DSS: Wes Anderson Part 1

Hello, Weirdos. This month the Director Selective Series will focus on the directorial filmography of Wes Anderson. Anderson started by making short films with future frequent collaborator Owen Wilson. Typically, his films feature a pastel color pallette, long pans, and quirky characters. March of this year he will release his second animated feature, Isle of Dogs. Outside of Isle of Dogs, Anderson has eight movies, so for the month of January I'll be looking at two a week.

Here are the first two:

I've never seen Bottle Rocket, but I have seen Rushmore. It will be cool to see Anderson's evolution from the beginning.

Here are my thoughts on the final installment from Director Selective Series: David Fincher:

  • The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo: I've never read the book, nor have I seen the original movie, so this film was self-contained for me the first time I watched it. This movie has one of the best trailers I've ever seen. The teaser draws you in, piques interest, and gives little to nothing away. Plus it has a great song. Until Lisbeth and Mikael get together, the film feels disjointed. We get one or the other, and it isn't clear where the solo Lisbeth storyline is going. Luckily, Mara's performance is enough to keep you interested because she is intense and believable (that tattoo scene is gnarly). The performances across the board hold up. My only other complaint is the ending feels tacked on without a satisfiable amount of explanation. Seems like something that may be explored with sequels. Fincher uses the yellow and blue tones throughout, which aids to the cool atmosphere created by the landscape.
  • Gone Girl: This was my second viewing of this picture. The first time I watched it I remembered thinking it was a bit slow. Now that I’m used to that in movies, especially with Fincher, I thought Gone Girl was well-paced. Gone Girl starts like a typical murder mystery thriller, but where most stop after the reveal, Gone Girl keeps going. There isn’t a quick montage of how it happened. Instead the how is half the story. It reminded me of The Game because you don’t really known who to cheer for. Fincher likes his tortured anti-heroes. Gone Girl is a tension-building nail biter. 
  •  

That is it for Fincher. If I had to do again, I would. Fincher has a way of making you feel like you’re there with crisp, clean shots and haunting atmospheres. It is cold and drab, but always worth the journey. I’m excited to see what he does next. 

Got a new poem in the works. Expect that soon. And expect more films from Wes Anderson in the weeks to come. Keep on Creepin’

Director Selective Series: David Fincher Part 4

Hello, Weirdos and Happy Holidays. This is the final installment of David Fincher’s directorial filmography. Two more films to go, and they are:

I’ve seen both of these, but not for a few years. I look forward to seeing how they hold up for me. 

These are the thoughts on the two pictures from Part 3

  • The Curious Case of Benjamin Button: Fincher takes his love of colored tones and uses them to demonstrate the difference in time. The cold blue is reserved for the present. Yellow is used for the past. As the past catches up, the color slowly shifts to match. Button reminds me of Forrest Gump mixed with Boyhood. It is the story of a life from beginning to end. Fincher toys with the idea of time and how we perceive it. A bulk of the movie is spent with Benjamin as an old man aging into his midlife, then his adolescence. The film skims over Benjamin as a child, hardly giving audiences any time after his teenaged years. It is like life: Childhood goes by in the blink of an eye, and most of our time is spent becoming an adult and growing old. The film is character driven; there isn't much plot. For me, the biggest problem is the graphics used on old man Benjamin. The CGI resembles The Polar Express, and falls into the uncanny valley, which is unsettling. Other than that, the film is gorgeous, especially the cinematography. Nothing feels wasted. Yes, the film is long, but every scene has a purpose.
  • The Social Network: Sorkin and Fincher knock this one out. They take a story that could have easily been boring and transform it into a visual treat full of quick-witted dialogue. Fincher makes you feel like you're there, and Sorkin makes you believe the characters are real. It is a good example of using what’s current to draw people in, as with Steve Jobs and Straight Outta Compton. The writing and direction aren’t the only stars. The performances from Eisenberg and Garfield as the leads deserve recognition. Each play a pivotal role and pair well with each other as monotone nerd and enthusiastic, handsome financier, respectively. Music is also worth mentioning. Reznor and Ross amplify the film by adding bits of digital sounds into their score. They also take old ideas and present them in new ways, which parallels Facebook itself. As with his last film, and even more true here, Fincher wastes nothing.

Next week I’ll have a new director to comb through, and my thoughts on these final two films. Suggestions are always welcomed as are thoughts on any of the movies I’ve been watching. Keep On Creepin’.

Director Selective Series: David Fincher Part 3

Hello, Weirdos. A new review is available for Creep 2. Check that out if you're interested. Fincher has four movies left in his directorial filmography, which I'll split evenly for the next two weeks.

Here are the films for this week followed by my thoughts from last week:

I've never seen Benjamin Button, but both these films did well on the award front, so it should be a solid week.

As mentioned, here are thoughts on last week:

  • Fight Club: Fincher continues what he started with The Game: the long slow burn. Fight Club has a lot of talking and set up. Characters make grand revelations throughout ("Our fathers were our models for God. If our fathers bailed, what does that tell you about God?"), which is derived from the source material, but it feels preachy in parts. The acting is great. Pitt is hilarious, intimidating, and makes it easy to believe all the shit he spouts. Norton pairs well, being calm, collected, and able to let out the fury in spurts to give the viewer breadcrumbs of Tyler within him. It is easy to see where Mr. Robot got their inspiration from, especially with Rami Malek. Fincher pulls back on the yellow tones in favor of a blue tint for this picture. Fincher and Uhls (the film's writer) manipulate Palahniuk's source material to make it work for film by using visual elements and dialogue to give the audience the pieces to put the mystery together.
  • Panic Room: Filled with blue tint throughout, Panic Room is a dreary, cold thriller and an example of Murphy’s Law. Fincher has some fun with this film. There are gorgeous long shots from the top floor to the first, four stories below. There are shots going between close objects, into others, and traveling through nooks and crannies. All fun to watch. The plot is simple: crooks break into a house, the occupants hide in a panic room, and they have a back and forth. The characters are static aside from Meg Altman, played by Jodie Foster. Meg starts as a weak damsel in distress, but when the “prince” comes and fails, it’s up to her to become strong and defeat the monsters invading her home. Foster and Fincher’s film techniques are the best parts of this movie. 
  • Zodiac: Another long, slow burn, this time with a star studded cast and a true crime story. In Fincher style this film is flooded with warm yellows and cold blues. It is interesting to watch something like this with Fincher’s new show Mindhunter being released because of the similar subject matter. Also, maybe it's because I live in the state, but I found it terrifying to think about. There was a guy going around killing people, and sending notes to the police, yet still not getting caught. In that regard the movie was effective for me. All the characters and acting are top notch. Fincher is able to take a story with a known ending and make the journey entertaining enough to be worth the trek.

Feel free to share your thoughts on these films. Other opinions are always welcomed. On the prowl for the next director to dive into. If you have any suggestions let me know. Watch out for Part 4 coming next week. Keep on Creepin'.

Creep 2 Review

As a subgenre, found-footage films saturated the market in the early 2000s. Low budget, high profit left audiences a slew of junk to sift through, only to find few hidden gems. One of those gems was 2014's Creep, which breathed new life into the subgenre by being original, claustrophobic, and well, creepy. This year brought the follow-up with Creep 2. Again, this picture stars Mark Duplass as the big bad wolf (this time named Aaron), and is directed by Patrick Brice. Both Brice and Duplass wrote the film, as they did with part 1. Creep 2 succeeds because it is familiar to its predecessor in format, but different enough to keep the viewer interested until the final cut to black.

What is familiar? The basic story is similar to the first. Aaron hires a videographer to come to his home and film him. Aaron is still Aaron. He is a funny, charismatic, eccentric weirdo, but, aside from the creepiness, likable. He draws the viewer in with his quirks. 

This time around, however, Aaron is open about what he is. Viewers are not seeing his process at its peak. They are seeing an artist struggle with his craft. If Creep is about friendship and loneliness, Creep 2 is about art and inspiration, which becomes a darkly hilarious juxtaposition when paired through the lense of murder. Because the theme is different the movie feels different, so it never feels like a rehash even though it shares the same premis. 

Creep 2 follows the sequel format: everything is amped up—bigger, bolder, bloodier, and more elaborate. This stays true with the performances as well. Duplass is able to be creepier and funnier. Without spoiling anything, there is a scene where Aaron and Sara (Desiree Akhavana) are playing pool, and Aaron says an otherwise terrifying line, but with a huge smile. It encapsulates the character in one shot. Akhavan is stellar, too. When she meets Aaron and he reveals his hobby, it is easy for the viewer to ask, “Why the hell aren’t you leaving!?” Then she explains why and it becomes an intimate character moment and an example of how tight the writing is. Yes, Sara makes questionable choices, but if she leaves she might get murdered. If she stays she might get murdered. If she runs the risk of getting murdered either way she might as well dive in. Sara's confident, fearless attitude pairs well with Aaron's creepy, funny demeanor.

As mentioned, the writing is tight—as is the directing. There are few, if any, scenes that do not hold their weight. Every bit of dialogue and every shot have substance. Part of what makes Creep 2 work is it trades in scares for awkward character development. Brice and Duplass take instances of inaction and shapes them into absurd, uncomfortable character moments, as in the scene when Aaron exposes himself physically to Sara. This scene could have easily been a write off. Instead Brice and Duplass elevate it by having Sara volunteer to do the same. A shot that begins leaning toward shock and smut, becomes a scene demonstrating Sara's drive and Aaron's vulnerability. Even when the jump scares do not work, there is a reason.

Creep 2 is to Creep what Scream 2 is to Scream: a wilder, badder experience, which plays on the audience's expectations of established material. Viewers never know exactly where it is going, but when it ends there is definite anticipation for Creep 3. With lack of scares, Creep 2 it is not a scary movie; it is an unnerving comedic plunge into the mind of a killer. Never stale, and never a dull moment, this film presents something familiar and revamps it through solid acting, precise directing, and bleak humor, only to cap it off with a true moment of panic.

Further Viewing: Creep - to see the origin and development.
The Blair Witch Project – for groundwork of the found footage subgenre.
Scream 2 – for another sequel that boosts the original. 

Director Selective Series: David Fincher Part 2

Hello, Weirdos. If you have not checked out Within Range in the Silva Series of Pictures & Poetry, please do.  

This week continues the comb through of David Fincher’s directorial filmography with:

Great line-up this week. I’m particularly interested in revisiting Panic Room.  

Proceeding are thoughts on Part 1 of Fincher’s films:

  • Alien 3: After minor deliberation I decided to watch the Assembly Cut of Alien 3 . This cut, although Fincher wasn’t directly involved, is said to be closer to his vision than the Theatrical Cut. Alien 3  is not awful, but it isn’t great either. It's okay. In comparison to the first two it doesn’t hold up. It isn’t scary enough to compete with Scott’s and isn't intense enough to compete with Cameron’s. All the character relationships Cameron built are destroyed, although themes of motherhood continue over. What this movie does have is gore. Loads of it. Giving it a more savage feel than its predecessors. The xenomorph becomes an animalistic predator and less of an intelligent being. And the CGI doesn’t hold up. Fincher’s first foray into film presents weak graphics, scares, and action, but plants a seed of something new for the director. Much like the queen inside Ripely.
  • Se7en: Endings are a powerful thing. When Se7en is the topic, the ending is a bulk of the conversation. The ending is fantastic, and one of the all time best conclusions. With thrillers often is the case that catching the villain is the finale, but with this picture the detectives do not catch the villain. Giving the audience something fresh. What makes the ending strong is the rest of the film. Take away the ending, and Se7en holds up. The characters themselves are not anything special (a deadpan villain, a detective a week away from retirement, fresh blood trying to make a name for himself), but the performances and development make them memorable. The dinner between Somerset (Freeman), Mills (Pitt), and his wife Tracy (Paltrow) is genuine and the heart of this dreary movie. Through the escalating violence and grotesqueness of John Doe's (Spacey) murders, audiences become intrigued, intertwined, and curious about what is coming. Fincher uses the anonymous downtrodden city to play against the protagonists, demonstrating why Somerset is ready to leave and what the future holds for Mills. Se7en is one hell of a second film.
  • The Game: Fincher's third film is a thriller about a wealthy man (played by Micheal Douglas) who gets sucked into a borderless role-playing game by his brother (Sean Penn). Audiences never know who is in on the game and who is not. Douglas and Penn give in to their roles—both bringing a fierceness to their characters, showing the tension between the brothers and the love that tension brings with it. Parts are farfetched because of the extremity of the game itself, but most of what happens is plausible. Mystery and tension are present throughout, and since Douglas' Nicholas Van Orton is kind of a dick, it becomes easy to care less about his character's well being and root for his comeuppance. That is where this film struggles. You do not care about Van Orton. You like seeing him struggle. He becomes the antagonist while the game entity becomes the hero, which keeps audiences at arm's length. Another enjoyable element is the mirroring of the childhood flashbacks to the present day. During a home movie reel, viewers see Van Orton get pushed into a pool as a child and struggle to get out, leading us to believe he is not a strong swimmer and possibly has a fear of bodies of water. This adds to the intensity of fear when Van Orton is later plunged into the bay during the game. Parts do drag occasionally, but this thriller packs enough to keep audiences guessing until the last twist.

Please share your thoughts below. The Game is typically middling with people, so I'd love to hear different perspectives. The Director Selective Series: David Fincher Part 3 will be available next week. And a full review for Creep 2 is on the way. Keep on Creepin'.

Director Selective Series: David Fincher Part 1

Hello, Weirdos. As the Sam Raimi installment comes to a close (thoughts on Part 5 below), the Director Selective Series continues this month with the directorial filmography of David Fincher. Fincher began as a music video director. During this time he worked with artists such as Rick Springfield, Madonna, and Nine Inch Nails. Eventually he landed at the helm of Alien 3. From there his film career escalated. His style is cold and drab, often with a yellow tint. Of directing he said, "As a director, film is about how you dole out the information so that the audience stays with you when they're supposed to stay with you, behind you when they're supposed to stay behind you, and ahead of you when they're supposed to stay ahead of you." Using those ideals Fincher has directed iconic films and continues to create noteworthy content as executive producer of House of Cards and Mindhunter. This week I will be looking at Fincher's first three films, which are:

On first watch of Alien 3, years ago, I found it forgettable. However, recently I watched a review from Chris Stuckman and one of his buddies making a case for the film in a positive light. I have a renewed interest in seeing it again. Se7en is a classic, and I'm looking forward to The Game because I do not remember it.

Here are my final thoughts on the Director Selective Series: Sam Raimi Part 5:

  • Spider-Man 3: Of all the Spider-Man movies, 3 is often the least favorite. It is clear why. The first two are great. Part 3 gets bogged down by too many storylines that are so detached from one another. The film focuses on one at a time, resulting in the others being forgotten while they are away. Sandman is a forgettable villain and if removed makes the story tighter. Instead they should have focused on Peter's relationship with Harry and given Topher Grace more time to develop as Venom. Topher is fine as Brock, and when Venom is strictly Venom it works. But when it is Venom's body with Topher's head and unnecessary sharp teeth, it falls apart. Topher is not villainous enough even with the Venom exaggerating his characteristics. A question I had was why when Harry gets hit on the head does he become a lovable dope? I get the amnesia bit (he got hit hard), but then his personality changes. He becomes a Harry that was not in the last 2. Harry was always kind of a jerk, so the goofball angle did not work for me. It is as though the filmmakers wanted audiences to like him so when he dies it becomes more emotional. Then there is the strange jazz dance number sequence. It does mirror a similar scene from Spider-Man 2 when Peter gives up crime fighting and is briefly care free. This scene is heavily exaggerated. Honestly, I enjoy it. I see what Raimi was attempting. The symbiote exaggerates the host, and the audience experiences that through exaggerated scenes. But I understand it does not work with the film, nor does it work with the Spider-Man world Raimi created in the two previous films. There are parts that I like about this movie. The effects look good, the relationship with Peter and Harry is intriguing, and Venom is badass. Spider-Man 3, although visually satisfying and further developing its main cast of original characters, lacks the tightness and focus of its predecessors.
  • Drag Me to Hell: In 2009 when this movie was released, I was an usher at a movie theater. My task for that day was to stand in the theater showing Drag Me to Hell at the edge of the stairs to ensure the underaged movie goers were behaving. My first and only experience with this film had been peripherally, and I was not a fan. On a focused second watch I think it is great. Drag Me to Hell is weird (the plot is an old gypsy woman cursing a loan officer). Also, it is creepy and disgusting with different fluids projecting out of people—some cringe-worthy effects. Parts are laughable and campy. That’s part of Raimi’s style. The practical effects look great. The scene with the goat is super silly but worked for me. I kept asking myself, who let him make this? He got away with it. The ending is fantastic, unexpected, and uncommon. The performances are good—nothing mind-blowing, but nothing terrible. Evil Dead references abound. My biggest problem with it is the computer effects. They don’t look great, particularly the flying eyeballs. I wish they would have gone all practical. Understandably, people dislike this picture because it is strange, goofy, and over-the-top, but those are the things that make it great. A long-awaited return to Horror from Sam Raimi.
  • Oz the Great and Powerful: As the film opens, audiences are given a tight ratio sepia scene combined with modern 3D effects—a culmination of old and new. Juxtaposition of old and new carries throughout the picture. Once audiences land in Oz the ration grows, and the vibrancy of the land is revealed. Although the world is gorgeous, it lacks defining stylistic characteristics that are present in 2010's Alice in Wonderland. Where Burton's Wonderland feels unlike any other world, Raimi's Oz falls short. Raimi combined practical sets with computer effects, which grounds the fantastical elements of the film. Disney got the rights to the story because L. Frank Baum's Oz work is in the public domain, but they could not obtain the rights to the film The Wizard of Oz. Disney could not use Dorothy or ruby slippers, and the Wicked Witch could not have a mole; they even had to make her a different shade of green. With so many limitations, it is difficult to imagine what this film could have been. Instead there needs to be a separation from the original film. Viewers cannot think of it as a prequel, but rather as a stand alone feature. Then it works better. All the performances worked, except Franco's. Maybe Raimi was going for this, but Franco's performance seemed phoned in with the exception of a couple scenes. Even when yelling or filled with excitement it comes off as flat. There are bits of Raimi sprinkled throughout: Bruce Campbell, Ted Raimi, object POV, the evil witches resemble watered down characters from the Evil Dead series, and according to IMDb, even the Oldsmobile makes an appearance stripped down as a wagon. Oz the Great and Powerful is a visual treat, but it attempts to be lighthearted and dark without satisfying either element.

Feel free to share your thoughts on current Sam Raimi and on early Fincher. Look out for Part 2 of the Fincher Series coming next week. And if you have not already Listened to the Christmas Special for Black Star you should. Keep on Creepin'.

Director Selective Series: Sam Raimi Part 5

Hello, Weirdos. Hope you all had a decent Thanksgiving, if that’s something you partake in. During this Series, I fell in-love with the Evil Dead series all over again, so over the long weekend I got an Evil Dead tattoo (pictured below). Part 5 is the final installment of the Director Selective Series: Sam Raimi . Next month I will view the directorial filmography of a new director. Until then here are the last 3 from Sam Raimi:

I have seen all of these before, but none of them for several years. I'm looking forward to see if I still enjoy them, and to see a return to Horror for Sam Raimi.

Here are my thoughts on the films from Part 3 and Part 4 of the Sam Raimi Series: 

  •  The Quick and the Dead: A first time watch for me. I've not seen many westerns. The plot is thin—a duel competition and one woman's quest for revenge. Other than a bit of Sharon Stone's back back story there isn't much character development. Not enough to be invested in anyone, or the plight of the townspeople. Also, this film, and maybe it's because I've seen too many movies, is predictable. You know who is going to die and when. Sharon Stone overacts in emotional parts, but Gene Hackman is charismatic and villainous. Nothing overtly screams Sam Raimi aside from maybe DiCaprio's slick dialogue. Overall, The Quick and the Dead is enjoyable to watch and never boring, but nothing to write home about either.
  • A Simple Plan: I went into this film completely blind. If anyone has ever asked, "what if Sam Raimi directed Fargo?" this film would be the answer to that question. It is also one of those films where things continuously go wrong such as Don't Breath or Cellular. Paxton is fantastic. He's mumbling, he's bumbling, he's the good guy turned criminal. As the film progresses we get to see him slowly shift gears, but in the end he holds tight to his moral compass. Thornton shines in this role. He plays Paxton's dimwitted brother. There were times I forgot I was watching Thornton because he embodies this role. Thornton is the Lenny to Paxton's George. Which is another thing I noticed about this picture; it has strong Of Mice and Men undertones. Almost a modern retelling. An engaging film with twits and turns that takes you down and never brings you back up.
  • For Love of the Game: Another of Raimi’s movies unfamiliar to me. I knew it was about baseball only because the poster from last weeks post. This genre, sports, is another I’m unfamiliar with. For Love of the Game is essentially two stories, interwoven, revolving around Billy Chapel played by Kevin Costner. One story is about the romantic relationship between Chapel and Jane Aubrey, played by Kelly Preston. The other story is of a washed up pitcher. Metaphorically things are straightforward. Game equals parts of the their relationship. When Chapel starts the game strong, the relationship is strong. When Chapel struggles, the relationship struggles. And so on. There are a few cheesy inspirational moments, but not enough to bog the film down. Impressively, Raimi is able to make both stories work, and make each inticing enough to get the audience excited and emotionally invested. 
  • The Gift: Directed by Raimi and penned by Billy Bob Thornton, The Gift is a thriller about a psychic dealing with the murder or a fellow townsmember. Kate Blanchett plays Annie Wilson and her performance is fine. Fine is a fair descriptor for nearly all the performances. Greg Kinnear is his typical nice-guy self. Hillary Swank could have been anyone. Keanu was decent playing an angry redneck as opposed to his usual hero figure. Giovanni Ribisi displayed the most emotion. Some of the imagery is cool, specifically when Annie sees a body floating in her tree. Anyone who has watched a procedural cop show could predict the ending of this conventional thriller. 
  • Spider-Man: Is Spider-Man campy? Yes. Are there cheesey lines? Yes. But does it all work? Yes. The supporting characters play their parts well. JK Simmons IS Jameson. Maguire is a solid Peter. He isn’t as quick witted or funny as Spidey as in later iterations. Instead he’s on the corny side, but plays the bubbling nerdy boy next door perfectly. There is a scene where Spider-Man is as good as destroyed by the Goblin. Maguire displays intense emotion showing through his face and body language that he is struggling to keep going. As he begins to shake the audience sees a ferocity take him over. Dafoe is fantastic as the schizophrenic Green Goblin. Dafoe plays it cool, creepy, and terrifying. Green Goblin, as a character, meshes well with Raimi's style. Practical effects are used whenever possible. The computer effects that are used are dated, but the editing is seamless making the effects unnoticeable. Spider-Man feels like a comic book movie in the best way. It is fun, it is exciting, and it is well balanced being grounded and fantastic. David Kopek's writing is on point. Spider-Man isn't given powers and then instantly a great hero. First thing he does is try to make some money. Then he kicks some ass of someone who isn't a bad guy, and lets a thief run right past him. Through intelligent writing choices like this the audience is able to see the growth of the main character. It is also good to see some familiar faces including Bruce Campbell, Ted Raimi,  and the Oldsmobile.
  • Spider-Man 2: Spider-Man 2 continues the growth of Parker as a man and hero as he goes through a midlife identity crisis. There are at least three callbacks to the Evil Dead series. During the surgery scene when the doctors are attempting to remove the mechanical arms from Otto there is a man wielding a chainsaw, the camera fixed on a flying object, and sweeping POV shot from the villains perspective. This scene is horrific and reminiscent of the kitchen scene in Jurassic Park with the raptors. That's what makes the octopus arms work so well—they're a sentient, animalistic extension of Otto. Part 2 hits similar beats as its predecessor: Peter struggles with responsibility and his love for MJ, Peter learns how to use his abilities after losing them briefly, and the city has mixed feelings toward him only to help him triumph in the finale. Spider-Man 2 is as good as 1. It lacks a freshness, but without all the origin and set up part 2 allows audiences to swing into the thick of things leaving room for developing characters and more web-slinging thrills.

I know that was a long one, Weirdos, but thanks for reading. Next weeks thoughts will be accompanied by a new director as the Director Selective Series continues. If there is a director you'd like me to comb through please leave a comment suggesting one below. Keep on Creepin'.

Director Selective Series: Sam Raimi Part 3 & Part 4

Hello, Weirdos. Due to unforeseen circumstances I was unable to complete Part 2 as scheduled. To make up for lost time I will combine Part 3 & Part 4. Here are the movies for Parts 3 & 4 of the Director Selective Series: Sam Raimi:

I’ve seen all the Spider-Man movies. But the first 4 films are completely new to me. The first 3 in particular don’t seem like typical Sam Raimi movies. I’ll be looking forward to see how those compare.

Here is what I thought about the films from last week:

  • Evil Dead 2:  Some debate circles this movie about whether it is a sequel or a remake. I say sequel and here is why. From my understanding, Raimi wanted to do a sort of “last time on The Evil Dead ” at the beginning of this film to show audiences where things left off, but couldn’t get the rights to show clips of part 1. Instead of scrapping that idea, Raimi decided to show a slightly altered version of the first film’s events in the first 8 minutes of this one. Either way, this movie is great. It takes everything that’s good about part one and makes them better. It’s creepier, it’s wilder (headless, naked, chainsaw wielding girlfriend anyone?), and more realistic with the effects. 
  • Darkman: A part of me used to wonder why the director of The Evil Dead trilogy was given the Spider-Man trilogy. Then, 10 minutes into Darkman that became clear. Darkman definitely had a comic book feel to it, especially Batman . Danny Elfman’s score aids to that feel. Classic hero origin story—something tragic happens, hero seeks out the wrongdoers, and the villains pay. Darkman, however, is more of an antihero. Where most heros fight for justice, Darkman is only after revenge. Neeson is able to balance the calm and collected scientist, with the deranged masked vigilante seamlessly. Also, his makeup looks fantastic. It’s disgusting and realistic. This eras Harvy Dent. The plot is straight forward. No surprises there. There are scenes when Darkman becomes enraged. During these scenes there are rapid flashbacks which are horrific and lend themselves to Raimi’s signature campy style. 
  • Army of Darkness: I’d like to start by mentioning that I have this on Blu-ray (“Screwhead Edition”) and it looks amazing. Apparently Raimi has a knack for making the final installment of a trilogy…eccentric. There isn’t much horror present in this one. This movie is weird and hilarious. Full of slapstick that was present in his earlier work. Bruce Campbell is in top form here—spouting off great onelines, promoting S-Mart throughout (“Shop smart…”), and kicking ass in multiple roles. There are classic Evil Dead elements–the book, deadites, and camera chasing through the woods–and there are signature Raimi moves–flying along from a fixed perspective with an object, and a cameo by Ted Raimi. With a fun story, good acting and directing, and great effects Army of Darkness isn't the scariest of the franchise, but possibly the most well crafted of the series. 

How do you feel about the movies from Part 2? Are you familiar with the films from Parts 3 & 4? I'd love to hear other's thoughts. Also, I'm still on the prowl for the next director to select, and I would appreciate any suggestions. With the holiday coming up I will do my best to keep everything on schedule. That being said, keep an eye out for a new poem coming in the middle of the week. And Keep on Creepin'.

A Ghost Story Review

FullSizeRender.jpg

At least once a year a film comes along and begs audiences to feel something. In 2012 there was The Perks of Being A Wallflower, from writer/director Stephen Chbosky, which begged the viewer to feel happy and sad simultaneously with friendship and tragedy. In 2015 audience were left to feel the struggles of loss and what it means to grow up in the elegantly crafted The Little Prince. This year, the movie that is baring its heart and soul is David Lowery’s A Ghost Story. Lowery is able to take an otherwise silly childhood image, and by use of precisely lengthened shots, mold it into an emotion filled story which leaves the viewer questioning what it means to exist. 

Literally and figuratively this movie goes through cycles. From a focus standpoint it starts off looking at M (Rooney Mara) and C (Casey Affleck) as a couple. Audiences get to see the dynamic of their relationship through otherwise meaningless conversations demonstrating their comfortability and intimacy. Focus shifts to M, and the viewer gets to see her pain through the editing and long shots (more on that shortly). Through those shots the audience sees her grieving and gets to grieve with her. The editing helps establish the passage of time by showing M walk out the front door and is instantly back in the house heading out the front door. This cycle happens several times successively and demonstrates that M is dealing with the situation and moving on. After M, the film focuses on C who is now a sheet ghost (not a spoiler—it is what the movie is about). Viewers are shown his perspective and what it means to occupy space, and the attachments people have to spaces. This is achieved through C staying in the house for decades as the space transforms, as does he—becoming angrier, dirtier, and complacent. Without spoiling anything there will not be an explanation about how the films cycles through the focus at this point, but it does, and it is gorgeously crafted. 

Back to the shots mentioned earlier. To start, this picture is shot in a unique ratio: 1.33:1 with rounded corners. Immediately this ratio gives the film a home-movie look and feel, which also adds to the feeling of intimacy throughout. A point that cannot be emphasized enough is that this film is top notch visual story telling. Lowery begins the film with long drawn-out scenes. For example, there is a scene in which M is eating a pie that lasts for several minutes. This establishes that the viewer is experiencing this moment and this sadness with M. It is unsettling, it is uncomfortable, and it is heartbreaking. Lowery continues to utilize long takes through the beginning of the film. As the movie progresses and time begins to speed up so does the length of the shots. Toward the end of the film there are cuts and flashbacks in rapid succession in comparison to the start of the movie to demonstrate the apex is coming.

Different length shots combined with the acting and the music create an atmosphere of eeriness and emptiness. Mara’s performance is realistic and grounded. She seems ready to move on from their house, because to her it is just a space. Affleck, who spends three quarters of the time under a sheet, is able to make his ghost emote. He uses long stares into corners and out windows to show his emptiness. He uses head turns and sweeping moments to show curiosity. He uses classic ghost motifs such as floating objects, flickering lights, and passing though walls to show anger and frustration. The sheet might seem silly at first, but as the movie progress it aids in creating a hollowness which is prevalent as the film continues. Music also assists in providing a tone to the picture. Daniel Hart’s composition is flooded with violin and captures the visual feel of the movie. Specifically the piece “The Secret In the Wall” is tear inducing even when listening to it on its own. Within the movie C is a musician and working on a song throughout. That song, “I Get Overwhelmed,” performed by Hart’s band Dark Rooms, fits to the visuals and the dynamic between C and M flawlessly, and is the perfect cap to this creative powerhouse.

As far as problems go there are not many. There is one lengthy exposition scene at a party which people might find too on the nose. But it also gives viewers context to what is going on in the rest of the film, so this could go either way. Another part people might find troublesome is the time frame. Again without spoiling anything, there is a time shift which is confusing and weird, although Lowry is able to reel it in and make sense of it in the climax. 

Outside of those couple parts this movie is a masterpiece. Lowery and Affleck are able to bring life to a blank, faceless figure. They take something so innate to childhood and growing up and transform it into an art piece worth experiencing recurrently. And that is what this movie is: an art piece. It is more than a collection of scenes. It is more than solid performances. It is more than elegantly composed music. It is a culmination of all those thing combined to deliver a movie that reminds people (present company included) why they love movies, and why people like Lowery love to make them.

Further Viewing: Other A24 films. 

Director Selective Series: Sam Raimi Part 2

Hello, Weirdos. Here is Part 2 of the Director Selective Series: Sam Raimi. The first week of November was fairly short, but I was able to squeeze in Raimi's first three feature films (thoughts on those below). Next for Raimi's directorial filmography are:

Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness I have seen previously, but will still rewatch. This will be my first time viewing Darkman, however. Should be a fun week.

Here is what I thought of last weeks Raimi films:

  • It's Murder!: This movie was difficult to find. I ended up watching a rough version that had an ad. for the site hosting come across the screen every 10 minutes or so. Outside of that, this movie was…eccentric. It had a straightforward plot: man died under mysterious circumstances, the death gets investigated, and the audience finds out whodunit. It is all the stuff surrounding those main events that makes this film zany. Honestly, I thought it was damn funny. The investigator is full of one-liners. In fact, almost everyone is full of one-liners, which gives the movie an Abbot & Costello and 3 Stooges vibe to it. For me, it was fun to see Sam Raimi elements before they were his signature style.
  • The Evil Dead: I watched The Evil Dead a few weeks ago as one of my Two Tone's Terror Tales bonuses. I had seen it before, but not for a few years. I can proudly say this movie holds up. As with It's Murder! the viewer gets to see the building blocks which eventually became what we love about Raimi—the over-the-top acting, the angled closeups, and the balance between campiness and horror, to name a few. Also, this film was disgusting. Coming in 11 years before Dead Alive, it was clear where Peter Jackson got inspiration. The special effects were great and added to the severity of the situation Ash and his cohorts were dealing with. Plus it looked gnarly, especially for the budget.
  • Crimewave: Considered a disaster by Raimi himself, this movie had elements of several genres including crime, horror, and comedy. None of these genres were fleshed out enough to give the movie a cohesive feel to it. One prevailing element is this picture felt like a live action cartoon with parts that reminded me of a higher budgeted It's Murder! Often the jokes hit, but not always. Crimewave, while wacky-fun, was a slightly worthwhile spoof that never quite knew what it was, and demonstrated the beginnings of both the Cohen Brothers and Director Sam Raimi as filmmakers.

What did you think of these movies? Looking forward to other opinions on early Raimi. Check back next week for thoughts on Part 2 and the next films for Part 3. Also, keep an eye out for a new Review in the middle of the week. Keep on Creepin'.

New Series - Director Selective Series

Hello, Weirdos. Thank you to everyone who followed along with Two Tone‘s 31 Terror Tales. We had a blast doing it, and hope you all did as well. Now that October is over, what’s next? A new series…

The Director Selective Series. Here’s how it’ll work. Each month a specific director will be chosen. Throughout the month I will watch that director’s filmography split up by week. At the end of each week I will write a bit about each film I watched for that week. 

Sam Raimi 1.jpg

First up is director Sam Raimi. He has 15 movies in his filmography, so that’ll be approximately 3 a week. This week will be:

If you have any suggestions on directors please send them my way. Feel free to join me. And keep a look out for more content coming every week on the main page and on the others. Keep on Creepin’.

Two Tone's 31 Terror Tales Part 5: The Dream Child

Terror Tales.jpg

Hello, Weirdos. Here are the last three terror tales for the month. We're rounding out the end with Halloween staples. If you haven't seen these, you should.

Here are the picks for week 5:

29. Halloweentown
30. Trick 'r Treat
31. Halloween (1978)

Bonuses from Week 4: Raw, and The Voices.

Here is what we thought of the Week 4 movies:

Last Shift: AS: A claustrophobic film with a talented lead, this movie ramps up constantly with some intense horror set pieces, only to fizzle out a bit at the end.
AP: Although creepy in concept, this horror-by-the-numbers movie leads up to something, but does not deliver.

Them: AS: Tense from start to finish, this home invasion thriller offers believable performances and some truly horrifying moments.

AP: Aka Ils, this French home invasion film makes you feel unsettled and disturbed by what people are capable of doing.

The Howling: AS: The Wicker Man meets werewolves, The Howling takes the wacky secret cult town concept and adds impressively grotesque transformation effects.

AP: An enjoyable and classic werewolf tale, but feels like several stories mixed together without any of them fully fleshed out.

Salem's Lot: AS: If you can make it through this over-long King adaptation, Salem’s Lot offers a few genuinely creepy moments and a handful of fun vampire-flick homages.

AP: Another frightening film from Tobe Hooper. Salem's Lot has an eerie Nosferatu-esque lead villain and haunting children, but could do with some trimming down.

Hocus Pocus: AS: While Hocus Pocus isn’t winning any awards, it’s a fun and often hilarious Halloween classic for those of us who grew up with Disney Channel. And you can’t really beat Bette Midler’s over the top acting and performance of “I Put a Spell On You.”

AP: A Halloween-time must. With hangings, tons of virgin talk, and plenty of innuendo, it is fun for the whole family!

Stranger Things 2: AS: Stranger Things 2 looks to be an even eerier installment than the first, while maintaining the heartwarming moments we’ve all come to love from the talented young cast.

AP: I limited myself to 2 episodes, so it is difficult to say how part 2 is overall. Thus far things feel different in a good way—more mature. We get to see how characters are outside of everything being messed up, and the repercussions of what came before. 

Night of the Demons: AS: A big mess of overacting and strange ideas, Night of The Demons starts weird and stays weird, which only sometimes pays off with enjoyable moments of gore and prosthetics.

AP: This one is difficult to pin down. The characters are cheesy and overacted, and the first act is arid. However, there are gruesome effects and a nightmareish atmosphere that make the rest of this movie pleasurable.

There it is! Hope it was as fun for you as it was for us. Did you make it through all 31? Did you jump in here and there? Let us know down below. Happy Halloween! Keep on Creepin'.

Pumpkins and Gifts

Hello, Weirdos. Here are some images (click to enlarge) of pumpkins we carved this year, and gifts from our Halloween gift exchange. Keep on Creepin'.

Two Tone's 31 Terror Tales Part 4: The Dream Master

Terror Tales.jpg

Hello, Weirdos. Nearing the end, and I am looking forward to this week. We have a movie with 100% on Rotten Tomatoes, a home invasion, a werewolf, a Tobe Hooper, and the return of a much anticipated TV show.

Here are the picks for week 4:

22. Last Shift
23. Them (2006)
24. The Howling
25. Salem's Lot
26. Hocus Pocus
27. Stranger Things (Season 2)
28. Night of the Demons

I won't be watching ALL of Stranger Things season 2 in one day, because I want to savor it, but I will watch the first few episodes.

 Week 3 Bonuses:The Evil Dead, A Ghost Story, The Babysitter, and Slasher.

Here is what we thought of the Week 3 movies:

Prom Night II: AP: While only a sequel to Prom Night in name, this ludicrous treasure is more like a continuation of Carrie.
AS: A surprisingly fun mash up of different, more popular horror movies, Prom Night 2 feels more like a sequel to Carrie with a tongue-in-cheek approach.

What We Do In The Shadows: AP: A comedy horror that takes vampire tropes, turns them on their heads and has an absolute blast doing so.
AS: A hilarious faux-documentary that takes playful jabs at all aspects of the vampire, What We Do In The Shadows is equal parts smart and goofy.

Dead Alive: AP: Although Peter Jackson is known for The Lord of the Rings, he should be known for directing this disgusting (in the best of ways) over-the-top take on zombies.
AS:  If you’re looking for over the top gore and some really effective gross out moments that are played for laughs, this movie is the one for you, and I loved it.

Big Bad Wolves: AP: With extremely dark humor and an intense story this movie kept me on the edge of my seat until the last frame.
AS:  This movie, which surprisingly isn’t about werewolves, is a sad look at the depravity of humanity. It’s effectively uncomfortable and sad, with some great performances from the three leads.

The Phantom Carriage: AP: Honestly, this was a difficult watch because the length combined with the lack of dialogue. That being said, the atmosphere was eerie and the effects were impressive for 1921.
AS: Technically this film is a masterpiece for the time it was made: with its special effects, narrative structure, and use of color. With all of that said, the movie is tough to get through if you’re not willing to sit and be patient with it.

The Battery: AP: Albiet I like to see indipendant movies come to fruition, this indie is light on zombies, light on development, and brings nothing new to the genre. 
AS: An impressive feat for a micro-budget film, The Battery throws you into a story with likeable, awkward characters, and tries to pull off the Walking Dead angle of zombie storytelling without the gore or flash

Night of the Creeps: AP: A genuine ‘80s rollick of campiness and absurdity.
AS: Another fun mashup of horror cliches and homages, Night of the Creeps tries to be a wacky 70s and 80s horror love letter, and lands a lot of time.

Tell us how it's going for you. Keep on Creepin'.

Two Tone's 31 Terror Tales Part 3: Dream Warriors

Terror Tales.jpg

Hello, Weirdos. We are about half way through and Halloween is getting close. This week we have a sequel, some comedies, a splatter, and some oldies but goodies. 

Here are the picks for week 3:

15. Prom Night II
16. What We Do In The Shadows
17. Dead Alive
18. Big Bad Wolves
19. The Phantom Carriage
20. The Battery
21. Night of the Creeps

Most of these I haven't seen, so it should be a fun week.

Here is what we thought of the movies last week:

White Zombie: AP: Seeing Lugosi is always a treat. Zombie is entertaining to see the Haitian zombies before Romero took the genre in a different direction.
AS: While this my not stand the text of time as well as the classic Universal Monster movies do, an enjoyable over-the-top performance from Bela Lugosi makes White Zombie worth a watch.

The Blob:  AP: My favorite pick this week. This move surprised me, grossed me out, and was a ton of fun.
AS: Small town monster movies are almost always a good time, and this remake covers up most of its imperfections in a layer of goo and fantastic gore effects.

Creepshow:  AP: I wanted to like this more. The standout segment for me was Something to Tide You Over. Leslie Nielsen and Ted Danson are great.
AS: Fans of EC Comics and horror anthologies will enjoy this Romero/Stephen King mashup. While not all the stories stick their landings, the stylistic choices Romero makes add a fun aesthetic to the campy stories.

Altered States: AP: With some cool imagery, this movie deserves a second viewing to help figure out what the hell you just watched.
AS: This film takes big ideas and translates them into impressive and off the wall visual and audio experiences, bombards you, and then becomes eerily calm throughout the runtime.

Horror of Dracula: AP: Although a bit anticlimactic and light on Christopher Lee, this is a solid, straightforward adaptation of Stoker's novel.
AS: This is a straightforward telling of the Dracula story, and there's nothing wrong with that. Strong performances by Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, and Michael Gough bring new life to the tale, along with some fun special effects.

The Nightmare Before Christmas: AP: I've always loved stop-motion, and seeing this with an orchestra gave me a deeper appreciation for Elfman's music.
AS: A gorgeous classic worth seeing on the big screen with a full orchestra, this is an impressive feat of animation and musical composition.

Friday the 13th: AP: A classic cabin-in-the-woods teen slasher with a rare female antagonist. The mover of a franchise.
AS: Most will forgive the original's lack of character development and rather straightforward nature because it spawned a classic, hockey-masked maniac. The original does offer a fantastic score and a great performance by Betsy Palmer.

Week 2 bonuses: Final Destination, Final Destination 2, Happy Death Day, Blair Witch.

Let us know how you're doing, and Keep on Creepin'.

Cult of Chucky Review

Cult Chucky Poster.jpg

Franchises, such as Halloween, Friday the 13th, and A Nightmare On Elm Street, have dominated the never-ending sequel game, ditching cast and crew along the way. All three (except for possibly the new Halloween coming in 2018) have ended their original story lines in favor of being remade and attempting to start their franchises over. One franchise that is still continuing with original cast and creator is the Child’s Play franchise. Yes, they have changed and morphed along the years, but in 2013’s Curse of Chucky Don Mancini brought audiences back to the roots of the series with an eerie house terrorized by a killer doll, and none of the silliness present in its two predecessors. This time around Mancini presents a direct follow up to Curse with Cult of Chucky. Cult, while lacking typical scares, is a fun, bloody romp around an asylum that takes the franchise in a new direction.

Child’s Play and Child’s Play 2 are slasher movies. They follow along with typical slasher tropes (person getting stalked, people around them dying, etc.), and at least attempt to be scary. Cult, while following along with some slasher tropes, never delivers a solid scare. Chucky is creepy and maniacal, but when it comes to terrorizing adults he loses his intimidation. Most of the movie the doll is being held by an adult as if he were a baby, so when he starts walking about it is almost cute. Perhaps the slasher sub-genre is dead, so Mancini wanted to go a different direction. That direction is where any scare in this movie exists, but not in the way audiences might expect. Without spoiling what happens, it seems like Mancini went for more of a psychological scare. What if this happens? And the answer to that question is a scary thought concurrently cool for fans of the Chucky legacy.

For fans of the franchise Cult of Chucky is a blast. Using an asylum as the central setting and starting with Nica’s (played again by Fiona Dourif) psychotic breakdown are smart choices. These two elements create a sense of paranoia for the viewer. This leads to questioning everything and asking, is this real? throughout the movie. There is a sense of confusion present with people inside the asylum, outside the asylum, and with the audience, which makes this installment a fun ride until all is revealed. Another way Cult is fun is, without a doubt, the kills. Again, without spoiling anything, these kills are gruesome. One is reminiscent of Fulci’s Zombie. Are some over-the-top? Yes, but this is a Chucky movie, so it is expected, and that makes it more entertaining. Also entertaining is seeing Nica and Chucky interact (played by real-life daughter and father, respectively). One scene in particular Nica does something…Chucky-esque that will have fans nodding with approval. The last entertaining aspect worth mentioning is the cast. Obviously both Dourifs are back, but there are two other actors who come back to play their original characters, which is appreciated.

On a technical aspect Cult is decent, but nothing outstanding. Michael Marshall does the cinematography, as he did in Curse, so the look of this film is essentially the same—crisp, while providing a drab tone. The only difference being Cult has more daytime and typical bright white asylum scenes. The directing and the writing are fine. Again, this is a direct continuation of Curse, so the style and feel are similar. Chucky, for the most part, looks smooth. The biggest problem with him is there are one or two scenes where his arms are disproportionate. For some reason, in those scenes, Chucky’s arms appear longer than they should be. As far as the acting goes, the performances were enjoyable. Brand Dourif’s Chucky is always menacing with a hint of comedy. Fiona Dourif juxtaposes well with her father, more intense than she was in Curse and carries this movie well. The other characters play crazy believable enough to give the asylum an authentic feel.

At the end of the day Cult of Chucky is an entertaining watch. Often with sequels in this genre, the audience does not get to see the aftermath of the predecessor. Typical audiences are presented with a new batch of people to see getting mutilated. Mancini was smart to give a direct follow-up that allows viewers to see the repercussions and their effects on the prevailing final girl. Another intelligent move from Mancini was to ditch jump scares in favor of psychological creepiness. For those jumping into the franchise, it will be a fun ride through the loony bin. For fans of the Child’s Play franchise, this will be a worthy installment and will definitely scratch the Chucky itch until the sequel (which needs to happen after the ending this provides) is unleashed on the world.

Further Viewing: Puppetmaster - for more killer dolls

Two Tone's 31 Terror Tales Part 2: Freddy's Revenge

Terror Tales.jpg

Hello, Weirdos. One week down. Here is what we thought of the movies:

Halloween III: Cool gore, but with its muddled plot and unlikeable characters, this Myers-free installment is saved by Carpenter's score and unsettling ending.
The Witch: A meticulously constructed slow burn, which deserves repeat viewing. Amazing acting, fantastic set and costume design, and gorgeous cinematography. A masterpiece.
The Creature From the Black LagoonA true Universal monster classic worth watching for the mesmerizing underwater sequences, and iconic creature design that went on to inspire the Guillermo Del Toror's of the world.
Wicker Man: If you can get the image of Nick Cage's meme-famous bee scene out of your head during the first half hour of this British classic, you are in for a tense anxiety inducing mystery. Intensity builds throughout with unsettling imagery and a horrifying ending that does not disappoint.
Frank3n5t31n: Bernard Rose manages to pull off a modern take on a classic story. A tragic and brutal tale that switches up the material enough to be surprising. Filled with gore, and subtle references to the novel, this feels like a love letter (although often flawed and melodramatic), to Shelley's original work.
Candyman: What starts as a potentially intriguing murder mystery rooted in urban legends quickly turns into a mess of overacting and confusing plot elements. Aside from a solidly creepy performance from Tony Todd, and a killer score, the plot of this film leads to something not particularly worthwhile. 
Waxwork II: This movie does not make much sense: no waxwork, and they travel through fiction, not time. That being said, this movie is a blast, outside of the hip-hop scored Medieval Times segment. Filled with fun sets and homages, this less creepy sequel is a solid resume entry for the make-up department. Oh, and Bruce Campbell...
Week 1 bonusesCult of ChuckyErnest Scared Stupid, and Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon.

This week we got some classics, a remake, an anthology film, and a few others. Here are the picks for week 2:

8. White Zombie
9. The Blob (1988)
10. Creepshow
11. Altered States
12. Horror of Dracula
13. The Nightmare Before Christmas
14. Friday the 13th (1980)

Why not watch Friday the 13th on Friday the 13th? Because we're going to a screening of The Nightmare Before Christmas at a theater accompanied by a live orchestra. Let us know how you're trekking along. Keep on Creepin'.

mother! Review

mother! Poster.jpg

With sequels, universe building, and remakes, there is not an abundance of original content in the movie world. Once in a while something original will come along and garner audiences’ attention. From 2015’s Ex Machina, to 2016’s Swiss Army Man, to this years mother! originals are able to be mainstream films, which get audiences talking. Writer and directer Darren Aronofsky’s mother! succeeds in doing exactly that. From its allegorical story, to its gorgeous visuals, to its well-acted cast, mother! is a grotesque mystery which will generate polarizing conversations.

As stated before mother! is an allegory, but figuring that out and piecing it together is half the fun of seeing this film. That being said, no more will be discussed on what that allegory is to avoid spoiling any part of the movie. The symbolism is woven throughout the film elegantly. Oftentimes it hits references right on the nose. Other times Aronofsky tweaks elements to make them his own and to fit with the tone of the movie. The symbolism aids in giving this film more meaning, but there are moments that do not quite work with what Aronofsky is trying to say. At times, if you are looking for it, the references are obvious, but if you are not looking for anything this movie still has more to offer.

Technically this movie shines. The sound design is brilliant. Every creak of the floor, or each time a door opens or closes, it is audible. When Jeniffer Lawrence walks around barefoot you can hear the subtlety of her feet dragging against the salvaged wooden floors. This aids in the audience getting a feel for the house—what it sounds like and what it looks like. Editing is also outstanding. Andrew Weisblum, the films editor, is able to make the house seem whole and massive, but simultaneously claustrophobic. When the chaos ensues in the third act, the different scenes are sewn together seamlessly. Begging the question, “How is all this happening in this house?” yet it never feels like it is anywhere else. The cinematography is gorgeous. Most of the film has an airy yellow tint to it (possibly a reference in itself), which becomes darker and distorted until each scene is flooded with blue. Blue is then subsided by a sharper, more direct yellow that bursts into an uproarious exclamation, deserving orange in the film’s final act. 

Outside of the technical aspects, this film also has solid performances from its cast. Bardem is enigmatic and plays his part straight. Every so often he shows fits of rage and excitement—making the audience feel his emotions and concurrently frustrated with his actions. Much of the other cast members are secondary, aside from the supporting characters played by Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer. Both roles, Man and Woman, respectively, are well acted. Harris stays calm throughout, frequently bumbling, providing a believable performance of a man welcoming hospitality and stuck in admiration. Pfeiffer, rarely without a drink in her hand, plays her part of curious and viperous woman well with beady eyes and an accusatory tone. The other performance worth noting is by Jennifer Lawrence. Lawrence stays fairly docile throughout, using a raspy voice that cracks when the emotional strain is too much. She attempts to make her presence known, but is constantly shadowed by Bardem’s strong Him. Only in the end does Lawrence get to use her full range of emotion. 

Lawrence, although playing her part well, seems underused. Perhaps it is how her character is written, but she never gets a chance to shine. Aside from Lawrence’s underutilization there are other areas the movie falters. Mainly with the allegory mentioned before. As mentioned, sometimes it does not fit. There are parts that are intense only for the sake of being intense or grotesque. After watching, the biggest question is if this films holds up as a coherent story without the allegory and symbolism. Some will say yes, and some will disagree.

At the time of release the buzz around this film has been polarizing. People are either loving it and praising it as a masterpiece, or hating it and saying it is the worst film of the year. mother! is somewhere in between. mother! is beautiful to look at and intense to watch with good performances and tight editing. However, the beating a dead horse, obliquely obvious message woven throughout sometimes bogs down the plot and uses gore because it can. Is this movie garbage? No. Is it a masterpiece? Not necessarily, but it is definitely better than it is horrible. And it should be applauded for originality. Paramount has been completely supportive, and that is admirable. More acclaim, buzz, and backing will hopefully begat more original content. In the meantime, go see mother! and see for yourself what all the hype is about.

Further Viewing: Black Swan and Requiem for a Dream - for a couple more Aronofsky flicks.

 

Two Tone's 31 Terror Tales Part 1

Hello, Weirdos. Throughout the month of October my friend Anthony and I are going to watch a Horror movie every day. Usually we try to do 31 movies we haven't seen, but this year will be a bit different. Some movies we haven't seen, some are revisits, some are classics, and some are October staples. At the beginning of each week I'll post the seven movies for that week. At the end of each week I'll post my thoughts on the previous weeks picks.

Here are the picks for week 1:

1. Halloween III: Season of the Witch
2. The Witch
3. Creature From the Black Lagoon
4. Wicker Man (1973)
5. FRANK3N5T31N
6. Candyman
7. Waxwork II: Lost in Time

Join us, follow along when you can, and share your thoughts. Keep on Creepin'.

September Starve: The Results

Consume:Freddy:They Live.png

Hello, Weirdos. My September Starve is officially over! I did make two exceptions, as I mentioned I would, with IT and mother! but that is it. My goal, essentially, was to cleanse my Horror palate. To really get me jonesin’ for the next 31 days of terror. And boy did it. With new spooky movies and shows being released, and Netflix basically taunting me with suggestions, it was a difficult task. I live on this stuff. When I sit down to eat, or kill time, or decompress, it is usually the spookers that join me. To cut myself off completely for a month proved harder than expected. I may have had light withdrawals, and a bit of boredom from watching other stuff. Probably didn’t help that for the entire month I didn’t have internet access (but that’s a different story entirely). I was limited to my personal movie collection, which consists of mostly Horror movies. Overall it was an interesting experience, and I’ll probably attempt it again next year. Why put myself through it again? Because, as hoped, I am craving Horror, and even more excited for October than I normally am. If you’re wondering what I watched all month…a shit ton of SmallvilleOkay, Weirdos, that’s it. Keep an eye out for Two Tone's 31 Terror Tales coming real soon! Keep on Creepin’.