“Child’s Play” (2019) brief horror movie review

“Hi, I’m Chucky, wanna play?” It’s a fun horror movie, flaws and all. Let’s address the white elephant in the room. This is not as good as the original; however, instead of primarily focussing on what did not do right, I’d like to highlight what it did well. At the end of the day, this is a highly entertaining horror movie that brings Chucky’s origin into the 21st Century. Unlike the trajectory of the Child’s Play franchise after the original sequel that embraced the camp effect, 2019’s Child’s Play attempts to go full-on horror. Unfortunately, it should have gone the camp route, because I feel that would have been received more favorably. There are moments that you question whether or not they are supposed to be funny. And it’s that ambiguity that leaves us uncomfortably in the middle during many moments in the movie. Although each problem can be individually dissected to determine why it didn’t work, the long and short of it can be attributed to a weak screenplay. While the screenplay is responsible for many of the movie’s problems, the idea or premise is solid; it’s a fresh interpretation of the original premise. For the gore fans out there, the movie ups the ante quite a bit! There aren’t many kills, but the ones that we get are creative, painful, and gruesome. Whereas all the human characters are flat, lacking in anything truly redeemable, this movie does provide more time in developing the relationship between Andy and Chucky that allows us to empathize with Andy’s dilemma when confronted with Chucky’s violence. Contrary to the hype going into the anticipated voice acting of Mark Hamill as Chucky, the performance lacks anything memorable. Aubrey Plaza does a very Plaza job as Andy’s mom, and Gabriel Bateman delivers little more than a mediocre performance as Andy. You might be thinking that you could say some of these same things about 80s horror movies; however, 80s slashers were (1) a product of their time and (2) originated so many characters and ideas and (3) were largely built upon the idea of campy horror. Had the new Child’s Play went the camp route or stayed true to a serious, thought-provoking horror movie route, then it could have been received much more favorably. But hey, that marketing campaign inspired by Toy Story 4 was brilliant.

You can catch Ryan most weeks at Studio Movie Grill Tampa, so if you’re in the area, let him know and you can join him at the cinema.

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa. 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!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

Advertisements

“MA” Horror Movie Review

A delightfully disturbing and thought-provoking Carrie meets Misery horror movie. Oscar-winner Octavia Spencer delivers an outstanding performance; however, the movie is unfortunately hampered by a weak screenplay with flat characters. In short, the reason to watch this movie is for the terrifying performance by Spencer, solid world-building, and commentary on high school bullying and teen sexual assault. Tonally, MA is a throwback to 70s and 80s slasher horror complete with the slow-burn windup, off-beat comedic schticks, and a descent into gnarly violence. Not all the kills cause you to wince as the screen holds your eyes hostage in the pleasurable unpleasure, one of the kills will leave you cheering–no seriously, it will. Built upon the premise of the sins of the parents will be visited upon the children, the screenplay does not hold back when taking us to some very dark places that fester with anger, fear, and resentment. With so much going for it, it’s unfortunate that the movie suffers from on-the-nose dialogue, leaving little room for subtext. Furthermore, most of the characters lack significant dimension that could have propped up this movie. Some interesting relationship dynamics and backstory are touched on, but never followed through in a meaningful way. While Spencer is truly the glue holding this movie together, there are some highlights worth discussing.

A lonely middle-aged woman befriends some teenagers and decides to let them party in the basement of her home. But there are some house rules: One of the kids has to stay sober, don’t take the Lord’s name in vain, and never go upstairs. They must also refer to her as Ma. But as Ma’s hospitality starts to curdle into obsession, what began as a teenage dream turns into a terrorizing nightmare, and Ma’s place goes from the best place in town to the worst place on Earth. (IMDb)

While most of the characters lack any true dimension (except Ma), the ensemble cast is comprised of some highly relatable characters. At the forefront of the cast is our title character of Sue Ann (or Ma). If you are coming to this movie as a single individual over 30, then you will likely identify with her by empathizing with her backstory and understanding what it’s like to feel that life is a parade passing as you wave it by. Furthermore, Sue Ann suffered repeated bullying, rejection, and even teen sexual assault that left a lasting psychological trauma. Or maybe you are the former popular high school Erica who moved away from her jerkwater town to Los Angeles, lived a wealthy life, just to wind up a divorcee and back in your hometown as a cocktail waitress. Perhaps you are the new girl at school Maggie, who grew up in Los Angeles but now is back in dismal Ohio during your junior or senior year of high school because your dad left your mom (Erica) for another woman. You could be the Regina of your group of friends, the dude bro, or the all American boy with a touch of geek. Whatever your high school experience or how it affected your adulthood, there is likely a character with whom you can identify.

Although the film could have commented more on the PTSD associated with high school bullying in a more meaningful way, and derived even more horror from it, it does serve as an exploration of the real, lasting effects on the psyche. A brief character analysis of Sue Ann reveals someone who is trying to capture that which evaded her in high school: the parties, the romance, the care-free friends. Because of the abominable treatment of Sue Ann by many of her classmates in high school, she suffered a trauma that mitigated her ability to socialize properly and psychologically mature. Therefore, as she grew older, she was constantly reminded of that which she could not experience in high school. So, when she saw a moment to reconnect with her youthful self in being needed by the group of teens outside of the gas station to buy alcohol, she seized the opportunity. Of course, the fact that our all American boy Andy is the son of the guy she crushed on in high school, definitely helped her make the decision to help. Unfortunately, her high school crush was responsible for the sexual assault she endured. A sin for which both father and son would pay. It doesn’t take long for the teens to see the cracks in Sue Ann’s fragile veneer. While the teens enjoyed Sue Ann’s party house and the charismatic Ma, things were fine. When they rejected her, things took a grave turn for the worst. And just like that, she was reminded of the torment from their parents in high school and began to plot her revenge on both the teens and their parents. In this respect, she is a little like Freddy Krueger because in A Nightmare on Elm Street we have the concept of the sins of the parents will be visited upon the children.

If you went or are going into Ma with the desire to see a terrifying horror movie from start to finish, then I need to warn you that this is a slow burn horror movie. Not, that slow burn is without its intrigue and suspense, after all, this is where the world and relationship building happens. However, this movie does not reach its horror status until the third act. But once the horror hits, it hits hard–gnarly even. Even the kills/tortures that you saw in the trailer still pack a powerful punch. Most of kills are nightmarishly real. Very little visual effects here; you get the benefit of some highly authentic practical effects. Yes, even the lip sewing scene. Probably one of the most disturbing torture and kills involves animal blood; this moment is nice homage to both Misery and Carrie, but not a copy of either. There is a poetry to the tortures and kills. No one is targeted out of sheer happenstance, but targeted because of whom or what they represent. The sins by which Sue Ann judges the teens or parents are directly connect to or represented in the manner in which they meet their demise. More than the creativity in the actions of Sue Ann, the reasons why she feels the way she does are the most interesting. Even though we should be disgusted at the actions of Sue Ann, we cannot help but empathize with her because of her troubled history and past trauma. She wants what any of us want: to love, have our love returned, and be accepted.

Is it a great horror movie? No. But is is a solidly good one? Yes. If for no other reason, you watch Ma for the outstanding performance by Octavia Spencer! She is absolutely captivating and will leave you with many WTF moments. Interestingly, this is not Spencer’s first time in a horror movie; she was in Rob Zombie’s Halloween II. I hope that we get to see her in more horror movies in the future because she did such a fantastic job with this one. If you’re looking for a fun, popcorn horror movie that–to its credit–does have some thought-provoking content, then you’ll enjoy Ma.

You can catch Ryan most weeks at Studio Movie Grill Tampa, so if you’re in the area, let him know and you can join him at the cinema.

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa. 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!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

“Room for Rent” (2019) and “2001 Maniacs” Horror Review

Lin Shaye double feature! Traveling over the Memorial Day weekend, I heard The Final Boys review of 2001 Maniacs and Let’s Watch Horror Pod‘s review of Room for Rent (2019). Both reviews instantly prompted me to watch these movies. So, last night, instead of going to the cinema to watch Brightburn, I decided to have a “late night, double feature, picture show” to quote one of my favorite movies. Aside from both of the movies featuring the horror queen Lin Shaye, there is little similarity between them, yet they are excellent companion pieces. Instead of individual reviews, I decided to combine both of them in one article, and talk a little about each. Shaye delivers an outstanding, dynamic performance in Room for Rent and horror legend Robert Englund is terrifyingly entertaining in 2001 Maniacs. Both movies are completely different tonally, but work very well together. I recommend starting with Room for Rent, then watch 2001 Maniacs, because the former shares a lot in common with a dark drama whereas the the latter is a horror comedy. With Lin Shaye in both movies, I would have loved to have seen an Englund cameo in Room for Rent, perhaps as one of the delivery guys. In short, I highly recommend both of these movies as they were so much fun to watch and feature some noteworthy performances from Shaye and Englund.

Room for Rent (2019)

She’d kill to find a decent man. Directed by Stuart Flack and written by Tommy Stovall, Room for Rent takes you on a journey into the twisted mind of a grieving widow and her delusional methods to cope with her loneliness. Joyce Smith’s (Lin Shaye) husband suddenly passes away, and leaves her with a mountain of debt, an empty money market account, and an anemic checking account. After an attempted sexual assault by a group of teenage boys, she is left in an increasingly dark place. Following reading an article on how to passively make money, she decides to turn her big house into a bed and breakfast with longterm rental options. When her first group of tenants doesn’t work out for her, she meets a young drifter at the supermarket and interests him in her room. Joyce instantly becomes obsessed with her much younger man, making him the object of her deepest, darkest romantic and sexual fantasies. When a friend’s betrayal derails Joyce’s delusional fantasy, she seizes control of her circumstances, and sets out on a deadly mission to secure that which she deserves to have in her life.

After the birds-eye-view shot of Sedona (reminiscent of the opening shot from Psycho in Phoenix) you are plunged into the midst of death in a nice middle-class neighborhood. From the moment that Joyce Smith (Shaye) appears on screen, it is clear that Shaye is completely immersed in the character, much as we have come to expect from her more than 90 feature length films (many of which are horror). The first several minutes of the movie gives us the opportunity to witness the immense, diverse talent of Shaye as she is playing a character unlike the ones with which we are most familiar. She takes complete command of the screen and delivers an outstanding performance as a grieving widow whom is also likely suffering from some form of PTSD. The level of empathy I felt for her was incredibly high. Her performance as Joyce is compelling and organic. The degree to which she can effectively and seamlessly transition from sinister to friendly is fantastic. Even when she begins a scene with a smile, as she enjoys watching the skater boys, she transitions to absolute fear as she is terrified by the boys yelling obscenities at her that eventually devolve into attempted sexual assault while laughing at Joyce. But we witness her strength when she, pushes one of the boys off her and loudly threatens to kick his ass. Beyond self-defense, this is the first glimse into just how incredibly complex the character of Joyce is, not to mention a notable performance by Shaye. She carries this phenomenal quality through the entire film in each and every scene, which is even more notable because she is in nearly every scene. She sets the bar high in the first act, and carries it through Acts two and three.

While there isn’t much to spoil, as the obsession plot is one that we have seen before, there are some fun twists and turns in this story that keep the interpretation of this premise interesting and fresh. There are three elements at play in the plot (1) grief (2) older women in love with a younger man (3) and obsession. All three of these work together to provide audiences with more than an arthouse horror film (and yes, this film has far more in common with arthouse horror than commercial horror); they work together to deliver a plot that is simple on the surface, but the complex central character affects the story in such a way that it is thought-provoking and terrifying. A tremendous amount of depth exists in this story if you look beyond the surface. Unlike many slasher or psychotic killer movies, in which the plot or characters are not realistic, the entire plot is stepped in realism and Joyce is a believable central character. Moreover, the tenants and neighbor are also believable. Perhaps what makes this movie frightening is the notion that this could very well happen. It will at least make you think twice before renting a room from an elderly woman off Craigslist or AirBnB.

2001 Maniacs

You are what THEY eat. Co-written and directed by Tim Sullivan, 2001 Maniacs is an absolutely entertainingly fun horror comedy! And surprisingly, it is a remake of Gordon Lewis’ 2000 Maniacs (1964). While many (if not most, IMO) remakes are not on par with the original and take what made the original so special and fun and suck out the life in exchange for special effects or popular actors, from everything I’ve read, Sullivan’s 2001 Maniacs is superior to the original in every way. And I am not just talking the production quality; I am talking about the story, cast, characters, setting, and of course kills! While I have not seen the original, I read a few articles that were unanimous in the praise of this remake. So next time you are asked for horror remakes that are better than the original–now you have an additional response and don’t have to use The Thing all the time. Not to oversimplify, but it is more accurate to state that this movie is a reimagination of the original, but for all intents and purposes, it is often regarded as a remake. One of the reasons for the cult success of 2001 Maniacs is that it doesn’t try to improve upon the original, but takes what made the original work and interpret it for a new generation. Everything you want to see is there: cannibal confederates, rednecks, an eccentric mayor (played by horror legend Robert Englund), horny attractive college students (both straight and gay), and cliche virginal stereotypes.

This campy, gory movie features a group of college boys on a road trip bound for the sun and fun of Florida from a university in the northeast. Of course between New York and Florida lies the deep south (as Florida is really an extension of New York haha). Spring beak fever sets in as the boys finish up their last class before hitting the road with nothing but booze, love, and sex on the brain. After losing time on the road due to hitting an armadillo and a chance encounter with another group of equally horny college students heading for Florida, all the students take an unexpected shortcut that lands them in the (laughably inappropriately named) town of Pleasant Valley. A decision that will forever change their spring break plans. When the enthusiastic, overzealous town mayor invites the yankees to stay for the annual jubilee and BBQ, both the boys and girls accept the invitation and enjoy everything that Pleasant Valley has to offer. While on their respective sexual conquests, the students begin to disappear one by one in the most gruesome, yet creative fashions.

Robert Englund shines as the bombastic one-eyed confederate mayor that could make a living selling ice in Antarctica. Although he may not be playing his iconic role of Freddy Krueger, the same charisma is channeled into the mayor. I cannot think of anyone else who could have brought this character to life as successfully as he did. The mayor’s counterpart of Granny Boone is played by fellow horror icon Lin Shaye. She is so much fun to watch in this role that takes her from kind-hearted grandma to sadistic executioner. Perhaps she isn’t the lead in this movie, but she steals the screen every moment she gets. Englund and Shaye truly kick the performances up several notches! Everyone in this movie looks as if they are having the time of their lives playing these ridiculous characters. The central ensemble cast is a lot of fun to watch too! Whereas it would be too easy and boring to have an ensemble cast of flat college student characters, there is a little depth to each of them. Amongst the ensemble cast of college students is a gay character (Ricky) whom I applaud for not being a stereotype as he looks, talks, and acts like just one of the guys (who happens to have a different sexual preference). And another character I want to highlight is Cory. He certainly looks and acts like a nerd, but he is just as accepted as a sexual object as his more frat-boy looking counterparts. Each of the college students acts uniquely, so it never feels that any one character’s actions and dialogue could be given to another character and it play out the same.

This is not a horror movie that is produced to make you think. It is produced for horror fans to have a fun time with a campy, gory horror movie that delivers precisely what it promises. These characters are highly memorable, enjoyable to watch, and will keep you entertained for the entire movie.

You can catch Ryan most weeks at Studio Movie Grill Tampa, so if you’re in the area, let him know and you can join him at the cinema.

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa. 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!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

“Pet Sematary” (2019) horror film review

“Sometimes dead is better.” Unless you’re back from the dead with a vengeance! Brace yourself for the spine-chilling, immensely terrifying 2019 adaptation of the best-selling novel Pet Sematary by the legendary Stephen King. Whereas many remakes/reboots of earlier horror films often suffer, this one emerges from the soured soil as a force to be reckoned with. Directors Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmyer deliver a heartpounding rollercoaster of a nightmarish experience as Pet Sematary opens everywhere this weekend. Instead of a direct from page to screen adaptation, much like the fantastic 1989 original version (and yes, it still holds up), this version takes some creative liberties; however, the soul of the novel and even the 1989 version is clearly there. This creative latitude enabled the film to deliver new, surprising scares that are sure to frighten you. If you haven’t seen the extended trailers–DON’T–cannot say that enough. It’s best to go into this film with only the name and the initial teaser trailer in your mind. Not a spoiler, because it’s well known this this horror film and novel deals with loss, grief, and the uncanny (i.e. the return of the repressed), so the challenge of this adaptation was to force the conflict to derive from those issues and inspire the hellish events for which the story is well known. 2019’s Pet Sematary delivers in spades–quite literally. You will feel the ominous sense of dread from the moment the Creeds move into their new house and that feeling will stay with you as you are buried in a nightmare. This plot is solid.

I joined the popular podcast Mike Mike and Oscar to discuss this film, so click below to listen to the show. You are also invited to continue reading my written review.

Dr. Louis Creed (Jason Clarke) and his wife, Rachel, relocate from Boston to rural Maine with their two young children. The couple soon discover a mysterious burial ground hidden deep in the woods near their new home. When tragedy strikes, Louis turns to his neighbor Jud Crandall (John Lithgow), setting off a perilous chain reaction that unleashes an unspeakable evil with horrific consequences (IMDb summary). Sometimes dead is better

Let’s address the white ‘el’ephant in the room first. And I don’t mean the major plot twist changed from the novel and 1989 film that we saw in the trailer (c’mon, this is a well-known story and trailer at this point)–I mean the dialogue. Is the dialogue horribly bad? No. But it’s definitely the weak element in the script. Fortunately, this movie makes up for that with incredible windup, excellent deliveries, and the fact it is nightmarishly creepy. The pacing and tone are excellently crafted, and the visuals are fantastic. Never one does this film attempt to prove that it’s better than the original; in fact, it takes what many of us love about the original and use those moments as expertly designed fake-outs and false setups that are followed with something new and fun. So, it acknowledges the original without remaking it. Furthermore, it integrates many elements from the novel and original into the plot seamlessly. Achieving an overwhelming sense of dread from the very beginning of a horror film is quite difficult. That sense of unease is a combination of the atmosphere, setting, and ominous visual elements. Not five minutes into this movie, you are feeling that sense that something is definitely not right about this place. Yes, this is in part because many of us know what is to come; but even for new folks, the evil of this place can be felt all over your body. One of the creepiest scenes features the warped mirror image of an earlier cheerful moment, but it has been affected by the sour soil of the ancient burial ground.

While there isn’t much time to develop these characters, the writers were challenged with developing them enough for the story, and it works pretty well. The script isn’t quite as well-written as IT, but the margin of difference is not tremendously wide wither. As much of a fan of the original version as I am, there are areas that this version got better. For instance, the Zelda subplot–much more organically integrated into the main plot of Pet Sematary and even drives the main plot forward by revealing aspects to Rachel’s character. Two things for sure, these are two bad parents and Jud is an irresponsible neighbor. We don’t spend much time in the campus hospital where Luis Creed works, but we still get the big event of the passing of Pascow. Pascow’s character, whereas his harbinger of death or Jacob Marley (as so eloquently put by Mike Mike and Oscar) character isn’t as integral to the plot of this version, he looks more terrifying and doesn’t take a turn for the humorous. Of all the characters, I was most curious about John Lithgow’s performance as Jud. I was cautiously optimistic because Lithgow often has a way of delivering memorable performances, no matter how minor the role. His expression of Jud differs from that of Fred Gwynne’s but he still stays true to the character of Jud. And there are even moments that he channels Gwynne’s interpretation of the infamous neighbor. Just wish he had a Maine accent since he is still a local boy in this village (which is very close to Derry, according to a road sign). One of the best scenes in the movie take place as Lousi and Jud sit around a campfire, drinking, smoking and having an ill–fated heart-to-heart.

Contemporary remakes of earlier horror films often rely upon CGI versus practical effects. Cast that worry away because other than a few moments of CG, there are lots of fantastic practical effects from set design to the kills. There is such a high level of authenticity in everything the camera allows us to see, and even those moments that lie just off screen. Yes, there is still the inescapable supernatural factor in this story, but everything else is pretty well grounded in reality. From the parents building a fence to the proximity of the ancient burial ground, everything works to craft an authentic setting and characters. And yes, your Achilles tendon will still hurt in that famous kill. The directors truly seem to take into account that you cannot replace the way real light bounces off real objects and into the camera lens. Out two houses, the characters, and Church the cat exist in the time and space of each and every scene. With the exception a couple scenes that were not necessary or drawn out too far, they all work quite well to setup the following scene and point to the end of the film. There are moments that will cause you to look under beds, under stairs, and even analyze your pet more when you get home. For young audience members, watching this story for the first time, I imagine that they will be terrified just like I was when I saw the 89 one as a kid.

While I’ve read reviews claiming that this is the best Stephen Kind page to screen adaptation, I feel that other films have been more effective. Off the top of my head, I’d say that Misery is a better film both in terms of its cinematic critical value and faithfulness to the novel. Not to mention the Oscar-winning performance by Kathy Bates as Annie Wilkes! No mistaking it, 2019’s Pet Sematary is a good horror movie and one that has a moderate level of rewatchability. Highly recommend for horror fans!

You can catch Ryan most weeks at Studio Movie Grill Tampa, so if you’re in the area, let him know and you can join him at the cinema.

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa. 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!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

“Us” full horror film review

The high speed hype train begins to slow down. Returning to horror once again, Writer-Director Jordan Peele’s Us hits theatres nationwide this weekend. The highly anticipated followup to the horror masterpiece Get Out ultimately falls short of the bar set by its predecessor. But don’t worry, there is still plenty to like about this intense film. Whereas Get Out was a horror film built upon compelling, thoughtful social-commentary on the uncredited, forced appropriation of one ethnic group by another, Us plays as a straight forward horror film, complete with all the thrills for which you hope to experience. There is certainly an attempt by Peele to comment on class, MAGA, and other important social topics, but the film tries to do too much, and winds up not accomplishing what it so desperately wants to do. Keep your eyes peeled for details, because you are going to need them in order to best appreciate the ending. With Peele’s revival of The Twilight Zone, it is clear that his adoration of that series (which is regarded as the best written series of all time by the WGA) played a roll in the development of Us. Specifically, this movie feels inspired by the After Hours and Mirror Image episodes. Peele delivers audiences an incredibly fun horror movie that is certain to do well over its run in the cinemas. Many of the film’s elements work exceptionally well; but unfortunately, the film is held back from its full potential by weak writing and average directing. Even though Peele’s Get Out, in my opinion, is the superior film, there is still a lot to enjoy in Us. I’ve no doubt that if you’re a horror fan, that you will have a great time! Let Us cut deeper into this film.

IMDb summary. Accompanied by her husband, son and daughter, Adelaide Wilson returns to the beachfront home where she grew up as a child. Haunted by a traumatic experience from the past, Adelaide grows increasingly concerned that something bad is going to happen. Her worst fears soon become a reality when four  strangers descend upon the house, forcing the Wilsons into a fight for survival. The family is horrified to learn that each attacker takes the appearance of one of them,

My biggest takeaway from this movie is that I am convinced more than ever than Jordan Peele should be able to pull off a successful, meaningful revival of The Twilight Zone. The problem with the writing and directing in Us is that it tried to do too much. In an effort to create a deep, rich, cinematic experience that was both horrifying and thought-provoking, the plot is all over the place. Even to the point that it contradicts itself. It’s as if the idea for this movie began as one of the episodes of the upcoming Twilight Zone revival but Peele decided that he wanted to turn it into a feature length movie. Evidence of this can be found in the similarities it shares with the aforementioned After Hours and Mirror Image episode. There are enough differences that it is clearly not an adaptation of the episode, but I can see how it inspired this movie. Further evidence can be witnessed in that it’s produced, written, and directed by Peele. When a storyteller wears that many hats, there is little room for checks and balances. Us feels like a feature length horror movie that would’ve been better off as a half hour or hour long installment in an anthology series. Starting off moderately strong, then very strong in the second act, the third act feels like it was from another movie idea altogether and forced to fit into this one. Too many ideas. All good individually, but convolute the plot when mashed together. The plot is too complex. What Us tries to do is ultimately too vast for what this movie is capable of delivering to audiences.

Without getting into spoilers, I’d like to visit why the plot doesn’t work as well as it demonstrably shows it had the potential to have worked. We are clearly explained a particular relationship as having a one-way transference; however, there is a plot twist that completely contradicts this relationship. A best practice of screenwriting is to not introduce significantly new material, in the third act, that directly affects the present plot, which was not foreshadowed or setup in the previous two acts; this movie introduces lots of new plot elements in the third act that further complicate versus tying up. For most of the movie, the plot lives in a believable reality, but then it takes a turn that takes it from something terrifyingly possible to nearly unbelievable. And the power of a movie such as this is that it feels possible within the world that’s created on screen. If the characters are making a statement, they run out of people to receive that statement through the course of events. Perhaps if there was a greater supernatural element in the screenplay that it would have worked much better, because the supernatural could have explained how and why much better than the science-fiction approach. What is lacking here is a singular vision.

Now that I have gotten all the things that I didn’t care for out of the way, I want to finish this article with what works brilliantly! The performances are outstanding, the score is excellent, and even the cinematography is noteworthy. Of all the stellar performances, Lupita’s is the one that stood out to me the most. As an Oscar winner, I expect her to deliver an impeccable performance, and she does precisely that! I felt what she was feeling, I empathized with her greatly, and she held my attention for the duration of the movie. I’m careful not to project an Oscar nom out of this because I thought Toni Collette’s performance in Hereditary was Oscar and Golden Globe worthy, and we all know what happened with that. Love this score! The classic orchestral approach fit this movie exceptionally well. The score worked so well that it almost felt like a character in and of itself. A well-composed score should be a diegetic extension of the story, the emotional beats, and action; and this one is all those things! Cinematography should never be overlooked as greatly contributing to how a story is being told. It is the element that places us in objective or subjective points of view or prompts us to interpret a scene in a particular way. There are some beautiful shots in this movie that are framed with precision. All throughout the movie, the cinematography plays a strong role in crafting the full experience of Us.

Regardless if you like or love this movie, you are definitely in for a fun time! Perhaps I have issues with the writing and directing (two important elements in the crafting of a movie) but I still enjoyed myself and am confident that you will too. I don’t think it will become a classic in the way that Get Out will be one day, but it’s one to watch anyhow. Lots of great concepts here, but Peele doesn’t strongly deliver any one of them.

You can join Ryan at the cinema most weeks at Studio Movie Grill Tampa.

Ryan teaches screenwriting at the University of Tampa. 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!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry