The Purge: Anarchy

Last year, there was an original film that I had been looking forward to seeing when they first teased us with trailers and television spots.  It seemed like a good concept and gave us some eerie visuals while presenting a simple, yet frightening, story set-up.  2013's The Purge, a futuristic tale, set around 2022, has the USA's government, the "New Founding Fathers of America" allowing a nationwide purge where any criminal activity is legal for a 12-hour period.  So anyone, anywhere, can murder, rape, steal, etc., with no repercussions.  The film, starring Ethan Hawke and Lena Headey was good, but a bit on the claustrophobic side, with the action (what there was of it) staying inside their home and never leaving to see what was going on outside.  This year's sequel, The Purge: Anarchy, corrects that problem and goes full bore with some exciting visuals and formidable situations that our protagonists go through.

The film mainly centers around a man named Leo (Frank Grillo) as he's shown at home, getting some firearms together, shortly before the annual purge is about to start.  As he looks upon a photograph of himself and a young buy who we assume is his son that died, we see he's purposely going out into the city to

do some purging on whoever's responsible (we assume).  As the purge begins, Leo drives out into the city's downtown area and grudgingly saves the lives of a mother and daughter, Eva and Cali (Carmen Ejogo and Zoë Soul), who were about to be seized by some men in armor as they were being forcibly led into a big truck.  Before getting away from the scene, another couple who had broken down in their car not far from the downtown area, Shane and Liz (Zach Gilford and Kiele Sanchez), end up with Leo as well.  He's now faced with helping these people to safety as he wants to finish what he came out to start...to purge on the one who wronged him.

I must say that this sequel surpasses the first film threefold.  Remembering what I felt was wrong with the original was fully corrected here in this sequel.  Don't get me wrong, the first film was a whole different subgenre as it was more of a home invasion type of story, whereas this sequel was something different all together.  You can't really call it an action movie, although there are some shoot-outs and some car chase scenes, and it's really not a horror movie per se.  I guess the best category I can give this film is a dark dystopian thriller.

Frank Grillo has had bit parts in his career, but I remember most of them in some good movies.  He played the asshole-turn-good-guy in The Grey, had a pretty good part in the Mother's Day remake, and was pretty good as Brock Rumlow/Crossbones in Captain America: The Winter Soldier.  But in The Purge: Anarchy, he is awesome as the title character of Leo.  You get a sense that he's a Frank Castle/Punisher type of man in this film as he had lost a family member to someone's wrong-doing and he's just throwing himself out into hell in order to get revenge.  As the first part of the film goes along, you think he might as well be the Punisher as he's dressed in black, has some awesome firepower, and definitely has some defensive and offensive skills.  And that's what the first film needed—someone to cheer for.  In the original, everyone sort of waited around, trying to stay safe in the house, while Leo went out and kicked some ass in this sequel.  Grillo took this part and made it his own.

In the first film, we only get a taste of what went on outside of the home, seeing news footage that the main

characters are watching while they're staying safe behind their secured doors and windows.  But in this sequel, we, the audience, are brought out into the open, seeing every terrible crime happen in front of our faces.  We feel the tension and fear the main characters are feeling as they try to dodge the purgers and make their way to safety.  Every situation the characters get themselves into, whether it's meant to be in a safe place or out on the streets, we just know something bad's about to happen and it keeps us on the edge of our seats.

Usually I see something in a film that I can hone in on and complain about, but not with The Purge: Anarchy.  From start to finish, I loved this film and thought to myself that I'll certainly buy this one on home media.  I never felt that way about the first one and, as it stands, I never bought the Blu-Ray of that one.  However, seeing that this sequel doesn't have the number 2 in it, you can treat this as a stand-alone film.  With that said, in case you wondered to yourself if you'd needed to watch the first one before watching this one, the answer is no.  You get enough info about what the purge is just by seeing the movie trailers, let alone the beginning of the film, so you really don't need to sit through the Ethan Hawke starrer.

With the original, you don't get much of what the purge is about, only that it's a government sanctioned event to rid the country of some of the low-lifes that plague our cities and neighborhoods.  In the sequel, the reasoning goes a bit further and has big political and social rationale involved.  The first film touched on it a bit, but not as much as it does here.

Although the plot centers around Leo and his quest to get revenge, there are also two other stories woven around his plight.  The two women who he saves from certain death were actually going through the turmoil of losing a close part of their family, while Shane and Liz were on their way to getting separated.  Now, the couple probably could've been left out of the story altogether, but the family member Eva and Cali lost had a lot to do with the purge and it's a pretty sickening look into the depravity of it.

Director and writer James DeMonaco definitely does it right this time, as he gives us more to see and understand.  As I'd said, in the first one, he kept the story isolated and from the point-of-view of characters hiding from the terrible goings-on outside of their safety zone.  So the natural progression of this story is to stick us right in the middle of it, seeing the worst of what happens.

Anyway, my final "bit" on The Purge: Anarchy?

A very good film, improving on the original wholeheartedly and with gusto.  Frank Grillo positively has the acting chops for the leading man and I'm glad he finally has a film he front-runs.  All characters in this sequel are interesting and you really care about what happens to them, because you can't help but put yourself in their position.  The sequel takes the great idea from the original and runs with it, full throttle.  If you're a sucker for thrillers, this film should not be missed.

Thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

A few years ago, I’d cited that Rise of the Planet of the Apes was the best movie I had seen that year.  What made it extra special was it surpassed my expectations dramatically with its interesting story and awesome special effects.  Rise was one movie that brought me to feeling like a kid again while watching it. 

So, here I was again, feeling anxious as I’d seen all the trailers and TV spots, showing us what was to come with the awaited sequel, 2014’s Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

My initial reaction and anticipation before seeing it today was that it was going to be a worthy sequel, but not as good as the 2011 film.  All praise went to Rupert Wyatt, back then, for his direction and vision of that film, as he gave us one hell of an Ape story to see.  It was thought he’d return for the sequel, but for whatever reason he didn’t (I heard he felt he couldn’t make the rushed release date set by Fox).  So enter Matt Reeves, hot from 2008’s Cloverfield and 2010’s Let Me In.  Both films, I thought, were terrific and I saw that Reeves had a good mind for what a moviegoer wanted to see in those genre movies.  Still, I had my doubts, thinking that the magic of the first film was credited to Rupert Wyatt, but after seeingDawn of the Planet of the Apes, I now see that my doubts—as bleak as they stood—were totally speculative.

The film opens ten years after what transpired at the end of the 2011 film as humankind was wiped out by the ALZ113 virus, but dubbed the Simian Flu.  The apes, led by Caesar (Andy Serkis), have been living in the Muir Woods and establishing it as their home.  But as it turns out, mankind was not completely

extinguished, as a group of people who are immune to the virus have made a colony in San Francisco.  Fuel is running out and they want to restore the hydroelectric facility within the apes’ territory.  Caesar allows it, but because of distrust among the humans and apes, it leads to a war between them.

First off, I’m glad they went with the jump to a decade later, rather than showing the human side of the story and how the virus destroyed them.  I believe if they went with that, it would be too long of an exposition that would take the story away from the apes.  The animated end credits scenes in the first film, as well as the beginning credits of this film, give us enough information about what had happened to everyone.  Even if they chose not to display those graphics of how the sickness spread, the scene at the end of Rise, where the airline pilot obviously caught the virus, would be enough for us to understand that the world’s population had snuffed out.

I’ve got to admit, I was a bit skeptical about what the story was going to be about.  With the trailers that we’ve been treated to in the past year, it sort of misled us.  When viewing them it made Caesar look like he was for the war, but you understood that he was forced to do so by the actions of Gary Oldman’s character, Dreyfus.  Seeing how Oldman acted in the trailer, made him look a bit one-dimensional.  But all that was a good thing because I hate it when trailers nearly give the whole story within it and almost make you want to avoid the film.  So even if you’ve seen most of the previews, you’ll still feel like you’re going into this film fresh and without any preconceived notions.  All in all, you’ll be surprised when you see Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

Speaking of Gary Oldman, he doesn’t have much to do in this film and I was hoping to see a bit more of him or that the film would flesh out his backstory as we see—through photos on a tablet that he powers up—he had lost a family to the virus outbreak.  It’s actually a powerful scene, seeing him break down and cry…you feel the film will center on him when the human side of the film progresses.  But I guess the filmmakers, instead, decided to focus the story on the character of Malcolm (Jason Clarke), the human who connects with Caesar and believes they can all coexist in peace together.  Clarke does a fine job and fills that gap that James Franco left behind.

One thing you’ll find yourself doing—especially if you’re a fan of special effects like me—is trying to decipher how the apes were rendered while watching the movie.  The CGI and motion capture combination used in this film is magnificent!  All the apes that are represented using mo-cap look so friggin’ real that it nearly blows my mind.  The close-ups are incredible and look so damned real, they all look like real chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas.  Some scenes show Caesar standing, with the wind blowing across

him, and you can see every strand of fur moving.  The very start of the film opens with a very tight close-up of his face and you can see every wrinkle, every blemish or scar, the eyeballs moving perfectly with the eyelids…it’s so fantastic, it must be seen to believe.  The end shot is the most spectacular shot I’ve seen of any CGI’d character…you’ll see what I mean when you watch this.

As in all of Andy Serkis’s motion capture performances, he is awesome once again as Caesar, making the character his own.  Along with him, we get quite a few other great performances that surpassed the first film.  Koba (Toby Kebbell) is a bit more fleshed out and voices his opinion—literally—about the humans and how he distrusts them and the performance by the actor is right up there with Serkis’s Caesar, especially a scene where Caesar tells Koba to let Malcolm and his people to do their “human work.”  You find yourself siding with Koba when he points to various scars on his body as he angrily repeats the words, “human work,” to each one.

The sets and backgrounds of the apes’ home are so organic and realistic—a fitting setting for the characters to live.  Where the humans make their home, a colony made within some buildings in San Francisco, is almost the contrast of the apes’ preserve.  But it comes with similarities, too, as there appears to be a lot of overgrown weeds, brush and foliage growing throughout the walls and streets of the humans’ area.  On top of that, it definitely gives you the sense that the world all went to hell as we see how the city is overrun by vegetation.  A great example in the film is a 76 Gas Station that seems to be placed in the middle of a forest, but then you realize the forest grew around the service station.

For an all-out Apes film, there is still quite a lot of emotion contained within it.  It helps that Caesar now has a family with a mate, Cornelia (Judy Greer), and an older son, Blue Eyes (Nick Thurston).  In the first minutes of the film, Caesar and Cornelia welcome another son into their world, giving even more emotion as he witnesses the birth.  It’s understood that Caesar does not hate all humans, especially remembering how he was brought up by one.  And we see that when he gives them some slack when they first intrude onto their territory.  However, most of the apes that he leads have contempt for the humans and it’s fueled even more by Koba’s hatred towards them.  On top of that, you sense the unsettled sentiment Caesar feels as he sees that his son has contempt for the humans as well, especially when he fails to change his son’s mind.

As a whole, the film doesn’t make the whole human race an evil entity, and it displays the apes the same way.  During the film, we already know that, yet we see the characters from both species having trouble seeing that.  Instead, they draw a line in the sand, thinking their own are good while the others are bad.  On that note, we can understand the animosity that some of the humans feel as they’re used to these creatures being contained and controlled by humans before the world went to hell and now they’re becoming the dominant beings.  We also understand the apes’ point of view where a lot of them were—in their mind—prisoners of the humans as they were kept in cages most of their lives.  So one really can’t go to this movie and expect the humans or apes to be the protagonists, and vice versa.

Overall, Matt Reeves took what Rupert Wyatt did in the first and seamlessly directed an earnest sequel that’s exciting and moving.  Although he had a wonderful “human” cast to work with, the movie wouldn’t be what it was if it weren’t for the great motion capture acting of Andy Serkis et al.

If there’s one thing that I can nitpick—it’s so minor and really won’t take you out of the movie—is the non-motion-capture CGI rendering.  Near the beginning we see a herd of deer running about, as well as a grizzly bear, and it’s a little off-putting because CGI was used to display them and it’s just not perfect.  Even the animation of Caesar’s new born son is just a little on the cartoon side.  But like I had said, these scenes shouldn’t bother you at all…just some things I wanted to point out.

So, what’s my final “bit” on Dawn of the Planet of the Apes?

The movie is the best I’ve seen during this summer blockbuster period, making the others, so far, pale in comparison.  The special effects are great and it just leaves me wanting more.  The next sequel has already been greenlit for 2016, so be ready!  Dawn is a movie that shouldn’t be missed!

As a side bit, I had heard there was an after-credits stinger, so I decided to look it up online.  I’d read that it was just some audio that you’ll hear, but no visual scene, so I decided to walk out before it happened.  I won’t tell you what it is, but I just wanted to warn you that if you were going to wait a few minutes through a bunch of credits, you weren’t going to see anything.  However, it’s a bit interesting and it’s actually open to interpretation, from what I’ve read.

Anyway, that’s it for now and I’ll be back soon!

Thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

The Godfather: Part III

Back in late 1989—or it might’ve been early 1990—it was announced that another sequel to The Godfather was going to be released, causing a lot of excitement in the world of cinema.  I had heard a lot of good things and high praise about the works of Francis Ford Coppola, yet I hadn’t seen any of his movies at that point in my life.  I knew of the first two Godfather films and how they were considered classics, but I had also heard they were epically lengthy films to sit through.  At that time, the only contact I’d had with those films was walking into the family room while my father was watching the first film on Showtime one night.  I was around eleven at that time—probably 1980 or 1981—and sat on the couch, watching it for a while up until the reveal of the horse’s decapitated head in Waltz’s bed.  I’m sure my father saw how horrified I was and ordered me to get to bed.  So, years later, when The Godfather: Part III was a few months away from being released, I decided to rent the first two films so I can go into the new sequel with the knowledge necessary.

Now, I’m not even going to try to discuss the first two films because they are so masterfully crafted and critics have been talking about these films for decades.  I love and cherish those two films and watch them—including part three—annually.  The first one is such a great story with all the players involved together in a great production.  The second one is probably my favorite Robert De Niro role he has ever played.  But the third one is why I’m writing this, because I just want to see if I can nail down what is wrong with The Godfather: Part III.

To recap, very quickly, the first film is Michael’s rise to take over the Corleone crime family, wiping out all the family’s enemies; the second is a back-and-forth story—showing in the past—Vito’s journey to America and how he rose to be as powerful as he became, while Michael’s present-day story deals with a big deal he has with Hyman Roth and how he deals with the betrayal of his brother, Fredo.

The third story, here, in part three, is somewhat interesting.  Twenty years later, Michael Corleone (Pacino) is finally achieving his goal his father—and then himself—has wanted since the start: for the Corleone family to be completely legitimate.  After a Catholic ceremony, where Michael is given a medal naming him

Commander of the Order of St. Sebastian, we’re introduced to Vincent Mancini (Andy Garcia), illegitimate son of Sonny Corleone, at an after-party.  Also at the reception, is Joey Zasa (Joe Mantegna), who has taken over the Corleone’s crime businesses in New York and has beef with Vincent.  Michael decides to take Vincent under his wing and into the family.  While trying to seal a deal with the Vatican to buy their shares in an international real estate holding company called Immobiliare—and after a hit on most of the current crime leaders, found out to be ordered by Joey Zasa—Micahel suffers a diabetic stroke and is hospitalized.  With an okay from Connie (Talia Shire) and Al Neri (Richard Bright), Vincent organizes the elimination of Zasa.  Michael, much better but still in the hospital, chastises Vincent, Connie and Al for the hit.  As Michael is improved in health, he continues his quest to establish the shares in Immobiliare as troubles arise in that goal.  Trying to become a legitimate family, Michael soon finds himself back where he started.

Man, that was exhausting…and that was only the tip of the iceberg.  The story is really involved and for a complete set-up of the whole story, it’d take many more pages.  Not only that, but it’d give away too much of the story; with all its faults, it's still a good story.

My goal in writing about The Godfather: Part III is to point out what I think went wrong with it, since so many Godfather enthusiasts—including myself—sort of loathe this film.  When I first watched the film, when it was released in theaters, I loved it and saw nothing wrong with it.  As time went on, however, I had started to see that the film was inferior to the first two.  I couldn’t see how that was so, but I concluded long ago that it perhaps the length of time between part two and part three (sixteen years).  But watching it just the other day, it became a little clearer, especially after watching the entire trilogy, back-to-back-to-back.  So I guess I’ll go over what I had noticed, point by point.

I love how the film starts, showing the abandoned Lake Tahoe compound with the voice-over narrative of Al Pacino as Michael writing to his children.  Even when the film finally opens with Michael receiving his medal from the church, and the party that followed afterwards, was nice.  I think what bothered me was Pacino’s performance as Michael throughout the film.  He didn’t seem like the same brooding Michael we saw at the end of part two or even how serious he was through both parts one and two.  Now I know people change over the years and take on different characteristics as they get older, but it just concerned me somewhat.  Pacino always seemed to have a twinkle in his eyes when he should be dead serious, although he put on the Pacino rage when necessary.

Andy Garcia was a breath of fresh air when he’s first shown on screen as the bad boy (illegitimate) son of Sonny, who totally embodied his father’s persona and charm.  When he first walks in with the swagger of an Italian hood, starting shit right away, I loved it.  When he comes in to Michael’s study with the confrontation of Joey Zasa, I’d thought to myself that the film was going in the right direction.  Even the scene at his apartment with the reporter, Grace (Bridget Fonda), and how he takes out the thugs that were there to kill him...awesome!  Of course, his involvement in the whole Zasa murder scene was memorable—but not as memorable as the assassination scene in part two (which it seems they tried to duplicate here).  But once Garcia’s character is part of the Corleone family, he seems neutered and not as exciting; he’s actually boring as he just glares, stares and overacts.  It just doesn’t seem plausible that he goes from this street-thuggish personality to a sudden calm and collected nobleman.  The one scene that bothers me and sticks out as Garcia hamming it up is when he tells Connie he’ll take care of everything.  It’s so drawn out and made to look like some dramatic scene, but there’s no reason for him to act that way as he stares at her intensely and kisses her hand (a little too enthusiastically, I might add).

Of course, the one thing that’s pointed out every time this film is discussed is the performance of Sofia Coppola as Michael’s daughter, Mary.  Yes, her delivery of lines isn’t the best and some of her gestures, both facial and bodily, are a bit subpar, but I would never put all of the film’s inadequacies on her.  If anything, she stepped in when the original actress, Winona Ryder, backed out (so that she could take the part in Edward Scissorhands)—she should be cut some slack.

As a whole, it really seems at times that the script was written right before some of these scenes were shot.  Most of the dialogue sounds as if the actors were reading it from cue cards and don’t have too much emphasis where it’s needed.  Awkward moments fill a lot of the scenes, sometimes having time drawn out when it probably should’ve been edited shorter (it almost seems like Paramount wanted to make sure this film equaled the running time of its predecessors).  When watching this film more than once, you find a lot of mistakes in continuity and editing.  For instance, after the scene plays out with Michael telling Mary she should stop seeing Vincent (with her awkwardly running away like one of the Brady kids), it finishes with Michael’s son, Tony (Franc D’Ambrosio), telling his dad that she’ll understand as time goes on.  We go to a few other scenes, obviously with some time—even days—going by, then there’s a scene with Michael and his son.  If you look carefully, they’re wearing the same outfits and sitting in the same spot as before.  Upon further examination and after multiple viewings, when the first scene plays out, you see Tony holding a piece of paper; in the later scene, Michael gives him the picture Tony drew as a child…which was the paper he held previously.  So actually, the chronological order should’ve been swapped.  That’s just a minor observation, however, and not that big a deal.  But when the seeing the whole film and noticing some of the other timing problems (whether too long or in weird order), I thought I’d point that out as an example.

Overall, I do enjoy this film and enjoy the many merits it does have.  For instance, I love that they bring a lot of characters—besides some of the main players—back from the previous movies…or even characters related to characters from the first two films.  Although most were cameos—like Enzo the Baker (Gabriele Torrei), Sonny’s mistress Lucy Mancini (Jeannie Linero), and Johnny Fontane (Al Martino)—seeing them made a nice connection to the older movies.  Even bringing back Michael’s bodyguard, Calo (Franco Citti), when he was in Sicily during the first film, was cool, especially since he had a hand in a part of the climax of the film. 

Like the first part of the film, the climax was also well done and was probably the high point of the movie.  If you can withstand the operatic theme involved, the whole suspenseful act as the assassins are trying to kill Michael was done very well.

So, the answer to my question—What’s wrong with The Godfather: Part III?—is not easily answered.  Vaguely, I can say that the whole middle part of the film is where it goes wrong.  It seemed as if it were hastily filmed and didn’t have much care into it.  As I’d mentioned, I think a lot of it was padded to try and duplicate the epic feel the first two films had succeeded in doing.  However, instead of it feeling epic, it felt boring at times.  If only Coppola would’ve taken a little more time with the middle third of the film and shortened some scenes, this could’ve been his return to glory.  Instead, as most critics probably would’ve said at the time, Coppola just couldn’t capture lightning in a bottle for a third time.

Well, with all that said and done, what’s my final “bit” on The Godfather: Part III?

Before even watching this film, I highly, HIGHLY, recommend that you watch the first two films more than once.  The stories involved are so great and in-depth that you want to watch it a few times to get to know all the characters involved.  It’s not to say it’s too complicated of a plot, it’s just as you’re getting into it, you may not absorb all that the films have to offer.  Brando and Pacino’s performances in the first, with De Niro’s in the second, are really what acting is all about.  At nearly three hours each movie, it’s going to take you some time, so get ready for an adventure that may change your life.  It did for me.

Thanks for reading...I welcome any comments you may have.

You can also Tweet at me on Twitter (@CinemaBits) and please check out my Facebook page here.

Jaws 2

Summer is finally here and as I break out my warm-weather titles for some summertime viewing, Jaws is usually the title I’m watching first and foremost.  But as the end credits roll soon after the hero (spoiler alert) blows up the dreaded shark by firing a bullet into the scuba air tank it has in its mouth, I feel that I want more and decide to pop in the sequel to 1975’s blockbuster…1978’s Jaws 2.

Hoping to capture lightning in a bottle twice, and realizing that Steven Spielberg started a trend called the “Summer Blockbuster,” Universal Studios decided to green light a sequel to keep everyone afraid of swimming in the ocean.  With most of the cast from the original film still on board to be featured in a follow-up, everything seemed to be in place to repeat the success of the 1975 hit.  However, Spielberg—as well as Richard Dreyfuss—couldn’t be available for this film, due to them both working on Close Encounters of the Third Kind, so when viewing the movie, their absence certainly shows. 

With all that aside, the film is a worthy successor and is very engaging and captivating, entertaining the notion as to what would happen if another Great White Shark were to terrorize the same oceans of the same Amity Island four years after the first one.

The film opens with a couple of divers discovering the wreckage of the Orca, examining the boat and taking photos of their find.  Soon, a shark swims up and kills the men while their camera randomly flashes away a few times as it floats away.  The scene cuts to life on Amity Island and how Chief Martin Brody (Roy Scheider) and his wife, Ellen (Lorraine Gary), seem to be back to normal with everything that had happened

years previous.  But the divers’ boat is found abandoned, their camera found on the ocean floor, and when the film is developed, Chief Brody is certain he can see a shark in one of the photos.  When unexplained accidents start happening, resulting in the deaths of a few people—as well as a killer whale that washes up on shore—Chief Brody is certain Amity Island is about to have the same problem they’d had four years prior.

Although this film is thrilling and fun to watch, it still doesn’t hold a candle to Spielberg’s original film.  Character development and plot focus doesn’t appear to be as important in this film and that’s one thing Spielberg is praised for in nearly all his films.  For him, it was always about the characters first, giving them development that the audience will relate to and care for when bad things happen.  In this sequel, everyone is sort of thrown in the loop just to have them there and doing what they’re written to do.  Even the reveal of the shark seems a little much, pushed in the film a little too much, and that plays against the realism of the film. 

The first third of the film seems to revolve around Chief Brody and how his world is turned upside-down as he believes the island is going to have another shark problem.  What’s worse is that he not only has to argue his case with Mayor Vaughn (Murray Hamilton), but also with one of the lead councilmen and investor in a new resort being planned for the town, Len Peterson (Joseph Mascolo).  You can imagine what it’d do to a person to go through what he had in the first film to believe he’s going to go through it again, as well as having no one believing him…it’d drive a person nearly crazy. 

The second third of the film then takes turns with looking at both Brody and his son, Mike (Mark Gruner), and that’s where there’s not too much character development.  We get that Mike and his friends are all into sailing and that’s what they all do during the summer, but we don’t really get to know all of them.  It’d probably take too long anyway, but it would have been nice to get to know most of them.  Instead, we get a little bit of paper-thin categorization of some of them—the shy nerdy guy, the hot-headed jock type, the new girl who Mike happens to like—but those are the only ones we get to know and care about…somewhat.

The last third of the film—everything that builds to the climax as well as the climax itself—was great, showing everything falling into place as Brody’s opinion that a shark has returned to Amity Island is solidified and brought to alarming light.  Though I was a bit let down that Brody couldn’t throw that in Peterson’s face

when he’s proven to be right all along (I was hoping that he’d punch him in the face before heading out to save his sons and their friends), it was still a brilliant ending, similar to what we had seen in the first film’s ending, and I was very satisfied.

Besides a few minor critiques that I’d mentioned throughout, there are still a lot of positives during the course of the film.  Coming back to Amity Island, using most of the location areas in Martha’s Vineyard from the first film was nice.  We, as an audience, love that we’re back to an acquainted place with familiar people, caring about them and hoping they don’t fall prey to the new threat in the ocean.  If the film moved to a different location all together, as they did in the next sequel, Jaws 3, we’d lose that familiarity and be put off by the story.  So, coming back to the small town, as if we’ve returned to an accustomed vacation spot, feels great to see.

Roy Scheider, above all else, was what made this movie and saved it from being an uninteresting sequel.  Even though it’s been said that he didn’t want to return for the sequel, but signed on to square things with Universal Studios after he dropped out of another film, he still put on a hell of a performance and seemed like he had a lot of fun doing so. 

The film includes some great shark attack scenes and seems pretty real, making you cringe at times and getting your blood pumping as the scenes get tense.  All in all, the film sets the fear that had been instilled in us from the first film, showing us that anything can be lurking underneath us when we decide to swim, sail, or even waterski in the ocean.

One thing you don’t see (or hear) happening too much these days is John Williams scoring a movie sequel.  He created such an atmosphere in the original and does the same here in Jaws 2.  Although it seems to be the same music from the first film, it’s better than having a new composer try to rehash Williams’ score or make up an entirely new one.  Williams’ composition for this film is yet another saving grace for this film.

So…my final “bit” on Jaws 2?

A well-intentioned sequel that walks the line, riskily close to being the exact same film as part one.  It’s a lot of fun and is more of a visual take on the story of a shark terrorizing an island community with not much on human narrative (where Spielberg excels in his films).  The additional sequels had just seemed repetitive, since they’d made an additional two, so I wished they would’ve stopped here.

Thanks for reading and enjoy the movies!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Robocop (2014)

Back in 1987, a masterpiece of sci-fi was created by a relatively unknown director by the name of Paul Verhoeven which seemed like an accident at the time.  When released, hearing the title sounded like a bad science fiction B-movie that wouldn’t work and I don’t think anyone thought much would come of it.  But it worked and, very quickly, Verhoeven showed a signature style to his movie direction, becoming the go-to filmmaker for many other hits to come.

Unfortunately, that stroke of genius Verhoeven created was treated poorly in its sequels and television series (both live-action and cartoon)—not to mention that god-awful part three—allowing it afterwards to lie dormant for a number of years before the Hollywood trend of reboots, remakes and reimagining took hold and revived it for a retelling in the 21^st century.  So…back in February of 2014, we’d received the reassembled and rebuilt version of Robocop.

Of course, just like all the countless re-creates we’ve been bombarded with from movie studios, I had cried foul when it was announced that this classic was going through the redo -ringer.  The 1987 version was—and still is—such an archetypal sci-fi masterwork (which I still remember going to see when I was 19 years old) and I can’t understand why studios keep green-lighting all these do-overs.  To hear that filmmakers are just going to start over and retell the same story again seemed asinine and redundant. 

What made the 1987 version so memorable was the hard ‘R’ rating it acquired upon release, nearly garnering an ‘X’ due to the graphic violence it portrayed throughout the film.  However, before this new version was released—and before the rating was announced—it was evident that the movie studio would be too chicken to go all out as the original film had with its violence-in-your-face filming and make sure to release a neutered PG13 film.

Now, this film seemed like it took forever to film and produce, making me think the filmmakers were taking their time to give us something with substance.  I started rethinking about my disdain for the reboot and decided to give the unseen film the benefit of the doubt.  I opted to myself that I would wait until I at least witnessed a preview trailer before I would give any type of criticism towards the film.  Although the photos leaked out—either purposely or accidentally—and showed us some unsatisfying views of the new crime-fighting character, I still held hope that the film might do well.  When Robocop started rearing its ugly head with a teaser trailer, I found myself agreeing with all the premature examinations of the film.  But before I get into all the drawbacks and shortfalls of this film, let me synopsize it.

The year is 2028 and most of the world is being protected by droids created by the world conglomerate, OmniCorp.  However, because of an act issued by a Senator Dreyfuss (Zach Grenier), OmniCorp cannot develop the same technology for law enforcement in America.  But the CEO of OmniCorp, Raymond Sellars (Michael Keaton), wants to push their technology for police organizations and, with the help of Dr. Dennett

Norton (Gary Oldman), who works with robotic prosthetics for amputees, search for a way to incorporate OmniCorp’s technology with a human counterpart.  In this film, Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) is an undercover cop trying to get to the bottom of some illegal arms dealing that may lead to corruption in the precinct.  But after getting too close to the crime boss, Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow), an attempt on Murphy’s life is made in front of his house by setting up a bomb in his car.  The explosion leaves Murphy critically injured with loss of his legs, one arm, and blind in one eye.  Meeting with Dr. Norton, Murphy’s wife, Clara (Abbie Cornish), is given a choice to save her husband by using OmniCorp technology and she agrees.  When Murphy wakes up, he finds that he has a robotic body and is now a cyborg they call…Robocop.

Now, there is good and bad about this film that I’ll point out shortly.  Before I do, however, I’d like to note that this movie is directed by José Padilha.  If the name doesn’t sound familiar, you’re not alone.  Looking over his résumé of films, I don’t see one—before or after this—that I recognize.  It’s almost as though the studio picked his name out of a hat and went with it.  From what I’d read, the guy went through some frustrations during filming, like how he was scrutinized the whole time by the studio to make sure he produced a PG13 film, and, overall, wasn’t satisfied with the finished product.  Anyway, whatever disparagements I give from here on out, I don’t blame on Mr. Padilha.

Okay, I’ve already denigrated the studio’s choice to remake this film, so I won’t retread on that too much.  But I’ll compare the hell out of both of them…so here goes.

In this new film, the way they deal with Murphy needing to be made into the cyborg is handled a little unthinkingly, going with less shock.  In 1987, one of the bad guys and some goons put a hundred bullets in him as well as shooting off his hand and putting a bullet in his head.  Now THAT was shocking!  In this one?  Car go boom.  Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to belittle the act of someone being unfortunate enough to be blown away by a bomb, because I certainly would never want that to happen to me.  But if I were to write a scene where our hero is critically hurt only to reemerge as half-man-half-machine character, I’d go with the 1987 scene. 

As for the revenge aspects of this new film?  It’s very unsatisfying when Murphy catches up to Vallon—the crime boss who ordered the hit on Murphy—to exact revenge on him.  The scene consists of a big shoot-out only to assume Vallon died in the barrage of bullets.  Later, OmniCorp CEO, Sellars, is made into a bad guy, but it’s sort of thin how they made him into one.  Yes, he was a douche bag and a typical head honcho of a big company, but in the great scheme of things he was only looking out for his company by shutting down the product of Robocop.  How they suddenly showed him as a villain in this film was sort of forced.  In the 1987 version, you knew who the bad guys were and there was no mistaking it—when the two baddies of the film are dispatched of, it’s very satisfying and gives the audience a reason to cheer.  In this new version, it’s a bit confusing.  Is it Vallon?  Is it Sellars?  Is it Sellars’ military consultant, Rick Mattox (Jackie Earle Haley)?  Who’s the big baddie?

So what’s my final “bit” on Robocop?

All in all, this film had superb special effects and excellent design in all the robotic technology.  I liked the 

angle on how OmniCorp wanted to get their robotics in America to help police forces fight crime and how it was a very political perspective.  However, it was pretty obvious how rushed this production was—even though they had a few years to perfect it—and that it was meant to be a castrated composition to keep it a PG13 movie.  Unlike the 1987 film, there was really nothing memorable about this reboot and they should’ve just left well enough alone.  2014’s Robocop is worth a look, but I’d wait until it shows up on cable.

Thanks for reading and enjoy the movies!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Husk

You know, a lot of horror movies over the years tend to grab well-known inanimate objects that we all recognize upon seeing and turn it into an entity of terror.  Sometimes it’s done well, like many movies about dolls coming to life (take Child’s Playfor example) or done as a tongue-in-cheek comedy (like they did with the killer snowman inJack Frost).  But there’s one thing that’s never been done right and that’s making a horror movie about scarecrows.

Now, some of you may cite Dark Night of the Scarecrow or the opening scene of Jeepers Creepers 2.  A lot of you may say that there havebeen a few films, like 1988’s Scarecrows or the little-known Scarecrow of 2013.  With the exception of the Jeepers Creepers 2 opening (the whole movie wasn’t about killer scarecrows anyway), all those other movies weren’t good or scary at all.  So it just surprises me that no one has tried to take the subject matter to make the pinnacle of scarecrow movies.

A killer scarecrow movie would be perfect for a terrifying movie to play in theaters to big crowds, especially around the Halloween season, but it has yet to happen.  However, in 2011, After Dark Films released a movie straight-to-DVD that would’ve fared well if it was brought to screens for the masses.

As a quick side note, After Dark Films has put out some great titles, really scary and gory stuff that I find entertaining almost every time.  For more on their films, check out the site here.

So the other day, as usual, I tool around the Netflix titles to see what I can add for my next shipment.  I have around 300 or so in my queue, but I occasionally mix them around to match the mood I’m in.  The other day, I was in a horror movie mood—surprise, surprise—and, after seeing the awesome cover art, decided to have 2011’s Husk sent to me in my next delivery.

Horror movies, these days, are so different than the ones I’d seen in my teenaged years.  I admit, I can’t relate to what teens do these days for fun or what type of lingo they use in speaking to one another, so I was worried that would’ve turned me off while watching.  But Husk doesn’t take long for the shit to hit the fan and gets interesting right away.

The story opens with a quintet of friends—Scott (Devon Graye), Johnny (Ben Easter), Chris (CJ Thomason), Brian (Wes Chatham), and Brian’s girlfriend, Natalie (Tammin Sursok)—driving to a lake to spend some time for some R&R.  Suddenly, a murder of crows starts flying into the vehicle’s windshield and causes them to swerve off the road, incapacitating the vehicle.  Stuck on the side of the road, next to a

cornfield and seemingly in the middle of nowhere, they first notice that Johnny is missing.  Seeing a farmhouse within the cornfield, they set off to find their friend and to see if they can get some help from the residents of the property.  Instead, they find themselves surrounded by killer scarecrows that have mysteriously come to life and the group must find a way to fend them off and try to get away.

The first thing I’d noticed when embarking on this film is the feel of it and how it felt like a horror movie from the 80s.  Without the cheesiness and dumb subplots that gave flicks of the 80s a lot of questionability, Husk tends to be more serious and spooky, striking more fear in the audience than the fun movies of the 80s had.  As the opening went on, it kind of reminded me of Children of the Corn, but probably only because of the immense cornfields on either side of the road shown in the film.  Not only that, but the nature of a group of friends driving cross-country also made me think of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.  So thinking of those films in my head as I started watching this movie kind of helped me enjoy it more.

I’d mentioned in a review before (I believe it was 1988’s The Blob) that there are a number of things a film needs to include to make it a great horror movie.  One of those items was having 75% or more of the movie take place at night.  Director Brett Simmons follows that logic perfectly, having the characters crash their car in a day trip only to have them lose daylight very quickly, especially when they all find themselves on the property of this dilapidated farmhouse in the middle of this huge cornfield.

The characters, also, were not unlikable or annoying at all.  In fact, all of them have their own individualities that you can identify with right away to tell them apart.  First, you’ve got Chris, the sort of bad boy troublemaker, but not in an irritating way; there’s Chris’s good friend, Johnny, who seems to be the tagalong; Scott is the nerdy intelligent kid, complete with glasses (in case you don’t get how smart he is); Brian is the jock and surprisingly doesn’t exhibit it obnoxiously within the story (like most movies of this ilk tend to do); and finally Natalie is the only female in the film and is Brian’s girlfriend.  Although it doesn’t seem like we get too much development of their backstories, it’s pretty easy to see what each one is about as the film goes on.

The story, as a whole, seems to be a bit of mystery and a very dark one that isn’t very comprehensible as it initially begins.  But instead of hindering the film, it actually helps it as we feel what the characters feel—utter terror.  As you can tell by my summary of the story, and even if you read the synopsis on the back cover of the DVD, the story features animated scarecrows, so I don’t think I’m spoiling the movie for you. 

The scarecrows are pretty terrifying—and, of course, don’t speak—as they have no face but just a burlap covered head, reminding us of so many masked killers of yesteryear that wear a guise with little to no features.  With the cover of darkness and the cornfields, the filmmakers cleverly edit the scenes to show

these creatures easily darting in and out, striking at the characters and creating quite a few jump scares.

If I have to nitpick at anything within this film, it’s the way they choose to give us a back story as to how these creatures came to be.  Using the annoying device of giving one of the characters a sudden parapsychological power, where they unexpectedly develop the power to see visions, one of the central characters sees how this came to be (sort of).  Not only did the abrupt clairvoyance bother me, but what they see still didn’t explain why these scarecrows are able to be alive and running around.  I guess we can speculate, but it’s not consummately explained.

Anyway, if you can put that nitpick aside and enjoy the bulk of the film for what it is—a scarecrows-coming-to-life movie—then I think you’ll enjoy it immensely.

So, let me give you my final “bit” on Husk.

As I’d said, the movie totally reminds me of the horror flicks I’d seen when I was a teenager, where we get right to the problem and terrorize the characters immediately.  With no 21^st century lingo and no constant talk of what kids do these days for fun, the film seems timeless.  I definitely recommend it and think you should add Husk to your library of horror.  I know I’m planning to do so myself.

Thanks for reading and enjoy the movies!

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.

Elysium

Back in 2009, a movie was released that really made a big splash in the science fiction realm of cinema called District 9.  Recalling the trailers for it, I remember it was a bit different, had a documentary feel to it that no other sci-fi film had tried, almost like a found-footage type of movie.  It was mysterious and had a realistic feel to it like we were really watching a never-before-seen look at human interaction with aliens.  I also recall in the trailer that, for some reason, when the alien was speaking, its vocal orifice was blurred or digitized out—that intrigued me as well.

Cut to a few months later, when the movie was released, I didn’t go see it and I can’t recollect why—I guess I wasn’t sold over enough to go watch it during its theatrical run.  However, most critics—especially science fiction critics—praised the film and cited its comparisons to the turmoil South Africa went through during the apartheid era.  It was praised as a success, staying on top of the box office and, after hitting home media, I went out and purchased the Blu-Ray—sight unseen.  After watching it, I agreed with the critics.

As a result of the critical success of District 9, two stars emerged from the film: the actual star of the film, Sharlto Copley, and the director, Neill Blomkamp.

Although Copley has gone on, and is still going on, as a successful actor (his part as Murdock in The A-Team was the best thing about that movie), the main focus after the release of District 9 was on the director, Neill Blomkamp.  From what I’ve heard, right after the film was released, Blomkamp was considered the go-to-guy for sci-fi films.  His name has been rumored for a while to be the director of Steven Spielberg’s production of Halo.  Understandably, Blomkamp left the production citing the long delays and how he likes to do his own thing.  I can appreciate that and the latter explanation makes sense as he wrote and directed District 9 and also did the same for 2013’s Elysium.

In 2154, the Earth is over polluted and over crowded with all the wealthy living on a space station called Elysium.  Head of security for the space station is Delacourt Rhodes (Jodie Foster) and she makes sure no illegal immigration will happen, keeping the floating paradise safe for only the rich and making sure any

unauthorized ships are blown out of the sky.  On Earth, Max Da Costa (Matt Damon) is a lowly worker at a robot factory who is also on parole, complete with an ankle home/work arrest bracelet.  Although his friends try to get him back into a life of crime, he resists, citing he wants to live a life of simplicity.  As it so happens, Max reconnects with a girl from the past, Frey (Alice Braga), who he had loved, and finds out she has a daughter with leukemia.  At work, when getting a group of robots ready for particle emission, a mishap causes Max to get a lethal dose of radiation, giving him only five days to live.  Knowing full well that Elysium has medical chambers that can cure him, he decides to do whatever he can in order to get to Elysium so that he can save his life.

Now, one thing you’ll notice about this film is that there’s the parallel real-life struggle of immigration, like we’re experiencing these days in America.  But Elysium shows such a simplistic view of it that the point really doesn’t come across that well.  It’s only a vague connotation that most countries in the world go through today, so it’s quite forgettable.  But I don’t think he wanted that as a basis to this film anyway, nor did he want to convey any type of message as he had before, in my opinion.  Instead, I think he wanted to give us a big, special effects laden spectacle with a hero overcoming tyranny.

Now, if there’s anything I have a problem with is the casting of Matt Damon as the Hispanic, Max Da Costa.  Damon is the epitome of Caucasian and I found it hard to accept him as anything but.  He did a fine job and has always pulled off heroic characters in other films, so as long as you forget he’s supposed to be Hispanic, you can enjoy his performance.

Jodie Foster as Delacourt wasn’t bad, but she was playing the part with a strange British accent that came and went.  I get that fact that the space station was housing wealthy people from all over the world, making the station a world with no boundaries, but she could’ve played the part with her normal accent.  As the movie’s villain, she was believable and you were able to understand why she was perceived as malicious—she wasn’t evil just for evil’s sake.

The contrast between the world of Elysium and the world of Earth was very well done, showing us such beautiful settings on the space station with lush green scenery and the capability to cure any disease—even the slightest indication that skin cancer may sit in after laying out by the pool—with the medical chambers accessible throughout.  With the comparison to Earth’s atmosphere, how the skyline is hazy with plumes of black smoke and the downtrodden look of the remaining populace, Elysium looks like paradise.

Finally, like the special effects we’d witnessed in District 9, the scenes in Elysium are spectacular and jaw-dropping.  The robots appear pretty real-looking and I found myself thinking that they were actors in robot suits.  They move around fluidly with CGI-use unnoticeable so that it doesn’t take you out of the movie.

Earlier, I had mentioned that I didn’t think the director was trying to pass forth a particular message with this film, but with the look of the futuristic Earth, maybe he was.  With the narrative of Elysium, I think Blomkamp tries too hard to push this fictional poisoned and diseased world down our throats, trying to make us believe Earth will soon be too inhabitable and polluted to accommodate the world’s population.  I found myself asking why the people chose to stay in Los Angeles and why they didn’t travel to some other part of the world.  Are we to believe that every inch of the Earth looks this way?  Pretty far-fetched if you ask me.  Since global warming has been a hot topic for the last decade or so, and every time I hear debates on how we’re going to destroy the planet one day, I’ve always remembered the preface to Michael Crighton’s “Jurassic Park” novel.  I’d like to copy & paste it here in this post, but it’d be way too long.  Instead I’ll leave you the link to read at your leisure, here.  Paraphrasing it, it’s basically telling us, as humans, that we’re pretty vane to think that we can destroy this planet, emphasizing that this planet has always contained life and will continue to do so, no matter what we, as humans, will ever do to it.

Okay, so I’ll step down from my soap box and give you my final “bit” on Elysium.

It’s an interesting science fiction flick, giving us an unlikely hero to stand up against oppression in the future.  With a lot of special effects titivating the screen, you’ll like it a lot, but I doubt you’ll take anything away from it.  The heavy-handed, yet insignificant, messages may put you off, but if you can get past that, you’ll enjoy this movie for the few merits it contains.

Cinema Bits is on Twitter and Facebook.