Review: Insidious Chapter 3

By Trent Crump
 ★★½

 - I saw this on a regular-sized theater screen in 2-D. 

I've thought for almost a full week how to talk about this movie.  Horror movies tend to be hard to review.  What scares one person won't scare another.  Jump scares are enjoyed by some, others hate them and find them to be cheating.  Some people will automatically give horror films low scores, others will give them all high scores based purely on how scary a movie is or how much it made them jump.  To do a review for a film, and to review it based on its merits outside of its genre...  That's hard to do with horror.   However, I will attempt it.

Despite being called Insidious Chapter 3, this film is actually a prequel to the first film in the series.  That means, if you want to go see the movie without having seen the first two, you're in luck.  (However, I wouldn't recommend it.)   This story is about an entirely different family than the other two films.  This girl, Quinn (Stefanie Scott), goes to visit the psychic Elise Rainier (Lin Shaye) to try to communicate with her dead mother, whom she thinks is trying to get her attention.  However, Elise has given up contacting the dead, as her husband died and when she tried to contact him, something evil followed her back.  Whenever she tries to contact, it notices her and tries to kill her.  She tells Quinn to stop trying to contact her mother, because when she calls out to the dead, they all can hear her.  This is made evident by the figure she keeps seeing waving to her the next day.  And the knocking on her walls...  The figure by the curtains of her window...  As with most horror films, things get more and more creepier, more physical, more painful, until finally they realize something is terribly wrong and try to fix it.  

 As you can tell, it's not a very original horror film.  In fact, this is the same plot as the first two films in this series.  It's the plot of Poltergeist, both the new and the old one.  Haunting films run on a quite rigid formula, and I suppose if it's not broke, you can try to improve it, but will fail about 80% of the time, and with the low budgets these films normally have, it's easy to make money repeating yourself.  This one was made on $10 million and has already made over 4 times that amount, for example. (3/4 of that in the US.)  It's not even been out a week.  It's a PG-13 horror film that, while not really scary to this reviewer, does have some fantastic visuals and some of the best jump scares out there.  James Wan was the director of the first two films, but he was busy working on Furious 7 while this was filming.  The macabre humor he puts in his films is still here (he produced this, after all), but it's not there as much.  Nor is his fantastic use of odd bright color palettes or the sense of foreboding which he worked so well into The Conjuring two years ago.  It's more effective in its jump scares than other horror films of the type usually are.  It rarely pulls its punches into build-ups without the jump as modern horror is wont to do.

What hold this film together is Lin Shaye.  She was in the other two films and has a career as a character actress going back to the mid-1970s.  In her role here as Elise, she brings the same warmth and power she brought previously, but in this film she's a sad, doubting woman as well.  She's in mourning and can't do her job anymore.  Also back are the comic relief duo from the previous films.  The bloggers/ghosthunters who obviously are in over their heads without Elise.  (They haven't joined her yet in this one, obviously.)  Their slapstick and unprofessionalism are kind of humorous, but it's a bit overdone here and distracts from the spookiness of the film.

The movie as a whole is, in my opinion, about on the level of the second film.  It's got more heart than that one, but the girl being haunted here is an annoying teenage girl and her father is the typical Hollywood single father.  (Clueless, kind of mean, and can't run a household.)  The girl has a younger brother that has about 5 minutes of screen time and nothing to do in the whole movie.  I don't know why his character was included.  In fact, there are quite a few secondary characters in this that disappear for long periods of time and never show up again.  They were introduced, seemingly to have something to do with the plot, but it turns out they were just there to be introduced.  I'm thinking the editing here could have been much better.  Despite its numerous faults, it was worth the one viewing.  If you're a fan of the series, I'd suggest seeing it, if nothing else than to tide you over until the next installment, or at least until James Wan's Conjuring 2 comes out next summer.  Sometimes better than average is good enough.  Hey, it's better than the Poltergeist remake!

Review: August: Osage County

by. Joe Moss
★★★½

Gritty, powerful, heartfelt, dysfunctional, otherwise known as a trip through most family gatherings. John Wells' "August: Osage County--" based off of the 2008 Pulitzer Prize winning play of the same name, by Tracy Letts--is sure to pack a punch with most audience members who are not afraid to stare transfixedly into the dark realities that hide behind most homestead walls. Working through their short-comings, their past indiscretions, and many family secrets, the Weston family must decide how to move forward as a group, and as individuals.

Beverly "Bev" Weston (Sam Shepard) was once a truly famous award winning poet. He and his wife, Violet (Meryl Streep) placed roots in Osage County Oklahoma when Bev accepted his final teaching position at a local university. As the film opens, Bev is interviewing Johnna (Misty Upham) as a housekeeper/assistant to help take care of Violet who he says has mouth cancer. We find out that Violet has a widespread prescription drug addiction as a counterbalance to his alcoholism.

Suddenly, we are thrust forward a few days, and discover through a phone conversation between the Weston's middle daughter, Ivy (Julianne Nicholson) and the oldest daughter, Barbara (Julia Roberts) that Bev has gone missing. To aid Violet, who is severely distraught in her drug-induced dementia, Barbara decides to make the trip home. She brings with her, Bill Fordham (her estranged husband played by Ewan McGregor) and her daughter, Jean (Abigail Breslin). They meet Ivy, Violet's sister Matty Fae (Margo Martindale) and brother-in-law, Charlie (Chris Cooper) at the Weston homestead. Within minutes of arriving, the family is shocked by another knock at the door.  It's the Sheriff who bears the news that Bev has been found, and the body must be identified.

With the arrival of the remaining Weston daughter, Karen (Juliette Lewis) and her beau, Steve Huberbrecht (Dermot Mulroney), all HELL breaks loose in the household as the dirty laundry of all is finally aired out to dry.

My hats of to the producers of the film for allowing Tracy Letts to re-write and translate her play into the actual movie script. It is obvious that she took the time to do her award-winning play justice. Of course the personification provided by the cast is amazing. Meryl Streep is at her best in this movie as she channels the insanity of Elizabeth Taylor's title character from "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" (1966). She steals every scene with biting sarcasm followed by inhaling cigarettes--mind the mouth cancer now!!

Julia Roberts is a mirror image of Meryl Streep's character. As her oldest daughter, Barbara had to put up with Violet's tantrums the most...and this is how Julia plays the role. As s woman on the edge who takes no prisoners. Of course, she learned that from her mother--minus the extreme drug addiction. Julia's ability to hold screen time with Meryl (and even one-up her on occasion) speak volumes for her ability as an actress. They were both perfectly cast in their roles by Kerry Barden ("Good Will Hunting") and Paul Schnee ("Prisoners", 2013).

While the other supporting characters generally perform well, and serve their purpose toward plot development within the film, Juliette Lewis is one who stands out--but in a bad way. Her characterization as Karen falls flat. It just seems as more of Juliette Lewis' classic airhead characters. She doesn't seem to add anything to the plot of the film other than bringing her fiance, Steve, to the fray. His character is slimy and is played perfectly by Dermot Mulroney. Additonally, Benedict Cumberbatch's character, Little Charles, is forgettable. This is probably a good thing as he is only present in the film for about 10 minutes.

I heartily enjoyed this movie and fully recommend to anyone who enjoys the occasional glance into the dysfunctional goings-on of another household.

Review: Jobs

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★

A man sitting next to me in a screening of “Jobs” was moved to such boredom that he took out his iPhone in the middle of the film to check in on his various social media sites. I wonder what Steve Jobs would say about that. I don’t think he ever envisioned someone would be watching a movie about his life and would become so bored that they would have to turn to their iPhone. Unfortunately, that’s what “Jobs” is : a tedious bore that will make you want to turn to any number of Apple or Apple-inspired products to keep you awake.

We all know Steve Jobs already. Almost all of you are probably reading this review on something Jobs designed (if you’re on a desktop, you’ve got your mouse; if you’re on a Smartphone, our website statistics suggest its probably an iPhone). What “Jobs” attempts to show us is the personal side of the man, and how he built a computer company from his adopted parents’ garage.

We begin with Steve Jobs (Ashton Kutcher) dropping out of Reed College in the mid-1970s. We see his interest in the calligraphy classes he continued to audit. We see him travel to India with his friend Daniel Kottke (Lukas Haas). He eventually finds himself working for Atari helping to design games. With the help of his best friend Steve ‘Woz’ Wozniak (Josh Gad), the two design a great game for Atari called “Breakout”.

One day while hanging out with Woz, Jobs discovers a computer motherboard Woz has been working on that connects to the television. With Jobs’ insistence, the two decide to market the motherboard under the name Apple Computer. Soon, they’re given an investment from Mike Murkkula (Dermot Mulroney) to help pay for the mass production of what will become the Apple II. What follows is pretty much common knowledge within the world of business and technology. The film moves along up until the late 1990s.

That’s twenty years of time covered in 122 minutes. We’ve seen this time span covered before in other films, but in “Jobs”, the pacing is so painstakingly slow that it feels like they could have easily made it to the release of the iPad in the late 2000s. The film meanders with no guidance or direction, and feels more like a cheaply made TV movie.

This is not, however, a knock on the performance given by Kutcher. He’s done some drama roles here and there before taking on “Jobs”, but I think this is the first serious role he’s had. He turns in a truly fantastic performance. I’m not so certain this is exactly what Jobs was really like or not. I’ve heard that Jobs was so intimidating that Apple employees wouldn’t even get on an elevator with him when the doors opened and he was standing in there. That’s power based on fear. Kutcher portrays Jobs as a driven and determined individual. He shows a few fits of rage that Jobs was known for, but overall Kutcher portrays him as a man with such determination that he always seems to be on the verge of tears.

As for his best friend Woz, comedic actor Josh Gad turns in an equally impressive performance. Gad is probably most well known for his most recent appearance as a series regular on the short lived series “1600 Penn” and also as an original cast member on the Boradway musical “The Book of Mormon”. He can now add to his resume that he’s also a proficient dramatic actor as well. Occasionally he provides the comic relief, but for the most part he plays the part very well. The scenes featuring only him and Kutcher are some of the best in the film.

The performances can only go as far as the script allows them, and unfortunately the screenplay isn’t really worth a whole lot. Written by first timer Matt Whiteley, the screenplay lacks any direction or overall vision. There’s no story being told here. It flows out like a documentary with no story structure at all. We’re taken from one well known episode of Jobs’ career to the next without any guidance. I wish I could give Whiteley a pass for being a first time screenwriter, but I can’t. Jobs led an interesting life but according to this film, his life must have been pretty boring.

He highlights Jobs’ drive and passion, but we never really see what it is that drives him. The desire to be the first and to be innovative maybe, but that doesn’t ever sink in to the film. Anyone who has done a little reading on Jobs (I have, as I am not afraid to admit my Apple admiration and addiction) probably knows his drive is based on making the best products out there; being at the crossroads of technology and innovation. But where did this come from? We’re treated to a sequence of Jobs tripping on LSD, and then suddenly he’s criticizing how the individual circuits on the board are a little lopsided. The screenplay just assumes we know he’s attentive to detail, and asks us to accept that this is the way it is. Walter Isaacson wrote an immense biography on Jobs shortly before his death in 2011. I’m sure there’s a wealth of information that could have been gained from that unprecedented access behind shroud of secrecy that was Jobs’ life. But it appears Whiteley didn’t want to do the research into Jobs’ life, only the life of the company he created.

Director Joshua Michael Stern couldn’t even save the film from its dry script. He plugs the audience along on this two hour journey about as quickly as the original Macintosh 128k renders graphics. It makes me realize that the only reason this film was made was to show off how much Kutcher resembles Steve Jobs. Showcasing how much he’s grown as an actor seems to be a fringe benefit. Stern has seemed to let the script direct him instead of the other way around. That never ends well, as evident here.

While “Jobs” isn’t a complete disaster – thanks to the wonderful acting – it is by no means a great film. There are plenty of fascinating documentaries available that move along at a much more brisk pace than this. This felt rushed. The man has only been deceased for less than two years, and we already have a biopic about him. Another movie about Jobs is in the works which is being scripted by Aaron Sorkin. I think that might be the definitive Steve Jobs film. It’ll at least move fast. Unlike this unimaginative bore. A movie about Steve Jobs shouldn’t be unimaginative, unoriginal or boring. These are three words exactly zero people on this planet would use to describe Steve Jobs.