"Don't Breathe" is a Crazy Tension-fest...And I Still Don't Know WhyThey Rebooted "Ben-Hur"

    Don't Breathe is the new thrilling, tension-filled horror film from the director who gave us the 2013 remake of Evil Dead. I was on the edge of my seat the entire time during this movie, unable to find a moment to relieve the clentched state my body was in for the entire 88 minute runtime. The premise follows a group of friends (played by Jane Levy, Dylan Minnette, and Daniel Zovatto) who are fed up with living in their run-down dump of a neighborhood in Detroit, watching as their lives succumb to their environment. They decide to rob some houses in order to make enough money to get outta dodge, an endeavor that seemed to go off without a hitch until they break into the house of a wealthy blind man, thinking they'll get away with the perfect heist. Boy are they wrong.

    The blind man is played brilliantly by Stephen Lang, who brings a level of intensity that is palpable and stressful to watch at times. As he hunts down the perpetrators who have broken into his home, he's almost animalistic in his use of sensory detection; straining to hear the most minute sound or violently sniffing his surrounding areas. It was almost other-wordly. This movie is very much a horror film, but there's no monster or supernatural phenomenon plaguing our protagonists. The crew must simply survive the blind man's efforts to find them. It becomes evident through subtly-placed exposition that the blind man has military background, and does indeed have a substantial amount of money laying around. That fact alone is a strong enough excuse for this group to stay in the house. It's a cookie-cutter horror trope for people in scary situations to completely lose all sense of reason, making decisions that are clearly insane. In this film, you get why they need the money, and you sort of feel for their situation, which is clever storytelling because as an audience member you almost condone their criminal acts because you can relate to them. So, when the first sign of trouble doesn't immediately garnish the need to leave, you're almost okay with that.

   Another classic horror trope used so often is the jump scare. There are a lot of them in this movie, however they're used really, really well. When you get the sense that something is about to happen, nothing really does. Then, once your gaurd is down, WHAM! What makes this movie so terrifying is that it's completely grounded in reality. The silent movements of the blind man make him a formidable opponent. His house to locked up tighter than a 19th century corset. During the second act of the movie, you learn why. There is a twist that occurs which then causes the movie to suddenly take on a much more disturbing factor that only builds the tension even furthur.

   While this movie maintains the same qualities as a standard horror flick, director Fede Alvarez's camera use is brought to new heights of ingenuity by following the action through highly claustrophobic corridors and terrifying air ducts. His use of areal views at times outside the house, rather than giving hope for relief, help to isolate the events with little to no hope for relief for any of the protagonists. The movie is full of standard horror tropes that feel somewhat new and exciting. That being said, though our protagonists are the one's we're rooting for, they're criminals, and there's still a level of justice that is found throughout the proceedings. All in all though, the movie was tense, disturbing, scary, and an overall fun time if you're a fan of horror movies. Don't Breathe is one of the best I've seen in a while.

--

    It's a bummer that we live in a time where original artistic expression is smothered by the corporation’s need to capitalize on works of old in order to make a buck. I love storytelling, and I'm aware that stories have been revamped since the time stories came into being. Within the medium of cinema, the terms "reboot" and "remake" have become flaccid excuses to make money. We see it time and time again. Now, I'm not completely against a retelling of a story or movie, so long as the storytellers bring something new to the table. Don't rehash the same version; give it something new and refreshing in order to make it its own thing. Even if the end product stinks to high heaven, if it made an attempt to bring something new instead just retelling the same story, I'm okay with that.


   The current remake of Ben-Hur has got me all flustered. If I had to lean one way or the other, I’d lean in favor of liking the movie. It’s entertaining, visually exciting, but is not without some interesting choices made to the narrative. The 1959 version starring Charlton Heston has become the staple version of this story--though it, too, being a remake--it stands as an example of how to bring a new perspective into a previously told story, while also improving upon it. That film became the first of only three movies in history to have been nominated for, and won, ELEVEN Academy Awards including Best Picture. It’s one of the most decorated films in movie history, with some of the best cinematography that still holds up, rivaling films being made today. So, what can you bring to such a powerfully, near-perfect movie that would improve upon it? Nothing, at least in my book; and this new version does just that: adds nothing.

   That’s not to say it isn’t worth watching. Jack Huston (Judah Ben-Hur) and Toby Kebbell (Messala Severus) are really quite good in this movie. Huston isn’t a hugely popular actor, and sort of lacks some of that presence that came from Heston of old. That being said, he does a pretty good job holding his own as the lead, and the brotherly chemistry between him and Kebbell is fairly believable. As for the story, if you’re familiar with the original narrative, there really isn’t much different. The large action set pieces with Judah on the slave ship and the epic chariot race scene are exciting, given the added CGI we’ve come accustom to in this day and age. That’s one thing the 1959 version will forever dominate, given the practical way that scene was shot. But this new version is still really entertaining.

   The biggest change I would say is a shift in tone. The 1959 version was much more about Judah’s revenge towards Massala, whereas this new version was more focused on the subject of forgiveness, and where we see this emphasized is through the character of Jesus. Christ was a minor character in the narrative originally, but here he’s much more prominent. Played by Rodrigo Santoro, Jesus is used as our catalyst towards the moral of the story. I get the shift in tone, if this is the one thing that this reboot is bringing to the table, I just think that the narrative sort of beats the point into submission. Audiences are smarter than you think. They’ll get the point without you force-feeding it to them.

   Overall, I’m still left questioning where I stand definitively. I said early that I’m leaning towards liking it, which is true. But for all the pros that out-weigh the cons for this film, this is the one reboot I’m having trouble justifying its existence. This year alone with the likes of movies such as Ghostbusters and the recent Pete’s Dragon, a lot of reboots tend to fall flat, meaning box office-wise. I personally liked both these examples, and one of the best movies of 2016 happens to be a reboot, that being Jon Favreau’s remake of The Jungle Book. Ben-Hur though…man, I just don’t know. I think I keep falling into the same trap I always say not to do and that’s comparing reboots to their originals, but that’s almost near impossible to do because half of the reason these reboots get made is because of recognition. GAH! Just go see it. If you take Ben-Hur as a separate film all its own, it’s a pretty entertaining movie.