In one of the few instances I can think of, I went to this movie knowing nothing about it except that Liam Neeson was the star. I literally had heard nothing about it and it was only a passing listing on a theater web page that brought me to the movie. The trailer above I had never seen before writing this post, after seeing the film. When I posted it, there were 195,750 views, which does not shout out "Success!" or "Box Office!" in today's social media environment. That was OK because it is Winter and Liam Neeson is in a movie, so someone is going to do some killing. I am an admitted fan. I somehow missed his last two action films, "The Ice Road" and The Marksman", but I usually queue up immediately for one of these Winter Action Thrillers. This time I must admit I was disappointed.
This movie is so conventional, it feels like a Netflix retread of an eighties conspiracy film, not a seventies one, which would probably be worthwhile, but more like something drained of inventiveness but slick enough to look interesting for a few minutes. It turns out it never gets as interesting as you hoped it would be. The plot is so simple as to be a trope in and of itself, a government agency is killing citizens it thinks are a risk to the country. This time it is not the C.I.A. or the N.S.A. of some made up intelligence group, it's the F.B.I. and they have their own rogue operatives. It turns out Neeson's Travis Block isn't in on the program, he's not actually an agent. He works off the books, backing up agents who are in deep cover and need assistance. It's not clear if the whistle blower agent is his partner, which does not make much sense since Travis is not an agent, or if he is just a close friend. Either way, should he be stopped or praised for coming forward with his story?
No one should be advocating the assassination of someone you disagree with, but the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez plot device is probably going to amuse some people and outrage others. The idea that what she is doing is actually accomplishing something in the movie is silly, and whoever thought getting rid of her was a good idea is an idiot. Which brings us to the first of the two stupidest characters I have seen in a movie in a while. Aidan Quinn is the F.B.I. Director without a ounce of common sense. If you see this movie, see if you can pick out the three times he screws up in his decision making. There is one plot point where he almost goes BOO! and then runs away from the complication. It is the laziest writing I have watched in a theatrical movie in a long time. This could be one of those Bruce Willis Video films that requires no sophistication at all.
The "journalist" in this film is even more stupid. She seems to have no idea that you need evidence, sources and additional corroboration to make a charge in a news publication. Her editor seems to understand that, but he is even more stupid by publishing her work without verification under his own by-line. The truth is, this may unfortunately reflect the state of modern journalism, we are a long way from Woodward and Bernstein.
There is a personal story about Travis having OCD and paranoia, so much so that it drives his daughter away from him and creates a potential problem with his granddaughter. You would think that the threat to the family would be a major element of the film, giving Neeson license to unleash his well known special skills. That turns out to mostly be a red herring. He does not go after the bad guys so much as he runs away from them and outwits them a couple of times. Mostly this is an excuse for chases, none of which are very good, although the idea of a garbage truck being used as a vehicle for local destruction is fun.
I did not hate this film, I simply did not respect it and there are soo many better Neeson Action films, why waste your time?
So the reboot of Agatha Christie stories by Kenneth Branagh continues with this elegant film that is being released almost two years later than planned. Murder on the Orient Express was reasonably successful adult mystery film a couple of years ago, so a follow-up seemed likely. The character of Hercule Poirot is a natural for a film series and the detective does not disappoint in this entry.
The film opens with a flashback scene that shows us young Poirot in WWI, already observant of the details surrounding him. Although we also get an origin story of his mustache, it's really about his detective skills and the sadness that will follow him the rest of his career. It is certainly not relevant the story but it adds character to our lead and makes the main story more interesting. This is one of the things that marks this as an improvement on the previous film, all the characters are going to be introduced slowly enough for us to have a sense of what is going on and who is who. The fact that they are not on the Nile in the first fifteen minutes does not detract from the story but rather adds to it.
The cast is elaborate and international, and they are all reasonably good. Gal Godot looks great but the scenes she appears in during the trailer had me worried about her performance. As it turns out, the over the top delivery in those clips is not typical and she is really much more solid. These films seem to have a curse on them to some degree, because one of the lead actors has gotten into a public relations nightmare. Johnny Depp is still trying to crawl out of the hole that lead many to boycott seeing him in "Murder", Armie Hammer now takes a turn at being the public figure with a dark cloud hanging over him and bringing it to the theater with him. His character is the most cliched in the film, so that undermines a little bit of the suspense. His best moments are a dance sequence with Emma Mackey who plays the fiancé that his character ditches for Godot. Their erotic dance suggests a relationship that is pretty powerful and may leave some suspense on the table as a result.
Frankly, the main attraction here is the look of the film. As elegant as "Murder" was, this doubles down on that. Once we get to Egypt, we have fantastic vistas, a romantic river (filled with crocodiles) and a boat to die for. The ship that the whole cast ends up on may be a CGI invention is some shots, but it is carried off well, and the actual sets that are the staterooms, dining room and main hall of the boat are all decorated lavishly with period colors, art work and deco designs. The clothes and the food will make you wish that you were taking the trip with this crew of suspects.
The main weakness of the film is the convoluted process by which the murders are carried out. It follows the same design as the 1978 version, so I assume that Christie is responsible for those plot points since they are identical for the most part. When we get to the solution, it feels a little bit like one of the three endings of the comedy "Clue" , where there is a lot of running around, actions that rush by, and the detective taking it all for granted that he has it correct. The side plot of the blues singer and her niece is a little spliced in, but it ends up working anyway.
All in all it is a very entertaining film and one of the most gorgeous pieces of cinematography you are likely to see this year. The score from Christopher Gunning is lush and evocative, and I thought it was superior in fitting the film than the work that was done in the 2017 "Murder". This is an adult film with a little mystery, a lot of drama and some great scenery. Why wouldn't you have a good time?
I am getting ready this weekend for a Podcast on the LAMB, covering the 1995 Sam Rami film, "The Quick and the Dead". I have just watched it for maybe the thirtieth time and I am so excited to talk about the film again. The movie was one of eight that I submitted to be Movie of the Month on the Lambcast. As host, I get to select the films that the community votes for in my Birthday Month. While it is at least the fourth time I have submitted "The Man Who Would be King" as a MOTM option, I am perfectly happy with the results found here because I clearly love this film.
Let me point to the two biggest factors that draw me to this movie. First of all, it is a western, and they don't make them much any more. The early 90s saw a brief revival of the genre, lead in part by the fantastic Clint Eastwood film, "Unforgiven". At the time this was shot, there were a number of other westerns being made and reportedly, costumes became a little sparse. When I was growing up, most of the westerns being released were post modern critiques of the traditional genre. "The Man who Shot Liberty Vallance", "The Wild Bunch", and the spaghetti westerns of Sergio Leone, focused on breaking down the myths of the western, and giving us anti-heroes as our protagonists. Of course there were television westerns all over the three major networks, and that saturation probably lead to the decline of the film genre. While some of those featured unconventional heroes, none of them that I remember were out right bad guys for us to root for. Leone and Sam Peckinpah turned shady characters into the stars of their films and ever since, there is a delicate morality to the movies.
The second major factor that keeps me hypnotized by this film is the performance of Gene Hackman. I have made no secret of the fact that Hackman is my favorite actor. He is not movie star handsome, he is not chiseled like a superhero, and unfortunately, he stopped working in movies in 2004. The thing that he is is talented. He seems to have an instinct for the characters he is playing and the everyman quality he brings to the screen, actually enhances both his roles as good guy and as villain. In "The Quick and the Dead", he is clearly the later. Unlike the brutal sheriff of Big Whiskey, that he won the Academy Award for best supporting actor in "Unforgiven", John Herod, the town of Redemptions usurper king, has no pretentions as to morality and justice. He is a self centered monster who rules with an iron sidearm and an iron fist. More about his performance in a bit.
So those are the two primary draws, but they are not the only sugar bringing this fly to the table. The star and co-producer of the film is Sharon Stone. This film came out the same year as her Academy Award Nominated role in "Casino". She was at the height of her star power and sexual charisma, and she is using it in this movie. There is something striking about a woman in the traditional gunfighter's role that makes it compelling. The film is drawing on her bigger than life persona to turn her character into the person that we most want to see succeed in the story. The fact that her wardrobe flatters her, and she still gets to wear very western garb is visually satisfying in almost every scene. "The Lady" as she is usually referred to as, wears a her holster and the gun at a slightly different angle. Her style is also just different enough to be noticeable without it becoming an artificial conceit. Slightly forward on her hip rather than low and on the outside.
When it comes to talent and charisma, the film does not run out of steam with the two leads. There are two actors billed after Hackman and Stone who will dominate the masculine acting roles for the next twenty five years. Russel Crowe is making his American film debut with this appearance and he quickly leans into Sam Rami's style and looks the heartthrob that he would become for a decade after.
The part of Cort, gives him a meaty role that allows him to act as well as engage in the action. He is a reformed criminal who is doing penance for his previous life by taking up the role of preacher and is reluctantly dragged back in to the town by the will of his former mentor and now enemy, Herod. His conflicted participation in the quick draw contest that frames the story is dramatically satisfying without sucking up all the air in the revenge drama that Stone's character is playing out.
Speaking of heartthrobs, this movie features a young actor, fresh off of his first Academy Award Nomination and just two years away from playing the biggest romantic lead in the biggest romantic movie of the last fifty years. Leonardo DiCaprio, was 20 years old when he played the part of Fee, better known as The Kid, opposite the three other acting legends. He looks like he is twelve, and playing cowboys with the big kids. He does however have a winning smile and a effervescent way of talking that belies the characters desperation to be accepted at the grown up table by his suspected true father, Herod. Of all the actors, he needs the most help with the gunplay required of his part. He manages the bravado of the tricks and the poses, but he just seems slow in comparison to everyone else.
Cantrell in the background Ace up front.
So those are the stars, but the acting wattage does not really end there. Among the cast are veteran TV character actors like Roberts Blossom, Kevin Conway and Mark Boone Junior. They are grimy character actors who make up so much of the environment of the movie. The personalities that fill in the background are even bigger. Keith David is Sgt. Clay Cantrell, a self described gentlemen's adventurer and shootist. His enigmatic character faces down Hackman both in the parlor of Herod's house and on the street of Redemption. The polite banter that he and Hackman engage in is an opportunity to see the professionalism that the two gunfighters want to project to the world. Another gunfighter, played by Lance Henriksen, is the blow hard Ace Hanlon. A self promoter who has affectations that mark him as something of a buffoon, including a deck of cards stacked with aces, one for every man he has killed, and boots to die for, Hanlon is a character that enters the film dramatically and exits it too early.
Momentarily I will get to the plot and it's connection to the Leone films of the 1960s, but one actor who appears in the flashback sequences should also be named. A year after his nomination for Best Supporting Actor in Forrest Gump, Gary Sinise, plays the long ago Marshall of the town of Redemption. His character is the catalyst for the revenge story that Sharon Stone is following. Even though his scene is broken up into bits for the brief flashbacks, he creates a sympathetic character that the audience can see as important to the story arc that Ellen (The Lady) is carrying out. Sinise does the whole scene balanced on a chair and choking. What happens creates a different kind of choking on the part of the audience.
The film's story and the look of the movie, are clearly influenced by Sergio Leone and Clint Eastwood. There is an entrance based on riding by the local undertaker as they enter the town, In "A Fist Full of Dollars" Clint tells the man to get three coffins ready, here, the coffin maker speaks and accurately states the height of Stone's character, suggesting he will be ready when her turn comes. The duster she wears is not the same as the poncho that the Man with No Name wears in the Dollars Trilogy, but she does have a scarf that gives a very similar effect in her appearance and both of them seem to favor the same tobaccoist.
"The Quick and the Dead" is Sam Rami's homage to the spaghetti westerns of the 60s and 70s. There are tense close ups in the build to each showdown. The eyes of the characters are doing so much of the acting in those scenes that we barely notice the rest of the surroundings. Rami cross cuts tightly and the images close in, just as Leone did in so many of his films. There is a scene in a gun shop in "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, where Eli Wallach's character Tuco, is examining the guns and clicking through the cylinders. Crowe does the same thing as Herod takes him to get armed for the contest in Fee's shop. Woody Strode, the athlete turned actor who supported John Wayne in Liberty Vallance, and tried to gun down Charles Bronson in "Once Upon a Time in the West" makes his final screen appearance in this film as the coffin maker and the movie is dedicated to him. The most obvious steal is the scene featuring Sinise. Sharon Stone is a much more attractive version of Charles Bronson's Harmonica from "Once Upon a Time in the West".
For every idea and stylistic flourish that Rami takes from Leone, he brings his own original style to the movie as well. The dolly zooms that he used so much in the Evil Dead films, fit perfectly in several spots in this movie. The gunfighters stand far apart from one another, but we can feel the tension ratchet up as the next shot zooms the opponent in at a weird Dutch angle.
All of these tricks are needed to help overcome the somewhat repetitive showdown in the street structure of the story. This is a quick draw contest, ultimately to the death, and there are 16 participants so there are going to be a lot of gunfights in the movie that are one on one in the main street of the town of Redemption. When I have seen negative reviews of this film, they often claim that the story is boring because the same event is reenacted over and over. Siskel and Ebert gave the movie Two Thumbs down for that very reason. What people are missing ate the innovative ways each of those gunfights is shot. There are also twists in several of the face offs that make the each contest unique. Additionally, the music themes play up different emotional beats for the fights. Sometimes the score is nearly whimsical and other times it is thunderous.
Two of Herod's fights demonstrate this. The showdown with Ace Hanlon is slow to develop and then like a whip, the first shot is cracked and then we get a villain's exposition from Hackman that is so condescending, the end is almost a relief to Ace. With Cantrell, we get two extra shots, one that spins his fancy sidearm around after the man has been shot and then the Coup de Grâce, a point of view shot that is disturbing and inventive and new to the genre. The TV critics down play it as grotesque, but let's face it, the deadly combat in and of itself is also morbid.
Back to Gene hackman for a few minutes. Herod is an egoist who wants everything to go his way. He demands the retorn of Cort to his town, just so he can lord over him the power that he has. He is dismissive of The Lady at first and then tries to manipulate her to his will. At the dinner scene, Ellen gets the drop on him with a small gun under the table, hidden from view. Herod hears the hammer being cocked and responds with a similar sound to dissuade her from shooting. After she blinks, he gives away the fact that he was bluffing with the hammercock sound he produced, using a metal matchbox. He smiles smugly in his victory over her as she retreats. Hackman does these kinds of smiles and small hand gestures throughout the picture. Before his gunfight with Cantrell, he meticulously files the hammer on his disassembled firearm, to insure it is working properly. Rami tags on a slow motion shot when Hackman is lighting his cigar during a showdown, which accentuates the moment but it is the deliberate manner he uses in a casual way that sells his total control of the situation. Just to add one more element to Hackman's complete command of the part, he looks elegant in all of his costumes, including the sidearms that go around his suit jacket in one scene.
In previous posts about the film, I mentioned the music, in fact I had a link up to the theme on YouTube, that seems to have expired for some reason. I have an updated link to a suite of the music here:
It is quite lovely, and it does mirror some Morricone themes from the softer moments of the Dollars films. There is nothing as grandiose as the Theme from the Good ,The Bad and The Ugly", but there are a lot of places where it builds tension really well. Composer Alan Silvestri, who has done scores for "back to the Future" and four of the MCU films, has never received an Academy Award, but his music has received a lot of love from fans, and this is one of the pieces that is maybe not as popular, but it is certainly well matched with the drama of the film.
Director of Photography Dante Spinotti worked with Rami to get the signature shots that enliven the shootouts, but he has also photographed the plains, town and dingy barrooms of Redemption in a beautiful fashion. The sometimes sepia infused lighting is great for some of the interiors and the early shots. I was very impressed with all of the shots supposedly taking place in the rain, especially the shootout between Ellen and Dread. Spinotti would go on to an Academy Award nomination two years later for "L.A. Confidential".
There will always be more to talk about on this film. Russell Crowe and DiCaprio should merit some comments of their own. Some of this will be discussed on the podcast, and I will come back and add a link to that when it goes up. For now I am just happy to be anticipating the discussion we will have, the notes that I have just given you, and the fact that a 4K version of the film arrived on my doorstep today, and I am about to watch it again.
There is no way around it, this may be the dumbest movie of the year. The premise is silly, the dialogue is stupid and the ultimate explanation will leave you feeling incredulous at the crap that some people might believe. That said, you will probably still have a good time because all of the stupidity plays out in pretty solid special effects at a reasonable pace, with a little humor thrown in now and then and those jokes were intentional.
Patrick Wilson and Halle Berry are working for a paycheck and having a little fun, and for the most part they play it straight. No one could take this seriously, so the laughs are not unexpected but they may be unintentional. I have not seen "Don't Look Up", but my understanding is that the satire in that film is supposed to make us think seriously about our institutions. This film has no such pretentions. This is presented as a straight drama, but nothing in it is believable. I saw in the credits that there were actual consultants from NASA who advised the film makers, but whatever they said must have largely been ignored.
Let's talk about what is fun in the movie and ignore the idiocy for a moment. For years I joked with my students about the persuasive power of a TV commercial where a Toyota tows a Space Shuttle down the street. If the director had placed a Toyota Tundra in one scene of this movie, it would have amplified the moment ten times over, someone missed a trick here. Even so, it was still fun when a decommissioned Space Shuttle is hijacked to be the vehicle the astronaut rescue team is going to use. Having walked by the building that house Endeavor on my way to the USC football games each weekend, it was a blast seeing the L.A. Coliseum in the background and the streets of L.A. littered with debris. It is also outright hysterical when the gravity of the Moon starts lifting objects off the ground like a tornado. In fact, the large tree that pins a character to the ground flies up in the air, although the characters do not. The gravity wave is the most interesting visual effect in the movie and it's mixture with the launch of the Space Shuttle looks great but seem preposterous.
The main reason we go to films like this is that it is safe disaster porn. Unlike the footage from 9/11 or the scenes of the Japanese tsunami, we know what we are looking at is a fiction, and we don't have to feel like ghouls watching a traffic accident as we drive by, because it is not real. The destruction of the cities is vivid with the exception that we don't really see any people dead afterwards. It's just a picture we can look on with mock horror and still sleep at night later. Roland Emmerich has destroyed the planet three or four times before. I think "2012" was more elaborate, "Independence Day" was more fun, and "Godzilla" may actually be more intelligent. Start the popcorn maker, shut off your brain, and don't let your self worth be defined by enjoying any of this, that would be taking it too seriously.
When this film first came out, it was well before I'd begun blogging. So this has not appeared on my site before, a circumstance that I am happy to rectify today. This version of "Pride and Prejudice" starred Kiera Knightly, a rising young star who was blessed with talent and an aphorism that is incredibly sexist, but well remembered by me from my early years reading other people's blog pages and comments, "The sexiest Tomboy, Beanpole, on the planet." She plays one of literatures early feminist icons, Elizabeth Bennett, the headstrong and willful woman who will not "settle" for a marriage of convivence. Her romantic counterpart is the dour Mr. Darcy, who's demeanor hides a decent man with a soulful desire for love, but one that must be contained by the circumstances of the time and the class to which he was born.
My youngest daughter is a Jane Austen fanatic, and her sister was a fan as well, so when we saw this film in 2005, both of them were in high school and the perfect age for being enamored of the British literature as a result of English classes they were taking. The whole family enjoyed this film and over the years it was a regular spin on the DVD player. It has however been a decade or so since I have seen the movie, and this was the first time since 2005 that I saw it on a theater screen rather than at home. The experience was revelatory. This film is beautifully constructed as a story adaption and it is shot in a manner that displays the kinds of directorial touches that people admire in the best film makers. Joe Wright made a transition from directing television program in Great Britain to making films with this project. It is truly a showpiece for his skills and artistry.
The best examples to show the creativity and eye that made this film are the ball sequences. In addition to showing a complex choregraphed dance routine, the camera follows our characters through the throng and the focus moves in and out on key figures at well placed moments. This is not a result of editing but of camera movement and placement and it was so much more noticeable on the big screen than the numerous times I'd seen the same sequences on a television. There are also examples of the same eye for a beautiful image in some of the lush countryside shots. Elizabeth walking back from Pemberley after accidentally meeting with Mr. Darcy is somewhat reminiscent of the Julie Andres helicopter shot at the start of "The Sound of Music", the camera work from an aerial perspective is clever but not quite as flashy as it was in the musical. The walk and talk sequence at the Bingley's leased home when Elizabeth is escorted around the atrium room by Bingley's sister while the two of them verbally joust with Mr. Darcy is also a nice flourish that is assured without being ostentatious.
The cast of this movie is incredibly talented and effectively convey the attitudes of their characters and the story perspective that Austen set up. Mr. Collins is not an evil presence but he is feckless and uninteresting to Lizzie. The rest of the family sees this except Mrs. Bennett who is primarily interested in securing a reliable marriage for Lizzie. Tom Hollander is an average man in looks compared to the actors playing Wickham and Darcy. His mild deliver of his lines is completely appropriate and his obsequious attempts at impressing his benefactor Lady Katherine are very amusing. The two most valuable players however are Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn as his wife. She provides the desperate facial expressions and shrill worrying voice that make Mrs. Bennett a somewhat comical figure. Sutherland, who has never been nominated by the Academy, although he has received an honorary Oscar, plays Lizzie's father with the bemused tolerance of a loving husband and the patient but overwhelmed father of five daughters. Watch the scene where Elizabeth explains to her Father that she really does love Darcy, Sutherland's performance is primarily reacting and his non-verbals in the moment are superb.
Knightley and her Darcy, Matthew Macfadyen, seem appropriately matched. She is bright and forceful where he is all tense reserve and disdainful looks. They manage the language of the script well and the nuance that they bring to the hesitations and cadence of the deliveries feel romantic in an early 19th Century manner. I know that Colin Firth is a favorite Mr. Darcy among those who love this material, but I thought Macfadyen was a less conventional choice with a bearing that works for the story as it is being told here.Looking back on the Academy Awards for the year 2005, the five films that were nominated, in retrospect seem to be lesser efforts in comparison to this film and some others I could name from that year. Certainly it is a matter of taste and I know that fashion plays a part in the choices that get made. It's unfortunate that the "tea on the lawn" fashion of film making had fallen out of favor to be replaced by social commentary films that have dominated the awards ever since. I think when it comes to artistry, Wright and his terrific cast stand the test of time, and I would happily repeat a theater screening of this movie anytime.
This is exactly the kind of film that opens in January. There is a premise that is easy to grasp, there is plenty of action to try to keep you interested, and the characters are bland enough that you can be okay if they make it or they don't. This is as disposable an action film as you are likely to come across this year. Liam Neeson and Jason Statham have this territory to themselves usually, but there is a reason that their movies succeed where this one merely exists, charisma. Jessica Chastain is a fine actress and she has been in some excellent films, but she doers not have the persona here to make the movie memorable.
I love the idea of female spies coming together to form a team of badass women to save the world. The problem is that the characters have very little personality and the plot is action driven rather than character driven. Diane Kruger is the one agent who comes closest to having a personality that is not simply a stereotype. Lupita Nyong'o is mostly defined by her costume and the technical skills she has, rather than something about her that would draw us in. Penélope Cruz is playing a part that makes no sense from a story perspective and it saddles her with the responsibility of being the obligatory damsel in distress. Bingbing fan is the most conventional character and she only shows up in the last quarter of the film. Sebastian Stan glowers through his sections of the film, and should have been a stronger presence for Chastain to play against.
Basically this is a movie composed of a series of chases, fistfights and gun battles that all go on far too long. Everything is competently done but nothing feels special about any of it. There is more running in high heels than any movie I can think of, ever, and it is noticeable that this handicap does not seem to effect anyone in any way. Chastain has a training sequence where her fighting bon a fides are established, but she seems to just miss an awful lot in some of the early fights, making us wonder if she really is as good as she is supposed to be. The fight she has in a cloakroom for five minutes while the "heist" elements of their plan plays out makes no sense at all, it seems to simply be there so she can show off those skills in an evening dress.
The McGuffin in the story is a piece of technology that slips from one set of hands to another. It is set up as impossible to replicate or alter. The obvious question becomes how is that possible, and no answer really makes sense. The second question is if it is so dangerous, why not destroy it the first chance you get? Again, that would just have shortened the movie. Her is a third question, why not buy it in the auction, like all the bad actors in the world are trying to do? Again, the answer is that we would not have a movie is you did that. Plotting is not deep at all here, every double cross is not really a surprise, every character will be given a moment to shine.
Plenty of spy films have featured effective women characters that are interesting and sometimes the leads in the film. The idea of this movie seems to be to exclude any men from participating in the team work and pander to a specific audience. What ended up happening is that bland characters become even less interesting when surrounded by other bland characters and a lifeless plot. The action scenes are fine but not especially interesting, and the result is a film that I doubt anyone will remember by February.
There are some things that you just don't expect when it comes to popular film. First of all, you don't expect a movie opening in January to be any good. This month is a notorious dumping ground for movies that studios have no confidence in. Another thing that you don't expect is that the fifth film in a franchise will be able to be as inventive as the original, after all, the ideas are all recycled at this point. In a horror film that is especially true, we are likely to have repeated killings, chases and twists that seem to come out of left field. The difference with the "Scream" franchise is that it as always been about more than the horror. The screenwriters have always used the movies to also comment on the genre, the culture and the overused tropes.
In the first sequel, the very notion of sequels is lampooned by creating a movie based on the incidents in the first film. The geek knowledge of the horror movie tropes referred to in the first film, become satire as the second film plays out those tropes while also pointing out that it is doing so. The phrase "Meta" was rapidly becoming synonymous with the "Scream" franchise. The third film in the series shifts the location but keeps the idea of self reference alive by focusing on the "film making" for the sequel to the fictional film based on the original movie. After a decade off, the original screenwriter updates the film by looking at how technology and social media were making the process even more self aware. The first four films were all directed by horror master Wes Craven, the fourth film being his last movie.
So now, a decade removed, it is time for a reboot of the series. New screen writers and directors are taking over, and the question shifts to figuring out how to continue the meta approach to the storytelling, and the answer is right there, acknowledge that this is a reboot but try to fix the things that all the recent resets have screwed up, and make fun of it at the same time. I'd not heard the term "requel" before, but it may be my favorite invented word from the movies ever.
This new movie follows the script from the originals by starting with a phone call that turns into an attack on a girl, home alone, but then shifts the outcome, she survives in order to bring other characters into the story. So something is different but still the same. The first half hour moves along and I started to lose interest because it was playing out like a traditional film horror story, but somewhere about a third of the way in, there is a brilliant monologue scene, much like Randy's from the original, which takes the film makers, the characters but especially the audience to the woodshed and slaps us silly. Fandom becomes the meta subject here, and for the rest of the movie, the best scenes are those which poke at the fans of the films, especially the fans who are so proprietary of their franchises. If you enjoy the prospect of not only horror fans but Star Wars fans, Super hero film fans and others being roasted in delicious snarky dialogue, this movie will appeal to you. This is a horror comedy that gets both genres right and makes fun of them simultaneously.
Admittedly, there are some plot contrivances that are hard to swallow in retrospect. The reveal is foreshadowed well and it plays out fine while watching the movie, but looking back, some of it makes little sense. On the other hand, there is a delightful moment at the climax of the film that references another film from a couple of years ago, and the ironic self reference and awareness of that moment was amusing as hell so who cares if it doesn't necessarily make sense, it does meet our meta-verse requirements for a "Requel".
The legacy cast is on hand to reassure us that this is not going off the tracks like a gender swapped reboot of a beloved classic, but that the film will remain true to the history that has existed up to this point in Woodsboro. Neve Campbell and Courtney Cox get to play the same characters they have been in the films up to this point, and their roles are not token appearances. but substantial contributions to the movie. The legacy character who comes off the best in the story is David Arquette's Dewey, who was one of the awkward charms of the earlier films and here gets to finally turn in a performance that is not merely comic relief. Of course how the fandom of the film series reacts will be a big question.
I smiled at a lot of things in the film, there are Easter eggs for the work of other film makers but especially for Wes Craven himself. Those small moments are nice. Even nicer were the four times that I literally laughed out loud and hard at some of the things being said and a couple of the things being done. If you are a "Scream" fan, this should entertain you while you are watching it. The best review of the movie however is contained in the film itself when that big monologue about horror films is delivered. It judges it self and the film does not come up wanting.
