#there are a few elements that changed almost for the better with the screenplay like gillian actually being gungho about falling in love

[tinseltina]

Tina Reviews: "Practical Magic" by Alice Hoffman

i havent finished the book yet (i'm a bit past the halfway mark in the Levitation section) and i knew it wasn't going to be EXACTLY like the movie. And honestly i only LIKE the movie, not love it. but MY GOSH THIS IS A LOAD OF SCHLOCK!

1st off this book is less an "urban fantasy" and is more of a "supernatural" story, Weird stuff happens regardless if a character does anything deliberately to effect a change or not. Could be that considered magic? sure, but this sort of happenstance is more common in supernatural stories than urban fantasies where people do magic ON PURPOSE or magical fantasy creatures EXIST. the most magical part of this story are how everyone falls in love (or lust if you wanna be accurate) with gillian at first sight, and the aunts may be actual witches but they aren't actually focused on at all and barely actually talk. There isn't a lot of dialogue in this book, a lot of it is just the author describing things with occasional quotes or bits of dialogue if an event is unfolding in that moment.

2. everyone is a dumb*ss in the way hallmark movies are full of dumb*sses. the central theme the author has chosen to explain all this dumb*ssery is "love". love makes you do crazy things, love makes you stupid, love draws you towards who you'd least expect, blah blah blah. NO ONE IS THIS BIG OF AN IDIOT. No wait, that's unfair to a sizable population of the world. NOT EVERYONE is this big of an idiot, and I'm surprised one family alone can be full of them.

Gillian being a moron makes sense, she even feels guilty when confronted with how much of an absolute trash pile her dead ex was and how she fell for his manipulation and lies and all that. SHE makes sense. She's a pretty woman who was never told 'no' by anyone she truly respected, and was horribly mistreated in a town that she was too afraid and resentful to ever return to. Being flighty and eventually stuck in an abusive relationship, that all checks out to me.

it's everyone else that dumbfounds me. the lack of bodily autonomy (everyone is so HORNY all the time. but this book isn't smutty, there is a lot(?) of reference to sex and desire but nothing graphic) is just so frustrating. it's weird to see it happening EVERYWHERE. i'm half convinced this is actually a story about a colony of secret bunny-people-hybrids made by the government to see how quickly they could repopulate the earth if needed.

but we'll see how the book ends before i give my final review 😅

[smokeybrandreviews]

Smokey brand Movie Reviews: Stop, It's Already Dead

I’ve been trying to watch Army of the Dead since it came out but every time i start, i end of bailing on it because it’s trash. Yeah, that’s it. This movie is trash. You can literally stop reading this review right now because that’s the verdict. Army of the Dead is shallow, inconsequential, zombie murder porn wit that trademark Zack Snyder, edgelord, spice. It’s f*cking ridiculous and i hated every minute of it. That’s it. That’s the review. Don’t watch this rancid spooge. Now, if you want to know why i hated it so much, read on. But it really is one of the worst things i have seen all year.

The Adequate

Dave Batista works magic with the material on hand. Zack Snyder isn’t know for having emotional bite or a realistic edge to any of the characters in his films but Batista was able to hone in on something and does a decent job of letting me tolerate this clusterf*ck. His Scott Ward is easily the best thing about this flick.

The carnage displayed while the opening credits rolled was almost as dope as Zombieland and i appreciated that. Literally the only time during the film where i didn’t feel like someone was standing on my sack and twisting.

Also, Hiroyuki Sanada is in this. I don’t know the name of his character and i don’t care i just genuinely enjoy Sanada’s work. He is an excellent actor and, similarly to Ken Watanabe, makes everything he’s in better, regardless of his role’s size or relevance.

The integration of Tig Notaro was kind of seamless. That sh*t was surprising because every one of her scenes was added in post. She had no interaction with any of the cast, not even in pick-ups. That’s just her, in front of a green screen, talking to herself. Of course, there are scenes where that is very apparent but the fact she was even able to replaces an entire actor wrapped month beforehand, is kind of a miracle and testament to the absurd technical skill Snyder wields as movie maker.

The Horrid

Zack Snyder. Literally everything i am about to unload, is Zack Snyder’s fault. This “film” is pure Zack Snyder. More so than the Snyder cut of Justice League. More so than BvS. Even more than f*cking Sucker Punch. Netflix gave this man a bunch of money and told he to go “create” and, to his credit, Snyder did just that. Unfortunately, he created hot dumpster water topped with soggy diarrhea.

Seriously, everything i have a problem with, has Zack Snyder’s name on it. He was the director, the writer, the screenplay writer, AND the f*cking cinematographer. What the f*ck, dude? Like, you want to be an auteur director, fine. Be good at it. Be good at movies if you’re trying to wear all of those hats. Zack, as a filmmaker, is bad at ALL of them. At best, he’s pedestrian, so doing all of that, just infuses abject mediocrity throughout this movie and it shows.

I’ve seen a lot of cats haring of Snyder’s depth of field choices but I'll take it one step further; What the f*ck was up with the shot composition as a whole, in this film? It was bad! All of it was so bad! There was no substance, no dynamism in the camerawork or the way the shots were set up. I’m not going to sit here and say it was just a bunch of static work, like how someone would film a play for theatrical exhibition, but it wasn’t that much better. I was watching this sh*t and thought to myself, “Hamilton had better camera work than this. F*ck.”

The whole ass plot is paper thing. I’m watching these first few minutes and it’s readily apparent that the guv’ment knows zombies be doing a zombie and Vegas is lost. Why the f*ck didn’t they nuke that motherf*cker off the face of the earth. Straight up Raccoon City that b*tch. There is nothing, no plot contrivance or mental gymnastics that could make believe that Las Vegas wouldn’t have been scrubbed off the map, within a week of this outbreak. Not after seeing actual paratroopers floating in to their deaths and straight up napalm strikes on the Strip. Why did anyone think building a fence out of shipping containers was a good long term option for containment! And that’s literally just in the opening credits! It gets worse as the flick progresses, man! The actual plot is trash!

Now, the actual premise? Interesting. It could have been interesting. But then Zack Snyder snyder’ed it up with the f*cking execution. Look, in order to write a great zombie flick, you need a strong human element. That’s where the audience is going to focus. They’re going to try and find the humanity in a sea of despair. Every great Zombie flick has a laughably strong lead and fantastic supporting characters you come to care about, usually withing the first act. 28 Days later is a fantastic example of how to execute your Zombie disaster apocalypse. You do not give a sh*t about any of the characters in Army. Snyder tries with Batista, thus the father-daughter relationship, but that cliche sh*t was cookie cutter from a whole different movie, which I'm going to get into next...

Army of the Dead is Aliens. It’s just a popularization of Aliens. It’s the same f*cking movie, but worse. There are shot-for-shot recreations in this movie, with just enough changed so Snyder won’t get sued. Just, off the top of my head, the ending. It’s exactly the same as f*cking Aliens! Literally the same goddamn ending! Heroes survive a gauntlet of monsters, rush to the top of or roof. Pilot of escape flying contraption kissing. Hero curses pilot of said whirly dervish. Queen Alien or Zombie King shows up. Pilot returns at the last minute to save survivors. Same. F*cking. Scene. And that’s just one. There are SO many in this thing you’d think Snyder watched Aliens everyday on set and just stole sh*t from that flick to add to his. It’s real bad. Real f*cking bad, man. which exasperates my next point...

This movie is f*cking boring. i was bored. If you’re stealing the entirety of Aliens, how do you f*ck that it up so bad? The same movie, which thrilled and entertained me thirty years ago, sh*t the bed so hard, today, and i don’t know how that happened. It’s infuriating when i think about it for too long. Speaking of long...

Why the f*ck is this anal prolapse, two and half hours long?? Why did you need this much movie to tell so little story? Seriously, how the f*ck is there this much run time yet, no actual f*cking characters outside of whatever the f*ck Batista was able to save with his sheer screen presence? How do you have all of this time and still not craft a character in which to invest?? In a f*cking Zombie movie?!

Also, he hired a rapist.

The Verdict

This movie sucks. For all of the reasons outlined above. I told you that in the beginning. You didn’t have to rad this far. You knew i hated this movie within the first sentence. This sh*t was a waste of my life. Batista is good in it and that sh* Snyder did with Tig was pretty cool, but everything else is bad. All of it. None of this movie is good. It was boring. It wasn’t entertaining. There are no characters. The plot is dumb. The execution is worse. The run time is absurd. Did i mention how bored i was? Army of the Dead is garbage. This is a bad movie. This is what you get when you just let Zack Snyder do whatever the f*ck he wants with no limits or boundaries. Snyder is bad at movies and he keeps proving it. I have no idea why people keep giving this obvious fraud work.

[twentiethcenturymoviesandtv]

Dead Poets Society: Facets of Filmmaking

For every film that’s ever been created, there’s a story behind its creation.

From pitch to product, writing a script, finding a director and production team, a cast, and everything before, after, and in-between is all part of a huge, collaborative effort to create the final film.  While some projects have simpler stories than others, no movie is ‘easy’ to make, and as a result, even the less interesting production stories were anything but to the people who worked on them.  Whether it’s the famed disaster of The Wizard of Oz or the uneventful filming of Running Scared, every movie has a story behind it, and Dead Poets Society was no exception.

In a way, it’s a bit of an odd film, and it didn’t start out terribly smoothly.

The script was written by Tom Schulman, a man who admittedly didn’t have a lot of experience with East Coast boarding schools of the 1950s, but still managed to imprint his own experiences from a prep school from just outside of Nashville Tennessee into a screenplay.  The character of John Keating was directly inspired by a combination of professors that Schulman had known, and many of the boys were based in part on schoolmates of his.  There was a lot of Schulman in his story, and after he had finished putting the screenplay together, it was time for him to try to find a buyer for his passion project.

Which was easier said than done.

Dead Poets Society was the first script Schulman ever sold (but not the first he wrote), and production companies weren’t exactly chomping at the bit for it.  Many studios rejected the project based entirely on the title, but Schulman stubbornly refused to change it.  Eventually, he found his buyer in Touchstone, a Disney-owned production company newly created (founded in 1984), deliberately designed to appeal to a more mature audience than their animated family pictures.

Once they’d bought the script, Disney wanted changes made.  For one, they suggested that Neil’s passion be dancing, rather than acting.  Other changes they wanted included more focus on Mr. Keating, to make the film a musical, a setting change from Vermont to Georgia, and a title change to Sultans of Swing.  Schulman outright refused, sticking to his guns, and his script.

Despite Schulman’s control over the screenplay itself, Disney had the authority to control other elements, such as casting.

Disney, and Touchstone, were absolutely dead-set on Robin Williams for their Mr. Keating, a decision that ultimately paid off, but at the time of filming, it seemed like it might be their downfall.  Disney went through multiple directors until they found one who agreed with them, scrapping casting ideas such as Liam Neeson and Dustin Hoffman before they found a director who would work with Williams.

Enter Peter Weir.

Australian New Wave director Peter Weir was anxious to continue a winning streak after directing The Year of Living Dangerously, followed by Witness and The Mosquito Coast, (the latter two starring Harrison Ford) with the rom-com script that would later become Green Card, but at the time, Weir was told he’d have to wait a year before he could make the film he really wanted.  This gave him a perfect gap year in which to direct a film, but he was far from the first person called in for Dead Poets Society.

One such director was Jeff Kanew, who had a very specific idea for what he wanted of the film, (he’s the one who wanted Liam Neeson for the role of Mr. Keating) and couldn’t get along with Williams at all.  The first days of shooting were so catastrophic that when Kanew was taken off the project, the sets were literally burned to the ground.

After a few more false starts, in 1988, Tom Schulman eventually helped the studio settle on Peter Weir.  Weir met with Jeffery Katzenberg, from Disney, who gave him the script, and, instantly taken with the project, Weir returned from Australia six weeks after the meeting to begin work on the project.

Schulman and Weir worked well together as a director-scriptwriter team, a seeming rarity in Hollywood, but there were a few changes made even now.  Weir removed a subplot revolving around Keating’s illness, feeling that it was more important that the audience focused on his teachings, rather than his health.  Still, despite a few changes, the filming rolled forward.

Weir worked with the cast to bring out as realistic and genuine performances as possible.  He forbade the cast from using modern slang off set, increasing the authenticity of the performances, and had the boys live together in a dorm to better experience the boarding-school atmosphere they were to be portraying, and encouraged them to study the 1950s.

He didn’t only work with the boys, however.

At the beginning, Robin Williams’s performance was rather stiff, and he seemed uncomfortable in the role.  Weir took Williams aside, and asked him what he wanted to teach this class.  When Williams replied: “Shakespeare”, Weir encouraged him to improvise, ending with the scene that included the Marlon Brando and John Wayne impression.  After this, Williams relaxed into the role, becoming far more comfortable, and compelling as a result.  Williams is estimated to have improvised around 15% of his dialogue for the film as a total.  

In the end, everyone’s efforts paid off.  Dead Poets Society was released on June 2nd, 1989, to great success financially and critically, winning Tom Schulman an Oscar for Best Screenplay and being nominated for three more awards (Best Actor for Robin Williams, Best Director for Peter Weir, and Best Picture overall).  Over thirty years later, it’s still remembered as a classic, a touching coming-of-age story and a film dedicated to the power of words, loved by people of all ages to this day.

And it’ll continue to be beloved as long as the human race has a place for poetry.

We’re almost finished with our study on Dead Poets Society!  Join us next week for our final thoughts, and please leave a like and follow if you want to see more of this kind of content.    Thanks so much for reading, and I hope to see you in the next article!

[allthehorrormovies]

A+1 - A blend of American Pie and Scream, but surprisingly better than that sounds. Outlining the plot would give away the twist, which tips its hand early on, yet ends in a gratifying manner. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Make love, not war.

Alien - A friend remarked how this film likely wouldn’t be made today. It’s shot too dark. It’s quiet, purposefully. There’s no action for much of the first half; more a study in isolated labor and worker exploitation. And there’s not a “star,” outside of teenage dreamboat Harry Dean Stanton. Actors like Sir Ian Holm Cuthbert were selected for their ability, not their stature within Hollywood, as production took place in London. As Robert Ebert said, “These are not adventurers, but workers.” We’re lucky it was made, supposedly, in part because the success of Star Wars pushed the studio to quickly release their own space movie. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. Sigourney Weaver is the ultimate Final Girl.

Aliens - The deliberate, slow pace of Alien is replaced by James Cameron’s grandiose action, backed by four times the original budget. Like Terminator 2: Judgment Day, it’s amazing that both films avoid “the disease of more.” Cameron’s characters are too often weighed down by punch-line dialogue, but all the elements together somehow work. Ripley’s character begins to move past being a simple pilot and into a warrior woman, for better and worse. The studio originally tried to write her out of the sequel due to a contract dispute, but Cameron thankfully refused to make the film without her. There are people out there who prefer Aliens to Alien, and that’s fine. They are wrong, but that’s fine. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

Alien³ - David Fincher has famously disowned his directorial debut, citing studio deadlines for its poor quality. Compared to the first two films, it certainly is a failure. Though gorier, the scenes with the digital alien look terrible upon re-viewing. The various writers and scripts, some potentially interesting—especially William Gibson’s version, and changing cinematographers and the insertion of Fincher late into production doomed the project from the start. All that said, the movie itself isn’t terrible—parts are even good, but what feels like a midway point in Ripley’s saga is ultimately her end, and that feels cheap. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

Alien: Covenant - The maddening mistakes of Prometheus absent, this sequel is a tense, action-packed killer of a flick. Scott claims a third prequel is in the works that will tie everything back to Alien, which is . . . fine? It’s just that the first film was so great and everything else since then seems so unnecessary. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Alien Resurrection - The aliens look better than ever before, but Joss Whedon’s dialogue is simply annoying and the casting is horrible. Ripley has super powers and kills her large adult alien son. Winona Ryder decides crashing a space ship into Paris, killing untold millions, is the best way to get rid of the aliens for some reason. It’s fucking dumb and cost $70 million to make. 1 out of 5 pumpkins. In the special edition intro, director Jean-Pierre Jeunet says he didn’t change much in the re-release because he was proud of the theatrical version. Baffling. 

Amer - This Belgian-French film is a tribute to the Italian tradition of giallo, a stylized, thriller told in three sections that directors like Suspiria’s Dario Argento pioneered. Mostly wordless, there’s not much plot, more a series of moments in a women’s life revolving around terrifying, sexual moments that ends in murder and madness. There are some terrific scenes, but it’s more of an art piece than movie. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

An American Werewolf in London - Funny and scary all at once, setting the bar almost impossibly high for all that followed. Rick Baker's special effects catapult this movie into greatness. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. Ebert was right, though; it doesn’t really have an ending. 

Annihilation - Perhaps more of a sci-fi thriller than a horror movie. But due to some terrifying monsters scenes, I’m going to include it. Apparently writer/director Alex Garland wrote the screenplay after reading the first book in Jeff VanderMeer’s Southern Reach trilogy, giving the movie a different overall plot. Garland’s sleek style that made Ex Machina so wonderful is replaced by “The Shimmer,” which gives the film a strange glow. The ending relies too much on digital special effects that looked more gruesome in earlier segments, detracting from its intended impact. Still, a few key scenes, especially the mutated bear, are downright terror-inducing. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. I first found the constant flashbacks unnecessary, but viewed as a refraction on Portman’s mind as well as her body make them more forgiving.

The Babadook - Creepy and nearly a perfect haunted horror movie, except for some final tense moments that too quickly try to switch to sentimental, which leaves their earnestness falling flat. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Dook. Dook. Dook.

The Babysitter (2017) - One of Netflix’s original movies, this one pays off in gore and borrows heavily from Scott Pilgrim vs. the World-style jokes. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Meh. It’s cheesy and cliché, but whaddaya gonna do?

Backcountry - Don’t be fooled thinking this is like Jaws “but with a bear,” as I did. Unsympathetic characters and zero tension make this movie a drag to watch. At the start, you think, “Who cares if these assholes get eaten by a bear? They wandered into bear country without a map.” By the end, you’re actively cheering for the bear to eat the boyfriend and only a little sympathetic for the lead character. 1 out of 5 pumpkins. To her credit, Missy Peregrym does a fine job of being a mostly lone protagonist.

Basket Case - Cult director Frank Henenlotter‘s debut starts as a creepy, bloody horror movie, but staggers after showing the monster too soon and then tries to fill time with unnecessary backstory and extended scenes of screams and blood that would have otherwise been eerily good if executed more subtly. Despite not being very good, it’s at least somewhat interesting and kind of impressive considering its low budget. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

Battle Royal - I’m not convinced this is a horror movie, it’s more just a gory action flick. But hey, oh well. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Fun, but not as great as many people seem to believe.

The Beyond - Considered one of Lucio Fulci’s greatest films, it might be a bit disappointing to newcomers of his work. Certainly the style and impressive gore are at their highest, but the muddled plot and poor dubbing distract from the overall effect. Fabio Frizzi‘s score is, for the most part, a great addition, however, certain key moments have an almost circus-like tone, which dampens what should be fear-inducing scenes. It’s easy to see why some fans absolutely love this movie while some critics absolutely hate it. In the end, it’ll please hardcore horror fans, but likely bore others. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Beyond the Gates - Two estranged brothers are sucked into an all-too-real game of survival after finding a mysterious VHS board game following the disappearance of their father. The plot is fun and original, but the lead actors aren’t all that engaging and the special effects look rather outdated for a 2016 release. Still, it’s an enjoyable watch. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Black Christmas - A slasher that starts out with potential, but never gets all that scary or gory, though it’s well made. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Margot Kidder gets a kid drunk.

Black Sheep (2006) - A hilarious, gory take on zombie sheep. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Black Sunday - The Mask of Satan (aka Black Sunday) is totally my new superhero/metal band name. If you're a fan of older horror, this one is not-to-miss. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Vengeance, vampires, Satan worship, castles, curses, and a buxom heroine, this movie is pretty damn dark for a 1960's black & white film.

The Blackcoat’s Daughter - Scores points for a couple of horrific scenes and a fairly good switcheroo, but mostly too slowly paced to capture the viewer’s attention. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Emma Roberts continues her path to being the modern Scream Queen.

The Birds - Hithcock’s film was, by no means, the first horror movie. German, Japanese, and UK directors had explored witches, demons, and the classic monsters decades earlier. But, The Birds is a landmark film, like Psycho, for pioneering a new wave of modern horror. It was, perhaps, the first time female sexuality and ecological revenge had been combined to create an unsettling tale with an ambiguous ending. And the rather graphic scenes of found corpses, combined with a minimalist score, are nearly as shocking today as when the film was first released. 5 out of 5 pumpkins.

Braindead - It's Bill Pulman and Bill Paxton in a 1980s B-horror; what more do you need? Most people won't enjoy this campy fart of nonsense, but try pulling your TV outside and getting good and drunk. Anything's good then. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. “The universe is just a wet dream."

The Brood - No where near as polished as Scanners or Videodrome, but still a creepy, well-made film. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

A Bucket of Blood - This black & white 1959 film from Roger Corman is more dark comedy than horror, but it’s a absurdly fun critique of beatnik culture written by Corman’s partner on Little Shop of Horrors. Dick Miller gives a great performance, and with a run time of about an horror, the pacing feels relatively quick for an older film. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Byzantium - The tale of two British vampires who live like wandering gypsies, setting up a low-rent brothel in a seaside town despite being immortal badasses because the all-powerful, all-male secret vampire club is trying to kill them, because . . . no girls allowed? It’s unclear. The vampires are of the more modern type—they go out during the day and receive their curse from a geological location than from one another. Still, overall the movie is better than it has to be. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Cabin Fever - Eli Roth’s directorial debut isn’t awful, but it certain could have been better considering Roth credits Carpenter’s The Thing as its inspiration. The homophobic jokes date the movie more than the alt-rock soundtrack and the repetitive scenes reminding viewers of how the mysterious disease spreads (at apparently differing rates depending on the character) during the conclusion end up creating a weird kind of plot hole. To his credit, some of the nods to The Thing are OK. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

Cabin Fever 2: Spring Fever - That Ti West made this pseudo-campy and outright bad movie during the same period that he made The House of the Devil is perplexing. The style, pace, and subtly that make The House of the Devil an enjoyable film are nonexistent in this cash-grab sequel. West apparently hated the final cut and requested his name be removed from the project. That said, I kind of like this movie better than the original. I’ve always found Roth’s praise of his directorial debut to be odd, as it’s not very good. For what it’s worth, this movie isn’t trying to be anything other than what it is: a tasteless, bad horror movie. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Retcons the plot hole in the first movie, at least.

The Cabin in the Woods - As good of a spoof of the horror genre as one could hope. Stereotypical with an O'Henry twist at every turn, this movie is good for an afternoon viewing, much like Tucker & Dale vs Evil. Without giving much away, if you think about it, The Cabin In the Woods is like a weird PSA about how marijuana will destroy all of mankind. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Fun and gory with something for everyone.

Candyman - Decades later, it’s not as easy to see why Candyman was such a landmark movie. It’s a bit slow, stumbles in places, and some of the acting is only serviceable. However, the story itself (based on Clive Baker’s original) is—on paper at least—good. Critics at the time were rightfully hesitant to praise a movie simply for having a black villain, especially when his origin is based on racial violence, but Tony Todd’s portrayal is so terrifying it launches the character into one of the all time great horror monsters. Add in Philip Glass’s soundtrack and Candyman reigns among other classics without being a top contender. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Carrie - I saw this movie on TV a long time ago, but I had forgotten much of the film, especially the opening scene of slow motion nudity (aren't these girls supposed to be in high school?!). The remake of this movie is likely going to be bad, but the original is so good I'll probably go see it. What can be said? Pig's blood. Fire. Religious indoctrination. Sexual overtones. There's a reason Brain de Palma's version of Steven King's story became so culturally important. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. This movie holds up, even today. 

Carrie (2013) - Though nothing is glaringly bad, and the added back-story decently pulled off by Julian Moore as the mother, almost every scene is a shadow of the original. Which is unfortunate considering that the remake of Let The Right One In managed to find a somewhat more unique tone. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Largely unnecessary.

The Changeling - George C. Scott does a fine job as a mourning husband haunted by an unfamiliar spirit. Not the most exciting movie, but pretty decent. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. It might’ve ranked higher, but there are no half stars here.


Cheerleader Massacre - This movie looks like someone shot it in their backyard with an earl 90s handheld camcorder . . . in high school. This is just embarrassing, for me too. The actors seem to be exotic dancers or adult film stars, who haven’t been asked back for a shift in a while. Alright, I skipped through this because the quality was so low. At around minute 41 there's a bathtub scene with three naked women, which culminates in one licking chocolate sauce off each other’s breasts. Some people die. Two of the naked women survive, I think. The house they all go to in the beginning of the movie - a ski lodge, I guess - burns down, or doesn't. Whatever. 0 out of 5 pumpkins. Just watch actual porn.

Child’s Play - While only OK, I understand how this became a franchise. Melted Chucky is terrifying. The villain can hop from vessel to vessel, unfortunately through some kind of voodoo racist bullshit. The characters are shallow, but serviceable. For such a big budget movie, it’s weird that it ends so abruptly. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Children of the Corn - Damn, this movie is boring. Linda Hamilton does the World's Least Sexy Birthday Striptease. The characters are joking quite a bit having just run over a child, whose dead body is rattling around in the trunk. What was the casting call like for this movie? "Wanted: Ugly children. Must look illiterate." All in all, things turn out pretty good for our protagonists. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. For something that spurred at least five other movies, this was remarkably uninspiring. 

City of the Living Dead - The dialogue is awkward and the plot a bit convoluted, but the special effects hold up and the overall story is good. The first of Lucio Fulci’s Gates of Hell trilogy. Apparently when the movie was screened in L.A., Fulci was booed. 3 of 5 pumpkins. Poor Bob the Simple Pervert.

Climax - Gaspar Noé is known for making viewers feel as uncomfortable possible with his experimental style film making. Which is fine. But that discomfort rarely lands to move me outside the initial shock. Climax is, surprisingly, more like a Suspiria remake than the actual 2018 remake. That, however, doesn’t make it good. The really shocking moments aren’t all that shocking and the cultural commentary isn’t very deep. It’s not a bad movie, it’s just, well, unnecessary. The dance scenes are extraordinary, so at least it’s got that going for it. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

Color Out of Space - An enjoyable, albiet uneven, film that does a lot with little. A head-trip type of home invasion movie that pulls you in. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Conjuring - It’s easy to see why so many people love this movie. It’s well-acted, it has jump-out-of-your-seat scares, and incorporates several classic fear elements. Considering the mediocre, at best, tiredly worn horror movies that slump to torture porn for shock value coming out recently, The Conjuring stands above its peers. Still, there’s nothing original about the movie. 3 out 5 pumpkins. 

The Conjuring 2 - Billed as more shocking than the original, this sequel likely lands better in theaters with it’s jump-cut scares and action flick sequences. On the home screen, however, the overly dramatic elements are too far flung to seem like a haunting based on true events. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. 

Creep (2014) - Nails the P.O.V. angle without going too far down the overly-used “found footage.” Mark Duplass is terrifying and without his ability to carry the film, the entire concept could have easily fallen flat. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Creep 2 - Mark Duplass pleasantly surprises with a sequel that, while not as *ahem* creepy as the first, builds out the world of his serial killer in a manner that is engaging and ends with the potential for more. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Crimes of Passion - Technically it’s an “erotic thriller,” but given Ken Russell in the director’s chair and Anthony Perkins as the villain, I’m adding it to this list. Unfortunately, it’s not a great film. Kathleen Turner surpasses over acting in some scenes, and the rest of the cast is pretty forgettable. If the plot revolved around Perkins’s character, it might have been more of a horror flick. Instead revolves around loveless marriage and the fucked up issues of sexuality in America, attempting to say . . . something, but never really making a point. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Russell has got an obsession with death dildos. I don’t know what to do with that information. Just an observation.

Crimson Peak - Guillermo del Toro is a complicated director. He’s created some truly remarkable films, but has also created some borderline camp. Crimson Peak splits the difference, much in the same way Pacific Rim does. If you’re a deep fan of a particular genre, in this case Victorian-era romance, then the movie can be an enjoyable addition to the category with its own voice. If you’re not, then the movie’s more eye-roll-inducing moments are less a nod to fandom and more of an uninvited addition to what could be a straight forward film. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Beautiful, but lacking.

Cronos - This del Toro film is a must-see for any fan of his current work. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Even if you're not usually a fan of foreign films, you'll likely appreciate this modern take on the vampire mythology.

Dagon - To be honest, I feel like I should watch this one again. It’s a bit of a jumbled mess, but there are some wacky, gory moments at the end. Similar in tone and style to Dead and Buried. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Seriously, like the last 20 minutes cram so much plot it’s just a series of wtf moments until hitting incest and then nothing really matters.

Darling - Well shot in beautiful black and white with an excellence score, Darling really should receive a better score. However, it fails to be more than the sum of its parts. Borrowing liberally from Kubrick’s one-point perspective and Polanski’s Repulsion in nearly every other way, the film is decent, but fumbles in deciding whether to convince the audience of a clear plot, leaving viewers with closure, yet unsatisfied. Still, worth viewing. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Daughters of Darkness - A Belgian/French erotic vampire film that isn’t as erotic or vampiric as one might hope. Still, legend Delphine Seyrig shines so brightly, it’s catapults are relatively boring film into near greatness. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Dawn of the Dead - The best zombie movie ever made. 5 out of 5 pumpkins.

Day of the Dead - George A. Romero’s end to a near-perfect trilogy isn’t as good as its predecessors, but it’s gorier and somehow more depressing, even with the ending. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

Dead and Burried - Starts with a bang, but lags in the middle. The ending tries too hard to surprise you, yet, by the time it’s over you kind of don’t care. Surprisingly well acted and good, creepy tale. Might not be everyone’s bag, but if you’re a tried-and-true horror fan, you’ll enjoy the movie. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Fun fact: The movie was written by Dan O’Bannon, famed for writing Alien. O’Bannon worked with John Carpenter on a short in film school, quit being a computer animator on Star Wars to be a screenwriter, and became broke and homeless after attaching himself to Jodorowsky’s doomed Dune. He later went on to direct The Return of The Living Dead and write Total Recall. 

Dead Snow - A Nazi zombie bites off a dude's dick. Do you really need any other details? 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Germans be crazy.

Dead Snow 2: Red vs Dead - Not as good as its predecessor, but still fun. Plus, more children die. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Why all the gay jokes, though?

Death Bed: The Bed That Eats - OK, my first nit-pick is that the bed doesn’t eat people so much as it dissolves people. But it still makes chewing sounds? Whatever. A bizarre concept that swings for seriousness and utterly fails due to its lack of plot and extremely low budget. Kinda of weird, but ultimately pretty boring. 1 out of 5 pumpkins.

Death Spa - Hilariously bad. Super 80s. I can’t say this is a good film, but I would recommend watching it for the kitsch value. What if a ghost haunted a gym? Instant money maker. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Fun fact: the project came about due to shepherding from Walter Shenson, who got rich producing A Hard Day’s Night and Help!, and the lead actor, who plays a gym manager, was an actual gym manager in L.A. at the time.

Deathgasm - Imagine if Scott Pilgrim vs. the World was about a New Zealand metal band and not as good, but still pretty OK. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Deep Red (aka Profondo Rosso, aka The Hatchet Murders) - Dario Argento’s 1975 film is more polished than 1977′s Suspiria, which is a bit surprising. However, that doesn’t necessarily make it a better film. Where Suspirira’s fever dream colors and superior soundtrack, also by Goblin, shines, Deep Red doesn’t quite land. The camera work here is better, though, as is much of acting. But there’s a lot of let downs, such as the opening psychic bowing out and never really coming up again, the boorish male lead and oddly timed humor, and the final reveal, which is anti-climatic. Still, an overall great horror movie. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

Def by Tempation - I really enjoyed this film, despite it not being the most skillful directed or the most incredible script. The plot is compelling, the jokes are pretty funny, and the angles and lighting are really well done despite the limited budget. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Admittedly, Kadeem Hardison nostalgia helps.

Demons - Multiple people recommended this to me, and I can see why considering the Dario Argento connection. Unfortunately, the premise is more exciting than the execution. Poorly acted and poorly dubbed, the gore doesn’t do enough to hold one’s attention. There’s a scene where a guy rides around on a dirt bike killing demons with a samurai sword. At least that happens. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Is the ticket-taker in on it? She works in the demon theater, right? So, why is she being hunted? Also, where the fuck did the helicopter come from?

The Descent - Some of Earth’s hottest, most fit women embark on a spelunking adventure with a recently traumatized friend. Aside from a couple of lazy devices that put the team in greater peril than necessary, the movie quickly and cleverly puts the cavers into a horrifying survival scenario that few others in the genre have matched. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Without giving too much away, be sure you get the original, unrated cut before watching this flick.

The Devil’s Backbone - Though del Toro’s debut, Cronos, is more original and imaginative, this is much more honed. Not necessarily frightening, but tense and dreadful through out, laying open the horror war inflicts on all it touches. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Devil’s Candy - More of a serial killer thriller than a horror, but the supernatural elements raise this movie to better-than-average heights. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. The real lesson is this movie is that cops won’t save you, ONLY METAL CAN SAVE YOU!

Don't Be Afraid of the Dark - The biggest upside to this movie is that it was produced by Guillermo del Toro. The biggest downside is that it's not directed by Guillermo del Toro. Still, the director gets credit for making a child the main character; never an easy task. To the little girl's credit, she's a better actor than Katie Holmes, no surprise, and Guy Pierce. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. With a bit more gore and stylistic pauses, this could have been a 4. This movie proves why killing kids is more fun than kids who kill, and also that every male protagonist in every horror movie is dumb dick.

Don’t Look Now - Well-acted and interesting, Nicolas Roeg’s adaptation is a high-water mark of the 1970s premier horror. The only real complaint is that the ending—while good and obviously ties it all together—is nonsensical. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Donald Sutherland fucks.

Event Horizon - “This ship is fucked.” “Fuck this ship!” “Where we’re going, we don’t need eyes to see.” These are quotes from, and also the plot of, Event Horizon. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. The most disturbing part of the whole production might be Sam Neil’s attempt to be a sexual icon.

The Evil Dead - Though The Shining is the best horror movie ever made, The Evil Dead is my favorite. Funny, creepy, well-shot on a shoestring budget, it's the foundation for most modern horror flicks, more so than Night of the Living Dead in some fashions. See it immediately, if you haven't. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. Bruce fuckin' Campbell.

Evil Dead (2013) - Not entirely bad, and even takes the original plot in more realistic places, like the character having to detox. But is that what we really need? The fun of the original is its low budget, odd humor, and DIY grit. I guess if you really want a “darker” version, it’s this. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Better than The Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake, about as good as the Carrie remake, I guess.

Evil Dead II - I have to respect Sam Raimi because it’s like he got more budget and did everything possible to try and make this movie suck just as a fuck you to the studio. All the creepy parts of the original are over-the-top, there’s zero character development—just faces on a stage, and it’s seemingly a crash-grab to set up Army of Darkness more than anything else. That said, it’s kind of boring outside of a couple gory scenes. It’s fun, but not that funny. It’s scary, but more gauche than anything. An exercise in excess, yet a decent one somehow. My biggest complaint is that Evil Dead is great with Bruce Campbell, but would have been good with almost anyone; whereas Evil Dead II is only good because it’s Bruce Campbell. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Elvira: Mistress of the Dark - This movie is nothing but puns and tit jokes. But clever ones! Pretty okay with that. Or maybe it's a statement on third-wave feminism in spoof form? Probably not. At one point an old people orgy breaks out at a small town morality picnic, but it's a PG-13 movie so it doesn't get very fun. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Boooooooooobs.

Elvira's Haunted Hills - A pretty disappointing follow-up to what was a fun, 1980s romp. Instead of poking fun at uptight Protestants, Elvira’s just kind of a dick to her servant. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Even the boob jokes are flat.

The Endless - More sci-fi than horror, and not the most deftly produced, still an original concept that’s pulled off well. 3 out 5 pumpkins. Maybe this should get a higher ranking. It’s good! Not exactly scary, but good.

Equinox - Decided to give another older Criterion Collection film a try. Though there are some clever tricks in the movie, especially for its time -- like an extended cave scene that's just a black screen -- the poor sound, monsters that look children's toys, and general bad acting drag this movie down to nothing but background noise that's easy to ignore. 1 out of 5 pumpkins. Whatever contributions this movie may have made to the industry, its not worth your time unless studying for a film class.

Excision - Less of an outright horror movie and more of a disturbing tale of a young necrophiliac, the film tries its best to summon the agnst of being a teen, but falls short of better takes, like Teeth. Still, pretty good. Traci Lords is great and John Waters plays a priest. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Exorcist - The slow pace and attention to character backstory is more moving than the shocking scenes you've no doubt heard about, even if you haven't seen the film. The pacing is slow compared to most movies today, but the drawn out scenes, like in Rosemary's Baby, help convey the sense of dread. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. Believe.

Eyes Without a Face - One of the more remarkable things about this French 1960′s near-masterpiece is how carefully it walked the line between gore and taboo topics in order to pass European standards. The villain isn’t exactly sympathetic, but carries at least some humanity, giving the story a more realistic, and therefore more frightening quality. The only, only thing that holds this film back is the carnivalesque soundtrack that could have been foreboding. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. A must watch for any horror fan.

The Fly - Cronenberg's fan-favorite film is delightful, though it’s not as great as Scanners or Videodrome, in my humble opinion. Jeff Goldblum is, of course, terrific. If you haven’t seen it, see it! 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Where’d he get the monkey, though? Seems like it’d be hard to just order a monkey. The 80s were wild, man.

The Fog - A rare miss for John Carpenter’s earlier work. There’s nothing outright wrong or bad about this movie, but it’s not particularly scary and the plot is rather slow. That said, it’s soundly directed. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. If you’re a Carpenter fan, it’s still worth watching.

Forbidden World - Another Roger Corman cult classic, this one made immediately after the much larger budget Galaxy of Terror, mostly because Corman had spent so much on the first set (designed by James Cameron) and thought of a way to make another low-budget flick with a much smaller cast and recycled footage from Battle Beyond the Stars. Even more of a complete rip-off of Alien, with some Star Wars and 2001: A Space Odyssey bit sprinkled in. Perhaps because it’s far less serious and revels in its pulp, it’s somehow better than Galaxy of Terror, which is more ambitious—you know, for a Corman b-movie. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. No worm sex scene, though.

Frankenhooker - Frank Henenlotter‘s 1990 black comedy is over-the-top in almost every way, perhaps best encapsulated by the introduction of Super Crack that makes sex workers, and one hamster, explode. But with a title like Frankenhooker, you get what you expect. Hell, it even manages to sneak in an argument for legalizing prostitution. If you’re a fan of zany, exploitation in the vein of Re-Animator, you’ll enjoy it. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Friday the 13th - Terrifically balanced between campy and creepy, with a soundtrack that’s twice as good as it needs to be. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Worth watching every year.

The Frighteners - Michael J. Fox, everyone! Robert Zemeckis & Peter Jackson - ugh. It didn't even take 20 minutes for the racial stereotypes to kick in. Unlike the trope of youth in most horror movies, everyone in this movie looks old. Holy shit, did anyone else remember Frank Busey was in this movie? Michael J. Fox is a bad driver in this movie. He was also in a car accident that gave him supernatural sense. Jokes. Apparently they tried to make it look like this movie was shot in the Midwestern United States, but it was filmed in New Zealand. It's clearly a coastal or water based mountain town, in like dozens of shots. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Cheesy without being completely campy, it's also family friendly. If this were any other genre, this would likely be a two.

From Beyond - Stewart Gordon’s follow-up to Re-Animator isn’t as fun, even with some impressively gory special effects. Viewers are throw into a story with little regard for character, which doesn’t really matter, but is still a bit of a left down when you find yourself wondering how a BDSM-inclined psychiatrist builds a bomb from scratch. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. It’ll stimulate your pineal gland!

Funny Games (2007) - A fairly straightforward home invasion horror achieves greatness thanks to Michael Haneke‘s apt directing and powerful performances by Naomi Watts and Michael Pitt. Like with Psycho, some of the most horrifying parts are what comes after. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. The fourth wall breaking is an odd touch, but thankfully and surprisingly doesn’t distract.

The Fury - Brian De Palma’s follow-up to Carrie is a major let down. Despite a fairly charismatic Kirk Douglas and score by John Williams, the two-hour run time drags and drags. Attempting to combine horror and an action-thriller, the film waffles between genres without ever rising above either. 1 out of 5 pumpkins. It’s not explicitly bad; just a bore to watch.

Galaxy of Terror - Roger Corman produced this movie as was to try and capitalize off the success of Alien, but even with that shallow motivation it’s better than it needed to be. Staring Erin Moran of Happy Days fame and celebrated actor Ray Walston, Galaxy of Terror has an uneven cast, made all the more puzzling by Sid Haig. Though “the worm sex scene” is likely the reason it achieved cult status, James Cameron’s production is top-notch and was clearly the foundation for his work on Aliens. The ending even hints at the future of Annihilation. Does all this make it a good movie? Not really, but it’s not terrible either. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

Get Out - A marvelous debut for Jordan Peele, who—given his comedy background—was able to land some downright chilling moments alongside some mostly well-timed jokes. Unfortunately, not all of them as well timed, especially the drop-in moments with the lead character’s TSA buddy. Peele originally had the film end less optimistically, but wanted audiences to ultimately walk away feeling good. Maybe not the most artistic choice, but certainly the smart one given the film’s acclaim. It’s easy to see why Get Out has cemented itself alongside The Stepford Wives as a smart, “in these times” commentary about society, but it’s also just a really well-paced, well-shot, well-acted film. With two other horror projects immediately set, it’ll be exciting to see just how much Peele will add to the genre. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. America’s worst movie critic, Armond White, said Get Out was “an Obama movie for Tarantino fans” as if that was a bad thing. Idiot.

Ginger Snaps - A delightfully playful but still painful reminder of what it was like being a teenager while still being a gore-fest. A must for anyone who was emo. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Out by sixteen or dead on the scene.

A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night - An almost flawless picture. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. Bonus: nearly everyone in this movie is insanely hot.

Green Room - Surviving a white supremacist rally in the Pacific Northwest is no joke. The region is the unfortunate home to violently racist gangs, clinging to the last shreds of ignorant hate. Though fading, some of the movements mentioned in the movie, like the SHARPs, are grounded in recent history. Mainly a gory survival-flick, the movie sneaks in some surprisingly tone-appropriate humor. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. No one’s island band should be Misfits.

A Ghost Story (2017) - Yes, this isn’t a horror. It’s a drama. Don’t care; including it anyway. It’s unnerving in the way that it makes you consider your own mortality and the lives of the people who you’ve touched, and how all of that won’t last as long as an unfeeling piece of furniture or the wreckage of home soon forgot. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Ghostbusters (1984) - “It’s true. This man has no dick.” 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

Halloween (1978) - One of the best openings of any horror film. John Carpenter is a genius. 5 out of 5 pumpkins.

Halloween (2018) - Eh. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Hardware - A very unhelpful Marine brings home some post-apocalyptic trash that tries to kill him and his girlfriend, who could absolutely do better than him. Horribly shot and nonsensical, it doesn’t push the boundaries of filth or gore its cult fans adore. 1 out of 5 pumpkins. Do not recommend.

The Haunting (1963) - Not exactly the scariest of movies, but damn well made and just dripping with gay undertones. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Theo is queen femme daddy and we are all here for it.

Haunting on Fraternity Row - The acting is surprisingly decent, but the supernatural elements don’t even start until halfway into the movie, which begins as a sort of handheld, POV style conceit and then abandons all pretense of that set up. 1 out of 5 pumpkins. Not at all scary, but maybe it will make you nostalgic for frat parties, cocaine, and failed threesomes. So.

The Haunting of Julia - Apparently parents in 1970s Britain didn't receive proper Hymlic maneuver treatment, which perhaps made for an epidemic of dead children. As promising as that premise might be, an hour into this movie and there hasn't been any actual haunting. There's a stylish gay best friend (he owns a furniture store) and a dumb dick of an ex-husband, a scene of library research, mistaken visions, etc. All the standards are here, except for the haunting parts. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Well shot but absolutely boring, this is more about a woman's struggle with depression than a horror flick.

Head Count - A great premises that falters in key moments, making the sum of its parts less than its promising potential. For example, there’s no reason to show a CGI monster when you’ve already established its a shape-shifter, the scariest part is that they could be anybody! 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

Hellbound: Hellraiser II - I really dislike this movie, not because it’s especially bad, but because it’s a lazy continuation of the first film. Yes, there are a couple of scenes that are squeamishly good, but it spends too much time rehashing the plot of the first and then ending in some grandiose other dimension that has not real impact. Part of the terrifying elements of the first is that the horror is confined to one room in one house. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. It really only gets this many pumpkins because of the mattress scene.

Hellraiser - Truly the stuff nightmares are made of. It’s easy to see why this film became a cult-classic and continues to horrify audiences. That said, the plot is a bit simplistic. Not that the plot is the heart of the film; the objective is for viewers to experience squeamish body mutilation and overall dread, and in that regard it truly delivers. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

Hereditary - Toni Collette is a treasure in this dramatic horror about family and loss. Though the truly terrifying bits take too long to ramp up, resulting in a jumbled conclusion, the film is engrossing. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

Hocus Pocus - Admittedly, this movie isn’t very good. But its nostalgic charm and constant virgin jokes earns it a higher ranking that it deserves. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. “Max likes your yabbos. In fact, he loves them.”

Honeymoon - Often described as a modern twist on Rosemary’s Baby, this debut from promising director Leigh Janiak takes its time before getting truly creepy. Though there are some gruesome moments, the tense feeling is bound to the two leads, who are able to keep a lingering sense of dread alive without much else to play off. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Host - I was skeptical of this Korean movie based on the sub-par visual affects, but the script, actors, and cinematography were all much better than expected. A genre-bender, as my friend who recommended it described, you'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll cringe. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. If you're a fan of movies like Slither, you'll love this movie.

Hot Fuzz - Second in Three Flavours Cornetto and probably the worst, but still a great movie that gets better on repeat viewing. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

House - A part of the Critereon Collection, this 1977 Japanese movie is a trip and a half that follows the untimely demise of some school girls going to visit their friend's aunt, who turns out to be a witch who eats unwed women. One of the girls is named Kung-Fu and spiritually kicks a demon cat painting until blood pours out everywhere. I guess this is kind of a spoiler, but the movie is such a madcap, magna-influenced experiment there's nothing that can really ruin the experience. Like most anime, this movie also ends with an unnecessary song that drags on for far too long. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. I guess this movie influenced a lot of future work, which make sense. Still, most people would consider this a 1 as it's nearly impossible to follow.

The House at the End of the Street - I only decided to watch this movie because Jennifer Lawrence is in it. This isn't even a real horror movie. It's a serial killer movie with a few thriller moments. My standards are low at this point. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. It's a PG-13 movie, so instead of outright showing you some boobs there's just long, awkwardly placed frames of Jennifer Lawrence in a white tank-top. Oh, America.

The House of the Devil - Though an on-the-nose homage to 70s satanic slow-burns, this Ti West feature moves at a decent pace toward the slasher-like ending, making it better than most of movies it pays tribute to. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. 

The House on Sorority Row - A cookie-cutter college slasher that ends abruptly for no real reason considering how long it sets up its premise. Nothing awful, but nothing original. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

Housebound - A fun, Kiwi flick that nicely balances a bit of horror with humor with a strong performance by Morgana O'Reilly. Though the plot takes a couple unnecessary twits towards the end, the gore kicks up and leaves you with a satisfying ending. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Howling - Released the same year as American Werewolf in London, this movie isn’t very good, but it is entertaining. Apparently audiences and critics thought it was funny. Maybe because it makes fun of that Big Sur lifestyle? I dunno. Dick Miller is the best thing in this movie, outside of the special effects. No idea why it spawned several follow ups. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Honestly, why not just lean into The Gift and join The Colony—nice surroundings, sultry nympho, regeneration ability. Some people can’t appreciate nice things.

Humanoids from the Deep - A cult favorite from the Roger Corman camp that borrows heavily from Creature from the Black Lagoon and a bit from Jaws. Initially very well done by director Barbara Peeters, but ultimately released much to her distaste. Peeters shot grisly murder scenes of the men, but used off camera and shadows to show the creatures raping the women. Corman and the editor didn’t think there was enough campy nudity. So they tapped Jimmy T. Murakami and second unit director James Sbardellati to reshoot those scenes, unknown to the cast, and then spliced the more exploitative elements back in for the final version, including a shower scene where it’s abundantly clear a new, more busty actress stands in for actual character. It’s unfortunate Peeters’ creation was essentially stolen from her, as it could have been a more respected film. I mean, how many horror flicks could weave in the economic struggle of small town bigots against a young native man trying save salmon populations? That said, the cut we got is pervy romp that’s still a boat-load of b-movie fun. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. James Horner on the score.

The Hunger - First off, David fucking Bowie. Not to be outdone, Susan Sarandon and Catherine Deneuve are absolute knock-outs. Horror stories are often rooted in the erotic, often the unknown or shameful aspects of ingrained morality manifested in the grotesque and deadly. When done positively and well, it can be a powerful device. It’s a shame more recent horror movies don’t move beyond the teen-to-college-year characters for their sexual icons, too often used as sacrificial lambs, because mature sexuality can be far more haunting. As we age our connections to the meaning of love grow deeper and more complex; immorality does not offer the same luster. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Damn impressive for a first major film. Fun fact: Tony Scott wanted to adapt Interview with the Vampire, but MGM gave him The Hunger instead. It bombed and he went back to making commercials. Then Jerry Bruckheimer got him to direct Top Gun, which made $350M.

Hush - Though the masked stranger, home invasion plot is well-worn, this movies provides just enough shifts to keep things interesting and frightening. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Watch out, Hot John!

I Am the Pretty Thing that Lives in the House - With only an hour and a half run time, this film still drags. Part of that is deliberate. The foundation of the film is its atmosphere and the lingering uneasiness that it wishes audiences to dwell in. But by the end, you’re left with nothing more than a simple, sad story. It’s similar to the feeling of overpaying for a nice-looking appetizer and never getting a full meal. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Initiation - This movie has every 80s hour cliché necessary: minimalist synth soundtrack, naked co-eds, looming POV shots, hunky Graduate professor, escaped psychiatric patients, prophecy nightmares, and creepy a child. Yes, everything but actual horror. An hour into the horror movie and only one person has died. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. There is no point to this movie, unless you're a huge fan of the princess in Space Balls.

The Innkeepers - The second of Ti West’s two well-received horror originals before he set out for TV and found-footage anthologies, The Innkeepers may not get as much love as The House of the Devil, but should. The dual-leads (Sara Paxton and Pat Healy) are more fun to watch than Jocelin Donahue‘s performance and the tone more even-set throughout the film. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Innocents - Reportedly Martin Scorsese’s favorite horror movie, it’s easy to see how big of an impact it had on the genre (especially The Others) with sweeping camera angles, slow but still haunting pace, and remarkable sound design. Perhaps it’s not as well-received by modern viewers, but it’s no doubt a classic. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

Intruder (1989) - An enjoyable slasher flick from long-time Sam Raimi collaborator Scott Spiegel that takes places in a grocery store after hours that doesn’t try to do too much or take itself too seriously and features some over-the-top gore. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. “I’m just crazy about this store!”

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) - A terrific example of how to build paranoid fear. That its political allegory can be interpreted on both sides of McCarthyism makes it all the better. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. Original ending, ftw.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) - A rare remake that’s almost as good as the original. Terrific use of San Fransisco as a setting, Goldblum Goldblum’ing it up, solid pacing—great film! 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Plus, nudity!

The Invitation - More of a tense drama until the final moments, this film deserves praise for holding viewers’ attention for so long before the horror tipping point. Further details could spoil the story, but like many tales in the genre the lesson here is always trust your gut. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Ugh, Californians.

It (2017) - Stephen King’s nearly 1,200 page 1986 national bestseller captures the attention of readers for a number of reason: it’s coming-of-age story is horrific even without supernatural elements, it’s cast of characters resemble classic American archetypes from many of King’s other works, and its adaptation into a four hour mini-series staring Tim Curry as Pennywise in 1990 has haunted the imaginations of children for decades. Unfortunately, like the mini-series, the movie fails to deliver the long, unsettling moments that make the novel so thrilling. King’s story is a cocaine-fueled disaster that throws everything and the kitchen sink at viewers when compressed onto the screen. The truly terrifying elements of the book lose their impact when delivered one after another without time to feel personally connected to each character. The genius of It is the paranormal evil’s ability to hone in on a person’s darkest fears. Without deep empathy for all of The Losers, the individualized psychological torture is muted when reduced to jump-cuts. For what it’s worth, the film does its best with a jumble of sub-plots and the Pennywise origin story, but as the tone bounces from wide shots of small town Maine and the painful trauma of abuse to titled zooms of CGI monsters and an over-the-top soundtrack, something is lost. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Publishing office, 1985: “So, wait. The kids fuck?” the editor asks, disgusted. King vacuums another white rail into his nasal cavity. “Huh?! Oh. Yeah, sure. I guess. Does that happen? Jesus, I’m so fucked up right now. What day is it? What were you saying? Yeah, yeah, yeah. It’s like, love is the opposite of fear, bridge to adulthood or something. Do you have any booze around here?”

It Comes At Night - More utterly depressing than terrifying and a reminder that the greatest horror we’ll likely ever face is simply the limits of our own humanity. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

It Follows - An uncomfortable and honest take on how sexuality is intertwined with the horror myth. One for the ages. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. The real terror is HPV. 

Jaws - A masterpiece that’s too easily remembered for its cultural impact than artist merit. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. R.I.P. Chrissie Watkins, you were a free spirit as wild as the wind.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer - Yorgos Lanthimos‘s follow up to The Lobster isn’t as well done, but the wide shots, odd lines, and increasingly bizzare build-up are all present. The finale is near perfect, but takes a bit too long to reach. I’d really like to give this film a higher score, but alas: 3 out of 5 pumpkins. There’s nothing wrong, yet something is missing.

Kiss of the Damned - There are handful of potential interesting scenes and the internal drama of a vampire family is a potentially the foundation for a good film. Despite this, Xan Cassavetes’s film never manages to actually be all that interesting. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. There’s nothing terrible here, but also nothing remarkable.

Knock Knock - Two hotties do my man Keanu dirty. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Eli Roth is a better actor than director.

The Lair of the White Worm - A campy demon flick from Altered States director Ken Russell. Staring Hugh Grant, Peter Capaldi, and Amanda Donohoe, the plot is loosely based on Bram Stroker’s last novel, which has a few similarities to H. P. Lovecraft's novella The Shadow Over Innsmouth, which was made into the Spanish film Dagon. Very British all around, a bit like Hot Fuzz meets Clue, this could have been played straight and potentially been scary, but Russell didn’t intend to be serious. A topless snake demon wearing a death strap-on to sacrafice a virgin can’t be taken as *cinema* after all. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Not great film by any stretch, but pretty fun!

Lake Mungo - Presented as a made-for-TV type of mystery documentary, this could have really turned out poorly. Despite some unnecessary plot additions, this movie really stuck with me. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Sadder than you might expect.

The Langoliers - Balki Bartokomous is the villain in this made-for-TV special. He is terrible and the rest of the cast is packed with 90s no-name actors and a child actor that might as well be the blind version of a kid Liz Lemon. You know how Stephen King writes himself into every. single. story? In this case it's not even as a plot device, it's just a character to fill space like an obvious oracle. In the book, the character tearing paper is a subtle, unsettling mannerism you assume happens quietly in the background, but because television writers treat their audiences like distracted five year-olds, this action becomes a reoccurring focus with no point or context. One of the best parts about the book was imagining the wide, empty space of the Denver airport. Of course, shutting down an entire airport would be expensive, so most of the interactions take place in a single terminal, which is just as boring as being stuck at the airport yourself. Two 1994-era Windows screen savers eat Balki at the end, then, like, all of reality, maaaaaaaan. The more I think about it, this story might have been the unconscious basis for a strong Salvia freak out I once had. 1 out of 5 pumpkins. Dear male, white writers, we all know that no one actually fucks writers in real life - that's why you're all so angry. Stop creating these protagonists equipped with impossible pussy-magnets. Stop. Staaaaaaaahp.

The Last House of the Left - Wes Craven’s debut isn’t much of a horror, but a revenge tale that contains no build up or sense of dread, but an immediate and unrelenting assault of its characters and the audience. It’s well-made, and the rape revenge tale is older than Titus Andronicus, but that doesn’t mean it’s something worth viewing. There’s no joy; it’s Pink Flamingos without the camp. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. No doubt impactful, but really best viewed as a piece of history with a critical eye and not for entertainment.

The Legend of Hell House - A well made haunted house film that holds up forty years later. Pamela Franklin, playing a medium, carries much of the movie. Her foil, the physicist, is a strange character. He apparently believes people, and even dead bodies, can manifest surreal, electromagnetic energies, but not in “surviving personalities.” Yet, he still orders this giant “reverse energy” machine to “drain” the house of its evil before they even set out to research house. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Dangerous diner parties, the insatiable Mrs. Barret, mirrored ceilings and kick ass Satan statues everywhere - this house seems pretty great, actually.

The Legend of the 7 Golden Vampires - A blast to watch, but not truly great. Unfortunately, I’ve only seen the edited version (The 7 Brothers Meet Dracula) that mixes up the beginning for no real reason and wonder how much better the original cut might be. Still, vampires! Kung Fu! Peter Cushing! 3 out of 5 pumpkins.


Let the Right One In - Beautiful and terribly haunting. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. Likely the best horror movie this generation will get.

Let Me In - Surprising good. Unnecessary, yes. But still good. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Fun fact: I once watched an *ahem* found copy of Matt Reeves‘s Dawn of the Planet of the Apes without the ape subtitles and thought it was a brave choice to make the audience sympathize with the common humanity among our species. I was also pretty high.

Life After Beth - Jeff Baena‘s horror comedy features a terrific Aubrey Plaza, but Dane DeHaan’s character leaves a lot to be desired. It seems like the film is trying to save something about life, love, and family, but never finds its voice. A fine, funny movie to watch on a rainy afternoon. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

Lifeforce - Directed by Tobe Hooper (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) and written by Dan O'Bannon (Alien) is a film the suffers from “the disease of more.” The entire concept of space vampires is rad as hell, but a $25 million budget and a 70 mm production couldn’t save what ends up being a boring trod and a jumbled ending that somehow makes major city destruction tiring. Though, to be fair, this was well before Independence Day. Colin Wilson, author of the original source material, said it was the worst movie he has ever seen. I wouldn’t go that far, but during a special 70 mm screening, the theater host chastised the audience in advance to not make fun of the movie during the showing because it was “a great film.” Reader, it is not. But Mathilda May looks real good naked and there are a couple cool, gory shots. So, there’s that. I guess. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Patrick Stewart is in this for all of like 10 minutes, but is still listed as a main character.

The Lighthouse - From The Witch’s Robert Eggers, this film is objectively a great work of art. Brooding, stark, and compelling performances from Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson—all the elements add up into a unique and disturbing experience. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. All that said, in the same way I consider Death Spa a 2 pumpkin movie you should see, this is a 4 pumpkin movie you could probably skip. It’s not entertaining in the traditional sense, and likely not one you’d want to really ever see again. The Eggers brothers made something weirdly niche and it’s fine if it stays that way.

Little Evil - A serviceable comedy that isn’t all that scary or even gory, which is a disappointment considering Eli Craig’s Tucker & Dale vs. Evil was so good. There are a few nods to famous horror movies that make a handful of scene enjoyable, but otherwise it’s purely background material. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

Little Monsters - A Hulu original that’s pretty fun, if ultimately standing on the shoulders of giants like George A. Romero and Edgar Wright. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

A Lizard in a Woman's Skin - Lucio Fulci’s erotic mystery starts out with groovy sex parties and hallucinations, but quickly gets dull in the middle with extended scenes of psychological assessment, only to wind up where we all started. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Lodge - A good exercise in isolation horror that, while a bit slow, ratchets up the tension and horror with each act. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Damn kids.

The Lost Boys - A fun, campy 80s vampire flick you’ve likely heard of or even seen. I get why it’s cemented in popular culture, but at the end of the day it’s a Joel Schumacher film with a silly plot. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Love Witch - Somewhere between earnest satire and homage, The Love Witch is a well-crafted throwback to 1960s schlock. Weaving in contemporary gender critique, the film is more than just a rehash of its sexual fore-bearers. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

Mandy (2018) - Like watching a bad trip from afar, Beyond the Black Rainbow director Panos Cosmatos (son of the Tombstone director) pulls off a trippy, dreadful film that starts out with story that follows logic and consequence before giving over to the full weirdness of Nicholas Cage’s uniquely unhinged style of acting. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Jóhann Jóhannsson’s score is superb.

Midsommar - Though not as good as Aster’s Hereditary, Midsommar sticks with you longer. Eerie throughout and disturbing, but not frightening in the traditional sense, it’s no surprise this film seems to split viewers into devoted fans and downright haters. Florence Pugh’s performance is wonderful and the scenes of drugged-out dread are far better than what was attempted in Climax. Some critics have called the film muddled and shallow, and certainly the “Ugly American” character fits in the later, but I found it to be a remarkably clear vision compared to the jumbled ending of Hereditary. That said, it’s not a scary movie, it’s simply unnerving. Should a male director and writer be the one to tell this tale? Probably not. But it’s not wholly unredemptive. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. I first gave this film 3 pumpkins, but the more I think about it, the more it lingers. That counts for something. One more pumpkin to be exact.

Mimic - Without del Toro’s name attached, perhaps this movie wouldn’t be judged so harshly. Yet, though the shadowy, lingering shots he’s know for give a real sense of darkness to the picture, it’s a chore to sit through and is especially frustrating toward the end. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Mist - Watch the black and white version, which adds an ol’ timey feel to this Lovecraftian tale from Steven King and makes always-outdated CGI a bit more palpable. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Monster (2016) - From The Strangers Bryan Bertino, this monster movie that ties in a trouble mother/daughter relationship doesn’t ever overcome its limitations and poor character decisions that get protagonists in deeper trouble. Zoe Kazan does what she can to carry the role. Not bad, but not much below the surface. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

Monsters (2010) - A slow-burn that relies on its actors to push the suspense of a road-trip-style plot, leaving the special effects for subtle and beautiful moments. Arguably more of a sci-fi thriller than a true horror flick, it’s still worth viewing if you’re looking for something spooky. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

mother! - Like many of Aronosky’s films, mother! is difficult to define by genre. Though not a typical haunted house film, the bloody, unsettling aspects make it more than a typical psychological thriller. Haunting in a similar fashion of Black Swan, yet broader in theme like The Fountain, this movie is challenging, disturbing and frustrating in the sense that, as a mere viewer, you’re left feeling like there’s something you’ll never fully understand despite being beaten over the head. An not-so-subtle allegory about love, death, creation, mankind, god, and the brutality women must endure, it’s a hideous reminder that, upon even the briefest reflection, life’s cosmic journey is macabre. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

Ms. 45 - Ahead of its time, especially considering the unfortunate “rape revenge” sub-genre that seemed to cater to male fantasy than female empowerment. Still, it’s slow build and random scenes toward the finale leave it wanting. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Oh, the knife is a dick. I get it. 

Murder Party - A bit like Tucker and Dale vs. Evil, but for New York art kids. Even for being a horror comedy, there’s only like 20 minutes of horror, which is too bad as there’s material to mine instead of a prolonged rooftop chase scene. If this was a studio production, it’d probably just get 2 pumpkins, but given it’s $200k budget and at-the-time unknown cast, it’s a solid first feature for Jeremy Saulnier and Macon Blair, who went on to make some truly great films. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

National Lampoon’s Class Reunion - Flat out awful; neither a comedy nor a horror. Writer John Hughes claims he was fired from production, though that doesn’t hold much water considering he’s credited as “Girl with bag on head” and went on to write several other Lampoon movies. Director Michael Miller didn’t make another feature film for almost thirty years, which wasn’t long enough. 0 out of 5 pumpkins.

Near Dark - Kathryn Bigelow‘s sophomore film is hampered by its ultimate ending, but the story is original and well produced. Even Bill Paxton’s over-the-top performance is enjoyable. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Worst. Vampire. Ever.

The Neon Demon - A spiritual successor to Suspiria, this film from Drive director Nicolas Winding Refn is beautifully shot, but ultimately empty. While both Jena Malone and Keanu Reeves breathe life into their small roles, the cast of models rarely shine. The horrific ending goes a step too far without lingering long enough to truly shock. Though much better than the extremely similar Starry Eyes, it’s difficult to give this film a higher rating. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Worth watching for a couple standout scenes. 

Night of the Living Dead - Viewed today the film seems almost tame, but in 1968 it was lambasted for being too gorey and sparked calls for censorship. And to its credit, there wasn’t anything else like it at the time. Romero’s incredibly small budget, Duane Jones‘s great performance, and the film’s unintended symbolism make its success all the more impressive. Kudos to MoMA and The Film Foundation for restoring this important piece of cinema history. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. I argue this is a sci-fi film, if you think about it.

A Night to Dismember (The "Lost" Version) - This version appeared on YouTube in the summer of 2018, decades after it was originally filmed. The version that was released in 1989 on VHS, and later in 2001 on DVD, was entirely re-shot with adult film actress Samantha Fox after a disgruntled processing employee destroyed the original negatives. The re-shoot gave the released version of movie its “sexplotation” vibe that director Doris Wishman was know for producing, but he original version is more of a straight-forward psychotic slasher movie with only a scene of campy nudity and stars Diana Cummings, instead of Fox. Gone is the striptease, sex hallucinations, detective character, and asylum plot that were slapped together in the released version, leaving a still somewhat jumbled story of a young woman who goes on a killing spree after becoming possessed by her dead mother, who died in pregnancy, leaving her an orphan. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Poor Mary. Poor Vicki.

Nightmare on Elm Street - Why this movie sparked a generations-long series is almost as puzzling as how Children of the Corn pulled it off as well. The movie flat out ignores basic storytelling devices. Recalling the overall plot, you’re not even sure if the main character is better off alive or dead, given the horrifying reality she already exists within. Consider this: Her father is an authoritarian cop leading the world’s worse police force and her mother is a drunk, possessive vigilante arsonist. University doctors are so inept they focus solely on Colonial-era medicine to the point of ignoring a metaphysical phenomenon, believing teenage girls are attention-starved enough to smuggle hats embroidered with a dead child-killer’s name inside their vaginas to a sleep deprivation study. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. So much for the classics. At least this gave us the future gift of inspiring Home Alone-style defense antics.

Not of This Earth (1988) - This film, and I mean that artistically, was made because the director, Jim Wynorskin, bet he could remake the original on the same inflation-adjusted budget and schedule as the 1957 version by Roger Corman. Traci Lords makes her non-adult film debut and is a better actor than the rest of the cast combined. The gem isn’t so bad it’s good, it’s so godawful it’s incredible. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. I was looking for the trashiest horror movie on Netflix, and I believe I have found it.

One Cut of the Dead - Know as little as possible going into this one. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. It’s impossible to not enjoy this film.

One Dark Night - Starts out interesting, but quickly gets forgetable even with the central location of a haunted cemetery. Worth putting on the background. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Aaaaaadddaaaammmm Weeeeessssst.

The Others - Well-paced, nicely shot, superior acting by Nicole Kidman, ominous tone through out, great ending. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. One of my personal favorites.

Pan's Labyrinth - del Torro’s best work, combining the tinges of war dread and the fantastical elements that would go on to be a key part of his other films. Pale Man is one of the creepiest monsters to ever be captured on screen. Perhaps the biggest horror is that though you’ll cheer for the anarchists, the historical fact is that the Nationalists won and established a dictatorship for nearly forty years. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. No god, no country, no master.

The People Under the Stairs - When the main character of a horror movie would be better placed in a zany after-school sitcom, the entire story is bound to fail. Little did I know how far. Twin Peaks actors aside, the rest of the this movie is so convoluted and poorly explained that it made me hate Panic Room somewhat less. They can't all be winners. 1 out of 5 pumpkins. At the end of this movie, a house explodes and money rains down on poor, mostly black people. Thanks, Wes Craven!

Pet Sematary (2019) - Uninspiring, uneven, and mostly uneventful. 1 out of 5 pumpkins.

Poltergeist - If you haven't seen this Steven Speilberg produced & written, but not directed horror movie, it's worth a modern viewing. Original, yet tinged with all the classic elements of fear, this movie manages to tug on the heartstrings like a family-friendly drama while still being creepy as hell. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. The best, most expensive Holiday Inn commercial ever made.

Pontypool - Good, but not as great as hyped. Characters are introduced haphazardly and the explanation for the horror barely tries to make sense. Still, not bad for a movie with essentially three characters stuck in a single location. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Possession (1981) - Described by some die-hard horror fans as a “must see,” I guess I agree. It’s by no means a masterpiece, but it’s bizarre enough to take the time to check out. It’s a sort of Cold War psychological horror as if written by Clive Barker and directed by David Cronenberg. Of course that comparison is necessary for American readers, but Polish director Andrzej Żuławski is an art-house favorite, whose second film was banned by his home government, causing him to move to France. Often panned for “over acting,” Isabelle Adjani actually won best actress at Cannes in 1981. Though, you may find one particular scene as if Shelley Duvall is having a bad acid trip. Part of the appeal of seeing this film is the difficulty in finding a copy. The DVD is out of print, and the new Mondo Blu-ray is limited to 2,000 copies at $70 a piece. Good luck. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. If you’re looking for something weird and very European, seek it out.

Prometheus - Perhaps because Ridley Scott’s return the franchise was expected to be such a welcome refresher after the abysmal failures of others in the series, this one was a pretty big let down. Though there are some cool concepts and frightening scenes, there are anger-inducing plot mistakes and zero sympathetic characters. Michael Fassbender’s performance is terrific, yet not enjoy to be an enjoyable view. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

Psycho - Not as great at The Birds, but still one of the best. The superb shots, painfully slow clean up of the first kill, it’s no wonder why the film is landmark for horror. Anthony Perkins is tremendous. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. Remember when Gus Van Sant remade this shot-for-shot for literally no reason and lost $30 million? It’s like he has to make one really terrible bomb after each critical hit and then crawl back again.

Pumpkinhead - The production quality of this 80s horror flick is surprisingly high, especially the Henson-like monster. Long story short - asshole dude bro accidentally kills hick kid, hick father calls up demon to seek revenge. All in all, not a bad movie. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Given the title, the monster's head in this movie is shockingly not very pumpkin-like. Boo.

A Quiet Place - John Krasinski gets a lot of credit for playing a well-intentioned father, which is an easier bridge to his well-known character from The Office, rather than a military member, like in many of his other projects. Emily Blunt is wonderful as is Millicent Simmonds. The creatures are scary, reminiscent of The Demogorgon in Stranger Things, and the plot is decent, even without much of an ending. I’ll be honest, I didn’t really want to enjoy this film as much as I did. It seemed too “mainstream.” And, it is. But it’s also a well-executed, well-acted, well-produced product, which is much more difficult to pull off than it sounds. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Worth recommending to friends who aren’t even horror fans.

Rabid - No where near the level of Cronenberg’s best or even his subsequent film The Brood, but still very good. Apparently Cronenberg wanted Sissy Spacek to play the lead, but was shot down by the producers. Obviously Marilyn Chambers was selected to play up the porn star angle in the hopes of greater marketing for the indie, horror film out of Canada, but she does a great job in her first mainstream role. If you like any Cronenberg has done, you should watch this one. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Raw - A terrific coming-of-age, sexual-awakening, body-horror film that manages to retain its heart even as it pushes the limits. One of the best horror movies of the last decade. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. Nom-nom.

Re-Animator - Creepy actor Jeffrey Combs is also in The Frighteners, which makes it a good nod in that flick. "Say hello to these, Michael!" When you see it, you'll get it. What can be said of this movie? It's crazy. It's great. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Gory, campy, funny and scary all at once, a definite classic.

Ready or Not - I wouldn’t go so far as to call this movie “clever,” but it’s certainly better than its absurd premise. Samara Weaving’s performance is really the only thing that keeps people watching. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Killing all the attractive help is played off as a joke, but . . . it’s not? At least rich people die.

Repulsion - After having to listen to her sister being drilled by some limey prick night after night in their shared apartment and a series of unwanted street advances triggers her past trauma, a young woman rightfully kills a stalker turned home intruder and her rapist landlord. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Return of The Living Dead  - This movie doesn’t give a wink and nod to horror tropes, it reaches out of the fourth wall to slap you in the face to create new ones. There’s an entire character that is just naked the whole movie. I understand that just because it’s a joke it doesn’t mean it’s not still sexist. But, also, you know, boobs. 4 out 5 pumpkins. What was created as camp became the foundation for modern zombies.

Return of the Living Dead III - A love story of sorts that takes a more series turn than the original. At first, I didn’t enjoy the uneven balance of camp and earnestness, but it oddly grows on you. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Worth watching to see what you think.

The Ritual - A Netflix original that is better than it needs to be about regret, trauma, and fear that gets right into the action and wraps fairly satisfying. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Rosemary's Baby - If you're looking for a sure party killer this October, put on this number and watch your guests fall asleep! Often forgot, the beginning and end of Rosemary's Baby are terrifying, expertly filmed scenes of dread, but the middle is a two-hour wink to the film's conclusion revolving around an expectant mother. Still, few other films can capture fear the way Polanski's does; all the more impressive that it stands up today. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. If you haven't seen this film, you owe it to yourself to watch it this season.

Scanners - Cronenberg’s 1981 film feels like a much more successful version of what De Palma attempted with The Fury. Dark, paranoid, and ultra-gory in key scenes, Scanners isn’t quite the perfect sci-fi horror, but it’s damn close. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

Scream - For a movie that birthed an annoying amount of sequels and spoofs, it's sort of sad that Wes Craven's meta-parody ended up creating a culture of the very movies he was trying to rail against. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Worth watching again, even if you saw it last year.

Sea Fever - A good, but not great, tense thriller on sea. Plus, an important lesson in quarantine. Ultimately, it doesn’t go far enough to present its horror. A well-made, and even well-paced film with a limited cast and sparse special effects, though. There’s nothing explicitly “wrong” as the movie progresses, but a tighter script and bigger ratcheting of the horror could have made it a classic. The ending is kinda cheesy the more I think about it. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Could’ve used a sex scene with some impending doom is all I’m saying!

The Sentinel - I really wanted to love this one. Downstairs lesbians! Birthday parties for cats! Late 70s New York! Alas, its shaky plot and just baffling lack of appropriate cues make it mostly a jumbled mess only worth watching if that slow-burn 70s horror aesthetic is your thing. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Shallows - Mostly a vehicle for Blake Lively’s launch from TV to the big screen, this movies isn’t particularly good or bad. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. The shark has a powerful vendetta against Lively. What did she do?!

Shaun of the Dead - First in Three Flavours Cornetto, some of the jokes don’t land as well as they did in 2004, but still a great spin on the zombie genre with loads of laughs and a bit of heart. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Shining - The pinnacle of the form. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. "So why don't you start now and get the fuck outta here!" Harsh, but come on, Wendy kinda sucks.

Shivers - Cronenberg’s 1975 shocker flick is . . . fine. You certainly get to see how some of his body horror themes started. Cronenberg himself seems to see it as more of a film to watch to understand what not to do as a young director. If you’re a completist, definitely check it out. Otherwise just skip to 1977′s Rabid, if you’re looking for Cronenberg’s earlier work. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Not bad considering it was shot in two weeks.

Silent Night, Deadly Night - Whoo, boy. This one’s a ride. A decidedly anti-PC flick that caused calls for boycotts when it was first released, this movie is full of assault and uncomfortable situations. It’s also hilarious, gory, and worth watching in a large group. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Punish.

Sleepaway Camp - I must be missing something, because like Children of the Corn, I can’t understand why this movie became a cult-classic. A guy who openly talks about wanting to rape children is gruesomely maimed, so there’s that? I guess. A couple of these “kids” are definitely 34, while others are 14. Is this the basis for Wet Hot American Summer? I don’t know or care. 2 out 5 pumpkins. Just watch Friday the 13th.

Slither - Almost on the level of other spoofs, but with a few groan-worthy moments. Definitely one to watch if looking for something fun. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Not for the bug fearing.

The Slumber Party Massacre - Rita Mae Brown wrote this movie as a parody of the slasher genre that spawned so many Halloween copycats. It’s a bit unfortunate that we didn’t get her version. Author of pioneering lesbian novel Rubyfruit Jungle, Brown’s script was turned into a more straight-forward flick, giving the movie some baffling humor, like when one of the girls decides to eat the pizza from the dead delivery boy, and some untended humor, like the Sylvester Stallone issue of Playgirl. Lesbians undertones still prevail, as do lingering shots of gratuitous nudity, and enough phallic symbolism to write a paper about. All in all, a fun, albeit uneven movie with pretty decent dialogue. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Fun fact: Director Amy Holden Jones got her start as an assistant on Taxi Driver, passed on editing E.T. after Roger Corman offered to finance early filming for her directorial debut, and later went on to write Mystic Pizza, Beethoven, Indecent Proposal, and The Relic. Bonus fact: Playgirl was able to get nude photos of Stallone based on his first movie The Party at Kitty and Stud’s (aka The Italian Stallion), for which Stallone was reportedly paid $200 to star in during a period in his life when he was desperate and sleeping in a New York bus station.

The Slumber Party Massacre II - If the first movie was a knock-off of Halloween, this is a bizarre rip-off of The Nightmare on Elm Street with a rockabilly twist. It’s hard to tell if this is a parody or a sort of musical vehicle for the Driller Killer, who—to his credit—is somehow almost charismatic enough to it pull off. 1 out of 5 pumpkins. Somehow the weirdest movie I’ve ever watched.

The Slumber Party Massacre III - A return to form, in some respects. All the elements of the original are there: a slumber party, gratuitous nudity, a drill. But the driller killer’s poor-man’s Patrick Bateman character quickly becomes tired. Not terrible for a slasher flick, but not very good either. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. How many lamps to the head can Ken take? 

Species - If I asked you to name a movie staring Sir Benjamin Kingsley, Alfred Molina, Forest Whitaker and Michelle Williams, would you guess Species? No, no you fucking wouldn't. We all know Species, but I, like most, erased it from my memory. This was helpful for two reasons: first because for about the first half of the movie, you think there might be a decent flick happening - baring some obvious flaws of a blockbuster. Second because - holy shit - you get to see a ton of naked breasts in this movie, like way more than I remember. Unfortunately, about halfway through Species someone must have come in and realized having the B-squad Scully & Mulder be one step behind every instinct killing was boring as shit, and flashing tits every 20 mins wasn't going to hack it. Whatever Hollywood dickbag crafted this turd failed to realize the casting of the actor forever known as Bud from Kill Bill is the only white, macho-postering character that morons want to root for. And so we get a squint-faced protagonist getting blow jobs from a coworker scientist and an ending dumber than the boob tentacles he should have been strangled with. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. There are worse horror movies, but there are also much better ones.

Starry Eyes - A thinly-veiled critique on Hollywood’s abusive history with actresses, the movie starts out well, but lags in the third act before a gruesome finale. Sort of a low-rent Mulholland Drive. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Watch out for that barbell, Ashley. 

The Stuff - Odd, mostly because of its uneven tone. Like if The Blob, The Live, and Canadian Bacon raised a baby and that disappointed its parents, like all babies eventually do. There are some good horror and comedic moments, but none of which make it great. The sound editing is remarkably bad, and the poor cuts make no sense given its scope. Oh well. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Suspiria - More of a focus on set, sound, and color than characters, Suspiria is reminiscent of the Japanese classic House, but with a more straightforward story. The Italian director, English language, and German setting make for an interesting, offbeat feel that adds to the overall weirdness of the movie. One cringe worthy scene in particular makes up for its immediate lack of logic, and the soundtrack by Goblin stands up on its own. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. Sexist note: there’s a shocking lack of boobs given the subject matter.

Suspiria (2018) - Another in a long line of unnecessary remakes, though technically more of an homage. Luca Guadagnino’s version was supposedly developed for years alongside Tilda Swinton, who plays three different characters. Truthfully, without any attachment to the original, this could have been a muddled, but remarkable film. Thom Yorke’s score is perfect in certain scenes, yet detracting in others. The plot is similar in this manner. Some scenes are haunting and dense, but others needlessly detailed. The dance scenes are terrific, but weighed down by the larger war themes. The ending’s gore-fest is hampered by too much CGI, but still demonically fun. Fans of the original won’t find the weird, colorful elements to love, but it’s a good movie, albeit thirty minutes too long. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Taking of Deborah Logan - Good premise; found footage in the vein of Blair Witch Project of a demon possession disguised as Alzheimer’s disease. But, the movie can’t decide if it wants to stick to its foundation of a student documentary or veer into the studio-style editing and affects of theatrical release. Which is unfortunate as the former would have made it stand-out among a pack of mediocre ghost stories, while the later distracts from the setting it seeks to establish. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

Teeth - A movie about the myth of vagina dentata could have been absolutely deplorable, but with the bar so low, Teeth does a pretty good job. Jess Weixler is a functional actress, not necessarily stand-out, but certainly far better than the role requires. Trying to tightrope walk between comedy and horror is never a task a creator should set out upon without a clear vision. Unfortunately, this one seems a bit blurry. One its release, Boston Globe said the movie “runs on a kind of angry distrust toward boys.” Not bad advice. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Terrifier - Do you want to see a naked woman hung upside down and sawed from gash to forehead? Then this is the movie for you. That’s it. There’s not much else here. Gino Cafarelli is good as the pizza guy. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. The clown is scary, though.

The Terror - A classic haunted throwback from Roger Corman, but without the nudity and gore his later work is infamous for. A young Jack Nicholson proves he was always kind of a prick. Boris Karloff does his best. The plot is pretty boring, but it’s a decent movie that you might stumble upon on a lazy afternoon on cable TV. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre - Tobe Hooper’s 1974 persuasive argument for vegetarianism is just as terrifying today as it was when it was released. Just as Halloween launched a thousand imitators, the hues and low angles in this film set the standard for horror for years and, unfortunately, laid the groundwork for more exploitative movies offered referred to as “torture porn.” Though gory, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’s sense of weird dread is established well before the chainsaw rips, and though many have tried to follow in its footsteps, none have captured the lighting that adds to the overall queasy moments of the film. There’s a kind of simplistic beauty to such unexplained brutality, and perhaps because it was first, all others since haven’t seemed as artistically valuable. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. So, umm, what do you think happened to the Black Maria truck driver?

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003) - The only decent carry over from this remake is John Larroquette as the narrator. Over-washed tones, over-the-top gore and unsympathetic characters make this film more than unnecessary, placing among the worst horror remakes of all time. Robert Ebert gave it one of his rare 0 stars, reserved for works he found genuinely appalling such as I Spit On Your Grave, The Human Centipede 2, and most infamously John Waters’s Pink Flamingos. 1 out of 5 pumpkins.

They Live - “I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass… And I'm all out of bubblegum." 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Thing - Trying to give this film an honest review is almost impossible. Cast out on its release for being too bizarre and gory, Carpenter’s nihilist tale has since come to be seen as a masterpiece for its special effects, bleak tone, and lasting impact on other creators. Is it perfect? No, but it’s damn close. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. MacReady’s assimilated. Deal with it.

Train to Busan - A bit too predictable, but a solid, well-paced zombie action flick that’s smarter than most American blockbusters from Korean director Yeon Sang-ho, who is better known for his semi-autobiographical animated features. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

Tucker & Dale vs. Evil - I really didn't expect much out of this movie, but it's actually really, really funny and a really gory spoof. Not quite on the scale of The Cabin in the Woods, but still pretty damn great. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. If you don't think people getting hacked up by a chainsaw in certain contexts can be funny, then this probably ain't your bag.

Twins of Evil - An enjoyable, somewhat smutty vampire movie from the famous British studio Hammer Films, staring Peter Cushing and Playboy Playmates the Collinson twins. Directed by John Hough, who also directed The Legend of Hell House, the film doesn’t break any new ground and is loaded with over-acting, but it’s well-paced, wonderfully set, and generally fun to watch, where the Puritan witchfinders are just as horrible as the vampires. Not as great as Black Sunday, but still worth viewing. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Let Joachim speak, you racists.

Under the Skin - Mesmerizing and haunting. The less you know going into this film the better. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. Quite possibly Scarlett Johansson’s best work.

Under the Silver Lake - Technically a “comedic neo-noir,” whatever the fuck that means; in any case David Robert Mitchell (It Follows) tries to do too much over too long of a run time. Andrew Garfield gives a decent performance, especially considering he’s in almost every frame of the film. But the edge-of-subtly that made It Follows so modern and terrifying is replaced by a silk, wandering, and heavy-handed stroll through the powerful Los Angeles entertainment Illuminati. Certainly there’s material there, but instead of being a radical stab at the very real institutions of pop-culture that treat young women as nothing more than disposable meat, we drift in and out of a young man’s lust that revels in objectification without the sleazy charm of exploitation flicks or the critical eye of outright satire. Even the eerily presence of the Owl Woman can’t level-up what is an exercise in arrested development for hipsters. 2 out of 5 pumpkins. Despite this negative review, Mitchell still has plenty of potential to make another great film. Whether he deserves that chance is different question.

Us - Jordan Peele’s second film is even better than his great debut. Us isn’t perfect, but hints at what Peele could create in the future. Unnecessary explanation and slightly oddly timed humor are present, like in Get Out, but more restrained. Peele’s talent for making modern horror accessible to the widest audience is laudable. Still, I can’t wait to see what he makes two or three films down the road. I suspect more than one could come close to equaling that of Kubrik’s The Shinning. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. 

Vampire’s Kiss - Is it a horror? Is it a comedy? Is it a parody? Drama? This movie truly defies genre due to the inexplicable acting choices made by Nicholas Cage. His odd affectation doesn’t change from sentence to sentence, but word to word. It’s like he’s trying to play three different characters across three different acts all at once. Is it good? Not really. But, I mean, see it. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

Vampyros Lesbos - After vigorous encouragement from my academic colleagues, I decided to watch this 1971 Spanish-German film for, umm, science. Shot in Turkey and staring the tragic Soledad Miranda, Jesús Franco’s softcore horror jumps right into full-frontal nudity and attempts a sort of story involving Count Dracula that moves forward through uninteresting monologues and shaky camera work. It’s not awful, but there’s no reason to watch it. If it was playing in the background at a dive bar, it might have a tinge of charm. Other than some close moments of near-unapologetic queer sex, despite being created almost entirely for the male gaze, it’s just another in the pile of European exploitation. Still, it’s fun to daydream about Istanbul being ruled by a dark-haired demonic lesbian; beats the hell out of what we have in our reality. 1 out of 5 pumpkins. Fun fact: The soundtrack found renewed fame in 1990′s Britain, causing it to finally find distribution into America.

The Vault - A serviceable, but ultimately boring horror take on a bank heist that tries to hard to end with a twist. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

V/H/S - Every review I've seen for this movie is generally positive, but that only reaffirms my belief that most people are easily pleased by unintelligent, unoriginal bullshit. A Blair Witch-style story-within-a-story collection of shorts, I couldn't get past the first borderline date-rape, little-girl, sexually confused, monster story. Fuck this trope. Fuck this movie. The much delayed glorification of grisly murder of the offending male villains is hardly radical and only further supports the stereotypes of patriarchy much as it attempts to subvert a worn genre. 0 out of 5 pumpkins. I hate the world.

Videodrome - Cronenberg’s best film. James Woods’s best role; it’s a shame that he’s total piece of shit in real life. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. Long live the new flesh.

The Wailing - Despite clocking in at over two and half hours, this part zombie/part demon horror movie from Korean director Na Hong-jin isn’t a slow burn, but rather an intriguing maze of twists and turns as the main character (and audience) struggles to find the truth about a mysterious, murderous diseases sweeping through a small village. Actor Do-won Kwak gives an especially captivating performance. Though the ending packs a powerful punch, the overlapping lies and half-truths told over the course of the film makes it a bit difficult to suss out the evil roots. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

We Are Still Here - What sets out as a slowly paced ghost story turns into something of a gore-fest towards the ends, which doesn’t make it bad so much out of place. 3 out fo 5 pumpkins. Could’ve been a contender.

We Are What We Are - A remake of Jorge Michel Grau’s 2010 film, the American version takes its time getting to the horror before going a step too far at the end. Still, the ever-present knowledge that you’re watching a cannibal film makes some of predictable moments all-the-more horrifying. 3 out of 5 pumpkins.

Wes Craven’s New Nightmare - The novel charm of Craven’s meta Freddy saga has worn with age. Heather Langernkamp is passable, but not enough to carry the film and Robert Englund out of makeup shatters the pure evil illusion of his character. Interesting to see some of the ideas that would later synthesize in Scream, but otherwise kind of a bore. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

The Witch: A New-England Folktale - A deeply unsettling period-piece that reflects on American religion and its violent fear of feminine power. 5 out of 5 pumpkins. Trust no goat.

The Witches - Roald Dahl’s story is ultimately crushed by a changed ending, however, Nicolas Roeg‘s adaptation up to that point is a fun, creepy movie people of any age can enjoy. 4 out of 5 pumpkins. It’s really a shame the original ending was changed.

Wolfcop - When a movie’s title promises so much, maybe it’s not fair to judge. But there’s so much campy potential in a werewolf cop picture that it’s kind of a bummer to see it executed at level that makes you wonder if it wasn’t made by high school kids whose favorite movie is Super Troopers. 1 out of 5 pumpkins. God, the movie’s horrible.

The World’s End - The final chapter in the Three Flavours Cornetto and the best, showcasing a wealth of talent at the top of their game. 4 out of 5 pumpkins.

XX - Admittedly, I don’t care much for the recent spring of short horror anthologies. Rarely do they have enough time to build the necessary suspense horror movies require. Still, two of the shorts are OK, one is pretty good, and one is bad. So, not a total loss. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

You’re Next - Home-invasion horror as never been my cup of hippie tea as it feeds into the 2nd Amendment hero fantasy of American males. That said, this dark-comedy take on it isn't bad. Some things don’t really add up. For example: Are you telling me that the deep woods home of a former defense corporation employee doesn’t have a single gun stashed somewhere? Bullshit. Anyway, who doesn’t want to see a rich family’s bickering dinner interrupted by a gang of psycho killers? 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Bonus rating: 6 out of 10 would fuck in front of their dead mother. (Sorry, mom.)

Zombeavers - No one would say this is a good movie, but it also doesn’t take itself too seriously. Not at funny as Tucker & Dale vs. Evil, and certainly more formulaic, this one’s only worth watching if you’re bored. 2 out of 5 pumpkins.

Zombi 2 - Lucio Fulci’s unofficial sequel to Dawn of the Dead is one of his best films. But even though Fulci crafted some of the best zombies to ever appear on screen—filmed in the bright, Caribbean sun, the film suffers, as most of his do, from some unnecessary, borderline confusing plot points and poor dubbing. Still, well worth watching on a lazy day, especially for the final act, when the protaganists fight off a zombie hoard inside a burning church. 3 out of 5 pumpkins. Bonus: topless scuba diving zombie shark fight, which is also my new DJ name.

[wewillwriteyou]

Crazy Little Thing Called Love || Chapter 2

➴Meet the characters [part 2]

A few elements from the main plot: A fine line falls between fiction and reality: what starts as a musical slowly becomes a game-changer. Tables will turn and it will get clear as the sun that the only unstoppable power in life … is love.

Summary Chapter 2: The auditions begin and some unexpected students will try to get a role in the musical. In the meanwhile, new encounters happen and destiny starts to change its cards. 

Word count: 4k+

Warnings: Again, just a bit of language and nothing else. 100% safe territory for everyone. 

A/N: Get ready to meet “the rest of the crew” and brace yourselves: harmony and calm are about to end 🤫 Enjoy this chapter, folks 🖤 xxx

Saturday, 5 October 2019

“Though, is it fair that you will have him when it is clear as the sky is blue that he is not meant to be yours?” thundered the princess.”

The sun was splendid that morning on campus and the sky was bluer than usual. It was Saturday but director Mazzello had planned auditions for his play, so Elizabeth had stopped by Gwilym’s dormitory to pick him up and walk together to the auditorium.

It had become a tradition for her and the boys to take a stroll and a coffee together before class and that day was not gonna be any different.

“Hey there beautiful” Gwilym surprised her from behind by pinching her hip and making her squeal.

“Gwil you know I hate that” she recomposed herself while he still giggled at his own shenanigans.

“Miss Grumpy didn’t sleep well last night?” he light-heartedly asked.

Elizabeth shot him a flaming look “This is all Mazzello’s fault… I stayed up late to finish editing the flyers and to read the script. He owes me at least four cups of coffee…”

Gwilym chuckled “Well if it makes you feel any better, I stayed up late too, reading the script as well… I still haven’t understood how all those characters are gonna fit into one story…”

“It’s a big mess, isn’t it?” Elizabeth sighed but ended up chuckling “I really hope he does not screw everything up…”

Gwilym agreed climbing the steps of the auditorium and keeping the door open for the girl “I’m sure he will…” he replied, “Like he always does in his specific way…”

Elizabeth giggled and playfully bumped her shoulder against his, involuntarily blushing a little.

Gwil caught her with the corner of his eye and just shook his head, smiling like a dork.

“Finally my stars are here!” Joe welcomed them as they descended the stairs of the gallery.

They both giggled “Good morning to you too, Mr. Director” Elizabeth joked and mimed a reverence.

“I like the title” Joe continued “but we’re not here to chit chat… we have a musical to create!”

“How many coffees did you drink today, Joe?” Gwilym asked, perplexed by his amount of energy.

“Like three, four?”

“It’s nine o’clock” Elizabeth intervened.

“So what?” Joe was well known for his big-headedness. “Anyway!” he continued jumping down the stage “Let me present to you, my assistant…”

He half-turned towards the stage and extended a hand, pointing at the backstage curtains, from which appeared none other than Denise.

“Hi guys” she was way calmer than Mr. Director “I promise I will make sure he doesn’t drink coffee for the rest of this semester”

Liz and Gwilym giggled at Joe’s indignation before Denise could speak again “We were thinking you could start practicing some of your lines while we wait for the actors to come in and audition”

“Sounds good” Gwilym nodded and let out a hand for Liz to take and climb up on stage.

“On stage?” she asked “Already?”

“Where else, duh?” Joe’s sarcastic comment immediately received a punch on the shoulder for the reply “Ouch”

Liz turned to Gwil again and took his hand, swiftly jumping up the stage.

She didn’t realise she was staring at him as he was reading the screenplay until she saw him waving a hand in front of her face.

“Earth to Miss James, you there?”

She shook her head “Sure, sorry, ‘was trying to focus”

What she was actually thinking was how good his hair looked that morning, that the new pair of glasses really suited him and that he had probably changed cologne cause she had never noticed how good he smelt.

Everything had passed her mind except the focus she would have needed to read lines with him.

“Relax, you okay?” he smiled kindly, placing a hand on her shoulder and making her heartbeat increase exponentially.

She just nodded, wondering what was happening to her. Gwilym had always been just her friend Gwilym, Joe’s best friend and roommate. He was studying to become a director of photography but secretly wanted to be an actor.

That was everything she ever knew.

How come were things different now?

“I’m ready” she nodded once, opening the script on her first line.

She was just about to begin when the back door of the auditorium opened and a discrete group of students made their entrance and sat a few rows behind Joe and Denise.

Joe got up and turned to face the group behind him.

“Good morning everybody, I’m Joe and I’ll be directing this play, along with my good friend Denise”

She waved at them and felt warmth spreading among her cheeks. Her friendship with Joe was growing strong by the day and she felt like she was almost ready to ask him out. Not yet, though. Almost.

“Those two you see on stage?” Joe continued and pointed at Liz and Gwil, who awkwardly waved as well, feeling like they were in an aquarium “They are the leads: Elizabeth will be our princess Hyv, the major, and Gwilym will be Hymy, the castle’s gardener”

The two on stage awkwardly smiled and walked to get down into the stalls as soon as possible.

Joe turned to the crowd again “So,” he began “let the casting begin!”

***

Alex walked fast out of her dormitory, the paper map of the campus flapping up and down in her hand, as she tried to identify the auditorium building that Elizabeth had showed just the day before.

She knew she wouldn’t have remembered half of the stuff her roommate had said during their tour of the campus.

Crap. She really didn’t want to be late but her alarm hadn’t gone off and when she’d woken up Liz was already gone and she had known instantly she was gonna be late.

“D’ you need help?”

She heard a male voice calling her as she walked past a few benches by the park. She sighed and turned around to see a blond guy, in what she assumed was the sport’s uniform of the campus, getting up from the bench to walk up to her.

“I’m looking for the auditorium” she said handing him the map.

The blond guy smiled cheekily and pointed at a bricked building across the street from the park.

“Follow that sidewalk till the bar with the green sign then turn right, the entrance is right beyond that corner” he concluded while slowly walking in the opposite direction.

Alex smiled and gave him a thumbs up “Thank you -…”

“Allen!” he shouted when he was already quite far from her.

Alex smiled again and crossed the street, walking fast in the direction the guy had just pointed her to.

***

“Alright that’s enough, thank you Edmond” Joe stopped the music and the guy stopped dancing on the spot, bowing to the first row of the auditorium and dashing back to his seat.

Elizabeth elbowed Joe, who was sitting on her right “Don’t be so rude”

Joe elbowed her back “I’m not rude. I said ‘thank you’.”

“You didn’t even let him finish the choreography!” Denise jumped into the conversation from the chair on Joe’s right.

He frowned at her “There was no point - he shrugged - he’s not the right one”

“You’re an asshole” Liz muttered under her breath, but loud enough for Joe to hear her and smile.

“Thanks Liz” he blew her a kiss and she just rolled her eyes.

“You can’t afford to be an asshole” Gwilym jumped into the conversation “He was the last one”. He was sitting on Liz’s left and when he leaned towards Joe to talk, the girl felt her heartbeat speed up again.

She’d never felt more uncomfortable sitting between her two best friends.

“The right one will come along” Joe answered promptly, without even looking at him, while writing some comments on his notebook.

Gwilym sat back on his chair, shaking his head defeated.

Liz just chuckled, shaking her head as well and for a moment she exchanged a knowing glance with the boy sitting on her left: Joe was unbelievable. Moving a mountain would have been easier than changing his mind.

“Okay people, our prince Rikk is still into question… so let’s move on and see what we have for princess Kat, the minor” Joe turned the notebook on a new page as he spoke out loud “First one up, please…”

As a bunch of girls went back and forth from the stage, Liz noticed a puff of blond, almost platinum, hair sitting at the left edge of the second row.

“Oh. My. God. - she whispered to no one in particular - Is that Lucy Boynton? What’s she doing here?”

She almost burst out chuckling. Lucy was one of the campus’s most popular girls and she was famous for not wanting to mix with ‘normal people’. Elizabeth wondered what the hell had brought her there among them.

“She’s auditioning” Joe answered all her questions, leaving both Liz and Gwilym with their chins hanging in the air. “What?” he asked.

“SHE’s auditioning? - Liz couldn’t believe her ears - for what? The evil witch of the East?”

Joe frowned and shook his head “That’s a different story, sweetie – he voluntarily used that pet name cause he knew it pissed her even more – She’s here for the role of princess Hyv” he shrugged.

“Excuse me?” Elizabeth shifted in her chair to look at him better, Gwilym behind her, was just as confused as she was.

“You let her audition for Liz’s role?” Gwilym asked naively.

Joe turned to him “Are you insane? Of course not! – Joe shook his head as if it was the craziest thing he could ever do – I’m gonna make her audition for the role of princess Kat… Only she doesn’t know yet”

“You really are an asshole…” Gwilym commented.

Joe cocked an eyebrow “Calling me names is not gonna win you a date with her…”

“What are you talking about?” Gwil snorted and turned to face the stage, pretending to ignore the fact that he knew exactly what Joe was talking about.

No matter how cruel, how spoiled, how shallow Lucy could be, he would have worshipped her anyway. He’d had a crush on her, since he had first arrived on campus and he had seen her walking out of her expensive car, sunglasses on her head and the look of someone who thinks she owns the place.

He was helpless.

“Whatever mate, - Joe huffed – think what you want, but she’ll never notice you if you don’t step out of the shadow”

“I am perfectly comfortable in my own shadow” Gwilym mumbled under his breath.

“Then accept the fact she’ll always be with Mr. Fit Hardy and go on with your life – he pointed his pen at him – but most importantly: don’t come at me with your complaining shit”

Gwilym mocked him gesturing with his hand and Liz chuckled. She always found hilarious their backbitings and there was nothing she loved more than sitting in the middle when those happened. It was like watching a tennis game.

Even though this time she couldn’t ignore the dagger of jealousy she felt stabbing her stomach when she thought of Gwilym and Lucy together. She was not right for him and Liz couldn’t figure out why did he not see that.

I might be right for him, she couldn’t help but think. She instantly shook the thought: she couldn’t let her mind wander and dream about Gwilym when she hadn’t even figured out what she would be running towards.

“Lucy – Joe’s voice awoke them both from their thoughts – you’re next”

The look of confusion was evident on her face.

“I thought I told you I would be auditioning for the lead role…” she replied with her usual abrupt manners.

“Yeah you did, but unfortunately, we already have a lead… - Joe shrugged his shoulders and tilted his head towards the redhead sitting next to him. Liz gave her a fake smile and a little wave, then Joe continued – if you’re still interested you could audition for the part of Kat, Hyv’s little sister…”

Lucy rolled her eyes “I am not here to waste my time. If you won’t give me a lead role, someone else will…” she sentenced, getting up from her chair and gesturing to the guy sitting next to her to follow her.

“Extra credits…” Joe interrupted her and she stopped on the spot, listening – you could be here for extra credits…”

Liz covered her smirk with a hand: Joe had her right where he wanted her.

He might have been an asshole, but boy was he good at manipulating the situation to his benefit.

She watched Lucy walk back on her steps and sigh “Do you have a script?”

Joe grinned “On the table on stage, dear, page 23 lines from 10 to 17”

Lucy scoffed again and got up to read the part Joe had assigned her.

Liz glanced at Joe the whole performance, watching his lips curve into a smile by the end. She knew way too well what that face meant.

“The part is yours” he simply stated once she was finished.

Lucy didn’t even seem very happy about it. She just half smiled and walked down the stage with heavy steps.

“C’mon Rami” they heard her whisper to the guy who had been waiting for her the whole time.

“Rami? – Denise called him – Rami Malek?”

He half turned to her and flashed a small awkward smile, before getting up and whispering something to Lucy’s ear. Denise was confused: did he just pretend not to know her?

Joe turned to Denise “You know him?”

She just nodded “He’s in my mom’s tip-tap class. We know each other since we were kids… Don’t understand why he pretends not to see me…”

And just like that Joe’s smirking face was back, just in time to make Liz and Gwil sigh.

“What now?” Gwil asked, tired but curious to see what he had in mind.

“Hey, you, Rami! – he recalled his attention and the guy slowly turned around, as if he already knew what he was gonna be asking – they tell me you can dance. Do you wanna audition for prince Rikk? I think you’d be good for the part”

The guy hesitated a bit, looking for an answer in Lucy’s eyes. She shrugged and sat back in her seat.

“At least I’ll have someone to talk to in this den of losers” she mumbled.

Rami sighed and got in front of the stage “What do you want me to do?”

Joe turned to Elizabeth “Liz, honey, would you show him?”

The girl blushed instantly but got up anyways, like the professional she knew she was. Performing in front of the public didn’t normally scare her, but this time she was not prepared enough and she felt like she was going to the scaffold.

“You owe me so much, Mazzello” she leaned down to whisper in his ear.

He blew her a kiss again and watched her teach a small bit of choreography to Rami. He looked at her with proud eyes and even with a little amazement… She was definitely right: he owed her so much. She had always been able to save him from the troubles he’d put himself into – the play being the latest one - and she was always good at everything she attempted at doing.

She was his best friend and his most powerful weapon.

And as he watched Rami perfectly replicate the choreography and even keep up with Liz, he knew he’d seen right all along.

“Great Rami, thanks” he said once they were finished.

He got up and looked around the auditorium: there were very few people left and the time he had booked the theatre for was almost up.

“The part is yours” he blurted out without even looking at him, just scribbling down a few notes on his pad.

Rami smiled widely. He was ashamed to admit he was very proud of himself for doing that and kinda excited about having the opportunity to actually dance in a musical. A small, low budget, college musical, but still a musical.

“Alright people – Joe spoke up again and all the students in the auditorium, sitting then and there among the rows of chairs, pricked up their ears – welcome to the cast of Nelaime”

***

Alex smashed the building’s door open and ran down the long hallway, slipping on the polished floor.

“Fuck!” she hissed between her teeth when she reached the auditorium’s entrance noticing a paper hang on it, bearing the words:

Ongoing auditions. Please do not disturb

She hopelessly sighed and let her fingers ran through her hair, already messy because of the useless running towards the campus.

“Did you come here for the musical?” a sudden voice made her jump and she immediately turned around. A tall, rather good-looking blond boy was standing on the other side the corridor with his back abandoned against the wall.

Alex recomposed herself and, after giving one last look to the closed door, she turned around and dragged her feet until she was closer to him.

“Yeah, but apparently it’s too late” a little nervous laugh escaped her lips, as she scrolled her shoulders. The boy smiled and mirrored her, sliding a little as to silently propose her to stand next to him.  

She got the hint and positioned herself with her back laid on the wall as well.

“Are you new? I’ve never seen you around the campus” he suddenly asked, turning his head to look down at her.

“Yep. ‘ve arrived a week ago and that’s, partially, the reason why I arrived nearly an hour late” Alex giggled, looking straight into his eyes.

“British, right?” he questioned again, tilting his head on the side.

“Yep again – and this time they giggled in unison – I come from the other side of the island but ‘m still one hundred percent British”

“So, West England? – he asked caressing his chin interrogatively and moving to face Alex, who nodded with a locked smiled on her lips – Bristol?”

She laughed a bit and then shook her head.

“Plymouth?” he tried again. But Alex clicked her tongue against her teeth, her smile slowly turning into a playful smirk.

“Bournemouth?”

“Bingo!” she replied, snapping her fingers. The boy closed his fists and eyes to silently exult, all under the amused gaze of Alex.

When he reopened his eyelids, the two stared into each other’s eyes for a moment both with a shy smile painted on their faces.

Alex shook her head a bit, as if she wanted to wake herself up from a trance, and looked away for a second.

“I was sure you were new, though” he shrugged, walking closer to position himself by her side again. Alex raised an eyebrow, knowing too well what a tone of that kind meant.

“Oh really?” she asked with the same flirtatious voice.

“Well, a smile like yours can’t get unnoticed for too long”

His cheeky expression didn’t last long, because they burst out laughing almost immediately as their sonorous laughter was echoing in the hallway.

“That’s how an East boy flirt, then?” Alex inquired crossing her arms on the chest and raising both her eyebrows this time. The boy rolled his eyes and chuckled again.

“Kind of. I can do better, I swear” his voice was deep and amused as he drew a cross on his heart. Alex giggled again and she felt as if she was a young girl again, being all goofy and shy around her crush.

“Can’t wait to see your secret weapons” she then said, trying to give herself a more appropriate tone that could compete with his winking attitude.

He seemed quite pleased and licked his lips, causing Alex to grin again. He nodded to himself and then followed her along giggling as well.

“And I imagine, this is how a West girl flirt?” he positioned himself in front Alex, obliging her to press herself against the wall. Instead of blushing and lowering her sight, as he expected, she smirked and sassily looked up at him.

“Maybe” she then answered, just shrugging.

“Who are you?” he asked with a smile that went from ear to ear. Alex coughed to clear her throat and he took a step back when he noticed she was extending her arm to shake his hand.

“Alexandra Piper. Nice to meet you – she stated squeezing his palm – and you are …?”

But, before he could answer, the door behind his back swung open and Alex recognized Joe followed by Denise.

“Excuse me a second! – she muffled to the blond guy, leaving him there with his lips hanging open as she approached the duo – Joe! ‘m so sorry! I know it may sound like the cheapest excuse on the planet, but my alarm didn’t – “he cut her off placing his hand on her shoulder.

“See you tomorrow at rehearsals. Teha. It’s spelled T-E-H-A if you’re wondering” Joe winked at her and walked away.

Alex turned around to see Denise’s amused face, who was doing her best to contain the laughter.

“Is he okay?” Alex asked, bursting into giggles as well.

“I won’t say it, to be honest. But hey, you got the part! So, welcome on board baby!” Denise replied opening her arms to hug Alex.

“What?! I didn’t even audition” Alex laughed walking closer to hug Denise back, who immediately embraced her and patted on her back.

“As they say: God’s ways are infinite. Who knows, maybe also Mazzello’s ways are – she said in response to Alex, distancing herself – and, to say the whole truth, he’s probably not gonna find another pianist, so I guess he had no choice”

The two started laughing, when Alex saw Elizabeth approaching. Behind her, a smiley Gwilym was already waving at her.

“Gwil! Hi” Alex said, making Denise turn around as well. Elizabeth raised an eyebrow, while the tiniest sting of jealousy warmed her chest.

“Alex! ‘s been a while” he politely replied, lowering down to half-hug her with just one arm.

“Do you know each other?” Liz found herself asking, her voice slightly high-pitched, than what she expected.

“Oh, Gwil showed me the way to the dormitory last week” Alex lightly replied and Elizabeth relaxed a little bit.

What is happening to me? - the little voice inside her head asked, as she took a deep breath to recompose herself.

“Here to audition?” Gwilym asked Alex indicating the auditorium behind his back; the brunette exchanged a knowing gaze with Denise before they both chuckled again.

“Nope. You’re talking with Teha in person. Give me some respect” she said, doing a goofy bow, which caused a wave of laughter to grow inside the small group of friends.

“She’s the sorceress of Joe’s musical” Denise suggested, acting as if she was telling a secret, cupping half of her face with her right hand.

“Really? ‘m so happy you are part of this too!” Elizabeth said, jumping in Alex’s arms as usual. The girl smiled and hugged her tight.

But soon her eyes fell on the blond boy she was talking with a few moments before. He was passionately kissing a girl who could have easily be mistaken for one of Regina George’s Barbies from Mean Girls.

Elizabeth noticed Alex had tensed up and broke the embrace to look at her face. Alex looked away before Liz could intercept her gaze.

“Everything’s okay?” the redhead asked anyway, gently caressing Alex’s arm.

“Yeah, yeah. Just … who’s that guy?” she asked, indicating him with a movement of her chin. Elizabeth snapped her head on the left and immediately rolled her eyes.

“That guy – she said drawing quotation marks in the air – he’s Ben Hardy, the most cliché-boy I’ve ever met in my entire life. And you see that girl? She’s his girlfriend, Lucy Boynton. And believe me when I say that these two are meant to be together. Spoilt, frivolous and filthy rich” she ended the sentence assuming a sassy pose and crossing the arms on her chest.

Alex squared him up and felt anger bloom inside every cell of her body. And, reserving him one last outraged gaze, she coldly replied to Elizabeth’s explanation with three simple words:    

“Good to know”

-

Chapters: ⬸ previous | next ⤑

A/N: Hope you enjoyed this second chapter, folks! You’ve finally met the “other half” of the “crew” so now get ready because drama is always behind the corner! 

If you liked it: comment, reblog and like this chapter! It’s important for us to know what you think and your opinions are always appreciated. 

Cheers, folks!

Tag List:  @littledarlingwellaway​ - @petriwhore​ - @bohemiandelilah​​ - @misshystericalqueen​ - @loki-lover095​ - @inthelapofthe39​ - @starsoflovingness-wq​ - @minetticatinwonderland​ - @cairdes20​ - @friendswillbefriendsblog​ - @o-holynight​ - @trash-record-collection​ - @please-stop-me-now​ - @theappleofmybri​ - @imgonnabeyourslave​ - @babygotblueeyes​ - @mi55chanandlerbong​ - @deaky-with-a-c​ - @luckytrashgooprebel​ - @thosequeenboys​ - @rogahs-drowse​​ - @rogerismyfairyking​​ - @killer-qu33n-of-disaster​​ - @sunshine112​​ - @a19103​​ - @queenlover05​​ - @modymody99​ - @bensrhapsody​ - @peterwandaparker​ - @sjeunhaelover​​

[dweemeister]

McFarland, USA (2015)

In Hollywood, certain sports have dominated the sports genre. The proportions reflect their popularity as Hollywood’s Studio System reached its zenith. America’s national pastime, baseball, is well represented. As is boxing, which was once arguably one of the United States’ favorite sports alongside horse racing. American football and basketball had been underrepresented until the last few decades; soccer and ice hockey – perhaps given the demographics of the average Hollywood executive past and present – have not gained much traction among major movie studios (how I hope that changes soon for soccer, but among all the sports I have mentioned, it is the hardest to “fake”). Track and field and distance running occasionally have their moments, like Chariots of Fire (1981) and Race (2016). Simulating amateur or professional running comes down to correcting an actors’ running form – a far cry from teaching someone how to kick a soccer ball properly and strenuous boxing training.

McFarland, USA, directed by New Zealander Niki Caro (2002’s Whale Rider, the pandemic-delayed live-action adaptation of Disney’s Mulan), is the first Disney live-action film on a track and field/distance running story since The World’s Greatest Athlete (1973) – a film that slathers on the slapstick and the cultural stereotypes. Set in the small town of McFarland in California’s Central Valley, McFarland, USA looks at a community glanced over by Hollywood and independent filmmakers. A few hours’ drive from Los Angeles and the Pacific Ocean, McFarland is an agricultural community that is heavily Latino, with limited economic opportunities for its residents. That, of course, makes McFarland and places like it the butt of derision from some of its residents and those who do not know any better. It can be a difficult place to live, but even here, the film says, Americana thrives and the American Dream abides.

In the late summer/early fall of 1987, football coach Jim White (Kevin Costner) loses his job at an Idaho high school after losing his temper, accidentally injuring a smack-talking player. He and his family – wife Cheryl (Maria Bello), elder daughter Julie (Morgan Saylor), and younger daughter Jamie White (Elsie Fisher from 2018’s Eighth Grade) – pack their belongings and settle in McFarland, California. Even on their first day, the Whites are frightened of their new home. The place is unkempt, and it is difficult for the daughters to believe they are in America. Jim takes his new job as assistant football coach and PE teacher at McFarland High School, but is soon stripped of assistant coaching duties after a dispute with the head coach. Noticing how many of McFarland’s boys are excellent runners, he convinces the high school principal to support boys’ cross country running – the first year it is sanctioned by the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF, the governing body of California high school sports).

The team, some more skeptical than others, assemble: Thomas Valles (Carlos Pratts), Jose Cardenas (Johnny Ortiz), Johnny Sameniego (Hector Duran), Victor Puentes (Sergio Avelar), and brothers David (Rafael Martinez) and Danny Diaz (Ramiro Rodriguez).

When one thinks of the word “Americana”, certain things come to mind. Small towns with everybody knows your name and white picket fences, children playing baseball in the park, and the corner store/malt shop are elements of Americana, exported to the world via films and television shows made in the United States. But these images are specific to an America of an earlier, more monochromatic time and is arguably geographically specific (not reflecting the diverse Southwest, let alone Alaska and Hawai’i). The country, no matter the time period, is too large to distill into a single idea.

McFarland, California of the late 1980s looks a lot like what it is today. Instead of burger joints, there are taquerías. Quinceañeras are celebrated; there’s a group of men who get together to cruise their classic cars through town (they are mistaken by the White family as “gangbangers” their first night there); and much of the population works throughout the week picking fruits and vegetables in the fields – work that is backbreaking, sweltering, honest, essential.

What makes McFarland, USA most appealing is its normalization and celebration of life in McFarland. Though dramatized, the cinematic reality of this film’s McFarland, California is largely the reality for small agricultural towns up and down California’s Central Valley. The narratives of McFarland deserve to be considered as “American” as equally those from Bedford Falls (1946’s It’s a Wonderful Life), the middle of nowhere in Iowa (1989’s Field of Dreams); and Greenbow, Alabama (1994’s Forrest Gump). Conflict and personal discontent always simmered in these places, despite the idyllic community in Bedford Falls (minus Mr. Potter) and the natural beauty of the middle of nowhere in Iowa and Greenbow, Alabama.

Those things exist, too, in McFarland, California. Jim White, in his first days at McFarland High, obviously does not want to be there nor does he plan on staying longer than he needs to. In forming and coaching cross country, he contends with the familial, economic, and other cultural factors facing his student-athletes’ lives in addition to learning how to coach a sport he has no experience in. As the film reaches the end of its first act, the screenplay by Christopher Cleveland (2006’s Glory Road), Bettina Gilois (Glory Road), and Grant Thompson (his screenwriting debut for a feature film) strays from the White family to show us the familial and peer pressures the student-athletes face. Here, McFarland, USA captures the vulnerability, confusion, friendship (or lack of it), and desire to forge one’s own fate that high schoolers can easily identify with. Many sports movies focusing on a team rather than a single person would allow those individuals to be dramatically indistinguishable (a major problem in 1986’s Hoosiers, a personal favorite). That is not the case in McFarland, USA, which allows its young Latino characters to occupy their unique niche in this film. Thus, in conjunction with its normalization of McFarland’s heavily Latino culture, the film becomes a rousing slice of Americana. Certain people who might be defensive over what “Americana” entails might find issue with what I just wrote, but their definition is exclusionary by default.

With a white coach named White (if this was a professional sport, headline writers for sports sections might be having a field day) training and mentoring seven Latino cross country runners, some people might dismiss McFarland, USA outright as a “white savior” movie even though it avoids such trappings. The “white savior” narrative is one where a white character enters a difficult situation created or exacerbated by the personal/sociopolitical/cultural qualities of a non-white character(s) – the former, by exemplifying traits unlike the latter’s, rescues the non-white characters from that situation. The term “white savior” originated from academic analyses of narrative art and has passed into the political liberal vernacular. Too often among political liberals, the label of a “white savior” narrative is enough to dissuade certain individuals from even considering to consume such a narrative – this reviewer is guilty of using that term in a dismissive fashion.

McFarland, USA circumvents the tropes of white savior narratives by framing Jim White as a flawed character, its post-first act glimpses at life among the boys’ families, and White’s attempts to understand the lives of his student-athletes and neighbors. White, who comes off as an impersonal and stubborn ass with a short-fused temper at first, is played wonderfully by Costner. His character learns, through cultural and neighborly diffusion, how those qualities fail to resonant with his student-athletes, their elders, his wife, and two daughters. Over time, he learns more about the boys’ lives and – on his own volition – the difficult work their families tend to. He acknowledges their personal and familial sacrifices, acknowledging that his hardscrabble life is fundamentally different than theirs. In a final pep talk before the inaugural CIF state championships for cross country, White says:

Every team that’s here deserves to be, including you. But they haven’t got what you got. All right? They don’t get up at dawn like you and go to work in the fields… They don’t go to school all day and then go back to those same fields… These kids don’t do what you do. They can’t even imagine it… What you endure just to be here, to get a shot at this, the kind of privilege that someone like me takes for granted? There’s nothing you can’t do with that kind of strength, with that kind of heart.

It is a beautiful moment made possible by the acting from all involved. That though someone like Jim White may never understand the poverty or the anguish that comes with these boys’ lives, their dedication and work ethic is equal to, if not surpassing, that of their affluent counterparts. To whom much is given, much is required. Jim White has given the boys his dedication to themselves as athletes, students, and human beings; the boys of McFarland’s cross country team have given to their coach lifelong respect and the embrace of community.

As a sports film, McFarland, USA is neither innovative nor does it shake off the coil of predictability that almost every sports film is plagued with. Quite a few of its elements are simplified and sanitized (White revived a cross country program that had been dropped rather than establishing it, he also revived the girls’ cross country team that is not depicted at all here, among other things) but that might be expected given the studio (Disney) behind it. But this film is based on a real story and hews as closely as it can to the spirit of the actual story when it can. If I saw the pitch for this film without any prior knowledge, I might have dismissed it as fantasy. McFarland High School’s boys’ cross country team won nine state championships under White until his retirement in the early 2000s, and qualified for consecutive state championships from 1987 to 2013.

Prior to Jim White’s pre-meet speech, there is a montage set to “The Star-Spangled Banner” – commemorating the boys’ brotherhood now linked inextricably with their coach. The attendees’ and athletes’ singing gives way to a solo guitar, showing the audience scenes of that brotherhood. We see the team on a late afternoon run just outside the barbed wire fencing surrounding the prison located near their school. After that run, we see them, talking with their coach amid the crepuscular Central Valley sun, taking a moment to catch their breath. They are all sitting and relaxing atop a tarp-covered mound of almonds ready for market. If that isn’t an example of Americana at its finest, I don’t know what is.

My rating: 7/10

^ Based on my personal imdb rating. Half-points are always rounded down. My interpretation of that ratings system can be found here.

For more of my reviews tagged “My Movie Odyssey”, click here.

[sophieakatz]

Thursday Thoughts: Writing Advice (Part 1 of 3)

I recently stumbled across this writer ask meme about pieces of writing advice, and I was having so much fun thinking about it that I decided to just respond to them all!

1. Nothing is perfect

This is one of those truths that can be used for good or ill.

It’s easy to see the flaws in your own work, to hold your own writing to a higher standard than literally anyone else would. It’s good to say “nothing is perfect” to assure yourself that your work is good enough.

But if someone has called you out for using racist stereotypes in your writing, and your response is, “Well, nothing is perfect! So leave me alone and don’t tell me to fix it!” That’s bad!

Allow me to misquote the Talmud and tell you to keep two pieces of paper in your pocket, and take each out as you need it. The first says “nothing is perfect.” The second says “I can, and should, always do better.”

2. Don’t use adverbs

Adverbs are tools. Understand their purpose and use them wisely.

To prove my own point, I could not have written that second sentence without an adverb – “wisely.” The purpose of an adverb is to modify a verb or an adjective. It wouldn’t be enough for me to just say, “use them.” How should one use them? Wisely!

The best advice I ever got about adverbs is that they should be used when they are necessary for clarity.

If I write, “Sophie smiled happily,” that is not a necessary adverb. It is already obvious from the fact that I am smiling that I am happy. Using “happily” is redundant and uninteresting.

If I write, “Sophie smiled sadly,” on the other hand – that is necessary. The adverb changes the picture that you make in your head, and the sentence is more interesting as a result.

3. Write what you know

I get why people use this as advice. I’m much more a fan of saying “know what you write.”

Feel free to go beyond your own individual experience when you write – but for god’s sake, do your research. Expand what you know, so that you can write.

4. Avoid repetition

Like adverbs, repetition is a tool. Use it wisely.

What can repetition accomplish?

Emphasis – highlighting something as important.

Memorability – helping the audience remember.

Familiarity – we tend to like and believe what we hear over and over.

Musicians understand this. Listen to the Hadestown soundtrack and keep a tally of how many times Orpheus is referred to as “a poor boy” or Eurydice as “a hungry young girl.” Listen to the Hamilton soundtrack and count how many times Burr opens a song with “How does a –?” Think back on all the times you heard the new hit song of the year and you shrugged it off, but a couple weeks later, after you heard it on every radio station, on everyone’s Spotify playlist, in every YouTube ad – it “grew on you.”

The trick is using repetition just enough that it provides a useful structure, but not so much that it’s noticed to the point of instilling boredom.

5. Write every day

Sure, why not. If you write just ten words every day for a year, you’ll have nearly 4,000 words at the end of it – a short story. If you write a hundred words every day for a year, that’s almost 40,000 words – a decent novella. Writing every day is a good way to end up with something written.

But don’t beat yourself up if you don’t or can’t write every day. Writing takes effort. You have other things to devote energy to – work, school, groceries, cleaning, socializing, confronting your own mortality, finding out how season seven of Clone Wars ends.

I encourage you to notice all the things that you do every day which isn’t officially “writing” but is still a part of being a writer.

Now, this is something I struggle with. I go months without touching my novel, and it’s easy for me to dismiss that time as “not writing.”

But I send emails. And I write essays for school. And I jot down thoughts and dreams in my journal. And I read – you have to read in order to write. And I spend time on my walks and in the shower imagining dialogue and figuring out character paths and themes for my novel, all things that will help me when I do get back to writing it. And I have all the smaller projects I gave myself – this weekly blog post, my weekly poem or quote, my fanfiction.

If you’re a writer, then you’re a writer, whether or not you write every day.

6. Good writers borrow from other writers, great writers steal from them outright

I’m not sure what the distinction is here between “borrowing” and “stealing.”

Stealing is definitely a part of writing, though. I’ve written about this before – check out my old article on stealing bicycles as a writing metaphor.

7. Just write

Oh I am a BIG fan of this one. Even if you don’t know what to write, just write. So many pages of my journal open with the line “I have no idea what to write about.” Eventually, as you ramble, you start writing about what you wished you would be writing about. And then you find yourself actually writing.

8. There’s nothing new under the sun

Sure, but the art is in making something familiar feel new. I wrote about this a couple weeks ago in this Thursday Thoughts.

9. Read

Yes, yes, yes! Read to find out what’s out there. Read to learn the conventions of your genre. Read to ignite your love of the craft. Read to discover your people. Read to add tools to your toolbox (or pieces to your bicycle). Read to find agents and editors and publishing imprints. Read to learn what stories are not being told. Read to be a writer.

10. Don’t think!

Thinking is a tool. Use it wisely.

The best parts of my writing I’ve discovered not while writing, but while thinking about writing.

Just don’t think yourself out of writing altogether.

11. Write what you love

You’ll certainly be happier writing something you love than something you don’t love. You won’t love everything you write, though. It can still be good and valuable even if you don’t love it. But if you love it, or if you can remember why you loved it, you will come back and finish it.

12. Never use a long word where a short one will do

Forget the length of the word. Is it the right word?

To paraphrase Mark Twain and Josh Billings, the difference between the right word and the almost-right word is the difference between lightning and a lightning bug.

If you do find yourself needing to choose between two words with identical definitions, and the only difference between them is their length, then think about the effect of the word on your reader. Read the sentence aloud a few times with either option. Different words have different connotations; they evoke different moods. It may in the end just come down to which word feels right for this moment.

13. Less is more

No, it definitionally is not. See my above thoughts about adverbs, repetition, and long words vs short words.

All words are tools. All words have a purpose. Is it the right word for this moment?

14. Never use the passive when you can use the active voice

Again, active voice and passive voice are tools! They have purposes!

The simplest way to differentiate between the two is that active voice is “the girl threw the ball” and passive voice is “the ball was thrown by the girl.” Both make sense. Both describe the same action. But one places the emphasis on the girl – the subject – while the other places the emphasis on the ball – the object.

Are you trying to create a sense of immediacy, to immerse the reader in the moment? Use active voice. He did this! She did that! Bam! Pow! It’s happening right now, and we know exactly who did it!

Are you trying to create distance between the reader and something in the moment? Use passive voice. He was being followed – by who, we don’t know. Passive voice adds a touch of mystery or disassociation.

15. Show don’t tell

How do you show? How do you tell? There are engaging ways to do both, and boring ways to do both. Do what the moment needs.

In prose, I recommend setting up with showing and then hitting your reader with a tell. Say your protagonist is standing alone in a room. Then, a woman enters. Show the protagonist’s reaction to that woman – their heart pounds, they tear up, they grab a chair for support…

And then, in the narration: “Her mother had been dead for five years, and yet there she stood.” Bam! A well-placed tell which contextualizes the reaction.

Plays and screenplays come down on different sides of the “show vs tell” debate. Film usually does more “showing,” while a stage play usually has more “telling.”

This comes from writers leaning into the limitations of the mediums. The first few lines of any scene in a Shakespeare play lets you know the location and time of day, because they didn’t have the scenic or lighting elements available to show it.

While a film can cut to different places and times quickly and easily, many plays are set in just one or two locations to remove the need for frequent scene changes. A play will capitalize on the characters’ reactions to and conversations about unseen offstage events, while a film will show these offstage events.

These are not hard and fast rules, of course. Plenty of films stay in one location, and plenty of plays jump around from place to place. It’s worth noting that standard formatting for plays and screenplays highlight this typical difference. In a stage play script, the dialogue (what we’re told) is left-aligned while the action (what we’re shown) is indented. In a screenplay, the action is left-aligned and the dialogue is indented.

Neither showing nor telling is superior. They are both tools. Use them wisely.

To be continued...

[crowdvscritic]

round up // FEBRUARY 20

On Wednesdays we wear pink, and in February, I stay inside and watch Turner Classic Movies because it’s too gosh-darn cold to do anything else. I watched almost as many movies as days in this month, largely thanks to TCM’s 31 Days of Oscar. A few things I learned:

As much as I enjoy a good TV binge, I enjoy the satisfaction of a movie's end more.

Thank goodness TCM shows good movies when the theatres seem barren of them.

If anyone says women’s complaints about their depiction in Hollywood are overblown, I’d challenge them to watch my month’s lineup. Most female characters were basically non-existent or defined as objects of desire no matter what decade the movies were from.

In February, I also watch the Academy Awards. Most of the movies here were nominated for Oscars, but I’m also recommending a few more pop culture picks (including TV, social media, a book, articles, and music) for the month.

February Crowd-Pleasers

The Imagineering Story (2019)

The Imagineering Story tells the story behind the creation of Disney theme parks, with the greatest highlight of showing you how attractions are designed. Is this shameless Disney marketing on the Disney+ streaming service? Yep, but it’s so well done that for a moment I forgot about their unsettling takeover of the entertainment industry and wanted to quit everything I was doing to go work for them.

This Knives Out Sequel Twitter Thread

The Internet can be a scary place, but this thread reminds us the fun things that can happen when tons of strangers come together. My recommendation was Knives Out: In 2 the Donut Hole, but that’s mostly because someone beat me to Knives Out 2: Adam Driver Is In It.

Classic Action Double Feature: The Magnificent Seven (1960) and The Dirty Dozen (1967)

Your girl loves star-studded team-ups, and it’s never better than when an action movie rounds up its squad of special skills. Also a Charles Bronson double feature! (Bonus: I recommend checking out the 2016 Magnificent Seven remake for a reevaluation of some of the elements that haven’t aged well in the original.)

Classic Comedy Double Feature: Moonstruck (1987) and Road to Morocco (1942)

Moonstruck is like My Big Fat Greek Wedding meets While You Were Sleeping, and Cher’s 1980s hair is a mood. (Arguably, so is Nicolas Cage’s chest hair.) Road to Morocco is like Airplane! meets Aladdin, and the silliness has hardly aged thanks to the talents of Bing Crosby and Bob Hope.

Joyful by Ingrid Fetell Lee

The science of joy? This non-fiction book is as fun a read as it should be! It’s not providing answers to deep questions of philosophy, but it’s about a philosophy that can bring life changes. I was amazed by stories of how bright colors, circular spaces, and Northern Lights can inspire joy no matter what your circumstances are. The only problem with this book is that you constantly want to Google every beautiful things she is describing—maybe we need a big coffee table book with photos as a second edition?

'90s Action Double Feature:Tremors (1990) and The Fugitive (1993)

You know a movie's good when you tense up even though you know what's coming. I'd caught bits and pieces of The Fugitive on TV, but this Harrison Ford/Tommy Lee Jones standoff still sucked me in when I watched it start-to-finish. Tremors is not a good movie—this is a movie so bad it’s great. If on some Friday night you need a big, dumb action movie with terrible dialogue, a monster created with dated special effects, and forgettable characters getting picked off one by one and coasts entirely on the charisma of Kevin Bacon and Reba McEntire (???), have I got the movie for you!

February Critic Picks

These Pieces on the Grammys Controversy

The New York Times and Variety wrote about why the firing of President/CEO Deborah Dugan and her subsequent lawsuit won’t be disappearing even though the Recording Academy is trying hard as heck to do that. As one too invested in how the arts are recognized and celebrated, I’m paying attention to what appears to be a scandal just waiting to be uncovered.

“Can the Grammys Be Trusted?” by Jon Caramanica (The New York Times)

“The Grammys May Be Over, but the Recording Academy Scandal Isn’t” by Jem Aswad (Variety)

Dark Passage (1947)

An exception to the trend of weak female roles in the films I watched this month. Lauren Bacall and Humphrey Bogart re-team for their third film (of four) together in this romantic film noir. Bogart plays a wrongfully accused escaped convict, and Bacall is the woman who helps him keep his cover. The unconventional first-person camera angles at the beginning will catch your attention, but their chemistry will keep you invested till the end.

The Oscars

The 2020 Oscars ceremony was one of the most bonkers ceremonies in recent memory. Bonkers is preferable to boring, and I love any night celebrating movies, so I have very few complaints about an evening spent with friends eating movie-themed snacks. (Anyone care for an Adam Screw-Driver?) My favorite moments came thanks to Bong Joon Ho, especially his wins for Best Original Screenplay and Best Director.

The French Dispatch Trailer (2020)

A star-studded team-up about Midwestern journalists from the aesthetically-pleasing mind of Wes Anderson? Take my money!

Classic War Comedy Double Feature: Life Is Beautiful (1997) and Dr. Strangelove (1964)

They were both nominated for Best Picture, and they both find humor in the darkest of war. In Life Is Beautiful (La Vita è Bella), a father transforms a Nazi concentration camp into a game to save his son’s innocence. In Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, a bunch of incompetent leaders try to prevent nuclear war. Neither sounds funny, but they pull it off with delicate execution. (Bonus: Enjoy Robert Benigni winning an Oscar!)

The Slow Rush by Tame Impala

As my brother would say, this album slaps.

Leap Day Bonus

“What a Man Gotta Do” by the Jonas Brothers

My apologies to the Jo Bros for forgetting to include this in my January Round Up—this movie-inspired music video is a treat.

Also in February…

Yes, I love the Oscars, but considering how much viewership went down, it seems the Academy could do more to draw people in. One of my favorite film podcasts inspired me to brainstorm seven ways the Oscars could make the public care again in a piece for ZekeFilm.

The writers of ZekeFilm counted down our favorite films of 2019, most of which you can find on streaming now.

Kyla and I discussed a rock ‘n’ roll documentary and a camp classic on SO IT’S A SHOW? this month.

If you want to see the full list of movies I watched this month, you can find it on Letterboxd.

Photo credits: Grammys, Tame Impala. Joyful my own. All others IMDb.com.

[alj4890]

And Then I Met You

Part 4

What happens when the one you thought you were meant for turns out to be meant for someone else? 

@walkerinfolkvangr @alleksa16 @penguininapinktuxedo @blackcoffee85 @stopforamoment @fullbeaumonty @cocomaxley @darley1101 @hopefulmoonobject   @krsnlove @littleblossom357   @annekebbphotography  @gibbles82   @bella-ca 

 Masterlist

Part 4

A little over five weeks after arriving in Hollywood

"Not only will this give us a chance to set everything up, it will force them to spend more time together away from work." Addison explained to Holly.

"I suppose. Do you think he will agree to it though? I mean, they are both so stubborn." Holly whispered the nearer they got to the study.

"It's fool proof!" Addison took a deep breath and knocked on the door.

"Come in." Thomas called out.

They walked in to see him organizing the parts completed for the screenplay with Amanda's pictures and Addison's costume ideas. In the corner of the room, Amanda was typing away, only pausing to smile at them.

"Did you need something?" He asked without looking up.

"Actually, I need to borrow Amanda for a moment. I have one of the dresses nearly finished and would like some input to the final touch."

She glanced up in surprise. "Me? I trust your judgement. I'm afraid my fashion sense is subpar at most." Amanda went back to typing, thinking the conversation was over.

"Please! It is based off your imagination and I want to make sure it lives up to what you had in mind." Addison begged.

"I have learned from experience that she will not stop asking." Thomas told Amanda. "Better to go now than have endless hours of being pestered."

She chuckled and got up. "Show me what you got."

"YAY! I can't wait until you see it." Addison grabbed her hand and pulled her out of the study.

Holly waited until they were out of ear shot to enact stage two of the plan. She cleared her throat and waited for Thomas to look up.

"Yes?"

"What are your plans this evening?" She asked, while pretending to scroll on her tablet.

"Plans? I have no plans other than work." He muttered.

When she remained silent, he threw down his pen and gave her his full attention. "Why? Is there something I am supposed to be doing?"

"Yes. Ryan Summers is throwing a party at an old warehouse that holds all that old movie memorabilia you love." She stopped scrolling and looked up, judging his expression.

"And?"

"And I think you need to attend. You are considering casting him in the role of Arthur. Not only that, but you might spot your Reginald and Elizabeth there. Seeing them in an unscripted environment will reveal how much chemistry they all have." Holly argued.

He frowned as he debated whether or not he should attend. Holly stood calmly before him, waiting on his answer. He let out a beleaguered sigh. "Fine. What time is the gathering?"

"Eight o'clock." Holly promptly answered. She turned to leave and stopped.

"Is there a problem?" Thomas growled, wanting to focus on his work.

"Not a problem, just a thought. I think Amanda should go with you. These are her characters after all. I believe her input would be invaluable." Holly faced him with what she hoped was an expression without guile.

He folded his arms and narrowed his eyes at her. "You are only considering Ryan because you heard her say that he was the one she thought of when writing the character." She reminded him.

He nodded stiffly. "Very well, I will see if she is willing to go."

"Good." Holly began to walk out again and stopped. Thomas ran an agitated hand down his face. "What?" He bit out.

"I just remembered that I booked reservations to take her to Tao tonight. I completely forgot and promised to help Addison with that costume. She needs to complete it if she is going to start on some of the other costumes." Her brow puckered as she pretended to debate on what to do.

Thomas covered his face with his hands and counted to twenty. He reminded himself that Holly was an excellent assistant and she was a friend. She was annoying the hell out of him at the moment with these sudden plans, but he could deal with it.

"Help Addison. Amanda will understand." His muffled response came from behind his hands.

"I know she will. I hate canceling on her at the last minute. She's been so excited about it. I think she was hoping to get out of the house for the night." Holly hoped that would end up being the case.

Thomas stood up and shoved his chair out of the way. "And I suppose you will tell me no other night will do?"

"Well, it is a difficult reservation to make this time of year." Holly took a cautious step back when he glared at her.

"What time is the reservation?"

"Six."

"Then I will take her on the way to the party. Will that solve everything or do you have some other forgotten plan?" He raised his eyebrows in disbelief as she actually checked her tablet.

"Nope! That will do it. Thanks boss." She saluted him and quickly left. 

_____________________________

"It will really help us if you can keep Thomas distracted at the restaurant. There are a few things left we have to set up." Addison told Amanda. "His birthday was before you arrived and he hates a fuss. But, we came up with the best surprise ever. Scheduling it this many weeks after give us the ultimate element of surprise."

Amanda laughed at her excitement and puppy dog eyes. "Of course I will help. That is some dedicated party planning skills you both have."

Holly walked in on that last bit. "We aim to please. Plus, he gives amazingly thoughtful gifts for birthdays."

"I still tear up when I see my desk." Addison said, sniffing a little.

"Desk?" Amanda asked.

"He once asked me where my love of designing costumes came from. I told him about this desk my art teacher in elementary school set in a corner for me to use whenever I had a free moment. It was decorated with Lisa Frank stickers and every color I loved. And the glitter. It was everywhere." She laughed and then let out a sigh. "He found my art teacher and discovered she had kept my desk as it was. He had it shipped to my home as a reminder of where my passion originated."

"That is so sweet." Amanda said softly.

Holly nodded. "He does stuff like that for Christmas too. He never goes for the conventional stuff."

"Well, I will definitely help with this surprise. Just tell me what I need to do.

Addison and Holly beamed as they told her the plans. "Now remember, he thinks you and I were supposed to have dinner and that it is Ryan's party you are attending."

"Got it." Amanda stood up, "I'm going to finish up what I was typing and then get ready for the evening."

"We did it!" Addison squealed once she was gone. "I wonder if the sparks will keep flying."

__________________________

Thomas placed his hand on the small of Amanda's back as he led her into Tao. She paused and took in the shadowed ambiance with decoative lamps and candles flickering at each table. The Asian decor was prominent with the Buddha statues placed throughout. They were seated on the second tier of the restaurant and had a clear view of the entire place.

Amanda thanked the hostess and took the menu. Her attention wandered to taking in the sights before her. She looked up and caught Thomas staring at her. He quickly lowered his eyes to his menu.

He opened his mouth to only close it when their waiter came by. After he left to retrieve their drinks, Thomas asked her about her life back in Cordonia.

A teasing glint came in her eyes, "Haven't I bored you enough with all my stories these past few weeks?"

He chuckled. "This time I can actually listen without Addison's interruptions."

She shook her head with a smile and answered his questions. Over dessert, he brought up the pictures he had seen of the wedding at her home. "That was one of your friends, wasn't it? Maxwell, I think."

She paused a moment and nodded. If he hadn't been watching her so closely, he would have missed it.

"Yes. It was his wedding." She took a sip of water. "He met his Nadia and after a brief courtship, they decided to get married.

"You must be very close to him." Thomas noticed a sadness come over her.

"Yes. I suppose I am." She turned her head and looked out over the restaurant.

"You must miss seeing them."

"I do sometimes." A smile flirted about her lips. "I've been so busy with you though, that I haven't had much time to think about it.

"Is that a good thing?"

"It is." She picked at the cake on her plate. "I needed this."

"Cake?" Her laugh at his teasing made him smile.

"No, though it doesn't hurt." She sobered. "Working with you. Getting away from Cordonia for a while. I didn't even realize I needed a change."

His dark chocolate brown eyes studied her face. "Why did you need a change?"

She froze a moment and let out a sigh. "I needed to get my mind off of some things." She bit down on her lip as she debated on whether or not to tell him. He sat there patiently and eventually reached across the table. He covered her hand with his.

"You don't have to explain." He said softly.

"No it's fine. I...I once thought Maxwell was the one I was meant to be with." She paused when his thumb moved over her knuckles. "When I saw him with Nadia, well, there was no one else more perfect for him."

He glanced down at their hands when she slipped her fingers through his. He continued to move his thumb over her knuckles. "You hosted his wedding to another woman despite how you felt."

She gave a slight shrug. "He's my best friend. It would have hurt him if he had known how I felt. He is very tenderhearted and would have most likely eloped to keep from causing me pain. They were able to have their dream wedding and I was able to say goodbye to my imagined future."

He couldn't believe the selflessness in such an act. "Do you still have feelings for him?" He didn't know why, but he dreaded her answer and almost took the question back.

She met his eyes and slowly shook her head. "I don't think I do. I made a conscious choice to bury those feelings when they became engaged. I haven't really felt those twinges in my heart whenever I talk to him like I once did." She gave a small smile. "Perhaps my feelings for him were not as strong as I once thought."

Thomas relaxed some with her answer. He opened his mouth to only be interrupted by a lady rushing up to their table. "Are you Thomas Hunt?" She asked in an excited voice. A man, that was clearly her embarrassed husband, came up behind her.

"Yes, he is." Amanda said, trying not to laugh at the expression on his face.

"May I have your autograph? Your movie, Semblance, is one I know by heart! Casting Chris Winters and Shannon Wright as the two lovers was perfect!" She let out a soft sigh.

Thomas thanked her and handed her pen and paper back to her. "Why don't I take a picture for you with him? This way you will always remember this night." Amanda said, ignoring the glare he sent her.

The woman handed over her phone and yanked her unwilling husband in the picture. Thomas stood next to them and forced a pleasant look on his face. Amanda winked at him and snapped a few pictures. The couple thanked them and left.

Amanda started laughing the moment they were gone. "Your face!" She was able to get out between snorts.

He folded his arms and waited for her to calm down. "You had to mention a photo."

She nodded while giggling. "I'm not even sorry." His deadpan expression made her laugh harder.

He shook his head and stood up. He came up behind her to assist in pulling her chair back. He held her jacket up and waited as she slipped her arms in. She thanked him and linked her arm with his as they walked outside. "Come on, you know you are a little flattered by such attention." 

"A little." He admitted. 

_____________________________________

Thomas was speechless when he realized the party was for him. While people surrounded him, Amanda moved away and watched from afar. She leaned against a wall and grinned when Addison threw her arms around him when he thanked her and Holly.

As people began to mingle, Thomas searched the room for her. He stood with a few of the guests and tried to see who she was talking to.

"What do you think Thomas?" Ryan asked.

"Hmm? Sorry, about what?"

Holly looked at him in surprise. "About where you will shoot the movie."

Thomas finally spotted Amanda on her own looking at one of the exhibits. "Yes, I suppose the character would feel that."

"What?" Holly asked.

He walked away without responding. Ryan stood there in surprise while Holly's jaw dropped. She ran over to Addison to tell her the whole story.

"No! He really didn't answer the question?" She asked, bubbling with excitement.

"Yes! And he left without another word!"

They both turned to observe the two they were trying to get together. Thomas was pointing out something in one of the display cases and was giving some sort of explanation. Amanda smiled and said something that caused him to laugh. When she moved on to another exhibit, he followed her.

The rest of the night seemed to go in that same pattern. Addison drug Matt and Ryan in on keeping tabs on the couple. The four of them watched as Thomas seemed to leave a conversation if he saw Amanda on her own or near someone that had a questionable reputation. At one point, the model from the afterparty blocked his path and placed her hands on his chest. 

“I was hoping to catch you alone.” She purred.

He did not even attempt to mask his annoyance. “Didn’t you arrive with Tommy Phelps? I think you should stick by his side.”

“No need to be jealous. He is nowhere near the same caliber director as you are.” She moved closer to him. He took her wrists and gently but firmly pushed her away. “Don't mistake a question as jealousy. Now, if you will excuse me.”

She stared at his back in shock that he left her. Thomas walked over to where some tables and chairs were set up. He scanned the area and saw Amanda sitting by herself. She had a peaceful expression with a touch of humor on her face as she observed the party. She was so lost in her thoughts that she jumped when he sat down beside her.

“How are you enjoying your party?” She asked once her heart had calmed down.

“It is actually more pleasant than I would have thought.” He studied her for a few moments. “Why are you sitting here by yourself?”

Her cheeks began to color. “I like to mingle then get off by myself and observe. So often first impressions are false. I like to see how people interact with others to decide on whether or not I wish to move from being an acquaintance to a friend and so forth.” She traced the ring of condensation her drink left on the table. “I suppose that sounds rather silly or conceited on my part. I’ve learned through my experiences at court that one’s time is too precious to waste on the wrong people.”

Thomas looked out over the guests. Some had their false smiles and personas firmly in place while others genuinely had their hearts on their sleeves. He thought of all the people he had wasted time on to only find out that they were not worth another second of his. He then thought of those he wanted to spend time with. At the moment, there was one that topped that list and had for a while now. He let his gaze rest on the one and took in her serene expression as she watched, with a hint of a smile, those that fascinated most people. He couldn’t think of anyone in this room he found more interesting than Amanda.

He leaned over and asked if she was ready to leave. She nodded and they found Holly and Addison. Thomas thanked them again and ushered Amanda outside. The two instigators watched them leave and grinned when Thomas placed his hand on her back as they walked to the waiting car. 

When they got home, Thomas walked with her upstairs. He paused outside her bedroom. “Thank you for your part in keeping me from knowing about the party.”

Amanda chuckled. “It was the least I could do since I did not have you a birthday present.” He scoffed and said there was no reason for such a thing to be done.

She placed a hand on his shoulder and kissed his cheek. “Happy Birthday Thomas.” She whispered in his ear. She opened up her door and went inside.

He froze and stared at her closed door. He snapped out of the line of thoughts her kiss caused and went to his own room.

[douxreviews]

Star Trek: Discovery - ‘Saints of Imperfection’ Review

Pike: "Starfleet is a promise. I give my life for you, you give your life for me. And nobody gets left behind."

By nature I love brevity: This one was something of a mess. Half of it is manageable but clunky, the other half is rushed, barely comprehensible, and still clunky.

Watching 'Saints of Imperfection' for the first time is an experience roughly equivalent to skimming the screenplay of a movie you've never seen, then watching that movie on 2x speed. You know about where it's coming from and where it's going, and you have a general sense of the flow of events and the plot, but you don't quite get it completely and everything moves past too quickly to make sense of it anyway. The plot did make a kind of sense, and all the explanations seemed to fit, but the moment the dialogue finished leaving the characters' mouths, it was on to the next scene or concept.

Watching 'Saints' for the second time helps a lot, actually, so if you haven't seen it again, I would encourage you to give it a second viewing. The second go around, because I knew everything that was coming, I was able to focus on what was happening and it was significantly more comprehensible. It also clarified some of the general complaints I had from the first viewing, though, so it's not all sunshine and roses.

The first half of this episode moves rather slowly at first, compared to the other half. If you add it all up, the audience is probably presented with just about the same amount of information in the first half as in the second, but the first is far more manageable and far more comprehensible. This is because the first half deals mostly with setting up the characters' dynamics and perspectives as a result of this new situation. The writers have brought Section 31 firmly into the story, putting the Disco crew and Leland's 31 agents on the same mission to find Spock. This, of course, comes with each character's response to the new status quo, namely Tyler working aboard the ship again, as well as everyone's various different perspectives on Section 31.

The second half of the episode throws an obscene number of high science fiction concepts at the audience, spends very little time on each one, and then moves on, hoping you'll keep up. There are precious few moments where it stops to ponder or dwell on something, and it makes the episode very difficult to follow. For example, I didn't have almost any idea why Pike, Leland, and Tyler were yelling at each other until I watched the episode for the second time. The other byproduct of the sheer volume of conceptual mumbo-jumbo we're subjected to is that the story suffers from it. It's very hard to tell a story well when every scene must include two or three new ideas to explain to the audience. The characters and emotions are stifled because of it, and that shows here.

I'm not going to comment much on the sheer ridiculousness of these sci-fi concepts, other than to say that I don't really think Discovery's commitment to ground the show's technobabble in real science is helping at all. Because there's no way to make a show about a giant spaceship that can teleport anywhere in the universe truly scientifically accurate, there's really no benefit as far as how much sense it would make to someone who actually knows how physics works. All it does is cause the writers to explain their concepts in actual scientific terms, which doesn't help the audience to understand it any more. In Star Trek III: The Search for Spock, David talks a little about his work on the Genesis Device. He explains that the reason Spock is alive is because the regenerative processes of the Genesis Effect rejuvenated his body, that because of this Spock is connected to the planet, and that the planet is breaking apart because he used dark matter in the Device to cut some corners. The writer has no interest whatsoever in explaining how the Genesis Effect rejuvenated Spock, it just did. We aren't told what type of connection links Spock with the planet, they're just linked. And we don't have any idea what dark matter is or why it's so unstable, we just know that it is unstable.

Compare this to the resurrection of Dr. Culber here in 'Saints.' The writers here wanted to communicate that Stamets brought Culber's life energy into the mycelial network when he was shifting in and out of dimensions. But rather than stop there, Stamets and Burnham talk about the laws of thermodynamics and how Dr. Culber's energy changed states. They also wanted May to send Culber back to our world using the cocoon that May used on Tilly. They explicitly said earlier that it was a kind of transporter, to move atoms from one place to another rather than destroying them. But instead of just putting Culber into the cocoon and moving him, May talks about how the atoms in the mycelial network aren't the same as the atoms in our world. The way they get around this is by converting the atoms in the cocoon, which are from our world, into a new body for Dr. Culber. The problem is that from a story perspective, there's absolutely no reason to say that May can't just transport him through the cocoon. The suspense aspect could be accomplished just by making May unsure if it will work. It was even intuitive enough that the group of people I watched this with were guessing that that would be the solution. But instead, there's another layer of problem and solution added that had no purpose other than a scientific one. It overcomplicated the scene, making it more difficult to understand.

The episode also suffers from trying to do far too much on a personal level. While it's good that there's a different dynamic between each character and each other character, some of them are too complicated for their own good, and some of them didn't belong in this episode. Take the out-of-left-field 'connection' between Tilly and May. Though on second viewing, I noticed everything Mary Wiseman and Bahia Watson did to try and make it work, there was ultimately not enough setup to justify the level of emotion their parting had. The two characters have ranged from casually acquainted to borderline antagonistic, but there's not been anything resembling friendship between Tilly and May up until this episode. Even at the start of this one, Tilly is understandably quite angry with May for all the manipulative methods she employed in her efforts to communicate. While the sentiment of 'How many beings have lived inside one another before' makes sense on an intellectual level, there wasn't anything close to a positive relationship between Tilly and May up until now, and their sudden devastation at the prospect of leaving each other isn't in any way earned.

Another element that would have worked far better given more screen time is Pike and Leland. Again, the actors sold that they were old friends who have come down on different sides of an ideological divide, but there was precious little here about said divide. As near as I can figure it, it seems that Pike doesn't approve of Section 31, while Leland views it as a necessary evil in order to accomplish Starfleet's mission. The main reason I assume that this is their argument, though, is that these are the two basic positions on Section 31 that Star Trek has used before, and the only real sense I got from the actual episode was that Pike doesn't like 31, and Leland does.

The other thing that bothered me about it was the 'solution' to their argument. One of my fellow viewers pointed this out, and I think it needs to be said. I am sick and tired of scenes in television and movies where two men are having an argument, and a woman comes in and says something like, 'If you two are finished comparing your manliness/masculinity, etc.' Usually, both men then look surprised and then dejected, and probably walk away with a new respect for the woman. But in reality, this belittles men and their arguments. Pike and Leland, if they're having the debate I assume they are, are arguing a legitimate topic, and both have legitimate points. It's not about manliness or masculinity at all, it's a complex moral issue that they disagree on. To chalk it up to a contest of manliness makes men look foolish, and I'm not a fan of making female characters strong by making the men look foolish by comparison. It's like if two women were having a debate about a moral issue they were coming up against, and a man walked up and scolded them for 'having a catfight.' Of course that's not what's going on, they're having a reasonable debate, and you've just ridiculed them for it to make yourself look clever. That's a method of making your female characters seem strong that needs to stop.

I hope we see an improvement in the Section 31 material, since it seems it's here to stay, both on Discovery and in the new Michelle Yeoh-led series in development. All they really need to do is deepen and clarify the Section 31 moral debate, and offer some legitimate exploration of the topic, and I'll be a happy Star Trek fan. Speaking of Yeoh, a lot of people felt her performance in this episode, especially the hissing, was too over-the-top. I don't mind over-the-top villains, but there's a place where they work and a place where they don't. In Discovery, there isn't a whole lot of subtlety in any of the material. That's why I was happy when Section 31's involvement was announced, because 31 on DS9 brought lots of subtlety and moral grey whenever it showed up. I'm disappointed that it's lost a lot of that, and I'm not convinced Yeoh's 'I'm evil and I love it' performance really makes for the right villain for this show right now.

Strange New Worlds:

I'm not sure if it counts, but we spent a lot of time in what I guess you could call the 'ground level' of the mycelial network this time around. The network has been depicted a lot of different ways, and this isn't really better or worse than the others. It's just different, though I am glad they didn't try for the sense of 'space has no meaning' that they did when Stamets was lost there. It would've just made it even more confusing to watch.

New Life and New Civilizations:

We learned the primary function of the JahSepp: to break down matter and repurpose it for other uses. That's cool, I guess.

Pensees:

-This show really needs to get a handle on its definition of faith. So far it's been used to refer to religion and belief in the supernatural in 'New Eden,' faith in your legacy in 'An Obol for Charon,' and now faith that your friends will be there for you. The theme of faith as it pertains to science requires the former definition, and the latter ones have started to muddy the waters. The different meanings of faith could be an interesting theme, but you can't have it that way and also try to explore faith vs. science.

-We're only two episodes out from the first confirmed appearance of Ethan Peck as Mr. Spock. Hopefully we'll finally end the perhaps drawn out storyline that some fans are calling 'the New Search for Spock.'

-The dialogue, especially the exposition, was back to being clunky and stilted in this one. Please don't slip back into your old habits, DIS. Please.

-I thought the sequence at the beginning of Burnham running through the corridors of the ship was quite effective.

-I'm not quite so sure about the opening and closing narration, though. I have no idea what the heck they were trying to say.

-I don't know if it was Kirsten Beyer's script or director David Barrett that was responsible for the pacing issues. It's one of the two, though. Perhaps a bit of both.

-We were informed here that Commander Nhan is the new chief of security for the Disco. That might have been useful to know last episode, when I wondered what she was supposed to be doing here.

-There was precious little to convince the audience that the intersection between our world and the mycelial network was dangerous. Even just having one of the bridge crew brush against it and find it painful to the touch would've sold it.

-I did like the pinky swear scene, even if it was a poor excuse for a connection between the characters.

-The place where Stamets connects with the spore drive finally got a name - the reaction cube. Or have they been calling it that all along, and I just haven't noticed?

-My group of viewers guessed a lot of the developments in this episode. We knew Georgiou was in the shuttle, we figured Dr. Culber was the 'monster,' I assumed Culber wouldn't be able to pass through the intersection wall into our world, and somebody else guessed that the cocoon would be the final solution.

-So... Section 31 uses cloaking devices and TNG-style communicators? Sure, why not?

-That was a neat visual when the rings of the Disco started to spin and half of it had been eaten by the spores.

-While it was nice to see Jayne Brook as Admiral Cornwell again, why exactly did she need to be there? Her 'new information' really wasn't all that revelatory.

Quotes:

Burnham: "I want to have faith. In its absence, only duty remains."

Georgiou: "You're the one who brought me to this insufferable place. You don't get to be surprised I'm here."

Tilly: "Fall in. That's soldier for 'get behind me.'"

Tilly: "Whatever you are, I am holding a Type 3 phaser rifle. Which is more powerful and generally larger than the Type 1 or the Type 2. I guess that's why they call it a 3."

Culber: "You're devoted to creation, to life. And there are a million reasons to love you, but that's mine."

Georgiou: "I've had your life in my hands dozens of times. You're going to have to start trusting me." Burnham: "Said the scorpion to the frog."

2 out of 6 bucketloads of concepts.

CoramDeo is a skilled metal-worker. Of course, he did not know that before.

[ocgear]

Devlog #6 Writing, Music, and Art

Hey y’all! I wanted to give an update since I’m pretty sure everyone thinks I’m dead ^^;

For quick updates on the project: OCG is being produced in two parts now. Part 1 will contain the many mysteries that the world of OCG has to offer and part 2 will be a sort of answer arc. The first draft of OCG part 1 is written and I’ve been hard at work revising and editing the prologue and chapter 1 of the script. For part 1, there is roughly 6-7 chapters of planned content. I’m hoping that at the end of the day, Part 1 will resonate with you, the reader.

Covid has been extremely hard on my ability to complete the project. I won’t get too personal on a devblog, but my health and finances were impacted. I apologize for the delays and this account’s inactivity. I feel like I'm letting down the people who want to read OverClock Gear and I just want to let everyone know that I'm still committed to working on the project and that despite the inactivity, I'm still working hard to improve every aspect as much as possible.

I'd like to share some of the things I learned along the way so that maybe future devs can learn something from my struggles.

WRITING:

As a warning, I want to say that none of the following are hard rules of writing. These are just things that I've observed as a writer and as a consumer.

Probably the most challenging part of a Visual Novel is writing a script that works with the format. The rules for VN writing are different from traditional novels and screenplays as many elements will be shown on screen but usually not enough to get a full sense what's going on. This is more of an opinion, but I feel that the descriptions should supplement the action and we should pick and choose when to show with sprites instead of describing. This is especially true when considering dialogue and internal monologue will make up a majority of the script akin to a movie.

It's not to say you should ignore everything you know about writing, however. There's still things about structure and character arcs that are useful.

Speaking of characters, balancing your cast is also a challenge. Every character is fighting for enough screen time to develop enough for the reader to care. As I'm writing OCG, I am trimming down and trying to give each cast member enough time to breathe while keeping in mind the characters' backstories and motivations. There's also the delicate balance between backstory and current events to keep in mind. I think it's especially hard to figure out how to reveal backstory without dumping a history lesson on the player.

There's also the issue with paragraph length for display purposes. VNs have a unique format that breaks down text into easily digestible chunks. However, overutilizing the space can sometimes make the reading experience worse.

There are a lot of things to consider visually too when writing your script. I've had to think about the actual space that they occupy so that chain of events make sense. Since there will be visual elements to the story, I need to try to figure out how those elements fit in too as I'm writing. For instance, how characters will appear, do gestures, and different CGs that need to appear are crucial to the format and needs to be considered.

From a general storytelling perspective, I've been toying with the idea of including gameplay. However, I realized that in trying to do so, I'd have to create a bunch of excuses to play the minigame which would be:

1. Unsatisfying without enough stages to challenge the player

OR

2. Disrupt the story to challenge the player

I think that if I wanted to have gameplay, I should plot out the game in a way such that the story fits the gameplay and not the other way around. Since I'm working on a primarily story driven experience, I won't be including any minigames that would take the player out of the experience. However, I have ideas for games that could take place in the world of OverClock Gear. Those are sitting in the vault until I release OCG part 1.

There's also something interesting I learned about twists and keeping people engaged in stories. Maybe this is something of a beginner's trap, but when people say a character isn't interesting it's usually because a character doesn't have anything meaningful to say or do, or they're simply floating through the story without influencing it. Giving a character powers and an award winning backstory isn't really enough to make someone interesting in a story. Giving a character flaws also doesn't make them automatically interesting. It's how you tie all these traits into story and their impact on other characters that make it interesting.

In today's day and age, readers have become more critical and perceiving than ever before, so it may seem like you'd need to hide more information to make your twists have impact. But I think it's better to show some of your hand. Twists also need room to breathe. They need to be logical but unexpected. A reader needs to convince themselves that it was possible through several minor clues leading up to the event. But balancing what to show and what to hide is a challenge in itself. Through showing off my script edits, I came to the conclusion that setting up expectations is a lot more satisfying than trying to make everything a mystery. Readers seem to get frustrated when the mystery leads nowhere in a story for an extended period of time. However, that's not to say every mystery should be revealed in a quick fashion. I think it's a balancing act, one in which we have to reveal what we can to keep the reader engaged while hiding the bigger stuff behind the curtains. In a way it's like slight of hand: We try to misdirect the audience with "true" events in the story and then blow them away with something they never saw coming.

An example of a bad twist from a scrapped project that I did several years ago: The main character meets a super secret organization who protects her from a military government. One of the people who protects her is a commander in that organization and seems to know a thing or two about the MC. However he is shot and killed before anything could be revealed.

There are elements that we can anticipate from the scenario: The MC is caught up in some crazy conspiracy with rogues and the military. However, the characters don't come off as interesting because they aren't given room to breathe. The organization became a device to set up the premise of the story. The commander doesn't impact the story and basically anybody else could've stepped in to save the MC. The MC isn't given time to bond with the commander and as such the twist at the end doesn't come across as earned.

These are just some thing that I've been thinking about as I've been consuming media and writing. There are too many games and fictional works that I've ruined for myself by being too critical. But through this, I'm hoping that the final script for OverClock Gear will be something I can be proud of.

Art:

I'm studying animation production to try to incorporate some of that knowledge into my VN. I want to be able to create a more immersive experience and make my VN more visually appealing. Some works that I really like are Muv Luv and Phoenix Wright. They're both unique in their presentation and utilize different parts of visual media that make them stand out.

The Muv Luv team are masters at using dynamic camera movement to craft visual spectacles. Despite the sprites being mostly non-moving, the way they are tweened and the few pose changes they have are combined with the camera in a way that almost makes them feel alive. Even in the first cutscene of Muv Luv Alternative, the parallax effects and strong camera angles help to sell that cinematic feel that isn't really found in any other VN's I've read.

Phoenix Wright's sprites are a joy to look at. The animations are done with such strong key poses that I sometimes forget the game's animations were meant to be limited. In the modern day, there are many tools that are used to create smooth looking animations with complex actions like 3D models or Live2D. I'm honestly not a huge fan of Live2D animations as it often looks as if a puppeteer is handling the rig. 3D also presents the issue of having to create specialized rigs that can handle weird scenarios like foreshortening. For example in Dragon Ball Fighter Z, there's a lot of model distortion in cinematics that is pretty complicated for someone with no 3D expertise. Facial expressions are also a huge part of making visual novel character appealing which can be difficult to do well on a 3D model. Not to mention, to emulate a 2D style, the frames need to be displayed at 24fps which means chopping frames in-between the interpolated keys. It can be a lot of work to create something that closely resembles "Anime". There is also a charm in a more traditional approach to animation that I think more visual novels should employ. Though I recognize that for complicated sprites, a traditionally drawn 2d animation isn't practical at all, I want to use the idea of strong key poses to create more lively sprites as well as play with depth to further immersion.

There are some more ideas that I have for creating a better visual experience, but I don't want to go into too much of a tangent ^^;

Music:

I went back to learn more about music theory and I came across some great videos that emulate the Japanese video game/Pop style. If you're curious, you can check out Gavin Leper's channel on YouTube. That being said, something I realized about music in Visual Novels and Film in particular is that sometimes the music should accompany the dialogue or actions in the work instead of overpowering it. There are moments when elevator music is important and when it's important to use a swelling emotional piece. Not everything in life "goes hard" and I think that also applies to music in stories as well. Music in games is also designed to loop in contrast to film where individual pieces can be created for specific scenes. This adds an entirely new thing to think about since it needs to be repeatable without getting annoying. I don't really have a clean answer to this, but to observe songs from games you like and see how they transition from the end to the part that loops.

This was a long post and there's so much more I want to talk about but I'm trying to stay productive and get the script done. For anyone else struggling with finishing their VN, "Finish the Script" by Scott King is an excellent book. Wishing everyone the best!

- OCGDev

[smokeybrand]

Smokey brand Movie Reviews: Stop, It's Already Dead

I’ve been trying to watch Army of the Dead since it came out but every time i start, i end of bailing on it because it’s trash. Yeah, that’s it. This movie is trash. You can literally stop reading this review right now because that’s the verdict. Army of the Dead is shallow, inconsequential, zombie murder porn wit that trademark Zack Snyder, edgelord, spice. It’s f*cking ridiculous and i hated every minute of it. That’s it. That’s the review. Don’t watch this rancid spooge. Now, if you want to know why i hated it so much, read on. But it really is one of the worst things i have seen all year.

The Adequate

Dave Batista works magic with the material on hand. Zack Snyder isn’t know for having emotional bite or a realistic edge to any of the characters in his films but Batista was able to hone in on something and does a decent job of letting me tolerate this clusterf*ck. His Scott Ward is easily the best thing about this flick.

The carnage displayed while the opening credits rolled was almost as dope as Zombieland and i appreciated that. Literally the only time during the film where i didn’t feel like someone was standing on my sack and twisting.

Also, Hiroyuki Sanada is in this. I don’t know the name of his character and i don’t care i just genuinely enjoy Sanada’s work. He is an excellent actor and, similarly to Ken Watanabe, makes everything he’s in better, regardless of his role’s size or relevance.

The integration of Tig Notaro was kind of seamless. That sh*t was surprising because every one of her scenes was added in post. She had no interaction with any of the cast, not even in pick-ups. That’s just her, in front of a green screen, talking to herself. Of course, there are scenes where that is very apparent but the fact she was even able to replaces an entire actor wrapped month beforehand, is kind of a miracle and testament to the absurd technical skill Snyder wields as movie maker.

The Horrid

Zack Snyder. Literally everything i am about to unload, is Zack Snyder’s fault. This “film” is pure Zack Snyder. More so than the Snyder cut of Justice League. More so than BvS. Even more than f*cking Sucker Punch. Netflix gave this man a bunch of money and told he to go “create” and, to his credit, Snyder did just that. Unfortunately, he created hot dumpster water topped with soggy diarrhea.

Seriously, everything i have a problem with, has Zack Snyder’s name on it. He was the director, the writer, the screenplay writer, AND the f*cking cinematographer. What the f*ck, dude? Like, you want to be an auteur director, fine. Be good at it. Be good at movies if you’re trying to wear all of those hats. Zack, as a filmmaker, is bad at ALL of them. At best, he’s pedestrian, so doing all of that, just infuses abject mediocrity throughout this movie and it shows.

I’ve seen a lot of cats haring of Snyder’s depth of field choices but I'll take it one step further; What the f*ck was up with the shot composition as a whole, in this film? It was bad! All of it was so bad! There was no substance, no dynamism in the camerawork or the way the shots were set up. I’m not going to sit here and say it was just a bunch of static work, like how someone would film a play for theatrical exhibition, but it wasn’t that much better. I was watching this sh*t and thought to myself, “Hamilton had better camera work than this. F*ck.”

The whole ass plot is paper thing. I’m watching these first few minutes and it’s readily apparent that the guv’ment knows zombies be doing a zombie and Vegas is lost. Why the f*ck didn’t they nuke that motherf*cker off the face of the earth. Straight up Raccoon City that b*tch. There is nothing, no plot contrivance or mental gymnastics that could make believe that Las Vegas wouldn’t have been scrubbed off the map, within a week of this outbreak. Not after seeing actual paratroopers floating in to their deaths and straight up napalm strikes on the Strip. Why did anyone think building a fence out of shipping containers was a good long term option for containment! And that’s literally just in the opening credits! It gets worse as the flick progresses, man! The actual plot is trash!

Now, the actual premise? Interesting. It could have been interesting. But then Zack Snyder snyder’ed it up with the f*cking execution. Look, in order to write a great zombie flick, you need a strong human element. That’s where the audience is going to focus. They’re going to try and find the humanity in a sea of despair. Every great Zombie flick has a laughably strong lead and fantastic supporting characters you come to care about, usually withing the first act. 28 Days later is a fantastic example of how to execute your Zombie disaster apocalypse. You do not give a sh*t about any of the characters in Army. Snyder tries with Batista, thus the father-daughter relationship, but that cliche sh*t was cookie cutter from a whole different movie, which I'm going to get into next...

Army of the Dead is Aliens. It’s just a popularization of Aliens. It’s the same f*cking movie, but worse. There are shot-for-shot recreations in this movie, with just enough changed so Snyder won’t get sued. Just, off the top of my head, the ending. It’s exactly the same as f*cking Aliens! Literally the same goddamn ending! Heroes survive a gauntlet of monsters, rush to the top of or roof. Pilot of escape flying contraption kissing. Hero curses pilot of said whirly dervish. Queen Alien or Zombie King shows up. Pilot returns at the last minute to save survivors. Same. F*cking. Scene. And that’s just one. There are SO many in this thing you’d think Snyder watched Aliens everyday on set and just stole sh*t from that flick to add to his. It’s real bad. Real f*cking bad, man. which exasperates my next point...

This movie is f*cking boring. i was bored. If you’re stealing the entirety of Aliens, how do you f*ck that it up so bad? The same movie, which thrilled and entertained me thirty years ago, sh*t the bed so hard, today, and i don’t know how that happened. It’s infuriating when i think about it for too long. Speaking of long...

Why the f*ck is this anal prolapse, two and half hours long?? Why did you need this much movie to tell so little story? Seriously, how the f*ck is there this much run time yet, no actual f*cking characters outside of whatever the f*ck Batista was able to save with his sheer screen presence? How do you have all of this time and still not craft a character in which to invest?? In a f*cking Zombie movie?!

Also, he hired a rapist.

The Verdict

This movie sucks. For all of the reasons outlined above. I told you that in the beginning. You didn’t have to rad this far. You knew i hated this movie within the first sentence. This sh*t was a waste of my life. Batista is good in it and that sh* Snyder did with Tig was pretty cool, but everything else is bad. All of it. None of this movie is good. It was boring. It wasn’t entertaining. There are no characters. The plot is dumb. The execution is worse. The run time is absurd. Did i mention how bored i was? Army of the Dead is garbage. This is a bad movie. This is what you get when you just let Zack Snyder do whatever the f*ck he wants with no limits or boundaries. Snyder is bad at movies and he keeps proving it. I have no idea why people keep giving this obvious fraud work.

[adamrevi3ws]

Well, tonight is Hollywood’s biggest night. As some of my friends and Letterboxd followers may know, for the past few weeks I’ve been on an Oscar marathon, watching every movie nominated for best picture and a few others in relevant categories. Since reviewing that many movies in such a short time takes a lot of time and effort, I’m going to do something different. Below is my ranking of best picture nominees and my thoughts on why they’re in that place. 

1. The Father (but not by much)

The main reason why this is #1 is that I thought it was, without a doubt, the smartest movie of the eight nominees. I completely expected this to be a sad slog with a great (as usual) Anthony Hopkins performance, but no, this is what finally knocked Judas and the Black Messiah off its massive pedestal in my initial rankings. The genius of this film is its concept, a movie about dementia that illustrates exactly what it’s an unreliable narrator feels by putting the watcher in the driver’s seat. It’s the movie equivalent of switching out details of someone’s room when they turn around to mess with them, except the person doing the switching is Anthony Hopkins’ mind. The movie’s (gorgeous) set design constantly changes at a whim, the plot is intentionally incoherent contradicting itself and going back every few minutes, and even the actors themselves change, all to detail the sheer helplessness of its protagonist’s condition. Perfectly complementing this is Hopkins’ performance, seamlessly nailing everything so funny, sad, and frustrating about a relative as they get older. While I doubt it’s actually going to win Best Picture, it sure as hell deserves the awards for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, and Best Production Design. Maybe also a Best Actor for Hopkins, but that category has some worthy contenders.

2. Judas and the Black Messiah

This blurb is going to be a lot shorter since I wrote a long review for it back when I initially watched it. Frankly, there’s very little this movie does wrong. Taking something that could have easily been a biopic and transforming it into a The Departed-style thriller is an ingenious move, and its two leads should have easily been bumped up to Best Actor, but that seems to be the biggest injustice of the 2021 Oscars so far. The massive amount of revelations it brings to the table knock it out of the park, ranging from meditations on the nature of white supremacy and capitalism, ideas on how to organize a beaten-down populace, and frankly a good amount of historical information hidden by the textbooks. This is without a doubt one of the timeliest of the nominees.

3. Sound of Metal

An absolutely heartbreaking tale of recovery (or at least structured in that way), Sound of Metal delivers an absolutely gripping performance from Riz Ahmed as a noise metal drummer dealing with newfound hearing loss. Similar to the Father, the film pushes boundaries to put the audience in its protagonist’s seat, manipulating its soundscape to replicate what Ahmed’s character is feeling as he progresses through his journey to attempted recovery. While I’m sure Chadwick Boseman will (rightfully) win the Best Actor award and I’m going to try to watch Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom before/during the ceremony to see if his performance lives up to the hype, I’m personally rooting for Riz!

4. Nomadland and Minari (tie)

I grouped these two together among other things because they’re quite similar in some ways, both dealing with the pursuit of the American Dream and using absurdly believable dialogue. Nomadland has a far broader scope and ambition, being a near-documentary exploring the lives and motivations of America’s nomadic workforce, while Minari presents a compelling family drama of Korean immigrants trying to start a farm in Arkansas. I think Nomadland, the projected Best Picture Winner does a slightly better job of delivering an overall message and exploring the ideas it introduces, but both bring an equal level of delight and, for better or worse, Americana. While they’re on this ranking because I frankly didn’t like them as much as the top three, I will be having words with The Academy if they don’t hand Youn Yuh-jung the Best Supporting Actress award for the Yi family’s eccentric grandma in Minari. 

5. Promising Young Woman

Simultaneously the most and least watchable of the Best Picture nominees, Promising Young Woman is a fascinatingly subversive and…. bubbly…. take on the otherwise harsh and difficult genre of rape-revenge thriller. Its ending and switches in genre and tone over the course of the movie drew skepticism and questions, but almost everyone can agree that the performances of its two leads, Carey Mulligan and internet comedian Bo Burnham, were absolutely phenomenal. I also wouldn’t be mad if it took home the Best Original Screenplay award, although a good amount of its competitors in that field are equally deserving. Promising Young Woman is a movie that tries to be the smartest movie in this year’s eight nominees, and while it doesn’t reach those highs, I think its efforts definitely weren’t’ wasted. 

6. Mank

Mank was frankly kind of a disappointment on my end. I think a lot of its ideas in navigating 1930s Hollywood are quite valiant, it falls flat in trying to actually be the story of the making of Citizen Kane, which, in hindsight, I think is kind of a dumb idea for a movie. It doesn’t help that Oldman’s performance as the titular screenwriter is more in the Johnny Depp or Jared Leto school of weird than admiral, and the movie itself can just be… kind of boring. I guess I just wanted to see the 1930s equivalent of Once Upon A Time in Hollywood.

7. Trial of the Chicago 7

Early high school/middle school Adam would have loved Trial of the Chicago 7 if I saw it them because it would be one of my first few “deep” and “historical” movies, but unfortunately, I’ve grown up, and my critical thinking has developed much past that. Watching this after seeing Judas and the Black Messiah, a movie literally set around the same time, was quite jarring. The best way I can describe it is by taking the 1960s counterculture movement and turning it into a Marvel movie, and that isn’t a good thing despite my love for Marvel movies. The tone feels so distasteful and oblivious of the event’s actual stakes or gravity, which does it as a disservice as a historical narrative but also in terms of making it “relevant” to today’s issues. The closest it gets to this are flashbacks to the riot itself, which kind of border on police brutality porn at some points. Another key element of its tone-deaf nature, and overall refusal to have a message, is its politics. It hurts to acknowledge the difference between how Joseph Gordon Levitt’s character in Chicago 7 and Jesse Plemons’ character in Judas and the Black Messiah. Both are heavily complicit weapons of white supremacy in federal law enforcement that thought they were still genuinely helping progressive causes, but Chicago 7 tries SO HARD to emphasize that Gordon Levitt’s character is a good person, to the point of even having one of the most out-there counterculture characters in the movie state this. This movie desperately attempts to reconcile the establishment and anti-establishment it’d even give Hegel a head trip. It’s a shame because, without the political and historical context, it has the bones to be an otherwise entertaining and compelling movie. Sorkin’s combination of annoying debate kid and Joss Whedon flair works perfectly for a courtroom drama, but it just shouldn’t be one with such an important political context. While I think this is a decent movie, it probably wouldn’t deserve the Best Picture award in any other Oscar race, especially this one.

[afishtrap]

mapping characters

The past few weeks, I’ve been (finally) going back and looking at the story I'd set aside for all of 2017. I knew whatever was broken lay in the opening chapters, so I started reading a bunch of advice on story structure, stakes, character goals, and whatnot. 

What kept tripping me up wasn’t really that every character must have a goal (duh). It was that this goal should in some way be thematically tied to the final resolution, and the lie the character believes, the character’s normal world, don’t even get me started on the inciting incident, and what is my theme, anyway. 

I’m not a plotter by nature, but neither am I really a pantser. Apparently there’s an in-between type called a polisher:

Unlike a pantser who gives over to the freedom to write whatever comes to mind or a plotter who decides it all ahead of time, a polisher will write a scene then analyze it. Is it good enough? Does it work with the previous scene(s)? How can it be made better? What needs adding or changing in previous chapters to facilitate this new revelation? Only when everything previously written is polished and perfect is this writer ready to move to the next scene. 

Which is fine, except that when the opening chapters aren’t solid, it’s a story built on sand. The issue now is fixing that bad foundation, and that means nailing down the character arcs.  

Some recommendations: K.M. Weiland’s site, with excellent deconstruction of structural elements into comprehensible pieces. Another: Take Off Your Pants! by Libbie Hawker. It’s a little (70-page) ebook, but her approach is simple and genius. And also: Lessons from the Screenplay’s Logan vs. Children of Men — The End is in the Beginning, and Just Write’s Avatar: The Last Airbender — How To Write A Compelling Backstory.

In case this helps anyone else, behind the cut is the process I’ve figured out, and a google sheet in case you want a jump-start. 

The character arc spreadsheet’s first page goes in order of questions to ask, with a column for each character (up to eight, since that’s the number of POV characters I’ve got). I find the order confusing for long-term keeping, though, so the second sheet reorders it more logically, with additional rows for for digging into each character arc’s plot points. You should be able to re-save a copy of your own, or download it. 

And now for the explanations of what goes into each row:

1. what the character goes by

Just the character name. 

2. who is...

Enter a 4-8 word description of the character, at the start of the story. 

eg: "youngest daughter of border family"

3 internal need

Ignore the title there, for now. Just ask yourself: when the story ends, what lesson does the character learn? What’s their moment of truth in the finale? That’s what the character needs (to learn) over the course of your story, ergo, it’s the character’s ‘internal need’.  

Since I almost always have the finale set piece in my head from the beginning, this was easy: “no one is coming to save you, and you’ll have to fight even though the odds are bleak.”

4 major flaw

Now that you know what the character needs to learn, work backwards: what kind of person needs to learn this lesson? What significant flaw would be corrected by this lesson? (This has to be something the character can overcome; a character may struggle with being dyslexic, disabled, wrong skin tone, etc, but these are not flaws; they’re who the person is.)

I considered ‘passive’ but that makes for a boring character, until I realized the character’s real flaw is being sheltered. And since a certain invulnerability often results from being overprotected, I added unrealistically optimistic.

5 external want

This is the part that made my head explode, ‘cause I’d honestly never thought of it this way: given the character’s flaw, what’s the one thing, above anything else, that would satisfy them? What objective, if gained, would let them stay complacent, and never address this flaw? You want to find the hardest thing for the character to walk away from. 

Since this character is sheltered, her greatest desire must relate to being protected. Okay, her parents are both deceased, hrm, but something’s going on that requires a family elder, so her goal is to track down her long-lost uncle and convince him to come home. 

6 antagonist

This might be one character, or several, who want to either obstruct or compete with the character’s goal. If the character wants, say, a specific pony, the antagonist might be the person who refuses to sell the pony, or the antagonist is another buyer who also wants that specific pony. 

Which means if the uncle doesn’t want to leave the city, then the character’s antagonist is her uncle. But since his superior also doesn’t want him to leave, she’s got two antagonists: uncle and superior. 

7 who is...

Another 4-8 word description of the antagonist. Just a general idea. For multiple antagonists, I guess I could break this into 2-3 lines, but this is enough for now. 

So I went with uncle-monk and head-monk.

8 who wants...

This just helps to clarify what the antagonist seek. It needs to be either the opposite of the character’s goal (won’t sell the pony), or the same goal (buy pony so you can’t). 

If the antagonist is the uncle, that means his goal is stay in the city and keep being a monk. Note that his goal is not ‘refuse to go home’ -- that’s not a goal, that’s his response. His goal is why he makes that response. 

9 ally

This is another of Hawker’s insights that I haven’t seen anywhere else, and it’s not in the classic sense of ‘the one who helps’ (although the ally may do that, too). The ‘ally’ is the one character with power to force the character onto the correct path and/or to recognize the truth. 

Just as importantly, this could be anyone. It might be a frenemy providing a harsh wake-up call, or a consistently supportive friend -- but it can also be the antagonist, if their interaction makes the character realize what lies ahead if she doesn’t change.

I have another set piece just before the finale, where the character’s mentor gives her a pretty brutal wakeup call about what they’re facing. So that mentor is probably filling the ally role.  

10 who is...

Another 4-8 word description of the ally, but since this character’s ally is also a POV character with her own arc, I’ll just copy-paste this to that character’s list when I get to her. 

So for now, the ally is described as lady of the castle.

11 lie they believe

Take the flaw, and see it as a coping mechanism. Then ask: how does the character rationalize this flaw as necessary to survive in their world? That’s the character’s lie. That’s their core belief that’s going to get broken down over the course of the story. 

I’m thinking the lie is probably going to be along the lines of it won’t be that bad or why worry, it’ll work out.

12 normal world

And another step backwards: the ‘normal world’ is the setup in Act 1, before the catalyst turns everything upside-down. The normal world reinforces the lie, so the character can keep rationalizing their coping mechanism, and remain complacent.    

That means in my story, the normal world should reinforce that’s someone else’s concern, or maybe you’ll be okay as long as you have a protector.

13 wound

And another step backwards: the ‘wound’ is some past event that led to the character developing the lie and the coping mechanism. It could be negative or positive -- but something about it prompted the character to develop the lie and the flaw. I say ‘positive’ because ‘being loved and cherished as a child’ is good, but at the extremes, it’s stifling.

I first went with raised with strict limits, but later I came back and changed this to was unprepared for/overwhelmed by losing protective loved ones.

14 greatest fear

Now we’re into character elements that we’ll use to hammer the character over their arc. First is their biggest fear -- so for this step, think of what someone with this major flaw might fear the most. 

A sheltered character would probably be the most afraid of not having anyone to turn to or not knowing whose advice to take. 

Having these fear-variations means I can hit one note in one scene, and hit the other in the next scene. That way the hammering doesn’t feel too repetitive.

15 strength

Looking back up the list, there’s got to be some quality this character has that’ll make it possible for them to overcome their flaw and learn that lesson (the internal need). It doesn’t have to be the opposite of their flaw, either. It just needs to be something they demonstrate, that gives glimmers of what they’ve got that will help them grasp or accept the truth. 

I’m going with tenacious and compassionate. 

16 true self

When the story ends, the character’s lie is tossed aside, flaws acknowledged (if not fully resolved). What’s the character really like, now? Note that for sequels, this ‘true self’ becomes the foundation of the next story’s ‘major flaws’. 

This character will end with self-reliant and outspoken. That way, in the sequel, she’ll start with flaws that distort her to an extreme: rigid and brash.

17 key incident

Aka, the second half of the catalyst. It’s tied thematically to the overall character arc -- but not obviously so, since most characters wouldn’t willingly put themselves on a collision course with their lie or flaws. The inciting incident creates the crisis, and the key incident is what appears to solve it. Together they form the catalyst that kicks everything off. My aha moment was thanks to Lessons from the Screenplay:

The best inciting incident is one that makes your hero think he has just overcome the crisis he has faced since the beginning of the story. In fact, due to the inciting event, the hero has just gotten into the worst trouble of his life.

Again keeping in mind the character’s flaw, lie, and goal, the key incident should present a solution that gets the character moving, and/or provokes them into identifying the goal listed in step #5. But at the same time, it should be a solution that appears to let their lie and flaw go unchallenged. 

That means for my character, the key incident is friend must travel to the city but specifically that the friend offers to be protective escort.  

18 inciting incident

The inciting incident is a short-term, concrete crisis, and the one place you can use coincidence to kick things off. It just needs to be a problem (lack of money possibly being the most common) that can be resolved via the key incident. Btw, you can do #17 and #18 in either order. I just find it easier to figure out the solution (key) and work backwards from there to identify a problem (inciting).

I’m going with landlord requires signature of eldest family member.

and lastly, stakes

That’s right, stakes aren’t called out ‘cause they should shift and grow across the course of the story. The preliminary stakes lie in the catalyst, though, and those stakes will carry to about the first plot point (where the antagonist or obstacle becomes clear). 

External stakes should pile on all the way up to the finale, but I’ve come to see the internal stakes as lying in that conflict between the external want and the internal need. For the first half of the story, the character’s internal stakes revolve around holding onto their lie, and acting in accord with that. But every time they do, the story should hammer them with some element of their greatest fear coming true. 

The midpoint drives home how unprepared they are (thanks to their lie), and it locks them in so there’s no going back. Then comes the ‘dark night’ where they realize the final thing holding them back is the lie they’ve believed; this is when their internal stakes shift from ‘stay who I was’ to ‘become the person I really am’.

multiple protagonists

Although the spreadsheet is set up to do multiple protagonists, the steps here don’t really go into how each protagonist will impact the other. You do want to bring their threads to a unified conclusion at some point (usually the finale), but if you merge two sooner than that, then you might want to do a new arc for each character starting from that point. 

Frex, two characters come to the city (to get jobs), meet, both fail (not hired), but now they’re stuck (no money for train home) -- so they might concoct a new goal between them (rob a bank), and set about on that. In that case, you’d treat that first arc as Act 1, and launch them into a life of crime at Act 2.    

Hopefully some of you will find all of this useful. Happy arcing!

[oliverphisher]

Graeme Simsion

Graeme C. Simsion is an Australian author, screenwriter, playwright and data modeller. Prior to becoming an author, Simsion was an information systems consultant, co-authoring the book Data Modelling Essentials, and worked in wine distribution.

Graeme Simsion is the internationally bestselling author of The Rosie Project, The Rosie Effect and The Best of Adam Sharp. He also co-authored Two Steps Forward with Anne Buist.

What are one to three books that have greatly influenced your life? 

I’ve long forgotten the name and author of a book about career planning I read more than forty years ago when I was at university. The author spent all but one chapter describing in painstaking detail how to build and execute a career plan, and how to stay on track in the face of setbacks and changes. The last chapter was written by someone else: an alternative approach, based on opportunism. ‘Winging it,’ he called It and it was the first time I’d heard the expression: have broad goals, but be prepared to change the plan as opportunities arise; be willing to take on something for which you’re unprepared and learn as you go; invest in new skills as they’re needed. It was a revelation—and the philosophy has defined my professional life.

I was running a thriving consultancy business when I read film critic Joe Queenan’s The Unkindest Cut, his often hilarious account of his attempt to make an ultra low budget movie. I was hooked, and followed in his footsteps, dragging my partner and friends with me, undeterred by my utter lack of experience in any facet of filmmaking. The movie was forgettable (and best forgotten) but the screenwriting seed was planted. Within a year I had sold my business, and went on to enrol in a screenwriting course while I supported myself with freelance consulting work. That was the beginning of my transition from consultant and business owner to full-time writer.

What purchase of $100 or less has most positively impacted your life in the last six months (or in recent memory)?

The answer’s always going to be a book; I’ll try to look beyond that. So…a backup battery for my phone. I’ve hardly ever used it, but it’s eliminated low-battery anxiety.

How has a failure, or apparent failure, set you up for later success? 

I spent five years studying screenwriting and—throughout that time—working on a screenplay for a romantic comedy. It won a prize but the step to production for an unknown screenwriter with an original script was just not going to happen. I should have realised that from the start: most mainstream movies are adaptations of novels—generally bestselling novels. The studios let the publishers and public sort out the winners before they invest.

So I re-wrote The Rosie Project screenplay as a novel. At first it was a means to get the screenplay noticed, but I quickly became immersed in the novel as a work in itself (which was surely necessary if it was going to be successful). And now I’m a novelist first and only an occasional screenwriter.

Are there any quotes you think of often or live your life by?

Pay it forward. It’s the social contract, a basic principle to live by. In the context of writing, I’ve had a great deal of luck, and I do what I can to help others who are trying to break in. So teaching, talks, mentorship, endorsement, contributing to blogs... I encourage those who might benefit from such help to do the same for others in turn. I have a book on novel writing underway—I doubt it’ll make me money, but hope it’ll be helpful to at least some aspiring authors.

You never understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it. – Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird. In other words, practise empathy. I taught consulting skills for many years, and if consultants could do this with their clients, most of their problems would disappear. In writing, you need to be able to do it for all of your characters—if you can’t answer the character’s question ‘What’s my motivation?’ with something deeper than a stereotype (‘he’s just a boss’) or a label (‘she’s a histrionic’) he or she has no substance. That said, when I’m writing, I don’t explicitly think about my readers!

What is one of the best investment in a writing resource you’ve ever made? 

I bought my first computer in 1984, and since then I’ve always typed; I can barely hand-write. You write differently when you use a word processor—and, unlike some of my generation, I’m well used to it. And I learned to touch-type—an undervalued skill.

Right now, I’m beginning a 10-day hike, and my i-Pad (with keyboard) will repay the weight it adds to my backpack: writing tool, research tool, communication tool (plus all the non-writing-related functions). For writers seeking the lightest computing solution, at present what I’m using seems to be it. 

What is an unusual habit or an absurd thing that you love?

I still buy CDs and have a pretty big collection of them. I’ve got a bit of vinyl too, and that’s probably even more absurd but more fashionable. Plus the high-end turntable. I suspect it’s about being able to afford things that I couldn’t when I was younger. Our kids find my consumerism pretty distasteful, but they’re reacting against growing up with it, whereas I grew up having to save for that 7-inch single of Hey Jude…

In the last five years, what new belief, behaviour, or habit has most improved your life? 

A year ago, my partner bought me an Apple Watch (I’m sounding like a shill for Apple here, with the iPad and all). I set the ‘move’ goal (calories / kilojoules burned each day) to the highest setting and aim to hit it every day. I feel better; I’ve lost weight; I’ve been motivated to get back to the gym. I’m sure it won’t work for everyone, but so far it’s worked for me.

What advice would you give to a smart, driven aspiring author? What advice should they ignore? 

Get published. As you’re starting out, write a few short stories. Get them into competitions, submit for magazines, anthologies, whatever. Agents will be less quick to dismiss you if someone has rated your work. And it’ll improve your writing. That final look at the manuscript before it goes in the envelope frequently prompts another improvement.

Join a class and / or writing group. I’m a supporter of creative writing classes: there’s a body of knowledge relevant to writing and you should know it. Why should writing be different from every other trade or profession in this regard? Plus, you need feedback—and to get used to dealing with it. Critiquing others’ writing will improve your understanding of what works and what doesn’t.  And the group or class will help you keep to deadlines and connect with the industry.

Plan. OK, some writers write by the seat of their pants, but if it’s not working for you, plan. If it is working for you, meaning that you’re finishing novels, not just getting a great 30,000 words down, keep doing what you’re doing. Otherwise, do what just about every other profession does and introduce an element of top-down development i.e. plan.

Draft like it doesn’t matter. Don’t get it right, get it done. If you’ve a plan to follow, it’ll make sense, it just may not be pretty. But you’ll have a massive sense of progress and of satisfaction in getting it done.  You can then come back and apply your creativity to the sentence level. 

Rewrite. You should know that, but in the euphoria that accompanies the completion of a first draft, it’s easy to forget and to start sharing your work of genius. Don’t. Let it sit. Rewrite. Repeat until satisfied. I always go over what I’ve written the previous day before starting on the fresh work of the day. I can always improve it.

The best way for most of us to deal with rejection is to have more irons in the fire—another publisher to send to; another short story in competition; the new novel we’re working on.

Ignore, or take with a big grain of salt, advice on writing from anyone who isn’t a successful writer (defining ‘successful’ in the way that you yourself define success).

What are bad recommendations you hear in your profession often? 

Write every day. I don’t. But I work on my novel or other work-in-progress almost every day. That work may be writing, but it could be research, planning, editing, thinking about the opening sentence, solving a plot problem, reflecting on the writing process.  And yes, promotion. If you’re down to participate in a public debate in the evening, don’t expect to get a lot of writing done during the day. If you want to write every day, do it, but it’s not for everyone.

Build your presence on social media (see below). I mean, sure, if you want to, but it’s got nothing to do with being a good or successful writer.

Read this book – or movie or TV series that’s in the same space as what you’re writing. You’ll be intimidated (you’re comparing a final product with a first draft), feel you’re not original and become paranoid about stealing ideas. I’ve never watched The Big Bang Theory – any overlap between Sheldon Cooper and Don Tillman is entirely coincidental.

In the last five years, what have you become better at saying no to (distractions, invitations, etc.)?

I’ve become slightly better at saying no to requests for endorsements. I’ve had to. I feel a responsibility to read new books (especially by debut authors) but it’s easy to become overwhelmed. If I don’t write myself, a blurb from me won’t have much cred anyway! 

What marketing tactics should authors avoid?

‘Buy my book’ messages on social media. In fact, with a few exceptions, using social media as a marketing tool at all. I’m an old data guy, and I’m here to tell you that Twitter doesn’t sell books. Your time will be much better spent writing a better book. In fact most ‘marketing’ effort on the part of authors would be better devoted to writing. Even book tours (especially in the US which is massively over-serviced by touring authors) generally have little impact.

Broadcast media is a different thing. If you get a chance to be on radio or TV, drop the computer and grab the microphone with both hands.

I know I’m out on a limb here, but I challenge any marketing people reading this to show me figures to disprove it.

What new realizations and/or approaches have helped you achieve your goals? 

It’s human, and often helpful, to be unsatisfied, to want to stretch further. We dream of being published, but when it happens we want to be a bestseller. Then we’re not happy until we’re number one on the NYT bestseller list. And then, what about the Pulitzer? Yes, this sort of thinking will drive us onwards, but it can also drive us nuts. When I was offered a publishing contract, I reminded myself that I had achieved my goal. Anything more was gravy. There’s been a lot of gravy, and as The Rosie Project sat at no. 2 on the NYT bestseller list, I was dreaming of that ‘No 1 NYT bestseller’ blaze on the cover. It didn’t happen (The Goldfinch kept me out) and I was disappointed, but only for about ten minutes. How lucky was I? So I’ve learned to enjoy the roller coaster ride (notably with movie adaptations) and not to pin too much on external achievements.

And, perhaps paradoxically, being sanguine about success has helped me achieve it; by not dwelling on failures, but moving forward with what I want to do.

When you feel overwhelmed or have lost your focus temporarily, what do you do? 

I don’t often feel overwhelmed. I spent a long time running a business, and you learn how to deal with overload: in my case, make a list and (in order) dump; delegate; defer; do.

And focus…hold on. I’m probably one of the more goal-driven, businesslike, organised writers around, but I’m hesitant to apply the rather American motivational model to what I do—and especially to recommend it to others. I lose my focus, I do something else. That’s a little glib, but I’m not driven by writing goals; I’m driven by a desire to write. There’s a huge difference.

That said, and being practical, I frequently find I have to force myself to sit down to the day’s writing (editing and planning are not so hard for me) but I’m soon into it. It gets easier the more you do it and have the feedback of it working. And ‘do something else’ can mean research or that blog that someone’s asked you to contribute to. It’s not an excuse for going to the pub.

Any other tips?

My most important advice to aspiring writers is that it’s a profession. Approach it as you would any other profession in terms of the amount of learning you’ll need to do and how long it will take to become expert. If you’ve worked in another profession, there’s your benchmark; if not, look to that friend who wants to be a neurosurgeon. There are more jobs for neurosurgeons than novelists. But if you have a modicum of ability and put in that level of work, you have a very good chance of success.

________

Enjoyed this Q&A? Want to discuss in more depth? Join Community Writers. You'll get access to 100+ exclusive writing tips. Q&As with successful authors, an exclusive ebook on building an audience and much more. Sign-up for free as a community writer here

[weekendwarriorblog]

The Weekend Warrior Home Edition June 12, 2020 – THE KING OF STATEN ISLAND, DA 5 BLOODS, ARTEMIS FOWL, YOU DON’T NOMI and more!

Sorry about the delay in this week’s column. Some stuff came up that was out of my control… like the actual summer.

If this were a normal weekend, I’d be writing about the box office prospects about a few movies, including Judd Apatow’s new comedy THE KING OF STATEN ISLAND (Universal), which teams him with “Saturday Night Live’s” enfant terrible, Pete Davidson. Instead, I’m once again writing about movies mostly not playing in theaters except for a few sporadic drive-ins across the country.

I already reviewed The King of Staten Island earlier this week – you can read that here – and though I know it will be playing in some regional drive-ins, I have no idea how many nor do I think Universal will report any box office if it does make decent bank. I think there will be general interest among younger people who like Pete Davidson on SNL but I’m not sure anyone over a certain age, say 30 or 40, will have much interest in what Davidson and Apatow can do together. The general gist of the movie is that Davidson plays Scott, a Staten Island slacker whose widowed mother (Marisa Tomei) starts dating a fireman, much to the chagrin of Scott, who lost his fireman father at an early age. You can read my review to see what I think, but it’s relatively tame for Apatow compared to his earlier films. I’m not sure that makes it necessarily better but people seem to be digging it.

One of my favorite movies from last year’s Tribeca and what is essentially this week’s “Featured Film” is Jeffrey McHale’s YOU DON’T NOMI (RLJE Films), which takes an in-depth look at Paul Verhoeven’s 1995 movie Showgirls, thought to be one of the worst movies and biggest bombs in its day but also a movie that has grown a built-in cult audience that adores it. It’s a pretty straight-ahead doc that relies on a number of experts to discuss the problems and virtues of Verhoeven’s film, including David Schmader, who did the DVD commentary for Showgirls, and author Adam Nayman, who is responsible for the book, “It Doesn’t Suck: Showgirls.” While I never fell into either the love it or hate it camp for Showgirls, I love how McHale’s doc acts as a thesis piece to explain exactly why so many critics took issue with Verhoeven’s much-maligned follow-up to hits Basic Instinct and Total Recall.

I won’t spoil the movie’s climax showing Showgirls finally achieving redemption, but it’s a pretty amazing event from 2015 that shows that maybe Showgirls has gotten past the hatred and ridicule that followed it around for decades. If nothing else, You Don’t Nomi will make you want to rent and watch (or rewatch) Showgirls almost immediately after seeing it. You might even agree with this film that it’s a misunderstood masterpiece on second viewing.

I’ve also decided to scrap the sections in this column, since two of the other big movie releases this week are going straight to streaming services, although both would probably have gotten some sort of theatrical release if not for COVID.

One of the other major releases of the weekend is Netflix’s streaming of Spike Lee’s DA FIVE BLOODS, his look at the Vietnam War through the eyes of four black Army vets who return to the country to retrieve the body of their fallen comrade… as well as a cache of gold bullion they found and hid during their previous tour.

I’ll be the first to admit that the quality of Spike Lee’s filmmaking over the past couple of decades has been somewhat spotty at best, although BlacckKKlansman was probably one of his better films over the past couple decades. Da Five Bloods reunites Lee with his BlackkKlansman co-writer, Kevin Willmot, and though it’s a fictitious tale, there are a few themes and elements in common.

Delroy Lindo and Lee regular Isiah Whitlock Jr. star as two of the Bloods, Paul and Melvin (along with Clarke Peters’ Otis and Norm Lewis’ Eddie). We meet them as they’re reunited in Vietnam, soon joined by Paul’s son David (Jonathan Majors) along to keep an eye on his father’s health. Chadwick Boseman plays the group’s leader, “Stormin’ Norman,” in the flashback sequence to the war era showing what happened to the Bloods on the fateful day their chopper went down behind enemy lines. There are a few satellite characters, played by M​élanie Thierry and Paul Walter Hauser (making a return from BlackKklansman), as well as Jean Reno, ​Jasper Pääkkönen and Johnny Trí Nguyễn, who all become involved in the Bloods’ search for gold

When you think of Vietnam War movies, it’s impossible not to think of Apocalypse Now, and Lee throws in a few obvious nods, whether it’s using “Flight of the Valkyrie” or the Chamber Brothers’ “Time Has Come to Day” but in general, the musical choices are solid. I wouldn’t say that the screenplay is particularly enlightening, the story being far more simple than

Just when you have settled into what you think is a fairly laid-back pace, Lee throws a “Holy shit!” moment at you that completely changes the complexion of what you’ve been watching, and that’s when the movie starts breaking into a few more action setpieces, some better than others.

Honestly, it’s a little strange seeing all these old black guys running around and shooting guns without Samuel Jackson being among them. Make no mistake that this is first and foremost Delroy Lindo’s film, as he gives a strong if not somewhat erratic performance, and he’s the crux of the story, but Whitlock and the other actors have some nice moments, as well. The bonding between the four guys is pervasive, to the point where it almost feels like the other characters are interfering, maybe because they are.

It’s a great time to release Da 5 Bloods, due to what is going on in this country, and like with BlackKklansman, Lee throws in a few shots at Trump, the guys referring to him as “President Fake Bone Spurs.” At least in this case, it’s incorporated into the story, but I hope Lee realizes that these Trump references will ensure these movies will feel dated if watched ten or twelve years from now.

That all said, Da 5 Bloods is a decent Spike Lee Joint, maybe not quite on par with BlackkKlansman but better than his last attempt at a war movie, 2008’s Miracle at St. Anna.

Rating: 7/10

As expected by quite a few people earlier during this pandemic, Walt Disney Pictures decided to send the Kenneth Branagh-directed ARTEMIS FOWL movie directly to their Disney+ streaming service, despite the movie having been in various stages of development for a decade or more. Unlike Da 5 Bloods and The King of New York, this movie based on Eoin Colfer’s book series, is far more streamlined with a kid-friendly running time of 95 minutes. Phew!

It centers around 12-year-old super-genius Artemis Fowl (Ferdia Shaw) whose father (also named Artemis Fowl and played by Colin Farrell) goes missing, forcing the young “Artie” to look for a powerful mystical device called the Aculos. Joining him on this quest are his non-butler Domovoi (Nonzo Anonsie), Dom’s daughter Juliet (Tamara Smart), an elven police officer named Holly Short (Lara McDonnell) and an oversized dwarf played by a bearded Josh Gad. Oh, yeah, and in this world, fairies, trolls and dwarves are real, but most humans don’t know about their existence due to their secrecy as well as having a way to erase humans’ memories ala Men in Black.

I’m quite sure the latter will be a qualifying benchmark for those who review the movie without having read any of Colfer’s fantasy series – like myself -- but it takes similar ideas as David Ayer’s Bright and the Amazon series Carnival Row and transforms them into something that attempts to be in the vein of Harry Potter or Fantastic Beasts but maybe comes across more like Percy Jackson. The irony is that Chris Columbus directed the initial chapters of both Potter and Jackson, but Artemis Fowl benefits from having Branagh at the helm.

I will freely admit that I’m very much a bonafide Branagh stan, and much of that is due to the way he’s handled bringing fantasy worlds to life in movies like Thor and Cinderella. Artemis Fowl is right up his alley, and he does an exemplary job even if most of his cast other than Gad… oh, yeah, and Dame Judi Dench, who plays the head of the “fairy police” – are fairly inexperienced. You can kind of tell that’s the case with first-timer Shaw, and his inexperience might be one of the tougher things for which older viewers might have to contend. Younger viewers won’t take issue with any of the problems that might throw off those expecting more from Artemis Fowl, because the storytelling is kept at a fairly brisk pace with a few decent action setpieces.

Artemis Fowl could have been released theatrically and been one of the summer’s sadly forgotten films. It finds a fun way of setting up the characters and ideas – presumably most of them taken directly from Colfer’s book – plus it sets up the possibility for even more fun family-friendly fantasy storytelling.

Rating: 7.5/10

There are a few other movies below I was hoping to get to, but see my note at the top of this column about why it was delayed by a day. If I get to any of the ones below, I’ll update and mention on social media.

One of the movies delayed from March but now getting a digital release is Carl Hunter’s drama SOMETIMES ALWAYS NEVER (Blue Fox Entertainment) -- not to be confused with Never Rarely Sometimes Always with the two movies at one point in danger of coming out on the same weekend!  It stars Bill Nighy as tailor Alan, who has been searching for years for his missing son Michael, who stormed out after a Scrabble Game. When a body turns up, Alan must try to work things out with his younger son Peter, played by Sam Riley, and an online player they think could be Michael.

Jonas Alexander Arnby’s Danish film EXIT PLAN (Screen Media) stars Nikolaj Coster-Waldau from Game of Thrones playing insurance claims investigator Max, who follows the clues of a death to the remote Hotel Aurora, a facility that specializes in assisted suicide, uncovering some disturbing revelations in the bargain.

Joshua Caldwell’s  INFAMOUS (Vertical Entertainment), which will be available via VOD and in select Virtual Cinemas, stars Bella Thorne as Arielle, a down-on-her-luck dreamer seeking popularity who runs into Jake Manley’s Dean, an ex-con working for his abusive father who dies in an accident sending the two of them on the run.

The dance drama, Aviva (Outsider Pictures/Strand Releasing), directed by Boaz Yakin (Remember the Titans, Max), was supposed to premiere at the SXSW Film Festival in March, but it will instead get its premiere through Virtual Cinema this Friday. It’s a love story that explores gender dynamics with dance sequences choreographed by Bobbi Jene Smith of the Batsheva Dance Company. Aviva is a young Parisian who gets into an online romance with a New Yorker named Eden, eventually meeting and getting married with the story told by four different dancers/actors simultaneously.

I haven’t had a chance to watch Flavio Alves’ The Garden Left Behind, starring Michael Madsen and Ed Asner, but it was a winner of the Audience Award at the 2019 SXSW Film Festival, so I’m definitely interested in learning more about its story of a young trans woman from Mexico who lives with her grandmother as undocumented immigrants in New York City.

Released in a union between Shudder and RLJE Films, The Dead Lands (Shudder/RLJE Films) hit Digital HD yesterday.  The supernatural fantasy set in New Zealand is co-directed by Peter Meteherangi Tikao Burger and Michael Hurst, and it stars Te Kohe Tuhaka as Waka, a murdered Maori warrior who has returned from the Afterlife who goes on a quest with with a young woman named Mehe (Darneen Christian) to discover who broke the world. Not quite sure why didn’t get to this one, as I’m usually interested in New Zealand-based films as well as supernatural fantasy.

Daniel (For the Bible Tells Me So) Karslake’s new doc For They Know Not What They Do (First Run Features), which will hit virtual cinemas this Friday, which looks at the intersection between religion, sexual orientation and gender identity in America through a number of families of faith learning to accept their LGBTQ children. It has pretty much run the festival circuit through most of last year, winning a number of audience awards.

Coming to the Film Forum’s Virtual Cinema this Friday is Bill Duke’s 1985 directorial debut The Killing Floor and Alastair Sim’s 1954 schoolgirl romp, The Belles of St. Trinian’s. Uptown at Film at Lincoln Center, besides the Human Rights Watch Film Festival (see below), they’ll be debuting Hong Sangsoo’s 2014 film Hill of Freedom (Grasshopper Films) in their already quite robust Virtual Cinema.

A few other films I wasn’t able to get to this week, include Return to Hardwick (Gravitas Ventures) and The Departure  (October Coast), so I guess I did better than last week?

A few film festivals taking place mostly virtually this week include the annual New York edition of the Human Rights Watch Film Festival, running from June 11 through 20, and the Fine Arts Film Festival in Venice, California (June 8 to 14). The latter is offering 92 films from 27 countries with different packages including the entire festival for $20 or individual series for $10. Also, the Oxford Film Festival continues its virtual festival with two music docs, Dillon Hayes’ short All I Have to Offer You is Me about country-Western singer Larry Callies, as he tries to get his voice back after a degenerative disorder, and Dennis Cahlo’s feature In Flowers Through Space, in which the filmmaker tries to use the Fibonacci Sequence to try to create a unique music album. You can also check out Ben  & Bo Powell’s Mississippi doc Nothin’ No Better about Rosedale, Mississippi, and more short blocks, all available on Oxford’s Virtual Site.

Also, the June episode of Hulu’s horror series “Into the Dark” is Good Boy, a movie directed by Tyler MacIntyre, starring Judy Greer, Steve Guttenberg and Ellen Wong (from Scott Pilgrim!) that has Greer adopting an emotional support dog that kills anyone who causes her anxiety. Just in time for Pet Appreciation Week! Yeah, I’m gonna have to see this one.

Next week, more movies (mostly) not in theaters!

By the way, if you read this week’s column and have bothered to read this far down, feel free to drop me some thoughts at Edward dot Douglas at Gmail dot Com or drop me a note or tweet on Twitter. I love hearing from readers … honestly, I do!