The Purge doesn't live up to expectations.

Rating: 5/10 (4 October 2013)

The first half hour of The Purge sets the movie up to be much better than it is. It is an original idea that takes place less than 10 years in the future, so the audience is immediately captured by the shock that this lawless night could happen in a time so close to our own. The beginning of the movie also presents a conflict in the future society; the question of the true intent of the Purge. Is it really an attempt to defuse the natural human tendency towards violence? Or is it the government's way to get rid of those who cannot afford to protect themselves in order to keep down the unemployment rate? It is clear that the wealthy have an obvious advantage in the night, whether or not they choose to participate. Those who want to partake in the violence can afford deadly weapons, and those who do not can afford elaborate methods of protection. However, the poor can neither purchase weapons nor defense mechanisms. This issue in the class system becomes even more apparent when the Purgers arrive at the Sandin house. Their leader seems quite sincere in his attempts to reason with James, speaking for his group by saying "We don't want to kill our own." The Purgers consider the Sandin family to be of equal socioeconomic standing, and they are only targeting what they consider to be "filth" that ruins their otherwise perfect country. After the first 30 minutes, it seems as though The Purge is not only going to fill its horror/thriller genre, but also going to leave the audience with some grand message about where our society is headed if we don't check ourselves, right? Wrong.
My main qualm with The Purge is that it appears that writer/director James DeMonaco has bitten off more than he can chew. There's a great concept to the movie, but it's never developed, so the movie never reaches its true potential. Right after all these great background conflicts are established, the movie turns back into a stereotypical "family protects their home against invasion" thriller. There is never any resolution to any of the conflicts, so what was the point of setting them up in the first place? The movie ends right where it started. The Sandins are still part of the rich minority who don't participate in the Purge, and they are still living in the same corrupt society created by the New Founding Fathers. I'm not asking for a Hunger Games "one person starts a rebellion against the entire government" scenario, but some small lesson learned might have been nice. And what did the Sandins learn? Charlie learns not to be compassionate, because his kindness towards the stranger ended up killing his father. Mary learns that her neighbors want to kill her. And James doesn't learn much of anything, because he doesn't make it to the end of the movie.
In her review of The Purge, MaryAnn Johanson, founder of Flickfilosopher.com, claims that "Demonaco has found a prism through which to do something extraordinary with the genreinstead of reveling in blood and gore, The Purge forces us to explore our relationship with violence." While I agree that DeMonaco has found a way to do something new through the novelty of the idea, he neither utilizes this "prism" nor executes the movie in a way that constitutes anything extraordinary. If Johanson is correct in saying that the point of The Purge is to get the audience to consider their own stance, then they might as well just skip the movie. Or better yet, my recommendation is to leave the theatre halfway through. You'll probably think of a better conclusion than the sad excuse for an ending that was given to The Purge.