It: Chapter 2 – before it begins

A few months ago I did an article about the upcoming IT: Chapter 2 movie. I did several of these kinds of articles for the first instalment as well so I figured it was time to get this one out before the closing chapter of the Losers-saga is truly upon us.

As usual this article is more for my own amusement than that it’ll help anybody. I’m just going to post some thoughts I had about the trailer(s) and what I remember from the book. Just to see, when the movie finally comes out, whether or not I was right.

Obviously there will be some spoilers here regarding the book, the first movie and the original mini-series.

What’s new?

The trailer of IT: Chapter 2 promises quite a few new things. For starters Bill is chasing some kid through a mirror/glass maze and actually calling the kid by name (so he knows him). This isn’t in the book.

I doubt that this child is one of the losers’ offspring. But some kind of relative is a possibility. Or maybe it’s just a kid Bill met at the carnival.

Pennywise backstory?

The carnival, then, also isn’t in the book. What is in the book though is a reference that Pennywise the dancing clown used to be part of a carnival troupe. And low and behold both trailers make a rather big deal out of the fact that the creature Pennywise was once a ‘normal’ man (or, at least: without make-up). Moreover, that he had a daughter.

The  little old lady-scene in the first trailer is just like in the book.

A bit more elaborate, perhaps, but in the end the basis remains:

Nan is quite effectively creepy. 

This makes this whole notion of Pennywise being this eternal inter-dimensional, soul-devouring monster a bit shaky. Especially since the first trailer poses yet another notion: that Pennywise had/has a daughter.

So what could this mean? A) Pennywise was, and always has been this inter-dimensional being, even when he was in (make-up-less) human form. The daughter is just an extension of him. Or, B) The man who became Pennywise ‘invited’ the monster in. The daughter paved the way for his transformation/possession (be it: The loss of the daughter, or evil acts by the father upon the daughter. All kinds of motivations are possible).

It’s her tie with the Pennywise-backstory that’s interesting here.

New scares?

The trailer of IT: Chapter 2 brings quite a few new scares to the table that weren’t in the book. One of them is Pennywise floating in the air by balloons. But –more interesting to me- is a quick shot of Bev destroying a mirror. In the reflection of the mirror you see Pennywise hovering over (I think) Mike and Eddie. Eddie has a big cut on his belly. Now he’s not going to die just yet since later on Eddie and the troupe are seen holding hands and he has a bandage on his face. Sufficient to say, the guy is going to have a very bad time in Derry, that’s for sure.

Like Stanley in Chapter 1 he’s the only one bandaged. Is this foreshadowing to his ultimate fate?

Another quick shot features Bev underwater being held by some kind of face-less zombie. Also not in the book. And then there’s the fact that the ‘little old lady’-scene is far longer than it was in the book.

Lin Shaye would’ve been great for this part. But I guess she’s too young.

So one can assume that the movie truly takes the visual approach and is just going to bombard a massive amount of unsettling visuals towards the audience. I think this is a good thing. Returning to Chapter 1, I doubt Mike’s massive bird-scene or Richie’s werewolf would’ve worked well on screen/in the whole of the story.

Callback scares?

So, this new chapter has a lot of new scares that weren’t in the original book. But, of course, on a character-development level you also need to include some ‘old scares’. So, yes, Georgie is back to taunt Bill(y) once more (“You lie and I die!”). And, yes, Bev is back in her school-bathroom cubicle (“Hate clown”).

Not to mention she gets a whole new bloodied shower.

Poor girl.

Whose hand is she trying to reach by the way?

This is needed to tie the second chapter to the first. And, maybe, those things we took for granted the first time around might have a deeper (scarier) meaning in this second chapter.

Fan-service?

Anybody who read the book, seen the original mini-series, or just IT: Chapter 1 knows that there is a deep love between Richie and Eddie. Whether this love is friendly, brotherly or more is never explored nor explained.

The people online, however, LOVE to fan fiction their behinds off. Yes tumblr can be a bit creepy. So Ritchie and Eddie are definitely a couple in the minds of online people.

So, knowing this I suddenly saw a shot in the trailer with Richie crying and hugging someone. Who? And, why? Is it the end and Eddie died? Or is it fan-service? Are we going to see them become a couple?

The same goes for the Bill-Bev-Ben triangle. In the book and mini-series Bev ends up with Ben. Will this happen in the second chapter as well? Or will Bill and Bev end up together? We haven’t seen Bill’s wife Audra Philips yet so how important is her character going to be for Bill’s story in this adaptation?

What is old?

In the trailer(s) every single shot in Derry is without Stanley. And then there’s a lovely bathtub blood finger shot. I think it’s pretty obvious that poor old Stanley’s story will follow the bookpages to the letter.

I doubt, however, that the movie will start with his demise (as the mini-series did). I’m rather convinced the movie will begin with (a cold open?) the gay couple being harassed by hoodlums just as it is in the original book.

Also, I believe the enormous amounts of red balloons coming from under the bridge are in this particular scene.

Moreover, I think that these balloons will somehow transform in the title of the movie (as I said: a cold open).

Bowers dangerous?

The trailer offers a small shot of Henry Bowers in the asylum. Pretty much the same as the original book/mini-series. I do hope, however, that Bowers becomes a bit more threatening this second outing.

In Chapter 1 he (felt to me) was rather more an annoyance along the way of the Losers’s main quest to destroy the ultimate evil. This, whist, in the book and mini-series, he felt more like Pennywise’s general. The first big boss you have to overcome before you meet the final boss –as it were. So not some kind of pest but rather an, already, impressive force to be reckoned with.

The ritual of Chud?

Then there’s the ritual of Chud. We don’t see anything about it in the trailer apart from Pennywise slamming a wooden door shut over a hole in the ground. In the book it’s in this hole that the ritual is performed.

So, a few things to take from this: since we only see the door we can assume that the movie isn’t too keen on letting the cat out of the bag just yet. Meaning: the scene is important. Probably dealing with the aforementioned questions about Pennywise’s past. Second; one could guess that the kids from the previous movie will be back for this scene since (if memory serves) both the adults and the kids perform this ritual.

What I want.

What I want, is batshoot craziness! The ending of the original IT novel is so immensely insane. I mean, we are talking about a guy tripping to high heavens and meeting an intergalactic space turtle who vomits out worlds. If one can translate this narrative insanity visually on the silver screen I’m a happy bunny.

The trailer (especially the second one) promises this. There are strange angled shots. Pennywise defying gravity by walking on walls. One of the characters falling through a tunnel into a bright light. All very Lovecraftian (without the tentacles). And with the movie set to have a three hour runningtime I’m convinced that IT: Chapter two will throw everything at the audience (including the kitchen sink). So I’m hyped and ready to go.

Annabelle: Comes Home - a review

Ed and Lorraine Warren bring the Annabelle doll home. There their daughter Judy, her  babysitter Mary and the babysitter’s friend Daniela are in for a night of terror as they are home alone and Annabelle escapes her glass cage. Annabelle has her mind set once again on playing her demonic games.

Annabelle is back. With more of the same spooks and scares as before. Some effective, some not. But, as a refreshment it does have, a lovely little love-story that I certainly didn’t want to end badly.

But yes, the synopsis I wrote above is the story; there’s not much more to it. The story is kept minimal just so the movie can indulge in the thrill ride it promises. Ed and Lorraine leave on business. The three girls have a quick ‘get to know them’ scene and then the show can get underway.

This is a big leap from the previous instalments (even) in the entirety of the Conjuring-franchise because, this time around there isn’t a mystery to be solved along the way. No; Annabelle is out, fight the demons and get the doll the hell back into her glass cage!

Another change is the Warren’s daughter Judy. She is now played by Mckenna Grace taking over the reins from (a job well done by) Sterling Jerins.

A lovely young actress who plays the ‘creepy kid’-part perfectly fine.

I still think the haunting of Hill House-series she was in was quite awful.

I don’t understand the hype, and I won’t let a chance pass to say it.

The Warrens’ house.

As I often said before, horror has a great deal to do with the usage of space and place. You need a haunted house or room for starters (place). What’s there lurking in the shadows just beyond your field of vision (space)? Why do both the Shining and Halloween keep on reducing safe and wide places to small unsafe spaces the minute tension rises?

Which also happens in this movie near the end.

It a simple technique to increase the terror. As the phrase goes: ’your back is against the wall’.

One, often overlooked, technique is informing the audience of a space. For example Danny and Wendy Torrance’s trek through the Overlook maze in the Shining. This very simple scene informs the audience that Danny now knows the path through the maze. Something the movie later effectively uses for the finale.

In Annabelle: Comes Home there is, however, a card up the sleeve. One shouldn’t look at Annabelle: Comes Home as a standalone movie; but as part of the whole of the Conjuring-franchise. If you do that, you (the viewer) by now knows your way through the Warrens’ house since you’ve been there so many times before.

On a narrative level the same goes for the explanation. The audience doesn’t need to know ‘what’s wrong with Annabelle’ anymore. If you want to know that? Watch part 2. All we need to be remembered of is that Annabelle is one vindictive dolly.

Familiar versus New

But; this is the duality of Annabelle: Comes Home. The movie both demands you to have seen the previous instalments but it also springs a whole bunch of well-known tropes upon you. Not only tropes of horror-movies of yesteryears, mind you,

In our current Tarantino decade(s) in which movies love to keep on referring to ‘the classics’.

But also the same kind of tricks pulled in the previous Conjuring-movies (e.g. rocking chairs, slamming doors, possessed children-playthings and disappearing people/dolls).

The question then becomes –much like the cake the three main leads bake early in the movie- when is it a proper mixture of well known ingredients combined with new ones and when are we talking about ‘that same old cake’?

Let’s just say that I am biased. I love ‘the Conjuring cake’ but even I sometimes prefer a different flavour. To stay with this metaphor of cake,  Annabelle: Comes Home only mixes a few ingredients around. It’s tasty, great, but not spectacularly new tasting in any way. But the movie does bring one massive cake to the table. Volume over taste as it were.  After the introductions Annabelle: Comes Home is a full hour of constant, never-ending, spooks and scares. Which is what I bought the ticket for.

Spooks and scares.

If you have a conduit doll to the darker side of the afterlife locked in a glass case with a big bleeding sign that says: ‘Do not open this case! DANGER!’  There’s quite a challenge for a filmmaker to ‘get that door open’.

The character Daniela (Katie Sarife) gets this ambiguous honour. And even though the movie tries (rather successfully) to explain her motivation; in the end she still remains that ‘one character who can’t read!’.

Still, that’s my only big critique on the movie. Once the door has been opened and Annabelle gets to play the limited story is immediately forgiven. As the movie then takes the well-trodden path of combining character-development with terror.

Because the movie takes so much time out to bombard the viewer with scare-scenes there will be some of the abovementioned ‘familiar’ versus ‘new’ dynamic. Some of these spooks and scares work (the piano scene, ‘can Annabelle come to play?’), some don’t (Annabelle popping up all over the place). Just as some are original (the television) and some you see coming for miles (white dress).

A smart move the movie makes is linking the various Warrens’ cases to specific characters.

You just know this-or-that will haunt that character later on.

But, as the movie goes on your investment in the characters increases. Daniela’s motivations gets deepened out a bit more. Mary (Madison Iseman) gets herself a love story that I (as a downright romantic) really wanted to see come to fruition. And the child Judy’s storyline is actually interesting in a ‘kid with famous parents’ kind of way.

But, then again, we are watching a horror-movie.
It could just as easily go the way of Alien versus Predator 2 or Ouija 2.

To quote a friend who I was sitting next to in the cinema watching Alien versus Predator 2:

“Ah, those two will probably end up together”

*Girl gets pinned to the wall by some Predator-knife-frisbee*

“Or, maybe not…”

So, after the introductions, you are rooting for the heroes all the way through.

Visuals

Visually there are quite some clever shots hidden in Annabelle: Comes Home. As is a giving in ghost-movies Annabelle: Comes Home is riddled with Dutch angles, low and high shots, unexpected camera positions and excellent use of framing and blurring the background.

I, for one, especially enjoyed the usage of light and colour in the final half of the movie. It pretty much starts with the ‘rotating seventies lamp’. Which brings a nice break from the dark shadows and streaks of light. Not to mention that it’s a good thing to, finally, have a horror movie it pitch black darkness again that doesn’t solely rely on things jumping out of the shadows.

The creature design, however, I’m a bit on two-minds about. But, luckily, there was enough shadow to hide the latex.

Annabelle is back in her cage.

Overall I rather enjoyed this third instalment of the Annabelle-franchise. It is solid as long as you don’t get too bogged down on the ‘seen that before’-road. If you accept that Annabelle: Comes Home is a perfect instalment in the ongoing franchise in which the Warrens fight the nether realm.

The limit of insanity: or why is it so difficult to get a Lovecraftian horror movie ‘out there’.

H. P. Lovecraft was a peculiar person. Apart from the short life he lived -which I won’t delve into- he created a mythos so delicate, yet, so utterly unworldly incomprehensible that the best word scholars found to describe it was: insanity!

It’s what happens when you ‘allow’ your mind to flow. When you allow yourself to think the ‘big thoughts’.

(Per example) What’s behind the universe? The expanding universe has to expand into something, doesn’t it? Then, if the universe is so immensely grand, where is God? And, more importantly, if God exists –and he is ruling over all those different galaxies- what would such a mighty being think about us: this silly group of mammals on this silly little planet of ours on the outskirts of the universe. Would he spare us a moment’s thought?

It’s when you start thinking big, horror comes to creep. (Taking the above examples as scripture) God doesn’t care about us. He’s got other things on his eternal mind. We are alone...and the ‘lesser’ Gods want us.

This is, pretty much, the mindset you have to get into when thinking about Lovecraftian horror. Basically the man created a mythos of Gods and eternal beings that surpass us humans in every single way (intelligence, bravery, valour). Whatsmore, these beings aren’t bothered by human traits like compassion, self-sacrifice or heroism.

In short: Lovecraft has created a world of nemesis that simply cannot be defeated. When ‘his’ monsters from the dungeon-dimension come to show the only chance humankind has is to roll over and give in.

And that’s the point I’m making!

Hollywood has tried to make Lovecraftian horror movies but most of these movies always fell short of the ending. One can’t win in Lovecraftian horror. The end is predestined, bleak and final. You can’t escape your doom.

Hollywood doesn’t like this. Even in the cruellest of horrors the ‘heroes’ need to have a fighting chance. That’s why each and every slasher ends with ‘the final girl’ surviving. That’s why the cruellest ‘torture porn’ movies (Hostel, Saw 3-7) end with a shimmer of hope that, at least, one ‘good’ soul survived.

There are only a handful of horror movies that end bleakly. And even the bleakness in (most of) those movies only relates to the main characters. Never the entire world.

Just some examples to prove my point:

• Pet Semetary: ends with the main character kissing his undead wife. Then –as the credits roll- you hear her slaughtering her husband.
• The decent: ends with the main character escaping the cave only to find out that she’s still inside and that she’d been hallucinating. The creepers are crawling towards her and the movie ends.
• Rosemary’s Baby: ends with Rosemary cradling her infant child. The destroyer of worlds. But then the movie ends.
• The blob (the remake): ends with a priest who still has a canister of ‘the blob’. This substance could destroy the world. But the movie ends before it is released.
• Rings: ends with Samara’s ‘home movie’ uploaded to the internet. But then the movie ends.

Two things to take from this: one, in the example of Pet Semetary and The Decent the havoc this evil will wreak upon the world is minimal. The creepers of The Decent will stay in their cave and the undead won’t wander too far from Pet Semetary. The evil is contained.

In the example of The blob, Rosemary’s baby and Rings, however, the evil is on the verge of omnipresence. This evil could strike the entire world.

But...what do Hollywood movies do? They roll the credits and call it a day (Phantoms).

I argue that Lovecraftian horror not only promises world annihilation but also delivers on its promise. And it is in this delivering that Hollywood is too afraid to (uhm) ‘deliver’.

This is a strange concept to realize as Hollywood gleefully destroys the world (or New York, at least) on a yearly-summer-blockbuster schedule. But then there is a difference between fighting against an opponent you can win from and fighting against the ‘ancient Gods’ who are unstoppable.

One of the reasons why The cabin in the woods was such a success (apart from the fantastic third act) was because the movie allowed itself to play the Lovecraftian card though out (even though it didn’t use the elements). The secondary storyline throughout the movie was to keep the ‘old Gods’ at bay. Once that failed inevitability came to play.

This makes In the mouth of madness such an unique Lovecraftian movie just because it uses all the elements of the writer and, above all, shows humanity’s end.

So, in the future, if Guillermo Del Tore decides to take on Lovecraft for his next project we can expect one thing: things won’t end happily. The question, however, remains, will the producers let him?

Just a gif - Happy Death Day to u2

I was amazed to find that NOBODY on the internet made this gif yet!

If there is one reaction gif I would love to use every now and then it is a skimpy clothed girl giving a big FU on the way of her terminal fall! YOLO-I guess.

Stranger Things 3 – a review

Another year has passed and once again Mike Wheeler and his friends think that everything is hunky-dory again in the sleepy town of Hawkins. How wrong they are! Dormant evil is reawakened as vile forces try to reopen the gateway between this world and the upside-down. And the beast that lurks there has made his own plan for what’s to happen next.

Stranger Things is back with a vengeance! After two stellar seasons the show hasn’t lost any of its momentum. The main trick behind this success is the balance this show manages to strike between ‘what we know’ and ‘what we think we know’.

The first one is easy: Eleven (or El as she will from now on be called) will get several nosebleeds. Steve will get his behind kicked once again. Hopper and Joyce will continue their will-they-won’t-they routine (but never annoyingly so). And Mr. Clarke will explain some science along the way.

Yes, Mr. Clarke (Randy Havens) is back. He is the born teacher willing to give all his time to anybody who is interested. And, of course, Mr. Clarke is into D and D and painting ‘The lord of the Rings’ like elves and whatnot. Mr. super nerd is awesome! What happened to his girlfriend from season 1 though?

These are the scriptural tropes that the show runners just have to include each season, it’s tradition by now.

But Stranger Things wouldn’t be Stranger Things if it didn’t take some age-old narrative tropes from yesteryears’ movies and turn them ‘upside-down’. No, the hero might not get the girl. And, no, the ordeal the gang is facing might not reach the happy conclusion of many-an Amblin film.

This keeps Stranger Things fresh whilst, at the same time, deeply rooted in a pleasant sense of nostalgia.

Back to the past.

As always Stranger Things season 3 is filled to the brim with references of both the actual era and the pop culture at the time. It’s 1984 now, the colourful time of the ‘80s have truly arrived.

The rain and fall of seasons previous have been replaced by summer and the fourth of July celebrations. Out are all the dark jackets and grey woollen sweaters and in are the multicoloured hair bands, T-shirts and shorts. It’s a long hot summer and the show wants you to know that.

Not only by making it several plot-points (e.g. the monster not really liking the heat or) like Mrs. Wheeler feeling the heat

Mike’s mother is on the brink of a divorce -as so many mothers from the ‘80s were. Whether she goes through with it or not you’ll just have to see. What I can say is that her character has a lot more character-work than season two in which she was terribly demoted to a desperate housewife.

but also by using this new bright colour palette to tell the story. When El is discovering the mall (Material Girl is Madonna’s best song to me) we, the audience, are taking it all in with her in full primary (techni)colour. But then, when dark things happen, or a character is depressed the wardrobe changes to earth-tones. And, as a bonus, when El is in ‘the dark zone’ her bright yellow outfit makes her stand out quite effectively.

I like to speculate that her shirt –which is yellow with black stripes on it-
symbolises her duality with this nether realm –being part of it (black)/not being part of it (yellow).

Now, it’s also the fourth of July. This ultimate, patriotism fuelled, American (“E pluribus unum”) holiday. This allows any storyteller to have a whole lot of fun. From visually having the kids recreate the statue of Iwo Jima. To, in narrative, having the Russians invade the U.S. of A.

The Russians are coming.

The Soviet-angle takes a bit of getting used to. Of course this is an all American show set during the cold-war so the Russians fit the bill as villains perfectly.

Even though the Soviets carrying big guns at a mall is a bit of a stretch.

But, for me, I always preferred the way the James Bond-franchise handled Russian villains. In that series it were always corrupt generals or rogue power-hungry officials, never actions santioned by the state. -Point in fact; the leader of the KGB (often played by Walter Gotell) came across as a charming fellow.

In Stranger Things season 3 the actions have to be state-approved because the amount of Soviet soldiers running amok and the giganticness of their operation couldn’t be done by a select crew of power-hungry madmen.

It’s this scope of things that stretches my willingness to believe a bit too far (without spoiling too much: how deep does the elevator go again?). There’s no way a Soviet covert operation could be this big. Which is a strange statement to make because we are talking about a show with a gargantuan inter-dimensional tentacle monster here.

No, for me a smaller operation (preferably without military uniforms) would’ve worked far better to sell this notion of ‘Ruskies invading’.

Still, on the other hand, with Soviet villains we now have the possibility of introducing a Dolph Lundgren-Arnold Schwarzenegger-Terminator –Soviet-super-fighter-who kills people Darth Vader-style. A million 80s references pasted upon a single one-dimensional character whose only motive is to be the unstoppable killing machine. Delicious!

Trilogies.

Like the above-mentioned Soviet super villain Stranger Things showcases itself once again as a master class of constant referencing whilst telling an ‘own’ story. Too many movies and shows get lost in the ‘constant winking’. Stranger Things still gets the balance right.

Though there is quite a bit of product placement going ‘round this time.

The old favourites are still there. Like the various references to: The Thing, Stephen King-movies, Spielberg’s ‘80s repertoire and the like. Then there are more obscure references to: The blob,

Wolfhard must’ve been thinking (after IT) with the Blob-monster escaping into the sewers: “not this shit again!”

Invasion of the body snatchers, Poltergeist (the little old lady Doris), The ambulance (or maybe Police squad), Die Hard,  Jaws, Evil dead, Magnum P.I., Alien(s), Dr. Strangelove: or how I stopped worrying and love the bomb, An American werewolf in London, National Lampoon’s Vacation, and, of course, the Neverending story.

There’s a Licence plate shown halfway through this season spelling: TODFHTR. The show explains it as: TOD FATHER (The Godfather). But I read it as: TO THE FURTHER! A reference to the Insidious-franchise; which plays with the same themes?

And, as the show started doing last season, the show runners can’t help themselves putting some references to ‘parts three of 80s trilogies’ into the mix too. So, of course there is a recreation of the tied-up odd-couple from Indiana Jones and the last crusade. The famous Alien-Ripley shot from Alien 3. The bulletproof vest from Back to the Future 3. And, Return of the Jedi gets mentioned by name (almost).

I think Mad Max: beyond thunderdome makes an appearance through Billy’s car.

Not to mention the fact that this season features three main villain groups: The Russians, The newspaper and the mindflayer.

It’s the cherry on top that the show runners just have to include. But, chances are quite likely that they’ll stop doing this next season. Because with season 4 we’ll be entering Halloween, Friday the 13th and Elmstreet’s territory of never-ending sequels.

Though I’m quite certain Freddy Krueger’s fourth adventure might get a mention.

A change is coming...

If season one feature one kiss, season two, two. Season three has a LOT of kisses in the first episode between the (now) teenagers Mike (Finn Wolfhard) and El (Millie Bobby Brown).

Eleven can speak actual sentences now, finally! She’s still wonderfully awkward though, about lots of stuff.

And ‘dad’ Hopper (David Harbour) isn’t pleased. I love his grumpiness. And I certainly love the dad-vibe of wanting to murder his daughter’s boyfriend -And this is not the only laugh out loud moment in the first episode. Each and every actor is now comfortable in their respective parts and how to play them.

Is El overpowered? The problem with El is that she is overpowered. Don’t forget that she snapped a man’s neck in season one almost as an afterthought. Yet, the audience doesn’t quite know how powerful she actually is. She closed the gateway to the Upside-Down with her mind. She splits monsters in two. But then, she is also overtaken by a mere human at one point during this third season. It’s a bit uneven. But, then, that rather fits with her character now both physically (puberty) as mentally (discovering the world around her). Still, one fact remains; there is no real ‘feeling’ of danger for Mike and his friends if they have El watching their backs. So, from a narrative standpoint, what to do with her? In season two the Duffer brothers smartly opted the Captain Marvel-technique. Just get El away from the town for the duration of the season. In season 3 a new trick is applied: ‘weaken her’. The children are teenagers now so –by some unwritten Hollywood-rule- they are allowed to get hurt as much as adults. So El goes through a lot of pain which, in turn, disallows her to use her powers. A wonderful solution because now the danger lurking is very real because there isn’t a deus ex machina (El) to save the day. My second point is the same one I made last season: El’s storyline is interwoven with Mike’s. The two kids love each other deeply. So, to tell a good story, the two need to be separated. When they are together their storyline is finished (like Romeo and Juliette). It’s only when they are apart that their story becomes interesting. So, in the final episode, by taking them apart, the show is ready to move forward full throttle.

From a story perspective this is a logical choice: kids grow up. Now the show-runners get to play with all the puberty tropes of the ‘80s: “Mom get off the line!”, ‘Spin the bottle’, ‘girly-magazines featuring hunks’ and whatnot.

The show doesn’t let you forget the looming sexuality with small gags like Billy’s stack of porn magazines,
or the so-called: “Good screams” (that had me in stitches).

But puberty also allows the characters to change. Dustin (Gaten Matarazzo), always a tag-along character, now proactively takes charge of situations thrown at him.

The Bard. Dustin has never gotten himself into serious problems. I don’t recall him getting hit at any point during the show (Lucas got some of Eleven’s fury in season one). Sure his pet ate his cat and he had to watch his friend jump off a cliff. But he, himself, never got hurt. That’s the fate of the bard; he’ll be the one surviving the longest. Like Mickey Doyle in Boardwalk Empire. And we love him for it. He’s the character the show relies must upon to lighten the mood when things get too dark. If not by him purring like a cat throughout season two, then this season has one brilliant scene in the finale that is pitch perfect in every way.

Mike actually, gets to be a bit of a douche after two-seasons of being goodie-two shoes. Lucas (Caleb McLaughlin), then, starts to portray himself as ‘Mr. Know-it-all’/’Dr. Love’ where, before, he was just as insecure as the other guys. And Max (Sadie Sink), gleefully grabs the chance to be ‘girly’ with El for a change instead of the tomboy she usually is. Whilst El, in turn, gets to define herself.

Turning to the other characters ‘their change’ comes from the events of seasons previous. Steve ‘The Hair’ Harrington (Joe Keery), for instance, seems to have accepted his dethronement and is now willing to let go of his ‘cool façade’.

And, of course, Steve gets beaten up again (but he does win one fight this season, so there’s that).

Nathalie Dyer’s Nancy, then –already a strong woman since season one- takes on the challenging storyline of a woman trying to make it in a man’s world (being an intern sucks for some people).

A story of all ages that works in every time-setting.

Even though her storyline ultimately results in failure it is a failure of the character, not gender.

Her story is short and powerful, but quickly left aside. Then again, it does touch upon the various equality issues Stranger Things often likes to highlight.

Getting to the ‘elders’, Joyce (Winona Ryder), of course, leaps into her trademark madness from the very first episode on (her house stays intact, though). This woman has seen enough strange stuff going on around her that she has developed a six sense; and she’s not afraid to pick a fight now instead of waiting until it lands on her doorstep.

Winona Ryder is loving her part!

The show actually increases on this since Joyce and Hopper start to define themselves as a great detective team: She brings the cases, solves most of them through her smarts. He’s there to take the punches.

The only character (apart from Hopper) that doesn’t want to change, however, is Will (Noah Schnapp).

Will starts this season with the more interesting storyline for me because he has this direct link to the mindflayer. As I said in an earlier review he and Eleven are the ying and yang of the show. Him light being brought to the dark (place). She from the dark being brought to the light.

He tries to move on but he still has this scar of the time he lost. And even though the boy’s trying to play catch-up with two years stolen from his life he quickly learns that the world around him has moved on. It’s a gut punch for him. Not only did he lose time but he’s also behind on the present.

A nice contrast here is between Billy and Will.

Billy is the new king of Hawkins. He’s strong, charming, not very bright and also pretty darn evil (or at least, messed up in the head).

He’s the conduit the beast from the upside-down wants, not some weak kid –at least from the point of view of the monster.

Will, as he proved the last two seasons, is rather smart (Will the wise) and he’d be damned if he wilfully hurts somebody else.

So, the way I see it, the monster had nothing to tap into when he ‘took’ the boy. But with Billy it’s a whole new ballgame.

To end, however, with a critique on the season; the minute Will, Nancy and Jonathan’s (Charlie Heaton) storylines are over they are demoted to standing in the background whilst the other characters do their thing.

The new kids on the block.

A new season also means new characters. The most obvious ones being the villains. We’ve got three human villains this time ‘round (season 3). The Soviets embodied by the (above mentioned) The Terminator-super soldier and his general, the mayor and the wise-cracking A-holes at ‘The Post’.

The mayor is played deliciously by Cary Elwes. He plays the character at his most charming, chewing scenery every chance he gets. From the moment Hopper getting hopping on him -When Stranger Things brings a smack-down it brings it. Like the wine-bottle an episode before it.

The use of American Pie -which is basically a song about (a dead rock-star) letting go- is a stroke of brilliance in that scene.

You know that he’s one of the big evil players (perhaps even a Soviet spy) who is utterly detestable to boot. Therefore it is a bit of a shame that the rest of the season downplays the character to a ‘rather’ Wormtongue status. But, who knows, maybe he returns in season 4 to ‘REALLY’ mess things up.

Jake Bushey’s white-collar-A-hole, then, has a more complete storyline. He’s just a terrible chauvinistic person who loves to kick people when they are down. It’s a great human villain turn for him because he usually plays a bit larger than life.

Here he sticks to being a (stupid) human. And it’s only later in the season that the show allows him to become a bit grander in evoking the ‘danger that lurks within’ that he plays so well (the Die Hard-call-back-scene).

In retrospect it might be a small part, but a very satisfying one nonetheless.

Billy (Dacre Montgomery), then, doesn’t really fit in this category. He actually turns out to be a great villain, though (some great writing and acting here) with a wonderful speech near the end. Though, I must admit that the flashbacks of Billy’s abusive childhood was a bit ‘I know’ (but needed).

The good guys.

New seasons often include new good characters (that need a storyline as well). This is a tricky business because the more characters you have the less screen-time left to tell ‘full’ stories per character. Moreover, the minute a good character has completed his/her storyline you have to get rid of said character; but how to do that?

The Walking Dead simply kills them.

So when you introduce a new character the best choice to make is to have the character ‘removable in the easy sense’.

Take Lucas’s younger sister Erica (Priah Ferguson) for instance. She is needed for the story of ‘Season 3’. But next season (like Kali/eight [Linnea Berthelsen] season last) she can quickly be pushed back to the background when she isn’t needed.

To sidetrack a bit, I disliked her character immensely during the first few episodes. It’s like the show upped her daily dosage of annoyance. She’s a bully and I don’t like bullies. But –and this is the magic Stranger Things does- she grows on you. By the end of the season I’ve started to enjoy her snarky comments. If she comes back next season I want some more brother and sister dynamics.

Back on track, however, I would argue that Robin (Maya Hawke) as Steve’s colleague at Scoops Ahoy, is a whole different story. By the end of the season she is intertwined with the character Steve. She’s here to stay. Is this a bad thing? Not at all!

Robin is a great addition; she’s instantly likable, strong and not afraid to speak her mind. Also the simple fact that she and Steve had to go through the entire season in a silly sailor’s outfit helped in that regard.

A new map – It’s Christmas! In episode four the show shows the audience a full map of Hawkins (a dated one but still). I, for one, would like to believe that the producers threw it in there to please me (personally), since it’s pretty similar to my map.  But I doubt it. It’s a nice fantasy though. At least I can say for a fact that the show-runners have decided to make Hawkins ‘tangible’. By now there’s a basic ‘stage’ set that both limits and inspires the show. You can’t have ‘our heroes’ make it from the Byers house all the way to the police station in the blink of an eye now; there needs to be some time in-between. This time allows for scenes to happen. Knowing what the stage is (I believe) enhances drama.

Mission: child endangerment.

As always the newest season of Stranger Things feels like ‘the 80s’. Right down to the post effect of an artist putting scanned film over the digital footage to make it look more dated.

I absolutely adored the ‘kick-the-trashcan’-scene which was all shot in the infamous ‘80s Dutch angle.

But there’s a difference between being made in the 21^st century and the 1980s. For starters: I’m not very lenient, nowadays, when it comes down to ‘convenient coincidences’ as the finale episode threw in a bit too many. After almost 150 years of movies this should stop.

Also the constant driving back-and-forth meddled with the ‘tempo’ of this last episode a bit.

Other critiques are the fact that the ‘off the air’ Dustin gets brushed off a little too easily for my taste (doesn’t this close-knit group of friends want to look for him when sh*t hits the fan?). And the fact that there are a lot of flashbacks this season that aren’t always needed.

Even some from a few episodes ago. Do the Duffer brothers really think I’m not bench-watching this thing?

But this is all just nitpicking.

Overall I enjoyed this season very much. Especially the new direction of the characters. For example: Mike isn’t perfect and he never will be. He is, however, a good boy –just like his friends. So why not make him a bit more ‘aggressive’ this season? It all adds up to the character-development that any long-running show needs.

I also enjoyed the bloodiness of the season (actual exploding rats). I’m not a big fan of blood if it’s unnecessary

You won’t see me revisiting Hostel anytime soon because I enjoy watching people get tortured (the story is fun though).

but a little bit of blood here and there just to emphasize the danger that is lurking helps to increase the tension.

Also the usage of ‘grouping’ works a charm. More so, than seasons previous, this third season of Stranger Things quickly divides the characters into teams. The Dustin/Steve-team, the El/Max-team, the boys-team, and team-Hopper. Like LOST, Heroes, and many shows before it this ‘trick’ works marvellously. It allows the show to focus all its attention on the character-development of the current team they are highlighting.

As a bonus, then, the show quickly separates Mike and El. Their story is over (they love each other, there’s nothing left to tell) so they should only come back together when a new outside event comes to show. In the end, they can only be ‘truly’ together when the whole ordeal is over.

It’s important to separate the two otherwise the viewers will lose interest in their relationship.

This happened in Friends, Lost, Cheers, and many, many other shows.

As the Duffer brothers teased last season they wanted to tie up the previous story before they leapt into the next. And leapt they did! Season 3 of Stranger Things is left rather open in the end. The next season can’t come soon enough. But until that happens we might compose a question or two...

All that’s left is...speculation. I did pretty well in my article about the season 3 trailer. I got a lot of things right. So, since I love mind games and speculation let me just use this final bit to draw out some ideas that might play out in the fourth season of Stranger Things. Of course this bit will be spoiler heavy: 1. It is probably going to be set around Christmastime. Two very simple arguments for this: Stranger Things is now fully committed on featuring an American holiday during each season (Halloween last season). And, two, the mindflayer doesn’t like heat. 2. Now that Will and El are brother and sister we will probably gets some nice scenes between the two. She helping him in some way. Be it girls, or –what I always wanted for the boy- awakening his dormant powers (he plays a wizard in D and D after all). It might be a boy Will is interested in. Fine either way. I know we got the ‘evil Will’ last season but I’m still speculating that his long time in the ‘upside-down’ gave him a bit more tricks up his sleeve. Which was, of course, confirmed this season with him having the ability to sense the mindflayer’s presence (something El apparently can’t). 3. El has lost her powers. How about that? From a narrative perspective this is a very, very good thing! Now the dangers can be built upon for real since she has no way of defending herself. Is the mindflayer draining her power? 4. Where do the Byers go? Chicago? If so El might meet her sister Kali/eight once more. 5.  Hopper isn’t dead. I’d be quite surprised if he is. He’s either in that Russian cell or somewhere in the Upside-down. 6. Can we PLEASE have Rutger Hauer and Jeroen Krabbe next season (the latter being the villain). Both playing Russians…obviously. I actually wrote this above bit two days before I learned of Rutger Hauer’s demise. The world won’t be the same without him. He was an instinctive, caring, charming, down-to-earth, yet occasionally willingly crazy-person and we all loved him for it. Hauer was a man who chose acting as a profession to tell interesting tales. He couldn’t be bothered by all the tomfoolery of Hollywood of making the actors ‘stars’ and putting them on the forefront; it was the actual movie that mattered for him. His love for the craft shone through in every single role he took on. Rutger Hauer was both a good human and a movie actor –giving his all to the tale.

...Are we right? We’ll see. One thing’s for sure: Stranger Things is as solid as ever and it will take quite the Demogorgon to take it away!

Oh, I didn’t mention ‘conspiracy guy’ (Murray) (Brett Gelman) and ‘Smirnov’ (Alexei) (Alec Utgoff)!
Do I need to? They were awesome!

Netflix versus Disney+ Is Netflix going down due to the upcoming Disney+? Or is Netflix going to survive since it has such a strong brand and Disney is never going to be able to compete? Most stockbrokers are betting on Disney to be the victor. This company has the biggest portfolio of blockbuster movies that Netflix simply doesn’t have to offer. I disagree (for now). I believe that the variety that Netflix has to offer will overcome Disney+’s features that ‘everybody has seen already!’ Yet, this ‘danger on the horizon’ has fittingly been incorporated in this season of Stranger Things! As all the shops in downtown Hawkins are abandoned in favour of the Starcourt mall. So, today (in 2019), many stores had to close their doors in favour of ‘Internet shopping’. Netflix might follow the same path. But what will the future hold? Will the little video-rental Netflix have to close its doors due to the megalomaniac Disney company? If this is the case Netflix won’t be able to produce again... A danger for Stranger Things. But, then again, nothing Mike and his pals can’t overcome.