#no one ever expects jeff davis' scripts to make sense

[chaoswillcalmusdown]

having not seen the teen wolf movie but being on here, i've learnt enough things about it to make me laugh maniacally for like 10 years

jeff davis stealing the entire fandom's dream of giving derek a happy life with some level of family and letting him live in peace (while being a mechanic apparently. as in every 2010 fic ever) after all these years of trauma and pain. and then.. jeff davis kills him. dfghjmnjhgfdsadfghn it's honestly the funniest way to write the teen wolf movie and i can't deal with it

also, his child is like 17 years old ????? that child existed for multiple teen wolf seasons ??????

edit: they killed derek with fire ??????? are you kidding meeeeeeeeee asdfgdsdfgdsfgvbcd

[briangroth27]

Toy Story 4 Review

I rewatched the first three Toy Story films and the shorts before seeing this, and I was blown away by how perfect this series has been so far. Making one great movie is extremely difficult, but making a full franchise that's this good seems like it should be impossible, yet here they are. So, in addition to being one of my favorite franchises since my childhood, Toy Story 4 had a massive legacy and standard to live up to. Incredibly, it completely lives up to both!

Full Spoilers...

This is very much Woody's (Tom Hanks) movie and Hanks runs with it, bringing Woody's character through a familiar struggle that leads him to a completely new place by the end without ever feeling like we’re retreading old ground. At first, Woody's attempts to force Forky (Tony Hale) to accept his role as a toy despite his insistence that he was trash (since Bonnie (Madeleine McGraw) made him out of trash) felt like a weird message to send. Then I realized it was more like what he did for Buzz (Tim Allen) in the first film, albeit with more understanding on Woody's part; even though he was similarly replaced, that’s some nice growth from the old cowboy. It doesn't matter what the toys thought they were initially—with Buzz and the BattleSaurs, we've seen toys’ fresh-out-of-the-box personalities mimicking whatever they were built as rather than realizing that they were toys—and what really makes them who they are is what they mean to a child. Because of a kid's love, they can be more than trash; more than a space ranger.

It's a nice bit of cyclical plotting that Woody goes through this again at the end of his time in another kid's room, and watching him realize that there could be more to life than going from kid to kid and endlessly being discarded was great. Toy Story introduced the terror of being left behind, TS2 played with Woody’s acceptance of the fact that Andy would eventually leave him, TS3 forced him to actually deal with Andy outgrowing him (which is entirely different from acknowledging the concept), and this movie gives us a glimpse of what happens next, when Woody has to face the entire cycle again. I really liked his admission that all he had left to give was protecting Bonnie, even though she’d moved on from him (an interesting adjustment to his outlook, given how he used to see being replaced as the worst thing that could happen). Even if he couldn’t be the toy she adored and needed, he would supply that love no matter what problems or challenges it caused in the process. Woody’s drive verged on obsession more than a few times, leading him to take really irresponsible risks and I almost think he gets off a little too easily (which would be my one note for the movie). Bo (Annie Potts) gets to be rightfully furious with Woody for not listening to her much better thought-out plans and causing real damage to her friends, but since Woody is also unable to fully let go as the leader of Andy’s toys now that they’re Bonnie’s, it would've also been nice for Dolly (Bonnie Hunt) to be right about what Bonnie needs instead of Woody ultimately knowing what’s best. Either way, I would’ve liked an apology from him to Dolly, because that section’s really the one where it feels like Woody can do no wrong, even while flouting the rules of the new room (and even if it saddles him with Forky). I wonder if Forky jumping out of the RV window was an intentional callback to Woody accidentally knocking Buzz out of Andy’s window in the first film, since that also sent him on a journey of self-discovery about his place in the world and led to a toy realizing their true purpose.

Woody's reunion with Bo (Annie Potts) was great and she was absolutely outstanding! She was so cool and I loved that it wasn't some horrible trauma that made her the awesome adventurer she’d grown into, just an unwillingness to continue sitting on her lamp watching the world go by without her. What an excellent, inspiring, and unfortunately rare motivation for a strong female character! Judging by her attitude to being given away in the flashback, she was already more well-adjusted to the possibility of being discarded than Woody and it was very cool to see that evolve into the fearless and free doll she became. I feel like we got enough nods to her history and relationships here that I don't need to see a prequel that spells out her journey (though if they gave us one I’d watch it), but I would be totally up for a sequel about her continuing adventures. Maybe it was the CGI quality of the time, but it really looked like Bo Peep’s dress was part of her ceramic sculpt in the first two movies. If it not being part of her sculpt is a retcon allowing her to be more active in cloth clothes this time around, then that doesn’t bother me at all. Her reaction to her broken arm was pretty funny! I was surprised that Woody’d spent all that time dating Bo back in Andy’s room and didn’t know that Billy, Goat, and Gruff (Emily Davis) were girls (and didn’t even know their names!); even with the excuse that they weren’t Andy’s toys, it was pretty selfish of him to not know that (and selfishness is not a new flaw for him).

Buzz’s screentime felt significantly shorter than in the other three films, but it didn’t hurt the movie for me. With this being Woody’s farewell, Buzz’s more limited focus felt right (though maybe a talk between him and Forky about their initial senses of self would’ve been worthwhile). The subplot of Buzz learning to listen to his “inner voice” (misunderstanding what Woody said about his conscience) was really enjoyable (even if this movie took some liberties in giving both Woody and Buzz more sayings in their voice boxes than it seemed like there ever were before). That was a fun callback to Buzz taking everything about himself so literally in the first movie! I would’ve liked for more of the old gang beyond Buzz to have more to do than wait in the RV, but the script and the actors made the most out of limited screentime. I liked that Bonnie promoted Jessie (Joan Cusack) to sheriff and would be interested to see how she and Dolly run things in the room without Woody (at the end, I wondered if Bonnie took Jessie to school with her, if Jessie hopped in her backpack on her own, or if Dolly agreed to send her). Letting Woody have a moment to return his badge to Jessie was a nice way to give him a chance to willingly let go of his status and his past while relenting to and restoring the way Bonnie set things up. Whether given a few funny lines or slightly larger gags, all of the other toys got a chance to shine. Buttercup (Jeff Garlin) gets an especially odd and hilarious running gag of trying to get Bonnie’s dad (Jay Hernandez) arrested to halt the family’s trip and stall for time. It was also cool to see players from the Toy Story shorts like Combat Carl (Carl Weathers) and Old Timer (Alan Oppenheimer) get moments here. It’s always nice to see shorts like those remain part of the world instead of becoming unconnected extras to be forgotten.

I liked all the new characters too! Duke Caboom (Keanu Reeves), Giggle McDimples (Ally Maki), and Ducky & Bunny (Keegan-Michael Key & Jordan Peele) were all really great additions to this world, representing a wide variety of toys with different goals, tactics, and dreams, which was refreshing: a lesser film would’ve had them pursing the same dream or wouldn’t have bothered to dig into their humorously tragic backgrounds (or imaginations) at all. Forky was funny too, as well as serving as an interesting peek into the imbuement of consciousness onto something by a kid. It was intriguing that even the other toys hadn’t seen something like that happen before (even with sentient chair Chairol Burnett (Carol Burnett) in Bonnie’s closet). His life gives credence to the idea that a toy’s purpose really is to be there for their kids while they need them, even if they don’t know it yet.

The movie’s villain, Gabby Gabby (Christina Hendricks) was quite creepy and worked really well as a dark reflection of Woody’s own insecurities about losing his kid while acting as an example of a toy that had gone off the deep end by being discarded (at first). The body horror they came up with through her wanting to take Woody’s voice box—by force, if necessary—just so she could experience the love of a child was really effective. I liked that they found a way to bring Woody to a place where he’d willingly give up his voice box (to save Forky) rather than it be stolen and that Gabby Gabby wasn’t actually that evil; she could be redeemed. I was definitely expecting a turn where Woody fought to get his voice box back and I was pleasantly surprised that it didn’t go that way. It was very cool that even after being abandoned by what she believed to be her one way out of the store and offered a chance to come with Bonnie, Gabby Gabby was still a good enough person that she chose to help another lonely and lost soul (Maliah Bargas-Good), risking abandonment again but finding a real home instead. With Woody failing to listen to just about everyone about the right way to do things, Gabby Gabby giving up the “sure thing” of Bonnie’s love to take a chance on something that felt more right was a cool way to stealthily foreshadow and parallel Woody making the same choice, just for himself rather than another kid. Gabby Gabby, even more than Woody, understood that the important thing wasn’t to be just another toy for a great kid, but to be the toy for the right kid at the right time. This is an especially cool parallel since Woody comes so close to being a contender for the villain role here too, given how obsessed he is with doing what he thinks is best for Bonnie. Gabby Gabby’s hench-dummies, the Bensons (Steve Purcell), were super-creepy! I wouldn’t have minded them taking the horror of those dummies a step further, but this worked perfectly as is. I know the Bensons have a very common ventriloquist’s dummy design, but I couldn’t help but wonder if their look was based off the book and movie version of Goosebumps’ Slappy.

At first I was skeptical that they had any full-length-worthy story left to tell in this universe and I was content for them to just continue doing periodic short films, but I was excited when I heard this would be a romantic comedy about finding Bo Peep. I’m not sure the romantic comedy vibe fully survived into the final version of the film, but taking us back to find Bo was certainly worth it and this turned out better than I could’ve imagined. The movie hit really strong emotional beats all the way through, with the flashback to Bo being given away, a very smooth recap of Woody’s life with Andy (Jack McGraw, John Morris) and Bonnie, Woody feeling left behind in Bonnie’s room, and eventually Woody nearly saying goodbye to Bo again…but changing his mind and leaving all his friends behind instead. I’m a sucker for goodbyes between family and friends, so both that one and Bo initially being given away hit me hard. Not quite as hard as Andy giving his toys to Bonnie in Toy Story 3, but they were still powerful moments. The knowledge that Woody and the gang from Bonnie’s room will probably never see each other again hurt, but I’m glad to know he’s off to find a new purpose for himself (finding homes for all the carnival toys and living his own life with Bo), rather than continuing to devote himself to someone who doesn’t need him anymore and has decidedly moved on (as I’ve seen others point out elsewhere).

The RV, carnival, and Second Chance Antiques store all provided a great variety of new locations for adventures. It was cool to see everyday settings like a store and a fair get the toy’s-eye-view treatment, transforming them into wondrous and danger-filled playgrounds. The action was great and made good use of not only the toys’ specific attributes, but tied their emotional arcs together really well too. CGI technology has improved a lot since the first film and these characters look outstanding in their latest (and last?) film. The writing and pacing were on point, while Randy Newman’s score brought a great familiar feel to the proceedings.

Toy Story 4 is an absolute delight and totally worth seeing in theaters! If they want to do another sequel and continue either Bo/Woody’s or Buzz/Bonnie’s Room stories (or both), I would definitely be down for that. I trust them to find a new story to tell with each movie and know that they’d make it fantastic, just like the rest of this franchise. However, if all we get from Toy Story is more short films, that’s OK too. And if this is the real end, then it’s a great one.

 Check out more of my reviews, opinions, and original short stories here!

[theostry]

Teen Wolf Scripts liveblog: Season 1 Episode 2

Second ep of the first season, appropriately titled:

Teen Wolf Scripts!

Back again, Wolfiends. Another lengthy post consisting of screenshots of the Teen Wolf script alongside my own rambling commentary. I’m not here to review the show; finer minds than myself have got that covered. Nor is it a photo-recap; that has been done by crazier bastards than myself. 

I am here, as no doubt we all are, holding up my empty bowl to Jeff Davis and saying in a pitiful voice, “please, sir, I want some more.” Now, eat your gruel and count yourself lucky because this batch has raisins in it. 

Excerpts have been selected based on the following criteria: 1) It did not make the final cut; 2) It was substantially altered; 3) It offers extra detail not apparent from the show, such as description and direction; and 4) I felt like including it.

Fun times (and, obviously, a hell of a lot of spoilers) below the cut.

Okay, let’s get started!

WhaaAAAAT? 

We open on a doozie here. Is this a sign that the elusive Greenberg may actually exist? Like, in corporeal form? Not just a figment of Coach’s fevered imagination? 

The lacrosse sequence we’re shown was more montage-y than the script suggests and we don’t see Coach pass the ball to anyone directly, but here’s the first player to try for goal:

Greenberg? 

Or actually, it might have been this guy (confusing montage is confusing): 

Greenberg (’s hairy leg)? 

Oh but now here is where coach is telling Greenberg to take a lap, and THIS GUY starts running. 

GREENBEEEEERRG!

Coach is doing more actual coaching than I had thought him capable of, that’s nice. 

I don’t know what these “slap checks” and “cross checks” are, but to me it just looked like two guys in plastic armour smashing into one another. But what do I know, I’m not a sportsball expert. 

Also, goats. 

Sorry, sorry. I meant 

*lurk*

Well there goes my headcanon that wolf-puppy Scott just wanted to pway wif his best fwiend!

I love this scene a lot, and I’m glad they made it more scary and dramatic than this, with the jumping up on lockers and crouching in rafters and such. Why go around something when you can go over it, amirite?

Hello, gorgeous!

A STRANGE SILHOUETTE. 

I don’t know who you think you’re kidding, Jeff Davis. By now I think we all know that, like “a figure” and “someone watching”, this is a synonym for   

Now 100% more grabby!

That part isn’t news, but— Pffffft Melissa. 

LMFAO

Come on though, Melissa’s not that old. She knows perfectly well what it means, she just does this because it amuses her to make Scott squirm and huff. 

Then Allison pops up to tell him that she too is excited to come and watch him play. 

He didn’t get the line, but his face said it for him.

Meanwhile, someone’s creeping on Allison! 

HOW VERY ALONE 

NOT A SOUL

Until——  

Just kidding. The script doesn’t say who it is. I guess we’ll never know. Or, canon confirmation that Derek Hale OR WHOEVER does not possess a soul

In math class— 

Yeah, buddy. Us too. 

Ah, Lydia 

Is LAX a hip new abbreviation for Lacrosse? Or have airports somehow become a high school sport? I hope not, I would lose so badly. 

Now I want a spin-off series of webisodes about Allison Argent versus the Totally Evil Popular Girls. 

Curious. Both the spinning business and the ever-tantalising ‘OMITTED’. Don’t omit things, Jeff Davis, it’s rude! 

Well that didn’t happen 

That didn’t happen either 

UM NO JEFF THAT IS DEFINITELY NOT WHAT HAPPENED. THAT IS LITERALLY THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT HAPPENED.

No theatrics here!

Pity this bit got cut. Not a huge difference to the scene — we still got Derek’s casual disregard for others’ property and heavy-handed metaphor  — but Derek’s control is a big deal to Scott, and that could have done with more emphasis. 

*Curiosity intensifies*

Good to know that half-second sight gag was planned from the start. 

Huh. I always thought he’d said “there were bite marks on the lady.” Also, he didn’t mention Allison here on screen. 

*Curiosity intensifies further*

Good instincts, Scotty! I wonder how much that was his burgeoning wolfy-sense, and how much was just genre-savvy. 

Ooh, that’s different - on the show Scott is not only surprised to see Stiles approaching the car, but desperately trying to signal him to stop. 

This is not an Ok, go face. This is a face that says Stiles, no. At least they rhyme?

The Sheriff is the Sheriff again. Order is restored to the universe. 

The only ‘squealing sound’ I remember in this scene was from Stiles’s long-suffering Jeep. 

And now— oh. Oh holy hell. Look at this. 

yes yes we saw that part but Scott’s gone he’s run off

What the figgins no he hasn’t!

Oooooh Scotty no this is stalking behaviour. Do not eat your Stiles, that is bad manners. 

Not the Jeep! Stalking your BFF is one thing but assaulting an innocent Roscoe is just bang out of order. No wonder Stiles abandons his calm entreaties to yell at him, you can’t hit a man in the Jeep and expect him to keep his temper. 

I’m biting my nails are you biting your nails

SDKJHADFKLASDFA EXTENDED KEYSMASH! 

I KNOW BUD IT IS VERY SCARY

THAT’S GOOD STILES DRIVE OUT FROM UNDER THE RAMPAGING WEREWOLF WHAT COULD GO WRONG

RAMPAGING WEREWOLVES ARE VERY PERSISTENT AREN’T THEY

well he wasn’t going to hit him what do you think he is an Argent

SDFLKJHGFLKLSDJFH

WHAT THE HELL

SOMEBODY CALL TYLER AND DYLAN AND FILM THIS SCENE, STAT!!

It’s like all those times when--

O_O

YEAH NO FashgfadsUCKING KIDDING, JEFF!

*deep breath*

Add that to the list of places the Argents have canonically lived. Unless it’s a reference to [Coach Finstock voice] cream cheese. 

*Curiosity levels approaching critical*

A ball-peen hammer? Oh, Coach. 

A crack? In his helmet? What and how? 

Sensible, random Lacrosse (LAX?) player. Your captain is a douche. 

Aw, we didn’t get Scott’s serial killer POV here. 

Bahaha he never even went for a ‘slap check’ (whatever that is), he just growled at him from five feet away. 

Interesting indeed, Coach! He doesn’t reply to Stiles in the show. This way it gives the impression that he’s going to be doing some investigating, maybe Scott will have to be more careful around him. 

Lol, the referee never called the goal. Coach argued with him, then blew the whistle himself, and the refs just went with it. 

That’s a different take - that in his heightened state the sight of Argent coming towards him triggered his flight response. We didn’t see Argent walking onto the field until after Scott was long gone, so there was no suggestion that Scott was reacting to him at that time. We do see an ominously thoughtful look on Chris’s face! 

Awwww sweet. You hold onto that brief second, wolf boy. 

I WONDER who it’s gonna be, say it with me now— 

Oh hey! We’re on first name terms with our stalker now.

wait-- 

what

Aaaahahaha no he doesn’t, as if Derek Actual Hale would smile and greet someone. Jeff you’ve been smoking again. 

 (Or, more likely, trying to seed the aborted Jackson Hale plotline.) 

Another ripper of a script! Some fun extra moments -- and nail-biting ones -- as well as a few where the production obviously decided to go in a different direction. We got Scott marvelling at Derek’s control, Melissa trolling her son like the A+ parent she is, Scott having extremely good spidey-senses for a canid, Derek as a luring lurker who lurks, even when the script tells him not to, this man cannot be stopped, not to mention everybody’s favourite Greenberg, with an actual face! Or leg. Whatever.

All outshone by the Jeep attack scene. Why, oh why, Jeff? Do you hate us? 

Nahhh. On reflection, I can see why they cut it. This episode showcased Scott’s lack of control over his wolfy side, but we already had a fair bit of Feral Scott -- on the lacrosse (sorry, LAX) field and peeping into Allison’s window -- so that point was made. And we’d already had him attacking Stiles specifically, in that excellent locker room scene. But the visual of Scott wolfed out and roaring to the sky from atop the Jeep would have been something to see. Not to mention that moment of terror as Stiles finally sees what his friend has become, in the clear light of day, no helmet or darkness to obscure him. 

It would have been the perfect punctuation to Scott’s complaint from just prior: “Stop enjoying this so much!” Stiles still thinks he’s in a superhero origin story. But Scott is stuck in a nightmare horror. 

At least he got his perfect moment. 

Exeunt

[longforgottenunofficial]

Here Comes the Bride, Part Four: Constance, Hat Boxes, and the Meaning of The Attic

(Photo by Jeff Fillmore)

Warning label.  We're going to get pretty heavy here before we get light, but you'll get no apologies from me.  I happen to believe that people always and everywhere keep talking about the same old things, whether they're writing big, thick theology books or scripts for situation comedies.  Stupid jokes or philosophical systems—it doesn't matter.  We are all natural born theologians and moralists, and darn it, we just can't help ourselves; everything we discuss with each other echoes into and out from something vast and serious.  No matter how trivial and superficial we think we are being, Deep calls to Deep (Ps 42:7).  Connie will show up some paragraphs down, but if what goes first is not your cup of tea...well, no doubt there's a blog out there dedicated to hidden Mickeys in the Haunted Mansions.  Google, and go in peace.  Rest assured that there will be another installment of "Here Comes the Bride" to deal with some of the interesting inspirations for Constance and even some intimations of her future. It's all good. The current incarnation of the attic bride is a unique and ambitious attempt to swell the Mansion's cast of characters and expand and solidify its backstory.  No longer is the HM simply a retirement home for ghosts from all over the world, brought here by invitation but getting stuck in the fabric of the house itself until Madame Leota fixes the snag so that they can materialize and start schmoozin' and boozin'.  Until now, this basic plot has been the only backstory to the HM that could claim official sanction, and indeed it accords with what the Ghost Host tells you and accounts for most of what you see.  But it has never completely covered the phenomena presented.  For example, the Ghost Host has a further tie to the house.  (The other end is tied to his neck.)  What's with that?  Was he an owner at one point?  That would explain why the hosting duties fell to him, and perhaps the retirement home idea was his, but it suggests that the house had its own haunted history before that. The other thing that suggests a previous history is the attic.  Attics are places of concealment, of hidden horrible secrets.  Moreover, the attic has always functioned as the asterisk on the big Marc Davis joke.  The first thing to do is make it clear what that joke is, because that joke accounts for 90% of the HM.  That joke is the broad, firm base from which other, smaller things may deviate. As we saw in an earlier post, at first you think the ghosts are malevolent and out to get you, but it turns out that "they pretend to terrorize" and really don't care about you at all; they just want to get to a state of comfortable materialization so that they can enjoy themselves.  Ha ha, the joke's on you:  you thought they were hostile, and you were wrong. The point of the joke, the moral of the story, the message of the Mansion, is that fear of death is overblown. That's it in a nutshell.  I mean, you really don't know if it's a chamber of horrors on the other side of the veil, do you?  No one really knows, right?  Perhaps the scary hauntings you hear about are just naughty pranks, perhaps all is forgiven and all is well and everyone's having a jolly good time over there.  So long as you don't know which is the case, you might as well take the optimistic view.  That's the vision presented to you by Mr. Davis.  In his portrait of the afterlife, the executioner and the knight he dispatched are now best buds.  There is no revenge, no bitterness, not even any residual hierarchy of power on the other side of the grave—kings and queens are playing like children!  Yeah, there are those two duelists still going at it, but it's more a matter of both of them being humorously stuck in a cycle of irresolvable earthly business than a tragic vision of implacable hatred.  You almost suspect that they're doing it as a game now.  After all, what happens when a ghost shoots a ghost?  Is he going to die or something?  See?  Joke!  Ever'body laugh. Without going even deeper than we need to, we might briefly note that there is a certain resonance between this joke and traditional Christian theology, wherein Death is defeated and rendered harmless ("where is thy sting?"), and ultimately the story of the universe is told as a comedy and not a tragedy.  In this sense, the Haunted Mansion is simply expressing an optimistic hope firmly rooted in Western culture.  "All shall be well." Okay, now the asterisk, now the "yes, but."  Equally part of the Western and Christian worldview is the notion that the afterlife is also the place where justice is finally served (it sure as hell ain't on this side of the veil, in case you hadn't noticed).  Justice implies judgment, and judgment is bad news for the bad.  That happy optimistic vision hopes that enough mitigating circumstances will ultimately be found so that everybody, or almost everybody, gets off, but if the wisdom of the ages is given any weight, there remains a residual pool of those who choose evil without any possible excuse for it and put themselves beyond the reach of even the most generous of post-mortem visions. Disney traffics heavily in traditional fairy tales, correct?  You'll note that the villains in fairy tales are often very villainous indeed.  It might sometimes be possible to understand them, but you cannot excuse them.  They have made their alliance with Death.  You cannot redeem them; what you do is, you kill them.  In truth, the world of traditional fairy tales is pretty stark and grim, and Disney has always faithfully represented this fact.  Fairy tales are also a good place to check out the aforementioned wisdom of the ages.  It's not surprising that Davis's warm bath of good feeling has a sober asterisk attached. The HM is just complex enough to give a nodding acknowledgment to this darker truth while celebrating the rosier vision.  This could have been accomplished in a number of ways, but the route the Imagineers chose (by intuition—don't ever think I'm claiming that they sat around and thought about all of this consciously), is the detective mystery.  What is it that motivates the sleuth in all of those whodunnits?  Bringing the criminal to justice.  Making sure the guilty party doesn't get away with it.  You don't associate Sherlock Holmes with forgiveness, do you?  Now ordinarily, writers of detective fiction banish the supernatural from their pages.  That's because the readers are supposed to be able to figure out who did it based on clues dropped along the way.  If you throw angels and demons and ghosts in there, it spoils the whole thing.  No one can reasonably be expected to anticipate a deux ex machina resolution to a mystery.  But the reverse is not true:  crime and detection are not absent from ghost lore.  Too many ghosts busy themselves with revealing where the body is hidden, or where the knife was buried, or by terrorizing the guilty into confessing their crime.  These ghosts, at any rate, are not in a forgiving mood.  They want justice. In our discussion of the Hat Box Ghost, we showed that the whole attic scene originally was held together by the head-in-a-hatbox symbol, which hails from the world of crime mystery.  You're in the attic, which is one of the two places in an old house where horrible secrets and crimes are hidden (the other is the cellar, of course).  You see that hatbox, and you have a dreadful suspicion that there's a severed head in it, and when your suspicion is confirmed, you realize you're looking at a murder, and you wonder what happened and who did it.  Like a good murder mystery, the attic gives you just enough clues to conclude that the bride is the guilty party, as we saw.  What's the Hat Box Ghost up to, anyway?  He'sshowing you what happened.  Got his noggin whacked off and hidden in a hatbox.  The murderer evidently got away with it, but now the victim's ghost has come back to reveal the awful truth to the world.  The crime is illustrated before your eyes and it is linked to the bride via the synchronized heartbeat.  Very efficient storytelling—this all takes about a second and a half.  These guys are GOOD. Note that the question of justice enters in here—you wonder who committed the crime—whereas when you see the knight in the graveyard, who is just as beheaded as the HBG is, you don't ask any such questions.  The perp is right there, after all, and neither of them care any more, and you don't even know which was in the right and which was in the wrong.  And you don't care either.  You regard the two beheading victims in completely different ways.  Creepy atmosphere + a hatbox in the attic = bingo,  you're in murder mystery land. Oh, all right, I hear those fingers drumming on the tabletop.  You've been good, so here.  Here's a few more Connie shots by Jeff Fillmore (aka ~Life by the Drop~ at flickr).  She's miserably hard to photograph, and I don't know how he does it, but IMO Mr. F. has got the best Connie shots on the Web.

From beginning to end, the attic scene has never been free of the grisly-hatbox symbol.  It is just as fundamental as the bride herself.  We noted how the two blast-up ghosts were skullish heads popping from hatboxes.  They were there from 1969 until 2006.  You can go back earlier.  Here again is a shot of the scale model, which we've seen before:

Let's pan to the right and see what got cropped out.  Well looky there.  I see two hatboxes, and one of them is suspiciously isolated.  You look inside, I just had dinner.

Next up, some Claude Coats concept art for the attic:

Well, I'm not so sure that it isn't an innocent hatbox in this case.  But this is an attic.  No doubt something horrid is hidden there.  Any guesses where the body is?  Possibly the trunk, but if you didn't think, "Maybe walled up in the brickwork of that chimney," you really need to read more books and see more movies.  See how it works?  They know that you just know these things. When they were kicking around ideas for a New Bride in the mid-2000's, there was a range of ideas put out there for consideration.  One widely-reproduced sketch that passes as "concept art for Constance" actually stayed very close to the then-current bride.  Still has the candle, still has the beating heart, still has the bouquet, and still has the blank white eyes.  Just a coked-up version of the "middle bride," really.

Oh, and if you come across a less-severely cropped version...well whaddya know:

Here's the Frank tableau in the finished make-over at Disneyland:

Nice.  And here's a piece of concept art for it.  (Nudge nudge:  lower left, atbox-hay on the oor-flay).

Just in case you think I'm imagining things, some concept art for Constance throws subtlety to the wind and takes us directly back to Hat Box Ghost territory.  Oh, and notice how close this Connie is to the finished character:

Ewww.  That'll put you off your Eggs Benedict.

Reportedly, there were plans to put a stack of five hatboxes across from Constance in the HBG's old spot, with the names of her five husbands on them.  Hatbox city.  One report even suggested that they would light up and glow from within.  That didn't happen, but they did put a hat-rack there, with hats on it matching Connie's hubbies in the portraits.  Heh heh.  When they put Constance into the WDW attic in 2007, they too got a hat-rack, but they also got the stack of hatboxes.  No name tags or lights though.

Wouldn't want to be in there on a warm day.  Notice the swords laying around.  You don't suppose that means anything, do you?

With the grisly-hatbox symbol, you've got CRIME looking for PUNISHMENT.  You've uncovered something deliberately hidden.  There's a murderer out there somewhere, a score to settle, a vengeance yet denied.  Question:  How has the attic bride always been different from most of the other ghosts you see?  Answer:  She's not happy.  No socializing for her.  Even Constance is only experiencing the lunatic glee of the criminally insane.  If you insist on calling it "happy," then it's kind of a Charles Manson happy, you know?  I wouldn't say she's happy.  She's not forgiven or forgiving, not within the embrace of any resolution.  But is justice being served?  Well, if she wasn't so utterly wacked-out, she'd realize that she's exposing herself and being exposed.  Hattie with his damning heart-beat box is gone, but now we've got five haunted wedding portraits with the husbands' heads disappearing.  Those portraits are five ghostly fingers from beyond the grave laying accusation.  And yet, those guys aren't happy either, and they don't even get the relief of being too crazy to care.  You don't see forgiveness, but you don't see just deserts either.  The ghostly revelations inspire no remorse in Connie, and she's suffering no reprisal.  Her madness has taken her to a place without punishment, but also without love.

This is a very sour note in the HM, and it may well be a thematic blunder.  The Connie addition is seriously flawed.  Unlike the knight and executioner, there has not been any post-mortem reconciliation in this case.  They're grim ghosts without the grinning part.  If there were a way to show the husbands yukking it up with Connie, all of them laughing at the silly fuss their earthly crime drama stirred up, then they'd be part of the Marc Davis all-is-now-well joke.  Or, alternately, if the hubbies were allowed to show some sense of satisfaction that at last the murderer has been caught out, putting their spirits to rest, avenging them, giving them something to grin about like the old Hat Box Ghost, then they would fit into the traditional role of the attic as the "justice must be satisfied" asterisk added to the otherwise merry universalism of the Haunted Mansion.  As things stand, the message of the attic is, "the Devil wins," however lightly and humorously expressed.  Yes, you will survive death and live forever; but no, there is no guarantee that you will find either justice or forgiveness on the other side.  That's a common enough stance in modern horror, of course, but it is utterly foreign to the Mansions.  Or it was, until May 2006.

Originally Posted: Wednesday, June 2, 2010 Original Link: [x]

[nathanneedsausername]

2018 Film Retrospective

This is my retrospective of all the movies I saw in 2018. This is based on UK release dates so films such as The Favourite, Vice or Eighth Grade will not appear on this list despite technically being 2018 movies as I have not yet been able to see these yet. There are also many movies that I have missed in 2018.

I will still be updating this list throughout 2019 here: https://letterboxd.com/nathan_r_l/list/2018-from-best-to-worst-3/

If you want to see where these movies fall on this list as I see them.

So, anyway here from the worst of the year to my personal favourite are all the films I saw in 2018:

 37. The Queen and I (Dan Zeff):

I only saw this film a few days ago as of writing so it may seem a little harsh to call it the worst of the year as it hasn’t had any time to grow on me yet. Although I don’t see this getting any better with age. Sky intended this new David Walliams’s TV movie as a sort of Christmas present, but this must be one of the very few films I have ever seen that has actually made me angry. Nothing more than royalist propaganda that manages to completely miss the potential of the concept as well as missing the point of the sequence from Les Miserable that it decides to “pay homage too”.

36. Death on the Tyne (Ed Bye):

Not much to say here. Really it isn’t a surprise that UKTV made a bad comedy.

35. Fahrenheit 451 (Ramin Bahrani):

I promise that I saw more than just TV movies this year, it just so happens that most of them were really bad. All of the changes that were added to the story were stupid and when they actually tell the story it is painfully boring.

34. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (J. A. Bayona):

Let’s be real, despite ranging in quality none of the Jurassic Park sequels have warranted their own existence. That being said Fallen Kingdom might be worth watching just to see how hilariously bad these films can get. Despite having the same director as The Orphanage and A Monster Calls no amount of good tracking shots can fix a script that is this ridiculous. The script comes across like two different ideas for new Jurassic Park movies were awkwardly stitched together when the best treatment for both would have been not to make either of them. Through in an incredibly stupid and unneeded twist and the most underwhelming Jeff Goldblum cameo in cinema history.

33. Grandpa’s Great Escape (Elliot Hegarty):

Oh, look another bad TV movie. Davis Walliams consistently finds himself attached to these boring BBC productions never quite capture the heart and care of his writing. Walliams is a good children’s author, but the small screen adaptations of his work always feel rushed and unfocused.

32. Venom (Ruben Fleischer):

The biggest disappointment of 2018. Venom is corny, bland and forgettable. According to IMDB, Zombieland director Ruben Fleischer is behind this mess but judging by Tom Hardy’s performance and the incomprehensible CGI finale no-one directed this.

31. Solo: A Star Wars Story (Ron Howard):

A soulless, lifeless film that stinks of studio interference. All of the cast feel as if they are just playing the type of character they are expected to (especially  Phoebe Waller-Bridge as L3-37). There are moments in this film where it feels like there is supposed to be a joke that has awkwardly been edited or written out after Lord and Miller left the project, these moments haunt the film and make me feel like this could have been great, but alas. 

30. Death Wish (Eli Roth):

At this point it might be time to consider that Eli Roth might be making bad movies on purpose. I went into Death Wish expecting something needlessly graphic and entertainingly violent and stupid but that’s not what this is. For the most part the gun violence in this film is pretty tame and the dialogue is far to generic and boring to be funny. There is one scene in a garage that showcases what usually makes Roth’s films memorable, but it comes too late to bring this movie into guilty pleasure territory. I do believe that Roth is a good filmmaker but the more he releases these mindless, generic thrillers the harder it is to defend him.

29. The Meg (Jon Turteltaub):

Half of this movie is a self-aware special effects movie that is genuinely entertaining. The other half is a boring and cliché. It should be good but never quite manages to keep up any momentum that it builds.

28. Tomb Raider (Roar Uthaug):

Technically better than the 2001 Lara Croft film although I know which one I would rather watch. Some interesting set pieces and homages to the newer tomb Raider games mixed with bland dialogue and an uninteresting plot.

27. Deadpool 2 (David Leitch):

Not as funny as the first movie but has better action. Deadpool 2 is mixed bag, the satire falls short when the movie insists on upping the stakes and having its audience feel emotionally connected to the story. David Leitch is a good action director and I look forward to seeing what he does next, but I can’t say that I’m all to exited about the next instalments in the Deadpool franchise.

26. Tag (Jeff Tomsic):

I don’t think that this film deserves the hate it seems to have gotten. Tag is a pretty funny movie with memorable characters and good camera work. It’s a little corny and the ending gets way to soppy but it’s a good film to watch with a group of friends if not just for some good Hannibal Buress quotes.

25. Click & Collect (Ben Palmer):

Hey, a TV movie that didn’t suck! Airing on BBC 1 on Christmas Eve this is an example of cringe comedy done well, the plot doesn’t always make sense but that doesn’t stop the comedy from really working.

24. Outlaw King (David Mackenzie):

A pretty good historical drama about Robert the Bruce. That’s all this is really a serviceable movie about an interesting topic. Not bad by any means all though a little forgettable, the performances and fight choreography are great but the writing lacks any real direction.

23. Aquaman (James Wan):

A list of other movies scenes from Aquaman made me think of:

Ratatouille

Splash

Raiders of the Lost Arc

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider

Black Panther

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace

Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring

Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

How to Train Your Dragon 2

Wonder Woman

Full review coming next

22. Ant-Man and the Wasp (Peyton Reed):

Not as funny or engaging as 2015’s Ant-Man. This is a decent blockbuster with some good special effects and funny moments. A lower tier Marvel film for sure that gets completely overshadowed by the other two movies that the studio brought out in 2018 but still a fun watch.

21. Ocean’s Eight (Gary Ross):

About as good as Ocean’s 13. All of the hallmarks of the Ocean’s trilogy are present. The last 15 minuets begin to over explain what we have already seen and the name of the movie spoils and reveal at the end of the movie. A well-directed heist movie none-the-less that should be enjoyable for any Ocean’s fan

20. Ready Player One (Steven Spielberg):

This movie is at its best when it is at its most Spielberg. There is a really great car chase and a plot that revolves around kids standing against authority. It goes on for way to long and some of the references are on the nose. It certainly needs to be cut down but it’s a movie worth seeing if you know your pop-culture.

19. Searching (Aneesh Chaganty):

By far the best example of found-footage to be released in years. Having the entire film appear from the perspective of computer screens and phone calls makes the experience feel far more real and personal as if you are right there figuring out the mystery with the character. The story itself separated from its gimmick has been seen before and the twist is a bit of a reach but with its unique style it feels completely fresh. If you hated Unfriended there is a high chance that you will love this.

18. My Dinner with Hervé (Sacha Gervasi):

A HBO movie featuring a fantastic performance from Peter Dinklage. The life story of French actor Hervé Villechaize is told through a crazy interview based on the one that the actor had with the director in the early 90’s. It’s a small film but one that has been made with a lot of passion from its director and star. Absolutely look this one out if you can.

17. Isle of Dogs (Wes Anderson):

Wes Anderson is responsible for some of my favourite films of all time. While his latest may not be his best work to date it is a beautiful and insanely well-crafted film full of life and wonder. Anderson has a particular style and this movie sums up exactly what makes that style work so well with every shot working perfectly.

16. Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (David Slade):

It’s hard to tell at this point whether or not this will start a new craze for choose your own adventure movies the way that Avatar started a craze for 3D. Honestly I don’t think Charlie Brooker has left anywhere to really be explored with the this concept as he dives head first into a meta-narrative all about free-will. Certainly, an ambitious endeavour for the crew of Black Mirror that has taken over the cinematic discussion for a little while. I saw this with a group of friends trying to uncover as much of the story as we could in one sitting and I highly recommend that experience if you haven’t seen/played this yet.

15. Black Panther (Ryan Coogler): 

A Marvel movie that appears to have nudged its way into Oscar conversations, regardless of whether or not I think that it deserves that acclaim this is a great film. Black Panther has some of the smartest writing of any MCU movie and one of the best villains to ever appear in a superhero movie. This is a film that will be talked about for years because of what it means for representation, it also helps that it is a really good movie.

14. Game Night (John Francis, Jonathan M. Goldstein):

The biggest surprise of the year is that the two guys behind 2015’s awful Vacation reboot managed to make one of the funniest and well-made comedies of 2018. The camerawork in this film is brilliant, one long take in particular has to be one of my favourite scenes of the year. The plot takes some logical jumps but who cares when the film is this good.

13. A Quiet Place (John Kransinski):

Sure, it doesn’t all make sense when you analyse it but watching A Quiet Place on the big screen is one of the tensest experiences I have ever had. When the credits rolled after the first time I saw this film I noticed that for the past 90 minuets, that’s the sign of some effective tension.

12. First Man (Damien Chazelle):

Chazelle has proven himself to be one of the best directors working today. While I may not love his latest as much as his previous work on La La Land and Whiplash it has to be said that First Man is a solid base hit for a great filmmaker. The third act of this film features some of the best special effects of the year mixed with one of the most emotional sequences of the year. Gosling and Foy are both brilliant and both deserve nominations as does Chazelle.

11. Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (Martin McDonagh):

Slightly twisted and very enjoyable Three Billboards is a strange film. McDonagh is able to find humour in the darkest of places but never undermines the serious nature of the subject matter.

10. Incredibles 2 (Brad Bird):

Going into the top 10 it feels important to restate that these rankings are based purely on my own personal opinions on each film. Incredibles 2 is objectively not as good as the 2004 original, but it doesn’t have to be, this is a very fun movie featuring some great animation, fantastically directed action sequences that only Brad Bird could pull off and do I even have to mention the Jack-Jack scenes? Brad Bird is one of the greatest filmmakers to ever work in animation and this feels like his victory lap, not his best film but absolutely one that showcases just how great he is.

9. The Shape of Water (Guillermo del Toro):

Best picture winner, The Shape of Water deserves all the acclaim that it has gotten. This “adult fairy-tale” features a wonderful score, fantastic performances, beautiful set-design and characteristically excellent direction from one of the world’s greatest directors! Everyone has already lumped praise on this film and so I am not left with too much else to say other than see this film.

8. The Zen Diaries of Garry Shandling (Judd Apatow):

I hear that 2018 was a great year for documentaries, I wouldn't know because I only saw this one but if Three Identical Strangers and Won’t you be my Neighbour are better than this then I need to see them. Judd Apatow looks into the life of his friend and fellow comedian Garry Shandling only 2 years after his tragic death. His approach leaves no stone unturned as he dives head first into the late comedian’s mind using his own diaries and interviews with his closest friends and collaborators. As a stand-up comedy fan it is absolutely fascinating to get a look the real life of an often misunderstood legend like Shandling for it to be as neatly put together and wonderfully entertaining as this is a welcome bonus.

7. Avengers: Infinity War (Joe Russo, Anthony Russo):

For the technical achievement alone Infinity War deserves a place in my top 10. The Russo brothers managed to pull off a stunt that just a year ago I was ready to call impossible, bringing together 10 years worth of character arcs and plot points while still making an enjoyable film. Even though it has been 9 months I still don’t know what to say about this film and my lack of words may be the best compliment I can give it.

6. Mission: Impossible – Fallout (Christopher McQuarrie):

If you asked me in June I would have said that the Mission: Impossible franchise had peaked with Brad Bird’s Ghost Protocol in 2014, I also would have been dead wrong. Fallout is not just the best film in the franchise but an absolute high point in action cinema. Seeing this on the big screen was one of the most visceral and intense movie going experiences I have ever had, every stunt is a nail-biter and the whole time I was on the edge of my seat.   

5. Thoroughbreds (Cory Finley):

This is the movie that I saw alone and have yet to properly have a conversation with someone about. This film slipped under almost everyone’s radar and then disappeared. I am telling you now find this movie it is a fantastic, quaint little film with the power to make you uncomfortable and make you laugh at the same time. Olivia Cooke and Anya Taylor Joy are both brilliant and the ending has one of my best moments of the year with a single long shot and the power of suggestion. If you missed it, which you probably did, go look it out. 

4. BlacKkKlansman (Spike Lee):

Loud, funny, unapologetic, stylish and controversial. Those are the five words that describe all of Spike Lee’s best movies and BlacKkKlansman is no exception. With multiple Oscar worthy performances, a great score and a screenplay that shows Spike at his angriest and smartest in a long time, this film will get under some peoples skin, as great cinema should. 

3. I, Toyna (Craig Gillespie):

Every now and then a movie comes along that perfectly sums up why I love this art form, I Tonya is one of those movies. Deeply impactfull on an emotional level while remaining hyper stylised, Gillespie manages to make the audience feel sympathy for characters that would be the villains in any other story by taking you on an emotional roller coaster through the life of Tonya Harding that leaves the viewer feeling just as broken as the titular character by the conclusion.

This film is so good I watched it twice in two days.

2. Lady Bird (Greta Gerwig):

I fell hard for this film. Greta Gerwig’s painfully honest look at growing up feels like watching a selection of incredibly well shot home movies from a real person. The real achievement of Gerwig’s directorial debut is how it manages to feel relatable even if you aren’t in the same situation as the protagonist. When the credits role it’s hard to feel slightly disappointed that you can’t keep watching what is going to happen to this character next and when the only criticism you have is that you didn't want it to end, the film must have been pretty good.

1. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey, Rodney Rothman):

I’m just as surprised as you are.

Somehow and for whatever reason this is the movie that resonated with me the most in 2018, this is the film I see myself going back to the most. Sometimes the best film is the most entertaining one, this film had me hooked instantly and kept me in a near trance-like state during its run-time. In don’t have anything to profound to say about this film it’s just really a great film that everyone can enjoy. If this is still playing near you and you haven’t seen it yet, go check it out you won’t be disappointed.

[citizenscreen]

Special guest post by Jeff Lundenberger @jlundenberger

My Feud with Feud

When the ads for Feud: Bette and Joan began to appear I considered watching it, thinking it was a made for TV movie — this despite the fact that the image of Jessica Lange and Susan Sarandon posed as Joan Crawford and Bette Davis in a promotional photo for Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?, made me think of two children playing dress up. When I discovered it was a series I decided that I definitely would not tune in. I’m a commitment-phobe when it comes to television series. I try to limit my TV viewing time and the thought of having to set aside one hour each week for the length of a series season makes me terribly anxious. It’s much more comforting for me to turn on TCM. Ninety-nine per cent of the time it will be something I’ll watch. And if it’s not, I have a DVR crowded with TCM movies going back several years. (As for my difficulty making a selection from that group, well, that’s another story.)

I was also put off by the fact that the series was created by Ryan Murphy, of American Horror Story fame, a show that I didn’t find appealing. I tried a few episodes of the first season at the urging of my sister but the violence, something my younger self would have relished, had me averting my eyes and squirming in my seat. I turned on an episode from a different season a few years later to see if anything, including my taste, had changed. The subject was a freak show and I couldn’t even watch the entire hour. The production seemed oddly lackluster, the story pretentious.

My husband started watching Feud from the beginning and he loved it. I read an intriguing interview with Lange in which she talked about the attempt by those concerned with the production to humanize the characters, placing their struggles firmly in the male-dominant, ageist Hollywood of the time. Finally, I received a text from a Joan and Bette-loving friend asking me if I was watching what he described as a weekly Christmas gift. All resistance crushed, I watched episodes 1, 2 and 3 in one sitting.

I’ve been a fan of Jessica Lange and Susan Sarandon since they first appeared on the scene in the 1970s but, lets face it, Joan Crawford and Bette Davis have some pretty big shoes to fill, especially if the viewer was, like myself, a fan of those two actors well before the arrival of King Kong and The Rocky Horror Picture Show. When we met, my first long-term boyfriend told me that I reminded him of Hank Fonda. Hank Fonda, Bill Holden, he threw the names of stars around as if they had been high school classmates. Ridiculous as it seems, we feel like we know them all intimately. How many times have I watched Mildred Pierce and All About Eve, The Women and Now, Voyager? Mildred and Margo and Crystal and Charlotte are only characters in movies, but my familiarity with them and my knowledge of their creators — from books, magazines, talk shows, and, yes, their films — grants me, in my mind, at least, some insight into the personal worlds of Crawford and Davis. Could Lange and Sarandon possibly live up to my perceptions and expectations?

The show’s 8 episodes have finished and I’m still on the fence. I thought the last episode the best and I’ll go into that more, but as for the show in general: Lange and Sarandon are fine as Joan and Bette. Lange’s voice is a bit soft for my idea of Joan but she never wavers from that peculiar, precise diction of Crawford’s, while Sarandon captures Davis’ clipped delivery and abrupt mannerisms. But I also have, to a lesser extent, a viewer’s intimacy with both Lange and Sarandon and I watch and listen carefully — where do those two end, Joan and Bette begin?  Do these interpretations at all match up with the interpretations I have in my head? Lange or Sarandon utter a line and I immediately run it through my filter: does this sound like my Bette or Joan?

One scene with Davis and ex-husband Gary Merrill (Mark Valley) struck me as feeling painfully realistic. Merrill angers Davis and they begin braying at each other when, suddenly, both burst out laughing at the battle that has obviously been a constant in their lives together, perhaps the basis of their relationship. Crawford’s dressing room attempt to convince Anne Bancroft (Serinda Swan) to allow Crawford to accept Bancroft’s Oscars were she to win — flattering, cajoling, insinuating — seemed utterly realistic. But there were also moments that left me cold. Nothing specific, just a vague mistrust, as if the creators were more interested in effect than intent.

The performances of Alfred Molina as Robert Aldrich, Stanley Tucci as Jack Warner and Dominic Burgess as Victor Buono are convincing but, of course, I’m not nearly as familiar with those men. I sense a bit of Joan Blondell in the performance of Kathy Bates, but Olivia de Havilland is nowhere to be found under the blonde wig of Catherine Zeta-Jones. Jackie Hoffman’s Mamacita and Judy Davis’ Hedda Hopper are more caricature than character. Grim and stoic, Mamacita has no subtlety. She might have been an escapee from Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS. And while I’m an admirer of Judy Davis, she doesn’t seem to be able to pull a person out of the sartorial flamboyance that defines the gossip columnist. Then again, if Hopper’s actions in the series are at all to be believed, perhaps she wasn’t human at all.

Other “real” characters pass in and out of the story – Gregory Peck, Geraldine Page, Rip Torn, Patty Duke, George Cukor, to name but a few — some more effective than others. John Waters appears as producer/director William Castle, turning that scene into utter camp while humiliating poor Joan in the process. Crawford’s twin daughters show up several times, as the teenage version of the murdered sisters of the Overlook Hotel.

But does it all work? Perhaps it’s my unfamiliarity with modern TV series but I find an hour each week to be too long. Dense with self-conscious detail, I’m worn out by the end of each episode, wanting to know what will happen next while at the same time relieved that I no longer have to notice that it is Aqua Net hairspray and Dickinson’s witch hazel being used by the stars. It’s Joan and Bette, the graphic novel, elaborate and over-blown, the costumes too costume-y, the sets too perfect, the attitude too proud of its own cleverness. But it is also fun. Sarandon as Davis performing a silly Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? song on the Mike Douglas show seemed just too good to be true — until the original video was trending on social media the following day.

And then came that final episode, which came closest to finding a kernel of authenticity and some kind of longed-for, idealized truth. We saw Joan at home, alone, cooking, drinking, cancelling a lunch date because she is unable to zip up her dress. Bette at home with Victor Buono, who questions the reasoning behind her continued attempts at landing a television series. Joan with her dentist who recommends a denture that she refuses. Bette’s doctor urges her to give up smoking, with the same result. Joan endures humiliation after humiliation while shooting her final film, Trog. Bette maintains a game face during the Dean Martin Roast. The subject of Christina’s book comes up in a conversation with Joan and her other daughter, Cathy, who tenderly comforts her. Bette spends time with her brain-damaged daughter Margot after being berated and dismissed by her other daughter B.D. The two have much in common at this stage in their lives, both touched by longing, sadness and the realities of old age.

But there’s more to it than that. In a Lynchian dream sequence Joan wakes up in the middle of the night and hears voices coming from her living room, where she finds Hedda Hopper and Jack Warner drinking, laughing and playing cards. She takes a place at the table with them, now in full makeup and dress. With biting humor they recall the past, struggle, triumph and pain. Bette arrives and takes her place at the table opposite Joan who is, at first, insulted by Bette’s presence. But it is Bette who asks Hopper and Warner to apologize to Joan for the miseries they have caused her. They consent but both, finally, are incapable of saying “I’m sorry.”

Hopper and Warner depart while Bette talks Joan into playing a game of Wishes and Regrets, “The only game I know” says Davis. Joan pulls a pip card and says, with sincerity, “I’m sorry I wasn’t more generous with you.” Bette pulls a face card and responds “I wish I’d been a friend to you.” Mamacita wakes Joan from her trance and returns her to bed. Touching and wistful, Joan’s dream, but could that have been her real attitude towards Bette after all the hostility they had shown one another?

Bette’s real response certainly might have been different. Later in the episode she answers a telephone call and is informed of Crawford’s death. Asked for a comment she replies “My mother always said don’t say anything bad about the dead. Joan Crawford is dead. Good.” But there is ambiguity in her face. Is she saying this because she feels it, or is she saying it because that is what she thinks she would be expected to say? The series ends at the beginning, the two stars in their studio chairs at the start of production of Baby Jane, hoping to become friends. Wishful thinking? Who knows.

Faye Dunaway is mentioned ironically in the final episode, and it’s all but impossible to talk about Joan Crawford, post-Mommie Dearest, without bringing up Dunaway’s portrayal of her. Has there ever been another movie with a more determined and driven star surrounded by such mediocrity? Dunaway’s Crawford is riveting but the other actors are unable to rise above the dull cinematography, the bad editing or the banal script. I watched the film recently and was struck by the overblown grandeur of the performance, but also its touches of subtlety and, dare I say, reality? This is, after all, not the Crawford of Feud but the Crawford of Christina, an angry, troubled, driven women seen through the eyes of her child. For better or worse, Dunaway’s performance, crafted from a rib tugged from Crawford’s own work in Johnny Guitar, defined the woman in a way that has stuck since the film’s release in 1981. It will be interesting to see if Lange’s Crawford, or Sarandon’s Davis for that matter, has the power to maintain such longevity.

◊

About the author: Jeff Lundenberger is an avid classic film fan, was a TCMFF Social Producer and is active across social media sharing his love of movies. You can follow Jeff on Twitter and Instagram @jlundenberger. I was thrilled when he agreed to share his thoughts on Feud on this blog and cannot wait to share my own thoughts in the comments below. I hope you’ll do the same.

  My Feud with FEUD Special guest post by Jeff Lundenberger @jlundenberger My Feud with Feud When the ads for Feud: Bette and Joan…

[monsterzeronj]

It’s the 40th anniversary of John Carpenter’s Halloween and so there is no surprise that there is a new Michael Myers film this year. This film hits the reset button and rejects all the other sequels and remakes and is a direct continuation of the first film, picking up the story 40 years later…

Halloween 2018 opens to find Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis) living in solitude after some failed marriages and loosing custody of her only daughter Karen (Judy Greer). She’s taught herself to survive and fight and is in a constant state of preparedness for Michael Myers’ (Nick Castle and James Jude Courtney) possible return. As for Michael, he was recaptured after that fateful night and has been incarcerated in the Smith’s Grove Asylum ever since. A pair of British journalists (Rhian Rees and Jefferson Hall) visit Michael, on the eve of his transfer to an even more secure institution, and try to evoke a response by presenting him with his old mask. Of course, that night, the transfer bus suffers an accident and Michael escapes, reclaims his mask and heads off to Haddonfield in time for Halloween. But Laurie intends to protect her daughter and granddaughter (Andi Matichak) and goes on the hunt to confront Michael once and for all.

John Carpenter returns to the series to executive produce, along with Jamie Lee Curtis. He also co-wrote the score with son Cody Carpenter and Daniel Davies. The film itself is directed by David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express) who co-wrote with Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley for Blumhouse and Miramax. Background in comedy aside, Green delivers what is probably the best of the post Halloween III sequels, though technically that is not saying much. It also feels much more like a Halloween film than Rob Zombie’s efforts, but those are their own thing and exist in their own universe. It’s not perfect and still can’t come close to the original, but it does provide some intense scenes, especially in the last act confrontation. There is some brutal violence and Myers hasn’t mellowed in his old age (he’s about 61 here) as he still has a fondness for babysitters and anyone home alone…and, or course, the Strode women. The film’s drawbacks are mostly script problems. The character of Loomis protégée, Dr. Sartain (Haluk Bilginer) seems shoehorned into the story, just so it has another Loomis. He doesn’t provide any useful exposition and as Michael hasn’t spoken in 40 years, he can’t know anything much more about him than Loomis did. There is also a last act plot twist involving him which simply doesn’t work and serves only to set up one of the film’s many conveniences. The film also never maintains a constant feeling of dread as did the original. It’s never really scary, though it does get intense and there are some suspenseful moments. Michael’s killings in Haddonfield seem far more random than before. In the original he stalked Laurie’s friends, here it’s just randomly picked people to add body count before the last reel showdown. It works but still seems like filler. When that showdown comes, it is intense and delivers what we came for and Green does pay nice homage to the original and some of the sequels it chooses to ignore. It also looks great, Green has a good visual eye and Haddonfield looks the most like Haddonfield since it did in Halloween II.

Green also gets good work out of his cast. Jamie Lee Curtis is great as the emotionally trouble survivalist that Laurie Strode has become. If her character evokes the transformation of Sarah Conner from The Terminator to it’s sequel, T2: Judgement Day, it’s probably intentional…and it works. She’s still the queen of final girls. Greer is very good as her somewhat estranged daughter and it’s a shame this talented actress constantly gets these second banana supporting roles. Andi Matichak was solid as Strode’s granddaughter Ally. She seems to take more after her grandmother than her mother, though due to the story trajectory, she takes a backseat to Curtis in terms of final girl duty. Will Patton was solid as the local sheriff, Haluk Bilginer is no Donald Pleasence, and Rees and Hall were suitable in their brief roles as the British journalists who rattle the wrong cage.

Overall, Halloween 2018 was a suitable enough sequel, though not without it’s flaws and it’s no classic. Director Green gave us some intense scenes and some brutally violent moments, as well as, a strong last act confrontation. His script let’s us down a bit, with some really contrived conveniences and a Loomis replacement that wasn’t necessary and who suffered one of the worst plot twists of the film. The continual sense of dread Carpenter established was missing and Michael’s kills seemed especially random and there to kill time as we awaited his reunion with Laurie. Curtis is still queen of the final girls forty years later and Dr. Sartain aside, most of the cast and characters worked, even if some were obvious Michael fodder.

Halloween 1978 is a masterpiece and a horror classic, so one can’t expect the same from any of the sequels. Most of them sucked, anyway, making it easy for this film to be able to at least hold it’s ground against the original three…and flaws aside, it does. Stay through the credits.

-MonsterZero NJ

RATED 3 pumpkins! 🎃🎃🎃