directed by james demonaco
Platinum dunes/BlumHouse/why not
I finally got around to seeing this after having been asked multiple times if I had, and although I found it passable, I’m not quite sure why it apparently carries so much cachet within certain populations. A thoroughly Hollywood production despite its minimal budget, it’s slick, glossy and hi-tech, but DOES that reassuring façade really provide the security to which we’ve entrusted it? Isn’t that “heavy,” man? Truth be told, I was a bit disappointed that the “Purge” action itself wasn’t depicted as more of a free-for-all. [Insert Ted Nugent guitar lick here] Indeed, the main set piece elicited in me a metaphorical sigh: “oh, look, it’s Them.” (You may substitute Ils if you prefer.) And none of the plot twists ‘n’ turns were much out of the ordinary, either. But with all that being said, it was still a fairly satisfying entertainment. Haven’t yet seen the prequel or sequel.
why did i see this movie?
Well, I had meant to see it since its theatrical release, as its teasers did their job well. Then I kept forgetting to do so.
should you see this movie?
When I say this is a “Hollywood” production, I mean it’s just contrived enough to remind you continually, HEY, THIS IS A MOVIE. Its big-ticket concept is not necessarily a bad thing, mind you, but one isn’t always in the mood for the proverbial popcorn picture.
highlight and low point
Nothing leaps to mind as a particular strength – the screenplay is too predictable – so I’ll say the neighbors’ revelation at least showed some creative spark. Therein also lies the film’s problem, of course; it mostly follows the rule book.
When the novel upon which this film is based was first published, I was in one of my periodic phases where I was not interested in reading any more goddamn Stephen King novels, besides which I thought it sounded pretty stupid, given that it seemed a little late to be ruminating on mobile phones. (And paradoxically proved to have been early enough to make a more prescient statement than it did!) Then a similarly King-obsessed friend managed to goad me into catching up on his more recent works – Under the Dome and Duma Key, in case you’re wondering – and I was screwed. Cell the novel is not of the more admirable S. King, and neither is this adaptation worthwhile, despite – or because of – the author’s work on the screenplay. John Cusack takes the lead role, Sam Jackson shows up for a paycheck, and the ending is completely different from the book’s, and appalling. It’s also one of the movie’s only effective scenes, and made me wonder yet again why the best-selling author seemingly doesn’t have an editor. Or at least one who can talk him out of his poorer ideas.
Also known, in the United Kingdom at least, as Harpoon: Reykjavik Whale Watching Massacre – probably to distinguish it from all the other movies titled “Harpoon” or because “Reykjavik Whale Watching Massacre” wasn’t a descriptive enough title for a movie about a massacre that takes place during a whale-watching expedition in the waters around Iceland – RWWM is a odd little slice of bad tidings. It’s also funny, after a fashion; the term used could be “black humor” were it not quite so ill-mannered or misanthropic. Actually, one of the most interesting things about this exercise in callous, gratuitous cruelty is how the alleged humor is played – very offhandedly, for the most part. By this I mean there’s no setup and no reaction to any of the moments of presumable mirth; they’re just a part of the mélange. It’s quite an approach, and adds an appealing touch of cinéma vérité to a picture that probably doesn’t warrant it. Not as much of a feel-good film as one might expect from the uplifting title.
If you try, you can find the claim that this chunk of tripe was a precursor to the slasher craze or some such nonsense. What it IS is a convoluted bit of inanity that doesn’t make much sense and doesn’t really bother to try.