"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.

Dark Waters

As the year wraps up I've been thinking a lot about what the best film of 2020 might be for me. Admittedly, I've not seen a lot. It's crazy as last year I went to the cinema and saw more new releases than ever before, and yet as new releases have technically become more accessible with them all being streamed now I just find myself less inclined to bother. After all, so much is about the experience itself of being at the actual movie theater and that immersive experience. It's why I can't relate when people philosophize about "is this the end of movie theaters" because they personally would rather watch from their sofa on a small screen filled with distractions. No thanks.

Despite having not seen much this year, I do think for me, personally, my favourite movie has definitely been Dark Waters. I know technically this is listed on IMDb as 2019, but it was released at the very end of and wasn't released in Europe until 2020, so to me, a European, it's a 2020 release!

I really had no idea what I was getting into when I decided to watch this movie, I just thought the trailer looked interesting, and those gritty investigative movies starring Mark Ruffalo are one of my absolute favourite genres all by themselves.

Told from the perspective of lawyer Rob Bilott (Mark Ruffalo) the story begins almost as a mystery as he's brought an environmental case by a local farmer and begins investigating the huge multi-billion corporation Dupont, and discovers the toxic waste they've been pumping into America's water supplies. The plot of this movie is absolutely enraging as Bilott soon realises just how far the corporate tentacles that grip every aspect of our lives go, and how untouchable such a huge company are even from the government, which just feels even more relevent with the state of the world right now.

I appreciate how difficult it must have been to write a movie that's essentially about research compelling, but they managed it. Ruffalo literally spends a portion of the film sorting through endless boxes of paperwork, and yet I still found myself on the edge of my seat at what he was about to uncover.

"The system is rigged. They want us to believe that it'll protect us, but that's a lie. We protect us. We do. Nobody else. Not the companies, not the scientists, not the government. Us."

I'm not sure why this movie isn't more popular, wasn't more widely discussed, didn't pick up steam and garner any kind of social action, but it's a shame (and its quite easy to get all tin foil hat about why none of these things happened). Not only does this movie have a really important message, but it also tells it well and is just really well made. I've seen it three times this year, and the power of it's message never dilutes even when you know it's coming. It's just an incredible movie, and one of my favourites of all time, not just 2020.

One Royal Holiday

As you'll know if you've read my intro post, Aaron Tveit is my favourite actor and obviously because of this I like to stay up to date with his work. I've been putting off watching his latest movie One Royal Holiday (2020) for about 2 months now, and oh boy. I haven't been particularly excited for it which is why it's taken me this long to finally get round to watching it when it was released way back on October 31st (which is the most random night to release a Christmas movie, but whatever) I've seen Hallmark movies before so I knew it would be overly schmaltzy and cheesy, and the preview didn't give me much hope, but somehow it ended up being even worse?

Fairly typical for Hallmark holiday fare, it tells the story of Anna who works as a nurse in a Boston hospital and is visiting her father's Inn in Conneticut for the holidays, and Prince James of Galwick who's stuck in the US with his mother the Queen of Galwick after their plane was grounded due to snow storms. They meet in a donut shop and when learning of their plight Anna offers them a place to stay at her fathers Inn. Prince James has a massive stick up his ass and it's Anna's job to remove it, and typically they fall in love in the process.

I'd guessed Prince James's accent was going to be bad just from the preview when literally all he says is "Sorry, what?", but even I wasn't prepared for just how bad. Aaron has worked extensively with British people, he even worked on a London stage for a while, I also read an interview where he boasted about having received British accent training when filming Les Mis (a movie in which he sounds distinctly American I should add) so it feels like a real accomplishment to have gotten it that wrong. I guess now I understand why the Broadway production of Moulin Rouge randomly made Christian an American - our man just can't do accents.

I'm also perplexed at the characterisation of the Prince and Queen as they make such a point in the movie of saying that their fictional country of Galwick is 'Northern Europe' which to me, a European, implies Scandinavia. Yet everything about this 'Royal family' was the most painfully ignorant British stereotype you could ask for and had absolutely NOTHING to do with anything distinctly 'Northern Europe'. Even several of the casual comments they made about how 'different' they were got to me because it was just so poorly researched and could of been quickly Googled:
➳ "I'm not used to being on this side of the road" - the majority of Europe drives on the same side of the road as the US, driving on the left is literally a UK only thing.
➳ "I minored in architecture" - THAT'S NOT HOW EUROPEAN SCHOOLING WORKS!!!! We don't have 'majors' and 'minors'.
Even all of the comments on tea, and the 'royals' laughing at the Americans and their donuts - y'know we eat donuts here too, right??? Patisseries and bakeries are kind of a big deal, we invented most of that stuff.

I honestly found this film painful because it was just so poorly researched, so "haha, Europeans, am I right?" without having the slightest idea of anything to do with Europe and it came across as borderline offensive in it's level of ignorance. Both of the lead characters of Prince James and Anna aren't even likeable and were just equally as smug in opposite ways.

Aaron looked like he didn't want to be there for most of it, and he barely bothered promoting it on his social media so I feel like this is just something he signed up to in a panic caused by the pandemic and Broadway closing - he even directly said as much, making the point that it was the first work he'd been offered in months since Broadway closed. It honestly hurts to be ragging on one of his movies like this because he is my favourite actor and usually watching his movies makes me so, so happy, but it was so genuinely terrible and such a disappointment as it's the first of his movies that I actually feel that way about.

Jagten

I rewatched the Danish movie Jagten (aka The Hunt, 2012) last night, a film that I always feel a bit weird calling one of my favourites due to it's dark subject matter, but it's just so artfully made and deals with such important themes.


It stars Mads Mikkelsen as Lucas, a single middle aged man trying to rebuild his life after a divorce, who lives in the small town where he works in a childrens daycare - the kind of small town where everyone knows everyone and all of their business. Klara, the 5 year old daughter of his best friend, attends the daycare and develops a childish crush on Lucas as he's kind and takes the time to listen to her whereas her parents are usually arguing. One day Klara places a heart shaped gift in Lucas's pocket and gives him a kiss on the lips, and Lucas is quick to admonish her which hurts her feelings. As she's sulking from the rejection, Grethe, the head of the daycare, asks Klara if she's OK and Klara says something that is understood to mean Lucas has sexually abused her. Grethe brings in a child psychologist who asks Klara a series of leading questions, not allowing Klara to go and play with her friends until she's answered. Grethe doesn't believe that a child would lie about such a thing and so Lucas is branded a paedophile and shunned by the entire community. Although a police investigation proves Lucas is innocent, he continues to be ostracised which quickly leads to violence as the community doles out it's own sense of justice.

It's an incredibly heart wrenching film to watch, especially as it's inspired by true events that happened in Norway. Director and co-writer Thomas Vinterberg said of the film "When someone is accused of child abuse, the kids get interrogated by policemen and psychiatrists who repeatedly ask them the same questions. Sometimes, the kids give the grown-ups the answers they want. They say, ‘yes, he abused me.’ Then everyone goes crazy and for the child, his whole world falls apart."

It's a bit of a controversial take to not believe a child, but I think the reason that the film is able to pull it off is how it leaves us in no doubt that Lucas is innocent. It lays all of the cards on the table and we're shown how a few unprofessional leading questions can ruin a persons life and fuel a mob mentality. It's not a natural choice for a protagonist, but Mads Mikkelsen plays Lucas with a bewildered charm and it's devastating and uncomfortable to watch his life slowly unravel. Even after the community forgives him, we see that the damage has been done - a stone cannot simply be uncast.

{source}

Whilst it's unfortunately far more frequent for child abusers go unpunished rather than falsely accused, Jagten perfectly tackles the paranoia of modern society, particularly the stigma of men working in environments with children and displaying any kindness that could be misconstrued and yet considered normal between a woman and non-related child. It criticizes the ease of society to sit, point and judge, without even bothering to verify the facts or consider an alternative viewpoint, something that feels ever more prevalent in todays 'cancel' culture. This is simply a powerful and enraging film that reminds us just how judgemental we tend to be towards others and the devastating effects it can have.

Анастасия

I've always really, really loved the Don Bluth 1997 movie Anastasia ever since I was a little girl. It's funny actually as I consider Disney my favourite for animations, but most of my favourite animated movies are actually by other companies!


I haven't actually watched this movie in a long time as I've been swept up in the Broadway soundtrack which alters the story somewhat - instead of being pursued by an undead Rasputin, Anya's tracked from St Petersburg to Paris by a general of the Bolshevik army who’s father was one of the soldiers involved in the shooting of the Romanovs. I really love that change as it's obviously a bit truer to history, but saying that it does always make me laugh that the biggest complaint about this movie is how historically inaccurate it is - is there any Hollywood movie that sticks to it's source 100%? And baring in mind it's an animation and will be watched by children, I hardly think a true account of political unrest, war, genocide, Russians starving to death, and a Royal family being brutally murdered is in any way appropriate. It's a fairy tale and never claims to be true - the Grand Duchess Anastasia didn't really survive either.

If I had any complaint about the way this movie handles the history it would be that it sympathizes the Romanovs too much and comes across as fully Tsarist, but through using Rasputin it doesn't blame the Russians for what happened either so it is at least neutral in that regard. Generally I think it's really well handled for the type of movie that it is, and I appreciate some of the smaller detailing alluding to what actually happened: Rasputin may not have sold his soul and placed a curse on the Romanovs, but he certainly played a part in turning the people against the Royal family which is portrayed at the opening of the movie. And although it takes so many liberties with history, I'm sure like many others it served as my gateway into a lifelong fascination with Russian history.

Speaking of which, I've recently begun learning Russian and so thought it would be fun to watch this movie with the Russian audio (hence the post title). I'm still far too beginner to understand much of it,  but it did make the film feel fresh and it was fun to hear what they 'should' be saying if it were real - and dare I even say that I think I preferred the Russian voice actors as it seemed to fit the characters personalities better. The character of Dmitry has always been my weakness since I was 8 years old, and something about his Russian voice just made him even hotter which I didn't think was even possible. Ahem.



Anyway, I really love this movie. The animation is gorgeous, and whilst not quite as flawless as other films released at this time such as The Prince of Egypt, it has a certain tangible quality to the artwork that I really love and you can tell it was actually drawn with real hands instead of being spat out of a computer. It's also one of my favourite animated movie soundtracks that I listen to often - and I do strongly recommend listening to the Broadway adaptation if you're a fan. It doesn't have In The Dark Of The Night as Rasputin isn't present at all, but all other favourites are there among some powerful new additions such as In My Dreams, The Neva Flows, and In A Crowd of Thousands.

"For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee, ye damned whale."

I’ve had an image in my head that I’ve wanted to create into an illustration for a while, but as it involves a whale and boat I feel like it’s imagery which is probably a bit Moby Dick-seque - even though I’ve never read nor seen Moby Dick and don’t really even know what it’s about. But I figure instead of dropping my idea or trying to protest that it has nothing to do with Moby Dick, I should just learn the story and roll with it. I am an illustrator after all which involves illustrating existing stories! Unfortunately I don’t have the inclination right now to plough through a 650 page book as I already have a stack of books that I actually want to read, so I decided to cop out a bit and familiarise myself through a movie. I figured they’d be plenty as it’s such a famous book, and was pretty shocked to see that that’s not the case at all and so quickly settled on the 1956 version starring Gregory Peck.


Fun fact: I’m actually terrified of whales! I’m not scared of sharks or things that could actually hurt me, and I know that whales aren’t man hunters and are actually supposed to be quite kind and inquisitive and I even enjoy imagery and illustration involving them, but I can’t help but be terrified of them all the same. It’s their size, you see - I have quite severe megalophobia and huge things give me full on panic attacks, including whales. And that was another reason I’ve spent my life avoiding Moby Dick, and why I went for an older movie as I hoped the effects would be less realistic and so less terrifying for me.

And I was right! I spent the entire movie dreading the scenes with the whale but they were fine - which isn’t to say they were bad, I love old movie effects and much prefer them to CGI, but they were endearing in their way as it is clearly not a real whale to my relief. And I enjoyed the final battle. I feel like a modern adaptation would of rushed the showdown between Ahab and the whale and we’d have a 45 minute overly drawn out and tedious action packed CGI battle - but instead the battle is saved for the final 5 minutes, with the rest of the film pacing us, preparing us, forcing us to feel Ahab’s and the crew’s anticipation at knowing what’s in store. Apparently Gregory Peck was slated a lot for his role as Ahab, and even he himself cringed at his performance in later years feeling he was miscast. Whilst I fully admit this is my introduction to the character and I have nothing else to base his performance off of, I can certainly say that I enjoyed it, his manic obsession was palpable.

I'd seen The Lighthouse (2019) back in January and couldn’t help but draw several parallels with some scenes, which is something that I really love about consuming media; when you’re able to make those connections and spot the influence and see everything come together full circle, and there were several instances where Ahab was on screen that made me think of Willem Dafoe's character especially (I haven't reviewed The Lighthouse as I was so-so on it, but I feel like it's one of those movies where it takes a few watches for it to all come together so maybe I'll write about it in the future as I did love the imagery.)

The only real drawback for me is that I could of really done without seeing white men pretend to be Polynesian and Native American. It’s the worst aspect of old movies to be honest, and not knowing the story beforehand I wasn't expecting it. I take partial responsibility for that as if I had known there were indigenous characters then it’s a pretty safe bet it’ll be a white guy in face paint, but it's a shame nonetheless and does mar my enjoyment. There's also some scenes of real whaling which is it's own yikes, but I'm not completely sure what was real and what wasn't which is perhaps a blessing?

I’m still not sure if Moby Dick is where my illustration lies just yet, I’m going to read the book of Jonah to make sure I’m not getting confused, but I'm happy to at least have discovered a new movie out of it! (and I got to learn where Starbucks got its name from!)