Zombie^5

I watch a lot of zombie movies. I didn't realize how many till five queued up in my To Be Written list. Some are good, most are bad. Very very few are great. The genre is mostly played out but it will always linger in the back of the horror genre, at least until The Walking Dead finishes its run. Until then, media will continue to milk its inky black blood.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, 2016, Burr Steers (17 Again) -- download

P&P&Z tackles something most zombie fiction doesn't even attempt to -- what were the creatures before they died / changed and how much of them is left over when they become such? Oddly enough, it is often the comedies that explore this aspect. The serious ones always stick to the unsettling aspects of the horde.

The movie, one that Marmy hates in concept but will never see, comes from the book which is a tongue in cheek retooling of the Jane Austen novel.  It was literally developed title down -- here's the title, write a book for it! Insert zombies & ninjas into the Austen milieux! While definitely full on rotting tongue in decaying cheek, it is a serious movie; not comedy.

Like in World War Z, the apocalypse begins in China. And spreads quickly, on trade ships, around the world. Post war, England has to be ever watchful of another rising and has trained its youth in the art of combat. Wealthy go to Japan, while the middle class only get Chinese training. The poor get eaten.

The movie intertwines the core Austen story with an uglier plot, one where someone wants the rise of the undead to succeed. As I mentioned, the zombies retain their memories and intelligence; they just are overwhelmed by a desire to eat your face and yes, they rot. Some worse than others. Some people believe the undead can be redeemed, through religion or reason. Others believe they are the next step in mankind, and are leading the dead to organize. Thus we get an OK action movie, to foil the evil plot, mixed up with a love story.

Pandemic, 2016, John Suits (The Scribbler) -- download

Meanwhile this gives us just another tired concept zombie flick. The concept at play? The video game motif -- we see everything through helmet cams, all the action at the end of a FPS gun. There's never been a good use of this. I will tell you how well Hardcore Henry does it when I finish watching that movie.

The sub-genre is infection with defined stages. Stage one is common cold-like symptoms; the final stage has a raving eating machine awakening from a death-like coma. There are no walking dead, just people with a disease. This is the most tragic of the zombie sub-genres, as so many have to die just so uninfected humans can stay alive.

This is a terrible movie that badly mixes personal drama (i just want to get back to my daughter!) with... wait, that's not this movie that is the last bad zombie flick I watched, Re-Kill, which also had a tired concept at the core of its plot.  So, this movie IS about personal drama and that's pretty much all. Dr. Lauren, who is really not a doctor at all but someone who stole the credentials of one to join a team, to hunt down her family, sacrifices all of said team (including Alfie Allen, redeemed villain is his schtick now) to reunite with her daughter. Considering she pretty much destroys the protective detail of the place she wants to get her daughter into, there is not very much hope in the end.

I was never sure why the movie spent so much time on the prologue scenes, setting up the stages of infection and some mystery around the final stage. Sure, we get some [REC] style night-vision camera shots of a monstrous final form that sniffs us out, but it's not really at the core of the movie. Other than the title, the pandemic is barely explored. This is the issue of low budget Straight To movies, in that there are ideas but nobody has the money nor the inclination to explore.

And gawds, I hate when the posters have nothing to do with the movie.

[REC] 3: Génesis, 2012, Paco Plaza ([REC]) -- Netflix

Speaking of [REC], I did [REC] 2 back during this blog's first run of 31 Days of Horror.  Paco, co-director along with Jaume Balagueró, did all three movies. The third is considered the "origin" movie, thus the tag Génesis. As in, the genesis of the infection, not biblical reference to Genesis, despite what the character in the movie says. Really, this is more a Revelations thing.

The last movie ended revealing demonic influence on the evil zombie virus thing. It's rather unique in current zombie fiction but was the primary source back in the 80s/90s proto-zombie movies.  At a wedding, inside a walled compound, the infection, or demonic influence, slowly takes over the uncle of bride Clara until the dancing is in full swing. Then he bites another and BOOM, raving, biting, killing monsters in bad wedding attire. There is a mix of the sub-genre -- are they dead or merely infected? Well they are getting their throats torn out, before they turn, so a little of column A and a little of column B ? The fun thing is when you look in the mirror and see demonic, cadaverous creatures!

Yeah, this movie is fun. It tosses the tense, paranoid aspects of the first two movies on its head for a butt-kicking zombie-killing romp, including gearing-up scenes. Clara only wants to be reunited with her new husband Koldo. And no bloody scary wedding attendee will stop her! Chainsaws, swords and guns are picked up and dropped as the two wedded ones, and their tag-along crew of survivors, attempt to reunite. Meanwhile, a priest has discovered if you read prayers over the loud speakers it disables the zombies. Not that it really helps people much, but it does move the plot along and expand on the core conceit of the sub-genre. And, alas, it does not help the two lovers after they find each other.

Cell, 2016, Tod Williams (Paranormal Activity 2) -- download

This one was based on the only real zombie fiction that Stephen King did, but it approaches the genre in much the same way Guillermo del Toro did vampires -- through the use of a unique viral infection. The virus in question is passed through the cellular network and leaves behind only violent, mindless creatures. King wrote this over ten years ago, just before the era of touch-screen smartphones, but after the full assimilation of cell phones in general. It's not a comment of the overabundance of cellular communication, but a blatant exploitation of the paranoia around it.

The movie follows a handful of survivors, people who were not using their phones at the time the infection was transmitted. Clay Riddell, played by Straight To king John Cusack only wants to get back to his wife & son. We get a typical road story with not so typical infection background material. We also get a muddled ending without any closure.

It's a terrible terrible movie. Cusack and Samuel L Jackson *ahem* phone in their acting and the convoluted & mysterious conspiracy plot by Stephen King is inserted between incredibly boring scenes of people walking in silence or babbling on about stuff we are supposed to care about, but really don't -- character development!  The director almost seemed to think he was directing The Road, but without the great weight of the source material. But are we surprised? There is already a track record of terrible material being spawned from Stephen King books. For every five that are rotten, we get one that is OK and even rarely, a great one.

P.S. What is up with the movie posters? They are all uniformly terrible. And why attack choppers?

Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse, Christopher Landon (Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones) -- Netflix

Pulling a night of video store movie flipping on Netflix led us to this one, which is weirdly called Scouts vs Zombies on their titling. I guess the actual title is too much of a mouthful? Anywayz, this is mid-budget comedy hinged on the idea that if they are always prepared, are they prepared for the zombie apocalypse? Short answer -- no. They require a butt kicking cocktail waitress in a pushup bra to encourage them.

This is a movie meant for teenage boys. Along with the core idea of long term friendships, there are tons and tons of immature references -- some funny, some cringe worthy but most just *yawn* on the level of fart jokes. The cocktail waitress is supposed to be some sort of empowerment of women comment, but the actress can barely run in her boots and once her shotgun runs out, she depends again on the teen boys. Really, she was just an excuse to look at cleavage. And a pseudo older woman fantasy?

The zombies in question? Boring, run of the mill fast moving, eating machines. Like most of the low grade examples of the genre, they really don't matter, as the are only antagonist fodder around the jokes and action scenes. But the idea that a bunch of teenage boys would have no issues destroying the entire class of bullies gone zombies is worth a smirk or two. At least they do attempt to rescue some of their classmates.

It makes you wonder why I am watching these movies, when I am pretty assured most will be terrible. I guess, even at their worst, I am comfortable enough and familiar with the beats and tropes of the genre. I know the rise of the tension well, and even at their worst, they touch on it. At my core, I am terribly frightened by the horde but aside from The Walking Dead few examples of the genre touch on this horror for me.

Am I looking for jewels in the trough? Or do I just like what I like...

Tenuous Ties: 22 Jump Street / Hail Caesar!

Welcome to "Tenuous Ties", where we take two completely disparate movies, and write about them together because of some small thread connecting the two.  We're just trying to stay awake here.

22 Jump Street -- 2015, d. Phil Lord and Chris Miller -- TMN On Demand
Hail Caeser -- 2016, d. Joel and Ethan Coen -- VOD


21 Jump Street was a film that, on paper, shouldn't have worked.  Two somewhat marginalized actors, often dismissed as dumb or one note, starring in a comedy reboot of a (ridiculously silly, in hindsight) 1980's undercover cop drama set in high school?  It had "nice try" written all over it.

The curious thing is, though, it did work, thanks in large part to directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller.  The duo wasn't very widely known at the time, but they had a small and loyal cult following from their delightfully absurd, and endlessly quotable high school-set animated comedy about clones of famous world leaders (eg. Ghandi, JFK, Cleopatra) in their teenage years in the modern day.  Clone High was a perfect set-up for 21 Jump Street, since it spoofed a lot of the tropes of teen dramas (and over an all-too-short single season, many other television cliches as well).  Lord and Miller's stock-in-trade is playing off the humour of cliches, of the expected.  They expect an audience to be savvy enough to know where a typical plots twists or where the usual melodrama manifests, and then exploit that knowledge by either playing into the twist or melodrama to surreal levels, or by veering drastically away from it.

The posters for this movie are kind of
terrible though.  The fake posters for the
fake sequels are much better.

In 22 Jump Street they continue to do both those things, but here they also do a lot of metatextual references to sequels and sequel production, but keeping it in-scene or in story, sometimes confounding logic for the sake of the joke.  This gag is wound up to the nth degree during the end credits where the cast and crew present a few dozen possible sequels (with one of the better gags being the replacement of Jonah Hill with Seth Rogen due to contract disputes).

If the story of 21 Jump Street was about the nerd and the jock finding common ground and a dependency on one another as a team, the story of 22 Jump Street pushes that dependency into the analogy of uncomfortable clinging in an unhealthy romantic relationship. Channing Tatum's Jenko and Hill's Schmidt are put back in undercover in a college to uncover the source of a new and dangerous drug that led to a girl's death on campus.  Along the way, Jenko gets recruited by the football team, reverting back to his jock mentality, while a rejected Schmidt retreats into the school's art scene.  There's no "gay panic" here, as would've probably played out in a 1980's interpretation of this kind of story, but there's a fantastic therapy session (with John Hodgman as the therapist) which tackle's the troubled relationship spin head on.

22 Jump Street is a warped delight.  Everyone seems game, in roles large and small.  Some gags Tatum absolutely goes for.  I completely underrated him as an actor for years when he emerged as the hunky new romantic leading man, but in the past four or so years, he proved he has dramatic, comedic, action and romantic chops.  Hill likewise has shed his foul-mouthed, abrasive Cartman-in-real-life image after a strong series of dramatic performances, and so he can be a bit softer, more likeable in a comedic role without being caustic.

The two, in fact, are able to balance both the dramatic and the comedic well enough that the Coen Brothers (no slouches in meting out comedy and drama in equal measure themselves) tapped them for their latest farce, Hail Caesar!  Hill and Tatum are not brought in as a comedy duo, but as players in the Coen's usual sprawling ensemble.

Hail Caesar! follows Josh Brolin's Eddie Mannix, a studio "fixer" in the 1950's who keeps the stars in line.  His studio is undergoing their most expensive and expansive endeavour, a sprawling historical/religious epic, but its star, Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) has been kidnapped by Communists days before the film's conclusion.  Mannix must juggle this crisis with an unexpected pregnancy from Scarlett Johansson's Ethel Merman-esque synchronized swim-film star DeeAnna Moran, and a studio mandate to change the image of its crooning cowboy Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich) into an all-around leading man, much to the chagrin of the studio's main artiste director Laurence Laurentz (Ralph Feinnes).  Meanwhile, Mannix is entertaining an offer from Lockheed as an executive sales manager, but every incentive they offer seems less enticing.  He thrives under the pressure and believes in what he does.

The film sprawls around the studio, LA nightlife, film premiers and the oceanside home where the Communists are holding Baird.  There are many supporting players: the aforementioned Hill is featured as fall guy (the studio pays him to take the fall for a celebrity) as well as a certified accountant and all around professional; Tatum plays the studio's Fred Estaire-esque song and dance star (with a great cameo from Christopher Lambert as the director of his latest dancing sailor picture); Frances McDormand as the studio's tough-as-nails film editor; Tilda Swinton has dual roles as twin sisters writing gossip columns for competing papers; Dolph Lundgren as a Russian submarine captain; not to forget the gaggle of familiar faces as the group of communist screenwriters who've kidnapped Baird, and the counsel of religious elders the studio's called in to review the screenplay for their epic to ensure it's not going to offend anyone.

As much as the Coens may have had an actual story in mind for this, the real purpose seems to be giving the writer/directors the opportunity to shoot in earnest a synchronized swimming sequence, a singing cowboy by the moon, a song and dance number with sailors, and a huge 50's style epic that looks both fake and awe-inspiring equally all through the semi-ironic filter of looking at it all from the outside (the sequences are as real as anything from the era, but as viewers we're looking at them from Mannix's perspective, from "behind the scenes", which makes them humorously charming in their retro-ness, "oh the things that used to entertain us...").

There's a lot of star power here, but it's actually Ehrenreich that completely steals the picture.  He adopts the cocked smile and doe-eyed charm of Gene Autrey, with a thick southwestern twang that supposes naivety and dimness, but his simplistic speech betrays a rather smart and observant individual who basically saves the day for Mannix unexpectedly.  Given what's coming next, this is obviously his breakout role.  He manages that accent for both comedy, charm and sweetness, he sings, has a tough-yet-romantic charisma to appease the guys and the ladies (and vice versa), and even performs a number of stellar lassoing tricks that look effortless on his part.  It's is all part of an incredibly impressive, and noticeable performance.  After watching this movie, I honestly can see him as Han Solo.

And back to that tenuous tie (bet you thought it was Hill/Tatum, but no!), with Lord and Miller on board to direct the solo Han Solo Star Wars film and Ehrenreich in the title role (not to mention a script from Laurence Kasdan with some brush up from Lord and Miller) I've turned the corner from being completely against a solo Han Solo movie to being about 99% on board.  I'm always going to have some hesitation but I think they've absolutely cast the right actor and have found the exact right directors to make a funny, exciting, charming, romantic, swaggering, loveable nerf-herder of a movie.

And Ehrenreich has a distinctive mole under his lower lip, which, while not a scar on his chin, creates a defining characteristic that Han should have.  Just sayin', I think it works.

3 Short Paragraphs: Gods of Egypt

2016, Alex Proyas (The Crow) -- download

I already started the conversation of this movie when I rewatched Clash of the Titans. Gods of Egypt was pretty much the product of safe, studio executive machinations --- if the former made a good amount of money, based on Greek myths, then this one should as well. But it didn't. Not only did the whitewash controversy taint the release of the movie, but it also did terribly at the box office. Proyas should be a solid choice for a mythological, CGI spectacle, but it didn't help this time. Even being a fan of his, I am not sure what I entirely think of it -- it has hints of Proyas, but somehow seems outside his usual realm. Entirely too much studio oversight is what I once again blame.

We are given the lands of Egypt during the reign of the Gods. The opening sequence and monologue almost had me feeling this was another planet, or alternate dimension, where Egypt is the centre of the world. Perhaps this is the equivalent realm for cosmic gods, like Asgard was for Thor and the gang from the Marvel movies? The Gods rule, benevolently but firmly. They are 10' tall creatures of magic with blood of gold. They are not all powerful, but piddly little humans do not stand a chance against them. Gerard Butler, playing Set the warmonger, murders King Osiris (Bryan Brown; holey crap where has he been?) during the coronation of Horus (Jaime Lannister) his playboy son. Mixed into the intrigue are humans, street thief Bex and his love Zaya (last seen as Cheetoh, ahem Cheedo the Fragile, in Mad Max: Fury Road).  Bex sets out to convince the maimed Horus (Set takes his eyes; which become magical artifacts upon extraction) to stand up to his brother and save Egypt.

I didn't dislike this movie. It heavily, and intentionally, smacks of my other swords & sandals movies from The Shelf in light tone with comedic notes. It looks incredible, the transforming Gods becoming grand magical creatures with starting powers. It is most definitely not our planet. In fact, father god Ra rides his boat on the river of the cosmos above a disk shaped world. All in all, awe striking and fantastical but it lacked a certain, Proyas something. Perhaps it was too light? Perhaps it was too bright? Horus is the main character but not relatable, and Bex as the token human is so bland he's forgettable. Another viewing will be required before it joins The Shelf.

The Watcher in the Woods

1980, d. John Hough, Vincent McEveety -- DVD

An elderly woman has given up her estate home to live in the smaller servants quarters in the British countryside.  A family moves into the house, but Mrs. Aylwood, looking at their teenage daughter, is reluctant.  Something about Ellie disturbs the old woman.  Jan, for her part, is likewise unsettled.  Then strange things begin to happen.  Glass cracks, mirrors shatter, wind howls, lighting strikes, horses run wild.  Voices.  Jan's little sister, Ellie begins hearing voices.  There's something wrong in the woods, and a mystery. 

The Watcher in the Woods is a particular subgenre of film that doesn't really exist anymore.  It's an all-ages suspense/mystery.  These were quite prominent in the 1980s,  before frightening children seemed to fall out of favor.  But Watcher isn't horror as it was becoming at that time, it's not gore and disturbing scenes, it's the thrilling intensity of the unknown. 

Watcher is a bit of a cult film, but obviously not one of the larger ones, since I hadn't heard of it until recently. It's a Disney horror movie, and that intones almost a certain level of cheese, which early moments with Bette Davis as Mrs. Aylwood seem to uphold. But it doesn't take long for the rather earnest tone of the film to win over the viewer and invest them in the mystery that Jan investigates (and seeming supernatural abilities she appears to manifest)  Once one mystery is revealed, the film keeps the viewer rapt as there's still another to discover in order to bring about a resolution.

The finale of the film comes in multiple varieties.  The first brings a happy ending, revealing the supernatural to actually be something more cosmic in design.  It's blindsidingly bizarre and yet absolutely, fantastically 1980 in its execution.  Though enjoyable, the ending skips over addressing some rather important consequences of the events that transpired...what is the fallout on the people who were involved, now that they know what they know?

The DVD has three alternate and extended endings.  The first is shorter, and darker.  It keeps more in the spirit of the horror aspect of the movie, foregoing the cosmic bait and switch.

A second ending pads out the one that accompanies the feature, with more special effects, and a visit to "the Other World".  With more time, it has a more logic to it, however it's less satisfying in a way, it feels more disjointed and separate from what came before.

A third ending, the original ending when the film was rushed into theatres, was reshot to exclude the unfinished special effects.  As a result it's very disjointed and virtually breaks the movie.

Three of these four endings actually work well enough though.  Like a "Choose Your Own Adventure" the film is kind of made better for having all these alternate ways of interpreting what happened.  It allows the audience to have a more visual ending, a darker ending, or one that allows the viewer to use more of their imagination.

I wasn't sure what to expect out of this, but I rather loved it.  It's not campy like I was expecting, and it fuels my jones for 80's aesthetic quite nicely.  It may not be classic cinema, but it is thoroughly entertaining.

3 short paragraphs: Nightcrawler

2014, d. Dan Gilroy -- Netflix

 It's been quite some time since I watched this film, so the finer details are pretty fuzzy.  But...but...it is a powerful film.  It's the proverbial trainwreck, difficult to watch and just as hard to turn away.  Jake Gyllenhaal is Lewis Bloom, a smart man with poor social skills.  The first question is whether he falls on the spectrum somewhere, but it turns out he's just a sociopath... dangerous things to get confused to be sure.  Lewis looks for work and hustles when work doesn't come through, petty criminal acts like lifting scrap metal from a construction site and selling it.  When he witnesses a car crash, it doesn't prompt Lewis into action in any way to assist, his only reaction is to watch.  He watches the scene unfold, including Bill Paxton's camera crew who arrive before police and paramedics to capture the scene with a self-certified impunity.  Lewis sees not only is there money to be made, but a job he seems adequately equipped for...no he doesn't have the camera, or the police scanner, or any video skills, but he has the temperament, the tenacity, and the ruthlessness to be successful.

Lewis Bloom is an awful, awful person, but not unwatchable (like his videos, he's too fascinating not to pay attention to).  He gets on the scene and in personal spaces far beyond the comforts of most, doing whatever it takes to get the goods.  If it bleeds, it leads.  Renee Russo is a nightly news manager of a program on decline.  She enables Lewis' actions because it's good for her.  Lewis winds up blackmailing her into both a business and sexual partnership, one that benefits them both but puts one in control of the other in unsettling ways.  Russo's given the role of both a desireable woman and a character her own age, uncommon for Hollywood films, not that we're rooting for her and Lewis as a couple.  If anything it's cringe inducing his manipulation of her.

He takes on an apprentice whom he can barely contemplate paying, and expects complimentary ruthlesness, which obviously cannot be met.  This is a film in which the stakes escalate, dramatically so, some by Lewis' own design.  If there is no news worth selling, he's going to manufacture it, at whatever cost.  Gyllenhaal creates an unemotional figure in Lewis (not emotionless, but he just doesn't really react strongly unless it benefits him to do so).  He's not still or robotic, but he's dead behind the eyes...there's a soullessness that Gyllenhaal disturbingly and effectively conveys.  He doesn't allow anything but ambition to drive him.  It's finely crafted film that is both distressingly enjoyable and disturbing.  If it speaks to anything it's that humanity's peculiar desire for Schadenfreude is perhaps better left underserved.

(we agree - David's take here)

3+1 Short Paragraphs: 10 Cloverfield Lane

2016, Dan Trachtenberg (Portal: No Escape) -- download

I will not beg forgiveness for my love of Cloverfield.  It is on The Shelf. I am fond of any movie that wants to revisit kaiju. But make no mistake, this is not the sequel to that movie. "Spiritual successor," is how I believe JJ Abrams described it? It may or may not be the same world,  but there are no kaiju and no references to the first movie. This is a standalone thriller about a young woman trapped in a bunker with a madman. It is tense, focused and very well shot.

Michelle is running away from her fiance. No reason given, no explanation provided she just drops the ring and hops into her car. And in the dark of the night, the car collides with someone else. She awakes in a cold, concrete room injured and chained. Howard explains to her that she was in an accident and he saved her. Saved her? According to him, and very quickly he seems a little more than just a run of the mill bunker nut, the world has ended out there. There was an attack and everything is gone. Poisoned air, a nameless enemy and Howard saved her & Emmett, the guy who helped Howard build the bunker.

*spoilers*

Most of you won't care that I am spoiling the twist ending. I kind of knew where they were going; not being a spoiler worrier, I had peeked at reviews. But the build up to it is incredible. Very quickly they establish something is actually happening; Howard is not just a nutjob. A woman with a melting face pounds on the door begging to be let in. So, Michelle and Emmett are now onside and inside with Howard; too bad the creepiness does not abate. Michelle still has to escape, no matter what world is out there. And she does, but into an alien invasion. The climax of the movie has Michelle trading one dangerous situation for an even more dangerous one. But the character arc is that she will now accept the tough road, no matter the danger to herself.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead is incredible in this role. She is pretty great in everything she does actually; you can see her right now in the TV mini-series, Brain Dead which is full of dark comedy and exploding heads. Michelle is damaged, nervous, unsure but very capable. John Goodman as Howard is typical Goodman -- stable, solid and convincing. And fucking creepy. Emmett, played by a barely recognizable John Gallagher Jr (from The Newsroom), is befuddled and really just meant as a barrier between the two strong personalities. Literally a closed room movie, the movie is able to hinge on how these characters interact with each other AND maintain a tense, thriller style. Good movie.

In case you want to see Trachtenberg's short film set in the world of Portal.

3 Short Paragraphs: Spy

2015, Paul Feig (Bridesmaids) -- Netflix

Full disclosure. As a rule, I don't like Melissa McCarthy movies. I don't dislike her, but her movie roles have not been to my comedic liking. Bridesmaids, Tammy, The Heat, Identity Thief -- ick; just not my thing. But Marmy heard this was a movie not as marketed; that it had a bit more of a brain behind it. OK, so I grabbed some sofa and gave it a chance. And I was pleasantly surprised; not entirely so, but enough to give it a slight nod.

Susan Cooper is the CIA analyst assigned as support to super spy Bradley Fine (Jude Law). She's quite in love with him. He doesn't get it. She's really bright, he's the expected dick, and then he dies at the hand of the villain played by Rose Byrne. The villain knows about all the other super spies so Susan is sent to foil her plan. You see, Susan is very capable but lacking confidence and doesn't fit the stereotype for your usual super spy. But once in the field, she impresses, as one would expect from such a movie. Or not, as Graig said, most of these movies would just have her bumble through. She might be suffering from fish out of water, but she is no dummy. When she succeeds, its not by accident.

I kept flipping between being charmed by the movie and rolling my eyes at the expected vulgarities coming out of her mouth. I get it; disarming little woman has big, angry, nasty mouth = funny; it just isn't my thing. But disarming, funny woman who is very very smart and makes use of her other smart, smart friends is immediately appealing to me. I just wish there had been more of that and less of the stupid. And more of the under budgeted intelligence agency, with weird one-liners, that could send its agents on luxury trips to Europe but not clean up a bad rodent infestation. And yet, it doesn't keep the support staff from doing their job very well. "The rats can fly!" screams some random background character, making me break into guffaws. Weird little exuberant & ridiculous lines always make me laugh.

Rewatch: The Thing

1982, John Carpenter (Christine) -- Netflix

Speaking of Kurt Russell's facial hair, here he is in an oldie with a full beard.

This movie is on our shelves in DVD format, a best example of a classic, quotable, truly scary horror movie that stands up. Seriously, this movie still creeps me out. But it was on Netflix, so that is how we watched it. But it's from The Shelf. Maybe someday I will do a series of rewatches from Top Left to Bottom right.  Have some bonus posts from the Pulled Aside.

Every rewatch, I am once again reminded it is almost a sequel to the original 30s movie. It is not about the discovery of the alien ship and the frozen creature but about the next camp infested. Which is probably why the remake was more a remake of the original, than this one was.

Anywayz, this movie begins with a husky running from a helicopter armed with a rifle. The dog looks back over his shoulder, eager to get to the American camp in the Antarctic (Marmy reminded me, no this is not the Arctic) and is eerily aware of the danger. When the helicopter lands, the Americans shoot back and the thing goes up in a grand explosion. Not the thing, just the helicopter.

Don't trust the dog !!!

But they trust the dog and into the kennel he goes.

I had an opportunity, as a young man, to take a posting in Alert, the most northerly point in Canada. I didn't take it because I had a new relationship and some university to finish. But I knew I could survive it; with a massive box of BFFs (big fat fantasies) and all my D&D supplies I knew I would be OK. How does Russell's McReady survive? 80s computer chess and booze. Well, until he pours the boozes into the chess computer. I would have also had the fledgling Internet, which was why I was offered the posting. And yes, I suppose I would have booze.

The arrival of the dog and the death of the helicopter crew leads the Americans back to the Norwegian camp, to find it burned out, frozen solid and full of some gruesome finds. Something deadly went on here. And they bring that something back to the camp.

Seriously, WTF. Haven't ANY of them seen a horror movie before? Or a scifi movie? Or read a book? You don't bring back the fucked up body of the something to your own camp and let it thaw out, let alone stick your hands into. Sure sure, autopsies are gross to begin with but that pile of melting flesh is obviously Not Of This World. And thus the thing, yes the thing is released.

The movie does a very good job of having us wonder who the thing has taken control of, right from the beginning. Apparently it can take control of you, from inside, as well as just duplicate you completely. There might be a brief period where you are still you, just feeling a bit off, but sooner or later IT is you and you are no longer. Then it gets icky.

The special effects in this movie are still shocking, gross and make an impact. Sure, you can see the rubbery bits and the sloppy bits, but when you can see that in the CGI of Captain America, you can accepted this from 30 years ago. When the dog explodes, when the head drips off and spider walks away, when the chest opens up and eats the doctor's arms.  Ick.

Eventually the thing has enough run of the camp and enough people have been killed / taken over, that we are man vs man, leading to the ending. The ending that leads many to debate. I think its the perfect ending. McReady has already been established as the not entirely well thought out responsive person --- he just reacts. And he has been reacting all night. He's had enough. Back to the booze, sit and chat and slowly die. Is Childs a thing? Maybe. Is it going to kill him? Maybe. Does it matter? Not at all. Both are going to freeze solid before morning. And the thing will be again locked away.

Until the rescue crew shows up.

Rewatch: Tombstone

1993, George P. Cosmatos (Leviathan) -- download

Speaking of Kurt Russell's moustache, it inspired a rewatch of Tombstone, otherwise known as The Other Wyatt Earp movie. Sometimes two movies are produced at roughly the same time with the same basic plot, which I recently learned are called Twin Films.  The other one, Wyatt Earp, is a Costner epic and surprisingly, considering my fondness for Costner epics, not my favourite of the two.  This one, with its cast full of Hey It's That Guy supporting actors, and great one liners ("I'm your huckleberry...") really spoke to me at the time. It doesn't exactly stand up to time, but it is still a nice, solid, summer blockbuster style movie.

Wyatt and his brothers arrive in Tombstone hoping to leave behind his lawman days. He has had enough of violence and just wants to settle down with his family and make some money. And yet violence is what they walk into, as they move into the territory of The Cowboys, a rather oddly common name for a wide ranging band of outlaws who control the territory. Of course, Wyatt cannot hang up his guns and it is here, in this town, he makes his even greater name in the Gunfight at the OK Corral.

Wyatt is setup as the nice, calm and moral man with a talent for violence. He doesn't want to hurt or kill people, but he doesn't shy away from it. And ever by his side is wise cracking, sickly Doc Holiday, played by Val Kilmer is one of his most recognizable roles. Seriously, he is just a ray of bright light in an otherwise grim movie. Not that I am complaining, for the grim works here. As Wyatt is forced into the path to eliminate The Cowboys, the calm becomes cold rage with the  Earp Vendetta Ride. That ride is shared with Bill Paxton, Sam Elliott, Powers Boothe, Michael Biehn, Michael Rooker, Jason Priestly, Thomas Haden Church and many others; it was seminal ensemble cast of the 90s.

We Agree-ish: Captain America: Civil War

2016, Russo Brothers (Community) -- cinema

I finally got to sorting through the boxes of comics I had pulled out of the closet, a year ago, with intention of dividing them into Keep and Go. Wow, I didn't know I bought so many Civil War issues, especially since it crossed over almost every Marvel title. And no, I didn't even have an inkling to start re-reading them, for I remember distinctly not enjoying them at all. But comic collecting always had a momentum to it, whether you were getting a good read or not. But, finally I stopped (probably no money) and before they did the whole Skrull reveal thing.

That knowledge of the comic story led me to wonder whether they would weave two key elements into the movie -- the aforementioned Skrull part, and the death of Captain America. I was OK with the lack of the former (Skrull analog was already used for the first Avengers movie), but I was sorely disappointed they didn't go with the latter. It would have been a great ending for the current age of Marvel movies. But, yes, I realize they have a vision (no, not him) for the coming movies and that does not fit into it. Alas, it would have been a great controversy. Better than Hydra Cap.

In case you don't know, the civil war is between half the Avengers and the other half of the Avengers. One half, led by a still traumatized Tony Stark supports oversight of all enhanced beings. The other side, led by the ever optimistic Captain America believes the Avengers will only be able to do what they do without any sort of control; self-oversight is how he sees it. But the world keeps on seeing them mixed up in very bad things.

This is the classic Doctor Who dillema -- are the bad things happening because the heroes are around (quoting Vision, "Our Very Strength Incites Challenge. Challenge Incites Conflict. And Conflict Breeds Catastrophe.") or would things be much much worse if the heroes were not. As has been the theme of a season of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., the world is afraid of all the emerging powers. And the world has to blame someone. Add new laws into this mix, and suddenly Tony has to arrest Cap.

The thing is, I kind of agree with Tony. In fact, it goes to show a lot of thought in the writing that we are torn between believing in either of the two. Super powered vigilantes or the only people with the power to protect us? I want to side wholeheartedly with Captain America but the problem is that not everyone has such a well stamped moral code like he does. The problem with the other side, and we see it escalate very quickly, is that people with less than stellar moral agendas will enforce that oversight. It's a lose lose situation.

I found myself deeply entrenched in this moral debate, the first third of the movie, but once the overly cartoony super heroics started onscreen, I fell out of it. The battle in Nigeria is incredibly vibrant full of the expected crunches enhanced strength allows. There was a bit wriggly, too-fast scene editing but you could feel the weight of the fight. Then that car chase scene. There is nothing I hate more than a running scene where the body is moving quicker than the movement of the feet. It looks like they are hanging from wires and being swooped along.  And those few scenes when a completely rubbery Black Panther jumps onto the screen. It is supposed to depict how lithe he is, but ends up feeling like a scene from Toy Story. They are supposed to be living action figures, but not literal ones. Still, once the battle at the airport happened, I forgave the FX crew.

In the end we have another decent spy story mixed in with a ensemble super hero action movie. So many characters, but one focused plot. The only real side plots are Tony setting up Spider-Man as his ace in the hole, and the entry of Wakanda and Black Panther into the Marvel cinematic universe.  The civil war may fade out by the end of the movie, but the Sokovia Accords are still in place, which should have interesting play out in which ever movie comes next, not including anything Thor/offworld based. If anything disappointed me, it was the whole Zemo reveal which was very anti-climactic considering how much effect it will have on the world.

Graig's take....

3 Short Paragraphs: In the Heart of the Sea

2015, Ron Howard (Rush) -- download

Whaling. I admit, it's a historical industry I know very little about. Besides the sea shanties I love. Without putting too much thought into it, I always assumed Moby Dick was a British story. Yeah yeah, Herman Melville, great American author who wrote about his homeland and his own life at sea.  Melville based his story on previous accounts of a legendary white whale known as Mocha Dick, and the movie fictionalizes the finding of this inspiration. It opens with Melville convincing an old sailor to recount his time on the sunken whaler Essex, a ship said to have been sunk by an albino whale.

Ron Howard brings back Chris Hemsworth, who previously played Formula One racer James Hunt. Hemsworth is extremely popular as Thor, but surprisingly is well known for little else. Chris plays Owen Chase, the new first mate on the Essex, and is the revered center of the story as accounted by the old sailor. Tom Holland, our unknown new Spider-Man, plays Nickerson as a young man. Hemsworth plays the charismatic, knowledgeable sailor easily but the movie turns too quickly into mirroring the other well known period sailing movie, The Bounty, as first mate goes up against an inexperienced and overly proud captain. But surprisingly, it takes back this focus by having Chase become the man obsessed with catching the white whale. And losing everything because of the obsession.

Howard always directs a rock solid movie. He's got the skill of directing nailed down; even if his movies are not always financial or critical success, you cannot take his ability away from him. But skill doesn't always mean a story is the right one, nor the genre right for the time. This felt like a movie out of its own era, and no not because it's a period movie -- it just felt like it would have done better a decade or two ago. Big, noisy, boisterous period movies full of grand performances and amazing fabricated footage seem out of place in the era of the superhero effects.  I love sailing movies so I fell easily into it, but in the end it didn't stay with me.

3 Short Paragraphs: The Hateful Eight

2015, Quentin Tarantino (Jackie Brown) -- download

I wonder if Kurt Russell was growing the mutton chops for this movie or for Bone Tomahawk and the other movie just reaped the benefits. Either way, the face fuzz is most impressive and period appropriate.  Kurt's muttonchops play "The Hangman" John Ruth, a bounty hunter bringing in Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh) and interrupted by a nasty snowstorm, and another bounty hunter -- Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L Jackson). And then a new sheriff. This whole opening meet-on-the-road sequence perfectly sets the scene and tone of Tarantino's latest verbose epic. From the cold cold real snow (which actually collects on their hats) to the wide 70mm lovely shots of the desolate & beautiful land they are travelling through to the three men explaining to each other how they found themselves on the same road. Damn, I thought, I really should have made the effort to see this in epic widescreen cinema.

The stagecoach the above were riding in takes refuge at Minnie's Haberdashery. It's not a haberdashery, more a pit stop on a road serving coffee, food and a dry place to stay. When the coach arrives, there are already some guests, including Bruce Dern,  Michael Madsen and Tim Roth -- but no Minnie & Sweet Dave. Instantly there is suspicion and distrust.  Everyone is holed up together to wait out the storm. And nobody much likes the other. Of course, that distrust leads to violence and a Sam Peckinpah level of blood & death. Tarantino does love his source material.

I loved this movie, but not for its whole, but for its component performances. As a whole, it is violent people being violent to each other, and doesn't tell much of a story. But the performances just soar. I especially like Demián Bichir as Bob. It's classic western, so a deep, coherent story is not required. It has an Ennio Morricone soundtrack, so again, period appropriate. I love closed room stories but they always have a tight mystery to unwind. There is something to unwind, which generates the majority of the tension, but it's not much of a mystery. And it just runs long in the tooth, leading to the usual wonderful dialogue running willy nilly into masturbation territory.  But if anything could be said, I did not notice an almost three hour movie had just passed me by. Still wish I had seen it in the theatre though.

Graig states....

Rewatch/Newatch: X2: X-Men United + X-Men:Apocalypse

2003 + 2016, d. Bryan Singer

X-Men: Apocalypse is a bloody mess of a movie.  It's an unruly behemoth of disparate ideas barely coming together to make a underwhelming whole.  Like all the X-Men movies since the very first, it's an assembly of disparate stories taken from the comics, mashed with the rampant introduction of too many fan-favourite and B-list characters without enough time or effort to explore them, built around a series of set pieces rather than actual important plot progressions.


Apocalypse isn't nearly as bad as X-Men Origins: Wolverine nor X-Men: The Last Stand because, at the very least, director Bryan Singer is fully invested in these characters and this world they inhabit.    But even as the shepherd of the cinematic X-Men for the past 17+ years, he still doesn't quite know how to get them on the screen in their full glory.  The final moments, where Mystique (of all people) lead a quintet of young, in-costume X-Men in a Danger Room simulation against a group of Sentinels *finally* hints at putting the X-Men we've always wanted to see on screen.

But that's then end, let's go back.

Even prior to seeing the film, I wasn't very psyched for it.  Unlike Days of Future Past -- which has a similar tone and marketing campaign, but also the added benefit of bringing two generations of X-Men together the big screen -- Apocalypse's promotion was dull.  The posters were dull, the costume design looked dull, the action looked dull.  At this stage the threat should be all that's needed to sell an audience on the next X-Men movie, but the ads couldn't even tackle Apocalypse with any grand vigor.  In the comics he's monstrous.  Set photos and commercials showed him as something far less imposing.  The film would have to work at building him up...which it didn't quite succeed at (almost, but not quite).

The collected covers of Empire Magazine presented a better vision of X-Men Apocalypse
than anything else used to sell the film.  Look at that monster of a bad guy that never actually
showed up in reality in the film.

Apocalypse starts well enough, though, with a quite interesting Egyptian sequence spotlighting some of the backstory for the titular villain.  I honestly don't know anything about Apocalypse as a character so this filled in things nicely (whether comic accurate or not, don't know, don't care).  He gets stronger by transferring his consciousness into new mutants, thus gaining their power.  There's some hinky Egyptian/Kirby-esque technology thrust in the mix as part of the process of transference, but it's actually part of the charm.  He also has four key agents amidst his legion of worshippers, wearing elaborate headgear to single them out.  They're his four horsemen of this era, and one can tell they're powerful and feared.  In this sequence you get the sense that a long reign has come to an end (Apocalypse looks old), thus the transference.  There's a logic to much of what we see (and a comic-booky forgiveness to some of the larger-than-life bits). 

After the prologue, we're transported to 1983, and introduced to Scott Summers in high school, just as his mutant powers of optical force blasts are manifesting.  I thought mutant powers came alongside puberty, but I'm not an expert.  Scott's brother Alex (returning from First Class) takes him to see the Professor, where he meets Jean Grey (an outcast among outcasts, because her psi powers are all kinds of freaky haywire).  Jean gets a bit of an extended focus compared to the other kids in this film, primarily because they're setting up the Phoenix Force, totally calling a do-over from the botched Last Stand interpretation, which they can do now since Days of Future Past has radically altered the X-Men cinematic timeline.

Raven/Mystique, now a legendary mutant folk hero, is out tracking down mutants who are being abused, in this case an illegal German fighting ring where they force mutants to fight one another.  Reigning champ is Angel (he's just defeated the Blob as we cut to him), and Nightcrawler is his latest opponent.  Forced to defend himself, Nightcrawler proves capable and singes off Angel's wings on the electric fence mistakenly, for the sole purpose of making him sullen and angry later, and thus suitable to becoming one of Apocalypse's acolytes.

Raven takes a shining to Nightcrawler (I don't remember if she knew Azazel in First Class, but in the comics, Mystique and Azazel are Nightcrawler's parents...I don't think they're following suit here) and takes him back to Charles' school, returning for the first time in a decade.  Hank McCoy greets her, still clearly infatuated with her even after all this time.  Charles, meanwhile, is out researching a tremor felt round the world.  He finds out that his old flame, Moira McTaggart, was in the vicinity of the tremor's epicenter so he and Alex (why Alex? Who knows) go to greet her, noting that Charles had erased her mind of her entire First Class encounter.  Moira fills them in on her research into Apocalypse and for some reason becomes a tag-along part of the entire story, even though she's 100% meaningless to the plot after this.

Magneto, meanwhile, works and lives in a remote eastern block village where he's seemingly happy, living a quiet, trouble free life with a wife and daughter whom you know from the first second you see them exist only to die and fuel Eric with rage.  And so it goes.  Apocalypse recruits Storm, leader of a gang of petty child thieves on the streets of Cairo, and follows it up with recruiting Psylocke, who then takes him to Angel, and finally he finds Eric.  His four horsemen are set and then...whatever.  There's really no purpose to his horsemen.  He enhances all their powers, giving Angel deadlier metallic wings, enhancing Psylocke's psy-weapons, giving Storm greater elemental control, and boosting Eric's magnetic sensitivity.  But beyond having Eric slowly destroy the world, the rest of them aren't really serving him.

When Apocalypse discovers Charles, he knows his mutant power to control others would come in handy, so by about the halfway point the film reveals its plot of "Charles is kidnapped, and Apocalypse is going to transfer his consciousness into him and thus destroy/take over the world".

As you can see it took me four paragraphs to just introduce the cast of this film (and that's not counting the cameos like Jubilee).  It's too much and most serve little to no purpose in the grand scheme of the story.  We all like seeing characters we love represented on the big screen but if you have no time for them, no time to give them character or personality, then what's the point?

And I even forgot about Quicksilver, who's one of the most appealing characters to appear in any of the X-Men films, but again doesn't get much growth beyond where he was 10 years ago (in-movie time) in Days of Future Past.  He arrives in time to save everyone from an exploding School for Gifted Children, well, everyone except Alex (a death that provides no real meaning or inspiration for Scott).  Then Stryker shows up for some reason and knocks everyone out. But he only takes Quicksilver, Moira, Raven and Hank (Jean, Scott and Nightcrawler stow away, hidden by Jean).  They're taken to Stryker's dam/base up north for some reason, experiments I guess (why Moira then?) but we never really find out what for, because the kids let Weapon X loose for an obligatory Wolverine cameo and he wrecks the place.  Those kids aren't nearly as horrified by Logan's berzerker massacre as they should be.

By the time we get to the finale, where they face Apocalypse, it's a completely unearned climax.  Apocalypse is certainly a threat, but it's Magneto doing most of the bad stuff at the moment.  Raven and Quicksilver try to talk him down from his world-ending ways, while the others try to save Charles.  It's not a bad sequence overall, but it doesn't feel properly set up.  Apocalypse and his horsemen should have been raising an army of mutants to survive the world's end and to go to war with any who try to stop them. The fighting also wasn't very smart.  There's not much of a team effort here.  Apocalypse threat level should have meant the end for everyone opposing him almost immediately but it's not quite the case.  He toys with them.  How much better would it have been if the team coordinated an attack while Quicksilver and Nightcrawler were basically helping keep their teammates out of harm's way as Apocalypse retaliates.  How about the characters use their powers intelligently, and as a team?  There's a lot of pointless leaping about and once again a whole "let's all blast him" kind of ending (which was pretty much the end of every Fantastic Four movie so far).

Mystique gets a defining characteristic for the first time in being a Che-like idol and inspiration to mutants. It's perhaps the most earned moment for any of the characters in any of these X-Men movies.  Mystique was never much of a major player in the comics, but simply by being attached to one of the biggest celebrities in Hollywood, she gets some gravitas and purpose, and becomes the leader of the X-Men.  Seriously.  It doesn't follow the comics at all, but it does feel 100% justified.  This movie, if nothing else, did right by her.

The same can't really be said for most of the rest of the cast.  Wasted potential, in almost every case.  The exceptions are Nightcrawler (Kodi Smit-McPhee), who is utterly charming, the relationship between Scott (Tye Sheridan) and Jean (Sophie Turner) is swiftly established (but works, mostly...when they meet, Scott is the boy who can see nothing, and Jean is the girl who sees everything, it's a nice contrast), and Jean really gets to cut loose and show off.  But Psylocke, Storm, Angel, Moira, Weapon X, Apocalypse, Hank McCoy, Quicksilver, even Charles...they don't really get much of anything to do here here.

If this franchise moves forward, which no doubt it will, it needs to drop Charles strictly into the mentor role, it needs to ditch Magneto for a little bit (or give Fassbender a solo film as anti-hero), and it needs to focus on a core cast.  If that is Storm, Quicksilver, Cyclops, Phoenix and Nightcrawler, led by Mystique and Beast, then so be it.  But focus.

The nadir of this film finds a defeated Psylocke (a totally game Olivia Munn in some ace cosplay) sneering at the triumphant X-Men and skulking off...probably never to be seen again...unless she's responsible for the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants in the next movie or something.

Speaking of useless/pointless, 1983 only made sense as a setting because the previous two films were period pieces.  First Class made perfect use of the Cold War, particularly the Cuban Missile Crisis, while Cold War paranoia in the 1970's seemed to only be exacerbated by the idea of mutants as weapons destabilizing global power.  The 1980's here is barely even a style choice.  Beyond some wardrobe or hairstyle touches, there's no impact to the film at all as a result of its timing.  It didn't even go for an 80's aesthetic or pastiche which could have made a huge difference in how the film played out (by going pastiche it could really overplay 80's-style coincidence-driven storytelling).

The film was written by Simon Kinberg, who also wrote the latest Fantastic Four movie, Days of Future Past and The Last Stand.  He seems to be one of those go-to superhero script writers studios seem to stick with, like Fox's version of David Goyer.  They really need to cut that guy loose from writing duties.

But going back to 2003's X-2: X-Men United, the picture is only marginally rosier.  Oh who am I kidding, it's like Casablanca comparatively.  There's so much restraint in X-2, primarily due to budget.  As a pre-show message and end-credits message reminded us on Apocalypse, it took 150,000 people to make the movie, and it's these kind of overblown budgets that lead to exhausting overblown, disconnected spectacles.  In X-2, the smaller budget leads to more innovative and necessary uses of effects.  Fight sequences are more tightly controlled, more intimate, less grandiose, and more exciting as a result.  Despite being over a dozen years old, it's a more impressive film in most ways.

But the story of X-2 is also more personal.  I wasn't a huge fan of it when it first came out (I thought it unfairly focussed on Wolverine yet again, to the detriment of all the other characters more...and I still think that, but it doesn't make it bad outright), but it's a much tighter film, story wise, and it juggles it characters and its cameos so much better.  A screen display gives an easter egg list of mutant names to giggle over, while quick cameos from Colossus and Shadowcat are all that's needed (if just to let us know they're there).

But Rogue, Iceman and Pyro all get a nice junior X-Men position in the film and a meaningful journey.  Rogue's fearful of her powers and what they'll do if Bobby gets close, Bobby's a little less fearful, but frustrated by the situation (plus we meet his mutant-phobic family) and Pyro just can't help but let the fire rage inside and out.  Jean's having difficulty fighting what's inside her, while having to question her attraction to Logan and her commitment to Scott.  Charles has to face his greatest failure as a teacher, and Logan is still digging into his past.  Even Eric gets his moments, where he tows the good/bad line so perfectly well (Sir Ian McKellen is awesome, but we all know that).  And Mystique, while not given the same amount of weight as with Jennifer Lawrence in the role (Magneto provides a bunch of exposition which should be hers, unfortunately) she's a major player throughout this film.  She doesn't get a journey though, but she does get a lot of cool moments.  She's the Quicksilver of the piece.

X-2 is a fascinating watch following Apocalypse, because it's the truly the precursor to it.  It's a film that perfectly highlights why Raven was so important to the different causes Eric and Charles were fighting for in Days of Future Past.  Raven in the current run falls on Charles' side, where she becomes the team's leader, and a hero of their people.  In the old trilogy, she was beside Eric, his lover and chief weapon.  He calls her "my dear" but you never get the sense there's any true love there.  He certainly appreciates her talents but he's got her in his thrall and uses and relies upon her as a right hand, lesser so as a partner.  One doesn't get the sense she has a lot of say in their schemes.

Likewise, it's interesting in X-2 how Jean is treated.  In Apocalypse, Charles needs her to control herself, and promises she will learn how to,  so that she won't be so afraid herself and others won't be so fearful of her.  But Famke Janssen's Jean is older and still afraid of what's inside her, of what she's capable of.  She's not learned to control it, nor has she learned to escape her fear.  But in Apocalypse, set some 20 years earlier, Charles urges a teenage Jean to let go, and the Phoenix force erupts from her.  She challenges and helps defeat Apocalypse, and becomes a changed character as a result.

This aspect of synergy I like more than the actual story of Apocalypse, or X-2, the intentional differences in choices made and actions performed, and how they shape a character.  It's a very X-Men thing to do.

Even Logan, his memories of escaping the Weapon X program in X-2 are different than how it plays out here.  And it's Jean who helps him.  Jean unlocks his cage, setting him free, and then unlocks his mind, giving a piece of himself back that he wouldn't get in the original trilogy until 17 years hence.  I'm curious to see how the next Wolverine movie reconciles the multiple paths Logan has taken thanks to Days of Future Past, but equally interested to finally have that character retired from the screen, allowing the focus to shift elsewhere.

Kelly Hu is featured here as Lady Deathstrike, a badass mutant with extendable adamantium fingernails.  She's a lady Wolverine with a mutant healing factor as well.  Stryker controls her with a serum extracted from his son, so she's completely brainwashed and doesn't speak.  She just stands around looking mean and cool, but has little to do but fight.  See also Psylocke.  The fact that Jubilee also gets excised from both X-2 and Apocalypse (she's referred to by name in the former, but not at all in-costume like she is in the latter) means these X-films have a real problem with their female Asian characters (not to mention not a single non-caucasian male mutant...although Apocalypse does make a joke about how many blue characters there are, which makes it all the more embarrassing for their lack of diversity).

It's time for the cinematic X-universe to let go of it's caretakers, Singer and Kinberg, and let go of some of its regurgitated opposing forces (Stryker, Wolverine, Magneto), and really embrace some of its more wild, comic book inspirations.  Costumes, Danger Room simulations, aliens... hell I'll even take a New Mutants vs. Arcade film if they want to do that.  Let's have some fun, and not be so serious all the time.  I look over the 7 X-Men films to date (I will include Deadpool, because Colossus and Negasonic Teenage Warhead are so awesome in that), and the first one from 2000 is still my favourite because it's so full of promise.  They've had 16 years and a half dozen additional films, and they're only now just scratching at fulfilling that promise.

3+1 Short Paragraphs: The VVitch

2015, Robert Eggers -- download

Meanwhile, we get another scary forest and another first feature director with The Witch. Note, I changed the in-paragraph title to the proper spelling but in the above, the spelling from the movie, noting the era. THIS movie is set in New England during pioneer days, circa the 1600s. An even more fanatical religious family is turned out by the village elders and are forced to relocate to the edge of the forest, to make due on their own. But beyond having to clear the land, build home & barn and plant a crop they also have to deal with a witch in the wood.

Spoiler? No, not really. Almost immediately the movie reveals there is a true to form evil hag witch in the wood. She steals the infant child of the family and does nasty things with him, really evil what witches do to babies in the bedtime tales kind of stuff. But the movie more focuses on the reaction the family has to the loss of the baby. They don't actually see the baby stolen and assume it had to be wolves. But the daughter on the cusp of womanhood was caring for the baby when the witch snuck in, is being blamed by all but father. All the tension in this movie comes from the family themself, as they collapse under the weight of this witch's presence.

Unlike The Forest the wood in this movie is actually rather chilling to behold. Even if you ignore the discordant choral voices used to denote fear, the wood has that creepy Do Not enter vibe. These pioneers are shipped from England, a land almost entirely cleared by the 1600s. The wide, dense forests of North America must have held no end of terrors, yet in this movie it is a transplanted evil from their home. Yet even so, even though we know there is a witch and she did do evil, the real evil comes in how the family ends up treating each other. Isolated, without support, they turn on each other.

The Witch is a good movie, a really good movie. But not from the horror genre point of the view, as the scares, the setting are rather cerebral. The quality comes from the script and the style chosen to present this unsettling tale. The family speaks only in an archaic form of English, rather difficult to comprehend until you get used to it. The tension in the movie comes from the interplay between the family -- the father's fervent belief, the mother's grief, the boy's icky attraction to his sister, the daughter's emerging womanhood and those creepy, annoying twins. Their lives, twisted by a strict religious view, are easily manipulated by very real evil presences. That which should be their shield is more their undoing. The ending, while unsatisfying, is a natural progression of the movie and sums up things well. But ignore the Internet fervour / complaints, because if you were looking for a terrifying movie full of scares, this is not what they wanted to give us.

3 Short Paragraphs: The Forest

2016, Jason Zada (Take This Lollipop) -- download

In Japan, there is the Aokigahara Forest or, the "Suicide Forest". The forest lies at the foot of Fujiyama, a dense, overgrown area rife with deep caves, commonly used as a place for the distraught to go and die. This is no urban myth; since the 1970s, hundreds have wandered into the forest to take their own lives. This gives rise to the idea that the forest is filled with yūrei, or "angry ghosts". Sounds pretty likely to me. The Japanese have not made a movie set there, very likely out of respect for what really happens. Buy David Goyer had no issue with milking it for a story treatment.

Natalie Dormer is Sara, a young woman who has a strong bond with her twin sister. Before the police contact her, to say her sister has gone missing in the forest, she feels something is wrong. She is on the first flight to Japan to find out what happened, as no body has been found. She is sure her sister is alive, but ... for how long? With some help from a fellow American, a journalist writing about the forest, and a guide who volunteers to locate the unfortunates in the wood, she ventures in. And lo, ghosts abound.

This is brilliant, albeit sensitive, source material, but... We are already post-Japanese horror movie craze and this is original material that just wastes all it is given. Dormer is more than competent but is given little to do other than be nervous & obsessed with finding her sister. The scares are mundane and the chance to invest in great mythological world building is lost in boring "dark woods are scary" terrain. There is just so little of anything to really get attached to, other than the lovely forest with the tragic history. So, will Zada in first feature, join the ranks of the "do enough to get a box office positive" or will he embrace the money he made, to make something more tangible next time round?

The Lobster

2015, d. Yorgos Lanthimos (Dogtooth)

Critics are buzzing about The Lobster, but sometimes you need to be wary of critical buzz, because they have a tendency swarm around films that dare to be different, and even more films that dare to be abstract.  This critical praise doesn't necessarily translate to a wider audience because too often different and abstract are too much.  Critics watch hundreds of films per year and are paid to think about them, to process their story and meaning and construction.  The average filmgoer pays to be entertained, and, on occasion, challenged.  Either way, it's meant to be a bit of an escape, but if you're forced into thinking about the film as you watch it, you're not really escaping.  The reviewer sees so many cookie-cutter, carbon-copy movies with rehashed, wanna-be stories and gags (whether violent or comedic) that they become numb to much of the experience.  A film like The Lobster, by being different, will shock them out of that numbness, and therein lies appreciation.  The question for a film like this is does it earn its buzz merely by being different, or is there more to it?

Much of The Lobster takes place in a hotel where single individuals go to find a partner, but they only have 45 days to do so.  If they don't make it, they're transformed into the animal of their choice.  The film doesn't make it entirely clear that this is a mandatory procedure.  It seems elective at first, but as the first act wears on, it becomes clear that there's a sense of fatality here.  The rules of the hotel are very, very restrictive, designed to promote a desire for coupling and rejection of the individual.  There's punishment for masturbation and mini one-act plays that highlight the dangers of being alone (choking on one's meal, getting assaulted walking alone).  One guest of the hotel desperately searches for a partner, declaring her intention to kill herself soon if unsuccessful.

Our protagonist (if you can call him that, he's the central figure for sure, but I'm not clear if we're supposed to genuinely like or relate to him, so alien is his world) is David, played by a mustachioed, bespectacled, paunch-bellied Colin Farrell, every trace of the swarthy leading man sucked out of him as he transforms completely into a monotonal schlub (his rarely heard Irish accent makes him sound almost exactly like Ardal O'Hanlon, which makes me wonder if it's a put-on as well).  He arrives at the hotel, and like all guests, is stripped of almost every trace of his individuality, and told that he needs to declare a preferential sex (bisexuality was fazed out last year due to persistent confusion).  Men are issued a standard blue suit while the women are provided a uniform floral dress.  David has brought his brother Bob with him (Bob was transformed into a dog after his stay at the hotel) but Bob is confined to David's room.

Everyone at the hotel speaks in a forthright manner that is inherently comedic.  There's still some small worry of offense as we see David's reservation in making certain statements, but at the same time, people generally speak their mind.  But it's not an honest society by any means, as David's new friend (Ben Whishaw) fakes nosebleeds in order to get paired with the girl who gets a lot of nosebleeds (Jessica Barden).  Pairing in this society seems almost entirely based on single, obvious characteristics... a proper couple will both have nosebleeds, or be myopic, or both have a limp.  There seems no consideration of actual emotional investment or thought to common interests.  David himself takes the challenge of coupling with the "heartless woman" (Dogtooth's Aggeliki Papoulia), surmising that it's easier to fake not having emotions than it is to fake liking some.  It turns out to be a bad plan and forces David to flee the hotel into the woods, where the Loners live.

The Loners are the outcasts of this dystopian society of forced relationships.  Loners are not accepted by society, and the Loners are only accepting of each other if they follow the rules of staying true to being alone.  No flirting, no kissing or sex, no relying upon each other, with some pretty dire punishments if caught.  As a Loner you dig your own grave in preparation of dying alone, and you listen to your own electronic music on your own discman so you can dance alone even when everyone is dancing.   The Loners pretend to pair up as they visit the city, where we witness individuals standing around at the mall getting harassed by police for their partnership papers. 

David and another Loner (Rachel Weisz) find themselves drawn to one another they conduct themselves very discreetly, only daring to declare actual affection for each other once they discover they're both short-sighted.  The rules of coupling in society still hold sway over them, just as the rules of being a Loner do.  Ultimately they're discovered and forced to face the consequences, until they escape.  But stuck at a highway restaurant, between the city of couples and the country of Loners, the film ends unsure of where they fit, or where they sit.

The Lobster (named after the animal David chooses to become) does provide escape, it provides the different, and also the abstract.  But it also provides it all in a way that throws you into your own mind as it plays out.  You have to puzzle out the characters and their motivations at least until snippets of the overall weirdo alt-society are dispensed.  I was in a mid-day, practically empty theatre (only two other viewers) but even still I was looking around to see if I could catch someone's eye, wondering if we were all having the same puzzling experience.  Yet I wasn't not entertained.  The affected seemingly uncensored thoughts-turned-dialogue and monotone delivery is inherently funny.  It's basically a Wes Anderson interpretation of Gattaca, wry yet sternly serious.  There's a darkly comedic bent to all the horrifying tragedies of the film (including a botched suicide which serves as the backdrop to David's courtship of the heartless woman, which is easily top 5 of the most uncomfortable scenes in a movie I've ever seen), and even some terrific action (watching the hotel guests hunt the Loners with dart guns in slow motion action is incredibly, incredibly cool... the guests get an additional day's stay for each Loner they tranq).

I enjoyed The Lobster, but I can't for the life of me pinpoint what it's trying to say.  It's a film that seems to desperately be conveying a message through a satirical alternate reality, and yet that message seem painfully obtuse.  Something about relationships and the pressures society put upon individuals, whether they want to be a couple or an individual.  Is the point that we're almost better off just being an animal?  Again, there's no real clarity.  It'll be worth the journey for some, but the be-puzzlement that persists afterwards is frustrating.

ReWatch: Conan the Barbarian

1982, John Milius (Red Dawn) -- Netflix

I was introduced to Conan (barbarian, not talk show host -- i ain't that young) when I was a kid, by family friend / cousin by marriage. He and his brother knew I was into The Lord of the Rings and presented something more primordially sword & sorcery to me. I engulfed them hungrily. These pulp fantasy stories, that I already knew existed as comic books, were so raw & meaty, I loved them. And then a movie was coming out, one that needed adult accompaniment. Oh shit, mom & dad hated anything fantasy and would never indulge me. So I went through the list of Cool Uncles and Ray said yes. He didn't seem to mind he knew nothing about the subject matter, but was happy to be dragged to the cinema by a bunch of adolescent boys.

Boy was I embarrassed when there were boobs.

In these days, any movie with swords was fodder for our D&D games. Not long after seeing this, the swords of epitome in any D&D game became the one forged by his father and the one found with the King under the hill. Everyone loved the helmets and multiple attempts at Snakes to Arrows were made; even officially, if I do recall. Everyone had to fight a giant snake.

It's not a very good movie, but it spoke to a generation, not only of Conan fans but of pulp adventure fans of eras past. And adolescent D&D players. The acting is terrible, the script rather pedestrian and some of the props look plastic. But it connected with people, not just adolescents. It spawned a sequel and even a TV series.

These days I can only look upon it with nostalgic fondness. Arnie has long since been tainted by all his other iconic roles, but in this one he got to punch a camel. He had the size and muscles of a Conan but I was always disappointed by his lack of coal black hair. Arnie also had a certain lack of melancholy and none of the rapier intelligence the character had. Still, he was better than Ralf Möller in the 90s TV show adaptation of the movies.

3 Short Paragraphs: Seeing RED

R.E.D., 2010, Robert Schwentke (R.I.P.D.) -- Netflix
RED 2, 2013, Dean Parisot (lots of TV) -- download

You could say that 2010 was the break out year for the multitudinous glut of comic book based movies, and TV, that we now live with. After the remarkable success of Iron Man, the studios felt the need to bring anything comic to the screen. This was also the post-Graphic Novel age, so there was literally tons of source material that wasn't always straight superhero. The we-don't-need-original-material was in full bloom. Out of this came a relatively unknown and small actioner piece from Warren Ellis about a reactivated CIA hitman. In 3 issues he tells rather simple but compelling tale of violence, death and skill. Guy shoots people creatively with good writing.

R.E.D. the movie pretty much tells the base tale, but transposes it into a somewhat light violence-comedy. Bruce Willis is Moses, the reactivated CIA hitman on the hunt to find out who wants him dead. He has been retired for years and crushing on his pension check handler. In the quest, he bumps into more retired hitmen, including Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich and Helen Mirren, in sort of a Expendables style gathering of old, violent people. It's mostly bullets to the head interspersed by funny lines and a meet cute as Willis kidnaps his handler and is forced into a relationship by his friends. It is decently likable.

RED 2 is the entirely unnecessary sequel. Again he and his girlfriend find themselves hunted because of his CIA past,  but this time they get wrapped up in an old End the World scenario and have to play the heroes. Again, it's not done badly, in fact all things presented are quite fun, especially the adoration between KGB spy played by Brian Cox and Helen Mirren. Cox just absorbs the role. But it was all familiar and not very inspired. We already know how I hate sequel-itis and this movie is full of it, from the recreation of "so many bullets flown they knock down Frank's house" to a hot, young male nemesis, Karl Urban in the first and Lee Byung-hun. But people will always like familiar, I guess.

P.S. An even more uninspired poster for 2.