Ouija Origin of Evil: A Shocking Prequel To A Once Dreadful Franchise

Let me preface this review by stating that there is no reason I should've seen this film. I really enjoy horror movies, especially in the theater. When you get the right theater (as in people who shut the hell up and don't giggle or yell incessantly as a defense mechanism because they're not secure enough to just let themselves get scared) a good horror movie in theaters can be a terrifying experience. However, with the wrong film, it can feel like a total waste of time and money. Again, Ouija Origin of Evil was never on my radar of films to see. Mostly because the first movie looked like complete and utter garbage. This theory is, of course, confirmed by its abysmal 7% on rottentomatoes. I caught maybe... maybe... five minutes of it on HBO and thus substantiated my previous claim that the movie, for all intents and purposes, was a complete, lazy failure. However, its sequel... again, a movie I should not have even thought about seeing... had me curious based on two main factors. One, the director. Mike Flanagan hasn't exactly cemented his name in the horror spectrum, but he has turned in some fairly decent movies. Oculus was almost a good movie. It was definitely tense and creepy a good 3/4ths of the way through until its completely botched conclusion. And Hush, a movie I recommend on Netflix, again, was mostly a good movie-- with a great premise. And two, the outrageously shocking 82% rating on rottentomatoes. I don't usually put all of my stock in seeing a movie based on its RT score, but if a film scores 80% or higher or 20% or lower... generally the masses are correct.  But, a jump from 7% to 82%, I'm pretty sure, is unprecedented.  I couldn't just ignore this factor.  Ouija Origin of Evil, to put this into perspective, scored higher than The Magnificent Seven, The Secret Life of Pets, Snowden, Ghostbusters, Suicide Squad and The Accountant, to name a few. Those two factors led to me watching a very serviceable film with plenty of jumps, chills and thrills.

So, all I know about this film in relation to the original is that it is a prequel (figured this one out due to the 'origin' in the title). The movie centers around Alice, a recent widow, and crystal-ball psychic, and her two daughters Lina and Doris in 1965. Alice conducts psychic readings out of her home in order for people to contact loved ones on the other side. Her readings are, of course, faked, but used in a very healing way. She's not out to swindle folks for money, she's there to provide closure for people who haven't entirely been able to handle the grieving process. This is emphasized by the fact that Alice, herself, hasn't been able to handle the recent death of her husband. When the new "game", a Ouija Board, is introduced the public sphere, her eldest suggests that she incorporate it into the readings to add a further level or realism to the con. When her youngest, Doris, plays with the Ouija board it appears she actually has the gift of communication with the other side. She connects with her father, Alice's husband, and reveals intimate details about their lives together, proving that she can, indeed, contact the beyond.  However, sinister forces are at work, slowly taking over Alice's body, possessing her, and forcing her to perform very demonic acts on the people around her.

The film works because of its writing and cast. Flanagan constructs a very slowly built and creepy world around very honest and vulnerable characters. We feel for these people because they're not evil. Alice is honestly trying to help others. Lina, while obnoxious in her rebellious tendencies, is only acting out because she, too, cannot handle to loss of her father. And Doris is the inquisitive young girl who doesn't exactly comprehend what death even means. These characters are very relatable and easy to root for. So when Doris becomes possessed, we're invested. We want her to be able to break the curse. We want everyone to be all right at the end. And we are prepared to do whatever it takes and go through whatever we have to in order to see this through to the finish. Also, we're ready to get the hell scared out of us. And there are great moments of intensity and terror. For all of the faults the movie has, it doesn't go out of its way to provide cheap scares. Yes, there are some jump scares. But these surround moments of true terror weaving through moments of levity and humor.

PG-13 horror movies have a stigma attached to them that they're cheap, lazy, horror movies that provide no real scares and there is some truth to that.  In general, most of the horror movies that fail both story-wise and box office-wise are PG-13 horror movies. But, when done right, can really be better than any R rated horror movie.  In an R rated movie, blood and guts can be used as a crutch instead of honestly trying to freak someone out. In PG-13, the film is limited in its blood and relies on actual scares to get an audience to jump out of their seat. Director Mike Flanagan, for the most part, succeeds in his endeavor of making a genuinely good movie out of a franchise that already started off as a rancid pile of sewage water. He breathed new life into the movie by doing the simple task of making his characters real. They aren't stereotyped.  They're not lazily written around cheap jump scares that sacrifice good build-up for a synthetic gasp. And he holds nothing back. The more we feel for these characters the more Flanagan knows this and decides to put us through the ringer. It actually winds up being a pretty messed up movie... but in a good way.

The movie isn't entirely there, though. Flanagan has the ability to become a horror staple, but his work, while more advanced that most horror directors today, is still a ways off of become a Wes Craven or a James Wan or a Shyamalan (in his prime). There are still brief moments of bad CGI or a few silly moments that provide an unintentional laugh instead of a reaction of fright. But, he's getting closer.  With every entry into the horror genre, he's getting closer to being the guy with a reliable name who can use it to put asses in seats. Today is Halloween and it's been a good long while since there was a genuinely good horror movie to see on Halloween night that won't disappoint. For all of its flaws, there is still a lot working for Ouija Origin of Evil. 2016 might not be a very good year for movies in general, but the horror game, for the most part, has been pretty on point.

**Side Note: there is a scene after the credits. Apparently it makes sense if you've seen the first movie.  I haven't so I didn't get it.  I've decided I'm okay with that. 

B

The Girl on the Train: It's No Gone Girl

I find myself on entertainment news sites quite frequently.  IMDB is one of the first apps I look at on my phone regularly. I'm very aware of movies being greenlit and produced and release dates and books coming out and music on the rise... I keep track of it all.  For some reason, and I can't explain how, The Girl on the Train escaped all of my radars. I'm talking I had never heard of the book that apparently "shocked the entire world". I didn't know there was an adaptation of said book being filmed.  I didn't know any of this existed until I saw the first trailer. So, having no prior knowledge and learning that The Girl on the Train sold the most copies of any book in the shortest amount of time... made me think I might want to read it. It's always better to read the book BEFORE the movie rather than after because the book is better and you get to create these characters in your head before watching the movie when other people do that for you. The book was a quick, yet thrilling and addicting Gone Girl-esque read. I finished it over three sessions. Afterwards, I was very intrigued to see the film. However, just like most cases, the film is not as good as the book. And it's not as good as Gone Girl. It just kind of... is.

Emily Blunt plays Rachel, a broken, alcoholic who takes the train to and from New York City every day pretending to have a job. She watches a couple every day out the window of the train and creates this fantasy of them as the perfect couple (Haley Bennett & Luke Evans). They live a few houses down from where Rachel used to live with her ex-husband, Tom (Justin Theroux).  He has since left Rachel, married Anna (Rebecca Ferguson), and had a baby with her. Rachel traverses the tracks daily sipping vodka from her water bottle and making the worst decisions anyone like her can make.  She calls Tom constantly, sends drunk videos to Anna, visits their house shit-faced, and once even broke in to hold the baby.  She's a real mess.  On Friday, Rachel is passing the house of her favorite couple and spots Megan, one half of the "perfect" two, kissing a different man.  This sends Rachel on a downward drinking spiral because it perfectly echoes her own husband's betrayal. She blacks out, wakes up with scratches and bruises, covered in blood, with no memory of the night's events, and learns that Megan is missing. The rest of the movie is the intertwining lives of Rachel trying to remember the night, Anna trying to keep Rachel away, and the actual story of who Megan is living with her "perfect" husband Scott.

The book was written in subsections of three different points of view. We were given the perspectives of Rachel, Megan, and Anna. This is how the chapters were split. The reason this works is that each narrator provides the audience with a different perspective on an event.  However, these are three of the most unreliable narrators known to man.  The way that Gone Girl got its rocks off on basically telling the first half of the story, only to find out the narrator was lying the entire time and everything you accepted to be true was a big, fat hoax. This is that kind of fun.  Every reveal in the book comes from someone else calling another person out on a hole in their story. There are so many reveals on tiny little lies that the twists keep coming fast and furious. The problem with doing this in a movie is that we don't really have three narrators and instead of the characters providing the false-happenings, it's the camera that has to do the lying.  This makes the reveals feel almost cheap in a way. Not all of the reveals feel this way, but a lot of them do.

The movie itself isn't bad, it's just probably not what you're expecting it to be if you haven't read the book. It's not a heart-racing, fast-paced, thriller that keeps your blood pumping throughout. It's actually more like a Lifetime movie with much better actors.  In fact, the story comes off so melodramatic within the movie, if you replaced everyone in the cast with C-list actors, it would fit right in on Lifetime. Everyone is lying to everyone and betraying everyone, but not in a creepy, tense way.  It's more like an over-dramatic soap opera way... which isn't the way that it came off, at least to me, in the book.

If you DID read the book, then be prepared for some serious liberties taken on behalf of the writer and director. There are a lot of changes in the movie.  Some of them don't change the story that much and a few of them even improve upon the book. But, a lot of them urked me in a few places. There is a scene with Rachel when she's captured by someone and locked in a room, fearing for her life. This scene gave the reader, in the book, a thrill as you're wondering if this person is the one who had something to do with Megan's disappearance.  You're trying to piece this person to the clues in your head.  In the movie, it's downplayed significantly.  This person gets a little upset and throws a beer bottle at a wall.  That's it. Then, there's the actual "oh shit" moment reveal... which in the book is a literal out-loud "oh shit" moment. The moment in the movie replaces the good "oh shit" moment for a different one revealed by a character played by Lisa Kudrow (whose character isn't even in the book).  It's this moment the audience realizes whodunnit in kind of an anti-climactic sort of way.  Following this scene is the actual "oh shit" scene from the book and even that felt like it could've been played a lot bigger for the audience who has been jerked around the entire movie trying to solve the mystery.

I felt like, for the most part, the acting was solid. Emily Blunt nails the character of Rachel.  You're used to loving Blunt's tough roles and watching her own the screen.  This character is the opposite of what we're used to.  She's the literal definition of a mess. She makes the wrong decisions in nearly every scene and you cringe every time she does something worse. It's a fantastic performance. Theroux and Ferguson are very good as well serving as Rachel's ex and his new wife, Anna. Anna is a complete shrew that takes the cake for bitchiest character, but it's hard to know if she's actually like this because the only perspectives we get are hers and Rachels... and they hate the shit out of each other. Haley Bennett does a solid job as Megan, too. She plays the new 'trophy wife' with such fake happiness and disdain behind her eyes that her motivations in the film are really the only ones that the audience can truly understand... and she's a nut too.  The only one who I didn't care for was Luke Evans.  He's a hollow actor that brought zero life the role of Scott. I don't recall having seen him in anything else, but he was the weakest link in this tale.

I'm not entirely if the movie is that exciting to those who haven't read the book.  There are a scenes that make very little sense because the explanations for the actions aren't in the movie, but in the book. Then again, it could be some pretentious reader in me just thinking I'm above everyone because I actually read every now and then.  Who knows.  But, it's not Gone Girl.  The book very much had the essence of Gone Girl, but the movie does not.  It sort of trudges along, holding on by the grasp of the quality of the acting and really not the quality of the filmmaking. It's pulpy, it tries to be a bit erotic (very awkwardly), and it's a mystery that you'll probably figure out... but it's entertaining. I'll give it that.

C+

Upcoming Best and Worst of Fall 2016

Fall movies are supposed to be a combination of Summer run-off, Halloween horror movies, and a bunch of Oscar bait. While October is never supposed to be that great, it's November and December that are the most exciting months of the year for film.

This is definitely not the case for 2016.  Hollywood has shat the proverbial bed when it comes to Oscar season films. Even non-Oscar bait films aren't that exciting.  There really isn't THAT much to look forward to in the upcoming months, but here's a few of the upcoming best and worst.


BEST UPCOMING:

10/7
The Birth of a Nation

Nate Parker's directorial debut was almost a lock for, at the very least, a Best Picture nod when reviews from different film festivals weren't just good-- but praising to a degree fitting a film worthy of Best Picture.  However, amid past rape allegations and Parker not handling it in a way that the public is liking-- it's probably going to miss out on the Oscars and half of the viewers it would've had. This isn't to say that the film isn't still going to be powerful, moving, appropriate for today, and beautiful.


10/14
The Accountant

Ben Affleck is back in his low-key The Town-esque type of thriller that got Affleck back in good with the public.  This film is also probably not going to make a ton of money considering that it's been pretty quietly advertised and it's not a shoot-em-up action extravaganza.  It's going to be a slow burn of very deliberate and purposeful filmmaking that will slip through the cracks and become memorable.


10/21
Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

I'll admit... it took me nearly two years to watch the first Jack Reacher film.  It didn't excite me and it didn't look like anything that was worth watching.  It especially didn't look like a film that needed a sequel.  However, after watching it, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Tom Cruise can still lock it down as leading man in an espionage thriller and even though we all know that sequels never match the quality of the originals, it is a solid character that has the ability to have many fun adventures.  And... in a year full of ballz... I'll give this one the benefit of the doubt.


11/4
Doctor Strange

BLEH. YAWN. I'm literally only putting this up here for you readers because I couldn't give two shits about this movie. I'm OVER Marvel. Over it. Yet, they keep making quality films.  How can I slander a Marvel film (that look goofy as hell to me) starring Benedict Cumberbatch?  I'm going to be apathetic towards this movie until I see it get a 92% on Rottentomatoes (lower only if it is actually as racially insensitive as it looks) and I'll see it and probably enjoy it, never to watch again.


Hacksaw Ridge

Say what you will about my boy Mel Gibson.  He's a loathsome human being.  This is true.  He doesn't deserve the love that people still give him given the fact that offscreen he's a garbage bag.  However, the dude knows how to make a movie.  His track record as a writer/director is damn near flawless.  And the story of Hacksaw Ridge is highly touted as being a tear jerker war movie that the vast majority of the public will eventually NEED to see.  Whatever it is-- it's going to be one of the best of the Fall.

Loving

You wanna talk tear-jerker? This is the one that's going to drain you of tears and use them to mop the theater. It's the story of an interracial couple in the south in the 50s who get married and then spend their entire lives separated, under scrutiny of the law, sent to prison, etc.  With this and The Birth of a Nation, there could not be two more important movies to come out this year.


11/11
Arrival

There are two types of Sci-Fi.  There are junky, fun, action science fiction movies that can be so bad they're good or so good they're good.  Then, there's the slow, clever, and inventive sci-fi that is more of a brain tug than a space romp.  Arrival falls in the latter category.  It takes almost a philosophical look at what it means to be an alien in our world. It looks very thrilling, very intense, and very good.

11/18
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

I legitimately know nothing about this movie.  I know that it was written by the chick that wrote Harry Potter and that the book is mentioned in those books and I know some of the cast.  Other than that, I know nothing.  However, I know the track record of Rowling and the movies based on her books and I can just assume that this movie is going to be quite enjoyable.


The Edge of Seventeen

It does kind of look like your standard angsty teen coming of age movie.  However, it's produced by James L. Brooks and that's pretty much his M.O. but he's very good at it.  It also has an exceptional cast and it doesn't provide the standard PG-13 fare these types of movies are used to.  It's R rated and Woody Harrelson is playing a smartass. Yeah, okay, I'm in.


Nocturnal Animals

This is the kind of weird movie that feels like a dark Coen Bros. film.  It has that No Country for Old Men feel to it with a great cast. Director Tom Ford has only directed one other film, A Single Man, which was terrific, so I guess we can give him a so-far-so-good attitude. Hopefully it's even more sick and twisted than it looks because not much else the rest of this year are going to really strain the brain.


11/25
Moana

Again, don't know a whole hell of a lot about this movie, either. But I do know that it's Disney and their recent films the last five or six years have been stand out hits (I feel like I'm basing most of my assumptions upon track record).  It's also a new Disney musical from the guy who directed The Little Mermaid and Aladdin.  I also know that Lin-Manuel Miranda is involved with the movie somehow.  And The Rock is legit the man.  So, yeah... it's going to be good.


Allied

The teaser trailer for Allied doesn't show much, but this will be Brad Pitt's third World War II film in the last five or so years and none of them have been terrible.  Robert Zemeckis leaving his world of animation is also a good sign.  If you combine the right parts of Pitt, Cotillard and Zemeckis... there is potential for a very good movie on the horizon.


12/2
La La Land

Hollywood isn't doing a very good job of showcasing their holiday/Oscar bait movies this late into the year.  The last few movies I've said is going to be on the Best list only really have vague teaser trailers.  The same goes for La La Land.  I've seen the trailer a few times... but I have no idea what it's about.  I have to go (yet again) on track record.  The director is the guy who made the HIGHLY underrated Whiplash (one of my favorite movies of this decade) and it reunites Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone.  Cool.  I'll see it.


12/9
Office Christmas Party

I had to put a comedy on here because the rest of the comedies this holiday season look like sewage slop.  This one was good enough to choose due to its good cast (Jason Bateman, Jennifer Aniston, Kate McKinnon, T.J. Miller) and it's directed by the guys who did Blades of Glory.  So, even if it's just okay... it wins the winter movie fest.


12/16
Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

Much like Doctor Strange, I am just not excited for this film.  The trailer makes it look quite humorless, a little cheesy, and just kind of bleh.  The fact that after test-screenings it needed extensive reshoots says to me that it's sub-par.  And its director, Gareth Edwards, directed the abysmal reboot of Godzilla... I'm just not sold.  However, we are in a day and age when movies like this, when resurrected... can every once in awhile find lightning in a bottle. Cliche, cliche... it could be good.  Or maybe that's just wishful thinking?


12/23
Passengers

This is another movie where the trailer doesn't exactly sell me, but in this case I can tell that there is something else within the film that isn't being spoiled by the trailer (THANK YOU). It's also one of the only ORIGINAL PIECES of the entire year.  It's not based on a book or a comic book or a graphic novel or any other source material... it is 100% original.  The fact that a big studio would risk money on an original movie in 2016 is a goddamn miracle and makes me very hopeful for this film.


A Monster Calls

 











I thought about throwing this one into the 'Wildcard' section because the adaptation may or may not actually be as good as the trailer looks.  However, based on the cast and the trailer and what I've heard about the quality of the book... I'm willing to bet this movie is a lot better than people are initially giving it credit. Plus... Liam Neeson is the voice of a giant monster that helps a kid cope with his mom's cancer death.  What's not to be excited about???


Silence

Martin Scorsese made another film.  It stars Liam Neeson.  It's over three hours long.  Yeah... it's going to be amazing.


Fences

 











Probably the movie I'm most excited about this winter. Denzel's second directorial effort and it looks like it's going to have all of the emotional pull to make the audience actually FEEL things. It's based on a Pulitzer-Prize winning play that Denzel did on Broadway, so he probably feels quite passionate about its content.  I don't care.  It's Denzel. I'll watch him in pretty much anything. 



WORST UPCOMING:


10/21
Ouija: Origin of Evil

The original Ouija was terrible.  I love me some horror, but even I wouldn't touch that.  The sequel does look like it has a better premise and it definitely has a better director, but there's no saving this franchise. There's no amount of good directing or writing that could save a movie that's titled after a board game.


Boo! A Madea Halloween

Please explain to me how in the hell we get rid of Tyler Perry?  Is there some sort of online petition I can sign?  Are any of the Presidential candidates proposing some sort of anti-Tyler Perry legislation?? Because they'll get my vote.  And yes... your eyes are not deceiving you... it does in fact say "Hellurween" on an actual movie poster for an actual movie.  There is no God.


10/28
Inferno

I almost put this one under 'Upcoming Wildcards', but the more I see the trailer for this movie the more it looks worse and worse.  The DaVinci Code was not a good movie and Angels and Demons was just okay.  But this one looks so bad that every line of dialogue in the trailer (something that is supposed to convince you to see the movie) is so on the nose that the only reason Hanks is doing a third one has to be that he's contractually obligated.  I don't have any faith in this third installment to a very mediocre (at best) series.


11/4
Trolls

 











Does this one need much explanation? I realize we struck gold with The Lego Movie. Do you honestly think it'll happen again?


11/11
Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk

I hope you like quesadillas because this movie is stuffed with CHEESE. That was a terrible joke... but still ten times more entertaining than this incredibly emotionally manipulative movie. This is the film equivalent of the song "Christmas Shoes".  I don't prejudice films very often, but if this movie got a 98% on rottentomatoes, I would still never see it.  Dear God... why Steve Martin? Why???


Almost Christmas

 











A dysfunctional family Christmas movie comes out every. single. year. Does anyone actually remember one that stands out that was good other than, like, Christmas Vacation?  They all fall into the mist of obscurity and are hardly ever watched again. This one doesn't look any different than the rest.  A standard movie with a laugh or two that will impact no one.


11/25
Bad Santa 2

This one hurts. A lot. I love the original movie.  I watch it every Christmas.  It's so dark and funny and just plain ol' fuckkkkkked up. It's a classic that NEVER needed a sequel.  Go watch the trailer for this movie.  I dare you to find one thing to laugh it. You can't.  Sometimes you can tell that they're hiding the good stuff for the actual movie... this one... the "good stuff" is in the trailer.  This movie will be horrible.  It will attempt to make you forget why you loved the original so much.  And poor Kathy Bates.  It hurts me to see her drug into this mess.


12/2
Kidnap

Since winning her Oscar for Monster's Ball, Halle Berry has gone the Cuba Gooding Jr. route where instead of taking better and better roles, she's lived on the bottom making terrible movie after terrible movie and eventually will become nothing more than the face of a Redbox poster.  Not sure how Kidnap escaped to theaters in December, but it will likely be the last one.


12/9
The Bye Bye Man

Hey, what's up, America? Saw The Babadook?  Decided it was too good of a movie to not be American? Decided to make a blatant ripoff without really even trying to disguise the fact that you're ripping it off?  Trying to see how STUPID of a name you could call the ghost/demon of a movie and people will still come out? I hate this movie.  I hate it more than Tyler Perry.


12/16
The Space Between Us

 











You see... it's a play on words.  He's a kid that was born in space and falls in love with a girl on Earth the space between them is actually space.  Then when he comes to Earth they can't be together or some shit and now there's literal distance (space) between them.  Or how because he was born in space and she was born on Earth... they're different people and the culture clash is the metaphorical space between them.  Go to hell.


12/23
Assassin's Creed

Film adaptations of video games always suck.  They always do.  Remember when we argued earlier this year about Warcraft? How it wasn't going to be the bust that I said it was going to be? Well... it was. And this will be too.  It's unfortunate that they got real actors (Fassbender, Marion Cotillard) to be in the movie because it's going to suck.  If you don't believe me, watch the trailer. If you still don't believe me, hit yourself as hard as you can in the face with a hammer.


UPCOMING WILDCARDS:


10/7
The Girl on the Train

Before a few days ago, I would've stuck this one in the 'Upcoming Best' for Fall, but due to middling reviews, I've moved to 'Wildcards'.  Having read the book I can say that it is a very intense and thrilling story that could and should be great as a movie.  However, in the wrong incapable hands... it could just be a forgettable Gone Girl ripoff.  I'm hoping not.


10/21
Keeping Up With The Jonses

This is another movie that comes out every few years.  Suburban family watches cool new family (who may be spies), become jealous and snoopy, then entangled in the web of espionage.  The problem is-- they're never any good.  None of these movies ever really have the balls to go all out.  It's never enough comedy to justify the lame action, and it's never enough action to justify never laughing.  I don't have faith that Zack Galifinakis is the one to do it right. But you never know.


12/16
Collateral Beauty

Will Smith is someone that we all want to make a triumphant return to the movies.  However, he's been Kiera Knightley-ing himself and instead of doing fun Summer blockbusters (which is where we fell in love with him), he's trying to win that Oscar with movies no one cares about. Collateral Beauty is either going to be The Pursuit of Happiness.... or Seven Pounds.  Either way... meh.


12/23
Patriots Day

Peter Berg and Mark Whalberg team up for their third movie about 'Merica.  First, it was Lone Survivor.  Then, it was Deepwater Horizon.  Now, it's the "true" story of the aftermath of the Boston bombing.  I can't help thinking that instead of trying to honor the heroes in each of these stories, they're spewing very strange 'Merica propaganda. However, the movies are actually good.  So... I don't know. Vote Trump.


Why Him?

This is the only comedy coming out on Christmas.  It does have a few upsides-- we all know and love Bryan Cranston.  And it's rated R.  Like, a hard R. But, his foil is James Franco.  We've seen Franco funny in Seth Rogen movies... but is he funny enough alone to carry a movie as the off-color character himself? If he's supposed to be the funny one, and Cranston is the straight man... I don't know if they'll actually be able to pull it off without Rogen and co.


Gold

This is the third movie McConaughey has done with the word 'Gold' in it. The other ones weren't good.  There was also a movie he did called Sahara.  It wasn't good either.  He's bald in this movie.  Not sure if that helps.  I have no idea if this will be good or not. Wildcard, bitches!



See what I mean? Like what exactly is there to be that excited for this year?  I really hope that there's a movie that hasn't been announced yet that sneaks through and reminds us that the Fall really is meant for the best movies of the year.  I guess we'll have to wait until 2017 to get a better year.

The Magnificent Seven: Like Wild Wild West... Only Not Shitty

I never saw the original Magnificent Seven, nor did I ever see the original of that movie 7 Samurai... which is strange, I know, because I like westerns and I like movies. But, even more than that... I like Denzel Washington. Back when the trailers for this movie came out, there were no movies I was more excited for. With Denzel attached to any movie, it's going to be better than most.  Even if it's just... okay (I'm looking at you 2 Guns), he's still gonna bring that Denzel ferocity and grin to every role that makes the rest of the shit seem like gold. So, Denzel in a western that looks like it's mostly a shoot-em-up rather than a quiet, slow, burn... yeah, I'm in. Chris Pratt along side him wisecracking and making up for the monstrosity that was Jurassic World... yeah, definitely in.

So, from what I hear, this isn't exactly a remake of the original.  It's got the same concept-- seven dudes in the old west have to band together to kill some bad guys.  That's pretty much all you need to know.  Yes, there is a bad dude (Peter Skarsgaard) who is some sort of oil baron and he's taken over a quaint little western town and shooting dudes point blank in the street.  What a dick.  So, the widow (Haley Bennett) of the dude killed recruits bounty-ish hunter Chisholm (Washington), who recruits card shark Faraday (Pratt) who goes off to recruit a sharpshooter (Ethan Hawke) and his Asian sidekick (Byung-hun Lee), who then run into an old crazy trapper that hacks people up with a tomahawk (Vincent D'Onofrio), who has problems with a Mexican outlaw that's recruited (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo), who partners up with a Native American (Martin Sensmeier).  The seven of them, plus the widow go to the town to defend it against the evil baron's army. That's a western, folks.  And that's all you need.

I thought the movie was pretty decent. Clearly, we have the two stars that stand out above the rest in Denzel and Pratt.  Their chemistry together is wonderful-- the kind of stuff that almost makes you wish for a buddy-comedy-road-trip-spinoff. The rest of the group are serviceable, but what really sticks out like a sore thumb is that none of these people really have that good of a reason to fight. There's the hint of a shit-ton of gold coming their way, but most of them understand that a fight like this is a fight they won't live to see the end of-- so procuring gold isn't really that much of a motivating factor.  In fact, most of the dudes they recruit aren't even promised a share of the gold. I kept wondering, as they're prepping and training and getting ready to fight... why the hell they were still there.

Then, there's the small issue of not getting enough character from all of the seven. We get Denzel, especially in a harrowingly Denzel-type scene at the end, but we don't really even get Pratt.  No real back story.  In fact, the most fleshed out character is Ethan Hawke's character, and he's not even really an integral part of the story.  Everyone else, we get their introduction, we get a few specific scenes of them whoopin ass and that's about it.  Now, for a western like this-- it's usually not much of a problem.  And it really didn't bug me that much.  But, with a cast as diverse as this one, I would've rather seen a bit more backstory from the smaller characters than having them just be named for the place they came from.

The rest of the movie, including the last half hour, are a blast.  The end fight scene which does last a good fourth of the movie is thrilling to watch.  It's as good of an action movie as you'll see.  Even though it's set in the old west, this fight could happen today with modern technology and gunplay and it wouldn't be any cooler than it already is. In fact, because they don't have access to all the technology of today, some of the action and explosions are very clever in the way they're set up. The movie does have a decent amount of cheese and some 'one-liners' that don't necessarily land.  It does have some awkward set-ups, with strange or non-existent payoffs.  And it's definitely not the best crafted western in film history, but it does its job.  It puts together a ragtag team of violent people against an army of even more violent people to showcase a western battle that is just plain fun to watch.  And it's got Denzel.  Come on.  You know you're already going to see it.

B

Blair Witch: Found Footage Foibles

1999's The Blair Witch Project has done a lot of good for the film community.  It was the first ever movie to showcase filmmakers being able to make a memorable and terrifying film, for a minuscule budget, and release it wide for the world to see.  It was able to fool half of these people into thinking that the movie was, in fact, found footage. It has had major staying power in the realm of American horror culture and spawned a "never speak of it again" sequel as well as a remake-quel. It has also spawned the likes of movies on a low budget using handheld cameras that are equally, if not more so, terrifying films like Paranormal Activity. However, the film has also done a lot of bad. It has also spawned such found footage films like Apollo 18, The Devil Inside, A Haunted House, Devil's Due, As Above So Below, Project Almanac, and The Gallows.  So, in retrospect, it's really done a lot more harm than good.  However, with the success of the original and the complete and utter failure of the sequel, it was only a matter of time before a remake or a prequel or a reboot or a sequel or a remake-quel was bound to stumble upon us. And it is not the drones we are looking for.

Coming off the success of highly underrated and very clever horror film You're Next, little known horror director Adam Wingard seemed like the best choice.  His work with You're Next as well as his contributions to the anthologies V/H/S, V/H/S 2, and The ABCs of Death.  He's a director, along with longtime writing partner Simon Barrett, that shows true promise and grit in a world overwhelmed by lousy horror filmmakers.  Even if what he produces isn't a masterpiece, there is always something new and inventive, highly creative, and yes, terrifying. So, his take on the Blair Witch piqued my interest simply from his involvement in the film.  Hell, I was even interested when it was announced that this movie was called The Woods and was yet to be discovered as a Blair Witch film. Unfortunately, through most of this particular film, it appears that the aforementioned inventiveness, creativity, and terror were left on the cutting room floor, because all that we get for most of it is a more expensive, and decidedly lackluster, remake of the original.

I've seen this tactic used before and it has actually worked.  Back in 1981, a group of film students took it upon themselves to make a cheap and gory horror movie in the woods and called it The Evil Dead.  It was cheap, it was hokey, and it was awesome.  Then, when the movie deals and money came pouring in, director Sam Raimi took the original crew back out to the woods to do a sequel... except this time he had a bigger budget.  So, a good third of Evil Dead 2 is a more expensive remake of the first movie with better effects, better gore, and an expanded mythology that lead directly into the sequel. I believe this could've worked for Blair Witch had they focused more on adding to the mythology and expanding the story, rather than rehashing it for a new generation.

This time out we've got James, whose sister Heather was the girl from the first movie was lost in the woods only to have her footage discovered.  He ropes his filmmaking friend Lisa into an idea of going out into the woods to look for her (even though it's been almost 20 years later).  Along for the ride is James' best friend Peter and his girlfriend Ashley.  They head out to the Burkitsville woods to look for clues of Heather and see if there really is a witch in the woods.  Out there, the tale of the Blair Witch is told again. Creepy goings-on in the woods start to happen.  Little wooden figurines hang from the trees and time seems to work differently for the crew.  The group of friends, never leaving a camera turned off, begin fighting with one another and searching for a way to get the hell out of there.  If this sounds a lot like the first movie... you're right.  And it essentially is except this time there aren't any handheld cameras.  Everyone has a camera attached to their ear like a bluetooth (which, to be honest, gives the never-putting-the-camera-down gimmick a bit more credulity), and a drone.

But, here's the problem. Even though it is an updated carbon copy of the original-- it's kinda boring. Nothing really happens other than people POPPING UP from out of nowhere in front of cameras in order to give the audience a cheap jump scare. All the friends do is search the wood and bicker. The terror is slow to build and not in a good way.  Then, there's the logic problems with the idea of found footage that stand out like a gay couple at a Chic-Fil-A. When one of the friends starts to feel a little dizzy-- the picture in the camera gets fuzzy.  When another character loses his hearing-- well, wouldn't you know it-- we lose the hearing from the camera replaced by a slight ringing sound that one might experience when... losing hearing.  And finally, I don't think I'm alone here when I say that found footage films are so obnoxious and the novelty has long since worn off.  The quick cuts and the nauseating shaking that forces the audience to look away for seconds at a time just don't seem to be worth the story. There's really nothing about this movie that NEEDED it to be found footage other than the original was.

Now! That being said-- I did say that most of the movie was disappointing. The last fifteen minutes or so are FANTASTIC. While not necessarily adding to the mythology of the Blair Witch it does add a bit more explanation of the house from the end of the first film.  In the original, Heather walks into a creepy house, finds one of her friends eerily standing in a corner, there's a THUD and she drops the camera-- The End. In this film, the same thing happens.  Only we get to see the house. We get to see the house for a good fifteen minutes and this is where the real terror begins, and I mean that-- it's terrifying. The tension I felt in the last fifteen minutes almost made up for the rest of the movie. There's chilling shots of what could be the Blair Witch, there's twists and turns and anxiety and panic behind every door.  It's so good that if Wingard and Barrett had employed this type of filmmaking to the entire movie, it would've been great-- instead of forgettable.

Is the last fifteen minutes worth the rest of the movie? No, probably not.  But the foul taste I had in my mouth for the majority of the film was instantly swept away with the last fifteen minutes and I was able to look back and think, "that kinda sucked... but damn that was a good ending."

C-

Don't Think Twice: A Brutally Honest Improv Dream

I love improv. There's something so magnificent about getting up on a stage with other hilarious individuals and coming up with the most random, off-the-cuff scenarios and committing 100% to the absurdity, doing things you've never done and saying things you've never said until the scene ends for the sole purpose of getting a room full of people to laugh-- to bring joy to someone's life for just an hour. Then understanding that, whatever just happened, whatever divine intervention brought this random sequence of suggestions and events together, was a once in a lifetime fleeting moment.  It can and will never be recreated the same again. Since I was fifteen and first discovered improv games and having the ability to not suck at making people laugh, I knew comedy, and improv, were elements that I always wanted to be a large part of my life. Anyone who has ever graced a stage (whether an intimate community theater located in the landfill behind the burned crack house, or a sold-out crowd of hundreds to thousands) has felt this way as well. Growth of dreams and reaching higher and higher up the comedic and performance tent-pole is a staple of anyone consumed with performance. The reality, however, is that very few "make it". Someone putting together an improv show at their church has the same dreams and aspirations as someone who has made it to Saturday Night Live. The majority of these people will never get to experience the SNL stage.  A majority of these people will never get to sell out Madison Square Garden.  A majority of these people will never get the feeling of walking down the street and getting "recognized".  And it's what you do with that conclusion that defines you not just as a comedian, or a performer, but as a human being. This is what I loved so much about Mike Birbiglia's film Don't Think Twice.

If you've ever had thoughts or aspirations or hardcore dreams about being up in the spotlight making others laugh, then Don't Think Twice will probably not just speak to you personally, but there's a very good chance it will break, nay, shatter your heart into a million pieces. Comedian/Writer/Director/Actor Mike Birbiglia has written a film that's funny, and sad, and heartbreakingly honest. It's about an improv troupe known as The Commune. There's Miles (Birbiglia) the seasoned veteran turned improv teacher who laments about the time he was "seconds" from making it onto an SNL type show known as Weekend Live. After that there's Allison (Kate Miccuci), a background performer slash aspiring writer, Lindsay (Tami Sagher) a grown-up trust fund kid trying to make it on her own, Bill (Chris Gethard), the 'weirdo' of the group dealing with a sick father who expected more out of his son, and Sam (Gillian Jacobs) and Jack (Keegan-Michael Key), a couple who have been given the opportunity of a lifetime-- a chance at auditioning for Weekend Live. Together they're your typical improv troupe, going out every weekend at a small, intimate community theater putting on shows that sell out the crowd of hardly fifty seats. When Jack earns a spot on Weekend Live while the rest are set aside, they all take a good, long look at their own lives and what it means to them to be happy.

There's a moment in the film when Bill reflects upon his own existence in the world of improv and he says something to the effect of, "without improv, I'm just a loser."  For those with these huge ambitions of "making it" to the top of the comedy spectrum that's exactly how it can feel.  For those very short moments each week on stage, you feel like a king.  Once it's over and real life takes over again, life can seem empty. On the stage, you're the master of the universe-- in real life, you sell samples of hummus and chips at the local grocery store. This can be the dream-killer for a lot of comedians. Bill also says that "in your twenties it's all about achieving your dreams. In your thirties it's all about realizing how stupid your dreams were." But the message of the movie is dreams are never stupid or pointless, but it's what you make of those dreams that make them come true or not. What's the difference between performing on Saturday Night Live for the world to be able to see or having a killer show in front of fifty people at a local community theater? The bittersweet realization of the weight performers put on "succeeding" is truly what makes this movie so great.

Also, the cast. I believed they were an improv troupe and had been for years.  Their chemistry is undeniable and remarkable. I would watch the six of them perform improv any day. Each one has a different sad quirk that is exposed through their abilities to make each other laugh.  We see each member experience true pain and they're able to make it through due to, not just a close unit of friends, but through their abilities to make them laugh. And Birbiglia understands this-- that comedy is mostly about pain. Most comics have had to deal with a lot of heartache and loss, which to them, is only fuel to the comedy fire. You'll be hard-pressed to meet a comic that has had a privileged life with zero  suffering and/or prevalent sadness. However, it's those moments when you're able to use the bad and turn it into something that makes you or someone else laugh that makes a good comic.

Don't Think Twice really spoke to me. When I was in high school, all I wanted was to be a famous comedian. I wanted my face on billboards and girls who rejected me sending me vials of their tears because they could've had someone so awesome.  I wanted my stand-up special to be on comedy central.  I wanted to write and star in the funniest movie of all time. And now, I don't have these dreams of grandeur.  Yes, I still want to write the funniest movie of all time and having my own special (now on Netflix-- it's 2016-- Netflix didn't exist back then) is something I certainly wouldn't turn down... but I can find that happiness I'd feel if I saw my face on a billboard-- into one night of good improv. A night where everything fell into place at the right moments and made that one particular night better than all the rest.  In that small theater, in front of that small, yet devoted crowd, tears in their eyes from laughing so hard can give me that feeling of success just as much as being famous would. And that's what Birbiglia emphasizes in this film. Dream big. It's not impossible to "make it". But, if you don't... never give up doing what you love.  Never give up the chance to make someone's day a little bit funnier. Success is not defined by fame. And if you are one of the very few to make it... don't forget those that helped you get there.

(I realize this was less of a review and more of a personal introspection-- but, whatever, it's my blog, and I really liked this movie.)

A

Sully: The Hero We Deserve, But Maybe Not The Movie...

Have you ever been watching a movie and about halfway through you realize that, while you are not hating the film, this will probably be the only time you ever watch it?  You're glad that you're sitting down to watch it, but there's just something about it that says 'yeah, once is enough'? That's how I felt about Sully mid-way through the movie. I wasn't having a bad time or not enjoying the movie, but it became clear that there would never be another instance in my life where I desired to watch it again. And Tom Hanks usually never has the effect on me. He's generally a very watchable actor who makes movies you want to watch more than once (forgetting, of course, all about the existence of Larry Crowne).  Sully does a serviceable job of honoring it's title hero, but leaves the viewer with just enough satisfaction of getting his or her money's worth without ever needing a second viewing.

For those who don't know, New York hero Captain Chesley 'Sully' Sullenberger departed from La Guardia airport on January 15th, 2009 with 155 souls on board the aircraft. Minutes after departure, the plane struck a flock of birds that flew into both engines rendering them both dead. Quick to act, Captain Sully made an emergency water landing in the Hudson River just miles from the airport, unable to safely fly the plane back. All 155 passengers (pilots and flight attendants included) survived with only minor injuries sustained to those that didn't escape "without a scratch". It is one of the most heroic moments in commercial aviation history and deserves to be remembered and honored.  But the question that lingered in my mind, both when I saw the trailer, and now having just seen the film... did it need to be a movie?

Two-hundred and eight seconds the turmoil lasted. Once the plane hit the water the flight attendants and pilots helped passengers safely off the plane and onto rafts in the Hudson.  The Coast Guard and the NYPD took twenty-four minutes to respond, successfully rescuing every passenger aboard the aircraft. This is nothing short of amazing. But did it need to be a movie? Looking at it from Hollywood standpoint, of course it did. Any remotely interesting story that's put into print should 100% be made into a movie if it can make money. But from an audience perspective, I'm not sure it passed muster. The film seemed to strain to put together a solid 96 minute run time.  It lingers heavily on Sully's dreams after the crash.  He constantly sees himself unsuccessfully landing the plane and crashing into buildings and killing everyone on board. It's a stretch to imagine the actual Sully having gone through this, but who knows? We get very unimportant flashbacks of Sully's flying experience both as a youngster with a crop duster and in the armed forces.  Neither scene add greatly to the overall story.  Sully reminds us twice that he's been flying for over forty years.  This information seemed, to me, to be sufficient enough to give the man his credibility.

The moments that make the movie worthwhile, however, are very well done and intriguing, even to the point of thrilling (even though the audience knows exactly what's going to happen each time). We get pieces of the crash throughout the movie from differing perspectives-- from the air traffic controllers attempting to guide Sully in making his way safely back to the airport, to the flight crew, to the passengers, to finally Sully and his co-pilot Jeff Skiles (Aaron Eckhart). This is the heart of the movie where we are able to experience every aspect of the crash and how it really never should've gone as successfully as it did. Yet, there is all this filler and fluff in-between of Sully trying to prove that his actions were the only ones that allowed everyone to walk away with their lives. The board trying to show that he could've made it back to the airport and Sully questioning whether or not he made the right decision.  And while I don't exactly know the entire story surrounding the aftermath of the crash... it seems most of this was created to add to the drama of the film... and not what actually happened to the real hero. Then, there's this strange tension played up between Sully and his wife (Laura Linney) who we only get to see on the other side of phone calls.  There are moments when it seems his marriage is either on the verge of ending or has already ended or is in a bit of a limbo. But it only comes from him. It's never truly explained and it's a sore thumb in a movie that carries with it other sore digits.

Call it old age, call it mind-slippage at its finest, but lately Clint Eastwood has been making very vanilla films. They're the perfect embodiment of the term 'meh'. In fact, aside from American Sniper, in the past eight years Eastwood has only made movies that are the film equivalent of plain toast. From Invictus to Hereafter to J. Edgar and Jersey Boys, his movies all have that strange, quiet vanilla feeling of emptiness and stale monotony. This is how the fluff of Sully feels.  This is how everything outside the aircraft in the movie feels. Nevertheless, when we get the scenes of the two-hundred and eight second crash is where the movie truly feels alive. This is what genuinely honors its hero.

Tom Hanks is great in it, playing Sully with a quiet stoicism we're not all that used to seeing from Hanks. He is deeply troubled and concerned about the future of his career and thoughts on whether endangering so many people was the right decision. Even though personally I believe only about thirty minutes of the movie are worth watching, it's nice to have Tom Hanks leading the thirty minutes. Chances are, you're not going to see this movie in theaters.  In fact, the theater I was in was only half-full and I was the only one in there under the age of 65. So, take your grandmother to see who he probably believes is the greatest hero of the twenty-first century, or wait until it's blasted on the 'Suggestions For You' section of your Netflix home screen. While, personally, I don't believe this movie needed to exist, it is nice to see effort made on behalf of Eastwood and the crew to give Sully the recognition of heroism he absolutely deserved.

C+