Review: BLAIR WITCH

     It's been sixteen years since the second Blair Witch film hit theaters...so one has to wonder, why is the third film coming out now? Obviously, this film isn't really for me, the grizzled veteran that saw and loved the original back in college. This film is one of those new, fresh, hip re-makes for "the kids." The studio covertly named the film The Woods until Comic-Con in July when they revealed that it's in fact a new Blair Witch film. I guess this coverage worked, as even The New York Times published an article in the front page news section about this bait-and-switch. The free, three-week early screening I attended was filled with mostly younger college kids and I was already emailed the chance to see it again at another free screening. On the 7 train in Queens on my way out to the U.S. Open I spotted a big poster at one of the stations for it. This means they're probably spending a lot of money to market this and create buzz. Will any of this matter? If you remember, the original went on to be the highest grossing independent film at the time with no stars and little marketing (I remember having to drive out of my way to see it because it wasn't playing at the local theater). It also spawned the hand held camera point of view horror film. But the sequel, Book of Shadows, was a bomb with critics and at the box office and it took sixteen years for this new third film to come out. I suspect that director Adam Wingard, who made the fun/scary You're Next, was such a fan that he jumped at making this. It's kind of sad to disappoint that, realistically, this new film, simply titled Blair Witch, is basically a re-make that seems fairly pointless in the end.
     Back in June when I heard that Wingard had a new film coming out I watched the trailer. It featured kids running and screaming in the woods and it was called The Woods and it looked intriguing. I'm a fan of Wingard, as You're Next was one of the better slasher pictures to come out in the last few years and The Guest was entertaining. When I learned that this new film was actually a Blair Witch sequel I was even more interested. After all, if anyone could make a good Blair Witch film it'd be Wingard. And I also have a soft spot for The Blair Witch Project. Besides making a spoof film with my brother titled The Darien Witch Project (Darien is the brat daughter from The Last Boy Scout, as if you didn't know), I also gave the original film four stars and named it the best film of 1999. And it was genuinely the last film that scared me.
But what was this sequel going to be like? The original had three people and a camera and it showed nothing. You didn't see the witch. The scariest thing was one of the characters standing up facing a basement wall. The sequel went a little bit further in the gratuitous nudity/blood vein...but it still never showed the witch. Would this new one have an actress in creepy, old-woman make-up running around? Would limbs and heads be flying through the air?
     The new film is basically a re-make in that's it a group of twenty year-old's filming themselves as they go camping in the haunted Maryland woods. The one caveat to make it part three and a continuation is that the one character is the brother of the girl, Heather, that went missing in the first film. This new crew has state-of-the-art tech, too. Ear-piece cameras, night vision cameras, and a useless drone. What they also have are two local hicks that go with them to help them find Heather. If I haven't mentioned the new character's names, well, there's a reason. The set-up characterization is atrocious. Do I care about any of these people? No, but I should if it wanted to be a compelling film. The two local hicks are so over-the-top ridiculous and silly they belong more in an SNL skit than a scary movie. And the biggest problem is that everything set-up never gets paid off. The one girl cuts her foot and it becomes infected. Okay, so there's going to be a great scene of them having to cut her leg off? Or, no, her whole body gets infected and she becomes possessed? No, the pay off could have been a lot better. And the hikers have a drone. That's cool. When it lifts up in the air maybe it catches sight of a house or a person in the woods or chimney smoke or...should I be the bearer of bad news that the drone is fucking pointless? The other problem is the actual witch. The woods are haunted but you can't show the witch, that's been established in the first two films. So what do you do? They have mysterious sounds in the woods in this new film. Trees falling. Loud footsteps. But why do the footsteps sound like a giant or Bigfoot? Alas, it's never revealed. There's also flashing lights which are, what? UFO's? They do go with the less-is-more approach, but they do show some glimpses of strange things in the corner of the screen and behind a tree in the dark. The only good part of the film is the climax, which, when it finally occurs, is welcomed with open arms. I will say that the filmmakers did a good job at ratcheting up the tension at the end. The final flurry is fairly scary, albeit a little bit too little too late. And by this point, three films in, shouldn't we be sick of seeing characters suddenly knocked down while filming and yet never learning what knocked them over or grabbed them? I guess what I'm saying is that the original film did the don't-show-anything so well that there's no point in trying to recapture that magic. It's time for a gore-fest with a scary witch actually on screen. That wouldn't be The Blair Witch Project of course, but it'd be something wild and new. Maybe get Rob Zombie to direct it and we'll all be happy. ** (out of ****)

Review: X-MEN: APOCALYPSE

    Most mega-budget Hollywood popcorn summer special f/x super-hero extravaganzas don't really give you a lot to think about when you leave the theater. They're two hours of mindless entertainment, right? Utterly forgettable gloss. So while it's still fresh in my mind I should let you know about the very few highlights of X-Men: Apocalypse, the third film featuring the new/young X-Men and sixth in the X-Men film franchise. #1: Game of Thrones star Sophie Turner (Jane Grey here) is a bona-fide movie star. #2 "Sweet Dreams" is always a good song for a montage. #3 Psylocke's outfit is better (and cooler) than most of this movie.
     Saying that X-Men: Apocalypse is one of the lesser X-Men films isn't really saying a hell of a lot. I wasn't the biggest fan of the first two or Matthew Vaughan's First Class entry. The last one, the time travel thriller featuring Peter Dinklage, Days of Future Past, was good, but my favorite will probably always be Brett Ratner's Last Stand, the third one, and the one everyone hated (perhaps I'm just a Ratner fan, because I think I gave Rush Hour 3 four stars), mostly just based on entertainment. After all, we're not seeing these types of movies to reflect on Auschwitz (Magneto's past) or to think of mutants and humans as a civil rights metaphor (groan). We're here to see a fucking spectacle!
     If you haven't seen any of the previous X films, then good luck understanding literally any of this. I actually read X-Men comic books and even I'm confused at the timeline used here. So Mystique is Jennifer Lawrence in 1983 but is Rebecca Romijn-Stamos in 2000? Why did Michael Fassbender as Magneto age so fast in twenty years to become old man Ian Mckellan? Are they just two different timelines or did they just forget the first three films? Or did the producers just hope we forgot? 
      Either way, this new film is still about mutants at a school for mutants battling evil. The evil this time around is the blue villain from the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers movie. No? It isn't? Oh, it's Oscar Isaac as Apocalypse (who also looks like DC comic's uber-villain Darkseid for some reason). Apocalypse is an old God woken up and goes about destroying the world for no good reason (I guess he wants to live in rubble?). A few mutants join him without question for no good reason, then the X-Men band together to fight him. Simple, right? Sure. And for the most part, it is a stupid, entertaining film. Because there's so much backstory you're just supposed to remember and various characters showing up that are never really fleshed out, the film feels like a hodge podge of various ideas mashed together. What I want out of an X-Men film is a cohesive, established group in costumes (Olivia Munn's Psylocke is one of the few wearing a costume...and it's a fan boy's wet dream) fighting bad guys. This is the sixth movie, why are we still doing introductions and beginnings like the origin of Cyclops? And you can kind of tell that this franchise is a bit of a mess because Jennifer Lawrence is a main character in this film and strangely a hero, even though her character has always been a villain in the comics (more screen time for the stars!).
     I suppose in the inevitable 7th film there will be even more intro's, more world building, and perhaps a new re-cast/re-build when the big stars price themselves out. Jennifer Lawrence and Michael Fassbender both give relatively tame performances here, especially compared to films they seem to actually care about. The one shining spot in this film is Quicksilver, a B-hero played by Evan Peters, who was just awesome in American Horror Story: Hotel last year. He's amusing, fun to watch, and has the best scene in the film: a slo-mo rescue of kids in an exploding building while "Sweet Dreams (Are Made of This)" by the Eurythmics is playing. That scene is entertaining as hell. I wish this movie was, too. **1/2 (out of ****)

THE TOP 10 MOST ANTICIPATED FILMS OF 2016

1- ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY: This one will be, at the very least, interesting. It's the first of many standalone Star Wars films. It won't feature the old or new regular characters...so will it even look and feel like a Star Wars film? Or will it end up like those weird Ewok movies nobody remembers? They do have the Godzilla director, Gareth Evans, at the helm. And Felicity Jones, Mads Mikkelsen, and Forest Whitaker star. The plot has something to do with a group of good guys attempting to steal the plans to the Death Star before it was built. It definitely has all the right pieces for an awesome film.

2- BATMAN VS. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE: Yes, Zack Snyder hasn't made a good film since that Dawn of the Dead remake, and even that was unnecessary. But even if this is a train wreck, it sure as hell should be entertaining as hell with Benn Affleck as Batman and Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor. Not to mention that Wonder Woman is in this and Michael Shannon is back, this time as Doomsday. They'll probably never make a really good Superman movie, but this at least looks like the big, dumb kind of movie you go and see in a packed theater and have a blast with.

3- MISS PEREGRINE'S HOME FOR PECULIARS: The book, by Ransom Riggs, was published by Philly's own Quirk Books and has become a pretty big hit. I suppose I should read it...someday. The story is about a mysterious island that once housed a school for peculiar children. I think time travel is involved. But either way, it sounds right up director Tim Burton's alley. And while he hasn't made a masterpiece in over twenty years, he at least still entertains (Dark Shadows was a lot of fun and Sweeney Todd was a good one). This one stars Eva Green, Samuel L. Jackson, and Judi Dench.

4- FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM: J.K. Rowling wrote the script...so that's something. It takes place in America in the 1920's. Apparently a few beasts get loose and Eddie Redmayne, a wizard, has to stop them. What we're all hoping is that this is as good as a Harry Potter film. Will it be? Will there be a good villain, good characters, humor, action, drama? Even if it's half as good as any of the Potter films it'll be awesome.

5- THE NICE GUYS: Shane Black is back as writer/director on this action/comedy starring Russel Crowe and Ryan Gosling. The trailer makes it look like a Pulp Fiction/In Bruges type of romp. Black, obviously, knows how to write. He wrote Lethal Weapon, The Monster Squad, and The Last Boy Scout. His last job was directing Iron Man 3, so he at least knows his way around directing big action spectacles. This movie looks so funny and so crazy. I really can't wait to see this.

6- HAIL, CAESAR!: The Coen brothers are back with this 50's Hollywood-set comedy starring George Clooney, Jonah Hill, Scarlett Johannson, and Channing Tatum. They've been trying to make this film for years, so maybe this means they wrote it when they were still writing great films (let's face it, their films haven't been that good since 2000's O, Brother, Where Art Thou?...and that wasn't as good as 98's The Big Lebowski...and that wasn't as good as 96's Fargo). Still, even their failures are inventive and amusing, and they do always bring something stylish and different to the multiplex. And this one does look like a hell of a lot of fun.

7- X-MEN: APOCALYPSE: I'm probably the only person on Earth who thinks Brett Ratner directed the best X-Men film (the third one, X-Men: The Last Stand, which was what a superhero movie is supposed to be: fun). But Bryan Singer has made four of them now and his last one, the time-traveling X-Men: Days of Future Past, was his best. So he at least knows what he's doing and we know what to expect from this one. Apocalypse, played by Oscar Isaac, is the villain in this new film. It also has the 70's X-Men in it instead of the current crew for no good reason (I guess Hugh Jackman and Ian McKellan were busy?). That means Jennifer Lawrence and Michael Fassbender are back...which is okay by me. Should be a good, entertaining, sci-fi/action spectacle.

8- CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR: The second Captain America film, where he battled the Winter Soldier, was one of Marvel's better films, thanks mostly to some awesome action sequences. And this one is more of the same but with Iron Man and Ant-Man added to the mix. This means we'll get action plus the amusing hilarity of Paul Rudd and Robert Downey, Jr. Win win.

9- STAR TREK BEYOND: J.J. Abrams quit to do Star Wars, so this third Star Trek film with the new cast has Justin Lin directing. He directed four Fast & Furious films, so he at least probably knows how to put a good action sequence on screen. The big reason that this film might be more funny and entertaining than the first two Star Trek films is that Simon Pegg helped write the script. The trailer makes it look great, too. The crew of the Enterprise is trapped on an alien planet while Idris Elba is wreaking havoc as the alien villain, Krall.

10- SUICIDE SQUAD: Jared Leto is The Joker and Margot Robbie is Harley Quinn. And, honestly, that's probably all you need to know. The comic book the film is based on is about a group of villains hired by the government to help them on suicide missions no one else would bother doing. The trailer makes it look wild and action packed. David Ayer, who last made the terrible Fury, is directing. It might be a mess, but it sure looks intriguing.

THE TOP 10 MOST ANTICIPATED FILMS OF 2015 REVISITED

1- STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS: *** (reviewed)

2- THE HATEFUL EIGHT: *** (reviewed)

3- SPECTRE: Didn't see it yet. It got mediocre reviews.

4- MAD MAX: FURY ROAD: One of the greatest action films ever made. Nothing new really, but awesome nonetheless. ***1/2

5- CRIMSON PEAK: Didn't see it yet. It got bad reviews.

6- THE NIGHT BEFORE: Didn't see it yet. It got mediocre reviews.

7- BLACKHAT: Michael Mann's worst film in years. It isn't bad, just average stuff. **

8- JURASSIC WORLD: Super entertaining. A fun popcorn film. ***

9- THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY PART 2: Didn't see it yet. It got mediocre reviews.

10- THE AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON: Entertaining but fairly pedestrian. **1/2

THE BEST FILMS OF 2015

 1- THE TRIBE

2- EX MACHINA

3- MAD MAX: FURY ROAD

4- MISTRESS AMERICA

5- THE BIG SHORT

6- THE REVENANT

7- WILD TALES

8- SLEEPING WITH OTHER PEOPLE

9- SHAUN THE SHEEP MOVIE

10- SLOW WEST

Review: THE REVENANT

 
   I thought Biutiful was a better film than Birdman. Most critics didn't care much for Biutiful and, as we all know, Birdman was adored and won the Best Picture Oscar. I thought Birdman was the worst film of 2014, so I'm probably the only one on earth that thinks Alejandro Inarritu has redeemed himself with The Revenant, a nineteenth century Terrence Malick-esque revenge drama set in the frozen wilderness of somewhere cold (the film was shot mostly in Canada, though the film keeps this a mystery).
     Inarritu has always been one of the directors I most admired. Even with misfires like Birdman (an ugly, hate-filled, confounding mess) and 21 Grams (a dull, depressing slog) on his resume, he at least always tries new things and his films surprise, excite, and intrigue you. I've always looked forward to seeing his new pictures. And The Revenant is his best picture since Amores Perros.
     The film is based on the true life of Hugh Glass, a man that lived through such an outrageously wild ordeal during a fur-trading job out on the frontier that it's almost too ridiculous to believe. His story was told so much over the years that it became legend. Who really knows if most of it really happened or not, but certainly the book the film is loosely adapted from, The Revenant by Michael Punke, and the plot and characters in the film, are embellished for dramatic effect. And while it is a great story, the story really isn't the reason that this is a good film. Inarritu went Apocalypse Now on this film. Ten members of the crew either quit or were fired. The budget ballooned from $65 to $165 million. They filmed this in extremely cold, extremely far-off, Mountainous forests. They only shot with actual sunlight. The one big battle scene apparently took twenty days to set-up and shoot (most of the film is done in long takes). All of this craziness ultimately paid off. This is one of the most gorgeous looking films ever made. And it also features some of the best action scenes put on film. At two and a half hours, it's not entertainment for the masses, however. This is definitely an art-house Western. Inarritu must enjoy Terrence Malick's films, because it has Malick's fingerprints over the whole thing. The endless shots of trees, sunsets, rivers, animals. The hushed-voiced poetry. The moderately silly death/life/love dream sequences. What it does have that Inarritu has added, though, is brutality and ferocity. Amidst the beautiful frozen tundra is a bloody revenge picture. Arrows in heads, bear attacks, rape, raw fish devouring. This is as hardcore as it gets. Survival of the fittest!
     Leonardo DiCaprio, as Hugh Glass, is adequate, but it's Tom Hardy as the villainous, half-scalped Texan that steals the show. He's about as unrecognizable as he usually is, but he just totally immerses himself in the tough, dirty, redneck. His voice slithers with evil and he's like that typical asshole you're stuck at work with and really want to punch in the face.
     With a stellar performance by Hardy, some amazingly filmed action sequences, and a plethora of beautifully shot landscapes, The Revanant is truly one of the best films of the year. There's not a hell of a lot of story here, but if you like visuals then you'll agree that this is definitely a high water mark in the world of film making. Perhaps Innaritu got his Oscar a year too early? ***1/2

Review: THE HATEFUL EIGHT

     At this point in Quentin Tarantino's career, we've accepted the fact that he will never make another masterpiece like Pulp Fiction. And we've accepted that this is okay, as long as he entertains. And so far he's held up his end of the bargain. He doesn't make great films any more, but he does make interesting and entertaining ones, and I'm glad to say this his newest, the Agatha Christie-esque "locked room" Western, The Hateful Eight, is better than his last film, Django Unchained. It's not a great film but it has all the classic Tarantino trademarks that will make his fans feel right at home.
     The story is pretty basic. Kurt Russell is a bounty hunter taking his bounty, a murderess, played with ferocious glee by Jennifer Jason Lee, to be hanged. On the way to town he gets stuck at a general store type of establishment while waiting for a blizzard to pass. Also at this general store are an assorted cadre of characters that may or may not be who they say they are. And so the film, at just short of three hours, takes place in one room.
     I think most casual film goers will be bored to tears with this film and its premise, but I was mostly riveted. To enjoy this film you probably have to be a fan of Tarantino (the long scenes of dialogue, the buckets of blood) and a fan of whodunnit stories. The one caveat to the Agatha Christie-style mysteries is that the ending is usually or should be an ingenious completed puzzle revealed with awe. It should be a twist in the best sense, breathing new life to what came before and knocking it out of the park with a big reveal. The Hateful Eight does not have any sort of brilliant or smart payoff, but the climax is at least saved by a wild, kinetic bloodbath that has to be seen to be believed. And while it doesn't exactly have any great twists nor is the ultimate story and revelations anything truly interesting, Tarantino has turned this all into a good film. There's a number of reasons why, but the best reason is that this is first class film making. The film was shot in old-school 70mm "wide-screen." This makes it look grainy, colorful, spacious, and epic. The film was also scored by old-school, Spaghetti Western maestro Ennio Morricone, and the music in this is dramatic, full-bodied, raw, and perfect. The shots of snow-peaked mountains in the distance are breathtakingly cool and the gun-battles and carnage that emerge in the confines of the general store are precisely filmed while also being guttural and brutal and sick. It's a beautifully disgusting film.
     Kurt Russell is the main character but Samuel L. Jackson and especially Walter Goggins steal the show. Michael Madsen, Bruce Dern and Demian Bichir don't really have a lot to work with here, and Tim Roth is a bit too much of a cartoon show-off (akin to how annoyingly silly Christoph Waltz was in Django Unchained). Jackson, though, is on fire here, gleeful in the debauchery. And Goggins, probably best known for his role on TV's Justified, is the perfect anecdote for the gloomy, often quiet, slow burn of a film.
     And that's the one big problem with the film: the pace. It's slow, it's methodical. It doesn't help that there hasn't been any interesting dialogue exchanges in Tarantino's scripts in years. Remember in Reservoir Dogs the great bits about tipping waitress's and Madonna's Like a Virgin? Or in Pulp Fiction the scene about the Royale with cheese? There's no dialogue that fun or fresh in The Hateful Eight, and that's one reason Tarantino doesn't make great movies anymore. But with one thing gone, another emerges. The Hateful Eight might be his best looking picture and one that proves that he's working at the top of his game in terms of directing.
     He may not be the best writer anymore but Tarantino is still, love it or hate it, a blood thirsty son of a bitch. The big Hamlet climax will have your adrenaline surging, your blood pumping, and your jaw probably on the floor. He may not make great movies anymore, but he can still put on a hell of a show. ***