Quick Pix Returns

Cold Skin (Shudder)

Cold Skin (2017) is what I suspect a lot of us thought we were going to get going into The Lighthouse after seeing The Witch. While I will continue to insist that the former movie lies somewhere between domestic drama and domestic comedy, the latter is definitely an aquatic horror movie. Many of the starting plot points between the two movies are the same. In 1914, a young man (billed only as Friend on IMDb, played by David Oakes) arrives on an island near the Artic Circle to act as a weather observer for 12 months. The only other person on the island is the elusive lighthouse keeper (Ray Stevenson). The young man soon learns that, every night, the island is besieged by fish people coming out of the sea (example: above poster). The lighthouse keeper, played with the same intense weirdness by Stevenson that characterized Dafoe’s performance in The Lighthouse but with a lot more nudity, captures a female fish person (I don’t have a better term for them), who is later named Aneris by Friend, and keeps her prisoner with him in the lighthouse. A lot of the attacks at the end of the movie appear to be attempts to get her back. There’s even one attempt at bargaining by the female population with the two men on the island, that does not go well because at least the lighthouse keeper clearly sees Aneris as his property at that point.

I don’t have a ton to say about this movie but it’s a solid aquatic horror movie. The performances are off kilter and fun, without becoming downright silly. The tone is always kept straight and serious. The creature design for Aneris is really beautiful, although a bit reminiscent of The Shape of Water. The CGI for the hordes of fish people is a little dodgy but there’s so much going on in those scenes, it doesn’t really matter. The performances of the three main actors make up for any flaws and I wish this movie would get more attention. Now would be a great time to check it out on Shudder.

The Lodge (CW: Suicide, Cults)

Between about two weeks of minor illness and some travel, I almost didn’t catch this one in the theater. It was actually the last movie I saw before all the theaters in my area started shutting down. This may not be the best movie to watch while you’re holed up with you family, but if The Shining is on your list of things to binge, maybe give this a go.

Richard (Richard Armitage) takes his two children, Aiden and Mia (Jaeden Martell and Lia McHugh) to a rather remote house in the woods during winter break to get to know their soon-to-be step-mom, Grace. Aiden and Mia are still grieving the loss of their mother, Laura (Alicia Silverstone, whom I barely recognized), after she commits suicide. Grace was once a member of a suicide cult and a subject in a book written by Richard. Grace clearly, at some point, became “the other woman” because Laura hated Grace and, before her death, was poisoning the children against Grace with her words and actions. Laura’s suicide is truly shocking, partly because I expect an actor like Alicia Silverstone to get more screen time in a movie like this. It’s a powerful scene that resonates through and sets up the rest of the movie.

Once the four of them get up to the titular “lodge”, Richard has to go back to work for a couple days but promises to be back by Christmas. This leaves the two children, Grace, and her dog in isolation, working out their differences. At the moment when everybody seems to warm up to one another, something happens that, once again, plunges everyone into paranoia, distrust and fear.

I don’t really want to spoil the twists this movie takes because they genuinely made me go, “Woah, wait…what?” in the best way possible. I will say that I’m not entirely positive on this movie and found it, for lack of a better word, mean. For me, it fits into the same movie category as Martyrs. If you ask me if you should see this, my answer is, “Hell, yeah!” Just don’t ask me to watch it with you. I’d have to be in a really good mood to watch it again because I think it’s pretty honest about human behavior, even involving children. I do have one spoiler that’s more of a content warning so stop reading if you don’t want to know: *******************************************************************************************************SPOILER********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

The dog dies. While the actual death is offscreen, there are several scenes of it’s lifeless body. I burst out crying because I am that person. Give me a gruesome human death and I’m like, “That person’s acting.” Give me an animal death, especially that of a pet that I find particularly unnecessary and cruel, I will cry. I have turned movies off for this, but those have usually shown the death onscreen and include animal violence. This one just made me feel super sad and angry. No spoilers for anything else but I have never felt my emotions pivot so hard against characters in a movie before.

Unfortunately this movie is not yet streaming, but should be available on DVD on May 5th. Hopefully that date remains accurate because, by my estimate that will probably be just about the time everyone starts to get really tired of being stuck quarantined in their own homes and all the family drama will rear its ugly ahead. Sit down, take a deep breath and watch this movie together.

The Terrorizing of a Horror Newbie

Story time, everyone. Gather ’round. What else you do you have to do right now? Binge your 40th-something hour of Netflix? I’ve got movies to watch too, but this will just take a few minutes.

I’ve been keeping myself sane for the last few days (since Friday the 13th to be exact, the idea for this post already planned before finding out I’m off work for an as-yet-undetermined amount of time) by catching up on all the Friday the 13th movies. Why, you ask? Because Friday the 13th was the first horror movie I remember being exposed to. I may have seen others before it, but it’s the one I remember being terrorized by so badly that the story keeps getting brought up by family. Anyway, story time:

When I was 11, I was the youngest person in my church youth group. Yes, this story involves church. The kids who were younger than me were in elementary school, so the decision was made to put me in with the high school kids. Periodically, we’d have church lock-ins, basically a big sleep over inside the church. I remember two things from probably one church lock-in: playing hide-and-go-seek in the dark and discovering a Dorian Gray-esque painting in a back room and watching Friday the 13th, courtesy of my brother, who is about three and a half years older then me. Why the adults let him bring it to a church lock in, I don’t know, but, honestly, I would’ve ended up seeing it at home eventually. My mom was pretty casual about what we were allowed to watch. Funny thing is, after all these years, I can’t remember exactly which Friday the 13th movie we watched. For years, I told people it was Part 3, but the first one makes more sense. While rewatching the series this weekend, I had a really strong flashback to having seen the end of Part 2 as well, so I DON’T KNOW ANYMORE. All I know is that it was a movie from the beginning of the series and it was definitely my brother’s fault. Even now, he’ll occassionally text me with a horror movie title he’ll dare me to watch.

Here’s the thing about church lock-ins: NO ONE SLEEPS. So I didn’t have any bad reactions to watching whichever movie it was right away. About a month later, I had nightmares. Unfortunately, this was at the tail end of a long stretch of childhood insomnia that my mother was, frankly, just over. So, I have dreams about Jason chasing me and go knock on the door to her bedroom. She goes upstairs to my brother’s room on the third floor and all I can hear is, “This is your problem, you deal with it!” and then footsteps. Suddenly, I realize there are scarier things, like an angry mother and an annoyed older brother in the late hours of the night. I think I pretended to be asleep because I don’t remember an actual interaction. But I never watched another Friday the 13th movie until I was in my 20s and definitely saw Part 3 (in a theater, in 3D. Special screening.) Frankly, in my teens, I didn’t really watch horror movies unless I was with friends. The first horror movie I remember seeing by myself in a theater was Saw 3 and I had to keep talking myself out of leaving (out of fear, I happen to like the Saw franchise).

My favorite part of this story happened when I was in my early 20s. I’m gonna guess it was October, because I remember Friday the 13th being on TV due to it being constantly interrupted by commercials, probably on SYFY (pronounced SIFFY). I was unemployed and seeing a lot of movies to keep myself sane. I was also back living with my parents. I had probably just seen one of the Saw movies. So, I’m settled in front of the TV in the late afternoon watching Friday the 13th. My mom comes home from work, comes around the corner into the living and just looks at the TV. Then looks at me. After a moment she asks, “Is this the best idea?” It’s a great idea, Mom.

Invisible Man (Spoilers)

That handprint in this highly publicized scene appears to be invisible in the actual movie…

When Insidious 4: The Last Key came out in 2018, I remember turning to my husband when it was over and asking, “Is the real demon in this movie toxic masculinity?” For the Invisible Man, Leigh Whannell seems to have taken that same idea and created something unique and realistically creepy.

This movie was originally concieved as part of Universal’s planned “Universal Monsters Extended Universe”, beginning with Tom Cruise’s The Mummy. It was originally going to star Johnny Depp. I think what we got was so much better than a rehashing of the H.G. Wells story. This version of The Invisible Man takes elements of the H.G. Wells character and makes him thoroughly modern in a way that is really menacing. It also flips the concept on its head by focusing almost entirely on the victim of the mad scientist and becomes a domestic abuse story.

Cecilia (Elizabeth Moss) escapes from a long term abusive, manipulative relationship with Adrian (Oliver Jackson-Cohen) in the first five minutes of the movie. What I think is really fresh about this set up is that we see a limited amount of the abuse that Cecilia has suffered. In the opening scene, she is sleeping with Adrian’s arm draped over her and has to carefully move it to get up. There’s a lot going in just Moss’ facial expressions and actions in this opening scene that show the audience things they need to know about both characters. There’s no screaming or hitting or her storming out, but she lifts that arm off her as if it’s a lead weight coated in something disgusting. It’s part of what is an incredibly nuanced performance from Moss. Since Adrian is used mostly as a malevolent presence throughout the movie, the escape sequence is Jackson-Cohen’s only big scene and I think he does a great job of conveying in basically one look exactly who this character is. You can see all that pent up anger behind his eyes right before he punches the car window. The look on his face when he picks up the pill bottle in the road also conveys he has something malicious in mind and the pill bottle will pay off later on in the movie. I saw a comment somewhere complaining that Jackson-Cohen is miscast because he doesn’t look threatening enough. I wholly disagree on this. To me, Adrian is 100% scarier because he is manipulative and emotionally abusive but also can appear charming. It’s that hair trigger snap that’s scary. If a character is portrayed as just angry and abusive to everyone, he’s the asshole most people will leave alone. The audience needs to be shown at least a glimpse of what would make Cecilia fall for Adrian in the first place and I think Jackson-Cohen plays that well in the time he’s given.

Jackson-Cohen’s performance is important because it sets the menacing tone that pervades over the entire movie. Elizabeth Moss has the gargantuan task of carrying the claustrophobia that sets in throughout the rest of the movie. This movie works best when the audience can’t quite figure out what is the truth. The tension lies in the way Cecilia is constantly being disbelieved and gaslit by those around her. I could see this being really frustrating to real victims of domestic abuse watching this movie which is why I think the movie never shies away from saying these awful things are actually happening to Cecilia. As an audience, we have to trust her even as she cannot always trust herself.

Speaking of characters we can or cannot trust, let’s talk about Adrian’s brother, Tom. I’ve spent the last week reading, watching and listening to other people’s takes on this movie and I still do not know what to think about this character. Plot-wise, there’s no doubt he was in on the manipulations and abuses happening to Cecilia. What remains unclear to me are his motivations. When we first meet him, his sole function seems to be executing his brother’s will, by virtue of being the family member employed as a lawyer. Later, we are told that Tom was also a victim of Adrian. Is this true or is it something he tells Cecilia to gain her trust?

It’s the final reveal, where we learn Tom is the man in the suit and Adrian is locked up, beaten in his basement, that I am confused by. Did Tom decide to carry on where Adrian left off? Why? It doesn’t even really seem like Cecilia and Tom have even met, even though her relationship with Adrian lasted years. Did Adrian mastermind the faking of his own suicide and convince Tom to terrorize his ex? Would Tom do this if he hated his brother so much? Are they both narcissistic, sociopathic bad apples from the same tree that feed off each other? Is this just one plot twist too many in a Leigh Whannell movie? This last question might be the answer. The man loves his plot twists that make going back and watching the movie again give you a whole new perspective. I think Tom’s motivations could have used another ironing out especially since, at the time of reveal, the movie becomes more of a cat and mouse chase and loses some of it’s mystery.

The scenes in the mental institution go on a bit too long. This was the first mainstream horror movie I’d seen in a mainstream theater in a long time and I had gone into it a bit anxious. I could feel the movie start to lose it’s momentum and the audience a bit during these scenes because people started to talk and look at their phones. This movie could’ve benefitted from maintaining it’s mysterious tension through to the end, which I’m not entirely convinced it succeeded at by throwing so many twists at the audience at once.

Overall, I do think this will be a movie worth revisiting multiple times. It has some really amazing performances, led by Elizabeth Moss but not limited to her. The movie earns some of it’s twists, if not all, and I’d like to revisit to find any seeds planted beforehand. I really hope that the DVD/Blu-Ray release at least includes special features on how they did some of the scenes where “Adrian” is invisible. There is some major technical artistry happening there as well.

Little Remakes

Every so often, I find myself immersed in the conversation about Hollywood and remakes. Are they necessary? Are they killing any original thought left in cinema? Do I find them annoying? Answering these questions in reverse order:

Personally, I don’t find remakes that annoying. I’m not personally offended when I find out my favorite movie is being remade. I’ll watch the preview and decided for myself whether it’s worth my time or money. I don’t judge others for finding a current remake better than the original or an earlier remake. I think which version of a movie that’s been remade you feel connect to is a very personal thing. It could have to do with ideas added to the story, pacing fixed, technological advances in special effects or just that you weren’t the intended audience when the other versions came out. My best example of this would be the announced Blumhouse The Craft remake: I loved that movie in my teens and still have strong nostalgia for it. I hope the remake connects with teenage girls now as much as the original connected with me. But I probably won’t see the remake. I just feel too old for it now. Professionally, it can be a little frustrating to parcel out which Halloween or A Star is Born someone wants me to get for them. Seriously, when A Star is Born came out there were remakes I didn’t know about coming out of the woodwork.

The other two questions are simple: Are they killing all original thought? No. Just go see Parasite and Knives Out to see that’s not true. There are plenty of original ideas left in Hollywood. We just need to provide the opportunities to see those movies. So, if one is playing at your local multiplex, go see it. It improves the visibility of the creative team involved and their next movie could get more press and be seen on more screens. Are remakes necessary? This I’d take on a case by case basis. Some remakes take a story and tell it from a fresh angle. Some remakes update things for a new audience that might not be aware of the original. This might draw a new audience to the original. Is the Little Women remake necessary? In my opinion, no but that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad movie. I’m just not sure I find it Oscar worthy.

It’s exceptionally hard to add anything new to Little Women. Originally published in 1868, it is a novel for young girls showing how young, white girls of that era lived and had very little agency over their own lives as they grew into adulthood. The semi-autobiographical story follows Jo March and her three sisters from their teens into young adulthood. It’s a 150-year-old book so beloved that only faithful adaptations work. You can’t just switch things up and have Beth live. Greta Gerwig tries to add a fresh spin by adding a meta ending in which Jo deals with her publisher to try and sell the novel. I could argue that this might only be interesting to viewers with some background of how copyright and the publishing industry work. Viewers like me.

Jo writing of the novel Little Women within the context of the movie isn’t new. Again, I found the writing montage entertaining but I’m also a writer. I enjoy glimpses at other authors’ processes, especially from an era where you couldn’t just hit the delete key to remove something. The 1994 movie doesn’t have as clean of a writing montage but Winona Ryder can be seen carrying the finished manuscript at the end. To see Jo argue about whether or not fictional Jo should marry ( a thing Alcott wrestled with) by the end is slightly a new idea but I think it’s kind of messily handled. Although we don’t see Friedrich in that final scene, Jo could still be married to him. I don’t need Jo to remain a “literary spinster” to see her as an independent woman. This is also messy because, in the scene with the publisher, Ronan seems to momentarily cease playing Jo and start playing Alcott but that’s not what the scene really intends.

A lot of the things Gerwig does to try and make the film feel fresh are technical, directorial decisions. After a while, I started to notice several shots framed like the actors were in tableau on a proscenium stage. This works for the actual play scenes but is visually boring for others. There are also instances where first a character is monologuing into the camera and then it goes into voice over. The monologues took me out of the movie.

I’m also not sure how I feel about the decision to tell this story non-linearly and with the same actresses playing both the younger and older versions of themselves. There were some scenes that I could only track which part of the story we were in by the length of Jo’s hair. To put Beth’s battle with scarlet fever interlaced with her later complication of a weakened heart lessened the shock of her death for me. Honestly, I was a bit irritated Beth’s death is expressed through the emotions of Jo and her mother but this may be due to my nostalgia for Claire Danes’ death monologue in the 1994 movie. The 1994 movie is the only version of Little Women where Beth dies “on screen”. I put that in quotes because the actual death still happens while Winona Ryder looks away for a moment. Beth always feels like the forgotten sister in the lives of the more effervescent March sisters and, in this movie, she’s not even able to express how she feels about that. That death scene is the most the actress who plays Beth has to do in any version of this story. Eliza Scanlen was robbed, in my opinion. I really liked her scenes with Chris Cooper. Their connection felt real while not coming off as creepy.

The interesting part of the casting for this movie is that, despite the four sisters having different personalities, they all felt very similar. In the 1994 movie, Trini Alvarado, who played Meg March, felt so much older than her sisters that her desperation to find a suitor and settle down felt realistic. The young Amy, played by Kirsten Dunst, was actually twelve so her petulant behavior felt annoying but age appropriate. I thought Florence Pugh does a wonderful job as the older version of Amy but out of place playing a girl barely in her teens. It makes Amy more obnoxious because you expect someone who appears to be in their 20’s to know how to act. I think this movie could have benefitted from breaking up the role. It also would have clarified Amy’s age in some of the scenes that take place in the March home, specifically the scene where Amy burns the beginnings of Jo’s novel.

Pause for a confession here: I could never get into this book. I tried at a couple different ages and I cherish the copy I got as a child, probably because I’m a book nerd and it has a cool cover. The story was just never my thing but I really enjoyed the 1994 movie. Jo and Amy are the two March sisters I have always connected with. I connect with Jo’s independent, creative spirit and even her slight spacey-ness (I want to say I am not the type to set myself on fire because I’m writing a story in my head, but I totally am). I find young Amy to be kind of mean in her attempts to get attention but I identify with her attempts to atone for her behavior with Jo and her feelings about having to give up her own artistic aspirations to do what she is told is best for family, marrying rich. Amy’s compromise is marrying someone she has loved her entire life who is just slightly less rich than her first suitor, Fred. Jo wants to be independent and also be loved. Even with the fact that Alcott was somewhat forced to have Jo marry, I think this is a feeling many can identify with. You want to feel like you matter to someone without losing your sense of self. This is possible in marriage now, not so much for women in the Civil War era.

Overall, this new version of Little Women is entertaining but I didn’t find it special. The cinematography is beautiful but I expect that from a movie positioned to be an Oscar Pony from the start. I absolutely agree that we need more women being nominated for and winning Oscars in the field of directing. However, I just don’t think Greta Gerwig was really overlooked for this movie. I think everything that needs to be said about these “little women” has been said. It’s time to explore new stories. But, again, that’s just how I feel and maybe I’ve aged out of feeling attached to this story. If this adaptation leads a young woman to explore other adaptations and the original book, I’m all for that. It’s just not for me.