If this situation can be spun positively, I hope it errs in the direction of the art house. I hate to support the claim critics can't enjoy silly B-movies, but if "The Purge: Anarchy" reveals anything, it's this: movie marketing works like air fresheners. If people catch a whiff of what smells like a good idea, they'll come. Never mind the execution.
The "Purge" series takes place in 2023, where America's leaders set up a national holiday called The Purge, where for 12 hours, all crime is legal. The populace has a chance to release their ill willed desires and as a result, both unemployment and crime rates have plummeted. It seems like a sound idea, but as the movies follow people trying to live through the night, they question if these ends can truly justify the means.
The first film centered around a family defending their house from invasion; this sequel uses three vantage points: Sergeant, a brooding, gun-laden man looking to purge (Frank Grillo), Eva and Cali, a mother and daughter forced out of home by a militant group (Carmen Ejogo and Zoe Soul), and Shane and Liz, a couple on the brink of divorce hunted by a hooded gang (Zach Gilford and Kiele Sanchez). As the night progresses, they cross paths and team up to increase their odds for survival.
There are signs of improvement; the stakes have been raised. In the city, dangers lurk around every corner, from independent gangs to mentally ill snipers, bear traps, and Gatling gun-wielding maniacs. As the group treks through the city, the camera does a nice job sizing up the threat, emulating the feeling of being a rat caught in a maze. These silent scenes build tension: highlights of the movie.
Characters come off less annoying than the original (the androgynous-looking son set the bar for blank-faced idiocy last time around). Instead of excruciating, they're just bland. Sergeant orders the group through gritted teeth, counting how many times the director told him to pace back and forth to seem indecisive about where his loyalties lie. The couple takes up space in the frame. Now, the daughter charms with some jokes and development with Sergeant, but her naivete grates.
Writer/director James DeMonaco attempts to beef up the story, throwing in a plot involving a group of anarchists opposing the New Founding Fathers, claiming the Purge to be a method of eliminating the lower class. While the idea sparks intrigue (and comparisons to the 99 percent debate), the methodology is the same: it's about being behind the winning gun. In the end, power, not justice wins the day; the cycle of history repeats: today's rebels are tomorrow's oligarchs.
The movie paints the Purge as a way to make all crime legal. The statement carries negative connotation, linking to murder, robbery, kidnapping, etc, but what's legal isn't necessarily what's morally sound. If ruled by a government allowing its citizens to commit atrocities, isn't there a moral duty to overthrow it? Does morality take precedence over legality? Does the law favor those in power? DeMonaco chooses not to bother with any of the aforementioned questions. His premise exists solely to whip up a reason for why citizens have Uzis and are allowed to torture and mutilate one another. How quaint. How inspired.
In short, this is a waste of time. Released a year and a month after the original, "The Purge: Anarchy" is a classic example of a sequel being a product, existing simply to draw audiences in, squeeze their money, and bombard them with violence for 103 minutes. Call it the benefit of lowered expectations that I don't hate it like I did the original, but this is cinematic mush. Don't even bother.
Thank you all for reading; I'm The Man Without A Plan, signing off.
"The Purge: Anarchy" trailer:
No comments:
Post a Comment