31 Days of Horror 2018: A Quiet Place

Edge of Tomorrow

Salmon Fishing in the Yemen

Directed by Lasse Hallström.

2011. Rated PG-13, 107 minutes.

Cast:

Ewan McGregor

Emily Blunt

Kristin Scott Thomas

Amr Waked

Tom Mison

Rachael Stirling

Catherine Steadman

Tom Beard

Jill Baker

Yemeni Sheikh Muhammed (Waked) is an avid fisherman and called a visionary by Harriet (Blunt) who handles his affairs in Britain. She’s been tasked with helping him introduce salmon fishing to the Yemen. This is problematic because there are no salmon native to the region and the region doesn't seem conducive to salmon. For help, she contacts expert Dr. Alfred Jones (McGregor). He assesses the situation and tells her to go suck an egg, more or less. However, he’s coerced into helping her by his superiors, themselves under pressure from Patricia Maxwell (Thomas), the Prime Minister’s press secretary. She’s desperately trying to find something to show that British-Yemeni/Islamic relations are improving and this seems to be the most viable option. To make it work, Dr. Jones and Harriet will have to work closely together on repeated business trips to the Yemen where they’ll stay at the Sheikh’s palace as the only two guests. In case you weren't sure where this is going, the doctor’s marriage is on the rocks and Harriet’s boyfriend, a soldier who is sent to Afghanistan (“or somewhere”) goes missing-in-action. Cue romance.

The most striking thing about Salmon Fishing in the Yemen is its visuals. It’s no special fx extravaganza, but the area where the Sheikh does his fishing is beautiful. We get to see it from a number of angles, when it’s quiet and when water is raging through its alleys. Unfortunately, there’s an entire movie between those shots that isn't nearly as riveting. It moseys along without any real sizzle until it tries to inject some late. Before then, McGregor fawns over Blunt because his wife only cares that he keeps his job so the mortgage will continue being paid. By the way, she’s got a high-paying jet-setting job herself. Meanwhile, Blunt goes from being charming to blubbering incessantly about her presumed dead boyfriend. Both performers turn in solid work, but things never get to the point where it makes us tell ourselves that we just have to see how this is going to turn out.

Two characters break up the monotony, but only one does it in a good way. Our sheikh is burdened with giving the movie depth. Sadly, he strains to do so before ultimately failing. He plans on using the whole fishing thing as a grand metaphor. We get it. It’s nothing to spend a lifetime pondering, but it’s okay on its own. What undermines it is the steady stream of Yoda-isms he drops in conversations. He sounds like a walking talking fortune cookie. On the other hand, Kristin Scott Thomas is of greater effect as the relentless brash press secretary. She’s funny and lively. The movie instantly gets better when she’s on the screen.

Eventually, Dr. Jones and Harriet’s relationship goes through some typical rom-com contrivances we see coming from miles away and the local, unapologetically Muslim contingent provides some opposition to the sheikh. The issue with the former is predictability. To be fair, suddenly going in an unexpected direction probably wouldn't work for this movie so we can let this slide. More problematic is the latter. Despite all the lip-service paid to working on Britain’s relationship with Islamics, it comes across as hypocritical. It’s because “the other,” Muslims in this case, are painted as savages. The one who embraces our (western) ideals, the Sheikh, is automatically assumed to be better than the rest. In short, none of the other Muslims in the film are actually people, they’re just perpetually agitated agitators. They show up, grumble about what’s going on, make threats (or make good on them), and disappear.

That said, many of the movie’s problems would be forgivable, or at least less noticeable, in a better movie. As currently constructed, we’re never really enthralled with what’s going on. Worse yet, we’re often bored by it. The actors do what they can, but are hamstrung by the material. By the end, we've no choice but to nit-pick all the issues that pop up. Salmon Fishing is occasionally cute, even funny when Kristin Scott Thomas is running her mouth. However, it falls apart because we turn to scrutiny in lieu of the romantic thrills it can’t give us.

Looper

Directed by Rian Johnson.

2012. Rated R, 119 minutes.

Cast:

Joseph Gordon-Levitt

Bruce Willis

Emily Blunt

Jeff Daniels

Piper Perabo

Paul Dano

Noah Segan

Pierce Gagnon

Qing Xu

Tracie Thoms

Our story focuses on Joe (Gordon-Levitt). He’s an assassin known as a looper. His job is killing people sent back from the future by mobsters who live in a time where disposing of bodies is virtually impossible. At some point, whenever they decide they want to completely disassociate with a particular looper, they “close his loop” by sending him his future self to gun down. Needless to say, when Joe fails to kill the older Joe (Willis) who has been zapped back to him, all sorts of problems arise. Young Joe trying to kill his loop, Joe’s boss (Daniels), plus a slew of henchmen, trying to kill Joe and/or his loop and his loop doing some killing of his own ensues.

Despite the focus on shooting people, Looper is a thinking man’s action flick. It disguises that fact pretty well until it’s final moments. Until then it plays out like a wonderful game of cat and mouse and mouse (not a typo). As you might imagine, such a scenario makes it difficult for us to figure out who to root for. This is a good thing. Both the younger and older Joe have compelling reasons for their actions. Since they’re not presented simultaneously our allegiances sway.

Eventually, we meet Sara (Blunt) and her little boy Cid (Gagnon). They figure heavily in the proceedings, but we’re not sure what to make of them, either. Again, this is good. It’s good because we’re never confused, just conflicted. Our confliction adds to the tension between chase scenes and shootouts. We find ourselves on the edge of our seats as pending danger for one person or another creeps closer. The trick is, through more character development that we had any right to expect from a shoot 'em up sci-fi flick, we become vested in these people. We really understand why each of them feel their actions are the only way to deal with the issues at hand. This is used to much greater effect than rushing us off to the next action sequence, or trying to dazzle us with special fx. Even though, like I said, at it’s core it is science-fiction, Looper is not about showing off whatever futuristic gadgets the filmmakers can dream up or giving us a laser and lights show. It’s a rather human tale that happens to contain time-travel.

Humanity not only drives the movie, but ends it as well. One character makes a decision many of us would like to believe we’d make but I’m not sure how many really would. Once it happens, Looper instantly becomes a parable addressing several issues pertaining to current-day society. I choose the word parable because it is not terribly different from some religious stories. Still, that’s not why it has the immediate impact it does. It has that because it poses a simple question you can debate with your friends. Would you do it?

The Great Buck Howard

Directed by Sean McGinly.

2009. Rated PG, 90 minutes.
Cast:
John Malkovich
Colin Hanks
Emily Blunt
Ricky Jay
Steve Zahn
Adam Scott
Debra Monk
Tom Hanks
Matthew Gray Gubler

Mentalist Buck Howard (Malkovich) makes his living performing effects in small, dingy, rundown, half empty theaters all across the nation. He seems to think he’s a bigger star than he actually is. Once upon a time, he really was a big deal. As he’s quick to tell you, he appeared 61 times on “The Tonight Show” with Johnny Carson. He stresses the fact that it was with Carson and not Leno, whom he despises. He also stresses he’s a mentalist, not a magician. He despises them, also. If you couldn’t tell, Buck is rather insufferable. He’s arrogant, bossy and quick-tempered. Because he is “The Great” Buck Howard, we are somehow beneath him.

Young Troy Gable (Colin Hanks) has just dropped out of law school. He only went because it was his father’s dream for him. His father is played in a small role by Colin’s real life and more famous dad Tom Hanks. Law school made Troy miserable, so he’s trying to find his own way in life.

Troy gets hired to be Buck’s new road manager. The guy he’s replacing is supposed to train him but refuses after a big blowup with Buck. Along with Troy, we learn that big blowups are an almost daily occurrence in Buck’s world.

John Malkovich plays the role perfectly. We can see the patience for us mere mortals leaving his face when things aren’t going exactly according to plan. This, combined with the near constant ravings of a disillusioned man creates tension and comedy. Perhaps the best example of this is when one of his adoring fans (he does, in fact, have a loyal following) who happens to run one of the theaters he plays decides to do an impromptu introduction of him instead of using his pre-taped one. His reaction is priceless. He makes the movie fun to watch.

Despite all this, The Great Buck Howard is hardly about Buck Howard. It’s more about Troy and the lesson Buck teaches him. Thankfully, it does a good job of making us wait for that lesson. It also manages to transform the unlikeable Buck into a sympathetic figure. By the way, for fans of magicians…er…mentalists, Buck is loosely based on The Amazing Kreskin (google is your friend, here).

It’s not a comedy for most of the Hot Tub Time Machine crowd, but it is funny. The story is told well and provides us with plenty of ups and downs. Every time it seems he’s set things up perfectly to get his next big break, something goes wrong. Almost everytime, but I’ll say no more. Best of all and perhaps key to Buck as a character, try as we might, we never find out just how Buck Howard manages to be so great.

MY SCORE: 7.5/10

The Adjustment Bureau

Directed by George Nolfi.

2011. Rated PG-13, 106 minutes.
Cast:
Matt Damon
Emily Blunt
Anthony Mackie
Michael Kelly
John Slattery
Terrence Stamp
Amanda Warren

Like tons of movies before it and what I’m sure will be tons more to follow, The Adjustment Bureau is about a boy chasing after the girl of his dreams. He meets her and for some reason or another she keeps getting away. This is the plot of TAB in a nutshell. Widening the scope reveals a religious debate on the free will of man vs. God’s master plan.

The boy is David Norris (Damon). At age 24, he became the youngest person ever elected to Congress. Now in his thirties, he’s working on a run for the Senate. It looks like it is going to be a successful one until an impulsive mooning incident is caught on camera. Just before he is to give his concession speech he has a chance meeting with the girl, Elise (Blunt). At least we think they meet by chance. Along with David, we soon learn that everything happens according to The Chairman’s plan. Yes, we very quickly surmise The Chairman is the name we’re using for God, even if David doesn’t.

David wasn’t supposed to learn of the plan at all, but one of the adjusters literally fell asleep on the job. This allows our hero to see other adjusters at work. Adjusters make seemingly random things happen to keep us following the plan. Of course, when they’re spotted by David they quickly get a hold of him and reluctantly fill him in on the whole plan thing and let him know two things. First, if he ever reveals the existence of the Bureau, even by accident and regardless of whether anyone believes him, his brain will be permanently wiped clean. He’ll know nothing nor be able to remember anything, an instant vegetable. Second, he’s never to see Elise ever again. That just isn’t part of the plan. Of course, this begs the question if they could completely wipe your brain or adjust your reasoning as they do to Charlie (Kelly), David’s best friend, couldn’t the adjusters simply remove his memory of them and the girl? That would certainly be more effective than hoping he does what he’s supposed to. Who am I kidding? If they did that, we’d only have about a 30 minute movie. So off he goes back into the world armed with knowledge he was never supposed to have.

As we all know, the flesh is hard to deny and our hero is determined to get the girl. Whenever he manages to get near her, the adjusters are never far behind. Throughout all this, one of them develops a soft spot for David. His name is Harry. He’s played adequately by Anthony Mackie. Harry is important both within the confines of the film as well as outside its boundaries. What he means to the story is fairly obvious. He pretty much serves as David’s guardian angel. This makes him another in Hollywood’s (and American Lit’s) long line of the archetype known as “The Magical Negro.” This is an African-American character with unnatural abilities who’s sole purpose is to aid the white protagonist. If you think I’m thoughtlessly playing the race card think about The Legend of Bagger Vance, The Matrix, The Green Mile, Bruce Almighty, Ghost, Percy Jackson & the Olympians…I could go on for a long time. It’s troubling because it is such an oft-recurring stereotype that seems harmless but reeks of subjugation. It’s also jarring in movies where that is only black character as Harry is here.

Still, I don’t deem TAB a success or failure solely based on my views of harry. He’s just one item in a very mixed bag. It’s a solid movie with an intriguing premise and fun chase scenes. It’s almost like Damon were playing Jason Bourne again, constantly on the run. The difference is David doesn’t engage in hand to hand combat and nothing blows up. It also has a spiritual aspect the Bourn movies never aspire to. This can lead t o deep, philosophical discussion, which is always good. However, it also defies its own logic for the sake of a clean ending. I have to give it credit because it ends with a brave stance if you think about what it’s saying.

Gulliver's Travels

Directed by Rob Letterman.
2010. Rated PG, 85 minutes.
Cast:
Jack Black
Jason Segel
Emily Blunt
Amanda Peet
Billy Connolly
Chris O’Dowd
T.J. Miller
Stewart Scudamore
David Sterne

Occasionally, even actors who’s personas proceed them like to stretch their wings. They like to step away from what they’re known for, if for no other reason, to prove they can do something different. This is not that movie. The latest version of the classic tale Gulliver’s Travels is pure Jack Black through and through. Either he cracks you up, or he doesn’t. There isn’t much else to tip the scales in the movie’s favor. That’s because the story constructed around his hijinks and shenanigans is merely bland when it is at its very best. Most of the time it just takes all that’s good from its source material and pummels it into submission.

Our new Gulliver (Black) is a mail-room clerk at a New York City newspaper. Despite his near constant big talk he seems destined to remain at the same station in life until dying alone. In a desperate attempt to prove he’s more than hot air he decides to ask out writer Darcy (Peet) whom he’s had a crush on for five years. He botches this so bad he accidentally winds up with a promotion and gets assigned to write an article on the Bermuda Triangle. Yup, that’s what I said. Once in the legendary Triangle he’s sucked in by a heinous looking storm, knocked unconscious and deposited on the shores of a place called Liliput. When he wakes up he finds out he’s literally a giant, taller than their tallest buildings and he is being held captive. The Liliputians are also constantly battling their neighbors, the Blefuscians. That’s about all this movie has in common with the original story. From there, we get the normal Jack Black routine: anatomy and bodily fluid jokes, pratfalls, other sight gags and more empty big talk. Some of it is funny, most is not. Imagine another Black vehicle, Kung Fu Panda without the charm, animation or kung fu.

Since all of this plays out pretty much as expected, there is no reason for people who aren’t Jack Black fans to bother. It is precisely what he’s come to be known for. If you’re a fan of the original story, or even of earlier screen versions of Gulliver’s Travels I suggest you avoid this movie at all cost or you will be severely disappointed. On the other hand, if you’re looking for something fairly innocuous, have at it.

MY SCORE: 3/10

Gnomeo & Juliet

Directed Kelly Asbury.
2011. Rated G, 84 minutes.
Cast:
James McAvoy
Emily Blunt
Michael Caine
Ashley Jensen
Jason Statham
Matt Lucas
Jim Cummings
Maggie Smith
Ozzie Osbourne
Patrick Stewart
Hulk Hogan

Plenty of movies rehash tired formulas, try to inject new life into them and pretend to be extracted purely from the filmmakers imagination. Gnomeo & Juliet does loads of rehashing, but holds no false pretenses about its originality. It recognizes that it is merely a copy of not only the original, but of the countless copies that have come before. It even tells us this right at the beginning. In case the title isn’t obvious enough, the original is William Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet.” Indeed, our seldom seen human characters are named the Montagues and Capulets. They live next door to one another. Cleverly, their addresses are 2B and Not 2B. Nevermind that this references an entirely different play. It’s funny if you understand it. Even the bard himself makes an appearance in the guise of a statue voiced by Patrick Stewart.

Our focus, however, is on the garden gnomes that live in the yards of our fueding homeowners. In a very Toy Story type of way, the gnomes spring to life when the humans aren’t looking. Like the humans, the two groups are constantly bickering and competing. Often, things get rather ugly. True to the Shakespeare classic, a guy from one side, Gnomeo (McAvoy), meets and immediately falls madly in love with a girl from the other side, Juliet (Blunt). Lots of property damage ensues.

The movie’s humor is spotty. There are lots of jokes my children didn’t laugh at, even a little. At others, they did so loudly.That is, at the jokes meant for them. The ones meant for us parents aren’t so much jokes as they are a stream of references to films we’re familiar with. Some of them work marvelously, many fall flat. This is a big problem with G & J. It just keeps referencing or copying other movies in hopes these will be funny. This is why we can indentify shots stolen from The Matrix and dialogue from Brokeback Mountain without necessarily getting a charge from either. For the kids, these are just meaningless moments that quickly pass.

Where the battle lines are drawn and the resulting violence is troublesome. I’m no puritan calling for the complete sanitization of cinema. I’ve watched and enjoyed plenty of movies, a number of them kiddie flicks. Here, it feels too much like something else we’ve become all too aware of. Gnomeo is a blue gnome while Juliet is a red. The two sides breaking into all out war whenever someone from one side is in the other side’s yard is awfully reminiscent of the real life gang problem. I wouldn’t mind if there were some point to it. There is not. It could also be construed as misleading because one character is presumably killed and comes back only for the sake of not having a death in a kids’ movie. Again, this is coming from someone who loves old school Looney Toons. However, the leap to reality is a lot further for a coyote and a road runner than it is for a group of reds and blues wailing on each other at every opportunity.

There are good parts to G & J. As I said earlier, there are moments that are just flat out funny. There are others that are creative, despite the seemingly constant nods to other, better movies. Still, it seems to be enough to satisfy its target audience. They’ll probably like it, not love it. You may like it, you may not. It’s fast-paced, loud, sometimes funny and occasionally cute. Meh.

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

The Wolfman (2010)

Directed by Joe Johnston.
2010. Rated R, 119 minutes (unrated director’s cut).
Cast:
Benicio del Toro
Anthony Hopkins
Emily Blunt
Art Malik
Geraldine Chaplin
Nicholas Day
Simon Merrells
Michael Cronin

“Pop, since I’m the bigger man I’m willing to let bygones be bygones so that we can find my brother.” Essentially, this is what Lawrence Talbot (del Toro) says to his father upon his return home. Since this is the late 1800s Lawrence doesn’t have a cell phone or a car. He’s been traveling for days and isn’t quite ready for dad’s response. Basically, dad (Hopkins) says “Oh, didn’t ya hear? We found your brother’s body this morning.” A simple text reading “R.I.P. Simon” (Merrells) might’ve changed things dramatically.

Then again, that might not have changed things at all. You see, big bro decides to pay his respects and discovers what we knew all along, a werewolf has torn him to shreds. Going into a rather tame version of ‘I will avenge my brother’s death’ mode, he still visits all the old haunts where his younger sibling hung out. Despite being rich, little bro apparently was into gypsy chicks so Larry makes a beeline for there spot in the woods. Anyhoo, one thing leads to another and wouldn’t ya know it? Ol’ Lawrence almost gets separated from life by a werewolf, too.

If you’ve seen the 1941 original, then you’ll realize that to this point it is pretty much the same movie. However, there a few drastic difference which change it enough to make it stand, or fall, on its own. First, this one amps up Lawrence’s depression and tries to be real atmospheric. It uses a look and tone that’s far too dreary to come off as anything other than faux angst. I call this “the Twilight factor.” Next, we witness a greater number of transformations and werewolf attacks. Both are in terrifically graphic detail. This was expected but still works very much in its favor. Finally, instead of the self torment that put himself through in the older movie, we get kind of a Vader/Skywalker thing going on. It works okay but not as good as what we had.

Out of all this we get a decent, though not completely unexpected twist. That’s not completely unexpected as in we can see it coming a mile away. Still, it’s well played, dramatically speaking. Aesthetically, it comes off kind of hokey, mostly because of who’s involved. That said, this film is not the bane of society some have claimed it to be. It’s actually not that bad of an update.

Even though I thought it was okay I can’t help but think that it would’ve so much more goofy fun if it were set in the present. I can just imagine his public transformation taking place in Target or Wal-Mart and some teenage girl hiding behind the jewelry counter texting “sum freeks 5 oclock shad gone wild lol!” TTYL.

The Opposite View: Annlee Ellingson, Moving Pictures Magazine

What the Internet Says: 6.1/10 on imdb.com (7/21/10), 33% on rottentomatoes.com, 43/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 6/10