The Best Protagonists Have Dead Families

Triple Scoop Review: Big Match, Inseparable Bros, and The Villainess

/ mygeekblasphemy / Leave a comment

Big Match

Year: 2014
Director: Choi Ho
First Watch or Rewatch: First Watch
Streaming Service: Viki
Spoilers: Nah
Grade: Vanilla

Big Match is enjoyable, pretty light-hearted fare. Once again, Lee Jung Jae is playing a dude trapped in a high stakes game where rich assholes bet money on if he survives; unlike Squid Game, however, Choi Ik Ho (Lee) isn’t playing various deadly children’s games. Instead, he’s a hothead MMA fighter forced to complete various dangerous tasks (escape the police, attack a bunch of gangsters, sing karaoke, etc.) if he wants to see his brother alive again. Shin Ha Kyun, who I’ve been pretty much obsessed with since watching Beyond Evil, plays the villainous mastermind Ace, and his hair in this movie is just . . . it is art. It is perfection itself. If I owned a curling iron, or hair spray, and actually knew how to do anything with my hair, I would 100% style it this way. His whole aesthetic in this film is just . . . *chef’s kiss.*

But yes, yes, the movie itself. Big Match is fun and silly—there are zero tonal similarities between this and Squid Game—and never takes itself too seriously. My attention did start to drift, I don’t know, maybe the last 20-25 minutes of the movie? And of course, it’s always hard whenever an actor I love is playing the villain, since I just end up rooting for them the whole time, particularly since I never did care very much about Ik Ho. (I do feel sorry for his brother, though, poor dude.) Still, I had a decent time watching this. Shin Ha Kyun is campy and petulant and delightful, and it’s fun to see Lee Jung Jae as this buff martial arts dude. I was both surprised and pleased to see Choi Woo Shik pop up, and I enjoyed Ra Mi Ran as Ik Ho’s sister-in-law, Hyung Soo. If you’re in the mood for an easy watch with ridiculous action scenes and fantastic hair, you could probably do worse than Big Match.

Inseparable Bros

Year: 2019
Director: Yook Sang Hyo
First Watch or Rewatch: First Watch
Streaming Service: Viki
Spoilers: Some, yes
Grade: Chocolate

. . . LOL, I’m not at all convinced that this trailer does a great job establishing the overall tone of this movie. Like, parts of the film are definitely comedic, but . . . yeah, this isn’t quite it. Also, fuck it, this whole Triple Scoop Review is just gonna be dedicated to Shin Ha Kyun, I guess, because I’ll apparently watch all kinds of shit that I wouldn’t normally sign up for so long as he’s in it. Case in point: Inseparable Bros, which—in fairness—I didn’t watch solely for Shin Ha Kyun. I also wanted to see Lee Kwang Soo and Esom, too. But yeah. My wheelhouse is pretty firmly horror/fantasy/SF/action/mystery. I’m not saying I never venture out of these genres, but inspirational comedy-dramas, particularly ones based on true events, are really not my jam. And a story about two good friends—a very intelligent quadriplegic man and a sweet swimmer with intellectual disabilities—who’ve closely relied on one another for years . . . like, Jesus, I already watched The Mighty, okay? I know where you’re going with this, and my soul’s not in the fucking mood. (I feel the way about tearjerkers that some people feel about horror movies: why would you willingly do that to yourself, why?)

That all being said . . . I actually did enjoy this one.  It helps that while I did get a tiny bit emotional once or twice (because there are sad moments, and/or because I’m a weepy mess of a person), it wasn’t quite the soul crushing tragedy that I’d anticipated. And the movie didn’t feel too, like, cringeworthy inspiration porn, either? (Though as a non-disabled person, I could very well be missing things here.) To me, the focus, really felt like it was on Se Ha and Dong Goo’s relationship, rather than just some, IDK, triumphant underdog story that makes able-bodied people feel good about themselves?

The cast is excellent: Shin Ha Kyun and Lee Kwang Soo both give really solid performances as Se Ha and Dong Goo, respectively, and they have a great rapport. I like Esom in this, too, although I do feel like her character is a bit off balance with the rest of the story; I wish she either had less screen time or a stronger arc. (Although I do like that this isn’t a romance and that any jealousy aspects are minimal. Also, I enjoy the mildly antagonistic friendship between her character and Se Ha.) I was delighted to see other familiar faces in this movie, too: Kwon Hae Hyo, Kil Hae Yeon, Ahn Ji Ho, and Park Chul Min. Ahn Ji Ho and Kim Hyun Bin are both really well cast as Young Se Ha and Young Dong Goo, and despite limited screen time, I really enjoyed Kwon Hae Hyo as Father Park as well.

Inseparable Bros. is kind of a simple story and there aren’t any big surprises except that—SPOILERS—our leads both live! But overall, I think it’s told pretty well: I like Se Ha’s reserve and crankiness, I like Dong Goo’s complicated relationship with his mother, and I think a couple of the flashbacks near the end of the film are used quite nicely. Obviously, it’s unfortunate that I, notably cold of heart, enjoyed a heartwarming dramedy, but there you have it. Sometimes, we just can’t help ourselves.

The Villainess

Year: 2017
Director: Jung Byung Gil
First Watch or Rewatch: First Watch
Streaming Service: Amazon
Spoilers: Yes, absolutely
Grade: Vanilla

Hm. You know, I have mixed feelings on this one, and I’m still trying to sort them out. The Villainess has some serious La Femme Nikita vibes (with a few parts that strongly reminded me of Kill Bill), and obviously, I’m a sucker for badass assassins and revenge flicks. I generally enjoyed all the frenetic action scenes. There are one or two pretty brutal surprises. I’m obsessed with the shot of Sook Hee in a wedding dress holding a sniper rifle. And the cast is pretty great, too. I enjoy Kim Ok Bin as Sook Hee, our assassin protagonist whose life just gets increasingly more and more tragic. Kim Seo Hyung is great as Kwon Sook, the chief of the spy agency who recruits Sook Hee. (I loved Kim Seo Hyung in Nobody Knows; this woman was just born to play a mega cool badass in charge.) Obviously, I continue to like Shin Ha Kyun; motherfucker just exudes charisma in this film, like, hot damn. He is one insanely cold-hearted (and sexy) bastard here. And it was nice to see a couple of actors I didn’t expect: Sung Joon (who I enjoyed in White Christmas) plays Hyun Soo, a spy who falls in love with Sook Hee, and Park Chul Min pops up for the second time this week, this time playing Sook Hee’s father.

Still . . . I feel like something’s missing here, and I’m trying to decide exactly what that is. I saw a lot of reviews arguing that The Villainess has second act problems, and . . . yeah, I probably wouldn’t disagree with that. In a way, I feel like this movie doesn’t quite know what it wants to be about—or maybe it does know but never quite supports the thesis? Like, okay. By the end of the film, Sook Hee has lost everything—her child, her husband, her (admittedly not great) spy/assassin job—and all she has to show for it are a bunch of dead bodies (including the body of the man who ruined her life) and yet another arrest for mass murder. That, I think, is supposed to be the tragedy here: Sook Hee could (possibly) have had the normal life she longed for, but her obsession with revenge (and with Joong Sang, himself) ruins any chance of that. Kwon Sook tells her as much shortly before Hyun Soo and Eun Hye are murdered, and Joong Sang tells Sook Hee that the real pain will begin once she kills him—which she does, giving way to the last shot of the film, which (in true cycle of violence style) echoes the beginning of the movie, with Sook Hee violently grinning as she’s arrested.

Of course, “revenge destroys you and everyone around you” is not the most original moral, as far as these things go, but that’s not really my problem here. I think my bigger problem is that I never quite buy that Sook Hee does long to have this normal life. We’re told she does, but . . . I don’t know, I never quite felt it. Maybe I would have if we got more into her acting career, or if we spent more time with her daughter, or if I ever bought her romance with Hyun Soo—but I never did. The actors are both fine separately, but I’m not convinced they have much chemistry together—frankly, I think Kim Ok Bin has the best chemistry with Kim Seo Hyung—and while I think Hyun Soo is supposed to come off as an awkward but ultimately good-hearted spy stuck between a rock and a hard place, he mostly struck me as a Nice Guy creeper, and I spent half the film chanting for his death. I totally buy Hyun Soo’s thing for Sook Hee, but I never quite buy her thing for him, and maybe because of that—because Sook Hee never seems all that invested in her relationship or her career or really becoming this new person who puts her old life behind her—I don’t think the tragic arc hits nearly as hard as it could—even though they kill off her small, adorable child, which I will admit surprised me. Likewise, I don’t think Sook Hee’s implied descent into villainy makes for a particularly strong or satisfying conclusion, either. It’s totally a cool shot, but the emotion doesn’t linger. Which . . . yeah, might be how I feel about the movie as a whole. I could totally watch it again, didn’t have a bad time at all, but was also definitely left with the impression that it could have been so much better with a stronger script.

Triple Scoop Review: Death on the Nile, The Batman, and Appointment With Death

/ mygeekblasphemy / Leave a comment

Death on the Nile

Gal Gadot Love GIF by 20th Century Studios - Find & Share on GIPHY

Year: 2022
Director: Kenneth Branagh
First Watch or Rewatch: First Watch
Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, or Other: Other – HBO Max
Spoilers: YES, for both the film and the book
Grade: Rocky Road

I mean. It’s watchable?  It’s a little weird watching it, mind you, considering the public trainwreck of a cast, up to and including Possible Cannibal Armie Hammer. Still, I like Agatha Christie stories, and I’m always a sucker for a whodunit, so I didn’t have a bad time watching this, just, whew, some of the choices they make. Why?

Let’s begin with World War I and The Secret Tragic Mustache History of Mr. Hercule Poirot, a real sentence that I’m really saying right now. We get non-canonical flashbacks to our hero as a soldier, which is . . . fine, I guess, and see that Poirot is A) typically brilliant, B) too brilliant to become a farmer, which is, uh, apparently what he’s planning to do after the war? And C) clean-shaven, at least until he gets kinda blown up, and his nice fiancée suggests that he grows a mustache if he hates his facial scars so much. And, I mean. None of that’s awful. I probably wouldn’t blink twice at it in a non-Hercule Poirot story, but here it just feels so silly, like finally, AT LONG LAST, we learn the Secret History of the Ridiculous Mustache—a question that absolutely nobody was asking. (Also, at the end of the movie, Poirot shaves off his facial hair, which like, yay for acceptance of scars, but also . . . IDK, the Angst Beard has a long tradition in Hollywood, but the Angst Mustache is somehow just so much harder to take seriously?)

Anyway, what’s much worse is how Death on the Nile doubles down on one of my least favorite things about Branagh’s Murder on the Orient Express: Poirot’s random dead fiancée, Katherine. The actress who plays Katherine is totally fine. But her tragic death is why Poirot, you know, Renounced Love, and became a great detective instead of a farmer, and how he can be so cold and removed and unfeeling, and ugh to all of this, especially this fucking line: “He told me how much he hoped you’d be happy one day, too. That you’d get tired of being just a pure cold detective. Be human instead.”

Cartoon Network Reaction S GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

Look, I’m sure you’re tired of hearing this. I know I’m tired of saying it. But it is VERY POSSIBLE to be both happy and human without romantic love in your life. And what’s funny is, I’m not even 100% against the idea of a Poirot Love Story, like, do I think that shit is necessary? Nope, not remotely. But I will say that—in one of the many, many deviations from the original text—Poirot and Salome (Sophie Okonedo) have this whole quiet, flirty thing where she’s all awesome and he’s kinda cutely awkward, and it actually does work for me? But Death on the Nile pushes so HARD on this idea that you’re not truly living without romantic love, and that bullshit is just annoying AF.

Other unexpected adaptational choices: killing off Buoc, a character who isn’t even in the original novel. Instead, he’s the comic relief from Murder on the Orient Express, and his death is both surprising and genuinely pretty sad. It’s funny because I did think Branagh was gonna change up the third victim here, but I was so sure it was going to be Annette Bening, not Tom Bateman. Buoc’s death is much more tragic, and on one hand, WAAAAH, but OTOH, I think this switch-up actually does play pretty well. Certainly, Poirot’s sorrow about his dead friend feels way more earned than it ever did about poor dead Katherine.

Death on the Nile is a bit hard to judge as a whodunit since I already know, well, whodunit. I do feel like it’s less rushed than Murder on the Orient Express, which is good . . . although it also takes quite a while before the murders begin, which is less good. The cast may have been a PR disaster, but they’re a decent bunch of actors, and I’m mildly amused by how almost everyone here is putting on a fake accent. (The American actors are playing English, the English actors are playing American or Belgian or French, etc.) Strongest players are probably Kenneth Branagh, Annette Bening, Tom Bateman, and Sophie Okonedo. (She’s the MVP for sure.)  Armie Hammer probably gets Worst Player, if only because, wow, I burst into laughter during his weepy scene, and I’m pretty sure it wasn’t meant to be funny. If I hadn’t already known he was one of the bad guys, I definitely would’ve figured it out then.

Oh, this has gotten way too long. Some final random thoughts: A) JFC, the camera angles in this film have only gotten weirder, WHY, why are you doing this to me, Branagh? B) The CGI is also pretty terrible, like, that pyramid shot? Oh no. Oh, no. C) The sexy dancing in this movie seems incredibly forced to me, like, I am not always the best judge at what qualifies as steamy? But good Lord, this is just, like, lingering, awkward, faux-fucking on the dance floor. D) Some of the quippy dialogue is fun. I’m a simple girl, and I like a good quip. And E) I love, love, LOVE that Poirot straightens the dead woman’s foot. That might’ve been my favorite moment in the whole movie.

The Batman

Robert Pattinson Reaction GIF by The Batman - Find & Share on GIPHY

Year: 2022
Director: Matt Reeves
First Watch or Rewatch: First Watch
Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, or Other: Other – HBO Max
Spoilers: VERY MUCH YES
Grade: Vanilla? Or, IDK. Vanilla-chocolate swirl, maybe?

TBH, I was kinda dreading watching The Batman, mostly because of the three hour runtime (superhero movies, when will you stop), but honestly? I was pretty entertained. Like, I wouldn’t call it the Batman film I’ve been waiting for my entire life or anything, but I had a good time watching it.

I like that The Batman is a slow burn mystery, that we really do get more of a detective story than any of the previous films. I like some of the dark humor (thumb drive, heh), and I’m utterly grateful that we skip the Crime Alley scene. I also enjoy how the film really commits to its whole emo noir aesthetic. (Holy shit, does Bruce lives in a gothic cathedral now? WTF.) Did those emo vibes occasionally make giggle? You’re damn right they did. I was absolutely grinning through Robert Pattinson’s noir VO (though, TBH, I think we could’ve cut that down just a bit) and definitely at Nirvana’s “Something In The Way” . . . but IDK, even though I couldn’t quite get through that with a straight face, it still worked for me, somehow, particularly with Pattinson as a younger, reclusive, moody AF Bruce Wayne. It felt fitting. I think there’s only one moment in the hospital where I just couldn’t quite buy him; otherwise, I like RP just fine as Batman.

Most of the cast is pretty solid, honestly: Jeffrey Wright feels instantly correct as Jim Gordon, Zoë Kravitz is enjoyable as Catwoman, John Turturro works really well as Falcone, I like Andy Serkis’s take on Alfred, and though it’s a kind of a minor role, I really enjoy Peter Sarsgaard as D.A. Colson. Paul Dano and Colin Farrell, though, I have mixed feelings about. Dano, himself, chews scenery like no one’s business, which . . . IDK, kinda works for me, but also not always? I do like the parallels between Riddler and Batman, and I did love Dano singing the “Ave Maria,” but I also definitely started cracking up when he was all “NOOO!” and IDK. It felt silly and over the top in a way that—unlike Batman’s bangs or Kurt Cobain—just didn’t quite work for me. Meanwhile, I actually enjoy pretty much all of Colin Farrell’s line deliveries here; he’s kind of the comic relief and—to my very great surprise—the jokes aren’t generally about his size or appearance. (They’re more about him trolling Batman and Gordon for their mediocre Spanish, which I am absolutely here for.) Still . . . I hate the fat suit. I hate the prosthetics. Sure, Farrell is unrecognizable, but that doesn’t add anything to this story; mostly, it just kept distracting me. At least, this doesn’t piss me off the way that Dune did or anything; it’s just like . . . why? Why not just cast someone else?

With a 3-hour runtime, I expected The Batman to drag considerably, but I actually think it’s pretty well paced for the most part. I do wish Batman and Catwoman worked together more throughout the film, partly because their quasi-romance felt a bit forced to me, and partly because I just wish we had more time with Catwoman in general. Alfred, too, gets pretty much dropped after the hospital scene, which disappointed me, although at least they didn’t kill him. (Oh, I would’ve murdered people.) I do wonder if we could’ve trimmed the third act a bit and maybe given those two characters a bit more time?

It also must be said that I just can’t bring myself to give a shit about that Joker tease, like, no disrespect to the actor, but Christ, I could go another full decade without the Joker; I am begging you. Still, I genuinely like that Batman ends this movie realizing that being vengeance isn’t enough, that he needs to be a symbol of hope as well. (Side note: I kinda loved the Vengeance name, if only because I kept thinking of this song and wanting people to come up to Batman and be all, “What’s up, Vengeance?”) The idea of Batman as a symbol of hope as well as a symbol of fear interests me, maybe because it’s kinda the whole antithesis of movies like The Dark Knight and is actually something I’d love to see explored in a sequel, should a sequel  be made. I am all about character growth, and if we could actually get a compassionate Batman in a live action film, not just in cartoons like JLU? IDK, that could be pretty neat to see.

Appointment With Death

Year: 1988
Director: Michael Winner
First Watch or Rewatch: First Watch
Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, or Other: Other – ScreenPix
Spoilers: Some
Grade: Vanilla

And we’re back to Agatha Christie! Funny story: I’ve been wanting to check out Appointment With Death for actual years now, only it’s not an easy film to find, streaming or otherwise. However, while working on the Death on the Nile review above, I found myself looking up a list of obscure whodunit movies, and while looking up Green for Danger (number #1 on the list), I stumbled across the fact that Appointment With Death was available on ScreenPix. A free one week trial later, and here we are!

Peter Ustinov will never be my favorite Poirot, but I enjoy watching his movies well enough, and while Appointment With Death definitely isn’t knocking Evil Under the Sun from its top spot, I had a decent time watching it. This movie is, truthfully, a bit on the forgettable side, but I also feel like I have less glaring problems with it than I did with Branagh’s Death on the Nile—although that isn’t to say there aren’t flaws to be had because oh, there are. For one, we wait quite a while before anyone gets murdered—although admittedly, this does allow us more time with Piper Laurie, who excels in this film as the cruel Mrs. Boynton. For another, the insta-love between Dr. Sarah King and Raymond kinda kills me, although I’m pretty sure Agatha Christie is the one to blame for this. Insta-love is pretty common in these mysteries. There’s also the fact that Appointment With Death is about a bunch of white, snotty, British and American people in Jerusalem; there are definitely a few cringey moments, up to and including how little anyone cares about Hassan, a boy who tries to give Poirot critical information and ends up getting murdered for it. This immediately leads to a scene where Sarah, who initially looks guilty of Hassan’s murder, is briefly menaced by a bunch of silent men with brown skin, and it’s . . . yeah, it’s not great.

On the upside, this cast. Along with Peter Ustinov and Piper Laurie, we have Carrie Fisher, Lauren Bacall, and Hayley Mills, all of whom I had fun watching. Hayley Mills doesn’t have a super interesting role, but I enjoyed seeing her all the same, having grown up on the 1961 version of The Parent Trap. I like Carrie Fisher in this (I mean, when do I not like Carrie Fisher), and Jenny Seagrove is good, too. Honestly, all the women in this movie are more interesting than the men, but it’s Piper Laurie and Lauren Bacall who are the true standouts here. I would’ve paid, like, so much money to watch a film solely about these two squaring off. They are both an absolute delight.

Anyone who doesn’t generally enjoy whodunits is not gonna be won over by Appointment With Death, which is, well. Pretty formulaic in the long run. But since I’m a person who is deeply comforted by dysfunctional murder families, secret wills, and detectives who insist on giving dramatic reveals for absolutely no good reason, well. I’m ecstatic that I finally managed to track this one down.

Triple Spooky Scoop Review: The Changeling, Tragedy Girls, and You’re Next

/ mygeekblasphemy / Leave a comment

The Changeling

Year: 1980
Director: Peter Medak
First Watch or Rewatch: First Watch
Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, or Other: Other – Shudder
Spoilers: Only mildly–but the trailer above basically shows the whole movie, so beware
Grade: Strawberry

The dreaded grade of Strawberry is misleading here. I quite liked this movie, actually; I just happened to like the next two films more. The Changeling is a classic sort of ghost story: an old, mysterious house, a creepy music box, some strange banging sounds, a child’s ball bouncing down the stairs, etc. For all I know, this movie originated some of those tropes. The film is very atmospheric, and I enjoyed its slow, steady build; also, the seance scene, and how no one wastes time on tedious skepticism. YES.

I like George C. Scott in this, too; he’s very reserved, very understated, which I think generally serves the movie well. (Occasionally, he’s possibly a touch too understated; at one point, I was like, “Damn, man, have a reaction or something.”) Trish Van Devere, OTOH, doesn’t work quite as well for me, although to be fair, my problems might stem more from writing than the actual peformance. Claire feels more like an outline of a character than an actual character; she has virtually no interiority, mostly existing to A) get John Russell into the house, and B) give John Russell someone to bounce his ghost detective instincts off of. She also has a couple of emotional breakdowns, and while I’m 100% here for one of them, the other feels very random to me.

Overall, I found the mystery engaging, although I was a bit thrown when certain elements were dropped entirely. (Presumably just red herrings, but I still expected them to come back in some meaningful way?) I also wouldn’t have minded seeing a bit more with Russell’s dead family, who are barely mentioned in the second half of the story. (A quick aside: I knew Jean Marsh was in this movie, but completely failed to recognize her because apparently I was on the lookout for Mombi, not Tragic Dead Wife.) On the other hand, I did quite like Melvyn Douglas as Senator Carmichael, whose emotional reaction to {spoiler redacted} genuinely surprised me. If you’re trying to decide which Melvyn Douglas 80’s horror film to watch, I highly recommend The Changeling over Ghost Story (which we watched for last year’s Horror Bingo). And if you’re a Star Trek fan, hey, John Colicos (AKA Kor) plays a bit role here!

Here’s what I can’t get over, though: the size of this haunted ass house. Who’d wanna live in this spooky ass mansion by themselves? You could be housing 25 people in this place, easy! At one point, Claire shows John Russell to the music room, and I’m like, “Bitch, this is a damn castle; you could make five music rooms and still have space to spare.” Mr. Russell, sir, please. Next time, consider a damn cottage, I’m begging you.

Tragedy Girls

Year: 2017
Director: Tyler MacIntyre
First Watch or Rewatch: First Watch
Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, or Other: Hulu
Spoilers: Only for an uncredited cameo
Grade: Vanilla

This was an awful lot of fun. I already adored Brianna Hildebrand from Deadpool and The Exorcist (the cancelled-before-its-time TV show, not the 70’s classic, obviously), and I really liked Alexandra Shipp in Love, Simon and X-Men: Apocalypse (even if X-Men: Apocalypse, itself, was abysmal). Of course, neither disappointed here; these two are AWESOME as murder BFFs. The whole cast is pretty great, actually: I enjoyed Jack Quaid quite a bit as Jordan (even if dude hilariously cannot pass for a high school student), Kevin Durand is pretty perfectly cast as Lowell, and the uncredited Josh Hutcherson cameo? Oh. Oh, man. I was DYING. It is the absolute best. I will say, however, that I seriously wish that Rosalind Chao had been in the film for more than five seconds, and I kinda think the script sold Craig Robinson a little short.

Arguably, Tragedy Girls has a more negative philosophy in regards to social media than, say, #Alive, but it doesn’t bother me too much here because social media didn’t make Sadie and McKayla homicidal maniacs; they were clearly little homicidal maniacs from the jump. I honestly don’t have a lot of criticisms of this one. Obviously, I’m all about ride or die murder friends; also, the soundtrack is great, the ending is spot on, the violence is super gory, all things I love. You know, the whole movie is just . . . cute. Like, in a glittery, bloodthirsty sort of way.

You’re Next

Year: 2011
Director: Adam Wingard
First Watch or Rewatch: Rewatch
Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, or Other: Other – Personal Collection DVD
Spoilers: Definitely – do not read if you haven’t seen this yet
Grade: Chocolate

Ah, one of my favorites. It’s actually been a while since I rewatched this one, though–long enough that I actually said, “Jesus, how old is this movie” when Erin busted out an actual camera instead of her cell phone–and it’s a lot of fun to revisit when you already know the twists. I kept catching things I missed the first time around, like how “both” refers to Felix and Crispian, not Felix and Zee, or what’s behind Crispian’s smile when Erin says that his parents are loaded. And I still love so many things about You’re Next: how funny it is, how the horror is played completely straight despite just how funny it is, the family dynamics, the booby traps, “I don’t think that’s a fair criticism,” and Erin, yeah, just Erin as a whole. Also, the scene at the end where Crispian tries to justify his evil plan and win Erin back into his good graces, I mean, it is perfection. This scene is, no lie, one of my favorite scenes in any horror or comedy I’ve ever watched. The delivery is just so good here. “Maybe . . . an engagement?” I aspire to such mastery of craft.

Some random notes:

A. Aubrey (Barbara Crampton) has the gall to comment on Zee’s unusual name, like she didn’t name one of her kids “Crispian.” Barbara. Don’t put me on Zee’s side, here.

B. The opening scene is a bit weak IMO, but it’s also very short, so it’s not a huge problem. Still rolling my eyes at the woman strolling past the giant glass windows in an unbuttoned shirt, though, like seriously. One button, that’s all I’m asking for.

C. Hmm. Never did finish that You’re Next/Home Alone/Halloween fanfic, did I?

D. Felix and Zee’s deaths still get me. Like, they’re great deaths; this definitely isn’t a complaint. But man, do I cringe.

E. Seriously. Who even complains about a “jarring” Australian accent? When has that ever been a thing? Kelly, you suck. (On a positive note, Kelly is actually seriously hurt when she’s thrown through glass! This is so unusual in movies! Even Erin gets all cut up and impaled, although admittedly, she should really be dead.)

F. Poor Tariq. You miserable bastard.

Triple Scoop Review/Year of Monsters: BONUS VAMPIRE ROUND – Drácula, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, and Dracula 2000

/ mygeekblasphemy / Leave a comment

Drácula

TFW you have to improvise because there aren’t any GIFs or trailers for the 89-year-old movie you’re reviewing.

Year: 1931
Director: George Melford
First Watch or Rewatch: First Watch
Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, or Other: Other – Personal Collection DVD
Spoilers: Yep
Grade: Vanilla

In 1931, Dracula (the English language film starring Bela Lugosi) was shot during the day, while Drácula (the Spanish language film starring Carlos Villarías) was shot during the night. Earlier this year, I’d wanted to watch Drácula to compare and contrast; alas, I wasn’t able to find the film streaming anywhere online. Fortunately, I have an incredibly sweet friend, Rob, who bought me a special edition DVD copy of both films because he is the absolute best. Thank you, Rob!

In regards to which film is better . . . honestly, I like both for different reasons. On one hand, I think Pablo Álvarez Rubio makes for a fantastic Renfield. I didn’t have any particular problem with Dwight Frye, but Rubio is the superior choice as the bug-eating lackey, and delightfully, this film gives him a little more screen time to work with. (At least I’m pretty sure it does, but admittedly, I have watched like four different adaptations of this novel now, and they are starting to bleed together a bit.) I like this version of Mina (named Eva here) a little better, too, specifically when she’s all dark and vampire-influenced. And this version actually bothers to give Lucía’s story an ending, unlike poor Lucy in Dracula, who is pretty much just forgotten about between scenes. There are some particularly nice shots in this film, too, specifically the last one where Eva and Juan Harker ascend the staircase, leaving Van Helsing below with Renfield’s body–although to be fair, I like some shots in the English language version, too, like when the vampire brides back away from Dracula and Renfield’s unconscious body.

OTOH, I’m afraid I can’t take Carlos Villarías as Dracula seriously at all, like, he’ll have an okay moment or two, and then he’ll smile, and I’ll just start cracking up. Dude’s just so damn goofy. Bela Lugosi is very stagey, but somehow that feels more stylized, theatrical. This is different. This just feels absurdly cartoonish. And I prefer Van Helsing in the English language version, too, probably because this one seems shocked by things that just aren’t very shocking. Like, he’ll present some hypothesis (for example, Dracula is a vampire, and therefore must not have a reflection), and then seem flabbergasted when he immediately proves himself correct. He also has a hilarious reaction when Dracula threatens to kill him; likely, he’s supposed to seem scared, but it comes across more like, “Whaaaat? You’d . . . you’d really kill me?”

Watching both of these movies is absolutely fun, but my perfect film would be some unholy combination of the two, with Bela Lugosi and Pablo Álvarez Rubio and, most especially, the Philip Glass score from the 1990’s.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992)

Year: 1992
Director: Francis Ford Coppola
First Watch or Rewatch: Re-Watch
Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, or Other: Amazon, I think? TBH, it’s been a few weeks.
Spoilers: Yep
Grade: Strawberry

Look, there are some amazing things about this movie. The opening music, for instance? Fantastic. And the fashion? Oh my god, the FASHION in this film. Dracula’s costumes alone, like, we’ve got the grey suit and top hat pictured above, his memorable Transylvania look, the red armor he wore as a human (which is basically just what J-Lo wore in The Cell,) etc. Then, of course, we have Mina’s lovely green dress and hat, as well as Lucy’s hilariously anachronistic red dress. And then, of course, Dead Lucy, which is the absolute cream of the crop. God, I’d love to cosplay the hell out of this someday.

So, yeah. I’d watch the hell out of this movie as a series of well-made fanvids; unfortunately, as a whole ass film, I have . . . problems. The entire prologue, for instance: like, the BS reincarnation love story I don’t care about (I was so baffled by this addition the first time I watched this movie), or how Anthony Hopkins is playing this ancient priest dude for no apparent reason. The fact that someone apparently fetched Mina’s perfectly undamaged corpse out of the river just to throw her ass on the floor, even taking the time to grab her suicide note and artfully tuck it into her hand. (Oh, apologies, there was physical damage: a single trail of blood from the corner of her mouth. Holy shit, that just makes it even funnier.) And Gary Oldman’s rage freakout, like, don’t get me wrong, I know the guy is a good actor, but also, dude sometimes makes some ridiculously over-the-top choices that I just cannot take seriously. I was giggling like mad throughout this whole prologue, which I really don’t think was Coppola’s intent here.

If the whole movie was like that, I could happily enjoy Dracula as a so-bad-it’s-great film. But those kinds of movies are generally best appreciated when they’re under two hours; this film is 2 hours and 35 minutes, and unfortunately, its dreadfulness isn’t always the sheer delight that is this gloriously terrible train ride into Hell scene. Which is to say, some of the bad stuff just drags, particularly in the second half of the film, where I slowly became consumed by boredom. And honestly, there’s a lot of bad to go around: Dracula as a wolf-troll-thing raping Lucy? Nope. All the orgasmic vampire shit and the plethora of relentless boob shots? Thanks, pass. I’d love to know whose idea it was to make Dr. Seward a morphine addict for, like, a scene. Also, why, in a movie with such fantastic costumes, does Keanu’s gray hair look like someone just threw flour over his head? And while I’m genuinely delighted by the current Resurgence of Keanu Reeves–he seems like a nice dude, and I enjoy a lot of his movies–like, this is easily his worst performance, and I’m including Much Ado About Nothing in that. (A film I have a huge soft spot for, honestly, but there is more than one woeful miscasting in that movie.) It’s not just that Reeves’s accent is terrible, though it is; it’s more that he’s so damn stilted here. Winona Ryder’s accent isn’t winning awards, either, but at least there’s some flow to her dialogue.

Finally, a few random things:

A) Everyone’s kind of an asshole in this movie, including Jonathan, who doesn’t like Mina staying with her BFF cause Lucy is rich, and what if Mina wants a rich boy now? Jonathan, you’re a tool. Van Helsing, though, is probably my favorite asshole because of hilariously casual lines like this: “Yeah, she was in terrible pain; we cut off her head. She’s dead now.”

B) The Texan suitor, played by Billy Campbell, is shockingly the least objectionable character, which is presumably why he dies.

C) Wow, I forgot there are so many other people in this movie! Cary Elwes! Richard E. Grant! Tom Waits as Renfield, what?

Renfield’s hair, at least, is properly fantastic.

Dracula 2000

Year: 2000
Director: Patrick Lussier
First Watch or Rewatch: Re-Watch
Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, or Other: Amazon
Spoilers: Definitely
Grade: Chocolate

Okay, sure, this isn’t a great movie, but unlike Bram Stoker’s Dracula, it never really pretended to be, either. Dracula 2000 is so incredibly of its time, and I have all kinds of silly nostalgia for it. Ton of people in the cast, too: Jonny Lee Miller (the hero), Justine Waddell (the heroine), Christopher Plummer (the dead meat vampire-hunter mentor), Vitamin C (the dead meat BFF and vampire bride #1), Jennifer Esposito, (the brief fake-out love interest and vampire bride #2), Jeri Ryan (the random hot reporter and vampire bride #3), Sean Patrick Thomas (a thief), Danny Masterson (a thief who gets a leech to the eyeball), Lochlyn Munro (a thief and also the First to Die), Omar Epps (the Thief Boss who very suavely wears glasses), Shane West (the cameraman who dies very, very quickly), Nathan Fillion (a young priest who shockingly doesn’t die), and, of course, Gerard Butler (the Big Bad, AKA, Judas “Dracula” Iscariot).

Miller and Plummer probably do the strongest work here, but I enjoy pretty much everyone except maybe Jennifer Esposito, who I never quite buy–although to be fair to the actress, she does get some of the worst dialogue. Like the “all I wanna do is suck” pun or the “how does one become a lover” exchange, ugh. There’s some bad dialogue to go around, though: JLM’s “never ever FUCK with an antiques dealer” is beyond awful, like, as a blooper line? It’s hysterical. I’d have laughed my ass off had I seen this in the blooper reel. As an actual line in the movie? NO, GOD, WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS, NO.

OTOH, I do genuinely enjoy a lot of the humor, even the very on-the-nose stuff. I’ll admit to laughing at the “sorry, sport, I’m an atheist/God loves you anyway” exchange; also, Masterson’s hilariously petulant “I said I was sorry.” The sheer outrage in Miller’s delivery when he says “undead–UNDEAD!” cracks me up every time. I’m also very amused by Dracula calling the Bible “propaganda” as Simon tries to defend himself with it. And when Dracula perfectly describes Mary’s Mom’s interior decorating style as “Catholic,” yeah, I laughed pretty hard at that.

And while Dracula’s secret origins as Judas are kinda unbelievably silly, I suspect someone could actually make this work in a miniseries or TV-show, something with a serious, historical bent and plenty of room to focus on the themes of evil, forgiveness, and redemption in a universe where choice and action are presumably predestined. Dracula 2000 was obviously never gonna be that story, as it’s a campy ass horror film, and its reliance on Dracula’s origins as a twist means it only has about 15 minutes to even remotely address the philosophical and theological ramifications of this identity reveal, while also wrapping up the entire main plot. So, yeah, that was kinda doomed to silly failure. But credit where credit’s due: this is the first and only time I’ve ever seen a vampire die by hanging.

Finally, a couple last thoughts:

A) I owned a fair amount of horror and SF movie soundtracks in the late 90’s and early 2000’s, and you better believe that Dracula 2000 was one of them. (See also The Faculty, Scream, Queen of the Damned, and The Matrix.) I still listen to songs from it, too, especially System of a Down’s cover of “Metro.”

B) Remember in The Last Jedi, how Rey and Kylo spend a lot of time psychically gazing at each other from separate locations? Well, Dracula and Mary Heller-Van Helsing did it first, only with Godhead (and Marilyn Manson) playing in the background, so, obviously, they kinda win.

Shit. Now I just wanna see TLJ with the Dracula 2000 soundtrack. SOMEONE MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

Year of Monsters: The Mummy

/ mygeekblasphemy / 4 Comments

I adore The Mummy (1999). I adore The Mummy Returns. I do not adore The Mummy (2017) with Tom Cruise and Sofia Boutella, but to be fair, I only watched about ten minutes of it. Maybe it gets better. (It doesn’t get better. We all know it.)

Now it’s time to see where all these movies began.

May I present The Mummy (1932) with Boris Karloff and Zita Johann.

Continue reading →

“Why Is There A Watermelon There?”

/ mygeekblasphemy / 9 Comments

It’s the final week of the Clarion West Write-a-Thon and, coincidentally, my last week before vacation. Which means you probably won’t see me around much for a little while. Before I go, though, I have my second (and final) WaT reward essay to share. While last week we discussed John Carpenter’s Prince of Darkness (a film where Satan is a bunch of green goo in a vat, and bugs are fucking everywhere), today we’ll be shifting gears to talk about The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension, a film where a brain surgeon/comic book hero/test pilot/rock star/physicist saves the world with his buddies, the Hong Kong Cavaliers, from hostile aliens.

My friends, this movie is an experience.

Continue reading →

Triple Scoop Reviews: Escape Room, The Man From U.N.C.L.E, and As Above, So Below

/ mygeekblasphemy / Leave a comment

Escape Room

First Watch or Rewatch: First Watch
Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, or Other: Other: Personal Collection DVD
Spoilers: Not really
Grade: Chocolate

I think my love of a) actual escape rooms and b) movies where strangers are trapped together and trying to figure out what’s going on, how they’re connected, how to get out alive, etc. is well documented by this point. So it’s no surprise Mek and I were on the verge of renting Escape Room when I actually received it as a gift. (Fun fact: Amazon hid the package so well that I didn’t find it until almost a week later, and only then because the sender–Infamous Tom–mentioned it offhand.)

Much as I’m drawn to these sorts of movies, they’re usually much more miss than hit, which is why I’m pleased to say that, overall, Escape Room is a hit for me. None of the actors are phoning it in, and I was especially excited to see both Deborah Ann Woll and Tyler Labine. The movie has quite a lot of energy: it’s fun, a bit ridiculous, hits all my claustrophobia boxes, etc. I like a lot of the dialogue, too, like, even the Asshole (there’s always at least one) is pretty enjoyable. I spent the majority of the movie rooting for almost everybody to survive, which makes for a welcome change. I have said it before and will keep saying it until I die: horror and mystery are almost always more interesting when likable–or at least funnier–characters are involved. Investment is higher, so tension and stakes are higher, too.

The conclusion, unfortunately, is easily the weakest part of this movie, which doesn’t come as a surprise; these kinds of movies almost always fall down at the finish line. Escape Room does a minor variation on a very common ending, and it’s . . . fine . . . but I’d really like to see something new here. Still, I had a pretty great time watching this one, and I’d recommend it to anyone who enjoys these kinds of cheesy fun thrillers.

The Man From U.N.C.L.E.

First Watch or Rewatch: Rewatch, sorta
Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, or Other: Amazon
Spoilers: Not really
Grade: Vanilla

I had zero interest in this movie when it came out. I’d never watched the original TV show, and the only thing I’d seen Henry Cavill in was Immortals, which I was very unimpressed by. Also, the reviews I’d seen were wildly underwhelming. So, I was surprised when I caught most of this on TV and found it unexpectedly charming–though, admittedly, I’d been on working on various things at the time and was only half paying attention.

Curious to see if I’d like the movie while actually paying proper attention to it, Mek and I rented The Man From U.N.C.L.E., and for the most part, I thought it was pretty fun. The story’s sorta whatever, like, I kinda checked out on the actual mission details pretty early on. But I thought both Cavill and Armie Hammer were kinda delightful and had great chemistry with one another. Hammer is weirdly endearing as this super strong Russian spy with fashion Opinions and an extremely short fuse; meanwhile, Cavill is playing the smooth-talking, ladies man, James Bond type at, like, 140%, and it’s hilarious. The whole movie is basically a parody played straight, which I enjoy, and I can’t help but wonder if the film’s poor reception had anything to do with critics taking it more seriously than was actually intended.

I do have some disappointments with the film: one or two lines didn’t land for me, like, I could go the rest of my life without someone’s mental health being blamed even in part on a mom who slept around. Jared Harris is wasted in this movie, and for some reason, I never truly warmed up to Gaby (Alicia Vikander), like, she was fine, but I really wanted to enjoy her character as much as the boys, and I just didn’t. OTOH, Elizabeth Debicki is all villainous and fun, and Hugh Grant is enjoyably British and snarky. That lucky bastard; he’s one of the very few actors in this movie who actually got to use his natural accent–which reminds me. Do . . . do British people think Americans pronounce the word “Nazi” as “NAT-zee?” Admittedly, my homeland is made up of about 87 billion different accents, but the only time I’ve heard that particularly pronunciation was when I watched Brad Pitt in Inglourious Bastards. Both Harris and Cavill did this, though, and it was very strange.

Overall, I enjoyed The Man From U.N.C.L.E., probably enough that I would’ve watched the sequel that Ritchie set up and never got, and certainly enough that I checked out Archive to see if there were any Solo/Illya fics. (There are! A fair few of them, in fact!) It’s a decent B movie, if you enjoy spy action-comedies, stylish Guy Ritchie movies, and/or attractive, antagonistic men forced to work with one another under perilous conditions. I mean, really. Who doesn’t like that?

As Above, So Below

First Watch or Rewatch: First Watch
Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, or Other: Netflix
Spoilers: Very much so
Grade: Strawberry

So, this is basically Tomb Raider: The Horror Movie, or maybe Lara Croft: Get Me The Fuck Outta Dante’s Inferno. The first 2/3, I think, are pretty well-done: decent setup, claustrophobic as fuck–though, admittedly, I’m particularly susceptible to that kind of thing, like, no, thank you, I don’t do caves; that shit is for people who wanna die. There’s one scene in particular where Benji (Edwin Hodge) gets stuck and understandably freaks out, and man. That shit got me.

Unfortunately, I’m not quite as satisfied with the third act, and maybe that’s because I can be a literal, meat-and-potatoes kind of girl when it comes to storytelling, or maybe it’s just because, not having actually read Dante’s Inferno, I missed some of the more significant symbolism. Still, for my money, stories about atonement work a lot better when you actually spend some time on the sins your characters are atoning for. Which isn’t to say I needed the movie to stop so each person could have a five-minute monologue about their tragic backstory. It is, however, to say that when your characters start getting picked off by their own personal ghosts of Christmas past whilst traversing through literal Hell, I would like to know at least a little about those ghosts, or else what’s the point?

Like, Papillon works okay: we know he’s a kinda shady dude and he’s got the ominous burn scar on his hand, so maybe we don’t need to know the exact details of how he was involved with Dead Dude in Burning Car. But I shouldn’t have to go to IMDb trivia to get a vague theory about why Ominous Lady (with a baby, apparently, though I must have missed that) pushed Nice Enough Benji to his sudden doom. And Souxie’s death doesn’t work for me at all, considering she’s just abruptly murdered by Papillion’s dead friend. Like, wouldn’t such a death make much more sense for him? Moreover, the scene where Scarlett, George, and Zed confess their sins before taking their very literal leap of faith feels hurried and lacks emotional resonance–particularly on Zed’s part–because one, the whole third act feels a bit rushed, honestly, and two, the only confession that’s given any actual space is Scarlett’s. I feel all of this would play a lot better if each character was given an opportunity to confess their wrongdoing, and it’s only those who can’t admit it (like Papillon) who are brutally murdered as punishment.

Props to Zed for making it, though. I really didn’t think that guy had a–oh, goddamn it, yes, a literal chance in Hell. Happy for George, too, just cause I like him. (Though I still think the whole “shit, I grabbed the wrong Philosopher’s Stone” bit is more than a little silly. For me, at least, it doesn’t add much to the actual story.)

“I Love You 3,000.”

/ mygeekblasphemy / 3 Comments

For a while now, I’ve been trying to maximize my time and minimize my excessive word counts with my Triple Scoop Reviews; today, however, we’re going back to the old standard because Avengers: Endgame is kinda the end of an era here, and I feel like it deserves its own space.

Or, in other words, I’ve got a few things to say, and while some of it’s really positive, some of it’s really not.

Continue reading →

World’s Worst Trekkie: Carlie Takes On “Operation–Annihilate!”

/ mygeekblasphemy / 1 Comment

Over a year ago, I made a resolution: to watch and review the entire original series of Star Trek. Considering it’s only three seasons long, I figured I had a decent shot of finishing it all by 2019; I certainly assumed I’d at least finish the first goddamn season by then. But of course I am easily distractible, and over the past 16 months or so, I have found numerous distractions: working on my novel, working on other MGB reviews, marathoning Netflix, doing various life stuff, and–of course–binge-reading fanfic, which is obviously the highest priority of all.

Anyway, it’s nearly April now, and I’m here to review the last episode of Season One: “Operation–Annihilate!”

I wish I could say we ended on a high note.

Continue reading →