Old

(SPOILER FREE REVIEW!)

I've been SO excited for this movie since I first saw the trailer! I always want to say "I love M Night Shyamalan movies!" but that's not strictly true. I love some of his movies, in fact they're some of my favourite movies ever. The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, The Village. I've defended The Village to the death and I still don't really understand why it's so polarizing to people, it's a beautiful movie about the effects of trauma. But I guess by that point in his filmography he was known as "the twist guy" so any nuance or artistry got overlooked. And of course The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are so incredible because of their twists. I didn't see The Sixth Sense until about 15 years after it's release date and yet I somehow managed to avoid spoilers and the ending hit me like a ton of bricks, and so much of the joy in that movie is it's rewatchability factor. The twist isn't tacked on, it makes perfect sense and is so obvious when you know it and completely re-contextualizes the entire movie when you know what clues to look for. Unbreakable is the same. I think that was the first of Shyamalan's movies I ever saw, someone brought it to a sleepover when I was teenager and it blew me away. Comic book movies were kind of meh back then, I would even argue that he helped reshape the genre into what we know it as today with his gritty take on real world heroes and supervillains. And again it's a clever ending that you don't see coming and it reshapes the entire movie you've just watched.

I didn't see Signs until fairly recently, and I was underwhelmed. The CGI felt badly dated, and I didn't appreciate the heavy handed Christian element. I haven't seen The Lady in the Water for many years, but I feel like it was the first of his movies that disappointed me and although I barely remember it I don't care enough to rewatch it. I have zero interest in The Last Airbender, and I somehow completely missed The Visit and only heard of it recently with all of the buzz for Old. 

I think Split was the first of Shyamalan's movies that I was really aware of since his peak in the 00s, and I remember being utterly horrified at the trailer and how it was using a genuine mental illness for scares as a violent criminal. I saw a lot of good reviews with no mention of ableism, and Shyamalan himself mentioned that his wife is a psychologist which is what inspired him to use Dissociative Identity Disorder as a plot device in the first place, so I figured maybe it just had a horribly edited trailer and was actually handled sensitively in the movie and decided to give it a chance. No, it's ableist trash and just as bad as the trailer makes out, if not worse. This movie was released in 2016, are we really still clinging to ideas of mentally ill people being violent criminals? If Shyamalan's wife is a psychologist then she must really suck at her job because I'm not a psychologist and I would never treat mental illness in this way and I would be horrified if my partner did. Film makers have a responsibility not to spread that kind of bullshit narrative that reinforces negative stereotypes into society which others the most vulnerable and stops them seeking help when needed and stigmatizes and isolates those already diagnosed. People with severe mental illnesses and a history of trauma are more likely to be abused, not become abusers and are no more violent than anybody else in society.

Despite my love for Unbreakable I haven't seen Glass because Split was such a huge dumpster fire, but I have been watching and really loving Shyamalan's recent series Servant on Apple TV. So as soon as I saw the trailer for Old I was excited as it felt like a return to what he does best, and when he's not being ableist as fuck he is a damn good storyteller.

I went to the very first screening at my local cinema, and this was the first time I'd been to a movie theater since before Covid which is a whole heap of excitement in of itself! In fact I realized that the last time I was at the movie theater was when I saw Joker and met Todd Phillips - which, on the topic of ableism was a movie I enjoyed largely because of it's realistic handling of mental illness despite the villain angle. 

Although I've only just seen the movie a few hours ago, I'm still not completely sure how I feel about it. This will be spoiler free so please don't feel like you can't read ahead if you haven't seen it yet, but to give you an idea of the plot: a family go to a retreat on a tropical island, and are advised of a more secluded, private beach by the hotel manager who offers to have them escorted there for the day. Two families and a couple are dropped off, but they quickly realize not everything is as it seems as they begin to age rapidly, which is most noticeable in their young children who are literally growing before their eyes. 

It's a really interesting premise, and the characters quickly realize that some of them have various medical issues which are further complicated by how quickly they're aging and makes their need to get off of the beach even more urgent. The plot is fairly solid, obviously it requires a suspension of disbelief but the reasons of why the beach is causing this and why they can't escape are made very clear. 

Unfortunately ableism rears it's head again, which really let the movie down for me. I really don't know what this dude's deal is and why he hates the mentally ill so much, but the character Charles played by Rufus Sewell is revealed to have Paranoid Schizophrenia which of course turns him into a violent murderous psychopath despite the fact that less than 13% of people with Schizophrenia are ever violent towards others, and are 14 times more likely to be the victim of violence than people without Schizophrenia. It's a tacky way to add an additional sense of danger to a story that just didn't need it - the foreboding 'time' chasing them was enough. Plus had it been handled sensitively the effects of mental illness on a person in that situation and the deterioration could of been a really interesting angle instead of a cheap shot.

Other than that it was a good movie full of the otherworldly bizarreness we've come to expect, but for me it lacked the slow burn suspence and atmosphere of what made his movies so successful at the beginning of his career. I do feel kind of bad constantly comparing his work, but it's difficult not to when it's been that good, and yet he hasn't been able to match it since and Old is no different in that respect. Time on the beach is supposed to move quickly, but it almost moves too quickly at times with so much body horror happening all at once that you become desensitized, and I didn't feel emotionally connected to any of the characters so didn't much care what happened to them. I'd read Shyamalan say how a lot of the script was based on his own fears of aging and mortality, which was compounded with the Covid pandemic which was ongoing during the time of filming, and yet somehow none of this manages to come across in the film. It's an entertaining movie, it's a fun movie, it even has something to say regarding casual racism, but there's very little beyond that. And unlike his previous movies that only get better on repeat viewing once you understand the twist and can pick up on all of the foreshadowing, I can't see this having any rewatchability at all. It's a one watch and done movie.

However I do continue to give Shyamalan props for his originality within the horror/thriller genre and constantly exploring new facets of horror with stories we've never heard before. And that's what will continue bringing me back for more. Just please quit with the ableism already, ok?

That Cold Day In The Park

I ended up discovering this movie by accident as I was in the mood to watch something but nothing was really grabbing me. I can't say what made me click on this other than perhaps the title grabbed me, but as soon as I read the description and read reviews of people bitching about it being too slow and "lacking plot" I was sold. Slow burn character studies where someone slowly loses their mind over the course of the movie is one of my all time favourite genres, particularly from the 60s and 70s with that dreamy aesthetic. Some of my favourites include Polanski's Apartment Trilogy, The Wicker Man, Lets Scare Jessica To Death, The Little Girl Who Lives Down The Lane, and the more recent The VVitch. I love it, and now I have a new movie to add to that list!

That Cold Day In The Park is primarily about Frances, a 30-something wealthy "spinster" who lives alone in her late parents house, surrounded by her late parents things, helped by her late parents housemaid, socializing with her late parents friends, and taking part in old people activities such as luncheons and lawn bowls. She's clearly still fairly young, but she's old before her time, both too young and too old for her early thirties and without any identity of her own. Isolated by the circumstances of her class and previous life as her mother’s caretaker, she's both non-existent to the outside world and invisible within her own. I found her to be an incredibly tragic character, trapped in her loneliness with a quiet desperation of her pitiable state of a life unlived, and so out of touch with her own peers and generation. 

During one of her luncheons for her elderly friends Frances spots a boy in the park from her apartment window, and she takes pity on him as it begins to rain. After everyone leaves she goes and asks The Boy if he'd like to seek shelter in her home as she presumes he's homeless as he hasn't attempted to leave the park despite the horrendous weather conditions. He accepts, and she helps him to dry his clothing and offers him a meal and warm bath. Although he can clearly understand her he appears mute (hence he doesn't have a name, even in the credits he is just 'The Boy') but she seems grateful just for someone to talk to and offers to let him stay in her spare bedroom. 

We quickly realize that it's probably the closest interaction she's ever had with someone who isn't 40 years her senior. At first we know nothing about The Boy until he begins sneaking out of the window at night and we learn that he has a home and a family and can talk but chooses not to in certain situations. It sheds a lot of light onto his character as although he isn't technically doing anything wrong, it does show that he's manipulative and openly taking advantage of Frances and her vulnerable state. Because he doesn't speak to Frances she's able to use him as a sounding board and project her insecurities and desires onto what she sees as a naive young boy in need of her help, when in fact he's none of those things. 

I really struggled to find any sympathy for The Boy or his plight as he could tell that Frances was struggling emotionally, and yet he still kept returning to her and giving her false hope of friendship. It's a shitty way to behave. Because of the patriarchal time this film was made I'm not even sure which angle the movie is supposed to be taking - is it OK for him to treat her like this just by virtue of him having been born with a dick and I'm supposed to vilify the woman for being jealous and overbearing? Or is he just a shitty deadbeat taking advantage of an emotionally vulnerable woman? It's difficult to tell how it would be viewed in 1969, but from what I've read it was fairly unsuccessful and is mostly buried, which does make me feel like we are supposed to sympathize with Frances. Plus it's worth noting that the source novel was written by a then closeted gay man (Richard Miles) and is loaded with queer themes, and the screenplay was adapted by a woman.

One of the constant themes in the movie is age. Obviously Frances' friends are a heck of a lot older than her, and at one point a clearly elderly man has the audacity to proposition her which she promptly refuses before the most heart wrenching scene in which Frances spills her heart about her loneliness and opens up about her revulsion at the old man to The Boy, only to discover he's run off again and hidden toys in the bed to look like he was asleep. It perfectly illustrates the double standard of society that it's perfectly natural for a much older man to assume a young woman would harbor any romantic interest in him at all, yet Frances's romantic interest in The Boy is treated as aberrant. 

Although The Boy is supposed to be 19, and Michael Burns who plays him was only 21 at the time of filming, he looks much older especially compared to Sandy Dennis’s tendency to defy age (she is 31 here). Because of this I had to remind myself that there even was an age gap between the two characters. The biggest difference between them is cultural, with The Boy escaping at night to go to clubs with his friends who are all clearly part of the '60s youth counterculture complete with 'free love' (which shows up in some uncomfortable scenes with his sister that border a bit too close to incest for my liking), compared to Frances's uptight prim and proper repressed upbringing due to both her class and being so sheltered. The Boy’s arrival triggers a desire she has no idea what to do with, and a suffocating awareness that the world outside and its individuals are permanently alien to her.

Although the movie advertises itself as Frances holding The Boy prisoner, I feel like it's important to mention that it's not until the movie's climax that this really takes place after she's been continually manipulated and let down by The Boy and finally cracks. Whilst she does lock his bedroom door when he's asleep, as a single woman myself I took this more as a safety precaution of having a strange man in the house rather than being any sinister threat towards him - he could and did exit through the open window after all, and at the beginning she repeatedly asks him if he's staying giving him free will and consent in the situation.

Although the archetype of the unhinged, repressed older woman isn't anything new, it's subverted and complicated by Sandy Dennis's youth and treated with a grace and sympathy that felt truly refreshing. Her performance is mesmerizing, and although I hated his character I have to give Michael Burns credit for being smug enough to make me hate him. While the film never really goes fully off the deep end with it's weirdness, it's beautifully shot, and I really love the structure of it, especially that batshit left turn at the end. No one is ever quite as they seem.

Shot Caller

I re-watched Shot Caller (2017) last night, and I felt like writing about it as I haven’t posted here in a while. 

I watch quite a lot of crime movies, it’s one of my favourite genres, but I can't say that the prison movie has ever really grabbed me as much. I feel like they generally follow very similar premises - the person is completely innocent and must endure animal-like behaviour from the other inmates, the prisoner must pay for their sins and learn the error of their ways, or it’s some kind of power struggle. Generally it’s always the same kind of troupe, so I can't say I was particularly excited by Shot Caller when I first heard of it and honestly if my favourite actor hadn’t been in it I would never have bothered. Which goes to show what you can be missing out on sometimes!

Despite the cheesy title and Nikolaj’s horrid mustache (I couldn't even bring myself to use pictures of him with it for this entry, sorry) this really is a great movie, with a lot of complexities that keep you guessing up to the end. I’ve also seen a lot of people online, including former prisoners, say that it’s one of the more accurate portrayals of the US prison system too which isn't something you can often say about a Hollywood movie.

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau stars as the main character Jacob who later goes by the street name 'Money', and the film is told both through present day and flashback which isn’t a narrative device I always enjoy but it’s really effective here as it's perfectly paced and slowly reveals exactly what’s happening in the present day and how our main character got here in the first place.

Jacob is a stockbroker with a successful, enviable lifestyle; he has a loving relationship with his wife who is in the middle of pursuing her dream career thanks to her husband’s income, a young son, and a beautiful home - he's basically living the "American dream". And the tragedy of his situation is how it could simply happen to anyone: one night he and his wife are out for dinner with friends, he’s the designated driver but has one drink too many, he gets distracted by his friends in the car and runs a red light, and before he knows it he ends up with a DUI manslaughter charge as his best friend dies in the backseat of his car. Due to his grief and an unsympathetic lawyer he accepts a plea deal for less time in prison, but he quickly learns that due to the severity of his charges he’s to be placed in a maximum security facility and he must do anything he can to protect both himself and his family on the outside.

"The fact is, we all started out as someone's little angel. And a place like this forces us to become warriors or victims. Nothing in between can exist here."

It’s a really heart wrenching movie, I think most of all because it shows how a perfectly innocent regular person can have their life turned completely upside down with one mistake that had devastating consequences, and become completely corrupted by the system that’s supposed to rehabilitate them. And as a viewer it forces you to reconsider this dichotomous good guys/bad guys, us vs them attitude that people generally have towards prisoners. "Oh that would never happen to me because I'm not like that" - yeah, but accidents happen and what if it did? What would you do for survival? How far would you go to protect your child?

I'm hesitant to say too much about this movie because it does have a lot of twists and turns to the plot and I really don't want to spoil it. But it's so well structured with a phenomenal cast and vastly overlooked. Please watch it. Don't let the mustache put you off.

"The thing is, I was born brilliant, born bad, and a little bit mad. I'm Cruella."

(Yes that title is an actual line from the movie...)

Initially I really didn't want to see this movie. To be honest I'm not a fan of the original 1961 101 Dalmations, despite how much Disney tries to milk it it's just never inspired me like their other movies have so that was strike one against this movie for me. When I then heard that the plot involved a group of rampant Dalmations running Cruella's mother off of a cliff, any mild curiosity I might have had just immediately vanished. Isn't it enough for a character to be a bitch just to be a bitch?

Not every character needs to be driven by a traumatic past event and pathologized to the 9th degree. Some people are just shitty, and it's incredibly demeaning to people with actual traumatic experiences that they're trying to recover from when it's become such the default plot line for villainous characters to go off of. Although like I said I've never been a fan of 101 Dalmatians, I'm pretty sure Cruella is supposed to simply represent the bourgeoisie and class divide? Anita and Roger live together in a tiny home, and I'm not going to pretend they're poor because they live in one of the most expensive areas of London and hire a Nanny ffs, but they certainly work for a living and live a vastly different lifestyle to the opulent Cruella. Cruella is simply a spoilt rich woman who no one has ever said no to until Roger and Anita have the audacity to do just that and then she GOES OFF. She's just acting out and throwing a tantrum like rich people do when they can't get their own way, and naturally lacks empathy because she's never had to show any because she sees everyone else as below her and worthless. It's class war, not trauma that motivates her so stop trying to pathologize her!

If you read my blog you know I loved Joker (2019), but the criticism of this becoming the new trend for villain backstories is so completely valid, and I didn't want to see this movie because Disney are so fricking lazy that they can't even come up with their own original plots for their over recycled characters anymore. And it makes me mad because there are actually some Disney villains that I would love to see properly explored in a stand alone film, or I would of loved to have seen a Cruella movie that actually addressed class divide, over accumulation of wealth, and the exploitations of the fashion industry. But no, we get Dalmatians running a woman off a cliff and a pathetic revenge story. Nice.

So this was the mindset I went into the film with, and I know you're probably wondering why I even bothered at this point but I've seen people raving about this movie, and I did buy into the negative hype surrounding Joker before I saw it and it became my favourite movie so I figured I'd give it a go and see if I was to be proved wrong again. And honestly? My judgements were completely right.

I have so many thoughts with this movie and just how bad it was that I'm not even quite sure how to start and put all of my notes into some kind of coherent order. I'm not usually the type to make notes while I'm watching a movie, but it was literally annoying me that badly that I had to vent my frustrations out as they were happening.

➳ I guess first up I should just say that this movie is so not my brand of humor, which is probably where a lot of my issues lie with it. It tries very hard to be tongue in cheek and wink at the camera to show us how self aware it is, but it's just annoying. I don't need to know that Cruella picked her surname because of a car, that she gifts Roger and Anita their dogs, and it was just forcing itself far too hard to try and connect itself to it's source material in the most irrelevant of ways that added nothing to the plot. The reality is heightened to the point of just feeling incredibly cheesy and overly exaggerated that it ends up so that there's absolutely nothing to connect with or any kind of emotional pull to any of it. I found it all a bit embarrassing to watch honestly.

➳ It's also like they took the "girl boss" trend and just absolutely ran with it to the point that it almost felt like a parody except I don't think that's what they were aiming for. Is it supposed to be empowering? I can't even tell anymore because the tone of the movie was just all over the place.

➳ When you have to resort to a voiceover for the majority of the movie, that's some weak ass storytelling. A well developed plot doesn't need the characters motives to be spelt out to the audience, yet that's exactly the narrative device this movie falls back on repeatedly.

➳ I saw a lot of press that this movie was to feature "Disney's first openly LGBT character!!" But didn't we already have this...? Am I being actively gaslit by Disney now, what the hell is going on...? But more to the point, it wasn't. I'm making the assumption that they're referring to the character of Artie, who is a complete stereotype of a camp, effeminate man, but there's nothing actually said or done that makes him gay. It's just yet another case of queerbaiting with no actual follow through.

Yes he's queer coded in the most stereotypical of ways, but that's not the same thing as being openly gay. Particularly when this movie is set in the 1970s, a time when fashion was blurring the lines of binary gender and glam rock was at it's peak so men wearing make up, ruffled blouses, and platform shoes was nothing out of the norm regardless. But glam rock movement was a lot more heteronormative than it looks through a modern lens - a lot of straight men dressed like Marc Bolan, and it was still an incredibly dangerous time to be queer. And it’s misleading not only because gender and sexuality are two different things, but this movie is about the fashion industry where it would be expected for Artie to be at the forefront of trends, which works in the opposite of making him "openly gay" and instead just adds to his ambiguity. And any room for ambiguity is not representation! Queer audiences deserve to see themselves depicted fully and diversely onscreen instead of constantly given false promises that the movie never lives up to.

And kind of nit-picky, but things that bothered me even so:
➳ The 1960s/70s soundtrack was not only so painfully predictable, but having a needle drop every 5 seconds like so much else about this movie was just incredibly annoying. Taking Iggy Pop's "I Wanna Be Your Dog" lyrics at face value doesn't add nuance, it just feels childish.
➳ Jasper and Horace are the most well spoken homeless kids with RP accents I've ever heard.
➳ Those CGI dogs!! Just horrible!
➳ The Baroness was more Cruella De Vil than Cruella.

TLDR - I hated it.

You'll float too

I've been a fan of Stephen King for years by this point, and I was in high school when I picked up my first King book Carrie purely because it was on sale and I'd recently seen the film and so was intrigued. I didn't actually rate Carrie very much, I don't remember why as I haven't read it since, but I quickly picked up The Shining as it was another film I'd seen (I've been a fan of horror and ghoulies my whole life - as a kid I favored Goosebumps and Shivers books above all else, and I was pretty young when I moved on to proper horror movies. Most teens use their fake ID to buy alcohol, I used mine to buy R rated horror movies) and I loved The Shining, so much so that it ruined the movie for me. I've read the majority of King's books by now (except The Dark Tower as I'm intimidated by the size of it!) and It has always stood out as one of my all time favourites. I was always disappointed that it hadn't really had a film version - there is a mini series starring Tim Curry as Pennywise, but it's made for TV and desperately feels it, in the days long before TV shows had serious money pumped into them.


I loved the first installment of It (which you can read about here) and even back then was immediately eager for part 2. I'm also really glad that they split this into two movies - usually I'd roll my eyes at Hollywood milking a franchise, but It is a vast brick of a novel and I think a big part of why the mini-series failed is because it's too convoluted, switching back and forth between the main characters as kids and adults and telling their stories simultaneously. It works in a book that's split up by chapters and headings, and by splitting the film into two halves it's the best way of getting that across without confusing the plot.

Overall both movies are really accurate to the novel - there are deviations from the plot, and the ending of Chapter 2 was completely re-written (with constant jabs at King throughout the script for not being able to write a decent ending, with even King himself getting in on it with a cameo) but there's not a lot from the book that I really missed as most of the key elements were there, and those that weren't I could tell why they were omitted.

The biggest thing that I did really miss was I felt the movie could of done a better job of delving in to the insidious influence that Pennywise holds over Derry. In the novel there are several instances throughout the history of the town where really awful, terrible actions have been carried out by the residents, and it's all because of Pennywise feeding off of people's fear and hatred. The two main events caused by Pennywise are The Black Spot, a club frequented by African Americans that becomes the site of a racist massacre, and the homophobic murder of Adrian Mellon. The Black Spot is briefly glossed over in the first movie, easy to miss entirely if you're not looking for it. Chapter 2 opens with the murder of Adrian Mellon which plays out exactly as it does in the novel, but unlike the novel there's never any reason for the scene being there and it just comes across as gratuitous violence. Derry is supposed to represent everything wrong and hateful in American society, a haunted town with Pennywise orchestrating and feeding off of every negative event. And the movie completely misses the mark on that aspect, and simply tells a coming of age story with Pennywise targeting a few specific kids - their own personal nightmare, rather than society's.

Chapter 2 also wasn't as scary as the first movie. Although I love horror, I'm also a big weenie and deliberately saw an early showing at the cinema so that I wouldn't have to go to bed straight after and feel scared, but for this movie I just wasn't scared at all. The worst scene for me was with Beverly in her old home, but I found most of the scares were ruined with really obvious CGI, which was a shame as I remember thinking how seamless the CGI was in the first movie. I appreciate that CGI is hugely necessary in a movie like this and don't mind it being used generally, but it was at the point where it interfered with Bill Skarsgård's performance and made him feel less threatening. And my final moan is with Harry Bowers, a plot line that just didn't really go anywhere or seem necessary and I wish he'd been used to better effect.

Overall I really loved it though! I think they did a great job of adapting it to the screen, which is a bigger task than most give credit for as adaptations that stay too close to the novel usually suck as it's a different medium, but at the same time you've got to keep the original fans happy. The casting was phenomenal, the adult cast really did look like the kids grown up and at no point did I wonder who was supposed to be who. I really loved their chemistry and the dynamic between the older and younger versions, everyone was perfect and personally I thought the humour was great. Richie and Eddie were my favourite, and I loved the angle given to their relationship in the closing scenes.

I can't wait until it's released on DVD and I can watch the two movies back to back as I think that's how they'll play best. Chapter 2 probably doesn't stand up as a movie in it's own right, like you couldn't just see that one and understand what's going on, but I also feel like the clue is in the name with it being called 'Chapter 2' and there's no reason for it be a stand alone movie. I only mention it as I know that's been a bit of an overall complaint, but I don't see how it's a criticism myself.