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. 

Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse

In the past, I’ve always steered away from films with long silly titles, thinking they’re named that way to try and be catchy.  I just figure that if I can’t remember the whole title, or if it’s difficult to get all the words in the right order, the movie’s not worth my time and I usually move on to something else.  I really can’t give a definite answer of why I avoid films with the trivial aspect of a title that needs to describe the movie in more than three words.  But then I remember there were other films I had sidestepped from when released in theaters that I’d enjoyed when seeing them on home media.  Scott Pilgrim vs the World comes to mind…so does Tucker and Dale vs Evil (though that one hadn’t received a mass theatrical release)…The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is another film that I’d ended up loving.  So I guess you shouldn’t judge a film by its title, no matter the length.

Now, the film, Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse, came and went in the theaters and I hadn’t made a fuss about not seeing it, as you can tell by my reasoning up above.  But I’d kept an eye on it, as the TV spots seemed interesting, and even the trailer had me curious as to the what the story may be about.  I’d noticed there was a comedic side to the movie, not really taking the zombie genre too seriously, and that’s a whole other rationale as to why I’d decided to miss this film during its run in theaters—I really dislike when a horror film is made into a parody of itself.

When I’d noticed the movie was available on Netflix recently, I had placed it in my queue and sort of left it in limbo for a while, letting it stay towards the top but in the 20s somewhere.  I had simply forgotten about it and I guess it just made its way to the top spot without me noticing until it showed up in my mailbox the other day.  Even after opening it up and looking at the disc, I still left it aside and opted to watch other movies instead—either ones I own or others that showed up from Netflix.  But I hate to have discs just sit aside gathering dust and usually feel I have to make the decision: watch it or send it back.

So I’d watched it.

But before discussing it, let me synopsize it for you.

Three scouts—Ben (Tye Sheridan), Carter (Logan Miller), and Augie (Joey Morgan), on the eve of their last camp-out, discover the true meaning of friendship when they attempt to save their town from a zombie outbreak.

Not knowing what to expect, and still on the mindset of possibly stopping the disc and sending it back, I’d instantly got into this film right from the hilarious scene featuring Ron the Janitor (Blake Anderson) and his lip-sync performance of "Black Widow" by Iggy Azalea as he mopped the floors of the lab that contains the zombie virus.  Although it's a bit over-the-top with physical comedy that causes the contagion to be released, it's needed here for the type of movie that you'll be watching for the next hour and a half.  If you watch this film, and stop to think about it, had this film been a serious story, I don't think it would've worked...a comedic tone was the right decision.

Now it’s surprising that the director of this film—Christopher Landon—made a zombie genre film work so well as a comedy.  A year before, he’d directed Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones, a serious film (and the last good film, if not the best, of that series), and you’d think someone who had helmed a film with such a serious tone would step into a comedy so easily.  Landon even had a hand in writing the screenplay with the help of three other writers (Carrie Lee Wilson, Emi Mochizuki, and Lona Williams).  Landon, et al, have very little experience on their IMDb.com résumé, each one only involved with a few movies or productions, that I’m surprised Paramount Pictures trusted this film with them.  Then again, promotion was scarce and I didn’t see much on TV or any trailers in theaters, so maybe they had some extra money to throw away and gave these unknowns a chance…?  I don’t know.  But they made it work and I hope this film garners a sequel…they can definitely play it out and extend this from a citywide plague to a statewide or countrywide pandemic.

Now, although the synopsis of the film is simplified to get the plot across, it’s a little more intricate with the relationship of the three main characters.  The three friends have known each other since grade school and have been scouts since then.  However, Ben, and especially Carter, have realized that they’ve outgrown the scouts now that they’re in high school and coming into their own, leaving Augie as the only one who’s committed to being a scout for life.  Each friend has their own reasoning for their decisions—Ben simply feels he’s outgrown the scout oath and uniform, Carter wants to be accepted by the older high schoolers and is extremely motivated by girls and the possibility of sexual relationships, and Augie is dedicated in his scouthood because of the dedication to his friends.  But the crux of all this is that Augie doesn’t know how his friends feel until he catches them in betrayal, causing a rift between the boys.  So, there’s a lot for them to overcome before they get together to save their town.

Also in this movie is David Koechner as Scout Leader Rogers, featured in only a few scenes, but funny as always.  I was thrown off by the toupee he wears during the film, but at first I guessed it was added to make him look a bit younger…I don’t know.  But his character is peppered throughout for comedy sake as a running joke…I won’t spoil it for you, but it made me smile every time.

Like Zombieland or the aforementioned Tucker and Dale vs Evil, you’re going to have a lot of fun with this movie.  I consider a comedy—or in this case, a horror-comedy—to be well done if I smile a few times during the story, but I laughed out loud throughout the course of it.  However, make no mistake, this is not a film you can take your kids to see, even if you’re okay with them watching zombie-type films with a bit of gore and violence.  Scouts features a lot of sexual content, a bit of nudity, a few quick parts with some uncomfortable gross-outs…so be warned that you may have to explain these scenes to the little ones.

Besides the main plot of having Ben, Carter, and Augie needing to save most of the kids who are holed up in some warehouse attending a rave, there’s a subplot of how our main protagonist, Ben, has feelings for Carter’s sister, Kendall (Halston Sage).  I felt it was a bit clichéd to feature this in the movie, seeing as how the film avoided many common story tropes throughout, but then the character of Denise (Sarah Dumont) was added, giving the subplot a love triangle feel to it.  I like how the filmmakers went this way, showing that the two girls were very different—Kendall was the nice girl that treated Ben like a brother, while Denise was the hard-ass chick that worked in the local strip joint.  Although the story ended a bit differently than I’d thought (regarding this love triangle), it was quite enjoyable to see this subplot play out.

Another funny stand-out in the movie is Carter’s nosy neighbor, Miss Fielder (Cloris Leachman).  Though she was the stereotypical old lady who snoops on her neighbors and intervenes with anyone who comes within her property, her house and cats play a pivotal—as well as hilarious—part near the end of this movie.  It was silly and not very realistic, but I laughed my ass off.

Now, like I’d mentioned, the friends do find themselves in a falling-out within their relationships, but when they finally resolve their differences and ready themselves to do battle against the zombies that are attacking their fellow high schoolers, I thought it was pretty cool.  As the boys go to the local hardware store to gather supplies, I like the way the filmmakers hint to us what each scout is doing by showing us their merit badges before seeing them gather their materials and putting their armaments together.  Knowing that they’ve each created weapons by their scout skills (I thought Augie’s was the best) and seeing them enter the party to save all the party-goers, you know it’s on!

As my final “bit” on Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse, I’ve got to admit I was very surprised by what I’d seen.  The three main characters—Ben, Carter, and Augie—were very likable throughout.  Tye Sheridan, especially, is a standout; I’d mentioned in my X-Men: Apocalypse review that I’d liked him in the indie film Joe with Nicolas Cage, and he really holds his own (as well as something else in a very hilarious scene) here.  Logan Miller as the sex-crazed friend has some very funny scenes and you’ll love all his selfies that are featured during the end credits.  And speaking of the end credits, there’s a short scene midway through that caps off the movie funnily (I didn’t know that was a word until I’d typed it out right now).  Anyway, the movie kept my attention throughout and I’ll definitely see this again…perhaps purchasing it on Blu-Ray.  Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse shouldn’t be missed.

Thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.

10 Cloverfield Lane

For the last decade or so, the name J.J. Abrams seemed to be synonymous with enigmatic productions, starting by way of the television series, "Lost," and taking it to the near-Spielbergian level with 2011's Super 8.  The biggest splash he'd made was with 2008's Cloverfield, the found-footage giant creature feature flick.  Now, it may or may not have its merits, but when I say that Abrams made a big splash with it, I'm referring to the trailer that debuted in the summer of 2007.  What caused a stir was the choice to play snippets of the film, showing the money-shot of the Statue of Liberty's decapitated head rolling down a street with people screaming and running for their lives, and ending with the text of the release date—that's it.  No title, no credits...nothing but the date.  People went out of their minds, wondering what we were seeing.  At the time, the consensus from the internet ramblings-from myself as well-was thinking it had to be a new Godzilla movie.  Everybody wanted to know—had to know—what was the title of the movie and what was it going to be about.  At that point in time, in my opinion, J.J. Abrams solidified himself as a household name.  What's funny about all of it was that Abrams wasn't the director of the film—it was Matt Reeves, who'd done an excellent job with the material.

So, with Cloverfield being such a memorable movie, hearing about an Abrams production called 10 Cloverfield Lane, you can guess what everyone thought...that Abrams finally had gotten a sequel.  Additionally, after seeing the first trailer, your mind tended to think this was a sequel of sorts to the 2008 movie since there had been talk about getting a sequel made, sometimes discussing that it would be during the same timeline, only from a different point of view.  My mind hadn't gone that route, but I thought it was very interesting that the film had the name in the title.

I have to admit that this film had snuck up on me, only seeing the trailer when the title was firmly in place.  I'd heard that the production started off as The Cellar which, after seeing the movie, would've been an appropriate title.  Probably The Bunker or Fall-Out Shelter would've been even better, but the title is what it is.  To me, it seems as if Abrams and company decided to put "Cloverfield" in the title to gain massive interest and to have potential movie-goers think they were heading in to a Cloverfield sequel.  If that's the case, to me, that's really not fair and kind of a cheat.

But...I have to put my Cinema Bits goggles on and try not to have any extensive reconsideration about what I had seen, so without any further ado, let me break down the synopsis of 10 Cloverfield Lane.

After getting into a car accident, a young woman, Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), is held in a shelter with two men-the owner of the shelter, Howard (John Goodman), and Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.)-who claim the outside world is affected by a widespread chemical attack.

Now, I wrote, at length, about J.J. Abrams and a few of his past productions, but 10 Cloverfield Lane is directed by Dan Trachtenberg.  Trachtenberg doesn't really have a huge résumé of films that he's directed—in fact, he only has five on his IMDb.com bio, with a few other miscellaneous productions as a writer, assistant director, editor, etc.  He's directed two short films, a television episode, this film, and an upcoming production.  So, there's not much I can say about his past work, seeing as how I hadn't seen one of them.   But what he's done here is created some great tension, a sense of wonder, and a fabulous back-and-forth on what's true and what's not.  Anyone who can get John Goodman to play this serious of a character with a bit of a schizophrenic side to him, I give them props.

I went into this film dry, with no previous knowledge besides seeing the original trailer and knowing the basic plot of the story on how some girl wakes up in an underground bunker with some man who claims the end of the world has happened.  I saw the tags on the TV spots that said the movie was great, I'd read the headlines of reviews that commended the story, hearing that the movie opened with pretty good numbers, but I didn't read into it any more than that.  I didn't even see this in the theater because I hadn't been interested enough, so when it hit Netflix, I'd placed it in my queue.

With all that said, this film surprised me—especially the climax (I won't spoil it for you in case you haven't seen it).  The majority of the film takes place in the bunker, but don't let that turn you off from it.  I'd mentioned that there was a lot of back-and-forth in this story and most of it is within this underground shelter.  You go from thinking that Howard is just a good guy, trying to help Michelle because of some attack on U.S. soil, to thinking that it's too much of a coincidence that she gets into an accident on that day.  Michelle goes from not believing Howard and trying to escape the shelter to accepting what has happened and deciding to stay.  Yes, there's a lot here in the first two acts and you're constantly going from thinking Goodman's character is a conspiracy theorist wacko to seeing that he may know more than anyone else thinks, then back to believing he's a lunatic.

The film features many tension-filled scenes and it's all due to John Goodman's performance as he goes from a nice guy, to a hothead, to a creep.  Of course, Mary Elizabeth Winstead brings her leers from The Thing remake, but it works here.  John Gallagher Jr. plays the softhearted hick who believes Goodman's character, but decides to help out our heroine of the story.

As always, I can pick out a few things that don't make sense or subplots that go nowhere.  Especially with what Michelle and Emmett find out about Howard, how we're never given an answer to his bit of backstory, but then maybe the purpose of that was to throw off the audience and make them believe everything was made up.  And that's what happens when I think of something from this film that didn't make sense...it seems logical if put in perspective of placing it in the story to make the audience take sides with the characters.  One thing for sure, there are a lot of conveniences in this film, like during one scene where Winstead's character is about to escape the bunker, not believing the end-of-the-world explanation, when something just happens to transpire to make her rethink everything.

One of the biggest suspensions of disbelief you'll have to go through is when Michelle and Emmett decide to create a hazmat suit in case they're able to get outside the bunker.  They devise an easy enough plan to be able to obtain the materials needed, but being that the bunker can't be that big of a space, they seem to have ample room and time to go through the risks to put the suit together without Howard catching them, since he's proven to be a bit dangerous by this point in the film.  The bunker's not that big, yet they're able to do the work freely without worrying about being caught.  Maybe they were doing this while Howard was sleeping or showering, but the movie never establishes that and it all seemed a little too convenient for the story.

As a whole, I liked and enjoyed 10 Cloverfield Lane, it kept me in my seat and there really were never any lulls or boring filler throughout.  Questions arose and were answered by the climax of the film, so nothing will seem unsatisfying when you get to the end...besides leaving the film open for a sequel.  The acting was above average, nothing that would deserve an Oscar, but it kept the story believable and engrossing.

J.J. Abrams had gone on the record, when asked if this film was a sequel to Cloverfield, saying that there was some association with the 2008 film, but that this was not a sequel...and I agree to some extent.  But when you get to the end of this film, you understand what he means by the two films having some sort of association with each other.  There are a few Easter Eggs you may or may not catch, like the "Kelvin" gas station or the "Slusho" brand of slushy drink, but Abrams likes to slip those in within most of his productions.

Well, I've said all I can say without spoiling too much about the film, so let me just some it up with my final "bit"...

The movie will grab you and not let you go until that final scene.  The few actors in the movie are very likable, or at least mesmerizing enough to make you want to keep on watching once you've started.  Overall, it's a story that will make you wait to see how it'll all end.  Does the film have rewatchability?  I can't say that it does...I usually base my enjoyment of a film if I say to myself during the movie that I can't wait to purchase the Blu-Ray for my collection.  I didn't say it here, but I think I'd watch it again if it were to pop up on cable one night.  I say that you shouldn't miss it, if you haven't seen it yet, and that you should go out and rent it.  It's a good Friday night watch!

That's about it for 10 Cloverfield Lane...thanks for reading!

Cinema Bits is on Facebook and Twitter.

Hush

Although I love watching horror movies during the ghostly time of fall, particularly near Halloween, I’ll occasionally dive into one out of season when the urge arises, especially if it happens to be listed within the catalogue of the Netflix streaming titles.  It’s very rare when I enjoy a film that I pick out from there, but this time I found something that kept my attention…and that was the movie, Hush.

While the situations in these types of films—the home invasion genre—are sometimes hard to watch, especially when you’re sitting in the dark as one is wont to do when viewing this type of film, they still captivate me.  Films like The Strangers, The Purge, and You’re Next are some of the best that I’ve seen and I primarily love this subgenre of horror movies regardless of how they play out.  As in The Strangers, I enjoy the mystery as to why these nemeses decide to threaten the central characters of the story, never finding out their identities or the reason for their misgivings.  But then again, with You’re Next, it’s just the opposite, as the audience is provided answers to those questions and doesn’t end unresolved.  Both films are equally entertaining, but have different outcomes as the story plays out.

Regardless as how these stories present themselves, we—as people who’ve been in these same situations, sitting alone at home during late hours—can relate to the characters in these types of films.  It does happen in the real world, so to see these circumstances in a movie is not so far-fetched.

Before I jump too much further into the subgenre of these types of movies, let me break down the plot of the film.

Maddie (Kate Siegel), a deaf writer who retreated into the woods to live a solitary life must fight for her life in silence when a masked killer (John Gallagher Jr.) appears at her window.

Short and sweet, right?

When first starting this film, it began to wear on me that the star of the movie was never going to speak as we get a barrage of sign language when she has her neighbor, Sarah (Samantha Sloyan), over for dinner.  Though Sarah speaks her dialogue as she signs her words (which I thought was a nice touch to show what a good friend she was to learn signing), it became evident—or so I thought—that this was what we’d be seeing throughout the film…either that or complete silence as the story plays out.  I’d even stopped this film after a few minutes, thinking I wasn’t going to return to it, but the next day I’d thought better of it and decided to give it another chance and I’m glad I did.

Of course, having the interaction between Maddie and Sarah was necessary to establish the main character as being deaf because if the story had started out with seeing her walk around her house, it’d be hard to convey the fact that she was hearing-impaired.  Plus it was nice to form some character development between them as we get to know Maddie and see what she’s about.

Now, the introduction of the Masked Man was a bit shocking and we fully know what he’s about right from the outset.  The introduction makes it abundantly clear that he has ill intentions towards Maddie which creates concern for the audience in relation to what may happen to the main character.  It actually provided quite a jump scare when his introduction happens and it’s quite a contrast when you see how it doesn’t affect Maddie in the slightest due to her hearing-loss.

Now, I’d mentioned two movies of this same genre, The Strangers and You’re Next, because this movie seems to borrow heavily from them both.  But really, if you think about it, You’re Next appropriates ideas from The Strangers, so it’s a little befuddling to say that this movie takes from both…but I digress.  Like those two movies, the introduction of the villain here shows up with a simple white mask leaving his appearance devoid of emotion.  The fact that we don’t know who he is or that we can’t see any type of facial reactions or emotions is scary, making us feel even more for our main character here.  Not only that, but we—as the audience—see him first as Maddie sits unaware of the danger that is awaiting her. 

I usually don’t enjoy films that use cell phones or computers as plot devices, but in Hush, it was used well and importantly—mostly as a device for the baddie of the film to antagonize the main character in some very creepy ways.  However, there was a scene where Maddie is FaceTiming with her sister, Max (Emma Graves), and the Masked Man decides to walk by in the background, leaving Max to ask her sister who was there.  Seeing that this was early in the film, before Maddie realizes she’s being watched and stalked by a stranger, I felt the filmmakers could’ve explored this a little further to create a more unnerving situation. It was, however, a turning point for the story so I really can’t fault the inclusion of it.

I liked how the filmmakers showed us how it would it feel to be in Maddie’s shoes, where we couldn’t hear anything except a muffled heartbeat and breathing (although I don’t think someone who’s completely deaf couldn’t even hear that, but I can’t be completely sure).  They do convey how helpless it would feel to go through such an ordeal without an important sense that we all take for granted.  Nevertheless, the filmmakers, at the same time, show us how our main character can use that to her advantage to get the upper hand on the villain.

In a lot of films, the story is sometimes foreshadowed near the beginning with something visual or spoken.  For instance, in the beginning of Back to the Future, as the film opens in Doc Brown’s home, we get a panning shot throughout his main room.  During this scene, we see a bunch of clocks, one bearing the scene from an old silent film, Safety Last, with Harold Lloyd hanging from the clock’s minute hand, which foreshadowed what would happen to Doc Brown at the end of the movie.  Here, it’s not so subtle, as we get a taste of how Maddie writes her books, having a hard time coming up with an ending she likes, so she writes multiple ones and decides later on how it will play out.  Using that same mentality during a pivotal scene of Hush, our heroine uses that logic in her head.  I’d really liked how the filmmakers filmed it and it actually had me fooled when the scene’s first presented.

If there’s anything in this film I can criticize is how the villain of the story unmasks himself to show his face to the main character and staying that way for the remainder of the story.  Though it was critical to the plot of the film, it took away the mystery of who this person was and just made him seem more human instead of a Jason Voorhees or Michael Myers figure.  Another thing that got me and made it easier for the bad guy of the story is how Maddie just leaves her door open for her cat to come back in when she doesn’t find her around the house.  Though she may think she’s safe from any intruders since she’s isolated in the woods, there are still wild animals that may decide to make her house their home…I was waiting for a raccoon or mountain lion to show up before the Masked Man walked in.  Also, there is some subplot during the commencement of this film, showing our main character as having some previous relationship as she plays with the idea of calling this person up only to hang up before they answer.  It follows up with some texts, but never comes back to it later in the film and I really didn’t get why that had to be included in this story.

Finally, I have to say that I was impressed with this director, Mike Flanagan, and surprised at his résumé of films on IMDb.com.  Though there haven’t been many films he’s directed, I was more fascinated with what’s coming up for him.   Before this film, he directed the unnerving Oculus, but has Before I wake coming up this year and looks to be set as director of the Stephen King-adapted, Gerald’s game.  I’m always ready to watch a Stephen King adaptation!

Now…my final “bit” on Hush?

As the plot of the film is very simple and short, the film never lets up on the enthusiasm once it gets going.  The acting is well done, the story is tight and never dulls out with any filler or intervals, there’s nothing complicated or implausible here…just an thrilling story of someone being terrorized in an isolated house in the woods.  Though I’d mentioned that I liked watching films like this during the fall time of Halloween, it’s still enjoyable to watch this during the throes of summer, winter, or spring.  Just make sure to lock up your house before sitting to watch this, because you may become unnerved when the meat of this story begins with the introduction of the Masked Man.  All in all, this story is well-written and ends on a high note, satisfying you on all counts.  Hush should not be missed.

Thanks for reading and be sure to check out the Cinema Bits Facebook Page and Twitter.