REVIEW: The Avengers: Infinity War

Well, I sure am late to this game.  Everyone in the world seems to have seen The Avengers: Infinity War in theatres, while I was sitting and whittling in beautiful cottage country which is an unfortunate distance from any theatre.  The film came and went, and I just had to wait.  That wait has come to an end, and I have to say that many key aspects to what I consider great popcorn fare are present in this behemoth of a film.

The second Avengers film was alright, but the first one was a proper event.  I had figured that the rest of the franchise would see diminishing returns, but I hadn't expected the plans that Disney/Marvel had.  The latest team up was coming right on the back of two of the most unique, exciting, and distinct films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  Thor: Ragnarok, under the direction of the amazing Taika Waititi, reversed the fortunes of the Thor standalone films, and presented a Led Zeppelin infused fun fest that included a giant wolf getting suplexed.  After that was Ryan Coogler's Black Panther, a film that carried the powerful emotional heft that Coogler is known for.  These films, as far as I'm concerned, with their director-driven voice provided a powerful excitement for Infinity War that even a Disney marketing campaign couldn't match.

And, with Infinity War, we once again get shown what makes Disney the kings of the cinematic universe, and that's having a movie that completely feels like it came right from it's directors, the Russo brothers (who already showed they could manage lots of key characters in Captain America: Civil War, a movie that I liked a lot more than Avengers: Age of Ultron).  I'm not specifically aiming to bash DC, but they were lost with Zach Snyder's guidance, and it looks like their upcoming films will be very unique and more director driven.  It is this sense of the director's personality in the movies that elevates the material, as it has a more cohesive feel than something being constructed with too many cooks in the kitchen.  This is one key aspect of good popcorn fare.

The plot of the film?  Well, a CGIed purple baddy named Thanos is looking to kill half of all life in the universe.  He is driven by a belief that a purge needs to happen to keep societies alive, and he is the only one with the courage to do what's needed.  While I was not into the animation of him and thinking that it was one of the weaker parts of the film, the artistic team did what was needed and made sure his face conveyed the pain and determination within.  Voicing Thanos is Josh Brolin in what is one of his most precise performances.  Thanos isn't someone just written as being evil, he is someone who believes he is doing what's right.  Sure, he is a bad ass, but there are some very quiet moments with him, and we see just how far he is willing to go to complete his mission.  A villain with backstory, motivation, and depth propels a film to bigger heights.  That was exactly what we got in Black Panther, giving us two back to back Marvel movies with standout antagonists.  Well, three.  Cate Blanchette rocked as Hela in Thor: Ragnarok.  A menacing, properly motivated villain that seems impossible to beat is a second key aspect.

Another is needing to have stakes.  Having a wonderfully complex and devastating villain does nothing to a film if they are not able to affect their potency on anyone.  This happens way too often.  The villain is dangerous because we are told they are, not because of what they do and how that effects the film.  Most villains only ever kill red shirts.  I will be honest, and some may consider this a bit of a spoiler, but some familiar faces from the MCU meet their doom.  Not only that, but some of this happens in the very first scene.  It's not like letting Superman die when we already see Henry Cavill's name listed on IMDB for the next film.  This is the very end for some, and killing people off holds so much power in films.  It keeps us from being able to predict the outcome easily, because, if they have killed characters once, they could do it again.  No one in Infinity War is safe by the final action sequences, and that makes the plight of the heroes so much more.  I get that some people don't like seeing recurring characters getting offed in films, but the power of this technique is undeniable when used properly.

Having stakes is great, and so is having a solid villain, but without heroes that we can get behind they mean nothing.  The Russo brothers have worked previously on television shows Arrested Development and Community.  Both of those rely on stories to be told while highlighting a large cast of very unique characters, all of them getting proper shine and story lines.  Their ability to nail this  is what makes The Avengers: Infinity War succeed.  Those who have seen the preceding MCU movies will appreciate the fact that there is a really good balance on display here.  On top of that, and something that I really like, is that the hierarchy of the previous Avengers movies is thrown off.  After the arrival of Dr. Strange, it would have made little sense if his crazy powers didn't make him one of the most powerful, if not most powerful, heroes.  Things in the universe have changed, other people have crazy powers, and that is all taken into account.  I enjoy that the natural order is thrown off a bit, and it leads to some good fun.  In this movie, we have a blending of many characters, all with their backgrounds taken into consideration, with their own motivations, and the fact that this is able to happen in the movie with the most ambitious cast of all time (move over, Movie 43!!) keeps us pulled into the story.

Popcorn fare doesn't necessarily need to have humour in there, but it doesn't hurt.  While cold, grey, steely, and dismal may be what some people rely on, it cannot be forgotten that we are going to the theatres to have a good time.  Across all of the different MCU films, including the brilliant cooperation between Disney and Sony (a collaboration that's a win-win, and something that I wish more studios would do) to include Spider-Man, we have come to know well constructed characters, all of whom are different, some of whom are funny, and others of whom end up being funny when their personalities grind against someone else's.  While I thought the idea of former professional wrestler Dave Bautista acting in Guardians of the Galaxy was ill conceived, this is someone with a knack for stealing every scene he is in.  Young Peter Parker is on fire, Thor thinks a racoon is a rabbit, and Star-Lord's manliness is tested by the arrival of a one-eyed Norse god.  The humour hits well, and the Russo's know to taper it off as the movie progresses, keeping it applied sparingly by the end as the stakes of the film really start to become known.

Lastly, (although I could add other things like special effects, sound, and all sorts of things that would make this a five thousand word piece on the state of modern mainstream tentpole movies, I will look to wrap things up) the summer blockbuster needs to have a very human story.  The simple concept of a damsel in distress may have been good enough for The Legend of Tarzan, but such simplistic writing does little to enhance a film.  Throughout Infinity War, different characters repeatedly face decisions that will possibly have huge consequences.  It isn't just that they have to fight the bad guy, but they have to decide where their priorities lie.  The film constantly asked the famous Wrath of Khan question of if the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  The nature of Thanos and his perverse mission causes our heroes to face more than just physical battles.

Well, I may not have reviewed this film in a traditional way.  However, while watching Infinity War, all I could think about was how this movie checked all of the boxes for delightful summer blockbusters.  There's plenty of emotional moments, a tear may be shed, and that's thanks to the writing of the characters, and the performances (which were great, but for some reason I didn't mention).  At the heart of it, The Avengers still don't want civilians hurt, something that Zach Snyder was completely tone deaf to.  They don't see eye to eye, but throughout the film they all show their willingness to sacrifice everything to protect others.  There are many skirmishes, a huge battle at the gorgeous location of Wakanda, and people pushed to their limits.  The villain is dynamic, and that leads to some very emotional moments, where our super heroes are forced to simply be human.  Yep, I liked Black Panther more, but off course that was going to be the case.  Still, I would rank this as my favourite Avenger movie, and one of the very best Marvel Cinematic Universe films.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: The Rider

Casting people who aren't actors is an enormous risk.  I don't have to think hard to remember what happened when Neil Blomkanp cast South African hip hop duo Die Antwoord to take up major roles in 2015's Chappie.  Both Yolandi Visser and Ninja did what they could, but, ultimately, acting isn't their bread and butter, and the movie suffered because of the casting choice.  I don't blame them.  They tried really hard.  The problem is that the scope of what they were supposed to do wasn't anything they could handle properly.  That being said, even if the casting had been better, I doubt it would have been able to save Chappie.

I had done very little research ahead of viewing The Rider, but it was quickly apparent that the people in the film aren't actors by trade.  I don't mean this in a bad way, though.  Instead of thespians trying to nail their roles with plenty of charisma, Chinese director Chloe Zhao milked an understated simplicity from those cast.  It was obvious that they weren't actors, but what they provided was extremely refreshing.  I put this down to Zhao knowing what she was able to get from them, what was needed, and them sincerely portraying the roles as best they could.  It was simple, but it was honest, and that honesty took this film a long way.

The movie is about a young rising star in the rodeo world, Brady Blackburn (Brady Jandreau), who had a near death experience when he was bucked from a horse that then stomped on his skull.  The severity of the injury casts doubt on him ever being able to ride a horse again.  We meet Brady shortly afterwards, and we get a sense of how tough this cowboy is as he uses a knife to pry staples out of his skull.  The film follows Brady as he needs to adjust to life outside of riding horses.  This is someone without a high school education that knows and loves something dearly, and the pain of them becoming separated from that.

Living in the world of the tough cowboy, Brady has friends that reinforce what we already know is going through his mind.  They believe that a true cowboy rides through the pain, not quite equating the situation of Brady to being a life and death matter.  The pressure is on him to recover and get back into the life, and Brady must work through what that means and the possible consequences of it.  We see Brady visiting a good friend of his, Lane Scott (Lane Scott), who was an even better rider that is now in a wheel chair and can barely communicate due to an accident.  On the one hand, we have the pressures from Brady's friends that he needs to be tough and keep going.  On the other hand, there is great pain in Brady seeing Lane's now ruined life, and knowing that he could end up in the same situation.

The entire movie is that struggle.  Being a young man, feeling invisible is part of life.  But a large part of Brady understands that tragedy can happen, while the other part sees nothing but personal identity in what he used to be able to do.  This is where the casting makes perfect sense.  I have read that the movie is somewhat based around what Jandreau went through in real life, and it is this reason why he is perfect for the role.  His eyes carry the pain of his realized mortality, and his passion for horses seeps through each scene.  The audience knows that what they are seeing is authentic, and that there really is a young man struggling to make sense of his life.

The home life of Brady isn't much for him to be content with.  His father gambles and drinks away their money, which ends up meaning they have to sell their horse to keep existing.  A shot of pure gold in his family is Brady's love for his autistic sister, Lilly (Lilly Jandreau).  She is infectious, so wonderful and natural in front of the camera.  If she was in every scene in the movie, I would have been perfectly happy.  Lilly and her innocence are dear to Brady, a shot of optimism during a time when hope is hard to be found.

Zhao works magic behind the camera, shooting a lifestyle and a landscape that become an ingrained part in Brady's story.  It becomes easy for us to understand how this young man came to have the passions that he does, as well as his unending desire to be able to integrate back into that world.  Sadly, we get to see him working behind a cash register instead of riding a horse.  There is a defeated side to Brady in this, but also pure determination to do what is needed to help provide for his family.  It is very easy for us to admire the struggle that Brady endures, and to see him making the decisions that he does.

Another reason why it was smart to cast Brady Jandreau in this role is because we get to see him working with horses that are very aggressive.  As he is healing, he does some work training a horse.  He also ends up getting himself a very temperamental horse, and the scenes of him interacting with these creatures are mesmerizing.  There is no way that an actor would be able to get into a pen with these horses and do what is needed without getting hurt.  It is again that sincere connection that Brady has with horses that magnifies these brilliant scenes, as he uses his real life skills to settle the beasts down.

When it comes down to it, there are two moments of incredible emotional payout, and both are nailed by Brady.  He may be a cowboy, but he can also act.  It is undeniable that he struggles to move on with his life, and his resistance to leave the rodeo behind bites through the dialogue, situations, and his genuine acting.  Through the constructive work of Zhao and the work of Jandreau, the emotion that needs to be nailed in the key scenes is delivered, giving us some extremely profound moments.

Perhaps most Westerns are about identity in some form or other.  The stranger who rides into town.  The retired gunman that choses to act again.  A solid Western investigates the heart of an individual while set in a physically gruelling world.  That is, in essence, what The Rider is about as well.  There may not be duelling pistols, and stage coaches may not get robbed, but this is a modern look at a landscape that hasn't changed, and the people living within it.

Rating - 4 out of 4 stars

Antagonists of the Ages: My All Time Favourite Movie Baddies

For each episode of The Movie Breakdown podcast, myself and co-host Christopher Spicer throw a movie based question of the week out.  It's great when people respond and we are able to get a sense of what movies mean to different folk.  This week's question is right up my alley - who is your favourite boogeyman or monster from the movies?  For me, it is impossible to look at this question and not bring up many names.

I've always been a bigger fan of villains than good guys.  I don't want a Luke Skywalker poster.  I want a Darth Maul poster.  Kirk was alright, but make way for Kahn, as played by Ricardo Montalban.  I don't know what it is that attracts me so much to the evil characters.  When I used to watch professional wrestling, I had little care for the 'faces' (essentially the good guys), but delighted in a dynamic 'heel' (the villain!).  With so many monumental antagonists, I decided to take a tour through the big ones for me, and then I shall end with my all time favourite (at least as from the time of writing.  These things always change).

Norman Bates - Psycho (1960)

There was a time when the baddy was either wrapped in thousand year old cloth, residing in Transylvania, or crawled out of a swamp.  These are the monsters that are so easy to vilify.  They are distinguishable, and they don't share what we share.  That line was crossed in Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, with Anthony Perkins portraying Norman Bates.  He didn't have a marquee appearance, and he blended in with everyone around him.

This may not have been the first time the murdering antagonist was a seemingly 'normal' person, but that didn't stop it from being a game changer.  Evil not only was human, but it was the nice young man next door.  It was the person who would great you on the street with a genuine smile, and hold the door open for you.  Norman Bates showed that the monsters of old, as scary as they looked, could pale in comparison to the nightmares brought on by an 'average' human being.

A Shark - Jaws (1975)

This is definitely a monster.  It was unseen, and lurking beneath the water.  Many people who have been swimming and decided to open their eyes when submerged know the eerie worry of seeing something dangerous and being nothing but vulnerable.  Not only did Spielberg's film play wonderfully on our fear of what lurks beneath us, but he also seemed to show human nature when dealing something we don't fully understand.

We have the character of Quint, a pure shark killer.  Opposite him is Hooper, a marine biologist.  To me, they represent the two sides of the spectrum of how we as people can react.  Quint believes there is no such thing as a good shark, and wants them purged.  Hooper wants to learn and understand, knowing that we are the ones who are invading the habitat of the shark.  Ultimately, as the film screened, the Quint side of people seemed to dominate, with massive shark hunting and killing happening.  This wasn't simply a monster from a story that made the beach feel unsafe, but one that actually caused real world damage to an ecosystem.

Freddie Krueger - A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

At a time when slasher movies were everywhere, there was something very distinct about the arrival of Freddie Krueger.  Slashers were populated with lumbering killers who stalked their prey and who lacked having personality.  This worked tremendously with Michael Myers from Halloween, but it was something that was over done and became stale.  With A Nightmare on Elm Street we were given a psychotic villain who truly enjoyed what he did, taking great joy from toying with his victims.

Not only was the character of Freddie Krueger the polar opposite of what we had previously, but the concept itself is chilling.  Sleeping is something that all people do.  There is no way to get around it.  It is something that is supposed to be restful, but director Wes Craven chose to flip that on its head.  Dreams were where Kruger killed his victims, meaning that you could evade him for a while, but ultimately you would fall asleep and come face to face with him.  While you could escape the gaping maw of Jaws by staying away form the water, Freddie Krueger was impossible run away from.

Burke - Aliens (1986)

Played by Paul Reiser, Burke was a charming feller.  He stood by Ellen Ripley after her encounter in Alien, and was the nice guy who represented The Weyland-Yutani Corporation, the outfit that Ripley had worked for.  Her experiences with The Corporation weren't good, as a synthetic being on her ship sought to sacrifice people to bring the dreaded xenomorph back for the financial benefit of The Corporation.  Burke worked hard to show Ripley that he wasn't like that, that things had changed, and that returning to the planet of the alien was a mission to exterminate them.

What is interesting in the film is the transformation of Burke through the second and third acts, as his intentions creep to the surface.  Not only did he lie to Ripley, but he planned to murder the entire crew to return with an alien sample.  Reiser was game for this, becoming a snivelling suit that the audience wanted to see get offed in the worst of ways.

While there are more blatant villains in the cinematic landscape, Burke was the face of the evil Corporation.  Financial interests far outweighed any human interests, and the bottom line shouldn't be affected by a few lives.  It is a brilliant character, because, let's face it, there are plenty of organizations out there that will play the system and take some devious actions.  This is something that most people already feel, that the little person doesn't matter when compared to profits.  James Cameron just put a likeable face on that distrust that we already had, and made us hate him even more.

Whatever the heck is was in the woods - The Blair Witch Project (1999)

Some may say this movie is over rated, but probably not those who saw it early in theatres before the movie could be spoiled for them.  Camping took on a whole new meaning, and the thought of being in the woods was terrifying.  Not only was the style of filming (found footage) new to audiences, but the characters acted real.  They slowly lose their patience and ability to reason as the movie progresses, and we are along for the ride.  It is easily still one of the most intense theatre experiences I have ever had.

The complete beautiful thing here is that we never see what is out there.  I always say that the imagination is the scariest thing, and directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez seemed to think along the same lines.  There are plenty of scares to be had here, but it is all out of our view.  All the audience can do is picture what is happening in their heads.  It's like being in a house at night, not able to sleep, and all of a sudden hearing something out of the norm.  Your mind can create a hundred awful scenarios very quickly.  Sadly, many people will not enjoy this film as much as those of us who were there in 1999.  The style of filming has been used to the point of nausea, and, as such, The Blair Witch could be a let down.  I can tell you this, though, for myself and many others who were there when it came out in theatres, the idea of getting into a tent at night wasn't going to happen, and it was all because of what we didn't see.

The Joker - The Dark Knight (2008)

When I was a child and saw Jack Nicholson play The Joker in Tim Burton's Batman, I was enthralled.  We saw the devilish Jack Napier transform into the ever-smiling Joker, a man who then set his sights on power.  Nineteen years later, Heath Ledger gave us an interpretation of The Joker that pushed aside any notion we had ever had of this comic book villain.

Christopher Nolan had created a monster with no ambition other than just chaos and madness.  Gone was the smile of the past, replaced by gruesome scars that insisted on a horrific past for the character. While Batman was a person who was trying to show hope and a spirit of standing for justice, he was pushed to the edge by an opponent with no moral compass that would take things to unheard of levels.  It was Heath Ledger that took the premise and gave a performance like none before, stealing every single scene he was in, and casting a disturbing light over an already dark movie.

Some Runner Ups

Michael Myers - Halloween.  Why did we do it?  Who exactly was he?  We didn't know, and that added to the terror.

Chucky - Child's Play.  This was the genre thrown upside down.  The killer wasn't a massive lurker, but a little toy resembling My Buddy.

Hans Gruber - Die Hard.  He was slickly dressed, he had an appreciation for scale models, and was a no terrorist.  Alan Rickman's performance gave a perfect baddie for John McClane to fight.

Darth Maul - Star Wars: Episode One.  It was a sad movie, but the visual design of Darth Maul was a work of genius.  Throw in the martial arts fluidity of Ray Park, and this was a very interesting Sith to watch.

The Babadook - The Babadook.  A supernatural creature that comes from a twisted children's book and is unbelievably scary.  It was the first movie in over a decade that legitimately made me scared.


So, it is time for what I consider the best movie villain...

John Bunting - The Snowtown Murders (2011)

I'm not picking this to be one of those people who want to flaunt that they have seen unheard of movies.  This is a legitimate antagonist for the ages.  Daniel Henshall plays Bunting, a real life killer from Australia.  Henshall's performance shows how someone can not only end up doing horrible things, but how they can entrance others to get in on the corrupt act.

The movie is directed with insane brilliance, but it is really Henshall that steals the show.  Bunting is a confident person, charming like none other.  There is a darkness to him, though.  We see it at times, and the revelation that comes of what Bunting really is happens slowly and with complete precision.  What begins as a likeable fellow concludes the movie with a genuine insight into the darkest nature of human beings.

There are many horrors with good villains that are fun, and some that scare, but Bunting was beyond that.  When the movie finished, I was compelled to write about it.  Something happened.  Through Henshall, I had seen something of human nature that was without reason, and without conscience.  It was ruthlessly disturbing, not because we saw a monster destroy lives, but because it was what regular human beings were pulled into through the perverse gravity of John Bunting.

The Oscars: My Opinion On A Possible Solution To Their Popularity Problem

Well, the Oscars are a changin'.  The problem is that viewer numbers for the awards show have dropped to their lowest ever.  Because of this, there is now a push to make more eyeballs want to tune in.  They are looking to shorten the show to three hours, meaning that some of the technical awards will be given out during commercial breaks, with highlights from this coming later in the show.  In 2020, the date is shifting up to closer to the beginning of February.  The idea is to get the Oscars done before audiences are burnt out from watching all of the other awards shows.  I don't know about you, but I sure get tired of just how many people talk about the SAG and Independent Spirit Awards.  Lastly, they are going to introduce an award celebrating a 'popular' film.

All of this reminds me of the ill-fated movie about the birth and development of FIFA, United Passions.  While football governing body FIFA seemed to think the movie was about the passion and growth of global football, they were ultimately communicating to the audience that success meant more money.  This was wildly funny considering all of the corruption that was coming out at the time.  When I look at the decisions of The Academy, I can't help but feel their true desires are being heard.  It isn't about legitimizing the awards, but getting more viewers.  More viewers equals more advertising, which equals more money, which isn't a course of motivation that a legitimate awards body should be following.

I'm not going to make this a long piece.  I had started going that way, and wanting to rant about so much, but I think I would rather make this about something that I have been talking about for years now.

MAKE NOMINATED MOVIES EASY TO ACCESS FOR THE PUBLIC!!!!

Now, this won't solve all problems, but people I talk to haven't seen (or necessarily even heard of) over ninety percent of films up for Best Picture or the other major awards.  I know that exhibitors want guarantees that movies they screen will be off of video for around ninety days.  Because of this, it would be very difficult to propose this to them, bet we need to be honest.  The industry is changing quickly, and there are ramifications of not changing with it.  Mainly, illegal copies of movies getting viewed online.

People do pirate material, but high percentages will pay for a reasonably priced legal option.  A quick example of that is the current state of the music industry.  Yes, it did get its ass kicked by the digital realm, but people have moved away from the peer to peer model.  There are so many streaming options for good prices that it has brought many customers back into the fold.  With platforms that allow people to purchase either individual songs or entire albums, the consumer has control over how they get the product.  I have also read multiple articles that highlight how consumers will generally use a convenient, reasonably priced option over piracy.  Sadly, I can't remember them, and (since I need to write this quickly) I won't be hunting them down right now.

With an opportunity to have a digital screening window prior to the Oscars, platforms could charge perhaps a little bit more than a premium rental.  They would benefit from the sudden interest that the public may have in these films after they get nominated.  I could see how this would be opposed, because some of these nominated movies get increased theatre screens after the nominations, and theatre chains would claim such an option would hurt numbers.  That's been the argument that's always been made about day and date releases (movies that come out on video at the same time as hitting theatres), and I believe its eventually going to be challenged by consumer habits.

The Academy would benefit from a digital streaming window by their films being more relevant to audiences.  This isn't a few decades ago when the mature movies got nationwide release.  Typically, Oscar fare is in limited release, and sometimes the movies perform well enough to expand to wide release.  This would be the ideal way for Oscar fare to get out to the public, but it doesn't happen to enough films.  More possible eyeballs on the films could mean more interest in the show itself.

Regardless, this idea of a digital screening window isn't going to happen because cinema hasn't completely caught up to the digital age.  Major chains would oppose such ideas because, just as they have for attempts of change in the past.  I do believe that there would be a financial benefit for allowing access to these films, but what do I know?  I know that seemingly every year in February there seems to be an article highlighting how much people are pirating the Oscar nominated movies.  Why not give them a legitimate option?

And lastly, to The Academy...

People are cutting the cord.  Simply put, lower ratings are a part of that.  You don't need to go and add The Tourist to the program.

REVIEW: A Quiet Place

There are many people out there that are willing to write horror movies off simply because of the genre they represent.  I will admit that there are scores of movies full of fatty tissue that make the horror genre seem surface level and without merit.  However, the history of horror movies shows a lineage intent on being more than just a jump scare.  They can be social commentaries, such as Night of the Living Dead, they can show the scope of the sins of the parents falling on their children, such as in A Nightmare on Elm Street, they can be about conquering personal fear in the face of duty, like in Jaws, or a an allegory on the monster of unresolved grief, as seen in The Babadook.  There is an enormous list of horror movies that are actually just good stories that happen to be set for scares at the same time.

This year we have been given a horror movie, A Quiet Place, that not only nails the audience to their seats in suspense, but is also a rich story about family tragedy and the pain that comes with it.  People would most likely know John Krasinski from his work as Jim Halpert in the American version of The Office.  Krasinksi co-wrote the script for A Quiet Place (along with Scott Beck and Bryan Woods) as well as serving as its director.  I have always enjoyed Krasinski and his ability to be immediately likeable, much like his British Office counterpart, Martin Freeman.  Never would I have pictured him making a horror movie, especially one that would take place as my favourite film of the year so far.

The movie is set after an alien invasion.  Much like creature feature Tremors, the monsters hunt by sound, meaning that the surviving humans need to be continuously quiet.  We are introduced to the Abbot family, with Lee (Krasinski) and his wife, Evelyn (Emily Blunt, who is Krasinksi's real life wife).  Survival for them is made difficult because they have three young children who, of course, make mistakes at times.  Once crucial mistake happens at the beginning of the film when tragedy strikes, a fatal error that came from a decision of daughter Regan (Millicent Simmonds), bringing up a tension between her and her father.  Simmonds is deaf, which works well, because so is Regan.  We at times understand the world from her perspective, sort of a contrast to the audible sensitivities of the monsters.

Throughout the film, Regan is unhappy.  She believes that her father blames her for the tragedy of their family, and she reaches a boiling point over being treated as a child.  The interesting aspect of this is that we can understand why Lee would treat her this way, having seen how she had messed up in the past.  Both points of view are understandable, and the dynamic between the two is the main point of the film, with Lee needing to eventually show Regan how much he loves her and the sacrifice that he is willing to make for her.

One of the best used techniques in A Quiet Place is the use of sound.  The movie is so quiet, as the title would suggest, that when there is noise it hits home with the audience.  It stands out so much from the rest of the mostly silent film that it arrouses our anxiety, something that is needed to put us in the place of the Abbotf family.  Mixed into the movie is a lurking and omnipresent score by Marco Beltrami.  When the tension is increased, the music steals the show and adds a marvellous element of dreadful stimulation.

Krasinksi is very patient in how he tells the story.  He does what a lot of directors fail to do, and that is let a scene play out in full.  There are numerous moments when a simple sequence lasts a while, an effort that increases the understanding of their lives.  While moments may be rolled out slowly, Krasinski is a master in showing that it doesn't mean things will be boring.  There is not a wasted shot in the entire film, and the pacing is top notch, the run time vanishing quickly with never a sense of boredom.  We are absorbed in the story, and it never lets go of us for long enough to let us check our watches.

An interesting development in the story is the fact that Evelyn is pregnant and is due at any time.  Not only can labour be a loud endeavour, but it is quite hard to tell an infant to be quiet and not make a sound.  We may wonder why the heck Lee and Evelyn thought it was a good idea to procreate in such an environment, but that folly is easily forgiven.  It is merely the situation that we find them in, and they are characters that are impossible to hate.  It would be difficult to find a more likeable and sympathetic couple than John Krasinski and Emily Blunt.  The doom of labour hangs over them, leaving us to wonder if this is the event that eliminates the family completely.

The third act of this film is non-stop, a thrilling ride that could be taken multiple times.  While it is wall to wall suspense, the acting is what really makes it special.  Blunt has shown in the past that she can portray strong and kick ass characters (such as in Sicario and Edge of Tomorrow).  We get to see that fight in her again here, and everything she does is captivating.  Krasinski nails the part of dedicated and protective dad.  It is Simmonds, however, that bears the brunt of the emotional heft.  She is an absolute force in this film, a star that I hope gets many opportunities in the future.

As a horror, this movie works perfectly.  And, as a family drama, this movie works perfectly.  The best horror movies operate as more than just trying to make the audience nervous or scared.  They show us humanity, the underscoring emotions and motives that affect people.  A Quiet Place is a treat, as it has a very human story that is shrouded in a suspenseful and thrilling capsule.  There have been so many amazing horror films over the last number of years, and this is easily one of the best of them.

Rating - 4 out of 4 stars