best work, “The Prestige,” here he ends with a bit of a clunk.  The exposition-heavy end scene isn’t masked by metaphor or strong visual storytelling.  Instead, we get some straightforward dialogue and some terribly on the nose narration.  This muted the sense of thrill that the ending should have evoked, and to me is the clearest sign that, at this point in his career, Nolan was still learning the finer points of his trade.

            Nolan’s decision to use the aforementioned chronology doesn’t make for a sleek film either.  It does get across how confusing life is for Leonard, but it also makes it distractingly difficult to follow what’s happening.  Lots of time has to be devoted to making the story semi-clear, like the repetition of the beginning and end of scenes and the exposition-heavy, often stilted dialogue.  The two main side characters, Teddy and Natalie, suffer the most.  It’s hard to care much about them; at the beginning you are struggling to get a grasp on them, and by the end you are wondering if (or how much) they are lying to Leonard.  It doesn’t help that Pantoliano gives a one-note performance and that Natalie is terribly underwritten.

            The end effect is a narratively interesting, but otherwise stiff film.  Twisty narratives are strong enough to carry a film up to a point, but there needs to be more to make it feel like it really mattered.  Luckily, Nolan figured that out, and he went on to make some truly excellent films.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Pearce and Moss were both good in their roles, but they were there to serve the story, not play real characters.

Ø  Who spotted the cast crossovers with “Battlestar Galactica” and “Sons of Anarchy”?

Ø  If Natalie recognizes that Leonard is driving her boyfriend’s car, why doesn’t she look in it for the missing money?  Or is she just completely lying to Leonard about Dodd going after her for the money?

Ø  So many questions, and yet, I don’t really care if I know.

Deliver Us from Evil

Released:  July 2nd, 2014

Rated:  R

Studio:  Screen Gems

Staring:  Eric Bana, Édgar Ramírez, Olivia Munn, Sean Harris, Joel McHale

Directed by:  Scott Derrickson 
Written by:  Scott Derrickson, Paul Harris Boardman

Personal Bias Alert:  likes Joel McHale, gore does nothing for me

3 of 10

            We all like a scary story.  Even fraidy-cats like me enjoy getting sucked in, feeling my hair stand up, and getting the adrenaline rush.  Fear is a basic part of life, ingrained into us over the millennia.  Most of us now live in environments where we’re sheltered from the daily fears we used to experience.  Instead, fear has become a form of entertainment, something we commonly seek out at movies and amusement parks.  That’s why horror films are released so often, and their large numbers makes it easy for them to seem like carbon copies of each other.  Unfortunately, “Deliver Us from Evil” falls precisely into that trap.

            This film is allegedly based on the true story of Ralph Sarchie (Eric Bana), a New York City cop who becomes entangled in a case that is demonically based.  It’s a mix of cop and horror movies, but it never differentiates itself from either genre nor does the mixture of the two feel unique.  There’s a whole subgenre of horror films in which the main characters spend the movie investigating/documenting a paranormal experience (think “The Conjuring,” “Paranormal Activity,” or “The Innkeepers”).  The cop element of this film allows it to fit easily into this subgenre.  Ralph may be more methodical and experienced than many of the investigators in the other films, but the beats this movie hits remains the same.

            The genre mix could have been used to bring out unusual twists, but instead the filmmakers settle for mixing in an inordinate amount of clichés from both trope-ridden genres.  Seriously, let’s check these off:  Wise-cracking partner?  Check.  Family kept at a distance?  Check.  Faulty lighting?  Check.  Jump scare that was just a cat?  Check.  Main characters battling personal demons?  Check.  There are many others, but listing them all off would interrupt the flow of this review.   Suffice it to say, nearly everything in this film is rooted in cliché, and seeing so many easily identifiable storytelling elements really hampers my ability to buy this as a true story.

            Bana does well in the lead, turning in his usual above-average performance, and the other characters are well-cast, too.  The wise-cracking partner is played by Joel McHale, who most people will know from his comedic television roles.  It’s nice to see him play someone a bit tougher, but it’s still a comfortably familiar role for him.  This is almost a serious version of his role in the paintball episodes of “Community.”  Édgar Ramírez and Olivia Munn are competent as a priest and Mrs. Sarchie respectively, and the daughter, played by Lulu Wilson, holds her own.  Overall, it’s a good cast.  Too bad they were given horrendously hackneyed dialogue to spout.

            Now the point of a horror movie is to be scary, and there’s a few different approaches to this that are commonly taken.  “Deliver Us from Evil” goes for the R-rated gore (both human and animal) and jump-scare method, which has never worked for me.  If you like that kind of thing, then this movie will be just okay for you.  Again, and I know I sound like a broken record, writer/director Scott Derrickson shows you nothing you haven’t already seen before, including a climactic exorcism that I was actually bored by.  We’ve all seen exorcisms so many times on film that it simply isn’t enough to be a climax anymore.  You’ve got to add something else to make it more interesting, but this film never builds to anything.  They try to add in subplots involving Sarchie’s family and the undesirable things that he and the priest have done, but the subplots keep getting dropped, robbing them of any momentum.  The end result was my complete apathy towards anything that happened to these characters, and hence, little fear.

            There’s one final test for all horror films.  It occurs when I’m lying in bed, trying to go to sleep.  Even bad ones often contain an image or a concept that keeps me up at night.  After this one, I slept like a baby.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Why does Joel McHale disappear in the middle of this film?

Ø  Every scene in this film is dark, even if it’s broad daylight outside.  I get mood, but this was ridiculous.

Ø  They try to incorporate themes, like the seven deadly sins and classic rock music, but it never seems natural.

Ø  The big bad thing that Sarchie did wasn’t even that terrible.  They really chickened out on that one.

Ø  Kudos to the actor who played the possessed guy.  You kept your eyes wide open as the fake blood spilled down your face.  I’m sure that wasn’t easy.

Short Term 12 (2013)

Released:  August 23rd, 2013

Rated:  R

Studio:  Cinedigm

Staring:  Brie Larson, John Gallagher, Jr., Kaitlyn Dever, Rami Malek, Keith Stanfield, Kevin Hernandez, Melora Walters, Stephanie Beatriz, Lydia Du Veaux, Alex Calloway, Frantz Turner, Diana-Maria Riva

Directed by:  Destin Daniel Cretton

Written by:  Destin Daniel Cretton 

Personal Bias Alert:  likes Brie Larson, likes realistic cinema

8 of 10

            I was unsure going into this film if I would buy Brie Larson playing a reserved character.  I was first introduced to her through her role on the television show “United States of Tara,” where she played a very forward young woman that rarely kept quiet.  She was great in the role, but I’ve got to admit that when I think of her, I remember her in full Viking woman attire sitting seductively (and comically) on a cake.  That’s not an image that syncs with the mousey character she seemed to play in this film’s trailer.

            I didn’t have to wait long for my fears to be assuaged, though.  “Short Term 12” starts with a story told by Mason (John Gallagher, Jr.) to his fellow line staff at a group home for teenagers.  It’s a wonderfully told story that sucks you right into the world, and I quickly forgot my reservations.  By the time Mason finished, I was chuckling along with the group and ready for the explosion of energy that interrupts the scene.  The pacing for the rest of the film follows suit, mixing realistic moments that seem to drag on regardless of whether they are good or bad with abrupt outbursts of emotion and pain that can no longer be contained.  It’s an ebb and flow that I recognize from real life, which really helped make the little world that the story exists in seem more expansive.

            It’s a little world because the budget of the film was so small (less than 1 million), and it’s a testament to the writing that they were able to do so much with such a paltry amount of money.  The script attracted the supremely talented leads, Larson and Gallagher, without whom this story easily could have fallen flat.  They form the central couple and the teenager’s main allies in the film, and almost nothing in the story occurs outside their purview.  Larson is the lead and the more troubled of the two, making her performance the flashier and the more often singled out aspect of the film.  Rightfully so, as she shows the many ways that her past has shaped and is still shaping her future.  It’d be a shame to ignore Gallagher, though.  His performance is just as essential, showing how a more well-adjusted person handles the stresses they encounter while bringing a levity that makes the whole thing go down smooth.

            There is a problem, at times, with the emotional outbursts being too dramatic.  I have no doubt that the problems the characters face are true to their setting, but the entire movie takes place over such a short period of time that the buildup seems like a bit too much.  I won’t list them all out, but suffice it to say that by the time the climax comes, you can’t blame Larson’s character for losing it.  Anyone would be broken.

            There’s an odd balance the movie tries to strike, surrounding its essentially decent characters with the often horrific realities of what people are capable of.  It leads to some riveting moments of hard-earned honesty, but there are times when writer/director Destin Daniel Cretton fails to maneuver the tricky story between all the rocks.  As often as it riveted me, there was always offsetting moments of melodrama, and I could never shake the sensation of seeing the strings being pulled.  Watching the movie was like being told a great story, but one you’ve heard so many times that you know the beats by heart.

            Other Notes:

Ø  Some of the performances weren’t on par with Larson and Gallagher, but none were so bad that they derailed the film.

Ø  The mood is a strange mixture of comfort and pain, sorrow and joy, sentimentality and reality.  I loved it.

Ø  Floyd gets me all sweaty, too.