"Do I look like the kind of clown that could start a movement?"

Although Joker (2019) hasn't been out very long, I'm not shy in saying that it's probably my favourite film of all time. I'm a huge movie fan and watch a lot of them, but I've never been hit so hard emotionally on my very first viewing of a film like I was with Joker. Even as a life long Batman comic book fan I never expected to like the movie as much as I did, especially as I was never keen on the Joker as a character as he always seemed kind of ridiculous and far-fetched. And I've now seen it a grand total of 9 times at the cinema! I really wanted to make as much of it as I could as I love the totally immersive experience of the movie theatre - I even saw it in French when I was in Paris in November as I just couldn't bare missing a week of seeing it (and no I don't speak French, and yes it was a French dubbed movie!). After initially seeing it I even had a hard time watching other movies as I just couldn't stop thinking about it and didn't want to part with it as I just connected with it so much. Does that sound crazy?


I really wasn't into the idea of the movie before it was released based on the trailer, and admit I bought into the hype of wondering if it would incite violence (and I really loved a comment the writer and director Todd Phillips made regarding this: "I actually think the violence that is in the movie is oddly responsible because it's horrific and feels real, just like violence is. I would argue that other movies where violence is celebrated is much more irresponsible so I don't know why suddenly we got painted with that brush.")

I honestly hate that violence is even such a focus as it's not that violent overall! It's mostly a character study of Arthur Fleck's descent into what drove him to become the Joker, and I can't help but feel protective of it when people are making these kind of assumptions as it's just such an important film to me personally and I feel like the themes are so well handled. Themes such as class divide and poverty, child abuse and the effects it leaves on a person after they've grown, the way neurodivergent and disabled people are treated in society, mental illness and the lack of support people receive for it and how often they're abandoned entirely to fend for themselves. I'm such a socially awkward mess with anxiety and a slew of other issues that I could relate to Arthur constantly being left on the outskirts, I've had numerous therapy sessions with doctors who never really listened and then had services cut due to lack of NHS funding. I'm not saying that I necessarily relate to Arthur, but because I know what these things feel like I could empathise with his situation and my heart broke for him, over and over. I was so sad for him when he kept getting hurt and beaten for being "odd" when he wasn’t actually doing anything wrong, people are just narrow minded and this is the way disabled folk are treated every single day. And to see these issues tackled so honestly on screen without the usual glamourising or 'othering' that usually happens to these topics really was something special.

It does make it a very uncomfortable film to sit through, but it's uncomfortable in all the right ways. It's SO well acted by Joaquin Phoenix, he's absolutely mesmerising and obviously studied head trauma survivors. Most reviews that I've read seem to be skipping over that aspect and solely focusing on the mental illness, but it's stated several times - from his mothers hospital records we learn that as a child he was found tied to a radiator with "severe head trauma", and the card he hands to the woman on the bus states that his inappropriate laughter is caused by brain injury - and that is a legit symptom of brain injury. Making that the reason for his comic book style laugh was genius. I can understand if some want to keep Joker as a simple agent of chaos without purpose or motive, but if you are going to give him a backstory then this is it for me as it made him so believable and real.


Throughout the promotion of Joker I got the sense that they were trying to somewhat remove Joker from Batman with the many insistences that it was a standalone origin tale, but it was very firmly placed in canon and as a fan of the comic books I loved the side plot with Thomas Wayne. It set up the reasons for why Batman and Joker become arch enemies perfectly, and I loved seeing this other side to Thomas Wayne's character. Usually we only get to see him from Bruce Wayne/Batman's point of view, which is obviously hugely idolised as not only is he his dead father, but Bruce is from the same level of privilege as his father so wouldn't understand the perspective poor people had of him. He sees his father as a good guy who loves his city and wants to do everything he can to help those less fortunate than himself, whereas to Arthur Thomas is an out of touch entitled asshole who stands on the shoulders of poor people whilst referring to them as 'clowns', and possibly has an affair with Arthur's mother which he then covered up when she fell pregnant by having her committed and faking adoption papers - which I know is left up to interpretation, but I believe the photo Arthur finds of his mother as a young woman with a message from Thomas on the back is pretty damning evidence showing that the whole relationship wasn't Penny being delusional, and another example of how the rich can screw over the poor which is obviously a huge theme of the movie. Also, on subsequent viewings I've taken particular notice of Penny's story arc and when Arthur is looking through her medical notes at Arkham it briefly shows a note made by one of the psychiatrists that stated that Penny was insisting "I don't know why I'm here" regarding being committed, and I just really believe her and definitely think that Thomas Wayne is Arthur's dad which makes the whole thing even more tragic. Most reviews seem to think that the subway shooting was when Arthur transformed into the Joker, but personally I think it's when he kills Penny and no longer has anyone looking out for him at all and his realization that he's killed the only person that loved him. She was his final tether to reality, and without her he has no reason not to give in to the Joker side of himself.

I know that there have been a lot of complaints about the character of Joker being sympathised and pointing out all the ways in which he's actually a monster, but I feel like these people are missing the point. The Joker can have a sympathetic origin AND be all kinds of messed up evil, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. It's a sad fact that people who have been victims of abuse don't always stay victims their whole lives, but sometimes go on to become abusers themselves as it's all they've ever known. People are rarely born evil, people are rarely even born mentally ill, they can just be more prone due to family history. And the whole point to the movie in the first place is that if he’d been shown some compassion sooner and gotten the correct help he needed instead of being left facing such extreme loneliness that he literally has delusions of people being nice to him and having positive relationships, had he not continually been abused both individually and by the system, then maybe he wouldn’t have turned out like that. Because as Arthur himself states in the film, you can’t be surprised when mentally ill people go on to exhibit mentally ill behaviour. One of the big turns in the movie is when the mental health funding in Gotham is entirely cut, so the therapy and medication Arthur is taking to help him is cut off. He doesn’t even know where he’d even get his medication any longer. Add to that the casual bullying he suffers in his day-to-day life, from the casual aggression of the woman on the bus even after learning he was disabled, to the assholes on the subway, these people are all too common in real life. If anything comes from the success of this movie, I’d love for it to make people kinder to neurodivergent people instead of shooting dirty looks to outright bullying just because you don't understand. Their dignity and safety is no less important than you feeling a bit uncomfy just because you don’t understand why they’re behaving that way.

Anyway, overall I really loved this movie, I love the character study and it's such a compelling retelling of one of my favourite characters, and the ending takes my breath away every time. I know comic book movies have dominated the box offices for years now, and I've been bored by them for a while. Joker feels like the antithesis to those, a comic book movie that doesn't feel like a comic book movie, and as a fan of comic books I'm all for that honestly.




Back in January I learnt that that there was to be a special screening of Joker with a live Q+A session with writer and director Todd Phillips afterwards, and I couldn't book tickets fast enough! I went to the screening on my own, and honestly had no idea what to expect and was thrilled to see that there were quite a few other girls of my age range there alone too. It was held at the Odeon at Leicester Square which I'd never been to, but I knew that it's the movie theatre where London movie premieres are held so my expectations were pretty high! And honestly I've been spoilt, it was so incredible. My seat was second row so I expected to have to crane my neck looking up at the screen, but all of the seats were full on recliner style chairs with their own little tables attached to the arm rests, so I was able to watch it almost lying down (and even with my legs up there was still about a metre of leg room in front of me!)



Todd came out of a side door at the end of the film and we got half an hour to ask him questions from the audience. I didn't ask him anything as everyone was asking him quite technical and analytical questions, and I felt silly as I'm not analytical so my questions were more about how he saw the plot as the writer - like why does Randall have such a predatory vibe and what's his history with Arthur that provoked him so much, and is Penny telling the truth?

It was really special getting to hear Todd's thoughts and processes, he was very humble and gracious and it just really came across just how much he's put into this movie and how important it is to him. I just really appreciate hearing creatives talk about their passions and see them be so enthusiastic about their creations. He was so kind too; the cinema were trying to hurry him along as they had another booking in the theatre but he kept taking more questions, and he wasn't supposed to do a meet and greet but everyone flooded to the front of the stage at the end and he took the time to sign and take photos with people and speak to them one on one. I managed to get a picture, but because my phone is so old and the movie theatre was dark the image quality is pretty horrible, but it was still such a special moment that I don't even care and am just so happy that I got to have it!

Beep, beep, Richie

I've been a massive fan of Stephen King ever since I first read The Shining when I was 15. I've read most of his work and It has always been one of my favourites. It's the quickest I've ever read 1200 pages, I was gripped from the go. I wasn't familiar with the film version starring Tim Curry when I first read the book, so I didn't really know what I was getting into other than something about a killer clown. Horror is my favourite genre, I'm well acclimatised to it so it's rare for me to feel scared of a book. It is the only one to ever actually give me nightmares.

I'd heard good things about the original 1990 mini-series, but felt let down when I actually saw it. The book wasn't well translated to screen, it just ended up a confusing mess that I wasn't sure I'd of kept up with had I not already read it. The acting was corny, and Pennywise himself absolutely laughable, far too hammed up and not even slightly threatening. I'm sure it was good when it was released, but it hasn't aged well to say the least.

I was excited about the new film as soon as I heard of it, doubly so when I saw the teaser images of Pennywise. It seemed to be quite divisive. Some, like me, absolutely adored the new look. Others said it didn't look friendly enough and lacked the charm of Tim Curry's. As much as I dislike the 1990 version, I understand that view. He doesn't look friendly to kids, which is the entire point of him taking on the guise of a clown. But my biggest issue with the original version though was that he didn't look threatening enough. Him suddenly turning evil just didn't work, it looked like a comedy.

Having now seen the film, I love the new look, and the new film. I'm not usually fond of screen adaptations of Stephen King's work, the only ones I've liked are The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile which aren't really horrors. Most of them just don't work. I know I've only seen it once and am writing this liteally after getting back from the cinema, but I think It is already up there on my favourite movies list. It was that good.

It's been a couple of years since I read the book so my memory isn't as fresh as it could be, but it kept a lot of my favourite scenes and the plot flowed really well. I also prefer that it's been cut into two "chapters" - this film told the story of The Losers Club as kids, when they first discover It. The second will tell the story of when It comes back and they must fight it as adults. The book tells the two stories simultaneously, which works for a book, but not the screen which is where a lot of the original mini series issues lie as it confuses the plot.

I thought it was so well acted by the kids, often children in movies can just come across as obnoxious but everyone was perfect. And I love Pennywise, I'm not familiar with Bill Skarsgård's other work so this was my first introduction to him and I wasn't let down. Despite the previous concerns from other fans that he looked too threatening to appeal to the kids in the first place, he was charming when the role called for it. During the opening scene where he talks to Georgie, it was easy to see why he'd think to trust him. He was jovial and friendly and seemed like the fairground clown you'd expect, but with that ever underlying feeling that somethings off (and not just because he's in a drain!). And when he's haunting the characters he was feral, literally preying on them. His voice, his movements and mannerisms, everything was perfect. The CGI was really seamless to, it felt like he really was moving and elongating and transforming without a single thought of 'well that's not real'. Disbelief completely suspended.

There were the odd bits here and there that I felt could of been stronger or expanded on. Some of the characters could of been developed better (Henry and Mike especially), and I wish they'd spent some more time delving into the history of It and it's hold over Derry. I was so desperate for them to expand more on The Black Spot instead of brushing over it, of It's influence over the adults of the town instead of simply making it so they just can't see him. I also found the objectification of Beverly uncomfortable and how she was used as bait, and missed the overall importance of imagination. But overall there's so much the film gets just right and I'm really happy with it. I can't wait for chapter 2! And maybe with any luck they'll delve more into the horrors of Derry itself in that one (and I must re-read the book again!)

"Bloom and may you live the way your life was meant to be"

I've been in a real Prince of Egypt mood since seeing the stage adaptation at the theatre. It's always been one of my favourite movies ever since I saw it at the cinema as a child, but every time I re-watch it I'm never quite prepared for just how good it is! It's probably one of my favourite soundtracks both in terms of songs and score, the animation is just *chef's kiss* and it hits that sweet spot of blending the 2D with the CGI flawlessly, and I just really love it's treatment of the source material and how sensitive they were with it all.


It made me want to watch Joseph: King of Dreams (2000) which I'd slept on despite knowing it exists. I knew it was a 'sequel' (technically a prequel in terms of story, but a direct-to-video sequel) to The Prince of Egypt but I never realised that both movies shared a lot of the same creative team which gave me hope. I generally avoid animated sequels as Disney have taught me not to trust them, but I'm so glad I gave this one a go! I love it! It made me cry!!

Obviously in comparison to The Prince of Egypt it's never going to hold up - it doesn't have the budget. And it's a shame that it has to exist in that shadow, as it's a wonderful film in it's own merit! Like I said, you can tell it's lower budget by the animation not being quite as smooth in certain areas such the characters movements, the CGI isn't quite as flawlessly blended (Pharaoh's dream is painfully CGI) and I didn't find the soundtrack as memorable initially, although now I'm more familiar with it it's definitely growing on me and has some beautiful lyrics. I just really love this movie and I found it so emotional to watch. I felt so strongly for the injustice Joseph faces and my heart broke for him that he was let down so badly - even if he was a bit conceited at the beginning, it wasn't his fault! And it's made with the same gorgeous style as The Prince of Egypt, with characters who actually look like people of colour.

I've always loved animated movies, and it's great to discover long lost gems like this. If you haven't seen Joseph: King of Dreams, or slept on it like I did because of it's sequel status, I really recommend it. It's one of the best films I've seen recently, and I couldn't help but watch it twice already over the past couple of weeks!

"If your Nerve, deny you - Go above your Nerve" - Emily Dickinson and Cheryl Strayed

I watched Wild (2014) the other day, a film that seems to keep finding me when I need it most. I remember first watching it a few years ago after stumbling across it by accident on a streaming service and thinking it sounded interesting enough to give a go, and it resonated with me so deeply. I forgot all about it, and then vaguely remembered it again a few days ago but couldn't remember what it was called, and it then randomly popped up on Netflix unprompted. It's based on an autobiographical account by Cheryl Strayed, and after her mother dies and her marriage breaks down and she goes on a completely self-destructive streak, she decides to hike 1200 miles from Mexico to Canada to get herself out of it despite having no former hiking experience. And despite making several mistakes along the way and it taking her longer than she initially imagined, she makes it and the introspection she's able to achieve from being on her own for so long allows her to forgive herself for her past so that she's able to move on from it: "What if I forgive myself? What if I was sorry? But if I could go back in time, I wouldn't do a single thing differently. What if I wanted to sleep with every single one of those men? What if heroin taught me something? What if all those things I did were the things that got me here? What if I was never redeemed? What if I already was?"

Although my own personal experiences are nothing like Cheryl's, her journey and the way she tells it feels so personal to me, and it's filled with so many poignant moments and quotes that really touch my soul. It almost makes me want to cut myself off from society and hike like that, but I know more than anything it's inspiring because she's taking control of her own life, despite societal expectations or people thinking she's crazy for doing it or any underlying danger that she may put herself in. She takes that risk and jumps, and becomes a better person for it and watching it feels like a breath of fresh air.

"After I lost myself in the wilderness of my grief, I found my own way out of the woods. And I didn't even know where I was going until I got there, on the last day of my hike. Thank you, I thought over and over again, for everything the trail had taught me and everything I couldn't yet know... I knew only that I didn't need to eat with my bare hands any more. That seeing the fish beneath the surface of the water would be enough, that it was everything. My life, like all lives, mysterious, irrevocable, sacred, so very close, so very present, so very belonging to me. How wild it was, to let it be?"

I want to read the book it's based on, I recognise Cheryl's name from inspiring quotes I've read in the past so I'm looking forward to delving into it and seeing how it compares to the movie. I looked at Cheryl's Instagram account to see what she's like now, which lead me on to Reese Witherspoon's (as she plays Cheryl), and then on to Jennifer Aniston's as she's worked with Reese recently on The Morning Show, and I just felt so inspired by these women how much POSITIVITY they radiate made me feel so full (even Reese's own brand is called 'hello sunshine' which is so perfect). It made me think of bloggers I used to follow with their sunshine-y, Rookie style 'girl gaze' aesthetics, and I realise that I want that, that's exactly the energy I want to radiate. I remember reading once about how Al Pacino acted like he was a movie star before he ever was as he was so confident that he would be one day, and as a natural pessimist I think that kind of assurance is a good energy to send out into the universe. I will achieve the things most important to me, they are within my grasp.

Frozen II (2019)

Before I get in to this, I suppose I should really give some background on my long history with the original movie of Frozen (2013). It's easily my most favourite Disney movie of all time and has come to mean a great deal to me, especially the character of Elsa as she was finally a fictional character I could relate to in absolutely every way, and having felt like an oddball my entire life that really mattered. I also really love Prince Hans who is very similar to Elsa in many ways - two sides of the same coin if you will, and show how people can respond to trauma is separate ways. It's often overlooked because of the end "twist" to his character (the film's main weak spot in my opinion, and feels like the last minute decision that it was) but it's explained a few times that Hans suffered abuse at home and it's been explored more in official supplementary materials released by Disney, and Elsa was obviously traumatised by her powers and needing to hide. But whereas Hans takes his trauma out on Anna (which Elsa does too, let's be honest), Elsa is much more internalised and takes things out on herself. In fact all of the main characters are incredibly complex and relatable, which is no doubt a huge part of the film's success and it deals with a lot of really deep themes considering how many people like to brush Disney movies off as "for kids".

I might do a full review about Frozen at some point as I love it so much and after years of obsessing and analysing have so many thoughts on it, but for now I wanted to talk about Frozen II (2019). I saw this film once, at the cinema on it's release day, and these are my initial thoughts. The fact that it came out in November 2019, and I'm writing this intro in April 2020 and haven't seen it again since should be a big spoiler as to my feelings about it! And I know I wasn't alone in my disappointment as most of the hardcore Frozen fans I speak to on a regular basis all had the same hang ups.


I want to stress that it's not a bad film, and if it wasn't related to Frozen and told it's story with it's own set of characters I'd probably enjoy it. And it feels like they have done that to an extent as the characters are so far removed from everything set out in the first movie and there's so many plot holes that just don't add up, particularly the whole story with their parents and how and why they died and outright blaming Elsa for her parents deaths which was such a cheap shot. And there's a lot of cheap shots in this movie, and I don't understand why? Are Disney trying really hard to be 'ironic'? If so it doesn't work. They make several jokes about Elsa's Let It Go scene, and even show Elsa cringing at herself during a flashback. Yes that song is overplayed, but it got overplayed because it resonated with a lot of people and it was a key part of the first film and Elsa's growth, and so why would she cringe at that part of herself? Nor does it make any sense how Olaf and Kristoff would have any idea of what Elsa looked like in the part Olaf enacts in the charades scene as neither of them were with Elsa during Let It Go. It was just an excuse to take yet another swing at their most successful movie to date, and speaking as someone who owns a large Frozen collection and has invested a lot of my time and money into things surrounding the film it just felt really tacky.


There were several cheap shots at the character of Prince Hans too, which I knew about before going in but they were just...odd? There was literally no reason to mention him as he didn't fit into the script in any way, so it felt like a direct attack at the fanbase who have been pestering Disney for his return and better character treatment. Not even necessarily redemption, we've just wanted him fleshed out more as he's such an interesting complex character who was canonically abused as a child by his family and they saw that as a reason to make him "an evil sociopath" according to Jennifer Lee (which he's not, he's a WEAK ASS villain with shaky motive who gave up without any resistance) and now he's the butt of every joke, and it's like, what kind of message is that for Disney to send out about victims of abuse?? Elsa and Anna spent years yearning for acceptance themselves and literally the entire message of the first movie is "love thaws a frozen heart" - unless you're called Hans and then you'll just get thrown under the bus at every available opportunity. (And just for reference if you didn't know, he was never originally supposed to be the villain in Frozen, it was a last minute decision which is why he's so weak and there's zero foreshadowing and it makes NO sense as a 'twist', and the original script of Frozen II focused on Hans and redeeming him and even had a hinted romance between him and Elsa, so to do this complete 180 on his character has left fans angry and confused)

The animation of this film was really beautiful, I especially enjoyed the scenes of Elsa in the water with the Nokk and her taming him, and I liked that the film didn't dumb anything down and actually dealt with adult themes of loss and grief without glossing over it. The kids in the movie theatre were really aggravating me as they were all restless, and it's probably because they didn't have a clue what was going on on screen because it's not a dumbed down kids movie. Not only is there the death of the parents brought back up, but Elsa dies which is quickly followed by Olaf dying in Anna's arms, Anna singing an entire song about her grief and feelings of abandonment, plus the murder and quarantine of indigenous people, and that's heavy going for Disney!

I'd heard a lot of good things about the soundtrack, and I'd avoided it despite it being all over YouTube as I wanted to wait to hear the songs in the context of the movie before I made a decision on them. And I thought they were all really weak, I couldn't hum you a single one as they were so forgettable. Maybe they'll grow on me, but I just didn't even care when they were singing and as a hardcore fan of musicals that's a pretty major thing for me to say! I'd heard a lot of 'Kristoff's 80s power ballad', and didn't realise that it was literally an 80s power ballad that the entire plot grinds to a sudden halt for and embarrassingly plays out like a bad music video and it was just really odd and clearly just there to give Jonathan Groff a song and no other reason, Kristoff doesn't even serve a purpose for most of the movie. Olaf was fairly pointless too, and he's been infantalised to such a degree that he's kind of annoying. I always defend him in the first movie as he represents the love Anna and Elsa shared as sisters and he saves Anna from being locked in the library and moves the plot forward, but he does nothing in this at all besides some lame comic relief.


My biggest issue with this movie though is simply how much it retcons the original, and takes its themes and messages and just tosses them away. Although the entire first movie was about Anna and Elsa reuniting, by the end of this film they're entirely separated. Elsa follows a voice in her head that only she can hear which leads her North, actively pushing Anna away, and after dying by freezing to death (even though "the cold doesn't bother her", guess we're going back on that!) she's brought back by becoming the fifth elemental spirit - as encouraged by the trolls, and there's long been a theory in Frozen fan circles that the trolls are the true villains and this just reinforces that. At the beginning of the original movie the trolls state "the heart is not so easily changed, but the head can be persuaded", and it's after Fixer Upper with an actual lyric of "Get the fiance out of the way and the whole thing will be fixed" that Hans does his complete 180 which allows Kristoff, the trolls adopted son, to date the princess of Arendelle. Now the trolls actively encouraged Elsa to abdicate and become the elemental spirit and leave the throne to Anna, which makes Kristoff, aka their adopted son, KING OF ARENDELLE. I smell several rats!!

Anyway, trolls aside, Elsa gives up her life to become the fifth elemental spirit and becomes some kind of Goddess of the North riding through the lands on Nokk, and it's like...the WHOLE ENTIRE first film is about Elsa's humanity, and then you take that away from her at the first opportunity?!? She spends the whole first movie trying to prove that she's a person no different from any other and just happens to have these powers she doesn't understand and that she doesn't need to isolate herself, but now according to this sequel she's always known that she was meant for bigger, better things and is better off alone? None of this film makes any sense in the context of the first movie, and it changes so much of the characters to make them fit this plot that they're barely recognisable. And it's such a shame, because if they weren't so busy making cheap shots at their own success and taunting fans then they could of expanded on these characters and made a film just as meaningful as the original but without the rushed plot changes. And as it is, we've ended up with a film that adds nothing to the development of these characters or their story, a flat plot line, and a forgettable mediocre soundtrack. Watching it, it seriously felt like the creators just don't care about Frozen anymore and that they tried to write something to end it with some finality, and I just find the whole attitude Disney have towards it extremely odd when you consider what a cash cow it is for them and how it revived the whole company when the first movie was released. They could at least show it some respect, but apparently that's too much to ask for.

The only thing I did kind of like from the whole mess was when Elsa was in Ahtohallan it finally felt like she was truly becoming The Snow Queen from Hans Christian Andersen's novel, and I could picture her taking Kai there to rebuild the mirror and that was kind of cool. There was also a throwaway comment in a flashback scene where it shows Agnarr reading a book and he says it's "some new Danish author", and I just appreciated them touching on the source material like that as it felt so far removed in the first movie.

Big Sky

I want to talk about Big Sky (2015), but I feel like I barely know where to even begin with this movie! It's one of my all time favourites, but even so I know full well that it's mediocre at best. I myself have even been on a real journey with it, as I hated it the first time I saw it, then I couldn't stop thinking about it so watched it again a week later and enjoyed it much more as I knew and was prepared for its shortcomings, and now I've watched it several times and adore it.


Set in New Mexico, Big Sky focuses on Hazel, an 18 year old girl who suffers crippling agoraphobia and hasn't left her upstairs bedroom for years. She lives with her mother Dee who she isn't particularly close to, and the film opens with Hazel preparing to go on a road trip to a treatment facility to help her deal with her fears and anxiety. She's taken by van where she has to travel in a specially made box to enable her to feel safe, and Dee comes along for the ride to reassure her daughter. Three other people are picked up who are attending the same mental health facility, but on the way there, in the middle of the desert, the van is held up by two gunmen who shoot everyone and kidnap one of the passengers for ransom. Hazel avoids being shot due to being in the box, and she has to face her fears and travel on foot to a nearby reservation to save her mother's life.

I really, really liked the sound of this movie when I went into it, it sounded right up my alley. I really love character driven crime based movies, where it's less action and more of a slow burn character study. I'd read a lot of negative reviews about it beforehand stating it was too slow paced, but personally I thought the pacing was fine and I think anyone stating otherwise is either expecting more of an action movie, or has a really poor attention span. The film is primarily about a girl with crippling agoraphobia, if you think that screams 'fast paced action' then that's your issue.

I've actually dealt with agoraphobia myself, albeit on a much smaller scale then Hazel, and I personally felt that that aspect of the story line was handed really well and I could believe that she actually had it. Unfortunately the writers seemed to get a bit confused and gave her a slew of other random symptoms on top of it that made absolutely no sense - she starts hallucinating a little dead girl at one point, and we get a disjointed flashback scene later in the movie which suggests a tragic event involving the little girl that sparked Hazel's issues but there's no reason or context for Hazel to actually interact with the imaginary little girl other than I assume to make her seem more 'crazy'. She also has symptoms of OCD but it's never stated that she has anything but agoraphobia - obviously these can be co-morbid, but I feel like when you're using mental illness as a major plot point then you shouldn't assume the audience have prior knowledge as there's so much ignorance and misinformation. Overall though, like I said I thought she was a good character and enjoyed seeing her story arc. I also liked the emotional dynamic between Hazel and her mother Dee which managed to continue even when the two characters weren't together.

Most of the film focuses on Hazel trying to reach the reservation, Dee suffering in the car after being shot in the stomach, and the two gunmen who are two of the most intriguing characters ever and I'm SO MAD that they're not explored more and don't have more screen time. I'd watch a whole spin off movie just giving their back story.



Played by Aaron Tveit and Frank Grillo, Pru and Jesse (respectively) are two half brothers, with Jesse caring for Pru who is disabled due to a brain injury he sustained as a child from their mother. It's mentioned in passing that Pru was physically abused by his mother for not being born a girl, and when 5 years old he was hit around the head with a gravel rake and raised by his older brother Jesse ever since. It causes Pru to act erratically as he has issues processing his own emotions and understanding the behaviour of those around him, which is what caused everyone in the van to get shot as he thought Dee laughed at him when in reality she was hysterical from being held at gunpoint. Jesse - who is also the local sheriff, I think?? - is both protective and borderline abusive to this brother, berating him and calling him a "spastic" to get him to comply.

All of this is really fascinating, but it's literally all we're told about them. And it's such a missed opportunity. After they realise they didn't kill Hazel, they decide they have to go back for her, and it's one of many confusing plot points that doesn't make any sense. They were wearing masks, and she saw nothing from the box, so it just feels like they're trying to add some danger to Hazel's situation for the sake of it. It also makes no sense why Jesse would organise a crime and take his mentally disabled brother along, he even said at one point that he knew Pru would mess up and was going to fill his gun with blanks. I really wish he and Pru had more plot. They could of easily added 10-20 minutes onto the run time to give them some more backstory and clear up some of the questions surrounding them, but they were so poorly written that they just didn't go anywhere despite how fascinating the set up is.

The film in general is just so filled with plot holes and inconsistencies that it always leaves me with so many questions. Like, Jesse is constantly reminding Pru to take his pills, but why does Pru have to take them? What do they do? It’s implied he imagines stuff without them, so does he have psychosis? Because that doesn’t match up with symptoms of a brain injury. Is Jesse a real sheriff? Because it looks like a sticker on his name tag, and although it's firmly set in New Mexico he's not wearing a New Mexico police uniform and his state badge is Oklahoma (because yes, I'm that level of extra where I looked it up!) Hazel makes so many questionable decisions like leaving her boots behind when she sprains her ankle - like, you’ve got miles to walk in the desert and you’re going to do it in your socks??? Who is Sergeant De Souza that the guy in the van contacts when he picks up Hazel, is it Jesse? Because Jesse's name badge says "J Pacheco". Who even is that guy in the van, does he actually work for the mental health facility and was it all an inside job? Because he knows who the original driver was and what he called his boss, or was even he in on it too?? I really enjoy this movie, but it has so many loose threads that just don’t get explained and it drives me mad honestly. I love Pru and Jesse so much, I just wish they got a better movie to be in!

This film could of been so good, it was beautifully shot on location, and the main cast did a great job with such a flimsy plot that didn't go anywhere, especially Bella Thorne as Hazel and Aaron Tveit as Pru who were clearly trying their best to give some depth to such underwritten characters. It was watchable and tense in places, I just wish the plot had been properly developed as it had some really fascinating premises and characters but they just got brushed over instead of being explored. And it's not like it's because the film makers were stuck for time, it's only 90 minutes long. I'd of preferred less time watching Hazel stumble around the desert for a fleshed out plot.

I know full well that this is a mediocre movie at best, but I also just love it for some reason and that's OK! A film doesn't have to be technically good to be enjoyable and resonate with you. It's definitely the characters I enjoy more than the film, and in my head I kind of expand on them and give them more story (anyone else do this? I don't mean writing fan fic or anything, just in my imagination as I'm watching). I definitely recommend giving it a watch and judging for yourself, but do expect to be left with more questions than answers at the end!

Live in Living Color

I often find myself wanting to write about films that I've seen as movies are something I really love a lot and are a pretty important part of my life, but I get put off as I've always felt like the expectation is a review with proper analysis, and I'm just... not like that. And because I'm not great at analytical thinking, I end up feeling like I'm not allowed to talk about things I've liked because I don't have anything deep or insightful to say about it. But I also know that that's really dumb, I don't have to analyze something to death or pick up on minute themes and details to have a movie mean something to me personally, and if I want to gush about a movie I've enjoyed then why not? So that's exactly why I've created this blog, to share about the movies I've enjoyed from time to time, whether they be new watches or old favourites. I also might share other things movie-related such as my artwork, things I've collected, movie related trip reports, and basically make it more of a journal.

To give a bit of insight into who's writing - my name is Sadie, I'm primarily an illustrator and as well as movies I enjoy vintage things, music, Disney, nature, and musical theater most of all. My favourite actor is Aaron Tveit, and I was lucky enough to be able to save up to travel to New York where I met him and gave him a piece of my artwork. Other actors I enjoy are Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Al Pacino, Lon Chaney, Keira Knightley, Bela Lugosi, Mia Farrow, and Mads Mikkelsen.

I'm not too fussy with my movie taste although I definitely have my preferences, but I watch anything from silents up to modern day. Some of my favourite movies of all time include Joker (2019) The Prince of Egypt (1998), Big Sky (2015), Moulin Rouge! (2001), Frozen (2013), Rosemary's Baby (1968), The Godfather (1972), Marie Antoinette (2006), Titanic (1997), The Tenant (1976), Dog Day Afternoon (1975), My Neighbour Totoro (1988), Alice in Wonderland (1951), Snow White And The Seven Dwarfs (1937), The VVitch (2015), En Chance Til (2014), What We Do In The Shadows (2014), Jagten (2012), The Dark Knight (2008), Ratatouille (2007), Wall-E (2008), Zodiac (2007), and Pan's Labyrinth (2006). I've probably forgotten something really important.

I have a Letterboxd if you want to keep up with my movie watching habits in real time, and if you're so inclined you can follow my more personal blog where I write about my daily happenings, theater trips, travel, and fangirl over Mika a lot.

I also have a bunch of reviews that I've written in the past which I'm going to share here to get me started ✨


Some of my artwork: Aaron Tveit, and Joaquin Phoenix as Joker.