Skip to main content

The people that are left, what they’ve become. You don’t know, do you? Well, I do.

A Quiet Place Part II

(SPOILERS) Any post-apocalyptic movie released in the current environment immediately lends itself to the charge of predictive programming, of preparing the ground for the big event (invariably because it was made just prior to the big event). More so than ever, apocalypse movies are now. John Krasinski has naturally claimed of A Quiet Place, “my whole metaphor was solely about parenthood”. Which is a relief, as it makes it all very straightforward and nothing at all to concern oneself over. And given how generic the sequel is, doubling down on the original’s plot holes and hopeful/hopeless humanity themes, I could almost believe he’s being genuine.

Krasinski is, after all, making a movie about a genuine family, not the artificial surrogate appropriation of the word preferred amongst Hollywood fare (Fast and Furious, most obviously, but a slew of them generally, the most recent being Cruella). That would suggest he has conservative leanings, at least in Hollywood terms (which means he’s still probably a relative lefty). Added to which, he’s starred in both 13 Hours and Jack Ryan. Which might encourage a boost of the reading on the picture(s) favoured by Richard Brody (“these characters are a metaphorical silent—white—majority, one that doesn’t dare to speak freely for fear of being heard by the super-sensitive ears of the dark other”) and Jeffrey Wells (“All you have to do is change “don’t make a sound” to “don’t make the wrong sound” or more precisely “don’t say the wrong thing.” Then it all fits. The big brown monsters are fanatical wokesters who rush in like the wind and destroy your life and livelihood if you mutter the wrong phrase or use incorrect terminology…”)

It's as legitimate a reading as any, although as Brody is doing, it’s claiming a lack (persons of colour) to be messaging in itself. Which is, of course, what any MSM commentary worth its salt right now is inevitably going to do. The core problem with this line of interrogation, as with any intimation of woke-ageddon, is that it gets hung up on the thing itself – wholly intentional, as division is the point in any Hegelian construct – rather than its ultimate purpose and symptomatic cause. So it becomes a left-right thing, in the process forgetting that thisis a post-apocalyptic movie, reflecting that the whole endeavour that encompasses “woke” is in the service of realising a post-apocalyptic (or shall we say a reset) society. The biggest surprise with A Quiet Place Part II is that the principal adults are allowed to remain standing, and even a surrogate father is introduced (albeit, one who testifies to the superiority of the surrogate daughter).

Clinging to his story, Krasinski claimed the sequel was “about growing up and dealing with loss”, while wifey chipped in with “How far would you go to extend your hand to your neighbour?” Presumably, any extension of a hand would depend on whether the attached arm had been jabbed first. How about, as an alternate metaphor for A Quiet Place: Don’t say anything while the elite – “Death Angels” is an appropriately grim, religiously marbled term – wipe out everyone you know, or you may attract undue attention and imperil yourself? And even if you survive for a while, you’re doomed eventually, for your fellow man (the inoculate and toxic) will turn on you.

The idea of humanity itself as the biggest threat is touched upon here, and was obviously The Walking Dead’s abiding theme. As Emmett (Cillian Murphy), alone and jaundiced, advises “The people that are left, what they’ve become. You don’t know, do you? Well, I do”. This is evidenced when he and Regan (Millicent Simmonds) are attacked at a marina (luckily, the “feral” humans are about to get double jabbed). It appears that it’s family – actual family – that keeps one sane and surviving, and to stress the humanity, we meet Djimon Hounsou – see, not everyone’s white! Oh, wait. Oops, they’ve just killed Djimon – and his island haven. This one is breached even more quickly than per your average Walking Dead fleeting respite, however, thanks to some Aliens-esque hitchhiking.

Krasinski’s cop pal Okieriete Onoaodowan also gets offed in the opening twelve-minute flashback, which offers an insight into how it all started. It’s Cloverfield all over again. This unfortunately serves to emphasise that, as writer, Krasiniski has no idea how to advance the already fallacious storyline (the original writers claimed to have opted out, considering a sequel undesirable. That doesn’t, of course, mean they were asked). And immediately, one is left wondering things. Such as how everyone off the bat seems to know they shouldn’t be making any sound when the Death Angels are around. (Emphasising this is an extra-terrestrial threat, an Apocalypse from above – more predictive programming – when Krasinski walks past some model space shuttles, of the sort the doomed Beau enjoyed playing with, in the convenience store just prior to checking out the news of… something alarming).

A Quiet Place Part II’s great virtue is its writer-director formulating potent suspense sequences. Its great demerit is doing so at the expense of plot and character coherence. Despite the promising conclusion to the original, he’s continually required to find reasons not to go on a wholesale Death Angels sonic slaughterfest. Rather, he opts for your classic formula of separating the heroes, and injuring (Noah Jupe’s Marcus) or imperilling them (Emmet and Regan). Emmett barely perks up at all when shown a sure-fire means of disposing of the beasts, and he certainly isn’t engaged enough to think about replicating the equipment. Regan, so convinced she’s correct that Beyond the Sea means a nearby island – she’s right – is willing to leave her mother, brother and baby sister without that sure-fire means of disposing of the beasts as she sets off on her own. Evelyn (Emily Blunt) goes off to get meds for Marcus, leaving her baby, a choice sidestepping any Sophie would have made, because it isn’t that kind of movie.

Kraninski sets up several tri-pronged suspense sequences: dock, son, Emily, and later, the transmission of the frequency being used by both Regan and Marcus). The latter manages to undermix the sonic discomfort, such that you’re wondering why the creatures are remotely bothered. And comes across as a discordantly triumphant “When kids learn to kill, it’s a thing to celebrate!” It also occurred to me, such is the emphasis on Regan’s hearing aid as a tool of salvation, that A Quiet Place franchise might be interpreted as a transhumanist promotional text. It’s either that or anti-woke. Take your pick.

Performances are all solid, with Blunt very definitely taking a step back from the spotlight in favour of Simmonds, but it’s Murphy who really impresses. It helps that he’s got those penetrating eyes, so good for looking haunted.

The most impressive thing about A Quiet Place Part II is that its box office wasn’t that far below the original’s, despite the decimation of cinemagoing and the (entirely justified) criticisms of the first outing’s premise. Obviously, most didn’t care. Plus, Krasinski has proved himself a more than competent suspense director. And who knows, perhaps the survivalist theme had a certain appeal, distanced enough in antagonist not to be too off-putting to the imperilled masses. Apparently, Krasinski has an idea for the third. Which will be impressive, as he evidently didn’t have one worth mentioning for the second. And Jeff Nichols is making a spinoff? I guess it couldn’t be more underwhelming than his last stab at SF (Midnight Special).

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?

The Interpreter (2005) Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s ( Three Days of the Condor ) and the 1990s ( The Firm ). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit. The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism