-
SXSW 2024: THINGS WILL BE DIFFERENT
Things Will Be Different is, possibly, the funniest and most self-aware title a time travel story could have. Bitter irony aside, it’s a title that gets straight to the heart of nearly all time travel tales. Yes, things certainly will be different. Most likely, things will be much worse, if we’ve learned anything at all from the movies. Coming from the Aaron Moorhead and Justin Benson (who serve as producers here) school of low-budget, high-concept sci-fi, Things Will Be Different is a heady piece of business.
The unwitting time-hoppers at the center of the story are Sidney (Riley Dandy) and Joseph (Adam David Thompson). Fresh off a robbery, the sister and brother duo’s attempt to hide from the law leads them to an abandoned farmhouse. It quickly becomes clear that Sidney and Joseph’s hideout serves a far grander purpose. Not only that, but someone is keeping tabs on them and has designs of their own.
Sidney and Joseph set about the usual time travel business: finding clues and scraps of information with which to piece together, while hiding from authorities. Oh, and there’s a pesky sniper outside the farmhouse trying to take them out. Dandy and Thompson give lively performances full of desperation and disorientation. For as dense as the story can feel at times, they help ground the film and keep everything held together.
Writer-director Michael Felker guides the film with a strong hand visually and thematically. The writing is taut, with the script bringing together the technical aspects of the premise alongside the constantly shifting dynamic between Joseph and Sidney. The direction has a similar rigidity. Despite only using a couple of locations, Felker frequently finds ways to keep the imagery from becoming repetitive. Comparisons to other low-budget time travel (or time travel adjacent) films like Timecrimes, Coherence, Safety Not Guaranteed are inevitable. Things Will Be Different earns its spot among those films and plenty others.
-
JOHN CARTER: Two Cents… to the Stars! – Roundtable Review
Disney Two Cents is a Cinapse original column akin to a book club for films. The Cinapse team curates the series and contribute their “two cents” using a maximum of 200-400 words. Guest contributors and comments are encouraged, as are suggestions for future picks. Join us as we share our two cents on films we love, films we are curious about, and films we believe merit some discussion. Would you like to be a guest contributor or programmer for an upcoming Two Cents entry? Simply watch along with us and/or send your pitches or 200-400 word reviews to [email protected].
The Pick: John Carter (Two Cents… to the Stars!)
To celebrate the much-anticipated second half of Denis Villeneuve’s adaptation of Dune, we are going to be exploring the stars this month. That’s right, a whole month of films that take place in the far reaches of space. In our final week on this theme we tackle Disney’s 2012 attempt at adapting Edgar Rice Burroughs’ John Carter Of Mars series for the big screen, to infamously mixed results: John Carter!
Featured Guests
Alex Billington
Justice for Woola! Andrew Stanton’s sci-fi epic John Carter (of Mars) gets a bad rap though it doesn’t deserve the hate. It really doesn’t. Stanton went BIG with this. Disney infamously gave him over $250 million to make this sci-fi action movie, and I was deeply involved as a sci-fi geek following its development. I even visited the sets in Arizona and Utah while they were filming. I still greatly admire and respect Stanton for his vision, for trying his best to pull this off. Much like with Dune, this is a near impossible story to adapt correctly from page to screen. Stanton knew that but still made sure to try to do it justice anyway – most importantly with the motion and facial capture performances for the Green Martian Tharks, having talented actors actually be on set playing these characters. Along with massive practical sets that were a call back to how the original Star Wars movies also shot with practical sets in the desert. Does it all come together? Did he actually pull it off? Yes and no. I might even say, “not really”, because it didn’t become the massive hit it was supposed to become, which is a sign that it didn’t connect with viewers the right way. And while I have watched it a few more times since its release in 2012, I don’t often find myself thinking about rewatching it that much. That said, I do think it’s a one-of-a-kind movie that does get a lot of things right. There are some amazing scenes, like the one where John Carter fights all the Tharks after going down the River Iss, and almost anything involving Woola (he’s just the best).
Above all it is an entertaining movie – an epic look at a whole other world we’ve never seen before. It is not a perfect movie, it has a handful of issues, and it’s much more fun than it is brilliant or endearing. Andrew Stanton is great storyteller and it shows in the way he lets the story unravel as a gigantic space opera about a man who finds himself in the middle of a war on Mars, and in moments like that Thark fight. It’s mostly an enjoyable sci-fi adventure with some memorable moments. The relationship between John Carter and Tars Tarkas is quite moving and easily the best relationship in the movie, thanks to the excellent performance by Willem Dafoe. As for John, Taylor Kitsch has the right look and feel for this character, but his performance is a bit lackluster and doesn’t reach the same iconic levels as many other space opera heroes. The other characters played by Mark Strong, Thomas Haden Church, and Samantha Morton are strong performances but once again they aren’t as memorable as they should be for an epic sci-fi movie like this. Above all, the story following John Carter eventually becoming the “of Mars” leader he’s destined to become is the most thrilling and satisfying part of the whole movie. As many others have said, I had a feeling the sequel would turn out even better, but Disney never let Andrew Stanton make another one after this. Maybe one day someone else will try their hand at adapting Edgar Rice Burroughs’ story again.
Alex of FirstShowing.net – est. 2006.
Disney The Schlocketeer AKA Daniel Baldwin
2012 was a different time. The Star Wars prequels and Lord of the Rings had run their course. The MCU was still new. Hollywood was looking for the next big thing, Disney in particular. Enter John Carter. Adapted from a series of novels that kicked off 100 years earlier, it was a potential Star Wars alternative for the House of Mouse. Until, of course, they actually bought Star Wars and no longer needed it. Much has been written about the release of John Carter. I’m not here to relitigate any of that.
A dozen years later, all that matters is that this “failed” blockbuster is still a rip-roaring good time. An absolutely delectable mix of westerns, epic sci-fi, and swashbuckling sword & sorcery presented on a delicious cinematic platter. Sure, the source material was cannibalized for decades by properties it influenced, from George Lucas’ saga to Flash Gordon to Dune and especially in James Cameron’s on-going Avatar saga. For what is Jake Sully if not a Jeddak of Pandora?
Andrew Stanton was well aware of such artistic piracy and wisely leaned into it, tipping his hat at each throughout the film in various ways, but never in a winking or mocking manner. Everything in John Carter is done with love, care, and sincerity, which is exactly what the brilliant source novels deserved.
Could a stronger filmmaker have made a splashier take on the material that might have better visually enraptured audiences? Perhaps, but I’m not sure if anyone else could have brought the heart to it that Stanton did. John Carter isn’t a perfect movie. The pacing is off, some of the casting is wobbly, and there’s too much plot crammed into the script. Its heart is what matters, though, and Stanton nailed that.
Will we ever see another adaptation in my lifetime? Maybe, but I’m not holding my breath. Instead of mourning what was lost, I prefer to celebrate what we have. I love this movie to death, just as I love the world of Edgar Rice Burroughs overall. Those too are flawed, but like with John Carter, I choose to overlook those deficiencies as I continue to enjoy them. Like Voor-jean-ya, they can be ugly, but they can also be beautiful. Chanting “Akh ahim akte wiz Barsoom” might not give me non-existent sequels, but I can still return to this film and the books whenever I want. And that makes me smile.
Daniel Baldwin is The Schlocketeer
Disney Phil Gonzales
Kids, 2012 was a tough year to be a pulp adventurer. The Pirates series was floundering, The Avengers had yet to assemble, Conan the Barbarian… existed(?), and Star Wars, well, who cared about Star Wars? The cinematic universe had yet to be entirely swallowed by cinematic universes and John Carter teetered right on the precipice of that era. Set up to be the first part of a planned trilogy, Carter scared the pants off Disney. A hyper-expensive movie helmed by a first-time live-action director with no big-name stars set on a desert planet populated by visually unappealing goblins? Yeah, that’d scare the pants off anyone.
Having dwelt in pre-production for [checks watch] ten decades or so, Carter is the ultimate doomed passion project. People really wanted this movie to exist. Edgar Rice Burroughs really wanted this movie to exist. It was almost the first animated feature film; that’s how much people wanted this movie to exist. And, it shows. Carter has all the hallmarks of a movie that people thought way too hard about and cared way too much about. Tonally? All over the place. Visually? Simultaneously way too busy and way too bland. Set up? Takes far too long to get going. Performances? I’d say about half the cast understands the movie they’re in.
But.
It mostly works. John Carter is trying to be something new. Andrew Stanton is trying to make the pulp movie of his dreams, like Lucas and Spielberg did three decades earlier. There are moments that capture the feeling of falling into an alien world and just going with it. The standout is Lynn Collins as Dejah Thoris, the Princess of the Red Martians. Buffeted about by the unpredictable demands of the studio, Collins’s character was changed almost daily from a damsel in distress to an Amazonian action heroine. But, watching her is like seeing an illustration come to life. Phony accent and all, Collins carries the film on her shoulders and when she’s on screen the movie shines.
Then, it will hedge its bets. Over-explain the plot. Our hero will get captured. Again. Get thrown into a prison. Again. Have to break out of his chains. Again. All in the service of obtaining the plot-specific gewgaw that will get him home. Nothing we haven’t seen a million times before.
Disney would eventually buy Star Wars, trust a filmmaker with a bizarre space opera (Guardians of the Galaxy), and have more than its share of Sci-Fi cake. Carter would bomb and be mostly forgotten.
In any sane world, John Carter would have made Lynn Collins a star. At the very least it wouldn’t have resulted in a premature end to her rising career. But, the colossal disappointment of its box office needed a scapegoat and, sadly, Collins was the only woman in the room to take the hit. Even Taylor Kitsch, whose career definitely went off the rails for a while, found his footing again in 2018’s Waco, a movie that served his stony-faced weirdness a lot better than any pulp action role. Which is a shame, because John Carter is a movie that lives entirely on the strength of its Princess of Mars.
Phil Gonzales is a podcaster and storyteller out of Minneapolis, MN.
Disney The Team
Ed Travis
Deep down in my heart of hearts I have a yearning for pure adventure. I never tire of being whisked away to magical worlds, of noble quests, or of asking those child-like “what if” questions. It’s no surprise, then, that I’ve got a soft spot for Edgar Rice Burroughs and his pulp fiction had a profound impact on me as a younger man, along with the works of Robert E. Howard. There’s a purity to the adventures of Conan, Tarzan, Solomon Kane, or John Carter that speak to me beyond the problematic elements of the writers who created them. And yes, John Carter is pretty damn dated and problematic, what with him being a noble Confederate soldier and all that. That said, Andrew Stanton’s big budget Disney take on John Carter, now infamous as one of the most significant financial flops of the modern era, does speak to that childlike wonder that exists deep in my core. So help me I love this movie and feel something deep down when watching it. It’s a simple as “You’ll believe a man can fly” for me. As backwards and unscientific and preposterous as it is, seeing John Carter leap and soar through the landscape of Mars, uniting tribes, winning the heart of a princess, and destroying evil… it gets to me in a way that’s primal. What if a man could leap tall buildings in a single bound?
Specifically with this film, I get why it just didn’t land with audiences. It always should’ve been called John Carter of Mars. It suffered from coming too late: when all the blockbusters since the days of Burroughs had been cribbing it, it just didn’t feel fresh. And now the box office catastrophe has such a stink to it that John Carter of Mars likely won’t be adapted ever again at this scale. But I think the financial disaster of this film can be divorced from the quality of the viewing experience, and while it doesn’t all work, there’s a deep magic to be found here, a longing romanticism that gets me every time. Stack some of these action set pieces, creature designs, world building, and costuming up against anything from the MCU or DCEU and you’ve got a damn fine blockbuster on your hands that stands toe to toe from any of them from a craft perspective. Sure, maybe Taylor Kitsch just wasn’t the rising star some studios thought he was, or the timing of this one just wasn’t right, but I’ll keep revisiting it long after the era of capes has faded, myself. And, let’s all be honest: The Princess Of Mars, Lynn Collins, is not only innocent of all charges but was a hugely compelling female lead here, tough, passionate, charismatic, and gorgeous. When virtually every dude came away from this bomb relatively unscarred (Kitsch maybe didn’t pass the A-list test but he works constantly to this day), it sucks that Collins seems to have somehow borne some of the responsibility on her shoulders. IMDb does tell me she’s been a lead on The Walking Dead, though, so more power to her.
(@Ed_Travis on X)
Disney Brendan Agnew
I feel like John Carter dropped either 30 years too late or 10 years too early. 2012 was something of a ramp-up to the current science fiction invasion that has been defining modern cinema, from the explosion of hits like STAR TREK and AVATAR in 2009 until even C-teams like the GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY could headline a blockbuster just a couple years later. The godfather of superhero and sci-fi pulp fiction wasn’t so lucky however, with general audiences shrugging at the muddled marketing campaign and story that seemed to be pulling from all their childhood and recent genre favorites (when it was actually the other way around). However, for those willing to take the journey, JOHN CARTER did – and indeed still does – offer a rousing adventure, unforgettable characters, and some singular and effective spectacle. For all that it gets off to a bit of a rough start (there’s too many introductions and playing coy with Carter’s motivations doesn’t quite work), JOHN CARTER genuinely commits to both throwing the titular hero into a strange new world and bouncing him around a truly delightful collection of characters and settings. Taylor Kitsch may only be “effective” rather than revelatory in the role, but character stalwarts like Mark Strong and Willem Dafoe are note-perfect, and Lynn Collins makes Dejah Thoris a sci-fi heroine for the ages. Watching the pieces all get assembled makes for intriguing world-building, but the film becomes a veritable rocket once is starts sending characters off on quests, having them get captured or cornered only to get through by the skin of their teeth in delightful pulp form. JOHN CARTER also holds up incredibly well as “VFX-heavy films from over a decade ago” are concerned. Andrew Stanton shows a very solid handle on creating personality, tactility and immediacy that cuts through the necessary loads of CGI to create Barsoom. This makes sequences like the Warhoon Attack or the battle in the Thark Arena genuinely thrilling action-driven character beats rather than the claustrophobic stilted awkwardness that has defined too many recent genre movies. I’m not going to call JOHN CARTER a misunderstood masterpiece, but it says a lot about what this movie got right that it still holds a place at the table after 12 additional years of blockbusters dipping from the same well.
(@blcagnew on X)Jay Tyler
John Carter had perhaps strangely felt like it had become a major blindspot for me. Dismissed commercially on its initial release, its reputation as an underrated jam of space adventure cinema by just about anyone who had seen it cemented it in my mind as something that I needed to get around, but just never quite dedicated the two hours it needed. Plus with the Andrew Stanton of it all made it fall squarely into the “Disney animators attempt to make a big boy adventure move for the masses” sub-genre I am moderately obsessed with. All to say, I was really excited to finally have a reason to sit down and give it the honest chance it apparently deserved.
So imagine my surprise and disappointment when I didn’t love it. Sure, there is a lot to appreciate. The scope and magnitude of it is intoxicating, with plenty of classic sweeping vistas of Utah filling in for Mars, sorry, Barsoom to luxuriate in. There is an imaginativeness and a confidence in its large set piece action, especially the centerpiece arena sequence. And the square-jawed hero thrust into a complex epic war that he barely understands, only to rise to the occasion and fulfill his destiny? Pump it all directly into my veins.
But unfortunately it is missing a magical spark to elevate it from an impressive attempt at the sweeping sci-fi epic. A large portion of the blame can likely be set upon the shoulders of Taylor Kitsch, who with all the best will in the world just doesn’t have the juice for a performance this central. The film’s tone also makes the fatal mistake of taking itself very seriously, meaning that long stretches of it feel poe-faced and downtrodden, rather than the rollicking adventure that you want. I think Stratton’s heart of wanting to present an earnest, sweeping war epic is admirable. But when there are going to be easy comparisons to, say, other wars amongst the stars, it would benefit from the tone being dialed back maybe ten percent more. With so much to draw you in, you can’t help but wish these small adjustments would elevate it from a fascinating what if scenario to an undeniable space opera classic. As it stands, John Carter from any planet doesn’t quite earn the stripes it deserves.
(@jaythecakethief on X)
Disney Austin Vashaw
It’s my third go-round John Carter, which remains a fun science fiction adventure despite having – with apologies to my real life friend of nearly 30 years who shares the title character’s name – maybe the most unexciting title they could possibly have used to adapt a novel called A Princess of Mars.
The film has taken on a reputation as a bomb, but that’s far more attributable to its astronomical $300M price tag than its respectable $284M gross. With that Disney-backed budget, the film sacrificed some of the pulpy, clothes-optional vision of Barsoom popularized by artists like Frank Frazetta in favor of an impressively realized blockbuster vision aiming for more of a Star Wars-esque appeal. It mostly works on the screen, even if the gamble didn’t pay off at the box office.
Something I find particularly compelling is the anachronistic juxtaposition of the post-Civil War United States and futuristic Martian culture. And the addition of a wraparound tale also adds an air of immediacy and mystery to the story, even if I don’t approve of Burroughs – a staunch racist and eugenicist – being propped up as a heroic character in the narrative.
With the major success being enjoyed by Dune, one wonders if perhaps Disney’s trip to Barsoom was just a little too far ahead of the curve. I certainly wish it had been successful enough to yield a few sequels returning to this world.
(@VforVashaw on X)Justin Harlan
A first time watch for me and only minutes in I truly knew the aesthetics here were clearly “my kind of shit”… but, as the movie progressed, I struggled to follow some of the story beats and really felt like the film did itself no favors in regards to the complicated and convoluted nature of the plot. Still, the look and feel of the more hit a variety of my personal sweet spots.
While not as high on this one as others here, I think future watches could bring me around. Even as it stands, I’m glad it was picked and gave me a reason to catch up on this one.
(@thepaintedman on X)
Upcoming Picks: APE-RIL! (In Celebration of Godzilla X Kong: The New Empire)
Greystoke: The Legend Of Tarzan, Lord Of The Apes (1984)
And We’re Out.
-
“Make Me Famous:” The Vision of ACTORS Auteur Betsey Brown
Acclaimed actress Brown’s directorial feature debut is a breakout cult hit
Last fall, I saw a small indie film that floored me with its gonzo humor, incisive satire of “terminally online” culture, and truly unique perspective on sibling rivalry.
That film was Actors, the directorial feature debut of acclaimed New York indie actress Betsey Brown, best known for her work in daring underground films such as The Scary of Sixty-First, All Jacked Up and Full of Worms, and Assholes, the latter of which was directed by Brown’s brother, Peter Vack. As an actor, director, soon-to-be-published novelist, and Instagram meme king, Vack is the hip renaissance man of NYC’s Dimes Square scene. Actors stars Brown, Vack, and their parents as fictional versions of themselves. Desperate for clout and celebrity, Peter cynically reinvents himself as blonde starlet Petra Vack.
As an avid enjoyer of “shitpost”-style humor, I was an easy mark for Actors‘ sheer audacity. Months ago, I slid into Brown’s DMs with a nerdy fan message. To my surprise, Brown not only responded but became a genuine friend. Earlier this month, Actors was screened one final time at Cinema Village to mark the film’s online launch. I had the immense pleasure of making the pilgrimage to New York for the screening, where I finally met Brown, Vack, and their parents in person; alas, I fell violently ill halfway through the screening and had to be transported to the emergency room. I felt far livelier during my subsequent interview with Brown–where we discussed the journey of Actors and her new short film Bits, which premiered at SXSW 2024.
This interview has been edited and condensed for time and clarity.
Emma James: So, between the recent SXSW premiere of your new short Bits, directed by Lillya Scarlett Reid, and the digital release of Actors, it seems you’re having quite a moment.
Betsey Brown: Yes. (laughs)
EJ: Assholes received the Adam Yauch Hornblower Award at SXSW in 2017. Being that Cinapse is an Austin-based publication, what can you tell us about your experiences at the festival over the years?
BB: I’m feeling very emotional because I just got back from South By Southwest, I probably haven’t had that much sleep, and I just feel this moment has been very intense. So, sorry, I’m just gonna probably cry a little bit.
EJ: Oh no, you’re good!
BB: SXSW is an extremely important festival to me. This was my fifth time at the festival, but only my second time being connected to any film. The first time was with Assholes, and then this one, Bits. But I went as Peter Vack’s little sister three times before that, and I sort of just went to all the screenings and the parties with him, and met people as just Peter’s little sister. No one really knew that I was an actress or a filmmaker, and to see the evolution of my place there has been really touching. This time around, I felt really seen and respected for my abilities, whereas at the first couple, I never even imagined that I would be able to be there without my brother bringing me around. The festival has changed, but it is definitely an amazing jumping-off point for independent filmmakers. It’s kind of a beautiful place where people get to meet as many people as possible, and everyone’s very open and welcoming. And Austin’s very cool.
I actually came up with the idea for Actors at South by Southwest the year that Assholes played, because I was feeling a particularly strong amount of sibling rivalry. No one really gave me any props for that role, and all the attention was going to Peter. I was always a very supportive younger sister, I was super in awe of him; but when I thought I had something to offer and people would see it, and it wasn’t being seen, I started to feel competitive. I put those feelings into the script for Actors.
EJ: You definitely deserved a ton of attention for Assholes. I mean, Peter directed it, but you and [co-star] Jack Dunphy had to do so much wild and extreme shit. It’s a great movie. I’m glad it’s found its following over the years. I’ve got the Blu-Ray somewhere around here. I feel like it’s one of the more significant underground films in recent years.
BB: Thank you, I really appreciate that.
EJ: And then every time you guys make a movie, you just kinda keep making the concept bigger. Like, with Actors, and then [Vack’s upcoming sophomore feature] www.rachelormont.com, it keeps expanding.
BB: Yeah, that’s true.
EJ: In Bits, you play a troubled young woman who learns that she went on a date with a serial killer, and her feelings about this are perhaps more complicated than they should be.
BB: (laughs)
EJ: This is just the latest of many bold, provocative projects that you’ve undertaken. What is it that attracts you to such intense artistic visions?
BB: Well, you might not be able to tell right now, because I’m having quite an emotional day, but I’m actually a very grounded person in real life. I’m mostly quite happy, and in real life, I’m very light. But you can’t only have lightness and happiness: you have to balance that out with some darkness, and I have been really lucky to be able to channel most of my darkness into my work. That’s what attracts me to these dark characters; it allows me to feel grounded in my real life. I love to exorcise demons through art and sort of be a transgressive channel in the work, so that I can be my best self in my day-to-day.
So, that’s what attracts me, but then I think it’s also kind of a two-way street. My boyfriend came to SXSW with me, and after Bits ended he was like, “people just like to put you in their darkest thoughts, don’t they?” And so, maybe it’s that balance, because I have this look of a nice, wholesome girl, but then my willingness to go dark places is unlike other people’s willingness.
I actually want to do more. I would love to be in a rom-com or something where I get to play more wholesome, or just less crazy dramatic, crazy intense darkness stuff, but I also do love going [there]. It’s like going to the gym: exorcising the darkness is something that makes me feel better as a person.
EJ: I love the [Buffalo Bills NFL] shirt you’re wearing right now, because it’s giving me a major Vincent Gallo Buffalo 66 vibe.
BB: My boyfriend’s from Buffalo, so yeah.
EJ: I’m just a huge fan of both of [Gallo’s] movies.
BB: Me too. Which one do you like better? Hard to say, they’re both so good.
EJ: They’re both major five-star movies for me, but probably Buffalo 66, because I think the ending is incredibly beautiful. The dynamic between them has totally shifted by the end of the movie, and he gives up this violent pursuit because of love. Just the idea that love can provide redemption for someone is a really powerful notion. I love that movie.
BB: Me too. So much.
EJ: Having hit the festival circuit in 2021 and already developed a cult following, Actors has finally seen home release via the launch of its own digital platform. How do you feel now that your movie is out in the world for all to see?
BB: I feel so moved and touched that people are actually going to the website to watch it, because the movie has always had a very punk, underground energy to it. It went to two festivals, but it wasn’t super accepted into the festival circuit. We found our own way with theaters reaching out to us from across the world. Making my own website for it, where it wouldn’t be offered up through an algorithm, [it] was definitely a risk, but it was a risk that I really wanted to take for this film. Landing on Amazon or something like that felt like it would take away that punk rock energy, and I wanted to keep that through and through. On the other hand, it’s hard to get people to make the actual concerted effort to go to a random website–so the fact that people are doing that is really, really inspiring to me and moving, and I don’t take it for granted.
I also feel like it makes my job still not done, because it is a completely word-of-mouth endeavor. I have to continue to be shameless in my self-promotion with the film. No one’s going to promote it but me and now other fans of the film, like you, so thank you so much.
EJ: Happy to help!
BB: I really appreciate it. I feel like the people who are big fans of the film are also my distributors, in a way. I also couldn’t imagine it in any other way for this film. It feels like the truest way for it to be born into the world.
EJ: I think it was smart to distribute it this way, because you’re ensuring that Actors is not just another piece of streamed content. It’s not getting lost in the shuffle, like so many things streaming nowadays. A Netflix show premieres, and then the next week, it’s cancelled. Now Actors, having a more word-of-mouth, DIY approach, won’t just immediately sink into the void like that.
BB: Yeah, and people see that it’s a new way. I think people have been inspired through this whole run by the newness of our approach and putting it out, and to continue that in its release was super important to me. I feel like people are more okay with spending the five dollars because they know it’s going straight to the filmmakers. They know that the movie needs help. I feel like people think of the movie as like “the little film that could.” It just feels truly independent in a way that I always wanted.
EJ: The way you’ve released it independently reminds me of when Radiohead dropped In Rainbows back in the day. They were the first ones to really do the “pay what you want” model for an album, and that eventually led to the success of Bandcamp. So you might be onto something here.
BB: I’ve already seen that happen with the way we did our theatrical run. A couple of movies that didn’t necessarily get the festival attention [they] might have deserved, like Dogleg [and] Salamander Days, they took control of their own screenings and built an audience that way. I can’t help but think that Actors was a bit of an inspiration for that, so I’m really proud of that aspect. And I think Rachel Ormont will probably have a similar run to Actors, because there is something about our films that is outside the festival acceptance, so we have to just find ways to get people to see our films.
EJ: That’s one of the things that’s so brilliant about what you and Peter, and some of the other Dimes Square filmmakers like Dasha [Nekrasova] and Eugene [Kotlyarenko] do. You’re making real independent films, the kind of thing that would’ve been popular back in the ‘90s when that was just what independent films were. But now it has become so homogenized and so watered-down that it’s mostly A-list actors in middlebrow Oscar-bait movies. When you said “punk” earlier, I think that’s a very accurate summation of what you guys do. It is very DIY, very punk rock, just putting real art out there.
BB: Thank you. Yeah, I agree.
EJ: One element of Actors that hasn’t received enough attention is that, beneath the sharp influencer satire, it shows a great deal of vulnerability on your behalf. There’s such a lack of ego. Both this film and your other directorial project, the 2015 short Shegetsey Betsey, are so raw and emotionally honest about your own anxieties. What stood out to me the most on this latest viewing of [Actors] was the genuine underlying sadness of the Betsey and Petra characters. What makes you able to share yourself so openly with audiences?
BB: Probably my upbringing. My mom is a psychoanalyst, and my family had a sort of “you can say whatever you want” kind of energy in the household. Nothing was really off-limits, and we weren’t afraid to discuss taboos. I was very encouraged to get to know myself on a deep level, and I took that really seriously. I feel filmmaking is one of the best tools of self-analysis, even almost sometimes more than psychoanalysis. You’re really just actually watching yourself up there and seeing the good, the bad, and the ugly. There’s something in my core that has always been interested in the truth, and I’ve taken the truth extremely seriously. I feel like it’s a lot easier for others to tell the truth when I am being truthful, and when I’m being my whole self.
I think my ability to be vulnerable comes from my parents’ encouragement. My dad’s a big crier; he always cried at The Parent Trap. He’s a very emotional man, so that was just encouraged, and I’m really grateful for that.
EJ: I love how supportive Jane [Brown] and Ron [Farrar Brown] are of you [and Peter]. It was wonderful to meet both of them at the screening.
BB: Yeah, they’re amazing. As I said, my mom’s a psychoanalyst, and she definitely encouraged getting to know ourselves deeply. On the other hand, she also has some issues with the films. She can’t really understand how immodest I am, because she’s actually much more private and modest than I am. I really appreciate that I know that she has issues with our films. That’s another example of how honest we are in our family, where she often says to me, “it’s hard on me that you both are actors and filmmakers and have unstable careers. I wish for more stability. I don’t understand why you guys are doing this insane work. I want you to make a rom-com.”
She says these things, and yet is also completely – I mean, you saw Rachel, she has an even bigger role in Rachel. She has her own preferences, and yet she also steps up for us. She’s just a really big role model. I think it’s important to be supportive but also not lose yourself, and that’s what she does. She shows me that you can be supportive while also bringing your own feelings towards the work. With Dad, he loves it all.
EJ: Good moms always support us, even if they don’t necessarily get it.
BB: Yes, that’s exactly right!
EJ: Your mom has been so nice to me on Instagram. I love her drawings. I hope she puts out a book.
BB: I love her drawings too. I think she will – my dad will make sure of it. My dad is really supportive of everyone–he’s actually the one posting all of them. He digitized all of her work and [posts] them. She’s commenting and responding to the love, but he’s the one posting. They’re adorable.
EJ: Do you want me to not publish that or –
BB: You can. Neither of them would mind. It’s not a secret. My mom’s really computer-phobic, and she’s not afraid to say it.
EJ: Looking ahead, what other roles do you have on the horizon? Obviously, you play a lead role in Rachel, but …
BB: I’m really excited for that to come out. That should be a super interesting run. I really don’t even know what to expect from that. I’m curious to see what people will think–but then, I’m determined to make another movie soon. I have two scripts, and I need to figure out which one I’m going to make next. Especially since I just released Actors, I’m feeling the freedom and the pull to start the process on the next thing, so that’s really the biggest [thing]. Obviously, I have an agent, so I audition a bunch, and I hope something comes out of that soon. In the meantime, I’m getting ready. I feel that itch again. I didn’t feel like I was really able to start the process – other than writing – on making another movie until I released Actors. Now that that’s a thing, it’s go-time.
EJ: As a fan, that’s really awesome to hear.
BB: I don’t know if you’ll be disappointed, but … I do feel like from Shegetsey Betsey and Actors, I have a very strong voice that isn’t really going to go away. But I want my next film to be very different than Actors. I want to explore something completely different.
EJ: That’s what artists do: they evolve, and you challenge yourself to something else. That’s really exciting.
BB: Yeah, I’m really excited about it. And scared. But I know that when I’m afraid to do something, it means I have to do it.
Actors is now available to rent or own digitally via actors.movie. Bits is on the film festival circuit. Follow Betsey on Instagram.
-
GHOSTBUSTERS: FROZEN EMPIRE is Something Weird and it Don’t Look Good
“It’s an unimaginable evil with the power to kill by fear itself.”
The release of Ghostbusters: Afterlife in 2021 couldn’t help but amplify the discussion over legacy sequels, which many felt sacrificed storytelling for the sake of fan service. Today, many are happy to sneer at sequels which they feel only prey on nostalgia and have very little to do with what made their original counterparts special. For my money, if a sequel has been in the works for decades (as the third Ghostbusters film was) I can only feel joy and fulfillment at seeing it finally make its way onto the big screen. As anyone will tell you, movie history is loaded with such examples. Besides Ghostbusters there were the legendary sequels to The Goonies, Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, and Beetlejuice, all of which (with the exception of the latter) have yet to go before the cameras. The real cause for concern is what happens when that long-awaited sequel becomes a critical and commercial hit, as was the case with Afterlife. What happens is Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, a sequel that above anything else, shows the difference between a long-in-the-works revisiting and something no one asked for.
In Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, the Grooberson/Spengler gang has relocated from sleepy Oklahoma to NYC in order to carry on the ghostbusting legacy. Gary (Paul Rudd), Callie (Carrie Coon), Phoebe (Mckenna Grace), and Trevor (Finn Wolfhard) spend their days busting ghosts while trying to work out their dynamics as a new blended family. However, when a strange force is conjured by an ancient mythological artifact, it takes hold of the city and turns everything into ice, causing the group to seek the help of the original Ghostbusters Ray (Dan Aykroyd), Winston (Ernie Hudson), and Peter (Bill Murray).
A sequel has little reason to call itself a sequel if it doesn’t try to take the things that came before and raise them to a higher level while holding onto the integrity of whatever it’s following. On that level, Frozen Empire is a failure. While Afterlife gave us fresh new characters, each with their own personalities, and placed them in the paranormal world that the first two films had so wonderfully established, this new installment leaves everyone stranded. The movie is crawling with generic character moments that feel forced and not specific enough to the individuals we’ve already come to know and love. All of them are saddled with storylines which should hold more weight, and might have had they not been given only scattered moments throughout before being hastily tied up for no reason other than than the movie was about to end. This also extends to the mythology of the new evil facing the Ghostbusters. The monster (whose name currently escapes me) comes with origins and an overall threat that are both genuinely frightening, yet feel so sloppily compiled, it’s tough to say if anyone in the audience actually got them, even after having watched numerous scenes trying to explain them. One has to wonder if Afterlife director Jason Reitman handing the reigns over to Gil Kenan might have been a decision he regrets as virtually any and all hope of a new team of Ghostbusters keeping the spirit alive looks to be sadly dashed.
With no substance to be found in any of the new material and the Afterlife characters all but left for dead where character development is concerned, the only thing Frozen Empire has going for it is the throwback factor. If there’s one thing Kenan and company can’t get enough of, it’s taking any piece of 1984 Ghostbusters nostalgia and putting it in front of the camera. The surviving three Ghosbusters are each given moments which are amusing to a point, but mostly just act as distractions when the movie’s shortcomings can’t be disguised. For the most part, no one reprising their role from the original has anything worthwhile to offer, from Annie Potts’ Janine Melnitz, to John Rothman’s librarian, to William Atherton’s Walter Peck, who stupefyingly is now Mayor of NYC. Added to this are appearances from Slimer, the mini-marshmallow men, and the library ghost, all of whom garner reactions that range from small smiles to shoulder shrugs. Even the abundance of musical cues, which once again goes to the classic score from the first movie feels less like nostalgia or tribute and more like flat out desperation. The excitement which once came with watching a Ghostbusters sequel has now been replaced with that feeling of watching an awkward TV reunion movie from back in the day. It’s funny, I never anticipated writing a negative review about a Ghostbusters movie, but then again, I never expected a Ghostbusters movie to be made like this.
There aren’t really any performances in Frozen Empire to write about, per se. The whole cast is just happy to have been asked back to play in the Ghostbusters sandbox, and it shows. Both newbies and the old pros alike seem to be having a blast suiting up and inhabiting a place in the world of the Ghostbusters, even if it means the stacked cast is often competing for screentime with one another. Besides the aforementioned actors, there’s also Patton Oswalt, Celeste O’Connor, Logan Kim, James Acaster, Emily Alyn Lind, and Kumail Najiani, who is easily giving the movie’s most enjoyable turn and getting more laughs than anything else on the screen.
It’s been reported that some of the ideas, or at least the central one, for Frozen Empire came about from The Real Ghostbusters, the 80s/90s Saturday morning cartoon based on the original film. I remember watching that cartoon as a youngster (probably while eating my Ghostbusters cereal) and was impressed at the amount of ideas and supernatural places its creators were able to take these characters. I’m sure most who watched it felt the same way since the cartoon series was a success. As an expanded live-action episode, Frozen Empire does work in brief moments and small glimpses. It’s not a bad idea for a Ghostbusters movie, it’s just not the right execution. Maybe having Reitman back at the helm would have brought the movie into a vision that could have elevated it to the level of its predecessors instead of just a structurally uneven special effects jumble. There are still plenty of ideas to mine from the series that make me open to another sequel (a feeling only accentuated by hearing that iconic theme song play over the end credits), but not another one like this.
Annie Potts, Beetlejuice, Carrie Coon, Comedy, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Finn Wolfhard, Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters Afterlife, Ghostbusters Frozen Empire, Gil Kenan, Horror, In Theaters, Jason Reitman, Mckenna Grace, Movies, Patton Oswalt, Paul Rudd, Slimer, The Goonies, The Real Ghostbusters, Who Framed Roger Rabbit? -
LATE NIGHT WITH THE DEVIL is a Refreshingly Intriguing Spin on Found Footage
Writer’s Note: Given Late Night with the Devil was premiered a year ago, months before the writer’s strike, the industry had yet to have the conversations that have informed current opinions on the topic of generative AI. I think the inclusion of 20 seconds of generative AI artwork should be a non issue for this particular title, given its production timeline, budget and use. While we now know how these models were trained, back then we did not. Also, if you’re choosing to ignore the title that’s fine, just please don’t simply use this as an excuse to pirate the title, because that’s terrible.
Now for the review:
As a horror fan, the hype around Cameron Cairnes and Colin Cairnes’ Late Night with the Devil has been hard to ignore, after terrifying audiences last year at SXSW. The film, which is finally hitting theaters tomorrow, before going to VOD, is an interesting take on found footage horror by way of the WNUF Halloween Special, but channeled through Martin Scorsese’s The King of Comedy. The plot however, feels like a mix of The Exorcist (1973) and Rosemary’s Baby (1968) in how it tackles the presentation of a lost and fully uncut master tape of an infamous 1977 Halloween sweeps week episode of Night Owls with Jack Delroy, a fictitious late night talk/variety show hosted by Jack Delroy (David Dastmalchian). This footage is intercut with backstage footage, and assembled and presented here as a quasi documentary.
Utilizing a premise any fan of 70s/80s variety shows should be familiar with, this particular episode has our host bringing on various guests who deal in the supernatural phenomena to hopefully prove themselves beyond an unquestionable doubt to win a $100,000 prize. This of course is put up by an ex-magician turned pro-skeptic curmudgeon, Carmichael the Conjurer (Ian Bliss). One of those guests purporting otherworldly gifts is Dr. June Ross-Mitchell (Laura Gordon), author of the book Conversations With the Devil. She’s brought along the subject of said book Lilly (Ingrid Torelli), the young survivor of a Satanic church’s mass suicide. In a ratings stunt Jack Delroy has the pair prove their supernatural bonafides, by conjuring a demon on live television to hopefully save his show from a ratings slump.
Late Night with the Devil primarily works thanks to its lead David Dastmalchian, who litters his take on the charismatic talk show host with startling flickers of ambition, mourning and ultimately fear. It’s a multifaceted and downright masterful performance that has him literally changing characters as he goes from commercial breaks, to hosting duties, to real life, letting the audiences see his mask constantly slip only to be constantly readjusted. Emotionally during this one hour show, Jack is all over the place, and Dastmalchian makes sure to never lose the audience for a second in this journey. This along with Ian Bliss’ loathful skeptic, who really does his best to get under the audience’s skin, really sets the stage and locks us as an audience in for the third act summoning, where the show literally goes to Hell.
The thing about Late Night that really resonated with me as a child of the 80s, was the timing of the events of the film in relation to the Satanic Panic, which was only three short years away with the 1980 publication of the book Michelle Remembers. This was a real book about a woman who survived life in a fictional Satanic cult, that would be used to throw the country in a frenzied fear that the devil, who could be lurking behind every corner to snatch your children. To fully grasp this rather bleak chapter in American history, and the chokehold it had on our society, you should really check out the excellent doc Satan Wants You, that perfectly compliments Late Night and breaks down the context and origin of the panic along with its fallout. But Late Night perfectly mirrors that grim period, while also posing the question, just what if it was real?
Late Night with the Devil is a refreshingly intriguing spin on the found footage sub-genre, that thanks to the performances and production stands out as a shining example of what’s still possible with the right idea. The term found footage nearly does the film a disservice because of not only how the performances, but how all these pieces of “lost” media documenting that night mingle and ultimately coalesce in that final act offering something much more satisfying and profound than you’d normally expect from the genre. This all while still leaving the door open for some rumination on the themes and metaphors used throughout the film to tell the story of one man’s bleak Faustian bargain. Just when you think there’s nothing left in the found footage space to do, something like Late Night with the Devil comes along to resurrect the possibilities once again.
-
LATE NIGHT WITH THE DEVIL: Real-Time, Really Funny, and Truly Terrifying
An unforgettable performance by David Dastmalchian anchors a scary, suspenseful skewering of 70s Satanic Panic
Stills courtesy of IFC Films. There’s an irresistible pull across all cinematic cultures to blend horror and reality. While there’s a continuing glut of found footage horror in the wake of The Blair Witch Project and Cannibal Holocaust, few, truly special films dare to encourage our suspension of disbelief by presenting themselves as something completed (Noroi: the Curse) or, even more daring, to involve live audiences in this horrific sleight of hand like Halloween 1992’s Ghostwatch. Lesley Manning and Steven Volk’s “live” experiment in horror filmmaking found justified comparisons to Orson Welles’ 1938 broadcast War of the Worlds, gripping a country in unified fright on the year’s spookiest night.
While not airing on live TV and choosing to debut in the height of Spring rather than wait until Samhain, Cameron and Colin Cairnes’ Late Night with the Devil no less manages to break out as a wholly captivating and chilling successor to these films. A wholly committed and talented cast and crew fire on all cylinders to bring the 70’s late-night aesthetic of the film to life. At the same time, this reverent realism masks an equally deliberate pacing that places the audience in an incrementally unendurable pressure cooker of suspense. Over a tight ninety minutes, the Cairnes slowly earns the audiences’ screams as much as their laughs–while David Dastmalchian’s winning performance as consummate showman Jack Delroy reveals the achingly human dimensions behind a late-night host’s corrupting hunger for stardom.
On Halloween Night 1977, Night Owls host Jack Delroy (Dastmalchian) is at a desperate career crossroads. His late-night return a year after the death of his wife (Georgina Haig) still places him as a bridesmaid to Johnny Carson in the ratings, despite his controversial guests and mysterious connections to the high-profile, mysterious Grove. In a last-ditch effort to capture the top spot, Jack assembles a thrilling roster of guests for sweeps week–psychic Christou (Fayssal Bazzi), renowned skeptic Carmichael Haig (Ian Bliss), paranormal researcher Dr. June Ross-Mitchell (Laura Gordon), and her young charge Lilly (Ingrid Torelli), a young cult survivor who can summon the demon possessing her with June’s guidance. As the night unfolds, Jack’s quest for the number-one rating turns harrowing–and Jack’s glitzy ambition threatens to unleash hell upon audiences across America.
First and foremost, the immersion into the world of Late Night with the Devil is quite phenomenal. Bolstered by a wealth of archival footage and never leaving its studio location, Late Night throws every dollar of its budget into making Night Owls look like the ultimate forgotten 70s talk show. Production designer Otello Stolfo’s look is defined by clashing colors, tubular swirls, and ever-present glaring lights–despite being set in the 1970s, Night Owls manages to feel thrift-store-retro even in its own period, and consequently as stale and dated as Jack fears the show has become. The Cairnes’ own admitted passions for this era of pop culture also reflect organically on the characters’ traits and the content they produce–using a grab bag of cultural touchstones including Bohemian Grove conspiracy theories, Anton LaVey’s Church of Satan, and such films as Network and The King of Comedy to weave an effective evocation of the “Satanic Panic” era that’s an equal source of biting satire and visceral terror.
The bottled setting of Jack’s program is also, like Ghostwatch before it, a wickedly clever way of seamlessly shifting Late Night’s tone from hilarious to hair-raising in real time. The scares of Late Night build in moderation, uncomfortably played for laughs by Jack and his co-host Gus (Rhys Auteri) to maintain control of their program. However, the more Jack realizes how he can seize on the opportunities provided by an on-air demonic possession, the more the frights can take center stage to catastrophic results. During this skillful shift, the Cairnes subvert the trappings of faux-doc horror with fiendish glee–with a particularly masterful sequence involving hypnotism that has audiences both fictional and not questioning their reality. A judicious balance of editing, CGI, and practical effects further augments this horrific bridge between truth and fiction.
It’s David Dastmalchian’s lead performance, however, that solidifies Late Night with the Devil’s emerging status as a new classic horror film. Dastmalchian brings to Late Night an already-impressive career as a coveted character actor, having established himself as a go-to casting coup for directors like Denis Villeneuve, Christopher Nolan, and James Gunn. Having proven just how much of an impact he can make with a handful of scenes, Dastmalchian’s long-overdue first lead performance reveals a deft control of characterization across Late Night’s equally efficient runtime. An opening act in the vein of a Netflix true-crime special fills in the tragedy behind Jack Delroy’s near-unflappable charm, but it’s how Dastmachian weaponizes that information in the beats between the one-liners that makes Delroy such a memorable character. He’s a dyed-in-the-wool showman, orchestrating his audience’s reactions to comedic skits and shocking tell-alls with ease. Yet, as Lilly’s possession reveals a possible opportunity to reconnect with his deceased wife, Jack–like his audience–can’t help but entertain the possibility that this may be more than just another late-night act. Jack’s ambitions to reach the late-night spot are all too human, as dire as they are inspiring; Dastmalchian uses this to tease out the darker, still unknown aspects of Jack’s true nature. What was he capable of hanging out with the rich and powerful in the mysterious Grove…and what does that mean about what Jack’s capable of on live TV? The Cairnes wisely never quite show their hand in this regard, yet Dastmalchian’s increasingly insidious charisma keeps us anticipating further revelations.
Each of these impressively realized elements would alone be winning aspects of an indie horror film–yet combined they truly elevate Late Night with the Devil to become more than the sum of its parts or inspirations. It’s a film that evolves the legacy of the horror classics before it, pushing the genre to exciting new heights–as well as elevating David Dastmalchian to the leading man status he more than deserves.
Late Night with the Devil hits theaters courtesy of IFC Films on March 22nd, followed by a streaming debut on Shudder on April 12th.
-
GHOSTBUSTERS: FROZEN EMPIRE – The Powers are Still Standing
Sony Pictures “Frozen Empire” may be the handle of the newest Ghostbusters adventure – the fifth film in the beloved franchise and the third canonical sequel to the 1984 original – but it’s not too cold to hold. Nor is it too hot to handle, merging the new elements of Ghostbusters: Afterlife with the New York City setting and tone of the classic Ghostbusters adventures in a combination that might best be described as “in control”, wielding so much chilly blue ice in a similar visual and thematic motif to Ghostbusters II‘s pink slime.
The film picks up a couple years after 2021’s Ghostbusters Afterlife, which rebooted the story from an outside perspective. It was a bit shaggy in execution, dealing with the narrative and real-life passing of actor and writer Harold Ramis and his character Egon Spengler. The film centered on a new group of characters in rural Oklahoma, Egon’s daughter and grandchildren and their friends – who become aware of his past life as a Ghostbuster, ending in a cameo of the original team (Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Ernie Hudson) showing up for the finale and suggesting that they would relaunch the Ghostbusters back in their original stomping grounds. Tonally, it was a big shift, adopting a more sober posture as an exploration of legacy and a requiem for Ramis, and as many fans pointed out, seemed to forget that, hey, these are supposed to be comedies!
While I appreciated Afterlife for what it was, it definitely felt out of step. Frozen Empire is much more like a return to classic form, telling a new story with both generations of Ghostbusters that’s in tune with the past and also looking to the future. Stylistically it’s back to the rhythm of the first couple movies, and more importantly, it’s once again found some laughs.
Sony Pictures The Spengler family – matriarch Callie (Carrie Coon), young adult son Trevor (Finn Wolfhard), and precocious genius teen daughter Phoebe (Mckenna Grace), along with boyfriend/sorta-stepdad Gary (Paul Rudd), are the acting “Firehouse” Ghostbusters while the original gang are playing at being semi-retired.
A great aspect of this film is that it really does feature both the new and old Ghostbusters prominently, with Winston and Ray still playing a big role in the day to day. Peter’s a little less out in front, but considering that he’s famously difficult to schedule and had declined for many years to appear in any further sequels, I’m thrilled he’s participating – better yet, he seems glad to be here, delivering lines like “Melnitz in uniform!” with genuine enthusiasm.
Which leads to a unique development in this entry – the Ghostbusters are now organizationally a bigger enterprise with Winston at the helm, expanding their facilities and having an actual R&D unit. Lenny, we’ve taken our own headcount, there seems to be at least eleven different characters running around with Ghostbusters uniforms (and tragically, none of them are a still-absent Louis Tully).
Sony Pictures This might seem to threaten to be too much, and some characters do get a bit sidelined, but since nearly all of these characters are culled from previous movies, there’s actually only one prominent new Ghostbuster in the mix – James Acaster as Lars Pinfield, a researcher who seems, like Phoebe, to be modeled after Egon.
Speaking of Phoebe, who is easily my favorite among the second generation characters, she is once again, if not the film’s lead, then at least its spiritual center and most interesting arc. Deemed too young to legally work in the employ of the team on their missions, she’s feeling isolated and ends up befriending and crushing on a ghost. Unlike the usual weirdo spooks, this one maintains intelligence, identity, and human form (a Class IV, in the franchise lingo) as a sarcastic and relatable teen girl.
For me, the secret sauce of the classic Ghostbusters movies has always been the dorky sidekicks like Louis Tully and Janosz Poha who get swept up into the Ghostbusters’ battles, and while neither of them return, we have a new dorky sidekick in the form of Nadeem Razmaadi (Kumail Nanjiani), a hustling reseller who accidentally sets the film’s conflict in motion by selling Ray a metallic sphere radiating with psychokinetic energy that imprisons an ancient evil demigod: succinctly, a ghost with wintry powers that can conjure ice and command a manipulative influence over other ghosts – like the ones conveniently collected in the basement of a certain firehouse. Basically, a slightly more evil version of Disney’s Elsa.
Sony Pictures Oddly, here the movie repeats one of the missteps of Ghostbusters II – there’s a central villain, but it feels like there are comparatively few other ghosts in the mix, especially if you start to factor in the ghost-to-buster ratio.
Still, the result is a breezy and funny return to form that’s not going to be as quotable as the classics (again, it’s begging for the irreplaceable Louis Tully), but is a very enjoyable return to this world and characters. It loves the lore of Ghostbusters deeply while also continuing, like Rocky Balboa in the first couple of Creed films, to set up a warm handoff to a new generation of characters. Fans will have a lot of cool Easter Eggs to cheer for; most obviously the return of favorite characters like Slimer and antagonist Walter Peck, but also a trip to the New York Public Library with some familiar cameos, and a sidecar motorcycle with more than a passing resemblance to the animated Real Ghostbusters vehicle Ecto 3.
Gauging my packed screener crowd, they were definitely into it, and my 7 year old son, for whom Ghostbusters ranks just below #1 spot held by Spider-man in his personal canon, immediately declared it his new favorite movie in the series. I probably wouldn’t trust that review, but you can trust this one: I loved a lot about Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire, and the only thing I hated is the continued absence of Rick Moranis.
A/V Out
-
SXSW 2024: SASQUATCH SUNSET. Sweet, Silly, Somber, and Oh So Singular
A year in the life of a pack of Sasquatch that is truly immersive, and joyously singular in conception and execution
Ever since 1967, when Bob Gimlin and Robert Patterson shared their footage of some furry beast, striding through the forest of California, the legend of Bigfoot has only grown. Perhaps nowhere more than the minds of the Zellner Brothers, David and Nathan (Damsel, Kumiko the Treasure Hunter). Not content with their 2011 short film Sasquatch Birth Journal No. 2, which premiered at Sundance, they’re back with Sasquatch Sunset, a full length feature that offers a bigger, better, and more immersive look at the secret lives of the sasquatch.
Evoking the feeling of a wildlife documentary, the film is split into four chapters, each revolving around a season, together charting a year in the life of a pack of sasquatch. The largest, and clear alpha (Nathan Zellner), a beta ( Jesse Eisenberg), a solitary female (Riley Keough), and an additional young male (Christophe Zajac-Denek). Footage from afar, and close up, charts the everyday habits they share, eating, playing, pooping, and occasionally fornicating, while also showcasing the traits that make each of them distinct characters. As they embark on their trek through the forest wilderness, we become witness to drama that stems from within their pack, as well as external threats and problems, such as mountain lions, mixtapes, hallucinogenic mushrooms, a logging operation, and the small matter of a pregnancy. It’s survival of the fittest as this group make their way through the natural world, and encounter the wonders and dangers within it.
Every so often, a film comes along that has a premise that feels utterly absurd, but manages to not just pull off the outlandish concept, but also stake a claim as one of the best features of the year. Fueled by one of the great American myths, Sasquatch Sunset also evokes the great American history of silent movies. No dialogue is spoken, instead we get grunts, whistles, whoops, and gestures. Pratfalls, exaggerated expressions and movement solidify that connection back to Chaplin and the Three Stooges. It’s a comedy era the Zellner’s already played with in having Robert Pattinson channeling Buster Keaton in Damsel. The comedy largely stems from the buffonish acts of the bigfoot (bigfeet?) and the emanations as they look to show anger, fear, or mark territory. They might be crude, but they offer up plenty of tender moments, and signs of higher thought as they grapple with things they encounter, breaches of etiquette amongst themselves, or find ways to communicate and feed themselves.
The Zellner’s handle this weird and wonderful scenario with aplomb. The initial feeling of a Attenborough-style wildlife documentary is beautifully lit by cinematographer Michael Gioulakis. Shots from afar, overhead, and even closeup as if shot from a hide. As things progress, this is somewhat cast off in favor of more intimate shots, underscoring our own immersion in their tale. The natural surrounds, and the place of these creatures within this ecosystem is underscored by the inclusion of an array of wildlife, many depicted by trained rescues that add an additional naturalistic and comedic layer. Porcupines that wave, skunks that hug, and a very patient turtle, all help plant these prosthetic creations right in the wild. Costume/creature designers Steve Newborn and creature designer Daniel Carrasco do sterling work in building these transformative works that render the actors barely recognizable from their human forms. Still, each of them are able to bring to life unique and memorable characters. During the SXSW Q&A it was shared how the quartet engaged in a bigfoot bootcamp to come up with some unified culture and means of expression within their ranks. Within this each of them carve out their own individual sasquatch using their physicality and mannerisms to wonderful effect.
The film does hint at the presence of human influence. The destructive creep of human advancement seen in campers, trappers, and lumber mill operations. But Sasquatch Sunset keeps largely to its natural roots, and this family, as haphazardly constructed and dysfunctional as it is. Through them, we see the folly of machismo and the potency of motherhood. Beauty in the life that surround us, and a means to find incredible humor in the most base of bodily functions and animalistic behavior. It all blends into something that surprisingly feels broadly appealing. In front of me, a pair of kids sat enraptured, while next to me a middle aged couple laughed along, especially at some of the cruder depictions of bodily excavation. You could say it feels very family friendly, which is odd to say given the amount of bigfoot wang on show and the film opening with two sasquatch going at it doggy style for several minutes. The reason for this comes from the Zellner’s unparalleled ability to dig deep into very silly situations and find a nugget of profundity.
For some, the potty humor may wear thin, but alongside it is an enduring feeling of wonder. Of the natural world and the sense of discovery within it. A sweetness that burnishes off the more crude moments. Like Bigfoot him/herself, Sasquatch Sunset achieves mythological status. A sum of the fantastical imaginations of the Zellner Brothers, and the feat that it took to put this soulful film together. Equal Parts Sweet, Silly and Somber, a year in the life of a pack of Sasquatch that is truly immersive, and joyously singular in conception and execution.
Sasquatch Sunset hits theaters on April 12th
-
REMEMBERING GENE WILDER Honors a Movie Great
“I didn’t think Jerry Silberman had the right ring to it. I wanted to be wilder.”
Like many kids of my generation (and I suspect plenty before and since), I first encountered Gene Wilder upon my first viewing of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. As a child, I thought that movie was an imaginative adventure ride that played into virtually every fantasy I had. As I got older, however, I looked at the man in the center of it and recognized him as more than just an actor. When first released, Wilder’s turn as Willy Wonka not only further cemented his status as one of the biggest movie stars of the era, but it, along with a cavalcade of other memorable film roles, helped to show him as someone destined for the screen for the sole purpose of expressing the magic that was inside of him. Director Ron Frank’s new documentary, Remembering Gene Wilder, does right by the silver screen icon with a tribute that shows an artist whose eclectic career was guided not by strategic motivations, but rather through a creative instinct that remains unmatched.
Alternating between his personal life and professional breaks, Frank takes a look at the life of Wilder through vintage interviews, classic movie clips, and words from the people who knew him best. Amid all the nostalgia for one of the most indelible actors who ever graced the screen, Remembering Gene Wilder aims to uncover the soul behind this innovative artist.
Remembering Gene Wilder doesn’t waste any time in spotlighting the many facets its subject naturally possessed as an actor, taking great care to show the level of pathos and electricity he brought to every one of his performances. Wilder could indeed be a big, emotionally charged onscreen presence, but the way he imbued his characters with such warmth and explosiveness made him one of the most unique movie stars of his day. The film goes to appropriate lengths to show how much he gave to each part he took on and what he got back in return. With The Producers, Wilder enjoyed creative freedom like he’d never known, allowing him to find his artistic voice as a screen actor that could not be dismissed. Willy Wonka co-star Peter Ostrum describes Wilder as an experimental force who also took the time to mentor the young actor, eventually becoming a father figure to him. Finally, the doc shows how why Wilder’s conception and creation of Young Frankenstein was the single happiest experience of his career, a fact which comes across in the movie, not to mention the equally hilarious bloopers shown here. Elsewhere, Remembering Gene Wilder paints the star as a collaborator like no other, showing his instant brotherhood with Mel Brooks as well as his unique (and culturally significant) shorthand with Richard Pryor.
But Remembering Gene Wilder is ultimately about what it was like to actually be Gene Wilder. Amid all the beloved, classic film clips, Frank undergoes a largely successful attempt to dive inside the man behind the many famous characters he brought to the screen. A look at Wilder’s early years traces the origins behind the mix of tenderness and ferocity which comprised the man everyone fell in love with. There’s the heartbreaking story of his mother’s bout with an illness that almost killed her and the doctor’s instructions to the young Wilder to make sure he never upset his mother. Scarring as this was (not to mention a huge burden for a youngster to carry), we see how this crucial moment in the boy’s life was the driving force behind his comedy instincts, with his much-suppressed rage and frustrations coming out in his acting throughout the years. Listening to Wilder describe it, it’s almost as if being on stage saved him from the scariness of the world he’d known as a child, allowing him to feel safe and free to be the kind of person he couldn’t be off of it. The impact of his first wife Gilda Radner on his life and the way he found peace off the screen in his later years paints a picture of him as both a mad scientist of an actor and a vulnerable soul.
From a cinematic standpoint, there isn’t a great deal to write home about here. There’s an overreliance on many of the clips that made Wilder a star, and some of the film insights feel like special features quality. However, Remembering Gene Wilder doesn’t need visual flair when it comes to a subject such as this one. If the film has a single aim, it’s to spotlight the man and the artist as he was. In that vein, Frank has done his job and then some. The narration by Wilder gives a sweet, storybook feel to the film and the testimonials by those who knew him contain true heart. By the time the credits roll, it’s easy to feel we’ve taken Wilder for granted and it becomes even more apparent that there was something about every acting move he made that made him so enlightening. A man full of whimsy and poignancy, Wilder pushed boundaries on the screen by being wonderfully extreme and absurd. But as the film so lovingly shows, Wilder was also a sensitive soul who did what he was meant to do.
-
THE BLACK HOLE: Two Cents…to the Stars! – Roundtable Review [Two Cents]
![THE BLACK HOLE: Two Cents…to the Stars! – Roundtable Review [Two Cents]](https://i0.wp.com/cinapse.co/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/The-Black-Hole-1.jpg?resize=1140%2C538&ssl=1)
Two Cents is a Cinapse original column akin to a book club for films. The Cinapse team curates the series and contribute their “two cents” using a maximum of 200-400 words. Guest contributors and comments are encouraged, as are suggestions for future picks. Join us as we share our two cents on films we love, films we are curious about, and films we believe merit some discussion. Would you like to be a guest contributor or programmer for an upcoming Two Cents entry? Simply watch along with us and/or send your pitches or 200-400 word reviews to [email protected].
The Pick: The Black Hole
To celebrate the much-anticipated second half of Denis Villeneuve’s adaptation of Dune, we are going to be exploring the stars this month. That’s right, a whole month of films that take place in the far reaches of space. This week we are looking at 1979’s The Black Hole, a film from the Walt Disney Company that was attempting to blend sci-fi and disaster films.
Featured Guest
Disney’s The Black Hole (1979) stands as a peculiar entry in the realm of 70s sci-fi cinema—a blend of ambition and misstep that, despite occasionally being boring, I find oddly captivating as a mood piece. It gracefully aligns with films like Ad Astra, Silent Running, Moon, Sunshine, and perhaps the most stoned movie ever made, Star Trek – The Motion Picture, as a worthy representation of a sub-genre I am defenseless against: “slow space.”
Disney’s failed attempt to capture the popcorn pulp fun of Lucas’s Star Wars and the cerebral depth of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey is an admirable corporate endeavor to mix oil and water, which undeniably falls short but not without its merits. There’s an undeniable visual grandeur to the production design, complemented by a sumptuous John Barry score, stunning cinematography, and special effects that still hold up almost half a century later.
The Black Hole boasts a stellar and bizarre cast of character actors, with Maximilian Schell as an evil doctor, Anthony Perkins, Ernest Borgnine, Robert Forster, and robots voiced by Roddy McDowell and Slim Pickens. Another fascinating aspect of The Black Hole is its moments of pure horror amidst the family-targeted cosmic spectacle, most notably a robot murder scene that is laser-printed into my brain.
In the end, The Black Hole is the kind of fascinating Disney misfire that we don’t get anymore. It possesses an excellent atmosphere and tremendous visuals that are well worth a watch for everyone who is constantly reminded by their bank statements that they are still subscribed to Disney+, even if it just serves as a good audio-visual substitute for Ambien when the late night insomnia hits.
Small Footnote: When I was a kid, I had a picture book novelization of this movie and it ends with the villain becoming a composite being with the robot in literal Hell. Interesting to consider.
The Team
Frank Cavillo
Released during the studio’s infamous “flop” period, The Black Hole is a perfect example of Disney’s lackluster era when many of its animated and live-action efforts were met with little to no enthusiasm from both critics and audiences. Admittedly, The Black Hole had a lot working against it; it’s devoid of an entire first act, its science feels wonky, and it’s far talkier than any “space adventure” should be.
(@frankfilmgeek on X)
But there’s something so oddly playful about The Black Hole that makes it difficult to fully to dismiss too. The movie has a collection of great actors seemingly having fun, while some of the script’s plot turns do prove effective. The sets and effects, while instantly dated, have a fun pop feel to them, and manage to give The Black Hole a much needed playfulness that’s serves as a great contrast to some of the more melodramatic moments.
In the immediate post-Star Wars era, the cult status of a movie like The Black Hole was all but guaranteed. Still, it’s hard not to applaud the studio’s attempt to want to innovate through the movie’s effects, score and darker story elements. If The Black Hole was not the successful space odyssey many were hoping it would be, it remains a bridge between traditional studio craftsmanship and the future of moviemaking.Jay Tyler
It is easy to identify precisely why The Black Hole was a disappointment on release. Released a mere two years after the original Star Wars, but a year before Empire Strikes Back, it clearly is attempting to capitalize on the space adventure promise of that surprise smash hit. However, it hedges its bets slightly, and makes a more adult version of space exploration, with no clear-eyed optimism to ground it, and instead presents a much more cerebral and at times very slowly paced and contained story.
This gives the whole film a darker, more somber tone, especially when you get the climatic back half which essentially is an escape film as things go off the rails. This isn’t a film about fighting back against oppressive forces, or discovering yourself amidst the stars while escaping home. This is a movie about man’s obsession with the unknown, poking in corners that it has no business in, and the damage that hubris produces. To this end it has more in common with 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea or Heart of Darkness than it does the cheap but thrilling space serials.
However, if you can get on The Black Hole’s wavelength, it has a lot to offer. For being a product of Disney’s wilderness years, it is legitimately unnerving at parts. This is in large part to a hammy but incredible performance from Maximilian Schell as the unhinged Hans Reinhardt, obsessed with discovering what lies beyond the titular black hole. His performance shifts between charming, unnerving, and then completely unraveled, a bellowing menace out of his mind. He embodies the best of a truly iconic villain at the center of this sort of story, so much so his magnetism blows our ostensible heroes off the screen.
(@jaythecakethief on X)
It would be overkill to call The Black Hole a hidden gem in the recesses of the Disney vault. The front half is a bit too sleepy to really grab you, but if you can get through the slow parts, the escape portion is genuinely thrilling and occasionally surprisng. It helps that it relies heavily on practical, innovative effects for much of its runtime, and thus still looks great even if some of its production design is a bit primitive and of its time. And that back half pays off the patience you put into the first, with legitimately unnerving sequences and an ending that is both baffling and strangely hypnotic. Worth a watch, but know that you have to eat your greens before you get to the dessert.Upcoming Pick in Two Cents…To the Stars!
