Tonight I’m watching the recently released Finnish Body Horror movie “Hatching”, directed by Hanna Bergholm in her feature film debut and written by Ilja Rautsi. The film stars Siiri Solalinna as Tinja the daughter of a Finnish family. Solalinna will be doing double duty on this film as both Tinja and the movies monster, a demanding role for the young actress.
Lovely Everyday Life
The movie starts out with our host family presenting their apparently perfect, lovely life for the mother’s blog. It’s pretty clear though things aren’t completely perfect. This isn’t a classic horror dark secret kind of thing though, just that the mother is clearly more focused on image than emotional well being and is determined to push her daughter as hard as possible so as to achieve success in gymnastics. The family’s son seems to have picked up some of her mothers personality and is needy and demanding, while the father is aloof, more interested in his guitars than his family, likely explaining why his wife is almost openly cheating on him (That is the daughter knows and he it seems doesn’t want to).
The Bad Egg
The mother has a cruel streak to her as is demonstrated early on when she kills a stray bird that comes into the house instead of releasing it outside. This sets up our theme as later that day Tinja comes across a dying bird in the woods by her house and gives it a mercy killing, only to discover a nearby bird egg which she takes home. This is where the horror bit starts. The egg of course hatches and what comes out of it isn’t a regular bird. It is about the size of young Tinja and seems to have some intelligence, quickly bonding with the girl who decides to look after it and names it Alli (A name I feel that is a clue to the films meaning).
Things start to go off pretty quickly as our Hatchling kills the neighbours dog and drops it’s mutilated corpse on the pillow next to Tinja is a bit of a reversal of the classic dog “present”. Things obviously escalate and it is clear their is something more to the connection TInja has with the hatchling, the two are bonded mentally and physically, so much so Alli is starting to look like Tinja. Since this is a recent movie I’m not going to reveal much more but this is a body horror so expect violence and a bit of grossness.
Be Careful Which Wolf (Or Bird) you Feed
There is a deeper level to all this though. This is a metaphor for self loathing. Tinja’s mother’s quest to present the perfect life to her blog video viewers and the pressure she puts on her daughter to achieve in gymnastics has lead to Tinja being angry with herself for her failures, to be disgusted with herself and see herself as a monster. The story is really about a young girls fragile psyche and the importance to nurture more than a sense of shame. It’s important to note, the victims of the Hatchling are not people that have abused her, but her rivals. The monster is not protecting her, but enacting her darkest desires in her own drive to be considered special in the eyes of her mother. Eventually the child’s innocence is lost and she becomes a twisted version of her formers self. It is a darkness that as Tinja says in the final act “I hatched it”
I mentioned earlier I thought the name “Alli” was significant and it is a double whammy. It happens to be the brand name of a weight loss drug (relevant because some of the scenes in the film are heavily hinting at Bulimia) but also is a name of Greek and French origin that effectively means “Keeping ones chin up”. There is no way that is a coincidence give the mother’s attitude and the Tinja’s internal struggle between her natural good nature and the part of her that is turning into her own mother. Well played Hanna, well played.
Assessment
I liked the metaphor. It came through clearly, but it doesn’t hit you over the head with it like a lot of films do. It is also done very effectively through the horror. This is a very good bit of intelligent horror story telling. That said, I didn’t find any of the particular scenes stood out visually, nor did I find the hatchling itself particularly scary. For me though the story is more important than all that. The actors seemed pretty good, though I always find it hard to judge when I’m busy reading subtitles instead of looking at the actors. Siiri Solalinna though I’m sure has a bright future.
I also liked the haunting soundtrack, which was fairly minimalistic but effective and the physical creature effects were actually done pretty well. I thought the closeups looked a bit fake, but at a mid distance it looked really good. They transition from puppet to Solalinna about half way through and before anything too complicated is called for, which was probably for the best.
Conclusion
This came out of a fairly simple idea of Rautsi’s about a boy bringing home an egg that hatched his doppelganger. A doppelganger story is not in itself especially original or compelling, it’s what you do with it that makes or breaks it and they did well here. While the film didn’t blow me away, I definitely came out with a healthy respect for it and it’s makers. This is a high 6.5/10
For today’s movie I’m hitting up 1989’s western horror comedy Sundown: The Vampire in Retreat. I didn’t even know this movie existed until fairly recently so I’m going in without preconceptions. This is directed by Anthony Hickox (Hellraiser III, Waxwork) and stars David Carradine, Bruce Campbell, John Ireland, Maxwell Caulfield, Morgan Brittany, Deborah Foreman and a good number of other recognisable actors.
What We Do In The Sunlight.
Out story is set in the town of Purgatory, not to be found on any modern map since the inhabitants don’t want to be found. This is a town of vampires, lead by the ancient Count Mardulak (Carradine), but these vampires on the whole are trying to adapt to the modern world and find a way to live side by side with humans. As such they have developed a machine that creates artificial blood, a problem with that machine has required them to call in it’s inventor a human called David Harrison. Harrison is visiting the town with his family as a working holiday hoping it will be a restful break.
Dead and Not Particularly Loving it.
While most of the town are trying to change their ways they are not completely beyond killing as an incident early on reveals where a rude motorist by has his head knocked off by a grumpy vampire manning the local gas station. Worse than this though a sub faction within the town lead by Ethan Jefferson (Played by John Ireland) and a young vampire named Shane (Maxwell Caulfield) is scheming to wipe out the others and return to the old ways.
The Clueless Vampire Killer
Thrown into the mix a Van Helsing descendent (Played by Campbell) has arrived at the town determined to wipe out each and every vampire. Unsurprisingly Campbell provides the comic relief and isn’t particularly effective. Fortunately for him Sandy, a young vampire woman has fallen for him and doesn’t want him to wind up dead. Well, fully dead, she’s okay with undead.
The Lost Ploys.
There’s actually a lot of additional sub plots in all this and it has a large ensemble cast of big personalities so I’m not going to cover it all. Things get more serious when the rebels make their move. Being mostly younger vampires they can’t fight the older vampires hand to hand so they develop wooden tipped bullets so they can use firearms to even the playing field. Eventually this leads to an epic shootout final battle.
Bite Night.
This is a pretty entertaining film, though it definitely lands very much in the middle of the various genres is straddles. It’s not especially funny, especially horrific or overly like a Western but it does just enough of each genre to justify the label. It is very 80’s though (Which I consider a positive). There is a lot going on, everything is frantic and the characters are as colourful as possible. It has a lot of charm to it and the story moves quickly enough that it maintains a sense of adventure the whole time. This is a vampire film though, so naturally it isn’t without a good amount of blood.
Fangs for the Memory.
Because of the cast size and pace none of the characters or actors really get enough screen time to fully shine. I felt Bruce Campbell was largely wasted and it would have been nice to see a bit more of David Carradine and John Ireland too. But this wasn’t a film with any particular focus. Those three performed their roles well (As you would expect) and the rest of the cast, featuring many familiar faces did a good job of supporting. There was no real weak links in that regard, even the children did a passable job. The music my Richard Stone was perhaps a bit too obvious in what it was going for (Generic Western soundtrack) but ultimately did what it needed to.
Conclusion
Overall, I had fun with this movie. It’s not anything astounding but if you want a comparatively light-hearted Halloween romp you won’t be disappointed with this. This is a strong 6/10 (Perhaps a fang short of a 6.5).
I’m going horror adjacent with todays October review. There is definitely horror here, just more for the viewer than the characters. This is a difficult franchise to do in the modern day, but with Rob Zombie helming it, most had already written this off and assumed it was just going to be a self indulgent mess that mostly existed to showcase his wife Sherri Moon-Zombie. When the cast was announced and Sherri was as expected playing Lilly Munster, I think most horror fans knew what way it the wind was blowing.
Still, I decided to give the film a chance. In the 1980’s in the UK a lot of 60’s shows were regularly being re-run at around 5/6pm. The timing was about right for schoolkids like myself as the regular kids programming ended around 5pm and we always wanted more to watch (We were the MTV generation after all, we did a lot of TV). Amongst those shows was The Munsters, so I am well acquainted with the eccentricities and humour style of the TV.
Dead and Kicking.
To me it’s clear that Rob Zombie was trying to reproduce that style as true to the original as possible, but the fact is it doesn’t really work in the present day. Perhaps had he gone all the way and made the film in black and white it may have felt more authentic and perhaps some of the cheesier moments may have felt more charming than cheap. As it is, the style doesn’t really work. Anyone that hasn’t grown up watching The Munsters probably won’t even get what they are going for and just mark the entire movie down as just cheap and amateur.
Part of that problem may be due to the fact that many of the actors just aren’t that good. While they may be trying to act like characters performing for a sit com in front of a live audience, they always feel like they are trying a bit too hard. Over acting is abundant and while it’s clear that is meant to be part of the joke, it is also clear Rob Zombie doesn’t have the skills necessary to stop his actors slipping from soundstage sitcom and going full on pantomime.
Well, they got one thing right at least.
Memoirs of an Invisible Plot
The second huge problem is the plot. Specifically, that there isn’t one. The entire film is basically set up as a prequel to The Munsters as we know them. Most of the film is set in a comedy version of Transylvania with them only arriving in America in the last twenty minutes. There is no real antagonist, just a vague plot involving a Lester, a Werewolf cousin and his debts to a loan shark Gypsy. Neither Lester nor the Gypsy are in the movie for probably more than 5 minutes and exist only to facilitate the move to the US in a way that is about as smooth as a truck drivers gear shift.
The film focuses on the romance between Lilly and Herman. Because this is a prequel, the kids have not even been born yet so the “Family” is literally just them and Grandpa. Daniel Roebuck incidentally is the highlight of the film in the role of Grandpa, but is a long way from being good enough to salvage this mess. At the least though, I respect the casting on that one. I also didn’t mind Sylvester McCoy as Igor. His tendency for over acting meant the former Doctor Who fit this movie like a glove.
Goofy fun, except without the fun..
Ghouls Just Want to Have Fun
Unsurprisingly the focus is on Sherri Moon-Zombie as Lilly, and her performance is probably the weakest of the film. Yvonne De Carlo is no doubt turning in her grave [Insert Vampire Joke Here]. Honestly though it’s hard to say if the problem is her acting or her husbands directing. There are fleeting moments of charm but not enough to make the performance passable. The romance between Herman and Lilly is not at all interesting or romantic and the whole time through I was just waiting for them to get past that bit and move on to the actual movie. But they never did.
The entire film feels like a first act, when they move to America it feels like we are entering the second act and the film is about to really get going. But then you realise we only have 20 minutes left. Enough time for a Cassandra Peterson cameo (Though not as Elvira) and not much else. After waiting the entire film for them to get to their iconic home, we are treated to about 10 seconds of the Munsters theme before the credits roll and switch to a new song, presumably written by Zombie. That’s it.
Don’t be fooled, it takes the entire film to get to this couch.
Conclusion (or possibly Concussion)
I don’t really understand who this film is for. Fans of the series will feel cheated by the prequel nature of it (I know I did) while people that aren’t fans will write it off as cheap, badly acted garbage. As far as I can tell the only audience for this film is Rob Zombie and Sherri Moon Zombie. I don’t know if The Munsters can still work in the modern day in live action, but it definitely can’t work with Rob Zombie directing. This film is a waste of time. I’m giving it a very generous 4/10. The movie tries hard but fails miserably.
Whenever Hollywood resurrects an 80’s franchise for a modern movie or TV show it’s only natural to be pessimistic. After all usually these are either a soulless ploys to cash in on 80’s nostalgia, a nefarious attempt to “fix” perceived problems of the past buy burying beloved heroes of a past generation or, often, both. More often than not the person that returns the franchise to the screens isn’t even a fan of the original and has just taken the opportunity to tell their own unrelated story with a handy franchise package that guarantees a built in audience. The idea of them actually doing something for the fans (and I don’t mean the kind of fan service where they stop the plot every five minutes to jangle some familiar keys at the audience) is almost unheard of…. Almost.
Getting Nostalgia Right.
In recent years we’ve been lucky enough to see The Karate Kid and Ghostbusters actually get it right. Both admittedly on the second attempt (With the previous one being ill advised remakes) and both substantially reduced in scale from the previous return. Top Gun however has never been remade or attempted a return. It returns now on a $170m budget and with the promise of non-CGI stunts and effects. Most importantly it returns with Tom Cruise, one of the few actors that still guarantee a solid box office performance. Could the movie see Cruise soar to new heights or will he crash and burn?
Same Band, New Members.
Joining Cruise as Pete “Maverick” Mitchell, is a mostly new cast, though his love interest in the film Penny (Played by Jennifer Connelly) has a history with Maverick (She was name dropped in the original but never seen) and hot shot pilot “Rooster” (Played by Miles Teller) is the son of “Goose” from the previous movie (The character was in that film, but as a child). One other character that does return is Val Kilmer’s “Iceman”, who has a vastly reduced role due to the actors physical condition which is effectively worked into the plot. The on screen meeting between the two is an emotional moment for both fans of the original film and the actor and I have to give credit to Cruise how apparently insisted on getting Kilmer involved.
Not returning (For obvious reasons) is Tony Scott as director, instead he is replaced by Joseph Kosinski, Who previously directed the underrated Cruise sci-fi “Oblivion” along with TRON: Legacy which while perhaps not a great movie did have the best use of 3D I’ve ever seen in a commercial movie (Utilising it much like Wizard of Oz used colour). In interviews it is clear Kosinski was a huge fan of the original film and it seems he and Cruise were united in their plan to make as faithful a sequel as possible.
The Need For Speed.
Our movie starts with Maverick now a test pilot at the head of a project for a new supersonic plane. The project is in danger of being shut down by a Rear Admiral (Played by Ed Harris) that simply doesn’t see the worth in the technology or in human pilots. His rant seems a bit out of place when talking about a project focused on speed, but it was never really about that, it was about the main theme of the movie and Top Gun before it. The value of the pilot. The Rear Admiral talks about Drones as technology making pilots redundant and this really sets the film out to prove a point against this.
Back In The Saddle.
Since I don’t want to drop plot spoilers here I’ll skip forward to Mavericks return to the top Gun program. This time around he is an instructor and has to prepare a number of previous graduates for what appears to be a suicide mission. Maverick wants to not only succeed but also to bring his pilots back from the mission. His bosses however just want the mission to succeed and are not especially happy with his techniques. However, Maverick has a guardian angel in the top brass in the shape of Iceman, now an Admiral and his old nemesis knows Pete is the only man for this job. Sadly though Iceman is not a well man and can’t protect his friend forever.
Being The Best Of The Best.
Naturally by the end of the movie the training is over and it is time to take on the “suicide” mission. This provides a good number of thrills and brings all the characters stories, whether little or large to their logical conclusions. But the focus of this film is of course Maverick and his story arc is both satisfying and makes a lot of sense from where he ended in Top Gun. A lot of that story revolves Pete’s relationship with Gooses son Bradley (a.k.a. Rooster), a relationship strained by a promise Marverick made to his mother and haunted by what happened to his father. But on top of this, it is also about Pete finding his place in the world and proving that there is still a place for being the best of the best.
Repeated Beats.
Ultimately the plot is all fairly straight forward but incredibly well done. We see a lot of beats repeated from the original movie, but with key changes. For example (very minor spoiler) in the original Maverick is embarrassed to find Charlie, a woman he made a pass at the night before is his instructor. But in this movie it is Maverick that turns up as the instructor and the entire set of trainees that have egg on their face. This is an example of the kind of references to come. Suffice to say if it was in the original it is references in some form here, but it is done in a way that seems fresh and organic.
The Faceless Enemy.
One of the most notable repeated beats is the anonymity of the movies villains. In the original film most viewers (myself included) just assumed they were Russians, but they were never actually named. In early drafts (Of Top Gun) they were North Korean, but their plane markings suggest China while the location of their activity (The Indian Ocean) made either of those unlikely. The pilots had darkened visors but you could see faces underneath and they appeared Caucasians. The planes they flew were given a fictional name, but that name (Mig28) certainly suggested a Russian manufacture.
Mixed Messages.
In this movie however they are careful not to drop any hints at all (At least not that I spotted). No geographical location is named, the visors are completely black, the new planes are just called “Fifth Generation” fighters (Though in actuality they are Russian manufactured Sukhoi SU-57 Felon’s) and the enemy has access to US and Russian manufactured planes (Including the iconic F14 Tomcat from the first film). On top of this, the briefing given to Maverick early on really stands out in how they avoid any specifics. This makes it all a lot more noticeable than it was in the first film.
We Are All Drones.
Originally I considered this a flaw, but drawing attention to it may be intentional and I am reminded about the earlier set up where Ed Harris is talking about Pilots being a liability and that they will eventually be replaced with drones. So I can’t help but wonder if the enemies here are meant to be symbolic of drone technology. So far I’ve not seen anyone admit to that, so perhaps they did just do not quite as good a job as Tony Scott in the original. But it is a bit of symbolism that works for me regardless of if intentional. What is clear though is that, like in the original, the anonymous villains help keep the focus firmly on heroes personal journey.
The Next Generation.
Of course Maverick isn’t alone out there, he is joined by an entirely new cast of young elite pilots. Most of their roles are small, but easily fit into the same kind of social interactions as their counterparts in the first film. While Rooster has his part to play in Mavericks story, he has his own nemesis amongst the pilots in “Hangman”, only this time around Rooster is the by the book pilot and Hangman is the hot head. That makes for an interesting dynamic in the team that contrasts with the previous one. While Hangman is unpredictable and Rooster by the book, Hangman is no Maverick. His callsign is because he leaves his wingman while he seeks personal glory, something 80’s hero Maverick would never do. Rooster meanwhile is a lot more passionate than Iceman, despite being by the book.
Teambuilding 101.
The rest of the pilots have their own personalities but don’t really get much development. To be fair, the same can be said about the majority of pilots in the original film. If there was an intention here to spin off the new characters into a film without Maverick in I would say the movie doesn’t really achieve that, but I don’t think that was ever on the cards. Top Gun was always a vehicle for Tom Cruise, it’s not really something you can pass the torch on. That said, these guys (and Gal) are fine and were they to do a movie without Maverick I’d give it a chance.
For The Fans.
In the US theatrical release the film actually starts with Tom Cruise thanking the fans and informing them the movie is for them. It’s a shame the UK release dropped this as it’s a very nice touch as not only does it nicely summarize their approach to the movie, those words will be a relief to a generation of movie goers that are constantly being told things are not for them. This is definitely one for the fans, but since it shares so much in common with the original and since Cruise is still a current star, it does give a good in to a new generation. Though in my experience it is Gen X that is going to this movie in droves and given the movies huge success that should be a lesson for Hollywood.
Graduation.
Overall, great performances from the key cast members, a tight plot, believable action and of course the nostalgia make this a feast of entertainment for the fans of the original. If the movie has flaws they are flaws shared with the original and if those didn’t bother you, neither will this. While the film repeats a lot of the beats of the first, it also provides natural character development for Maverick after the events of Top Gun and mixes things up just enough to keep things fresh. It’s a balance that most franchise returns don’t manage. This is in my top 3 of the year so far.
So this is one I have been looking forward to for a long time. Those that know me, know that I have a keen interesting in Norse Mythology, legends, stories and history. I wouldn’t claim to be an expert on the topic but I probably know more than most viewers of this film do and I know enough to be picky about accuracy with the genre (For example I never got on with the TV show “Vikings”). So I greeted the news of this movies production with both excitement and trepidation. T
he trailer however looked fantastic and the movies director, Richard Eggers has a reputation for painstaking historical accuracy, so I ended up cautiously optimistic. I am happy to say the movie far surpassed my expectations.
Outrageous Fortune.
Interestingly this movie probably only happened due to a chance meeting between Eggers and Icelandic singer Bjork of all people. To some that may seem strange, but the singer was always very passionate about her homeland and it’s history so I’m not surprised that some of that enthusiasm rubbed off on Eggers.
The key player though is actually Bjork’s long time musical collaborator Sigurjón Birgir Sigurðsson (Aka “Sjón”), who was introduced to Eggers via Bjork. It seems the two hit it off and Sjón ended up co-writer of the movie. The final piece of the puzzle was actor Alexander Skarsgård who had himself been seeking a viking themed project for a while, so when he met up with Eggers to discuss possibly working together the discussion quickly turned to making a Viking Epic.
Though This Be Madness, Yet There Is Method In’t.
Fans of Shakespeare may find the plot of the film familiar since it’s source is the legend of Amleth as written by Saxo Grammaticus, the same source as Shakespeare’s “Hamlet”. However while the stories may share a similar synopsis they are very different in execution. The goal here was to create a film that reflected the tone of the Icelandic Sagas and in my opinion the succeeded in that goal. It’s worth noting though that it isn’t the kind of story telling modern audiences are used to and as such a lot of the mainstream movie goers may find this not to their pallett.
Joining Skarsgård’s “Amleth” is Anya Taylor-Joy as “Olga” an enslaved Slavic Sorceress. Anya had worked with Eggers previously on The Witch and is definitely a name to watch in the future (Indeed she has been cast as the new “Furiosa” for the Mad Max spin off of the same name). Claes Bang, who played Dracula in the BBC’s 2020 adaptation of that story take on the role as primary antagonist “Fjölnir”, Amleth’s treacherous uncle. Nicole Kidman plays Amleth’s mother “Gudrún” and with supporting roles are Ethan Hawke (as Amleth’s father) and Willem Dafoe (as a Heimir the Fool). Dafoe, is obviously a favourite of Eggers and rightly so (and is earmarked to play Count Orlock is Eggers proposed Nosferatu remake, a role he is perfectly suited for having already sort of played the character in “Shadow of the Vampire”).
One May Smile, And Smile, And Be A Villain.
For those unfamiliar with Norse legends the movie may seem dark and more than a little subversive. But those that are familiar know exactly what to expect. Much like with one of my other passions Film Noir, there is a major thread of fatalism within these epic tales and the characters tend to be deeply flawed. These stories are not the traditional heroes journey instead each one is more of a tragedy.
There are stories such as “Njáls saga” that tells of multi-generational blood fueds in which ultimately no one wins. Then there is Egil’s saga about a family who would often be so consumed with rage they would kill their own allies and are often portrayed as cruel and selfish. The expectations of a saga are that things will end badly, that destiny is unavoidable and that life is unrelentingly cruel. The Northman delivers this in spades.
There Is Nothing Either Good Or Bad But Thinking Makes It So.
Amleth is a character driven almost entirely by his sense of an inescapable fate, one which he only briefly tries to flee from but ultimately fails. The betrayal he suffers early in the movie has more to it than it first seems and the depth of that betrayal goes further than expected. In his journey to vengeance he loses everything but his desire for vengeance… at least for the most part. He does find some redemption through his relationship with Olga and ultimately tries to make things right for at least someone if not for himself and those tied in to his vengeance.
Like many of the saga’s this story isn’t about glorifying violence but instead an examination of the darker side of human nature, the cruelty of the age in which it was set and the complexity of the people that had to live in that time. This was a very conscious decision from Sjon and Eggers and it’s one that improves the film but may potentially put off viewers unfamiliar with this kind of storytelling. Then again earlier seasons of Game of Thrones weren’t that different to this, but that series was a soap opera by comparison. Here you don’t always know the motivations behind a betrayal. There’s no long walks in a garden discussing it. It just happens.
For Who Would Bear The Whips And Scorns Of Time.
The authenticity doesn’t end with the story though. Eggers is somewhat obsessed with accuracy and that paid off well with his previous two movies “The Witch” and “The Lighthouse”. The amount of effort that went into finding the perfect locations and building accurate sets perhaps go some way to explain this films high budget. Carvings built in India and sent over form the basis of temples, entire towns built out of northing to convert coastal Ireland into the land of the Rus in Eastern Europe and of course the variosu sets in Iceland itself.
The rain in Ireland was relentless but this was only to the benefit of this production. Mud was everywhere and some of the most impressive sets were built only to burn to the ground. No expense was spared and it shows in the end result. This is a beautiful looking movie and when the journey moves to Iceland it does a great job of selling the unique marvel of that countries landscapes. Where Ice and Fire walk hand in hand and you can believe the giants of Niflheim and Muspelheim could arrive at any time to crush mankind.
To Thine Own Self Be True.
Speaking of Norse mythology, it is worth noting that Eggers masterfully works the mystical into the gritty realism of the movie. The director seems to enjoy presenting a fantasy but in such a way that you know it is in the perception of his characters and not necessarily something physically happening. This is most notable with Amleths battle with the Draugr (Undead) that guards the sword of the same name. We see the scene twice, one baring more fantastical elements and the other more realistic.
We also see Olga through Amleths eyes as a great Valkyrie ready to take him to Vallhalla. Perhaps the best element though is one where the myth crosses most into the real world and that is in the path of the Berserkers and Ulfhednar. Amleth seems to be a hybrid of the two and he and his fellow warriors channel their rage making them ferocious and unstoppable in battle. This is done brilliantly and believably, showing the rituals and concoction they use to go into rage before battle.
To Sleep, Perchance To Dream.
As for the acting, the boy playing young Amleth and a few of the minor roles were unconvincing in places, but it didn’t take anything from the movie and the kid was compelling enough when he needed to be. All the major parts however were performed convincingly. Skarsgård puts in a career best performance here and it really was the role he was destined for. I also want to give special credit to Bang and Kidman, both excelled in their roles. Kidman’s part doesn’t really come into it’s own until late in the movie, but when it reaches that point her performance was explosive. Bang meanwhile managed to really humanize the movies the movies primary antagonist.
Avante Garde composers Sebastian Gainsborough (A.K.A. “Vessel”) and Robin Carolan (of Tri Angle Records) provide an effectively ominous soundtrack that fits thematically providing a constant dark tension while also reminding us of the Norse setting. At at it’s weakest it sounds like Skyrim (Which is itself a pretty good soundtrack) at it’s best it’s up there with the soundtracks of the top fantasy/historic epics. It may not be in the running for the best soundtrack ever but it is definitely a positive for this movie.
What Dreams May Come.
Overall this is a superb movie. Eggers obsession with authenticity gels well with Sjón’s deep knowledge and SkaaSkarsgård’s passion. You simply won’t find a more authentic representation of the sagas. This is what the writers of those sagas would have pictured them as. You can almost smell the blood and feel the heat of the fires. It is beautiful, brutal and passionate.
Sadly though between the movies very high budget and what seems like generally poor distribution and marketing the movie is almost certainly going to end up a major bomb. I can only hope that it earns the respect it deserves retrospectively, like such past financial failures as “Blade Runner” and “The Thing” (Also two of my favourite movies). This movie won’t be for everyone, but for me it’s a 8.5/10.
The latest offering from Warner/DC in the Superhero genre is 2022’s “The Batman”, a movie that seems to have been a long time in the coming and that was probably greenlit by a very different team than is now in charge at Warner. The original intention for the movie was to be a vehicle for Ben Affleck’s Batman but this changed fairly early on and the idea became to launch a Batman shared universe separate from the DCEU. Already a very questionable idea, however if any DC hero can bare the weight of their own shared universe it is Batman. The question is though, does this film provide a good launching point for it? Let’s dig in.
In Bloom.
Matt Reeves directs the movie, having replaced Affleck during pre-production and is an old hand at coming on on other peoples franchises. His work includes directing JJ Abrams brainchild “Cloverfield” (2008), then in 2010 making the American remake of 2008’s “Let The Right One In”, title simply “Let Me In”. Following that he took up the reigns of the Planet of the Apes reboot series from Rupert Wyatt, making the two weaker films of the trilogy. Now he has replaced Ben affleck helming this franchise and it seems unlikely much remains of the original concept for the movie with Reeves taking the opportunity to tell his kind of Batman story. The characters role as a “The Worlds Greatest Detective” would appear to be the focus of this version, with Reeves taking influence from Film Noir and stories such as “The Long Halloween”. Perhaps unsurprisingly there would also be a push to make this the darkest and grittiest Batman yet.
Scentless Apprentice.
Robert Pattinson plays the title character, a casting choice that would prove highly divisive amongst Batman fans, perhaps unfairly due to his role in the “Twilight” film series. Pattinson is a pretty good actor, so for me it was all going to depend on the script. What did surprise me with the casting through was the sheer number of Batman characters that seemed to be involved in the film. Zoey Kravitz took the role of Catwoman, Colin Farrell was cast as The Penguin and John Turturro as Carmine Falcone. There was even talk of some Joker casting. But it was Paul Dano as The Riddler that would be the main villain of the story. The rogues would be joined by Andy Serkis as Alfred and Jeffrey Wright as Gordon. My concern was the story was starting to look unnecessarily cluttered but there were certainly a few names in there that had my interest.
Something in the Way.
A few things immediately come to mind while watching “The Batman”. The cinematography is actually pretty good and the darker grittier vision of Gotham this time does take a very Noir like form. It almost is a shame it is in colour. The soundtrack however is far less impressive. In interviews promoting the film Reeves talked about how he took influence for Batman from Kurt Cobain and his music. This seemed odd at the time, but in practice it becomes a sort of sonic worshipping of one particular Nirvana song: “Something in the Way”. A strange choice given it is effectively a song about being homeless and sleeping under a bridge and not really something I would attribute to a Billionaire superhero. But the piece is not just something played once, but the entire core of the soundtrack as the two chords the build that song are used throughout and unfortunately make most of the sound track reminiscent of “The Imperial March” from Star Wars. The only sections of music that don’t appear to be built around Nirvana are the recurring performances of “Ava Maria”, which also becomes somewhat tedious over time.
Like many modern movies the themes are far from subtle and designed to smack the viewer across the face in the most on the nose ways possible. Character development is spelled out in dialogue instead of demonstrated through action, with Batman declaring himself as “Vengeance” early on but then in a voice over in the final act deciding he needs to be more than vengeance moving forward. The voice over would be fine had I felt that Batman actually went through an emotional journey to get to that conclusion.
Heart-Shaped Box.
Part of the problem with this set up is it relied on Batman not having learned the lessons of his own origin story. Bruce would have had an entire emotional journey between the death of his parents and becoming Batman and this movie is set in his second year in the role. This is all very similar to what the Sony/Disney did to MCU Spider-Man, skipping showing the characters origin but also skipping that core character development that comes with it (In the case of Spider-Man, it was the impact of Uncle Ben’s death). For Batman it is that journey from orphaned child to the physical and mental peak of humanity. A journey that was shown to us so perfectly in Nolan’s “Batman Begins” (2005). Instead here we have a character that has the physical capabilities of Batman, but pairs that psychological makeup of a freshy orphaned child.
Bruce Wayne, as we know him, is largely absent here too and when he does show up he comes across like a depressed teenager. The suggestion seems to be that he is yet to learn to wear that mask in public, but this brings with it the issue of it being obvious who Batman is. A situation not helped by a plot constantly teases the idea that his secret is going to be revealed. Of course it’s not like superhero movies of old haven’t had questionable secret identity issues (like the Clark Kent glasses situation), but this is like deciding to do Clarke Kent without the glasses and still expecting the audience to buy no one has figured it out.
Negative Creep.
A major part of “The Batman” is the focus on Batman as a detective., an aspect of Batman that while not absent in past on screen incarnations was not specifically the focus. On paper this was an interesting change and one I was looking forward to seeing. Sadly though, this too ended up being a negative because ultimately this Batman is frankly terrible at it. He is a step behind, not just the Riddler but often everyone else as well. One of Batman’s accolades/titles is “The World’s Greatest Detective”. If you want Batman to be at all true to his comic roots his skills should be more like a Sherlock Holmes than a generic FBI Agent from a random TV procedurals. True, the Riddler is perhaps the best foil for him as a detective , but their battle of the wits should be more akin to Holmes and Moriarty and this was not even close. Batman was an embarrassment in this department and pretty much failed at every turn. It is really more the illusion of detective work than actual detective work. Batman does have a nice gadget in his surveillance contact lenses, but that doesn’t make up for his inability to figure out the central riddle.
Come As You Are.
So that’s Batman covered, what about everyone else? Well much as I feared when I saw all the cast the movie is unnecessarily bloated. It’s true you can have multiple Batman villains in a movie and have it work, The Nolan trilogy demonstrated that, but to varying degrees of success. It’s interesting to note that the longest of the Nolan movies is also the weakest and the one that utilised it’s three rogues the least successfully. Here both Penguin and Catwoman were unnecessary to the story being told and both added significantly to the movies run time. Selina does play a role in the main story, but it’s not a role that actually required or even benefited from being that character specifically, it could just as easily have been any other female character, even a wholly original one. Her role in the story has nothing to do with her skills as a thief or in combat, both of which are basically there without explanation (Much like Batman’s). They don’t even really deal with the cat gimmick outside of showing she has a few strays (Which she shows very little actual affection for). The cats don’t feel part of Selina’s personality and are just sort of there. As for Zoey Kravitz herself, she is okay in the role but hardly ground breaking.
Pennyroyal Tea.
The Penguin is a real mixed bag. Colin Farrell is superb in the role and the make up work to change him into the notorious character is incredibly well done. However, Oswald’s role in the story is even less relevant than Selina and his entire story arc could have been dropped with the only impact being they would probably have had to change one of the riddles. Given that riddle was the worst one and the one that made Batman look incompetent as a detective, that would not have been a bad thing. I would estimate that between the Oswald and Selina arcs you have about 20-40 unnecessary minutes trimmed from the story in a way that would have tightened up and improved the rest of the plot. Because of this I’m going to have to mark both down as a failure. However, seeing more of this Penguin in the future would be a good thing.
Big Cheese.
The third character from the rogues gallery is gangster boss Carmine Falcone and this is a character that actually should have had more of a focus on him. Not only is he important to the plot, he is played superbly by John Turturro and the underuse of the character does a lot to diminish the impact of a number of reveals later on in the film. The character would have been a perfect enemy for this grittier neo-noir type Batman in his second year of operation in the role, but when you clutter the movie up with Penguin and Catwoman Falcone ends up largely just in the background.
Drain You.
The final and most important member of the rogues gallery is the primary antagonist of the film, The Riddler. Played well by Paul Dano, but the character somewhat falls apart in the final act. As I mentioned earlier, The Riddler is the ideal foil for Batman as a detective, however just as this Batman is not an especially smart detective, neither is the Riddler especially smart as an antagonist and once the veil is lifted on his motivation he really comes across as quite a pathetic, naive character. Not that a pathetic character can’t be a villain but it does lead the end of the film to somewhat fizzle out (despite the attempt at a big set piece action ending). Overall though, I’m marking this one down as a positive.
Serve the Servants.
On the other side of the playing field you have Jeffrey Wright as James Gordon and Andy Serkis as Alfred. Both somewhat fell flat for me as the plot seemed to assume the characters relationship with the lead without really showing it on screen. Neither reallys seemed to have much chemistry with Pattinson and the Gordon/Batman scenes were some of the weakest of the movie due to the pair apparently trying to out mumble/whisper each other. Andy Serkis’ role in the movie felt small, like they didn’t really want to deal with the fact Batman has such a close ally and confidant, especially one that is also his butler. These are sadly both negatives.
Lithium.
Overall, there is some hope for the franchise going forward. Pattinson wasn’t terrible and nothing was broken beyond repair by this movie. Indeed some characters such as Penguin I absolutely look forward to seeing more of. However, they do need to learn from their mistakes if they want to build a worthwhile trilogy (or longer series). The next movie needs to be more focused and they need to vastly improve the character work and stop trying to push current day politics onto a character created in the 30’s that is meant to be timeless.
Milk It.
On a personal note I have to say I am tired of “Darker, gritier” batman movies. The Nolan trilogy was for me as dark and gritty as Batman should get. This movie pushes things so much further in that direction that to me it feels more like an “Elseworld” Batman (i.e. a one off novelty) than something trying to be comic true. That would be fine, but it’s also not quite unique enough to push that novelty. As you will know from this blog, I love Film Noir, so you’d think a Neo-Noir Batman would be right up my alley. Sadly though while the movie attempts to push that vibe, it feels artificial, like yet another attempt at a Noir that fails to understand the genre in the first place. A full on elseworlds Noir Batman, perhaps even in black and white could certainly be interesting, but I doubt Warner would ever greenlight something that radical.
Stay Away.
I would actually much rather see a Batman movie embrace the characters gothic side again like Tim Burton’s movies did 30 years. Indeed if we’re talking about doing an “Elseworld” Batman I would love to see a “Gaslight” universe set in victorian times that not only gave us Jack The Ripper, but also re-imagined some of the rogues gallery in a more gothic style and perhaps even had a bit of Batman Vs Dracula in the mix (I’m talking over several films or a series here). Maybe that’s just me, but I’d find that more interesting than yet another darker and grittier version. Of course they could also just try and put the character and the stories from the comic actually on the screen without interpretation and re-imagining. I know, crazy idea right?
For tonight’s feature I viewed Sony’s new release from their “Venomverse” universe, “Morbius” (2022). This marks Sony’s first addition to the Venomverse and as such the movie the finally turns that world from a playground for Symbiotes into a true shared universe. Not that this has any cross over material outside of a throw away line and an awkward post credit scene, but it is an important milestone for Sony and one you’d think would be important to them. Then again they made so much money off Spider-Man maybe they no longer care.
Blood, Sweat, Tears and more Blood.
The movie is helmed by director Daniel Espinosa, who obviously has some horror experience from making the Alien-esque “life” (2017) and I assume this is why he was picked for the movie. The movies writers, Matt Sazama and Burke Sharpless have a string of genre movies to their name but it’s worth noting their highest IMDB score is for Dracula Untold (A movie I did enjoy) which hits the heady heights of 6.2/10. The rest of their movies are in the fives and that probably explains a lot about this one.
Jared Leto stars as the eponymous Doctor Michael Morbius and is joined by Matt Smith’s Milo/Lucien, Adria Arjona as Martine Bancroft and Jared Harris as Dr. Emil Nicholas. There are also a number of minor roles that appear to have been reduced to bare bones in the edit room including Tyrese Gibson as a race swapped Simon Stroud, who in the comics is actually a superhero himself but apparently his entire arc was cut, reducing the role to just a chasing FBI agent that seems a little more competent than his colleagues. Apparently there were whole scenes featuring his cyborg arm, but neither those nor the arm itself made the theatrical release. Still, he has more presence than Michael Keaton’s Adrian Toomes who appears to have had his entire role reduced from something worthy of inclusion in the trailer, to just a confusing mid credits cameo.
Vampire Interrupted.
Speaking of Keaton, let’s address the elephant in the room. This movie was originally due to be released in July 2020, but with Covid delaying things both Sony and Disney shuffled their Marvel deck and this had a knock on effect to a lot of the movies and the continuity between them. There was also a new deal signed between Sony and Disney in relation to Spider-Man’s on screen presence. Through all this there ended up being a need for extensive reshoots and a key change to the movie that removed all references to anything MCU, until the mid credits. At this point I think Morbius ended up a gutted husk of the movie that Espinosa originally intended, though it is hard to tell. What is clear is that Keaton definitely had a bigger role as the scene from the first trailer is completely absent. Also absent is the Spider-Man “Murderer” graffiti that was present in the trailer. Apparently this was added by the studio without the directors knowledge.
Best of Enemies?
One can speculate on what was meant to be, but ultimately we can only deal with what is. So let’s dig into that. The first thing to note is this film feels very small. There are effectively only four characters with any importance to the story and Jared Harris is used sparsely. Adria Arjona has a bit more of a role but even that feels like it is missing some key character moments. The movie instead focuses on Smith and Leto. In itself that’s not a bad move but if you are going to focus so heavily on a pair of friends that become enemies there should really be more of an emotional connection between them. Instead while both actors do their best for their role ultimately every decision either character makes is entirely done to drive the plot. None of it feels particularly natural. There’s very little emotional ambivalence and when they inevitably face off it doesn’t really feel like two life long friends that have gone past the point of no return.
Living Vampire or Dying Franchise?
The plot is itself simple and largely predictable. There is no more to it than what you would read in a synopsis. I would say there is nothing more to the movie than you see in the trailer, but actually there is more in the trailer! This is a bare bones story that has promise and had they found an angle to focus on or expand it could actually have been good. But alas, there is no such angle. The movie just ploughs through a series of events from start to end with almost no character growth, world building or plot complexities (outside of some obvious “twists”).
Ultimately what is there is absolutely fine. The actors performances were solid, the action sequences mostly work, there are a few cool visuals and there are no overbearing politics or modern clichés that made me especially dislike it The problem is there just isn’t much to the film at all. One day maybe there will be an Espinosa cut or at least some kind of explanation about why the end result appears so different to what was promised in that first trailer. That should make for an interesting story, in the meantime though this movie does not.
You must be logged in to post a comment.