The Red Death Held Illimitable Dominion Over All

mv5bmjq3mda0oda2n15bml5banbnxkftztgwnzg0nzgwmji-_v1_ux182_cr00182268_al_

Title: It Comes At Night

Rating: 4 Stars

I’ve noticed something interesting about this film. According to rotten tomatoes, the critics are highly favorable. Top critics give it an 88 rating. However, the audience score is exactly half of that (44).

I think I understand why (or at least a working hypothesis). It’s marketed as a post apocalyptic horror movie. It’s never explained, but apparently some kind of contagion has pretty much wiped out, at least the local population, if not global.

This puts you immediately in mind of The Walking Dead. You think of a plucky group of survivors desperately trying to fight off zombies as they try to find a place to survive. This is nothing like that, so if the audience is expecting something along those lines, they will be disappointed.

However, critics see a shitload of films every year. After a while, I’d think that you’d get sick of the same formulas. This is not a typical horror film, so I’d imagine that the critics would breathe a sigh of relief at the attempt of trying to bring something new to the genre.

Be that as it may, I enjoyed it. I’m not a huge fan of horror, so the fact that it was way more psychological than horrifying made the film more satisfying to myself.

The basic plot (discovered via very little disposition) is that some kind of highly contagious infection is raging through the area. As I’ve mentioned above, it’s not known if it’s local, national, or global. It’s clear that not even the characters themselves know how widespread it is.

Regardless, a husband, wife, and teenage son (Paul, Sarah, and Travis, respectively) are now holed up in a highly secure house in the wilderness. They’ve just buried Sarah’s father, who has died of the plague. Shortly thereafter, a man (Will) tries to break into their house. The family captures him and ties him to a tree to see if he’s contagious.

After determining that he’s clean, Will explains that he has a wife and young child (Kim and Andrew) that are at a house some distance away. They have food but are desperately short of water.

Paul’s family has water but do not have any fresh food. After discussing it, Paul and Sarah decide to let Will and his family to live with them.

They do so, and for a short while, all is happy. Clearly, Paul, Sarah, and Travis were unhappy and going a little stir crazy. Having three new people in the house allows them to share chores, relax, and even have a little bit of fun.

Ultimately, the two families end in conflict. Will’s story does not completely make sense. Travis hears strange sounds outside. Andrew might be infected. All of this ends up with conflict between the two families. Suffice it to say that there is not a happy ending.

This was produced by A24, which also made The Witch. This has a similar feel to that film. You have a family, independent and isolated, trying to make do in a harsh wilderness. You have an outside otherworldly kind of force that may or may not exist, trying to destroy them.

Horror movies are pretty much always dark places. With this film, it’s even darker. Most of the action takes place inside. The house is completely boarded up, so there is no natural light. The film ends up feeling claustrophobic. Since the film gives no indication of the circumstances that brought the world to this end, you find yourself getting caught up into the claustrophobia yourself.

This is very much a minimalist kind of film. There’s only a couple of settings. There are very few wide shots. There are really only five characters who have any lines at all. This minimalism is used to nice effect. It does feel like the world is winding down or dying off.

You sense the paranoia that must build up between families awkwardly trying to coexist. They hide guns from one another. They try to catch each other up in lies. On the one hand, they are codependent. On the other, you get the sense that one false move will destroy the equilibrium of the relationship and it will quickly devolve to violent death.

So, despite the fact that this is a dystopian world in which the dystopia is never defined, that this is a tense psychological battle in which the truth is never truly discovered, and it appears by the end that the world will end grimly and quietly, I still found the movie enjoyable.

It stayed true to its nature and followed its course come what may. With no compromise in vision and no tacked on happy ending, I found it to be a rewarding experience.

In case you’re wondering about the title of the post, it’s the last line from Poe’s The Masque of the Red Death. In the short story, there is a plague rampaging. With little regard to those suffering, Prince Prospero walls off an abbey so that and his noble friends can be safe. It does not work. Death cannot be held back using locks and walls.

Paul here shares the same conceit as the Prince. If only he can make his house secure enough and if he can make the brutal, hard choices that he knows that he must, then he can protect his family. By the end of the film, as with the Prince, he understands the futility of his actions.

The Sociopath With A Conscience

mv5boda3ndhizjytytk2ns00zwywltljytqtmju0nzcymgezntu2l2ltywdll2ltywdlxkeyxkfqcgdeqxvymtqxnzmzndi-_v1_ux182_cr00182268_al_

Title: The Talented Mr Ripley

Rating: 5 Stars

I think that I saw this when it first came out in the theaters, way back in the previous century. I don’t remember being all that impressed by it, but it seems to have aged really well for me. Sometime in that same time frame, I also read Highsmith’s book. Although her most famous work, I don’t remember blown away by it either. Perhaps I should give that another shot as well.

The movie opens at a wedding reception where Tom Ripley (Matt Damon) is playing the piano. He is wearing a borrowed Princeton jacket. Dickie Greenleaf’s father, a wealthy shipbuilder, sidles up to him and asks if he knew his son, Dickie (Jude Law), who also went to Princeton. Ripley bluffs enough to impress the father. The father later offers Ripley a substantial amount of money to go to Italy to try to convince Dickie to come home. Ripley, actually quite poor, agrees to try.

Ripley heads off to Italy and ingratiates himself in with Dickie and his fiance, Marge (Gwyneth Paltrow). He is dazzled by their lifestyle and completely won over by Dickie’s charms. He immediately confesses his true mission to Dickie and by doing so, cements their friendship.

Dickie is a shallow, spoiled man, so ultimately the charm of his friendship with Ripley fades. Ripley, seduced by the lifestyle and in love with Dickie, cannot give it up. Ultimately, they have a confrontation, and Ripley murders Dickie.

Ripley is a gifted mimic and finds himself easily able to take on Dickie’s life. He convinces Marge that Dickie has abandoned her and he then flees to Rome.

As Marge’s suspicions are heightened, as Dickie’s father comes out to investigate, and as the Italian police are investigating, it becomes a tense cat and mouse game for Ripley to stay a step ahead of everyone.

A couple of themes stood out to me while watching.

One is that the rich are truly different than the rest of us. They all look haughtily down upon Ripley. He is treated almost as a pet by Dickie. Dickie’s true best friend, Freddie (Philip Seymour Hoffman), maliciously ridicules Ripley, just because he can. Even Marge, who is one of the more sympathetic characters, treats him with casual contempt. He is a toy for them to play with, and then to be set aside when bored. They seem to barely recognize the possibility of his humanity.

The overt gay theme is interesting. The novel was written in the 1950’s. Highsmith, who was herself gay, had to be careful with how to work this theme into the novel. The film is also set in the 1950’s, but even in the year that it was filmed (1999), although much better, was still during the time of don’t ask / don’t tell. The film was pretty overt in its expression. Ripley talks regularly about the dark basement where he keeps all of his deepest, most disturbing secrets, and wishes that there was someone in his life that he could share this with. Since his metaphorical basement includes several murders and probably a lifetime of other acts of evil, he undoubtedly never will be able to share. Although his secrets are much darker than his sexuality, it speaks to the secret life that gays had to live during those times.

Ripley tries so hard to fit in. He is a natural mimic and is a very quick study. He just has so much ground to make up. He knows it and takes every opportunity to suck up new knowledge and to ingratiate himself with everyone he meets.  It’s a desperate life that he lives. He realizes that every moment he is on a knife’s edge and one wrong move could result in Dickie, Marge, or Freddie thoughtlessly casting him out of the paradise that he’s managed to weasel into and into the inferno that he probably thinks that he deserves.

The acting is superb. Jude Law lights up the screen with his charm, and then, when displeased, darkens it immediately. He is truly the feckless spoiled man-child who just takes it for granted that everything will turn out well for him. Philip Seymour Hoffman is wonderful as the hedonist Freddie, not even trying to disguise the fact that he treats his lessers as a lower form of humanity, and pretty much everyone is his lesser.

At the center of all of this is Ripley himself, Matt Damon. Ripley is truly a sociopath. He will say or do anything to get what he wants. He will smile and endure all kinds of both subtle and overt abuse if at the end he is still ahead. He will murder. He will lie. He will steal. He will flee.

Despite that, and here’s the contradiction, you sense his vulnerability. He knows what he is doing is wrong and he knows that it will haunt him. He might achieve his goals but he will always be haunted by what it took to achieve them. Damon does an outstanding job embodying this contradiction. He is the desperate poor boy, nose pressed against the window, desperately trying to get inside. He does so, at the price of his soul, and he knowingly pays it, knowing that he’ll always hate himself.

 

The Madness of Machines

mv5bnzi5mzm3mzkxnf5bml5banbnxkftztgwotkymji4mti-_v1_ux182_cr00182268_al_

Title: Alien: Covenant

Rating: 4 Stars

I think it’s fair to say that Ridley Scott has seen the future and is not amused.

Covenant takes place 10 years after Prometheus.  A spaceship is on its way to a supposedly habitable planet. On that spaceship is a crew and a couple of thousand colonists, all in hibernation. The ship is run by Walter, a synthetic.

Some kind of random burst damages the ship, causing the crew to be awoken. While awake, they notice a signal arriving from what appears to be an even more potentially habitable planet. They go off to investigate.

After they land, they realize that the planet has been infected with spores that when ingested, cause xenomorphs to hatch. They also discover David, the synthetic from the Prometheus mission (who looks identical to Walter). He rescues them and explains that while trying to land on the planet, that the spores were accidentally released, thus destroying all life on the planet.

As more crew members continue to die by the xenomorphs, Walter discovers the truth. David has somehow advanced to the point where he thinks that he is above humans and that humans are a dying breed. He intentionally unleashed the contagion to destroy the planet and has established a rapport with the xenomorphs.

It then becomes a race for the few remaining crew to get off the planet before the xenomorphs kill them all. Walter, feeling his duty to crew, must fight David, who wants to destroy them, to the death.

A couple of thoughts here…

The atmosphere, even though on a different planet, is consistent with the other alien movies. Everything is dark. There is no evidence of a sun. Hard rain and storms obscure the planet and make landing and taking off from it difficult. Several times during this movie, my thoughts went back to Blade Runner, which is another dark and rainy setting. Scott’s future seems to be a dark, uncomfortable, miserable place.

Also, as in Blade Runner, you have an artificially created being that ultimately surpasses his human creator. David looks towards humans as his creators but finds them lacking. He too wishes to be a creator and maybe in a nod to Freud, wants to kill his creator. Scott is apparently watching the approaching singularity, when machine intelligence exceeds human intelligence, with growing dread.

In David’s drawings, you can see his inspiration coming from the paintings of William Blake. In some of Blake’s later philosophy, you see him struggling against the dogmatic religion imposed upon him by convention. In his view, the devil is nearly a sympathetic figure in wanting to overthrow the false, authoritarian religion. Could David be sympathizing with this interpretation? Did he see himself as a true rebel forced to overthrow his false creator gods, the humans? And in so doing, bring about a higher level of being?

In all of this, has David gone mad? Is he consumed by megalomania? Is he a narcissistic sociopath? Can an artificially created being become insane? Is it his fault? Or bad programming?

All interesting questions. There are plans to create additional films to chronologically link this narrative with the original Alien franchise. I’m looking forward to seeing if this can be completed (after all, Ridley Scott is 80 years old).

Marvel’s Cash Sucking Formula

mv5bmtg2mzi1mtg3of5bml5banbnxkftztgwntu3nda2mti-_v1_ux182_cr00182268_al_

Title: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Rating: 4 Stars

I have to hand it to Marvel. They really do have the formula for making money down pretty pat. I’m not a huge fan of the Avenger’s universe. I couldn’t care less what happens in the X-Men universe. The Fantastic Four? eh…

However, they suck my wallet dry with the Guardians of the Galaxy. For whatever reason, it has the exact right combination of snark, slapstick, action, thwarted love interest, daddy problems, anti-hero, and overt, maudlin, violin-string schmaltz that makes me rush to the theater and leave oh so satisfied.

It clearly is a formula. I picture a room full of psychologists, comedians, and stunt coordinators, carefully designing a script via an extremely explicit deterministic process in a massive war room full of charts, graphs, and stop watches.

But, goddammit, it worked. I laughed and was thrilled, and a couple of times pieces of dust blew into my eyes.

Each character has a role. There is Drax, who is hilariously socially inept. You have the sociopathically amoral raccoon that of course has the secret heart of gold. You have the strong heroine, Gamora, not so secretly in love with Quill. You have Quill himself, the prototypical action hero who’s actually a charming doofus.

And of course, you can’t forget about Groot, the most adorable sentient plant to ever exist.

The charm of all of these characters is their emotional frailty and their uneasy dependence upon one another. They are a self-chosen family that probably at some level, we all wish that we could be a part of.

With the exception of Groot, they all have family problems. The most obvious is Quill, who feels abandoned by his father as he watched his mother die. He was then kidnapped and raised by a semi-father figure Yondu, who terrified him but yet raised him, albeit in a haphazard manner. In Vol 2, we get to meet Quill’s real father, a god named Ego.

This is the main source of conflict in the film. You have Quill’s real father finally coming into his life and offering him everything that he can imagine, but at a cost Quill pales from paying. In comes the reprobate thief, Yondu, to try to save Quill and be the father that he wishes that he could have been.

Will Quill choose the god-like Ego or will he choose the thieving but true Yondu? If you really think there’s any doubt about his choice, then this might not be the movie for you.

Along with that, you have the two sisters, Gamora and Nebula, constantly at each other’s throats, all because they both, even now, are themselves subconsciously competing against each other for their absent father’s (Thanos) love.

It’s not exactly subtle that the names of the fathers at the center of the plots are called Ego and Thanos. Thanos was the Greek god of death. The Latin meaning of the word Ego is I. Can there be two words that are more self-centered than I and death? The two names speak to the impossibility of ever understanding or getting succor from the father figure.

Parental loss is a common theme across comic books historically. Superman’s parents died on the planet Krypton. Batman’s parents were murdered. Batman became Robin’s guardian after Robin’s parents were murdered. The X-Men mutants are sent off to live at the X-Mansion. Tony Stark’s (Ironman) parents are killed in a car wreck. Peter Parker (Spider-Man) lives with his uncle and aunt, and his uncle is then murdered.

This is not a coincidence. Clearly the comic superhero archetype has now gone mainstream, but remember that the original comic books were targeted at young boys. Breaking free of the parental bond, especially if the young boy reading the comics had a troubled relationship (or no relationship) with his parents must have made seductive reading. This was a major theme in Chabon’s novel, The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay.

With comic superheroes now gone mainstream quite literally around the world, the missing / troubled paternal relationship truly does seem to be a universal motif.

Having said all of that, it was a fun movie. I have no idea why Sylvester Stallone was in it, but thankfully his time was short. On the other hand, David Hasselhoff has a brilliant cameo.

Speaking of cameos, Stan Lee as usual makes one. In hindsight, it’s obvious, but when you first hear of it, it seems amazing that Stan Lee is the greatest grossing movie star of all time. Clearly, the lesson to learn here for movie studios is that they need to cast Stan Lee in more movies.

So, you win again Marvel. Although I despise what you and your ilk are doing to the movie industry, I had a wonderful time watching Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol 2.

Congratulations Marvel, and fuck you.

 

A Motion Picture Without Motion

mv5bntzhmtdmytatodjjzs00ymqzlwe5ymetmtfmngjlywvhzjc0xkeyxkfqcgdeqxvyntc1ndm0ndu-_v1_uy268_cr40182268_al_

Title: La Jetee

Rating: 4 Stars

I just finished Time Travel, by James Gleick. Although I didn’t love the book, there were some topics that I found interesting. In particular, he was discussing movies involving time travel and he mentioned La Jetee.

I’d forgotten La Jetee. I remember when 12 Monkeys came out. I have a weakness for perplexing, non-linear plots and it certainly filled the bill. I enjoyed it and later researched it a bit. I remember reading that it was based upon La Jetee, an odd French film from the early 1960’s.

Reading about it again led me to try a hunch. I ventured over to youTube, and sure enough, there was a version available. This version apparently was played in an auditorium in the Philippines, with musical accompaniment and English narration. Since it’s only 28 minutes long, I sat down to watch it.

And I was properly amazed.

Warning, below are some spoilers. However, the movie was made in fucking 1962, so if you’re gonna get upset by me giving away plot points in the year 2017, may I suggest that there might be bigger battles for you to fight.

It’s the story of a man who has a single childhood memory of being at an airport, seeing a mysterious woman, and then something horrible happening (that he does not remember). Shortly after the time of that memory, some cataclysm hit the planet and nearly all people have perished. The few remaining ones are now deep underground with at best steampunk technologies.

Scientists underground have come to the conclusion that the only way out of their predicament is to send someone either backward or forward in time to either stop the cataclysm or to be provided with advanced technology.

Time travel is attempted by many but all of the experiments fail horribly. The man is selected because of the fact that he still has such a strong memory. This implies that he might have the proper mindset to cross time (for you literature geeks, think Time and Again, by Jack Finney).

The man is successful and on successive trips, recovers more memories. He meets the enigmatic woman and they fall in love. The scientists then send him into the future and he returns back with some kind of energy device that will allow them to start advancing civilization again.

Later, the people from the future visit him and offer to take him to the future, away from the current misery of underground existence. He declines but instead asks them to send him back to his past so that he can be with the woman.

So, he is sent back to the past to stay. He ends up at an airport. It’s the airport of his original memory. He sees the woman and heads over to her. He turns and sees that one of his keepers from the underground has followed him and intends to kill him. As he’s preparing for his death, he realizes that the memory from his childhood is in fact witnessing his own death as an adult.

If you’ve recently seen and/or remember 12 Monkeys, you can see how much of that plot was lifted from La Jetee.

What’s amazing about this movie is that it was told as a series of montages. As far as I can tell, there is only one truly filmed scene, where the woman opens her eyes. All other scenes are just a series of stills. For a film trying to make a statement about time, how cool is it that it tells the story in this manner? For, if you think of time as being just a series of moments, isn’t a movie ultimately just a series of images?

Just like in Finney’s book, I found it interesting that time travel can only happen to someone that is already susceptible to memories. Is having detailed memories a form of time travel? Especially if the memory is so detailed enough that it can trigger you to enter almost a different state? Not to make too much of this, but can the point be made that when Proust’s narrator takes a bite of the madeleine and is immediately flooded with an involuntary flood of memories that he might actually be transported in time? In fact, is that ultimately the meaning behind In Search of Lost Time?

At one point, the character is described as ‘no plans, no memories’. Does that mean at that point he is effectively out of any concept of time? If he has no plans, then he has no awareness of the future. If has no memories, then he has no awareness of the past. Without knowing of either the past or the future, what does time mean?

The fact that such questions can come out of a less than thirty minute film made over fifty years ago that consists of only one moving image is a testament to its greatness.

What Will Be The Next New Jim Crow?

mv5bmjawmju5ntazof5bml5banbnxkftztgwmjqwodqxmdi-_v1_ux182_cr00182268_al_

Title: 13th

Rating: 5 Stars

This is a documentary about the mass incarceration of predominantly men of color since the 1970’s.

To a large extent, if you’ve read The New Jim Crow, by Michelle Alexander, then you know where this movie is going. In fact, Alexander is one of the people interviewed for this film. Even if you have read The New Jim Crow, then the film is still an emotionally searing experience because you visually see the horrors that the last four decades have levied on the black community.

The film features a number of black professors, writers, and intellectuals that you can tell are trying their best to dispassionately describe the causes and effects of the mass incarceration movement, but just barely under the surface you can feel the rage that they all share at the utter injustice of it all.

The film discusses the start of the mass incarceration movement. It starts with the Nixon Southern Strategy. In the wake of the Civil Rights movement and the Vietnam war protests, there was a dramatic rise in civil unrest in the 1960’s. In that unrest, Nixon saw an opportunity to move historically democratic voters over to republicans.

Nixon’s enemies were hippies and blacks. If he could harden the drug penalties for drugs and then associate marijuana with the hippies and heroin with the blacks, then he could crack down on his enemies via entirely legal means. There’s a quote from his chief domestic adviser, John Ehrlichman, that openly, blatantly admits this. In detail, the quote is:

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.

This tactic becomes tremendously successful for the Republicans and they continue to use it. Again, they are completely aware of what they are doing. Here’s a quote from Lee Atwater, campaign manager for the George H.W. Bush presidential campaign:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other.

The Republicans use this as a weapon to bludgeon the Democrats. As Newt Gingrich says in the film, “you want to be on the side of the murderers rapists”? The Democrats learn this lesson and in Clinton’s campaign and later presidency, the Democrats come down hard and strong with such things as the three strikes you’re out law and mandatory minimum sentencing.

So, for a forty year period, you have politicians that built political capital by throwing people, predominantly people of color, into prison.

And what’s the consequence of that?

Sadly, many members of the black community have bought into the myth of black crime and have supported the need for increased incarceration of its own people.

Thirty percent of black adult residents in Alabama have lost the right to vote.

With the brutal reality of having to face draconian prison sentences, 97% of all defendants plea bargain, guaranteeing that some non significant percentage of people in prison today are innocent of whatever crime that they were initially arrested for.

Many people languish in prison because they do not have enough money to post bail. This is even more incentive to plead to a lesser charge, even if you’re innocent, just so that you can get out of jail. Of course, by pleading, many times you end up disenfranchised and you have a scarlet letter next to your name on all future job applications, college applications, and aid applications. Again, in many cases the defendant is factually innocent of the original charge but feels that he has no choice but to plead.

All of this incarceration growth has resulted in the development of a prison industrial complex. Prisons have become privatized. States enter into agreements with corporations to house a certain number of inmates. Therefore, a state government  is now incentivized to convict and imprison its own citizens so that it can meet the terms of the corporate contract. Corporations band together and lobby for stricter penalization laws so that they can house more prisoners.

Towards the end of the film, it juxtaposes scenes of civil rights violence with scenes from Trump rallies. It’s truly heartbreaking to contemplate how barely below the surface overt racism continues to be.

The sole encouraging light is that in the last year or two, the incarceration rates have dipped slightly. However, for obvious reasons, all of the black speakers in the film look upon this with deep suspicion. For 250 years, America had slavery. The slaves were then freed and there was rejoicing. This was followed by 100 years of Jim Crow. The Civil Rights Act was passed and there was rejoicing. This was then followed by over 40 years of mass incarceration. Yes, maybe this too shall eventually pass.

But what will follow it?

 

Making Pacific Rim Look Like Citizen Kane

mv5bmty2ntexota2mf5bml5banbnxkftztgwntmwmje2mti-_v1_uy268_cr10182268_al_

Title: Colossal

Rating: 1 Star

Talking about getting sucked into a movie by its trailer. I then saw that it got a reasonable score on Rotten Tomatoes. I thought that it had a decent chance of being the off-beat kind of movie that I usually get into.

Anne Hathaway stars as a woman (Gloria) living in New York that has lost control of her life. She’s lost her job, lost her boyfriend, and is partying too much. Having nowhere else to go, she heads back to her home town, where she connects up with apparently one of her good friends (Oscar) from her childhood.

Concurrent with that, periodically a Godzilla like monster starts terrorizing Seoul. Gloria eventually comes to the stunning conclusion that somehow she is guiding the movements of the monster. At a certain time at the day, if she stands in a certain part of a children’s playground, she can cause the monster to materialize and her motions then mimic the monster’s.

She shows Oscar and a couple of his friends this, and inadvertently kills hundreds of people in Seoul in so doing. Traumatized, she decides to never do it again. Oscar, trying to help her, discovers that he also can materialize a huge robot in Seoul. This power goes to Oscar’s head, and he becomes increasingly erratic. Gloria realizes that she must fight Oscar to save Seoul.

Sounds quirky? Sounds offbeat? In execution, it’s pretty asinine.

It’s a Godzilla movie, so I get that much of it is not supposed to make sense. But even in the make believe universe that this move inhabits, it pretty much complete nonsense.

Gloria, for reasons not obvious to anyone, has a one night stand with Oscar’s friend, Joel. Why? Who knows? There is one weird flirtation between the two before that, which Oscar shuts down with a cryptic comment that’s never explained.

Oscar has another friend named Garth that Oscar out of the blue accuses of cocaine use. Why? If this really leaves Garth so incensed, why does he come back? Oscar has no hold over Garth. It’s just dropped in there to show what a jerk Oscar is.

In front of Gloria’s ex-boyfriend, Oscar nearly destroys his bar. Why? To show his power over her?

Why does Oscar’s house look like a level 4 hoarder? Where does Oscar get all of the furniture that he gives to Gloria? He made a comment about a dead relative, but it was played as if this was an obvious lie.

Essentially, none of the relationships make sense. It’s as if the script was written by a robot with no knowledge of how relationships are formed and/or mature.

And again, I get that this is a monster movie, but seriously a couple of lightning bolts hit Gloria and Oscar in the head while they’re wandering around lost in a undeveloped piece of land (that later turns into the children’s playground) as children and this somehow allows them to manifest monsters in Seoul (only at a certain time and only for a short duration)?

Gloria does get hurt when the South Korea attacks her manifested monster. It looks as if continuing to shoot missiles would have actually killed the monster. Why did they stop?

And I won’t give away the ending, but the finale is even dumber. A component of it is Gloria flying to South Korea literally at a moment’s notice. How does a part time waitress even afford a ticket to South Korea?

I could go on. There was just so much nonsense in this movie. The only movie that I’ve seen that even comes close to it on the dumb scale is Pacific Rim. I get that Pacific Rim is beloved by some, but man, I thought it was the most nonsensical, stupid movie that I’d seen in many years.

If anything, Colossal is even dumber than Pacific Rim.

Or perhaps I’m just missing out on the charm of the monster movie genre. I can live with that.

A Sequel That I Didn’t Know I Needed

mv5bmtu2nta0ndm0mf5bml5banbnxkftztgwmdmzmtqzmti-_v1_ux182_cr00182268_al_

Title: T2 Trainspotting

Rating: 5 Stars

I experienced serious trepidation when I heard that a sequel was coming out to Trainspotting. As a huge fan of both the movie and the book, I was worried that this was just going to be another typical sequel. I was expecting that it would just be a replay of the earlier movie, or some kind of misty-eyed feel-good happy group hug, or worse, that it would be tired and boring.

It was none of those.

It wasn’t as great as the original, but that would have been expecting too much. The original was a unique thunderbolt filled with equal moments of hilarity, horror, shock, jolts of excitement, and utter bleakness.

The screenplay writer, the director, and all of the major players are now twenty years older. The film reflects that. It has a heavier gravity, a more knowing awareness, and the characters are more deeply embedded in a knowing reality. Although it’s still certainly not an optimistic movie, the passage of time has left the film makers with a less desolate vision that suffused the original.

Twenty years after he stole from and abandoned his mates, Renton, in Amsterdam, experiences a serious health condition that causes him to reevaluate his life and he decides to head back to the land and the mates that he still loves.

Now, Spud is a desolate, hopeless drug addict. Simon is a low-life blackmailer and owner of a failing pub. Begbie is in prison and has just been denied parole again.

In short order, Renton saves a suicidal Spud and, trying to make amends, dedicates himself to helping Spud kick his addiction. Simon and Renton viciously fight in Simon’s pub, but afterwards become best mates again and resume their scheming ways. Begbie has escaped from prison, and hearing that Renton is back in Scotland, intends to hunt him down and kill him.

There are several themes running through the film. One is friendship. Although Renton has betrayed all of them, there is no ignoring the deep friendship that all of them share. Renton and Simon in particular fall right back into their old relationship. Even Begbie, wanting Renton dead, remembers with fondness the childhood and the good times that they’ve all shared. In keeping with the bittersweet nature of the film, even the deep friendship among mates is double edged. In one particularly telling scene, Renton and Simon almost effortlessly leave the other emotionally devastated. They each know each other’s most intimate vulnerabilities and ruthlessly exploit it.

Another theme, as I’ve mentioned above, is time. There is (as I can attest from first hand experience) no way that a passage of twenty years does not leave a mark on a person. The film deals frankly with the changes that age inflicts upon yourself and your relationship to others.

Related to the passage of time is nostalgia. Time has moved on for all of the characters, but all of them, especially Renton, pine for those now lost days of happiness and camaraderie. The fact that some of those times were when they were miserably addicted to heroin doesn’t soften the gauze that memory now places over those times.

I enjoyed all of the actors, but I especially enjoyed the actor playing Spud (Ewen Bremner). From the start of the film, where Bremner plays Spud as a broken down, old before his time man with no remaining hope, he does a great job of fleshing out Spud as he evolves through the film. With his facial expressions and fidgety, gangling body, his acting has a physicality that is reminiscent of actors from the silent film era.

If you haven’t seen the original, it’s really important that you do so before you see this film. There are several call-outs to the original. Missing them will lessen the impact of the sequel.

To me, one of the signs of a great movie is not wanting it to end. As it was heading towards its inevitable climax, I found myself wishing to have just a few more scenes with the boys.

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner – 2017 Version

mv5bnte2nzg1njkznv5bml5banbnxkftztgwotgyodmymti-_v1_ux182_cr00182268_al_

Title: Get Out

Rating: 5 Stars

This is a film by Jordan Peele, of Key and Peele fame. He wrote and directed it.

The plot is that a young white woman (Alison) brings her black boyfriend (Chris) home for a visit. The parents are what you’d classically picture as a typical wealthy, liberal, privileged, white couple. They welcome Chris openly into their home and in various awkward ways, try to make him feel comfortable.

And things begin to get weird. First of all, Chris is trying to quit smoking. Alison’s mom (Missy) is a psychiatrist that also performs hypnotherapy. The family somewhat forcefully tries to encourage him to go under hypnosis to curb that habit. He firmly refuses and the family backs off. Later, he encounters Missy alone in her study and they have a conversation. It’s not clear to him, but during that conversation Missy might have successfully hypnotized him.

Another major thing that is seemingly out of place are the very few black people that are around the house. The groundskeeper (Walter) and housekeeper (Georgina) just act strange. They seem to be nearly robotic, reminiscent of the Stepford wives.

The weekend that Alison brings Chris up happens to be some kind of reunion with a bunch of other rich white people.

From there, things begin to get stranger and stranger.

Since the movie just came out, I don’t want to throw down any spoilers on the very off-hand chance that someone actually reads this.

It’s blatantly obvious that this film has many racial overtones. There is the casual racism that Chris experiences from ‘good-hearted’ white people that I’m assuming that black people probably experience every day. There are people calling him ‘my man’. There are people telling him that they know Tiger Woods. There are people assuming that he must be athletically gifted. There are people reassuring him that they would have voted for Obama a third time if they could.

Clearly these are all white people that are not looking at Chris as a human being but as a black man and nearly all of the ways that they interact with him are on that basis.

The film makes fun of code switching. Chris attempts to engage with the few other black characters with awkward, unpredictably hilarious results. His confusion at his inability to connect with his cohort is manifest.

Without going into too many details, cultural appropriation is an overarching major theme. What does it mean to be a black man living in a white world that is avariciously trying to usurp your role in it? When it is trying to remove the blackness from your being?

Even fairly minor throwaway scenes have racial significance. Nearly at the end of the movie, Chris has an encounter with law enforcement. Even though he is the protagonist of the film and is fighting for his life, the arrival of law enforcement does not fill him with hope of being saved but dread at what will become of him.  What must it feel like to know that the people that are supposed to protect and defend you might have no intent to do either?

I know that all of this sounds heavy-handed, but the genius of this film is its lightness. The fun that it has with the TSA is hilarious. It is a perfect combination of horror, comedy, and political consciousness.

This balance makes it one of the finest movies that I’ve seen in a while.

 

Meet John Wick, You’re Dead

mv5bmje2ndkxnty2m15bml5banbnxkftztgwmdc2nze0mti-_v1_ux182_cr00182268_al_

Title: John Wick: Chapter 2

Rating: 4 Stars

In the first movie, someone kills John Wick’s dog and everyone must die. In this movie, an underworld gangster forces Wick, desperate to be retired, to perform one last hit. As a consequence, everyone must die.

That’s pretty much it for the plot. It’s basically a first person shooter come to life.

But is there more to it than that?

First of all, it’s pretty clearly making fun of the action film genre. It takes every trope that it can come up with and cranks it up to eleven.

John Wick is indestructible. He falls down several flights of stairs. He gets shot. He gets stabbed. He gets hit by a car (several times). Every time, it looks like he’s going to collapse. Oh wait, here comes someone to murder him. He promptly gets up and performs some miraculous action to save his life.

His shots never miss. His opponents never hit. The film makes fun of the gun that never runs out of bullets. He’s going to take out the antagonist, who has his usual army of henchmen at his disposal. Wick is given one gun and seven bullets (Seven? Is this some kind of weird homage to The Seven Samurai? Probably not). Wick proceeds to take out the entire army of henchmen. Every so often, he throws away his gun and takes up one of the dead henchmen’s guns to carry on the battle. He’s doing this, but clearly he’s still shooting dozens of rounds between picking up the next gun. It acknowledges the stereotype, winks at it, and then carries forward with it.

I also found it interesting that all of the criminals seem to understand and communicate in each other’s native tongues. I hear Wick speak Russian, Italian, and Yiddish (maybe others). There’s a deaf criminal and he signs to her perfectly. Is the implication that somehow criminals exist in a world in which they can effortlessly communicate to each other? Is there a universality to crime and to criminals?

Similarly, there seems to be a highly refined set of rules governing criminal behavior. You can even say that there is an honor and an ethos to crime. Is this some kind of wish to bring order to a world of chaos? When we read of random crimes being inflicted upon random people, do we have some kind of collective wish to have an underlying order to it? Is there some deep fear of the random unknown that a film like this addresses?

This film also plays around with the single point of view paranoia that we probably all occasionally fall victim to. The only perspective that we can ever have is our own. We have no true knowledge of the life or existence of others. What if this entire universe is staged exclusively for our self? How do you disprove this hypothesis?

When the initial hit is put upon Wick, all of a sudden the whole world is against him. Random people on the street try to kill him. When he’s meeting Winston for the last time in a busy park, at a word from Winston every single person (probably hundreds) stops to look at Wick. Everyone is in on it. Everyone is out to get Wick. Isn’t that the essence of paranoia?

Finally, Wick’s new dog is a pit bull. Is that not the perfect choice of a dog for Wick? Pit bulls are misunderstood and are feared, even hated. They can be trained to be extremely violent. However, pit bulls, in their natural element, like pretty much every dog ever, just want to play, have fun, and live a dog’s life. Isn’t this all that Wick wants? But his trainers, the ones who made him, are forcing him to give up his nature and to become once again the violent killer.

 

So, there you go. Way too much thinking about a movie that probably was just trying to see how many people it could kill in one two hour stretch.