JJ79 Blog

Under discussion:

Couples Retreat  (2009)

Eight friends, all coupled, find themselves on a Couples Retreat under the guise of a fun, adult vacation in Eden. As it turns out, there's one small hitch: each are required to meet with counselors and work on their relationships. Not all of them are happy about it and, in fact, the two who put the trip together (Jason Bateman, Kristen Bell) are in the most treacherous waters after failing to conceive a child. Dave and Ronnie (Vince Vaughn, Malin Akerman) have two boys at home but no time for themselves. Recently divorced Shane (Faizon Love) is dating a 20-something named Trudy (Kali Hawk) who wants to dance and drink and have fun. And then there's Joey and Lucy (Jon Favreau, Kristen Davis), a couple intending to divorce once their daughter goes to college.

With so many characters and storylines, director Peter Billingsley's second directorial outing has the talent to be successful and an absolutely beautiful location to work with, but feels overstuffed and "normal." It's in the first ten or fifteen minutes we see the eventual problem with the story: too much to do and not enough time to do it in. Small scenes of exposition are laid out on the screen designed to demonstrate the marital issues between each couple. And the film has the service all four storylines for the entire running time, almost as if juggling firecrackers and hoping not to miss one. We're never allowed to get to know these people as people; rather, they're just pieces to be moved from one place to another to get to the finale. The unintended byproduct of too much going on if the story takes the easy way out for each couple without asking them (and the audience) to really examine each partnership.

It should be said at the outset that the location shooting in Bora-Bora is absolutely stunning. Billingsley is able to turn the camera in nearly any direction and capture the wondrous beauty of the ocean and island. If anything, Couples Retreat can serve as a calling card for the island as a tourist location. Clear blue ocean, pure white sand, seemingly perfect weather all the time, villas with floor ports to watch the fish in the ocean...at least one part of the film lives up to the billing.

In the beginning segment, the story moves from Dave not being interested in picking out new tile with Ronnie to Shane pleading with Dave to co-sign for Trudy's motorcycle (she calls him Daddy...) to Jason and Cynthia (Bateman, Bell) working on their Eden power point presentation for their friends while Lucy and Joey can barely stand to look at one another. Now, each of these are valid relationship issues which deserve to be investigated in depth. They come into play throughout the film as the characters personify their relationships. For example, Jason and Lucy plan everything with graphs and analysis, a frustrating way to live to be sure. There is no spontaneity for them, no deviation from the norm. And the story keeps hammering it into our heads. Over and over again. Jason adheres rigorously to a schedule created by the group's counselor Marcel (Jean Reno), including when they can and can not eat or drink. One gets the feeling that, if he could put away the calendar and plans for a minute, he and Cynthia wouldn't have that hard a time conceiving. For a time, he comes off as the most sane one in the group. They are clearly in love, fully aware of their failings and open to working on them. Not that the others aren't aware. They just choose not to confront them.

Just like the film's chooses not to let the actors shine in the way they can. Only the men are given anything meaningful to do; Akerman has a substantial role as well, but even Ronnie devolves into a giggling, drooling caricature by the finale. It's unfortunate both Bell and Davis are basically wasted since they can stand up to their respective husbands and engage in witty conversation. Most of these people have been together for long periods of time. As such, they should know how to get under one another's skin. But they don't. I can't believe they have too much respect for one another, especially considering what is said both on the singles side of the island and in therapy. They're restrained, civil, unlike what people are in real life. Had they gone at it, David and Favreau could have handled anything given to them. An early scene setting up their relationship proves the point. Both are able to be pointed and witty. So why not let them?

Couples Retreat paints with a broad brush in both the serious relationship storyline and in the humor which dots each and every scene. It's not enough for yoga instructor Salvadore (the impossibly ripped Carlos Ponce) to demonstrate each position. He has to make them all sexual in nature, thrusting, pulsating and pounding the men and women. A true yoga instructor, you'd have to imagine, would be fully cognizant of how the moves would be seen, adjusting accordingly. When Marcel tells the group to remove their masks (aka their clothing), it's played as a joke instead of the horrific moment it should have been. Who, after all, wants to see their friends naked? (A minor quibble: the instruction is to remove all clothing. Boxers, bras and panties are left on. I know this is a PG-13 flick and these actors aren't going to do full frontals, but at least mention underwear so it doesn't look like everyone on the screen is a total idiot.)

Since it goes over-the-top so much in every aspect, it's impossible to know what the story is really getting at. Are we supposed to be watching scenes from real marriages, amped up a bit for the screen? Or a farce, in which case the finale is hideously out of place? The ending...as if there's any doubt how it's going to end. To be honest and truthful to the subject matter, at least one couple needs to split. But none do. Okay, that's not exactly truthful. One does and through plot machinations, both end up happier. And one leaves coupled.

Speaking of the comedy, it's hard not to point out the places the script uses convenience over truth to advance itself. After breaking into Dave's house, Jason starts a conversation centering on divorce and other uncomfortable subjects. Of course, as children always do, Dave's kids find themselves on the stairs, literally pushing Dave and Ronnie out the door. Hell, they've even called grandpa already to take care of them. And the minute grandpa's name is spoken aloud...yup, the doorbell rings. Really? Sub-ten-year-old kids worried about their parents splitting up, going so far as to call themselves a caretaker? Um, okay... (A running gag about one son and display toilets may be the funniest thing in the film.)

The composition of the group is maddeningly "normal." When a film like this purports to show marriages and relationships on the verge of destruction, varying up the participants helps the marketing potential and the texture differences bring. Couples Retreat features six white people and two black. All straight. All middle class (possibly upper middle or upper in the case of Jason and Cynthia). No one from the other side of the tracks. That's terribly boring. Now, imagine the yoga scene I described before with a gay couple. Or an interracial pair. How about a relationship with three people? More comedy possibilities, not to mention showcasing something besides the norm.

Under discussion:

GNAW  (2009)

THE FLICK
The horror genre on film goes back, roughly, to the 1890's and Le Manoir du diable by Georges Méliès. In the intervening years, filmmakers from across the globe have tried to put their spin on the genre, some successfully and some...well, less so. In the last decade or so, there is a new school of thought which equates blood and gore with horror at the expense of rational, logical decision making. Wes Craven's Scream series pointed this out to great effect, yet some people still haven't taken the hint. It's not enough to carve up a half dozen teenagers in the middle of nowhere anymore. Nor is it enough to pay lip service to the things they should be doing to survive the film. Rather, horror films (and the associated sub-genre's of chiller, slasher and torture, among others) need to create a realistic world for the characters and audience to get caught up in. The British import Gnaw does none of these things and opts, instead, to be one part slasher and one part gross out flick.

As with most films in the genre, Gnaw starts out with a group of six teens heading out into the middle of nowhere, where they are systematically killed off because they have no idea how slasher pics work. Seriously, this is the modern day United Kingdom. Doesn't anyone watch a movie or television show? Don't you know the minute you decide to go off into the country you will end up dead? How many times do we have to see one person (in this case, the movie's lone asset, the Slaughterman) killing the entire group when, by all rights, at least one person should survive the carnage? Oh no, Gnaw doesn't stop there. On top of being mind numbingly banal, it has the audacity to think it has the smarts to bring cannibals into the story. Cannibals! It's not director Gregory Mandry who's the problem. Nope, it's the "been there, seen that" script by Michael Bell and Max Waller which cuts off its own foot in the before the marathon even starts.

Gnaw doesn't just tip its hand far, far too early (the bad guy is shown at the very beginning of the film); it has no hand to tip. See, nothing in the film feels remotely original. It may be the lack of any true story arc. Mandry tries to make a case for the arc being Slaughterman's obsession with Lorrie (Sara Dylan)-who is pregnant, by the way-with Jack's (Nigel Croft-Adams) kid. Alas, Jack's girlfriend Jill (Rachel Mitchem) doesn't know this. And she doesn't get the chance to figure it out precisely because the script doesn't deem it important. So much for that story arc, right? All the characters are merely a distraction and cannon fodder for Slaughterman. If the only rationale for the story is to watch people die, is that worth it?

It's not, in case there was a doubt. There is no bottom to the story, nothing to propel it forward with any meaning. Typically, that reason would either be a story arc or character development. Since we've ruled out a story arc, then it must be the wonderfully complex characters, right? Wrong. They simple run from place to place-usually alone-and get massacred. And that supposed story arc? It's non-existent precisely because Slaughterman has no personality. He's just a killer, grinding up his prey into meat pies. Freddy Krueger had a motive. Jason Voorhees had a motive. Michael Myers...heck, even the shark(s) in the Jaws films. Slaughterman? Eh, there's nothing on television.

I apologize if it sounds as though I'm being hyperbolic. Gnaw doesn't do much right. The acting is categorically over the top, especially Croft-Adams as Jack. Loud, grating and obnoxious, Jack is the jock of the pic without anything particular jock-y to do. Bell and Waller are unable to do anything but paint with the broadest of strokes. Each character has one, maybe two, defining personality traits. Asthmatic Matt (Oliver Lee Squires) pines for Lorrie...and that's all we know about him. Jill is just as shrill as Jack and prudish on top of that. And so on. Everyone involved seems to have a cognitive disconnect about what a horror movie is. Yes, blood and guts, but scary blood and guts which puts the audience in the position of the characters. We can identify with some of the characteristics, but simultaneously can't wait for the six leads to die so the end credits can roll.

By the way, here's a note for future filmmakers who want to dabble in this genre. If you're going to commit to a slasher film, you need to be willing and able to show slashing. Especially if your characters and plot are worthless. Gnaw shows precious little of its alleged blood-letting. It even tries, if you read between the lines, to up the scare ante by not showing knives cutting into bodies or other acts. But that philosophy is to the film's overall detriment. Something has to make people want to see the flick. Jaws doesn't feature a lot of blood or violence, yet it works because the tension from the menace is there. Slaughterman has no hope of being iconic or thrilling. One well placed whack to the head and he should be down for the count. Try that with a shark.

The intention was for every element in the film to come off as being realistic to the modern day, at least according to Mandry. That's why a cell phone is used to take a short video of Lorrie and Matt makes a point to check his cell phone when the group arrives at the country house. I guess the script should get some props for thinking of the cell phone angle even if it doesn't quite get around to thinking about anything else. Why go back to a car which doesn't start in order to escape? Didn't any of these kids tell parents where they were going? And when they don't return, no one mounts a search and rescue, which would invariably lead right to Slaughterman and Mrs. Obadiah (Carrie Cohen)? A credits sequence suggests these two have been at their killing rampage for years and years. Apparently, there are over 200,000 cases of missing persons in the UK every year. Some people are recovered alive and others aren't. There's not a lick of information about where they might have gone? Really?

THE LOOK
There is a distinctive look to films produced outside of America. They tend to have a color palette veering into red/brown territory and slight picture softness. Neither of those hallmarks are actual transfer issues and need to be removed from the discussion when talking about Gnaw. Instead, the anamorphic picture is generally well done with no visible scratches or blemishes. Black crush plays a part in further diminishing texture and detail in dark scenes. While we can make out some specifics, a lot of the film-especially the background-is hard to see. The black's tend to be a bit too bright also, making them more gray than actually black. Fleshtones are acceptable keeping in mind all the picture caveats.

THE SOUND
The disc includes both an English 5.1 mix as well as a 2.0 versions. Both are clean and free of distractions, allowing the dialogue to come through clearly. (This is especially important considering the English accent of all the actors.) Very early on in the 5.1 iteration the use of the rear speakers jumps to the forefront. Scratching and clawing sounds, not to mention mental-on-metal, enhance the main title sequence. From then on, these ambient sounds are toned down a bit in favor of the front speakers. Directional effects are relatively sparse, usually coming in the form of a car driving down the road and not other sounds going across the screen. The track also does a very good job in balancing the score, sound effects and dialogue, making sure one does not overpower the other. English subtitles are included.

THE STUFF
One note about the run time on the box art: Gnaw is purported to clock in at 90 minutes. The film itself lasts for roughly 74 minutes.

Now then, director Gregory Mandry doesn't have a lot to say in the feature-length commentary. He either doesn't have the necessary anecdotes and behind-the-scenes information with him or he's not quite sure these kinds of things work. Long gaps in the film go by with nothing from him, essentially making the audience watch the production for a second time. When he does interject, the information isn't terribly compelling. The movie took 2 weeks to shoot, certain sequences kept getting expanded, the coldest day of the year (that always happens when a film is shooting, it seems like) and the startling fact he had a relatively closed set for the sex scenes. Mandry needs someone to play off of or, at the very least, a good stack of notes about his film.

The nearly ten minute making of is world's better in terms of providing background trivia, however lame and useless it might be. There are references here to the nursery rhyme allusions in the movie (Jack and Jill, for instance), the drive to make Slaughterman as iconic as Freddy or Jason (psst...EPIC FAIL, as the kids say) or the crew patting themselves on the back for keeping Slaughterman out of the picture for as long as they did (Ridley Scott. Alien. Check it out.). This is the kind of stuff that should have been in the commentary. A terribly spoilery trailer for the movie is also included. The film comes in a clear keepcase without an insert. There are 13 chapter stops.

Under discussion:

Paranormal Activity  (2009)

Made for an estimated $11,000, Paranormal Activity follows the model set forth by The Blair Witch Project, utilizing non-actors, limited sets and a small handful of thriller moments to create a tense, if somewhat faulty, chiller. The central conceit of the film is simple: Micah and Katie (Micah Sloat, Katie Featherston) are haunted by a demon. In an effort to document their problems, Micah invests in a video camera and uses it nearly all the time. And that is how the first half hour of Paranormal Activity plays out, as an attempt to introduce the characters and situation to the audience. From there, writer/director Oren Peli slowly weaves in the scares, at first small sounds and eventually culminating in...well, that would be ruining it.

Perhaps by design, Peli doesn't allow either Micah or Katie to really develop as characters. There's nothing to really tell the audience what makes them tick or why they're actually together. It might not be completely necessary, though looking back at the classics in the horror genre, each have allowed their characters to become people as opposed to caricatures. (Blair Witch-this film's obvious inspiration-is an exception.) Why does this really matter? Knowing and therefore caring about the leads heightens the impact of each scare above and beyond what we'd experience otherwise. Again, this may be by design. Not knowing anything about the two adds to the anonymity, not to mention the alleged "true story" nature of the film.

Here's the rub on the way the film is shot. Everything we see comes from Micah's video camera, meaning he or Katie have to grab it whenever the action shifts to another location. I have to ask: if someone you care about is screaming bloody murder in another room, are you really going to stop to grab a camera before going to help? Even if you need hard evidence something is going on? Far more realistic is either calling a news crew with multiple cameras or buying them yourself to monitor all the rooms at the same time. Is that a nitpick? Probably, though even Katie takes Micah to task over his use of the camera, making it less of a nitpick and more of a conceit.

What the film does extraordinarily well is using night vision filming inside the bedroom. With the camera positioned at the foot of the bed, Peli is able to stage most of the scares very simply and easily. Night vision almost by definition means the room is seen in an eerie blue/green, heightening the scare factor. After all, that is why most horror movies take place at night: for the thrills to work, we can't see what's behind the door, in the next room or in the corner. Peli lets us "see" what's there, for lack of a better term, even if it doesn't help. This, I'd argue, enhances each scare. There are only a few things which could happen in the room and our eyes inadvertently dart from one to the other, simply waiting.

And that's the beauty of Paranormal Activity in the long run. The movie is a success based purely on economics, but it's also a triumph in viral marketing and expectation. Relatively little "scary" happens in the first part of the story aside from a false alarm and a couple house noises which may be completely normal. It lures us into a false sense of security, as if the entirety of the thrills come from benign little things so when the big stuff begins, it pales in comparison, effectively jolting the audience (not to mention Micah and Katie). As a function of the budget, the cast is kept extremely small and precious few sets are used. In fact, the camera only ventures outside once. The rest of the film takes place in their house. Not only are they trapped with this demon, but so are we. Based purely on the rules laid out in the story, there is nowhere they can actually be safe.

Now, with that being said, they can do a hell of a lot more to help themselves. Remember how, in older horror films, the nubile young female runs into a closet to escape the killer, with the audience knowing it was the wrong place to go? Also remember how Scream made fun of those conventions? No one runs the wrong way in Paranormal Activity, per se. That ends up being the biggest issue: characters performing well below audience expectations, especially when life and death hands in the balance. (Similarly, it doesn't help that the biggest and best scares come in the last 120 seconds of the film. The filmmakers are trying to play with our expectations, to be sure, ramping up what they show ever so slightly. But man...to make the audience sit through 90-something minutes of amateur home video like Cloverfield to get to the good part? Not the best idea.)