Ryder La Lunatic

The Substance at Showcase cinema, running until near enough 2AM. I forgot I was booked in for Cineworld and, having just moved and started university, left it too late to catch a train in time for their only showing of it, so opted for the local de Lux. I wanted to catch this on opening night, or opening weekend, to show my support for a film of this nature, based on the glimpses we all had from the trailer. Critics rated it highly and a good majority of people, so far, seem to be in agreement. In response to someone who viewed the trailer and texted me 'Gory', I said to that 'Gory, possibly, violent, yes, but body horror and psychological.' There's a distinction of course. I tend to enjoy the latter. It's not gore for the sake of gore, as such, and it's not torture p***. It's stylish, extremely aesthetic, but in a paint palette or colour wheel sense as opposed to the painting or art itself. In other words, colourful, pleasing, but also clinical with it or devoid of something, some soulful substance. It's very impressive and notable in this regard. The cinematography and editing instantly place this on a level with the works of the great directors and auteurs of our time, including those no longer with us. It's been a busy week, so, through no fault of the film, I find myself falling asleep, and it's so pleasant a feeling and I'm tired enough that I start to give in to the sensation. I'm sure this cinema is haunted - the land, whatever it was built on. I'm the only one in the screen at this time of night and I swear I keep seeing a person on the stairs. Whenever I look up, there's no one there. I slept through at least some of the film - a significant portion, I think; probably I watched somewhere between half to three quarters all in all - but what I saw of it was very well done, almost bordering, from the start, on pretension with its artistic flair and masterful editing. I think that could have been toned down a little and it would not have detracted from the film, it would still have been impactful. When I woke up towards the end, and remained awake, I was laughing, disgusted, and saddened. There is certainly brilliance in The Substance, and there may be no film more deserving of the descriptive 'vainglorious', but, given the standard definition of that adjective, having it be separated with a hyphen. Vain-glorious. It was gloriously f**ked up. It is a body horror - à la Carpenter, Cronenberg, Zulawski - but it defies and transcends conventions of the subgenre within the context of the narrative. Its most crucial message is deepened through the use of humour, absurdity, and the hybridising of emotions. It will linger a long time - it's changed the way I will look at myself. Undoubtedly four stars, for now, but it may go up when I watch it again.

'Blink and you'll miss it...' Blink twice and you'll notice what is amiss? -- I've learned something new today. An old adage, to paraphrase, something like 'Blink once if all is well, blink twice if in danger.' There are spoilers ahead, please only read on if you've watched the film. Very entertaining movie, different spin on an existing trope. Great soundtrack. Darkly witty. I enjoyed it up until the last ten to fifteen minutes when it started to unravel and become a bit far-fetched and weakly scripted, and the very end took the venom out of its bite, the strength out of its attack. I feel like I wasn't the only cinemagoer who was slightly confused or let down by that. What, hell hath no fury like a woman scorned? Is that it? Is she still attached to him? Choosing to be with him (as long as he's under the influence of the drug) for the lifestyle and luxury it affords her? She's doing what a woman should do, reversing the power dynamics, and putting the man in his place? It kind of cheapens the woman and portrays her as being as bad and devious as the man (men, collectively) to make a bizarre choice like she does. Maybe that's the point. That women can be just as manipulative and sadistic as men, which of course is very true. It's not human nature, it's nature-nature. Or, further still, is it a commentary on women who will adopt a certain lifestyle, either in pursuit of fame and fortune (through a Hollywood lens) or everyday comfort, stability and security, and so settle for less? -- Even though she comes out 'on top' as it were, she is settling for less and undervaluing herself. It's an unhealthy dynamic and confounding compromise. But, then, it does happen. It's more common than most care to admit to. Maybe I missed something or didn't appreciate the message, if there was overtly intended to be one. I'll watch it again at some point, for sure, so I'll be able to reassess. If it wasn't for that switch at the end, that attempted subversion of the audience's expectations, which was silly, mediocre, and unnecessary, I think this would have been a firm four stars from me. I loved the initial twist, though, like a knife to the gut. It was a quarter to half way through the movie where I had the lightbulb moment, what if... What if behind the veiled façade of pleasure and hedonism is actually trauma, traumatic acts being perpetrated? That would make such an effed up and interesting plot, I thought, but I pushed it out of my mind. Of course when it came to the horrifying reveal it delivered on this, tilting my brain off axis, and things that had been deftly woven into (or adeptly dislodged from) the narrative began to fall into place like withheld jigsaw pieces, shards of memory. Quite clever. I did also pick up on the biblical metaphor and connotations - of the Edenic state and the serpent - but hadn't fully realised my thoughts on it during or after the movie. It's brilliantly articulated here by reviewer Conscientious Observer, probably better than I ever could have put it. It reminded me of Don't Worry Darling in that regard, there are obvious similarities and parallels. In spite of its flaws, this is an otherwise strong directorial debut from actress Zoë Kravitz. A promising glimpse of things to come.

Reviews are bunk. It was okay. People are tearing it apart because of a hardcore devotion to the original adaptation and comic book series, and maybe, as another suggested, because of the lack of emotional connective tissue, or depth, in the development of the characters and their arc. In spite of this surface-over-substance it starts promising - I personally liked FKA Twigs' acting, even though she's largely getting slated here. During the end credits roll, I overheard one person say something to the effect of 'I was getting Cassie from Skins'... I can only guess at who they were referring to, if they weren't referring to me. "Oh wow!" I probably prefer the original movie to this one, but it's hard to say as it's been such a long time since I've seen it and I was never so crazy about it in any case; I was only drawn to the grunge music and depressive tone. Both adaptations have elements that the other does not. I think I prefer the backstory here, and Eric and Shelly's chemistry, even if it does seem more lusty. From there, after the fateful murder, things go downhill. Again, there was not nearly enough character development before it goes in for the kills. That's perhaps its biggest weakness, it doesn't allow for emotional resonance and therefore the believability and conviction in the admissions of undying love and the retribution that comes later. I thought about this whilst watching The Crow (and Romulus), a lot of trailers now are showing so much condensed action whereas the movies themselves don't necessarily have that much action, that kind of pacing and rhythm, across the length of their runtime, so it kind of gives a falsified image. Both films from their trailers looked like non-stop thrills and suspense, respectively, and neither of them lived up to what the trailer would have the viewer imagine. Trailers can paint a very different picture. By contrast, two trailers for films I'm confident will be impactful, sensational, maybe even masterworks, have failed to impress me. Those are Joker: Folie à Deux and The Substance. Why do I think that is? My personal take is that the trailers have been skilfully edited - underplayed, undersold - so as to not reveal too much and spoil anything, which makes the trailers (and the films) seem rather underwhelming and lacking. Many more people are whelmed by the trailers, so maybe it's just me, but, as I say, I'm sure those films will be great. Time, of course, will tell. In a funny way, trailers and marketing are making or, lately, more so it seems, breaking films. The hype train is decimating flicks and causing public pushback. People are [peed] off. Some decent films I've seen recently are getting mid reviews or blasted because of inflated expectations and false promises. With The Crow I think it's mostly fair/unfair criticism from fanboys and fangirls, depending on your perspective. I'd give the movie between two and three stars. It was worth a watch on a cinema pass, but it's not really worthwhile for a repeat viewing, in my opinion, except perhaps for the first quarter of the movie which might deserve some reanalysis. I will have to revisit the original Crow and the purportedly dodgy sequels and TV show at some point.

Romulus was good. Easily second best after Alien but with less of the psychological suspense elements and a bit more of the action from sequel Aliens (which, in the minority, I'm not a fan of). It didn't progress quite as strong as it started. Most of the characters were pretty cool. Maybe there wasn't as much character development as there could have been, but enough to be compelling so that I was emotionally invested in some of them. Pre-release I thought Cailee Spaeny was a good fit for the franchise and that she follows on well from Noomi Rapace and Katherine Waterston in Prometheus and Covenant. As the leading actress, however, she doesn't exactly stand out more than many of the other cast members, but she's got a certain look and sensibility to be both cute and tomboyish, and for kicking Xenomorph butt. Romulus incorporated the video game Alien Isolation into the 'verse, this much I noted. Oh and there's a very big homage made to the first movie which is kind of satisfying and quirky. More of the weird Giger-style designs. What about that acid-dripping puss, hey? 😅 The Alien series has always been weirdly sexual, but this was rather blatant and indecent at times - plunging the cattle prod into the vulva pod! I'm in agreeance with those who say that this is a worthy addition to the franchise, a franchise which, after all, has been somewhat marred by a streak of disappointing serves. I'd give Romulus somewhere between three and four stars - close to four. Other movies that I've given four stars to recently have had more of an impact on me in one way or another, so this seems fair and accurate to me.

From the 'Secret Screaming' at Cineworld, Monday the 12th August. Cuckoo was what I anticipated for the screening, or I Saw the TV Glow which some people were jabbering about online and I would have been quite happy with that, too. Cuckoo was rad. There're great things about it, many great things, but it also falls short of what it seems to set the audience up for - it just wasn't that sort of film, no biggie. It's unpredictable to say the least and that's its grace as well. Let me start with the leading actress, Hunter Schafer. She's great to watch, and study from an acting perspective, and she has a '90s heartthrob, posterchild, slacker kid vibe going for her. Kudos to the other cast, all very good in their own ways. There aren't many unlikeable characters here, except for those characters which are supposed to be particularly unlikeable. Solid supporting actresses. The receptionist, Trixie, played by Greta Fernández, is especially cute and memorable. I realise I'm a sucker for Hispanics and Latinas. I really enjoyed her part, minor though it was. And the cool French sidekick, 'Ed', played by Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey (who I didn't recognise as being the gorgeous actress from I Origins), again fleeting but integral. I'm also a sucker for French women. It's a strange movie, at times bonehead fun, but it surely earns its place amongst higher-ranking pop cultural lexiconic B-movie horrors and has many of the hallmarks of being a cult movie, if not a cult classic. Looking over IMGs from the movie, there are some absolutely killer stills - it's beautifully cinematographed and framed. That scene with Trixie in the 'Love Nest' chalet, blow-drying her hair, the old TV set on in the background... it's kind of iconic. It's like Poltergeist or The Shining, scenes you can't forget. That's saying something, you know. They're onto something with that. I was thinking it was gonna be an Eyes Wide Shut or Shining premise when it started before it went left-field batshit cuckoo spit insane. The clue is in the title, in more ways than you can imagine. It's cool, weird, stylish, hip, foreign, alternative. '70s schlocky shock horror video nasty vibes in the first half become '80s action hero vibes in the second half with Schwarzenegger 'Kindergarten Cop' grade shootouts and uproarious melodrama. The scenery and setting of the Bavarian Alps is mysterious and seductive, Twin Peaks esque. In fact, in places the movie is abstract and schizophrenic in a nu-Lynchian way, like Mulholland Drive or Twin Peaks: The Return. There are some fresh jump scares and it's generally atmospheric and freaky. Smoke up, do whatever you do, throw some shades on in the house, be dreadfully cool, wear a trench coat, maybe a beret, or a head bandage, grab your butterfly knife, kick back, flop on the couch or bed, channel your inner ennui, or get together with friends and have a good time. It's that sort of film. I hope to see it again at the cinema on its official UK release next week - maybe twice! There's much to like, I'm kind of obsessed! Edit 23/08/2024: Super disappointed it won't be showing at my local Cineworld after the 'Secret Screaming', but I'll be sure to go to Vue for it.

Ludicrous, in the best way. Good fun thriller, OTT, a little like Split in that respect. Third act is weaker, including the letdown acting of Shyamalan's daughter, Saleka, which threatens to derail the whole film when the time comes for her to act (rather than sing, as Lady Raven), but that's M Night Shyamalan all over and, besides, it sort of redeems itself at the end. Josh Hartnett is a treat to watch, as is the young actress, Ariel Donoghue, who plays his daughter, very natural. Hartnett as Cooper was unnatural, I would say, much like the PTA mother at the concert, and Jamie, the stadium staff member, and the odd-fit inclusion of Hayley Mills as FBI profiler, and just about everyone else, but that was what was so hilarious and entertaining about it - it's hammy, wildly dramatic and 'PG' levels of twisted. In some ways Trap feels a bit 'old Hollywood' or B-movie in its casting choices. It was like Psycho - Hitchcock, sure - but it was more like Psycho II or Psycho III, and a spurt of the opening scene to Scream 2. It plays out like a weird video game, where multiple choices affect the outcome, similar to Quantic Dream's Fahrenheit (Indigo Prophecy) or Heavy Rain. Don't take it seriously, have no specific expectations, own a get-in-free card and it's a joy to ride this coaster. I will come back to it again and again.

Originally posted on Sunday 14th July. I wanted to take a moment to process what I'd seen after my first viewing of Longlegs on opening night. I came away saying it was good but that it had the potential to have been great or a classic. I found it weird, in a good, creative way. The next day I'd arrived at how to articulate some of what I felt about the film. Some of my observations are as follows: Longlegs is a marmite movie. Polarising is the word. I read some reviews that, as much as I enjoyed the film, had me agreeing with them - about some of the acting, some of the plot - which gave rise to some minor dissatisfaction, confirming it to have been, as I thought, a bit weak, surface, tenuous in places. Some people have criticised the acting of Maika Monroe, for example. I can see why, why they might take that view, but what I think they failed to appreciate was that her character, FBI agent Lee Harker, seems to be on the spectrum, neurodivergent, and this is shown in a number of ways, not least in social situations, sometimes to comedic effect (the audience on the first night seemed to clock this, laughing at the right moments), but it's also why she is suited to the FBI, assigned to a 'cold case', seeing the patterns ("algorithms" as she puts it) and thinking the way she does. I've been a fan of Maika Monroe since It Follows (an equally polarising movie), but when I first saw promotional material for Longlegs I was of the opinion she looks too young to play a convincing FBI agent, this came across in the trailer. However, from the start of the film this was sufficiently addressed - she's a grasshopper, one of a number of new agents on the Bureau, in training, sent out into the field, being assessed, tagging along with senior agents, and so I quickly concluded, well, of course, there are going to be agents starting young, as with any profession. This was totally feasible. Anyway, skip to my second viewing the following night and I loved it. It's not a classic, but it is a great film. Harker may or may not be on the spectrum, but she is an unwitting victim of abuse, in some sense, and mind control. I found the film more tense, gripping, better paced, and I picked up on a bunch of things I'd missed or overlooked on first viewing, many of which helped to fill in gaps, seeming holes in the plot or weaknesses in the script. This experience got me thinking about the screens themselves, the size, the layout and geography of the room. Screen 2 was a sizable but perhaps more intimate affair which seems to have encouraged some laughter, noises, grunts, groans, and farts, real or imitated. This was in stark contrast to the next night in the very large Screen 1 where you could have heard a pin drop, the film was gripping, the audience immersed. That or the film was just so loud that it drowned out the popcorn rummaging and any mumblings and whisperings behind me. Regardless, it was a more immersive experience and the silence of the cinema, in rare moments of quiet, was deafening. T. Rex terror. From the opening quote of 'Get It On' lyrics to the opening notes of 'Jewel' and further diegetic use of the music throughout, it confronts you with something different, unexpected. Like all good horror movies, Longlegs plays on different fears in the collective psyche, albeit subtly more than overtly. It could also be said to create new fears. [Character limit reached. Continued on IMDb.]

To preface this, I have enjoyed, in the past, Yorgos Lanthimos' The Lobster, not sure if I've seen The Killing of a Sacred Deer even though I want to say I have, and Poor Things which I saw in an early release. This should be retitled as Kinds of Torture. Slow, painful, cruel, sadistic trash, nothing redemptive about the story arcs. Absurdist, yes. Humour, no. Not one laugh from the audience - thankfully. One or two snorts from the guy next to me. Some individuals and couples walked out and the rest of us suffered through it. There were a number of occasions where I considered walking out and, in hindsight, probably wish that I had. As others here, I hoped the film would improve or redeem itself through its three vignettes. I was very glad to have purchased an unlimited pass beforehand (for a bunch of big releases in the coming few months) meaning that I didn't shell out for this or I would have been left sorely disappointed, feeling cheated, and facing a lengthy walk home. It was trying, emotionally draining, and, ultimately, if something leaves you feeling that way, deleterious. Not good for the mind or soul.