I’m Going To Rant About A Nightmare on Elm Street Remake Because I Can

Is there any actual purpose on doing a long criticism for a decade old film that no one cares about? Yes, and that purpose being I just saw this film recently for the first time and I need to vent about it so buckle up. A Nightmare On Elm Street is in my opinion the best of the classic horror franchises. It’s a film series that was consistently entertaining and had unique themes for each instalment. I’m not here to pretend it’s high-art and the series likewise never pretended that either. They are films that wanted you to have a rip-roaring good time and show off some neat effects and be spellbound by the theatrics of Robert Englund's performance as Freddy Krueger. The altering themes may not have done much to establish substance, but they did evolve a subtext for each film that gave them their identities. Tackling issues such as sexuality, mental health, and drug abuse, not very well, but I can look at each one and go “Oh, that’s the one where everyone’s accidentally a drug addict” which frankly is more effort than its contemporaries put in *Cough* Jason Sucks *Cough*.

I also find myself in conflict with other fans of the franchise with my rankings of the individual films, often I’ve said the second one is my personal favourite which if you’re unfamiliar with the series, is a very unpopular opinion. Though this history is what made me go into the remake with optimism, as I was aware of the heavy criticism it faced and was hoping it might be another case of me finding more joy out of a Nightmare film than others did…Nope! (For anyone curious my ranking of the Nightmare films goes 2, 3, 1, 5, 7, 6, 4)

*Spoilers for the franchise*

From a conceptual standpoint I can understand and even agree with the premise of this being a reboot, as it has been 7 years since Freddy’s last appearance on the big screen and 16 years since the last canonical film in the franchise. Starting from scratch gives new audiences an entry point into the Nightmare without being bogged down by 7 films worth of continuity. So why on Earth was it decided that this should be a complete retread of the original film? The exact same structure and characters of the first film, identically replicating multiple scenes and plot points that I question how anyone got a writing credit when they simply copied Wes Craven’s original script.

If you are going in with a clean slate then commit to it, use this as an opportunity to do something original with a new cast of characters being haunted by Freddy, don’t retread ground of the original film because we’ve already seen it been done, calling reference to it by recreating it isn’t an homage, it’s blatant copying. The use of CGI is very prominent for this film as it was for many films of the time but it is particularly horrendous in horror films. Regardless of actual quality of the effects the audience is always consciously aware that what they’re seeing isn’t real and occupying the same space as the characters. Especially when you’re using CG to redo effects from the original that were done practically so we know they can be better than this. In horror films CGI is best used for the unnatural, things that can not be physically comprehended to the mind. Faces sticking out of walls can be comprehended because I saw them do that in the first fucking movie.

What few story points that are changed are done incredibly poorly. Freddy is a molester/child-killer who originally escaped incarceration on a technicality, the justice system failed the parents of the victims, so they took law into their own hands and murdered Freddy themselves. In this version not only do they 1: entertain the possibility that Freddy might have been innocent which is beyond idiotic because Freddy is the bad guy who murders children, he should not have any justification in his origin story. 2: Freddy was never even convicted, the parents never approached the police, they took matters into their own hands as Plan A, which all it does is make them look like a psychotic mob. The Elm Street Parents becoming a mob of vigilantes to seek justice is a mark that permanently damaged them. They were good people pushed to the absolute extremes to seek some semblance of justice or at least revenge. Whether or not their actions were right, it left a brand on them as people and it’s why they nor their children were ever truly able to escape Freddy, even if they pushed him from their conscious mind, he was always their haunting their minds. AKA the entire fucking subtext of the original has been trashed and instead let’s just make them blood-thirsty psychopaths!

There’s a visual language established in this film for the dreamworld that they break constantly for the sake of jump scares. Whenever the characters enter a dream like state the world shifts tone. The use of incandescent lighting and an ominous score establishes this otherworldly and uncomfortable atmosphere, and they stick with this for roughly 80% of the dream sequences, yet there are times when the world is perfectly normal, indicating to the audience that we are in the real world, then all of a sudden Freddy will show up to shout boo and then the characters will wake up making that scene utterly pointless and inconsistent with the rules established in the diegesis of the film.

It’s completely nonsensical for this version of Freddy to try and scare these characters because that’s not the Freddy presented to us. The filmmakers said they thought Freddy had become too much of a comedic character over the years and had lost the fearful side, which they’re not necessarily wrong with, but if you’re taking away that element then you have to restructure how he’s used as a character. The original Freddy was a showman, he would taunt and terrorise his prey with theatrics and would often kill them in some symbolic way that reflected their own flaws as people in some sick sense of karmic retribution. He took so much pleasure out of psychologically torturing his victims that’s what made him scary. This Freddy does none of that, he’s a wet blanket who doesn’t care to be theatrical, he’s also not funny except for the times where they still try and have him tell a joke except it’s not funny because he doesn’t say it with any charisma. 

Why would you even want a Freddy that doesn’t see the entertainment value in all of this? In one of the prior films a character has a dream he’s riding a motorcycle as he slowly fuses with it to become a monstrous creature who then gets hit by a truck, it’s an incredibly inventive and visually impressive scene. This film has Freddy kill everyone by simply stabbing them to death. Why bother having the dream world anyway!? Why give him a world where he controls everything, where he can manipulate himself and the environment around him to kill teenagers in wildly inventive ways, if literally every character is just stabbed then what on Earth was the point of adapting this property in the first place if you’re not going to do anything interesting with the toolbox given and just turn him into any other boring serial killer!?

I genuinely didn’t expect to have such a vitriolic reaction to this film as I did, but then again if I go into a film expecting to dislike it then it’s often a soft blow. This was a film I was rooting for, I gave it a chance to prove others wrong and it let me down hard. I found myself mumbling “Oh fuck you” multiple times during this film and with each passing minute it was becoming more and more unlikely that it was going to change my mind. So I’d like to end this by giving a big congratulations to A Nightmare on Elm Street IV: The Dream Master for no longer being the worst Nightmare film.

-Danny

Enola Holmes - Cheap Thoughts

Never let it be said that there isn’t a place for the perfectly fine movies. Perfectly fine movies are one of the most underappreciated gems of cinema. The movies that you can put on, sit down and enjoy 2 hours of your life going by, and then move on with your life never putting that much thought into that film again. Netflix in particular have perfected the perfectly fine to a tee, they are fully aware of the context of which their films are being consumed, by individuals and couples who have had long days at work and just want something simple and edible to enjoy at the end of their day. Raise a glass to the perfectly fine movies! Unfortunately these also come with the unexpected drawback of being very difficult movies to talk about because the whole appeal of them is that you don’t have think too hard about them so you might end up trying to fill a roughly 500 word review with nearly 200 words of pure filler rambling on about the welcome collection of the perfectly fine, of which Enola Holmes fits in as comfortably as the film is to watch.

Enola Holmes follows the story of the teenage sister of Sherlock Holmes (Henry Cavill) and Mycroft Holmes (Sam Caflin) as she investigates the disappearance of their mother (Helena Bonham Carter) as well as evade capture from her unreceptive brothers and earn her independence. There’s much to value within this film. Millie Bobbie Brown is a very likeable and charismatic lead in the film, she’s a very easy character to root for as an underdog in every regard, being a young woman in late 19^th century and having to deal with possibly the most egotistical brothers one could ever dread. Brown plays it with such glee and wit she will capture any audiences support. Director Harry Bradbeer of Fleabag brings alone his use of forth wall breaking and implants it here, quite sparingly as well, it’s a technique that can easily be indulgent but Bradbeer savours it in small doses and often as the punchline to a joke.

Though not part of the official Sherlock Holmes canon there is a place fitting for Enola to join as both a character and a franchise. Like the two brothers there are plenty of similarities that connect her to them, their intelligence, their independence and addiction to solving mysteries but likewise there is enough separation that develops the contrast between them that makes them engaging to watch. Truly the highlights of the film is whenever the Holmes siblings are together in any combination and seeing these larger than life attitudes play off each other is highly entertaining. In Enola’s case it would be her youthful, playful and green perspective on the world as she builds a life for herself and the film very quickly establishes a formula for itself for potential sequels to work with.

There is certainly an audience in mind for this film as reflected by the main character but that shouldn’t stop others from giving it a go. Truly it’s a film that should appeal to all ages and be decently amused by it at minimum, while others will likely find it to be a highly entertaining and would most likely be salivating for a sequel, or for nothing else, salivating for Henry Cavill.

-Danny

God of War III - Morality is Relative(ly unimportant)

Here we are six months later from my initial discussion on the complete depravity that is Kratos as a protagonist, I took some time off from the franchise to play some other games with less morally bankrupt characters and preferably fewer oceans of blood. I am now back and ready to complete this trilogy and explore if redemption for Kratos is possible, or will this game fall further into the endless vacuum of carnage.

(Side Note: the game I played just before this was Life is Strange and it’s a really fucking weird coincidence that they have the exact same ending, having the main character trapped in a black void plagued with visions of all the disasters that befell them across previous instalments.)

I should properly begin by saying I don’t just play these games because I’m some kind of masochist who engages in media he despises for the sake of complaining, frankly I don’t have the time or energy for something like that. Truth be told and never let it be said I deny it, I play through these games because they’re fun. God of War is a franchise built on entertaining and adrenaline boosting gameplay, particularly with the third game boasting the grandest scale the series has ever seen that’s a true treat for the audience to be able to climb a mountain sized enemy and them rip them to pieces. Mechanically speaking God of War III much like its predecessors is a rip-roarin good time. But I’m not here to discuss gameplay, it’s not my area of expertise and my analysis can barely go deeper than “It’s fun” - Though I will draw attention to it every so often when it’s relevant - I’m here to discuss story and themes because that’s what I do around here and this series will always fascinate me on how they got away with some of their choices, so let’s talk about it.

*Spoilers for God of War III ahead*

It appears this game was determined to be even more graphic and vicious than prior instalments as if it had a point to prove. The opening boss fight sees Kratos take on Poseidon with the final kill being done in 1st person perspective on the side of Poseidon, so you as the player can feel the same fear and panic he does as Kratos rips his skull open. This is a technique the game would use later on but this time from the perspective of Kratos as you get to beat Zeus to death by hand until your screen is drenched in blood (Parellels?). Though the upgraded hardware allowed for the game to go grander in scale, it also allowed them the ability to show even more blood and body parts being torn apart as your enemies thrash in pain as you murder them. There are also multiple examples of Kratos needlessly killing civilians as well as even allies such as Peirithous, whom the game decides in order to gain his weapon (That he willingly offers to you!) you must burn him alive, because simply earning it through an objective isn’t enough, innocent people must suffer for your benefit.

That being said there is one example of Kratos nearly showing mercy, that being with the character of Hercules. After being introduced and trying to goad Kratos into a fight, our “hero” actually offers him the chance to walk away, claiming his fight is not with him. Hercules of course doesn’t listen, overwhelmed with jealousy for his half-brother, he starts a fight and you of course horrifically kill him by turning his skull into mashed potatoes. Yet I couldn’t help but take note of this moment, Kratos offering someone the chance to walk away? Someone who is actively trying to agitate him? My mind raced with what reasoning could lead to this? Could it be that Kratos empathised with Hercules? The two of them being sons of Zeus who have been manipulated and suffered at his hands? As Kratos knows killing Zeus would not only free himself but also others like him? He sees so much of himself in Hercules, or even worse what he could have become that he is capable of showing pity? Naturally none of this is expressed in the game, this is all my interpretation, but still, considering Kratos has murdered people for daring to be in the same post code as him, nearly showing mercy to someone trying to fight him is something we have never seen before and it would have been fascinating to explore it.

None of these are new problems of course, they are issues I discussed in my earlier post about the series, but they are certainly more extreme in this case. It almost feels as though Santa Monica Studios received plenty of criticism for these elements and decided to double down for the conclusion of the trilogy as a final screw you to their critics. Nowhere is this more obvious than with Aphrodite…oh boy. I’ve discussed before a large portion of the appeal of these games and gaming in general is the idea of wish-fulfilment, to give the player an escapist fantasy where they’re the best at everything. I’ve also been heavily critical of the way God of War presents this, both for its obsession with violence and also its unhealthy portrayal of sex, one because of the out of character nature that Kratos would be interested in having sex with random strangers when he has a one track mind that only involves killing anything with a pulse. A fact by the way made even worse that in the middle of an apocalypse, where the world around them is crumbling and Kratos will stop at nothing to kill the gods…you’re given the option to stop and have a shag with Aphrodite, the god of love. A scene that treats her purely as a literal sex object from the perspective of two envious onlookers who want more than anything to have sex with Kratos now, I.E. you the player. At best this moment could be considered indulgent and immature, at worst it is not only illogical to occur in the story, but offensively malignant and enforces this trend in the series of treating all of its female characters as objects to either fuck, kill, or abuse in any shape or form.

Speaking of, let’s discuss the other female characters in the story and the role they play. Starting with Gaia, whom you may recall at the end of the last game teamed up with Kratos and the other Titans to start a revolution against the gods of Olympus, and in near the very beginning of this game they toss each other aside, admitting that they had no interest in each other’s goals, they only used them as a pawn for their own objective…even though they have the exact same objective: to kill Zeus. Yet the game decided they must now be rivals for contrite reasons. However, an even bigger character shift is that of Athena, who comes back as a ghost…somehow, none of the other gods seem capable of this and we kind of destroy the underworld in this game (Wasn’t enough to destroy one plane of existence) and now she has become your ally. Despite spending the last game trying to sway you from your ceaseless destruction and even sacrificed herself to save Zeus, she is now all gung-ho about killing Zeus for the greater good. Her reasoning and actions are so confused that by the end of the game while overlooking the literal apocalypse you have caused; she speaks the line “You have done well Kratos” HOW. How is any of this him doing well!? His bloodlust has brought upon Armageddon!

This is honestly where the bigger issues of God of War III lie as a narrative. While I can criticise the game’s use of violence and women, an issue more substantially isolated to this game over the previous ones is simply the illogicality of its storytelling.  God of War II ending on a climax left this game in a precarious position, where its opening is actually an ending, so the game throws you into Hades and robs you of all your upgrades forcing you to start from step one, making the events of the last game useless and to just stall you for 6 hours so it doesn’t feel like a retread of God Of War II. This repetition even infects the gameplay mechanics, 3 out of 4 weapons you unlock are basically reskins of each other, knives attached to chains that function the exact same way making their gathering arbitrary and useless.

The game introduces a new character called Pandora, who you may remember Kratos opening her box in the first game to gain god killing powers. Apparently, that action lead to unleashing a plethora of evil plaguing the world, including the gods themselves who are now paranoid with fear. These side effects and Pandora’s backstory are of course explained to us through exposition dumps despite the fact this is still a visual medium and breaks the cardinal rule of show don’t tell, made even worse considering this retconning is an attempt to make the Greek Gods seem somewhat bad when the franchise has made no attempt to vilify the antagonists but Santa Monica have become at least somewhat self-aware that the hero shows more evil traits than those we’re meant to kill.

Pandora is meant to draw parallels between Kratos and his original daughter, as if saving her would in someway work as a redemption for his past sins. Though she is mentioned early on, her actual introduction is not until 2/3rds through the game and no attempt is made to actually establish a connection between the two. Kratos should have no reason to care for her when his clear disregard for life is blatant, and Pandora should have no reason to believe there is any good in Kratos when all she’s bore witness too is his incessant killing. There an incredibly hilarious irony that during a scene where Pandora claims that Kratos is a good person despite him currently holding the decapitated head of a god he murdered earlier that day. Pandora is a burden, someone who cowers and screams, only needing to be rescued and provides no benefits mechanically. Also, the fact that Kratos murdered her dad is never brought up, probably because that would be incredibly awkward and shatter the already fragile relationship that they try and present. 

She goes on to introduce the main theme of the game, that being the idea of Fear Vs Hope. Zeus is corrupted due to him succumbing to his fears, which supposedly has made him paranoid and aggressive, and the only true way to combat him and indeed this overwhelming sense of fear, is to believe in hope, as Pandora puts it, hope is the last thing we have to fight with when everything else is lost. Again, this claim of Zeus surrendering to fear is all expository as we the audience have no frame of reference for what Zeus or any of the gods were like before the opening of Pandora’s Box. More so is using Kratos as a carrier of this theme, as if there was this constant inner struggle within him between the two settings, fear and hope. This is despite the fact at no point has Kratos shown signs of being fearful or hopeful, just anger. Unfiltered, unthinking, remorseless anger. To kill, destroy and fight his way through until his goal is achieved. By the end of the game Kratos supposedly embracing the idea of hope, again which is unearned as he’s never once wavered from his goal, but he requires that last minute power up and saying the true power was inside of him all along is easier than giving him any tangible power, like say, perhaps the weapon that Hephaestus gave him that claimed would be his most powerful weapon that could kill Zeus…maybe that should have played a role! Plus Pandora died anyway in an empty sacrifice. So to summarise Kratos never receives redemption or comeuppance for the death of his family, he fails to portray either mindsets presented through the theme, he receives a deus ex machina upgrade last minute and let the avatar of his humanity die in a pointless death because he was so desperate to continue punching Zeus in the face that it was worth her demise.

I have heavily criticized God of War 1 & 2 for their portrayals of violence, morality and decency, but for nothing else I can at least say they were competent narratives that made sense. God of War III is a dumpster fire. It carries over the grotesque nature, yet its attempts at telling an emotional story with actual themes fails miserably. Furthermore its complete reset of both plot progression and gameplay abilities basically tells me there was no point in this game existing as it repeats most of what came before but worse, as most of the upgrades are useless and it always feels like it’s stalling for time. The first two games mainly baffled me with their lack of ethics, this game simply angers me. It is a failure mechanically, emotionally and narratively, the best it has to boast is that it is bigger and prettier than the rest and that should show just how hollow this trilogy has been, but this game has the gall to actually be proud of that.

In case you’re curious, I’m not going to play the spin-off games or prequels, I’ve given this story enough of my attention and I refuse to entertain it anymore. I will someday return to replay the 2018 God of War game because fucking hell has my respect for that game shot through the roof now that I know what pits of despair it was birthed from and I’m curious to see how it plays given this new context. Sadly that won’t be for a while from now as I’d rather not have to think about Kratos anytime soon. I’m off to play something else, but before that I need a drink and a shower.

-Danny

Bill & Ted Face The Music - Cheap Thoughts

Talk about the perfect time for this film’s release, or possibly the worst time depending where on the optimist to pessimist spectrum you lean, as what we have here is a film that dares to say in the middle of a crisis, in the middle of disaster, in the middle of failure; to have hope, to connect with your fellow man, and of course, to be excellent to each other and party on dudes. Bill & Ted (Alex Winter & Keanu Reeves) are simple characters, and like so this is a simple franchise, no one is living under the delusion that simply a positive attitude and everyone singing kumbaya is in our reality going to solve the world’s problems. What the film is trying to say, is that high spirits never hurt, having faith and trust can be a helpful factor, they just choose to portray it in an outlandish and extreme fashion while also simplifying the situation. The ideas are simple, the execution is radical.

For some, this overly upbeat perspective could be seen as overbearing, in fact going so far into it’s own philosophy that all it does is remind you of how you don’t live in a world that can be solved with such easy answers. On the other hand if you’re not a complete stick in the mud and will just appreciate the whimsical, funny and light-hearted adventure of the film that tried to give you a joyous 94 minutes with a heartfelt message by the end then you will most likely find yourself having a good time. Any other year this wouldn’t have been that big of a challenge, but let’s not kid ourselves, we live in 2020, a cesspool of a year where it seems there is less and less reason to have hope with each passing day, and somehow Bill & Ted Face the Music came out and dared to give us a glimmer of sanguinity.

The lack of cynicism certainly holds the film together, but it doesn’t prevent the basic and even underdeveloped elements from their prominence. Most notably a subplot revolving around Bill & Ted being unaccommodating husbands to their wives (Erinn Hayes & Jayma Mays) failing to understand their shortcomings until the script decides they have learnt their lessons and an unearned resolution is born. Then again the film's attention slowly moves away from the story of the titular characters to instead the addition of their children Billie & Thea (Brigette Lundy-Paine & Samara Weaving), as the ones who end up constructing the new edition of the Wyld Stallions and perform most of the leg work. Though to be honest while some again might take issue with this passing of the torch presentation, to move attention away from the protagonists of the franchise to the younger generation, if this is how the franchise plans to survive for another generation this is the smartest way to go. The two characters are presented with a modern, hyper-active and colourful energy, with a charming reflection of the best elements of their fathers. Weaving already being hailed as a rising star after her breakout role in last years Ready or Not, and Lundy-Paine a newer face to the scene also carries such an endearing and comedic charisma that it’s not unlikely of them becoming one of the faces of comedy for the next decade ahead. Should a spin-off movie for these two characters be announced, it wouldn’t be that surprising.

The newcomers all around steal the show, Kirsten Schaal has proven herself time and time again she’s one of the best comedians working today, and the true unexpected scene stealer is Dennis Caleb McCoy (Anthony Carrigan) a terminator like robot plagued with anxiety. Any fans of the television series Barry will best know Carrigan is outstanding at playing the socially awkward and out of place weirdo that steals any scene he’s in, and the same rule applies here.

Much like Bill & Ted themselves while trying to write a song that would unite the world, don’t think too hard about it and don’t let the details bog you down. Remember what matters more than anything is the feeling, music can fill you with joy and change your life, especially when you do it together. Bill & Ted might not change your life, but they can promise you a good time, do that on a grand enough scale, and it might be able to change something.

-Danny

The New Mutants - Cheap Thoughts

This film making it to cinemas is an achievement in itself. It’s certainly not the conditions they probably would have liked to see it released in, but after countless delays, reshoots or not, The New Mutants - regardless of quality - deserved a chance at a big screen release, as unlikely as it is for a superhero movie based on a popular franchise with the backing of a big studio to be seen as an underdog film, it is. Even if the end result is somewhat empty.

The New Mutants finds Dani Moonstar (Blu Hunt) sectioned to a hospital that specialises in young mutants recently discovering their powers and are considered dangerous until said powers can be controlled. Alongside fellow mutants Rahne (Maisie Williams), Sam (Charlie Heaton), Roberto (Henry Zaga) and Illyana (Anya Taylor-Joy) all of which are overseen by Dr Reyes (Alice Braga) as she trains them in their powers and helps them with their variety of tragic backstories. However, it’s not long before the group begin to suspect that the hospital itself has a seedy underbelly and ulterior motive.

The film bridges the characters through their shared trauma brought on through their powers awakening. Whilst exploring this is when the film is at it’s most interesting as it looks at the variety of ways this emotional turmoil can manifest itself within each of the characters. Rahne wears their damage on their sleeve and are honest with it. Roberto may go into denial, try and push it down so it no longer becomes a problem. Then there is Illyana who wears the destruction she caused as a symbol of pride, choosing to view it as a moment that makes her powerful rather than dangerous. Unfortunately, the end results is that the film comes to the conclusion that these catastrophise that define these characters and altered their lives can simply be overcome in an instant as if trauma comes with an on/off switch.

The film opens with the protagonist Dani reciting a proverb that everyone has two bears within them, one representing all the good within them, and another representing all the bad, and it is up to us as individuals to choose which one we feed; which the film presents as simply being a literal choice, you choose whether to be in distress or not, it’s that simple. It is very much not that simple, for a film where the main antagonist Dr Reyes, a Nurse Ratched type who manipulates and controls the teens at seemingly impossible standards, as she single-handedly runs the entire facility and has intimate knowledge of the young mutants locations and actions at all times. The time she spends with the ensemble is exclusively uncooperative therapy sessions and no time towards actually controlling their abilities.

There are times where the film reaches for more, most notably the character of Rahne who receives the majority screen time and is allowed to explore the multi-facets of her character and how they clash or fuse together to create this 3-Dimensional person. Her connections to her religion, relationships, sexual orientation, and of course mutant powers. She’s easily the most interesting of the group and feels like the only one who was given that attention likely due to her being played by the most famous actor of the cast.

That lack of commitment is not only found in the story but even with the genre itself, as this film seems to have an identity crisis of what it’s going for. Director Josh Boone is seemingly attempting to make a horror film at times, replicating the semiotics and conventions, but only in mere fleeting moments, unlike it’s counterparts Deadpool or Logan which commit to their respective genres. It’s as if the film wants to appeal to the horror fans, without alienating the average superhero fan.

New Mutants is far from the worst X-Men film as come critics have referred to it as. It’s still a film with a talented cast & director carrying a mediocre script, at a brisk 94 minutes the film doesn’t want to risk overstaying it’s welcome even if extra scenes of character exploration would be welcome, but for what they’ve given us, you’re sure to walk out giving the film a pleasant shrug and move on with your day.

-Danny

Extraction - Cheap Thoughts

Extraction is reminiscent of your typical 90s action flick. That’s the best sentence that can be made to describe this film, its plot is bareboned, its villain lacks even the slightest bit of charisma, character or purpose; even the bright hot orange tinge in the visuals calls similarities to films of that decade. All of this is to say Extraction is nothing special, but it is perfectly functional; a specialty of the Netflix original movies to make those films that can kill a couple of hours of your life with an above mediocre movie.

The debut of director Sam Hargrave, a man who originates from the world of stunt co-ordination by no surprise commits a lot of the effort of the film to the practical stuntwork and attempts to stretch the creative muscles with elongated sequences of clear choreographed fight scenes, including a drawn out 10 minute sequence stylized to appear as one continuous shot that admittedly carries the momentum throughout with solid camerawork and rehearsed action to make it entertaining, but lacks the refinement or experience to make it engrossing. The stitches from when one shot ends and another begins are clearly visible and action is palatable but nothing that makes it distinct; it shares more in common with The CW’s Arrow than it does John Wick.

Another attempt to bring some level of gravitas to the film is Rudhraksh Jaiswal performance as Ovi, the young victim of the gang war that he’s at the centre of, being forced into traumatic situation after traumatic situation that emotionally wounds him. There is a common theme amongst the characters of fatherhood, Chris Hemsworth’s character Tyler is mournful over the death of his son and his inaction on the situation, as well as a seeming rival played by Randeep Hooda who also fights to protect his own son’s life. The film certainly gains points in its favour for allowing these moments of fragility in its ensemble while a lesser movie would have simply left it at a shallow level and hope the mindless action was enough. It’s not a complex or in-depth theme but it’s present enough to earn praise for.

The film comes out with more strong elements than weaker, and coming in at a solid 100 minutes makes it a reasonable runtime, not overstaying its welcome even if individual scenes might, such as the aforementioned 10 minute fight scene. The film is competent, it’s the simplest way to describe it. There’s a perfectly functioning body of a movie here without any defining attributes to make it distinct or memorable. Then again considering most people are finding themselves with a lot more free time these days, the adequate time-killer has never seemed more appealing, and this is absolutely their time to shine, even if said shine isn’t as bright as you might hope.

-Danny

Uncorked - Cheap Thoughts

There’s an interesting blend of formula and concept here. Uncorked very much plays out like a typical narrative, a young man with a dream that’s outside of his comfort zone, the struggles he goes through to achieve it including going against the family business and the conflicts that ensues. All of the hardships and training to be better to achieve their goal as well as better themselves as a person. This is usually the narrative for a majority of sports films and to an extent coming of age films, and yet in this regard the film is about wine tasting.

In this sense this is the strongest way director Prentice Penny could have presented this story through a familiar structure. Wine tasting is not a practise most audiences would be familiar with, the technicalities, the jargon and culture around it is a rather niche market. Rather than having to waste time by explaining the necessary background to the audience, Penny let’s the details be explained through convention. You don’t need to know how wine tasting works, you just need to know basic film theory that you naturally accumulate over watching films. You know when the protagonist Elijah (Mamoudou Athie) is doing well and when he’s doing poorly because habit dictates when it happens.

For some this might not be enough to save the film. A conventional structure still means the film plays out in a predictable and safe manor regardless of what fancy new framing they use to coat it over with. It’s an understandable perception, it entirely depends on what the viewers sees as important. There are many out there where this will work perfectly well, that the intrigue opened up from the discussion of such a specific topic would qualify as enough of a new concept that presentation is merely an afterthought to your engagement.

It goes further than just the structure, the characters within the film all follow the basic rules, the dreamy-eyed protagonist, the supportive mother, the apprehensive father, the girlfriend who exists merely to be the girlfriend. Some of these work better than the other, his mother Sylvia (Niecy Nash) is given the most character and story outside of her son, but then characters such as his previously mentioned girlfriend Tanya (Sasha Compère) serves no purpose other than to be a character for Elijah to bounce off of. We accept it because again this is how these stories work, but then there are times where the film really likes to push its luck, such as with the best friend character Richie (Gil Ozeri) is nothing less than an asshole. He’s arrogant, obnoxious, rude and seemingly has no similarities to our main character other than their love of wine but that is not enough to make them a believable friendship, especially when he is given no positive qualities to speak of and will probably end up being the one thing everyone walking away from the film will agree as a stand out negative.

-Danny

Breaking Down The Mahjong Scene from Crazy Rich Asians (2018)

If we’re able to get the TL;DR out of the way first the point of this opinion piece is this: Watch Crazy Rich Asians, it’s one of my favourite romantic comedies, it’s incredibly entertaining & charming, and filled with plenty of hot people and is endlessly rewatchable, that about covers most of the things needed for this genre. To go even further than that let’s actually discuss one scene that stands out to me as a highlight of the film showing off the talented writing, and that is the Mahjong Scene near the end of the film.

Now, if you’re anything like me you have absolutely no idea how Mahjong works yet thanks to Jon M Chu’s direction that is completely irrelevant, regardless of your knowledge it is perfectly clear throughout the scene who is winning the match, but even then that’s not what’s important, Mahjong is just a template to allow the true competition between our two characters Rachel (Constance Wu) and Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh) to play out.

By this point in the film it has been long established that Eleanor does not like Rachel despite how happy she makes Eleanor’s son Nick (Henry Golding). Rachel has all but given up on convincing her but still requires closure and hopes to use the game as a chance to have an honest conversation with Eleanor before she leaves for good. At the opening of the game Rachel begins by mentioning her mother, saying she taught her how to play, Eleanor admits to learning the same way. It establishes a common ground, a similarity between the two creating a neutral ground. From there Rachel jumps right into the deep end, asking why Eleanor disliked her from the beginning, regardless of her status, but her views on family. Eleanor’s ideology and lifestyle is based around protecting and growing the family, doing what’s best for everyone over oneself.

We then get a close-up of this one tile piece Rachel picked up, focusing heavily on it as Rachel then discusses Nick’s proposal to her, Eleanor’s greatest fear and what would have been Rachel’s happy ending. The tile is the symbol for Rachel’s winning story as well as her literally winning the game. Again, I know this is far more obvious for those who know the rules to Mahjong and it’s less symbolic and more literal there but shush! The point of this piece is to point out you don’t need to know these things to understand who’s winning the game. She confesses to turning down the proposal and puts the piece back into the shuffle, confessing that is not truly a winning hand as Nick was forced into said ultimatum of picking his girlfriend or his family when really he shouldn’t have to sacrifice either.

Eleanor wins the game as she has “won” the conflict, but Rachel gets the last word. Her actions have proved that Eleanor’s perception of her was wrong, that Rachel is more than capable of making sacrifices for the sake of those she loves. The comes the big closer; as Rachel leaves we see her mother Kerry (Tan Kheng Hua) was sat at the other end of the room, she makes eye contact with Eleanor and despite a word been spoken, an entire argument begins and ends within a matter of seconds. Two mothers, both of wildly different backgrounds but both uphold their children as the most important things in their lives, Eleanor no longer viewing Rachel as just ‘Nick’s girlfriend’ but also as someone’s daughter, someone’s family who likewise they care about their happiness and well-being above everything else, and while Kerry encouraged her child, Eleanor has failed hers.

The succinct storytelling and conflict portrayed in this scene through its visuals is purely wonderful, the change in dynamics and imagery used to represent who wins is incredibly well done. The scene is simply a microcosm of greatness that a large majority of the film contains and I truly hope more people check it out.

-Danny

Blow The Man Down - Cheap Thoughts

Well this was an unexpected recurrence, two films in a row that feature the death of a small-town prostitute as a plot point. Though unlike the last film where it was the driving point, it is merely a subplot in this one. Blow The Man Down unveils the dark underbelly of a corrupted small town and how the setting in itself becomes a witness. The common characteristics of charming villages and small towns is this idea of community, everyone knows everyone and almost no change goes unnoticed, this film exploits that concept and turns it into incriminating evidence. Early on in the film our two protagonists Mary Beth (Morgan Saylor) and Priscilla (Sophie Lowe) have to cover up a manslaughter and it leads them down a rabbit hole of the town’s dark secrets that they are now involved in as despite their efforts to cover up their evidence, as stated earlier, no change goes unnoticed.

The more information and history of this town is explored the film plays more into this identity of the quaint ordinary town. They’re often placed build on legacy, they have old families that have spent generations there as well as their own customs. Yet again this is a feature transformed into something dark, as the girls learn more about the distressing history of their own family and even some of the most charming residents that they’ve known their whole lives have acted in immoral ways. As if to say their actions are not their own, but merely partaking in tradition, their actions are controlled by their family and their environment and they cannot escape from it. There’s an air of unconscious corruption in the town, the police chief doesn’t even assume hostile intent and takes many bad people’s word as fact simply due to knowing them for so long he has no objective view, or perhaps he is fully aware of his friends misdeeds and simply chooses to do nothing.

There’s definitely a voyeuristic nature to the townspeople. Early on we see one of the citizens witness an assault and they simply choose to view it from their window like a nosey neighbour. Knowledge of crime and depravity is not so much a motivation to enforce justice, but to consume as gossip and at most blackmail. There’s a moral greyness to the citizens but to leave it at that feels like an understatement, as if this has been the way of the land for so long the idea of morality faded away a long time ago, nothing they do is good or evil, it’s just the status quo. There’s no possibility of change if no one can acknowledge that their system is broken, and that might be the bleakest message of the film.

-Danny

We Shouldn't Like Kratos He's Pretty Evil

Back in 2018 I played the brand new instalment of the God of War series, it being my first ever dive into the franchise and I quite enjoyed myself. Well now that I’ve found myself with a lot more free time these days I decided to go back and partake in the original Playstation 2 games of the series to learn more of the franchise's roots. Granted while I knew I could expect a story of a different calibre (To put it kindly) I was quite surprised and the absurd levels of depravity, violence, simplicity and complete immortality that was Kratos the Ghost of Sparta. While yes, I expected it to be a game more shallow in the story but high in the entertainment value, I truly could not have guessed the games would have us play as a literal genocidal maniac and ask us to side with him.

*Spoilers for God of War 1 & 2*

For a little more context here, I am currently only two games into the original series, I’m taking a break for a chance to play through other classic games and mostly needed a break from the sheer decadence that is this "hero". But I will get to the third one eventually because I am in awe of the pure tenacity Santa Monica Studios got away with over how purely evil Kratos is a character and at no point are we the players meant to criticise or question him, because anyone in the stories who does is swept away rather quickly (and by swept away I mean brutally murdered). This means I absolutely have to know how this story is going to end, it’s maddening. Also know I’m not planning on playing any of the prequels or spin-offs because I don’t frankly care.

Let’s go back to the beginning. Kratos’ backstory sees him as a Captain of a Spartan military, he himself is a violent and skilled warrior who sought to conquer land after land. Unfortunately for him, one battle nearly saw him on the brink of death, and in an act of desperation he begged the god of war Ares to come to his aid, swearing loyalty to the god should he lend him his power. Ares complied, making Kratos stronger than ever and now takes with slaughtering hundreds in the name of Ares with no concern of who or why, until one day when he ended up slaughtering his own wife and child. Now leaving Kratos with unyielding guilt and PTSD he swore to get revenge on Ares no matter what.

This takes us into our first game, where within the opening sequence we see Kratos kill a Hydra that is attacking a ship of innocent sailors, not only does Kratos not have any concern over the sailors, but in some cases even goes out of his way to harm them…for no reason. One sailor gets eaten by the Hydra, Kratos climbs in and steals his key and then procedes to throw this sailor into the Hydra's stomach, killing him. Once this sequence is done we cut to Kratos just having finished a threesome with two beautiful women because even though he’s meant to be a blood-thirsty lunatic who only seeks to kill and is suffering from the trauma of his dead loved ones, still gotta have him bang those chicks because wish-fulfillment I guess. This would in fact feature yet again in the sequel where now you’re an active participant in which it rewards you with health and mana for doing so…classy.

Morality in videogames is not a simple topic, especially considering the majority of games are action based and the implications of your actions go ignored but that’s also because it’s not always relevant. No one ever questions the ethics of Mario stepping on a Goomba for example. But in the case of God of War, a game that if it wasn’t clear from that prior paragraph has a huge focus on wish-fulfilment, you’re not playing a character, you’re playing a figure you want to be. Kratos lacks most of what would define a personality outside of ‘angry’ and his best defining features particularly from this opening is that he is incredibly powerful, important and a great lay. Granted one might say this is tacky…because it is, there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with wish-fulfilment, especially in videogames where audience participation is an inherent feature, the game doesn’t happen without your input. The choice to have wish-fulfilment take-over distinct characterisation does come across as tacky as an easy investment tool, because why care about a character when you can imagine that’s you(!). God of War then takes it a step further by not only saying this is you, but you are also a psychopath.

Roughly half the first game takes place in the city of Athens, which is being attacked by Ares and his monsters and you have been tasked by Athena to stop him because well, Kratos wants to kill Ares so why not? Throughout this portion you’ll see many soldiers and innocent civilians be killed by these monsters and at best Kratos has a complete disinterest in their safety, at worse he is an active participant in their deaths, ergo, you are an active participant in their deaths. Two stand out examples for me while playing it is at one point a civilian has raised a bridge to protect himself so no one can get to him, and the game instructs you that the only way to lower the bridge is to kill this scared innocent civilian by shooting a lightning bolt at him. Later on while fighting several trolls in the town square, a multitude of civilians are trapped with you and will get crushed by the trolls, but what you quickly learn is these civilians will produce health for you to regenerate, so the game actively encourages you to take part in the slaughter of this terrified citizens trying to run for their lives after being caught in a war they have no involvement in.

At this point it should be mentioned that Kratos is “technically” not a game original. There is in fact a character in Greek Mythology who shares the name and several distinct characteristics, specially their brute strength and intemperate nature. However that is where their similarities end, their backstories, relationships and tales are completely different. This is because the naming is complete coincidence and they are in fact not connected at all, Stig Asmussen who was a developer on all three games referred to this coincidence as a “happy mistake”. Even if this intentional it wouldn’t matter, this series hasn’t exactly sworn loyalty into accurate retellings of these Greek Myths, its very much an interpretation of these characters, sometimes for the better some for the worse, mostly Athena, she gets completely screwed over in this series.

Moving on to the sequel, where I didn’t think it was possible but they somehow made Kratos even more of a homicidal madman. Now having taken his place as the new god of war (Oh that's where the title comes from!), Kratos continues to send the Spartan army into war after war to conquer lands now in his name-and the irony that he is now doing the exact same thing that lead to Ares tricking him into killing his own family is never mentioned-and the Gods of Olympus believing Kratos is too dangerous to have all this power steal away his abilities and kill him. Kratos being so stubborn he literally comes back from the dead out of spite, also with the help of Gaia who has boobs for some reason (WHY SANTA MONICA? WHY DID YOU GIVE HER BOOBS? SHE’S A FUCKING TITAN, SHE HAS NO USE FOR THEM). Thing is, the rest of the game is then basically proving exactly why the gods were right!

Kratos’ journey in this game sees him travel to the Island of Creation with the goal of having the Sisters of Fate send him back in time to stop Zeus. On that journey he will come across a number of fellow travellers also trying to seek the sisters for help, some of whom become challenges for Kratos, others simply wish to be left on their own, none of this will stop Kratos from killing them all. Including two scholars who pose no threat to Kratos, seek no power of their own but in order to progress on your journey, you have to brutally murder both of them in cold blood. Eventually you gain the powers to travel through time (After killing the Sisters of Fate, because of course) and you then go to fight Zeus, all of a sudden Athena shows up and takes the killing blow from Kratos, letting Zeus escape. Athena, the god of wisdom, craft and warfare was taken out by accident with a single blow, didn’t so much as get a boss fight, told ya she got screwed over in this game. Now I could go on about how this would be representative of some unconcious sexism in the game series, what with every other woman being either dead prior to the story, a sex object or if they are in fact an enemy they’re portrayed as fat ugly monsters so here we have Athena, who is none of those things so they only thing they can do is unceremoniously kill her off…so I think I just did.

Thus the game ends with Kratos teaming up with all of the Titans to bring destruction to Olympus and kill the gods, proving exactly what the gods were worried about and in fact that they were right the entire time. Seriously, how messed up of a person do you have to be to give Zeus the moral high-ground!?

In case it wasn’t obvious, I am quite taken aback by the abhorrent amounts of cynical, violent, immoral actions that take place within this game that it somehow did a 180 and I cant bring myself to hate it but instead be fascinated by it. It’s beyond comprehension that no one involved in the production of these games ever questioned the implications of what they were making, it’s almost impressive. Then again it could also be softened by the fact the games are simply a lot of fun to play, they’re challenging yet exhilarating and offers plenty of variety. I will certainly be getting round to the third instalment at some point because I am highly curious to see how it ends and if this debauchery will go any further.

At the end of the day these are games and the gameplay is always going to matter more than the story being told. It also certainly makes me appreciate the newest instalment much more, it’s no longer just a technical masterpiece with beautiful visuals, stellar gameplay mechanics and an incredibly talented cast. It now actually has brought some nuance and thought to the series, actually critiquing our protagonist and showing a more complex side and telling a difficult story that tells us that maybe we shouldn’t like this person. Because we really fucking shouldn’t.

-Danny

Lost Girls - Cheap Thoughts

Well, the world may have stopped and cinemas may be closed down, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t new films being released that can be discussed and critiqued. Lost Girls is a crime drama that originally premiered at the Sundance Film Festival earlier this year and was recently released onto Netflix. The film follows the story of Mari Gilbert (Amy Ryan) a working-class mother of three struggling to cope with the disappearance of her eldest daughter and the failures of the police investigation as a result.

The qualities of the film can be summed up quite neatly, it’s has a simple plot but with an important message behind it and represents through emotional and tragic characters. Mari is a struggling mother, she’s unable to provide them the financial or medical support needed to properly raise them, and this has lead to internalised conflict between the family members, yet when push comes to shove, Mari goes above and beyond to try and find justice for her missing daughter, unlike the justice system which failed all of them. The film is heavily critical of the police department that didn’t treat the crime with the severity or importance as they should, their lack of urgency or even interest in solving the situation forces this woman to do their job for them and results in a more hostile and bleak situation because of it.

Most of this is held together thanks to Amy Ryan’s performance which portrays a character blended between anger, fragility, love and exhaustion. Fused with Igor Martinovic’s camera and director Liz Garbus tells a truly drab and depression film but in exactly the right way needed for the picture. Though this does raise the question on if Netflix was the right choice to release the film. While streaming platforms have allowed for wider and easier releases for a plethora of independent films, they have also created somewhat of an identity of being the easy watches, the ones that you can sit down, relax and enjoy the next 90 minutes of your life. Lost Girls is anything but enjoyable, it’s smart, well-made and engaging, but certainly not easy, and unlikely to be a film to be watched more than once. Lost Girls doesn’t offer any easy answers, it doesn’t give much sense of catharsis, never even teases you with the possibility of hope, but merely closure and saying that will have to do because this is reality and sometimes that’s all you get.

So if you’re looking for something entertaining and uplifting during this time of global crisis, this is very much not the film for you, but if reality still hasn’t jaded you enough to make you angry and depressed constantly, then feel free to let this film finish you off.

-Danny

I started watching and fell in love with Haikyu

Haikyuu!! (Or Haikyu!!, I’m still not certain on the spelling) is a sports manga created by Haruichi Furudate in 2012 and received its anime adaptation in 2014, both still going on to this day. The series follows Shoyo Hinata, a first year student at Karasano High School who has an infatuation with volleyball, despite his natural disadvantage with his height, but refuses to let that stop him as he practises and strives to improve himself every opportunity it gets. Joining his High School Volleyball team the series follows this ensemble of teenagers and all the trials and obstacles they face as they seek to better themselves, win matches and make their way to Nationals.

If you’re anything like me, you probably don’t have the slightest interest in volleyball, heck, you probably don’t even know the rules of the sport, and yet that will somehow not matter in the slightest in getting you invested in this series and they know that. Pacing wise the show is glacial at introducing the rules and tactics of the sport, simplifying it down to the necessities at first simply so you as the audience can follow a game. As the series goes along they will nurse you with more complicated matters but never so much to overwhelm you or disrupt the momentum of the plot with monologues of exposition filled with gibberish and jargon. None if this will actually affect your enjoyment however, because through the course of watching this show you will come to care about volleyball, because these characters care about volleyball.

The YouTube channel SuperEyePatchWolf once made a video discussing what he referred to as ‘non-battle battle anime’. In which he presented a multitude of shows that weren’t focused around action but used the conventions of the genre to advance their own story and character arcs. Haikyuu!! Being a perfect example of this, during each volleyball match and practise you will see characters overcome their own personal demons and insecurities to better themselves both as players and as people, the excitement coursing through your veins as you see the manoeuvres they’ve practised all season being executed perfectly in the middle of a match, understanding the importance of each win, the power of each spike and the bone breaking amount of effort these people put into each of their matches.

Take the two protagonists of the series, Hinata and Kagayama, two individuals who went to opposing middle schools, come from different backgrounds and have two wildly different personalities. Initially the two are established as your typical Shonen rivals, but once they realise they’re attending the same high school and will be playing on the same team, the two quickly come to learn that their differences make them a perfect pairing on pitch, with Kagayama’s precision and thought out strategies combined with Hinata’s raw natural athleticism making them a perfect pair. Furthermore as the two continue to play together they also help each other in their personal struggles, not intentionally of course but simply through the process of playing volleyball. Hinata is naturally talented but lacks refinement, while Kagayama’s anti-social tendencies and perfectionism make him a difficult teammate. The one thing the two inarguably have in common is their passion for volleyball and determination to be better than they already are. Every member of the cast face similar challenges throughout the series, whether it be the Ace player Asahi suffering from anxiety, the cool and calculating Tsukishima letting his barriers down or captain Daichi struggling with the pressure of leading the team during his final year playing for them. Even the bench-warmers like Ennoshita and Tadashi acknowledging their lack of importance in the team or show and using that as motivation to prove their worth.

This is not just limited to the main team either. Every single match Karasano has gone up against, their opponents will be filled with strong characterization to make each opposing team unique with individual identities, stand out players and personal goals that they also seek to achieve. No team is ever just a blank obstacle to overcome, instead they’re swimming with personality and interpersonal relationships amongst their own teammates as well as our core cast. Because of this the matches become more intense as it’s not simply a matter of which team wants it more or who believes in themselves the most much as most Shonen series use as the main resource behind a protagonists win, because we the audience understand that both teams want it just as much, and if one of them has an advantage then we’ll see how the other team adapts and strengthens themselves to overcome that advantage.

As I’m writing this I have just finished season three, a season consisting of 10 episodes and are entirely focused around one single match, while the prior seasons would establish an important match by taking up 3-4 episodes, this one had a whole season to emphasise the weight of this one. I can safely say it has been a very long time since I was this heavily invested in a plot line, getting ecstatic over every point earnt, nervous when the opposing team took a lead, dreaded seeing the exhaustion and pain begin to take over our team. But most of all seeing how far these characters had come as individuals and as a team, their skills refined, their insecurities crumpled and their trust in their teammates be unbreakable. Acknowledging and building on every victory and defeat before them to build up to a climactic showdown that I am still riding on the adrenaline of.

Haikyuu!! Is empathetic storytelling done to an excellent degree, the effortlessly woven in character progression mixed in with great music, animation and voice acting has made it one of the best shows I’ve seen in a while, and its main appeal can come down to what I said earlier. You will come to care about volleyball, because these characters care about volleyball.

-Danny

The Invisible Man - Cheap Thoughts

In a lot of ways Horror is one of the purist genres of cinema, and as bold & pretentious as an opening line like that may seem, there’s a lot of truth behind it. From film’s earliest days dating back to German expressionism, it was a genre that allowed filmmakers to experiment and challenge both themselves and the audience, giving us as a chance to explore the darker and more uncomfortable sides of humanity, to focus on the emotional rather than the logical, and more often than not the best of the genre will follow this description, The Invisible Man follows it to a tee.

Though not subtle in its message, it is in its execution thanks to Leigh Whannell’s direction and Stefan Duscio’s cinematography, highlighting the implication of what’s there, filling the frame with mostly negative space and let the lack of clues fill the audiences imagination, yet still treating the titular Invisible Man as a perceivable being and framing him as so. From scene one of our protagonist Cecilia (Elisabeth Moss) trying to sneak around the house, the tension is instantly present and never lets go. There’s an argument to be made that Invisible Man is simply using an aged formula, after all flashy comments such as “It’s what the audience doesn’t see that’s scarier” it’s hardly an original perspective, and true it’s a tested and proven system that applies to most of the best horror films, and Invisible Man is so obvious in its message that it’s hardly worth commenting on as you’ve probably already figured it out simply by the trailer.

There’s an undeniable simplicity to Invisible Man, that can’t be argued, but rather than treat that as a flaw, it instead gives way to allowing the filmmakers to craft a film with creative visuals, adapting the story for a modern setting & technology, and an emotionally raw performance from Elisabeth Moss as a broken woman suffering from paranoia, abuse and rage to combine it all into a complex protagonist who is forced to deal with the trauma of being psychologically and physically abused by this intangible psychopath.

Blumhouse Pictures created a name for themselves for developing low-budget horror films that turned a massive profit that always made them admirable from a business standpoint, but it also resulted in many years of garbage forgettable horror, but in the past several years they’ve turned that around and made them one of the more interesting production companies in the industry right now. Should this film lead to a trend of allowing auteur filmmakers take their crack at adapting the original horror monsters into a modern setting then this is certainly a strong introduction. Hell, you could probably make an argument for Guillermo Del Toro’s The Shape of Water being the one to kick start this trend with his interpretation of Creature From The Black Lagoon but after Universal’s several failed attempts to start their own reboot of these characters, putting everything into the hands of Blumhouse might not be such a bad idea if they were to turn out other stellar flicks such as this one.

-Danny

My Favourite Simpsons Episode

Recently YouTuber Patrick H Willems made a video discussing his favourite episode of The Simpsons (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWVKDPRYwg8&t=1321s) and encouraged other people to discuss their's. Naturally being as big a Simpsons fan as anyone can expect, it inspired me to delve into the subject matter and discuss what is and always has been my personal favourite episode of The Simpsons, season 7 episode 8 Mother Simpson. Directed by David Silverman and written by Richard Appel.

Much like Patrick’s video I’m going to focus on the storytelling structure of the episode and the elements at play that make this an incredibly tight plot with poignant character development and subtle foreshadowing. If you haven’t seen the episode in a while here is a recap on the episode’s events: Our story begins with Homer in an attempt to get out of doing mandatory litter pick-up with work, fakes his death to enjoy his weekend. Eventually Homer is forced to make his way to city hall to confirm he is alive, while there he learns his mother Mona Simpson is also still listed as alive, going to visit the grave in which he thinks she’s buried, he meets her there fully alive. Reunited, he introduces Mona to his family, after initially bonding with everyone she reveals her story. Back in the 60s Mona was a political activist who sabotaged one of Mr Burns environment destroying facilities, being the only identified figure, she had to go on the run to avoid prosecution. Returning to the present, Mr Burns learns of her return and informs the FBI, in order to avoid capture Homer helps her go on the run yet again, finally getting to say goodbye properly this time.

It’s amazing how in just a simple 21 minutes the writers were able to fill the story with so much set-up and pay off and no story element goes underutilised while also never being glaringly obvious in its purpose and still having such comedic irony to it all. For example, the episode opens with Homer faking his death to prevent helping Mr Burns clean up the environment, while Mona initially faked her death to prevent Mr Burns from damaging the environment. Another great example being Patty & Selma having a tombstone ready and made for Homer’s death, which is certainly in character for them but also ends up being the plot device that reunites Homer & Mona while they’re both at the graveyard, and then later on being what separates them again after the FBI are investigating the matter. Finally it being Mona’s actions in the past that cured Chief Wiggum of his asthma, and so he’s the one that helps them escape at the end of the episode.

Then there is the matter of having to develop a believable connection between Mona and The Simpsons family to get both them and us the audience invested in her, and they take advantage of what’s at hand. Mona’s big crime was being an environment activist, meaning she both cares about the environment like Lisa, while also having a rebellious nature like Bart. There’s also a joke about Maggie also embracing the rebellious nature of the hippies, which considering last season she tries to kill Mr Burns, isn’t out of character for her. When Mona is first introduced to the family Bart’s first reaction is to try and guilt her into paying him, and later on he finds her fake IDs while rummaging through her purse, he learns of Mona’s criminal activities by he himself committing a criminal activity, and she’s shown to be intellectually stimulating for Lisa and developing an instant rapport.

None of this is to say the show doesn’t offer a fulfilling relationship between Homer and Mona, with Homer it’s a different story as she doesn’t have to win him over, he already loves her and instead regresses to a childlike state to catch up on time lost. This is until we get to the end of the episode, where they finally get to say their goodbyes, and Mona bangs her head on the door shouting “D’oh!”, which is the only time the line is used in the episode, establishing it as her initial trait that was passed on down to Homer, solidifying their connection. I never would have thought a “D’oh!” could have such emotional weight to it.

Speaking of the ending of the episode, this is the moment that settles this episode as my favourite, as it contains the most emotionally intelligent and artistic frame in The Simpsons history. After saying their goodbyes, we transition from evening to night as the credits role, we’re treated to Homer sat on his car, all alone just looking up at the stars as Alf Clausen’s beautiful score plays over it. Never before or since has Homer been given such a simple moment of reflection, being on his own just to think of his emotions and without us even being able to see his face or even suggest what he might be thinking of feeling, it entirely being left to the audiences interpretation, it’s a moment filled with such nuance, I cannot think of a time where Homer has been treated with such emotional dignity.

This is not the first time The Simpsons has told deeply emotional stories. Other episodes such as Lisa’s Substitute, Bart Gets An F or The Way We Was have all done this before and are fantastic episodes in their own right, but what this episode has over them is I think it is equally as funny as it is emotional. Now analysing comedy is difficult to do, especially in The Simpsons where it can easily dissolve into just simply listing all the good jokes because they’re so good they don’t need explaining and to do so would just spoil the humour…but I’m still gonna do it.

“Damn you Walt Whitman! Leaves of Grass my ass!” – A perfect blend of expectations being both met and broken. Homer knowing who Walt Whitman was is unexpected, but his critical review being “Leaves of Grass my ass!” is very much in character.

Moleman being buried alive – Moleman suffering is always funny, him being too polite to mention being buried alive makes it even funnier.

A Pelican vomits a fish into Homer’s pants – Speaks for itself

FBI Agent Joe Friday – Half of the comedy in The Simpsons comes from the incredibly talented voice cast. Harry Shearer delivering such a monotone yet no nonsense fast talking Noir Pastiche makes every line this character says quotable and hilarious.

It is in my opinon Mother Simpson is the only episode of The Simpsons that strikes a perfect balance between great comedy and great drama, while being an incredibly tight script and artistically beautiful, and it is my favourite episode of The Simpsons.

-Danny

Onward - Cheap Thoughts

It must be unfair to be Pixar. A new Dreamworks film comes out and people would like it to be a poignant work of animation, but they don’t always expect it. Even Disney Animation these days less and less people would assume they’ll be left an emotional wreck by the end. Illumation is…well, not even expected to be good, let alone be great. Pixar is a different story, most people go in with the expectations of “Make me cry dammit!” because here we are 25 years since their feature film debut and they are still capable at telling hauntingly beautiful stories. The problem these days being it’s no longer a guarantee but more like a coinflip.

In a way Onward's biggest problem is a meta-narrative of it’s own existence. The film’s protagonist Ian (Tom Holland) worries he’ll never live up to being a great man like his father, likewise Onward doesn’t live up to being as great as its company’s legacy.  Truth be told, Onward is fine, it has a basic script with likeably characters, some good comedy, and several successful attempts at creative and dramatic storytelling (Lots of misses, but not all). If this were a film by any other company it would have been given a pass, but this is Pixar, just being okay is not enough, and no it’s not fair, but it’s the world we live in.

Set in a fantasy land mixed with modern day technology, our film sees two brothers Ian and Barley (Chris Pratt) learn of a spell that will bring their father back from the dead for a single day, and so they set off on a quest to try do so within 24 hours. Now a simple plot does not make a bad film, even being able to predict everything that comes doesn’t guarantee a bad film, but when you can feel the tropes slot into place and have characters move from point A to point B like the script is a chess board and the characters the pieces, any natural sense of progression for the characters is completely removed, no emotional growth or regression feels earned, everyone behaves in the particular ways the script needs regardless of whether it feels right.

This doesn’t mean the whole film is like this, there are moments where character goals and the natural momentum of the plot come together, a great example is one of Ian’s goals to be learning how to drive and the way this plays out in the film is an incredibly fun scene. Likewise there are moments that are quiet and where characters can express their emotions without it feeling forced, such as Barley’s last memory of their father, and again, the way it plays out by the end of the film feels very mature and proper. These moments however are the exception not the rule.

The only element of the film that feels true to Pixar quality is the animation, which yet again is beyond stellar, with their focus on detail, realistic in-camera effects and beautiful lighting, it’s the one thing they will always be the untouchable kings of CG Animation.

These aspects are what technically saves the film, but only in the sense that it survives, not so much thrives. It’s unlikely anyone will walk away hating the film, Pixar have certainly made worse, but when it comes to a company with standards this high, simply being okay might still be enough to kill it.

-Danny

My Hero Academia: Heroes Rising - Cheap Thoughts

There’s going to be a lot of similarities between this review and the one for One Piece: Stampede, simply because the same rules apply, if you’re not a fan of the franchise already then just skip this film, this review will be written from the perspective of a fan as those are the ones the film is targeted at. Admittedly this isn’t entirely the case for My Hero Academia: Heroes Rising as the film does make the attempt to explain the world and the characters should any newbies be watching this film as their introduction, but even then it comes more to the film’s detriment than anything else. Even if you were to fully understand everything, that doesn’t mean you’ll care about everything, there’s a difference between explaining the story and experiencing the story.

Between this film and the prior instalment in the franchise My Hero Academia: Two Heroes the film’s have a clear goal, to fulfil audience desires by presenting what couldn’t be done in the main series. In the first film’s case that was showing Deku (Justin Briner) and All Might (Christopher Sabat) fighting side by side, though that was a moment that came at the end of the film leaving the rest rather forgettable and barren. This time round however, the film is more well-rounded, as we follow all of Class 1-A open their own hero agency on a small humble island, initially helping everyone with remedial tasks, but eventually when the villains show up they all have to fight to protect the citizens of the island. One of Kōhei Horikoshi’s strongest talents as a writer is getting the audience invested in characters within such a small amount of time, that being said he has chocked his story full of so many characters that some are yet to receive any kind of development or purpose, and that includes about half of Class 1-A, who are finally given their chance to shine and offer something of value, the highlights include Tokoyami (Josh Grelle), Sero (Christopher Bevins) & Aoyama (Joel McDonald) who are given more relevance and screentime here than they probably have in the main series as a whole. That being said this also highlights the uselessness of certain other characters, specifically Hagakure (Felecia Angelle) who is the only member to literally not contribute anything, whether it be through the simple tasks helping the townsfolk early on or in the climactic battle at the end of the film.

Speaking of said climactic battle, which is frustrating because there is very little that can be said without spoiling it, yet again it ends up being the highlight of the film, boasting the strongest animation in the franchise to date, beautiful music, great tension and acting on a higher scale than any other fight scene in the franchise can come even close to. Unlike the prior film it doesn’t overshadow the rest of the film by making it seem irrelevant, but instead building on top of what came before to give us the showdown we deserve. There are certainly more plot related issues with the final fight, mostly from a continuity breakdown in order to make it happen, and like every non-canon Shonen film, there’s always a fine line between experimenting in a non-canon story and full on breaking continuity so far that all tension or believability has been lost.

If you’re a fan and you don’t see Heroes Rising you’re not going to miss out on much, after all it’s a non-canon film meaning character development and major story beats are kept to a minimum. That being said, it is a film that offers fans the best kind of fanservice, stellar animation, creative fight scenes and characters being used in fresh and interesting ways. 

-Danny

"It's Just A Kid's Film"

I did not expect Sonic The Hedgehog to be such a divisive film. In my review I complained that the film pushed the definition of average to such intensity that it somehow broke through definition and became bad, comparable to other CGI/Live-Action hybrids such as Hop or Alvin & The Chipmunks. Nothing offensive or upsetting about the film apart from how unbearably simple it was, to which I shouldn’t be that surprised that this doesn’t detract from the film for a decent number of people, something being simple doesn’t mean bad, it just means easy to understand and hopefully the jokes and characters are entertaining enough that they can carry the rest of the film, for which it does for many.

I’m not overly bothered by this argument, after all there are plenty of films that I like which others could claim are just average but sprinkled in enough positives to leave a good impression overall. That being said, one comment that I’ve seen come up several times amongst critics and friends who liked this film is the relic of “It’s a kid’s film” to which translates to “This would entertain a small human and therefore I’m not going to critique it properly”. That might sound harsh, but it’s an argument that I despise because it’s giving a free-pass to lazy filmmaking who feel the need to spoon feed the feelings and arcs of their characters as if the kids watching as if they were idiots. I’m not going to go easy on bad kid’s films when there are plenty of other films aimed at children that do try to create engaging, creative and even important works for their target audience.

Don’t misunderstand me, not every film aimed at children needs to be Inside Out. I don’t need Sonic to be explaining depression to me. The logic behind this argument seems to be that because kids won’t be as tired of formulaic plots the same way adults will, that makes it okay. Here’s the thing, going by this logic, you could show kids basically anything as long as it was flashy and easy to digest because they don’t know the difference between good and bad films, but that’s exactly why we should be more critical of the ones that don’t try, by giving them a free pass it just lowers the bar on what we’ll accept as “good enough” films for the younger audiences. Secondly is that it kind of gives kids less credit as an audience, unless they’re two year olds who still barely have a grasp on logic, there’s plenty of work out there that does entertain and challenge these young audiences, even if they’re not bothered by the formulaic nature of these type of films, they do still recognise the formula, and even if it doesn’t bother them, it’s not exactly going to be a film that leaves much of an impact.

Think of your favourite films from your childhood, the ones that left an impact, more often than not they’re the ones that did something different, films that tried harder than others and meant something to you. I think of films like The Land Before Time or The Prince of Egypt that felt like they were discussing mature subjects with me, even if I didn’t recognise that feeling at the time. Or even films like Shrek or The Emperor’s New Groove, they’re not necessarily mature, but they still stood out for doing something different, and because of that misfit behaviour made them entertaining and everlasting. It even works for bad films, a decent part of my generation is nostalgic for the live-action Scooby-Doo films, they’re by no means good films, but they are still weird films that tried something new, they failed, but they were remembered for it, and have developed somewhat of a cult following nowadays. It’s why I argue being average is worse than being bad, because if you’re just going to be forgotten wastes of time, then what was the point of them in the first place?

On a more personal note, I hate people using this justification towards me as if I don’t take into consideration the target audiences for these films. I’m not going into Sonic the frigging Hedgehog with the same expectations I would for something like Parasite or 1917. I know different films have different goals, it’s one the simplest things you need to understand about cinema, you don’t need to be a critic to know that, so I very much don’t appreciate the implication that a kid’s film’s main goal is to entertain children is something I'm unaware of. I also know what makes a good or bad film for kids, its why I wouldn’t say I hate the film because it doesn’t spread any bad messages, but it also means I’m going to be more critical that thinking they can get away with lazy storytelling because they’re expecting their audience to not care.

So, TL;DR? No, it’s not just a kid’s film, it’s a lazy kid’s film, so it’s a bad kid’s film.

-Danny

Sonic The Hedgehog - Cheap Thoughts

The more movies you watch, the more you realise that sometimes a mediocre movie can be even worse than a bad movie. Sonic The Hedgehog is soft, simple and pandering with little to actually offer to make it a memorable experience. It’s almost difficult to explain the basics of the plot because if you’ve seen any movie, literally, any movie then you’ve seen this one. A film that begins In Media Res by cutting straight to the climax to show Sonic (Ben Schwartz) running and Dr Robotnik (Jim Carrey) blowing up the scenary in casualty-free mayhem and destruction because the film is so desperate to grab your attention that it feels you’ll be bored by the character set-up that’s to come because it knows it won’t interest any audience. Following that is a completely inconsequential and unfitting backstory that shows Sonic being raised by a wise owl (A new creation for the film) who within less than 2 minutes sends Sonic away and is never seen or mentioned again. From there is where the film becomes the formulaic blur.

Sonic is being hunted by the government, meets Tom (James Marsden) who agrees to take him on a road trip to San Francisco to find his way to freedom. Along the way the two make it explicitly clear what their goals are and has character arcs spoon-fed to you like a baby. Because it honestly seems this film was made with the mindset that this would be the first film you have ever seen so it needs to make everything blatantly obvious. For example, it’s established early on that Sonic is lonely, and has spent several years by himself and is desperate for friends, in one moment where the film goes quiet to express that Sonic is alone, he then has to verbalise this moment by saying “I’m alone” as if you couldn’t quite get that. Continue that method of storytelling for 90 minutes and you have this film.

There’s something upsetting about making a Sonic film without any teeth. By modern standards, Sonic The Hedgehog is not cool or edgy, but he is cool and edgy for kids. He has a carefree attitude who rebelled against authority, did what he wanted and stayed cool in every situation with a cheesy family friendly rock soundtrack backing him up. This Sonic is cowardly, and desperate, and is constantly shouting one-liners and soon to be dated pop-culture references that offer no comedy or charm. Finish it all off with a white bread hip hop tune during the end credits and you have the perfect representation of removing any appeal that came from this character in the first place. It is somewhat of a conundrum to describe this film as identical to every other movie made when it’s simultaneously a film that will be forgotten as soon as you go the bed tonight, except for of course the few moments of deeper fan-service that at most equate to chuckle worthy gags and promises for better movies in the future because this film didn’t have the guts to commit to the franchise it was adapting.

It’s at a point where it might have been better to keep the original design and for the film to crash and burn, because a car crash is more interesting to watch than the fender bender that is this film.

-Danny

The Use Of Cassandra Cain

This is probably the main thing above all else that stuck out to me about Birds of Prey but I chose not to include it in my review because it didn't really fit the format and was much more of a personal gripe on how they adapted this particular character and therefore wouldn't necessarily effect everyone's experience with the film. Naturally as a fan of the comic book counterparts of these characters I am quite defensive of them, this isn't the first time I've made a post about this, but I hope this doesn't come across as basic whiney fanboy complaints, and if it does, well...that's why it was left out of the review.

For anyone unaware of the comic book origins of Cassandra Cain, she was trained from birth to be the ultimate assassin, not even learning how to speak or write, because of this by the time she turned 18 she was a master in hand to hand combat and depending who you ask, quite possibly the greatest physical fighter in DC Comics. However once she finally killed a person for the first time, the action disgusted her beyond belief and she swore never to take a life again. Eventually she would go on to become the new Batgirl and later take up her own alias of Orphan, slowly learning how to read & talk and overcome her own disabilities.

TL;DR: She’s a master fighter, doesn’t kill, and is a mute.

Compare that to the film version where she is helpless, murders at minimum 2 people (Both via explosion oddly enough) and can talk very easily. Basically, put the film version has nothing in common with the original version and I have no idea why they chose to put her in here if they weren’t going to do anything reflective of her character. My assumption is they wanted to have Batgirl in the film and for one reason or another they couldn’t have Barbara Gordon so they went with the next option? Even though she never dons the Batgirl costume or does anything relevant to that persona. The funny thing is, the majority of what film Cassandra does and acts like is very similar to that of Jason Todd, but assuming they either couldn’t or didn’t want to use him then why bother adapting this character in the first place? Why not create someone entirely new?

I’m aware that for adaptations their have to be changes, but if you’re going to strip away all of the elements that make Cassandra Cain who she is and create an entirely new character then what is the point? As a stand alone character, film Cassandra is not a bad character, but when I have another version of the character to compare it to? In my opinion, the comic book version is better in almost every single way, she’s someone who possesses a level of empathy practically unmatched, her belief in the symbol of the Bat goes beyond Bruce Wayne or anyone in the bat family. The conflict between her given purpose, her views on death and desires for her own identity are complex & interesting. The contrast between her being one of the greatest fighters and balancing that with her disabilities makes her unique.

It’s difficult to be supportive of the film Cassandra when I know how much better it could have been done, and this isn’t comparable to a bad adaptation of Superman or Batman, those characters get adapted a thousand times over that there’s plenty of room for variation, and inaccurate portrayals can be shrugged off. In the case of Cassandra this is her first live-action adaptation and to intentionally stumble and fall this badly is baffling.

So yeah, there’s some more rambly thoughts on Birds of Prey and how they used Cassandra. I’m sure this didn’t come across as well-thought out and was mostly nitpicky complaints, but again, that’s exactly why it wasn’t written for the review and was just a chance for me to get some gripes I had out.

-Danny