Lights Out

'Lights Out' movie poster

Release: Friday, July 22, 2016

[Theater*]

Written by: Eric Heisserer

Directed by: David F. Sandberg

In Swedish filmmaker David F. Sandberg’s feature debut, an expanded realization of a short film he made in 2013, something sinister lurks in the absence of light and enjoys tormenting anyone unfortunate enough to be in the same room with it. That is, of course, unless those people have a flashlight or bright cell phone screen handy and they can wield it like Father Merrin does the cross before Pazuzu himself: “Go away! Go away, you!”

Lights Out is a family drama dressed up as a fright fest. It’s well-acted and on-the-rise Aussie actress Teresa Palmer makes much of it worth your while. She’s certainly easier on the eyes than she is on your heart, a kind of bratty youth who blames her attitude on daddy walking out on the family so long ago. Her mother (Maria Bello) has lost her mind and become reclusive. After many years she’s still haunted by the disappearance of childhood friend Diana.

Her daughter Rebecca (Palmer) can’t seem to get a grip on her own life. She lives alone in her apartment and doesn’t want to call the guy she’s been seeing for eight months her boyfriend. Bret (Alexander DiPersia)’s not going anywhere though, not even after he’s finally met Rebecca’s crazy mom. Heck, especially after. Rebecca has a younger half-brother Martin (Gabriel Bateman) who still lives at home but soon it becomes clear that that situation can no longer continue, what with mom talking to herself late at night and haunting the poor boy with stories of her past. Stuff about Diana. Other gibberish.

One thing that Lights Out has going for it is a strong sense of family. That manifests despite the brokenness of this particular household. Whether it’s Rebecca’s instinctive protectiveness of Martin — she attempts to take him in and care for him at her own apartment before a child care specialist shows up and impresses upon her the actual, transformative reality of becoming a caretaker — or Bret’s inexplicable devotion to his not-girlfriend; even Sophie, the sick mother, has a deep love for her son and daughter. The film is wisely, and arguably, more intimately concerned with human relationships than it is with things going bump in the night. Bello in particular manages to really dial in on the emotional heft of her character experiencing some low moments.

Palmer is less interesting, as is her boy-toy. Both actors are likable enough but the latter barely leaves his fingerprints on the story. Rebecca never really seems to change, as circumstances force her to get back in touch with her mother despite years of tension and weirdness. As Martin, the young Bateman has presence but more importantly he spares us from yet another shrieking, generally irritating cinematic creation who serves no greater purpose than to put everyone in needless danger.

Less interesting than any of these is the antagonist, some haunt that has roots in the history of this once-upon-a-time happy family. Frustratingly Lights Out is another case in which evil appears and acts only when the script finds it convenient. This would also explain the apparition’s obnoxious inconsistencies, like being able to shut down power to an entire building but not having the fortitude to withstand an attack from the light of a cell phone. Something interesting does come out of the invention — it’s creepy watching the thing move in between flips of a light switch — but if you’re in it for the wickedness awaiting all those who have trespassed, you’re in the wrong movie.

If you’ve come for the jump scares, you’ve come to the right place. That’s all Lights Out does, even if it does it well. I hope it doesn’t become Sandberg’s calling card. Despite the quality of a handful of those moments, I gotta say a person’s healthy fear of darkness is actually more intense than the fear of what Sandberg’s film has laying around in it. I can’t help but feel like we would understand the function of so many repeated jump scares if the threat were more real. Without a compelling villain behind everything the technique just feels lazy and uninspired. Repetitive.

When it comes right down to it, decent ghost story; not so good movie.

MV5BMTU1MjgzOTE5Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjUxNDgzOTE@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,999_AL_

* I have never walked out on a movie because of other people in the theater being too loud. Lights Out broke that streak. I went to check it out on Friday but there were two very intoxicated guys in there who genuinely just didn’t realize how loud they were being. Unfortunately this was after they and two other groups came in after the movie had begun (like, tape rolling not the credits and stuff). I got a pass for another time, came back Saturday. I was alone in the theater (11:15p) until a rambunctious little group of teens came in and they proceeded to talk through the entire movie and were probably even louder than the guys the night before. I almost left again. So it is quite possible that this review doesn’t accurately reflect how I might have felt about it had I been able to fully concentrate on the film. So, I thank those individuals for that. Thanks for the distractions. 


Recommendation: The strong sense of family is what makes Lights Out worth sitting through at all. The steeped-in-reality tone and settings feel very James Wan but there’s little evidence of his influence elsewhere. I suppose the script isn’t the worst you could find either. But come the end of it  you’re left wanting a lot more. That’s a shame when everyone seems so committed. 

Rated: PG-13

Running Time: 81 mins.

Quoted: “Hey Martin, what’s up? Did we wake you?”

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited. 

Photo credits: http://www.impawards.com; http://www.imdb.com

The Conjuring 2

'The Conjuring 2' movie poster

Release: Friday, June 10, 2016

[Theater]

Written by: James Wan; Carey Hayes; Chad Hayes; David Leslie Johnson

Directed by: James Wan

The horror event of the year has arrived and no one is safe. Not the Warrens from nightmarish visions; not the British family whose home turns into a petri dish for malevolent spirits; not James Wan from criticism. I don’t want to spoil anything and say it’s all going to be okay for everyone, but at least for Wan it will be. He’s back with a fresh set of haunting images in The Conjuring 2, a literal spiritual sequel to the 2013 smash hit that found real-life paranormal activity investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) coming to the rescue of an innocent Rhode Island family.

The Conjuring established itself as elite horror in terms both commercial and critical, raking in roughly seven times its production budget ($20 million) in American box office receipts alone. Though Wan relied heavily on the jump scare tactic to rattle audiences, he compensated for familiarity by developing characters that were, for once, well worth embracing, particularly in the Warrens. The net effect? These people have become endeared to us, and now in their second outing, we dread what lies ahead because now we too are experienced.

It is true: The Conjuring 2 is really just more of the same stuff. Instead of the Perrons we are introduced to the (very British) Hodgsons. We watch as another family is torn apart without mercy. But isn’t that what we wanted anyway? Back then it became apparent, and fairly quickly, that audiences were willing to pay to become highly strung-out. And while we’re on the subject, let’s dispel a myth: the mark of a good horror film is measured by the stress it induces rather than how many times it physically startles you; if you want something scary, watch a war film or this year’s American presidential elections.

Did we not want a supernatural tale that feels undeniably human and that satiates, via convincing special effects and odd camera placements, our morbid curiosity for what on the surface appears to be demons rising from the underworld? How would it not be fair for us to anticipate another signature exorcism (with apologies to William Friedkin, of course) to wrap things up? The fairly familiar beats The Conjuring 2 delivers are everything we asked for. And then some.

This is less of a retread than you might think, and its foundation isn’t built upon dollars and cents. There’s a legitimate reason we’re going through this again. The haunting in Enfield represents another terrifying case file in the Warrens’ infamous career. There’s a sophistication about proceedings absent in lesser, cheaper offerings, the sort of B-flicks that would be more fun if they weren’t so painfully obviously rushed off the assembly line. Wan, a director who lives, eats and breathes horror, seizes the opportunity to delve further into the lives of the paranormal investigators and to provide a cinematic experience that could go on to be as difficult to forget as its predecessor.

Once again he uses love, not hate, as a driving force. We already know how capable the Warrens are — their many decorated shelves back home are testament to years of dangerous, grueling work — but this time they’re genuinely vulnerable, with Lorraine having a difficult time ridding herself of visions she’s been having since their Amityville days. Her husband’s concerned though he remains keenly aware of the hippocratic oath that binds them to their duties. That’s not the only moral conundrum addressed. The Warrens’ public image comes under fire when skeptics start coming out of the woodwork, including a live television debate that incenses the Warrens and, later, Franka Potente’s Anita Gregory, who challenges the pair directly over the validity of any of their claims, past and present. Media also play a role in creating, even influencing, perception.

The Enfield poltergeist (incidentally the project’s working and far superior title) is a being of exceptional power and takes as much pleasure in tormenting the Warrens as it does single mother Peggy Hodgson (Frances O’Connor). O’Connor, saddled with the unenviable task of mimicking Ellen Burstyn as she bears witness to severe behavioral changes in younger daughter Janet (Madison Wolfe), commits to the single-mom archetype with ferocity. Fortunately for her, her story takes a backseat to how the Warrens respond to the latest call. This particular phantom takes on many forms, both clichéd (an old bitter man named Bill Wilkins) and more novel (green-eyed nuns and crooked men who move like the Babadook). While the evil is diluted somewhat by flimsy justification — Bill just wants the family to stop squatting in his house — its physical appearance is more than enough to disturb.

As was the case in The Conjuring, where we got to know the Perron family to the point where fate and consequence actually meant something to us, this is so much more than a ghost story. The spotlight falls more intensely on the Warrens this time around. Now it’s less about their expertise as it is about unwavering faith, about the deep love and trust these people have in one another. The Enfield case has haunted England ever since 1977, and manifested as one of the Warrens’ most notable challenges, if for no other reason than how personal everything became. Lorraine is convinced taking this job could spell disaster, and she pleads with her husband that, if they are to visit, they’ll operate in a more observational capacity rather than going fully hands-on. Of course, none of that matters when push really comes to shove.

I’m with Lorraine here. I’m not sure who else is, but I can’t be alone. I’m perfectly okay with playing the part of observer. I’d rather not get my hands dirty. Sitting back and watching lives fall apart amidst typically dull England weather is emotionally taxing enough for me. Touché, James Wan. You’ve made me believe sequels to horror films actually can be good.

Screen Shot 2016-06-11 at 5.29.02 PM

Recommendation: Highly anticipated horror sequel manifests as a potent elixir featuring dramatic, thriller and even romance elements that help steer it away from films cut from the same cloth. As someone who has yet to experience the Insidious franchise, I can’t say whether these are Wan’s best efforts, but there’s little use in denying he has officially established himself as the go-to director when it comes to big-budget horror. This was so good I personally see no reason why a third and fourth couldn’t be produced. Like, I am actually asking for more for once. 

Rated: R

Running Time: 134 mins.

Quoted: “It’s so small and light!”

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited.

Photo credits: http://www.impawards.com; http://www.imdb.com

TBT: The Others (2001)

new-tbt-logo

I won’t lie to you. Halloween and the days and weeks leading up to it, give me the heebie-jeebies. For a holiday that’s all about celebrating Satanic practices and dressing up in disguises with the specific intention of obscuring our true selves, I have to say, All Hallow’s Eve is my least favorite eve of ’em all. Not even the candy you get/got as a trick-or-treater is/was all that worth it — candy corn? Ugh. Gobstoppers. . .help. Who knows what that stuff is laced with. And then, of course, you get the wonderful folks who go around and. . .smash pumpkins and destroy other decorative items people invested time and money into putting on their houses. I also think it’s probably the quickest holiday to “age out” of. Going around trick-or-treating at my age is more likely to get you arrested than earn you a nice plump bag of candy. One tends to grow out of this phase prettttty quickly. Especially if you’re a male. I guess haunted corn mazes are still pretty fun. They made for some fun date nights. However, each year that goes by, to me Halloween just gets that much more evil and more kitschy. Finally, though, I’ve kind of got a reason to celebrate it as we head into October with TBT. Each post this month will be a good horror film that I’ve seen from back in the day. I hope you enjoy these entries, because honestly I’m going through a lot  of pain and bad memories reviewing these particular films. I’ll start off with what I consider the “least” scary of the upcoming entries, and will try to crank up the severity of the scares as we go on. Hey, what doesn’t kill us, makes us stronger, right. . .?

Today’s food for thought: The Others.

The Others

Release: August 10, 2001

[DVD]

Possibly the very first horror film I have ever seen, The Others is one of the few that succeeded in giving me chills. Remaining low-budget, having a strong script delivered through convincing performances and not to mention, being released in an era prior to this obsession with gratuitous gore and torture in horror films, this film sneaks up on you like a bad dream in the middle of the night and benefits from exemplifying the genre’s strengths.

Directed and scored by Spanish filmmaker Alejandro Amenábar, the British psychothriller serves as proof you don’t need high-tech special effects and complicated schemes to scare up an audience. The Others relies on a steady,  balanced diet of tension and — admittedly, yes, okay — jump scare moments to create an engaging story about a mother trying to protect her young against supernatural forces within her house.

Grace Stewart (Nicole Kidman) is a devout Roman Catholic mother of two children who both possess an extremely rare health condition: sensitivity to sunlight, and so she whisks herself and children away to an old mansion that’s isolated from civilization (as the settings for most of these kinds of movies typically are. . . can’t we for once have like the old haunted place next to Hardee’s or something?) and she has all the windows sealed off from the daily sun rays.

Grace believes she has Anne (Alakina Mann) and Nicholas (James Bentley) safely guarded; little does she know — and is about to find out about —  the servants whom work for Grace have a little secret of their own. It will take the length of the movie to understand the dynamic between the staff and the Stewart family, but it’s well worth the undertaking, in this coward’s opinion. . .

Also, as a non-Kidman fan, from what I do remember of her performance in this from over ten years ago, she managed to really sell her genuine dread and fear, and ultimately her despair and denial. The children were also magnificent, acting as two really young witnesses to some shocking and unexplainable events around the house. Grace first believes her children are seeing things and is initially angry at them for spooking her. But then when she starts to experience odd things herself, she starts becoming suspicious of virtually everything that moves within the house. The staff are her first priorities, and she relieves them of their duties after a couple of sequences confirms her worst fears. But The Others doesn’t stop there. The mystery keeps unwinding piece-wise, and it won’t be until the very end before all the significant pieces are put into their correct places.

Let me dust off the old memory and see what I can recall as my highlights of this creepy little flick:

  • the old woman looks creepy as. . . . smashed pumpkins, and especially at the time, when I was a much more impressionable teenager. . .
  • not big on the single-scene films, nor haunted-house-type movies much either but The Others has a great set piece. the house is really creepy and spacious.
  • the séance/paper-tearing as the big reveal
  • Nicole Kidman’s accent was not obnoxious
  • xeroderma pigmentosa (what the children suffered from)
  • creaky floorboards, doors ajar and someone’s underneath that sheet over the piano.. . .. right?!
  • Charles isn’t dead. Or is he?
  • the setting is rather neat (post-World War II, British Crown Dependency of Jersey. . . and, in the middle of the woods)

I also figured, now is as good a time as any to bring back the Caption Contest. Let’s go with these three stills from the film. Throw them creative little bits in the comments below! Have fun, and welcome to October.

the-others-servants

Caption A: __________________________

large_others_blu-ray8

Caption B: ______________________

The-Others-Main

Caption C: ____________________

That about does it for installment #1 for the.. . shudders horror segment on TBT, hope you lovely people stick around for the next!

4-0Recommendation: Nicole Kidman in a very good role makes this movie a haunting one to experience but it’s not gruesome, nor big on special effects, either. If you’re keen for watching a more low-budget horror in a similar vein to Jessica Biel’s The Tall Man, you should give this one a shot.

Rated: PG-13

Running Time: 105 mins.

All content originally published and the reproduction elsewhere without the expressed written consent of the blog owner is prohibited. 

Photo credits: http://www.imdb.com