Films of 2019- Part I: Worst to Meh

   So, another year, another set of movies to review. Only this is particularly interesting because this is the last year of the decade. I have no insight as to the year itself or the decade, except that it could've been better. There were good parts, but I wouldn't look back at it fondly. Anyway, this list. Per my sister's suggestion, I have split this up into what could be construed as a "worst" and "best" list. I'll combine the two later into a full list. This is every single film I've seen from the very beginning of 2019 to the very end. I like to make sure the year is good and over, since you can only evaluate a year once it's in the past. I rank it from the very worst to the very best. This year, I've added some new innovations for the coming decade. Some more finely tuned rankings to describe movies and a new category that could count as an "honorary mention" (since by the very nature of the list, I can't really do "honorary mentions"). I used to put posters next to the film, but I got tired of adding and crediting them, so I'll just put the name of the film, and this isn't a professional publication, so I can do whatever the hell I want. Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah. Alright, for the final time in the 2010's, let goooooooo.... Starting with the honorary mention:

Honorary Mention

When They See Us

I mean, if Barack Obama can put a category of "TV shows that felt cinematic", why can't I? Anyway, this miniseries was a real rough watch, in the best way. I only knew intermittent details of the Central Park Five case before watching it, so seeing the corruption, the railroading and the horror of what these young men went through was enlightening and incredibly disturbing. Director Ava DuVaurnay humanizes five, shows them and their families and the effects their false accusations, their trials, and especially their time in prison had, which makes their eventual exoneration all the more satisfying. This was very powerful in a very soul-penetrating way, leaving you exhausted from the sheer emotional scale of it. It's on Netflix, so if you have it, I can't recommend this enough.

And now to the actual list:

Worst

Midway

Congratulations, Roland Emmerich, you've marked a personal achievement for me. This is the first film I've ever walked out of. At some point, I just saw the combination of hammy acting, heinous special effects, and horrid writing, and figured my time was better spent doing something else. I don't know why I thought this might be worth something. Roland Emmerich has made precisely one good movie in his entire career (the first Independence Day) , and his historical films are generally regarded as his worst. Still, when you combine the bizarre and dull governmental machinations in those with the dull melodrama of Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor and the effects of lower end Asylum movie, you get something basically unwatchable. I don't really know how well it follows the real events of Midway, but I don't really care to know. I don't have any interest in finishing this film.

Terrible

Godzilla: King of Monsters

I don't really mind that this film has a really confusing and simultaneously simple plot that makes no sense. It really is meant to be a showcase of Godzilla and his rogues gallery beating the shit out of each other like in the Showa era Godzilla films. On that front, the fights are poorly lit, confusing, and ultra loud. I couldn't tell what was happening most of the time, and the Abrams style lights make it both so bright to avert your eyes and too dark to actually see anything. This really is the worst because somewhere towards the end of the film, I got a literal headache. I know the movie caused it, because it went away after I left. A movie should not make me feel sick just sitting there watching it. The fact no one saw this and tried to fix it for a big budget, wide release film is somewhat incredible for me. Maybe Godzilla vs. Kong will be better.

The Goldfinch

There's boring, and then there's agonizing. This movie is over two and a half hours and nothing happens in it. It's just a bunch of dull conversations, meaningless drivel on the nature of art and bizarre, dull melodrama that drags on longer than it was welcome. I think I actually fell asleep watching this. I didn't care about the character or his journey or whatever the hell the message was suppose to be... Oh, yeah, there is kind of a message to this, and I found it completely contradicting what is actually shown and is kind of mean-spirited when you think on it. Anyway, movie bad.

Replicas

The fact that three movies beat this out shows something about this list. I don't know. Anyway, I'm not convinced this was a real film. It was literally made by "Entertainment Studios". It feels like a fake movie within a movie or a commercial. You see it in snippets while the actual drama goes on with others. I don't know, maybe I've been in a Truman Show-esque reality show dystopia this whole time, and they made this film as part of that. Anyway, this was terrible in all aspects. Bad effects, an idiot plot that contradicts itself at every turn, poor Keanu Reeves trying to make do with this dull character, and an utterly bizarre ending that makes little sense. It might've been funny, had it also not been dull and tedious.

The Intruder
This feels like a TV movie that made it to screens for some reason. It might've been entertaining, had it not had that TV movie quality writing or the fact nothing happens for the first two thirds of this film or if I actually remembered most of this film. I'll give it this, Dennis Quaid really did sell being a psychopath. A shame it had to be in this film.

The Prodigy

I completely forgot about this until I looked at Letterboxd and realized that in fact, I had seen it. This is yet another "evil kid does stuff" film that is incredibly dumb, really makes no sense, has the dumbest ending I think I've seen in a while, and just doesn't stay in the memory. I can't tell you most of what the hell happens in this movie and what I can tell you would sound idiotic and too bizarre and offensive to be real.

Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile

Zac Efron as Ted Bundy was an idea that might've worked, given how much the two resemble each other. Unfortunately, the film decides not to show how much of a monster Ted Bundy was under his handsome veneer or the magnitude of his crimes for most of the running time, instead showing him as a dutiful, charismatic boyfriend, and him besting the prosecutors. This lovable rogue characterization really sinks the film, even as it tries to acknowledge the awfulness of his crimes at the very end of this film.

The Hustle

Sadly not affiliated with the catchy Van McCoy song from 1975, this was instead painfully unfunny, woefully underwritten, and bizarrely made. Anne Hathaway does a decent British accent, but she and Rebel Wilson lack chemistry and it gets painful to get the same joke constantly in regards to the two. When I saw the film, there wasn't a single laugh. The theater was entirely silent, except for the occasional chuckle. Even at the worst comedies, I hear consistent laughs. That really shows the sheer terribleness of this alleged comedy.

Dumbo

How to make a 70-minute cartoon with a very condensed plot and some elements that haven't aged well (the crows, namely) into a live-action film? Well, Tim Burton decided to make it completely homogeneous, regurgitating both his cliches and the cliches of live-action Disney. There's an interesting element of a Disney satire in this Disney movie, but it's underexplored and doesn't really interrogate its Disney analogue or even the ostensible anti-animal abuse theme it seems to imply at the end. Really, the fact this was all underbaked shows the faults of these films.

Greta

I'll say this, all the actors involved are giving their all, especially Isabelle Huppert, who seems to play her psychaotic role with such ease, it's a bit disturbing. It also has something of a novel resolution. A shame the film isn't well written or that it relies too much on contrivances. Again, despite the craziness of the premise and some of the events, I can't really tell you anything that actually happens in this film, except what happens at the very end.

Gemini Man

Oh, hey, someone woke up Jerry Bruckheimer from whatever crypt he's been hiding in since the mid-2000's, and he's produced another film with innovative director Ang Lee! A shame it was Gemini Man. Ang Lee is an interesting director, and he seems to be on this HFR binge. I actually saw this in HFR, and it looked too naturalistic. It felt like watching a low budget TV show. It made the highly elaborate action look off, especially with the realism that the rest of the film portrays. As for Will Smith the younger, it looks fine at first, but it gets more and more video game like, especially with the HFR, and especially at the end. It was ambitious, I'll give it. That ambition just didn't pan out.

Cats

Yeah, yeah, low hanging fruit. I didn't know anything about this musical going into this film, and coming out, I know even less. This had virtually no story, no characters. Just a bunch of poorly CGI'd, incredibly off-putting cat people singing and dancing about stuff that is never adequately explained. It especially doesn't help that director Tom Hopper uses his signature close-ups, making the ugly looking models even uglier since we can see the unfinished looking models.

Bad

Harriet

Harriet Tubman's story is one deserving of a cinematic telling, given her work as a freed slave turned abolitionist for the Underground Railroad and spy and officer for the Union during the Civil War. Unfortunately, this film doesn't really serve this iconic figure very well. It never shows Tubman as a real human, instead opting to give her too much speechifying and not even character development or even looks into the human behind such a legend. Not helping is the TV movie level production design (using the same sets in many scenes) or the bizarre subplot about her former master who is in love with her. Hopefully, Harriet Tubman might get a film that appreciates the scope of her as a person and her story.

Velvet Buzzsaw

I completely forgot that this POS came out this year on Netflix. I don't know what this was supposed to be. A horror film? A comedy? A satire of the world of high art and its absurdity? Whatever it was, it wasn't executed well, with unsympathetic cartoon characters as leads and a reveal that is both obvious, and defies the logic established in the film. Mainly, I just can't remember much of what happens.

Jexi

Remember the movie Her, where Joaquin Phoenix falls in love with the AI voice on his phone? The premise of this film is what if that AI was psychaotic and tried to ruin his love life? Also add in awful jokes and set pieces that show the writers don't understand how technology works (at one point, the titular AI takes over a Taxi because it's in "The Cloud") or it being a generic rom-com without any seasoning? I laughed hard at Wanda Sykes in the film, but that was it.

Motherless Brooklyn

Ed Norton's adaptation of Jonathan Lethem's novel has similar problems to The Goldfinch. Both are long, very little happens, and it can't seem to get its message or portrays it very well. The reason this is higher on the list is that it at least wasn't that boring, and its pretensions and subsequent failings are occasionally (and unintentionally) funny enough that I was more at ease watching.

Pet Semetary

I probably saw this. I honestly can't remember all that well.  All I remember was that it wasn't very good, and wasn't particularly scary. I think it had a very dark ending, and what appeared to be zombie apocalypse, but otherwise, I can't quite discern what happened here.

X-Men: Dark Phoenix

The much vaunted X-Men series. Its inception started the current superhero phenomenon, its films have been consistently successful, and this.... is how it goes out. It's clear that this film went through a number of reshoots and reedits, and was building towards something that was screwed with upon Disney's purchase of 20th Century Fox. The result is so bland and boring, it really doesn't have any memorable impact. It's a shame that such a franchise gets this sort of ending, especially since Disney will likely reboot the X-Men into the MCU in the near future.

The Aftermath 

This was just another dour historical drama that is not particularly interesting nor as insightful as it thinks it is. Especially with Jojo Rabbit coming out the same year, this film's attempts to interrogate the legacy of Nazism and the effects of war come off especially weak and a little tone deaf. It also has a dull love triangle at its center. Really, there's nothing else to the film.

Serenity

The much vaunted twist of this film? I guessed it during a particular transition. Honestly, that's maybe the most interesting part of the film and it occasionally does work with that twist and its implications. Otherwise, it's largely a generic neo-noir with a very predictable plot.

The Lion King

This is basically a shot-for-shot remake of the original 1994 classic, except done entirely in CGI. The CGI actually looks impressive and realistic. Unfortunately, that also means that the characters are unexpressive, rendering most of the comedic and dramatic bits of the film nil, and the songs mostly stripped down. This does lessen the impact of the film, as it constantly reminds you that the first film did these elements so well, that we don't really need to see this. Basically, just see the original, and you'll get a better experience.

The Current War

Honestly, while I thought this was bad, I didn't really consider putting this low, until its executive producer began to whine about how studios were pushing blockbuster movies (which he didn't consider "cinema") over innovative or interesting filmmaking. Yet he, a multi-millionaire, decided that he believed in this bland historical drama that said very little about the events or its players nor does anything interesting with the format so much, he saved it from the Weinstein collapse and got it into theaters with his name plastered all over the damn thing, more than the actual director. And this is basically a product. A very specific product for Oscar voters, so that it wins awards and gets a longer theatrical run. It's not really a film that was really meant to be innovative or actually say something. Just get awards and make more money. It's likely that director Alfonso Gomez-Rejon (who made a very interesting film in Me and Earl and the Dying Girl) had to deal with the Weinstein machine just turning this into another one of their prestige pictures and Scorsese put his own elements in there during reshoots (including a bizarre digression into Edison's invention of motion pictures), so whatever he had to say got lost in the shuffle. Really, there's no reason to see this film when you can read books or the Wikipedia article on the subject and get the same impact.

A Million Little Pieces

Already discussed a lot of the problems with this in my review over the past month. Ultimately, this feels like a missed opportunity. By taking this known largely fabricated story seriously, the film ignores the more interesting story of how someone could essentially make up their own history and get accolades over it. As for what the film is, it's basically another drug rehab story that loses a lot of its impact because a lot was made-up and was covered better in other recent films.

Meh

The Kid

I like Vincent D'Onofrio as an actor, but his directoral debut didn't really stick well. The titular Billy the Kid is played by Dane Dehaan, so there's the biggest mistake there. It's largely listless and wanders aimlessly, instead of having a coherent plot. Poor Ethan Hawke doesn't really know what to do throughout. The reason it's not in the other category is that there were elements that worked, including Chris Pratt playing against type as a loathesome villain and some of the John Ford and Sergio Leone style shots in some scenes.

21 Bridges

This basically plays like a very special episode of a cop show, just extended to an hour and a half. It has predictable stakes, a predictable twist, and largely predictable arcs. It mostly does this coherently and at least, the superb Chadwick Boseman could sell this material very well. It was mostly just functional.

What Men Want

A largely dull, unfunny rom-com, though this at least has the always charismatic Taraji P. Henson in the lead and some occasionally funny moments. I did cringe at one moment, but mostly it did a competent job just working with its premise, even if it was ultimately mediocre.

Gloria Bell

I wasn't terribly invested in this film, which follows the indie film cliche of "middle-to-old aged white person has problems, hijinks ensue", and is not overall that interesting or has that much to say about anything. That said, Julianne Moore is always very nice to watch, and she has some good chemistry with John Turturro, so that keeps this from being truly tedious.

Men in Black: International

I legitimately couldn't tell you what happens in this film. The plot was largely a McGuffin hunt, if I remember correctly, and doesn't really have much else to it. I know that Tessa Thompson seemed to be having fun as an action lead and Chris Hemsworth had some nice moments with her. Kumail Nanjiani is funny in it, as he normally is. It wasn't terrible as far as big blockbusters go, but I'd rather watch the last two MiB films. And those weren't very good either.

Waves

I think maybe I was harsher in my assessment of this film than I probably should've. Like, I remember just feeling disoriented by the cinematography in the first half and maybe that lowered it in my mind. There was some interesting elements in that first half I should've given more consideration towards, and hence why it is probably higher than I intended. I still didn't care overall for the film, but I think the filmmaker's intentions can still be discerned and understood, (especially with the second half, which is also a lot better than I remember.)

Teen Spirit

I just spent a few seconds trying to come up with something to say about this. I've got nothing. It's colorful. Elle Fanning's a decent singer. This might as well be a featurette on American Idol or the Voice stretched out to a feature length film. It has occasionally interesting or emotional moments, but it's largely sublimated into a bland script and bland lead.

Aladdin

The biggest advantage this has over the last two is that a.) it does have different ideas and different plot points than the original, and b.) those changes largely work or aren't just background fluff. Granted, like the other two, there really isn't a particular reason you should see this over the original, and the ugly set design and overwrought color saturation doesn't help, but I could at least see, without the Disney machine ironing it into another remake, how this could've worked better. Also, Will Smith does a suprisingly good job as the Genie, not trying to co-opt or usurp Robin Williams' iconic performance.

Red Joan

Based on the real story of Melita Norwood, a Soviet spy within the Tube Alloys program (the British attempt to make the atomic bomb during World War II, before it was merged with the American Manhattan Project and its scientists assigned there), the film boasts a good performance by Judi Dench, but undercuts the real story by having its version be simply a misunderstood activist used by other people, as opposed to the real Norwood, who was very devout, aware and unrepentent about what she did, which is far more interesting and thought-provoking than someone tricked into spying (removing the agency of real spies).

Under the Silver Lake

It's funny. Despite waiting for this film, watching it, and reviewing it, I don't actually entirely remember what happens in it. I remember Andrew Garfield acts high and wanders through Los Angeles. There's some conspiracy stuff that is too confusing to unravel. A friend described the film as "Ready Player One, but for hipster d-bags" , which largely summarizes my own thoughts on the film. It's an easter egg hunt, disguised as a conspiracy thriller.

Mister America

Okay, I didn't so much hate this film as I was just confused by it. So many weird, fast jokes. A lot of odd continuity being dumped on me. Some bizarre characters and incidents that come out of nowhere and leave just quickly. It was only when I looked it up did I realize this was actually a spin-off of Tim Heidecker and Gregg Turkington's On Cinema, a show I had never even heard of before watching this. While I didn't find it funny at all, maybe watching the actual show might've enhanced the experience, and gave more context. That's why it's a lot higher than I might've put it otherwise.

The Kitchen

This was originally lower, but the more I thought on it, the less I disliked it. There was potential in this, exploring the machismo of mob movies through the underutilized character of the wife, and the film kind of does this at parts, especially with their underestimation by their male partners and associates. The three leads and Domhall Gleeson are also quite good in their respective roles. It never really goes far enough with that theme and it never seems to reach a point, instead going into mob movie cliches, but there was potential. Maybe a better adaptation might explore this.

Stuber 

I thought this was funny the first time I saw it. Then, I saw it again on a plane, and it was significantly less funny. Again, Kumail Nanjiani can be very funny, and Dave Bautista has shown that he has legitimate comedic chops. The two do have a good back-and-forth, but these jokes really work once, and yes, there is no escaping that this is basically a two-hour commercial for Uber. Still, it had some funny moments, I suppose.

Charlie's Angels

Again, can't tell you what happens in this movie. A lot of explosions, some poorly written generic spy plot, some really poorly done action scenes. At least the actresses seem to be having fun riffing on this particular concept, and I do like that there is some continuity given to the other versions. (The various cameos also help). Still, can't think of a reason to actually watch this if you want something good.

Joker

Yes, the controversial choice. Look, Joaquin Phoenix is an excellent actor and as per usual, he delivers a disturbingly good performance as the Batman villain. I did like that it expanded on him being a comedian. The main problem is that the film takes a lot out of Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, but doesn't seem to understand either. Instead, the script underwrites the psychological drama part, the thriller part, the social commentary part, basically every aspect of this film is underdone and underexplored, and Todd Phillips can't really shot this sort of drama well. Honestly, if people weren't constantly talking about this, I would've forgotten I'd even seen it.

Countdown

This is a movie about a killer phone application. Like, this is something that might be made in a plot generator on the internet. At times, the film does seem to be aware of the ridiculousness of its premise and tries to have fun with it. Mostly, though, it's just another Final Destination knock-off that is incredibly boring, incredibly predictable and incredibly not scary at all. And again, it's about a killer phone app.

Hellboy

Having now read some of the original comics, I sort of get that the film was trying to hew closer to the original comics than Del Toro's more whimsical and fantasy oriented version. Unfortunately, the film ends up just being dumb, confusing, overstuffed with characters and concepts that are never fully explained. The effects and sets look awful, and the imagination present in both the comics and the Del Toro films is lost beneath a dull grey palette. That said,.... I did have fun sometimes, so I'll give it that.

Tolkien

JRR Tolkien led a long fascinating life and had a lot of friends and associates. Unfortunately, the film decides not to focus on any of that, instead opting to tell the story of his Dead Poets Society-esque tale of misfits and his service during World War I. Both were influential in the Middle-Earth saga, sure, but it wasn't particularly interesting in its own right nor does it really show how these friendships and events influenced Tolkien as a writer. We get some nods, but nothing really examines how deeply Tolkien's war service and losing some of his friends affected his outlook and especially how it influenced the portrayal of war torn areas and the journey in Lord of the Rings.

Glass

Another perhaps controversial one, given that this film has undergone a reevaluation since I saw it back in January. Me, I still didn't care for it all that much. M. Night Shyamalan's sequel to his acclaimed Unbreakable and Split seems to completely contradict parts of those films to ludicrous effects and gives an entirely predictable, yet utterly bizarre twist and another element that might've served something had actual development been given to it. I did enjoy seeing the characters from both films again, and it does have the potential to spring a new franchise, focused on realistic superheroes. A shame that the rest of the film couldn't follow.

Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

I decided to leave off 2019 with this, since it was the end of a particular saga for this era. The movie is also not really that good, pissing away all the development that Last Jedi gave for all the characters to instead give a retread of Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, with several elements there entirely for fan service (including some truly terrible character moments). No event in this film has any impact, because most of it is reversed or underutilized. The plot is entirely a McGuffin hunt that doesn't take time to sit down and actually give more development to the characters or have them reflect on their journeys. Yet.... at times, when the action was on or I saw the scenery, I did have some moments of fun despite myself. So, fitting for the last film I saw in theaters in the 2010's that it is last here.

----------------

Alright, one down, one to go. Join me in the next few days for Part II: Okay to Best.

2019 Documentary Feature

I'm really tired. This has been a year of highs and lows, and these last few months have been rough for me. Not as bad as last year, but it still wasn't that easy to handle, with anxiety being a constant menace, especially in terms of writing. Nevertheless, this is my yearly tradition, and since I cover every film I see, it would feel incomplete with the documentaries. So, here we are. Just a recap: I do all documentaries I saw this year, whether or not they actually came out this year. I rank them from highest to lowest recommendation. That said, I've laxed on other documentaries, at least as far as I can remember, and I don't feel like digging to find other documentaries I may missed. Again, anxiety, don't feel like writing. So, without further ado,

Apollo 11 (2019)

Yeah, yeah, big surprise this is my number one for the year. To celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 landings, the documentarians decided instead to take hours of  achive footage from television broadcasts and the mission cameras (including previously unreleased 70 mm  from NASA's archives) to make a play-by-play recreation of the mission, from its launch from Cape Canaveral to its landing entirely from it, eschewing the normal documentary cliche's of talking heads and recreations. This makes for a very tense experience, which makes you feel like you are with Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins as they go on their mission. Even for a big space nut like me, I could feel tense as I went along, saw the clock, the distance, the velocity. It is easily the most captivating experience I've had in a theater in a while, documentary or otherwise.

Amazing Grace (2018)

This comes a close second though. Filmed all the way back in 1972, this film about Aretha Franklin's Amazing Grace live album performance at the New Temple Missionary Baptist Church in Los Angeles went through years of development due to technical difficulties and legal trouble, before it was released some months after Franklin's tragic death. Aretha Franklin is, of course, a talent of the ages, with an incredibly powerful voice that really grabs and holds your attention no matter what she is singing. This film really captures the feeling of being in the audience at that church, completely captivated by the performance and feeling the energy of it coming through. It's really hard to capture in words. I recommend watching the doc itself to see exactly what I mean by it

Fyre/Fyre Fraud (2019)

Yes, the year of two Fyre documentaries. Netflix had hyped their take for months. Then, a few days before it was released, Hulu dropped its own Fyre documentary. If you don't remember, Fyre Festival was a complete disaster of a music festival, conceived by con man Billy McFarlane and rapper and punchline Ja Rule to promote some app to have celebrities play at events, I think, which was supposed to be elite, but ended with FEMA tents and styrofoam boxes with sandwiches. Anyway, these two put together really give a full picture of the scale of failure that facilitated such a disaster of this scale. While compromised by their own producers and/or associations (which is why they're roughly equal on this list), it shows the chronology of hyping up this exclusive music festival on social media, getting interest despite suspicions, and the increasingly insane choices that went into planning and executing this festival, and just who the various characters were who made these decisions despite all opposition, all leading to the day when everything just went kaput. Really, both should be watched to gain a fuller context, of everything that went down. I look forward to another few years when narrative films are made based on this. It is too insane to be true. Yet it is.

They Shall Not Grow Old (2018)

Peter Jackson decided to upend the usual view of World War I as an ancient war recorded in black and white, by making feel real. Taking hours of footage and interviews archived in London's Imperial War Museum, Jackson colorized the footage to the finest detail, and set the interview audio over it, cutting both to make a general experience of the average British soldier within the trenches. It is highly emotional, especially both in the calm moments in the trenches and the brutal battles and the haunting imagery it invokes. It is clearly very personal to Jackson (whose grandfathers served in the war), and helps make history feel realer and more intimate than merely reading it on the page.

Red Gringo (2016)

I've been fascinated for a while by the story of Dean Reed, a Colorado born singer who ultimately defected to the Soviet Union and became something of a Red Elvis. This Chilean documentary primarily focuses on the period in-between, when he used his inexplicable Latin American success to pursue larger career opportunities in Chile. Interact with Reeds rise with the Chilean music listening public is his growing political awareness, especially with his friendship with socialist singer-songwriter Victor Jara and the election of socialist Salvatore Allende. Allende would signal a hope and dream of an equal, prosperous Chile. A dream undone by reactionary backlash and Allende's overthrow by General Augusto Pinochet, whose reign would see thousands imprisoned and killed (including Jara) and the Chilean economy wrecked by disastrous Chicago School economics. Disillusioned by Jara's death, Reed would leave for East Germany. The documentary is fascinating into that promising period of Chilean history and a fascinating historical figure that existed alongside it.

Milius (2013)

Regardless of what you think of his politics, John Milius is an incredibly fascinating filmmaker. His philosophy of machismo and conservative, pro-militarism oozed into every project he was involved with, from Dirty Harry to Conan the Barbarian to Red Dawn. This film so aptly captures the man, his movies, and how his quixotic, oddball personality and sometimes contradictory, but ultimately very reactionary politics were captured in his film. Even for someone with very left-leaning politics like me, it gives reason to show Milius as a filmmaker worth paying attention to, and his work an indication of brazen, outspoken personality

Iron Fists and Kung Fu Kicks (2019)

I'm a big fan of the documentaries of Mark Hartley, which take a look at the underreported parts of international film with a ton of energy and style which keeps the viewer interested, along with bizarre or intriguing anecdotes from some of the participants. This film from Serge Ou (apparently having the same producer as Hartley's documentaries) captures that same energy to discuss the history of kung fu movies. While light on the actual participants and sputtering out towards the end, the film manages to interweave the actual production of seminal kung fu films with the general direction of the Hong Kong film industry and some of its biggest stars, including Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan, doing so with gusto and style that keeps the viewer interested throughout, and shows why kung fu movies have had such an enduring appeal.

Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation! (2008)

An old favorite of mine, directed by the aforementioned Mark Hartley. Same deal as above, except with the low budget Australian "Ozploitation" movies of the 60's, 70's, and 80's. Always fascinating to watch, especially all the bizarre, diverse films to come from the Land Down Under, from horror to gross-out comedy and their influence, especially on American schlock connoisseurs like Quentin Tarantino. It really is NSFW, so be warned.

ReMastered: The Lion's Share (2019)

Earlier this year, I learned the interesting international history of the old song "The Lion Sleeps Tonight." It was, in fact, based on a song called "Mbube" by South African singer Solomon Linda, which was then covered by famed folk singer Pete Seeger as "Wimoweh" (Seeger had misheard the Zulu phrase in the song "Uyimbube" or "You are a lion"), and was given lyrics by George Weiss, and given to the Tokens to be released as the song well-known today. However, Linda himself would never see any money from the explosion of his song (despite attempts by Seeger to ensure that payment was sent), and despite Disney using the song in the Lion King franchise, the Linda struggled in poverty. The documentary covers this entire history, including a massive team-up of South African lawyers and politicians against the mega-Disney empire, and the bittersweet ending of royalties given to Linda's children. It is fascinating, and it ultimately leaves you upset at the byzantine wranglings and confusing precendents that prevent something that was seemingly so obvious (that the writer of the original melody and his descendants deserved a share of the song's massive success) from truly benefitting those that need it.

Studio 54(2018)

This is the lowest recommendation, because the first half was considerably weaker than the last one. This was mainly because the middle dragged with the standard depiction of the titular nightclub being a celebrity hangout during the late 1970's, which really adds nothing new to the thousands of similar celebratory depictions in other media. However, where it really shines is showing the relationship at the center of both Studio 54 as an institution and the documentary, that being the two co-founders, Steve Rubell and Ian Schrager. Seeing them deal with the law, the actual running of the nightclub, the fallout of their eventual arrest and sale of Studio 54, and their other ventures, showed a lot more of a interesting story that rarely explored, and has a lot more to say about the two and their vision than a standard depiction normally would.

---------------

So, that's that. I do recommend all of these, since each cover their own topics well. Stay tuned for my list of 2019 films in the next few days.

Coming to a Video Screen Near You- A Million Little Pieces

    I was severely disappointed by the fact this was dumped onto VOD like last week's salami, because I was actually fairly intrigued by this film. If you don't know, A Million Little Pieces was a 2003 novel by James Frey, ostensibly about his extensive drug use and experience in rehab. The book would garner critical acclaim and financial success, especially after Oprah put the book onto her Book Club list in 2005, and had Frey on as a guest. It then emerged from investigations that he had fabricated siginficant parts of the book, including his arrest records and involvement in several incidents described. His subsequent appearance on Oprah saw her eviscerate him on air, his "memoir" was reclassified as fiction, and Frey himself would become a punchline for defrauding people, and would fade into obscurity (popping up only to make a YA slave factory and apparently came up with the initial concept for Queen and Slim). Now, I myself don't remember any of this, because I was 8, but the story has intrigued me for a while. The idea of a fake memoir, someone embellishing or fabricating their own life and selling it successfully is an intriguing notion. I feel that it taps into so many intriguing aspects of memory, fiction vs. fact, people's perceptions of real and fake. In this era of misinformation and fake news running rampant across the internet with little rebuttal, telling the story of a man who made up a memoir and successfully pitched it to the American public might had some relevance and might've been a biting look into media hype and how mistruths can spread. Unfortunately, director Sam Taylor-Johnson and her husband and star of the film, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, decided to take the memoir as it was, and ignore all this interesting material for the most mundane telling of this story.

    Based on James Frey's "memoirs" of the same name, the story follows Frey (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) as he is forced to go into rehab in Minneapolis by his brother Bob (Charlie Hunnam, doing this horrible what I think is supposed to be a Boston accent) after an incident where . While he is initially reserved and in denial of his extensive drug and alcohol abuse (even as he deals with no drinks or even anesthesia) , through the acts of people like Leonard (Billy Bob Thorton), Miles Davis (not that one, he plays a clarinet) (Charles Parnell), Joanne (Juliette Lewis), and Lilly (Odessa Young), he learns to overcome his struggle, and yadda, yadda, yadda, you know the rest.

    There are parts of this movie that are actually quite well done. There's some very good shots down that are surprisingly evocative, especially a parallel shot at the beginning and end. Billy Bob Thorton and Charles Parnell are also very good for the stock roles they end up giving. Thorton in particular has some great emotional moments that are really gripping.

     First and foremost, Aaron Taylor-Johnson is awful in this. Just horrible. His line delivery is muddled and incoherent, his physicality seems distractingly unnatural, and during the vaunted scenes of drug use, this physicality really doesn't work with stumbling and bumbling anywhere. I can tell he's trying to capture the angst and agony going through this character as he tries to recover, but it really, really doesn't work to convey that. James Frey comes off a cypher wandering through life. What doesn't help is that the film itself is mostly a generic, middle-of -the-road story of addiction, that largely goes through the motions stipulated by other works of fiction (and yes, I do consider the "memoir" fiction), done better in other films. Other than those shots I mentioned, it's filmed generically, it's written generically with bland speeches about overcoming, and mostly, it's just... generic. Not especially good, not especially bad, just .... there. When compared to films like Beautiful Boy (based on an actual true story) or Ben is Back, both from last year, this film, with its after-school preachiness and ridiculous scenes, comes off really dated and absurd. Which might make it entertaining if it weren't so dull. I completely zoned out of large parts of this film because it was so monotonous and unengaging, with so many speeches about overcoming and not a lot of actual overcoming. Finally, and this is a real life criticism, but that the fact the memoir was a proven fraud, casts a shadow over this film. They acknowledge it briefly with a quote at the beginning, but like I said in the intro, instead of treating it like the story of a man who tricked millions of people, we instead get the full, largely fabricated account of the fake memoir, by extension endorsing it. If it had actually happened, a lot of the earlier flaws might've been forgiven, but this is all made-up and the fact that filmmakers don't seem to want to acknowledge it really undercuts the power of the film and any help it may give to other addicts.

    I read a bunch of interviews with Sam and Aaron Taylor-Johnson, and they seem very sincere in bringing this to the screen. The director, in particular, talked about people she had known who had struggled with addiction as a reason to make the film. I appreciate the reasons they had to go through with this project in spite of the controversy and years of production hell, but honestly, it's really hard not to think of it and the potentially more interesting story that might've been told around this book. At the end of the day, though, this was just mediocre. The fact of its very existence is probably much more interesting and thought-provoking than the film itself. It's not even bad in a particularly interesting way. It's bad in dullest manner. If you're interested, read up on the real story and especially The Smoking Gun's investigation into the inaccuracies and suspicious elements of the book, and see it with that mind. Otherwise, I can't quite think of a reason to see it. 

Current Film Reviews- Let It Snow

Alright, I got nothing for November, anxiety has wreaked havoc on my life, and the month's almost over, so I need something to make sure I follow through on my personal promise to release something each month. *Looks on Netflix*. Oh, hey, they finally made that film based on that book John Green co-wrote. Alright, some backstory. I first heard about this around the time The Fault in Our Stars came out, and I became intrigued by John Green and the particular genre he worked in. This project was in development, and I thought I would see it in 2015, when I read it. Well, it's four years later, and I've stopped caring, and as far as I can discern, no one has noticed that this came out, so.... screw it. I got nothing else to write about.

    Based on the novel of the same name co-written by Maureen Johnson, John Green, and Lauren Myracle, the film follows several plot threads that weave and intersect with each other at various points. You have the story of Julie Reyes (Isabelle Merced), who meets the pop star Stuart Bale (Shameik Moore), and shares a fairly good experience with him, despite her own problems at home. There's Dorrie (Liv Hewson), a waitress who's nervous because Kerry (Anna Akana), who she has a burgeoning relationship with, seems not to be interested when she and her group of cheerleaders head into the restaurant Dorrie works at. There's Dorrie's friends Addie (Odeya Rush), who is concerned that her boyfriend Jeb (Mason Gooding) is cheating on her (not to mention her bizarre encounters with a woman who wears tin foil (Joan Cusack) and Tobin (Mitchell Hope, and apparently not Charlie Heaton), who has to deal with his feelings for the Duke (Kiernan Shipka) who is close to JP (Matthew Noszka). Finally, there's Tobin's friend Keon (Jacob Batalon, who seems to specialize in playing wacky best friends), who wants to throw a party but gets into roadblocks along the way.

   The acting is pretty good around the board. They do well to serve the material that they are given, and imbue it with strong emotion and empathy. It really helps invest us in these characters and their various plights, whether serious or wacky. The stories are well done for the most part, and despite somewhat odd premises, manage to resolve themselves without any feeling rushed or undervalued as a result. It is also pretty funny in some parts, with some nice bits and dialogue that feels realistic for teenager to say, while still managing to be pretty funny. It probably helped that Kay Cannon, who directed the superb comedy Blockers last year, helped write the script. I did like the sense of being completely overwhelmed by snow, being from Colorado and having to deal with that every year.

   Because of the intersecting structure of the story, it can be hard to follow what is happening to whom. Sometimes, I'd mix up stories or get confused when something happened because it pertained to a different storyline that happened a while ago. I feel like a film like this shouldn't be that hard to follow, but I was constantly rewinding to see context, and I was still confused. It's also fairly slow, with a lot of padding that sometimes stops the film cold, and are just ... confusing. This is only an hour and a half, but the padding really makes it feel longer.

    I'm not the target audience for this film, but I'm close enough to that audience that I can say that I probably would've adored this film when I was in that age group. It's the kind of warm teen romantic comedies that I was always sort of a sucker for (I enjoyed the two John Green novels I've read). I can imagine that the audience this is aimed at will likely enjoy it, since it seems very congruent with the way they actually act. Again, not the target audience, so don't know that for certain. As for me at this time, it was good. Not great, not even really that good, but good. Nice little film to watch on a lazy day or celebrate Christmas. So, yeah, if you want to watch something like that and you have a Netflix account, this wouldn't be a bad choice.   

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The Thing (1982)

    Well, this is it both for this year, and this decade. So, to celebrate the end of era, I decided to go back to a film I did back when I was doing short versions of these on my Facebook page way back when. It has come to be one of my all time favorite horror movies. So, to close out the last Masterpiece of Horror Theatre review of the 2010's, here's John Carpenter's The Thing . (Apologies for the lateness. I haven't had a great couple weeks, and there is a lot to go into, especially the history, so I need a bit more time to process it all.)
     "Who Goes There" was first published in Astounding Science Fiction in 1938, written by the legendary editor of the magazine John W. Campbell (for context, he would go to discover authors like Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, L. Sprague de Camp, Theodore Sturgeon etc., among other... stuff, shall we say). The story of a group of Antarctic scientists fighting off a strange shapeshifting alien was well-regarded, and in 1951, producer Howard Hawks and director Christian Nyby loosely adapted into the film The Thing from Another World, which is regarded as a classic in 50's science fiction. In 1976, producers David Foster and Lawrence Thurman proposed a close adaptation of the original novella to Universal. Universal acquired the remake rights from Wilbur Stark, who owned several RKO Pictures, and began searching for directors. John Carpenter, who was heavily influenced by Hawks as a director and a fan of the original (having featured it briefly in the original Halloween) was approached as early as 1976 (while fresh off the success of Assault on Precinct 13) , but had to wait until Halloween was a big hit. Even then, being a huge Howard Hawks fan, he was reluctant to approach the project until reading the novella and finding a new angle to explore the story. The screenplay went through several writers (including Texas Chainsaw creators Tobe Hopper and Kim Heinkel, the former of who was attached to direct before Carpenter), before actor and writer Bill Lancaster (son of Burt, and known at the time as the writer of The Bad News Bears) came on, writing something very close to the original novella. As with most of his films, Carpenter himself would make some rewrites to the script. Many of Carpenter's collaborators would return for this film. His The Fog cinematographer Dean Cudley would make his debut in a Hollywood feature with this. Special effects creator Rob Bottin, whom Carpenter also worked with on The Fog, would do the legendary special effects. Escape from New York star Kurt Russell would headline the movie, along with newcomer Keith David. Unlike much of his filmography, Carpenter did not score this film, instead giving the duties to Italian composer Ennio Morricone (known for his collaborations with Sergio Leone, another director Carpenter admired), whose synthesizer score would define the film for many people. Bottin would work incredibly hard to bring the unique of a strange, shapeshifting alien to life, often working incredibly long hours, using a 35 person crew (including legendary special effects creator Stan Winston to help with the dog design), and was even hospitalized for exhaustion. The film was shot in the fall 1981 in Alaska and British Columbia, with interiors filmed in the Universal lot. Released on June 25th, 1982, it was drowned financially among the many other famous films released that year, including ET: The Extra-Terrestrial (indeed, some associated with the film have blamed it and its more optimistic view of aliens for The Thing's failure), Blade Runner, Poltergeist, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, Conan (1982 was a really good year for genre films). Not helping was savaging by critics, who were aghast at the fairly bloody nature of the effect. Carpenter himself was especially hurt by The Thing from Another World director Christian Nyby lambasting the film as too gory. However, eventually, the home video market and television would give the film a new, younger audience, who would adopt the film as a classic of the horror genre. Over time, it would come to be regarded as one of the greatest horror movies ever made and a major influence on many horror and science fiction media (you might've seen this film shown in Stranger Things), and many directors who were still frightened by it. The film has even become a tradition for scientists stationed on the seventh continent. At the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, it is screened every February to commemorate the beginning of winter in the South Pole. Carpenter himself would come to call this his favorite of the movies he's made and the first of the Apocalypse Trilogy (with Prince of Darkness and In the Mouth of Madness) . For my part, it is not only one of my favorite horror movies, but one of my favorite films, period.

     The film opens with an alien spacecraft crashing to Earth, so.... yeah, you know what you're getting into. Soon after, American scientists including MacReady (Kurt Russell), Blair (Wilford Brimley), Childs (Keith David), and Dr. Cooper (Richard Dysart) take at an Antarctic base witness a man on a helicopter (Larry Franco, one of the producers) chasing a sled dog across the snowy plains, trying to shoot it. When the helicopter crashes, they confront the man, who yells in Norwegian, while the dogs warms up to them. When the Norwegian shoots at them, he is killed by station commander Garry (Donald Moffat). The scientists take the dog in, while MacReady and Cooper go to the Norwegian station to investigate. They find it abandoned, with a mysterious block of ice carved out, a heavily disfigured frozen corpse, and the frozen body of a strange creature. Blair performs an autopsy of the creature, only to find it having regular human organs. The dog soon arouses the fear of the other dogs at the station kennel, which causes it to reveal itself to be some eldritch abombination that kills and absorbs the other dogs, before Childs is able to put it down. Blair also autospies the dog to find whatever took it over can make a perfect imitation. As they use the Norwegian data to track down a dig site to a large alien ship (estimated to be 10,000 years old), Blair also discovers that the alien cells can absorb, assimilate, and imitate any other cell. And when Bennings (Peter Maloney) is absorbed, it can be any one of the crew, and they would never know who it was until it was too late....

    I honestly don't know where to start with the great things about this film. I suppose I could start with my own personal favorite thing about the film: The production design. The settings used, whether the cold sterility of the base, the harsh Antarctic landscape or the devastated Norwegian base, help add to the atmosphere of isolation and paranoia. You feel just as lonely as the characters in the film, watching them handle an impossible situation and slowly devolving and turning on each other as they try to figure out who might be the alien. The fact that it is primarily set at the base, and thus it becomes intimately familiar to viewer, adds to this, as even this becomes untrustworthy and isolated as the film goes on. The special effects are simply some of the best put to film. The alien is incredibly well designed, with a unique, ever-changing look which instills a lot of fear just looking at it, and especially watching it transform from seemingly innocuous organisms and see it brutally kill the people on the base. There is one particular transformation towards the end that is seared in my mind due to both the look of the alien and the sheer intensity of the scene. Oh, yeah, the disturbing effects and the viciousness by which they are used make incredibly scary. It is horrifying seeing this creature put out of nowhere, especially after tense scenes of the crew arguing and fighting, and they go on long enough that they instill themselves into your mind. Ironically, these keep you invested in the film itself, as the scale of the threat is abundantly clear. It is a creature that can be any living thing, that can take on its form to the smallest cell and absorb it. It can be anyone, and if it escapes the uncolonized Antarctica back to civilization, mankind is doomed. Despite it being a strange being with motives beyond the comprehension of mankind, one of the other best things of the film is the fact that the scientists act like scientists. They investigate, they hypothesize, they test, and it helps them combat the creature to the best of their abilities, while still being human enough that they still don't know whether their colleagues have become a creature beyond their understanding. It helps keeps us invested in the characters, while still fearing for their safety. I would use the term "Lovecraftian" as many others have (indeed, many have speculated "Who Goes There" was written in part because of Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness) to describe the overall feeling of the film. The idea of a being that is completely beyond human comprehension and dumb fleshbags unable to deal with it or get any help from elsewhere to really combat really fits into the Lovecraftian Cosmicist worldview. It is a nice metaphor for the helplessness of mankind in the face of a dangerous, unknown universe (or fickle, mercurial people) and the lack of a loving god to help us against it. Finally, the score by Ennio Morricone is iconic, of course, helping cement the atmosphere of sheer helplessness in the face of a menace beyond knowing.

     Not much here on the other hand. Some parts can get a bit confusing if you're not paying attention, and sometimes you confuse the names of characters, but you can follow each character, their roles, and what happens pretty well regardless.

     So, like I said, this is probably one of my all-time favorite horror films. I've seen it a few times since that first Facebook review years ago, and I'll probably watch it again for many more years. It is a great film. Not just a great horror or a great science fiction film. A great film, that works on so many levels, and reveals something about humanity that it is uncomfortable and disturbing to ponder. It is mandatory viewing for horror and science fiction fans, of course, but even if you don't like these genres (or are squimish about blood), it is well-crafted, well-written and well-acted enough to be worth at least one view (again, it is fairly bloody, so be warned). It is always a pleasure to watch this film.

    So, that concludes the Masterpiece of Horror Theatre for this year and this decade. I really hope you enjoy reading these as much as I enjoy writing them, and I hope it convinced you to seek out something new to watch for the Halloween season. I want to thank you all for reading these for all years, whether on Facebook or the Linkara rip-off videos I did also on Facebook, or on this blog, and I look forward to doing them again next year along with a very Summer of  Terror I plan for next year. I don't know what I have planned for November, but I hope you stay tuned for that. To close out, here's noted SF illustrator Wayne Barlowe doing a version of the creature from "Who Goes There"

   Happy Halloween, everyone
     

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Blood and Black Lace

        In the aftermath of World War II, the Italian film industry went through something of a renaissance with the advent of democracy. Movements like neorealism emerged under filmmakers like Federico Fellini and Roberto Rossellini and Hollywood productions flocked to the scenic Italy to make Sword-and-Sandal epics (the center being the Cinecitta Studio in Rome, sometimes called "Hollywood on the Tiber"). In this climate, genre films began to sneak their way in. Leading the charge was Mario Bava. A longtime figure in special effects and cameras since the time of Mussolini, he became a prolific cinematographer of some renown during the late 40's and early 50's, before getting his chance at directing an uncredited segment in 1954's Ulysses. Later in 1956, when director Richard Freda left the vampire film I vampiri due to a dispute with the producers, he stepped as an uncredited director to finish the film. He would do the same for several other films, including Italy's first science fiction film The Day the Sky Exploded, either ghost- or co-directing films. Finally, in 1960, he would make his solo directorial debut with the gothic horror film The Mask of the Demon, which was translated in the United States as Black Sunday by American International Pictures. After a few historical epics, he would direct The Girl Who Knew Too Much and Black Sabbath (which, yes, was the namesake of the band), both of which would help launch the giallo genre of Italian horror-murder thrillers. Because of the success he had with these films and this burgeoning genre, he was given creative freedom on the film. Already tired of the more murder mystery oriented direction of the other films, he took more emphasis on the killings part of the equation. The film, a West German co-production, was filmed in Rome over the course of 6 weeks. Because the dialogue (when translated into English to appeal to that audience) sounded stilted, actress Mary Arden rewrote it as they filmed. An original dub with the actors reprising themselves was rejected by the American distributors, who instead took a dub with the male voices by prominent voice actor Paul Frees. A moderate financial success in Italy and the US, it received mixed reviews in the US press. It has come to be seen as a classic of the giallo genre, and a big influence on the slasher genre.

      At a fashion house in Italy, a model Isabella (Francesca Ungaro) is killed by a mysterious person in a black coat and mask. She is found in a closet by the head of the fashion house, Countess Christina Como (Eva Bartok). Soon, Inspector Sylvester (Thomas Reiner) is sent to investigate, interviewing many of the people associated with the fashion house, including manager Max Morlan (Cameron Mitchell). However, another model Nicole (Arianna Gorinni) found Isabella's diary, and the killer is soon after her as well..

      This has incredible lighting and colors to it. It both emphasizes the rather bright colors and hues that populate the settings that the film takes place in, and the dark shadows underneath. Many great scenes have a distinct color to them which helps set up the mood of the scene, and builds up the inevitable killing. It gives the film a unique look. Even the clothes are bright, and stand out amongst the shadows that are all over the film. (I suppose, since it is a film about fashion, it makes sense). Especially the killer wearing all black. Along with this distinct look, the special effects are superb, with many scars and burns and injuries looking disturbingly realistic. This helps make the killing scenes a lot of more impact, especially the most disturbing ones, including when the killer shoves someone into a burning light. And, having been used to the slasher format of the 80's, the murder-mystery was intriguing and it keeps the viewer engaged with the film to figure out what happen.

    This isn't really the fault of the filmmakers, since their dub was overwritten, but it sounded off most of the time. Maybe because Paul Frees (a very talented voice actor, mind you, who I've enjoyed in many 60's era animated production) does get the timbre right for the characters. I also got a bit lost during parts of the movie, but I could still follow most of it coherently.

     This was an interesting film, and you can see the strong influence it had on slashers, especially the idea of a masked, silent killer slowly moving their way through victims. I highly recommend it for fans of slashers as well as Italian films, since this is very firmly Italian in setting and sensibility.

    So, to close out this year of Masterpiece, we will look at one of my favorite films: John Carpenter's The Thing.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The Final Girls

      One of the screenwriters for the film, Joshua John Miller, was the son of Jason Miller, who was Father Karras in The Exorcist. Miller attributes the film's inspiration to watching his father die over and over on film, and the dissonance that invoked when his real father died in 2001. The film was ultimately optioned by Sony (after a brief period at New Line Cinema, who wanted to remove the emotional beats of the film), with screenplay by Miller and MA Fortin with director Todd Strauss-Schulson (whose biggest credit at that point was A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas. and would go on to direct this year's Isn't It Romantic). Originally an R-Rating, the director was forced to cut it down in a PG-13, which he was ultimately satisfied with (I'll get to that). The film was shot in Louisiana in 2014, before it's October 9th, 2015 release to critical success.

       Max Cartwright (Taissa Farmiga, sister of Vera) is the daughter of Amanda (Malin Akerman), who played the role of Nancy in the first of the popular Camp Bloodbath film franchise in the 80's, before becoming typecast. After one failed audition, the two get into a severe car accident, where Amanda is killed. Three years later, Max is still dealing with the aftermath of the incident, when she, as well as friends Gertie (Alia Shawkat) and Chris (Alexander Ludwig), when Gertie's stepbrother Duncan (Thomas Middleditch) invites all of them to a screening of Camp Bloodbath. While obviously reluctant, she and her group acquiesce. At the screening, however, a fire emerges, and the group, now including Vicki (Nina Dobrev), are forced to go through the screen using the fake machete to escape. They find themselves in a forest, when the van from the film, driven by Kurt( Adam DeVine) drives by. When he drives by every 92 minutes, it confirms to Duncan they have, in fact, been teleported to the film Camp Bloodbath.

     I reviewed Scream a while, and it wasn't that positive, but I conceded it was likely because it was a film of its era. The tropes it was mocking have been dissected and reevaluated over the years, and it was a film of that 90's. Given this is closer, (and the director did list Scream as an influence), it understands the audience better to know these slasher tropes, and doesn't just regurgitate them to the audience. It helps that there is the strong emotional core of Max seeing a younger version of her deceased mother and trying to save her life. That is basically the driving force of the film and the main conduit by which the audience can invest in the characters. I do like that they play around with various elements of film, from runtime, to flashbacks to tropes to ADR. It really helps build the world of the movie, while making the process of making films seem surreal when you really consider it. Some cast highlights include Farmiga, Akerman, Middleditch (I haven't seen many Silicon Valley episodes, but he's always good), and especially Kurt Devine, who relishes the role of the prickish, horny slasher victim with zest. There are some good jokes at the expense of slashers and their 80's setting. Finally, the Friday the 13th is very thorough. The filmmakers clearly love that series, and having now seen that series, there's a lot of nods and references, especially to the first two, and the recreation is pretty great (especially an 80's recreation of the 50's)

    Some of the jokes did fall flat, mostly the ones that did deal with the same material Scream did, at least in the morality of slashers (i.e. people who have sex tend to murdered). Again, I think this very much is just that this particular cliche has explored, parodied, and dissected enough that pointing it out seem rote (though they do integrate it into the plot and the ending pretty well). It also kind of dragged towards the middle. I think that the sequel bait, while apt for slasher, left the film with a bit of unsatisfying ending. I do wish there was a sequel.

     So, yeah, this was decently funny, and a good homage to the slasher genre. If you enjoy slashers, than this is definitely worth checking out. Otherwise, I can't say you'll enjoy it, but there are some good jokes here and there.

    Alright, this was an unscheduled change, because I realized there weren't a lot of post-2000's horror in the docket. Anyway, since we're on slashers, next week will be one of the biggest influences on the genre, Mario Bava's Blood and Black Lace.