THE SHALLOWS - By Brett Blake Surfer vs. shark. That’s THE SHALLOWS boiled down to its essence. It’s a simple concept executed well, and the result is a tense and occasionally wonderful little thriller that stands as the best shark movie since 1978’s JAWS 2. The plot is straightforward: a young woman, Nancy (Blake Lively), journeys to a mysterious, unnamed beach in Mexico where her recently-deceased mother once visited while pregnant with her. What begins as an idyllic surfing experience quickly turns deadly, as a huge great white shark attacks and traps an injured Nancy on a small rocky island hundreds of yards from shore, with only a wounded seagull for company. As the situation becomes more and more dire, Nancy must figure out a way to survive before the tide rises and leaves her fully exposed to the shark’s advances. THE SHALLOWS is an almost quintessential summer movie. Not just because of its subject matter, which viscerally makes one think of summertime (with its beaches and water and bikini-clad leading lady), but also because it takes us back - even in a small way - to the original (and perhaps greatest) summer blockbuster of them all: JAWS. It is nowhere near that level, but it works as a ferocious and, at times, surprisingly artful horror-thriller. In an era where shark movies have quite literally become parodies of themselves (with the various - and rather insulting - SHARKNADO films, which have, quite inexplicably, become a phenomenon), THE SHALLOWS is a truly refreshing and stripped down throwback to the JAWS ethos. It takes the situation seriously. It takes the central character seriously. It takes the shark seriously... at least until the finale, but by that point the movie has earned enough goodwill that the bombast of the climax feels satisfying rather than a betrayal of the tone. THE SHALLOWS is a terrifically effective ride. Holding everything together is Blake Lively as our heroine, and she delivers a great performance. So much of her character’s time on screen is spent in varying degrees of pain and discomfort, and Lively absolutely sells the physical grind that Nancy is undergoing. More important than that, however, is the emotional life of the character, which isn’t dwelt upon but is featured enough to flesh out Nancy as a full human being. There are moments where the character is confronted with the likelihood that she’s going to die, and Lively plays these beats perfectly and without phony melodrama. The movie’s director, Jaume Collet-Serra, has stealthily built himself a rather eclectic and impressive genre filmography. Alternating between horror and action-thrillers, he’s proven himself capable at building setpieces and escalating tension, and he takes premises that could easily be seen a hokey nonsense and does interesting, idiosyncratic things with them, while still fully satisfying as works of their genres. Here, he employs slow motion to great effect, and - in collaboration with his cinematographer - implements a saturated, colorful visual look; the ocean, the sky, the blood... all of them pop, which is something that’s refreshing when so many horror movies and thrillers look drab. Speaking of blood, there’s a lot of it in here. So much of it, in fact, that I was highly surprised that the movie got away with a PG-13 rating. There are several truly grisly moments in the film, including a makeshift suturing that Lively’s character gives herself, and a wonderfully shocking moment of dismemberment that is as graphic as anything in any shark movie. Going hand in hand with the violence is the shark itself; it’s a fearsome presence, and a convincing one, too. There are a couple of moments of dodgy effects work, but for the most part, the shark looks extremely convincing, so much so that I’m unsure how much of it was digital and how much of it was a practical animatronic effect. THE SHALLOWS is a very solid summer thriller, and one that should be very satisfying for anyone looking for an effective (wo)man against nature survival tale. That it’s also a really good shark movie is only the cherry on top. INDEPENDENCE DAY: RESURGENCE - By Brett Blake INDEPENDENCE DAY: RESURGENCE is spectacular schlock, and I don’t mean that in a pejorative sense, as schlock can be a lot of fun. This sequel to the 1996 smash hit is absolutely fun, though that comes with several side helpings of stupidity and overstuffed plotting. The story picks up 20 years after the original film, as mankind has enjoyed two decades of world peace and unprecedented scientific breakthroughs which resulted from reverse engineering the alien technology left behind after they were defeated. As such, there are now bases on the moon, anti-gravity helicopters and fighter jets, and a global defense network designed to protect the planet should the alien invaders ever return. Return they do, in an even larger ship than before, and with even more nefarious means of destruction. It falls to David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum) and former President Whitmore (Bill Pullman) to work with the new generation, including Jake Morrison (Liam Hemsworth), Dylan Hiller (Jessie T. Usher), and Patricia Whitmore (Maika Monroe), as well as a slew of side characters, to once again save the planet from total destruction. It’s worth saying right here that, no, INDEPENDENCE DAY: RESURGENCE is not as good as the original movie. Say whatever you will about that film, but it had a freshness and a sense of scale that were exciting at the time, neither of which translate over into RESURGENCE. On a certain level, we’ve seen all this before; you can only destroy the planet so many times before it loses any and all visceral impact, and though RESURGENCE attempts to expand the scope of the proceedings, it actually manages to feel smaller and more contained than the first, something I suspect was not intentional. The disaster spectacle - though handsomely rendered - doesn’t have much vitality. The movie is also overloaded with characters, most of whom feel totally extraneous. Sure, it’s fun to see Judd Hirsch return as Levinson’s father, but the moments he has in the movie (which are entirely tangential to the main narrative) interrupt the flow. Hirsch is just one example - there are literally another half-dozen characters who are given ample screentime (and, in most cases, their own mini-subplots) but who don’t directly impact the storyline; they’re just tossed in here to fulfill typical disaster movie expectations, something that director Roland Emmerich has too often overindulged in his films. The likes of Sela Ward, Charlotte Gainsbourg, and William Fichtner - all fine actors - are more or less wasted. RESURGENCE does have its virtues, however. Chief among them would have to be Jeff Goldblum, who effortlessly slips back into the David Levinson role; it’s not just Goldblum coasting on being Goldblumy (though there’s plenty of proper Goldblumy-ness), but it’s an actual continuation of his character from 20 years ago, and every moment he’s on screen is wonderful. As someone for whom Goldblum was a fixture in my youth, it’s great to see him in a leading role again after many years of supporting character turns. The rest of the lead cast members all do fine work, particularly Maika Monroe, whose emotive qualities lend some depth to a fairly one-note character. The fist act of the story, which sets up the world’s new status quo before the aliens return, is packed with cool sci-fi imagery. Action-wise, the movie also mostly delivers, even if it doesn’t exactly break new ground. There’s a dogfight midway through that provides a few visceral thrills, but it’s the finale where things really kick into high gear, offering up a climax that - somewhat miraculously - doesn’t simply retread the end of the first movie, but actually goes in a direction that I honestly didn’t see coming and found kind of delightfully ridiculous (in a good way). I’d love to talk more about it, but to preserve the surprise I’ll just say this: the finale basically turns brings a whole other science fiction subgenre into the equation. All in all, INDEPENDENCE DAY: RESURGENCE is a mixed bag. Neither exceptional, nor as bad as it could have been, it’s perfectly fine popcorn entertainment, but don’t expect it to pass the test of time... or to stay in your memory very long after seeing it.
0 Comments
By Brett Blake I walked into THE CONJURING 2 legitimately scared. Not because I was already on edge about how frightening the movie might be, but because the first CONJURING is one of the best horror movies of this century, one that was a hugely pleasant surprise and which I deem to be a modern classic of the genre. So I was, therefore, concerned that the sequel would be a lazy, cheap cash grab, and that it would lack the care and inventiveness that so clearly were part of the first film’s DNA. In short, I was worried THE CONJURING 2 would suck. I walked out of THE CONJURING 2 relieved and thrilled. It’s arguable whether or not it’s better than the first, but it’s absolutely on the same level of quality, from the craft of the filmmaking, to the performances, to the scares. Not only is THE CONJURING 2 a great horror movie, it’s just a fine movie, period, regardless of genre. Telling a (moderately or highly, depending on who you believe) fictionalized account of the Enfield Poltergeist incident, the film centers around the Hodgson family in England, and in particular young Janet (Madison Wolfe), who finds herself a conduit through which a sinister and malevolent entity begins to torment and oppress not only herself, but her family, as well. Into this fray, Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) arrive to investigate the family’s claims to see if they’re genuine. What they ultimately find is a malignant and evil force which threatens not just the lives of the Hodgson family, but the lives of the Warrens, as well. Director James Wan, returning from the first film, is absolutely at the top of his game here, and though he definitely affirms the belief that he’s perhaps the finest orchestrator of top-notch scares in the movie business today, that is not his biggest accomplishment with THE CONJURING 2. This film is incredibly well directed, and is a classy affair, to boot. There’s not even a hint of sleaze to be found in here (which I guess might disappoint some who dig that sort of thing), and instead we have a movie that wants to make us jump, certainly, and wants us to feel fear and suspense, but also wants us to be engaged with the characters. What Wan and his team achieve here is something that few horror movies even attempt, much less pull off: the characters feel like real, relatable people, and the end result of that is that we have a movie which has genuine emotional heft. We are made to care about the characters involved in this tale, and that makes the scares feel all the more potent. And what scares! Nobody knows how to construct and build frightening sequences up to a crescendo like James Wan. Though the movie is drowning in jump scares, none of them feel cheap or lazy, in fact there is a real sort of artistry to the way Wan stages them which makes the jumps feel incredibly satisfying, rather than annoying. The cinematography and the editing go hand-in-hand with this; it’s a wonderful-looking movie, chilly and atmospheric, and its camerawork is highly impressive (technically) at times, while delightfully restrained at others. Wan is a filmmaker unafraid to let shots linger for long periods of time, and there are several long takes in here that are not splashy or flashy, but serve to build tension in extremely effective ways. As a result, the editing allows sequences to play out for maximum effect, creating a deliberate but captivating sense of pace. And the pace doesn’t just serve the scares, but the character beats, as well, which have time to breathe and make an impact (some of the movie’s best scenes are character moments, in fact). All the members of the cast do fantastic work. Farmiga’s Lorraine walks a fine line between being a woman of deep conviction but also deep vulnerability, and she nails that contrast in ways that make Lorraine feel like a fully-rounded and complex human being. The work Wilson does as Ed makes for a fine juxtaposition; he plays the character as an intensely warm, humane guy, someone always willing to throw himself into the fire to help others, and that’s kind of a wonderful thing to see in a genre where characters are often morose, downbeat, or broken. Just as with the first film, Ed and Lorraine’s relationship feels genuine and lived-in, and it helps ground the supernatural elements in an identifiable emotional landscape. People like Frances O’Connor (giving one of the more demanding performances), Simon McBurney, and Franka Potente lend considerable credibility to the movie, but the true highlight of the cast is Madison Wolfe as Janet; this is a performance that marks her as a talent to watch in the future, because her work here is wrenching, touching, and - at times - convincingly eerie. Much of the success of the film hinges on the Janet character, and Wolfe knocks it out of the proverbial park. Some people may take issue with the ways in which the movie plays fast and loose with the supposed real events. If you happen to be one of the privileged few who are familiar with the Enfield Poltergeist case, and if you happen to be one of the even more select few for whom that case holds special significance… you might have some problems with the movie. As Hollywood is wont to do, the “true” story has been expanded in scope to better conform to the template of the modern horror movie, and some of the more low key disturbances documented in the real case have been embellished for cinematic purposes. I suspect most in the audience (almost all of whom will be hearing this story for the first time, despite this being one of the most notorious paranormal cases in history) will be happy to go along with the more souped-up, outlandish elements that have been brought into the story because they’re executed so damn well. But again, the die hard Enfield Poltergeist Fan Club could have some bones to pick with the movie’s “accuracy.” Beyond that, I have no reservations about calling THE CONJURING 2 a major success. When so many horror sequels are often transparent retreads, here we have what an ideal sequel should be: something that reminds us of all the things we liked about the first, but then takes off into new directions. If pressed to compare the two, the first CONJURING is slightly scarier, but 2 is easily more engaging on an emotional and character level, which feels like a fair trade-off. In any case, it’s one of the best movies of 2016. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|