The woods go bump in the night

Valorie Curry in Blair Witch. Image courtesy Lionsgate.

There's a beautiful simplicity that drives The Blair Witch Project and its second sequel, Blair Witch. Abandon a few young people in the woods, state clearly from the get go those people will not survive, ramp up the paranoia and eeriness from the isolation, and spend 90 minutes messing with their heads and the audience’s in the process. Both films are effective at showing the resulting horror and the discomfiting notion that survival is both a fluke and an impermanent state of being and have several solid frights within their around 90 minutes of screentime. But the new version is missing a few key features that make The Blair Witch Project memorable 17 years later. It’s still a fun and often intense horror/thriller, but that trepidation might last for just one viewing.

One thing to say for Blair Witch is it is a conceptually interesting film even without the direct link to The Blair Witch Project. Director Adam Wingard and writer Simon Barrett have stewed up a goulash of a film, lifting elements not just from the original film but Evil Dead, Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Vanishing and even a couple of concepts introduced in the first sequel in the series, Book of Shadows, to create their spin on the Blair Witch concept. It's a creation that's often interesting, and the collaborators are playful enough with their dialogue and a few bait and switch shots to add a small layer of parody underneath the horror. This is effectively their much bloodier and less grounded version of The Blair Witch Project, one in which the supernatural elements are more prominent and the quality of film has taken a step up in the approximately 20 years between the “found footage” making up the two movies.

Blair Witch still embraces its role as a follow up, inserting clips and a vital tie to the first film to provide logical and emotional motivations for sending six doomed souls into the middle of nowhere Maryland. This film aims to provide some clarity to the events depicted in the first run through, providing a comparatively concrete explanation to what happened in The Blair Witch Project. It also, at the same turn, tries to add to the legend created by its predecessor and retain a little mystery to its own oddness. Weird things happen to explain the strange things in the first film without receiving an explanation for themselves. It's an interesting strategy that requires some mix of confidence and ingenuity to attempt, although what they offer as answers are a little too easy, and the questions they pose a little too opaque.

What Blair Witch lacks is the sense of dread that comes from being lost in the woods for days at end. There's little of the hopelessness left over from the original, nor is there a true sense of desperation from the characters as they lose touch with their sense of selves and sanity. Strangely enough, while Wingard and Barrett give the woods malevolent personification, their forest is far less intimidating than the trees and shrubs shown in the first film. It's somehow more frightening to be in an environment that doesn't care about your existence rather than one that is out to get you.

The woods though are just an appetizer to the house featured at the end of the first film, a strange building akin to the protagonists' home in House of Leaves with unfathomable dimensions and doom around every corner. This is, though, the weakest part of the film, with so much time spent inside it draws away from the quality time spent outside the home. Usually this concept is reversed, but in Blair Witch, the confined space is less frightening than the open woods outside of them. The audience knows the situation will not turn out well for the characters stuck inside the death house, but the woods offer an existential dread that just can't be found in a tidy house. Also, while the house in the first film was a possible refuge from evil, it's presented as a trap in Blair Witch.

Those issues, along with some pacing problems tied to them, are why I don't think Blair Witch will hold up on a second viewing. It does serve its purpose for the first viewing, offering enough chills and queerness to keep audiences a few steps away from comfortable. It's a visceral delight with a few jolts of nastiness and a couple of rather brilliant bits of gruesomeness to keep you on your toes, and it might make you think twice about taking that shortcut through the forest on the way home tonight.

Review: Three and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 89 minutes

Genre: Horror/Thriller

Ask Away

Target audience: People with fond memories of the original film and horror fans prepping for October.

Take the whole family?: Even if it lacks the sheer terror drawn out from the original, this one has more than enough blood and gore to make it unfavorable to kids.

Theater or Netflix?: A late night theater trip would be pretty fun, although I'd rather tag team it with The Blair Witch Project and some beverages.

Is The Blair Witch Project a good horror film?: As a piece of horror cinema it is quite terrific. It's a great example of the slow burn, developing the strangeness and the isolation in the woods and creating scares from the environment itself to keep the audience feeling dread as the situation worsens. It also features what is more often than not the best horror movie monster; the viewer's imagination.

Watch this as well?: Aside from the The Blair Witch Project, flag down The Babadoo as well as the 2011 thriller You're Next; the latter shares the same writer/director team and is one of the highlights of the past decade in thrillers. For your own sanity, please avoid Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.

Director Jeremy Saulnier talks 'Green Room,' Patrick Stewart, and the allure of shooting in the woods

Patrick Stewart, center, stars in Jeremy Saulnier's "Green Room." Image courtesy A24.

Coming off the heels of the spectacular revenge film “Blue Ruin,” writer/director Jeremy Saulnier went in a slightly different direction with his new film, “Green Room,” about a punk rock band trying to survive a night with skinheads. The film features Anton Yelchin, Alia Shawkat and Imogen Poots as members of the band and a new acquaintance trying to stay alive against the collection of racists led by the charismatic Patrick Stewart.

We interviewed Saulnier over the phone the night after a screening in Boston to discuss the film, including his casting of Stewart, his reasons for shooting in the woods, writing believable dialogue, and finding humor in tense situations. The interview has been edited for clarity and for brevity's sake. A complete, if audibly challenged, recording of the interview is available here.

Q: How did you play with Patrick Stewart's persona? He's best known for his role as Captain Picard on “Star Trek” and from his goofy adventures with Ian McKellen in public, and while there's a tonal shift, he's not that far from being Picard.

Jeremy Saulnier: Of course as an audience member myself I really do appreciate his esteemed career, complexity, association with these big franchises. But it's my job as a director to have blinders on. I did not factor into me casting it; it certainly factored into how our production valued him. But I had to ignore all that. I really had a character in mind when I wrote the screenplay.

I never thought I'd ever get someone like Patrick Stewart to play it, so that was amazing. But when he signed on he acclimated to this world I had built and just trying to stay insulated from everything else. So this is just actor, director trying to come together for a quiet performance.

Q: My favorite moment with him is a line toward the end about how he's not so scary in the light. He's a bogeyman for much of this film for the characters. The characters mostly hear his voice, but when they finally see him they aren't that impressed by him.

Saulnier: Yeah. That was really fun. That line came to me when I was breaking down the script and realized they never actually saw him at all. So I added a little scene, added that one shot where Patrick Stewart is backing away from the door. I love all the kids see is a sliver of him backing away, not in an aggressive pose. That's one of my favorite shots in the film.

It added such a great dynamic to finally confront the aggressor and how mundane he is, how stripped down and human he is. Knowing the carnage Patrick Stewart's character Darcy had put them through makes it all the more horrifying. That was the point of it, how things erupt, how miscommunication and self-preservation can lead to such terrible violence. You actually have to face each other, it's a whole different scenario.

Q: There are definitely elements of horror in this film, and I think one of the ones I noticed with this and “Blue Ruin” is the houses in the middle nowhere are the most dangerous places. The further you get from civilization the scarier things are. On your end, is that something that you perceive from growing up away from the woods?

Saulnier: I grew up in Virginia and it certainly was the suburb, but I've always been attracted to the outdoors. I'm not really scared of them; I just find them visually more interesting than a lot of urban areas. I'm fond of nature and it plays really well on camera. It just happens the movies I make I like them to be isolated environments; it's serves the narrative. Living in a van touring in Oregon, they're on the coast, they're in a cornfield, they're on all sorts of different terrains. I just love the variety of the geography of Oregon. It has mountains and cornfields and coastal areas and rainforests. I think it's more about my visual attraction to those areas that guides me to set some of my films there.

My first film actually is “Murder Party.” It's actually similar in some respects that it's an overnight, contained horror film. It's more of a comedy and it takes place in more of an urban area, in the heart of Williamsburg and Bushwick Brooklyn. So, no matter where I am, I find ways to make it remote and scary even when you're right in the middle of New York City.

Q: Something with the characters remind me of David Lynch. A scene discussing cartridges and bullets reminds me of a moment from “Mulholland Drive” in which there's a weird surreal normalcy. Is that something you see how people would react in that type of situation?

Saulnier: I've never actually seen that movie. But I like to write things to make them human and make them plausible and have the characters really interacting with each other and not to benefit the audience or the narrative in any sort of contrived way. I definitely like to downplay things; if there's a default for me it's extreme situations but subtle performances and grounded emotional character arcs.

When you walk past people or when you're eavesdropping on people on the subway you hear the strangest things and it's fun to kind of take these little slices of life and hear observations in your everyday and inject them into movie. Often times in movies you just have so much artificiality and people don't speak like humans actually do. So it's fun to have the opportunity to design stories and create characters that really adhere to more of observable human behavior, so when you put them on screen they're more relatable. People really find it exciting to have access to real characters and it's easier for them to have characters who are behaving maybe not with a clear logic but meaningful and compulsive manner.

Q: It's also kind of humorous. It's unexpectedly funny.

Saulnier: I love comedy. I like to mine it naturally in the stories I'm telling and not really force it. As long as the characters aren't trying to be funny themselves and the actors aren't forcing it, there are so many opportunities for comedy. I just let them breathe naturally, once in awhile I'll highlight them.

How many times has somebody gone from laughing to crying or crying to laughing? These things are often intertwined and it's about your perspective. I put my characters through hell but it's OK for the audience once in a while to find a little I guess levity here and there.

Q: The one thing I noticed with this and “Blue Ruin” is revenge is a pretty heavy theme. At the end they could have walked away but they opted to continue forward.

Saulnier: There's some sort of indication that did they see all of them die? There's a hint that someone might be alive or there's some unfinished business. But yeah, there's like traditional revenge, but this is more survivor and loyalty; these are the actual victims of the crime. “Blue Ruin” is certainly more traditional revenge and “Green Room” is more survival.

Q: But both have characters who often find themselves out of their element.

Saulnier: It gets complicated.

The very pretty 'Jungle Book' a little light on content

Neel Seethi as Mowgli and Ben Kingsley's Bagheera in "The Jungle Book." Image courtesy Disney.

The frustrating thing with “The Jungle Book” is how much it teases the audience into being an excellent film instead of the good but underwhelming flick it ends up being. It is more often than not a visually stunning, engaging romp featuring a rather good child actor and some excellent voice work from its cast. And yet the problems arrive with a bang, a result of some dreadful decisions coupled with plotting issues that bog down the final act.

Yet another adaptation of Kipling's eponymous story collection, “The Jungle Book” centers on the adventures of feral child Mowgli (Neel Seethi), a so-called man-cub who lives a simple life with his family of wolves – including den mother Raksha (Lupita Nyong'o) and pack leader Akela (Giancarlo Esposito) – and is watched over by wise panther Bagheera (Ben Kingsley). At least, that is, until the day when vicious tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba) proclaims his intent to murder the boy, forcing Mowgli to flee along with Bagheera to a human village. Their plans go awry due to tiger-related shenanigans, and poor Mowgli is left alone to fend for himself in unknown territory, surrounded by hypnotic python Kaa (Scarlett Johansson) and little creatures that steal his food. Fortunately he meets lazy bear Baloo (Bill Murray), who teaches the boy to embrace his human side and adopt a more carefree life. Baloo's teachings put Mowgli in a bit of a moral quandary, and it only gets more complicated once he runs into the sizable King Louie (Christopher Walken) and has to face down Shere Khan one last time.

“The Jungle Book” opens with a bang as young Mowgli scampers toward the viewer, escaping some momentarily unseen entity chasing him through the dangerous jungle. It's a terrific start to the film, hinting at Mowgli's ingenuity and cleverness while showing how he's both embraced and shunted a bit from his adopted family. The film at its best has a lot of these little details, including a running point in which Mowgli picks up a scar or two during every little adventure. It's a nice touch of verisimilitude for a movie that is fantastic by nature and by effect.

The film remains quite charming to a point, which comes out of the blue when Baloo starts singing “Bare Necessities” from the animated film. It’s a distracting moment that unleashes a floodgate of callbacks, lowlighted by a Walken performance of the very racist “I Wanna Be Like You.” That first moment with Baloo singing to himself unleashes a flood of flaws that dampen the viewing experience. The songs hinder the narrative flow, creating a rather rushed third act that also drains much of the film’s dramatic agency, a problem capped by a weak, puzzling and ultimately lazy finale. There’s also the insertion of a secondary revenge motivation involving Mowgli’s father, which highlights “The Jungle Book’s” major problem; writer Justin Marks’ disorganized script.

And yet the whole of “The Jungle Book” is just good enough to outweigh the weaker parts and is helped along greatly by Seethi, who performs more like a child then an actor, especially given that he acts alongside CGI creatures in a fake jungle. And the voice actors inhabiting those ersatz creatures are first rate. Elba is perfectly cruel and blasé as Khan, while Johansson plays a major part in providing what is the film’s best sequence; she has a knack for controlling her voice in a manner both alluring, sweet and subtly terrifying. Even Murray seems to be having a little fun as Baloo, who enters the film is a way Bill Murray enters people’s lives in real life.

Considering how much goes right with it, it’s still difficult not to consider the film at least something of a letdown though. Its flashes of brilliance – even the problematic third act has one really terrific visual moment – are enough to dream of what could have been for director Jon Favreau. Perhaps he and Marks were forced to shoehorn in the music numbers (although it wouldn’t explain why one song returns as an orchestral during a chase sequence) and add in the silly “Star Wars” inspired subplot, making for a more inspired film than what’s left. All that’s left to analyze though is what Favreau and company ultimately delivered; a very good but flawed film that comes very close to being exceptional.

Review: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG

Run time: 105 minutes

Genre: Adventure

Ask Away

Target audience: Families with kids old enough to handle a little intensity. Speaking of which...

Take the whole family?: There's way too much going on kinetically and a couple of scary scenes that will turn off kids younger than 5.

Theater or Netflix?: Theater should be OK, but don't pay for the 3D if you have more than a child or two with you.

How racist is this?: Not as bad as it could be given the involvement of Disney and Rudyard Kipling. The main issue is the resurrection of “I Wanna Be Like You,” which in is a song about racial inferiority and efforts to become more “civilized.” It's one of many reasons Disney would have been better served excising the songs from this version.

Watch this as well?: Disney's first crack at Rudyard Kipling's short story collection has its charms, along with a heavy undertone of racism that makes it a little difficult to watch these days. Also flash back to one of those old “Tarzan” films Johnny Weissmuller; considering the Tarzan character is based on Mowgli, it brings things full circle.

American dreaming

Saoirse Ronan and Emory Cohen star in "Brooklyn." Image courtesy Twentieth Century Fox.

The version of America depicted in the sensational “Brooklyn” is the one people dream about when talking about the good old days. The streets are clean and tread upon by impeccably dressed men and women, all of whom are searching for the American Dream. Strangely enough, finding that dream isn’t the issue; the tricky part for Saoirse Ronan’s Eilis is deciding if that dream is what she wants, or is it better perhaps to return home and follow the path set for her before she arrived in early 1950s America.

Romance comes into play in the decision making, although it really isn’t a factor for (the magnificent) Ronan before she steps on the boat. Life before the departure is depicted with a yawn, with the lass working at a market part-time for the cruel Miss Kelly (Brid Brennan), going to dances with her best friend Nancy (Eileen O’Higgins) and living with her beloved older sister Rose (Fiona Glascott) and mother (Jane Brennan). The trip across the Atlantic is a little rocky, but she arrives at the eponymous borough and settles into a boarding house run by the fiery Mrs. Kehoe (Julie Walters) with a small bag, a less than promising job at a clothing store, and an epic case of home sickness. But Ronan toughs out the harsh early going with the help of a friendly priest (Jim Broadbent), who enrolls her in night classes at a local university and persuades her to attend a few local meet and greet events. It's at a rather lame Irish dance that she meets dapper Italian plumber Tony (Emory Cohen), and her life begins to pick up once their relationship blossoms and she falls in love with him and life in America.

That is until Glascott dies and Ronan has to ship back to Ireland to comfort her grieving mother. What started off as a short trip home develops into an extended stay when she takes over her sister’s job as a bookkeeper, which begets plans to stick around and possibly fall in love with handsome rugby player Jim Farrell (Domhnall Gleeson). Everyone around Ronan conspires to keep her in Ireland – Brennan goes as far as to set up her daughter's social schedule beyond her expected departure date – and the woman even starts questioning a possible return to life with Cohen in Brooklyn. It puts her in a tough spot, as each location has its benefits, among them a man hopelessly in love with her.

“Brooklyn” is a rare trustworthy wolf in sheep's clothing, a deep and brilliant Nicholas Sparks film disguised as droll Oscar bait. “Brooklyn” speaks in sadness and elegies for the living and the death of dreams, so crying during “Brooklyn” is very much encouraged and is even necessary depending on which character is broken emotionally at a given moment. But there is very much more to the film than weeping, as screenwriter Nick Hornby – who adopted the film from a novel by Colm Tóibín – writes in some terrific comedic patter between characters that can shift an ordinary conversation into a sparring match befitting films of the era. The best lines are given to the sublimely caustic Walters, who delivers them with vinegar and a knowing smirk.

What's covering the film's fluffy heart is a layer of adulthood far too often ignored in the average Heigl flick; characters opt to reflect and think about their words before saying anything when presented with an awkward moment of romantic doom. Ronan, especially, isn't a woman who needs to grow up – she begins the film at a greater level of adulthood than most people can achieve – as all she really needs is time to weigh her options. The quandary she faces – staying in Ireland or going back to Brooklyn – appears to be an equal one from the surface, with each place offering opportunity and love. But the film definitely favors one route far over the others, and it reveals the preference with a few visual hints – the wardrobe and scenery is much brighter in one location – and through the two suitors. While both men adore the lovable Ronan, the nature of the relationships Ronan has with each differs in one notable way; while one wants a bride to fill an empty house, he other wants a partner, someone to grow alongside him and wants her to better herself in the process. Given that, the decision is easy, but “Brooklyn” knows the heart is a complicated entity, and even a smart, ambitious protagonist like Ronan’s Eilis is tempted to make the wrong decision. That she doesn’t, and that the choice comes with steely determination in one of the best scenes in the film, comes to both the main character’s and the film’s credit.  

Review: Four and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 111 minutes

Genre: Drama

Ask Away

Target audience: Fans of the book and anyone who can't decide if they want to spend more than 90 minutes laughing or crying.

Take the whole family?: Stick with the PG-13 rating for the mildly adult content and the few kids younger than that who'd be interested in seeing this type of movie.

Theater or Netflix?: Find a nice Saturday afternoon to hit this up if you can find it locally.

What are the film's Oscar odds?: “Brooklyn” is in line for a few nominations, including biggies like Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Actress for Saoirse Ronan. I hope Julie Walters gets recognition for Best Supporting Actress – she's just so wonderfully caustic – along with a little love for its subtly splendid cinematography.

Watch this as well?: Sticking with the Nick Hornby oeuvre, rent “An Education” and revel in the terrific rapport between Carey Mulligan – another possible Best Actress nominee – and Peter Sarsgaard.