Review: 47 Meters Down (2017)

Directed by: Johannes Roberts
Written by: Johannes Roberts and Ernest Riera
Starring: Mandy Moore and Claire Holt

I went into 47 Meters Down with low expectations. I wanted some turn-off-your-brain entertainment and saw that this was probably gonna be a lackluster entry into the oversaturated, yet completely underwhelming 'shitty shark' genre. In some respects, this film is a pleasant surprise, but in others it doesn't deviate much at all. The final result is mediocre. It's sometimes quite thrilling, but often leaves you sighing at its contrivances. SPOILERS AHEAD.

Two sisters are on vacation in Mexico. Lisa has just broken up with her boyfriend, so Kate suggests they go cage-diving with sharks to bring some excitement to an unhappy situation. Something however goes terribly wrong. After the cable breaks, the two women plummet 47 meters into the depths and are near-unable to communicate with the boat above. They're now fighting for survival as they're surrounded by great white sharks and running out of oxygen.

I have somewhat of a phobia of sharks, but I have an even more considerable phobia of open water. I don't like the feeling of being surrounded by an immense open space and not being aware of what's in it. The film capitalizes very well on these fears through its atmosphere. The murkiness of the deep water creates feelings of paranoia and confusion. It's a little disappointing that with this established the film then resorts to unnecessary jump scares. It transforms a slow-building sense of dread into an abrasive shock.

While 47 Meters Down performs decently in the area of visuals and using that to create atmosphere, it falls short in writing in that it feels artificial and shallow. On character, Lisa and Kate are stereotypes seen in 1000 movies before this. Lisa is an inhibited damsel-in-distress carrying a lot of anxiety, and this gives Kate the role of the encouraging friend. Once submerged, these two stereotypes basically become indistinct from one another. The other weakness is the writing is too much happens by pure convenience. The cable snaps and cage sinks for convenience, the sharks disappear at the right time for convenience, the film defies some of the very science it claims for convenience. Finally, the ending rescues its lead through little action on her own part. There's a twist that actually diminishes what could have been a decent ending.

47 Meters Down is suprisingly better than I expected it to be, but I don't think that necessarily makes it a good film. It doesn't capitalize on what, in my opinion, is an excellent premise and what it does accomplish in playing on our fears it loses to bad character and story development. Acceptable, but you can spend your time better.

My Rating: 5.5/10

Review: Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)

Directed by: John Boorman
Written by: William Goldhart
Starring: Linda Blair, Richard Burton, Louise Fletcher and Max von Sydow

I must have been 15 when I first saw William Friedkin's The Exorcist. I remember being excited about finally experiencing what was reportedly the "scariest film ever made." I did enjoy it, though I found much of it sluggish and over-the-top. It's been ten years since and I've developed more of an appreciation for it as I've matured, though I still don't hold it in as much esteem as countless cinema fan. Frankly I think it's outdated, largely because it tapped into the anxieties of a fervently more religious society that was America in the 1970s. It's a landmark in film history, which makes for an interesting comparison with the film I'm gonna discuss.

Exorcist II: The Heretic takes place four years after the original. Regan MacNeil has grown into a sociable teenager with an interest in performing arts, but is afflicted with nightmares and repressed memories following her demonic possession. As she undergoes care with psychiatrist Dr. Gene Tuskin, we meet Father Philip Lamont, a priest tasked with investigating Father Merrin's earlier actions and their connection with Regan.

I hold the view that sequels to The Exorcist didn't need to exist. I was content with the conclusion of the original classic, and this makes the selection of John Boorman to fill the duty as director so complexing to me. Boorman's work is very hit-and-miss with me, and reportedly he didn't even like the original! Was he forced into this out of a contract duty? Did he feel compelled to 'correct' the original? Either way, it shows. I'm not gonna go so far as to say it's among the worst films ever made as is often said, but it's so removed from the original in its mood, themes and coherence that I don't see many fans being pleased.

On positives, there's a few. Linda Blair had evidently flourished as an actress in the years between the two movies. Despite not having the best writing material to work with, her pleasure with playing Regan MacNeil remains as apparent as it was in the original. I also really adored the soundtrack. Composed by the amazing Ennio Morricone, this comes as no surprise and I found it reinvesting me when I otherwise was having my patience tested.

What ultimately makes the film a poor sequel however is that it feels confused in what it wants to be. It's not enough to not want to be the original and it desperately wants to find its own. There are numerous sequences that take us to an unspecific place in Africa. They showcase their absurdity in the form of James Earl Jones dressing as a locust, depictions of Father Merrin's strange past with a group of fanatics, and erratic flying POV shots of Pazuzu that I'd call a poor imitation of The Evil Dead had that film been made yet. It actually begs being called so-bad-it's-good at times. I actually chuckled at Kokumo (James Earl Jones) spitting a tomato at the bed of nails laying before Lamont. Yeah, that happens too.

I didn't Exorcist II: The Heretic necessarily hard to get through. Its sheer ridiculousness is amusing enough, and it isn't without a few legitimately strong elements. If you were of the opinion that the original film needed a sequel, I don't see how this would match what you had in mind. It's not one of the worst movies ever, or even one of the worst sequels ever, but largely unremarkable all the same. Hopefully I'll like The Exorcist III more.

My Rating: 5/10

Review: Play Misty For Me (1971)

Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Written by: Jo Heims and Dan Riesner
Starring: Clint Eastwood, Jessica Walter, Donna Mills and John Larch

Clint Eastwood. What can be said? He epitomizes big screen tough guy. However he's usually the tough guy that has a considerable degree of substance behind his character. Many of the biggest action stars that came after him sorely lack this trait. Putting it more simply, I consider him one of the greatest actors of all time. However, my love for Eastwood in front of the camera is actually secondary to his work behind it. Only now did I finally get to this. Play Misty for Me. It's the first film he ever directed and among the finest thrillers of the 1970s.

Dave Garver is a disc jockey for KRML, a California-based radio station that specializes in sentimental tunes. Dave's unique approach to his broadcast has led to new career opportunities and an intensely dedicated fan base. He has a one-night stand with Evelyn, who later reveals herself as a frequent caller requesting the jazz standard "Misty." While initially the two begin a strictly casual relationship, the matter becomes complicated when Dave rekindles a romance with an ex-girlfriend and Evelyn begins to display psychotic, obsessive behavior.

Two of the most obvious comparisons for Play Misty for Me are Martin Scorsese's The King of Comedy and one of my favorite films of all time, Rob Reiner's Misery. All three feature an entertainer's life turned upside down by a crazed fan and play with the theme of mental illness. I prefer to see it as a precursor to Adrian Lyne's 1987 film Fatal Attraction. In my opinion, Play Misty for Me feels like a more subdued version. Although that sounds negative, I'm merely pointing out its fixed place as a thriller that never enters true horror film territory. Some describe it as neo-noir, though frankly I just don't see it.

As much as I love Clint Eastwood (and I could praise his performances all day) the scene-stealer here is undeniably Jessica Walter as Evelyn. I'm really unsure if I should view her as an antagonist, a villain or simply as much a victim of the circumstances as the other leads. Whatever you see her as, it's extremely unsettling to see this actress switch between genteel, annoying and psychotic without warning. You see these events through Dave's eyes, adding an intimacy essential to any stalker story. One problem however comes in the form of backstory. Evelyn is the subject of our curiosity, but the lack of a story prior to the beginning of the film is a little disappointing.

Some might call it dated, and perhaps that criticism is true given it's almost 50 years old and its most thrilling elements have been replicated in similar films since. I loved Play Misty for Me. Allowing Clint Eastwood to make mistakes as a first-time director, he performs well above expectations. This film is truly thrilling and while it's certainly not Hitchcock, it feels a hell of a lot like someone that did their homework on Hitchcock. Before Unforgiven, before Gran Torino, before Mystic River, there was Play Misty for Me!

My Rating: 8.5/10