Saturday, October 28, 2023

A-Purging We Will Go

Introduction: Despite the series' less than stellar critical reception, one must admit there is a kernel of fascination at the heart of the concept behind the Purge. And it has certainly captured the imagination of a whole generation (for better or worse) - I say as someone who has actually heard the phrase "we're going purging" slip from teenagers' lips on Halloween night. For a while now I've wanted to give these movies a proper sit-through, and I've finally found a relatively cheap 5-disc collection that will allow me to do that.

But before we begin, I have to mention one little piece of trivia - because I found out about it all on my own. Imagine my shock as I was watching the original Star Trek a few years back, and an episode from 1967 comes on (predating The Purge by almost 50 years!), in which Kirk and crew explore a planet with an otherwise buttoned-up society that goes all out for one night of the year. That's right - Star Trek predicted the Purge! Okay, now let's begin.

Warning: the following reviews will likely contain spoilers (although don't expect detailed play-by-plays). I'm assuming that, at this point, you've either already seen these movies, or don't care to. It's not my intention to hype them up. If that's what you're looking for, go read a synopsis on IMDb. I wanna talk about what happens in these movies - what works, and what doesn't.

The Purge (2013)

Amusingly, the events in this movie take place in 2022, which was last year. If Trump had been re-elected for a second term, I wouldn't even call that far-fetched. At this point in time, I don't think I could say anything about The Purge that hasn't been said already. But I can tell you what I thought of it. And I agree with the many people who say that although The Purge is a movie with an interesting concept (even if it doesn't stand up to any kind of intellectual scrutiny), it doesn't really do enough with that concept, and devolves into a mediocre home invasion thriller.

Not even a good home invasion thriller. Just a mediocre one. (Home invasion is a well-fed subgenre of horror, but The Strangers from 2008 is one I remember being pretty good). The family isn't very relatable, and their early bonding moments are pure cringe. No amount of moral high ground can change the fact that the boy's decision to let the stranger in (why did he even have the code?) was really stupid. But it sets up most of the action, and puts the family in a clever bind, so whatever. I appreciate that the movie attempts to be a morality play, but there is way too much focus on jump scares - the really irritating kind that is punctuated by the soundtrack and involves no stakes whatsoever (the proverbial cat jumping out of the closet).

I liked the marauders, even if they felt a bit like walking clichés. The leader was an interesting character (is it me or did his mask look exactly like his real face?). Complaints about the girls skipping around with knives instead of guns seem to miss the point, as these are people who think murder is a game and are probably touched in the head. I like that there were brief nods to some more elevated concepts, like the Purge existing to eradicate the poor and homeless, but those ideas weren't developed enough.

"We can afford protection."

I find it funny that everybody in the story defends the Purge by saying "it works!" Even if this half-baked thought experiment actually did work, the suggestion that the government and/or society would be more concerned with results than optics is hilarious. In the real world, we'd rather enact a policy that sounds good while doing the opposite of what it claims, than one that works, but which nobody can build their reputation on.

What interests ME about the concept of the Purge is the fact that laws are just approximations of what people in the aggregate think represents an ethical code (or a moral one - legislating morality introduces yet another angle for criticism). I wanted a movie that deals with the grey area of consensual crime, but in true American fashion, this story is overly preoccupied with violence.

Nowhere is the myopic focus on violence more frustrating than when the teenage daughter's slightly older boyfriend (honestly, they look about the same age) sneaks into the house - not to consummate his love, which could have set up a potentially enlightening subplot about statutory rape (that is, consensual sex with someone whose consent the law simply doesn't recognize), but in order to attempt to kill the girl's dad, who doesn't want them to be together. Like she'd want anything to do with him then. What a ridiculously stupid turn of events.

Anyway, I can see the merit in the concept behind this movie. I just wanted something a little smarter, and less dragged down by tired horror tropes. A home invasion thriller is admittedly a safe and simple way to introduce the world to the Purge. I'm hoping the sequels will open up that world, and explore some of the institutional facets (and repercussions) of this ill-advised annual Bacchanalia of blood.

The Purge: Anarchy (2014)

Anarchy feels like a much different movie than its predecessor. So much so, that I'm surprised it was written and directed by the same guy (James DeMonaco). With only a year between their releases, this movie feels much more modern, like going from a studio to an independent film. Unfortunately, that means we have to deal with more gonzo-style cinematography, including lots of claustrophobic close crops and shaky handheld footage that I could live without. But, despite still having more jump scares than I'd like, the writing is otherwise improved in this sequel, with a slightly more ethnic cast of less cringey characters, and a superior story.

While The Purge centered around a home invasion, Anarchy feels more like an action-packed apocalyptic adventure, as three groups of sympathetic protagonists converge downtown and must pull their wits together to survive the night. Where the first movie hid behind the shutters of a mansion, this one takes place right out on the streets. As such, we get to see how more people spend their Purge, from daring entrepreneurs rounding up riffraff to sell at auction to bloodthirsty hunters, to wealthy white families paying for the privilege of bonding over the slaughter of a poor black man in the safety of their own home. And then there's that guy with the sniper rifle in the tower who sits back and cracks open a beer. (I did appreciate the irony of a flaming fire engine, though).

As always, the fetishization of violence these purgers revel in is horrifying. When your neighbor is permitted by law - nay, encouraged - to break down your door and rape mother and child, all for the glory of God, can we even call that a society anymore? It's especially disturbing to think about the extent to which this movie captures the spirit of our school-shooting, Capitol-storming times (I don't think it's a coincidence that this is one of the popular horror franchises to come from this era). But I'm happy to see the introduction of a resistance movement (and a story told from the perspective of those who don't buy into the state's propaganda), and a more serious consideration of the political themes (i.e. racism, sexism, and classism) introduced as background noise in the last movie - exemplified by the inclusion of an organized military force systematically exterminating the poor in response to insufficient murder rates among the populace.

"Fuck you! Fuck your money! And motherfuck the Purge!"

In short, this was a better movie than the first. It's not without flaw, but I feel it was able to rise above its flaws overall, especially in the second half, once it got rolling and I felt invested in the protagonists' journey. As disturbing as the premise is, I'm glad this series hasn't turned out to be a complete dumpster fire, and I look forward to seeing where they take it in the next film. I hope the filmmakers continue to advance and innovate the narrative, and not resort to repeating themselves. The next movie's subtitle is "Election Year", and I could see it going one of two ways - either a campaign to end the Purge, or extend it year-round. It came out in 2016, so I'm already a little scared. But also intrigued, in a morbid sort of way.

The Purge: Election Year (2016)

Welcome to the third installment of the movie franchise that posits the question, "what if the United States turned violence into a national holiday?" By this point, I've seen two of these movies already. Sitting down to watch another one is a bit like visiting an old friend. But will the series be able to keep innovating, or will it fall into the rut of repetition?

On the plus side, Election Year raises the stakes by putting the future of the Purge in question. The establishment doesn't even talk about lowering crime rates anymore - it's all about saving the country from economic ruin, in what activists dub "predatory capitalism". After at least 18 years (and probably more) of purging, the growing anti-purge sentiment in the country has finally raised up a candidate who is poised to outvote the New Founding Fathers of America (NFFA). The idea of a conservative party running the country unopposed for more than four whole election cycles alone is a terrifying thought.

Naturally, to defend their power, the NFFA (who behave as much like mobsters as politicians, and are nominating a Minister as their presidential candidate) revoke the rule protecting high-ranking government officials on Purge night, and put in place a plan to assassinate the woman (a Senator) who is running against them. But guess who the Senator's head of security is? It's Leo, a.k.a. "Sergeant" from the last movie! But where he had to earn his reputation as a "badass with a heart of gold" before, it feels like now he's just coasting on it.

Unfortunately, this is where the movie starts to get repetitive. Despite the raised stakes, what follows is a formulaic repeat of what happened in the last movie - a few groups out on the streets coming together to survive. They're even led by the same guy! And, eventually, they come into contact with the resistance force. A few elements from the first movie are also borrowed, including a short home invasion sequence, and a bit of a morality play in the form of deciding whether to counter-assassinate the NFFA's candidate, or take the high road and win "fair and square". Realistically, taking the high road is a guaranteed defeat, but in this case, they seem to actually have a shot at winning (otherwise the NFFA wouldn't be so desperate), and I'd wager that the NFFA have an endless lineup of dummies ready to be propped up as figureheads for the party.

I've said before that what interests me about The Purge is the concept, yet these movies tend to focus on presenting increasingly extreme exhibitions of violence (which is no doubt what the audiences come to see). Normally, I'd be excited to hear a Miley Cyrus song in a movie, but her smash hit "Party in the USA" plays poignantly over a shameful display of youthful entitlement, in which shots are fired over a stolen candy bar. "I get mine" only works up until you start taking what's not yours. Only briefly touched on is the phenomenon of "murder tourism" - foreigners visiting America in order to Purge. This is contrasted by an offhand comment that puts things into context, considering other countries where this kind of violence is a day-to-day reality.

Interestingly, we get to see how the NFFA spend their Purge night - in church, of course - which demonstrates how the "religionization of murder" (as writer/director James DeMonaco phrases it) completely misses the target on the nature of "sacrifice". Sacrifice is giving something of yourself, not taking something from another. The mantra has evolved from "release the beast" to "purge and purify", but all these people out on the streets aren't making sacrifices to God and their nation (one and the same), they're just indulging in bloodlust.

"We will now Purge. We will torture you and violate your flesh.
Remove your skin and share in your blood. This is the American way."

To summarize, although it superficially raises the stakes by putting the future of the Purge in question, Election Year unfortunately falls into the rut of following the formula laid out in the previous movie. As such, it doesn't distinguish itself from Anarchy very cleanly in my mind, and while it does evolve the central concept marginally, it doesn't innovate on the level that I was hoping for. Which is to say, it's not any worse than the last movie, but I'm not sure it's any better, either. We leave off on a positive note, with it looking like the Purge might finally be eliminated. (Unfortunately in real life, election year 2016 was just the beginning - not the end - of a national nightmare). What a great time to go back and do a prequel!

The First Purge (2018)

We're three movies into this franchise now, and it's getting harder to find new ground to tread. That's why I'm intrigued by the idea of doing a prequel. We've seen the Purge; we've explored it. As interesting as the idea is, it has thus far been taken for granted. What could be more interesting than shining a light on the circumstances that led to (or followed from) the initial enactment of this social experiment, when the New Founding Fathers of America (NFFA) first came into power? That is, provided the concept doesn't completely fall apart under direct scrutiny, given how irrational it is. (But then, mankind is far from a rational species).

As familiar as the usual formula has become - a short establishment phase, characterized by a build-up of pre-Purge jitters, until the siren sounds and pandemonium ensues, leading to a climax at dawn, and a very brief denoument - this would have been a good time to mix things up and try a different format. Alas, the filmmakers are not brave enough to take that gamble. Despite having a new director at the helm (Gerard McMurray), you can tell James DeMonaco is still writing, because it's just another iteration of the same story that's been told at least twice before (although the fans who clamor "we want more purging" instead of, I dunno, "we want a smarter movie", are at least partly to blame). There might be some refinement of the concepts on display - and make no mistake, this is the most ethnic Purge movie yet, with a nearly fully colored cast - but the skeleton hasn't changed.

And speaking of skeletons, the "Skeletor" character in this movie is a tad over the top (although creativity points for the syringe claws that evoke a junkie Wolverine). The one thing of substance, I think, that this movie contributes to the overarching lore of the Purge, is that it never really worked. It was always just propaganda. And isn't that appropriate? As crazy as the idea that anyone would back the Purge on scientific grounds, the fact is, the trial (exclusively limited to Staten Island for the first year, with poor people being offered monetary compensation for participation - and issued trackers and glowing contacts that record everything they see) would have failed miserably if not for the government hiring foreign mercenaries to inflate the murder rate by (as we've seen in later Purges) systematically exterminating the poor.

"The conceit is not a political one. It is a psychological one."

Taking the place of an armed and organized resistance movement (that hasn't formed yet), we have instead a local gang that seems to be liberally swiping pages from The Wire. The movie questionably portrays the gang boss as sympathetic (glossing over the fact that he's a criminal peddling the streets with violence and drugs the other 364 days a year), but does so relatively effectively, culminating in a legitimately thrilling climax that channels action movie more than horror (in my notes I have written "black Rambo" - if you think this sequence stretches the viewer's suspension of disbelief, I'll remind you that all believability was thrown out the window with the idea that a third party could ever come to power in US politics). And there's definitely some "societal catharsis" involved in seeing the protagonists enacting a "freeing violence" upon authority figures in white hoods and masks that imitate blackface.

In its favor, this movie does briefly consider the concept of non-violent crime, before the murder really ramps up - being the first time these people have ever purged. One guy takes his anger out on an ATM. Several block parties crop up - ignoring the danger you and I (who have seen many Purges) know such activity would place people in, imagine an all-night rager with no noise limits, all the underage drinking, drugs flowing freely... At one point, there's even a couple going at it in public (not nearly enough nudity, though). Wouldn't it be more interesting if we had a night where all non-violent crime was legal? You know, instead of mostly just murder?

I could point out more little details here and there (like the irony of a church being called "the safest place on the island" - clearly, purging hasn't been fully "religionized" yet), but I'm gonna wrap this up. In conclusion, I think this movie does perfectly well within the confines of the formula that's been established. My biggest complaint is that it doesn't have the guts to break free from those confines and try something new. Will the next movie do that? I doubt it, but we'll see. I don't know what the premise is, but it sounds like the Purge might escape the bounds of a single night, erupting into total anarchy, perhaps leading to its final termination once and for all. Or maybe it'll be a period piece set in the lawless reaches of the Old West (just judging from the poster). That could be interesting. But I'm not getting my hopes up.

The Forever Purge (2021)

After three formulaic movies in a row, I finally get my wish of a Purge movie that tries something new! That is, if you can get past the first thirty minutes of ridiculous jump scares and cringey character introductions. It isn't until the morning after the Purge (picture a scene of getting up and going to work with corpses in the street and buildings dripping with blood) that things start to get interesting, starting with a tense stand-off, ultimately building to a rush to the border as the country descends into chaos.

If The First Purge was "the black Purge", then The Forever Purge (featuring a new director - Everardo Gout) is "the Mexican Purge". Familiar themes of classism and racism recur, but there's a new spice added to the mix in the form of xenophobia. We get to see how the Purge shakes out in Texas between the cowboys and the ranch hands, taking a cue from real world politics and the fear of immigration that Trump famously exploited. The "purification" element associated with purging also takes on a poignant new meaning - not to rid oneself of hatred or the urge to transgress, but a desire to purify the bloodline of America.

Don't let the first half hour of this movie rattle ya. It starts out like a typical Purge movie, with the events of Election Year pretty much tossed in the garbage. The NFFA has come back into power, and reinstated the Purge. So much for progress. But when a grassroots movement of so-called "patriots" decides that one night is not enough, the promise of Election Year's ending scene riots is finally realized - and the "Ever After" Purge begins.

"There's no such thing as crime anymore."

We get to see purging in full daylight. We get to see how the police and, after the NFFA disavows this demonstration of true anarchy, the military struggles to contain the violence. In a humorous switch, Mexico and Canada open their borders to refugees fleeing the States in fear of not just their freedom, but their very lives. Meanwhile, the whiter half of our miscegenated band of protagonists has to confront their racist assumptions (spotlighting the limitations of a "separate but equal" mindset). And eventually, a Native American tribal leader steps in with organized assistance (and explosive arrows!).

Although I like that this movie in particular (and the series in general) is partly a send-up of the type of religious conservative gun-toting maniac our country is currently plagued by, I feel like even this exaggerated fantasy doesn't manage to capture the full breadth of political madness we're living with. To wit, calling the Purge a "celebration of freedom", as if conservative pundits in real life aren't constantly pushing legislation to restrict our liberties. Then again, to be fair, the cognitive dissonance on display in these populations is quite significant.

I think this is the best Purge movie since Anarchy. And while it builds to an open ending - what would appear to be full-on civil war - I'm not sure where the story could go from here. Perhaps it's a good time to call it quits, and end on a high note? But we know that's not how capitalism works. I've heard there's a TV show; I think it could be interesting to explore different characters and how they personally contend with the Purge. You could go into greater depth on the particulars - moral issues, emotional repercussions, different types of crimes - especially if you have a good batch of writers. Could be a great subject for an anthology series.

But we are talking about the Purge, after all. The only thing American audiences want to see is more violence, right? I feel like showcasing Purge methods (and there are some pretty creative ones in these movies) is a bit like showing off new traps in Saw. Which is another hugely popular horror franchise from this era. In fact, there's a new one in theaters right now. Perhaps I have a subject for my next marathon. -_^

The Purge (TV)

I'm not going to strain myself to extend this review even further, but I did see that the TV series was available on Hulu, so I gave it a watch. Unfortunately, it is not an episodic anthology of concepts, it's just a Purge movie stretched out into ten episodes. But, there are two separate and unconnected seasons.

The first one starts out okay, with some interesting characters and ideas, but has a tendency to drag at times, with a few belabored performances. Like most of the Purge movies, it was just okay.

The second season was a good deal better, because like The Forever Purge (which, if I've got my dates correct, actually came out after this series), it dares to explore events outside the bounds of Purge night. In fact, it covers a whole year between Purges, so there's actual room for character and story development, from the events of one Purge to the next. I think the series deserves kudos for that.

"What happens on Purge night, stays on Purge night."

If you're not a Purge fan, there's probably little here to recommend, but if you are, you can rest assured that the series is at least on par with the movies.

Friday, October 15, 2021

The Conjuring Universe

I've admittedly fallen out of the habit of writing reviews, not because I don't enjoy the work, but because it IS work, and work that I've never been paid for (despite my feeble, failed attempt at generating affiliate revenue). I do still enjoy horror as much as ever, but I don't spend as much time watching it (outside of the Halloween season), nor do I keep track of new releases like I used to.

Still, I'm proud to say that the kids in my family have pretty much all learned to appreciate the entertainment value of a good horror flick - even without any conscious prompt from me! It's actually kind of funny to hear them raving about horror movies, having little idea of how obsessed I've been with them for much of my life. Like when they discovered The Conjuring on Netflix, a movie I saw in the theater back in 2013.

I had no idea back then that it would become the next big horror franchise following Saw (currently featuring eight films in The Conjuring "universe" - no doubt borrowing a page from Marvel's playbook), but it does make a certain amount of sense in hindsight, given how crowded that theater was (which was a surprise to me, as someone who is used to sitting practically alone in the theater during horror screenings), and the fact that the story is framed as a single case from the colorful career of a pair of paranormal investigators (based on real people, not that that means much in horror).

Browsing my review from eight years ago, the point that stands out is how effectively the movie utilized the genre's clichés to generate a cross between The Amityville Horror (a story which itself has ties to the aforementioned paranormal investigators) and The Exorcist. Anyway, the kids keep talking up the sequels, and have lent me their DVD collection for them, so I'm going to watch them all and write down my thoughts as I go. I haven't done a marathon like this for a while, but it will be just like old times!

The Conjuring (2013)

I don't have a whole lot to add to my previous review of this movie; my impression this time was on par with how I felt the first time I watched it (minus the reactions of a largely unblooded theater audience). Despite utilizing many of the tropes of the genre, it does so very effectively and piles them on thick. I did notice that Annabelle features more heavily in this movie than I remembered.

In fact, the first shot of the movie is a closeup of her face, and a brief recounting of her origin is used to introduce paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren, who in this movie investigate what is promised to be their most extreme case, of a demonic possession tormenting a family of five(!) daughters, that results in (spoiler) the Warrens performing a homebrew exorcism.

I did recognize a few familiar faces, including Joey King (who would grow up to star in the runaway hit Kissing Booth movies) and Mackenzie Foy (who was memorable in Interstellar), but most surprisingly John Brotherton (who plays D.J.'s other romantic interest, Matt Harmon, in the Fuller House reboot) as a town cop whose presence provides more comedic relief than actual protection (after all, it's ghosts - not criminals - they're up against).

In hindsight, I'm less surprised that this movie was successful; for a horror movie, it's as effective as it is accessible, with a framing narrative that leaves room for expansion, and the added kick (however cynical I've become of this claim in the realm of horror, it works rather better with the more naive, general audiences) that it's based on a true story. Now let's see about those sequels.

Annabelle (2014)

So, this movie actually starts with the same scene as The Conjuring, but the main story takes place before that encounter, with Annabelle's previous owners. I was actually kind of disappointed that the Warrens didn't feature in this movie, but I guess they can make more movies if they don't need the principal actors for the side stories.

If The Conjuring was a cross between The Amityville Horror and The Exorcist, then this movie is Chucky meets Rosemary's Baby. A young, married couple expecting their first baby is the target of a Manson-style home invasion conducted by members of a Satanic cult, which results in what would seem to be the origin of Annabelle's supernatural powers.

"To non-believers, it's all crazy."

Honestly, the movie felt a little slow, and the doll scares weren't as effective for me as the ghost scares in The Conjuring. Haunted dolls just aren't my thing. I mean, yeah, dolls can be creepy, in an uncanny valley sort of way, but if supernatural forces are going to take physical shape, they can be a lot more creative than relying on manmade wooden effigies.

Even if the effigy in question is so grotesque that I have a hard time swallowing anyone buying it (at least unironically) as a gift. That said, there is a point in this movie where an actual demon makes an appearance, giving us the money shot that The Conjuring lacked, and it's worth seeing. But if this movie wanted to impress me more, it would have had more demon, and less doll.

The Conjuring 2 (2016)

A question one might have for The Conjuring 2 is, if The Conjuring already depicted paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren's most extreme case, how do you make the next one stand out? And the answer is, go for name recognition. The movie starts with the Warrens investigating the house from The Amityville Horror (albeit in the wake of the events that went on there), and then proceeds to tie it in to the notorious case of the Enfield poltergeist in England.

Maybe this is just the inevitable result of watching too many haunted house movies, but there comes a point when the scares start to feel too contrived (even including the use of feints to trick the audience), especially with the guidance of a dramatic soundtrack. This is something I liked about the low-key approach of Paranormal Activity - I prefer a situation that's organically scary to the movie broadcasting the parts at which I'm supposed to be scared.

Which isn't to say that the poltergeist activity in this movie isn't creepy, or that it's not creative, but it's distracting when you can feel the invisible presence of the director's hand manipulating the scene, conjuring up ways to shock the audience. Is there meaning in the ghost flicking light switches, spontaneously playing radios, switching TV channels, or is it just generally trying to be a nuisance?

"Honestly, I don't know what's worse - the demons,
or the people preying on our willingness to believe in them."


"The demons. They're worse."

So, there's two stories going on here, one about a nice English family apparently being haunted by a renegade band of Cornish Pixies, and another where Lorraine seems to be hounded by a ghost she encountered in the Amityville house, which looks like a cross between Marilyn Manson and Jigsaw, dressed in a nun's habit (is this "The Nun"? Why are we seeing her now? Or is this another case, like Annabelle, of the writers creating spin-off potential?).

The movie actually gets a whole lot more interesting (and surprisingly humorous) when the Warrens finally get involved in the Enfield case. After all, these characters are what sets these movies apart - it's fun to see their confidence in action, and the experience they have doing this unusual work. In fact, the conclusion is quite thrilling (even if it's not exactly original at this point to conduct the climax in front of an open second story window), complete with a few dizzying twists. I think this movie requires a little more investment than the first one (especially given its fairly long runtime), but I'd consider it an effective sequel.

Annabelle: Creation (2017)

What this movie lacks in originality, it more than makes up for in execution. The first Annabelle movie gave us an origin story for the evil within the doll (which was already redundant, given that a different explanation was profferred in her first appearance in The Conjuring); yet, instead of tapping in to the potential for stories about other people coming into contact with the doll following its corruption (and before it ends up in the safe keeping of the Warrens' treasury of occult objects - unless it were to somehow manage to escape, hint hint), this movie takes us back even further, to tell a tale about the dollmaker who handcrafted Annabelle, and to seemingly spin a new origin story for the evil within it (because what would an Annabelle movie be with a doll that's not haunted?).

Many questions arose as I was watching this movie. Is Annabelle just so cursed that she can host multiple demons within her slight wooden frame? Or are there multiple Annabelles? In this movie, we witness Annabelle's construction; it's indicated that this is the first in a limited series of what was supposed to be a hundred dolls, but I think there's a reasonable indication that no more were ever completed after the first one - even though that could have explained the presence of different dolls with different possession stories. Yet, this reading would require that something about the design of the doll must be a unique conduit for evil (like LeMarchand's puzzle box). However, other than its aforementioned grotesque appearance, no explanation for this is given. (Spoiler: the end of the movie ties all of these loose ends into a neat bow).

To summarize the plot of this movie, years after his daughter is killed in a freak accident, the dollmaker opens his house up to a girls' orphanage (beating The Conjuring's previous record with six girls this time), and the typical poltergeist-related shenanigans commence, with Annabelle at their center. I don't know what it is, but the scares in this movie were significantly more chilling than the others so far. And I'm glad to see that the creators took my advice from the first Annabelle movie (which I've just given, years after both movies were already made >.>), and favorably tweaked the demon-to-doll ratio. The venerable Miranda Otto (who has been having a blast in The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina lately) hovers around the edge of this story, but the real revelation is young Talitha Bateman as polio-stricken Janice. There's a career to watch.


"Forgive me, Father, for I am about to sin."

Oh, and one other thing. I had a thought while watching this movie, although it's probably more true of The Conjuring movies than the Annabelle movies, but have you ever noticed how these movies are like a fireworks display of poltergeist activity? They start out small, trying out a few displays, then slowly ramp up the action, and you can always tell when the finale hits because they'll throw everything in their arsenal at you all at once!

The Nun (2018)

Like Annabelle before it, The Nun is a spin-off prequel telling of the origin of one of the series' major antagonists, introduced in The Conjuring 2. Except, it's not so much an origin story as a "this happened, too" story - and there's a critical flaw in setting up a prequel as a typical standoff between good and evil, when you know that evil is ultimately going to prevail (and not even in a "the bad guy wins" sort of way, which can be good). The best five minutes of this movie are a rushed summary of where the evil came from (something to do with a deranged crusader performing Satanic rituals) - and if you ask me, that story is what this whole movie should have been.

But to get to what this movie actually is, we start at the beginning, which feels very contrived. Inexplicably, a random abbey in Romania has a demon locked in its basement (oh yeah, happens all the time), and even more inexplicably, the abbess decides that it's a good idea to unlock the door and let it out (did you know that doors can totally hold demons back?). And if that weren't enough, once the abbess is presumably possessed, and the demon is chasing what appears to be the last surviving nun, she goes off and commits suicide, because that's totally something somebody ordained in the faith would choose to do. The fact that these events are eventually provided a plausible explanation doesn't forgive the movie for asking the viewer to stretch their suspension of disbelief so far in the first place. The only redeeming element is the irony of one of these movies starting, rather than ending, in front of an open second story window for a change.

But the movie's implausibility doesn't end there. In the wake of this disastrous encounter, the Vatican sends a "miracle hunter" priest to investigate with the help of a sister-of-the-faith-in-training. When the latter is introduced explaining dinosaurs to the younger students at her convent, it feels like the writers are telling us, "she's religious, but don't worry, she's totally cool". Because you know the church would aggressively stamp out that kind of open-minded progressivism in anyone on track to taking their vows. On the other hand, the character is played by Taissa Farmiga, who I remember from the first season (in particular) of American Horror Story, and who I keep thinking about every time I look at her sister (although they are 21 years apart in age) Vera's face, who plays Lorraine Warren in these movies. So that's cool.

I don't want to drag on too long talking about this movie that largely failed to hold my interest, so let me just address a few points. I like the setting - a gothic castle feels more appropriate for a ghost story than a modern dwelling. I just wish it was used in a movie with better writing. Example: the priest dismisses the guide so he won't have to "be caught on the road at nightfall". The guide agrees, and promptly leaves; in the next scene, he's on the road and it's dark. Like, okay. Later, the priest gets buried alive (and proceeds to use up as much oxygen as possible shouting repeatedly and flicking his lighter), and the nun-to-be has to use her psychic visions (I know) to dispel the ghost's distractions in order to find which grave he's buried in, except that the ghost already put the priest's name on the tombstone...

I guess I don't find the concept of a nun wandering around, even in the shadows, to be particularly scary. I mean, yeah, nuns are scary, but for all the human reasons, not any supernatural ones. And while the nun does have a creepy face, I feel like they're overplaying that factor (and I feel bad for the actress that plays her - how would you feel being told that you have a great face for horror?). I also don't think she quite lives up to the epithet "the defiler". Mocking religious symbols is one thing, but you have to have an artistry to it, a certain depravity. And it's not as much fun if you don't throw in some perversion. Maybe, like Annabelle (which played largely on the fears of new motherhood), I'm just not the ideal audience for this movie, given that I'm neither religious nor superstitious (redundant, I know).

The Curse of La Llorona (2019)

As the first "spin-off" in The Conjuring franchise that's really more of an independent tale, not preemptively teased or featuring a previously introduced entity in any of the other films, there's not much tying this movie to the Conjuring universe, aside from the brief appearance of Father Perez (who played a supporting role in the first Annabelle movie). Well, that, and the fact that this movie very much possesses the spirit of a Conjuring movie, with a creepy antagonist (just in a bridal gown instead of a nun's habit) who terrorizes people with poltergeist activity in pursuit of human souls.

The movie starts out well enough, feeling like more of a supernatural drama compared to the fantasy horror of The Nun. The story is inspired by a Mexican folk tale about a woman who drowned her own sons. She's called La Llorona (and forgive me, but I had the tune to My Sharona playing on repeat in the back of my head all throughout this movie), or the Weeping Woman. As the legend goes, when she found out that her husband had cheated on her, instead of punishing the husband, she murdered the kids she'd had with him. Upon realizing that she was the worst mother in the world, she killed herself only to end up spending her afterlife taking other people's kids. Until she runs into a feisty social worker (Linda Cardellini) and widowed wife of a cop raising two perky kids in Los Angeles, that is.

There's also another woman, whose behavior throughout the movie is quite frustrating. Like, she locks up her kids and acts crazy, and then blames the social worker (and actually attacks her) for rescuing the kids and thereby leaving them vulnerable to the entity that's hunting them. Like the social worker bears any responsibility when the woman failed, when given the opportunity, to explain the situation. I get that it's a supernatural folk tale, but if she was afraid of sounding crazy, the ship had already left that port. It just annoys me when drama is manufactured from a situation that could be resolved if people would simply explain themselves. I get that this happens in real life, too, but that doesn't change my feelings about it. And then later in the movie, she totally flip flops with no real motivation between being on the good side and the bad side.

And then we come to the final act of the movie, in which an ex-priest faith healer (Raymond Cruz) with "miracle hunter" vibes steps in to help the afflicted family, through a series of rituals and preparations that seems totally arbitrary and as if they were being made up on the spot. At this point, I think I'm getting bored with the convoluted schemes ghosts use to steal people's souls (read: lives). I mean, I can get playing tricks to make people go crazy, especially to the point of desperation and giving in just to make it stop, but it's almost demeaning that these supposedly intimidating supernatural forces have to resort to such petty psycho-physical manipulations. I keep thinking about how effective The Exorcist was, and it saddens me to see these ghosts and demons preoccupied with gliding down dark hallways, slamming doors, and toying with the remote. Give me sodomy with a crucifix any day of the week.

Annabelle Comes Home (2019)

Now that we're past the low point of the series, with those movies that don't even have "Conjuring" or "Annabelle" in the title, we're back to the power hitters, and I'm pretty excited. I may not have been real stoked to watch the first Annabelle movie (because haunted dolls, ya know?), but I liked the second one a lot, and I saw a trailer for this one when I popped in the disc for The Curse of La Llorona, and I'll be damned if I didn't think it looked good.

So, for the third time in the series, we get a movie starting with that scene with the Warrens interviewing the last owners of Annabelle before they acquired it, but for the first time, we get to see what happens immediately after that, on Annabelle's trip "home" - to the Warrens' Artifact Room. And it's nice to see the Warrens appearing in a movie that doesn't have "Conjuring" in the title. That's a testament to how big the Annabelle spin-off has become.


"Nice doll."
"That's what you think."

And this time, we get a proper sequel instead of another prequel - even though the events of this movie still occur before the events of The Conjuring - with Annabelle escaping her glass cage in the Warrens' treasury of occult objects. We also get to see more of the Warrens' daughter Judy, who is central to the action for a change, although she's been recast (no doubt because the previous Judy grew up) as Mckenna Grace, who was in The Haunting of Hill House (among other things - including a small role in Fuller House, since another actor from that show already turned up in one of these movies previously).

Along with Judy (who sees dead people, but she gets that from her mother), this movie is carried by two teen girls, a babysitter and her friend. Babysitters, school hallways - this feels like a vintage horror movie. I like a movie that gives you a nice slice of life with interesting characters before hacking them to bits (well, if this were a slasher). The real horror isn't what the monster does to its victims, it's what it takes away from them - peace of mind, happiness, and a chance at a normal life.

I'll even forgive the babysitter's plucky friend for being stupid enough to break into a room filled with cursed objects (and the Warrens for not hiding the key better), because it's just a plot device, resulting in a level of mayhem that's akin to a containment breach in the Ghostbusters headquarters. If we weren't so late in the series already, I'd say it's all fertile ground for further spin-off material.

The scares are pretty fun this time, without too much reliance on cheap gimmicks. The effect of the coins in the Ferryman's eyes, in particular, was clever, contributing to the effect of a creepy atmosphere over the hollow payoff of a jump scare. And the prognosti-tube (no idea what it's really called) was ingeniously unsettling. Although I could do without the "puking blood into somebody else's mouth as a vehicle for possession" trope. I know horror isn't designed to make you feel comfortable, but seriously, ew.

As a final thought, seeing so much of the Warrens' Artifact Room just makes me realize that this series hasn't remotely tapped the true sequel potential of its premise, especially spending three movies now revisiting the same doll (even if it does have the reputation for being the most dangerous object in the room - I like the touch of putting the tarot card for The Devil on her case, by the way). I think The Conjuring would be great as a TV series, with each episode detailing the origin/acquisition of one artifact from the room.

The Conjuring: The Devil Made Me Do It (2021)

The Conjuring 3 opens at what seems to be the climax of one of the Warrens' cases, in which they are asked to oversee the exorcism of an 8 year old boy (for the first time, it's a boy - and one with ridiculous Gibson Praise glasses). And it looks like a doozy. Lorraine is sporting a new hairstyle - an updo reminiscent of pictures I've seen of the real Lorraine Warren, who looks rather older than she does in these movies. Between that and the (brief) return of the original actress who played Judy (who continues, as we all must, to advance in age), my suspicions are confirmed that this is one of the Warrens' later cases. Which is appropriate, eight years after the first movie came out, and as many films into the series. I wonder, though, if there'll be any more after this one?

The exorcism ends unusually in an apparent transference of possession (whose host gives off such strong Harvey from The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina vibes that I'm legitimately surprised it's not the same actor), and with Ed in the hospital, unable to warn the others what happened before the new host wreaks havoc (his struggle with health problems really gives Lorraine a chance to step up to the plate in this one). But what's really interesting about this movie is the extent to which it covers new ground, instead of retreading territory the series has already been over (other critics might cite this as a weakness, but I think it's one of this movie's strengths). The Warrens are faced with a new kind of demonic possession - less poltergeist activity and more Satanic curse - and must solve the mystery of what's going on while a young man's life is on trial.

"The demon's gone, what can you do now?"
"Who's your lawyer?"

This movie is based on the true life story of the first case in US law to claim demonic possession as a defense, which the Warrens consulted on. But that's not to say that this movie is a court procedural. The Warrens' investigations lead them to a(nother) ex-priest (played by John Noble, who was very memorable on Fringe) - one who studied the Disciples of the Ram (the Satanic cult responsible for much of the mayhem in the first Annabelle movie), to the point of collecting a treasury of ritual objects of his own (more along the lines of objects created for evil purposes, as opposed to mundane objects repurposed for evil), enough to make even the Warrens hesitant to enter. I'll refrain from giving away the rest of the movie, but suffice to say, I enjoyed it.

Conclusion:

It's been a fun ride! I enjoyed the main entries better than the spin-offs, although the Annabelle movies grew on me more than I expected them to. Ed and Lorraine Warren are definitely interesting characters, and provide fertile ground for stories to tell in the paranormal subgenre of horror. I think casting Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga was a good choice, as they both have good screen presence, and a natural chemistry. However, ironically, the more I've learned about the real life Warrens, the more I'm convinced they were frauds. Not that I ever seriously considered their claims, skeptical atheist that I am, but I will admit that I was a little taken in initially by the claim that they spent a lot of time finding perfectly natural explanations for the phenomena their clients experienced. But I guess if you want to convince people that your snake oil works, you're gonna pick the best case studies you can get your hands on (then again, one could argue that picking such highly publicized - and thus scrutinized - cases isn't the most effective strategy unless it's only publicity you're courting). Then again, it's entirely possible that they believed their own hype, reserving supernatural explanations for anything they couldn't otherwise explain. Religion and self-delusion frequently do go hand in hand. But that's reality, and this is fiction, and I'm capable of keeping the two separate.

Saturday, September 18, 2021

The Green Inferno (2013)

Since I have a healthy respect for Cannibal Holocaust, as well as writer/director Eli Roth (Hostel was one of the first movies I saw in the theater after consciously deciding that I was going to be a horror fan), I remember wanting to see The Green Inferno (what a great title!) when it came out (was it really that long ago?). But I never got around to it. Until now. Apparently, there was a whole string of cannibal movies in the '70s and '80s that this movie pays homage to, not just the infamous Cannibal Holocaust of which I am familiar.

By way of summary, the daughter of a UN official learns about female genital mutilation in college and impulsively joins a group of activists led by a charismatic psychopath (his character is plainly written to be a dick, but he actually makes some good points in criticism of ivory tower idealism), who challenges her to prove her committment in a stunt to delay deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, which threatens the survival of an isolated jungle tribe. Except, when their plane crashes in the jungle, they find out that the tribe consists of vicious cannibals and carnage ensues.

Be forewarned: although this is a violent and gory movie, it doesn't take itself too seriously, and is not above using toilet humor. Allegedly, the entire film grew out of the idea of stoned cannibals getting the munchies (in a scene that raises cannibalism to a level more typical of a zombie buffet). Critics may accuse Roth of exploiting the real native tribe he cast in this movie, but reports are that they had a blast doing it (the assumption that jungle tribes have no imagination or sense of humor kind of goes hand in hand with the harmful stereotype - satirized in these movies - that they are brutal savages), and he makes a good point about the real dangers to these tribes being colonial capitalists and not fantasy narratives. Anyway, it lends the movie a real sense of immersion.


As a final note, I know it's weird to think about this in the context of a gruesome horror movie, but seeing how skimpily dressed the natives are (albeit in full body paint), and particularly the lead Lorenza Izzo's ritualistic getup in the climax (the fact that she would spend a number of years married to Eli Roth after this movie is interesting), just makes me wish there were more movies that unselfconsciously showcase the beauty of the unclothed (or nearly unclothed) human body NOT in a pornographic context (not that there's anything wrong with porn, but naked beauty can be appreciated on its own merits, without being weighed down by all the baggage that comes with explicit sexuality).

Thursday, September 16, 2021

As Above, So Below (2014)

I was reading through some horror recommendations on Reddit, and people were saying good things about this movie, which I noticed was available on Netflix, but only for a few more days (at the time of searching), and that was all the motivation I needed to give it a screening. It's a found footage movie, that plays out like a cross between Tomb Raider and Full Metal Alchemist, but framed as a horror story. Imagine Lara Croft searching for the Philosopher's Stone in the catacombs under Paris, which turns out to be the gateway to Hell. Yeah. It's pretty effective. It goes a little deeper into its own lore than most movies of its kind (according to IMDb's trivia section, heavy parallels can be drawn to the Nine Circles of Hell in Dante's Inferno, but as someone who's actually read Dante's Inferno, it's mostly subtext that the casual viewer doesn't need to know), although it loses a little bit of traction with its vague rules governing the workings of magic. The whole experience is enhanced by actually being filmed on location in the catacombs under Paris, although the movie leans conspicuously on using supernatural nonlinearity (as disorienting as this can be), as well as straightforward backtracking at one point, as an excuse to recycle familiar rooms and passages. It's pretty ambitious for a found footage movie, and it mostly works. Not enough to raise it from the depths of the subgenre, perhaps, but definitely worth a watch.

Friday, March 22, 2019

Joe Bonamassa - Redemption Tour (2019)

Introduction

It would have been hard for me to have topped the enthusiasm I had in anticipation of the last time I saw Joe Bonamassa live in concert - which sparked my desire to review his entire discography (an unfinished project; although time may give me the perspective I need to continue - I can't say "finish" so long as Joe is still releasing material). The truth is, having just seen Joe about a year and a half prior to the announcement of his next tour in the area, I'm a bit ashamed to admit that I questioned whether I wanted to go and see him again so soon. (Obvious spoiler: I ended up going). Part of that is due to the novelty wearing out of going to live concerts, after I've been to so many, and the logistics of scheduling a night in the city - when the truth is, Joe Bonamassa puts out so many concert DVDs, that if I have the hankering to watch him perform live, I can just pop one in and enjoy it from the comfort of my living room couch (and with a much better view of the stage, at that). Obviously, being there in person is a different experience, but as I grow older, I am also starting to grow concerned about pesky things like taking care of my hearing. But, in spite of my doubts and worries, it seems that fate conspired to send me to that concert anyway, as I was very thoughtfully gifted tickets over the holidays - and I am very grateful that things turned out this way.

Retrospective

This was the fifth time I've seen Joe Bonamassa live in concert, in a year that marks the fifteenth that I've been a fan. All the way back in 2004, three years after Joe began his solo recording career, I discovered the live companion to his first album A New Day Yesterday through the Grooveyard Records label (the patron saint of independent guitar rock). It was his cover of the Jethro Tull title track that blew me away and turned me into an instant fan. But his virtuosic talent, unwavering work ethic, and dedication to the same music that made me a music fan (blues-based rock from the '60s and '70s) is what fuels my undying loyalty to his career and musical output.

During the course of this concert, Joe mentioned (and not for the first time) how he started out playing (in this area) at a small bar named Moondogs. I've been there, but it wasn't until he played the Rex Theatre (a small, converted one-screen theater) that I first saw him live in 2006. He was at the tail end of the first leg of his career, on the verge of initiating what has become a very lucrative creative partnership with famed record producer Kevin Shirley. A yet relative unknown at the time, I remember Joe walking amongst the crowd before and after the show, as if he were one of us, and not the absolute guitar legend he's proven time and time again to be.

The second time I saw Joe live was at an open-air arts festival the following year, which was a lot of fun. It's hard to believe now, but that was the first time I'd ever heard the epic showstopper Sloe Gin (which I earmarked, even at the time, as being "maybe Joe's best song yet"). I also heard for the first time Joe's rendition of Just Got Paid, complete with the instrumental midsection from Led Zeppelin's Dazed and Confused interspersed into the middle. I remember thinking, "I hope there's an album released on this tour, so this song will be immortalized, in case it's just a one-off." Little did I know, there would be several live versions released over the years, starting with the one from 2008's Live From Nowhere in Particular.

The next time I saw Joe live in concert was in 2011, and he'd made his way to Carnegie Hall. He'd matured noticeably as a musician since the last time I saw him, at this point having also played his first show at the Royal Albert Hall in London (available on CD and DVD), which was a landmark for his career. It was the Dust Bowl tour, and I could tell that his music was evolving, with more musical experimentation. Following that was a gap of nearly six years, when I saw him again for the Blues of Desperation tour (two years ago), marking yet another new era for Joe - who has evolved considerably as a songwriter, and is still every bit the consummate performer, also engaged in myriad side projects paying homage to the greats of blues history, on both sides of the pond (between Muddy Wolf, The Three Kings - billed as Live At The Greek Theatre - and the British Blues Explosion). This latest show, touring for the following album, Redemption - which I call one of the best of his career - is in a similar vein.

The Show


Setlist:
[MW]Tiger In Your Tank
[R]King Bee Shakedown
[R]Evil Mama
[R]Just 'Cos You Can Don't Mean You Should
[R]Self-Inflicted Wounds (incl. vocal solo)
[BoD]Locomotive Breath Intro/This Train
[BoD]Blues of Desperation
[BoD]No Good Place For The Lonely
Sloe Gin
(Introductions)
[3K]Breaking Up Somebody's Home (feat. David Grissom)
[BBE]Little Girl
[BBE]I Can't Quit You Baby
[BBE]How Many More Times
Encore:
Woke Up Dreaming (acoustic)
Mountain Time

Legend: MW = Muddy Wolf, 3K = Three Kings (a.k.a. Greek Theatre), BBE = British Blues Explosion, BoD = Blues of Desperation, R = Redemption, and unmarked tracks are classics from albums predating 2015


Two years and thirteen days after the previous concert, we returned to the Benedum Center for a repeat performance. We arrived on time for a change (after a pleasant dinner with family), and had to line up around the corner of the building to get in (on a very cold and blustery Saturday evening on which most of the city was preemptively celebrating St. Patrick's Day). A staffer announced as we walked past that there would (once again) be no opening act, just two hours and fifteen minutes of Joe and nothing else - and that's precisely what we got. After briefly reviewing the merch table (I went back and bought a nice tour shirt on the way out after the concert), and failing to spot a group of my other relatives that I knew were attending the concert (it was a big crowd - sold out), we climbed the stairs all the way up to our seats in the balcony, three rows from the back wall. No complaints - the music is absolutely loud enough to enjoy equally throughout the auditorium, and ticket prices have risen since the days of the Rex Theatre, now that Joe Bonamassa is a chart-topping artist (the blues chart, at least).

The show opened with a track from the Muddy Wolf album - Tiger In Your Tank. It's not my favorite opener (that would be the first one I heard - Takin' The Hit - from the Rex Theatre show), but I imagine it must be comforting to Joe to have a recording of Muddy Waters kicking off the action. Next we had a healthy set of four tracks from Joe's latest album - what I was most looking forward to, being that I hadn't heard any of them live yet. It started with King Bee Shakedown and Evil Mama making a rollicking pair, followed by Just 'Cos You Can Don't Mean You Should. This subset culminated with Self-Inflicted Wounds (probably my favorite song from the Redemption album), and one of the highlights of the night. It's a downhearted number, with some excellent guitar fretwork, and self-reflective lyrics. This live version concluded with an impressive and unexpected vocal solo (by Jade MacRae. if I'm not mistaken) reminiscent of Pink Floyd's Great Gig In The Sky.

After that, we had a few tunes from Joe's previous album, Blues of Desperation (which we'd heard the last time he came to town). The first one was This Train; although Joe teased us all by kicking it off with the opening section to Jethro Tull's Locomotive Breath (another train-themed song). I'm not gonna lie, This Train isn't my favorite song about trains that Joe plays (I'm partial to So Many Roads, myself, and I'd rather have heard Joe play Mountain Climbing again, from the same album), and judging from the buzz rising through the audience, I think we all would have been more excited to hear the rest of Locomotive Breath instead. Sorry, Joe. The next song was the title track from the album, but neat as it sounds, I have to admit it feels a bit loose in a live context, and I really would have rather heard the title track to Redemption - him not playing that song at all was the only regret I had for the night. I was very excited, on the other hand, to hear No Good Place For The Lonely again - a song containing one of Joe's best and most off-the-hook guitar solos in recent years.

I didn't think I would be so quickly impressed while basking in the glow of satisfaction from hearing that last song, but then Joe followed it up with his old standby, Sloe Gin, which I count as the Stairway To Heaven of Joe's repertoire. It's an amazing song - a very soulful blues, with an incredible guitar part. No matter how many times I've heard it, I don't think I could get tired of it. Since he didn't play it at the last concert, I thought he'd kinda retired it after it had (admittedly) had its fair share of time in the limelight. So I was surprised to hear it again, but very happy that he hasn't given up on it. For a man capable of shredding licks at lightning speed, there's a lot of soul in Joe's playing (moreso than some guitarists who merely regurgitate scales without knowing which notes to hang on), but what I like about the guitar part in Sloe Gin is that it's slower and more meditated and, well, more lucid than a lot of the other solos Joe plays. It's always a treat to hear.

At this point, Joe took a break to introduce his band - the same one, I believe, as on the last tour. Anton Fig on drums, Michael Rhodes on bass. Reese Wynans on keyboards. Paulie Cerra and Lee Thornburg on horns. Jade MacRae and Juanita Tippins on backup vocals. Truly a world-class band - as the level of Joe's talent demands (let alone earns) the best in musical support. At this time, Joe also made a little small talk, about turning the stage into a triage center - apparently he'd cut his finger, and was joking about the day he would become such a diva that he'd have to cancel a show over such a thing ("hashtag goals"); but we all know that would never happen. He also referenced having a cold the last time he played this town, but as then, if the cut on his finger detracted from his performance at all, I couldn't tell, and if he hadn't have mentioned it, I wouldn't have even noticed.

The introductions concluded with a surprise, when Joe drew the audience's attention to an extra amp set up on stage. On walked guitarist David Grissom (who has played for John Mellencamp among others), who joined Joe on a song from the Three Kings tour, Breaking Up Somebody's Home. Playing with one of his idols (like Eric Clapton at the Royal Albert Hall, or B.B. King on the Black Rock album) is one thing, but I was skeptical as to how well anyone could hold their own against a guitarist the caliber of Joe Bonamassa, who could play circles around most anyone on the planet. But David Grissom added some real fire to the song in an exciting duel in which the two guitarists traded licks, building up to a crashing crescendo. It was positively thrilling!

The regular portion of the show concluded with a set from the British Blues Explosion tour, two out of three songs of which I'd heard two years ago. The "Bluesbreakers featuring Eric Clapton" song Little Girl started it off, followed by a double shot from Led Zeppelin's debut album. I think I enjoyed I Can't Quit You Baby more than when I first heard Joe's rendition of it on the live album. It starts with the opening section from a different Led Zeppelin blues, Tea For One (which Joe has previously covered). I felt that it was a little disjointed on the album, trying to combine two songs and losing the conviction of either one, but it was more thrilling to hear it live and in person, being one of my favorite (and not quite as popular, at least inasmuch as a Zeppelin song can be "underrated") bluesy Zeppelin songs.

As on Zep's original album, I Can't Quit You Baby segued into the album (and now show) closer, How Many More Times. This is an epic track (and such a delight to hear live, as if rock history were coming to life right before you) - surely the replacement for Just Got Paid (with its own ode to Zep's first album) in earlier concerts. As you listen to it, you slowly begin to realize that this must be the last song, because you can't imagine anything more bombastic, and anything played after it would be an anticlimax. Excepting the encore of course, for which Joe drug out his acoustic guitar, and played Woke Up Dreaming - the song he uses to stun the audience by playing faster and faster, until it no longer seems humanly possible.

After that, the rest of the band returned to the stage to play the true final song, Mountain Time - another epic number that has matured considerably from its humble days as a sub-four minute track from Joe's oft-overlooked (albeit not without some justification) sophomore studio album. I hadn't heard either of these final two songs at the concert two years ago, so I was a little bit surprised to hear them again, but looking back at the setlists from all the other times I've seen Joe live, they've been played at four out of five concerts, so they can definitely be considered staples of Joe's live setlist, at least as much as Sloe Gin is (if not even more so). It's fascinating to find out what songs stand the test of time, both from the standpoint of fan appreciation, and also what the artist continues to enjoy playing year after year after year.


I know Joe Bonamassa has been hinting at retirement lately, and my opinion as a longtime fan is that he deserves a rest. I don't call him the hardest working musician alive for no reason - he's been incredibly prolific - and "always on the road" is barely an exaggeration. I don't want to see him quit music entirely (I don't know how he could, it's so enmeshed in his DNA); I hope he continues to write and record throughout his life. But I would consider him fully justified in slowing down, quitting touring for a while, not pushing himself but waiting until the inspiration strikes to get back in the studio. Surely he's carved a name for himself (at least within the right circles), though I wish his songs would get more play - whether on the radio, or in movies, or what have you. Not out of any popularity/competition thing, but just because the music is so good. Beyond being a guitar virtuoso - which he's been from day one - his craft has matured and his songs have been very smooth and polished of late, yet without diminishing the raw force of his talent. Anything he puts out between now and retirement I will continue to gobble up hungrily; and if he does come back for another show in a year or two or three (or ten or twenty!), I'll still be game for it. It's always exciting to see what Joe Bonamassa will do next!

Sunday, November 18, 2018

The Haunting of Hill House (2018)



I added this new series on Netflix to my queue last month, but I made the mistake of not making it a priority. I guess I thought maybe it was some kind of remake or spin-off of House on Haunted Hill. But it's not. I watched it after Halloween, and it's one of the best shows I've seen in a long time. With high production values - particularly the writing and acting talent - it's one of those titles that rises above the din of the horror genre, and makes me proud to be a fan. I recommend it to fans of great TV, even outside the realm of horror fandom.


Although the show has its fair share of scares, much of its dramatic weight comes from its themes and its characters - five siblings and their parents, each a broken person, living as adults but still haunted by the traumatic events they experienced in childhood, during a brief but unforgettable stay in a haunted house. The show intersperses scenes from the past, constructing an intriguing mystery about what happened in those last days before they moved out in the middle of the night. The child actors that have been cast all do a phenomenal job (also, Annabeth Gish - who was Agent Reyes in late seasons of The X-Files - appears as one of the house's caretakers). But the real story is how these kids are navigating their lives in the present, and to what extent the house's supernatural draw still pulls at them - as an author, a mortician, a psychologist, a drug addict.


I particularly liked the way the series provides natural explanations for a lot of the supernatural phenomena (the kids' dad explains, "dreams can spill out sometimes") - one character, in particular, presses the mental illness angle. Another seeks therapy for recurring sleep paralysis. And while the series presents the supernatural elements in a very matter-of-fact way (and the narrative relies on them), at no point does it ever feel like you couldn't interpret them as "dramatizations" of an otherwise non-supernatural reality. (Somebody seeing something, for example, doesn't mean it's really there).

It's a well-crafted show, that relies heavily on suspense and drama, while also delighting in occasionally shocking viewers (but never in a way that feels "cheap" or undeserved). There's even an episode midway through that's shot in a series of long takes without cuts - which must have been a challenge for the actors, but it gives a very raw and spontaneous feeling to the expression of their emotions, in what is indeed a very dark day of their lives.


This show ruminates on fear and death, existential dread, but also maternal love (and how it can be corrupted), the human need for closeness and comfort, to listen to one another, and not take for granted the connections you have with loved ones, because they could be gone in the blink of an eye. Except that they never really are gone, so long as you hold them in your heart. It takes you on a dark journey, but the trip is a blast, and there is some light at the end of the tunnel. I give this series my highest recommendation.

Sunday, November 11, 2018

13/14 Cameras (2015/2018)

I noticed a movie titled 14 Cameras on Netflix, and I thought the voyeuristic premise sounded interesting. Luckily, I did my research first, and found out that it's actually a sequel to an earlier movie titled 13 Cameras, also available on Netflix. So I watched them both, in order, on two separate nights.

Preying on the fear cultivated by a growing spy cam industry, both of these movies focus on a particular slumlord who likes to outfit the properties he rents with lots of hidden cameras - for purposes that start out perverted, and quickly escalate to much worse. As someone who spends time defending voyeurism as a sexual fetish, I was at first very frustrated with these films. Not because they depict voyeurism as the appetizer to kidnapping and even murder (although perhaps that should frustrate me more), because I guess I'm used to that.

Rather, I thought the portrayal of the slumlord was so ridiculously over-the-top, that it didn't even have a hint of verisimilitude. Compared to, for example, a documentary I recently watched on Netflix (simply titled Voyeur) about a guy who built a motel specifically designed to enable spying on its inhabitants (whose first name curiously matches the villain in 13/14 Cameras). Sure, this guy's enterprise was morally dubious, but I consider him to be a sympathetic person (and, true to the voyeur's code, he never physically assaulted anyone, let alone anything worse than that).

The slumlord in these two movies, however, is a different story altogether. Played to devastating effect by a man named Neville Archambault (comparisons to the slimy worm at the center of The Human Centipede II are apt, in the sense that you can't fathom how the casting department managed to dredge up such a revolting example of humanity), his look and (apparently) smell inspire one renter in the first movie to apply such colorful phrases as "dirty diapers" and "spoiled mayonnaise" to describe him. Meanwhile, he can barely string a full sentence together, leaving you to wonder how somebody so disgusting, and so socially inept, could possibly run a successful business, renting properties out to more or less normal people.

And then when he sits in front of his 13 or 14 monitors unblinking (wearing his glasses perpetually the way a state trooper wears his hat), with his mouth hanging open, you have to ask yourself, does this guy not know about the treasure trove that is internet pornography, that he has to go to such trouble, putting himself at great personal risk for relatively limited gains? By the end of the second movie, though, I began to realize that the creators aren't taking him completely seriously, and there is a little bit of [dark] humor to his character. So as a creation of pure fiction, designed precisely to be so outrageous, I have to concede that it is kind of interesting to watch him in action.

Now, I'm not going to say these two movies are anything other than the cheap horror smut the premise makes them out to be, but if that's the kind of bad movie you like to watch, you could do a lot worse. Considering the subject matter, these movies actually don't go too far with the explicit violence, and there's actually very little sexuality (mostly implied - to wit, I can't even say for certain that this guy rapes his victims; he's so developmentally stunted, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that he doesn't actually know what to do with his...erm, equipment) - especially compared to the waste-of-celluloid that was The Human Centipede.

As for the other characters in these movies - a dysfunctional young married couple in the first one, and a vacationing family with three [twenty-something] teenagers in the second one - nobody's going to be winning any awards for acting (or likability, for that matter), but they do an adequate job of creating some unfolding drama to distract from the central theme of voyeurism, even if it's nearly always present in the form of a multi-view hidden camera perspective (kind of like Paranormal Activity without the paranormal activity), accented by heavy breathing.

There's a point in the second movie where the subject of the dark web comes up - when the slumlord starts live streaming his feed, and a group of bottom feeders spontaneously start bidding on one of the girls (the slumlord's unconvincing response: "not for sale"). This isn't the movie to explore the ramifications of that kind of behavior (and how likely it really is), but I appreciate a movie that's willing to go there without getting super preachy about it. This is horror, after all, and a total work of fiction. And as long as you're viewing it as such, you just might be able to get some twisted entertainment out of it.