#yikes! I feel like norman bates!

[harmonybarmy]

I've had my suspicions that my mom is like...making sure that I stay unmedicated and mentally ill so that she can take advantage of it and keep me around, but when she told me today that I'm her 'safe space' that confirmed it for me.

[weekendwarriorblog]

The Weekend Warrior 10/13/20: FREAKY, THE CLIMB, MANK, HILLBILLY ELEGY, AMMONITE, DREAMLAND, DOC-NYC and MUCH MORE!

It’s a pretty crazy week for new releases as I mentioned a few times over the past couple weeks, but it’s bound to happen as we get closer to the holiday movie season, which this year won’t include many movies in theaters, even though movie theaters are still open in many areas of the country… and closing in others. Sigh. Besides a few high-profile Netflix theatrical release, we also get movies starring Vince Vaughn, Margot Robbie, Kate Winslet, Saoirse Ronan, Mel Gibson and more offerings. In fact, I’ve somehow managed to write 12 (!!!!) reviews this week… yikes.

Before we get to the new movies, let’s look at a few series/festivals starting this week, including the always great documentary festival, DOC-NYC, which runs from November 11 through 19. A few of the docs I’ve already seen are (probably not surprisingly, if you know me) some of the music docs in the “Sonic Cinema” section, including Oliver Murray’s Ronnie’s, a film about legendary jazz musician and tenor sax player Ronnie Scott, whose London club Ronnie Scott’s Jazz Club has been one of the central cores for British jazz fans for many decades.

Alex Winter’s Zappa is a much more satisfying portrait of the avant-garde rocker than the doc Frank Zappa: In His Own Words from a few years back, but I was even more surprised by how much I enjoyed Julien Temple’s Crock of Gold: A Few Rounds with Shane MacGowan, because I’ve never really been a Pogues fan, but it’s highly entertaining as we learn about the chronically-soused frontman of the popular Irish band.

I haven’t seen Robert Yapkowitz and Richard Peete’s in My Own Time: A Portrait of Karen Dalton, a portrait of the blues and folk singer, yet, nor have I watched Marcia Jarmel and Ken Schneider’s Los Hermanos/The Brothers about two brother musicians separated from childhood after leaving their native Cuba, but I’ll try to get to both of them soon enough.

Outside of the realm of music docs is Ilinca Calugareanu’s A Cops and Robbers Story, which follows Corey Pegues from being a drug dealer and gang member to a celebrated deputy inspector within the NYPD. There’s also Nancy (The Loving Story) Buirski’s A Crime on the Bayou, the third part of the filmmaker’s trilogy about brave individuals in the Civil Rights era, this one about 19-year-old New Orleans fisherman Gary Duncan who tries to break up a fight between white and black teens at an integrated school and is arrested for assaulting a minor when merely touching a white boy’s arm.

Hao Wu’s 76 Days covers the length of Wuhan, China’s lockdown due to COVID-19, a very timely doc that will be released by MTV Documentary Films via virtual cinema on December 4. It’s one of DOC-NYC’s features on its annual Short List, which includes Boys State, Collective, The Fight, On the Record, and ten others that will vie for juried categories.

IFC Films’ Dear Santa, the new film from Dana Nachman, director of the wonderful Pick of the Litter, will follow its Heartland Film Festival debut with a run at COD-NYC before its own December 4 release. The latter is about the USPS’s “Operation Santa” program that receives hundreds of thousands of letters to Santa every year and employees thousands of volunteers to help make the wishes of these kids come true.

Basically, there’s a LOT of stuff to see at DOC-NYC, and while most of the movies haven’t been released publicly outside festivals yet, a lot of these movies will be part of the doc conversations of 2020. DOC-NYC gives the chance for people across the United States to see a lot of great docs months before anyone else, so take advantage of some of their ticket packs to save some money over the normal $12 per ticket price. The $199 price for an All Access Film Pass also isn’t a bad deal if you have enough time to watch the hundreds of DOC-NYC offerings. (Sadly, I never do, yet I’m still a little bummed to miss the 10Am press screenings at IFC Center that keeps me off the streets… or in this case, sitting on my ass at home.)

Not to be outdone by the presence of DOC-NYC, Film at Lincoln Center is kicking off its OWN seventh annual “Art of the Real” doc series, which has a bit of overlap by running from November 13 to 26. I really don’t know a lot about the documentaries being shown as part of this program, presented with Mubi and The New York Times, but check this out. For just 50 bucks, you can get an all-access pass to all 17 films, which you can casually watch at home over the two weeks of the fest.

Okay, let’s get to some theatrical releases, and the one I’ve been anticipating the most (also the one getting the widest release) is Christopher Landon’s FREAKY from Blumhouse and Universal Pictures. It stars Kathryn Newton as Millie Kessler, a high school outcast who is constantly picked on, but one night, she ends up encountering the serial killer known as the “Blissfield Butcher” (Vince Vaughn), but instead of dying when she’s stabbed with a ritual blade. The next morning Millie and the Butcher wake up to discover that they’ve been transported into the body of the other. Oh, it’s Friday the 13th… oh, now I get it… Freaky Friday!

Landon is best known for writing many of the Paranormal Activity sequels and directing Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones. Msore importantly, he directed Happy Death Day and its sequel Happy Death Day 2 U, two of my favorite Blumhouse movies, because they so successfully mix horror with comedy, which is so hard to do. That’s what Freaky is all about, too, and it’s even harder this time even though Freaky has way more gruesome and gory kills than anything in Landon’s other films. Heck, many of the kills are gorier than the most recent Halloween from Blumhouse, and it’s a little shocking when you’re laughing so hard at times.

Landon does some clever things with what’s essentially a one-joke premise of a killer in a teen girl’s body and vice versa, but like the Lindsay Lohan-Jamie Lee Curtis remake from 2003, it’s all about the talent of the two main actors to pull off the rather intricate nature of playing humor without losing the seriousness of the horror element.

It may not be too surprising with Vaughn, who made a ton of dramas and thrillers before turning to comedy. (Does everyone remember that he played Norman Bates in Gus Van Sant’s remake of Psycho and also starred in thrillers The Cell and Domestic Disturbance?) Newton is a bit more of an unknown quantity, but as soon as Tillie dawns the red leather jacket, you know that she can use her newly found homicidal attitude to get some revenge on those who have been terrible to her.

In some ways, the comedy aspects of Freaky win out over the horror but no horror fan will be disappointed by the amount of gory kills and how well the laughs emerge from a decent horror flick. Freaky seems like the kind of movie that Wes Craven would have loved.

I’m delighted to say that this week’s “Featured Flick” is Michael Angelo Covino and Kyle Marvin’s indie comedy THE CLIMB (Sony Pictures Classics), a movie that I have seen no less than three times this year, first when it was playing Sundance, a few months later when it was supposed to open in March… and then again last week! And you know what? I enjoyed it just as much every single time. It’s an amazing two-hander that stars Covino and Marvin as best friends Mike and Kyle, who have a falling out over the former sleeping with the latter’s fiancé, and it just gets funnier and funnier as the friends fight and Kyle gets engaged to Marisa (Gayle Rankin from GLOW) who hates Mike. Can this friendship possibly survive?

I really had no idea what to expect the first time I saw The Climb at the Sony Screening Room, but it was obviously going to be a very different movie for Sony Pictures Classics, who had started out the year with so many great films before theaters shut down. (Unfortunately, they may have waited too long on this one as theaters seem to be shutting down again even while NYC and L.A. have yet to reopen them. Still, I think this would be just as much fun in a drive-in.)

The movie starts with a long, extended scene of the two leads riding bikes on a steep mountain in France, talking to each other as Kyle (once the athlete of the duo) has fallen out of shape. During the conversation, Mike admits to having slept with Kyle’s fiancé Ava (Judith Godréche) and things turn hostile between the two. We then get the first big jump in time as we’re now at the funeral for Ava, who actually had been married to Mike. Kyle eventually moves on and begins a relationship with his high school sweetheart Marisa, who we meet at the Thanksgiving gathering for Kyle’s extended family. In both these cases, we see how the relationship between Mike and Kyle has changed/evolved as Mike has now fallen on hard times.

It's a little hard to explain why what’s essentially a “slice of life” movie can be so funny. On one hand, The Climb might be the type of movie we might see from Mike Leigh, but Covino and Marvin find a way to make everything funny and also quite eccentric in terms of how some of the segments begin and end.  Technically, it’s also an impressive feat with the number of amazing single shot sequences and how smooth some of the transitions work. It’s actually interesting to see when and how the filmmakers decide to return to the lives of their subjects – think of it a bit like Michael Apted’s “Up” series of docs but covering a lot shorter span in time.

Most importantly, The Climb has such a unique tone and feel to other indie dramedies we’ve seen, as the duo seem to be influenced more by European cinema than American indies. Personally, I think a better title for The Climb might have been “Frenemied,” but even with the movie’s fairly innocuous title, you will not forget the experience watching this entertaining film anytime soon.

Maybe this should be called “Netflix week,” because the streamer is releasing a number of high-profile movies into theaters and on the streaming service. Definitely one of the more anticipated movies of the year is David Fincher’s MANK, which will get a theatrical release this week and then stream on Netflix starting December 4.

It stars Gary Oldman as Herman Mankiewicz, the Hollywood screenwriter who has allowed himself to succumb to alcoholism but has been hired by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to write his next movie, Citizen Kane, working with a personal secretary Rita Alexander (played by Lily Collins). His story is told through his interactions with media mogul William Hearst (Charles Dance) and relationship with actress and Hearst ingenue and mistress, Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried).

It I were asked to pick one director who is my absolute favorite, Fincher would probably be in my top 5 because he’s had such an illustrious and varied career of movie styles, and Mank continues that tradition as Fincher pays tribute to old Hollywood and specifically the work of Orson Welles in every frame of this biopic that’s actually more about the troubled writer of Citizen Kane who was able to absorb everything happening in his own Hollywood circles and apply them to the script.

More than anything, Mank feels like a movie for people who love old Hollywood and inside Hollywood stories, and maybe even those who may already know about the making of Welles’ highly-regarded film might find a few new things to appreciate. I particularly enjoyed Mankiewicz’s relationships with the women around him, including his wife “Poor Sarah,” played by Tuppence Middleton, Collins’ Rita, and of course, Seyfried’s absolutely radiant performance as Davies.  Maybe I would have appreciated the line-up of known names and characters like studio head Louis B Mayer and others, if more of them had any sort of effect on the story and weren’t just

The film perfectly captures the dynamic of the time and place as Mank is frequently the only honest voice in a sea of brown nosers and yes-men. Maybe I would have enjoyed Oldman’s performance more if everything that comes out of Mankiewicz’s mouth wasn’t an all-too-clever quip.

The film really hits a high point after a friend of Mank’s commits suicide and how that adds to the writer’s woes about not being able to save him. The film’s last act involves Mank dealing with the repercussions after the word gets out that Citizen Kane is indeed about Hearst.

Overall, Mank is a movie that’s hard to really dig into, and like some of Fincher’s previous work, it tends to be devoid of emotion. Even Fincher’s decision to be clever by including cigarette burns to represent Mank’s “reels” – something explained by Brad Pitt in Fight Club – just drives home the point that Mank is deliberately Fincher’s most meta movie to date.

You can also read my technical/crafts review of Mank over at Below the Line.

Ron Howard’s adaptation of JD Vance’s bestselling memoir HILLBILLY ELEGY will be released by Netflix into theaters ahead of its streaming debut on November 24. It stars Amy Adams and Glenn Close, but in honesty, it’s about JD Vance, you know, the guy who wrote the memoir.  The film follows his younger years (as played by Owen Asztalos) while dealing with a dysfunctional white trash family in Middletown, Ohio, dealing with his headstrong Mamaw (Close) and abusive mother dealing with drug addiction (Adams).  Later in life, while studying at Yale (and played by Gabriel Basso), he has to return to his Ohio roots to deal with his mother’s growing addiction that forces him to come to terms with his past.

I’m a bit of a Ron Howard stan – some might even say “an apologist” – and there’s no denying that Hillbilly Elegy puts him the closest to A Beautiful Mind territory than he’s been in quite some time. That doesn’t mean that this movie is perfect, nor that I would consider it one of his better movies, though. I went into the movie not knowing a thing about JD Vance or his memoir but after the first reviews came out, I was a little shocked how many of them immediately went political, because there’s absolutely nothing resembling politics in the film.

It is essentially an adaptation of a memoir, dealing with JD Vance’s childhood but then also the past that led his mother and grandmother down the paths that made his family so dysfunctional. I particularly enjoyed the relationship between the older Vance and his future wife Usha (as played by Freida Pinto) earlier in their relationship as they’re both going to Yale and Vance is trying to move past his family history to succeed in the realm of law.

It might be a no-brainer why Adams and Close are being given so much of the attention for their performances. They are two of the best. Close is particularly amusing as the cantankerous Mamaw, who veers between cussing and crying, but also has some great scenes both with Adams and the younger Vance. The amazing special make-up FX used to change her appearance often makes you forget you’re watching Close. I wish I could say the same for Adams, who gives such an overwrought and over-the-top performance that it’s very hard to feel much emotionally for her character as she goes down a seemingly endless vortex of drug addiction. It’s a performance that leads to some absolute craziness. (It’s also odd seeing Adams in basically the Christian Bale role in The Fighter, although Basso should get more credit about what he brings out in their scenes together.)

Hillbilly Elegy does have a number of duller moments, and I’m not quite sure anyone not already a fan of Vance’s book would really have much interest in these characters. I certainly have had issues with movies about people some may consider “Southern White Trash,” but it’s something I’ve worked on myself to overcome. It’s actually quite respectable for a movie to try to show characters outside the normal circles of those who tend to write reviews, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the movie might be able to connect with people in rural areas that rarely get to see themselves on screen.

Hillbilly Elegy has its issues, but it feels like a successful adaptation of a novel that may have been difficult to keep an audience invested in with all its flashbacks and jumps in time.

Netflix is also streaming the Italian drama THE LIFE AHEAD, directed by Edoardo Ponti, starring Oscar-winning actress Sophia Loren, who happens to also be the filmmaker’s mother. She plays Madame Rosa, a Holocaust survivor in Italy who takes a stubborn young street kid named Momo (Ibrahima Gueye), much to both their chagrin.

I’ll be shocked if Italy doesn’t submit Ponti’s film as their choice for the Oscar’s International Film category, because it has all of the elements that would appeal to Oscar voters. In that sense, I also found it to be quite traditional and formulaic.  Loren is quite amazing, as to be expected, and I was just as impressed with young Ibrahima Gueye who seems to be able to hold his own in what’s apparently his first movie. There’s others in the cast that also add to the experience including a trans hooker named Lola, but it’s really the relationship between the two main characters that keeps you invested in the movie. I only wish I didn’t spend much of the movie feeling like I knew exactly where it’s going in terms of Rosa doing something to save the young boy and giving him a chance at a good life.

I hate to be cynical, but at times, this is so by the books, as if Ponti watched every Oscar movie and made one that had all the right elements to appeal to Oscar voters and wokesters alike. That aside, it does such a good job tugging at heartstrings that you might forgive how obviously formulaic it is.

Netflix is also premiering the fourth season of The Crown this week, starring Olivia Colman as Queen Elizabeth and bringing on board Gillian Anderson as Margaret Thatcher, Emma Corin, Helena Bonham Carter, Tobis Menzies, Marion Bailey and Charles Dancer. Quite a week for the streamer, indeed.

Another movie that may be in the conversation for Awards season is AMMONITE (NEON), the new film from Francis Lee (God’s Own Country), a drama set in 1840s England where Kate Winslet plays Mary Anning, a fossil hunter,  tasked to look after melancholic young bride, Charlotte Murcheson (Saoirse Ronan), sent to the sea to get better only for them to get into a far more intimate relationship.

I had been looking forward to this film, having heard almost unanimous raves from out of Toronto a few months back. Maybe my expectations were too high, because while this is a well-made film with two strong actors, it’s also rather dreary and not something I necessarily would watch for pleasure. The comparisons to last year’s Portrait of a Lady on Fire (also released by NEON) are so spot-on that it’s almost impossible to watch this movie without knowing exactly where it’s going from the very minute that the two main characters meet.

Winslet isn’t bad in another glammed-down role where she can be particularly cantankerous, but knowing that the film would eventually take a sapphic turn made it somewhat predictable. Ronan seems to be playing her first outright adult role ever, and it’s a little strange to see her all grown-up after playing a teenager in so many movies.

The movie is just so contained to the one setting right up until the last 20 minutes when it actually lives the Lyme setting and lets us see the world outside Mary’s secluded lifestyle.  As much as I wanted to love Ammonite, it just comes off as so obvious and predictable – and certainly not helped by coming out so soon after Portrait of a Lady. There’s also something about Ammonite that just feels so drab and dreary and not something I’d necessarily need to sit through a second time.

The animated film WOLFWALKERS (GKIds) is the latest from Tomm Moore and Ross Stewart, directors of the Oscar-nominated Secret of the Kells (Moore’s Song of the Sea also received an Oscar nomination a few years later.) It’s about a young Irish girl named Robyn (voiced Honor Kneafsey) who is learning to be hunter from her father (voiced by Sean Bean) to help him wipe out the last wolf pack. Roby then meets another girl (voiced by Eva Whittaker) who is part of a tribe rumored to transform into wolves by night.

I have to be honest that by the time I got around to start watching this, I was really burnt out and not in any mood to watch what I considered to look like a kiddie movie. It looks nice, but I’m sure I’d be able to enjoy it more in a different head (like watching first thing on a Saturday morning).

Regardless, Wolfwalkers will be in theaters nationwide this Friday and over the weekend via Fathom Events as well as get full theatrical runs at drive-ins sponsored by the Landmark, Angelika and L.A.’s Vineland before it debuts on Apple TV+ on December 11. Maybe I’ll write a proper review for that column. You can get tickets for the Fathom Events at  WolfwalkersMovie.com.

Next up is Miles Joris-Peyrafitte’s DREAMLAND (Paramount), starring Margot Robbie as Allison Wells, a bank-robbing criminal on the loose who encounters young man named Eugene Evans (Finn Cole) in rural Dust Bowl era North Dakota and convinces him to hide her and help her escape the authorities by taking her to Mexico.

Another movie where I wasn’t expecting much, more due to the generic title and genre than anything else, but it’s a pretty basic story of a young man in a small town who dreams of leaving and also glamorizes the crime stories he read in pulps. Because of the Great Depression in the late ’20, the crime wave was spreading out across the land and affecting everyone, even in more remote locations like the one at the center of Dreamland.

The sad truth is that there have been so many better movies about this era, including Warren Beatty’s Bonnie and Clyde, Lawless and many others. Because of that, this might not be bad but it’s definitely trying to follow movies that leave quite a long shadow. The innocent relationship between Eugene and Allison does add another level to the typical gangster story, but maybe that isn’t enough for Dreamland to really get past the fact that the romantic part of their relationship isn’t particularly believable.

As much as this might have been fine as a two-hander, you two have Travis Fimmel as Eugene’s stepfather and another generic white guy in Garrett Hedlund playing Allison’s Clyde Barrow-like partner in crime in the flashbacks. Cole has enough trouble keeping on pace with Robbie but then you have Fimmel, who was just grossly miscast. The film’s score ended up being so overpowering and annoying I wasn’t even remotely surprised when I saw that Joris-Peyrafitte is credited with co-writing the film’s score.

Dreamland is fine, though it really needed to have a stronger and more original vision to stand out. It’s another classic case of an actor being far better than the material she’s been given. This is being given a very limited theatrical release before being on digital next Tuesday.

This might have been Netflix week, but maybe it could have been “Saban Films Week,” since the distributor also has three new movies. Actually, only two, because I screwed up, and I missed the fact that André Øvredal’s MORTAL was released by Saban Films LAST week. Not entirely my fault because for some reason, I had it opening this week, and I only realized that I was wrong last Wednesday. Oh, well.  It stars Nate Wolff as Eric Bergeland, an American in Norway who seems to have some enigmatic powers, but after killing a young lad, he ends up on the lam with federal agent Christine (Iben Akerlie from Victoria).

This is another movie I really wanted to like since I’ve been such a fan of Øvredal from back to his movie Trollhunter. Certainly the idea of him taking a dark look at superpowers through the lends of Norse mythology should be right up my alley. Even so, this darker and more serious take on superpowers – while it might be something relatively unique and new in movies – it’s something anyone who has read comics has seen many times before and often quite better.

Wolff’s character is deliberately kept a mystery about where he comes from, and all we know is that he survived a fire at his farm, and we watched him kill a young man that’s part of a group of young bullies.  From there, it kind of turns into a procedural as the authorities and Akerlie’s character tries to find out where Eric came from and got his powers. It’s not necessarily a slow or talkie movie, because there are some impressive set pieces for sure, but it definitely feels more like Autopsy of Jane Doe than Trollhunters. Maybe my biggest is that this is a relatively drab and lifeless performance by Wolff, who I’ve seen be better in other films.

Despite my issues, it doesn’t lessen my feelings about Øvredal as a filmmaker, because there’s good music and use of visual FX -- no surprise if you’ve seen Trollhunters -- but there’s still a really bad underlying feeling that you’re watching a lower budget version of an “X-Men” movie, and not necessarily one of the better ones.  Despite a decent (and kinda crazy) ending, Mortal never really pays off, and it’s such a slog to get to that ending that people might feel slightly underwhelmed.

Seth Savoy’s ECHO BOOMERS (Saban Films) is a crime thriller based on a “true story if you believe in such things,” starring Patrick Schwarzenegger as Lance, a young art major, who falls in with a group of youths who break into rich people’s homes and trash them, also stealing some of the more valuable items for their leader Mel (Michael Shannon).

There’s a lot about Echo Boomers that’s going to feel familiar if you’ve seen Sofia Coppola’s The Bling Ring or the heist movie American Animals from a few years back, but even with those similarities, Seth Savoy has a strong cast and vision to make more out of the fairly weak writing than another director might manage. Schwarzenegger, who seems to be pulling in quite a wide range of roles for basically being another generic white actor is only part of a decent ensemble that includes Alex Pettyfer as the group’s ersatz alpha male Ellis and Hayley Law (also great in the recent Spontaneous) as his girlfriend Allie, the only girl taking part in the heists and destruction. Those three actors alone are great, but then you add Shannon just doing typically fantastic work as more of a catalyst than an antagonist.

You can probably expect there will be some dissension in the ranks, especially when the group’s “Fagan” Mel puts Lance in charge of keeping them in line and Allie forms a friendship with Lance. What holds the movie back is the decision to use a very traditional testimonial storytelling style where Lance and Allie narrate the story by relaying what happened to the authorities after their capture obviously. This doesn’t help take away from the general predictability of where the story goes either, because we’ve seen this type of thing going all the way back to The Usual Suspects.

While Echo Boomers might be fairly derivative of far better movies at times, it also has a strong directorial vision and a compelling story that makes up enough for that fact.

In theaters this Friday and then On Demand and Digital on November 24 is Eshom and Ian Nelms’ action-comedy FATMAN (Saban Films/Paramount), starring Mel Gibson as Santa Claus and Walton Goggins as the hired assassin sent to kill him by a spoiled rich boy named  Billy (Chance Hurstfield) who unhappy with the presents he’s being brought for Christmas.

While we seem to be surrounded by high concept movies of all shapes and sizes, you can’t get much more high concept than having Mel Gibson playing a tough and cantankerous* Kris Kringle (*Is this the week’s actual theme?) who is struggling to survive with Mrs. Klaus (played by the wonderful Marianne Jean-Baptiste from In Fabric) when they’re given the opportunity to produce military grade items for the army using his speedy elf workshop. Unbeknownst to the Kringles, the disgruntled hitman who also feels he’s been let down by Santa is on his way to the North Pole to fulfill his assignment.

You’ll probably know whether you’ll like this movie or not since its snarkier comedic tone is introduced almost from the very beginning. This is actually a pretty decent role for Gibson that really plays up to his strengths, and it’s a shame that there wasn’t more to it than just a fairly obvious action movie that leads to a shoot-out. I probably should have enjoyed Goggins more in a full-on villainous role but having been watching a lot of him on CBS’ The Unicorn, it’s kind of hard to adjust to him playing this kind of role.  I did absolutely love Marianne Jean-Baptiste and the warmth she brought to a relatively snarky movie.

I’m not sure if Fatman is the best showing of Eshom and Ian Nelms’ abilities as filmmakers, because they certainly have some, but any chance of being entertaining is tamped down by a feeling the filmmakers are constantly trying to play it safe. Because of this, Fatman has a few fun moments but a generally weak premise that never fully delivers. It would have thrived by being much crazier, but instead, it’s just far too mild.

Malin Åkerman stars in Paul Leyden’s CHICK FIGHT (Quiver Distribution) as Anna, a woman unhappy with her life and inability to survive on the little money she makes at her failing coffee shop. When Anna’s lesbian traffic cop friend Charleen (Dulcé Sloan) takes her to an underground fight club, Anna her trepidation about joining in, because she has never been in a fight in her life.  Learning that her mother has a legacy at the club, Anna agrees to be trained by Alec Baldwin’s always-drunk Murphy in order to take on the challenges of the likes of Bella Thorne’s Olivia.

Another movie where I’m not sure where to begin other than the fact that I’m not sure I’ve seen a movie trying so hard to be fun and funny and failing miserably at both. Listen, I generally love Akerman, and I’m always hoping for her to get stronger material to match her talents, but this tries its best to be edgy without ever really delivering on the most important thing for any comedy: Laughs.  Sure, the filmmakers try their best and even shoehorn a bit of romance for Anna in the form of the ring doctor played by Kevin Connolly from Entourage, but it does little to help distinguish the movie’s identity.

Listen, I’m not going to apologize for being a heterosexual male that finds Bella Thorne to be quite hot when she’s kicking ass in the ring. (I’m presuming that a lot of what we see in her scenes in the ring involves talented stuntwomen, but whoa! If that’s not the case.) Alec Baldwin seems to be in this movie merely as a favor to someone, possibly one of the producers, and when he disappears with no mention midway through the movie, you’re not particularly surprised. Another of trying too hard is having Anna’s father Ed (played by wrestler Kevin Nash) come out as gay and then use his every appearance to talk about his sex acts.  Others in the cast like Fortune Feimster seem to be there mainly for their bulk and believability as fighters.

Ultimately, Chick Fight is a fairly lame and bland girl power movie written, directed and mostly produced by men. I’m not sure why anyone might be expecting more from it than being a poorly-executed comedy lacking laughs.

And yet, that wasn’t the worst movie of the weekend. That would be Andrzej Bartkowiak’s DEAD RECKONING (Shout! Studios). Yes, the Polish cinematographer and filmmaker who once made the amazing Romeo is Bleeding, starring Gary Oldman and Lena Olin, has returned with a movie with the onus of a premise that reads “a thriller inspired by the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013.” No, I did not make that up. It mostly takes place in Nantucket, Massachusetts, which I guess is sort of close to Boston, but instead it focuses on the relationship between teens Niko (K.J. Apa) and Tillie (India Eisley), the latter whose parents died in a plane crash that might have been caused by a terrorist. It just so happens that Niko’s brother Marco (Scott Adkins) is an Albanian terrorist. Coincidence? I think not!

Once you get past the most generic title ever, Dead Reckoning is just plain awful. I probably should have known what to expect when the movie opens with Eric “Never Turned Down a Job” Roberts, but also, I strong feel that Scott Adkins, better known for his martial arts skills, is easily one of the worst actors ever to be given lines to say in a movie. And yet, somehow, there are even worse actors in this movie. How is that even possible?

Although this presumed action movie opens with one of three or four fight sequences, we’re soon hanging out on the beach with a bunch of annoying teenagers, including Tillie, who is drowning the sorrow of recently losing her parents by literally drinking constantly in almost every single scene. When she meets the handsome Eastern European Niko, we think there’s some chance of Tillie being saved, but it isn’t meant to be.

Part of what’s so weird is that Dead Reckoning begins in territory familiar to fans of Barkowiak’s movies like Exit Wounds, Cradle 2 the Grave and Maximum Impact but then quickly shifts gears to a soppy teen romance. It’s weird enough to throw you off when at a certain point, it returns to the main plot, which involves Adkins’ terrorist plot and the search by FBI Agent Cantrell (played by James Remar) to find the culprit who killed Tillie’s parents. Oh, the FBI agent is also Tillie’s godfather. Of course, he is.

Beyond the fact that I spent much of the movie wondering what these teens in Nantucket have to do with the opening scene or the overall premise, this is a movie that anything that could be resembling talent or skill in Barkowiak’s filmmaking is long gone. Going past the horrendous writing – at one point, the exasperated and quite xenophobic Cantrell exclaims, “It’s been a nightmare since 9/11... who knows what's next?” -- or the inability of much of the cast to make it seem like anyone involved cares about making a good movie, the film is strangled by a score that wants to remind you it’s a thriller even as you watch people having fun on the beach on a sunny day.

Eventually, it does get back to the action with a fight between Cantrell and Marco… and then Marco gets into a fight with Tillie’s nice aunt nurse Jennifer where she has a surprisingly amount of fighting skills. There’s also Nico’s best friend who is either British or gay or both, but he spends every one of his scenes acting so pretentious and annoying, you kind of hope he’ll be blown up by terrorists. Sadly, you have to wait until the last act before the surfboards are pulled out.  (Incidentally, filmmakers, please don’t call a character in your movie “Marco,” especially if that character’s name is going to be yelled out repeatedly, because it will just lead to someone in the audience to yell out “Polo!” This is Uwe Boll School of Bad Filmmaking 101!)

The point is that the movie is just all over the place yet in a place that’s even remotely watchable. There even was a point when Tillie was watching the video of her parents dying in a car crash for the third or fourth time, and I just started laughing, since it’s such a slipshod scene.

It’s very likely that Dead Reckoning will claim the honor of being the worst movie I’ve seen this year. Really, the only way to have any fun watching this disaster is to play a drinking game where you take a drink every time Eisley’s character takes a drink. Or better yet, just bail on the movie and hit the bottle, because I’m sure whoever funded this piece of crap is.

Opening at New York’s Film Forum on Wednesday is Manfred Kirchheimer’s FREE TIME (Grasshopper/Cinema Conservancy), another wonderful doc from one of the kings of old school cinema verité documentary filmmaking, consisting of footage of New York City from 1960 that’s pieced together with a wonderful jazz score. Let me tell you that Kirschheimer’s work is very relaxing to watch and Free Time is no exception. Plus the hour-long movie will premiere in Film Forum’s Virtual Cinema, accompanied by Rudy Burckhardt’s 1953 film Under the Brooklyn Bridge which captures Brooklyn in the ‘50s.

Also opening in Film Forum’s Virtual Cinema Friday is Hong Khaou’s MONSOON (Strand Releasing) starring Henry Golding (Crazy Rich Asians) as Kit, who returns to Ho Chi Minh City for the first time since his family fled after the Vietnam War when he was six. As he tries to make sense of it, he ends in a romance with Parker Sawyers’ American ex-pat and forms a friendship with a local student (Molly Harris). Unfortunately, I didn’t have the chance to watch this one before finishing up this column but hope to catch soon, because I do like Golding as an actor.

I shared my thoughts on Werner Herzog and Clive Oppenheimer’s FIREBALL: VISITORS FROM DARK WORLDS, when it played at TIFF in September, but this weekend, it will debut on Apple TV+.  It’s another interesting and educational science doc from Herr Herzog, this time teaming with the younger Cambridge geoscientist and “volcanologist” to look at the evidence left behind by meteors that have arrived within the earth’s atmosphere, including the races that worship the falling space objects.

Opening at the Metrograph this week (or rather on its website) is Shalini Kantayya’s documentary CODED BIAS, about the widespread bias in facial recognition and the algorithms that affect us all, which debuted Weds night and will be available on a PPV basis and will be available through November 17. The French New Wave anthology Six In Paris will also be available as a ticketed movie ($8 for members/$12 for non-members) through April 13. Starting Thursday as part of the Metrograph’s “Live Screenings” is Steven Fischler and Joel Sucher’s Free Voice of Labor: The Jewish Anarchists from 1980. Fischler’s earlier doc Frame Up! The imprisonment of Martin Sostre from 1974 will also be available through Thursday night.

Sadly, there are just way too many movies out this week, and some of the ones I just wasn’t able to get to include:

Dating Amber (Samuel Goldwyn) The Giant (Vertical) I Am Greta (Hulu) Dirty God (Dark Star Pictures) Where She Lies (Gravitas Ventures) Maybe Next Year (Wavelength Productions) Come Away (Relativity) Habitual (National Amusements) The Ride (Roadside Attractions, Forest, ESX) Jingle Jangle: A Christmas Journey (Netflix) Transference: A Love Story (1091) Sasquatch Among the Wildmen (Uncork’d) All Joking Aside (Quiver Distribution) Secret Zoo (MPI Medi Group/Capelight Pictures)

By the way, if you read this week’s column and have bothered to read this far down, I think you’re very special and quite good-looking. Feel free to drop me some thoughts at Edward dot Douglas at Gmail dot Com or drop me a note or tweet on Twitter. I love hearing from readers … honest!

[thatyanderecritic]

Norman from Bates Motel could be a yandere. And no his feelings for Norma aren't platonic imao.

Lmao, Norma? You mean Norman’s mother? I mean- I wouldn’t even be thinking in the realm of “platonic” but familial love if I were to hypothetically say “Norman’s love isn’t romantic but ‘x’ type of love”. Let’s not beat around the bush here lol. 

Anyways, Kai here to answer your question. 

So, I’d like to say as always that I’m just reading the wiki on this stuff and not actually going to binge-watch a five-season show. Already stated on the quarantine question how Julie and I are spending our mandatory quarantine lol. 

Moving onto Norman, my verdict is... it’s complicated? Now, I don’t like to use “complicated” for relationship status often since most of the time; it isn’t complicated. But fucking YIKES is Norman a complicated character. Let me explain.

Let’s start out with the obvious evidence against Norman: homie got mad dick game. Lmao, I’m joking but homie has a lot of side pieces that he was both romantically and sexually interested in. He had a whopping six relationships (romantic or sexual, third base or not) excluding his mother. Then there are the two guests ON TOP OF THAT that Norman masturbated to (well, 1 and a 1/2... I think). We can’t even attach the term “realistic yandere” to him with how over the top and unrealistic he is. 

The next thing is that Norman’s story like is the extreme version of Freud’s theory of psychosexual stages of development. Very, very similar and it’s not just the Oedipus complex part. It’s all the psychosexual stages that Norman is stuck in; making him perpetually stuck in this weird ‘man-child’ state (ignoring the fact that he literally has a list of mental issues). Btw, I do want to mention that Freud is a hack and we don’t believe him, but Freud’s theories make big money in Hollywood... ANYWAYS. Since Norman’s story is the extreme version of the psychosexual stage theory, it’s hard to really say if it’s extreme familial love or straight up incest (and yes, if we’re going to say that Norman is a ‘yandere’ for his mom then we have to acknowledge that it’s incest. The man literally came out of her vagina). 

The next point against Norman in possibly being a yandere is his mental illness (and more specifically his DID). Now normally, something like this would go hand in hand with the trope and even aid the character’s case but Norman’s mental illness are working against him in this case. The first two (three?) seasons, Norman is known to blackout and protect his mother if anyone threatened to hurt her. Yes, I can see this in a romantic light but I also see it as a traumatized child who seen his mother beaten and raped one too many times and decide to protect her. This is in the realm of normal and it happens in real life (not the blacking out part but it happens) where children in domestic violence cases try to protect their parent from the other. Fuck, even dogs or other pets do the same thing. But we don’t say these kids romantically love their parent because of this. In the next season (three? four?) when Norman admitted to being sexually interested in his mom, I do admit he finally started building a case. But as I said in the asexual ask, lust does not equal romantic interest. And the Oedipus complex is a sexually charged theory, not a romantic one (Freud really liked sex huh?).But, I do see that his DID is playing a heavy part in this. In some way, Norman wanted to BE his mom... and well, he ended up being his mom when he takes on her identity. And that can be a really confusion relationship, I don’t blame him for pondering “maybe I like-like my mom”. Season five is where he really shined and started to give me some inclination that Norman was “lovesick”. But a part of me felt like he was just seduced by his “mother” persona because, tbh, that “mother” persona didn’t really act like his real mother. Also, there was the fact that he killed his mother which pretty much cemented him in ‘the deep end’. His mother was pretty much controlling his life and with her gone, he lost all control which let to his “mother” persona to try and take control. Yet somehow through all this, I think Norman has some sense to realize that this is all fucked up and he kinda fears “mother”, seeing how he begged for his medicine so he won’t see the hallucinations of his “mother”. 

So... yeah. From the surface, I understand why a person could think that Norman is a yandere. The guy is fucking nuts. But it’s because he’s crazy and you dive into it, it makes you wonder if it is because of “lovesickness” or anything of the sorts. It’s the little things that really stack up. Personally, I don’t really see Norman as a yandere. He’s a character that represents a person who was unable to pass the stages in the psychosexual theory and coping with trauma. Even if I were to say he was a ‘yandere’, he would be an extremely weak one because of all the points against him. Well, this is my conclusion from reading his wiki. If you want to insist that Norman is a yandere for his mom, then go ahead. I really see why people can see him that way. 

Well, that’s my thought on these things. 

[slasherscream]

Also, could I request an s/o who’s a chaotic dumbass? Like, they don’t even think twice about doing stupid shit—like they don’t care AT ALL about their safety, they just wanna feel something. For Norman or Stu or whichever would be more fun to write.

are you kidding me? anon your galaxy brain picked the two characters that would be most fun to write for this prompt.

norman bates

                                                     ——————–

This is bad for Norman’s heart health. He’s literally going to keel over and die any fucking second now from this. 

He’s trying his best to corral you while keeping his …. other side in check and you make it … so hard. He’s just trying to keep you from getting yourself hurt while trying to keep himself calm and zen.

He’s the world’s best tightrope walker because of you. Walking the thinnest line at all times. 

Does get snippy with you sometimes because he’s not in any way a risk-taker so he can’t relate even a little bit to this. Just doesn’t understand! What are you geTTING out of this?

It’s a very passive-aggressive snippy. 

You got hurt doing something you 100% shouldn’t have been doing? Something he even told you (in his own way) explicitly not to do? He’s bandaging your arm up for you now but he’s mad about it! 

“Well - well I just don’t know what to do with you honestly!”

He looks like one of those Mom’s who want so badly to put their kid on a leash and harness but they’re not quite ready to do it yet.  

In the end though he’s made up his mind to just take your chaotic tendencies in stride, best as he can. After-all he loves you so there’s really no other option (cue quiet sigh).

                                                     ——————-

stu macher 

                                                     ——————–

The world isn’t fucking ready for the two of you.

If you so much as mumble a stupid ass idea under your breath Stu not only heard it but he’s gonna make that stupid ass idea? A stupid ass reality, babe! C'mon let’s go do it-

Follow your dreams and never back down. Life coming at you quick from the #Chaotic Dumbass Zone. 

Your date nights get wild as fuck and he loves it.

You not only keep up with him, don’t think/treat him like he’s stupid (cause you’re the same), but you also get more wild than him somehow? Sans the killing people thing you are the more wild of the two and that’s fucking bonkers. He loves his chaotic s/o more than a man dying of thirst would love some water.

If Stu can be bothered to use his one brain cell (borrowed from Billy) he will eventually get a little concerned. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again Stu is actually people smart/emotionally intelligent he just may lack …. empathy. Which is a whole different thing. 

If the root of your reckless behavior that is so fun to be around isn’t just …. being a little wild but because you want to “feel something”? He doesn’t know exactly what he’s feeling when he figures this out/or is told but it’s something akin to the Yikes Emoji™.

Is actually good at talking out other people’s feelings so uh … most definitely wants to talk out yours. He’s so non-judgmental and genuine that sometimes it does help just talking to him.

If you’re just like this for the kicks and #YOLO, though? Big same. Y'all are the worst couple to be around and you love it.

                                                     ——————-

my requests are open!

[rayofspades]

Thoughts on Bates Motel: Season 1

Tis the season for spooky shows!

So, I’ve fallen down the Psycho hole and decided to watch a show that I’ve been curious about for a few years.

So far, I’ve finished 1 ten episode season of Bates Motel (and one episode of season 2) and these are my thoughts so far:

For those of you that aren’t familiar with this show or Psycho, it’s basically a modern au prequel to the Hitchcock film. After the death of her husband, Norma Bates and her teenage son, Norman, move to the small town of White Pine Bay to open a motel. They have a close relationship, but Norma is very uptight and controlling, and Norman seems emotionally disturbed. Shortly after moving, the previous owner of the motel confronts them, and things kind of spiral out of control from that point on.

If I had to describe the tone of the show I would probably say “Riverdale, but legitimately good instead of a pure schlock fest.”

And way more adult oriented content.

Let this serve as a trigger warning: there is a rape scene in the first episode and other mentions of sexual violence later in the show. Also there’s lots of blood and shooting. 

It’s a show I would classify as “horror/drama,” which I think is exactly what they were going for.

Things I like about this show:

-Most of the performances are really good, with a few exceptions. But holy shit, watch this show for Vera Farmiga’s performance. She’s fucking phenomenal. From what I’ve read, she was nominated for an Emmy, but holy shit she should have won. She should have won all of the Emmys.

-There’s some really good dialogue (but...more on that later).

-It’s very effective when it comes to suspense and pay off.

-The characters have really great dynamics and interesting relationships.

-This is gonna sound kind of weird and nebulous, but this show really delivers on its concept. It goes into Norman’s mental health problems, but it doesn’t wink at the camera too much. It takes appropriate creative licence to make this show its own thing instead of just “heeeeeey remember Psycho?” The only major wink so far has been Norman learning taxidermy, but to be fair, that’s a really weird hobby, so it kind of makes sense that they’d want to explain it. I also like how the mom isn’t a purely villainous character, but has legitimate motivations and cares a lot about her kids. She’s just. You know. A fucking terrible person who makes fucking terrible decisions. (Again, props to Vera Farmiga.)

-There are lot of little, simple moments (amongst all of the bat shit insane chaos) that are really easy to appreciate and feel kind of organic.

I do have some problems though:

-In the first season, it felt like there were too many balls in the air, especially in the first 6 episodes. I do give them props though, because I feel like they ended that arc juuuuuussst at the moment when it was getting too convoluted. 

-On a similar note, it kind of strains my suspension of disbelief that so many criminals are living in a small town. If it were set in a big city, I would buy it more, but fucking everyone acts like a corrupt murderer. There are two main villains in the first arc that live in White Pine, and I think that’s all that was needed. The other shady guys didn’t all have to be from this place, but I guess I’ll see where this goes because it’s kind of been addressed in season 2 (?).

-There’s like, a teenager subplot that would probably be okay, but a lot of the dialogue in those scenes feels like it was written by old people who are genuinely trying to write teen drama dialogue and...yikes. Oof.

-Kinda hard to discuss this one without going into a huge spoilers, but one of the subplots got resolved in a way I felt was kind of disrespectful. 

But anyways, I fucking blew threw that first season at a disturbingly fast pace, so I’m definitely going to continue, especially since I felt like the beginning of season 2 was fixing some of the concerns I had with season 1 (maybe).

[iknowwhatihavetodo]

🕯 (I feel like Effie would be freaking out because of the lack of technology- if she can’t charge her phone - yikes!)

“Do–do you hear that?”

It was a rather normal night in for both of them—- normal in their own relative sense, of course, but still– and Norman and Effie found themselves lounging back on Norman’s small bed, leaning up against the steel frame, killing time by flipping through some of the old psychiatry books Norma had collected (back from when she was trying to diagnose Norman herself). Most of them were outdated, but Norman and his friend found entertainment in reading up on certain symptoms and speculating which of their many relatives might have which problem. They knew to take it with a grain of salt considering Norman’s own experience with ‘mental health’, so in the end it was harmless fun. Just a way for he and Effie to joke with one another in their own weird manner, without getting into trouble like they were both prone to do whenever they left motel premises.

But when Norman heard a faint, electrical buzzing coming from somewhere within the house, followed by an anxiety-inducing crackle that could be anything but good, he knew trouble had found it’s way back to them instead. They didn’t even have to go looking for it this time.

He shut the book labeled 'Common Ailments Of The Male Teen’s Psyche’ and put a finger to his lips, a nonverbal request for silence as he strained to listen to the peculiar sound. It grew louder steadily, like the hum of a machine malfunctioning— and all of a sudden, with two audible bangs akin to a bursting pipe, the buzzing stopped.

Along with all of the lights in the entire Bates house.

Having lived in this old house for awhile, Norman knew better than most how tricky and sensitive the wiring could be, so he wasn’t surprised when a glance to his alarm clock’s dead screen told him that not only the lights, but any other plugged in electronics, would probably not be working right now.

The barest blue glow of the moon filtering in from the window, and if Effie hadn’t been seated right next to him, there would’ve been no way he could have known where she’d be. Even now only the faintest outline of her face was visible, everything beyond a hand’s reach in front of him was taken by the surrounding blackness. It seemed to magnify the deafening silence, and Norman chuckled awkwardly, hoping the houses’ tempermental nature hadn’t freaked his friend out too badly.

“Aaand there goes our night.” he tried lightheartedly. “Guess we’ve got to go on an adventure for the circuit breaker now, huh?”

[[ Send 🕯 for our muses to be in a power outage together ]]

[neverallnorman]

[Maddie, in your opinion, is the movie all that disrespectful to people with DID? Because it does (thankfully) show that Norman's an awful person even without it.]

The short answer to this is yes.

The long answer is still yes, and here’s why.

Psycho came out in a time when not a lot was known about DID, so it was much easier for Hitchcock (and of course Robert Bloch, the original author) to get away with using it for a shocking twist ending. Unfortunately, while it wasn’t the first movie to use mental illness as a cheap scare tactic, it did open the doors for more and more knockoffs to come through. If Psycho were a standalone phenomenon, I’d probably say that no, it wasn’t super harmful to people with DID, because as you said (and as I’m quick to point out) Norman is a bad person even if he were mentally healthy. But it’s not a one-off, and at the end of the day, as much as I adore Psycho, they still played Norman’s mental illness as one of the “horrors” of the film.

There are many things that are problematic about the original story (especially if you remove my own personal headcanons and Bates Motel canon from the equation).

Dissociative Identity Disorder is grossly misrepresented. The psychiatrist at the end of the film speculates that Norman has conversations with himself (which we can see at several points in the movie as well). Modern standards of diagnosing DID don’t include having conversations with alters aloud, though there is usually a kind of “inner world” wherein the alters can communicate with one another and with the host.

Psycho is a psychological thriller / horror movie in which the main antagonist suffers DID, and his alter is portrayed as evil. Again, this very very rarely happens in real life, and in fact, alters usually aren’t violent at all. They’re created to protect the host.

Psycho uses DID as a “gotcha” plot twist. As a portrayal of a real disorder, it’s wrong and perpetuates the stigma that mentally ill people are dangerous, much like portrayals of autism in movies tends to lean toward “autism makes you a genius.”

DID in real life is most often the result of childhood trauma, but Norman is said to only have developed it in adulthood in response to murdering his mother. Yikes.

DID as a horror trope was around long before Robert Bloch came up with Norman Bates (Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is the most obvious example of early DID/horror connections). But Hitchcock’s take on it made it more acceptable to stigmatize it.

Movies like Psycho and Split cause a lot of damage to real-life DID patients.

“It is incredibly distressing to see films such as Split continuing to misrepresent dissociative disorders, and only serves to perpetuate myths about this complicated condition. People living with DID have often experienced horrific trauma early on in life, and being painted as monsters further damages an already fragile mind.” ( x )

“Art is not merely fiction - it's an expression of life itself and it is how we make sense of the world and understand it. It is does not exist in, and is not created by, a vacuum. Even thrillers or sci-fi are founded upon the world we live in. Perpetuating negative stereotypes in film is incredibly damaging for people who fit those groups being stereotyped, because clearly, as some comments have indicated, it affects how people treat them.” ( x )

“The cultural stigma around the diagnosis crippled my own acceptance of it and movement toward healing. I am terrified of anyone finding out, seeing it on me like a scarlet letter. I know I need to embrace the reality of my life but movies like Split and the resulting shame I feel for being what I am in society’s eyes is demoralizing and dehumanizing.” ( x )

Bates Motel did a much better job of handling Norman’s DID as a real disorder. The mother half has her own interests and tastes, gets a say, has a three-dimensional story, is given agency over herself, and is treated like a real character. This wasn’t possible to do in Psycho because we see the story from an outsider’s perspective rather than through Norman’s own eyes.

I love Psycho, and think that it broke a lot of barriers in regards to film censorship, cinematic soundtracks, clever marketing, and storytelling. I think it did a lot of good to the movie industry, and it’s probably always going to be my favorite movie of all time.

But when people who suffer from DID are speaking up and saying that movies like Fight Club, Psycho, and Split are portraying DID in a harmful way and perpetuating the stigma, I think that it’s very important to listen to them rather than try to defend the entertainment industry.

I have a lot more thoughts on this subject but they aren’t quite coming together. I recommend watching Systems Against Split to hear actual people with DID give their thoughts on movies that stigmatize the illness.

( tl;dr -- While I do think that Norman is awful with or without his illness, most people don’t look too deeply into analysis when watching horror films, so Psycho is certainly guilty of perpetuating the harmful stereotypes against the mentally ill. )

[shellzncoral]

1) that neighbor needs to be charged with harassment.

2) I am a white Woman and I feel like I would have lost my cool if that had happened to me - white privilege. The patience this man had is saint-like, and I realize he has to be this way in order to survive to go home and see his wife and son.

3) I’m speaking to all White People I know about this.

4) I can see why he was afraid of that crazy ass lady running up on him while he was working. That house is pitch black inside and creepy as fuck. I can totally see her running in with a knife all Norman Bates style. Yikes

5) this man should have his own show. He’s got a really cool personality and I want to see him fix up houses!

[creative-vs-insanity]

Psycho – Is it the cause of the irrational?

Hitchcock has been named one of films horror and directorial geniuses of all time. His movie ‘Psycho’ (1960) has more than stood the test of time, considering that we are all still remarking on its brilliance fifty seven years later, not only is it constantly referenced in pop culture, but it is also the context of many documentaries such as the upcoming film 78/52 and many books about the making of the Thriller and Horror genres, such as current slasher films like ‘Saw’ and television series ‘Bates Motel’, yet, what is it that still holds our attention?

           Many films have made comic reference to ‘that famous shower scene’, Looney Toons: Back in Action (2003) and Bugs Bunny’s comic take with obvious connotations and fake murder of himself in the shower come to mind. I watched that scene as a child before I even knew what the genre horror was, the movie reference completely flew over my head, and yet there it was for my parents to chuckle at. Another example of the modern comic take is the ‘Friends’ episode where Phoebe parodists the stabbing motion at Monica.

            Janet Leigh, the obvious heroine of the movie is murdered in the first 40 minutes of the film, killing off the obvious leading lady of the movie was different and completely left of field to how film plots usually went, however Hitchcock decided to take it another step further. Not only is Leigh, character name Marion Crane, murdered directly on screen instead of in another room where the audience only hears the sounds of a woman being murdered or behind a shadow screen, no, in this case Hitchcock decided to kill the leading lady in one of the most vulnerable situations a human can place themselves in. Naked and in a shower. Was it this very movie that instilled an unconscious fear into humans when they close their eyes in the shower? I don’t know about you but I always have a feeling of unease when I close my eyes, the feeling of vulnerability and sometimes of being watched sneaks into the brain – is Hitchcock the perpetrator behind these irrational thoughts?  

           That famous screeching of the violins has almost become historical in context. Many comedic jabs have referenced the unnatural sound to accentuate the timing of the ‘yikes’ moment which is usually followed by a quick zoom in on the characters face and overly wide eyes. Much like the sound of the shark stalking its prey in ’Jaws’, the shrieking of the violins symbolises the sound of imminent danger and looming death. Perhaps one of the most iconic noises in film and television, this small score has been used in multiple platforms for all sorts of genres. As mentioned before, a lot of the time these platforms have comedic reference and satire.    

           The other twist that forever changed Horror is the way people view the schizophrenic killer and the empathy behind the makings of a murder. ‘Mother’ was an allusion into the criss-crosses of Norman’s mind, and a look into the innocence of his soul. Rather than claiming to portray a stronger, much more sophisticated version of himself, Hitchcock made it so that Norman was pitied up until the very end, portraying a woman who uses and abuses him even in the recesses of his mind. As the evilness of his mother’s character against him is revealed, both the horror of what Norman has done and the abject display of an abused boy is exposed.  

After all “A boy’s best friend is his mother”.

 References:

IMDb. 2017. Psycho (1960) – IMDb. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054215/?ref_=nm_knf_i1 .

New York Post. 2017. Breaking down the terrifying ‘Psycho’ shower scene | New York Post. [ONLINE] Available at: http://nypost.com/2017/10/12/breaking-down-the-terrifying-psycho-shower-scene/ .

IMDb. 2017. Looney Tunes: Back in Action (2003) – IMDb. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318155/?ref_nv_sr_1 .

IMDb. 2017. Friends (TV Series 1994-2004) – Episodes – IMDb. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108778/episodes?ref_=tt_ov_epl .

[fathersonholygore]

A&E’s Bates Motel Season 5, Episode 7: “Inseparable” Directed by Steph Green Written by Freddie Highmore

* For a recap & review of the previous episode, “Marion” – click here * For a recap & review of the next episode, “The Body” – click here Now that Norman (Freddie Highmore) has killed Sam Loomis, there’s a little of issue of disposing of the body with which he has to deal. Luckily he’s got Mother (Vera Farmiga) to help. She’s old hand at these kinds of things. The two split psyches each take their own respective duties, as she handles all the bloody, messy bits. To help protect her boy from the nasty truth. Regardless, he’s having trouble with the entire situation. Norma: “You wanna play with the big kids, you gotta act like the big kids.” Worse is the fact the pair find that in the nearby lake, their dumping grounds, a body’s pulled from the water. Norman worries about Jim Blackwell’s corpse being found, that Sheriff Jane Greene (Brooke Smith) will catch them. While Mother and her boy argue, they slap one another across the fact, and the large wedge between them opens up, as Norman finally figures out this isn’t the first time they’ve been out dumping bodies under cover of night. They dump Sam in a well in the woods, but it feels too rushed. Back at the motel Norman runs into none other than Sheriff Greene, who’s there to talk about what they found in the lake. “Multiple bodies” and one of them Mr. Blackwell. So Norman plays his game trying to keep his secret life under wraps, as the sheriff’s still wondering about all the connections, as well as whatever Alex Romero (Nestor Carbonell) is up to since his escape. A tense conversation between Greene and the young man. He’s just barely hanging on to the mask. Speaking of Romero, he’s recuperating in bed at the home of an old friend. She’s taken care of his wound, now he’s on bed rest and eating breakfast. Lucky for him he has anyone, particularly after his early exit from jail. More every minute, Norman worries about what’ll happen if the authorities come snooping around. He has to figure out what to do with Mother, so that nobody finds her body. An awkward moment; almost like the roles have reversed temporarily, and Norman is shielding Mother from the harsher truth of having to move her body. Such a strangely compelling scene. And of course any time we see the body it’s a – I swear this isn’t meant to be a pun – cold reminder of what is really going on inside that creepy house. Either way he takes Mother’s body out to a special place in the woods where the ground is nice and cool, to preserve her until she can come home.

Dylan (Max Thieriot) has come back to White Pine Bay, after hearing of his mother’s supposed suicide. Being back in the house is like a punch in the gut for him, knowing there is more to the story of her death. Walking around the house, he can feel his mother there. Her presence isn’t gone, barely even a bit. The place is a mess, dishes in the sink, and Norma’s high heels are kicked off in front of one of the chairs. One truly eerie shot there. Dylan tries to act normal with his brother, not immediately throwing suspicion and guilt around. They actually act like brothers, for a moment. Until Mother comes lurking in the background. Big brother does express his worry for little brother living alone, not seeing his doctor, and he wants to stay a few days to help Norman smooth life out. Hmm, not sure how that’ll play out with Mother creeping. Her room is virtually untouched, like a shrine. In his friendly hospice, Alex wants to find his gun, but his friend hides it from him. She doesn’t want him running off and doing more stupid shit to dig his hole deeper. They’re friends from growing up in White Pine Bay, she knows him through and through. And she can tell this has to do with Norma Bates. At home, Mother worries about having Dylan around. She calls him “misguided” and plays the Him v. Us card. That he’ll make things too difficult, he can’t be part of their life now. Just Mother and her little boy, that’s the way it was intended. Will he go along with it? Can he convince Dylan that everything’s swell and he can go on back to his life with Emma and their new baby? Out trying to get his brother more medication, Dylan discovers Norman’s doctor has been missing for over a year; there’s no way his brother had coffee with him recently. Yikes. Everything gets trickier when Dylan also runs into Madeleine Loomis (Isabelle McNally). She’s looking for Sam. The missing people on the possible list are piling up. Norman’s cooking a nice dinner for he and his brother. Life seems grand, music plays. All appears right. Certainly Dylan can’t shake what he knows, or what he thinks he knows. He brings up Sam Loomis, they have a conversation about what Norman remembers. He makes up a little(/tall) tale. It all devolves as the younger of the two gets upset over his older brother “meddling with the truth.” All Dylan wants is to protect him, to help him heal and get better. He tries convincing Norman to take his pills again. Then it all goes haywire. Mother comes out to speak with her oldest boy. She doesn’t want her baby taking the medication, effectively making her go away. Unfortunately, there’s only room for one of Norma’s children. She tries to kill Dylan, Norman holding back the knife in her hand. The two personalities wrestle, as Dylan watches on in horror. Norman manages to overcome her. He goes to the phone. Dials 911. And he reports himself for the murder of Sam Loomis before Mother can stop him. WOW! Just, damn. I didn’t see that ending coming. This puts the last few episodes into a wild frame, not exactly positive what the endgame is but I’m excited to watch it unfold. The next episode is “The Body” and I’m wondering if we’re about to see some truly disturbed, insane acting from Highmore once he and Mother are under lock and key. Bates Motel – Season 5, Episode 7: “Inseparable” A&E's Bates Motel Season 5, Episode 7: "Inseparable" Directed by Steph Green Written by Freddie Highmore…