1-1-1: Swarm

2023, d. Donald Glover, Adamma Ebo, Ibra Ake, Stephen Glover
7 episodes - AmazonPrime
created by Donald Glover and Adamma Ebo

The Plot 100:

Dre is the consummate "weird girl", the one who doesn't seem to fit in, who doesn't seem to get normal social cues, who stares too long at things, who moves oddly, who dresses strangely...who fixates...and Dre is fixated on superstar Beyonce-stand-in Ni'Jah. Dre lives with Marissa, her best (and only) friend, who looks out for her, but that's a full time job, and Marissa is trying to live her own life. A confluence of events unhinge Dre, sending her on a low-key murder spree across America.

1-1-1
1 Great: Dominique Fishback has been a power player as supporting actress in movies like Judas and the Black Messiah and Project Power but in Swarm the spotlight is all on her. Her performance as Dre is captivating, full of incredible nuance in physical presence, facial expression and line delivery. Fishback delivers a dead-eyed stare that will send a cold shiver up your spine like few others ever have.  Dre is barely tethered to reality when Marissa is grounding her, but without Marissa around, Dre is let loose on the world. 

As part of "The Swarm", the collective of Ni'Jah fans who shout down any naysayer or troll online, Dre takes the next steps to protecting her queen.  She goes to great lengths to hunt down the online trolls and murder them. It takes a special performance to sell the leap into murder, but not only does Fishback sell it, she makes it seem both the logical and inevitable next step for Dre. There's a fearlessness to the character, and to Fishback's performance. It's a very, very difficult thing to be funny and sympathetic in a performance that is also supposed to be terrifying, Fishback manages to be all these things in different combinations. Never is this more clear than in the second episode where Dre has taken a gig stripping and is mesmerisingly bad at it, and doesn't seem to care. She just kind of clomps around on stage in a teddy, a vacant look on her face, bewildering the one onlooker who seems like a deer in headlights.  She's not going to kill him, but he's definitely her victim.

It's hard to really like Dre, but in script and production, there is empathy for the show's protagonist, and since she is our only POV character, we always kind of want Dre to get what she wants, even if logically we know she just needs to be stopped. There are a couple instances of Dre killing an awful person, but she is by no means a sympathetic vigilante...she is a sociopathic murderer and her killings are just as often whims as they are pre-planned. 

I watched the 7 episodes in 2 chunks, the first three episodes, and then the final four about a week later. Between viewings, I was constantly thinking about the show. There was nothing in particular I was thinking about, but it was just more kind of haunting me. It would find myself thinking about Fishback's slack-jawed gaze, or her stilted physicality, or her line reading of "who's your favourite artist?", which becomes just as ominous a line as "do you like scary movies?" Perhaps moreso.

1 Good: Donald Glover's Atlanta [Season 1, Season 3, Season 4] was a unique production, a series of mini-films that sometimes featured the main cast, and were sometimes fully detached from even its own reality. The first episode of Swarm felt like it could have been one of Atlanta's one-off episodes, except that it didn't feel as self-contained, that it was building something. Each episode of Swarm has a tonal synergy with Atlanta, a quietness, a patience, but also an intensity and a sly sense of humour.  

This isn't solely Glover's baby, Janine Nabers (UnREAL), but the style seems very much guided by what Glover and team did for Atlanta with much success. Though a graduated story, each episode does stand alone as a unique thing. Episode 4, for instance finds Dre taken in by a commune led by Billie Eilish, which really twists the knife...you kind of want Dre to run, but at the same time, she's probably more trouble for the commune, and maybe you just want them both to self immolate. It takes some psychedelic turns.  The final episode is a love story, which, like every episode of Atlanta, you're just waiting for it to turn.  The thing with Atlanta was it only turned like 40% of the time. You can bet any good thing for Dre is going to tun 100% of the time.  It's like watching Dexter or Barry, where you just utterly sympathize with the love interest and want them to get the hell away, but at the same time that little glimmer of hoping the sociopath can learn to be happy and let go of their darker instincts. It never works out.

Each episode opens with the title cards "This is not a work of fiction. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events, is intentional." It's Glover and Nabers "Fargo-izing" the series, which then leads to Episode six, which is a documentary news program covering the "real" story of Dre, and the detective who pieced together that there was a Black female serial killer operating in America.  While trying to be a "real" documentary, its scripted-ness gives itself away (kind of like Atlanta Season 4's "The Blackest movie of all time" documentary on A Goofy Movie).  

1 Bad: Not really bad, but more a stylistic thing that I had a hard time parsing. There are a couple instances of Dre going into a sort of hallucinatory trance, and we see the world from this perspective. As such we're not really clear on the events that are occurring.  Mainly the climax of episode 3 and the series climax of episode 7.  

Episode 7, in particular, is titled "Only God makes happy endings" and it ends with Dre having her greatest dream come true. But clearly it's not true, just a delusional state that they're in. Episode six actually tells us the "real life" ending that we don't see in the show. It actually seems much darker a spin to even attempt a happy ending for Dre. If she gets her greatest desire, given her cross-country killing spree, what does that even mean? It's certainly provocative. The whole show is provocative.

META
It's kind of shocking how under-the-radar Swarm is right now. It doesn't seem to be getting promoted very intensely nor does it seem to be popping up in television discourse very much. It's a difficult show to market because it isn't the most accessible story, but it's, at its heart, elevated horror. It very well could fit cozily within A24's slate of genre films, and Amazon should be reaching for the same market.  It's an intense, unconventional show, defiantly not for everyone. 

I only heard of it in passing, with a brief mention of Donald Glover. That was all I needed. 

Star Trek Beyond

2016, d. Justin Lin

I like Star Trek.  I'm not an uber-nerd for it like I am for superheroes and Star Wars but I've put in more than a few hundred hours of my life watching and reading and playing and discussing things Trekkie.  I'm not precious about it.  Star Trek can be fairly precious on its own.  I get why the Trekkers don't like what JJ Abrams did with the universe (the Franklin Timeline as it's officially called), because he scrubbed out a lot of the science and almost all of the cultural/social metaphor out of Trek, two things which have been the property's lifeblood for fifty years.  Abrams made a pair of entertaining films, and pulled together a great cast that can adeptly stand in for the original Enterprise crew, but at the end of the day they were popcorn movies which more than satiated the casual moviegoer and Star Trek dabbler, and left the core fans at best underwhelmed and at worst angry.

Sitting on the bottom edge of the "core fan" label, just above the dabbler label, the latest cinematic Trek foray, Star Trek Beyond is to me a perfectly acceptable happy medium between the big blockbuster shenanigans of Abrams' previous two pictures, and of the crew-centric, mission-based Trek we grew to love through multiple generations.

There's spectacle aplenty here, but also character focus.  In a way, this one feels episodic, not stand-alone.  This builds upon aspects of the two films prior as a launch point for some of the characters to move forward.  As is expected it's primarily focused on Kirk and Spock, but Bones, Scotty and Checkov get a couple nudges forward as well.  Uhura and Sulu are underserved by the script, though both get a couple of fine moments (John Cho as Sulu looks great in the Captain's chair).  In fact, all the major players get fine moments, just some get fine moments that have some actual meaning to them.

Kick-ass women are now a trendy thing
(hooray!) so Jaylah gets a lot of focus in
the marketing of the film.  She's so neat
looking.

As seen in the trailer, the Enterprise is attacked by a swarm of ships, and is virtually destroyed, much of the crew along the way is killed.  It's a fairly brutal movie in this regard, and it doesn't confront death too much directly, but doesn't just wash it away sunnily either.  Kirk's general point is "we have a mission and we don't stop until it's done"...they have time for remorse and sorrow later.


The crew is mostly captured by the attacking enemy, save a few members stranded on a mostly lifeless planet.  Scotty (co-writer Simon Pegg naturally bolstered Scotty's role here) meets Jaylah (Sofia Boutella), a survivor from a previous attack who is not only a really cool-looking alien, but super competent at everything, and not duplicitous in any way.  She's an utter highlight of a film that actually has a great many.  She gives Kirk, Spock, Bones, Scotty and Checkov (sour note: all the white men of the bridge escaped capture...boo) the low down on their enemy, the villainous Krall (Idris Elba, yay!), whose motivations are slowly revealed as the film plays out.

There's some convolutedness to Krall's plan, which can be forgiven amidst all the entertainment, and even Krall's motivation is a little light for Star Trek territory (I was hoping for more of a "the Federation taught us to fight, now we fight the Federation" type of US/Afghanistan or US/Iraq kind of parable), he is a good villain, because, well Idris Elba.  For all the nitpicking that could be done (and unfortunately, for as fun as the film is, there's still a lot of nits to pick), the one major standout for me is who is Krall's crew?  Maybe it's actually explained and I missed it, but there's seemingly some inconsistency there.

Kralls swarm is taken out by science, and done so in the way that every swarm is taken out in movies... with ease.  Find the magic thing and the entirety is out of commission.  Sabotage was actually kind of fun (for me, but I can see the die hard Trekkers abhorring it).  In reality their plan to take out the swarm should have left the ships active but far less effective.  Again, so many nits to pick.
Playing this sequence against the Beastie Boys'

I feel like Chris Pine has developed his own Kirk, who bears a resemblance to Shatner but only passingly.  He's on a different path in this Kelvin Timeline so of course he will be different.  Spock on the other hand, feels like a familiar glove, with the scripts giving Zachary Quinto some little twists to sink into.  Karl Urban just nails Doctor McCoy... he's the MVP of each of these movies and is given some real meaty scenes with Spock to flesh out their friendship of respect.  It looks like they were building Checkov into a bit of a silver-tongued ladies man instead of Kirk, which makes Anton Yelchin's passing all the sadder.


We're treated to a star base in this film called Yorktown.  The place is marvelous.  I want to live there. 
What I like about Star Trek Beyond  is that it advances the characters and the Kelvin Timeline mythology.  It moves things forward and really solidifies the crew.  The film's perhaps too rapid-paced/quick-cut for conventional Star Trek and could serve to have more breathing room at times (particularly in the action scenes)  but overall it looks great and is quite an exciting ride.

Of all the Trek films... this ranks probably third.

Love this retro poster recalling the original Star Trek: The Motion Picture design

Go-Go-Godzilla #25: Godzilla vs Megaguirus

Director: Masaaki Tezuka
Year: 2000
Length: 105 minutes

The Gist:
The G-Graspers division of the Japan Self-Defence Force (or whatever acronymic organization is now in charge of defending the country in this film) plans on using a plasma energy device to develop a miniature black hole - fired from a satellite in space, the Dimension Tide - to swallow Godzilla and end his threat forever. There's no way this can go wrong, ridght?  

Oops, after testing they've left a tear in the spacetime continuum. A creature has come through, left an egg behind, then disappeared back into the tear. A young boy finds the shining silver egg and hides it away. His family moves to Tokyo where the egg has cracked open in the move. He disposes of the egg down a sewer and that's that. All good, right? Nothing to worry about.

Oops. The egg enters mitosis and starts rapidly growing. Soon there's a giant bug creature on the loose feeding on unsuspecting humans in surprisingly grizzly scenes, changing after each feeding. It's not long before it attracts the attention of Godzilla, and their  (off-screen) conflict attracts the attention of the G-Graspers who take off Thunderbirds/Gatchaman-style in the advanced fighter jet Griffon. They're too late to witness the battle, but they find a bug carcass and manage to plant a tracker on Godzilla

Turns out, there's not just one bug, but a whole swarm of them, and their's rapid underwater growth in the city's water tables is causing extensive flooding resulting in an evacuation of parts of Tokyo. The swarm of thousands of Meganulas fly to Godzilla and start attacking, sensing Godzilla is an energy source.  Godzilla heats up his own body before blasting as many of them out of the sky as possible but, before he can finish them off, the Dimension Tide is fired and Godzilla is zapped into a black hole... and that's that. Movie done.

But no! Godzilla saw it coming and buried himself in the dirt and survives.  Big G stares down the Griffon team, as if to say "nice try assholes".

The Meganulas swarm flees back to Tokyo, where a mege-mega egg lay in wait. The Meganulas feed the egg the energy they received from Godzilla and die, but a new titan is born, the Megaguirus, like the queen of the Meganulas, sort of like a killer bees species...territorial and aggressive. 

Godzilla and Megaguirus fight while the G-Graspers try to tee them both up to get blasted by the Dimension Tide. Unfortunately Megaguirus' high frequency attacks disrupt both the sattelite and the Griffon and the humans are out of the fight. 

But when it's revealed that there's actually a Plasma energy prototype being developed in Tokyo it makes sense why Godzilla was coming back again. And so, with systems rebooted, the humans take one last stab at firing the Dimension Tide. All seems successful, but weeks later, a seismic reading leaves the possibility that Godzilla somehow escaped his fate....

Godzilla, Friend or Foe:
I mean, the humans of the film are only about getting rid of him...but he's the one that needs to take care of this human-generated Megaguirus problem. So...yes.

Anyone Worth Caring About?
I get fooled every time. The opening sequence focuses on female ranger Kiriko Tsujimori, who loses her leader when he saves her from falling debris from a Godzilla-ravaged building. She's later the leader of the G-Graspers...
She recruits miniaturist and microwave expert Hajime to help with their project, and he's pretty sweet on her from the get-go. But she's so Godzilla-foused, she just rolls her eyes at his flirtations. She's got a pretty steely determination.  She also gets to punch a greedy bureaucrat in the face so that's fun. And in the end, with Hajime the guy in the chair, and Kiriko flying the Griffon, they fulfill her objective of ending the threat of Godzilla, and they continue flirting.
I like them both.

The Samesies:
Oh, the Megaguirus is a flying kaiju. Great. Because Toho's had such a great track record with flying kaiju.
This one at least gets flapping wings and GCI effects to help dramatize the effect of its power, but it still looks pretty bad (and boy are the strings ever so obvious).  Like every flying Kaiju it creates sonic booms when it flies that destroy things in its wake, it can create massive wind gusts when it flaps its wings.

Evacuations and mass panic sequence (but with a bit of comedy) as Godzilla heads for Tokyo. Reuse of the original Godzilla theme as he emerges into the bay.

It's been established numerous times over in the Godzilla films that big G will go wherever the opposing threat is, but here the G-Graspers don't seem to understand why he's heading for Tokyo. They don't even consider that it's to face off against Megaguirus.

The Differences:
This film starts as a pseudo-sequel to the original, except with a new alt history where Japan has banned all use of nuclear energy, relocated it center to Osaka, and is entirely focused on developing clean energy. They develop Plasma energy in 1996, but even that is enough of a draw to attract the creature, so that has to be ceased. There is a montage of scenes recreated from the original Gojira with this current Godzilla, in black and white even, with a voice over (the first in Godzilla films).

The opening battle against an rampaging Godzilla is handled by foot soldiers with bazookas, which was pretty exciting (there's something about seeing people against Godzilla rather than the usual 5 minute montage of tanks assembling and firing... hey, both bazookas and tanks are equally in effective, but at least we get some human reaction out of this one). Some of the miniature work in these scenes is really clunky, and unintentionally funny.

While we've had the three different Super X model hover tanks of the Heisei era, and the astro-soldiers of Destroy All Monsters and Invasion of the Astro-Monster in the Showa era, but this one really goes for the kitted-out anime-style action hero force with the G-Graspers.

I can't believe this is the first time we've ever seen anyone climb onto Godzilla. I doubly can't believe he would even notice, but he does. Sensitive creature.

We've only gotten a few underwater scenes before in Godzilla, but there's some submersible images - some CGI, some miniatures, some practical - that mostly pretty fun.

In Godzilla 2000, like in many of these films there's often a character who is all about killing Godzilla, and then there's the counterpoint (typically lead) character who is about studying and protecting Godzilla. In this case our lead character, Major Kiriko Tsujimori is the one hell-bent on Godzilla's destruction, even at one point authorizing use of the black hole gun before it is ready or they know what the side effects will be. Dangerous.

It's got a big, sweeping, pounding, somewhat 90's superhero/action film-inspired score from Michiru Oshimawhich I really, really liked.

It also has a post-credits scene (another first for a Godzilla), where the little boy from earlier is at school when it seems Godzilla emerges again.

The Message:
When you're afraid of something, you don't run. It's a stand-out line Kiriko says her mentor taught her, but you know...it's never really applied to the story at all.

Rating (out of 5 Zs):  ZZZ
There's a good progression throughout all of this. Everything sort of tracks and moves from A-to-B-to-C-to-D. There's no wild swings or randomness.

I enjoyed a lot of this, but it's unfortunate how really bad CGI (which almost all of the Meganulas scenes are terrible late-90's era quality CGI effects) can put a damper on it.  The fight between Godzilla and Megaguirus is very dynamic, the most dynamic Godzilla fight yet. However, it's often framed poorly and its CGI fails to benefit it, so it's far from perfect. But it's still pretty entertaining.  I hear there some incredible Millennium Era films still to come so I really, really look forward to those based on this.

Sleepytime Factor:
Surprisingly, no sleepiness. I was really entertained by this one.

3+1 Short Paragraphs: Dracula Untold

2014, Gary Shore -- download

Dracula Untold is the Dracula movie for D&D players. Its a prequel exploring the origins of Vlad Tepes, or as they call him in the movie, Draculovich or something like that. Basically, that opening sequence from the Gary Oldman movie? Yes, its made into an entire movie. Luke Evans armor is almost as cool. Its also a superhero origin movie, with the creators amping up the vampire powers to the Nth degree. I never knew bats could be such a destructive force.

Vlad is the Prince of Transylvania, sometime in the Middle Ages. He was one of a thousand children given by the King, to the Turks, in exchange for not wiping out his people. Each of these kids are trained in the art of killing, likely being dwindled down to a ruthless few, one of which is Vlad himself, by way of the The Impaler reputation he gains while killing for the Turks. As reward he is allowed to return to Transylvania to take up the throne from his father. Years later, the Turks return to take another thousand sons. Vlad refuses.

Vlad enacts his secret weapon -- a deal made with the ghastly vampire lord who lives in the mountain. The ancient creature gives Vlad a taste of his blood, but as long as he kills no man before the end of three days, he will return to life as a human. Vlad has three days to defeat the army of the Turks. And wow, does he do so. Vlad not only has sunlight aversion and blood drain, but he can turn into a swarm of bats, clothes and all, superhero change style. And he can control bats, BIG  bats that while in their own swarm, seem to act as a single, massive force. Their impact on the battlefield sends soldiers flying. But can Vlad do it before the end of the third day? No, of course he can't. Not without a sacrifice, that of his family and that of his mortality. Thus the vampire lord wins the bargain and Vlad becomes Dracula.

*spoilerific schtuff*

Its a very formula actioner.  There is nothing novel or overly exciting about the movie but it fills a niche, an Avengers style tragic heroism. And of course, superhero style, its only an origin story. The real movie is being setup where we see Vlad in our time running into the reincarnation of  his wife, now a lovely young lady named Mina. And that vampire lord, the one from the cave? Now he is suit wearing, suave Charles Dance, ready to play more games with Vlady, the totally not-villain of a movie I doubt will ever be made.

T&K Go Loopty Loo: The X-Files

[Toast and Kent love time loop stories.  With this "Loopty Loo" series, T&K explore just what's happening in a film or TV show loop, and maybe over time, they will deconstruct what it is that makes for a good time loop]

The X-Files - Season 6, Episode 14: "Monday"

Preamble:
[Kent] I don't know about you, Toasty, but I used to love me some X-Files.  I was a huge, huge fan.  Until season 6.

While I fell off of watching early in season 7 (and peeked back in from time to time in the seasons that followed just to affirm what a train wreck it had become), it was at some point during season 6 I realized there was no grand plan for the mythology of the series, that they were just winging it.  Serialized TV was in its incubation stage, with Buffy and Babylon 5 being the early charge-leader.  The X-Files wanted to be that but they just didn't have the discipline.  They were too stuck in the old model of ratings-driven network TV. 

Season 6 came after the movie, a really neat looking film with a decent budget that felt extraneous from the TV series because it was made with the idea of enticing a general audience rather than servicing the story and fanbase of the show. The movie really made a mess of everything and it just got messier afterward.

The recent revival series [toastypost, kenttype] encapsulated everything I loved and hated about the original series...some really engaging, funny even, uses of virtually every genre trope for stand-alone episodes, and a larger arc that just got more and more convoluted, tedious and/or nonsensical. 

This episode, "Monday", I remember being a standout of Season 6, (along with episode 2, "Drive", both written or co-written by Vince Gilligan, creator of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul). So I'm curiously excited to revisit, but I'm always trepidatious about going back to The X-Files.

[Toast] I have always had a contentious relationship with The X-Files. I remember when it started, just after I moved to Ottawa to sleep on the floor behind the sofa of Brian's apartment. He didn't do TV, but I did my best to play with an antenna to attempt to watch the pilot episode, as I had read about it somewhere. Not the Internet, so I have no idea. Probably some specfic magazine.

But I didn't have a TV for years, so our watching of the show came and went. We watched some on borrowed copies of VHS tapes, some on TV re-runs and probably dedicated time to a few seasons as I recall being really big fans of the Spotnitz episodes. And I have watched enough in the years since, that I pretty well versed with the mythology, enough that I recognized the whole reference to the water bed and where it came from -- Dreamland II, same season, Episode 5.

How did the Loop Begin?
[Kent] Unknown.

We don't actually get an origin story for the loop.  The episode starts outside a bank.  Cops cars swarm, the boys in blue flow on to the street, armed. A.D. Skinner arrives, not to take over this hostage situation, but out of concern because Mulder and Scully are inside.  

A young, gaunt-looking woman across the street starts running towards Skinner, yelling his name, warning him to stop them. Inside, Mulder is dying from a gunshot wound, Skully's trying to stop the bleeding.  The police storm the building, and the scraggly bearded robber reveals the bomb strapped to his chest, then sets it off.  Boom.  Opening credits.

When we meet the thin, green-eyed woman, Pam, again (and again and again) she indicates that she's been through the day so many times before, and it always plays out the same way and that she's figured out that Mulder is the solution to stopping the Time Loop, but no idea how.

[Toast] Yeah, unlike many episodes of the show, this one didn't delve deep into the exposition, with Mulder learning of an experiment, or telling us how particularly emotional setups can set someone in a loop of fate, or whatever obscure, unlikely thing Mulder is to believe. We get nuttin.

What was the main character's first reaction to the Loop?
[Kent] This episode is seen though Fox Mulder's eyes (it's a sad fake-out at the beginning where I thought back then, and once again, that this would be a Skinner-centric episode.  They never really did those and I don't understand why not). After the credits we find Mulder awakened to a leak in his waterbed ("You have a waterbed?" Scully asks repeatedly...Yes, Scully, and he also also mirrors on his ceiling.  Fox Mulder is a freak. It's canon that he's portented to die from auto-erotic asphyxiation).  His carpet is soaked and squishy (waterlogged carpet is so gross...), his cell-phone is toast, his alarm clock shorted out, and the water is leaking down to the apartment beneath him...plus he keeps tripping over his shoes.  Damages have to be paid, but he's got to retrieve -- then go deposit -- his latest paycheck in order to cover the cheque he just wrote his landlord.  He's late for a meeting (he probably doesn't care about anyways, seems to be a numbers meeting), but tells Scully to cover for him while he runs his errand.

Someone's come down with a case of the Mondays...

The next time he Loops, after getting shot and/or blowed up, he has a vague sense that something's off but not really sure what. Eventually, as he Loops, he starts getting serious deja vu, starts predicting what some people will say, starts recognizing Pam, sitting in the car outside the bank.  It all just seems strange, but Mulder's whole life is about "strange" so he's kind of into it.

We don't see Pam's first reaction to the Loop, nor do we ever see Pam's day outside of her encounters with Mulder or Scully or sitting outside the bank. I mean, what does she do with the rest of her day after the bank explodes?  Grab a sandwich and live it up?

[Toast] Pam seems a little fatigued by the whole thing. Sure, she has been watching her loser BF blow himself, and a whole bunch of innocents, up and doing her best to end it, but she just seems preternaturally tired. I wonder if we missed all the loops where she did the montage of fun stuff, of suicides, etc. By this stage, she is just concerned with ending the whole fucking thing.

WHY did the main character get put into the Loop? Can someone else be brought into the Loop?
[Kent] Again, strangely unknown.  They don't even ascribe it to some cosmic error.  There's no origin for the Loop.

Toast, any theories? :)

[Toast] There are some Internet theories that it is either the Universe trying to set things right, after Morris Fletcher fucked with Mulder's life (i.e. the waterbed has to go) but that wouldn't tie well together with Pam and the bank explosion. The better theory is that it's actually tied to Scully. A few episodes prior, in Episode 10, Tithonus, an immortal man dies, and seemingly passes the immortality onto Scully. On this day, she is blown up in the bank, and Death / the Universe is not going to so much as knit her back together, as restart the day, until she survives unscathed. Pam is just a chosen avatar of the action.

How long is this time Loop? What resets it? Can you force the reset?
[Kent] The Loop is probably Pam's whole waking day, but we only ever follow it through to Mulder's death in the bank explosion. 

Toasty, do you think it's possible that while Pam is the only constant of the Loop, that it's happening around Mulder and that when Mulder dies the Loop rests?  

[Toast] Possible, but I like to think it's just "the day" that is happening over and over again, whether or not Mulder dies or not. I think Pam just lives out the day, and at some mystical time on the clock, she wakes up in her bed again, with loser Bernard next to her. I wonder if she tries a few loops of smothering him with her pillow, but no, she still seems to have genuine affection for him, even when we meet them. Affection might be a strong word -- sympathy?

How long does the main character stay in the Loop? Does it have any affect on them, their personality, their outlook?
[Kent] Mulder wakes up every day at approximately 7:15 (according to his watch) to the sound of a newspaper hitting his door. Not sure what time an FBI agent's day usually starts but 7:15 seems awfully early to be late for work.

If I cared enough I could start investigating the Washington DC topography and the way the shadows are hitting buildings and start trying to discern what time of day it is by the time the cops arrive or what have you, but a) this was shot in LA (having relocated from Vancouver after Season 5) and b) I don't really want to.

So let's say it's probably around 10:30 to 11 am each time the Bank blows up if allowing for time for Mulder to half-ass deal with his leaky waterbed, get to the office, walk to the bank, and deal with Bernard for a bit.  Even that seems a little optimistic.  I mean, Pam does get into the FBI building tour in one Loop, which can't start any earlier than 9am.

As for Pam, the Loop is driving her loopy.  She's going mad.  By the time the final loop she's all but given up on trying to affect change.

[Toast] She's probably been grasping at straws for a long time. She has probably tried dozens, if not hundreds of ways to stop that bomb explosion, but the world keeps on sending Bernard and her there. Mulder's talk about Fate vs Free Will really plays into it, as the Universe seems to have its set paths, and we only affect minor changes through our own choices and actions. Not much room for a butterfly effect though.

What about the other people in the Loop? Are they aware? Can they become aware?  Does anything happen if they become aware?
[Kent] I think people who are sensitive to the paranormal or have paranormal awareness like Mulder aren't "brought into the Loop" (per the previous question) but they recognize the signs faster with each reset, and, ultimately, they are able to affect their mentality in the next Loop if they tries hard enough.

Most people though seem resistant to understanding there's a Loop. Clearly Pam has tried to make people aware.

[Toast] Yeah, Mulder's sympathetic connection to The Weird really assists him in adding himself into the loop, once her initial influence has him noticing things. I think by the last loop, he is truly on his way to experiencing it the same way Pam is. I wonder what would have happened should Pam had not sacrificed herself, and she and Mulder kept on trying different ways to end it?

What does the main character think about the other people in the Loop? Are they real? Do they matter?
[Kent] Hard to say.  Mulder, being a step behind the Loop, is just doing his business, being all heroic, hunky, sleepy-eyed FBI agent.  So yeah, people matter to him, even once he's aware of the Loop.  He's trying to solve it.  But what does Pam think?

Pam thinks she's in Hell. She's not having a good time with the Loop at all. Does she even care about Bernard anymore, having seen him blow himself up and heard him murder people time after time after time.?

She just wants the Loop to end.  I'm not sure she really cares about Mulder or Scully or even herself anymore.  She's stuck in a puzzle she can't solve nor quit.

[Toast] Agreed. Pam does not see these events as "real life" and just wants out.

Most memorable event in a Loop? Most surprising event during a Loop?
[Kent] Each Loop is remarkably similar.  It sounds like Pam has gone through so many permutations of trying to affect change in the Loop and eventually realizes that staying in the car is about the only place she ever feels she can make a difference.  

It would also appear that more Loops happen between the Loops we see.  At one point Mulder approaches her in the car, and they have a conversation about the Loop.  The whole "Mulder notices her in the car" is new in the second loop we see, but only a couple Loops pass when this exchange happens and she says they've had the same conversation so many times.  So obviously we're only getting a Cliff Notes version of the whole story of the Loop.

The most surprising thing is how cool the exploding bank looks on a TV budget.  They must have made a big mess with that practical effect.  Today it would just be CGI, but it looks so good.  And they use the hell out of that coverage.

[Toast] I didn't find much of any loop as memorable or outstanding, but I was somewhat annoyed by some of the actions in the loops.

Why does Mulder continue to sit on the bed once he notices the leak? Doofus, just stand up already! Pressure is just making the water flow more quickly. Also, why don't they just shoot Bernard through the eye? Once they have him at the end of a gun barrel, and see he is likely to pull the trigger on the bomb, just shoot the fucker. But this was the 2000s when cops/agents actually tried to talk Bad Guys down, instead of just shooting. But seriously, just shoot Bernard.

How does this stack up in the subgenre?
[Kent] Toasty and I were just comment with our last Loopty Loo that it was really neat to see a Time Loop story where the protagonist/lead character of the story/series wasn't the one aware of being stuck in the loop, and here we go with yet another one...so...not so clever anymore are ye, Star Trek:Discovery? 

As noted, this was a standout X-Files episode for me way back when, especially as a signifier of the end of my loving The X-Files.  Good stand alone episodes were getting rare, I was tired of the mythology, and the relationship dynamic between Mulder and Scully had also kind of gotten frustrating.  Going back to it, though, I enjoyed this.  I don't like the music, sounds pretty stock 1990's.  I also still wish it was Skinner that was figuring out the Loop.  The show always needed more Mitch Pileggi (Pileggi also appears the Time Loop series Day Break which will be an eventual Loopty Loo).

[Toast] Yeah yeah, I will eventually watch it.

That said, having dug through a couple dozen Time Loop stories, this ranks low on the totem pole if only because it doesn't really give answers to the whys/hows of the Loop.  It's unsatisfying in that regard.  What do you think, Toasty?

 [Toast] Agreed. Explanation and exposition are inherent to the trope! I want my wish washy science or my timey wimey magic (at least kind of) explaining how we ended up here. Even a follow-up scene at the end of the episode, where Mulder looks at a file about Pam and finds out she was connected to something from a previous episode, or maybe even abducted by aliens!

We Agree-ish: Star Trek Beyond

2016, Justin Lin (Better Luck Tomorrow) -- cinema

I am struggling mightily to put together my thoughts on Star Trek Beyond, primarily because I was so distracted while watching it. A combination of needing new prescription glasses and the first half of the movie being so bloody dark kept me from fully enjoying. Beyond the usual complaints about the dulling down of non-3D movies because of the projector technology, the entirety of the first half of the movie seemed to choose to be constantly in shadows.

If anything stands out in memory about the first Abrams movie, it was the stand-out lighting (no, not lens flares) of the Enterprise. All that white! All that bright, clean light! For some reason, Justin Lin decided that every scene was to either be lit by a night light, or have impenetrable shadows dominating the shots. I was literally waiting for the movie to reach the planet, just so I could determine if the theatre was back to fucking with the projection. I still have to see it again, in another cinema to fully determine/enjoy. Maybe that new wrap around experience?

So, the third of the Abrams movies, this time directed by Justin Lin of the Fast/Furious franchise. Kirk and company are in year three of their five year mission, but that is just a toss away connection to the original series and completely irrelevant. Like Enterprise, they may be out there but that doesn't mean familiar space isn't just around the corner. In this instance, it's the Yorktown, a megalopolis in space. This is how space stations were meant to be envisioned, sitting at the edge of known space (or in this case, an unexplored nebula), but a centre of life & commerce, and MASSIVE.

The Enterprise is docking there for some leave and for Kirk to second guess his whole purpose in life. He's a captain, did he really ever want to be one, maybe its time to step away. Enter counter-reason. But let's stick with that premise. We know he joined on a dare, we know he didn't really respect Star Fleet. But bored?  Really, bored?  Sure, insert episodic joke but I cannot believe that flying around in the Federation's flagship would ever be boring. Alas, Kirk with his annoying big(ger) hair jumps at the chance to help a random alien seeking their assistance and heads into some dangerous nebula next door.

"It's a trap!" shouts the alien member of the crew in the wrong movie. No, not really, but my brain did. But the attack, and the inevitable destruction of the Enterprise is quite impressive / disheartening. Holes are punched by a hive-like attack of smaller ships that come out of nowhere, in a massive swarm. The Enterprise is literally torn apart and the crew, like Kirk's father's crew before him, have to abandon ship.

This is where the real movie began for me. They all fall onto a planet, captured by the Bad Guys and set to some sort of mining. Really, I had no idea why they were sent there. Krall, the reptilian leader who is definitely (and disappointingly)  not a Gorn has An Agenda, and it involves some Red Herring Kirk ended up with from the prologue. Capturing passing ships and forcing their survivors to do something is just part of it. Its bigger, Evil-ler.

Helping the crew, or should I say helping Scotty, is the capable, confident and beautiful white white white with a bit of black skinned alien Jayla. But damn, is she a capable supporting character. As Kent pointed out, she is not not duplicitous in any way, which is a bit of a relief considering the way most secondary characters run these days. I had to chuckle at her, as she was not a sex interest for Kirk but a counterpoint for Scotty, played by Simon Pegg who happened to have a heavy hand in writing this one. I don't begrudge him Mary Sue-ing this interaction at all.

I enjoyed the movie as much as I could. But I am not sure where this movie sits in the mythology of the Star Trek, now Franklin Timeline world. It did not contribute much to the expansion of the characters. It did not really expand the world of the Federation, beyond the insert of the Five Year Mission toss away comment. Where next?  Guys, please work on doing more than exciting spectacle!

I will end by letting Graig's comment on the whole resolution stand. I have nothing to say on it, as it barely made an impact. It looked cool and made a cool poster.

And I know I have to see it again.

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.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation

2013, d. Jon M. Chu

[So my original post got bollocksed up, a grand masterpiece covering 30 years of GI Joe culture, gone and lost forever.  So, instead of 20 immaculately constructed, brilliantly reasoned, perfectly spelled, grammatically correct paragraphs, you get this less eloquent, half-sized assembly of thoughts about the movie.]

G.I. Joe: Retaliation is an authentically awful movie.  It comes by it's lack of grandeur honestly, as it is a true successor to the works of Buzz Dixon, Ron Friedman and the other writers of the Marvel Productions cartoon of the 1980s, as well as Larry Hama's impressive decade long run on the series with Marvel Comics.   

The primary impetus for these source materials was, without a doubt, to sell toys.  The comics and cartoons featured on-model representations of the characters, vehicles and playsets found on toy shelves and in toy chests all over the world, much to the delight of the children who play with them.  To think there's not any creative or artistic merit to stories crafted out of a set of action figures is a cynical position to take.  Action figures are, inherently, a vehicle for storytelling, a ferry for children's imaginations.  Kids will do what they will with the action figures they have, but they also love to see their toys come to life (see Toy Story's enduring popularity for example) and how they act and behave without their guidance.  

The cartoon was richly detailed and wonderfully animated, in such a regard that visually it holds up well today.  It often featured multi-part arcs to convey that the threat Cobra presented wasn't always so easily overcome.  The episodes were primarily story-driven, so the characters were rather broadly constructed, their personalities driven more by the voice cast than any character-expanding stories.  Due to FCC regulations, violence had to be, well, non-violent, so all bullets and ballistics were converted to lazers, and despite frequent spectacular fire fights and exploding vehicles, nobody died.  It was always a Cobra versus Joes affair, both sides seeming somewhat buffoonish overall.  It was in the comic books that Larry Hama worked in a hard military angle (he addressed military rank frequently and used military jargon and acronyms which were helpfully explained in footnotes), provided stories that were character-driven as often as story-driven, worked in martial arts philosophies, and dabbled in simplified politics.  And characters died, often noble, often senseless deaths. Hama's took a more serious approach to his storytelling, but also seemed to understand that there was something inherently goofy to the whole situation, and would just as often play into as well. In both cases, the comics and cartoon played into the concept that the toys set up, that each Joe has a specialty, and thus they frequently featured large casts.  

The first film, by Stephen Sommers was a train wreck.  Ugly and incoherent, but also unaware of what the characters were supposed to be all about.  The film presented spectacle but it wasn't good, and it was disingenuous to the G.I. Joe brand.  Retaliation acts as more of a reboot as well as a sequel, fully aware that the "hyper-suits" (or whatever they were called) and other ideas of the first film were not authentic to the Joe experience.  Despite the sometimes drastic difference in the presentation of the characters between the comic and cartoon, there was a consistency between them that fell right in line with the toy brand.  Retaliation is many broad steps forward to finding that same consistency that the first film ignored in favour of trying to "modernize" (or "futurize") its military fighting force.

Retaliation brings back the idea that the Joes are soldiers, and hits the military angle hard (well as hard as a movie based on action figures will support, in line with Hama's portrayal of them).  Channing Tatum's Duke returns as the commanding officer, and Tatum has developed considerable screen presence since the first film.  I mercifully don't recall much about "The Rise of Cobra" save for the general impression of its awfulness and Tatum's decided lack of charisma.  Here he's loose and leading charming, matching the always enjoyable Dwayne Johnson.  Tatum and Johnson have considerable chemistry, and the film spends time building their close relationship, only to take it away as the catalyst for the titular "retaliation", as nearly the entire Joe platoon is massacred.  (Johnson and Tatum should most certainly appear together in another vehicle).

The story that plays out could have appeared in either the cartoon or the comics (but is original to the film), which Joe faithful will certainly appreciate.  Zartan is masquerading as the president, and with patience has executed Cobra Commander's scheme to destroy the Joes, take control of the country and potentially destroy the world.  Meanwhile, a story straight out of the comics, Snake Eyes and Storm Shadow bury the hatchet when they learn that it wasn't Storm but Zartan that killed their master years ago.  

Like the cartoon, the characters in the film are pretty flimsy.  While Snake Eyes was a star in the comics (the central figure in the title in its later years) where others can speak for him and his physicality can be placed in more focus, be more pronounced or exaggerated, he doesn't work so well as a feature player in motion.  As such, the B-plot is more Storm Shadow than Snake Eyes focussed and even then it feels disconnected and slight.  Still it does result in one of the most engaging and inspired action sequences I've seen, in which Snake Eyes and Jinx (Storm Shadow's cousin) square off against a seemingly neverending swarm of ninja while tethered to a mountainside.  It would have had even greater impact if we were more invested in the characters and their situation.

The trio of Roadblock, Lady Jaye and Flint are the sole survivors of the assault on the Joes and they lead the remainder of the film.  Johnson's charisma carries much of the film, though Roadblock has no real arc (only Storm Shadow truly has anything approximating a character arc).  Adrianne Palicki (who played Wonder Woman in a failed pilot recently) succeeds at being tough as Lady Jaye , but is too often undermined by having to play sexy.  D.J. Cotrona is Flint, a perfunctory character without purpose or definition.  Bruce Willis stubs in as the original G.I. Joe, Joe Colton, another flimsily assembled character who seems to be in the film because they could get Bruce Willis.

The bad guys consist of Jonathan Pryce in the dual role of the President and Zartan-as-the-President and he seems to be truly enjoying himself.  Both roles are steeped in cliches but Pryce's zeal goes a long way to making it entertaining.  Ray Stevenson as Firefly does most of the physical legwork in the bad guy department, but he's impressive and imposing, even if his cajun accent barely holds for a few minutes.  Cobra Commander finally appears like Cobra Commander should appear.  He's serves no other purpose than as a figurehead, and looks the part.

There's plenty of cool vehicles in the film, HISS tanks and Raptors and Rippers and Fangboats... the vehicles were about the only thing the first film got right, and it's nice to see them in action here, if only minimally (there's more focus on gunplay and physical fighting).   There's one land battle sequence with the vehicles and another boat fight, both happening in quick succession, inter-cut with a half dozen other gun fights, and it's endemic of the film's problem.  Watching a lot of Bond films recently, it's apparent that the key to their success is the fact that they let the action sequences breathe, stand on their own.  They become more memorable as an island than a part of the landscape, but you have to have plenty of meaningful plot and/or character to focus on between the action scenes, which is what Retaliation lacks.

In rating the quality of the film you have to contextualize it three ways.  The first is against it's predecessor, "The Rise Of Cobra", and in comparison it's a triumph.  The second is judging it against the beloved cartoons and comics from the property's heyday.  Retaliation is as readable or watchable as the comic and cartoon remain.  It's a kitschy '80's sensibility with a modern budget.  It's literally toys come to life and there's something delightful about it.  However, it's comparing retaliation against the standards of quality in cinema where Retaliation fails big time.  It's not a good movie.  Like a carnival ride, Retaliation provides momentary entertainment, but there's not a lot to think about beyond the initial experience.  Joe fans will celebrate this film, just as I'm sure the film will likewise create new Joe fans (it's violent, but moderately so for interested kids 10+).  And it will sell some toys.

KWIF: sets and series

 KWIF=Kent's Week in Film. This week, the big view was Tron:Ares which I covered doing a whole Recognizer-sized post about the film series. So that leaves three other sets and series I've been lured into as of late.

This Week:
True Grit (2010, d. Joel and Ethan Coen - dvd)
Shadow of the Thin Man (1941, d. W.S. Van Dyke - dvd)
Final Destination 2 (2003, d. David R. Ellis - rental)

---

Some might say that making a new True Grit was a gamble, while others might say that it was a no-risk, sure-fire hit. Both can be true.

Yes, True Grit was, and remains, the Coen Brothers' biggest box office success by quite a wide margin. Grossing over 250 million it was a legitimate blockbuster that went on to earn 10 Oscar nominations (and won none... Jeff Bridges would have been a shoe-in had the Academy not just given him Best Actor for Crazy Heart the year prior, a decision some say was more a "career achievement" Oscar rather than a reflection of the quality of film or his performance in it). It was a new adaptation of Charles Portis' novel that had been previously adapted in 1969, shortly after its publication, into a John Wayne-starring vehicle [Toasty's pandemic-era review] that was also a bit hit and won John Wayne his first and only Oscar, and is considered a classic in cinematic westerns.

In promoting the film, the filmmakers and cast were explicit about noting the film was an adaptation of the novel, not a remake of the movie. Remaking a classic means comparing one's film to the classic, and the risk is 9 times out of 10 that doesn't go very well. But there are always exceptions, and the Coen's True Grit proved to be one of those exceptions. 

It's a fairly straightforward premise, as most classically-styled westerns tend to be. A young woman, Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld in her first role), arrives in Fort Smith, Arkansas, looking to hire a Marshall to hunt down the man who killed her father. Mattie is hyper-intelligent, educated, well-read, brash, and can talk circles around pretty much anyone... and regularly does. She fixates on U.S. Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges), because he's been described as a man with "true grit" (that's the name of the movie!), and has a history of being less than lenient on the subject he pursues.

In reality, Cogburn is a one-eyed alcoholic who sleeps on a cot in the back of a grocers store. He's kind of gross, but also, he's pretty damn good at his job. Likely because of his perpetually inebriated state, Mattie can't really get a leg up on him, at least verbally, but money talks and Cogburn takes the job. But in taking the job he's unfortunately (at least in his perspective) saddled with Matty who persistently accompanies him on the trek, because she wants to see the job gets done personally. 

Cogburn has also forged an uneasy partnership with Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), who has been in pursuit of their prey, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin) for many years now. LaBoeuf is cocky and dresses in clean leathers with fancy tassels and has the air of arrogance about him, which rubs Cogburn the wrong way (the gulf spreads further when the men realize they were on opposite sides during the Civil War).

The story is about how these three very different people interact with one another, how they want to let their differences divide them, but along the way find respect for each other. 

I have not read the book, not seen the original adaptation, so I don't know how much of this True Grit deviates from the past of either story. Compared to almost every other Coens film, there doesn't seem to be much Coen-isms in this, but I'd bet pretty heavily I would see them were I to actually compare. (The one standout Coen-ism is LaBoeuf pronouncing his last name LeBeef).

It's a film that would have succeeded without a doubt because its source material is solid and the directors are master craftsmen, but the casting elevates everything. Hailee Steinfeld has to carry the first act pretty much on her own, and she does so exceptionally well. Adopting a drawl at the same time as performing exceptionally twisty, fast-talking dialogue, while still retaining a twinkle of mischievous charm at 14-years-old...she's a once-in-a-lifetime find, able to punch her weight against the likes of Bridges, Damon and Brolin. She was exceptional on-screen from moment one, and she's only gotten better in the 15 years since. She's one of my favourite actors, and it's awe-inspiring seeing how good she's always been.

Bridges's post-The Big Lebowski career seemed to always be in the shadow of Lebowski. It's like his relaxed, Californian dude-ness was allowed to come front and center in that film, and he couldn't get it back in. Suddenly, on the press circuit, Bridges wasn't just "actor Jeff Bridges", he was actually the Dude. But on screen, when it called for it, Bridges could bottle that all up and pull out completely different personas, and Cogburn was definitely one of those other personas. Bridges does some incredible physical work based around Cogburn's eye patch alone, but he dances on pin heads stepping between hypercapable, soused boor, and endearing mentor to Matty. 

With Roger Deakins behind the lens, it of course looks fantastic. Carter Burwell's score leans heavily into conventional western territory with absolute purpose. It's a masterfully executed production by all parties involved. It's seems so breezy a production to watch and quick immerse one's self in, that it's easy to undermine how complicated it must have been to pull off. The Coen's films almost always tend to challenge the audience's expectations, to toy with genre and storytelling conventions, so it's True Grit's lack of these qualities, and only the absence of those "Coen-isms" that make this a lesser production in the portfolio...in almost other director's portfolio it would be their masterpiece.

[Poster talk... when did character posters become a thing. I remember two main posters for the film... the one above which was all about font, resembling an older timey parchment poster, and the one which features grizzled looking men with guns.  The "men with guns" one was to sell it to the guys who like men-with-guns movies. The parchment one is meant to sell it to the art house movie crowd who like to read, I guess. Look! Words! But I didn't realize that True Grit had a series of character posters, and now I'm wondering when the whole character poster trend started...a quick *something* search finds character posters for the original Oceans 11 though the individual character one-sheets are rare, but Batman Returns was maybe the first big one where it's really spotlighting individual characters, not just the actor...TBC]

---

The fourth Thin Man movie takes the Charles family back to San Francisco. Nick (William Powell) and Nora (Myrna Loy) leave Nick Jr. and Asta behind for a day at the races when Nick's drunken speeding gets him pulled over... well, more the speeding than the drunkenness. The motorcycle cop writes Nick up a ticket, but then recognizes the famous detective, and decides to escort him to the track...very slowly, when they are suddenly swept up in a swarm of cop cars, all on their way to the same destination.

A jockey has been murdered at the track and now Nick has been roped into working on the case by the ever-annoyed Lieutenant Abrams (Sam Levene). There's been a task force afoot to root out the criminals who have been fixing the sporting events in the area, and they think the jockey's murder is a part of it. 

As is common with a Thin Man film, the story gets twisted and complex as more and more players filter in, additional murders happen, and Nick reluctantly investigates while Nora insinuates herself into the investigations with less and less resistance from Nick.  And there's plenty of drinking.

Shadow of the Thin Man leans the more heavily on the comedy than the last two films, and keeps Nick and Nora closer (acknowledging even in film how it's better when they're together). Also, the return of Levene as Abrams is more than welcome, although the script does make Abrams out to be much lest competent than he seemed last time (a lot of the comedy from Abrams is how he understands what's really going on but then asks Nick to explain it to him). The story, though gets way too convoluted in its plotting and when it reaches its endgame (the usual Thin Man end game, where Nick gets all potential suspects in a room and then figures out the killer on the fly), well, the stakes feel alarmingly low.

I probably shouldn't enjoy the comedy of the Charles' alcohol abuse as much as I do, but it's presented whimsically, without ever a hint of how it's an impediment to their lives, as if it was a magical joy elixir that makes everything better. It makes me miss being able to have a nip, as it seems it should be especially fun to pair up some cocktails and drink along with the film.

[Poster talk... while that kinda looks like Myrna Loy, it's really not doing her any favours.This poster is telling you nothing.]

---

With the second of the Final Destination films, the filmmakers (including series creator Jeffrey Reddick) decided to do what so many horror franchises do in their initial sequel: build mythology.

The first film presented the idea that sometimes people get visions, and then they escape death, and maybe help others escape Death. That escape is only temporary and death will come calling again, and there's a "design" to Death's approach. However, there are also signs, that, if you're paying attention, can foretell Death's plan. ("Death" is not an actual character, but the way that Death is talked about in this film, it's as if it is an actual being).

Final Destination 2 both expands on the ideas of the first one, but also breaks the structure in a way that threatens to lessens the entertainment value.

The film opens with college student Kimberly Corman (A.J. Cook) heading out on a road trip with her pals to Daytona Beach, only to get on the highway and immediately become part of a horrifying sequence of events involving a logging truck. It's an absolutely spectacular and delightful sequence as it introduces us to Cook and her annoying friends who we look forward to watching die, as well as these super-funny quick-hit introduction to all these other drivers on the highway who, likewise, we look forward to watching die because they're all mostly awful.  And yeah, they all die real, real quick when the logging truck spills its load and chaos ensues.

Of course it's all Kimberly's vision as she's sitting on the on-ramp, and she freaks out, block the ramp and effectively saves the lives of many of the drivers immediately behind her when the accident triggers shortly thereafter.  I'm not sure how Kimberly and only the people she saw die in her vision all wound up at the police station together (I guess they wanted to see if any of them needed crisis counselling?) but they do and they all have varying levels of skepticism over Kimberly's prognostication.

This takes place in the same region as the last movie, and so everyone's familiar with Flight 180. After one of the survivors dies shortly after, Kimberly thinks what happened to the Flight 180 survivors is going to happen to the survivors of the crash. Not only does she think it, she knows it, because she keeps getting difficult-to-interpret visions (rather than the signs that the survivors of the past film would see).

Paired with overprotective Police Officer Thomas Burke (who's too old to have an obvious crush on this teenage college girl, played by one-time Jimmy Olson Michael Landes) they seek out the only remaining survivor of Flight 180, Clear Rivers (Ali Larter) who resides on her own volition at a mental health facility, paranoid that death will find her.  After more deaths, Clear takes Kimberly and Thomas to see the guy at the mortuary from the last film (Tony Todd)  who seems to have special insight on Death. He tells them the only way to interrupt Death's design is to bring new life into the world. The surviving Scooby gang recall a pregnant woman from the highway, and determine that they need to find her and ensure her baby is born in order to break the cycle.

Of course, Death finds them along the way in a series of gleeful and gruesome accidents, until only a few of them are left. But before they're all dead, they all learn that they are all alive anyway thanks to some knock-off effects from the survivors of the first film. So in a way Death is still trying to clean up the mess that happened in the last movie.

For what was a pretty simple premise in the first film, Final Destination 2 tends to overcomplicate things, but that actually works in its favour. The more ridiculous it gets, the more entertaining it is. The first Final Destination was literally life-or-death for its characters. It was a serious movie when a host of unfortunate events happened killing off a crew of very scared teenagers who already lived through a big traumatic incident. Here, it's so evident that the film just wants us to root for the invisible spectre of death to just take everyone out in as elaborate a fashion as possible.

The Rube-Goldberg-ian set-ups here leading to the kills are absolutely delicious, and director/stunt coordinator David R. Ellis revels in the fake out. Each kill presents many different ways that the target may die, whole sets are constructed with danger after danger such that the audience is constantly led astray as to what will actually be the victim's inevitable demise (a guy walks up the stairs only to reach the landing where all kinds of balls, marbles and wheeled toys lay to be stepped on sending him back down the stairs, only he makes it through that death trap completely unscathed. His actual death involves a dozen stages and an absurd level of confluence that makes the kill a comedic set piece rather than a horrific one).  

It's really Kimberly's visions, though, that weaken the film. The visions prognosticate the deaths, somewhat with oblique visuals that are intentionally difficult to interpret. The visions threaten to undercut the surprise of the deaths, and yet, the hints of what's to come actually wind up engaging the audience in a guessing game as to how the deaths are going to play out (and the film's defiance of those expectations most of the time is part of the fun). Yet, the visions feel like such a cheat for the film. The "signs" that were foretold by Clear (and also used in the last film) are only presented once here, and "signs" are much more creative and engaging than "visions". Kimberly's reliance upon her visions, and the surety upon which she believes she's interpreted her visions correctly, as well as the other characters so blindly following her visions...well, it makes the characters both dumb and unlikable. Kill them all! Kill them all!

Final Destination 2 really is so stupid, and yet it's exceptionally well-crafted stupidity. It's clear that while maybe not the greatest of attentions were paid to building its characters or writing dialogue, the level of detail work and care put into the deadly scenarios, and the execution of those scenarios are phenomenal. I always liked the first Final Destination, but Final Destination 2 may be one of the most entertaining movies I've ever seen. 

[Poster talk... there was only one poster for the American release of Final Destination 2, and main part of that poster is presented in the rear-view mirror of the French poster for the film. There was this trend for horror movie posters post-Scream, I think, that put all the young cast's heads on the poster in a slightly stylized way with a slight indication of what was coming for them, all presented in heavy blacks with a monochromatic accent. The horror posters of the late-90s and 2000s were so annoyingly same-y same-y and dull dull dull. FD2 is such a lively movie that largely takes place in the daytime that this grimdark shadowy poster with headlights doesn't represent the film in the slightest.]

KWIF: Inside Out 2 (+5)

 KWIF = Kent's Week in Film.

This Week:
Inside Out 2 (2024, d.  - Disney+)
Transformers: Rise of the Beasts (2023, d.  - Netflix)
Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins (2021, d.  - Netflix)
The Texas Chain Saw Massacre (1974, d. Tobe Hooper - Tubi)
Memories of Murder (2003, d. Bong Joon-Ho - Tubi)
The Hidden (1987, D. Jack Sholder - BluRay)

---

I'm reminded of the scene in The Empire Strikes Back  when Luke espies a dark cave that seems to be drawing him in. He asks Yoda "What's in there?" to which Yoda replies "Only what you bring with you."

As much as I use movies for escapism, I feel like approaching every new movie is very much the same scenario as that Force Cave. What one experiences, and how one reacts, is entirely shaped by what you go in with. Because of course it is.

With Inside Out, I literally went into the film with my child who would have been six-years-old at the time. I couldn't help but see my child as Riley, despite their being younger than the child in the film, and I empathetically experienced all those primary emotions the film presented in their primordial state. I was familiar with them all as exhibited by my child. If I wasn't a father, I don't know if my reaction would have been more stilted, kept at a distance, as Toasty's was.

I approached Inside Out 2 with reluctance. Pixar has developed a pretty uncomfortable dependence on sequels, which, despite not being overwhelmingly diminishing returns, it's just unfortunate that the new ideas aren't coming as quickly in the company's second 15 years as they did in their first.  I wondered what a second Inside Out could bring to the table that the first one didn't.  Surprisingly, the answer points to Toasty's complaint about there "only being five emotions representing everything for everyone". 

In the summer between grade school and high school, Riley hits puberty, and everything changes. Introducing Anxiety, Envy, Ennui, and Embarassment.  These new emotions come in boldly and brashly, taking over the controls, supplanting the more rudimentary emotions that got Riley this far, and it couldn't be more disastrous as Riley's core beliefs start forming about herself.

Anxiety (an exceptional vocal performance from Maya Hawke) exiles Joy, Sadness, Anger, Fear and Disgust, and it dominates Riley's personality, leading her to do many an awful thing, like abandoning her friends at hockey camp to go hang out with the high schools girls she idolizes, where she perpetuates lies to seem part of the gang.  As Joy and gang try to work their way back to central control, they start to see the dramatic changes in Riley's mind with Anxiety in charge. The sar-chasm was a particularly inspired touch.

I did not watch Inside Out 2 with my child, now a year older than Riley in the film. I wish I had. The film made massive box office this past summer, and I know it clearly resonated with my child's peers (their friends were going back to theatres for second and third viewings), but they seemed disinterested, probably because it wasn't anime.  My child has General Anxiety Disorder, and so watching a film where anxiety governs the actions of a child certainly has resonance for me. I also witnessed the horrendous turmoil that the surge of pubescent hormones had on them and their peers. It was two years of excruciating, soul crushing, heart-wrenching capital-"d" Drama that swung many of those kids I've known for decades onto dark paths of bullying and fighting and running away from home because they just can't process what's happening to them.

Inside Out 2 sort of dumbs down those conflicting, raging, hormonal emotions into individualized, personified beings that mess around with an increasingly complex inner world. It doesn't provide answers so much as awareness, it provides a mirror to view those emotions one may not understand, and encourages introspection.

The Inside Out films are about connecting and relating to the emotions of adolescence, both for those going through it, and for those watching others go through it. For those who are sans children in their life, it may provide a portal to connecting to those past emotions, or it may just not connect. It is a series dealing with the inner emotionality of a girl, and it doesn't cover all bases. It may not represent those dealing with young boys, or trans children, or neurodivergent children, or account for cultural differences. Again, we can only view these through the lens of what we take with us.

I took with me my parenthood, and it delivered an experience I could very much relate to.

---

I threw on Bumblebee for Lady Kent a few weeks back, in part to share with her it's pretty radical awesomeness as both an 80's-styled throwback, an actually good Transformers movie, and a great showcase for Hailee Steinfeld, an actress we've both really come to enjoy over the years. Also, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't crazy, and that, indeed it was a good film. 

It's good, maybe even great. 

I gave up on Transformers after the second one (yet, I still reluctantly watched the third, and enjoyed it?), but since Bumblebee I've also started reading the Skybound Transformers series by Daniel Warren Johnson, and it's created a little (all)spark of fandom in me that wasn't there before.  The comic has just passed its first year of publication, so it wasn't a thing when Transformers: Rise of the Beasts came out, so I didn't have any desire to see this in the theatre. Or watch it on VOD.  Even when it first cropped up on Netflix, exported from Paramount plus, I still waffled. It certainly wasn't priority watching.

Honestly, I put it on as something to fall asleep to.  I guess to its credit I didn't fall asleep. 

Taking place in 1994, Rise of the Beasts finds.... you know what, I'm not going to bother explaining the plot in any great detail. It's overly complex and kind of dumb. It has transforming robots chasing after two halves of a Maguffin that can open up a wormhole in space (we're back to LASERS IN THE SKY in 2023!?!) and draw forth the Galactus of the Transformers universe, Unicron. It wants to eat our planet. It's ups to Optimus Prime and his small band of Autobots to team up with some transforming robot animals to save the Earth.

The film is messy. It's overstuffed with robot characters who have a bit of personality but not much else. There's no character journeys here As with all previous Transformers movies I've seen, even Bumblebee, these films seem afraid to make the robots the lead characters of these films. Instead they opt for human leads for us to invest in. Sometimes it works, but not often. 

It works here... to a point. Anthony Ramos' (Hamilton) Noah Diaz is a veteran who has returned from the service but is finding employment hard. His mother is pulling double shifts, and his little brother has a sickle cell disorder and the bills are piling up. That this film gets so heavy with systemic racism, veterans issues, economic disparity and the failings of privatized health care in its opening act was absolutely impressive. Ultimately, with Noah's brother's health failing he has no other choice but to turn to crime for money. He goes to steal a Porsche which winds up being Mirage (voiced by Pete Davidson, Bodies Bodies Bodies), a playful, trusting Autobot who takes a shining to Noah.

Meanwhile Dominique Fishback (Swarm) plays Elena Wallace, a grad student working at an intern at a museum where she has proven herself to be the smartest person in the room but her whitelady boss takes all the credit and gets all the reward. Once again, this film is very much pointing at systemic racism, though it never really examines it beyond that. It's not like it's dealing with parallel issues between the Autobots, Decepticons and Maximals.  

In this opening act, the human drama was really good, and both Ramos and Fishback were very likeable in their roles, but as soon as they come to play with the Transformers, there's a pretty big disconnect between what the humans are capable of doing versus the big shape-changing robots, and that disconnect gets bigger and bigger the more shape-changing robots appear on screen, and we have two very crunchy/squishy humans in their midst. 

As noted, the robots have so little to contribute. They're the good guys and the bad guys, but these films seem afraid to focus on them as complex beings. Optimus Prime is a total asshole in this one, and he learns a lesson about trust and allyship but it feels sooo forced.  Bumblebee gets seemingly killed shortly after he first appears, which, with this being an legit sequel to Bumblebee seems like a slap in the face ...if it actually meant anything emotionally, which it does not.  Beyond Noah's relationship with his brother, there's no emotional connection to anything in this film, and even his relationship with his brother doesn't really connect to his motivation to venture with giant robots to Peru to fight a planet-eating threat.

The film has an incredible dad-rap hip-hop soundtrack. Every track is a bop from back in my heyday of the genre. But it's all just artlessly tossed into the film, when it could have been so, so, so gooood by timing the beats to actions or connecting to the sentiment of the scene. Alas, this is not an Edgar Wright or Quentin Tarantino production.

It's passably watchable as entertainment, but not impressive in the slightest.

[ToastyPost - we agree...it doesn't suck but it's not great]

---

Oh, and just like stupid prequels/origin 
stories of old, Snake doesn't get his
iconic looking helmet until the final scene

I followed up one Hasbro property with another in the same sitting. Like Rise of the Beasts I started the stupidly backwards-titled Snake Eyes: G.I. Joe Origins expecting to fall asleep to it. It was successful, but moreso because I started it after midnight and was utterly exhausted by that point.

Of all the hundreds of G.I. Joe characters, Snake Eyes is at best in the middle, but more likely the middle bottom of my rankings list. I never connected with ninja stuff in general as a kid, and, in the 90's, he was forced down our throats as "the cool one" or "the extreme one" like Wolverine or Ghost Rider. I frequently rebel against any effort to tell me what's cool. Not sure if you noticed.

What's definitely not cool is this G.I. Joe origin for Snake Eyes. It's a spectacularly muddled mess of a film that misses the mark of pretty much everything it is trying to do. Origin story for the silent, scarred, commando ninja: modest fail. Complete reset of the G.I. Joe franchise: total fail. 80's ninja throwback movie: utter fail. Modern action-fantasy franchise movie: epic fail.

Its a film that doesn't exist to tell a specific story, but instead do everything it can to build a franchise out of that story, and it's like Hollywood never learns. The Mummy. Green Lantern. Man of Steel. Iron Man 2. Madame Web. Hobbes and Shaw. etc. etc.  With this film, the moment it tries to plug in G.I. Joe and Cobra, what tenuous treads that were holding the thing together fall completely apart. 

From the onset we learn that Snake Eyes' father was killed in front of him and he's been angry and vengeful ever since. He's developed into handsome Henry Golding (Last Christmas), but also a fierce fighter besting everyone he comes across in illegal fighting venues, until one day he is given an offer: work for this stranger and he will be given the man who killed his father.

So he works for the stranger's criminal enterprise, only to quickly betray him by helping Tommy, a spy, escape. Tommy is who Joe fans will know better as Storm Shadow. He is intended to be the leader of his ninja clan, Arashikage, who are also allies of G.I. Joe and protectors of a sacred stone of power. Snake Eyes is actually a double agent, working for the stranger to infiltrate the clan and steal said stone.  The stranger, it turns out, is Tommy's uncle who was cast out of the Arashikage for being a selfish dick...or something.

Snake Eyes wrestles with acceptance in the ninja clan, and the dangling carrot of the man who killed his father. But barely.

The film conveys through dialogue the fact that Snake Eyes is torn between his loyalty and his thirst for vengeance, but it never actually feels like the character has this turmoil, mostly because it's too busy with dumb setpieces and inane character decisions to let the emotions settle.

Spoilers, if you care, but the final act has Snake Eyes betray the clan, steal the stone, hand it over to Tommy's uncle, who is going to wield it to destroy the clan, and then give it to the the Baroness of the terrorist organization Cobra. Snake Eyes is then given his dad's killer, only to learn he is a Cobra assassin. In other words, Snake Eyes has just done the bidding of the group that killed his father. So after freeing the assassin (what?) he turns around to try and save the Arashikage with Tommy, who now hates him so much. 

Scarlett joins the fight out of nowhere (what?) and Baroness is betrayed by Tommy's uncle so she sides with Scarlett and Snake temporarily (what?) and Snake says "Yo Joe" for no reason (what?) and Tommy uses the stone to kill his uncle and is told that he's broken a most sacred Arashikage vow, and now can no longer lead them, and he's so mad and hates Snake Eyes now so much and Scarlett recruits Snake Eyes to G.I. Joe but he's got to go find Tommy first, and he's now allying himself with the Baroness, and this movie is so, so dumb.

I didn't even get into Akiko, the head of Arashikage security who is absolutely terrible at her job. She falls for Snake Eyes and does some very stupid things blinded by her attraction. Pretty much everything everyone does in this movie is because it's in the script, not because it feels true to their character. Even after spending two hours with him, I never got a sense of who Snake Eyes was as a person, what his ethics were. Nobody should trust him, yet, everyone does, and it's pretty much all of their undoing. Snake Eyes could be considered the villain of the piece, not by intention, but by action.

It's an ugly looking movie for the most part. It's shot like a cheap European direct-to-VOD action movie. The only thing that saves it (well, nothing actually saves it) are gorgeous sets and some cool motorbikes. This made my brain hurt.

---

I've blathered on too long about movies about toys that I have no energy to talk at length about the grandpappy of torture porn horror, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.

I've avoided this film my whole life. The title in itself just sounds completely unappealing. Who voluntarily wants to see something with that title? I know there are people who do, I'm just not one of those people.

I've been pelleted with Leatherface imagery for much of my life, and that just doubled down on my "no thank you" stance towards this film.  

So what prompted me to watch this? It was Electric Boogaloo, the documentary on Canon films. In there it mentioned how the Canon-produced sequel to TTCSM was more of a satirical horror film in the Evil Dead 2 vein, and that piqued my curiosity. But in the weeks since, I forgot they were talking about the sequel and not the original.

Four college kids are in a van, going to rural wherever to visit a family-owned property. Along they way they pick up a weirdo hitchhiker who does some weird stuff before being kicked out. Then they stop at a gas station with no gas, before heading up to the abandoned house. The kids start exploring the property and two of them are killed by a disturbed man in a butcher's gown, a wig and a mask made of flesh. Then other go searching for them and are killed with a chainsaw, until only one of them is left. She is chased after, caught, and forced to sit through a torturous dinner scene with the guy from the van, the guy from the gas station, the human leather-face chainsaw murderer, and a feeble and decrepit old man who seems barely alive. She eventually escapes, frustrating the leather-faced one.

I wasn't bored, necessarily, but I found the whole movie to be tedious. I was intrigued by it initially, as the opening moments with is screeching flash-bulb imagery have been so iconic in the horror genre, but I've just never witnessed their origins. The sequences in the van, the easy, rambling conversations, then the weird encounter with the hitchhiker are well done if not necessarily well performed. There's a lot of capital-"a" Acting happening there.

I by the time the kids encounter Leatherface, I wasn't feeling the build of tension, and at no time was I ever really scared by the events. I guess watching this film after sort of knowing about it for over 40 years, it all just seems inevitable. 

The final act is 25 minutes of Marylin Burns (as Sally) scream pretty much non-stop. I'm sure if I were in a theatre witnessing this for the first time in the 70's or 80's, as a younger person less experienced with cinema, this would have been pretty intense. But now I just found it annoying. The prior kills were just so abrupt that they weren't really shocking or gruesome, and we're not really given much to invest in these characters so watching them die seems like a formality of horror filmmaking (this is how I feel about most slasher and torture porn horror). Sally's screaming ad nauseum is so grating... at a certain point what is it accomplishing? It's the only trick in her book. It is impressive work by Burns though, I must admit.

I mean, as a piece of horror history, I get its place. But what's its point? To horrify and disgust? Fine, but it didn't do that for me.

---

After two not-great toy franchise movies and a classic horror film showing its age, I needed a palette cleanser. I needed something from someone trustworthy, something stimulating. I needed Bong Joon-ho.

I had no idea what to expect from Memories of Murder. It's an evocative title, but meaning what, exactly? Is it a character study, a drama about someone who has killed? Is it a psychological suspense film about a therapist and their disturbed patient? Is it a genre picture, where someone can enter peoples memories and finds a murderer within? I wouldn't put any of these past Director Bong.

But Memories of Murder is instead the director's tribute to grotty 1980's and '90's suspense procedurals, like Witness, Bad Lieutenant, Blue Velvet, or half the Coen Bros output from the era.  

It's 1986 and a woman if found dead after an assault, left in a drainage ditch in rural Korea. The crime scene offers few clues. A short while later, after a rainfall, another woman is found, but the local police forces are so inexperienced they're unable to keep the evidence untainted and the crime scene clear. A suspect, a mentally impaired young man, is brought in for questioning, and coerced after days of abuse, into giving a confession. A new recruit from Seoul does his own investigation, leaving the dirty cops to their dirty deeds. The boy, once brought into the open, it turns out, has an alibi they didn't bother to check.

They try to catch the killer, knowing he will strike next during the rainfall, and some actual detective work yields the potential for clues, but they're just too many steps behind. It's never quite clear if the killer knows they're looking for him, but it still feels like a cat-and-mouse game, mostly as it involves two very different Detectives with two very different procedures for solving crimes. But over time Detective Park's corrupt, gut-feeling tendencies start to give way to Detective Seo's evidence and tactics based procedures. Conversely, Detective Seo, once he locks in on a target, embrace Detective Park's shadowy tendencies and it's up to Park to be the rational one.

It's not that we have not been aware of the corruption within policing institutions in the past, but it seems only in the past 5 years has it becomes part of the conversation, out in the open. Policing institutions are given so much latitude to abuse and circumvent the rules set out for them, and even calling it out changes nothing. This film, from 21 years ago is keenly aware how these abuses in the name of justice come about, and unlike a lot of American "copaganda" it's not forgiving in the slightest for it.  

It presents our Detectives as humans, for sure, but people who are allowed to let their bases impulses be acted out with impunity, and feel justified for it. It shows how the police look at everyone outside of them as something else, not equals, but others. They see a population fill with potential perpetrators, potentials suspects, potential victims. 

The tone of Memories of Murder is grim, but also blackly comical. Before Detective Seo arrives, the police are buffoonish. We can see the ineptness and laziness at play. It'd be funny if it weren't so upsetting. Plus Detective Park, ostensibly our protagonist, is pretty terrible. A misogynist, an abuser of power, and maybe even a little dumb...he's not a likeable character, and yet in the body of Song Kang-ho (a mainstay of Director Bong's work), he's compelling. You want to hate him fully, but there's just a little something there that you're kind of charmed by, even though you should know better.

If this movie has a more direct parallel than the 80's and 90's movies it's inspired by, it would be Zodiac. I have to wonder if David Fincher was directly inspired by Director Bong's work here, because they feel like kin.

---

The Hidden is an 80's cop movie that Director Bong definitely wasn't using as inspiration. 

Sgt. Beck (Michael Nouri, Yellowstone) has been chasing a man all over town, a seemingly everyday, average, genteel citizen who all of a sudden snapped and starting assaulting, murdering, robbing and terrorizing Los Angeles, often with a smile on his face. Eventually the law catches up to the man, and he winds up in the hospital in a coma, with no answers to give for his sudden shift.

FBI Agent Lloyd Gallagher (Kyle MacLachlan, The Flintstones) turns up at the precinct and has Beck assigned to him. Turns out Gallagher was  looking for the same man man...shortest lived partnership ever. Except that when the accused turns up dead in his hospital room and his roommate is missing, going on his own similarly violent and impulsive spree, things for Beck and Gallagher seem to be just getting started.

The film's not shy about it, it's an alien parasite hopping from body to body. Yeah, sounds absurd, but holy hell is it a fun 97 minutes of nearly flawless filmmaking telling the story. There are no false moves in The Hidden, at no point am I screaming "come on" at people who should know better, at no point is the suspension of disbelief I've granted the film stretched even close to the breaking point. It seems like every question that should be asked by a police detective is being asked, and even when the answers are skirted by Gallagher, it's clocked by Beck.

MacLachlan plays Gallagher like a true weirdo (like a warmup for Twin Peaks), and Nouri's glib yet analytical nature isn't ever fooled, but his intuition is telling him something.

It's not the prettiest film, but Sholder never reaches too far. He's not trying for anything fancy, he's just telling a fun story and he does it very, very well. 

In Men In Black, Vincent D'Onofrio delivers the greatest alien-in-human-disguise performance in cinematic history. In The Hidden we have the prototype for that very performance with Willaim Boyette's turn as the alien-in disguise. Boyette's physicality and verbal ticks and little nuances are all just divine. Three other performers - Chris Mulkey, Claudia Christian and Ed O'Ross - all deliver exceptionally fun performances as the skin suits.

In my memory, having last seen this film in the mid-1990s, this was a much more serious production, not the rollicking buddy cop romp where they're chasing an alien terminator through the streets of L.A. But yeah, it's a romp, just a straight up better-than-a-B-movie/not-quite-an-A-movie grand time of film, with perfect vibes.

Pairs well with: They Live, but honestly, I think it's an even superior film.

---