A Quiet Place
Dec. 15
Just watched “A Quiet Place.” If you want to feel extreme tension for 90 minutes, this should do it. I want to say I enjoyed it, but there might be a better word. Would I enjoy falling down a 300 foot cliff 20 to 30 feet at a time, hitting every ledge? No, but the process would hold my attention.
This movie excited me and filled me with constant hope—not hope, exactly, but hoping. Hoping those people would catch a break. I think for 20 minutes or so I was leaning forward in my chair.
I do want to watch the sequel now. Might start it tonight. I think the movie makers would call that a sign of success. I guess I would, too. But one of the way I measure movies is to ask myself, “Will I ever want to watch it again?” This one, probably not. It left me unhappy. Let’s put a finer point on that. It left me dissatisfied. I can take an unhappy ending. But if the ending isn’t happy, I want to feel my disappointment or anguish was worth it. Take “The Bedford Incident.” It ends with all the characters being vaporized—and global nuclear war commencing. A body blow of pain and fear. The brain briefly believes this horror has really happened. But there’s a compensation: you know you’ve just been wised up a little. You’ve been a man, facing reality head on, making yourself more fit for a role in these dangerous times. What’s the compensation for the body blow of “A Quiet Place?” Well, the last 60 seconds rewards our hope with—an insight that could turn the tide for these people—and the hint of a sequel to come. That ending was indeed rousing. It’s was like after hitting 40 stone outcroppings I finally reached bottom and…and landed on a mattress, and heard the siren of an approaching ambulance.
The suspense and tension were excellently induced. The movie had the concentrated simplicity of a stage play, with its relatively small stage, it’s small cast, and the short time frame. There were some fine set pieces. It hit a powerful note. But pretty much just that one note from start to finish. A Hitchcock film, in comparison, doesn’t shoot you in the stomach with a bazooka, like this one does, but the Hitchcock suspense still feels better. There are resting points along the way. And I like how Hitchcock films resolve. The movie has put you through the wringer, and it pays you for it—sends you home with some good feelings in your body. This movie says, “Ha! Bet you felt that! Come back in one to two years for the sequel! Maybe THAT will end happily.”
Hitchcock might not be the best comparison here. This was a thriller more than a suspense movie. But basically the same idea. Most movies that kick the shit out of you reward you with something soothing at the end. I think that must be a good general rule. I’m fine that this movie did it differently. In closing, let me say I’m glad I saw this movie long afterwards. I can run to the sequel immediately. Would NOT have liked seeing this when it was new and having to wait a year or two for some possible soothing relief.
Dec. 17
Just watched the sequel. It was worth the 45-minute wait, lol. Not as much unrelenting tension and disaster this time. You know, this feels more like a TV series than a movie series. The big TV series, at least the SciFI ones, are done with such high production values these days that they almost match movies for wow factor. But they are less dense than a movie. They don’t exactly feel slow to me, but I think they do build more slowly than movies. In fact, they are almost a continuous ramp-up. Like very long one-acts rather than a three-act. They stretch out the drama with a lot of discussion—and quite often long action stretches heavy on sound effects and music, and little dialogue. That’s how these two movies seem to me. Slow, steady, unbroken builds—and to somewhat inconclusive climaxes—cliffhangers, in fact. I can now say I’m enjoying the set. Might watch number three this week and be done with it.