If I Had Legs I'd Kick You - So Would I

 

Rent on Apple TV and Amazon

    A24 Studios has earned a well-deserved reputation for putting effort into its films and taking risks. While their output has primarily been psychological thrillers and horror films, they are also among the few studios not afraid to step into the world of the enigmatic and unusual. For the most part, their releases have been more interesting and engaging than those of many other independent studios. Having said that, I wish their latest offering, an unusual psychological thriller/dark comedy, If I Had Legs I'd Kick You, were way better than it is. While I can recognize and appreciate what I assume is an earnest effort to depict the frustrations and unspoken horrors of parenthood, the film itself is too overwhelming and too far up its own mysterious black hole to leave any kind of impression, other than a fresh desire to punch a wall. 

    The story follows an overworked and underappreciated mother named Linda (Rose Byrne), who is caring for her young daughter with a mysterious illness, requiring a feeding tube in her stomach, along with regular observation and constant maintenance. When her apartment is hit by what appears to be a broken water pipe, resulting in a massive flood that bursts through the master bedroom ceiling, leaving a giant hole, Linda and her little girl are forced to stay in a shady hotel while repairs are underway. Made all the more frustrating by her absent husband, apathetic co-workers, and indifferent hotel staff, who all add to the madness of her demanding daughter. Throughout the film, Linda seeks some sort of refuge from her situation, at least temporarily, while uncomfortable thoughts and possibilities hover over her; a snap may be inevitable. 

    The most significant issue with this film is the frustrating misuse of misdirection. Those familiar with these kinds of films typically await, nay, expect a profound twist that makes the unusual proceedings worth sitting through, regardless of how frustrating and overwhelming they may choose to be. If I Had Legs I'd Kick You is loaded with hints and suggestive moments that give the impression of a massive build-up to an unexpected twist that could speak volumes more than anything else. Sadly, without spoiling anything, this film is more interested in misdirection for misdirection's sake, without any kind of worthy delivery of an intense twist. What it ultimately delivers falls flat, leaving me feeling as though my time was utterly wasted. 

    This frustration is further exacerbated by the lack of a sympathetic protagonist. While Rose Byrne delivers a committed and energetic performance, and her character is at least partially empathetic, there isn't enough there to warrant audience investment. What is there is what I can only assume was an effort to explore and depict an aspect of the human condition that is, more often than not, repressed and never said out loud in polite society, and had the script been better polished, might have had greater impact than what was ultimately delivered. Instead, it only came across as whining, immature, and unsympathetic.

    While I am always willing to be proven wrong about my perception and experiences (or lack thereof), this film fails to justify its creative and narrative choices, at least to me. Rose Byrne's performance saves this film from a single-star rating, but otherwise, it may be A24's weakest offering, leaving too much to be desired. I may be proven wrong about some elements of the film in the future, and I will gladly listen to what others have to say, but until then, I thoroughly disliked this film and do not recommend it to anyone! 

    Skip it! 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Safe House (2025) - FUBAR

 

Rent on Apple TV and Plex

    One of the more challenging things to do these days is giving a movie the benefit of the doubt. Back in the days of video rental stores, you could discuss your possible choice of flick with a clerk who likely watched it and could give you their assessment of the film, thereby better informing your decision on whether to rent it. However, in the age of digital rentals and streaming services, that option cannot be replicated. Not to mention all of the other benefits of going to the video rental store, but that's a discussion for another time. 

    Safe House (2025) sounds like a good bet on paper: an action thriller with a handful of discerning characters, set in a single location. In the right hands, this can be a workable, engaging, and fantastic setup for an excellent film. Instead, it is the cinematic equivalent of ordering a handmade cheeseburger but receiving a week-old Big Mac. 

    The story follows a group of agents from various federal and military agencies who find themselves in lockdown during a terrorist attack. They make their way to a designated safe location with instructions to remain in hiding and await further orders. Which might be easier said than done, as they are regularly attacked by armed forces hell bent on taking their lives. Not only that, but one of the unlucky people inside the Safe House seems to be hiding something that the bad guys want. How long can they stand their ground before something gives way? 

    As I said, this could work as an engaging thriller with interesting character development, sprinkled with the occasional action scene to vary the pacing. Storytellers with enough talent and willpower can make something memorable out of what little budget or resources they have. Unfortunately, no one involved in this project appears to have any of the skills or talents necessary to deliver a promising product. 

    The action scenes are repetitive with little in the way of variety or creativity; the performances are one-note and lack any kind of interesting texture (not helped by the lack of texture in the characters themselves); the direction is bland with no sense of style or personal voice outside of a poor emulation of better directors (like Joe Carnahan); and the writing is depressingly ameture with stock tough-guy dialouge, one-dimentional characters, an overarching theme that sounds good on paper but ultimatly isn't worth investing, and one of the laziest attempts at sequal bating I have ever seen!

    This movie feels like it was either made because someone lost a bet or the studio was looking for a quick tax write-off. It offers nothing substantial and only emphasizes its wasted potential with every subsequent, repetitive explosion that permeates the film every ten minutes. 

    If you must watch a movie titled Safe House, track down and watch the 1998 Patrick Stewart film. It's a vastly superior movie with an engaging story and memorable performances, well worth the rental price on Amazon. Highly recommended! 

    Avoid the 2025 Safe House at all costs! 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Karate Kid: Legends - Wax On, Wax Off... AGAIN

 

Streaming on Netflix

    It is challenging to write about this movie without complaining about Hollywood's insulting lack of effort, especially when it comes to nostalgia. With a few notable exceptions like Spider-Man: No Way Home or Mission: Impossible - The Final Reckoning, nostalgia has officially become a genre within the mainstream Hollywood system, and, like a dead horse, Hollywood will continue to beat it well into its own demise. If you think I'm overexaggerating, look no further than the existence of the upcoming sequel to The Devil Wears Prada that no one asked for, nor is narratively sensible. But it's been made and will be released for no sound or adequate reason other than name and brand recognition. I mean, goodness forbid that the talent being dragged back into this fray be used for anything else. 

    This is supposed to be a movie review, isn't it? 

    Anyway, one of the more recent blows to our collective nostalgia is a legacy sequel to one of the best '80s martial-arts franchises, The Karate Kid. A story about balance, standing up to bullies, and finding purpose in a new beginning. The first film from 1984 is a monument to lovable cheesiness and a perfect template for stories about profound friendships. All of the sequels that followed, except for the second one, couldn't live up to the same kind of charm and effort delivered in the first film. Then there was the soft remake, set in China, which renders the use of the Karate Kid title completely nonsensical. But, Jackie Chan as the obligatory Mr. Miyagi stand-in was pretty clever. 

    Now, we have a brand-new movie that tries to connect the original films' characters and storylines with the new ones introduced in the soft remake, resulting in a film that feels like a poor attempt to combine two completely different screenplays into a single narrative. While parts of the film are still charming in their own way, the overall experience leaves a lot (and I mean a LOT) to be desired. 

    The story follows a young boy named Li (Ben Wang), a promising student of Jackie Chan's martial arts school in China, whose mother gets a new job in New York and moves them there (gee, where have I heard this before? 🤔). Once arriving in the Big Apple, Li makes a new friend and finds himself at odds with the local bully, who happens to be an aggressive martial arts student who uses his skills explicitly to hurt others and establish dominance (again, this is all sounding so familiar 🤔). When circumstances force Li into a fight, he is visited by his master, Jackie Chan, who offers to help him prepare for an upcoming tournament (getting clearer now 🤔). To further help, Jackie Chan seeks additional assistance from someone who was trained under his old friend, Mr. Miyagi, his good friend and best student, Daniel (Ralph Macchio). 

    And there it is! 

    Yes, the main plot of the film is yet another retelling of the general plot from the first movie. This, in and of itself, isn't inherently bad. Still, it only adds to the overuse of nostalgia, rendering the rest of the proceedings dull and unengaging, because nothing new or different is being accomplished, despite featuring a handful of new elements. There are only so many times the same general plot can be reused before it becomes stale. 

    Now, I could have easily forgiven or overlooked the lazy retelling of the exact same plot if the execution was at least engaging and emotionally resonating; there is a ton of potential for high-quality storytelling with these characters and situations, not to mention the nostalgia, that could have made for a surprising wonder of a film in the same vain as Spider-Man: No Way Home, wherein the nostalgia factor was used to enhance a narrativly satisfying arc and profound character development. Sadly, this film doesn't take advantage of that possibility; instead, it roundhouse-kicks it all in the face, repeatedly, with a steel-toe boot! 

    Rather than creativly utilizing any of the emotionally resonating possibilities presented with this story, the film rushes every single opportunity for profound character development in favor of flashy Adobe-style graphics, repetitive montages, excessive needle drops, sporadic editing, and jokes that, while at least a few did get a chuckle from me, ultimatly don't accomplish anything, other than distracting the viewer from a lack of any genuine effort toward actual storytelling. 

    Karate Kid: Legends is ultimately a harmless, cute movie that is little more than yet another piece of streaming filler to play in the background while folding your laundry. It brings nothing substantial, memorable, or emotionally resonant to the table; only frustration at the abundance of wasted potential. While some of the fight scenes, the cinematography, and Jackie Chan's ever-reliable presence save this film from a single-star rating, it is little more than yet another hollow, dull, and apathetic milking of a franchise. 

    If you're feeling nostalgic for The Karate Kid, go watch the first and/or second movie. If you're in the mood for any kind of classic cheesy martial-arts fun outside of this franchise, go watch any of Jackie Chan's earlier movies. If you want something more recent with equally impressive martial arts action and stronger emotional resonance, go watch Marvel's Shang-Chi. At least that movie ends with an awesome Dragon! 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

"For a man who shows no mercy in his heart, living is a greater punishment than death." 

-Mr. Miyagi

One Battle After Another - A Very, VERY Mixed Bag

 

Rent on Apple TV

     This film is a perfect case study to test my critical thinking. On the one hand, this film is loaded with elements (both technical and narrative) that I would usually and unquestionably admire and appreciate; on the other hand, there's no denying it's also rife with flaws that are too obvious and loud to overlook. Not the least among them is an air of pretentiousness and self-indulgence that, while seemingly satisfactory on the surface, doesn't quite hit the intended mark as well as it probably should have, at least not with me. While part of me did enjoy some of the craftsmanship and artistry that went into the production, there's enough there to make me question the integrity of the themes and ideologies presented, ones I technically agree with (to a point). 

    Inspired by Thomas Pynchon's novel Vineland, the story follows Bob (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his teenage daughter, Willa (Chase Infiniti), who live a reasonably decent life together. Bob manages to succeed well enough as a father, despite substance issues and a troubled past, including involvement with a left-wing revolutionary movement called The French 75 and a relationship with a spastic livewire (to put it mildly) named Perfidia (Teyana Taylor), the mother of his child. At least, he's pretty sure he's her father. It turns out Bob's past has caught up to him when a military colonel named Lockjaw (Sean Penn), who may or may not have been intimate enough with Perfidia to have fathered a child with her, is about to join a super-secret white supremacist movement, and can't have any evidence of his previous indiscretions coming to light, so he's now orchistrating military invasions of American cities to find and dispose of his past choices, causing Bob to jump back into the frey to save the young girl he considers his daughter. 

    This movie has enough aspects in its creation to warrant a complete pass from me, but I cannot, in good conscience, give it one, because the good graces it earns from me as a viewer either outweigh or perfectly balance the issues I have with it, both narratively and politically. 

    First, what I liked about the film. 

    The cast and performances are astonishing and committed, with Leonardo DiCaprio delivering his typical 1,000% amount of energy to his character and performance. A few of my friends and I have declared him the Sir Alec Guinnis of our time, and I stand by that statement. Although the MVP award goes to Benicio Del Toro for being the best supporting character in the film, and someone who you hope to have in your corner in your hour of need. 

    Also, it would be a disservice for me not to mention and gush about the film's incredible, absolutely gorgeous cinematography. Photographed by Michael Bauman, the film utilizes a lighting style that relies heavily upon natural and practical lighting, as in lighting that comes from the sun or from things you see in the frame (such as lamps) and nothing else. As such, the images can sometimes come across as overexposed (too bright) or lacking proper filler (lights that fill in the shadows), but that is part of the character and personality offered by the artistic choices. 

    This is the lighting style I use in most of my own projects, and it makes my heart soar when I see it used in Hollywood. It's a lighting style that not only harkens back to the era of some of the greatest filmmakers of the 20th century, like Stanley Kubrick, but also adds a sense of depth and believable texture that is sadly lacking in many modern movies. Yes, part of that beautiful aesthetic was achieved through the movie's choice of capture format (filming on a classic celluloid film format known as VistaVision), but that does and should not give the false impression that the images produced in this film cannot be replicated as well in any given digital format. 

    I will never tire of saying this, so long as it bears repeating: your story is only as good as how you tell it, not on the format you're using, regardless of what popular conjecture wants you to believe. 

    Having said all that, I only wish the characters, general plot, and ideologies presented therein were as worthy of the praise and agulation they clearly beg for! 

    While the overall thematic elements and intended commentary regarding the present sociological and political situations are more or less on point and tuned into an understandable frequency, I can't help but feel that most of the main characters, including Leonardo DiCaprio's (lovable dork that his character is), don't quite align with what most might consider a tangible protagonist, let alone supporting characters. Yes, they're human, they make strange choices, and they're trying to fight against and raise awareness of the many unfortunate injustices and hypocracies that sadly plague our nation as a whole. But, by all that is good in this world, do they (and by extension the filmmakers) have to present it all in such an unlikable, pretentious, and arrogant manner? 

    Yes, the present state of our social and political climate is frustrating; the lack of effort toward something better is annoying, and the seemingly apathetic powers that be cause much anxiety and a desire for greater action than what is seen. But, for goodness' sake, can we please stop pretending that descending into the same kind of violent and hateful rhetoric as our "enemies" is somehow going to make any difference? Because it's not! 

    Also, this is a minor nitpick, but the film could have been about a half hour shorter. 

    One Battle After Another is a film with good intentions and mostly well-crafted execution, but it ultimately proves challenging to endorse in its entirety. While its political and sociological commentary is spot-on in many ways, the intended message gets muddled by a few questionable creative choices. I do still recommend giving it a watch for its stunning visual style and electric performances, but please take what it has to say with a grain of salt, as we should with pretty much everything in this modern world.

"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." 

-Issac Asimov 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Play Dirty - Mezmorizing Mayhem

 

Streaming on Amazon Prime

    One of the most important aspects of narrative filmmaking is pacing —the speed at which the story unfolds—because it profoundly shapes how the audience perceives and feels about the story. The best pacing is filled with highs and lows: moments of high intensity followed by slower moments to allow the audience to catch its breath and build up to the next big moment. Films like the first Star Wars and Mad Max: Fury Road are masterclasses in cinematic pacing. By contrast, the worst kind of pacing is the kind that moves at a single speed, with little to no variety or regard for the audience's tolerance. Look to any of Michael Bay's films released within the last ten years as examples. 

    Today's subject, Play Dirty, is an unusual experiment in cinematic pacing: on the one hand, it moves at a near breakneck pace that might cause one to perceive it as too fast, but on the other hand, the things that are happening are presented in such a sudden (often hilarious) way that by the time the audience tries to think about what just happened, something equally (if not more) sudden pops out of nowhere with the absolute minimal time neccecary to catch ones breath. Under most circumstances, this might be enough to make a film unwatchable. Still, the filmmakers here succeeded in finding the perfect balance between maintaining a quick pace and compensating for the minimal breathing time. It's not enough to recommend this film to everyone, but it may be enough to encourage you to give it the fifteen-minute test. 

    The story follows an expert thief named Parker (Mark Wahlberg) who has just survived getting double-crossed and shot by one of his crew, an attractive woman named Zen (Rosa Salazar). Zen killed the rest of the crew, made off with the money from their heist, and now Parker is out for some payback. However, once Parker finds Zen, she presents him with a heist unlike any they have done before; one that is too tempting to pass up. It turns out that a massive historical discovery—the lost treasures of a sunken ship from around the 15th century, connected to Zen's home country—is going to be secretly sold off to the highest bidder by her country's tyrannical dictator. Zen wants to secure the treasure for her people rather than let it be bought by some uber-wealthy schnook, so Zen convinces Parker to team up with her for the job and put together a new crew for the heist of the century. The first person Parker brings in is his best friend, Grofield (LaKeith Stanfield), who could use the money to revive his theater, which is dying. With a new ragtag crew of misfits and the historical preservation of an entire nation at stake, what could possibly go wrong? 

    This film succeeds in providing likable, engaging, and mostly sympathetic characters, despite most of them being criminals, each with tangible, relatable goals. It also helps that the script offers clever, witty, and appropriately profane dialogue, accompanied by solid chemistry among the cast. This film reminds you of another all-important aspect of storytelling: if the characters are having fun, the audience will, too. 

    Co-writer and director Shane Black, who does not have the best of reputations right now for understandable reasons, delivers a film that feels more in tune with the style and presentation he seems to prefer. Much like some of his contemporaries, he has a knack for flair and extravagance, but he still manages to retain the more critical human element in his presentation. Something that was sadly lacking from his attempt at a Predator film (among other things, to put it mildly). 

    The action scenes deliver proper entertainment value, the cast delivers worthwhile performances, and the cinematography never falls into the trap of mistaking excessive shaky-cam for intense immersion. Even Mark Wahlberg, who isn't my favorite person in Hollywood for more than a few reasons, still delivers a tangible performance that's almost on par with his work in Martin Scorsese's The Departed. Also, Rosa Salazar gets a grand opportunity to stretch herself a little bit and expand her range. 

    Play Dirty may not be the next big thing in heist cinema (nothing has yet to take the throne of my favorite heist film, Inception), but it does provide enough of the familiar elements of a good heist film, along with a few decent surprises, and enough of its own over-the-top silliness to provide a decent watch. If you have an Amazon Prime account, this is a decent pick for a lazy Sunday. 

    Give it a look. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

How Not To Make A Movie 101 - The Island of Dr. Moreau (1996)

 

    Welcome back to another edition of How Not To Make A Movie 101, my beautiful students. For today's lesson, we're going to take a hard look at one of the most infamous failures of cinema —the ultimate act of hubris and the most monumental demonstration of Hollywood's eternal implosion: The Island of Dr. Moreau from 1996. This is a story of heartbreaking tragedy, pretentiousness, arrogance, and an unhealthy lack of humility. It is a cautionary tale of bad compromise, overinflated egos, and a lack of commitment to an artistic vision. Though it may not be the earliest story of a movie's production gone horribly wrong, it remains the most vital story for the history books. Should you dare attempt to sit through this monstrosity, let it be to better yourself as an artist and a person, through the example of what not to do. 

    First, allow me to provide some context. 

    The Island of Dr. Moreau began life as a novel, published in 1896 by the renowned science fiction author, H.G. Wells. It follows the story of a shipwreck survivor named Edward Prendick, who floats onto a mysterious Island. Once there, he discovers a deranged scientist, Dr. Moreau, who has been experimenting with creating human-animal hybrids. Shocked yet intrigued by what he finds, Edward stays on the island for some time before making his escape back to civilization, forever changed by his experiences and trauma. 

    The book had been adapted to the silver screen a few times before, most notably in 1932 (retitled Island of Lost Souls) starring Charles Laughton and Bela Lugosi, and again in 1977 starring Burt Lancaster and Michael York. Both films were relatively close to the original narrative, but neither could really capture the essence of the story. And while it contained many of the hallmarks one might expect from an H.G. Wells novel, it was arguably his most relevant story (especially for the time) that required a greater level of nuance than Hollywood could ever be willing to provide, let alone seek out. 

    Then, in the 1990s, a young, up-and-coming filmmaker from South Africa named Richard Stanley, known then for a few strange independent films such as Dust Devil and Hardware, and a long-time fan of H.G. Wells (especially The Island of Dr. Moreau), presented New Line Cinema with a vision. One that could capture the story's strange and unusual nuance and finally deliver a proper adaptation of the classic novel to the silver screen. With Richard Stanley's level of enthusiasm and a movie studio known for finding success in taking risks with relatively unknown talent, what could possibly go wrong? 

    Well, I'll tell you! 

    Quick disclaimer. Many of the points I discuss here were well documented in a video essay by the YouTuber Cynical Reviews. There are many more aspects to this horrible production I won't get into here, but they are fascinating nonetheless, and are covered in the video. You may find a link to his video at the end of this blog entry. 

    Class is now in session; let's begin. 

Lesson #1 

Commit to the vision

    Before receiving New Line Cinema's green light, Richard Stanley had been developing his vision for the film for over 4 years. It was a major passion project of his, as he was not only a massive fan of the original book but also drew inspiration from it to create a better adaptation than what he had seen years before. According to Stanley, the only time he demanded his money back for a movie ticket was when he saw the 1977 version of The Island of Dr. Moreau and was upset that there wasn't a cat girl in the film, despite many advertisements claiming there was. Rest assured, that wasn't the only thing Richard Stanley wanted to include in his vision. 

    Stanley had envisioned a darker, stranger, and more satirical film than the original story. He also wanted to take advantage of the concept of human animal hybrids in as many ways as possible, including a very graphic and unsettling depiction of a hybrid's birth. Whatever else can be said about Richard Stanley as a person (sadly, most of it isn't very good), there is no denying that he had a clear, unusually creative, and passionate vision for a film that might have been fascinating to witness one way or the other. 

    Sadly, not enough people involved in the production seemed to understand or care for his vision. 

    According to a video essay on the film by YouTuber Cynical Reviews, New Line Cinema wasn't interested in giving Richard Stanley a chance at directing, but they really wanted his script. So, they brought him on board while secretly offering the project to a "more household name"—Roman Polanski —with the intention of kicking Stanley to the curb. Stanley, justifiably angered by this, pleaded his case to Marlon Brando (more on him later), who was attached to play the lead role in the film, and successfully convinced him to force New Line Cinema's hand by only agreeing to do the film if Stanley directed. 

    So far, so good. But then, it happened again. 

    Circumstances led the studio to hire Val Kilmer for one of the roles, banking on his name to secure audience draw and better box-office returns. Unfortunately, this was the time in Kilmer's career when fame was getting to his head. Shortly after signing the contract and glancing at the kind of film he was participating in, he suddenly became uninterested and wanted out. However, because the studio "needed" him to better sell the film, they forced him to stay on. This prompted Val Kilmer to transform into the biggest jackass throughout the entire production. 

    Kilmer would make outrageous demands, refuse to learn his lines, and treat everyone else in the cast and crew (especially Richard Stanley) like a schoolyard bully on a rampage. Some of his immature antics included sitting down on the ground, refusing to move, and burning a camera operator's head with a lit cigarette while the camera was rolling. In any other situation, this would have cost anyone else their job, but because New Line Cinema still clearly had no faith in Richard Stanley's vision, they didn't care. 

    This, combined with pressure from the studio to deliver a product, on top of a few other unfortunate events too numerous to list, caused Richard Stanley to have a stress-induced nervous breakdown, prompting the studio to finally step in and do the only thing they thought was sensible: they fired Richard Stanley and replaced him with another director, John Frankenheimer, who had taken over for fired directors before, and only agreed to complete this project under the condition of a three-picture deal with the studio, which they agreed to. 

    While there were many underlying reasons and additional factors behind everyone's behavior in this story, the main driving force was that no one else — especially those with the most influence — believed in or agreed with Richard Stanley's vision. While I would not go so far as to declare Richard Stanley the most underrated or misunderstood artist of the century (mostly because he isn't, but also because he's not deserving of such a title), there was no denying that there was something about his vision that might have been worth the risk. Maybe it would have succeeded in spades, maybe it would have flopped as horribly as the actual film already had, or maybe it would have become a cult classic; we will never know. 

    The point is, if you don't agree with or believe in a vision, don't pretend to just nab a script. Part of the arts is exploring and understanding how others see things, and allowing yourself to be open to such opportunities when presented to you. Refusing to understand an artistic vision that differs from your preferences is just as arrogant as refusing to understand another culture you find yourself living within. Take the opportunity to grow and learn; take a chance. 

Lesson #2

Reevaluate everything often

    For many of the people involved in this production, the main driving force was the opportunity to work with the legendary actor, Marlon Brando (I told you we'd get back to him). By this time, Brando had successfully become a household name in the field of acting and a massive box-office draw. Studios wanted him, filmmakers and actors wanted to work with him, and audiences wanted to see him. And with incredible successes under his belt, such as the essential classic On the Waterfront, not to mention his Oscar-winning performance in The Godfather, and even his unusually unsettling performance in Apocalypse Now, it's not all that challenging to see the allure of having the opportunity to work with such a prestigious performer. 

    Sadly, such an idea would prove to be significantly more cumbersome than it was worth. 

    By this stage in his life, Marlon Brando seemed to give up on acting and movies entirely, not helped by his already established reputation for being difficult to work with. Further exacerbated by the tragic death of his daughter, Cheyenne, prompting Marlon to exile himself out of grief. No person, parent or otherwise, should ever have to experience such heartbreak. 

    Nevertheless, the prestige that came from getting to say "I did a movie with Marlon Brando" was too tempting an opportunity to pass over, a mentality shared by almost everyone in the cast and crew, including the latecomer to the cast, David Thewlis, who replaced another actor who left the production after pleading with the executives. This would prove to be a less-than-favorable event for everyone involved. 

    When Marlon Brando finally arrived on set for his scenes (the film had already been in production for a few months by now), everything went to hell! Well, more so than it already had. Brando refused to learn his lines, preferring to use an earpiece for his assistant to feed him his lines during filming. Apparently, the earpiece would occasionally pick up police banter, prompting Brando to proclaim "There's a robbery at Wulworths" in the middle of a scene. Brando also made unusual requests of his wardrobe and character that were not only antithetical to the script but also made no sense whatsoever, including wearing an ice bucket on his head and suggesting a surprise twist in which his character is revealed to actually be a Dolphin. That last one might have actually made the movie more interesting in retrospect. 

    This all just goes to show that no matter how prestigious or recognizable a name may be, and no matter how exciting it may sound to work with one of your heroes, history has shown that it is always more important to take a step back and reevaluate your stances on many things you previously held dear. Marlon Brando may remain one of the most influential and memorable performers in cinema history, but he was still human with flaws and scars. These aspects of his character were ignored by everyone involved in the production at their own peril. 

Lesson #3

Be mindful of your heroes

    I have never been a fan of the phrase "Never meet your heroes" for a variety of reasons, the most prominent being that it is too exclusive and discourages the opportunity of meeting genuinely good people you admire. While there is no denying that people we may come to regard as our heroes may turn out to have less than heroic aspects to them, that doesn't mean it applies to all of the ones you appreciate greatly. What it does mean is that, while it is healthy to have heroes in your life, both fictional and real, we must make the effort to remember that they are still human, or at least the result of human creation. 

    As we become more understanding (and occasionally disillusioned) about how things function and how people handle the many obstacles of our existence, we must strive to do and become better than those who have disappointed us. No one on the face of this Earth, or within the realms of our imagination, is infallible; our very nature, both in and out, is built upon a flawed nature that continues to grow and improve, provided we maintain the fortitude and awareness to recognize and accept the opportunity when it presents itself. 

    I am suddenly reminded of one of my favorite moments in the Marvel film, Avengers: Age of Ultron, in which one of the heroes has a brief yet profound final confrontation with the villain: 

    "Humans are odd. They think order and chaos are somehow opposites and try to control what won't be. But there is grace in their failings; I think you missed that." 

-Vision

Conclusion

    Not all people are easily forgiven for their mistakes, and not all mistakes are equal, but they should not deter us from the lessons to be found in recognizing the humanity in all forms of creativity. It is this very notion that many people involved in this movie completely forgot or ignored, and it is arguably the most significant lesson to learn from the story of this film's troubled production. One day, we may see someone with a clear mind, a noble heart, and a worthwhile vision for bringing this classic H.G. Wells story to life on the silver screen. But, until then, we will always have this strange piece of desperate cinema to look back at, learn a few lessons from, and get a few good laughs out of. 

    Don't be afraid to meet your heroes; be mindful of who they are in their entirety. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Cynical Reviews - Most Cursed Movie

Halloween Special - The Invisible Man (1933)

 

Rent on Apple TV and Amazon

    Of the many classic gems in Universal Studios' catalog of monster films, none is as impactful or as memorable to me as the one based on the equally classic H.G. Wells novel, The Invisible Man. Released in 1933 and directed by James Whale, who also helmed Frankenstein two years prior, The Invisible Man is one of the many essential films I grew up watching, and has remained a staple watch for Halloween ever since. While aspects of it may seem a bit dated (to put it mildly), and some artistic choices may seem somewhat unusual, there is no denying that The Invisible Man remains a must-watch for horror enthusiasts and cinephiles alike. And if you have a moment, I will gladly explain why. 

    The story follows a mysterious man with a bandaged head who barges into a local Inn during a massive snowstorm. The man is later identified as Jack Griffin (Claude Rains), a scientist on the run who is trying to reverse a previous experiment on himself. After a failed attempt to conduct his work at the Inn, and after enough curious eyes force his frustrations, Jack finally reveals to the onlookers what is under his bandages, which is revealed to be... absolutely nothing! 

    The man has turned himself invisible; unseeable to the naked eye. After revealing his secret to the town and staging a successful escape from the authorities, Jack makes his way to an old friend's house, Dr. Arthur Kemp (William Harrigan), taking him hostage and "recruiting" him for his new plans. If Jack cannot be left alone to restore his visibility, then he will use his new power to conduct a reign of terror and establish dominance over the world. 

    The main ingredient of the movie is the talented and gifted actor who portrays The Invisible Man, Claude Rains. During his time, he was one of those actors you could watch on stage reading the phone book and still be substantially entertained. With his commanding presence and dominating voice, Rains siezes your attention for every second he's on screen, even when he technically isn't. Like so many famous actors who portrayed iconic characters then and now, it's challenging to see anyone else playing the role. While others have offered various interpretations of the character over the decades (some good, some less so), Claude Rains will forever remain the definitive Invisible Man. 

    Of course, as crucial as Claude Rains was in bringing the character to life, his performance would only really work if the special effects could deliver. This was a point of concern for the studio back then, as successfully conveying an invisible person was unusually challenging, to put it mildly. Fortunately, the studio had the right man for the job. 

    Special effects artist John P. Fulton, a.k.a. "The Doctor," crafted the technique for creating an invisible man, which he called the traveling matte. Essentially, it was a form of double exposure layered on top of each other. Rather than try to explain it here, I will provide a link to a YouTube video that demonstrates the technique far better than I ever could. You may find the video link at the end of this review. 

    If you're looking for an absolute classic to put on the TV for this Halloween, you must add this movie to your list. Few films have ever captured the essence and terror of H.G. Wells's immortal story as well as this one. And while this isn't the only story of his to receive the silver screen treatment, it remains one of the best. 

    In fact, to properly convey just how fantastic this film is, we should compare it to another adaptation of H.G. Wells' works. One that had too many problems in too many places, resulting in one of the worst productions ever put to celluloid. 

    Prepare yourselves, my beautiful readers; class is about to be back in session! 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

How they made an invisible man in 1933