Get Out (2017)

"Get Out" it's representative for the reason why I don't have anymore so many horror entries on my blog. It's either rehashing stuff (this case) or something where horror is defined as buckets of blood (fortunately not this case).

The story: We have a girl (white) with her boyfriend (black) who decides to introduce him to her parents. And like this we're landing somewhere in a countryside community, where there's a heavy air of racial segregation. It's not really clear if we're in the South or in the North of USA (well, at least for me it's not). In any case we have a mansion where the parents reside - the father - a neurosurgeon and the mother - a shrink (again, it's not very clear what two professing doctors do in the middle of nowhere, but let's say we get the reason at the end of the movie). We also have two black servants with a strange behavior. And we also have a sort of local party at the mansion where lots of white folks gather + an even weirder black guy. Well, even so, it takes almost three quarters of a movie of the boyfriend resisting the weirdness around and lots of offensive remarks (some of which a bit too subtle) + an involuntary session of hypnosis that sticks better than a tube of super glue, until the guy cracks and wants to go home. Well, of course he won't be able... Let's not spoil though the last quarter of the movie, anyway's not much to be seen there.

The reason why "Get Out" got some astronomic ratings on most of the sites in the US for the genre it has it's the light "politically correctness" part = we have a movie that bets a lot on the racial discrimination card, a topic that doesn't really work for me in a horror, especially one with this script. On the rehashed stuff side I can refer to "The Skeleton Key" from 2005, a much darker movie (I would say even too dark if I think about the ending), where the essence of the story is not that far, but the roles (racially speaking) were sort of reversed if I remember well (which isn't so "politically correct") but well... the movie does what it has to do = delivers a horror story, the skin color is not that important there. Also on the rehashed stuff side, the generic idea of getting trapped & used somewhere in a remote location is so often met that you need something super original to overcome this context. And unfortunately the 15-20 minutes of movie that are left for this don't deliver anything above average. If you want an example of a horror that does this, check out "The Cabin in the Woods", and if you want a decent movie on racial issues you can start with "12 Years a Slave" (there's horror there too, but not the "having fun" type).

Rating: 3 out of 5 (I didn't say the movie's bad, just too overrated for something that doesn't raise above the average of the genre)

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)

"Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri" deserves a review as complex and long as its title, for which I don't really have the time... It's the third movie by Martin McDonagh after "In Bruges" and "Seven Psychopats", and what we have here is directly comparable with the previous. Still, if in the first we had a dark comedy with a dramatic ending, in the second the proportions were somehow equal, here the drama is much more present. You still get the same traces of dark humor, but the movie is much more harsh and credible despite many critics that I heard on the fact that there are parts of script which don't make sense. The story: A woman from a small town in Missouri, whose daughter is raped and murdered, decides after something like 8 months during which the local police didn't get any track to "counterattack" with a protest displayed on 3 billboards. The immediate result is the public dismay on her nerve of accusing the local sheriff of not doing his job in a context where the guy's sick with cancer and close to dying. Starting from this, the issue escalates, or to quote the movie: "All this anger, man, it just begets greater anger.".

The script, as weird as it might look in some places, is typical for McDonagh and excellently built reusing an "unknown author" motive seen from different angles, and typically coming as a surprise element. It's either revealing of something you don't know (spoilers: who paid for the second month of billboards, who burnt the first boards, or even who is the author of the murder) or revealing something you know but to an unknowingly character (other spoilers: who burnt the police station, or again... who's the killer). What else to say: Sam Rockwell, who for me seems to play pretty much the same part everywhere, here does the best of his career - and the part of the "ultra politically correct" critic who's blaming the movie for glorifying in the ending a racist person, is as stupid as the idea of "politically correct" criticism for an artistic product - especially given the context where we have a clear idea and message of "people can change". The camera work is not exceptional but there are some frames where you can remark a sort of finesse (an example: the whole throwing out the window scene). The score brings a "Coen Brothers" feeling, which comes naturally being written by Carter Burwell who's typically also working with them.

It's probably the most powerful movie as impact/sent message which I've seen in this "Oscar" season, despite or maybe actually because the comic approach on top of the drama part. Besides the above mentioned, maybe the very essence you're left with is the unpredictable human surprise factor = you can expect something bad from somebody good or vice versa, otherwise said, with isolated exceptions, there's not much white or black in this life, but many and diverse shades of grey.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5

PS - extra big spoilers ahead: Some night when I couldn't sleep I made the mistake to look over a reddit thread on this movie, and as condescending it may sound it confirmed me again that the average IQ of the American public is somewhere... let's better not say. So, normally I'm not doing this, but in this situation I sort of feel obliged to explain some so-called stupid details in the script (leaving aside the fact that in a dark comedy you should not expect something 100% believable, but well, for the purists...): 1) how the hell can you have such a big extinguisher in your car with you? well... after your child is set on fire, maybe you do; 2) how stupid is that the local police doesn't investigate who burned their building? who says they don't? the woman had an alibi and she's temporarily spared, it's enough to skip this part in the movie; 3) BIG spoiler - the real killer issue: the movie doesn't have an ending/two people leave to kill some falsely assumed murderer/etc., etc. - I say that the movie has a perfect eding, but well, that's my own personal take on it - a) first of all the killer is the assumed one, despite negating the DNA evidence and his presence at that time in the country, it still all seems like a cover-up story - if you're paying attention there are at least three elements in the final dialogue between Dixon and the new local sheriff: the latter starts by saying to the first that he did a good job investigating in the context of him being fired and even if immediately after he denies the result; it's repeated for several times that "the commanding officer" offered a cover/alibi and more details are classified, apparently making the suspect untouchable; finally the one who leaves the badge on the desk is Dixon disappointed of the whole thing, not the sheriff who seems actually willing to offer him a chance of returning to work and b) even so, the ending is somehow apparently open, the two left to get their own justice not being 100% certain of what's next - the "shades of grey" ;) ...

Phantom Thread (2017)

I'll keep it short, to compensate... "Phantom Thread" is a slow movie that appears long (although if we count the minutes it's not really). The problem is that the development is too thin to fill two hours. Daniel Day-Lewis gives a last performance (the guy's retiring, if it's not some sort of marketing strategy) as a London based fashion designer during the '50s, who finds his muse, a model and future wife in a simple waitress. The movie's built mostly from details, long static shots, slow dialogues, and tension. Actually, I think that Paul Thomas Anderson is probably the best writer/director at the moment when it comes to creating tension in dialogues (way beyond Tarantino). What's here resembles much "There Will Be Blood", especially in respect to this, but it's not the same thing. The exceptional performance of the title role is comparable, but it's lacking content. And the so called final twist, which you don't know if to take as "happy" or "sick" doesn't really compensate. I guess it's still making the movie a "better" Valentine's day option than 50 Shades of Whatever (irony included).

Rating: 3 out of 5 (probably deserves more, but I'm subjective)

Darkest Hour (2017)

In case "Dunkirk" seemed to event-centered, you're in need of more detail, and Wikipedia is not catchy enough, probably the best option is "Darkest Hour". I never got this trend in the western cinema of getting out releases on the same topic at so short time intervals. I doubt there's that much financial gain in a movie like that, but let's not get busy now with details on the inner economics of the movie business...

I doubt there's much to say - the movie is a historical piece describing the context of UK entering WW2 from the appointment of Churchill as PM, until the retreat from Dunkirk. As a plus, you get to improve maybe a bit your knowledge on the events flow in that period and about the political intrigue in the English Parliament (more or less romanticized). The movie bets a lot on Gary Oldman's performance in the title role, which indeed is a good one, although I still cannot explain myself this choice. The transformation is impressive, but the effort for it seems likewise = without taking anything out of the result, I think that it would've been more... let's say, direct to choose somebody more close to the age/look/etc (Hopkins comes now to my mind).

The bad part is that, relying too much on the main character, the rest is a bit lost. If in "Dunkirk" Nolan for me seems that he managed the impossible = to get something surprisingly decent out of an event where the movie potential is close to zero, but this required a complete mix between the camera work, sound and a very simple script, here we're a bit lost in cliches... This is to be expected from a history movie, especially one centered around Churchill = words of wisdom, inspiring speeches, solemn moments and all the rest, but still... the presented timeline seems a bit short and overfilled with such stuff just to cover more movie minutes. It would've been more natural having a historical speech at the right time and an action timeline spanning beyond Dunkirk. As it is, the movie looks like a sort of "Episode 1", just that unlike "Star Wars" we don't need any sequel to find out the ending...

Rating: 3 out of 5