Weekend Recap: 2 Trips To The Movies (One Current One Back) Reviews – “Me And Earl And The Dying Girl” + Alfred Hitchcock’s “Psycho” (1960) (6.27-6.28.15)

Winner of both the Grand Jury Prize and Audience Award at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, “Me And Earl And The Dying Girl” came with much anticipation (as you may have read in my Top 10 Films of the Summer Movie Season section). I essentially knew little to next to nothing about it. And only very recently saw a trailer for it when I was seeing another film last weekend. What I did know is that for a movie to be bestowed the 2 above awards at such a prestigious festival such as Sundance (the last film to have pulled off both awards was the year prior with Damian Chazelle’s “Whiplash”). So really knowing next to nothing about it, other than what I could discern by the movie’s title and a trailer that surprisingly revealed very little. This looked like it could be one of those perfect indie sleeper hits if from the little bit that I had heard turned out to be true.

METDG involves 3 central characters, all of whom I had previously been unfamiliar with prior to seeing this film. There’s Greg, the self-absorbed, quick witted loser who lives with his two eccentric parents (Nick Offerman playing his dad is a total stand out), Rachel, an acquaintance of Greg’s who we learn very early on is diagnosed with leukemia, and Greg’s “business associate” Earl, which is really what they just call him because together they make their own self produced films, which are more or less updates of older films of movies they love. Greg is coerced by his mother to go visit Rachel which he is reluctant to do at first because he knows it will be out of pity. But then the two of them sort of “hit it off” so to speak, and Greg becomes an integral part in Rachel’s treatment of her leukemia along with his (again “business associate”) Earl. As the two of them bind together to make Rachel a film in case she winds up succumbing to her disease.

This movie exceeded my expectations and then some. There were so many different components that I liked about it that it’d be a rather difficult task to list them all here. So I will stick to just the essentials. First off, is the razor sharp, funny, and witty script co-penned by author Jesse Andrews, who wrote the book of which the film is based on. I don’t think I’ve laughed so much consistently throughout an entire film in as far back as I can remember. The directing by Alfonso Gomez-Rejon was also another one of the film’s strong points, as the camera zips along at a rather fast pace which constantly demands the attention of the viewer. I also couldn’t get over the amount of winks and homages there were to so many great films that have come out through film history. Which any cinephile or film buff won’t be able to contain themselves to do nothing other than just smile each time a reference or nod is displayed on the screen. Then most importantly there’s the story itself – which does an outstanding job straddling the lines between drama and comedy. At times I found myself laughing hysterically out loud while at other I found myself holding back tears. Even more so it hit about every nerve on the human emotion spectrum possible which is uncommon and hard to do in this day and age of cinema. Lastly, was how invested I was in both the characters and story. I found myself thoroughly engrossed and immersed myself in both the story and the three central leads throughout the entire duration of the film. I’m already predicting this one, as early as it is in the year, to even quite possibly slip as a Best Picture sleeper hit come awards time at the end of the year. And as it should. METDG is one of those films that should undeniably be universally liked. And will please both independent film fans and fans of commercial audiences alike.[B+/A-]

Alfred Hithcock’s “Psycho” (1960) is probably one of my 10 all time favorite films of all time. To explain why you would really have to go into how I became a student of film as a teenager. With my film studies teacher at the time showing us this and I was pretty much blown away by it. Since then, I’ve done a presentation on it in a Psychology class as it’s considered the “first psychological” film of all time. A genre that would go and to be and still is my favorite. So for these couple and many other reasons I jumped at the opportunity to see it on the big screen. What’s so great about “Psycho” 55 years later after its release is how well it still stands up. Unlike other major motion pictures of that time, Hitchcock took a more unconventional and incredibly controversial film for its time, and made it into one of if not the greatest and most influential example of psychological horror in film history. Hitchcock clearly displays here why he was labeled “the master of suspense”. Viewing it even now 55 years later, he expertly and masterfully enters the audience’s psyche and creates a story filled with a constant sense of unease and extreme suspense and horror. It’s shot impeccably well, with various symbolic elements layered throughout (birds and taxidermy are a constant motif) and two stand out performances by Janet Leigh, who is billed as the main character but who dies halfway into the film in still one of the most impressively shot and undeniably murder sequences in the history of cinema – “the shower sequence”. Then there’s Norman Bates himself (played by Anthony Perkins) who plays the quirky motel manager to the utmost perfection. Then there’s the cat and mouse chase throughout, with Leigh’s character running off with a stack of money, only to disappear, and the number of people who follow Hitch’s trail of bread crumbs only to meet their inevitable demise. Then there’s the relationship with his mother, also expertly executed, where as a viewer, we’re never quite sure if she’s asking Norman to commit the heinous murders or if she just exists inside his head. There’s just so many remarkable aspects about the film that it’s hard to carve them all down to just a single review. Here’s what I will say, the film stands up and doesn’t seem in the slightest bit outdated 55 years after its release. And despite maybe being the most influential psychological horror film of all time, its also a great examination of mental illness and how inner conflict (Norman suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder) can lead to disastrous results. This was and still is a landmark achievement in film history. And one that still stands up as one of the most important and influential works of all time. [A+]

*Please Note Change In Movie/Time/Theater – This Sat 6/27 Me+Earl+The Dying Girl

Saturday, Jun 27, 2015, 4:45 PM

Regal Fox Tower 10
846 Sw Park Ave Portland, OR

5 Portland Film Enthusiasts Went

“Me & Earl & The Dying Girl”(2015)(This Weekend’s Meetup-Saturday, 6/27)Another festival favorite that won both the Audience Award and Special Jury Prize at Sundance. This looks like it could be this year’s sleeper hit that could wind up boding well with the Academy at year’s end. If early, positive praise from critics means anything.Please RSVP …

Check out this Meetup →

Advertisements

A Trip (Back) To The Movies: Review – “Alien” (1979)

It is very difficult to talk “fact” when it comes to film. However when it comes to Science Fiction, one could say the closest thing to being fact is that Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968), Ridley Scott’s “Alien” (1979), and Scott’s “Blade Runner” (1982) are the three most influential films to have come out of the genre of all time. And I would argue that all three of them are also the best. But when it comes to using the term best in relation to film, well, that’s a matter of opinion of course. What I will say is this – the fact that I got to see James Cameron’s “Aliens” (1986) and its predecessor within the same month, on the big screen no less, is maybe by a mere act of god. But even more importantly, that I came to the realization after seeing both screenings, of how incredibly influential both films are. Not just in terms of their importance in film history, but in how much of an impact the “Alien” franchise has had on our culture and society as a whole. When I saw “Aliens” (1986) a little under a month ago now, I was awestruck by the vast number of people who came out to see a movie that was made almost 30 years ago now. I remember casually getting to the 750-person capacity theater 45 minutes early thinking that I would be one of the first in line. It turned out there were probably 100+ people in front of me. The movie eventually sold out, mind you again this is for a theater that seats 750 for a film that was made almost 30 years ago. It was an experience that’s difficult for me to put into words. It all felt so all inclusive. Like I was an integral part of something special. Which is truly one of the main reasons why I enjoy going to the movies so much, to be a part of that kind of experience.

As was the case with tonight’s screening of “Alien” (1979). Granted I showed up late (if you want to call a half an hour “late”) and was more shocked this time than I was the previous time to see the sheer amount of people in line to see it. This time being at a much larger venue, at Portland’s Empirical Theater which is within our city’s science museum, and seats about a 1,000. Well even arriving a half an hour early I was a few hundred people back. The scene there looked like something more akin to a big rock concert than it did to see a film that was made 36 years ago now. But what struck me even more about it was the age range by the looks of the people waiting in line. Everyone from teenagers to people my age to older adults stood in line at their chance to catch this film live on the big screen. Many of whom like me, were experiencing it for the first time. What’s so significant about this and why I feel the need to point it out is that movies really are timeless, and to see such a film with such a large audience that has made such a lasting imprint on our culture was nothing short of amazing. It finally came time to pile in when the usher announced by megaphone (there really were that many people in line) it was time to be let in. People scrambled in like cattle and to be honest, I just felt lucky enough to have gotten a seat. I buckled myself in as the house lights went down, which conjured up a sense of excitement that only a film of this caliber could possibly summon.

“Alien” is such a landmark achievement in terms of its impact on the film (as previously mentioned in my “Aliens” review – the original “Alien” is both my favorite Sci Fi and Horror film of all time). And to sum up why I love this film so much in a single paragraph is almost next to impossible. What I will say is that Ridley Scott’s film revolutionized the Science Fiction format. A genre which, up to that point, was mostly reserved for cheesy B movies and disaster flicks that came out of the 1950’s and 60’s. What Scott was able to do was resurrect a genre by first adding a high production value, which allowed for big-budget visuals, a breathtaking set design, and one of the most realistic creatures that still to this day, ranks up their with the best (and certainly one of the scariest). The first entry is essentially a meta exercise, perfectly blending and executing both equal parts horror and Sci Fi. The way in which Scott establishes tone and setting is simply a marvel of a feat. He creates a sense of isolation (hence the film’s tagline – “in space no one will hear you scream”) and a foreboding sense of dread and nerve-wracking suspense as the space crew Nostromo encounters some sort of unfamiliar space craft and its subsequent scenes, are all nail-bitingly tense in their execution. Scott rather deftly tracks the camera through every inch of the space craft’s corridor which feels like that of a stretching rubber band. The crew then explores the suspicious space craft. Which is where it really grabs a hold of you about a third of the way in and never lets up. It all starts with John Hurt’s character falling into what appears to be a womb of some sort, filled with egg-like pods. A face-hugging parasite latches on to his helmet, which at that point you get the sense that something is seriously about to go wrong. And it does. Much to the chagrin of Lt. Ripley (played by the first real female action hero in cinema – Sigourney Weaver) Ian Holm’s character forgoes protocol to quarantine the victim and lets him back on board. The scenes following, or shall I say “the scene”, is just as incredibly terrifying, if not more, every single time I see it. You could literally hear the audience gasp as many people like myself, seemed to know and prepared themselves for what was to come…

It’s at this pivotal moment and iconic scene that virtually the rest of the film takes off. Scott produces genuine thrills and scares as the film essentially becomes a game of cat and mouse, with the alien preying on the rest of the crew. And each time we see the beast’s double set of extending jaws, the movie becomes more and more terrifying as each unfortunate victim befalls resulting in one of the more fulfilling climaxes in cinema history.

The film’s true greatness lies within its ability to be both undeniably scary, nerve-wracking, but even more importantly, as a piece of thought-provoking art. The Oscar nominated visual effects by the late H.R. Giger are both highly original and unique. That and unlike its sequel, we hardly ever get to see the actual alien, except only for a few brief moments at a time, and it’s both terrible and beautiful when we finally get to see it in its full form. Another key important thing to note is that is was solely responsible for launching its then unknown actress Sigourney Weaver into an overnight star and film icon. I could go on and on and on about the many things I love about this film, but I don’t think I could possibly do it justice. What I will say is with each viewing, especially this one, given that it was on the big screen with a house full of “Alien” fans like myself, it acted as a reminder of why I hold this film in such a high regard. But even more so, it’s a glimpse into the past at one of the most seminal and important works that would go on to influence generations to come.

[A+]

A Trip To The Movies: Review – “Ex Machina” 4.18.15

Ex Machina - Original UK Quad

I suppose it was just a matter of time before novelist turned screenwriter Alex Garland made his directorial debut. Having been in the business for fifteen years now Garland was first introduced to the film industry when his novel, “The Beach”, was adapted in 2000 by a little known guy named Danny Boyle. Boyle would hire Garland to write the screenplay for his next film, “28 Days Later” (2002), which basically was the screenplay and film that was solely responsible for every zombie movie or TV show to come after it. The two would collaborate again in 2007 in what’s still one of my favorite Science Fiction films of the aughts – “Sunshine” (2007), a mostly under-seen, overlooked, and under-appreciated effort except for many film critics and die-hard Sci Fi fans like myself. A mere three years later, and Garland would once again pen the screenplay for another innovative music video turned feature film director, Mark Romanek, in 2010’s brilliant “Never Let Me Go”. Garland has mostly remained relatively dormant for the past five years or so, except for writing the screenplay for the mostly forgettable “Dredd” remake (2012). When this film first caught my attention it was because it was Garland’s first foray into writing and directing. And well, given his track record up to this point in his career as a screenwriter, I quickly took note of it and put it on my list of upcoming movies to see. Especially because after having seen the trailer I thought to myself it could be something that had the potential to be a new and fresh entry into the Sci Fi genre. Which in my opinion, next to maybe horror, is the single most difficult genre to create something original because like horror, often times the genre has a tendency to rehash something that we’ve already seen. That and as anyone who knows me or reads this blog knows that I am becoming more and more of an Oscar Isaac fan, who by the looks of it, seemed to play a pretty considerable role in the film.

The movie begins by introducing to a computer programmer, one of those brainy types who writes code named Caleb (played by Domhnall Gleeson from last year’s “Frank”, also coincidentally Brendan Gleeson’s son, who starred in “28 Days Later”). He’s shown in front of a computer at work, and the director sets up a nice establishing segment where his co-workers are muted in the background, but through a series of text messages and them circling in around him clapping, we find out that he’s won something big. That something is a week long trip out to the very exclusive home (or compound if you want to call it that) of the once 13-year old scientific prodigy who’s now somewhere in his forties. A CEO named Nathan (played by Oscar Isaac) who wants him to participate in an experiment shrouded in secrecy. After a long helicopter trip over a beautiful lavish mountain range (“wow these mountains are beautiful” Caleb asks the helicopter pilot who responds “yes Nathan has done very well for himself”) which tips off the audience to how wealthy and powerful of a man Nathan really is (a guy with the prominence of say a Steve Jobs or Bill Gates) Caleb soon after is dropped off in the middle of nowhere and once at the compound, he meets the rather eccentric and reclusive Nathan, who explains to Caleb he will be involved in a series of tests with a specially designed AI (artificial intelligence) android specimen he’s created named “Ava” to conduct a “Turing test” (interestingly enough a film was made just last year about how the Turing tests came to be in “The Imitation Game” where Benedict Caumberbatch played Alan Turing, the man ultimately responsible for their creation). These tests measure a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behavior equivalent to, or indistinguishable, from that of a human (a theme clearly inspired by the granddaddy of all Science Fiction films – Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner” (1982) ). Through a series of “sessions” (as the title cards display on the screen) both Caleb and Ava form a friendship that at first seems solely for experimental purposes, but one that develops into something greater as the series of sessions progress. This is the central core of the story and as it develops, the plot takes a number of twists and turns particularly as Ava’s creator Nathan gets more and more involved in how he wants things, and tries to make every effort to ensure, that his “experiment” has the desired effect he seems to set out to achieve. With both Caleb and Ava have agendas of their own.

This was a deeply thought-provoking and heady Science Fiction film, chock full of existential ideas and themes that had my “thinking cap/light switch on” from its first frame to its final one. Garland proves here that he is just a strong a director as he is a writer. Filming the movie (with the exception of the very beginning, the entire film takes place at Nathan’s compound) from the inside looking out. He does an excellent job at reeling the audience in to a very specific type of environment. The compound is filmed exquisitely using an impeccable lighting design of mostly neon lit colors along with a sterile environment, an environment that looks like something only someone like Steven Soderbergh could pull off, with both the framing and film composition looking extravagant. Much should be said for the breathtakingly believable android Ava played by Alicia Vikander. If people thought Spike Jonze did an excellent job at recreating a robot’s “voice” to sound believable in 2013’s “Her”. This movie one ups it and shows an android who in the flesh, is the most realistic looking adroid we’ve seen since films like “Blade Runner” and more recently, Steven Spielberg’s take on AI in “Artificial Intelligence” (2001). Gleeson shines here as his relationship with Ava comes across acharmingly authentic and thoroughly engaging. A relationship that was so convincing one might only imagine their own selves taking the same course if they were put in Caleb’s shoes. Ava is so human-like mentally, physically, and emotionally that the film ponders the question of whether or not a machine can be made to be more real than that of a human (drawing similarities to the computer program HAL in Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” (1968) ). Oscar Isaac puts in yet another great performance as what I referred to after the film as the “mad scientist”. He shows many colors and shades of his character as the film progresses, and through the audience’s constant second guessing of his motivations and agendas is a big compliment to the way in which his character is written. The film also contains a deeply haunting and atmospheric score by Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury of the famed trip-hop group Portishead that blends itself in perfectly with the picture. This being their first foray into feature film composition. The music was just as impressive as anything Atticus Ross or Trent Reznor have done with the last three David Fincher films.

This wound up being a very rewarding entry into the Science Fiction genre which in my opinion, was the most well constructed and perfectly executed Sci Fi film since Duncan Jones’ “Moon” (2009). As the film takes on many different shapes and forms throughout combining elements of everything from heady Science Fiction, to full-blown thriller, teetering at times in borderline psychological horror. Which is accessible enough to please both indie/art house and commercial audiences alike. This marks a monumental directorial debut for Alex Garland, who I can’t wait to see what he has up his sleeve next, which also happens to be the best film I’ve seen so far this year that should and will be talked about for years to come.

[A-]

A Trip (Back) To The Movies – Review: “Aliens” (1986) 3.28.15

People ask me all the time what my favorite horror film ever is. I tell them “the answer is easy, Alien“. Then they’ll ask me what my favorite Science Fiction film is of all time is and I’ll provide them with the same answer. When people ask me what my favorite action movie of all time is my answer has always been the same – Aliens. Then people will often times ask me what my second favorite Science Fiction film of all time is and again, my answer to them is always the same – Aliens. I hold the first two Alien films in the same kind of regard that most people hold Francis Ford Coppola’s “The Godfather Part 1” (1972) and “The Godfather Part 2” (1974) in. What’s so great about the first two “Alien” films is their ability to combine different genres and craft them so perfectly in the way that they do. The first “Alien” (1979), directed by Ridley Scott, and the second, “Aliens”, directed by James Cameron, couldn’t be more different from one another. So that’s why much like the first two “Godfather” films, you’ll find that you meet people who are almost split down the middle or completely divided as to which one they like better. Because they’re both really just so goddamn good. What the first film did so well and why it was and still is so revolutionary for its time is was because it took what was otherwise a cheap genre of the time – the “scary monsters in space” one, and gave it new life adding in exquisite cinematography, a high budget production value, and a mood, feel, and tone that was both downright nerve-wracking and completely terrifying. Director Ridley Scott produced genuine thrills and made incredibly tense dramatic use of the film’s claustrophobic corridors. The first “Alien” also had both an originally unique and brilliant set and art direction along with Oscar-winning visual effects, with one of the most creatively designed looking creatures in genre film created by the late, great H.R. Giger. It also gave birth to star Sigourney Weaver, making her in almost international icon and feminist leader overnight. About a year ago I was lucky enough to have been given the opportunity to see the original “Alien” on the big screen for the first time, and I have to admit my experience with it that particular night, seeing it among a sea of movie buffs and fans like myself was really something hard to express in words. It was as if I was seeing it for the first time in the way that it was always supposed to be seen, in a packed, dark theater that was so quiet you couldn’t hear a pin drop. A perfect (and really the only) way to see a film in my opinion. My experience that night was so great and left such a lasting impression, that I vowed to myself that I would jump at the opportunity to see the second one under a similar setting if I was ever given the chance to.

Well lucky for me there’s a local theater up the street from where I live that specializes in showing A+ quality prints of older films. To give people like myself and others a chance to see some of their favorite films that they were maybe too young to see or in a lot of cases, weren’t even born yet a chance to see some of their favorite pictures on the big screen for the very first time. And boy do people come out of the woodwork and pile into the theater in droves when these events take place. I’ll put it this way, I was taken aback when I showed up a full half hour before showtime, to a theater that seats almost 1500, and found a line around the block of people waiting to get tickets. Luckily I had got there in enough time, because by 20 minutes before the movie started, I looked around and saw that the theater looked completely sold out. Mind you for a movie that was released in 1986 almost 30 years ago. After a bit of discussion with a fellow film aficionado like myself about the reason why we were there, which was essentially the same, to see one of our all time favorite films on the big screen, the house lights went down and the movie started which was met by quite a bit of applause by its 1500 person capacity theater.

James Cameron’s sequel, which also happens to be arguably one of cinema’s greatest ones, picks up where the first one lets off and finds Lt. Ellen Ripley (Weaver) being recovered in the space craft pod that she put herself in at the end of the first. It’s 57 years later, and Ripley is unfrozen by a military-like group of explorers. This so-called team, led by a great supporting cast of Michael Biehn (who the audience applauded for when his name came up in the opening credits), a young scene stealing Bill Paxton, the iconic Lance Henrikson (who plays the team’s only android – like Michael Fassbender in the prequel “Prometheus” (2013)), and the slimy, lecherous Paul Rieser, who plays the sort of corporate leader in charge whose agenda may be much different from that of the others. An agenda which includes Ripley being sent back to the former colony from the first one with a rag-tag group of soldiers to see what happened to the planet and investigate to see if it still contains any of its former inhabitants. If Ridley Scott’s first entry was more of a haunted house space frightener, James Cameron’s sequel is much more visceral, relentless, and furiously intense. More akin to an action packed thrill ride in which we get to see a lot more of the creatures that come in at about the half hour mark and stay for the entire rest of the film in one suspenseful and thoroughly entertaining scene after the next as the team is confronted with each of the many creatures. Culminating in one of the most exhilarating climax’s and ending sequences in maybe any movie I can think of as Lt. Ripley fights off the mother of the species. As the movie ended and the credits rolled it sounded like every single person in the entire audience was clapping. Which to me is one of the best reasons to see such a beloved film such as this one on the big screen. As you can feel like you’re transported to another place and time almost 30 years ago where one can only imagine the audience might have had this very same reaction. A reaction of almost everyone leaving totally satisfied with a buzz in the air that at least in the humble opinion of this writer, is very hard to find outside of one of our last remaining experiences that can be collectively shared by a group of people in real time. And to me this film is one of the all time greats and yet another fine example of the everlasting power of cinema.

[A]

#4: ‘The Conjuring’ (2013)

The Conjuring Movie Poster

James Wan’s “The Conjuring” is almost about as good as it gets as far as American horror films go these days. Wan is arguably the godfather of the post-aught American horror film. His groundbreaking and undeniably influential “Saw” (2004) made him an overnight star and proved to the international film making scene that we had a new auteur on our hands. Not only that but to top it off (get this) he was only 27 at the time of filming. Being in that “Saw” was so successful and Wan set the bar so high, both artistically and commercially, it was only somewhat inevitable that his next film couldn’t possibly hold up. And they didn’t. He released 2 films back-to-back in 2007 – “Dead Silence” and “Death Sentence”. Both which failed miserably at the box office and with audiences. Enter 2010 after a few years away from the film making spectrum and Wan releases his 2nd most successful movie to date – the downright creepy and chilling “Insidious”. Marking a return to form and putting him once again in the hot seat as America’s most artistically commercial horror director. Then another 3 years later and Wan gives us what might be the 2nd best horror film post-2010. What I and some other people I know consider to be his masterpiece.

There are so many elements to talk about in regards to “The Conjuring” that its hard to break it down to just a few. But I will try my best. First things first, it is impeccably shot. And I rarely use that adjective to describe a piece of film making (I picked it up from Steven Spielberg in an interview when he once described the look of the films of the late, great Stanley Kubrick). Wan is in complete control here and it comes through in just about every frame and shot. It’s one of the most confident and assured pieces of film making from a directing standpoint in American horror since the great films of the 1970’s like William Friendkin’s “The Exorcist” (1973) or Tobe Hoopers’s “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (1974). The way in which he zooms in and out and sweeps through the corridors of the inhabited home is purely the work of a master. Secondly, in what I refer to as Wan’s “bag of tricks”. He utilizes just about every horror technique we’ve seen in the history of the genre. His arsenal bag of tricks contains everything from a grandfather clock, creaking doors and stairwells, white noise, evil spirits, old tape recordings, saturated lit archival footage, a game of “clap and seek” (remind me never to play that), haunted cellars, the scariest doll since “Chucky”, and what I find to be the most terrifying piece – a wind up corkscrew jack-in-the-box (used beautifully in the film’s closing shot). Last, and certainly not the least, is the all out, balls to the wall, horror show freak out that is the third act. It features some of the most haunting images that will forever be etched into my brain. To say he really brings it as the film comes to a close would be a huge understatement. The last half hour to 45 minutes contains some of the most pure, unadulterated horror that I’ve seen put onto celluloid since Brad Anderson’s brilliant and overlooked “Session 9” (2001). My one very minor criticism of the piece is that it follows the whole exorcism movie trope formula just a tad bit too closely. But again, a very minor criticism. Outside of that this is about as good as modern day horror gets. And solidifies my statement that James Wan is the Christopher Nolan of the horror genre.

[strong B+]