Yet another preview screening from Odeon here in the UK. This Scream Unseen was The Strangers: Prey at Night. I was not impressed with this being the surprise film as I was not looking forward to it. I thought this seemed like an unnecessary sequel to what was the somewhat well received 2008 film The Strangers. It's the same story, this time it's a family of four in a trailer park that get attack in the same knifey way.
The appeal of the first film, which this one followed to begin with, was how real it could be. That it's literally just people, strangers, that pick on other strangers to kill. There was the odd highly strung moment. Many moments where it made you think, what would I do, where would I go. The characters of course made the wrong decisions but at least it becomes engaging.
The film takes place pretty much in real time in one night in this deserted trailer park so it's dark and just surrounded by darkness. And the cinematography is dark for the most part. There was a particular scene and shot in particular that was quite interesting in a swimming pool. I won't spoil it but it's well lit and colourful and unlike the beginning of the film. It was immersive in the midst of the action regardless whether the action is satisfying or not, that's up to you. This scene also has music blaring from speakers, 80's music, which we hear multiple times straight from the film as the killers enjoy it. some of which was fun, was unsettling, music to violence can make you feel some kind of way and it did. Until it was a hugely popular track which just takes you out of the film and the moment.
The cast were alright. I'm a fan of Christina Hendricks, she was fine. Dad played by Martin Henderson was also fine. Brother and sister Lewis Pullman and Bailee Madison were okay. They has some awkward sibling back and forth which wasn't so much them as it was the script. Some of the dialogue was weak. They had set up a backstory for the daughter that seemed pointless. Didn't give quite enough to warrant it connecting to her character or make any part of her behaviour justifiable. Followed by no explanation it was honestly unnecessary, didn't add as they didn't commit to it.
I touched on scenes leading you to different directions and characters choosing the wrong way. Now I'm fine with some silliness, I am happy to indulge that. But this film didn't want to be silly until it was too late. By then we've already been lulled into a horror that's attempting to be taken seriously. The less than subtle dive into unbelievable nonsense is a joke. It felt like something I'd watch age 12 at a sleepover. Which I would have been more open to it they had committed to that from the start. Doing this they managed to miss out on a chilling horror and a guilty pleasure by awkwardly dipping their toes in each instead of jumping into one.
The best way to describe the film is disposable. It's a one view only type of thing that you will forget about. In the first film when asked why they were doing this they replied, 'Because you were home. ' THAT was what this film needed. More chilling, less nonsense, not as powerful as it should have been. 5/10
CINEMATES - A
Right, Blade Runner 2049. Here we go. Gorgeous film but it needs to settle before discussing. Young blade runner, K played by Ryan Gosling uncovers a secret that leads him down the path of Deckard, Harrision Ford's blade runner, who has been missing for 30 years.
The thing I was most excited about when this film was announced was the crew. My man Roger Deakins back to his old tricks being 13 time Oscar nominated for his cinematography. Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch there for original sound, edited by Joe Walker and of course directed by Denis Villeneuve. Taking Blade Runner (1982) out of the equation that's a pretty impressive line up for a sci fi film, half of which have worked together before on the likes of Arrival (2016) Prisoners (2013) and Sicario (2015).
Those aspects do not let you down. The sound was naturally industrial. It's the only way to describe it, it feels organic alongside the environment. In general it rises, it's subtle and not overtly there but as it builds it becomes a vital part in many scenes. The editing is good but to be honest a second thought, but that doesn't make it bad. It's in no way distracting, it compliments the wide shots by giving them room to breath. Pacing matches the tone but on more than one occasion I felt myself conscious of the run time.
It is stunning. We knew that from Deakins name, let alone the trailers and posters. The world isn't just created it's maintained from the 1982 original. The bleak dystopian back drop has been done many times but the mixture between high tech and low nature is beautifully done. There's contrast between empty barren lands which once held life and the damp overrun cityscapes. There's a clever mix of dulled colours with neon and life. IMAX was a great choice, and I highly recommend it if you have the opportunity. Gorgeous wide shots which could have any frame a picture. And if you consider the amount of sfx that would have been added then you have an even higher admiration for those getting the base shots.
Everything in the frame, every shot emphasises the themes. Visually water played a big part, you can read into this as much as you'd like. Reflection, ripples, memories being be lost in time like tears in rain. There's multiple shots through rain, through weather soaked windows, with light bouncing off moving water. It's calming and thinking about it is the most natural thing in the entire film, or I guess the world.
The other more commonly discussed theme from Ridley Scott's original is what defines humanity, what makes you human, can a replicant have a soul? Gosling's K, a Nexus 8, struggles with the idea of retiring (executing) something that has been born. He is then challenged with the idea that he himself may have been born. He's been told he does well even though he doesn't have a soul yet also been told that people forget that he isn't human. He has memories implanted in him that he knows aren't real but is also certain they are. He has feelings for Joi, a programmed hologram that says what you want to hear, but really how many steps above her is he, is it just the physicality that separates them? Gosling is fantastic, a great canvas to paint a replicant onto.
Joi, his love interest is played by captivating Ana de Armas, who is beautiful and loving. Her special effects are wonderfully done, her hologrammed nature is never overstated but it used to its full potential. A scene with K and natural Mackenzie Davis (who you might recognise from Black Mirror's Emmy Award Winning San Junipero episode) is so incredibly done I didn't want it to end. It's a very interesting scene and shows the individuality that Joi appears to have by trying a unique way of making K happy with Davis' character Mariette. Though unique to us that's only due to us not being accustom to the technology available.
In general the cast were great. Robin Wright was great as expected as Lieutenant Joshi, one of the few humans we actually interact with. Dave Bautista was great though far more brief than I expected. Jared Leto was a bit weird as always, I think almost every scene he was in his voice echoed and reverberated back to us. I think we got an odd amount of the character, didn't get as much development that could have been interesting but also his on screen presence wasn't vital in every scene.
Though, I may be in the minority here, but I think the same about Harrison Ford. Without spoiling it, he didn't need to be in the movie. His on screenpresence was just not necessary. Yes he has a great scene with Leto and yes he seems to work with Gosling fine but at this point it's hard to see him as Deckard and not just Harrison Ford. Ford was arguably the weak spot, that doesn't make him bad just not as good as every other outstanding element. The direction is great, Villeneuve is killing it but it didn't feel like a one of his movies, it felt like a Blade Runner movie. For me his name is becoming a reason to watch a film so to forget that he did it after watching was not quite disappointing but odd. Shows his versatility.
Must see for any Blade Runner fans, any Sci-fi fans, any Roger Deakins fans any fans of cinema really. Some will like more than others, and more than I did. 7.5/10 Will be Oscar nominated.
CINEMATES - A
