Blair Witch.

Review #1753: Blair Witch.

Cast: 

James Allen McCune (James Donahue), Callie Hernandez (Lisa Arlington), Brandon Scott (Peter), Corbin Reid (Ashley), Valorie Curry (Talia), and Wes Robinson (Lane) Directed by Adam Wingard (#1672 - Godzilla vs. Kong)

Review: 

I am sure you are familiar with The Blair Witch Project (1999). If not, I will simply just crib some lines from when I saw the film two years ago: "Maybe one is supposed to have Jaws in mind when it comes to a film that holds its monster in place for most of its run-time. This falls apart pretty quickly because I actually felt something for that film and its encompassing terror that lurked (and actually showed up), where with these three the strangest thing that happens to these theater folks is having the tent shaken by the director. Actually, I take that back, the stick figures are a bit spooky to look at." Sure, I can make fun of how silly the proceedings were, but that movie made handfuls of money; it was followed by Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 (2000), a movie about people "fascinated" by the mythology that surrounded the original that was incidentally made by a filmmaker who mostly has made true crime documentaries. That movie was a mixed bag (making three times its budget), yet no work on another film bubbled up to the surface for over a decade. Director/writers Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sánchez would not be involved with this feature (as each have gone on to do their own features separate from each other), but Lionsgate decided to do their own venture, complete with secrecy (it was billed as "The Woods" until the promotional tours started) that extended to their choice in director in Adam Wingard and writer with Simon Barrett, who made slight modifications to the pitch with more characters.

So yes, instead of making a movie about stumbling folks that got lost in the woods, now we have a movie about stumbling folks that are getting chased in the woods while being lost in the woods. I think you know what I feel about this movie: It does not do anything particularly special that had been done seventeen years prior, as it instead manages to stumble in horror clichés that will not satisfy folks who were either fans of the original or not. Instead of attempts at "raw" scares, the scares seem equivalent to being refrigerated for a few days. The fact that the film was considered a disappointment for the studio despite what it managed to make back on a $5 million budget only makes me more amused that there won't be a direct sequel to such repetition. I am sure that it must have been really interesting to look at footage in 1999 and think, "woah, is this found footage real?" But you are reading words on the Internet from someone with cynicism to spare, and if you are really going to try to get me with sound design and the "idea" of something there, you better have interesting characters or scenarios to back it up.  There is none of that here with a movie that goes from "method filmmaking" to modern filmmaking that only wants the "greatest hits" without actually hitting anything, because seeing failure of folks to get out of a situation with more modern stuff is actually more irritating. McCune is too quiet to actually lead these folks to anything of interest, one who fills the "sibling" role to a T in bland matching bland (but again, that other movie had folks in method acting). Hernandez isn't much better, but at least having enough time to run from horror is more than "nondescript", since the other four bicker and say boring things before they get to picked apart like lambs (no, having a character have a Confederate flag in their house doesn't count as a character trait). Riddle me this: What is there to care about with these characters this time? What is there to think about in its title threat that is different than the last time? It actually makes me wonder if seeing the second film would actually be more interesting if only because it actually flipped things around from "what's that?". 89 minutes cannot solve my gripes with the original, no matter what kind of professional camera work you put into it, and for that I cannot in good conscience give it the same rating as I did with the orignal mediocrity. Sticks and stones may scare some bones, but spooky words will never scare me, you might say.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: A finalist from last year's Tribute to the Decades...

...Altered States (1980).

La La Land.

Review #1577: La La Land.

Cast:

Ryan Gosling (Sebastian Wilder), Emma Stone (Mia Dolan), John Legend (Keith), J. K. Simmons (Bill), Rosemarie DeWitt (Laura Wilder), Finn Wittrock (Greg), Callie Hernandez (Tracy), Sonoya Mizuno (Caitlin), Jessica Rothe (Alexis), and Tom Everett Scott (David) Written and Directed by Damien Chazelle (#1146 - First Man)

Review:

"Now more than ever we need hope and romance on the screen, and I think there’s something about musicals that just get at something that only movies can do. That idea of movies as a dreamland, movies as the language of our dreams and movies as a way of expressing a world in which you break into song, that emotions can violate the rules of reality.” - Damien Chazelle

Maybe the old saying about the youth being the future can work out in film, as one could observe from Damien Chazelle. Born in Rhode Island but raised in Princeton, New Jersey, he had a love of filmmaking from a young age (while doing music with the local studio band), which reflected on his study at Harvard University within Visual and Environmental Studies. As part of his thesis project, he directed his first feature film with Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench (2009), which received some notice on the festival circuit. He tried his hand in Hollywood with writing assignments for hire (such as The Last Exorcism Part II (2013) and 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)), but he wanted to do his own projects. He and college classmate Justin Hurwitz had envisioned the idea for La La Land in 2010, and there had been plans to do it with a cheap budget that was scrapped, mostly because he was told that the concept and material "seemed brazenly uncommercial" (Focus, for example, wanted to change the focus from jazz to rock and modify the opening number and ending). It was the success of a film near to Chazelle's heart in terms of his experiences as a drummer in high school that led to his breakthrough with Whiplash (2014), a critical darling that also helped get his foot in the door to make this feature with a more suitable budget.

So, how does one make a film about Los Angeles come alive while describing it once as the place that worships everything and value nothing? (which just reminds me of that old joke about it being a nice place to visit but I wouldn't want to live there). By trying to inspire hope within a cynical audience member? In some ways that may prove all they need, although it is clear that others might find their eyes rolling rather than in tears. I guess it depends on where you look upon the film's idea of bringing romance to the screen with the stylings that try to aim for classic musicals of yesteryear with a touch of modern flair that goes for "cute" but, "not that cute" at the same time, with listed inspirations being films such as The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964) to Singin' in the Rain (1952) to even Boogie Nights (1997). So here we are, a musical that wants to go on with no cuts for its numbers. Is it as great as those traditional musicals? Better than some of them, perhaps. This may all be subjective, but I certainly wouldn't put it on the level of the aforementioned Singin' in the Rain, or even An American in Paris (1951); technically, this might be comparable to the quality of Gigi (1958) - good, not great, but good in inspiring decent little charm with chemistry. One starts with Stone (freshly established earlier in the decade with films such as Easy A), the best presence in the whole film when it comes to well-delivered grace that obviously proves useful to watch on screen in the balancing act of struggling dreamer alongside time to sing and dance with chemistry that flickers with some worthy energy. Gosling does fine with what he has offered to him, since his pursuits come off a bit more aloof, but at least they make a worthy pair together when they dance (singing is a different edge). The supporting cast is played to short lengths, such as having singer/pianist Legend there for a time to promote charm with inverting classic jazz with fusion (which goes...somewhere?), or a stern one-shot from Simmons. Funny, I remember classic musicals having some sort of memorable third character to pair off the would-be romantic leads. It might seem like I am picking at this film a bit, but let's just list some positive notes too. After all, it is a charming film in execution, with the opening number on the freeway, while the dance between Stone and Gosling in that twilight of sunset is also a dazzler. The songs are fairly well-crafted too, perhaps not inherently catchy, but they resonate with a dream of gloss and fevered ambition that the film goes for without needing to stuff themselves. 

And then of course there is the ending of the film. It was stated by both Chazelle and others that this is the ending they wanted with no changes, grounding the classic musical in "real life". For that, all power to Chazelle, since I doubt the ending shifted audience notices downward at all. It's a shame I just don't like that ending, not merely because it's a bittersweet one, but more so because I just found it to be a ridiculous choice for a film that wants to adhere to old-school musical films but then decide for both a supposed honest ending alongside with an "imagined" sequence as a cheap joke to have it both ways. But hey, life is like a bunch of seasons, and one's dreams will require perhaps sacrificing things to get there. Cool, great, have fun with that attempt at spinning goo into the newest product of hope within cynical times (we've never been cynical like this!, says the history-maker of the now). It is also entirely possible that one can get weary at times even for "good" films, because sometimes expectations are higher for some films than others. As a whole, it is a nice little movie, filled with some useful charm and interest with harkening back to the musicals of yesteryear, which it reaches with mostly successful results. Is is the great return of the classic musical? Maybe, maybe not, but at least it is an interesting experiment from its young director in Chazelle that will surely prove a useful curiosity in discussion over where it sits in time spent with song-and-dance.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.