Once Upon a Time at the Fest (Part 1)- My Thoughts on First Love

So this is the first of a two-part saga chronicling my time at the London Film Festival, my first ever festival. Tonight's screening was Takashi Miike's 105th film, First Love. The screening actually started with an introduction from Miike, who stressed that, crazy as the film is, it is a love story, and he's absolutely right. As romances go, this is undoubtedly a crazy one, with yakuza, Chinese gangsters, ultraviolent fight scenes and a moment involving a toy dog that's utterly unforgettable, but it always keeps this genuinely believable love story at its centre. It's also a movie that doesn't get a release until 2020, but I'm reviewing it now because, y'know, film festivals. I'm literally just out of this film, so apologies if this review is a little unstructured, because I'm still just trying to process exactly what it was I saw. This is a film that turns your brain into soup, and spends the next hour and a half aggressively slurping it until there's nothing left. This film is wild, but it's also kind of amazing, and I can't wait to dive into it. Also, there are no spoilers in this post. Regular readers will know that I never spoil films in reviews anyway, but since we are talking about something that isn't actually out until next year, I'd absolutely understand if you didn't want to know anything. By and large, you're good to go, but just keep the release date in mind. We good? Good!

First Love follows a young boxer whose life intersects with that of a young woman with connections to the yakuza. Their relationship triggers a crazy series of events that come to involve the police, the Chinese triads, and a whole raft of assassins. I'm not going to go into specifics, but this plot is freaking mental. It's always on the move, twisting and developing and always going to the very last place you'd expect it to. There's a lot going on here, and even if the film occasionally loses track of all these different characters and ideas, it's pace and energy are enough to steer it back in the right direction. Confusing? Sometimes, but it's never boring, and it moves fast enough to get back into the action almost right away. The story melds mind bending action with surprisingly genuine emotion, and Miike's devotion to both of these aspects is what gives it such a unique punch.

This is my first Miike film, so I can't say how it compares to the rest of his filmography, but as an introduction, it definitely got me in the mood to check out more of his stuff. This is one of the most purely enjoyable cinema experiences I've had in ages. It's the perfect blend of comedy, action, romance and balls-to-the-wall craziness. Sometimes it's even weirdly profound in its musings on life, death and loneliness. I have a soft spot for movies that take place over the course of one night, and the way that this film is able to fit such wildly different tones and elements into its plot, while also making them feel completely organic is really special. This feels like that one wild night, one that starts off relatively normal but explodes into something really unique and special. The imagery is surreal and wild, yet weirdly meaningful. True, it's absolutely batshit, but Miike is telling a genuinely sweet story where everything happens for a reason. The crazy stuff is certainly crazy, but every batshit visual is grounded by something with real weight. When it slows down for the conclusion, it wraps up every idea it has presented, and that's when I realised that I really did care about what was going on. I think the crazier you make something, the more you have to build investment in something, and, although there's a lot going on here, you care enough about these two leads for the story beats to properly register. Under the crazy flourishes is something really substantial, and that's what makes it work

Obviously there's a lot more that I could and want to say about this movie, but I'll leave it at this: it was the perfect first festival movie. First Love is buckets of fun, with the exact kind of surreal humour and crazy plot that I never knew I needed. It's honest and genuine as well as being absolutely batshit insane, and also has some of the best side characters of the year (one gangster in particular is especially hilarious). So yeah, I kind of absolutely love this movie. The exhilaration of the whole thing gave me such a buzz, and the fact that I saw it with a huge crowd just added to the atmosphere. Everyone I saw it with was so into it, and as a viewing experience, it was pretty spectacular. Still trying to wrap my head around the fact that I've seen a movie that's coming out next decade, but if this is the standard for 2020, then we're in for an absolute belter of a year. This is pure cult fun, and I'm glad it kicked of my LFF experience. 

I'm Going to a Film Festival!

Hey, so this is just a quick update about what's going on. First of all, I'm currently working on my reviews of Ready or Not, Ad Astra and Joker, and they should all be up in the next few days. But the main thing I want to say is that I'm going to the London Film Festival this weekend, which I'm incredibly excited about. I've wanted to go to a festival for ages, and this looks like it's going to be awesome. I'm going to be seeing First Love and A Hidden Life at the LIFF, and I'll post reviews of both of them when I do. First Love looks absolutely wild and I can't wait for the carnage, especially because I've never actually seen a Takashi Miike film. A Hidden Life looks like a return to form for Terence Malick, who I'm a pretty big fan of when he's good, and from the sound of things, he's definitely back on form here. So yeah, that's what's gonna be happening on this blog over the next few days, so get excited for that! As for me, I'm gearing up for my first fest experience!

My Thoughts on Joker

Oh boy. Joker's been a hot topic in the film community (and in general) for a while now. All through it's production, people have been talking about it, and in the last few weeks in particular, people have been going crazy. It wins the Golden Lion, it gets rave reviews, there's countless articles about how it's going to start violence and destroy society, it finally comes out, people love it, people hate it, and it becomes literally impossible to ignore this film. I've been sceptically excited for a while now, because I love Joaquin Phoenix and Robert de Niro, and it looked like a really interesting take on the character, but it looked like it borrowed a little bit too much from Scorsese, it looked like it was skewing a bit too edgy without understanding how to do it, and Todd Philips in general is just.... not my tempo. That and all of the buzz around this film made me realise that I really didn't know how I was going to feel about it. Honestly, I knew it could go any way for me. I could love it, I could hate it, I could really like it, or it could just.... be fine. Any way it went though, there was one thing that was undeniable: this is the film that got 2019 talking. So how did I feel about Joker? Well....

I guess I should set the scene, even though you've probably seen it from the (pretty ace) trailer. Arthur Fleck is a clown in Gotham in the early 80s who's not having the best time. He's a struggling stand-up, his mental state is fragile, he cares for his ailing mother, and he suffers from a condition that causes uncontrollable laughter in difficult situations. It doesn't help that the city he's living in is kind of going to shit. Social unrest, class division and super rats are just a few of the things plaguing the Gotham of this film. One day, however, Arthur has an encounter which.... changes things, for him and Gotham. To say anything else would be a spoiler, so I'll leave it there. I think, in general, the "we live in a SOCIETY" plot is a tricky one to get right. It's a very specific type of social commentary that can be done very wrong, and I think it's all about time, place and execution. I'll talk about the (absolutely ridiculous) buzz around this film's violence later, but one thing that I think is true is that stories about dispossessed individuals rising up to fight against an unjust society have so much potential to go wrong. Look at Taxi Driver, one of my all-time favourite films, and a big influence on Joker. It works because of its context. It looks at the dehumanising effects of war on an already deeply disturbed man who comes back to a city that turns its back on him. It works because it places itself in the context of the Vietnam war, and because it never asks the audience to sympathize with Travis too much one way or the other. It never claims to have all of the answers, and never suggests that anything that's happening is necessarily right, just that it IS happening. It's also not overly edgy, not hollowly so anyway. I mention it because not only is it the absolute best incarnation of this kind of story, but it also nails the thing that Joker is going for

Before I discuss that though, I want to clarify something: by and large, I liked this film. Did I love it? No, because it does have some issues that I can't really get around, but overall, I thought it was good, something that I wanted to get out of the way now before I dive into some of this film's problems. So what's good here? Well, Joaquin Phoenix. His Arthur Fleck is unlike any other portrayal of this character. It's a bold rejection of the idea that this character doesn't have a defined origin, and as someone who actually likes when adaptations deviate a little, I think that was a good choice. Phoenix sells Arthur's slide from persecuted clown to totally corrupted.... clown, and the way that he nails the meekness and the descent is a solid reminder that he is one of the best actors of his generation. Is this his best performance? No, but that speaks to the strength of the rest of his filmography more than anything else. Everything that comes from him in this film is great, and I'll explain what I mean by that in a minute, but for now, I think that the Oscar buzz is definitely earned, because it is an amazing performance, the perfect mainstream vessel for Phoenix's intensity. As for de Niro, he brings a lot of weight to a key supporting role that knowingly flips the dynamic from The King of Comedy. He's the Langford to Phoenix's Pupkin, and seeing him on the other side is an absolute thrill, one that yields some very rich rewards in the home stretch. Frances Conroy actually brings a fair amount to Arthur's mother as well, even if she is more of a plot device than anything. In Conroy's hands, she at least feels human, and is a relatively likeable character in this sea of amorality. And Zazie Beetz is... completely wasted as a character who kind of feels like an afterthought, but hey, Zazie Beetz! The cruel, uncaring atmosphere is certainly an effective one, and Philips' gritty approach is definitely a good decision. The world of Joker is quite unlike any other take on Gotham, mirroring the likes of Watchmen and Sin City for comic book grime. These are the things that Joker does well, crafting this really unpleasant world and filling it with wonderful turns from capable actors. The problems come in the content....

Look, I'm not going to blame this film for spreading violence, because that was an entirely media-constructed piece of fear mongering. Joker will not turn you violent, just like Fight Club, Taxi Driver and Falling Down didn't turn you violent. The idea that it would is absolutely ridiculous, as it always is. But even then, the observations that Joker makes about society are just that: observations. Todd Philips is so intent on showing you society, on displaying how awful and uncaring the world is. He's so determined to say something that he ends up saying very little. Every social comment that Joker makes is so base level, just showing what's happening and never exploring its implications, instead just saying "society, amiright?". And most of the time, no, you're not. I said it a moment ago, but these stories of the people society leaves behind rising up and enacting their version of justice have so much potential to go wrong, and although Joker doesn't make a complete mess of it, it's not as insightful as it likes to think it is. No spoilers, but I think it's biggest mistake is making Arthur's story overlap with the social upheaval in Gotham, leading to an ending that's definitely saying....something? What he's doing is wrong, but what they're doing is right, and that climaxes in a way that's not quite clear. Is it a descent or a revolution? Villainy or justice? Honestly, I don't quite know, and I'm not sure the film does either. I don't know if this is the right character to do this kind of social commentary with, because he doesn't quite work as the face of the social revolution in Gotham. I'm not saying this as some enraged fanboy who's hurt because they're going against the comics, because, in an adaptation, I care more about the actual film that comes out of those changes rather than the changes themselves, and on that level, I'm not sure it works. The relatively random context means that Arthur's status as the face of this movement never feels earned. I said that everything that comes from Phoenix is great, because he's the thing that fuels everything good about this take on the character. The script is serviceable, if a little on the nose, but the story beats and commentary don't really lend this character anything particularly good or interesting, instead relying on Phoenix's incredible turn to ensure our investment in him, which, thankfully, he does with aplomb.

I don't want this to turn into a petty comparison between a comic book film and Scorsese, especially not with the current discourse, but when I think of everything that Taxi Driver did well, it's all stuff that's largely absent from Joker. From the start, it asks us to sympathise with Arthur, which is fine. That's not an issue, and it's not something that I have any real problems with. The problem comes when we have to accept that what he's doing is right, or at the very least not wrong. What Gotham's upper classes are doing is wrong, so everything done in defiance of their prejudice must be right? Philips seems to be claiming to have answers, to know the root of these issues and their subsequent solutions, but instead of the rallying cry for the disillusioned citizens that it's clearly trying to be, it instead becomes a confused primal scream that's desperately seeking some sort of catharsis. And it definitely achieves it, but at the cost of the poignancy and sharpness that these stories possess at their best. The "we live in a society" stories have a clear moral compass. Travis Bickle commits acts of social violence. Tyler Durden was a terrorist. We know what they're doing is wrong, even when they think that they're right, and, as an audience, we're never asked to think any other way. I'm not worried about moral corruption or anything, but I do think that understanding that what these characters are doing isn't right is necessary. It's not just, but it is happening. Joker doesn't do that, and always justifies what's happening onscreen, which is where it stumbles big time. It's not going to cause any violence but it does fail as a criticism of society because that criticism is hollow. It asks us to identify with this movement, and at the apex, makes a really passionately argued point that.... something is.... happening to the people because.....society is doing.... something, and the upper classes are bad because.... society. It's all the right pieces in all the wrong places; the right method but lacking any meaningful observation. If you were to ask this film questions, it'd answer all of them with "WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY!". And I swore that I wouldn't rant....

 So, Joker is.… well it's definitely a film. The discourse on this one has been deafening, and I've been really struggling with writing this review because I don't feel particularly strongly about it one way or another. It's proving to be so divisive, prompting these really strong reactions from people. I definitely didn't love it, in case you couldn't tell from those last two paragraphs. I won't go in depth about the society stuff again, but I do think that it's the film's greatest shortcoming, which is a shame, because it's right at the forefront. So no, I'm not in the camp of thesaurus wielders that hold this film up as a masterpiece and one of the best of 2019. That said, I definitely didn't hate it either. Phoenix absolutely owns here, and again reminds me why I love him so much. And for a mainstream blockbuster, it definitely feels atypical in its approach and style. As for the Scorsese-borrowing, if you're going to take inspiration from anyone, there are definitely worse choices than the king. Is it disappointing that my reaction to this deliberately provocative film isn't especially either way? Maybe, but I still liked it. I'm still in the camp of people who say it's a good movie, even if I wouldn't call it anything better than that. As I said, whatever happens, this is the film of 2019, the one that broke through and got everyone talking, and as a cultural event, it's definitely made an impression. That impression wasn't an especially strong one on me, but hey, who am I but another critic on the internet? If you love Joker, awesome! It's always awesome to find something you think is great. If you hate Joker, well that's cool too! It's definitely got some irredeemable issues, and it's 100% understandable if you thought it was awful. Me? Well, I think it's fine, nothing more, nothing less..... and that's kind of all I have to say about that

My Thoughts on Husters

Every so often you get something wrong. When the trailer for Hustlers came out in the Summer, I scoffed. A J-Lo led film about thieving strippers with supporting performances from Cardi B and Betty from Riverdale? Sounds pretty naff. Turns out, I was very, very wrong. Hustlers is many things, but naff certainly isn't one of them, and the fact that it's so good is a fairly effective reminder not to judge things too quickly. So yeah, this is a good movie, based on an article about a group of strippers that, following the financial crash of 2008, took to scamming their wealthy clientele. I wasn't familiar with this story before I saw this film, so going into it, I didn't really know what to expect. Combine that with my lack of enthusiasm, and you've got a reminder that I am a very silly goose. Scoundrel of the Screen? More like Silly Person of.... of the Sc-screen *coughs*. It's clear that we're in good hands from the start, when the film opens with this incredible long shot that goes right through the club, introducing us to Constance Wu's Destiny. I never really got the chance to say it when it came out, but I absolutely loved Crazy Rich Asians, and I'm so happy to see Wu doing so well, because she's a really special screen presence, and this movie really gives her the chance to wow. A movie like this kind of lives and dies with its lead, and there's something about Destiny that makes you want to follow this absolutely bonkers-but-true story. She gives it this weight and humanity that transforms what could have been superficial and shallow into something so incredibly good

It's not just Constance Wu who's awesome here, though. I mean sure, Destiny is undeniably the lead character, and she gives a performance that's absolutely brimming with heart and humour, but there's another performance in this movie that just makes it special. Take a bow, Jennifer Lopez. I mean look, it's not that J-Lo is bad or anything, far from it, but I don't think it's unfair to say that her track record has been.... pretty spotty. But it's clear from the second she enters the frame that she owns Hustlers. Destiny's the lead, but Ramona's the focus, a character who, even when she isn't onscreen, is at the centre of everything that's happening. This is the best I think I've ever seen J-Lo. She's such a commanding presence, so full of love and compassion while also being cunning, tough, and when she has to be, absolutely ruthless. You believe that she's at the centre of this unlikely criminal empire, and the fact that she takes this character who could have been one-dimensional and kind of boring and turns her into a real-feeling, occasionally unlikeable, yet utterly compelling kingpin (queenpin?) who just absolutely dominates the whole film. Get this woman an Oscar!

The rest of the cast are fine? They're not bad or anything, but they're also not the focus, so it kind of doesn't matter. They work well enough, but the film really does revolve around Constance Wu and J-Lo. Everyone else is just kind of there, good enough to keep everything running smoothly, and never bad enough to be especially noticeable, with one distinct exception. Cardi B is absolutely awful in this. I don't listen to her music, but at least I kind of get the appeal. But she cannot act. At. All. Oh my god she's atrocious. Look, it's a minor issue, because her total screentime is probably less than 5 minutes, but any time she is on screen, she's just so annoying, and yeah, kind of distracting. Again, in the grand scheme of things, this doesn't really matter, because she's a peripheral character, and she kind of stops being in it around the 30 minute mark, but can we agree that casting someone who really, really can't act just wasn't a good idea?

Back to the good stuff, though, this film is so good at balancing a fun, snappy narrative with some weighty social commentary that feels so relevant to the times we're living in (I guess it was only 6 years ago). We'll start with the fun stuff, and by god is this movie a good time. When it gets going, it's gleefully sharp. It reminds me of something like Boogie Nights in the way that it feels like a rollercoaster ride, full of twists and turns, tonal shifts and narrative bends that are just so much fun. The movie balances it's tense thrills with giddy, sharply scripted laughs, and the result is a seriously good time. It has this knack of going from being surprisingly suspenseful to absolutely hilarious, while all the while being an absolute celebration of stealing from the people who deserve to be stolen from. It pulls no punches in its thrills or in its laughs, and this approach is definitely a smart one, giving Hustlers an unmistakable panache. This is a really stylish movie, and that can be seen in the soundtrack. The music would probably play in a strip club. The use of Lorde's Royals to score an "Everything's Going To Shit ™" montage is a particularly good move, and Hustlers is full of these kinds of flourishes

The sheer fun in this movie also enhances the surprisingly solid commentary that it delivers in its home stretch. The idea that "the world is a strip club" is one that's at the heart of Hustlers. In this movie, everyone is taking something from someone else, and that survival driven narrative gives this film a serious edge. True, they're drugging people and robbing them blind, but only because they need the money. The film never asks us to root for these women, but it does make sure that we understand why they're doing this. They're just people trying to get by, trying to stay afloat and make sure that their families are being looked after. That doesn't justify what they do, but that very blunt approach to a very blunt idea gives this commentary so much more power. Yeah, the movie is a lot of fun, but it's not afraid to sting when it needs to, because there's so much pain at the heart of this story. This is a film where people hurt the people who hurt them, and the cycle of pain is what makes Hustlers work as well as it does. The marriage of stylish fun and visceral ideas could have been disastrous, but thankfully, one never distracts from the other, and that fusion is definitely one of Hustlers' greatest strengths.

Really quick, ultra-specific anecdote though. When J-Lo talks about "hurt people hurting hurt people", all I could think of was Dave McSavage's impression of Joe Duffy, something that probably makes zero sense outside of Ireland. Basically, it's a pisstake of a real-life radio host who urges people to come onto his show and complain, and was done on a sketch show called The Savage Eye, one of the best pieces of satire about Irish life ever written. Needless to say, any chance I had of taking that line seriously was kind of demolished by that, because all I could think is how "the hurt do be hurting the hurted". Do check out The Savage Eye though, because it's kind of genius

Back to Hustlers though, because this film is an unexpected delight. True, not all of it works (the ending is too neat, and that Usher scene was.... a choice), but it could hardly be accused of playing it safe. This is fierce, ballsy cinema, quick enough and vicious enough to overcome any stumbles. So yeah, I was kind of an idiot for judging it before I saw it, because damn does it deliver. Hustlers is awesome, plain and simple.

Extra Ordinary: The Supernatural Savoiur of Irish Cinema

So Extra Ordinary is out. I've been excited for this movie for ages, and actually watching it, I really liked it. I liked it so much that I won't actually review it. Or at least not the way I usually do, with the "My Thoughts On" kind of thing with the pros and the cons and the recommendation. See, while I really enjoyed this movie, I actually want to talk about why it's important to Irish film, and why, if you can, you need to support it. I can't see this film getting a big release outside of Ireland, so if you can watch it and more importantly support it, please do. See, the Irish film landscape is.... bad. We don't make too any movies a year, and the ones we do make are generally lacking in variety. Your choices for watching a recent Irish movie are essentially this: a mediocre period piece (The Siege of Jadotville, Black '47) or an awful screen adaptation of a comedy series (Mrs Browne's Boys D'Movie, The Damo and Ivor Movie). Obviously, there's exceptions, like the fantastic Brooklyn or John Carney's incredible Sing Street, but by and large, the standard of movies coming out of this country in the last few years have been fairly substandard. There's a few places that this lack of variety could have come from, but my point is that the Irish film industry is incredibly boring

Extra Ordinary feels like a real antidote to this problem; a comedy horror set in the present day about a lonely driving instructor helping a widower save his teenage daughter from a satanic pact made by a washed-up rock star. It's a bizarre premise, but its weirdness is what makes it so important. Again this isn't a review, so I won't go too into why it is this film works, just that it's sharply written, incredibly charming, and so devoted to the batshit craziness of its plot, ballooning into a bonkers finale. It's one of the best comedy horrors in ages, and while it doesn't feel like a gamechanger in itself, it definitely feels like something that's missing in the Irish film landscape. It's mainstream genre cinema, so far from any other high profile Irish film, and it's fusion of brazen genre craziness and a proud national identity give it such a unique personality that we need to see more of. The big problem I have with modern Irish cinema is that it's too safe. It relies on the things we know, and takes too few risks. We've settled into a cycle of not trying anything new, instead making middle of the road films that deal with familiar subject matter in the most basic way possible. Peter Foot's The Young Offenders was definitely a step in the right direction, but Extra Ordinary is exciting because it takes it that step further. Nothing about this feels safe, and it's a brilliant film because it embraces it's genre roots and unique Irishness. These things that make it brilliant also make it important, and that's why you need to support this movie, because we need to see more like it, films that show that this is a land of diverse stories that span a wide range of genres. Extra Ordinary shows what Irish cinema can be, and it's an exciting image to be sure

My Thoughts on It: Chapter 2

I have a lot of history with the screen adaptations of It. The 1990 miniseries was the scariest thing I'd ever seen as a kid, and I was in total and utter fear of Pennywise. Of course, when I went back and revisited it, I realised that that version is hilariously awful, and not at all scary (all of the voices that Tim Curry could have used for Pennywise... and that's the one he went with?). By the time the 2017 update of It was announced, I was older, (penny)wiser and a serious horror head, so the thought of an It that could be genuinely scary was a very exciting one indeed, especially when we got those fantastic trailers. And the 2017 It was.... good? Bill Skarsgard's take on Pennywise was certainly fantastic, as were the performances from the kid actors. Everything else wasn't bad, but was far from great. The scares were weak, the plot was fairly standard and the performances, save for the ones I just mentioned, weren't great. So yeah, as a movie, I thought that it was pretty unremarkable. But hey, it's a story of two parts, right? Maybe its just coming into it's own? Maybe it's going to take it's time and tell the story the way it was supposed to be to-

Wait, it's HOW long?

More on the (almost) three hour runtime later, but It: Chapter Two was a film that had an awful lot to do. I mean the first film was just an introduction, a largely fun romp that got the audience acquainted to the world of the story without having to say or do much else. I mean, the first one could get away with just being largely self-contained, apart from the ending, which does a good job of setting up a sequel. This film had to conclude the (now much larger) story, address the origins of Pennywise and be a good movie in its own right. That was always going to be hard to do, especially when this film lacks the element of surprise that made the first one so effective. It 2017 came pretty much out of nowhere and was an effective reimagining because it rewrote everything we knew about this story onscreen. So yeah, there was more pressure on this one, because it now had to provide a satisfying ending to the highest grossing horror movie of all time. Does it do that? Let's find out!

The story this time around is that, 27 years after the first film, Pennywise is up to his old tricks again. This calls for the Loser Club to team up once more and put a stop to him once and for all. This is the kind of film that starts with its casting. So much hinges on whether or not you believe that these people were the kids in the first film, and for the most part, you do. Bill Hader and James Ransone are the two highlights here, not just feeling like organically aged up versions of Finn Wolfhard and Jack Dylan Grazer, but also effortlessly recreating their chemistry, something that comes back in a BIG way in the climax. The others are also pretty good, with Jessica Chastain, Jay Ryan, Isaiah Mustafa and Andy Bean all bringing the adult versions of their characters to life, even if none of them are quite as believable as Ransone and Hader. As for James McAvoy, he's kind of the weakest link. He definitely commits to the more intense scenes (the hall of mirrors in particular), but outside of those, he's weirdly absent. It's odd, as central as Bill is to this story, it never feels like McAvoy is giving 100%, and for the most of the movie, he's just.... there. It's a real shame too, because it feels like his scenes lose so much as a result. A particular example of this is in a bizarre scene in an antiques shop that features a cameo that, although I won't spoil it, is far and away the worst scene in the movie.

 Actually, quick tangent: what were they going for in that scene? It's already fairly obvious what role Bill plays in the story, especially if you're familiar with the book, but the way this scene references it is so weird and out of place. It's an awkward moment that only really exists to nod at the audience, and is the oddest possible payoff for the role that he plays in the story. They kind of make the point from the moment you realise he's a writer, so they kind of didn't need to bring it back, especially not in a way that's this.... odd. Okay, tangent over

So yeah, the cast is pretty solid overall, but my god does the plot have some issues.
it's weird, because the individual setpieces themselves are actually great. When the film gets into the swing of things, it's huge amounts of fun. Watching the Losers confront Pennywise one by one is a delight, and the episodic nature of the film's midsection allows It 2 (Itwo? Let's just call it Itwo) to cut loose a little, unleashing wild delights the likes of which you don't often see in a film like this. The scenes that check in on Pennywise and see what he's up to (turns out he's terrorizing the townfolk, who'd have guessed?) are fun as well, playing up the off-kilter creepiness of Skarsgaard's make-up clad madman. So yeah, that part is definitely engaging, but did it have to take so long to get going? The three hour runtime is a huge problem (literally). I'm sorry, but it didn't need to be this long, and if it wasn't for the incredibly entertaining chunk in the middle, this'd be an absolute deal-breaker. The beginning isn't bad or anything, it takes a fair bit of time to heat up but it's not distractingly long. No, no, my problem is in the climax. Much like John Wick 3, Itwo suffers from a visually quite cool but deathly overlong climax. I get what they were going for, but it just drags on, resulting in an action setpiece which isn't scary, or even especially interesting. It has it's moments (one in particular is devastating), but overall, I really, really, REALLY didn't care after a while. The ending is an awkward one, something only emphasised by the length of the third act. No, this movie is at it's best when it's providing horror vignettes that prey on the Losers' darkest fears. Hell, even Pennywise's musical number is freaking awesome. The film isn't able to keep that going though, and runs out of steam in it's home stretch, which sees Pennywise unleash his full powers, to mildly impressive effect. It's not an especially exciting climax, and to be honest, it's kind of a let down, taking everything that made Pennywise so scary and wasting it. Just like the first one, Itwo is at its best when it's small-scale, nearly episodic, focusing on the real fear in the story., and kind of fall apart when they become big blockbuster horror movies. And yeah, yeah, I know that it's the story of the book, and that does get pretty large, but Andy Muschietti just nails the creepiness, and slips up a little when it comes to expanding on that.

  It's a shame because he really does create these amazing singular setpieces that just work. These are the scenes that make Itwo worth it, especially when it's clear that Skarsgaard is having an absolute ball. His Pennywise is again a vicious creation, especially this time around, both because he's feeding off the deep-seated adult fears of the grown-up Losers, and because he's pissed, fully intent on making these guys' lives a living hell. That he's able to portray such deep malice and rage while also being a blast to watch is the strange power of Skarsgaard's performance, and it's something that the sequel actually improves on from the first one. This incarnation of Pennywise has rightly become a staple of modern pop culture, almost like the face of this decade of horror films. Not that I think that either of these films are the best horror films of the decade, not even close, but I think that Skarsgaard's Pennywise has floated his way into the pantheon, giving this generation a painted face to add to the horror villain hall-of-fame. And this film definitely honours that. Regardless of how you feel about it, it can't be denied that this film effectively honours the impact that this story has had on modern popular cinema. Hell, I'm completely lukewarm on these movies, and even I find that totally admirable.

This is blockbuster horror, the kind that isn't looking to be properly disturbing or even make you think all that much, instead wanting to wow the audience with flashy setpieces and big moments. On that front, Itwo is a total success, because when it's entertaining, it's incredibly so. There are lots of large scale, memorable moments that have already become iconic, and that's kind of what this movie was going for. It's not scale without substance, because there is a genuine enthusiasm for the story and a devotion from everyone involved to honour it, but the bigger it gets, the more it loses what makes it really work. True, those big, CGI-y moments absolutely wow on a big screen with a large audience, but the movie really works when it skews smaller. My ultimate verdict is that it's fine: pure pop-culture flashiness that has moments of genuine quality but all too often goes for the showy setpiece. Funny thing is, it was never going to be any other way, so I can't really say I was massively disappointed. Itwo is exactly what you think it's going to be, and how much you enjoy it will depend on how much you've put into this story. Even given my history with the various incarnations, It has never been a story that's impressed me too much, so maybe that colours my judgement, but for the people who are into it, this is a good time. Personally though, I'll seek my Stephen King fix elsewhere, because the Doctor Sleep hypetrain is leaving the station very soon....

My Thoughts on Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark

So the spooky season is finally upon us once more. The leaves are falling off of the trees, an ominous breeze blows through the progressively cooler streets, and the cinemas are jam packed with horror movies. This is, it should go without saying, a cracking time to be a movie fan. After all, horror is a damn fun genre, regardless of the film's actual quality. The cool thing about this season is that if a film can evoke a spooky mood or atmosphere, then it kind of enhances the whole experience, and makes any flaws largely forgivable. Flawed horror films can be so damn fun, moreso than in any other genre. Yes my friends, it's Autumn again, the season of film festivals, awards contenders, and fun as hell horror movies, and Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark heralds us in nicely. This is an ideal pre-Halloween movie. It nails the late Autumn atmosphere, with enough scares to make it fine viewing for Halloween prep. This is undoubtedly the best thing about Scary Stories, which, overall, has too many issues for me to call it an actually good movie. At it's best, it's a damn fun time, an anthology horror based on a series of books that I haven't read, nor was very familiar with before I saw it. Going into this blind, I found myself pretty pleasantly surprised with it, so let's dive in. The year is 1968, and it's Halloween in the sleepy town of Mill Valley. A group of kids stumble upon a mysterious book written years ago by Sarah Bellows, a figure of much myth and legend in the town. Upon reading this book, the kids find themselves becoming part of the grotesque stories within the pages, being taken out one by one by the things they fear most.

So far, so Stranger Things, but Scary Stories actually utilises that kind of throwback horror in a really fun way. It establishes itself as a pure love letter to the Halloween season from the start, with the leadup to the horror immediately setting a really strong atmosphere. And if the opening introduces the film's greatest strength (the look and feel of late October), then it also sets up its greatest weakness just as quickly. The film's writing was never going to be it's strong suit, but the script here is seriously poor: hokey at best and a complete mess at it's worst. The characters are archetypes, thinly written caricatures that I'm not actually sure if we're supposed to care about. I mean I get that the first characters to die in a movie like this are never going to be particularly well developed, but there wasn't a single character in this that I really cared about, even towards the end. Nobody here is that interesting, or sympathetic, and it doesn't help that the dialogue is clunky and unnatural, and definitely not what real people would actually say. It can definitely be argued that that was the point, that it tries to capture the same endearingly schlocky mood that Creepshow did, and sometimes it almost does, but the actual storytelling lets the film down time and time again, and it's only marred by that dialogue. The characters here make some weird decisions, and the scares are telegraphed way too much, to the point where it kind of took me out of the experience. The hospital scene especially suffers from this, with one character repeatedly setting up the ensuing scares, and then making some nonsensically bad decisions that feel more questionable than legitimately scary.

Even so, the scares themselves are actually a riot. When the stories come to life, the film really begins to have fun with itself, and is genuinely quite fun. The scarecrow scene is an early highlight, with other standout shockers being the toe stew and the absolute joy that is the Jangly Man. This guy is a real treat, balancing genuine fear with a delirious silliness that makes every scene he's in an absolute blast that's also really freaking creepy. If the other stories never quite reach these heights, then they can't be faulted for trying. The red spot is decent body horror, and the scene in the hospital just about overcomes it's clunkiness with some creatively disturbing imagery. When it's scary, it's the fun kind of scary. Think Creepshow, and Poltergeist, and Gremlins. It's not hardcore horror by any means, but it was never trying to be. Instead, it relishes in it's PG-13 horror delights, with some (usually) well placed jumpscares that fit well into the strong, haunted house kind of vibe. It's definitely imagery over ideas, and I think it's a good gateway horror for people who want to get into the genre, and aren't quite ready for anything too hardcore. Its nothing too heavy, with most of the spooks being in good fun, and it's so earnest in it's horror that it's hard not to have a good time.

Less fun is the social commentary, which, not for lack of trying, doesn't always work. The film is set against the backdrop of the Vietnam War, which is always just.... kind of there. Even when it does start to tie into one character's plot, it still never justified in why it's there. No spoilers for the film's ending, but the way in which Vietnam is integrated is so incredibly basic, and never actually says anything interesting about the horror of war or it's effects, which is disappointing because of Guillermo del Toro's involvement. Considering commentary-laced horror is kind of his thing, it's a real shame that Scary Stories just kind of glosses over the social and political context of it's setting, with any attempt to address it being pretty ineffective and uninteresting. Unfortunately, this is a film where the fun factor definitely outweighs any juicy thematic content, which, given just how enjoyable this film's scares are, isn't that bad, but it still feels like it scratches the surface of something that's more interesting than what we ended up with.

Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is very much a popcorn horror. Yeah, it has its fair share of issues, but when it's fun, it's an absolute blast, with scares that revel in equal amounts of silliness and creepiness. Hell, it even makes its jumpscares work, timing them well and pairing them with a legitimately spooky atmosphere. Okay the writing is heavy handed, the commentary is misplaced and the characters are blander than plain rice, but if you can look past all of that, there's a good time to be had here. This is not a game changing horror, hell, it's not even that scary, but it's clearly made by people who acknowledge the fun side of the genre, and the fact that that aspect of the film is so well done makes it less of a shame when the rest of the film isn't quite on that level. Is it a good film? Maybe? There's definitely good stuff here, but the issues with the plot and the writing are kind of hard to look past, and looking at it objectively, it's definitely not the best thing ever. But it's harmless fun, a Creepshow-lite that is really only there for a cheeky scare. In many ways, it captures the spirit of the Halloween season, embracing the fact that this is a time for cheeky fun rather than hardcore horror. Look at it like that and it's a delightfully spooky romp that's destined to be viewed on countless October 31sts. If you're looking for anything deeper than that, you'd be better off looking elsewhere, because for all of the fun, there's little substance. Still, if you're in the mood for some spooky fun, it's well worth a look into Sarah Bellows' book