Friday, October 14, 2022

FRIGHT FEST: HALLOWEEN ENDS

  Will evil die tonight?


 This review attempts to avoid spoilers while staying truthful to what this film really is. The best way to walk in is knowing as little as you can about it. That said, if you want to trek deeper, follow me into the sewers of Haddonfield. Evil is waiting...

  Halloween Ends is the story of Corey Cunningham (Rohan Campbell), a young adult scorned by the town of Haddonfield after the death of a child he was babysitting back in 2019. The year is now 2022, and Corey is struggling to keep it together. Help comes when he befriends Allyson (Andi Matichak) and Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis). It's been four years since Michael's killing spree in Halloween Kills, and The Shape has vanished but the town hasn't forgotten his legend. When Corey has a close call with Michael, everything changes.

  Halloween Ends is the finale for David Gordon Green's Halloween sequel trilogy. It's penned by David Gordon Green, Paul Brad Logan, Chris Bernier, and Danny McBride. Ends is one of the most different, original, and unique entries in the franchise. It's also certain to be one of the most divisive. This film makes some ballsy, bold, unexpected, and surprising choices that will likely alienate or even anger many fans.

  Jamie Lee Curtis is back as Laurie, and puts on her strongest performance as the character since the original Halloween (Way back in '78). In this finale, she has worked to put Michael behind her. She's bought her own house and is working on a memoir.  

  Her granddaughter Allyson is now living with her and is working as a nurse at Haddonfield Memorial. Laurie has quite a few voice-overs, and they are all pretty stellar, accentuating themes about dealing with trauma, resisting/denying evil, and moving on/ healing. This feels closer to the Laurie we saw in John Carpenter's Halloween, and it's great to finally have her back.

 Andi Matichak is still pretty good as Allyson, but doesn't stand out as much as in previous installments. She's still likable, but hides an undercurrent of anger and frustration. She winds up falling hard for Corey, and the two’s relationship is focused on a good deal. 

  Surprisingly, the strongest part of Halloween Ends is likely Rohan Campbell as the meek good-boy guy-next-door Corey Cunningham (Who prefers chocolate milk over alcohol). Corey acts as our "protagonist" this go-round, and Ends deeper explores the character of Michael through Corey and his connection with The Shape. These parts are quietly, subtly clever and pretty interesting. 

  Rohan plays his role to perfection (or pretty close to perfection). He is very believable and likable as a genuinely good person who has started to develop a darker side from the events that transpired during his fateful babysitting gig in 2019. The only real downsides to his character are two of the turns he takes come across as sudden and abrupt. They don’t fully make sense.

  Those that buy a ticket hoping to watch a film about Michael and Laurie are going to be very disappointed. Michael is important to the events of Ends, but is treated more as an after-thought. He does do some killing, but only really appears in around a handful (maybe more) of scenes. 

  Don't expect to be frightened or intimated by The Shape here. When we pick up with ol' Mikey Boy, he has definitely seen better days. His home (The Meyers House) has been demolished, and his wounds/injuries from Kills (as well as his age) have finally caught up with him. He is a shade of his former self. 

  The previous two entries tried to establish Michael as more flesh-and-blood than boogeyman, but Ends does a complete 180 and chooses to go a more supernatural route with the character (think Curse of Michael Meyers). 

  Ends more-or-less discards most of the development and themes from 2018 and Kills, making this finale feel disconnected to and separate/distant from what came before. That said, the new path David Gordon Green and crew decide to tread isn't necessarily a bad one. 

  Ultimately the execution and run-time do Halloween Ends in. The new themes and ideas aren't given the adequate time to be properly or fully explored, and the third act feels pretty rushed (Also, In the first act there's a character from Kills that is shown to have somehow survived Michael's attempted murder of them, though how this person didn't succumb to their wounds is impossible to understand). 

  Luckily, the final fight between Michael and Laurie is A+. It might top the final fight in H20 for some. The opening sequence was stellar as well. It might be the best since the original Halloween. The way Michael and Laurie's story finally concludes is a bit anti-climactic, and it's difficult to imagine how they could plan any further sequels or spin-offs (unless they just started over from scratch, maybe).

  In the end, Halloween Ends resembles a mixture of Christine, Carrie, The Cult of Thorn trilogy (specifically Curse of Michael Meyers), and Mr. Brooks. Many will likely view it as the Jason Goes To Hell of the Halloween franchise. For my money, this isn't the worst Halloween film (that honor still goes to Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Meyers) but it will undoubtedly be the most divisive since Rob Zombie's Halloween 2. 

  Halloween 2018 was a love letter to John Carpenter's Halloween. Halloween Kills was a love letter to Halloween 2 (the first sequel) and Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Meyers, Halloween Ends feels like more of a love letter to the ending of Halloween 4,  Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Meyers, Halloween 6: The Curse of Michael Meyers, and even Halloween 3:Season of the Witch (The opening credits are done in blue, much like Halloween 3's. This was likely done to immediately and subconsciously send the message to the audience that this finale is going to be something completely different). 

  Halloween Ends takes a huge, admirable swing for the fences. It's hard not to appreciate the filmmakers' decision to opt to go for the road less traveled, giving us something no one was expecting (or likely wanted). This last outing is filled with surprising, bold choices. Unfortunately, it doesn't fully hit the mark.

  Personally, I really liked Ends but can imagine the overwhelming response will be anger and disappointment. There aren't many kills (most occur off-screen, or the film cuts away from them. There are a total of two stand-out deaths. ) and Michael isn't in it much. 

  Ends acts as more of a character study and moody introspection piece. It's not bad, but it is baffling. While I liked it, those that don't will have valid reasons for their hate. The discussion and discord over this one will certainly be interesting. Halloween Ends is one of the most unique experiences you will have in a theater this year, and for that it earns a recommendation.

3.5 STARS




Monday, September 12, 2022

FRIGHT FEST: JAWS IN 3-D

  The first film to ever bust the block is back on the big screen in a way like you’ve never seen it before… IN 3-D!!! Jaws is still one of the few completely flawless films out there. Luckily, the 3-D to be sampled here only enhances the experience.

  Re-watching Jaws today, it confounds the mind that this was Spielberg’s first theatrical film. The script, camerawork, cinematography, and acting are all superb. It feels like an expert, experienced, confident hand is behind the camera. You would never be able to tell that the shoot was incredibly problematic (The film went over-time and over-budget, and the shark animatronic was notoriously unreliable). The multiple themes about man vs. nature, warring masculinities, and class differences among many others are still rich and interesting. 

  Much like Jurassic Park in IMAX 3-D, the use of fore, mid, and background elements make this flick a natural fit for the format.  The shot placement and camera movement are incredibly impressive and work well with 3-D. There’s a good amount of screen-penetrating shots: waves and the ocean consistently stretch out into the audience, parts of the Orca occasionally protrude out of the screen, guns will point into the audience, and at the end when the shark jumps out of the water it looks like he’s eating the screen. 

  There’s an incredible amount of depth added throughout as well: shots of the beach and Ocean are very impressive, the Ben Gardner’s boat scene is gorgeous, every shot looking up at or down from the Orca’s crows nest is beautiful, and the shots of Quint standing at the very tip of the Orca with his harpoon gun resting in front of him are impressive. 

  The 3-D job here is exceptional and immersive. I didn’t think the film would be a good fit for 3-D, I was wrong. Jaws in 3-D is about as memorable an experience as Jurassic Park in IMAX 3-D was, which is to say: It’s great!

5 STARS

FRIGHT FEST: BARBARIAN

  Welcome back, creatures of the night, to Fright Fest. Your Ghost Host with the most most has some frightful things planned for this year's edition, including reviews for the rest of the Psycho franchise, so get PSYCHED!  For the first review though, I book a stay at an Airbnb with Barbarian.


  In Barbarian, Tess (Georgina Campbell) rents a house in Detroit on AirBnb, only to find a guy named Keith (Bill Skarsgard) is already staying there when she arrives. Keith invites Tess to stay there with him, and despite giving off some odd vibes, Tess takes him up on the offer. It won't take long before Tess realizes that Keith is the least of her worries.

  Having just left an unhealthy relationship, Tess is in town for a research gig that a famed documentarian needs help with. Tess wonders why it's always the girls who get their hearts ripped out, and doesn't want to be seen as a "pet". Georgina Campbell plays her "Final Girl" role to absolute perfection. She is a survivor type that kicks ass, but also cares about others she encounters during her nightmarish adventure. Campbell makes for a very memorable and likable heroine.

  Bill Skarsgard plays "nice guy" Keith. He gives off his signature odd vibes, but slowly manages to disarm audiences with a natural, nervous charm. Skarsgard plays his role very well. By this point, audiences should be well aware of the roles he is typically cast in and it's hard not to suspect him of ill intent. Keith doesn't get much character development (for example: Why is he staying in such a dangerous part of town? What brings him to Detroit?),  but Skarsgard makes the most out of what he is given to work with. 

  Justin Long plays AJ, another guy who finds himself trapped in the same nightmare as Tess. He wants to believe he is a good guy, but his behavior is questionable. It's always a joy to see Long on the big screen in a horror film, and he has fun with his role. AJ is fairly goofy and not easy to like, but he remains consistently entertaining.

  Barbarian is directed and written by Zach Cregger. Cregger got his start in comedy as one of the founding members of 'The Whitest Kids You Know'. Anna Drubich does the score, and it's one of the stand-out aspects of the film. The score is filled with tasty synth, and feels 80s-esque at the best of times. 

  Cregger directs with a very aggressive style and, in his hands Barbarian is a real puzzle box of a film. It's always twisting, turning, shifting, and changing. It takes great joy in consistently subverting expectations. (It's like trying to keep a firm grasp on a slippery eel.) . It's hard to catch your footing or really make out exactly what Barbarian is, what it's trying to say, and where it's headed. 

  While Barbarian is mostly dark, disturbing, gruesome, and messed up, there are plenty of moments that come across as comedic. There are some questions that remain unanswered and some story threads that aren't fully elaborated on. The themes and messages aren't super-deep either. 

  Barbarian deals heavily with themes of maternal love, toxic relationships, "nice guys", and "monsters". Much like 'The People Under the Stairs', not everyone is who they appear to be at first glance. This is Cregger's first solo theatrical outing, and it's fairly impressive and well-made. It all feels very grindhouse. 

  Barbarian is aggressively different, unique, and original. The same can be said for it's structure. There are messages and themes to ponder, but the real draw is the intense, unrelenting roller-coaster ride this flick takes audiences on.


4 STARS

Sunday, August 28, 2022

THE BRILLIANCE OF NOPE

 Well, Nope is now available to rent on demand, and to celebrate I've decided to do a deeper dive into the film, it's many themes, as well as the Gordy's Home scene and why it is vital to Nope as a whole. This is going to be more free-form and ramble-y, so please bear with me. MAJOR spoilers follow.

THEMES

Let's start with one of the other themes in the film that doesn't have to do with spectacle or exploitation of animals. Nope deals with characters that are fighting to not be forgotten. The Haywoods are at the forefront. They are a family of horse wranglers whose lineage comes from "Hollywood royalty" as their great-great-great granddad was the "man on a horse" in the famous Muybridge Experiment aka the first ever moving picture. With their patriarch 'Pops' recently deceased, the family business has fallen on hard times and they've resorted to selling their horses to a nearby wild west theme park owned by former child star Ricky "Jupe" Park. The Haywoods are in danger of being forgotten, their important legacy to film erased.

Antler Holst (Who's last name is a nod to Gustav Holst, a famous composer. He is most well known for orchestrating several pieces that are collectively known as 'The Planets'. Each piece is named after a planet, including Jupiter.) is introduced as a "world famous cinematographer"...yet the first time we see him, he is working on a commercial. This does not bode well for Antlers. Why would a "world famous" cinematographer be reduced to doing commericals unless his work (and prospects) have dried up? He and his work are in danger of being forgotten. Later on, Antlers uses an IMAX camera to capture footage of the UAP. This is clever, as every scene involving the UAP was shot using IMAX cameras. Angel is a lowly tech service agent at Fry's Electronics who is very interested in Aliens and UAPs. He has just recently been dumped by his girlfriend for a role on a CW show. He has also been discarded and forgotten about. 

Ricky "Jupe" Park is a former child star who's status as a minority was exploited as a youth to put butts-in-seats. He starred in a famous film franchise called 'Kid Sherriff' and in an ill-fated tv sitcom called 'Gordy's Home' that centered around a chimp. As an adult, Jupe uses his former child-stardom to coast by and earn bucks. Now discarded by the system that exploited him as a youth, he has resorted to continuing to exploit himself and the shows he starred in for monetary gain out of the fear of being forgotten. 

As you can see the commentary on Hollywood is rich and fairly savage. The movie-making industry is painted as a thoughtless, careless, exploitative industry that uses people and animals for it's own profit. It uses them up, spits them out, and discards them when they are no longer of use. Also interesting to note that 'Jupiter's Claim' revolves around the use and sharing of 'Jupe Jangles', the form of currency used to purchase different experiences and items in 'Jupiter's Claim'. 'Jupe Jangles' are fake gold coins that are ultimately of no value, yet people are encouraged to collect as many as possible and use them to "purchase" stuff and experiences.

Nope was advertised as a spectacle, and it's commenting on and critiquing spectacles. We, the audience, have bought tickets to view a spectacle. The film asks audiences to consider what role they play in paying to watch a spectacle. By buying tickets, are we perpetuating the cycle of spectacle? Are we encouraging more spectacles to be created? 

There's a cool scene at a restaurant later on where OJ, Emerald, and Angel are sitting around, eating, and discussing what to do next. Meanwhile, outside the restaurant a fight has broken out. I can't speak for everyone, but my eyes were inevitably drawn to the fight in the background. This is yet another commentary on spectacle. We should be watching and paying attention to the important conversation going on right in front of us, but the spectacle of the fight distracts us and draws our attention away.

Another thing to note is that whenever the UAP is around, all electronics fail, meaning our protagonists have to resort to more conventional means to capture footage of it. They start with fancy digital recorders, progress on to a hand-cranked IMAX camera utilizing film, and finally on to polaroid pictures. In a weird way, it's almost like a journey into the past of movie-making, progressively traveling deeper and deeper back in time. It's kind of perfect our heroes capture "The Oprah Shot" on polaroid seeing as this kind of stuff is incredibly hard to fake using that method. By choosing to highlight older methods of capturing moving images as well as the use of film reels, Peele is also advocating for a return to the old style of filmmaking. This makes Nope both a critique of the Hollywood system as well as a love letter to old movies (not to mention, Nope might as well be a classic western). 

The script in Nope is possibly Jordan Peele's most subtle yet. It's incredibly intelligent, and there are lines that reference future events in the film that are impossible to pick up on until repeated viewings. There are constant 'nopes' and 'yeps' throughout ( a memorable example is when OJ asks his sister Emerald if there's a word for a bad miracle and she responds with "nope".) and many reference to looking up and looking at people and things (After Angel lets out a frustrated scream upon first entering the Haywood property, OJ tells him "Hey, look at me".).  There are many close-ups of eyes in the B-Roll footage that Antlers Holst is inspecting later on. When Emerald is recalling the loss of her chance to train her beloved horse named Jean Jacket she says something along the lines of "He (Pops) never looked up at me...but you (OJ) did". There's also a hand gesture that OJ and Emerald share that symbolizes the phrase "I see you".

Early in the film, Emerald states she rides motorcycles which comes into play in a big way later on when she rides a motorcycle to evade the UAP. The design of the fake aliens Jupe has his three boys play are similar to monkeys. It's very likely Jupe drew upon his traumatic childhood experience on the set of 'Gordy's Home' to aid in the design of these "aliens". Another cool aspect of Nope is the the original title of the film was "Little Green Men", in reference to the collective societal image of aliens as well as money (which has literal little green men featured on the front of bills). When OJ has his sit-down with Jupe about buying back some of his horses, Jupe pivots to discussion about 'Gordy's Home' when Emerald notices a framed Mad Magazine cover (in reference to Peele's start on Mad TV). It's quite likely Jupe saw her interest as a way to change the topic of conversation, as he probably didn't want to discuss selling back the horses as most if not all had likely been fed to the UAP at that point. Jupe also states his interest in buying the Haywood property and all the horses on it. This is so he would have a larger food supply for the UAP and wouldn't have to keep forking out money for individual horses.

There is speculation as to whether or not OJ was eaten by the UAP at the end. One piece of evidence pointing to OJ surviving is the lyric from "Purple People Eater" Antlers Holst chooses to sing: "Well he came down to Earth and laid in a tree, I said Mr. Purple People Eater, don't eat me. I heard him say in a voice so gruff, I wouldn't eat you 'cause you're so tough." The last we see of OJ before the final scene, he is locked in an intense stare-down with the UAP. It's possible that it decided not to eat OJ because he refused to back down and came across as "tough".

At the end of the final scene after the UAP has been vanquished, Jupe's recorded farewell to guests at 'Jupiter's Claim'  can also be seen as a farewell to audiences watching Nope. "Ok cowboys and cowgirls, it's time to ride off into the sunset. That's right, happy trails. It's closing time. You don't have to go home, but you can't stay here. Till then, we wish you well. Hasta la vista, adios."

This doesn't have much to do with themes or motifs, but I still can't overstate how incredibly impressed I am with the "twist" this time around. The choice to have the flying saucer/UAP be a living extraterrestrial animal is simple but brilliant. It blows my mind no one had come up with this take/concept before. Really....why COULDN'T the flying saucer be an alien itself?

THE STAR LASSO EXPERIENCE

In the infamous 'Star Lasso Experience' scene, Jupe says to the gathered crowd something along the lines of: "In around an hour, you will leave here changed" and "As I said before, in a little less than an hour, you will leave here different". He utters these lines 1 hour and 6 minutes and then 1 hour 8 minutes into the film. Nope itself is 2 hours and 3 minutes long, making this line applicable to Nope itself. 

When Jupe first describes the 'Gordy's Home' incident he says it lasted for 6 minutes and 13 seconds, during the 'Star Lasso Experience' scene he says the UAP first appeared to him at 6:13 pm. It's stated early on that Pops died around 6 months before the time of the events seen in the majority of Nope. When it's revealed the UAP has been hiding in an unmoving cloud, OJ muses "Come to think of it, I've probably been staring at the same cloud for the past 6 months".  Jupe states that the UAP first appeared to him 6 months ago. All this points to the scene of Pops death likely being quite close to the first time the UAP appeared in the Agua Dulce Canyon (the setting for the entirety of Nope). 

Right before The UAP eats everyone at the 'Star Lasso Experience', Jupe's wife says "Bear with us, wild animals can be unpredictable". She says this in reference to the horse Jupe plans on feeding to the UAP refusing to leave it's stable (which could be seen as the reason why the UAP decides to hover over the 'Star Lasso Experience' and eat everyone there). This line, in larger context, is directly referring to the UAP which is a wild, unpredictable animal (hence why it eats everyone there). 

GORDY'S HOME

And now, we get to one of the most argued about and disputed segments of the film...the 'Gordy's Home' incident. Many are claiming this portion should have been cut completely as it doesn't add anything to the film. I couldn't disagree more as this portion is vital and integral to the numerous themes within Nope, and directly relates and informs events (as well a foreshadowing future events) during the present day parts of Nope.

Gordy's home follows a family that works at NASA in Cape Canaveral, Florida. The mother is an astronaut, and the father is a NASA scientist/engineer. They have their own daughter, chose to adopt a young Asian male (Jupe), and have a chimp that was a part of the flight program named Gordy. During a recording of an episode of the second season titled "Gordy's Birthday" one of the chimps (named Eli) playing Gordy is startled by one of the birthday balloons popping and goes into a savage and terrifying homicidal rage. It's very possible no one was killed during the rampage (Reports claim the mother lost three fingers, the father and daughter were savagely beaten with the daughter's face being eaten, and Jupe was left untouched but with severe psychological trauma. Gordy was killed while distracted by the discovery of Jupe hiding). 

Gordy is a wild animal that people attempted to tame with the goal of exploitation for entertainment, "spectacle", and profit. The efforts fail as one of the chimps goes bananas and assaults the actors on set. The chimp is ultimately killed. The UAP is a wild extra-terrestrial animal that people (OJ, Emerald, Angel, Antlers Holst, and Jupe) try to tame for entertainment, "Spectacle", and monetary gain. The efforts fail as the UAP goes ballistic and starts eating and killing many innocent people. The UAP is ultimately killed/vanquished. See any similarities?

The balloon popping is what set Eli the Chimp off, and the Jupe inflatable popping at the end is what kills the UAP. Jupe is saved from Eli's wrath because he is unable to make direct eye contact with the chimp due to a green table cloth which partially shields the boys eyes. When the UAP is attempting to stare down the Jupe inflatable/balloon at the end, we get a point of view from the UAP's perspective where a part of the UAP colored green is partially concealing it's view, mimicking that same shot from 'Gordy's Home'. When the UAP eats the Jupe inflatable, the last thing we see before it "pops" is the fist of the Jupe inflatable reaching out towards the camera similar to a fist-bump. During the 'Gordy's Home' incident, Jupe and Eli are reaching out to fist bump each other right before Eli has his brains blown out by a gun (An "exploding fist-bump", much like Jupe references earlier). 

This scene doesn't necessarily move the plot forward, but it informs the Jupe character, the decisions he makes, the many themes found within the film, as well as foreshadowing many future events later on. Without the 'Gordy's Home' incident included, Nope as a whole would be much weaker. It's stronger for it's inclusion.

CONCLUSION

As mentioned in my main review of Nope, this is Jordan Peele's Jaws. it follows the efforts of a small group and their efforts involving a territorial, hungry animal. Except instead of the ocean, it's the sky. Instead of a shark, it's an extraterrestrial animal. Instead of the group trying to stop the animal's eating frenzy, they try to exploit it. I've seen Nope a total of four times, and this is still only a fraction of the things I've picked up on in the film. Is there anything I missed you'd like to point out? Are there any theories you would like to share? If so, sound off below. Till next time, I wish you well. 

Friday, July 22, 2022

NOPE IS WORTH GETTING SUCKED INTO

 In Nope, Emerald (Keke Palmer) and OJ (Daniel Kaluuya) Haywood are horse trainers for Hollywood films. They own a ranch near an old west theme park (named Jupiter's Claim) owned and operated by Ricky "Jupe' Park and clan. The Haywood family has been in the horse training business for a long time and their lineage is lesser-known Hollywood royalty. After the Haywood patriarch “Pops” (Keith David) dies from a tragic accident, the Haywood business falls on hard times. Lucky for them (or maybe not) the star of Jupe's newest park attraction might provide a way for them to get back on top...provided they’re ok with some pretty severe collateral human loss. 

Nope is Jordan Peele's latest horror-influenced outing.  This time his brilliant mind sets its sights on spectacle, the art of it, and the effects it has on those involved. Daniel Kaluuya plays OJ (short for Otis Jr), the man left in charge of the Haywood ranch and family business after Pops passes. He is more of a quiet, reserved, and serious "dude" who is intensely focused on and devoted to his work. Kaluuya puts on a beautifully nuanced, effective, affective, powerful performance as a son who is desperately doing his best to ensure his family and it’s legacy isn’t forgotten, and failing. 

Keke Palmer is absolutely magnetic, charming, and funny as OJ's sister Emerald. Emerald makes for a fantastic contrast/opposite to OJ as she is all about "the sparkle" or "the pizazz". She is the person who feels right at home in front of the camera, while OJ is more comfortable quietly working behind the scenes. Emerald dreams of fame, and her quest for it might land the Haywoods in some pretty dire straights. Palmer is a ton of fun, and she effortlessly draws audience’s attentions whenever she is on screen.

Steven Yuen is fantastic as Ricky "Jupe" Park, the former child star and showboat-y owner of Jupiter's Claim. “Jupe” is sprinkled throughout the first two acts of Nope, but is integral to the themes and story of the flick. Behind Jupe's friendly, smiley façade lies some serious trauma, which stems from a bloody and horrific event from his days as a young actor. His character is a tragic one, as he has gone on to capitalize on the "spectacle" from his youth and perpetuates the cycle he once found himself caught in so many years ago. Yeun has been a real rising star for some years now, and his layered performance in Nope cements him as someone to keep an eye on.

Brandon Perea is incredibly likable as the down-on-his-luck and consistently disrespected Angel, a lowly tech service agent for (the now defunct) Fry's Electronics. The Haywoods call on him to assist in configuring cameras around their ranch, which they hope will capture footage of something big and horrifying in the sky. Much to their frustration, Angel is hard to get rid of once they enlist his aide. Perea is called in for some extra comic relief, and to represent more of a blue-collar layman's perspective. He essentially acts as third lead, and is a very memorable and funny addition to the film.

Along for the ride is Michael Wincott as Hollywood cinematographer Antlers Holst. The Haywoods call on him for extra help in capturing the footage they desire, and he is the first to warn them of the dangers of their quest. Wincott plays crusty and wise exceedingly well, and though he is only really in the third act, he manages to leave quite an impression.

With Nope, Peele has crafted a spectacle that is commenting on spectacle. There are themes about attention, popularity, "looking away", the careless exploitation of wild animals for profit, and the fool-hardy idea that wild animals can be trusted or tamed. Peele uses constant eye imagery and motifs to inform his commentary on spectacle as well. 

Those lining up expecting a bloody and gory film are likely to be disappointed. There isn't much blood or gore in Nope, and when it's there, it's sparingly used (the most blood you'll get is during a horrifying sequence involving the Haywood house). Nope also tends to "look away" from some of it's grislier set pieces. This is appropriate since (as previously stated) a core theme is about "looking away" from spectacle. Luckily, what we do get to see tends to be incredibly disturbing/ horrifying and will likely stick with most well after the end credits have rolled.

Nope is a good deal horrifying throughout. Whatever is in the sky is appropriately intimidating, aggressive, and expansive. The many scenes it's featured in, and the way it’s shot and handled might leave some legs trembling. Aiding in the horror department is the phenomenal and affecting sound design by Johnnie Burn and a strong score by Michael Abels. What you hear throughout the film (especially when whatever is in the sky makes itself known) is horrific and nightmare-inducing. 

Nope also looks consistently pretty, thanks to cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema. Most of the film has a distinct barren, desolate, "western" feel. However, the few times we get to visit Jupiter's Claim things brighten up with some lively colors and a fantastic set design (by Ruth De Jong). Expect a memorable mixture of color palettes throughout Nope, both muted and bright. 

Now, onto some negatives: Nope runs at around two hours, and it definitely feels like a two hour film. The first forty minutes or so are a little slower, as this is where characters and their relationships to each other are established. Not everyone is likely to appreciate a two hour movie, and the flick as whole does have some down-time every now and then. Luckily, Nope more than earns it's length. 

The proceedings are divided into four or so "chapters", and this is the only aspect of the film that might not have been needed. While what occurs in each "chapter" fits based upon what they’re titled,  structuring the film this way comes across as a little clunky, confusing, and odd.

Nope sees Peele in full Spielberg mode (Think Jaws and Jurassic Park). This is without a doubt his Jaws. With Nope, Peele has crafted a smart, thoughtful spectacle that has a lot to say. Not sure how much general audiences are going to dig it. It’s long, intelligent, and likely isn’t what most are expecting it to be. It’s certainly a challenging film, one that aims to make audiences consider the part they play in partaking in spectacle. 

Nope defies definition and labels. It includes horror, sci-fi (if this is an “Alien” movie it’s unlike any you’ve seen), adventure, and western elements. In the end, Nope firmly establishes Jordan Peele as one of the great directors of our time. It’s a wild, unpredictable ride (and seeing it on the largest screen you can find is a must!)! Be prepared to never look at clouds or the sky in the same way again.

4.5 STARS

Wednesday, June 22, 2022

LET’S CELEBRATE PRIDE WITH THE BIRDCAGE

Elaine May (Director of The Heartbreak Kid, co-writer for Jim Henson's Labyrinth, Heaven Can Wait, Reds, and Tootise) bounces back after the disaster that was Ishtar (which she wrote and directed) with The Birdcage. She teams back up with long-time collaborator Mike Nichols (Director of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The Graduate, Catch-22, Biloxi Blues, and Postcards From the Edge) to craft this American remake of La Cage Aux Folles. She penned the screenplay, and Nichols directs. The screenplay is sharp, clever, hilarious, and witty. Nichol's direction is fantastic, and he never calls attention to himself or his style.

The cast assembled is all very game for their roles. Nathan Lane (as Albert/Starina), Robin Williams (as Armand), and Hank Azaria (as Agador) are perfection in their roles. Nathan Lane as Albert/Starina remains the beating, gooey heart of the entire film. He plays a drag queen diva who hosts some insecurities regarding his body image and his relationship with Armand, the owner of the club he headlines at. Lane excels in the role, and is incredibly memorable and lovable. 

Robin Williams is tasked with playing the *ahem* straight-man to Lane's over-the-top diva. Williams is fantastic and fun as Armand. He is given some very funny material to work with despite being the more serious of the two. It's incredibly touching to see the love they both share for Armand's son, Val, and the lengths they will to go to for his happiness. Lane and Williams are perfect and unforgettable as the starring duo of the film.

Hank Azaria is also incredibly memorable as Agador, the very gay houseman who loves to wear different outlandish outfits. He's one of the most consistently funny parts of the film. Dan Futterman (perhaps best known for penning the screenplays for Capote and Foxcatcher) plays Val, Armand's son who is about to be married. The only issue is his fiance's parents are strict conservatives. At a loss, he reluctantly asks his dad and Albert to pretend to be straight for the weekend so as to impress his future in-laws. Futterman takes a character that could come across as unlikeable, and makes him very likable and even relatable. 

Calista Flockhart (best known for playing Ally McBeal on the titular TV show) plays Barbara, Val's fiance. She isn't in the film a whole lot, but comes across as very sweet and very kind. Dianne Wiest (aka Elliot's mom in E.T.) and Gene Hackman play Louise and Senator Kevin Keeley, respectively. They are the ultra-conservative parents of Barbara. It's always a joy to see Dianne Wiest on screen, and Gene Hackman shines in the third act (especially whenever he shares the screen with Nathan Lane). Christine Baranski (Best known for her roles in Cruel Intentions, Bowfinger, Dr. Seuss' How The Grinch Stole Christmas, and the Mama Mia! films) plays Katharine, Val's estranged mom, and is pretty enjoyable in her few scenes. 

The Birdcage was filmed primarily in South Beach, Miami. The Carlyle Hotel acted as the facade for the club Armand owns, and it still stands on Ocean Drive today. The many, many extras featured in the background of the movie are all fantastic, and help add life and color to the environs of the picture. 

At the end of the day, the only real complaint I have with The Birdcage is an incredibly minor and trivial one: I can't for the life of me figure out why the filmmakers chose to change Albert's stage name from Zaza (which it was in the OG film and stage musical) to Starina. Zaza is such a great, iconic name and Starina....well, I consider it a step down. That said, this is such a minor nitpick that it doesn't end up detracting anything from the overall product.

The Birdcage is a film about love, acceptance, understanding, and the lengths people will go to for the ones they love. It's a very sweet story that is still fairly powerful and poignant today. If you are looking for high-quality laughs, some touching moments, or you just want to smile and feel good...The Birdcage fits the bill. 

Side Note: The scene where the receptionist at Katharine's office is reading Nietzsche while Albert waits and applies blush is so subtly hilarious it hurts.

Monday, June 20, 2022

JURASSIC WORLD: DOMINION WON'T LET DEAD DINOSAURS LIE

 “Dodgson! Dodgson! We’ve got Dodgson here! See? Nobody cares.”


Trevorrow and crew  inherited the JP franchise, but by this third and (hopefully) final outing they have clearly run out of ideas. They fumble and stumble around, regurgitating scenes and ideas from just about every previous film (they even re-do the finale from the first Jurassic World). By this point all the magic and wonder are gone, and the last vestiges of life have been sucked dry from this once promising franchise.

Dominion suffers from a severe lack of a plot (or maybe too much plot). There are multiple twisting sub-plots that never coalesce together or amount to much of anything. The sub-plots feature a genetically engineered swarm of locusts that threaten to bring about the end of days ( That's right, we have a JP film about locusts. At least it's something different? The Dinosaurs almost act as set dressing), the kidnapping of Maisie from Fallen Kingdom, a Biosyn Dinosaur preserve where they research Dinos for pharmaceutical applications (Biosyn is the evil company that recruited Dennis Nedry in the first JP. The preserve/facility definitely reminds of the OG JP), the kidnapping of Blue's baby (whom I've nicknamed Baby Blue. This sub-plot is all but forgotten for around 90% of the film. Don't expect much Blue in Dominion either, as she's only in the first act and a scene in the last), and more. 

Colin Trevorrow is back in the director's seat and does an awful job, unable to juggle all the various sub-plots. The first two acts or so might give some people whiplash as Dominion jumps from location to location, before eventually settling down at the Biosyn preserve. There is absolutely no through-line in Dominion, and it it feels like we've seen all this done before, but better. It leads to a sense you are drowning in a sea that consists of an excess of nothing. 

The set-up that Fallen Kingdom left us with is all but ignored, which might be the most infuriating thing about Dominion. This installment had potential up the wazoo, but Trevorrow (for whatever misguided reason) thinks sticking to the same-old same-old is the best route. To think we could have had a movie about the threat of Dinosaurs living alongside humans/ humans learning to live with and survive the Dinosaurs. THAT could have been a cool time at the theaters. The big bad Dino (named the Gigantosauraus, a real Dino that actually existed) is essentially an after-thought, and isn't introduced properly until well into the third act (I will say the AA for the big bad is super impressive, though). 

The OG cast from the first JP film return (Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, and BD Wong. Neill and Wong easily emerge as the strongest of the bunch. In fact, Wong's performance as Dr. Henry Wu might be the only consistently great thing across all the JP/JW films he appears in). Campbell Scott fills in for the role of Lewis Dodgson, and might be the weakest of the human antagonists in all of the JP/JW films. I appreciate that they chose to include the OG big bad from the first JP, unfortunately Dodgson is essentially a boring, evil Steve Jobs. 

It's nice to have the OG cast return, and their characters feel handled fairly well (They feel true to who they were in the first JP). It's appreciated that they are in the entirety of the film. Shame that Dominion waits until the final 20 minutes or so to introduce the Jurassic World main characters to the Jurassic Park main characters . 

Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard reprise their roles. They are fine, but not particularly memorable (At least Pratt looks consistently cool). Isabella Sermon returns as Maisie, and is even more grating than she was in Fallen Kingdom. DeWanda Wise (as Kayla, a cocky and cool pilot) and Mamoudou Athie (as Ramsay, one of the underlings to Dodgson) are the only memorable new actors/characters. 

The cast of characters here aren't as dumb as they were in Fallen Kingdom, but they aren't given a whole lot to do. Just about the only "great" part of Dominion is an extended Dino action scene in Malta. There isn't a whole lot of Dino action in Dominion, most of our time is spent with the human characters. The script (by Colin Trevorrow and Emily Carmichael) isn't the worst I've sampled, but definitely features some groan-worthy lines and reveals (like Ian Malcolm talking about a dog humping his leg). 

Let's hope that Dominion really is the final outing for the tired and weary JP franchise. It's been bled dry at this point, and Dominion very well might be the worst of the entire series (it's certainly the least inspired). It feels great to see the OG cast return, the practical and CGI SFX both practical and CGI mostly impress (The AA for the Giganotosaurus is very cool) , and that Malta scene is lots of fun. Unfortunately, that's about it for the good in Dominion. I really wanted to like this film. I was hoping for fun bad, but instead I got boring bad. The park is officially closed. At least we'll always have Malta.

1 STAR

JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM FAILS

Before I post my review for Jurassic World: Dominion, let's play a bit of catch-up. Time to trek back to Isla Nublar with Fallen Kingdom.


In Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom, It's three years after the second 'Incident on Isla Nublar' aka the failure of Jurassic World. Isla Nublar is now home to an active volcano which is about to erupt, potentially dooming all of it's Dino inhabitants. A guilt-ridden Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) and her reluctant ex Owen (Chris Pratt. That's right, this sequel completely walks back their relationship) are recruited by Benjamin Lockwood (James Cromwell) and his assistant Eli (Rafe Spall) to travel back to Isla Nublar on a rescue mission. Their goal: Escort the Dinos off Isla Nublar and onto a natural preserve where they will be safe. Things don't go as planned as, once again, human greed gets in the way (Why yes, this does sound similar to 'The Lost World').

J.A. Bayona directs and does a mostly fine job, handling the darker tone fairly well. Colin Trevorrow and Derek Connelly penn the script, and do an awful job. There’s some bad dialogue, but most of the problems boil down to the way characters are written. Everyone suffers from the worst decision making and is generally very dumb (including Owen and Claire)

Eli ( Rafe Spall) has some nice moments and makes for an ok villain. He makes some valid points near the end. Maisie (Isabella Sermon) is generally the smartest character in the movie, but all the good will she built up is completely erased at the very end, where she makes the worst, dumbest decision imaginable (She also makes the baffling choice to hide in her room under her covers when the Indo-Raptor is on the hunt). 

Ted Levine is given a thankless, embarrassing role as Ken, a mercenary lackey of Eli’s. He isn’t intimidating or threatening, and is pretty dumb. James Cromwell is likable as Benjamin Lockwood, a good-hearted ex-partner of Hammond’s. Unfortunately, he suffers from dumb disease like everyone else (you really needed a young girl to alert you to the evil goings-ons in your own mansion?). 

Franklin ( Justice Smith) is a whiny, annoying tech expert who has “Eat Me” written all over him. Unfortunately, he lives to whine another day. Zia (Daniella Pineda) is tolerable as a vet who works with Franklin. BD Wong is one of the few who manages to keep his head above water as Dr. Henry Wu. He is a villain, but has some ethics and remains intelligent. Jeff Goldblum returns as Dr. Ian Malcolm and is still great. He gets minimal screen time though.

Fallen Kingdom's plot is just ok. It’s not super-engaging. Fallen Kingdom also suffers from opposing messages, and the film doesn’t fall on either side. The messages end up cancelling each other out. The CGI and practical effects are top-notch. The setting of the mansion is pretty cool, and the Indo-Raptor is appropriately scary and intimidating. Unfortunately, there's not much else good here. In the end, there isn’t much to recommend in Fallen Kingdom.

1.5 STARS

Friday, June 17, 2022

RRR IS HERE TO KICK YOUR ASS!

 Imagine if you mixed together Donnie Brasco, The Raid: Redemption, Step-Brothers, and I Love You, Man. The chaotic, beautiful result would be RRR.

Set in India in the 1920s; when a young girl is stolen away from her village by the British empire, a protector (Bheem, played by N.T. Rama Rao Jr. . He is represented by water.) is dispatched to find her and bring her back. A native cop/soldier for the British Empire (Raju/Ram played by Ram Charan. He is represented by fire.) is tasked with rooting out the protector and bringing him back to his superiors alive. When the two inadvertently cross paths, they form a strong brotherly bond, unaware of who the other really is. When the truth is revealed, will their friendship shatter?

This is a 3 hour action epic about the unbreakable bond of friendship. It's appreciated that both leads are really put through the wringer. They don't breeze through their obstacles, though both are bad-asses. It's also very cool to see how the film utilizes both fire and water in the scenes where the two are featured together. The action scenes are some of the most insane, ridiculous, over-the-top, adrenaline-fueled ones you'll see (and no, I won't even attempt to describe a single one. I refuse to spoil this film. Just know that you will lose your mind, at least I did...repeatedly).

I haven't fallen for an action film this hard since The Raid: Redemption. RRR is a modern day action-epic classic. If you are at all a fan of action films or bro-mances, you owe it to yourself to seek RRR out ASAP. It's currently playing on Netflix.


5 STARS

Thursday, June 16, 2022

LIGHTYEAR TAKES AUDIENCES TO INFINTY AND BEYOND

 "In 1995 Andy got a toy. The toy was from his favorite movie. This is that movie."

In Lightyear, while exploring a foreign planet Buzz Lightyear (Chris Evans) makes a SNAFU that winds up stranding him and his Star Command crew millions of miles from home. Devastated, Buzz makes it his mission to find a way to get him and his buddies home...no matter what. His attempts, however, come with a serious price. Things only get worse when a hostile force arrives on the planet.

Chris Evans voices our beloved space man, and does a fantastic job. He manages to sound similar enough to Tim Allen throughout. Evans imbues Buzz with a lot of heart. It's very easy to love his version of Buzz, and Buzz here is indeed a very cool character (Not hard at all to see why Andy went gaga over him).

Uzo Aduba voices Alisha Hawthorne, Buzz's BFF and a member of the revered Star Command. Their friendship is pretty strong, and  provides some of the backbone for the emotional core of the film. Keke Palmer voices Izzy,  an inexperienced but eager trainee who is terrified of space. She is also the daughter of Alisha. Her and her friends Mo (A trainee who is pretty inept, voiced by Taika Waititi,) and Darby (an elderly convict on parole, voiced by Dale Soules) assist Buzz on his mission. Sox (Peter Sohn), a very intelligent and friendly emotional support robotic cat, tags along. Sox is absolutely adorable and is sure to remind most of Dug from Up!.

Lightyear plays host to quite a few sci-fi influences from the past. Designs reminiscent of Alien, Star Wars, and 2001: A Space Odyssey (and more) make it into this film. This actually makes sense, seeing as (in the Toy Story universe) Lightyear was SUPPOSED to have been made back in 1995. This also accounts for some references to 90s computer tech that appear.

It's not often you get to walk into a film, not knowing exactly where it's going to go. Lightyear is one of those films. The trailers that have been released don't spoil much, and it's very satisfying to not-quite-know exactly where this trip is taking us. There's not much plot to Lightyear (and what's there is fairly thread-bare), but the focus here is on the Buzz character and some pretty great action (Oh yes, this is a fairly action-heavy/sci-fi heavy movie). 

If you grew up watching the Toy Story films, there is plenty here that will likely tickle you pink. If you haven't seen Toy Story and Toy Story 2 recently, it's probably a good idea you do so before trekking out to see Lightyear. They aren't necessary to understand what's happening in this film, but many designs for the toy version of Buzz (as well as the design of some of the environments, vehicles, and tertiary characters from those films)  make it into this flick. A good deal of Buzz's lines from the first two Toy Story films are repeated here as well, to delightful effect.

The audience I saw Lightyear with consisted mostly of families with young ones (who I imagine were too young to have grown up with the beloved iconic franchise). Pixar seems to have a certified hit on their hands, as the younger generation seemed thoroughly engaged and invested in the proceedings. It would seem this is a film that will please both those familiar and unfamiliar with the Toy Story films.

The only real complaints I had with this latest Pixar outing were it's thin-ish plot and some of the details regarding it's main villain. All that being said, I was thoroughly pleased with the product delivered. For me, this is the best we've gotten from Pixar since Inside Out. There's plenty of heart, emotion, action, humor, and sci-fi packed within, not to mention the character work for Buzz and friends is just plain great. 

It's clear Angus MacLane (who co-directed Finding Dory before this. Lightyear is his first solo outing. He impresses.) has a strong love of the Toy Story franchise and did his homework. Lightyear is a low-key brilliant movie (I was nerding out hardcore throughout the film). I couldn't recommend Lightyear more highly. As our beloved Buzz would say: "To infinity...and beyond!"


4.5 STARS

Wednesday, June 8, 2022

MARY SHELLEY'S FRANKENSTEIN

 Don't call it a remake.

An incredibly dramatic and over-the-top adaptation of Mary Shelley's iconic and important novel (which she penned at the young age of 18.). This is fitting, seeing as the novel itself is also incredibly dramatic and over-the top (In fact, the novel is arguably more dramatic this adaptation). Most of the novel makes it's way into the film. That said, as the novel is 148 pages long and this film is around 2 hours, changes/alterations/additions are bound to occur. Some examples include: Victor (Kenneth Branagh) and Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) discuss marriage before he departs for Ingolstadt, Elizabeth travels to Ingolstadt to visit Victor while he is busy with his "studies", and Henry Clerval (a close friend of Victor's, portrayed by Tom Hulce) does not die.

Some things are left out altogether (and some events are greatly condensed, like Justine's jailing and hanging), like the creature's (Robert De Niro) comparison of himself to The Bible's Adam and Satan, and Victor's and The Creature's arguments over who is more tortured and miserable (this film also does not make many comparisons to The Creature and his creator). The wildest changes occur during the last 25 minutes. This portion takes viewers on one hell of an insane, wild ride and features one of the craziest, wildest deaths I've ever seen on screen.

Kenneth Branagh is very good as the titular Victor Frankenstein (Branagh directs this version as well, and he's ok). His take on the character isn't as much of a villain as the novel's Victor, and he isn't as prone to extreme bouts of depression and self-torture. Robert De Niro breathes fantastic life into The Creature, bringing the novel's version faithfully to the big screen. He is indeed a monster, but a tragic and sympathetic one.

In the end, none of the film versions can compare to the original novel (which is ABSOLUTELY worth a read). While the iconic 1931 movie is the superior version by far, this 1994 take is more faithful to the source material and is still worth a watch.


3.5 STARS

Tuesday, June 7, 2022

HOUSE OF LEAVES IS A LITERARY MASTERPIECE

"I think anyone that deals with big questions could be defined as a horror writer. If you're Melville, if you're Hawthorne, if you're Emily Dickinson. If you're Nietzsche...and I name those names not to put myself in their company — I'm just saying that you can pick a diverse range of writers who, if they really approach the deeper questions...are ultimately going to unveil something that's terrifying. "- Mark Z. Danielewski


For the first time ever I will be reviewing a novel, but not just any novel, mind you. I will be reviewing Mark Z. Danielewski's House of Leaves. House of Leaves is a gargantuan book that follows multiple different storylines and perspectives. This is a novel best read if you go in completely blind. You are still more than welcome to read my thoughts on it, but if you plan on reading the novel for yourself, it's likely best you do so first and then return to read my thoughts once you complete it.  

Johnny Truant, a Hollywood tattoo artist/delinquent in his 20s, stumbles across a mysterious unfinished manuscript in a dead man's apartment (The man was named Zampano, he was blind, and it appears he might have been murdered by some 'THING'). Johnny takes the manuscript home with him and begins to investigate. He discovers it's entitled 'The Navidson Record', and acts as an analysis and re-telling of a documentary (also titled 'The Navidson Record'). The only issue is that said documentary doesn't exist, or did exist for some point until, somehow, all traces of it vanished. 

'The Navidson Record'  tells the story of Will Navidson (an award-winning photographer) his wife Karen (who somewhat lives up to her name), and their children. The Navidson's marriage has been going through a rough patch, and so Navy (as Will is nicknamed) decides to move them into 'The House on Ash Tree Lane', which is situated in a typical suburb. Once settled in, they discover that the house is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside by 1/4 inch. Navy's curiosity gets the better of him, and he sets up multiple cameras inside the house. When a door randomly appears in the living room, Navy discovers that it leads into a hallway and the dark ever shifting/changing bowels of the house. A documentary crew is hired to help further investigate.  Naturally, things don't go well. Meanwhile, Johnny adopts the same obsession that afflicted Navy as he delves deeper into 'The Navidson Record' and attempts to uncover the truth for himself.

House of Leaves is likely my favorite novel I have ever read, and I adore how it DEMANDS an active participation/form of play/form of creative play with it (The book even provides some empty lines here and there for you to share your own thoughts or notes as you read). House of Leaves deals heavily with themes of insanity/mental illness, how does one differentiate between reality and fiction/a fake vs. the real deal, the blurring of the fine line between reality and fiction, love/relationships, the relationship between a reader and a book, obsession, possession/ownership, how critique and analysis are futile and meaningless ( same goes for the search for answers), trauma, grief, loss, and the question of authorship. House of Leaves also acts as a stinging critique of scholarly analysis/academic criticism (There are many reference sources found in the footnotes, some real, some fictional. There is also a portion where fictional quotes are attributed to real-life people, like Stephen King, for example.).

House of Leaves itself is a love letter to the written word and its many forms, as well as a horror novel (Some claim it is a love story, and they aren't wrong. Love acts as an undercurrent in the multiple storylines found within). After reading it, I can say it's one of the few books that feels absolutely alive (like it's a living thing) and it's the only book that succeeded in inducing a sense of vertigo, dizziness and disorientation in me. There is a chapter (that I call 'The Labyrinth') that, if you don't read it carefully and with purpose, will likely lead you back in a loop to the beginning of said chapter. This is exactly what happened to me during my first attempt at reading House of Leaves. I almost threw the book across the room, and ended up having to put it down for quite some time before finally deciding to pick it up and try to complete it once more. It would end up taking me a total of six months or longer to finish the entire book. 

There's a chapter near the end (which I call Exploration #5), which requires the reader to flip/rotate the book left, right, sideways, and upside-down. In this chapter, text is read left-to-right, right-to-left, ascending up the page, and descending down the page. There are even times where the text only occupies corners of the page. It was here that I completely forgot if I was reading House of Leaves front-to-back or back-to-front, or if I was holding the book right-side-up or upside-down. I had to leave the book for five minutes and take a walk around my house to reacclimate myself with my surroundings.

House of Leaves is written like a college thesis/academic dissertation, complete with copious footnotes and citations by Zampano, Johnny, and the editors of the novel ( From what I was able to uncover online, there might be as many as 450 footnotes, if not more). House of Leaves starts out like reading The Blair Witch Project, before it eventually morphs into something else entirely. While House of Leaves is clearly a work of fiction, it is written in such a way that it all feels real. Indeed, after a while I started to view it as a work of non-fiction, and the book works better when read as such. While you play with/read House of Leaves, House of Leaves plays with/reads you (There is a lot of mind-fuckery that goes on in the book). It's simply written so anyone can pick it up, but it's the content and way it's structured that is dizzying and challenging. 

The novel, much like 'The House on Ash Tree Lane', is bigger on the inside than it is on the outside. The contents expand past the cover of the book. If you peek at the page numbers, you will see that the story content seems to end around page 528, however there are numerous 'Exhibits' after  that the footnotes will direct you to ((If you include these, the page count soars to a total of 662 pages. Make that 709 pages if you count the index at the end as well). As you read, you realize there are pages that are missing or torn out, and by the time you finish flipping back and forth through the novel, the actual page count clocks in at far more than 528 pages (likely far more than 709 pages as well).  As if all this weren't enough material to investigate, recording artist Poe (Danielewski's younger sister) recorded an entire album of songs about House of Leaves that acts as supplementary material.

House of Leaves delights in teasing the reader, as it is revealed early on that Johnny has taken it upon himself to add material into the story, oftentimes without indication that said material was added after the fact. This makes it impossible to tell what parts of 'The Navidson Record' were written by Zampano and which parts were added later by Johnny. There's also the haunting implication that the entirety of House of Leaves might have been written by Truant himself. If true, then that would mean Zampano, as well as the contents of 'The Navidson Record',  were all created by Johnny (If so, then Johnny is one hell of an incredible writer). 

There are some cool artistic decisions made throughout House of Leaves. Examples include: Every time the word 'house' appears it is highlighted in blue (including when it appears in different languages), some portions of text are highlighted in red, and still others are crossed out entirely (yet can still be easily read if one desires to do so). Numerous different fonts/typeface are utilized throughout as well.  There are also numerous references and allusions to King Mino's labyrinth and the minotaur that lies in the center of it. There's the terrifying implication that that same minotaur lies at the heart of 'The House on Ash Tree Lane' (either that, or the random groaning/noises heard within the house, that are attributed to the creature, are actually just the sounds the house makes whenever it shifts or changes). House of Leaves is certainly a challenging novel, but it does subtly provide directions on how to read it's contents. It helps if you follow said directions.

Mark Z. Danielewski first came up with the central idea for House of Leaves in 1993. In 1997, he posted the entirety of House of Leaves online as a pdf file. It took two and a half years to publish the novel, which could finally be found on bookshelves in March, 2000. House of Leaves is definitely a rewarding read that leaves you with quite a lot to chew on. It's hard not to become obsessed like Johnny and Navy as you venture into the labyrinth that is House of Leaves (Thusly, finding oneself lost or disoriented while reading is to be expected.). House of Leaves is practically bursting with mysteries, all of which have no ready answer/solution except that which the reader prescribes to them. I can understand why some don't care for it, but I consider House of Leaves a masterpiece. It's a towering, impressive achievement and remains one of (if not THE) most wildly ambitious novels I have ever read.

5 STARS

Friday, May 6, 2022

SMALLS FEELS THE POWER OF THE DOG

 This review was originally posted to Letterboxd on December 5, 2021.


A western tackling themes of masculinity. Rancher brothers Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and George (Jesse Plemons) are seemingly starting to grow apart. It doesn't help that George is quiet, soft-spoken, and sensitive while Phil is a brash, rough bully. The rift in the brotherly bond only gets worse when George marries Rose (Kirsten Dunst), whom has an effeminate and odd son named Peter (Kodi Smit-McPhee). Peter's and Rose's increased presence in his life doesn't take long to get under Phil's skin, and the jerk takes most chances he gets to torment Rose and Peter...that is, until Peter makes a surprising discovery about Phil that changes the dynamic between the two.

Power of The Dog's cast is pretty top tier, and everyone brings their A game. Kisten Dunst as Rose brings a fragility and vulnerability to her struggling housewife, who cannot cope with the new expectations placed upon her. This is easily one of Dunst's best performances. Plemons likewise is very sweet and likable as a man who seems to have grown out of love with the life he's living and the people he's surrounded by until Rose and Peter enter the picture.

Kodi Smit McPhee continues to impress, though he doesn't really enter the film until an hour in (not counting his two or so scenes in the first act). Peter is a genuinely odd presence who manages to continually emanate warmth, yet Power of The Dog continually teases us with the possibility that he might be poised to go down a much darker path. All this said, it's really Benedict Cumberbatch who steals the show. Power of The Dog focuses on Phil for almost all of the run time, and this is almost more his story than it is anyone else's. He has a rich, interesting, and sad backstory that explains why he is the way he is but doesn't excuse his behavior. The multiple scenes where Phil gets to spend some much needed alone time are haunting and gorgeous.

The friendship that starts to form between Phil and Peter is the basis for the last 25 minutes or so of the film, and it's here where things really start to get interesting. Peter starts to become a bit more like Phil (much to Rose's horror and concern), and Phil begins to soften up a bit. Of course, things aren't exactly how they appear. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the score by Jonny Greenwood, which is minimalist, folk-sy, and damn near close to perfect.

The choice to use an "Old West" setting to explore themes of warring masculinities is an inspired one that works incredibly well (though, this film is based upon the 19667 novel of the same name). Power of The Dog is a film boasting a strong cast, permeated by strong performances, with some big topics to talk about. It's definitely recommended viewing as not only is it a exceptionally well-crafted film, but what it has to say about masculinity is worth hearing as well.

4.5 STARS

DO LICORICE AND PIZZA GO TOGETHER?

 This review was originally posted to Letterboxd on January 3, 2022.


A comfy, chill film. They get the 1970s perfectly, and you feel transported back to that era for the full run time. Bradley Cooper steals his 3-4 scenes as an unhinged Jon Peters (a rich film producer). Paul Thomas Anderson directs the shit out of the film (he's on his A game here), and the cinematography by Paul Thomas Anderson and Michael Bauman is delightful and often impressive. The soundtrack is tops as well. 

The stars of the show are Cooper Hoffman (son of the late Phillip Seymour Hoffman) as Gary Valentine and Alana Haim ( of the band HAIM, her family appear as supporting characters as well) as Alana Kane. Gary is a 15 year old child actor and "entrepreneur" (aka a hustler, making money off the latest trends). Alana is a woman in her 20s (The film throws the ages 25 and 28 at us, but we are never given her true age) who is working an unfulfilling job as an assistant for companies that do school photos. 

This is how Gary and Alana meet. Unlikely as it may be, there are sparks almost immediately. They wind up working together on one of Gary's schemes selling water beds (the first of several schemes). The film proper follows our two unlikely "friends" as they go on several adventures over the course of one summer.

Licorice Pizza's central relationship is challenging, unconventional, and a bit ick. Gary and Alana are more than friends but less than lovers. They are both asked multiple times what exactly they are and neither can put a name to it. Hoffman and Haim have a natural chemistry, and work off of each other well. 

This counts as Hoffman's and Haim's first film roles, and it's a rare treat to watch two new stars be born in front of you. The characters of Gary and Alana are very likable, though they make questionable decisions throughout and are full of flaws and insecurities. Alana has a clear, desperate ache to be famous/cool, and despite affecting a too-cool-for-school attitude, she continually seeks approval from males (most of whom are older and view her as an object). 

Gary is the one guy in Alana's life who comes closest to seeing her as a person (not to mention he tries not to overstep boundaries with her). That said, Gary is a bit of a lothario as he is seen courting multiple girls closer to his age (Which Alana gets visibly jealous over).  It's enjoyable to watch these two, however it's not exactly easy to root for them to wind up together (The age gap is quite significant, not to mention he's under-age). 

Not much really happens in the movie, as Licorice Pizza has a very relaxed, loose vibe. There isn't much plot, but the proceedings are usually entertaining and a good deal of the film is very funny. This is Paul Thomas Anderson back in Boogie Nights form, and Licorice Pizza definitely reminds of the former as well as of Dazed and Confused. Despite a questionable romance at it's core, Licorice Pizza is a ton of fun and a great time at the theater.

5 STARS

SPIDER-MAN: NO WAY HOME BRINGS THE HOME TRILOGY TO AN EMOTIONALLY RICH CLOSE

 This review was originally posted to Letterboxd on December 17, 2021.


In No Way Home, we pick up immediately after the mid-credits scene from Far From Home. Peter has just had his identity leaked to the public by J. Jonah Jameson. Not only has his life just been forcibly flipped on it’s ear, so have the lives of the people who know and love him. 

In an attempt to fix things, Peter goes to Dr. Strange for help. He asks him to cast a spell to make everyone forget who Spider-Man is, but as the spell is being cast, Pete has second thoughts and tries to alter it. The spell is botched and aborted, but unfortunately the damage has been done. 

Villains from alternate universes begin to get sucked into Peter’s reality, and it’s up to him to capture them and fix his latest mistake. Naturally, Peter’s inclination to always try to do the right thing will only get him into deeper trouble as we follow him on his quest. 

No Way Home is Sony/Marvel’s most ambitious Spidey film yet. It’s also filled with nostalgic moments, throw backs/references to previous films, and fan service. Luckily, none of it is bad. It’s not often a film that has been this highly anticipated is able to live up to the hype, but No Way Home doesn’t just live up to the hype, it exceeds some expectations as well.

No Way Home’s cast remains pretty solid. Marissa Tomei is unforgettable as Aunt May, and she has some real killer moments here ( one scene in particular stands out). Jon Favreau is still very sweet and funny as Happy Hogan. Tom Holland continues to make for a great Spider-Man/Peter Parker. He is really put through the wringer here, and his arc in this outing is rich and satisfying. His choices, decisions, and mistakes will have lasting repercussions. 

Zendaya’s MJ is still very spunky, sarcastic, and cute. Her relationship with Peter is very sweet and believable, until the end where the film tries to advance the relationship too quickly. It plays up a specific moment, and it didn’t land quite the way they wanted it to. 

Jacob Batalon returns as Ned, and the film beats him with a stick. Ned is done dirty here, and he doesn’t feel like the Ned we knew and loved from previous films, Here, Ned is dealing with the fear that he might not be Peter’s best friend. His arc is lame, and it’s very annoying to watch this sad-sack, depressed version of Ned. That said, Ned does get some moments to shine in the third act and he doesn’t necessarily end where he started.

Benedict Cumberbatch reprises his role of Dr. Strange. In this film, Strange is no longer Sorcerer Supreme due to him being blipped for 5 years (now Wong is Sorcerer Supreme). Strange is not a mentor to Peter, nor is he a friend. Peter makes some choices here that really piss off Strange. They aren’t enemies, but they do find themselves opposing each other during a critical scene. Cumberbatch continues to display a dry wit throughout and still charms in the role. 

J.K. Simmons returns as J. Jonah Jameson. Here, J.J. is the head of a low-budget internet news show called The Daily Bugle. This version of the character seems to be a jab at shows like InfoWars and the like. It’s not a bad idea, but he isn’t given much screen time and his character gets almost no development. 

Now for the villains. Alfred Molina, Willem Dafoe, Jamie Foxx, Thomas Haden Church, and Rhys Ifans reprise their roles as Doc Ock, Green Goblin, Electro, Sandman, and The Lizard respectively. Alfred Molina remains one of the best villains of all time as Doc Ock. His character is exactly the same as we remember him from Spider-Man 2. His fight scene with Spidey on the bridge is a stand-out. Speaking of the fight scenes, each one is memorable, exciting, and thrilling. 

Not much is done with Lizard and Sandman. Sandman has some cool scenes showcasing his powers, but that’s about it. Lizard remains a formidable threat, but is mostly used for laughs. It’s just super cool they got Rhys Ifans and Thomas Haden Church to return, despite them not being used effectively. 

Jamie Foxx returns as Electro. This Electro is certainly better than the one we got in Amazing Spider-Man 2. In No Way Home, Electro’s motivations are he doesn’t want to lose his power and he doesn’t want to die. It's appreciated he gets his headpiece from the comics.

All this said, at the end of the day one villain looms large over the rest: Willem Dafoe as Green Goblin. The OG is back! Goblin here loses his mask early on, and dons loose-fitting, green and purple hobo-esque-clothes that become his iconic Goblin garb later. Dafoe sans mask is truly unhinged, relishing the chance to act with his face/ facial expressions as Goblin. Dafoe doesn’t need a mask to be scary or to convince as Goblin, his face IS his mask.

The Green Goblin in No Way Home is Spidey’s greatest threat. Goblin is even more demented, insane, and evil here than he was in the first Spider-Man film. He laughs in bliss as Spidey pounds the crap out of his face in one scene. One of his goals is to bring Spidey to his knees, his other goal... I won’t spoil. Needless to say Dafoe’s Goblin remains the greatest villain in any Spider-Man film, and his presence here only makes No Way Home that much better.

Despite all this, No Way Home is not a perfect film. The first act isn’t the best. It does take a while to get to the spell, but once the spell is cast things start picking up. Regardless, if the third act doesn’t get your adrenaline spiking, you likely don’t have a pulse. No Way Home also showcases Marvel’s tendency to lean into humor. Most of the comedy works, but there are some cringe moments and a joke involving ‘The Equalizer’ landed with a resounding thud in my theater. 

The villains are in the film a good deal, but they get very little development (you have to watch the previous Spidey films to get their development). Here, they essentially act as antagonistic forces and as a delivery system of sorts for the message Peter has to learn. They serve an important purpose, but it felt like more could have been done with them. It is nice that No Way Home goes out of it’s way to wrap up each villains arc from their previous film, but in doing so it raises further questions about their fates and the fates of their respective universes. 

No Way Home is likely the most Peter Parker-centric film we’ve gotten since The Amazing Spider-Man. No Way Home is all about Peter Parker, his innocence/naiveté, the mistakes he makes, and what he learns from those mistakes. No Way Home sees Peter ultimately go through a sort of ego death by the end, and the path laid for future installments is uncertain but fascinating.

At the end of the day, No Way Home swings for the stars and actually hits its target for the most part. I haven’t even mentioned how delightfully weird it is, and how some scenes might make your head hurt in a good way. No Way Home brings this Spidey trilogy to an emotionally rich and satisfying close while also finding ways to thrill and delight long-time fans. No Way Home is likely one of the best times you’ll have in a theater this year. See it with a large, reactive crowd. Spider-fans rejoice!


4.5 STARS

SUMMER STARTS EARLY WITH DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS

 A horror-tinged Sam Raimi Marvel flick. Think a mixture of The Evil Dead, Spider-Man 2, and Everything Everywhere All At Once (but toned down from an 11 to an 8.5). This is a HARD PG-13. There is blood, there are lots of deaths (and I’m not talking about getting dusted), and Multiverse is not afraid to get strange. You might want to leave the young ones at home.

In Multiverse, when America Chavez ( Xochitl Gomez) lands in our reality, Doctor Strange (Benedict Cumbetbatch) is compelled to help. America is in possession of multiverse hopping powers that Wanda Maximoff/The Scarlet Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) desperately wants to use, even if it means sucking the powers (and life) out of the young girl. So begins a mad chase through the multiverse.

Doctor Strange in The Multiverse of Madness is Sam Raimi’s grand return to the big screen after a 9 year hiatus, as well as his welcome return to the superhero genre after an absence of 15 years! Much of Raimi’s sensibilities and his trademark style make it into this film. There is no mistaking it’s Raimi behind the lens. He consistently goes for broke. This definitely could annoy some, but Raimi fans should be thoroughly titillated. This is Raimi’s long-awaited return, and it’s worth it!

Michael Waldron gets the sole writing credit. Most well known for creating the Disney + series Loki, this is his first feature film. The writing is serviceable, but many of Waldron’s eccentricities that were evident in Loki pop up here as well. It works for Multiverse, and him and Raimi make for a surprisingly great pair.

John Mathieson (Gladiator, Logan) is in charge of cinematography. Bob Murawski (Sam Rami’s Spider-Man trilogy, Drag Me To Hell) and Tia Nolan ( Bewitched, Friends With Benefits) do editing. In their hands, the movie is consistently a marvel to look at. They all do incredible, dazzling work. Thanks to them, Multiverse is the best a Marvel film has looked in a while.

Danny Elfman composes the score for the movie. His efforts amount to what is undoubtedly his best modern day work (the fight scene with musical notes remains a highlight, although there are numerous other sonically satisfying scenes throughout). The album for Multiverse is the rare Marvel score that is worth a purchase or download.

The visual effects work is to be commended as well. There are plenty of zany designs, as well as a decent amount of the grotesque. One stand-out is Gargantos (the first alien that Strange has to save America Chavez from on Earth). The design of the creature is beautifully silly and cartoony. It looks like it was dropped right out of a comic book.

Benedict Cumberbatch returns to play the lovable narcissist Dr. Stephen Strange. He is given a lot more to work with this time. He gets to play multiple versions of himself, and seems to have a blast doing so. He also gets an emotional arc about his happiness, and he is faced with temptations that threaten to corrupt him. Strange is still not my favorite Marvel character, but he might be at his most interesting in this outing.

Elizabeth Olsen knocks it out of the park as The Scarlet Witch, a terrifying supreme being who wields the power to re-write reality, influence minds, possess people, and more. This is our Scarlet Witch villain movie and it’s great! There are scenes featuring her that feel ripped out of a horror film. Those unfamiliar with the Disney + series WandaVision might want to do some catching up before viewing this sequel, as that show establishes The Scarlet Witch’s backstory and motivation (Technically Multiverse is a sequel to *deep breath* Avengers: Infinity War, Avengers: Endgame, Spider-Man: No Way Home, WandaVision, and Loki). Either way, Elizabeth Olsen’s Scarlet Witch makes for an appropriately scary and powerful tragic villain that ranks in as one of the MCU’s best.

Xochitl Gomez as America Chavez is given almost no time to shine. She gets little development, and almost acts as a Macguffin. She has very little agency, as she has to rely on others to save her throughout almost the entire run time. Her role mostly consists of screaming and running. Hopefully she is treated better in future movies.

Benedict Wong returns as Wong, the current Sorcerer Supreme and best friend to Strange. He is in the film a good deal, as he is invested in saving America Chavez and stopping the Scarlet Witch. Wong is a fan favorite character, and he gets to be a bad-ass for most of his scenes. He gets plenty of fights, and remains a very memorable presence in the MCU. 

Rachel McAdams makes a re-appearance as Dr. Christine Palmer. She gets more screen time (appearing for a decent amount of the latter acts) and is given more to do this go round. There are also two surprise cameos that should please fans, but I can’t talk about those here, so instead allow me to praise Bruce Campbell. He gets only a handful of minutes, but he makes them count. What can I say, man’s still got it.

A lot is thrown at the screen in Multiverse. The word of the day is: Madcap. There is much craziness to be sampled in this dark superhero flick. The film makes the most of it’s multiversal, anything-goes rules to craft one hell of a dizzying, insane spectacle ( There are definitely some things I would have never expected to see in a Marvel movie). Unfortunately, there isn’t much plot as the proceedings are essentially one big chase (think Mad Max: Fury Road). That said, it’s a very fun, crazy chase that holds your attention for most of the run time.

Doctor Strange in The Multiverse of Madness is Marvel’s first solo Multiverse flick, and it’s a success. Sam Raimi makes his triumphant return to the big screen, proving that time has not rusted his unique talent. If you’re looking for a new take on the good old fashioned popcorn munching big budget summer blockbuster, Multiverse of Madness is the ticket. It’s certainly a strange marvel.

4.5 Stars

EDIT: I did see this in RealD 3D in the back row of my theater. The 3-D was very good, and shone in some scenes. It might have added a sense of scale to some parts (but seeing it on an IMAX screen would likely do the same, and from my understanding Multiverse was shot entirely with IMAX cameras), but it definitely added some depth. Very few things flew out of the screen. You won't be wasting your money on the 3-D ticket should you go this route as the 3D is quite good, but you'll be just as fine if you opt to save your hard earned dollar and go for 2D instead.

Tuesday, April 26, 2022

TOM CRUISE BREAKS HIS PRETTY FACE IN VANILLA SKY

 “ I want to wake up! Tech support!”

Cameron Crowe’s remake of Alejandro Amenabar’s ‘Open Your Eyes’ is his attempt at making an uplifting, schmaltzy, surreal Lynchian flick.  It’s like a mixture of Vampire’s Kiss, Mulholland Drive, Total Recall, and a generic coming-of-age romcom.

When spoiled, rich, young, self-centered, narcissistic, pretty boy magazine exec David Aames disfigures his face in a car wreck (caused by a suicidal ex-fling he wronged), the injury gravely wounds his ego, pride, and sense of self-worth. As his life starts to implode in on itself , David is forced to grapple with questions of sanity, reality, and identity triggering a quest of self-discovery.

This is definitely Tom Cruise’s oddest film. Cruise is actually not great here ( He’s very good, but not great. I’m not used to that). He leans heavily into his character’s eccentricities and tends to go more for the silly and exaggerated. One of the reasons Cruise likely took on the role is because his character wears a creepy face/mannequin mask for a good deal of the run time (and when the mask’s off he looks like his face is starting to melt thanks to some meh prosthetics). It’s not hard to guess that Cruise might have viewed the role as a challenge. Well, he puts forth a valiant effort at least.

Vanilla Sky has a pretty solid cast including Tom Cruise, Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Jason Lee, Timothy Spall, and Kurt Russel. Many other notable names appear in blink-and-you’ll miss-them roles (Steven Spielberg, Tilda Swinton, Michael Shannon, and Johnny Galecki). The dialogue is pretty bad at times, the editing and pacing is often off (probably deliberately so), and the film looks like an early 2000s sitcom (think Friends). 

Vanilla Sky isn’t bad, but it also isn’t good (By minute 12 I was totally lost.) It’s different, odd, unsettling, messy, and interesting. Vanilla Sky is not as smart, clever, or surprising as it thinks it is, but it’s still worth a watch for lovers of WTF Cinema.


2.5 STARS

A SOUND OF THUNDER IS A FORGOTTEN FAILURE

 Loosely based on Ray Bardbury's classic short story (The film keeps the main character's first name, the name of the company, the last name of one of the clients, the year the film is set in, and the "Butterfly Effect" plot), A Sound of Thunder takes place in the future (2055 to be exact), where time travel tech has been invented. A luxury safari corporation has utilized the tech to take clients on hunting expeditions in pre-historic/Dinosaur times. When one of the clients fails to follow company protocols, the past is inadvertently altered, leading to drastic, horrific changes in the future. It's up to expedition leader Travis Ryer (Edward Burns), disgruntled scientist Sonia Rand (Catherine McCormack), and weapons specialist Marcus Payne (David Oyelowo) to find out what went wrong in the past and find a way to fix things if the future is to be salvaged.

It's about on the level of an Asylum film or an original Sci-Fi/Syfy TV movie. That means A Sound of Thunder is very, very bad...but in a pretty entertaining way. A Sound of Thunder was directed and shot by Peter Hyams (Who previously directed Timecop, The Relic, The Muskateer, and End of Days), and was written by Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer, and Gregory Poirier. Thomas Dean Donnelly and Joshua Oppenheimer co-wrote Dylan Dog: Dead of Night, Sahara, and the 2011 version of Conan The Barbarian together. Gregory Poirier wrote See Spot Run and The Spy Next Door. Knowing this, is it any wonder the screenplay for A Sound of Thunder is so poor?

There isn't really much to praise in terms of cast. Edward Burns has been in some good films, but he isn't anything special here. He's our hero, but he isn't noteworthy nor does he do anything to really stand out. David Oyelowo has shown he is a fantastic actor, and he seems to be having fun here. He gets a laughably bad death. Ben Kingsley appears throughout as Charles Hatton, the CEO of Time Safari, but is given next to nothing to do (He pops up on occasion during the first two acts, and is thoughtlessly discarded of somewhere in the 3rd act). His character is given some development when it's heavily implied that the Govt. is involved with Time Safari in some way (though this revelation is never built upon or explained). Kingsley seems to know what kind of film he's in, and he's certainly one of the very few bright spots here.

Around an hour into the run time, A Sound of Thunder makes the decision to forego the plot of the Ray Bradbury story and go full creature feature instead. Not the worst decision. Following a bunch of wildly evolved creatures as they attack our group could be fun (and I like the idea of monkey/dinosaur hybrids). Unfortunately, extremely sub-par CGI and effects work detract from any real enjoyment that could be had. The creatures seen throughout look bottom-of-the-barrel and the choice to use a terrible blue-screen for every scene walking through the city is distracting and awful.

The design of the city is weak as well. It's very hard to get a feel for how the city is laid out, and remembering what each building is or what they house ends up being much more difficult than it should be. The whole production looks unappealing in design and aesthetics as well. In the end, A Sound of Thunder is a poorly made, bad, B movie monster flick. It's entertaining, but only in a bad movie kind of way.


1 STAR

SAY BYE-BYE TO THE BYE BYE MAN

 "You wanna watch something stupid?"

The plot, if you can call it that, follows a group of college friends who move into a creepy old house off campus. When one opens an antique nightstand and finds ‘The Bye Bye Man’ scribbled inside, he unleashes a terrifying and violent mass delusion in the group that leads to hallucinations, insanity/hysteria, murder, and suicide. 

The Bye Bye Man is based on an urban legend, that of a man born with Albinism in Louisiana in the 1920s. Teased mercilessly by his peers, as he grew older The Bye Bye Man turned violent and became a serial killer. He eventually goes blind and crafts a demon dog (named Gloomsinger) for himself out of the pieces/parts of his victims. The Bye Bye Man develops telepathy as well, so he can sense whenever someone thinks or says his name. He travels by train. Naturally, almost none of this is conveyed in the final product (there are less than a handful of hallucinations of a train in the first act, but these aren’t given any explanation). 

At least The Bye Bye Man isn't long. It's a still a total waste of time though with absolutely zero development whatsoever for our titular antagonist (and what kind of name is The Bye Bye Man anyways?). Most things are given no explanation (and likely little thought). For example: We see Elliot (played by a weepy-faced Douglas Smith. Dude also looks on the verge of death throughout. WTF?), our lead, be exposed to ‘The Bye Bye Man’ by opening the nightstand. As to how his group of friends is exposed though is never shown nor implied. 

The Bye Bye Man himself also doesn’t come across as any real threat. He doesn’t kill a single person during the run time. Every death is dealt by someone afflicted with The Bye Bye Man Delusion (it’s never referred to as such in the film, but is a moniker I made up).  The Bye Bye Man compels those he infects to kill others, but he himself doesn’t appear to partake in the slaughter.

The character design of The Bye Bye Man is unimaginative, derivative, and lazy. He is a pale, ‘Gentleman’-looking ghoul (as in the character from Buffy). He wears a black rain coat/rain jacket and tends to hang out in corners of rooms or in dark spaces. It almost feels like the filmmakers took inspiration from sleep-paralysis demons for The Bye Bye Man’s look. The decision to involve Gloomsinger, The Bye Bye Man’s blood-soaked demon dog, in the film is appreciated (though he doesn’t do much either).

The Bye Bye Man is rated PG-13, and boy does it show. There is minimal blood throughout. In fact, the first act is almost completely bloodless.There’s a scene where multiple characters are blasted away by a shotgun, with no blood splatter or visible wounds afterwards (you know they are clearly dead, but you still can’t help but wonder…). That said, even with a PG-13 rating, The Bye Bye Man can get shockingly dark.

The Bye Bye Man deals heavily with themes of suicide and mental illness/hysteria. The way it goes about presenting these themes is gross and disgusting. We have characters urging others to commit murder and suicide because it’s the only solution. What’s worse: the film seems to fall in favor of this position.

A movie following characters who are trying to maintain their grip on reality and not kill anyone while researching the entity responsible for their insanity has the potential to be (at the very least) interesting. Unfortunately, the husband/wife team of Jonathan Penner (Screenplay) and Stacy Title (Director. She passed away from ALS in 2021) fucked it up. 

The screenplay by Jonathan Penner (a recurring contestant on Survivor. Yes, THAT Survivor!) is pretty bad. Characters have little development, they act in unrealistic ways (the confrontation between Elliot  and an elderly lady played by Faye Dunaway comes to mind), and the dialogue is painfully bad. Some characters could/should have been removed completely (Here’s looking at you Carrie-Anne Moss, who appears in less than a handful of scenes and serves zero purpose), and as already stated we are given zero explanation for most events and zero back story for our antagonist. The third act comes at you like a speeding train, and the final resolution for  our group will likely piss most off. 

The direction by Stacy Title isn’t better. The Bye Bye Man looks consistently grey and muted. The film feels lifeless. There isn’t a good performance in the bunch (Douglas Smith as Elliot whines, pleads, and generally comes across as weak. A fault on the writing and direction). There is no sense of forward momentum throughout, and the film often feels like a sequence of events, or like it’s just moving from event-to-event.

In the end, The Bye Bye Man is about as bad as you heard. It suffers from an exceptionally weak screenplay, absent direction, a lack of character development, shoddy CGI, bad editing (just look at the way the deaths are executed in the first scene, no pun intended), obvious ADR, and an insulting ending. There was potential here, which makes the final product that much more disappointing. Don’t think it, don’t say it, don’t watch it!


0.5 STAR