THE FAREWELL quietly examines the cultural differences of accepting death. Director Lulu Wang offers nuance instead of sappy sentimentality when exploring how people react when faced with the harsh truths about life… especially when it’s the truth that one family keeps from their dying matriarch.
Billi (Awkwafina) struggles to get by but remains fiercely independent while living in New York City. Her parents view her as overly emotional and impulsive, which is why they try to hide the news that her Nai-Nai (grandmother to us) has been given up to three months to live. The family concocts a plan to gather under the joyful guise of an expedited wedding to assure Nai-Nai’s happiness in her final weeks and so that all of the family can visit her in China.
Lulu Wang transports American audiences to a rich culture, full of unique traditions including love for gathering together with family over conversation and food. The irony of this, of course, is that these happy scenes around the table are filled with underlying nervousness as the fake wedding becomes more and more real. Wang lets these scenes breathe naturally, and takes a matter-of-fact visual approach in these moments and throughout. She’s letting the culture speak for itself instead of affecting a stylized or critical lens on the situation.
Given the nature of these type of stories, the large family at the center of the film always seems more grounded than eccentric caricatures, which might turn off some audiences because of how scenes play out in awkward pauses and just genuinely uncomfortable. While each member makes their presence known in both humorous and dramatic ways, it’s the dying matriarch of the family who brightens the film and breathes life into each scene with her spunky demeanor. Shuzhen Zao is a revelation as the exuberant Nai-Nai. What could have simply been a morose woman on her deathbed is depicted as the one family member living life unafraid and unwilling to give up.
It becomes clear that this “good lie” that the family is keeping from Nai-Nai is something that is common with many Chinese families who are faced with a dying relative. Lulu Wan’s script shows both sides of the situation, as her family thinks that this is what’s best for her happiness, while Billi’s more American attitude feels that she deserves to have the right to say a proper goodbye. While the Chinese reasoning and approach to certain aspects of life and death might seem odd, it’s these little bits of dialogue and traditions that will stick with you and bring about personal conversations of your own that, you too, might have been previously afraid to talk about.
Biili’s repressed emotions lead to one of the most effective themes in THE FAREWELL: does showing restraint or showing emotion prove an individual’s strength. And like Billi’s struggles and inner turmoil (played perfectly by Awkwafina), THE FAREWELL masterfully shows restraint in its philosophical approach and proves that neither culture has the right answers to the complex questions of life and death.
After depicting a suffocatingly tense descent into one family’s worst nightmare with HEREDITARY, Ari Aster has given himself much more room to flex his directing muscles. With just his second feature, MIDSOMMAR proves he’s a master in the foreboding style with just a touch of substance to back it up. While his previous film dealt better with the complications of grief and relationships while giving us characters we cared about, MIDSOMMAR feels like a greater achievement in terms of what he’s able to do as a director with a seemingly smaller bag of horror tricks. Despite the openness of the Swedish countryside and the bright, blue sky overhead (they actually shot in Budapest, Hungary), the same feelings of claustrophobia and uneasiness he was previously so successful at achieving are still very much present. He avoids the sophomore slump as a director but isn’t quite as successful in doing so as a writer.
Dani (Florence Pugh) and Christian (Jack Reynor) are a young American couple with a relationship on the brink of falling apart. To move on past a horrific family tragedy that haunts her thoughts, Dani joins Christian and his college friends on a trip to a once-in-a-lifetime midsummer festival in a remote Swedish village. What begins as a carefree summer holiday filled with psychedelic drugs and overly-friendly villagers, slowly transforms into an unnerving and shocking series of events that tear apart the group.
It’s clear what the end destination is for these travelers. As evident in classic films like THE WICKER MAN or even THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE where our heroes go on a sunny escape that’s destined for doom, in this genre, the journey to get there becomes more important than the destination. What it lacks in surprises or scares, it more than makes up for with uneasy atmosphere. There’s a lot of quiet tension, especially for fans of weird, religious cult films. That being said, your patience for this type of filmmaking will be tested. True believers of slow religious horror need only apply (drink the kool-aid with caution).
In a way, director Ari Aster fetishizes the ceremonial aspects, soaking in every sun-filled shot and laboring over every pause in the ritual. He’s in no hurry when creating the initial facade of peaceful ambiance. After a while, the slow methodical manner washes over you, in a fever-dream sorta way. And by the end, the backgrounds pulsate and the experience becomes downright hallucinatory as you question if these rites of passage are truly transcendent and giving birth to new life or downright barbaric. The fact that Aster has somehow put a trance on the audience to make you question your own beliefs truly speaks to his cinematic power as a director.
The cliche of Americans acting dumb overseas is becoming a bit tired. When the male friends aren’t focused on drugs and sex, jabs at each other and the village feel like a forced attempt at adding levity to the dour tone of the film. Between the college thesis discussions, the clunky frat jokes, and the awkward relationship bickering, Aster’s dialogue doesn’t quite find its footing. Thankfully, he’s much more confident in just letting long sequences go on without dialogue pushing the narrative. He has a tendency to intentionally shock you with violent imagery, from the disturbing opening to the flashes of gruesome deaths (he clearly has a thing for head trauma). In the end, you’re going to remember the film for how it made you feel more so than what it has to say.
While the film may be watered down when it comes to handling the weight and repercussions of grief compared to HEREDITARY, it excels at showing the different approaches to gender in developed society versus a more rural or ancient society. Dani is belittled by her boyfriend and his friends while the Swedish community elevates the power of the woman. Florence Pugh excels at playing the grief-striken martyr. Throughout the film, she’s constantly apologizing for how she is “misinterpreting” situations or for her conversations with her boyfriend or his friends. You feel the burden and shame she puts upon herself, as well as how traditional societies make women feel for exhibiting feelings. As much as MIDSOMMAR is a horror film in the traditional sense, it’s just as much a story about Dani becoming a version of herself that she didn’t know she had the potential to be. And when she’s finally able to expel all the negative energy she has kept pent up for so long – in a chilling and emotional group therapy scene with other women – then she is finally able to ascend to a place of power in her own life.
Interestingly, MIDSOMMAR opens with a shot of ancient drawings depicting aspects of the ceremonies to come. The drawings then open up like a stage curtain, revealing the cold and snowy opening of the film. It’s as if the film is presenting the audience as voyeurs, openly acknowledging us and signaling that we’re about to witness a performance. This idea translates well with the Americans going abroad story and being a stranger in this foreign land watching these rituals. Additionally, it feels like an idea that’s a companion to the dollhouse visuals he goes back to again and again in HEREDITARY. Whether this idea is read as a positive or negative in terms of how he views his audience is certainly open to debate, but it seems clear that Ari Aster enjoys setting the stage for big sweeping motions in small family tragedies.
Who would have thought that James Wan’s modern haunted house classic THE CONJURING would spawn an entire universe of evil spirits? Over the course of seven films (with an eighth entry filming right now), horror fans have been treated to evil spirits of all different shapes and sizes. Yet, leave it to the littlest demon, Annabelle, to usher in a whole slew of new demons to scare audiences.
ANNABELLE COMES HOME is a rollercoaster ride for fans of “THE CONJURING Universe.” It ramps up playfully, and then quickly turns into ANNABELLE: HOUSE OF HORRORS. Director Gary Dauberman subverts expectations and delivers more than just the standard creepy doll film that audiences have seen before. Annabelle might be coming home, but it’s the new demons that take center stage and receive the warmest welcome.
Taking a page from John Carpenter’s HALLOWEEN, Dauberman’s screenplay smartly keeps the story and the cast small, centering it around a babysitter and her button-pushing friend. After opening with familiar favorites Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga) tracking down our title character, the duo lock up the possessed doll in their famous artifacts room of their home behind sacred church glass.
In typical Warren fashion, the two are soon off on their next ghost-hunting adventure, leaving their ten-year-old daughter, Judy, (McKenna Grace) alone with babysitter Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman). Daniela (Katie Sarife), Mary Ellen’s best friend, soon learns of the Warrens being away and decides that she wants to come over to disrupt the slumber party and sneak into the locked artifacts room. Suffice to say, Annabelle gets unleashed and with her a few new friends.
Gary Dauberman is smart enough to know that after two Annabelle films (not counting the first CONJURING film), you aren’t gonna turn horror heads by having a doll slightly move or blink. Once the initial setup is put in place and Annabelle is unleashed, she takes a backseat to a grisly group of new characters. From the Ferry Man to the Bride to even a ghost werewolf (the weakest and cheesiest of the new villains), “THE CONJURING Universe” has almost doubled the number of side-characters in just one film. By the finale, it may feel a little bit like they were trying to just create more spinoffs, but it’s hard not to grin at the fun the film is having during the process.
The female-driven cast all handles the tension and scares well, providing just enough emotion and character beats to make the scare-fest not just an empty ride. However, the dialogue isn’t the film’s strong suit. At times, it surprisingly leans into 80s cliches: a stoner pizza guy, the cute boy next door, awkward dialogue between high school crushes. Sure, there are these cliches and some cheesy dialogue about evil and demons (some of which not even Vera Farmiga can make better), but ANNABELLE COMES HOME knows when it works best and tries to keep the dialogue to a minimum in order to make more room for rolling old coins, a creepy television, a bloody wedding gown, and a kid’s game that you will not want to get your hands on.
Having previously written the other ANNABELLE films and recently THE NUN, it’s clear that Dauberman knows what fans want and delivers the most exciting film in THE CONJURING universe. The scares are unleashed at a rapid pace, and unlike many horror films, they aren’t just loud noises or fake-outs. By cleverly setting the film in one location and having it take place over just a matter of hours, Dauberman is able to create a claustrophobic funhouse effect with real scares and fun world-building. I’m not sure if this universe can last another seven entries, but it’s promising to see that the ride and the visuals keep getting better.
OVERALL SCORE: 3 OUT OF 4
ANNABELLE COMES HOME opens in theaters Wednesday, June 26th
Who are the real monsters? The humans or the creatures that terrorize them. It’s a classic monster movie theme that, dare I say, can’t really be approached in a new way after over 70 yrs of creature features. Sure, it’s a trope of the genre that has effectively won over my heart time and time again. And yet, it feels a little forced and hollow when it takes a backseat to explosions, destruction, and roars from gigantic titans.
In GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS, the crypto-zoological agency, Monarch, is under fire as the government wants to take over their monster-hunting activities. Meanwhile, they have been able to locate several god-sized monsters, including Godzilla, Mothra, Rodan, and his ultimate nemesis, the three-headed Ghidorah. Monarch’s Dr. Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) has developed a device known as the “Orca” which allows communication with the creatures by layering the sounds of species to create sonic-waves… or something or another. When Russell, the “Orca” and her daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) are kidnapped by an eco-terrorist, Monarch recruits ex-member and Russell’s ex-husband Mark (Kyle Chandler, charming as always and delivering a level of energy not many in this film lend it) to help track and stop the terrorist plot.
Complaints surrounding the previous GODZILLA (2014) film — the first of now three films in a shared universe with KONG: SKULL ISLAND — centered around the lack of monster action. In truth, GODZILLA did play more of an ominous legend or boogeyman that people talked about instead of a character that’s in your face during the entire film. Writer and director Michael Dougherty (TRICK ‘R TREAT and KRAMPUS) aims to correct this in GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS. If the trailers didn’t make it clear already, perhaps Dougherty overshot a little when it comes to the monster/human ratio. KING OF THE MONSTERS is packed with fights between some of the most legendary Toho Co. monster creations. Die-hard fans will marvel at the opportunity to see some of these beloved creatures duke out, claw to claw, wing to wing, head to head (or head to three-heads if we’re talking about Ghidorah).
For those who haven’t grown up watching these characters on poorly dubbed VHS tapes, your patience might be tested along with your ability to withstand motion sickness without even moving. For long patches of film, you have close-ups or medium shots of giant monsters rolling around in the rain, water, or smoke, making it impossible to tell what scaly creature is hitting who. You could call this the TRANSFORMERS effect or the PACIFIC RIM effect, but either way, it becomes an indecipherable endurance test. Constant flashes of light from electrical outages and lightning strikes create a strobe effect that makes the shaky visuals event worse. For every stunning, wide shot that shows the full scale of these behemoths — something the marketing has clearly shown off in the effective trailers — there are 50-times as many shaky close-ups to the point where I gave up on the battle of who would be King by the finale.
There are a couple of moments where the connection between the humans and the monsters is actually felt both literally and figuratively. One early on is the birth of Mothra. Vera Farmiga and Millie Bobby Brown both lend the film one of the best heartfelt moments in its entirety, as they finally see the birth of something they have nurtured for so long. This is only surpassed later on by Ken Watanabe. When he decides to come face to face with Godzilla — the God he worships — it’s a moment that rings true for monster fans. We connect with them for there flaws but we also relate to them because they are ostracized and seen as outsiders. And director Michael Dougherty, who comes with a clear love of monsters and horror, treats the monsters with the level of respect given to Superman or other superheroes.
With all that happens in its bloated 2 hr and 11 min runtime, the story of monstrous superheroes never really draws general audiences in. GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS simply throws you in without much setup in order to give fans of the characters something to cheer for. In both story and execution, Dougherty has missed creating the human connection. Sacrifice becomes a central theme in the film, and what it sacrifices to give fans cool creatures and monster mayhem is a proper stage set for real emotions to fight alongside with the visuals.
Overall Score: 2.5 out of 5
GODZILLA: KING OF THE MONSTERS opens in theaters everywhere May 31st
You don’t have to be a genius to get through high school and into a great college. There’s not a specific mold one has to fit into to advance in life. Smarties can be losers, stoners can excel, and jocks aren’t always jerks. BOOKSMART presents these labels and more, and just as quickly, shows off how in 2019, the John Hughes 80s-movie stereotypes don’t apply. And much like actress-turned-director Olivia Wilde, you can defy the expectations set out for you.
Olivia Wilde directs a raunchy comedy from the modern, high-school girl perspective in the spirit of SUPERBAD and CAN’T HARDLY WAIT with a healthy dose of BROAD CITY thrown in. Despite the unoriginal premise of the “final party before high-school ends,” the screenwriters (a team of four talented women) prove that you don’t need an original concept when you’re making a clever and laugh-out-loud statement about stereotypes and high-school tropes. You just have to beat them at their own game. And between Wilde’s carefree confidence behind the camera and the writing team’s admiration for the characters, it’s no wonder that BOOKSMART is one of the best high school stories put on screen.
Amy (Kaitlyn Dever) and her best friend, Molly (Beanie Feldstein), are ready to move on to two of the top schools in the country. While their intentions may be good, their elitist attitude towards this achievement quickly vanishes when they learn all of their classmates are also going to top schools despite what their appearance and weekend partying may signify. This leads the duo to prove that they are also brainy and fun, like the rest of her classmates. There’s just one catch: they need to figure out where’s the big house party that takes place the night before graduation.
Kaitlyn Dever and Beanie Feldstein lead this comedic freight-train that barely takes a minute to breathe through the breezy 97 min runtime. Their presence on screen and the love they extend to the characters make the constant jokes feel much more natural than it sounds. The two have dynamic and infectious chemistry that you feel in every scene, leading to one of my favorite comedic duos in recent memory.
More than most high-school films, the supporting characters are just as important (even a throwaway character is the crux to the entire conclusion of the film). These characters accentuate the themes and aren’t just roadblocks in the way of our leads’ end goal. In fact, many of them have just as strong arcs by the end of it. Billie Lourd is fantastic, playing a Puck-like character (one of a few Shakespearean allusions in the film) that mysteriously pops up throughout the film for some off-kilter fun. But its the quirky bond between the strong, feminist duo that provides most of the heart and humor in the film.
While many films depict the lives of high schoolers as narcissistic, callous, and lacking any sense of what the “real world” is like, Olivia Wilde offers a softer and more sensitive lens to her characters. Their high school revelry, including trashing the hallways on the final day of school and rowdy late night parties, is depicted without judgment (albeit, with a strong knack for slo-mo flare set to some amazing pop songs). Unlike SUPERBAD and other high-school comedies, the struggles of the two leads aren’t trying to get booze or laid – they simply want to have their voices heard. In the end for Amy and Molly, it’s telling their respected crushes how they feel and also to prove a point to their classmates that they can have fun too. But it’s much bigger than that. As the feminist references and jokes throughout the film remind the audience, it’s making an enthusiastic statement at a time when it’s needed most. The two “nerds” at the center of the film don’t need to follow the rules to get through life, just as the woman at the helm of the film doesn’t have to stick to the book when it comes to teen comedies. And that’s what makes it smart.
Neon-lit streets at night. A mysterious car crash. Drugs and underground fights around the docks. And two unlikely partners on the case. DETECTIVE PIKACHU has all the elements of a neo-noir; a genre I’m particularly fond of. But it’s a genre that seems rather surprising for the first live-action Pokemon film. Lovable creatures and juvenile jokes thrown into a world of detectives and mad scientists? It’s an odd formula that has proven successful before in WHO FRAMED ROGER RABBIT and more recently in ZOOTOPIA. And yet, even Pikachu can’t provide enough electricity to bring this bizarre amalgamation to life. At times leaning a little too seriously for its own good while other times more silly than clever, DETECTIVE PIKACHU never plays the right cards leading to an uneven tone.
The story begins when detective Harry Goodman suffers a fatal car crash after racing from a laboratory late one night. His 21-year-old son Tim (Justice Smith) attempts to find out what happened and uncovers Pikachu (voiced by Ryan Reynolds) at his father’s former office. They discover that they are uniquely equipped to work together, as Tim is the only human who can talk with and understand Pikachu outside of the sounds “Pika-Pika.” Chasing clues together reveals a diverse cast of Pokémon characters and a shocking plot that could destroy the co-existence between humans and their Pokémon companions.
Given the amount of coffee Pikachu drinks throughout the movie, it’s no wonder that he won’t stop talking. In typical Ryan Reynolds fashion — a schtick that is becoming worn out — Pikachu rattles off multiple wise-cracks every minute he’s on screen. Ryan Reynolds plays the cute and cuddly creature like a motor-mouth teenager, pushing the film’s PG-rating with some sexual innuendo and sneaking in some other language (though tame in terms of DEADPOOL standards). At the rate he’s firing them off, he was bound to have a few jokes that land. However, he’s definitely aiming for quantity over quality, creating an endurance test for most audiences.
Ryme City — a sprawling, modern metropolis where humans and Pokémon live side by side in a hyper-realistic live-action world — is fully realized and looks absolutely stunning. How humans and creatures interact with one another is absolutely seamless. What’s more awe-inspiring is the look and movements of the creatures. From the blowing of fur to the texture of their skin, each Pokémon leaps off the screen in its own unique way. The highlight of the film is a scene where the detective duo interrogates Mr. Mime, a Pokémon who only communicates through miming. The Mr. Mime scene plays with film-noir tropes but incorporates the Pokémon’s unique characteristics. Unfortunately, it’s the only time where the noir and Pokémon worlds perfectly come together.
DETECTIVE PIKACHU rests heavily on the title character’s popularity, cute demeanor, and charming voice-actor. Not much energy is put into crafting a clever buddy-cop story despite actor Justice Smith trying terribly hard to make us care about how it will unfold. Ultimately, this approach to bringing these characters to the big screen is more baffling than inspired. For instance, why the Pokemon battles are presented as an illegal activity in the film even though it has defined the game and tv show up until now is extremely bizarre. Sure, tinkering with and exploring different ways to bring to life this world is admirable, but it also defies one of the establishing elements of the property. Enough creatures adorably bounce and scatter about the film to appeal to both kids as well as nostalgic adults. While taking this unique non-game-centric approach to the first live-action film is a bit of a gamble, it’s one that might only win over die-hard fans.
Overall score: 2.5 out of 5
Pokémon Detective Pikachu opens in theaters everywhere May 10
New ghost, new family, same old rules and scares. A new ghastly member in “The Conjuring Universe” haunts theaters beginning this Friday, but despite the name and the occasional Spanish language, you’d be hard-pressed to find many distinguishing elements in THE CURSE OF LA LLORONA. In fact, one can argue that many of the scenes seem like unused material from horror master James Wan’s more successful films, just repackaged in a watered-down attempt at Mexican folklore. But hey – slap THE CONJURING name on the poster and sprinkle in some screaming ghost faces, and you have a serviceable Friday night date flick for the high-school crowd.
Set in 1973 Los Angeles, the film tells the story of Anna Tate-Garcia (Linda Cardellini), a social worker and widowed single mom. When she’s called to the home of Patricia Alvarez (Patricia Velasquez) and finds her two young sons locked in a closet, she interprets their terrified mother’s actions as a sign of abuse. The boys are soon taken to a children’s shelter where they awaken one night by the sounds of a crying woman. When their bodies are later pulled from the river, their distraught mother blames Anna for letting the legendary spirit, La Llorona, take her children. Soon after, Anna and her two children believe that they are now being hunted by the ghostly spirit.
I lost count of how many times characters walk slowly towards creepy things, like creaking sounds, curtains mysteriously moving, an umbrella blowing away when you approach it, crying sounds, and a number of other similar scenes. Each time it plays our exactly the same. Slow walking letting the audience know something is coming. Another sound is then heard or something happens. And as they get closer, that mysterious something isn’t necessarily the scary thing. In fact, it’s just a ruse so something can appear behind them or above them without their knowing – the old Hitchcock gimmick of showing the audience something before the character knows or sees it. When executed effectively, it can be a nice trick for a director to pull out of his magic hat. Despite director Michael Chaves executing this well at times, he relies on it far too often to the point that the repetition takes away from the trick.
Kids in horror movies can be truly effective. Either they are the creepy kids you want out of your house, or they can be the heart of the story as their fear and innocence often mirror that of the audience. In the case of LA LLORONA, the kids are underwritten and act as dumb as humanly possible. The two child leads avoid talking about what they are seeing and experiencing not only with each other but also with any of the adults. This, of course, gets pretty awkward and a little silly when extremely obvious hand marks are burned into their arms. Furthermore, their stupid decisions only serve to trigger more creepy sequences. Whether it is reaching for a doll just out of reach or leaving a car for no other reason than to investigate what’s going on, the film could be retitled: Kids Do the Dumbest Things.
While the majority of the film takes itself far too serious, a third act introduction of a former priest-turned-curandero played by Raymond Cruz adds a little levity to the proceedings. His dry, deadpan delivery elevates the finale. Unfortunately, the late opportunity to leave an intriguing impact on the audience is floundered. Much like the overall story and scares, his bag of tricks including spiritual totems, an ancient cross, and magical dust all fall incredibly flat. In the end, there isn’t much to grab ahold of in LA LLORONA. A lack of creative scares, relatable characters, and an original story leaves viewers grasping for anything to take with them after the breezy 93-min runtime. Given the Mexican folklore influence, it’s hard not to feel that this entry in “The Conjuring Universe” is a missed opportunity crying desperately to find a voice of its own.
Overall Score: 2 out of 5
THE CURSE OF LA LLORONA opens in theaters April 19th
Death affects people differently. Sometimes in unexpected ways. For some, coping with the inevitable is hard to even think about. For some, they are plagued by images of their loved ones now gone. For some, the outcome can’t be accepted and so denial sets in.
What death is and what death means and all the other complicated questions that arise from this thought process can lead to a gateway of ideas that are both fascinating and terrifying. While Stephen King’s classic novel deals with the many stages of death and grief, PET SEMATARY (2019) is more interested in traveling down a path of cheap thrills and visual cues already presented in Mary Lambert’s 1989 film of the same name. Bringing to mind horror films from the early aughts, Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer’s remake is made up of tiny jump scares every five minutes – a filmmaking rule that seems as outdated as it is unnecessary to filmgoers in 2019. A solid script with engaging characters doesn’t need to constantly remind audiences that they are watching a horror film, especially scares that seem so telegraphed and add nothing to the heart of King’s story.
Dr. Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) relocates with his wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz) and their two young children from Boston to rural Maine. On the grounds that their farmhouse resides is a mysterious burial ground deep in the woods. When their cat Church gets hit by a truck on the road in front of their home, Louis turns to his neighbor, Jud (John Lithgow). Their decision to bury the cat in the Pet Cemetery (or Sematary as it is spelled) triggers a chain of events with horrific consequences.
Sound plays an essential part in Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer’s remake. From nature sounds outside to disturbing flashbacks involving Rachel’s sister and a dumbwaiter to creaking floorboards overhead in the farmhouse, it all combines into an effective mood-building character. The sound design almost has elements of the classic 1963 version of THE HAUNTING. Additional more unexpected sounds add uneasiness, like in a scene where Rachel is clutching her eyes shut and you can actually hear the sounds of her eyes tightening for dear life. Christopher Young, who has made a name for himself with classic horror film scores for HELLRAISER and THE DARK HALF gives the film a traditional but eerie score that hits the right notes and gives the film an elevated presence.
The cast certainly makes their presence known with a strong ensemble, especially young Jeté Laurence as their daughter Ellie. Her transformation in the second half is more than just a series of creepy looks, as she does so much with her voice to invoke chills. While she quickly becomes the star of the film, the rest of the cast drift further and further into the background. So much so that the family’s other child, Gage, truly becomes an unnecessary character in the film. Victor – a classic character from the novel who is a ghost that haunts the doctor – also becomes a missed opportunity. In Mary Lambert’s film and on King’s pages, the character of Victor lends the film a subtle bit of dark humor. How the character is approached in this shows how the filmmakers were much more interested in an actor serving as your standard creepy plot device as opposed to a unique and more challenging character.
The film lives up to the true definition of a remake. This isn’t so much a reimagining or reinterpretation of the story… well…. Until the ending. All the scenes are there and even have the same look and feel as the original film. The familiar proceedings begin to take a more genuine turn in the film’s finale, which deviates quite a bit from the source material as well as the original film (Mary Lambert’s film also made a change to King’s original ending). And while I admire that the film finally does its own thing, the ending simply doesn’t make sense in the context of the characters. For die-hard fans of the novel, controversial decisions are made that seem based on creating imagery straight from an EC comics story instead of ending on an inspired, thematic note.
We live in an era of fresh and exciting horror remakes like the recent versions of SUSPIRIA and IT. Films that examine the source material and find new ways to present the ideas. In comparison, PET SEMATARY feels expected. Despite some scenes playing out slightly different than they do in the original film or book, much of the film has the same familiar beats. Even in the scenes when it doesn’t present it exactly how it’s supposed to happen, it knowingly winks at the audience in a groan-worthy “gotcha” manner. The real shocker would have been if Jeff Buhler’s screenplay would’ve delved deeper into some of the themes of sheltering kids from death and discussions of mortality & grief found in King’s book. The real tragedy of this new version of PET SEMATARY is that it’s more interested in cheap scares than connecting the audience to a story about a family dealing with trauma and grief.
What is the difference between the lines that divide us and connect us? A line can be a form of communication or it can be a separation between two sides. It can be a line in the sand that you can’t cross or it can be a line that connects two points. It’s a word with multiple implications that represents the duality of the very things it connects or divides. In Jordan Peele’s US, lines and duality are echoed through the inclusion of two ordinary items: mirrors and scissors. One creates a connection between the self and the reflection, the other serves to separate one item from another. And yet, the mirror can break and the reflection splits, and the scissors only function when two halves come together. Like the line, both represent division and connection simultaneously.
Jordan Peele already held a mirror up to the cultured, open-minded white Americans in GET OUT, and asked if they were going to ignore their own passing comments that add to the larger systemic problems with race in America. With US, he doesn’t just hold the mirror to the white faces suddenly blindsided by their own shame, but to all of privileged America. All of us, regardless of skin tone, who have been privileged to ignore those in the class below us; those whose voices aren’t heard and whose actions are seen as meaningless in society. Despite what some may think, the human connection to people across all classes exists even if some fail to acknowledge it.
GET OUT and US are both horror films that bring deep-rooted cultural issues to the surface, but US is much more subtle and less-incendiary in its approach. While the visual metaphors of mirrors and doppelgangers show how we’re all one-in-the-same, the message is more nuanced and harder to read. It’s a film that sprinkles in questions about political revolution and the class system amid tense stand-offs and shocking scenes of carnage. This might frustrate some looking for the culture shock that GET OUT provided but results in a film that will no doubt be studied and deconstructed for years to come.
After a chilling opening set in a carnival at night that perfectly sets the mood for the film, the story reveals a woman (Lupita Nyong’o) and her family returning to the beach that left a haunting impact on her as a child. What starts as a sunny getaway quickly turns into a nightmare for her and her husband (BLACK PANTHER’s Winston Duke) and two children (Shahadi Wright Joseph, Evan Alex) when their doppelgangers mysterious show up in the driveway one night. The arrival of these strangers triggers a series of terrifying events and revelations.
Much like Wes Craven’s THE HILLS HAVE EYES where a family vacation triggers a series of incidents where the protagonists have to look inward to defeat enemies, each family member in US has to defeat their own demons in order to battle… well… “themselves.” The daughter has to put down the iPhone; the son has to use intellect instead of his magic tricks; even the dad has to realize that money isn’t going to buy him happiness (though his new boat does come in handy). Most importantly is the journey of Lupita Nyong’o. She has to overcome her past trauma and become the strong one to lead the way for her family. But like the heroes in Craven’s grindhouse classic, she in many ways turns into the violent aggressor that she’s fighting. Even her son looks at her apprehensively at one point because her white garment becomes soaked in blood – turning her outfit into the red jumpsuit like that of the enemy.
Like GET OUT, Jordan Peele hints at a bigger world but still keeps it relatively small and claustrophobic. This allows for the central characters to shine. Winston Duke hilariously captures the awkward dad that’s trying to be cool. He walks the line perfectly without taking it into a caricature, providing many laugh-out-loud, tension-breaking moments. Despite a well-rounded cast that all leave their mark, the film is led by a powerhouse performance by Lupita Nyong’o. The role demands her to flex her emotional and physical acting chops. She transitions seamlessly from a woman dealing with past trauma to someone forced to protect her children. Even amid the chaos of the home-invasion-turned-chase story in the second and third act, Peele always has fun with the audience. His approach to horror and violence never feels over the top or mean-spirited. US is not a marathon that puts audiences through the wringer, but more of a journey through a funhouse complete with things popping out, nervous laughter, and reflections of ourselves.
Mike Gioulakis, best known for his striking cinematography in IT FOLLOWS and this year’s GLASS, lends the film a stark look with long shadows and a minimal color palette so that the red jumpsuits of the late night visitors pop off the screen. While GET OUT might have more iconic scenes, US has more iconic shots. Nothing proves this more than the final standoff. The tense sequence is masterfully filmed and intercut with gorgeous, unexpected footage. The beauty of the film balances the brutality. Peele’s decision to go with Gioulakis – a different cinematographer than his last film – shows that he’s continuing to sharpen his teeth as both a storyteller and filmmaker.
US opens with footage of the 1986 “Hands Across America” event playing on the television. In real life, despite the good intentions, the event became a symbol for the hypocrisy of how America has handled homelessness in this country. Outspoken people gathered hand in hand with their neighbors from the Atlantic to the Pacific to raise $50 million for the poor – each person in line was supposed to donate $10. The event cost $16 million to execute, and after expenses were paid, only $15 million was donated to charities. It became an empty, symbolic gesture with a message that fell on deaf ears. In 2019, there is still a sense of apathy in this country. What doesn’t directly affect us can be ignored. When you are living with even the most modest sense of wealth, you can afford to look the other way; you can avoid those who remind you of wealth disparity; you can mute their cries for help. While US might not have the same eye-opening effect that GET OUT left audiences, Jordan Peele, once again, successfully blends thrills with a message. It cements his standing as a master in “social horror” and serves as a reminder that a horror film that holds a mirror up to our society will always connect with audiences.
After years of flexing its muscles, WWE is now showing that it has heart as well. Based on a true story, FIGHTING WITH MY FAMILY is a feel-good underdog story that will charm all sports fans, even those unfamiliar with wrestling. It follows reformed gangster Ricky (Nick Frost), wife Julia (Lena Headey), daughter Paige (Florence Pugh) and son Zak (Jack Lowden) as they make a living wrestling together in tiny venues in Norfolk, England. When Paige and Zak get the opportunity to try out for the WWE, they grab this once-in-a-lifetime chance to turn their life around and provide for their family. However, both of them learn that their future in wrestling might not be exactly what they had dreamed of.
Stephen Merchant, who may be an odd choice for directing, really focuses the story around this struggling, working-class family of misfits and former criminals and makes their flaws and all quite endearing. Florence Pugh is fantastic as the punk-rock rebel in the ring. She conveys the spunky passion Paige has to make it in the WWE, as well as the insecurities surrounding her appearance as an outsider compared to the tall, tan, and blonde women she’s up against. In the hands of Merchant, the film becomes much more of an ensemble – especially in the first half – as each member of the family gets to shine. The wildcard comes from the genuine and heartfelt story of Paige’s brother Zak played with tragic gusto by Jack Lowden.
WWE purists might be somewhat frustrated by how wrestling is presented in the film. Despite Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson serving as producer, there’s a severe lack of real professional training that goes into Paige’s journey through the ranks of the WWE. Many scenes are quick to show endurance training, like her flipping giant tires or sprinting along the beach. Though these scenes aim to show that wrestling is just like other sports, they also present a false notion that if you simply try hard enough or are strong enough, you can make it up the ranks. The film gets caught up in its fairy tale message that “you can do whatever you put your mind to” and neglects the politics of the industry, the storytelling & production inside the ring, and other nuances of the WWE.
In the sensational Netflix show, GLOW, the women in the ring had to train each other. However, that was the 1980s, and the world was a very different place. Besides the fact that women wrestling wasn’t a common thing yet, the women in the show didn’t have professionals to teach them because they didn’t have the budget and… well… sexism. As a result, the characters in the show teach each other. A sense of camaraderie is felt between the women as they are forced to be strong together and muscle their way into an industry that thinks a women wrestling program is nothing but a joke. FIGHTING WITH MY FAMILY tries to capture that same sense of female bonding by showing Paige teaching the other women how to do moves in practice. However, the year is 2014 in the film, and you’re dealing with an industry that’s a well-oiled machine that operates under strict guidance and safety precautions. Paige teaching others instead of professional instructors is not only an exaggeration of the facts, but it’s simply reckless to show. GLOW tells a story about strong women finding their place inside and out of the ring, and it seems like the producers of this film might be trying to bask in the glow of that popular series.
The movie culminates with Paige’s 2014 debut against AJ Lee for the title belt. While the scene is played as a nailbiter for Paige and her family, the heightened drama seems a little absurd given the fact that the film casually reminded audiences earlier that all of the in-the-ring antics are scripted. Once again, the film presents a misleading view of wrestling that if you try hard enough, you can do anything. More importantly, though, it’s a shame that we don’t get to see more of her career. I get ending the film with her triumphant moment, but given the real-life drama centered around her career, the film ends a bit abruptly and even implies that she’s still wrestling to this day – which any fan can tell you is not the truth.
What it lacks in terms of down and dirty details of the wrestling world it more than makes up for with feel-good charm. FIGHTING WITH MY FAMILY seems committed to entertaining all audiences by casting a wide enough net so that it doesn’t just pull in the die-hard wrestling fans. Ultimately, it’s a satisfying blend of quirky family comedy and underdog sports drama despite its flaws. Like the weekly WWE matches, the film feels a little hoky and phony at times but still manages to get the crowd going.
Overall score: 3 out of 5
FIGHTING WITH MY FAMILY opens in theaters Friday, February 22, 2018
