Tonight I saw Ghost, starring Patrick Swayze and Whoopi Goldberg.
The week this film debuted in 1990, I was at the theater, first in line. I loved all the actors, I loved the title and that was all I needed to know to buy the ticket. Luckily, it didn't disappoint. It not only became one of my all-time favorite films, it also took home two Academy Awards (Best Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress for Ms. Goldberg).
I own the film, and have watched it several times since, but haven't seen it in a theater since the year it came out. I was thrilled when a nearby indie theater said they'd present it as part of their Throwback Thursday series and settled into my favorite balcony seat tonight to enjoy it.
In so many ways the film remains timeless—the themes of love, spirituality, good vs. evil and betrayal all resonate as vividly today as they did 30 years ago. There's also many things that are dated—the black computer screens with archaic green text, the landline phones, the clip of The Arsenio Hall Show that plays as the characters watch. None of these details diminished the story for me this many years later, but I could see how someone young seeing it for the first time may deem it "old."
What still gave me goosebumps? The iconic pottery-making love scene set to "Unchained Melody." The first time the subway ghost rages at Sam. The moment Oda Mae surrenders to the ghost and yells "Sam" after he chases her around the table. The first "capture" of a bad soul to the other side.
It's also sheer pleasure to witness the chemistry between Demi Moore and Swayze and between Swayze and Goldberg. I can't begin to picture anyone else in any of their roles because they were so spot on.
Worth mentioning is the fact this film manages to dip in and out of several genres seamlessly: drama, comedy, thriller, horror, supernatural, romance. Ghost has it all, which is why it will continue to delight viewers for decades to come.
~~~
Showing posts with label horror. Show all posts
Showing posts with label horror. Show all posts
Thursday, February 20, 2020
Saturday, February 08, 2020
Parasite
On Thursday I saw Parasite, starring Jung Ji-so and Jo Yeo-jeong.
The Kim family is poor; the Park family is rich. The Park family needs assistance running their high class household and the Kim family sees an opportunity. Soon, in devious ways, all four of the Kims are employed by the Parks doing various tasks for them, though they don't disclose they're at all related.
Soon, they've infiltrated their entire world and begin to reap the benefits in healthy salaries and access to the mansion when the Parks are away (i.e. a camping trip).
Inherently, as a girl raised in an Immigrant-led, blue collar home, my gut almost always roots for the lower class in stories such as this ... but not here. The screenplay is so good that the characters are developed in a very complex way, making the Kims less sympathetic than the Parks, who are basically decent people being taken advantage of because they're naive.
After one big event that results in a twist I can't expect anyone saw coming, all hell breaks loose and this goes from being a black comedy to a borderline campy horror film. I couldn't look away, and was definitely entertained, but I never would have put this in a Best Picture category.
So then I wondered what I was 'missing' regarding the hype surrounding this film and the only reason why I expect it's gotten such universal praise is because it's different. It's not a film with a simple formula or predictable outcomes in any way, shape or form. It's inventive, it's fast-paced and it makes you think.
But it's also not the second coming of film.
~~~
The Kim family is poor; the Park family is rich. The Park family needs assistance running their high class household and the Kim family sees an opportunity. Soon, in devious ways, all four of the Kims are employed by the Parks doing various tasks for them, though they don't disclose they're at all related.
Soon, they've infiltrated their entire world and begin to reap the benefits in healthy salaries and access to the mansion when the Parks are away (i.e. a camping trip).
Inherently, as a girl raised in an Immigrant-led, blue collar home, my gut almost always roots for the lower class in stories such as this ... but not here. The screenplay is so good that the characters are developed in a very complex way, making the Kims less sympathetic than the Parks, who are basically decent people being taken advantage of because they're naive.
After one big event that results in a twist I can't expect anyone saw coming, all hell breaks loose and this goes from being a black comedy to a borderline campy horror film. I couldn't look away, and was definitely entertained, but I never would have put this in a Best Picture category.
So then I wondered what I was 'missing' regarding the hype surrounding this film and the only reason why I expect it's gotten such universal praise is because it's different. It's not a film with a simple formula or predictable outcomes in any way, shape or form. It's inventive, it's fast-paced and it makes you think.
But it's also not the second coming of film.
~~~
Friday, October 18, 2019
Joker
Today I saw Joker, starring Joaquin Phoenix and Robert De Niro.
Arthur (Phoenix) is a working-class clown who likes to make children laugh, cares tenderly for his elderly mother (Frances Conroy) and harbors an innocent crush on his attractive neighbor (Zazie Beetz). By all accounts, Arthur is a nice person just trying to life his life.
When he's attacked by some kids who steal the sign he's holding as part of his job, then beaten up by the same crowd when he attempts to retrieve it, it's easy to brim with sadness for him. Through a brief glimpse into one of his therapy sessions, we learn he's on a cocktail of drugs to aid in his mental health and that he dreams of being a stand-up comedian.
Arthur is also obsessed with a Johnny Carson-like talk show hosted by Murray Franklin (De Niro) and watches faithfully. He finally gets the chance to perform at a local comedy club and it doesn't go so well, but Franklin picks up clips from the disaster and uses them on his program, which leads to an invitation for Arthur to appear.
Meanwhile, a colleague gives Arthur a gun for protection, which he graciously accepts. You don't have to be a mathematician to realize that a mentally ill, constantly bullied man with a firearm is a bad idea ... but that's as far as I can go without spoiling.
I must say this, however: Joaquin Phoenix is nothing short of phenomenal in the role. Every expression, every ounce of pain Arthur experiences seeps from his pores onto the screen. When he aches, you ache for him, and when he rages; well—you sort of can't help but rage along with him.
It's truly an intense character study into the deterioration of the human spirit. Someone who could've had a shot at leading a decent life, but got kicked around too many times, and that coupled with other factors creates a monster, somewhat literally. The narrative got so intense I almost couldn't breathe, so I stepped into the lobby to take a moment. I can't remember the last time I film got to me in the same way.
Joker is tragic to claustrophobic proportions and more disturbing than it would be otherwise if our world wasn't presently so cruel.
Incredibly well done.
~~~
Arthur (Phoenix) is a working-class clown who likes to make children laugh, cares tenderly for his elderly mother (Frances Conroy) and harbors an innocent crush on his attractive neighbor (Zazie Beetz). By all accounts, Arthur is a nice person just trying to life his life.
When he's attacked by some kids who steal the sign he's holding as part of his job, then beaten up by the same crowd when he attempts to retrieve it, it's easy to brim with sadness for him. Through a brief glimpse into one of his therapy sessions, we learn he's on a cocktail of drugs to aid in his mental health and that he dreams of being a stand-up comedian.
Arthur is also obsessed with a Johnny Carson-like talk show hosted by Murray Franklin (De Niro) and watches faithfully. He finally gets the chance to perform at a local comedy club and it doesn't go so well, but Franklin picks up clips from the disaster and uses them on his program, which leads to an invitation for Arthur to appear.
Meanwhile, a colleague gives Arthur a gun for protection, which he graciously accepts. You don't have to be a mathematician to realize that a mentally ill, constantly bullied man with a firearm is a bad idea ... but that's as far as I can go without spoiling.
I must say this, however: Joaquin Phoenix is nothing short of phenomenal in the role. Every expression, every ounce of pain Arthur experiences seeps from his pores onto the screen. When he aches, you ache for him, and when he rages; well—you sort of can't help but rage along with him.
It's truly an intense character study into the deterioration of the human spirit. Someone who could've had a shot at leading a decent life, but got kicked around too many times, and that coupled with other factors creates a monster, somewhat literally. The narrative got so intense I almost couldn't breathe, so I stepped into the lobby to take a moment. I can't remember the last time I film got to me in the same way.
Joker is tragic to claustrophobic proportions and more disturbing than it would be otherwise if our world wasn't presently so cruel.
Incredibly well done.
~~~
Thursday, October 17, 2019
Countdown
Tonight I screened Countdown, starring Elizabeth Lail and Peter Facinelli.
A group of friends dare each other at a party to download an app that supposedly reveals your time of death and the person with the soonest fate has to drink the remaining drinks. Silly, right? Sure it is ... until that individual dies at the precise time that app said she would (and no, not from alcohol poisoning).
A story for modern times, for sure—with all of the tech nerd cheap shots they can fit–that examines our obsession with Smartphones and attempts to provide some jumps and scares in the meantime.
After one of her patients passes away, also at the time the app says he would, Quinn (Lail), a new nurse, downloads the app to her phone. She's alarmed when the time of death is just a few days away and begins seeing and hearing things that make her think there's more to it. She does what any sane person would do and attempts to delete the app from her phone, but that proves to be impossible.
She soon meets another app "victim" and they become friends, seeking ways to rid themselves of their certain fates. They enlist the help of an almost cartoonish young priest who is new to the demon-fighting trade and the film turns from wannabe-thriller to unsuccessful screwball comedy.
Did I mention there's a whole #MeToo side story in there too? I was excited to see Peter Facinelli emerge as the slimy doctor (I always loved him in a similar role on Nurse Jackie), but really as a fine actor, he deserved more.
Overall, this wasn't terribly scary, didn't ever really solve why the deaths were happening (what motivated the "demons") and gratuitously set up the sequel at the end. Thanks, but I'll pass.
~~~
A group of friends dare each other at a party to download an app that supposedly reveals your time of death and the person with the soonest fate has to drink the remaining drinks. Silly, right? Sure it is ... until that individual dies at the precise time that app said she would (and no, not from alcohol poisoning).
A story for modern times, for sure—with all of the tech nerd cheap shots they can fit–that examines our obsession with Smartphones and attempts to provide some jumps and scares in the meantime.
After one of her patients passes away, also at the time the app says he would, Quinn (Lail), a new nurse, downloads the app to her phone. She's alarmed when the time of death is just a few days away and begins seeing and hearing things that make her think there's more to it. She does what any sane person would do and attempts to delete the app from her phone, but that proves to be impossible.
She soon meets another app "victim" and they become friends, seeking ways to rid themselves of their certain fates. They enlist the help of an almost cartoonish young priest who is new to the demon-fighting trade and the film turns from wannabe-thriller to unsuccessful screwball comedy.
Did I mention there's a whole #MeToo side story in there too? I was excited to see Peter Facinelli emerge as the slimy doctor (I always loved him in a similar role on Nurse Jackie), but really as a fine actor, he deserved more.
Overall, this wasn't terribly scary, didn't ever really solve why the deaths were happening (what motivated the "demons") and gratuitously set up the sequel at the end. Thanks, but I'll pass.
~~~
Saturday, August 17, 2019
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark
Today I saw Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark, starring Zoe Margaret Colletti and Michael Garza.
As a child in the '80s, many lunchtimes were spent huddled underneath a table in the school library with my friends, reading aloud from the book Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. I remember some of the characters and stories so vividly I can still see them in my mind's eye.
So when I heard that an adaptation was coming to the big screen and Guillermo del Toro was involved, I got very excited. Unfortunately I later learned that this film would carry a PG-13 rating, which usually means it won't be allowed to be as scary as it could be, but I was still willing to give it a chance, so I did. Here's what I thought:
The pros:
The screenwriters do a nice job of weaving together the stories with one cohesive narrative. The kids visit a haunted house on Halloween and disturb the wrong entity. She starts writing stories in a book they have possession of to destroy each of them one by one.
The visuals are very close to what I remember of the book and come alive in horrifically magical ways.
The child actors are all quite good and not the least bit annoying. Together they have a "Goonies" vibe, which is a lot of fun.
The cons:
It takes them a while to get to the first story. Too long. And the Halloween sequence going after the bully feels too much like so many other movie scenes of the same nature.
It's almost gratuitous with gore. Sure, many of the stories (the toe, etc.) have gross elements to them, but I had to look away more than I'd have preferred.
They dialed down some of the most terrifying elements probably because of the rating, which is a shame because the book used to keep me up at night; this did not.
All-in-all it was entertaining, but in a sanitized-for-the-YA-crowd sort of way, which was disappointing. If they make a second, I hope they'll go for the R rating.
~~~
As a child in the '80s, many lunchtimes were spent huddled underneath a table in the school library with my friends, reading aloud from the book Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. I remember some of the characters and stories so vividly I can still see them in my mind's eye.
So when I heard that an adaptation was coming to the big screen and Guillermo del Toro was involved, I got very excited. Unfortunately I later learned that this film would carry a PG-13 rating, which usually means it won't be allowed to be as scary as it could be, but I was still willing to give it a chance, so I did. Here's what I thought:
The pros:
The screenwriters do a nice job of weaving together the stories with one cohesive narrative. The kids visit a haunted house on Halloween and disturb the wrong entity. She starts writing stories in a book they have possession of to destroy each of them one by one.
The visuals are very close to what I remember of the book and come alive in horrifically magical ways.
The child actors are all quite good and not the least bit annoying. Together they have a "Goonies" vibe, which is a lot of fun.
The cons:
It takes them a while to get to the first story. Too long. And the Halloween sequence going after the bully feels too much like so many other movie scenes of the same nature.
It's almost gratuitous with gore. Sure, many of the stories (the toe, etc.) have gross elements to them, but I had to look away more than I'd have preferred.
They dialed down some of the most terrifying elements probably because of the rating, which is a shame because the book used to keep me up at night; this did not.
All-in-all it was entertaining, but in a sanitized-for-the-YA-crowd sort of way, which was disappointing. If they make a second, I hope they'll go for the R rating.
~~~
Wednesday, June 26, 2019
Annabelle Comes Home
Tonight I saw Annabelle Comes Home, starring McKenna Grace and Vera Farmiga.
Paranormal investigators Lorraine Warren (Farmiga) and her husband Ed (Patrick Wilson) decide the best place to contain the evil that the Annabelle doll possesses is in their private museum at home. As they transport the doll to their residence, a number of bad things happen. And so it begins ...
The latest installment in the series that began with The Conjuring, which was based loosely on the real-life experiences of the Warrens, centers around a time when the couple has to go away for the night and their daughter Judy (McKenna Grace) is left in the care of a babysitter, Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman).
Mary Ellen's friend Daniela (Katie Sarife) shows up and starts snooping where she shouldn't in the paranormal museum. Soon, all hell breaks loose and all three are put in grave danger from the Annabelle doll being released from her protective locked case.
On the fright meter, unfortunately this installment ranks pretty low. Sure, there are things that chase and things that jump, but overall it doesn't have the creepy factor that some of the other films in the series had. Also, it doesn't have enough of Lorraine and Ed.
Although this is one of the few franchises that I welcome more prequels and sequels from, this one didn't deliver the chills and thrills I've come to expect.
Hopefully the next will be a return to form.
~~~
Paranormal investigators Lorraine Warren (Farmiga) and her husband Ed (Patrick Wilson) decide the best place to contain the evil that the Annabelle doll possesses is in their private museum at home. As they transport the doll to their residence, a number of bad things happen. And so it begins ...
The latest installment in the series that began with The Conjuring, which was based loosely on the real-life experiences of the Warrens, centers around a time when the couple has to go away for the night and their daughter Judy (McKenna Grace) is left in the care of a babysitter, Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman).
Mary Ellen's friend Daniela (Katie Sarife) shows up and starts snooping where she shouldn't in the paranormal museum. Soon, all hell breaks loose and all three are put in grave danger from the Annabelle doll being released from her protective locked case.
On the fright meter, unfortunately this installment ranks pretty low. Sure, there are things that chase and things that jump, but overall it doesn't have the creepy factor that some of the other films in the series had. Also, it doesn't have enough of Lorraine and Ed.
Although this is one of the few franchises that I welcome more prequels and sequels from, this one didn't deliver the chills and thrills I've come to expect.
Hopefully the next will be a return to form.
~~~
Thursday, June 20, 2019
Jaws
Tonight I saw Jaws, starring Richard Dreyfuss and Roy Scheider in honor of its 44th anniversary.
The legendary score, the almost-laughable fake shark, the unlikely bonding of the bros who venture out to kill the beast—I simply never tire of this classic, which is just a few months older than me.
I've seen the film dozens of times, but I don't recall ever enjoying it on the big screen, so I was thrilled to see that one of my favorite indie theaters would host a complimentary viewing as part of their Throwback Thursday series. The crowd was in my age range (with many of their kids in tow) and the audience behavior was perfect. Absolute silence throughout, with the exception of claps and cheers when famous lines were spoken.
The thing I realized that had never dawned on me before was the emphasis on the 1%/educated character besting the blue collar warrior who at first seems to know far better in every circumstance. It's an interesting lens in which to see the film, especially in light of our class divisions present day, and one that perhaps deserves a closer look.
Nevertheless, the experience was a wonderful way to welcome summer and keep me out of the water for at least a few more days.
~~~
The legendary score, the almost-laughable fake shark, the unlikely bonding of the bros who venture out to kill the beast—I simply never tire of this classic, which is just a few months older than me.
I've seen the film dozens of times, but I don't recall ever enjoying it on the big screen, so I was thrilled to see that one of my favorite indie theaters would host a complimentary viewing as part of their Throwback Thursday series. The crowd was in my age range (with many of their kids in tow) and the audience behavior was perfect. Absolute silence throughout, with the exception of claps and cheers when famous lines were spoken.
The thing I realized that had never dawned on me before was the emphasis on the 1%/educated character besting the blue collar warrior who at first seems to know far better in every circumstance. It's an interesting lens in which to see the film, especially in light of our class divisions present day, and one that perhaps deserves a closer look.
Nevertheless, the experience was a wonderful way to welcome summer and keep me out of the water for at least a few more days.
~~~
Friday, March 22, 2019
Us
Last night I saw Us, starring Lupita Nyong'o and Winston Duke.
Gabe (Duke) wants to take his family for a relaxing vacation in Santa Cruz, California. They're game ... as long as they can bring along their phones and magic tricks. His wife Adelaide (Nyong'o) has reservations because of an incident that happened to her on the same beach when she was a young girl and voices her apprehension. But they go anyway.
After they meet up with friends and enjoy some sun, the family heads back to their summer house to call it a night. The kids are tucked into bed and the couple is chatting when a family appears at the end of their driveway. At first, Gabe tells everyone not to worry and tries to approach the four with kindness. When they don't respond, things escalate and soon they become hostages in their own home.
Each of the figures who appeared in the driveway appear to be clones of Gabe's family and attack their identical counterparts. Soon the entire group is in chaos, spread out inside and outside of the house and into the neighborhood.
From this point on, the battle continues as more about these "tethered" people is revealed and the family sees what they're up against.
Those who say Writer/Director Jordan Peele has invented his own sub-genre of horror are correct. He doesn't just use psychological tricks, he blends the unknown with a welcome humor to appease the audience at just the right time before launching another "gotcha" moment and finishing with a twist. His techniques are more satisfying than traditional horror because their smarter.
I had a lot of fun at this film and seeing it in a sold-out theater amongst jumpy, squealy filmgoers only added to the experience. Make sure to see this one on the big screen if you can.
~~~
Gabe (Duke) wants to take his family for a relaxing vacation in Santa Cruz, California. They're game ... as long as they can bring along their phones and magic tricks. His wife Adelaide (Nyong'o) has reservations because of an incident that happened to her on the same beach when she was a young girl and voices her apprehension. But they go anyway.
After they meet up with friends and enjoy some sun, the family heads back to their summer house to call it a night. The kids are tucked into bed and the couple is chatting when a family appears at the end of their driveway. At first, Gabe tells everyone not to worry and tries to approach the four with kindness. When they don't respond, things escalate and soon they become hostages in their own home.
Each of the figures who appeared in the driveway appear to be clones of Gabe's family and attack their identical counterparts. Soon the entire group is in chaos, spread out inside and outside of the house and into the neighborhood.
From this point on, the battle continues as more about these "tethered" people is revealed and the family sees what they're up against.
Those who say Writer/Director Jordan Peele has invented his own sub-genre of horror are correct. He doesn't just use psychological tricks, he blends the unknown with a welcome humor to appease the audience at just the right time before launching another "gotcha" moment and finishing with a twist. His techniques are more satisfying than traditional horror because their smarter.
I had a lot of fun at this film and seeing it in a sold-out theater amongst jumpy, squealy filmgoers only added to the experience. Make sure to see this one on the big screen if you can.
~~~
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
Halloween (2018)
Last night I saw Halloween, starring Jamie Lee Curtis and Judy Greer.
It's been 40 years since Laurie Strode (Curtis), a young babysitter, survived an attack by killer Michael Myers (Nick Castle) in her Illinois town. Now, he's being transferred from one prison facility to another, and Laurie is ready for him.
Laurie's severe PTSD from the incident has plagued her for decades, causing her to lose her family due to her paranoia. She lives outside of town in a house she's converted to a bunker of sorts, complete with an arsenal of weapons to protect herself. Her daughter Karen (Greer) keeps her distance and encourages her own daughter Allyson (Andi Matichak) to do the same.
Unfortunately, something goes horribly wrong during the transfer and Myers is again a free man, roaming the same streets he once terrorized so many Halloweens ago. Laurie, along with members of law enforcement who were on the hunt for him in 1978, set out to get justice—one way or another.
This sequel to the original (which pretends none of the other sequels happened) is satisfying on many levels: seeing the original actors return to reprise their roles is a delight and the realistic way they've advanced the characters is a relief. Honestly, I couldn't find much wrong with this. It was suspenseful, clever, fun, jumpy and terrifying just like the first one.
Michael Myers strikes again.
~~~
It's been 40 years since Laurie Strode (Curtis), a young babysitter, survived an attack by killer Michael Myers (Nick Castle) in her Illinois town. Now, he's being transferred from one prison facility to another, and Laurie is ready for him.
Laurie's severe PTSD from the incident has plagued her for decades, causing her to lose her family due to her paranoia. She lives outside of town in a house she's converted to a bunker of sorts, complete with an arsenal of weapons to protect herself. Her daughter Karen (Greer) keeps her distance and encourages her own daughter Allyson (Andi Matichak) to do the same.
Unfortunately, something goes horribly wrong during the transfer and Myers is again a free man, roaming the same streets he once terrorized so many Halloweens ago. Laurie, along with members of law enforcement who were on the hunt for him in 1978, set out to get justice—one way or another.
This sequel to the original (which pretends none of the other sequels happened) is satisfying on many levels: seeing the original actors return to reprise their roles is a delight and the realistic way they've advanced the characters is a relief. Honestly, I couldn't find much wrong with this. It was suspenseful, clever, fun, jumpy and terrifying just like the first one.
Michael Myers strikes again.
~~~
Saturday, June 23, 2018
Hereditary
This morning I saw Hereditary, starring Toni Collette and Ann Dowd.
Annie (Collette) is a daughter, grieving the loss of her not-so-wonderful mother when her whole world seems to fall apart. Consumed with tragedy, she turns to a support group for those who have lost loved ones and meets Joan (Dowd), a kind woman who is experiencing a similar pain.
Annie hides this support group—and her friendship with Joan—from her family and tells them she's going to the movies instead. They're all processing their pain differently, but her husband Steve (Gabriel Byrne) does his best to move on in the most normal way possible, hiding the desecration of her mother's grave from her and urging their son Peter (Alex Wolff) to arrange for college testing.
What seems like a normal American family trying to navigate the fog of grief the best way they know how soon turns into a paranormal dance with something dark that Annie has unknowingly invited into their home.
Once she realizes it could be dangerous, it could be too late and we watch as the rest of the film unfolds into a mix of gotcha scares, creepy shadow shots and (somewhat) unexpected outcomes.
Why should you see this film? Toni Collette is a force. She's indifferent, grief-stricken, furious, depressed, deflated, defeated and terrified .. then back again. It's not all written in her lines, but it's seen in her face, over and over. Her performance rises above the majority of horror performances simply because it's so multi-dimensional. She's a mom and a wife and a daughter and a friend and a freak ... all at the same time.
Is that all? Not necessarily. If you like trying to solve puzzles, you may enjoy the layers being peeled back here as the story progresses.
The ending, though? A bit conventional for a film that up until that point didn't subscribe to any horror templates.
~~~
Annie (Collette) is a daughter, grieving the loss of her not-so-wonderful mother when her whole world seems to fall apart. Consumed with tragedy, she turns to a support group for those who have lost loved ones and meets Joan (Dowd), a kind woman who is experiencing a similar pain.
Annie hides this support group—and her friendship with Joan—from her family and tells them she's going to the movies instead. They're all processing their pain differently, but her husband Steve (Gabriel Byrne) does his best to move on in the most normal way possible, hiding the desecration of her mother's grave from her and urging their son Peter (Alex Wolff) to arrange for college testing.
What seems like a normal American family trying to navigate the fog of grief the best way they know how soon turns into a paranormal dance with something dark that Annie has unknowingly invited into their home.
Once she realizes it could be dangerous, it could be too late and we watch as the rest of the film unfolds into a mix of gotcha scares, creepy shadow shots and (somewhat) unexpected outcomes.
Why should you see this film? Toni Collette is a force. She's indifferent, grief-stricken, furious, depressed, deflated, defeated and terrified .. then back again. It's not all written in her lines, but it's seen in her face, over and over. Her performance rises above the majority of horror performances simply because it's so multi-dimensional. She's a mom and a wife and a daughter and a friend and a freak ... all at the same time.
Is that all? Not necessarily. If you like trying to solve puzzles, you may enjoy the layers being peeled back here as the story progresses.
The ending, though? A bit conventional for a film that up until that point didn't subscribe to any horror templates.
~~~
Friday, April 06, 2018
A Quiet Place
Last night I saw A Quiet Place, starring real-life spouses Emily Blunt and John Krasinski. John also directed the film.
Lee (Krasinski) and Eveyln (Blunt) are normal parents—they have strict rules for their children to follow, they work hard to protect and provide for them. But this family has it a bit harder. They live in a time of crises where the earth has been invaded by alien creatures who hunt sound. This means if they make noise, they die.
For adults, maintaining silence isn't too difficult, but for kids, it's a lot harder. Also, their eldest, Regan (Millicent Simmonds), is deaf. On one hand, at least the entire family can communicate by sign language; on the other hand, Regan can't hear danger coming.
You may think an entire film shot mostly in silence could be boring, but this is the absolute opposite of that. The story is at times sweet, terrifying, heartwarming and heart-wrenching. Above all else, it's tense.
Think of living your life in your most adrenaline-fueled, anxious, on-guard state and that's what these folks are forced to do every minute of every day.
They carry on, we assume only for love, because life is pretty difficult. Think about all the activities that make noise—laughing, crying, making love, cooking, making music ... the list goes on.
Of course they have little ways of enjoying sound ... nature, headphones, etc. but to overcome human instinct is a battle that should never have to be fought.
I held my breath throughout most of this film because they were such nice people I wanted them to make it. It should also be noted that the entire cast is phenomenal, acting 90% of their roles through facial expressions.
Also refreshing: what you think might happen doesn't. On more than one occasion.
I can't wait to see what Director Krasinski does next.
~~~
Lee (Krasinski) and Eveyln (Blunt) are normal parents—they have strict rules for their children to follow, they work hard to protect and provide for them. But this family has it a bit harder. They live in a time of crises where the earth has been invaded by alien creatures who hunt sound. This means if they make noise, they die.
For adults, maintaining silence isn't too difficult, but for kids, it's a lot harder. Also, their eldest, Regan (Millicent Simmonds), is deaf. On one hand, at least the entire family can communicate by sign language; on the other hand, Regan can't hear danger coming.
You may think an entire film shot mostly in silence could be boring, but this is the absolute opposite of that. The story is at times sweet, terrifying, heartwarming and heart-wrenching. Above all else, it's tense.
Think of living your life in your most adrenaline-fueled, anxious, on-guard state and that's what these folks are forced to do every minute of every day.
They carry on, we assume only for love, because life is pretty difficult. Think about all the activities that make noise—laughing, crying, making love, cooking, making music ... the list goes on.
Of course they have little ways of enjoying sound ... nature, headphones, etc. but to overcome human instinct is a battle that should never have to be fought.
I held my breath throughout most of this film because they were such nice people I wanted them to make it. It should also be noted that the entire cast is phenomenal, acting 90% of their roles through facial expressions.
Also refreshing: what you think might happen doesn't. On more than one occasion.
I can't wait to see what Director Krasinski does next.
~~~
Sunday, February 04, 2018
Winchester
This morning I saw Winchester, starring Helen Mirren and Jason Clarke.
Sarah Winchester (Mirren) is a grieving widow who uprooted her east coast life to (literally) rebuild in San Jose, California. She is continually (as in, 24-hrs. a day, 7 days a week) constructing more rooms for her mansion to satisfy the spirits of those killed with the firearms her husband's company manufactured. The year is 1906 and the company (which she partially inherited following her husband's death) would like to get rid of her. Dr. Price (Clarke) is sent to stay with her and prove she's mentally unfit.
Clarke is a favorite of mine from his Brotherhood days, and it goes without saying that Mirren is always perfection. But this film was a huge disappointment despite their best efforts to save a weak script.
Aside from the possessed grand-nephew and some "gotcha" ghoulish appearances, this doesn't feel much like a horror film, or even a thriller. Furthermore, the actual property (which, full disclosure: I have visited) is incredibly captivating, but most of what we see of it here are dark hallways, nails spitting out of walls and slammed doors. I was also let down by the San Francisco earthquake scene, expecting far more supernatural elements at play.
Though many of the facts are correct in the film (the house was severely damaged in the quake of 1906; Sarah did continually build; niece Marion really existed) the fictional story they created to harness the essence of the Winchester history falls flat.
As I sat and watched, I imagined how I would have re-written it (perhaps cold open with a seance; maybe bring to life the wheelbarrow man ghost that supposedly haunts the house present-day; show a present-day tour and flashback). So many possibilities—and the fact I had time to concoct them as I sat there means my boredom was high.
You'd be better off watching a documentary about the property. Those actually have the power to spook you.
~~~
Sarah Winchester (Mirren) is a grieving widow who uprooted her east coast life to (literally) rebuild in San Jose, California. She is continually (as in, 24-hrs. a day, 7 days a week) constructing more rooms for her mansion to satisfy the spirits of those killed with the firearms her husband's company manufactured. The year is 1906 and the company (which she partially inherited following her husband's death) would like to get rid of her. Dr. Price (Clarke) is sent to stay with her and prove she's mentally unfit.
Clarke is a favorite of mine from his Brotherhood days, and it goes without saying that Mirren is always perfection. But this film was a huge disappointment despite their best efforts to save a weak script.
Aside from the possessed grand-nephew and some "gotcha" ghoulish appearances, this doesn't feel much like a horror film, or even a thriller. Furthermore, the actual property (which, full disclosure: I have visited) is incredibly captivating, but most of what we see of it here are dark hallways, nails spitting out of walls and slammed doors. I was also let down by the San Francisco earthquake scene, expecting far more supernatural elements at play.
Though many of the facts are correct in the film (the house was severely damaged in the quake of 1906; Sarah did continually build; niece Marion really existed) the fictional story they created to harness the essence of the Winchester history falls flat.
As I sat and watched, I imagined how I would have re-written it (perhaps cold open with a seance; maybe bring to life the wheelbarrow man ghost that supposedly haunts the house present-day; show a present-day tour and flashback). So many possibilities—and the fact I had time to concoct them as I sat there means my boredom was high.
You'd be better off watching a documentary about the property. Those actually have the power to spook you.
~~~
Tuesday, January 09, 2018
Insidious: The Last Key
Today I saw Insidious: The Last Key, starring Lin Shaye and Josh Stewart.
Like the other three films in this series, the focus is on family, which I think sets it apart (in a good way) from other horror franchises.
We start in the childhood of our heroine Elise (Shaye) as she struggles with her emerging psychic gift and her abusive father rallies against it. Much as she tries to protect her younger brother, after her mother is killed in a horrific supernatural event, she leaves home to escape further torture.
In present day, Elise is working full-time as a psychic, complete with two sidekick ghost hunters that come with a cheesy bus of their own. They seem to be there purely to gawk at pretty girls and perpetuate the television stereotypes of paranormal investigators, but thankfully they didn't distract too much from the story.
A call comes for help and Elise is rattled to learn that it's her childhood home that needs to be checked out. Making use of the new bus, the trio sets out for New Mexico to exorcise her demons. At the town diner they run into two of Elise's nieces, whom she's never met, and then her brother. I won't spoil it, but let's just say the family drama has only been resting on "pause" all these years.
Soon enough, the horrors of that dark house are unleashed and Elise finds herself in a wicked battle. This is where the film offers its best scares (there are definitely a few jump-out-of-your-seat moments) and the truth of the past rises to the present.
Shaye is fantastic here—in every frame her face conveys the pain, discovery and struggle of her situation. The film simply wouldn't work without her complexity, but she brings it, and it does.
For a prequel to a sequel (I hope I got that right), this is pretty darned satisfying.
~~~
Like the other three films in this series, the focus is on family, which I think sets it apart (in a good way) from other horror franchises.
We start in the childhood of our heroine Elise (Shaye) as she struggles with her emerging psychic gift and her abusive father rallies against it. Much as she tries to protect her younger brother, after her mother is killed in a horrific supernatural event, she leaves home to escape further torture.
In present day, Elise is working full-time as a psychic, complete with two sidekick ghost hunters that come with a cheesy bus of their own. They seem to be there purely to gawk at pretty girls and perpetuate the television stereotypes of paranormal investigators, but thankfully they didn't distract too much from the story.
A call comes for help and Elise is rattled to learn that it's her childhood home that needs to be checked out. Making use of the new bus, the trio sets out for New Mexico to exorcise her demons. At the town diner they run into two of Elise's nieces, whom she's never met, and then her brother. I won't spoil it, but let's just say the family drama has only been resting on "pause" all these years.
Soon enough, the horrors of that dark house are unleashed and Elise finds herself in a wicked battle. This is where the film offers its best scares (there are definitely a few jump-out-of-your-seat moments) and the truth of the past rises to the present.
Shaye is fantastic here—in every frame her face conveys the pain, discovery and struggle of her situation. The film simply wouldn't work without her complexity, but she brings it, and it does.
For a prequel to a sequel (I hope I got that right), this is pretty darned satisfying.
~~~
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
A Nightmare on Elm Street
Last night I saw A Nightmare on Elm Street, starring Heather Langenkamp and Robert Englund.
Nancy (Langenkamp) attends a sleepover with a friend only to wake in the middle of the night to the sounds of that friend's murder. They both had the same nightmare about a burnt-faced man with knives on his fingers. Nancy fears because of this commonality, she is next.
After more nightmares and an eventual confession from her own alcoholic mother, Nancy learns the man in their dreams is Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), and gets his backstory. With this new information, she, along with her boyfriend across the street, Glenn (a very young Johnny Depp), attempt to defeat this monster with a mix of sleep deprivation and calculated nightmare-planning.
This film came out in 1984. I first saw it a year later at a friend's slumber party, much to the dismay of my mother, who forbid me from such parties when I came home afterword, terrified. I refused to sleep for days.
"1 ... 2 ... Freddy's coming for you, 3 ... 4 ... " The song the kids sing as they jump rope in the background of the film stayed with me all these years, and hearing it again gave me a visceral reaction.
It's funny what you remember and what you don't.
For example, I had clear recollections of Freddy: everything from his voice to his nails to his legendary sweater. I also remembered that Nancy was a "good girl" and her house was nice, in a good neighborhood.
What I failed to remember was Nancy's alcoholic mother, the sexual jokes and references (perhaps they just went over my head in youth) and the somewhat shocking ending. All were hilarious and satisfying last night.
The score by Charles Bernstein is a big factor as well—each time the music enters, it's hard not to put your guard up; you know something is coming.
Wes Craven knew how to do horror.
As silly and dated as many of the references and occurrences are, the film holds up. It is spooky, it is creepy, and it makes you jump. The origin story of the villain is also horrific and effective.
A classic already, and surely for years to come.
~~~
Nancy (Langenkamp) attends a sleepover with a friend only to wake in the middle of the night to the sounds of that friend's murder. They both had the same nightmare about a burnt-faced man with knives on his fingers. Nancy fears because of this commonality, she is next.
After more nightmares and an eventual confession from her own alcoholic mother, Nancy learns the man in their dreams is Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund), and gets his backstory. With this new information, she, along with her boyfriend across the street, Glenn (a very young Johnny Depp), attempt to defeat this monster with a mix of sleep deprivation and calculated nightmare-planning.
This film came out in 1984. I first saw it a year later at a friend's slumber party, much to the dismay of my mother, who forbid me from such parties when I came home afterword, terrified. I refused to sleep for days.
"1 ... 2 ... Freddy's coming for you, 3 ... 4 ... " The song the kids sing as they jump rope in the background of the film stayed with me all these years, and hearing it again gave me a visceral reaction.
It's funny what you remember and what you don't.
For example, I had clear recollections of Freddy: everything from his voice to his nails to his legendary sweater. I also remembered that Nancy was a "good girl" and her house was nice, in a good neighborhood.
What I failed to remember was Nancy's alcoholic mother, the sexual jokes and references (perhaps they just went over my head in youth) and the somewhat shocking ending. All were hilarious and satisfying last night.
The score by Charles Bernstein is a big factor as well—each time the music enters, it's hard not to put your guard up; you know something is coming.
Wes Craven knew how to do horror.
As silly and dated as many of the references and occurrences are, the film holds up. It is spooky, it is creepy, and it makes you jump. The origin story of the villain is also horrific and effective.
A classic already, and surely for years to come.
~~~
Wednesday, October 04, 2017
Fright Night
Last night I saw Fright Night, starring Chris Sarandon and William Ragsdale.
Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a typical 1980s teenager—he enjoys late night television, making out with his girlfriend and spying on neighbors. One evening, he sees the guys next door carry a coffin into their yard and suspects they may be vampires. His fears are confirmed as he witnesses an intimate moment between one of them and their partner. The trouble is, they're onto him.
Soon enough said vampire, Jerry (Chris Sarandon), covets Charlie's naive mother and all hell breaks loose. Charley attempts to kill Jerry unsuccessfully, so he solicits the help of a late night show host who claims to be a vampire killer. Along with him, Charley's recruits his best friend and girlfriend, and the group attempt to eliminate this neighborhood threat.
Here, the film surpasses all attempts at actual horror and becomes a full-on camp fest. But that's not a bad thing—the special effects are so over-the-top, they leave you fascinated by the work that must have gone into creating them.
As for the acting, Sarandon chews scenery like the best of them, smirking and flirting his way across the screen, seducing the audience along with his desired victims. They couldn't have cast a more perfect, pompous vampire. And William Ragsdale's Charley is desperate and scared and paranoid just as a hormonal teenager with a great imagination would be (even though he turns out to be right).
Over 30 years later, I still enjoyed this ride and will continue to return to it in the Octobers to yet to come.
~~~
Charley Brewster (William Ragsdale) is a typical 1980s teenager—he enjoys late night television, making out with his girlfriend and spying on neighbors. One evening, he sees the guys next door carry a coffin into their yard and suspects they may be vampires. His fears are confirmed as he witnesses an intimate moment between one of them and their partner. The trouble is, they're onto him.
Soon enough said vampire, Jerry (Chris Sarandon), covets Charlie's naive mother and all hell breaks loose. Charley attempts to kill Jerry unsuccessfully, so he solicits the help of a late night show host who claims to be a vampire killer. Along with him, Charley's recruits his best friend and girlfriend, and the group attempt to eliminate this neighborhood threat.
Here, the film surpasses all attempts at actual horror and becomes a full-on camp fest. But that's not a bad thing—the special effects are so over-the-top, they leave you fascinated by the work that must have gone into creating them.
As for the acting, Sarandon chews scenery like the best of them, smirking and flirting his way across the screen, seducing the audience along with his desired victims. They couldn't have cast a more perfect, pompous vampire. And William Ragsdale's Charley is desperate and scared and paranoid just as a hormonal teenager with a great imagination would be (even though he turns out to be right).
Over 30 years later, I still enjoyed this ride and will continue to return to it in the Octobers to yet to come.
~~~
Thursday, September 14, 2017
It
Last night I saw It, starring Jaeden Lieberher and Sophia Lillis.
Based on the famous Stephen King novel, It certainly delivers on its promise of shivers and scares.
When we first meet the residents of Derry, Maine, it's because we're watching a sick Bill (Lieberher) finish making a paper boat for his younger brother Georgie (Jackson Robert Scott) to float out in the rainstorm. He can't go out in the storm to supervise because of his illness and mom is busy playing the piano.
Once ready to set sail, Georgie takes the boat outside and giggles happily along the street as he communicates via Walkie Talkie with Bill, who is watching out his bedroom window. Of course, before long, Georgie veers out of view and the boat sails right into the sewer. Worried that his brother will be angry with him, Georgie attempts to retrieve it and is met by a "friendly" clown, Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard), who offers to hand it back to him.
We know where this is going before it happens, but it's still jarring to see the young boy snatched up by this menacing monster. The story continues as other kids disappear, and one of the new students in town does historical research on the town. He discovers that awful things have been happening every 27 years.
The group of Bill's friends, made up of kids who consider themselves "losers" because they are bullied, teased, abused, etc. bands together to confront the evil—and in the process face their own demons.
There are many opportunities for the film to go cheesy, but it really never does. Skarsgard's Pennywise is angry and creepy, but not the least bit campy. The other manifestations a la Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, such as a painting that comes to life, are even more disturbing.
What's great about the film is the heart of the kids we get to know and the faithful nod to the era of Walkmans and Rubik's Cubes.
If you can stand the occasional gore and potential nightmares, nothing should stop you from seeing It.
~~~
Based on the famous Stephen King novel, It certainly delivers on its promise of shivers and scares.
When we first meet the residents of Derry, Maine, it's because we're watching a sick Bill (Lieberher) finish making a paper boat for his younger brother Georgie (Jackson Robert Scott) to float out in the rainstorm. He can't go out in the storm to supervise because of his illness and mom is busy playing the piano.
Once ready to set sail, Georgie takes the boat outside and giggles happily along the street as he communicates via Walkie Talkie with Bill, who is watching out his bedroom window. Of course, before long, Georgie veers out of view and the boat sails right into the sewer. Worried that his brother will be angry with him, Georgie attempts to retrieve it and is met by a "friendly" clown, Pennywise (Bill Skarsgard), who offers to hand it back to him.
We know where this is going before it happens, but it's still jarring to see the young boy snatched up by this menacing monster. The story continues as other kids disappear, and one of the new students in town does historical research on the town. He discovers that awful things have been happening every 27 years.
The group of Bill's friends, made up of kids who consider themselves "losers" because they are bullied, teased, abused, etc. bands together to confront the evil—and in the process face their own demons.
There are many opportunities for the film to go cheesy, but it really never does. Skarsgard's Pennywise is angry and creepy, but not the least bit campy. The other manifestations a la Stay Puft Marshmallow Man, such as a painting that comes to life, are even more disturbing.
What's great about the film is the heart of the kids we get to know and the faithful nod to the era of Walkmans and Rubik's Cubes.
If you can stand the occasional gore and potential nightmares, nothing should stop you from seeing It.
~~~
Thursday, August 03, 2017
Annabelle: Creation
Last night I screened Annabelle: Creation, starring Talitha Bateman and Lulu Wilson.
A couple who suffered a tragedy years ago opens their home with good intentions to a girls' orphanage, but soon things go awry. Though the Mullins ask the girls to respect their privacy and stay away from their deceased daughter's old room, the toys inside prove too tempting for Janice (Bateman) and Linda (Wilson), so all hell breaks loose.
To top it off, as if being an orphan shunned by the "cool" girls isn't enough, Janice is disabled, wearing a brace on her leg and using a cane. She has to reach her bedroom upstairs by a chair lift, reminiscent of the one in Gremlins.
After a horrific encounter seemingly sparked by a doll (the famous "Annabelle" one from the prior film), Janice ends up paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair. Because this is the 1950s and we're at a faraway farmhouse, the chair looks like something from the 1800s.
Anyway, much ensues—mysteries surrounding the bed-confined Mrs. Mullins are revealed, Linda proves to be a loyal friend to a fault and I spent the better portion of the movie trying to place the accent of the resident nun, Sister Charlotte (Stephanie Sigman). Post-film research reveals in real-life she is from Mexico, but I'm not sure her character was supposed to be?
So, here's what you need to know: the film does have scary, jumpy moments; the acting (especially by the two child leads) is excellent and the ending ... well, leads us exactly to where we began with the film Annabelle, since this was a prequel.
I enjoyed it, but missing were our trusted anchors—Ed (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine (Vera Farmiga) Warren, for whom this franchise centers. Their absence was palpable and I hope the team doesn't complete another film without them.
This installment wasn't as good as the others, but it wasn't bad. Go see it for the "gotcha" moments or rent it on a dark night, holding a doll for good measure.
~~~
A couple who suffered a tragedy years ago opens their home with good intentions to a girls' orphanage, but soon things go awry. Though the Mullins ask the girls to respect their privacy and stay away from their deceased daughter's old room, the toys inside prove too tempting for Janice (Bateman) and Linda (Wilson), so all hell breaks loose.
To top it off, as if being an orphan shunned by the "cool" girls isn't enough, Janice is disabled, wearing a brace on her leg and using a cane. She has to reach her bedroom upstairs by a chair lift, reminiscent of the one in Gremlins.
After a horrific encounter seemingly sparked by a doll (the famous "Annabelle" one from the prior film), Janice ends up paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair. Because this is the 1950s and we're at a faraway farmhouse, the chair looks like something from the 1800s.
Anyway, much ensues—mysteries surrounding the bed-confined Mrs. Mullins are revealed, Linda proves to be a loyal friend to a fault and I spent the better portion of the movie trying to place the accent of the resident nun, Sister Charlotte (Stephanie Sigman). Post-film research reveals in real-life she is from Mexico, but I'm not sure her character was supposed to be?
So, here's what you need to know: the film does have scary, jumpy moments; the acting (especially by the two child leads) is excellent and the ending ... well, leads us exactly to where we began with the film Annabelle, since this was a prequel.
I enjoyed it, but missing were our trusted anchors—Ed (Patrick Wilson) and Lorraine (Vera Farmiga) Warren, for whom this franchise centers. Their absence was palpable and I hope the team doesn't complete another film without them.
This installment wasn't as good as the others, but it wasn't bad. Go see it for the "gotcha" moments or rent it on a dark night, holding a doll for good measure.
~~~
Thursday, March 30, 2017
Personal Shopper
Tonight I saw Personal Shopper starring Kristen Stewart.
Maureen (Stewart) is a personal shopper for a difficult, high-profile star in Paris. Though Maureen is American, she remains in France because her twin brother died there months ago, and they had a pact for whomever went first to send the other a message from beyond the grave. Did I mention they're both mediums?
She is growing impatient because odd things are happening (ghouls chase her when she's alone in the dark, faucets turn on, etc.) but she doesn't think any of them are her brother. Couple this with the fact that she's getting mysterious text messages from an unknown source (and for some reason, faithfully answering them) and we're left with a lot of unanswered questions.
Though I wanted to know what was driving the mysterious text message-sender, and I desperately wished for Maureen to hear from her suddenly gone brother, I didn't have patience for the pace or the meandering extra storyline and characters that may or may not have had anything to do with those elements.
If a script is going to be as provocative as this one, if the ends aren't going to be tied up, at least a few solid theories should be presented.
Instead of wanting more, I was really wanting it to end. Thankfully it did.
~~~
Maureen (Stewart) is a personal shopper for a difficult, high-profile star in Paris. Though Maureen is American, she remains in France because her twin brother died there months ago, and they had a pact for whomever went first to send the other a message from beyond the grave. Did I mention they're both mediums?
She is growing impatient because odd things are happening (ghouls chase her when she's alone in the dark, faucets turn on, etc.) but she doesn't think any of them are her brother. Couple this with the fact that she's getting mysterious text messages from an unknown source (and for some reason, faithfully answering them) and we're left with a lot of unanswered questions.
Though I wanted to know what was driving the mysterious text message-sender, and I desperately wished for Maureen to hear from her suddenly gone brother, I didn't have patience for the pace or the meandering extra storyline and characters that may or may not have had anything to do with those elements.
If a script is going to be as provocative as this one, if the ends aren't going to be tied up, at least a few solid theories should be presented.
Instead of wanting more, I was really wanting it to end. Thankfully it did.
~~~
Friday, March 03, 2017
Get Out
Tonight I saw Get Out, starring Daniel Kaluuya and Allison Williams.
Rose (Williams) is excited to take her new boyfriend Chris (Kaluuya) home to meet her parents. They live on a lake a few hours from the city. Chris is nervous for their reaction because he's black and Rose is white, but she tells him not to worry—her parents aren't racist; just annoying.
The couple hits a deer on their way to the homestead and a cop comes to their aid. He asks to see Chris's identification, though Rose was driving when the accident happened. She defends Chris and the cop sends them on their way.
When they arrive at Rose's home, her parents are warm and welcoming, if not a little awkward. Chris is trying to stop smoking, so Rose's father (Bradley Whitford) suggests that his wife Missy (Catherine Keener), hypnotize the habit out of him. She's a gifted psychiatrist and has been successful with that in the past. Chris politely declines.
The first night there, Chris has trouble sleeping so he goes outside to get some air. There he has an odd encounter with "the help" (also black) and hurries back inside. Missy invites him to share a cup of tea with her and things get weird.
That's all I can say without spoiling the many twists and turns that follow. And boy, do they follow!
You may think you have the main "gotcha" revelation figured out, but you don't. Trust me, I thought I did too.
All I can say is, I was gripping my seat, my fellow theater-goers were gasping and screaming and I can't wait to go back for a repeat viewing to catch all the clues I missed about the reveal.
A satisfying, fun ride.
~~~
Rose (Williams) is excited to take her new boyfriend Chris (Kaluuya) home to meet her parents. They live on a lake a few hours from the city. Chris is nervous for their reaction because he's black and Rose is white, but she tells him not to worry—her parents aren't racist; just annoying.
The couple hits a deer on their way to the homestead and a cop comes to their aid. He asks to see Chris's identification, though Rose was driving when the accident happened. She defends Chris and the cop sends them on their way.
When they arrive at Rose's home, her parents are warm and welcoming, if not a little awkward. Chris is trying to stop smoking, so Rose's father (Bradley Whitford) suggests that his wife Missy (Catherine Keener), hypnotize the habit out of him. She's a gifted psychiatrist and has been successful with that in the past. Chris politely declines.
The first night there, Chris has trouble sleeping so he goes outside to get some air. There he has an odd encounter with "the help" (also black) and hurries back inside. Missy invites him to share a cup of tea with her and things get weird.
That's all I can say without spoiling the many twists and turns that follow. And boy, do they follow!
You may think you have the main "gotcha" revelation figured out, but you don't. Trust me, I thought I did too.
All I can say is, I was gripping my seat, my fellow theater-goers were gasping and screaming and I can't wait to go back for a repeat viewing to catch all the clues I missed about the reveal.
A satisfying, fun ride.
~~~
Tuesday, June 14, 2016
The Conjuring 2
Tonight I saw The Conjuring 2, starring Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson.
After experiencing the evil energy of the famous Amityville haunted house, paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren needed a break—the demonic presence that Lorraine sensed was just too disturbing. So they took one, until another high-profile case demanded their attention.
Reprising their roles from 2013's The Conjuring, Wilson and Farmiga feel so familiar as the real-life Warrens it's easy to buy the story they're selling.
From their cozy home in Connecticut, they travel to London to investigate the haunting of a house on Green Street in Enfield, occupied by a single mother and her four children. The second-oldest daughter, on the cusp of puberty, is the target of most of the paranormal activity.
After the police visit and watch a chair levitate and move across the room on its own, determining they can do nothing to help the family, the home becomes the focus of a media circus. Tabloid journalists descend upon the street to try to capture the happenings on film. Some they do; some they don't. And the debate rages on (to this day) as to whether or not this was a hoax.
In the midst of the chaos, the Warrens stopped by and spent time at the house, witnessing and documenting the alleged possession of young Janet (Madison Wolfe). Wolfe does a tremendous job of appearing both terrified and terrifying depending on who her body was representing, making this less a "gotcha" horror film and more of the psychologically troubling kind.
Speaking of psychologically troubling: the demon that Lorraine sees in her visions throughout the film looks like Marilyn Manson dressed as a nun for Halloween. More disturbing than cheesy, I still have to mention the reference, as I can't be alone in seeing this.
If you're looking for a movie that will scare you, this sequel will not disappoint you. I sat in the very back of the theater and watched folks (both male and female) jump out of their seats throughout. There's something much creepier about a story that could actually be true vs. something admittedly fictional.
So if you go—and I recommend strongly that you do—stay through the credits for a "real" surprise.
~~~
After experiencing the evil energy of the famous Amityville haunted house, paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren needed a break—the demonic presence that Lorraine sensed was just too disturbing. So they took one, until another high-profile case demanded their attention.
Reprising their roles from 2013's The Conjuring, Wilson and Farmiga feel so familiar as the real-life Warrens it's easy to buy the story they're selling.
From their cozy home in Connecticut, they travel to London to investigate the haunting of a house on Green Street in Enfield, occupied by a single mother and her four children. The second-oldest daughter, on the cusp of puberty, is the target of most of the paranormal activity.
After the police visit and watch a chair levitate and move across the room on its own, determining they can do nothing to help the family, the home becomes the focus of a media circus. Tabloid journalists descend upon the street to try to capture the happenings on film. Some they do; some they don't. And the debate rages on (to this day) as to whether or not this was a hoax.
In the midst of the chaos, the Warrens stopped by and spent time at the house, witnessing and documenting the alleged possession of young Janet (Madison Wolfe). Wolfe does a tremendous job of appearing both terrified and terrifying depending on who her body was representing, making this less a "gotcha" horror film and more of the psychologically troubling kind.
Speaking of psychologically troubling: the demon that Lorraine sees in her visions throughout the film looks like Marilyn Manson dressed as a nun for Halloween. More disturbing than cheesy, I still have to mention the reference, as I can't be alone in seeing this.
If you're looking for a movie that will scare you, this sequel will not disappoint you. I sat in the very back of the theater and watched folks (both male and female) jump out of their seats throughout. There's something much creepier about a story that could actually be true vs. something admittedly fictional.
So if you go—and I recommend strongly that you do—stay through the credits for a "real" surprise.
~~~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)