#the rev gang are funny demons | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

fuckyeahnightmares · 7 years ago

Text

Insidious: The Last Key Review

Cool, we’re doing this again.

1. Supernatural or psychological or metaphorical in someway? Supernatural. It’s about demons and ghosts and stuff like the last three. It’s not that deep.

2. How scary was it? 5.4/10 I just like more specific and seemingly arbitrary numbers. It’s definitely scarier than the third one (at least for me), although when it revs up for the finale it gets pretty tame, I’d say.

3. Jump scares of nah? Jump scares.

4. Is there blood and gore? There are a few graphic images but not too much blood and gore at all. Be warned, there are several moments of surprising violence, mostly against women. Please do you research about this movie if you have triggers.

5. On a scale of 1 - 10 (10 being Alien: Covenant), how dumb were the characters? 5. Actually they weren’t that dumb. There was only one moment where I wanted to yell, “Why the fuck did you go there, you idiot?” (When someone went somewhere hella spooky to look for someone and lingering there despite that person obviously not being there). There were one or two, “You could do that later” or “Find a more efficient or safer way to do that thing you for some reason really want to do” moments. There was also a, “This isn’t a big reveal, the audience put two and two together and figured this out 25 minutes ago” moment.

6. Does that story make logical sense if you think about it too long? Don’t think about it too long.

I really like the first two Insidious movies. The third one, I thought, lacked quite a bit in frights, especially towards the end when the monster was already revealed. The monsters were revealed kind of early in the first two movies as well, the difference is that they stayed pretty frightening. I thought they kept a good job keeping the monster hidden for most the film, then when he was finally shown in his full true form you kind of have to shrug. It was better than the third one though. The FURTHER was kind of boring this time around. It just seemed a lot less expansive and full than it had in the previous movies, perhaps because we’ve already seen so much of it and they tried to hone in on one specific location.

In regards to the overall story, I appreciate that they did try something a little new. There was one plot point I did not see coming and made it really interesting for a little bit. It didn’t hold for too long though as the story just kind of turned into what it always does: We gotta go into the FURTHER to stop this one demon in particular. Something I do like about the story was that it’s centered on Elise, the psychic of the movies. She’s a really compelling character and you don’t see like, any mainstream franchises featuring women past 40 in the lead role. So I appreciate this. I also enjoyed them featuring Tucker and Specks in more prominent roles. They’re pretty funny.

I don’t completely endorse seeing this movie. I didn’t completely love the story and I felt like the dialogue could have used a lot of ironing out. Damn, did it get cheesy at points. However it did have its moments, especially in the first two thirds. The two people sitting next to me, who I really felt like I bonded with throughout, were getting particularly scared throughout. So if you’re looking for a quick fix for some jump scares and spooks, you should consider giving it a go. Overall, I’ll give it a 5.5/10.

Spoiler-y thoughts below

It is so God damn funny that Specks wrote this movie. Like this dude wrote a script in which he gets a big hero moment and also kisses a beautiful woman at the end. Bold move, Leigh.

Specks didn’t really have to throw that shelf on top of him. Dude was out cold. I guess in the heat of the moment you have to be safe right? I mean, he could have gone for the gun and used it to defend himself in case but nothing’s quite as shelf crushing someone’s head.

I wondered how much the paranormal investigator gang gets paid. If the answer is A LOT I’d like to get in on that industry.

Key hands were an interesting idea. Not that interesting though.

The “She’s not a ghost” twist was damn good.

If my sister sent me a toy she found, I’d assume she had it in her possession. I wouldn’t go to a fucking crime scene to search for it.

“Dad are you in here?” *no response* “So are you in here?” *no response because the dad is clearly not in here* “I’m just gonna keep looking for you in this place you have no reason being in.” This scene drove me up a wall.

“She’s psychic. We’re sidekick.” I was confounded at the time when he said this. Looking back at it, it’s brilliant.

Okay the red demon showed up right behind her brother in the opening minutes of the movie. Are we ever going to see more of him? He’s still the scariest monster in these BlumHouse movies.

Wasn’t a huge fan of, “This demon makes men kidnap and lock up women” thing.

I can’t believe the first movie started because Elise forgot to close a door. Get it together.

#insidious: the last key #review #movie review #horror movies #horror movie #mod james #reviews

39 notes · View notes

seriouslycromulent · 7 years ago

Link

I found this article online, but I didn’t see it shared anywhere here on Tumblr, so I thought I’d bring it to the attention of the Midnight, Texas fandom. Especially since this interview with Bernardo Saracino touches on a number of issues that I’ve discussed before regarding his character on MTX, and why there’s a difference between being a stereotype and painting characters of color as perfect to avoid being accused of being a stereotype. (I maintain that both are equally damaging to PoC, and Chuy is neither.)

Anyway, here’s MTX’s Bernardo Saracino sharing his insight on why this role was a rare find. You can click the link above to read it on the official website or read the text I copied over below. Maybe it’ll help feed some of the fandom’s headcanons. :-)

**BTW, if you see any bold italics below, the emphasis is mine.

____

BERNARDO SARACINO: ‘MIDNIGHT’ CHARACTER BREAKS STEREOTYPES

CURT WAGNER - SEPTEMBER 5, 2017

Midnight, Texas revealed Chuy Strong’s supernatural secret, but the demon’s major superpower is breaking stereotypes, says actor Bernardo Saracino.

“I was in love with the … fact that Chuy’s just a guy. He happens to be Hispanic. He happens to be gay. He’s fully developed with feelings and emotions. He’s in a loving relationship. He’s married. He’s a whole person,” Saracino said. “That was my excitement when I read for the role.”

In the latest episode of the supernatural series based on the novels of Charlaine Harris, Chuy and his hubby of a thousand years, the angel Joe, told their fellow Midnighters that Chuy is half human and half demon.

During a phone conversation before the episode aired Sept. 4, I told Saracino I believed his character was a demon. He offered no hint that I had figured out Chuy’s secret.

“I’ve read a lot of interesting theories online,” he said before changing the subject. Later in our chat, he agreed that Chuy and Joe share a Romeo and Romeo love story. (Read: Pair of Romeos in ‘Midnight, Texas.’)

The duo had to come clean in the “Angel Heart” episode because another fallen angel flew into town to hunt down Joe (Jason Lewis). Bowie (Breeda Wool) and Joe used to slay heaven’s enemies together, before Joe met Chuy and “betrayed” Bowie, as she seemed to believe.

The episode revealed how Joe and Chuy met. Joe intervened when Chuy was getting beaten up by attackers. What wasn’t clear to me was when Joe learned Chuy was a demon.

“Joe didn’t know he was a demon until he saw the black [demon] blood,” Saracino said Tuesday during another phone chat. “As far as Joe knew, he stepped in to help a person getting beat up and robbed of his shoes.”

Joe fell for Chuy despite him being half demon, Saracino said, partly because of Chuy’s decision to live a life of pacifism. In the episode, Joe explains to their friends that when he asked Chuy why he didn’t turn demon to dispatch his attackers, Chuy said, “Maybe they needed the shoes more than I did.”

“That shows what kind of person Chuy is,” Saracino said Tuesday. “That line really solidified for me Chuy’s strong character and how he has resisted his demon side through positivity and pacifism.”

Chuy showed his stereotype-busting character again in the episode. After a failed attempt by the other Midnighters to banish Bowie to hell, Chuy was all that was left between Joe’s survival or death. Despite the danger his demonic transformation posed to him and his fellow Midnighters, Chuy went full demon and killed the bad angel.

“Every time the Midnighters fight a villain they are united by their love of each other,” Saracino said, adding that Chuy had to turn demon for his friends. “They all choose to live there and they stay and fight for the family that they’ve chosen.”

The fight will continue next week, when NBC airs new episodes at 9/8c Sept. 11 and 12 before wrapping up the first season on Sept. 18. Saracino said even though Chuy is having a hard time fighting the tearing of the veil—not unlike Lem and the Rev are—he will stick around Midnight to help in the coming battle against evil. But it won’t be easy.

“At this point in time, the shit’s really going to hit the fan,” he said. “We’re talking about this world ending.”

Saracino and I talked more about Chuy as man and beast, as well as how the character breaks a couple of Hollywood stereotypes, and what he thinks of Grandma Xylda.

-----

ON CHUY’S DECISION TO EMBRACE NON-VIOLENCE:

“Chuy has learned throughout his lifetime—which has been quite some time—that it’s never to our benefit to be extremely reactionary. He has chosen to be a pacifist. That’s the part of Chuy that I fell in love with when I read the scripts.”

ON THE AFFECT KILLING BOWIE WILL HAVE ON CHUY:

I think Chuy knows how dark he can get. That’s why he’s always trying to stay positive and seeking love. To know that you have that amount of darkness inside of you—it must be a struggle to keep it at bay. It’s an internal struggle because it’s not who he chose to be. So he wasn’t happy to [transform and kill Bowie], but he did it to save those he loved.”

ON THE MAKEUP FOR CHUY THE DEMON:

“The makeup took about three hours to apply, but prior to that I flew to Pasadena and they did a body mold and a face cast to have those to create Chuy’s body and face prosthetics. They had to paint and tailor it to my actual face for filming. It fits so perfectly and snuggly I’d forget it was on my face.”

ON HOW CAST AND CREW REACTED TO SARACINO IN MAKEUP:

“No one really knew until our table read that he was a demon. For all those episodes we were wondering. … I would forget that [the makeup] was on. Off set we were always talking and these cast members are so funny we’d always be laughing. On those days they’d be like, ‘I can’t talk to you’ or ‘This is too much.’”

ON HOW CHUY BREAKS ONE STEREOTYPE:

“As an actor of color, what I really loved about Chuy was that he was not written in a stereotypical way. There are very few roles and opportunities for Latin actors—male or female—in American cinema. Less than 3 percent of roles go to Latin actors despite us being the largest minority in the United States.

“So I was used to portraying stereotypes—gang members, drug dealers. I mean, they paid my bills so I have a love/hate relationship with those kinds of roles. But I don’t want the world to see Latin men as only drug lords. I read this and it was a complete breath of fresh air. It was phenomenal.”

“Latin characters on TV don’t have to be drug lords and gay men can be in loving relationships. … I do believe representation matters.”

ON HOW CHUY AND JOE BUST ANOTHER STEREOTYPE:

“They’re never introduced by saying, ‘This is Chuy and Joe; they’re two dudes and they [have sex]. They’re just two dudes in love. [Their sexuality] is addressed in the show in such a major way by not being addressed. It just is. The veil of Earth is tearing, and that’s not going to come between them.

“Someone might watch this show and realize gay people are not the stereotypes that Hollywood has told people they are, which is A. extremely promiscuous, or B. complete alcoholics, or C. not able to love.”

A FINAL THOUGHT ON THE SUBJECT OF BUSTING STEREOTYPES:

“If we go to a second season, there are going to millions of people around the world who are going to welcome this couple into their living rooms. And that matters to me. That will have a lasting effect on people who won’t have to be depressed because they’ve never seen anyone like themselves on TV. Young gay men and women will grow up watching this supernatural show with their families. A show that was not meant to be political, but gives them representation. I am humbled by that.”

ON WHAT THE VEIL BETWEEN HELL AND EARTH TEARING SYMBOLIZES TO SARACINO:

“All of us as humans are at such a fragile point because the veil—or the ground we stand on��is constantly in flux. We forget that everything … we hold valuable and near and dear is so fragile. We choose to avoid thinking about that, because we’d go crazy if we didn’t [ignore it].”

“To me that’s the most beautiful part of human existence, that we are able to find the beauty in what is fleeting by avoiding what is happening.”

ON WHAT HE HOPES VIEWERS GET FROM WATCHING MIDNIGHT, TEXAS:

“I hope people find a good hour of entertainment and escapism. It makes them happy. But I also hope they get the subliminal message we have in ‘Midnight’ about family and coming together. …

“I hope people take away the idea that family doesn’t necessarily have to be blood relatives. It also can be the people that you choose to surround yourself with and who have your back and who love you and vice versa. They accept you with all your quirks and you accept them—simply because love is the answer. What I would like people to take away is to choose love and to see the beauty in every other humans around you.”

ON WHAT HE BROUGHT TO THE ROLE OF CHUY:

“Chuy’s a little bit guarded and private. He’s not at the restaurant every night; he has a life he keeps to himself. I brought that level of being cognizant when you do and don’t allow people into your world. And outside of that the ability to find self love and peace within your own existence in a world that, because of the way one perceives it, isn’t welcoming. But finding a level where you can reconcile your peace and your self love and finding that place in your heart.

“As we started filming, I knew [Monica Owusu-Breen] had spent much more time with Chuy than I had. So I asked her to tell me more about how she saw him. She talked about how he has this level of self love against all odds, which I think is part of our human journey and part of my tapestry, too. I lost my mom and sister when I was a kid; my grandparents raised my brother and I.

“We’ll find out later that Chuy has had a lot of loss in his life. It was really existential moment for me when I learned this. I kept thinking, ‘How on Earth did these writers know that I could relate to Chuy at this level?’

“I remember living under a black cloud [after my family loss]. A lot of people don’t realize there is a level of shame, kind of, to being motherless when you’re a kid. You don’t want anyone to know. I would avoid talking about my mother or sister. I thought if I told people they died then they would treat me like a wounded puppy. … When you’re a kid you don’t want that kind of attention.

“There are a lot of levels of Chuy’s existence that he had to hide in order to go unnoticed. That resonated with me because I’ve done the same thing.”

AND FINALLY, ON MANFRED’S GHOSTLY GRANDMOTHER:

“I love her. Grandma Xylda [Joanne Camp] is like my spirit animal. I want a talking cat and a Grandma Xylda. I would be so happy. Wow, that says a lot about me.”

#bernardo saracino #chuy strong #midnight texas #joe strong #fandom #joe x chuy #the strongs

4 notes · View notes

avanneman · 7 years ago

Text

Jerry Lewis, you’ll jamais walk alone

youtube

Since the American media agenda looks to be waterlogged for the rest of the week, it might be “appropriate”, faute de mieux, to revisit the recent passing of Jerry Lewis. For my money, the greatest contribution Jerry ever made to comedy was to inspire Martin Short’s deliciously malicious SCTV parody, “Jerry Lewis, Live at the Champs-Élysées”, shown above, during which, among other things, an aging, out of touch Jerry subjects a bewildered French audience to a harangue directed at the damn kids running Hollywood who won’t back his genius, finishing the show off with a bellowing rendition of “You’ll Jamais Walk Alone”, the quintessence of audience-whoredom condensed, really, into a single word.

And for those of you kids in the audience, who don’t know from “You’ll Never Walk Alone,” let me explain that that song, from Rogers and Hammerstein’s Carousel1, was the quintessential inspirational throat-catcher back in the fifties, the idea being that if you have faith in your heart, you’ll, well, never walk alone. Marty/Jerry’s substitution of “jamais” for “never*, as an unwittingly condescending gesture of cultural outreach to the crowd—like a gentile saying “mazel tov”—struck me as a touch of comic genius when I first saw the bit back in the early eighties.

My contempt for Jerry is really quite strange, because when I was little—when I was little little—I loved Jerry Lewis. “Martin & Lewis” were to me the most exciting three words in the English language. I loved their movies—even better than Francis the Talking Mule!2 Even better!—and was agog whenever they appeared on the “Colgate Comedy Hour” on TV. I looked forward to Jerry’s first solo film, The Delicate Delinquent (1957), with immense anticipation and was stunned when it proved not merely unfunny (completely), but frightening. The film shows poor Jerry in his standard role as the helpless schlemiel/shlemazl,3 bullied by a “gang” into becoming a member. Later, however, Jerry turns the tables on his tormenters, becoming a cop and self-righteously beating the crap out of them in an extended, vicious scene that clearly allowed Lewis to take revenge on his demons.4

I never watched another Lewis film again for a good thirty years. I frequently saw him on TV and never found him funny, at all. Instead, I found him needy, overbearing, and compulsively unsubtle. Back in the late sixties and early seventies, I used to read the Sunday New York Times—then a publication of vast bulk—with bizarre dedication—an ineffectual response, I suspect, to my own demons. In the entertainment section, the Times would run ads for the once-famous Jewish resort hotels in the Catskills. The most famous was Grossinger’s, but the “Concord” was also huge. The Concord was Jerry’s preferred venue, and the Concord would run quarter-page ads featuring a head shot of Jerry, not laughing Jerry, but a ridiculously worshipful shot that made him look, basically, like a god, a showbiz god, which is clearly how he saw himself. And I would wonder, who in God’s name would pay good money to watch Jerry Lewis? When I saw Marty’s pitiless takedown, I found it perfect and justified in every detail.

I stumbled across Jerry’s The Bellboy, the first film he directed, on TV sometime in the early nineties. It’s an “interesting” film, though not funny. Lewis made the film because he owed the studio a film, though they were not at all happy with the results. Jerry plays a bellboy, “Stanley”, in a very explicit nod to Stan Laurel, his standard s/s character once more, but also appears as “Jerry Lewis”, the show biz monster he’s proudly become. Is Lewis saying “God I wish I was still that sweet, helpless little kid I used to be” or is he saying “Look at me, folks! I’m HUGE!”

Later, out of curiosity, I watched Jerry’s most famous film, The Nutty Professor, and tried to watch The Patsy, said to be his favorite of the Dean and Jerry pics, and also Artists and Models and Living It Up, and even some of their old "Colgate Comedy Hour" shows, when they became available.5 Sorry, folks, nothing. Nothing but trying way too hard. It’s hard to say if Jerry was the white Sammy Davis, Jr. or the other way around.

Carousel, not quite as well known as either Oklahoma or South Pacific, was still a huge hit or the boys, and a stunningly inspirational tear jerker in its own right. ↩︎

My Aunt Sally, who loved the movies, and who, I suspect, loved to hear me laugh, took me to all these films. The only two I remember specifically were Jumping Jacks (1952) and Francis Joins the WACs (1954). ↩︎

According to Yiddish “lore”, the schlemiel is the waiter who spills the soup; the shlemazl is the one he spills the soup on. ↩︎

Was Jerry beating the crap out of Il Dino? It’s the obvious guess, but I really have no idea if Jerry felt exploited by Dean. ↩︎

M&L apologists claim that the movies never captured the boys' anarchic genius. You had to see them on TV! You had to see them at the Copa! Sorry, guys. I never made it to the Copa. ↩︎

#Jerry Lewis #Martin Short

5 notes · View notes