The Visit

‘The Visit’ is scary, but not entertaining

                           

                   

Thursday September 24, 2015 | By:Tony Baksa |

M. Night Shyamalan has to be admired for his sheer perseverance. As writer and director of 14 films and several TV series spanning 23 years, Shyamalan manages to get movies produced based on his 1999 blockbuster success “The Sixth Sense”. He has never matched the quality of “Sixth Sense” and it looks like he never will. His newest offering, “The Visit”, has so much wrong with it that it is difficult to know where to begin with my criticism.

The set-up is enticing. Siblings Becca and Tyler are sent off by their single mom for a week’s visit with their grandparents at their Pennsylvania farm. The kids have never met their mother’s parents due to a 15 year estrangement. Secrets abound and the fun of the movie should be uncovering these secrets. No fun here as predictable events follow each other to a sordid and most unpleasant conclusion. The unpleasantness comes from watching a 15 year old girl and a 13 year old boy being terrorized by, frankly, disgusting methods.

A horror film should be scary but fun and above all else entertaining. None of the above applies. From the moment the kids set foot on the remote farm, the anticipation is stolen from us by obvious signs of trouble. We are then taken through the week as the screen‘s graphics announce the passing of each day leading up to the inevitable Saturday showdown. And you see it all coming from the first reel. There is one major plot twist that is fantastic and may have been the selling point to the movie’s producers. Would that it had inspired a better backstory.

“The Visit” is scary but not in a compelling way. It is atrocious and repulsive in the way it forces you to avert your eyes! It fails to set up rules for us to believe in. It is more than anything else – annoying. The script is pretentious. There are so many holes in its logic. I wish I could point them all out to you but for this genre that wouldn’t be fair. I am opposed to spoiler alerts. Just to say, the only spoiler here is M. Night Shyamalan. How could this movie come from the same person who gave us the hauntingly beautiful “The Sixth Sense”? How does he get money to make films? His track record is abysmal. What is especially pathetic is that Shyamalan steals unashamedly from low budget movies like the “Paranormal” franchise and can’t even up the ante.

On a positive note, the unfamiliar cast is appealing given the circumstances. I’d like to see Olivia DeJonge (Becca) in future projects. She has a natural quality that makes you care what happens to her.

Directed with no wit or vision, the movie avoids much needed special effects. The same can be said of the script. Rod Serling would have had a field day with this story.

At the risk of being obvious, don’t visit “The Visit”. It is a trip you will regret.

http://www.thesunnews.net/scene/780-'The_Visit_is_scary,_but_not_entertaining.html

It's never "just a movie" anymore

It’s Just a Movie – a commentary by Tony Baksa 8/27/2015

                                    

People say it all the time. I have said it. “It’s just a movie”. In fact, much of the time movies are more than just flickering images with clever dialogue. We are moved emotionally and intellectually by movies. We gain a social conscience. We learn so much through film. Sometimes a movie can help us come to terms with personal issues. “It’s just a movie” no longer applies if it ever did.

Case in point - two movies I recently watched on DVD and Netflix :

As I age I am acutely aware of death. I hate that word DEATH. It is so final. According to spiritualists as well as many religious teachings, death is not final. There is the other side - the afterlife. I love believing in the afterlife. I am in love with the idea. Yet, I ask myself, what is it I really believe?

I watched a movie two days ago that has thrown me into this age old quandary. It was a beautifully sad movie about true love entitled "Amour". It depicts an old couple in their final days - a long married very accomplished duo with so much to live for. I should say, so much to remember - so much to cherish - but already lived. They are both experiencing serious health issues but they have each other and are surrounded by the many things that mean so much to them. However, in the end aren't they just things? What seems to matter is the present and how they deal with two strokes, bad nurses, an inability to talk, walk and bathe without help. These once strong vibrant people are also dealing with peculiar signs at their door - scratches and marks left by what seems to be a screwdriver - an attempt to break into their home - this home with so much history. To end a wonderful life in such an un-wonderful way is the tragedy and so unfair.

This film devastated me as much as a movie can. Of course it isn't true devastation. It is simply my response to a great film. It is a great film but I will not see it again. Movies, books, theater are there to entertain, teach sometimes and illuminate our lives. "Amour" made me look at what I know but mostly what I don't know - and that is scary. And that is why I cannot view this masterpiece again. However, I do not regret seeing it. Its lesson was so potent and like any work of art it will not be forgotten.

In "Hannah and Her Sisters" Woody Allen plays a man searching for the meaning of life - actually more so the meaning of death. He is so disturbed in his search that he tries out all the religions known to man for answers. It, of course, is comic. Finally he realizes that no answers are forthcoming. He is deeply frustrated and goes to his elderly father for words of wisdom. He asks his dad why must we die - where do we go - is there life after death - what are the truths? His dad answers, "Why worry - there's nothing you can do about it - so relax - live - forget about it and just live. What will happen will happen."  This releases Woody and as the film winds down, our hero finds a happy way to live without the burden of his personal doomsday fears.

I recall after seeing "Hannah" a great feeling of relief because I, like Woody, lived with the constant search for life's answers.

Here, then, are two films so opposite in tone – one a comedy the other a tragedy – both with lessons to be learned - two movies that seemed to speak directly to me. To be highly entertained and enriched – to laugh and cry and gain profound insight is the gift a good movie provides. Is it “just a movie”? Not always and we are the better for it.

http://www.thesunnews.net/scene/780-Its_never_'just_a_movie_anymore.html

The Gift

“The Gift” – a movie review by Tony Baksa 8/16/2015

Sun Rating – 2 Suns

                                                         

A good mystery is difficult to pull off these days.  As a collective movie going audience, we’ve seen it all. We are all too familiar with the mechanizations that propel a mystery. So, there’s nothing new under the sun. Well, once in a while there is. “Gone Girl” is a recent example of surprise twists and turns.  “The Gift” a new mystery seems to be reaching for this same effect. After all, isn’t that the purpose of a good suspense, to catch us unawares? Hitchcock was a master at this.

Produced, written and directed by Joel Edgerton “The Gift” almost succeeds. Edgerton does a fine job creating truly creepy suspense. The tone is realistic with subtle performances by Jason Bateman and Rebecca Hall. Especially good is director Edgerton in a major role. He plays Gordo, a sad loner who runs into an old high school classmate, Simon (Bateman) and his wife, Robyn (Hall) in a home goods store. They have just relocated back to Bateman’s hometown where he has been given a high powered new job with all the trimmings – big money, perks and a glorious new house. It is apparent that Gordo – known as Weirdo back in high school, is Simon’s polar opposite.

Gordo insinuates himself into the couples lives by systematically giving them gifts – leaving them at their door or at work or just showing up unannounced. He especially has this habit of visiting while Simon is at work and Robyn is home alone. We begin to see why Gordo was called Weirdo twenty-seven years ago. This goes on for much of the movie with bits and pieces slowly being revealed about the true nature of the men’s long ago “friendship”.  Raising the bar a bit for this genre are themes of forgiveness, nostalgia and trust.

However, when the big reveal comes, it is such a letdown. It hardly seems worthy enough for what preceded it. Up until this point, “The Gift” – which actually refers to three final gifts, is a taut and riveting thriller. The performances are top notch. But that darn reveal doesn’t live up to all the fuss - plus it’s rather offensive and not in a good horror movie way. Perhaps if it were renamed “Much Ado About Nothing” audiences might feel less let down.

Without giving it away, the villain’s motivation which is really what “The Gift” is all about is weak and illogical. I just didn’t buy it. It’s unfortunate. This could have easily been fixed by a very minor rewrite. That beautifully chilling last shot as Gordo fades out of frame in a blur would have carried such weight. I would wager that with a rewrite, the film’s ending would have reached classic stature in years to come.

It doesn’t help a mystery, when half way through the plotting, too much is telegraphed. The guessing game shouldn’t be this easy.  I also had problems with plot points. There are too many holes in the script. These contrivances get in the way. Edgerton sacrifices believability for plot manipulation. He has a story to tell and he’ll be damned if plausibility hampers his task.

I will say this, however, Joel Edgerton is a good actor and a promising film maker. Maybe he’ll get it right next time out.


http://www.thesunnews.net/scene/201-'The_Gift_is_one_that_deserves_to_be_returned.html

Mr. Holmes

Mr. Holmes Surprises

                                       

Mr. Holmes – a movie review by Tony Baksa 7/26/2015

Rating – 4 Suns

Summertime moving going can present problems for the serious cinephile.  With the abundance of sci-fi and superhero blockbusters, the serious minded film goer must wait out the summer for the fall and winter explosion of erudite offerings. Well, hidden in the pile of populous bill of fare is a movie that seems so out of place for this time of year – thankfully so. I admire the usual bombastic summer fun at the movies but “Mr. Holmes” is a welcome relief from the noise.

Sherlock Holmes has to be one of the most filmed literary characters ever. However, it seems, we never tire of him. He has been portrayed in diverse ways by many fine actors. One of our finest actors working today has now taken the old sleuth on. In “Mr. Holmes” the prolific Ian McKellen (Harry Potter & Hobbit movies) presents Sherlock as you have never seen him. In retirement, battling serious health and aging issues, Holmes is haunted by his last case which if not resolved professionally has never been resolved emotionally. It doesn’t help that his memory or lack thereof, has become his enemy. With dignity to spare, McKellen portrays a proud, realistic and compassionate man at the end of his days trying to make sense of it all.

The case in point is a fascinating one involving a young married couple’s tragedy, marital unrest, mysterious strangers and psychic forces. This complex scenario stirs in parallel plots involving a concerned house keeper (Laura Linney) and her brilliant young son (Milo Parker), a Japanese admirer (Hiroyuki Sanada) and bee keeping. Parallel lines meet at the end, of course, as all good mysteries demand. It’s the getting there that makes or breaks a good mystery.

“Mr. Holmes is a warm, wise and wonderful film based on the book “A Slight Trick of the Mind” by Mitch Cullen.  Moving at a pace that should work against interest, director Bill Condon (Dreamgirls, The Twilight Saga) wisely chooses a languid momentum to mirror Sherlock’s elderly reveries. McKellen gives an Oscar worthy performance with unblinking honesty as a man facing the end of his remarkable life. Laura Linney is solid as always. The miracle here is 12 year old Milo Parker as Holmes’ young protégé. His strong performance has depth and uncanny understanding for someone so young. We are seeing hints of what Sherlock Holmes might have been like as a boy. The relationship is a classic one between an old man and a young boy. It is the heart of the movie.

Set in rural Sussex, England, we are treated to lovely misty pastel landscapes. Director Condon mixes the many plots with such ease employing flashbacks galore – yet, never cumbersome or confusing. The story remains intriguing to the very end. An added treat – we go away learning some very interesting facts about bees. 

INSIDE OUT

‘Inside Out’ brings childhood anxieties to life

Wednesday July 22, 2015 | By:Tony Baksa |

Disney/Pixar has created a classic. “Inside Out” is compelling in its originality and deeply moving. It is the story of an 11-year-old girl’s journey through depression. Funny and sad, “Inside Out” tackles this delicate subject matter in a most surprising and entertaining way.

Young Riley is uprooted from her suburban home in Minnesota to San Francisco, due to her dad’s job transfer and she is faced with the reality of building a new life. The cleverness of this movie cannot be overstated. As Riley sinks into unhappiness, her inner voices become characters – Fear, Anger, Disgust, Joy and Sadness. Expertly voiced by a brilliant and expressive cast, “Inside Out” is profound, intelligent and speaks to all ages.

Front and center are Joy battling Sadness – not in a mean, cartoonish way, but gentle and loving. We learn that Joy and Sadness are necessary allies for Riley’s well-being. Fear, Disgust and Anger cannot be dismissed and also aid in motivating Riley to adjust to her circumstances.

Beautifully animated and filled with delightful characters, “Inside Out” succeeds in bringing childhood anxieties to life. The surprising level of suspense supplies an irresistible momentum that is breathtaking.

Standouts include Bing Bong, Riley’s imaginary friend that still lingers in her memory, even though she has outgrown such things. Voiced by Richard Kind, Bing Bong is sweet and funny and ultimately touching. Sadness, voiced by Phyllis Smith, is the star of the show. She is strangely loveable and completely necessary. Her chemistry with Joy, voiced by Amy Poehler, is the engine that runs the movie.

Credit co-directors Peter Docter and Ronaldo Del Carmen, along with their team of writers, for the abundance of imagination brimming over in this remarkable film. Essential to the emotional life of this movie is the delicate score composed by Michael Giacchino.

Be prepared to laugh. “Inside Out” is very funny. Be prepared to cry— several times— as “Inside Out” astonishes you with its power.

http://www.thesunnews.net/around_town/927-'Inside_Out_brings_childhood_anxieties_to_life.html

San Andreas

San Andreas – a movie review by Tony Baksa – 6/10/2015

3 Suns

It was with a cozy touch of nostalgia that I viewed “San Andreas”. We, of a certain age, remember the rash of what was labeled “disaster films” a few decades ago.  “The Towering Inferno”,” Airplane”,” Hurricane” and “Earthquake” were just a few of the more successful films of this genre.  Director Brad Peyton returns us to an updated hi-tech disaster earthquake that will blow your mind. In this summer’s first official blockbuster, California is decimated by the mother of all earthquakes.  

Scientists have gone on record stating most of what we see here is improbable.  Who cares.” San Andreas” is a highly entertaining visual and visceral feast.  Starring Dwayne Johnson and Carla Gugino, this roller coaster ride is fun from start to finish.  High rises topple, tsunamis overwhelm, streets and houses crumble, Hoover Dam is destroyed. Failed and successful rescue attempts abound. To use a well-worn cliché’ – there is never a dull moment.

Well, hardly ever if you can ignore the corny personal dramas of the stock characters. Trust me, this you can do.  I won’t even bother recounting these scenarios. They really are beside the point.  The obvious mission of “San Andreas” is to take its audience on a thrill ride. Mission accomplished. This flick is jam-packed with jump out of your seat moments.

“San Andreas”, with an enormous special effects and stunt team, is state of the art. And it is a sight to behold. Excitement is guaranteed. A special nod goes to film Editor Bob Ducsay for his seamless work.

 The cast which also includes quirky character actor, Paul Giamatti, is likable which makes us care for their survival despite their less than imaginative backstories.

The best thing about this movie is that it runs just under 2 hours.  With its non-stop deluge of comic book danger, the smart filmmakers know when to quit.

“San Andreas” can also be seen in 3D. Save yourself a few bucks and catch it in 2D. With all the action exploding continuously, who needs a brick or two in the face. This film’s major asset is its fine ebb and flow. 3D gimmickry sabotages this effect.  Just stay on the ride until its breathless conclusion. You will smile at the impossibility of the last line uttered by Dwayne Johnson as the American flag unfurls. Not even Brando could make it plausible. But that’s the fun of “San Andreas”.  What could be more appropriate than shaky science in an earthquake movie.

Tomorrowland

Don’t waste today on ‘Tomorrowland’

Thursday June 4, 2015 | By:Tony Baksa |

Disney’s latest sci-fi adventure, “Tomorrowland”, is a big, bad guilt trip. This preposterous tween movie’s premise is that we have no future if we continue to be negative. Positivity will save the day. Just believe in a future and all will be well. It’s pretty simplistic and definitely not a strong enough theme to support a 2 1/2-hour scolding.

Director Brad Bird and team have filled the screen with the most boring visuals and special effects. Lots of noise and fast movement assault our senses with no significant meaning. It brings to mind Macbeth’s famous line, “It is a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” It is also a tale full of confusion. I really didn’t know what was going on. It made me wonder if the target audience would have the same difficulty.

“Tomorrowland” stars George Clooney as inventor Frank Walker, scarred by youthful rejection. We first encounter him as an optimistic boy (Thomas Robinson). He fails to impress the judges at The Hall of Inventions with his jetpack, which actually doesn’t work. However, the young Athena (Raffey Cassidy), feels it has potential. Somehow, her opinion has some weight. She is a bit of a mystery for most of the film until the final reel when she, who has not aged, reunites with the pessimistic adult Frank (Clooney). Then the lame mystery is solved, but still doesn’t explain her purpose.

At the center of this confusion is the feisty, optimistic Casey Newton (Britt Robertson). She discovers a pin from the 1964 World Expo that transports her to Tomorrowland when she touches it. She learns that the future is governed by Nix (Hugh Laurie) who is determined to destroy the negative present to ensure a positive future. Casey becomes convinced that the world needs saving from this lunatic. The odd thing is that “villain” Governor Nix is on the right side of the issues. He has proposed solutions to global warming, political and sociological unrest. So, if he lives in the future and cured these worldly ailments, then where’s the conflict? We are left with the message that the world needs more dreamers and that everyone should drink Coke – mucho product placement – and visit Disney World, especially Tomorrowland. This is a shameless overstuffed promo for Disney.

The performances lack enthusiasm, except for Cassidy as the enigmatic Athena. As for the direction and screenplay – Bird and crew may know what “Tomorrowland” is about. Perhaps they can film a tutorial and let us all in on the “fun.”

http://www.thesunnews.net/scene/749-Dont_waste_today_on_'Tomorrowland.html