#watch more Seimetz instead

[euphorial-docx]

the idol episode 1 review

ok so… i watched it. it’s definitely a show, at least.

i will briefly talk first about my opinions on everyone else’s opinions:

i do not believe in the censorship of media. i think people can make whatever they want, even if i don’t personally enjoy or agree with it. maybe that’s a chronically online ao3 mentality shifting over to other arts, but i don’t think it’s a bad thing.

i think enforcing what can and cannot be made, and who can and cannot make certain things, is bullshit. i don’t agree with with that. i think sam levinson can make this type of show if he wants to, no matter my feelings on it (and oh boy do i have a lot of them.)

and i do not think a “boycott” will work at all. maybe this show will be cancelled, or get a production overhaul for season 2, but y’all… i know 70% of the people trying to boycott the idol also watch euphoria. and jesus christ stop saying people are demons if they watch the idol— guilting people over what they consume is stupid and does nothing to change conditions.

additionally, i want to talk about the drama behind the scenes:

i know all the drama. i think it was shitty to fire amy seimetz after she finished 80% of it, and it was shitty to scrap everything, and shitty to turn it into what it is now. not arguing that. it was a huge waste of the money, time, and effort of hundreds of people to bring sam levinson in and boot amy out.

sam levinson is also known to be a dick when directing. his sets on euphoria were hectic, his sets on the idol were hectic— the man needs to let more people help him in every step of filmmaking instead of hoarding everything to himself and believing he’s above collaboration.

and now for the actual review:

i’ll start with the highlights.

i think lily-rose depp did well. she wasn’t outstanding, but i think people are too harsh to say she’s this horrible actress. is she giving an emmy worthy performance? no, not really. but she wasn’t bad by any means.

the best actor there, however, is rachel sennott. she’s great in everything she’s in, so i’m not surprised at all. she plays the anxious assistant and concerned best friend very well. she’s as much as stand-out as she can be with such a bland script to go off of.

i will get into what i didn’t like about the main relationship later, but the scenes of jocelyn and tedeos dancing at the club was (mostly) pretty good. like i thought it was cute to start out, and then them talking at the bar at jocelyn’s house was pretty good. their dynamic is best when they’re having understated moments that aren’t rushing head-first into the plot too soon, if that makes sense.

i think that’s it.

now it’s time for the negatives… and there are a lot.

jocelyn’s music is boring. i feel they could’ve vocally trained lily-rose a bit more to make her singing more believable for a so-called pop star. the sound and production itself was very bland like her singing, and i can’t quite tell if that’s intentional or not.

the dance choreography had its good moments, but was mostly odd. they also kept in random shots of lily’s dancing looking very much Not Great despite the plot praising her dancing. they could’ve had her practice more too (i’m sorry if i’m being harsh, but it’s the truth! she’s not a singer or a dancer, so they should’ve trained her better to sell the story.)

the costumes, hair, and makeup was fine, but some of the outfits were strange and needlessly… sexy? like jocelyn wearing a thong and tiny bra that covers nothing during dance rehearsals is a bit extreme. it was a pretty outfit i guess, but absolutely not practical and clearly there to just be like Hey! Look How Hot Lily-Rose Depp Is!

the cinematography was… meh. i was underwhelmed. it wasn’t ugly, but i know sam can at least make visually beautiful shows, and he just didn’t do that here. he missed an opportunity to be praised for something.

i think the first half of the episode was marginally better than the second half, but generally it had pacing issues. it was TOO SLOW and then would also throw you into new scenes with no padding to soften the landing. i had no sense of what the timeframe was throughout this entire episode.

the editing didn’t help with the confusion. multiple shots were repeated. they would cut back and forth between scenes in different times in some weird montage sort of thing, which confused me a little as to what was happening, where they were going, and which timeline we were supposed to be following. but maybe that’s just me. i don’t know. i’m still confused.

plot wise, TOO FAST. the scenes were slow, but the plot was somehow advancing too fast. i didn’t have time to really invest in jocelyn as a character, let alone jocelyn and tedros’s relationship before they were pushed together like a child forcing their barbie dolls to kiss. i didn’t buy their dynamic of “romance.” as i said, there were 2 decent scenes, but those scenes didn’t last long enough and both ended with them making out instead of actually setting up the groundwork for their relationship.

i don’t think the weeknd did bad, but he wasn’t necessarily good either. a handful of his line deliveries were… questionable at best. i don’t know if this is purposeful, but he gave me creep vibes. other characters said he also weirded them out, so maybe that’s the point? i’m hoping that’s the point. please be the point.

and now about sex.

a very hot topic for this show, apparently.

i am not a prude by any means. i watch euphoria, and i watch game of thrones, and etc etc. i can handle sex and nudity, and i do think it can be a useful tool in storytelling. as i said before, i also do not believe in censorship, so put sex in your show or whatever. i don’t care.

but.

big but.

i will critique this because i don’t believe in censorship :) freedom goes both ways

the sex scenes here felt out of place and unnecessary. they did not serve the story at all. they didn’t tell me anything about the characters. i honestly skimmed the sex scenes entirely because they were too long and not integrals

it’s not even that they were too graphic or anything, they were just confusing. like oh jocelyn and tedros are dancing— oh, now they’re making out? jocelyn got home for the club and oh! she’s suddenly masturbating. jocelyn and tedros are talking about music and wow! oh wow. now there’s temperature play and suffocation happening. point being: the sex scenes are too sudden with no real build up or purpose.

i feel with a story like this, explicit sex could work. but not like this. i feel the extreme nature of jocelyn and tedros’s intimacy should progress as the story goes on, and get more and more wild and dangerous as it becomes more obvious that jocelyn is being manipulated and preyed upon by the music industry. that would be a good use for sex scenes, but the way they’re used here— just sporadically thrown in for shock value and Edgy Points— is not only unsatisfying and uncomfortable, but also confusing and ultimately meaningless.

as for the nudity, i don’t think it was anywhere as bad as twitter made it seem. i’m chill with casual nudity, so her waking up without a shirt wasn’t really gratuitous to me, neither was her rarely wearing bras. i don’t care about that.

what i do care about when it comes to nudity is how the story portrays intimacy coordinators.

the characters get annoyed with the coordinator and lock him in a closet just because he wanted them to stop the photoshoot because there was undiscussed nudity that wasn’t in contracts. like the intimacy coordinator was right and the story treated him as if he was just annoying. i think that was strange for a story that’s supposedly about how women are taken advantage of and mistreated in the music industry.

also too much smoking!!! a pretentious amount of smoking!!! nearly every scenes, jocelyn was lighting up a cigarette. sometimes multiple within the span of one location and time. like girl put them down. i don’t need 12 shots of her lighting a cigarette.

final thoughts

the idol has undeniable potential, but all that potential was discarded and replaced with whatever this is. i can see the bones of what amy seimetz intended, but i can also see how sam levinson and the weeknd weakened the integrity of that.

it was quite frankly severely underwhelming and messy. it’s difficult to pinpoint what the story is and what we’re supposed to think about certain points of it, and it’s even harder to get a grip of who characters are and their motivations. it did a poor job of setting up the story, and instead chose to throw us in the deep end and hope we understand whatever the fuck is going on.

i’ll give the second episode a try just to see if i can comprehend what this show is trying to tell me, but i do not have high hopes at all. i believe it will be an unintelligible mess with a few rare gems thrown in (those gems courtesy of amy seimetz, of course), and will hopefully prove that sam levinson and the weeknd both need a fucking writers room and their egos checked.

i give it a 2.5/10. a 3/10 if i’m being nice.

it deserved the bare minimum 5 minute ovation at cannes.

[uncloseted]

speaking of the idol! did you see all those exposing tweets / posts about how hard it was just to get through for audiences watching it and how there’s like a 15 minute sexual scene that’s just super effed up etc. it’s blowing up on tiktok and being shamed for being so horrific and bad and very distasteful. abel is under fire as well for making some sort of perverted sexual fantasy into a show. just very BAD vibes

Upfront I feel like I should acknowledge that I haven't seen the show and I don't know if I'm planning on it, so my thoughts on it are mostly informed by what I've been seeing elsewhere. In general, I do think there can be value to showing depictions of sex onscreen- even, sometimes, depictions that are too long or that are gratuitous or that are kind of fucked up. I think it's important for people (especially women) to see themselves as allowed to have sexual desire and agency.

But that puts a lot of responsibility on the writers, directors, and actors to be thoughtful in the way that they're showing these scenes. Is the female character a full, enthusiastic participant in this encounter who has agency? Is the relationship being shown on screen in some way inappropriate? Are we supposed to think this scene is hot, or are we supposed to find it scary, creepy, or have a mix of emotions towards it? Is the scene furthering the characters' journeys, or is it included in the show specifically for the purpose of titillation? Is there a way the characters' arcs could be achieved without this sex scene being present? Is the scene being shot in a way that exclusively focuses on the female partner's body, or does it show the male partner's body with the same voyeuristic gaze? Is the female character made to feel bad about her choices and desires, and does that play a narrative role? Etc etc.

Which was kind of my point about why Amy Seimetz should have been allowed to direct the show as planned. I think she's a lot more capable of shooting these types of scenes with empathy and narrative in mind instead of how sexy the scene looks to a male audience. The fact that she was pulled from that role suggests to me that this show was never really about the trials and tribulations of a young starlet in the music industry; it was just an excuse to put male fantasies on screen.

[letterboxd]

How I Letterboxd #6: Sean Boelman.

Talking 2020 movie trends, the year’s best documentaries, and Elijah Wood’s death-stare with peach emoji lobbyist Sean Boelman.

“Honestly, there’s not much I like to do other than watch movies or go to theme parks, and one of those things wasn’t an option for months.”

In a year like no other for the movie business, it’s still possible to see hundreds of new films if you have the right connections. For professional critics, the downside of missing the in-person festival buzz and tent-pole previews is somewhat offset by the upside of being able to pace out your screenings in the comfort of your own home.

Wondering who might possibly hold the title of “the Letterboxd member who has watched the most new releases so far this year”, we poked around in the server room and found Sean Boelman, who has logged well over 400 films from 2020 in his diary. So far this year, Sean (20) has covered the Sundance, SXSW, Tribeca, Florida and Fantasia Film Festivals; he also reviews films via screeners sent through from PR firms. Sean hails from Orlando, Florida, and is the founder of movie review platform disappointment media, which he created to promote a wider range of voices in film criticism.

Park So-dam and peach in ‘Parasite’ (2019), directed by Bong Joon-ho.

How long ago did you join Letterboxd? I joined Letterboxd back in 2015. I attended a film class that summer and the teaching assistant had an account and encouraged all of us to create our own. I’ve been using the app religiously ever since.

You’re our youngest ‘How I Letterboxd’ participant to date. How would you describe your experience on Letterboxd as a teenager? When I was in high school, I was one of the earliest adopters of the app, so I told all of my friends about it and suggested that they use it too. By the time I got to college, it was already in the mainstream within the film community, so I was just the guy with the most extensive account. I love how Letterboxd is a community for film fans to talk about films we love, and with the exception of a few trolls every once in a while, it’s really conducive to good discussions.

Which features have you found the most useful? I’m definitely an obsessive logger. The diary feature is without a doubt my favorite part of the app. I started logging in June 2015 and have logged every feature-length film (and some shorts) I’ve watched since. I made the decision not to retroactively mark everything I’ve seen in my life as watched, because that would be too monumental a task. I also find Letterboxd particularly useful during a festival. It’s interesting to see the buzz about what movies people do and don’t like so that I can adjust my schedule accordingly.

And what’s a feature you wish Letterboxd had? I really loved when you guys changed the stars to flames for Portrait of a Lady on Fire. It would be awesome if you started doing that more regularly for releases that get a sizeable following. Like, give Parasite peaches.

Ivana Baquero and Doug Jones in ‘Pan’s Labyrinth’ (2006), directed by Guillermo del Toro.

What film kicked off your passion for cinema, and specifically, which films or community of film fans motivated you to watch as many films as you can find for the current year? I’ve loved cinema for as long as I can remember, but the film that I credit with really birthing my love for film as art is Pan’s Labyrinth. When I saw that in theaters at the—probably too young—age of six, I felt like [Guillermo] del Toro transported me into Ofelia’s world, and I then realized what magical capabilities the medium of film has.

As for why I’m motivated to watch so many new releases, I have a bit of an issue with saying no, haha. As a film critic, I’m inundated with requests to review movies, from major studio releases to B-movies most people have never heard of. I’ve done my fair share of adding titles to TMDb. I end up reviewing anywhere from ten to twenty new releases a week, depending on the season.

You’re a film critic, but you only post short summaries on Letterboxd instead of your full reviews. Why share only brief thoughts? Much of this boils down to the fact that when I watch something, it’s still under embargo for full reviews, so I can only log it in my Letterboxd diary and leave a little blurb. I also find that there isn’t as much room for humor in my full reviews, so I like using this platform to get my jokes out.

So, as of writing, you’ve ranked 457 films from 2020. What percentage of your total films seen are from these new ‘Roaring Twenties’? Out of the films I’ve logged on Letterboxd, it seems like about ten percent are listed on Letterboxd as movies from 2020. The actual percentage would be quite a bit lower than that, though, since my Letterboxd doesn’t include anything I watched prior to June 2015.

Before Covid-19 shutdowns, how many of these films did you have the opportunity to see in theaters? Which were your most memorable theatrical experiences of the year? In 2020, I was able to see 29 films in theaters, either paid or in a theatrical press screening, before they shut down. I’ve also gotten to see some since the shutdown in drive-ins or from the Florida Film Festival holding socially distanced, in-person screenings. But I definitely went through a bit of theater withdrawal. I missed the smell of popcorn dearly.

For my favorite theatrical experiences in 2020, seeing The Invisible Man on opening night with a packed crowd was definitely a hoot. I was sad at first to have missed the press screening, but like most great horror movies, it was awesome to see it with an audience and hear them gasp in surprise in the action sequences. Another one was getting to see Weathering with You in 4DX. Normally you wouldn’t think of that as a big, spectacle-driven 4DX movie, but it was super-immersive in all of the Sunshine Girl scenes.

And I have some awesome memories from SXSW 2019. At the world premiere of Us, I was pushed into Elisabeth Moss. I once got a death stare from Elijah Wood who seemed to think I was going to approach him. Don’t get me wrong, I love his work—but I wasn’t going to because of etiquette. I watched Long Shot with one of the world’s leading geneticists and then got to see Boyz II Men perform live. And I laughed hysterically when Robert Patrick said in a Q&A that even he didn’t understand the movie he was in. It’s a fun time. I definitely encourage any cinephiles to attend an in-person festival when things get back to normal.

You have more than seventy films in your 2020 list with five or four and a half stars. Would you describe yourself as a generous rater? I was definitely a lot more generous when I started my Letterboxd than I am now. I’m sure if I rewatched some of those films I logged in 2015 and 2016, they’d get a lower rating today. But I really don’t mind it. I don’t see my purpose as a critic as to tear apart the filmmaker’s art—I want to appreciate it. Maybe I’m a little liberal with my five-star rating, but what can I say? Gosh, I love movies. And for me, a five-star rating doesn’t mean perfect, it means great. I don’t think there’s such thing as a perfect film. A five-star [rating] from me means that it connected with me in an extraordinary way. I reserve the ‘like’ for films that set themselves apart from the rest of the five stars by some virtue. If I give it a five and a like, now that’s something you should definitely not miss.

Tunde Adebimpe in ‘She Dies Tomorrow’ (2020), directed by Amy Seimetz.

Your best film of 2020 so far is Amy Seimetz’s She Dies Tomorrow—it’s also your number three of all time. What resonated so strongly with you about the film? Are you surprised about its divisive reaction? I absolutely adore She Dies Tomorrow. I’ve really admired Amy Seimetz’s work as an actress for a long time, and her work behind the camera on this blew me away. I haven’t seen Sun Don’t Shine yet, but it’s on the top of my list. It connected with me because it really captured some of the anxieties I’ve been going through recently. She obviously didn’t set out to make the definitive Covid film, but that’s what it ended up being. And of course, how could you not love that film’s extraordinary use of color. It looks magnificent. But I’m not at all surprised at how divisive it is. It has a very segmented and unorthodox narrative, and not everyone is a fan of that type of structure. I understand why it hasn’t worked as well for some people.

What are the other most overlooked films of 2020 so far? In terms of overlooked 2020 films, I think the big one is the Russell Simmons exposé On the Record. I think that Kirby Dick and Amy Ziering’s The Hunting Ground is one of the most harrowing documentaries I have ever seen in my life, and On the Record combines a lot of that relevance while also offering a really compelling look at the life of a powerful woman in the music industry. It’s great, and only about one thousand members have logged it on Letterboxd. Watch it on HBO Max!

There are a lot of great movies released in 2020 that are widely available and [fewer than] 5,000 people having logged them on Letterboxd. A White, White Day is a great little revenge thriller from Iceland. But what makes it stand out from the genre is that it’s a lot more understated and character-driven than most. It has similar vibes to You Were Never Really Here, but perhaps even quieter. Maria von Hausswolff’s cinematography is absolutely breathtaking, and Ingvar Sigurðsson gives one of my favorite performances of the year. It’s just a gorgeous film.

Hlynur Pálmason’s Icelandic revenge thriller ‘A White, White Day’(2019).

The Painted Bird is a bit harder to recommend because it is by no means fun, but it’s one of those that you have to watch once and will never want to see again. I described it as “auteur shock cinema”. It’s a three-hour-long Holocaust drama that’s bleak and filled with torture, but it’s powerful, heartbreaking and harrowing. It also features great performances all around, especially from child actor Peta Kotlár.

I think Michael Winterbottom is one of the best directors working right now and I’ve always loved what he did with the Coogan-Brydon combo in his The Trip series, and this year’s entry, The Trip to Greece, is probably the best one yet. Over the course of the decade the series has spanned, Coogan and Brydon have changed a lot, and this series—in which they play themselves—has adapted to reflect that. This one’s a lot more heartfelt, but still features plenty of great impressions and tantalizing food shots. This really is one of my favorite film series of all time, so you should check all four out! Some other overlooked films I can think of are Jasper Mall, Aviva and Sword of God.

Which 2020 films would you say are the most overrated? Any absolute must-avoids? This is going to be a really hot take, but there was a trifecta of homebound horror flicks that came out in July—Relic, The Rental and Amulet—and I didn’t care for any of them. I think all the directors are talented and show a lot of potential, especially Natalie Erika James, but I wasn’t a fan of any of the films. As for ones to avoid, I try not to call out bad movies unless there’s a reason to [do so], and there are only two of those this year: Coffee & Kareem and Elvis from Outer Space. Coffee & Kareem is just offensive, and Elvis from Outer Space tries to be so-bad-it’s-funny and falls flat.

Jahi Di’Allo Winston in ‘Charm City Kings’ (2020), directed by Ángel Manuel Soto.

What films that you’ve been fortunate to preview via screeners or film festivals are you certain will be a big deal once they’re available on general release? Ugh, there are some I wish I could talk about but I’m still under embargo! So I’ll have to talk mostly about festival ones. Alice Gu’s The Donut King is wonderful. It was supposed to debut at SXSW, but obviously that got cancelled. On one hand, it is a food doc about donuts—who doesn’t love donuts?—but it’s also a moving story about the immigrant experience. It scored distribution from Greenwich and should be released soon. Charm City Kings is great, and HBO Max picked that up to be released sometime this year. That’s a really awesome coming-of-age movie with a story by Barry Jenkins. And I saw a work-in-progress cut of this indie called Millennium Bugs made by an up-and-comer named Alejandro Montoya Marín. He was part of the Robert Rodriguez show Rebel Without a Crew. It’s a great little movie about Y2K and the Latinx experience that will be debuting online at Dances with Films and is looking for a distributor after that.

Fill in the blank: “2020 is a great year for ____ in film”. What patterns have you noticed? I really think that 2020 is a great year for documentaries. We thought 2018 was a great year with Won’t You Be My Neighbor?, Free Solo, RBG and Three Identical Strangers, among others, but this year is shaping up to be even better. Boys State, The Donut King, On the Record, Rebuilding Paradise, Dark City Beneath the Beat, A Secret Love and Disclosure are all excellent, and that’s just scratching the surface.

I think what makes these documentaries stand out is their ability to make the viewer feel connected to their story. I love documentaries that take a story you might not have otherwise heard of and tell it in a way that feels intensely personal. By taking these stories like the problems inherent in American democracy, the immigrant experience, the California wildfires, the #MeToo movement, and issues with trans representation on screen and telling them in a way that people can relate to them even if they can’t personally identify with their subjects, these documentary filmmakers are making the world a more compassionate place.

What films are you most looking forward to that are scheduled to release in 2020? Any awards season predictions you feel strongly about? In terms of mainstream releases, I’m most excited for No Time to Die, unless it gets pushed to 2021 like some have rumored. I’m a huge Cary Joji Fukunaga fan, so I’m excited to see what he does with the franchise. For indies, I’m really looking forward to seeing Promising Young Woman, The Green Knight, Save Yourselves!, Nomadland and Another Round.

For awards seasons predictions, there are a few I’m pretty confident about based on what I’ve seen. Boys State is an early frontrunner for Best Documentary. I think Eliza Hittman will get some love for Never Rarely Sometimes Always. Dev Patel is a pretty good bet for a Best Actor nod for The Personal History of David Copperfield, even though the movie itself probably won’t get much more love. And there’s an upcoming Netflix movie that has a screenplay nomination in the bag, and maybe a couple other categories too, but shhhh, I’m under embargo on that one so I can’t say more.

Dev Patel in ‘The Personal History of David Copperfield’ (2019), directed by Armando Iannucci.

You keep thorough distributor rankings as well as year and franchise lists—how would you sum up the way each of these recently formed companies inspires you? Obviously A24 and NEON have amassed a pretty big cult following, and for good reason. There’s a particular identity their films have, despite the differences in genre, and I enjoy ranking them because of that. For the streamers, their films are a little more diverse, but I use my lists as a way for people to discover some of my favorite films they can watch at the click of a button. And for Blumhouse, it’s just because I absolutely adore the work Jason Blum does in supporting filmmakers’ voices. I’m usually pretty cool-headed around celebrities because interacting with high-profile people is a part of our job as critics, but I admittedly froze when I met him at SXSW since I’m such a big fan of his. I’ve always said that once I score an interview with him, I can “retire” as a critic, haha.

You’re of Guatemalan descent. Which films do you best relate with your Latino heritage? Of course, Pan’s Labyrinth is a big deal for me given the fact that it was a formative film in my life. [Alejandro] Jodorowsky’s The Holy Mountain is one of my favorite Latino classics. El Mariachi is great because Robert Rodriguez is the epitome of Latino DIY filmmaking and has always been such an inspiring figure. I got to interview him last year for Alita: Battle Angel, and it was an awesome experience. And in terms of more recent films, I think the Netflix doc Mucho Mucho Amor really captures the importance of community amongst Latinos.

What films are highest on your list of shame? I will say that I’ve seen more classics than I have logged on Letterboxd, but there are still a few embarrassing gaps on my list. I love the work I’ve seen from Akira Kurosawa, Brian De Palma, Agnès Varda and Chantal Akerman, and I really want to finish up their filmographies. Probably the most shameful omission I have is the fact that I’ve never seen a film by Ingmar Bergman. I’ve been lightening my workload for my site a bit, so I’m hoping to catch up on some of those soon.

Who are three Letterboxd members you recommend we follow? My friend Camden Ferrell who co-founded disappointment media with me. He’s also very passionate about film and does a lot of reviews for the site. Another one of our contributors is Sarah, who came on to the team during Sundance this year. She’s great and basically started the Portrait of a Lady on Fire fandom. I also want to give a shout-out to Jon Berk who was actually the critic to challenge me to start a blog back in 2016 when he was doing the Doug Loves Movies challenge, and now I’ve gotten to where I significantly outpace him, haha.

Sean’s site accepts story pitches from, and offers constructive feedback to, aspiring writers from under-represented and minority groups. Email Sean to find out more. Check out these 2020 rankings from Letterboxd members who have watched more than 100 releases this year: Orlan Harris, Austin Burke, Jerome, Joey Magidson, Kevin Yang, Jack, Jordan Raup, Matt Neglia, Weather Boy, Julian D, Johann Rucker, Mikey Brzezinkski, Ewan Graf, Denis Eremeev, Aaron King.

[hilarymp]

PET SEMATARY (2019) REVIEW

SPOILER WARNING! This review contains spoilers for Pet Sematary (2019), Pet Sematary (1989) and the novel.

    I’ll admit straight out of the gate that I went into Pet Sematary (2019) with a negative attitude. For whatever reason (one that I am still struggling to comprehend) the studio decided not only to make a rather large divergence from the source material’s plot, but to also spoil this “twist” in the trailer and promotional material. That alone was enough to convince me that this remake/reboot/reimagining/whatever the fuck you want to call it probably wasn’t going to win me over. So let’s discuss that first and foremost.

    I am not at all opposed to film adaptations making changes. Case in point, 2017’s new IT. IT and it’s miniseries predecessor are among some of my favorite horror films of all time, despite the fact that they were not 100% faithful to the novel, especially the more recent installment. For me changes are totally fine as long as they a.) maintain the spirit, themes, and tone of the original story and b.) make the film more frightening.

    With those rules in mind the change prominently displayed in the trailer for 2019’s Pet Sematary, the fact the Creed’s eldest child Ellie is the one who is killed and brought back from the dead instead of toddler Gage, already failed at rule b. Don’t get me wrong, any reanimated evil corpse is going to be scary, but why on earth would you deny us an evil murderous baby just to give us yet another creepy little girl. The ‘creepy little girl’ trope in horror is so tired and overused it makes my head hurt. The Ring, Orphan, The Exorcist, Silent Hill, The Shining, Alice Sweet Alice, The Bad Seed, Let the Right One In, Hereditary, Sinister, I could go on and on and on. The use of the trope isn’t inherently terrible, but why would you go out of your way to use it when something less used and much scarier (a straight up homicidal TODDLER) is an option? The simplest and most likely reason, in my opinion, was for convenience. Is directing a 2 year old more difficult to direct than an 11 year old? Yes, of course, obviously. But it’s definitely possible, as Mary Lambert proved while directing Miko Hughes as Gage in 1989. (Honestly, to this day I can not believe the performance she got out of that little boy.) So to me the change is not only a disservice to the film, but also an indication that the filmmakers were unabashedly lazy.

    So now that you know why I had set myself up for disappointment to begin with, let’s break down what the film succeeded at and how it failed.

    Whatever problems I have with the film, at least I can say that I loved the cast. John Lithgow was extremely endearing and likable. His performance as Jud was a refreshingly grounded and heartfelt departure from Fred Gwynne’s high camp in ‘89. Jason Clarke was as engrossing as ever. I always enjoy Clarke’s performances, and he often brings extra depth to characters that would have otherwise fallen flat (Dr. Price in ‘Winchester’ being a prime example). And Jete Laurance was nothing short of incredible. You would never expect that this little girl could transform into something to sinister so effortlessly. Her performance in the first half of the film is filled with such sweet sincerity, that her turn into undead Ellie is all the more frightening. Not as frightening as being terrorized by a little ankle biting toddler, mind you, but enjoyable nonetheless. ESPECIALLY compared to Ellie in the 89 film. Do you remember her? My God, she was so annoying. 

    Speaking of annoying, Amy Seimetz as Rachel was the only weak link in the cast. Instead of being deeply troubled and complex as Stephen King wrote her, Seimetz’s Rachel is so one dimensional that by the third or fourth time we see her crying, I wasn’t just unmoved, I was borderline irritated. ‘The weepy mother’ role in horror films are never especially fulfilling, but in this instance Rachel was meant to be much more than that. And the cheapening of the Zelda subplot doesn’t help matters either. 

    To me Zelda, Rachel’s late sister who suffered from spinal meningitis, was hands down the scariest part of the book and original film, so I was extra disappointed here. I’m fully aware that the character of Zelda is extremely problematic and portraying her as a monster is ableist as fuck. (Let’s be real, 99% of all Stephen King’s works are problematic but if we pull on that thread we’ll be here all day.) But the in the new film she is completely under utilized. Her appearances have been shrunk down to generic Conjuring-like jumpscares. Like most horror movies these days, the film relies on quick cuts, loud bangs, and obnoxious music cues to startle us instead of showing us anything particularly alarming. There is one prolonged sequence of incredible suspense, as Louis slowly walks through his basement in search of his daughters reanimated corpse, that filled me with so much dread that I was finally genuinely scared. Alas, *sad trombone*, it was undercut with a cheap jumpscare just like all the rest.

    On top of uninspired jumpscares, the filmmaking as a whole was ‘meh’ at best, especially the production design. The houses nearly hidden among the picturesque dense woods are definitely more visually interesting than the ones presented to us in ‘89. It also makes the danger of the nearby highway much more palpable, with the road being both closer to the house and more believably prone to accidents, with the thick foliage hindering the drivers’ ability to see. And the ‘pet sematary’ itself is serviceable enough, not much different from what we’ve seen before. But once we are taken beyond the dead fall to the cursed burial ground, the scope of the film shrinks drastically, making everything feel cramped and cheap like a paper mache Haunted house, even with cheap smoke machine effects to match.

    There are a lot of loose ends in the film as well, though it’s hard to tell if they were caused by the script or the editing. For instance, when Jud is explaining the burial ground to Louis, he mentions the wendigo that is suspected to be the source of the land’s power. But… that’s all he says about it. He doesn’t explain what a Wendigo is, what it does, or why it does it. If you’ve never read the book, or have never heard of a wendigo before, the word means nothing. Why bring up the Wendigo at all if you’re not even going to tie it into the lore properly. They could just have easily just said ‘cursed Indian burial ground’ (it in and of itself a tired trope, but still) and we would have just went with it. Another example is when undead Ellie is terrorizing Jud, she turns herself into Jud’s dead wife, and mentions that says something along the lines of “Your wife is “n hell for what you did to her before she died”. What? What the hell did he do? Why the fuck would you even put that out there with zero follow up?!

    Oh and let’s talk about Pascow. His role in the film is minimized so much, they might as well have left him out entirely. If I’m remembering correctly, late in the novel Pascow appears to Rachel urging her to come home. In the first film he appears to Rachel instead, who tells Rachel they need to come home. But in this film he appears to Gage. A toddler. Who can barely speak. Now as disturbing of a notion it is to have a very small child being haunted by such a gruesome image (and you all know how much I love disturbing shit), it’s also kind of pointless and dumb. If Pascow wanted to get Rachel to come home, why would he appear to Gage who, again, can’t talk, instead of just appearing to Rachel? One could argue that Gage’s crying and saying the name Pascow freaks Rachel out so much that it makes her want to go back, but you could just as easily say she left to get away from her memories of Zelda in her parents house, or the fact that Louis wouldn’t answer his goddamn phone

    We’re also missing out on some crucial motivations to explain Louis’ terrible decision making. No scene of Louis and the grandfather fighting at the funeral, no Louis being blamed for his child’s death, no knocking over of the casket. I might be biased since, for me, that sequence is one of the most upsetting moments of the 89 film. But on top of a missed opportunity to shock, it also takes away the debilitating guilt that motivates Louis to resurrect his child, despite knowing it won’t go well. The guilt is still vaguely implicit, but sometimes horror films need to explicitly illustrate cause and effect, if for no other reason than to keep the audience from screaming “Why the fuck would you do that!?” at the screen for 2 hours.

    Speaking of motivations, what are Ellie’s? What even is Ellie for that matter? The film can’t seem to make up its mind. Undead Ellie has Ellie’s memories, remembers how she died, and holds grudges against her parents for both her death and her resurrection. So there must be some part of the real Ellie in there, right? But when Rachel says “You’re not my daughter” undead Ellie agrees with her! So if it’s not really Ellie why does she keep trying to guilt and punish her parents? If she’s just an evil demon or spirit possessing Ellie’s corpse, you’d think it’d be glad that Louis was stupid enough to bury her up there. Free meat suit, hurray! The spirit clearly wants more bodies buried up there, seeing as it takes out the entire family just to bring them back like she was. Surely she just wanted to kill them all for funsies, right? Who the fuck knows. The screenwriter sure doesn’t appear to.

    Another super obnoxious thing about this film is it’s cheap fake-outs. It’s one thing to change iconic moments from the first adaptation, but constantly calling attention to it is another. Like the ominous close ups of Jud’s heel and him kicking the bed before Ellie gets him on the stairs. Yeah we get it. ‘The old movie had Gage under the bed, but watch out, we’re mixing stuff up in this one!’ Yup. Got it. Thanks for the reminder. Or the whole ‘Gage almost being hit by the truck’ fake out before Ellie is actually hit. This one is especially stupid since you already fucking showed us in the trailer that Gage isn’t going to die. Why even try to fake us out like that when we already know you’ve changed that too? You have successfully irritated and underwhelmed me, movie, no reason to draw more attention to it.

Here’s a quick list of some other petty little things that bugged me. These aren’t even necessarily the movie’s fault, some just come from the book itself.

If Rachel is so traumatized and adverse to talking about death, why the fuck did she marry an ER doctor?

You expect me to believe that Louis, pragmatic Louis who doesn’t even believe in an afterlife, would just follow Jud over the deadfall, through the woods, across a swamp and up a bunch of mysterious stone stairs, with zero explanation? No questions asked? I’d be asking “What the fuck are we doing?” about every couple of yards.

Why in god’s name would Rachel’s parents not only still live in the house where their daughter suffered and died, but also KEEP THE DUMB WAITER SHE DIED IN?

Why don’t movies ever address the fact that when you’re buried your eyes and lips are sewn or glued shut beforehand? And the scene where Louis is bathing Ellie and he sees the staples in her head and is all freaked out - wouldn’t she have huge fucking staples all across her chest and down her abdomen from the funeral home too??

    Despite my complaints, Pet Sematary isn’t completely devoid of entertainment value, not by a long shot. It’s not bad, it just could have been so so much better. Pet Sematary is riddled with missed opportunities,  and if you‘re an overly analytical jaded horror fan with a devotion to Stephen King like I am, they are much more obvious. I’m not mad, Pet Sematary, I’m just disappointed. To quote Tyra Banks, we were rooting for you, we were all rooting for you! You had so much potential, you just dropped the ball. Just like losing a loved one, there’s a mourning period that must be observed. Time to cope with the loss of what could have been. But rest assured, by the time you come out on blu-ray, I’ll be ready to try again.

[theliterateape]

I Like to Watch | Pet Sematary (2019)

By Don Hall

Full confession: I love the work of Stephen King like a gender studies student loves bell hooks or a middle-aged cosplayer loves J.K. Rowling. I’ve read every thing he’s published (including the Richard Bachman stuff) and he is one of those rare authors whom I can revisit periodically and still enjoy. I think I’ve read The Stand five times and the entire Gunslinger series at least ten. Much to Himmel’s frustration, it could be argued that my writing style comes from my wading in deep to King’s prose and coming out of it with some seriously bad habits that I tend to really enjoy.

Like putting my internal asides in italics which drives my co-editor insane…

I am not exactly a superfan of the movies that have been adapted from his books. There are currently forty-six movies adapted from King’s books and short stories with three more coming to date. Aside from those three, I’ve seen them all at least once (and some multiple times).

For every brilliant adaptation — Carrie (1976), The Dead Zone (1983), Misery (1990), The Shawshank Redemption (1994), IT (2017) — there are some equally terrible attempts — Maximum Overdrive (1986), The Lawnmower Man (1992), Thinner (1996), Cell (2016), The Dark Tower (2017). After multiple viewings of even the crap, my conclusion (with a few exceptions) is unless you’re Stanley Kubrick, don’t fuck with King’s language or plot in any way.

Frank Darabont and Rob Reiner get it. The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, The Mist, Stand by Me, and Misery, are all uniformly excellent and part of that was what was written in the books was put on the screen with little tinkering. Kubrick gets the big pass because, well, he’s Kubrick and The Shining (1980) is a singular work of genius despite what King has to say about it.

So whenever I hear that a screenwriter has changed some of the essential plotting of one of these books to make a script, I’m dubious. I read that Jeff Buhler, David Kajganich, and Matt Greenberg decided to update the third act of Pet Sematary and I rolled my eyes in that way that a Marvel fan cranks his rubber neck up with incredulity when someone praises the FOX Fantastic Four shitshows.

I had just seen Jordon Peele’s Us and had some real problems with the third act explanations even though the first two thirds were extraordinary and, while I love both versions of IT, I dread the ending of the upcoming second part because (and this is King’s fault and no one else’s) Pennywise is far scarier as a fucking clown that as a giant spider.

OK. Enough preamble.

Pet Sematary is the tale of Dr. Louis Creed (Jason Clarke), his wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz) and their two children, Ellie (Jeté Laurence) and Gage (Hugo & Lucas Lavoie) as they move from Boston to the ever familiar haunting grounds of Stephen King (rural Maine) only to discover a pet cemetery on their property. Their old neighbor, Jud (John Lithgow), befriends Louis and, when Ellie’s cat, Church, gets run over on the side of the road, takes him past the graveyard to an ancient burial ground that brings the dead back to life. Except that they come back evil. 

It’s a perfect expansion of The Monkey’s Paw tale.

An evil cat is kind of an oxymoron but you get the drift.

SPOILERS, FUCKER!

In both the book and the 1989 version, it is Gage who gets squashed by a truck and whom Creed takes up to the burial ground and comes back evil. Jeff Buhler, David Kajganich, and Matt Greenberg decided to monkey with King’s Monkey’s Paw send up and have it be Ellie instead. And it works! In fact, I’d argue it works even better than having Gage (who is precious and cute but pretty much preverbal) and in no small part due to Laurence’s scary as fuck portrayal of Evil Ellie). Directors Kevin Kölsch and Dennis Widmyer are deft with the camera and provide some great jump scares along the way.

It’s such a simple change but watching a more advanced female evil child is somehow more sinister, more malevolent. Especially as Creed brings her back because he needs more time with Daddy’s Girl and she is anything but his precious apple of his eye. The feelings of grief over a toddler are excruciating but the grief over the loss of a child in her budding years, as she learns the ins and outs of human behavior and as her personality has blossomed in front of you carries with it more weight. Watching her become malevolent and gleefully murderous after seeing her delight in a doll or brood over her cat is devastating.

King writes in an interstitial in The Bazaar of Bad Dreams:

“I hate the assumption that you can’t write about something because you haven’t experienced it, and not just because it assumes a limit on the human imagination, which is basically limitless. It also suggests that some leaps of identification are impossible. I refuse to accept that, because it leads to the conclusion that real change is beyond us, and so is empathy. The idea is false on the evidence. Like shit, change happens. If the British and the Irish can make peace, you gotta believe there’s a chance that someday the Jews and Palestinians will work things out. Change only occurs as a result of hard work, I think we’d all agree on that, but hard work isn’t enough. It also requires a strenuous leap of the imagination: what is it really like to be in the other guy or gal’s shoes?”

Based on that, I’d like to hope that soon, King will write a horror story featuring a black family that Jordon Peele can then make into a movie. That’d be amazing.

[neodemon591]

Pet Sematary Review

Pet Sematary is directed by Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer with a screenplay from Jeff Buhler and story by Matt Greenberg. The film stars Jason Clarke, Amy Seimetz, Jete Laurence, and John Lithgow and is based off the Stephen King novel. The story follows the Creed family (Clarke, Seimetz, and Laurence) as they move from Boston to a rural town in upstate Maine. As the family adjusts to their new home they discover that a dark and mysterious burial ground lies in the forest behind their new home. To audiences familiar with the source material you know what starts to happen within the Pet Sematary, and for those who aren’t aware it’s best to know as little as possible. As someone who didn’t read the book or watch the 1989 film, coming out of Pet Sematary I can say I thoroughly enjoyed this film from beginning to end.

Like with most Stephen King stories and adaptations there are dark undertones that permeate throughout his stories. Pet Sematary is no different as themes of death, grief, and resurrection are key components in the film. These themes more so than the scares present the real horror that this film has and that’s what I gravitated onto in this film. All the actors are great in this film, but it’s Jete Laurence who’s the standout for me as she portrays the daughter Ellie Creed. She’s absolutely wonderful in this film and her character arc is one of my favorite aspects of the film. It wouldn’t be Pet Sematary without Church the cat as he makes his screen presence known in horrifying and wonderful ways. It was great that the filmmakers used real cats for this film instead of special effects or puppets as that would have taken away the effect and presence that Church has on the overall story of the film.

I didn't find many issues with the film though Pet Sematary is a slow paced film which for some may annoy viewers during the film. I think more so than the slow pace is the changes from the novel which include a different ending from the novel. These revisions along with the ending will no doubt be polarizing, but that’s sometimes the beauty of an adaptation. For myself, as someone who is not familiar with the source material this was a thrilling good horror film that I enjoyed. Regardless how one may feel after watching this film, it’s great that were seeing Stephen King adaptations come to the big screen and I’m just happy to see his horror thrive on the big screen.

[aion-rsa]

Archenemy: Glenn Howerton On Menacing Joe Manganiello

https://ift.tt/eA8V8J

As eager comic movie fans wait for Marvel to roll out Phase Four, or for Wonder Woman 1984 to hit HBO Max; RJLE Films has a superhero sleeper of its own coming to screens on Dec. 11. Adam Egypt Mortimer’s Archenemy is the story of Max Fist (Joe Manganiello), a one-person crime fighting phenomenon, now powerless and sent to our dimension to live on the streets. Though Max’s homeless life might be bleak and muted, the film is full of colorful and outrageous characters. The larger-than-life menace that looms over Max is “The Manager”. A mustachioed, golden blonde Glenn Howerton (It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, A.P. Bio) brings this 21st century crime boss to life. Think of him as Michael Corleone, by way of Urban Outfitters.

Stepping into the shoes of an overbearing, take no prisoners, big bad is a new venture for Howerton. It didn’t deter him one bit though, as we learned in our exclusive talk with the actor about the difference between living with a character for 15 years (Dennis of It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia) to having to create a lifetime for one you only inhabit for a short shoot. What follows is our discussion with Glenn Howerton about bringing The Manager to life, and what it takes to create quality entertainment. Oh, and be sure to read Howerton’s thoughts on the Four Seasons Total Landscaping fiasco over here. 

DEN OF GEEK: It’s always nice to see you do pretty much anything but it’s great to see you as this fun, out-of-the-box kind of villain. 

GLENN HOWERTON: Thank you, I appreciate it. It’s so fun to play bad guys. I know every actor says that but it really is true, it’s just a chance to follow your worst impulses as a human being. It’s like you’re getting to exercise a part of yourself that you can’t in your normal life because you want to be a good person, hopefully.

Well I also feel like this is the kind of the character that you can also create a very large backstory for.

Yeah, for sure. I think it’s difficult when you get used to working in television because with a character, it would be easy to forget that the reason I know how to play Dennis so well (depending on how well you consider I play the character) is because I’ve gotten to live with this guy for 15 years. I also created the character, I wrote the character so I know that character inside and out. I know that if an improvisation were to break out I would know how to answer as Dennis. That’s how well I know the character, because I know how he would react in any situation. 

With a film, you don’t have that luxury. Knowing what makes him tick, knowing what his buttons are…you want to know all that stuff so when you show up to the set no matter what gets thrown at you, you can react in character. I didn’t want it to feel like something that I’d done before so I spent a lot of time talking to Adam Egypt Mortimer. We spent countless hours talking about the character and thinking about it myself and just going over it, and over it, and over it, and over it. Which is not something I normally do, but it’s also not something I normally need to do, because most of my work has been in television.

This is also the type of film where you need a certain confidence in the filmmaker, or it’s going to end up on an episode of Paul Scheer’s How Did This Get Made? What gave you that faith in Adam, for all this?

I had faith in Adam for multiple reasons. One, I’d seen the movie that he made right before this, Daniel Isn’t Real, and loved it. I just thought it was beautiful. It was really moving, and horrifying, and scary, and real, and worked on multiple levels. Then just sitting down with Adam and talking to him about this, I was like, “This guy has a vision for this.” The way he talked about the movie, the way he talked about shooting it, the way he saw the script, the way he saw the world, the way he described it – this guy has definitely got a vision for this. It might be really strange and it might be really odd, but I like really strange and odd things. I didn’t get the impression that there was any world in which it was going to be bad.

Adam’s still technically an up-and-coming filmmaker. So it must be nice to work with someone who is at the point where he could really take chances. 

I don’t understand where his confidence comes from. Because as you say, he doesn’t have a ton of films under his belt and we didn’t have a lot of time to shoot this movie, or a big budget to shoot this movie. 

As a matter of fact, I’ll give you a perfect example. The very first day that I showed up to set, we were supposed to shoot a scene where we pull up, and we grab Hamster (Skylan Brooks), and throw him in the car. Skylan was super, super sick, and couldn’t show up that day. But we couldn’t afford to lose a day of shooting. So Adam, that morning or late the night before, wrote a whole new scene for me and Amy Seimetz to do. 

If you’ve seen the movie it’s the scene where we’re sitting in the car, and we’re talking for a while and then at the end of that scene I go and bash Hamster on the head, and that was just Skylan’s stunt double. We had to conceive of something, pretty much in the moment. Then when we got the script on the day, Adam was like, “I don’t think this totally works,” and me and Amy sat and rewrote it. We really had to be on our toes. But I wouldn’t have been able to do that had I not known the character as well as I felt like I did.

We’ve seen you do action and something like a shootout before, but I’ve never seen you do it in such a smooth and kind of serious aspect. Do all those previous experiences meld into this or is it a different type of training you need to delve into?

I think it’s a product of a few things. I didn’t start out in comedy. I always did comedy, but I really started out down a much more dramatic path. So my approach to comedy has always been a little bit more like the Alec Baldwin approach. It’s really no less real when it’s funny, than when it’s a drama. It’s a really just a slight click of the dial one way or the other where that makes it funny, or serious. That can be kind of a thin line between the two. I’ve always come from a dramatic point of view like making the needs of the character, very, very real. It’s just that when you’re writing it or when the conceits of the character are so ridiculous, that’s what makes it funny – instead of doing some sort of goofy-ass performance. 

Then to kind of click over into drama – I mean it’s definitely challenging and it was definitely scary. I think the scariest thing for me in doing something this dramatic was the fact that I’m not a menacing person in real life at all. I’m 155 pounds and Joe Manganiello is 200 pounds of pure muscle, six-foot-four, and audiences have to be able to watch the movie and go, “Joe Manganiello’s character has to be scared of that guy.” Or at least within the world of crime…I’m a crime boss I have to be intimidating to other criminals. That was a little scary for me because I haven’t been asked to do anything like that in a long time, but it was fun. 

I gotta say, you definitely had the best running in a different direction while shooting behind you pose I’ve ever seen. It was very smooth.

That was one of those things where Adam asked me to do that and I was like, “Oh my god…” In my head it’s like I went back to being a kid and thought about watching you Die Hard or watching action movies and I was like, “Oh shit, I forgot I’ve always wanted to do that.” I’ve always wanted to do an action scene where I get to shoot a gun and run around doing action-y stuff. It was like playing and being a kid again. It was so, so fun.

During these pandemic times do you find yourself honing different skills like that on your own? Getting yourself ready for when things can return to normal.

I don’t know if other actors do this but I’m a little bit insane. When I read scripts, I often find myself acting them as multiple characters. Even if I’m watching a movie, and I’m by myself; I’ll pause and sort of take on the persona of the character. I’m getting very personal here, this is really nutty behavior for the average person. But as an actor, I really do kind of get off by climbing into the skin of somebody else and just getting to think a different way and behave a different way and I’ve always been obsessed with that ever since I was a kid. Just understanding the psychology behind how someone can behave the way they behave.

I talk about the pandemic as if the world seems to be shut down, but obviously you guys are still getting scripts and you’re still writing. For instance, has it led to any delays in the scripts for season 15 of Sunny?

No, it’s not, because Rob has been working on the second season of Mythic Quest. I’ve just been working on other things, developing other projects that I’m excited about, finishing a script that I’m writing with a writing partner. I’m mostly focusing on reading a lot and writing a lot and kind of studying the craft of screenwriting because I kind of fell into it. 

I certainly didn’t have any training but when I’m writing I want to live up to … I take what I do very seriously. I don’t take it for granted that I’ve been offered the privilege of being able to write scripts, so I want to be good at it. I want to know what I’m doing. I don’t want other screenwriters who actually studied and worked hard to become screenwriters to look at what I do and go, “This guy’s just kind of sailing through it.” I want to be educated.

I mean that’s the way to do it right? Even when you consider something like, for lack of better term; slapstick. Doing it right means having the training behind it.

There’s of course nothing wrong with being naturally talented at something. There are a lot of naturally gifted actors who can just kind of do it. Or for whatever reason they’re just good at it. They didn’t have to go to Juilliard to get good at acting. 

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

That was Brando’s thing, right?

Yeah, and there’s nothing wrong with that. What I do have a problem with is if there’s a sort of an inability to acknowledge that it might be easy for you but it’s not just because the craft of acting is easy. I would also argue that you might be an extraordinarily gifted actor naturally without training, but you’re probably only good at one thing. You might be able to be really good at writing comedy but if you haven’t studied the art of screenwriting, you’re probably not going to be able to write a drama. Whatever you lack in terms of your knowledge of structure, you might be able to make up for a lot of that if you’re super super funny and you can write a comedy, but you won’t be able to do that if you’re writing something else. I like to do a wide variety of things. I like to write screenplays, I like to write TV, I like to work in drama and comedy. I like to work in a lot of different genres; so it keeps me on my toes.

The post Archenemy: Glenn Howerton On Menacing Joe Manganiello appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/2IHRB4M

[weekendwarriorblog]

WHAT TO WATCH THIS WEEKEND April 5, 2019  - SHAZAM, PET SEMATARY, THE BEST OF ENEMIES, PETERLOO

Sadly, this is yet another weekend where I wasn’t able to see two of the three new movies, but that’s because I’m in Las Vegas covering CinemaConfor The Beat, but I do want to write a little more about a movie coming out this weekend that I want to put a little added focus on. Back in the day, I used to include a “Chosen One” in each week’s column, and I’m getting to the point where I’d like to try to do something like that again… and so, after the jump, you will get my review of one such film.

That movie is PETERLOO (Amazon), the new movie from director Mike Leigh, an eight-time Oscar nominee whose work has garnered him much respect and whose work I’ve especially enjoyed, particularly Vera Drake and Happy-Go-Lucky. The first of these is significant because it’s one of Leigh’s rare historic pieces but his last movie Mr. Turner went one further by telling the story of a real person, in that case, painter J.M.W. Turner, as played by Tim Spall.

Peterloo is somewhat of a departure for Mr. Leigh, since it isn’t focused on a small group of two to four characters, instead telling a massively complex storyline about a peaceful rally in Manchester that was racked by violence when politicians decided to disperse the crowd.

I have to admit that as Peterloo began on the battlefield of Waterloo, I wasn’t sure to expect, thinking it might be Leigh’s attempt at a war film, but the story follows a young bugler, Joseph, whom we see on the battlefield before he returns home to Manchester with a case of PTSD.  His family, and in fact, the whole town, is suffering from poverty and hunger, and there’s a growing desire to be represented in the Parliament in London so that things might improve. The city’s grew white hope is one Henry Hunt, played by Rory Kinnear, and he’s going to travel up to Manchester to talk to the people who will presumably vote for him.

Once it gets going, Peterloo is such a fascinating film. I’m really curious to see how Americans will react to it, because while it’s just as typically British as Leigh’s previous work, it’s a movie that’s more about British history and British politics, and I’m just not sure if that’s the sort of thing that will connect with Americans.

I can completely understand why some might be frustrated with Leigh’s latest, because it is very long, it does take some time to get going, and a lot of time you might not know exactly what is going on or what is being discussed.  I certainly wasn’t exactly sure what was going on or who some of the characters were as they flew through the vast ensemble cast moving from one character and location to another. Eventually, you get used to this pace and start seeing familiar faces that makes things much clearer.  Leigh also uses this tactic to create layers that build and build to the climactic last half hour of the film where violence disrupts an otherwise peaceful day. It’s quite the counterpoint to the war scene that opens the film, but don’t worry. Joseph doesn’t get lost in the shuffle, as you might suspect, because it really follows his journey despite often focusing on others.

One of the things I especially liked about Leigh’s latest is that while it does often get somber and serious, there’s still a wit to it, especially in the way it deals with the stupidity of the politicians and magistrates who seem to have little care for the people they’re supposed to be representing.

Oddly, two days after seeing Peterloo, I saw the Broadway musical Hamilton, a historical piece that takes place in America earlier than the events of Leigh’s film, but it offered a similar resonance to me, even though it did so with musical numbers rather than talking.

Leigh’s screenplay is another masterpiece, but I was equally impressed by the casting of such a large ensemble, many with British actors whom few on these shores will have ever seen or heard of. I’m really curious to know where he found them, because he’s become so known for working with the same small group of actors over the years, and almost everyone in this movie is new to the Leigh camp.

Personally, I think this is Leigh’s best film in many, many years, possibly on par with some of his best work even though I know it deals with a far more difficult (and localized) subject. Regardless, it’s also a film I will gladly see a second time just to catch some of the nuances I may have missed the first time around.

Rating: 8.5/10

Now, back to your regularly scheduled preview column…

As far as the wide releases, I’ve only seen one of them and that was SHAZAM! (New Line/WB), the latest DC Comics character to be brought to the big screen, in this case by Swedish filmmaker David F. Sandberg (Lights Out). I already reviewedthe movie for The Beat, so I don’t have much more to say about it (other than my Box Office Preview, which is ALSO at The Beat), but I did enjoy this quite a bit, maybe not as much as Aquaman but definitely as much as Wonder Woman. It’s a good movie that shows you can do something different with supereheroes and still make a movie work on its own merits (rather than connecting to future movies)

The other movie I’m really looking forward to seeing (when I get back from Vegas) is the new version of Stephen King’s PET SEMATARY (Paramount), directed by Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer, who found some fans in the horror crowd with their earlier film Starry Eyes.  I guess the cast could be more interesting, although I do love John Lithgow and Amy Seimetz has been a favorite of mine from the indie work she’s done. And I don’t hate Jason Clarke either, although some of his choices in films (other than last year’s Chappaquidick, in which he was great) sometimes leaves me scratching my head.

Robin Bissell’s THE BEST OF ENEMIES (STXfilms) is a civil rights drama that one would normally see during Oscar season, since it stars Oscar winner Sam Rockwell and nominee Taraji P. Henson. This story is interesting to me as someone who loved last year’s Green Book, mainly because there are stories like this (and that) from the ‘60s that deserve to be told. Unfortunately, I’m missing this due to CinemaCon as well, so hopefully I’ll have a chance to see it when I’m back in New York.

LIMITED RELEASES

Besides Peterloo, reviewed above, there’s a few other films I recommend seeking out, and hopefully the first three of these will expand into other places than big cities after this weekend:

Correction: Oops!! It looks like I missed the fact that Teen Spirit will not open in select cities until April 12, so I’ll rerun my write-up on it next week

Seemingly a lost project/movie, the late filmmaker Sydney Pollack was commissioned by Warner Bros. Records to capture a concert by Aretha Franklin singing gospel songs for a movie, but it was shelved due to technical difficulties. More than 45 years later, that concert is presented in AMAZING GRACE (NEON), and if there ever was any doubt in your mind about what an amazing singer Franklin was, this movie will certainly change that. It opens in select cities.

Opening in New York, L.A. and other cities is Emma Tammi’s Western werewolf movie THE WIND (IFC Midnight), which played at TIFF and Fantastic Fest last year and the more-recent What the Fest in New York. It stars Caitlin Gerard from Insidious: The Last Key as a rugged woman who has moved into a cabin on the American frontier in the early 19thCentury, where she immediately starts feeling as if there’s a sinister presence, possibly tied to the only other couple who lives out there. Her husband (Ashley Zukerman) doesn’t believe her.  If you like Westerns and want to see one with a dominant female presence (both in front and behind the camera) then you’ll want to check this out.

I guess this is as good a place as any to mention that one of my favorite filmmaker Terry Gilliam’s new movie The Man Who Killed Don Quixote will be available to see nationwide on Tuesday via Fathom Events. The movie, starring Adam Driver, Jonathan Pryce and a number of amazing European actors who I was unfamiliar with, is one that Gilliam has been trying to make for over 20 years and no surprise, it harks back to his great films like The Adventures of Baron Munchausen and The Fisher King, which came out during the filmmaker’s heyday. I’m just so happy Gilliam was finally able to make this movie, and it actually turned out quite well.. maybe a little weird for some tastes, but not too weird for lifelong Gilliam fans like myself. 

Hilary Duff stars in the title role of Daniel Ferrands’ THE HAUNTING OF SHARON TATE (Saban Films) about the murder of the 26-year-old actress who was pregnant with Roman Polanski’s baby when she was murdered by Charles Manson and his cult.It opens in theaters and will be available On Demand starting Friday.

Jordan Downey’s The Head Hunter (Vertical) involves a medieval warrior who is protecting the kingdom from monsters, collecting their heads as he slays them. The one monster he hasn’t killed yet is the one that killed his daughter, so he travels on horseback to try to get revenge. It opens in select cities and On Demand.

Jai Courtney stars in Shawn Seet’s adaptation of Colin Thiele’s Storm Boy (Good Deed Entertainment), an Australian drama in which the retired businessman Michael Kingley reflects back on his past life. Some of these memories including a story about how as a boy, he rescued an orphaned pelican and named it Mr. Percival.

Filmmaker Emilio Estevez’s latest film, the political drama The Public (Greenwich), will also open Friday after playing TIFF and a few other festivals. It stars Alec Baldwin with Estevez, Jena Malone, Taylor Schilling, Christian Slater, Gabrielle Union, Michael K. Williams and Jeffrey Wright, and with a cast like that, do you really need to know what the movie is about? Okay, fine. It takes place in a public library in Cincinnati where a number of homeless patrons take it over during an Arctic blast, seeking shelter from the cold but also staging an act of civil disobedience, in the process.

Showing FREE OF CHARGE at New York’s Film Forum (as part of their annual Free Movie Week) starting Wednesday is Cam Christiansen’s animated doc Wall, which looks at the decision by Israel to build the 435-mile long wall to separate the Palestinian West Bank from the rest of Israel. Building that $4 billion wall meant the confiscation of 4,000 acres of Palestinian land and the destruction of 1,000 trees…and that area is still in disarray. So yeah… building walls is a bad idea.

Stephanie Wang-Breal’s documentary Blowin’ Up (Once in a Blue) deals with the first-ever court created to deal with prostitution in Queens, New York, the Queens Human Intervention Trafficking Court led by the Honorable Toko Serita. The purpose is to help deal with the women and girls arrested for prostitution who are illegal Asian immigrants or are black, Latina or trans, so they get shuffled through the system without it ever dealing with the complex reasons why they turn to prostitution. The doc opens at the Quad in New York Friday and then in L.A. on April 12.

Opening at the Metrograph in New York City is Qiu Sheng’s feature debut Suburban Birds (Cinema Guild) involving two narrative strands, one involving land surveyors who are laying subway tracks, the other involving pre-adolescents who rove the streets of the town unsupervised. It sounds…um… interesting?

Josh Stewart from Criminal Minds writes, directs and stars in Back Fork (Uncork’d) as family man Waylon who is struggling to keep his life together after tragedy, becoming more dependent on pills. Also starring Agnes Bruckner, the film will open in select cities and be available On Demand starting April 9.

LOCAL FESTIVALS

First up, on Tuesday began the 11th Annual ReelAbilities Film Festival at the JCC Manhattan, celebrating those who have fought past what would normally be considered “disabilities” to greatness. It kicked off with the Opening Night Gala and Screening of Irene Taylor Brodsky’s Moonlight Sonata: Deafness in Three Movements, a documentary about a boy with genetic deafness who grew up with cochlear implants whose grandfather is adverse against using such technology in his old age. The festival runs through April 9 where the Closing Night film is Nick Kelly’s The Drummer and the Keeper about a drummer dealing with a bipolar diagnosis. In between is a full line-up of narratives and documentaries exploring different disabilities from blindness to mental disorders, and it’s quite an amazing array of films, many which might not ever get distribution, sadly. Screenings take place all over the city including Bellevue Hospital, Lincoln Center and the Museum of the Moving Image in Queens.

Although the 22nd Annual Full Frame Documentary Film Festival takes place in Durham, North Carolina – home of Duke University -- starting Thursday, I do have a love for the documentary genre that makes me want to mention the amazing programming, which will include a thematic program called “Some Other Lives of Time,” curated by Oscar nominee RaMell Ross (Hale County This Morning, This Evening). Steven Bognar and Julia Reichert’s American Factory is the opening night film while the Aretha Franklin concert doc Amazing Grace (released this weekend in other cities) closes this year’s festival. There’s an amazing line-up of docs in between, some that have played other festivals like David Modigliani’s Running with Beto  and Toni Morrison: The Pieces I Am, and others that are premiering at Full Frame. American Factory  directors Steven Bognar and Julia Reichert are getting a tribute with all of their earlier features and shorts shown, as well as their new film about a General Motors plant in Dayton, Ohio that closed, forcing 2,500 people into unemployment. This is a festival I’ve wanted to attend for so long and I do have friends in the Durham area that would make this worth a visit, but it’s only four days from Thursday through Sunday, so can’t do it this year.

Also, the Havana Film Festival New York begins at the Museum of the Moving Image on Sunday.

STREAMING AND CABLE

This week’s big Netflix release is Brie Larson’s directorial debut UNICORN STORE, in which she plays a 20-something artist named Kit, who is kicked out of art school, forcing her to move back home with her parents. Just as Kit decides to finally grow up, a salesman, played by Larson’s Captain Marvel co-star Samuel L. Jackson, shows up to offer Kit her heart’s desire. Based on a script by Samantha McIntyre, the film also stars Joan Cusack as Kit’s mother.

Netflix also has a number of new series starting on Friday including Chilling Adventures of Sabrina (from Riverdale showrunner Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa) and the eight-part nature series Our Planet, narrated by Sir David Attenborough.

I didn’t go to Sundance so I haven’t had a chance to see Rashid Johnson’s Native Son, starring Margaret Qualley, Nick Robinson, Kiki Layne, Ashton Sanders, Sanaa Lathan and Elizabeth Marvel, but that will premiere on HBO this Saturday night.

REPERTORY

METROGRAPH (NYC):

On Friday, Metrograph will open a restoration of King Hu’s little-seen 1973 martial arts film The Fate of Lee Khan (Film Movement Classics) but the real winner this weekend is the Playtime: Family Matinees screenings of one of my childhood faves, Ken Hughes’ Chitty Chitty Bang Bang (1968), starring Dick Van Dyke. Late Nites at Metrograph will show Sion Sono’s 2016 film Anti-Porno, which I may have seen before or maybe I just saw the trailer at Metrograph when it screened there a couple years back. I can’t remember! Also, the Total Kaurismäki Show continues through the weekend with Leningrad Cowboys Go America  (1989) on Thursday, more esoteric films like Juha  (1999) and Take Care of Your Scarf, Tatiana  (1994) on Saturday, Leningrad Cowboys Meet Moses (1994) on Sunday and then his recent The Other Side of Hopeon Monday. That series continues through next Wednesday. Thursday also continues the Academy at Metrograph series with a screening of the 1959 rom-com Pillow Talk.

THE NEW BEVERLY (L.A.):

Weds and Thursday are double features of  Jack Nicholson’s 1971 film Drive, He Said  with the 1972 John Wayne movie The Cowboys. Friday and Saturday, the New Bev does a sci-double feature of Silent Running  (1972) and The Incredible 2-Headed Transplant (1971). This weekend’s KIDDEE MATINEE is Tom Hanks and Joe Dante’s The Burbs (1989), the Friday midnight screening is Tarantino’s The Hateful Eight (Multiplex version) while the Saturday night midnight offering is John Landis’ 1978 comedy classic Animal House. A 4-track mag print (whatever that is) of Carl Foreman’s war movie The Victors (1963) will screen on Sunday and Monday. Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia (1999) will also screen on Monday afternoon.

FILM FORUM (NYC):

Besides debuting an uncut (220 mins. With intermission) version of Franesco Rosi’s 1979 epic Christ Stopped at Eboli (Rialto Pictures), the Film Forum is screening the 1968 war film Where Eagles Dare introduced by British author Geoff Dyer (who wrote a book about the movie) on Saturday, and then John Boorman’s 1967 film Point Blank on Sunday, also introduced by Dyer.

EGYPTIAN THEATRE (LA):

Noir City: Hollywood – The 21stAnnual Los Angeles Festival of Film Noir continues through the weekend with chronological double features of 1955 films The Big Combo and Bad Day at Black Rock on Weds, the 1956 films A Kiss Before Dying and The Harder They Fall on Thurs, and then 1957′s The Midnight Story and Monkey on my Back Friday, Clara Bow’s Call Her Savage from 1932 with a Forbidden Hollywood presentation on Saturday, along with Orson Welles’ Touch of Evil and Louis Malle’s Elevator to the Gallows, both from 1958. The series ends on Sunday with I Want to Live (1958) and Cry Tough (1959). 

AERO  (LA):

I wish I lived in L.A. right now because the Aero is launching a Mike Leigh retrospective called “Bleak, But Never Boring: Life According to Mike Leigh” starting Friday with a double feature of Naked  (1993)and Meantime (1984), Saturday is Secrets & Lies  (1996)and Vera Drake (2004), then Sunday is Life is Sweet  (1990)and High Hopes (1988).   On Thursday, the Aero is ALSO showing Animal House… but with guests!

BAM CINEMATEK (NYC):

Strange Desire: The Films of Claire Deniscontinues through the weekend with Bastards and The Breidjing Camp on Thursday, Towards Mathilde (2005) with the 2002 short Vers Nancy and US Go Home (1994) & the doc Claire Denis, The Vagabondon Saturday. Denis’ fairly recent film Let the Sunshine Inwill screen again on Sunday, as will Denis’ 1994 film I Can’t Sleep.

MOMA (NYC):

Modern Matinees: B is for Bacall continues with 1966’s Harper Weds, Woman’s World  (1954) Thursday and Robert Altman’s Pret-A-Porter (Ready to Wear) (1994) on Friday.

MUSEUM OF THE MOVING IMAGE (NYC):

Besides taking apart in a few film festivals mentioned above, MOMI will also screen Antonio Tibaldi’s On My Own (1991) with Tibaldi in person.

QUAD CINEMA  (NYC):

Bertrand Blier’s Get Out Your Handkerchiefscontinues…

LANDMARK THEATRES NUART  (LA):

Friday’s midnight screening is the anime classic Akira.

The IFC CENTER in New York seems to be in-between repertory programs, while FILM SOCIETY OF LINCOLN CENTER is still focused on New Directors/New Films through Sunday.

Next week, Lionsgate revives Mike Mignola’s Hellboy, this time played by David Harbour, Tina Gordon’s comedy Littlestarring Regina Hall and Issa Rae, and LAIKA Studios returns with their latest stop-motion animated film Missing Link.

[movieswithkevin27]

Alien: Covenant

One of the most divisive films in recent memory has to be Ridley Scott's Prometheus. Depicting a manned mission to space to find where we came from, the film marked Scott's return to the Alien franchise and was a wildly imaginative and gorgeously designed science fiction film. It unlocked secrets in a magical world of mystery, all while delivering the roots of the xenomorphs that have come to define the franchise. However, its dumb character actions have led many to write it off as trash. Obviously, I disagree, but the complaint is fair. Alien: Covenant marks yet another divisive return to the beloved franchise for Scott and it certainly could wind up being remembered as even more divisive than its predecessor. Recently, Scott has had a nasty issue of not answering questions. Prometheus, as the beginning of a new prequel trilogy, is obviously loaded with open questions. Now, Covenant is planned to be the final sequential film in the trilogy and, yet, it leaves open questions in the name of having its prequel (and Prometheus' sequel) answer those questions. While this film works for the most part, Ridley Scott really needs to not do this. For its faults, Rogue One got this perfectly with a prequel that answered questions from the original and then just led right up to its beginning. Compared to that one, Covenant is certainly not nearly as fulfilling. This, and Prometheus, are intended to be prequels to the originals, but seem wholly different and not related at all, even if they feature the same beasts. There is a disconnect and, as a result, they are best enjoyed as a new science fiction franchise inspired by Alien.

In saying that, it is certainly heavily reminiscent of Alien to the point that Ridley Scott seems to have abandoned all of the compelling ideas of Prometheus in favor of a greatest hits album from Alien and Alien. With the crew of Covenant armed to the teeth and frequently engaging in shootouts with the xenomorphs, the film constantly calls back to the action roots of James Cameron's brilliant sequel. Meanwhile, Scott tosses in about fifty chest-bursters and face-huggers for lovers of Alien, as well as smart guys touching those weird egg testicle things only to get killed. While the film is undeniably terrifying in its own right, Covenant never really feels like it is treading new ground. Prometheus, for all of its faults, was far more imaginative with its mythology. Covenant, in ditching that and going for the visceral and gory fear of the original, has practically nothing to say. Should Scott follow through on Alien: Awakening, it promises to be far more compelling, as long as it can blend the fear from Covenant with the ideas of Prometheus.

That is not to say that Scott abandoned everything from Prometheus, of course. He insisted on keeping the plot holes and vague references to the past that raise questions that, theoretically, will be answered later in the prequel to this film, Awakening. Unfortunately, as the second film and third entry into this film, it is about time we get answers and not more questions. The most egregious example here would be the scene of David unleashing the virus on the Prometheus muscly white dudes. There are two problems with this scene, mostly because it is a flashback. For one, the film is set ten years after Prometheus. In that film, these white dudes are mostly gone. Now, before ten years, it is bursting with life. This is absolutely impossible, so the timeline makes no sense. So, then the next jump is that he arrived beforehand, which is also impossible. As a result, it is a sequence that looks cool, but actually makes no sense whatsoever with what we already know. This misstep hints at how detrimentally underwritten Covenant is and how it seems to even ignore its own timeline.

As with any modern blockbuster, one of the key elements of Covenant is obviously its sense of spectacle. With wondrous special effects in Prometheus, one could only hope for the same with this film. Featuring gorgeous ship design - especially the embryo holders, which are a nice touch - and absolutely spectacular special effects in the sequence where the xenomorph gets kicked off of the ship, Covenant is undeniably a visual feast. However, it even has faults here. There is a sequence on the cargo hold where Daniels (Katherine Waterston) fights a xenomorph as Tennessee (Danny McBride) flies the cargo hold and, unfortunately, the effects are dreadful. It is clearly done in front of a green screen with no blending done to make its effects look natural. As a result, it is a scene that sticks out as a sour thumb and never looks natural in the least. It is a scene that has a strong sense of design and is a nice shootout, but it just never works visually as its poor effects completely takes the audience out of the film.

Alien: Covenant is certainly hampered by a certain level of predictability, which is largely brought on by how similar it is to Alien. There have been many recent reboots of beloved franchises recently that seem to just rehash the original for a modern audience. The only reason why Covenant is different is because it is the same director coming back to play in the sandbox of his youth. Thus, there is not just nostalgia, but great familiarity. This same familiarity allows us to know exactly what is coming because we have experienced this film from this director before. The chief examples of this predictability come with regard to David (Michael Fassbender) and Walter (Michael Fassbender). Scott uses some telegraphed trickery between the two that culminates in the very predictable final scare that, though certainly a haunting last sequence that is undeniably scary, can be predicted by anybody who watched ten seconds of this film. The fact that the final battle between Daniels and the xenomorph concludes with it being pushed out via the airlock is also rather underwhelming, given the similarity to the original. Though Covenant is hardly unenjoyable, the bad robot and pushing xenomorphs out of airlocks thing has been done by this franchise before and by Ridley Scott himself no less. As such, this level of familiarity and predictability results in a rather underwhelming experience, considering all of the mythology hinted at in Prometheus. Bring me back to that world, not this one where Scott clearly figured he went too heavy on the science fiction, leaving a return to horror as the only just course for the franchise. If these prequels were more straight-up science fiction exposition dumps, they would be markedly better and incredibly engaging.

That said, while I prefer the excellent mythological developments introduced by Prometheus, that is not to say that Covenant is not a terrifically scary and fun film to watch. Its jump scares are a bit predictable, but Scott nonetheless creates an excellently tense atmosphere. The highlight of this being when they first land on the unidentified planet and the xenomorph-creating virus first begins infecting people. this is where the film's rehashing of old plot elements do actually work because the character's ignorance of what they are dealing with creates terrific dramatic irony as we wait to watch them walk right into the xenomorph's trap. With great anticipation about what is set to unfold on their ship, Scott delivers both visceral and atmospheric tension, especially in the brilliantly executed sequence where Karine (Carmen Ejogo) and Faris (Amy Seimetz) square off against a xenomorph. Indulging heavily in blood and gore, the film may overdo it a bit throughout, but it more than makes up for it with terrific scares and an atmosphere that is a perfect fit with its tense, edge-of-your-seat nature that permeates throughout the entirety of the film. That aforementioned sequence is absolutely a great example of this with excellent staging and a fun horror/action set piece in the cramp confines of the medical bay and of the ship. The film's atmosphere, however, is most prominently the case when the crew winds up in David's lair. Storing secrets, xenomorphs, and rolled up scrolls filled with information, Covenant creates tension here from the unknown. Not only do we not know where the xenomorphs are hiding, but we have no idea what the information contained in those scrolls is, nor is Scott willing to tip his hand. Instead, on both fronts, he keeps us in the dark, which only furthers the tension of the moment as Daniels flips through some scrolls as xenomorphs crawl all over the place. Never knowing what is right around the corner, the sequence is one of the strongest in the film.

This level of tension is certainly amplified by Michael Fassbender's brilliant dual performance as Walter, the robot on the Covenant and most recent model, and as David, the malicious robot from the Prometheus. Pitting them against one another, Fassbender's innocent and smart Walter is countered by the sadistic and creation-addicted David. With great dramatic tension existing between the "brothers" as David teaches Walter to play the recorder (no "Hot Cross Buns" sadly), Fassbender is able to show his acting chops like never before. He has, obviously, great chemistry with himself, but is absolutely astounding in this sequence and able to bring the encounter to life solely through his selling of the moment. With the script a bit clunky in this portion, Fassbender's sheer manipulative nature as David is matched by Walter's confusion and attempts to figure out what David is really all about. The fact that this mental warfare is waged by one man makes the encounter all the more impressive and perhaps Fassbender's greatest piece of acting to date. At the very least, it certainly joins the ever increasing pantheon of brilliance he has created since bursting onto the scene about a decade ago.

While Ridley Scott's constant name dropping of composers and poets and philosophizing about religion, life, and nature comes off as fairly pretentious and an attempt to pretend the film is deeper than it really is (especially given his unwillingness to explore any of it, instead indulging in blood and gore), the film's themes regarding creation are certainly compelling. As with any film with evil artificial intelligence, the robot wants to get back at its creator. It resents having been created to serve so it wishes to sew destruction in order to both showcase its superior mental intelligence and anger towards its creator. David certainly fits this and seeks to punish humanity for its imperfection and for having forced him into servitude. He is born to lead and sees no reason why he too cannot create. Exercising a brutal suppression of humanity and its creators, the theme of creation and meeting one's creators is one introduced in Prometheus and Scott keeps it at the very forefront of this film. Interestingly, he shows how the sentient robots destroy human's creators and then shows how xenomorphs, created by those robots, destroy humanity. Clearly, should the xenomorphs ever create something, David and other sentient robots need to look over their shoulders. In Covenant, though Scott does not follow-up his study and introduction of the world of the creators as showcased in Prometheus, he does further build this world of unexplored planets, space colonies, and colony missions. In doing so, he continues to build a deeply compelling world that demands further study and will luckily receive such study in a prequel/sequel/prequel movie.

A rather scary and atmospheric science fiction action horror, Alien: Covenant finds Ridley Scott remaking Alien and blending it with some of the action scenes from Aliens. Ditching what made Prometheus such a strong science fiction film in favor of the more visceral exploration of xenomorphs and their conflict with humanity, the film is not always successful and certainly a step back. Held back by an underwritten script, predictability, and sometimes spotty special effects, the film is still a feast for the eyes with great cinematography and excellent designs on the planets and on the ships. While this prequel trilogy may not be the finest cinematic achievement of either the Alien franchise or Ridley Scott's career, they are nonetheless introducing us to a world of possibility with excellent mythology and lay-out. Unfortunately, Scott seems wholly uninterested in delivering answers beyond its small tidbits as he continues to allow these heady science fiction indulgences to just devolve into another Alien film with the same scares. While hardly a bad film, Covenant fails to live up to expectations and winds up being an above average fright fest.

[jillmckenzie1]

The Cat Came Back

Zana died early in the morning. She was an Abyssinian, a breed of cat known for their small bodies and hilariously large ears. Our family has had mostly good luck with long-lived pets, and Zana was no exception. She made it to 17 years old, and even in the last years of her life when she committed to being a cranky old lady, she would still frequently clamber into my lap and purr softly as I petted her.

The morning she passed, she was in bed with my wife and me. It was early when she started meowing, loudly and urgently. I remember picking her up and taking her into the bathroom, then laying her on the counter. She turned her head a little to look at us, and then she quietly died. While it might be a case of anthropomorphizing, we think she woke us up to say good-bye.

For those of us who have pets in our lives, an emotional bond forms that I think is legitimately real. I’ve told my son that when we adopt a dog or cat, we’re making a deal with them. We’re providing them with two square meals a day, a warm place to sleep, and a home that’s kind and where they’re loved. We also provide them with a death that’s painless, if circumstances manage it. Sometimes we’re not so lucky.

In movies, that bond demands to be taken seriously. When John Wick’s puppy is killed, we want to see him achieve retribution, and it’s all because of the bond. However, when a movie pays lip service to that bond but never commits to it, that’s when I get a little pissed off. And, guys? The remake of Pet Sematary pissed me off.

You probably know the film is based on the novel by Stephen King, and like the vast majority of King’s work, it’s set in the state of Maine.* The Creed family has relocated from Boston to the seemingly peaceful town of Ludlow. Louis (Jason Clarke) is a former ER doctor, and he’s taking a job as a medical professional at the local college. We get the sense that his wife Rachel (Amy Seimetz) is a little fragile. You can’t blame her since during childhood, her sister Zelda had a particularly nasty case of spinal meningitis and died in a tragic accident.

But everything is going to be just ducky for the Creed family now! Yes, they have bought a charmingly rustic house that’s located unnervingly close to a highway.** Yes, their neighbor Jud (John Lithgow) is a kindly old dude who might be withholding important information about the town. And yes, there might be unfathomable evil located on their property, which is something their realtor really should have covered at the showing. Otherwise, everything is peachy.

Okay, maybe less than peachy, because while unpacking is taking place, their eight-year-old daughter Ellie (Jete Laurence) sees a procession outside. A group of children wearing preposterously creepy animal masks is making their way through a wooded path. One of them has a dead dog in a wheelbarrow. While her two-year-old brother Gage (Hugo and Lucas Lavoie) could care less about this, Ellie’s curiosity gets the best of her. She follows them.***

Ellie discovers the infuriatingly misspelled Pet Sematary, a place used by the locals for generations. She’s understandably unnerved. She should be, because soon after, their beloved cat Church is killed on the road. Louis and Rachel don’t know how to break the news to Ellie, but Jud makes Louis an offer. In the dead of night, the two men take Church’s body beyond the graveyard, beyond the deadfall that was built decades earlier, and reach the real cemetery. Church is buried there. Soon after, he returns, and he comes back wrong.**** Then, things really start to suck for the Creeds.

When you see a movie based on Stephen King’s work, you’re rolling the quality dice big time. While he strikes me as a legitimately good guy, and he is a solid storyteller, there’s no guarantee of quality when his books are adapted. We saw that recently with both the fun spook-a-blast adaptation of It and the godawful The Dark Tower. While the 1989 adaptation of Pet Sematary has gained a cult following, did I enjoy it? No. Was I more partial to this new iteration, perhaps? Also no.

Directors Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer have made a thuddingly obvious horror movie that leans into ominous portents and jump scares and leans far away from the emotional ass-kicking in King’s novel. This story is fundamentally a tragedy, and we should want the Creed family to be safe. But there are too many scenes of a THING JUMPING OUT or a REALLY LOUD NOISE. I like horror, particularly when it’s executed with style and wit. Here, I was constantly reminded I was watching a horror movie instead of experiencing the horror with the characters.

The screenplay by Matt Greenberg and Jeff Buhler makes some major changes to the source material. That’s okay, and I get their reasoning why. What this story needs to rival the power of the novel is strong characters and strong relationships between them. We don’t always get that. We’re told how much Ellie loves Church, yet there aren’t too many scenes allowing us to feel that. Since the film is all about grappling with the death of a loved one, the relationship between this little girl and her fluffball cat should be palpable, considering it’s the key to the whole story. King’s book drops us into the disorienting process of grief, and we understand why otherwise rational people would behave so idiotically. Here, we have little more than gore and booga-booga scares.

The cast does their best. It’s always a treat for me to see an old war-horse like John Lithgow, and while he doesn’t have the thick Maine accent good old Fred Gwynne had in the ‘89 film, he’s still charming. I liked Amy Seimetz as Rachel. She’s an intelligent performer, and with a better script, she would have had a launching pad for a shattering performance. The same goes for Jason Clarke, a talented performer who hasn’t quite gotten his due yet. He acts like crazy here, and it feels like he’s trying to make the film work through sheer force of will.

In closing, I should mention that Zana was partial to horror and very partial to Hannibal Lecter. Whenever she would hear Anthony Hopkins’ demonic voice, she would run into the room, leap on my lap, and purr enthusiastically. A movie about an undead cat helping to slaughter a family would have been right up her alley, but Zana deserved a hell of a lot better than Pet Sematary.

  *It greatly amuses me that in King’s novel The Stand, the survivors of a national pandemic are all drawn to two locales. Those who lean selfish or evil head for Las Vegas. Those who are pure-ish of heart go to our beloved Boulder.

**Would it kill the town of Ludlow to put up some speed limit signs?

***I asked my son if he were confronted with this macabre sight, would he follow them to see what the deal was? His response was straight and to the point. “God, no! That’s stupid.”

 ****Want to learn how Hollywood professionals train cats? Check out this fascinating article.

from Blog https://ondenver.com/the-cat-came-back/

[tortuga-aak]

The directors behind 'The Girlfriend Experience' explain their radical approach to season 2

Matt Sayles/AP

Season two of "The Girlfriend Experience" will be told through two different storylines. 

Directors Lodge Kerrigan and Amy Seimetz wrote and directed the stories separately.

The two made the season despite having the same budget they had in season one.

  Lodge Kerrigan and Amy Seimetz teamed to direct the entire first season of Starz’s hit show, “The Girlfriend Experience,” and though both are helming season two (premiering November 5), they are doing things very differently this time around.

Based on Steven Soderbergh’s 2009 movie “The Girlfriend Experience” (he is an executive producer on the show), the anthology series looks at high-end escorts who engage their clients on an emotional level, not just a sexual one. The focus of season one was Christine Reade (Riley Keough), who juggles school and an internship at a law firm with being an escort in the evenings.

In the midst of discussing season two with Starz, Kerrigan and Seimetz threw out an idea: They wanted to direct separate storylines within the same season. 

StarzSo instead of following one story, season two will have two. Each Sunday night, the first half-hour episode will be from one director’s standalone story, and the other half-hour episode will show the other’s.

“We were just interested in certain themes and thought it would be interesting to push the format of television,” Kerrigan told Business Insider while showing a sneak peek of the season at the Toronto International Film Festival in September, along with Seimetz. “Steven encourages us to just break the rules.”

“Just to keep the series fresh it just seemed like, why would we repeat what we did last season and tell the same thing?” Seimetz added.

Starz was all for it. Unlike the first season, when Kerrigan and Seimetz wrote the season together in Soderbergh’s office, this time the two split up. They wrote their stories separately and then shot them with their own with separate cast and crew.

For Kerrigan’s story, we follow Anna Greenwald (Louisa Krause), who after blackmailing one of her politically prominent clients, gets involved with one of his rivals, Erica Myles (Anna Friel).

Seimetz's story looks at Bria Jones (Carmen Ejogo), a former escort who enters witness protection to escape her ex, who has a criminal past.

StarzSeimetz said she was inspired to tell a story that went beyond the corporate world that season one was in. She wanted to “see how far I could take what the idea of the ‘girlfriend experience’ could mean.” That led her to shooting in drab locations and having Bria look as unglamorous as possible. The boring existence causes the character to be tempted to go back into the escort world.

Kerrigan wanted to delve deeper into the themes of money and power that were explored in season one, using the backdrop of politics. Anna and Erica build a relationship through teaming up to take down a dirty politician, but things then get more complicated when Erica’s former flame, Sandra (Emily Piggford), enters the mix.

“I was really interested in the power dynamics between three women in a sexual relationship and how that power dynamic changes,” he said.

Like Keough in season one, both leads for season two are unknown to most audiences. Kerrigan found Krause through an audition tape she sent in. Seimetz, who is also an actress (she plays Becky Ives on “Stranger Things”), was introduced to Ejogo through a casting director before the two starred in Ridley Scott’s “Alien: Covenant.”

“I knew I was going to cast her in the show, so then being able to act with her in the movie before doing the show was great,” she said.

FoxSeimetz said Ejogo was informed she was going to be cast on the show before they made “Covenant,” which led to the two having a lot of talks about the show while taking breaks on the big blockbuster.

“Because I cast her so early I was writing for her,” Seimetz said. “So I would send her things as it developed.”

The directors' season two storylines are vastly different visually, and in tone, from one another. Kerrigan’s is full of wide shots, which he said he hoped would “emphasize the performative nature of politics and personal relationships.” Seimetz’s has a claustrophobic feel with all its tight close-ups. “I wanted it to look and feel more frantic than last season,” she said.

Despite basically making two TV shows at the same time, the two filmmakers say they were working with the same budget from season one. That didn’t seem to phase the two veterans of indie film projects. In fact, Kerrigan thought, “It was great!”

“Because we had complete creative freedom,” he said. “Steven gets final cut and in essence he gives it to Amy and myself. If we stay in those certain budget parameters, we can pretty much do what we want.”

The two said the biggest challenge from season one to season two was their interaction in the writing process. It was a lot harder to get to the finish line by themselves.

“It got lonely,” Kerrigan said of writing season two.

“Which is funny because we would fight,” Seimetz said with a laugh. “When you’re writing alone you just have yourself and you’re like, ‘This sucks.’ When you have someone else you have to do it. This time I needed it to feel like a job, so I hired an assistant and that really got me going.”

Watch the season 2 trailer below:

Youtube Embed: http://www.youtube.com/embed/7TYc-dlKvqg Width: 560px Height: 315px

NOW WATCH: Here's what Melissa Joan Hart — who played Clarissa and Sabrina the Teenage Witch — is doing today

from Feedburner http://ift.tt/2h5tFdM

[thecinemaaddict]

Alien: Covenant Review

**1/2

“Alien: Covenant” is the latest addition of the sci-fi/horror/action “Alien” franchise. Directed with gusto by Sir Ridley Scott, the film stars a plethora of actors and actresses with the aim to take the franchise back to its blood-soaked roots and away from the philosophical mumbo-jumbo that was 2012 prequel “Prometheus”. The result, unfortunately, is a hacked-up, mishmash of a science fiction/horror film that has quite possibly caged an epic space saga underneath its hollow surface.

The film takes place ten years after the events of “Prometheus”, where a couples-only-crewed colony mission is aboard the spacecraft Covenant en route to Origae-6, an uninhabited planet, to build a new habitat for humanity. After an omen that gets the story up and running, a distress call alerts the crew of a planet that is closer to their reach than their destination. The Covenant crew, led by Daniels ‘Dany’ Branson (played by Katherine Waterston) and android synthetic Walter (played by Michael Fassbender), embark on a small operation to investigate said planet to find who or what sent the distress call, and if it’s a more suitable environment for their new home.

Being an “Alien” movie, you can probably guess what’s waiting for the Covenant crew on this planet they’ve not charted course for. Facehuggers, Xenomorphs, and lots of blood. Sadly, it all culminates to a film that doesn’t know what it wants to be, when what it should be is staring at it right in its face.

Ridley Scott is arguably the biggest engineer of the entire “Alien” franchise, having brought the first film to the silver screen back in 1979. He returned to the franchise in 2012 delivering a prequel to the initial outing with “Prometheus”, a film that is more focused on God-complex and creation than Xenomorphs. With “Covenant”, Scott said the goal was to get back to the roots of the original film, but what plays in theaters is seemingly a “Prometheus” movie disguised as an “Alien” movie.

As with every Ridley Scott movie, its a beautiful looking film with some of the greatest visuals we will probably see all year. Scott and his cinematographer Dariusz Wolski do an impeccable job of capturing horror with desolate landscapes, and visceral violence. Everything looks absolutely epic, and you feel at times like your watching an epic. But the epic-ness can’t overcompensate for the film’s muddled screenplay.

The film’s four credited writers, Michael Green and Jack Paglen for story, John Logan and Dante Harper for screenplay, are all talented scribes who’ve written some of the better films in recent history. In an ideal world, the gents would’ve crafted a compelling story that bridged the gap between Scott’s science fiction/adventure “Prometheus” and science fiction/horror “Alien”. But it’s blatantly obvious that there was a clash of not being both “Prometheus” and “Alien”, but being “Prometheus” or “Alien”. It’s unfortunate because “Alien: Covenant” is filled with great idea after great idea of being that ideal picture to be the bridge in the franchise, but what plays out seems like they only give a shit about one of those two entities.

Aside from not knowing what it wants to be, “Alien Covenant” suffers from laziness from its writers as well. Character beats are traded to simply move the story from A to B, giving us hardly anyone to latch on to for this journey.

Though what unfolds before our eyes on screen disappoints more than it should, rest assured that the filmmakers haven’t completely forgotten they’re making an “Alien” movie. Scott and his creative team still make an effort to terrorize audiences with edge of your seat scares and blood soaked violence. They also manage to string together some very cool, pulse pounding action beats between the heroes and their Xenomorph enemies. It’s too bad they don’t pack as much punch when so many other aspects of the movie are so mishandled.

Where the film’s screenplay falters, the cast does their best to make exciting and engaging. Ridley Scott has outdone himself with assembling a cast of diverse talent that you would think would make the perfect entry of the “Alien” franchise.

Michael Fassbender continues to prove why he is consistently one of the greatest thespians working today. He is very much what we’d expect an android to be, but finds very subtle ways to make his portrayal a more unique one. Everyone else top to bottom does the best with what their given with. Katherine Waterston, Billy Crudup, Demian Bichir, Amy Seimetz, and Danny McBride shine the brightest of the Covenant crew. Its such a bummer that they weren’t given better than surface level stock characters to play. At least from what we’re able to see on screen.

If you’ve noticed that I keep mentioning statements like “the film it could've been” and “the film we’re seeing in theaters”, it’s for good reason. My hope once this film hits home video is that both 20th Century Fox and Ridley Scott have the decency to release an extended/director’s cut of “Alien: Covenant”, because I’m absolutely positive one exists. Oddly, Fox and Scott released several videos that are actual scenes on YouTube to promote this film. Having watched all of them, I can tell you now that the film would be all the better for it if they were included in the actual film instead of used as promotional material. Ridley Scott has somewhat been the godfather of director’s cuts, having more than I can count including the likes of “Blade Runner”, “Legend”, and “Kingdom of Heaven”. Let’s hope he delivers another.

In the end, “Alien: Covenant” is a fun, but disappointing watch that delivers on scares and leaves you wanting much, much more. Which is a shame, because it honestly could have been a great science fiction/horror film of epic proportions, it had all of the right ingredients it needed. Maybe we will get that “Alien: Covenant” sometime down the road, than this wouldn’t feel like such a wasted opportunity.

[tortuga-aak]

The directors behind 'The Girlfriend Experience' explain their radical approach to season 2

Matt Sayles/AP

Season two of "The Girlfriend Experience" will be told through two different storylines. 

Directors Lodge Kerrigan and Amy Seimetz wrote and directed the stories separately.

The two made the season despite having the same budget they had in season one.

  Lodge Kerrigan and Amy Seimetz teamed to direct the entire first season of Starz’s hit show, “The Girlfriend Experience,” and though both are helming season two (premiering November 5), they are doing things very differently this time around.

Based on Steven Soderbergh’s 2009 movie “The Girlfriend Experience” (he is an executive producer on the show), the anthology series looks at high-end escorts who engage their clients on an emotional level, not just a sexual one. The focus of season one was Christine Reade (Riley Keough), who juggles school and an internship at a law firm with being an escort in the evenings.

In the midst of discussing season two with Starz, Kerrigan and Seimetz threw out an idea: They wanted to direct separate storylines within the same season. 

StarzSo instead of following one story, season two will have two. Each Sunday night, the first half-hour episode will be from one director’s standalone story, and the other half-hour episode will show the other’s.

“We were just interested in certain themes and thought it would be interesting to push the format of television,” Kerrigan told Business Insider while showing a sneak peek of the season at the Toronto International Film Festival in September, along with Seimetz. “Steven encourages us to just break the rules.”

“Just to keep the series fresh it just seemed like, why would we repeat what we did last season and tell the same thing?” Seimetz added.

Starz was all for it. Unlike the first season, when Kerrigan and Seimetz wrote the season together in Soderbergh’s office, this time the two split up. They wrote their stories separately and then shot them with their own with separate cast and crew.

For Kerrigan’s story, we follow Anna Greenwald (Louisa Krause), who after blackmailing one of her politically prominent clients, gets involved with one of his rivals, Erica Myles (Anna Friel).

Seimetz's story looks at Bria Jones (Carmen Ejogo), a former escort who enters witness protection to escape her ex, who has a criminal past.

StarzSeimetz said she was inspired to tell a story that went beyond the corporate world that season one was in. She wanted to “see how far I could take what the idea of the ‘girlfriend experience’ could mean.” That led her to shooting in drab locations and having Bria look as unglamorous as possible. The boring existence causes the character to be tempted to go back into the escort world.

Kerrigan wanted to delve deeper into the themes of money and power that were explored in season one, using the backdrop of politics. Anna and Erica build a relationship through teaming up to take down a dirty politician, but things then get more complicated when Erica’s former flame, Sandra (Emily Piggford), enters the mix.

“I was really interested in the power dynamics between three women in a sexual relationship and how that power dynamic changes,” he said.

Like Keough in season one, both leads for season two are unknown to most audiences. Kerrigan found Krause through an audition tape she sent in. Seimetz, who is also an actress (she plays Becky Ives on “Stranger Things”), was introduced to Ejogo through a casting director before the two starred in Ridley Scott’s “Alien: Covenant.”

“I knew I was going to cast her in the show, so then being able to act with her in the movie before doing the show was great,” she said.

FoxSeimetz said Ejogo was informed she was going to be cast on the show before they made “Covenant,” which led to the two having a lot of talks about the show while taking breaks on the big blockbuster.

“Because I cast her so early I was writing for her,” Seimetz said. “So I would send her things as it developed.”

The directors' season two storylines are vastly different visually, and in tone, from one another. Kerrigan’s is full of wide shots, which he said he hoped would “emphasize the performative nature of politics and personal relationships.” Seimetz’s has a claustrophobic feel with all its tight close-ups. “I wanted it to look and feel more frantic than last season,” she said.

Despite basically making two TV shows at the same time, the two filmmakers say they were working with the same budget from season one. That didn’t seem to phase the two veterans of indie film projects. In fact, Kerrigan thought, “It was great!”

“Because we had complete creative freedom,” he said. “Steven gets final cut and in essence he gives it to Amy and myself. If we stay in those certain budget parameters, we can pretty much do what we want.”

The two said the biggest challenge from season one to season two was their interaction in the writing process. It was a lot harder to get to the finish line by themselves.

“It got lonely,” Kerrigan said of writing season two.

“Which is funny because we would fight,” Seimetz said with a laugh. “When you’re writing alone you just have yourself and you’re like, ‘This sucks.’ When you have someone else you have to do it. This time I needed it to feel like a job, so I hired an assistant and that really got me going.”

Watch the season 2 trailer below:

Youtube Embed: http://www.youtube.com/embed/7TYc-dlKvqg Width: 560px Height: 315px

NOW WATCH: The most underrated foods — according to Anthony Bourdain and Danny Bowien

from Feedburner http://ift.tt/2zs626Q