Stranger Things -a review

Let’s start with a confession: I’m a generation Y kid (or a millennial if you wish). So I'm a big fan of the movies from the eighties. The Goonies, Die Hard, E.T., Close Encounters, Poltergeist, you name ‘em, I love ‘em.

But when, a few years back, J.J. Abrahams made Super 8 –and everybody was tumbling over each other in nostalgic glee- I must admit, I hated it.

That movie got the style and the tone of those eighties movies right but totally failed on a logical story. Terrible; a film feeding on your nostalgia without offering you something to sink your teeth in.

Which brings me to the good news: Stranger Things, to me, is how Super 8 should have turned out. It’s got the style and everything right but it also has interesting characters, great music, and –lo and behold- a rather clever, intriguing story at its core.

You could call it a post-modernistic (or post-post modernistic) series as it happily takes a page out of Quentin Tarantino’s textbook and ‘borrows’ various elements from different movies (you could also call it homage or stealing – I prefer borrowing). 
The first episode alone has plot points from E.T., Twin Peaks, Close encounters and even directly refers to Stephen King and Poltergeist.

Now I shouldn’t praise the story too much – it’s pretty basic. But it’s the characters and the clever use of flashbacks that elevate the tale.

The story

But what can I say about Stranger Things without giving everything away? I don’t think I should share more than what I already knew going in.

Four friends (Mike, Dustin, Lucas and Will) find their lives turned upside down when strange things start to happen in their hometown. One of which is the arrival of a young girl who needs help.

That’s all I can say.

Alright one more thing I already knew going in; Matthew Modine plays the villain. Yes! (*that’s me punching the air in a happy motion*). After years playing the goto-good guy in movies like Married to the Mob, Cutthroat Island and Pacific Heights he finally puts on a suit to play the silent big bad government guy. And he’s great at it.

His character, to me, strikes a perfect balance between caring and sociopath –which is obviously a contradiction. So it’s great to see an actor sink his teeth into such a character.  

And that’s the main point I can make about the show: The story might be straightforward but all the character are well written, well rounded and well acted. Two examples:

Logic rules

Stranger Things is a supernatural series. Yet, every single character keeps on making the one logical deduction after the other. So somewhere along the way characters need to shift gear from rational to supernatural and that's done very slowly and believably. The Lucas character -for instance- is quite the voice of reason for a long time before even he cannot deny the strange things going on around town.

Having said that, other characters –without trying to give too much away here- tend to embrace the situation a bit too willingly. I mean: 'going monster hunting with dad's gun' isn't the wisest thing to do. But that’s just an old writing trick of: ‘adults don't believe me anyway’ with a bit of teenage stupidity sprinkled on top. Just like in the ‘80s movie The Goonies or E.T.. A sort of nostalgia in the storytelling.

Should you force me to nitpick I would say that only a handful of characters don’t really work for me. For instance, the older sister character’s storyline, which takes a while to get going. Or het overreacting (bad) boyfriend who has rather cardboard cutout evil friends.

Especially his female friends who are fascinating utter witches. Everybody has this colleague that spreads vile gossips all over the place -now I know what they were like in high school.

But in the grand scheme of things that’s just nitpicking.

Oh, and one more thing: Yes! Taking pictures of half naked girls without their consent is wrong - no matter how difficult your puberty is.

Cleverness rules

The second thing I wish to point out here is how clever each and every character is. Winona Rider’s character, for instance, is delicious to watch as she goes crazy at first and then uses one heck of a smart trick to come to terms with the supernatural and start reasoning normally again. She’s also a tour the force that underlines the saying: ‘Don't get between a mother and her cub’.

But all the characters are clever. The police officer, the main children, the cook from the diner. Each are written as great individual characters that might get frightened a bit by the stranger things going around but are smart enough to go looking for answers.

Toothless (Dustin), to me, was hilarious. All I would ever want in a son.  And why didn’t I have Mr. Clark for a science teacher?

Oh, and kids swear in this movie - thank God they swear. Finally kid characters on TV are acting normal again.

Nostalgia all over the place

Writing

But there’s a reason why this series takes place in the ‘80s. For the writing part it allows to ‘homage’ various movies and (popular in the ‘80s) plot elements like: teenage stupidity, bad parenting (parents not knowing where their kids are half the time), evil government-suits and the supernatural events.

Due to this you, the viewer, find yourself on a comfortable seesaw balancing between ‘seen this before’ and ’cool how they handled that known trope’. And that’s a tricky balance to strike because I honestly believe that Super 8 failed in that department. Stranger Things however passes with flying colors.

Directing

For the directing part it also allows ‘homage’. This movie doesn’t pull off any Alfonso Cuaron camera trickery or tries to reinvent the wheel too much. Instead it uses classic framing of shots. Wherein certain shots seem to be lifted directly from classics. 

I for one believe that ‘the ambulance’-crane shot in the final episode is a direct reference to Die Hard. But I must admit, without confirmation, I cannot state this for a fact. The same basically goes for things like backlighting (Poltergeist), a dolly shot of characters sitting (The breakfast club) and obligatory spinning bike wheel (the Goonies, E.T.). All these cinematic tricks ‘feel’ as if they were used to emphasize the ‘80s vibe.

Set design

But the most fun of Stranger Things has to be in the set design. The production team went full tilt with ‘80s products. Just to name a few:  Dungeons and dragons, The dark crystal, the thing, Poltergeist, Jaws, E.T., Rambo, Stephen King, (obligatory) Rubrics cube, waffles and the fantastic Pink dress plus eighties white socks combo.

Everything down to the title fonts is coated deeply in eighties nostalgia and that makes it one heck of a fun ride. Because you can actually re-watch it just to find all those little Easter eggs hidden in the background.

Music

And then of course there’s the music. If you set a story at a certain time you’d better insert some music from that time. And I must admit, to my surprise, I found out that I’m actually quite knowledgeable about ‘80s music. But Stranger Things already stole my heart when they played this song. 

I always connected that song with this (favorite) animated short. Now that I have a reason to post it, I might as well.

Nitpicks

Are there nitpicks? Sure, some. But there’s a side note here: when I’m bench watching a series I tend to become a bit critical around the sixth episode. So it could be me, or I could be right, when I say that the sixth episode is the weaker of the bunch.

For starters episode six has some bad acting. Both kids and adults. Not really bad, per se; but scenes that would have worked better if the camera focused a bit more on the receiving end of a dialog instead of letting the actor play it all out in one take. It stresses the performance a bit too much- it makes it ‘stage like’.

The best way to explain it is the 'are you talking to me'-speech in Taxi driver. Seeing it out of context and only this scene makes it very difficult for a actor to perform it believably.

Luckily DeNiro did just that in that movie. But more than enough amateur actors fail. A trick of solving this reliance on the performance would be to intercut the scene a bit with shots of the receiving end (in the case of Taxi driver the mirror). But that wasn't really needed in the Taxi driver example. It was sometimes needed in episode six. But as I said, it’s nitpicking.

Then there’s the over explaining that happens in a later episodes. I didn’t really see any need for that. But, to be critical about myself too, I might have seen a bit too many movies.

Anyway, these are all nitpicks in a well crafted (horror) series. 

Where to go from here?

The series ends slightly open ended (not much though). So on the one hand I truly, really want a sequel - on the other it's already a rather great series as a one off. So I’ll leave that for Netflix to decide.

All I can say is that this is the show to watch in the eight days before Christmas. Enjoy one heck of a ride and dive headfirst in the fascinating time of the ‘80s and the stories we used to tell. 

Random musings 2.

How I love Pokemon Go!

In two weeks time the appearance of people on the street has completely changed.

Remember that time when somebody talking in him/herself was considered a bit kaka? Nowadays you can bet your bottom dollar that person is calling somebody.

In two weeks time suddenly all kinds of (often) youngsters -who wouldn’t leave their game console if their life depended on it- venture outside. Often in pairs you’ll find them walking along, their eyes glued to their smart phone. And, apart from the occasional traffic accident, I am loving this new hype. Let me explain why.

I’m a runner, a jogger, a ten miles three times a week type of guy. And I like doing it. It clears my mind and makes me a bit more healthy. But, the whole reason why I started running in the first place had nothing to with me keeping my health up.

I’m a pretty healthy guy to begin with. But being stuck behind a computer at all hours isn’t the wisest thing to do. So I ventured out occasionally. Luckily I’m the kind of person who likes to take walks. But this is where the problem happens. Because single guys walking are, to other people, anything BUT a single guy walking! For example:

Walk somewhere remote and people will wonder what I’m doing there –or what I just did (hidden a body or something). Go to some forest and people wonder where I left my girlfriend and her Nordic walking sticks (apparently you are only allowed to take in nature in pairs). Heck, I’ve already caused two bicycle accidents because the people on the bike were franticly looking where I left the dog I was supposedly walking and missed their turn.

So I started wearing running clothes and sped up my walking speed and suddenly people didn’t look at me like I was crazy or out of place. People no longer wondered what I was doing in a forest on my own.

And this is why I love Pokemon Go. Now I can walk anywhere and all I have to do is look at my phone from time to time. I don’t even need to bring the phone, all I need is the cover. Great! No more wondering glances. No more accidents. Whenever people find me somewhere where a singular guy appears to be out of place I’ll just pretend that I’m looking for Pokemons; problem solved.

The glory of finding solutions to computer programs online. 

We all know those little anecdotes in which a person calls the helpdesk because he doesn’t have any Internet only to be referred to the website.

However, the Internet has –honestly- created an artform of this. So after an lengthy search for a solution of one tiny computer issue I became so fed up that I created this little flowchart below. It’s just an attempt at humor and me venting my frustration.
(https://postimg.org/image/9ksze6bpd/)

Ducktales - Oh no!

I’ve never been much of a hardcore Ghostbusters fan. So even though I considered myself highly critical when I saw the first (very badly made) trailer of the movie I didn’t care enough about the original to write any kind of article about it (plus I wanted to keep myself out of all the fighting going on online).

I, however, do care about Ducktales. I care a great deal about Ducktales.

So when a year ago Disney announceds new episodes I (and the rest of the internet) were a bit worried if those new episodes would be in terrible 3D. But, Disney reassured us: the new Ducktales would be in good old fashioned 2D. *sighs a breath of relief*

But now I feel slightly bamboozled (there is a harsher term to use here) because this is the first preview we’ve gotten. And to be honest it looks rather horrendous. Straight from the computer like those new Mickey Mouse cartoons (which, I must admit, I don't like either). Like Disney is actually trying to make the new cartoon look terrible

Which kinda brings me to something I noticed for quite a while now: Why do I have to watch Nickleodeon’s Avatar to get Disney style animation but when I turn on the Disney channel I get all kinds of cubes and triangles (Phineas and Ferb) and subpar animations. Great humor and script, mind you, but terrible animation.

I mean, Disney is getting back on track in his movie outings. Why not fix the televisions outings as well?
Because there is a gigantic style difference between this and this and I don't really like it!

Hardcore Henry – a review

Boys are always a bit violent! And men will always remain boys deep down inside. When I was young I used to play with Playmobil. I had a castle and two pirate ships. But as I grew up I noticed about myself that my playtime got a bit more violent. I –for instance- decapitated several spare puppets (and used a red marker to paint the blood) because my story needed heads on spikes.

Action movies at that time got my fancy and I often created my own action sequences. A Playmobil cannonball with a small screw inserted became a hand grenade. This I would then use to blow out part of the castle while the hero jumped into the open air only to be rescued by the rope (a bath drain chain) he tied earlier. Using the force of the explosion the hero would then slingshot himself around the castle into another room where he would crash through the window and then kick the villain through a window to his death several floors below. While the hero threw a knife into the henchman’s gut (if you bend a Playmobil puppet slightly you can lock one of the knifes in the cavity).

Just one of the many, many hero-saves-the-day-in-die-hard-fashion I created in my preteen playtime.

Now why this elaborate insight in my slightly disturbing childhood fantasies? Because, that is what Hardcore Henry is to me: A young boy's fantasy. And, knowing full well that it’s not next year’s winner of best picture, I do actually consider that a good thing. Hardcore Henry is just such a testosterone laden blood fest of a film you simply cannot deny yourself having fun (that is, if you enjoy this sort of thing – I don’t think my dear mother would like this film).

The moviemakers have thrown everything into this movie including the kitchen sink and granny. Tanks, motorcycles, naked women everything a young boy fancies is available. Unfortunately, young boys will never be allowed to watch this movie because the violence and action are of an insane level. Hardcore Henry is truly hardcore!

I mean, I played my share of first-person shooter videogames.

Due to the first person nature of this movie the closest reference this movie has is either a videogame or that old experimental film Lady in the lake.

And yes there were times that I started to count the amount of causalities my character caused (mass-murder would be a more appropriate term). But Hardcore Henry tops that and then some. Stabbing, shooting, strangling, multiple decapitations, incineration, I mean –it’s quite a creative list of killing people in varied ways (I think only drowning is missing).

But, to quote Arnold Schwarzenegger in True Lies: ‘they were all bad’. At least the most of them.

No, Hardcore Henry is such an orgy of violence I think Caligula should be taking notes. But then, that’s what the movie sells on the tin. A violent first-person (view) action movie. So you’ll either love it or you’ll hate it. I liked it (And yes I also enjoy Winnie the Pooh).

Keeping the pacing and story just right.

Thankfully the movie doesn’t overstay its welcome. Clocking at around ninety minutes that’s more than enough time to deliver a simple story and set piece after set piece of fascinating action sequences - I’m still baffled about how this movie pulled off several shots.

Hardcore Henry is a very fast-moving (very reminiscent of Crank at times) film that doesn’t take all too much time with plot explanation. And that’s fine, it has action to show.

Actually the small story strands that are interwoven in the film already make the film feel a bit bloated after an hour. But, thankfully, this is kept at its minimum as the movie works its way up to a great ‘all out’ finale. You don’t have to be a college degree to get it. And that is good because additional story strands or characters would only overcomplicate matters.

But I shouldn’t mock the simplicity of the story too much because, in fact, all the little questions that do happen throughout the movie (like one character dying all the time) are not only explained in the context of the movie but also in a bit more ‘meta-sense’ of ‘how else are you going to shoot that sequence?’ (one actor cannot be in two places at the same time, for instance, and the movie has a wonderful simple solution for it). In a time where movies usually leave several question remaining, Hardcore Henry pretty much ties it all up in a neat little bow.

Less story means less chance of plot holes and remaining questions.

For a big dramatic movie a small story would ‘simply not be done' but for an action movie like this, that’s perfectly okay.

Several stunt people played Henry.

So I’m already proclaiming this film as a simple storied violence fest that has been fascinatingly filmed. True, the movie does cheat every once in a while with sudden jumps to new locations – but that’s very forgivable.

The acting then? That’s fine. Sharlto Copley is definitely having a ball. Tim Roth earned one of his easiest paychecks in his life. And Haley Bennett and Danila Kozlovsky (talk about a videogame reference – hello Psycho Mantis) are perfect as good girl, bad guy respectively.

I think the only critique I have about certain characters is the vileness. Using a baseball bat as a makeshift phallus and spitting on it for lubrication is not really my kind of thing. But then again, setting this movie in Russia and –with that- creating an atmosphere of tough-as-nails-two-vodka-bottels-for-lunch-alpha-male-probably-part-of-the-mafia-Russians it does fit. Hardcore Henry’s world is a hard world wherein nobody is friendly or subtle –and those who are die. 

First person found footage film (I’m calling it now)

Which brings me to the many (many) tricks they pulled with the camera. It’s amazing to look at and very difficult to describe. One shot, for instance, involved Henry chasing a villain over the top of a bridge. I can’t see a way how to create a safety harness there. So, did they really run there without safety or did I miss something? 

It goes without saying that the movie-making-troupe made excellent usage of the headgear camera. And –to me- it is very hard to describe which scene was made by a (slightly suicidal) stunt person or by movie trickery.

According to the imdb trivia section the stunt people were so good at their job that the only painful episodes on the set were a few scrapes and a chipped tooth.

And that is somewhat the point. In the back of your mind you can believe they were very prepared. But still this movie throws scenes at you that I find rather death defying. Amazing visuals all ‘round.

Next movie: Henry on the moon?

So to summarize: Hardcore Henry is a tremendously violent action film proudly wearing the 'leave your brain at the door'-badge. It has been very well shot using the gimmick of a first-person movie to the max. The simple story, in this sense, serves as a way to get Henry from one insane action sequence into the next.

Will this movie be remembered in fifty years time? Who knows? I still remember my violent stories playing with my Playmobil. But I can vouch for the fact that Hardcore Henry has created a new kind of film. A true first person action film. Fascinating (but violent)!

Eye in the sky – a review

In a joint American-British mission, Colonel Katherine Powell (Dame Helen Mirren) is on the scent of the numbers two, three and four of the East-African terrorist top ten list. Moreover, these terrorists are all in a house together preparing for what appears to be an attack. With an armed drone overhead controlled by American Steve Watss (Aaron Paul) she’s looking down on the terrorist compound and trying to get clearance from her higher uppers to destroy the target. But if you get direct High Definition feedback of your actions; can you live with the consequences?

I don’t like most contemporary war movies. Jarhead, the green zone, The Kingdome, they are not for me. But there are always exceptions; Eye in the sky is exactly that: One great exception. And I think, mainly, because it’s staged more like a theatrical stage play rather than an (action) movie. It is, in this sense very reminiscent to -the other favorite of mine- Lions for lambs. 

The theatre of war.

The whole movie only knows /shows six sets -that’s it. And each and every of the handful of characters that inhabit these sets have his or her strengths and weaknesses. Strengths and weaknesses that naturally conflict with other characters. So like any good play there’s this constant brewing of characters conflicting- trying to coerce people, trying shove responsibility away-it is a fascinating watch.

Combine that with high tech –James Bond-esque gadgets like a camera kolibri and beetle and you’ve got a very interesting spy thriller going on.

A divide in tension.

But there is more. Because a it is basically a stage play –with the few rooms to emphasize the fact- with all the action taking places many miles from where the main characters are; a certain divide in tension occurs. One the one hand the direct tension on the ground in that Kenyan village, where people are going to die. And, on the other, the indirect morality tension of the people giving the orders.

 

To explain: Helen Mirren’s character is never in danger. Aaron Paul’s character is never in danger. Yet they spy on, and have direct influence on the lives of, other people. The only people who are in real danger are the people in that small Kenyan village –and most of them are dangerous extremists.

So the tension for the main characters comes not from physical hurt but mental hurt. ‘If I pull this trigger and willfully execute innocent bystanders – could I live with that?’ Or, to name the famous (Biblical) example: ‘Could you kill one child to save fifty?’

Eye in the sky plays with these concepts. It plays with morality; It plays with the responsibility that comes with it. And even, to some extent the invasion of privacy. The movie plays with the fact that these choices are so very far away, yet you see them HD on the conference screen and so they are (so) close. Whereby each and every character reacts to what they see, what they know and get into conflicts with other characters.

Monica Dolan’s character, for example, basically represents both the voice of reason as the pure side of passivism. And, knowing the dangers of the terrorists I –as the audience- felt a bit conflicted about her. Even though this character was absolutely right in her opinion.

And then naturally the situation escalates into a Hitchcockian nightmare.

The main plot point is a direct reference to Alfred Hitchcock’s The saboteur (I assume intentional. Though it could just be coincidence).

In that movie a child gets a movie canister which, unbeknownst to him, contains a bomb. He promises to bring this ‘package’ to the town hall before noon. Unfortunately –because he’s a child- he fails.
In Eye in the sky the same concept is used wherein a young, sweet girl sells bread for her parents inside the blast radius. And like the audience in Hitchcock’s The saboteur, the characters in Eye in the sky are wishing wholeheartedly for that child to get away safely.

Now, Hitchcock always acknowledged about his movie that he made a mistake. Instead of giving the audience a relieve of the tension he actually blew the kid up. Eye in the sky does the same thing but with one heck of an interesting twist: The sweet caring father who lives in an extremist neighborhood, but doesn’t really believe in the notions. What is going to become of him now that his daughter is dead? How easy would it be for the extremists to feast on his anger and sorrow? Is sacrificing this child a solution or the seed to future problems?

No, Eye in the sky does not have a happy ending. But the movie leaves it open for you to interpret. My worldview is probably a bit darker than most. So the final line in the movie: ‘Good job soldiers.’ (if memory serves) leaves a very bitter taste.

Acting.

The actors elevate the piece. And though, at time it felt a bit lagging (maybe ten, fifteen minutes shaved off would have improved it a bit); just seeing Helen Mirren’s character not being able to sit still, still gives the movie a dramatic boost.

Which brings me to the late Alan Rickman. This is a man I admired all through my life. He was a kind soul who could play a villain so dastardly well -as I honestly believe only good people can. And though he might never have liked to be called a 'villain' (and certain not solely being remembered as one) I think his small part in Eye in the sky tells you a lot about his skill as an actor.
In it he plays an army man with a wife and family. This character is caring, kind but –he has to be- ruthless as well. And it’s this conflict between sweet and dark that Rickman bring to the table effortlessly. Eye in the sky will go down in the annals as his last movie; and it is a good respectful part to end with. I will certainly miss him!

In short: Eye in the sky is a stage play of a contemporary war movie. It touches on themes like privacy, morality and responsibility and lets characters clash over it. It is a smart movie about our current high-tech age of terrorism which dares to ask some interesting questions. If you are expecting explosions and brave soldiers fighting you might have to pass on this one. But if –like me- you would like your morality questioned this is a very interesting movie to watch.