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

Logical Humor - Why Mr. Terrific is the MVP in James Gunn's Superman

    In my review of James Gunn's masterpiece, Superman, I named the supporting character, Mr. Terrific (Edi Gathegi), as the recipient of the MVP award with honors, and I do not make that distinction lightly. In addition to being a well-written, rounded, developed, and likable character, several aspects of his presence in the film greatly enhance the movie as a whole, both narratively and tangentially. Today, I want to share these thoughts with you —mainly to gush about this excellent character, but also in the hope that it may inspire you to see the movie if you haven't already. 

Lex Luthor's Diametric Opposite

    While Superman has always been Lex Luthor's arch nemesis for many different reasons, when you stop to think about it, Mr. Terrific is truly Luthor's greatest rival. 

    One of the primary driving forces behind Luthor's character is his intellect and technological genius. In most iterations of the comics, movies, and television shows, Luthor is often depicted as a prodigy (typically in tech) whose inventions have contributed to society's growth and superiority. Despite his evil nature, Luthor has often enjoyed many lucrative opportunities to flex his insightful mindset (for want of a better term) and secure military-level funding for his prowlis and business practices. Something that is becoming far too real today. 

    By comparison, Mr. Terrific appears to be just as intelligent and capable as Luthor. Still, he makes the deliberate choice to use his abilities and tech for the betterment of humanity. Why? Because it is significantly more logical and practical. 

    The film makes it clear that Mr. Terrific, despite not being much of an emotional person, is still capable of recognizing and understanding emotional responses to situations, as evidenced by his best scene in the film, wherein he easily dispatches a small army of enemies, loudly proclaims Luthor to be reckless, and displays a sense of joy in delivering comupance to those who deserve it the most, be they hero or villian. And, ultimately, providing the best kind of assistance to Superman that is needed for the continued betterment of all people. 

    Mr. Terrific could have easily become the same kind of closed-minded, selfish, and isolated person that Luthor allowed himself to be, but instead, Mr. Terrific chooses to be better than that; he chooses to defend what is good in the world because, like Superman, he sees all the beauty and good it can be (albeit in his own unusual way). Luthor may hate Superman, but his ire might be misdirected. 

Justice for Darwin

    For those who may be unaware or need a quick refresher, I'd like to provide some context for this title. The context will be provided under the assumption that you, my dear readers, are already familiar with the X-Men and a handful of their films from the 2010s. Otherwise, I will provide the necessary context for today's discussion, and I encourage you to research any aspects with which you may be unfamiliar. 

    Back in 2011, when 20th Century Fox was still producing movies, they released a new X-Men film, X-Men: First Class, a prequel that chronicled the early days and the initial members of the team who would go on to become the superhero team popularly known as the X-Men. One of the supporting characters in that film was a Mutant nicknamed Darwin, named so for his ability to automatically adapt to any situation he faced. This included spontaneously growing armor on his torso to protect himself from attacks or suddenly developing gills to breathe underwater. 

    This character was brought to life enthusiastically by Edi Gathegi, who would later portray Mr. Terrific. This is a relevant point to bring up because, in the film X-Men: First Class, Darwin's character dies halfway through. While this moment in the film serves a solid narrative purpose (galvanizing the rest of the team to band together and fight for good), it comes at the unfortunate cost of losing one of the film's most interesting characters, thereby missing out on numerous opportunities for expansion and exploration. Not to mention the most typical, cliché, and conceptually racist aspect of killing off the only black character in the movie. 

    This "creative" choice, though narratively servicable, caused an uproar among fans, including myself. Aside from the racism mentioned earlier (which may have been unintended), Darwin was a fascinating new character who might have been an excellent addition to the team: he cared about his fellow Mutant friends, had a great sense of humor, and brought a much-needed sense of inclusiveness to the story. To have him killed off so early in the film, for the sole purpose of galvanizing the team's resolve (which was arguably already galvanized by other circumstances), felt like a waste of a great character. 

    Fortunately, Edi Gathegi's casting as Mr. Terrific gives his previous superhero character some symbolic justice. Plus, he has new opportunities for his portrayal of the character on the horizon, and I, for one, can't wait to see what he'll do. 

Representation

    When examining Mr. Terrific's character, I am reminded of a TV show I used to enjoy, titled Scorpion — a comedic action series that ran for five seasons. In case you've never heard of it, the show was about a team of exceptionally talented geniuses in various fields who form a specialized consulting group to handle unusual situations that require capabilities beyond conventional thinking and responsiveness. For example, in one episode, they were tasked with saving and transporting a young girl with severe immunodeficiencies, which, among other things, required her to be transported in a tub of honey. That may sound silly at first, but trust me, it makes sense. 

    One of the show's central conflicts was that the team, talented and incredibly intelligent as they were, lacked basic abilities to understand emotional or empathetic responses —not because they were evil, far from it. Still, their brains were wired in a way that made such understandings particularly challenging for them. To overcome this hurdle, they hired an average woman named Paige, who happened to have a genius son with similar challenges: she translates their intentions and feelings to others, while the team helps Paige better understand her son. 

    Mr. Terrific feels ripped from the same cloth as the geniuses from Scorpion. He is brilliant and possesses superhuman-like technical capabilities, but by his own admission, he struggles with emotions and tends to think more literally and logically than those around him. He isn't incapable of understanding emotions; he just processes them differently than convention might prefer. 

    In addition to providing some always-appreciated representation of talent from people of color (much like Black Panther does), Mr. Terrific also offers a more inclusive representation of individuals on the mental and emotional spectrum. It's not that we don't care; we just see it differently than you do. 

Conclusion

    Just like the character Bloodsport (Idris Elba) from James Gunn's previous DC Comics film, The Suicide Squad, Mr. Terrific is an excellent example of how to create a great supporting character with a relatable personality that deserves our attention. Not to mention one that provides representation in multiple ways, often overlooked or ignored by conventional Hollywood preferences. James Gunn may have a flair for spectacle. Still, his focus is squarely on what is most important in any given narrative: characters who speak to the audience in intellectually and emotionally resonant ways. 

    While I will remain a proud Superman fan, I am equally proud to add Mr. Terrific to my list of favorite superheroes. So proud, in fact, that I have already figured out my Halloween costume for this year. 

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

Roofman - Charming and Tasteful

 

Playing in Theaters 

    One aspect of the human condition that isn't discussed as much as it should be is the idea that good people can do "bad" things while retaining their good nature. That's because every single human brain is wired in such an individually unique way that no two people can ever actually agree on what may be considered logical, reasonable, or moral. Sure, we can all find some kind of common ground in such areas, and we can all politely "accept" what society has deemed to be the most likely definition of these concepts. Still, we have all had a moment when we thought, "Wait a minute," while contemplating society's position on these things. Because no matter how strong the case may be, someone out there will always find a grey area. 

    Today's subject, Roofman, is an exploration of one such individual who exhibited a unique enough thinking style to take the actions he did, apparently with reasonable enough justifications, prompting us to ponder aspects of right and wrong. While there is no denying that what this person did was a crime, as is true in most things, context is everything, and there is an exception to every rule. Whether that exception is acceptable is up to the individual. Still, for this particular story, inspired by unusual real-life events, there is enough here to raise some healthy, much-needed questions about morality, society, and what the pursuit of happiness can mean to some of us. Not to mention a healthy amount of entertainment value for good measure. 

    Inspired by actual events, the story follows a North Carolina man named Jeffrey Manchester (Channing Tatum), who gets arrested after robbing forty-five McDonald's in an effort to provide for his young children. After a few months in prison, Jeffery escapes and goes into hiding while he waits for his friend to forge up some fake identity papers, allowing him to flee the country. To wait in relative safety, Jeffery breaks into a Toys R' Us and hides inside, making his own little make-shift apartment and enjoying the freedom to roam the store at night. After learning that his new identity would take longer than predicted, Jeffery passes the time by observing some of the people in the store, including a single mother named Leigh Wainscott (Kirsten Dunst), and takes a liking to her. Enough to help her deal with her jerk of a boss and form a friendship with her. 

    As Jeffery continues to wait for his ticket out of the country, he forms a relationship with Leigh and takes on a healthy stepfather-like role for her two young daughters. As Jeffrey's desire for a family continues to overtake his need to escape, what will he ultimately choose to do? 

    Regardless of historical accuracy or appropriate depiction of the actual Jeffery Manchester, the film, on its own merits, is a well-polished and entertaining story about love, perseverance, family, and accepting responsibility. Without spoiling anything — though a quick glance at the actual events will likely do so anyway — the story succeeds in reminding the audience that, while Jeffrey's actions were technically understandable and well-intended, he still committed crimes. As such, the film does an excellent job of showcasing why committing such acts may be tempting and, to a degree, justifiable. Still, justice and responsibility must always prevail if we are to find true happiness. Even if it means taking a less-than-preferred direction. 

    The performances are what stand out the most in the film. Channing Tatum delivers his usual charm to the screen while delivering an emotionally grounded performance. Kirsten Dunst delivers the same quality and showcases just how committed a performer she always was. Not to mention the chemistry between the two feels tangible and real. They must have had a lot of fun making this movie together. 

    Roofman may cause a few moral nosebleeds in some circles. Still, as a story about a man who made a few bad choices with the desire to become a better father and person, it is a solid narrative that raises many important questions while providing a few good laughs. While it may not be the kind of movie worth seeing in a theater, I am glad I did, as it sends the message to the Hollywood system that low-budget, elegantly simple films are still relevant, desired, and profitable. If nothing else in theaters right now is grabbing your attention, this is well worth your time.

    By all means, go see it. 

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

Dead Of Winter - Smart and Simple

 

Rent on Apple TV and Amazon 

    At my day job, one of the ways I enjoy describing the product I sell is "elegance in simplicity." This notion can be applied to a myriad of concepts in any given field. Because sometimes, it doesn't take much to create something incredible and impactful. Consider one of the greatest films of all time, Steven Spielberg's E.T., and the fact that the iconic alien creature was little more than brown playdough and chicken wire. And yet, in the hands of passionate craftspeople and expert storytellers, those simple materials brought to life an endearing and memorable experience. 

    Today's subject, Dead of Winter, may not be as iconic or as impactful as that classic piece of science fiction. Still, it carries the same kind of simplistic elegance and charm, endearing itself to the audience with relatable characters, tangible stakes, and a simple story about love; not what you might have expected from the poster or the story synopsis, but it's true. 

    Taking place in a remote fishing town in Minnesota, the story follows an elderly woman named Barb (Emma Thompson) on her way to a specific lake for some ice fishing. She seems upset for some yet-to-be-discovered reason, but presses on with her trip. Upon arrival, she makes a shocking discovery. Someone has kidnapped a young girl and is holding her hostage in their cabin. With no means of calling for help, Barb must gather her courage and wits to do what she can to save the girl herself. With luck, they will both survive this year's harsh winter. 

    This movie is much more brilliant than you might have expected. Barb demonstrates incredible thinking and clever tactics throughout the story, despite never knowing her background. Yet the film succeeds in making you not worry about that because it knows what is more important to the narrative and to audience investment, which it delivers in spades. Sometimes, you don't need to know every single little thing about a character or story; just enough to get you interested in seeing what comes next. Not to mention, the script provides the kind of emotional resonance that makes the proceedings worthy of our time investment. 

    Emma Thompson, late of Dead Again and Love Actually, delivers her usual committed performance to every degree. From her in-the-moment responses to her near-perfect Minnesotan accent, Emma puts in the professional effort that draws your attention like a moth to a flame. The only difference is you don't get burned for enjoying this bright light. 

    The script is the real highlight of the film. Written by Nicholas Jacobson-Larson and Dalton Leeb (both apparently first-time screenwriters), under the surprisingly clever direction of Brian Kirk, known chiefly for television work, the script comes to life with clever moments, on-point dialogue, and nary a moment that makes you ask out loud, "why are you doing that?" The film is smart enough to trust your ability to observe and invest, rewarding you for committing to the story as much as they do. It's the exact kind of script work that is sadly lacking in much of Hollywood's inner circles. 

    Dead of Winter may not be a cheery piece of work, but it is a solid story with three-dimensional characters and enough texture to keep you on the edge of your seat. Not to mention Emma Thompson's performing power (the kind of person you could watch on stage reading the phone book and still be entertained) is more than enough to keep your attention throughout. If you need a decent thriller for this Halloween season, you can't go wrong here. 

    Check it out. 

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

Happy Halloween!

How Not To Make A Movie 101 - Ghostbusters (2016)

 

    Welcome to a new regular entry on my blog, How Not To Make A Movie 101. In this series, I take a movie that has been justifiably rejected by both critics and audiences alike and dismantle it to determine what made it so horrendous and what lessons we may learn from it to avoid making the same mistakes in the future. The purpose of this series is twofold: one, as a means of discussing bad movies in a more positive light (as in not delving into the typical rage-inducing rants found on most online discourse), and two, offering helpful and experienced insights on how to improve ourselves, both as creatives and as people. As a wise person once said, it's only a mistake if you don't learn from it. 

    For our first entry, we will take a hard look at one of the biggest flops in recent memory, Ghostbusters (2016).

    Before we begin, please allow me to address the Elephant in the room. 

    One of the most significant complaints about this film is that it stars all women, and some of the more uncomposed people on the internet have shared their anger over this creative choice. 

    Let me make this abundantly clear: Ghostbusters (2016) is not a terrible movie because it stars all women. No, Ghostbusters (2016) is a terrible movie because it was made with gross incompetence, cynical motivations, and no real creative drive to speak of, other than filling out a balance sheet to maintain rights and privileges. Ghostbusters (2016) is a perfect example of what happens when you have the wrong people in the wrong places at the wrong time, and there is so much to learn and share from this unfortunate disaster. 

    Most of the behind-the-scenes details I share here come from one of my favorite YouTube personalities, The Critical Drinker, and his video essay covering the production of this film. If you're curious to learn a little more about this movie's version of production hell, and you want a good laugh, check out his video. You can find a link at the end of this blog entry. 

    Class is now in session; let's begin!

Lesson #1: 

Have A Plan, i.e., An Actual Script. 

    Apparently, most of the cast who signed on for the film committed the one fatal mistake no actor in their right mind should ever make: they didn't read the script (or the lack thereof —we'll get to that later) before committing to the project. Most of the prominent and supporting cast members were big fans of the original Ghostbusters film and cartoon show. They were incredibly excited about the prospect of participating in a brand-new movie based on that IP. Similarly (side note), Lian Neeson apparently didn't read the script for Star Wars: The Phantom Menace before trying out for the role, because he was already a big fan of the franchise. And while that arguably panned out better for him, it did not pan out so well for the cast of today's topic. 

    After the ink was dry on everyone's contracts, the cast became dismayed and disillusioned with the project they had just signed on to. As it turns out, director Paul Feig, known then for comedy hits like Bridesmaids and The Heat, decided to employ one of his then tried-and-true tactics for crafting comedy: an overreliance on improvisation. 

    For those who may not know or would like a quick refresher, improv is the art of in-the-moment creativity on stage. It's making up something on the spot with no clear direction, causing the performer to simply move with the flow and go with whatever comes to mind, no matter how ridiculous the situation. It is a magical, creative tool that has been the source of many memorable moments in both stage and film. A classic example is the ever-so-iconic line from The Godfather: "Take the Cannoli!" which was not in the original script. Still, the actor successfully enhanced the scene with spot-on spontaneity. Another classic example is from the Tom Hanks classic, Big, in which he eats a piece of baby corn as though it were a full-sized ear. 

    Small moments of improvisation, such as these, can elevate a scene in any kind of film, whether comedy or otherwise. In some rare instances, you could successfully film an entire scene with two actors improvising all of their dialogue. However, the key is to use improv in small doses —just enough to maintain a healthy balance between creative freedom and collaboration. While improvising an entire show works well on stage, it is not a sufficient tool for film, especially when it comes to how you approach a script as a whole. 

    Director Paul Feig had relied on large chunks of improvised scenes in most of his films, and, to be fair, it had worked in his favor for the kinds of films he prefers to make. His scripts were less traditionally written with scene instructions, dialogue, and specific notes, and were primarily vague descriptions of what needed to happen, relying on improv to get there. However, for something as intricate, technically demanding, and massive as a summer blockbuster, comedy or not, there is simply not enough wiggle room for such loose horseplay. In small doses, yes, it can enhance your ideas, but much like enjoying a good chocolate cake, you will suffer severe consequences if you don't pace yourself. It should come as no surprise, then, that the film's lack of a coherent, cohesive structure led to an original runtime of nearly four hours. 

    Had the cast taken the time to seriously examine what they were considering signing on to, and perhaps, if Paul Feig were less reliant on improvisation, they might have had the fortitude to either turn down the project or insist that it be better polished before agreeing to join. While it is understandable how some levels of passion and fandom override your sense of logic and observation, it should become standard practice to take the time to thoroughly observe any kind of project proposal before signing on. 

Lesson #2: 

Reverse Sexism Is Still Sexism; Don't Do It. 

    One of the many modern "culture war" subjects that has been permeating the Hollywood system as of late, for reasons I can understand to a degree, is what can best be described as The Girl Boss Movement. Please understand, as a feminist myself, I totally understand the unfortunate history of male dominance in nearly every aspect of culture, and I do appreciate and long for better efforts toward inclusion and representation. That was one of the many reasons I wrote and self-published my books (shameless plug), Come See The Light, and the sequel, The Fox and the Dragons. Female representation and inclusion of all kinds should be more strongly encouraged and utilized across all corners of the arts, no matter how great or small. 

    But, in the name of all that is good and right, I am so sick and tired of what on-screen feminism has devolved into in recent years!

    Feminism, as featured in the Webster's Dictionary, is defined as the "belief in and advocacy of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes expressed especially through organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests." This is one of the many core foundations that played a significant role in my upbringing and has remained a proud part of my identity and advocacy. For me, feminism is as easy to understand and appreciate as breathing, if you stop to remember that we are both human beings and, like the concept of yin and yang, one cannot survive without the other. 

    As such, it becomes more straightforward (and significantly more practical) to treat both sexes equally. Because even though there are considerable biological differences between the two, both are part of a greater whole that cannot properly function if our differences are impractically enforced for equally impractical reasons. In other words, stop whining about gender affirmation care, and just let people be people, regardless of what bathroom they prefer to use!

    Feminism is a relevant and essential aspect of the arts. Unfortunately, Hollywood's bastardized concept of feminism continues to give it a bad name! 

    Many of the "girl boss" led movies in recent years, especially those churned out by Disney, have incorporated an unhealthy and impractical interpretation of feminism, which often boils down to "women good; men evil." While I certainly understand and appreciate where this kind of frustrated mentality is coming from, once again, given the sad history of unfair and impractically biased male dominance in many things, this kind of "us vs. them" mentality is not only insulting to real feminism, but it is also the exact kind of childish one-sided unresolved anger that has bled its way into too many aspects of our culture and our very existance as a people. It is the reason we are in the terrifying and unconstitutional state as a nation today. 

    A few prime examples of the kind of toxic feminism I am referring to include She-Hulk: Attorney at Law on Disney+, and, with respect to Daisy Ridley, Rey's character from the most recent Star Wars Trilogy. For an example outside Disney, consider the 2019 Charlie's Angels movie, written and directed by Elizabeth Banks. These films all center on women characters embodying a version of feminism that, while seemingly attractive and satisfying in the moment, is ultimately hollow and lackluster, depriving the audience of genuine characters worthy of our investment. None of them has any flaws, undergoes any tangible growth, or exhibits any relatable traits. Not to mention, they are also set in alternative realities where all men are clueless, incompetent, and selfish. Again, an understandable position, but not one that should represent the whole of humanity, as it does in these examples. 

    Ghostbusters (2016) suffers from this exact issue. It introduces four female characters set in an alternative reality where all men are either stupid or insecure. This does not make for an enduring story, nor does it encourage any clear-headed person to root for the heroes. Being a feminist is a good thing; being anti-men is just as unhealthy and wrongheaded as being anti-woman. Nothing is gained from being just as exclusive, arrogant, and closed-minded as those who continue to cause so much trouble for the rest of us. 

    In the words of Marcus Aurelius, "The best way to avenge yourself is to not become like the wrongdoer." 

Lesson #3

Always Ask Why.

    One of my many guilty pleasures in movies is the James Bond film, Tomorrow Never Dies from 1997. While not the best Bond film with Pierce Brosnan in the role, it does have its polished entertainment value, especially with the villain, played delectably well by Jonathan Pryce. In case you don't recall, Pryce plays a wealthy newspaper owner who plots to start a war between England and China to secure exclusive broadcasting rights in the region, so he can achieve total global domination in his own way. 

    About halfway through the film, Pryce delivers a short monologue in which he glosses over a part of his early career in journalism. In this piece, he mentions his most significant lesson from his editor: the key to a great story is not who, what, when, or where, but why. A story is only worth telling if there is a good reason to tell it. 

    This applies not only to the reasons behind the story itself, but also to the reasons for producing the story in the first place. The best stories to tell are those driven by the most passion, conviction, and excitement for the art of storytelling and entertainment. While the worst kinds of stories are those that lack all of the above and are only greenlit for cynical motives, such as filling out a balance sheet or securing licence rights. 

    Incidentally, this was the only motivation for Sony's Amazing Spider-Man movies, starring Andrew Garfield and directed by Mark Webb: Sony wanted nothing more than to ensure they would not lose their rights to Spider-Man to Disney and Marvel, given how financially and critically successful they had become with their Marvel Cinematic Universe. As such, Sony didn't care about the quality of those movies, so long as they were made and released to secure their rights to Spider-Man. 

    Ghostbusters (2016) had similar motivations. There was no creative, valid, or passionately driven reason for Sony to fork up the cash for this movie, other than to revitalize their classic property for lazy nostalgia dollars. While movie-making is still a business, and making money is an understandable and healthy motivation for telling a story, profit should not overshadow quality, creativity, and passion. If you can't explain your reasons for doing something other than making money, you should seriously reevaluate your idea or abandon it entirely. 

Conclusion.

    Ghostbusters (2016) is a failure in every possible way. It is a film with too much hubris, too many wrongheaded decisions behind its production, and no real creative or narrative substance. It is a film that was doomed to fail from the moment it began production. This is but one prime example of how not to make a movie; there are many more to explore and learn from, and we will. 

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

Happy Halloween! 

The Critical Drinker: Production Hell - Ghostbusters 2016

Double Feature - Halloween Edition: 2025

 

    It's October once again; Halloween season, my favorite time of the year. While I may not necessarily enjoy Halloween for the spookiness or the macabre—although there is no denying they are interesting elements to a degree—I tend to enjoy it as the time of year when we can let loose and be a little silly, at least for a short while. If nothing else, it's a great excuse to express yourself a little unconventionally, which is something we should all do sometimes, regardless of the season. 

    Still, one of the more intriguing benefits of the spooky season is the number of new and possibly spectacular horror films. 

    Horror wasn't a significant influence on my early artistic life. When I was a kid and went to the local video store (yes, I'm THAT old), I often found myself drawn to the horror section. It wasn't because I was interested in watching any of the movies; it was the cover art that pulled me in. I was always fascinated by the designs and their alluring ways of drawing my attention, encouraging me to take the risk and jump onto the ride offered by the scary story held within. It wasn't until many years later that I discovered why that really was (a fascinating advertising method known as AIDA). While that may have diminished some of the magic from my prior experience, it still left an impression on my creative mind. 

    There's an engaging video essay on the subject by the YouTuber Entertain The Elk. You will find a link to said video at the end of this review. 

    Today, we're taking a look at two brand new horror films released this year. Both are scary and atmospheric in their own way, and both offer something relevant and impactful to the table. While one is more intended as a commentary (of sorts) about specific American tragedies, the other is an exploration of perception. Both of which succeed in their own ways, but I hold one in higher regard than the other. Keep on reading to find out which one that is. 

    First film on the block: 

Rent on Apple TV and Amazon

Check if playing in a theater near you

    Much like the VHS artwork of most 1980s horror films, I was initially drawn to the unusual and haunting image of this poster. The text at the top also grabbed my attention. When I saw this image, I became obsessed with trying to decipher what the film might be about. I tried to determine things like the relevance of that specific time of the night, and especially the reason for the children's unusual running posture. I was determined to try to solve the mystery before I even saw the movie, and while I am proud of my efforts, the answers didn't come to fruition until I finally sat down to watch the film. 

    As it turns out, the answers can be much simpler, and sometimes more terrifying, than you might expect. 

    Taking place in a small town somewhere in Georgia, the story follows the aftermath of a mysterious and tragic event. One night, an entire group of school children simultaneously ran out of their homes and into the dark, never to be seen again. Among those most affected by the event is a school teacher named Justine (Julia Garner) and a grieving father named Archer (Josh Brolin). As the story progresses, their paths cross in an unexpected way that will ultimately lead them to the terrifying and tragic truth about what happened to the children, and why. 

    Those who recall classic literature may draw comparisons to the Grimm's fairytale, The Pied Piper: the story of a pipe-player who rescues a community ravaged by rats by playing a hypnotic tune that drives them all away, but also drives away the community's children for some likely nefarious reason. Without spoilers, Weapons delves into a similar supernatural concept that, while equally terrifying, is not what the film is likely about. 

    Weapons is primarily an examination of the tragedies of inexcusable events such as school shootings, accompanied by an intense discussion about the horrors of child abuse, not to mention alcoholism. While I grant you that both subjects are complicated to discuss and examine, writer/director Zack Cregger approaches them all with tact, taste, and deliberate consideration. He very likely chose to use supernatural elements in the story to address these relevant issues in a way that didn't directly alienate or offend real-world survivors. If that was the case, then I commend his choice. 

    But, as commendable as the writing efforts are, the film loses many points for being, quite literally, too difficult to see at times. Yes, my beautiful readers, it is time once again for my rant about underexposed cinematography. 

    Photographed by Larkin Seiple, the cinematography for Weapons is perfectly fine during the day. However, the nighttime scenes leave a lot to be desired. Like many modern digitally-captured films before it, the filmmakers became too reliant on the sensitivity of the camera's sensor (not to mention the super-powerful HDR capabilities of most modern TVs that not everyone owns) to capture more information in dark environments than actually present. Yes, modern digital cameras can accomplish great things with less light than traditionally necessary, but (and I cannot stress this enough), there still needs to be a sense of CONTRAST, which can only be achieved by well-placed additional lighting. Filming your dark scene in excessive natural darkness only frustrates your viewer!

     Not to mention one particularly questionable writing choice that, while I will not spoil here, felt a bit too on-the-nose (and a little pretentious) than it was likely meant to be. 

    Despite this technological hurdle, which really needs more frequent attention, and one or two questionable aspects of the script, Weapons is a mostly fine-tuned horror film. While not for everyone, it succeeds in its narrative goals with relatable characters, sharp commentary (again, mostly), and an ending that is both tragic and satisfying. It's one of those films that you only really need to see at least once for its impact and emotional resonance. 

    Next up is a very different kind of horror experience entirely: 

Playing in theaters

    The dog does not, I repeat, DOES NOT DIE! I wanted to make that abundantly clear before I said anything else about this incredible film. Good Boy is the kind of independent film (and by extension the kind of passionate filmmaking) that we need more of in the modern world of cinema, overpopulated by extravagantly expensive blockbusters, and vanity projects by has-been actors masquerading as indie cinema for award season. 

    Oh, was that my out-loud voice? 

    The story follows a lovable dog named Indy, who has just moved into an old cabin, formerly owned by his master's late grandfather. Upon arriving at the location, Indy starts noticing unusual and unsettling things all around, and he suspects that whatever it is might be causing his master's upsetting health. Determined to protect his master, Indy must brave the strange things and face the darkness head-on like the loyal and loving dog that he is. Whether he succeeds in protecting his master remains to be seen. 

    Good Boy is an absolute gem of a movie, not just in the horror genre, but in the passionate, creative, joyful, and wholesome nature of the people who made it. Production for this film took over 400 days; Indy is the director's actual dog; and while some special effects were used to enhance a few key moments in the story, every single frame of Indy is practical. Not to mention the novelty of a horror film viewed entirely from the perspective of a non-human character, making you wonder a little more about why your pet keeps looking at seemingly nothing in that one dark corner of your house. 

    The most fascinating (and hilarious) aspect of the film is how Indy never really knew he was in a movie. While it appears that Indy is giving a mindful performance, the reality is that the director, through judicious editing and thoughtful juxtaposition, effectively conveys the appropriate emotional responses required for such a story. In the post-credits special feature of the film, we see how director Ben Leonberg, along with his wife Kari Fischer, basically played with Indy on set in creative and wholesome ways to get the performance and timing required for the story. Plus, it becomes beautifully obvious how much fun they were all having, especially Indy. 

    The film also receives several bonus points for a myriad of excellent choices, including not giving Indy any dialogue through voice-over, and, unlike Weapons, showcasing how to create dark cinematography with proper contrast. Not to mention, it is a beacon of hope and inspiration for many indie filmmakers, which is significant and profoundly impactful. 

    Even if you're not a fan of the horror genre, or if you are cautious of films that star dogs in possible peril, please go see this film. Independent cinema like this only continues to exist if we provide it with the financial success it deserves, which means paying to see it in theaters or on digital rental. However, box office numbers tend to carry more significant and influential weight. 

    Please go see this movie! It is the perfect storm of bountiful creativity and the perfect choice for a spooky Halloween viewing. 

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

Why Horror VHS Artwork Was So F*cked Up

The Woman in cabin 10 - Nothing New but Everything Well

 

Streaming on Netflix

    Murder mysteries can often feel like a dime a dozen, especially those that utilize the potentially unreliable protagonist trope. I have always said that it is possible to make a familiar genre or narrative feel fresh, depending on the execution and style, and especially the effort put into it all. While today's subject, The Woman in Cabin 10, does not bring anything substantially new to the table, it does present a fresh enough take on the genre to warrant a curious viewing, especially if it means supporting the unjustly forgotten talent (preceptively) of Keira Knightley and all other talented performers like her. 

    The story follows a professional journalist named Laura Blacklock (Keira Knightley), who is dealing with the recent trauma of witnessing a murder while working on a story. Shortly afterward, she is unexpectedly invited to sail away on a private yacht with a billionaire, Richard Bullmer (Guy Pierce) and his wife, Anne (Lisa Loven Kongsli), who is dying from cancer, to cover a special announcement regarding their future. After meeting with Anne and discovering her wishes upon her death, Laura discovers a mysterious woman residing in the cabin next to hers, shortly followed by what appeared to be her equally mysterious murder, made all the more unusual by everyone's insistence that no one had been occupying that cabin. Now, Laura must determine if what she saw was real or the result of post-traumatic stress. With only a few days on the yacht, surrounded by influential people who would benefit more from sweeping scandals under the rug, Laura must tread lightly in her investigation. 

    This film offers nothing new in a murder mystery, but it is executed and presented well enough to forgive its clichés. The cast do their jobs diligently (especially Keira Knightley), and the script is crafted well enough to convey the mystery while keeping you guessing, even if you still manage to call out the twist halfway through. 

    Movies like these are, more often than not, challenging to review because there's not much to be said about them other than they're fine. If you need a fresh mystery for the weekend, give this one a shot. At the very least, you also get some lovely shots of the ocean. 

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