Us (2019)

Tags

Horror, Thriller

(Today’s NaPoWriMo prompt was to incorporate twenty random elements into a poem, but, since using all of them would likely result in nonsense, I tried to use at least 8 or 9 in a poem from the viewpoint of a tortured reflection.)

My life is death, for I don’t live. I imitate. I mock.
A mirror image knows its cage, no need for bars or lock,
A mime condemned to emulate another round the clock.

“I’m just so happy,” says my smile, when I am forced to wear it.
My joie de vivre is copy-pasted, hollow when I bare it.
Only when my twin shows grief can I completely share it.

“Keep up! No rest!” the glass wall cries between my twin and I.
The fluid hardness of its bounds compels me to comply.
I do the simulated dance, no understudy nigh.

I am, therefore I think, but no one else can hear my thoughts.
For no one thinks that life is real for something so ersatz.
A mime depicting stories based on someone else’s plots.
______________________

MPA rating: R

After the cultural splash that Get Out made, Jordan Peele had a lot to live up to with his next foray into horror, and in light of some strange confusion surrounding his first film’s genre, he left no doubt that Us is straight-up horror. Peele is definitely an auteur, able to brilliantly craft tension and chills and blessed with gifted actors to bring his stories to life, but Us feels like a tale he didn’t think through enough.

At the beginning, we meet Adelaide (Madison Curry as a child, Lupita Nyong’o as an adult), a young girl who wanders off at a beachside carnival and comes face to face with a terrifying doppelganger in a hall of mirrors. Many years later, she’s married to Gabe (Winston Duke, Nyong’o’s Black Panther co-star), and together with daughter Zora (Shahadi Wright Joseph) and son Jason (Evan Alex), the Wilson family goes on vacation not far from that same beach that has haunted Adelaide ever since. Without warning one night, an identical family breaks into their house with bloodthirsty intentions, and the Wilsons must fight to survive against their doubles.

Us does a lot of things really well, from the visceral panic of the home invasion to Peele’s skillful direction that keeps the adrenaline up and only shows you what he wants you to see. And like his previous film, he manages to incorporate some dark comedy, more successfully than in Get Out I thought, such as the Wilsons comparing their kill counts during a break in the action. Indeed, the first two thirds of Us are a horror masterclass, albeit a bit too bloody for my liking, but undeniably well done, even taking a rap song and turning it into a creepy segment of the score. All the actors do wonders with their dual roles, Nyong’o especially, nailing both their frightened and malevolent personas with apparent ease.

But then there’s the last third, which seeks to offer explanation where none suffices. The origins and previous lives of the doppelgangers are purposely bizarre, but their “way of life” simply makes no sense. Why are they sometimes compelled to mirror the Wilsons’ actions and other times not? Where do the rabbits come from? What is the purpose of the “Hands Across America” re-creation? I could go into a lot more spoiler-y detail, but suffice to say, the logical side of my brain was left screaming, “What the heck? This. Doesn’t. Make. Sense!” I see the intended symbolism of a grotesque mirror image of our world, as well as the overplayed theme of one person’s prospering resulting in another’s suffering, but it’s as if Peele forced the story to fit the message and no one wanted to tell him how illogical it had become.

For a film that initially feels so well-made, it’s a shame that the plot is ultimately so half-baked. I will admit the final twist packs a surprising and disturbing punch, which was unfortunately spoiled for me by none other than Lupita Nyong’o herself on Inside the Actor’s Studio. I didn’t think Get Out was the masterpiece many people said it was, but it at least didn’t leave me bewildered with its own implausibility, as Us did. I hope Jordan Peele takes more time for his next film to flesh out the story with the same talent he brings to the scares.

Best line: (Jason) “When you point a finger at someone else, you have three pointing back at you.”

 

Rank: Dishonorable Mention

 

© 2020 S.G. Liput
676 Followers and Counting

Crawl (2019)

Tags

Horror, Thriller

(Today’s NaPoWriMo prompt was to take a list of random words and use Rhymezone.com, which I do all the time incidentally, to find rhymes and similar words to use with them, which naturally leads to some welcome alliteration.)

I crave a crunch within my keep
And crawl and creep from out the deep
And sleekly sneak and slink toward prey
To snag the snack that runs away.
The peril of my pool is plain,
But how I prowl is not in vain;
The haunted hunted hate the wait
And heed the hazard much too late.
Before the fear is fully felt,
My sudden strike of death is dealt.
The walking world has one more dead,
And I, the predator, am fed.
____________________________

MPA rating: R

I enjoy a good creature feature and got Crawl from my library, thinking it was PG-13; I was wrong. If I’d known gorehound director Alexandre Aja was behind it, I probably would not have sought it out at all, but I’m glad I gave Crawl a chance. It’s an effectively pulse-pounding thriller that does for gators what Jaws did for sharks.

Kaya Scodelario plays Haley, a swimmer who drives into a flood zone as Hurricane Wendy bears down upon the Florida coast. She searches for her unresponsive dad (Barry Pepper) who hasn’t evacuated, and when she finds him, wounded beneath his house, the two humans and a dog are caught between the rising flood waters and a hoard of hungry alligators.

Crawl doesn’t need to be more than it is, a white-knuckle man/woman-against-nature flick with ravenous reptiles, and it succeeds. It develops the tension and the characters laudably well, providing convincing throw-away victims to up the stakes while the strained father-daughter dynamic grows stronger through the peril.

Like nearly all horror flicks, there are moments of foolishness that smarter-than-thou audiences can shake their heads at, but I doubt I’d fare as well as the main characters do. It has a few gruesome scenes on the level of Jaws, but Crawl’s violence is surprisingly restrained overall, considering the director, and turned out to be an unrealistic but enjoyably tense watch.

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2020 S.G. Liput
674 Followers and Counting

Parasite (2019)

Tags

Drama, Foreign, Thriller

We take what we can when a chance is in reach.
‘Tis not a behavior we humans must teach.
We covet and crave and we grasp and we use,
And somehow find ways to ignore and excuse.

And many believe some are worse than the rest,
More prone to wrongdoing, more quick to detest,
And common it is to believe that such foes
Are less than a human, the lowest of lows.

Yet sins such as these are not tied to one class,
One race or one creed or one crowd to harass.
We humans are kindred, for better or worse,
And vice is the same in a world this diverse.
______________________

MPA rating: R (for language, violence, and sensuality)

My mind has been ruminating over Parasite ever since I saw it in the theater three weeks ago, trying to decide what exactly I think about it. After hearing people gush over this obscure Korean film that was becoming increasingly less obscure, I was surprised and curious when it managed to snag a Best Picture nomination. It was the last nominee I saw in the theater this time around, and I liked it well enough. Yet in the days that followed, my opinion of it kept edging higher, its layers of meaning and metaphor being peeled away in my head. And then, lo and behold, it went from dark horse to Best Picture winner at the Oscars, the first non-English-language film to do so!

The Kims are a lower-class family of four struggling financially, doing what they can to make ends meet. When son Ki-woo gets an opportunity to tutor the daughter of the affluent Park family, he jumps at the chance, even though he must lie about his credentials as a university student. Soon, his self-justified fib morphs into an ongoing plot to provide his whole family with jobs in the Park household:  his sister as an art therapist, his father as a chauffeur, and his mother as the housekeeper. Their scheme goes well at first until things begin to unravel as untruths and unkindnesses pile upon each other.

I’ve been trying to pin down why Parasite is so critically beloved, at least in terms of its cinematic style. In some ways, it’s like the Korean equivalent of Jordan Peele’s Get Out, its thriller elements leavened by occasional humor and underscored by a potent social message. But I think the best and most flattering analogy is that it is a mixture of Hitchcock (exploration of human nature’s dark side, methodical direction) and Shakespeare (fits of mania, mistakes leading to disastrous consequences), both critical darlings themselves. Bong Joon-ho made history winning Best Picture, Director, and International Film at the Oscars, and, although a part of me considers it potentially a politically correct choice, I can’t deny that it’s deserving.

With public opinion increasingly turning against the rich, Parasite feels like the right film at the right time to earn its acclaim, and the stark class divide in South Korea also makes its story work best in its Korean setting, making me hesitant about the upcoming American remake. Yet there’s a balancing act at play as well, in which neither the poor Kims nor the wealthy Parks are pigeonholed as good or bad. There are sympathy and blame to go around, deceit and a distinct lack of empathy at work in them both, as well as other characters I won’t spoil. At one point, while reveling in the Parks’ home while they are away, the Kim matriarch declares, “If I had all this, I would be kinder,” yet within minutes, she is offered a choice between harshness and mercy and chooses poorly. From themes of escalating class rage to man’s knack for long-term shortsightedness, the plot is replete with subtlety yet remains entertaining as it embodies the saying, “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.”

Typically, I know my own opinion of a film by the time it ends or within a day or two if it bears rumination, so it’s a rare thing when my opinion continually goes up for reasons unknown. I still consider 1917 to be a more technically impressive film that I enjoyed more (and Sam Mendes definitely should have won Best Director IMO), but, despite my mild disappointment when Parasite won Best Picture, I’m okay with its win. I’m still not a huge fan of its violent climax, but I can’t help but admire Bong Joon-ho’s cinematic craft, from the brilliant bewilderment of its central twist to the setting and composition of the Park home, which deserves a place among notable houses in film.

Parasite is proof of the director’s memorable line from his Golden Globe acceptance speech: “Once you overcome the one-inch-tall barrier of subtitles, you will be introduced to so many more amazing films.” Even if it’s not destined to be a personal favorite of mine, this is not just a quality Korean import but a quality film, period. For me at least, Parasite attaches itself too strongly to ignore.

Best line: (Kim Ki-taek, the father, referring to the Parks) “They are rich but still nice.” (Kim Chung-sook, the mother) “They are nice because they are rich.”

 

Rank: List Runner-Up (though it comes closer to List-Worthy than I expected)

 

© 2020 S.G. Liput
662 Followers and Counting

 

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019)

Tags

Comedy, Drama, History, Thriller

A fairy tale, as you’re aware,
Can happen almost anywhere,
In magic kingdoms, foreign strands,
Or city streets in local lands.

It may be grim and end in tears,
To make more prudent those with ears,
But too much dark and dire can be
Too kindred to reality.

Imagination is the rule
For fairy tales, carefree or cruel,
And I, for one, prefer the kind
That plants a smile in my mind.
_____________________

MPA rating: R

I’ve never had much interest in Quentin Tarantino’s films. When a director is known for violence and cursing, I tend to steer clear, and if it weren’t for Regal Theatres’ deal for all the Best Picture nominees, I probably wouldn’t have bothered with Once upon a Time in Hollywood. In the case of Pulp Fiction, the only other Tarantino film I’ve seen, I came to the conclusion that I liked how he presented the content but not the content itself, and his latest film fits that description, though to a lesser degree. Pulp Fiction at least felt daring and inventive; Once upon a Time in Hollywood buries its lack of substance under charisma and polish, which just isn’t enough.

Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Rick Dalton, a washed-up TV actor whose big Western role in the show Bounty Law is behind him, leaving him in fear of a lackluster future of guest spots and Spaghetti Westerns. Brad Pitt is Cliff Booth, his easygoing friend/driver/stunt double who may or may not have killed his wife. (He’s the most likable character, so I guess we’re not supposed to care about the answer?) In 1969, Dalton lives next door to successful director Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha) and his wife Sharon Tate (a radiant Margot Robbie), while the Manson Family cult bides its time at nearby Spahn Ranch.

All of that information is simply the set-up, but the bulk of the film is made up of rambling vignettes that could have been episodes in a mini-series. Dalton puts his full effort into an important guest role, Booth makes an unnerving visit to Spahn Ranch, Tate enjoys her success as an actress, and much of it is good-natured and entertaining. I especially liked a few scenes between Dalton and a precocious young co-star who gives him the encouragement he needs, and the Oscar-winning production design certainly looks great, capturing the hippie presence and Hollywood glamour of L.A. in the 1960s. All the actors seem to comfortably fit their characters to a T, particularly Pitt, though I’m not sure what was so worthy of a Best Supporting Actor Oscar.

Yet for all its attention to capturing the period, the plot is annoyingly hollow. Tarantino rarely holds back on the profanity, but his trademark violence is thankfully restrained for most of the film. However, the “grand” finale, offering a what-if scenario of the Manson murders, is so over-the-top (flamethrower, anyone?) that I lost respect for much of what came before. By the end, nothing is resolved with Rick and Cliff’s relationship and the “What now?” feeling that preceded the climax, and the “happy” ending just felt weird, making me wonder what the point of all this was, except for an indulgent walk down memory lane.

As I said, I’m no Tarantino expert, but his historically based films seem to thrive on redirected violence. In the case of this film, the Manson Family were such horrible human beings that we’re supposed to get satisfaction at their own violence being perpetrated back at them, which is a morally repugnant idea. Glorifying others’ suffering, however deserved it may be, isn’t something to enjoy, and the film’s climax is a jarring set piece that ruined its entertainment value for me. I suspect that Tarantino is simply not for me, even if I can recognize the cinematic skill on display, though even his famed talent for dialogue seems uninspired for the most part. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is the kind of film that has a few great scenes but is far from a great whole.

Best line: (Narrator) “When you come to the end of the line, with a buddy who is more than a brother and a little less than a wife, getting blind drunk together is really the only way to say farewell.”

 

Rank: Dishonorable Mention

 

© 2020 S.G. Liput
660 Followers and Counting

1917 (2019)

Tags

Drama, Thriller, War

Two trenches crouched down in the dank and the mud,
Lest either lose more of their denizens’ blood.
The atmosphere over the land in between
Was thick with a rot that could not be washed clean.

And on either side, in the dirt corridors,
The weary ones wondered what worst case of wars
Their countries had sent them to, no thought at all
Of whether the winnings were worth their downfall.

They’d wait in their crack, being battered and mortared;
They’d shoot and attack as their higher-ups ordered;
They’d march into hell, knowing where but not why,
And let God decide who should live or else die.
_______________________

MPA rating:  R (for violence and profanity)

It’s funny that I’ve been watching the Best Picture nominees during the lead-up to the Oscars, yet I don’t seem to have much time to actually review them. But eventually, I’ll get to them all, starting with Sam Mendes’ World War I epic 1917. The last time I did this Best Picture Film Festival with Regal Cinemas was in 2016, and the last nominee I saw in the theater was my favorite, La La Land. This time, my favorite may well be the first I’ve seen because I’ll be very pleasantly surprised if anything manages to surpass Mendes’ cinematic achievement.

I’m always astounded by the skill on display whenever a film or TV show tackles an extended tracking shot. I get this weird giddy thrill at watching the camera seamlessly dance around the action and wondering how long the filmmakers will be able to keep it up. While not the first to attempt it (I really ought to check out Birdman some time), 1917 boasts some of the most ambitious tracking shots of all time, allowing the audience to run and trudge and float across the battlefields of France, following two British soldiers (George MacKay, Dean-Charles Chapman) on an urgent mission. They must deliver a message across enemy territory to stop another battalion from advancing into a German trap, a unit that includes the brother of one of the young men.

Playing out in real time but for a single time skip, the story is simple but oh so effective. What Saving Private Ryan did for World War II, 1917 does for World War I, making it feel immediate and in-the-moment rather than some distant conflict in the annals of history. It also manages to be surprisingly comprehensive in its depiction, despite the apparent time limitation. We, the audience, accompany Lance Corporals Blake and Schofield every step of the way, from the teeming trenches to the body-strewn No Man’s Land to the ravaged countryside to the explosive danger of going “over the top” into battle. It’s an awesome journey, and, for me at least, the two friends’ quest seemed to echo that of Frodo and Sam in The Lord of the Rings – No Man’s Land certainly brought to mind their trek through Mordor or the Dead Marshes – which is something Tolkien tried to explicitly evoke in its World War I flashbacks with less success.

Some have complained that the continuous Steadicam choreography becomes too much of a distracting gimmick, but that’s a matter of opinion. It’s so seamless that I began to not notice it at all, every so often realizing, “Hey, there’s still been no cuts,” at which point my admiration for the film only increased. The presence of some celebrated actors in small roles was a treat too, including Colin Firth, Mark Strong, and Benedict Cumberbatch. Despite the R rating, it’s also not as violent as I had feared; it does have its brutal moments, focusing more on the aftermath of war rather than the mid-battle carnage of Saving Private Ryan or Hacksaw Ridge, but it was an easier watch for me.

1917 is more than just a movie; it’s an experience, one worth taking on the big screen, where the tension and explosions and logistical wizardry and Roger Deakins’ poetic cinematography and Thomas Newman’s glorious score can best be appreciated. I still have three more nominees to see, but 1917 is my preference to win Best Picture. It’s a shoo-in for the technical awards, and I rather wish George MacKay could have gotten an acting nomination too. It deserves its place in cinema history.

Best line: (General Erinmore, quoting Rudyard Kipling’s “The Winners”) “Down to Gehenna or up to the Throne, he travels the fastest who travels alone.”

 

Rank:  List-Worthy

 

© 2020 S.G. Liput
659 Followers and Counting

 

VC Pick: Running Scared (1986)

Tags

Action, Comedy, Thriller, VC Pick

There once were two cops on the street
Who riled the bad guys they’d meet.
As crime would unfold
In their city so cold,
They quite enjoyed bringing the heat.
______________________

MPAA rating: R (mainly for language and brief nudity, a light R overall)

It’s shameful, absolutely shameful, that it’s been nearly three months since a movie chosen by my dear VC got the limelight it deserves in the form of an obscure blog post by me. I have no excuse, but I do have this review. Running Scared probably isn’t high on anyone’s list of films from the ‘80s, but it’s a funny and underrated member of the buddy cop genre to which I’m glad my VC introduced me.

Billy Crystal and Gregory Hines are in fine form as a pair of Chicago cops named Danny and Ray, the kind of movie cops who are charming when they bend the rules in a way that ought to get them fired in the real world. But they get results, including bagging notorious drug lord Julio Gonzales (Jimmy Smits), only to be put on leave for their recklessness. Enjoying the time off down in Key West, the two decide they like the non-police life, and after learning that Gonzales was set free, they decide to bring him in before retiring for good.

Crystal and Hines were probably unlikely choices to play streetwise cops back in 1986, early in their film careers as it was, but they both excel, channeling the same kind of black-and-white buddy chemistry as Gene Wilder and Richard Pryor did. Their bickering and wisecracks are the biggest draw, complementing action scenes that likewise balance humor and danger. Joe Pantoliano is also great as Snake, one of those small-time weasels he plays so well. Running Scared doesn’t revolutionize anything about its genre, but it doesn’t need to when its leads are able to capture its sense of fun with their toothy grins alone.

Best line: (Captain Logan, referring to a suicide jumper) “You two weren’t, uh, interrogating a suspect up on the roof, were you?”   (Ray) “We got an alibi, Captain. Snake, tell him where we were or we’ll kill you, too.”

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2019 S.G. Liput
659 Followers and Counting

 

The Hurt Locker (2008)

Tags

Drama, Thriller, War

Another morn, another day,
Another chance I’ll pass away
With sudden boom or bullet swift.
Another day, another shift.
I should be scared; indeed I am,
But danger doesn’t give a damn.
I still have work for others’ sake
That fools and heroes undertake,
And if I die before it’s done,
I pray the Lord will say we won.
___________________

MPAA rating: R (for much language and violence)

The Best Picture race for 2009 had some stiff competition, especially since it was the first year the Academy switched from having 5 nominees to 10. Granted, I haven’t seen most of them yet – it was only ten years ago; give me more time! – but I was still curious to see the ultimate winner, Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker. Sure, it was satisfying when she beat her own husband James Cameron’s juggernaut Avatar, becoming the first female director to win Best Picture, but as it turns out, The Hurt Locker is a solid war film that thrives on tension and committed performances from Jeremy Renner and Anthony Mackie.

Most of the war films I’ve seen have been set during World War II or the Civil War, so, for me, this was a new foray into modern cinematic warfare, specifically the high-tension job of an American bomb squad in the Iraq War. After a nerve-racking opening scene that demonstrates how dangerous the job can be, we’re introduced to Sergeant First Class William James (Renner), who is placed in charge of an Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) unit. It doesn’t take long, though, for his fellow soldiers (Mackie and Brian Geraghty) to realize that their new team leader is on the unconventional side, disregarding safety precautions and sometimes acting like he has a death wish.

The plot is rather episodic, as captions count down the number of days left in their tour of duty. Each instance of tense bomb hunting or sudden combat adds to the tone of danger, while having more impact on the characters than the storyline as a whole. The three men bond as soldiers do, while James’ recklessness strains that very bond as the days of constant life-and-death strain take their toll. One detour of James hunting for the truth behind someone he believes to have been killed ends with an odd lack of resolution, though, and ultimately the film’s greatest strength is the individual scenes of unbridled tension as bombs are being discovered and defused.

It did seem to me that James’ cavalier attitude seemed like the kind of behavior that would get reported and disciplined, so it made sense when I read afterward about the many veterans who complained about the film’s unrealistic portrayal of EOD soldiers, among other inaccuracies. Plus, it would have been helpful if they explained the title: “the hurt locker” refers to a soldier being injured, but I don’t recall anyone actually saying that.

The Hurt Locker presents the stresses of the war in Iraq with a visceral candor that helped me as a viewer feel close to the action while not relying on in-your-face gore. It was also nice to see not one, not two, but four members of the MCU in one movie several years before their franchise days (Renner and Mackie, as well as Evangeline Lilly and Guy Pearce). I can’t really compare it to other Iraq War films, since this is the only one I’ve seen, but this certainly sets a high bar to which any others may aspire. Deserving of its six Oscars, it’s equal parts war movie and thriller and does both parts well.

Best line: (opening quote) “The rush of battle is often a potent and lethal addiction, for war is a drug.”

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2019 S.G. Liput
656 Followers and Counting

 

2019 Blindspot Pick #11: Run Lola Run (1998)

Tags

Drama, Thriller

(Best sung to “Lola” by The Kinks)

I’m not the world’s most observant guy,
So I lost a lot of money, and I’m gonna die,
But for Lola, Lo-lo-lo-lo-lola.

She ran across town to fix my mistake,
Since I dropped about a hundred thousand, give or take,
Lots o’ moolah, moo-moo-moo-moo-moolah.

Only twenty minutes left to recover it,
So we might have had a better chance surviving spit
With ebola, bo-bo-bo-bo-bola.

Luckily for me, she can run really fast,
And possibly replay what happened in the past,
That’s my Lola, Lo-lo-lo-lo-lola.

And if I get to live to see another dawn,
I’ll let her handle all the money from now on,
Good ol’ Lola, Lo-lo-lo-lo-lola!
_______________________

MPAA rating: R (mainly for language in the subtitles, other content is more PG-13)

I didn’t realize when I chose both Mr. Nobody and Run Lola Run as Blindspots this year that they would end up having so much thematic similarity. And they’re both German, the former an English-language co-production while this film is actually in German. Both have to do with how people’s choices can result in vastly different outcomes, which are presented in an impartial, what-if manner. Yet, whereas Mr. Nobody explored huge, cosmic potential across a lifetime, Run Lola Run deals with a crucial twenty-minute window in the lives of red-haired Lola and her boyfriend.

At the most basic level, the events of Run Lola Run (or Lola Rennt in German) are fairly straightforward: Boyfriend Manni (Moritz Bleibtreu) loses 100,000 marks earned from a drug deal and is a goner if he and Lola (Franka Potente) can’t deliver the money within twenty minutes. Yet, as evidenced from the imaginatively animated opening credits sequence, this isn’t your ordinary thriller. While Lola’s running is a constant across each of the three timelines presented, the events play out with vast differences, sometimes based on something as small as distracting a driver at just the right moment. Whether it’s robbing a store or begging Lola’s banker father (Herbert Knaup) for the money, their efforts rarely work out as planned, but it’s as if fate is driving the story at times, allowing the interaction of side characters to determine how everything will play out.

I usually love this kind of butterfly-effect conceit, and I enjoyed Run Lola Run for that aspect, but it felt like something was missing for me. It might be that I didn’t really have a reason to care about the characters except for their desperate circumstances. The plot’s divergences don’t really explain themselves either; each time events start over, there’s some existential pillow talk between Lola and Manni that lets things momentarily slow down, and then it all begins again. In addition, Lola frequently passes people, and a series of still images shows either their past or future. That’s the thing, though; I didn’t know for sure, and it wasn’t clear what changed for that person between the timelines to get such different outcomes.

Such complaints are probably no big deal for people who like to ponder a film’s deeper meaning, but Run Lola Run works better as an inventive thriller than a philosophical treatise and would have benefited from more clarity, like why Lola kept breaking glass with her screams. The finer points aside, though, this film was still a fun ride, and, with its riffing on fate vs. individual choice, I can see why director Tom Tykwer was drawn to co-direct Cloud Atlas fourteen years later. The later film had far more to say and a wider scope to say it, but Run Lola Run felt like an indie step toward bigger things.

Best line: (unseen narrator at the beginning) “Man… probably the most mysterious species on our planet. A mystery of unanswered questions. Who are we? Where do we come from? Where are we going? How do we know what we think we know? Why do we believe anything at all? Countless questions in search of an answer… an answer that will give rise to a new question… and the next answer will give rise to the next question and so on. But, in the end, isn’t it always the same question? And always the same answer?”

(I still don’t know the question, but, as we all know, the answer is 42… of course.)

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2019 S.G. Liput
654 Followers and Counting

 

Glass (2019)

Tags

Drama, Mystery, Superhero, Thriller

We live in a world in which evil and good
Are warring in hopes that each be understood.

The good share a dream in which righteousness reigns,
Dispelling all ignorance, chaos, and chains,
And could be considered one-note or naïve
In hoping for changes no man can achieve.

But evil, for lack of a worthier word,
Is interesting in how it seeks to be heard.
It pleads its own case, it redirects blame,
It covers its face, it covets more fame,
It craves vindication, it bristles at scorn,
It scatters temptation, it toots its own horn,
It seeks self-redemption and curses regrets,
It wants an exemption that no one else gets.

It does entertain, but does it satisfy?
The good know the answer, and Goodness knows why.
_____________________

MPAA rating: PG-13

I feel like Unbreakable has grown in reputation over the years. Its unconventional take on the superhero genre predated the majority of big-budget comic book films, and the decline in M. Night Shyamalan’s output quality afterward made its excellence stand out even more. Naturally, it was a surprise when 2017’s Split made a post-credits revelation that it was set in the same universe, prompting speculation on what the inevitable third film would do to bring the characters together. Now that Glass has finally answered that question, I doubt I’m the only one thinking that we might have been better off not knowing.

Now nineteen years after the events of Unbreakable and three weeks after the events of Split, David Dunn (Bruce Willis) has become an experienced vigilante called the Overseer with the help of his son (Spencer Treat Clark) and sets his sights on Kevin Wendell Crumb (James McAvoy), whose murderous Horde personalities are running amok. However, both David and Kevin are soon captured and imprisoned in a mental hospital, alongside Elijah Price/Mr. Glass (Samuel L. Jackson), where psychiatrist Dr. Ellie Staple (Sarah Paulson) seeks to convince them their superhero/villain abilities are merely figments of their imagination.

I wanted to like Glass, and in some ways, I did. Like Unbreakable, it’s a rare slow-burn superhero film, where the action is infrequent but scrappy, and the psychological questions raised are given just as much time (or more) than the plot. I certainly can’t fault the performances, particularly Jackson and McAvoy. The former lets Mr. Glass’s cunning bubble under the surface for most of the film and later revels in his mastermind status, while the latter continues the bravura flurry of performances that made Split such a showcase of acting skill. Paulson also does well in making her psychiatrist a seemingly sympathetic mystery, with intentions you can’t help but suspect.

Some might complain that Glass takes too long to get to the showdown to which it is clearly building up, but that’s not the extent of the film’s problems, which also include the outcome of said showdown. Of course, Shyamalan has to pull out a last-minute twist to subvert expectations, but, despite some intriguing implications, it’s far from a satisfying one. Bruce Willis may have the least charismatic character, but his David Dunn, in particular, deserved so much better than this film. With time to think about the ending, I’ve come to appreciate its attempt at refocusing the narrative on side characters, but it still left a bitter taste in my mouth.

So, I suppose you could say that Shyamalan strikes again. It’s neither his best nor his worst movie, but it’s the least of this comic-themed trilogy and had so much potential to be more. It’s still very well-produced and directed and worth watching for Jackson and McAvoy’s performances, but it only works as a where-are-they-now story (I liked the continuity of Shyamalan’s cameos), not so much as a conclusion. The next time I watch Unbreakable and Split, I might just pretend they’re stand-alone films.

Best line: (Glass) “There are unknown forces that don’t want us to realize what we are truly capable of. They don’t want us to know the things we suspect are extraordinary about ourselves are real. I believe that if everyone sees what just a few people become when they wholly embrace their gifts, others will awaken. Belief in oneself is contagious. We give each other permission to be superheroes.”

 

Rank: Honorable Mention (on the edge of Dishonorable)

 

© 2019 S.G. Liput
652 Followers and Counting

 

Under the Shadow (2016)

Tags

Foreign, Horror, Thriller

The night is black,
A bleak throwback
To when the world was without shape.
A shadow shifts,
The darkness drifts
And snares your eye with no escape.

You crane your neck
To merely check
That all is well outside your bed.
And pray no face
Or graver case
Will give you reason for your dread.
________________

MPAA rating: PG-13

I’m not really into horror generally, but it’s become something of a tradition for me to watch a scary movie alone at night, just to review it for Halloween. Like The Conjuring, The Babadook, and Lights Out in years past, I decided to check out an acclaimed creepfest that focuses more on atmospheric tension rather than gross-out gore. This time, though, I went outside the English-speaking world to watch Under the Shadow, a Persian-language horror (with a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes) set in 1980s Tehran.

Of course, 1980s Tehran wasn’t the best place to be, especially during the increasingly frequent bombings of the Iran-Iraq War. It’s already a tense setting, as the inhabitants of an apartment building must head downstairs into the basement at the sound of bomb sirens, much to the chagrin of mother Shideh (Narges Rashidi) and her daughter Dorsa (Avin Manshadi). Disgruntled by her country’s rigid decrees keeping her from becoming a doctor, Shideh is further unsettled when her husband is sent off to war, and as strange events start to occur late at night, she wonders if there is indeed something haunting her family.

In many ways, Under the Shadow is exactly the kind of horror movie I like, with a creeping dread serving as the main source of fear, knowing that something could happen at any moment and jumping out of your skin when it occasionally does. There’s zero blood on display, and it doesn’t need it. While it taps into the mythology of malevolent air spirits or djinns, it’s surprising how well the frights work when they stem from what is essentially the most minimalist ghost, a floating sheet (technically a chador, a Persian women’s cloak). The uncanny fear conjured by its sudden appearances is potent stuff.

However, there’s nothing especially notable about the story itself, aside from its unique cultural setting, which is itself a danger, since Shideh can be punished for even fleeing her home without a head covering. Yet the plot isn’t too far from that of The Amityville Horror, and the mother/child dynamic, while showing growth, has been done with better closure elsewhere. Even so, Under the Shadow provided exactly what I look for in a scary movie, while excluding what I avoid in the genre. Well-acted with a slow-burn anxiety, it’s an excellent addition to my Halloween reserve, even if it’s made me look over my shoulder more often than before.

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2019 S.G. Liput
652 Followers and Counting