IS MY BLUE HEAVEN THE SEQUEL TO GOODFELLAS WE'VE ALL WAITED FOR?

 A bizzaro-world comedic quasi-sequel to Goodfellas, based VERY loosely on real life events. Written by Nora Ephron (married to Nicholas Pileggi, writer of Wiseguys, which Goodfellas is based on. She wrote the screenplays for When Harry Met Sally..., Michael, Sleepless in Seattle, and You've Got Mail among others), My Blue Heaven really is connected to Goodfellas in odd ways. 

The film follows Vinnie Antonelli (A stand-in for the real life Henry Hill, played by Steve Martin), a mobster turned rat now under Witness Protection. Vinnie has been relocated to the suburbs as he awaits his testimony. CIA underling Barney Coopersmith (Rick Moranis) is assigned the unenviable job of watching over Vinnie. Barney fumbles with his task as Vinnie seems dedicated to breaking laws, causing trouble, and reverting to his criminal ways common sense be damned.

Steve Martin is playing a complete caricature with a grating, painfully fake New York accent. He's meant to be a lovable trickster, but comes across as more of an asshole most of the time. Rick Moranis does well in the straight-man role. Both actors work well off each other, and they make for an ok pair (The few dance scenes they have are highlights).

The big problems with My Blue Heaven are: It isn't structured particularly well, there isn't a solid plot, and the comedy isn't strong. Vinnie testifies before we reach the hour mark, leaving the last 40 minutes or so to fumble around and try and find a proper ending. It feels like Ephron had a concept for a movie that sounded funny, but didn't have all the specifics planned out. It seems like we should be building to Vinnie testifying, but that's not the case (To say what we ARE building to would be a spoiler, but I will say it's disappointing) . It feels like the big threat should be the mobsters out for Vinnie's head, but it's actually Vinnie's stubborn ways.

My Blue Heaven is a fundamentally flawed film. It's also fairly harmless, and entertaining enough at moments. If you're looking for an odd, different film...I suppose My Blue Heaven fits the bill.

2 STARS

SMALLS GETS TRAPPED IN SEAHAVEN AND LOVES IT WITH THE TRUMAN SHOW

 “Good morning! And in case I don’t see you, good afternoon, good evening, and good night!”

Truman Burbank (Jim Carrey) lives a ho-hum but fulfilling and moderately successful life with his wife Meryl (Laura Linney) and best friend Marlon (Noah Emmerich) on the beautiful, small island community of Seahaven. He has almost everything he could want, but unbeknownst to Truman, this is by design.

Truman Burbank is the star of his very own television show, the longest continually running one in history (broadcasting for 30 years).  All of his friends and family are paid actors, and the entire town is a set. Truman’s false, curated life is certainly an idyllic one, but it can only keep him happy and for so long. A falling stage light sets Truman on a path of discovery, which upsets Christof (Ed Harris, a great villain) the creator of the program who harbors a serious God complex. 

Jim Carrey is absolutely perfect as the boy-ish and endlessly optimistic Truman. He perfectly embodies the role. This is one of Carey’s more naturalistic performances. He keeps things light (but not too light). It’s not hard to see why the entire cast of The Truman Show ( that is, the show Truman stars in) as well as the entire world, has fallen in love with Truman Burbank.

Truman is immensely easy to root for and incredibly likable. It’s thrilling to watch his quest (and Carrey’s reactions can be funny at times, deeply affecting at others), and the realizations he comes to along the way are heart-breaking but also oddly liberating. 

The Truman Show (the movie) is directed by Peter Weir (who also directed Dead Poets Society) and written by Andrew Nicchols (this is the best thing he’s done). Weir’s direction is on point. The film is funny when it needs to be, and heavy when moments calls for it. The performances are pretty great all around (Paul Giamatti also pops up as one of the control room operators for the show) with Carrey carrying most of the entire weight of the proceedings with ease. The script is pretty sharp and witty as well (it definitely impresses). 

Shot mostly in and around the town of Seaside, Florida, the locations found in The Truman Show are beautiful. It’s tempting to be a little envious of Truman, the area he lives in is truly gorgeous. You’d be surprised to find how much of the “set”, isn’t actually a set (like the street Truman lives on, for example).

The Truman Show scratches at themes concerning capitalism, corporations, consumerism/mass consumerism, choice/free will, control, how the life of the average American has become “for sale”, the relationship between God and man,  and much much more. It’s much deeper than it let’s on, and it’s smart enough not to hold your hand or guide you.

In the end, the only real complaint I have with The Truman Show is it feels like it should be longer. The final 20 minutes or so come at you fast, and it feels like we could have used a few more scenes of Truman putting the pieces together before the climax. In a way, this could be counted as a good thing. Always leave them wanting more, so they say.

When all is said and done, The Truman Show comes pretty damned close to being a perfect film. The setting is gorgeous, the actors are all well-cast and put on solid performances, the themes and story are rich and engaging (and who hasn’t ever wondered if they are starring in their own movie?), and we get a classic, lovable hero to tie it all together. The Truman Show still resonates with viewers to this day, and for good reason.

5 STARS

CAN THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (2022) REV UP THE FRANCHISE?

This review was originally posted to Letterboxd on February 18, 2022

More bad than good, unfortunately. That said, there still is some good here. The cinematography by Ricardo Diaz is consistently nice, there are some small moments with Leatherface that work, and the cast is solid, but wasted (They got Elsie Fisher from Eighth Grade to be the final girl) .

The film is definitely trying (such as giving our "final girl" a school shooter survivor backstory. Some might find it tasteless, I thought it mostly worked), but most of the kills aren't great (The first kill sequence in the van was the best one imo, there's also one with a sledgehammer that is certainly brutal. The Party Bus Massacre had so much potential, but is undone due to poor staging, shooting, and choreography).

Sally returns, and the attempt to pick up her story is appreciated but the OG actress died several years back, Sally's ultimate fate is a let down, and it really does feel like they included Sally just to piggy-back off of Halloween 2018 (Sally is in the film a bit, but doesn't really come into play until the final 25 minutes).

Another issue is that Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2022 doesn't really get Leatherface. Some moments with him work, most don't (Sorry movie, Leatherface doesn't do tricks/traps. He is SEVERELY mentally handicapped. He literally doesn't have the mental capacity for it). I like that it's the death of his caretaker (caused by our main group of dumb, socially-conscious kids) that sets him off.

I also like that our main group are kind of villains in a way (Harlowe, Leatherface's home, has become a ghost town thanks to "late stage Capitalism". Our group swoops in and buys the entire town, planning to remake/rebuild it in their own image. The film makes it a point to show that almost everyone doesn't like our group).

Despite my many, many qualms with this film I still had a lot of fun with it. There were plenty of moments so bad or so stupid, I found myself laughing. It's definitely enjoyable in a "bad movie" or "so-bad-it's-good" kind of way. Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2022 is not a good film, it does not successfully breathe life back into Leatherface. It is absolutely better than Leatherface (2017) and Texas Chainsaw 3D, though. So I guess that's something.

2.5 STARS

SMALLS GETS SACRIFICED TO THE RUINS

 In The Ruins, four dumb college-aged American tourists in Mexico accompany a friendly German to an "off-the-map" archeological dig at a Mayan temple. Once they arrive, they are forced up the temple by upset locals, and quarantined. Why are they being held there? What is the secret of the temple? Rest assured, blood will flow and not all will live to see the safety of home by the time the end credits roll.

Fun fact: This was likely the first R rated film I saw alone in theaters. I remember TRL (Total Request Live) heavily promoting it during their spring break coverage, and that was what ultimately compelled me to see it. This most recent viewing was of the theatrical cut, which I haven't seen since back in that theater all those years ago. So, how does it hold up?

Having just completed reading the novel this film was based on, I walked in with a different perspective this time around. I imagine those that read the novel and those that didn't had a vastly different experience watching this adaptation.

In short, as an adaptation, the movie sucks (which really shouldn't be the case, seeing as the sole screenwriting credit on IMDB goes to Scott Smith, who also wrote the novel). A lot of the events remain the same, but most of them happen to different characters in the film than they do in the novel (for example, in the novel it's Pablo/Demetri who falls down the mine shaft, and in the film it's Mathias. The Mathias character is given much more to do in the novel, and he is the one who imo is the closest to being likable) .

The characters are also softened a bit here, as they are mostly unlikable in the novel, albeit realistically so (ie, Jeff is the worst in the novel. He's competent, but has "main character syndrome" and resents everyone else for not being as adept at survival as he is. He spends most of the novel arguing and yelling at his friends). The novel and film also vary a great deal in how they choose to wrap things up.

A problematic change from novel-film is the decision to make Stacy( a "spacey" blonde white girl) suffer much more in the film. Having read the novel, the change feels icky and wrong (most of her torment in the book is reserved for Eric, her boyfriend). The change feels exploitative, and speaks volumes on what is perceived by screenwriters and studios to be horror audience's wants and desires.

Judging this film as it's own thing, how does it fare? The cast (Jenna Malone as Amy, Jonathan Tucker as Jeff, Laura Ramsey as Stacy, Shawn Ashmore as Eric, and Joe Anderson as Mathias) is mostly game, with Jonathan Tucker being the most memorable part of it. His Jeff makes for a very likable and competent leader, despite some flaws. The carnage that occurs atop the temple ain't anything to shake a stick (or vine) at either. The film shies away from most of the bloodshed, but the little we do see is enough to get most stomachs churning (Remember, the version I'm reviewing here is the R rated cut. I haven't seen the Unrated cut in a while, but I'm pretty sure it's significantly more bloody).

The setting of the temple is one of the most memorable aspects of the film (and it's completely absent from the novel. The Ruins in the novel are a vine-covered hill, with a mine shaft atop). The premise of becoming an unwitting and unwilling part of a sacrifice that goes back hundreds of years (at least) is also pretty horrifying and certainly original/unique enough.

It's appreciated that the Mayan locals aren't just portrayed as villains. They definitely appear antagonistic at first, but as events transpire atop of the temple, it slowly becomes clear what the local's original intent was. You can see it all on the face of the Lead Mayan (portrayed with humanity by Sergio Calderon) near the end of the film: Sympathy, regret, sadness. This is not something the Mayan locals want to do, or something they enjoy watching.

The direction by Carter Smith (and no, as far as I could find, he's not related to Scott Smith) is competent and average. The cinematography by Darius Khondji is pretty good. The settings all look pretty appealing under his touch (even that temple), and he appears to use some oversaturation at moments to simulate the blaring heat. The score by Graham Revell is mostly fine. It can be distracting and generic at times, but at others it's effective.

The Ruins works because it was built on a strong foundation (The novel is arguably far better than the film), it's premise is fairly horrific, and the setting of the temple is a memorable one. The villain/s of the film can definitely come across as silly (a problem the novel suffers from as well), but scares more than not in large part because of the horrors they bring, as well as what they are capable of. The Ruins makes for a tense, enjoyable watch. Bring some sunscreen and herbicide, and get comfy atop that ancient Mayan ruin. Who knows, it just might end up getting under your skin.

3 STARS

SMALLS TAKES A STROLL DOWN NIGHTMARE ALLEY

 This review was originally posted to Letterboxd on February 9, 2022.

In Nightmare Alley, mysterious loner Stan Carlyle (Bradley Cooper) wanders into a traveling carnival/freak show owned by the sinister Clem Hoatley (Willem Dafoe) where he is offered a job as a barker. Stan's dreams of stardom, fame, and wealth sweeps Molly Cahill (Rooney Mara) a young performer, into his orbit.

They run away and start up their own mentalist act, garnering some deal of the fame and attention Stan has yearned for. Unfortunately, Stan's ambition lands him squarely in the crosshairs of the beautiful but dangerous Lillith Ritter (Cate Blanchett), psychologist to some very rich clientele. She's visibly bothered by Stan's lack of morals, but decides to assist him with his act regardless.

The best laid plans of mice and men often go awry, as they do here. Like a mouse, Stan also slowly realizes he might be caught in a trap himself.

The first hour of Nightmare Alley takes place at the carnival/ freak show, while the 2nd hour and 20 minutes takes place 2 years later in the city. Needless to say, the first hour is the strongest, most engaging, and most memorable part. The setting of the carnival/freak show is striking, with numerous memorable sets within (like the fun house, or the Geek pit).

Guillermo Del Toro (Director, he also shares writing duties with Kim Morgan) has always had a knack for imagination and visuals, and these strengths are put to good use throughout Nightmare Alley, in the first act in particular. Del Toro's carnival/freak show is certainly enticing, magical, but also holds a hint of real danger/treat to it. It might be the perfect home for Stan, hence why his decision to leave is upsetting.

The production design by Tamara Deverell is consistently gorgeous, and really shines in the creation and design of the freak show/carnival. The cinematography by Dan Laustsen often succeeds at whisking viewers into Nightmare Alley's visually enticing world.

Toni Collette wows in an unexpected appearance as Zeena, the resident psychic/mentalist whom has an act with her husband, the drunk and washed-up Pete (David Straithairn). Zeena is a friendly (maybe a little too friendly in one scene), helpful presence for Stan. Collette commands the screen whenever she is on.

David Straithairn acts as almost a surrogate father to Stan, teaching him the ropes of Mentalism as well as delivering prophetic warnings about the dangers and temptations of the craft. Cooper and Straithairn definitely have a real chemistry and friendship throughout, though you can sense some resentment seeping off of Cooper's Stan at times. Straithairn takes a supporting role, and makes it one of the most memorable parts of the film.

Cate Blanchette is also quite good as Lillith Ritter, a psychologist who appears to be your classic femme fatale. Naturally, wo don't learn the full truth about her character or motives until the very end. The scenes where her and Cooper go toe-to-toe are always a joy to watch as a literal wrestling match of the wits proceeds. Blanchette's Lillith is the rare femme fatale where I think I might actually be on her side.

Willem Dafoe shines as Clem Hoatley, the machiavellian proprietor of the carnival/freak show who takes Stan under his wing but makes sure he doesn't forget his place. Dafoe makes the most out of every one of his scenes, and his Hoatley is a shadow-y, devious figure unafraid of doing some very devil-ish things in order to make sure his freak show functions. Dafoe only appears in the first act of the film, but he makes a lasting impression (when doesn't he, really?).

Nightmare Alley is a film packed with big names and strong performances, all of which are orbiting around the gravitational pull which is Bradley Cooper's Stan. It's easy to forget this guy started out as a comedic actor. Cooper's Stan is a man dripping with quiet menace and evil potential. He goes most of the first 20 minutes just about completely silent. Cooper's hard stare is enough to send chills down your spine. This man might not be completely bad yet, but he has definitely done bad things in the past and he will undoubtedly be doing more bad things in the near future.

Stan is an interesting, complex character to follow around. You don't root for his success, and it's not hard to eagerly await how exactly he will fall down (and how hard). Cooper's performance is magnetic, charismatic, and even scary or thugg-ish enough to keep viewers totally captivated by this scummy con man.

As stated above, the first hour of Nightmare Alley is the strongest thanks to the carnival/freak show setting as well as all the creepy foreshadowing that occurs there. The second and third acts aren't necessarily weak, but they do drag at times and the film itself definitely feels like it's two hours long. The love story between Rooney Mara's pure-hearted Molly and Bradley Cooper's Stan shows potential, but is not really focused on enough (or, to be more specific, Mara's Molly isn't focused on enough) to leave the mark it wants to.

Nightmare Alley feels like a classic Hollywood noir, even though it's really more of a noir-tinged dramatic character study/tragedy. It definitely reminds one of watching a classic Hollywood movie, but made for the modern day. Lover of classic Hollywood or film in general should find much to love. So, trek into the dark, shadowy depths of Nightmare Alley. You just might find a gem waiting for you at the end.

4.5 STARS

GET READY TO SCREAM (2022)

 This review was originally posted to Letterboxd on January 14, 2022.

In 5cream, a brutal attack on a family member brings Sam and boyfriend Richie back to her hometown of Woodsboro. As Ghostface slices and dices his way through our new, young cast; who will remain to stand and fight?

5cream is the first Scream film to be made after it's beloved creator, Wes Craven's, passing. This makes 5cream the first Scream to not be directed by Wes (and the 2nd to be written without original scribe Kevin Williamson. Williamson gets an executive producer credit, but who knows how hands-on he was during production). So, how does it fare? Does a Scream film without the input from the men who created it and arguably understood it best have any chance of success?  

Jenna Ortega impresses as Tara (Ortega is a stand-out), estranged younger sister to Sam. Tara is not your average victim. She has smarts and doesn’t fall prey to typical victim tropes. Tara is one of the best characters in the film. I definitely want her on my team if I found myself trapped in a horror movie. Melissa Barrera as Sam ( our lead) is also pretty great. She harbors a secret that sets Ghostface off. Sam is a memorable, bad-ass “final girl”.

Jasmine Savoy Brown makes for a welcome addition as Mindy, our new Randy (fits, considering she is his niece). Mindy is very knowledgeable about pop culture and film, and has a dry wit to her. She’s pretty laid-back, chill, and very likable. Jasmine Savoy Brown fits the role very well, and is downright excellent. 

Jack Quaid plays Richie, boyfriend to Sam. Richie is a kind, ineffectual goofball (kind of like Dewey in a way) who is devoted to Sam. He’s more played as the comic-relief, but the bits he gets work. Quaid does a good job ( and gets some moments to really shine), but Richie is only somewhat memorable in the end.

The returning cast all do great jobs (though it sometimes feels like they are in a different movie), but it’s David Arquette who gets the most screen-time (and thus has the most chances to impress) as Dewey. Dewey’s sheriff days are over, but he is reluctantly roped back into action when our new cast show up at his door. In this film, David Arquette proves that it’s Dewey who has been the beating heart of this franchise. It’s Arquette’s heartfelt, awkward, and shy performance that has kept Dewey a fan favorite character, and he gets some great heroic moments.

5cream is the best Scream since the first sequel ( it also has the best intro since 2), though it’s certainly not without it’s flaws. The structure could have been stronger, the killers aren’t great ( certainly not as great as those in Scream 4), there’s one recurring effect that doesn’t work well, and some of the dialogue is bad. That said, the call backs to the first film and the choice to spiritually recreate certain moments from that movie mostly work. 

This outing is imbued with a sense of play during some scenes (Thanks in large part to directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillet, who excel at their jobs). The kills are savage this go-round. Ghostface is brutal af and does not give a f as some attacks risk capture (his taunts also sometimes hurt as much as his knife). 5cream easily ranks as the 2nd bloodiest and most brutal installment (Scream 4 is still number one). 

Radio Silence is the team responsible for 5cream, and in their hands it’s tense, ultra-violent, fun, clever, and very memorable. 5cream feels more like the first Scream than any other previous installment (It definitely reminds of The Force Awakens in a way), and it’s yet another great example of how to properly pull-off a Legacy-quel (pronounced Lega-sequel). The meta/self-aware nature of the franchise stays in tact, and it really does feel like any one could be the killer. 5cream successfully continues the modern day re-birth of the slasher genre. So if a scream is what you're Craven, check out 5cream. 

4 STARS

CATCHIN' UP WITH GHOSTFACE

 Waaaay back in 2011, Wes Craven released his long-awaited follow-up to Scream 3. The trailer and advertising seemed to promise a passing of the torch of sorts to a new generation, as well as new rules and new commentary for the "current" state of horror. I was in my Sohpomore year in college when Scr4m (as it was stylized in advertising) was released. I was excited, and had binged the previous three films to prepare. I left the theater disappointed, but not totally let down. I've re-visited Scream 4 multiple times in an attempt to see what some love about it, but my opinion has more-or-less remained the same. Below, in preparation for my 5cream review,  you can find my thoughts on Scream 4 after my most recent viewing August 2020.

Scream 4 is easily the most cynical of the Scream films, and it approaches it's outlook on modern horror and millennials with a mixture of confusion and contempt. The large amount of new characters are used purely as kill fodder (such a missed opportunity). The killers this time around are likely the best since the first Scream, and this 4th-quel is the bloodiest, goriest, and most brutal outing yet. The returning characters are all great as well (Dewey in particular impresses, as does Sidney). Unfortunately, this film looks like shit (the cinematography by Peter Deming makes the film appear to be consistently bright, glare-y, and whited out). There are good, clever moments throughout but as a whole Scream 4 doesn't really impress. In the end, there are some things to recommend here but overall Scream 4 is very uneven and not all that memorable. At least it's better than Scream 3, I guess.

So in the end, even Wes Craven had difficulty making a Scream film that could live up to the first two outings. Tune in next time to see if the latest attempt left Wes rolling in his grave.