Author: fenrisfil

Megalopolis (2024)

Posted on by fenrisfil

So another movie I didn’t intend to write about this year is Francis Ford Coppola’s passion project “Megalopolis”. There was so little interest in this movie that even a 1 in 3 walkout rate barely got the attention of the media and many critics skipped reviewing the film because they really couldn’t figure out what to say about it. I expect most people will react to this review with: “I didn’t even know that film existed”. But the thing is after I did finally watch the movie, I turned out to have a lot to say about it. So here we are. I’m not going to give you a synopsis for this one because frankly the plot isn’t important. Yes, it’s that kind of film.

This is a movie that Coppola has been trying to get made since the 80’s. I suspect that had he made the movie back then the end result would have been vastly different. Instead this is a movie from an 85 year old likely at the end of his career. The movie ended up far more introspective than anything else. But I’m getting ahead of myself. Megalopolis is written and directed by Coppola, with Mihai Mălaimare Jr. as cinematographer and Osvaldo Golijov providing the score. The impressive cast includes: Adam Driver, Giancarlo Esposito, Nathalie Emmanuel. Aubrey Plaza, Shia LaBeouf, Jon Voight, Laurence Fishburne and Dustin Hoffman. Right let’s get into it!

Making A Movie Inside Out

Megalopolis poses the question of if it is possible to make a film inside out. That is, where the philosophical subtext is on the surface and the plot functioning as a metaphor bubbles subtly underneath it almost unnoticed. The film has more than two layers though, so there is subtext to the subtext. What this film is really about is Francis Ford Coppola and his examination of himself as an artist and the place of art in the world. That lies on top of what appears a somewhat grating examination of society, corruption and hope for the future. But that lies on top of the actual plot which is almost inconsequential to anything. So to examine this film we need to look at each layer separately.

Lets start with the actual plot and get that out of the way. For most of the movie there effectively is none. We spend more time watching characters philosophize and as a result don’t really get to know much about the minor players. We spend more time focusing on Cesar Catilina and Julia Cicero with the rest of the cast just sort of there. The actual plot, based off the “Catilinarian Conspiracy” doesn’t really kick into gear until the last 40 minutes of the film. That is an hour and a half in and it is rushed through. The entire time that plot is in full gear Cesar, Julia and Mayor Cicero are entirely removed from the situation. The plot resolves itself without even requires any of our main characters to be involved. It is treated as unimportant and perhaps that is itself a metaphor.

The Metaphor To The Metaphor

The second layer is the grating sociopolitical one. Which is presented in a pretty obvious and perhaps even childish manner. The Utopian city being presented is built on a magical new substance that was discovered by chance and can basically perform miracles. One tip if you watch the movie, every time someone says “Megalon” replace it in your head with “Rock and Roll”. You’ll be overcome with a desire to listen to Starship in no time. We are shown slums, violence on the streets and in case the audience doesn’t get it a giant slumped over statue of justice, who has apparently given up. This layer tells us we can have a great future made out of magical bullshit. To be a bit kinder to it, the movie doesn’t offer solutions and merely says a conversation is needed. But it’s still childish as it assumes that conversation is not happening.

But this is where the final layer improves things. See, I am not convinced the story is meant to be a preachy sociopolitical one. Instead, I am convinced the film is actually about creativity, specifically the role of the film maker. This is more obvious, before that main plot kicks. It is just that what he is saying, relates to the layer above, but not the actual plot. However, the constant philosophical musings of Cesar, the architect, drops clear hints that he is functioning directly as a mouth piece for Coppola. When he comments about man creating gods but not being able to harness the power of gods, it seems to reflect the frustration of a film maker not able to directly harness the power of his movies.

Creating Conversation

This also re-frames the repeated lines that the goal isn’t to provide solutions but to create a conversation. Coming from a political ideologue it seems a childish naive view, but coming from an artist it makes perfect sense. It is not an artists job to provide solutions to politicians and scientists. This is especially true when tackling difficult social issues and in science fiction. I’ve said many times the difference between old science fiction and what passes for it these days is that the old films and shows were designed to make you think, the new ones try and tell you what to think. That is a horrendous mistake that causes more harm than good. So it is vital for modern film makers to understand this. Coppola I think does.

So, ultimately there is a reason why the political preaching of the film feels superficial, because it too is a metaphor and not important in itself. This is an incredible ambitious piece of film making and it’s worth noting that many great directors end up effectively making a movie about themselves and the art of making films. Invariably it ends up their undoing, though not due to being actually bad. Consider Michael Powell’s “Peeping Tom” or Orson Welles “The Other Side of the Wind”. This movie is almost impossible to like, but still impressive and fascinating in equal measure. That makes it hard to rate, but since this will only appeal harden film scholars (More hardened than myself), I think a 5/10 is fair.

Rating: 5 out of 10.

Review Roundup – December 2024

Posted on by fenrisfil

It’s been a while since I did a review roundup. But I’m back with three movies from this year to check out. These are basically family/kids movies. Seems appropriate for the holiday. All three of these movies will entertain kids and may entertain adults too. First up we have that other Ryan Reynolds movie that came out this year “IF”, then we have the first Transformers animated movie since the 80’s with “Transformers One” and finally I have “The Wild Robot”, you won’t want to miss that one I promise.

If

First up is the imaginary friend comedy “If”, also known as the other movie with Ryan Reynolds that came out this year. This is the latest release from Writer/Director John Krasinkski, so I’m not the only one switching from horror to family movies. Krasinki of course was the man behind the “Quiet Place” franchise. While Quiet Place had a relatively small cast, this one is exploding with named talent including Reynolds, Louis Gossett jr., Steve Carell, Emily Blunt, Blake Lively, Matt Damon and others. The leads though are Reynolds and Cailey Fleming as young Bea, the films protagonist.

12 Year old Bea moves into her grandmother Margaret’s apartment in New York while her father waits for heart surgery in the same hospital where her mother died of cancer years earlier. Naturally she is worried, but her father uses humour to try and raise her spirits. On her way home one day she spots a strange creature and follows it to another apartment in the same block. She discovers a whole load of strange creatures and a strange man that lives there called “Cal” (Reynolds). Bea learns these are imaginary friends that have been shed by their child and that Cal is trying to find them all new children to attach to. Bea as someone able to see all of them is the perfect person to help.

Then

This is a visually imaginative and interesting movie. Each imaginary friend is distinct and unique and their world is weird and wonderful. Unfortunately, most of this was shown in the trailer and the movie itself adds almost nothing. If you have seen the trailer, you have seen pretty much all the characters. Each basically comes with a joke and so you’ve seen that too. They are all painfully one dimensional and frankly so are most of the human characters in this story. That said, it does have heart and maybe that is enough for some people.

The plot though is paper thin and none of the characters (Even the usually charming Reynolds) bring much vitality to the story. The story features a twist at the end that everyone will have predicted by the time it is revealed. That isn’t a deal breaker though, not all twists fail just because you guessed them. That said, this movie is more interesting for the vast list of actors that Krasinski convinced to do voice cameos than for the story itself. You won’t even be aware of many of cameos until you see the credits. But it’s still impressive, as is Krasinski’s imagination. But imagination alone doesn’t create a good movie

Ultimately this is a kids movie. As such it may entertain young children on the strength of the visuals alone. It is heartwarming in places, but offers very little in the way of memorable humour or compelling storytelling. . This is a 5.5/10, recommended only if you have kids and want a heartwarming, visually interesting movie. Everyone else should probably just skip it.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

Transformers One

Next up is the new Transformers animated movie. The first such release since the original Transformers movie from 1984. While that film was a huge success, this one didn’t do well in the box office. It did however garner good reactions from those that went to see it. I was always going to be a lot harder to please however, since I grew up in the golden age of Transformers and am very much a G1 Purist. I had all the comics, a huge amount of the toys and of course watched the cartoon. This film however is technically in the Michael Bay continuity and that’s already a mark against it. This time around they’ve drafted in a formidable voice acting cast including “The Avengers” Chris Hemsworth and Scarlett Johansson.

Set an undisclosed amount of time before the Michael Bay transformers movie, the story depicts the origin story of Optimus Prime, Megatron and many others. In this world Cybertronians are forced to live beneath the surface of their planet and mine for Energon. Supposedly because the Matrix of Leadership has been lost and without that the energon seas have all dried up. The alleged loss happened during a battle with the Quintessons, where all but one of the “Primes”, the most powerful cybertronians were slain. Two friends and lowly miners without transformation cogs Orion Pax and D-16 stumble upon the truth behind the story and their fates and the rest of Cyberton’s are forever changed. But while their stories began on the same path they will diverge radically and the friends will become the bitter enemies Optimus Prime and Megatron.

Teenformers

This is very much Transformers for teenagers. Some reviews are suggesting the characters are deeper and more nuanced than ever, but that is nonsense. These characters are generic MCU type characters. Ironic, considering the voice cast. Every male character starts as goofy comic relief with the exception of Alpha Trion. The only reason he isn’t goofy is because he’s the wise old mentor and exposition guy. By contrast all two female characters (Always a minority in this franchise) are overly serious and efficient. This is almost exactly the same set of characters as we saw in the D&D movie and any number of other action based films since the rise of the MCU. It’s a cliche, We really need a lot more variety with movie characters in action/adventure type stories. Especially when it comes to the women as this archetype has literally no charm.

Now one odd thing with the goofy characters is this makes the film a comedy and yet I don’t think the Michael Bay movies were meant to be comedies. Sure they had humour to them, but for the most part they were serious. But that’s not the only reason they don’t fit together. There’s also a second origin story for the Decepticon insignia. I don’t get the obsession with making a Transformer with the insignia for their face but this franchise has now done it twice. First with “The Fallen” and now with “Megatronus Prime”, which is bad twice over. Not only is it explaining something that didn’t need to be explained (Twice!), it means Megatron was just a fanboy for Megatronus Prime. It wasn’t even his name. Definite negative for me.

‘Till All Are One

Despite those negatives, the movie is amusing in places and the action is solid. The voice acting is fine, but really didn’t need the big name actors. The movie probably would have cost a lot less had they just stuck with the same voices that have been playing these characters for decades. The Megatron turn is not out of the blue but it’s not as nuanced as reviews would have you believe. He’s just angry. That’s it. Angry. It works better as an Optimus Prime origin, but not by much. The biggest positive is it does look good visually. I especially liked the Quintessons brief appearance. All told, it was entertaining but it’s not great. 5.5/10. Worth it if you are already a Transformers fan. If not, it won’t win you over.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.

The Wild Robot

The final movie of this family friendly round up is a “The Wild Robot”, from Chris Sanders and Dreamworks. Sanders previously gave us “Lilo and Stitch” and “How To Train Your Dragon”, so it’s reasonable to have high expectations for this one. The voice cast here is headed up by Lupita Nyong’o, Pedro Pascal (Because it’s mandated by Hollywood that he must be in everything), and relative newcomer Kit Connor. The rest of the voice cast is full of recognizable names. Too many to list, but you’ll likely recognize a lot of the voices. The movie is based on the children’s novel of the same name by Peter Brown.

When a storm causes a Universal Dynamics cargo ship to lose five ROZZUM robot, one unit “7134” finds itself washed ashore of a remote island inhabited by a variety of wildlife. Following her build in directive she sets out to find how she can assist someone. To do so she has to learn their languages, but even then they react with hostility so she decides to return to her factory. After accidentally destroying a bird nest she discovers an egg and decides her task is to protect the egg. When the egg hatches she intends to return to the factory, but is convinced to raise the hatching until it can migrate. Of course things won’t be that simple. She is at least assisted by a Fox, in it for the luxury afforded by befriending a robot helper.

Mother Nature

This is a surprisingly good movie. In some ways it reminds me of Wall-E but this time with anthropomorphic animals. But these animals are only able to talk because Roz learned their languages. It’s obviously a leap to expect the animals to suddenly have human personalities because the robot now can communicate with them. That doesn’t really matter though, it’s still a clever way of reaching the main setup of the movie. But while a robot talking to animals may sounds like childish, it’s worth noting that the cycle of nature of very much at the forefront of this story. Quite a few of the jokes are actually about the reality of predators, prey and the chances of surviving as a wild animal. Playing these for laughs is actually very effective, because it tends to catch you by surprise. But it’s also fundamental to what the story becomes as Roz effectively learns to be a mother.

The Wild Robot has a great flow to it. The funny moments and the emotional ones are well balanced and the occasional action scene maintains a pace. The movie basically keeps you interested the whole way through. While the story has a primary three characters, it gives you just enough personality with the supporting animals and robots for them to feel like genuine, interesting characters. The truth is they are all at their core very simple. Their motivations and personality are somewhat one dimension because they are animals and robots, so of course they are. But the voice acting is able to raise this to a level where they still feel genuine and you actually care about them. The praise for that must be shared between the writers, animators and voice cast.

Conclusion

I delayed watching this movie because frankly I’m bored with Pedro Pascal being in everything. Lupita Nyong’o meanwhile, I was aware of but, largely indifferent to. Her roles in Marvel and Star Wars movies never really gave her a chance to shine. I have to admit though, both did a tremendous job with the voice acting here. Kit Connor I didn’t know at all, but he impressed me too . The animation is top notch as well, but then this is Dreamworks and they tend to put out quality looking features. There’s not really any weak links that I could find.

But while the cast and animation are solid, it is the story that makes the film work. The most important thing is it has heart and is also very funny. It will entertain the kids, it will entertain the adults and some may shed a tear or two along the way. Dreamworks have outdone themselves here. I’ve got to give it a 7.5/10. Highly recommended. So that’s it for the wrap up, two situational recommendations and one must see. Not bad. See you next time!

Rating: 7.5 out of 10.

Review Roundup – Film Noir

Posted on by fenrisfil

November is over, but I have three more Film Noirs I watched this month to review. That means you get another triple bill review round up! These reviews don’t get as many views as the horrors or recent releases, but that’s not why I do them. I do them because Film Noir is great and I want more people to watch it! Some of the best film makers of the last 40 years were influenced by these movies. That influence is starting to wane and it shows in the movies being released. Another factor is a lot of people just won’t watch black and white movies. This is a shame because some of the best films ever made were black and white.

So for your consideration, I give you the movies “Slightly Scarlet” from 1956, “The Fallen Sparrow” from 1943 and “Murder By Contract” from 1958. This is an interesting mix. We have a Film Noir actually in colour and we have a movie shot in 7 days. We have spies, we have assassins, and we have kleptomaniacs. These all score a 6 or above so are all recommendations. But you’ll likely notice I rarely score a Noir lower than 6. There are bad ones of course, but time has not been kind to those, so chances are if I’m watching it, it is at least above average.

Slightly Scarlet (1956)

This is one of the very few film noir from the fifties that is actually in colour. That makes it somewhat debatable as a Film Noir but all the other elements are here. The title refers to the two redhead sisters the plot revolves around and so you can see why they opted for colour. The film stars John Payne, Rhonda Fleming and Arlene Dahl with support from Kent Taylor and Ted de Corsia. Experienced director Allan Dwan takes the directing chair and has the benefit of the legendary John Alton for cinematography. Alton’s impeccable eye helps make the movie still work within the genre, despite not being black and white. The screenplay is by Robert Blees based on the novel “Love’s Lovely Counterfeit” by James M. Cain.

The movie revolves around the manipulative and ambitious Ben Grace (Payne) and his attempts to manipulate his way to the top of the mob. His plan involves seeing off current boss Solly Casper (de Corsia), controlling the mayor and installing his friend as chief of police. To achieve these ends he must gain influence over mayoral candidate Frank Jansen (Taylor). To do that he targets Jansen’s girlfriend and secretary June Lyons (Fleming). His leverage there comes in the form of June’s troubled sister Dorothy (Dahl), recently released from prison for a spate of shop lifting offenses. Things go to plan up until a point, but the somewhat unhinged Dorothy can’t but avoid to throw a spanner into the works. The house of cards may then very well fall down.

Seeing Red

It is strange watching a 50’s noir in colour and outside of actually seeing the ladies red hair I’m not sure there was any benefit to it. However, Alton does make it work and there is plenty of his trademark painting with light and shadows. Plus the two ladies do look rather good. It mostly works visually. Thematically it is very much a noir though, with the ambitious schemes of a morally questionable man working towards his own undoing. Dorothy isn’t exactly a femme fatale, instead she has more in common with Carmen Sternwood from The Big Sleep. Basically, a headcase that causes trouble for everybody else. June on the other hand is the “Good girl”, though in my view is a bit too easy to be manipulated by Ben.

The story works relatively well. Ben gains some semblance of a conscience by the end and matters resolve pretty much how you would expect. The big problem with this though is none of the characters are really that likable. This is a common problem with modern movies, but in this era you could usually find some degree of charm. June comes close, but I never felt that invested. The performances from the cast are decent, especially from Payne, but nothing really elevates the movie. Ultimately this is a fairly average noir that just happens to be in colour. Fortunately, average for a noir is still worth watching so this is a 6/10.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

The Fallen Sparrow (1943)

Our second movie takes us back to the early days of Film Noir, before the end of World War 2. The war was very much on the minds of those making movies in those days (Especially with so many in Hollywood in those days being Jewish immigrants that fled Nazi persecution). So it’s no shock to hear spy movies were quite popular in the early forties. Film Noir would tend to have it’s own spin on spy stories and this is no exception. “The Fallen Sparrow” is director Richard Wallace from a screenplay by Warren Duff. This is based on the novel by the same name by Dorothy B. Hughes (Writer of “Ride The Pink Horse” and “In a Lonely Place”). Roy Webb provides the score and was nominated for an Oscar for doing so. Nicholas Musuraca provides cinematography.

The movie stars John Garfield, Maureen O’Hara and Walter Slezak. Garfield plays Spanish civil war veteran John McKittrick, returning from a period of rehab to his hometown to investigate the murder of his friend. McKittrick was imprisoned in Spain for two years and was tortured constantly but never revealed his secrets. The source of a lot of that trauma is the sound he would hear of a man with a limp, whom he never saw but was certain was his chief tormentor. Now it seems the death of his friend may be tied to the machinations of his former captors and the secret which McKittrick still holds. It seems it is time to confront his chief tormentor… If he can figure out who that is.

Drip Drip Drip

This is more of a psychological movie than a straight spy movie. Indeed the actual spy elements are somewhat disappointing. The big secret is ultimately not really important, what is important is McKittrick’s suffering while a captive and the trauma he has been forced to carry with him. This is really his story of overcoming trauma and facing those that traumatized him. This is him regaining his humanity and his masculinity. For the story to work from this angle the weight is on the shoulders of Garfield, Wallace, Webb and Musuraca. Garfield was one of the most underrated actors in the history of Hollywood and he really does sell the trauma well. Wallace, Webb and Musuraca meanwhile provide a tapestry of nightmares woven out of the reality surrounding McKittrick. Every drop of water, every footstep and every shadow seems to conspire to remind the war veteran of his trauma.

The movies weakness is in the plot. There is a bit of a muddle of characters and distractions that fluff up a very straight forward plot. The villain of the story effectively reveals himself at the start and you never really doubt where this is going, yet the film still wants you to think it is a mystery. At some points you find yourself questioning how much is in McKittrick’s head and yet that is quickly dismissed by events going on around him. The muddled plot is balanced out by how good the rest of it is landing this movie as a somewhat above average Noir. This is a 6.5/10.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Murder By Contract (1958)

For the final movie of my Noirvember Reviews, I’m covering Irving Lerner 1958 Film Noir “Murder By Contract”. I saved the best for last. This is a film with a bit of a reputation, largely thanks to Martin Scorsese citing it as perhaps his largest influence. Ben Simcoe provides the screenplay and apparently Ben Maddow had an uncredited hand in it too. Lucien Ballard provides cinematography and Perry Botkin the score. Vince Edwards stars as “Claude” the hitman, Herschel Bernardi and Phillip Pine provide the main support as his minders “George” and “Marc”. The movie was shot in just over just seven days.

Claude is a cool, yet peculiar young man with a single ambition, to buy a beach house. But he wants to achieve this in an unusual way. He wants to be a contract killer and he is cool as a cucumber about it. He has an in with a local crime boss and makes the most out of his opportunity. Eventually becoming a highly sort after hitman. When the opportunity comes up to make $5000 on one hit he jumps at it, but the job has one complication: The target is a woman. Claude doesn’t do hits on women, not for any kind of moral code though as Claude doesn’t have one of those. He just finds them too unpredictable; Women always mean trouble. This one turns out to be particularly difficult to kill.

Women Are Always Trouble

From the opening scene you know you are on to something here. A nice bit of guitar music (Reminds me a bit of “The Third Man”) accompanies a simple scene of Claude getting ready for for his big interview with the crime boss. We get a similar scene shortly after as he waits for the call for his first jobs. These are nice sections and we haven’t even started the plot yet. Actually that is one of the films trademarks, it doesn’t rush to get to any part of the plot. Instead it allows you to spend time to enjoy the characters. specifically Claude with his relaxed charm and occasional intense monologues, but also his constantly frustrated handlers, George and Marc. A good portion of the film is just the three of them hanging out. It helps the dialogue is very good. The scenes manage to be amusing and compelling.

All the characters are a little quirky, but not unbelievably so and it makes the basic interactions strangely compelling. While Scorsese may have claimed this has his biggest influence I would put money on this being a favourite of the Cohen Brothers too and perhaps It’s not just the characters though, the movie has good cinematography throughout. Most of it is actually shot in the day, but there’s a few of the trademark noir shadows. Really the visuals are particularly impressive with the short run time. The movie is sort of bare bones, but everything important is there. The back and forth with the attempts at assassination and the final moments where Claude accidentally remembers he is human are all compelling story telling and very Film Noir.

Conclusion

This is an impressive Film Noir. Not just because it is good, but because it achieves a lot with a little. Most of the action happens off screen and is implied with sound effects. The music is sparse but effective (There’s pretty much just two guitar tunes and a lot of silence) and there’s more dialogue than action. But it works. If the movie has a flaw it is in the swiftness of it’s ending, but considering the Hays codes requirements on stories about criminals, it was to be expected. They made the most out of the ending and it does work for the character. Claude ends up one of the most interesting characters from Film Noir and this is one of the genres better films. I am giving this an 8/10.

Really, I should have done this as a separate review given the score, but November is already over and I had three reviews to get out, so it’ll have to make do in a triple bill. That’s it for this years Film Noir wind down from the madness of the October Challenge. December will be fairly quiet on the review front, but I will have at least one roundup and the year in review to give you. Until then, I hope you enjoyed these reviews. My hope is that I can encourage people that may not normally watch old movies to give some of these Noirs a chance.

Rating: 8 out of 10.

Saturday Night (2024)

Posted on by fenrisfil

This is a Docudrama retelling of the hours leading up to the debut of the comedy series Saturday Night Live. This is a show due to hit it’s 50th anniversary next year and has become an established path for comedians to break into the movie industry. Less so in recent years, where frankly it’s reputation has hit rock bottom. It’s worth noting SNL was meant to be a counter culture show, much like “The Simpsons”. But success and longevity tends to turn such shows into the very thing they were meant to culture in the first place. But the list of stars made on that stage in it’s first three decades is long and impressive: John Belushi, Chevy Chase, Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, Eddie Murphy, Mike Myers, Chris Rock, Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell and Tina Fey to name but ten.

In the UK, we never really got to see the show. It’s only thanks to the internet that I’ve been able to watch some of the most famous sketches retrospectively. I never have watched a full show though. This isn’t unusual for people outside the US, but we all know the movies that those listed above went on to star in. Especially true for those first few. The Blues Brothers, Beverly Hill’s Cop and Ghostbusters are legendary movies. Everyone knows them. So I was definitely curious about this movie. However, I’m not going to have the same affection for a show I never actually watched. The movie is directed by Jason Reitman and stars Gabriel LaBelle as Lorne Michaels, the mind behind the show. He’s joined by a vast ensemble cast, reflecting the real life characters that made the show happen.

Everybody Who is Anybody

Since most of the characters in this story are very well known celebrities the obvious question is how well do the actors nail them? Broadly speaking, I would say very well, at least the characters I actually know (About 75%). Nicholas Braun did double duty playing both Jim Henson and Andy Kaufman. Neither had a lot of screen time, but he nailed both. He could maybe even give Jim Carey a run for his money on Kaufman. Matthew Rhys briefly played George Carlin and felt pretty accurate. The big ones though were Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase, Dylan O’Brien as Dan Akroyd and Matt Wood as John Belushi. These were all spot on. Belushi seemed wild and Chase and Akroyd delivered lines exactly like they would in real life. From what I know of their personalities, I feel they nailed that too.

This is a mostly factual account of events. They have squeezed several events that may have happened but not in the run up to the first night into the story. A few events such as Milton Berle getting his dick out didn’t happen at Saturday Night Live. However, he was well known for showing off his meat, so it’s not a total fabrication. That said, this is a frantic movie packed with well known actors, famous characters and crazy events and frankly a lot of it could have been trimmed. Most notably the Berle stuff (Even with J.K Simmons in the role). Possibly a reason why it is there is because he’s considered the worst host the show ever had, so maybe it makes sense to actual fans of the show. The density of the cast also sometimes means it’s not always clear who is who. Indeed I probably missed a few cameos along the way.

Curtains Up

The most important question is of course, is it actually fun. Yes, for sure. It’s not really a film I can see having much replay value though. That’s probably due to the fast pace. The character moments didn’t really land for me and the stakes were a little redundant since I think most people figured the show would make it to air (You know, given the near 50 year run it’s had). So it’s not especially emotional or edge of the seat, but it is fascinating and amusing. I think most people will enjoy it regardless of if you know Saturday Night Live or not. I suspect if you do though, you will get more out of it. Conversely if you are too young to really care about 80’s and 90’s comedy films or know the comedians involved, this may not be for you. For me it just about hit 6.5/10 and largely on the strength of how convincing the impersonations were.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Gladiator II (2024)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Somewhere near the top of the list of sequels I never expected to see is Gladiator II. But Ridley Scott making a return to the Roman Colosseum was also something I wasn’t going to miss, so here we are. The unexpected sequel see’s Scott return as director but this time around the story is by Peter Craig and David Scarpa instead of David Franzoni. Since most of the characters from the original (And sadly two of the actors) are dead, the only returning ones are Connie Nielsen as “Lucilla” and Derek Jocobi as “Senator Gracchus”. They are joined by Paul Mescal as “Lucius/The Barbarian”, Denzel Washington as “Macrinus”, and Pedro Pascal as “Marcus Acadius”. Dual Emperors Geta and Caracalla are played by Joseph Quinn and Fred Hechinger respectively. John Mathieson returns to cinematography duties. Hanz Zimmer however is replaced by regular Scott colaborator Harry Gregson-Williams for the soundtrack.

Set sixteen years after the events of the original, the movie starts with the roman siege of Numidia and the capture of Roman refugee Lucius Verus (Living under the name “Hanno”). Lucius is enslaved and brought to Rome to be a Gladiator. Sensing something in him he can use to further his ambitions the stablemaster, Macinius promises him revenge against the general that took his city and killed his wife. Things are more complicated than they seem though. That general, Aracius, is actually a good man and married to Lucius’ mother Lucilla. Lucius is actually the heir to Rome and was sent away to protect him when he was a child. Sensing an opportunity, Macrinus tries to manipulate all the sides against each other in an attempt to seize power from the dual Emperors Geta and Carcalla.

The Gates Of Hell Are Open Night And Day

One of the things that made Gladiator so compelling was that it was actually a pretty straight forward yet compelling plot driven by superb ground breaking action and incredible performances from top tier actors, many of which were at their peak (Notable Russel Crowe). It wasn’t a perfect movie, but issues of historical inaccuracies felt unimportant next to such a triumphant performance. This was all wrapped up in one of the best movie soundtracks of all time. So we knew when they announced the sequel there were some pretty big boots to fill. Sequels rarely ever live totally up to the original, though the audiences are wise enough not to expect them to. But it is impossible not to draw comparisons especially given the trend of sequels to constantly reference the originals. This is even more of an issue for those late sequels released decades after the original.

Overcoming that comparison is where this movie fails. As I mentioned, the original had a straight forward plot. A great wrong was done to Maximus. He was betrayed and the rest of the movie is his journey towards righteous vengeance. The story for Gladiator II seems set up to be both a parallel and a subversion of this story. It’s not a bad plot, but it is far more complicated than Gladiator and this reduces the emotional impact of the story. It is a story that would be better suited to a TV series than a film. On top of this, frankly the acting is nowhere near as good. Again, it’s not actually bad and Denzel steals the show, but he had no real competition. The original had Richard Harris, Oliver Reed, Joaquin Phoenix and Russel Crowe all weaving gold. Here Denzel is largely propping the rest of the cast up.

Smooth The Descent

Gladiator 2 has another issue. Creating a story that makes sense as a follow up to one where protagonist and antagonist both died. They just about succeed. Some consider there to be a few too many callbacks, but it makes sense in context and to justify it as a sequel. Scott has taken a lot of liberties with history here, but then he did with the first film too. The story utilizes historical facts and characters, but twists them to fit his tale. It mostly works at least as an alternative history. The movie steals much of the music from the soundtrack of the original too, but this is a positive. The score for the original is famous and memorable. Referencing such music instantly evokes an emotion response. It is a reference that works and doesn’t get in the way of storytelling. Instead it enhances it.

What I can say about the plot is that it is very Roman! Remember all that political maneuvering and backstabbing from Game of Thrones? The Romans invented that. So while I do consider the plot overly complicated for an emotional character driven action fantasy, it entirely fits a story set in Rome. The characters are a bit more of a let down. Outside of the protagonist none of the Gladiators really feel like full characters. The same goes for the Roman senate and the military. Instead the film effectively hyper focuses on three characters: Lucius, Lucilla and Macrinus. Everyone else around them are pretty much just extras including the duel Emperors Geta and Caracalla and Pablo Pascal’s Marcus Acacius. None of them offer anything that memorable in their performance. Pascal seems to be trying, but the audience isn’t really given any reason to care about his character.

Easy Is The Way

Last but not least, let’s talk action. This was a key aspect of the original and it was always going to be vital here too. In this instance the movie doesn’t really make you feel the stakes as strongly, but the spectacle is certainly there. Of all the movies aspects this comes closest to the quality of the original. The only problem is this is 24 years later and we’ve seen a lot of spectacle since then. Indeed just recently the TV series “Those About To Die” had the Colosseum filled with water. The set piece in that series was a simple execution and not a battle, but it does make the spectacle feel less ground breaking. Still, I was happy with the quality of the action and the effects. It was as good as I hoped.

So on to the verdict then. Ultimately this is a good film, but it’s not a classic like the original. If it was a stand alone movie it wouldn’t make my physical media collection but as a sequel it is just about good enough for a double bill. While the story is a little over complicated and the acting and characters a little under whelming, I was reasonably gripped for the duration (Two and a half hours, about the same as the first film). Denzel Washington does a good job of propping everyone else up and is the glue that keeps this warship sailing. It all just about works. It just doesn’t excel. So I’m giving this a firm 6.5/10.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Human Desire (1954)

Posted on by fenrisfil

I review a lot less film noir in November than I do horror in October so I have far fewer traditions to revisit. One I do seem to have managed is to squeeze in a movie by one of my favourite directors, Fritz Lang. So this year I’m checking out Lang’s subversive 1954 noir “Human Desire”. The movie brings back together Glenn Ford and Gloria Grahame from Lang’s “The Big Heat” (1953), one of my personal favourites. The cast is filled out with support from Broderick Crawford and Peggy Maley. The script is from Alfred Hayes (Not the WWF interviewer from the 80’s) and based (loosely) on the novel “La Bête humaine” by Émile Zola. Burnett Guffey provides cinematography.

Jeff Warren (Ford), a Korean War veteran has just returned home and resumed his old job as a train engineer driving streamliners. While on a train travelling to Chicago he comes across Vicki (Grahame) in a state over something and spends some time with her. The pair obviously have chemistry, however later he finds out she is married to a work colleague Carl (Crawford). There is more to it though, since Carl just murdered someone on that train out of jealousy. Vicki was sent to distract Jeff so Carl could slip past him unnoticed. Jeff starts to see Vicki regularly and becomes infatuated with her, spurning the advances of the far more wholesome Jean (Maley). Vicki meanwhile sees Jeff as as her opportunity to get away from her abusive husband or rather do away with him….

Deceiver’s Descent

The combination of Lang/Ford/Grahame is one guaranteed to bring edginess and intensity to any movie. It worked superbly in The Big Heat, but this is a very different kind of story. The great thing with combo is it feels explosive, like anything can happen at any moment. Where Hitchcock can be subtle, Lang is persistent and aggressive. Ford meanwhile is one of the most intense performers of his day (Or any day) and Grahame’s is great at not just intense but also unhinged. If “Harley Quinn” was even a thing in the 50’s, she would have fit the role perfectly. All this gives the film a great deal more impact than the fairly bland story itself could hope for.

This could be seen as a subversion of the traditional noir femme fatale but not in the way it first seems. Although Vicki is ultimately unable to corrupt Jeff and bend him to her will, that’s not really the story here. Ford’s character is able to walk away from the usual film noir spiral of self destruction, but Vicki is not. The truth is the subversion is that Vicki is the real protagonist. This is her story and like most noir protagonists it is the story of her bringing about her own undoing. The movie also has a sub plot involving good gal Jean and her crush on Jeff, but this side is far less interesting than trying to figure Vicki out.

Everyone Has A Dark Side

Despite all this talk of intensity it’s worth noting that Human Desire is actually a heavily toned down adaptation of “La Bête humaine”. In the novel (Spoilers!), pretty much everyone is a murderer and pretty much everyone ends up dying. A more accurate version would have had Jeff as a psychopath rapist and even sweet innocent Jean turning into a mass murderer by orchestrating a train disaster. It’s safe to say the Hay’s code wouldn’t have any of that. So instead Jeff and Jean and basically good. Vicki on the other hand is probably more innocent in the novel. These changes are dramatic, but it is a very loose adaptation and it does work better than a more direct approach probably would have.

Story aside, the film features great cinematography showing off the railroad in the 1950’s. This makes the movie a bit of a time capsule allowing us to glance into days gone. It should be mentioned none of this really adds much to the movie and with the rail disaster removed from the story the trains only really factor in to the story as the location of the initial murder. Still, there is nothing wrong with a scenic backdrop. Overall, this is a fairly straight forward noir ont he surface with a few surprises up it’s sleeves and great performances from the two leads, especially Grahme. Not one of Lang’s best, but a very solid outing none the less. This is a solid 6.5/10. If you like Lang or either of the leads, you’ll enjoy it.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Suspicion (1941)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For the second noir review of “Noirvember” I’m watching a Hitchcock classic, “Suspicion” from 1941. Because of the nature of this story and the fact it is 83 years old, this review will have spoilers, so be warned. Suspicion is based on Francis Iles’s novel Before the Fact (1932). With a screenplay from Samson Raphaelson, Joan Harrison (Hitchcocks P.A.), and Alma Reville (Hitchcock’s wife). The movie stars Joan Fontaine and Cary Grant with support from Sir Cedric Hardwicke, Nigel Bruce, Dame May Whitty, Isabel Jeans, Heather Angel, and Leo G. Carroll. Whitty was also in my last Film Noir review “My Name is Julia Ross”. That has no relevance here but it does link my november noir reviews!

After a chance encounter on a train “Johnnie Aysgarth” (Grant) begins a romantic relationship with “Lina McLaidlaw” (Fontaine). The pair marry and Lina discovers things about johnnie she never suspected. Despite his charm Johnnie is a gambler and struggling both financially and with his addiction. He is sometimes honest with Lina, but often tries to hide the truth from her. A lot of these truths she learns from Johnnie’s good natured friend ‘Beaky’ (Nigel Bruce) who it seems is very bad at keeping quiet. When Lina’s father dies and doesn’t leave her money Johnnie is clearly disappointed and begins to plan an ambitious real estate venture with Beaky. Lina becomes concerned that Johnnie is planning to murder Beaky and not long after Beaky does die under suspicious circumstances. After finding out about a life insurance policy in her name, Lina becomes concerned she will be next.

Audience Manipulation

As a story this has perhaps not aged that well. Subversion is so common these days it doesn’t really subvert anything, As a result the swerve at the end does have that much of an impact. Interestingly this is the second Hitchcock movie in a row staring Joan Fontaine that totally altered the context of a story by changing the ending from the source material. The previous movie was “Rebecca” (1940), Both stories were effectively re-written to make the male lead no longer a murderer. This may seem a bit of an anti-climax to modern audiences. The thing with Hitchcock though is it was always more about the suspense than the story’s conclusion. Rebecca’s change was down to the Hays code, but Suspicion’s change is more up for debate. Hitchcock claimed studio interference in later year, but some have suggested this was what he always intended.

Regardless of intent, this is a showcase of Hitchcock’s ability to build suspense. It helps that he has two talented actors for his leads that he works well with. Fontaine was nominated for an Oscar for “Rebecca”, but this time around she would actually win the award. Grant made four films with Hitchock, culminating in one of Hitchcocks most famous films “North by North West” in 1959. Suspicion was the first of this run, but clearly the director felt he could work with him. Both perform their role perfectly. The key here is the film needs to make the audience suspicious of Johnnie’s motives and intentions. Since the movie concludes with a suggestion of innocence (With some wriggle room), the atmosphere has to be created indirectly. Some of that comes from the directing, some from Fontaine’s expression of anxiety and some form Grant’s careful glances and tone of voice.

Swerve In The Road

I mentioned the ending movie does leave wriggle room. The reason is that the way it is directed leaves you never entirely sure. You don’t really know that Johnnie is trying to save Lina in the car. You don’t even know what he was trying to do on the night they first met. Most of all though, Lina never consumes the drink that Johnnie brings her, after she found out that he knows about the untraceable poison. It is visible the following. Hitchcock uses a light to give the drink an ethereal look when it is presented and we all know what it was meant to suggest. In the novel, this drink is poisoned and Lina drinks it knowing that, because she loves Johnnie that much. Officially of course Johnnie is not a killer, but the movie leaves the suspicion.

That all said, this isn’t the most interesting Hitchcock story and without Johnnie being a murderer it really is a story about nothing more than suspicion. The actual events are somewhat peripheral and the ending feels a bit on the swift side. None of that makes it objectively bad, but it made it less entertaining for me personally. The big problem here is the movie is really quite subtle, so I can see some viewers simply being bored. I have mixed feelings, in some ways it is a masterclass and in others it is really quite empty. Not Hitchcock’s best, but still a very solid 6.5/10.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Joker: Folie à Deux (2024) – A Film Maker On Trial

Posted on by fenrisfil

I didn’t intend to review or write about this movie (Largely because it came out in October, my horror month). However, I’ve heard so much nonsense about this film that I felt an article is needed. To do that means spoilers. So only read beyond this opening is you’ve watched the movie or don’t intend to. If you are just after a review, I’ll provide a quick one for you in the next paragraph before i move on to the various debates this film seems to have inspired on the internet.

This is a gritty neo-noir drama wearing the mask of a comic book franchise. This shouldn’t be shocking to anyone that has seen the first movie. But if you go into it thinking that the end of the previous movie was Arthur Fleck fully becoming the character from the comics, you will be disappointed! Also, this is a musical. There is a purpose to it, but it frankly wasn’t necessary and adds very little. The movie is however well made. Technically this is a good movie. That said, a mix of gritty depressing drama, show tunes and comic books is a meal most people won’t be able to keep down. I’d give it a 6/10, but only recommend it to fans of depressing neo-noir.

Joker Derangement Syndrome

Now, on to the debates those. It’s worth noting 99% of those debates are being spread by people that haven’t seen the film. Much of it is reacting to memes, some of which are horrendously inaccurate or outright lies. It is a bizarre torrent of overreactions and the only comparable reaction in movies is the one for the first movie. This is coming from a different group than the first, but it’s just as wild. Instead of claiming the director made a movie to inspire “Incels”, these people are claiming the director deliberately made a movie to punish fans for liking his last one. Both views are delusional. If only there was a term that applies to two people or groups sharing a common delusion… Hmm…..

I doubt the movie was intended to be politically divisive. Somehow it ended up like that, but perhaps that is more about how society is these days than anything to do with the movie. I try as best as I can not to get into politics on this blog, but it isn’t easy. It gets harder with every year and that just shows how much we really need stories that can bring us together instead of divide us. This wasn’t going to be the movie to do it though. It’s far too easy to project your own fear, anxiety and anger on to this movie. The Joker ultimately represents chaos and that is something we all relate to these days.

Question One – Was Arthur consistent to the first film?

Arthur is a mentally ill, run down, abused man with a low IQ. That was all in the first film. At the conclusion. he has his moment of bloody triumph, but he didn’t magically turn into another person. That doesn’t happen in real life. Arthur has put on a persona and has been encouraged to do this by the public that reacted to his subway killings. They then react to his public execution of the talk show host that mocked him in the same way. But, Arthur got caught. He didn’t plan for an escape.Indeed he originally planned to kill himself, not the host. This is a man pushed too far, not the clown prince of crime.

People reacted to this on air killing. It turned Arthur as “Joker” into an icon. The figurehead of a violent revolution. He revelled in that. But… that fades. After months out of the limelight he’s back to being Arthur. It’s not an unexplained character regression like Han Solo in The Force Awakens. It’s a regression that clearly would have happened. Its also important to note that Arthur is not really a bad person. He’s not cruel, he’s not sadistic, he is not a psychopath. Arthur doesn’t actually crave the chaos, he is a victim of it, A man that snapped in the face of it. When he he is confronted by the damage his Joker persona has done to innocent people, he willingly gives it up. This makes total sense.

Question Two – Was it an FU to the audience?

Perhaps the most unhinged claim about this film is that it was somehow an attack on the fans. The theory goes that Todd Phillips was upset about his risky neo-noir Joker movie making over a billion dollars. Apparently he was so upset by this that he deliberately set out to make the sequel as big a financial disaster as possible. This is quite clearly ridiculous. One could perhaps argue it was an FU to the studio for forcing him to make a sequel (figuratively speaking). But even then, it was an FU because he made a sequel consistent to his own vision, without compromise. He did not deliberately make a bad film or one designed to attack anybody. But he did take a big pay off to make this sequel and we should remember, he didn’t originally intend to do one.

Whether the studios wanted him to make the sequel more of a comic book superhero movie or perhaps even a Bonnie and Clyde type of film is a mystery. Whatever the may have wanted, they signed off on what they got. They gave Phillips carte blanche to do what he saw fit. Indeed he refused help from the studio. Whatever else this movie is, it is one mans vision. The crazy idea that this movie was somehow made to “Own the Chuds” is just as deranged as the idea the first one was meant to inspire “Incels” to do mass shootings. This isn’t some kind of psi-ops. It’s a creative director taking risks. It paid off once, it failed the second time. The odd thing is both sides politically seem to want to read into it that Phillips supports the other side.

Life Imitating Art?

This brings me to the films most interesting phenomenon. In the film, people react to Arthurs actions by putting him on a pedestal. They believe him to be an icon of chaos that will tear down the system. To the establishment he is an existential threat, to the downtrodden, he is a saviour. Yet ultimately he was just a man pushed too far, a victim, broken by the system. Though his antics meant he was now seen, but Arthur the man was more invisible than ever. When his fans discover the truth, they turn on him. At that point , he is truly alone. The enemies he made when he embraced the character of Joker still hate him. His only friends in the world are either traumatized or dead. Where this gets interesting is that the reaction to both Joker films has exactly mirrored the reaction to Arthur in those movies.

The first film generated outrage from the establishment. Specifically, mainstream journalists that thought the film was some kind of anthem for “Incels” that would rise up and engage in mass shootings. There were even metal detectors installed at some cinemas because people took this fear seriously. The reaction from people that felt beaten down by the system though was to see Arthur as some kind of icon. A symbol of standing up against the system. When the sequel came out both sides were no doubt expecting more of the same. But when it turned out this movie wasn’t “sticking it to the man”, those that had so invested in that side of the first were outraged so much they seem determined to see the film fail and Todd Phillips career to be over. Those that hated the first film stayed firm in their stance. The result, a box office bomb.

Good Intentions?

There’s two ways of looking at this. One is that Phillips set out to draw the audience so far in to the movie they could have been in the very universe the film is set. That the audience are reacting to the character of Arthur as if they are in his world and not just watching a movie. If so, there is no two ways about it, this is ingenious. But if not, then Phillips can’t be blamed for how the fans feel about the movie. It is just a somewhat experimental, somewhat arty movie from a director that likes to take risks. Phillips just wanted to make an interesting movie and take people on a journey. He didn’t set out to make a movie for one side of the cultural divide or the other. He just made a movie.

There’s a growing phenomenon with modern movies. All the while they are being criticized by some for being “Too safe”, there are risk taking creative directors that are finding the only way they can get a mainstream platform is to take on a mainstream franchise. The majority of the time this leads to an audience backlash. Franchises are not meant to be artist playpens after all. Instead they have a huge weight of audience expectations. That’s not to say a few risks don’t pay off. Guillermo Del Toro and Christopher Nolan have both proven that you can take risks and bring art to a superhero movie. But for every one of those there is a Josh Trank or Rian Johnson. Sometimes like with Taka Waititi and now Todd Phillips they start out with initial success, but eventually the desire to realize their vision gets in the way of audience expectations.

Keep Repeating: “It’s Just a Movie”

The mistake is to assume these directors set out to ruin things for the fans. That makes little sense. Even though people like Johnson and Waititi are antagonistic to the fans, no one actually sets out to fail. Sometimes there is some form of agenda, but not one of deliberate failure. Often these directors are just wildly inappropriate choices to take on franchise movies. Joker is a little different, since this was not set in an established universe. When Joker was greenlit there was a drive across Hollywood to make “Villain” movies. But Warner never asked for one in the main DC universe (Whose Joker at the time was Jared Leto).

No doubt the studio were not expecting a neo-noir, but it’s not like taking on the 8th part of a 9 part, 50 year franchise story. I say that because a lot of people have chosen to compare this to “The Last Jedi” while ignoring the very different situations. It’s worth noting most people didn’t even want a Joker origin story in the first place. The fact is Phillips had nothing to lose and so he didn’t something no one expected. But it worked and it made over a billion dollars as a result.

The Verdict

This time around, Phillips had everything to lose. Good job he was well paid for the risk, because he crashed and burned. In my view he took a too many risks this time. Making a gritty depressing tragedy and not a comic book superhero movie was already a risk. Making it a musical too… That was too much. Those scenes did serve a purpose. They are an insight into Arthur’s frame of mind. Not just in how he escapes his reality, but in how little imagination he has. A point that really didn’t need hammering into the audience so many times, and in a way that gave them very little to enjoy about it. It wasn’t designed to be an FU to the audience, but it wasn’t made for comic book fans either. It was made for Hollywood cinephiles. People at film school, other directors and possibly, The Oscars.

American directors tend to have a love of musicals. For me a musical is a way to compromise music for the sake of drama and drama for the sake of music. Often it just results in generic mediocrity. But that’s not how most directors feel. For them it is part of their DNA. The Oscars meanwhile love a depressing drama about someone with poor mental health that is mistreated by government organisations. Of course the backlash against the success of the first movie probably negates an Oscar nomination. But still, that is the kind of crowd it was made for. So it’s okay not to like it, but don’t take it personally. It is just a movie and Todd Philips is just a director that takes risk. Sometimes they pay off, sometimes they don’t.

My Name Is Julia Ross (1945)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Well, it is November and that means I’ll be doing a few Film Noir reviews. This year I’m not going to get carried away with it. I did 35 horror reviews last month, so I’m only posting a couple of things a week for November. Half of those will be Film Noir reviews. The other half will be new movies or articles. Anyway, for the first one of the month I specifically wanted to check out “I Am Julia Ross” from 1945. The reason being that one of the horror movies I reviewed last month “Dead of Winter” (1987) was a loose remake of this movie. So after viewing that, it seemed only fair to check out the original. The movie is directed by Joseph H Lewis from a screenplay by Muriel Roy Bolton and stars Nina Foch, Dame May Whitty and George Macready.

Julia Ross (Foch) is offered a job as live-in personal secretary to a wealthy widow, Mrs Hughes (Whitty). She is somewhat desperate for work, so is keen to take the job. However things not what they seem and after arriving she is drugged and passes out. She wakes up two days later at a strange house on the Cornwall coast. All her possessions have disappeared and Mrs Hughes now claims she is Marion, her son’s wife. Naturally Julia doesn’t accept this but the pair have convinced the locals that she is mentally unwell. Making matters worse the son Raph (Macready), appears to be prone to violence and likely murdered the real Marion.

A Rose By Any Other Name

This is a short movie, with a runtime of just over one hour. Despite that the movie doesn’t feel rushed. It also didn’t feel much like a film noir. I can’t help but suspect as a British production, that this was mostly outside the influence of the growing genre. Instead it has been retrospectively placed in that pigeon hole by history. The plot is not too far off the gothic romance noir movies, but the style is probably closer to a 1930’s thriller. Despite the dire situation the titular character finds herself in, the film actually has a lot about it that is quite upbeat and lighter in tone. The movie even ends with the lead and her romantic interesting largely laughing off the entire trauma.

The main negative of the movie is how far fetched everything is. I have to say Dead of Winter actually handled the situation a lot better and in a way that made it feel more realistic. This movie however requires a heavy dose of suspension of disbelief. What balances that out is the claustrophobic atmosphere and Nina Foch is putting over her fear and frantic attempts to escape. May Whitty and George Macready’s menacing double act also helps. Macready’s Ralph is clearly a psychopath and is barely able to restrain his lust for violence. The performance is perhaps a little over the top but is tempered by Mrs Hughes. The pair work together where they wouldn’t by themself.

Conclusion

Overall, I think the horror remake is the superior film and Mary Steenburgen the better actress. But this movie is still worth watching. It has a touch of charm and a good amount on tension. While the far fetched nature of things strains the narrative, the short length means it doesn’t overstay it’s welcome. This is a strong 5.5/10.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

Alien: Romulus (2024)

Posted on by fenrisfil

October may be over, but I have one more horror review for you before I move on to other things. This one comes a little late, but unlike others I wasn’t overly enthusiastic about this movie. I’m talking of course about the latest addition to the Alien franchise “Alien Romulus”. The trailers had some cool visuals but I had my doubts that this would be anything but a less good version of Aliens, updated with a few modern cliches. The movie is from director Fede Alvarez and written by Alvarez and Rodo Sayagues. It stars Cailee Spaeny and David Johnson with support from Isabela Merced,

Aliens: Romulus is set between the first two Alien films, which is a little strange on the surface but does fit with the trend of going back to the original movie in these franchises. What is unusual here is it’s not a retcon sequel, everything else is still canon. The story follows colonist Rain Carradine and her friends as they attempt to escape their apparent indentured servitude to the Weyland-Yatani company at a mining colony. To do this their plan is to break into an abandoned space station that is orbiting the planet and steal the left pods so they can utilize their cryo sleep capsules and reach another colony. Unfortunately for them the space station was abandoned for good reason as this outpost has been used to experiment on the infamous Xenomorphs.

In Space No One Can Hear Your Callbacks

I predicted what this film was going to be back when it was first announced. That is basically the same as “Prey” (2022) but for the Alien franchise. A watered down less good version of the movies that worked with endless references from those better movies put in simply for the sake of it. Not a bad movie as such. but it’s like watching a tribute band perform the greatest hits of your favourite artist. The music is good, but given the choice I’d always rather watch the real thing. That’s the difference between tribute bands and this kind of safe overly meta sequel movie, you can’t always see your favourite band. You can however always see your favourite movie. So movies like Prey and Romulus are things you watch once and then go back to only re-watching the first two movies as you have been for decades.

What I didn’t realize was just how much of a greatest hits Romulus would be. It doesn’t just reference the first two movies, it throws callbacks to the more divisive ones. When it does reference the first two movies it lays it on so thick it takes you out of it. This is the very definition of “‘Member Berries”. It is not “Nostalgia done right”, these things are shoehorned in. Actually the elements from the divisive movies are actually done better than the ones from Alien/Aliens, because they do service the plot. This is not a movie created to do something new or interesting with the franchise, it is one designed to get bums on seats in the theatre with little care for if anyone will remember the movie in five years time.

Alien Queens Greatest Hits Vol 2

Nostalgia bait is one thing. But what about the movie in it’s own right? Well, on the positive the music and the sound design are fantastic. I really did enjoy both those elements. Indeed the only callbacks to older movies I liked were the musical ones. Visually the film is mostly good. I say mostly because there is one bit of horrendous CGI. Naturally, this is tied to the pointless nostalgia call backs. The characters inclusion is itself a dumb and lazy plot element but the CGI just makes it embarrassing. Unfortunately, the character is in the film throughout. One of the worst callbacks to past movies includes a particular type of Alien. While the concept is still bad, I think this version looks marginally better.

The characters are a strong weakness for this movie too. Indeed these are just the dregs from an overly dystopian colony that is typical of the unimaginative modern view of the future. In Alien and Aliens while the company had nefarious goals, there was no indication that this film was set in a dystopian future. The crew of the Nostromo were just blue collar working Joes/Janes. They weren’t oppressed, they just weren’t pampered. Romulus though launches us instantly to a universe where the company effectively has slaves, who have no control over their destiny. The Company meanwhile have moved on from nefarious to full mustache twirling villainy. That makes the universe no longer feel real. The characters themselves have no real background to pull from and so feel generic outside of Andy the android and he’s not that much better.

Conclusion

Ultimately this is a movie that does nothing for the franchise. It is pretty, it is loud. Indeed one may say it is full of sound and fury yet ultimately signifying nothing. It has an extreme deficit of creativity and relies on nostalgia and callbacks. I originally thought this would be like Prey, but in many ways it’s more like “Terminator: Dark Fate”. It’s nowhere near as bad, nor does it remove the older films from canon. It does however repeat the same mistakes from those movies that derailed the franchise previously. That said, I did enjoy Romulus more than Prey (Or Dark Fate). That is mostly due to the visuals, sound design and music. It’s not a strong entry in the franchise, but it makes a reasonable popcorn movie. This is a 5.5/10.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10.