Author Archives: R.L. Terry

Unknown's avatar

About R.L. Terry

Ryan “Professor Horror” Terry teaches film studies and screenwriting at the University of Tampa. He holds graduate and undergraduate degrees in film and media studies. He has regularly published film reviews since 2014 and has been a featured speaker at Tampa Bay Comic Con, Spooky Empire, and the historic Tampa Theatre. His work has appeared in both political and entertainment magazines.

TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES (2023) movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Cowabunga, you’ll have fun! Whether or not you grew up with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (TMNT) 1980s animated television show, the comic books, or even the other movies, there is so much to be enjoyed in the new TMNT movie. At just over 1.5 hours, you’ll be invested in this Mutant Mayhem that functions as a standalone origin story, plus a foundation from which to launch subsequent sequels. While Shredder is not the villain, stick around for his subtle debut in a mid-credits scene.

After years of being sheltered from the human world, the Turtle brothers set out to win the hearts of New Yorkers and be accepted as normal teenagers. Their new friend, April O’Neil, helps them take on a mysterious crime syndicate, but they soon get in over their heads when an army of mutants is unleashed upon them.

Since I have not watched any TMNT shows or movies since the animated series in the 1980s, I can’t comment on what is or isn’t canon or what would or would not be, but I can say that from what I remember about the old show, this feels like a reimagination that is simultaneously fresh yet familiar. Perhaps some characters are interpreted differently for this movie than they have been in the past, but the character dynamics, conflict, and relationships make sense within this world. Nicely plotted and paced TMNT moves quickly and leanly–sometimes a little too leanly, but I digress. Most of the humor in the movie works well, but there is one recurring joke that does grow tiring to the point that the punch is less funny than it would have been had the joke been setup and developed more sleekly.

The movie is incredibly postmodern in the sense that the characters reference real life celebrities, TV shows, movies, etc. And while it was cute for a short while, the constant pop-cultural references grew a little tiresome. It’s like salt: fantastic in small amounts; unhealthy in large amounts.

I’ve said it before, and I will say it again, I cannot figure out why studios and writers insist on sprinkling in adult language in a movie that is undeniably geared towards kids (if for no other reason, it is released by Nickelodeon). Reminder: you do not need to include foul language (in however small amounts) in order for adults to watch…they are going to watch anyway, and maybe even be more inclined to introduce their kid(s) to the TMNT.

Suffice it to say, TMNT is a lot of fun, and if you’re looking for a throwback superhero movie with some heart, then I’ve no doubt that you’ll enjoy this movie.

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

BARBIE (2023) movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Uniquely overflowing with creativity, innovation, and a fantastic sense of style. Greta Gerwig demonstrates an imaginative, effective approach to adapting a legacy IP and toy line for the big screen. Unfortunately, that same level of thoughtful craft does not extend into the story, which is mostly structured and paced well, save a side plot that just crowds the main story. However, the film contains heavy-handed themes rooted in a rather warped worldview.

Barbie and Ken are having the time of their lives in the colorful and seemingly perfect world of Barbie Land. However, when they get a chance to go to the real world, they soon discover the joys and perils of living among humans.

For everything the film does exceptionally well, ultimately, it fails to inspire constructive criticism; rather, its lack of challenging dominant ideologies in popular media proves to be the film’s undoing when there is little change from beginning to end. On a more positive note, I love how the film conveys the idea that toys are our way of working through the complexities of life during our early childhood years. Furthermore, Barbie is a doctor, mother, lawyer, scientist, nurse, and anything she wants to be, which should communicate to everyone that each and every one of us can be anything we want to be (provided we set realistic goals and work towards them).

Before I dive further into my critique of the ideologies the film hammers, I’d be remiss if I did not spend time praising what the film did well–and it did a lot very well! Honestly, applied postmodernist ideologies aside, the film is exceptional! I absolutely love the whole aesthetic. The sets, costumes, and music make you smile from the moment the film opens. In fact, the opening number(s) are enough to make even the most frozen of hearts melt with glee! You will feel transported back to being a kid, when imagination was king (or queen, as it were).

Everything in Barbieland is colorful and bold, and yes many, many pastel pinks, blues, and purples. The land, costumes, vehicles, and houses truly feel like they are life size versions of their toy counterparts. And that’s because everything in Barbieland is a copy of a toy. Often times, when there is an outfit, house, car, or anything really that currently is or was one offered in the Barbie toyline, it is highlighted by a popup describing the item. There are even Barbie and Ken dolls that were once offered but since discontinued, and the film spotlights those as well. The scale and scope of design is unbelievable! If I hadn’t seen it on the screen, I wouldn’t believe it possible to create Barbie land in a live action film.

There are elements of the various sets that are two-dimensional just like in a Barbie playset, and these 2-dimensional concepts are seamlessly woven into this 3-dimensional world. The level of charm in the aesthetic of this movie cannot be understated. The stylistic design continues into the cinematography and lighting as well. More than effective, the lighting and cinematography goes to the next level by applying an emotive dimension to the camera movement. Furthermore, this same thoughtful approach is carried over into the overall montage of the film.

On top of calling out real toys in the Barbie line, Hellen Mirren’s narrator goes beyond the expected to provide both diegetic and non-diegetic commentary. She also breaks character so to speak in order to call out humorous (yet truthful) observations from the very apparatus of the filmmaking.

Nearly everything works incredibly well in this film, except for one very important part: the story. Not limited to the plotting and characters, but this also includes the various (heavy-handed) themes and social commentary. Ostensibly, the portrait of society that Barbie paints is one that grossly misrepresents real life. And while the world in which we live is not perfect, the world as it is portrayed feels more like a toxic feminist worldview that simply does not exist. Yes, this is a work of fiction, but when providing commentary on real world observations, there is a balance that must be struck between exaggeration, for dramatic or humorous purposes, and how the world is (in order to make it relatable). By portraying a world that does not exist through a highly toxic, warped worldview, the film fails to evoke or affect any positive (or constructive) change. The film, which is meant to reflect a imaginative expression of the real world is ultimately relegated to a feminist fantasy.

For example (and I am oversimplifying for the sake of time) at the beginning of the film, the Kens are viewed by the Barbies as second-class citizens. Which, I get it, Gerwig is communicating to audiences that women are considered second class citizens in her personal opinion. That simply isn’t true–not in the Western world, anyway. Was it true at one time? Yes. Is it true today? Not so much. That doesn’t mean that gender relations are without flaws; but it’s not the toxic interpretation of patriarchy that is painted by Gerwig over and over and over again. Skipping to the end. After all the adventure has been had and presented conflict resolved, the Kens are still thought of as second-class citizens of Barbieland. The movie begins and ends at ostensibly the same point.

The logic presented lacks support by real world observations. The worlds that are painted by Gerwig depict a Barbie world in which Ken is irrelevant devoid of agency, and depicts a real world in which women are devoid of agency and live to serve men. Again, this is simply not true, and incredibly unhealthy to convey to audiences. Why? Because in the real world, little girls that play with Barbies (and to a lesser extent Kens) can be whatever they want to be. They can be the doctor, mother, scientist, CEO, nurse, or explorer.

The world of 19th century gender roles and heteronormative values is not the case today. But, because Gerwig demonstrably embraces dangerous ideologies rooted in applied postmodernism, she continues to war against a machine that is no longer as problematic (and rightly so) as it was in the early to mid 20th century. However, without this militant culture war, feminism (and by extension, applied postmodernism activism) feels it has no purpose, so the war has to continually be waged in order to continue to justify the need for it in modern society.

Had this movie told a similar story to Disney’s “Life Size” (the 1990s “Barbie” movie starring Tyra Banks and Lindsay Lohan) but paired it with Gerwig’s phantasmagorical, stylistic pink world, that would’ve been the Barbie movie we needed today.

There were so many missed opportunities to lean into healthy, constructive ideas that the film presents (and then overshadows with toxic ideas). For example, the film touches on ideas such as the importance of imagination, childhood play, growing in confidence, and identifying one’s purpose. These are all great! Not just because they are so very important and largely missing from messages in the media, but because they are relevant and relatable. Yes, there should be movies that are geared to one group or another, but even when gearing a movie towards a particular group, it’s important to have something in there that allows the film to be appreciated by all AND can inspire constructive conversations of how we can use the film as an analogy of real life in order to make it better.

Exploring, discussing, and addressing our problems doesn’t mean revenge is acceptable; it means treating everyone equally, fairly, and constructively. Build bridges to overcome conflict, don’t alienate the very people that you need to count on to help you make changes for the better. Humor is a fantastic tool to use to address problems, but not when the goal of the humor is to be disparaging and fails to represent a particular group in a reasonably fair manner–honest–but fair.

I love the whole look of the film; there is so much creativity to appreciate. From the homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey to all the real-life Barbie toys, and yes even a hint of Aqua’s smash hit Barbie Girl. If you watch Barbie, and you bring your kids, be prepared to discuss the heavy handed themes presented in the film.

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

OPPENHEIMER film review

Posted on by
1

Sensational! Christopher Nolan’s highly anticipated cinematic spectacular Oppenheimer is an extraordinary motion picture that delivers a story as explosive as the subject matter. Not since Nolan’s earlier work on pictures such as Memento and The Prestige have I enjoyed both the form and function of his stylistic brand of filmmaking. Although the film chronicles the development, use of, and subsequent scientific and sociological affects of the A-Bomb, the story it really about the rise and fall of J. Robert Oppenheimer. Moreover, the subtext of the story is one that carries with it such commentary as the true cost of notoriety and serving one’s country and the destructive nature of unsubstantiated witch hunts. It’s a character-driven story more than it is a plot-driven story about the creation of the A-Bomb.

Oppenheimer is the story of American scientist J. Robert Oppenheimer and his role in the development of the atomic bomb. The film explores how one man’s brilliance, hubris, and relentless drive changed the nature of war forever, led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and unleashed mass hysteria, and how, subsequently, the same man’s attempts to end one World War began a Cold War that would last for nearly fifty years.

While I have some reservations in the structural integrity of Nolan’s plotting in this film, which no strangers to my blog should know since that is often where I am hardest on films, his plotting and characterization hasn’t been this strong since Memento and The Prestige.

It should come of no surprise that Nolan’s latest motion picture excels in technical achievement. And I am not mentioning that to in anyway detract from that achievement; but, I mention that because had the film simply been an exercise in pushing the boundaries of filmmaking, then it would be another intentionally avant-garde vanity project. Which, it is not. Oppenheimer excels in both form and function; it shows care for both how the motion picture is montaged and presented and for the function of both plot and character.

With few exceptions, whether the plotting of a film is linear or non-linear, the plot should still follow foundational storytelling conventions to achieve the full impact it desires. Contrary to a postmodernist view of rules of art, just because one breaks the rules does not mean that a work of art or endeavor is somehow more substantive or meaningful in value. Nolan strikes a fantastic balance between form and function in this picture to completely transport audiences to the world of Los Alamos, NM in the mid-20th century.

Not since Dario Argento’s masterpiece Suspiria have I witnessed a motion picture employ the use of lighting, color (or lack thereof), and score to such a fantastical and effective level. These visual and auditory elements combine to immerse audiences in both the narrative and emotive dimensions of Oppenheimer’s story. Never overshadowing the story, but working in tandem with it, the visual and audible elements of the mise-en-scene craft a picture that simultaneously feels part of our world and yet somehow other worldly. Moreover, the story of Oppenheimer is told through both subjective and objective camera placement. In less experienced hands, this could have proven to be disastrous, but Nolan demonstrates his command of the screen in the uncanny combination of both.

One of the most stylistic montage and editing devices used is the black and white (more accurately described as grayscale) imagery for a specific timeline. And it would appear to my observation that it is indeed grayscale stock film–not desaturated in post-production. This observation is in part gleaned by way of the effects of lighting on the film stock. From a story organization perspective, this use of grayscale film stock helps in understanding the part of the non-linear timeline in which we find ourselves.

Where Nolan often struggles is in character authenticity. More times than not, the characters in his films are often lacking in believability, relatability, and vulnerability. Not that his characters are generally flawless, but they have demonstrated a lack in that which makes us most human. Each and every character in this film feels incredibly human–true to life. Whether or not the film is an accurate representation of the real-life counterparts, is not something on which I can comment. But, the characters, as presented, are relatable and feel authentic within their world. On the topic of characters, Nolan also injects humor into this film, which isn’t characteristic of his past films; and that use of humor helps to provide tension relief as an emotional reset between dramatic beats or scenes.

The central theme in the film is the true cost of notoriety and serving one’s country. And this is expressed primarily through Oppenheimer’s relationship with the development of the A-Bomb, but supplemented by his interactions with Albert Einstein, and therein Einstein’s relationship with his Theory of Relativity and success as the greatest scientific mind of all time. Or, as Oppenheimer puts it, “the greatest scientific mind of his day.” The story has to be seen to truly felt, but Oppenheimer spotlights how when one’s usefulness is seen as exhausted or no longer relevant to one’s country, that one is disposable.

We not only witness this in the film, but in real life as well. To this day, there are those that fought for their country that are not treated with the dignity and respect they both earned and deserve. The film paints a rather negative portrait of federal government operations as it relates to international and domestic policies. Suffice it to say, after Oppenheimer delivered the A-Bomb, he was soon thereafter cast aside as his (objectively reasonable) opposition to further development of weapons of mass destruction began to influence policy decisions. And this rise and fall story isn’t relatable to merely the government, but can be said of any company or organization that hails one as a visionary one minute, but after the project is realized, the same company or organization moves on. Fame is fleeting.

While many brilliant scientists were undoubtedly envious of Oppenheimer’s commercial success (except for Einstein, whom was a soothsayer of sorts), perhaps the rise and fall of Oppenheimer serves as a reminder that there are many whom have had notoriety forced upon them, but the oft infamy that follows can create a figurative prison out of which there is no escape.

Another observation I make, into the film’s themes and motifs, is the depiction of communism vs capitalism. Unfortunately, the loudest on social media do not likely have an accurate interpretation of what communism and capitalism are. And without getting into details, suffice it to say, the film does not accurately portray either communism or capitalism. So, I worry that many will watch the movie and begin to make connections and associations that are not accurate. On the topic, I’ll leave you with this: destructive ideologies that devalue individuality, based in universal truth and logic, in exchange for group identity based on emotions and impossible utopias is still an enemy of the people today.

This film is not to be missed on the biggest screen AND on 70mm film. Seeing a picture on film is truly magical. The depth lighting and shadow and richness of the color spectrum will always be expressed the best on celluloid. A chemical reaction beats 0s and 1s any day. Oh, and there is no reported use of CGI in this motion picture.

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

THE MIRACLE CLUB movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Charming. The Miracle Club is an intimate portrait of the importance and catharsis of the painful act of forgiveness, both asking for and granting. If miracles were recurring, they’d be called regulars, as it stands, miracles are real but rare. Moreover, sometimes the smallest of, what we may characterize as, miracles, is the most transformative.

There’s just one dream for the women of Ballygar to taste freedom: to win a pilgrimage to the sacred French town of Lourdes. With a little benevolent interference from their local priest, a group of close friends get their ticket of a lifetime.

The plot is simple, but the characters incredibly complex. And thanks to the outstanding performances of the lead cast Dame Maggie Smith, Kathy Bates, Laura Linney, and Agnes O’Casey, this character-driven story will capture your mind and soul. Both believers and skeptics will find the characters authentic, lacking in any pretense.

Each character demonstrates the type of vulnerability that draws us in to connect with one or more of them, as we share many of the same questions, fears, anxieties, strengths, and weaknesses. From a character that was estranged from their family and hometown to a character harboring regret and resentment to one that feels they made a decision that potentially harmed their child, there is quite the portrait of traumas, sages of grief, and regret on display to inquire conversations following the close of the film.

Taking place in the picturesque town of Lourdes, the film transports audiences to stunning landscapes populated with gothic architecture. Never does it feel like a travelogue, but the setting itself is a character, in a manner of speaking.

This review is relatively short, because much of what there is to analyze is spiritual and philosophical in nature, and you have to see it to truly understand. Suffice it to say, wherever one falls on the spiritual spectrum, there is so much that is relatable in this film.

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

SOUND OF FREEDOM movie review

Posted on by
3

Aleatoric. (Music theory folks will get it). Sound of Freedom is like Taken meets Argo, but the compelling true story ultimately falls slightly flat because of poor pacing. However, the film delivers on both technical merit and casting. While some outlets have described Sound of Freedom as a faith-based film from the same studio that produces the successful television series The Chosen, that is an inaccurate reading at best and an attempt to disparage the film’s quality at worst. Because this movie most definitely delivers on high production value and casting; but unfortunately, the performative dimension and screenplay are underwhelming. Feeling more like a visualization of the Wikipedia entry or Congressional testimony, Sound of Freedom‘s ambition is tapered by screenplay mechanics.

After rescuing a boy from ruthless child traffickers, Tim Ballard (Jim Caviezel), a federal agent, sets out on a dangerous mission to locate and free the boy’s sister, along with other children caught up in the nightmare of sex trafficking. With time running out, he quits his job and journeys deep into the Colombian jungle, putting his life on the line to free her from a fate worse than death.

There is certainly a compelling, gripping, gritty screenplay based on the true story of Tim Ballard’s mission to free children caught up in sex trafficking, but the plotting and pacing of the screenplay hold the film back from achieving the potential is so clearly demonstrates. While the screenwriting lacks finesse, there is no doubt that this film forces the world to face the nightmarish and closeness of the reality of human (specifically, child in this film) slavery and sex trafficking. Most acknowledge the importance of fighting human trafficking, but few realize how close to our own country this subject matter hits.

We often think of human trafficking as something that happens in foreign lands, but most of those that pay for such reprehensible services are operating out of the United States. Sound of Freedom is a grim reminder of the real war that is being waged in which innocent people are bought, sold, and traded as disposable commodities.

Visually, the film looks fantastic! Clearly, there was immense thought placed into the quality of image. Moreover, this same level of thought is witnessed in the settings and even in the casting. This film reminds me of the type of motion picture that we often see from Annapurna productions. In terms of the visual tone, it falls between arthouse and mainstream, which is to the film’s detriment, because had it stuck to either the look/feel of Taken or Argo, then the film would have been more surefooted. On the plus side, though, clearly Angel Studios has show the world that they are capable of releasing high quality motion pictures that can compete with the larger Hollywood studios.

Clocking in at around 2.25 hours, the film’s second act feels incredibly drawn out. I’ve written before about the litmus test I give myself, which evaluates pacing, and to that end, I did look at my watch about 1.5 hours into the film. Structurally, the first and third acts work sufficiently well, but the second act is augmented to needlessly extend the runtime. As this interpretation of the true story has it, there is enough plot for about 1.5-1.75 hours, meaning there is about 30-minutes that could have been cut out to streamline the motion picture.

I mentioned my observation that many outlets and other critics are referring to Sound of Freedom as a faith-based film, and there is little evidence to support that reading since there lacks any type of salvation or proselytizing message in the film. Because I’m sure we can all agree that God’s children are not for sale. If there is a message in the film, that is it. A universal truth that is applicable to and relatable by all.

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