CityOfGeek

This collection of Indian ghost stories didn’t work for me. I love to read and hear about the legends and what scares other cultures (Japanese ghosts are frickin’ terrifying), so I was excited to watch this flick. But it was draggy and messy, with each story taking too much time to tell their thread bare narrative. The last one was the only one that came through. I do feel I missed something but not knowing the culture behind many of the lines and legends (I want to learn more about the ghost-werewolf-monsters of the 3rd story). That’s fine, but not the reason I didn’t care for it – I loved The Wailing despite the feeling if I knew the culture more, I’d have a better appreciation – but I still loved it. Ghost Stories, however, feels amateur and under done; like no one involved really knows how a horror film works.

I’m glad to finally see this fondly-remember comedy, but of course heard the Academy-Award nominated song from Dolly Parton a zillion times (including it’s use in the R-cut of Deadpool 2; didn’t make it into the PG-13 cut). Anyway, I really loved this, and wish I had seen it earlier. A wonderful take down of sexist bigoted corporate culture with three amazing leads. Dolly Parton in her first role would have easily stolen it if not for Tomlin and Fonda both feeding off her energy. everyone’s timing and tone is just perfect. The sequence around body-stealing (something I didn’t expect to find in this) had me rolling. And now the song is back in my head… working Nine-to-five…

It’s easy to hate on TaSwizzle. But she’s a great musical artist. Really. And yes, this documentary is very much a PR thing. Taylor is the main interview subject and she’s all over. So don’t expect a warts and all sort of thing. In fact, it slides right on over the criticisms against her – we all know the joke of series of boyfriends (no shame; as any person is apt to date a bunch of people in their lives) and others. Swift mostly comes out alright – it shines on a light on her life and balancing living and fame and how cognacent she is on all things. I believe she’s an honest, good person; a very intelligent woman and a hell of a song writer. It does get a bit self-congratulation when it comes to her political stance and voicing her opinion in 2018. She should voice her thoughts – she has a platform and it should be used. But there is a heck of a lot of patting herself on the back. But yes, this was an enjoyable doc and I learned insight on her, although filtered through her.

Gay conversion therapy is abuse. No dancing around it. It’s awful, demeaning, dangerous and should be outlawed. This true-story drama concerns a young college student sent to gay conversion therapy after he’s outed by another gay college student who **** him. As he is the son of a Baptist preacher, this news doesn’t come home well and the boy and his mother go for two weeks. We see how awful these places are – diminishing the self-confidence of young people, telling them they are worthless and beating them with cherry-picked Bible verses. It’s heartbreaking how much hate is thrown at them. Edgerton, who previously directed the disturbing in a different way The Gift, gets the message across without being too “preachy” at those opposed to homosexuality, trying to give a reasons why and their battle against themselves (especially in Crowe). I will say, Hedges keeps getting nominations, but I don’t see it. I find him an uncharasmatic block of wood actor, starring out with a clinched jaw and little emotion until he gets to yell in everything. He reminds me of Jesse Eisenberg minus the Jeff Goldbumness.

I wanted to see this when it screened at SIFF 2019, but missed it. Glad to have it pop up now. Troop Zero is a sweet family flick, led by McKenna Grace – a strong young actress making a splash recently in Annabelle Comes Home and The Haunting of Hill House. She plays one **** of misfit children starting their own Not-Girl-Scout troop in rural Georgia in 1977. They face off against snobbish girls led by Allison Janney and of course learn about themselves and gain self-confidence along the way. Troop Beverly Hills vs Ernest Goes to Camp? It’s a bit twee at times, but has a lot of heart and sweetness throughout.

I saw this in theaters and absolutely loved it, left the auditorium crying like a baby. I have no qualms to admit crying at movies. Another sweet, positive movie about celebrating imagination and creativity. Patel gives a star-making turn as a failing musician who, after a world-wide black out, seems to be the only one who remembers the music of the Beatles. So he takes it upon himself to make-an-unfailure by passing them off as his own. Patel is utterly charming as a man trying to find his place with a whole new world placed in front of him. Should he keep with the lie and take the fame, scale back a while, or just stay in town with his manger/bestie Lily James, obviously nursing a crush on him. James has a rather thankless role but she’s great as always, and I try to steer away from this but I can’t help it, cute as all hell. We see the love and pain in her eyes and performance. We all know the music of The Beatles is something special, and the film brings that joy of their music in a new way, using them as a celebration of music and love. On this second viewing, it does feel a little of the length in the 2nd act after an astounding first. Many are upset over the end, but I think it works. The actually end is an utter joy, but there is a particular scene with a particular person that is sob-city.

It took me to Oscar weekend to watch. Late, I know. I wasn’t sure if I wanted to put myself through the no-doubt emotional ringer of Baumbach’s story of the dissolution of a marriage. It was a hard film, but a damned fine one. It had an honest script that only a few times felt like it wasn’t truly drawn from life – mostly when we get speeches. I think I’m the only one who didn’t care for Laura Dern’s Mary/motherhood speech. Took me out of the naturalness in everything else. Adam Driver and ScarJo where wholly believable. And screw Ray Liotta’s character. That guy ruined everything, as I honestly cared for both of our leads. While I feel the movie is more in Charlie’s side, the film is mostly balanced as not not be good-guy/bad-guy and important as through everything Charlie and Nicole love each other and that’s important. I don’t think it’ll crack my top ten when I update but comes darn close.

Timmy Failure, Mistakes Were Made is a very fun, incredibly charming story of imagination and the fun of a odd-outlook on life. It’s adapted from the book written by Stephen Pastis, creator of newspaper comic Pearls Before Swine, so you know there will be a strong, often-slightly-demented and odd sense of humor (hell, it is in Portland Oregon and leans into its setting’s oddity) through this story of an 11-year-old detective. Timmy has a bad-haircut and a heck of an imagination, he talks to his (thankfully) voiceless imaginary polar bear, and has imaginary story cut-aways like Doug or JD on Scrubs. He seems himself as an Encyclopedia Brown, coming up with an elaborate plot going on his town. It’s sweet and fun and a great family flick. The relationship he has with his mother Lovegood (she was the titular character in Autopsy of Jane Done, good to see her up and about!) is true. There is a dark cloud in their lives of her money-troubles and other issues, and that allows a truer nature to this flick. Yeah, I recommend it.

While the source novella and the 1961 adaptation (The Innocents if you aren't aware) remain two of the most chilling stories, this adaptation loses anything that makes the previous editions work (of the one's I've seen, Turn of the Screw has been adapted many other times). The Turning is a good-looking mess that has a kernel **** flick lost within a script that feels like it got cut down from something more coherent. Is the haunting real or imagined? While typically this is left ambiguous, the movie clearly notes the ghosts are real, but then abandons this for long periods of time to question kate's sanity. And that ending, without going into spoilers - it's a waste and just feels like the film is missing the 3rd act. Mackenzie davis and Brooklyn Prince are both giving solid performances, but Finn Wolfhard is awful. Avoid.

A longer version of this review appears on my site. If Todd Phillip’s Joker has anything going for it, it is an attempted down-to-earth take on super-villainy in a world we know will eventually be filled with spandex and superheroes, free from the constraints and expectations of comic book trappings. This trash-strewn Gotham City of 1981 invokes a dirty, grimier period of cinema and city. In that end, Lawrence Sher’s cinematography nails the feel of the films the movies desperately wants to emulate. It’s far away from the cheery and essentially light MCU and it’s more dour than the much maligned other DC films, none of which really connect to Joker. This is fine. This is still Batman’s world, but not any version seen previously. In case you thought this stand on its own, there are many direct connections, all forced and inspiring everything from a “really” look to my eyes rolling hard. Joker aka Arthur Fleck has no power in life except accidentally starting a revolution with shooting three Yuppies in self-defense. Stripping away the theatricality of the Clown to attempt to present a story of that One Bad Day that made the villain is a refreshing take. But, It is rather unnecessary. It’s been said that Joker is what it would look like if Scorsese tried his hand at a comic-book movie. Joker is someone who saw Scorsese films, particularly Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy but doesn’t understand why they work. As Scorsese often does, Joker presents a villain as a hero in his own story. His heroes are often far from good people. That’s why we love to watch Travis Bickle or Jordan Belfort. We get into the head of someone we cannot truly identify with as they tell us their actions are justified. But we also know teye aren’t. They are kept an arm’s distance away, with a level of satire or social-commentary. However, Joker leaves out the satire, presenting Fleck as a direct protagonist: a man who cracks after being broken by the system. He’s had enough, and society must **** feels we’re meant to follow his action as justified and ultimately the “hero” Gotham needs and deserves. There is a kernel of truth and reason mixed in. The system fails those who need it most. Fleck loses access to his medication and social worker when the social worker’s entire department is closed for budget cuts. We live in a world where people in need, whether it be from mental illness, addiction, or poverty. These people keep finding their support cut off, and society then get upset with bad things happen. This is lost in a mishmash of undercooked and misguided ideas. Fleck is a manifesto of the angry male loner. He works an underwhelming job as a party-clown. He lives with his mother in his forties. He desires the woman down the hall, but she barely knows his name – and considers him to be a threat. He’s told he creeps people out, and not to talk to their kids. He just can’t get a break. The whole world is against him, no one listens to him Everyone but his mother is the enemy. What’s worse, his actions are blamed on mental illness, directly stated in the climax, giving more backing to presenting the mentally ill as a threat rather than regular people. Phoenix is forced to try to make a compelling performance from this. He’s a fantastic actor who gives care to his roles. He’s saddled with a script that gives little. He surely gives an interesting performance in the same way Jack Nicholson does as Jack in The Shining. Both of these are starting at 11, already lost-causes, two seconds away from violence. There is no arc. Performance wise they can be moved around their films with no difference in how they are behaving. The character’s an empty cipher meant for the viewer to pour into. For an origin story, there is precious little true backstory. A moment of abuse, a life-time of caring for his mother, and a mention of committal. Who is Fleck, really? Phillips doesn’t care. Joker is a tone-deaf film, providing either wrong-headed commentary directly or underdone ideas it feels are grander. Through all its pomp and anger and muddled messaging, Joker doesn’t work. It’s dull and repetitive, slogging on from one scene to another, powered by an awkward and on the nose script. Any time the hammer Phillips wields hits the nail, it is purely by accident. There are moments that almost work, where a glimmer **** film shines through and where it almost feels poignant with something to actually say. But each time this occurs it’s soon lost in the weeds.

Don’t Let Go is a frustrating film. It has a solid premise and a stable of consistently reliable actors, yet fails to use its seed of an idea to sprout more than a sapling of a film. In the post-show discussion of the six citizens of City of Geek present – the standard four of us and two friends – we came up with several far more interesting ways to use the set-up than the film itself did. That’s why we found the Jacob Aaron Estes written and directed sci-fi/horror/thriller to be so frustrating. Don’t Let Go doesn’t allow itself to dig into a great idea in any sort of more-than-basic way. A solid conceit, Frequency with more pressing force of action; a little more mystery. Not much more mystery, however. There is the central mystery of who committed the murder and why, yet it’s easily solved. (The mystery of why this is happening is never even questioned, but that’s a plus) I’ve seen enough similar thrillers even without the sci-fi aspect to immediately figure out the entirety of the plot as soon as the murders occur. It wasn’t just me. All six of us, including the sixteen year-old, latched onto the truth. Knowing where the plot is going to go can be fine if done well or the filmmakers are aware of the obvious conclusion. Ari Aster’s Midsommar did this very well earlier this sommar, er summer. Aster knew we all knew the conclusion, so led us along in how it is to happen. Don’t Let Go doesn’t realize how obvious it is, thus the frustrating aspect of the audience knowing where the story is going long before the characters, dragging us along as we wait. Don’t Let Go leans on the idea as a base only, rather than exploring it. This issue ripples through the film, affecting it just as Reid’s actions alter her uncle’s future. By taking the time to move the plot along, it doesn’t allow the clever aspects the audience is filling in for the idea. There is a major scene, the tipping point for the two leads, where they both are finally on the same page over what’s happening. This occurs at the hour point. I feel this would have better served the story if it occurred thirty minutes previously. After this happens, the film is forced to run headlong into the climax. It is here where an often awkward but interesting moving chugging along by good performances and concept falls flat on its face, devolving into a series of silly set pieces and moments. By moving this reveal – one we all know, there could be more scenes of both of the leads working together to solve the murders in the two time-lines. When this did happen a few times, the film worked. It was wonderful to see two people on different times affect one another. Other ideas are brought up – including the possibility to go Groundhog Day or Happy Death Day with it, but only used once. The string is presented, but barely pulled. Wish Upon from two years previous did the same. With these moments, one can see where the film could go into a much more interesting track, but then restrains itself. Frustrating. Run with it! If it’s done well, the audience will join you. If done awful, they still might (Serenity), but just don’t let it sit there and fester. David Oyelowo and Storm Reid help keep the film from fully sinking. Both give committed, solid performances. It’s good to see Oyelowo again, after marching onto the scene four years ago in Selma, he’s not really been seen (although heard in Star Wars Rebels. Storm Reid is a fine actress, doing as best she can to elevate this and the disastrous Wrinkle in Time (also featuring the voice of Oyelowo). They have a solid connection, connecting first in person and later across phone calls. Unfortunately, Alfred Molina phones it in with a very awkward performances. But oh Bowie, Mykelti Williamson is just awful as Oyelowo’s best friend and police partner Bobby. Every line reading is really off from everyone else, forced through in incredibly awkward and often comical performance. Someone teach this man how to hold a gun! Each time he does so it’s nearly like the inept cops in Plan Nine from Outer Space; holding limp-wristed or even aiming at his own chest and face. This makes an already inane performance ridiculous. Don’t Let Go is a waste of a compelling premise. The leads make an attempt but they can’t save the film from sinking itself by failing to lean into the idea. Your head version of the story likely has better twists, turns, and a less obvious mystery. It starts alright, even if a few moments don’t quite land, but in the last forty minutes becomes a preposterous comedy. It’s not really worth your time. Frequency is, if you haven’t seen that. D

Oh Bowie, I love this movie. Yes, zombie movies made on the cheap are a dime a dozen. Everyone and their mom has made a zombie movie (even I have, no you can’t see it). When one comes along with a new take and a solid backbone of a premise and a fanastic look, its something to seek out. I’ve heard of this movie for a while, but finally seeing due to our friends Thom and Langley of the Bonus Material Podcast (find them on iTunes or click here) interviewing the cinematographer Clayton Moore on an older episode. The basic premise is the zombies rise as a woman and man are trying to get to an airport in the middle of the desert for drug reasons. An accident leads them stranded on the side of the road when a single zombie shows up. After the man gets eaten, she decides to hoof it to the airport herself. Trouble is, shes dressed like a movie-stripper (high boots, leopard print pants and studded leather bra), has one bottle of water, and a lot of cocaine. And she is perused by that one zombie, always about five feet behind her. Of course, there is more to that, but I won’t spoil the changes the story goes through as she makes her way to the airport. That doe sound like a humorous set up, but I note while there some comedy with the situation, this isn’t a comedy. Ultimately, this is her journey to self-redemption (helped along with flashbacks) and struggle to survive. Starting as an annoying character, she soon grows on us. So does the zombie, whom she names Smalls. Small’s make up is damned good – and it should be if we’re going to spend a film with him. As Thom and Langley had the cinematographer on their podcast, let me say this movie looks great. It uses the vast emptiness of the desert to fullest command to get into the mindset of the woman and the sheer hardship of her goal. It Stains the Sand Red slipped under many radars, including mine for a long time. Let it blip on yours and check it out.

So my wife and I were interested in this flick from the first trailer. Not that we thought it would be good. But it looked so awfully silly. We finally got around to watching it now as we wanted to save it until we were drunk. And we are. And we just finished this movie. We finally have a movie that dares to ask the question: what if It Follows was stupid? We have kind of the same set up. A young woman is involuntarily given a curse (but who volunteers for one?) that follows her now that she is part of it. Low rent Daniel Radcliffe (not the real guy; but must have looked close enough as my wife and I both said “Daniel Radcliffe” at the same time) gets her to follow him to an abandoned mission in Mexico while on spring break. She drags along a group of boring and/or annoying friends from her college into the game who are stuck in it as well. The game rotates among her friends asking them “Truth or Dare” and they act on it, or die. I’m reminded of Final Destination in that way (even down to a survivor a previous game making a safe house where nothing can bother him like the survivors of the first of that underrated series of flicks. **** yeah I love Final Destination.) Except without the Rube Goldberg type fun of the dispatching. This is PG-13 horror, which can often work in the right way, but here just sets up a very basic kill that’s over without an fanfare. Often bloodless and without any interest. Instead of blood, we get an extreme overuse of a twisted face asking “truth or dare.” It’s like “the Kubrick face.” Like Jason Blum bought a cool Kubrick shot filter for his snapchat and decided to get the most out of the buck. Yes, you don’t buy filters on Snapchat, or at least you didn’t last time I used it like two years ago. But dammit, I had a joke and I used it. Like the stupid filter. Anyway, where was I? Oh yes, blood and kills. lucy-hale-truth-or-dare-1523467103 Prepare to see that filter many many times. We did watch the “unrated” cut which added, according to the back of the DVD, just less of a minute to the movie. It certainly didn’t add anything to tame deaths. Nor did it add any language. We think it was the butt shot of the main woman (Lucy Hale from Pretty Little Liars). There is a scene where the game makes her have sex with a friend. He doesn’t want to really either so it’s a weird to have the game make them commit sexual assault against each other. The camera angle in said shot should have some side-boob but weirdly does not. Outside of the obvious oddness of edits for PG-13 or butt-crack unrated; there are many scenes where it seems like things would continue but they end. Oddly enough, often not just for blood and gore. There is a subplot with one character afraid to come out to his dad. The game makes him, but both times he has to talk to dad, the scene ends. No resolution. Brad is like “my dad’s cool with it.” but it’s just weird. Like dad shows up after the coming out and Brad says “gonna talk to my dad a bit. I’ll catch up later.” and we’re now later. What? Weird. Also weird, the lighting in this film. Everytime they were in day time, the light blew out the windows. All the light bulbs caused, not lens flares but lines across the frame. Very distracting. Stop blinding out your own movie. The lighting oddity mistakes were more interesting than your characters, man. This is all very lame. Kinda a waste of a drunk stupid-movie night. This isn’t nearly as directly and blind-blowingly stupid as Slenderman. Now THAT was a mess. I wish I didn’t watch that one sober. This was often just dull. With 4 credited screenwriters, I expected more of entertainingly bad, instead they wrote a just dull enough flick. Sure we laughed at the stupid, but wanted more of it. No doubt this was BAD. But not really the fun kind. Everyone was just so bland. I didn’t hate the characters and actively wanted them to die, but nor did I care for them in anyway. A few times I honestly got some of them confused. Looking over the cast list now, after the movie, I forgot some of them where even in the film and had a death scene. Yeah. Good thing I’m writing this review now, come tomorrow I’ll forget what happened. Too bad this wasn’t as fun bad as director Jeff Wardlaws’s Never Back Down. Bland and uninspired, Blumhouse’s Truth or Dare (not to confuse with Truth or Dare that came out next year, streaming on Netflix likely confusing people) isn’t as fun or as bad as I wanted it to be. In no way is it a good movie, but I know my genre can often be cheap to produce and easy to make money on. No doubt this turned a profit and paid off that Kubrick filter. I hope it was worth it Jason Blum. Blergh. I wanted this to be more fun to drunk review. D

I received my crash-course intro to the work of Belgian filmmakers Hèléne Cattet and Bruno Forzani way back in 2010, when Amer, their feature debut, played the Seattle International Film Festival. The movie galvanized the small crowd of critics clustered in the Pacific Place theater for the press preview. A lot of them hated it, deriding it as an exercise of style over substance. Me, I was captivated. The haters missed one key point. Cattet/Forzani films are indeed exercises in style, but it’s not style-over-substance. In the pocket universe created by this filmmaking couple, the style is the substance. Cattet and Forzani craft elevated genre flicks that take formula pulp cinema, then twist it around like kaleidoscopic taffy. Their outrageously colorful and utterly arresting visual style is not meant to drive forward a linear narrative. It is a cinema of pure sensory exploration and indulgence; precision-engineered yet passionately crafted, designed to stimulate the senses and to evoke emotion on a near-subconscious level. For Amer and The Strange Colour of your Body’s Tears (their 2013 followup), Cattet and Forzani homaged that hotbed of fevered sexuality, artfully bloody violence, and outrageous visual dazzle known as Italian Giallo cinema. In the process, the duo pulled off a redefinition of the Giallo that’s spiritually akin to Quentin Tarantino’s redefinition of war movies with Inglourious Basterds–genre cinema that morphs formula tropes into its own repurposed, joyously anarchic art form. Let the Corpses Tan finds the directorial pair casting their genre net in a slightly different direction while still playing to their strengths. This time, the launch points are spaghetti westerns and the hyper-violent, gritty Italian crime dramas that flourished throughout Europe in the 1960s and ’70s (they’re known as Poliziotteschi, if you’re interested in diving down that particular rabbit hole). The script, adapted from an influential pulp novel by Jean-Patrick Manchette and Jean-Pierre Bastid, serves up a time-tested crime-movie setup. A trio of career criminals steal a huge crate of gold bricks and are forced to retreat to an abandoned, unnamed Mediterranean village inhabited by cynical, charismatic artist Luce (Elina Löwensohn). A small group of innocent bystanders wind up joining Luce and her compatriots in the crossfire as two cops (Hervé Sogne and Dominique Troyes) stumble into the scene. Corpses does sport a few markers of linearity throughout. Stark red-on-black time stamps ostensibly mark the sequence of events. A great retro soundtrack (largely cherry-picked from vintage Ennio Morricone) further adds to the bleached, delirious atmosphere. There are plenty of wonderfully-executed shootouts and vehicle chases woven into the film, and the colorful cast of characters is more defined than those that inhabit other Cattet/Forzani films. But even those touchstones are played with and subverted in fever-dream fashion. The time stamps allow the directors to rewind situations many times over, with the exact same moment playing out from several characters’ viewpoints a la Rashomon. Cattet and Forzani have also populated Corpses with a bunch of wonderfully distinctive actors blessed with fascinating, flawed features, but the directors are more interested in representing their characters’ moods with vivid visual brushstrokes than with forward-momentum exposition and character development. Cattet, Forzani, and cinematographer Manuel Dacosse explore the landscape, the sun-blasted village ruins, inanimate objects, and the actors’ faces and bodies with fetishistic fervor. Surreal, symbolic visual tangents assert themselves into the action, jolting audience perception with the abruptness of involuntary acid flashbacks. The great sound mix also turns simple noises like the **** of a pistol, or the dry creak of a police officer’s leather jacket, into vivid sensory cues in their own right. There’s plenty of gunplay and blood, but characters don’t just get shot to death in this movie: Some of their demises are represented by bullets gliding through viscous oceans of gold liquid that kick up glitter in slow motion just before characters breathe their last. The impressionistic edits, and the vivid visual sense, summon forth Sergio Leone, Sam Peckinpah, and Mario Bava, all with a splash of pop-art surrealism. It’s the kind of pure visual cinema that’ll either mesmerize or exasperate you, depending on your mood. And admittedly, there are points where the relentless energy and style-to-burn are damn near exhausting. But at its best (which is a good 90% of its run time, by my count), Let the Corpses Tan is exhilarating–the sight and sound of two filmmakers pushing genre cinema into a brave, eye-popping new world. Turn off your practical mind, open your eyes and ears, strap yourself in, and drink deep.

At first glance, Eli Roth may be considered an odd choice to direct the adaptation of The House with a Clock in Its Walls, from the book by John Bellairs (with illustrations by Edward Gorey – hell yeah!). Roth, after all, is most famous for the the gory and violent Hostel and Cabin Fever series. For feature completion, we also have the Italian jungle cannibal throwback Green Inferno and the remakes of Knock Knock and Death Wish. None of these are particularly good, although I enjoy the majority of his films on an entertainment level; I note here I’ve not seen his take on Death Wish, or any of the original series. Much of that enjoyment comes from how obvious it is Roth loves the horror genre. This is likely why Spielberg himself reached out to Roth to direct the Amblin produced A House with A Clock in its Walls. Apparently he told Roth he wanted to scare the hell out of the kids. While I wouldn’t describe the movie as scary, it sure reached in and grabbed my horror-loving heart. It’s not perfect, but Roth made a damned good film. Roth imbues this adaptation, it was adapted once before for a Vincent Price hosted anthology show (note to self: seek this out), with a love of the family-friendly horror of the past. Yes, it’s based on Bellairs book; but I haven’t read it, so my memories went to Bradbury and the feels of his October Country. Set in 1955, the story finds young and recently orphaned Lewis Barnevelt moving to a small town in Michigan to live with his eccentric uncle Jonathan. Jonathan (Jack Black) is a warlock, living in a deceased warlocks house, a house full of magical and sentient objects, along with that pesky clock in the walls counting down to…. Something. Next door is a witch played in purple by Cate Blanchett. This house is awesome. Production design – hell yeah! Sure, most of it is made by CGI, but it’s good CG – mostly. Some shots don’t seem done but for the majority, seamless. I want to go to there. I want to live there. I want to explore it. So long as I can burn the room with the dozen automatons, please. Getting a director like Roth on board, and being told to scare the kids, was a great choice for the film. I don’t know how much comes from the book, or its eleven sequels, but I was glad with the places it went to. Too many people think kids can’t handle horror and certain levels of it. House went into darker territory than expected. Necromancy and blood majick places. In not holding back, it also doesn’t hold the audience’s hand. There is no talking down the expected audience, thus making the film just as entertaining for adults to watch without children (like my wife and me). Lewis is as precocious as many of his lead-kid brethren, but not annoyingly so. He love his dictionary and learning new words. He’s well played by Owen Vaccaro from Daddy’s Home; although most of what he has to do react to everything. The times where it moves to him to carry emotional weight there is something lost – especially as his fake crying is pretty awful. But when you’re competing for attention from Jack Black, Cate Blanchett, and Kyle McLaughlin, it’s hard not to get lost. Black and Blanchett are wonderful, with more chemistry than most romantic comedy partners. In a refreshing change from most movies, they are a platonic couple – just friends who love to jab at each other. Blanchett delivers every line with relish and has a surprisingly emotional backstory as well. Black is more Jables than he was in the more restrained R L Stine in the surprisingly good Goosebumps from a few years ago (here’s to the sequel next week). On the not so good side is almost-friend/bully Sunny Suljic. Kid was bland and bored here; he’s the leading Mid90s; here’s to him being better there. Ultimately, his part could and should have been cut. Biggest issue with the film is the school subplot is distracting and useless; a quick rewrite would have gone around this. While I’m talking negative – dammit fart/pee jokes. You don’t’ fit here and took me out of the film. A House with a Clock in its Walls is a real treat for horror loving families. With strong chemistry in its leads, a Bradbury/Spielberg feel, and allowed to go where it needs for the story, the film is a lovely throwback that should appeal to any horror person who will allow themselves to be a young person looking at the genre. A-

Let me lead with the first Goosebumps film from 2015 was a delight. It had a surprisingly heartfelt backbone to the family friendly carnage with a set of well known actors giving it their full attention – no slumming around. Not to mention a fantastic way to adapt the spirit of the long running series. (My first was in 6th grade in 1992; I think it was “Say Cheese and Die”) However, Goosebumps 2 is much lesser than first one. It feels like one notch above a TV movie. Think of the film you expected for the first film. The movie here is likely around the quality you expected. Since it’s a sequel, one expects to use what worked the first time and build in a different way. But this is very much the first one again with some details changed. With being a sequel, it takes too long to get to the expected Halloween/Monster mayhem with a really sketchy set of scenes to get to it. Set ups that would work for a movie of the week but not so much on the big screen. Undercooked way to get to Slappy, and later to the monster fun. Odd as the mayhem starts about 20 minutes after it did the first time around. It’s a sequel, be bigger! When it does happen, the film is a blast with great production design for the creatures, including green orb head witches and a giant spider made from balloons. The sequence when Slappy gets the gang back together is amazing and gets the spirit going. There is a notable cheapness to the whole she-bang even when it goes as the film keeps finding excuses to exit the town getting attacked (I’m pretty sure there are piles of dead), ranging from “let’s talk in this alley” to “hang out with as annoying as normal Ken Jeong for a minute”. Jeong plays the character in a way that makes those who laugh just because he is there happy. Broad and groan-worthy. He does have the Halloween yard set up I want so bad though. This all leads to a very rushed and easy ending. How convenient is it? It doesn’t feel done. Like there is about to be the next, real climax. But it doesn’t happen. Just wrapped up in a bow with really weird voice-over. And several subplots left unresolved. On the plus side – the monsters look great, there is fun in the sequences you came to see. The design on Slappy is very well done – it’s not Black doing the voice this time but a reasonable facsimile. I’m pretty sure many of the extras characters straight up died. There is great report between the leads and some well-done humor and nods to horror franchises. I’m not sure if one bit was a direct nod to Halloween III: Season of the Witch or just a coincidence as I have Halloween on the brain (cough podcast cough) – and I’m watching Halloween III as I write this. We do get Jack Black on hand for a little bit, but almost feels like he’s added in when they realized he can stop by for a day during The House with a Clock in its Walls downtime. Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween is not a terrible movie. It’s just a disappointment after the first entry showed this concept can be done better. I personally hoped the sequel would be a Horrorland type thing instead of essentially the same plot. For family-friendly horror-fantasy on the big screen, go see House instead. C+

It’s always a great feeling to see a favorite of a film festival have the ability to go into a standard theatrical release. Okay, this isn’t quite standard but Prospect, one of my favorites of the Seattle International Film Festival (SIFF) is set to play at a Regal near you starting November 8th, and other limited releases later -such as for Seattle Sci-fi fans who can’t make Nov 8-15 run at Regal Meridian- they can catch it at SIFF in December. Or have the ability to drag your friends once you watch and love this movie. As I noted above, Prospect is one of my favorites of the fest. Prospect is a science fiction western using every ounce of what is likely a small budget to it’s greatest effect. When I say “Sci-fi western” don’t think Firefly. Instead, picture a small group of desperate people far and away from civilization forced to use limited resources to get to safety with a few gunfights and wild adventures. Just about everything works for Prospect. At its core, it is the story of a young woman, the startlingly amazing Sophie Thatcher (Tv’s The Exorcist), forced to take control of her life after her father (Jay Duplass) befalls tragedy while prospecting some form of alien egg,. To give even more of a drive to her action, she has to team up with man behind the tragedy (Game of Throne’s Pedro Pascal). She’s literally tethered to him on a planet attempting to kill them. Prospect has a lot going for it outside the basics of plot and character (as good as they are) that give the extra push to seek it out. The first is the production design. It’s lean and mean. It has the feel of 70s, dirty, lived in, do it yourself Sci Fi. In all the best ways, it’s like the filmmakers had a warehouse full of junk and said “okay, how do we make spacesuits and a ship from this.” As ground and up and hand built as Star Wars, Alien, and their countless knock-off kin. Pure love held together with hot glue and dedication. There is also the setting. Believable alien worlds can be a hard sell; it’s just as easy to point out “that’s a sound stage” as is “there is so much here to scream ‘Alien Landscape’ it’s unbelievable.” For Prospect, I give major kudos to the Earl and Carldwell for turning the Olympic Peninsula’s Hoh rainforest into an other-wordly landscape. There doesnt’ feel like much is added, but yet also feels uniquely alien. It helps the area itself, a rainforest in Washington State is a weird and odd place to start with. It sells that this isnt’ earth but alien. Prospect feels like a labor of love, wringing greatness from a little. It’s big, vibrant, and alive; with intense chemistry of the leads surrounded by the lush and beautiful landscape. For your own enjoyment as it unfolds, I won’t go into the details of Thatcher’s personal journey and plot details, as you should experience them yourself but do yourself a favor and check out one of this year’s most interesting films. A

It’s a shame when the third act of a film nearly sinks a film after two solid acts. Sadly, this is the case for the Ian McEwen adaptation of his 2014 novel. Newly married couple Edward (Billy Howe) and Florence (Saoirse Ronan) are on their honeymoon when they come across a problem they haven’t had to deal with before in their chaste upper/middle class 1962 England: they aren’t ready for sex. Leading up to the explosion of emotion and turning point of the film at the titular location, we see two narratives: the disastrous attempts at the act, and the courtship of the two charming leads. As the newlyweds, both Howe and Ronan shine; especially Ronan, now eleven years after breaking out with the last McEwan adaptation ATONEMENT, who can say so much with the slightest look. Their courtship is by most points standard, it’s wonderful to watch them come together and fall in love, and they sell the awkward interactions of two people truly alone for the first time who know what they need and want to do but unsure of how to proceed best. So what’s the issue? The aforementioned issue coming to head, the argument and revelations on Chesil Beach doesn’t fit. At this point, it betrays the characters growths and actions of the preceding acts; coming from nowhere. They feel like totally different characters. While it’s supposed to be, how both react is just eye-rolling absurd. It also functions as the climax of the film, leading to the after-effects third act to feel like a very long coda instead of continuing the story. All the steam is gone; causing a disjointed narrative. This could work very well in a novel format (I’ve not read this so don’t quote me if it does in the actual work), but doesn’t translate to the way stories unfold on screen. I really wanted to like On Chesil Beach, and for a little over half the run-time, I did. Ronan does make it worth the journey, even if the last portion is weak. C+

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Ugh. Ugh. Ugh. This Scott Baio and Willy Aames starring lewd comedy was trash. From reviews from 1982 still around, it was not well regard then. It’s an unfunny sex-comedy version of William Castle’s Zotz! We all know looking back at the 80s with modern sensibilities will see huge cracks in favorites (lookin’ at you Revenge of the Nerds). One can can let it go to a degree, knowing different times, but I cant’ see this whole as being entertaining back then either. The basics is Baio accidentally brews up a psychokinesis serum. He uses it get what he wants and help his friends. This usually means sexual highjinx including just too many times of ripping off a woman’s clothes. The main issue is the gag gets stale quick. It doesn’t really get Baio in trouble so no issues to fix. Just think and item moves. Repeat. There’s apparently a sequel… and Baio and Aames teamed up again for Charles in Charge a few years later. I remember watching it when it was on. Whether it’s good or not… I dunno.

I’m sure you have those friends. The ones who are smart, funny, clever, and have some sort of potential. But they keep making boneheaded decisions. “I need to do this… but hrm, party? yeah I’ll party.” You shake you head as they get out of out issue, and immedialy get involved ins omething else. Those friends are Jessie and Angela, the two leads from indie-powerhouse-distributor A24. The pair, played with such natural ease you’d think the camera is just following their lives by Camila Morrone and Maia Mitchell respectively, are 16 year old high-school drop out diner waitresses in a white-trash Texas town. They’ve just spent their rent money for a vacation to Galveston, and are set to work five doubles to make it up. Too bad for them, Jessie’s brother is a wanna be drug dealer and his mistakes get the girls thrown in jail for two days when he police come their house (all shared, with another roommate Brandon). From there they must make their way back to work to hold on to their jobs, and find a way to have the rent as well since the brother’s stupid plans have lost him his part too. Morrone and Mitchell share the strong chemistry of two life-long best friends (they also make out while high, but that seems to be more of a fun thing for them to do rather than a sexual relationship). They have a wonderful sense of humor, play off each other and other characters with ease. They are witty and sharp, with wonderfully filthy mouths and a crude nature. (The obscenity laced tirades are legend) Too bad for them, they also will drop plans to get drunk and/or high. They are the type of friends that are a little too similar, too co-dependent, without someone else to say “okay, let’s think about this.” Of course, this makes good fun and great times. And trouble. But they’re 16. They’ll bounce back. But one can’t help but see without that clear head, they’ll live this life until they’re burnt out husks at 40. Perhaps I’m being too negative. The 16 year old versions of them are hilarious and fun to watch, especially as they keep digging their own holes to get out of. And it is hilarious. Never Goin’ Back is a comedy through and through, even with the underlying tragic nature of the world. Essentially, it’s a “one wild night” type movie, albeit most of it takes place during the day. Absurdity, situations, reoccurring characters, hyjinx insure. I’ll give it this – I’m not a fan of poop-humor normally. But Never Goin’ Back has one that works, and works well. No worries, you don’t see any fecal matter, although other bodily liquids are present in the film. In a few ways, I’m reminded of A24’s Oscar-snubbed best movie of last year, The Florida Project. Not that they share much in relation to plot, but in feel. Both feel like a camera is dropped into the lives of these characters. Both feel incredibly natural. Perhaps both deal with cycles of poverty, low-level crime, and the viewer wants everyone to break free. But it’s a hard world to break free from without the push from another. Never Goin’ Back does follow more of a standard narrative – particularly in having a perhaps just too cinema climax but I hold to this connection. Never Goin’ Back is wildly irrelevant, hilarious, with two incredible young leads with amazing chemistry. I give it an: A-