Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Gerald's Game

2017 has been a good year for Stephen King.  “The Mist” television series had come and went, The Dark Tower was an idea that should’ve been taken care of more sufficiently, ”Mr. Mercedes” has been going strong on AT&T’s Audience Network, the great It is captivating audiences in theaters (with the second chapter set to be released in 2019), there’s a Netflix original coming up based on King’s short story, “1922,” and an interesting TV series has been announced for 2018 called “Castle Rock.”  Along with his adaptations going strong, King has been killing it with his criticisms of Donald Trump on Twitter, even getting himself blocked by the POTUS, which gives King that much approbation in my opinion.


Who’d have thought that Stephen King would still be relevant in today’s bevy of horror films?  Although I think King has heaps of stories that can be easily adapted to the screen, it would have seemed audiences today wouldn’t enjoy the types of stories he has churned out over the years, choosing to see these cheap jump-scare, teenie-bopper flicks.  But It has proven audiences are smarter than that and choose to see something more than a scare fest—they truly do want to see something much deeper and meaningful.


With all that said, cinema and network television are not the only forms of media to see these worthy films.  The advent of Netflix Originals is what’s taking the world by storm, rolling out a well-rounded cluster of films and on-going series (which have seasons released all at once).  With already a multitude of Marvel Studios superhero series earning high praise, there have also been some strong docu-dramas and full-length movies receiving the same acclaim.  Continuing that strong current of films is the Stephen King adaptation of his 1992 novel of the same name, Gerald’s Game.


Let me synopsize…


Trying to rekindle their marriage, Jessie and Gerald Burlingame (Carla Gugino and Bruce Greenwood) take a drive out to their remote lake house, planning to spend a few days by themselves.  Attempting to spice up their sex life, Gerald decides to handcuff Jessie to their bed frame, but she has second thoughts about it when he gets too far into their role-playing.  However, when Gerald dies unexpectedly of an apparent heart attack, Jessie must fight to survive as she’s still handcuffed to the bed.


The announcement of this film took me by surprise a bit, for I hadn’t heard anything about it besides the little tidbit of info a few years ago where some movie article mentioned it might be made into a movie.  Knowing the source material, I really didn’t think it’d make a good movie, maybe even being perceived as boring if filmmakers tried to adapt it.


Here in this Netflix film, released on September 29th of this year, the story is set up well enough, modernizing it for today’s audiences and making it believable for everyone to suspend disbelief.  For instance, would a couple just leave their front door wide open when going inside to start a bit of intimacy?  Maybe, I guess…if you know there isn’t a soul around for miles and miles.  But there aren’t too many other scenes where you’d sit there and say, “I can’t believe that can happen!”  The story gets going right away, with Gugino’s character stuck in her predicament, her husband dead at the foot of the bed, all with her mind playing tricks as she slowly starts to unravel while trying to find a way to save herself.


Without giving away too much, I felt the technique of bringing second images of Jessie and Gerald to life as sort of the two sides of her conscience was a lot better than the idea of just having a voiceover to hear her thoughts, which is mainly what you’d read in King’s novel—that works in a book, but not so much in a movie.  Jessie remembering her childhood in the form of flashbacks helped with her character’s development and I found the story interesting as well.


With the flashback scenes diving into Jessie’s past, it gave the story added depth as it had with the novel.  It explained Jessie’s weakness in how she’d gotten herself in the situation she was in as well as helping her overcome it.  Additionally, these scenes takes us away from the boring claustrophobic atmosphere some audiences may think of when the story takes place in a small setting the whole time.


Director Mike Flanagan does a fine job of helming this feature, as well as presenting it to us as a true adaptation.  Flanagan co-wrote the script with Jeff Howard and did the right thing by not deviating too far from the source material.  In fact, the only variations I’d noticed in the story is the modernization of certain aspects, such as cell phones and the inclusion of Viagra.  Other than that, everything here is taken straight from the book.


Back to the dual roles of each main actor, having them play the two sides to Jessie’s conscience really needed two people with great acting chops.  Carla Gugino and Bruce Greenwood fill those roles perfectly, showing us what the imprisoned Jessie is thinking and planning, as well as giving her ideas on how to cope with her situation in both good and bad ways.  They come across as the angel and devil on Jessie’s shoulders, which was pretty ingenious on the filmmakers’ parts.


Although the story isn’t really your typical horror narrative, there’s still an aspect of fear that leads the audience to feel that way.  Not only does our main character have the trepidation of her circumstances, but she also has to contend with a hungry stray dog that keeps showing up to feed (remember, the front door was left wide open) and the hallucination (or existence) of a terrifying visitor called The Moonlight Man (Carel Struycken).  All of this adds to the dreadful atmosphere to give Jessie the need to get out of handcuffs.


As a side note, those who get squeamish when viewing gory effects may want to turn away from the screen occasionally—especially during the climax at the lake house.  But—Who knows?—the story may be a life lesson to those who may be stuck in this situation where they find themselves handcuffed to bed posts and need to get themselves out.


So…what’s my final “bit” on Gerald’s Game?


From start to finish, I was engrossed and taken back to the days when I was reading this book.  The acting from both Gugino and Greenwood were great, giving just the right balance needed between the two.  In fact, it was more understandable on how everything went down than what had transpired in the book, particularly the feelings the characters had for one another.  The night scenes that Gugino’s character had to go through were spooky and a bit terrifying, especially when you put yourself in her situation.  The only part of the film that let me down was the conclusion of the story, which seemed out of place and almost felt like it was tacked on as an afterthought.  But, as a whole, I loved this movie and felt it was worthy to be called a true Stephen King adaptation.  If you’ve got the Netflix streaming service, please take a look at this film—you won’t be disappointed.


Thanks for reading.


Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.


Monday, September 18, 2017


Before becoming such an aficionado of Stephen King’s literary works, I still had knowledge of his writings and knew the connection he had of books-to-film as far back as I can remember.  From the first adaptation of Brian De Palma’s Carrie in 1976 and all through the first part of the 80s, I’d recognized Stephen King as a writer of horror fiction, but never dove into his books until my senior year of high school.  Finally being curious about what was so special about this author, I’d borrowed my brother’s paperback of “It” and dove into it, all the while worried about the size of the book (I’d made sure to check out the page-count and was a little perplexed to see it was over 1,100 pages long…longer than any book I had read in that period of my life).  Within the first chapter, however, I found I couldn’t put it down and was completely taken into another world—another city and another time, in fact—to the made-up small town of Derry in Stephen King’s home state of Maine.


I don’t know how long it took to get through it—it didn’t feel that long, it felt like too short of a time—but I was amazed, and a bit saddened, by the time I’d finished it.  Amazed at the imagination King had put down on paper and saddened because I’d come to the end of that great story.  To this day, whenever anyone asks or talks about his catalog of stories, I cite Stephen King’s “It” to be my favorite of all his books. 


Some few years later, in 1990, a television event was broadcast—“Stephen King’s It”—which was a bit disappointing, since TV movies had its limits compared to a theatrical release.  But the film had—and still has—its merits, particularly the first half of the film, so it’s still enjoyable to watch.  However, the terrifying aspects and the wondrous descriptions of the creature were missing from the film, so it left me—as well as a lot of other Stephen King fans—a little flat.


Now, here we are, 27 years later (that number definitely has some significance if you’ve read the novel), and Stephen King’s “It” gets the theatrical treatment, with no holds barred and all the R-ratedness you can stand.  Going through a few years of developmental hell—some interchangeable director selections and an adjustment of casts—it was finally announced that Andy Muschietti was hired on as director.  Having a couple of foreign films under his belt, he finally had gained some recognition for his American film, Mama, in 2013.  But I have to admit, it was a little worrisome to hear that Muschietti, a relatively unknown director, was given the reins to such a high-profile horror film.


So…what did I think?  Let’s break down the plot first…


A group of bullied kids—Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher), Ben Hanscom (Jeremy Ray Taylor), Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis), Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard), Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs), Eddie Kaspbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), and Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff)—calling themselves The Losers Club, band together when a monster, taking the appearance of a clown named Pennywise (Bill Skarsgård), begins hunting children.


As a teenager, just starting to devote my life to the fantastic world of Stephen King novels, reading this book was terrific and I’d always imagined the goings-on in the story as a possible movie.  One of the first monster encounters described in the book is when the character of Georgie Denbrough (played by Jackson Robert Scott in this new adaptation) is taken as Pennywise’s victim.  It’s horrific and viscerally described, which led me to believe a movie would never show a scene as shocking as what I’d read.  Now, in 2017, it finally had come to fruition just as I’d read it in 1986 and it was as scary and shocking as I’d imagined it to be.  It was at this point of the movie that I’d known…this flick was going to be fantastic.


Coming in to work the next day, speaking to my coworkers about my experience, some of them had shown their distaste of horror movies—either not enjoying the idea of being scared or just not wanting to see disturbing images on screen.  To them, I mentioned that It would be just as great of a film if they were to take out all of the scary parts—even omitting the scenes featuring Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise.  The interaction and overall acting displayed by this young group of children was amazing and so entertaining.  The dialogue shared by all of them flowed so smoothly, you really felt like they had been friends forever, nothing feeling forced or fake.


For me, the standout of the ensemble was Jack Dylan Grazer playing the character of Eddie Kaspbrak.  Remembering the book, the character wasn’t really that much of an important part of the story, but the professionalism and performance displayed by this young man were really felt.  He had quite few funny moments, especially between him and Finn Wolfhard (playing Richie Tozier, who, understandably, stole the movie with his constant quips and dirty jokes).


For a horror film, you’d think there wouldn’t be too much emotion felt, but there were quite a few moments nevertheless.  You experience this, even in the trailer before the movie was released, between the brothers Bill and Georgie, as the older brother makes his younger one a paper sailboat to play with out in the flooded gutters of the neighborhood street.  Even in the later scenes where you’re not sure if Bill is really seeing his little brother or if it’s a forced vision that Pennywise had created, it’s heartbreaking at times.


Now, let’s talk about Pennywise…


Although the TV movie back in 1990 was pretty tame, it can be agreed by most that the performance of Tim Curry as Pennywise was what made that flick watchable.  The makeup and outfit, complete with his menacing performance, will always have a place in Stephen King fans’ hearts.  So to have a new actor donning the clown shoes must’ve been a bit worrying for all involved.  However, rest-assured, the moment we see Skarsgård for the first time, enticing Georgie Denbrough to reach for his sailboat that fell down into the sewer, we’re in—all in.  The bulbous head, the grease-painted face, and the tufts of orange-red hair…it’s both terrifying (as most clowns tend to be, regardless of what the World Clown Association may think) and friendly, oddly enough.  Skarsgård goes from a hilarious giggle-inducing caricature to a menacing fiend in an instant, definitely sending shivers down your spine with his glowing eyes and sinister smile.  Although he doesn’t have much screen time, when Pennywise shows up, it usually scares the hell out of you.


If I can point out a minor weak aspect of the film, it’s probably just the absence of some character development.  But that’s to be expected in a film with such a big cast, there’s just not enough time to tell everybody’s story.  The important thing to see in this film is that these children band together and do what’s necessary to fight the evil bestowed upon their town, and to do it as loving friends—that definitely shows.


I really wish I can go on and talk about some of the scenes that were entertaining and memorable, but I don’t want to spoil too much of it…it just needs to be seen and felt without knowing much about the story.  Instead, I’ll just give you my final “bit” on It...


A brilliant movie, filmed so well, showing us the innocence of the time between these young kids, yet tragic to observe what they go through.  The cast is perfect, making me wonder how they’re going to top this in the sequel—in the book, the first half is all about the kids, while the second half is how they all return 27 years later as adults—so I have to wonder who they’re going to cast as the adult versions of this awesome group of friends.  I can’t help but compare this to the 1990 television movie, because the first half was excellent while the second half wasn’t as good.  All in all, it’s not too often when I’m willing to see a movie for a second time during its theatrical run, but it’s pretty rare when I want to go right back into the theater to see it again right after watching it.  Whether you’re horror fan or not, if you love movies like Stand By Me or The Goonies, then you’ll love It…go see it!


Thanks for reading!


Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein

I’ve always enjoyed the comedy duo of Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, remembering watching their movies as a child as I’d spend my Saturdays watching the local channel that would feature their films.  They were such a great pair—Abbott being the straight man and shining Costello on as the chubby little guy who usually cried wolf.  But it’d been years and years since I had the good fortune to sit down and watch one of their movies, not recalling any of the ones I’d seen as a kid.  Knowing that the most popular ones they’d filmed were the ones that featured the Universal Monsters, I checked with Netflix for the availability on the first one and had it sent to me.

Some of the most notable and recognizable movie characters are the Universal Monsters from the 1930s to the 1950s.  Icons like Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster, and The Wolf Man are just a few of the well-known monsters that we’ve all come to know and love.  To this day, those movies still work and will forever be timeless, as the use of eerie shadows and tranquil illumination make me feel that I can never get enough of them.  The first of the monsters movies—Dracula—is nearly 90 years old and it was the one that started them all.  Frankenstein and Bride of Frankenstein soon followed, making Universal Studios monster movies the phenomenon of its time.
The witty comedy duo, Abbott and Costello, were a hit in the 40s, making Universal Studios a lot of money with their films.  Toward the end of that decade, it was quite an ingenious idea to have the comedy duo “meet” the popular horror monsters of that era with the first experiment beginning in 1948.  The idea was so successful that it spawned another four films where the two comics run into other popular scary movie characters in comedic fashion.  But the movie that started this trend, however, is none other than Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein.
Although the title makes it sound like the comics were only going to meet Frankenstein’s Monster (of course, the title is a misnomer, as Frankenstein was the name of the man who’d created the monster, not the name of the monster itself), but two other characters are brought into the mix as well.
Before any further discussion, here’s the plot breakdown of the film…
Two hapless freight handlers, Chick (Bud Abbott) and Wilbur (Lou Costello), find themselves encountering Dracula (Bela Lugosi), the Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange), and the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney Jr.).
Released in 1948, this was the perfect time for a mishmash of comedy and horror, putting together the genius comedy of Abbott and Costello with the ever-popular and ongoing Universal Studios monster movies.  With the recent films of The Wolf Man and House of Frankenstein still popular and going strong, it was a no-brainer to put this together. 
The director, Charles Barton, has quite a list of films he’s helmed from the early 1930s until the 1960s, with quite a few popular television series interspersed between.  One thing I’d noticed, however, was how many Abbott and Costello films he had directed and that number is eight.  Seems that Barton was a good fit with the comedy twosome and Universal Studios had recognized that, giving him the reins to direct the funnymen in all those hits.
Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein does feel like one of the serious Universal Classics at its heart, especially with Lugosi picking up where he had left off so many years before.  Although he had played a similar vampire character of Count Mora in Mark of the Vampire in 1935, this was the first time in 17 years that Lugosi came back to play Dracula in a feature-length movie.  Lon Chaney Jr.’s last outing as the lycanthroped Larry Talbot had only been 3 years prior along with Glenn Strange as Frankenstein’s Monster in House of Dracula.  But they all stepped into their roles flawlessly and had played them earnestly, regardless of the film being a comedy.
By today’s standards, yes, the movie isn’t very scary and might be seen as a bit cheesy.  Even the comedy of Abbott and Costello isn’t that great in this flick, but all the components that were brought together for this outing totally makes up for any inconsistencies you may notice.  Some of the skits seen throughout this film made me chuckle—one in particular, when Costello needed to grab a table cloth and pulled it off while leaving all the glasses and candleholders in place, he stops to look at the camera, breaking the fourth wall…classic.  You’ll see quite a few scenes like that, where Lou Costello chews the scenery.  In fact, there are a few YouTube videos you can find where there are some very funny bloopers from this movie, a lot of them having Glenn Strange crack up at Costello’s antics.
First off, one of the biggest misconceptions of all the popular monsters is that Frankenstein is the name of the monster in the film of the same name.  Really, the title refers to the doctor who created the creature with it never receiving a name within the film’s story.  It’s been a misnomer for years and years, and I’m sure if you were to show a picture of the monster to anyone and asked them to name the creature, they’d reply “Frankenstein.”  But here, in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, Dr. Frankenstein isn’t in the story, but all this can be overlooked…unless you’re a picky movie enthusiast like me.
You can tell all the cast is having fun, at times not really taking the film seriously, but overall you can tell Universal had struck a gold mine with this concept.  In fact, the studio mined the idea four more times with Abbott and Costello Meet the Killer, Boris Karloff (1949), Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man (1951), Abbott and Costello Meet Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1953), and Abbott and Costello Meet the Mummy (1955).
Lastly, I’ll say it’s kind of sad that the real creator of these famous monsters wasn’t asked to come back for these films and that’s the great make-up artist, Jack P. Pierce.  He, alone, is responsible for the appearance of Frankenstein’s Monster and The Wolf Man, as well as many other famous monsters from Universal Studios’ canon of early horror flicks.  Here, Bud Westmore was brought in for the task of replicating Pierce’s work.  And it’s not to disparage Westmore’s efforts, it’s just upsetting that Jack Pierce was treated the way he was by Universal.
So…what’s my final “bit” on Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein?
The movie has nearly the same feel as most of the Universal Monster movies, just supplementing some of the light comedy touches from the comic duo.  It never feels like a parody of the films from the 30s and 40s—Bela Lugosi as Dracula is just as ominous, Glenn Strange as Frankenstein’s Monster is somewhat menacing, and Lon Chaney Jr. as The Wolf Man is once again frightening—so, they’re never put in situations that make them look ridiculous.  The movie, as a whole, is a good time and fun for all ages.
Thanks for reading!
Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.

Friday, August 4, 2017

The Hidden

Although I have a great appreciation for the films of the 1980s, it’s usually reserved for the ones released within the early part of the decade with anything after 1985 being ignored or not as enjoyable…for the most part.  For instance, my love of the Friday the 13th franchise is mainly for the first four films and I usually stop after watching the fourth film.  With the A Nightmare on Elm Street film franchise, I go as far as The Dream Warriors.  It just seems that the latter half of the 80s included too many silly films and they all became parodies of what we’d seen a mere few years before it.  But for some reason, 1987 was a year that churned out some very memorable movies that were entertaining and exciting.


With that said, and as unfortunate as it is, The Hidden had fallen through the cracks and hasn’t seen resurgence thus far.  But I’m here to tell you…it needs to be looked at and discussed.


The plot breakdown…


An alien parasite with the ability to possess human bodies goes on a merciless crime spree in Los Angeles, committing dozens of murders and robberies.  In pursuit of the extraterrestrial criminal is FBI agent Lloyd Gallagher (Kyle MacLachlan) and police detective Tom Beck (Michael Nouri) who is investigating the recent outbreak of violence.  Closing in on the vicious intruder, the city faces a brutal threat like no other it has ever encountered.


Speaking of the 80s, there was a time back then when many productions were filmed in and around the Los Angeles area.  Although I’m not that familiar with the L.A. area, seeing these films almost makes me think I know it quite well.  Most of the films were memorable classics like The Terminator, To Live and Die in L.A., Lethal Weapon, and Die Hard, and those films always bring a sense of nostalgia into me.  I can go through a slough of films that most of you would recognize, but The Hidden stands out as an underrated classic—to me anyway.


I remember seeing this in theaters way back in 1987 and it seemed to be somewhat of a hit, resonating a little bit of a following at the time, but it seemed to be quickly forgotten after its run in theaters.  It’s understandable, of course, since 1987 was a big year for hit films.  Films like Beverly Hills Cop II, Lethal Weapon, Robocop, Creepshow 2, Fatal Attraction, and Full Metal Jacket—which preceded and followed The Hidden—made it a vague memory soon after it came out.  In fact, I happened to be perusing eBay when I noticed a Japanese import of this DVD which made me pause and gave me a bit of a surprise as it instantly brought me back to 1987.  Believing it to be an above-average sci-fi/action/thriller, I knew I had to add it to my collection.


The film grabs you right from the beginning, as it opens on a bank robbery, seen from a security camera, with a man shooting up the place before taking off with his take.  One part of this scene that I enjoy is after the crook shoots everybody up and is about to leave with his loot, he pauses to look at the security camera and smiles before shooting it out.  He then goes out to his Ferrari, pops in a cassette to blast some heavy metal music (these aspects are a repeated trait of this villain in the film), and speeds off with the police sirens being heard in the background.  Right away, this movie sucks you in.  It leaves you with so many questions: Who is this guy? Why is he so violent? Why is he openly breaking the law, even after getting away from the bank?  It’s the right way to start a film like this, hooking the audience to watch until the end.


For a little known film, with probably not that big of a budget, the special effects were—and still are—pretty convincing.  Even though the movie is thirty years old, it still makes me scratch my head here and there as I wonder how they performed some of those gags.  It’s no secret, especially if you read the plot summary to the story, that the film is about an alien parasite that takes over human bodies and will leave a dying one to take over another.  So performing those scenes would’ve been a daunting task, even by today’s standards.  I won’t get into the descriptions of those scenes, but I would’ve thought the special effects would’ve looked phony today, but it still holds up.  The gurus that worked on it obviously make use of dummy heads of the actors that had to be created, but they looked spot on.  Compared to The Terminator and Robocop, which were made around the same time and employed similar special effects techniques, the mechanical heads here looked way more convincing.


One critic’s quote on the cover of the DVD, by some random movie journalist, cites this film is “Invasion of the Body Snatchers meets The Terminator, which is the perfect description because that’s the feel of this film throughout: The movie doesn’t let up, there’s no dull downtime (besides the dinner visit, but that lets us—the audience—get to know the characters of Gallagher and Beck a bit more), and it’s basically the good guys against an unstoppable force that can take over anyone it chooses.  Hell, I’d even say there’s a little bit of The Thing in this flick as there’s a bit of a who’s who plot device to the story.


Always giving kudos to animal actors, I have to give props to Roy the Dog who plays Jake, Lieutenant Masterson’s (Clarence Felder) dog.  A characteristic that’s shown throughout the film, when the parasite takes over a body, the alien-controlled person tends to slightly lick their lips to appear menacing or cluing in the audience to show that the person we see is the antagonist.  At one point during the movie, the dog becomes infested with the parasite and later we see it looking at Gallagher as it licks his lips.  The scene always puts a smile on my face.


If there’s anything I can nitpick about the film is that I wish there was a backstory shown of where this parasite came from, maybe a scene showing it escaping the planet from where it originated.  But I understand the budget the film had to work with and it really doesn’t take anything away for me.


Being a 30-year-old movie, you’re going to see some silliness like the cars of the time and the technology available (like a car stereo that plays cassettes or a man walking around with a boom box), but as long as you can get past that, you’ll enjoy the movie immensely. 


My final “bit” on The Hidden?


The movie is a forgotten gem that many people may not know about or have never seen before.  Although it’s your typical 80s flick with a lot of gun fighting and action scenes, it’s a well-made film that encompasses so much originality and the right balance of humor and gravitas.  As I’d mentioned, the special effects are still believable and the acting is taken seriously, making this movie a must for a fun, popcorn-munching good time.  Maybe Shout! Factory can get a collector’s edition going with this one…I know I’d appreciate it.


Thanks for reading!


Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.


Monday, July 24, 2017

Get Out

Most of you know the comic genius of the Key and Peele duo: Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele.  Although the men are talented comedians—both in the business for some time before hitting stardom on the comedy sketch show, “MadTV,” then hitting the television waves with their own show: “Key and Peele”—Jordan Peele has made a name for himself lately as a film director.  In fact, his only directorial job so far has been the praised film we’re going to talk about today…Get Out.

It’s time for a young African-American, Chris (Daniel Kaluuya), to meet the parents of his white girlfriend, Rose (Allison Williams), for a weekend visit at their secluded estate in the woods.  But before long, the friendly and polite ambience will give way to a nightmare.

For a first time director—let alone, horror movie director—Jordan Peele definitely knows how to set the mood and arranges it eerily so in Get Out.  Although some of the tropes featured in the beginning structure of the story are typical thriller clichés, Peele tracks it well and fits it into the film without making it stick out like a sore thumb.  For example, at the beginning of the film, the young couple, Chris and Rose, is on their way to the parents’ home and something shocking happens to act as an omen.  There’s no rhyme or reason to it, nor does it spell out anything in particular, but before you have time to think about it, Peele’s setting up the next scene to make you invest your feelings into what’s coming next.  He doesn’t allow the audience to dwell upon certain scenes that may or may not be stereotypical or overly dramatic, he just keeps the story moving along to keep our brains busy.

Racism is definitely in the forefront of this story, going from Chris’s concern that Rose should tell her parents about him, to the parents'—especially the dad—over-acceptance of their daughter’s boyfriend, to the obvious majority of Caucasian people throughout the story…it’s constantly there and brought to attention at times in the most uncomfortable way.  The typical dialogue that white people seem to fall back on, to try—and fail—and fit in with an African-American is amusingly used here (Rose’s dad says he’d vote for Obama for a third term if he could is one of the many uncomfortable conversations you’ll hear), yet it gives the movie an even more unnerving undertone and making us worry for the central character of Chris.

I’ve got to say that the performances of Catherine Keener and Bradley Whitford as Rose’s parents, the Armitages, were probably the two that I’d accepted right away.  With the setting at their home, which is in the middle of some woods and far from any neighbors (as mentioned by Mr. Armitage himself), it’s believable to think that they’d truly be out of touch with society and to be as odd as they are when Chris first meets them.  Keener and Whitford play the open-armed parents beautifully, making it the only time we—the audience—truly feel at ease...or vulnerable.

It’s when we meet the rest of the main cast that we start to feel something’s amiss, especially with the hired help: Walter (Marcus Henderson) and Georgina (Betty Gabriel).  Walter is introduced as the groundskeeper and Georgina as the help around the house.  Of course, ones thought will go to how it seems a bit racist to have African-Americans as servants, but Mr. Armitage actually gives an acceptable explanation that the two were around and helped with the grandparents when they were on hospice care, explaining that they were like family and didn’t want them to go after the grandparents passed on.  Fair enough…but the strange actions of Walter and Georgina are what really show something’s not right at the estate.  And how could I forget Rose’s brother, Jeremy (Caleb Landry Jones)?  The over-aggressive, yet accepting way, he treats Chris during their first dinner together is a little off-putting and sets the tone for his relationship with him. 

Yes, Jordan Peele plays this out perfectly, making the audience wonder just what they hell is going on with everybody surrounding the Armitages throughout the story.  When remembering certain parts of the film, or rewatching it, Peele actually puts subtle hints of foreshadowing that really get under your skin once you get to the third act of this film.

Of course, what every horror movie needs is some comedy interspersed throughout and that’s where Chris’s friend, Rod (LilRel Howery), comes in.  Rod is Chris’s friend who works for TSA at the airport and is housesitting for him while he’s away.  I can’t help but think this part should’ve gone to Peele himself, but Howery is hilarious in the short scenes that he’s featured in.

Is there anything I can nitpick about Get Out?  Well…yeah.  But…it’ll give away the twist of the story, so I really don’t want to divulge that. 

I’m actually glad that I stayed away from spoilers before going into it and stayed away from web sites and YouTube channels that discussed the movie.  Going into this cold is the best thing one can do and you’ll thank yourself for it.  I really had no idea what was going to happen and it made the experience that much more exciting.

Lastly, I’ll say that I had really enjoyed Daniel Kaluuya’s performance as Chris, how levelheaded he played the part and the emotion he displayed during some of the tough scenes, were great.  Although he has quite a résumé in film and television, this is the first time I’ve witnessed his acting.  He’s set to be in Marvel Studio’s The Black Panther next year, so I look forward to following his career.

So…what’s my final “bit” on Get Out?

I’m so blown away by Jordan Peele’s directorial debut, I can’t say it enough.  After watching this, I thought for sure Peele’s been a seasoned veteran of helming productions.  But, for being a first time director, and to take charge of such a great movie, I have to applaud him fervently.  So many great touches here and there, the lighting used so well, the perfect settings, and such a slight connotation of awkwardness brought out by the actors…all blends together and turns into an amazing film.  I’m looking forward to seeing what Jordan Peele does next.  You need to see this film.

Thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.

Monday, July 17, 2017

War for the Planet of the Apes


Here we are, just six years after the remarkable first film in these new reboots that has featured the most incredible special effects in movie history.  Yes, War for the Planet of the Apes has arrived and what a feast for the eyes and ears!  Say what you will about the Avatar films and how they’d set the path for motion capture CGI, but these films have grown and secured such a foothold within the special effects spectacles we see just about every summer. 

I’ve always been a fan—not a huge fan, but a fan—of the Planet of the Apes series of films.  The first one, released in 1968, is still an amazing film despite the laughable costumes and masks that the actors wear to depict the apes within that production.  But the story is so captivating and engrossing that you quickly forget about the cheesy makeup effects of that time.  I can accept it because I would just imagine that the apes had evolved over the centuries to stand more upright and to become taller, so it’s not too far gone of a conclusion.  Where it’s ridiculous—and I can’t remember which sequel it was—but there’s a film in the series where the apes end up back in time and are captured and believed to be normal apes.   

Back in 2011, ten years after the flop that Burton’s film had been, I really had thought the Apes films had run their course and couldn’t possibly be able to provide any more to the whole story.  But I was wrong.  It had been the right time, especially with the special effects technology, to start from the beginning and render realistic-looking chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans to show exactly how this all started.  Rise played that out brilliantly and Dawn continued the story faultlessly.

So here we are with War for the Planet of the Apes and I was chomping at the bit to go out to see this flick.  I say this with a bit of chagrin, but I think I’d been looking forward to seeing this movie more so than Spider-Man: Homecoming.  Suffice it to say, I think War may be the…

…well, let’s break down the plot summary and go at this step-by-step…

After the apes suffer unimaginable losses at the hands of a new enemy, The Colonel (Woody Harrelson), Caesar (Andy Serkis) wrestles with his darker instincts and begins his own mythic quest to avenge his kind.

If you’ve seen the previous entry to this franchise, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, then you know this story was coming.  At the end of the previous film, it was said through exposition that the military was on its way to fight the supposed threat of the apes.  In a way, the transition to this film is seamless and we can go right into this plot without much thought of what had happened beforehand.  It’ll help to refresh yourself with a viewing of the preceding two entries, however, just so you don’t have to think much about some of the aspects of this film.  Overall, we knew this was coming, we knew this was going to be a culmination of Caesar’s story—in one way or another—and we knew this would be an afflicting plight for both the humans and the apes.

Although most of the audiences’ presumptions of what will happen are correct, there are still a few surprises to be seen as well as a few connections to the original 1968 film.  Along the way, the audience will see great acting through the wonder of motion capture technology (and it is quite incredible this time around—more on that later), a few heartbreaking moments, and some delightfully humorous moments (mainly with the new character of “Bad Ape,” a quickly-established crowd favorite, played by Steve Zahn).

When thinking of the special effects used in this particular film, one can’t help but think back on the previous two and know that War surpassed them both.  Don’t get me wrong, Rise had some groundbreaking effects, especially with Andy Serkis’s Mo-Cap performances as Caesar, and it improved quite a bit in the sequel, but there were some scenes where the CGI was a bit spotty and obvious.  In Rise, the young Caesar wasn’t as realistic as the adult version and can take you out of the movie when seeing it today.  Dawn was better, but one scene in particular wasn’t done well and that was when the special effects team rendered the bear and elk during the hunting scene at the beginning of the film.  Here, in War for the Planet of the Apes, I didn’t notice any unrealistic execution of characters.

As for he humans in this story, Woody Harrelson played the villain as well as he could.  Though it was your typical cookie-cutter bad guy, the point was made that he had a personal vendetta against the apes and had no empathy for them whatsoever.  You learn early on that he’s the Colonel Kurtz (Apocalypse Now reference) of the story who is going rogue with his platoon.  Not only is he an enemy of the apes, but of the remaining humans as well.  Harrelson’s Colonel is heartless and unlikable in this story, making his character a perfect adversary to Caesar.

To add to the conversation of the motion capture creature-rendering technology used this time around, I really think the Academy Awards need to add a category for Mo-Cap performances, because Andy Serkis is the best out there.  Either have that new grouping or include him in the competition for best actor—his performances of Gollum in Lord of the Rings, the title character in King Kong, and Supreme Leader Snoke in Star Wars: The Force Awakens are some of the most incredible accomplishments one will ever see.  Along those lines, and seeing how well the effects crew was able to realistically render the apes, I’d seen an interesting tweet from PETA the other day, where they’d mention how this new Apes movie was proof positive that filmmakers won’t ever have to use live animals again.  I really wouldn’t go that far—it’s a bit cheaper to hire a dog trainer to have a dog obey some simple commands than to have a CGI-rendered dog that’ll cost quite a bit of money to showcase—but I see what they’re getting at with that statement and that’s high praise to the individuals who were able to bring Caesar and his apes to life.

My final “bit” on War for the Planet of the Apes?

A stellar completion to the Caesar arc of these new Apes films, but I still hope we see more.  Perhaps the filmmakers can spin off or just keep going with this world to see how the apes came to be in the original ’68 film.  How did they evolve to upright-walking apes?  When did they decide to wear clothing?  How did the Statue of Liberty get buried on the coastline?  Even more, will 20th Century Fox allow the original film to be remade/rebooted/reimagined?  I wouldn’t mind and I would even welcome it just so it fits in this string of films.  But War is a great conclusion to a fabulous trilogy of films documenting Caesar’s rise to power, his leadership, and his legacy.  Andy Serkis is awesome, as are all the motion capture actors in this, and the box office success speaks volumes on that fact.  If you haven’t already, go see War for the Planet of the Apes now.

Thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.