Megan Fox as Jennifer Amanda Seyfried as Needy Johny Simmons as Chip
Release Date
2009
Language(s)
English
Running Time
102 minutes
When this movie first came out over a decade ago, I thought it was going to be some schlocky exploitative film based on the advertising. Watching the movie proved to be a completely different experience and I remember feeling pretty satisfied with what I saw. As you can imagine I was shocked when I saw the low Rotten Tomatoes score. Thankfully, after a recent re-watch, I’m proud to say my love for the movie has only appreciated over the years and I’m confident that if it came out today, it’d probably end up doing great. At least I hope it would. If anything this is more proof that the Tomato Meter only matters if you let it matter.
Needy, a reticent nerd, realizes that her super popular BFF, Jennifer, has transformed into a man-eating succubus, and desperately tries to stop her carnivorous ways. The movie picks up on Needy in a mental institution, explaining the events of Jennifer’s possession and her subsequent rampage. This framing mechanism gives the story a sense of mystery and allows for some fun “breaking the 4th wall” moments. Needy is so bad ass and resolute in this “current” timeline and so reserved and shy in the story she narrates. You want to why and she tells you in an incredibly entertaining way. The way the framing mechanism bookends certain moments makes it clear the story is focused on Needy’s journey, not her destination. Once the movie “ends” you appreciate the way the whole story was structured a lot more.
Despite being a horror movie and containing some genuinely chilling moments to experience and think about, the movie stands in out in just how funny it is. Yes, there’s a few moments where the humor and horror clash, but I think for the most part the two elements accentuate one another. The movie has a good blend of parodies of cliched young adult humor and some genuinely dark humor with a distinct feminist blend. I found myself laughing at the more obvious jokes while appreciating the more subtle-not-so-subtle social commentary.
The idea of stopping a succubus isn’t new, but the movie mainly utilizes its supernatural aspect to navigate a litany of (especially at the time of the movie’s release) unexplored ideas as opposed to just playing it cool as a creature feature. Somehow the story explores toxicity in relationships, the way women are stripped of agency and forced to play disparate social roles, and the way tragedy is exploited. The small town setting is taken full advantage of to make these ideas even more pronounced.
Fox kills it as the lead. She feels like a caricature of what people actually thought/think about her and nails the air-headed, egotistical, narcissistic pretty girl archetype. After her transformation into bloodthirsty succubus, she manages to ramp her annoying qualities up a notch which lends to some genuinely funny moments. Seyfried is great as the nerdy shy friend who’s slowly forced into becoming more proactive as things get more and more out of control. The energy they give off is infectious and jumps off the screen.
At a surface level, the two have almost nothing in common with the former acting in service of the latter since their childhood. It’s a relatable relationship dynamic that I haven’t seen explored a lot, let alone in such depth and nuance. They may be “BFFs”, but as the film progresses the parameters of what that relationship really means and entails become clear, faults and all. The romantic tension between them is also teased and stretched in ways that not only feels well justified thematically but feels natural and for the most part non-exploitative. Their respective interactions juxtaposed with the almost nonchalant indifference Jennifer treats her victims with gives you a lot to think about and does a good job humanizing our monster in disguise. Yes, there’s a few sexually charged scenes, but the movie’s focus is on the relationship underneath the physical exchange, not the exchange itself.
While I love how Needy and Jennifer’s relationship is explored, certain supernatural elements of it feel unjustified/contrived. These moments feel like they exist just to create certain confrontations to push the story forward as opposed to naturally occurring plot events. Additionally, some side characters feel a bit too comical and one-note, so they stand out in contrast to the more well realized main characters. These problems never de
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Jennifer’s Body tells the story of a girl desperate to stop her former best friend turned succubus from terrorizing the men of their small town. Somehow this highly slept on blend of horror, comedy, and dark humor manages to be even more socially relevant today than back in 2009 when it was released. Don’t let the trailers fool you. There’s more than meets the eye in this unapologetically fun movie.
Rating
9.1/10
Grade
A
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Claude Rains as Dr. Griffin/The Invisible Man William Harrigan as Dr. Kemp Henry Travers as Dr. Cranley Gloria Stuart as Flora Cranley
Release Date
1933
Language(s)
English
Running Time
71 minutes
I decided to watch the original 1933 release of The Invisible Man to get ready for Leigh Whannell’s reboot of the same. As someone who’s read the original book by H.G. Wells I knew what to expect but was still pleasantly surprised at how well Whale managed to capture the spirit of the book and make it come to life on the big screen. The story follows Dr.Griffin, a scientist who finds himself invisible after an experiment goes wrong. Unbeknownst to him his invisibility concoction triggers madness and aggression, causing him to engage in some hilarious, but heinous moments of violence. As his condition progresses, his colleagues seek to contain him before he can do any more harm.
For the most part the story follows the beats of the book pretty well, so if you like the book you should like the movie. However, the motivation for Griffin’s experiments are changed in this adaptation to give the story a more compact theme and sense of relatability. I think the change works and makes the interactions between Griffin and his former acquaintances more interesting. It also gives the story more of a cautionary tale vibe. The pursuit of knowledge for any end must be counterbalanced by caution and restrain. Otherwise it can end up undoing what it was sought out to help deal with. It’s something all of us can end up learning from.
Despite being a movie from 1933, the movie never feels like its age . John Fulton, John Mescall, and Frank Williams make the titular invisible man really feel as he should. When Griffin takes off his clothes, only the areas without anything to cover them are see through. The transition from clothing to nothing is near seamless and I can only imagine how much fun this must have been to see in theaters back when it came out. Granted, the effects only feel as held together as they do because of Claude Rains’s performance. He manages to portray the madness of a man who can no longer be seen purely through the emotional range in his voice or from the very physical and intimidating presence he gives his movement. He may not be visible in the traditional sense, but it seems like he didn’t get the memo, because he absolutely owns the screen when he’s on the big screen.
The most surprising fact is Whale manages to do all of this in a mere 77 minutes. There’s mystery, comedy, romance, and horror and no element ever takes away from another. They all work in tandem to keep the story fresh and interesting from start to finish. There’s always a sense of progression and growth. Characters change in their decision making and it’s reflected in the way scenes play out. For example, early on when townspeople come after the Griffin, it’s almost comical. He mocks and messes with the disorganized group and it feels like child’s play. Later on when his pursuers realize what they’re dealing with, their approach becomes more defined and serious. Details like this make the whole piece feel organic.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
The Invisible Man is a classic for a reason. Whale’s managed to capture what makes H.G. Well’s novella so resonant, while making it more relatable to a mainstream audience. From the immaculate pacing to the genuinely surprising special effects, this story of a scientist maddened by invisibility should entertain anyone.
Rating
10/10
Grade
A+
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Ben Schwartz as Sonic Jim Carrey as Dr. Robotnik James Marsden as Tom
Release Date
2020
Language(s)
English
Running Time
99 minutes
Ever since elementary school, I’ve been grinding out Sonic games from Sonic Adventure to Sonic Mania. I can still remember waking up early every Saturday morning to catch Sonic X on 4Kids. Hell, I even read the Archie comic series whenever I could find an issue around. I think you get the point. The fast blue blur has one of my favorite fictional characters, so you can imagine my reaction when the initial trailers for this movie dropped. I know the games haven’t been amazing as of late, but the titular character’s render felt like a final nail in the coffin. That’s why I was elated when Fowler tweeted that Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) was getting a makeover to keep the fan favorite character more in line with expectations . When I saw the redesign, I immediately got excited for the movie again, and I’m happy to say if you’re a Sonic fan or looking for a cute family movie, this movie should satisfy you.
The movie follows Sonic, an anthropomorphic hedgehog with the ability to run at supersonic speeds, who finds himself transported to the planet Earth after violent forces threaten him on his home planet. He comes over at a young age and has to grow up lonely, without guidance, but eager to have fun. The movie wastes no time with boring dialogue or senseless exposition. It’s a straight dive to action. Soon after this initial set-up, Sonic finds himself in trouble and has to partner up with local police officer, Tom, as they try to escape the government and Dr.Robotnik.
This movie does that Deadpool-style (and more recently Harley Quinn) breaking the fourth wall narration, with Sonic recounting his experiences or talking about what’s going on, but I don’t think it comes off as gimmicky in this movie. He’s a kid forced to talk to himself to stifle off the alienation he feels, so talking out loud makes sense as a coping mechanism. It helps that Ben Schwartz nails the quirky, adventurous, comical traits that Sonic is known for, so listening to him talk is always fun. His interactions with Tom are a lot of fun, even if they feel a bit too cookie cutter. The dialogue between the two is what you’d expect from a cute team-up adventure movie, but is competently acted by all sides so you can let yourself just enjoy the spectacle unfold.
Sonic’s antagonistic counterpart, Dr.Robotnik, is brought to life by Jim Carrey, who brings his crazy patented action energy and makes the crazy scientist even more over-the-top. I was shocked at how much I liked the Doctor, because the trailers made him seem like a joke, and while he is to an extent, there’s a whole lot of dangerous scientist underneath. Robotnik’s comical but deadly, and outside of a few small moments, totally feels like a man who could destroy the world in pursuit of his twisted scientific desires.
Though the movie doesn’t do anything to blow your mind, you can tell there was a lot of love that went into the project. Action scenes feature a litany of small callback moments to the games (spin dashes and homing attacks anyone?) – fans will be happy and newcomers won’t be distracted by their inclusion. They’re integrated so as to feel natural and not as a “Hey do you see this reference – we are very clever with putting this here,” that’s so commonplace in adaptations/sequels/reboots. It’s clear to watch action progress, so if you’re someone that hates visual clutter or messy CGI explosion scenes, don’t worry about this one. For the most part, the movie runs a tight ship in making sure you know what’s going on. Furthermore, the theme of not running away from your problems feels even more poignant in a movie about a hedgehog who runs super fast, and I think Sonic’s subsequent journey into discovering himself is done well.
My only big issue with the movie is that ending came off a bit too comical and wish that it was treated with more purpose/seriousness. In an otherwise solid movie, it feels sloppy. That being said, I did think the overall sentiment of the ending was sweet, so I can’t fault the movie for wanting to please the families that would inevitably come to see it as opposed to doing something more grounded.
Report Card
TLDR
Sonic the Hedgehog should satisfy any fan of the massive video game franchise or anyone looking for a fun family movie. The story doesn’t break the mold or push any boundaries, but is competent and does what it needs to do. The movie has a very similar feeling to Detective Pikachu. It’s cute, has fun callbacks to the series, is easy to digest by any audience, and you can definitely tell a lot of care and effort went into portraying the subject matter.
Rating
7.5/10
Grade
C+
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Samantha Robinson as Elaine Parks Laura Waddell as Trish Jared Sanford as Gahan Gian Keys as Griff
Release Date
2016
Language(s)
English
Running Time
120 minutes
In honor of Valentine’s day, I present my review of The Love Witch, a nuanced feminist story about love, gender, agency, desire, and their infinite intersections. The movie follows Elaine, a witch who moves to California in the hopes of finding someone to love. Once there, she uses magic and rituals to aid in her goal, but is met with comedic and tragic consequences.
I’m someone who loves feminism in media (when it’s done well) and Biller’s story masterfully navigates themes within the larger genre. At first it can feel like there are too many heavy-handed comments and not-so-subtle hints about what characters are thinking. However, by the end of the movie it’s obvious that a lot of what was said was done in an effort to control narrative sources of ambiguity and make discussion more interesting/accessible. If more people are on the same page about initial events and character motivations, then the subsequent discussion can go more in depth on the what actually matters- the themes.
The Love Witch analyzes the way desire and love are positioned by society and in relation to sex/gender. Elaine accepts her position as eye-candy and utilizes the adoration and affection she receives to try and find love, a reciprocal exchange in her mind. She gives men exactly what they think they want, in the hopes that it’ll get them to be what she needs them to, but is always met with some kind of issue. The men get too emotional and she can’t relate, or they’re touchy and she’s uncomfortable. Watching her navigate the matrix of power relations is interesting because of how she is forced to don her sexuality and make use of it simultaneously. She is shamed and praised and the movie presents her choice as a path, not the only option. The way she approaches love is juxtaposed with other views, culminating in a discussion that will leave you thinking about what love really is.
The movie never feels preachy because it excels in developing situations in multifaceted ways. There are women and men who do “good” and “bad” things. It’s all couched in your perspective of what proper behavior looks like. Thankfully, the movie does a good job in making you question those interpretations, and going through that journey ends up revealing a lot about your own biases. The real horror is discovering these aspects of ourselves/society and thinking about how deep they run in constructing the bounds of what is and isn’t permissible behavior.
I love how the movie integrates witches into the world, in an unique and wholly original package. Witchcraft exists as a kind of protected religion in this world. Witches go about everyday life wearing their witch garb, selling and buying witchcraft related products at stores, holding/attending witchcraft lessons/rituals, etc. It’s a realistic take that gives the movie its own personality while keeping the more supernatural elements grounded. The story’s take on magic,love magic in particular, allows for imaginative and hypnotic horror sequences and also serves to expand the layers of the themes. Costume and set design is pristine and ties everything together, radiating color and personality. Elaine’s house for example, is filled with beautiful art work and colors that leap out at you so there’s always something to look at when she’s working in there. This can be said for all the different environments the movie navigates, each bursting with personality and a bright eye-catching color palette. I found myself drawn into each scene, completely immersed by the beauty of what I was seeing.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
The Love Witch is a deep dive into the way we approach love and the methods by which society and gender determine the same. Despite feeling a bit heavy-handed with its dialogue, the movie isn’t preachy and manages to be visually stunning and thematically poignant. The story of a love-struck witch, desperate for a Prince Charming, willing to make use of her sexuality and prowess with spells to charm men is funny, visually intoxicating, scary, and innovative in how it flips the traditional final girl horror cliche. Highly recommend to fans of feminist media or anyone who wants a horror movie about love.
Rating
9.7/10
Grade
A+
Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report .
Shraddha Kapoor as the mysterious woman Rajkummar Rao as Vicky Aparshakti Kurana as Bittu Abishek Banerjee as Jaana Pankaj Tripathi as Rudra
Release Date
2018
Language(s)
Hindi
Running Time
128 minutes
This highly slept on horror comedy follows Vicky, a tailor with genius abilities who becomes smitten with an unknown woman who shows up during his town’s esoteric festival/ritual meant to ward off a man-snatching spirit aptly named Stree (which means woman in Hindi). As the supernatural situation gets more tense, suspicions run high, as everyone is desperate to find a way to stop the abductions. The movie expertly plays with audience expectations, subverting them in ways that are clever and well laid out by a directorial bread crumb trail. Watching the mystery unfold is a treat and the movie will keep you on edge up till the very end.
If you’re familiar with Indian politics,the country’s social setting, or grew up with family/close friends that filled your heads with stories about those things, the movie will stand out even more in how well it effectively utilizes both horror and comedy to critique gender roles, religious manipulation, and the discrepancy between the customs of different generations. By leading into these serious discussions with a comedic touch, the horrifying “lessons” ,so to say, both highlight the repercussions of actions that aren’t taken seriously today, while never coming off as too preachy. From urinating on the wall, to prostitution, to sex talks, the movie knows how to approach the broad variety of topics it wants to talk about with great care. Tonal balance is definitely here and the movie never loses focus on what it’s trying to do.
There’s more than one moment that reminded me of interactions I had in my youth, and I laughed at how genuine and real the dialogue sounded. This is obviously helped by the great performances from the leading cast members. Rao absolutely nails it as Vicky, a dopey, awkward, romantic with aspirations of moving out and ahead in life. He’s comical enough to laugh at, but not so comical to render the issues he goes through less serious. Kapoor captures the ambivalence of the mysterious woman to a T and constantly kept me guessing as to what really drove her. Every side character is interesting from Vicky’s father to the town’s resident bookkeeper. Even if you can’t keep track of all the names, they’re all written with a real humaneness so you care about them. I can still tell you exactly what each character was about, so that’s a credit to how fleshed out everyone comes off.
If you’re someone who likes Bollywood, you’ll be glad to know this movie manages to incorporate the flair and passion you normally get in an mainstream Indian movie, but ties it down into a wholly unique plot that demonstrates serious writing ingenuity. There’s even an item song that’s incorporated both as an injection of a fun vibrant energy and as a way to highlight the themes at play. Offering a unique story is hard enough but managing to do that while playing to convention is something else. Sound design is excellent and the music can be scary and exciting at the same time. By playing up the normal romcom ideas we expect to see and adding a supernatural twist to the background those affairs take place in, the movie manages to keep the audience constantly guessing what’s going to happen. There’s more than one moment that had me nervously laughing, both because of the comedic tension of the situation at play and the fear that something horrendous would happen.
Despite my glowing praise, there are some plot elements that stand out as being less developed than others. It makes sense given the breadth of what the movie is trying to do, but those little moments feel like they could’ve really cemented some of the themes. Thankfully, a sequel is due to come out , so I’m excited to see how this creative team will answer or develop these threads.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Stree is a one of a kind horror comedy that mixes traditional Bollywood elements with a one of a kind ghost story. If you’re familiar with India’s culture/social history, the movie really shines as a critique of some of the country’s most pressing issues. With the sequel coming out soon, there’s no better than than now to watch this masterpiece.
Rating
9.5/10
Grade
A+
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Bruce Campbell as Ash Williams Denise Bixler as Linda Sarah Berry as Annie Knowby
Release Date
1987
Language(s)
English
Running Time
84 minutes
If I’d have known how funny Evil Dead 2 was, I’m pretty sure I would’ve watched The Evil Dead a lot earlier. Somehow, Sam Raimi took everything good from the fist movie, removed the unnecessary clutter, slapped in some intriguing retcons, and amped the comedy up by a factor of bonker. The result is a one of a kind sequel that gives fans of the original everything they want and more , while feeling like its own story The scares are more interesting, the turns are completely out of left field, and the movie has a lot more fun with itself.
I knew the movie was going to be weird the moment the first scene started. The movie picks up on a “recap” of the events of the first movie, except this time everyone except Linda is missing. Missing as in Ash doesn’t even mention their existence.In his recounting, Ash explains that he went to the cabin for a romantic get-away with Linda (not the fun group bonding we were told in the first movie). Once there, a similar series of events lead to Dr.Knowby’s tape being played and the evil of the Necronomicon being summoned. Right off the bat, the movie forces the audience to come to its own conclusions. Did Ash experience so much trauma during the first movie, that his mind warped the perception of events to the most painful event he went through? Did burning the Necronomicon at the end of the first movie cause an alternative timeline where everyone else didn’t exist? It’s up to you to decide. After the”recap” concludes, Ash finds himself forced to once again deal with the hijinks of the cabin.
With each passing supernatural phenomena, Ash finds himself slipping, unable to differentiate between real events, his delusions, and the supernatural happenings. His experience and interaction with the world feels surreal. Ash is very clearly is experiencing some kind of trauma . Within the span of a day he’s lost his friends ( who may or may not exist), had to kill his girlfriend, been tossed around by supernatural happenings, experience a litany of physical injuries (many self inflicted through sheer clumsiness), and been incessantly mocked by deadlites. It’s enough to turn anyone bonkers, and Bruce Campbell proficiently demonstrates as much with his absurd and hilarious facial expressions. He constantly moves/messes with his eyes, eyebrows, and forehead making him feel unpredictable and energetic, like a switch has flipped in him that’s caused him to become a loose cannon. He really channels this raw chaotic neutral/good vibe that never slows down.
Ash’s (Bruce Campbell) crazy facial expression.
His descent into madness is equal parts terrifying and hilarious. This is a man who’s clearly lost control in his life. He didn’t sign up for any of this and awful things keep happening at breakneck speed forcing him to constantly fight for his life. Losing your mind on top of dealing with all of these issues sounds like hell, like an infinite void that will never let go. Thankfully, the whole experience comes off as a joke. As Ash loses his mind, he becomes more unhinged and cartoon like, going from a clumsy and sweet goof to bloodthirsty and confident. It’s not that the situations are any less serious. It’s just that the story lets you experience them without falling into some weird nihilism.
Everything you loved about the first movie look and feel wise is here and polished up. Fast paced camera chasing subject through the forest? Check. Chainsaw slashing through deadlite splattering blood everywhere? Check. Bruce Campbell’s eyebrows threatening to fight the enemy by themselves? Also check. The best part is all the effects have gotten even better and more polished. The practical effect work feels even smoother and works seamlessly. Possessions look more crisp and grounded as opposed to just nightmarish. My only issue is that ome of the stop-motion feels a bit choppy in the third act, but that’s a small complaint in the grand scheme of things.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Evil Dead 2 is honestly just one of those rare sequels that takes an winning formula and fine tunes it to near perfection. The comedic turn the franchise takes gives it a unique flavor and allows its horrifying elements to really shine. If you enjoyed the first movie and want to see more, check this out. It’s one of a kind.
Rating
10/10
Grade
A+
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Taika Waititi as Viago Jemaine Clement as Vladislav Jonathan Brugh as Deacon Ben Fransham as Petyr
Release Date
2014
Language(s)
English
Running Time
85 minutes
This mockumentary about vampires is less a horror movie and more a comedy making it the perfect kind of flick to show to friends who despise anything that’s too scary, while keeping with a horror aesthetic. The “documentary” follows a group of four vampires -Viago, Vladislav, Deacon, and Petyr – as they go through their day to day activities as creatures of the night who have adapted to modern human society.
Each member of the vampire flat is distinctive and funny in their own way. I love how much I can remember about each of their personalities, which is just an indication of how well they’re written out. Viago is responsible, romantic, and the opposite of assertive. His calm personality completely goes against the idea of what we think a vampire is which makes watching him deal with bloodthirsty matters all the funnier. Petyr is a Nosferatu like vampire who’s completely traditional but hangs out with the “youngsters” as an older respected member. Watching his modern interactions with them is cute and endearing. Deacon is rebellious and feels exactly like a teenager who’s spent a bit too much time watching prank videos on YouTube. Watching his take on human pranks with vampire twists keeps the gags fresh and unique. Finally, Vladislav (my favorite) is like a Bram Stoker kind of Dracula, but with a lot of humorous gimmicks that keep him feeling like a dark absurdity as opposed to something scary. As you would imagine, their personalities lend to a plethora of interesting conversations and watching them convene about affairs and deal with each other is simultaneously reminiscent of the way we talk to our own friends but absurd with how far the vampires take certain things.
Waititi and Clement really have a knack on pop culture understandings of vampires and take great liberty in accentuating those perceptions to make truly memorable comedic moments. Werewolves and other creatures of the night show up throughout the movie and are made to play their own respective comedic beats. The interactions between all of them feels like a love letter to creature features all around. I love how seamless the creature world has been integrated into the human world. For example, vampires have to follow rules about being invited in, so they have certain vampire run locations where a bouncer will greet them in , fulfilling the rule. Moments like these give the movie a genuine novelty. Every interaction between a monster and a human is bound to tickle someone’s funny bone and there’s more than one moment that had me laughing to tears.
At the heart of the movie is a story about judging people , in this case creatures, unfairly. Often times we approach situations with a certain prejudice which colors our interpretation of why they’ve done certain actions or who they “really” are. We can’t begin to understand one another unless we actively reach across the aisle and try and see eye to eye. The movie explores this idea multiple times, never coming as preachy or corny. It’s just an authentic feel good time about trying to see the best in each other.
I only have one big issue with the movie. To some of ya’ll it might come off as a bit nit-picky, but for me it made the grounded realistic feeling of the movie a lot harder to get into. The movie goes along with the idea that vampires can’t be captured in mirrors because they don’t have reflections. There’s even a gag about it confirming that its “cannon”. However, if that’s the case then the documentary crew wouldn’t be able to record the group at all. Given how clever the movie was about everything else, I thought they’d either make a joke about how the mirror thing was an absurd human myth or come up with some roundabout way of circumventing it (ex: mirrors traditionally used silver which was bad for the vampires as evidence by the movie, so the cameras don’t use silver mirrors…etc ). I can forgive it because it’s the only big issue with the documentary style, which otherwise looks spot-on and like a convincing documentation of supernatural phenomena as if it was occurring in real life, but it stands out given how immaculate every other aspect of the movie feels.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
What We Do in the Shadows is a humorous interpretation to the monsters that lurk in our nightmares. The way it humanizes vampires, werewolves, and other creatures of the night while retaining the characteristics that make them memorable to us is genuinely impressive. The characters are engaging and the humor really hits, so feel free to show this movie at events. It’s a real crowd pleaser.
Rating
9.0/10
Grade
A
Go to Page 2 to view this review’s progress report .
Alan Tudyk as Tucker Tyler Labine as Dale Katrina Bowden as Allison Jesse Moss as Chad
Release Date
2010
Language(s)
English
Running Time
89 minutes
You wouldn’t expect it from the title, but Tucker and Dale vs. Evil is a heartwarming, hilarious, bloody good time of a movie. It follows a group of college aged kids who go to a forest to camp out. They run into a pair of hillbillies, Tucker and Dale, who they immediately typecast as murderous degenerates. As the misunderstanding between the two groups rises, blood starts flowing, and utter chaos ensues.
The story is crisp and to the point. No joke ever feels like it overstays its welcome and the creativity in execution and sense of comedic timing is immaculate. There are dark comedic moments that’ll have you laughing and looking away from the screen, but there are also genuinely funny moments that you’d see in a more lighthearted comedy. Somehow, the movie manages to combine both of them seamlessly leading to a unique comedic feel. The movie is narratively sound as well. The ending has a lot of interesting twists that are both hilarious but give the movie more of a thematic bite. It’s immensely satisfying to watch everything play out. The movie knows exactly what it wants to be and how to get there.
Despite all the absurdity on the screen, the movie boils down a story about misunderstanding and projection. The way that it explores that via the characters and their actions and subsequent revelations is a constant reminder to not fall prey to faulty first impressions. This including perceptions of oneself. Often times, the person who stops us from achieving our potential , is our insecurities. The movie is just as much about the way we count ourselves out, as it is about how we turn others into caricatures based on certain attributes. It might not be the most nuanced message, but it’s conveyed with such a deft hand that you can’t help but appreciate it. Plus, it’s not like the message is bad or anything. The world could do with people judging others less.
None of this is to say the movie is perfect. Despite doing a great job with its leads and the leader of the college kid/main antagonist, Chad (aptly named dare I say) , the rest of the characters fall to the wayside. They exist for the sake of the plot and feel like joke extensions.I would have loved to see them developed with their own personalities to add to the layers of commentary and comedy at play. Furthermore, the setup for some of the kills also pushes the limits of believable. Yes, it’s a comedy movie and is supposed to be over the top, but there’s a threshold to how dumb a character can be.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Tucker & Dale vs. Evil is comedy about the pitfalls of misunderstanding and making improper assumptions. The movie is hilarious and proceeds at a brisk pace with twists and turns that should keep you entertained from start to finish. Some of the characters and their decisions feel a bit over the top, but you’ll hardly notice it as you’re laughing at the absurdity of it all.
Rating
9.1/10
Grade
A
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Daniel Kaluuya as Chris Allison Williams as Rose Armitage Bradley Whitford as Dean Armitage Catherine Keener as Missy Armitage Caleb Landry Jones as Jeremy Armitage Lil Rel Howery as Rod
Danny (Danny Lloyd) and Wendy (Shelley Duvall) walk in the hedge-made labyrinth. Andre (Lakeith Stanfield) walks in the suburban labyrinth . The movie opens on a suburban landscape in one-point perspective with greenery adorning both sides of a walkway in the center, hearkening back to the iconic hedge maze from Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining. Given both Wendy and Danny’s eventual fates, we immediately know that Andre is in danger of some external danger. This will soon be confirmed as he’s kidnapped.
We open in a suburban neighborhood sidewalk. The camera tracks forward slowly as a young black man, Andre, (Lakeith Stanfield) walks onto it talking on his cellphone about how the location is disorienting or as he puts it: “a creepy confusing ass suburb.” The mise-en-scène hearkens back to similar shots from Kubrick’s The Shining, namely that of the characters walking through a hedge maze. Like those characters, this labyrinth is not a safe location for inhabitants unfamiliar with it.
Andre realizes that a car is following him and tries to escape it but is caught unaware by an assailant donning a knight’s head of armor. As the latter chokes out the former, we can hear the lyrics to Gay and Butler’s song “Run Rabbit Run”; the happy sounding song warning rabbits to run is jarring in feeling but lyrically contextual, warning us of things to come. His body is unceremoniously dumped into the back of his pursuer’s car as the opening credits play in blue font color. This reference to The Shining, which also uses the same light blue color in its opening sequence text, is made even more explicit in the next cut to a tracking shot of a forest.
Peele doubles down on The Shining references by directly referencing the opening of movie through the use of a similar light blue opening credit font along with a shot of an ominous forest. It’s the aural differences (and similarities) that set the scenes apart as Kubrick’s
While Kubrick’s masterpiece starts on aerial shot of a mountain range and surrounding forest as foreboding droning noises with indigenous chants punctuate the soundscape, setting up the subtext regarding the genocide of the native populations. Peele keeps the view of the encroaching forest but trades the cries of the indigenous, whispery African voices puncture the soundscape and give a warning to be careful of impending danger. [1] Weaver, C., & Peele. (2017, February 3). Jordan Peele on a Real Horror Story: Being Black in America. GQ. https://www.gq.com/story/jordan-peele-get-out-interview. It’s no coincidence that the jovial track warning rabbits is swapped out for an moody and foreboding Swahili song, “Sikiliza Kwa Wahenga ” which similarly warns its recipient of impending danger.
Finally, the movie cuts to a striking black and white photograph, neatly framed against the wall; no longer in the forests, we’ve transported to the inside of a photographer’s apartment. The song changes again to Childish Gambino’s funky ethereal track “Redbone” which warns its audience to stay alert for creepers looking out to get them, the audience, while unaware. We get to see the interior of the apartment before finally getting to see our protagonist, a black photographer Chris (Daniel Kaluuya), getting ready for an outing with Rose (Allison Williams) , his white girlfriend.
We learn that he’s getting ready to meet Rose’s parents, Dean (Bradley Whitford) and Missy (Catherine Keener), for a weekend visit at the latter’s residence. He asks her if they know that he’s black. She says “no,” but assuages his concerns by ensuring him that her parents are super liberal going so far as to mention how her father would vote for “Obama a third time if he could.” It’s the perfect comedy set-up; well-to-do white liberals in their efforts to seem inclusive end up reinforcing racist tropes in comedic fashion. However, everything up till now has primed us to be more suspicious and be on alert. We know being in an unfamiliar neighborhood is dangerous news for black men and we’ve been warned now 3 times to stay vigilant.
The immediate effect of this opening sequence is a persistent vertigo effect that makes every interaction impossible to pin down as our interpretations of what’s happening is constantly being ripped out from under; innocuous moments turn uncomfortable turn horrifying as we along with Chris are forced into questioning every interaction. His reception starts innocent enough, but as his stay continues little moments build up into bizarre microaggressions which transform into horrific realizations culminating in what I can only describe as the horrific ideology of “post-racial”[2]By post-racial I am referring to the idea of a post-racial America where the United States is free from racism and discrimination related to the same. The idea came heavily back into fashion with the … Continue reading equality come to life.
Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) shows both fear and unease perfectly as he cocks his head and intensifies his gaze in regards to Georgina’s odd behaviours. Georgina (Betty Gabriel) goes “batshit” as she cries and smiles in a disconcerting fashion. Peele relishes in the ambiguities of his characters by shooting the actors portraying them in beautiful close-ups. By using their faces as canvases during intense moments, Peele gets to drive home ambiguities, heighten tensions, and get you fully invested in where everything is going. It helps that the movie is filled with masterclass performances from the lead in Kaluuya all the way to supporting cast like Gabriel.
This is obviously helped by the fantastic performances of the cast which Peele shows off by filming in close up, letting their faces envelop the entire frame. Moments that are already unnerving become blood chilling as we’re forced to confront faces that seem to give away everything and nothing simultaneously (in particular scenes with Betty Gabriel who plays Georgina) ; every muscular twitch, every pinching at the lip, every shift in the gaze becomes heightened forcing the audience to figure out what is trying to be revealed. While I can’t get into nuances of every actor for fear of spoilers, I can say that the multiple roles that a host of the characters play make it impossible to gauge certain moments for what they are until the end of the movie only for them then to then gain another layer of meaning on subsequent watches.
Chris (Daniel Kaluuya)talks about his evening with Missy with Rod . Rod (Lil Rel Howery) responds to Chris’s concerns and offers his comedic diagnosis.Peele intentionally structures the movie’s key revelations around conversations between Chris and his best friend Rod. These scenes give the movie and audience some breathing room while making the larger themes of the movie easier to digest. It helps the movie be coy in moving forward with more nuanced thematic ideas later on.
Obviously the topic of racism (and it’s relevant nuances) is hard to tackle in a way that keeps its target audience [3]One only has to look at the currently “critical race theory” debate breaking out right now – … Continue reading, people who have drank the “post-racial” Kool-Aid, in their seats while also seriously reckoning with the issue. Peele solves this at a structural level with the introduction of Chris’s best friend, Rod (Lil Rel Howery), who calls in at various points of the movie and offers comedic takes on the situation. It’s not that what he’s saying is incorrect or off base; Rod is actually correct in his own ways about most of what he says if you want to connect the dots. It’s that Howery’s delivery of certain “assessments” helps ease discussion of more serious topics in a more accessible and less severe manner. On top of giving the audience time to catch their breath and compose their thoughts, the technique allows certain thematic ideas to be cemented in a more innocuous way allowing their more developed forms to more easily take root; simple anti-black racism turns into a discussion on the harms of post-racial ideology which turns into a meditation on the importance of black art as a survival strategy.
This is why the horror movie of an interracial couple meeting white parents features the black boyfriend of the couple being a renowned photographer known for his unique “eye”. Peele has explicitly come out and said “Black creators have not been given a platform, and the African-American experience can only be dealt with by an African-American.” Therefore, it is imperative that Chris’s is a black artist He can “see” the best shots. However, this sight is not limited to just art but also to the way the levers of power operate around him. From his first comment to his girlfriend, we know he’s aware of racial dynamics; springing a black boyfriend to a white family that’s only known white boyfriends might go poorly. This is an example of what W.E.B. Dubois called “double consciousness”, where a minority party identifies themselves according to a trait which they know is being surveilled – black flesh- and have thus internalized judgements associated with the same. [4]Scott, J., Franklin, A. T., & Higgins, K. (2006). Chapter 3: Double Consciousness and Second Sight . In Critical affinities: Nietzsche and African American thought. essay, State University of New … Continue reading Chris knows what could happen because he can predict what a white set of parents might think of him because he’s been conditioned by similar treatment from an early age. This vantage point is traumatic but can be transformed into a spiritual “second sight” through an understanding that the debilitating judgements one is casting on oneself are a result of a problematic world; in the case of Chris, this sight has literally manifested in artistic vision. [5]Ibid.
Because the horror is related to the ideological nature of racism and Chris has the ability to detect the “lines” of that ideology, he naturally makes intelligent decisions that we can get behind. We get behind him because it feels like he knows what he’s doing. That’s why when things get flipped on their heads, we realize that we’ve been caught as well – unaware of the true depths of the horror we’ve been led into. The manifestation of this horror in relation to Chris (and his photography) then brings the themes of the movie to full circle, forcing us to reckon with the value of black art, not just as a vision but as a way of survival in society that seeks to erase black subjectivity.
For a genre whose most famous connection to black characters is in its notoriety in killing them first, it’s a breath of fresh air to have a movie in which the black character is intelligent, artistic, and the protagonist. Far from running away from the genre (I’d argue the deference to The Shining shows an immense respect for the genre), Peele runs towards it with open arms in an attempt to use horror to examine racial dynamics in a way previously unexplored. Never once is tension or suspense traded for the sake of a theme and never once is a theme left unexplored in favor of pushing out a new scare. Instead, every element works in tandem to deliver a though provoking thrill ride that will force you to question the nature of status quo ace relations.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Get Out is a horror classic in the making, demonstrating that the genre has more than enough in its wheelhouse to tell captivating stories about issues as nuanced as the terrors of post-racial ideology. It’s a movie that stays committed to both scaring and teaching, never foregoing entertainment for nuance or vice versa. With a healthy number of The Shining references, the evocative soundtrack spanning musical genres, dark comedy built into the structure of the narrative, and a protagonist who you can’t help supporting, it’s hard to find a reason not to recommend the movie to someone.
Rating
10/10
Grade
S
Go to Page 2for the spoiler discussion and more in-depth analysis. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
Will Smith as Mike Lowrey Martin Lawrence as Marcus Burnett Jacob Scipio as Armando Armas Kate del Castillo as Isabel Aretas
Release Date
2020
Language(s)
English
Running Time
124 minutes
I’ll be upfront and say I don’t really remember Bad Boysor Bad Boys II outside of a few moments, and I wasn’t going to go through the effort of re-watching them for this newest release. Thankfully for me, the movie doesn’t require knowledge of the previous movies, but does reward people who have kept up with Mike and Marcus’s journey up to now. I left the movie immensely satisfied and think this movie will please old and new fans alike.
The movie follows a more mature Mike and Marcus, the former desperate to continue fighting bad guys while the latter is getting ready to retire and enjoy the comforts of life, including his newly born grandchild. However, a string of murders brings the two together for one last ride (pending the imminent sequel). While I may not remember the last two movies, I know I will remember parts of this one for a bit. The reveals in the third act were fun and well-earned- definitely not what I expected when I was walking in. That’s not to say the story is perfect. It definitely has some moments of fat that could be trimmed off, especially in the second act which feels like it goes on for a while. There’s a lot of “find X” guy sub-plots happening which feel like they could have been condensed and streamlined. But in spite of all of that, it’s entertaining.
If you were a fan of the frenetic cut based directing of the previous movies, you may be upset with how tame this movie feels. There’s still a ton of action and movement, but it feels more contained and refined. I personally enjoy this style way more and appreciated how clean the action sequences looked. I could tell you exactly what was happening on the screen as it happened, which I rarely can in modern action movies.
Like the action, the character development and pacing of the plot feel more refined than ever. Both Mike and Marcus have meaningful character arcs in this movie. Martin Lawrence’s performance as the latter proves he still has his acting chops. He’s just as funny but has a clarity about him. Even the side characters get some love here. The buddy-cop duo find themselves joined by tech-driven operations team (AMMO) and each member brings a little spice to the formula. I loved watching them bounce off the main duo and their interjections keeps the movie feeling fresh. The crazy part is – none of the above are even my favorite character from the movie. That honor goes to the villain Armando, a man who’s as complex is he as dedicated to executing justice. He’s a hardened criminal who has a moral compass and nothing about it feels off. Ruthless and violent, but not a deranged monster. I dig it.
Honestly, my biggest issues concerning the movie stem from its identity crisis. The movie wants to be funny (which it most certainly is), serious, have a message, and be action-packed. The issue is that it mixes those elements in ways that make them oppose one another. For example., there are moments where something serious happens and then someone makes a funny joke almost undercutting the impact of what was said. I get that it’s funny and is poking fun at the scenario, but it really takes you out of the moment. Likewise, the humor compounded with some missed opportunities, takes away a lot from some of the themes presented in the first act.
REPORT CARD
TLDR
Bad Boys for Life should satisfy fans of the franchise and newcomers alike. It’s bold and has genuinely fun moments that set it apart from predecessors, but it never takes the following steps to become something truly innovative. Good popcorn flick and one of the better buddy-cop movies.
Rating
8.0/10
Grade
B
Go to Page 2 for the spoiler discussion. Go to Page 3 to view this review’s progress report .
