Trap (2024).

Review #2238: Trap.

Cast: 

Josh Hartnett (Cooper), Ariel Donoghue (Riley), Saleka Shyamalan (Lady Raven), Alison Pill (Rachel), Hayley Mills (Dr. Josephine Grant), Jonathan Langdon (Jamie), Mark Bacolcol (Spencer), Marnie McPhail (Jody's mom), and Kid Cudi (the Thinker) Written and Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (#039 - The Sixth Sense, #902 - Split, #1183 - Unbreakable, #1184 - Glass, #2164 - Signs)

Review: 

"For me, being original and having certain aspects, let's say like highest quality audience movies is what I want to make, and being proud and honored to make audience movies. Maybe other people might think of genre as a lesser art form. I don't think of it that way. "

Strangely, for a month called "Acknowledged in August", this film may actually qualify as worth being acknowledged because of the apparent divide in what people think of this film. It's interesting to see the progression of interest in the films of M. Night Shyamalan, if you think about it, particularly since this month happens to be the 25th anniversary of the release of his first major film in The Sixth Sense (1999). Even among the films (Trap is the 13th of his since the release of Sense) considered as part of his "lower tier", one always seems to have plenty to say about a filmmaker that really doesn't pack as many twists in his films as people think. At any rate, Shyamalan has stated that the film was inspired in part by conversations he had with his daughter about the nature of concert and theatrical experiences being similar and what could happen if one puts those together. Basically, this is how one gets the pitch of "The Silence of the Lambs at a Taylor Swift concert". Of course, in real life, one really can find actual examples of crook-catching in say, "Operation Flagship", which was an actual sting operation that was successful in capturing a select group of criminals tricked into a giveaway involving football tickets.

Sure, I understand why this particular film will vary in enjoyment from person to person. It relies heavily on its primary actor to carry the film that is mostly enclosed in one location to go along with a third act that will probably try the patience of those who seem to have a checklist for thrillers. That being said, I enjoyed it pretty well as a psychological thriller that, well, has fun. I actually found a few parts worth chuckling along with because of the sheer curiosity that comes with positioning the whole film on a family man who just happens to be a murderer. It is a cat-and-mouse game where one is firmly watching the cat that decides at some point to just throw up the board for tongue-in-cheek enjoyment, but your milage obviously will vary because, well, heaven forbid a movie play around with what you might see in a thriller. One rolls with the concert sequence in the most singular sense from the frenzy of people to the array of cell phones that love to record the stuff they are already seeing while having the tension about just what could turn next in the mind of someone who could be called the "friendly neighborhood serial killer". To put it mildly, Hartnett is the star attraction in a way I really should've seen coming, because there are quite a few thrillers (or horror, whatever) involving actors playing against type, and Hartnett plays it with such unnerving confidence. For better or worse, his performance dominates the film where one, well, doesn't have too much to say about the cast around him, although Donoghue is about on par for what one probably expects from a starstruck person. In an industry where quite a few folks could be accused of "nepotism", I can't really fault this for being a father-daughter piece in terms of one writing and performing their own music, although I can't really say the music is any better in terms of energy (it isn't Purple Rain, to put it mildly) than her part to play in the third act, which is adequate at best. Sure, Pill and Mills are fine, but one gets the feeling that in all of the routine-playing, only Hartnett has the resolve to make the viewer care one way or the other about just where it all is going to finish; of course, with Langdon, he provides the most curious moment of the film in dropping exposition along with seeing Hartnett interact with another person not related to him (and a certain subsequent scene). In general, the 105-minute runtime makes for a pretty neat package that grips one's attention in the tension of what could and could not happen with so many people around: consider the effort taken to get an apron at one point by possibly ruining someone's life in laying oil onto a fryer and how the film briskly moves along. The third act moves it on to a different type of trail because of the fact that the movie has decided one can't have it all set in a concert, but I like the shaky feeling that comes with the blurring of family man and butcher man when it comes to figuring out what is the difference between a man of pieces and the pieces that make up a person. In the end, "the process" is what I care for in a film, and I think Shyamalan's attempts at making a thriller within a concert is an engaging one worth following all the way to the end because of Hartnett's commitment to it all. I can't say I know the work of Shyamalan as well as the next guy, but I will say that he sure made a worthy attempt at a ride for the audience to sit and absorb.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Oscar (1991), the John Landis comedy with Sylvester Stallone

Signs.

Review #2164: Signs.

Cast: 

Mel Gibson (Father Graham Hess), Joaquin Phoenix (Merrill Hess), Rory Culkin (Morgan Hess), Abigail Breslin (Bo Hess), Cherry Jones (Caroline Paski), M. Night Shyamalan (Ray Reddy), Patricia Kalember (Colleen Hess), Ted Sutton (SFC Cunningham), Merritt Wever (Tracey Abernathy), Lanny Flaherty (Carl Nathan), Marion McCorry (Mrs. Nathan), and Michael Showalter (Lionel Prichard) Written and Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (#039 - The Sixth Sense, #902 - Split, #1183 - Unbreakable, #1184 - Glass)

Review: 

 “I want to make a movie that is just joyous, and doesn’t have that lens of burden on it.” It can have a lot of conflict in it, but the voice, the angle, I wanted it to be inspired and childlike, almost. And so Signs was born that way."

It is interesting to see what one does as a director when their breakthrough film comes right as they are about to turn 30. The Sixth Sense (1999) was that particular moment for M. Night Shyamalan, who had made dozens of home movies before studying at New York University Tisch School of the Arts, with his first feature being a festival circuit favorite in Praying with Anger (1992). His second effort (director and writer) in Wide Awake (1998) didn't even get a big theatrical release. And yet, Sense became that kind of "oh" film, and Shyamalan had written the spec script for what became Unbreakable (2000) during post production. The film (an origin story for a hero that got marketed as a thriller) was another hit with audiences, and it may actually be more appreciated in the years that have followed since its release. It was in the aftermath of that film and its release (which he called a "very burdened movie") that he apparently got the idea to make a film distinct from what he had just made, which ended up combining two ideas he had: a crop circle found in the backyard and an end-of-the-world premised from the perspective of the house (like a certain Living Dead). The film was a general hit with audiences in that cycle of Shyamalan features with audience interest that was followed by The Village (2004).

Well, for a film called "signs", it probably should have dawned on me how the film was going to go as a whole. Honestly, it seems more of a film relying on the idea of faith and sentimentality rather than being lumped into the genres of sci-fi or horror, as if one was watching a more subdued version of The Birds (1963). In short, it is that scene in a sofa discussing the nature of miracles and what may or may not be watching us that makes the film what it is moreso than the curiosity of what lies beneath a bunch of crop circles. One is there paying attention to sounds that may or may not be there to go with the more evident family drama that comes in wavering faith. The film is best seen with as little to know about it as one can, particularly because its climax is more realization than anything, which ultimately does call to the idea of purpose even in turmoil. The kinship mostly comes through for 106 minutes in the way you might see from a end-result cheery film, or at least one that likes to dwell in close shots of people in faces. Gibson reflects that with a weary outlook of one who wants to believe but has found only people still seeing him in a different light (amusingly, Gibson was third in mind after Clint Eastwood couldn't do it and Paul Newman declined before the role was aged down). The perceptions one might have on the character might reflect on the perceptions of Gibson the actor (of the time), oddly enough. Where else do you get a film where he plays a scene of being told to swear and sound crazy for intruders outside in the most...uh...ex-reverend way possible? It must be my imagination, but Phoenix (cast due to Mark Ruffalo dropping out for surgery) being the on-screen brother of Gibson seems more surprising than anything in the film, and he does well in the growing imagination of being seeped into the buzz about circles and creatures. That one scene in particular where he is in the closet looking intently for what may be lurking in the sight of the media is probably the one standout scene. Breslin and Culkin make for fine segments to the international of the things around them (real or imagined) one sees as a kid. Ones might see terrible creatures of fear (at least, some do, if you go with tinfoil), or maybe they see explorers, or whatever. It was 2002, so think of it with a few less phones around to record beside the ones used for tapes (as per that very brief discussion of what to tape over when it comes to taping discussion of history). When it comes to the climax, I'm alright with it, in the sense that the structure to get there is better off than the one sticking effect in it. It might have served with either more vague notions of what might be out there or just a better executed look, but it works out more for the revelation of signs mattering rather than a big payoff. Facing the doubts and tribulations matter more when you have that idea spark in your head whether by sign or not. It doesn't beat you too over the head in sentiment, merely coating things over. As a whole, the movie is fine, one that is generally effective in a majority of the down-to-earth surroundings for a useful thriller with an edge towards hope among circumstance and signs that work for a solid feature of its time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Ah yes, the end of 2023. A good deal of productive reviews (original and reduxes) were done in this year, the 13th for Movie Night. We had a variety of new faces to see in directors that will surely be repeated in 2024, because New Directors Month looms in January. October had seen a record amount of productive reviews to go with a historic streak in July that made this year one the most productive in the last ten years. We'll see what happens with the months ahead in terms of looking for films to write home about. See you in 2024.

Glass (2019).

Review #1184: Glass.

Cast: 
James McAvoy (Kevin Wendell Crumb / The Horde), Bruce Willis (David Dunn / The Overseer), Samuel L. Jackson (Elijah Price / Mr. Glass), Sarah Paulson (Dr. Ellie Staple), Anya Taylor-Joy (Casey Cooke), Spencer Treat Clark (Joseph Dunn), Charlayne Woodard (Mrs. Price), Adam David Thompson (Daryl), and Luke Kirby (Pierce) Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (#039 - The Sixth Sense, #902 - Split, and #1183 - Unbreakable)

Review: 
There is a certain absurdity to the fact that this film exists, acting as a sequel to two different movies while being the final part of a trilogy labeled by some as the "Eastrail 177 Trilogy" that are fairly different from each other in tone from film to film. Unbreakable (2000) was a mystery kind of thiller, Split (2016) was a horror thriller, and this film certainly feels like a psychological thriller. I suppose the tradition must follow that the last installment is the one that helps deliver satisfaction and/or answers to its audience that makes it stick out from the previous ones. Well, there are certainly answers given in this film...along with more questions. What can one expect from something that resembles One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) for comic books? It is the kind of movie that clearly has ambition to inspire discussion and interest over a variety of things (specifically within human nature) while trying to play with the expectations of the audience within the script, which ultimately plays into a flawed but interesting result. It definitely feels like the weakest of the three films, but I did find something worth watching, even if it perhaps took a bit longer than it should have, particularly with something that lasts 129 minutes. There are clear highlights on a technical level such as Mike Gioulakis and his cinematography (which certainly shows off a variety of colors) and West Dylan Thordson with the music, and Shyamalan does manage to make something worth inspiring curiosity in, even if he can't quite resist trying to trick the audience perhaps one too many times with twists.

In the long run, the film rests on the shoulders of McAvoy, who is the shining light among the others, managing to once again showcase the numerous personalities of the character he plays with effectiveness and no touch of tiresomeness. He inspires his share of terror and humor while keeping the movie rolling, and his scenes with Jackson or Willis are an enjoyment. If you thought that Willis was bit too subdued before with Unbreakable, then I suppose you will have quite the experience in seeing how subdued he is here, since he doesn't have as much presence (or lines) to speak of, although at least the climax does give him something to do. Jackson finds his footing and voice gradually, and it is interesting to see him to try and pull the strings as a take on the brilliant mastermind that works fairly well. The others don't have as much strength to their presence or as much interest. It is the character (and narrative) that Paulson plays that don't stir as much enthusiasm, since I am more interested to see her consequence for the idea that one can simply lock up super beings (the cliche of believing they can't escape is even present here) than what makes her tick. The returning three characters from the previous parts of the series are okay in the small amount of time they have. It is nice to see Clark return to reprise a role from nineteen years ago, but he doesn't really have too much to do before the last half. Taylor-Joy is fine, but the dynamic between her and McAvoy takes some time to get used to again, and the last scene is a bit of a weird sell. Woodard is alright in her small role. Honestly, this is an okay movie, but it is certainly one that require patience and some understanding to really help get a foothold on its thought process, one that likes to deconstruct the tropes of the hero and villain, which has its share of potential. It just so happens that the twists that occur within said narrative that make the true payoff a bit muddled but also one to give thought to. If one is expecting a big showdown for a climax, they won't get exactly what they may expect - but they may instead get something a bit more interesting if not offbeat. Time will tell what will occur to the reputation of this film as a whole - after all, the first film managed to develop a cult following over time. I can't say it is as consistent or as entertaining as the other two films, but this film does at least serve its purpose for a trilogy about super beings without serving as a letdown.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Unbreakable.

Review #1183: Unbreakable.

Cast: 
Bruce Willis (David Dunn), Samuel L. Jackson (Elijah Price/Mr. Glass), Robin Wright (Audrey Dunn), Spencer Treat Clark (Joseph Dunn), Charlayne Woodard (Mrs. Price), Eamonn Walker (Dr. Mathison), Leslie Stefanson (Kelly), Michaelia Carroll (Babysitter), Whitney Sugarman (Physical Therapist), Bostin Christopher (Comic Book Clerk), Elizabeth Lawrence (School Nurse), and Chance Kelly (Orange Suit Man) Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (#039 - The Sixth Sense and #902 - Split)

Review: 
What would the world be like if a super human suddenly existed? Unbreakable (the fourth film directed and written by Shyamalan) puts forth the possibilities of what could happen through its own take on the superhero origin story that has stood out in the years following its release. When it was released in November of 2000, films involving superheroes (with their respective origins) were not as vast as they are today, particularly one like this that takes itself seriously as a mystery thriller and make it work for the most part while having its parallels to the three-part structure of a comic book story.

Undeniably, it is the performances from Willis and Jackson that really dominate the film, whether when by themselves or when they act against each other. Willis delivers a subtle performance, being easy to follow along with his pursuit of meaning without needing to make a quip or feeling bland. On the other side of the coin, Jackson does well with his performance with a good degree of subdued nature that is interesting to watch. One particular favorite scene of mine involves him arguing with a customer wanting to buy a comic book drawing for his 4-year old son, as one can see his point (in some way) about being insulted at the idea that his collection is like a toy store in his delivery of said lines. Clark is certainly one to take time to get used to, but he does a fine job with acting opposite Willis as an on-screen son that drives the points for the film home handily. This can be applied to Wright as well, who shows off a human element for her parts on screen.

The movie doesn't rely on action to drive its point home, relying on music from James Newton Howard and cinematography by Eduardo Serra to carry a mood of suspense, with only one fight sequence occurring near the end, which is quiet but effective in its own way. Admittedly, the part that doesn't stand quite well as the other aspects of the film is the nature of the ending. I find that the twist is fairly clever and that it likely works just as well upon a re-watch, but it is the sudden nature of the ending (complete with a title card) that makes the execution feel a bit abrupt. The best thing that can be said is that at least the problem isn't that there needed to be a big grand climax to make this tale more interesting, since the movie works just fine without needing too many effects. With the entertainment that the film delivers, it is no wonder that the film eventually received a follow-up, although not certainly in the way one expected. Although the film was a moderate success that made back three times its $75 million budget, no direct sequels followed for over a decade. Sixteen years later, Split snuck into theaters as a psychological horror thriller through the eyes of a super-villain (who had a presence in early drafts for this film before being dropped) with a subtle connection to this film that eventually resulted in a sequel (and the third part of what is considered a trilogy) named Glass (2019). In any case, this is a rewarding movie with an interesting story and characters that is light on spectacle but filled with perspective on the human element for a superhero tale.

Next Review: Glass (2019).

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Split (2016).

Review #902: Split.

Cast:
James McAvoy (Dennis / Patricia / Hedwig / The Beast / Kevin Wendell Crumb / Barry / Orwell / Jade), Anya Taylor-Joy (Casey Cooke), Betty Buckley (Dr. Karen Fletcher), Haley Lu Richardson (Claire Benoit), Jessica Sula (Marcia), Brad William Henke (John), Sebastian Arcelus (Mr. Cooke), Neal Huff (Mr. Benoit) Directed by M. Night Shyamalan (#039 - The Sixth Sense)

Review:

It's been two weeks since it came out in theaters (as it premiered at festivals earlier last year such as Fantastic Fest), but I figured that Split would be interesting enough to watch on the big screen, and it has been over five years since I saw a Shyamalan film. Ultimately, it is a nifty horror film in how creepy it raises itself while managing to save its trump card of horror for a pretty satisfactory climax, at least for me anyway, and it does that on a PG-13 rating. While it can be argued that the premise is somewhat strange, it can also be argued that it is also somewhat interesting to make a film out of, and it is executed fairly well, not being just an run-of-the-mill escape film with teens. It is undeniable to say that the best part of the movie is McAvoy, who delivers on showing numerous personalities with the right kind of off-putting terror, where even him dancing to music (as one of his...odder personalities) is creepy. Taylor-Joy does a pretty decent job as well, having a quiet but useful type of cleverness that works better than the other two captives, probably because she isn't so focused on escaping so quickly. The movie thankfully does have scenes outside the cellar, and Buckley does a decent job in making her character a bit more than just a doctor with a patient going crazy. It is true that the characters are a bit odd with their decisions at time (with the doctor qualifying for this near the end as well), but Split manages to keep itself going on the idea of seeing what McAvoy is going to show up next. The climax, as mentioned before, is satisfactory in how it manages to not resort to too much CGI or over-screaming, working on its own terms. The Beast is a fairly decent effect, not being too ridiculous (in terms of voice or look) while managing to work in the short amount of time it gets on screen. On the whole, this is a satisfying (along with creepy) film, with Shyamalan doing a good job in making an entertaining film like this.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: The Sixth Sense.

Review #039: The Sixth Sense.

Cast
Bruce Willis (Dr. Malcolm Crowe), Haley Joel Osment (Cole Sear), Toni Collette (Lynn Sear), Olivia Williams (Anna Crowe), Donnie Wahlberg (Vincent Grey), Glenn Fitzgerald (Sean), Mischa Barton (Kyra Collins) Directed by M. Night Shyamalan.

Review
Ah, this movie. This jump started M. Night Shyamalan's career, and most regret that he made more after. Granted, I have not actually watched any of his films (That would require me having to say "Let's watch The Happening" with a straight voice) Anyway, this film has suspense that develops as the film progresses. It doesn't rely on CGI, most of the effects are just for the dead, as it scares using moments such as the school scene (won't spoil it) or the famous hospital scene. The film foreshadows what you get in the end, which then makes you want to watch it again to see if you missed anything. This films benefits from good atmosphere and good acting, especially from Willis. Directing is fine, but if you thought it would get better, you're wrong. Dead wrong (Pardon the pun)

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.