THE LAST EXORCISM: PART II (2013, Ed Gass-Donnelly)

 

* * 

Looks like they lied about it being all over, exorcism fans.

Starring  Ashley Bell, Julia Garner, Spencer Treat Clark, David Jensen, Tarra Riggs, Louis Herthum

Written by  Damien Chazelle, Ed Gass-Donnelly   

Produced by  Eric Newman, Eli Roth, Marc Abraham, Thomas A Bliss   

Duration  88 minutes   

 

You know, films with 'last' in their title are rarely obvious candidates for sequels. There are exceptions, but generally speaking, something described with that word does not readily beget a follow-up.

The main reason to make a sequel to a film is, of course, if it made loads of money. Then, in the words of Dr Ian Malcolm in JURASSIC PARK (six follow-ups and counting): "Life ... uh, will find a way." And that includes legacy sequels, which are just a delayed reaction to something that's been profitable in the longer term.

But let's ignore capitalism for a moment. Let's pretend all that matters is whether the story warrants being continued. Come on, we can do it.

'Last' movies do indeed seem unlikely to qualify, but they aren't the only ones. Take HIGHLANDER, for instance. "There can be only one" they told us – so, the end of the line once the only immortal left was Connor McCloud, right? But we still got HIGHLANDER II: THE QUICKENING, which took the route of being utterly nonsensical to get around its leaps in logic.

And I've always been pretty surprised about the existence of FRENCH CONNECTION II and STAYING ALIVE (SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER 2), coming as they did after a pair of serious and seemingly standalone films. And let's not forget THE NEVERENDING STORY, referenced in The Simpsons as a classic case of false advertising.

Then there are those movies with scenarios that are so off-the-wall, so bonkers, that it would be implausible to repeat them. Not that this stopped the green light flashing for WEEKEND AT BERNIE'S II or HOME ALONE 2 or MANNEQUIN TWO: ON THE MOVE or THE HANGOVER PART II. That last one ended up stretching to a trilogy, albeit only by taking a sharp left turn in eking out the third one.

And then there's the market for cash-ins that trade on a brand name, like AMERICAN PSYCHO 2, THE STING II or THE RAGE: CARRIE II. These usually don't even bother to pretend they're related to the original. Although in the case of KING KONG LIVES, they did decide to go for continuity. Um, wait ... but didn't the giant gorilla die? Empire State Building? Big fall?

But as far as nonsensical titles for sequels go, THE LAST EXORCISM: PART II has to take the biscuit. I mean, just look at it! Hilariously, the pseudo-pretentious use of Roman numerals makes it look like it's actually THE LAST EXORCISM: PART ELEVEN.

But LAST EXORCISM 2 is of course only following one film, not ten. And that film was a not-bad found-footagey effort, starring a bloke who was in Better Call Saul.

Patrick Fabian isn't in this one, although he is part of the opening recap. Something else that doesn't return is the mockumentary format - just like BOOK OF SHADOWS: BLAIR WITCH 2, we have here a pair of flicks where the original flirts with realism and the sequel goes for full-on movieism.

Something else LAST EXORCISM 2 does is follow the monster into the next instalment rather than the good guys, in the best Freddy Kruger, Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers tradition. I mean, if you ignore A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 1, 3 and 7, where we stay with Nancy Thompson; FRIDAY THE 13TH 4-6, with Tommy Jarvis; and HALLOWEEN 2, 3, 7, and 8, which are led by Laurie Strode.

To be fair, 'monster' is a strong word for poor teenager Nell Sweetzer (Ashley Bell), the possessed girl from last time around. She's the protagonist now, but since that pesky demon just can't stop with its darn posessin', she's at least the bad guy by proxy. 

At the start of the film, Nell is found by the authorities, disoriented and with no memory of the climax to part one, where she was the only survivor from her entire family. She's put up in a halfway house, making friends with the other troubled girls, getting a cleaning job, awkwardly flirting with a local boy, etc. But soon enough, she's bothered again by a strange presence, something ethereal that's not done with her yet ...

This is one of those horror films that gets described as 'slow burn'. What that means here is precious few scares, little intensity and a PG-13 certificate (12A in the UK). So, it can't use any of the usual tactics to perk up our interest: gore, nudity, excessive language. Bell is likable and you feel for her plight, but she's not able to make the movie compelling all by herself.

And look, yes there is another exorcism, of sorts. But it's not the same one, therefore this isn't really 'part two', is it? I would have preferred it if part one had been just the first two acts of the story, and then they saved the actual exorcism for this film, making it one long 90-minute real-time procedure, done in a single take with no let up.

Alas.

Closing note: Damien Chazelle, the youngest winner of the Academy Award for Best Director at age 32 with LA LA LAND, is a co-writer here. He had no credits on the first film; clearly we have a case of a freelance gig early in his Hollywood career. I guess WHIPLASH was kind of a horror film, though, so this isn't too incongruous.

Two stars out of five.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  To date, there has been no THE LAST EXORCISM: PART III. I am not holding my breath, nor my crucifix.

What would a movie called THE FIRST EXORCISM: PART II be about?  A working title for this film was the even more baffling BEGINNING OF THE END: THE LAST EXORCISM II. So, I guess, that?

Previously:  THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO

Next time:  THE LAST DAYS ON MARS

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

 

THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO (1998, Whit Stillman)

 

* * 

Two young women hang out in a Manhattan nightclub in 1980.

Starring  Chloë Sevigny, Kate Beckinsale, Chris Eigeman, Robert Sean Leonard, Jennifer Beals

Written by  Whit Stillman

Produced by  Whit Stillman   

Duration  113 minutes   

 

 

Quentin Tarantino likes movies. This we know. And his genre influences are clear, including blaxploitation (JACKIE BROWN), Asian-influenced action (KILL BILL), and men-on-a-mission (INGLORIOUS BASTERDS).

But there's one movie, one specific movie, that Tarantino champions more than any other. It's the one at the centre of this quote:

"When I start to get serious about a girl, I show her RIO BRAVO. And she better fuckin' like it."

(I feel the same way about COMMANDO; fortunately, Mrs Last grew up watching it.)

The director has repeatedly tried to replicate the siege portion of the film he treasures so: with RESERVOIR DOGS, with THE HATEFUL EIGHT, with his screenplay for FROM DUSK TILL DAWN.

But on a wider level, RIO BRAVO also belongs to a particular sub-genre: the hangout movie, a term that is widely believed to have been coined by Tarantino himself.

The hangout movie has taken many forms over the years. RIO BRAVO is broadly about John Wayne hanging out in a frontier town. Beyond Tarantino's own contributions to the form – PULP FICTION, ONCE UPON A TIME ... IN HOLLYWOOD, the non-car parts of DEATH PROOF – other notable hangout movies include:

KIDS (1995): Hanging out with reckless, sex-crazed, skateboarding teenage delinquents.

CLERKS (1994): Hanging out with retail workers discussing pop culture and promiscuous ex-girlfriends.

DAZED AND CONFUSED (1993): Hanging out on the last day of school in the mid-'70s.

THE BREAKFAST CLUB (1985): Hanging out and making new friends during Saturday detention.

AMERICAN GRAFFITI (1973): Hanging out in the early '60s, mostly in cars.

EASY RIDER (1969): Hanging out in the late '60s, mostly on motorbikes.

BEFORE SUNRISE (1995): Hanging out all night in Vienna with someone you just met while Interrailing.

FRIDAY (1995): Hanging out in South Central LA on the last day of the working week.

HOOPER (1978): Hanging out with Burt Reynolds doing lots of stunts.

SWINGERS (1996): Hanging out with Vince Vaughn trying to pick up ladies and saying things like "You're so money, baby!"

THE BIG LEBOWSKI (1998): Hanging out bowling while entangled inside a neo-noir mystery.

EMPIRE RECORDS (1995): Hanging out in a record store for the last time before it closes down.

DINER (1982): Hanging out with one half of the Wet Bandits, Mickey Rourke when he looked good, Steve Guttenberg and Burke from ALIENS.

SIDEWAYS (2004): Hanging out in Napa Valley getting tipsy at wine tastings.

FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMOUNT HIGH (1982): Hanging out at school.

FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF (1986): Hanging out and not going to school.

SUPERBAD (2007): Hanging out after school and trying to get laid.

BOOKSMART (2019): Same again, but with girls.

And so here we have THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO, which is 'hanging out in a New York nightclub in the early '80s'.

Our main hanger-outers are played by Chloe Sevigny and Kate Beckinsale. Both are poorly paid readers at a Manhattan publisher who are trying to get more out of their lives, including their night lives. They regularly go to the same disco, when they can get past the snooty ponytailed doorman, to meet various guys: ad guys, marketing guys, Wall Street guys.

Not a lot actually happens in this movie. It's certainly sharply written and well-observed, with some amusing lines. But that's about it. Sevigny seems vaguely out if it at all times, as if she was going Method during all those trips to the bar. Beckinsale, meanwhile, struggles with dialogue seemingly written to be read rather than spoken aloud. She has this oddly measured manner, saddled with words like 'several' and 'somewhat' and tin-eared expressions like 'terribly encouraging'.

I'm not sure how I feel about hangout movies, overall. The thing is, you have real life to just hang out with people. Why are we instead watching a movie? Isn't it because we want a story? Where life is no longer random and meaningless, but instead everything happens for a reason, people learn lessons and the heroes always win?

These kinds of casual, unhurried movies go against the screenwriting manuals. Those things a script is supposed to have to 'work': structure, escalating tension, stakes, emotional journeys, all that stuff.

And yet, hang out movies do still work a lot of the time, on the strength of the writing and the characters. I definitely like most of the titles on the above list. The theory goes that the more you enjoy the company of these people, the more you will enjoy their antics.

But did I like spending time with the characters in THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO? Um, not as such.

This was the third film by Whit Stillman. He specialises in chronicling the lives of vacuous yuppies, calling DISCO the last entry in his 'doomed bourgeois in love' trilogy. You get the impression the writer/director doesn't expect us to like these insufferable people. Which really doesn't help matters.

And I have to say, I found the disco soundtrack kind of annoying. By 1980, when this movie takes place, we could have had something a bit harder, a bit more modern sounding. Donna Summer's 'I Feel Love' had been out for years by then, and its producer Giorgio Moroder was starting to establish the mainstream electronic sound. Instead, we get fluff like 'Freak Out', 'He's the Greatest Dancer', 'Good Times', etc.

Not really the kind of place I'd like to hang out, I'm afraid.

Two stars out of five.

 

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  I don't know/care enough about the timeline of the musical genre to judge.

What would a movie called THE FIRST DAYS OF DISCO be about?  It would have to be set a decade earlier, I guess.

Previously: THE LAST SHIFT

Next time:  THE LAST EXORCISM: PART II

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

THE LAST SHIFT (2020, Andrew Cohn)

 

* * * 

Old meets young across the griddle; burgers are served and lessons are learned.

Starring  Richard Jenkins, Shane Paul McGhie, Da’Vine Joy Randolph, Ed O’Neill

Written by  Andrew Cohn

Produced by  Albert Berger, Ron Yerxa, Sam Bisbee, Alex Lipschultz, Bert Kern  

Duration  90 minutes

THE LAST SHIFT stars Richard Jenkins. Films do not usually star Richard Jenkins. This is despite Jenkins being a professional actor who mostly acts in feature films. 

Have you ever recognised an actor from multiple films whose name escapes you? That's a character actor. 'That guy from' or 'that woman who was in'.

Sometimes, character actors do get leading roles. Two of the greatest, Paul Giamatti and Jeffrey Wright, were nominated in the Best Actor category (rather than Supporting) at the 2024 Academy Awards, for THE HOLDOVERS and AMERICAN FICTION. In the end, OPPENHEIMER's Cillian Murphy went home with the statue – not usually a headliner himself, unless you count the overrated Peaky Blinders on TV. And back in 2007, undisputed supporting player royalty Forest Whitaker also won as a headliner.

So what happens when character actors get leading success? Do they see it as an opportunity to break out, or are they happy to go right back to low billings? Is character acting a choice or were they forced into it because they aren't 'traditional leading material' – AKA not good-looking enough? Conversely, some conventionally attractive performers have been described as character actors in a lead actor's skin. They mostly skew the usual romcoms or action hero parts for quirkier fare, more stretching roles, working with auteur directors. Brad Pitt comes to mind, as does Robert Pattinson.

Richard Jenkins, meanwhile, may be the ultimate character actor. The male example, at least – Bojack Horseman made a compelling case for recurring guest star 'Character Actress Margo Martindale'.

Jenkins is certainly one of my favourite character actors. Being lesser-known doesn't mean these performers can't have memorable roles; take Jenkins' sad-sack gym manager in BURN AFTER READING. As the only likable person among a gang of selfish oddballs, his unrequited pining for the vacuous Frances McDormand is particularly heart-breaking amongst the movie's nihilistic zaniness.

In THE LAST SHIFT, Jenkins' role is one all character actors end up with eventually: the elderly mentor. Having worked most of his life at a 24-hour fast-food joint, his Stanley is finally on his way out, due to retire down to Florida to take care of his ailing mother.

Into Stanley's life comes Shane Paul McGhie's 20-something Jevon, recently paroled and trying to get back on the straight and narrow to support his new-born baby and exasperated girlfriend.

Stan is proud to have held down his job for 40 years, no matter how menial a life flipping burgers may have been. Jevon, in contrast, has bounced from job to job but is no layabout: he's a writer who dwells on workers' rights, race, privilege and more besides. As they spend the long night shifts chatting away, these two opposites start to get to know – and appreciate – each other.

It sounds corny and the film is admittedly slight. But it works as a drama, light on cliché and strong on performance. Not just Jenkins (natch) but also McGhie as his young foil.

THE LAST SHIFT is not subtle about portraying Jenkins as a loser in time-honoured movie terms. He takes the bus to work, because using public transportation means you are a failure; and when he does finally get a car, it's not even a 'cool car' – for shame! And he works in the service industry, the kind of career you quickly walk away from, not one you aspire to stay in. And he talks about his mother a lot, which ever since PSYCHO is a big red flag. Not that he goes on a killing spree while dressed in her clothes or anything like that.

That's pretty much all I've got to say about THE LAST SHIFT. So, in closing, here are 12 films that you may not have realised Richard Jenkins is in:

SPOTLIGHT (2015) – as Richard Sipe

WHITE HOUSE DOWN (2013) – as Raphelson

THE KINGDOM (2007) – as Robert Grace

I HEART HUCKABEES (2004) – as Mr Hooten

THE CORE (2003) – as General Purcell

THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY (1998) – as a psychiatrist

ABSOLUTE POWER (1997) – as Michael McCarty

BLUE STEEL (1990) – as Attorney Mel Dawson

SEA OF LOVE (1989) – as Gruber

THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK (1987) – as Clyde Alden

HANNAH AND HER SISTERS (1986) – as Dr Wilkes

SILVERADO (1986) – as Kelly

Three stars out of five.

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  Technically, the narrative revolves around several of Stanley's shifts up until the actual last one, but we'll give it a pass.

What would a movie called THE FIRST SHIFT be about?  They could CGI Jenkins to look 40 years younger, like De Niro and Pacino in THE IRISHMAN. That would be cool.

 

Previously:  THE LAST AMERICAN HERO

Next time:  THE LAST DAYS OF DISCO

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

THE LAST AMERICAN HERO (1973, Lamont Johnson)

 

* * 

A man can drive cars real good. According to this movie, that is an heroic act.

Starring  Jeff Bridges, Valerie Perrine, Geraldine Fitzgerald, Gary Busey

Written by  William Roberts, William Kerby

Produced by  William Roberts, John Cutts

Duration  95 minutes

If I had been born with the surname 'American', which movies would I be reviewing for this blog?

Let's see, there's American ULTRA, GANGSTER, PIE (plus sequels), GRAFFITI, SNIPER, HUSTLER, BEAUTY, PSYCHO, DREAMZ, BUFFALO, HAUNTING, WET HOT SUMMER, GIGOLO, HISTORY X, NINJA (plus sequels), PRESIDENT, SPLENDOR ...

Or what about 'America' instead? I wonder if former Ugly Betty star America Ferrera needs a hobby? She could line up things like COMING TO AMERICA, MADE IN AMERICA, ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA ...

Of course, when a movie has a title like THE LAST AMERICAN HERO, using both 'last' and 'American', the point is moot. It's even happened once already.

One thing to get out the way is I don't approve of our current normalisation of the word 'hero', either in society or in movies. It's like the abuse of the word 'awesome'. Sunsets are awesome, the unfathomable hugeness of the universe is awesome. A new range of McDonald's burgers is not awesome. Neither is Jack Black voicing a panda who learns kung-fu. 

So, how is this movie using the word 'hero'? Is it sincere or is it sarcastic? Maybe it dodges the issue altogether?

Well, I can sum up its position in a word: driving. We open with Jeff Bridges driving – fast. Hurtling from the police like he's robbed a bank, but actually just because he likes to go very fast and since he's being chased is accelerating even faster to escape. Jeff's heading home to his cranky mama; he also has a brother, who's played by a young Gary Busey (aged 29; Bridges was a mere pup at 24). And right after pulling up at their ramshackle shack, having successfully outmanoeuvred the copper, he's chirping at his family about 'supercharging' the thing that enables his driving: his car.

Now, I am not a car person. If heroism is going to be attributed to the ability to successfully manipulate an automobile, then I am unlikely to be impressed. And so it follows that I was not.

Next, there's driving. Yes, driving – more driving. And skidding! Though the woods, away from another cop car, at dusk (I think - it could have just been poorly lit). Jeff driving really fast while singing along to country music. There's more bloody driving even than in Bridges' other car movie, Francis Ford Coppola's TUCKER: THE MAN AND HIS DREAM. Vroom-vroom.

Now, THE LAST AMERICAN HERO is based on an article by Tom Wolfe, about real-life speed-freak Junior Jackson. It was Wolfe who dubbed Jackson an 'American hero'. (Although it could have been a hyperbolic sub-editor.) And having now sat through the whole film, I'm still struggling to pin down what it is that makes this brash moron a hero, however thin the definition of the word may be.

Beyond the automobile action, there is a plot. Jackson's papa gets banged up for distilling moonshine. Junior then stumbles into supporting the family with his four-wheeled talents: first in a demolition derby, then by winning races against other cars going around in a big circle while spectators stand on the roofs of their trailers hollering, formally known as NASCAR.

Look, it's definitely good that he goes off to earn money for the family, what with their breadwinner locked up and all. But wouldn't it have helped even more if he'd already been gainfully employed before disaster struck? I do think that heroism takes a little more than supporting your loved ones with your income. That's just called 'earning a living' and 'being a responsible adult'.

But actual displays of heroism? I was kept waiting. Would he drive his car into a burning building to rescue the inhabitants? Would he donate his winnings to rebuild an orphanage that was bombed during a genocide?

No. Nothing like that. He just wins a couple of races.

It's strange seeing actors like Bridges and Busey, now so firmly ingrained as cranky old guys, as 20-somethings. Then again, some actors seem like they were never young in the first place: your Gene Hackmans and Morgan Freemans and Lance Henricksens. But beyond that mild point of interest, and a few amusing putdowns uttered by Junior to various dim-witted hicks (usually prefixed or suffixed with the word 'boy'), THE LAST AMERICAN SO-CALLED HERO never gripped me – or, I guess I should say, got under my bonnet or injected my fuel or ... whatever.

And as far as movies based on magazine articles go, I prefer TOP GUN, BOOGIE NIGHTS, DOG DAY AFTERNOON, THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS, THE INSIDER ... Even THE BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES (also from the writings of Tom Wolfe), just due to having one of those great extended Brian de Palma takes.

Two stars out of five.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  Hard to quantify, since I'm already disputing how the film is treating the word 'hero'.

What would a movie called THE FIRST AMERICAN HERO be about?  George Washington?

Previously:  HITLER: THE LAST TEN DAYS

Next time:  THE LAST SHIFT

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

HITLER: THE LAST TEN DAYS (1973, Ennio De Concini)

 

* * 

It's time to hunker in the Führerbunker. The end is nigh and Adolf's facing it 30 feet underground.

Starring  Alec Guinness, Simon Ward, Adolfo Celi, Diane Cilento, Gabriele Ferzetti

Written by  Gerhard Boldt, Ennio De Concini, Maria Pia Fusco, Ivan Moffat, Wolfgang Reinhardt   

Produced by  Wolfgang Reinhardt

Duration  105 minutes   

 

I don’t know about you, but when I watch a movie about an historical figure, I'm hoping to find something out about them. Which, sure enough, invariably happens. But not always to a satisfactory degree.

Biopics can be notoriously loose with the ol' facts. A common inaccuracy is to skim over less savoury aspects of the subject's life so as to paint them in a better light. This sometimes comes at the behest of surviving family members – look out for a familiar surname in the credits. Or the truth may have been bent for purely narrative reasons: conflating events, combining characters, fiddling with the timeline, that sort of thing.

This of course assumes that you are covering the person's whole life, like in a GANDHI or a RAY – an approach parodied so memorably in WALK HARD: THE DEWEY COX STORY. With such a long period to trawl though, it's no surprise that these kinds of projects end up relying heavily on montages. But sometimes they go too far, making the whole movie seem like a trailer, only giving shallow insight into the subject matter. I'm thinking of Baz Luhrmann's off-puttingly hyperactive ELVIS, which frustrated me to the point of actually turning it off. (For comparison, a movie that also feels like a feature-length trailer but pulls it off is GOODFELLAS.)

A more popular biopic tactic in recent years has been to home in on a significant event in the protagonist's life, like with Winston Churchill in THE DARKEST HOUR. Churchill's refusal to seek a peace treaty with the Nazis in 1940 was a microcosm of his overall character, making sense as a focus for the man at large.

And so to the movie we have here, concerning Winston's old WWII adversary. Judging by that title, HITLER: THE LAST TEN DAYS is clearly going to be taking the snapshot approach. And you've got to think: well, of course that's what they did. What else could they have done? A cradle-to-grave examination inevitably humanises the subject by looking at the childhood reasons behind an adult's actions. Has there ever been a Hitler movie like this? Could (or indeed should) there ever be?

Many an actor has played him, but no one to my knowledge has given Adolf the straight-up, decades-spanning, warts-and-all Mahatma Gandhi/Ray Charles treatment.

Let's see, there's been:

Charlie Chaplin – THE GREAT DICTATOR (1940): A parody, in which Chaplin calls himself 'Adenoid Hynkel'. Also, it was released when the Second World War was still raging on (just like CASABLANCA was).

Anthony Hopkins – THE BUNKER (1981): Seemingly shares the exact same concept as LAST TEN DAYS.

Ian McKellen – COUNTDOWN TO WAR (1989): Recounts the events between the Nazis invading Czechoslovakia and the UK declaring war on Germany. So, another contained period, albeit longer (six months) and earlier (the start of the war, instead of the end).

Steven Berkoff – War and Remembrance (TV) (1989): Starts in December 1941 and ends in August 1945, so spanning four years. But Hitler isn't the focus; he just pops up here and there while we follow the fortunes of an American family during the war.

Robert Carlyle – Hitler: The Rise of Evil (TV) (2003): Would seem to be the one exception here, starting as it does in 1899 with Adolf as barely a (Hitler) youth. However, it ends in 1934, when he's just come to power, stopping short of showing what he ends up actually doing with that power.

Bruno Ganz – DOWNFALL (2004): This one definitely has the exact same setup as LAST TEN DAYS – and I've seen it! Plus we've all enjoyed the meme-worthy clips of Ganz' ranting performance.

Taika Waititi – JOJO RABBIT (2019): Another parody. I would have watched this one too, if Waititi hadn't irritated me so much in FREE GUY that I've avoided him ever since.

So then, here we have THE LAST TEN DAYS. Do we learn much about Hitler this time round? Well, not really, I'm afraid.

Playing the famous dictator this time is Sir Alec Guinness. He still has that familiar STAR WARS/BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI voice – this is one of those movies where everyone speaks in English and with their native accent.

We do get a bit of general backstory at the beginning, for anyone who was asleep during GCSE History. Hitler's rise to power, National Socialism, WWII, Germany's ultimate defeat. The expository voiceover is by someone who sounds like Guinness, which is a little confusing, as I don't think it's supposed to be Adolf reminiscing from beyond the grave. 

Then we're swiftly down into the Führerbunker, where we stay for the duration.

Now, one imagines being stuck underground in the 1940s would be kind of dull. And so it proves, with LAST TEN DAYS failing to make the tedium in any way compelling. I was reminded of Sam Mendes's JARHEAD. That was a war film about soldiers who don't see any action and so get bored and frustrated; unfortunately, Mendes made the experience of watching this both boring and frustrating.

What happens down in the bunker? Well, the Nazis have regular meetings where they confirm that the Allies are still moving closer and so they are pretty much fucked.

Adolf celebrates his 56th birthday, and we are treated to the tyrant grinning with glee as a parade of deferential soldiers and womenfolk hand him gifts. There are children down in this bunker, but der Führer is the biggest kid of all. Bless.

There are lots of scenes of people talking about battles going on elsewhere, out of sight. Which, again: kind of boring. The guy who plays the caretaker in THE SHINING and the dad in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is in there; so is Joss Ackland of LETHAL WEAPON 2 and BILL AND TED'S BOGUS JOURNEY fame. So that's nice.

And of course Adolf rants and raves now and again, like he's still at the Nuremberg rally. He also reveals a humbler side, declaring, "I'm not Jesus Christ," before swiftly adding, "a genius yes – but Christ? Not quite."

If you want to find out about the real character or life of Adolf Hitler? Stick to The History Channel or whatever.

Two out of five stars.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  Can't argue on this occasion, although the glacial pace makes it feel like 100 days rather than only a week and a half.

What would a movie called HITLER: THE FIRST TEN DAYS be about? Unless he was some kind of blatantly evil, Damian-from-THE-OMEN devil-child, probably nothing very interesting. 

Previously:  INSIDIOUS: THE LAST KEY

Next time:  THE LAST AMERICAN HERO

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

INSIDIOUS: THE LAST KEY (2018, Adam Robitel)

 

* * * 

Medium Elise Rainier lends her particular set of skills to another poltergeist scenario – and gets maximum trouble for her efforts.

Starring  Lin Shaye, Angus Sampson, Leigh Whannell, Spencer Locke, Caitlin Gerard, Bruce Davison

Written by  Leigh Whannell   

Produced by  Jason Blum, Oren Peli, James Wan, Leigh Whannell

Duration  104 minutes

 

Sometime in 2026 will see the release of THREAD: AN INSIDIOUS TALE, a spin-off of the INSIDIOUS film series. Meanwhile, a crossover of INSIDIOUS and SINISTER, both properties of Blumhouse Productions, has long been rumoured.

I can't help thinking that spinning-off or crossing-over (over-crossing?) has, over the years, tended to be more of a TV thing. The most famous small screen example has to be Frasier, coming from Cheers. But the tradition goes back a lot further. Happy Days, for example, birthed no less than six other shows, to varying degrees of success. Indeed, the spin-off matching the popularity of its originator is far from guaranteed: hit Friends begat dud Joey; Baywatch Nights was no Baywatch. And then of course you have all the myriad incarnations of CSI and NCIS – the latter already being a spin-off of Naval drama JAG.

Movie spin-offs used to be less common, although of course are increasingly so these days, owing to the superhero boom. 1978's SUPERMAN led (eventually) to SUPERGIRL in 1984, but the less said about that the better. More recently, FURIOSA was "a MAD MAX saga"; THIS IS 40 served as only a "sort-of sequel" to KNOCKED UP; US MARSHALLS followed the antagonist from THE FUGITIVE, rather than the hero; the CREED movies spawned off from ROCKY.

Crossovers, meanwhile, have historically tended to be Universal/Hammer horror pictures, with various monsters or monster hunters popping up in each other's films. GODZILLA and KING KONG are keeping this tradition alive today, as FREDDY VS JASON did with a two different icons a couple of decades ago.

Meanwhile, what we have here is actually the fourth film in the 'main' INSIDIOUS series. Although, wait a sec, it's actually the second chronologically, since the third one was a prequel to the second one, and so THE LAST KEY takes place somewhere between the third and first. Glad we cleared that up. Hey, at least it's not as complicated as those CONJURING movies, which have so many instalments and spin-offs (the NUN films, the ANNABELLE films) that they've earned the term 'shared universe', previously only the domain of comic book movies.

Anyway, THE LAST KEY opens on a creepy prison in 1950s' New Mexico. Creepier still is a little girl, Elise, daughter of the warden – the family live in a house onsite, like caretakers in a school, or that Nazi family in THE ZONE OF INTEREST. Elise knows when someone's getting a blast from the electric chair next door, and not through the lights blinking on and off like you'd expect – early points for not using that hackneyed trope, by the way.

Her mother recognises that Elise has a gift and reassures her; pop is less open-minded, preferring the approach of beating her and locking her in the cellar. But Mom doesn't realise the extent of the girl's abilities: Elise doesn't just sense that a criminal has passed, she's actually then visited by their ghost. And boy do they love to congregate in that basement and make themselves known to the poor, terrified girl.

Such childhood trauma shapes Elise into eventually becoming seventy-something Lin Shaye – this franchise's MVP, having appeared in every instalment. Shaye is the one who can genuinely see spirits in a paranormal investigation team that also comprises two whacky, nerdy colleagues: Tucker (Angus Sampson, long hair and beard) and Specs (Leigh Whannell, wearer of specs, and also sometime INSIDIOUS franchise director and/or writer).

When the team are summoned to Elise's old home by the current owner to deal with some demons, it's Elise who has to confront her own demons – from her past. (She also has to confront plenty of actual demons, too; by which I of course mean those haunting the house in the present day.)

Now, I had seen this movie before. Also definitely the first two, and probably the third – I can't be sure, but it seems inconceivable that I would skip an entry. Anyway, I remember liking it well enough, but there's since been a fifth, THE RED DOOR, directed by early franchise star Patrick Wilson, and it hasn't crossed my radar to watch that one. I couldn't remember why I'd bowed out at this stage of the franchise, but rewatching THE LAST KEY it soon became clear.

"She's psychic; we're sidekicks," is how Tucker introduces the team to their new client, with a rehearsed delivery modelled on one of those melodramatic movie trailer voiceovers. It falls flat; just another zany quirk from the goofy geeks who lug around the infrared cameras and sound equipment. They also embarrass themselves in their attempts to flirt with the local girls, exchange cringeworthy banter while studying grainy monitors in the dark, etc.

Yes, this is one of those horror movies that feels it must balance the scares with some shoe-horned in comic relief. This tends to be a huge turn-off for me: I felt that Joran Peele's universally lauded GET OUT was derailed by Daniel Kaluuya's comedy best friend's efforts to track him down. Similarly, David Gordon Green's HALLOWEEN trilogy too often undercut its tension with cheap laughs. And what do these two films have in common? Filmmakers with a background in comedy.

Director Adam Robitel doesn't have that excuse here. But, in fact, I was pleasantly surprised when watching this time round to find that the film actually survives its tonal mishmash. Our pals Tucker and Specs don't manage to fatally unbalance the creepiness, and the sincere efforts of classy veteran Shaye stop it from ever wobbling off the tracks.

INSIDIOUS: THE LAST KEY ends up being a spooky good time. If you ever come across it on a late-night streaming browse, you could do much worse. And if I'm ever flicking through one of those same lists and coming across part five, I can see myself hitting 'OK' on the remote. Probably.

Three stars out of five. 

 

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  It’s less about a key, more a demon called ‘Keyface’. Which is scarier than it sounds. Also, the house is in Five Keys, New Mexico. So I guess, technically … no?

What would a movie called THE FIRST KEY be about?  “Theodorus of Samos in the 6th century BC invented the first key, according to Pliny the Elder.” So says City Security (“The magazine to improve your security know-how”) – and who are we to disagree with them? Or, indeed, your man Pliny?

 

Previously:  THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND

Next time:  HITLER: THE LAST TEN DAYS

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com

THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND (2006, Kevin Macdonald)

 

* * * * 

When a restless young Scottish doctor takes a job in Uganda, he finds himself embroiled in the reign of dictator Idi Amin.

Starring  Forest Whitaker, James McAvoy, Kerry Washington, Simon McBurney, Gillian Anderson  

Written by  Peter Morgan, Jeremy Brock

Produced by  Charles Steel, Lisa Bryer, Andrea Calderwood   

Duration  123 minutes   

 

William Friedkin (THE EXORCIST, THE FRENCH CONNECTION) and Paul Greengrass (THE BOURNE SUPREMACY, CAPTAIN PHILIPS) started out directing documentaries, before pivoting to features. Martin Scorsese and Werner Herzog are thought of as narrative guys first and foremost, but still make docus as well.

Some directors, meanwhile, like to blend documentary and fiction at the same time, overlaying a story onto the real lives of non-actors. Steven Soderbergh tried this with BUBBLE; other filmmakers make it their modus operandi, like Harmony Korine (GUMMO, BABY INVASION), Chloe Zhao (THE RIDER, NOMADLAND) and many of recent ANORA Oscar-winner Sean Baker's movies: famously THE FLORIDA PROJECT and RED ROCKET, but also his early efforts like TAKE OUT and PRINCE OF BROOKLYN.

Todd Haynes is an interesting one. He made I’M NOT THERE, ostensibly a biopic of Bob Dylan, but one that cast six multi-gendered actors to portray the musician. Before that, Haynes had made VELVET GOLDMINE, set in glam rock's heyday but following fictional rockers, rather than the Velvet Underground themselves. And then, 20 years later, he went and made a straight-up documentary named THE VELVET UNDERGROUND, which was explicitly about the band!

Then you have those filmmakers who are making pure fiction, but want it to be as realistic as possible. Like the abovementioned Greengrass or Michael Mann (in particular with THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS.)

All of this is to say that the lines between fiction and real life, between depiction and dramatization, and between biopic and inspiration, can be pretty vague.

THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND's Kevin Macdonald is one of those director who started out in non-fiction and then pivoted to feature narratives (although, like Scorsese and Herzog, he does dip his toe back into the documentary waters from time to time). When he moved into narrative feature-making, it was with TOUCHING THE VOID, a docudrama about the near-fatal exploits of two mountain climbers. Now, let’s look a little closer at that genre classification, 'docudrama'. It’s a documentary, and it’s also a drama. It’s a reconstruction, but is it also a dramatization? Inevitably to a degree, but presumably drama-ed up as little as possible.

Interestingly, TOUCHING THE VOID has no screenplay credit. It mentions Joe Simpson, the climber who wrote the book that inspired the film, but not with an adaptation credit, just a mention of him being the book's author. Suggesting that there was no screenplay! But surely Macdonald didn’t drag hundreds of cast and crew up a mountain with a copy of the paperback and then flick through the pages telling them to act bits out on the spot?

What's irrefutable is that the goal with VOID was authenticity – to put us alongside the climbers as if we were there during their ordeal. However, when it came to Macdonald’s next film, THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND, things got a little more complicated.

Here, we have another true story. At least, kind of. The central figure is real-life Ugandan army commander Idi Amin, who did indeed overthrow the president in a 1971 coup d’etat. Amin was the subject of a 1998 novel of the same name by journalist Giles Foden, who was not in Uganda at the time. The novel was then adapted by acclaimed screenwriters Peter Morgan and Jeremy Brock, both of whom have CVs littered with fictionalized accounts of real-life people: THE QUEEN, FROST/NIXON and THE DAMNED UNITED (Morgan), and MRS BROWN, I AM A SLAVE and DIANA AND I (Brock). To further complicate matters, their screenplay is described as 'considerably different' to its literary source.

THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND isn’t a biopic of Amin; he’s not even the main character. An early caption tells us "This film is inspired by real people and events", and then we open with our actual protagonist: James McAvoy as newly qualified doctor Nicholas. It's 1970 and his dad wants him to practice at home in boring old Scotland, but instead eager-for-adventure Nicholas spins his bedside globe and pokes his finger on Uganda.

He jumps on a plane to East Africa to join up with another white doctor and his wife, played by Gillian Anderson – trying out her Mrs Thatcher English accent years before The Crown. Before long, Nicholas is doling out injections to the villagers, playing street football in the dust, that sort of thing. "You've certainly come at an interesting time," Anderson remarks: Amin's coup has literally just taken place. And soon the new prez is visiting their village, proving to be a charming and popular figure, orating a lot of propaganda about what he's going to do for Uganda. Anderson is sceptical, since the deposed president said the same things  – and turned out to be totally corrupt. Ominous.

Nicholas soon gets a chance to find out first-hand the truth behind the rhetoric. During a chance encounter on the road, Amin is impressed both by the medical assistance he receives from Nicholas and by how the young man grabs his handgun and pumps two .45 calibre rounds into a dying cow. Plus he has a thing for Scots, for some reason. And so the usurping general invites Nicholas be his personal physician.

This is a 'seduced by charismatic evil' movie. Nicholas is taken under Amin's wing, and is at first happy about his swanky apartment, vintage company car and elevated status. He defends Amin against people who doubt his benevolence, such as Simon McBurney's English Foreign Office correspondent. But Nicholas soon realises that his new boss is, in fact, a paranoid, philandering despot, with a hair-trigger temper from which even those closest to him aren't safe. Nicholas's life in Uganda spirals out of control, to the point that it comes down to kill or be killed. So, worse even than 1970s Glasgow.

Forest Whitaker famously won a Best Actor Oscar for playing Amid, in a rare case of award recognition for an established character actor. It was well-deserved, and Whitaker's ably matched by McAvoy, who puts in a star-making turn as the idealist hardened and changed by harsh reality.

However close THE LAST KING OF SCOTLAND may be to what really happened in Uganda 50 years ago, it tells a story that's well worth your two hours. And that's the only kind of truth necessary, as far as I'm concerned.

Four stars out of five.

Valid use of the word ‘last’?  The actual last monarch of Scotland, as opposed to Great Britain as a whole, was Queen Anne (1702 to 1707).

What would a movie called THE FIRST KING OF SCOTLAND be about?  BRAVEHEART? I reckon?

 

Previously:  THE LAST ANGRY MAN

Next time:  INSIDIOUS: THE LAST KEY

Check out my books:  Jonathanlastauthor.com