Late Winter Jackpot!

Often, February signals the "bottom of the barrel" in the movie world - too late for worthy-of-Oscar-contention (and no, I'm not writing about the live-television mess that might have been the end of PriceWaterhouseCoopers love affair with those Oscar envelopes), but too early for the biff-bam-pop! (sorry, not you guys!) of blockbuster season.

However, this year has been different. Perhaps the universe is trying to atone for the massive, horrible pop culture losses that 2016 brought - although this year has already seen the sudden and unexpected passing of Bill Paxton, who should always be remembered for this charming oddity. A number of well-received, strongly-crafted films have already come out this year, along with, it must be said, a number of "huh?" ones, but them's the breaks, kid.

This is a pleasant change from A Dog's Purpose, a late January release that I didn't blog about, since it was very much "meh." That film, honestly, is cute and heartstring-tugging, but in a way that feels very carefully orchestrated and - truth be told - a bit manipulative.

I'd seen John Wick: Chapter 2 which, while suffering from "mid-trilogy-itis" was still great fun, with strong action sequences, some amazing shots (the Italy catacombs scene! Yikes - women may be at the periphery of this film, but I can respect the movie for not reducing them to mere body parts), and some dry humor. Oh, Keanu, it's good to see you again.

But nothing prepared me for the sheer brilliance and freshness that is Jordan Peele's Get Out. Prior to this, Peele was best-known as one-half of the sometimes-scathing-comedy duo Key & Peele. For a lesser man, that would have been enough, as K&P was one of the sharpest comedy teams ever. Full stop. (Don't take my word on that. Read this. Or this. Or maybe this!) But no - Peele has much more to say and Get Out is his first stop.

Oh, and what a stop it is. I was reminded (just a little) of Blazing Saddles, the Mel Brooks classic that uses comedy to skewer racism. Peele doesn't go that way - racism is certainly front and center here, but Peele, influenced by classics of the horror-thriller genre such as Stepford Wives, Night of the Living Dead, and Rosemary's Baby (by way of Guess Who's Coming to Dinner), leaves behind comedy to come at this topic straight on and the results are electric.

No, this isn't a run-of-the-mill horror movie - and thank goodness! No possessed dolls, no creepy children, no monsters slashing just to show the filmmaker's creativity in disassembling the human body. Instead, we get -- but no. I can't tell you that part. This is a film you really need to go see. On the big screen, with as many friends as you can round up. For THIS is the type of film we need to be supporting - in the best tradition of horror movies, it's both original and thought-provoking. It's not a drab rehash of cliches; instead, Get Out acknowledges those tropes and then proceeds to turns them inside out. Think about this when you go see the film -

And then be very, very glad that Peele has at least four more "social thriller" movies up his sleeve.

For more about Get Out, be sure to tune into C19TV's Meet Me at the Movies - available as a streaming show!

Scary Things

Somehow, I've gotten terribly behind with the blog, so I have to double up a bit in this post. I want to briefly discuss two new releases and one that's available outside of theaters. What all three films have in common is a certain "scare" factor.

 First, Ridley Scott's The Martian, which focuses on the triple fears of isolation, abandonment, and impending doom. Based on Andy Weir's captivating 2011 novel of the same name, Scott assembles a star-studded cast (Jeff Daniels, Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig, Michael Pena, and Chiwetel Ejiofor, among others) to tell the story of Mark Watney, an American astronaut who gets left behind when a Mars mission goes terribly wrong. I think Matt Damon captures Watney's wry wit - there's a bit about Watney being a "space pirate" that's laugh-out-loud funny, for example. However, the film cuts out a good deal of the problem-solving that made the novel so compelling and, in a few places, just gets things flat-out wrong. (No, you can't use a teensy hole in your spacesuit to guide you toward your rescue ship, mostly because you'd have a bad case of the deads.) Weir likes science - in fact, he claims science makes a wonderful plot device - and it's a bit of a shame to see that serious thinking watered-down to a basic thrills-and-adventure plot. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the film and would love to see it spark interest in manned space missions again. Seriously, why don't we have a moon base yet?

Second, Steven Spielberg's Bridge of Spies, which deals with the fear of trickery, war, and back-door deals. Okay, look - you pretty much can't go wrong with the combination of Tom Hanks, Spielberg, and American can-do attitude. In addition to working with Hanks on a number of other projects as producer, Spielberg has directed Hanks in Saving Private Ryan (where we also had to rescue Matt Damon - between that and Interstellar, Damon ought to just stay home by the fire), Catch Me If You Can, and The Terminal. Here, Hanks is in full Jimmy Stewart mode and by that, I mean he's playing a solid, honest, decent man (James Donovan) who is convinced that the rule of law will lead to the light. When called upon to defend a Soviet national accused of espionage at the height of the Cold War, he takes the unwelcome assignment (he's an insurance attorney, not a high-powered government lawyer, which is an interesting story in itself) because he truly believes that the Constitution's guarantee of a competent defense is a cornerstone of our legal system. (He's right, by the way.) His client is guilty as original sin, but Donovan's arguments spare his client the death penalty. A few years later, the pilot of one of our super-duper-top-secret U2 spy planes is shot down and Donovan is called into service to arrange for a prisoner exchange. Bridge of Spies is a compelling movie and it's at its absolute best detailing Donovan's tense days in Berlin arranging the spy swap at the very time the Berlin Wall is going up. Sure, the film takes a few liberties with the story (and there's far too little smoking for the time period!), but an amazing film and one well worth seeing in these cynical times.

Lastly, the 2014 Australian horror-thriller The Babadook. I can't say much about this without worrying about giving something important away, so I'll be brief. This film, the first major release by Jennifer Kent, scared the bejeezus out of me. There's a bit of gore, but it's mostly "head scare" and reality gets very, very warped in the hour and a half run time. One thing this film does masterfully is set you off-kilter. My allegiances changed as I started the film sympathizing with one character and found myself moving to viewing that character as the Evil of the film. What's real? What's the mind capable of believing? And how much can untreated traumas manifest in our world? The Babadook is a film that made me cringe, jump, and actually think - and many others agree with me. Don't miss this one.

Fearful Words!

There are certain hints that let you know you're probably in for a bad movie (there are always exceptions, of course - I'll get in to those in this same post, so hey! rule of thumb). Among those are - movie titles that include the author's name like "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (Gary Oldman's a lot of fun, but that's about it) or "Stephen King's Cat's Eye." Also avoid any movie "brought to you by Hasbro" - that lets you escape both Battleship and the current Ouija. You can see why I cringe from those fearful words

 On the surface, Ouija should be great Halloween-season fun. Nearly everyone has a slightly creepy story to tell about the "spirit board" and the planchette seeming to move under its own power. Cast an group of attractive not-quite-adults and really - just sit back and watch the cashy money roll in.

Or not.

Oh, Ouija is doing well enough at the box office that first time director (and many times special effects guy) Stiles White will get another shot at a low-budget scarefest. But the movie is just a checklist of "what not to do when you think you're under supernatural attack." First off, if you decided to go exploring in the (naturally) dark house - go to Lowe's. Buy a generator, a couple of hundred-foot heavy-duty drop cords and about half a dozen big work lights. Rig that house up like the Fourth of July - THEN go in. It's also crazy-making how the adults just disappear, leaving the kids to sort through a rash of teen suicides by themselves. Still, it's got some good jump scares and I admire the restraint it took to get a PG-13 rating for this sort of film.

However, one of my biggest gripes about Ouija is (I'm about to get all film scholar on you here; just bear with me for a minute) its self-reflexive post-modernity. You've got a movie here dealing with spirits, communication beyond the grave, malevolence lingering about places and objects - all the signs of a classic haunting and there's not one single mention of God. I can handle that to a point - personally, I thought the film Stigmata in which an atheist receives the marks of stigmata to be a very interesting take on that aspect. But I'd just come from watching the director's cut of The Exorcist and let me tell you - when in these confusing, frightening situation - get a Jesuit, not the Hasbro help line.

So - The Exorcist. First off, this breaks the rule of thumb, as it's actually William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist, but this is the exception that may prove the rule. Released in 1973, Warner Brothers still maintains a website for the movie. Often called "the scariest movie ever," The Exorcist has a slow pace and much of the terror comes, not simply from gross-out effects (although there are some seriously disturbing moments in this film, especially revolving around sex and religion), but from the sheer otherness that's involved. Is the little girl "just" deeply psychotic or is there actually something from another spiritual realm in there?

Ladies and gentlemen, bring out the Jesuits! Seriously. The Society of Jesus was often at the forefront of any exploration into the New World and they quickly established schools in their territories. As to exorcism and demonic possession, I hold to Hamlet's point of view that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio/Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The unknown is scary and we rational, 21st-century beings often like to think that there are no dark corners left in the world. H. L. Mencken knew better. He wrote: "Penetrating so many secrets, we cease to believe in the unknowable. But there it sits nevertheless, calmly licking its chops."

You want to be scared? Skip Ouija and read the front page news for three days. You want to be unmanned by the terror of what might be? Watch The Exorcist.

Villains, Scoundrels, & Spirits

I've gotten a bit behind in my new movie posts, so this is Part 1 of a two-parter post.  Sorry for getting so far behind, but summer is the time when movies come out fast and thick.  Here, I'm going to discuss three July movies - Despicable Me 2, The Lone Ranger, and The Conjuring - then in the second part, I'll talk about Red 2 and R.I.P.D. (the Mary-Louise Parker double feature).

Despicable Me 2 is, as the title would indicate, the follow up to 2010's Despicable Me.  Steve Carell is back as Gru, the now-retired villain whose soft side was activated by three adorable moppets named Margo, Edith, and Agnes.  It's a fun movie and it comes in at a tidy 98 minutes, making it kid-length.  The minions nearly steal the show, which centers around Gru using his villainous thinking to smoke out a villain who is definitely not reformed.  There's enough here to keep the attention of kids and adults alike although, as is true of most sequels, the second time around, things don't feel quite as fresh and shiny-new.  Still, it was a fun romp and I now want a wide-brimmed hat that doubles as an edible guacamole tray.

Going to see The Lone Ranger was tricky.  While I try hard to stay review-free, word of mouth on this one was nearly devastating.  Listening to the chatter, you'd be convinced that this was the Movie That Would Kill Hollywood.  There was incredulity that Johnny Depp had been tapped to play Tonto and there was much disdain aimed at the stereotypical "ugh, me go now" dialogue.  I'd heard about the framing device of Depp's Tonto being an exhibit in a 1930s Wild West show, which seemed to me to be the height of insensitivity.  So it's safe to say I didn't go into this one with a light and joyful heart.

Yet that's how I left the theatre.  I suspect many folks missed several points here.  Lone Ranger was low-hanging fruit - this was going to be one that was easy to make fun of; we just don't like our heroes unconflicted these days and the white hat/black hat Western is a little too pat for our cynical time, which is a shame.  You know what?  I liked this movie and I feel a little defensive about that.  Yes, Tonto does have stereotypical elements to his character, but he's also the cleverest person in the movie.  (Silver the horse is his own special creation and is not a "person," so he's out of the equation.)  Also, Tonto is far from the only stereotype in the movie - you've got the Heartless Railroad Baron, the Naive Yet Honest-to-the-Core Lawman, the Protective Big Brother, the Plucky Wife, the Traitorous Ex-Friend, and yes, the Hooker-with-a-Heart-of-Gold.  This is a fun popcorn movie.  There's humor and love and honor and daring chase scenes that are deliciously over the top.  Honestly, I don't get the dismissive hate for this one.  I say check your realism hat at the door and just roll with it.

The Conjuring is a haunted-house movie.  Supposedly based on "actual events" (a phrase that really has no meaning after Hollywood gets done with those events), The Conjuring features a family down on their luck who buy a house at a bank auction - apparently sight unseen, judging from their surprise at locating the furnace - and move in with their five daughters.  Strange things begin happening immediately.  (Note:  When your dog doesn't want to cross the threshold of the house, begin asking questions.)  Spooky occurrences escalate and finally, the Warrens are called in.  The Warrens are an actual couple of 1970s ghost-hunters who would make their fame and fortune about a year after the events depicted in The Conjuring in the now-thoroughly-debunked Amityville Horror case.  Look, it's a fun movie, despite the fact that the people act like morons.  (Matches?  Really?)  It's also a strangely conservative, right-wing horror flick and one in which women do not come off that well.  All the trouble stems from weak women, although maternal love can be a force of great strength.  The Christian faith will save the day, even in a house occupied by unbaptized believers, who (of course) cannot save themselves.  (Just an aside - I really wanted Buffy to show up at the Warren house and question their habit of keeping a large room full of objects they consider cursed, possessed, and/or just flat-out creepy in a house with a young, impressionable daughter.  Deadbolts might be indicated.  Just saying.)

Honestly, the best part of The Conjuring (which contains no actual conjuring, by the way) was the audience.  I saw this one in a late-night viewing that was packed and every jump (it's a jump-scare movie, not a gore-scare movie) led to peals of laughter.  A popular theory about horror movies is that they allow us to confront and release our fears in a socially-acceptable way and that seemed to be on display that night, at least.

OK - that's it for Part One of this long post.  Next up - the Mary-Louise Parker Double Feature!

Creepy Kids and Scurrying Shadows

Of all the tropes in modern horror, I think I find creepy children the creepiest.  Mama features two very creepy children, along with a host of other horror movie standards.  Abandoned cabin in the woods - check. Haunting music coming through the grates - check.  Scurrying things in the shadows that you can't quite make out - check.  Escapee from a lunatic asylum - check.  Near inability of anyone to carry a working flashlight - check.  Add to that a rabid curiosity that prohibits anyone from getting a generator and hooking up floodlights before going into a house that practically screams "Enter and Die!" - check.

But here's the rub - Mama still works pretty well.  You probably won't recognize Jessica Chastain in the role of Annabel at first and Megan Charpentier is a real find as Victoria, the older of the feral little girls.  Mama does some very nice things within the framework of a PG-13 rating - this is far more "jump scare" than "gore scare."  When first discovered after five years on their own in the woods, the kids are scary enough, but the children's crayon drawings are haunting clues into their time in the woods.  The idea is that something looked after them and is continuing to do so - and it's jealous.  The Mama site has some very intriguing supplemental material from the psychologist who works with (and just maybe sees his fortune in) the girls.

I found it interesting that this is a very female-centric tale.  The male characters aren't evil and are a definite presence, but this movie belongs to the females, primarily the two little girls and the two mama-figures, only one of whom starts off wanting the children.  (But keep your eye on the public records woman - she's a key part of the film as well - and the Ark of the Covenant is probably somewhere on Aisle 17!)

Also, here's something just for fun.  The cabin is the scene of any number of horrors and I kept thinking, "They're never going to sell that place."  Did you know that, in at least one case, the sale of a house was rescinded because the house was found to be haunted - as a matter of law??  Sure enough - some things you just have to reveal to a prospective buyer - malevolent spirits are about the same, legally speaking, as a case of termite damage.  Only, you know, more willing to kill you outright.

Critiquing the Slasher Movie

Puppeteer at work?

To begin with, this post is going to be about the Whedon/Goddard not-quite-horror flick The Cabin in the Woods.  It's been out on DVD for a while now and if you haven't seen it, be warned that there will be a few spoilers in this post - nothing that a quick look at rottentomatoes.com doesn't have, but still . . . if you want to skip to the "bottom line," here it is.  See this movie.

Okay, now that we have that taken care of - what sets Cabin apart?  It's a movie that viewers enjoyed, but critics loved.  The "Tomatoes" rating is a fine and respectable 76% for viewers, but a whopping 91% for critics.  Then again, I suspect critics saw different things in Cabin than most casual viewers did.  Whedon is known for genre-mashing and Cabin (which he and Goddard co-wrote) showcases his fondness for creating hybrids.  I daresay some purists in the horror world despised Cabin for that reason and I'm sure a few fans felt disappointed in the film.

Confession time - I'm not a huge horror buff.  I'm fine with suspense and I can handle creepy, but the trend towards finding more and more creative ways to hurt people (usually young females) leaves me cold.  Oh, I can trot out all the theories about why being scared serves a valid societal and psychological purpose, and I agree with part of those theories,* but I still have no desire to see most of it.  Like all genres, horror films have certain tropes that must either be obeyed or subverted - here's a great rundown of those tropes and cliches.  Cabin not only acknowledges these "rules" (for instance, the sexually-active girl has to be the first to die and the virtuous girl must be the "final girl"), it creates a world in which these rules are ironclad.  Whedon likes to toy with the "free will vs. game is rigged" conundrum and Cabin shows that off, too.

I like this movie quite a lot because it asks some questions about just who watches these movies. While there are several excellent scenes - including one in a stuffed-to-the-gills basement - the one that best underscores this point takes place in a sterile control room where a celebratory party is going on, with the relieved partygoers completely ignoring the live images on the giant viewscreens that show a girl desperately fighting for her life.  If you laugh at this scene, it's probably some very uncomfortable laughter - after all, we're also watching this and we paid money to be entertained by images of innocent people being hunted and killed.

I think that ought to make us uncomfortable.



*Stephen King has written extensively on this and his Danse Macabre is well worth a read.  If you really want to know more, check out the Journal for Horror Studies.  Yes, it's real.

Don't Brake for Yard Sales

Let's dress up like demon hunters!

The Possession follows a family whose lives are torn apart by a yard sale item. No, it's not a documentary.  It's a nice set up - while helping their newly-divorced dad shop for household goods for his still-smells-like-fresh-paint house, the youngest daughter's eye is caught by a box about the size of a silver chest, with strange carvings on the top and no discernible way to open it. Sure, kiddo, you can have it.  Lesson the First: don't buy anything you can't read.  Buy the kid the hat and what the heck, throw in the gloves.  But not the box.

The Possession is trying hard to be a scary movie with a religious twist, a la The Exorcist.  Now, I must confess that I'm not a horror fan, not really, but this one's okay by me.  The Possession is one of those movies that would rather make you jump than gross you out. It takes the approach that little girls acting weird are scarier than boogeymen and in this, I think the filmmakers are right.  Outside forces - the maniacal axe-murderer breaking down your door, for example - are certainly scary, but we know what to do about those.  4Ss and a B - shoot, stab, slash, shove, or burn.  One of those will probably do the trick. But when the terror is inside, when it's the familiar, especially the innocent, who's the Big Bad, well, a different system must be found to deal with the threat/problem.  After all, that's not J. Random Killer, that's Missy.

Nothing to see here, everything's fine.

There's a lot here to like - solid performances throughout (although by casting Jeffrey Dean Morgan, I kept wanting the Winchester boys from Supernatrual to show up with rock salt) and a few genuine jumps, at least for me.  Mind you, The Possession doesn't do all that much that's new - you've seen most of this before.  Two kids dealing with parents' still-raw divorce?  Check.  Dad who overindulges kids to be Fun Parent while Mom has to be the disciplinarian?  Check.  Ambitious, hard-working dad who misses important things in girls' lives?  Check.  Nice kid who becomes highly creepy after coming into contact with cursed object?  Check.  New boyfriend who cuts and runs when things get weird, proving that Mom and Dad ought to work this out for the kids?  Check.  Scary shadowy things in the corners of rooms and down people's throats?  Check.  People who are just too stupid to put their back against a wall so creepy things can't sneak up on them?  Check.  And so on.

That said, the film works a different vein of terror in that it's not a Catholic exorcism but a Jewish one.  The box was made to contain a dybbuk, a frightening supernatural creature out of Jewish folklore.  But the exorcism itself you've seen before - demons don't want to give up hosts very easily and they get extremely irked at anyone who tries to evict them.

By the way, the film is based on a story that ran in the Los Angeles Times back in 2004 called "A Jinx in a Box."  Read the story and you'll understand that when films use language like "based on actual events," they don't necessarily mean "based MUCH" on actual events.