-
It’s Grim Up North, in Neil Marshall’s DOOMSDAY [Two Cents]
![It’s Grim Up North, in Neil Marshall’s DOOMSDAY [Two Cents]](https://i0.wp.com/cinapse.co/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/image-20.png?resize=1140%2C753&ssl=1)
Scotland finally gets devolution thanks to a rampant virus and a corrupt British government
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].
Drama, Comedy, Romance, Science Fiction, Musical… cinema is filled with grand, sweeping, big tent genres. And yet, so often Cinapse’s particular brand of cinephilia dwells in the subgenres. Too numerous to list, subgenres are where the meat is really added to the bone of deep cut cinema. And one of the greatest subgenres of them all is the post-apocalyptic picture! This month we’re celebrating the release of author David J. Moore’s World Gone Wild, Restocked and Reloaded 2nd Edition: A Survivor’s Guide to Post-Apocalyptic Movies with a curated selection of some of the Cinapse team’s very favorite and most beloved post apocalypse films – all of which are highlighted in Moore’s exhaustive love letter!
The Pick: DOOMSDAY (2008)
Featured Guests
Watching Neil Marshall’s Doomsday is like revisiting the best post-apocalypse movies from the eighties. You know he loves Escape from New York and The Road Warrior. Doomsday even has the same font on the title scene as EFNY, and his story is a virtual scene-for-scene homage to that film, while still being completely original. The story starts with a devastating virus (called the Reaper virus) ripping through the United Kingdom like an angel of death. The continent is split in half (England / Scotland) by a wall not unlike the borders which the Roman Empire once instated. The infected half are left to die off, and the rest of England’s population are put in boroughs and tenements to account for the lack of space. Thirty years after the viral apocalypse, the Reaper virus returns to England, and the government sends a team into the dead zone to find survivors of the last plague: it seems that those individuals who’ve survived in the northern half are immune, and therefore have blood which can be used to devise a cure. The team is led by Eden Sinclair (Rhona Mitra), and like the character she was modeled from (Snake Plisskin) she has only one eye and a bad attitude (but she wears the patch only on occasion). When the team arrives in the “no fly zone,” they are seized by a tribe of savages, the survivors of the last plague. From this point on in the movie, there is hardly a moment to catch your breath. The character named Sol in the film is basically Lord Humungous and Wez combined from The Road Warrior, and he’s a good crazy villain. His Siouxsie-Sioux look-alike girlfriend, Viper, is a great cinematic creation, a perfect foil for Mitra’s tough-girl character. The final road chase obviously recalls the stuff in the Mad Max series. Marshall looks like he had a ball filming it. There’s great stuff here. Check out some of the details in this movie. Even the spray paint on the cars and walls is interesting to look at. The action scenes are a tad bit disjointed and filmed too close to the action and are cut too quickly, but repeated viewings smooth things out a bit. Rhona Mitra is great, and it’s nice to see her in the center of a big picture; she makes an excellent heroine. The supporting cast is all top-notch: with Bob Hoskins as a good guy and Malcom McDowell as Kane, an ostracized doctor, and a king of sorts of a medieval castle. The John Carpenter-sounding score by Tyler Bates is a great addition to a most enjoyable (and extremely gory) movie.
Spencer Brickey, a screenwriter with a focus on action, horror, and dark comedies.
From the outside, Doomsday is clearly meant to be an Escape From New York riff (The one-eyed “president of what?” badass, the walled city, even the font!), but, either accidentally or on purpose, it instead is a near perfect homage to the era of Italo-exploitation, or as I’ve always had fun calling it, Italoshlock.
For about 30 years, from the early ‘70s and petering out in the late ‘90s, almost no one was better at putting out exploitation films than Italy. Didn’t matter the genre or the plotline or the tastefulness; if it was popular in the States, the Italians would make a hundred copies or more of ‘em. Filmmakers with names like Lucio Fulci, Ruggero Deodato, Bruno Mattei, and Sergio Martino would put out films cheap and quick; they’d pick up a few cues from whatever they were ripping off (Desert warlords, zombies, kung-fu, Vietnam), and then usually add gallons of blood and gratuitous nudity. These films were always hodgepodges of whatever was cool at the time, and were meant to be played to zonked out audiences at dollar theaters on 42nd street.
This same type of “kitchen sink” approach to storytelling is exactly what Doomsday ends is. Like a play on the old saying ,“If you don’t like the genre, wait 15 minutes!”. Doomsday opens as a zombie film, before becoming an Escape From New York riff, before becoming a Mad Max riff, an Excalibur riff for a hot second, before landing back at Mad Max in the climax, respectively. The constantly bounces between storylines (and tones) makes it impossible to nail down where Doomsday is going next.
Which, to be honest, isn’t a strength here. Italoshlock is a bit of a hit-and-miss genre; holds true here. Doomsday is more interested in the set dressings of its constantly changing world than on the actual characters that inhabit it. Everything and everyone is so one-note, there’s really no world to actual dig into, even if it does show you a dozen different ones.
Doomsday suffers what many of these types of films do; A director, Neil Marshall, who is infatuated with the genre fare of his youth, looking to make a mix-matched “love letter”. But, all he’s really done is make a Xerox of a Xerox. Only the Italians have figured out how to make it work, and I’m pretty sure the secret is hidden within the Vatican’s Vaults.
The Team
Look, I love Doomsday. I saw it in theaters as a nerd who already actively loved the films of Neil Marshall, the films of John Carpenter, etc. I didn’t revisit the film for this edition of Two Cents so I’ll keep this brief and in dialog with my former self, who wrote a piece about Doomsday being less than the sum of its inspirations. Look, former self, it may be true that Doomsday doesn’t reach the high highs of Snake Plissken and wouldn’t exist at all without the inspirations that came before it. Former me also needs to chill out and just have a rip-roaring time at the movies with a gorgeous and tough lead in Rhona Mitra and top tier character actors like Malcolm McDowell and Bob Hoskins running around?! I’m not sure what I wanted back then but my fond memories of this film have long outlasted whatever state I was in at that time.
I watched Doomsday with my wife back when it came out. I remembered liking it but never felt the urge to dive back in. She remembered some of the gorier and most twisted moments with the cannibals and wrote it off completely.
So, this week I dove back into it at the request of the Two Cents crew and it was a mixed bag for me, though more good than bad.
The good? Bob Hoskins is in it. The heroine is a badass. The gory moments definitely deliver. And, the final car chase is fantastic George Miller-esque fun.
The bad? There’s nowhere near enough Bob Hoskins in it. The early bits are a bit plodding. And I wouldn’t mind more of those gory moments.
The story didn’t always work for me, but once it got cranking, the visuals were strong. And, in a film like this, that matters most I think. But, I wanted to highlight something I doubt most here will: the soundtrack. The score from the great Tyler Bates, combined with fantastic pop, new wave, and punk music of the 70s through the late 90s, was a perfect backdrop for the film. For me, I think it was the biggest highlight and I fully expect that a few of the tracks will be stuck in my head for the remainder of the week… and then some.
You can imagine the conversation. Someone poses the idea “what if we needed Hadrian’s Wall again?“. Built around 1900 years ago, an architectural feat of the Roman Empire that marked one of the frontiers of it’s territory, as well as a useful means to keep those pesky Scottish savages at bay. In Doomsday, a modern rebuild is required thanks to the Reaper virus, an outbreak in Scotland turning people into rabid monsters. The solution of the British government, a 60ft tall rebuild of the wall and lethal military force to hold the line against the remaining infected, and the survivors who choose a more primal way of surviving. 30 years after this callous move, an isolated case of the Reaper virus resurfaces in London, prompting a foray North of the wall the track down a missing virologist and his research, which might be the only thing preventing the rest of the country being thrown back into the dark ages.
In spirit, its “what if Escape from New York, but Scotland”, but Neil Marshall’s genre predilections are cast further afield with Doomsday roiling out of a chop-shop with parts from Mad Max, 28 Days Later, The Warriors, The Hills Have Eyes, Apocalypse Now, and more. It’s a fun mix, even if the end product lacks the focus and impact of Marshall’s better regarded features Dog Soldiers and The Descent. But where else do you see a horsebound knight take on an armored soldier, or an agent wielding a high tech eyeball targeting system up against a horde of spike wielding savages. It’s the the near-future going toe-to-toe with a savage, feudal state. The Brits handle period pieces better than most so the film looks great, and we also get a bit of regional gravitas with appearances from Malcom McDowell and Bob Hoskins, and a breakout turn from Rhona Mitra. After making her name in the UK as the original live action model of gaming icon Lara Croft, she went on to a number of supporting roles in tv and film, before landing a one-two punch in Doomsday and Underworld: Rise of the Lycans. She certainly does herself no harm as the woman at the middle of it all, driven by a personal motive and of course a bit of a chip on her shoulder.
Its gnarly (and just the right amount of silly) fare, but there is more here if you know what to look for. A scrutiny of the callous decision (and worldwide condemnation) of the UK turning its back on a swath of its populace, opens up into a broader commentary on that North/South divide. One that swirls around social class and economic and investment. One might also spot a broad swipe at Scotland and the ever persisting sentiment of devolution. Superficial to be sure, but they only add to the ‘what if…’ of it all. Adding to the grim undercurrent of Marshall’s messy genre mashup.
@Texas_Jon on Twitter
CINAPSE CURATES MAD MAX RIPOFFS
Join us by contacting our team or emailing [email protected]!
11/18 – Turbo Kid
11/25 – The New Barbarians
-
RED ONE Offers a Hollow Imitation of Better Movies
The latest action-comedy from Dwayne Johnson and Jake Kasdan brings very little to the table but leftover scraps.
Santa movies are really movies about faith. That doesn’t necessarily mean faith in God, though sometimes movies will slot Santa in as a replacement for the divine. On a larger level though, they are movies about the ability to believe in something unseen, the magic of kindness and charity. Santa is often a stand-in for the very idea that good things can happen, despite how crusty this world can seem.
To be charitable, Red One does have one interesting thought on its mind: why would Santa have faith in us? Early in the film, Dwayne Johnson’s Callum Drift, the head security for the real Santa Claus (JK Simmons), submits his resignation and expresses his own doubts about the whole gift-giving operation. After all, for the first time in history, more people are on the naughty list than the nice list. It is hard to not see this point reflected in the shadow of the past week. Callum admits that he is jaded about the inherent goodness in people, which makes his ability to work for the jolly embodiment of Christmas cheer increasingly impossible.
To be less charitable, this is maybe the only unique thing to pull out of Red One, a deeply unoriginal movie that constantly feels like a cheap knock off of not just one but several other more ambitious films. From Men in Black to Ant Man, the movie constantly can’t help but remind you of the kind of lighthearted fun it is trying to be in better forms. Add on the deadweight of being a Dwayne Johnson vehicle, itself a known quantity at this point, and it’s a film that has flashes of being an enjoyable if disposable piece of entertainment that is weighed down by the constant nagging feeling you have heard this song before.
The film centers around the two-hander of Dwayne Johnson’s jaded Cal, and his unwitting partner Jack O’Malley (Chris Evans, trying his best), a hacker who unwittingly led to the kidnapping of Santa Claus two days before Christmas Eve. Jack is dragged into the world of MORA (the Mythological Oversight and Restoration Authority), a secret organization responsible protecting the world from supernatural forces. If Callum’s ELF (Enforcement Logistics and Fortification, in one of the lazier backronyms in recent memory) is part of MORA or merely a cooperative organization is unclear. In fact, a lot of the world building in Red One is fairly cast off, giving rudimentary explanations that it then rushes past to get to the action.
The problem is most of that action fluctuates between boring and unintelligible. For a family friendlyish (the film is PG-13, but mostly for some tough guy language) action-comedy, it is a bummer that the action is the weakest link for the movie, and the comedy is not far behind. Also Johnson and Evans chemistry is non-existent, and other than JK Simmons as Santa and Kristofer Hivju as Krampus (here imagined as Santa’s estranged brother), most of the extended cast feels very “here-for-the-paycheck.” Lucy Liu as the head of MORA is especially egregious, especially when compared to comparable performances like Rip Torn in Men In Black.
It isn’t like those involved aren’t capable of better work. Director Jake Kasdan has made good material before, in this genre, with this lead actor in Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle. But the goalposts for what they seek to make this time around seem lower, potentially due to a lack of commitment from the star-producer or a belief that their high concept is so clearly broad appeal they don’t have to try as hard.
For all these reasons, it is hard to not see Red One as a deeply cynical movie. It provides an ersatz stab at several earlier, more successful films, but also tries to pull at the central idea of “you believe in the goodness of people, right?” It has little regard for the intelligence, emotional or otherwise, of its audience. By providing shallow, shrugging For being a Santa movie, the end result is a fairly hollow, faithless endeavor.
-
How I Convinced My Friends to Start Watching More Horror Films
A couple of months ago, I had three different conversations with friends of mine who all shared a similar sentiment. Something along the lines of “I think horror movies are interesting, but I don’t know where to get started” and “I’ve been scarred before by jumping into a horror movie that was too intense for me.” As someone who loves horror and watches it year round, I took this as a challenge and assembled these friends for a weekly horror series at my home that we first dubbed ‘Horror 101,’ but which soon became known as ‘Sunday Scaries.’
Over the last 10 weeks leading up to Halloween, we watched 10 horror films that I consider to be essential to understanding the genre and an appetizer for what I hope to be a full meal as these friends dive deeper into the genre now that they have gotten a taste for what is out there.
Before we move onto our next series which I am calling ‘Horror 201,’ I asked my friends to provide feedback on their experience and tell me which of the ten films we watched were their favorites and which were the ‘scariest’ in their opinion. My favorite part of this experiment has been their reactions, with movies I did not consider scary topping the list of ‘most scary’.
My hope is that by reading through this, you too will feel bold enough to dive into the horror series with a group of friends and use this list of ten films to help get you started with what I believe is the most entertaining and interesting film genre right now.
Week 1: The Silence of the Lambs (1991) dir. by Jonathan Demme
The first horror film we started with was the iconic and seminal Jonathan Demme film, The Silence of the Lambs. As someone who first became obsessed with the character of Hannibal Lecter and his exploits in college, this film has always been close to the top of my list in terms of essential horror viewing. Plus, even though I consider this to be on the scarier side of realistic horror films, after almost 35 years of cultural references I figured most of the shock factor would be dulled by the myriad of references that have been made to this film in other shows and films.
My other thought with showing this and The Shining first was that in order to hook my friends into watching more horror, I would start off with two films that many might say ‘transcend the horror genre,’ meaning that they are good films on their own that happen to be horror. I did this because I think the common misconception with horror is that the genre is not as ‘elevated’ as others, so why not start off with a film that won 5 Oscars? Once you see what a well-made horror film looks like, it is easier to seek out more films that may not be as technically impressive, but still scratch the same itch.
I believe this was a good choice, as the feedback I received from my friends was that although it wasn’t terribly scary, it was an overall good film, earning an average rating of 8.57/10 on the overall rating scale and only a 4.71/10 rating on the ‘scariness’ scale. This was the beginning of a trend I noticed where the scariness rating of a film was highly dependent on when the film was released, with films from the last 25 years rating higher than older ‘classics,’ likely due to the improvement in filmmaking options and a more desensitized modern audience expecting more intense imagery and scares.
The Silence of the Lambs.
Overall: 8.57/10.
Scariness: 4.71/10.
Recommended similar watches: Se7en (1995), Longlegs (2024)
Week 2: The Shining (1980) dir. by Stanley Kubrick
Similar to The Silence of the Lambs, The Shining was the next logical choice to me due to the cultural influence of the film along with the fact that it was one of the first horror films I watched that got me hooked on the genre in college. Unlike our previous film, however, I consider The Shining to still be an intense and terrifying film, despite being nearly 40 years old and almost considering leaving this one off the list until later for fear of jumping in too deep too early.
Thankfully, the response to this film was exactly what I hoped, with the mood in the room as we watched it turning from lighthearted to quiet and intense focus as the days in the film began to slip by as Jack Torrence descends further into madness. This speaks to the excellent direction of Kubrick along with the incredible performances from Jack Nicholson and Shelley Duvall. One thing I really appreciated on this rewatch was the way that music is used in the film, both to build and relieve tension throughout.
By the time we reached the final trudge through the maze at the end of the film, I could feel a collective sigh of relief as the credits began to roll. Not only did the group rate this film highest overall with a 9/10 rating, but it was one of the scarier films we watched so far, earning a 6.33/10 on the scariness scale. Thankfully, we had The Simpsons ‘Treehouse of Horror’ episode to watch as a palate cleanser before everyone went home so no one was too spooked.
The Shining.
Overall: 9/10.
Scariness: 6.33/10.
Recommended similar watches: The Lodge (2019), Misery (1990)Week 3: The Thing (1982) dir. by John Carpenter.
So far we had dealt with a serial killer and a husband/father slowly losing his mind in a secluded hotel. And while there are certainly elements of paranormal activity in The Shining, the two films we had watched so far were definitely more in the realm of realism than what I had lined up next. With that in mind, as the master of horror and someone who blends sci-fi and horror so well, I knew that a John Carpenter film had to be on the agenda.
The timing couldn’t have been better, as Austin Film Society was showing the 4K rerelease of The Thing (my personal favorite Carpenter film) just in time for week 3. Moving out of the living room and into a packed theater elevated the experience significantly and took us into the next area of horror I wanted to explore: the grotesque and the weird.
Similar to The Shining, The Thing does an exceptional job at building tension throughout the film and then exploding that tension with intense moments of gore and practical effects. Although less scary due to the limitations of the time, I still believe that the effects in this film look fantastic for being over 40 years old. I also have to give a shout out to the excellent acting of the dog in this film who plays the titular ‘Thing’ in the first half. There should be an Oscar for animal performances just to retroactively give one to Jed the actor dog for this movie.
With the heightened atmosphere of the theater, the feedback from the crew was again solid, earning a 8.67/10 rating overall and the same rating as The Shining in terms of scariness, 6.33/10.
The Thing.
Overall: 8.67/10.
Scariness: 6.33/10.
Recommended similar watches: The Fly (1986), They Live (1988), Annihilation (2018)Week 4: The Evil Dead (1981) dir. by Sam Raimi.
Now that we had dipped our toe into the gooey practical effects of The Thing, I knew we had to take it up a notch with our next watch. What better film to do next than Sam Raimi’s The Evil Dead? My intention here was to move away from the prestigious horror that we had watched so far into what most of the horror genre is: campy, absurd, and fun. And nothing meets that criteria like The Evil Dead series.
Before we watched this one, I did preface it with two things. First, Sam Raimi made this when he was barely 20 years old and as such, there are definitely some moments that do not hold up (the tree scene, for example) and/or were clearly made by a 20 year old man in the 1980s. Second, the budget of the film was by far the smallest of all the films we had watched so far, so the quality will attest to that.
In the end, this was our lowest rated film so far, and I think that is understandable. However, I believe it set the tone for other movies we would watch, which was what I was hoping for. I certainly remembered this one being scarier when I first watched it and it definitely is still a classic, but unlike other series, I believe that Evil Dead gets better as you go, with each installment adding to the lore and style created in this one.
The Evil Dead.
Overall: 4.67/10
Scariness: 5/10
Recommend similar watches: Evil Dead 2 (1987), Army of Darkness (1992), Dead Alive (1992), Evil Dead Rise (2023)Week 5: Scream (1995) dir. by Wes Craven.
Now that we had dipped our toes into the weirder side of horror, I wanted to keep the ball rolling with another classic that plays with the genre itself. This of course led us to Scream, one of my personal favorites and a good film to watch in order to call out the tropes of the horror genre that make it more fun to watch other films that make similar decisions. We had our highest attendance for this one, with the entire crew present, making for a very enjoyable screening.
One of the best things that Scream does is misdirection, starting with the iconic opening scene with Drew Barrymore. Even though I’ve seen the movie multiple times before and know who the killer(s) are, the film does a good job of making you second guess yourself. Hearing my friends try to guess how it was going to end and react to the multiple twists made this one of my favorite watches of this series and reinforced why I wanted to do this with a group in the first place.
I figured that this film would rank lower on the scariness score than others and it did with a 4.38/10, but overall enjoyment was high across the board, earning a 7.63/10 rating. This film was also getting us closer to the 21st century and I was curious how the group would react to more modern approaches to horror after starting off with defining works of the 80s and 90s.
Scream.
Overall: 7.63/10.
Scariness: 4.38/10.
Recommended similar watches: – Scream 2-6, Friday the 13th (1980), Halloween (1978), A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984).Week 6: The Blair Witch Project (1999) dir. by Eduardo Sánchez, Daniel Myrick.
Now that we were 5 weeks in, I thought I had a good idea of what the group could handle, but I was pleasantly surprised by the reactions to The Blair Witch Project. Personally, I hadn’t seen this one until later in my horror viewing and had not seen it as particularly scary when I first watched it. However, this was by far our most locked in and intense screening so far, with the group buying into the story and genuinely feeling the tension build and build until the iconic final shot.
Despite my surprise at the reaction of the group, this solidified for me why horror is such a fun and interesting genre to explore with friends: you can never predict which films will have an effect on you that they might not on someone else and vice versa. I originally chose this primarily due to the fact that it opened up the ‘found footage’ genre that would dominate the early 2000s, but what I realized is that because this was the first film we watched that felt like it could really happen to you, it was also the most intense to watch together.
Thankfully we again had a good palate cleanser with the Scooby-Doo homage The Scooby-Doo Project that originally aired on Cartoon Network. The overall score on this one was 6.8/10, but the scariness rating was 7.6/10, highest among the films we have explored so far. This forced me to re-evaluate how I was choosing films and think through each choice from not just my own perspective, something I am appreciative of and did not expect.
The Blair Witch Project.
Overall: 6.8/10
Scariness: 7.6/10.
Recommended similar watches: [REC] (2007), Cloverfield (2008), The VVitch (2015)Week 7: Alien (1979) dir. by Ridley Scott.
Before jumping into the 2000s, I realized that we hadn’t watched another essential film in the horror and sci-fi canon: Alien. Any film that blends both horror and sci-fi is immediately something I love and as I looked ahead to other films I wanted to show such as Annihilation, Sunshine, and Event Horizon, I knew we had to start with the iconic film that influenced the rest.
Like most of these films, the cultural impact of Alien is such that I knew there would be references that the group didn’t even realize were from this film because they are so ingrained in the cultural zeitgeist. Still, nothing compares to actually seeing the film yourself.
Coming in at one of the highest overall ratings of 8.75/10 and a solid scariness score of 5.88/10, Alien is remarkable for being 45 years old and genuinely looks better than movies made today in terms of set design and the use of lighting. Plus, for how little the xenomorph is actually in the first movie, it was an instantly iconic horror villain that was terrifying for how little you actually see of it.
Alien.
Overall: 8.75/10.
Scariness: 5.88/10.
Recommended similar watches: Aliens (1986), Sunshine (2007), Event Horizon (1997), Predator (1987)Week 8: 28 Days Later (2002) dir. by Danny Boyle.
As we continued to progress, I wanted to expand the different sub-genres we were exploring. We had done horror comedy, sci-fi horror, found footage, and now that we were entering the 2000s, it was time to explore the sub-genre that would dominate a good deal of the decade: zombies. Although there are plenty from the late 60s on to choose from, I thought that 28 Days Later would be a solid choice to get into this sub-genre due to how influential it was to our modern idea of zombies.
It had been a few years since I had revisited this one myself and while it does still have its moments, the digital camera technology of the day has not held up in my opinion. The story, acting, and terror that the fast-moving zombies instill is still there, but the grainy quality of the film makes it hard to see what is going on, especially in the night time sequences.
Despite the quality, however, the effectiveness of the film is still there. The true horror coming more from the humans than the zombies lead this one to be rated high in terms of scariness with a 7/10 even if the overall rating was 6.33/10.
All that said, I still believe that this is essential viewing before you dive into the other films that defined and expanded this subgenre. Next we’ll likely explore the zombie-comedy with Zombieland, the more intense version fast zombies with Train to Busan, and the almost self-parody of the subgenre with The Dead Don’t Die.
28 Days Later.
Overall: 6.33/10.
Scariness: 7/10.
Recommended similar watches: 28 Weeks Later (2007), Train to Busan (2016), Dawn of the Dead (1978), The Dead Don’t Die (2019).Week 9: The Cabin in the Woods (2011) dir. by Drew Goddard
Due to the success of Scream with the group, I thought we would jump ahead to 2011 with another film that plays with the slasher genre and the tropes you are familiar with, The Cabin in the Woods. While this film definitely has 2011 written all over it, I have always found it to be a fun, entertaining romp, if not that scary of a horror flick. Of course, now that we have showed them two films parodying / playing with slasher films, we will soon be watching some staples of the genre such as Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and Friday the 13th.
I had made a habit of introducing each film with some information about it and why I chose it, but for this one I tried to keep it brief because I think going in blind on a movie like this is the best way to see it. Overall, it was a fun time and shows the different ways you can make a horror film effective while still keeping the story fresh and interesting.
Although it is not considered your typical horror classic, I think its influence can be seen in other recent films like Ready or Not (2019) and The Blackening (2022). Overall, the group rated it a 6.75/10 and only a 4 on the scariness scale, our lowest so far.
Week 10: Jennifer’s Body (2009) dir. by Karyn Kusama
Finally, on our 10th week, we went with the misunderstood 2009 film, Jennifer’s Body. Although it was mismarketed when it first came out, this film has become a cult classic and that status is well-deserved. Not only does it subvert your expectations, but its cultural commentary was ahead of its time and the dialogue, although absurd, fits right in with the vibe of the film.
Although this was our smallest group watch, we had a blast watching Megan Fox rip boys to shreds and deliver incredible lines like “My mom has a date with the guy who owns the ham store.” While not terribly scary, this film is essential horror viewing for the camp fun that it revels in while giving us a story about a man-eating teenage girl. What’s better than that?
Jennifer’s Body
Overall: 9.25/10
Scariness: 4/10
Recommended similar watches: Ginger Snaps (2000), Lisa Frankenstein (2024), A Girl Walks Alone Home at Night (2014)‘Programming’ this series for my friends has been one of my favorite things to do and I am hoping to keep it going as we progress from the not-so-scary (Horror 101) to the pretty-scary (Horror 201) before we graduate to the actually-scary (Horror 301) and the upsetting-scary (Horror 401). I truly believe that horror is a big enough genre that everyone can find something they love in it. Sometimes it just takes a guide to find what you enjoy.
However, even if horror isn’t your thing, I hope that you can still take something from this, even if your own version of ‘Sunday Scaries’ is watching 90s Disney Channel Original movies with your friends. The point is that movies are for everyone and are best enjoyed with a group, whether that is going to a theater or inviting friends over to squirm in your living room, because you never know what you might discover together – both in terms of the films you like and the way you react to them.
I also wanted to shout out a few friends who helped guide me in the horror genre when I was first getting into it – Kevin and Armando – for which I am forever grateful.
Nathan Ellwood – Follow me on Letterboxd/Instagram/Twitter for more @NPEllwood.
-
DEVON – Jersey Shore’s JWoww Unleashes her Found Footage Debut on Scream Box and its Actually Good!
Watching and reviewing JWoww’s of Jersey Shore’s feature length directorial debut was not on my 2024 bingo card, but here I am, and here we go. I have to admit, while I’ve fallen off the series in the last few seasons, once upon a time I was a rather loyal viewer of Jersey Shore and it was hard not to be a fan of JWoww’s no nonsense attitude given her often insufferable housemates. Her film Devon hits Screambox this week and has JWoww AKA Jenni Farley both writing and directing the Horror debut, which comes in at lean 72 minutes and feels like it pulls from a lot of familiar situations and characters for its story for previous fans of the director.
First and foremost the found footage film has JWoww borrowing a page from Jersey Shore – you have a group of five individuals all from different backgrounds who are summoned to an abandoned mental hospital. They are then armed with video cameras to document their experience by the parents of the namesake young girl, Devon, who is rumored to be still there. If they can get some sort of proof she’s still there they stand to walk away from the experience with $20,000, which does what few of these films do offer an incentive, when you wonder why they’re still filming and tuck in for the night in the building. Wisely, Farley spends as much time digging into the clashing of personalities as she does the peculiar events and goings on that begin to transpire throughout the night.
The film’s premise, a nod to the director’s favorite horror film – The Blair Witch Project, mashes up found footage with a fictional narrative wraparound, that feels like an unnecessary afterthought. While the found footage bits while exploring the hospital are creepy as hell, it’s this framing device that feels a bit more green in execution than the rest of the piece. That being said, as a whole Devon works surprisingly well. At 72 minutes the film manages to keep the scares coming as we watch the cast inhabiting the familar reality TV archetypes spiral and turn in one another just like Shore. It’s a hell of a lot of fun, because it’s fictional characters, we can take joy and satisfaction in their misfortune.
They say write what you know, so when you take someone who obviously is well aware of themselves and has survived similar experiences under this reality TV lens, but without ghosts, you get an authenticity that shows an understanding of the medium. That helped Farley present the group dynamic in a bit of a more believable way, because while I’ve seen more than a few riffs on this formula, Devon is one of the few films that doesn’t feel forced or like a parody. This for me allowed the supernatural bits to be even more effective, because you’re locked in thanks to that group dynamic. This is as much thanks to the actors and script, as it is the reality TV’s star’s over a decade of experience.
So as a found footage fan I dug Devon and I definitely appreciate a good found footage film more than most. I think that’s why we have so many terrible films in the sub-genre and so few film’s that actually work, because it’s not simply cheap shaky cam and a creepy premise. You need to have some good lore and engaging characters, or you’re not invested in their journey, like here. Now I will admit here, part of the fun is watching bad things happen to these folks, I think that’s part of the point, and some bit of wish fulfillment on the director’s side. But that personal connection is what makes Devon a solid watch and definitely will have me interested in what the director tackles next.
-
Out of the Vault: SQUANTO: A WARRIOR’S TALE
The Walt Disney Company has an odd history. Initially it was one of the main pillars of Golden Hollywood, but was always associated with making mostly glossy family fare, nature documentaries and fairly disposable programmers. Over time it grew in reputation, mostly as Walt himself became a television mainstay and the popularity of its massive, industry-defining theme park, Disneyland. But after the death of the founder of the company, Disney as a studio found themself in a bit of wilderness period, putting out increasingly idiosyncratic fare both in animation and live-action, and creating a strange hodge-podge of material that would over time become junkier and junkier.
That is until the late 1980s and into the 1990s, when Disney reclaimed the top shelf role in the world of family entertainment, putting out a string of animated and even live-action films that defined the childhood of a whole Millennial generation (myself included). Often known as the Disney renaissance, this fizzled out around the end of the 1990s, leading to another shorter wilderness period until the rise of Pixar, the domination of revitalized Walt Disney Animation Studios and finally the rise of Marvel Films and purchase of the Star Wars franchise led to Disney being the central hub of profitable Hollywood production.
And now they seem to have found themselves in a bit of a wilderness again. Yes, they have two of the most profitable film of the year most likely to their name, but that was after a series of failed re-imaginings and half-starts on new directions, the long term health of Marvel and Star Wars is in serious question.But that’s not what I’m interested in exploring. Because say what else you will about Disney, one thing that has always been true is that Disney has never been want for content to be consumed. They have a regular stream of new movies, TV series and other pieces of media to be consumed. Unlike any other company, Disney has defined itself an identity that exists somewhat outside of framework of just movie culture. There are people who consider themselves “Disney geeks,” with all the broadness that entails. But even for those folks, there are plenty of cultural dead ends that are worth exploring.
That is where Out of the Vault comes in. As an experiment, it is a series of articles that will look at the forgotten cul-de-sacs of Disney lore, the films that are lurking deep in the spaces of Disney+ that most dare not explore. That isn’t to say they are the worst of Disney’s output; there are plenty of rotten Disney movies that are well and in some cases even fondly remembered. Instead, it is a monument to the sheer breadth of Disney output, and films that people put blood, sweat and tears into that became pop cultural phantoms.
For example, our first dipping of our toes into these waters: Squanto: A Warrior’s Tale. Released in 1995, a full year before Disney Animated Pictures’ Pocahontas, Squanto is an odd relic of a film, a historical action-adventure that is kid-friendly in the sense that it is not especially bloody in its violence, but it’s themes and content are greatly upsetting. Telling a highly mythologized version of the story of the actual historical figure of Tisquantum, more commonly known as Squanto, the film is deeply steeped in 1990s revisionism of the American story. The film presents an unambiguously critical view of the role of European colonialism into the “New World,” but also pulls back some of its potential biggest punches in a message of unity and peace. The film is definitely a product of its time, but one that surprises as a product of one of the most historically politically conservative companies in Hollywood.
Squanto centers on the titular member of the Patuxet, who is kidnapped into slavery by English traders who come to what would become modern-day Plymouth. After he is taken to Europe, Squanto has a series of adventures with the clear-eyed mission of returning home, which includes fighting a bear, learning English from a group of Franciscan monks including Mandy Patinkin, and eventually sneaking onto a ship to come back home. Upon returning home, he discovers his whole tribe has been killed by disease spread by Europeans, and now must build a new life for himself, striving for peace and understanding between the peoples on either side of the Atlantic.
This is more or less the whole scope of the movie. (Sorry for spoilers for a 30-year-old film that you likely have never heard of.) But nothing in the film is especially surprising, other than it’s very menacing view European expansion into the Americas and the impact it had on indigenous cultures there. For being made in 1994, the film is very clear-eyed, if cartoonishly so, about the motivations of European interference into the New World. They are shown to be greedy and almost outlandishly dismissive about the humanity of its natives. Michael Gambon plays Sir George, an actual English trade baron, who gives his best scenery chewing performance playing his greed and racism to the rafters. Really any of the British aristocracy who are played for villains are at this pitch, which is in stark contrast to the more reserved aspects of the film.
At the center of the film is Adam Beach, an actual first nation’s actor who, while not a riveting screen presence, handles the burden of being at the center of a historical action film for families with a certain degree of calm. In fact, most of the indigenous characters are played by actual indigenous actors, a pleasantly surprising discovery, but an example of the filmmakers trying to “do right” by the material. Eric Schweig as Ebenow, a fellow captive from a rival native tribe, is especially impressive, as he has to carry the crux of the film’s anger.
That is because as the hero Squanto ultimately does have to have the very safe moral position of violence of all stripes is unjustified, even after the English traders return to the Americas. This softens Squanto’s agency somewhat, and it also glosses over quickly Squanto’s role in brokering the first Thanksgiving, his primary claim to fame.The movie was directed by Xavier Koller, a Swedish filmmaker whose previous work had been the Oscar-winning film Journey of Hope. You can definitely feel the movements of a director attempting to transition from their home country to America, with long shots of beautiful countrysides outshining the more pedestrian action sequences. The film is clearly attempting to draft off various contemporary action hits, most recognizably Last of the Mohicans and to a lesser degree Prince of Thieves, but sanding some of the nastier edges off of those.
Still, it is surprising to see a film that deals with the oft forgotten history of chattel slavery of Native Americans in England, as well as the overall devastation of these initial contacts, especially in from mid-90s Disney. The film pulls some of its punches in its final act, but as an overall artifact of mid-tier entertainment it is effective enough. It sidesteps the biggest landmines of the subject matter, and has more teeth than Pocahontas certainly. But it is also easy to see why it is ultimately a side note in the larger history of the company. Too serious to be fully engaging as children’s entertainment, but not quite mean or brave enough to go as far as it needs to with its subject matter. It feels like a movie that was created to be shown in 8th grade history classes. -
GLADIATOR II: Strength and Honor…and Not Much Else
Ridley Scott’s legasequel can’t escape the shadow of his previous Oscar-winning Epic
Stills courtesy of Paramount Pictures. The Roman Empire is crumbling in Gladiator II, Ridley Scott’s follow-up to his Best Picture-winning epic. Ruled by the unstable twin emperors Geta (Joseph Quinn) and Caracalla (Fred Hechinger), the Empire continues its brutal conquests while neglecting its captive citizens. Exiled from Rome for his safety after the events of the first Gladiator, Lucius (Paul Mescal) lives under a new identity as Hanu, a farmer-soldier in the last free city in Roman-controlled African Numidia. However, a brutal battle for Numidia’s freedom binds Lucius to General Acacius (Pedro Pascal) when Acacius kills Lucius’ wife, triggering a quest for vengeance.
Enslaved and shipped to Europe, Lucius rises in the gladiatorial ranks under the watchful eye of the sly trader Macrinus (Denzel Washington). Revenge against Acacius remains Lucius’ goal, but an unexpected reunion with his estranged mother, Lucilla (Connie Nielsen), who is also Acacius’ wife, ignites a tragic standoff between these complex characters, each manipulated by the scheming Macrinus in a battle for Rome’s fate.
Much like how the actions of Russell Crowe’s Maximus loom over those trapped in the Colosseum, one can’t make their way through much of Gladiator II without encountering strong narrative echoes of Ridley Scott’s previous film. Napoleon scribe David Scarpa (from a story with Peter Craig) borrows heavily from the first film’s story structure, combining hidden identities, journeys for vengeance, and battles for public opinion settled with the swords and sandals of the arena. Plenty of films like Star Wars: The Force Awakens or Top Gun: Maverick certainly own their status as a legasequel, intentionally mirroring their first films’ structures to critique and elevate themselves beyond their status as mere cultural cash grabs. In this modern world of pop culture cannibalization and crumbling political empires, it’s completely understandable why there’s potential in revisiting an IP like Gladiator. But while Gladiator II incorporates fresh technical achievements and larger-scale action, its formal reverence for the first film comes off as more rehash than reinvigoration, echoing its beats and tropes without reaching a similar emotional payoff.
Some of Gladiator II’s familiarity also feels by design, an attempt to revisit the potential of the first with modern resources and creative cache. In recent years, Ridley Scott has been increasingly defined by his pragmatism as a director. His run-and-gun shooting style honed in the commercial world has grown to embrace the time-saving qualities of sweeping multi-camera coverage and digital media, an aesthetic whose possibilities arguably peaked with All the Money in the World’s staggering swap of Kevin Spacey for Christopher Plummer in eight days less than a month before the film’s premiere. As such, the Ridley Scott of today can realize sequences and ideas from Gladiator that weren’t possible a quarter-decade ago. Scott devotees will surely be delighted by the appearance of a Rhino-based fight scene, left incomplete despite initial work by VFX legend Phil Tippett, and a standout sequence brings to life the Colosseum’s naumachia staged water battles with a stunning blend of on-set work and modern CGI wizardry. As such, we can see Gladiator II as less of a sequel than another crack at the first film’s material, with its individual and structural callbacks to Gladiator as reflections of its director’s evolved technical and philosophical worldviews. Yet despite these innovations, the film feels less like a forward-thinking sequel and more like a new attempt at the same story with amplified spectacle.
Among the film’s strengths, its tragic core—the crisis between Lucius, Acacius, and Lucilla—is its most compelling, its Shakespearean gravitas made even more so by the scheming Macrinus. The broken, bitter charm Paul Mescal has cultivated in work like All of Us Strangers and Aftersun effectively fuels Lucius’ anger, while Nielsen’s more even-handed pull between her son and lover against her role as an exiled ruler of Rome grants Lucilla a nuance and range lacking in the original film. Pedro Pascal, however, feels constrained by Acacius’ one-note stoicism and weariness, reducing his impact against the more richly layered performances around him. Though not for lack of trying–Pascal’s Acacius knows all too well that he’s a cog in a failing machine, though this compelling aspect of the General is just as frustratingly underdeveloped in the film.
The standout, though, is Denzel Washington. Macrinus’ sinister charm effectively reflects Rome’s decaying ideals, marrying the gravitas of his recent Macbeth with the cruel showmanship of American Gangster’s Frank Lucas. He wines and dines Rome’s elite, immediately dropping the mask when Macrinus must brandish a dagger or evil grin–often accompanied by line readings that make a meal out of Scarpa’s dialogue.
But while the film’s grandiose action and initially intriguing character dynamics flexes Scott’s legendary chops as a director, Gladiator II’s commitment to expanding the scope and depth of its predecessor’s themes dilutes its emotional impact more often than not. While Quinn and Hechinger’s wonderfully unhinged twin Emperors bring a Caligula-level camp to the film’s self-seriousness, they mostly serve as attempts to humanize Acacius’ earlier actions on the battlefield. Coupled with Macrinus’ double-crossing schemes, the constant mitigation of Lucius and Acacius’ dynamic only spins Gladiator II into convoluted rather than complex emotional territory. Meanwhile, the film’s returning subplot of Rome’s transformation into a republic lacks focus, with Lucilla’s covert schemes largely amounting to redundant scenes of furtive cloaked wandering.
Finally, the film’s examination of Maximus’ legacy allows Scott and company to explore Gladiator’s impact in full legasequel fashion. Mescal’s indecisive rage works well as this aspect starts to rear its head, and it asks compelling questions about mythmaking and identity. Despite the emphasis in the film’s marketing, however, Lucius’ reckoning of his relationship with Maximus amounts to little more than thinly veiled callbacks and iconography, another device among the film’s overstuffed arsenal of ideas. What’s more, it threatens to rob one of Gladiator’s more ambiguous aspects of its overall emotional heft.
Scott has proven that he can revisit and evolve upon his previous work with an earned, mature wryness–look to how Prometheus and Alien: Covenant imbue Alien’s sci-fi horror with daunting cosmic fatalism, or how The Last Duel bitingly further deconstructs The Duellist’s action-driven male egoism. To his credit, Scott seems in on Gladiator II’s self-reflexivity from frame one as an opening sequence renders the title as GLADIIATOR, seemingly calling back to James Cameron’s infamous pitch for another Scott sequel. However, Gladiator II’s overload of characters and subplots undercuts rather than augments its potential, and only matches the onscreen fall of the Roman Empire in terms of chaotic, bloated excess. So many ideas are cast away as quickly as they’re introduced, making it difficult to find what Scott and Scarpa find so compelling about revisiting this material. Much like Christopher Nolan’s similarly disappointing The Dark Knight Rises, Gladiator II tries to top its predecessor in terms of themes, antagonists, and scale, but confuses narrative sprawl for complexity. As a result, each of Gladiator II‘s half-realized, individually-promising ideas sacrifice the narrative focus and emotional resonance that made the original so powerful. Much like the longer cut of Kingdom of Heaven, there’s a version of Gladiator II in one’s mind that manages to balance intimate family drama, wide-scope geopolitics, gruesome revenge sagas, and shrewd power grabs; however, what makes it to the screen doesn’t inspire hope that this could exist on the cutting-room floor.
The technical prowess, fastidious attention to random cool historical facts, and unmatched curiosity 86-year-old Ridley Scott brings to his craft are more evident than ever here. Gladiator II’s ensemble does its best to match Scott’s all-in energy, especially as Denzel Washington relishes every frame he occupies on screen. For all of its strengths, though, Gladiator II feels more like a series of expected set pieces than a coherent, emotionally satisfying epic, where even the central revenge arc lacks the gravitas that made Gladiator unforgettable.
If “what we do in life echoes in Eternity,” as echoed in both Gladiators, it pains me to say that Ridley Scott’s long-awaited return to Ancient Rome adds up to little more than another sentiment from the original:
“Shadows and dust.”
Gladiator II opens in theaters on November 22nd courtesy of Paramount Pictures.
-
HERETIC is a Terrifyingly Masterful Deconstruction of Monotheism
I know as a horror fan, we’re all supposed to cringe when a critic proposes a genre film to be some kind of “elevated horror”, but I think Heretic is the rare example where it’s not only apt, but the closest you can come to describing the taut and densely layered psychological thriller. The latest effort both written and directed by Scott Beck and Bryan Woods who also helmed A Quiet Place, presents itself to the unsuspecting viewer as a simply a horror movie, but it’s actually a rather dense deconstruction of religion as it utilizes its plot of two trapped missionaries to work through various theological concepts and conundrums. There’s no easy way around this since the film is dealing with some rather delicate subject matter, as the film is intent on challenging the viewer’s faith and intellect in ways I honestly could have never expected.
The film itself is the story of two young, bright eyed female Mormon missionaries who are still settling in their faiths and figuring out life, Sister Barnes (Sophie Thatcher) and Sister Paxton (Chloe East). They are summoned to the home of Mr. Reed (Hugh Grant) who put in for a visit from the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter Day Saints, and that is where our story takes its fateful turn. While extolling the virtues of the doctrines of Joseph Smith, the two women soon realize that not only does Mr. Reed probably know more about their own religion than they do, the polite discussion turns into something much more sinister, as he begins to weaponize his knowledge against them. When the parties are fully unmasked, the film completely shifts into a fight for survival for the pair who are also set to endure a series of lessons meant to test their faith.
I assume the use of Mormonism in the film is because if they utilized another religion, this script and film for that matter would have never seen the light of day.
While the aforementioned script and concept alone are solid, it’s Hugh Grant who makes this film as great as it is. He starts the film in his typical charming personae that you’d expect, but there’s something sinister that slowly works its way to the front of his performance, where he’s as completely unhinged. This journey however is peppered with flourishes of diatribes on religion and pop culture that dig into some very precious topics thanks to a script that builds the tension with an unnerving and razor sharp precision. It’s how Mr Reed delivers these “sermons” to his captives, bouncing between menacing and mansplaining in a way that is equally terrifying as it is insightful at his grasp and command of the subject matter. It’s a needle that’s flawlessly threaded throughout the runtime as in a performance that fascinated me as much it horrified me.
The film is flawlessly executed once the ball gets metaphorically rolling as the film toys with both expectation and intention throughout its runtime. There’s character subtext, religious subtext and this is all elevated even further once we start talking about Mr. Reed’s house, something that evoked Ready or Not for me, in how the locations, surroundings and production design play as big of a part in this “game” as the characters. All of this begs after the credits roll for the viewer to ponder what they just witnessed with a fine tooth comb, to glean any further easter eggs or hints tucked away in the film. It’s something I wasn’t ready for just how hard this film can hit anyone with any kind of faith in its journey and because of that I can’t recommend enough to anyone that might fall in that demographic.
-
Austin Film Festival 2024: PARTY PEOPLE
Party People sits in the same Austin-centric slice of cinema as Dazed and Confused as well as newer features like The Get Together. As the title implies, it’s also firmly ensconced in the genre of college kids trying to have a good time while growing up. It acquits itself well in both regards.
Director Joey LePage and writer (and spouse) Lindsey Robertson have created what looks like a comedy, and even has a few laughs, but absolutely has the bones of a more serious film. The dozen or so main characters in this ensemble piece are all grappling with the important, unimportant issues that belie the ages of 18-22.
Ostensibly, every character is trying to get to “the first big party of the year.” Or they just want the music turned down.
There’s a set of bros (Liam Booth, Gustavo Gomez, Joshua Edwards) who just can’t wait to get to the big shindig, but somehow get distracted by their RA (Vincent Acevedo Jr.). With a planned breakup on the horizon for one of the crew, maybe the urgency just isn’t there.
Two best friends (Anastasia Zavitsanos, Ola Mbonu) spend the night like two people waiting for Godot, but in this case, it’s looking for a parking space. With one at the “big school” and the other having smaller ambitions, it becomes clear how easy it is to grow apart after high school.
The sweetest short film within this film is a pair of mismatched neighbors (Matthew Daddario, Missy Malek) who seem to want to fall for each other, but are also cynical and just a little tired.
The funniest performance by far comes from George Basil, a gas-station attendant who has plenty of life advice and some questionable directions to the party for a pair of unlikely roommates (Trevor Peterson, Elisha Henig).
Austinites will really enjoy Party People for all of its locations and references. Who’d have ever thought Wheatsville Co-op would play a role in any movie? Dale Watson as a gruff barkeep is gold. Southwest University stands in well for the local state college.
Party People hits above its weight class in terms of both acting and story. College movies are often silly, and while there are some lightweight moments here and there, this is a film trying to capture the angst and confusion of this fraught time in the lives of young people. The people definitely want to party, but that’s just the beginning.
-
WE LIVE IN TIME Wants to Make You Cry
Last week I went to catch John Crowley’s We Live in Time. It was me and one other person seated far enough away from me that it felt like I had the screening to myself. I wonder if that other person felt the same way. I thought it was a perfect setup for a movie like We Live in TIme, a nakedly emotional affair engineered to reduce viewers to weepy messes. I’ve never been great about letting myself get emotional out in public, so this was a great opportunity to let my guard down, feel my feelings and go with the movie.
Then a curious thing happened. I walked out of the movie more frustrated than anything else. I’ve spent the better part of a week sorting out why the movie only worked for me in fits and starts.
We Live in TIme is about the relationship between Tobias (Andrew Garfield) and Almut (Florence Pugh). The device that drives the plot is Almut’s ovarian cancer and her bleak prognosis. Right off the bat we learn that Almut would rather live out her remaining time as best she can rather than endure more chemotherapy and other treatments that will only delay the inevitable. We’re primed from the start that this story isn’t going to have a happy ending.
Nick Payne’s script chops up the timeline of their relationship so that we’re constantly moving back and forth through Almut and Tobias’ relationship. That includes a whimsical, cartoonish meet-cute and charts their courtship and blossoming love. With actors as talented as Pugh and Garfield, it’s easy to fall under the spell of their chemistry. When the movie is really working it’s striking that perfect balance between a universal experience (falling in love) and a singular one (these two specific people falling in love). I keep coming back to the scenes where we see Tobias and Almut nervously expressing (or failing to express) their feelings for each other and being on the same page. It’s the clumsiness and excitement of love, that willingness to put yourself out there because the reward of what’s to come is too great to pass up. Compare that to scenes from later in their relationship where that clumsiness comes up again. Only now the excitement is replaced with dread of what’s to come. This is the film at its most emotionally honest and relatable.
For all the film’s attempts to tug at the heartstrings, the only moment that really got me is the scene where Almut gives birth in a gas station after her and Tobias get caught in a traffic jam on their way to the hospital. I watched the movie on my son’s 9th birthday, so I was already in a reflective mood. But Crowley got from me what he’s been chasing the whole time. But, that was the only time. The problem, for me, is that the movie’s attempts to heighten the story, to make it more of a movie, bring in just enough artifice that I felt like I was being kept at arm’s distance rather than enveloped for a hug.
In its quest to be an emotional wrecking ball, We Live In Time comes off manipulative in the wrong way. Crowley and Payne guide the audience toward every emotion rather than leaving enough room for viewers to get there on their own. That’s the note the film ends on and it’s one of the scenes I’ve come back to the most. I’ll be vague with the details. We know how this story ends from the start, specifically Almut’s fate. When the time comes for that scene Crowley and Payne go for artsy, metaphorical imagery that feels too saccharine for the moment. The movie is at its best when it’s being direct, but in this last moment it goes for something that robs the story of its weight. It comes across as the movie pulling the punch its been setting up for two hours. That’s such a nebulous distinction and nearly impossible to quantify. I’ve talked to friends who were completely transfixed by the movie and under its spell from beginning to end. I can see it. That’s the experience I wanted to have.
-
Protect Women, Now More than Ever: BLINK TWICE in the Second Trump Era [Review/Editorial]
![Protect Women, Now More than Ever: BLINK TWICE in the Second Trump Era [Review/Editorial]](https://i0.wp.com/cinapse.co/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/blinktwicetrailerfeat.jpg?resize=1140%2C641&ssl=1)
Out now on Blu-ray, BLINK TWICE is one of 2024’s best and one with an important message in the wake of national tragedy
As approximately half of the US is doing today, I am trying to wrap my mind around how the country was able to look past sexual assault, sedition, misuse of campaign funds, racist remarks, regular ableist behavior, a laundry list of misogyny in public and private affairs, and so on and so on. The second election of Donald Trump is a frightening time for our friends and family of all colors, creeds, sexual orientations, and religions – some more than others. Yet, with movies like this 2024 standout fresh in my mind, it’s actually pretty simple to understand why this happened… again: America hates women.
I saw a meme today that read, “The only thing Americans hate more than a rapist is a woman” – and, damn, did it ring truer than ever! With people in the Trump camp who have literally advocated for the removal of women’s rights to vote, it’s the only explanation. When men in the 80s insinuated that women couldn’t run the country because of their irrationality during their periods, not one batted an eye. One may have assumed this type of belief is antiquated, but alas… we’re standing right here… again.
Perhaps, forgetting is a gift.
As the nation collectively forgets history and practices an “ignorance is bliss” approach, the importance of art that focuses on gaslighting women, practicing misogyny, and mistreating people with less power only grows. One of the subgenres that has always dealt with sexism and misogyny head one has been the rape/revenge film. With films like I Spit on Your Grave and Last House of the Left making statements decades ago, we’ve has the chance to watch some badass heroines kick the asses of sexual predators, bigots, and assholes for some time now. With strong themes and messages, these films are often not for the faint of heart, but there’s a need for them and there’s a need for films like these to grow with the times.
Enter Blink Twice, the debut directorial feature from Zoë Kravitz. Releasing without a ton of fanfare, this one caught many – myself included – by surprise. With the help of ET Feigenbaum, Kravitz penned an incredible script that looks at power dynamics, the immunity of the wealthy, and the way women are gaslit and mistreated by our society. With a stellar cast and Kravitz behind the camera, we’re treated to a film that grabs you early and twists over and over until it really starts to play with your mind.
What begins as a too-good-to-be-true vacation in paradise, turns dark pretty quickly. Cocktail waitresses Frida (Naomi Ackie) and Jess (Alia Shawkat) join tech billionaire Slater King (Channing Tatum) on his private island with a few of his buddies. Fat blunts, tropical cocktails, and skimpy bikinis during the day… psychedelics, fancy dinners, and dancing at night… but there’s something more nefarious going on.
What begins to unravel is truly heinous, but with some help from a multi-time winner on a Survivor type TV show focused on bikini babes practicing survival skills Sarah (Adria Arjona), Frida hatches a plan to escape. And, like any good revenge film, Slater and his cronies get theirs. However, the film accomplishes telling its story differently than the aforementioned classics. Much of the storytelling here hinges on a perfume made from a rare flower that invades memories and makes people forget, but this flower is mostly a vehicle for the allegory that Blink Twice is interested in telling us.
Not only do we experience gaslighting from the men in this story, but – initially – the women gaslight each other too. While the women are doing so unbeknownst to each other, theres a commentary here about how women can be so indoctrinated in the misogyny of our society that they can further harm each other – much like how police of color are still instruments of institutional racism. Women can be instruments of institutional sexism and not even know it. In the film, there’s a chemical component to their brainwashing, of course; however, in society, we are indoctrinated and groomed by our media, our churches, our leaders, and our upbringing.
With each viewing, the power of this story on trauma, abuse, and the dangers of institutional sexism and misogyny gets more and more potent. And, as America rejects the more qualified candidate in favor or a convicted felon, it’s hard to deny the truth in this art.
Before I wrap up the discussion on this future rape/revenge classic, I can’t ignore the irony in the fact that much of the film’s plot revolves around brainwashing, a topic that also feels extremely important to highlight a day after this monstrous election. With a campaign that began utilizing modernized versions of the same propaganda tactics of the Third Reich way back in 2015 (or even before, to be honest) – the brainwashing aspects of this film feel all the more potent. While the film really seems to be using this as an allegory for society’s gaslighting of women – as discussed above – there a certain tragic poetry in knowing that brainwashing is alive and well in this world, even if not exactly how the film portrays it.
Whether you love this film or hate it, there’s power and truth in it. For me, it’s likely to go down as a true classic in this subgenre. For others, it may not be. However, I leave here asking everyone who’s reading this to protect women from what may follow – do what you can to not let the women and girls in your life be silenced in this forthcoming era… believe women, protect rights for future generations, fight misogyny, listen to the voices of the marginalized. Support one another because there are more trials to come.
Blink Twice is out now on Blu-ray, DVD, and all major VOD platforms.
