The Invitation

More and more, I seem to follow the advice of personal critics rather than the professional ones when it comes to watching films.  I still enjoy reading a review from some quarterly or online magazine, but I tend to lean more on the side of what some Average Joe will have to say about a movie in layman’s terms rather than going through a reviewer’s piece who feels the need to insert cerebral wording as if they’re some kind of artist…uh…never mind.  The point is, I like to follow what the typical crowd likes more than one movie critic.  So I have a habit of going with the given stars on a movie from the Netflix site and it never looks to lead me astray.

I’ve mentioned before that I’m going by a new rule now where I’ll only watch never-before-seen movies with an average rating of 3 stars or more.  I’ve tried viewing a few that had less—only because a web site or magazine raved about the film—but they always seem to let me down.  Don’t get me wrong, however, because I’ve seen some films rated 3 or above that I’d ended up turning off, not liking them.

So, especially when I shuffle through the streaming titles, I want something to grab me and make me enjoy the time spent sitting through a feature, so when I’d noticed The Invitation on the menu, and seeing that it had an average of 3.4 stars, I’d decided that I would fix my movie-watching night with it.  The good movies featured on Netflix streaming are few and far between, but they’re getting better.  For now, there are just too many one- to two-star movies in their list of titles that it gets tiring shuffling through them.

While attending a dinner party at his former home, Will (Logan Marshall-Green), thinks his ex-wife, Eden (Tammy Blanchard), and her new husband, David (Michiel Huisman), have sinister intentions for their guests.

I have to admit, my finger had been hovering over the power button on my remote during the beginning of this film.  In the start of this film, as the two characters, Will and his girlfriend, Kira (Emayatzy Corinealdi), are driving to this dinner party and it’s just a boring start to the film as we see them in the car travelling to the get-together.  The acting seemed a bit wooden, but looking back, maybe the director was trying to convey Will’s state of mind as we later find out he and his ex-wife had lost a son.  But until I understood that, I felt that the onset of the story seemed to stand still.  But once the couple reach their destination, I had let up and relaxed my finger, yet I had other issues in which to contend.

So, the crux of the story, as mentioned in the synopsis, is that Will is meeting up with a group of friends that haven’t gotten together in a few years.  But the mystery is alluded to right away that Will’s ex-wife, Eden, and her new husband, David, hadn’t been heard from at all in two years.  Bringing the obscurity even further is why all of a sudden they decided to invite all their friends to their home—a home Will used to share with Eden and his late son, Ty (Aiden Lovekamp, seen in flashbacks)—for a dinner party.  And being there plays a big part in Will’s feelings and state of mind.

So when Will and Kira arrive at the house and greet the friends, making their introductions to Kira, the feeling shown is unease—right away.  Many times during the course of Will catching up with some of the other friends or the strange interactions between him and David made me wonder why he’d even stay at this point.  Hell, even a little accident that Will and Kira get into before getting to the party would be enough of an excuse for me to turn around and go home.

At this point, this is where The Invitation messes with your mind and leaves you constantly guessing as to what’s going on.  On one hand, you see it from Will’s point-of-view, seeing the suspicious actions of a few people and leaving you with the belief that something bad is going to happen, that he and Kira should just leave.  At some points, the movie makes it look like Will is paranoid, especially when he blows up at one point, pointing fingers at some of the others.  The back-and-forth they do in this film really puts you on a rollercoaster ride of emotions.

Not only do things not seem right, even though Will is apparently surrounded by old friends, but two dinner guests, Pruitt (John Carroll Lynch) and Sadie (Lindsay Burdge), add to the unease due to their behavior and background (at least explained by Pruitt himself).  The interactions from these two add to the what-the-fuck moments in the film and continue to leave you—the audience—guarded on what’s to come.

If there’s anything that I'd really liked in the film, one scene that kind of shocked me, was the final shot before credits roll.  It was an “oh shit” moment that I really did not see coming, not to mention the suggestion of a sequel.  Of course, I don’t want to give it away, but it opens up a whole new aspect to this movie and makes the story bigger and less isolated just in those few minutes.

Directed by Karyn Kusama (Jennifer’s Body, Æon Flux), she certainly set an apprehensive disposition in scenes when needed, somber at times, fearful as well.  But I think the acting took a hit when setting it all up.  The only time I’d really dug the acting was when Will started to speak up assertively and becoming accusatory…at that time, the movie really started moving for me, but I’d also noticed that this was well over halfway into the movie.  Sure, there’s a lot of character build-up—which you really need to have when you have such a large ensemble of actors working together and sharing a lot of screen time—but just the fact that I had checked my watch during this movie says a little about the average audience member’s possible investment in the story.  The writers, Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi—I believe they’re a writing team, as I see they’ve worked on a lot of productions together—really put together an original and intriguing story, so kudos to them.

So my final “bit” on The Invitation?

Like I’d mentioned, the acting was a bit sluggish here and there, the chemistry between a group of people—who are supposed to be all friends—wasn’t really apparent, but as I’d mentioned before, it might’ve been something the director was banking on to help out the vibe of the movie.  The story, however, keeps you involved and wondering how it was going to end, questioning whether or not Will was just going a little mad because of the grief he’d felt back at his old house and reliving a lot of old memories with his wife and son.  It’s definitely a moody piece that’ll make your skin crawl at times, will make you feel sorry for Will—sometimes for the other friends—but pays off by the time the film ends.  I definitely do recommend it and I’d probably see it again if it happened to be on one of the cable channels.  If you’ve got Netflix streaming, you should check it out.

 

Thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.

Time Lapse

Though I love to see any style of film (with the exception of chick flicks of course), the horror genre will always be my first choice when deciding on a movie to see, whether it’s something I have in my collection or something I’m going to see for the first time.  In the strange event that I’m not feeling like a horror movie, I usually jump to a science fiction flick, and if it includes some horror elements to it, even better.  Now, most categories of films include a subgenre to it, like horror movies that include the slasher element or action films that interject comedy...you really can’t have a film that is straight horror, sci-fi, action, etcetera…you need to add that secondary component to balance out the movie, especially if it’s a pretty farfetched story.

With that said, and as always, I’ll find myself in front of my television, too lazy to go and pick out a film from my library, but really wanting to see something that’ll move me.  During these times is when I switch on the old Playstation and peruse the archives of the Netflix streaming titles, searching for something with an average of three stars or more. 

One title that had kept on rearing its head was a film called Time Lapse in which the poster included the face of Danielle Panabaker.  I’m familiar with that actress as she was in the 2009 remake of Friday the 13^th as well as having a prominent role in the television series, “The Flash,” so that’s one component that had helped me to decide on this film.  What sold it for me, however, was the description of the story, so let me give it to you right now.

Three friends—Finn (Matt O’Leary), Callie (Danielle Panabaker), and Jasper (George Finn)—discover a mysterious machine that takes pictures 24hrs into the future and conspire to use it for personal gain, until disturbing and dangerous images begin to develop.

The word, “future,” was what held my attention and made me really think about watching this movie.  Anything about the subject of time travel or witnessing something from the future will always get me, every single time.  I’m a big fan of the Terminator series of films, which contain the concept of time travel and the effects of it on the world, and of the more light-hearted Back to the Future trilogy in which time travel is a big part of the storyline.  I decided right there and then to start the movie, staying with it until the very end.

Another piece of the  puzzle on why I’d chosen to see this film is seeing that the actor, Matt O’Leary, was included in the cast and was the lead male of the story.  In case you don’t know the name, he played Bill Paxton’s young son in the film, Frailty, a favorite of mine (if you haven’t seen that film, you need to do yourself a favor and do so).  I’d always admired his performance in that film, which I’d imagine would be a tough one for a 14-year-old, and was curious to see how he fared as an adult in his acting career.

Time Lapse starts, interestingly enough, as an everyday story of three roommates—the couple, Finn and Callie, and their friend, Jasper—living in a nondescript apartment as they lead basic menial lives. 

Finn works maintenance for the apartment buildings and notices an old neighbor hasn’t been picking up his newspapers or mail, leading him—as well as Callie and Jasper—to believe something bad has happened to the old man.  Inside a back room, they discover a huge steampunk-type of machine bolted to the floor and near a window that faces their front room window across the way.  As Finn, Callie, and Jasper look over and inspect the machine, it suddenly hums to life, swelling in power until a burst of energy happens, and they notice a photograph popping into a chute at the side of the mechanism.  Studying the photo, which looks like one that would come out of a Polaroid camera, they see that they are all in the picture, sitting in their apartment.  Not knowing what it means at first, they become obsessed with the machine, coming back to visit it every day until they realize that the machine is a camera that takes photos one day in advance.  At first, they make use of the concept easily enough to make money with bookies, but it soon comes to a culmination of very bad events.

I won’t go too much further into the plot of this film, but the concept is fascinating once the story moves along.  It’s a pretty smart and entertaining screenplay, which was done by the director Bradley King and writer BP Cooper, because I didn’t see a lot of this coming.  For instance, right after they discover that this machine can take a photograph 24 hours into the future, I just thought to myself, So what?  I really hadn’t seen the importance of that plot point until the characters dove further into it, discussing what they can do to use it.  At that point of the movie, I think I audibly said to myself, Yes…that’s right!  But you can’t have an immoral situation like this without having some bad consequences to mess things up…and that’s exactly what happens.

I probably only have a few complaints with this film and they’re very minor, not really taking anything away from the story.  One is pretty obvious and that’s the setting of the story, taking place mainly in the apartment of the main characters.  Though the director does an excellent job of giving us different angles of the apartment and breaking up the scenes between their place and the old man’s residence, there’s still a bit of claustrophobia at times.  The other minor complaint has to do with the character of Jasper and his behavior throughout the film.  With Finn and Callie, they noticeably change from start to finish, but Jasper seems to start off as a jerk and remains that way until the end.  He doesn’t seem to have any character growth, but then, maybe that’s what the filmmakers wanted from him.  I just find it hard that Finn and Callie would be friends with him during some of his depriving deeds.

Like I’d mentioned, the writing was niftily crafted and stayed a step ahead of me with the predicaments the characters found themselves in.  In that regard, you can relate to them because I think most people would always come to the conclusion on how they would be able to use such a device to gain wealth.  Yes, the message here, although clichéd, is that greed always lands you in trouble and changes you.  The friends go from being close and chummy to hating each other.

Though Bradley King doesn’t have many movies in his résumé, this one film earned him quite a bit of credibility, especially in the awards circuit.  In 2014, Time Lapse, alone, earned him a lot of “Best Feature” awards in such shows like the Thriller Chiller, Portsmouth International, Atlanta Underground, and Burbank International film festivals.  Along with awards in the screenplay category, this is impressive and well-deserved. 

So here’s my final “bit” on Time Lapse…

The story starts off a bit slow, but it’s only for a short period of time.  Once it gets going after the discovery of the FPM (future photograph machine…I made that up), the story gets very interesting and captivates you.  It really takes you on the moral journey with these friends, making you wonder what they’ll do next to utilize their newly discovered “golden goose.”  Very good acting by these young people, especially Danielle Panabaker, and their performances keep everything realistic, regardless of the farfetched plot.  It’s dramatic at times, with a bit of humor peppered here and there, but the concept of that machine keeps you tuned in to see what’s eventually going to happen to these friends.  It’s a very good movie and I’m glad I stopped to watch it on Netflix streaming.

As a post script, I’m realizing how much I mention Netflix in my reviews…maybe they need to sponsor Cinema Bits since I send out nothing but praise for their company.  Netflix?  Are you there?

Anyway, thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.

It Follows

In the months prior to the movie’s release, It Follows had started to gain quite a following (pardon the pun) and a lot of attention after it debuted at the 2014 Cannes Film Festival.  I’ve got to admit, just the marketing alone had me wanting to see this flick.  One of the posters (which I’ve featured at the top of this review) that had been released reminded me so much of an early 80s slasher movie poster that I was going to see this movie, trailer-unseen.  Let me tell you, I’m still waiting for the 80s-style horror movie resurgence, where we can get a few horror movies a year and have droves of people waiting in line to see who, or what, is the new icon of fright.  I mean, why aren’t we getting another Friday the 13^th?  Or Halloween?  I hear there’s another sequel to Jeepers Creepers that Victor Salva is trying to get released…what gives?

Well, until then, I’ll still try to find a gem within these new horror movies, but it’s a very tough job to do so, to waste my time with a bunch of crap that is marketed to teens rather than to horror fans.  Movies like Unfriended or #Horror…yes, we get it, filmmakers, you’re trying to get the Facebook and Twitter millennials to relate to your movies—it’s not working.

I don’t know how many times I try out a new horror movie only to turn it off soon after starting it.  Usually, it’s because the film will start off with a group of teens in high school, using slang and phrases that exclude me as an audience member because I just can’t relate to the teenagers of this day and age.  Sometimes I wonder, Am I just getting old?  Am I turning into one of those old fogies who is stuck in their own time?  I don’t think so.  Because there are plenty of good horror movies out—although you have to look high and low for them—that I’ve enjoyed and have decided to even purchase to own on Blu-Ray.

Anyway, unfortunately, I hadn’t found time to see this flick when it was released to theaters a couple of years ago, choosing to wait until it was available on home media and having it sent to me from Netflix.  So without further ado, here’s the breakdown of the film.

A young woman, Jay (Maika Monroe), is given a curse by a boy she’d been going out with, Hugh (Jake Weary), after having sex with him.  The curse is having an unknown supernatural force follow her until it will reach her and kill her.  She has to keep moving to stay away from the unstoppable force—which can change its appearance and can look like anyone—but it’s unrelenting and, sooner or later, will eventually catch up to her.

Before getting into the main meat of the story, the opening of It Follows gave me a lot of hope that this movie would be awesome as we’re immersed into what happens to someone who is pursued by the supernatural force.  We’re introduced to a young woman named Annie (Bailey Spry) as she’s running out of her house early in the morning, appearing to be chased by something or someone, though we don’t see anyone.  She’s visibly frightened as she takes her parents’ car and drives off.  The movie sort of fooled me here because I’d thought this was the main character of the film, but she ends up at the beach of a lake and just kneels there, crying and apologizing to her parents.  I say it fooled me since the film soon cuts forward and we see that Annie’s now dead, broken into awful shapes as she’s mutilated, dead.

So that’s our introduction to the subject of the film, still a little mysterious, but we get some explanation in the next scene which is the introduction to our main character, Jay.  It starts nicely enough, seeing her on a movie date night with her boyfriend, Hugh, and they seem to be having a good time.  They start to play a game as to guess who the other has pointed out mentally in the theater.  When Hugh picks out a girl whom Jay says she doesn’t see, his face goes from happy to concerned and they end up leaving the movie.  Ending up parked somewhere, they engage in sex and afterwards, things get weird.  Jay finds herself gagged and tied up in some hollowed out building where Hugh explains that she has just been given a curse that he has passed on to her, saying that “it” will come after her and pursue her until “it” kills her.  The only way to avoid it is to have sex with someone else which will pass on the curse to them.  But if that person dies, the curse will come back to her.  If she dies, back to him.

Hugh drops Jay off in front of her house, date-rape-style, and takes off.  Folks, this is where our main story begins.

Now, I stop there, because…well…it really does stop—well…slows down quite a bit—there.  At this point in the movie, we’re introduced to Jay’s sister, Kelly (Lili Sepe), and her friends, Paul and Yara (Keir Gilchrist and Olivia Luccardi, respectively).  They all live some sort of hum-drum life and we’re shown that fully, seeing them just sit around and discussing menial topics.

I do like the choice of music in It Follows, how they went with the synthesizer score, giving the movie more of an 80s vibe than it already had.  But…it seemed to only have depressing sounds and never went into a light note anywhere in the film.  It didn’t necessarily make this film bad, but I do like some horror films to contain some funny scenes or areas of the film where life is good for the characters.  The movie just had a depressing tone throughout and that kind of put me off, especially when I ask myself the question I usually ask when watching a movie that may or may not be good: Would I buy this on Blu-Ray for my personal collection?  With this film…no.  However, I’ve thought about this movie quite a bit since I’ve seen it and have had thoughts about seeing it again, so I’d say that’s a good sign pointing to this movie being pretty good.

Though there are some lulls within the film, when “it” shows up to hunt Jay, it’s pretty terrifying and intense at times.  The aspect of this hook makes you feel Jay’s despair and helplessness, just knowing that there’s nothing she can do, that the force will never stop until it catches up to her.  So the film continues on this way—some breaks where we see Jay floating around in an outdoor pool or moping around with Paul and Yara—until she decides to track down Hugh, the boy who had passed on the curse to her.

Written and directed by David Robert Mitchell, the man only has a few productions under his belt with one coming out next year, but it really showed that he knew what he wanted here in It Follows.  Mitchell definitely gave the film an 80s look and feel, adding a lot of John Carpenter Halloween flair with the slow, yet constant pursuit, by the evil in this film.  You even get a taste of George Romero’s film-styling since the force that comes after its victims looks and acts like an unrelenting zombie.  To add to all this, it appears Mitchell didn’t want the film to have an era easily established in the story; you, as the audience, really can’t tell when this story takes place.  Cars that are present look to be from different time periods, older televisions play into some of the plot, and there isn’t much technology—I like that.  Nothing ages a movie more quickly than including tech of its time—after a few years, that tech looks ancient.

Well, I think I’ve discussed this film as much as I can…my final “bit” on It Follows?

It’s a very interesting and original film, though the plot may seem a bit juvenile when explained—a curse that’s passed around when you have sex with someone.  However, that’s soon placed on the backburner once you get into this film.  The cinematography is interesting, more of an arthouse type of production with inventive ways of shooting certain scenes, and it will capture your attention.  The opening is great, the final climax is awesome, it’s just the middle that you’ll have to be patient and understand that it’s a slow-burn character build-up.  The ending leaves it open-ended and can easily have a sequel, which the director expressed interest in doing so, but I haven’t heard any movement in that respect.  I highly recommend It Follows, especially if you’re a horror fan stuck in the 80s and looking for a shining gem to bring back that nostalgia for you.

Thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.

Standoff

By now, most people know that I give a lot of movies favorable odds when making the choice to take in a viewing—sometimes finding a diamond in the rough that I’ll love, but most of the time spending hours of my life watching duds.  I try to go by, and trust, the rating system of Netflix, but it leaves me astray at times.  See, they go by a rating system—given by the average of members who give their evaluation out of a possible five stars and it can be a little off-putting if it doesn’t land on a full star.  For instance, maybe there’s a title that shows an average rating of 2.6 stars; it’s almost three, but not quite.  You can take a chance and it just might be a winner…but it can easily be a washout.  Let’s face it…the rating system is basically run by the members and it’s a simple numbers game that can be manipulated easily.  Hell, I’ve given one-star ratings on a movie simply because I didn’t like the genre, so other members probably do the same.  So…as it stands, I’m strictly going by a rule that any movie I put on my Netflix queue that I’ve never seen has to be a full three stars or better, none of this 2.6 or 2.7 stuff…so when I saw this title, Standoff, and how it had an average of 3.8 stars, I placed it in my queue.

A somewhat inventive feature Netflix came about presenting some time ago was giving its members the ability to stream movies.  It came about at a time when not too many resources were offering that service, being that it had been something you could only do on your computer, before smart TVs or tablets or cell phones had the ability…hell, smart TVs weren’t even invented yet.  It was amusing, looking back at it, because when I first started using this feature, you needed a disc to be inserted into your computer or Playstation console in order to stream the movies or television series.  Within time, however, Netflix has perfected the service and it’s a prominent one that more and more online subscription networks—such as Hulu, Vudu, Amazon, etc.—are offering, leaving Blu-Ray and DVD as a thing of the past.

The reason for that little side note was that when the disc for Standoff showed up in my mailbox, I’d noticed that the movie had just become available on Netflix Streaming.  I was sitting, going through the menu of new movies, knowing full well that I had the disc sitting on my shelf but opted to see what was streaming because I wasn’t really feeling the desire to put the disc in my PS4.  One good thing about trundling through the titles is that they give better plot descriptions and it shuffles through a few screenshots from the movie itself…and that’s what prompted me to watch the film…even though I had the disc sitting there and didn’t feel like watching it in the first place.  Aaaaah…Netflix psychology…

Okay, with all that personal narrative aside, I’ve always liked Thomas Jane as an actor.  Not that he’s a world renowned thespian, but I feel he does a terrific job as a commanding presence when he’s on the screen.  I love The Mist and I even like the widely panned The Punisher (see my review from way back on July 29^th of 2014), so when I’d spotted his name on this title being discussed today, I decided to click on it and watch.

Here’s the synopsis…

A troubled war veteran, Carter (Thomas Jane), gets a chance at redemption by protecting a 12-year-old girl, Bird (Ella Ballentine), from an assassin named Sade (Laurence Fishburne) after she witnesses a murder committed by him.  Holding a shotgun with a single shell, Carter engages in physical and psychological warfare with Sade in a desperate fight for the girl’s life.

Okay, before going into this film, I’ve got to address the elephant in the room…well…a movie credit I’d seen at the beginning.  Hayden Christensen as executive producer…double-you tee eff?  I guess that Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith money is really paying off for him.

All kidding aside…

I’d gushed over Thomas Jane and his performances in a few films, but this film also stars another actor I’ve admired as well—Laurence Fishburne.  He’s been in a ton of movies that I’ve enjoyed over the years and he’s quite a chameleon, never seeming like he’s been typecast in his career.  Fishburne has been in such acclaimed films like Apocalypse Now, The Color Purple, King of New York, Boyz n the Hood, and what he’s probably most known for…The Matrix.  Of course, recently, he’s had smaller parts—but notable ones—in Predators and Man of Steel, and I’d really liked his part in the latter.  Although I really hadn’t heard too much of a backlash that you’ll normally hear when a well-known Caucasian fictional character is played by an African-American, but his take on Perry White was nice and brought a better and modern take on the chief newspaper editor.  Though he isn’t too recognized for playing the bad guy in films, here in Standoff, he does it so well it’s scary.

Now, I like this type of movie, and it’s appropriately titled with the subgenre description, so I guess they didn’t find the need to name it something elaborate or silly. 

One aspect of a movie such as Standoff is usually a problem and may cause the whole movie to go down the drain because of this one ingredient—child actors.  Filmmakers may get lucky and have such a great movie, like Child’s Play, you won’t notice the bad child acting from Alex Vincent as Andy.  Or they may hit the lottery and get a performance like the one from Danny Pintauro asTad in the film, Cujo.  More than likely, however, you may get a child actor, like Jake Lloyd as Annikin Skywalker in The Phantom Menace (though, the fact that Jar Jar Binks is even worse in this movie makes many people overlook Lloyd’s performance), or—the worse I’ve ever seen—Courtland Mead as Danny Torrance in the TV movie remake of The Shining (ugh! He is TERRIBLE in that film).  The point I’m taking much too long to get at is how much of a great performance we get from Ella Ballentine as the young girl, Isabelle—nicknamed Bird—who is being hunted by Fishburne’s character.  Most of the story takes place in an isolated farmhouse with Ballentine and Jane spending a lot of time together as he protects her from any harm.  It’s very touching, seeing that Jane’s character recently lost his young son and seems suicidal when we first meet him.  If this film didn’t find a young actress that could put up a top notch performance, this movie wouldn’t have been as good.

Not only are the quiet scenes between Thomas Jane and the young girl absorbing, but the back-and-forth amid him and Fishburne is quite nice.  The action part of their exchanges was exciting, as well as the suspense of what each man is planning (Jane’s upstairs with the girl and Fishburne is downstairs patiently waiting, both with their respective weapons), and I just loved when they were cutting each other down.  Very strong scenes from these guys gave the film the good rating it had on Netflix.

Recently, I’d reviewed Cell, the Stephen King adaptation that left me kind of cold, and in that review I had mentioned the writer was Adam Alleca.  While I hadn’t necessarily bashed him for what I had thought of that movie, I made it clear he was sort of responsible, so I wanted to redeem him here for what he’d put together.  Being somewhat of an original story (let’s face it, there have been flicks—or at least large scenes in films—like this where someone has to stand their ground against an adversary who’s trying to oppose them), Alleca totally compensates for the written work he’s done in the past, which was The Last House on the Left (a remake of an early Wes Craven film) and what he’d worked on soon after this—Cell. 

My final “bit” on Standoff?

The movie is one of those stories where you chomp at the bit, wondering how it’s going to end.  Though there aren’t too many twists and turns, the film does feature some choices by the characters (namely, Fishburne’s) you may be surprised by and even some that’ll make you angry.  It really has more suspense than I thought it would have and I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of this film.  The chemistry between the trio of actors here were perfect and everything gelled together to make a great ending that I was very satisfied with.  I highly recommended Standoff.

Thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.

Cell

I’ve been reading Stephen King’s books since high school, the novel, “It,” being my first read and that was quite an undertaking.  At the time I had graduated from reading books of 200 pages or less and going into one that consisted of 1,138 with a thickness resembling a phonebook; it had troubled me a bit.  But after reading the first few pages, I couldn’t put it down and that had started my obsession with the author, purchasing every King book in print and enjoying all of them thoroughly.  From that point on, I would pre-order every book release, immersing myself into his fictional world of Maine and beyond.

The same had gone for all the movies that were based on his books, especially the ones filmed in the 1980s.  From the well-made serious adaptations such as De Palma’s Carrie or Cronenberg’s The Dead Zone to the more zanier films like Maximum Overdrive (directed by King himself) or Graveyard Shift, I’ve seen them all and own most of them on DVD or Blu-Ray.

As time went on, I—as well as a lot of King’s readership—have noticed a bit of a wane in his work, especially at the beginning of the new millennium.  Though his books were still excellent, it seemed to lose that magic I’d always felt when reading his stories.  I have quite a few novels on my bookshelf that I haven’t cracked yet—such as “Lisey’s Story” or “Duma Key”—but I plan to read them someday soon.  One of the last magical books I’d read from King was “11/22/63” and it left quite an impression on me, causing me to think about it long after finishing it.  I’d thought that he was returning to form, but then I’d jumped into “Revival” right after and felt a bit let down.  King’s recent three books—called the “Bill Hodges Trilogy”—is an interesting storyline, but it delves more into the crime novel territory and away from the supernatural.

One novel that I had such high hopes for was the story, “Cell,” and the synopsis grabbed me as I had really thought I was going to go for quite a ride, returning to my preceding journeys like when I’d read the epic novel, “The Stand,” back in the late 80s.  However, "Cell" was interesting enough and kept me turning the pages, but I’d never really reflected back on it after I was done reading it.  A couple of years later, I’d heard that the story was going to be adapted to film and I thought it would’ve made a great movie, having potential to really entertain audiences.  Back in late 2007 or early 2008, it was rumored that Eli Roth was to helm the film and that was pretty much all the news I’d heard about for a while.  I’d been teased a little when I had first watched the trailer for The Happening because the actions of the people that go crazy in that film is pretty much what was described in King’s book.  It wasn’t until a year or two ago when I’d caught wind of film production and saw a set photo along with the news that John Cusack and Samuel L. Jackson were re-teaming for the adaptation (previously working together in 1408).

Finally, I had thought, we get to see Stephen King’s vision come to life.

Or did we?  Here’s the synopsis of Cell...

When a mysterious cell phone signal causes apocalyptic chaos, an artist, Clay Riddell (John Cusack), is determined to reunite with his young son, Johnny (Ethan Andrew Casto), in New England.

Now, before I go into the movie and how well it was adapted, I’ve got to say I was thrown off by John Cusack’s appearance right away.  As the film opens, it centers around Cusack’s character arriving at an airport and trying to call his son, but his hair was making him appear like a madman for some reason, as if he'd adopted the crazy Nicolas Cage look.  It appeared as if too much product (gel or mousse) was placed in his mane, making it tuft out toward the back and I couldn’t keep my eyes off of it.  Thankfully, not long after the turmoil erupts, Cusack dons a beanie and his hair is soon forgotten.

With that out of the way, I’d bought his portrayal of Clay Riddell, even when they’d announced him in the lead.  Cusack has a way of playing the everyman so well, that there was really no way he’d screw this part up.  As I’d mentioned the opening scene a little, I really hadn’t got into what happens and how he reacts to everything.  Namely, this opening depicts how a signal comes through everyone’s cell phones, that when each person places the device to their ear, they instantly become turned into some raving lunatic.  Seeing Cusack’s reaction to seeing everyone beginning to kill each other in such vicious ways was very compelling and you can comprehend the range of emotions he’s going through.

Speaking of the experience that metamorphoses everyone, what the book and film names “the pulse,” I was somewhat enthralled by it at first and felt it translated the event quite articulately from the novel.  In fact, it seemed to add a bit more as the people who had been changed by this phenomenon are more than individuals with their brains scrambled, they’d seemed to be turned into a device.  Rather than normal screams and screeches, the changed people—called “phoners” in the book and this film—sound more electronic or automated; I felt that was a nice touch.

I must say, however, that after this first part of Cell—the people becoming “phoners,” the killing and chaos, Clay escaping the airport unscathed, meeting up with Tom McCourt (Samuel L. Jackson) and getting to his apartment—we enter a bit of a lull and it just makes the movie grind to a halt.  The filmmakers had seemed to be trying for some character development—and we get a little—but it seemed a bit uneven and forced.  It’s at this point that we get another introduction and addition to Clay’s little survivor’s group (barring the inclusion of the short-lived character who claimed to be DJ So-and-So—I forget his name and it’s just as well), who happens to be his next-door-neighbor, Alice (Isabelle Fuhrman). Following a few other scenes of “phoner” attacks, there’s just more lulls until they end up at some private school to introduce more characters—the dean of the school, Charles Ardai (Stacy Keach), and a student, Jordan (Owen Teague).  From then on, some attacks, more lulls, introduction of more uninteresting characters, and...the end.

Don’t get me too wrong here, there are some curious and intriguing concepts of the story to make it better than the book, but I think the movie had trouble executing it and maybe it was more of a mistake with editing.  Some of the story seems heavy-handed, then sometimes it’s not really understandable...overall just seeming clunky with the whole exposition.  But...I'd really loved the depiction of everyone once they become part of this whole hive of “phoners” as they'd all seemed automated rather than how they are described as in the book...kind of like the zombies in the Dawn of the Dead remake back in ’06.  A lot of the visuals were remarkable—Some, not so much—and added to the horror the characters were facing, especially seeing all the “phoners” walk around as one or how they all gathered together at night to upgrade their collective brain.  Though there is quite a bit that I can complain about, the one thing I had been looking forward to was the character of The Raggedy Man (played here by Joshua Mikel).  In the book, he was sort of the leader of all the “phoners” and was the one Clay and the group had to outsmart; here in this film, he was just depicted as Clay’s art come-to-life, not really much more than that—he was clearly someone they had to deal with, but the filmmakers really didn’t convey that well enough.

If there’s any bright spot here in Cell is the decision to go away from the book’s ending and to change it here in the film.  I won’t give either away, but I like how they’d handled it here.  Tod Williams (Paranormal Activity 2) directed the cast well, but the story probably should’ve had a bit more tweaking.  All cast members were great in their respective parts, but they just didn’t have a strong enough production from the outset.  Adam Alleca wrote the screenplay here, and I’ve enjoyed the few other projects he’s worked on, but this—along with the editing—needed to be a bit more tuned up before the studio decided to release this.

Lastly, I’ll say this—back when the book was written and published, I’d thought it was such a great idea that had captured the culture of America perfectly.  At the time, EVERYONE was on their phones—while driving their cars, waiting in line at the bank, getting a haircut, eating at a restaurant—it was a national singularity that was accepted by all.  When talks of a film adaptation came down through the pipeline, I thought it was perfect, that maybe this will put a scare into people to get them to stop talking on their cell phones all the time.  It was getting ridiculous and becoming a nuisance as it became widespread throughout the country, causing accidents and displaying overall stupidity by everyone.  Alas, the movie, though spoken of as a possibility, didn’t happen right then and the culture of speaking on cell phones all the time morphed into people texting or Tweeting or Facebook updating...nobody really spoke on their phones anymore.  Though what it evolved into was worse—people were constantly looking at their phones instead of doing more important tasks like, uh, driving without looking at their phones?—and made the prospect of a film adaptation not so significant.  But Cell is what it is and they, at least, tried to stay true to the book and created something modern enough for the times.

 

My final “bit” on Cell?

If you’re a Stephen King fan, and one who’s read this novel, you might enjoy this and will find interest in how the writer had changed the ending (it actually might’ve been a collaborative effort by Alleca and King).  The story is easy enough to follow along, but it cuts right along at times to leave you guessing at the characters’ motivations.  But you’ll have time to figure that out when the film hits its lulls, unless you know the book’s story, then these times will really bore you.  I’d hate to say this, especially with the potential this story had, but this film is not worth your time and isn’t very good.  You can hazard a viewing, but I don’t recommend it.

Thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.

The Purge: Election Year

A paltry three years ago, in 2013, a stylish idea came to light leading me to believe it would be a great horror flick (and I’m just taking it in right now that it’s only been three years...it seems like much longer).  The movie was called The Purge and it’s funny because my wife heard about it before I had, calling attention to it one night when the television spot aired between some commercials; I say it’s amusing only for the reason that my wife usually stays clear of a movie that has resemblance of anything scary, gory, or a combination of both.  But speaking of that TV spot, I’d loved the little scene teased where someone was walking through their house unaware of a masked person poking their head in from an open window behind them.  It was a creepy vibe and I thought it’d be a success.  It had resonated the reaction I’d felt when seeing the trailer for The Strangers six years prior, so I’d started itching for it from the word ‘go.’  The Purge had missed the mark in that regard, even though it was an interesting movie entertainingly enough, but it garnered a sequel, The Purge: Anarchy, that had surpassed the original and made me a fan of the franchise instantly.

The aspect I had loved about the sequel is that it took the story out in the world, giving the audience a glimpse as to what occurs when this event—a national day where any crime, including murder, is legal for 12 hours—takes place.  Where the original movie was more of a home invasion type of flick, the sequel took it further, as well as giving us a vigilante to get behind.

The Purge: Election Year continues the story of that vigilante, rather than making up a whole new story for this sequel, and I’m glad they’d done just that.  But before going into a full discussion of the film, let me first give you the synopsis…

Years after sparing the man who killed his son, former police sergeant Leo Barnes (Frank Grillo) has become head of security for Senator Charlie Roan (Elizabeth Mitchell), a Presidential candidate targeted for death on Purge Night due to her vow to eliminate The Purge.

The Purge: Election Year has been on my radar for quite some time now, probably since the release of the first sequel.  I’d known that Frank Grillo was to return and I was interested at what capacity they were going to bring him back.  Seeing as he played a “Punisher” type of character in Anarchy, I thought we were to see more of that, perhaps see him become a hero where he goes out to save innocent people from getting slaughtered.  I had no idea they were going to go in the direction they had, but it was a nice surprise and an intriguing story nonetheless.  Grillo had definitely made a splash and I believe he deserves the recognition he’s receiving.  With his standout performance in The Grey to his recurring character of “Crossbones” in the Captain America films, Grillo certainly has a presence when he’s featured on the screen and I’m always eager to see him.

So, yes, writer and director James DeMonaco made a nice choice to move this series from a simple home invasion tale to opening it up for us to see what’s really out there during this crazy 12-hour period that goes on once a year.  From the first film, that’s really been the highlight in promoting each film, as we see the mysterious and creepy characters who don masks for the annual purge.  In the first film, that was the one aspect that worked so well in selling it and it continued to work through these last two outings too.

Within these films there are certainly some symbolism at play, showing us, in extreme harsh light, what the world has always faced—the divide of the wealthy and the impoverished.  DeMonaco is undoubtedly trying to convey this throughout this series of films and it worked so brilliantly in Anarchy.  Here, it’s pushed a little too in-your-face, but with the addition of the government side of it—especially giving us an up-close look at the “New Founding Fathers of America”—it gives us a fresh take in the series.

As in the film before, we cut back and forth from certain groups of characters and what they’re all about. 

First off, we get a flashback scene of Senator Charlie Roan (Elizabeth Mitchell) and what had happened to her family during an annual Purge Night long ago, which is what drives her into the career path that she’s chosen.  After witnessing what she had gone through and having the story return to the present (or the year 2025, I believe), we understand why the senator is campaigning for the Presidency of the United States, as one of her stances is to end Purge Night if she’s elected.  Of course, this sets in motion the main crux of the story, leading us to meet the members of the New Founding Fathers of America and to see that they are determined to see that Roan does not win the election by any means necessary.

Frank Grillo returning as Leo Barnes was a breath of fresh air and his character is more cut-and-dry in this film.  In the previous film, we see him as a man set out for revenge, purposely going out into the city as he’s got his mind set on killing the man who had killed his son and had gotten off easy.  Here, Leo is shown as a good guy, standing with the senator as head of her security, making sure she’s safe during her campaign appearances or remaining in her home during Purge Night (at her insistence, not wanting to be holed up in some elaborate fort as she doesn’t want to appear to be better than the people who vote for her).

To even out the scenes of the wealthy, we meet deli store owner, Joe Dixon (Mykelti Williamson, of Forrest Gump fame), and his employee, Marcos (Joseph Julian Soria).  We’re also introduced to a friend of Joe’s, Laney (Betty Gabriel), who is a frequent patron of the store and is hinted at early on that she’s some sort of well-known badass during past Purge Nights.  They all play a close-knit group of friends and end up being a pivotal ensemble throughout the story.  Just to add to their representation of the humble part of the populace, an idea is presented here as Joe gets a call from his insurance company to inform him that his Purge Policy has been raised to an unaffordable price.  This, of course, sets Joe’s subplot into motion as he has to keep watch on his place of business during Purge Night.

One interesting plot thread that we see in this film is that the event is so widespread that it appears to be well known in other countries.  I felt this was a nice touch that DeMonaco added, showing a little subversion to the story to introduce foreigners actually making the trek to America so that they may take part in the annual event.  Not only that, but the characters we see come back later in the film for an interesting and exciting scene.

Now, the horrific scenes in this outing are not so bad and seems as if it were purposefully tamed down a bit.  But don’t get me wrong...the scenes that do feature people making use of Purge Night is pretty cringe-worthy and might make you turn your head at times.  However, it seems as if we get more character development in this sequel rather than focusing on the acts of violence.  Which is a good thing, in my opinion, because at this point, we know what will happen to the characters who make themselves vulnerable out in the city and realize the dangers they face.  It’s better to focus on how the group bands together and figures out how to get themselves out of a mess.

To be fair and to point out some manufactured facets of the story, this brings me to the amount of conveniences, and inconveniences, I’d noticed—which can be very conspicuous to anyone watching this—throughout the film.  During many times in the course of the story, when the main characters find themselves in a safe location where they can wait out the event and get through the night unscathed, there always seems to be a dumb reason—or at least contrived—to get them back out into the open to risk the dangers.  There are also a few times where they find themselves in a no-win situation and a just-in-the-nick-of-time act gets them saved.  Many times it turns out to be Joe who makes these scenes turn out the way they do—whether it’s him wanting to head back to his store or how he happens to know the Crips’ gang whistle that gets them out of a bind.  Other times, it’s the clichéd “cavalry” that shows up to save the day (or night).

A little fun fact before I get into my final words of the review—the actor who plays the anarchist-against-the-purge character, Dante Bishop (Edwin Hodge), is the only actor in this film who has had a role in each of the three films in this series.

So without further ado, here is my final “bit” on The Purge: Election Year...

I had been worried as I’d gone into this movie, thinking that the first sequel had gotten lucky with the success it had gained and that this sequel was going to be as boring as the first one had been.  It probably would have if not for Frank Grillo returning to his character of Leo Barnes.  Additionally, the other characters hold their own and are more developed than the side characters of Anarchy, where they appeared to be one-dimensional caricatures of people in danger.  Elizabeth Mitchell (of “Lost” fame) does a fine job as a Senator/Presidential hopeful and it sort of mirrors how the U.S. currently has a female candidate in the running as we speak, albeit one who isn’t as trustworthy as Senator Roan (let’s face it, if she were in this film, she’d be more on the N.F.F.A. side and probably would not put a stop to Purge Night).  Anyway, here, in Election Year, we get more emotionally attached to the protagonists and care about them a lot more than we’ve done in the first two films.  Though the violence is few and far between, the world is opened up more for us here and shows us that there is light at the end of the tunnel.  Overall, it’s a fun movie to go through and there are plenty of tense moments to boot.  See it while it’s still in theaters if you can...and to let you know how I really feel about it, I'll say that I’m definitely going to add this to my Blu-Ray collection once it’s released onto home media. 

Universal Studios really has a winner here and I hope they take good care of it, especially the writer and director of all three films—James DeMonaco.  He doesn’t have much experience in the director’s chair, but what he’s done so far speaks volumes.  I’m not sure if he’ll be attached to the next sequel when/if it happens, but I’d be interested to see where he’ll go next with this series.

As a side note, there is a bit of an implication that we’ll see another sequel and although we’ve had it ingrained into our DNA by now, do not wait through the credits because you won’t see anything there—no after-credits stinger.

Thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.