THE BOOGEYMAN (2023) horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

By Kurt Feigelis

Neither fun nor scary enough. This adaptation of Stephen King’s The Boogeyman takes a short story and builds just enough tension that struggles to justify a 90 minute run time. Beautiful cinematography and wonderful performances, particularly by Vivien Lyra Blair and Sophie Thatcer. But in the end, the film leaves you wanting and waiting for just once more scare. 

After the death of his wife, psychiatrist Will Harper (Chris Messina) struggles with his loss and the responsibility of being a single father. Daughters Sadie Harper (Sophie Thatcher) and Sawyer Harper (Vivien Lyra Harper) are left to care and raise each other while their father continues to work and see patients. The same day the daughters return to school after the death of their mother Lester Billings appears on Dr. Harpers’s door step seeking help. He tells the story of the death of his three children and how he believes “something” is responsible, he calls it “the Boogeyman.” Believing this man is unstable, Dr. Harper removes himself to call the police. We soon find Lester wondering the house where the Boogeyman has found him and now attaches himself to a new family. Now it is up to the daughters to fight for survival and try to convince everyone else that the Boogeyman is real. 

Over all, this movie is successful. With writers Scott Beck, Bryan Woods, and Mark Heyman, these guys know scary and can write a scare scene. They know how to build a story with interesting characters. But the inconsistencies come from Director Rob Savage. The movie is a more about waiting for the Boogeyman to appear, or wait for the characters to start talking about the monster they don’t know anything about yet. The parts in between don’t progress the story enough. 

The mythology of the Boogeyman comes in to question when you start to think about the movie as a whole. It is said the Boogeyman attacks when the parents aren’t paying attention to their children, but this mythology doesn’t stick true to the story. The father is closer to the younger daughter (Sawyer), who sleeps with multiple lights on, and is constantly overlooking the eldest daughter (Sadie) and even walks away from her when she says “I’m trying to talk to you.” But the Boogeyman goes after Sawyer first, despite not being able to be in the light, and her sleeping with multiple lights on. But the Boogeyman also attacks adults when they are alone as well. 

Granted the mystery of the Boogeyman is what would make him scary, and I don’t need all of the answers, but consistency is the story is what makes you feel satisfied. If the Boogeyman has been around for hundreds or thousands of years, why is the first time we heard of him. Where are the stories around the school yard, late at night during sleepovers? Where are the questionable videos online with today’s technology that all children have.  

Further inconstancies with the father come into question, early on we seem him taking pills leading us to believe he is struggling with the loss of his wife, but this never comes back. He isn’t there for his children, then he is, then he isn’t. He is there for one, not the other, then vise versa, then not there for either. Either he is trying to be a good single father or he isn’t. It feels as if there needed to be one more pass on the screen play, or too much was cut in editing to keep the film at 98 minutes.

In the end the movie is about the Boogeyman, and that is where this movie shines. There is true mystery behind this (possibly ancient) monster. The build up to his reveal is a fun and enjoyable ride, and the movie is worth seeing for that alone. But I sat there at the end thinking about the movie waiting for one more scene, one more scare, or a hint of character development or progress for the family we just sat with for 98 mins. 3.5 stars/ 5. Wait 45 for streaming.

This review is from contributor Kurt Feigelis.

Advertisement

THE LITTLE MERMAID (2023) movie review

Posted on by
Reply

written by Dr. Leo Genco

Some treasures are best left under the sea. This familiar Disney formula is only good for one thing: lining the coffers. The Little Mermaid has wonderful, bright, appealing visuals with a few new decent songs, that prove Disney is unable to capture the magic of their 2D animated films. This is unfortunate, because under the sea of this movie is the potential for a great innovative rendition of The Little Mermaid. Why? Well, Disney attempted to provide a newer telling of the original while pandering to the original material. This creates a dichotomy of moral themes in the movie, and it shows. There is a lot to unpack. If you want to skip to what the movie does right, you can skip to the end.

Let’s get the most obvious issues out the way, since they were consistently topics of discussion prior to the film’s release: race, ethnicity, and gender swapping of characters. These changes are typically common to improve diversity, and it can be done. You can look at Nick Fury in the Marvel Comics, or John Stewart as the Green Lantern in the DC Comics. One of the best race change movies is the Preacher’s Wife. The issue with the change here is how the director and writers tried to justify the change. Instead of changing the race of a whole group to maintain consistency, only individuals are changed and are rationalized through a simple bit of dialogue exhibition. Most of the human characters are an eclectic group of non-white ethnicities and races but Prince Eric is still white! The story justifies these differences by changing the location of the kingdom and having the queen adopt Eric into the family. The kingdom is not a port for the mainland but on an island, somewhere in the Americas, and this causes massive changes in the story. The whole scene with the chef and Sebastian was removed. Someone will wonder if the scene was cut because the chef was French. The essence of the original was stripped to justify the demographic changes, which would not be a problem if the movie did not pander to the original material.

The singing varies between songs and actors. The cast of a mix between stage and film actors would do that, but the main problem is how the songs were constructed. For some reason, the director added more characters into the script, but they did not contribute to the songs at all. It is very common in musicals to have the background and side characters sing the chorus and harmony for the lead singer. But this is not true for The Little Mermaid. People are expecting a chorus for Under the Sea and Kiss the Girl. This is not coming from a nostalgia perspective of the original songs. Under the Sea is a song about the sea living as a musical band of species. The dialogue before Kiss the Girl called for the various sounds of nature. For both songs we are expecting a strong sound, especially when the chorus hits. Sadly, both songs are reduced to two or three singers max and are sung as a solo piece for the majority. Overall, songs match the deaf tone of the movie.

While the animation of the under the sea creatures on par with the Lion King (take that as you will), I am not talking about the animals but the human actors who had little to not animated faces throughout their dialogue. Only three characters were animated, Queen Selina, Grimsby, and Ursula. When I say animated, I mean that their facial expression, voice, and body language spoke. Everyone seemed stiff, which is weird because Halle Bailey is a stage actor. You would think Ariel would have the most body expression because she can’t talk for half the movie. Ariel needs to be animated the most. Arial did not seem to be a curious, explorative person, but a blank manikin until a scene which required an over-the-top reaction. Luckily, this was not consistent throughout the movie. As I will mention later, the acting in the new scenes was great.

For some movie goers, background context to main characters is essential. I, on the other hand, prefer context to characters that is required to understand the journey of the main character. This means, that background context should progress information for the main character, not for the audience. The early introduction to multiple character’s background hurt the movie in two ways: (1) these small scenes for a backstory break up the pacing of the storytelling, creating jarring transitions between scenes, and (2) too many themes or messages were introduced into the film too fast. When you introduce a backstory, you need to follow through and close that story, and when you give too much information at once, people tend to forget or care about the small stories. On top of that, the movie told Ursula’s backstory but did not provide a satisfying delivery of her end. Overall, the introduction of the characters with backstory was not the best way to start the movie.

Two things carried the movie for me, the new scenes and songs and the queen and Grimsby. Adding new scenes and songs felt real. The acting in the scenes felt genuine, minus the random dancing scene halfway through the movie. These scenes had fresh magic Disney needed, but again, the director pandered to the original movie, and this created a lot of disconnect. The problem when recreating 2D animation as a real-life movie is the expression that comes from drawn imagery. This is why the drawings of human movement are different from how humans move. It allows the animator to create expressions you are physically unable to express but want to. The new scenes of the movie did not have a previous expectation of certain expressions. I believe this element allowed the actors more freedom to act.

God bless queen! Out of all the characters, the two actors who were able to pull it off throughout the whole movie was the queen and her trusty councilman, Grimsby. They were amazing. They had facial and body expressions. I had chills when the queen was on screen. Grimsby was played perfectly and became that comedy relief when the gender swapped bird, Scuttle, failed. I loved these characters, and I enjoyed every minute of screen time with them. While I would put Ursula in this category, her character was written incorrectly. While she was played very well, her lines were the least to be desired. She was written more as a grown woman who throws temper tantrums like a child than the cunning slimy sea witch, she was in the original 1991 movie. So, the queen and Grimsby saved the movie, at least for me.

Dr. Genco is a guest contributor and fellow university colleague. Follow him on Instagram at Leo.Genco.

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL.3 movie review

Posted on by
3

Whoa! That’s a lot of movie, and a lot to unpack. While James Gunn’s MCU swan song Guardians of the Galaxy vol.3 works well as an allegory of the Third Reich, exploring the atrocities of that nightmarish ideology and movement, the superhero movie is greatly lacking in entertainment value.

Still reeling from the loss of Gamora, Peter Quill must rally his team to defend the universe and protect one of their own. If the mission is not completely successful, it could possibly lead to the end of the Guardians as we know them.

The story is emotionally manipulative and many scenes and dialogue are inappropriate for young audiences. (As a reminder, kids are NOT little adults; kids are lacking in critical thinking skills). Furthermore, the movie suffers from squeezing too much plot into a single movie–the film overstays its welcome by about 30–45-minutes.

Clearly, James Gunn loves theses characters, and I can tell that he is a writer that genuinely cares (a trait I spotlight in my screenwriting classes), but I feel he forgot that a large segment of his MCU audience is comprised of kids, whether he accepts or likes that fact or not, and should have considered that dynamic when crafting this story. A storytelling element that is common amongst the MCU, especially within the Guardians of the Galaxy previous two movies, is levity. There is too little levity to counterbalance the dark elements of the movie. As such, the movie is incredibly heavy and sucks all the joy out of going to the cinema to attend a superhero movie. The movie is not completely without redeeming qualities or uplifting moments, but they are vastly outweighed by the somber tone of the movie as a whole.

Even though the film’s incredibly dark visual elements and themes are tastefully handled for older teen and adult audiences, as whole, this MCU installment is not appropriate for kids. If the movie’s marketing made it a point that this Guardians of the Galaxy movie was not for kids, I wouldn’t have a big a problem with content of the movie, but it’s the fact that kids were not dissuaded in any way from attending this, insofar as I am aware. When Deadpool first released, there was an entire tongue in cheek campaign to remind parents and siblings that this Marvel movie was not for kids–tastefully handled. Perhaps the studio dropped the f-bomb and increased the crass language and violence as a means to warm kids up to Deadpool 3, but that is a completely unhealthy approach as is disrespectful of what it means to be a child and young.

Looking to another franchise with which a whole generation of kids grew up, the Harry Potter movies became more mature as the seminole audience grew. Which is important, as life IS complicated and success, grief, loss, death, and disappointment are part of the human experience. However, the movies never became overly violent, increased crass language, or went to too dark a place (without counterbalancing it with levity and more lighthearted moments). Guardians of the Galaxy vol.3 is representative of the direction Marvel and Disney are going, and it’s not good nor healthy. If the MCU wants to create more movies that are adult in nature, then do that–but don’t take what has appealed to kids and decide to increase the more mature content. As I understand it, there is a whole universe of Marvel characters, and I am confident that a sub-franchise can be started that is geared towards mature audiences from the onset. And when kids get older, they can choose to eventually experience the Marvel movies that were, at one time, inappropriate for them.

What I found most fascinating about the movie is the commentary on the Third Reich (and for those that don’t remember, that is the ideology turned movement that was manifested by the Nazi party). Without going into great detail, one of the common practices at Nazi-controlled concentration camps was to further medical science by experimenting on the prisoners. Unfortunately, some of what we know today, some of the advancements that we use for healing today, came out of those nightmarish compounds. The idea was to learn from the experiments in order to increase the life experience of the master race perfect–correct that which was flawed. Moreover, the idea of a master society was carried into the idea of creating a utopia (something the Nazis had in common with the Soviets). But of course, utopia is an impossibility, and the pursuit of it often comes at the cost of life, individuality, and freedom.

The big bad villain in this movie known as the High Evolutionary is representation of and analogous with Hitler. At the core of the High Evolutionary’s goals and ambitions is the same ideology that drove and inspired Hitler. Furthermore, his speeches that feel they could have been written for a modern day Hitler. I appreciate what James Gunn did here, because it is monstrously challenging to craft a story around such heavy subject matter. Analogy and extended metaphor are outstanding tools to use in storytelling to provide commentary on a topic without talking about it. The ideology that inspired Hitler didn’t go away with him and his party, but it’s still out there, and must be kept at bay. Fictional storytelling can be used as a means to explore an observation of reality that may otherwise be uncomfortable.

If only as much thought had been put into the sets and effects of the movie. Like the perennial house guest that has worn out their welcome but continues to return anyway, prolific CGI continues to be employed instead of showcasing the craftsmanship of practical effects, real sets, and models. I’ve said it before, and I will say it again, CGI can never replace the way real light bounces off real objects into the camera lens. When I look at a monstrous creation of CGI, I am never left with the feeling that I witnessed the hand of an artist—brilliant engineer, yes–artist, no. Furthermore, not only is the CGI screaming in your face, but the movie’s music and sound effects mixes are also deafening. The kid seated next to me had his hands over his ears for a good portion of the movie. There is nothing subtle or nuanced about this movie.

Guardians of the Galaxy vol.3 represents James Gunn’s MCU swan song as he is now working on DCEU (or whatever it’s going to be called) movies. And he certainly left an indelible mark upon the MCU because few other directors (if any) could have worked the magic he did with the Guardians, a one-time obscure Marvel comic series. While I have many reservations of taking your kids to see this movie, it is one that should inspire thoughtful conversations about the parallels the villain(s) shares with the Third Reich.

Guardians of the Galaxy review | Guardians of the Galaxy vol.2 review

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

STAR TREK: PICARD series review

Posted on by
Reply

The Return of the Picard. After a watchable first season, absolute garbage second season, Star Trek: Picard finishes its final season with an immensely welcomed (near) return to form. In a media landscape that increasingly demonstrates an aversion to the past in an effort to improve or refresh legacy characters or series, the ups and downs of Star Trek: Picard (from hereon Picard), prove that some characters and stories were already exemplary in substance and form from the beginning. Suffice it to say, it boldly goes where it has been before and shows it can thrive.

The third and final season of Picard has resonated with Star Trek fans young and old because it finally went back to its roots, went back to why these characters are beloved and an integral part of the cultural zeitgeist. At least, refocused on that goal, anyway. While I don’t feel that it landed sure-footedly on a return to the Star Trek (TNG, Voyager, and DS9) formula, it was in the ballpark of what makes those series rewatchable over and over. Hardly a week goes by that I am not rewatching TNG and Voyager (DS9, lesser so).

The characters, plots, and themes continue to teach us, they remain culturally relevant. TNG represented Roddenberry’s best expression of his idea launched in the 60s with Desilu Productions at Paramount (yes, that means Lucille Ball was in-part responsible for the launch of Star Trek: TOS). At the heart of what makes Star Trek, STAR TREK are the stories that can only happen on Star Trek and the exploration of what it means to be human, whether that is the 24th century or the 21st. Secondary to the aforementioned is the episodic format that Strange New Worlds and Lower Decks has proven is the best expression of Trek plots. On that topic, the last two episodes of Picard felt like an old school two-parter TNG in all the best ways possible. Why stick to the formula? Because it WORKS.

Anytime a Trek series has deviated from the formula or format, it has proven to be less successful with audiences. If it’s not broke, DON’T fix it. Not everything needs to be a 10-hour movie season after season. Why? Because a serialized format lacks the latitude to explore a variety of characters and plots. Serialized shows are ultimately limited to the stories they can tell, because they ultimately have one main outside/action plot supported by one or more inside/emotional subplots or motivations. The episodic format provides numerous opportunities to dive into Star Trek in both plot and character. While even in its third season, Picard is serialized, the structure of the episodes leans into a quasi-episodic format.

Up until the third season, and even at the beginning of the third season, Picard engaged in perpetual character assassination. Completely retconning the best of our friends from The Enterprise D, E, and Voyager. It’s like, the writers of Picard never watched The Next Generation or Voyager, much less rewatched the timeless series.

Not to oversimplify, but to spotlight the sins of the writers, Picard was reduced to someone that represented an outdated way of life and was responsible for negative development of those around him, Seven of Nine was no longer a strong character of mind and body that wasn’t afraid to question decisions in the pursuit of efficiency and order, Guinan was no longer a comforter and wise counselor and her younger-self hated humanity instead of always seeking the best in them, Riker was too quick to admit defeat and appeared to lose strength of character, Starfleet was constantly disparaged as an antiquated and corrupt institution, and I could go on. Fortunately, Q, Worf, Dr. Crusher, and Data were mostly treated with care, and actually felt like they should after we last saw them in Star Trek: Nemesis (or Voyager, which is the case with Q).

Another area where this series negatively deviated from the TV series is the significant increase in course language, especially in seasons one and two. I am glad they mostly fixed that in season three. Star Trek was always something that whole families could watch, and it upset me when Picard didn’t feel like something for whole families. My hope is that Star Trek, moving forward, will be a show that kids and teens today can watch with their parents in order to form the same kind of fond memories I have from watching TNG and Voyager with my family growing up. Star Trek is family, and “on the Starship Enterprise, no one is alone.”

But by the last few episodes of Picard season three, our friends were back to being themselves! It was so incredibly refreshing when our friends returned to their true selves. The return to form and character reunion that Sir Patrick Stewart said he was not interested in at the announcement of Picard, turned out to be the very thing that the series needed and lacked through most of its run.

This character mix was perfection, as Seven would put it, from season three of TNG and beyond. Each one of them represented a different element of humanity, and only when together can we truly explore the human condition. Star Trek needs its Captain. Whether we are talking Picard, Sisko, Janeway, Pike, or Kirk. And that captain needs to be a strong leader, upholding the best expression of the morals, ethics, and order of Starfleet. It doesn’t mean those values and beliefs can’t be challenged–we certainly saw many times Picard challenged Starfleet’s decisions over the course of TNG–but it’s the pursuit of the best humanity can be to one another that is most meaningful. It’s what keeps Q always curious about humanity, in particularly Picard, a strong moral center.

Picard season three embraces this return to form, despite the naysayers that are negatively criticizing the show for looking backwards instead of forwards (which the Star Trek TV series consistently did). Clearly those that are accusing Picard of a disappointing third season missed the whole point of what makes something Star Trek, what makes Picard the definitive Starfleet captain and role model for his crew and all of us. It’s the same thing that fascinated Q: Picard’s (and for us Star Trek‘s) order, morals, ethics, and reflection of humanity. Just because a series continues to feature starships, uniforms, military-like rules, and an ethical center does not mean it is look backwards–those are the tentpoles that significantly impact the form the show takes and the viewer experience. Remove the tentpoles, and the show collapses.

I remember very little from the first and second seasons, but you know what I do remember? Opening with the Enterprise-D and Data/Picard in the series pilot, the Q scenes from season two, and the return to the stately peerless bridge of the Enterprise-D in the final two episodes of the third season and series. Why? Because if you are reviving a series or crafting a long-awaited spinoff series, you have to start with what is most familiar and true to character and plot, and go from there. If there is an established storytelling formula, then follow it. Formulas are formulas for a reason: they work, they’ve been proven to work.

While there are elements in the story of the third season that feel like Wrath of Kahn meets First Contact meets The Best of Both Worlds, that’s because those two movies and that highly rated two-parter from Season 2/3 of TNG represent the best of Star Trek. Why not take inspiration from them??? There was very little of Seasons one and two of Picard that I felt would inspire new fans to seek out the TV series or previous movies. But season three will undoubtedly prompt those that have not seen the TV series or First Contact to seek them out.

And DON’T stop watching when the credits roll, because there is a mid-credit bonus scene that gave me the BIGGEST smile! Because of the cameo AND how it perfectly sets up a spinoff series with a new generation of Enterprise crew.

The following section(s) contains some series finale spoilers.

The series finale features the rescue of Starfleet and humanity by the crew of the Enterprise-D. In the series, the Enterprise was always the calvary, and it plays out in the series finale as well. And for what it’s worth, the series explains how Geordi was able to rebuild the former flagship of Starfleet following the disastrous crash in Star Trek: Generation (1994) well enough. The showdown is a cross between The Best of Both Worlds and First Contact. And as such, nothing happens that isn’t somewhat predictable, but it’s okay. HOW the story unfolds is exciting because Picard finally embraces its legacy. In a media landscape of TV series that really feel like long movies, this one feels more like a TV show, and that’s a great thing! Trek excels more on TV than it does in the cinema because of the formula of its storytelling.

I love how Picard reclaims his legacy as the definitive Starfleet captain and simultaneously allows himself to be vulnerable enough to embrace his former love Dr. Crusher and his son Jack. When Picard encounters his son reprising the role of Locutus of Borg, Picard must deal with the trauma of that experience that has haunted him throughout his life and risk it all to save his son. This demonstrates tremendous growth for Picard. While this is going on, we witness the ramifications of the human youth’s corruption and assimilation by the Borg. For those that appreciate the thoughtful subject matter of Trek, this can be read as a cautionary tale of how the impressionable youth of our world are the most susceptible to toxic ideology under the guise of peace and a pain-free existence. In other words, an ideology that claims to be able to build a utopia, but utopia is an impossibility, and the pursuit of it comes at the cost of the loss of individuality and human dimension. While the series lacked the thought-provoking content of the TV series, these last few episodes attempt to get back to that.

Also, I love how Seven of Nine gets promoted to the Captain of the newly christened Enterprise-G, flanked by Raffi (a character for whom I never particularly cared, because the show made her unlikable in the first two seasons, and never gave her any real agency until season 3) as her No.1, and Jack Crusher as special counsel (a sort of Deanna Troi minus the empathic abilities). The new Enterprise has her crew, all set for new adventures!

So what is that mid-credit scene? Jack is putting away his belongings in his quarters on the Enterprise-G when Q shows up. That’s right, John de Lancie returns as the indelible Q. Jack questions him because he thought the trial against humanity ended. Q responds with Picard’s trial ended, but Jack’s is just beginning. Does this mean a Star Trek: the New Generation series featuring this crew plus occasional appearances by Q? I certainly hope so.

There you have it! A triumphant return of Star Trek. Perhaps the series started out, and even developed negatively, but it finished well. I’ve been a fan of Star Trek ever since my family would gather around the TV to watch TNG and Voyager each week with a pizza. These characters, settings, and even plots feel like a warm hug from a long-lost friend. I hope that Strange New Worlds, Lower Decks, and the series that Picard will hopefully inspire become the types of shows that years from now we will still be rewatching over and over.

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

40 YEARS OF FLASHDANCE…What a Feeling! a retrospective review

Posted on by
Reply

What a feeling! Grab your leg warmers and can of Aqua Net as we hit the dance floor to celebrate the cultural phenomenon that was and still is Flashdance.

The Oscar (and Grammy) winning dance movie Flashdance turns 40 this year on April 15th. Can you believe it’s been four decades since the iconic movie defined the music, dance, and fashion of the 1980s??? Forty years of electrifying music and dance that dazzles the senses. Winning the late Irene Cara and legendary composer Giorgio Moroder the Best Original Song Oscar and Grammy for Flashdance…What a Feeling! (Moroder was also nominated in the same year for his Scarface score) and earning Michael Sembello an Oscar nomination for Maniac, the titular 80s movie Flashdance remains an icon of music and dance that has transcended the decades and continues to be emulated in other media today. This is not a movie to be taken seriously; it’s a movie to be felt and experienced. And to its credit, it has remained popular. Take your passion and make it happen!

In case you are new to planet earth, Flashdance tells the story of Alex Owens (Jennifer Beals), a beautiful young woman who works a day job in a steel mill in Pittsburgh and dances in a bar at night. When Alex discovers that her handsome boss, Nick Hurley (Michael Nouri), is both interested in her and supportive of her performing career, she renews her efforts to get accepted into a prestigious dance conservatory. Although Alex is frightened of failure, she is cheered on by Nick, as well as by her mentor, former ballet performer Hanna Long (Lilia Skala).

More than a cultural smash hit, it was a tremendous success at the box offie too, because Flashdance is the third highest grossing film of 1983 behind Return of the Jedi and Terms of Endearment. In retrospect, this movie is veritably responsible for reviving the modern movie musical with its sexy complex dance sequences, bold fashion, and use of popular music.

Not many films can be recognized by a single shot, this is expressly true with those that may not have even seen the film, but Flashdance is instantly recognized by Beals’ silhouette leaning back on the chair with water dousing her. That cinematic moment has been parodied and paid tribute to in dozens of movies and TV shows from Elvira: Mistress of the Dark to Family Guy and even Deadpool 2. From Beals’ off-the-shoulder grey sweatshirt in the famous bra-removal scene to her knee-high leg warmers, bikini bottoms, and taut physique, many scenes in this movie will forever be engrained in our minds. It’s remarkable how this cheesy, low-budget dance film influenced the culture of an entire decade and continues to reassert itself in popular culture to this day. The incomparable footprint left by this movie can be felt everywhere.

It’s funny, whenever critics and fans talk about Flashdance, it’s almost never about the plot. Is there anything inordinately wrong with the plot–no–but there is nothing particularly remarkable or subversive about it either. It’s a simple variation of the rags to riches story or simply realizing a dream despite obstacles. At the intersection of performance art and motion pictures is where this movie lies, and lies there incredibly comfortably and confidently.

Flashdance is a movie which uses a paper-thin plot to connect sequences of montages and dance numbers, one right after the other–yet–somehow audiences, for forty years, are raptured by the music and dance. I cannot think of another movie that defied the odds of success and became a legitimate classic in the way Flashdance did.

It’s as if Bruckheimer and Adrian Lyne studied the elements of what makes a movie successful in the box office (and in popular culture), and then took those basic elements and loosely connected them together. Catchy music, bold fashion, sexy or provocative dances, mild/brief nudity, and relatable characters, these are the elements that Bruckheimer and Lyne put together in order to create movie magic and fantastic success. Then cap it all off with pure, unfiltered triumph in front of those that once looked down upon, and were skeptical of the central character.

Never once do you buy that Alex is a welder; furthermore, in retrospect, it’s clear that there are multiple people serving as the dancing Alex (which is something that is film is widely known and yet rocks it!). But it doesn’t matter. Why? Because it’s nearly impossible to watch this movie and not get drawn into its glitzy fantasy! But while we are on the topic of the Alex’ dancing in the film, I feel it’s important to highlight the talent that brought the exotic dancing to life! Working as Beals’ dancing body-doubles were accomplished dancers Marine Jahan, Sharon Shapiro, and breakdancer Richard “Crazy Legs” Colón.

Despite the contrived plot, the movie is not without deeper meaning. Some of the themes that can be closely read in Flashdance concern ideas such as identity, class, and cultural norms/expectations whether or not there is any absolution. Without stooping to pedantic commentary, the movie provides thoughtful content for those that seek a greater understanding of what the film has to say about the human experience. “When you give up your dream, you die.” A bit cliche perhaps, but still serves as the reminder that we do need our dreams in order to have something toward which we strive. We may never experience or realize that dream, but it’s the pursuit that is most meaningful.

We witness that there are many layers to Alex; she is a complex individual with multiple interests. She is just as confident and comfortable on a dance floor as she is welding as she is at a fine dining restaurant. This is such an important message that continues to be relevant–if not even more so–today! Flashdance is a reminder that diversity within a given group is so very important. Often times, popular culture projects prejudices, behaviors, and expectations onto a given group of people (or onto an individual within a group). Diversity of groups of people should never mean uniformity of thought within that group, it means there are a variety of individuals within any given group of people that have their own fears, beliefs, goals, and dreams. Alex may be a woman, but she is by no means obligated to only behave like a typical woman. Neither does she disparage those that would behave more typically; this movie celebrates variety! Variety of dance, variety of music, variety of people.

The degree to which this movie influenced virtually every area of popular culture is incalculable. Even exercise videos changed overnight. I posit that it’s entirely possible that 80s and 90s aerobics videos wouldn’t be the same if it wasn’t for Flashdance. For example, the footprint of this movie can be seen in the music, movements, and fashion of those Jane Fonda style aerobics videos. Even descendants of this stylistic athletic fashion can be observed in nearly every downtown and suburban area today; but we now refer to it as athleisure apparel.

Flashdance is the very definition of a crowd-pleasing film that defied the expectations of critics in 1983 and continues to be beloved by contemporary critics and audiences of all walks of life. The legacy of this movie is felt throughout media of all kinds! Even those that have never seen the movie recognize it by the music or iconic water dance shot. It’s a light-hearted melodrama that you cannot help but love. Just close your eyes, and feel the timeless rhythm of Flashdance!

Ryan teaches Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa and is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Interested in Ryan making a guest appearance on your podcast or contributing to your website? Send him a DM on Twitter. If you’re ever in Tampa or Orlando, feel free to catch a movie with him.

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry