Books
House of Leaves
"Written by" Mark Z Danielewski
10/10
I feel compelled to write a big thing about this later on, and I mean that in the most haunting way possible. I feel compelled to do something with it and to find an excuse to go back. A kind of psychic pulse at the back of my mind seems to pull my entire spine forward toward this cursed object. Let me just say though, while I completely understand why this thing is rumoured to legitimately give people schizophrenic delusions and be an actual detriment to one's mental health, I do think that it would surprise most people to learn what it actually is that does this to people.
I know that I was pretty hyped going in, but I was skeptical too. If you flip through the pages, you're bound to think "ah, yes. It makes people crazy because the words are upside down sometimes and some pages look like the barely held together scrambling thoughts of a madman. Very cool, but I don't think that's scary". This is what I thought. Or, you might assume that is the central topic that spooks people out- this scary house that manipulates and changes itself at will, which people can get lost in for days and weeks on end. Incredibly, though, it wasn't either of these things that really got to me, at least not independently. The format is interesting and adds to the images, claustrophobia, and madness being conveyed. Likewise, the Navidson Record is undeniably nightmarish. However, as a whole, "House of Leaves" is a psychological thriller more than anything. It's a psychological thriller that doesn't just make you anxious in suspending your belief, but draws you in as an active participant in the story and layers of characters and footnotes, wrapping you up in the depths of it's mystery and colossal implications whether you're intentionally pinning things to a cork-board or not. What makes this book "scary" isn't what it is telling you, but what it is driving you to consider. What makes "House of Leaves" uniquely unsettling is that when you are holding it in your hands, your first perspective in to this comes from a man already wrapped up in this psychic maelstrom and you realize that he (and several others) have gone mad from the power of The Navidson Record, Zampano's notes, and the actual events in the house. Typically, the text gives you context. In this case, the text *is* the context.
"Written by" Mark Z Danielewski
10/10
I feel compelled to write a big thing about this later on, and I mean that in the most haunting way possible. I feel compelled to do something with it and to find an excuse to go back. A kind of psychic pulse at the back of my mind seems to pull my entire spine forward toward this cursed object. Let me just say though, while I completely understand why this thing is rumoured to legitimately give people schizophrenic delusions and be an actual detriment to one's mental health, I do think that it would surprise most people to learn what it actually is that does this to people.
I know that I was pretty hyped going in, but I was skeptical too. If you flip through the pages, you're bound to think "ah, yes. It makes people crazy because the words are upside down sometimes and some pages look like the barely held together scrambling thoughts of a madman. Very cool, but I don't think that's scary". This is what I thought. Or, you might assume that is the central topic that spooks people out- this scary house that manipulates and changes itself at will, which people can get lost in for days and weeks on end. Incredibly, though, it wasn't either of these things that really got to me, at least not independently. The format is interesting and adds to the images, claustrophobia, and madness being conveyed. Likewise, the Navidson Record is undeniably nightmarish. However, as a whole, "House of Leaves" is a psychological thriller more than anything. It's a psychological thriller that doesn't just make you anxious in suspending your belief, but draws you in as an active participant in the story and layers of characters and footnotes, wrapping you up in the depths of it's mystery and colossal implications whether you're intentionally pinning things to a cork-board or not. What makes this book "scary" isn't what it is telling you, but what it is driving you to consider. What makes "House of Leaves" uniquely unsettling is that when you are holding it in your hands, your first perspective in to this comes from a man already wrapped up in this psychic maelstrom and you realize that he (and several others) have gone mad from the power of The Navidson Record, Zampano's notes, and the actual events in the house. Typically, the text gives you context. In this case, the text *is* the context.
If you should dedicate yourself to it, there are an endless number of clues, footnotes, symbols, and threads to follow to determine who is the true author, the extent to which any narrator is honest, and what the house & minotaur may actually be/represent. I have come to the conclusion that none of this matters and the cosmic horror behind this realization is the point all along, but I'll save that for later. For now, I just want to mention that the genius of "House of Leaves" is that you can decide how you navigate this maze, how willing you are to get lost in it, and what you're going to believe, but it will swiftly take this power from you and you almost wont know it until you're balls deep in your own theories and suddenly paralyzed with an emotion you haven't felt in years.
This is a powerful piece of literature and absolutely without doubt the most compelling and immersive thing I have ever read. I felt like the men following Scarlett Johansson in to the dark place in "Under the Skin". For about 3 weeks it was all I could think of as I watched water boil, closed the curtains in the evening, heard neighbours talking through the walls. I was possessed by it. Reading "House of Leaves"is the closest I've ever coming to having a genuine fear and understanding of God. The hype was real, but at the same time this strikes me as a very intimate and personal experience so I hesitate to try and convince anyone to read it. I have to believe no two people read this the same way, and no one leaves it the same either.
Movies
Shrek
Directed by: Andrew Adamson
I cant.
How do I even rate or discuss this 90 minute long meme that is also a genuinely touching love story and an essential cultural touchstone?
Sitting down to watch this, it was like my brain physically couldn't process "Shrek" as a film with a film narrative, its literally just memes imprinted in to my subconscious, quotes and scenes and voices part of my cultural DNA somehow.
I don't even know how to be genuine and earnest in writing about this. How can you acknowledge this memetic Mona Lisa without downplaying some of the strengths of "Shrek" as a film? How do you discuss it as a film with a screenplay and voice actors and all of the things that technically make up "Shrek", without kind of ignoring the fact that the "soul" of this film (if films have souls???) comes from its memes and cultural effect and not anything that was actually intentional in its creation.
I mean, can I say that this may be the only subversion of a fairy tale in a movie that actually works? I think its probably because its not just making the easy jokes, its jokes come naturally as a reaction from the characters to a world they are already familiar with. The jokes serve to examine what exists between the lines and what environment would come from everything socially and politically implied in fairy tales. Even in a "fairy tale land" there are still fairy tale ideals on love and elitism and in portraying the perspective of a lower class dude subjected to constant prejudice and disgust, what you get is this surprisingly layered narrative that just happens to also be believable and naturally hysterical.
I also want to note that Donkey is the only annoying sidekick character in an animated film that is genuinely funny and not just bait for children. The key to Donkey's character is that he is just as annoying to the protagonist and his world as he is to us, where as usually annoying sidekicks are kind of unintentionally annoying to the audience and treated as if they are unremarkable in this respect in-universe. in addition to this, Donkey is annoying but believable. He isn't so stupid that you cant imagine him functioning on his own in the world- he is annoying and incompetent in ways we can all recognize from people in our real lives. He isn't annoying like a minion is, he is annoying like a person is.
"Shrek" is a great meme and a surprisingly good movie. The more you unpack it, the more you realize how scientifically perfect this lightning in a bottle is. I would love to see someone more dedicated than me and Big Joel really just go for it and write a Shrek academic thesis.
Shrek 2
Directed by: Andrew Adamson
8.5/10
The most fun you can have with a couple beers and a TV is watching Shrek 2. There is no better beers and PJs on the couch movie than Shrek 2. You cannot change my mind.
This is obviously an example of what a great sequel can and should be- it expands on the world, challenges pre-existing relationships, and introduces new concepts and characters which inspire conflict.
I was so drunk when we watched this, I forgot to take notes. "Accidentally in Love" literally makes me cry, the soundtrack is unironically one of the best of the early 2000s, that fucking dinner scene is basically the dinner party episode of The Office but Shrek'd, and John Cleese's character arc is legitimately sympathetic and interesting.
Its so fucking good.
Honestly if given the choice between half an hour of "Shrek 2" and the dinner party episode of "The Office", I'd be hard pressed to make a definitive choice. On one hand, you have one of the most brilliant scripts of all time, and in the other hand you have the same thing. How could I choose?
Twilight
Directed by: Catherine Hardwicke
6/10
This is the other franchise we decided to watch this month, and again it is mostly for shitwatching. However, my husband and I are both of the opinion that the Twilight Saga is unintentionally really interesting and horrifying, it just chooses to be a romance for some reason. what we have here is an honest and well-realized teen drama and several great coming-of-age arcs which are consistently interupted by this awkward melodrama that gets kind of shoe-horned in. What really gets me about these films is that every one introduces some new and genuinely fascinating idea, but then drops it because it would actually impede the romance if it were explored any deeper.
In this one, it is the fact that the Cullens are really concerned with souls and purity. The Cullens are better than the other vampires on a moral level because they have faith and don't steer in to the inherent evil of their condition. Instead, they mope all day about the fact that their souls will no longer be going to heaven. So when the dilemma of this teenage human girl wanting to become a vampire to fit in with them, and Edward making the critical mistake of falling in love with a human and giving them all away is presented, they have serious issues with "turning her" because Edward is concerned about her soul and wants her to go to heaven when she dies.
If this were the central conflict of the movie and religiosity was examined alongside the angst and turmoil this family lives in, I think this film would actually stand up as an interesting piece of supernatural discourse. However, that is not the central conceit. In fact, its mentioned a couple times but only as a device to prolong their decision to "turn" Bella. It is really such a waste of a cool idea, because Bella's perspective would even compliment the development of these ideas. Throughout the film, we see both characters going on about how their entire life and life's purpose is just for each other now. Bella has this ongoing monologue to the audience and posits that "I'm chill with dying today, it was worth it to kiss the boy". Wouldn't these self-sacrificial ideals be more interesting through a lens of religious faith juxtaposed with a self-awareness of teenhood angst and romantic ideals?
I think it would be more interesting. But ultimately, I'm ok with enjoying these for what they are- unintentionally hilarious, stilted, awkward, and problematic teen romances. This one is the most boring of the bunch by a country mile, as they have yet to involve any of the completely insane vampire lore in to the mix, nor are there endless werewolf battles. They haven't even started awkwardly bringing up and immediately dropping these questions about vampire sex and procreation. "Twilight" is a really boring movie unless you are laughing with it and discussing the consent issues (the list of consent issues present here only gets longer as the series progresses, but we start out with healthy dose of stalking, dude watching her while she sleeps without permission, breaking in to her home and going through her things, him openly admitting to reading minds without consent, and being grossly possessive). Later on, these issues and hilarious awkward bits gain a lot more depth at the introduction of Incel Jacob, but for now all we have is Edward and the tragically cucked Mike Normalguy.
Incidentally, Mike is possibly one of the greatest arguments against simping there ever has been or will be. My man Mike. A poor, poor fool.
Twilight: New Moon
Directed by: Chris Weitz
7/10
I need to talk about Werewolf puberty first.
Alright, so, you're born in to the Werewolf clan. You've heard the tales, you know the men in your family can turn in to Werewolves at will, but it isn't your time yet. Part of the coming-of-age ritual surrounding wereolf-dom and manhood involves distinctly toxic masculine gangs who engage in exclusive adrenaline tests and you watch from afar, kind of jealous and resentful but also frightened of them. Then you start getting extremely muscular. It doesn't happen naturally by working out or anything, it occurs almost over night. One day, you get an extremely high fever, but you don't get sick. You just burn up and you are isolated from others for a while, taken in by your manlier brothers, and you emerge a full fledged werewolf. You went in with the long hair of your boyhood, but you come out with it cut and with it your ties to your old self. You go in soft, boyish, and wary of these hyper-masculine ideals. You leave as a man who takes what is owed to him, defends himself and the ones he loves, and a man who hunts werewolves.
Jacob's arc in this as Bella's boyish friend who falls in love with her, to an aggressive incel caught up in the turmoil and angst of his new transformation is honestly great. It is shocking how realistic and sympathetic his story with Bella is while Edward is away. Their relationship and affection develops naturally and they have real chemistry. Even on the day that he gets the fever and "wolfs out" (yes they actually use this phrase. Its a wolf thing. You wouldn't understand) on Mike Normalguy, it is shocking but believable considering the circumstance. In the wet shirtless cropped hair reveal scene, his sudden angst and aggression are executed really well alongside the mandatory "I'm doing this for your own good Bella. To protect you. Just like the other dude" statement. Where Edward's protectiveness and romance with Bella feel forced, Jacob's seems natural at first. However, this isn't the movie we can hope it would be. It isn't a coming-of-age drama about a boy exploring the toxic masculinity in his cultural environment. This film exists to create a second dude who is jealous and a possible threat to the central romance. *sigh*
Another missed opportunity here is Bella's depression after Edward leaves and her suicidal attempts to get him back. Initially we get a scene which depicts her depression as something constant and totally suffocating- her sense of meaning and happiness in life is gone completely, so she sits all day in a lifeless trance. However, this is soon replaced with a very bizarre depiction of depression and grief. On 4 separate occasions, there are scenes of Bella just deadass screaming in bed. Unfortunately Kristen Stewart really is as bad as people make her out to be in these films, and these scenes are not convincing. They are jarring, hysterical, and totally not compliant with the mood of the rest of the film or her depression.
"New Moon" is an essential piece to the franchise, though. The creation of Incel Jacob is important not just as a constant conflict to the main romance plot, but the initially sympathetic background is also the only thing that can justify Bella's continued involvement with the man. We get tons of hilarious dialogue in this one too and its a step up in entertainment value. There are a couple gems such as Bella outright telling Jacob that he is "really beautiful, you know?" and then immediately following that with "I miss my boyfriend who abandoned me though". The best line in the movie has to be "Its a wolf thing", though. If you drink every time this is uttered, you will wake up the next morning with no memory of these films. Maybe this is a good thing?
V for Vandetta
Directed by: James McTeigue
7/10
The political ideologies and predicted future society of this film are extremely topical, to an almost frightening and unsettling degree. It isn't hard to recognize the real-life examples and threat of a religious fundamentalist conservative leadership driving a country in to fascism. Watching this in 2020, you can't help but feel a conflicted and fiery excitement as V blows up the parliament and destroys statues depicting the ideologies of the status-quo. One one hand, this is brilliant, on the other hand, oh my god we are living in a fucking nightmare. The riots, revolution, tension, and criticism of the rich and powerful religious elite as they control the masses and cover up huge acts of violence towards queer communities, downplay threats to public health and safety such as massive contagious viruses, and make efforts to label freedom fighters and protesters in to criminals are all very relevant to our political climate. Conceptually, this film is incredibly dense and packed with enlightening terms and ideas- "strength through unity, unity through faith" and "artists use lies to tell the truth" are some of the bigger ones. The message of "don't let advocacy die, the elite will always take advantage of your forgetting and letting your guard down to take over themselves" is a very powerful and enduring one and still holds up today, of course.
However, all this said, I'd be lying if I said I wasn't mostly bored with this film. I watch this every year, and every year I completely forget 90% of it. Everything involving the romance plot, the police detective plot, and basically anything that isn't overt social critique and propaganda just kind of falls flat for me and for the life of me I cannot understand how we are supposed to emotionally connect with V, Evey, or their relationship at all. Its also filmed in a pretty boring way and few scenes really stand out to me.
Maybe I am just a dumb girl and the knife fights don't blow my mind because I am lame, but the combat also bores me to tears. The soundtrack is unremarkable too. The more I thought about it and the longer we sat in to that film, the more I realized that I straight up don't like this movie at all, I just respect the ultra based political ideas it presents.
Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan
Directed by: Nicholas Meyer
7/10-8.5/10
I think you probably have to be a fan of Star Trek to fully appreciate the films, and I can definitely see where the quality and emotional payoff exists for such fans, but if I'm being honest I more enjoyed the 1 episode of Star Trek we watched before the film. While watching "Wrath of Khan" I kept thinking to myself that I should be liking this a lot more than I did because conceptually I loved it, it was very contemplative and interesting, and some of the performances were genuinely moving. I think the reality is that first off, I may have been slightly too stoned to properly follow what was going on, and secondly I think you need to have a pre-established understanding of the world and characters to really get invested because there is very little action and these films/TV series appear to be heavily dialogue-based. So as is, it was an interesting experience, but I can see that if I were emotionally invested in Spock at all it would've been a very moving.
There's a lot to think about and admire in this film though, now that I've got the explanation of my gut reaction out of the way. Though I have only seen 1 episode of Star Trek prior to this, its incredible how fleshed out and fully realized Kirk's character already was for me at the end of this film. Kirk is heroic, earnest, optimistic, and introspective. His insecurities about getting older, his melancholy and nostalgia for the past, his struggle to accept that the potency and excitement of his younger life are gone now- all of these things round him out and make him very sympathetic. His conflicts with Khan are also very compelling because in many ways Khan is a mirror to Kirk's anxieties and he functions as a way for Kirk to reconnect with his past and redeem himself.
I also really love the whole thing with the Kobayashi No-pass test, Kirk's solution, and Spock's ultimate say in it. I thought everything involving this puzzle and the various people who interact with it was really effective at conveying the primary character and philosophical differences between everyone while also offering an engaging morality puzzle for us to grapple with ourselves. I got legitimate chills when Kirk explained that he doesn't believe in the no-win scenario. i think what surprised me most about Star Trek was how instantly likeable Kirk is and the nuances behind his masculinity, confidence, and optimism. He is optimistic but it doesn't impede his intelligence. I love this because typically when we see optimism in characters, they are portrayed as naive or childlike or it has to do with their faith etc. I love this character that is optimistic but never hopelessly so, one who understands the peril of all situations and feels fear and despair, but more than anything he believes in himself and others. I know the optimism of Star Trek has been discussed at length, but I guess I was surprised by how true everything I've heard about it is. It is wholesome, it is deeply contemplative and intellectual, and it does have a magical chemistry which exists in the cast. It is perfect in every single way in this respect, but I think I'd need a lot more exposure to the show if I intend to watch another film.
Twilight: Eclipse
Directed by: David Slade
8/10
This is the closest the Twilight series gets to being un-ironically good.
Finally, this series starts to take advantage of the multiple facets of dramatic tension and high stakes that it's set up with. Multiple dimensions to the relationships between characters other than the boys and Bella are explored and it can honestly be argued that the reason "Eclipse" is the best of the series is because Bella takes a back seat. Bella is so utterly useless in this film, she could just about be cut out completely and it'd still be a decent film. She exists purely as a maguffin and her being removed from much of the central conflicts so that she may be "protected" watch on the sidelines allows for nearly every other side character to have their perspectives and backstories explored. Many of these are genuinely interesting and I really like that the concept of eternal life as an undeniable horror is finally touched on. When it's just Edward and Bella, all we hear about is how concerned he is with her soul and purity and why marriage and waiting for marriage to have sex is very important in all of this. When other Cullens and the Werewolves are consulted on the issue of turning this 18 year old girl in to a vampire and the treaty being broken, we get a lot more emotionally charged and intellectually challenging perspectives.
In addition to this, the character development of both Edward and Jacob is given more attention with Bella just acting as a duckling to protect. We see Edward's gross protectiveness and jealousy criticized by others, and Incel Jacob is awarded slightly more sympathy with the concept of "Imprinting" being introduced (more on this in the next films). There is even a scene where the two of them hash it out and speak respectfully about the relationships they have with Bella, and the most hilarious part of all this is not just that Jacob is literally spooning a groping and shivering unconscious Bella in a sleeping bag at this point, but that him and Edward legitimately have more chemistry together than any other aspect of the love triangle. In a better film, maybe they would come out of this as genuine pals or even lovers. They come to an honest understanding in regards to their clan rivalry and both make compelling arguments in favour of their respectful jealousies about the other. Its absurd. This is the same scene where only moments earlier, in a plea to save Bella from dying of hypothermia, Edward is forced to call Jacob over and have him spoon her naked and Jacob's reply to this is "lets face it, I am hotter than you" which is, let me tell you, absolutely fucking iconic.
I know that "good writing" is typically discussed in terms of interesting and enigmatic dialogue, thematic consistency, and well written plots, but can credit not also be given to managing to write hundreds of totally contrived reasons for it to make sense that the hot boy must be shirtless and carry the girl, not just to cuck the other guy but oddly for lore and plot reasons too? I think there is genuinely something to be said about the length these films will go to justify something that boils down to "how can we make the girl continue to behave like a tease and have the one boy continue to simp?". For instance, after learning that she is engaged, Jacob basically says "well maybe I'll just kill myself and make this easier on you" and this is just so Bella will cry out "NO! KISS ME! I want you to kiss me!" and so of course they do, and of course her fiance is watching, and of course its a whole fucking thing. There are also hilarious reasons for Edward having to drop Bella off to be essentially babysat by Jacob for days on end, watching in agony as they embrace with quadruple the sexual chemistry he has with his fiance. Is that not kind of hilarious and brilliant in its own right? Maybe I'm just a Twilight stan now. Whatever. Ill own it.
Finally, what makes this particular film better than the other in the series is that we see some pretty legit battle sequences that don't do what the fucking last film does. They're honestly cool and it never stops being entertaining watching vampire heads be popped off like champagne corks, or big doggos rip off limbs. If you don't have fun with these battles, you are not fun. You, too, are a vampire if that's the case. But the lame kind, like the Cullens. Not the cool ass Nosferatu types in Italy.
Shrek the Third
Directed by: Chris Miller
5.5/10
Do not be fooled by the first 45 minutes of this film.
Do not allow yourself to be tricked in to thinking "damn, this honestly isn't bad, I'm still getting quite a few laughs and some of the changes in character dynamics are good". This film has a strong start and an abysmal third act. It honestly feels like there were a lot of things they wanted to add in to Shrek 2 but it wasn't fitting in to the script (which is, as we know, hella tight), so they just put them in to this one and tried to work a film around these early bits. While there are some good bits and Gingy is legitimately hysterical as a being having gone slightly insane with PTSD-like flashbacks, what the film ultimately places all of its weight on is Shrek and Fiona's relationship. Normally, this would be good. The other films always end on this note and it always pulls through. However, the issue here is that Fiona is barely present at all in this flick and doesn't develop either on her own or alongside Shrek at all, so it falls super flat. This, combined with the dragging plot and embarrassingly un-funny third act that is straight up just a cheap children's film at that point, results in this pretty disappointing mess. The over-use of the "everybody stop and hear me out!" cliche is damn near criminal here, but I can't find it in myself to give too much of a shit.
I mean, it's Shrek 3.
Directed by: Bill Condon
8/10
Bill Condon brings a new energy and gooey melodrama to the series and you have to admire him for this because on paper, these last two movies could've easily been the worst. I have to assume that the intense body horror of Bella's mutated C-section/death/revival is not so horrifying and legitimately traumatic in Meyer's novels because it comes completely out of left field and these dudes that have spent several movies being angry, protective, and obsessed are suddenly incredibly human and desperate. For this scene alone, this may be the best film of the franchise. It is certainly the most interesting and action-packed, though I'd be lying if I said I don't adore the hilarious angsty shit-watching potential of "Eclipse".
We actually see a good deal of basic improvements under Condon's direction. Actors like Kristen Stewart which had previously seemed so stiff and uncomfortable suddenly have emotional range and charisma, Charlie's exasperation which has grown exponentially greater and funnier every film is finally given the screen time it deserves, the soundtracks are free to give scenes energy and optimism when they are warranted, and despite the grim horror of the third act and the melodramatic wish fulfillment of the first act, we see a lot of Bella and Edward having fun and laughing together for the first time. I'm always a big advocate for this- no romance feels right without some fun. In real life, people aren't constantly telling each other that they will die for each other and shit. People who are in love are clumsy, silly, and laugh! It's also surprising to see Mormon media depict a female protagonist who legitimately loves sex and is never shamed for her hornyness (granted, the anti-abortion sentiments near the end kind of counteract this).
The wedding is fine, the honeymoon stuff is fun and satisfying, and the "Bella just has the flu" that turns in to a demon vampire baby eating her from the inside out is spectacular. The make-up and special effects to make Bella guant, bruised, and deformed are fucking sick and I will live and die for that sound design concerning her spine cracking in half. Like, the absolute balls of this movie to have the protagonist fucking die and have her lover desperately try and resuscitate her for 5+ minutes is *insane*. Mind you, all this is after everyone has begged Bella to get an abortion so this fetus in her wont kill her, but Bella just keeps screaming "its not a fetus its a baby and I LOVE HER". Her baby names are incredible too, so much worse than you could ever imagine. If it's a boy, EJ ("Edward Jacob", she explains) and if its a girl, Renessme (Rene and Esme, after hers and Edward's "mother"). The first time I physically said the word "Renessme", I must have laughed for 10 straight minutes. It is such a stupid fucking name, but somehow the lesser of the two evils. Thank god the baby had girl genitals because LORD I can't believe this bitch was gonna name her son after it's father and the family simp lol.
Of course there are other good bits too- Jacob's anger and nausea at the thought of Edward and Bella having sex is both hysterical and in hindsight kind of tragic considering the fact that he was right all along. The stakes become unreasonable high by the end of this flick, it's a shame that part 2 doesn't take as many dramatic risks to follow through with it though.
Directed by: Bill Condon
7/10
So this one is essentially vampire Xmen. At a certain point, they just end up recruiting vampires from all over the world (other than the vampire mafia from Italy of course, because they're the bad guys) and each one of them has a unique power sort of like the Cullens, but typically way cooler. They all gather together to protect Renessme from the endlessly hilarious Volturi and now that Jacob has left the pack to be a lone wolf, inexplicably the other wolves decide he was right all along and decide to fight by the vampire's side. They all gather in a field- big doggos, hipsters in tight jeans and sweaters, terrifying CGI-faced child, and the robed and hooded "I vant to suck your bloood" Volturi, and after some super boring leading remarks an extremely dope battle occurs.
4 main characters are killed, both be-headed or snapped in half. A giant rift in the ground opens up and people scream and fall to their deaths. Vampire corpses are lit on fire, jaws are snapped off, doggos tear vamps limb from limb and all of the Xmen unleash their powers. The battlefield is piled high in bodies, and then the movie does something unforgivably criminal. Right as the big bad guy is being engulfed in flames, we see that this was all merely a vision that he has experienced via Renessme touching his cheek with her magic "communicate via touch" powers. It is god damn CRIMINAL because up to that point, this was a legitimately thrilling and intense final chapter. Yet, they pussy out of this way better ending in favour of an even more boring discussion, the disassembling of the Xmen who apparently gathered together for no fucking reason, and everyone going home so that Jacob can continue to groom this child for another few weeks just in time for her to reach sexual maturity so he may fuck her.
I'm going to assume everyone knows that the big reveal is that Jacob was not in love with Bella this whole time- he was in love with an unfertilized egg within her that is eventually born as Renessme. Yeah, think through that one. Stephanie Meyer is great for introducing ideas or sticking with something without at all thinking through the weird and upsetting implications behind these things. Whether it is the implication that vampire sex will shred a vagina in half, or that this baby grows a year a day such that it will have reached sexual maturity in only a couple weeks, there are endless things to unpack and literally no time given to unpack them. If Bella hadn't gotten pregnant at the right time, would Jacob suddenly stop having feelings after she had a period that got rid of that egg? Or is this all wrapped up in some mormon understanding of "fate" and"God's plan"? I also think its great that they include a scene where Charlie remarks on how unnaturally fast this child is growing, and everyone just laughs and they move on like that isn't a super crazy thing to notice about your grand-daughter.
Really though, the best moment in this film happens right away when Bella wakes up and is the only one with a reasonable reaction to Jacob lusting after her newborn. After beating him up and screaming at him for imprinting on her daughter, she is subjected to Jacob referring to Renessme as "Nessie", a cool nickname. Bella then yells at the top of her lungs, the camera panning in, "You nicknamed my baby after the Loc Ness Monster!!!!????". Pure fucking cinema.
Directed by: Mike Mitchell
7/10
It's actually kind of unbelievable that this movie takes any risks at all, considering that it could've easily just done nothing and made a billion dollars. The fact that it is as tonally intense and bold as it is... is frankly admirable and I gotta respect it for that. Don't get me wrong, obviously the first 15 minutes are pretty cringe, but once the set-up is all done and we are fully in the alternate universe, it is good the whole way through. In many ways it is kind of the opposite of Shrek 3- it gets the bullshit out of the way real quick and gets wildly conceptual while departing from the franchise in terms of intensity and emotional heaviness, while Shrek 3 was basically just an extension of 2 with a whole lot of bullshit in the end. Somehow, Shrek 4 manages to be legitimately depressing and heartwarming despite the series having long since been dragged through the mud.
At the risk of just re-capping the plot, you have to understand that on a conceptual level the central conceit of this film is literally perfect for a conclusion. In exploring the "It's a Wonderful Life" universe where Shrek was never born, the writers get the freedom to flip every character completely on their heads and re-examine them not just from a personal level, but also the thematic beats of the series as whole. Shrek 4 seems to understand it's memetic power and second life, but wisely avoids direct callbacks most of the time (when it does do a direct callback, its pretty awkward). Instead, we see references to the first film in moments that are foils to what we remember and expect- instead of fairy tale creatures being lined up for slavery, they're ogres. Instead of the fairy-tale aspect of Fiona being locked in a tower existing as a romantic clutch, it has been developed in to a character arc involving feminism and tough skin. Most significantly, we have the betrayal of true love's first kiss, and this results in a genuinely heartbreaking scene where we are thrown brutally in to a reality where things don't just work out conveniently for the protagonists.
I think all of this is brilliant, and I'm not sorry for saying so. Incidentally, I love working man corporate slave Donkey and fat housecat Puss. Every character transformation manages to both make sense and still be radically different than their regular versions, perhaps the funniest one being barbarian cock-fighting Gingy. The only new characters are Rumpelstiltskin (his actions make him a great and compelling villain, but he is also deeply irritating to watch on screen), the pied piper (used only briefly), and the ogre freedom fighters lead by Fiona (yes, this is real and yes, its somehow good). However, the mistake that Shrek 3 makes is never made, and attention is always brought back to Shrek and Fiona. The first and last 15 minutes are comprised of embarrassing kids movie schticks and the ogre dance sequence is super cringy, but the rest is genuinely good and pretty inventive. Credit where credit is due, this has no right to be as conceptually thoughtful as it is.
Oh, and the end credits is just memes. Straight up. Just memes.
Watch Big Joel's video on the Shrek series if you want to hear a better essay about this. I'm checked out of Shrek now.
Directed by: John Carpenter
9/10
This film has big energy. The opening alone is incredibly emotive. Nearly zero dialogue is exchanged but through visual storytelling and careful reveals we get this overwhelming atmosphere, this heavy *feel* that Carpenter does so well. It's actually pretty incredible how little dialogue there is in this film with such an enormous political message and so many avenues which it explores plot-wise too. At least half of the dialogue is just iconic one-liners from Roddy Piper and some of those (like the bubblegum and kicking ass one) don't even really move anything forward or spark any ideological conflicts. The visual storytelling in this bitch is just unreal and it's clear that Carpenter knew an excess of dialogue or exposition would detract from the consistent energy and threat of the action and strong visual reveals in the film.
A lot of people will interpret this film as one which speaks to how strongly people will resist seeing the truth and taking a stand, as is potentially shown in the fantastically long and exhausting fight between our protagonist and his coworker. However, I feel like there is a more fitting message not only to this scene but to the social environment of the movie as a whole, and that is the emphasis on how dangerous and unlikely one is to switch tracks and believe in a reality which denies what little agency people think they have over their lives. Of course Frank doesn't want to put on the glasses and will violently resist it- it is obvious that he has some idea of the systemic oppression surrounding him and he is frightened of being found out and having his life endangered. The reality Frank faces is that a life under oppression, whether it is the oppression he recognizes or a larger oppression which George threatens to reveal, is better than no life at all or one literally imprisoned. The truth seen through the sunglasses asserts that you've been a pawn all along, that you never did have any meaningful control over your life, you've been a working slave all along and you've never been merely "down on your luck"- you've been deliberately held down in the dark.
Another thing I've come to love about this film and its subtlety, which sounds odd considering how bold the skeleton/alien people are, is that the extent of the wealth inequality and how it affects society is shown to you in the exact blind-spots your boomer parents may have when they claim that they "don't see color" and that "racism is hating someone for the color of their skin", or the beliefs that people in poverty have simply made bad life decisions. You can see how this common rhetoric is coming from people who also live under the rule of the elite and wealthy overlords, but they've been directed to favour the easier blame which doesn't threaten their entire worldview or their tentative position of meagre power. In these attitudes, the status-quo is forever kept in place and the mutual oppressors and truths are hidden. The sunglasses can show you the truth, but they can't give you any power to tear down the late-stage capitalist nightmare before you. The elite will stay in power as long as there are hoards of people willing to fight each other over their scraps. I love one detail in particular- it is explicitly shown and said that police officers are usually humans, they've just been employed and paid off by the aliens to keep things in check and reduce any significant rioting/ social overhaul. Keep people tired, scared, hungry, and desperate, and distribute propaganda to those with any scrap of privilege or power, and the truth can stay hidden forever.
so I obviously love this. I love all of what "They Live" says and I love the presentation of everything. The only thing I genuinely don't understand in this film is the real purpose and appeal of the love interest. In my mind, you can pretty much cut her out completely and nothing is lost. I hope someone can change my mind on this because I've seen this flick like 3 times and I've forgotten her existence and role in it each time, despite her being a main character for much of it.
Directed by: John Carpenter
6.5/10
*cumming at the critical take this film has on the American justice system*
Is Kurt Russel just a perfect protagonist, or am I just in love with him? Hard to say.
This has got to be one of Carpenter's most blunt films in its exploration of American Imperialism and the state of American politics. I like the president in this America- a disaffected wet blanket of a man endlessly far-removed and deliberately negligent of the needs of his people because he knows he really serves only as a figurehead. I love that within moments of being saved he is getting a fresh shave and is on air to deliver a generic announcement to the public, emotionless and meaninglessly mentioning that America will honour the memory of the men who fought to save him. I love that the film does not linger a moment longer on this, nor follow Kurt Russel's obvious feelings and reaction of disgust.
I was surprised to see how far they go with the setting and set-up, both rich with opportunity to examine real-world issues as well as plenty of fun horror-action. I realized while watching this that John Carpenter really likes to use fire and flame in his films as prominent lighting. Not only is it atmospheric and appropriate to his typically gritty apocalyptic settings, but I think it works well as a metaphorical beacon of the common man and humanity.
I liked this grimy, industrial action film that is just reeking with visceral masculinity, but it didn't blow my mind like I expected it to. I want to give it a second shot someday, if only to see the blond Sonic the Hedgehog man again.
Directed by: Les Blank
8.5/10
Again I must say this, is there a more consistently fascinating and entertaining human subject for a documentary than Werner Herzog? Every word the man says, every turn of phrase and monologue, colourful interviews in front of trees and in those damned comfy wool sweaters- for every moment he is on screen speaking, I grow fonder of him. Am I in love with Werner Herzog? I don't think so, but could you blame me if I were? He is oddly alluring from an intellectual perspective and of all directors, including my boy Noah Baumbach, I think Herzog would be the one I'd most like to meet and share a brandy with.
This short documentary explores the unbelievable dedication Herzog has to his word, such that he will literally eat a shoe because of a comment he made years ago on the likelihood of a certain film being made. While interviewing Herzog, we learn that this isn't the first time he has made an unreasonably brutal and silly comment which he has followed up on regardless of whether anyone else took him seriously or not. Incredibly, this dude has also thrown himself in to a cactus in what he believes to be a show of understanding in the pain he put his crew through, reminding us that are assumptions are wrong and "Its not self-destructive to throw yourself on to a cactus, just pointy".
The interviews also capture Herzog's despair and disgust with advertisements and the looming threat of late-stage capitalism (and this was filmed 40 years ago. Yikes.) which are appropriately macabre and revealing. This also managed to really sell me on the documentary film that inspired this whole shoe-eating bid (and yes, he does eat the shoe). I hope to see The Gates of Heaven before the year is out.
Directed by: Terry Gilliam
9.5/10
(Would be a 10/10, but I am not sure if its the best film ever made or if I was just stoned)
I genuinely don't know how to begin with this. I think I'll just start with meagre observations and work my way in.
Check out Brad Pitt just absolutely mogging on Bruce Willis in this flick! While Willis is perfectly casted as a nameless every-man "born yesterday" apocalyptic convict and don't get me wrong, that scene where he in god damn tears listening to "Blueberry Hill" is potent and emotionally effective, but he aint no Pitt. Brad Pitt is doing something in this film that I can only describe as "schizophrenic mania meets Dicaprio in 'Whats Eating Gilbert Grape'". I don't know if I'm just out of touch with how this film was received way back, but I have to believe that Pitt's performance (and this movie in general) are criminally under-rated and under-discussed. Brad Pitt has no right to be as talented as he is- god damn him for being rich, handsome, and also unbelievably talented all at once. God damn him. His performance as Jeffery Goines is legitimately life-changing and consistently on a whole other level from the rest of the film. It is genuinely like Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight" in that whenever he isn't on screen, there is a part of me just tensely waiting for him to return. Immediately when he is back in the picture blood is pumping in my ears and I am glued to the screen, rapt in awe. He manages to be enigmatic and insane but never frightening or unnerving necessarily. He is both consistent and unpredictable and the physicality of this character that he achieves is fucking phenomenal. I'm convinced that just a silhouette of this man, no sound or other descriptors present, could still translate much of his character and motivations effectively. My favourite scenes with him involve him being an essential part of the overarching plots and layered narratives going on, very briefly revealing himself to be unexpectedly brilliant and a key cog in the machine, and then all at once erupting in to riveting chaos and monologue to throw off the scent. He is a fucking revelation in this flick and it bums me out that he lost an Oscar to Kevin Spacey for this in 1996.
"12 Monkeys" seems like an incredibly influenced and influential film in the sci-fi action genre. Immediately we can draw comparisons to "The 5th Element", "Bladerunner", and "The Terminator". The aesthetic, tone, and environments also appear to be an inspiration for the "Metro 2033" games and "Twin Peaks". What I love about "12 Monkeys" is that it can be influenced by all of these sci-fi giants but it takes all of this aesthetic and tonally resonant ideas forward in to a unique direction and in doing so it makes all of these borrowed elements feel organic and earned. There are two things that I really really love in this respect, both choices that elevate "12 Monkeys" as a film that is uniquely intelligent and bold where it absolutely could've been just a fun but forgettable sci-fi thriller from the 90's. First, it has imperfect time travel. I love that time travel isn't just a storytelling device here- it is something that is understandably flawed and treated like a real scientific pursuit which comes with failures and stumbles. This allows for conflict to come in to play in interesting and organic ways and I just love any kind of problematic and finicky technology of the future. I think perfect, slim, cold futuristic technologies and environments are pretty boring so I love any media which makes them deliberately imperfect. Speaking of this, the second thing I adore about this film is also something I respect in films like "Limitless", and that is sticking to an ending that is either a failure or a rejection of the idea that the conflicts presented in the film will be "solved" by the end. I love that "12 Monkeys" ends in a failure and everything done and attempted during this film was in vain. Plenty of operations end this way, and the cyclical realization of this ending hits heavy as despair in an apocalypse like the one presented in "12 Monkeys" should.
This brings me to something that hit us unexpectedly hard while watching this, and that is the direct comparisons to the pandemic apocalypse there and the COVID crisis here in real life. It was really, really eerie to see the PPE and Bruce's warnings being dismissed as "fear mongering". Bruce Willis's kidnapped woman sidekick who starts off as his doctor is pretty cliche and their relationship is...problematic to say the least, but her perspective serves well to keep the audience caught up with the impressively layered plot and consistently changing threats.
I also love the mental hospital as a storytelling environment. "12 Monkeys" takes us through many differently distressing environments, including WWI, American prisons, and the futuristic post-pandemic hell-scapes, but none are as instantly rife with visual world-building as the mental hospital. Goines leads us through this isolated world with it's own internal logic and rules both physically and philosophically in his sprawling monologuing- switching frequently between the ramblings of a madman and direct political critique. Incidentally, I cannot believe these speeches and dances haven't been meme'd to hell. Eventually the film goes to linking everything together in a kind of "Memento" type style, but these early scenes in the mental hospital are what really changes pace and asserts to the audience that this is a thriller with some underlying horror to chew on- the suffering of the mentally ill is systematically shrugged aside and locked away. What appears as creative licence here is not far from the truth, especially for public mental health care in 90's, and especially for the states.
Directed by: Julia Reichart & Steven Bognar
8.5/10
This is an older documentary on childhood cancer and it shows in its more traditional approach. The camera only serves to observe and it rarely follows, there is very minimal editing at all in conversations or scenes, and there is no strong narrative voice or direction. Even if I have been spoiled with the riveting and emotionally charged documentary film-making of the modern era, there is real honesty and value in this traditional approach especially with subjects as sensitive and potentially political as this. The directors appear to have made the very deliberate choice to only go so far as to portray the financial struggles and racial realities of these families while never turning the attention of the camera and audience away from them and their struggles in favor of a critique on the American health care system. I respect this choice because in doing so the over-riding emotional story of this piece is one of compassion, grief, and the inner strengths and characters of the children, instead of vile anger towards the American way. There is maybe one moment in the two part series that may directly expose the political aspects behind childhood cancer in America, and that is when a black women utters this heart-breaking truth: "Honestly, at this point I'm more afraid for the streets taking my (teenage) son than his cancer".
As I said, this is a very compassionate and honest film about childhood cancer, death, and the stresses and resilience these families endure. Despite the explicitly upsetting nature of children suffering and dying like this, there is a very intentional lack of pity displayed over the course of this 4 hour documentary. "A Lion in the House" values the voices and experiences of its subjects more than imposing its own (and by extension, the audiences own) feelings towards everything. While there are frequently gut-wrenching scenes of children in despair, terrified of death, and parents desperate and exhausted in grief, everyone is at some point given the dignity of a platform all to themselves to speak to their perspectives. Often, the choices made in these situations can tear a family and marriage apart, and I think it is very important to validate each person's place in the ecosystem of grief and prolonged suffering such as this. For every scene that is candid, claustrophobic, and very much in the moment of heartbreak and shock, there are interviews just outside a hallway or in a public park during remission stages. There appears to always be a parent who is struggling in denial, a parent that is burning themselves out and counting every second, and a sibling or other third party who must work as a tireless mediator. All of these people are suffering, all of these people love the child, and it is heartbreaking to watch them struggle to reconcile with their differing opinions on the same deeply unfair and unkind experience.
The children in this documentary are frequently playful, hopeful, and hilarious every bit as much as they are depressed, confused, and struggling in a way that is very difficult to watch and even harder to truly understand. There were many times I had to physically look away, unable to deal with the reality of an 8 year old receiving her 9th painful spinal tap, or a 16 year old boy caught rapt in fear at the realization of his palliative condition. Through these children we see one of the most frightening things about death- the fact that you don't get a say in the matter, and at a certain point all you and anyone can do is surrender to it. You will die whether it is fair or not, and you'll leave your friends and family hurting. This is the cruel reality of death, especially when it imposes itself on the lives of young children. It is touching to see people go above and beyond to provide these children with a meaningful life inside and outside of the cancer wards, and even more inspiring to see the children bravely face things the adults in the room can hardly comprehend themselves, and do so with humour and a child-like energy. It was always a relief to see the joy in the Christmas parties and birthdays. It was always sobering and heavy when you'd see families taken in to the little conference room just outside the ICU especially after a particularly insightful interview in which a doctor explains his perspective. The doctor goes on to say that this little room is one of the most significant in the whole hospital as it is one dedicated to the discussion of, struggles with, and planning of death. When people are taken there, they are there to be asked explicitly how they want the death of their loved one to look. Do we want to keep trying and prolonging this, or do we want to have a DNR in place?
I really do think it is valuable to watch things like this and honour the experiences of these families, but at the same time I'd understand anyone who avoided this like wildfire. It was not fun. It was awful even at the best of times when I felt inspired and was smiling. The fact that you can have a kid and have this happen to them, the fact that you can be a kid and have your life ended this way, these are things I may never be able to fully accept. As an intern says near the end of this film, it is never easy; "It is hard every time, and I need it to be hard every time. If this ever becomes easy, (to lose a child to cancer), I need to find other work".
Directed by: Paul Verhoeven
7/10
I liked this a lot more than I expected. There's a lot to like about this campy anti-propaganda sci-fi. The gore is outrageous and bugs stabbing and chomping up human soldiers is consistently entertaining. The bugs are legitimately awesome too- they are goopy, gross, huge, and badass. I love that they range from spindly stabbing machines, to fat gross explodey bugs, to the vomit vagina bug at the end. The range of designs in these creatures is kind of great and I like that the variety exists at all, seeing as "Starship Troopers" could've absolutely gotten away with just hoards of one kind or another.
I love how blunt this film is about the neverending cycles of propaganda and the sillyness of patriotism. The college aptitude tests for the army and recruitment officers deadass calling new 18 year old recruits "fresh meat"is just so great. It all comes across as one long elaborate joke on military patriotism and I adore it. This is all complimented by the shamelessly plastic 90's aesthetic which permeates every aspect of the film from dialogue, to costume design, to the special effects and music. Though very boy looking identical is definitely a political dig, I think it also works as a piece of comedy and the image of 500 GI Joe boys marching on a foreign planet is just explicitly funny to me. Another great piece of political discourse on propaganda that also works wonderfully as comedy are the "Would you like to learn more?" TV bits scattered throughout the film. They kind of feel like a less serious intergalactic TV from Rick and Morty and they pretty much always guaranteed a laugh or an "oof".
Its just great fun through and through. Young NPH as a ferret whisperer is the character I didn't know I needed my whole life. Bless him every day.
Directed by: John Carpenter
8/10
Lets get this out of the way: this film is potentially racially problematic. I am not well versed in the problematic components of Chinese mysticism nor am I prepared to dissect it in any meaningful way, I just want it noted that I recognize there is something wrong here with every citizen in Chinatown (sans the protagonist) being a mystical type, a geisha, or a ninja with names like Wang and Egg.
Another thing: Kurt Russel is again obviously an absolute babe, and still I am faced with the dilemma in discerning whether he just always plays a perfect protagonist, or whether I am just a swooning schoolgirl. Certainly Carpenter deserves some credit too- he has a talent for creating enigmatic and memorable protagonists. The funny thing about this film in particular is that it seems like Kurt Russel and his character has just kind of decided that they're the protagonist even though they can't fight, they don't accomplish much, and they have nothing to do with the main plot or themes at all. By all common standards, the protagonist is Wang. That being said, Kurt Russel getting the blonde in the end may be what closes this case.
I love the simple plot conceit Carpenter expands out from in this film which is essentially "Man finds himself suddenly caught up and lost in danger, leading to him getting only further lost and tangled up in the labyrinth of an underground complex culture and conflict". The God-tier set design in this film only gets more and more ornate, outrageous, and exciting as we get deeper in the the...should we just call it "mystical Chinese underground"? I like the details which has everything getting more and more visually intense and further removed from the recognizable world above. The exploration and world building here along with constant excitement and action leads to some really entertaining fight scenes which use their respective environments to the fullest. Another thing I love about Carpenter in pretty much all of his movies is how organically the supernatural appears to exists in his worlds that mirror our own. Even in the case of an Everyman stumbling in to supernatural madness, the way the supernatural is shown to exist within the world both in little pockets that bleed out in to the public consciousness, and in suddenly dramatic climaxes, a cohesive understanding is achieved which speaks to how these absurd supernatural realities can coexist with the world even outside of the narrative plot and gaze.
The whole film is spectacular- just a constant feast for the senses and with tons of fun quippy goodness in dialogue too. I wish the sewer yetis were real. Hell, maybe they are. I hope sewer yetis are thwomping around beneath our very feet. In a just world, they would be. Despite the racist coding going on in this flick, I do shamelessly love the bit exploring the idea that Chinese religions, like this Chinese sorcery, comes from a uniquely Chinese tendency to take bits and pieces from other Asian traditions and keeping only what they like. Chinese religions are a fascinating mix of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism and I've personally always jived with the attitude that most traditions have something valuable and realistically applicable. Confucianism gets a bad rap and purist Taoism and Buddhism both have unfortunately rigid aspects, but there's something to be said for the wisdom of each of them.
Directed by: John Carpenter
6.5/10
I like a good unwilling and even un-invested hero. I like that Snake is reluctant to go through with another "Escape" due to his understanding of corruption, not indifference. There is a lot to be said about the deliberate cultural and satirical shift between the governments and isolated zones in "Escape from New York" versus "Escape from LA", but I would be a dishonest lady to go in to any depth about this because it would practically all be stolen from my friend who sent me a full length essay he wrote about this. I try not to be a prick so I won't hash out everything he has said here just to make me seem more thoughtful on this subject than I actually am lol.
Though I have not been a huge fan of the "Escape" movies, I was impressed with Carpenter's choice to make the zone of conflict in this film one with immigrants and "undesirable" folk as opposed to criminals. I think broadening the scope on the people America has condemned and applying Snake's obnoxious patrioticism to this situation as if to say "A real patriotic American would be appalled at this. We are all American! Whores and immigrants alike!" is a risky statement even for Carpenter. It isn't particularly bold to point out that America is discriminatory, but to have the American Goodboy patriot side explicitly against the conservative government is interesting and indicative of Carpenter's political nuance. Ultimately, I'm not a huge fan of "EFLA" in particular because it is so visually uninteresting for a Carpenter flick, the action and gunfights struck me as mostly average, and while its silly over-the-top spy submarines and shit were fun I found the whole thing lacked that "pow" of flavour most Carpenter films carry so easily.
Despite all this, mydreams did come true when Kurt Russel ended up on a motorcycle shotgun-ing the baddies, LA earthquakes are a genius idea for inciting action and conflict, and the basketball scene has no right to be as tense and exciting as it is.
Finally, let me list the many elements this film shares with the cinematic giant, "Spy Kids 2":
1. The plot opens with the president's daughter stealing an important piece of technology and rebelling against her father's politics and powerful position. In both films, the daughter must be tracked down
2. Spy stuff. Tons of spy stuff
3. Terrible CGI
4. The protagonist must go to an island to rescue to the president's daughter
5. Steve Buschemi.
Directed by: M Night Shyamalan
8.5/10
I think this is probably the only "scary" M Night Shyamalan film and while I realize that's not an especially high bar, I think it's kind of impressive that this guy manages to make a film about crop circles and aliens invading the life of an ex-reverend and his family so genuinely interesting and intense. Incredibly, the creature effects of the aliens in this flick really hold up and the scene of Joaquin Phoenix beating one up with a bat has no right to be as intense as it is. This is an M Night Shyamalan film about aliens. Aliens, a subject that is basically never done with any emotional subtlety, directed by M Night who is again, not known for his subtlety. Yet, what we get is this psychological drama in which the protagonist slowly and convincingly regains his faith in God with the tension and untouchable absurdity of an alien-related threat looms overhead. I was blown away by the profound emotional journeys in "Signs", not the least of which Mel Gibson's who has a gripping and really affecting performance. Whether its deliberate or not, M Night's characteristic withheld and jilted performances really work in this story of suppression and fear.
I feel like I'm just saying "M Night normally sucks but this is good!" and that isn't really my biggest take-away from this. It was actually really good and there are a lot of things that stick with me. I think the artistic choice to frame the farmhouse as rigid, isolated, boxed in, and Christian (but very deliberately not the sunny and romanticized Christian, rather emphasizing the oppressive and humble Christian aesthetic) is a really smart way to introduce some of the conflicts in Mel Gibson's character without explicitly spelling it out for the audience. The way his arc unfolds is actually really wonderful- at first he is quick to correct anyone who refers to him as "Father" so we gradually come to know how serious his crisis of faith had been, and just as he is starting to see the signs of what he comes to believe as prophetic miracles and protection from God in his children, he corrects people less and less. When we finally see his full transformation back in to a man of faith, it is not inspiring or a "happy ending" so much as it is a satisfying answer to the question of how we as fragile and largely ignorant human beings are supposed to react psychologically and spiritually to a massive threat and coincidence we cannot hope to understand. Each character is very receptive and vulnerable to their fears and anxieties about the world possibly falling apart and ending, each with their own breaking point of denial.
The untouchable absurdity of crop circles is done better in this film than any reports of crop circles have been in real life for me. I supose its because in "Signs" they are firmly real evidence of alien life. Something about an indeciferable message that is clearly huge and meaningful, but ever just out of reach, feels uniquely un-nerving to me. The crop circles are intangibly threatening and completely unknowable and I love that M Night never explains what they meant. Sometimes a divine sign cannot be understood as anything other than evidence of the divine, and I think its worth noting that the crop circles aren't the only "sign" in this film either- they are just the only one explicitly identified as such. The young daughter's habit of leaving water everywhere, the boy's asthma and discovery of the baby monitor, Joaquin Phoenix's history as a fallen baseball prodigy- all of these things end up being significant and fit in organically with the context of the family pre-"Signs". I realize these are basically all just Chekov's gun scenarios, but they feel more naturally incorporated than usual.
I think this is a great examination of how we relate to "The Other", as well as how we relate to uncertainty and powerlesness. I remember thinking that this was a slow burn when I was thinking back on it, but honestly it really didn't seem that way this time. Maybe I'm just a little more engaged in stories of vague apocalyptic nightmares which threaten us all to the point where it is never "I'm going to die" any more, but "*we* are doomed" and "what will we do? we are hopeless".
Directed by: John Carpenter
7.5/10
This jazzy Doomer superstitious horror flick is extremely comfy viewing. While the script and performances may not have as much character as the setting, cinematography, atmosphere, and set design, "The Fog" has a pretty simple and minimalist conceit so it can easily get away with this. Every frame of this film is gorgeous and could easily be displayed as art. Even the little things like the objects and warm lighting in shadowy areas contribute to the heavily atmospheric almost Lynchian presence of the film. The fog itself also looks incredible- it is so much more huge and looming than you can conceive of and the way it moves and encroaches upon buildings over the sea is really frightening. The fog is quiet and overbearing which makes it a really unique and interesting idea for a horror film. I like that everybody is vulnerable to and hopeless in the reaches of the fog whether they are a grown man or a small child. The only way to beat the fog is to reconcile with it, which in this case means performing some religious voodoo on the spooky zombie ghost pirates with bitchin glowing red eyes.
I think these zombie space pirates, the pastoral setting, and the overwhelming amount of flannel in "The Fog" may make this Carpenter's most comforting film by a country mile (despite all of the violence lol).
Created by: Josh Heald and Robert Kamen
9/10
I cannot stress enough how strange it is that this show is good at all, never-mind one of my favourite things to come out of 2020. A modern day "Karate Kid" sequel series starring the washed up boomer actors from the original as well as some cringy teens, produced by Youtube?! There is no worse pitch. This sounds like absolute trash. No one asked for this, least of all me.
And yet, this thing blew us away! "Cobra Kai" opens up with a very sympathetic lonely and alcoholic Johnny lamenting on how his life has pretty much gone to shit and how depressing it is to have peaked at 17 years old. Meanwhile, Daniel Larusso is a rich, famous, and well loved man with a beautiful wife, two kids, and a successful car dealership. In an attempt to address his mid-life crisis and feel empowered by something he is good at but was shunned from, Johnny opens up his own karate dojo. Daniel sees this and begins seething in jealousy, arguing that he shut down Cobra Kai Karate for good in the 80's and he isn't about to watch it take over the town again, thus opening up his own dojo based on the Mr. Miyagi model. This was expected but still a surprisingly compelling conflict that persists through increasingly interdependent developments throughout the series.
However, Daniel and Johnny are no longer the protagonists. "Cobra Kai" has at least 6 protagonists and each has a satisfying and contextually relevant arc. The teen drama involves a Romeo and Juliet type plot, a love triangle which mirrors "The Karate Kid", and a particularly dramatic development of an abused boy in to a violent bully. All of these narratives involving toxic masculinity & cyclical vengeance, class prejudice, cultural appropriation, the melancholy of aging, and feminism manage to be incorporated in to the action and plot really organically and nothing feels forced or simply for "woke points" like other shows like this do sometimes. "Cobra Kai" seems like it would be pretty one-dimensional, but at any given point there are always half a dozen conflicts and allegiances, intertwining and interdependent arcs. It may also surprise you to learn that both Johnny and Daniel's characters are given a depth that genuinely builds off their backstories as children. I am particularly fond of Daniel coming to understand his privilege, and Johnny's movement toward teaching his students that the American values implicit in North-American karate are aggressively opposed to any kind of personal growth or compassion.
Sure, it is occasionally pretty corny, but most of the time it is exciting, legitimately moving, and a fun watch in the midst of this lonely dumpster fire of a year.
Directed by: M Night Shyamalan
10/10
This film features both M Night Shyamalan and Haley Joel Osment at their peaks, which is a bit of a rough observation. Imagine peaking with your debut film. Imagine peaking at age 10. Big oof. I'd also argue that Bruce Willis is at his best here. My husband and I have determined that Bruce Willis was probably aware of his talent as a dramatic actor, but has always only ever been in it for T&A, and he got a lot more ass from "Die Hard". All three main performances here are absolutely phenomenal; Toni Collette, Haley Joel Osment, and Bruce Willis all achieve groundbreaking emotional performances with great chemistry.
Haley Joel Osment is damn near unbelievable to the point where I have to wonder what was done to this child to have him scream like that, tremble so convincingly, be so openly vulnerable and responsive in ways child actors typically never pull off with any sincerity. In most child performances we see a pretty direct approach in reciting lines and actions, but with Haley he appears genuinely invested and responsive to his relationship with the other actors in the scene. Its kind of spooky and uncomfortable at times to see such a genuinely distressed child on screen, so frighteningly disturbed. The craziest thing is the risk that M Night takes in having the majority of his debut film hinge on a single child performance, and such a young child at that. It is incredibly bold and his confidence in Haley is very clear- Haley's energy is carried throughout the film and were he anything short of brilliant, this could've easily been a disaster.
Everyone in this film is living a god damned heartbreaking nightmare and I distinctly remember having fierce nightmares after watching this as a kid. I wasn't afraid of the concept and gore of the dead people as much as I was traumatised by the brutal stress, grief, and terror that pervades every moment of this film. I kind of assumed that I was just a kid and I'd be better equip to handle this as an adult, but it turns out that I may never again be able to harmlessly witness acute grief, stress, and suffering like this any more. PTSD is a bitch, friends, and an intimate history with child psychologists probably doesn't help either. That being said, much like the case with James Cameron's "Titanic", I experience this stuff in a kind of privileged awe that art can effect me the way it does here. Some media is so viscerally moving, you have to humble yourself before it and pay respects to the human will to tell stories of suffering and connection like this.
As far as the twist goes, I feel it holds up pretty well. Obviously, it can never be re-lived with the potency of your first time, but the screenplay wisely holds its own with or without the effect of the twist ending. Even if you know that Bruce Willis is dead all along, his arc and journey in learning it for himself is still genuinely emotionally affecting. Honestly, going in knowing that his wife is grieving the whole time as opposed to simply distant is a fucking punch to the throat, as is realizing the heartbreaking honesty in Cole's discussion with his mother regarding the bumblebee pendant. My point is, this is a rare example of a twist ending that is not given the importance that is the detriment of these kinds of films, resulting in it aging very poorly and rarely holding up to a second viewing. "The Sixth Sense" chooses instead to give its story and characters the bulk of the weight which saves it from the demise of many thrillers.
Finally, I genuinely think that the opening of this film is one of the best of all time. The uniquely distressing amtosphere, the genuinely unpredictable suspense, the sudden and totally committed emotional brutality of the whole thing- fucking astounding. It is instantly compelling, intense, and sets you up for the turmoil to come. Honest to God, this is probably in my top 20 movies of all time. M Night, you son of a bitch.
This movie is definitely the inspiration for modern-day ghost hunters with their stupid gizmos and microphones, analyzing temperature and shit. I once worked in a building that was genuinely assessed by Ghost Hunters. We got the night off and everything, and then shortly after moved buildings. Whether they found ghosts or not, I don't know. I just know that mopping the floors and turning the corner to see some people setting up ghost hunting gear, claiming proudly that they were here to "assess the spirits" of the basement was one of the most bizarre moments of my life.
Directed by: James Wan
7.5/10
This is just an outrageously fun flick. The first night my husband and I were back in Canada after our honeymoon in Cuba, we went to a small theatre in Cochrane and saw "Aquaman". It may have been the most fun theatre experience of the year, and definitely my favourite superhero movie in terms of raw energy and enjoyment. Something I really appreciate about both the film and Aquaman as a character is how shamelessly joyful they both are. This film has no interest in being gritty, "adult", or moody. Aquaman loves his powers, he genuinely enjoys being alive, and isn't motivated by any serious emotion either. Even when he is avenging his parents, there is no brooding behind any of this. Its really refreshing to watch a superhero film where the intention is to entertain you with the fantasy of a world which can support people with these outrageously fun abilities, and to impress you with how extra they can get with it. Every 10 minutes they are in a completely new setting and new ideas are introduced. People are riding Liopleurodons in to battle, battling in volcanic craters with bongo-playing Octopi, exploring dessert ruins and just all around being energetic charismatic bad-asses. I mean, those crabs alone, too fucking awesome. The depths?! Can we talk about that!? Those dope Murloc motherfuckers, diving down frantically after them with those flares and shit oh my GOD its so cool.
When I am watching "Aquaman", I am simultaneously a woman thirsty for Jason Momoa and a 10 year old boy squealing with delight over bigass jellyfish machines being absolutely dabbed on by underwater ancient dinosaur Kaiju. Zero-gravity fights underwater are so much cooler than they have any right to be and everyone in this film is super in to it (except Amber Heard, that bitch). "Aquaman" has a kind of "Mad Max Fury Road" style in its action sequences and fight scenes, though as soon as it becomes dialogue and love-interest stuff the corny comic-ness of the production shines through. Luckily, this doesn't happen often and the majority of its run-time is just non-stop oceanic madness and over-the-top everything all at once. Both origin stories are pretty tight too- Aquaman's is minimalist and sweet, and Manta's is surprisingly intense and compelling while never outstaying its welcome like some origin stories do.
All this being said, that cover of Toto's "Africa" is a war crime and completely unforgivable.
Directed by: M Night Shyamalan
3.5/10
I am laughing forever at people who actually think this was intended as a dramatic horror. Did M Night anticipate it being scarier than it actually is? Maybe. But it is very clearly meant as a schlocky horror riding on the coat-tails of Saw and Final Destination. The majority of this film actually plays fairly well as a series of skits, or an extended prank on Mark Wahlberg in which he is thrown in to this nonsense with no direction other than "be a science teacher to the best of your ability". Maybe he doesn't know he is in a film. Maybe all of his breathy wierdness and inappropriate reactions to dozens of suicides with absolutely zero weight to them can be chalked up to the man being hungover and confused about the comically stiff performances and happenings all around him. How exactly is he supposed to talk to plants and be taken seriously? I am not being a Wahlberg appologist here, I'm just trying to make it clear that Wahlberg's performance is every bit as intentionally silly and confused as the rest of the film is, and while it is a shit film you at least have to laugh along with M Night. It is this movie, more than "The Village", which marks his strict departure away from serious film-making. It is with this movie that we can see all traces of lightning in a bottle has dissipated. It would be literally over a decade until M Night gets some of his mojo back with "Split".
How do I even discuss this flick without just deadass quoting it?
We all know why Jake should care about science, why hot dogs are cool, and why the cough syrup is completely superfluous. Everyone in this film talks like a 6 year old asking questions, slapped on to this movie like a sticker on cardboard. Zooey Deschanel is hardly even human in this, more a wide eye-d doe in a void than anything else. There are absolutely no genuine relationships or exchanges going on in this entire film- just people flapping their arms and babbling nonsense while trees ominously blow in the distance.
This is an incredibly fun shit-watch and an incredibly hilarious performance by Mark Wahlberg. Nothing more, nothing less.
When will Hollywood learn that Mark Wahlberg cannot be a protagonist?
Created by: Scott Allen & Frank Scott
8/10
I don't know that this was entirely intentional, but boy did this series make me nostalgic for solo travel and the confident peace of doing big things on your own. There's something really moving about finding your place and your stride entirely on your own without your typical supports and community, and I actually love that the concluding statement in all this seems to be that no man is an island. It may seem contradictory but I think there is a real necessary balance in introversion and I was happy to see it explored in "The Queens Gambit". There's also a lot to love about the feminist perspective this show takes. Pretty much right away it dispels the idea that simply saying "Oh my god! A girl doing the boy thing!" is at all interesting or empowering. In telling a pretty predictable and straight-forward story of a prodigy, I think it's important that some light is shed on the struggles they face outside of the scope of merely working hard and winning/losing. Beth isn't taken seriously as an intelligent woman because she enjoys pretty clothes and she dresses for herself and her own confidence alone, which would've been controversial at the time. Beth isn't made asexual or stiffly disassociated with men, which is a pitfall some feminist media will fall in to with tunnel vision on making sure the protagonist isn't purely boy-motivated. Beth is just all around a natural and well rounded character, and Anya Taylor-Joy does a great job with her speaking with a peculiar cadence with impressive consistency.
I have to be honest though. I can't quite put my finger on it, but something about Beth/Anya bothered me. I was moved by her story, I was emotionally affected by her trauma and addiction, and I felt proud and happy in her triumphs. Some small pervasive little thing about her gets under my skin, and I also can't deny how envious of her I am for her to be able to dress in the 60's garb of my dreams which only a very skinny woman could ever get away with. Whatever it is that irks me about her didn't ruin my experience by any means, but it did make her arc in learning from humility less affecting to me even if I love it in concept.
I really love the depiction of feminine-specific addictions concerns for the time and how isolated women were in their suffering back in the peak ages of the nuclear family. This, maybe even more than an acute interest in chess, is what I'll take with me after "The Queen's Gambit" closes up with her winning it all and emancipating herself from fame. The opposite of addiction is not happiness, it is peace.
Video Games
Donkey Kong Country 2
Developed by: Rare
8/10
This was a pretty good sequel and maintains the skill level and difficulty of the original. The level designs and soundtrack were dope just as expected, and most of the movement of both Diddy and Dixie was just as tight as the first game. It was great to see some new moves and the introduction of the combo throw, however this aspect doesn't get fully realized or explored until the third game.
I do have some minor complaints, despite it still being a super fun and atmospheric DK game, and those mainly have to do with something I have to admit I also kind of admire about this project. There are a lot more levels with unique conceits and experimental platform ideas in this sequel, but few of them are as fun and compelling as the challenging platforming we've come to expect of the series. There are multiple levels where you become one of the animal companions and have no choice to abandon them like you would if you were simply riding them. some of them are kind of fun, like the rhino, but a couple are janky, slow, and take what is usually a rhythmic and fast-paced game and slow it down in to something frustrating and boring. The spider with tennis shoes and the barfing bird come to mind here. I cant deny that the creativity behind these new characters (and enemies) is consistently interesting and charming though. I mean, a tarantula with tennis shoes?! Adorable.
This being a fast-paced game, I guess it seemed natural to the development team to include stressful timed levels. The minecart level with the ghost following you seems kind of cool, but when all of these elements keep on getting bashed together it becomes kind of a cluttered mess instead of a focused challenge. That's what it really boils down to- this is a good sequel with a lot of ambitious and cool ideas, but its trying to execute too many at once and sometimes it comes off as exhausting and frustrating. The poison tower with the snake character is the worst by far, but I was also pretty unimpressed with the honeycomb levels and the sticky walls. They still look great, but the sticky and slow controls to levels like this really drag the game down.
Developed by: Drool
Music composed by: Brian Gibson
7/10
This hypnotic and kind of terrifying rhythm game (do not, I repeat, do NOT play this on any kind of psychedelic drug) is not always something I'm prepared to sit down and play, but when I am in to it I am *in to it*. Not only is it viscerally beautiful and the timed controls tight and powerful, but I love that it never falls back on a "Guitar Hero" or "DDR" approach to rhythm games where it is dumbed down in to simply following button prompts on a scrolling timeline. Navigating this game and its music never feels like this and there is never a scrolling timeline. You may be on a fixed track, but it dives and spins nearly out of control, engaging you in the movement as if it has a direct line through your adrenal system. The boss fights are legitimately challenging at times, but there was never a point (at least in the first half of the campaign) where I felt like the rhythm was being interrupted by failure. Even when you do fail, the game starts back up almost immediately with its deep and atmospheric bass and drum beat. The thrill of racing through a couple of stages at once is a high like few others I've experienced in gaming.
Developed by: Panic Barn
6/10
This is kind of like a more one-dimensional "War of Mine", which I generally claim to be my favourite game, with a dash of the gameplay loop in "Papers, Please". I'm always happy to see more adventure/story/survival games centred around the immigrant experience and I was pleasantly surprised by how abruptly political this post-Brexit "fictional" apocalypse gets right off the bat. The news stories and casually insensitive dialogue work together well to broaden your perspective on multiple aspects of brutal and systemically oppressive aspects of the lives of minorities and immigrants. Survival games which can put you in the shoes of people who are largely ignored by the news in war-ravaged areas, people in cyclic poverty and those attacked by oppressive government systems which may be invasive or invisible to the public eye, and people for whom daily life even in the city is a constant struggle to survive offers much more interesting decisions and stresses than traditional nature-based survival games. Managing your bills, health, social score, and the other various hoops immigration law will have you jump through is stressful, basically impossible, and is a direct critique of the capitalist hellhole we live in today. So obviously, I love all of this. I also appreciate the sense of humour this game has both for revolutionaries and the conservative English. Though the gameplay is a bit repetitive, it is addicting and satisfying.
My big complaint in this game is that when you fail or die due to your resource management, poor decisions, or even just curiosity, you are not allowed to start a new game unless you play again on a different account. You can load a previous save, but you can't straight up start over. Even if you could start over, the repetitive nature of the game and the fact that it has to stick to one basic narrative line makes this a pretty poor survival game. Most survival games, even "urban" ones like this, have an open world as part of your decision making and the majority of encounters are random. "Not Tonight" does not have any scavenging, open world, or random encounters. It is a survival game only in the sense that you have to survive in a brutal environment, but with none of the agency and strategy that survival games typically afford a player. For this reason, it's a pretty one-trick-pony. I can't imagine going back to it like I have with "This War of Mine" over and over, and the other missed opportunity here is that "Not Tonight" is very emotionless in its script and story. Where as most survival games would have crushing defeat and loss be an integral part of the emotional storytelling, "Not Tonight" sticks with the depressive and bleak monotony of the protagonist's life. I respect this, but it doesn't make it as engaging and fun to explore and play through.
Basically, fuck the British.
Comments
Post a Comment