Looking at Bates Motel - Thoughts From a Purist

I was a teenager when I first saw Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 horror film, Psycho.  It was the third Hitchcock film I had seen, behind The Birds and North By Northwest.  While I was really engaged with those two films and enjoyed them immensely, it was my experience with the Norman Bates classic that left a mark.

It wasn't just that I thought it was a phenomenal movie, it was a revelation to me in story telling as a whole.  It thew convention out the window.  The leading lady, the person who the camera fixates on and who the story revolves around, is killed off deep into the movie.  Hitchcock shows the audience that he is willing to rip out from under us the things which he portrayed as the most important.  By doing this, nobody in the film is safe.  If he will spend that much time and energy investing in someone who gets killed off, then not another single character in the movie is indispensable.  It was a brilliant move by Hitchcock, and it showed me that there really are no rules to story telling.  You can do absolutely anything you want.  It doesn't mean that it will lead to a good story, but it can create an experience that catches the audience off guard and leads them down a path which they have never before travelled.

This is what made Psycho a groundbreaking film for me.  On top of its lessons in story telling, it was a compelling movie that was driven by powerful performances by Janet Leigh (whose daughter would do on to star in classic horror film Halloween) as Marion Crane, and Anthony Perkins in an eternally haunting portrayal of Norman Bates.  The casting of these two characters was a thing of brilliance, and it pays off in my favourite scene in the film with the two leads having an interesting conversation while surrounded by the hollow eyes of dead, taxidermied animals, birds of prey looming over Norman.  The directing in that scene is a work of art, topped of by the foreshadowing comment from Bates that "we all go a little mad sometimes."

My love for this movie is what kept me from seeing the Gus Van Sant remake for twenty years.  I finally watched it, and my verdict is that it was pointless.  It may have been judged as art by Van Sant, but its shot for shot nature was just mere imitation.  I like it when amazing movies stay as stand alone films and resist the urge to turn into a franchise.  The subsequent movies have a chance to cheapen the majesty of the original.  With a film like Psycho, I felt there should have been nothing to follow after it, and most certainly nothing to be set before it.

The Star Wars prequels seemed to spark this idea that properties could be mined in new ways, with many prequels and origin stories popping up in the years afterwards.  I wasn't surprised when I heard that there was going to be a television show, Bates Motel, about the Bates family set before the incidents in the first movie.  I decided that I would never have anything to do with it, but curiosity killed the cat.  Vera Farmiga, an exceptionally talented actress, was cast as mother Norma Bates.  Freddie Highmore, who I got to know through The Good Doctor (a show that I'm not really into, but I enjoy Highmore's skills), was cast as a teenage Norman.  Time to give it a whirl, I thought.

I need to eat my words and admit that, in this case, an origin story worked.  Highmore has an appearance that works with Perkins and sets up a believable younger version of Bates.  He is shy and naive, but there is something that Highmore is able to say through his eyes that indicates that we may not quite know what is happening in Norman's head.  His mother, Norma, is a truly complex and complicated character.  Farmiga, an Oscar nominated talent, is able to hit all of the many sides and intonations of Norma.  It is a pure joy to see her, delivering a character that is absolutely unpredictable.  The supporting cast of Max Thieriot, Olivia Cooke, and Nestor Carbonell create a rich and deep viewing experience.

The location is perfection as well.  The iconic house set behind the motel on a hill was chilling to see.  The first shot of Norma and her teenage son Norman entering the house is set up the stairs, a shot that calls back to the killing of private investigator Arbogast from the movie.  Nothing in the visuals is delivered bluntly, but in ways that fans of the film will be sure to appreciate.

The story develops in interesting ways, and the real tale to be told here is the relationship between mother and son.  They are bound to each other, explosive with each other, and obsessed with each other.  Norma's maternal manipulation starts subtly, and grows as the story progresses.  As the episodes pass by, Highmore's performance more and more mimics the Bates that we know.

An interesting move in the show is that it is not a period piece.  I quite liked that.  Why feel the need to have to fit perfectly in with what was established prior?  I like when people take licence with properties and use the base idea as inspiration.  It is exactly why I disliked the Van Sant version.  With the story happening in the present time, it allows for an updated character that is more an interpretation than a duplication.

The creators of the show also took liberty with where it takes place.  Instead of a small town in California, it takes place in the fictional White Pine Bay in Oregon.  The town is given its own unique nature, which at first feels like a Steven King style of small town.  However, as the shows move on, the mystery no longer carries any weight and felt to me as though it was unneeded.  It was as though there wasn't complete faith in Norma and Norman carrying the story.  The stories of the town add definite entertainment, but I think it dilutes the power of the actions of the mother and son.  It leads to some things feeling a little over the top at times.

With that criticism aside, this is a surprisingly good affair.  The development of the characters is dark yet delightful, and it is done in a way that I do not think will offend purists.  Highmore is unnervingly placid at times, and a raging animal at others, often with not much separating the two states.  Farmiga got an Emmy nomination for her efforts, and it is easy to see why.  Our possible idea of what Norma Bates would be like from the movie Psycho is not what we are given, but Farmiga shows shades of what will happen to the relationship.  Bates Motel offers up a well built story that hangs splendidly on the talents of its cast.

Will Avengers:Infinity War Break Records?

Heading into this weekend in cinemas, all eyes are on the behemoth that is The Avengers: Infinity War.  This will easily be the most ambitious Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) ever, and, I would suggest, is actually the most ambitious movie ever.  There are obviously movies that may have been deeply ambitious as far as filming style, such as the eleven year filming period of Boyhood or the one shot feel of Victoria.  The ambition in Infinity War is in the scope of characters and intersecting story lines.  A lot of films seem to have trouble balancing the story of a single protagonist, how much harder is it going to be for something as jam-packed as this film?

A few weeks ago, I scoffed at the idea of Infinity War setting the record for biggest domestic opening, currently held by The Force Awakens at $247.9 million.  The anticipation around The Force Awakens was greater than anything I had ever experienced, dwarfing the buzz that existed for The Phantom Menace.  People had not only gone a while without a Star Wars film, but had been put off by how poorly the prequel trilogy held up over time.  The trailers for The Force Awakens seemed to indicate that the film would capture the feeling of adventure that first hit theatres in 1977.  The movie was a juggernaut and set a new example of the power of marketing and branding.  Would another team up for The Avengers, the fourth time if we count Captain America: Civil War, do better than when the original novelty of the team up happened in 2012?

It would have been easy to say that no, it wouldn't do as well as the first film.  It is extremely difficult for properties to improve upon previous efforts, especially when the first was an event film of which had not been seen before.  What Infinity War needs for its success is to feel different and unique, to be something that commands people see it in theatres opening weekend if they want to be a part of the pop culture phenomenon and be a part of the conversation.

I would say that Disney has been able to do such a thing.  Even though the second Avengers movie lost ground domestically when compared to the first one, Infinity War is a whole different ball game.  Yes, The Avengers was huge, but Infinity War is the culmination of ten years and eighteen films.  The villain, Thanos, has been built and teased over the years.  The marketing has been a work of art, and the decision to bump the film up a week in the release schedule was a stunt that I believe helped increase the buzz and toss a new dynamic around the dialogue.

It would be so easy after eighteen movies for this to just feel like another film, but that's not Disney's game.  Just look at the past four Marvel movies, Guardians of the Galaxy 2, Spider-Man: Homecoming, Thor: Ragnarok, and Black Panther.  Each had a marketing campaign that created a sense that these were movies that were unique and had their own personality.  They weren't just four movies in the same franchise.  Each had a reason for being and seemed like they could stand on their own merits.  Disney over the past year has shown why it is the royalty of the shared universe.  The films are distinct and aren't forced to sell the next instalment.

This isn't a universe that needs to have an overarching grey and grim feel to it, it is a universe where films have their own style.  What I am getting at here, is that Thor: Ragnarok's Led Zeppelin infused nature is able to attract people who may not be down with the web-slinger.  The individuality of the eighteen previous films would have each reached different fan bases, and the marketing of Infinity War seems to insist that everyone has key parts in the story.  This film could be able to get a reach into audiences that no film before it has been able to.

We could look at different metrics, like the massive ticket pre-sales, or the insane activity on Twitter, but I don't believe that's needed.  Disney has been a frontrunner in marketing for a long time now.  What they have presented to the public is that yes, a team up has happened before, but never this big, and never with these consequences.  Forget what you have seen in the past, this is going to take us where we have never gone.  And yes, T'Challa is prominent, at least in the marketing.  The success of Black Panther has turned into an ace up the sleeve of Disney.  Black Panther's steamrolling of the box-office has added a lot of momentum.  While next weekend will be an insight into the staying power of a movie that is essentially the first part of a two movie series, this weekend could be about smashing records.  It may not get the biggest opening weekend in history, but it is safe to say that come Monday Disney will hold nine of the top ten openings of all time.

REVIEW: The Killing of a Sacred Deer

It is nice having storylines in films that we can scrutinize and bite into until we can figure out exactly how things happen and came to be.  But is that really needed?  Can we have a  movie that simply puts something out there and doesn't explain at all how it is even remotely possible?  I would say, yes, absolutely.  Why do we need to understand everything?  Can't a story be considered good even though it intentionally includes unexplainable elements?

In the film, The Killing of a Sacred Deer, director Yorgos Lanthimos instantly establishes that this movie is set in a reality where people talk incredibly monotone and matter-of-factly about everything.  From careers, to puberty, to their quite odd sexual behaviour and stories.  The characters are willing to talk about anything and everything, and they do so as though nothing is a big deal at all.  It does take a while to get used to this.  It created some extremely awkward moments for me, but, ultimately, I enjoyed it.  It was something that was distinct to this film, and it was alright once I got used to it.

As best as I can guess, the purpose of this was to bring people into the world of Martin (Barry Keoghan).  He is a sixteen year old who meets up regularly with a cardiologist, Steven Murphy (Colin Farrell). Martin is an extremely socially awkward character, and his interactions with Steven really show this. What is nice about this film is that there is no judgement on Martin, as Steven and his family treat Martin with care and respect.  The relationship ends up evolving in some dark ways as Lanthimos unveils more about Martin.  Ultimately Martin exerts power over the Murphy family in a way that needs people to just accept the story in the reality in which it is set.  Thinking about it won't help anything.  Just take it for what it is.

There are some tricks employed by Lanthimos that I must admit that I didn't get.  There is twice (unless I missed one) where characters repeat the same word three times.  The first time it happened I didn't put much thought into it, but then couldn't help but notice it in a much more apparent way.  My best guess is that the number three was being used to highlight a decision that Steven had to make, but I am not quite sure I am right about that.  I image that other people would come up with their own interpretations.  Whatever the reason, I'm not sure that it was completely needed.

Leading the cast of actors is the performance by young Barry Keoghan.  His portrayal of Martin is interesting, purposefully irritating, and cryptic.  It is a stand out job, leading the feeling that the whole film is a little off kilter and that everything is awkward, off beat, and a little socially inept.  Farrell does a wonderful job in here as a man who sees his family in trouble and doesn't quite know how to act.  Nicole Kidman plays his wife, Anna, and she carries some of the same traits.

Following the peculiar flow and story of the film is the score.  It does a solid job of instilling the awkward and off kilter reality and story that is created.  There are times, however, when I felt that it was a little too abrasive and did not fit naturally.  It was as though at these points in time the music was trying to carry the heft of the tale, and it didn't sit as well as when the score was merely complimenting what was happening.

This movie would best be categorized as a thriller, but I don't really think it would fit into many moulds easily.  Lanthimos made 2016's The Lobster (also starring Farrell), which carries a reputation for being offbeat as well.  The world that he creates in The Killing of a Sacred Deer is an interesting one, and the nature of some of the conversations does keep the viewer off guard.  Ultimately, I am not sure just how much it was needed.  I am debating over whether it ended up helping or hindering the affects of the story, and I don't know where to land.  That doesn't seem to matter, though.  Through its flaws it is a very unique movie that is capable of leaving an impression on the viewer.

Rating - 3 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Day of the Dead: Bloodline

For the backbone franchise of the zombie genre, George Romero's '_____ of the Dead' series wrapped up in 1985 with Day of the Dead as far as I am concerned.  It was the third official movie, although there were a few films that confused audiences into believing they were canon, such as Lucio Fulci's Zombi 2 and Dan O'Bannon's Return of the Living Dead.  Day of the Dead was the weakest of the three films, but was still entertaining enough.  The films that followed in such forms as Land of the Dead and Diary of the Dead gave proof that even though Romero essentially created what we know as the zombie genre he was still quite capable of making poor movies.  With a Night of the Living Dead remake in 1990 that was entirely pointless, as well as remakes of Dawn of the Dead (2004) and Day of the Dead (2008) I found that almost all goodwill for this series was gone.  The only good zombie film from this franchise since 1985 was unexpectedly the Dawn of the Dead remake.  It had some standard silly issues at times, but overall it was a surprising amount of fun.

So, a lot has happened in this franchise since its inception.  Do we really need another run at it?  I'm beginning to feel as though this property has the same redundant legs as Texas Chainsaw or Amityville.  Apparently we do, as director Hector Hernandez Vicens takes us once again to the military base setting of Day of the Dead.  We have humanity cornered down to an existence behind chain link fencing while zombies inhabit the land around them.  The base's young doctor, Zoe (Sophie Skelton), is working on a vaccine for the pathogen that has caused people to turn into zombies.  This involves having to take risks that ultimately cause some problems.  We have visited the plot of actions being driven by the need for a vaccine, most recently last year in The Girl with All the Gifts.  Also thrown into the mix is a zombie that retains some personality traits, another avenue that we hav been down before.

One interesting thing in Bloodline is the creepy relationship that Zoe had with the person who turned into the zombie with the human traits.  There was a time during the film where I really felt like this film was going to do some new and interesting things, bumping up a dynamic that we hadn't necessarily seen before.  Disappointment came pretty quickly as it ended up showing me that it would go down fairly standard roads.  And thus, just like so many '____ of the Dead' movies before it, Bloodline just becomes another faceless, and typical zombie movie.

At the beginning, it was a little difficult to figure out the tone of the movie.  There was a scene where someone gets dragged by zombies down the stairs to a subway followed by a Sam Raimi amount of blood spurting up into the air.  I took this over the top display to mean that the film was tongue in cheek, but that's not what happened.  It seemed as though Vicens was taking this film seriously with some over the top aspects.  What could have been a little flair and personality in the film was ultimately neutered by standard roaring sounds and the need for ninety percent of the deaths be from a zombie attacking from behind and biting into where the neck connects with the shoulder.  I swear there was an instance where the victim turned around for no reason, just for this over-used scene to happen.

Something that can cause a little bewilderment while watching and a furrowing of the brow is the dialogue,  which has people who really seem to be having a hard time making it sound like they have a North American accent.  I ended up having to check IMDB, and, sure enough, a lot of people from overseas.  I'm not saying that international actors shouldn't get jobs, just that maybe attention should be paid to hiring people who can deliver a proper accent.  Or, novel idea, don't make them have to use an accent.

There is a lot of mess.  From the over use of the same sort of kill scene to the belief that a lieutenant would be the highest rank at an armed forces base.  Heck, maybe that's not far-fetched, but the last time I checked, lieutenant was far from the highest pay grade.  Small qualm, I know, but it just felt like perhaps this movie never took a second to think about who was in it, why the people were there, and what solid motivators for them would be.  Zoe ends up endangering a number of people because a little girl is sick with pneumonia.  Sure, the girl is innocent and adorable, but Zoe's actions don't make a lot of sense in terms of the survival of humanity.

This movie is just sort of a no-go.  Don't bother.  It is incredibly generic and there really isn't anything that makes it stick out as a unique movie.  George Romero showed that zombie movies could be really awful.  He made a few such films.  He also showed that a good one could focus on just a few people who we could understand and relate to.  Nothing fancy is needed, just a point of connection.  That's something that many movies, including Day of the Dead: Bloodline, neglect.

REVIEW: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

Into a very white, sterile, and ordered existence struts uncertainty.  Balance and routine, with a backbone of ultimate will, sees before it an image of humanity in its imperfection.  Call it a Hollywood version of mental health from days of old, but thematically has time changed anything about the views people have of those with mental illnesses?  I would imagine that there is more knowledge and awareness, but go and visit a psychiatric ward in a hospital and try to tell me that some of those older images of a insane asylum don't creep into your noggin.

The institution for mentally ill patients in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest runs in conjunction with the personality of one of its nurses, Nurse Ratched.  Hers is a behaviour of following the guidelines, creating no variation or deviancy.  The sanity is in the black and white, it is clinical and definable.  However, it is that which is pitted against uncertainty as well as an unpredictable nature, a lack of order or rules, in new arrival McMurphy.  A new addition to a system that he does not quite understand, and one that conflicts with his being.

McMurphy (played by Jack Nicholson) comes from a prison and is assessed as a person who may be using the idea of having a mental illness to find a cushier accommodation for the remainder of his sentence.  The moment he shows up, it is clear through his swagger and body language that he sees himself as a big fish in a small pond, that he will be the king of the institution.  That's not necessarily far from how things turn out to be.

What the audience is presented in McMurphy is someone who has a record of violence, a person who we would see as potentially quick to anger and a little unhinged.  This is not the McMurphy that we see with our eyes.  While the others in the institution are treated merely as patients by the staff, McMurphy treats them as people, and his lack of judgement of them is shown off in the evolution of his relationship with Chief, a stoic and unspeaking native American.  McMurphy is polite with the staff at first, and he seems quite a long way from needing to be in such a facility.

But is all what it seems?  Is director Milos Forman putting in front of us a person who is sane, or someone with perhaps a complexity that is not easily diagnosed?  Within the walls of the institution, Forman creates Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher), a model of professionalism, but with a complete lack of empathy for the patients.  I believe that she is the manifestation of the system that Forman is introducing us to.  It is strict, unemotional, and at complete odds with McMurphy.

As the movie moves along, I got a feeling that we were being asked if perhaps instead of some internal illness it could be situation and environment that could cause a person to take an action that could be viewed as insane.  That perhaps any member of the audience could put themselves into the shoes of McMurphy and wonder if they would act any more sane under the same circumstances.  This is the meat of this movie.  I don't believe that the point of this film is to show terrible characters, but more what could happen to a person caught in an uncaring and soulless system.

The movie balances off of Ratched and McMurphy.  He seems to believe that he can breeze through anything, that he can act how he wishes.  The consequences catch him off guard.  Ratched believes that treating people with emotional ambivalence and exposing their emotions and playing with their fears will keep the line drawn between who is sane and who isn't. The consequences catch her off guard.

What is it actually that propels the story?  Is it Ratched's actions, or McMurphy's reactions?  Who is to blame for outcome?  Are they both being manipulated, or are they both victims of the other?  The relationship between these two that is the movie's plot.  McMurphy views the institution as his last stop to freedom, although that is quashed in a scene where he tries to pick up a plumbing fixture to throw through a window so he can escape.  His attempts, the straining of his muscles, are on display to the other patients who see how this brash and charismatic person is trapped in something bigger than him.  His ability to exit the institution on his own terms ends with that scene.

Yes, there are lots of different aspects that should be talked about.  I could mention the very unique score that bookmarks the film.  More could be said about the performances, and I sure could talk about sets and wardrobe.  In the end, those things are done really well, but for me they are lost and secondary to the story that is being put in front of us.  This, to me at least, is a film where the tale comes first, and its impact is what stays with me.  It is humanity versus the system, with a view that the system will win.

Rating - 4 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: The People Vs. Larry Flynt

The People Vs. Larry Flynt is a biopic about adult material publisher Larry Flynt (as the title so nicely points out).  Flynt made his name by publishing Hustler magazine, a nudy mag that took publicly sold pornographic material to levels that the already established Playboy didn't.  Hugh Hefner seemed to like the belief that Playboy was about sexual revolution and releasing the modern woman from the constraints that men and society had put on them.  Oddly enough, it was a magazine made by men, and made for men.  I would imagine that true liberation for women wouldn't be about lining the pocket books of males as well as satisfying their objectifying habits.

It is important to note that Forman isn't peddling a story that legitimizes the sexual exploitation of women, he is not creating a hero in Flynt, and it isn't a film about the first amendment.  It may, at first glance, appear to be along those lines, but this, in its truest form, is a tragedy.  Yes, people could look at the character of Larry Flynt, for good or for bad, and take away from his story a number of different things.  To me, Forman is not interested so much in the possible historical significance of Flynt, but the rise and fall of a person on the outside of culture.

Portraying Flynt is Woody Harrelson, previously known for playing small town boy Woody Boyd on the ever popular sitcom, Cheers.  After the show had run its course, it seemed like Harrelson was making some bold decisions to ensure that he would never end up being type cast as the innocent, soft spoken, and value guided country boy.  Roles in movies like the Oliver Stone directed Natural Born Killers and The People Vs. Larry Flynt (produced by Oliver Stone) made sure that nobody would think that Harrelson was going to ride the coat tales of Woody Boyd.  He took a massive risk in jumping into these types of roles, but it paid off.  Over the years Harrelson has been nominated for three Oscar movies and seems to make an imprint into whatever film he is a part of.

The portrayal of Flynt here is one of a business man, along with his brother Jimmy Flynt (Brett Harrelson), who runs a strip club and comes up with an unconventional way of marketing it.  That marketing venture turns into Hustler magazine, and we follow Flynt through all of the obstacles and battles that he had to fight to get his magazine into the mainstream.  As I said before, Forman is not making this a story of a hero, a trailblazing patriot who looks to teach a message on the first amendment to audiences.  Forman is simply using events and Harrelson's powerful performance to eventually let us see how success can create a personality that eventually must end up crashing back to earth.

Flynt's girlfriend, Althea, is played by Courtney Love.  It is an inspired performance, and through it I believe we get an idea that perhaps one of Forman's best gifts was soliciting master efforts from the acting talents.  He would go on to use Love in his follow up film, Man on the Moon (as well as using Norm MacDonald and Vincent Schiavelli in both films), another film about a person who may not have taken everything seriously and gets zapped back to reality.  Love's Althea is a charming free spirit, a person who grows in dimensions as the film progresses, becoming a force that adds to the ultimate tragedy of Flynt.

The story dynamics that Forman seems to most heavily focus on are the phases of life that Flynt goes through, from entrepreneur, to religious man, to contemptible and unrestrained personality.  By the time we get to the end of the film, Flynt no longer resembles anything that he had in the past, acting like a petulant man-child who refuses to understand the gravity of his circumstances or decisions.  Ultimately he must pay the piper, and, forgetting anything that we felt towards the Flynt character leading up to it, there is sympathy to be had here.  This person who seems to proclaim themselves larger than life and above the law is shown to cry and bleed, in a wonderful humbling of the character.

Why did Milos Forman choose Larry Flynt of all people to create a biopic around?  I doubt that it was based off of his legal struggles to secure his rights.  I believe there are much richer stories out there if that was the simple design of the film.  Perhaps Forman identifies with the person who is on the edges of culture.  That would explain why he chose to tell the story of Andy Kaufman next.  Whatever his reason for choosing Flynt, Forman shows that he is courageous.  It would not be an easy task to make a wide release movie about someone who would be despised by so much of the population.

There are untold numbers of movies about the dangers of fame and fortune.  The People Vs. Larry Flynt does not take the easy route in this endeavour.  It is an unlikely person, who evolves into an overly unlikeable person, and we are tied to his fate.  Forman shows that there is something relatable in this tale for any of us watching.  No matter what happens in life to make us feel vulnerable or invincible, we all have the same needs and desires.  We all have the ability to laugh, to cry, and to make others cry.  It is a gem of a story wrapped up in a package that could easily be discarded, but to do so would be to miss out on something special.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

Celebrating Director Milos Forman

Just recently, director Milos Forman passed away.  The headlines at first meant nothing to me.  I knew the name rang a bell, but, in that initial moment, I could not figure out what significance the name had.  A cursory look showed me why this death was something to make headlines.  Forman had been a part of numerous Oscar nominated and winning films.  Attached to his filmography are titles such as Amadeus, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Hair, The People Vs. Larry Flynt, and Man on The Moon.

My first introduction to Forman's work was in grade ten, when my sociology teacher showed One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest to the class.  I was not mature enough to appreciate it fully.  To me, it was just another film, and there wasn't much standing out to me other than the fact that a water fountain is a good tool for an impromptu escape.  I couldn't grasp why this movie was such a renowned and important piece of work.  I also saw Amadeus at a young age and lacked appreciation for it as well.

The film of Forman's that I am most aware of is the Jim Carrey starring Man on the Moon, a biopic about comedian and ever so legitimate wrestler Any Kaufman.  Kaufman was a bit before my time, but the little that I knew of him fascinated me even though I didn't necessarily enjoy everything he did.  I was a young teen, so obviously Jim Carrey was awesome.  I had a great time with that movie, although I will admit that it probably didn't stand up to the passage of time and my maturing tastes as well as I would hope.

The good news is that I will soon have a chance to revisit that film, as well as numerous other Milos Forman's movies.  This is an important voice in culture that was lost, and for the upcoming Movie Breakdown podcast we will be reviewing five of his movies.  I plan on reviewing each one of those hear on the blog and to talk about the significance to them, should they hold any.

Very sadly, Forman lost both parents in the holocaust when he was young.  The awful thing is that the passage of time takes more and more voices of that horrendous tragedy.  These are the people who were witness to an event that showed the worst of humanity.  Their perspectives are so crucially important, as their world view holds the scars as well as the urgent reminder of why this must never happen again.

Over the next few days, I look forward to getting a glimpse into the mind of this Czech director.  From what I know and remember, I am sure that there will be at least a take away or two from each movie.  My hope is that my humble blog and podcast will do justice to such an important figure in the modern history of story telling.

Google Showed Me How Creepy They Could Be

We all know that Google scoops up information on us.  Facebook is the same way.  They both provide a service that is free, and ultimately that makes the users the commodity, not the customer.  It is naive thinking to believe that we are actually the customer, because we are what makes these companies money.  The information that is collected on us is used to send advertisers our way.  If we were the customers, then we would be the ones giving money to Google and Facebook.

I deleted my Facebook profile a few years ago because I didn't like things the company was doing with tracking people across the internet, even if they didn't have a Facebook account.  As well, there was an experiment on unknowing users where news feeds were manipulated as part of a study to see the effects of social media on emotions.  Facebook is still in the news over how they collect and handle user information, and are now trying to bring facial recognition to Canada and the EU.  Of course, everyone will be a part of this unless you specifically opt out.

What really took me back a bit was an email that I recently received from Google.  While I imagine the people who thought this a good idea believed they were just nudging me into 'a better user experience,' what they did is the creepiest thing I have had show up in my inbox.

Google made me aware of the fact that they know exactly what brand of devices I own.  I am not sure where they got that information, but I do know that them having it is a look into my life that I never invited them into.  I understand that they can build a profile on me through web histories and things like that, but some information skimming at another level must have been done for them to know specifically what brand of devices I use.

The other thing in the email?  The fact that they know that I do not have the app.  Did they think it was a friendly idea to let me know that Google knows what is on my phone?  Should I think this is a welcome sort of email that sells me on their product?  Absolutely not.  I guess they would have a way of knowing that my account linked to their app, but did they really need to point out to me that they know?  I find this sort of thing disturbing.  Who would feel comfortable around a person who not only looks through their windows at night, but who lets them know the things they've discovered by doing so?  Nobody.  Yet, for some reason, tech companies think that this sort of thing is fine.

This is why I will be switching to a different email service.

Update: April 19 - A friend shared with me how easy it is for Google to find out what kind of device I am using.  I kind of knew that it must be a simple and routine thing they do.  Still, I find it creepy when someone let's me know details about me that I never shared with them.

Are Video Game Movies Really That Bad?

This week on the Rotten Tomatoes there is a piece that ranks the scores of all video game movies, showing the recently released Rampage as having the best critical score.  The interesting thing here is that Rampage sits at a 51% rating.  That means that all forty-six other films have a score worse than that.  What this illustrates is a verification of the feelings throughout the years since Super Mario Bros. came out in 1993 that video games do not make compelling cinema.

It is my belief that a video game could turn into a solid movie.  We haven't seen it yet, but there is nothing stopping it from happening, other than maybe getting better pens to scribe the screenplay.  An intellectual property doesn't need to have any kind of backstory to turn into a solid film.  The LEGO Movie in 2014 proved that.  Stories for video games, I would argue, are getting better and better.  The industry deals with so much money that the production of triple A games are seeing larger and larger budgets to ensure the games not only sell the initial product, but that they keep a steady player base that will buy additional content or loot boxes post release.

The price tag of a triple A game hovers around $80 on a console, and players expect the best.  In the hands of the player, and a potential nemesis to the game developers, is the internet forum.  When one of those expensive games doesn't deliver in all areas, people will flood the forums, especially if the game is part of a loved franchise.  Because so much money is made for developers (and shareholders, something which seems to be the driving force behind post release monetizing schemes) after the release of a game, and because the budgets for the game are so high, developers cannot have a largely disgruntled community.  It was shown with the release of EA's Battlefront 2 (part of a Star Wars video game franchise dating back to 2004, and with ever a loyal base) that fan reaction can force a studio to change course even before a game comes out.  Fan reaction can spread fast and furious, pre-sales can be refunded, and ill-will be generated.  Because of all of that, parts of the game such as story need to be better than ever before.  This should set up a better foundation for transforming the properties to a appetizing film version.

A video game in recent years that had a really compelling story line to it was Assassin's Creed.  I honestly don't care about stories when I play video games, but I was right into the one that was in front of my from the moment I put the disc into my Xbox 360.  It was really imaginative, and provided amazing settings for game play.  I would have thought that this video game, more than any other, would have the best chance for success in theatres.

The studios seemed to share that sentiment and injected $125 million into the film and cast talents such as Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons, and Brendan Gleeson.  That's five Oscar nominations between them, two wins, and while Gleeson had no Oscar noms, he did have three Golden Globe nominations.  That's a serious amount of acting power.  The director was Justin Kurzel, who directed had directed three three feature films, all scoring eighty percent on Rotten Tomatoes or higher (a personal favourite of mine was Snowtown Murders).  The elements were there for a solid movie.

Even with the pedigree that it had, Assassin's Creed could only muster support from 18% from critics and $10 million on its opening weekend.  It was a domestic flop, sitting alongside other big budget North American video game failures such as Warcraft and the $200 budgeted Prince of Persia.  Using popular titles for movies has proven not to be a guarantee for money made, and throwing large sums of money at them may not be the best idea.

While a number of the video game movies seem to be aiming with their sights quite low (such as the six that are directed by Use Boll, all 7% or under on Rotten Tomatoes) there have been a number that are trying for mass market appeal.  Having seen a number of these movies (four of them in theatre, sadly), I can say that it isn't one specific problem that plagues them all.  The closest commonality in their failing would probably be story, but, as I mentioned, the source material is doing better in that realm now.

It's not specifically video games that aren't well done, it is pretty much any adaptation of a game.  Battleship, Dungeons and Dragons, and Clue didn't receive a fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes.  In fact, I think that the only movie based on a game with a fresh rating is Ouija: Origin of Evil.  It is crazy to think that of all of the movies based on types of games, the only critically received film is a sequel to a movie that scored 6% on RT.  I would love to say the reason why that movie succeeded where others didn't is because of the skills of director Mike Flanagan (I am a huge 'Flana-fan'), but other skilled directors have been in there and failed.  I already mentioned Justin Kurzel, and a favourite of mine, Duncan Jones (Moon, Source Code) directed  the mostly woeful Warcraft.

For some reason, movies based on games appear to be cursed.  Whether they're sourced out to directors with notoriously poorly received movies (Uwe Boll and Paul W.S. Anderson account for 23% of all video game movies ever made) or handed over to proven talents, video game movies just happen to fail.  It's not some systemic issue happening here.  It's not because there aren't rich and enchanting worlds to tap into or backstories that captivate.  It simply is a case of coincidence.  There will one day be a well received video game movie.  I believe it will happen, and, laugh at me if you will, I could even see in the future a movie based off of a video game being in Oscar contention.  The games are continuously getting better and better, with many already setting their sights on having blockbuster quality content and talent.  They will shake the curse soon enough.

REVIEW: Leatherface

While The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is considered one of the main franchises of the slasher sub-genre of horror, it wasn't initially so.  The first sequel didn't happen until 1986, twelve years after the initial movie.  Since that time, there have been a number of films made.  Most have been sequels, but there was one reboot in 2003 and then a prequel in 2006.  Both of those films were products of Michael Bay's Platinum Dunes, and neither were particularly good.  The prequel only had the origins shown in the first ten minutes before it just turned into a generic slasher film.

What has propelled this franchise along through the decades are mainly two things.  The first is that the original film claimed to be based on a true story.  So many movies in the modern age make those claims, but I remember straight through high school hearing people talk about the events that Texas Chainsaw was based on.  The truth is that nothing in the film happened in real life.  One of the characters in the film, known as Leatherface for wearing a mask of human skin, was loosely based off of real life serial killer Ed Gein.  Norman Bates from Psycho had elements taken from Gein as well.

The second popular aspect from Texas Chainsaw is Leatherface himself.  He was just one of a number of characters in the original film, but is quite prominent in the following films.  Leatherface has a horrifically creepy appearance, something that is a must for antagonists in popular slasher films.  He is so popular that he is the only character from the murderous family in the first film to be featured in 2013's Texas Chainsaw 3D.  Could film makers leave him to be a mysterious creature?  Nope.

Origin stories abound, and why not delve into the history of one of the most iconic faces in horror history?  Directors Alexandre Bustillo and Julien Murray chart a journey into the creation of this particular member of the Sawyer family, a group of deviants if ever there were any.  They set the opening of the movie with Jed (Leatherface's real name) celebrating his birthday at a table with his relatives.  This is not your typical birthday, as Jed's gift from his family is a chainsaw which they want him to use on a thief who is bloody and bound in a chair.  Jump ten years later in a youth psychiatric hospital and the story takes off with a young nurse, Lizzy (Vanessa Grasse) caught up in an escape attempt by some seriously messed up adolescents.

The ultimate problem with this movie and the story that it tells is that it didn't need to be part of the Texas Chainsaw universe.  It could have just had a different title and it would have stood on its own, outside of the last ten minutes.  This is an issue with a lot of forced origin stories is that the tale that they tell really could be interchangeable with anything and isn't necessarily something unique to cannon.  Take out a handful of scenes and this movie has nothing at all to do with the franchise.  When this happens in a movie I have to ask, 'was this even needed?'  The truth, most of the time with origin stories to established properties, is that no, it isn't needed.

The directors of this movie aim to disturb the audience through elevated gore unnerving behaviour.  The movie does not miss an opportunity to bring forth the blood.  Some of the effects are well done, but it goes a little too far.  There is one scene in the movie where the violent act isn't seen, and to me that had the most impact.  There was build up to it, and then just sounds as the camera cut away.  Too much weight was put on the visuals when I thought the real power of the movie was the disturbing nature of some of the characters.  It did end up taking some of that too far as well, which is a shame because with a little bit of tempering there could have been an interesting tale in here.

As the movie progresses, don't even bother trying to keep up with the motivations of the characters.  Our young nurse, Lizzy, is so dedicated to hiding from the police that she and two others go all Han and Luke on Hoth and curl up in the torso of a cow.  She emerges when the police are gone.  One minute later she sees a police car driving on the road and runs towards it yelling and waving her arms.  This sort of baffling behaviour seeps into a few of the scenes at the end, which try to shove the movie towards finally being about Leatherface.  The directors aim for a bit of swerve in there, but it is really unneeded.

It isn't the worst horror picture out there, but it sure isn't anything amazing.  The base story is interesting, and would have been better without trying to push the limits of gore and forcing itself to fit into the Texas Chainsaw world.  In the film lay some decent performances, but they get muddled thanks to the lack of direction and consistency of the characters.  This ends up being a paint by numbers sort of film, and one that could have had some partially interesting elements.

Rating - 1.5 out of 4 stars

One Billion Dollars for The Meg?

The first trailer for the massive shark movie, The Meg, dropped last week and with it came some criticisms from fans of the book.  They aren't happy that things have changed in the translation from one format to another.  The truth is that alterations are a must, as the sorts of things you can communicate on paper are not necessarily what you can communicate through visuals and dialogue.  All books that get turned into movies meed to get tweaked.  It's the nature of the game, and people need to accept that.  As well, their criticisms are based off a short trailer, a trailer that has me looking forward to purchasing a big ol' popcorn and grinning my way through the film when it comes out.

In a now deleted post defending the movie, author Steve Alten talked about the changes made from his book, Meg: A Novel of Deep Terror, and gave his perspective.  What stood out to me about his post is something that illustrates how some people outside of the movie industry view Hollywood when they get involved.  Alten writes, 'this is a really amazing movie... one that I believe will earn in excess of a BILLION DOLLARS and spawn some even better sequels.'  Was this spoken as exaggeration, or was it a solid belief in the success of the material?  It's hard to be sure, but I'll just go with it being more literal to talk about an issue of people believing the movie game is easy to just jump in on.

If this is truly how he feels, then it is really cute that Alten has that belief.  It reminds me of a number of years ago when mixed martial arts media members were talking about Ronda Rousey's options and that she could simply make the shift to movies.  Once again, cute thinking.  If success was so easy to capture, how come off the top of my head I can only think of a handful of crossover stars such as Dwayne Johnson, Mark Wahlberg, and Will Smith.  It just baffles me that people outside of the movie scene sometimes believe that certain levels of success are so easily attainable.  What would those mixed martial arts journalists think if Andrew Garfield announced that he was going to start competing at the highest levels of the sport?  They would have had a solid laugh, and that's what I had about their comments about Rousey's easy career, and that's why I laugh at Alten's delusional thinking here.

There are currently thirty three movies that have cracked into the billion dollar club.  The entry that came out the longest ago is Jurassic Park which sits in 27th place and came out in 1993.  Just for a fun exercise, I am going to do a rough (and I mean rough) calculation on what percentage of movies get over a billion dollars.  We will be conservative and say that there are two wide release movies a week.  That's fifty two weeks per year, and we will tally all the years back to 1993.  This gives us roughly 2,600 wide releases in the past twenty five years.  Yes, there were less movies released back then, but there are many weekends now where there can be three to four wide releases, so I feel the conservative two per week works.  So, 2,600 movies, and only 33 have hit over a billion.  What we get is that 1.3% of movies break a billion dollars.  Just over one movie a year.

Now let's look at movies in the billion dollar club that aren't part of already established cinema franchises.  There are only five films in this group that weren't already established in some way.  They are Zootopia (rank #31 at $1.023 billion), Jurassic Park (rank #27 at $1.029 billion), Frozen (rank #11 at $1.276 billion), Titanic (rank #2 at $2.187 billion), and Avatar (rank #1 at $2.788 billion).  New movie properties, using the math we used before, have a 0.19% chance to make a billion dollars.

The odds are not very good, but one could point to the fact that Jurassic Park was based off a novel about prehistoric creatures, just as The Meg is.  Fair enough.  There area a few differences here, though.  First, people knew exactly who Jurassic Park's director Steven Spielberg is.  The fact that he was making it assisted a lot.  Yes, talents attached to movies these days don't bring in the numbers the way they used to, but I would argue that the name Jon Turteltaub is definitely not going to move the needle.  He did manage $457 million world wide with Disney's National Treasure: Book of Secrets.  That's an indicator that he can handle big money makers, but that movie was one that was part of an already established cinema franchise, something that The Meg isn't.  He also hasn't had a critically well received movie since While You Were Sleeping in 1995.

I would say the biggest difference is that the book Jurassic Park was three years fresh when the movie came out.  There was still lots of buzz about it.  The same could not be said for The Meg.  The book came out twenty one years ago.  Back in the late 90s, I didn't hear anyone talking about Meg: A Novel of Deep Terror.  It may have a fan base, but it can't expect to get the similar kind of success that a movie with plenty of buzz could turn in.

One of the scary indicators of the success of The Meg is that it's release date got pushed back (not a good thing, usually), and it is now being released in August.  This is a month where movies generally die.  The rush of the summer blockbuster season is coming to a close, and people have already  opened their wallets a number of times.  That's not to say that a movie cannot succeed in August.  Guardians of the Galaxy made $773 million world wide in 2014, and Suicide Squad earned a solid $746 million world wide in 2016.

Now, I'm not saying that The Meg can't get to one billion, but I would almost bet the farm that it won't.  This is not an easy benchmark.  Only one Harry Potter movie made it.  Only one of the Lord of the Rings movies made it.  Spider-man, Superman, and Katniss Everdeen are bankable characters that couldn't get in there.  James Bond has only been in there once.  Nemo couldn't even make it.  None of those names are jokes, and they show just how tough the competition is at the upper echelons of blockbuster cinema.

The one thing that The Meg has going for it is that it is set off the coast of China.  Besides North America, China is the next make it or break it market.  The film's proximity to the country should help it perform there.  However, Jurassic World, which is the fourth highest grossing movie of all time, brought in $228 million in China.  I point that out because I cannot see The Meg out performing a dominant franchise film such as that.  For The Meg to break a billion dollars, I would guess that China's gross would need to be over $500 million.

The billion dollar club is for the illustrious, the films that broke ground technically (Avatar and Titanic), the movies that were well hyped continuations of previous franchises (The Force Awakens and Jurassic World), or movies that provided an event that we had never seen before (The Avengers). Sure, not all movies in there are critically acclaimed, but each film's success is that they spoke to multiple demographics and had cross culture appeal.  Can a silly shark movie do the same?  I am betting not.

REVIEW: 47 Meters Down

I love a good shark movie.  Heck, I love a bad shark movie.  I saw Jaws at an extremely young age, and even though most boys my age would have Star Wars as their favourite movie of all time, for me it's either the shark that terrorizes Amity Island or James Cameron's The Terminator.  With the film The Meg coming out in August, a movie that could be bonkers fun, I felt it was only appropriate to look at the most recent successful shark movie in theatres.  Enter into the wading pool 2017's 47 Meters Down.

Prior to The Shallows, the last shark movie in theatres (other than the limited showings of Sharknado) was Shark Night in 2011.  If Shark Night had the humble budget of $5.5 million that 47 Meters Down had, it would have been a financial success.  Instead, it had a production budget of $25 million which caused the film to not turn a profit and did not make a case for shark movies in modern cinema.  Would a smaller budget mean that 47 Meters Down would look awful?  That's what I did wonder before I hit 'play.'

It turns out that one of the best aspects of this movie was the effects that it boasted.  Well, for most of the time.  There were a few instances where the sharks lunged that looked a bit off, and one supposedly frightening scene where I actually laughed out loud at a volume that I was worried my wife would hear me at the far end of the apartment.  Other than those few hiccups, I thought the shark effects were incredibly well done.  Something that people would know from watching as much Shark Week as they can, Great White Sharks don't necessarily speed through the water.  They look like they coast, giant monsters that have an eerily placid look that you know could change with a powerful stroke of the tale.   Director Johannes Roberts seemed to want to not have a hyped up version of the creature but rather one that felt more true to life.

The rendering of the sharks was really quite well done as well.  As mentioned, there are a few scenes that it isn't so much, but it was solid for the most part.  One thing that helps Roberts here is that he limits the amount that we see the sharks.  They are there in the water with our heroes, but we hardly see them.  While this may upset some people who want constant action and visceral excitement, to me the 'less is more' approach can be really powerful.  Just think of Alien.  There was so little screen time lent to the xenomorph, and it was the pure existence of it that made every scene tense.  That's sort of what is done here.  Not only does it keep a nice tension to the movie, but it means they don't have to expose the audience to the sharks as much, which means you don't need to spend as much money creating them.  All around, it is a good idea, both practically and for story telling.

I am getting ahead of myself.  Here I am talking about techniques that I enjoyed without actually mentioning what the movie is about.  Well, let us dig into that meaty mess.  We have two sisters, Lisa (Mandy Moore) and Kate (Claire Holt).  They are in Mexico on a vacation, and Lisa admits that her boyfriend recently dumped her because she was boring.  The way to make him regret setting her free?  They will go swimming with sharks and take pictures.  That will prove to the ex-boyfriend that she isn't boring. Is she trying to get him back?  Is she trying to make him jealous?  I have no clue.  I don't think the movie actually has a clue.  This set up is so basic and tries to throw in a dramatic element for no reason at all.  In a film like this you can just simply have people getting into a shark cage.  To reference Alien again, Ripley didn't need a reason to be on the Nostromo other than the fact that she needed a job.  No need to try to create drama.

The girls are in luck.  Matthew Modine takes them out into the beautiful ocean, chums the waters, and sends the girls into a shark cage.  But, who would have guessed, trouble comes and the cage comes loose from the boat and sinks to the bottom, which just happens to be 47 meters down.  Inspired title?  Luckily the girls can communicate with each other through a radio system in their masks, and communication with Modine who is on the surface is sketchy at best.  Sharks are about, and the girls only have so much oxygen.  This is a nice an simple tale.  Like I said, no need for the useless drama that it forced into the story.  People trapped in a dangerous situation works, and you can create the essence of their characters and build arcs through how they deal with the situation.  I'm not saying that adding additional drama to the characters is a bad idea, just more so that sometimes a straightforward story doesn't need to have elements that are forced.

While I did say that I enjoyed the use of the sharks in this movie in keeping things taut, there are a number of scenes that are pushed to their limit in terms of length.  The film is 89 minutes, and it really could have been shorter.  It didn't have enough natural material for the run time, and it would have been a very brave decision from Roberts to cut it to the length needed.

The acting in here is decent enough.  I love the fact that Mandy Moore has resurrected her career lately, and I believe she is a solid talent.  Because she is in a mask in this movie, it is really hard to get a sense of all the emotions she is going through.  The character of Lisa travels through a number of emotions, and we mostly only get the impact of that through Moore's voice, which is done well enough.  Claire Holt, who I know very little about, does a fairly good job in here as well.

One thing that may make a few people upset is the fact that things in the depths start happening only to give the story some more run time and to service the plot.  An example is that for some reason a person decides not to communicate to one of the girls for a long time just to extend a scene of her swimming and then decides to say something when all of a sudden it is appropriate for a jump scare.  I know that we aren't watching a film that is trying to be the Citizen Cane of shark movies, but these instances are lazy compared to some of the more earned moments in the film.

The bottom of the ocean is a dark and dangerous place, and even though we know there are going to be some scares in there, we are left not knowing when they will come.  Perfect stuff, I say.  Watching the film, I am sure it is going to get the three star threshold for a recommendation.  But then something happened, and I won't tell you exactly what it is because I don't want to ruin a movie.  What I will say about it is that the director hits the climax of the film with what is the laziest, most inexcusable form of story telling. This sort of technique is wrong for a thirty second bit in the first act, let alone the final fifteen minutes of the movie.  There is no excuse for it.  As such, and leaving it to you to make up your own mind about it, I cannot recommend the film.  Ultimately it is a movie with a decent grasp on creating tension that goes full on season 6 of Married With Children.

Rating - 2 out of 4 stars

The Impact of Friday the 13th on Horror

Yesterday was Friday the 13th, and something should have been written.  It's too bad that I treat my calendar like a collections officer, doing everything that I can to avoid contact while realizing that it will end up catching up with me.  Seeing as how I binge watched six Friday the 13th movies a few months ago, it is only fitting that I take some time to write about what the franchise added to cinema.

Nothing.  Practically nothing was added because of Friday the 13th.

The best argument that could be made is that it solidified the slasher genre of teenagers being stalked by a merciless masked man.  I could possibly accept this assessment for some films that would have come out in the mid to late 80s, which was eight to ten years after the genre actually launched.  Jason, the antagonist that is iconic with this franchise, was not in his marketable format until about halfway through the third movie.  That's 1982, eight years after precursors to the genre came out in Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Black Christmas.

Jason's recognizable form came five years after John Carpenter's Halloween, which is easily the franchise that created the idea of the mysterious and near unbeatable, looming figure that sets its murderous will against the hormone ridden subset of humanity.  The film that was closest to that format prior was Black Christmas, which focused on a sorority house.  The concept of the masked killer came predominantly with Michael Myers, although some may try and squeeze in a case for Leather Face from Texas Chainsaw.  While I will admit that Leather Face came first, it was John Carpenter's film format as a whole that woke up a generation of directors and copycat writers.

Basically, I don't think that Jason can be credited too much with the fad of that style of slasher killer.  According to Wikipedia (which we must take with a grain of salt) there were one hundred slasher movies released between 1978 and 1984.  Yes, Friday the 13th came out in 1980, putting it in a place where it could have heavily influenced other films, but, once again, it wasn't until 1982 that it had it's iconic visual nailed down.  If anything, it did add to the genre a higher kill count and emphasis on the uniqueness of kills.

However, it wouldn't hold any kind of crown for style of kills for long.  In 1984, Wes Craven brought the world the incredibly imaginative A Nightmare on Elm Street, a film with the slasher killer dwelling in people's dreams, leaving him outside of the confines of physics and reality.  Freddy Krueger was the opposite of what we had seen prior.  Gone was the silent, lumbering mammoth.  Krueger was thin and scrawny, with a trademark burnt face and, most importantly, a personality of the worst psychotic that revelled in tormenting people.  The killer now had a voice and undeniable personality, something that was not the norm in the earlier slashers.

It would be another four years before another slasher took a fresh and playful jab at the slow stalking style that Jason and Michael Myers became known for.  Nineteen eighty eight ushered into cinemas Child's Play, a slasher that appeared to be taking a mocking swing at the now redundant monsters of the genre.  The killer now was small and deviant, coming in the form of a child's toy that mimicked the My Buddy doll.  The film turned the tropes of the killer on its head and threw some much needed energy into the slasher sub-genre.

From here it would be another eight years before anything revitalizing happened to slashers.  Wes Craven would make his mark again with Scream, a self aware slasher that, like A Nightmare on Elm Street and Child's Play, seemed to take direct aim at just how boring and predictable movies like Friday the 13th had become.  This leads to what could be a great debate over who may have brought more to slashers, John Carpenter or Wes Craven.  Both had gigantic submissions, and, just like Halloween changed the landscape and caused knock-offs, so did Scream.  I honestly believe that a solid argument could be made for either of those two forward thinking directors.

As you can see, there have been some well known slasher franchises.  For the most part, each of the ones mentioned altered the game and took a new look at antagonist, formula, or both.  Friday the 13th really only added the increased kill count and style of kills, and the style factor was blown out of the water in 1984.  The overall footprint of Friday the 13th was just essentially building off of what was set up with Black Christmas and Halloween.  Not a lot of original thought came out of this franchise that was been clung onto by studios as a hopeful money maker as recently as 2009.

One neat thing did happen in a Friday the 13th movie.  In the fourth instalment, instead of having a screaming girl as the protagonist, it was this time a mother, daughter, and son.  It is not the best reviewed film of the franchise, but I thought the addition of familial bonds and loyalties added some flavour.  That being said, it's still not enough to recommend to anyone that they should spend time with this franchise.  There are just too many imaginative and boundary pushing slashers out there to watch.  While I am sure my podcast co-host Christopher Spicer is on Team Carpenter and would have you watch Halloween, I am on Team Craven and would push you towards A Nightmare on Elm Street.  Honestly, you can't go wrong with either.  People may call them dumb, but both Chris as I would argue that there is some thought to be found in both, something that you won't find with Jason,

REVIEW: Orbiter 9

About a month ago on The Movie Breakdown podcast, my co-host and I got into a discussion about which foreign markets are our favourites for movies.  We ended up both agreeing that South Korea has probably some of the most entertaining films coming out of it, but there was some discussion about second place.  I believe I tried to make a case for Spain, and my co-host, Christopher Spicer, brought the case for Chile.  In the end, we recognized that outside of North America, there are some incredible things happening in cinema.  This week on the podcast we are breaking down a Spanish film called Orbiter 9.  A lot is riding on this movie, seeing as how I tried to make a case for Spain.

Without going to far right off the bat, it needs to be said that this is the third Netflix original in just over two months that is about people looking to space for answers as Earth is no longer able to sustain humanity.  Even though each of the movies are quite different (The Cloverfeild Paradox, and The Titan), perhaps they need to look closer at the types of films they are releasing on their service and maybe space ones with similar concepts out a little more.  It was bad enough when in 2013 we had three end of the world comedies spread over the year (It's a Disaster, This is the End, and Rapture-Palooza).  This time we have the movies condensed even more, and it does start to get tiring.

It's not writer/director Hatem Khraiche's fault that there are other movies with a  similar idea.  It's a story that has been told before, but Khraiche adds in another element, that of isolation.  This is something that we saw in Duncan Jone's Moon, and Joseph Kosinski's visually beautiful Oblivion.  And, in the vein of those other two films, not all is as it seems.  And, just like Moon, because of the twists of the story, this movie is difficult to review.  I can't mention any specifics, really.  There is so much that I could say that would give things away, so I will have to be wildly vague.

What I can tell you is that Helena (Clara Lago) is alone on a ship.  Her parents left the vessel three years prior when the ship lost its ability to create oxygen.  It was a sacrificial move that would give Helena longer to live and a chance that someone may hear the distress call and come to fix the problem.  That's exactly what happens, and the engineer that arrives is Alex (Alex Gonzalez).  He is a young man, attractive, and the only human being that Helena has ever seen that wasn't her parents.  His arrival on the ship will save her life, and things will never be the same for her.

What I like about this movie is the basic concept, sadly something that I can't mention here.  I think it is clean and tidy, and while it may travel a few conventional roads in some areas, it kept from feeling derivative to me.  Khraiche and the base ideas of his story are familiar, but that doesn't stop him from creating an experience that is unique to Orbiter 9.  While the twists are fun, I would put them below Moon, which was truly a grand experience, and they would go above Oblivion, though.  While Oblivion was beautiful and its first half very intriguing, it did fall apart.

I wish that I couldn't say the same thing of Orbiter 9, but that's what happens.  It begins with so much promise and then I felt like the story telling was what made the second half less enjoyable.  It comes down to the writing, as I can't believe some of the actions and decisions of the characters (if you want to know if a room is empty, simply open the door.  Don't go to the adjoining room for some odd reason).  The decisions of the characters are easy enough to brush off initially, but it gets to the point where I lose all understanding of their motivations.  The finale baffled me.

That's the main let down of the film, but otherwise it is fairly solid.  I like the pace of the film, and the acting talents are agreeable.  Clara Lago does a solid job with her character,  Her performance was enough to make me interested in seeing her in more movies.  This isn't any sort of acting clinic being put on, not like last week's First Match.

Not being able to talk about much of the movie has left me with little to say.  I really wanted to recommend this film and make it another Spanish film I could champion, and it was on its way to being that.  The problem is that it just became too much of an issue trying to understand why people made certain decisions and did certain things.  If you're looking for a stellar time with a Spanish movie, check out the comedy Bomb Scared or the intense drama 7 Anos.  Both are on Netflix and are a wonderful way to spend your time.  Even better, Moon is still on there, and if you want to see why Chris and I have been champions of Sam Rockwell prior to him becoming an Oscar winner, there is no better film to see.

Rating - 2 out of 4 stars

Thoughts on The Avengers

(I had to use this picture for Infinity War.  Confession time, I am a huge Dinklage fan)

We are now only two weeks out from Avengers: Infinity War, a superhero team up film the likes of which have never been seen before in theatres.  The first Avengers film ran amok through the box office with a success that ultimately changed the long term strategies for pretty much every major studio for years, up until 2017.  The allure of The Avengers was cross movie appearances from different heroes, and that sort of thing had never been done.  I think part of the success of the film was the fact that we had something completely new on our hands.

Avengers: Age of Ultron wasn't as big of a hit, and fell short of the first movie by $164 million in the domestic box office.  The novelty factor was no longer there, and, to be honest, we had been subject to a barrage of super hero movies in between these two team up flicks.  I would also say that there wasn't really anything to differentiate Age of Ultron and make it something ultimately special.  It was the same sort of format with starting off with a big action sequence and concluding with an overlong battle at the end that was held on an enormous scale.  To be honest, if I had to choose between watching Captain America: Civil War and Avengers: Age of Ultron, I would instantly choose Civil War.  It was a much more memorable story, with the tension to the movie being a lot more personal.

Diminishing returns is something that is very real in Hollywood, with there only being exceptions to the rule every now and then.  Over saturation is quite real as well, regardless of many writers out there claiming it has no effect.  Taking an empirical look at the facts it is easy to conclude that this happens.  People need something special to make something stand out, and a  team up for the sake of a team up isn't good enough.  Just ask Warner Bros about that.

Infinity War is possibly in a position to do better than its predecessor due to a few things.  The first is that there will be a lot more faces added to the adventure.  We have the crew from Guardians of the Galaxy as well as Benedict Cumberbatch as Doctor Strange.  Throw in the immensely popular Black Panther and there are some very intriguing elements that are in the mix.  The second reason is that the aforementioned Black Panther has generated some incredible momentum for Marvel.  The film currently sits as the third highest grossing domestic movie of all time (not adjusted for inflation), having made more money than Avengers.  I can't see how this won't be an massive factor as the film was a buzz factory.

I see Infinity War opening stronger than Black Panther, but ultimately falling short of the overall domestic gross of it.  For a major tentpole, Black Panther had an almost unheard of second weekend hold, only falling 44%.  I cannot see Infinity War holding up like that.  The last Avengers movie fell 59% it's second weekend, and while I don't think this movie will necessarily fall that much it will still be a steeper drop than Black Panther.

My main concern for Infinity War is the main baddie, Thanos.  My biggest problem with Justice League was that Steppenwolf was very obviously CGIed and that doesn't help anything out.  Oscar Isaac as Apocalypse was similar.  Computer graphics, when it's obvious, doesn't really get a villain off on the right foot, and Thanos falls into this category.  I honestly cannot take him seriously as he looks like something out of an animated film in amongst real people and backdrops.  Looking at the picture above, I just cannot get excited about that as the super villain.  I have always loved a great baddie, and Thanos isn't looking like he will be a good one.  That opinion is on looks alone, and I will watch the film with an open mind.  But appearances do matter when it comes to credibility.

Any issues that I have with Thanos are small when compared to the fact that we have the Russo brothers helming this movie, and they have proven to be masters at the game.  I absolutely hated the character of Captain America and thought he was a complete bore.  However, two of my favourite Marvel movies are Captain America: The Winter Soldier, and Captain America: Civil War, both directed by the Russo brothers.  The brothers have worked on cult hit television shows in Community and Arrested Development.  The main thing that those two shows have in common is that they are populated with distinct characters that have their own unique share in the stories told.  I would argue that it is the exact same priority in a movie like Avengers.

In two weeks I will know where I stand on this movie, and in three weeks we will have a bit of an understanding as to just how much money this movie will make.  Disney is the studio that has the format for success in the realm of the shared universe, and they are sitting on a big money maker in this one.  Even though it is the biggest movie that they have done so far, I will be shocked if it makes more domestically than Black Panther.  Can I use this opportunity to once again point out a movie that didn't have recognizable male, white leads made more money than only two other movies?  Eat that, Ridley Scott.

Trailer Review: The Meg

Look out swimmers, surfers, bare buck bathers, parasailers, and all other aquatic revellers.  Something nasty comes from the deep.  Roughly three hundred poorly digitized, razor sharp teeth are fixing to rip through theatres come August 10th and bring the fear of the ocean straight to audiences.  Starring Jason Statham, Ruby Rose, and Rainn Wilson, The Meg brings a giant shark into modern waters to feast on boney humans.

On June 24, 2016, Jaume Collet-Serra's The Shallows was released and showed that a shark movie could, based on an appropriate budget, make money.  Shark movies had their course and haven't really been mainstream, movie theatre entertainment.  B-movie studio The Asylum had sparked a low budget spree of shark films since Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus.  It was a hoot of a movie, and saw a lot of films that came after with crazy plots from Swamp Shark (which I thought was a good deal of fun), to 2-Headed Shark Attack (which is forgettable), to Sharktopus (which was not as fun).  The culmination of all of this was in 2013 when Sharknado became a goofy pop culture event.  Even though there were a lot of shark movies happening, they weren't populating theatres.

After The Shallows came along, all of a sudden sharks were viewed as possible money makers.  I remember seeing an episode of the television show Scorpion (I don't make it a habit to watch that show) where evil sharks were afoot and someone was on a buoy,  just like in The Shallows.  Then we got 47 Meters Down which had a $5.5 million budget and was a profitable endeavour.  This summer, we have the largest of the large in a megalodon.  Humans are on the menu, and the trailer shows that this shark takes no prisoners.

The trailer uses an unusual music choice to let us know that this movie is going to be aiming at being fun and not taking itself super seriously.  That's a good thing, because the special effects do not look special at all.  There have been a lot of schlocky shark movies made, and I have seen a pile of them.  Judging from the trailer, having fun may be about all this movie has going for it.

A number of the shark attack scenes in the trailer are over the top looking, and, if you have seen Shark Attack 3 (and I highly recommend that you do), nothing will seem original about this movie.  We have Jason Statham thrown in there as the man to battle the shark, but will he be better at it than professional shark wrangler Thomas Jane from Deep Blue Sea?  That remains to be seen, but Statham can have a great presence in the right roles.  There isn't much of him talking shown in the trailer to let us get an idea if this is one of those roles that he will excel at.

According to Wikipedia, The Meg has a budget of $150 million.  I so hope that is off by a factor of ten.  Fifteen million is about as high as the budget for a movie like this should be, and the effects look like they came in at that price tag.  If the number on Wikipedia is right, then I think someone may have been in an altered state at the studio when this thing got green lit.  Well, a bit of research found a Forbes article that confirmed that huge budget.  I am honestly shocked and beside myself.  First of all, that is way too much money to throw at a b-looking flick such as this.  Second of all, where the heck did that budget go?  This is some Adam Sandler style money spending going on right here with presumably very little to show for it.

This isn't quite a trailer review.  It has morphed, and I apologize.  There is a chance, from what the trailer showed, that there may be some fun adventure to be had in this movie.  What it is, though, is the exact kind of movie that was popular five to nine years ago, movies on a cheap budget that were made for video or the Syfy channel.  Yes, there have been two examples of successful shark movies in theatres the past two years, but both of those movies combined didn't make enough to earn a profit for The Meg.  I smell a disaster washing up on shore on August 10th.