Color Out of Space

There are two types of adaptations.  Well, three if you count "bad".  But just dealing with the good ones, there's two types.  There's the ones that are extremely faithful and are basically the source on the screen.  For instance, the HPL Society's version of The Call of Cthulhu is not only extremely faithful to the source material, but is even faithful to the time period, as it was filmed as a black and white silent movie.

And then there's Richard Stanley's Color Out of Space, which is the second type.  It's faithful to the core of the story while changing things as needed, either to improve for the new medium or to flesh out the story.  The original story certainly didn't have The Thing-style body horror, for instance.  However, it fits in the story.

So, for those unfamiliar, The Colour Out of Space was a short story written by HP Lovecraft about a secluded farmer and his family.  A meteor crashes into the farm and Weird Stuff starts happening.  Crops grow massive while being rotten inside, people get sick, people die, etc.  And then, as inexplicably as it arrives, it goes back into space.  It was described as a color that couldn't be quantified, a color nobody had ever seen before.  It was, very clearly, an allegory for radiation.

Color Out of Space hits all the major beats of the story while updating it for modern times and changing things as needed to be a film.  The film itself is gorgeous, keeping the indescribable beauty of the Color and the changes to the landscape.  While it obviously couldn't actually show colors that aren't real, the mixes of pinks and blues and purples keep the otherworldly feel of the entity.

This adaptation also delves into the madness caused by the Color.  It seems to take the failings of the family members and augments them, from the mother's attachment to her youngest son to the father's anger issues.  It doesn't have too long, though, as the movie steams ahead into the body horror and the climax of the film.  But it's still pervasive throughout.

Of course, no review of this film is complete without a discussion of Nicolas Cage.  Cage has become something of a meme with his over the top acting in some films (see: Wicker Man remake).  Here, he turns in a fantastic performance, whipsawing back and forth between Crazy Nic Cage and Dramatic Nic Cage.  It's almost like flipping a lightswitch at times.  So while many people were cheering him being crazy and over the top, I thought it was very good.  He's not just an unhinged lunatic, he's a man trying desperately to do the right thing while losing his mind and having his body falling apart.

The rest of the cast works quite well, too.  I quite enjoyed the film, and not just because I'm a huge nerd for Lovecraft. Earlier, I mentioned the movie uses body horror for some of its scares and the creepy factor.  While that's true, it's less horrifying than the term "body horror" usually implies.  Yes, there's separate beings being melded together in kinda gross ways, but it's still not as gut-churning as, say, The Thing.  It's not goopy or slimey, for one.  Which seems a minor thing, but certainly makes a difference.

In conclusion, I think this is an extremely good adaptation, and it's great to see Richard Stanley charging back with a really solid film.  And even those who really don't like gore or grossness can enjoy it.

Joker

Well. This was a movie.

I watched Joker earlier today and I'm still kind of processing what I saw. It's something of a difficult thing to work through. Because of that, and because of the structure, it's almost impossible to review this movie without spoilers. But, briefly, a spoiler-free review first:

This is a heartbreaking character study of a man on the edge falling over. Much has been written about how it's drawing from King of Comedy or Taxi Driver, but the movie I kept thinking of was Falling Down. However you slice it though, this is a very uncomfortable movie to watch, but it's just breathtaking and amazing. The other movie I kept thinking of was Requiem For a Dream. Yeah, this movie is a bit of a gut-punch. It's very, very good, but it's a tough sit at times. You've been warned. This also isn't so much a comic book movie as a psychological horror movie.

Now for more depth. Spoilers ahead and sprinkled throughout.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi

Yeah, I decided to skip the cute title.

So, I saw the new Star Wars movie, and like everyone else on the internet, I happen to Have Opinions about it.  I'll keep things spoiler-free up front and then move on to specific spoiler stuff later.  The very brief review is: I liked it.  I'm not entirely sure where it fits on the list of movies, it'll probably land squarely at 4th.  It's not as good as original trilogy, but it's better than the prequels, better than Force Awakens, and certainly better than Rogue One.  So... yeah, I guess it's fourth.

No, I'm being serious here.  I think much of the hate is more fan anger than anything.  It did things differently, so it's bad.  I think it's fair to remember that not all reviews of Empire Strikes Back were especially glowing at the time.  I think time will tell here and it'll settle into its place.  The zeitgeist for Force Awakens seems to have downgraded its quality and appeal, and I think time will elevate Last Jedi.

Yup. Star Wars.

Spoiler-free section:

Yeah, so Star Wars came out a little while ago, and I finally got around to seeing it.  Yes, it was only a week, with with all the hype and all the talk, it feels like I waited an eternity to see the thing.  Needless to say, this was a Very Big Deal.  But you knew that.

Frankly, that degree of hype is dangerous for anything, be it movie, television show, book, what have you.  The greater the hype, the harder it is to avoid crushing disappointment.  Even a good, or fantastic, or great movie can feel like a letdown if it doesn't reach the lofty goals expected of it.  A friend of mine experienced that with Dark City.  It didn't live up to what he was expecting, so we walked out of the theater with him feeling disappointed, even though it's an excellent movie.  It truly is.  You should go watch it, actually.  Get the Director's Cut if you can.  That doesn't have an opening voice-over full of titanic spoilers.

But, back on topic.  Star Wars: The Force Awakens (henceforth TFA) actually manages to live up to its hype.  And yes, I was hyped and looking forward to this.  I was six when Return of the Jedi came out, and I have vivid memories of seeing it in the theater.  Sure, it was the worst of the originals, but that's still going to have a huge impact to the mind and imagination of a six year old.  Unsurprisingly, I became a huge Star Wars fan, and have remained a fan, even as I've grown old, bitter, and curmudgeonly.

That magic hope was still there when I spent two hours standing in the middle of a line-turned-mob as we waited for the re-release of A New Hope in 1997.  That opening fanfare and text crawl sent a chill down my spine as I watched A New Hope on the big screen like it was meant to be.  Sadly, the Special Edition was mostly just a bunch of worthless trash added to clutter a perfectly fine movie, but you take the memories you can get.  It didn't quite reach the hype, but as a link to something I couldn't have witnessed, it was still magical.  Not magical enough to wait in line forever for the Empire or Return re-release, but I still saw them in the theater.

Skip ahead a bit more and we have Phantom Menace.  Again, my hopes were up.  How could they not be?  New Star Wars!  And the trailers looked great!  And... well... we know how that turned out.

So I waited a week for TFA.  Now I kind of wish I hadn't.  It was really that good.  From the opening text crawl to the end.  This is how you make a new Star Wars film, George.  This is everything the prequels should have been.  George Lucas may have invented Star Wars, but JJ Abrams clearly understands what it means to the fans more than Lucas does.

!-----SPOILERS TO FOLLOW-----!

There's Something Under There

I'll admit, the Tremors series is a bit of a guilty pleasure of mine.  The first is a pretty classic creature-feature and was a great little horror-comedy flick.  I've always liked it.

They, unsurprisingly, got worse as the series went on.  2 was a serviceable direct-to-video sequel.  3 was not particularly good, but that might have just been me really disliking that they named the creature form "assblaster".  It felt like they were trying too hard.

Tremors 4: The Legend Begins was an odd duck, but enjoyable in its own way.  I think I liked it a little more than 3, if for no other reason than because it fleshed out the lore of the graboids and I can be a sucker for that kind of thing.

Which brings us to Tremors 5: Bloodlines.  The fact that there are five of these movies kind of blows my mind, especially since it's been 11 years since 4 came out.  And 25 since the first.  Let that percolate a minute.  This series has been around for 25 freaking years.

I Kept Wanting To Make It Plural

So, last week, I saw Kingsman: The Secret Service.  I wasn't entirely sure what to expect when I went to see it, except that it starred Colin Firth, and that it involved a, well, secret spy agency.  Honestly, I don't even think I was aware that it was rated R.  I just knew that the previews looked great, that almost everyone everywhere said it was great, and that it wasn't entirely serious.

On the one hand, if you're interested in seeing this movie, perhaps that's all you should know.  That being said, I think there's a couple things that should be mentioned, even though I'll be striving to avoid spoilers. 

Essentially, Kingsman deals with Taron Egerton plays "Eggsy", the son of a deceased Kingsman.  He's solidly working class and listless, despite being athletic, smart, clever, and so on.  He's not quite a chav, but he's certainly rubbing elbows with them.  Into his world come Colin Firth's Harry Hart who introduces Eggsy into the world of the Kingsman.  Queue training sequence intercut with The Machinations of an Evil Megalomaniac Who Wants to Take Over the World.  After all, it is a spy flick.

Kingsman has its roots firmly planted in the Bond end of the spectrum, as opposed to the more "realistic" Bourne movies or films like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.  That being said, it is more than willing to poke fun at the Bond style movie, especially the less serious ones from the Moore years.  Still, it gleefully eschews the po-faced seriousness of the Daniel "Poutiest Bond" Craig years, delighting in its gadgets and gizmos, such as bullet-proof umbrellas and cigarette-lighter grenades; however, it manages to take reality into account on such things.  There's a scene where Hart is showing Eggsy the "toy room" and Eggsy asks about a wall covered in smart phones and tablets.  Hart, almost sadly, explains that they're perfectly normal, because they're already ridiculously powerful.

Circling back, I want to address the fact that this is an R rated movie.  It's not rated R for language or for a random topless scene.  It's rated R because it's almost shockingly violent.  Keep in mind that this is the same people who did Kick Ass.  While it is stylized to a certain extend (not to the extent of, say, Sin City), there is quite a bit of it.  Sofia Boutella plays the part of Odd Job; she's named Gazella, presumably because of her prosthetic feet (the curved spring style; it's an appropriate name).  He razor sharp prosthetic feet.  Odd Job cut heads off statues; Gazelle dismembers people.

I don't want to scare people away, though.  While violent, it doesn't really linger lovingly on it, and while there's plenty of blood, it never veers into the realm of gore.  As someone who has little stomach for gore, I know what a fine line it can be for a film to walk.  I think that this film stays on the safe side, for all but the queasiest stomachs.  And, really, only one fight overstays its welcome, largely because it's intercut with the reactions of three different people.

This isn't a film that will make you think.  It isn't really even a deconstruction of the genre.  It is, however, an exceptionally enjoyable film, and far, far more fun than I've had with a movie in a long while.  Kingsman may have its tongue firmly planted in cheek (as one review put it, "tongue planted so firmly in cheek, it's poking out the other side), it never winks.  It's a fantasy, pure and simple.  It knows that it's not serious, but it revels in its violence and silliness, as opposed to sneering at it aloofly.  It's well worth seeing.

Better Late Than Never: 9

I finally got around to watching 9.  That's 9, not Nine.

This one...

...not this one.

Ahem.  Anyway.  A little plot outline is necessary here.  At least, it was for me, because, even though 9 is five years old, I went into it knowing almost nothing at all about it.  I knew it was animated and it involved this little hackysack dudes, but I didn't really know anything else.

Like that it's a post-apocalyptic movie.  Yeah.  Did not know that.  It's an interesting world they've created (er, destroyed?) here, too.  During the movie, we learn that it was a standard "machines gone mad" world.  The imagery of the pre-fall world makes it look like the nation in question was... well... the Soviets by any other name.  Sure, they're using different iconography, and nobody actually uses the words, but, well, "The Chancellor" has certain similarities.

Anyway, we have the classic "good science twisted" motif where The Scientist's creation, an intelligent, self-replicating robot, is used for militaristic means.  This leads to massive amounts of war and, eventually, the robots turning on man and wiping out all life.

All life.  The toxins used by the machines even wiped out bacterial life on the surface, leaving the world sterile.  Also, somehow, the machines were deactivated in all this.  It's never really explained what happened to them, but there's really no life of any kind left.  You have the stitchpunks (our hacky sack dolls) and a catlike robot monster thing.

Our story focuses on the titular 9, the last stitchpunk created by the Scientist before his death.  He's a bit of a naive prat, to be honest.  This movie is certainly a case where the supporting characters are more interesting than the main character.  Hell, even 8, the dumbass brute was more enjoyable than 9.  Maybe it's because 9 is voiced by Elijah Wood.  When Elijah's being earnest, you just want to pop him in the nose.

Aside from Elijah Wood, there are problems with this film.  While it's absolutely gorgeous to look at, the plot is weak and elements of it are far too metaphysical for my tastes.  When the story started, it was great.  I was totally sucked in.  A little past the half way point, the wheels started to fall off.  Which, honestly, isn't terribly surprising.  Reading up on the short film this was based on, the great parts were mostly retreads of the original short.  It's when the story expanded that the problems start to crop up.  Not just the stuff with the souls, but the fact that events in the movie require people to be damnable idiots.  Perhaps it's because of how the stitchpunks were created, but it's still pretty weak, and it's frustrating watching things being stretched out because someone did something stupid.  Especially when the movie's only about 80 minutes long to begin with.

Still, it's beautiful to look at.  The blasted world looks great.  I'm glad I saw it, flaws and all.

Better Late Than Never: Creature

Creature (2011) is not a good movie.  I don't know if it was even trying, but it's not good.  You should probably call it a bad movie.  But I think it deserves to be considered a Bad Movie.

You see, there's a difference between a bad movie and a Bad Movie.  Bad Movies are the stuff of legends and have entire websites dedicated to them.  Bad Movies are things like Plan 9 From Outer Space or Future War or The Giant Claw.  They're movies that wrap around bad and become entertaining again.

I'm not entirely convinced that Creature manages this feat, but it certainly comes close.  I could see having it be part of a group movie night and providing entertainment.  Just... probably not the entertainment the creators intended.

But, I have to say, don't trust all the reviews you've read.  Some of them seem to have decided that they weren't going to like it, and thus didn't really pay attention.  You can't really complain about plot holes or bad reveal orders if you weren't paying any damn attention and missed explanations or missed entire conversations.  It's honestly rather embarrassing, especially when it's from critics I respect who I would expect to hold a sliver of professionalism.  Honestly, if you can't be bothered to watch the damn movie, maybe you should lead it off your list and just skip it.  Just because the movie was a dismal and almost complete box office failure ($216 per screen average; currently the 3rd worst for wide release movies) doesn't mean it doesn't deserve a fair shake.  At least if you're going to bill yourself as a professional critic.

Right.  I'm off my soap box.  Time for the movie.

Go go, Godzilla!

Guess what I saw the other day.  Here's a hint:

A good time was had by all. 

I had heard mixed things about director Gareth Edwards's Monsters, but regardless of the quality of that movie, it's clear he understands the character, and the genre, unlike certain directors who shall remain unmentioned.  Ahem.

Regardless, this is a movie that not only understands the entire concept, but deeply loves it.  You can see the love of genre in general, and the big guy in particular.  Like Pacific Rim, this movie knows what it is and revels in it, not afraid to wallow in the glory of it all.

A few things have been tweaked here and there to, I guess, make the movie more contemporary, such as making the Kaiju creatures from an earlier age, as opposed to atomic mutations.  Indeed, the opening credits sequence (which is actually rather clever) shows that the Bikini Atoll tests didn't create Godzilla; they were an attempt to kill Godzilla.

Sadly, after those tantalizing glimpses, Master G all but vanishes from the picture until much, much, much later.  It's a deep loss.

And that's my main complaint with the picture.  While it's fun playing, "Oh Hey, That Guy!" during the beginning of the film, it can be horribly plodding.  Yes, yes, it sets up motivations, and it puts things in motion, and it establishes Important In-Movie Information for later, but it feels long.  I can't help but think the movie could have benefited from having a good 10 or 15 minutes cut, especially from the first hour.  The movie clocks in at just over two hefty hours, so the King of the Monsters isn't the only one looking a little bloated.

And yes, this Godzilla seems a little on the pudgy side.  But it's the weirdest thing.  There are scenes where I could swear they decided to have the CG try to emulate a dude in a rubber suit.  The skin seems to be wobbling above nothing, like it would in a rubber suit, as opposed to if the skin was wrapped around blubber or whatever Kaiju have.  I suppose an in-movie explanation would be that, since Godzilla lives on the bottom of the ocean, leaving that extreme pressure has caused him to expand, but that seems like I'm over thinking things.

Mild spoilers to follow, but this information is revealed towards the beginning, so it's not much of a spoiler.

Had this movie taken a more traditional naming scheme, it wouldn't have been called Godzilla; it would have been called Godzilla vs. MUTO.

Say what you will about the creature design for Godzilla, the design for MUTO is fantastic.  It's a weird bug/bat/monster thing.  It looks like it was somewhat inspired by Gyaos, truth be told.  Regardless, it's still an original beastie and is wonderfully crafted.  The thought given to its design and life cycle was actually pretty neat.  I like that they took the time to make these creatures seem like real things instead of just giant engines of destruction.  I mean, they are giant engines of destruction, but they have... biology.

And we see a lot of MUTO.  After the opening credits teases of Godzilla, MUTO is the only Kaiju we see for about half the picture, and there's a lot of running around trying to figure out what's going on and so forth and so on.  While it's nice to see Bryan Cranston (looking more Hal Wilkerson than Walter White) and Ken Watanabe, we don't care about the humans.  In fact, there was a point in the movie where Godzilla was starting to fight MUTO and they cut away to the human characters running around and I almost cried out, "Oh, come on!" in the theater.

Still, even with all those missteps, it's a ridiculously fun movie.  Even though it teases us with Godzilla for far to long, it's not afraid of the money shot: when we get that first shot of Godzilla roaring right at the camera, you just want to cheer.  It's utterly amazing.  Well worth the price of admission.