Thoughts on "IT: Chapter Two" (2019)

There is a running joke in IT: Chapter Two that writer Bill Denbrough (James McAvoy) cannot write a satisfactory ending to his books. Horror writer Bill is, of course, a stand-in for Stephen King whose mammoth 1,138-page novel serves as the basis for IT: Chapter Two, and the criticism is often applied to King’s books; IT in particular.

Stephen King needn’t be upset though, because the task of writing a worthwhile conclusion eluded the writers of this film too.

IT: Chapter Two is the highly-anticipated sequel to IT (2017) and finds the grown-up versions of the Losers Club, a group of social outcasts who vanquished the fear-mongering entity that often takes the form of Pennywise, the demonic clown in the ‘80s, being drawn back to their hometown of Derry, Maine when it becomes apparent that the creature has returned.

IT was a monster success upon its release, usurping The Exorcist as the highest-grossing horror film of all time, but it only adapted the first half of King’s tome. The promise of a sequel was a tantalizing one, and with the creative team back behind the camera and a distinguished cast including Jessica Chastain and Bill Hader in front of it, IT: Chapter Two seemed poised to keep the spirit of the first movie – which still permeates our culture, perverting our vision of storm sewers and red balloons – alive and vibrant.

IT: Chapter Two makes a valiant effort as it hurtles towards the finish of its nearly three-hour runtime, however more often than not in the race to get there, it trips and falls over its big, floppy clown shoes.

Part of what made the first IT movie a success was the freedom it felt in distancing itself from King’s prose. The corporeal monsters of the novel were replaced with demons of the mind, each chasing after, and tormenting the kids of the Losers Club in several well-staged scenes of horror.

IT: Chapter Two, while retaining the psychological edge which marked the first movie, elects to reinstate the monsters; lots of screen-time devoted to the adult Losers coming up against ghastly CGI creations that are liable to elicit titters of bemusement rather than cold shivers down the spine.

In fact, laughter may be one of the film’s great downfalls. IT: Chapter Two is a much funnier movie than it has any right to be; most of the jokes issuing from the Losers’ joker, Richie, played to perfection by Bill Hader, but the film’s humor manifests itself at the most inopportune moments, undercutting the tension which the movie works so hard to create. And while the juxtaposition of comedy can actually strengthen the scares of many horror movies, in IT: Chapter Two, Hader’s juvenile quips do nothing but dilute a potentially unnerving moment.

However, Hader still delivers a stellar performance, matching – if not surpassing – those given by the other performers. James McAvoy is excellent as the still grieving and self-loathing Bill, still blaming himself for the death of his brother, Georgie, and Jessica Chastain adds nuance to the role of Beverly whose abusive relationship we see is part of a viscous pattern which began in her childhood. There is real emotional weight to all of the characters and, as was the case with the child actors in the first film, there is a real sense of comradery among the adults.

It is such a shame, then, that the film gives us so few opportunities to see them all together.

The middle section of the movie feels bogged down by repetitive scenes of the Losers encountering Pennywise on their own which is liable to make one feel as though this stretch is much longer than it actually is. And when the characters’ stories converge once more in the final act, the action feels drawn-out and tedious.

More than once I felt while watching the Losers standoff with Pennywise that I was watching the final battle of an Avengers movie and this odd amalgamation of genres sat uneasily with me.

It is telling too that there is little to say of Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise who made such an impact in the first movie by remaining a shadowy presence throughout. Here, Pennywise is brought front-and-center diminishing the horror of the creature’s elusive presence and damagingly rendering him as a campy figure of fun.

IT: Chapter Two is not a bad movie. It simply bears all of the hallmarks of a Stephen King story – schlocky and confused – which the first movie worked so hard to correct. For an entertaining romp, IT: Chapter Two fits the bill but leaves one feeling that the film left a great deal of untapped potential to be mined.

300 Words on "The Call" (2013)

How do you define a dumb movie? Perhaps, better yet, I can elucidate by way of an example. Take The Call, for instance - the 2013 thriller directed by Brad Anderson and starring Halle Berry as a 911 dispatcher who must save the life of a teenage girl (Abigail Breslin) who has been abducted and thrown in the trunk of his car.

It should be noted from the start that dumb movies are not necessarily bad movies. Indeed, The Call is thoroughly entertaining from start to finish, and its central premise is wrung of all its dramatic potential. I would be lying if I said that I was not on the edge of my seat as Berry instructed Breslin on how to attract other driver’s attention on the highway from within the trunk, and in moments like these I – like the film – reveled in all its suspenseful splendor. Ultimately, however, The Call is a hollow piece of work, best enjoyed if one’s brain is checked at the door and the pesky nuisance of logical reasoning is not brought into it.

Like so many movies predicated upon such dramatic elevator pitch ideas like The Call’s, its central premise is not enough to sustain it and the film’s final act feels like a cheap rip-off of The Silence of the Lambs leading to a thoroughly underwhelming finale which only cements the film’s status as a dumb but harmless way to spend two hours. The Call is the type of film that is seemingly designed to be relegated to the bargain bin, but remains sufficiently entertaining enough for at least one viewing. 

Thoughts on "Once Upon a Time...in Hollywood" (2019)

We like to think that we know our favorite directors. The simple fact is that we do not, and the best of them are always capable of surprising us. Alfred Hitchcock, the Master of Suspense, delivered outright horror in Psycho (1960); Steven Spielberg proved that he was just as adroit when handling the special effects extravaganza of Jurassic Park as the hard-hitting and grounded Schindler’s List; and now Quentin Tarantino shows us that he has a soft side with his nostalgic look back on old Hollywood in Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood.

Of course, any film that Tarantino directs will still feature his greatest hallmarks, but Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood is another matter entirely. Indeed, one could look at the director’s previous movie, the bleak and nihilistic Hateful Eight, and this film and be hard-pressed to suggest that they were the work of the same director. Not since Jackie Brown (1997) has Tarantino delivered a film quite as laid-back and relaxed, a film that is happy to take its time in meandering through its story, and whose characters are brought to the forefront, deconstructed, analyzed, and presented for the audience’s enjoyment.

Those characters in Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood are embodied by Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt as Rick Dalton, a struggling former western TV star, and his stuntman Cliff Booth respectively. DiCaprio and Pitt are front-and-center in this film. This is their story as both struggle to find their place in a changing film industry, and both men are pitch perfect in their parts. DiCaprio in particular is enthralling in every scene he’s in. Whether he’s chastising himself for forgetting his lines, or drunkenly accosting hippies in his pajamas, it is no exaggeration to agree with little 8-year-old Trudi Fraser who Rick shares the screen with when she whispers in his ear that “that was the best acting I have ever seen in my whole life.”

DiCaprio and Pitt almost never leave center stage in the film, and so they are complimented by a number of glorified cameos from Margot Robbie as Rick’s neighbor, Sharon Tate, Mike Moh as Bruce Lee with whom Booth spars on set, Damian Lewis as Steve McQueen, and Al Pacino as Rick’s agent. But perhaps the most important character in the film is Los Angeles of 1969, meticulously recreated by Tarantino and his team. Hollywood is evocatively brought back to life not only through the beautiful set dressing, but a massive soundscape of late ‘60s radio hits, nearly all of which seem to be blaring from the speakers of Rick and Cliff’s cars.

Though Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood is atypical Tarantino, when he does serve up his standard profanity-laced, razor-sharp dialogue and excessive violence, it does not disappoint. But, for any audience member expecting this film to be a retread of the director’s earlier work, they shall be disappointed. I, however, was thrilled to watch Tarantino spread his wings and am of the opinion that he has done some of his finest work here. Indeed, the film’s last thirty minutes may be some of Tarantino’s very best as a storyteller; stretching tension at every turn and then wrongfooting the audience at nearly every opportunity.

If film fans can learn nothing else from Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood it is not to pigeonhole their favorite filmmakers. The best of the bunch have always got a surprise up their sleeves.

*

In my ongoing ranking of Tarantino films, I have discovered the list to be a much more fluid entity than I once thought. This revised list has changed since my last Tarantino review (Death Proof) and perhaps it is time to properly revisit this list. In the meantime, here is my ranking as it currently stands updated to include Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood from favorite to least favorite:

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Inglorious Basterds (2009)

Once Upon a Time…in Hollywood (2019)

Jackie Brown (1997)

The Hateful Eight (2015)

Django Unchained (2012)

Reservoir Dogs (1992)

Kill Bill (2003,2004)

Death Proof (2007)

300 Words on "Yesterday"

It should be mentioned right from the top that I love the Beatles, so it was destined that I would probably like Yesterday. I think that they are the greatest and most revolutionary band that ever existed and it’s obvious that writer Richard Curtis believes the same thing as character after character extoll the virtues of the songs that down-on-his-luck musician Jack Malick (Himesh Patel) has supposedly written, repeatedly calling them the best songs they have ever heard. It’s the kind of dialogue that made this die-hard Beatles fanatic smile from ear to ear.

But Yesterday is unlikely to have any more effect than to leave an audience smiling which, in itself, is not a bad thing. But the unique premise feels as if there is room for untapped potential as Curtis leans heavily upon his preferred cheesey romantic comedy conventions which he has already used in his previous hits Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) and Love Actually (2003). I love cheese, but a can of spreadable whiz just doesn’t pair well with an already beautifully-prepared platter.

The film certainly looks fantastic though, director Danny Boyle creating a brightly-colored landscape against which Patel, Lily James, Kate McKinnon, and (surprisingly) Ed Sheeran all deliver solid performances. And the arrangements of the Beatles’ music is well done too; not only are Himesh Patel’s covers excellently done, but Daniel Pemberton’s score which subtlety weaves the Fab Four’s melodies in the most unexpected places had me humming as soon as I left the theatre.  

If you are in search of an entertaining diversion for a few hours, Yesterday is the film for you. If you are a Beatles fanatic, you’ll probably get a kick out of this fun alternate history. However, Yesterday is about as saccharine as “Love Me Do” but a whole lot less resonant.

300 Words on "The Twilight Zone" (2019)

Submitted for your consideration…

Since the original series left its undeniable mark on our culture, there have been several attempts to reboot, remake, and reimagine Rod Serling’s The Twilight Zone. These attempts always fell short, but this most recent version – executive produced and hosted by Academy Award winner Jordan Peele (Get Out, Us) – gets the Twilight Zone formula for success right.

And the show knows it. In the series’ metafictional finale (a Twilight Zone episode about making a Twilight Zone episode) Zazie Beetz’s writer extolls the genius of Serling’s original series which mixed science fiction and horror with genuine social commentary, and it was this commentary which felt lacking in every other iteration of the show until now.

This new Twilight Zone is unafraid to tackle potent societal issues, and some of the series’ finest episodes confront police brutality, toxic masculinity, the Trump Administration, and gun violence. The episodes themselves may not always live up to the sum of their parts – nearly every episode features at least one recognizable guest star complemented by stunning visual direction – sometimes hindered by predictable plotting and the occasional twinge of unlocked potential from these storylines, but to say that Peele’s Twilight Zone is the closest thing that modern viewers have to the Serling original is praise enough.

For the first time in nearly fifty years, The Twilight Zone feels as if it is hands which truly understand its purpose and potential – a team who have achieved a seemingly impossible feat; to push sand upward through the hour glass, rewinding to the origin of the fabled show’s history. A feat that is impossible except in that fifth dimension; a dimension of sound and mind.

A feat achieved only in The Twilight Zone.  

300 Words on "Captain Marvel" (2019)

Perhaps more than any other Marvel movie, Captain Marvel knows who its target audience is. The film’s 1990s setting – filled to the brim with nostalgic references – make it clear that this movie is aiming for the older comic book crowd. And perhaps that is what makes Captain Marvel such a strong entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). Unencumbered by a need to appeal to fans of all ages, the film emerges as one of quirkiest and most unique entries in the long-running series.

That is not to say that Captain Marvel doesn’t feature the usual hallmarks of a Marvel movie. Indeed, the movie may be chalk full of more fan service than the last few films combined, but it all manages to feel fresh and different. There is some genuinely exciting action - including an excellent car chase the likes of which haven’t been seen in a Marvel film in a long time - and the film’s script (penned by co-directors Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck alongside Geneva Robertson-Dworet) showcases an offbeat sense of humor reminiscent of the MCU’s other, boldly eccentric entries.

There is also a genuinely intriguing mystery at the heart of the film’s scenario which is enlivened from strong performances by Brie Larson as the eponymous hero, Samuel L. Jackson as a digitally de-aged Nick Fury, and Jude Law as Larson’s former mentor. It all makes for an engaging watch, made all the more sumptuous by Ben Davis’ evocative cinematography. Captain Marvel may very well be the best looking of the films in the MCU.

Captain Marvel plays out like fairly standard Marvel movie fare, but its presentation is so singularly done that – despite the film’s endless attempts to weave its story into the larger tapestry of Marvel’s labyrinth-like narrative – Captain Marvel feels very much like its own, independent entity. 

Finally Getting Around to "Bird Box"

By the time that I got around to watching Bird Box the phenomenon was very much over.

Released on December 21, 2018, the horror film became a sensation almost immediately. Internet memes parodying the film flooded the worldwide web, and then videos starting popping up on social media of the “Bird Box Challenge” in which participants attempted the most rudimentary of tasks while blindfolded.

Netflix, who seldom releases viewing figures, said that within the first four weeks of the release of Bird Box that the film reached 80 million viewers.

Yet, from the beginning, opinion was divided on the movie. Some said that it was a unique, enthralling apocalyptic thriller. Others claimed that it was little more than a cheap knockoff of 2018’s earlier horror success, A Quiet Place.

For my part, the parallels to A Quiet Place were tenuous at best, but Bird Box still proved to be a disappointment.

Perhaps the most upsetting aspect of the film is that its incredible potential feels squandered. The story finds Mallorie (Sandra Bullock), a young artist, fighting to stay alive amongst a small group of survivors as the world is ravaged by creatures whose might is enough to induce insanity and suicide.

Bullock is the obvious star of the film, but she is complemented by an ensemble cast made up of so many familiar faces including Trevante Rhodes (perhaps best known for his role in the 2017 Best Picture-winner Moonlight), John Malkovich, Lil Rel Howery and Sarah Paulson.

However, star power does not make a film, as this assembled horde of familiar faces feels wasted in their underwritten roles. Malkovich, in particular, chews scenery like never before, and Sarah Paulson is gone almost as soon as she had arrived.

Bullock, then, caries much of the film on her shoulders and, to her credit, she does an admirable job. The scenes she shares with young actors Julian Edwards and Vivien Lyra Blair as Boy and Girl respectively, are invested with real emotional weight due in no small part to Bullock’s playing of the distant and standoffish Mallorie.

The generally lackluster performances do not help to salvage what could have been an exciting concept for a horror film. The notion that the world has been taken over by unknown beasts who can will humanity into ending their lives is a tantalizing one for any viewer with a taste for the macabre. 

And to the film’s credit, its realization of such creatures – never once allowing us to get a glimpse of them – is well done and suggestive that the monsters are simply too horrendous to even visualize. As a rare example of H.P. Lovecraft’s cosmic horror on film, Bird Box is pretty much unmatched.

However, Bird Box is bogged down by a painfully slow narrative which seems to only be marking time in between gruesome set-pieces. Even the sequences which were obviously designed to create suspense and push audiences to the edges of their seats seldom follow through on their intentions.

As Bird Box felt as if it were entering its third hour, I paused the movie only to see that 45 minutes had gone by. To be boring is, I think, the worst crime that any film – let alone a horror film – can commit.

There are a few noteworthy things about the movie: the visual effects are excellently handled (especially for a film with a comparatively low budget) and cinematography by Salvatore Totino gives the film an appropriately cold, bleak tone. These aspects go little way towards rescuing Bird Box though.

Bird Box was not a total disaster, but I am inclined to think that the social media firestorm which greeted the film upon its release was quite unfounded. As a horror movie with a unique story to tell, I applaud Bird Box.

I just wish it had done it better.