Independence Day: Resurgence.

Review #2556: Independence Day: Resurgence.

Cast: 

Liam Hemsworth (Jake Morrison), Jeff Goldblum (David Levinson), Bill Pullman (President Thomas J. Whitmore), Maika Monroe (Patricia Whitmore), Jessie T. Usher (Dylan Hiller), Travis Tope (Charlie Miller), William Fichtner (General Joshua T. Adams), Charlotte Gainsbourg (Dr. Catherine Marceaux), Judd Hirsch (Julius Levinson), Brent Spiner (Dr. Brackish Okun), Sela Ward (President Elizabeth Lanford), Angelababy (Rain Lao), with Joey King (Sam Blackwell), Vivica A. Fox (Dr. Jasmine Dubrow-Hiller), Robert Loggia (General William Grey), Nicolas Wright (Floyd Rosenberg), DeObia Oparei (Dikembe Umbutu), and Chin Han (Jiang Lao)

Directed by Roland Emmerich (#193 - Independence Day, #413 - The Patriot, #2161 - Godzilla [1998])

Review: 

Hey, remember Independence Day? Apparently, the impetus for the original film was a question posed to Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin when they were promoting Stargate (1994) about believing in aliens building the pyramids that saw them ask, well, what if there were "14-mile-wide spaceships covering the sky?" Sure, Mars Attacks! (1996) loomed on the calendar, but Emmerich and Devlin aimed to make their movie anyway, which saw them basically write (in three weeks) a disaster movie akin to the 70s disaster flicks such as The Towering Inferno (1974) and Meteor (1979). When it came out in July 1996 to plenty of hype and fanfare, it actually was the highest-grossing film of that year (beating out poor Mars Attacks!. which sucks because that movie was probably better in actual quality). Cool, now do you remember Independence Day: Resurgence? As early as 2001, Emmerich and Devlin thought about doing a sequel, but they had curtailed those plans the first time in 2004 because they couldn't figure out the story. By 2011, there were rumblings again about doing not one, but two sequels. Through re-writes and various drafts (mainly because of the omission of one certain actor before filming), four people were credited with the story: Emmerich, Devlin, James A. Woods, and Nicolas Wright, while James Vanderbilt was credited along with the four for the screenplay. Made on a budget of $165 million and released in June 2016, the movie was not a major hit for anyone involved, with Emmerich and Devlin both stating that there was little chance of doing a third film.

Is it a quality defense when the director says he should've stopped making the movie? As early as 2019, three years after the release of Resurgence, Emmerich stated, yes, he "should have just said no" once Will Smith wasn't going to be in the film, which happened as a result of scheduling and salary demands. It is almost amazing to have five total writers and have little to nothing come out of the characters to actually root for beyond "the bare minimum". As I remember, the characters in the original were basically cardboard, but you could at least say there was a sense of interest in seeing what was under the curtain for a surprise (which in this case was, are you shocked, alien stuff in "Area 51" and a computer virus to start the process of telling the aliens to permanently go to sleep). Corny as the movie was, you at least felt there was some semblance of dignity in depicting folks all coming together (on the 4th of July you see) and being ready to kick ass (okay, maybe non-Americans didn't go ra-ra for it, but well, "Murica, baby!"). Twenty years later, with the presentation of "world peace" and a space defense program with alien technology....there is just a weird feeling that one is watching a film with nowhere to actually go. You see the designs of the (reverse-engineered) tech and a spiffier Washington and you wonder if they really thought people would be fine looking at something that reminded them of a video game cutscene. The aliens still look at forgettable as ever, and the Sphere (the "virtual intelligence") reminds me of someone trying to make a smaller version of Gort from The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951). 

The attempt at mixing in people from the original (ranging from Goldblum/Pullman/Hirsch/Spiner to basically cameos from Fox and Loggia*) with a new generation (Hemsworth, Monroe, Usher, and to a lesser extent, Topo and Angelababy) that each have had their lives shaped by one horrific week all leads to the least compelling and least interesting drama imaginable. This film feels ten years too late to actually say anything of note (once you destroy the White House, what is there left to move around for the sequel), so it instead just aims to be paid half-attention to by people on their phones. I probably care less for Goldblum than I did in the last film, and that's saying something for what was basically a wannabee Dr. Ian Malcolm in the first place, even with the addition of Gainsbourg (who ...is given nothing to do). Hemsworth and Usher might actually be competing for who achieves less with less: what the hell was Smith going to do in this film that changed the script so much to basically focus on the youth (meanwhile, Monroe, cast to replace Mae Whitman from the original, is given, wait for it, nothing to do). I can't tell who has the more unceremonious exit: Fox, who can't get off a falling building in time (after getting, what, 4 lines?) or Ward (as Madame President) goes the way of the dodo in a murky-looking scene. Probably the only people who look like they like having some work is Pullman or Spiner, and that sure says something when the latter has a scene where they gallivant around a bit in a barely contained hospital gown*. You get a few chuckles beneath basically a boring movie. For a movie that is two hours long (25 minutes shorter than the original, in one of the stranger cases when a sequel is shorter), it always seems to be two steps behind in actually going anywhere: it dangles an idea that some African war lord spent ten years fighting aliens in hand-to-hand combat, but his son is given the job of being the straight man to a middling subplot about a nerd wanting to get into combat. Hive minds and "Harvesters" and drilling to the Earth's core (with a timer) while buildings get thrown around just seems like a movie that either was postmarked "2006" or simply didn't have enthusiasm to actually make it worth looking further.  It just reeks of trying to make a franchise without actually focusing on spectacle and believing they had enough in the tank to bait people into hearing more, complete with an ending that sequel baits with probably the least amount of conviction possible. If the original film was "dumb fun" that the viewer either enjoyed or disliked with the clear flaws (dialogue, design, general Emmerich weaknesses), the sequel film manages the honor of just being dumb with middling return value for all involved. 

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Happy 4th...

*Loggia died on December 4, 2015, six months before the film was released. At least he was cool in the first film.

*Okay, so Spiner's character is apparently gay and spends most of the action with his partner, who I guess loved giving out flowers in the hospital ward for years. Honestly, I forgot if they were partners before 1996 or if this guy just fell for a dude in a coma that had long hair.

It Follows.

Review #2277: It Follows.

Cast: 

Maika Monroe (Jaime "Jay" Height), Keir Gilchrist (Paul Bolduan), Olivia Luccardi (Yara Davis), Lili Sepe (Kelly Height), Daniel Zovatto (Greg Hannigan), Jake Weary (Hugh / Jeff Redmond), Bailey Spry (Annie Marshall), Debbie Williams (Mrs. Height), and Ruby Harris (Mrs. Redmond) Written and Directed by David Robert Mitchell.

Review: 

"The idea for It Follows came from a dream when I was a kid, but I sort of built on it later. And at a certain point when I was working out the story, in the back of my mind, I thought that it would be nice to have [the monster] be something that can move between people. It just sort of made sense to me that if it was something that was passed through sex, it would be a way to link the characters — to connect them both physically and emotionally. And it tied into some of the other larger themes that I was working towards."

It is not much of an understatement to say that some horror movies like to have sex mean something in their tales of suspense and/or terror. Here we are with a Detroit-shot film filmed by a Michigan native (specifically Clawson). After graduating from Florida State University, he became a feature director with The Myth of the American Sleepover (2010). Mitchell began writing this film in 2011 when working on a separate film he intended as a follow-up, but this would end up getting more development as a film with personal ties (this anxiety dream basically came about around the time his parents were getting divorced) to go along with a premise that seemed weird to describe out loud to others. The look of the film to go along with the monster were inspired by the photography of Gregory Crewdson, known for his large-scale prints of staged scenes in suburban settings. The film was given a premiere at the Cannes Film Festival in 2014 before eventually getting a theatrical release in 2015. Mitchell followed up this film with Under the Silver Lake (2018) to go with a future release of Flowervale Street (2025). Just last year, it was announced that a sequel to It Follows would come up with They Follow with Mitchell returning to direct, presumably to shoot in 2025.

Mitchell's interest in this film is one where love and sex are ways to at least push the inevitability of death away for a time. One sees plenty within the wide-angle shots used in a film that deliberately looks as one wrapped in its own time, starting with a seashell e-reader. This is a film all about the nature of trying to make one's own choice when it comes to being together with flesh (so not quite body horror, but horror of life sure is something). One tries to stay sane with the company of others when confronting a monster that is as single-minded as people can sometimes be when it comes to one-track mind carnal interest. The creature threat is quite interesting because it is two-fold: it is one that you have to take considerable time to really find anything to touch it and also something that comes up for those who have had this thrust upon them out of the blue. Could you imagine having both the dilemma of a terrible monster lurking anywhere you may be and wondering what one did to deserve such a quandary (or why anyone would do it at all, starting right with knocking someone out just to explain it). This is the kind of movie with a group that talks aloud about some sort of "divide" between the suburbs and the city as a whole. Monroe does manage to lead the way with righteous timing as the one target of this sexual fable that you might notice doesn't have many older adults. It is their story, and Monroe deals with that fear in engaging human fashion. The others do just as well in trying to adjust to the hang-ups one would expect to see. It is a carefully paced movie at 100 minutes that keeps one's attention in the eyes of perpetual terror that keeps one imagining what could come next even among the hang-ups in a film that comes and goes without needing to play into too much for explanations, gore, or even needing to go all-in on its ending. This sexually transmitted demon reflects the inevitability of it all and trying to merely pass it off as much as possible much in the same way one tries to pass off a romance as one to try and enjoy the ride as much as possible. I'm not sure where it lands among its era for horror, but it does have a clear appeal in riveting execution. It makes for a solid feature based on hang-ups and suspense in the human element for a pretty good time.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Longlegs.

Review #2230: Longlegs.

Cast: 

Maika Monroe (Lee Harker), Nicolas Cage (Longlegs), Blair Underwood (Agent Carter), Alicia Witt (Ruth Harker), Michelle Choi-Lee (Agent Browning), Dakota Daulby (Agent Horatio Fisk), Kiernan Shipka (Carrie Anne Camera), Jason Day (Father Camera), and Lisa Chandler (Mother Camera) Written and Directed by Oz Perkins.

Review: 

"I really just tried to make something that would be noticeable and enjoyable, especially to a horror audience. Horror audiences put up with a lot of bad stuff and they take it because they need it; they need the horror fix. But every once in a while, you want to give them something that’s a little bit more manicured and curated for them."

I will admit that I waited a bit to write this review because I wanted to process just what this film managed to do in its execution and understand just where the film rests as probably one of the more breakout kind of films to hit the theater. For one thing, this is the fourth film directed by Oz Perkins, who became a director in 2015 with The Blackcoat's Daughter. He had done a few stints in acting prior to becoming a writer/director, as one might expect from the son of two actors. One description of the film by Perkins (as writer/director) was one where the aim was to "create a pop art piece." There apparently was a guerilla marketing campaign (as coordinated by distributor Neon) when it came to marketing the film that involved stuff one could find in billboards and "true crime" websites to go with masking a certain presence for trailers (no television). Well, I found the movie having buzz because of a bit of rumblings on the thing they call the Internet and was thinking "if it makes my theater, sure"; the result was a film that has been said to be relative hit for all involved since being released this July.

I want to preface this by saying that the movie is pretty good on the technical levels. It is the kind of movie that doesn't really ripple away from its period setting and it does have a level of dread present within that conclusion drawn from sacrifices. Anyway, I was fine with the movie, but I really should temper my expectations on a movie that gets some really good buzz. You get a few familiar feelings when watching it such as Se7en (1995), or other serial killer-related topics but don't find something lacking in atmosphere when it comes to details for a calmly lived-in 101-minute feature. The film is a showcase of sorts for Monroe (who actually starred in a film I should probably have covered before with It Follows [2014]), mostly because her clinical performance works wonders for the film in inquisitive grace. She just has that zip without even needing much dialogue to really make it all work in someone thrust into such a growing rumble of startling realization that comes with being gripped with the actual place in the art of procedure. And then of course there is Cage, caked in some interesting makeup and a few scenes to lurk around with the presence of a spider weaving yet another web for itself. He achieves an unsettling feeling with the way he approaches the camera with an aura of expression and timing that you can believe could lurk among the rest of the pawns in the board of life and death (consider how one sees him from his first sighting and, say, the one where he lurks in a small store). Underwood and Witt are crucial keys in forming the fair amount of dread that comes in procedure, particularly with the latter because of the on-screen dynamic between the two that shows the right amount of understanding in what really lurks beyond the nature of parental sacrifice. As a whole, I found that waiting to assess the film made me realize that a film that wanted to play patient within general patience in procedure did in fact manage to do just enough to work in good execution despite my misgivings that arose from the handling in between a certain moment and the climax, which is pretty unsettling in the ultimate long run when it comes being, well, the end of a story in more ways than one. It isn't exactly my favorite horror film of the year, but it is still pretty efficient in most of its unsettling foundation to make a worthwhile feature in the eyes of procedural dread and the beast that lurks in both secrets and sacrifices that could work well for those with the patience to just let it sink in.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.