#clearly seen onscreen from the beginning of the movie). but there are things this film does very well indeed‚ including the opening scene

[cinemacentral666]

The Painted Bird (2019)

Movie #1,078 • TWO FOR TUESDAY

The Painted Bird begins like this…

…and then proceeds to torture that child in pretty much every way you could imagine (psychologically, physically, and everything in between) for the better part of three hours. It is the ALL GAS NO BREAKS of films about the atrocities mankind unloads on one another. The main and perhaps only complaint I've seen levied against this boils down to just that: this is human suffering porn and human suffering porn sucks. I actually saw that phrase ("human suffering porn") used and it struck me (there's no shortage of shitty takes on this btw). That writer clearly had to make a distinction between this wonderfully shot black-and-white epic and something like Saw VI. To say, "I get that this Art, and I see how it checks off the boxes which makes something Art, but my mind can't parse any contrast between Jigsaw and Udo Kier." You can't really have it both ways, though.

Where torture porn exists purely in service of delivering those salacious goods, this strives to use those elements in service of delivering a message. Like any good war movie, this is stridently anti-war. And like the best war movies, it isn't political in the slightest. The Czech writer-director, Václav Marhoul, went as far as to use the Interslavic language (an auxiliary dialect used to facilitate communication between speakers of various Slavic languages) in order to obscure the actual location of these various Eastern Europe settings. One whiny critic actually wrote that "none of the film takes place in Germany [and] very little of the evil done to the kid has anything to do with Germans or Nazis." Like we needed to cut to a shot of Hitler pouting to understand why these people were living this way.

This movie is based on a 1965 book with a complex and fascinating backstory (its author is Jerzy Kosiński, who also penned Being There). It's pure fiction but what we know about the hell that was WWII suggests that all the gruesome elements aren't altogether fantastical. The parallels/similarities to the all-time classic Come and See (1985), at least on the surface, are instant and unmistakable even if they're not much more than "war seen through the eyes of a young boy." (Interestingly enough, Alexsey Kravchenko — who portrayed the boy in Come and See — plays a Russian military officer here, and one of the few "good guys" in The Painted Bird.) I don't think this is quite on par with Klimov's generational effort, but I'd still say it's a must-watch. As it turns out, this is simply a premium delivery system for the anti-war system.

For me, a grizzled vet of fucked-up horror, the worst moments weren't the violent and sicko outbursts, like when Udo Kier gouges a man's eyes out with a spoon. It was seeing the young boy striving to stay connected to some semblance of humanity in the wake of such things, like when he futilely delivers said eyeballs back to the man crying in the woods.

It was a fascinating choice to cast name actors, from all over the world, in small but important supporting roles in these various vignettes (the film is separated into seven specific chapters that could easily be viewed as shorts in their own right). Stellan Skarsgård doesn't utter a single line of dialogue and Barry Pepper, just one or two. There's the aforementioned Kier, and Harvey Keitel plays a priest. The late Julian Sands is a pedophile who gets eaten alive by rats. Like using the Impact font on the movie poster and inter-titles, this decision left me scratching my head, though not in a bad way.

But in the end this is child actor Petr Kotlár's movie. To subject someone as young as that to what we ultimately find onscreen isn't without a degree of moral ambiguity. That two stand-ins get a special shout-out in the credits alleviates some of this grief/guilt, but it's still worth mentioning. While I believe this is a much more valid complaint than simply stating you (an adult) were personally offended by the content, I choose to see this through a lens of bravery. He's really great in this without every speaking a word. I hope it doesn't/didn't fuck his life up.

I don't think this movie is begging you to look away. I think it's trying to make you look harder at what and why this could happen. Yes, all those Nazis we don't actually see, among many other things. It doesn't spell it out and never offers a concrete answer. The chief film critic of Variety walked out of this and in his "review" he willfully offers up a list of all the other films he's walked out of, among them:

I couldn’t get past the opening credits sequence of “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” (which had already managed to cutesify my favorite song, “Brandy” by Looking Glass), as Baby Groot dances to ELO’s “Mr. Blue Sky” while the ensemble fights a space alien in the background. I’d enjoyed the original, but the Guardians had clearly gotten too cool to care, so why should I?

Everyone's hell is vastly different in the end. My 2¢? Let's try to relate, even when that seems so painful that it's impossible. For example, I would have walked out of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 also.

SCORE: ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

[cinemaseeker]

Let's Review: The Bob's Burgers Movie

*THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS FOR THE BOB'S BURGERS MOVIE, AND ALSO THE OCCASIONAL BURGER METAPHOR*

The recipe for a good Bob's Burgers movie is not unlike the recipe for a good cheeseburger: the main ingredients usually stay the same but, if done well (or well done, if you will), those ingredients are enough to keep the customers happy and coming back for more. But what if this time around they get a better version of the thing they love? A burger that still has the same ingredients but maybe this time the beef comes from a better cow on a better farm, thus producing a better burger.

The Bob's Burgers Movie is that better burger.

It keeps all of the same ingredients that make the show so good, but somehow makes them even better while still feeling fresh and new.

This is series creator Loren Bouchard's feature directorial debut (which he co-directed with fellow Bob's Burgers collaborator Bernard Derriman), and he takes to filmmaking like a duck to water. One only has the watch The Bob's Burgers Movie to see what I mean. The animation in this movie is top-tier, especially when you compare it to the show's first seasons. The quality of the animation always got better and better with each progressive season, but this is something else. It reminded me of when I was a kid and my favorite Nickelodeon show would get the motion picture treatment and then I would get to see the amazing animation glow-up that would come with it. Even as a kid I could sense that the production quality was different from the show, with better linework, bright colors, and a more massive scope, all of which are definitely present here. Calling the animation here a glow-up would be a severe understatement. Even from the beginning, the world of Bob's Burger felt bigger and realer as we watch the camera glide all around Ocean Avenue, home of the titular restaurant. If the TV show was 2D then this felt like 3D, while still mainly being a traditionally animated movie, a rarity in this industry nowadays. Plus, the characters felt more alive and livelier, bouncing along with the opening number, almost like something out of an early rubber hose cartoon. The movie clearly had an impressive animation budget and they take every opportunity to flaunt it onscreen.

With this movie, Loren was able to make Bob's Burgers cinematic, and he effectively demonstrated a strong understanding of how to adapt a beloved TV show, especially a beloved animated TV show, to the big screen. He gets that storytelling in a TV show is fundamentally different than storytelling in a film. The show only has 22 minutes to set up a crazy scenario and then get us from Point A to Point B. But with a movie, the story has to be sustainable enough to get us through the 142 minute runtime, like a ship crossing the ocean, and if that ship is not built properly it's gonna sink. Luckily, Loren's built a sturdy ship with his script, which he co-wrote with fellow Bob's Burger's writer Nora Smith.

It gives every member of the Belcher family a clearly stated desire and goal that needs to be fulfilled by the end of the film: Bob and Linda want to keep the restaurant from financial ruin, Tina wants Jimmy Jr. to be her boyfriend, Gene wants to use his cool new homemade instrument to rock out with his band, and Louise wants to be seen by her family and her peers as brave and not as a baby. Loren was also smart enough to give the story stakes and keep us invested by adding a ticking clock in the form of a six-day deadline for the Belchers to pay back their loan to the bank. The story has bits of real-world drama sprinkled into the mix without overwhelming the tone or bogging the characters down.

The script also manages to find new depths within these familiar characters. This is seen most strongly in Louise's arch, which gets to explore why she clings to her iconic pink bunny ears, and it's surprisingly profound and heartfelt. Louise definitely gets the lion's share when it comes to character development in this film, but I think it's for good reason. She's always been the most outspoken and proactive character on the show so it makes sense that she plays an important role with driving the plot forward. But every character does get their moment to shine, and this courtesy also extends to the massive supporting cast, with each cameo sure to excite every longtime fan of the show (myself included).

Now with all that said, this is not a perfect movie. The latter half leading up to the climax felt a bit drawn out and the ultimate villain in this is a bit weak with a weak motivation and a weak villain song that could've been so much better. It saddens me to think that we might've had a memorable non-Disney villain with a truly great non-Disney villain song. But to be fair, it's not really the focus of the film and they still have fun with it and it doesn't ruin an otherwise amazing movie.

Bottom line: This is that rare and beautiful unicorn of a movie that manages to adapt a popular TV show while perfecting preserving everything we love about that show and can still stand on its own two legs as a good movie in its own right. It will satisfy both longtime fans of the original show and newcomers who've never tasted it before. A perfect crowdpleaser to kick off the summer movie season.

My Rating: 4/5 Burgers

Bonus Content:

Check out the Bob’s Burger themed menu options available to you if you choose to see the movie at your local Alamo Drafthouse!

And, yes, the burgers do come with fries.

Also, check out the Production Babies from the end credits if you’re a name nerd like me!

P.S. there's a post-credits scene so be sure to stick around for that if you're interested!

[hopecountyisforlovers]

movie night;

rating: general

pairing: martin blackwood x xandyr jameson

words: 2273

summary: i sat down and said "i'm gonna write martin and xandyrs first kiss" and what i actually wrote is 2200 words of pining with one paragraph about kissing. #oops

----------x----------

It's hard to pinpoint exactly when Xan fell in love with Martin, in the same way it's hard to pinpoint the exact moment the sun rises in the morning. The more he thinks about it, all the most natural things in the universe seem to happen that way- in the spaces between blinks, when you aren't exactly paying attention.

Martin's makeshift bedroom smells like old papers and discarded academia, just like the rest of the Institute- and yet it's weaker here. Overshadowed by lemons and tea and raw sunshine. Xan fidgets, nervous- sometimes he cannot help but think that he is polluting this space just by being here. That it's an act of pure selfishness that he's here almost every night anyway. Stacks of unfiled something-or-other forms litter the floor of the dimly lit room, some with old rings from discarded cups of tea where he's clearly been using them as makeshift desks.

Xan swallows hard- his mouth is dry, his heart racing. He's considering leaving- considering telling Martin he's had an emergency and that he has to leave him alone in this dark, depressing place for the night. It'd hurt him in the moment, sure, and he'd hate himself for the look of shattering that would pass over his soft, round features- but it wouldn't hurt him as much in the long run, as much as if he found out the truth about him.

At least- that's what he tells himself. But like everything else about him, it's a lie. If he left.... leaving would be even more selfish than staying. Martin needs someone, now- and in his more extreme flights of fancy, he can sometimes delude himself into thinking that someone might be him.

Light floods into the room from outside as the door opens- Martin smiles at him, all freckles and white teeth and fluorescents reflecting joyfully off his round glasses, and Xan would swear on all the things that were holy the light was coming directly from him. Had he really been thinking about leaving just a second ago? He's pushing a small cart with an ancient TV atop it, sitting squatly on the haunches of an equally-as-ancient VHS player. And of course- two cups of tea, adorning either side of the cart like decorations. Underneath is a tray of cupcakes, on top of a stack of assorted tapes- had he made them or bought them? Xan doesn't think he would care if he was trying to poison him with them.

"S-sorry I'm so late! I thought, well- it's a bit boring in here, with nothing to really uh, do-" He rubs the back of his neck, sheepish, "So I thought we could, er- put on a movie or two! I mean, if you want. If not, well, I could take it back, or-"

Xan shakes his head rapidly in denial- not because he cares particularly whether or not they put on a movie, but because he doesn't want him to leave. "A few movies sounds....nice. As long as they aren't, uh...cursed videotapes, o-or something. Knowing this place...." His attempt at humor falls only a bit flat as blue eyes go wide behind thick frames- as if Martin himself was just now considering that the Institute might house cursed videotapes. Xan can't help but laugh a little at the owlish expression. Martin's eyes narrow playfully.

"Havin' a laugh at me, are you? Cheeky bugger," a laugh shakes his broad shoulders, "Keep it up and I won't share any of these cupcakes!"

Xan knows hes bluffing in the same instant he knows he won't call him on it- sharing is to Martin what breathing is to most other people. It might actually kill him to eat a full tray of cupcakes while someone watched. He messily pantomimes zipping his lips closed in a way he hopes looks natural, although he can feel he's still smiling. The door closes behind Martin as he hands him his cup of tea, still steaming hot, and turns to the old television, flipping it on and lighting up the room in a bright blue. Xan sips his tea as he watches him fiddle with the dials and controls. Luckily for them both, it seems like the VHS player is already pre-hooked up to the television.

"What kind of movies do you like?" The question catches him off guard, makes his heart beat faster out of anxiety as opposed to anything pleasant. It occurs to him that he has no answer for this question- he can't even remember if he's ever seen a film before.

"Ah- All kinds! I-it is your room! We should watch, uh..whatever... whatever you want!" It's said too quickly, with a layer of fear that's hard to shake, but Martin doesn't seem to notice. Instead he's looking at him like he's given him a gift- his heart stops all together, twists like it's being wrung out.

"Whatever I want? Really?"

This man is going to be the death of him.

Xan nods as he sips his tea, even though it burns his mouth a bit. It's something to do with his mouth besides further dig himself into a hole, in any case. "Whatever you want!"

"O-okay! But don't... laugh, alright?" He pulls a VHS out of the stack underneath the cupcakes, and displays it for him to see- on the front cover of the box, an attractive women is in a loving embrace with an attractive man. The blurbs on the box promote it as being "heartwarming" and "the love story of our generation". He doesn't laugh, but he does smile- has he stopped smiling since Martin came in the room? He thinks it should start to hurt at some point, being this happy, but it never does- not his face, anyway, and not while it's happening. It's so typically the kind of thing Martin might watch that he feels like he could have guessed, when presented with the stack.

"I know, I know, it's a...well. A bit of a ladies picture, but..." His face flushes a high enough pink to be visible even through the cerulean light of the television that slants over his features. Xandyr's tea shakes in his hands and he has to drink another long sip to make sure it doesn't spill. It tastes sweet on his tongue, like syrup and honey, so cloying it threatens to choke him- just the way he likes it. "It's one of my favorites! I- I promise it's quite good!"

He trusts him implicitly, with a lot more than their choice of movies to watch- a knife through his chest, reminding him what he's doing is wrong. Martin cannot trust him implicitly in turn- there is nothing within him to be trusted in.

Martin pops the movie into the VHS player, which makes a whirring sound as if it is oh-so-put-upon by the task of having to do its job. For all Xan knows, it might be. It looks older than both of them put together. But it accepts the movie, beginning to play previews and coming soon featurettes that look much crisper than he expected they would. A warmth against his thigh snaps him out of staring at the TV screen- Martin has sat down next to him on his bed, a cup of tea in hand and the tray of cupcakes placed across both of their laps, and in the space underneath it their legs are touching.

Xandyr reaches for a cupcake. They're frosted through a spectrum of greens- dark and light and pale pastel. It reminds him of his other life, of light through the trees and moss on the trunks. Of being hunted and hunting in turn. Of falling asleep in bars of sunlight. He shoves it into his mouth, again too fast, and after he has made far too much of an embarrassing show of chewing and swallowing the whole thing at the same time he realizes that Martin is staring at him expectantly, a nervous and excited air about him that shimmers in bright blue eyes, so so close to his face now- too close.

Not close enough.

"What- What do you think?"

"I think I love y-" Xandyr bites his tongue, hard enough that he can taste blood even through thick frosting. What had he almost said? Holy shit. "I, ahaha, think I love them! I mean, I know! I do! Love them! Great cupcakes, Martin, really!"

"If you don't like them, that's-"

"No, I really do! I swear!" He makes a show out of taking another one, taking a bite this time instead of shoving it into his face like the wild animal he only barely feels like he still isn't. Martin's expression becomes unguarded all at once, that smile settling in place over his features again. Up this close, Xandyr can see every individual freckle that dots his cheeks, the stubble that lines his jawline where he hasn't shaved lately. He has to stop looking at him- has to- he feels like he's bound to be blinded any second now, like staring at something so perfect has to have far-reaching cosmic consequences- but all at once he understands why so many societies worshiped the sun and burned out their eyes in devotion to it.

In the end, Martin turns away from him, facing the TV screen that's now 5 or so minutes into the movie he had put in. He unwraps a cupcake, taking a bite, and makes a sound analogous to a hum, and Xandyr finishes off his own and follows him in repeating the process.

30 or so minutes in, teacups are pushed aside, emptied of their contents. Martin's leg is still touching his own under the tray. The cupcakes serve as a pleasant distraction- if he doesn't distract himself, he's sure he'll lose his mind. He nibbles at them, making them last. The man and the woman onscreen have clear chemistry- at least, he thinks they do. What would he know about it, other than that he wants to see them together?

About an hour. The couple is on a date. Love shines in their eyes. He couldn't tell anyone how they got there if his life depended on it- Martin's shoulder is pressed against his own now, sucking the breaths from his lungs. With the exception of laying down to sleep at night, they've never been this close. It feels.. different. More... intentional. More significant. Like a declaration of something it couldn't be.

Xan reaches for another cupcake, another distraction, but is intercepted by warmth under his fingertips instead, by an electric shock that jerks his head towards Martin like it was on a swivel. He's looking at him again, and he can tell by the look on his face that he felt that too. Xandyr feels heat rush to his face and dread stir in his stomach. It felt so good- better than anything he had ever felt. He couldn't have any more of it. He so desperately wanted more of it. Martin is looking at him like...

Like he wants more, too.

It's impossible, isn't it? And even if it wasn't impossible... even if the feeling that pours from blue eyes and washes over him like warm rain is genuine- he shouldn't, can't encourage it. It'd be unforgivable, to encourage him to fall into a void.

And yet.....

"Martin..." He whispers, and it is as much a plea as it is a warning and a confession. Don't come any closer. Please come closer. I'm going to hurt you. I would never hurt you. I love you. Run away.

Their fingers are locked together- when did that happen? Why does it feel like they were made to? His head swims with dizzy sensation.

He leans in, artless, uncoordinated- he's never kissed anyone before but all he can think about is Martin's lips, parted as they are with the weight of longing. He can feel his breath, can taste it in the air, sweet like frosting and then some, and he is so, so close-

"Wait, wait wait wait!" Martin pulls away with a panicky tint to his voice, and Xan is sure for a heart shattering, relief filled moment that he's done something wrong. That Martin will never speak to him again. It's what's best for him. He can't stand the thought of it.

But he simply slips his round glasses down off the edge of his nose, folding them and placing them safely by his empty teacup, and smiles that beatific smile, leaning back in close.

"Didn't want them to- ah- to get in the way..." For the second time tonight, his tone and mannerisms are sheepish.

Xan can't help himself- the distance between them disappears in a flash, mouths melding together in a mingling of sugar so sweet it makes his teeth ache and his chest ache and his stomach hurt. This is the pain he was waiting for; It's the best pain he's ever felt. His traitor hand combs through fluffy, soft blonde hair, catching on the hair pretty holding his ponytail in and combing it out effortlessly- and to his own surprise, a hand winds into his own hair, pulling at him feverishly. Kissing Martin is all he imagined it would be- soft and gentle curves melding to him in all the right ways, with an edge of what he didn't expect- a desperation to him that mirrors his own.

What he's done, what he's doing, is unforgivable- it flutters through his bloodstream, alternating lighter than air butterflies and the crushing weight of a hundred lead balloons.

He'd do it again in a heartbeat.

[bedlamsbard]

Some Loki thoughts under the cut! Not explicitly spoilery for this week’s episode except for one comment, but some of what I’ve been dwelling on for the past few weeks, especially as I go through my MCU watch.  This is sort of negative, for those who are avoiding negative comments.

I think for me what I'm increasingly missing is context -- Marvel could have run most if not all of this story line with almost ANY character with very few changes; it doesn't feel deeply rooted in Loki himself.  At this point (next week’s finale could obviously prove otherwise) you could run this exact same story line with Natasha or Tony or Thor or Steve or Wanda or etc and end up with pretty similar results.

Obviously some of the decontextualization is deliberate depersonalization; what happens when you remove Loki from everything familiar and put him in this beige office monstrosity?  But even depending where you fall on the was-influenced-or-tortured-by-Thanos scale, that...already...happened to him...when he fell at the end of Thor, it just all happened offscreen, and then it happened again in the beginning of Thor: Ragnarok when he falls off the Bifrost and ends up on Sakaar -- it just all, again, happens offscreen, and both times results in Loki going “yeah, I could be anyone but I’m going to be Loki of Asgard, good or bad.”  Which isn’t to say that there’s not value in telling that story onscreen but I don’t love how they’ve been doing it.  And like, I love alternate universes and multiverses and alternate versions of the same character, I was absolutely onboard for episodes 1-3.

What’s key for me in that kind of thing is still keeping the character very firmly rooted in their own context even when everything else is stripped away from me, and that’s where the show started losing me after ep 1 and to a lesser extent ep 2 really dug into it.  Like, this guy is not human, he’s a thousand years old, he may or may not be a literal god (every Thor and Avengers movie has a different answer for the “are Asgardians gods or not?” question and Ragnarok commits to it; because I love the larger-than-life scale of divine storytelling that’s where I fall on that scale, but the show sort of elides it), and he just had the Battle of New York go pear-shaped on him.  And then there’s his family and...yeah, previously he’s only been presented in context of Thor (and to a lesser extent Odin and Frigga), but like, so has Thor himself -- Thor’s most stripped of context in Age of Ultron, tbh (which is a whole ‘nother issue because of like...the rest of AoU). But that’s a huge part of Loki and his identity issues and the fact that because, for whatever reason, the show can’t/won’t bring in movie characters rings hollow.  (The reasons are probably torn between a very practical “budget + pandemic made it impossible” and a thematic “who’s Loki without his family?”)  I like Loki a lot as a character, but for me a huge part of what makes him that character is his context and not having it is jarring.  (And I like his dynamic with Thor.)  Most of what I find really appealing about Loki has just not been there these past few eps and it’s not there even in its absence, which is the key part for me; with the family bit you can feel around the edges of it because it’s been highlighted a few times, but the “absolutely not human” part is just...lacking.  Like, you can have the magic and all the rest of it too, you know?

And for me the fact that this is supposed to be post-Avengers 2012 Loki -- which is a Loki who’s glaring in his brittleness -- is...lacking?  You can argue that one reason he’s so unsettled is because he’s smarting from what happened there, but I’m just not feeling it.  And yeah, he’s a chameleon who can blend into new contexts pretty easily, even coming immediately out of trauma (the Sakaar episode in Ragnarok shows that), but that’s such a specific context that we’re so familiar with that it feels off to me.  (And also, this is is a me issue, Tom Hiddleston, while very handsome, is very clearly ten years older in the face than he was as 2012 Loki, so I don’t even have the visual cues to say “this is 2012 Loki.”  That is obviously a me issue, again, I want to reiterate that.)

and to switch gears off the decontextualization

I’m also feeling some resentment on behalf of Loki Prime back in the films because the whole argument that a Loki is only allowed to do bad things and won't be allowed to change falls apart in the face of TDW/Ragnarok/IW? and like, he was presumably a pretty decent dude the preceding millennium? there’s a reason his psychotic break in Thor was such a shock to everyone?  (I guess to get back to context, he’s a thousand years old and the fact that none of that history feels like it’s there.  Like, the DB Cooper thing is ultimately pretty harmless, and also like...only forty years prior.)  I've seen people talking about Show Loki having to speedrun Film Loki's character arc but by the whole argument of the show, if we're taking it at face value, that character arc NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. So it sits weirdly with me.

Obviously there’s no reason to take “you were born to cause pain and suffering and death” at face value, except there’s also Kid Loki’s comment in the last ep about “whenever one of us dares try to fix themselves, they’re sent here to die.”  It’s been a while since I read the comics (I think I went through Journey into Mystery around when Thor or maybe Avengers came out, but that was the last time), but IIRC that feels like much more a comics thing than an MCU thing and because they’re so very, very different it’s jarring.  This felt like a lot of “we’re going to stuff comics stuff in here despite the fact that the MCU is only very loosely connected to the comics,” which on the one hand could be fun (and obviously a lot of people found it fun!) but on the other hand threw me very badly.  I love a multiverse but one reason I mentally can't cope with most comics is that I need the multiverse to be very, very logical about its divergence points and that went out the window here. This is 100% about how my brain works, not a quality issue; it’s an issue that’s shown up elsewhere and not specifically a Loki thing here.  (I can kind of look past it for Into the Spider-Verse but tbh I think a lot of the reason I can is because that film’s animated.  again, like, 100% about how my brain works.)

also the recurring “glorious purpose” line makes zero sense considering that Loki never utters it again after Avengers. :/  I know it was exciting back in 2012 but y’all.

okay I’m going back to dealing with all of these problems in fanfic again

[stina-is-a-punk-rocker]

'birds of prey': a cinematic masterpiece

It's been a little over a year since Birds of Prey came out, a couple of months since I watched in on a whim, and I'm still not over this film.

Too many men people get pressed whenever you say you like this movie. "It's objectively bad," they say. "It's campy. It's too divergent from the canon. It's SJW propaganda."

Who gives a fuck, Richard? Who gives a single flying fuck?

I'll preface this by saying, my knowledge of the DCU is flimsy, at best. I've watched a couple of movies. My mum used to watch Smallville. I watched the pilot episode of Gotham. And I know enough about it to get the few references sprinkled in other media. But I draw a complete blank when it comes to the comics. So the canon of the comics had no effect on my enjoyment of the movie. Which I did. A lot.

I walked in blind when I watched Birds of Prey for the first time. I was unaware of the controversy surrounding it, and the only reason I even gave it the time of day was because I was bored.

I watched Suicide Squad circa 2016, and positively abhorred it- the only good thing about it was the soundtrack (the best songs are always wasted on the worst movies. Case in point: Twilight). And the not-so-casual misogyny was just... Yikes.

And then, we got Birds of Prey.

Since watching the film, I did a bit of research (see: Googling 'birds of prey movie reviews' and clicking on the first few results that popped up). The response was mixed- which honestly came as a surprise, since I thought it was great, and mine is the only opinion that holds weight.

I've read and watched a lot of those reviews. I watched the CinemaSins video. I watched the CinemaWins video, because CinemaSins has taken a major nosedive since I first started watching them.

Were all the negative reviews not-so-subtly indicative of the (predominantly male) critics' misogyny? I dunno; how did they talk about similar male-centered action films? I don't think it's fair to scream, "SEXIST!" just because someone didn't like the movie. Critics hated Venom (which was admittedly pretty meh. I still enjoyed it, though), but it was still pretty well-received by viewers.

I saw one review say that Birds of Prey was 'for the birds'... I'll let you unpack that yourself.

And yet, though I try to keep an open mind, I find it unfathomable how anyone can dislike Birds of Prey.

One of my favorite parts about the movie was the female gaze present throughout its entirety. I've seen people bring up the obvious change in Harley's costume- which I'm a bit iffy about, to be honest. Don't get me wrong- I love her choppy bangs and fun pigtails and the whole fluffy top thing she's got going on, but a whole lot of the critique towards her getup in Suicide Squad comes off a tad too slut-shamey (that isn't a word? Well, it is now).

Her outfit wasn't the issue. It's how she was framed.

In Suicide Squad, we get loads of shots of men leering at Harley, and a little too much emphasis on her breasts and arse in almost every scene she's in. As opposed to Birds of Prey, where Harley's still sexy (I'm seriously concerned for the straight men who found Harley unattractive in this film... You good, Pete?), but we focus on her face instead.

That part where Harley gives Canary a hair tie in the middle of a fight scene? Brilliant.

The characters have depth (a lot of reviews disagree with me. Well, what do I know? I am but a lowly STEM student). One of my favorites was Canary (and not just because I found her insanely attractive)- I love, love, love her arc in the film.

I've seen people complain that the villain didn't really get all villainy until towards the end of the film; which, if Sionis had to put on the mask for you to finally see him as the bad guy, then you've clearly missed most of the film. He's literally introduced while he's peeling the skin off of someone's face. Not to mention that one particular scene at the club- I won't go into too much detail, because it could be triggering to a lot of people- but it chilled me to the bone.

Following up with the villains: "All the men are bad guys," they say. "The whole film is feminist propaganda," they say.

And me posting this on International Women's Day is a bit on-the-nose, I'll admit, but this particular critique bothers me. Because those men aren't unrealistic. They aren't caricatures of men in the real world. We all know men just like them. A lot of them hit a little too close to home for me.

I've seen people complain that women touting the film as feminist turned them off from it- which, I dunno about you, but seems problematic to me on so many levels. Sure, not everything has to have a political agenda, but it's hardly like Harley & Co. scream, "GIRL POWER!" every three minutes.

(Also: it's funny how way more people get mad about poorly executed feminism than actual issues a lot of women in the world face, but that's a topic for another day.)

The diversity was just- wow. Getting not only one but FOUR Asian characters with lines? Hollywood, am I dreaming? The LGBTQ+ representation (not going into Sionis and Zsasz being queer coded)? Holy shit, yes! Maybe I'm getting too excited about this- Hollywood's a lot kinder to us minorities as of late- but it still fills me with joy whenever I see people like me onscreen.

Another complaint that springs up with regards to Birds of Prey is the skewed order in which Harley narrates the events. Which is kind of one of her defining traits- she's an unreliable narrator. And she makes it pretty obvious (this video explains it better than I can). The cartooned beginning was engaging, as corny as some of it was (loved the style, too).

The fight scenes were thrilling to watch. Not a single minute passed by where I was bored (my eyes usually glaze over during prolonged action scenes in films, which did not happen in this case). The comedy was well-timed and bold; the cartoonishness added to its charm.

And this is probably not even significant, but I adored the color scheme. I loved the bright, shocking colors; the emphasis on the pinks, reds and blacks.

And, finally, how could I go without mentioning the soundtrack? It was divine- I listen to the Birds of Prey album on Spotify almost every day; Lonely Gun and Experiment On Me are among my most-played songs, and the rest of the music is just as delightful.

In conclusion: go watch Birds of Prey if you haven't already. It's the closest thing to a spiritual experience I had last year.

[watching-pictures-move]

Movie Review | Cape Fear (Thompson, 1962)

I assume I'm not the only one who saw Martin Scorsese's Cape Fear remake before J. Lee Thompson's original, and approaching them in this order helped bring their differences into focus. (I also assume I'm not the only one who saw the Simpsons parody before either. Certainly it made the theatre scene in Scorsese's version hard to watch with a straight face, although given Robert De Niro's glee in that scene, I assume the effect was somewhat intentional.) The most obvious difference between this and the Scorsese remake is the portrayal of the hero. In the Scorsese version, the hero is compromised from the beginning, having hidden away evidence to help put the monstrous villain behind bars. In this, the hero starts off righteously, having only stopped the villain's crime and testified against him. The casting of the stars is key to each film's dynamic. In the Scorsese version, the hero is played by Nick Nolte, whose default mode is sweaty, uncomfortable, maybe a bit hungover. (Exhibit A: 48 Hrs.) This is a guy we can buy as not entirely above board, making him a more conventional noir protagonist. Here, the hero is played by Gregory Peck, who is more readily believable as a stoic, righteous type, having played one for Thompson a year earlier in The Guns of Navarone, a movie that I am completely unable to be partial about as it's a childhood favourite. (Of course, Peck could play real bastards too, as seen in Duel in the Sun.) In that sense, the movie plays a bit more like a nightmare pitched directly at the audience: what would YOU do if this violent sociopath terrorized your family?

The casting of Peck is also crucial because of his offscreen liberal politics, and the movie plays like a direct challenge to liberal notions of criminal justice. The villain is sure to stay clear of obvious (or provable) criminal wrongdoing, leaving the hero unable to defend himself in any meaningful way. The fact that he readily urges the police to strongarm the villain (in ways that now register more clearly as police overreach) compromises him, even before he resorts to more obviously unlawful methods. Peck even has a line about his rights as a taxpayer in what might have seemed like a throwaway bit of dialogue but now might read a little like a preemptive jab at Johnson's Great Society and liberal ideas of big government. With all this in mind, it makes a good amount of sense that Thompson went on to direct a Death Wish movie, where lawlessness is answered with righteous lawlessness. You want something done about all this crime? Pick up a gun and do it yourself.

Scorsese's version has the benefit of loosening censorship and greater acceptability of onscreen sex and violence, but watching this I was struck by how sleazy the movie gets. In addition to the danger the villain poses to the hero, he's undeniably a sexual threat, which the movie bluntly demonstrates with the brutal rape of a drifter. (Because in 1962 such things could not be shown onscreen, the film has a dramatic shot of shutters snapping to a close.) Even for a movie in this era, there's little ambiguity about what he plans to do with the hero's wife and daughter, and the climax offers us the deeply uncomfortable images of him shirtless and glistening as he advances on them both at different times. That being said, the movie is unexpectedly sensitive about the trauma of sexual assault victims and their difficulties with the legal system. Part of the cruelty of the villain's scheme is based on the hero's reluctance to subject his daughter to court proceedings should she be sexually assaulted. I was not expecting a nearly sixty-year old movie to be this astute about this matter.

And of course, much of this would be a moot point if the movie were not effective as a thriller. It's a very good one, with sweltering, disreputable Southern atmosphere and a terrifying Robert Mitchum as the villain (his burly physique and threatening masculinity a nice contrast with the genteel Peck), and a climax in a swamp that drowns you in bold expressionist shadows.

[possible-modernist]

Rewatching The Matrix

Like many others, I expect, I recently rewatched The Matrix, as a refresher for the upcoming sequel. Remarkably, I don't think I've previously sat down to watch it since I first saw it in theaters in 1999. I expect I would have gone back to it (and certainly have seen clips here and there), except that I felt so unfavorably towards the sequels that I never returned. (Yes, Reloaded had some great set pieces, but I think the pair of films fell flat and were a big disappointment).

It's interesting to look at it now and compare my reactions to what they were over twenty years ago. I distinctly remember seeing it with a particular group of friends, and (dare I admit it), I was definitely the least enthusiastic afterwards. As usual, I think this was mostly about expectations. The beginning of the film was so strong, but I didn't really feel like it delivered, for a few reasons.

I can't recall now exactly what I knew going into it. I'm pretty sure I had a vague idea of what to expect, but I'm not sure if I was actually aware of the "What is the matrix?" marketing campaign or not. Regardless, from the opening seconds, I was immediately hooked. I'm pretty sure that I'd never seen such a striking manipulation of the Warner Bros. logo (although clearly it was not actually the first to do so), and that sent such a strong signal that this was something special. Out of the gate, the movie is truly firing on all cylinders, most obviously with the first use of the rotating camera for Trinity's attack, but also with bits of dialogue delivered in ways that are still so memorable (e.g., "No Lieutenant, your men are already dead.")

So why wasn't I more enthusiastic at the end? It's hard to remember exactly why, and I'm sure there are things that I'm forgetting, but three things come to mind. First, I'm pretty sure that I didn't find Keanu Reeves to be convincing or believable. Second, I found the idea of using humans as batteries to be preposterous, and it partially derailed my suspension of disbelief. Third, and most importantly, I felt let down by where the film went. It started with what seemed like such a cool premise, but then somehow ended up mostly just loading up characters with lots of guns.

Going back to view it again, it truly is incredible how well the best parts of the movie hold up. Obviously some of the visual effects are showing their age, but the overall construction of the action scenes, especially the helicopter sequence, are just so well done, not to mention the overall visual style, which still seems remarkably distinctive, even today (at least within the matrix; less so perhaps in the "real world").

On at least two points, I now feel completely differently. First, Keanu Reeves now seems strangely perfect for this role. I'm not sure how much of that is based on subsequent roles that he has taken on, and how much is just seeing him a different light, but it now comes across as kind of a brilliant understated performance. I still find some of the line readings in his earliest scenes to be a bit unbelievable ("This is crazy!"), but other than that it seems pitch perfect.

It's especially interesting to watch the performances with different interpretations in mind. One reading which I've heard, for example, is the idea one could imagine Trinity as the real main character of the story, and Neo as representing a part of her self that she needs to learn to embrace. I'm not sure it quite works, but it is incredible to watch the two of them onscreen through that lens, with a beautiful kind of symmetry in their faces.

In terms of where they go with the idea of the matrix, I also feel somewhat different now. In fact, from my current perspective, the action sequences are just so good, that it seems perfectly fine if the idea of a simulation is only being used as a way of setting them up as remotely plausible. Obviously the film owes a massive amount to Hong Kong action cinema, but it's remarkably well executed here.

It's also fun to discover which parts of the action stuck with me. One scene that never left me was where Laurence Fishburne punches through the wall with his head, and it's still satisfying as hell. Do I still think they could have done more with the idea? Sure, but perhaps now that talk of simulations is so much more common, it feels like less of a missed opportunity, and more like a chance just to tell one particular story.

The one point on which my opinion has not changed is the idea of humans as batteries. I still think it's a bit too much of a dumb idea. In fact, this time around, I noticed that they say "combined with fusion" humans provide a good power source. Why not just use fusion?

However, the fact that it's so silly actually lends itself to a different interpretation. (For the sake of this, I'll simply ignore the narrative universe outside of this one film, mostly because I remember almost nothing from the other movies, but also because it feels like The Matrix was always made to stand on its own.)

The only people we really hear the battery theory from are the other humans outside the matrix, and Agent Smith. The interesting thing is it's somewhat unclear what role Agent Smith plays in this universe. He is clearly an agent of the machines, but we don't actually know how much he knows, or how credible his knowledge is. Certainly there seems to be some disagreement, even dissension, among the three agents in this film, with hints that Smith is the most unhinged of all of them (though also the most authoritative, without necessarily being their superior). Similarly, the humans are clearly in the dark about a lot of what has happened, like who fired the first shot, or what year it is.

In other words, none of the sources of information seem completely reliable, and the film is actually quite amenable to an interpretation in which humans are being kept alive for reasons that have nothing to do with power. The most obvious answer, in my mind, is a kind of experience machine scenario, in which humans chose to create a system which would sustain them, while living inside the Matrix, either voluntarily (individually) or by having it imposed by some smaller group of people. In this reading, the attempts to prevent anyone from disrupting the system could be seen as a kind of built in attempt at stability.

One could accept this reading, and yet still see the main characters of the film as heroes (though that is not the only interpretation), for the reasons that they themselves present. But it is much more ambiguous under this reading, and I rather like the fact that a particularly absurd justification provides an opening for a different way of reading it. To me at least, it's much more fun to think of the matrix not as the result of losing a war, but as the ultimate expression of high modernism.

In the end, I'm sad to say that I still feel a bit disappointed by the film as a whole. The best parts of it truly are exceptional, and are still eminently watchable (not merely for historical interest), but this time around I felt like much of the third act was narratively frustrating, with too much in the way of talking villains, late game coincidences, and characters coming back to life. Maybe my reasons have changed, or maybe this is the part that I'm not fully remembering from my first viewing, but I can't help but come away with the feeling that I wish it could have been something more.

[hardcorehardigan]

[Cover: GREG WILLIAMS/AUGUST IMAGES]

Tom Hardy interview and exclusive David Bailey shot

Tom Hardy interview and exclusive David Bailey shot

By DANIELLE DE WOLFE

02 September 2015

ShortList meets the British actor who took on the Kray twins and won. Plus an exclusive image of the actor taken by the inimitable David Bailey.

Interviewing Tom Hardy is not like interviewing other film stars. From the moment he arrives – alone, dressed down in hiking trousers and black T-shirt, puffing away on a complex-looking digital e-cigarette – it is immediately clear this is not someone who will be exhibiting any kind of on-promotional-duties polish. He is very, very nice (I get a hug at the end of the interview), but there is unmistakably a wired edginess about him. When we sit down, it starts like this:

Me: I’m going to start with an obvious question, which is… Hardy: Have you seen the film? Me: Yes. I… Hardy: Right, well that’s the first question, then. The second one is, “What did you think?” I tell him I loved it, and why, and he is pleased (“That’s a f*cking result!”). When we move on to me asking him questions, his answers – again, in contrast to other film stars, with whom the game is to get them to veer slightly away from prepared, succinct monologues – are smart and eloquent, but long, drawn-out and enjoyably all over the place, veering off into tangents prompted by thoughts that have clearly just formulated. At the end of our allotted time, we are told to wind it up not once but twice, and even then he is still going, launching into theories about American versus British gangster films and life and humanity and such things (“Sorry man, I can talk for f*cking ever!” he laughs). He will be talking with a seriousness and sincerity (“All the risk was taken by [writer and director] Brian [Helgeland], to be fair…”), then will switch without warning into a piercing, mock-hysterical falsetto (“…letting me PLAY BOTH F*CKING ROLES, MAN!”).

In fact, briefly, while we’re on the subject of the way he speaks…

Tom Hardy’s normal speaking voice is not something we have been privy to onscreen. Since he delivered – whatever your opinion of it – the most imitated cinematic voice of the decade in The Dark Knight Rises, we haven’t come close. That thick Welsh accent in Locke, The Drop’s quiet Brooklyn drawl, the Russian twang in Child 44: we just never hear it. And this might be because it doesn’t exist. It’s five years ago, but if you watch his Jonathan Ross appearance in 2010, where he is very well spoken, he confesses he “sometimes picks up accents, and sometimes I don’t know how I’m going to sound until I start speaking”. If you then watch another video of a feature on GMTV, dated just a month previous, while addressing some young people from troubled backgrounds as part of his charity work with the Prince’s Trust, he is speaking to them in a south London street kid drawl. Today, in the flesh, he is about halfway between these two.

A natural-born chameleon.

Tom Hardy shot by David Bailey for ShortList

BEING DOUBLE

The role we are here to discuss today does not, by Tom Hardy’s own standards at least, involve a huge stretch accent-wise. But it is “the hardest thing that I’ve ever done, technically”. This is because, as mentioned, he plays not one role, but two. In the same film. You will likely have seen the posters for Legend by now, depicting Hardy as both of the Kray twins. Which seems an ambitious, almost foolhardy undertaking.

Hardy agrees. “It is one of them situations,” he says. “You get an actor to play two characters, and immediately, it’s pony. It’s gonna be rubbish. Just: no. It’s a bad idea.”

This particular “bad idea” came to him when he first met writer and director Brian Helgeland (who had previously written screenplays for – no biggie – LA Confidential and Mystic River) for dinner. Brian wanted Hardy to play Reggie (the hetero, alpha male, more-straight-down-the-line Kray). Hardy, though, had read the script, and of course, being Tom Hardy, was drawn to the more complex character. “I was like, ‘Well, I feel Ronnie,’” he says. “So which actor am I gonna give up Ronnie to, if I play Reggie? Errrrrggh…. I can’t have that. ’Cos that’s all the fun there! And Reggie’s so straight! But there was a moment when I could have come away just playing Reggie. We could have gone and found a superlative character actor to play Ronnie, and that would have been the best of everything."

But Helgeland sensed the dissatisfaction in his potential leading man. “I’m sitting there thinking, ‘Oh, he wants to play Ron,’” he tells me. “And the paraphrased version is that by the end of the dinner, I said, ‘I’ll give you Ron if you give me Reg.’”

And so began their quest to turn a risky, potentially disastrous idea into something special (as Brian puts it to me, “the movie’s either gone right or gone wrong before anyone even starts working on it”). Hardy found some comfort in Sam Rockwell’s two-interacting-characters performance in Moon. “I’m a big fan of Sam,” he says.

“And Moon gave me reason to go, ‘I know it’s possible to hustle with self, to create a genuine dialogue with self.’ So then it’s the technical minefield: can you authentically create two characters within a piece at all? So that the audience can look past that and engage in the film? It is what it is: it’s two characters played by the same actor. But I think we got to a point where people forget that and are genuinely watching the story."

This was the ‘why I liked the film’ reasoning I gave to him at the beginning of the interview. And it is a remarkable performance, or pair of performances, or triumph of technical direction. The opening shot features both Tom Hardy Krays sitting in the back of a car, and feels strange, but very quickly, within about 10 or 15 minutes, you settle into it, and forget that it is actually the same guy. This was made possible, in part, by Hardy’s stunt double from Mad Max: a New Zealander named Jacob Tomuri.

“He inherited the hardest job of my career,” Hardy grins. “I put on a pair of glasses, played every scene with Ron, then took ’em off and played Reg. And we went through every scene in the film, recording it on the iPhone. So he’s got every scene of me doing both characters, on his iPhone. He actually played both brothers, had to learn all of the lines. He was paying attention twice as hard to keep up. But he superseded that, and was eventually ad-libbing. There’s a line that ended up in the film, where Ronnie goes, ‘I bent him up like a pretzel, I hurt him really f*cking badly.’” “Where did that come from?!” Hardy shrieks, in that falsetto again. “It came from New Zealand."

The wife’s tale

The other big potential pitfall, as Hardy sees it, was contributing to the ongoing glamorisation and eulogising of two brothers who were, to say the least, not very nice. Somehow they have become almost as iconic a piece of the Sixties puzzle as the Beatles or the Stones. But this was not something that Legend would be setting out to reinforce. “One has to approach these things thinking about the families of the victims who were involved in the other end of it,” he says. “Before you find the heart to like somebody, you’ve gotta look at their track record as best as possible: the people who’ve been hurt, the bodies, the suffering, people who were bullied, who lived in terror, who lost significant parts of their lives in the wake of these two men. There’s a lot of sh*t to wade through. And a lot of people who do not, quite rightly, want to see anything to do with these two men. And if I were them, I wouldn’t want to be involved myself, but there’s also part of me that wants to know. That wants to get under the skin.”

So how do you go about doing that? About humanising, to any extent, such people?

“I think the first port of call is, ‘Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to do and say whatever you wanted to do and say in the world, regardless of the ramifications and the consequences?’ Ultimately, when I – we – go to the cinema or read a book or we go to escape, we respond to certain types of characters that go, ‘F*ck it: I’m gonna do whatever I want.'

And that’s because we can’t. Because most people would feel a responsibility.”

The answer to how Legend would do this came in the shape of a person who did feel some responsibility, namely Frances Shea: the troubled wife of Reggie, who died in 1967. Played by Emily Browning, she became the centre of the film when Helgeland met Krays associate Chris Lambrianou, who told him that “Frances was the reason we all went to prison”.

“We could have put more of the carnage and the crimes in that film,” says Hardy. “Not to say that it is not there, but what you do see, really, is Reggie, Ronnie and Frances. That’s the dynamic we focused on, that space, which hasn’t been seen before. What was that dynamic like? I don’t know if we came anywhere near the truth, because we weren’t there. But that was the playing field, if you like: Frances Shea, future ahead of her, caught up in something, and no one with her, the suicide. That sits with me in a way as the lead. She’s who we forgot. Ronnie, Reggie, they’ve done their bit. Frances was forgotten. And that kind of all ties it together for me."

FUTURE LEGENDS

The initial praise for Legend has been plentiful, but the mindset of Tom Hardy right now is such that he does not have the time to bask in it. There are other quite ludicrously challenging projects to be pressing ahead with. Coming in autumn is The Revenant, starring his good friend Leonardo DiCaprio and directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu of Birdman fame. Its trailer, as well as doing the not-going-anywhere trend for big beards no harm whatsoever, suggests that it will also match Mad Max in terms of an unrelenting barrage of intensity. Further into the future there’s the Elton John biopic Rocketman (initial challenge? Hardy “can’t sing”) and another foray into comic-book adaptation with 100 Bullets (news of which broke just after our interview).

And right now, as in this week, he’s working on a BBC series called Taboo, which is set in 1813 and stars Hardy as an adventurer who comes back from Africa and builds a shipping empire. The story has been developed by his production company Hardy Son & Baker (formed with his father, Chips) and has been written and directed by Locke/Peaky Blinders creator Steven Knight, with Ridley Scott also exec producing.

“We’re sat on something really awesome,” says Hardy. “And it’s trying to piece it together. I’ve never produced anything before, so I basically don’t know what I’m doing. But I’ve got some options and solutions: if you say something is not working, you better come up with at least four other options. But it’s good. It’s just different.”

Another day, another big challenge. Another chance to do something different. It isn’t an easy life being Tom Hardy. But neither will it ever a boring one, and that’s good news for us.

Legend is at cinemas from 9 September

Words: Hamish MacBain. Images: David Bailey, Studio Canal

You can also read the Hardy interview in this week's ShortList Magazine. It'd be a crime to miss it.

Source: https://www.shortlist.com/news/tom-hardy-interview-and-exclusive-david-bailey-shot

[eriklivesinmybasement]

Rise of the Guardians: Is it as good as we remember?

(Oof! I’ve been working on this one for a long while! Buckle up buttercup, this is gonna be a long one!)

(Before I get into this, I want everyone to know that I’m not claiming anything to be fact. This is just my personal opinion).

Back in November of 2012, we were greeted with Rise of the Guardians. This movie, based on the books entitled The Guardians of Childhood, written by William Joyce, gave us a new and unique take on our favorite childhood characters. This included Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Jack Frost, and more.

While it didn’t do so well at the box office, it seemed to explode in popularity. It spawned a fandom fairly quickly, even spawning a couple fandoms that branched off of it. For a long while there it seemed that, wherever you looked, you saw cosplays, fanart, tribute videos, fanfiction, etc. Loads of people seemed to absolutely love this movie, and I, as a twelve-year-old at the time and thus a part of the target audience, was no exception.

Even now eight years later, I still claim to love this movie. Even though I haven’t seen it in a long while, it left a huge impact on me as a writer and artist, which is why I am sad to see the fanbase slowly dwindling away. So I went back and watched it again, and as I sat there ready to press the ‘play’ button, I began to wonder. 

Will this movie be as good as I remember it?

And the answer? Yes and no.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I still really like this movie, and I still stand by it being one of my favorites. But just like everything else in life, nothing is perfect. And while still amazing, this movie does indeed have some flaws. 

And as I like to save the best for last, I’ll start off by diving into some of the movies flaws.

Flaw #1 - Pacing

The pacing in this movie can be a little awkward from time to time. Nothing super jarring, but enough to make me go, “I’m sorry, what?”. 

Some scenes seemed to just jump from one to the other without much warning. Either that, or the transition from one scene to the next seemed a little off. One example of this is when North, Bunny, Sandman, and Jack Frost set off to the Tooth Palace. There was nothing inherently wrong with these scenes, but the transition between the two seemed a little awkward. One minute we were having a nice, calm moment between North and Jack, and then all of a sudden we get a quick, action-like sequence with the sleigh.

Another moment that felt awkwardly paced was the introduction of the movies villain, Pitch Black. It seemed like there should’ve been more buildup to him. We got a bit, but moments of buildup seemed quite few and far between. When he was introduced it felt almost a little random, him just appearing for a few moments and disappearing just as quick didn’t seem to work or do him justice.

There are other scenes, but I won’t go over those now, as I guess I’m probably already bugging some hardcore RotG fans.

Flaw #2 - Unexplored Questions and Backstories

Alright, before I get people shouting me down about how, “If I want backstory and questions answered I should read the books”, hear me out.

When you make a story, whether it be in the form of a movie or book, you’re going to want it to make sense. You’re going to want everything to tie together. It’s true that the original books do this, but it’s not seen in the movie. So for those who watch the movie, they may walk out confused about some aspects of it. The two parts I’m going to focus on here are Pitch Black’s backstory, and how Sandman came back to life.

Every story needs a good villain, and Pitch Black is certainly a well-defined villain. But here’s the problem. We get no backstory or explanation as to how he came to be. We do get a quick flashback to Pitch during the ‘Dark Ages’, which gives us his motivation as to why he’s doing what he’s doing. But that’s it. We get no other real backstory to how he came to be. Actually, we don’t get that for any of the other Guardians besides Jack Frost. But again, the other Guardians lack of backstory could be forgiven, as none of them are the main characters. But it’s important to tell a villains backstory because it gives the audience something to connect with.

Onto the next question. How exactly did Sandman come back to life?

This is a question that’s actually been on my mind for a while now. How exactly did Sandy come back? In the movie we clearly see him die, so how did he come back from the dead? The only lead I got is that maybe the kids somehow brought him back. During the final confrontation with Pitch, Jamie touches some of the black nightmare sand and it turns gold. It’s later on after that that he looks to the other kids and says, “I know what we have to do,” and they run offscreen for a little while, only for Sandy to show up soon after. Did Sandy come back through the kids believing in him again? Did they preform some sort of ritual to call him back from the dead? Who knows. It’s a dumb nitpick, I know, but I still wonder.

Well, now that I got that out of the way, and the RotG fandom is probably coming after my head, I’ll go over the strengths of this movie. And trust me, these really help the movie stand out.

Strength #1 - The Characters

All the characters in this movie are phenomenal! But to be honest, Jack Frost was the reason I originally wanted to watch this film when it first came out. Growing up I never really heard any stories about Jack Frost, and the only Jack Frost I ever saw in the media was of a withered old man. So seeing him portrayed as a teenager seemed pretty interesting. And the character was handled and written very well. His backstory was intriguing, he had a fun and enjoyable personality, but that’s not all.

One thing that was really great about Jack Frost’s character was his struggle throughout the story, and it’s actually a pretty relatable struggle as well. In the story, Jack Frost starts out not knowing who he really is or why he’s even alive. Not only that, but it seems that no mortals can see him, effectively making him invisible to the entire world. The story follows him as he looks for answers to his identity. 

This can be a very relatable situation, especially for preteens and early teenagers who are still trying to figure themselves out. And most all of us get to this point. We reach a time in our lives, often in our youth, where we start to wonder exactly who/what kind of person we are. Along with the desire to discover ourselves, there is also the fear/feeling of being invisible and isolated, not understanding where we exactly fit in. Again, everyone reaches a place like that as well, where we feel invisible to the world. Just a passerby. Like we have something amazing to share, if only we could get someone to see it. 

The other characters don’t come off as deep or complex as Jack, but that doesn’t make them any less enjoyable. Santa, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and Sandman were all very creatively designed and portrayed. A lot of the fun from this movie actually came from all these strong, drastically different personalities clashing with and bouncing off of one another. It made for some fun dialogue and hilarious moments which had me laughing off and on throughout the beginning of the film. 

Strength #2 - The Villain

Pitch Black is, without a doubt, one of my favorite DreamWorks villains. I loved everything about this character. From the voice, the design, the aesthetic, it’s all wonderful! But the one thing that set this villain up above many others was that he straight up killed an important character onscreen.

Reminder, I was twelve when this movie came out, and up until then, I wasn’t often exposed to death scenes like this in animated films. I grew up majorly on Disney animated movies and shows, and when a character died, it was usually offscreen. And on the occasion it was onscreen? The villain only indirectly killed a character. For example, in the Lion King, Scar pushed Mufasa into a gorge where a stampede was taking place. Scar killed him indirectly, as he’s the one who put him there, but the stampede is what really did the work.

But in this case it was much different. It’s not like Pitch took Sandy off to the side and killed him there. No, we legit saw this whole scene happen and play out on screen. When I first saw it, it blew my mind! This was actually kind of new for me! We saw Pitch take that shot at Sandy, and we actually saw Sandy’s final moments as he died. When you have a villain physically kill off a beloved character on screen, it sends a message. It sends the message that this villain isn’t all talk. That this villain really does have great power of their own, and that they are serious about getting what they want. That they aren’t going to let anyone get in their way. They mean business. And that was perfectly executed in this scene. (No pun intended).

Strength #3 - The Creativity and Art

I think it goes without saying that this movie is unbelievably creative! Everything from the locations, animation, and the characters themselves in both personality and design are just bursting with creative energy! The animation is incredibly detailed, and for DreamWorks as an animation studio, I think this has to be some of their best work. The colors, textures, details, and everything in between are just so beautifully done. In terms of creativity, two of the locations I want to talk about are the Tooth Palace and Pitch Black’s lair. 

When it comes to the Tooth Palace, the artists and creators were given a lot of creative freedom. In media there is no set idea of a place where the Tooth Fairy lives or operates. We all know Santa lives in a workshop, and it makes sense to think that the Easter Bunny lives in a Warren, but no one really knows what to expect when it comes to the Tooth Fairy. When we saw the Tooth Palace, we were treated to some highly detailed and stunning imagery, all with a lovely color scheme of soft pinks, purples, and blues with accents of gold. Not to mention the design of the structural design was a spectacle itself to behold.

And then we have Pitch Black’s lair. As a lowkey goth at twelve years old in the early 2010s, the aesthetic here made it one of my favorite parts of the movie. This set here is similar to the Tooth Palace in that, the creators had a greater level of creative freedom, as we never really think about where exactly the Boogeyman lives. I mean, we know he kinda lives under beds, but that doesn’t sound as cool as living in a spooky, gothic underground secret lair. (But in all honesty, I do really enjoy the detail of the entrance of his lair being under an old, broken down bedframe. It’s a very good nod to the old stories).

It’s like a maze. A labyrinth full of shadows, and looks like the interior of an old, gothic castle that’s somewhat tilting into an abyss. It’s color scheme is predominantly full of grays and blacks, and the surprisingly elegant-looking cages hanging from an invisible ceiling really helps to establish a more gothic look. And since the lair is very dark and shadowed, it fits and aids Pitch black perfectly, in that he can morph in and out of shadows as he pleases. This gives him plenty of places to hide as he’s making an effort to mess with and get into Jack’s head.

The last piece of creativity I want to touch on is how the characters are presented. And holy crap after this movie this is the only way I can view Santa, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, etc.!

They take these beloved characters that we are already familiar with, and, while still somewhat showing them as we know them, present them in an entirely different way. 

We all see Santa Claus as this huge, lovable man with a big belly who’s always jolly. And while that is what we get from this Santa, or North, as they call him, it’s very much flipped on its head. While still jolly, North is very eccentric, high-energy, and is strong-armed, duel broadsword wielding Russian warrior with tattoos. Seriously, who thinks of a Russian warrior when they think of Santa?! Well, now I do! Also the fact that he’s not always super happy like other incarnations of the character. We get to see that he’s very capable of getting both upset and frustrated. It’s a pretty interesting way to humanize such a beloved character.

We then have the Easter Bunny, who is played by Hugh Jackman. Say that out loud. The Easter Bunny is being played by Hugh Jackman. Growing up, me and many other kids saw the Easter Bunny as a small, cute little critter who hopped around the world leaving baskets and painting eggs. Not a tall, boomerang wielding fighter from the Australian outback. Not only that, but giving him a small rivalry with North was interesting, and snot something I ever really thought about. As well as the idea of a the Easter Bunny having somewhat of a temper.

In terms of character design, I feel like both the Tooth Fairy and Sandman had the most creative freedom. We don’t see these two characters often portrayed in media, so they were able to receive some really cool and unique-looking designs. Especially the Tooth Fairy. Did you ever think of the Tooth Fairy looking a like an elegant cross between a beautiful woman and a hummingbird? No, of course you didn’t. But Rise of the Guardians gave us just that, and it truly set its place for it’s own individual take on this childhood legend. 

Pitch Black is a fairy creative villain as well. When you hear about the Boogeyman, you don’t get very scared. The name actually sounds a little silly when you say it out loud. And even then, because of the success of The Nightmare Before Christmas, you usually think of their incarnation of the character when you hear that name. But this version of the character is actually much different. He’s not this weird, in-your-face kind of monster. He’s a very subtle, yet terrifying character. When I first saw the movie in theaters, there were kids in the room crying at moments when Pitch Black came on screen. It’s also interesting the way his powers work. We all grew up knowing the Boogeyman as someone who just hid under beds. We had no idea what magical powers he may or may not have had. So giving him the ability to morph into the darkness and into shadows was a pretty cool concept, but also solidified that he had a weakness. Light.

So, In Conclusion...

As I have gotten older, I admit that this movie does look a little different to me now, versus when I saw it as a preteen. I’ve noticed some interesting flaws here and there, but I’ve also been able to remember why I fell in love with it in the first place. It’s a very different kind of movie, but that’s part of what makes it so much fun and interesting.

The characters are delightful, the villain is intimidating, the story, while awkwardly paced, is still pretty solid, and is all tied together with a great lead character. And as you get invested in the story, you’ll find yourself getting really into the all artistry that went into creating this movie.

At the end of the day, it makes me sad to see the fanbase for this movie slowly dwindling away. But I feel there are always going to be people out there who enjoy this movie. And you know what? You never know what the future holds. Perhaps there will be a movie in the distant future. Or more likely a animated series on either TV or Netflix. And for the hardcore fans, go and read the original books. 

All I can say here is that, every now and again when it starts to get a little nippy outside, I’ll sit in my living room with hot chocolate and give this movie another watch.

[ghinanotlinetti]

My thoughts on Netflix’s ‘The Umbrella Academy’ Seasons 1 & 2 and the liable (s)hero

Hello! I’m going to be talking about The Umbrella Academy. I got hooked on this show when it came out and my friend recommended it to me, at the time we were on our final semesters of university and had a lot of free time because we weren’t expected to take a lot of classes to focus on our final undergrad assignment, so why not binge watch TV shows! I remember the pace being quite slow, I wasn’t too invested to begin with but then later on as the episodes progressed I got so into it. And when the second season came out during this whole pandemic fiasco which was the perfect gift for us nerds!

I want to firstly mention that I've not read the comics and I don't think I'm planning on doing it soon, but I do like watching superhero movies and series. I can't describe what I'm into I just know that I like what I like which ranges from A to Z. So as an adaptation I can't say much on how the show does the comics justice, but from what I've heard from readers of the comics who've watched the show, the show pretty much follows the story from the comics (not word for word but not too loosely either) which is great I imagine. I can tell the series shows the story of these characters who we know and are invest in very well, it gets straight to the action, drama, and develops intriguing plot lines. I personally love siblings dynamics in TV shows; this family dynamic is so interesting to watch onscreen, from the flashback scenes of when they were little (I really do hope there's a spin-off with the kids!) to their current relationship that they have now with each other as siblings. The first season sets the story straight, then the next season steps it up a notch which is awesome! I love Klaus' character plot, especially the banter that he has with Ben, love those scenes and I'm glad we got to see more of Ben in season 2! In the first season I was drawn to Diego’s character specifically, and I also was intrigued by the backstory involving other characters like Reginald, Pogo and Grace. I like all the characters except for Luther but I can respect what he brings to the family dynamic and the role he plays in the story (even if it's very frustrating to watch). I like the story a lot, I can tell the writing is well thought out and it’s captivating to watch the story play out with each episode. And of course, the production is top tier, American productions really know how to produce high quality films, I really appreciate this and that it was paired beautifully with a good story! I thought the plot had pretty much every element needed to make a superhero franchise, from the conflict, character, even to (problematic) stereotypes...

I'm not very invested with superhero movies in general, but some of my favourite movies are those superhero movies. I love the Spiderman movies (the Toby Maguire ones are iconic, Andrew Garfield ones are good I enjoyed it, and I love Tom Holland's Spiderman a lot), haven't watched all of Thor but I really like Thor Ragnorok, obsessed with Black Panther, love Captain Marvel, I've watched all the Avenger movies without having watched any Ironman movies, the Hulk movie and the first Captain America movie. I also watched some of X-Men movies but I’m less invested in them compared to my mild obsession with the Avengers; I like Days of Future Past, Logan was so brilliant, and I've seen the other films but they haven't really stuck with me. So I get the gist of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (quite familiar with DC but not as much as MCU) and I have to say, I'm so done with the liable characters who are 9 out of 10 times women in these superhero franchises. Vanya is the liable character, Diego says this himself to her in season one when their house is intruded by Hazel and Cha Cha - everyone's using their powers to defeat them meanwhile Vanya does nothing because she can't and gets bruised. And I’m sick of it. I’ve seen this before with the Scarlet Witch (Wanda) and Jean Grey, and every time it’s annoying for me to watch. They’re the most powerful character, but they have no control over themselves it’s annoying! Wanda ends up having to kill Vision and it’s very upsetting for her because she loves him, and it’s all just frustrating to watch as a viewer because of her very bad timing and almost incompetence to be logical. Jean Grey is killed by Wolverine because she lost control of her powers and then in the Sophie Turner one she also dies to save her friends. 

Only tragedy for these lot who most if not all the time are women. There’s already a visible lack of superwomen, so with this liable character trope it’s sad that when women are included in these stories we’re inclined to see them through how the patriarchy views women. If they’re not the hero then they’re the love interest, and if they do get to be the hero it’s the tragic hero incapable of control. Women are “strong” and are meant to save everyone but they’re delicate, too delicate that it gets in the way of them mastering their powers. Women are emotional, they can’t be logical beings so they’re not the leader despite being the most powerful one in the group. Captain Marvel flips this stereotype on its head; that scene when we think there’s about to be a showdown between Captain Marvel and Jude Law’s character (can’t remember the name for the life of me), it’s meant to be one-on-one with no powers but she refuses, blasts him with her fist and says to him that she has nothing to prove to him. Iconic! Now that's a movie and character which is clearly written by women for women and I want more of it! I want to see more female superheros who aren’t the tragic hero with bad timing, zero control over everything including their feelings and powers. The story arc of the liable hero is overdone and predictable, so I really would like to see literally anything else. 

Vanya’s story arc was quite predictable. Of course she has to fall in love with the wrong people at the wrong time, and of course she has to face a nearly impossible dilemma to solve. From the beginning I knew I just didn't like Vanya's character but wasn't sure why, then I realised this female character was written by men, and that's why I found her so.. annoying. She's brilliant obviously don't get me wrong, she's the most powrful one but the fact that this had to be paired with her trauma from years of being neglected was utterly corny. It’s also not lost on me that there’s 7 Hargreeve children and 2 are girls; Allison’s story arc for a while was attached to an unnecessary romance with Luther, and Vanya is the seemingly incompetent one but plot twist, she’s actually the one to watch. I already knew the love story between Vanya and Sissy would be too good to last, but regardless I feel for her because Allison gets to have more than one romance throughout the course of the series, and though they also don’t really last either it’s not as heartbreaking for her to cope with when they end. Vanya gets better at controlling her powers in the second season, but she’s kind of the same lost character because she loses her memories and almost has to start from the beginning. Season 2 was also interesting to watch because it introduced a new character: Lila. So that’s another female superhero who’s also a WOC, great, but her story for me felt a bit like the liable one mostly because of her backstory which of course leads to a difficult dilemma towards the end. It'll be interesting to see what they decide to do with Lila's character in the future seasons, I don't think we really got to know her very well and I'm excited to find out more.

I really can’t wait for the next season but no rush, I can wait for how ever long it takes for the team to not slack, stay true to the story and deliver another season we deserve to watch (haven’t forgotten about GoT’s tragic downfall!). The screen writing is a 10/10 surprisingly for an American production, I hope it stays top tier in the upcoming seasons *fingerscrossed*. The production is obviously 10/10 and cast is 10/10. I guess the only thing lacking is the character, particularly the women which the show seems to not know what to do with them (and yet they know exactly what to do with the male characters). We only got to see a split second of the new Ben and I can’t wait to discover more of who the new Ben really is, which should be pretty exciting to watch!

[twistedtummies2]

31 Days of Disney Villainy - Number 6

The 31 Days of Disney Villainy Continues! I’m counting down my Top 31 Favorite Villains from Walt Disney Animation Studios’ film output. The rancid renegade who is our topic for today might BUG you. Hardy Har Har. Number 6 is…Oogie Boogie, from The Nightmare Before Christmas.

At the beginning of this countdown, I did say there would be an exception to my rule that I would only be counting the villains from the (current) 58 “core canon” films of Walt Disney Animation Studios. Oogie Boogie – the Gambling Boogieman of Halloween Town – is that exception; frankly, I would have considered it criminal – especially in the spirit of Halloween – to ignore him entirely. “The Nightmare Before Christmas” is quite possibly my favorite movie of all time; initially, Disney released it under one of their splinter companies, Touchstone Pictures. (In fact, when I was really little, I had a VHS, and it still had the Touchstone logo.) However, when the film became an increasingly major phenomenon, Disney decided to “officially” make it a Disney product, directly, and “adopted” it into their Walt Disney Animation Studios canon. So…yeah…this isn’t TECHNICALLY part of the central run of pictures and villains I’m focusing on, but it…KIND OF counts? What do you want from me? Again, it’s my favorite movie, and, as the song goes, “This is Halloween!” Seriously, give me one good reason NOT to cheat! XD ANYWAY: much like Mad Madam Mim and Tamatoa, Oogie isn’t onscreen long, and is a different kind of Disney Villain. You see, while he really is more of a true antagonist than just an obstacle to overcome, he functions differently in the plot than most bad guys do. Much of the plot is driven by its protagonist, Jack Skellington…and honestly, if you took out Oogie from the picture, HE’D be the real villain. Not that Jack is evil, he’s just misguided and a bit naïve, with a hammy streak about a mile wide. It’s his actions that cause everything to go haywire; Oogie doesn’t cause any of the terrible things that happen in the story, he basically just reacts to them and plays off of them. To be honest…I kind of like that! I like that this character, at least in the movie, is such a purely diabolical creature; other villains very clearly enjoy doing evil things for the sake of doing evil things, but they still have decided goals and ambitions. Oogie, in the movie, doesn’t really; he’s more like a parasite. He literally does things for fun (and because he’s hungry, I suppose; he does, more than once, allude to the fact he’s going to turn his victims into soup and eat them) and basically nothing else. And the absolute joy he has makes him a delight; from his Cab-Calloway-style blacklit musical number (one of the Top 5 Disney Villain songs for me EASILY, by the way) to the way he teases and plays with his prey, he just rolls with the dice (so to speak). Later on, Oogie would be seen in various spin-offs, and he would be given more direct motivations: in fact, he would have the same basic goal as so many other Disney Villains, that humble desire to – you guessed it – take over the world. But that’s not really what Oogie wants in the movie; he literally just wants to torture, kill, and eat Santa – I repeat, TORTURE, KILL, AND EAT SANTA – because…eh, why not? It sounds like a good ride, he’ll get a good meal out of it, what’s he got to lose? Also, unlike Mad Madam Mim, in particular, Oogie is built up throughout the film. We first see him as “The Shadow on the Moon at Night,” and later, when Lock, Shock, & Barrel – his diminutive minions – are introduced, his name is dropped and his presence is teased much more directly. Granted, he’s still something of a more peripheral antagonist on the whole, but he’s a lot of fun and I love his uniquely devil-may-care attitude. Also, Ken Page. Just…just Ken Page. God, I love Ken Page. Bottom Line: I know it’s cheating, but I also know there was no way in the name of Tim Burton I could leave this insipid bag of incensed insects totally out of the game. It’s time for us to move into the Top 5! Tomorrow, the countdown continues with my 5th Favorite Disney Villain! HINT: Heads Will Roll.

[aion-rsa]

Fear Street Part 3: 1666 Ending Explained

https://ift.tt/3etXAqp

This article contains Fear Street Part Three: 1666 spoilers.

It never could be as simple as reuniting an ancient skeleton’s hand with its wrist, right? That became obvious last week when the Fear Street trilogy’s ostensible heroine Deena Johnson (Kiana Madeira) attempted to break the curse of Sarah Fier by attaching all missing appendages in the alleged witch’s grave… only to be warped to Shadyside’s early days in 1666.

Now in Fear Street Part Three: 1666, we’ve learned the full unholy breadth of Shadyside’s curse, as well as their sister township Sunnyvale’s good fortune—and it’s dark. Involving a perversion of all that is good(e), the curse that has taken so many beloved characters over the centuries turned out to be more twisted than perhaps anyone expected… but not for Sarah Fier, a victim of superstition and misogynistic zealotry. And in the end, Sarah got the last blood-curdling laugh. Here’s how.

Goode Men, Wicked Slaves

For all those who became suspicious last week of the recurring Goode family, your paranoia has been vindicated: that cop really is the Devil. Or at least he’s in service of the Dark One.

By traveling to 1666, Deena was able to walk around in Sarah Fier’s shoes and get a taste firsthand of what it’s like to be wrongfully accused of witchcraft by a Puritanical community (even if she inaccurately later describes them to be Pilgrims). As it turns out, Sarah was not a witch; she was merely the young woman who’s secret love for Hannah Miller (Olivia Scott Welch) caused a spurned suitor named Solomon Goode (Ashley Zukerman) to take umbrage. And as it so happens, Solomon was the one actually dabbling in the dark arts….

Aye, it was Solomon Goode who spilled his blood on Satan’s stone, beginning the process of offering “one name” and soul for demonic corruption in turn for good fortune for the Family Goode. When Sarah rejects his offer to join his unholy bargain with Black Phillip—and more vexingly takes offense over his severing her hand—Goode accuses Sarah for the black magic that’s bewitched Shadyside: the curse which caused a murderous minister to blind children!

Sarah hangs, but not before offering a curse of her own: She will get back at Goode one day and reverse his damnable curse. In the meantime—and at a cost of more than 300 years of functional blood sacrifices—Goode and his family profit from their deal with Old Nick. From father to son, the mainline of the Goode family tree teaches the dark ways to each successive generation, who every decade or so offers a new name and a new soul. The person selected for damnation then goes on a killing spree, spilling blood that the Devil apparently feeds on. Beelzebub in turn grants the Goode family and their Sunnyvale town ongoing prosperity. Hence why by 1994, Nick Goode (also Zukerman) is a corrupt police sheriff and his brother Matthew Goode is the mayor of Sunnyvale.

Meanwhile, Shadyside persists in squalor until….

Magic Blood?

The most satisfying twist of Fear Street Part Three is that halfway through, it becomes Fear Street: 1994 Part 2! To be honest the accents in the 1666 portion of the film were a little dicey, as was the, uh, lack of Puritanism in a film set amongst Puritans. So best to go back to the era of flannel and overalls!

When Deena returns to the ‘90s, she realizes that Sheriff Goode has offered the soul of her girlfriend Sam Fraser (also Welch) to the Devil so she’d kill Deena and keep the secrets of Sarah Fier’s shallow grave buried. And since they have Sam locked up at Ziggy’s house, that means all the Goode family’s damned minions are soon going to be after them. But our heroes come up with a pretty nifty plan.

Thanks to how they saw Shadyside’s collection of nightmares pursue Sam in Fear Street Part 1, Deena and her brother Josh (Benjamin Flores Jr.) deduce that the ghouls will be strictly after Deena’s blood—which low-key makes me wonder how the monsters have such genetic precision to distinguish Deena’s DNA from that of her brother’s. In any event, they team up with adult Ziggy (Gillian Jacobs) and Martin (Darrell Britt-Gibson) by offering the movie-stealing line of the night:

Josh: Wanna help us kill Sheriff Goode?

Martin: Let me get my coat.

The plan for getting it done is also initially pretty solid. They sneak into the Shadyside mall after hours—which just so happens to be built on the site of the Camp Nightwing massacre, which in turn is above where the Goode family’s Satan’s stone is buried beneath the earth—and have Deena cut her hand, dripping blood into a bucket. Then by combining that blood with green paint, they’re able to create cursed blood trails throughout the mall, with each trail leading into a different department store. When four of Deena’s pursuant boogeymen show up, our Scooby gang locks the monsters into their department stores and waits for Sheriff Goode to arrive and inspect the remains of his handiwork. Instead of mangled bodies, he finds his teenage crush Ziggy, now ready to dump blood on his head like Carrie references never went out of style.

It’s an elaborate plan which was built on the idea of unleashing all the ghouls intended to kill Deena on their own master. However, it might’ve just been simpler to shoot him. Oh well. 

This final flourish of course goes horribly wrong but at least we get the fun sequence where the hapless heroes figure out they can delay the monsters by spraying each in Deena’s green blood, allowing for proxy fights between pseudo-Jason Voorhees and pseudo-Ghostface.

All Goode Things Come to an End

The actual resolution to this centuries-long terror turns out to be pretty simple. Deena follows Goode beneath the mall and to the Satan’s stone, as well as the literal unholy beating heart of the Goode family’s power. While she fails at stabbing the much bigger evil copper, she at least succeeds at running a knife through his power’s beating heart. It’s apparently as easy as that to undo the curse. It also allows the vengeful spirit of Sarah Fier to return from the dead and finally stab a Goode boy in the eye, sending him to Hell and Shadyside’s curse with him.

The plot’s mechanics are simple, but the implications are much more interesting. Because who else follows Nick and Deena toward the mouth of Hell but Sam, still possessed and now conveniently free of her restraints. She also attempts to thwart Deena and nearly kills her, yet Deena is able to make simple eye contact with her one great love and break through, shattering Satan’s grip.

It’s intriguing since, technically, we’ve seen Goode’s curse divide lovers before, with Tommy Slater (McCabe Slye) in Fear Street Part Two: 1978 not even hesitating to swing his axe into girlfriend Cindy’s heart. But then Deena and Sam’s love is strongly hinted at as being of a greater emotional purity. After all, Sam is clearly a descendant of Hannah Miller, the young woman whom Sarah Fier loved and saved from the noose by insisting that she alone was the witch of Shadyside, even bewitching poor Hannah into impure thoughts.

Are Deena and Sam the reincarnations of Sarah and Hannah? It’s possible, if even on a spiritual level since Sarah doesn’t appear to have any direct descendants. In any case, unlike so many slasher movies released between the 1970s and ‘90s, a lesbian romance is prominently featured at the center of this story, and is even the one redemptive light in Shadyside’s darkness.

Read more

Movies

The Netflix Fear Street Part 2: 1978 Easter Egg You Might Not Have Spotted

By Rosie Fletcher

Movies

Fear Street Part Two: 1978 Breaks Friday the 13th’s Darkest Rule

By David Crow

It also makes a striking juxtaposition next to Nick Goode’s dead body. This man might have been the current beneficiary of his ancestor’s bargain, but he represents something grimmer: the predatory nature of a society’s affluent feeding off the suffering and annual tragedies of their community’s underclasses. Sunnyvale flourished as a home for the wealthy while Shadyside wallowed in blood and trauma.

Kind of cuts deep the longer you think about it.

So… Who Took the Spell Book?

Of course this wouldn’t be an old school horror movie if it didn’t set up a sequel. Fear Street Part Three definitely offers resolution for its current narrative: Nick Goode is dead and exposed in the press as the Sunnyvale serial killer; Josh, meanwhile, may yet have his first girlfriend; and Deena and Sam are together, honoring Sarah Fier, if no one else will.

But beneath the reopened Shadyside Mall, we glimpse the book of black magic that Solomon Goode first used to make his pact, and a pair of hands belonging to an unseen face snatch it. Who stole the book and what are they up to?

Well, it’s worth noting that the Goode family has grown quite a bit in the 300-plus years since Solomon Goode accused Sarah Fier of witchery. Nick Goode appears to be the eldest son in the direct line. He’s the one taught the spells onscreen, and the boy who reads out Thomas Slater’s name—ironically in a bid to wrestle him away from Ziggy. However, just because Nick Goode is the one who damned Tommy and Ryan Torres in the last two Fear Street movies, it does not mean he was working alone.

Despite what Mayor Goode told the press about his brother, he almost certainly knew about his father and forefathers’ good work, as would the rest of the extended family. And here’s the thing…it will be so much harder next time for Deena (or, say, a new generation of millennial Shadysiders in the 2000s) to fight city hall. There’s also the likelihood that there’s more than one curse in that book of spells.

The Fear Street trilogy is over. The Fear Street shared universe may have only just begun. 

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

The post Fear Street Part 3: 1666 Ending Explained appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3wMeGX0

[marlahey]

@rochey1010​ going back and forth in long-winded replies seems like unnecessary effort for both of us so I hope you don’t mind another text post as I fully articulate my thoughts. as I’ve said before, you’re obviously entitled to your own opinions, but you’ve now seemed to make a lot of assumptions about me a fan/viewer/general consumer of media that I feel like I should clear up. you’ve also made some further claims about the show I’d like to pick up for discussion. If you want to speak further please feel free to respond but of course don’t feel obligated. This’ll be the last public post/reply I make and we can go back to ignoring each other in the tags!

Well i love Eliott/Lola's friendship and i have an upcoming post on that as i said in other posts. I love lola too but i'm sorry i didn't just start watching this show because lola was invented and there's a w/w love story. I've been here for seasons and carried over from OG. I have investment in eliott for personal reasons (mental health) and elu because duh. Their stories have been long running too as i said. And you don't have to be a main to set up a plot/arc. The things between them have been set up since S3 with minute par minute talk, S4 and Idriss, S5 and the cheating perspective, and now S6 and Lola friendship. That is intentional. Do you think it's a coincidence that Lucas talked about pansexuality and eliott having more choice in S5 and suddenly Eliott has a friendship with a girl. That lucas abandonment issues haven't been resolved and are now coming to the forefront because of this friendship? That max has stated that Eliott feels he can save someone from a darkness he himself went through, that eliott himself was sorta saved from the shadows by Lucas. That neils/david specifically stated that this character can help someone even though he has bipolar disorder. That with Eliott's arc there is a focus on his SKAM. That we now have new info about it serving the season. If you understand writing. These things aren't put there for fun. They are there to imply/hint/foreshadow events actions to come. That there is a character now on the show with Lola basically female eliott. Do you think these are all coincidences. This plot we are seeing has slowly been set up not just since S3 but actually heavily developed starting in S5. And that if you now go back and watch S5 you see our main players being set up for this plot e.g  dasille relationship, daphne's ED, Eliott and his individuality, Elu trust/insecurity issues, Eliott's art and it tying into seasonal themes, Lola herself and her outlier persona etc. I don't know whether you are but there are many fans have migrated over from espana just for this season. But you have to understand there is a long term fanbase here that love Eliott, are invested in him and have been waiting for more of his insight. We are now getting that and we will talk about him. He's a hugely popular character as is Lucas and their love. I love both and i will talk about both. Sometimes i won't talk much About lola and talk more about eliott, sometimes i'll connect them and discuss their relationship, sometimes i'll make a post about just about lola, daphne, tiff, benny, movie references as i have. But this is my blog and i'll post what i want to post. You don't have to read any of this stuff. The tag is a big place, just scroll by. As for the theories- just theories. And in my theories i believe these characters are going to make mistakes, fail and grow e.g. lola self Destructing again but being her own hero by the end, eliott and lola being dragged down like lucas said but showing the strength of their friendship by the end, lucas being proven right but also proven wrong by the end. Like i said specific dialogue now being used is not just there to fill the script e.g. "and i have lucas. I can't lose this" "i think one of you may bring the other down" and eliott is heading for a rock bottom as is lola. Again just my thoughts. 👍

While I find it odd that you seem to be gatekeeping the skam france fan community, to be clear I have seen the entirety of three iterations: og, france, and austin. I believe I started OG during s2 or 3, and have seen Fr and Aus from the beginning. I’m not as interested in other versions as I’m very familiar with the plots/characters by now. I’m partial to france as a bilingual canadian as it’s nice to exercise that part of my brain; I’ve also studied/lived there briefly and have some very close friends from france so that amplifies my enjoyment. I’m also bisexual, so I also find this ‘only here for lola + w/w’ when you yourself admit to being emotionally invested in the show’s most dominant queer ship dichotomy very awkward.  to be honest, I think many skam’s fandoms tend to fixate on the esak ship and their season. friends have seen other iterations and confirmed this for me. it happened with elu as expected so I was really unsurprised when maya was introduced and fandom immediately put a lot of their investment into shipping two characters of the same gender. nearly every fandom in general does this: teen wolf, glee, supernatural to name a few – even harry potter. I’m not really a fan of the romantic subplot in lola’s season. she is not elliot 2.0 for so many reasons; she’s her own person and she doesn’t need a romantic partner to be a compelling character with a compelling story. that being said, I liked elu’s season. I particularly love maxence’s elliot; he’s my favourite even. I was thrilled to see him onscreen however briefly after S3 every time he appeared. now he’s finally his own person outside of his relationship with lucas and I couldn’t be more pleased to see that.  I’m not sure how idriss and elliot reconnecting after the attempted kiss falling out plays into lucas’ insecurity or their relationship. it’s perhaps a reminder of his bipolar disorder or the fact that he clearly had friends/relationships before lucas, but I’m not sure how it’s relevant to the season at hand. the biphobia discussion with arthur preceeding lola’s introduction as the new main is not proof that lucas’ supposed abandonment issues are founded in any way, or that he even still has them when we meet her. by insisting on it, you’re perpetuating the harmful idea that any bi or pan person will be tempted to cheat or leave (physically or emotionally) when presented with literally any person whose gender opposes their current partner. this is something that skam fr had literally left unaddressed for so long even with representation in alexia and elliot, and I was so thrilled when it finally came up. it’s very uncomfortable that you’re now using that important conversation as apparent proof that lucas will be abandoned or betrayed, inadvertently or not, by his pansexual boyfriend. I know that daphné was meant to be s6′s main and skam fr wasn’t given the rights by og’s creator. so it makes sense that she/her relationship/struggles feature heavily in her sister’s season. I’m personally thrilled cause I love her and lula is a wonderful actress. that being said, not everything is foreshadowing. not every single interaction or conversation will return to further plot or character. sometimes storylines are just resolved or dropped and awareness raised is just awareness raised. sometimes it’s wonderful and sometimes less so. I understand writing. I’m saying this as a literal former english teacher (ignoring capitalization for aesthetic lol) and assistant in film/tv post-production with an MA in media studies. “Lucas, you have nothing to worry about, it’s not like that between us.” “I know, he explained it to me.”  I’m not sure how much clearer the literal show can be about this issue. spoiler or not, it’s been made abundantly clear that lola and elliot are not romantically involved. even more importantly and I’ve said this on my blog before, you’re allowed to have intimacy with someone without forcing it into a defined familial or romantic relationship. it doesn’t mean that someone’s partner should necessarily feel threatened or abandoned and says a lot more about that person’s insecurity than either individual in the friendship. we’ve also already discussed how much I dislike this turn for lucas’ character as elliot’s apparent MH saviour so it’s not worth repeating again. as for elliot saving lola, well he literally did that already. I’m not sure what you mean by lucas ‘being proven right and proven wrong’ by the end, but you’re obviously adamant that something will happen. I have also seen maxence’s interview a few times. I’ll not argue with the ‘lucas saved elliot from that shadow’ because it literally came from the actor’s mouth, but maxence doesn’t say he can save anyone else from their struggles, but help them and I think that’s a really important distinction. this whole saving idea doesn’t seem healthy at all, especially as lola and elliot grapple with their mental health. it seems like people want to see a ‘rock bottom’ (whatever that means) for them both and it makes me a little uncomfortable. addiction and MH struggles should not have to reach a breaking point in order to be considered resolved or cathartic; they don’t even have to be resolved, because they’re not a plot device. they’re a reality for so many people. the show does a good job of not romanticizing them but some of the things I see in the tag are just... yikes.  as for his ‘dark’ side and the less than happy elu moments, I’d argue that maxence may have meant literally punching out what’s his face to save lola and the subsequent argument(s) with lucas, since that interview came out just before ep 4. but there’s still several eps to go so I could be totally wrong. who knows. it’s your right to theorize on your own blog of course and it’s not my intention to be mean. I’m just trying to further the discourse in a respectful way. I do feel that you may put a little too much stock in what’s literally said/seen and assuming a lot in the unseen gaps, rather than considering a broader context. to wrap up though, lucas is free to have this (however hurtful) fear, just as you’re free to believe it’ll for sure come to pass.  I dread seeing either lola or elliot spiral out, but as 2020 has taught me, I very rarely get what I want lol. thank you @cakepleasee for helping me sort out my thoughts!

[starstruckteacup]

Cottagecore Films (pt. 11)

A Little Princess (1995)

starring Liesel Matthews, Liam Cunningham, Vanessa Chester, Eleanor Bron

synopsis

I was extremely disappointed in this film, to put it lightly. The story itself was beautiful, but that is thanks exclusively to the novel on which it was based. The movie itself utterly failed to convey the magic and timelessness of the book. The acting was flat, emotionless, and forced at every point, from every actor (except for maybe Cunningham, but he was absent for half of it). One would think a gaggle of girls would have some form of natural chemistry, whether pulling them together or apart, but not a single child actor portrayed even the remotest semblance of a relationship to another. (Note: I describe in my review of Pan’s Labyrinth what quality acting from a child looks like, for reference.) Even Matthews and Cunningham could not pass a believable father-daughter relationship, despite the story being about that. As far as emotional acting, the adults were just as bad as the children. They couldn’t even feign a single moment of joy, sadness, or anger, regardless of the context. I actually laughed for the entire scene during which Sara nearly died because of how bad the acting from the adults was. At least Chester seemed somewhat worried; Bron and the nameless police officers stood around so vacantly it looked like they forgot what was happening. I really was appalled by the abysmal acting, especially when so much was handed to them in the story. I want to preface my next point by saying that yes, I know computer animation was still a work in progress in the 90s. But this was horrifyingly awful. I have never once, not in my entire life, seen CGI as terrible as the monster in Sara’s stories. I nearly gave up on the entire movie within the first five minutes because of that monster. And it kept showing up, which absolutely ruined whatever favor I tried to hold for this movie. If you don’t have the budget, which this film clearly didn’t, don’t try to animate a monster. It’s that simple. I wish I had more words for it but it was truly so atrocious that I’m at a loss. Any good will I hold for this movie is due to my fondness for the story (no credit to the film), the settings (while not exceptional, they were fairly pretty), and Liam Cunningham’s acting. 2/10

Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007)

TW: blood, mild gore, torture, racism against indigenous people

starring Cate Blanchett, Geoffrey Rush, Clive Owen, Abbie Cornish, Jordi Mollà, Samantha Morton

This film is the sequel to Elizabeth (1998) (see part 10 of my film reviews), which continues the story of Queen Elizabeth I as her rule progresses. Tensions between Catholic Spain and Protestant England grow ever greater, escalating to treasonous plots and assassination attempts. Mary Stuart, Queen of Scots, and King Philip II of Spain conspire to depose Elizabeth and place Mary on the throne, restoring Catholicism as the national religion. Even as these events lead to war between the two superpowers, the court provides no sense of stability as new faces and new stresses surround the Virgin Queen. She forms a strong friendship with the pirate Walter Raleigh upon his return trip from the New World, where he seeks to establish colonies under the English flag. However, his stay is extended greatly when Elizabeth’s selfishness and pride take over, and are only broken down in the face of battle when she puts him at the forefront of the British navy. Outnumbered, Elizabeth will need Raleigh’s loyalty and cunning, along with the unwavering loyalty of her people, if they wish to survive the Spanish onslaught.

While still a drama, this film proved to be much more war-oriented than its predecessor, but I’m not sure it did either as well. I liked the deeper look this film gave us into the Elizabeth’s mind, especially with her social and emotional conflicts. They remind us that she is still human, despite the somewhat cold appearance the first film gave her at the end. She is more mature, and even more prideful, but there’s still a limit to what she can take as a person. I think the first film gave a better portrayal of her complicated mind, but this was a solid continuation of what years of ruling can do. I also liked how much detail they put into Raleigh’s character, which the first film didn’t do as well with its secondary characters. We got to know more about him, even if he did still feel somewhat surface-level. I think the dramatic aspects could have felt more high-stakes than they did, especially for the characters who were actually in danger. Even though so many characters were actively committing treason, I only felt that level of tension with one: Mary Stuart. Her death was particularly elegant and laden with symbolism, and even though I knew the outcome historically the scene still delivered the anxiety it was meant to. The others simply didn’t have the same delivery. Even the assassination attempt didn’t project any kind of concern, regardless of one’s historical knowledge. The war focus was a fairly different take than the first had, which I appreciated. The film established a strong balance between the tensions in England, Scotland, and Spain, and did a good job making the stakes very clear for each group. Given the uncritically positive stance on England that this film takes, I would have expected the film to villainize Spain a little more to form a stronger dichotomy between the two rulers, but Spain was presented rather neutrally to the audience. The Spanish ruler and nobles didn’t have much character, despite being the antagonist. As for that uncritical positivity regarding England, I do have a bit more to say. Although to an extent it makes sense that the film would lean in favor of England, given its content and the point of view from which the story is told, it became overbearing at times. England could do no wrong in this film, despite children dying in battle, indigenous people being humiliated and dehumanized for show, talk about slavery, and a complete disregard for the suffering of non-white and non-Protestant groups. In contrast, the first film heavily criticized England, from Mary of Guise shaming Elizabeth for sending young children to war, to Elizabeth frowning upon Walsingham’s torture methods (granted she never stopped them, but she didn’t approve as readily as she did in this film), and so on. Although England in truth did all of these things without rebuke, the film could have handled it more gracefully and came across less like propaganda, at the very least. 5/10

Loving Vincent (2017)

TW: suicide (action offscreen, death onscreen)

Sensory Warning: movement of the impressionistic paintings can be very disorienting for those with sensory processing difficulties. I had to break from watching multiple times so as not to become ill.

starring Douglas Booth, Eleanor Tomlinson, Jerome Flynn, Robert Gulaczyk

This fully hand-painted animated film follows Armand Roulin, a young man with a severe temper, on his way to deliver Vincent Van Gogh’s last letter to a living recipient. When he reaches the town where Vincent died, he begins speaking to a variety of villagers with their own stories about the artist, and their own theories about how he died. Armand tries to piece the puzzle together, wondering if the death was not a suicide as claimed, but rather something more sinister.

This film was spectacularly breathtaking. The amount of work that went into painting every scene was awe-inspiring, and definitely sets the bar high for any other films of its kind. The team of artists that created this film represented Van Gogh’s unique art style exquisitely through their loving application of oil-based paints, and truly brought to life the emotion he put into his works. I wish I hadn’t struggled so much with the constant movement, as I feel I would have been able to appreciate the film in its entirety better, but as it was I struggled to pay attention to the story because the art style consumed too much of my sensory processing capabilities. As for the story, I thought it was interesting, but I found it lacking despite the incredible artwork. Foremost, after some cursory research, I discovered that the homicide theory on which this film was based was only acknowledge by one individual, and spurned by hundreds of others. Although the film leaves the verdict open-ended, both to Roulin and to the audience, the story itself seemed to lean into the homicide theory, then completely give up on it with no resolution, so it came across as fairly noncommittal. I won’t argue for or against the theory, as I don’t know nearly enough about Van Gogh to assert an opinion, but I’m somewhat unsettled by the amount of weight it gave to it without any kind of evidentiary support, only to dump it as if the writers changed their mind themselves. The pacing was also slow for a murder mystery, which is basically what the story turned out to be. I would much have preferred the film to cover Vincent’s life, or even the days/weeks leading up to his death, instead of only featuring him in other people’s flashbacks. This kind of existential impressionism should capture the life of its creator, not the mundane views of people who didn’t understand him or even hated him. There wasn’t anything wrong with the film, per se, but I wish the writing was given as much love as the art was. 7/10

Part 1 // 2 // 3 // 4 // 5 // 6 // 7 // 8 // 9 // 10

[mariolucario493]

A Frozen 2 review no one asked for! (POSSIBLE SPOILERS AHEAD)

Okay, hear me out. I’m probably in the minority when I say this, but...

I think it’s better than the first one.

I liked the original Frozen just fine. I liked how it depicted anxiety and how it subverted a lot of Disney tropes, but I probably wouldn’t put it in my top ten.

(Which, in case you’re interested, is:)

10. Tarzan

9. Aladdin

8. Beauty and the Beast

7. Frozen 2 (this one!)

6. Lilo & Stitch

5. Wreck-it Ralph

4. Moana

3. The Lion King

2. The Hunchback of Notre Dame

1. Zootopia

(And that’s not even including the Pixar ones.)

But it seems that the general consensus of Frozen 2 is the same as a lot of sequels (especially Disney sequels): that it’s not as good as the first one. Or, dare I say it, that it’s just the first one all over again. But here’s my argument against that. I think being similar to the first one actually works in its favor.

What do I mean by that? Well, after the prologue, the movie opens with a song called “Some Things Never Change,” in which all the characters sing about how happy they are in their current life. Although Olaf worries that change might be inevitable (I love how woke he’s become, btw), no one is really seeking anything new. Now that sounds like the setup for a lot of recent Disney movies, I know. But it's an idea that’s really explored throughout the entirety of the movie.

Every character reacts to change differently. Elsa is nervous, but tries to embrace it anyway; Olaf dismisses it as something he will understand when he’s older; Kristoff feels like he and his friends are drifting apart; and Anna struggles to accept it overall. And we see how each of them goes through it. Even the inclusion of darker themes allows the audience to react similarly to the characters onscreen. Kids probably won’t always understand what’s going on; but they’ll have a good time anyway. And just like Olaf, they’ll understand it when they’re older. That does seem to be one of the major criticisms I’ve seen for Frozen 2, that it’s too dark and too complicated for kids. But Disney’s never been afraid to tackle heavy subjects before, because they know that challenging the audience helps them grow. And hey, at least it’s not Crimes of Grindelwald, right?

I think the reason they made Frozen 2 similar to Frozen 1 was the same reason they used similar themes in Frozen 1 that we were already familiar with - princesses, magical kingdoms, curses, goofy sidekicks. And that’s to deconstruct and subvert them. In fact, I might even go so far as to say that this was an attempt to remind Disney to always try new things, which they have had trouble with recently. Just look at all those live-action remakes that no one asked for. The exact same thing all over again disguised as something new, but without all the stuff that made the originals so good in the first place.

Frozen 2 also continues the tradition of having interesting female protagonists. Well, interesting ANIMATED female protagonists, anyway. It’s not like the Aladdin remake, where Jasmine has a whole new song about girl power, but then she becomes the damsel in distress anyway and does nothing to fight back. It’s not like Captain Marvel, who makes a big deal about being a female superhero even though the Avengers already have several much more interesting female members. It’s not like the new Star Wars movies, in which they’re so focused with making Rey a strong female role model that they forget to give her a personality. And it’s not going to be like the Mulan remake, which I’m just going to assume is going to be another soapbox feminist’s wet dream. Oh, wait, I forgot this is Tumblr, and they love that shit.

But really. Starting with Tiana, Disney’s animated leading ladies have become such well-written characters. From Rapunzel to Vanellope to Judy Hopps to Moana to Elastigirl, they are fully fleshed-out characters first and agenda pushers second. Anna and Elsa are no exception. Elsa battles magical spirits and tames a water horse, and Anna has a crisis of ethics that feels really genuine. All without saying something dumb like “Look how capable I, a female, am in this situation, in comparison to my less competent male companions.”

Oh, by the way, for those of you who wanted Elsa to be revealed as a lesbian, I think we have a few more hints that she may be. She does not end up with a love interest, but I noticed she does seem to get along really well with Honeymaren. So maybe? Definitely better than the live-action Beauty and the Beast, am I right?

Oh, and the songs are great. We get not one, but TWO big numbers from Idina Menzel. Olaf and Kristoff both get new songs that are pointless, but still really funny. Anna has a new song that is one of the emotional highlights. The lyrics are just as clever, and they help further each character’s story arc. Even the lame pop versions of the songs over the end credits, which I usually DESPISE; hearing Imagine Dragons’ cover of “Into the Unknown” was actually pretty decent.

So, those darker themes. The reveal that one of Anna and Elsa’s ancestors was a genocidal tyrant who built the dam as a way to restrict the Northuldra tribe’s resources, and then declared war on them. Pretty ballsy, I have to say. And pretty creative that the villain of this movie is a character who is already dead before the movie even begins. Kind of like Coco, but they don’t even interact with him as a spirit or anything. What I like about this is that it kind of explains why the father in the first movie didn’t always do the right thing when it came to raising his kids. Locking up one of your daughters because she has supernatural abilities seems like a terrible move. But when you consider that Agnarr’s father was also distant from his son and had the goal of suppressing magic, you realize that it may have been a subconscious choice on his behalf. And hey, it’s also revealed that the reason Agnarr left on the ship that would eventually be his grave was to find answers about Elsa. So he probably felt remorse about it.

And now it’s time to compare this movie to today’s political climate. And before you start typing about how I’m wrong like Tumblr users are prone to do, maybe take a hint from the first movie and let it go. This is just my personal analysis.

The Northuldra tribe is clearly inspired by the Sami, the indigenous people of Norway, who have been persecuted for generations. But I don’t know much about Norwegian history, so let’s just compare it to America. Now let’s see...does America have a history of persecuting its indigenous population and disguising acts of war as offerings of peace? Hey, didn’t this movie come out just a week before Thanksgiving?

That’s right, I’m going there. Come to think of it, this whole movie radiates Thanksgiving vibes. It’s set in autumn, and it opens with everyone having a big feast with pumpkins and stuff.

King Runeard is a historical figure within Arendelle, and he is considered a hero. The dam that Runeard built is a monument that is ultimately destroyed by Anna in the film’s climax. And Anna initially refuses to do so because she believes the dam represents all that her kingdom stands for. I might be crazy, but this reminds me of how people are starting to take down statues of Confederate soldiers or how many cities have stopped recognizing Columbus Day as a national holiday, despite others saying that they are important parts of our heritage. One of the lines in “Some Things Never Change” is “Arendelle’s flag will always fly.” Sounds kind of like those conservative nuts who think the American flag is an infallible symbol and anyone who disrespects it (say, by taking a knee during the national anthem) is not a true patriot. Might be grasping at straws with that one.

And what Anna decides to do ultimately makes Arendelle a better place, even though she worries that it will be an unpopular decision. So we have a person in a position of political power who puts aside her own hubris for the good of her people. She asks for nothing in return, and knows that the right choice is not the easy one. She destroys a physical bridge, but builds a metaphorical one. Anna really is the type of leader we need. And if you think that it’s ethnocentric that a white person saves the day for a minority, remember that Anna and Elsa are actually half Northuldran on their mother’s side.

Yes, I believe Frozen 2 is up there with Zootopia as one of the great Disney flexes on right-wing extremists. But it’s subtle enough that we can enjoy the characters, the music, and the story first; and the message second. It reminds us to step outside our comfort zones and to always think about what it means to do the right thing.

If you didn’t like the first Frozen, you probably won’t enjoy this one either. I can understand what people mean when they say the movie throws a lot at you and doesn’t always feel focused on a coherent story. But regardless, I think it is an important movie.

[watching-pictures-move]

Viddying the Nasties #37 | Possession (Zulawski, 1981)

This review contains spoilers.

Andrzej Zulawski's Possession is a movie I'd somewhat been dreading revisiting. When I'd seen it all those years back (on YouTube, split into two parts if I recall correctly, as the DVD had been hard to come by in those days), despite being greatly moved by the experience, I'd also found it an extremely exhausting film to sit through. It's a tortured divorce melodrama (among other things) that starts at 11 and only goes up from there. Lots of shouting and screaming, physical abuse, kicking around chairs and tables. The movie is not what I'd call an overtly pleasant experience. Watching it now (on a Blu-ray from Mondo Vision, a substantial upgrade from my original format), while I won't characterize my previous impressions as inaccurate, I was able to better appreciate how the movie modulates this tone, acclimatizing us to its fraught emotional space. The movie starts off in the realm of a normal, bitter breakup, with the husband having returned from a work trip only to learn that his wife is leaving him and struggling to make sense of it, his frustration and anger stemming as much from the fact of her dissolving their relationship as his inability to comprehend her motivations. It isn't really until the half hour mark that it asks us to dive off the deep end with it. The husband hits his wife in the middle of a fight, follows her onto the street as she tries to halfheartedly throw herself onto the path of a truck, which then drops its baggage in an almost comical bit of stuntwork, their squabble ended when the husband becomes surrounded by children playing soccer and joins in. Any one of these by itself is nothing out of the ordinary, but Zulawski assembles them into an off-kilter crescendo, and does away with any sense of normalcy for the rest of the runtime.

That this approach works as well as it does is largely thanks to Isabelle Adjani as Anna, the wife, who spends the aforementioned scene looking like a vampire in cat eye sunglasses and blood streaming down her grimacing mouth. She delivers perhaps the most bracingly physical performance I've seen in a movie, but again this is something I'd maybe underappreciated initially in terms of how finely tuned her choices are. An early scene where she fights with her husband has her manically cutting raw meat and shoving it into a grinder, as if to channel her frustrations into acceptable form of violence for women. When she takes an electric knife to her throat, she begins to spasm about like a farm animal during a botched slaughter, providing a further comment on her domestic situation. The film's most famous scene has her freak out in a subway tunnel, thrashing her limbs about chaotically but almost rhythmically, maybe like the contractions when goes into labour. Her character later describes this as a miscarriage, ejecting the side of her which is neat and orderly and "good". Adjani plays this other half as well, with a much more old fashioned hairdo (braided conservatively like a stereotypical schoolmarm), one which provides a much more tender maternal figure to the couple's son. Adjani is also well cast because of her emotive, saucer-like eyes, which she isn't afraid to point at the camera repeatedly, providing a genuine emotional grounding during both the quieter and more hysterical sections of the movie.

Her husband, Mark, is played by Sam Neill, who had been cast after the filmmakers had seen him in Gillian Armstrong's My Brilliant Career. To understand why Neill works so well, it helps to know that Sam Waterston had previously expressed interest in the role. Waterston, while a good actor, would have come off too fogeyish as the husband. Neill brings the appropriate edge and even sex appeal necessary for the material. And like in Jurassic Park, his best known role, he brings an inquisitive quality that keeps him close enough to our vantage point to give the narrative arc some grounding. The other major human character here is Heinz Bennent as Heinrich, a new age guru who happens to be having an affair with the wife. One on hand, this character represents the counterculture from Zulawski's homeland, which he had left after trouble from the authorities when making his last movie. On the other hand, Zulawski was drawing heavily from the bitter divorce he had just gone through, and directs a sizable fraction of the movie's contempt at this character, leading me to believe that his wife in fact left him for some new age buffoon. In one of the movie's funnier scenes, he has Heinrich confront Mark over Anna's disappearance and then go into a dumbassed trance while spouting new age nonsense and basically calling Mark a Nazi. This is the guy his wife left him for? This jackass? Mark sets him up by sending him to Anna, knowing full well he could be killed, but the potency of Mark's rage (and Zulawski's, by extension), as well as the ludicrousness of the Heinrich character, keep us from sympathizing with the latter too much. Zulawski has Heinrich die with his head in a toilet, a final flush by Mark serving as one last hilariously mean-spirited gesture of contempt.

Zulawski originally conceived the movie as having another major character, Anna's ex-husband, to be played by veteran actor and director Bernard Wicki, but after the first day of shooting with Wicki, he decided to drop the character entirely. (I suppose it depends on the personalities, but I wonder how actors react to being let go early from a project. Is it worse if it's on the first day? How about if you lead the filmmakers to realize they should do away with the character altogether? I only hope Wicki got paid.) It's not hard to see what purpose this character would have served, particularly in the way that Anna "upgrades" her lovers, having traded a much older man for the younger, sexier Mark, and then trying to replace him with an evolving monstrous fuck-squid (more on this later) that she was trying to nurture and reshape into the ideal partner. The only remnants of this character in the finished film is his young wife, who appears in the climax and his goaded by the "new" Mark (the final form of the fuck-squid) to shoot into the corpses of the real Mark and Anna. The character's proposed thematic purpose might have spelled out this moment's significance more clearly, but I'm not always convinced thematic clarity is preferable to how things move and feel, and the end product does not feel incomplete or incoherent, or at least not detrimentally so. The emotions make sense, even if the events onscreen are outside the norm. (My condolences to those of you who've been dumped for a monstrous fuck-squid.)

Having been conceived after his last project was quashed by authorities in Poland, there's undeniably a political element here, enhanced by the noticeable presence of the Berlin Wall, near which much of the film is situated. (At one point the camera looks out the window and sees the police from East Berlin staring back.) The realities of the Cold War figure heavily in the characters' lives, as it's suggested that Helen (the other Adjani) is from behind the Iron Curtain (she speak of readily identifiable evil, which could be interpreted as the visible presence of an authoritarian regime) and that Mark's work is in the field of intelligence, maybe even espionage. But the movie is less interested in pointing out political specifics than in the accompanying sense of repression and division, which plays heavily into the visual style. The movie often divides its frames to separate the characters, but rarely with any sense of symmetry, suggesting a sense of emotional chaos enhanced by the bruising mixture of wide angle lenses and handheld camerawork. When we're with Mark, the movie looks overcast, bluish grey, appropriately repressed at first, although Anna's presence throws his neat, fluorescently-lit apartment into disarray. Anna's love nest, situated in the Turkish district right beside the Wall is dilapidated and unkempt, which may have reflected the squalid realities of a hastily rented apartment in what I assume is a poorer part of town, but after having excised the orderly part of herself, it seems like an accurately messy reflection of her headspace.

Now back to the fuck-squid. It's hard to go into Possession this day and age completely blind, and even back when I first saw it, it came on my radar as the movie where "Isabelle Adjani fucks a squid". I have a lot of respect for Zulawski for delivering the goods on this front and for Adjani for throwing herself into this material, not because I'm some kind of sexual deviant who gets off on this stuff (although if you are, I'm not here to judge, it's a free country, just clear your browsing history after), but because modern arthouse cinema often defaults to a mode of cold, downplayed and too afraid to raise the audience's pulse (because apparently it's undignified to force a reaction out of the audience) and it's nice to see a movie serve what it says on the tin (this is one I'd have loved to see with an unsuspecting audience back in the day). Producer Marie Laure-Reyre notes that Zulawski was very hands on with the conception of the monster, drawing inspiration from gargoyles in Polish architecture, as if to further imbue political context into the proceedings. When seeing the end product, I can only assume Zulawski broke up with his wife at a seafood restaurant (I would hope he didn't react like Mark and throw around all the tables and chairs). Of course, the design of the monster means that the movie leans heavily into body horror, and its inclusion on the Video Nasty list in the UK and its release in the US in a heavily-trimmed 81-minute version emphasizing these elements likely contributed to its psychotronic reputation early on. (I am still interested in seeking out this cut, as I can't imagine the loss of 40 whole minutes wouldn't substantially alter the film's character.) It flirts with other genres as well. Certain scenes have a clear slapstick quality. Some of these involve Heinrich, the ever-reliable target of the film's ridicule, but there is also Margit Cartensen, playing Anna's friend and Mark-hater Marge, falling on her ass like a Three Stooges bit. And there's the climax, parodying action movies with its woozy cocktail of car chase, shootout and explosions, which leads a headlong rush into the film's apocalyptic final moments.