Movie review

“A Quiet Place Part II” lives up to predecessor

By Robert D. Grubaugh

The Edge

I imagine that every time Hollywood sees an unexpected hit that there’s an executive in a dark paneled corner office somewhere who has Dylan Thomas running through his mind: “Rage, rage, rage against the dying of the light!”

How can we keep this good thing going? This exact question has found itself on the tip of my tongue as I ponder the concept of sequels. Sequels became fashionable in the ‘70s and have since grown like weeds. The horror slashers of the 1980s, bankable superstars of the ‘90s, and the dominating advent of franchise films in the 2000s have led us down a path where little is wholly new.

You’ve read me bemoan this fact at least every other week for years. But are sequels necessarily evil? Absolutely not. They just rarely capture the magic of their older siblings and sometimes make me a little grumpy because of that. There are roughly three varieties of sequel and here’s the skinny on each.

You’ve got your direct sequels. Those are obvious and the great example I’ll share with you “A Quiet Place Part II.” Direct sequels continue with the same characters and maybe the same basic plot points as original features. They just take place a little further down the road.

Such as they are, direct sequels have subcategories that have led us to the master stroke of the prequel (where “Star Wars,” I think, has done it best with “Rogue One”) and the immediate continuation where the action picks up exactly where the first movie stops. “A Quiet Place Part II” is an immediate continuation and that’s why it’s so good.

“The Deathly Hallows” does not qualify for this exercise because it is a single film split in two, entirely, as an audience-appeasing money grab. (Note: I concede that all sequels are money grabs.)

Then there are the spinoffs. This is a dicey prospect because often the best element of a great movie, like a breakout character, can’t stand alone under the glare of their own spotlight. For every “The Mummy,” there is “The Scorpion King.” We didn’t see any more of those pictures after 2002 (Note: I do not concede the existence of its four direct-tovideo sequels) and it took all the bulk of Dwayne Johnson’s shoulders to make him a star.

“The Minions,” “Wolverine” and “Creed” are some of the best spinoffs lately, but they always veer dangerously close to following into the franchise formula pit.

That leaves, obviously, the franchise formula. This has been the best way to generate tickets sales during my entire adult life. “Harry Potter” and “Middle Earth” were great and the Marvel Cinematic Universe is without peer.

But all franchises eventually get stale. Look no further than the number of actors who have played James Bond for proof of this. Even Daniel Craig is on his way out. I’d be happy to never see another “Transformers” movie or “Terminator” sequel. We have not improved on those, no matter how well special effects have progressed.

Another tired trend? Remakes! And don’t get me started on installments that come out 20-plus years later. Why do I need to see Will Smith’s character’s kid in an updated “Independence Day”? Or that weird kitsch that was “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”? (Note: “Top Gun: Maverick” releases at Thanksgiving and I’ll be the first hypocrite in line.).

I didn’t leave myself a lot of room to tell you about “A Quiet Place Part II.” The Abbott family’s surviving members (Emily Blunt, Noah Jupe and Millicent Simmonds) pick up after the explosive conclusion to the first movie and hike from their remote farm to meet up with a friend (Cillian Murphy) for protection. Daughter Regan decides to use her hearing aid’s feedback to stop the auditory-hunting aliens once and for all. It’s a thrill all the way through and features a great opening scene flashback to the first day of the invasion. It’s absolutely worth a look.

“A Quiet Place Part II” runs 97 minutes and is rated PG-13 for terror, violence, and bloody/disturbing images. I give this film three and a half stars out of four.

Pittsburgh museum returns lion attack display to public view

PITTSBURGH (AP) — A Pittsburgh museum has returned to public view a 19th-century diorama that shows lions attacking a camel and its human rider, about a year after covering it up in response to complaints about how the courier was depicted.

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported Friday that a curtain around “Lion Attacking a Dromedary” at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History was removed a week ago and information was posted to address the controversy.

The paper said the decision was made by museum director Gretchen Baker.

X-rays have confirmed that the figure contains a human skull and jaw, presenting an ethical problem for the museum, which does not know where those remains originated. The courier’s costume has been determined to be derived from at least five separate North African cultures.

A new sign tells museum patrons that the exhibit, which vividly depicts two lions attacking a camel and its knife-wielding rider, is popular but reinforces stereotypes.

“For the present, the museum is keeping the diorama on display,” the sign reads. “We want to engage with visitors, staff, and community members to listen and learn from you as we consider the future of this diorama.”

Baker told the paper the curtains “were more harmful than not having them up at all,” and in hindsight covering the exhibit may not have been the right approach.

When a visual barrier was installed in late June 2020, the museum’s interim director at the time, Stephen Tonsor, said some people of color had complained about seeing the image of a courier being attacked in a prominent spot in the facility.

It was covered for three months, and since September visitors have had to step behind a curtain to see it.

The diorama was built by French naturalist and taxidermist Edouard Verreaux and his brother, Jules, for the 1867 Paris Exposition.

It has been at the Carnegie since 1899.