Director: Gavin HoodGenre: Sci-FiSource: USA (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinema
Grade: B-
Part of the reason I have come to really enjoy writing these film reviews--even though I'm mostly just writing for myself--is the opportunity it gives me to think a little more critically about my film-going experiences. Ender's Game is a film that, for better or for worse, wears its heart on its sleeve, and while it kept me engrossed throughout its running time, it is also rushed, poorly scripted, and overly simplistic. It works, and it's a compelling film, but it is not a great film, or possibly even a good one. It accomplishes all of those elements primarily through the seriousness with which it takes itself.
There are many elements that Ender's Game gets right. The universe constructed here, while somewhat bare bones, feels complex, and the visuals are a lot of fun. The battle school sequences in particular are invigorating, and I'm just disappointed we didn't get a little more. And though the film rushes forward too much at times--cramming way too many elements into its long two hours--its relentless momentum makes sense when viewed from the perspective of the military leaders who know what is really at stake here--taking time to stop and talk about feelings isn't an option, and so the characters don't. They just keep running forward into violence. The pace means that even late-movie revelations about the nature of the war seem to slide by as quickly as every other plot point, when we should be hitting new emotional notes.
And that's one of the film's weak spots. For a film about children, Ender's Game is surprisingly bleak. That's not bad, unless that's all there is. Harrison Ford's gruff barking and an excellent Asa Butterfield's dour expression seem to set the emotional tone for the movie, and they don't really change from beginning to end. The story of mankind's war against an alien race--and the fear that conflict provokes in a war-wearied populace--is brought to us through the eyes of Ender Wiggin, a "third" (meaning third child) who sees his destiny as making it to battle school where his older brother and sister failed. To do so means to excel at destroying his enemies, and Ender is nothing if not gifted in this regard. In fact, the film pounds home the internal conflict between aggression and empathy by making it not only Ender's stated conflict but by externalizing it in two sets of characters--Ender's compassionate sister and sadistic brother, as well as in the stern, warmongering Colonel and the caring psychologist Major who are in charge of his training. We get it. Compassion, violence, kindness, cruelty--these are choices each of us must make within ourselves. But writer/director Hood doesn't let us make those discoveries ourselves. Instead he constantly barrages us with characters who are either kind or cruel. Ender himself seems to be the only character with any sort of internal conflict.
And that's a problem. The film is so focused on pushing through all the elements of the novel--battle school, zero gravity games, command school, Ender's dreams, etc.--that they never slow down to give us any character depth for anyone besides Ender. And even his conflict is just presented as a flat binary. As I always tell my students in literary analysis: black and white isn't interesting--it's the grey that's worth exploring and talking about. Hood seems to have lost sight of that.
He's not helped by actors--particularly some of the supporting children--who are not that great and can't help make some of the cheesy dialogue sound like, well, children reciting cheesy dialogue. Add to that a denouement that feels under-explained and a little simplistic, and it just doesn't fully gel, especially when given time to process. I did enjoy myself and get wrapped up in the film. It just hasn't stuck with me as much as I'd hoped.
Director: Brian De Palma
Genre: Horror
Source: USA (1976)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: B
Having never seen Brian De Palma's 1976 horror classic, I was pleasantly surprised with the peaks the film hit--notably some incredibly striking imagery, a crackerjack climax, and a fully committed (in every sense of the phrase) performance by Sissy Spacek as the titular teenage . . . protagonist? Antagonist? Victim? Monster? Her layered performance--painful and shy, angry and needy, mousy and bold--is really the best part of the film and what gives it its heart. She plays a very different kind of outsider here than she did in Badlands, but I can see now why she was the go-to "unusual girl" of the mid to late 70s. Though I haven't seen the remake, it's a natural, empathetic, and all-consuming performance that I can't imagine Chloe Moritz topping. Spacek is just a natural actress, willing to expose herself emotionally for a nuanced role like this.
The film is at its best when De Palma unleashes his full visual flair. There's a reason that image of Carrie, drenched in blood, standing in front of a wall of fire, has become so iconic. It is haunting and powerful, and even though I'd seen it a hundred times before, it remained powerful and haunting. Spacek looks like a drowned kitten--pathetic and scrawny and weak--and yet she also embodies the full rage of teenage angst. The film is worth it for those few shots, in addition to a few other strong elements. Is Carrie the proto-school shooter that haunts our high school halls today? In her rage, she destroys both those who have sought to aid her and those who mock her, and De Palma plays a neat trick in the pig's blood humiliation scene by showing both people laughing and those same people standing in apparent horror. So is Carrie's perception of victimhood blown out of proportion? Or does she see the truth behind those cruel teenage eyes? I like that it's not quite clear--though we know at least one or two of those Carrie destroys really had been trying to help her.
Great imagery and thoughtful ambiguities aside, however, the film is really showing its age. It doesn't surprise me that, in a world in which "mean girl" bullying continues to gain new life on the Internet, the time seemed ripe for a Carrie reboot, and several of the elements of this film really do come off as cheesy and dated now. It's a little funny to me that Piper Laurie was nominated for Best Supporting Actress. Her Bible-thumping mother is so over-the-top and histrionic that she comes off as little more than a caricature. Similarly, De Palma's tone is all over the place. Some scenes (tuxedo shopping, in particular) feel way out of place here--like they might fit better in an after school special or made-for-tv comedy.And Carrie's antagonists--Chris and Billy (a turning-it-up-to-11 John Travolta) are like mustache-twirling villains with little motivation other than Carrie got her in trouble. Which I guess is fine, but it's also really two-dimensional. It just doesn't always work. And though I haven't read King's original novel, so I don't know how much of it was changed for the film, I was also amazed with just how simple the plot was. There's not a whole lot of complication, and it zips from point A (Period! Bullied!) to point C (Bullied! Revenge!) really quickly.
In all, the film serves as a good reminder that high school can be hell. It invites empathy while also reminding us that even the wronged can do great wrong themselves, however seemingly worthwhile the reason. I'm not sure it fully deserves its classic status, but I see why it has such a devoted following, and when it works, it's great. I'm glad we saved it for Halloween.
Director: Jeff TremaineGenre: ComedySource: USA (2013)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Charlotte Studio Movie Grill
Grade: D+
I was prepared to really like this movie. Saw it with one of my closest friends as a warm up to seeing Pearl Jam live in concert. I was in a good mood, I was ready to be entertained, I knew the "real" show was coming later. I did laugh during the movie, to be sure, but as I thought about it more after the fact, I realized that mostly my entertainment was due to wanting to have a good time, not due to the quality of the movie itself. Old people saying demeaning things, kids saying offensive things, and poop/genitalia jokes can be funny, and there were a few moments of comedy. But mostly this was a disappointment. I wanted it to better than it actually was.
Part of that is due to the (I'm assuming) scripted narrative that overlays the "Candid Camera" style humor of Johnny Knoxville doing ridiculous things to unsuspecting bystanders. His age make-up (surprisingly good) and body language are pretty authentic, and it's interesting to see what effect such an offensive old coot has on people who don't know it's a joke (at least at first; the credits fortunately reveal the camera crew coming clean to several of the victims of Knoxville's gags, which is at least a nice reminder that practical jokes are not as fun if they're just mean-spirited). But the storyline of Bad Grandpa forging a relationship with his abandoned grandson is pretty flat, and whatever "growth" occurs is both not particularly believable or at all surprising. Even worse, the desire to connect these stunts and scenes with a narrative just makes the whole thing feel kind of hollow. In Jackass, the only narrative is "Here are a bunch of dumb idiot friends acting like fools." Here it becomes "Here are terrible people acting like jerks." It's harder to get behind, and it never strikes the right balance.
Even worse, the trailers for the film reveal most of the best gags. The bombing of the beauty pageant, for example, is really the film's ultimate prank, but you've seen all there is to see already if you've seen a preview, so whatever energy would have been there is sucked out. It's too bad, because it really is an absurdly offensive moment in all the right ways--mocking the child beauty pageants, the inappropriate sexualization of little girls, and the "pageant parents" responsible for both. It's a nice bit of satire that could have really been a nice surprise. Frankly, it's the scene that stands out most, so why include it in the preview?
Because there's not that much else to offer. Bad Grandpa is an interesting experiment that sits in a weird middle ground between narrative film and comic documentary, but it's just not very successful at either. Disappointing.
Pearl Jam, though. That show was awesome.
Director: Stuart GordonGenre: HorrorSource: USA (1985)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: B+
This is the cheesy, fun, gory, crazy horror movie I have been looking for all through October. Stuart Gordon's HP Lovecraft update has the gory practical effects, over the top insanity, and serious hilarity (is that a thing?) of the best B-movies. I'd never really call it scary, but it's really not trying to be. Instead, it's trying to be shocking and audacious, and in that regard it succeeds. Demon cat, insane-o-Dad, the headless scientist, and the goofiest/weirdest sex scene around? Yep, it's all here.
The film has it's fair share of bad acting, particularly in the barely present talents of Bruce Abbott and a slew of naked zombie corpse extras, and if that's all there was to the story it would simply be another cheap 80s horror melodrama. But then there's Jeffrey Combs.
Ah, Jeffrey Combs. He approaches his role as Herbert West with a seriousness and intensity that makes me think someone told him this was a forgotten Shakespearean masterpiece. His fervor and seriousness stand in contrast to the B-movie shenanigans around him, and that is what makes it work. Everyone else is distracted by green potions and walking corpses and so much blood, but West will not be deterred from his scientific advancements, no matter the cost. He is gleeful in his Frankensteinian devotion to his craft, and if he seems like he comes from another movie, all the more reason he looks down on the puny small thinkers that surround him.
In the final tally, the movie was just too much fun not to laugh at--and with. A fun piece of Halloween horror schlock that I'm glad I finally got around to seeing. The only thing that would make it better would be to watch it late at night with a bunch of rowdy friends.
Maybe next Halloween.
Director: Paul Greengrass
Genre: Action
Source: USA (2013)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Glynn Place Stadium Cinema
Grade: A-
Paul Greengrass--more than many directors--seems to excel at showing the drama of real life in what feels like a pseudo-documentary style. His handheld camera and the film's stark cinematography make us feel like we're there, for better or for worse. He knows how to film action with believable impact and a pace that moves as fast as real life, and so already Captain Phillips has a lot going for it to make it rise above the average action film. Add to that the "real life" story being told here of Somali pirates capturing an American shipping vessel, and you've got a pretty good recipe for tension. Now mix in a willingness to suspend some judgment of the pirates (not sympathizing with them exactly, but showing the conflict and pressures that drive them to this behavior with a soft enough touch to create some empathy--at least for leader Muse) and you've really got something worth sinking your teeth into.
All those qualities are solid, but it's the acting that helps Captain Phillips really rise above. Newcomer Barkhad Abdi as Muse is convincing, demanding, and times sympathetic, at times terrifying, at times pathetic. He plays Muse with confidence, and I hope he has more opportunities to show up in mainstream films, because I think he has real potential and a unique look. We don't have enough young black character actors (or black actors in general), and I think he brings a lot to the table, if this role is any indication.
But still, this is Tom Hanks's movie through and through. Hanks is one of those actors that, despite his fame and the often over-the-top roles he appears in, I cannot help but like. Here he plays Phillips almost casually. There does not initially seem to be much showboating in the role, as Phillips simply does his job and does it well. But as the pressure ratchets up, so does his intensity, and the final ten minutes of the film can only be described as harrowing--one of the most intense experiences in the theater I've had in some time, and one that genuinely brought tears to my eyes. When I teach my students catharsis next year, I will be talking about these final scenes. Greengrass's trick here is to keep us so involved in the story that we don't even realize how much tension we're holding in. And then he forces us to face it. It's pretty incredible.
Captain Phillips is not the best film of the year for me, and as I said, for most of the film it's just a really good action movie based in real life. Excellent work all around, though, kicks those final moments up to another level. Fiery, emotional, and fierce. I won't soon forget it, even if I don't think I could bring myself to watch it again.
Director: Ti WestGenre: HorrorSource: USA (2011)
Rating: R
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: C-
Well, as a film, The Innkeepers is all right, I guess, but that's about all I can say for it. The "closing weekend in a possibly haunted hotel" idea is one I don't think I've seen before, but it still feels not very fresh. There have been other haunted hotel movies, some great, some not so great, but most of them still better than this one.
I think part of my problem with the film is that it feels cheap at times (not in terms of cost, but in terms of plot set-up and scares--why these particular people are at a hotel on its closing weekend in the first place never quite seems realistic), while at other times it's just plain boring. There are long stretches of nothing happening, and while that can be a useful tactic to up suspension, West doesn't seem to infuse those shots with dread the way other more talented directors would. We in the audience just feel--like the employees of the hotel--that we're just killing time until something interesting happens.
Also, I feel like the haunting is never really explained particularly well. "Don't go in the basement" the psychic warns, but why? Why are these spirits after one particular character? What's their motivation, and what do they want? Am I just so used to the tropes of the horror genre that I expect that if ghosts show up they want something? And does not giving us that mean West is doing something unique or just leaving me unsatisfied?
I don't know, I know I've watched worse horror movies this month, but I was just disappointed because I wanted to like it more. Average at best.
Director: Mark TonderaiGenre: HorrorSource: USA (2012)
Rating: PG-13
Location/Format: Netflix Instant Watch
Grade: C
Like all somewhat average "slasher" movies (though admittedly, not a lot of slashing goes on), House at the End of the Street owes a lot to Psycho, though a glossed up, teen friendly riff on Hitchcock's classic. The film seems to have gotten a lot of vitriol from critics, but in conversation with my film classes I've found it to be generally effective for a teen audience with twists and turns that kept them guessing. I'll admit, it kept me guessing for a while as well. The film teases the idea that a particular character might not be dead as everyone thinks, but rather than dragging out this rather obvious twist, they answer it right away and get their shocks (and their surprises) in other more creative ways. And if the ending had to hammer home its points a few too many times, it still was pretty fun to watch.
That's mostly due to a cast that's really much better than is usually associated with films like this. Elisabeth Shue (now relegated from one of my teenage crushes to playing the mom in every movie) doesn't have much to do besides be inconsistently concerned and overly trusting. But, again, that's because this is a movie for teenagers, where parents are kind of dumb but ultimately love you. Really it's a movie about Jennifer Lawrence, and that's not a bad thing, because Jennifer Lawrence is a talented enough actress to make her kind of two-dimensional character interesting. I mean, it's no Winter's Bone, and it's a little weird to me that this is a movie she made after that fine little film, but I guess people have to work.
Max Thieriot is also solid as the "wounded boy with a dark past who nobody trusts because his sister murdered his family and so the house is driving down home prices." Again, a little two dimensional, but he is given a few interesting things to do as the film progresses.
Overall it's no masterpiece, but as far as PG-13 horror goes, this movie is enough down its own path (with nods to the past, as I mentioned) that you could do worse. It's not looking to shock with watered down gore; it's trying to create a sense of atmosphere and impending danger, and I'd say it mostly succeeds.
Director: Gavin Hood
