Midsommar – a review

A young woman Dani joins her boyfriend and his gang on a (semi)-work holiday to a closed off community in Sweden. There, each year, the locals hold a mid-summer festival. But, as Dani soon finds out, this particular mid-summer festival is rather sinister in nature.

The third tale of horror.
One of the things –the spiritual predecessor of Midsommar- The wicker man (1973) did very well was that it broke the mould of horror. Where most horror movies at the time relied on the darkness of night, The wicker man is shot almost entirely in daylight. There are hardly any dark shadows with creatures lurking to be found in this movie.

Then, where horror movies were usually comprised of (jump)scares or a feeling of imminent dread (suspense) The wicker man brought a new (now) horror trope to the table: a constant unsettling feeling. Basically the cult in that movie freaked the viewer out.

Without spoiling much Midsommar is about a pagan cult as well. And like The wicker man their constant ‘happy-faces’ are meant to disturb the viewer long after the credits are done.

The movie never bluntly tells you that this cult/sect/strung-out-hippies-community are evil; it relies on the viewer’s common sense. And just this reliance on the viewer’s humanity (to me) strengthens the unsettling horror of Midsommar.

I always rather disliked that The wicker man had to point out that the cult was evil.

I kinda got that already by the time that speech happened.

Midsommar isn’t a movie to watch if you want to be ‘hide-behind-your-pillow’-scared. Nor is it the movie to watch if you wish to experience a feeling of dread coming your way. But if you want to feel your stomach turn just by how uncomfortable you feel it is the perfect (third tale of) horror for you.

Packing your bags: story.
Midsommar is a slow-burn movie. It allows a lot of time, with long scenes, to get to the point. For a movie that has every intention of making the viewer feel uncomfortable this is a necessity. The movie needs time to give the viewer the feeling/virus and let it fester.

Basically the movie uses the three-arch structure: ‘introduction and arriving at the festival’, ‘something happens’, ‘the finale’.

The movie itself acknowledges this by introducing mysteries. The first mystery is the opening.

My amateur filmmaker’s mind wanted the title ‘Midsommar’ to appear after the first mystery is solved (on the snowflakes).

It didn’t happen.

The second mystery happens quickly after the main characters witness the first big ‘moment’ (more on that later). The third mystery, then, begins with a stolen book but quickly turns into something else.

This simple structure gives a movie time to breathe (no flashback headaches or secondary story
strands for instance). Plus, the fact that most of the (long) running-time takes place at the festival, the movie has the possibility to actually focus, and highlight, on the narrative side of things.

By doing this most of the clues to the main mystery are given quite cleverly through dialogue.

But, then, since movies are a ‘visual narrative medium’, the rest of the screen is filled to the brim with clues devoted to exploring the lore of the cult in picture-form and as such setting a well thought out tapestry of a backdrop:

Just to name a few: There are the importance of runes (Odin gave his eyes to be able to ‘read’ all the magical runes). The various customs that the cult-members have (they are all dressed in white except the ones who just lost their virginity) like respect to elders, pagan rituals and peculiar forms of fun and jest. Or the returning elements like tea, crying babies in the dorm, ‘sharing grief’ or the colour green representing life. In short, Midsommar brings a well thought out tradition -often taking place in the background- to the table which shows just enough to evoke a feeling of ‘more behind the screen’. Other clues that ‘something is amiss’ are visual. Like each and every building (or table arrangement) being slightly off-key (or, in case of the tables: 'rune formed').

Now, to be honest, these things add nothing to the core story; except for the fact that they ‘enrich the bouquet’.

Yet, I argue: a movie like Se7en (1995) would be nothing without the rain, murky buildings and nasty people. The mystery would, obviously, remain the same! But it just wouldn’t be the cinematic masterpiece it is without it. Some movies need the visual side to create a feeling whereas other movies rely on the story.

A perfect movie like Se7en uses both. Midsommar (yes this is a critique) only uses one.

To be honest, again, a viewer can see the main plot of Midsommar coming for miles. You don’t need a PHD in ‘horror movies’ to guess how it all goes down in the end. That’s why these abovementioned additional elements are so important. The story is 'so-so' yet, you are invested in the character’s struggle and then there is so much to explore on screen.
“Yes, that is a bear!”

Travelling to the festival: acting.
Acting wise Florence Pugh (as Dani) gives a master class in acting in the first five minutes alone. The whole script  basically hinging on this moment. If she fails this scene the rest of the movie fails with it. Why? Because the opening has to convince the viewers that they’d want to invest in her. To travel with her. And, more importantly, to understand some of the darker choices she will make along the way.

The young woman gets the screen time (again: long scenes) to go through emotions and showcase the various quirks that makes a character human.

Not so much so for the Christian-character (Jack Reynor). He stays a jock throughout the movie. An understandable fellow, mind you, but a cardboard character nonetheless.

In fact all the male characters in this movie are rather two dimensional stereotypes. Will Poulter plays the part he (apparently -as he was the same character in Bandersnatch (2018)) enjoys playing: the horny twenty-something.

William Jackson Harper ‘s Josh, then, has to mutter up the courage to play a morally bankrupt character (and fails due to –actually- screen time). And Archie Madekwe is Simon ‘the boyfriend with common sense’ which, as we all know, don’t last long in horror fiction.

No, Midsommar is a woman’s show (one scene near the end underlines this)! The women in the movie get the best parts. Even Ellora Torchia’s Connie gets, as Simon’s girlfriend, a few more scenes to expand on her character.

The only male exception is Pelle (Vilhelm Blomgren). His character is interesting as he comes across like a ‘girlfriend-stealing-highwayman’. The minute he gets a full scene you know he wants Dani as his own. And, as he is quite charming and interesting, you (the viewer) might want to give him that chance. That is, until they visit Sweden. Suddenly Pelle becomes an entirely different character. He becomes a creep that wise boys tell their female friends to ‘stay clear off’.

It is an fun character to play because an actor has to play according to the surroundings of the story. In the real world Pelle has to be kind and charming. But at the festival he can allow himself to be more intrusive as he is at his home turf. It is a delicate balance to strike (helped by the script). When does one release one’s inner self?

Still, almost all the main actors/characters get their moment to shine because the movie allows them to. ‘Long-spun-storytelling’ allows for character development, as it were. In any other movie Mark would easily be forgotten. In Midsommar he lingers because the character had enough screen time to leave an impression.

The supporting characters, then (mostly the cult), are more about ‘keeping a straight face’ whilst chanting. As I mean to say it is the visual side here is more important than the actual words coming out of their mouths (with an  exception for the Stev and Siv characters).

Can I just add that Stev looks marvellous.

He’s like a combination of Heidi’s grandfather and Vitalis from Malot’s Sans Famille.

He also looks a heck of a lot like Richard Briers.

Arriving at the festival: critique.
The first thing you'll notice when you arrive at your holiday destination are the things that ‘aren’t quite like the brochure’!

Every movie has its critiques. If you are making a work of art there will always be something people like me to annoy you about it. Midsommar has some small ones and two big ones.

A small one would be ‘the amount of silicone’. I applaud the fact that the movie dared to ‘go back’ old school and use puppets for some of the gorier scenes instead of CGI. But –and I blame directing and editing for this- it focussed on it too much by showing the shots over and over again. If you show a magic-trick twice people will notice the string around your wrists. This is what happens in Midsommar. By the third time ‘the body’ was shown my mind couldn’t buy into the fiction anymore and started to recognize it as a puppet.

However, I did rather enjoy the NBC Hannibal (2013) ‘artistry’ of the kills. Midsommer shows that disturbing images can be considered art – much like a late Goya painting.

It is rumoured that there will be an ‘extended cut’ featuring a whole lot more gore.

The big one, however, is the same one I made a few weeks back when I reviewed Childs Play (2019).
When a murder happens just before your eyes you (I would argue): get out of Dodge!

For a writer this is a problem. You want the characters to stay. Yet, at the same time, you need to show the viewer (and the characters) some of the dangers they are dealing with. So how to make the characters stay?

This is a tricky thing to do. You have to bring very good arguments to the table after such a Breaking-Bad-season-2-moment. I argue both Childs Play and Midsommar don’t quite pull it off believable. The argumentation given is laughable at best.

This makes Midsommar a bit lacklustre (for ten minutes or so) after this first big moment.

The second big critique has to do with the Christian character. The guy is all over the place. First he’s kind and caring. Then he is thinking about breaking up. Then he’s avoiding confrontation. Then he’s all about wanting to write about murder mayhem. There is no logic in his character.

And as we all know: Fiction has to make sense. Reality doesn’t (to paraphrase).

This makes the character to me (a viewer) less investable. But maybe this was intentional since it makes the female performances so much more impressive.

First blood: directing
Ari Aster has done it again. After his amazing full-length feature film debut Hereditary (2018) he now, with Midsommar, created a similar in tone but definitively vastly different in style follow-up.

The tone is obvious; both movies are as bleak as they can be.

Though, I would argue that Midsommar actually ends on a somewhat positive note.

Slight Spoiler: As the final scene underlines Dani has now, finally, found a group of people to share her pain/loss with. Whilst, at the same time, quite effectively ‘letting go’ of the past and the people preventing her healing. Loss of family brings desire to find a new one. Obviously exhaling the dark cloud halfway through the picture is a visual representation of Dani releasing her feeling of loss (plus the opposite to the suicide). End Spoiler

The style, then is quite literally like night and day. Hereditary was often dark with things lurking in Midsommar, then, is in full daylight with a constant reminder to celebrate life.
the shadows. With a constant looming presence of remorse of death.

The way of directing is also a bit different. Where Hereditary did various ‘out of the book shots’ like medium-close-up and angled-shots when tension required it. Midsommar is far more playful with the camera – I would argue, at times, too playful. Like the camera turning itself upside down. This didn’t work for Ocean’s Twelve (2004) and it hardly works here. Luckily it’s only this one time.

Most of all Aster lets the camera keep a respectable distance from the action. Using a lot of long-shots (only really using medium-close-ups when somebody is talking on the phone) he creates a sense that the viewer is just somebody in the crowd at the summer festival overhearing things. The shots, for this to work, are therefore often quite a bit longer than usual in cinematic fiction. There’s never really a sense that the director is ‘forcing’ (for want of a better word) the viewer through the tale.

Rather the word here is ‘inviting’. This style of shots adds to the ‘care-free’ feel of the movie. It takes away a bit of suspense in favour of a uncomfortable feeling.

The editing underlines this. Most scenes cut beautifully into the next.

The cut to the airplane is a quite good.

Only once (during a mortar and pestle montage) does the movie allow itself to give into fast editing. Most of the time Midsommar relies on the actors playing their scenes (shot from said ‘respectable distance’) like a stage-play.

And, if you know me you know, I’m a big fan of cinematographic stage-plays.

Important to note here, however: when using this type of filmmaking is that it detaches the viewer from the characters a bit. Where theatre is a butcher’s knife, cinema is a scalpel (to paraphrase Walter Benjamin). Basically meaning; the further away you sit the less ‘connected’ you are with the characters. As such the characters of Midsommar are always a bit ‘anti-social’/or ‘detached’ to the viewer. Which, as a viewer is a social being, feeds into the established sense of unease.

As a second full-length movie Aster showcases himself as a visual director who has more tricks up his sleeve than just creating a claustrophobic haunted family tale.

Final girl: conclusion.
Midsommar is a visual, acting film first and foremost. It isn’t your usual horror-fare that relishes in blood, slaughter and things that go bump in the night. Instead it wants to make you feel uncomfortable. The style does most of the work for you. It feels detached and strange. The acting, then, underlines the simple story of an insane Swedish cult.
Midsommar is a visual spectacle that gets under your skin and lingers there long after the movie is done.

Can I just praise Ari Aster’s love for corny songs.

Both in Hereditary and Midsommar he ends his sordid tale with a magnificent ‘guilty pleasure’ of a song.

Little monsters – a review

A school outing becomes a bit more problematic as zombies escape from a nearby military base. It’s up to professional nitwit Dave and teacher Miss Caroline with her ukulele to save the children, and the day.

Can a horror movie be a feel good movie throughout? Yes, it most certainly can. And the sure-fire way to achieve this is by not letting the movie take itself too seriously. Shaun of the dead (2004) did this, so did Housebound (2014) and so does Little monsters. The one thing not to be forgotten though, is that even though the movie puts the comedic shenanigans on the forefront there should always remain a dark heart of horror hidden in the shadows behind.

Little monsters takes the age old ‘Mr. Magoo’ trope of pretending something dangerous is a game. This naturally famously happened in Bill Murray’s The man who knew too little (1997) and, with a child being the one bamboozled, in La vita e Bella (1997).

In Little monsters it is an entire class of five-year-olds who are being lied to. The vacation-farm they are visiting is being overrun by zombies and the teacher in charge Miss Caroline manages to charm the kids in believing it is a surprise game (and the class is winning, how cool is that).

Such a concept allows for a movie to put all the known zombie tropes from zombie movies of yesteryears on its (undead) head.  However, Little monsters, hardly does that.

And when it tries (the ‘singing’ near the end) it actually fails.

As I said in the opening of this article Little monsters is, above all, a feel good movie.

In this sense the movie focuses more on the characters and their small stories than it wants to smack you on the head with visual gags. I don’t consider this a critique.

With such a title ‘Little monsters’ could easily have gone with a ‘zombie kids’ routine. A bunch of second-graders picking up arms against their fellow students.

Much like that game: Zombie playground.

But that concept has been done before in Cooties (2014). Which, due to this shift of focus, became a completely different style of movie altogether. Good in its own right, but definitely not a feel good movie.

So Little monsters tells a small, sweet, tale of people lying to children to survive a zombie outbreak whilst growing in character. It are the characters that matter here, not necessarily the (exquisite) bloodshed.

Like any movie buff who was raised with traumatizing children movies like The neverending story (1984) I always enjoy seeing kids in scary movies. Not only because it triggers my paternal instinct. A child in danger carries way more of a punch than an adult in danger. ‘Screw’ the lawyer in Jurassic Park (1993), but ‘hell no’ you are not going to eat the kids! But also because I like to look for the movie-tricks pulled to create the illusion that the child actor is in fact experiencing these traumatizing events. Little monsters is filled to the brim with these kinds of tricks-of-the-trade. An adult says a swearword and the next shot is of the child reacting, thus making it believable that the child heard said word. The same goes for the blood and gore; hardly ever are the children in the same shot with a ‘gory event’. And for their interaction with the zombies; I’m certain the friendly chap underneath the make-up cracked a joke or two before cameras started rolling. Me as a movie buff (and a somewhat responsible adult) take solace from this. Thank heavens the children don’t need any psychological help after this movie. Maybe they didn’t even realize they were making a horror movie. Much like the famous anecdote about Danny Lloyd in The Shining (1981).

 
Little monsters focuses on character first and foremost. There are three main players: Miss Caroline (Lupita Nyong'o), Dave (Alexander England) and Teddy McGiggle (Josh Gad). And it is this trio of characters that complement each other throughout this sordid tale.

Dave is a wonderful, unbelievable, a*s the first thirty minutes of the movie. He is an utterly revolting character and thus highly enjoyable. Of course, as these stories go, the minute he meets Miss Caroline he begins his road to redemption.

Teddy McGiggle then is the other way around. He begins nice and becomes nasty rather quickly. It is obvious that Gad wanted to have some fun after his iconic childlike hero in Frozen’s (2013) Olaf. And I can’t blame him.

Also listening to his final words of the credits song is hilarious.

Gad is one of those actors that I always enjoy in all his movies (21, Frozen, Murder on the Orient Express, and he was the best thing in the mediocre live-action version of Beauty and the Beast – surpassing the great McKellen, McGregor and Emma Watson even who was perfect for the part of Belle). For me, by now, he can do no wrong. And the vile, cowardly, loathsome Teddy McGiggle is just another fun role on his repertoire.

To be honest, though, neither men really get a good/believable arch from bad-to-good or good-to-bad respectively. The screen story is just too light and frivoling to make that so.

But where this would normally hurt a movie in Little monsters this actually shifts the focus to the central (‘Mary Sue’) perfect Miss Caroline. Empowering her as it were.

Even if the movie tries to make her a bit more human along the way Miss Caroline hardly changes from start to finish. She is the yellow-dressed core of the movie that all the men and children look up to and rightfully so.

The fact that she is dressed in a bright skirt with swirly hair emphasizes this sweetness in a (traditional view) feminine way.

To such an extent that it is almost shocking to see this ‘traditional 50s housewife’ play the ukulele.

That is until she has to protect her children.

After her strong duo-role in Us (2019) Nyong'o takes on another strong persona of ‘somebody who knows what to do and does it’ but with a different flavour this time ‘round. Basically Miss Caroline is Mary Poppins with a axe. She’s all care and love but don’t come between her and her cubs or she will sweetly ‘put you in the naughty corner’.

It is clear from the start that Nyong'o is (like all the other actors) loving her part (just look at the poster). Like the anti-Miss Jean Brodie, Miss Caroline is a wonderful character to set your teeth in to play.

To end with the kids. What can I say? They are young, inexperienced and absolutely loving this adventure called moviemaking.

Class dismissed
Little monsters is a modest horror-parody-feel-good movie that doesn’t want to shock you or turn your knowledge of horror-tropes upside down. No, this movie just wants to entertain you by giving you fun characters with their little stories.

Sometimes a horror-movie can leave you grinning at the screen long after a movie is done. Not because the evil monsters has been defeated in some spectacular fashion or because the female killer is actually a guy. No, you are grinning sweetly simply because everybody lived happily ever after.

The dark crystal: age of resistance – a review

For the last few generations the vile Skeksis have ruled over the planet Thra, using honeyed words and deceit to keep the Gelflin population under control. But the Skeksis’ time is coming to an end, there is a resistance growing.

This’ll be another longspun article before I get to the actual review. I rather enjoy writing my reviews like this because it allows me to get some of my personal thoughts in whilst being different than the many (many) ‘this-many stars-rated reviews’ you can find online. I actually want you to read my thoughts and musings. But I’ll always allow you to skip to the important bit: did I like it!

Thank heavens for titles.

The golden cage of television.

“We are currently living in the ‘golden age’ of television!”  this is a phrase that gets thrown around all the time nowadays and it’s only partly true. Yes, there are a lot of very good television shows being produced. But the best of those are on demand only; behind a pay-wall. ‘Normal’  television doesn’t have remotely the budget Netflix or Amazon prime has so, as a result, these shows rely on tried-and-tested favourites like comedy shows in favour of grand sweeping sagas. So, are we really talking about television here?

Then there’s another thing to consider: not all shows work. On both normal television as on demand shows get scrapped all the time. Each year when studios bring out their plans for the next television season some shows will get the chop.

As it has always been in television-land; it’s a case of survival of the fittest.

But, then, what changed? The grand-sweeping experience of cinema stories made their way to the small screen. Game of Thrones can easily stand on equal footing to The Lord of the Rings. Breaking Bad is the Scarface of the 2000s. Sharp Objects fits wonderfully next to the Oscar-winner Gone girl.

There’s been a merging going on. A merging in which not only the televised stories got better (no more three-seasons dragging out of ‘we-were-on-a-break’/’will-they-won’t-they’) but also the budget of series increased to showcase some spectacular visuals.

The debate

There’s a reason why there’s currently a debate going on about disallowing Netflix and the like to compete at the Oscars. ‘TV’ can be considered equal to classical cinema in every part. But –and this is the debate- ‘the other way around’.

When I see Lawrence in Lawrence of Arabia walking across the roof of that train he just raided, on my very small TV mind you, I know in the back of my mind that I’m supposed to see this (wonderful) shot in a cinema on a big silver screen. I should be overwhelmed by its size, not squinting to read the subtitles.

The 2000s on demand series then, were tailor fitted for a television-screen. There is no wish to make things larger than life, no matter how large TV-screens get.

In short the stance is: Stories made for television don’t use the same tools of ‘aw and wonder’ as the big screen does, therefore it has no place at the Oscar table.

I disagree of course. In fact, I believe that a movie like One flew over the cuckoo's nest works better on a smaller screen to entice the drama. The bigger the screen the less the audience accepts a character as ‘one of them’. But (to stay with Jack Nicolson) ‘the elevator doors’ of The Shining need to be seen on the grand screen.

Nostalgia

So why this lengthy introduction with me telling you something you already know? Because there is another pinnacle of television we are currently living in: the ‘golden age’ of nostalgia!

Again, this isn’t entirely true. Movies and TV-shows always loved to grab back at things from the past.

For a short while it was even rather evident when a new generation of moviemaker came to be

because they would tell a story about the decade of their youth (Boogie Nights, Super 8).

But, nowadays, this notion of making a sequel to an older movie is more prominent.  I argue that Internet-nostalgia called those movies into being. It’s the post-post-modernistic world in which all there’s left is to look back.

So we’ve got: Blade Runner 2049, It, The Thing, The Hitcher, Halloween, a new Indiana Jones and many, many others on the silver screen. And, on the smaller screen it’s Lost in Space, The twilight zone and now The Dark Crystal (and I didn’t even mention Star Wars/Trek).

And then there are series like Stranger Things which loves to nod and point

to the past but still manages to tell a rather unique story.

This current focus on nostalgia cynics might call this a cash-grab. And, to be honest, I sometimes feel like this as well. But, then again, look at what we got for it:

We’ve got a television medium that has ‘grown up’ and is now on equal footing to its silver screen big brother. It has over a hundred year of ‘pure art cinema’ to take inspiration from. Plus, inherent to the medium, it has more time to tell the story it wants to tell than its older brother.

It took Peter Jackson a lot of effort to get The lord of the Rings-trilogy movies produced. I argue that, nowadays, he would’ve simply called Amazon (as is currently happening). Not to mention the fact that his extended cuts are the ‘real’ movies; the man needed time.

 

Political Skeksis? To sidetrack a bit on the nostalgia timeline. When The Dark Crystal was released in 1982 Ronald Reagan was the president of the United States. I won’t be too harsh on the man but for two things: he was a famous person before he became president. And he, pretty much, made the U.S.A. dependant on big business instead of the other way around. That’s as far as I’ll go. So, of course, when the original the Dark Crystal came out people compared the Skeksis with the GOP-administration. Go forwards thirty years. Now there is another famous person president. And, once again, his GOP-administration is, pretty much, messing with the American economy in favour of big business (a massive tax-cut, trade-wars, trickle-down-economics). Can you blame the very first episode having a Skeksis say the words: “Sad! Very sad!”? Taking this reasoning a bit further the Gelfling are awfully naïve. They are like children here (moreso than the Podling were in the original movie)! They want nothing more than to keep things like they were and are willing to follow any lie that promises this. Could this be a stab at ‘populist politicians’ winning worldwide? Shoot! Now, I’m committed on being political.

The Dark Crystal

Which, finally, brings me to the Dark Crystal: age of resistance!

You need to understand the above to truly appreciate what makes this show such a triumph.

To be able to create the Dark Crystal in the first place the creators used the current hype of nostalgia to get funding (which, thanks to ‘on demand’ is now far more than in 1983).

But, once they got that, they earned their keep by allowing such visual creativity in the project that its lasting splendour will be hard to ignore in the years to come.

Then, the show builds upon this by using the television-staple to tell an eight-hour The Lord of the Rings-like sweeping story. Eight hours in which the viewer is pulled into this marvellous magical landscape, learns the lore of the lands, understands each and every character and is moved by the smallest of details. In short: it gets the viewer even more invested than the original movie ever could.

In fact, the Dark Crystal: age of resistance compliments the original movie in every way.

With ‘on demand’ moviemakers have to coerce the viewer once again. Betting on nostalgia might be a safe bet for now. But I argue that it is variety that wins over calculated-pragmatism in the long run every time. Especially if the people behind it are so devoted to their vision. Whereas most ‘cynical-cash-grabs’ will be forgotten in the future; I dare to predict/hope that the Dark Crystal: age of resistance will live on.

This has everything to do with the hand-craft involved. The Dark Crystal: Age of resistance feels hand-made. I’m certain several shots and tricks were pulled from the computer but most of all it are real puppeteers playing the parts live on set. It are the puppeteers who are the real actors here -something the celebrities providing the voice-acting are all very aware off.

The Dark Crystal: age of resistance has a devotion to acting that shines through this tale of Thra. That combined with some fabulous mythology and a keen eye for detail makes this show something you easily return to time and again.

Of course there are some nitpicks to mention (there always are). But that shouldn’t bother you when The Dark Crystal: Age of resistance is such a loving work of art.

IT: Chapter 2 – a review

After 27 years Pennywise has awakened again. The bodies of his killing spree confirm this for Mike, the last of the ‘Losers Club’ left in Derry, Maine.

As he contacts his friends to uphold the oath they made as teenagers, the final stage is set to defeat the monster nicknamed ‘IT’.

 

I wrote this review on the basis of the theatrical release of IT: Chapter 2 in 2019. So before the extended version was brought out. And before the possible release of Andrés Muschietti’s ultimate version of IT (combining chapters 1 and 2 into one movie).

Ouch

Something went very wrong with this second chapter. It’s like the moviemakers decided to cut all the things that made the first movie rather good and increased on the things that made the first movie bad.

Maybe I was sucked into the hype (the deadlights). Maybe I expected the movie to fulfil my each and every expectation and then some. This could very well be. But –as I wrote before in my review of Game of Thrones: season 8- I’m usually ‘oke’ with a movie going in another direction than I expected. Not with IT though. This movie pretty much managed to rub me the wrong way constantly throughout the 2 hours 50 minutes running time.

Yikes

The scares don’t work because the only scares in this movie are jump-scares. There is only a shimmer here and there of actual suspense (pretty much every scene with a ‘non-Loser-kid’ involved). But, then, when the manifestation of the monster comes to show the audience is treated with a ghastly CGI-monstrosity. This kills the movie. Each time the scare scene happens you jump up a little and then you laugh not out of that pleasant old feeling of ‘you got me’, but because said monster looks detached, dare I say, unfitting (unfinished?).

It doesn’t help that the movie constantly throws funny remarks at the audience.

Which made me wonder what the heck I was watching a horror or a comedy.

Phoe

Talking about detached the whole of two hours the movie treats the audience with one contained scare scene after another. There’s a scene for old Richie and a scene for young Richie; A scene for old Bev and a scene for young Bev. It’s like the movie is ticking all the boxes with the flimsiest story to attach those scenes together.

This is strange because, as any movie fan will tell you (especially horror movie fans), you need the audience to invest in the characters for the scares to work. IT: Chapter 2 just shows a whole shebang of character reacting to the monster’s manifestation without enough emphasis on the characters and their relations with each other.

Richie and Beverly might get a bit more character work in the movie but Bill is utterly downplayed and stays pretty one-dimensional throughout the sordid tale.

Aargh

Bowers arrives and is forgotten in a heartbeat. It is truly a miss that such a potentially great nemesis
is demoted to a timewaster.

Then there are the scenes-without consequence. The Gay-couple-scene(s) or the Buying-the-bike-scene are, pretty much, useless. These scenes add nothing to the movie. There's no cause-and-effect. Nothing that happens later on that requires that particular previous bit of story.

 

According to online rumour the gay-couple-scene does have a fallout in a court scene. But it got edited out. So now we are left with a scene that’s basically Pennywise getting dinner. No matter how brave or well acted the scene is it adds nothing to the grand story of IT.

Uhm

Because IT: Chapter 2 relies on separate scare scenes with only the smallest story in-between the movie feels far too long. There is so much this movie could cut to make it a manageable two hours. ‘Kill your darlings’, the audience doesn’t need another young Richie or Eddie scare-scene, this chapter is about the adults.

Also, Stanley’s final entry…just no.

Whee

But that’s enough of me ranting. Every cloud has a silver lining and there are only a handful of movies that I truly detest with a vengeance. IT: Chapter 2 has its good sides as well.

The acting is fine (especially Bill Hayder is a scene stealer). The Barrens flashback scene is hilarious. There are some clever scare scenes (the mirror maze, the old woman build-up), but that’s about it.

Then I read other reviews online (people who are faster than me in posting ramblings).They often applauded the CGI tomfoolery. They enjoyed the combination of havoc and humour.

I disagree. I think IT (the full story) should be dark, unpleasant and traumatising. This horror movie, for me, should be akin to Hereditary (2018) or In the mouth of madness (1995); bleak and dark. Not Homebound (2016), The final girl (2016) or Behind the mask: the rise of Lesley Vemon (2014). We are talking about traumatized kids here...the tongue firmly in cheek simply doesn’t fit.

So, in the end, it is the style of the movie that doesn’t work for me.

Nope

IT: Chapter 2 feels to me like it missed the mark completely. Competently shot and acted and still this movie doesn’t work. Now, this can all be fixed. The CGI tomfoolery can be turned around. The editing can be pruned just the make the movie more solid.

I’m actually looking forwards to Andrés Muschietti’s ultimate version of IT. Maybe if he sticks to the book he can get a solid movie out of it.

Still no space-turtle though.

Again, like the 1990 mini-series before it, it is the adult chapter that doesn’t work. There is potential but, down to brass tacks, what I saw was sometimes good in parts but certainly wasn’t that good as a whole. As the losers always said: “We have to stick together!” Unfortunately Chapter 2 doesn’t stick.

Childs Play (2019) – a review

A thirteen year old boy get’s the ('last years’) hottest new item on the market: a Buddie doll! A fully functioning robot for younger children with all kinds of interactive gizmo’s and gadgets to make your life easier. But most of all, you get a friend for life! That is, until some abused programmer decides to say: “‘F- it all’ let’s take the safety features off!”

In a world of constant lacklustre remakes and uninspired reimaginings it is sometimes a breath of fresh air to get a remake that actually works from start to finish. Childs Play (or ‘Childs Play 2.0’ as I like to call it) is such a movie. It has the same concept as the 1988 original (a killer doll), uses the same three base characters (the mom, son and cop) but that’s about it. The rest of 2019’s Childs Play is deliciously different and, more importantly, the new subplot on why the doll gets killing actually works a lot better than that whole hocus pocus (although Brad Dourif was/is great) that was used in the 1988 original.

Update Chucky

A good remake (or reimagining) walks a fine line between the original and the new path. Undertaking such a movie can easily go wrong. To take a critique I have about 2016’s Ghostbusters remake as an example. That movie was riddled with cameo’s and nods to the original movie. But, at the same time the new stuff the movie put in wasn’t very good; not to mention tonally out of sync with the original movie (soup jokes, a very silly personal assistant).

So, as a result the movie became a strange mix of constantly reminding the audience that it’s supposed to be in line with the original whilst, at the same time, not giving any of the things that made the original fun (like macabre humour).

What Childs Play (2019) does is that it never overtly (no cameos here) connects itself to the 1988 original. But it does bring a whole range of scenes that are in sync with the ‘flavour’ of the Childs Play-franchise.

As I said the base trio is present. But the mother is dating, the son is older and the cop has a mom. Another reference I got was the apartment building the main characters live at, it’s similar to the original. But there’s a big difference between a cameo of an actor and a building.

“This IS the end!”

I can tell you (without spoiling much) that the famous above sentence gets a return as well. And, luck would have it, this time ‘round it isn’t overacted.

I love that moment in the original movie. It's so bad it's good!. The original child who said those words in the original tried his best but he was just too young to pull it off believably. What does the remake do? It ups the age of the child.

Now Andy (Gabriel Bateman) is a thirteen-something Millennial kid who swears, watches horror movies and laughs about them and is highly capable in the new high-tech-cloud-world we currently inhabiting (the movie takes place slightly into the future).

I was a bit shocked when I read an interview of the IT kids cast when the first chapter was about to come out.

They said they all saw the original Tim Curry mini-series and that they didn’t find it scary.

What’s up with this new generation? I’m still traumatized.

Because that’s the strength of Childs Play (2019). It uses technology to conjure up the danger.

The movie even spotlights this by a characters talking about the robot apocalypse.

If you have a machine that can command all kinds of other machines like a puppet master, a Roomba suddenly becomes a deathtrap. The only thing the writer needs to do is to find a way to get said machine on the path to murder. Which is where the character of the overworked and abused programmer comes in.

After that, you are the first hand witness of seeing Chucky following in the fictional Lenny’s (big) footsteps. Starting small Chucky’s lust for blood becomes bigger and bigger. And with all the power the audience, by now, already know he possess a lot of fun is to be had.

Critique

Before I get to the good part I do have to mention a little critique. Childs Play (2019) doesn’t take itself too seriously (this is a good thing). It uses the 80s mould of baddies getting slaughtered and goodies surviving. As such there are some hilariously vile characters in the movie that I was just waiting for to go.

Basically Childs Play (2019) wants you to sit down and relax and watch Chucky having a grand ol’ time. However, for this to happen the main character Andy has to make some rather strange choices.

True, as we all know, the puberty-brain isn’t the most stable mind in the world. But some of the choices the boy makes along the way made me (from a story perspective) scratch my head.

But this critique is quickly forgotten when Chucky starts having fun again.

Blood, gore and acting

For a movie that feels like an 80s movie in which every kind soul survives Childs Play (2019) is pretty darn bloody. The movie does cut away when things get too graphic but still, the amount of blood could fill the Overlook hotel elevator. But the murders are always done creatively with tongue firmly in cheek.

I’ve often talked about Space and Place in horror movies on this blog. I’ve also highlighted the usage of shadows in horror movies. This time ‘round I wish to focus on something else: the petite killer. As any other antagonist the small killer uses the above mentioned tropes to his benefit. Space/Place: kitchen cabinets suddenly become dangerous because he could’ve hidden in there. Shadows: He might be lurking in the shadows and lunge at you. There are two elements that I wish to highlight here. For starters: size. Ad I said above a small antagonist can hide anywhere. But, more importantly, a small antagonist can use its size against its prey. You can see and hear Jason Voorhees coming for miles. You don’t see or hear Cage Creed until he cuts your Achilles tendon. A movie with a small antagonist is, therefore, I argue, far more dependent on the suspense of looking for something in the dark (and the eventual pay-off) then the likes of Friday the 13th which are more about the suspense of the chase. The second point is the obvious one. Every ‘killer kid’ (small antagonist) movie uses this same template. The movie introduces a apparently sweet character and then toys around with childlike innocence contrasted with bloody murder. Again, to compare it to Friday the 13th there is no black-and-white killer in ‘killer-kids’-movies because your own morality/humanity gets turned upside-down. My favourite ‘killer kid’ was in the TV-show Highlander. Here a boy immortal used his innocence to convince other immortals to protect him. Then, when they had their backs turned, the boy decapited them with a meat cleaver (if memory serves). I remember, thinking, at the time, that the kid was probably more powerful than the Highlander.

Which is then underlined by the great Mark Hamill (the Joker himself) as the voice of Chucky. He brings the doll just enough innocence and menace to make this character memorable. Strangely enough it weren’t Chucky’s glowing red eyes that unnerved me, it was his voice. Hamill (after his Star Wars-tour he became a great video-game/voice actor) knows his craft of making a voice sound the way it should.

Hamill also sings two versions of ‘The Buddie song’ on the credits.

One version happy go lucky.

The other version darker (plus it feels like Chucky’s battery is dying out).

Andy, being an older boy gets to show a lot more emotions than the boy in the original movie was
ever allowed to. Moreover, teenagers are allowed to get hurt in Hollywood-fiction. So there are some nice action scenes for him.

His mother (Aubrey Plaza), then, is handed the delicious part of the ‘not perfect mother’. Too often mothers in movies are too perfect (almost like a Mary Sue). Thankfully not in horrors (e.g. The Ring) and certainly not in Childs Play. Plaza’s, Karin, has a terrible taste in boyfriends, isn’t scared of blackmailing people to get what she wants, but she does love her son with whole her heart. Karin is a rather complete character in a movie that doesn't need her to be, and Plaza portrays her quite well.

The third member of the party is ‘The cop’ (Mike Norris played by Brian Tyree Henry). The first half of the movie he is all charm. But thankfully the actor gets somewhat of an arch to go through. But, then again, the minute this arch starts the movie is already going full throttle towards the finale. So it's a bit of a letdown.

Still, Henry’s natural charm and the wonderfully delivered little quirky moments of him talking to himself is all you need to root for him.

Another shout out goes to the child actors and all the victims of Chucky. Even the most two-dimensional character (Omar) has a little scene for the actor to showcase his skill set. Childs play (2019) therefore is a very good harmony of witty writing and delivery.

This IS the END!

What a surprise this updated Chucky was for me. The evil doll is now a computer glitch (leave the paranormal for Annabelle) and it actually works. Chucky has more powers, less morals and a wonderful new voice. And even though Childs Play (2019) is very much in line with the 1988 original, never overtly so.

This is –like any Childs Play movie- one of those movies you watch with your friends on a Saturday night. Screaming at the TV-screen: “Don’t do that!”, “Don’t go out!”, “Chucky is there!” to which SIRI replies: “Roomba...kill!”

Fixing movies: Signs

Let’s start with the arrogance of the title: fixing movies.

There are, of course, a whole lot of movies that I personally would have loved to have seen go differently than what happened. I would’ve preferred Call me by your name to have ended happily. Or, if it were up to me, the kid in Dinocroc wouldn’t have died.

Yes, I watch a whole array of different films.

But these are all choices made by the director. My personal preference or opinion gets in the way.

However, sometimes a movie has a ‘happy mistake’ that I can use to make the movie more to my liking. One of these movies is M. Night Shyamalan’s Signs (2002). Obviously this article is filled with spoilers for the movie.

Signs is a peculiar case of a movie. Because it is actually very good. The story is grand. The acting is fantastic. But it all tumbles down with the (so-called) ‘twist’ before the end.

Spoiling the story for you (you should’ve seen this movie by now) it appears that the aliens invading earth are lethally allergic to (drum roll please) ‘water’.

Water...the key element to life on other planets. Water...the one element that our silly little planet earth has such an abundance of that it often just falls from the sky.

So here we have a superior alien race that decides to use all its advanced technological knowhow to fly lightyears towards a planet on the outskirts of the universe that actually consists of the one substance they are allergic to. And, of course, because that’s how the superior alien race union of workers decided, the aliens invade without any protection –naked.

Basically the minute the ‘twist’ lands Signs becomes laughable after the fact. The aliens –who inspired fear and tension for the first hour of the movie- are suddenly demoted to a ‘guy who, drenched in gasoline, visits the sun’. Stupid beyond believe!

This hurts the movie so tremendously that everything that came before this ‘twist’ becomes obsolete. Every great acting scene, every beautiful shot is diminished because ‘aliens can’t take water’.

So how to fix this movie?

The simple answer would be to change the water into any other kind of substance. Be it cola, motor oil, Red Bull. It doesn’t matter. Any other liquid would’ve been fine.

But I like to take a different approach!

The story of Signs is all about a priest who lost his faith after his wife died in a car accident. He is doubting the existence of God.

Or, maybe, the ‘goodness’ of God.

Signs is a movie that has a religious strand woven through throughout. The story is about faith, predestination and believing.

The son can’t inhale the toxic gas (in the finale) because of his asthma (predestination).

And the father ‘believes’ that, due to this, his son will be alright.

So –this is how my mind works- what does a priest do, amongst other things? He blesses water. A priest can make water holy.

So why not have the daughter ask her father time and again to bless the glass of water she is holding? And supposedly he humours her and makes a half-hearted hand-gesture and mutters some words to make it holy (even if he doesn’t believe -he is a priest after all, he has the power).

Now all the water-filled glasses in the house contain ‘holy water’.

This would make the finale consisting of the evil aliens being some sort of ‘spawns from hell’ intolerant to holy water.

It would also insert some notion of the entire family being religious.

Something that is strangely lacking in the movie (due to the detached father-character).

But that’s not enough for me!

M. Night  loves to ground his fantastical tales in reality. A boy named Cole sees dead people (in the Sixth Sense). Does he become a superhero? No! M. Night calls the psychiatrist –as it were.

David Dunne realizes he’s ‘unbreakable’. Does he go to Pakistan to kick Al-Qaida’s behinds? No, he fixes his city and stays low-key.

Keeping this in mind I would add some ‘murkiness’ to 'my -above mentioned- twist' of Signs. This would invovle just a short news item playing in the background that the tap-water in the region has been contaminated by chlorine. Then the viewer sometimes sees the main characters occasionally drinking water from a bought bottle instead of the tap.

Now, to me at least, the finale becomes interesting. The setting is still the same. Mel Gibson still tells Joaquin Phoenix to ‘swing away’. But the water could be, at the same time, holy (thus God exists) or just filled to the brim with an unnatural chemical which the alien being can’t abide.

I think that this would fix the movie. It would create a rather nice ambiguity between religion and science without making the invading aliens ‘stupid after the fact’.

I still love Signs. It truly is a great movie. But the movie gets hurt (very) badly by the last act. In a perfect world M. Night would’ve thought of the same sort of things I’ve written above. I, honestly, believe that my suggestions would make the whole of the movie more logical, ambiguous and –in the end- better.

Then again, the man didn’t realize the ‘twist’ in ‘The sixth sense’ until his fifth draft of the story.

We are all human!