The Last Jedi: I'm Not Sexist, But...

It has been just over a year since Star Wars: The Last Jedi came out in theatres, a film from director Rian Johnson that blew me away and is only second to Empire Strikes Back in my rankings.  Over three hundred and sixty five days later I am still both bewildered and saddened by something that came about from its release.  After seeing the film, a number of people took to the internet because they had a problem with it.  The issue was the fact that there were a number of female characters and it was feminizing the franchise that these fanboys love.

I personally heard people criticizing the mass amounts of women in the movie, in shock that such a thing would happen.  Women are fifty percent of the population (something that I sadly seem to have to say way too many times), and yet for some reason some fans believe they cannot approach that representation in film.  The outrage that came about because of the increased number of females speaking in the film made it sound like the woman had taken over the film completely and that males were now left with little to do.

Let's get to the reality of the situation. There are six main female roles in The Last Jedi.  There were nine main roles for men.  I have included smaller speaking roles for both genders, like Yoda and Maz Kanata.  The math (which the fanboys seem to ignore) shows that there are fifty percent more men than women.  Yep, still kind of a sausage party, but that isn't realized.  There were efforts by groups of angry fans that tried to drive down the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes.  Honestly, that sort of effort makes it seem like there would be an almost all female cast.  The problem appears to be not that there were more women than men (which there obviously wasn't), but the fact that there were multiple roles for women.

I will be honest.  The fanboys that lurk on the internet generally seem to be misogynistic and immature.  Women were still under-represented in The Last Jedi, but the fact that they had more than a few characters means it was too much.  The fanboys miss the days like in the first film where the only woman was literally a princess to be rescued by men (luckily it turns out she was strong and spunky).  Sorry, there was also Aunt Beru and the minuscule role she played.  That is when the franchise was in its glory days, when even the various aliens were also swinging dicks.

Seeing the reaction that came about last year really was sad.  It is nice to witness how much humanity has progressed in terms of equality, but it is also naive to believe that the days of ignorance and bigotry are behind us.  Remember, the people freaking out weren't upset that there were more men than women.  They weren't upset that there were the same amount of women as men.  They were upset because more woman actually had a role to play in a franchise that they love.

So, my dear fanboys, understand that the very fact that you don't believe that having fifty percent more males than females is adequate, then you are most likely sexist.  Yes, if you are reading this and the apparently overwhelming amount of women was a problem for you in The Last Jedi  then you are most likely sexist.  I'm sure you don't believe that you are, but I can tell you that you are just like those people who say, "I'm not racist, but..."  The basic nature of this whole issue is sexism.

For all of those out there that actually care about equality, be happy in knowing that the year The Last Jedi came out the top three movies in the box office all had a female protagonist.  While there are some vocal, mucus brained dip-shits out there shouting through their keyboards, audiences have shown studio executives that equality is accepted as well as profitable.  These fanboys will carry on with their crusade, but thankfully the rest of the population has proved that they aren't caring as much about the X and Y chromosomes.  Well told stories are what the majority of us are after, regardless of gender representation.

It's Not Unusual: The Battle Over A Dance

Do you remember The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air?  More specifically, do you remember the character Carlton from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air?  Even more specifically, do you remember the way Carlton from The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air danced when he listened to Tom Jones’ ‘It’s Not Unusual?’  For people like me who watched the show every single week, of course I remember.  Other people quite possibly won’t have any recollection of it at all.  That was many years ago, and here we are talking about it twenty two years after the show went off air.

It turns out that Alfonso Ribeiro, the actor who played the role of Carlton Banks in The Fresh Prince, is taking legal action against the insanely popular video game Fortnite.  The reason?  The game uses an emote that makes a person’s character dance exactly how Carlton did.  Because Fortnite’s Battle Royale mode is free to play, they make most of their money through micro transactions that offer cosmetic variety to its players.  That means that for people to get the ability to dance like Carlton they have to pay money, meaning that game company Epic Games is profiting off it.  Ribeiro says that the dance is his intellectual property and that he deserves royalties from it.

I can see where he’s coming from, and I can get on board with it.  He created something that became iconic for fans of a franchise, and it is apparently something that he still does.  The goofy, energetic dance is unlike anything else.  If people who create something aren’t able to get the rewards of that then it cripples the artistic community.

On the other hand, the road that this sort of legal action takes us down also could have crippling effects on the artistic community.  So much of human dialogue is based off of our experiences of hearing other people talk, whether in person on through media.  Anyone who writes characters know that they have to speak organically, and that includes these characters referring to things within their sphere of influence.  So many times I have heard a character in a movie or television show say, “we’re gonna need a bigger boat.”  It works for the audience because this rings true to speech as well as tickling them when they can pick up on a reference they know.  What if Roy Scheider took to court anyone who used that line?  It was his line after all, and is one of the most remembered aspects of Jaws.

Would we think that someone should be able to do the Macarena in a movie, show, or video game?  I understand paying for the music, but should the artist have to pay Los de Rio for doing the dance?  This is where things will start getting murky.  Ultimately every single dance was created by someone at some time.  I know that I had seen multiple shows and movies where people have done the Moon Walk.  Would it make sense that they couldn’t do something that was such a deeply ingrained part of culture?

Here’s where I stand.  Yes, things that people create need to be protected, but in some cases it needs to be accepted that a part of that work has transcended the medium and actually become a collective part of the human experience.  If you think about it, every single cliche, catch phrase, or buzzword first came off the lips of somebody who could then claim it theirs.  There are visuals such as someone standing at the bow of a boat just like Jack in James Cameron’s Titanic that are constantly used because the reference has become ingrained as a part of North American culture.  Should something be restricted when it has become part of the public experience?

While I do understand where Ribeiro is coming from, I think that what this could lead to (not necessarily the case itself) is making things harder for artists and creators.  To capture human nature we sometimes need to lean on those references, visuals, or sayings.  To add another layer of thought for people different references or quotes could be interlaced with dialogue.  There are many reasons why an artist would ether reference or build on what someone else has already done, and it would be a shame for people to eventually become limited to not be able to use any quotes, visual imitations, catch phrases, or buzzwords.

I understand that the case of Alfonso Ribeiro doesn’t sync with all that I am talking about here.  It isn’t this specific case that is the main issue, it is the direction that this can take ownership over things that have become part of the collective human experience.  I wish him good luck in his case, I just worry over where we end up in the future.

REVIEW: Baby Geniuses

If I didn't lose a competition then I never would have seen this film.  I will make that very clear right now.  Netflix, I know you see what I watch and you probably believe that because I clicked on something then it is worth keeping on your service.  It is not.  I made sure to give Baby Geniuses a thumbs down, but I am concerned that isn't adequate.  Picture the world's thumb wrestling champion turning their roided up opposable digit to the ground with the emphasis of thirteen William Wallace's screaming 'FREEDOM', and then multiply that by a factor of ten and we are starting to get into the neighbourhood.  It still isn't a good neighbourhood.

Interesting, Baby Geniuses doesn't have a single baby in it.  If we are playing the semantics game (and I think we should be up for playing any game possible because it will all be more fun than the movie) the film is populated by toddlers.  It's toddlers.  Not babies.  In this mess of a movie, any human being below the age of two knows all of the secrets of the universe.  Yes, toddlers (not babies) apparently know everything from the meaning of Stonehenge to the Caramilk Secret.  Essentially they are Google Kids.

This film starts in a horrible state.  In the first five minutes we have ugly fish eye camera, awkward and poorly framed tight shots of people's faces, titled cameras (because we all know that tilting a camera is a good substitute for a script), semi-extreme closeups (Wayne knows what I'm talking about), and hideous slow motion.  Just because a movie is made for kids doesn't mean it should have absolutely obnoxious directing.  It is terrible.  I called it quits at the five minute mark and had to wait a day before I was able to return to it.

For some reason there is an underground facility that houses lots of baby geniuses.  Kathleen Turner and Christopher Lloyd are bad people, and I guess the kids are good.  Remember, they're Google Kids, so they're going to advertise to you if they can.  I would like to tell you the exact reason for these kids being used by evil people, but I seriously couldn't care at the time of watching it, and I couldn't care less while writing about it.  Director Bob Clarke did everything he could to tell me what was going on.  After the first opening sequence, the next ten minutes are simply bang you over the head expository dialogue.  It is so bad that we have Christopher Lloyd's character for some reason asking a computer voice to tell him the synopsis of their evil program.  Ugh.

Look, director Bob Clarke missed the mark on this one.  To me, he is someone who brought two very important movies to audiences.  He did the immortal A Christmas Story, and he was almost ahead of his contemporaries in a way with Black Christmas.  Oh, and he did Porky's, for which I don't believe he ever apologized.  He did some bad things, but he also made some classics.  Any abilities that were evident in other films were absent in Baby Geniuses.  Technically, this thing is about as low quality as you can get from a wide release movie.  There is so much dialogue that is dubbed.  I'm not sure what happened in the audio department, but the sound difference between what is dubbed and what isn't is plenty big.  It sounds horrible, and it looks ugly as the words we hear aren't even close to syncing with people's lips.   This. Is. Bad.

People may say, 'oh, it's not too bad, and it's just for kids.'  Sometimes it seems as though people have the thought that movies for kids shouldn't be held up to similar standards as other films.  No matter what a movie is about, the people making it should care about their work.  Some of my favourite movies of the past five years have been family films, and I enjoyed them because their creators cared about them.  With Baby Geniuses, it is evident that nobody in production or post production pushed for this to be a quality product, and I'm talking simply from a technical standpoint.  The script is another mess completely, and the acting is from people who appear to have lost a bet.  What is really sad, and I'm not exaggerating on this, is that made for TV movies have better polish and audio than this thing.

The main event of the film, the 'babies (two year olds that are super brilliant but don't know a single English word), could be described as cute at times I suppose.  However, with the special effects employed to move their mouths to dialogue and to get them to do things like dancing can make them creepier than Paul Reubens as the Tooth Fairy.  To the film's credit, there are a few moments where they seem to have gotten the exact expressions and motions out of the kids as they needed, but that really doesn't happen often enough to forget just how bad things look at times.  And also, the horrible, grainy looking slow motion shots that make an appearance at the beginning and end of the film are amateurish.

Music is a bit of a curiosity in this film as well.  I don't know a quality movie that would choose to un-ironically use Taco's version of 'Puttin on the Ritz.'  Yes, it is the song with the music video where the two black face people chant 'super duper' for some reason.  Oh, and then they ol' timey tap dance.  The song is about as 80s of a song as you can get, and it is cringe worthy.  Why they didn't use the original, quality version is something I will never know.  Also, and even more baffling, there is a final song that seems to function as a send off to all of the antics of the 'babies' at the end of the film.  We are seeing cheerful clips of the 'babies' while there is a life zapping country song playing.  The rhythm is soooo dreadfully dull, and the enthusiasm in the singer's voice makes it sound like he was burying his dead horse when his wife left him after getting a notice that the bank is foreclosing, which means they are going to lose the farm that's been in the family for five generations of McCanty's, and there is no way that she is going to let her kids grow up in the home of a failure McCanty.  The song for that final montage is such an atrocious pick, and it is better suited for some sort of drunken funeral march than for a film about 'babies,' genius or no.

I love A Christmas Story. I've been in love with it since I first saw it as a young kid, and I doubt I will ever change the channel if it is on the television.  I only saw Black Christmas a few years ago, but it instantly stood out as a horror that was predicting things to come.  Bob Clark was a skilled director, but for some reason he decided to forget everything he had learned about the process of making a movie over the decades and trade it in for the creation of a mockery that the KGB would use to extract information from captured spies.

Yes, this is a kids movie, but that shouldn't stop a reasonable adult from wanting quality.  You don't feed old batteries in pesto to children just because they are kids and they won't appreciate prime rib, so why feed them something like this.  They still deserve attention to detail, care, and a modicum of respect for their time.  Some of the world's greatest films are for the whole family (such as Wizard of Oz), and they are that way because the people making them believed in what they were doing.  The folks behind Baby Geniuses couldn't be bothered to make sure audio syncs up with what we see, something that even a novice can do, and I'm speaking as someone who did video editing for community television when I was a teen.  The issues of this film are so easily overcome, but they exist because there are some out there that believe your cherished children aren't worthy of effort.

If you're cruising around for something to watch, this shouldn't be it.  Burlap sacks are more intriguing than anything you will find in Baby Geniuses.  Enough people liked it for them to make a sequel, but don't be fooled by that.  This is a technically sloppy film that literally has someone asking a computer to for some reason tell him the entire plot for the movie.  Or maybe he got the computer to tell him the backstory.  I don't know, and it doesn't matter.  It was a slothful device.  I cannot think of a single movie I have seen with less effort in a script in what is one of the laziest forms of expository dialogue that you will ever find.  Resist.  Stay away.  Watch something like Inside Out, The Lion King, The Princess Bride, or The Secret of NIMH, each of them wonderful works that know to treat your family with respect, films that toil to nail each aspect of story telling.  Or, you could pull out that burlap sack from behind the thirty year old cross country skies in the shed and let your kids contemplate the significance of such a sack. They will enjoy that a whole lot more than Baby Geniuses, and you will know that deep down you gave them the better, more fulfilling option.

Rating - 0.5 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Eighth Grade

The years of an early teen can be very turbulent.  I am sure that everyone out there can remember what it is like to worry about acceptance and attention, struggling to have a life of confidence.  Physical changes happen, hormonal changes take place, and social structures become more exclusive.    Director Bo Burnham's debut feature film, Eighth Grade, investigates this time of transition by looking at a few week's in the life of Kayla Day (Elsie Fisher) as she nears the end of grade eight.

Kayla isn't a person that mirrors all of our experiences directly.  She fas no friends, no voice for herself, and absolutely no confidence.  I know that only a small number of people out there will have been in a very similar situation, but Burnham knows that isn't the point.  The universal struggles of Kayla, the desire above everything to be noticed and to belong will hit home with anyone.  I was most certainly socially awkward, but I also know that the kids that had it all together faced the scary fear that they may not fit in and be accepted as well.  Kayla, although she is portrayed in an extreme, represents the emotional hurdles for all in that age range.

Acceptance is a big lust of Kayla's, and she believes that she must aim high.  The girls she tries to befriend are the coolest in the school.  Kayla is obsessed with Aiden (Luke Prael), her dream hunk.  Kayla's desire to date the cool boy is strong, as is the need to be befriended by the particular girls.  Elsie Fisher delivers a performance that conveys to the audience just how important this is to her, and how she needs this above everything else.  Life for Kayla, it seems, will have meaning should she achieve her goals.

Kayla's desires inevitably bring about some issues for her, as she needs to come to decide what lengths she will go to in able to get what she wants.  In the case of this film, Kayla thinks that sexuality is the way to get Aiden, that she needs to be exactly what he would want.  What is completely awkward is that Kayla really has no clue of what she is talking about, and is repulsed when she does a little research.  This is the treasure that is Kayla.  While the pressure of being socially accepted appears to override everything in her life, her character ultimately refuses to give away her innocence.

The realm of sexuality in young people is definitely something that Bo Burnham is addressing with Eighth Grade.  This is something that these kids are unable to escape, and Burnham shows how difficult it can be to stay true to yourself.  Kayla faces a few situations where she believes that she is supposed to act a certain way, that it is expected of her, and her conscience and her own comfort are tested.  I know that some people would probably prefer that sexuality isn't addressed in movies about kids, but the reality is that Kayla's struggles are real.  This is what kids face, and, as we see with Kayla, it takes courage to make the right decisions.

This brings up the issue with the movie's rating.  In Canada, it is rated 14-A.  In the United States, it has the R rating.  The film has a little bit of swearing that could be cut out, but Burnham's quest here is to reflect the harsh truth of life at this age.  Because of the rating, the audience that needs to see this the most, the group of people that should see Kayla's story and the decisions she makes, are unable to because of their age.  The rating system really misses the point of movies like this.  What is depicted here, while deemed inappropriate for kids in their early teens, is the truth of their life.  It is unfortunate that what they face every day at school is deemed too mature for them in a film that is not glamourizing these issues, but looking at the toll that they can take.

Social media and living online are a big part of this movie.  Kayla is almost constantly on her phone.  It is the life she lives, and it is a realm where she is not the nerdy kid.  She can be anything at all online.  Interestingly, Kayla creates Youtube videos where she gives life advice and guidance.  None of what she says is anything that she does in real life, and it is the perfect way for Burnham to show how different an online presence can be compared to what people are like offline.  The videos that Kayla makes are terrific, as she tries to spit out confidence, but can't stop over using words such as 'like.'

A part of the film that shows just how isolated kids may feel in their issues is Kayla's relationship with her father, Mark (Josh Hamilton).  Kayla's mother left the family, so it is just the two of them.  The want from her father to have a connection bleeds from the screen, and Hamilton portrays the longing of a parent to understand their child as well as to be understood.  While a lot of films may have focused largely on just what the character would face at school, here we have a touching and heart wrenching depiction of just how far away from their child a parent can be even while sitting at the same table.

All of the wonderful aspects of the story are created with realism through the acting of Elsie Fisher.  She is very young, but the pure range of nuance that is evident in her performance is something that many mature and weathered talents aren't capable of.  I have talked a lot about the heft of this movie, but there are many hilarious moments, and they are all perfectly earned thanks to Fisher.  This is some legit high level acting, the kind that really needs to be well considered for an Oscar nomination.  As I said earlier, Kayla is a conduit for all of us, regardless of if we were awkward like her or not, and Fisher is largely to thank for that.

This really is a wonderful tale.  There is ample humour, relatability, sadness, and triumph.  Bo Burnham created what feels like an authentic experience.  While I would say its target audience is young teens, it is a film that will speak to many adults.  It is a reminder of just how intense the battle for acceptance and identity is at that point in life.  What ultimately stands out is the courage of Kayla, someone who believes they are willing to do anything for friends, but seems to almost surprise herself when she refuses to act out of character.  While difficult at times, this film delivers laughter and, most importantly, connects us deeply to our protagonist and the outcome.  It is a beautiful tale that is easily one of the best films of the year, one that speaks to both kids as well as adults.

Rating - 4 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: War Room

If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.  Yeah, I'm not going to be following that advice.  Sometimes things do need to be said, and I believe that is what should happen in the case of the faith based film, War Room.  I know that there are a lot of people that enjoyed this movie based on the fact that it has an 87% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes.  The film was also a financial success as it made $67 million on a budget of $3 million.  To all of the people that like this film and its message, I need to make it as clear as can be that I found this movie to be incredibly upsetting.

The story is about a married family that has struggles.  The wife, Elizabeth (Priscilla C. Shirer), suffers at the hands of the sternly controlling, borderline verbally abusive, and affair seeking Tony (T.C. Stallings).  They have a wonderful little girl, Danielle (Alena Pitts), who gets stuck seeing mommy and daddy fighting.  The story takes off when Elizabeth comes across a cliche named Clara (Karen Abercrombie), an elderly woman that has no boundaries that pries her way into Elizabeth's life to then mentor her.  The guidance that Clara gives, which is in fact the message of the movie, is where the serious issue arises.

Elizabeth is told to pray for her husband.  Sure.  Fine.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  The problem is that this is ALL she is told she should do.  Clara, and the movie as a whole, is saying that in this situation, with a husband that is controlling, borderline verbally abusive, and actively seeking an affair, all the woman should do is pray.  She is not to assert herself.  She is not to stand up for herself.  She is not to question him on who this other woman is.  And, insultingly, she isn't even to express her feelings.  Nope, all she should do, as a good wife, is pray.  This, friendly reader, is absolute bullsh*t.

I understand that director Alex Kendrick is trying to show that people need to rely on God and trust Him, but try actually sitting down with a woman in an abusive relationship and telling her that she isn't even to call her husband out on what he does.  Elderly cliche, prying Clara nails home the fact that Elizabeth has to pray and get out of the way.  That is what Alex Kendrick is saying is to be done in such a situation.

Of course, this is all easily said within the safe confines of War Room.  A lot of faith based films that I have seen have tried to take 'gritty' topics (like the unhealthy marriage in War Room) to address, but then glaze everything over in a happily ever after fairy tale.  This film is no different.  The husband quickly comes to his senses and everything becomes picture perfect, and the real life questions are worse than ignored.  What happens if the prayer isn't answered?  What happens if the behaviour not only continues, but gets worse.  I guess that doesn't matter.  Apparently the woman is just supposed to take it and never even tell her spouse that she is hurt by what happens.

If you disagree with what I am saying, watch the movie again.  This is what Kendrick is saying, and I do not know how it could be argued otherwise.  The character of Clara is essentially the moral compass of the movie, and it is through her lips that the message is told.  Not only is Clara a cliche, but she is a dangerous cliche that tries to convince people that real life serious issues can be looked at with such simplicity.

  Six percent of females in Ontario report being physically or sexually abused by a spousal partner.  That's only the people who report it.  The real percentage is much higher.  What justice is being done to those poor sufferers (and the males that get abused as well) by saying that the only thing they should do is pray.  Maybe Kendrick would say that physical abuse is different, but, once again, where is the line drawn?  At what point would elderly, cliche, prying Clara advise a woman that she should actually do something for her own mental or physical health instead of just existing like a prisoner?

The message of this movie is quite brutal and is beyond tone deaf.  I mostly had female friends in high school, and had lots of female friends beyond that.  Sadly, I got to see the reality of these relationships that eat away at them and break them.  Never once, and never will I ever, would I have told them they needed to take the kind of fantasy, everything is always going to work out way that War Room puts forth.  There is much more than this simplistic approach.

I have no problem with spirituality being looked at through film.  I honestly think that is something that audiences are open to.  Everyone, regardless of their thoughts on religion, has had moments in their life when they have connected with something on a different level.  Whether it's looking at their new born child for the first time or sitting around a campfire with the magnificent starry sky overhead.  The problem is when movies address these things like War Room does.  It serves to only preach to the choir, and, as with most faith based films, presents themselves as dealing with 'real issues' but never showing actual struggle or consequence.  They come off as fantasy, missing out on opportunities to highlight what actual people deal with when confronted with faith.

There were a few aspects of the film that I do feel the need to point out as positive.  This is the first Kendrick brother film that looked like a real film.  For so long I have despised faith based films for having the same visual presence as Hallmark made for TV films.  People have argued back with me that I need to remember the budget that they were made on, but it doesn't take much knowledge of independent cinema to know that there are films made for a whole lot less that look a whole lot better.  The technical aspect of these films has always been embarrassing, so it is nice seeing that perhaps a corner has been turned.  The audio quality was legit level as well.  Having said all of that, I don't know if it's actually a praise to say that a movie that came out in theatres looked like a movie that would be distributed to theatres.  I don't say that about any other film.  I didn't last year say, 'Oh, wow!  Christopher Nolan made Dunkirk look like a movie!'

Young Alena Pitts, playing the daughter, was very fun to watch.  She had a great emotional range, and the only times in the movie where I felt any kind of connection to the state of the family was through her.  Also, at the end of the film there is a music montage (sigh... one of three music montages in the film... sigh...) that shows freestyle double-Dutch skipping.  I never knew such a thing existed, but there were some serious skills on display.

This movie was nothing but fantasy.  It is so far from feeling real world applicable, and, while seeming to claim a grittiness, it is candy coated in a world where there is no consequence.  I get what Kendrick was trying to show, but that's not what actually came out.  It's the same thing with the offensive Sucker Punch by Zack Snyder.  He believed the movie was really about female empowerment, when what his movie showed was that the only way women could be empowered was in their imaginations because they couldn't take what happened in the real world.  Both directors thought one thing, but, when the base premise is inspected, the films are really just tripe from men who don't seem to have a flippin' clue what women deal with.  People liked this movie, and feel free to argue with me over it.  We can go through the script line by line and nowhere will you find elderly, cliche, prying Clara (who is the bringer of the movie's message) saying anything that disproves what I have said.

Rating - 0.5 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: A Quiet Place

A Quiet Place is a tender story about family bonds, dealing with loss, and forgiveness while also being a cutting edge creature feature.  The typical modern horror movie is very loud, with the quiet moments generally happening just before a boisterous scare attempt.  Noise is applied often in formulaic ways that actually make predicting jump scares an easy task.  There are some movies that stand out for how they use sound (I remember The Others was a great theatre experience because of this), and A Quiet Place is possibly the best example of utilizing audio to tell the story.

What we have is a family of five that are trying to live in a world where alien monsters have arrived and hunt people for food.  The creatures cannot see and use heightened hearing to find their meals.  People need to be quiet to survive, and the Abbott family has three children, and kids can't help but make noise at times.  The parents are Evelyn (Emily Blunt) and Lee (John Krasinski), and it is not long before something tragic happens to their family leading to friction between the father and Regan (Millicent Simmonds), the eldest daughter.  Regan is def, so the family knows how to use sign language, which comes in handy.

The majority of the film takes place on one day.  Evelyn is very pregnant, and there is a great deal of tension over when the baby is going to come.  With monsters hunting by sound, the audience knows that giving birth to a crying infant could mean death.  A lot of what happens in this movie comes down to the sounds that get made.  With almost everything quiet, the times when director John Krasinski taps into the small sounds of life, such as footsteps and children playing a board game make an impact.  The subtle noises make it so that when something loud happens it jolts us, being very alien to the experience we are a part of.  Everything we hear tells as much a tale as what we see.  Krasinski's attention to the auditory side of the film is masterful, and creates a full body interaction with the movie.

Playing off of the sound effects is the terrifying score from Marco Beltrami, who has had two Oscar nominations for his work on The Hurt Locker, and 3:10 to Yuma.  Even though the year isn't yet complete, I will already say that he deserves to be nominated for A Quiet Place, and he deserves the win.  What he writes weaves organically with the script, making the power of sound so dynamic and overwhelming.  It has been a while since I have heard a score as good as this one.

A Quiet Place is all around technically masterful.  The editing stands out through just how tight the shots move from one to another, with scenes ending just at a point that will have your brain imagining all sorts of things.  We get slow moments that last not a second too long, and taught build up to tense moments.  Exactly how this movie is composed and structured shows that Krasinski has a built in understanding of how long any scene or individual shot needs to be.

The story that is told is very touching, and I would only guess that for those out there who are parents, the movie may end up hitting the emotions more than it did for me.  I felt that through Krasinski's writing and the acting of everyone involved I understood the emotions of the parents.  Many people, while the events may not be as tragic as the Abbott's, can relate to the hurt that can arise and just how our relationships are affected.  Make sure you let others know how you feel, and embrace what you have.  The themes of family are strong, a deeply heartfelt voyage through a time of trial that just happens to have monsters as well.  The creatures aren't the real villain here.  The real antagonist is what happens when we don't know just how those close to us feel.

A Quiet Place may not have the smart social commentary written in Get Out, but that doesn't mean that it isn't as deserving for getting some Oscar nominations.  This is a film that is much more than the scares, a movie that brings the viewer on an emotional journey that has significant heft.  The power of the film, as well as the scares, comes from a combination of many different techniques that are all executed in a way that allows them to lean on each other.  All aspects of A Quiet Place are phenomenal, and they all serve each other, creating a masterful piece of cinema that is unmatched.

Rating - 4 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: It

There were two main authors that influenced my youth.  For a long time it was the crazy worlds and adventures that Roald Dahl would create.  When I got a little bit older, I had my first true Stephen King moment.  It was grade seven, and a friend of mine at school told me about something that had been on television.  Thankfully he had recorded it, and I got to see the opening scene of the TV mini-series of It.  I already knew that horror was my thing, but what I had seen prior was instantly outclassed when I saw young Georgie interacting with Pennywise the Dancing Clown, who was talking to him from inside a storm drain.  The way the scene played out was both enticing and horrifying.  I was hooked.  Within a year I had read Pet Cemetery, Misery, and Cujo.  Eventually I took on the mammoth task of reading It, busting through its thousand pages as though they were nothing.  This book, like what I had seen in the intro of the mini-series, stood out.

In 2017 a theatrical version of the film came out, and I was torn.  I really wanted to see it, but this was a treasure from my youth, and I didn't want it to be ruined.  I think It was the exact same thing for many people.  The story is one that makes older people feel young, and gives young people a look at what time may bring about as they get older.  The big key for this movie, which is the first of two, is that it needed to nail the energy of the characters.

It is about a group of young boys and one girl who are self described losers that realize something horrendous happened in their small town every twenty seven years, and whatever caused this to happen began toying with each of them.  Adults in the town of Derry pay no attention to the tragedies, as though the entity is able to make them unable to put the pieces together.  The kids, who call themselves The Losers Club, decide that they need to stop this evil that manifests itself as a very creepy clown named Pennywise.

The glue of this story is being able to feel as though these children are real people and not just characters in a story.  Stephen King always made every person in his stories unique, and the script for the film (penned by Chase Palmer, Cary Joji Fukunaga and Gary Dauberman) does everything justice.  Our members of The Losers Club are all very individual, as though an entire story could be told through their own perspectives.  Each of them has their own fears, their own strengths, and hurdles.  The electric dialogue captures the way a number of young boys talk with laser precision.  The words flow, and their honesty makes The Losers Club come alive, giving us a strong emotional connection.

Viewing this film was a wonderful walk down memory lane, as each of the characters felt preserved from how I knew them from both the book and the mini-series.  There's stuttering Bill as the de-facto leader.  Beverly Marsh is brave and bold, coming from a horrible family life.  Eddie Kaspbrak is constantly terrified of getting sick because of his over protective mother.  And, always my favourite member of The Losers Club, Richie Tozier.  Whether we're talking about book, mini-series, or movie, Richie's antics are always entertaining.  Oh, and how could I forget the incredibly cruel Henry Bower, who has some complexity as a psychotic bully.  All of the characters in the movie, even if some aspects may have changed, felt just as they always had.

One aspect that I was really worried about with the film version was how Pennywise would be played.  The mini-series doesn't really stand up today, but I still love what Tim Curry did as Pennywise.  He was equal parts giggly and depraved, a combination that was haunting.  I will have to admit that on second viewing of It I do like how Bill Skarsgard envisions the clown.  It is very different, but still a very creepy performance.  There is a perverse nature, which meets up with immaturity, which meets up with sociopath.

The only thing that really ever took me out of the experience of It was some of the special effects.  Most of the time the digital work is beautiful and seamless, but a few times it was not as good.  I understand some of the shape shifting and trans morphing that Pennywise does needs digital effects, and those were all really good, but there were a few other moments when I became disconnected from the terror of the children.  It didn't happen often, but it did manage to cause a bump in the experience.  Please don't think that I'm saying that this is a poor aspect of the film.  I just felt like I should mention that a couple of times the effects didn't do it for me.  Just a few.  Don't hate me.  The rest of it looked great.

The point of this film isn't just to set up the showdown they will have with Pennywise in twenty seven years time.  It seems to serve as a message on how youth see the world differently than their parents.  I also believe that it will be part of a message on how we grow old, and what parts of us stay true to our childish nature.  That's just a guess, because I don't know what the second movie is going to focus on.  From what I remember, it is a theme of the book.

Like many of the horror classics I have written about this past week, there is a lot of good stuff attached to this film.  It's main strength as a book is that the stories of the young and old are told simultaneously.  It is understandable why both the mini-series and theatrical movie have decided to split into two parts to keep everything flowing for the medium of film.  Ultimately, I am sure the best way to view It will be next year when you can see the second part at the same time.  That's not meaning that I think you should wait.  Watch it now, and then watch it again next year.  Simple.

Based purely on quality reasons I could feel fine with calling It a modern horror classic.  It is scary, paced like a nightmare, and gives us complex characters, both good and bad.  When you add to that the fact that it went on to have the biggest opening weekend for a horror, and the second highest for an R-rated film, this is a movie that I don't will be forgotten by audiences any time soon.  People flocked to this movie like nothing else, and I do not believe they were disappointed.  I also think that for some younger viewers who may have snuck in, seeing Georgie and Pennywise will provide a new generation with a transformative experience.

Rating - 4 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Get Out

Is it racist when people have simplistic, fond thoughts on people of a certain skin colour based on stereotypes?  Heck yes, it is.  In Get Out, writer and director Jordan Peele highlights what may seem like a different kind of racism, a more kind racism, but really it is just as ignorant as its meaner sibling.  It is a fascinating concept to look at, and Peele delivers a film that is primed for starting discussions.

The story is based around the relationship between Rose Armitage (Allison Williams) and her black boyfriend, Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) as they head off to her whiter than white parent's house for the weekend.  This is the first time Chris will meet the parents, and he is curious about what their reaction will be to his skin colour.    The parents Missy (Catherine Keener), and Dean (Bradley Whitford... hey, isn't this the second time this week we're talking about him?) are charming, and Dean seems to do anything possible to show Chris that he's not racist.  The interesting aspect about this is the basic fact that, even without mean or alienating intentions, Dean is treating Chris differently because of his skin.  The racism that is looked at in Get Out is much different than what we normally see.

It is clear that Chris is used to being treated differently.  On their way to Rose's parent's house, she hits a deer.  This incident will actually lead to some interesting points about Chris' life and his survival.  Anywho, a police officer is called.  After talking to Rose, he nonchalantly asks Chris to see his identification.  Rose immediately gets upset, but Kaluuya's expression is that this is just a daily occurrence for him.  It is quite sad to see that at this point in the film, he is resigned to this sort of experience.

As the Armitage's throw a big party, Chris begins to really encounter some very odd white folk.  It seems as though everyone wants to comment on the fact that he's black.  This, to me, feels like it is looking at white privilege.  Caucasians feeling that because they aren't talking negatively that they can give insight to the minority, before being able to turn away and carry on conversations with others while Chris would be left with what was said.  Jordan Peele takes white privilege to absurd heights in this film, but I'm afraid I cannot tell you how that happens.

The concept and the conversation that Peele brings with Get Out is indeed quite fascinating.  After numerous viewings, I always seem to walk away from the movie believing that the point of the film was something other than what I had previously thought.  This is the true power of the film.  Because there can be many different ways to interpret it, there are a great number of conversations that could be started after the movie is over.

Daniel Kaluuya is strong as Chris.  This is a character who is inserted into so many different awkward situations and conversations, and Kaluuya sells it all brilliantly.  There is a determination in him that says he will not allow race to be an issue in his relationship with Rose, but it is tested often.  As the film travels on, there are many more different sides of Chris that we see.  Overall, the acting in Get Out is top notch, and the different characters are developed and coloured in with complexities.  The most joyous character in the film is Chris' friend Rod (Lil Rel Howery), a caring person that is committed to the friendship.  Rod brings the comedy to the film.  There isn't too much of it, and there isn't too little of it.  Coming from a comedy background, it is very evident that Jordan Peele knows how to use it in moderation to add flavour to a film.

Of course, because this is a horror, there needs to be some scares.  This is a movie that works at a simmering slow build instead of trying to constantly dive-bomb the audience like many horrors.  There are small scary occurrences in the first two acts of the film, but it is in the third that it really gets crazy.  I think Peele offers enough enticing moments that it doesn't feel like the audience is waiting forever to get to the horror part of the film.

Throw into the equation some otherworldly pacing and editing, and this film flies by.  Four times viewed for me, and there still isn't a scene where I look at the time and maybe run to grab a soda from the fridge.  There is a really good reason why this movie got Oscar nominations.  It is smooth in its flow, with scenes just melding into each other, bridged by smart dialogue and fantastic acting.

I really hope that the Academy never includes a 'popular film' award.  Yes, that sort of thing will give much more mainstream films recognition, but the negative effect that it will have is much worse.  People who make genre movies that are usually considered children's table material will never be considered for the 'legit' best picture award.  If the popular category was around a few years ago, Mad Max: Furry Road wouldn't have gotten the best picture nom, and the same would have happened with Get Out.  What I'm getting at here is that because horror is a pushed aside genre, truly great material needs its chance to get recognized as on par with the typical dramatic Oscar bait.  We already had films like The Witch and The Babadook get nary a closer look, and the fact that Get Out earned four nominations with one win changes the way that the market looks at this product.  Smarter horrors have now proved to be currently financially viable.  The more acclaim for these films, the more interesting ideas will get green-lit.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: The Witch

If you are a fan of period movies that take great effort to create a truly detailed and immersive experience, you can't do much better than The Witch.  Apparently it was filmed a stone's throw away from my old stomping grounds in North Bay after quite a search to find the right forest for what writer and director Robert Eggers had in mind.  A great amount of research was invested to make sure the colonial New England town in the story was as authentic as possible.  The effort put into The Witch is a great accomplishment, and it is difficult to watch it and not feel like were are right there with the characters.

The story is around a family of British settlers that head off into the woods to create a life of their own after some type of argument with the church.  We aren't told what exactly the issue was, but the main thing is that we learn that spirituality is of high importance to this family.  The father, William (Ralph Ineson), is the reason behind this relocation.  The film revolves around the eldest daughter Thomasin (Anya Taylor-Joy), and her relationship with her siblings and parents as their faith is put to the ultimate test.

Life goes sideways for this family with the sudden disappearance of their baby boy.  From there, items disappear, crops die, and the thoughts that witchcraft is behind these misfortunes slowly starts making its way into the mind and mouth of the mother, Katherine (Kate Dickie).  She is emotionally destroyed from the loss of her infant, and claims from her young twin children point the finger at Thomasin being a witch.  From there, well, things devolve pretty quickly.

Eggers seems to know that the scariest part of this movie may not be the creepy events that happen, but rather what happens amongst the characters.  Suspicion and judgement grow to a horrifying height, and there is a true sense of having no idea just how things are going to play out.  It is this that really makes the experience haunting as we see how people react when the foundations of their faith are tested in the darkest of ways.

The audience is shown in the first act that there is indeed some sort of malevolent force that inhabits the forest at the edge of the family's land.  Eggers doesn't shy away from eliminating the whole 'is it real' aspect from the viewing experience.  Many other directors would love to play with their audience, making them question if there is indeed some sort of supernatural explanation.  With The Witch, we know right away something evil exists.  This knowledge enhances the movie when we see the family implode and knowing that the problem isn't Thomasin.

The existence of the witch, and in what form it would take, is played with through the film with the young twins.  They are probably around ten, and they like spending time following a goat around that they call Black Phillip.  They sing songs about him, and some of the lyrics hint that something isn't right.  One of the twins claims to Thomasin that Black Phillip talks to them, giving us a sense that there is some sort of wicked manifestation in the goat.

Up there with the set design as a monumental achievement is the dialogue.  I really couldn't tell you if this was indeed how people would have talked in the 1600s, but it is so much more interesting and engaging than just having people with a British accent speaking normally and only adding 'hath,' 'thee', and 'doest.'  The unique form of speech did cause an issue for me when I had first seen this movie in theatres.  Being able to see it again on Netflix with subtitles aided me a lot.  It also gave be a greater appreciation for the work put into the dialogue.

The acting in the film is great across the board, but with two standout performances.  Ralph Ineson (who I knew from The Office) is commanding as a patriarch that seems to feel that he must be the backbone of strength for his family.  It could be that motivation comes from him taking the family away from the plantation where they were living, bringing them to a location that was secluded and brought many problems with it.  Ineson really dives into the character of William, which adds much to the tension that takes place in the final act.

The other outstanding role was that of Anya Taylor-Joy.  I hadn't seen her previous to The Witch, but it took next to no time to understand that this young talent was someone to pay attention to.  Since The Witch, I have seen her in three movies, and she never disappoints.  The skill that she brings to Thomasin is very nuanced.  This is a character that we attach to, that we side with, and that we end up getting scared for.  We don't know what end her father may bring upon her, and we don't know what the supernatural evil will have in store for her.  Her panic and her isolation transfer onto us, making this movie extremely scary for numerous reasons.

For some reason I had only given this movie three and a half stars when I originally saw it.  The Witch had some more to reveal to me on the second viewing.  When movies can still live as vibrantly on repeat viewings there is something special about it.  The Witch is set in a spooky location with a downward spiral of a family, all of it was just as terrifying as when I had seen it in a dark theatre.  No, scratch that.  It was much more scary the second time.

Rating - 4 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: It Follows

Set in a timeless world, It Follows is the sophomore feature film from director David Robert Mitchell.  The televisions are all CRT back and white, and very old movies are being viewed on them.  The cars are equally old, and yet the story still exists in the present (of future) because of a gadget that a character possesses.  It is quite interesting for the film to go that route, with even having a synth score, perhaps in a way to say that this story and its themes transcend generations.

Our main character, college student Jay (Maika Monroe) has a romantic physical encounter with her boyfriend Hugh (Jake Weary), only for it to turn dark.  Jay is tied up in a chair, in a decrepit building, and told that she now has an entity that will be pursuing her.  It can look like anybody.  It is slow because it walks.  It cannot be shaken, as it will never stop until it kills her.  She is told that Hugh has passed this evil onto her through intercourse.  All Jay needs to do is sleep with someone, and the evil will go after him.  The problem is that if it catches and kills a person, it will then go after the one who had passed it on.  If Jay gets caught, it will pursue Hugh again.  He tells Jay that she needs to pass it on and warn the person so they can pass it on.

The concept is very interesting.  Is Mitchell making a statement on casual or unprotected sex. saying that you are connected to everyone your partner has slept with?  It could be that David Robert Mitchell is saying that people need to be more careful about who they get in the sack with.  Allegorical or not, this is a tense film that creates a perpetual sense of fear in the viewer as you know that anyone in the background of a scene could be the evil that is coming to capture Jay.

Interestingly, it is set in Detroit, and uses the collapse of the city as a theme.  There are conversations between Jay and her friends that indicate the city itself is something that was misunderstood by their parents.  This could be a message that is furthered by Mitchell making sure that parents are almost completely absent.  It could be that this is playing on the fact that many slashers are just about the teens or young adults and the parents are always forgotten.  The way I look at it is that he is suggesting certain issues that people face are something that they believe they need to deal with on their own, and that the parents would not understand.

There is a great deal of suspicion that builds throughout the film.  We, like Jay, don't know what the evil will look like.  A lot of films want to have an iconic antagonist appearance.  That is not the case here.  There is no one true image of the entity, leaving Jay to be eternally scared.  It is quite a brilliant move from Mitchell.

Probably the best aspect of the film is the acting clinic that we get from Maika Monroe.  It Follows was her breakout performance.  The role is one that demands so many different emotions and moods, and Monroe handles them all.  The scares for the audience are tethered to what we see of Jay's experiences, and without such a talented lead it could have been a real letdown of a movie.

I've seen this film a few times now, and I still don't know where I stand on possible statements from Mitchell.  Perhaps there are none and I am just reading into things.  Regardless, seeing a movie that gets the brain flowing is always a fun endeavour.  With It Follows we have many different ways to look at what it is saying.  And, most importantly, we have a scary movie.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: The Babadook

Chances are that you may have never heard of this movie, and, if that's the case, you really need to do yourself a favour and view The Babadook.  This Australian film, written and directed by debuting filmmaker Jennifer Kent, made most of its money in the foreign film scene, grossing just shy of $1 million in North America.  However, just because people didn't flock out to see it doesn't mean that this movie isn't an undeniable horror classic.  I would easily put it in the top ten horrors from the last decade, and if someone proclaimed that it was a top ten horror movie of all time, they would be justified in saying so.  Heck, if I heard a person say this is actually the best horror movie ever made, I don't know how I would be able to go about arguing against that.

Watching it yesterday for the fourth time, it does not diminish at all.  It is just as impactful in what Jennifer Kent is saying about human nature, and the emotional impact of the story hits just as heavy.  The story is about a widowed mother, Amelia (Essie Davis), trying to take care of her son, Samuel (Noah Wiseman), who constantly acts out.  The toll that her son's behaviour takes on Amelia is devastating, with her emotional fragility bringing her close to collapse.  One night Samuel brings his mother a bedtime book to read.  It's cover is simple, red with the words 'The Babadook' and a back silhouette of a creepy being.  The book begins curious enough, but then turns from lightly disturbing to flat out dark.

Samuel, who has always believed there are monsters in the house, now cannot stop talking about The Babadook, which constantly occupies his mind and affects his behaviour.  It is just another incident that Amelia has to deal with, and, by this point, there is just no more energy to handle it properly.  Not only that, but soon enough she comes to have her own encounters with The Babadook.  From there, reality distorts itself, and her small family is in jeopardy.

The beauty of this script from Kent is the fact that the monster is merely symbolic.  The Babadook isn't just a horror, but an allegory for what happens when we don't deal with grief and loss.  Amelia has not been able to let go and move on from the death of her husband seven years prior, and the collapse of her family and personal mental health is solely because of her intense suffering.  The monster can only be overcome when she reclaims her life, choosing to care for her son in the present instead of living emotionally in the past.  Kent makes an interesting point here in that coming to this point doesn't vanquish The Babadook.  Those things, she seems to say, will never leave us, and that is okay.  Dealing with grief doesn't mean forgetting, but rather keeping that monster close by and managing it.

The stresses of Amelia are heartbreaking, and Kent makes sure to portray that there is no aspect of her life that she has all to herself.  Everything is invaded either by The Babadook or her son.  The relationship with her son seems to be a bit hyperbolic to illustrate that Samuel's health and development is directly connected to how Amelia interacts with the past and the loss of her husband who died while driving her to the hospital when she was giving birth to Samuel.  In a way, she hates Samuel because of this.  Even with that baggage, Kent continually shows us that Amelia knows her duty to her son and that she does want to properly love him.

This is a weighty script, with many different aspects that could be explored for their significance.  One technique used by Kent is to use a grey filter throughout, making life appear without vibrance and hope.  That visual also makes what we see in the film line up with the black and white pages of The Babadook book.  What is interesting is that she never reveals true colours, even after the resolution at the end, perhaps another way of stating that the past will always still be with us.

With all of its interesting complexities, I need to draw attention to something about this film that you need to know.  Yes, it's dramatic, and hopefully what I have written about gets some interest flowing. However, this is still a horror movie, and it is absolutely terrifying.  Jennifer Kent wraps her message up in a vessel that both unnerves and scares the audience, using pacing techniques, environment, atmosphere, visuals, and audio to rattle the viewer.  I have seen countless horror films and can see a scare coming a mile away.  Not only was I frightened when I first saw it three and a half years ago, but I was still affected on my fourth viewing.  That is something special.  To be able to have that continued impact on a repeat viewer almost never happens.

Quality horror films are becoming more plentiful these days, and I believe a lot of that success is coming off of the back of movies like this.  Well, there really aren't other movies like this.  Kent uses all of the techniques of a horror in a way that doesn't feel redundant, and applies elements only when needed.  There isn't anything superfluous in the entire movie.  For that reason, it is a modern work of art.  When you throw in the symbolism of what the monster represents and the journey that the protagonist must undertake you have a film that sticks with everyone who encounters it.  The Babadook, I believe, has opened the door for horrors to once again focus on themes.  You may not have heard about it, but this is a timeless work that is one of the very best that cinema has ever seen.

Rating - 4 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Conjuring

Director James Wan made a name for himself with the low-budget, high concept horror film, Saw, a movie that kicked off a massive franchise.  From there, Wan teamed up with Saw scriptwriter Leigh Whannell (who has grown into a very talented director as well) in a movie that I couldn't stand called Dead Silence.  From there it was Insidious, a second hugely popular franchise created by Wan and Whannell.  In 2013, Wan worked with different writers, Chad and Carey Hayes, on a 'based on real life' film, The Conjuring.  The resultant product nailed it with both critics (86% on Rotten Tomatoes) and fans, making $320 million world wide on a budget of just $20 million.

Landmark movies are easy to spot, whether you like them or not.  I saw Paranormal Activity in theatres, and, as much as I didn't enjoy it, it was undeniable that the audience was enraptured and that movies would be changed going forward.  Seeing The Conjuring in theatres, the audience experience was so different.  While in Paranormal Activity the scenes only were constructed to lead to a moment that would make the audience jump, The Conjuring gripped people in a different way.  It was through old school story telling that viewers were being immersed.  This appreciation was echoed in the box office.  Paranormal Activity, the financial juggernaut of a franchise, tallied up $890 million world wide from six movies.  The 'shared universe' that was created from The Conjuring has racked up $1.5 billion from five movies.

What I would pick as Wan's greatest strength is the fact that you can easily tell that he learns from his movies and works to tighten elements up and further explore compelling ideas.  When he got to The Conjuring, as mentioned above, there was a sense of old school story telling, something that was quite fresh in a time of the poorly premised found footage films that were all over the place.  A downside to calling on the old school was the fact that there is a scene at the beginning of the movie when a family is moving into an old house where the dog refuses to enter.  Mild spoiler, but the moment a horror fan saw that scene they knew that the dog would later be found dead, probably by a young child that would scream.  Other tropes include a child talking to an invisible ghost that wants to be their friend and a haunted trinket.  At least there are no birds flying into things without explanation.  Oh, wait...

The story is about a family with five kids that find themselves living in a haunted house.  Lili Taylor plays the mother, Carolyn, and Ron Livingston plays the father, Roger.  In an attempt to find relief from the pestering of the dark spirit, real life paranormal investigators Lorraine and Ed Warren are called upon.  Take these people with a big ol' grain of pink Himalayan salt, as they 'investigated' the famous Amityville house and said it was truly haunted, even though it came out that it was nothing but a hoax devised over wine.

However, be them snake oil salespeople or not, Wan and the Hayes siblings are smart enough to know that these characters are going to be key in how the audience accepts the movie as a whole.  There are scares, but then there is also the art of making everything mean something as an entire package.  Paranormal Activity made the entire audience jump, but, from the people I have talked to, it failed to make them really connect with the story.  Wan knows that the Warrens are important, and he crafts them as people who are likeable, who care deeply about others, but who also have learned that there is a line in the sand (sorry for the cliche) that they can no longer cross.  This is the backbone of the film, as they desire to help, but the repercussions could be massive.  All of this is developed even more-so in the The Conjuring 2, which I feel is a much stronger movie.

Playing the Warrens are the incredible Vera Farmiga and Patrick Wilson.  It is clear that they really care about the characters they are portraying, and they slip into their skin with finesse and ease.  They are relatable, and it is easy to feel the impact of the decisions they must make.  The casting here is so brilliant, giving a grounded connection to the audience.

It is because there is an actual story to care about that makes The Conjuring really stand out from others of its time.  There were so many atrocious movies that really didn't care about their overall stories, much less their leads.  Things aren't necessarily deep and reflective in this film, but it just goes to show the difference that caring about the entire product can do.

The Conjuring really felt like James Wan's scariest film when it came out.  As I said, it is clear that he grows and learns from each project, and the spoils of that culminate in The Conjuring (and even much more in the sequel).  In the film, we do have some jump scares, but there are also many moments where it is all about the build and the atmosphere.  The house itself is a character, and not utilizing the location is a fault more common than you would imagine.

This was supposed to be Wan's final horror.  He had moved on to direct the box office Goliath Furious Seven, but he couldn't stay away for long.  It is clear that this is in his blood, and it is something that he is undeniably successful at.  How many other directors have created three mega hit franchises?  Those franchises alone, forgetting the $1.5 billion from Wan's Furious Seven, have made over $3 billion.  James Wan knows how to connect with audiences, and I couldn't be more excited about his upcoming Aquaman.  I know that movie's going to do well.

You may look at my rating of three stars for this movie and think that it shouldn't be considered a classic.  The Conjuring gave us something to care about in a time when story telling was beyond secondary to jump scares.  It used atmosphere, and it reminded audiences that there was so much more to the movie experience.   It could never be said that it didn't leave a massive impact on the entire horror landscape.  It isn't deep, it isn't insightful, but it is joyous fun, and the mark that it left on popular cinema was a positive one.

Rating - 3 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: The Cabin in the Woods

In April of 2012 a movie entered theatres without me really knowing much about it, but it didn't take long to understand that there was an incredible buzz surrounding it after its opening weekend.  I overheard many a conversation about The Cabin in the Woods, with people signing high praise.  I didn't see it, and then forgot all about it until a friend intervened in my life and set me straight by getting me to view this film.

The movie follows five college students who head out for a weekend excursion to the new vacation home of a cousin.  Their destination turns out to be a very run down and old cabin in the woods (hey, isn't that the title?).  It doesn't take long before everything to turn into a mess as they find themselves trying to have to survive against ghoulish creatures.  However, it turns out there is much more to the equation.

I cannot say much more about the plot.  It is incredibly unique, and brings an entirely new premise to what would be an over-done story.  While it would be an enjoyable film for almost who would watch such a movie, it is true horror fans that will get the most from The Cabin in the Woods.  Script writers Joss Whedon and Drew Godard (who also directed it) insert so many brilliant easter eggs as they play on dozens of tropes of the genre.  The greater your knowledge of horror and its history, the more you will get out of this film.  This is something that is made by fans for fans, while taking genre staples to new levels.

The casting of the film is really well done, with everyone involved hitting every note they need to.  Dana is out main character, played by Kristen Connolly who would most likely be known for being in television shows As The World Turns and House of Cards.  Anna Hutchinson plays Dana's friend Jules, with her boyfriend Curt played by Chris Hemsworth (an actor who doesn't seem to get enough recognition for his diverse talents).  New to the group is Holden (Jessie Williams from Grey's Anatomy), who is a possible hook-up for Dana.  And, of course, there is a stoner.  Marty is played by Fran Kranz, a character that enjoys spending time with a bong.  A pot head is used in many horror movies, and that is the reason for this character.  The fun part of the film is that it plays with the other four from the group to hit on the other character types that seem to be in ninety five percent of slashers.

Humour is abundant, with the character of Marty doing most of the heavy lifting.  I can't say what their roles in the film is, but the brilliant duo of Hadley (Bradley Whitford) and Sitterson (Richard Jenkins) bring continuous entertainment and joy to the viewer.  You may not be familiar with their names, but if you saw either of these incredible actors I'm sure you would recognize them.  They are both on fire each scene they are in, and, after seeing this, I can't help but wish they were both in mainstream stuff more often.

Because this is a horror film, be it even a self aware and comical film (it takes the self awareness from movies like Scream to an entirely new level), there are villains, kills, and blood.  Drew Goddard may not be able to get the same sort of suspense that a straightforward horror could mine, but that doesn't stop him from making intense scenes that are well paced and entertaining.  I should warn people that there is some gore in here and more blood than I could think possible.

Apparently, Goddard and Whedon wrote this script in just a few days and part of the purpose was to make a commentary on the rising sub-genre referred to as 'torture porn.'  Director Eli Roth's film Hostel was one of the early examples, followed by Saw (which is viewed as torture porn, but the original film had very little of that in it).  Many people have disdain for torture porn, as in many cases the only reason for these movies is to show people getting subjected to brutal acts.  When the full concept of the film is revealed, it is quite interesting just how Goddard and Whedon addressed the issue.

With a rumoured budget of $30 million, The Cabin in the Woods didn't set the box office on fire, as it only took in $66 million world wide.  When it comes to classic movies, however, financials seldom tell the true story of their impact.  With The Cabin in the Woods there is a film that absolutely tickled the fancies of critics (it is at 91% on Rotten Tomatoes) and genre fans alike.  With certain types of film, especially genres like horror and science fiction, there are movies that fans will hold on tightly to, even if they are forgotten by the world a year after their release.  The Cabin in the Woods is a movie that will be continually making the rounds in horror circles for years, and probably decades, to come.  It may be a horror without legitimate scares, but it is the smarts behind it, as well as the execution, that solidify The Cabin in the Woods as a horror classic.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

The Countdown to Halloween With a Look at Modern Day Horror Classics

Halloween is nearing, and, as such, it's time for things to get a bit spooky.  Over the next week in the lead up to Halloween, I have decided to spend a bit of time reviewing modern horror classics.  I won't be ranking the films in order of importance or personal taste, but rather chronologically.  This is a genre that a lot of people brush off as perhaps amateurish, juvenile, or as just plain garbage.  Yes, horror movies can be all of those things, but they can be used for so much more.  Horror films can be incredibly varied in what they do.  They can be comedies, satire, allegorical, political or social commentaries, inspection of the human condition and nature, and so much more.  Yet, because they are called 'horror,' many people are quick to cast them aside.

It is easy to look to the past and see examples of what could be called horror classics, films such as Psycho, The Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, Halloween, and Jaws (yes, Jaws is indeed a horror film).  For those like me, a great deal of time passed through the mid to late 80s, the 90s, and the 2000s where truly landmark horrors didn't come along often.  As discussed on The Movie Breakdown podcast that I co-host with Christopher Spicer, we believe that we are in a revolution of horror.  I would even say it could be argued that as a story telling method goes, we may be in the best era (don't take me to task over this, it's just something I'm throwing out there).

Can recent movies really be deemed as classic?  I believe so.  It can be very apparent when you see a film to understand that what you are seeing is a landmark moment, whether that's in terms of things like critical acclaim, quality, or popularity.  The movies I am going to be looking at have all proved to be films that added to the evolution of the genre.

I hope that you are able to follow me through this, as I work to pay attention to films that made an impact.  Each of the movies I will talk about consist of much more than just trying to scare the viewer.  My hope is that perhaps, even if you don't decide to watch any of these movies, more people will be able to recognize some of the impactful and smart stories that can be told through this genre.


Runners Up

Mike Flanagan - Technically this isn't a movie, but it is an incredibly talented director who has been able to take well worn story structures and inject something original into them.  His approach to horror always seems to be about telling a story first and adding scares is secondary.  Mike Flanagan is a great entry point for people who want to dip their toes into the water for the first time with a movie like Hush, and he is a great go-to for those extremely familiar with horror tropes in a movie like Oculus. 

Split - M. Night Shyamalan had alienated pretty much his entire fan base, and it looked like we wouldn't be seeing any more from him.  Working with prolific horror producer Jason Blum, Shyamalan made a comeback with The Visit, a film on a micro budget that focused on family bonds as well as tackling what scares you most.  It was a return to his humble roots, and he used that to propel him forward with Split.  With a wonderful script and phenomenal performances from James McAvoy and Anya Taylor-Joy (who I will be talking about soon enough).  It was a commercial hit, and it reminded us that M. Night Shyamalan can tell incredibly good stories.

Hereditary - This is a film that leans heavy on the dramatic side of things.  It is an enthralling story of a mother trying to get over a tragedy, and the sorts of things she invites into her house as she tries to grasp onto something precious that was lost.  Toni Collette leads the actors through an emotional story that has some seriously genuine scares in it.

Mandy - I don't know what to say about this film.  I am ninety five percent sure that this film will have a massive cult following in ten years.  Using Nicolas Cage, in a movie that is as bat-shit crazy as Cage can be, the film functions as a revenge tail on some sort of art house steroid.  I have seen it, but I honestly don't know what star rating I would give it.  I really enjoyed it, I know that much.  This is a film that I would probably have to see two more times to get a proper handle on.  If you like things straight forward and easy to follow, this is probably the film of 2018 that you need to stay away from the most.

REVIEW: The Avengers: Infinity War

Well, I sure am late to this game.  Everyone in the world seems to have seen The Avengers: Infinity War in theatres, while I was sitting and whittling in beautiful cottage country which is an unfortunate distance from any theatre.  The film came and went, and I just had to wait.  That wait has come to an end, and I have to say that many key aspects to what I consider great popcorn fare are present in this behemoth of a film.

The second Avengers film was alright, but the first one was a proper event.  I had figured that the rest of the franchise would see diminishing returns, but I hadn't expected the plans that Disney/Marvel had.  The latest team up was coming right on the back of two of the most unique, exciting, and distinct films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  Thor: Ragnarok, under the direction of the amazing Taika Waititi, reversed the fortunes of the Thor standalone films, and presented a Led Zeppelin infused fun fest that included a giant wolf getting suplexed.  After that was Ryan Coogler's Black Panther, a film that carried the powerful emotional heft that Coogler is known for.  These films, as far as I'm concerned, with their director-driven voice provided a powerful excitement for Infinity War that even a Disney marketing campaign couldn't match.

And, with Infinity War, we once again get shown what makes Disney the kings of the cinematic universe, and that's having a movie that completely feels like it came right from it's directors, the Russo brothers (who already showed they could manage lots of key characters in Captain America: Civil War, a movie that I liked a lot more than Avengers: Age of Ultron).  I'm not specifically aiming to bash DC, but they were lost with Zach Snyder's guidance, and it looks like their upcoming films will be very unique and more director driven.  It is this sense of the director's personality in the movies that elevates the material, as it has a more cohesive feel than something being constructed with too many cooks in the kitchen.  This is one key aspect of good popcorn fare.

The plot of the film?  Well, a CGIed purple baddy named Thanos is looking to kill half of all life in the universe.  He is driven by a belief that a purge needs to happen to keep societies alive, and he is the only one with the courage to do what's needed.  While I was not into the animation of him and thinking that it was one of the weaker parts of the film, the artistic team did what was needed and made sure his face conveyed the pain and determination within.  Voicing Thanos is Josh Brolin in what is one of his most precise performances.  Thanos isn't someone just written as being evil, he is someone who believes he is doing what's right.  Sure, he is a bad ass, but there are some very quiet moments with him, and we see just how far he is willing to go to complete his mission.  A villain with backstory, motivation, and depth propels a film to bigger heights.  That was exactly what we got in Black Panther, giving us two back to back Marvel movies with standout antagonists.  Well, three.  Cate Blanchette rocked as Hela in Thor: Ragnarok.  A menacing, properly motivated villain that seems impossible to beat is a second key aspect.

Another is needing to have stakes.  Having a wonderfully complex and devastating villain does nothing to a film if they are not able to affect their potency on anyone.  This happens way too often.  The villain is dangerous because we are told they are, not because of what they do and how that effects the film.  Most villains only ever kill red shirts.  I will be honest, and some may consider this a bit of a spoiler, but some familiar faces from the MCU meet their doom.  Not only that, but some of this happens in the very first scene.  It's not like letting Superman die when we already see Henry Cavill's name listed on IMDB for the next film.  This is the very end for some, and killing people off holds so much power in films.  It keeps us from being able to predict the outcome easily, because, if they have killed characters once, they could do it again.  No one in Infinity War is safe by the final action sequences, and that makes the plight of the heroes so much more.  I get that some people don't like seeing recurring characters getting offed in films, but the power of this technique is undeniable when used properly.

Having stakes is great, and so is having a solid villain, but without heroes that we can get behind they mean nothing.  The Russo brothers have worked previously on television shows Arrested Development and Community.  Both of those rely on stories to be told while highlighting a large cast of very unique characters, all of them getting proper shine and story lines.  Their ability to nail this  is what makes The Avengers: Infinity War succeed.  Those who have seen the preceding MCU movies will appreciate the fact that there is a really good balance on display here.  On top of that, and something that I really like, is that the hierarchy of the previous Avengers movies is thrown off.  After the arrival of Dr. Strange, it would have made little sense if his crazy powers didn't make him one of the most powerful, if not most powerful, heroes.  Things in the universe have changed, other people have crazy powers, and that is all taken into account.  I enjoy that the natural order is thrown off a bit, and it leads to some good fun.  In this movie, we have a blending of many characters, all with their backgrounds taken into consideration, with their own motivations, and the fact that this is able to happen in the movie with the most ambitious cast of all time (move over, Movie 43!!) keeps us pulled into the story.

Popcorn fare doesn't necessarily need to have humour in there, but it doesn't hurt.  While cold, grey, steely, and dismal may be what some people rely on, it cannot be forgotten that we are going to the theatres to have a good time.  Across all of the different MCU films, including the brilliant cooperation between Disney and Sony (a collaboration that's a win-win, and something that I wish more studios would do) to include Spider-Man, we have come to know well constructed characters, all of whom are different, some of whom are funny, and others of whom end up being funny when their personalities grind against someone else's.  While I thought the idea of former professional wrestler Dave Bautista acting in Guardians of the Galaxy was ill conceived, this is someone with a knack for stealing every scene he is in.  Young Peter Parker is on fire, Thor thinks a racoon is a rabbit, and Star-Lord's manliness is tested by the arrival of a one-eyed Norse god.  The humour hits well, and the Russo's know to taper it off as the movie progresses, keeping it applied sparingly by the end as the stakes of the film really start to become known.

Lastly, (although I could add other things like special effects, sound, and all sorts of things that would make this a five thousand word piece on the state of modern mainstream tentpole movies, I will look to wrap things up) the summer blockbuster needs to have a very human story.  The simple concept of a damsel in distress may have been good enough for The Legend of Tarzan, but such simplistic writing does little to enhance a film.  Throughout Infinity War, different characters repeatedly face decisions that will possibly have huge consequences.  It isn't just that they have to fight the bad guy, but they have to decide where their priorities lie.  The film constantly asked the famous Wrath of Khan question of if the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.  The nature of Thanos and his perverse mission causes our heroes to face more than just physical battles.

Well, I may not have reviewed this film in a traditional way.  However, while watching Infinity War, all I could think about was how this movie checked all of the boxes for delightful summer blockbusters.  There's plenty of emotional moments, a tear may be shed, and that's thanks to the writing of the characters, and the performances (which were great, but for some reason I didn't mention).  At the heart of it, The Avengers still don't want civilians hurt, something that Zach Snyder was completely tone deaf to.  They don't see eye to eye, but throughout the film they all show their willingness to sacrifice everything to protect others.  There are many skirmishes, a huge battle at the gorgeous location of Wakanda, and people pushed to their limits.  The villain is dynamic, and that leads to some very emotional moments, where our super heroes are forced to simply be human.  Yep, I liked Black Panther more, but off course that was going to be the case.  Still, I would rank this as my favourite Avenger movie, and one of the very best Marvel Cinematic Universe films.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars