Sinister.

Review #1905: Sinister.

Cast: 

Ethan Hawke (Ellison Oswalt), Juliet Rylance (Tracy Oswalt), Fred Thompson (Sheriff), James Ransone (Deputy), Michael Hall D'Addario (Trevor Oswalt), Clare Foley (Ashley Oswalt), Nick King (Bughuul / Mr. Boogie), and Vincent D'Onofrio (Professor Jonas) Directed by Scott Derrickson (#874 - Doctor Strange and #1865 - The Black Phone)

Review: 

The best part of a horror movie is when one finds inspiration in a prior horror film experience and homes in their own interesting idea. When C. Robert Cargill saw the 2002 feature The Ring, he had a nightmare after viewing the film, one that had Super 8 films and a projector in his attic. The scenario snowballed from there when spending time with Scott Derrickson in writing the script, where Cargill devised his idea of what a Bogeyman would look like that would stand apart from the usual entity, which had a look inspired by a picture Derrickson found on Flickr when looking at "horror" images (making a deal with said photographer, naturally). I'm sure you recognize the scenes with a Super 8 are in fact shot from a Super 8 camera. This was the fourth feature film from Derrickson, previously responsible for Hellraiser: Inferno (2000), The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005), and The Day the Earth Stood Still (2008). Made on a budget of roughly $3 million that was made from a variety of production companies that included Blumhouse Productions, the film was a considerable success at the time, and a sequel was made in 2015 that had Derrickson and Cargill return to write it along with one returning cast member.

It is the pursuit for recognition that pushes the whole film. Sure, the entity looks both unfamiliar and alluring to us in appearance, but the goals of the being and the lead character we are watching are not too particularly different, and that probably is spookier than anything else. Granted, the thing likes to do elaborate sequences of terror like one might expect from a horror film, but that doesn't mean that the film lacks energy when it comes to making a good slow burn movie. Ten years have only made it seem all the more interesting in what endured best in seeing the clash of old and new technology within a movie that doesn't aim for a blood affair but instead a calm terror (you might ask how Google doesn't play a part here, but where's the fun in that?) It is a familiar movie, one that plays on the cliches of the past without trying to play it for laughs. It is one with a general patience in 109 minutes that uses its imagery well for those who pay attention and dig where it wants to dig in unraveling terror when it comes to old legends and not learning when to leave well enough alone. It isn't hard to see while the filmmakers felt Hawke would be an ideal presence to work magic with a character that would have been pure heel with a less talented actor. It is his film to shine in terms of craven charm that sells every moment of ambition or growing suspicion without a false note present. We know what kind of hostility will come from a spooky dark house and secrets from all sides, but it still works well with someone we can lovingly chuckle with in terms of how self-centered a pursuit can be with Hawke there to guide it as a haunted fool that we like, as opposed to someone we shake our heads at. Rylance and the others playing the on-screen family are about what you would expect in light charm, while Thompson chews in scolding grit for two scenes of neat timing. Ransone makes a bit of plucky charm on the sidelines while D'Onofrio makes his exposition-heavy side role worth viewing for a couple of minutes. I find that it is a pretty good horror movie, one that achieves the basic goal of making its premise work more than just on paper through the use of a decent cast headlined by one really good actor to go with some stellar Super 8 photography that makes this a movie warped in past and present for the right reasons. I especially like the climax, one that doesn't roll on a red herring or any kind of last-minute tricks to try and yield the inevitable, which means one gets a movie about a creature that feeds on attention - human or beast, and the movie knows what to say about the plight of each in where recognition can get you. Some will find it pretty scary and other may find it familiar, but they certainly will have an interesting time regardless because of how Derrickson and company came together to make a horror movie worth one's attention without having to strain credibility to get to that point.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Black Phone.

Review #1856: The Black Phone.

Cast: 

Mason Thames (Finney), Madeleine McGraw (Gwen), Ethan Hawke (The Grabber), Jeremy Davies (Terrence), E. Roger Mitchell (Detective Wright), Troy Rudeseal (Detective Miller), James Ransone (Max), Miguel Cazarez Mora (Robin), Rebecca Clarke (Donna), J. Gaven Wilde (Moose), Spencer Fitzgerald (Buzz), Jordan Isaiah White (Matty), Brady Ryan (Matt), Tristan Pravong (Bruce), Jacob Moran (Billy), Brady Hepner (Vance), Banks Repeta (Griffin) Directed by Scott Derrickson (#874 - Doctor Strange)

Review: 

Every now and then you need a good scare, particularly one that tries to draw upon the 1970s in terms of stranger danger. One good thing that came out of Scott Derrickson leaving the production of Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) is that he was thus free to start production on this film rather than wait until after trying to cobble a sequel, which was shot in 2021 with a debut screening in September before eventual release this month. The Black Phone is based on the short story of the same name written by Joe Hill (who served as a co-executive producer), which had been included in his collection 20th Century Ghosts; the story is mainly focused on just the lead child character trapped in the basement (the story apparently ends right after a call comes in for the killer). Scott Derrickson and C. Robert Cargill (collaborators on films such as Sinister (2012), which also featured Hawke in a lead role) were thus tasked with writing a screenplay that extended the material beyond just the short story. One might be thinking of familiar things when it comes to a 70s tale involving a clown that traps children or with a phone that has the voice of dead kids, or with a secondary lead that may or may not have psychic abilities. Well, Hill is the son of Stephen King, so that might help things, since King described the movie as "Stand by Me in Hell". 

Technically speaking, the movie isn't as particularly dark as the story, but I do think the movie will work most people's taste in horror, particularly in terms of execution. One doesn't get taken for a fake-out ride or confronted with incessant horror tricks. I'm not going to go out on a limb and say it is one of the scariest films of the current decade, but I will say that it is one of the best executed features I have seen in quite a while, a solid period piece with a suitable cast and staging that never wavers in its building of terror in 103 minutes. It helps that the movie is lifted by solid performances from both kids and adults. Thames never wavers from the degree of believability required from a "kid gets spooked" movie while McGraw has sharp presence and timing on the other side of the pursuit coin. The belt scene with Davies (solid in scuzzy screen presence) might be the most striking scene with any of them outside the parts when Thames is paired against Hawke. Hawke apparently had reservations about playing the character because of how evil it was, but he reconsidered by saying "Villains might be my future." He does really well here in playing a pillar of evil that is confined to wearing a mask (each designed by Tom Savini) for all but one scene, doing so with a voice that pierces through with sneaking terror that is never overplayed for one second. I especially like the sequence where he turns on Thames in the midst of a dark street and reveals his complete nature with a few quiet words for tenseness. The sequences leading up to the main kidnapping are fairly solid building blocks in making one care for our lead besides just throwing them into danger right from the get-go (which works best in a short story rather than a full-fledged story), as it lends time to let one absorb the atmosphere of what is shown without leaning into complete reference-preaching to the choir. One just watches a movie about a phone with the voices of dead kids without needing to think hard about why this is happening, with one appreciating the guidebook approach in an escape attempt. Granted, it is more of a coming-of-age movie rather than a straight descent into abject terror, but it does so with solid conviction that makes one curious for what Derrickson wants to show in horror on a certain scale with suitable timing and framing that makes for a clever and anxious ride.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Inside Man.

Review #1543: Inside Man.

Cast: 
Denzel Washington (Detective Keith Frazier), Clive Owen (Dalton Russell), Jodie Foster (Madeleine White), Christopher Plummer (Arthur Case), Willem Dafoe (Captain John Darius), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Detective Bill Mitchell), Carlos Andrés Gómez (Steve), Kim Director (Stevie), James Ransone (Steve-O), Bernie Rachelle (Chaim), Peter Gerety (Captain Coughlin), Victor Colicchio (Sergeant Collins), and Cassandra Freeman (Sylvia) Directed by Spike Lee (#1255 - Do the Right Thing)

Review: 
"I hope they're doing it because they love it, not because they want to be rich or famous. Not that those things can't happen, but the main reason, the focus is, "This is what I want to do for the rest of my life and I love it." Not to say that you don't want to make money, but the passion should be driven by your love for that particular thing that you're doing. "

It took long enough to get to just one Spike Lee film, so it obviously was going to be a short time before finding another one to cover as a meaningful look upon a director as interesting and progressive as he has proved throughout over 20 films directed in nearly four decades of work. Born in Atlanta, but raised in Brooklyn, Lee attended Morehouse College and New York University Tisch School of the Arts, studying mass communication and film, and he made his first short film with Last Hustle in Brooklyn (1979, inspired by the blackouts in New York City alongside block-parties involving disco that made him want to be a filmmaker) and his first student film in Joe's Bed-Stuy Barbership: We Cut Heads (released in 1983 as his thesis film that won a Student Academy Award). She's Gotta Have It (1986) and Do the Right Thing (1989) would each serve as defining points for Lee (the former as an independent success and the latter as likely one of the best films of the 1980s) in his movement to features that he has also served as writer or producer for a majority for as well doing his own documentaries (with his first being 4 Little Girls (1997) about the 1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing) all through his own film company in 40 Acres and a Mule Filmworks.

The genesis for the film came from a first-time screenwriter in Russell Gerwitz (who studied computer science and law but worked in the retail clothing business) who was inspired by his vacations around Europe to do a film script (with five years of writing and help from Daniel M. Rosenberg), and it eventually found itself with Imagine Entertainment, with Lee being tapped to direct because of desire from Imagine to work with him (along with Ron Howard deciding to direct Cinderella Man instead). Sure, one could believe this as a potential great thriller. It obviously is very sure of itself in its tricks of the camera and plot that builds for that inevitable last turn for its climax and so on and so forth. In terms of its inspirations and attempts at a twist however, it probably ranks just as decent as The Usual Suspects (1995) in actually pulling things together to make it actually work beyond a cat-and-mouse game with misplaced mousetraps present (while also being inspired by Dog Day Afternoon (1975), which goes okay). The performances generally outweigh the way the script wants to weave its tricks and thrills, which means that it is a fine movie, but it certainly could have been a more interesting one. Washington (in his fourth collaboration with Lee) is fairly up to the task of handling his end of the proceedings with reasoned consistency as the anchor that holds everything together in tension and charm one expects from him. Owen does alright, having to balance a role with a good deal of time spent in a mask that nonetheless makes for a conniving counterpart with the goal of merely committing the perfect robbery, handling that with at least enough to make me believe most of that idea. Foster is fine in a vague kind of role that keeps her in relaxed authority fixing things behind the scenes in sequences shared either with Washington or Plummer, who slides by as a creature of privilege. Dafoe and Ejiofor do alright with their moments with Washington in the usual moments required from being on the beat with tension, even if it seems like one wants to see more of them, really. One thing that is generally different is the inclusion of post-break-in testimonials from hostages as interviewed by the police that are inserted from time to time (with their own type of lighting) in the film, which either helps the film in establishing little cues to follow or seems a bit distracting that depends on the viewer and their perception of what needs to be there in 129 minutes. Of course there's also those little moments beside a heist that are alright, such as a scene involving a kid and violent games (think of the children and how violent games affect them, oh the shock), which just inspires a "sure, uh huh" response after making sure it wasn't supposed to be amusing, alongside other things. For me, the whole film verges on how much composure and stakes actually hold up in the long run. For me, it holds itself a little too much in achieving its promises with execution to what I need to care about: I wish I really cared about this heist more than just the usual curiosity, because it tries hard to really move beyond straight thriller stuff but ultimately is just kept in standard gear but with a respectable director behind it instead. If you like what you see in its performances and see past its smokescreen to what really matters, you might find something really worthwhile for a watch, which is all that really matters.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

It Chapter Two.

Review #1271: It Chapter Two.

Cast: 
Jessica Chastain and Sophia Lillis (Beverly Marsh), James McAvoy and Jaeden Martell (Bill Denbrough), Bill Hader and Finn Wolfhard (Richie Tozier), Isaiah Mustafa and Chosen Jacobs (Mike Hanlon), Jay Ryan and Jeremy Ray Taylor (Ben Hanscom), James Ransone and Jack Dylan Grazer (Eddie Kaspbrak), Andy Bean and Wyatt Oleff (Stanley Uris), Bill Skarsgård (Bob Gray / Pennywise), Teach Grant and Nicholas Hamilton (Henry Bowers), Javier Botet (Hobo / The Witch), Xavier Dolan (Adrian Mellon), Taylor Frey (Don Hagarty), Molly Atkinson (Myra / Sonia Kaspbrak), Joan Gregson (Mrs. Kersh), and Stephen Bogaert (Alvin Marsh) Directed by Andy Muschietti (#991 - It)

Review: 
I curiously anticipated this film from the moment that the last one had completed its run. Whether one had read the 1,138-page novel by Stephen King or not, there was certainly a chilling atmosphere brought by the filmmakers in terms of its direction from Muschietti and his three writers in Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga, and Gary Dauberman. The key difference now is that Muschietti has just Dauberman contributing to adapting the second film. With a run-time of 169 minutes (horror fans could compare it to Midsommar (2019), which was actually ten minutes shorter), my expectation was that it would try to cover all of its bases in terms of story and horror and do so just fine. Ultimately, the resulting film is an okay one. It only proves fitting that the film jokes too many times about a character's bad endings to his novels, since this film is the lesser of the two It installments, an example of a film stuffed to the brim in ambition but not quite up to task in delivering all of its goals safely. That's not to say I didn't like the movie, since I did feel that I got my money's worth when it comes to entertainment, but It Chapter Two is certainly going to be one of those sequels that will inspire discussion over how far it needed to cover with its adaptation material and where it could've gone a different direction. For all of the horror imagery that it delivers in terms of its monsters and dark corridors, it feels a bit weird in really trying to stick together. This is in part due to the humor that gets sprinkled throughout the film. It isn't so much that I don't love a horror comedy (Ready or Not was a pretty good dark horror comedy, and that came out just weeks ago), but it sometimes seems to actually get in the way of keeping a tense atmosphere. As mentioned earlier, the references to the bad ending does tend to get old. How many times do we need to hear about it before it gets old? The Peter Bogdanovich cameo? Jokes by the other leads? No, I think it really does go overboard when Stephen King shows up for a cameo and does that. Sometimes you really need a more tense film to keep you on your toes.

When it comes to a cast like this, where the adults have to live up to the previous (and current) portrayal by children, it sure is nice to see a main six that work out just fine. McAvoy is pretty good with walking into the shoes of the nervous yet capable head of this group, emulating what was without any sort of struggle. Chastain seems a bit more reserved, but she makes her echo count just fine. Hader steals the show at times, cracking a few lines alongside fighting the fear that goes with the territory. As much as the film should just relax with trying to be funny, at least Hader is not making an annoyance of it all, which would be the case in the hands of an unrestrained comic relief. The other members of the cast also manage to pin down the quirks from before with no reservations. Undeniably, the film really does hinge on how Skarsgård does with having a second act for his clownish character. In that sense, he does just fine with some creepy voice-work, even the physical side of his character perhaps doesn't feel as scary as before. Sometimes seeing the villain again just diminishes their effect. There are a few highlights, such as a scene in the bleachers, or the one involving fortune cookies, and while scenes may drag on a bit sometimes, there are more effective scenes than failures. The film likes to jump between the modern (well, 2016) time and scenes with the kids, which feels a bit like It 1.5, which does work out fine for the most part. Honestly, I am curious to see how a compilation of both films into one would look like (let's not forget that the miniseries was just three hours), but what would it have looked like as a show? Sometimes it just seems that the movie wants to spend a little too much time down memory lane (restoring their memories through artifacts), where nearly every character gets their own trip down the memory hole while barely spending much time around the town itself. The weirdos seen from the first one barely make an impression (such as an older reception lady who liked to tease Eddie back then), but it really becomes glaring when one does not see much of Grant and his character of Henry, who was pretty intimidating but isn't as such now (the mullet joke makes this apparent). The film spends so much time with this group that you barely even realize half of these folks actually have spouses (from what I've heard in the book, this matters especially for one couple). The fates may not change, but the circumstances certainly change to make for a slightly more optimistic if not simpler film (while the book involves things such as a "Macroverse" - yep). When you know a giant spider is on your way, one wonders what kind of expectation to have, and there certainly is enough a light show to make it try to seem creepy. Ultimately, this is a horror film that tries to cover as many bases as it wants with a lofty material (much like with its first installment) that goes up and down a roller coaster of loading the senses with attempts at scares and laughs that lands long enough to make it mostly worth it without a huge crash.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.