Cruella - Better than Joker

 

Streaming on Disney+ 

For rent on Amazon, Apple TV, YouTube, and Google Play. 

    This one took me a while longer than expected to finally watch. Though it was initially released back in May to theaters and the streaming service Disney+, I wasn't quite ready to hit the theaters at that time, and I wasn't about to pay $30 to watch a film that reminded me too much of the abysmal trainwreck that was Joker. I mean, an origin story of a famous villain demanding sympathy as a newly constructed "anti-hero"? It felt less like a fun idea and more like Disney trying to ride the coattails of an overrated pile of pretentiousness! How could I not make that comparison?

    Recently, thanks in large part to the praises of a good friend of mine, I finally gave the movie a chance. While I would not go so far as to declare it a masterpiece, as a few aspects could have been better, Cruella is still more entertaining and clever than it has any right to be. I can say with confidence that not only is this a better execution of concept than Joker, but it's a significantly better story with more intelligent commentary on the cruel and ugly sides of society while still offering a more satisfying sense of narrative justice. Considering this is a film from Disney, that's saying a lot.

    The film can best be described as an amalgamation of The Devil Wears Prada, Ocean's Eleven (the one with George Clooney), and a few hints of The Crow for good measure. The story follows Estella (Emma Stone), a talented young orphan who finds herself in the streets of London with nowhere to go. That is until she meets her new friends, Jasper & Horace, a pair of street thieves who take her under their wing. As they grow into a surrogate family, the boys present Estella with a special birthday gift, the chance to pursue her dream of fashion design. Jasper lands her a job at Britain's top fashion boutique where, through some bold action, she attracts the attention of The Baroness (Emma Thompson), England's top fashion designer. She is hired to work in her design department, and things seem to be going her way. However, as Estella gets closer to The Baroness, she discovers hints about the truth about her mother's death and how The Baroness might be involved somehow. To find the truth and deliver justice for her late mother, Estella must assume her alter ego, Cruella, and take down The Baroness in every possible way, including her status as a fashion icon. The only question is will Cruella cross the line or merely lean over it a bit? 

    The glue that holds this entire film together is the deliciously remarkable performances from Emma Stone & Emma Thompson, along with their incredible chemistry. Emma Stone has always had a lovable charisma and has proven herself a capable actor many times over. She has talent and skill on par with her co-star Emma Thompson, who has reigned supreme as a titan of acting and profound on-screen presence. Watching their back & forth in nearly every scene they share is pure gold. They are both clearly having an absolute blast with their characters and performing with each other. It almost makes you yearn to see them in a stage version of this story. 

    The production design deserves special mention. Rather than resort to the default desaturated look of most stories like this, Cruella relishes its use of color and has fun with contrast and unexpected patterns. It succeeds in creating a dark & gritty style while still presenting a brighter sense of color. It's quite an unexpected visual marvel to behold. 

    The writing, while not perfect, is surprisingly satisfying and witty. This reimagined interpretation of one of Disney's classic and iconic villains succeeds in presenting a character who is flawed, conflicted, and capable of great things without coming across as entirely evil or unsympathetic. The script presents a more human and surprisingly relatable character with emotional issues that most people can identify with. While there are a few implications in the story that I don't quite agree with, which I will not spoil here, I found the script to be primarily competent and satisfying. Well done! 

    While I did genuinely enjoy this film more than I thought I would, there were a few aspects of it that I feel could have been executed a bit better. 

    While the music is appropriate and excellent (as 1960s Rock & Roll is my jam), it often feels like it's outstaying its welcome. There are needle drops seemingly every five minutes as if it were saying, "did you remember this movie is set in the 60s?" and it gets a little tiresome after a while. Also, while I believe that a film's runtime should be however long it needs to tell the story, they could have shaved off a few minutes without losing anything. Plus, the fabulously fantastic supporting character of Artie (John McCrea) deserved so much more screentime. 

    Cruella is a film that delivers a significantly improved execution of the reimagining villain as an anti-hero concept. It's one of those rare Disney projects that doesn't feel like a shallow cash grab nor a pale imitation of what came before. While still not perfect, it's a fun story with enjoyable characters and a better commentary on society than I might have expected.

    By all means, do check this one out, darling! 

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

Chris Pratt is NOT Mario!

 

    Recently, I discovered a strange and unexpected turn of events in the land of Hollywood. One of my all-time favorite video games is finally getting another chance at the big screen. However, upon further examining the situation, my hopes and excitement were immediately dashed, replaced with unsurprising revelations and a sense of expected disappointment. This is a shame because this particular video game series is loaded with many aspects and iterations that are just ripe for a fun and energetic movie. Sadly, most if not all of the parties involved do not fill me with any confidence. Surprisingly, it has little to do with Chris Pratt playing Mario, but we'll get to that soon enough. 

    For those who don't know, Mario is one of, if not the most iconic video game characters in the medium's history. Since the dawn of the original Nintendo Entertainment System or NES, Mario has served as the mascot of the biggest name in video games. He is the embodiment of fun, the ambassador of family entertainment, and often the first thing that comes to mind when discussing Italian stereotypes, even though he's from Brooklyn, according to some mythology. 

    What makes him and his games so engaging and addictive is a sense of elegant simplicity mixed with enjoyable silliness. Most of his games that aren't kart racers or construction simulators follow a simple formula: rescue the damsel in distress while avoiding obstacles and enemies. It has become the basis and inspiration for many other video games that came after, including a few indie games like Braid. 

    This upcoming movie is not the first time anyone attempted to adapt the little stumpy plumber to the silver screen. In 1993, directors Annabel Jankel and Rocky Morton (a husband & wife team) were handed the reins of a live-action adaptation of the video game franchise with the late Bob Hoskins as Mario and John Leguizamo as his partner Luigi. I recall seeing that movie in theaters, and while I do retain a nostalgic soft spot for it, I recognize that it's not a great film by any stretch of the imagination. 

    This is a case of a film trying too hard to hide how ashamed and embarrassed it is at being a video game movie. The production design is ripped straight from Blade Runner. It attempts to replace the more fantastical elements with pseudo-science. Worst of all, it ties (rather poorly) to tie the game's mythology with Dinosaurs, and they only give Yoshi, arguably the best supporting character of the entire franchise, a mere five-second cameo. At least, it feels like a mere five seconds. 

    All flaws aside for a moment, the one thing that can be said in this movie's favor is it retained the general plot of the original game pretty well, and they cast the right actor to play Mario. Although he would later describe working on the movie as a f**king nightmare, the late Bob Hoskins was the best actor to play Mario; in both the physical realm and the realm of talent. 

    Now, the new Mario Bros. film slated for release in December 2022 will be an animated movie. However, while making an animated film based on this property is in and of itself not a bad idea, the studio behind its production and their choice of actor to voice Mario is. 

    Chris Pratt, though a talented (albeit severely limited) actor with lovable charm and entertaining charisma, is, to put it plainly, not the right person to play Mario. Setting aside Mario's exaggerated Italian descent, one of the many elements that make Mario universally beloved as a character is his joyful personality. He's always ready to jump into action and seems to enjoy the thrill of adventure. All of these are qualities that Chris Pratt has yet to prove capable of conveying. 

    In nearly every movie Chris Pratt has performed in, including Guardians of the Galaxy, he always plays the same character, an awkward bumbling idiot who only manages to skate by with his bewildering good looks. If Chris Pratt is capable of playing anything beyond that, I have still yet to see it. 

    However, the miscasting of Chris Pratt should not be too surprising, considering the studio behind the upcoming Mario movie. Which is the real problem we should be more concerned about. 

    That's right! The studio behind those annoying, screaming, walking banana tic tacs, along with a filmography consisting of bland, less-than-mediocre films that only exist to babysit toddlers, is the studio in charge of the upcoming new Mario movie. 

    Illumination Entertainment is everything wrong with western animation! I have commented many times before on this blog that animation is not, I repeat, not an exclusive medium for children. Yet, Hollywood churns out piles and piles of animated movies every year following a distinct, repetitive, and toxic formula that overtly caters to young children. This might not be such a terrible thing if they didn't also operate under the equally toxic assumption that children are stupid, which they do! Illumination's movies do everything wrong with basic storytelling, character development, and audience investment, favoring crude humor and butt jokes over engaging narratives, genuinely witty humor, and three-dimensional characters. 

    This is the same studio that turned Dr. Seuss' The Lorax, arguably his most downbeat and relevant stories, into a slapstick comedy with pop songs and additional narrative elements, adding nothing substantial and heavily detracting from the original stories point. 

    Adding insult to injury, they allowed Mazda to use their characters to advertize a non-hybrid SUV. At least, I'm pretty sure it wasn't a hybrid.  

    Chris Pratt getting cast as the voice of Mario is not necessarily the problem (though it's still not a good idea). The studio behind this decision is only doing so because Chris Pratt tends to draw in box-office revenue and is a popular name to put on the posters. They don't care how little he fits the character or how well he can play the part, if at all; he's literally just there for maximum box-office returns. While there is nothing wrong with ensuring you make a decent profit from your work, it should not be the only thing concerning you when crafting said work. 

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not!" 

-Dr. Seuss 

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

TheNorm's Top 5 Good Remakes

    

 

    As a general concept, remakes of classic movies tend to fall short on overall quality. Most of the time, it is the go-to action of any major movie studio for a quick financial fix or the preventative solution to a potential legal issue. For example, the only reason Paramount Pictures rushed their remake of Pet Sematary was their reactive response to a termination notice of their film rights to the original Stephen King story. Be that as it may, there are times when a remake of an older classic happens to land in the right talented hands and accomplish what any remake should do; enhance the original without replacing it. 

    While most of the time, the original of any given film will reign supreme, there are times when a remake genuinely hits the mark and delivers an experience that's just as good, if not better, than what came before. 

    This is TheNorm's Top 5 Good Remakes. 

#5 

The Crazies (2010) 

    The original film by writer/director George A. Romero from 1973 is one of his lesser-known works. While still a classic in its own right, it didn't pick up as much traction as his debut hit, Night of the Living Dead. 

    Set in a small rural American town, the story centers around a mysterious biological outbreak causing the townspeople to go insane and murder at random. It turns out that a military plane carrying a biological weapon crash-landed in the town's lake, which also happens to be their source of drinking water. The government tries and ultimately fails to contain the outbreak, resulting in total chaos with no idea how to end it all. 

    While the original film succeeded in portraying the kind of chaos that such an event would likely cause, along with playing up the tragedy of how those who would otherwise have a solution can likely never be heard, it fails to deliver any genuine impact. Mainly because there aren't any characters for the audience to emotionally latch onto. Sure, the story follows many characters, but with no actual development or emotional steaks other than surviving the chaos. Which, sadly, is not enough for audience investment. Further complicating matters is how the film refuses to allow occasional quiet moments to allow for a more profound impact of the chaos. In an attempt to emulate madness, the film feels too one-note.

    On the other hand, the remake fixes this problem by focusing on only a handful of characters with genuine emotional steaks in the story. Plus, the film has a better sense of balance between chaos and softer moments for character and story development. It retains the tragedy of the situation while commentating further on the consequences of incompetence in the face of disaster. Something many of us can relate to. 

    Neither the original nor the remake are perfect films. Even so, one does a bit of a better job at delivering the intended message than the other. 

#4 

Oldboy (2013) 

    Based on the Manga by Garon Tsuchiya and Nobuaki Minegishi, this story was first adapted for the silver screen by South Korean director Park Chan-Wook, back in 2003. It is heralded as one of the best Korean films and one of the best live-action adaptations of any given Manga. It also has one of the most famous fight scenes in cinema history (the one set in a long hallway involving a hammer and was cleverly referenced in Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings). Ten years later, someone here in the USA acquired the rights to make their own adaptation/remake of the story. While some could argue this film is technically another adaptation of the Manga and not a direct remake of the Korean film, the film's visual style and production design seem to say otherwise. Which rubbed many fans of the original Korean film the wrong way. Understandably so, I might add. 

    In fact, the original Korean film is held in such high regard, Josh Brolin, who played the protagonist in the American version, traveled to South Korea to meet with the original director, Park Chan-Wook, to ask him for his blessing. He graciously received it, along with some encouragement to make it their own and not just copy/paste what has already been done. 

    To be fair, the remake does not make much sense in some areas. For example, the original hallway fight scene was so intense because South Korea has incredibly stricter gun laws, causing many gangsters to arm themselves with bats, pipes, and other such blunt instruments. The remake, which is clearly set in New Orleans, makes little to no sense for the gangsters to not have guns. And yet, just like the original Korean film, they fight the protagonist with bats, pipes, and other such blunt instruments. Even if you could argue that the gangsters are "cost effective," I find it difficult to believe that the majority of gangsters in the USA would not have at least one gun under their belt. 

    Even so, there are aspects of the remake I appreciate and find to be a bit better. The most significant difference is less voice-over narration from the protagonist. Much like the unnecessary voice-over narration from Blade Runner, it doesn't add anything to the story that the visuals cannot deliver on their own. We don't need to hear the protagonist talk about how good he's become at fighting from his years of self-training when we can simply watch him put his fighting skills to the test. Slight differences like this set the remake apart from the original, which I tend to prefer. 

    While there is no denying that the original Korean film is a classic, the remake is much better than most would give it credit for. Now, if only the studio would release Spike Lee's original three-hour-long directors cut. 

#3 

The Haunting of Hill House (Netflix series 2018) 

    Much like Oldboy, this is technically another adaptation of a previous work. In this case, the novel of the same title by Shirley Jackson, which was adapted into a feature film twice. First by director Robert Wise in 1963 and again by director Jan de Bont in 1999. Whereas the former is a faithful and appropriately haunting interpretation of the classic story, the latter is an over-the-top, terribly cheesy spookfest that completely ignores the novel's spirit. For nearly twenty years after that embarrassing farce of a film, the Shirley Jackson story would remain untouched again until it was picked up by the Superman of modern ghostly horror cinema, Mike Flanagan. 

    Under his direction, Shirley Jackson's timeless story would see new light as a television series produced by Netflix. While the series took many creative liberties with the characters and general storyline, it did so while remaining faithful to the general spirit and theme of the novel. As an added bonus, it succeeded where the 1999 film ultimately failed. 

    Jon de Bont's film from 1999 tried to incorporate a family story but completely missed the mark. Then, Mike Flanagan came along and showed Jon de Bont how to do it properly. Plus, he retained the chilling and creepy atmosphere of the original story to a T. 

    While I may not be an adamant horror fan, I appreciate the genre when it's executed properly. You won't find a better modern example of genuine ghostly horror than in this excellent series. 

#2 

Miracle on 34th Street (1994) 

    This is one case where both films are on equal footing. 

    The original film from 1947, starring the late Edmund Gwenn as the titular Kris Kringle, is a beautiful classic that I still enjoy on the holidays. The same can be said for the remake starring the late Richard Attenborough, whom some of you may remember from films like Jurassic Park and The Great Escape. 

    While I have a fondness for both of these classic films, I find myself preferring the remake more and more. It may have something to do with the lack of overt sexism and the more secular treatment of Santa Claus’ mythology (along with spiritual ideas in general). While I recognize that those issues with the original film are merely products of their time, that still does not excuse or justify them. At least, not in my opinion. 

    Plus, the remake feels a bit more whimsical and seems to have more fun with its concept. Richard Attenborough delivers what may very well be the golden standard for portraying the concept of Santa Claus, be it on screen or in person. The music also feels more profound and present, like it's a character all its own. Also, I must admit, I may have had a soft spot for Mara Wilson when I first saw the film as a child. Don't judge me! 

#1 

The Thing (1982) 

    Based on the 1938 novella, Who Goes There?, by John W. Campbell Jr, The Thing was first adapted into a feature film in 1951 by the esteemed producer (and rumored ghost director) Howard Hawks: famous for Bringing Up Baby and Red River. While his take on The Thing is still fascinating and entertaining, it's often not the first thing most film buffs think about when discussing The Thing. 

    The original Howard Hawks film took many liberties with the original story. Specifically, the monster went from a parasitic organism that could assimilate its victims to a plant-based lumbering monster that drinks blood. Despite this deviation from the source material, it's still a fun film that delivers classic Hollywood class with some decent scares to boot. 

    Then, in 1982, legendary director John Carpenter, coming off his independent success with Halloween and Escape from New York, got his shot at a major studio movie with his brand new take on The Thing. Adamant that it would not be a complete recreation of the original 1951 film (as he is a fan of it), but rather a more faithful adaptation of the original story, and would play more profoundly into the paranoia elements. 

    The result is a film that serves as one of the most outstanding achievements in practical effects and one of the best-written horror films ever made. The script, penned by the late Bill Lancaster, features intelligent characters, witty dialogue, and a clever story. All building up to a perfect commentary on paranoia and trust. So much so that we are still analyzing and discussing it even today. 

    Oh, and if you're wondering, the 2011 remake/prequel is utter crap and not worthy of your time at all!

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

Malignant - A Film with an Identity Crisis (Spoilers)

 

Playing in Theaters and Streaming on HBO Max through October 10. 

    James Wan is one of two modern directors who knows how to deliver the goods to horror cinema (the other director is Mike Flannigan). Starting out as an established master of chiller-horror cinema with films like Saw, Insidious, and The Conjuring, James Wan contributed to the reinvigoration of horror cinema in a time when cheap jump-scares and lackluster writing continue to be the norm. Later into his career, James Wan would dip his toes into directing action blockbusters such as Furious 7 and Aquaman, with mostly successful results. While James Wan is also noted for utilizing jump-scares, unlike most other modern horror films, he knows how to use them properly and is not overly reliant upon them. Even when he's rendering superheroes underwater and flying high-speed cars through skyscrapers, he's still a genuine horror director through and through. 

    With a few successful horror franchises under his belt, James Wan decided to create a new experimental horror film inspired by Italian Giallo novels and movies from the 1970s: complete with a vivid color palette, a killer clad in a dark coat with black leather gloves wielding a unique bladed weapon, and a gothic castle-hospital for unusual medical research. The end result is a film that can't decide what it wants to be, as it struggles between being a psychological thriller, an homage to Italian exploitation horror cinema, and an action vehicle for a clever monster concept. It feels like James Wan tried to combine his recently successful efforts in action cinema with his horror roots, and it doesn't really work. 

    The story follows Madison Mitchell (Annabelle Wallis), a nurse with an abusive boyfriend and unfortunate experiences with miscarriages. One day, after having her head bashed into a wall by the aforementioned boyfriend, she locks herself in the bedroom and goes to sleep bleeding from the back of the head. The next day, she wakes up to find her boyfriend mysteriously and gratuitously murdered. Not long after that, she begins having strange visions of similar murders perpetrated by a dark figure calling himself Gabriel: a deadly humanoid being who can somehow control electricity and dressed in a long black coat with his face concealed by long dark hair, wielding a blade made from one of his first victim's medical awards, who was a doctor of some kind. 

    After approaching the police about her visions, Madison discovers that the victims have a mysterious connection to her. She was adopted at age eight and does not remember anything before then. As Gabriel continues his killing spree with Madison as a helpless spectator, she and her sister Sydney (Maddie Hasson) investigate the mysterious connection between her and Gabriel. What they discover will send their spines tingling in more ways than one. 

    The biggest problem with the film is that it's not as clever as it clearly wants to think it is (which I'll elaborate on more in a moment), nor can the film decide if it wants to be serious or campy. The tone jumps back and forth between over-the-top silliness like most Nightmare on Elm Street sequels and grounded seriousness like John Carpenter's The Thing, but without any sense of balance or sturdy transition between the two. Scenes meant to be scary come off as unintentionally funny, and the lack of explanation for the more supernatural aspects of the story makes it less intimidating or even interesting. While I believe that not every aspect of a story needs to be explained, as sometimes a lack thereof can make something more engaging, the idea of a villain who can control electricity to the point where he can project his voice through radios and cell phones implies some kind of fascinating backstory that deserves more thought than what was put into it here. 

    Even with all of that, none of these issues are as crippling to the film as its main plot twist, which almost shouldn't count as a twist because of how dumbfoundedly easy it is to predict within the first five minutes of the film, if not during the opening credits sequence. 

    To illustrate my point, I need to provide SPOILERS. As per my usual practice, if you would still prefer to avoid spoilers and try the movie for yourself, avoid any text written in Red. 

    SPOILERS

    Okay, so it turns out that Madison's real name is Emily. Her biological mother was a fifteen-year-old rape survivor forced to carry the child to term and surrender her to a medical research hospital. As it turns out, Emily was born with a parasitic twin brother named Gabriel conjoined at Emily's back and skull with nothing more than a pair of malformed arms and a severely misshaped face. This caused Emily and Gabriel to share the same brain, allowing Emily to see what Gabriel sees and granting Gabriel the ability to take over Emily's body & mind at will. Not only that, Gabriel is completely and purely evil with no qualms towards violence. He can also drink and manipulate electricity which is never explained. 

    After years of trying to help both Emily and Gabriel, it was finally decided that Gabriel was too evil and dangerous to remain alive. Therefore, the doctors surgically removed Gabriel's body from Emily's back, save for parts of his face due to his link to Emily's brain. They shoved Gabriel into Emily's skull and, through various methods, repressed Emily's knowledge and memories of Gabriel. 

    At first, it seemed to work. However, Gabriel remained a strong and manipulative presence in Emily's mind, to the point where he tried to make her kill her baby sister before she was born. Fortunately, Gabriel failed, and after Emily's sister was born, along with the love and support from her foster parents, Gabriel was pushed back into the deep recesses of Emily's mind. That is until years later when her abusive boyfriend bashed her head against the wall, thereby waking Gabriel up, allowing him to completely take over Emily's body at will and carry out his revenge. Furthermore, it also turns out that Gabriel was responsible for Emily's miscarriages, as he was feeding on her fetuses for strength. It's about as stupid as it sounds. 

    This is where the problem with the film's twist lies. Throughout the film, Gabriel's physical presence is clearly the body of a woman with long hair that is incredibly similar to our main heroines. Plus, the opening flashback, along with the various images presented in the opening credits, make it abundantly clear that some kind of surgery has been performed on our heroine, thereby making it too obvious that the twist somehow involves a conjoined twin. 

    Maybe if the parasitic twin turned out to be the result of Emily's biological "father" being an alien or perhaps the Greek god Zeus (which would have explained Gabriel's supernatural agility and control over electricity), the opening scene and credits sequence could have been forgiven for making the twist so blatant. Alternatively, if the film had simply opened with the inciting incident of Emily's head getting caved in by her abusive boyfriend and had a more minimal opening credits sequence, then the twist might have been significantly more impactful than it actually was. 

    Malignant is a film that's too action-packed to be scary, too reliant upon overdone tropes & cliches to be clever, and too excited over its own ideas to develop them properly. While there are aspects of the film I do appreciate and admire: such as the gorgeous cinematography, special effects, and the convicted work of talented contortionists' Marina Mazepa and Troy James in bringing the film's monster to life, it's sadly not enough for me to give this film a passing grade. If you're the least bit curious, by all means, give it a shot. Otherwise, I recommend any of James Wan's earlier works if you're looking for a decent scare. Insidious would be a great place to start. 

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

Together - Unexpected and Bold

 

Rent it on Apple TV and Amazon. 

    In March, I reviewed a film titled Locked Down: the story of a couple doing their best to deal with England's 2020 COVID-19 lockdown. It was a solid piece of work with sturdy performances, a well-delivered observation on the stress induced by the pandemic, and a clever commentary on what makes a good silver lining in times of crisis. If you haven't seen it yet, I still recommend you check it out. It's still streaming on HBO Max (I also still recommend signing up for that wonderful service). 

    Today's subject, Together, is incredibly similar to Locked Down in that it's also a story about a couple in England doing what they can to survive the COVID-19 lockdown. However, what set's it apart is twofold: its heavier dramatic presentation (along with plenty of levity for proper balance) and its unusual theatrical delivery. As in this could very easily be presented on stage with little to no changes to the script. Which, in this particular case, is actually a good thing. At least in my opinion. 

    Together presents itself as a kind of self-aware film. Rather than present the situation in a traditional film-narrative style where the characters never address the camera, the characters in Together treat the camera like a camera. As in, they speak directly to the lens, thus to the audience. 

    For something this unusual, the script needs to be sharp, and the situation must be enticing. Together succeeds in having both qualities. 

    The writing is snappy and witty, with natural-sounding dialogue spoken by two incredibly talented actors who carry the entire film on their shoulders. Both the humor and the drama come from their performances, and they never feel hokey or forced. 

    Another aspect of Together that sets it apart from Locked Down is its camera language. The vast majority of the film is presented in long continuous takes allowing the performances to shine through brighter than normal. 

    The film does not shy away from the heavier implications of its story. Occasionally the film will stop to present a few facts about the pandemic. There are a few scenes in which the characters present their feelings on how it has been handled, including an incredibly well-performed monologue about the meaning of the word "exponential" and how it pertains to the pandemic in a way I hadn't considered before. 

    Together is an unusual film with an unorthodox presentational style that is entertaining, informative, and heartfelt. While some may argue that it may be a bit too soon to make films recapping the year from hell that was 2020, Together argues otherwise with a solid and relevant case. It's a fascinating watch with wonderful performances and crisp writing that deserves your attention. 

    Check it out. 

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

Wander - Mediocre & Irresponsible (SPOILERS)

 

Stream it on Amazon Prime 

Rent it on Amazon, Google Play, YouTube, and Apple TV 

    As some of you may recall from my "What Makes Real Horror" entry on my blog, psychological thrillers, even the supernatural ones, are indeed my jam. Few things are as terrifying as the uncertainty and unreliability of your own perception of events. When done well, it can create striking images and lead you down a path where the truth is not at all what you suspected. Classics like The Sixth Sense, Jacob's Ladder, and Oculus come to mind. When done poorly, it can bore you with unenticing storylines, uninteresting characters, and plot twists you either spot from miles away or provide no satisfactory ultimate impact. Duds like Ghosts of War and the terrible "remake" of Jacob's Ladder come to mind. The point is that part of what makes good psychological thrillers so enthralling and challenging to make is the amount of effort needed to create a narrative that tricks the audience pleasantly and entertainingly. 

    Today's subject, Wander, is a psychological thriller that is under the impression it's genuinely clever but refuses to acknowledge any of its painfully obvious faults, to the point where you almost feel bad for calling them out. It's like reading a 6th grader's terrible fan-fiction and not wanting to provide honest feedback for fear of hurting their feelings. But, as I have quoted many times before, "The crulest thing you can do to an artist is tell them that their work is brilliant when it isn't!" 

    Taking place in New Mexico, the story follows private detective Arthur Bretnik (Aaron Eckhart). One day he is hired by a grieving mother whose daughter was mysteriously murdered and is afraid to approach the local police because they might be involved in something secret and dangerous. In need of funds, Arthur takes the case. However, it may be a bit more challenging because he also suffers from paranoia and belief in conspiracy theories following the tragic death of his young daughter, which he believes was a deliberate attempt to throw him off a previous murder case. As Arthur delves deeper into the case, he begins to suspect his paranoia may be legitimate. Apparently, he stumbles upon a secret organization trapping immigrants and implanting them with experimental tracking microchips that can potentially kill them should they step out of line. The only question is how much of what he sees is real? 

    Sadly, all that really needs to be said is that the film is predictable! Everything in this film has been done better elsewhere or is so cliche and overused that nothing has any genuine impact. Even the film's laughable attempt at an ending twist only felt hollow and needlessly pandering to the wrong crowd. 

    To illustrate what I mean, I need to provide some context and SPOILERS. 

    Many people are under the incredible delusion that we are being subjected to secret government experiments and super-secret microchipping, as in they're using things like vaccines and other such necessary medical treatments to implant microscopic pieces of technology to track our moves, control our thoughts, and make us complacent so we won't rebel against anything. These kinds of toxic and unscientific rumors are mostly spread by the likes of FOX News and Alex Jones (a wretched and disgusting excuse of a human being if ever I've seen one). They are perpetuated at the cost of everyone's well-being. 

    The film decides to take that same concept of government experimentation and go with a plot twist that validates his conspiracy and proclaims that, indeed, the powers that be are out to get us all. While I don't deny that our government has never been completely in our favor, the idea of pandering to the toxic and down-right dangerous low-common-denominator sickens me incredibly! 

    This movie has an agenda, rather intentional or not, and it's not the good kind! While I did appreciate some of the performances and the cinematography, this film is an embarrassment and a shame given the modern political climate. 

    Don't bother with this piece of cinematic excrement. 

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

Wild Indian - Incredible & Disturbing

 

Rent it on Apple TV, Amazon, Google Play, and YouTube. 

    Not too long ago, I was engaged in a conversation about good movies that only need to be seen once. Powerful classics like Schindler's List and Training Day come to mind, as they are movies with relevant themes and important commentary delivered in a polished manner that provide the necessary impact with only a single viewing. Once you've seen them, you often don't need to see them again because they succeeded in leaving an impression, albeit a most likely depressing one. 

    Today's film, Wild Indian, is a brand new addition to the subcategory of films that only need to be seen at least once. It's a hard and dark story about mental health, regret, abuse, secrets, and murder. Not to mention the continued mistreatment of Native Americans. If this all sounds like a bitter pill to swallow, it is. Even so, it's a pill worth taking at least once. 

    The story follows two best friends: Makwa and Ted-O, living on an Indian Reservation in Wisconsin. Makwa is bullied at school, ignored by his teachers, and abused by his father & neglectful mother. His only solace is meeting up with his best friend and shooting his dad's rifle in the woods. One particular day, a harder-than-usual day to tolerate, Makwa sees one of his school bullies wandering around the woods. With no one around and having no healthy outlet for his abuse-induced stress, he aims the rifle and takes the shot, killing the boy dead. After realizing what has happened, Ted-O decided to help his friend dispose of the body and agree to never tell anyone. Fast-forward thirty years later, Makwa (Michael Greyeyes) has grown up into a successful businessman with a wife and child but still has unresolved emotional & mental issues from his past experience. Meanwhile, his best friend Ted-O (Chaske Spencer) has recently been released from prison on drug charges. After reconciling with his family, Ted-O decides that it's been long enough, and he & Makwa must confess to their crimes. The only question is will Makwa feel the same way? 

    This film is difficult to watch at times, but it is indeed as amazingly well crafted as you might have heard. It is a terrifying portrayal of a man with severe issues and his inability to seek help. Most likely a result of feeling trapped in a situation where help never comes. An experience shared by far too many people in modern society. 

    What sells the film is the powerhouse performance from Michael Greyeyes. He carries the emotional weight, mental instability, and struggling humanity with incredible conviction that he is genuinely scary in some scenes of the film. This guy has talent and skill on par with the likes of Robert De Nero and Ryan Gosling, and he deserves any & all praise he receives for this performance. I hope he gets many more acting gigs from here on out. 

    Wild Indian is a film that indeed "knocks you out," as it says on the poster. While I praise the film for its social commentary and stunning artistry, I should recommend that, if you watch this film, be sure to watch something funny afterward. I assure you, it will be needed. 

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

Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings - Fantastic!

 

If you can do so safely (which I did), see it in theaters. 

    I am a bit embarrassed to admit that Shang-Chi is one of those superhero properties I was unfamiliar with growing up. I know that it was one of the many comic book properties to spawn from the martial arts & ninja craze from the 1970s and 1980s, but that's about the extent of my knowledge of this particular series. After the unfortunate and undeserved disappointment with Marvel's first step into their next phase, Black Widow, I wasn't sure if Marvel Studios still had any energy left to maintain their well-earned winning streak of well-made and entertaining movies and that maybe superhero fatigue was finally kicking in for me. After witnessing Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, I could not have been happier to have been proven so wrong. Not only is Shang-Chi a fantastic film, but it may also very well be Marvel Studio's best solo film since Black Panther! Yes, it's really that good! 

    Based on the Marvel Comics characters created by Steve Engleheart and Jim Starlin, the film's story follows Shaun (Simu Liu), a content hotel valet, and his best friend Katy (Awkwafina). They both enjoy working and having fun together, and both seem happy with their lives. However, things take a strange and incredible turn when a group of assassins finds and confront Shaun, who reveals himself to be a skilled martial artist, unbeknownst to Katy until she witnesses him handle the would-be killers with incredible skill. After dispatching his attackers, Shaun reveals his secret to Katy: his real name is Shang-Chi, and his father is an immortal warlord & conqueror named Xu Wenwu (Tony Leung), who is bent on achieving power. Shaun has been on the run from his father for years in the hopes of escaping his troubled past, but after this encounter, it becomes all too clear that it's now time for him to face his demons and confront his past. And in the process, he will discover his true self-worth. 

    Nearly everything about this film is unbelievable in the best possible way! The fight scenes, the special effects, the performances, the direction, the cinematography, the editing, and especially the writing are all so wonderfully executed and delivered that I genuinely have a hard time recalling anything about the film I didn't like (except for one minor nitpick but we'll get to that later on). This film became a wonderful and much-appreciated reminder that, much like PIXAR, Marvel Studios doesn't seem to be in any danger of losing their mojo. Sure, they may stumble once in a while, like any talented & competent artist, but it's clearly going to be quite a while before they run out of steam, and that's okay with me! 

    Much like Black Panther, Shang-Chi does a remarkable job with cultural appropriation and representation. Incorporating many aspects of Asian culture, philosophy, and design into the film. As someone who grew up surrounded by Chinese art and other cultural aspects, I feel confident that the movie feels spot-on with its Eastern influences. I especially loved its incorporation of mythical creatures,  especially the Dragons. 

    Also, like Black Panther (again), the story's villain is three-dimensional and surprisingly sympathetic. It's a welcome and beautifully executed case of someone who has good intentions but is going about achieving them in the wrong way. While I do not intend to spoil how it all works out in the end, I will say that it is probably the most satisfying character arc for a villain I have ever seen, especially in a Marvel film. 

    The action scenes are spectacular. Unlike most modern action scenes delivered with headache-inducing shaky-cam and rapid-fire-editing, the action in Shang-Chi is fluid and graceful. Most of the time, the camera will run for a solid thirty seconds or so without cutting, maintaining a steady perspective of the fights, allowing for proper and earnest impact. The film also gains many bonus points for well-executed references to previous martial arts classics. You'll know them when you see them. 

    Simu Liu is a genuine movie star! He has charisma, charm, and a solid sense of conviction. He delivers the action scenes with expert precision and carries the emotional depth of his character with incredible ease. He is a talented and entertaining performer, and I can't wait to see him again soon. 

    The MVP award must go to Awkwafina. While I enjoy her comedic antics, this was the first time I saw her deliver a solid dramatic performance. Oh, she's still funny sometimes, and she's still awesome at it, but she also gets to shine as a capable dramatic actress. I know she won a Golden Globe for her dramatic performance in The Farewell, but I have not seen it yet. Rest assured, I will rectify that soon. 

    Probably the only nitpick I have with the film, as I alluded to earlier, is that the pacing can feel a tiny bit too slow every once in a while. Much like my favorite martial arts film (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon), Shang-Chi has an excellent sense of balance between narrative and action. It's not in a hurry to get to the next fight scene, nor does it take too long with the dialogue scenes. The film provides adequate build-up to the action with enriching character development along with compelling story turns. Having said that, it can at times feel as though it might be taking a bit too long with the build-up, but never to the point of boredom. 

    Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings is the much-needed can of whoop-ass I needed to shake me out of my funk. It is a beautiful story with wonderful characters, entertaining fight scenes, and relevant themes of family, cultural inheritance, and the value of self-worth. If you can do so safely, see this movie on the big screen. If you don't feel ready for that yet, please rent this movie and watch it ASAP. It is, indeed, worth the price of admission.

    Go see it! 

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