Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens Review

(dir. J.J. Abrams)

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

“It's true. All of it. The Dark Side, the Jedi. They're real.”

*Minor plot spoilers ahead.

In a few short years (well, long years for the most eager fans) Star Wars Episode VII went from being an impossibility to perhaps the most anticipated movie of all time. J.J. Abrams went from definitely not directing, to having the weight of a galaxy on his shoulders. From a behind the scenes angle, the Star Wars franchise has always been seen as a bit of a gamble, an improbability not always in terms of financial success, but quality. The question was never whether or not Disney, the reformatted Lucasfilm, and J.J. Abrams could bring in the money, but whether The Force Awakens could simultaneously live up to the nostalgia of the Original Trilogy, work through the middling response to the Prequels without ignoring them, attract new and old audiences, and serve as a pleasing launchpad for Hollywood’s newest franchise model: the cinematic universe. Of course, none of these aspects would be small achievements by themselves, and to achieve them all would seemingly need nothing short of a large-scale revolution of Hollywood’s blockbuster practices. But J.J.Abrams understood that a massive upheaval of the mythology was not what was needed for this first new installment, and instead returned to what had first electrified audiences in 1977 while implementing changes in other areas of necessity.

Set 30 years after Return of the Jedi (1983), The Force Awakens ushers us into a world where the remnants of the Galactic Empire have formed The First Order, a massively powered terrorist group backed by mysterious dark side forces. Pit against them is the Resistance, a reformed Rebel Alliance, secretly supported by the New Republic. At the center of their conflict is a map that leads to the missing Luke Skywalker, the last Jedi, whose reappearance or death could turn the tides for either side in the brewing war. But fear not, politics and galactic schemes take a back seat to the introduction of new characters and familiar faces. Swept up into the Resistance’s battle are Rey (Daisy Ridley), a scavenger with a mysterious past, and Finn (John Boyega), a Stormtrooper who has broken free of his conditioning and abandoned his post. With the aid of two familiar smugglers, Han and Chewie, and the droid BB-8, who contains part of a map leading to Luke Skywalker, Rey and Finn are swept up in an adventure that changes the fate of the galaxy.

As the film moves along with an ease that buries any notice of the 135 minute runtime, it’s hard not to become increasingly aware of the similarities The Force Awakens shares with A New Hope. While some may feel disappointed that the film doesn’t attempt to break new narrative grounds, the similarities work in terms of making Star Wars feel like Star Wars. As odd as it may seem, many of us have forgotten what seeing Star Wars for the first time actually feels like. The prequels crafted an almost entirely different world and scale (one that fit with Lucas’ sensibilities), and the franchise’s progeny, as entertaining and occasionally fantastic as some of those have been, haven’t fully captured what makes Star Wars so exciting. There really is no replacing the feeling, grandeur, characters, or sense of mystery that comes along with that galaxy far, far away.

The familiar story beats in The Force Awakens ground the film in its singular identity, once again situating the franchise in monomyth, while giving new and old fans characters to latch onto, a facet that has always had more weight than narrative originality in the saga. We’ll spend the next two years listening to some bemoan the use of another Death Star, this time in the form of the Starkiller Base, but the familiar plot beats provide more time to spend exploring the characters and less time explaining some new narrative MacGuffin that's up the First Order’s sleeves. Call it laziness or a lack of imagination, but The Force Awakens isn’t rushing to the finish line to show us the large-scale, but giving us time to fall in love with the small-scale before Rian Johnson’s sequel surely up the ante in terms of exploring new territory.

In many ways, J.J. Abrams was the perfect choice to kick off the new trilogy. He excels at repositioning the old and making it feel modern, and for all of its callbacks, The Force Awakens does feel exceptionally modern, thanks in no small part to its characters. Yes, the opportunity to see Luke, Leia, Han, and Chewbacca in their senior years was always the big selling point of The Force Awakens, but the new players give the film a life of its own. There’s an immediate chemistry between these new characters. Whether it’s Rey and Finn, Poe and Finn, or BB-8 and everyone else, these new characters and their subsequent relationships are not only likeable, but full of potential. While these characters share similarities with their predecessors, they are entirely their own individuals, each given convincing motives and histories. Fear has long been a theme in the franchise, but here it’s not as simple as fear leading to anger, hate, and the dark side, but how fear has power to both hold characters back and propel them forward. There’s a lovely and occasionally heartbreaking reality that not all of our familiar characters are where we imagined they’d be. This is paralleled by our new characters who also find themselves bound to the past and afraid of the future before moving on. The narrative familiarities are intentionally tied to these themes, delivering an awakening that lies in reflection and a near literal return to the past. Fan-service it may be, but no one ever said there couldn’t be meaning in fan-servitude.

But of course, an aspect of successful fan-service is recognizing how broadly fandom stretches, and how much the popularity of Star Wars owes to those fans that the films have largely neglected featuring. Much of The Force Awakens’ modernity stems from the fact that the lead characters are in the hands of a woman, a black man, and a Latin American man. While so many franchise restarts try to cater to the same audience, Abrams and co-writer Lawrence Kasdan aim to broaden and celebrate the reach of Star Wars not by just focusing on legacy, but diversity as well. The narrative tropes pale in comparison to how many tropes of racial and gender-defined characterization are broken. Rey is powerful, smart, and charming without the film trying to sexualize her as well. While many films attempt to create the stoic black man, flawless and boring, Finn is given the personality and an arc that allows him to change. And while Oscar Isaac’s Poe Dameron plays a smaller role in the events of this film, it’s refreshing to see a Latin American man who’s portrayed simply as a through and through good guy instead of a criminal or coward. Women and minorities are prominently featured as extras in most scenes. They are pirates, First Order affiliates, X-Wing pilots, and commanders, all going a long way to make this galaxy a more believable place, a place that any kid watching can see themselves easily fitting into.

Going hand-in-hand with this modernity in casting, the dialogue also displays an adept ear for how people talk to each other. It actually takes a bit of adjustment in terms of hearing dialogue that’s closer to Whedon (though not nearly so cutesy) than it is to Lucas’ more stilted style. Even the film’s central villain benefits from this modernity of language and characterization. Gone are the days where an utterly unstoppable killing machine with a modicum of personality were enough to create a compelling threat. Adam Driver brings an intensity to Kylo Ren, as well as genuine emotional struggle. His desire to drown out his call towards the light side, and fully embrace the dark side, creates a complexity that not only serves as a parallel for the other characters’ “awakening” but gives his villainy a place to go in future installments. Kylo Ren is unquestionably one of the best villains we’ve seen emerge in our new age of blockbusters, because it’s not the outward acts that define him but the inward struggle. There’s an emotional realism given to Kylo Ren, Rey, and Finn that gives the film a subtle heaviness that couldn’t feel more different from A New Hope. And that’s the key of the film; even in the face of recognizable plot points, The Force Awakens is comprised of its own emotional beats, one unmistakably Star Wars but fresh nonetheless. Contributing to this subtlety and emotional heft is John Williams’ score. While it doesn’t offer the same kind of instantly recognizable tracks (yet), it could be argued that it marks some of Williams’ best work yet. The score has a lasting resonance to it, one that often quietly maintains the film’s sense of mystery.

The Force Awakens’ lack of exposition comes as a bit of a surprise. There are a lot of story aspects that go unexplained, obviously to set up the subsequent installments, but it works quite brilliantly. We take for granted how little audiences knew about the galaxy at the end of A New Hope. Of course, many of us were spoiled on plot points and reveals before we ever saw that film. And the instant accessibility of all of the films in the saga, along with our ability to watch them sequentially, have eliminated many of the guessing games that those original 1977 audiences played. We don’t get answers about all of the characters, or even the establishment of this new galactic order, which provides us with a kind of lasting excitement that makes the film worth going back to see in theaters multiple times. Make no mistake, there’s nothing standalone about The Force Awakens. It is necessary to see what has come before and see what will come after in order to get the full story. While there are some narrative flaws, and plot choices that may prove frustrating to some, I’d hazard to be too vocal about them until we can look back on this new trilogy in its entirety.

The Force Awakens is the start of something grand, familiar by design but entirely new in terms of where it places its attention and emotional interest. It’s impossible not to see the energy and care on the screen. Whether it comes from the practical effects, the designs, the performances that not even Harrison Ford could simply phone in, or its powerful action and story beats, The Force Awakens provides the emotional first steps in convincing audiences that Star Wars is back for good and we no longer need be bound by fear.

Grade: A

31 Days of Horror- Day 31: Trick 'r Treat (2007)

(dir. Michael Dougherty)

Warner Bros.

Four different horror stories intersect on Halloween night in small-town Ohio.

Michael Dougherty’s modern cult classic perfectly captures the spirit of Halloween. It manages to be funny, horrific, gory, charming, and more than a little bit twisted, all at the same time. While most anthology films break up the separate stories by chapter, Dougherty’s stories weave in and out of one another as he plays with time, and characters from previous stories will make surprise reappearances in later stories. This gives the entirety of Trick ‘r Treat this unexpected, playful element. With only four Halloween stories, Dougherty manages to keep all the narratives tight and create a rewarding experiences. While I prefer some of the stories more than others, there’s not a weak link in the bunch. From serial killers, the undead, vampires, werewolves, and a very special little guy named Sam, Trick ‘r Treat blends all of these disparate horror elements together perfectly.

In the same way that the very best Christmas movies just carry the power of the season in their very aesthetic, Trick ‘r Treat does the same. Everything from the lighting, the sets, the decorations, costumes, and background conversations feel uniquely in touch with the spirit of the holiday. For a $12 million budget, the production value on this film is just fantastic and guaranteed to bring out the holiday spirit.

Scare Factor: 2/5 Trick ‘r Treat is the perfect way to cap off October as it captures but the scares and fun that make the horror genre so memorable. While we’re still waiting for the sequel that was promised 2 years ago, we at least have Dougherty’s Christmas horror story, Krampus, to look forward to in December.

*Available to watch on HBO Go

And that’s a wrap for this year folks! Thanks for reading and if this month was your introduction to the blog, be sure to stick around for full reviews of this fall’s awards contenders and blockbusters. 

Lastly, if you’ve yet to get your fill of horror, I co-wrote a list of The 100 Best Horror Movies of the 2000s (so far) so be sure to check it out!: http://www.audienceseverywhere.net/100-horror-2000s-lists/ 

31 Days of Horror- Day 30: Drag Me to Hell (2009)

(dir. Sam Raimi)

Universal Pictures

A woman has three days to escape a curse placed on her by a gypsy.

Drag Me to Hell was the first Sam Raimi horror movie I saw, and initially I wasn’t a fan of it. I found it too campy, which now having seen Evil Dead II and Army of Darkness I know that it doesn’t even come close to normal levels of Raimi camp. I’ve grown to appreciate it over the years as I’ve seen more of not only more of Raimi’s films, but other films that balance genuine horror with black humor. But what makes Drag Me to Hell effective is not so much its supernatural story, humor, or gross-out moments, but the careful way that Raimi, and his screenwriting partner and brother, Ivan, carefully establish Alison Lohman’s Christine Brown. As an audience we feel like we know her, we like her, and want her to succeed in ridding herself of the curse placed on her. So often horror movies allow the horror to happen to characters we don’t like, or don’t care about because we don’t know them. But we know Christine and the Raimis use our expectations against us because of that fact. It’s cruel but also winningly effective.

Lorna Raver’s gypsy woman, Mrs. Ganush is wonderfully sinister in a very old-fashioned horror sense. Yes, she’s a bit cartoonish and over-the-top but this ultimately makes the film feel a bit like a grand moral folklore, a warning to be given to children. Even the use of Hispanic and Indian mystics play into this horror folklore by firmly situating the out-of-date with the modern, and again challenging our expectations. This old-school horror is slightly diminished by Raimi’s over-use of CGI and PG-13 rating. One gets the sense that he was still a bit too stuck in his Spider-Man days to completely return to the practical, low-budget horror he gained his fame for, but he still manages to bring his unmistakable vision to the film.

Scare Factor: 3/5 There are a few really good jump scares in Drag Me to Hell, but the concept and the characterization are what really make Raimi’s film a surprise that delivers on a promise in a way few directors would have the courage to fulfill. If you’ve yet to see it or it’s been a while since you first saw it, it’s definitely worth a watch. Oh, and somebody needs to give Alison Lohman a comeback because she’s great in this. 

31 Days of Horror- Day 29: Poltergeist (2015)

(dir. Gil Kenan)

20th Century Fox

* First time viewing

A family moves into a house built on top of a graveyard and supernatural events ensue.

I like Tobe Hooper’s (*cough Steven Spielberg’s cough*) Poltergeist, but I don’t see it as the untouchable classic that many do, and while it has some very cool scenes, I don’t find it a frightening movie for adults. So in comes new the Poltergeist remake, which everyone lambasted from being PG-13 even though the original was PG, and it’s basically the same as the original, which means its target audience is younger viewers. Kenan’s Poltergeist basically follows the first film beat for beat (with the added topical stress of the recession.) The family members have different names, but most of the dynamics remain the same, as does the youngest daughter’s disappearance into the beyond, and her family’s team-up with paranormal investigators to bring her back. It may all be pretty standard stuff, but none of the actors phone it in, and Sam Rockwell’s rascally charm adds some necessary character to the film.

Despite the Poltergeist’s lack of ambition or surprises, it’s a decent, if bland, remake.  Some of the horror elements, one involving a clown doll and another involving a power drill are pretty good for kid’s stuff. The biggest issue comes from the poor CGI which makes the entire film look overproduced and occasionally comical. But there are some design elements in the third act representation of purgatory that serve of reminders of what the film could have been if it had carved its own path.

Scare Factor: 1/5 Poltergeist is not the horrible travesty you may have heard about. It treads the middle-ground of safe and familiar, and for those who haven’t seen the original yet, it may even be a bit interesting. While it’s not memorable, or worth revisiting in favor of the original, for a film that presents itself as a family horror-adventure, it’s just fine. 

31 Days of Horror- Day 28: Ouija (2014)

(dir. Stiles White)

Universal Pictures

*First time viewing

After their friend’s apparent suicide, a group of teenagers try to communicate with her through a Ouija board, but they make contact with something else.

Admittedly, my expectations for Ouija weren’t very high. But since a sequel is in the works with Mike Flanagan (of Oculus fame) stepping in as screenwriter and director, I felt I had to see this first entry. The problem with Ouija isn’t the concept. It’s a generic horror movie, with a generic plot consisting of friends getting picked off one by one Final Destination style, but even those kind of movies can be fun. The acting is fine, nothing special (I do love Olivia Cooke, and she tries with what little she’s given.) Even the fact that no one seems to know how a Ouija board works except for the Hispanic housekeeper (because of course) is embarrassingly out-of-touch but not a deal breaker. What makes Ouija such a chore to sit through is that it is entirely devoid of life in everything from its emotional arcs, its dialogue, and most damning: it’s jump scares.

I don’t have a problem with jump-scare centric horror movies, or even PG-13 ones, but Ouija is so PG-13 it hurts. It is entirely incapably of handling any aspect of the film with a maturity deserving of audiences who have seen countless horror films. The way the characters are written to react to the death of their friends and significant others is with such casual disinterest that’s impossible to care about the supposedly life and death horror the film is centered around. The jump scares are so limp that many of them are laughable and telling of how uninterested the film is in pushing boundaries (a rolling shopping cart is one of these “jump-scares”.) After an OK opening, there’s absolutely no sense of tension and as a result the movie just slowly deflates as the actors try their best to hold it up around them.

Scare Factor: 0.5/5 There’s a great horror movie that could be made out of the Ouija board game, but this isn’t it. I’m holding out hope that Flanagan can bring some of his imagination and style to the sequel when it hits next year. 

31 Days of Horror- Day 27: The Taking of Deborah Logan (2014)

(dir. Adam Robitel)

Eagle Films/Millennium Entertainment

A documentary crew making a film about a woman suffering from Alzheimer’s disease soon finds themselves in the midst of a terrifying case of possession.

At one point or another we’ve all feared sickness, either in ourselves or in others. It’s a basic fear that stems from our need to have control. Adam Robitel’s directorial debut is based not only around these notions of control, but also the past and how family history can bring both chaos and illness. Where The Taking of Deborah Logan differs from many other contemporary tales of possession is that it balances the emotional arc of its central characters with genuinely terrifying moments. Gone are the familiar exorcisms, and Christian symbolism, instead replaced by the unfamiliar and frightening primal lore of witch doctors and serpent worshiping. There’s a sense of history and weight to Deborah’s “taking” that never feels like a run-of-the-mill introduction to demonology and possession.

But this sense of unsettling secret history only works as well as it does because the film first establishes a grounded mother/daughter relationship. The love and misunderstanding that Deborah, and her daughter, Sarah, display for each other feels genuine and the camera’s capture of these moments provides an anchor so that when shit hits the fan (and oh, it does), Sarah’s efforts to save her mother, alongside the camera crew, have power behind them. Once we start following our characters around in the dark and Deborah’s condition progresses, the tension never lets up. The film’s continual interest in its characters, everyone from the camera crew to the police officers, make The Taking of Deborah Logan a viscerally frightening experience where we care about more about people than when the next jump scare is coming.

Scare Factor: 4/5 The Taking of Deborah Logan explores body horror as not only a transformation of the flesh, but of the mind and soul as well. It’s an essential found footage horror film that’s genuinely chilling and delivers a climax that contains one of my favorite recent horror moments.

*Available to watch on Netflix Instant

**As part of Audiences Everywhere’s series of interviews with contemporary horror directors about the current horror landscape, I had the pleasure of interviewing The Taking of Deborah Logan director and co-writer, Adam Robitel: http://www.audienceseverywhere.net/last-great-magic-trick-adam-robitel/

31 Days of Horror- Day 26: The Children (2008)

(dir. Tom Shankland)

Ghost House Underground

*First time viewing

The most awkward holiday reunion ever turns bloody when a family’s children fall victim to a sickness that gives them an insatiable desire to kill the adults around them.

Tom Shankand’s The Children is predicated on the notion that many already find children kind of creepy and kind of gross sometimes. Even the kids we love to can irritating, messy, infuriating, and a little alarming, but our relationship between them remains unspoiled (in many cases) by adults’ awareness not to let children gain insight into their private qualms and frustrations. But The Children features a set of kids whose unexplained illness gives them a subtle awareness to their guardians’ inner thoughts, setting them a path of distressingly innocent-minded, and seemingly reactionary murder.

While all of this seems like a perfect set-up for a horror-comedy, The Children plays it straight and pushes the limits of violence further than what you might expect (an incident involving a sled and a garden rake won’t soon be forgotten.) The film carefully establishes its adult characters and their flaws and regrets, which provides a negative energy that the children seem to feed off of and adjust their personalities to accordingly (it’s rather clever and subtlety-handled metaphor in the film.) And when the adults are forced to defend themselves, violently and to their own terrible regret, this too is treated with a seriousness that makes the film occasionally uncomfortable to watch. While there’s no great lasting impact to this winter holidays bloodbath, Shankland makes the film more interesting and frightening by refusing to explain either the sickness or the children’s greater plans, instead letting the irrational become the unsettling.

Scare Factor: 3/5 The Children is one of the better creepy kids movies because of its refusal to temper any element of the film, and because its stark emotional brutality. Like a dark(er) Richard Matheson short story, The Children adds an element of fantastic to the mundane and provides a quick and effective jolt of fear.  

31 Days of Horror- Day 25: Wyrmwood (2014)

(dir. Kiah Roache-Turner)

Guerilla Films

During a zombie outbreak, a mechanic sets out to save his sister who has been captured by a mad scientist looking for a way to telepathically control the horde.

Blending elements of Romero’s Dead series and Miller’s Mad Max saga, Wyrmwood is simply a blast from start to finish. There’s an unrestrained wildness to the film that we rarely see in horror anymore, particularly zombie flicks which have moved towards a more realistic vision in the age of 28 Days Later and The Walking Dead. Wyrmwood has more in common with B-movie drive-in features of the 70s and 80s, and comic books than it does with modern outbreak thrillers. This is a film where zombies’ breath and blood is flammable (only in the daytime, naturally) and used for fuel, a film where a sadistic mad scientist dances while conducting heinous experiments, and a film that offers one of the most inventive climaxes within the sub-genre. While the massive tonal shift from modern zombie features may take some getting used to, once you settle in and enjoy yourself, you’ll find it hard not to gladly go along for the ride. With intense and charismatic performances, clever action sequences, and gleefully over-the-top gore, Wyrmwood is a low-budget gem that doesn't allow money to get in the way of imagination. 

Scare Factor 2/5 Wyrmwood is fearless, fun, weird, and will add a necessary shot of adrenaline to your October Horror-thon. You may not lose sleep over the horror aspects, but you will lose sleep once you begin thinking about all the sequel possibilities.

*Available to watch on Netflix Instant

**Film site, Audiences Everywhere has been featuring a variety of horror-themed articles and interviews this month, including staff writer Diego Crespo's conversation with Wyrmwood director Kiah Roache-Turner: http://www.audienceseverywhere.net/horrortown-down-under-kiah-roache-turner-talks-wyrmwood-and-the-horror-genre/

***Editor-in-chief and Founder of Audiences Everywhere, David Shreve conducted an earlier interview with Wyrmwood’s star Bianca Bradey: http://www.audienceseverywhere.net/wyrmwood-road-of-the-dead-bianca-bradey-interviews/

31 Days of Horror- Day 24: Martyrs (2008)

(dir. Pascal Laugier)

The Weinstein Company

A young woman who suffered abuse as child, tracks down her tormenters with the help of her friend, only to lead them both into suffering beyond anything they could have ever imagined.

Laugier’s film is one of the paramount examples of New French Extremism, delivering gore that goes well beyond entertainment, existentialism that goes beyond easy answers, and horror that leaves you more drained and sad than electrified. The first time I watched Martyrs I was unable to see beyond the inhuman levels of violence and cruelty, equating it to torture porn. Beyond that, the film made me psychically ill. This time around, that reaction hasn’t changed much and while the film is well-made, I still don’t like it. But the message running through the film, which I once thought was bullshit, had more impact this time around.

After a more straightforward first half, which deals with the ghosts of guilt, the film introduces a clinically cold society of antagonists who believe that by torturing girls and young women, and bringing them to brink of death, they will allow the women to transcend and witness “the other world” and confirm the existence of the afterlife. While the 40 minutes of constant brutality and degradation to bring this point home are not as necessary or genius as I think the film wants audiences to believe, there is a deeper allegory here. Essentially I saw this secret society’s mission as a kind of Holy War, one stripped of a specific religion or creed, but a war about faith being rewarded nonetheless. But instead of waging war against an army to prove right and power, all the violence and turmoil is placed upon the flesh of one woman—one woman who can tell them that their actions are justified and their search for meaning after death validated. Beyond the explicit torture inflicted on the “victim,” the film leaves us to question humanity’s quest for knowledge, their fear of death, and the existence of the afterlife. As a whole, these aspects are what define the horror genre, only they’ve been splintered into stories that we’re able to digest in relative comfort and ultimately enjoy. Martyrs offers no comfort or enjoyment, only cold questions.

Scare Factor: 5/5 Martyrs is horror distilled. I can’t say I enjoy it and I can’t say I recommend it to everyone, but I can say that I’ve never seen any film more horrific.

Steve Jobs Review

(dir. Danny Boyle)

Universal Pictures

“Artists lead and hacks ask for a show of hands!”

Despite being one of the year’s most eagerly anticipated awards contenders, Danny’s Boyle’s Steve Jobs has long faced controversy in both the representation of its subjects and its troubled production history, which saw changes in directors, cast members, and studios over the past year. Despite Universal Studios managing to finally settle on an impressive cadre of talent both in front of and behind the camera, there’s an unavoidable lack of necessity to the film in lieu of how recently the film’s central subject passed away. While the necessity of a film isn’t something I tend to get hung up on, this inability to create historical context or look at Steve Jobs with any sort of objectivity in regards to both his personal life and legacy, casts a shadow over the entire proceeding.

Steve Jobs takes a look at the businessman and innovator in the behind the scenes minutes leading up to his three keynote speeches in 1984, 1988, and 1998 where he unveiled the Macintosh, NeXT box, and the iMac respectively. Instead of focusing on the technology Jobs helped develop, the film takes a look at his personal relationships with his ex-wife, daughter, and co-workers as these individuals reappear in his life over the years to impart bits of wisdom and give us glimpses of Jobs’ character, or at least the filmmakers’ idea of Jobs’ character. These figures from Jobs’ past and present, and the allusions to his future creations, make Steve Jobs feel somewhat like Dickens’ A Christmas Carol. But a novel has space to linger and corners to peer into, and Steve Jobs is far too disjointed, intentionally so, to feel like a sprawling moral epic. Ultimately this structure and revolving door of character interactions feel closer to a stage play than a film. Throw in a Greek chorus and we’d have Steve Jobs by way of antiquity.

While Boyle’s expert eye for lighting can be seen throughout the film, Steve Jobs is far more the product of its screenwriter and is effectively an Aaron Sorkin film. Sorkin writes for actors, and without a strong personality-type like David Fincher, the direction simply becomes a bottle to contain all of Sorkin’s wordy dialogue. This dialogue sounds great when delivered by actors of the caliber of Michael Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogen, Jeff Daniels, and Katherine Waterson, but none of it sounds like words that real, living, breathing human beings would speak. Sorkin told The Guardian that most of the dialogue is fictional and its apparent. Sorkin’s dialogue is often the subject of parody, and in Steve Jobs he does nothing to sway the perception. Conversations, like one between Jeff Daniels’ Apple CEO John Sculley, and Fassbender’s Jobs about adoption and control are spread out over the course of the fifteen years in the film. These moments are written for impact, not because they resemble reality. There’s a Shakespearean quality to some of these scenes, an exhausting amount of back and forth dialogue and double meanings before they almost always climax with two people in a room, yelling at each other. It’s all made wonderfully appealing by the performances, but the dialogue completely lacks subtlety, and practically begs us to see the unmissable metaphor that Jobs is more machine than man.

Sorkin’s work on 2010’s The Social Network manages to give Mark Zuckerberg a sense of humanity that audiences can latch on to. In Steve Jobs, Sorkin isn’t interested in Jobs the man so much as Steve Jobs the vengeful god. Jobs is mythologized into this remorseless being who’s always a step ahead of everyone else, with even his failings part of some larger plan for him. The Spielbergian scenes between Jobs and his daughter, meant to humanize him, never do their part and feel trite when surrounded by scenes that are disinterested in the saccharine, scenes that ask the audiences to laugh and enjoy Jobs’ ego, and ability to trample feelings without a pause. The film’s ending scenes, which try to show us Jobs in a more positive light as someone loving but “poorly made” is stretched out to the point of awkwardness. There hasn’t been a prestige picture so unaware of how to end things since Spielberg overstayed his welcome in the final moments of Lincoln.

The fact that Jobs is depicted as an asshole through and through isn’t as much as an issue is the film’s inability to convey what Jobs did to make him worthy of a film. Of course we have journalism profiles, and countless books and documentaries about the real-life man, but the film barely scratches at Jobs’ impact on Apple, his innovations, or expertise. It instead gives the sense that he simply used other people’s work and got ahead by being smartly cruel. While some of this may be factual, there’s a lot more to the man than what the film wants us to believe. Instead of asking why Steve Jobs was and is so important, the filmmakers simply place him on a pedestal and ask us to praise him simply because he’s there.

What fully deserves praise is Fassbender’s performance as Jobs. Regardless of whether he captures the essence of the real-life figure, he delivers a thoroughly engaging performance that commands the screen. Of course this isn’t anything we don’t expect from Fassbender, but considering how little interest the film takes in Jobs’ humanity, Fassbender deserves even further commendation. It’s not his mannerisms, his posture, or vocalizations that make his performance as Jobs one of the year’s best, but his eyes and their ability to go dull and lifeless and then become electrified all within in moments. The screenplay may not give us Steve Jobs the visionary, but Fassbender carries that torch in his eyes, and provides one of the sole aspects of the film that makes Steve Jobs seem like an almost necessary endeavor. The rest of the performances are also unsurprisingly solid, though all get eaten up by the monologues and witty dialogue devoted to Jobs, with the exception of Jeff Daniels, who is well within his right to a Best Supporting Actor Nomination. Steve Jobs may fail to celebrate, or even meaningfully criticize, the man behind the movie, but it is undoubtedly a celebration of acting, and that alone is worth the price of admission.

As a biopic, Steve Jobs is neither distant nor close enough to its subject to work, and instead stays in the realm of inaccessibility. I have doubts that either Boyle or Sorkin understood Jobs well enough to make this movie into what many thought it should be or needed to be, and so they do what all human beings do when they encounter something beyond their reach: they create a myth. I find this aspect of the film captivating. It’s an experiment in structure, tone, and characterization that never completely works and yet the sheer ambition of the acting and writing is impressive. Realistically, I think in 20 years’ time, we may finally be ready to see Steve Jobs impact on our future and look back on his humanity through that, but for now we’re left with an entertaining, emotionally stunned legend. But just because the film doesn’t work in its entirety, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have its own value. I’d much rather watch a fascinating error that (purposefully or not) gives us something different and feeds into our own worship of fame and genius, than watch another generic biopic that simply checks off boxes on someone’s life.

Grade: B-

31 Days of Horror- Day 23: Eden Lake (2008)

(dir. James Watkins)

The Weinstein Company

A school teacher and her boyfriend take a weekend getaway to the countryside where they are mercilessly taunted, chased, and tortured by a group of adolescent delinquents.

I’ve covered a lot of films this October that deal with couples encountering a number of horrors in the midst of their weekend retreats. It’s a formula that works well in terms of being used to both take the couple out of their familiar surroundings, and allow them to become aware of their unfamiliarity with each other and themselves. While all of these films (Honeymoon, Backcountry, Wrong Turn) have some themes in common, while offering a different set of rules and stakes, Eden Lake is the most emotionally draining of this set.

The romance of Jenny and Steve (Kelly Reilly and Michael Fassbender in one of his earliest film appearances) never feels false or like its hiding some secret resentment. While Steve’s desire to protect Jenny from a vicious group of teenagers does come partly from his need to preserve his own masculine ego, there’s never a sense that he’s willingly putting her in danger. This genuine, unselfish love established in the beginning makes what comes after all the more difficult. The film seems to take a rather feminist approach once Steve is gravely injured, that is until Eden Lake goes through lengths to show us that there are no heroes, no innocence and no power, at least not for adults.

Every time the film allows us to gain some margin of hopefulness for Jenny and Steve, the teens (led by a brutish Jack O’Connell) gain the upper hand, leading to one of the most shocking and stomach churning scenes in modern horror. Then, when you finally catch your breath and wipe your brow, the climax kicks into gear and things only get more hopeless after that before leaving you with the kick in the gut line “They’re just children.” Children, yes, but monsters as well.

Scare Factor: 5/5 Brutal in refusal to turn away from violence, heartbreaking in its romantic ruin, and disorienting in its exposure of humanity, Eden Lake is unshakably horrific. 

31 Days of Horror- Day 22: Backcountry (2014)

(dir. Adam MacDonald)

IFC Films

A woman and her boyfriend get lost in the backwoods of the Canadian wilderness and encounter a black bear after straying from the path.

Barring a few exceptions, I’m not a big fan of the “animals attack” variation of horror. That being said, I think bears are terrifying. In midst of all the supernatural events, serial killers, and viruses I’ve viewed over this month, nothing has really gotten to me the same way Adam MacDonald’s survivalist horror story has. Partially based on several real-life events, Backcountry has the kind of primal realism that makes the film difficult to enjoy as just an entertaining piece of fiction. Missy Peregrym and Jeff Roop both give emotional performances as Jenn and Alex. Peregrym is the heart of the film, the one we can continually root for in the growing face of her boyfriend's stupid decisions. While the first 40 minutes are mostly the two of them walking through the woods, the film never becomes boring or loses its tension, despite the inevitability of the bear encounter.

And on that subject of the bear encounter, the attack (in which a real bear was used) is horrific in every way imaginable. No matter how many kills scenes you’ve seen in horror movies, nothing comes close to preparing you for the sight of a bear tearing apart human flesh.

Scare Factor: 4/5 If you’re looking for horror that’s more grounded than what you’ve been watching, Backcountry is the way to go. It won’t be the scariest movie you’ve ever seen, but it’ll at least give you reason to pause before you plan your next camping trip.

**Film site, Audiences Everywhere has been featuring a variety of horror-themed articles and interviews this month including staff writer Ryan McLean's conversation with Adam MacDonald: http://www.audienceseverywhere.net/horrortowns-adam-macdonald-interviews/

31 Days of Horror- Day 21: Session 9 (2001)

(dir. Brad Anderson)

Universal Pictures

An asbestos removal team encounter supernatural occurrences at the Danvers State Mental Hospital.

There’s a weird, almost dream-like quality to Brad Anderson’s Session 9. Part of this can be chalked up to the film’s cheap and grainy look. But beyond its budgetary restrictions, Session 9 is purposeful in its odd ambiance, and its attempts to create normalcy. The actors display a heightened machoism, and their tensions with each other are high from the start of the film, but there’s nothing natural about any of these performances. The characters never seem like an actual asbestos removal crew, and instead seem like they are simply playing pretend. When the characters interact with each other, the camera gets too close to their faces and lingers on them too long, this lack of distance and added beat only furthered the discomfort felt when watching the film.

Session 9 lingers on the spaces of the State Mental Hospital, the gaping emptiness of the place and its ability to distort sound. Even though most of the film takes place in daylight, Anderson manages to make the space frightening and more than a little depressing through his use of a yellowish and orange tint. The session tapes from a deceased patient add to the film’s eerie tension, but they don’t fit smoothly into the present-day story. There’s a disconnect in the plot points introduced, and there’s little explanation for the strange occurrences, which makes the film as a whole all the more frightening and interesting.

Scare Factor: 4/5 Like some horrific hallucination where everything is just one pace behind reality, Session 9 offers near constant discomfort in both style and story. It relies on the inexplicable nature of horror and mood instead of narrative accessibility or character depth. Session 9 manages to turn what would normally be viewed as negative attributes in other films into its biggest strengths. 

31 Days of Horror- Day 20: The Loved Ones (2009)

(dir. Sean Byrne)

Paramount Pictures

* First time viewing

Six months after his father is killed in a car crash, a young man is trying to rebuild his life when he’s kidnapped and tortured by a classmate he politely turned down for the school dance.

Mutilation, both of self and others, defines Byrne’s cinematic love song, which feels like a mashup of late 2000s emo-alternative rock and 1980s female power ballads. Brent goes from a victim of his own depression, self-mutilation and suicidal fantasies, to a victim by someone else’s hand, someone whose gleeful torture gives him the motivation to live. The Loved Ones takes pleasure in its own dark ironies, delivering a moral on embracing life that far outshines any of the similarly-themed Saw movies.

This parallel take on mutilation also carries over to Lola Stone, our queen of the dance, a perverse monster who is both innocently childish and violently sexual. She is of course the mutilator of Brent’s body, but her mind bares its own scars, made deeper by a father who gives into her every whim and has taught her that a boy’s rejection is torture in itself. It’s a slightly satiric look at fathers who treat their daughters as princesses, and girls who believe love songs and rom-coms are honest portraits, but The Loved Ones holds more truth than not.

Robin McLeavy is absolutely phenomenal as Stone, and every violent act, every word of spite is both horrific and oddly attractive—traits representative of some of the genre’s best villains. While many comparisons have been between this film and Carrie, Carrie White elicited sympathy and was ultimately a victim. Lola Stone is pure malice, someone we love to hate while anticipating her bloody end. School dance rejections may be a tired horror trope, but Byrne and McLeavy tap into the horror of trying to forcibly create romance in a tight space between two people who barely know each other.

Scare Factor: 3/5 The Loved Ones gloriously gory, stylish, and memorable. This little gem from Australia is one of horror’s best kept secrets. 

You can watch the full movie free and legally courtesy of the Paramount Vault here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOnumfWyDQU 

31 Days of Horror- Day 19: Slither (2006)

(dir. James Gunn)

Universal Pictures

A meteorite leaves a small-town victim to parasitic slugs that take over their hosts' bodies in zombie-like fashion.

People love to make a big deal about how James Gunn went from directing quirky, cult genre films to Guardians of the Galaxy, but it’s clear from Slither that Gunn was always destined to play in a larger, big-budget sandbox. The earnest emotional quality that spans Gunn’s films is largely what makes Slither such a great watch. Sure, the practical effects and gross-out gore are an added enticement. But Gunn’s focus on the emotional connections between these small-town, ironically hunting obsessed, people elevates the film beyond the standard splatter film tropes.

Every member of the large cast is given a chance to shine, and when your cast includes Nathan Fillion, Elizabeth Banks, Miachel Rooker and a whole host of character actors, that’s an impressive feat in itself. That being said, Rooker is clearly the standout as the first of the infected and master of the hive-mind. While audiences are surely no stranger to seeing Rooker as a villain, he is effortlessly sympathetic in his role as Grant Grant. He’s not so much a villain but a victim of forces beyond his control. Like the parasites, he simply is what is. It’s this theme, of people staying true to their inherent nature, that courses through the film. Even in the face of horror and tragedy, the good-natured cop will remain good-natured, the independent woman will remain independent, and the control freak will remain controlling though a bit more freakish.

Scare Factor: 1/5 Effortlessly fun and fantastically gory, Slither earns its cult status and is a prefect way to break up some of the overwhelming darkness in your standard Halloween watchlist. 

31 Days of Horror- Day 18: Wrong Turn (2003)

(Rob Schmidt)

20th Century Fox

* First time viewing

A group of attractive young adults get stranded in the backwoods of West Virginia and are hunted down by cannibal inbred fucks.

Here we are with another supposed “classic” from the early 2000s that I’ve been told I’ve been missing out on… despite the fact that I’ve seen one of the direct to DVD sequels I can barely remember. Wrong Turn fared a lot better than The Grudge in my eyes. It’s full of clichés and clearly tries to be The Hills Have Eyes set in a forest, and yet it’s a pretty good time with a couple really strong set pieces (the attack in the trees is really good). Eliza Dushku and Jeremy Sisto are fun to watch as always, and the rest of the cast forms a great set of ‘where are they now’ performances. Wrong Turn doesn’t offer much that we haven’t seen before, but it’s a successful throwback to 80s horror because it doesn’t try to beat you over the head with that fact.

 I’m quite a fan of the evil backwoods hillbilly subgenre of horror, because they mostly manage to successfully blend fact with urban legend.  The inbred cannibals, designed by Stan Winston Studios, are cartoonishly sinister, which makes the film to fun to watch, but they don’t create as harrowing an experience as they could have. If there is a modern franchise that could use a reboot and made into realist survival horror, Wrong Turn is it.  Y’know, unless those direct to video sequels are still doing it for you.

Scare Factor 1/5 Wrong Turn is entertaining but trivial horror. It’s worth a watch to laugh over with friends, but there’s not much there otherwise.

31 Days Horror- Day17: Frontier(s) (2007)

(dir. Xavier Gens)

EuropaCorp

* First time viewing

In midst of a political upheaval, a group of Paris thieves are held hostage and tortured by Neo-Nazis looking to create the master race.

Frontier(s) is fucking gnarly. That’s really the only way I can put it. It actually may be the goriest movie I’ve seen save for Martyrs. And I’m not talking clearly over-the-top Tarantino-style fun, I mean full-on “I’ve got to look away for a moment” blood and pain. Gens delivers calculated and unrestrained cruelty. While I straight up love practical gore effects, I’m not a big fan of the torture-porn subgenre of horror, which leaves me feeling a little mixed about Gens’ film. The political ‘out of the fire and into the frying pan’ backdrop of the film elevates the material beyond standard maiming and mutilation fare, and but watching a group of backwoods neo-nazis repeatedly torture their victims in new ways isn’t all that interesting after the first hour or so. There’s certainly meaning to the madness, but the film never quite manages to balance the two, preferring dismemberment over right-wing extremism—though perhaps the film is suggesting that the two are more linked than we may originally think.

What is consistently interesting, and ultimately my reason for giving the film at least one thumb up, is Karnia Testa’s performance as thief and expectant-mother Yasmine and that character’s arc in the film. Once the tables are turned and she goes from a place of victimization to vengeance, Frontier(s) becomes a lot more compelling and involving. For the climax alone, I’d watch the entirety of the film again. Despite some of my qualms with the film, I appreciate that Frontier(s) is a solid example of the diversity within the horror genre, it simply may not be for everyone.

Scare Factor: 5/5 If we’re talking stomach-churning scares in terms of gore, then Frontier(s) gets full marks. Seriously, the Saw franchise has got nothing on this, so if blood, guts and severed Achilles tendons are your thing, then Frontier(s) is a must see.

31 Days of Horror-Day 16: Dog Soldiers (2002)

(dir. Neil Marshall)

Pathe

*First time viewing

A squad of British soldiers go up against werewolves in the Scottish Highlands.

Neil Marshall directed one of my favorite horror movies of the past decade, The Descent, so my expectations for Dog Soldiers was pretty high. Man, were they met! While the film’s werewolf effects strain under the budget at times, and of course it doesn’t come close to delivering the sheer palm sweating terror of Marshall’s later horror film, Dog Soldiers is a tense B-movie blast from start to finish.  As with The Descent, the creature feature aspect is balanced out by strong performances and layered character relationships, making the whole proceeding feel more like high-drama than it seemingly should. With Kevin McKidd, Sean Pertwee, and Liam Cunningham leading the charge, Dog Soldiers is given plenty of macho gravitas. You can practically smell the musk coming off the film. But ultimately this masculinity gets slightly undercut by a great 3^rd act twist, a reminder of why Marshall stands at the forefront of creating complex female characters in horror.

There’s a bare-bones simplicity to the story, one that keeps emotions high and the action beats impeccably paced. Like so many zombie films have done over the years, Dog Soldiers keeps most of the film’s events centralized to one location, making the werewolf siege on the small woodland house seem like a world-ending event. The film’s action far outshines many films with much larger budgets and it’s clear why HBO hired him to direct some of Game of Thrones most memorable episodes.

Scare Factor: 2/5 Dog Soldiers is an incredible amount of fun, especially for those who love seeing classic movie monsters re-purposed in new ways. The film may have flown under your radar but I assure you it is one of the genre’s best kept secrets.