Against the Crowd Blogathon 2018: A Guest Post from Joel

The Magnificent Seven (2016)

Philip Seymour Hoffman Blogathon: Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

Boyhood

The Purge

Directed by James DeMonaco.

2013. Rated R, 85 minutes.

Cast:

Ethan Hawke

Lena Headey

Rhys Wakefield

Adelaide Kane

Max Burkholder

Edwin Hodge

Tony Oller

Arija Bareikis

Dana Bunch

Chris Mulkey

Tisha French

James Sandin (Hawke) and his family are getting ready to completely lock down their home as they do every year during the annual Purge. The Purge is the one night of the year where everything is legal. Whatever crime you want to commit, up to and including murder, is fair game. The idea behind it is that being allowed to do what you want for this night will purge the evil from our systems. It seems to have been effective. Excluding Purge Night, crime and unemployment are almost non-existent and the economy is in phenomenal shape. The Sandins don't participate, though. They barricade themselves in their home using the same expensive security system that James has made a very nice living selling.

Of course, if the Sandins just shut their doors to the world raging outside and the night passed without a hitch, we wouldn't have a movie. Still, Mary (Headey) stands by with  passive look on her face while her husband brings the barricades down. Their daughter Zoey (Kane) stomps off to her room because that's what teenage girls do. Meanwhile, their son Charlie (Burkholder), equipped with some techno gadgetry of his own and a bleeding heart, pays close attention to the security cameras. When Zoey gets back to her room she finds her boyfriend there. Yup, dad doesn't like him. He snuck in before the lock down, or never left, since he was there earlier in the day. Minor detail. Point is he is not supposed to be there. However, that's a small issue compared with what Charlie does. While watching those cameras he notices a random black man staggering and screaming for help in the middle of the street. Why yes, he opens up the house and lets the guy in. Obviously, this man being a stranger in the Sandins home on the most dangerous night possible is a problem, but there is even bigger trouble following him. A group of well-to-do white twenty-somethings were trying to purge by killing our random black man when he got away. Having figured out that he's hiding in the Sandin house, they go knocking on the once again barricaded door. Their demand? Send him out so that we may finish killing him or we will find a way in and kill all of you! The problem? It's a pretty big house and the Sandins can't find the guy.

The Purge is a highly political movie masked as a home invasion thriller. It's pretty clear, to me at least, which characters represent Republicans and which are Democrats. The actions taken by them, particularly the ones seeming to be Republicans, are exaggerated versions of what their present ideologies imply. After all, we're told several times the Purge has become an annual massacre of the homeless, the poor, and anyone else the haves deem to be an unproductive member of society. This amplifies the importance of the homeless guy being black. With both of those things perceived to be working against him, he seems a prime candidate to be purged. If you happen to be a conservative don't take offense. I'm just noting how those views sound to people who don't share them.

Like most movies that position themselves as social allegories, The Purge not only tries to give us its point of view, but to provoke questions as well. One of the questions that immediately springs to mind is could an annual purge work? No matter which side of the political ledger you fall, I think you'd agree the correct answer is 'not a chance in hell.' It might be tantalizing to think that it could. Your initial feeling may be 'if we just had that one night to get all the anger and hatred out of our system we would be happy and content, or at least able to restrain ourselves for a year.' However, if you've ever met a human being you quickly realize this is some cockamamie bullshit. Still, it makes for an interesting film premise. Just don't take it literally.

Speaking of the film, let's actually get back go it. Sorry for my rambling. Then again, that rambling is a symptom of the problem with the movie. The thoughts and conversations stemming from its ideas are better than our experience watching it, by a longshot. I don't think it's a bad movie, just an okay one. Ethan Hawke does a very nice job as our dad-turned-action-hero, desperately trying to protect his family. Our first group of bad guys are a purposely faceless and freakish bunch. The second group of baddies aren't quite faceless. For one, they don't wear masks. Unfortunately, their part of the story is telegraphed way too early. The tension created by this whole situation is not as unbearable as it should be, either. Finally, by the end, it just becomes too blatant in its message and reveals itself to be too small for its premise. Watching this family defend themselves is nice and all, but a film more worthy of its ideas might have been made by broadening its scope beyond the walls of our wealthy hosts.

Sinister

Directed by Scott Derrickson.

2012. Rated R, 110 minutes.

Cast:

Ethan Hawke

Juliet Rylance

James Ransone

Vincent D’Onofrio

Michael Hall D’Addario

Clare Foley

Fred Thompson

Nick King

Ellison (Hawke) is a true crime writer looking for his next best-seller. About a decade earlier, his magnum opus, “Kentucky Blood,” was not only a best-seller, it captured the national spotlight, earning him fame, wealth, and notoriety. He likes to work close to the scene of the crime he’s researching. This time, unbeknownst to his family, he moves them in to the actual house where it all went down. It being the hanging of four people out of the family of five that lived there. The fifth, the family’s youngest daughter, is still missing and the perpetrator has not been caught. Shortly after settling in, he finds a box of films and a projector in the attic which actually shows the crime, along with several other killings. Pretty soon things are going bump in the night and Ellison is freaking out.

As per the standard in such flicks, one adult is losing his mind, the other is mostly oblivious for much of the movie, and the kids are affected in various ways. In this case, the oblivious adult is wife/mom Tracy (Rylance). Son Trevor (D’Addario) experiences an increase in his “night terrors,” which means he wakes up in odd places screaming his head off and not knowing how he got there. The daughter eventually sees stuff. Most of our time is spent with dad as watches the films, hears something, goes to investigate, and tries to get help from either the local deputy (Ransone), or Professor Jonas (D’Onofrio) from the local university. Rinse. Repeat.

Despite its repetitive nature, Sinister manages to draw us in enough to keep us interested. Ethan Hawke’s performance helps quite a bit. His motivations are laid bare as is his increasing fragility. The man is clearly falling apart. However, he can’t help but dive deeper and deeper into this case. The case also has a bit of power over us, as well. The revelations come slow, but quick enough not to lose us. That said, reasoning is left unexplained and even undiscovered. This might be a potential turn-off for some, but I think it works.

The acts depicted in the films our hero watches are heinous, presented sans the over-stylization of most horror flicks. This gives them a real feel that holds up even though, or perhaps because, we’re visually spared the gory details. Again, Hawke does the work for us. Last second cutaways to his reactions work perfectly. In these moments, he is our conduit. He behaves as one might were we viewing something so despicable happening to real people and not actors. It’s an odd tactic for an R-rated horror movie, one that I usually rip movies for employing. Here, it works pretty well, maintaining the illusion that our protagonist is working on a “true” crime.

Where the movie ultimately falls short is in the most basic goal of horror. It’s entirely too hard to gauge how much danger this family is in. Cinematic logic dictates that they’re likely the next target of whoever the bad guy is. However, when things start to escalate, it doesn't always seem that way. We eventually discover why that is. Sorta. By that point, well, the movie is just about over. Until then, we can’t quite get fully vested in the welfare of these people.

All in all, Sinister is an interesting watch that does some interesting things. Though it is occasionally unsettling, it never gets all the way around to submerging deep enough in our heads to make it remarkable. We like the tone, the films within the film, Hawke’s reaction to them, and even the ending. However, it is also tedious and, for some, the unanswered questions will be unsatisfactory. And yes, we’re threatened with the possibility of a sequel. This is a decent watch, but I can live without another one.

MY SCORE: 6/10

What Doesn't Kill You

Directed by Brian Goodman.

2008. Rated R, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Mark Ruffalo
Ethan Hawke
Amanda Peet
Will Lyman
Brian Goodman
Donnie Wahlberg
Angela Featherstone
Edward Lynch

Two lifelong best friends, Brian (Ruffalo) and Paulie (Hawke), and career criminals deal with the trials and tribulations of the life they’ve chosen.

Though neither is a likeable guy, their frustration with where they’ve found themselves draws us in. To facilitate this we get excellent performances from both Ruffal and Hawke. Ruffalo, in particular, is outstanding. It’s an unfortunately overlooked portrayal of a man with many demons. The city of Boston is also a menacing character. Refreshingly, it’s subtly so. Unlike a lot of other movies set there, this one never puts it in your face. There are no extended scenes scored by blaring Irish music, no ridiculously bad New England accents, no shamrocks and no references to the Celtics or Red Sox. Instead, the city either mirrors the bleakness or hope of our heroes, depending on what’s going on, or enforces its own will upon them. It not only helps set the mood, but to change it, as well.

Our two (anti) heroes work for Sully (Lyman). We know they’re frustrated with their position in his organization and have an idea of the type of relationship he has with them, but it could’ve been much more fleshed out. How what transpires affect him might’ve added even more depth. I would also like to have seen more Detective Moran (Wahlberg). The subplot involving his character and Brian could’ve developed into an intriguing cat-and-mouse but instead, it’s a wasted opportunity.

This is definitely for those of us into gritty, urban drama. It gives us great acting and a story that keeps us locked in throughout. Interesting tidbit: apparently, this is inspired by the director’s real life.

MY SCORE: 7.5/10

What Doesn't Kill You

Directed by Brian Goodman.
2008. Rated R, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Mark Ruffalo
Ethan Hawke
Amanda Peet
Will Lyman
Brian Goodman
Donnie Wahlberg
Angela Featherstone
Edward Lynch

Plot: Two lifelong best friends, Brian (Ruffalo) and Paulie (Hawke), and career criminals deal with the trials and tribulations of the life they’ve chosen.

The Good: Though neither is a likeable guy, their frustration with where they’ve found themselves draws us in. To facilitate this we get excellent performances from both Ruffalo and Hawke. Ruffalo, in particular, is outstanding. It’s an unfortunately overlooked portrayal of a man with many demons. The city of Boston is also a menacing character. Refreshingly, it’s subtly so. Unlike a lot of other movies set there, this one never puts it in your face. There are no extended scenes scored by blaring Irish music, no ridiculously bad New England accents, no shamrocks and no references to the Celtics or Red Sox. Instead, the city either mirrors the bleakness or hope of our heroes, depending on what’s going on, or enforces its own will upon them. It not only helps set the mood, but to change it, as well.

The Bad: Our two (anti) heroes work for Sully (Lyman). We know they’re frustrated with their position in his organization and have an idea of the type of relationship he has with them, but it could’ve been much more fleshed out. How what transpires affect him might’ve added even more depth. I would also like to have seen more Detective Moran (Wahlberg). The subplot involving his character and Brian could’ve developed into an intriguing cat-and-mouse but instead, it’s a wasted opportunity.

The Ugly: What happens the first time Brian meets Moran.

Recommendation: This is definitely for those of us into gritty, urban drama. It gives us great acting and a story that keeps us locked in throughout. Interesting tidbit: apparently, this is inspired by the director’s real life.

MY SCORE: 7.5/10

Brooklyn's Finest

Directed Antoine Fuqua.
2010. Rated R, 132 minutes.
Cast:
Don Cheadle
Ethan Hawke
Richard Gere
Wesley Snipes
Will Patton
Lili Taylor
Ellen Barkin
Wass Stevens
Vincent D’Onofrio

Three Brooklyn police officers with various problems try to do their jobs and gain control of their personal lives. Tango (Cheadle) is so deep undercover he’s starting to forget who he is. Sal (Hawke) is trying desperately to move his family into a bigger, better house. Not only does he already have six kids, his wife Angela (Taylor) is pregnant. Finally, Eddie (Gere) is a mere week away from retirement. Apathy has set in. He’s also a heavy drinker who happens to be in love with a prostitute.

The question of right and wrong is at the heart of all three stories. More importantly, what the benefits are of each and just who is actually benefiting is analyzed. As we follow these three men, these themes arise time and again. Actually reaping rewards for your work is something that seems just out of reach.

Antoine Fuqua, most known for directing Training Day, crafts another engaging cop drama with three situations that feel genuine and have no easy solutions. In fact, many have compared this to TD but I think that’s a mistake. BF is told in a similar style but is a very different film. TD is much more black and white. There is very clearly a hero and a villain. Here, there are plenty of villains. However, it seems that other villains control our heroes. The powers that be are as self-centered and self-preserving as the criminals they purport to hunt.

If there is a movie BF reminds me of, it’s The Departed. Don’t go getting your panties in a bunch. I’m not saying this is anywhere near as good. I am saying that the storyline with Tango is similar as are the fireworks that play out at the end.

Don’t go looking for a Steven Soderbergh style linking of the stories, either. They’re only connected by proximity. None of our three leads seems to know either of the others and only pass one another on the streets a couple times while on their disconnected paths. I suspect this is the source of much of the hatred directed towards this movie since this gives it a disjointed feel. When we come back to one storyline or another we realize it’s been a long time since. In addition, we keep waiting to see how the stories are linked and though it happens physically, it never does on any level worthy of our anticipation. It could just have easily been three separate movies.

Our three leads all turned in outstanding work. There doesn’t seem to be a sour note hit. It is also nice to see the return of Wesley Snipes from his problems with the IRS and the straight-to-DVD hell his career was stuck in. Among the supporting players, Ellen Barkin stood out and displayed a commanding presence during her few scenes.

For me, it’s a thoroughly enjoyable experience. It seems to have received a lot of negative backlash for some of the reasons I gave above. It’s also not one of the best crime dramas of all time, like it was hyped to be. Still, it is a lot more cerebral with less action and more to think about than TD. Like I said, there are no easy answers. The masses tend to shy away from puzzles that aren’t solved for them.

The Opposite View: Kerry Lengel, Arizona Republic

What the Internet Says: 7.0/10 on imdb.com (8/11/10), 43% on rottentomatoes.com, 43/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7.5/10

Daybreakers

Directed by The Spierig Brothers.
2010. Rated R, 98 minutes.
Cast:
Ethan Hawke
Claudia Karvan
Sam Neill
Willem Dafoe
Isabel Lucas
Michael Dorman
Vince Colosimo

Plot: It’s 2019 and almost all of the world’s population has been transformed into vampires. To survive, they hunt and farm the remaining humans for their blood supply. With only a few humans left, both they and the vampires are on the verge of becoming extinct.

The Good: It’s original. The vast majority of vampire fare is fixated on some sort of romance. This takes the vampire legend to a logical point. If such creatures did exist, it stands to reason they could become the dominant species. Though here, that’s attributed to an unnamed plague. It’s a different sort of apocalypse. The movie does a nice job showcasing just how different, but also how many things would remain the same. Taken all together, it works as an excellent metaphor for and warning against our cultures seemingly insatiable consumerism and devouring of natural resources. That said, it never forgets blood is the main draw for the characters and the audience, alike. Therefore, there’s plenty of it splattering the screen. When a vampire dies, or bites someone, it’s usually a very messy thing.

The Bad: Our main villain, Charles Bromley (Neill) is quite up to snuff. We need a more dynamic personality to instill the fear and loathing this movie obviously wants to. Our human resistance isn’t always the smartest bunch. I mean, why would they ever travel by night? Finally, our solution isn’t necessarily a sure thing. Normally, I’d be fine with that but here, it’s passed off as if it is. It would take a whole lot of convincing or a lot more scenes like what happens at the end here to be effective.

The Ugly: What happens to the first guy they try out the blood substitute.

Recommendation: If you’re looking for a different type of vampire movie, look no further. It’s what I Am Legend could’ve been, had those creatures maintained most of their human faculties. If gore bothers you, steer clear. Of course, I realize I’m in the minority while championing this movie. There appears to be a lot of hatred for it. Perhaps, it’s because of that ending. People seem to feel it doesn’t go far enough when the premise is so great. I can definitely see that, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it.

The Opposite View: Roger Moore, Orlando Sentinel

What the Internet Says: 6.6/10 on imdb.com (6/15/10), 66% on rottentomatoes.com, 57/100 on metacritic.com


MY SCORE: 7/10