Category Archives: Movies

Film Editorials, Movies

The Feminist Themes of Hellraiser (1987)

Leave a comment

People have described this movie in various different ways, but I doubt many have called it a feminist flick. The story adaptation of a box that opens to another dimension – to beings who can no longer tell the difference between pain & pleasure – is more known for the practical effects and the gore on screen. While it might not go as far as some of the sequels, the original does indeed have it’s fair share of blood and torture. However, many seem to overlook the subtle ideas planted in the movie that elevate it above other films from the same era. In fact, it’s one of the few Horror films that has a genuinely well-executed feminist message.

Before we get into that, we need to understand what Horror was like in the 1980s. Due to the massive success of the 1978 film Halloween, the following decade has an increase in Slasher films. These movies tend to focus on recurring traits and characteristics. A group of people, usually teenagers or young adults, are being stalked by a killer using some sort of bladed weapon. Characters who use drugs like marijuana, who partake in pre-marital sex, or have aggressive personalities usually get killed. The last character is a female, one who typically doesn’t partake in the previously mentioned activities and isn’t aggressive. Referred to as The Final Girl, she fights the killer who is typically a male and will likely use the killer’s weapon against the. The bladed weapon used by killers are usually interpreted as a stand-in for their genitalia, the idea connected to how real life serial killers usually have some sort of sexual motivation for their murders. And the Final Girl using that weapon against them is seen as them taking on male characteristics and using them against them. While various Slasher films switch it up a bit, these traits can usually be found in most of them.

And nothing is inherently wrong with that. Many people watch and enjoy these films for those very things. The point being made is that this type of film dominated the genre at the time. Even if it wasn’t a Slasher flick, most Horror movies tend to focus on a mainly physical threat. There were other Horror films that focused on something more abstract. For example, the 1989 movie Pet Sematary was an exploration of how Death can affect and ruin families/relationships. But these films tend to be the exception and not the norm for the genre for most of the decade. That’s not to say A Nightmare on Elm Street didn’t incorporate interesting ideas or the previously mentioned Pet Sematary didn’t have it’s share of physical violence. But your not exactly looking for something thought provoking in something like Friday the 13th.

This is where the 1987 film Hellraiser becomes unique. First of all, the monsters of the movie – Cenobites, supernatural beings who view pain & pleasure as one and the same – don’t actually play a major role in the movie. The story is mainly focused on two humans. There’s Frank, a man who lived a Hedonistic life that lead him to open up a box that allowed the Cenobites to take him to their dimension. And there’s Julia, a woman married to Frank’s brother that had a brief affair with Frank around the time she got married. She had been carrying around thoughts and feelings for Frank since then. So when Frank finds a way to escape the Cenobites, he is able to manipulate Julia into helping him regain full strength as well as regain new skin.

That’s right, this movie has a major focus on a love story. But it’s not a healthy one. While Frank doesn’t want to live with Cenobites, he clearly no longer has the same human thoughts and emotions you and I would have regarding sex and relationships. He sees Julia as just someone he can use for the time being. We even see him have clear sexual feelings for his niece, Kirsty. Frank is a villain in the movie – he is actively doing wrong and going through on actions to accomplish his own agenda. The Cenobites – despite being inhuman in appearance and feelings – aren’t actually seeking out victims. They only take those who open the box, people who seek them out to experience new pleasure and sensations. Are they antagonists? Certainly. But they aren’t the ones that Kirsty is trying to stop.

As previously mentioned, the box is very important in the movie. And it’s at the heart of the movie’s feminist message. Some of you have probably heard cliched lines from TV and movies about how women are impossible to figure out. That they are something like living puzzles. Coincidentally, the box in Hellraiser is a puzzle box. We’ve seen people in various shows and movies try and figure out how to get lucky with a woman. It might take them a while to do so. But if and when they do, they end up indulging in physical pleasures and lust. Believe it or not, the same can be applied to the puzzle box. Once you solve it, the box will open and you can’t to experience what your looking for – one could say the same thing about a woman opening up her legs for a man. Women can be seen by some as a source of pain for many people, whether it be due to arguments or physical altercations or something else. But they are also a source of pleasure.

This brings us to the climax of the film. The Cenobites aren’t really slashers and they weren’t actively seeking out Kirsty, the Final Girl of the movie. But they still have to face-off against her in the end. Kirsty doesn’t actually use a weapon against them. Instead, she finds a way to close the puzzle box and send them back to where they come from. If solving the puzzle box can be compared to a woman opening her legs, then this acts is the equivalent of a woman closing her legs and denying satisfaction. The puzzle box – the woman – holds the power. And when permission is denied, everything must come to an end. There is a phrase that basically says that everything is about sex except for sex – that is about power. So if most Horror movies had subtle themes and messages regarding sex, then Hellraiser subverts that by making it one of the main themes. And by doing that, it is actually an exploration on relationships and the power a person has in that dynamic. The movie even turned the main Cenobite, a character with no clearly defined gender or portrayed strong stereotypical gender traits, and made them clearly male. Thus adding strength to the movie’s message of how much power woman have with their bodies.

A movie that’s well known for gore and blood ends up having clever ideas on topics not discussed enough in the US and subverts most expectations of the genre. It’s a movie that remains engaging with every viewing, with so much that can be discussed and interpreted. Plus, it’s a genuinely creepy and moody flick. It’s time you either revisit it or watch it for the first time. It has such sights to show you…

Movie Reviews, Movies

Review – Clerks III

Leave a comment

In 1994, the movie Clerks would silently jump-start Kevin Smith’s film-making career. It was a solid first film with humor on a very relatable level that garnered a loyal audience. Over a decade later and Clerks II was released. It has its fans and a handful of important moments for Dante & Randal. Aside from that, it really isn’t talked about much among Kevin Smith fans and usually not in high regard. Now nearly a decade after that film, the third film that has been teased for a few years has finally released. Dante & Randal are the owners of the Quick Stop and still running it. But when Randal suffers a heart attack, he gets motivated to make his own movie. That movie ends up being – you guessed it – the first Clerks.

Obviously, this movie has some meta humor. Which can be seen in the trailer. But if your concerned that the humor is mostly focused on that, you can rest easy. The vast majority of the meta jokes are in the trailer. Even then, they are spread out appropriately and do fit in considering the context of the story. As well as the overall directing & writing style of Kevin Smith. I think at this point people know what to expect from one of his films. And loyal fans of his work will be well rewarded with easter eggs and references to Smith’s past projects.

It might have been nearly 30 years since we first saw Dante & Randal, but both of the actors still know these characters very well. Jeff Anderson is so familiar with the character Randal that just his facial expression or a quick reaction is enough to get laughs. And you can tell he is enjoying the story his character gets and puts in the effort. We get a lot of the classic dialogue you expect from this kind of movie, a character talking about movies & Hollywood as just your average guy. Now Brian O’Halloran makes a return as his character Dante and he is just as good as he’s ever been. His frustration and more straight man-like reactions to certain things is just as entertaining.

But in regards to Dante, this does bring up a noticeable criticism. There are a couple of more dramatic focused scenes early in the story that aren’t quite hitting the mark. One in particular is when Dante goes to a cemetery. When you see it play out, it feels more like he’s demonstrating what to feel in the moment, but not actually feeling it. Or at least not enough for me to truly invest in the moment. And the musical score, while soft, is sort of trying to push you to have that emotional investment. So there are a couple of moments like that in the first half. But then there is this one scene towards the end that makes up for that several times over. Without giving too much away, Dante initiates a drunken confrontation while filming one of the scenes. No music, no jokes, but Dan acts like never before and you feel how intense and serious he is as it happens. It’s probably the best scene of the flick and it kick-starts the climax.

The drunken confrontation elevates the rest of the movie to the dramatic level it needs to be at in order to end strong. And it’s during this climax that you really start to look at yourself. This movie does get you to look at your own life in a similar way. Where you’ve been, where you are, and where you hope to be in the future. And the meta humor does actually support that and feeds into the more serious moments some of time. This movie is sort of a demonstration of how Kevin Smith himself has changed. Maybe not significantly, he’s still fundamentally the man we know. But changed enough. While visually the movie could have more variety in how it is shot, the actual story takes a surprising extra step. The way the climax starts off is something that needed to happen and is expected. But how it ends was actually kind of surprising. However, it works and does keep that movie at that dramatic level.

Ultimately, this is a good movie, even bittersweet in some areas. It’s not a flawless movie, A few dramatic scenes early one aren’t quite hitting the mark. There might be a few jokes that won’t land for certain viewers. But a lot of the jokes do land. And the dramatic stuff that works is some of the best in any of Kevin Smith’s projects. It’s self-reflective for the director but also gets the viewers to reflect on themselves. I would argue this is the best of the Clerks movies. But even if you don’t agree, this is certainly worth the wait.

Film Editorials, Movies

The Universal Truth of Falling Down

Leave a comment

One bad day. And that’s apparently all it takes. All that’s needed to turn a good, law-abiding citizen into a hard criminal. For friends and family to turn on them. And on the surface, this Joel Schumacher film appears to confirm that claim. All the things that the main character, William “Bill” Foster, happens over one day. But if you actually pay attention to the story, you’ll find that the movie is saying something different. Something else that shows just how things went so bad for Bill Foster.

The movie begins one hot day in Los Angeles in the early 1990s. The heat & noise of a traffic jam early in the morning pushes Bill to leave his car and walk all the way to his destination. But it isn’t until he arrives at a convenience store that he snaps. Enraged by what he claims is an over-priced item, he assaults the store owner and damages a large amount of his inventory. But he pays for hid drink and leaves. From there, he beats a bit on a couple of gang members. And when those gangsters fail to take down Bill later and get hospitalized themselves, he takes their guns. He holds up a fast food place when he’s a few minutes late for the lunch menu. The bigoted owner of a surplus store mistakes Bill as an ally for his Nazi beliefs and ends up being killed by him. Bill damages a construction site, scares an old man into a heart attack, and eventually dies by a cop shooting him at the pier.

I know this all sounds kind of insane. But if you watch the film and listen to how he justifies his actions, you might be inclined to be on his side. He talks about how prices are gauging people and he stands for his rights as a consumer. The gangsters provoke him by denying him the simple right of simply passing through to his destination. He’s not even five minutes late for the breakfast menu and is frustrated when he keeps getting told no. He points out to the old man how the country club is taking up space for a few people when it could be better served to the general public. A lot of Bill’s rants and dialogue do speak to how needlessly complicated and cruel our society can be. Especially when it comes to the day-to-day and common things we might not even think twice about. The narrative from this viewpoint gives us a guy who was fired after years of loyalty, constantly running into situations or people making his life harder, and all he wants is to see his daughter on her birthday. There is a lot about this character that we can connect with and understand where Bill is coming from.

But then the other narrative rears it’s head. The one that shines a light on the flaws of Bill as a character and how he frames himself. Yes, it is true that he is on his way to his daughter. But she lives with his ex-wife. Yet he refuses to actually recognize her as a former wife. He constantly calls her home, making her feel threatened and fearful. And it is through her we understand that Bill has a history of anger issues that have on occasion come close to him hurting her but always fell short. While that is good for her, it does show that there was always rage hidden under the surface. Building up until it boils over like it has during the events of this movie. And we do get to see one instance of him forcing his wife and daughter at a younger age do a few things despite her saying no to him through home video footage. Showing that while he views his marriage as something good, there are issues that he chooses to ignore.

Other contemporary reviews of the movie have pointed to how Bill might also be subconsciously nurturing racist beliefs. Not nearly to the same extent as a Nazi store owner he comes across in the middle of the movie. But more along the lines of claims and statements that the average American might not realize could be based in racism. Like how he argues with a store owner of Korean descent about how much money the US has given to South Korea and that should justify him paying less for his drink. The fact he can’t even confirm how much the US has probably given South Korea can be read as one such claim/belief he might not even recognize as being racist. While I’ll admit there are instances in the movie that could be read as such, I’m not sure that’s the real reason instances like that are in the film.

Bill Foster is a man who thought his life would be great. Have a wife and a family with a good job that involves him doing work for the US military. But he is at a point at his life where he has been fired for a month. Yea, him losing his job doesn’t actually happen in the film. It doesn’t happen on the same day as all these other events. He’s been unemployed and has let the anger build up inside. And we get the idea that over his life, he has failed to recognize just how different the world around him is compared to how he thinks it should be. This has lead to him losing his wife and child and even having a restraining order against him. And at the beginning of the movie, when subjected to heat with no change of getting his car’s AC to work and subjected to noise drilling into his head, he finally decides he no longer cares about following the same rules and laws he has been following. All he has ever gotten out of life that way is a disappointing and depressing life. Why not do things the way he feels is right?

That’s why I think the character is not so much exclusively racist on a subconscious level, but more that he is ignorant of how life has changed around him. There is a scene where he sees a black man protest outside of a bank, dressed in a similar dress shirt and tie like Bill, who was denied a small loan. The sign the man holds show the reason they say he was denied, which was because he was “not economically viable”. Using real world experience and knowledge, we could probably guess this was a cover-up for a bank not giving him money due to his race. When the police take this man away, he sees Bill and asks him to not forget him, and Bill responds back with a respecting nod. I see this as revelation for Bill’s true motivation. He’s a man who sees himself as being screwed over by life in nearly every aspect. And him seeing another guy going throw similar hardship is something he takes as confirmation that he should keep doing what he’s doing. Literally fighting back and damaging places and people he views as abusers of their power that get in his way of his final destination.

This is where I talk about the man pursuing him, Sargent Martin Prendergast. As we get to know a little bit of his life, he seems to have been at the mercy of similar life hardships as Bill. Even a touch worse in certain areas. And while he starts off as seemingly mild mannered, he does gain more confidence by the end of the film. He doesn’t go as far as Bill where he tries and just destroy everything with no plan afterwards. But he does fight back against co-workers going against him, curses out his jerk of a boss on live TV, and finds the confidence to hit the streets once again after years of being behind a desk. He sees that his life is not what he wanted it to be. But he’s taking more appropriate actions to take control of what he can and make sure things go the way he thinks they should. Bill doesn’t have a sense of what is truly right. Yes, he yells about how much of a waste of space a country club is. But he yells this as a guy is suffering a heart attack right next to him. Unable to get his pills because Bill caused the cart carrying them to go into a lake. And he just smirks at him and walks away. Bill is a man who only understands his own anger and life and will justify it until he is confronted into realizing it differently.

And that’s what happens. The Sargent holds Bill at gunpoint at the pier. And it is at this point that Bill is forced to face the fact that today, he is the bad guy. He could decide to let himself be taken in and watch his daughter grow up behind bars. But he thinks about the toll and weight of something like that might have on her. So instead of doing what the law says is the right thing – the same body of laws he used to follow that lead to his current miserable state – he does what he thinks is the right thing. He tricks the cop into shooting and killing him, so that the money from his life insurance can be given to his daughter. His life is done no matter what, but Bill does what he thinks is the best thing for his daughter to hopefully have a better life than his.

This is a movie about a guy who sees himself as a victim. But his actions often contradict that by showing how narcissistic he is capable of being. And while that’s accurate, that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have some good points. There is a lot about our establishments and society that work against the average citizen like Bill that needs to be taken down and fixed. But that latter part is something that Bill overlooked during his trek across Los Angeles. And that is what we need to take away from this movie. Take down what is broken in our world but then replace it with something better. Bill was a man that life had left behind. Some of that was because life just changes naturally, it evolves. But part of that is also due to life not giving him a chance to realize the changes and adjust. So at the end of the day, Bill is the kind of guy we need to look in order to find a starting point of how to improve our own lives.

Movie Reviews, Movies

Review – RRR

Leave a comment

Movie audiences in the United States tend to stick to watching movies that come from Hollywood. Speaking for myself, I’ll admit I haven’t seen a lot of foreign films. But over the last decade or so, movies and TV shows form other countries have found huge success in international markets. But the one that this piece is about stands out from most of them. Action, music, singing, dancing, friendship, violence, trauma, and a revolution. These are all the ingredients that make “RRR” – translated into English as Rise, Roar, Revolt – a modern movie epic.

The general premise is actually unique. It’s based on two real life Indian revolutionaries from the early 20th Century but the story in the movie is completely fictional. They never met each other in real life, so the writers and director conceived of a story where they met each other and inspired each other to lead a full revolution against British rule. They still did a lot of research to make sure the details of the world and characters were accurate to the period. But just because they cared about getting certain details historically accurate, don’t assume that stopped them from going all out in…well, everything, about the story.

There is so much about this movie that is fantastical. A lot of that can be explained by the culture of Indian film-making in general. The way they craft and tell movies is very different from the average Hollywood flick. In this movie, you will experience everything. Action scenes that go all out despite the law of physics. A dance-off at a wedding attended mainly by the British. A couple of musical scenes show up, one of them occurs when the singer is being flogged/whipped in front of a crowd. Scenes showing the true brutal nature of the British and the unspeakable acts the people of India had to resort to in order to fight back. A lot of you would probably assume there is no way a movie can incorporate all of this and still craft a well-made story. But the thing that truly makes this movie is the friendship between our leads.

This is a 3 hour movie but it knows how to utilize every minute. The first 40 minutes we spend time getting to know the initial conflict and our main leads. The British Governor has taken a young girl from one of India’s tribes at the request of his wife. This causes one of our main leads, Bheem, to head to Delhi in secret to bring back the girl to their tribe. And then there is Raju, a man serving as a police officer and is tasked with finding and arresting Bheem. Their first time meeting each other involved them teaming up to save a young boy from a train on fire by performing an insane action sequence straight out of 1980s Hollywood cinema. They don’t know who the other is and become close friends.

Like mentioned earlier, the reason so much of this movie works is because of the friendship between these two characters. It is genuine and wholesome. They have fun with each other, help the other, create a strong sense of trust. Which makes it so much more heartbreaking when halfway through the movie, Raju has to arrest Bheem. Right in the middle of another extraordinary action scene involving a small army of animals helping Bheem attack the British soldiers and the Governor’s home in Delhi. I’m just saying this now – all the action scenes in this movie are awesome.

Some people might still think that this is an over the top action film. But there is a lot more that elevates the movie. For one thing, this move doesn’t back away from the harsh reality of the time. When we find out what Raju’s secret plan is, we are treated to a flashback scene where a young Raju was forced to shoot his own father to activate a bomb and kill dozens of British soldiers. Raju is forced to whip & flog Bheem in front of the people in Delhi, his best friend bleeding because of him. The movie wants us to show how complex some of these characters are and various scenes in the movie are meant to support the universal themes of the movie. It asks us what it takes to truly start a revolution, the costs that might entail. And it also uses the villains of the movie to speak to how we should be treating one another and doesn’t back down in reminding us of the cruel things we have done to the other.

There is one more thing I want to speak on. When we are introduced to Raju, the movie gives us the title card of “The Fire”. For Bheem, the title card reads “The Water”. In regards to Raju, this can be interpreted as him being the spark to light the revolutionary fire for his people. For Bheem, he is the unstoppable storm that is coming to towards the British, and the destruction that will be created in his wake. And when these two are finally fighting together, it is beautiful and awe-inspiring. It’s said that the writers & director of this movie also took influence from Hindu myths when it came to creating the main leads. It certainly explains how they can give Hollywood superheroes a run for their money in the action.

At the end of the day, this is a beautiful epic. Elements and genres that shouldn’t work together end up blending beautifully together. The entire thing is anchored by our main leads. The ideas and themes of the movie are universal and is no doubt a big part on why this movie is so big outside of India. A modern epic like no other. Get off of your computer and witness the story of Raju & Bheem!

Movie Reviews, Movies

Review – Prey

Leave a comment

The Predator franchise is unusual in several respects. One of those being that there is more good than bad installments. While there is some debate over the 2nd and 3rd installments, they are still generally considered good overall. The 2018 film “The Predator” is the only installment considered genuinely bad, or at least poor. But for a film series that has been around for over 30 years, that’s still impressive. Luckily the most recent installment continues the trend of having more good films. In fact, “Prey” is an excellent film that has both gory action and great characterization.

The first prequel of the franchise, we focus on a story that takes place in 1719 in North America. We follow a young Comanche woman named Naru that wants to become a hunter. And while we do see early on she has some skills with tracking and weaponry, we also several attempts of her failing to actually kill the creatures she hunts. But then the Predator arrives and Naru goes out to hunt the creature in order to protect her tribe.

I think one thing many people might be concerned about regarding this film is that the writing for the female protagonist won’t be up to par. There have been many films in recent years with female leads where the writing does nothing to help flesh them out as real characters. Instead, the films often portray them as flawless from the beginning and end up being somehow even more flawless. But that is not the case with “Prey”. As mentioned, we see several instances in the first act where she is unable to actually land the killing blow against an animal. There is a deer and a mountain lion in the first act the film she goes up against but fails to kill. However, we do see her practice with her weaponry and work with her trained dog named Sarii. In addition, she has skills as both a tracker and as a healer. It’s just that she never seem to have been able to actually prove herself to her tribe.

However, her brother Taabe does show support for her and does help give her a couple of chances in the hope she will finally land the kill. Their connection does end up bringing a fair deal of heart to the film and help us care for both characters. As the film goes along, Naru is shown using the skills she has and observe the events happening to eventually become the hunter and warrior she wishes to be. Speaking of characterization, there is a fair bit of it for the Predator of the film. First though, the design of the creature looks cool. It does have a more primitive design and feel in a few areas. Not so drastic it is unrecognizable from what we’ve seen in other movies, but enough to stand out as unique to this story. In the first act, we see it hunt other predators native to the ecosystem. But it always waits to see those predators make their own kills uninterrupted. Almost as if it is waiting for proof they are worthy to be killed. And even though it has a variety of weapons, it starts with using just it’s hands and a couple of blades. Showing this is a creature that does have a more personal, up close fighting style a little similar to the Comanche tribe.

Obviously this film does a great job of having characterization for both hero and villain. And managing to do so with mainly visuals as opposed to the movie telling us. But don’t worry, we still have that intense gory action. There are several kills that are brutal and blood is spilled all over the great plains. Interesting thing to note is that as we move from fight to fight, Naru does pay attention to some of the details about the Predator. The way it fights, how it decides who to go after, the way it moves. As she gathers that knowledge, she finds a way to use her skills and the knowledge of her land to go up against the creature in a final showdown that is very enjoyable. It isn’t often we have an R rated action/thriller film that also serves as a coming-of-age story. But this film has found great success in the way it blends those different styles and executes the final product.

A couple of other elements that help suck you in to the movie are the visuals and the sound. Several memorable scenes and landscapes do stick out in memory and the sound helps engage you in the action unfolding. You will feel yourself get tense during certain scenes as you try and anticipate what will happen next.

After being in production for the better part of a decade, “Prey” finally releases and sticks the landing. It even shows the franchise and the direction it probably should follow. A series of anthology films taking place in various time periods, showing how the people and culture of the times dictate how we interact with the arrival of a Predator. One of the best things of the franchise is seeing how humans and Predators react to each other, maybe even work with each other on occasion. Regardless if they go this route or maybe continue with these characters, we can rest easy knowing the franchise has remembered how to entertain us and keep us engaged.

Movie Reviews, Movies

Review – Nope

Leave a comment

When Jordan Peele released his first film “Get Out”, it became an instant hit. Audiences and critics were thrilled with the scares and engaged with the racial commentary the movie provided. It became one of the few Horror films to have been nominated for Best Picture. The follow-up, “Us”, was more complex for general movie audiences to digest. The feel of the movie was more reminiscent of Horror from the 1970s or 1980s. It actually felt inspired by the work of one of my personal favorite filmmakers, John Carpenter. Audiences still overall enjoyed it but critics and film fanatics had a ball dissecting the themes of Peele’s sophomore project. Now we have his third has come out and it’s time to see what it brings to the table.

If your looking for a film that is a spectacle to watch, then this is something you should check out. The story centers around a horse wrangler ranch in California, one that has historically worked on a number of movie sets. But the death of the family patriarch brings brother & sister home (Daniel Kaluuya & Keke Palmer respectively) and they try to financially save the ranch by taking a picture of a UFO that visits at night and selling it. Both of these actors bring strong performances to the screen. Kaluuya brings a quiet yet engaging personality to his character while Palmer brings energy that balance each other out and make them entertaining to see interact. All the performances in the movie are honestly fun to watch. From Steven Yeun who plays a rather interesting character during the first of the movie. To even Brandon Perea who plays the tech support comedic role that helps our main characters try to get evidence of alien life.

Several people have pointed out similarities between Jordan Peele’s movie & M Night Shyamalan’s movie “Signs”. Both take place on a farm/ranch and have the families deal with alien life. But that’s really as far as the similarities go. Shyamalan’s film was a dour movie, the characters devoid of any real personality. The aliens in the movie had standard designs and were taken out pathetically easily. Peele’s characters bring both depth and humor to their roles, making you both tense but can also make you laugh. And the reveal of what exactly is stalking their ranch is actually a fin spin on your typical Hollywood UFO flick. The climax of the movie is the most action-focused of Peele’s film career and that is where the spectacle of the movie takes center stage.

However, the one major flaw of the movie is the social commentary. Or rather, the movie’s failure to provide an easily identifiable connection between it’s commentary and the events playing on screen. The movie starts off with a rather tense and dread filled scene that connects to Steven Yeun’s character. You can feel that this backstory is in the film for a reason and that there is a connection between it and what’s happening in the present. But you will probably struggle to figure out what that connection is as your watching the movie. Of course, you can ponder it and do research following the credits. But it will ultimately be a distraction for you if that’s what you are going to this film to see. While “Us” is probably more abstract with it’s themes, it does provide enough clues and small details where you can at least start making the connections as you watch it. But there might be some people who will be initially confused by what this new offering has to say.

Overall though, this is a very enjoyable film. One that provides spectacle and commentary, even if the latter is a bit tricky to properly identify. A film that enjoys playing with tropes and the familiarity of this kind of UFO story that has tense scenes and entertaining performances. I would say that this is definitely worth going to the theaters for.

Movie Reviews, Movies

Review – Saint Maud

Leave a comment

A24 has grown to occupy a unique standing in Hollywood. They are quite possibly the biggest independent film studio at the moment. But it does feel like they have grown into one of the biggest studios in Hollywood, along studios like Warner Brothers and Paramount. Their brand and style has become well known among critics and general audiences alike. They are best known for producing movies with a unique dramatic and/or horror focus. Even for films where they only acted as distributors, they often carry a style that’s pretty similar to other work A24 has been involved in. That can be seen with this British Horror film which had flown under the radar for a lot of people but has gone on to be considered a modern classic of the genre.

A former hospital nurse known as Katie has left her job prior to the film to become a hospice nurse, going by the name Maud. In addition to the professional change, she has recently converted to Roman Catholicism and takes her faith seriously. To the point where she claims to feel God communicate with her, although not with words but sensations that her body feels. She likes the work that she does but feels like everything is leading her towards some higher purpose that God has planned. This seems to take shape when she becomes the nurse for a sick former dancer named Amanda. Things seem to go well at first, and it appears as though Amanda might have an interest in sharing Maud’s religion. Maud takes that as a a sign that she could save a soul and takes it seriously. But when she becomes a bit too involved in Amanda’s personal life, things take a sharp turn downward. All of it leading to Maud making violent choices with no opportunity to turn away. Even if she wanted to back out.

This film serves as the directorial debut of Rose Glass. Watching the movie, you start to notice how the movie is influenced by Horror flicks of the 1970s. A couple of comparisons that have been made are to the films “Carrie” and “The Exorcist”. But I think another film that might have inspired Miss Glass’s movie is the Scorsese film “Taxi Driver”. Maud’s personal life is shown as being practically non-existent ever since she left the hospital and converted. Her personal apartment is very small with only the bare essentials. She doesn’t seem to have any friends, although one former friend that also worked at the hospital does make an effort to try and reconnect during the film’s plot. Maud is solely focused on her work that she considers noble. But finds bigger purpose with Amanda, despite her firing Maud following a physical altercation. She takes it on herself to become the savior of someone she sees as in trouble.

Based on that, Maud does have vague similarities De Niro’s character Travis Pickle. But adding in the influence from those 70s Horror films turns it into a more unique film. Maud appears to have some sort of literal connection to the supernatural, which she views as God communicating to her. However, if you pay attention to the scenes where the supernatural events occur, she is the only one actually experiencing it or reacting to it. The movie’s visuals play with the idea of what Maud is experiencing is actually happening or if she is imagining it. Of course, Maud truly believes that it is God. But Amanda, despite seemingly interested in converting, eventually reveals that she was just playing with Maud. Her reasoning being that dying is boring. There is one scene early on in the movie where you do get the feeling she isn’t being entirely sincere. But that scene also starts fueling the possibility that the other supernatural elements aren’t actually there either, serving a dual purpose.

A more recent film to compare this movie with that also was influenced by Martin Scorsese’s work is “Joker”. That film could be read as happening in a variety of different ways. It is heavily debated whether any of the events in the movie happened, if it was all real, or if some of it was real but actually played out differently. The movie leaves all of those possibilities and theories open. But with “Saint Maud”, despite playing with the idea of how much of it is actually happening, you get the feeling that the movie prefers you view the supernatural elements as all being in Maud’s mind. While not explicitly described, you get enough of Maud’s past to know that a horrible death happened at her old hospital job where she tried to save the patient’s life but failed. The former co-worker who tries to reconnect with Maud tries to re-connect and give her support. But despite latching onto the offer for a human connection, Maud continues to isolate herself and keep focused on what she views as her mission. All of Maud’s actions and choices since that day at the hospital could be her mind’s way of making sense of what happened. Quite possibly breaking down over a period of time.

And that’s what brings us to the overall theme of the movie. Maud’s passion in her faith and mission to save Amanda’s soul starts being shown as a woman losing herself in obsession. Someone who is trying to comprehend past trauma but ultimately succumbing to violence resulting in death. Maud would no doubt view her story as something similar to “The Exorcist”, a story of someone wresting with faith but ultimately winning over evil both internal and external. But to the audience, it’s a mixture of “Carrie” and “Taxi Driver”. Someone who has become socially isolated, views her environment as a decaying world and ultimately a distraction from her mission. And while human connection does seem to be teased and become a reality, it is ripped out from under her, and so she takes matters into her own hands.

If you are a fan of 1970s Horror and/or enjoy psychological suspense that plays with perception of reality, this is an easy pick to watch. You will become engaged with Maud as you follow her throughout the movie’s running time. And by the end, regardless of how you view the supernatural elements, you will feel both fear of Maud as well as pity for her. This is a hidden gem that deserves to be seen.

Film Editorials, Movies

A Reinterpretation of American History X

Leave a comment

This movie has gotten a fair amount of attention back when it first came out. Critics praised the themes and message that the movie was saying about Hate and the relation to Racism. It was even used as part of a campaign to raise awareness of Human Rights across several college campuses. There were debates about the film, with one group thinking the white gang (Disciples of Christ) were just a marginal group that only represented an extreme. I’m not going to dispute anything that has been previously talked about when others have analyzed the film. But I do believe that following the 2016 US Presidential Election and the aftermath of the 2020 US Presidential Election that there is a new layer of meaning that should be examined regarding the film.

By the end of the movie, the overall message we are supposed to take is that Hate doesn’t fix anything. It doesn’t improve anything if we are making actions based on that emotion. And the final scene of the movie illustrates the kind of consequences that come from acting on said emotion. But there is another important lesson that has been pointed out that I want to expand on slightly. In various scenes of the film, Derek Vinyard is shown to be second-in-command of a rising White Supremacy organization thanks to the mentorship of a man named Cameron Alexander. A seemingly average law-abiding citizen with a clean rep sheet that teachers his racist ideology to Derek following the death of the young man’s father. Derek then spreads the ideology to a bunch of lost kids to build the Disciples of Christ. And it is assumed by the audience that Cameron is where that Hate comes from. But there is a flashback towards the end of the movie where we see the real origin.

Back when Derek’s father was alive, there is a conversation about the new history teacher Derek has and the new literature they have to read for the class. The father makes comments expressing his thoughts on what he perceives to be affirmative action. There is even one moment where he claims to black men on his team became firefighters over two white men who allegedly were more qualified. Whether or not that’s true is up for debate. But the point here that other critics have pointed out is that the movie is showing how Hate is taught to the next generation. A cycle of violence based on misunderstanding on only focusing on the pain being inflicted. But I want to point out that this is only part of the cycle that I think is overlooked.

Derek Vinyard had the seed of Hate in him before his father’s death. Following that tragedy, he began giving in more to that emotion and repeating arguments and logic that is fed to him by someone else. A seemingly normal guy from a position of power he has over him in order to spread his own personal agenda. Then Derek goes to prison and slowly begins to realize that the logic he has believed in up to this point no longer holds up. He has been abandoned by his leader – someone who claims to understand Derek and the people of his community. But is later confirmed that he doesn’t share their experiences – experiences that many of them have gone through due to his manipulation. Even though Derek finds people he thought believed in the same things he did, he ends up leaving them and sees them as traitors. Only for him to be (literally) f***** over by the people he believed to be on his side.

This is admittedly a slightly long way of getting to my reinterpretation. If you are ever curious about why so many people follow men like David Duke or Donald Trump…well, this movie shows how and why. Everyone has the capacity to hate and act on logic that is contradictory or flawed because sometimes we don’t know the full context or story. But then someone comes along who presents themselves from a position of strength and understanding. They give us easy targets to project our Hate towards and they can get us to support them and help support their own agendas. Which oftentimes includes plans and actions that the followers no nothing about and would probably perceive as going against what was spoken to them in order for those leaders to get our support.

“American History X” is a look at a huge part of real American history that people choose to ignore. When people were arguing over the topic of Critical Race Theory, they used arguments such as they don’t want children to know this subject matter. Or even argue that there isn’t anymore Racism because the country voted for Barack Obama twice as President. The same country that then voted for a man who ran on messages and promises that completely go against many of the ideas and beliefs Barack Obama was fighting for. All the while not acknowledging the finer details that poke holes in their arguments and not realizing that they aren’t looking at the complete story.

In the end, this isn’t a brand new analysis of the film. But rather one that points out how slightly more current events show how truly relevant it is. A story that shows the journey of how so many people can follow a leader that offers them an outlet for their rage and pain. And how said leader can leverage that into more power and influence that spreads ideas that go against the very same country they claim to be fighting for. This isn’t an easy topic to talk about. And there are no easy ways to start fixing things. But the longer we continue to acknowledge the details many people don’t know about or acknowledge, the longer we keep the cycle going.

Movie Reviews, Movies

Review – The Black Phone

Leave a comment

It can be tricky to review movies in the modern era. On the one end, there are a lot of movies that are easy to trash because they are lazily copying what more successful movies have done. Especially those trying to tap into nostalgia. Then on the other end, it is easy to praise movies that were doing something original or new. But that leaves a lot of movies in between that take familiar ideas or storylines, injecting their own ideas and details to make it stand out and on its own, but we tend to gloss over them. And I think that is especially true of Horror films. It all comes back to the perception of cliches and tropes. It is common, when giving a negative review of a movie, to mention how it relies on tropes. Truth of the matter is that tropes aren’t inherently bad. You just need to remember to focus on more than just the overall plot and do something with the characters. Add to the familiar to make it unique.

And that is exactly what we have with this movie. Based on a short story by Joe Hill, Stephen King’s son, you can tell what it has in common with other Horror movies as well as some of Stephen King’s own stories. I’m using his books for reference because I admittedly haven’t read any of Joe books. But it still works. A lot of Stephen King stories will have a person (usually a child) that has psychic abilities that have an unknown origin. Sometimes that is paired with another supernatural element at play with an equally mysterious unknown origin. And don’t forget the alcoholic! Yea, in this movie it is the father of the boy who gets kidnapped and his sister who has the psychic abilities. And the villain of the movie is a masked killer which you can find in a whole bunch of other Horror movies.

But as mentioned earlier, this movie stands out because it adds new details and focuses on the actual characters. It would have been so easy for this movie to just have the alcoholic father be mean and have the audience hate him. But through interactions with his daughter we see why he is a bit abusive and why he drinks. We get to learn a bit about their past and what happened. It fleshes him out and makes him seem like a real person. A similar thing can be said for Ethan Hawke as the villain, The Grabber. We don’t really know a lot about him. But as we pay attention to his methodology and the tricks he uses to play with his victims, we can actually piece together what might have made him the way he is. Even some of the things he says when interacting with the main boy – Finney – help clarify what his personality is like and what his mental state must be.

This all connects to various interactions between different characters seen throughout the movie. The way these people talk and act are realistic and authentic. Which is another trait you could connect to other Horror stories, especially those written by Stephen King. How they talk and think through their situations makes the story more engaging. As Finney communicates with the ghosts of the dead kids through the phone, you follow him as he starts planning his escape. The decisions are smart and logical. And because the movie knew to focus on the characters and flesh them out, we root for him and want to see him escape. More often than not, a lot of Horror movies end up making their protagonists stupid and annoying. So when the time comes for them to come face to face with the killer, we actually end up rooting for the killer. If they didn’t want to get killed, maybe they shouldn’t have make so many stupid choices or be such a**holes in general. This movie recognizes that and understands how to make us feel fear for the kid. It knows how to build tensions and suspense.

And this is why this movie is so effective and worth the watch. It is unique because it knows that the characters are most important. At the end of the day, it doesn’t really matter what plot line is used or which tropes are put into the script. Everyone working on this movie was focused on the details to bring the story to life. The details are what make this movie strong. This isn’t another Horror movie simply going through the motions and relaying on similarities to more successful films to get by. A lot of care and heart went into this making of this movie and it shows.

Film Editorials, Movies

Which Version of “Superman II” is Better?

Leave a comment

Let me make one thing clear at the start. While neither version is flawless, both versions of “Superman II” are good films. Fun action, entertaining performances, and good character moments. But the reason two versions exist at all is because Richard Donner was fired and replaced with Richard Lester. We won’t get into the story behind production because that will be too complicated. Plus, it really isn’t all that relevant to what this piece is trying to explore. Looking at both versions and identifying what makes them unique, we have to ask the question. Which version is better?

I think the biggest, most fundamental difference between the two is tone. Richard Donner saw the Superman mythos as modern mythology. And I personally believe that all superhero/comics mythos as modern day mythology as well. Stories of Hydras, gods like Zeus & demigods like Hercules have now been switched out with stories about Spider-Man, Batman & metahumans. Admittedly, the two major superhero universes (DC & Marvel) also have Hydras, gods like Zeus and demigods such as Hercules, but you get my point. Back on topic – Donner approached his movie with a more dramatic approach. It still had moments of humor. This is still a movie that has to entertain audiences and he is adapting the Silver Age version of these characters. But Donner was continuing a character focused journey and the obstacles that Superman has to overcome.

Lester’s version had more comedy in it. Much of that comedy did overlap with what Donner’s cut had, but there are some notable differences. The third evil Kryptonian – the mute called Non – had a few more moments int he film that made him come off as more pathetically goofy early one. Some of that had been cut out of Donner’s version as the focus was more on him being pure brute force. In Lester’s version, there is more of a comedic banter between Clark and Lois. Especially when they are at Niagara Fall for a story. Clark himself is more of a klutz in Lester’s version in general. Him being a klutz is actually what helps Lois confirm that Clark is Superman. Donner’s version cut most of the comedic banter out, thought still some. And made sure that the two still generally worked off of each other well. And if we are specifically talking about Lois, well, she is suspicious right at the start that Clark is Superman in Donner’s Cut while in the theatrical it takes her couple of scenes before she gets suspicious. And as for how she determined Clark was Superman? Well…she shot Clark! Granted, it was a gun filled with blanks and she therefore tricked Clark to admitting the truth. But man, Donner really know how to adapt that aspect of Lois’s personality!

Aside from tone, there is a handful of differences you can pick up on. Donner’s Cut had Marlon Brando as Jor-El while Lester’s version had to cut him out and use Clark’s mother. Clark briefly gives up his powers in both versions, but Donner had it more explicitly stated why he chose to do that. Lex Luthor is in the film for roughly the same amount of screen time. Only major difference with him is that a couple of his scenes were rearranged in the beginning. Both versions open with the flashback of showing Zod and his henchmen being imprisoned in the Phantom Zone. Lester’s version included a terrorist attack at the Eiffel Tower where Superman had to launch a hydrogen bomb into space, where it went off and free them from the Phantom Zone. In Donner’s Cut, he used the beginning to show that Superman redirecting one of Luthor’s bombs from the first film is what freed them. Also, Lester’s version had a montage of scenes playing while the opening credits rolled. While Donner’s had a montage before the credits and that montage included audio while Lester’s just showed the visuals.

So you might be thinking that there isn’t too much of a difference between the two. While one might have more comedy, they still shared the vast majority of scenes and the plots are for the most parts exactly the same. But there is a big difference when it comes to how they end. Lester’s version had a big fight between Superman and the Zod’s crew in the city. Then they all went to the Fortress of Solitude where another fight happen. One that utilized very bizarre powers never before used in the film or past film and weren’t used in the following films. But then Superman uses a trick to get rid of his enemies powers and kills them. At the end of the film, Superman plants a kiss on Lois to wipe her memory in regards to his secret identity. Now…the Silver Age Superman did have a lot of bizarre powers. But I have yet to hear of a story where he does that. And it kind of ages badly.

In Donner’s version, he also includes the big fight in the city. And all the main characters do go to the Fortress of Solitude. But there is no fight in the Fortress. It goes into Superman’s trick and killing them. Superman then destroys the Fortress and returns Lois home…and then Superman flies around the world to turn back time just like in the first movie! All the events that happened are reversed and Zod and his crew are still in the Phantom Zone. My problem with this is not only does this repeat the ending of the first movie, but it’s kind of a middle finger to the audience by saying nothing that happened actually mattered.

With that in mind, I have to side with the Lester’s version – the theatrical cut. It does have more goofy stuff in the film and Donner’s does have more character focus. But Lester’s didn’t go so far as to wipe out the entirety of the film’s plot. Lois may no longer remember Clark is Superman but everything else is still intact. But Donner’s Cut is still a very interesting version to watch. And I still recommend you go seek it out. I’m always going to be interested in different takes on certain movies and how things might have played out. And this certainly satisfied my curiosity. You might have a different opinion but that’f fine. “Superman II” is always a fun watch, no matter which version you prefer.