Lights Out Review (2016)

In the new horror picture “Lights Out”—directed by David F Sandberg and co written by Eric Heisserer and Sandberg—evil comes in the form of Diana, a supernatural being powered by grief and anger, who resides in the shadows. When the lights are on, you’re safe. When the lights go out, all bets are off. It’s as easy as that. Of course that doesn’t mean Diana can’t cause the power to inexplicably go out on occasion.

The simplicity of the film’s antagonist proves to be a double edged sword.

On the bright side, it creates consistency in regards to film continuity and the mythology it establishes.  In other words, there aren’t any major rule violations or narrative curveballs that signal lazy screenwriting. Diana can’t ever do her thing when the lights are on. Additionally, Diana’s sensitivity to light isn’t an empty gimmick-- there’s a legitimate reason that’s clearly established and makes sense within the film’s logic.

At the same time, this simplicity leads to predictability and repetitiveness in the scare department. “Lights Out” is powered by jump scares. Well, mainly one style of jump scare repeated over and over. A character sees Diana standing still in the dark. They turn the light on. She’s gone. They turn the light off again and she’s closer. Then she attacks!

In general, I don’t like jump scares. I think they’re cheap and lazy. One or two well-placed jump scares can sometimes be effective but too often they’re overused. I prefer horror films that create a creepy, unnerving atmosphere. Horror films that cause terror and paranoia to slowly build up in the viewer until they become uncomfortable; terror and paranoia that sticks with them long after the movie has ended. Jump scares go for the immediate jolt-- a feeling that quickly evaporates.

While there are a few well-placed jump scares in “Lights Out,” there are simply too many and after a while you can see them coming from a mile away. The last third of the pictures verges on silly and delirious rather than unsettling and tense. Therefore, I can’t say I was all that scared or uncomfortable during the film. This isn’t going to be one of those horror films that stays with me over a long period of time.

And yet, there are still pleasures to be found--namely that the filmmakers keep the human element in tact. Horror films aren’t exempt from having strong characters. The action revolves around Rebecca (Theresa Palmer), her younger brother Martin (Gabriel Bateman) and mother Sophie (Maria Bello). They’re in grave danger because Diana has a special attachment to Sophie. The pictures takes time to make these three into likable and multifaceted characters. Rebecca is an intelligent and strong protagonist that constantly takes charge and goes through a visible transformation at the end. Martin is resilient in his own right and never gets on your nerves like some children in horror movies do. Meanwhile, veteran actor Bello brings dimension and sympathy to the cliché “crazy mother” character. On top of that, the filmmakers take time to establish and develop the non-supernatural dilemmas that plague the family, such as the tension and falling out between Rebecca and her mother. More than anything, Diana is powered by the negative energy radiating off the human characters.

At eighty-one minutes, “Lights Out” is relatively free of narrative fat. The filmmakers keep things tightknit and self-contained. There aren’t any ghost hunters or psychics, or an overabundance of one-note victims. Everything is wisely kept within the intimate sphere of the family. And the film doesn’t overstay its welcome. With horror—the shorter and tighter the movie is the better.

So far 2016 has been a strong year for horror. “The Witch,” “The Wailing,” and “Green Room” are all exemplary pictures. “Lights Out” doesn’t ascend to that level; it’s not as ambitious or thought provoking and it’s certainly not as creepy or uncomfortable. Still, “Lights Out” is a decent little horror flick that’s worth devoting an evening to.

C+

Point Break Review (2015)

For movie so infatuated with extreme sports, Ericson Core’s “Point Break” (a remake of the 1991 Kathryn Bigelow actioner staring Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze) is extremely dull—a stagnant, airless, remake lacking any reason to exist. Some movies can be so bad they’re entertaining. Core’s film strives for so little that there’s no fun to be had in any regard. The picture revolves around Johnny Utah (Luke Bracey filling in for Reeves) a former extreme athlete turned F.B.I agent who infiltrates a gang of extreme athletes led by Bodhi (Edgar Ramirez, filling in for Swayze) trying to achieve total enlightenment with nature while also committing acts of eco terrorism.

Watching this new incarnation it’s as if the producers saw the intense, exhilarating skydiving sequence in the original and said: “Lets do that for every scene!” The movie is one extreme sports spectacle after another—surfing mammoth waves, Wing suit flying, skydiving, and snowboarding. All of these are cool stunts in their own right but in the context of the movie there’s no emotional weight behind them. You’re better off just staying home and watching clips on YouTube.

Within thirty minutes the movie becomes tedious and repetitive; after the third sequence in which the characters snowboard down a mountain slope I wanted to throw things at the screen.

“Point Break” is so eager to the get to the next beat of action that it neglects story and character in the process; who needs three-dimensional characters when we have cliff jumping…or snowboarding…or snowboarding off a cliff! As action driven as the original is the focus remains on character, the bond between Utah and Bodhi takes center stage and develops organically. In the remake, said bond is virtually nonexistent. And Kurt Wimmer’s screenplay doesn’t explore the philosophy of Bodhi and his gang in any real depth beyond surface level platitudes (“you see lines, we see truth”).

The acting ranges from robotic to nonexistent. Instead of having personality or charm, newcomer Bracey stares intensely off into the distance. Meanwhile Ramirez and Ray Winstone, (as Utah’s partner Angelo Pappas) two very talented actors look as though they would rather be doing literally anything else. Both recite their lines without any enthusiasm, as if they’re being held at gunpoint. Meanwhile, Theresa Palmer (as the film’s token female and love interest of Utah) is basically thrown under the bus. Overall, no one looks like they’re having any fun (we’re not having any fun) and that is perhaps the most offensive thing about this remake-- it takes itself far too seriously.  Near the beginning of the film, in a room full of other F.B.I agents Utah says (about the culprits of the eco terrorist acts): “I believe these crimes to be the work of…extreme athletes,” a ridiculous line of dialogue delivered with a straight face. And that's what this movie feels like most of the time: a ridiculous movie presented with a straight face. The original “Point Break” has a prominent streak of humor--recognizing the inherent goofiness in its premise (an F.B.I agent going undercover to catch a gang of surfing bank robbers) and embracing it.

Not long after I attended an advanced screening of “Point Break” (almost a week before its theatrical release) Warner Bro’s announced they would be cancelling all further preview/media screenings around the country, a move that seems fitting due to the quality of the final product. “Point Break” is a bland paint by numbers action movie and a soulless advertisement for extreme sports. The last truly awful movie of 2015. 

D-