31 Days of Halloween: Malum

 2023, Anthony DiBlasi (Last Shift) -- download

I am pretty sure in the dozen years we have been writing this blog, I have never done a post about a movie we turned off. We rarely turn off movies, but at about mid-point through this ghosts & gore flick, I just said, "Are you finding this tiresome?" She agreed and clicked-off.

But I am still writing the post because of the reason we watched this movie. In reading about horror movies for the season, this one came up again and again. The interesting detail is that it is the 2023 remake of the movie we watched during this run in 2015, called Last Shift. In my mind, I saw this as the "American remake" of the Scottish movie we saw, and recall enjoying, starring Liam Cunningham and Pollyanna McIntosh. Except when I go back and read the post I just linked, to Last Shift, it also says that, that we thought the movie might be the "American remake" of the Scottish movie, which is actually called Let Us Prey. So, in the end, DiBlasi just ended up doing a remake of his own movie from a decade earlier, both being American. And the fond recollection I had, was for an entirely different movie. My opinion of Last Shift was less than favourable.

The movie is once again about a small American police station being shutdown and a young rookie is assigned the duty of sitting in the place for its last night, basically to man the phones and redirect all calls to other station houses. This was  the station where her father returned after killing a bunch of homicidal cult members, and rescuing three girls. But on the same night he did so, he went berserk killed a bunch of cops before putting barrel of a shotgun in his own mouth. Other cops are not fond of Jessica (Jessica Sula, Split) because of who her father was, but also because its Kentucky so add in some racism & sexism.

And like the first movie, ghosty things start happening as soon as the doors close. But also culty stuff. Despite her father killing most of the cult, we can guess some survived for their symbol is all over town. And followers are causing havoc for other stations. But unlike the other movie, which irritated me to no end by having weird shit happen in the background, for us only to see, this movie just has non-stop, gruesome, gorey jump scares. After about a dozen, that were not scary at all, I was just annoyed. And we turned it off.

This is the kind of movie that separates me from traditional "horror fans", and I have mentioned this before, the kind that attend horror-cons and love the magazines like Fangoria (dude, you already whined about that AND used those comparisons THIS MONTH). I ascribe the enjoyment by those fans as always looking for the next gorey scene to top the last, the next jump scare to make you squeak louder, the next scene to make you wince even more. Not really my interest.

31 Days of Halloween: Totally Killer

2023, Nahnatchka Khan (Don't Trust the B**** in Apartment 23) -- Amazon

OMG, we get time travel antics AND a teen slasher movie all wrapped up in a rather pithy comedy! Its not quite as enjoyable as Happy Death Day but in the same wheelhouse.

Wait, I didn't write about Happy Death Day? Not for 31 Days of Halloween? Not for our Loopty Loo time-loop posts? I suck. I have probably noted that before. I really need a new project of "rewatches solely for the purpose of a post" but, do I, really, need more projects/themes?

Back in 1987, Pam Miller's three best friends were murdered by a masked serial killer, over the three nights leading to Halloween. Pam survived.

In 2023, Pam Hughes is obsessed with her survival, a wee bit overbearing on her daughter and utterly prepared for it to happen again, despite it being decades since anyone ever saw the "sweet 16 killer" -- he stabbed each teen 16 times. Think of her as the black comedy version of Laurie Strode from the recent legasequel Halloween movies.

Then she is attacked, and killed. All her prep was for naught. The killer is back! But her daughter Jamie happens to have a friend with a time machine (?!?!?). While she is attempting to use it to go back and save her mom & friends, she is attacked by the killer, who stabs the up to then non-functional time machine that is embedded inside a instant-photo booth. This is the Bill & Ted school of time machines. Jamie is sent back to October 27, 1987. 

Happy Birthday to 20 year old me !!

Jamie tries to befriend her mom and the other Molly's (aka Molly Ringwald fans, which makes no sense because Molly always played the plucky underdog and they are seminal [pun intended] mean girls), but can't make any headway because she is a cynical, dismissive teen from 2023. She also has no qualms on admitting she is a time traveler, but that doesn't help. She ends up connecting with her best-friend's (currently teen) mom, who was the originator of that time machine idea. She needs to stop the killer from killing, and then return back to the future where everything will be all better.

"Please, just go watch Back to the Future, it will explain everything..." she keeps on demanding.

Things don't go as planned. Mom and her horny friends keep on fucking (pun intended) with the timeline and the details keep on changing, BUT the girls keep on getting killed despite Jamie's best attempts.

Back in 2023, Jamie's time machine inventor friend is talking with the local podcaster who has benefited off these murders all these years and he keeps on having attacks of massive Mandela Syndrome, as Jamie changes the past, and he kind of remembers both timelines. 

This was by-far one of my most favourite remarks on time travel and stepping on butterflies.

Eventually the rest of the original girls are killed, but they DO actually kill the Sweet 16 Killer, and have their Scooby-Doo, pulling off of the mask, moment. Who he is, is incidental because they are attacked again. The Killer from 2023 has now found his way back to 1987 and needs to kill Jamie and her mom! They fend him off, do another Scooby-Doo moment and save the day. Jamie returns back to an entirely altered 2023, and is presented with a notebook of "Everything That Has Changed" details to help her acclimate.

One note on time travel antics. They find out that the 2023 killer was the podcaster and kill him back in 1987, after he has time travelled himself. BUT why would that alter what he had done in 2023 before he had gone back in time? They keep on going on about 'time is a river' and there being parallel flows, but ... whatever, <hand waves away stuff>

Actually, never mind, Marmy reminded me that the Killer also killed his own dad, which meant his younger self never grew up bitter & resentful, to morph into a bitter, resentful man dependent on his podcast. And since they killed the Killer back in 1987, they ended the hold he had on the town, letting them all grow up less traumatized.

This was the fun, quippy, pithy movie I would expect from Khan despite her not doing the writing. And despite being more time-travel than teen slasher (there is an absolute lack of fear here), I am still happy we included it in this run.

31 Days of Halloween: No One Will Save You

2023, Brian Duffield (Jane Got a Gun) -- Disney

I am rarely "scared" by the horror movies we watch, but oh do I so love when the fear in a scene is so tangible that I sit up in my seat, that I can so sink into a situation that I feel it creeping up the back of my neck. That is one of the reasons I watch horror movies -- no, not to be frightened, but to be transported away by an experience, to become completely absorbed in it.

Brynn (Kaitlyn Dever, Last Man Standing) lives in a nice house, living a nice life as some sort of Etsy-style maker of custom anachronistic clothing and items, and sending them out by mail. She is a quirky, out of time young woman living alone in a big house on the edge of town. But she, every time she leaves the house, even to mail out her goods, suffers immense panic & anxiety. This is not just generalized anxiety or agoraphobia but connected to something in her past, something to do with a childhood friend, who is no longer with us.

And then aliens show up. 

There is no typical build up, no "is it or is it not" creeping story about weird noises and lights. Nope, it goes from introducing Brynn to having a fucking gray running around on the first floor of her house, and we are immediately sunk into the fear Brynn experiences as she tries to, first, hide from it, and then, fend it off. And from there, it does not let up.

There is a full blown alien invasion going on, and thus, no will save her. Also, whatever she did has her convinced that nobody in the town would save her anyway. The heart-pounding terror she feels running from the multiple body-formed aliens (standard grays, long armed ones, fucking giant spider ones!) is compounded by having no where to run to, for its happening all over. Flying saucers hover over the town, emitting their cow catcher beams of light, constantly trying to suck her up, but she keeps on getting away, leaving more than a few bodies behind. Brynn is very resourceful, very capable, and despite the tragedy she is ruled by, very intent on living.

And then the aliens do catch her. And... well, for most people the movie will fall apart entirely here, as the director kind of slides into Shyamalan take-a-right-turn-at-Albuquerque territory. Both Marmy and Kent did not care for the ending, but I see what the director/writer was going for, that even as the world is probably ending outside, it will go on for Brynn.

I will spoil it for you.

Brynn, as a young teen, struck and killed her best friend in a fit of anger. It was probably not intentionally a killing blow, and she was a minor, so there was probably no prison time. But nobody in town, and she herself, has ever forgiven her. And the grays, who seem to have some symbiotic creature that will put you in an idyllic fantasy while they ride your body, seem to find compassion for Brynn's tragic history. But instead of forcing the symbiote back into her, they allow the town to be altered to her favour, giving her dance parties with 50s music and the downtown square all strung with lights. While the invasion continues.

Its a hard scene to sell, but to me, its even more horrific. The world is ending, and they seem to have almost rewarded her perseverance, her resourcefulness. But we know its not sustainable and eventually she will succumb. But for now, she gets to dance in a pretty dress with a nice boy ridden by an alien symbiote.

Don't forget to comment on how there will now be about a thousand "ending of movie explained" shitty YouTubes and blog articles out there farming content and clicks!

Don't forget to mention that pretty much the entire movie is without dialogue! Its a neat conceit that, like the fear, I was entirely subscribed to.

31 Days of Halloween: Viking Wolf

2022, Stig Svendson (Elevator) -- Netflix

So, was it called Viking Wolf because it was set in Norway, where everyone is descended from Vikings (/s as they on Reddit) or because they tagged on a tenuous historical preamble about Vikings bringing a werewolf cub (puppy!!) back to Norway?

Either way, grooooan.

In a lot of ways, this movie is presenting itself like one of those 80s American schlock creature features where monsters eat teenagers, but without the gratuitous nudity, and with slightly better acting. It never feels schlocky, except when the barely passable CGI werewolf appears on screen. But by the end, the movie plot seems to have escaped the writer & director and we are left with the werewolf example of the same bad parenting we just watched in the last movie, which was vampires. 

Post pre-amble, we are in modern day, small town Nybo, Norway. Thale (Elli Rhiannon Müller Osborne, Royalteen) and her family have been moved there by cop mom Liv (Liv Mjönes, Midsommar), from Oslo, after the death of Thale's father. The relationship was over before his death, and Nice Guy Arthur (Vidar Magnussen, Norsemen), Liv's new beau, is doing his best, but angry teens be angry teens. Thale sneaks out with a 6-pack to meet a boy at The Bay, the name of the local bay where kids gather to drink beer, flirt and pick on the new kids. Pretty Girl Elin (Silje Øksland Krohne, The Painting) is upset Jonas (Sjur Vatne Brean, Three Wishes for Cinderella) invited Thale and while she is yelling at him, they are attacked by a werewolf. Thale tries to intervene, but is knocked down before Elin is dragged into the brush.

Yes, I am naming all the named characters, more to bring light to the idea that other than Thale, all the characters have names palatable to the anglo tongue while their real Norwegian names are ENTIRELY fascinating ... to an anglo.

Despite saying she wasn't hurt, she must have been bitten or scratch or something, or the rest of the movie wouldn't have happened. Also, was she always exhibiting heterochromia, or was it just after the attack? If she just suddenly developed it, why isn't anyone mentioning it? 

The town brings in hunters to help find Elin, and the animal that killed her. The find her horribly mutilated body, and invite a university veterinarian to consult, a weird guy who looks barely out of high school himself and comments that it all does look like wolf, but very big wolf. And the claw they found stuck in a should high tree wound is a wolf claw but longer than normal. What exactly was the werewolf doing to lose its claw in a tree? And also, OUCH ! Pulling it out entirely would hurt. Also, the requisite weird werewolf hunter shows up in town, in his ratty camper van and offers the police advice and silver bullets. He's been hunting this werewolf his entire adult life -- he must be a terrible werewolf hunter.

In the usual way of werewolf movies, we wonder is it only a few nights later, or is it actually a month later because there are a lot of full moons, and Thale is really showing signs of being affected/infected. This will not be an unfortunate lunar based cycle -- Thale is going to convert to wolfie nature. Meanwhile the cops and the hunters actually track the beast down, get a bunch of people killed, but Liv shoots it dead with a single silver bullet. It does not turn back into a man.

Meanwhile, Thale and Jonas are dealing with their healing trauma via very chaste kissing, when the moon comes out and... well, bye bye Jonas. Thale realizes she has to leave town and catches a bus the next night. The cops are now confused about there being more than one beast. But Liv is starting to have a theory. On the bus, the movie shows its inspiration, recreating the best in werewolf change scenes from American Werewolf in London and Wolfen and now full wolf Thale eats a bunch of passengers before running home. Arthur fends her off with a lamp as she hesitates in eating her deaf little sister -- sisterhood above all, even bestial transformations!

Thale runs into town and begins eating people. The world's worst werewolf hunter shows up, smashes his ratty camper van into her and... well, I am surprised he lived this long. Maybe the original Viking Wolf was leaving him alive for fun; Thale does not. But hipster veterinarian guy shoots Thale with some tranq darts and ends the savage terrorizing of town. But will she end her daughter with a single shot from a silver bullet? Or will she leave room for a sequel? 

Fade to black.

OK, it was not terrible. But neither was it very good. There are some fun practical effects and some fun with reinventing the mythos, but it doesn't even attempt to have any internal logic and just bounds from one familiar trope to the next, as if their entire purpose was to shout, "Look! We made a werewolf movie in Norway!" The thing is, they could have actually had fun with Norse mythos and added in references to Fenrir, the hound freed at Ragnarok but they didn't even attempt to do anything about the Viking bit beyond the ludicrous preamble. 

Required viewing: Who Is Killing Cinema

Patrick H. Willems is not just some guy on the internet talking about movies, he's a guy on the internet who has been talking about movies for over a dozen years. That's all it takes to get your credentials, right? Persistence?

Note: Toasty and I have been doing this for pretty much the exact same amount of time.  We're not Patrick Willems.

I'm newish to Willem's work, I only started watching his youtube channel at the start of this year, but I quickly latched on because he is a critical thinker, and his long-form video essays are well produced, well constructed, well researched, well reasoned and entertaining.  Looking back, he started out as a satirist, making short parodies or riffs off films or tropes, but this mode of essayist seems to suit him well.

Recent videos included coining the subgenre of "vibes movies", a dive into A.I. filmmaking, and a beginners guide to film criticism (also mandatory viewing for any amateur film reviewer) but it's his latest video, "Who is Killing Cinema - A Murder Mystery" that is required viewing for anyone who is interested in the health of the film industry.

If you read, listen or watch almost any form of film criticism (even our own) there's can be a lot of bemoaning of the state of the cinema today, how the "purple suits" make decisions that seem less interested in the art form and more about capitalistic greed, not realizing that it's more the art than the form that we're interested in as filmgoers.  I know I have done my fair share of defending Marvel movies over the years as well, as for the half decade they've been typecast as "the Doom that came to Hollywood" when I think it's been an unfair label, and an easy scapegoat.

This new video from Willems, posted above he breaks down the key suspects that are killing Hollywood, and he nails it. Not perfectly 100%, but, like, 92%.

You should watch the video but if you don't have the 85 minutes to spare, I'll do a quick recap...
The culprits are : 

1. Franchise movies
2. The fall of movie stars 
3. Studio Executives
4. Social media
5. Streaming

Spoiler alert: it's all of the above.  It's a perfect storm of calculated self-destruction. The purple suits, Willems notes, have shifted from being film lovers to business people, or, like, lawyers. In the end they care about the bottom line and not really making movies. The executives, in their endeavour to "Moneyball" filmmaking have glommed onto franchises based off existing IP as the most sure-fire way to make money. In doing so, the IP, the characters, have become the stars, not the performers.  Where once we would go see an actor or actress do their thing in different roles, now we want to see the same thing done by different actors or actresses. The purple suits may not have intentionally neutered the power of film stardom, but I bet they're not crying at all about it. Also part of this whole trend, Willems posits, is how studios have trained their audience to watch movies... in moving away from offering and promoting almost anything else, they've trained the audience that the only destination film, the only thing worth going to the theatre for, is a big, expensive blockbuster.

If there's a bigger nail in the coffin than any of the others it's streaming. Willems gets into Netflix's business model over the years and how it destroyed not just rental shops but physical media sales altogether. The decline in physical media sales meant that many films, which would have proven commercial successes on the post-theatrical market from sales and rentals, now just remain bombs. It reinforces their decision to not invest in mid-budget films or in promotion of them, because there's more risk.  Hollywood gets trench-head, and can't get out of their one-route way of thinking.  But Netflix's early success has led all the other major studios and networks to try their hand at a streaming service over the past half-decade and it's absolutely butchered the perceived value of both film and the cinematic experience.

Willems prior essay was on "Content", the term now used to describe everything and anything produced for one's illumination, education, or pleasure. It's all just "Content".  This utter flattening and devaluing of artistic forms, putting an unboxing video on the same playing field as a music video on the same playing field as a guy reacting to backyard wrestling fails on the same playing field as The Office, a tiktok dance video, a thoroughly researched polemic on NFTs, a student film, Love Island, a comic book review, the latest Wes Anderson vehicle.... when it's all "Content" these things all wind up being the same thing... being worth the same amount of one's time and attention and investment.  Netflix's Ted Sarandos, HBO's David Zaslav and even just youtube in general refers to everything being made for their services as "content" no matter how disparate the effort and artistry required.  To them it's all about eyeballs. If you can get the same amount of eyes, or more, by producing a supercut of cats falling off off shit, then why bother spending $25million on a comedy or dramatic film?  Willems glosses over social media and youtube as "competition" for seeing films in cinema, but I think that's primarily because it'd just restate his diatribe on "Content".  It is competition, it does divide attention, and the kids of social media age are less piped into traditional storytelling, so they're not going to the movies.

Willems is absolutely right. Cinema is in a bad state. Certainly in North America. I can't speak for the rest of the world.  I can attest (this blog can attest) that I fell out of going to the cinema for almost anything but a blockbuster film for the past dozen years.  I've put a lot of thought and mental effort into relaying how I feel about those films, and frankly, they are what I wanted to see when I was younger and still what I want to see now. I like my drama and humour and social introspection delivered by way of genre pieces. But I get people bemoaning the loss of the mid-range drama or comedy, and the surprise when one becomes a huge blockbuster. Quote films for grownups unquote.  But Willems may be right that in the proper promotion of a film, in re-establishing film stars, you can entice an audience, you can entice me to see a film that doesn't feature spandex or lasers.

The one major piece of Willems' puzzle that is missing from the video is television. In the past 20 years, TV has absolutely changed. No longer confined by "decency laws", TV shows can swear, have nudity, show all manner of gore or other disturbing images, things that were previously the domain of the movies, subject to audience control under a ratings system.  An in that loosening of constraints, TV got good. Real good. If Hollywood isn't making dramas or comedys for the cinemas, it's in no small part due to the sheer volume of great comedies and dramas and dramatic comedies and comedic dramas that have been on TV and streaming services in the past couple decades.  There's always been some really good TV, but it's never been like this. Especially since streaming started getting into the peak TV game, the investment into these productions is unprecedented.  TV looks cinematic, it drawing in film stars, and it's creating appointment television. Why go to the theatre when you just have to see the latest episode of one of the best shows ever made (as, at any given time now, one of the best shows ever made seems to be dropping a new episode)?

Is this, again a training? Have we been conditioned to view things serially? Is our attraction to franchises also part of our desire for ongoing narrative? Can stand-alone stories have a place?  

The answer is yes to all of these. But the value on stand-alone narratives is a lot less, because the investment is less.  For an audience the perceived value, for both serialized and stand-alone narratives, is in the artistry and the entertainment. If a stand-alone piece, a film if you will, stimulates the audience enough, eliciting a reaction (and it seems the purple suits don't even want any kind of reaction out of people anymore), it can spur interest, conversation, investment. If it entertains enough, people will go back to get that same dopamine hit again and again.  What used to be the Hollywood model was finding this balance between artistry and entertainment, now, it's largely "how do we not shake people up too much. We just want their eyeballs, and their money."

Like other American industries, the capitalists have taken over. For the people at the top, it's become about nothing but money. In their short-sightedness, the purple suits are cutting themselves off at the knees to strap what remains of their legs to fat wads of cash, not realizing that without legs you can't walk very far.  I don't have much hope the major studios, like so many major American industries, will find any value in investing in people and taking creative risks with their money.  When it's all about share value, nobody wins but shareholders.  It'll be the smaller production companies, the Blumhouses and A24s that start to fill the void as the big legless birds flail, wondering what happened.  As we can see the decline in franchise filmmaking already, the dwindling returns on Marvel, the negative returns on DC, repeated failures to resurrect established IP, the current business-minded execs won't think creatively enough to get them out of the hole they've dug for themselves.

I went off, much more than I should have, but it's a fascinating subject and a fascinating video.  If you care about cinema, give it a peek when you have time.

31 Days of Halloween: Blood

2022, Brad Anderson (Session 9) -- Netflix

Meh.

A mother will do anything for their child. Except, apparently, do what's best. Jess (Michelle Monaghan, Source Code) is a mom barely holding onto the full custody of her children after the breakup of her marriage due to Jess's addiction and anger issues. She is desperate to prove to them, to the court and to herself that she can take care of the kids. But she's not doing so well, as she has to move them out to "the country", to what must be her grandparents' house.  

Then the family dog goes missing. Then the dog returns all blood covered and glowing eyed. He bites Owen (Finlay Wojtak-Hissong, Dreamkatcher), on the neck, before Jess can kill the dog with a heavy water bowl. Owen recovers but is caught slurping from his plasma bag. Soon after Jess realizes the boy needs blood to survive and, as a nurse, makes some ... challenging choices, first collecting blood from the hospital lockers, then herself, and then... well, you know how these movies go.

There could have been something here, but the movie spent pretty much all of its two hours focused on just-OK mom making terrible-mom choices. It introduced, and even highlighted in the trailers, a creepy AF tree, in a dried up lake, surrounded by dead things, and even makes a feeble attempt to tie the vampirism to the tree, but... does nothing with it. Even the vampire nature is distilled down to just a blood addiction, which if not carrying with it some actual scary monster vibes, could have been investigated, even by just mom, as a contagion or virus or ... something. Instead, she just keeps on finding other ways to get blood for the vacant eyed little fucker until it becomes impossible to continue, and then... makes the worst choice. Even as a terrible metaphor for terrible parenting, I just didn't care. I also didn't care that the movie thought it would get a sequel implied by a "oooo something is still out there" post-credits coda.

Ahsoka Season 1

 2023, d. Dave Filoni, Steph Green, Peter Ramsey, Jennifer Getzinger, Geeta Vasant Patel, Rick Famiyuma - 8 episodes
Series written and created by Dave Filoni

I'm in too deep on this one. I can't see the forest for the trees.

I love Ahsoka as a character. She is my favourite in the entire pantheon. So I am already biased.

Star Wars Rebels, the Dave Filoni-created animated series, of which this is a sequel to, is perhaps my favourite Star War of all the Star Wars. I'm really, really in the pocket for this one.

This series also picks at threads of Star Wars: The Clone Wars, the series where Ahsoka originated as Anakin Skywalker's padawan.  The Clone Wars was made with Filoni as showrunner under the direct guidance of George Lucas. You might say that Filoni was Lucas' padawan, but instead of having a silly side braid, he had a big ol' Stetson on his head.  I'm a fan of The Clone Wars too, so this show, right here, just sings to me with an alluring siren call that I cannot resist.  

I loved it, every damn minute, even when I wanted to start picking at things, my brain would justify away any of those nitpicks. You're not going to ruin this for me, brain.

I cannot put myself in the place of an outsider on this one. I cannot establish a "casual Star Wars viewer" perspective. I know too much. I feel too much. I get the warm fuzzies every time I see Ahsoka, Sabine, Hera, Chopper, Ezra, and Thrawn on screen. These are important characters to me. They are also Filoni's babies, so they are treated and handle with both respect and love.

I have no idea what it's like to be a viewer encountering these characters for the first time. Will this show make any sense? Will people who don't already love these characters care at all about them?

If I'm to criticize -- which, as we've established, my brain is fighting me on -- it's that this series is, perhaps, misnamed. Ahsoka is the focal character of maybe one episode but otherwise it's almost more of Sabine's journey, than Ahsoka's. If I'm to further quibble, the sub-plot for Hera was a little too thin for my liking, and erratically paced. Like other Star Wars series and the way they handle tertiary characters, I think maybe Hera here wasn't given enough to do, nor enough characterization for the newbies.

Filoni's experience has largely been writing for and directing animation. He's recently had his hand in a few episodes of The Mandalorian, but it is a different beast.  In animation there are short cuts that get taken in storytelling, acceptable short cuts that maybe don't work as well (or can't happen at all) with live productions. But at the same time, the D+ experience allows him more liberty, not constrained to 20-ish minutes, which means he can add in some breathing room.

The main complaint I've been hearing about Ahsoka is indeed the pacing. Many find it slow or arduous, and that some scenes feel unnecessary or like "stalling".  I rewatched Obi-Wan Kenobi recently and this kind of roundabout pacing is pretty egregious there, full of a lot of sequences that are just filling out the episode order with stuff happening. Nothing in Ahsoka, to me, felt like stuff happening. Everything seemed to largely have a point, whether it was exploring/enhancing/developing character, world/galaxy building, or advancing plot. Nothing in Ahsoka, unlike every other live action Star Wars Disney+ show (except Andor) makes me pull out my hair saying "why did they do that!" or "that wasn't needed!".  I could see Obi-Wan Kenobi or The Book of Boba Fett re-edited and condensed into a 2-to-2.5 hour film. With Ahsoka I'm pretty happy getting everything I got.

But perhaps it comes to expectations.... For me it's wanting to spend time with the characters, not powering through plot. But if you don't know these characters, you're probably wanting the plot to accelerate and to draw out the characters in the process, which it does, but in its own time.

If you're a Star Wars nerd and following the behind-the-scenes, there was definitely some ambiguity about what exactly Ahsoka is.  Is it a mini-series? Is it an ongoing series? Is it the set-up for a film/film series. These questions became even more pressing by the end of Episode 7, when it seems like the Series isn't even close to wrapping anything up.  Episode 8, however, seems to be the set up for a second season, given where our characters wind up.

---
Characters and Performers

Rosario Dawson as Ahsoka. I love Ashley Eckstein's vocal performance in the cartoons, and yes, she will always be the primary Ahsoka in my head, but in bringing this character to live action she needs the starpower of Rosario Dawson, and, frankly, there's no other choice. There was a lot of talk early in the season if Dawson's Ahsoka is too muted, too underplayed, but to me we're seeing a character who has, for lack of a better term, seniority. If she was, say, 14 when she became Anakin's padawan at the start of The Clone Wars, that's almost 10 years until Order 66, 20 years to Battle of Yavin, another 6 or 7 to the Battle of Endor, another 6 or 7 to where this show picks up. That put the character at, liberally, 55. The math might not be exact, but she's been doing her thing for a long, long time, and I think that's what Dawson brings to it, that sense of experience.

Natasha Liu Bordizzo as Sabine. What I realized when trying to figure out if I liked Bordizzo's portrayal was that I don't think Sabine was the most well defined character in Rebels. This gives Filoni and Bordizzo a lot of room here, and I really enjoyed the character's journey. She's a very charismatic performer.  It did drive me mad that Sabine left her jetpack behind, though. I really liked the combination of Jedi/Mandalorian fighting, but it took too long for the character to really find the balance (it wasn't specifically a part of her training, which it should have been). I figure Sabine to be pushing about 30 here, but she still seems young and impetuous. Can't take the rebel out of a Rebel, I guess.

David Tennant as Huyang. This droid has been helping Jedi craft their lightsabers for centuries, and he appeared in a Clone Wars arc way back when. How he came to be aide to Ahsoka isn't clear, but a sassy droid is always welcome. Tennant brings both charm and pithiness to the character which serves him well as a figure who is way older than anyone else around him.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Hera. Maybe my favourite Rebels character (besides Ahsoka), and here, it feels like Winstead didn't exactly do her homework. Granted, she is (by my count) about a dozen years older, has been both a single parent and a general, with all the responsibilities those demand, so if she does act a bit more steadfast then it does make some sense. I don't dislike Winstead in the role I just don't think, as written in this show, there's enough of the character.

Diana Lee Inosanto as Morgan Elsbeth. Returning from Ahsoka's first appearance in The Mandalorian, Morgan Elsbeth is revealed to be a part of the Night Sisters which ties her in with some deep Clone Wars lore. She's a witch. Inosanto doesn't seem like the most natural performer, but then she's still far less stilted than most of the main players of the Prequels, so there's that. When she finally gets to show off some stunt fighting (her background is as a stunt performer) she's incredible.

Ray Stevenson as Baylan Skoll. The breakout character of the show, and the most heartbreaking aspect of it all. Stevenson passed away between the filming and its release, and it's clear by the series end that the story of Baylan Skoll was just beginning. Stevenson brings a sense of power and calm, danger and familiarity to the role. He just feels like he's been a part of this universe for a long time. There's so much more to explore with the character, and it's the way the final episode closes with him that hits the hardest that there's definitely another season planned. As much as it pains me to say it, Skoll will have to be recast.  There's not another Stevenson out there... but maybe someone like Liam Cunningham (Davos from Game of Thrones) as my wife suggested. He's not as physically imposing, but seems in the right tenor.

Ivanna Sakhno as Shin Hati. Balen Skoll's apprentice is as much a mystery as Balen himself. Where Balen is clearly an ex-Jedi, he's training Shin both as a Jedi disciple but also letting emotion control her like a Sith. That both wield orange blades indicates sort of a not-quite-Sith penchant. Sakhno does a lot with a little with Shin. She doesn't have many lines, and she's mainly emoting, but doing so very effectively.

Lars Mikkelsen as Grand Admiral Thrawn. Thrawn comes to us from the first expansion of the Star Wars universe in 1992, when the first "official follow-up" novel, Heir To The Empire by Timothy Zahn, was released.  For a generation of us, Thrawn is the biggest deal Star Wars character that the masses have never heard of.  Back when Thrawn was originally announced for Rebels Lady Kent and I wondered who the best possible performer for Thrawn would be, and settled on Mads Mikkelsen.  Sadly, Star Wars used up their dose of Mads on Rogue One, so brother Lars was a very curious, very apt substitute. Mikkelsen's vocal performance for the character in Rebels was note perfect, and probably even better than I could have hoped.  It's a little off-putting seeing Mikkelsen as Thrawn in live action, because Thrawn is so much about demeanor...cold, calculating, reserved... but you expect a cinematic big bad to be much more grandiose. Mikkelsen delivers 90% of the performance in his slithering hiss of a voice and it's just as perfect as it ever was. Physically he's even more reserved. Thrawn barely moves, generally standing Grandpa-style with his hands behind his back. We know from the books Thrawn is a dangerous physical adversary, and while that's not what the role's calling for (yet), he doesn't exactly cut an imposing profile. But that voice...it really is all you need to make the character work, and Mikkelsen works it.

Eman Esfandi as Ezra Bridger. I was worried that Ezra was going to become a maguffin for the series, but those worries were unfounded. As well, the fact that 75% of the show rests on the balance of Sabine finding Ezra, it puts a lot of weight onto both the character and actor to deliver.  And boy does Esfandi deliver. The show comes alive when he joins.  Ezra was the plucky youth on Rebels and while he's no longer a youth, he's still full of pluck. He's basically survived in a whole other galaxy far, far away on his own (with a little help from his shelled friends) which has brought a maturity to him, but he's still the fun, excitable character we knew. Once Sabine is reunited with him, the two of them together really drew out the old Rebels vibes.

---

Yes, toys of that please

Part of the Star Wars experience for me is toys. They are symbiotically linked in my mind. I cannot watch Star Wars without thinking about toys, little plastic representations of the awesomeness on screen.

Andor, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and The Book of Boba Fett weren't what you'd call "toyetic" shows. They didn't feature a lot of new characters, costumes, aliens, spaceships or set-pieces that just screamed to be replicated and played with (even Boba Fett riding a ranco was...meh). They felt...recycled. Ahsoka is so, so different. There are so many new characters, vehicles, and surroundings (and great variant takes on existing versions thereof) that I want recreated in toy form. It seemed like every other new scene had something amazing.  Tops of them all is Ahsoka in her blue space suit. Coolest damn thing ever. Thrawn's Troopers, too cool. Ahsoka's spaceship, yes please.  The hyena steeds? Yes. The crustacean natives? YES! A flipping purrgil? SURE! Even in the last 10 minutes of the season, out pops a new weapon the likes we've never seen in Star Wars (or have we?) and it filled me with a giddy glee.

---

Music

Kevin Kiner did all of the music for The Clone Wars, Rebels, and The Bad Batch.  While Ludwig Goransson made a decisive impact on Star Wars soundtracks with The Mandalorian, it could, and should be argued that Kiner is the heir apparent to the franchise post-Williams. Kiner's The Clone Wars work during its original run was underwhelming, but starting with Rebels his work started to find its only paths to follow, ones that didn't adhere to the traditional orchestral score John Williams established. It was the Season 7 revival of The Clone Wars that solidified his genius for me, a real synth and tone-fuelled soundscape that borrows from Tangerine Dream far more than Williams. Kiner has also been working with Clint Mansell on the Doom Patrol series for the past 5 years, and you can feel Kiner finding more and more grooves to inhabit as a result of that partnership.  His score here is great. It's not his most ear-capturing work, but it works really really well.

---

The Future

Again, I'm oozing bias over here, but I think Ahsoka was a rousing but not exactly flawless success. I definitely want so much more.  Nothing's been announced outside of a tentative Thrawn-related crossover that would bridge Ahsoka, Boba Fett and Mando in one theatrically released film.  But there's so much groundwork laid here that it's not just a film's worth, but instead at least another season's worth, or maybe not even a second season, just, you know, part 2 of this one.  It isn't a complete production, and if it didn't satisfy fully, then it definitely whetted the appetite.

3 Short Paragraphs (Or Not): Blue Beetle

2023, Angel Manuel Soto (Charm City Kings) -- download

Hey superhero movie directors. I would prefer if you didn't always try to make (Marvel's) The Avengers only to end up making Iron Man 2.

I am not going to do my usual recap of the plot of the movie, not even a fun-panning one, because ... well, I just cannot be bothered. I did not really enjoy this movie, and it all comes down to the expected reason -- superhero movie formula fatigue. While striving to make a superhero movie for the latinx experience in the US and a nostalgic feel for "classic superhero movies", it ends up just feeling like an off-budget movie with lots of money. It has a tenuous connection to the DC Universe at large, and as we know from the Gunn and Safran takeover at DC, it will have little inclusion going forward. Think of this as just another abandoned property like Black Adam was. If you want a really, true to form, superhero movie franchise for the latinx experience, go watch the Sharkboy and Lavagirl movies from Robert Rodriguez which are way more fun.

Why wasn't it fun? Primarily, for me, because it comes from the scream-at-you school of film making. Everybody in the movie is always screaming for one reason or another. Jaime screams when the blue beetle scarab merges with his body. His entire family screams when they see it. The Bad Guy screams when he absorbs the blue beetle energy converting it into red Bad Guy energy to make his own tubes & nanites (???) armour. Jaime's Crazy Uncle screams for many reasons, including the constant destruction of his pickup truck, which strangely continues to function until the plot no longer wants it to. His Nana screams as she slaughters black suited henchmen with her disco light chain gun (?!?!!). His family screams and moans at the death of a key character. The supporting characters scream every time something tense happens. Since the movie is so intent on going from scream scene to scream scene, it gives us lots of stock tense moments to be screamed at.

At this point in the waning golden years of superhero movie making, I am not sure what they can do to make a movie I will enjoy. Not everything needs to be uber-gritty The Batman but I would prefer if they would at least attempt to be as characteristic as that movie. I mean, if you want an example of how to do a movie from a DC character but to stand out from the crowd.... <waves two arms maniacally in the direction of The Batman>. Sure, it draws upon some of its predecessor energy, but it is still so distinct. This movie just felt like someone made a vision board of all the other superhero movies they wanted to be like, tossed in some purple neon synthwave Hotline Miami obsession and flipped through the comics for some names and cute connections. 

31 Days of Halloween: Appendage

2023, Anna Zlokovic (feature debut) -- Disney

When watching a very very indie flick with clunky characters and unbelievably low budget looking special effects, you have to wonder if its going to pay off. I guess I can say this one did, mostly, after it picked up some velocity in act three.

Hannah (Hadley Robinson, Little Women) and Esther (Kausar Mohammed, The Flash TV) live in NYC at a small fashion house for a mean diva boss. Hannah has an OK relationship with Kaelin (Brandon Mychal Smith, Four Weddings and a Funeral TV) after being setup together by Esther. And Hannah has a mean mom. The cardboard assembly of the characters and situations and strained over-acting by the characters as the movie began almost had me turn it off. Sometimes low-budget / indie shit just irritates me for that reason. Flesh out your character connections, think them through. If Hannah and Esther are best friends, and Esther was so connected to Kaelin that Hannah could possibly think the two have a thing, she should have known Kaelin before Esther set them up.

But it was too late to start something new, and this movie had some pretty good reviews, so I powered on. Powered on past the first sign that they really really needs a different practical effects team. The mean boss and mean mom and new relationship shit Hannah is going through literally manifests itself as a lump of flesh growing out of her birthmark, which then quickly separates itself from her, looking and talking like the effects person had seen 80s movie Ghoulies (one of the many Gremlins ripoffs) one too many times. Hannah locks it in the wardrobe but it continues to grow, taunting her from the confines. Hannah's internal asshole monologue has manifested. 

Is this movie a thinly veiled allegory? That suspicion is increased when Hannah does some shoddy "do your research" level Googling on DNA and comes up with chimera references, instantly finding the exact support group for people who also had lumps of flesh crawl off their body. Some exposition later and Hannah has the child-sized creature tied up in her basement, the basement she has key access to but nobody else ever goes, and makes friends with Claudia (Emily Hampshire, Schitt's Creek) from the support group.

Allegories and metaphors are tossed aside for a full-on creature feature with its own internal, weird logic that ... well, worked. It is helped by the committed involvement of Emily Hampshire, who brings a skilled portrayal to all the indie. While I was satisfied with the movie in the end, I would still end up saying it mostly falls into the category that Horror Fans (not just my usual use of Capitals) are usually jazzed about something new in their familiar buckets. And I am still not sure why, if I am doing this October thing again, I am not ascribing myself as a Horror Fan. I definitely am, but I will never be categorizing myself with the Fangoria reading, horror-con attending subculture that probably loved this movie more than I did.

31 Days of Halloween: Talk to Me

2022, Danny Philippou, Michael Philippou (RackaRacka) -- download

The Old Man Yelling at Clouds in me doesn't know how to feel about the directorial premiere by a pair of Australian YouTube stars. Apparently they became popular and, well rich, doing the kind of videos that literally have me acknowledging, despite all previous claims, that I am an adult who just doesn't get this shit.

But whatever, I can just hand wave it away, and watch the fucking movie, which actually has had some good buzz to it. Which I did.

I notice something that horror movies often do better than other genre movies, and that is the establishment of the life around the people supporting the movie. The setup of the small group of Australian high school kids: the recent trauma of Mia, her tight connection with her best friend Jade and Jade's brother Riley, and the strained connection to Jade's new boyfriend Daniel who happens to be Mia's adolescent ex is tightly told, all revealing and actually compelling. I realized quickly that the enjoyment I get from a stock horror movie (is this the seance/ouija sub-genre?) is how it does its setup. If its handled carelessly or without much fervour, then the rest of the movie will be as well.

So, kudos to these YouTube kids?

Then there is the horror setup. This one is legit disturbing. A mummified hand, encased in porcelain, covered in the graffiti one would expect from an arm cast. And a party trick. Two kids have a system: tie the person to a chair, light the candle, set the timer, grasp the hand, say the words, "talk to me", and if you are really brave, "I let you in". With the first incantation, you see the face of a dead person, suffering the decay of the afterlife. If you say the second incantation, they inhabit your body and speak through you, until the candle is blown out. Pure fucking terror, but repeatable, and because high schoolers are invincible, the best possible time.

Except Mia experiences the spirit of her late mother. And she becomes obsessed. She pushes her friends to do it again, to extend it, to go beyond the limits. And, because of course, the worst results happen. Riley is sorely injured, and worse, his spirit is now trapped in whatever limbo these spirits inhabit, doomed to be forever tortured until death.

The movie amps up the chaos caused but retains its internal logic and doesn't dispense with its rules for petty jump scares. There are consequences, and they probably established the rules the kids were following when they ended up with the hand. And one can only assume someone always breaks the rules because the hand ... travels. Mia and Riley are its current victims and death is the only way out. In many ways the movie might be considered less than scary because it is staying true to its mythology, but for me, that extended my interest.

Good watch.

31 Days of Halloween: Demonic

2021, Neill Blomkamp (Gran Turismo) -- download

Starting in 2011 we (Marmy and I, as Kent is not much of a horror fan) began celebrating the Halloween season (all of October, of course) by watching too many horror / Halloween related movies, most of them bad.  2012 had a few flicks but not the full month. Un/Re-employment killed 2013. Apathy slayed 2014. But we returned in 2015 with a full run. 2016 had a good start, but stalled in the last few days, likely due to work life. 2017 almost started with a fizzle, but then I remembered, "It's October 1st !"  It still fizzled. Life abounds. And in 2018, almost the entire year was Halloween *ahem* as in the year of posting was mostly October. 2019 did alright for itself, considering I went off to Las Vegas sometime in the month. 2020 was it's own horror fest, and I am not kidding or being pithy in the least; the horror movies we watched were almost a relief. 2021 was in full form, some good, most OK and some great/terrible. 2022 gave us a full run, counting in the TV we watched, which we did. Also, I absolutely love that Kent jumped in with some themed movies and even a We Agree(ish).

2023 is another of mostly, "Let's just save that movie for October." I would say we downloaded "the big ones", but were there any? I did make note of those that turned up on streaming services, but really never made any concerted effort to build a list. I just have a feeling we will have plenty to watch, which is a good sign, no?

What an odd re-edit of 2022's final paragraph...

No, not THAT Demonic, but this Demonic, the horror movie I discovered when I asked the Google what Neill Blomkamp had been doing outside of the scifi shorts all over the Internet for a while. What was his latest feature film, and lo and behold, I found a horror movie that was immediately downloaded and slotted in for this October run.

Neill apparently lives in Canada now, in BC, and made this movie when he shouldn't have, during the 2020 pandemic, likely during a brief lifting of a lockdowns. It kind of looks like a pandemic movie, no not as in set during one, but the productions that arose from and around that time, where casts and settings are limited, extras are almost non-existent and everything is low-key. Given this is Blomkamp, low-key is not something I would expect him now capable of, but also, this is not a return to his chunky, low-budget of District 9. But it is very familiar of the lower-budget horror genre.

Carly (Carly Pope, Elysium) is returning to her home-town of "picturesque British Columbia" after a long absence. An old friend has reached out to her. She has been gone for years because her mother is a mass murderer and the town painted her with the same brush. But old friend Martin (Chris William Martin, The Vampire Diaries) was contacted by a medical company who has her comatose mother, and needs Carly to contact them.

Carly does and she is convinced to join in an experiment, once in which it will basically have her jump into her mom's locked-in mind, depicted as a low-poly simulation. While in her mom's VR head, she sees images of the place where her mother murdered everyone, as well as warned that Carly has to leave or "it" will find her. Given the movie is called "demonic" we can guess what "it" is.

And this is where a by-the-book demonic possession seeking a new host type of movie takes some very Blomkamp turns, but not entirely convincingly. The simulation is barely touched upon, but its who is running the sim that is ... striking. They are a Vatican trained group of black ops solders acting as demon hunters and exorcists. Which would be fine, and a lot of fun, in the right movie. But its not this movie. This movie is low-key, remember? But no matter, back to the possession playbook, Carly ends up heading back to the place where she believes the demon is and... well, a lot of dead soldiers. The other movie, the one we are not watching, the one that maaaaay have been more Uwe Boll than Blomkamp, happened off-screen.

Carly ends up finding the head-exorcist / soldier possessed by the demon and she has to fight it with ... well, the Spear of Destiny. When it jumps into her, she stabs herself which forces it to jump again, but with no living bodies around, well, I guess it has to go back to Hell?

Now, I actually enjoyed the movie, despite the heading hopping VR sim and wonky soldier / exorcist element, because the tension and possession playbook is ... well, played out effectively. Carly (Pope, not character) plays the lead with the genuine nature attributed to the horror movies I usually end up loving during this season, like the players in early Flanagan films. If the movie had just leaned more into that, it could have been... well, admittedly, probably just too unoriginal for Blomkamp. He was already playing outside his type-casting.

3 Short Paragraphs (Or Not): The Lost King

2022, Stephen Frears (Tamara Drewe) -- Amazon/Acorn

Amazon Prime Video has this thing called Subscriptions, which is sort of like getting another streaming service, but within the confines of your Amazon Prime account. They say you get "everything" but every time we briefly subscribe (free month + a month or two) we always seem to run out of stuff we want to watch very quickly. But we always find a gem or two. So, are these services stuck with a limited offering, or is it just the Amazon Way? Either way, I liken it to Back in the Day, we would spend $10 - $20 on renting movies on Friday, so spending that much for a month or two to binge watch a series or two, or a couple of movies, is worth it.

This one was Acorn, the British crime TV service, or at least that is how they pitch it. It also has a lot of typical British period drama, some mellow documentary shows and some movies.

The British Feel-Good Movie is often combined with the British BioPic. They tell a mostly true story where someone usually ends up overcoming some odds to come out on top, interspersed with some light comedy and low-key dramatic tension. You are supposed to like the characters, and even the Bad Guys (antagonists) are Bad Guy Lite. So, I find it a bit weird that Philippa Langley (Sally Hawkins, The Shape of Water), a woman who becomes obsessed with finding the remains of King Richard the III, is not the typical likeable protagonist of these types of movies -- I might go so far to say she was unlikable. But, that was sort of the point, given that the reputation of Richard III was not all that high, and Philippa finds kinship with him after seeing a rendition of Shakespeare's play Richard III. She feels misunderstood and persecuted, and almost instantly latches onto an idea that so was he.

Yes, almost instantly, she becomes obsessed with the idea of learning more about him, of finding proof that he was not the child murdering, hunch-backed, usurper he is depicted as. She posits that the Tudors created a smear campaign about him and that is what Shakespeare based his play on. There is not much in the way of historical support for her ideas, as the say, history is written by the winners, but she finds a smattering here and there, in scholars and authors and a club that meets in a pub. But, in the meantime, while she is doing this, she has take a leave from work. Is she calling in sick, claiming it is her Chronic Fatigue Syndrome? Or taking some personal time? Eventually it comes to light that she just doesn't bother going into work anymore. Her ex-husband (Steve Coogan, The Trip; also screenplay by him and Jeff Pope) even challenges her, reminding her that they two are separated and cannot raise the family on one salary. In turn, she asks him to give up his flat and move in with the family again.

Her research actually bears fruit and she begins to posit that he did not have his ashes tossed into a river, but was buried on consecrated ground by supporters. She comes to believe that ground is on what is now a public car park. She even has an archaeology group at a local university find a map that supports her idea. And her obsession moves to getting the funding to dig up that car park.

At this point, you can see, in my words, that I was torn by what she was doing. It is a "feel good" movie so we are supposed to root for her, but they also don't shy away from the damage she is doing with her "feelings". That said, we truly do turn to her favour once her "feelings" find the remains and the proof it was Richard III and almost immediately the historical & archaeological establishment steps in to take credit for all her findings, literally removing her from the acclaim. It ends up taking many many years, post movie, for her to receive the credit for what she accomplished, even with all the odds put against her. 

What is the moral of the story? These movies always have a moral to the story. I was not quite sure beyond the idea that what others believe to be the defining characteristics of a person are not always true. And Philippa Langley, despite her personal failings and the failings people attributed to her, did accomplish something incredible despite almost everyone being against her. Well, all except for the ghost/delusion (Harry Lloyd, Game of Thrones) that followed her around.

Of note, the movie is based on the book she wrote on her experience, so I like to think that even the less that favourable depictions of Philippa are based on what she related, to us, personally.

KWIF(+6): No One Will Save You (+3)

KWIF is Kent's Week in Film where each week (ha!) I have a spotlight movie which I write a longer, thinkier piece about, and then whatever else I watched that week I do a quick little summary of my thoughts. This entry, however, is what I watched this week, as well as the two films I watched within the six weeks prior to this. I really stepped away from watching movies for a while, if for no other reason than I knew I wouldn't have time to do these write-ups. Nobody asks me to do these, yet for some reason they're a burden I carry. I'm grateful for Toasty to have a partner in crime with this weird obsession of recording our viewing habits in words.  It'd be easier and certainly much, much faster to have a podcast or a youtube channel where we get together for an hour and talk through our viewing habits, but then I think for both of us our comfort zone is writing, not talking. But I digress....

This week:
No One Will Save You (2023, Brian Duffield - Disney+)
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem (2023, Jeff Rowe - In Theatre)
Polite Society (2023, Nida Manzoor - AmazonPrime)
M3GAN (2023, Gerard Johnstone - AmazonPrime)

---

If you've not heard of the new movie No One Will Save You, it's no surprise. It's a mid-budget alien invasion film with a big storytelling conceit that Hulu/Disney have decided to bury on their streaming services with no fanfare.  It is the type of film that could have had a mildly successful box-office run, but instead it seems like it might be the next victim to the black-hole-tax-dodge strategy of burying art and content that streaming services have decided is the way to stay afloat.

If you have heard of NOWSY, it's more than likely because you saw a review on youtube or saw it trending on Letterboxd (like me) than stumbled across it on Hulu/Disney. I have seen no promotion at all for this film.  Which is a shame, because a simple one minute, cleverly edited trailer would make this very enticing for someone, like myself, who likes sci-fi and aliens. It is a film chock full of great visuals that would lend themselves well to a trailer.

The film has to be very visual, because it is otherwise a largely dialogue-free film. There are less than ten audible words uttered in the entire run time. It is, indeed, a bit of a gimmick that is stressed at its seams. There are points in the film that, should logically have words said, but because of the conceit, there are none.  It's not a silent film, as there is plenty of noise, screams, heavy breathing, and even aliens talking in their own gutteral warble and in one scene a background din of indiscernible conversations.  It's both part of what makes the film stand out, but also what lessens its success. There is a stretching of disbelief happening when the character isn't, say, yelling at aliens or (the point that rubbed me the wrong way the most) saying something to the bus driver.

The plot of the film is pretty basic. Brynn (Kaitlyn Deever, Booksmart) is a young woman who lives alone in a remote house in a small town. She is into very 50's-ish kind of hobbies like dressmaking, big band records, two-step dancing, and she doesn't seem to partake much in modern conveniences like cel phones or television, and seems to only use the computer to sell her dresses online.  For reasons unknown at first, she both is reticent to go into town and is spurned by some of the people there.  She obviously has done something in her past to make her an outcast, but she's not seemingly old enough to have to pay for it in the way that she is.  This is the thread the entire character is built on... the "what did she do" question... and what the alien invasion, which starts very, very quickly, seems somehow tied into.

The story weaves in and out of Brynn's fight for survival as, at first, one alien comes to her homestead. After surviving the night, she must brave her other fears and head into town for help, but she learns immediately things are even more dire, and that it's not just about her. More aliens, more threats... and it's this constant danger-at-every-turn aspect of the film that works best. 

The alien design is basically the most popular variations of the "grays", the lanky, scrawny, big tear-drop headed, black eye, slit-mouthed, gaunt creatures popularized since the post Roswell.  The first version we see is the standard humanoid, but later we see the diminutive primal version, with short legs and long arms, kind of monkey-like, and then the spider-ish versions with limbs that look like daddy long-legs.  They all look great.  The UFOs are well done and have an unknowable sensibility to them.  Yes, they can look like a conventional flying disc, but how they manoeuvre and their capabilities are kind of mind blowing.  The alien invasion is incredibly well done.

But Brynn's story arc is a let down. There were many angles that the film could have taken this to tie in the invasion to Brynn's past, but it's not at all, and so there is a sense of disconnect in how neatly this film could have fit together. The end of the film is probably its lowest point, making an unclear statement about both our characters' morals and the film's ultimate point.

I suspect the wordless storytelling conceit is what the "purple suits" (as Toasty likes to call studio execs) got nervous about and stopped them from releasing this theatrically.  I realize there's an expense to putting movies out into cinema, but dumping them to streaming is so lazy and unadventurous. The purple suits are so risk averse these days, to the point that they would rather take what had the potential for a sleeper hit, and essentially dispose of it.  It is not the most successful film in terms of character story, but it does deliver an exciting survival tale that probably would have had some mass appeal.  But what do I know.

(But is it horror? - maybe a little scary for younger audiences, but not really)

---

Though I am a child of the 80's, someone who loves comic books, toys, and cartoons, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were never my thing. But as a comic/toy/cartoon lover, I've always stuck a toe into every iteration of TMNT, always stayed a little bit aware as to what was happening with them.  Even still, I've never been entirely enamoured with the property.  Whatever its legion of multi-generational followers see in it, I've just never really been able to get too excited about or too invested in.  The two peaks of interest for me would have been the original 1990 TMNT: Fall of the Foot Clan Game Boy cartridge and then the 2012 Nickelodeon TMNT series that my kid really got into when they were about 4.  They were fun, but never inspired any real devotion in me.

When I saw the first trailer for Mutant Mayhem, the newest iteration of TMNT coming from the pen of Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, I thought "this may be it, this may be the one". The trailer showed off a visual design that (finally) was showing the influence Into the Spider-Verse has had on the animation industry, finally breaking the choke hold of bloopy, soft-edged, big-headed animation that has dominated North American mainstream since the Pixar era began. It's a design that recalls the old four-colour separation of comics, as well as the outside-the-lines spraypaint aesthetic of street art, and it's really quite attractive, especially when put against a sea of same-old-same-old designs.  The trailer was also funny, which I would expect nothing less from a Rogen-Goldberg product. And, over the trailer, played A Tribe Called Quest's "Can I Kick It" which is an all-time favourite of mine.  I had had high hopes.

I've lived through at least a dozen iterations of TMNT and, well, this is another one. The voice cast is great, the tweaks to the team dynamic is very welcome (they are very, very brotherly, and also very teenager-y), the spin on the rogues gallery was surprising, there were some good laugh lines, some solid action (a lot of Jackie Chan-inspired fighting, apt given that Chan is voicing Splinter), and, yeah, a dad-rap soundtrack that seemed pulled from a playlist from my 1st generation iPod.  I did enjoy the film. Truly. But whatever it is about the Turtles that doesn't inspire my devotion is still not present in this iteration.  

The film is a swift 100 minutes, and is genuinely interested in the Turtles, April and Splinter as characters, but it doesn't really know what to do about its plot. The story is mostly about the Turtles wanting to be a part of the surface world, to have a real teenage life, and how Splinter is such a fearful helicopter parent that it keeps them hesitant and feeling alone (despite having each other).  But the conflict, the "Superfly" and his gang of mutants, their objectives, and how they're integrated into the film seems a bit undercooked (I have to wonder if the film was edited down as it seems like there should be more to it all). 

I'm not eagerly awaiting or excited about whatever's next for this TMNT run (another cartoon series and a second movie planned, I believe) and it's unlikely I'll pay much attention to it until it's in my face.

---

I haven't seen Nida Manzoor's We Are Lady Parts, the 2021 British comedy series about an all-female muslim punk band, but I've heard it's wonderful and it's been on the list for a while. When Manzoor's Polite Society was in select theatres earlier this summer, from poster and description alone, I made note of it but didn't manage to catch it on the big screen (I bailed on seeing it twice...too much dividing my attention).  

When it popped up on streaming, it became the only "must watch" of my "gap month".  I have this nasty habit of getting excited about watching things immediately, but if I don't my enthusiasm wanes. So I made a point of putting this film on and had an absolute blast with it.

Ria Khan (the inviting Priya Kansara, Bridgerton) is a high school student in London with a devotion to becoming a stunt woman. She practices martial arts and, with the help of Lena (Ritu Arya, Umbrella Academy), her art-school dropout sister, she makes stunt videos she posts on youtube. Her teachers, counsellors, and parents don't have any faith in the path she's on but she's fixated, passionate, and dreams of nothing more. But when Lena catches the eye of the most in-demand looking-for-a-wife single at an Eid celebration, Ria's focus becomes more and more fixated on getting in the way of whatever is happening there, seeing malice in Lena falling in love and abandoning her artistic passions.

Given the description, you're probably not expecting a lot of kung-fu and supervillainy, but that's exactly what you find in this film. It's a film that's stylish in a pop-art kind of way, with a thumping spaghetti western-meets-Bollywood soundtrack that constantly sets and resets the scene.  It's light on its feet and full of sly British humour.  It's never taking itself too seriously from a production standpoint, but it grounds itself fully in Ria's obsessions and delusions and everything in between.  It's kind of fluffy, a little weird, but supremely entertaining.

---

I missed out on 2023's first big breakout success, and by the time M3GAN hit streaming I had already heard enough about it that I didn't feel I was missing anything. But knowing what happens in a film and experiencing a film I'm keenly aware are two very different things (I'm frequently having to tell my kids this, who experience cinema primarily via youtube breakdowns/teardowns).  Plus, I've started to consider that James Wan just might have the sensibilities as a storyteller (here with a co-story credit) that I really key into.

I freaking loved M3GAN. It's totally predictable, and yet somehow that predictability is absolutely thrilling.  Everything that happens, you want to happen, because the film sets you up for it to happen. 

The chief complaint about M3GAN - the story of the world's most advanced robotic companion doll who gains its own sense of independence and goes on a killing spree - is that it's not gory enough, that it doesn't show you M3GAN's kills, just maybe the bloody aftermath. I'm not a horror and gore aficionado, but it feels like forever since we've had a film like this that can be a tween's entry point into horror, because it's not really a horror movie. It's more a monster adventure akin to Gremlins or Tremors than it is to A Nightmare on Elm Street or Candyman.  

Johnstone's direction has a real polish to it, a sense that he knew exactly what tone the screenplay (from Akela Cooper) was taking, and his collaborators on light, sound, art design and all around new exactly what to deliver.  There's some very striking imagery in the film, but Johnstone never stops for too long to pat him and his team on the back. There's a focussed A-to-B-to-C path here and it's delightful. 

M3GAN has become an instant icon, and now I understand why. 

(But is it horror? - Yes, it's junior level, or entry-level horror, fun for the whole family)

----

3 Short Paragraphs (Or Not): Retribution

2023,  Nimród Antal (Predators) -- download

I honestly expected I would have a few posts of movies with Antal, lumping him into the category of "European directors provided the occasional Hollywood flick because they made a name for themselves", but, really, Predators was the only one I wrote about. But I do recall seeing and really enjoying 2003's Kontroll which means here, in Toronto, so likely Toronto After Dark or TIFF ? Also, he has done more in Hollywood than he ever did when he moved to Hungary to build a film career, actually have been born in California.

Anywayz. Another Liam Neeson as aging ____ movie (never really did the tag) and I still think they are being muddy with his supposed age in these movies. Neeson is 71. In the movie, he has two teenage kids and worked as a financier for his German company for 18 years. That would have made him 53 before he started working there and had the kids. I shouldn't be ageist, as it is possible to start a life in your mid-fifties, but ... likely? Let's just chalk it up for my own age and identity issues.

Anywayz. Matt Turner (Liam Neeson, The Ice Road) is a financier who very quickly is portrayed as a bit shady, a bit manipulative and is used by his CEO Anders Muller (Matthew Modine, Stranger Things) to get clients to do as is needed. And there is tension in his family. On his way driving his kids to school, something he never does, he is contacted via a planted mobile phone and alerted there is a bomb under his seat. If he stops driving, calls the cops or gets out of the car, it will blow up. To confirm the authenticity of his claims, the masked voice on the other end of the phone blows up one of Turner's colleagues in front of him, which also frames Matt as the bomber. The masked voice wants money, because of course he does, from a hidden slush fund that Matt and Muller have hidden away in Dubai.

The movie is typical cat & mouse, misdirection and chase scenes. Neeson is, of course, very capable as the man trying to wrest back control of a terrible situation and very believable as the fearful dad. The rest is just the usual playbook of these movies, which is not inherently bad, for I did enjoy watching it, as I almost always do, but I wouldn't have complained about a bit more meat to the story.

3 Short Paragraphs (Or Not): Nimona

2023,  Nick Bruno, Troy Quane (Spies in Disguise) -- Netflix

Set in a futurist fantasy world, Nimona tells the tale of the Knight Ballister Boldheart accused of murdering his queen and the "villain" he befriends in order to clear his name and bring the real villain to justice. Based on a graphic novel by ND Stevenson, the story is as much about queerness and identity, as much as it is a rollicking adventure, because Nimona is shapeshifter who really doesn't relate to her original form anymore. She comes seeking an ally in Boldheart seeing a chance to be a sidekick to a real villain. But really, neither are villains.

Nimona is a hoot. She's brash, enthusiastic and more than a little chaotic. At first Ballister can barely tolerate her, but as their agendas mesh, he comes to be very fond of her, especially as he learns her backstory. Meanwhile Boldheart is a brave, honourable knight who happens to be gay, but I really like how that is not played into his proposed "villainy" for the other brave knight, tasked with capturing the killer, is his boyfriend Ambrosius Goldenloin (that name, snicker).

I really am doing the "3 short paragraphs" because, despite my real fondness for the movie, it just didn't stick with me. Animation plays the tough game of always having to balance comedy, action, heartfelt messages and amazing visuals. Sometimes the story suffers when they try to be everything to all, and never really find a core element that shines above everything else, that stands out and is memorable. Maybe I could find it in a rewatch, when I was not struggling with the post-10pm-old man's but somehow I still feel I would remain only mildly charmed by the film, while simultaneously absolutely loving Nimona herself. I should probably find and read the graphic novel.

I am not sure those are what I would call "short paragraphs".