The Conjuring 2 (2016)

Tags

Drama, Horror, Thriller

The rooms where we sleep
Or attempt to count sheep
Were once home to others whose presence runs deep.
The bodies they wore
May not breathe anymore,
But tormented souls may demand an encore.

These lingerers, led
By the master of dread,
Can pester our peace and plant fears in our head.
May we not forget
He Who makes demons sweat
Is on our side, giving them reason to fret.
___________________

MPAA rating: R

Anyone who’s read my few horror reviews knows that I’m picky about the genre, with a low tolerance for gore and high admiration for developed characters, tension, and atmosphere. The Conjuring fit my tastes perfectly, with an exceptionally creepy story highlighted by strong performances and a positive religious message. The 2016 sequel, also directed by James Wan, may be more of the same, but that’s not a bad thing when it upholds what made the original great.

While the frightening opening involves the infamous Amityville house namedropped at the end of the first film, The Conjuring 2 focuses on the less-known (at least in America) Enfield Poltergeist. The Hodgsons, headed by single mother of four Peggy (Frances O’Connor), seem like a perfectly normal, if struggling, family, and there’s little unusual about their London home, again explored with one of those skillful tracking shots Wan employed to introduce the first film’s haunted house. Before long, though, eleven-year-old Janet (Madison Wolfe) becomes the central target of many otherworldly events, including instances of possession, and paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) are asked by the Catholic Church to look into it, at their own peril.

As with its predecessor, I suspect the R rating is for sheer intensity because the film relies on mood and suspense far more than violence. A child’s zoetrope about the Crooked Man becomes the haunted object of the week, taking the place of the first film’s music box, and even if it’s not clear who or what the Crooked Man is a manifestation of, he’s an effective boogeyman for a few scenes. A demonic nun is also an unnerving presence throughout, though I’m not a fan of that kind of blasphemous imagery, even if it is explained.

The haunting of the Hodgson home is full of dark tension and jump scares, all well-executed, but it’s not the encroaching evil that sets The Conjuring films apart. As with the first movie, the Warrens are the best thing about this series. In the midst of demonic terror, they are a testament to the conquering power of God and their mutual love, plus a spirit of joy epitomized in a musical scene that becomes an island of light amid the darkness. When Ed converses with an old man’s ghost who speaks through Janet, he refuses to be cowed and sends the ghost shrinking away by confidently extending a crucifix. From their separate conversations with Janet, the Warrens’ devotion to each other is unmistakable, and after the nail-biting finale, this horror movie almost changes genre to end on a rare feel-good romantic note, at Christmastime no less.

With the Hodgsons as the sympathetic victims and the Warrens as the godly defenders, The Conjuring 2 again places its horror movie tropes into the context of spiritual warfare, and as strong as the demons seem, it’s still satisfying to see them banished to hell by the name of Jesus. It’s not surprising that the film takes rampant liberties with the actual story, but I liked how they incorporated some doubt about the authenticity of the haunting, since many skeptics claim that the girls faked the paranormal phenomena. The Conjuring 2 may seem like old hat to horror aficionados, but for me, it’s an example of a trend of spiritually and emotionally mindful horror that Hollywood should keep following.

Best line: (skeptic Anita Gregory) “Last year I was conned by a Welsh family pretending to be possessed by demons. And honestly, I don’t know what was worse: the demons or the people who prey on our willingness to believe in them.”   (Lorraine) “The demons… are worse.”

 

Rank: List-Worthy (joining the first film)

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
501 Followers and Counting!

 

Split (2017)

Tags

Drama, Horror, Thriller

Here I sit and calmly wait
As others take the stage for now,
The normal ones who dominate
And cast their glares of fear and hate
Because they know my time will come,
No matter what they may allow.

Within our host, I wait my turn,
For others must prepare my way.
I’m just a rumor, no concern,
Until too late, the normals learn
That darkness kept beneath their thumb
Will be set free, and they will pay.
______________

MPAA rating: PG-13

After reaching an atrocious low with The Last Airbender, it seems M. Night Shyamalan has enacted a comeback, a return to the well-crafted psychological thrillers that first made him a household name. Found-footage horror The Visit was an improvement, wringing tension from a low budget, even if the story had holes and strange parts to criticize. And now, Split is another step in the right direction, boasting elements that are deserving of genuine praise, even if it’s not at the same level as Shyamalan’s early work, like Unbreakable.

The captivity thriller seems to be a popular subgenre of late, including 10 Cloverfield Lane, Pet, Berlin Syndrome, and of course, Split (or, as I call it, Sybil meets Psycho). Right from the start, outcast highschooler Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) is abducted with two of her more popular classmates, Claire (Haley Lu Richardson) and Marcia (Jessica Sula), and they awake in a small locked room. Their kidnapper Kevin Crumb (James McAvoy) acts like different people whenever he interacts with them, and sessions with his understanding psychologist (Betty Buckley) reveal that he actually has 23 separate identities. We only get to see eight at the most, but three in particular have taken control of Kevin and, by kidnapping the girls, are preparing for the arrival of a much more dangerous personality called the Beast.

The best thing about Split is James McAvoy simply because, without his phenomenal acting, the film could collapse under a weaker performance. Whether he’s an OCD-ridden pervert, a threateningly proper matron, or a mischievous little boy named Hedwig, his acting, accent, and body language really sell Kevin’s divided character. He even manages to act as one personality pretending to be another personality. Betty Buckley and Anya Taylor-Joy do fine work as well, with the former convincingly laying out exposition and the latter capturing the fear of trying to keep her wits about her.

Unfortunately, Split’s sad and disturbing narrative makes it a film I’m not likely to see often. Aside from the claustrophobic captivity aspect and tension, which were also well-done in 10 Cloverfield Lane, there were moments that could have benefited from a rewrite or better editing, like the protracted kidnapping scene, which had me thinking “Why doesn’t she dart out the door?” rather than holding me on the edge of my seat. One bizarre dance scene with the Hedwig personality reminded me that, as with The Visit, I don’t think Shyamalan’s attempts at comic relief work as he intends; it’s just a very strange scene, even if it were done by the 9-year-old boy Kevin thinks he is.

My biggest complaint comes toward the end, where the already disturbing storyline turns murderous and goes a bit too far for me and my VC, even if there’s restraint in what is actually shown. I appreciated the semi-twist that made sense for the traumas shared by Kevin and Casey, but the ending doesn’t provide much closure to anyone’s story. Perhaps I’ll appreciate Split more with the arrival of the announced sequel it’s clearly leading into, and I’ll admit I’m more excited for that follow-up than I was about Split.

Even with my objections, Split is a definite step up for Shyamalan, well-acted and taut, and promises even more intriguing things to come. It’s perhaps best thought of as the birth of a supervillain, and while it succeeds in creating a dangerous and conflicted character, I’m more interested in the hero he’ll oppose.

Best line: (9-year-old Hedwig, after awkwardly kissing Casey) “You might be pregnant now.”

 

Rank: Honorable Mention

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
497 Followers and Counting

 

Deepwater Horizon (2016)

Tags

Action, Disaster, Drama, History, Thriller

(Can be sung to “The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald”)

The waves lapped the pipes, the sea’s unavailed gripes,
At the feet of Deepwater Horizon,
And no one on board thought this rig of reward
Would be one to have a surprise on.

The oil down below had had nowhere to go
Till a tube tapped the well of the ocean.
And well it had stayed under instruments made
To ensure there was no upward motion.

Till caution was dropped, and the great bubble popped
And laid waste to Deepwater Horizon,
Where before the rig’s throb, busy men on the job
Never thought they would meet their demise on.

Like ink swiftly bled, the well’s sable soul spread
On the waves of the ocean surrounding,
Although the crew tried as eleven men died
And the fire and spill were confounding.

When the morning sun’s light showed the gulf dark as night
Stretching out from Deepwater Horizon,
No worse oil spill from the maw of man’s drill
Had anyone ever laid eyes on.
_______________________

MPAA rating: PG-13 (for intensity and frequent obscenities)

From The Day After Tomorrow to 2012 to Geostorm later this year, so many disaster movies focus on wildly improbable worldwide catastrophes that it’s easy to forget how visceral a real-life disaster can be. Deepwater Horizon may follow the trend of making a movie about any recent event of media significance (like Patriot’s Day, also from director Peter Berg and star Mark Wahlberg), but it’s far from a cash-grab and uses that genuine intensity to remind audiences of just how bad the 2010 BP oil spill was at its start.

The first half has the workaday detail of a documentary, with much resemblance to the docudrama credibility of Captain Phillips. I can’t speak to how close the film is to the actual events, but the re-creation of the Deepwater Horizon rig is entirely convincing and never once had me doubting the truth of what was shown. There’s not an abundance of character development, but it’s easy to identify with the everyman likes of Wahlberg, Gina Rodriguez, and Kurt Russell as the supervisor fondly called “Mr. Jimmy.” True, the beginning threatens to get dull with all the technical jargon, but there’s the constant threat of what we know will happen. And that culmination doesn’t disappoint.

When the actual disaster starts, the explosions rarely let up, and it’s a thrilling and incendiary experience, of course from the comfort of one’s living room. It never was tainted by easily recognizable CGI, and it well deserved its Oscar nominations for Visual Effects and Sound Editing. Even if most of the casualties don’t have the emotional impact of similar films, the loss of life is stressed by the end, with a rare focus on each and every victim before the credits. After the intensity of the accident itself, I also welcomed the relieved prayer that followed the survivors’ escape; it was a believable religious aspect often lacking from other disaster flicks.

Deepwater Horizon offers a cinematic thrill while also making you dislike BP executives more than you thought you did, personified by the smarmy, corner-cutting manager played by John Malkovich, who’s good as usual but a bit overly snide. Like Wahlberg’s character, I wondered if he was on medication. Thanks to its potent realism before, during, and after the calamity, well-executed from start to finish, I’d say Deepwater Horizon is one of the best disaster films of recent years.

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
496 Followers and Counting

 

Alien: Covenant (2017)

Tags

Action, Horror, Sci-fi, Thriller

When choosing to visit a faraway planet,
Some strange world never examined by man,
Those who can claim to be smarter than granite
May favor caution as part of the plan.

Instead of just landing and waltzing around,
Content to breathe air you know nothing about,
Perhaps wearing helmets would seem rather sound
Or keep parties small, if you have any doubt.

If common sense fails and you go out exposed,
With most of your redshirt crew ready to fall,
You’ll wish you’d seen all that this movie proposed,
Though you may have feared then to leave Earth at all.
___________________

MPAA rating: R

Earlier this year, I made up a Top Twelve list of 2017 movies I hoped would be good, and this is the first of the twelve I’ve gotten to see. I hesitated to give it a watch after hearing of the increased violence and mixed reviews, but my curiosity and loyalty to the Alien franchise won out. So, is it good? Well, sort of and no. It’s a thoroughly mixed bag of a follow-up to 2012’s Prometheus and the first chance Ridley Scott has gotten to directly sequelize one of his own films (since Prometheus was a prequel).

Unlike many, I quite liked Prometheus, especially upon a rewatch. It’s a different animal than the first Alien, more concerned with thought-provoking philosophical questions than extraterrestrial jump scares, though there are still enough of those for me. Alien: Covenant does indeed return to the dominant horror of Scott’s original film, but it feels more indebted to its predecessors, even if it does spice up some of the familiar beats. For one thing, it’s as if the story of Prometheus has started over, just instead of scientists seeking out humanity’s origins, we have a ship full of colonists headed for a distant new world, again all in stasis and again monitored by a Michael Fassbender android, this time the American-accented Walter. When a Passengers-style space wave damages the ship and kills the captain (James Franco, barely), the remaining crew who awaken pick up a signal from a closer planet and investigate its source as a new potential colony site. As you might imagine, the planet’s infection of alien DNA is out to get them from the start, and there’s a good deal of death and dismemberment, as well as the return of David, the other synthetic Fassbender from Prometheus.

If you liked Alien and Aliens, you’ll enjoy all the scary survival stuff that reminds you of those two, but Scott is still bent on explaining his alien mythos, with David as the creative force behind the biological set-up for the aliens we all know. In doing so, Scott’s bound to divide opinions on what David does and why. In fact, he’s far more interested with David than with the human characters, who are all couples for this colony mission and at least earn token sympathy when their spouses inevitably bite the dust. Katherine Waterston is the prominent Ripley of the group and does a reasonably good job at remaining sane while others make poor decisions out of panic. The acting is secondary, though; where the film excels most is in the dark visual wonder of the planet and the frightening intensity of the action. The double climax at the end may be suspiciously similar to that of Aliens, but it’s ratcheted up to even more thrilling levels. Those two scenes alone were worth seeing on the big screen.

Yet, two awesome scenes don’t quite make up for the fact that the rest adds up to an unsatisfying mess. (Moderate spoilers in this paragraph!) I had really hoped for more, considering the open questions at the end of Prometheus, where Noomi Rapace’s Elizabeth Shaw took off with David to search for the Engineers. Shaw is sadly only a memory here, with David’s actions toward her only slightly clearer than his intentions, and unless a future film provides another perspective, it’s a frustrating letdown for a character who deserved more. Likewise, casting David as a sort of Frankenstein figure obsessed with creation at all costs is more than a bit perplexing. Fassbender plays him well with a coldly self-righteous zeal, but I wish I knew why David is so enamored with these grotesque alien spawn. He clearly admires human art and music, so why does he see creative humans as unworthy next to these mindless killing machines? And then there’s the end, the twist I easily saw coming which follows a trend in horror movies I dislike where the villain gains the upper hand. It’s chilling but not a way to end a movie, especially when these Alien films aren’t reliable in picking up the plot threads and characters of what came before. It’s like the beginning of Alien 3 tacked on to the end of Aliens; if Aliens had ended like that, it wouldn’t nearly have the same respect it does.

On top of all the disappointing plot developments, Alien: Covenant has far more profanity and gore than its predecessors, which might please fans of those things but are inevitably a turnoff for me. The first two Alien movies may have had their notorious shock scenes, but the rest of the film usually thrived on the terror of what you didn’t see (Dallas in the tunnels, Burke opening that door), which is the kind of tension I prefer over the gruesome sort. I’m also not sure what to make of the film’s religious overtones. Billy Crudup as Oram, the insecure first officer who takes command after the captain’s death, is “a man of faith” and is intent on proving himself reliable and clear-minded, even if it also makes him cruel and unpopular. The trouble is that this early character point goes nowhere. I liked the simple but sincere and unbroken faith of Shaw in Prometheus, but considering what happens to her and Oram, I’m not sure why the subject of faith is even broached.

Thus, despite my high hopes, Alien: Covenant was a disappointment, even with its high-quality production, a few truly awesome scenes, and some perceptive literary references. Yet I had a similar initial reaction to Prometheus too, so maybe a rewatch will help, though I doubt it. Scott has stated that he’s willing to keep making Alien movies as long as fans want them, a prospect that doesn’t hold much hope for me anymore since, as much as I want more of this franchise’s strengths, its weaknesses are becoming more and more plain.

Best line: (Walter, with a naïve sentiment the film doesn’t support) “I think if we are kind, it will be a kind world.”

 

Rank: Honorable Mention

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
491 Followers and Counting

 

Wonder Woman (2017)

Tags

Action, Drama, Fantasy, Superhero, Thriller, War

I wonder what wonders the world has beheld:
More than seven, no doubt,
More than those learned about,
But must they be spectacles unparalleled,
Gloried feats unsurpassed,
Or more simply contrast?

A light among shadows, a gem among stones,
An unshakable stand
Against failure’s demand,
A rare certainty in a world of unknowns,
An encouraging word
That despair hasn’t heard,

A dream among cynics, a float in rough water,
Shooting stars overhead
When all hope was thought dead,
A lamb among wolves with no worry of slaughter—
The world’s wonders don’t last,
But the weak and steadfast
Can find hope in contrast.
_______________________

MPAA rating: PG-13

I honestly never thought I’d see a DC movie on its opening weekend, but a half-planned trip to the theater left Wonder Woman as the most convenient show time available, and the positive reviews I’d heard convinced my VC and me to give it a try. I had come to the conclusion that the DC Extended Universe (DCEU) is a lost cause, with Man of Steel, Batman v. Superman, and Suicide Squad being either unwieldy, joyless, or overblown. Yet here at last is Wonder Woman, helmed by Patty Jenkins, the first female director of a major superhero film, and DC finally gets a movie that can hold its own against Marvel.

I’ll admit I don’t know much about Wonder Woman from the comics and only ever saw her as a member of the animated Justice League on TV, as well as her animated origin film from 2009. The latest live-action movie begins much like its cartoon counterpart, with the Princess Diana (Gal Gadot) of the Amazons residing on the hidden island of Themyscira, training to be a great warrior, until the crash-landing of American pilot Steve Trevor (Chris Pine) awakens her sense of duty and interest in the outside world. Unlike the animated version set in the modern day, 2017’s Wonder Woman has the key difference of taking place during World War I, making its retro setting more than a little reminiscent of Captain America: The First Avenger. (Her origin apparently took place during World War II in the comics, so I guess the change was intended to avoid being too similar to Cap’s first outing.) There are plenty of parallels, from an evil German antagonist (Danny Huston) with a diabolical scientist (Elena Anaya) under him to a climactic sacrifice involving a death-carrying plane, but there’s enough originality here that the similarities never detract from the story.

The best thing Wonder Woman has in its favor is Gal Gadot. Neither an overly familiar face nor a struggling newbie, she’s an effortlessly perfect fit for the role, her slight Israeli accent giving her an exotic touch while she nails the assertive and noble appeal of the character. She’s also attractive no matter what she does, whether in secretarial incognito or in the heat of battle. And speaking of battle, her first moment of truth fighting against the German army is spectacular, taking ownership of “No Man’s Land” with feats that Lynda Carter could only dream of. Alongside her, Chris Pine is his usual likable self, and while he can’t compare with Diana’s abilities, I liked that he was still an active and valiant match for her rather than a weakling to make her look better. Plus, in contrast to Batman and Superman of late, there’s actually some humor, perhaps not at Marvel’s levels, but it’s refreshing that DC seems to have learned something from the competition. (Suicide Squad may have had more jokes, but it’s a barely connected oddity as far as I’m concerned.)

As much as I enjoyed what is clearly DC’s best film to date, it’s not above a few nitpicks, such as stereotypical villains and one scene with some cynically feminist jabs as Steve and Diana awkwardly discuss sex and marriage. Most of the climactic battle has the same excessive bombast as the end of Batman v. Superman, which I guess is only a negative if you disliked it then. The strongest criticism for me is the muddy mythology that comes to a head toward the end. Wonder Woman has always drawn freely from Greek mythology, which works for the loose backstory at the beginning, and Diana understands Zeus to be man’s creator and Ares to be the corrupting god of war, roles that here distinctly echo the Christian God and devil. She’s convinced with apparent naiveté that Ares is controlling mankind to wage this Great War, and while her understanding is challenged and widened, it’s left in doubt by the end just how right she was and what that implies for history and religion in general.

If you don’t think about that too hard, though, Wonder Woman absolutely fulfills its potential as the first superheroine blockbuster, and my VC quite enjoyed it as well, even without having seen the previous DC entries. (Coincidentally, the very day I saw it, I came home to find the old 1970s TV show with Lynda Carter on, and compared with that cheese, the film is a masterpiece.) Aside from Gadot herself, I most appreciated the fact that this is a genuinely heroic tale of a warrior discerning why she defends mankind. Not many superhero movies tackle that topic so directly, and especially considering how DC has loused up even the most iconic of heroes, Superman, Wonder Woman’s experiences of both the evil and the noble that man is capable of provide her with a persuasive reason for her defense of the world, beyond the idealistic zeal that she and Captain America had from the start. Her gallantry and girl-power status as a role model are a far cry from the broody skepticism of Batman v. Superman or the psychopathic half-villainy of Suicide Squad, and this “light among shadows” seems to indicate that there might actually be hope for the DCEU yet, though I undoubtedly still prefer Marvel. Wonder Woman may not quite be an unqualified success, but it’s a welcome success nonetheless.

Best line: (Hippolyta, as Diana leaves the island, echoing many parents, I’m sure) “You are my greatest love. Today, you are my greatest sorrow.”

 

Rank: List-Worthy

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
488 Followers and Counting

 

2017 Blindspot Pick #5: Blade Runner (1982)

Tags

Action, Drama, Sci-fi, Thriller

Darkly do the raindrops fall
Upon society’s withdrawal,
No innocence on which to land,
A wet and distant reprimand
On social rust and moral dusk and nobody who cares to feel.

Remember purer days of light?
They pale to darkness’ appetite,
For dark is omnipresent here
And only dreams escape the drear,
Mere memories that spark unease when we mistrust if they are real.
__________________

MPAA rating: R

There’s always bound to be movies out there that others hail as classics and you just don’t see the appeal. That’s Blade Runner for me. I picked it as one of my Blindspots this year because it’s been hailed as one of the greatest science fiction films of all time and its sequel Blade Runner 2049 is due out this October, returning Harrison Ford to one of his many iconic roles. Yet I found the story of Rick Deckard’s hunt for human-like replicants immensely lacking in both pacing and human interest, even as I recognized why it has become so well-respected.

Based off a Philip K. Dick novel and directed by Ridley Scott following his hit with Alien, Blade Runner is often cited as a touchstone and forerunner for the cyberpunk and neo-noir genres, thanks to its grimy rain-soaked visuals of a future Los Angeles. With flying police cars traversing the neon-lit cityscape, I could clearly see this film’s influence on the likes of Minority Report, Ghost in the Shell, and The Matrix. Ghost in the Shell is perhaps the clearest borrower, also boasting a cerebral plot about man-made androids questioning their humanity, so there’s no denying Blade Runner’s impact on the style of much modern sci-fi. The non-digital effects hold up remarkably well, and the cinematography really heightens the bleak otherness of this particular dystopia.

If only this adeptly stylized world were worth spending time in. For all its technical finesse and shadowy cinematography, the strangeness of this future was a turn-off for me, with some of the surreal posturing of its characters reminding me of Dune from two years later. Whereas Dune was dragged down by a surplus of exposition, though, Blade Runner could have benefited from more, with far too many drawn-out scenes left in tedious silence. (I saw Ridley Scott’s Final Cut, but I understand the original theatrical version has a noir-style narration. Honestly, my curiosity about that difference is probably the only thing that would get me to watch Blade Runner again.) It’s a highly visual film, but the visuals weren’t enough to overcome a lackluster story.

The actors are all decent for the most part, with Harrison Ford playing a good tenacious policeman but never making much of an impression. Likewise, Sean Young as the femme-fatale love interest fills her role in the noir plot, but there’s not much to her thinly written character or to anyone else’s for that matter. Rutger Hauer is perhaps the most memorable as the main villain, Roy Batty, a murderous replicant who seeks to lengthen the programmed four-year lifespan for himself and his fellow rogues (Brion James, Joanna Cassidy, Daryl Hannah). Yet we never get to know the replicants any more than the human characters, and their plight is only half-felt with any sympathy by the end. Batty’s final scenes are also bizarrely anticlimactic after he chases Deckard like Hannibal Lecter on crack.

I recognize a lot of potential depth to the story, with themes of what makes us human, the unreliability of memories, the moral questioning of doing one’s job, and the despair and anger toward the arrogance of a creator (which Scott also incorporated into Prometheus). Yet none of these themes are compelling or explored with any depth, and the intentional ambiguity of several scenes only heightened their underdeveloped potential. Blade Runner is a film such that I can see how critics could watch it repeatedly and wring profound merit from its narrative, but its reputation as a masterful classic is more merit than this slow story deserves, in my opinion.

Owing its R rating to only two scenes (one with nudity, one uncomfortably violent), Blade Runner was quite the disappointment, especially because I typically love science fiction. (I’m not alone too; my equally sci-fi-loving VC was bored and uninterested by the halfway point.) I just don’t understand how a style-over-substance film like this is labeled a masterpiece, when far more entertaining tales, like In Time or Surrogates, are written off as sci-fi hack jobs. The letdown has also spoiled much of my interest in the upcoming sequel, though I’m still curious to see Denis Villeneuve’s take on this world, after the intellectual emotion of last year’s Arrival. Blade Runner is a grittily surreal blending of future and noir, with admirable effects and cinematography and an unmistakable impact on science fiction to come, but it’s also proof that just because something shapes a genre doesn’t necessarily make it a masterpiece.

Best line: (Tyrell, Roy’s designer) “The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy.”

 

Rank: Dishonorable Mention

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
487 Followers and Counting

 

VC Pick: Moonraker (1979)

Tags

Action, Comedy, James Bond, Sci-fi, Thriller

(Best sung to “Moon River” because, as Bond says at the end, “Why not?”)

Moonraker,
Where did you go wrong?
You started off so strong, and yet….
Your sense of humor
Became a tumor
When Jaws in his folly
And Dolly first met.

Filmmakers
Learned from your mistake:
Don’t go, for humor’s sake, too far.
It’s just not the same James Bond style,
Veering juvenile.
Still you make me smile,
Moonraker,
Low bar.
___________________

MPAA rating: PG

I certainly hope it’s mere coincidence that Sir Roger Moore died not long after I watched Moonraker, especially considering that I saw Rogue One the day Carrie Fisher passed. This had better not be a trend for me. Moonraker is easily Moore’s weakest outing as Bond (though also his highest-grossing), but my VC enjoys it and I thought it appropriate after seeing his name in the headlines for the last time recently.

Like most other entries in the franchise, Moonraker follows all the familiar story beats of Bond surviving enemies, confronting a clearly shady industrialist with an accent, seducing beautiful fellow agents, and narrowly saving the world. This installment, though, was clearly meant to capitalize on the growing public interest in space and science fiction, since Moonraker was released just two years after Star Wars and incorporated space shuttles into the plot, predating actual shuttle flights by a couple of years.

Moonraker benefits from the natural charm of Moore, who remains my and my VC’s favorite incarnation of Bond himself, and the explosive escapes and elitist villain played by Michael Lonsdale are perfect fits for this kind of movie. There’s even a nice bit of continuity in the return of the seemingly unkillable henchman-for-hire Jaws (Richard Kiel), who previously appeared in The Spy Who Loved Me. For most of its runtime, Moonraker is an all-around solid Bond flick and then…oh, where to begin?

I never minded the campier elements of Moore’s Bond and always thought he found the right balance of humor to match the debonair action, like when he and Jaws merely smile at each other every time they face off. Yet Moonraker takes it too far, extending beyond good fun into unabashed parody. Whose idea was it to give Jaws a random pig-tailed girlfriend named Dolly and back their love-at-first-sight gaze with the theme from Romeo and Juliet? Likewise, I was willing to stomach the villain’s Noah’s Ark-style space station, but I was left speechless when the U.S. sends a shuttle to investigate and a host of space-suited astronauts quickly engage in a laser battle. Really??? Sure it looks impressive for the time and even earned an Oscar nomination for Visual Effects, and I realize Star Wars was popular, but this is just ridiculous!

I’m not alone in rolling my eyes at the absurdity of Moonraker’s second half, and mixed reviews at the time thankfully led future writers to reel in their overactive imaginations to more reasonable levels of silliness. Even so, Moonraker remains as entertaining as its Bond brethren in most other respects with some impressive stunts and an excellent score by John Barry, and its outlandishness somewhat works as a so-bad-it’s-good advantage. As long as you aren’t looking for Bond to be grounded in reality, it’s a campily fun episode, and Moore, as always, looks like he enjoyed himself as Bond. Even in his weaker efforts, he’ll always be the best Bond for me. RIP, Roger Moore.

Best line: (Drax, with typical Bond villain panache) “Mr. Bond, you defy all my attempts to plan an amusing death for you.”

 

Rank: Honorable Mention

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
485 Followers and Counting

 

In Time (2011)

Tags

Action, Drama, Romance, Sci-fi, Thriller

(Today’s NaPoWriMo prompt was to explore a small, defined space, so I chose the inescapable meaning of the inside of a clock.)

 

Consider the crevices closed in a clock,
Where gears in their constant cacophony grind,
So sealed in their space,
Yet they turn the clock’s face,
As all the world runs, lest it be left behind
While the gears click the future away.

A tiny black hole occupies every clock,
To suck in the seconds and minutes and years.
Mankind put it there
In that pocket of air
And lives with the ticking of time in his ears,
While the gears we encased
And the fears of life’s waste
Even now click the future away.
_________________

MPAA rating: PG-13

Oh, I do love science fiction! I love how it creates worlds that take social or technological change to a futuristic extreme that would be very unlikely to happen but is still fascinating to think about. I love how it makes absurd what-if scenarios believable and relatable. And lastly, I love the fact that I seem predisposed to like it, even if critics were not so kind. A prime example of all these points is In Time, a dystopian thriller about a world where time has become currency and everyone above twenty-five years old has stopped aging but also has a clock on their arm counting down their remaining lifetime.

Proving again that he’s not just a singer, Justin Timberlake plays Will Salas, a worker in the poorest “time zone” called Dayton, who may eke by with less than 24 hours on his clock each day but has a natural inclination toward helping others. (Like The Hunger Games, there are twelve zones or districts, with 12 being the poorest.) When a chance encounter with a rich 105-year-old from New Greenwich leaves Will with over a century on his arm, Will sets out for both some enrichment and revenge, later joined by a wealthy magnate’s rebellious daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried).

The film is conceptually cool from the start, literalizing throwaway phrases like “living paycheck to paycheck,” “don’t waste my time,” and of course “time is money,” but the idea is also well executed, such as the visual oddity of everyone looking twenty-five, even mothers and grandmothers. The ever-present arm clocks are always counting down, lending an urgency to quite a few last-second close calls, and time-stealing gangsters and Cillian Murphy as a Javert-like devoted policeman keep the plot unpredictable, even as it leans from straight sci-fi to a sort of heist film. Will and Sylvia also remain sympathetic in their Bonnie-and-Clyde style stick-ups by becoming time-reclaiming Robin Hoods against the none-too-subtle big bad elites.

I can’t speak to the alleged copyright infringement on a certain Harlan Ellison story or the supposed similarities with director/writer Andrew Niccol’s past work Gattaca (which I’ve yet to see), but In Time is yet another sci-fi film that I seem to have enjoyed far more than its Rotten Tomatoes score of 36% would indicate. One touchstone I can point to is 2009’s Surrogates, another critical failure with a brilliant premise about a massive social evolution that is left in doubt by the end. Neither film is perfect, but both were disparaged by critics for reasons that I simply don’t understand. It can be easily read as a rebellion dream against the one-percenters, but with ideas aplenty, good performances, and some memorably thrilling scenes, In Time is an underrated sci-fi that may one day get the notice it deserves as a cult classic.

Best line: (rich man Philippe Weis) “In the end, nothing will change, because everyone wants to live forever. They all think they have a chance at immortality, even though all the evidence is against it. They all think they will be the exception. But the truth is: For a few to be immortal, many must die.”   (Will) “No one should be immortal, if even one person has to die.”

 

Rank: List-Worthy

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
474 Followers and Counting

 

Passengers (2016)

Tags

Drama, Romance, Sci-fi, Thriller

(Today’s NaPoWriMo prompt was for a double elevenie, a pair of five-line, eleven-word poems with a particular form.)

 

Loneliness
Becomes bearable
When in pairs.
There’s no need for
Crowds.

Togetherness
Becomes suspect
When trust dissolves.
Love’s no place for
Doubts.
___________________

MPAA rating: PG-13

I must be more forgiving than most when it comes to science fiction (or more critical, considering I hate 2001), but Passengers seems to have gotten an unfair amount of criticism, even if the complaints aren’t necessarily wrong. It’s simply a case where one flaw is considered by many to ruin the film as a whole, when there are really far more positives than negatives.

While hurtling through space on a 120-year journey to a distant colony, Jim Preston (Chris Pratt) is awakened from hibernation by a malfunction and is understandably distraught when he learns that there are 90 years ahead of him. After a year of loneliness with only an android bartender (Michael Sheen), his nightmare becomes an Adam-and-Eve dream come true when Aurora (Jennifer Lawrence) is also awakened to keep him company. The pairing of Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence was a main selling point for the film, and their chemistry doesn’t disappoint, pooling the natural appeal that both actors have earned from their past roles. Also laudable are the futuristic set design and magnificent space-faring effects, which may bring to mind Interstellar or Gravity but are no less impressive. Add in an Oscar-nominated score from Thomas Newman (who still has never won, for some reason), and there’s an eye-popping sci-fi romance worth enjoying.

But wait…there’s something wrong here, and I suppose I should issue a SPOILER WARNING to discuss it further. It’s surprising that Aurora never suspects this on her own, but Jim in his desperation woke her from stasis himself! It doesn’t matter how conflicted he was about it or how understandable his hopelessness was; to her mind and to many a viewer’s, what he did was tantamount to murder, condemning Aurora to an unfulfilled life, which she’s not quick to forgive.

My VC went so far as to not understand why Aurora stayed so angry, thinking that a life alone with Chris Pratt wouldn’t be so bad, right? As for me, I don’t deny the gravity of Jim’s crime, but I didn’t have a problem with how it was resolved. He’s punished and shunned for what he did, but did anyone think that two lonely people could stay mad for ninety years? The eventual forgiveness seems inevitable, but I’m sorry that some found that to be manipulative on the filmmakers’ part. The reconciliation would have surely been more gradual and painful if things had stayed as they were after Aurora discovered the truth, but the way things play out stresses just how much the two need each other, reigniting the romance that had thankfully already been established before the reveal.

I understand and even somewhat share the objections I’ve heard from others about the potentially creepy implications of Jim’s actions, but they don’t ruin the film for me. I actually took more issue with the rather prosaic and unproductive way it ends than with anything that came before. As a fan of science fiction and of Pratt and Lawrence, I found this combination of the three to be an engaging genre romance, flaws and all.

Best line: (Aurora) “You can’t get so hung up on where you’d rather be, that you forget to make the most of where you are.”

 

Rank: List Runner-Up

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
473 Followers and Counting

 

They Live (1988)

Tags

Action, Horror, Sci-fi, Thriller

(Today’s NaPoWriMo prompt was for a creation myth, like maybe a sci-fi explanation for the way things are.)

 

When Earth and its people were young,
From out of the cosmos far-flung,
An alien race
With a butt-ugly face
Found humans worth living among.

They hid their exterior well
To blend in, so no one could tell,
And here they resided
Until they decided
Mankind didn’t raise enough hell.

Whenever they noticed a sign
Of man’s selfishness in decline,
They swayed and brainwashed
And summarily squashed
Good will by their evil design.

On magazines, screens, world affairs,
We see messages unawares.
What we do, they direct,
And as you may suspect,
The Internet’s probably theirs.

That’s how the world got to this place,
So high on hate, lacking in grace.
Although I can’t prove it,
You cannot disprove it,
So who is the real mental case?
__________________

MPAA rating: R (mainly for language and brief nudity)

John Carpenter seemed to direct films designed to be cult classics, films that it’s hard to call good cinema on the surface but which end up finding admirers anyway. Escape from New York and Starman are just two favorites that strike a unique balance between sci-fi depth and imaginative cheese, and They Live fits right into that mold. The film centers on a drifter known as John Nada (famed wrestler Roddy Piper), whose discovery of a secret resistance movement and some special sunglasses reveals an alien mind-controlling conspiracy that can only be taken out by a shotgun and a classic one-liner.

As is typical with the other Carpenter films I’ve seen, it takes a while for the story to get going, as Nada meets a fellow construction worker (Keith David) and slowly notes a few nearby oddities at a church. Piper isn’t exactly a world-class actor either, so the only reason to sit through the beginning is for the promise of action to come. When it does, though, it’s pretty darn fun as Nada goes from gawking at a black-and-white world decorated with words like “Conform” and “Consume” to blasting every skull-faced alien in sight. The most famous sequence has to be the five-minute-plus smackdown between Piper and David over convincing the latter to wear the sunglasses, a fist fight that becomes laughable simply by how many times they both get up to keep on slugging each other.

I’ll admit that, after the slow start, They Live is very watchable, but it does seem weak in several areas, and not just the so-so acting or occasionally fake effects. There’s a pointed critique of commercialism at its core, summed up by the invisible message “THIS IS YOUR GOD” printed on all dollar bills, and the film points fingers at the elite as collaborators with the alien overlords. Yet the satire doesn’t seem to develop far enough to have much depth beyond the obvious hidden words, and it’s never clear exactly why the aliens are doing this or what they get out of keeping mankind petty. It’s like the beginning of a great idea that’s only half-fulfilled. Even so, Carpenter’s cult classics don’t always lend themselves to the same kind of criticism as mainstream films, and the final scene of this one sort of encapsulates what it is: weird, a bit indecent, strangely funny, and keen on eliciting a reaction.

Best line: (Nada) “I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick a**… and I’m all out of bubblegum.”

 

Rank:  Honorable Mention

 

© 2017 S.G. Liput
471 Followers and Counting