“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

Advertisements

“Office Killer” Throwback Thursday movie review

Ever see one of those indie horror-comedies that was panned by the critics when it came out a couple decades ago just to realize that if it was released today that it would be the talk of the horror community? Well, that is 1997’s Office Killer starring Carol Kane (When a Stranger Calls), Molly Ringwald, and directed by famed photographer Cindy Sherman. Kane delivers an outstandingly bananas performance that is a combination of Norman Bates and Patrick Bateman. Sherman certainly displays her adoration for the cinematography of Hitchcock’s films in many of the scenes in how the shots are framed and blocked. You’re hard-pressed to find many reviews of this horror-comedy even on LetterBoxd. It’s baffling to me why this movie hasn’t received more attention from the horror community on Twitter, blogs, and podcasts. Perhaps it’s because it is no incredibly obscure that you have a hard time even finding it on DVD, let alone streaming. A friend of mine had to order his copy of the movie from Spain. That is how difficult it is to find this movie. Even the few reviews I found were not flattering–except a couple that write about what I witness in this movie. The title works in two ways (1) it’s a description of how even in the 90s there was a fear that computers would kill the traditional office environment and (2) the literal description of a slasher in the office. Furthermore, there are plenty of moments and kills that serve as a freudian commentary on the American workplace. So I suppose it’s up to me to direct attention to this horror gem!

From the beginning, I had a feeling that I was in store for a highly artistic indie darling of a movie as soon as I saw the fantastically creative opening credits accompanied by a creepy score. Following the opening credits, there was a very Hitchcock shot that intrigued me and tipped its hat to Sherman channeling her award-winning photography into the moving images on the screen. Typically, horror movies don’t have narration but we begin with a narration. Not knowing anything about this movie, I was completely unsure of what to expect. Even the first kill didn’t tell me that I was about to watch a slasher. But as I learned more about Dorine (Kane), the more I was sucked into her world and completely intrigued by her choices and lack of social awareness. Playing opposite Kane is the indelible Molly Ringwald as the bitchy, judgy coworker Kim. Her performance is great! Not great in that it’s a phenomenal performance, but great in that she showed that she can play a character that is in stark contrast to most of the characters she has played throughout her longstanding career. Most of the performances are caricatures of various people found in a typical office. In fact, I’m curious if The Office ever parodied Office Killer because it seems like a missed opportunity if not. If you are aware of an episode that pays homage to Office Killer, let me know!

Perhaps the strength of this movie is not the acting (albeit, Kane is fantastic), but the strength is in the production design, costuming, plot, and Freudian themes. On the plot. Yes, the plot. You may be scratching your head because most reviews have slammed the plot. But I feel that 1997 critics and even those who come across this film today largely missed the point of the plot. It’s not supposed to be a compelling story with thought provoking imagery and characters, it’s supposed to be a 70/80s horror movie that is darkly funny! It’s just happens to be taking place in the mid 1990s. Perhaps this movie came out too close to the 70s/80s and thus felt old and cheesy. I posit that if this movie came out today, that it would be praised for its embrace of what we love about 70s/80s slasher movies! We don’t watch and rewatch these movies because they have incredible plots. We watch them because they are lots of fun! And Office Killer is incredibly fun to watch. While we may not know precisely why Dorine’s switch flipped and she went full–what I’ll call–Norman Bateman, we are given indicators of her unstable psyche through her flashbacks to her sexually abusive father and complacent mother, and of course the present story of most of her coworkers bullying her. Those three elements, plus the opportunity, work together to set her up to be a total psycho. Her actual kills may not be creative–that is, the method by which she kills–but the creativity comes into play afterwards with the corpses piling up in her house. She talks to them, plays with them, articulates them in such a manner that they become her action figures so to speak. It’s incredibly creepy but in a comedic way.

Now for those Freudian elements. This is what I find most fascinating about the movie; and what should provoke conversations amongst cinephiles and horror enthusiasts. One of the earliest shots in the movie is an extreme closeup (or ECU) of a staff member’s mouth as she is on the phone. Her red lipstick accentuates her mouth and points to the Freudian oral fixation. The scenes that follow depict female office staff members in a variety of different capacities and situations. It appears as though Sherman was painting a portrait of the male gaze over the female body. Moreover, what this movie appears to comment on and depict is Freud’s study on Fetishism. According to Freud’s study, and not to over simplify, fetishism is a fixation on an object or physiological practice of a substitution for intercourse following a sexual desire awakening in the body and mind. In more contemporary terms, the definition of fetish has evolved beyond just sexuality, but is generally still associated with sexual practices. Since likely paternal sexual abuse happened to and her mother turned her head to the allegations, in an effort to deal with the trauma, Dorine substituted what she wanted to do to her parents and others who abuse or bully her by engaging in slasher-style killings.

Each of the kills is a warped poetic justice based upon what Dorine saw as wrong with the victim. A great example of this is the attempted strangling of Kim. Since Kim ran her mouth constantly, Dorine sought to silence her voice. This same idea can be applied to the other kills too, and even in how the corpses are treated in Dorine’s basement. There is a playful nature in Dorine’s approach to the kills and even more so with her interactions with them afterwards. The depths of her psychosis are revealed one layer at a time. Even when you think that Dorine is about to get caught, she gets away with it; she alludes her would-be captors by searching the want ads and heading for another job in an office–perhaps your office! With each kill, Dorine integrated an element of that victim into her own life. She goes from mousy, frumpy to stylish and seductive. Her office underwent a transition and so did she. Dorine killed her former self to become the self that she wants to be. There is so much to enjoy about this horror comedy, and it baffles me that more horror fans and cinephiles have not talked about this movie. If you can somehow get ahold of a copy, then I highly recommend it if you enjoy slasher movies with a tough of style and laughter.

 

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

“Long Shot” full movie review

Old fashioned rom-com meets political satire in this reverse Pretty Women that’s clever, heartwarming–oh yeah–and hilarious! After years of absence, the American romantic comedy has been slowly making a comeback in recent times; take last year’s Crazy Rich Asians for example. Directed by Jonathan Levine and written by Dan Sterling and Elizabeth Hannah, this edgy, smart comedy uses its two charming yet unlikely lovers as a conduit through which the socio-political state of America is explored in unapologetic, candid ways. Starring Charlize Theron and Seth Rogen, this movie demonstrates that real issues facing us today can be acknowledged but never become the central focus of the movie. It is the superb chemistry and character development of Theron and Rogen that carries this movie. Simple plot, complex characters. Although there are very Rogian moments, Theron and supporting actor O’Shea Jackson Jr, playing Rogen’s best friend, help to balance him out. Thanks to the outstanding comedic writing powered by external and internal conflict, this movie elevates the rom-com to rise above the predictable to deliver an endearing story that is equal parts whimsical and plausible. Theron and Rogen deliver stellar performances that carry the movie from start to finish. And you know what, it looks like they are having a great time!

When Fred Flarsky (Rogen) learns that his independent newspaper has been bought out by a media conglomerate, he quits instead of having his voice silenced or conformed to fit the new business model. By sheer happenstance, Fred runs into his childhood babysitter Charlotte Field (Theron) the current Secretary of State at a party to which his best friend (Jackson Jr.) brought him to cheer him up. When Field decides to prepare for a presidential run, she hires Flarsky to punch up her speeches because she likes his honesty and chutzpah. Little did either know that this business partnership would ignite old flames that would give way to political and relational conflict.

Not to oversimplify, but everything in this movie works. And that is rare for a comedy to work this well for me. If you’re familiar with my writing, you’ll know that I do not watch many romantic comedies, and seldom truly adore one; but, I sincerely enjoyed this movie. Levine demonstrates a commitment to effective directing that builds upon the impeccable casting and solid screenplay. Long Shot is one of those rare comedies that gives us captivating characters from the onset and a plot that, albeit unlikely, could very well exist in real life. Whereas it would have been so easy for the focus of this politically charged fish-out-of-water meets romantic-comedy to be overly concerned with the politics to the point that the characters and plot suffer, the story is consistently character-driven by using the plot to explore socio-political commentary that ultimately fuels the conflict. Topics such as the environment, racism, religion, and feminism are highlighted but never steal the spotlight from the journey of Flarsky and Field. And the screenplay gives us some thought-provoking reversals that go to show that the very group that claims to be the most tolerant of differences might actually be the least tolerant of all. The fact that Field is a woman and must play by different rules than male politicians is acknowledged but doesn’t become the focus either. In short, this movie has a well-defined central character (Charlotte Field) with a clearly defined external goal (to become President), fueled by an internal need (connection, both with herself and a partner) and motivation to achieve the goal (to make a positive difference for the American people). That is why the writing works as well as it does. Everything else is icing on the cake–and it’s delicious icing that is neither too stiff nor too sweet.

Pretty Woman works as well as it does, and has found itself a beloved movie not because of the social commentary but because the audience fell in love with the stars and desired to see them find happiness. The same can be said of Long Shot. I was hesitant going into the screening since I am not usually a fan of Rogen’s comedy; but I was confident that with Theron, an actress I have long since found to be outstanding in talent, beauty, and philanthropy, Rogen’s over-the-top self-deprecating acting would have a equally charismatic actress to balance him out. The relationship between Field and Flarsky is so incredibly genuine. No pretense here. Both of them say precisely what they think, not shying away from feedback or rebuttals that could mean the end of the friendship, partnership, or careers. Combining Field’ workaholic, domineering, savvy Secretary of State turned presidential candidate and Flarsky’s radical, uncouth, abrasive journalist turned speechwriter provides audiences with a refreshing take on a staple genre of motion pictures. They have have different ways of showing it, but both characters are Type As that are stubborn, idealistic, and seek to do the right thing by the American people–Field as a politician and Flarsky as a journalist.

All throughout the movie, conflict arises out of Flarsky’s reactions to Field’s platform and policy changes; furthermore, additional conflict arises out of Field’s reactions to the choices made by Flarsky as they could damage her chances at the presidency. Despite all the conflict, it comes from being committed to a passion, and it’s that unapologetic passion that draws them to on another. That, and the fact they are childhood friends, and are affected by the power of nostalgia. The TV celebrity turned President of the Unites States is definitely built from tropes and characteristics of our current POTUS, but never feels too much or forced. Likewise, the character of the media mogul is clearly derived from Rupert Murdoch. Both these oppositional characters are entertaining without ever going over the top to make a point.

Although it is Rogen who is first billed, and therefore is likely the intended central character (from the perspective of Lionsgate), it is Theron’s Field who is the central character of this story. Just because you are introduced to a character first, doesn’t always mean that they are your central character. In a manner of speaking, Rogen plays the role of Field’s conscience, a sort of moral/ethical compass that doubles as a vessel through which Field rediscovers her ambitious youthful self and all the convictions therein. Rogen is not the only conscience/moral compass in the movie, he too has one in the form of his best friend. The best scenes in the movie are those where heated arguments or passionate disagreements take place. No real surprise there, but these arguments always have something to teach the characters and, by extension, the audience. One of Flarsky’s purposes is to remind Field why she got into politics (even during her time running for student council) at such a young age and that she should never compromise on her convictions–stay true to herself. Furthermore, he is also the vessel through which Field rediscovers and connects with her needs as a human, as a women. A need to reconnect with her playful self that will ultimately unleash who she truly is. Likewise, Flarsky’s successful best friend surprisingly emerges as his conscience. Only instead of providing moral/ethical direction in the world of politics, it is on a more relatable sociological level. Flarsky is confronted on his gross intolerance of all those with whom he disagrees in terms of religion, love and support, and even racism. He buys into the stereotypes just like those he accuses. Great scene!

Thinking of this movie and Pretty Woman, I am left with this one being the superior movie. Not knocking Pretty Woman, I still respect it, but Long Shot takes what Pretty Woman did right, and elevate it to the next level. One of the biggest differences between the two is the style of comedy. Long Shot is definitely a hard R comedy whereas Pretty Woman is more “family friendly.” You can enjoy both equally! A movie about underdogs, this movie may very well be an underdog at the box office in May, but it’s certainly worth the watch if you’re in the mood for an edgy adult comedy.

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

“Deadpool 2” movie review

“Deadpool, can you hear me?” Subversive, irreverent, brilliant, meta. It very well may be better than the first. How often do we get to say that about direct sequels? Ryan Reynolds’ witty, crass, charmingly naughty superhero is back to take even the most unrelentingly serious movie patron, and drive them to complete laughter. The square peg of the X-Men’s round universe returns with non-stop action, antics, and fourth-wall breaking humor virtually deconstructing everything from the opening credits to the post-credit scenes. Nothing new there; however, Deadpool assures the audience that the story they are about to see is a family movie. And after watching it, it may be unconventional, but it’s a solid family film. Maybe not “family entertainment,” by the Disney definition, but about family nevertheless. Speaking of which, we may have just watched the final Deadpool as we know it before it gets the Big D sanitization treatment, should Comcast (NBC Universal) not swoop in to save 20th Century from the otherwise inevitable Disney acquisition. Deadpool 2 isn’t just better than the first one simply because it’s funnier, more risqué, or more clever; in measurable ways, it possesses stronger villain(s), stronger opposition to the goal, and a better plot overall. Not your everyday “family” film, but filled with emotional tugs at your heart strings, all the same. Just with a heaping helping of self-aware and self-deprecating bawdy humor.

For two years, Wade Wilson/Deadpool (Ryan Reynolds) has continued his mercenary work, taking down villain after villain, crook after crook; but, after he fails to kill one of his targets on an extra-special day to him, he is faced with tragedy. Through a series of bizarre events–yes, even bizarre for Wilson–Wilson finds himself in a maximum-security prison ran by the DMC (Dept of Mutant Control) along with a renegade 14yo mutant named Russell. When Cable (Josh Brolin), a high-tech assassin, arrives from the future to take out a target that he claims leads to total destruction, Wilson must battle inner and outer demons in order to get his heart into the right place. Knowing he’s facing the most dangerous villain he’s ever encountered, Wilson forms the X-Force, a diverse “superhero” group of many talents in order to apprehend the target to prevent the world from plunging into complete chaos.

There is a comedic power in the plot of Deadpool 2 that invites the audience, at every turn, to laugh with the movie as it laughs at itself. There are a few running schticks throughout the film, but my favorite is the continued references to Barbra Streisand’s groundbreaking film Yentl featuring the iconic Streisand ballad Papa, Can You Hear Me? To which, Deadpool points out sounds an awful lot like Do You Wanna Build a Snowman from Disney’s Frozen. And it’s the implication of Disney appropriating Streisand’s song where the “Disney joke” was likely cut from the movie. Other jokes carry over from the first film such as the X-Men mansion with only Negasonic Teenage Warlord and Colossus roaming around. Some of the schticks from the first movie are transformed for this direct sequel. Contrary to the Wade Wilson from the first film, this one, this one diverts from his persistent aversion to companionship and a desire to be the “lone ranger,” as it were, and expresses a need for family. This desire for family serves as the backdrop of running jokes, gags, and extreme snark.

Streisand isn’t the only female vocal artist highlighted in the film, Dolly Parton’s 9 to 5, Pat Benatar’s We Belong, and Cher’s If I Could Turn Back Time are all featured, all that we were missing was Cyndi Lauper’s Time After Time. Unlike the completely unconventional opening credit sequence from the first Deadpool, this sequel’s opening credit sequence takes a page out of the James Bond handbook, complete with the new single Ashes by Celina Dion. Like the opening credit sequence from the first film, this one also replaces the names with jokes that certainly aid in setting the irreverent mood of the film. Although a film should never primarily rest upon the music, as the plot should stand on its own, the score and featured songs are incredibly important assets that can greatly enhance the experience. Deadpool 2 contains a few montages set to song that will certainly have you rolling over laughing. Sometimes it’s the complete contrast or juxtaposition that the lyrics provide against the action in the foreground that drive the audience to complete hysterical laughter.

For all the first film got right, one of the elements missing from it was a well-developed, dynamic villain (more specifically, opposition to the external goal). Deadpool 2 provides solid central opposition to the external goal (which, for spoiler sake, I won’t mention) flanked by two villains taken directly out of the X-Men comics (and X-Men: the Animated Series). Cable, mentioned earlier, and the Juggernaut. Not to pigeonhole Cable into the villain category, there is more to this villain than first meets the eye. He can be more accurately described as an anti-hero because of his reasons for returning to the past to stop Armageddon, so to speak. Knowing Cable’s backstory, his goals, and that which he sees as opposition to his goals, gives him a character depth seldom seen in many superhero villains. When a villain (or anti-hero) can get the audience to empathize with his or her plight, then the villain succeeds in being well-developed and complicated. Having a complicated villain enables the audience to love or love to hate the villain. But in both cases, the audience loves to see the villain (or anti-hero) on screen. Supplementing the cast of villains in Deadpool 2, is the iconic X-Men character Juggernaut. His introduction into the film comes at a strategic turning point that launches the plot into the showdown.

The film makes an important observation about the lack of plus-sized lead characters in superhero movies. Russell is a plus-sized mutant who wants so desperately to be a superhero, but sends the message to Wilson (and by extension, the audience) that there should be room for non-athletic types in the superhero universe. It’s an important message that I think would have played out more effectively had the actor not been so childish. I understand that the character is a 14yo mutant who is still struggling to find his place in this world and understand his powers, but I kept seeing the actor and not the character. The ability to bring a character to life without the actor showing is part of the art of acting. In most cases, the audience wants to see the character, not the actor playing him or her. I liked the character of Russell, just think he could have been portrayed by another actor who could have more effectively driven the message home that diversity in the superhero universe mans more than male, female, straight, gay, etc. It should also incorporate a diversity of body types. Having non-athletic body types represented in lead characters–superheroes specifically–is an element that I hope continues to improve.

There truly is so much to enjoy about Deadpool 2. Behind the ballsy jokes, suggestive poses, and hilarious meta observations, is solid writing and direction. With the Disney acquisition of 20th Century Fox all but complete, with the wild card of Comcast’s (NBC Universal) bidding 19% more than Disney in cash that could alter the direction of the deal, I hope that we did not witness the last Deadpool free of Disney sanitization. Knowing that they strong-armed Fox into cutting a Disney joke from the film during post-production, does not help matters any. Hopefully, the third installment of Deadpool will be just as funny, if not funnier than the first two. Oh yeah, it should go without saying but this NOT a superhero movie for kids.

“Life of the Party” movie review

Positively uplifting! Melissa McCarthy and Ben Falcone’s comedy Life of the Party releasing everywhere today is a quintessential Mothers Day flick that you can take your mom to and enjoy together this Sunday afternoon. McCarthy shines as the brilliant comic she is in this film. Whereas she is typically the brunt of the jokes in the film’s she and her husband often cowrite together, this film provides McCarthy with a platform to truly showcase her talents as a comedic actor who can not only play the butt of the humor but also the vixen who’s captured the eye of a hot frat guy as she sets out to complete her education. McCarthy’s brand of comedy–that authenticity, candidness, optimism–that we have come to know and love, will have laughing and empathizing throughout the movie.

Although themes such as inspiration, determination, and resilience are not uncommon for a comedy, I appreciate many tropes often associated with fish-out-of-water plots were abandoned for something more unconventional yet infectiously charming. Instead of ultimately changing herself for the world around her or changing the world to fit her, she finds her place in the world and creatively directs it to make room for her. Whatever your age, you will likely find yourself connecting with one or more of the characters in this film as it proves that you are never too old to learn something new or complete that which you chose not to earlier in life. From acoustic guitar tunes to Cyndi Lauper and even a surprise performance by Christina Aguilera, the music will have you dancing in your seat. Watch as nervous, scared girls who are afraid of unknown elements in school, grow to become incredible women who form meaningful relationships and heal from tragedy. Each of the principle cast is unique in some way, and it’s these traits that setup conflict and allow the comedy to flow from the conflict naturally. From McCarthy’s Deanna’s endearing vampire-like roommate who low key longs for a friendship to the girl who is also a non-traditional student because of being in a coma for eight years, the film is filled with a colorful cast of likable characters and of course Deanna’s ex and mistress who we love to hate.

McCarthy is joined by comedienne Maya Rudolph and the pair of them dominate any scene they are in together. It never feels overwhelming because they are both saying precisely what you and I are thinking. The two of them exhibit kind of friendship that perhaps your closest friend and you desire to have. Although there is a mild degree of suspense, the film derives most of its energy from the brilliant cast’s reactions to the varying conflicts throughout the film. As there is not much to analyze in this film, you’ll find this review far shorter than my usual ones. But, I desired to write up a piece on it because it’s been largely panned by most critics. Variety and I seem to be among the few who find so much that’s “right” with this film as opposed to what’s “wrong.” Maybe it’s not terribly deep, but it boasts a simple plot with complex characters that provides McCarthy with an opportunity to show a different side to her trademark comedy. With honors!