Don't Breathe - Don't hold your breath

A recommendation from my favourite youtube film reviewers RedLetterMedia - Don't Breathe is billed as an independent American horror / thriller in which a band of burglers rob the house of a blind man.  But he isn't as helpless as he seems, this blind man is an ex-army soldier with exceptional other senses that compensate for his lack of sight.  Let the thrills commence.  Probably.

To be honest it is a little difficult to write this review, because there isn't a huge amount that actually happens in this film.  Our three burglers break into the house, avoid a dog (Chekhov's Dog obviously), then disturb the guy and then for some reason don't just run out of the house immediately and cut their losses.  There's some stuff about how the fact that one of them brought a gun to the house means that this is armed robbery and therefore so bad that they can't just leave (why?) and then the plot does branch out when they discover someone else in the house - but still the solution to all this is just to use the fact that you're not blind, turn the lights on, and run the hell out of the house before the old guy has a chance to realise what's happening.  Guess what - he ain't going to pick you out of an identity parade!  Then call the cops anonymously and send them into his house to deal with the 'plot branch'.  Couldn't be easier?!

Not really understanding what RedLetterMedia saw in this.  Perhaps they're just trying to big up independent American film-makers as opposed to the huge studios, which is fair enough I guess.  Don't Breathe isn't really that bad, it's just a bit too much of the same thing for 90 minutes.  Which would still be ok if it wasn't that the thing that's the same couldn't be resolved very easily by just doing all the things I already said.

Anyway, would still rather watch this than the new Alien remake.  Ridley Scott has remade one of his own films.  And he didn't choose to remake Kingdom of Heaven, you know, one that wasn't very good, make it better and all that.  No - he has remade Alien.  For.  Fuck.  Sake.

The Neon Demon - Hollywood will consume you

This - the most recent film to emerge from the mind of writer / director Nicolas Winding Refn - is a bonkers film.  Refn's work to date (Drive and Only God Forgives) indicates he is a writer eager to layer up textures and oft-baffling metaphor, and a director eager to play around with the stylistic opportunities provided by the cinematic medium.  The new film by Refn is not one to take someone on a first date - not unless that person's favourite film is Erasorhead.

The Neon Demon is at its simplest the story of Jesse (Elle Fanning) and her attempt to inveigle herself into the Holywood fashion / film industry.  Jesse comes - like many before her - from a rural background seeking the bright lights and fame of the big city.  She is taken under the wing of Ruby, Gigi and Sarah, barely older than her but bitter beyond their years and jaded about the industry that has given them the fame and style Jesse now craves.  As Jesse moves closer to an inner circle that she desperately wants to be part of, what will she find there?

Refn's style is unique has needs to be experienced to be understood.  He uses colour, shape and lighting to create a style that's brutal, unsettling and predatory.  Jesse is the bambi trying to become the wolf, and yet the wolves circle her, all the time fearful of her youth, innocence, and the fact she represents their eventual decline.  On top of this the sound track adds layer of sensory discombobulation, the relentless dance rhythm beats play over an opening scene where Jesse meets her 'mentors' in a club.  The tension in the room is there for all to drink in.  The comparisons to Susperia are easy to make, which in itself is plenty enough to recommend a watch.

At its heart the film is a critique of the fashion industry.  It is an industry that idolises youth over everything, while at the some time fearing the very same youth that represents the downfall of its established stars.  The careers of those who have 'made it' last only as long as it takes for the next youngest prettiest thing to emerge out of the desert into Hollywood's bright lights.  In parallel, it is a critique of those who go in pursuit of that world.  It talks about the dangers of letting unknown forces into your life.  How so you know these people are your friends?  You keep your friends close, but your enemies you keep closer right?

As to if what happens in the film is to be taken literally or not... well to ask the question implies that you might not be a fan of Refn's oeuvre.  It doesn't really matter if what Refn puts on screen is a literal depiction of a story he has come up with, or a weird metaphysical construction that deconstructs the horror of the fashion industry and reconstructs it as an all-too-real horror, Refn's work speaks for itself.  His constant use of image, music, colour, form and fashion as a way of building tension and meaning may leave some behind, but his horrific metaphors for the dangers this industry impose upon young wannabies aren't particularly dense.

To conclude, I thought this was a superb film.  Refn is one of a very small number of film-makers these days who has a very singular and recognisable artistic style, but who's work still pierces into the mainstream.  Beware kids, Hollywood will eat you up.

Lights Out - a TV horror movie

Watched this little US horror film tonight.  My rule of thumb for films is that longer than 150 minutes is too long, but shorter than 80 minutes is too short.  When you get down to something that's fewer than 80 minutes, I start to wonder why this is a feature length film at all and not some sort of made for TV movie.  Well Lights Out is a good case study in this.  It's 77 minutes long, and though modern film technology allows it to look like a proper film, the story progression, direction and acting occasionally make you wonder if this should be on the SciFi channel.

Lights Out starts with a suitably horror opening.  We are inside a warehouse with the night shift.  As they turn the lights out the silhouette of a woman appears in the distance.  The worker flicks the light on and it's gone.  The light is flicked on and off several times, with the silhouette appearing each time the lights go out, until the light is turned off one last time and THE SILHOUETTE IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF US!  A nice opening.

What should be the prelude to a mystery ready to unfold soon turns an X-Files episode with a family secret, a medical experiment gone wrong and a nice moral ending.  The film doesn't give enough space to the plot to allow the mystery to linger and get under your skin before it becomes normalised and our heroine finds a box of exposition that explains everything (this literally happens).  In a TV show you have to get things moving quickly, in a film - not so much.  The film's creators didn't seem to realise that they had 90 minutes to play with, and that they didn't have to immediately reveal who or what the dark silhouette is.  Horror fans are happy to enjoy an opening act of gore and jumpiness before we get into the whys and hows.  Also horror films need to abide by their own set of rules.  Is silhouette-girl actually gone when the lights are on, or is she just invisible?  It she tied to the mother or not?  It isn't really clear what the rules of engagement are here, before everything comes to a conclusion that could have happened years ago in the film's timeline, then everyone lives happily ever after.  Have these people never seen Carrie?  They always come back!  If they don't come back then your average horror film fan is going to feel let down - as I did.

Bit of a disappointment to be honest.  Only watch if you are a genre fan.

The Hateful Eight - Tarantino goes too far again

In the list of films in which Quentin Tarantino seems hell-bent on climbing inside his own arsehole in the pursuit of postmodern perfection - The Hateful Eight certainly has a place.

The Hateful Eight tells the story of two bounty hunters who take refuge in a cabin during a snow storm.  One bounty hunter (Kurt Russel) is transporting his prisoner (Jennifer Jason Leigh), while the other (Samuel L Jackson) is simply on his way to collect a reward.  The cabin where they end up stopping is populated by a group of nefarious loners, some, none or all of whom might be interested in stealing the bounty hunter's reward.  What could possibly go wrong?

The major issues are 1) there is no way this should all take over 3 hours to resolve, 2) the fact it is all set in one location and 3) to be honest it isn't really that interesting anyway.  Tarantino's signature tropes across his films are his dialogue, use of music and non-linear storytelling.  His work is synonymous with American postmodern cinema.  These elements are all present in The Hateful Eight, but he lays everything on so thick that any intrigue in the actual story is lost in his insistence on dragging yet another long and heavy look out of Kurt Russel.

I lost count of the number of times I wanted a scene to cut before it went on for a further 30 seconds.  The outdoors locations Tarantino's team found for the film's setting are undoubtedly beautiful, but a film has editors for a reason.  Three hours for a film with so simple a plot is far too much, especially so for one set for two thirds of its run-time in the same poorly-lit location.  As ever Tarantino's direction is flawless, with a couple of little flourishes chucked in to show that he's still out there on the cutting edge making interesting films in interesting ways.  But I just can't get over how long and simple the finished product is.

By one count this is Tarantino's 8th film as a director (geddit? his 8th film has an 8 in the title!).  It baffles me to see this cited online as an example of why The Hateful Eight is a good film.  If it was an hour shorted I'm very sure I would have a different opinion, but the final cut is just too long, just too smug.  It's cinematic onanism.