Blair Witch

Adam Wingard, 2016

IMDB

3/5

The original Blair Witch Project seemed to create two camps. One camp was the people who bought into the movie. They were terrified, they admired the innovation involved in making the movie with little resources. This camp probably continues to watch the Found Footage genre and explores what it has to offer. Then there's the other camp. The camp that didn't buy into the original. Didn't have the effect. These people probably complained about all of the shaky cam. They will tell you the original is overrated, a whole lot of nothing. I will say with no hesitation at all that I am in the camp that was totally on board with the original Blair Witch Project. It scared the living shit out of me. I was a sophmore in High School when I saw it in the theater. I happened to live a mile deep in the Connecticut woods at the time. That movie was in my brain for years, made me afraid of those woods. I remember being too freaked out to even step out onto our backyard patio to smoke cigarettes for a while. I am also someone who believes that the found footage genre is a legitimate genre that has provided many other good films (REC, Willow Creek, Paranormal Activity, Grave Encounters) - mostly due to the Blair Witch Project inspiring them. That being said, when it was revealed that upcoming movie "The Woods" was actually a secret sequel to the Blair Witch Project, I was certainly excited.

Blair Witch does exactly what a sequel is supposed to do: take the original and build off of it. Expand upon it. This could mean expanding the universe that the original exists in. Which this movie does do. The original Blair Witch Project was known for it's subtlety, it was one of the defining characteristics. This film completely discards all of that subtlety and still manages to create a product that generates real tension and terror. What were faint noises in the woods are now loud bangs with tree limbs collapsing. What was the absense of a real figure but simply your mind playing tricks on you is now a ghastly figure hiding behind a tree that jumps into sight. What was a couple minutes inside a terrifying dilapidated house is now 25 minutes of pure tense horror inside of the same building with absolute chaos unfolding. The film maintains a certain found footage quality without that complete indie feel of the original.

I am not going to sit here and say that Blair Witch is without its flaws. There is a tree-climbing moment that is the modern day equivolent of running into the house with a killer at the front door. The whole forced connection to the original film with having James (James Allen McCune) be original Blair Witch project lead Heather's brother is unecesarry and weak. Why can't it just be a group of curious college students who are shooting a documentary? I would think that if there was a familial connection to the original disappeareance of Heather, they wouldn't want to go back to the very place that she disappeared and expect to find her. After all, its 20 years later. The thread with Ashley having an infection on her foot also seemed unnecessary. But what happens with Talia about halfway through the film with the stick figure was shocking and unforgettable. Wow. One thing that we don't get that would have been really powerful would be a cameo from one of the original cast-mates. Like if we saw Mike or Josh staring at a wall. Or even Heather.

The expectations are so unreasonably high for a sequel to waht is probably the most divisive horror movie ever made that it's impossible for there to be a scenario where this movie blows everyone away and wins over both sides. The skeptics are going to go into this movie and come away unsatisfied just like they were with the orignal. The question is, why would they see the sequel to begin with? They shouldn't. They should move on to something else because the Blair Witch movies are clearly not for them. But for the people who did buy in to the original, they should come away from this feeling satisfied. Because it brings you back to those all too familiar woods. The memories will come back to you. That might not be a good thing. There were actually a couple of minutes during this viewing where I was thinking to myself: "Why the hell am I continuing to do this to myself at this age with horror movies? I don't think I can handle this kind of tension anymore". But I appreciate this sequel having been made. Thank you Adam Wingard. I am just happy I was able to leave those Burkittsville woods when the credits rolled. Blair Witch lies somewhere between Willow Creek and Grave Encounters, and that's not a bad place to be.

La La Land

Damien Chazelle, 2016

IMDB

3/5

After seeing La La Land it isn't surprising that it's an Oscar front-runner and exists virtually critic-proof. It checks off all of the things that Academy voters pine over: Musical elements, a love story, and a love letter to Los Angeles and particularly the golden age of Cinema. It might be THE movie to watch at home with your wife. And at least in my marriage, it's a movie that offers separate things for the two of us. She happened to be more emotionally connected to the romantic component of the film. For me, I found myself more invested in the variety of technical achievements made. Like how did Chazelle pull off that introductory sequence on the LA highway? What about the pool party segment? Or how did they create that planetarium sequence with the stars?

Jazz plays a large role in La La Land just as it did in Chazelle's last film Whiplash. Both have a sincere appreciation for the genre. Whiplash approached Jazz from more of a strict academic standpoint and La La is definitely more of a romantic standpoint. But there's a clear sense that Chazelle likes Jazz. Beyond that, Chazelle is someone who also seems very fond of classic cinema. And now after watching his last two contributions to film it's pretty clear that hes absorbed so much of what he's clearly passionate for. Chazelle is a pretty masterful filmmaker, that's quite clear.

One notable thing about La La Land is also the way that it depicts modern Los Angeles. Instead of making it an unforgiving landscape like last year's Tangerine, it approaches LA with daydreaming eyes. There is a deliberate attempt to paint Los Angeles as this fantastical place - as Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) navigate their way through scenes in the Griffith Observatory, Watts Towers and Chateau Marmont where a million classic LA films have been made.

It's interesting reflecting on La La Land. Because when personally evaluating this film it's not about whether or not it's a good film or a bad film. It's without question a GOOD film. Well made, well acted. Emma Stone will probably get an Oscar for her performance and she totally deserves it. She's unbelievable here. Gosling is great, the only real criticism you can make about him is maybe his singing chops aren't completely up to par but it's really not distracting at all. This is one of those films I have to judge on the impact that it had on me. Years from now will I be thinking about La La Land? That's the thing, I really don't think I will be. I will most certainly remember Whiplash, which clearly had more of a personal impact on me. Whiplash is one of the best films made in the past 10 years. Ten years from now I will probably look back on La La Land the same way I look back on The Artist - a well made movie that wasn't necesarilly made for someone like me. Something I can respect for what it is but something that isn't going to permanently reside in the depths of my memory.

Sing Street

John Carney, 2016

IMDB

4/5

I have to confess that Sing Street was one of those movies that I watched the trailer for the first time and felt a little annoyed. It was clearly the headspace that I was in at the time. Because the movie surfaced one night through a brief Netflix browsing session with my wife who was looking for something with some heart and not blood. Sing Street would prove to be one of the better 2016 films to watch with my wife.

One of the redeeming qualities about Sing Street is the fact that when the group of high school strangers assemble, their first attempts of making music don't actually suck much. In fact even their first tune that they make is actually pretty catchy. By doing this it eliminates a lot of technical build up like in School of Rock where students literally have to learn from the ground up in terms of form. A device used is to sort of skip over the rudimentary obstacles is to plug in character Eamon (Mark McKenna) who not only is a multi-instrumentalist but he is even able to provide practice space because his father is in a cover band. School of Rock is a fitting movie to bring into this conversation because there are obvious parallels. Young school kids making music together, all bringing their own life experiences and using music as a form of expression. But the differences between the two are stark. Admittedly a lot of it is cultural. With Sing Street being an Irish production, the story is set in the rigid and strict confines of the UK educational system in the 1980's. The landscape is gloomy. There is an obvious sense of authoritarian rule. Bullying is rampant. School of Rock was more about a wild teacher finding a way to connect with a classroom. Sing Street is more about a young man dealing with all of the normal angst-ridden things that teenagers have to deal with and finding a way to deal with it. While a lot of what lead character Conor (Ferdia Walsh-Peelo) are common teenage problems, they are all illustrated in a way that makes it compelling on screen.

Perhaps the only negative that exists with Sing Street is the fact that its filled with the conventional teenage movie tropes. Frustration toward your parents. Not having a lot of friends. Not liking your teachers. The crush on the unattainable girl. Escape through music. But Carney finds a way to put blend these elements on screen that make it feel fresh and charming. This is likely to do with it with being an Irish production and having fresh faces on screen. It speaks well for international film, telling stories that might not be completely unique but telling the story in a place that doesn't get as much attention as it probably should. Its obvious that Sing Street would be a much different movie if it were set in New York City with American actors. But it wasn't. Instead it's a sweet little Irish film that will have "Drive it like you stole it" in your head for a few days after viewing.

Narcos (Season 1 & 2)

Carlo Bernard, Chris Brancato, Doug Miro, 2015-2016

IMDB

5/5

When I think about really detailed gritty crime dramas, I think of Jean-Francois Richet's Mesrine: Killer Instinct films. Split into two films, it's a biopic of "Public Enemy 1" Jacques Mesrine. Mesrine was a French gangster responsible for several bank robberies and kidnappings in France and Canada. He managed to elude the law and even escaped from prison. Jacques Mesrine and Pablo Escobar have a lot in common. They are both solitary figures both considered to be highly dangerous & sought after to their respective countries. They were both incredibly elusive and constantly in hiding. They both managed to escape from prison. They were both considered to be "Robin Hood" figures to the common people.

But Wagner Moura's Pablo Escobar will have more of a lasting impact on the cinematic landscape than Cassel's Mesrine. This is probably because through a television series, he's really able to cultivate the Pablo character and let it build rather than try to let it build through 4-6 hours of two movies. But the similarties between the two don't stop at the leading performances. They both have an elaborate backdrop. Mesrine in urban France. Narcos in urban Colombia. Through fly over shots of Colombia, tracking shots through the streets, it creates an detail rich world that pulls you in. As dangerous as the city may be there is still something that draws you back to it.

As each episode continues in Narcos, the stakes continue to elevate as does Escobar's wealth and influence. As his empire grows, his moral concessions do as well. Almost like Breaking Bad, he's a figure in slow deteriortion. Someone that has concrete morals at the beginning turns into a comprimised villain with blurred vision. Escobar is undoubtedly an interesting figure. Someone who has unimaginable wealth and power. Yet there is a hunger for more. More of what? Well, that's what the series is all about. Legacy, respect, family. These are all important things to Pablo. In a sense the money is just secondary. It really becomes a disposable thing. We are constantly seeing stacks and stacks of money thrown around like napkins through the series. Buried underground, thrown in bags, throwns in boxes. There's so much of it they don't even know what to do with it all.

I gave Mesrine 5 stars back when I reviewed the two films. I feel the same for Narcos. It's hard to find any noticeable flaws with this series. It's just so well filmed, so well acted, so well put together. Everything from the production design to the intricate sound design - it's all top notch. It's all just top notch. Call me a sucker for gritty crime dramas, I deserve it. Cutting my teeth with Scorcese's great body of work has set a certain standard. Narcos meets and exceeds these standards.

Season 2 manages to keep raising the stakes, the only difference being that we finally get to see some pieces of Escobar's empire finally breaking down. But the mystique around him builds. There are times that, even if you are aware of the historical facts, it feels like he's never going to be caught. One of the constant thoughts I have while watching Narcos is what if Pablo had never run for that political office early on? By doing that he put the spotlight on him, a spotlight that never went away. It seems possible that if continued to lurk in the shadows of Colombian society rather than trying to become such a mainstream figure that he could have gone on growing his empire and wouldn't have to spend his life on the run.