Tag Archives: film critic

“The Prodigy” horror movie review

Posted on by
1

The Omen meets Child’s Play. When the trailer first dropped for The Prodigy, I was intrigued. Didn’t think that it was going to be great, but I was anticipating it as one of the horror movies I was looking forward to most in 2019, with others being Pet Sematary, Us, Midsommar, and IT: Chapter 2. Then I began to read the reviews of the movie, and was disappointed in what was being said. Since I wanted to get the oil changed in my car yesterday, with it being a weekday holiday off from work, I went to the auto center close to the theatre so I could drop it off and walk to the theatre for a movie. Decided to go ahead and watch The Prodigy, as the alternatives for watching were ehh, at best. To be honest, this was quite the terrible Presidents Day weekend at the movie theatre. The Prodigy certainly has some good things going for it, most of the violence is either psychological or off screen to allow you to fill in the disturbing details in your mind; it is also incredibly chilling! Unfortunately, the vapid characters and paint-by-numbers plot keep the film from achieving what it so desperately wants to achieve. Lots of great material here for what could’ve been a solid horror film with a character that combines what we love about Damien and Chucky. For fans of both The Silence of the Lambs and The Exorcist, you’ll instantly notice the old school Orion Pictures logo from SOTL followed by the clearly red text on black background taken from Friedkin’s masterpiece.

Sarah and John Blume are thrilled when their young son Miles starts to show signs of rapid development and extreme intelligence. Their family bliss soon turns into a living nightmare when Miles’ behavior becomes increasingly erratic and violent by his eighth birthday. After seeking help from two experts, Sarah is horrified to learn that her beloved prodigy may be under the grip of a dark and supernatural force. Fearing for her family’s safety, Sarah must choose between her maternal instinct to love and protect Miles and a desperate need to investigate what or who is causing his dark turn. She is forced to look for answers in the past, taking the audience on a wild ride; one where the line between perception and reality becomes frighteningly blurry

There is nothing wrong with jump scares. That’s right. You may hear of jump scares talked about in a less than favorable way; but it’s not the concept of the jump scare itself that is bad for horror (or any genre for the matter). The inclusion of some jump scares can be an element that aids in creating the physiologically engaging horror movie experience. It is the misuse, overuse, and poorly timed jump scares that work against the success of a movie or, more specifically, keeping it from reaching the critical potential that it could. It comes down to the argument of suspense versus shock. Now, a horror movie cannot be completely void of shock because then it differs little from suspense-thrillers. One of the main differences between suspense/thrillers and horror films is the intent of the writer and/or director–it’s that intent to horrify that separates thriller from horror. It’s this intent to horrify that places the often genre contested The Silence of the Lambs more in the horror category than thriller (though, it is a hybrid). Simply stated, The Prodigy is overstuffed with jump scares. When a writer or director relies upon jump scares to deliver the horror instead of crafting lingering horrifying moments through the character or plot development, then it plays as a shallow story. Strip away the jump scares, and The Prodigy is left with little to deliver. Think of a horror film supported by proliferated jump scares as a chocolate Easter bunny or egg that is hollow on the inside. It looks tasty, may even taste good (especially if made out of dark echolocate), but when you realize that the center is hollow, the experience is mitigated from where it could’ve been with a solid dark chocolate bunny.

I remarked to another horror fan on Twitter that with a few tweaks, The Prodigy could have actually been good–not great–but good. When you’re channeling what made The Omen and Child’s Play work so well, you have a lot of good material to create an original expression of these premises. One of the best parts of the movie, and one that was seriously creepy and unnerving is the performance of Jackson Robert Scott as Miles. He delivers an outstanding performance with his two contrasting identities; unfortunately, he was not used to the extent that he could have been. Had screenwriter Jeff Buhler and director Nicholas McCarthy spent more time on developing the key characters and simplifying the plot, then the movie may have been better received horror fans and general audiences. Although the movie is titled The Prodigy, the intelligence of Miles is mostly used as a McGuffin. Developed by Hitchcock, it’s a device that is used to jumpstart the central plot but has little to do with the plot itself. The best example of this is the money Marion steels in Psycho. Had she not stolen the money, she would not have stayed at the infamous Bates Motel. After that theft launches her on her roadtrip to Fairvale, it bares little consequence to the remainder of the events. However, the McGuffin IS important because it is what launches us into the thick of the plot.

Instead of all the jump scares, it would have been nicer for the movie to have worked to create an overwhelming sense of dread and keep the possession of Miles a secret longer. The film tips its hat too soon to some of the moments that should’ve been drawn out longer to increase the level of suspense. With a reliance upon jump scares to serve as a spectacle, I am reminded of researcher Linda Williams narrative vs spectacle argument. Too much spectacle, the film suffers because therein lacks any real substance; too much narrative, the film suffers because it fails to be driven as visually as it should. A horror film strikes a delicate balance between narrative and spectacle in order to achieve a compelling story with moments of terror that impact the audience emotionally and physiologically. The characters are not given the treatment that they should have been. We never truly care about any of the characters and thus do not form that important connection with the movie. Had the moments of shock been used to drive the plot forward more so than just work for a cheap scream of jump, then they would have had much more power than they did. And then there’s the ending. It plays off as showcasing a lack of imagination and more consideration paid to setting up a sequel. Without giving away any spoilers, there was a way for the ending to take a page out of the Child’s Play handbook in order to setup a sequel instead of the manner in which it did.

Looking for a popcorn horror movie to watch on a date or just one that will be fun for 1.5hrs, then this movie work perfectly fine. It will not impact you as The Omen or Child’s Play did, but it will deliver some fun thrills and a mostly original interpretation of a solid premise.

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

“Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse” brief film review

Posted on by
2

Now THIS is the amazing Spiderman! Eat your heart out Tom Holland and move over Incredibles and Ralph for the best animated feature of 2018. Even if you do not care for comic book or superhero movies, by in large, but love excellent motion pictures (animated or live-action), then I can almost guarantee that you will thoroughly enjoy and greatly appreciate Sony’s Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. Although there have been a handful of animated films that I have liked in recent years, I have not felt emotionally and physiologically engaged with an animated feature to this degree since Kubo and the Two Strings. What both these animated features have in common is groundbreaking artistic precision that typifies the art of animated visual storytelling. Not only does Spider-Verse blow all other animated films out of the water this year, in terms of its contribution to the art and science of motion pictures, I put it on par with Kubo. The attention to production design details and mindblowing editing set the bar incredibly high for animated features moving forward. While the visuals have been likened to an acid trip, do not allow that to dissuade you because never once did I find the avant-garde artistic expression dizzying or obnoxious. It was completely immersive. There was genuine, tangible emotion felt in every frame. And the Stan Lee cameo was priceless. Underscoring everything on screen is the phenomenal screenplay upon which this mesmerizing animated feature is built. Undoubtedly, you will find yourself emotionally invested in the central character of Miles and the chief supporting cast, including the fantastic villain King Pin. There is so many layers to this story, and it works on several levels such as: family, love, self-sacrifice, and more. Highly recommend this film!

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 or email him at RLTerry1@gmail.com! You can catch Ryan most weeks at Studio Movie Grill Tampa, so if you’re in the area, feel free to catch a movie with him!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

“Black Christmas” full horror film review

Posted on by
3

Move over Ralphie for Bob Clark’s original Christmas story. Released in 1974 and predating John Carpenter’s Halloween by four years, Clark’s Black Christmas is actually the the first modern slasher film. In fact, many have argued that Carpenter’s iconic holiday horror film, that made Michael Myers a household name, is an unofficial sequel to Black Christmas. Bob Clark laid the groundwork for Michael to terrorize Haddonfield; but, both Black Christmas and Halloween along with 1979’s When a Stranger Calls collectively created the foundation upon which the 1980s slashers were built. Although I had heard of this film prior to this year, I did not make time to watch it until many of my podcast friends talked about it. So, for the weekly film screening with my cinephile penpal a couple of weeks ago. Originally, I had not intended to review it since so many others have covered it this Christmas season; however, after being encouraged to review it by a few of my friends in the #PodernFamily community, I’m going to talk about my opinions on this film. In short, it is one of the most terrifying horror films that I have ever watched. And it’s not because it’s particularly violent or gory, but because of its incredibly unsettling atmosphere caused by the mysterious, vulgar phone calls and the creepy POV of the slasher entering the sorority house during the Christmas party. That bit of dramatic irony paired with the sequence of disturbing events, work together to generate nightmare-inducing thoughts and imagery in the mind of the audience.

Now for the IMDb summary before we dive deeper! As winter break begins, a group of sorority sisters, including Jess (Olivia Hussey) and the often inebriated Barb (Margot Kidder), begin to receive anonymous, lascivious phone calls. Initially, Barb eggs the caller on, but stops when he responds threateningly. Soon, Barb’s friend Claire (Lynne Griffin) goes missing from the sorority house, and a local adolescent girl is murdered, leading the girls to suspect a serial killer is on the loose. But no one realizes just how near the culprit is.

The first moment in the movie to truly catch my attention was the POV of the serial killer. Before watching this, I was under the impression that the first horror film to open with a POV in this fashion was Carpenter’s Halloween. It was at that moment that I looked up the release year and shocked to find that Black Christmas was released four years prior. The unnerving atmosphere of dread is generated in part by the dramatic irony of the killer being in the house and the vulgar mysterious phone calls that consistently plague the sorority girls. Although there are scenes that take place outside of the house, the horrific events largely take place inside a house. A house–more specifically–a home–where you should be and feel safe. The invasion, the penetration of safety is a terrifying prospect for anyone who has ever walked into their home alone wondering if someone may be there. The idea that someone may be in your house sticks with you long after the movie ends. And that is the power of the unnerving horror of Black Christmas. I argue that the level of terror is higher in this movie than Halloween because of just when this story takes place. Both Halloween and Black Christmas concern themselves with a serial killer sneaking inside the home unbeknownst to the owners but Black Christmas takes place at the time of year that we should feel the warmest and safest. It’s that stark contrast between the magic of Christmas and the horror befalling the sorority house that impacts us more than the events in Haddonfield on Halloween. Halloween is a time that we expect to be scared, whereas Christmas is a time that we expect to be warm and safe.

Unlike the merciless or meta-kills of Jason or Freddy, the killer only known as Billy specializes in psychological horror. Although there is more to Jason than just killing teens and college students, he essentially seeks to rack up as many kills as possible. Much in the same way, Freddy enjoys increasing his kill count too. However, Billy stands in contrast because he is not merely concerned with racking up a body count as he is truly terrifying the girls and their house mom. The actions of Billy are a vehicle for the fears of the audience. His victims and methods of execution, if you will, comment on the character types that he’s going after. Moreover, the beauty of Billy’s true identity remaining mysterious is that he can be whomever you want him to be. Furthermore, the victims can be whomever you want them to be. It’s the type of horror film that provides the audience with the ability to place themselves in the shoes of the killer. But Billy isn’t the only star of the film, we spend sufficient time with each of the characters to understand their personalities and desires. This makes them more than just eye candy for Billy or the audience. We can empathize with each of the victims and those with him they have friendships or a relationship. There are few moments that we get to see Billy. For the most part, we are always looking through Billy’s eyes. Billy has nothing distinct about him. No motive, mask, backstory, proprietary weapon–nothing. And it works so incredibly well! It’s this lack of anything in particular that would make him out to be someone unique that terrifies us. He can literally be anyone who is simply terrifying these girls because “they were home” (where have we heard that before?) or they left the door unlocked or a window open.

Hitchcock stated stated on more than one occasion that (and I am paraphrasing) there is no greater fear than that of an opened door. Bob Clark takes a queue from Hitch in that he relies heavily upon that which in unseen or unknown. Relying upon that which is unseen forces the audience to engage the film on a personal level by creating scenarios for the violence off screen. Another quote of Hitchcock is related to Clark’s approach in this film, “always make the audience suffer as much as possible.” And there are plenty of scenes in Black Christmas that will induce suffering in the minds of the audience. We aren’t given a backstory on or motives of the killer, but evidence suggests that he has a preoccupation with the idea of pregnancy or motherhood. Moreover, there are different types of mothers or maternity examples in the film from a sorority house mother to a knocked-up college student contemplating an abortion. Interestingly, this is where Black Christmas refuses to conform to the morality play underscoring many horror films in which teen and college students engaging in deviant or indiscriminate sexual behaviors are the ones killed off. The point-of-view movements and kills take you out of your seat and into the narrative as a quasi accomplice to the murders. Of course, we are not prevued to all the murders as there is a rape and murder in the same area that is said to be linked to Billy but we never truly learn the origin of these murders or even the true identity of Billy.

Although Black Christmas is a serious slasher, it is not without its comedic moments. The sorority mom and her booze will keep you laughing while one of the police officers will have you rolling over in your chair with his complete incompetence and lack of knowledge of fellatio. The film never falls into the area of self-aware or parody, but it does successfully balance out the dark narrative with the more lighthearted elements.

If you’re looking for another holiday horror movie to add to your list of Christmas films to watch, then you definitely want to add this one to your lineup. It’s perfectly dark and sinister, takes place in an ominous sorority house that provides us with an incredibly creepy atmosphere, and infamous ending. Instead of shelving it until the holiday season each year, it should be treated like Halloween and other slashers. It’s good year-round! It’s an important film in the horror library because it was the first to give us so many of the tropes that would show up later, and even thought to be originally attributed to later films.

Ryan is a screenwriting professor at the University of Tampa. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

Thrillz (theme parks): Thrillz.co

“Mary Poppins Returns” full film review

Posted on by
Reply

A spoonful of nostalgia isn’t enough to make the narrative go down. The highly anticipated Mary Poppins Returns hits theatres this week. Unfortunately, this film gets lost in nostalgia, neglecting the need to tell a new story. Instead, we get more than half a movie full of frivolity that lacks any coherent meaning or substance that is more concerned with hitting the same plot beats with similar songs at the same moments in this version as it was with the original. Visually, the movie is flawless and the animation sequences were a welcomed visit from the past. Reminded me of, if the animation from Bedknobs and Broomsticks and Mary Poppins got together, this is what you’d get. When creating a sequel that doubles as a remake, connections to the original are important but should not be at the diegetic forefront. Mary Poppins Returns exists in a gray area that is neither a sequel nor a remake. Had Mary Poppins Returns been a full-on sequel or remake, then perhaps the narrative would have faired better. As it stands, it sits uncomfortably in the middle and suffers from a bit of an identity crisis. Perhaps this version is lacking in critical value and complex characters, but it ranks highly in entertainment value. There isn’t anything particularly memorable about it except for the special appearances by Dick Van Dyke and Angela Lansbury, but the movie offers a couple hours of whimsical fun.

In depression-era London, the Banks family faces one of the greatest hardships a family can face–losing their home. Compounding the present state of affairs, the family is also coping with the recent loss of Michael Banks’ wife and mother of their three children. With help from the family’s longtime maid/cook Ellen and Michael’s sister Jane, the family hopes for the best while planning for the worst. With only five days until the house is repossessed, Michael remembers that his father left him shares of that infamous bank from his childhood; but when certificates of shares in the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank turn out to be missing, all hope seems lost until Michael, his children, and Jane get the surprise of a lifetime. Mary Poppins returns! Michael and Jane’s beloved nanny from their childhood returns to look after the family during this crisis. In true Mary Poppins fashion and accompanied by the lamplighter Jack, she whisks Michael’s children into a fun-filled adventure through the streets of London and into a world of imagination.

At the bedrock of the original are these lessons that must be learned. In many ways, Mary Poppins was a teacher to both Jane, Michael, and George. Although the lessons varied by character, they had one common denominator: life’s priorities. And there were no true villains–that is–evil or villainous out of malcontent or cruelty. And the songs had strong meaning, not just fun, creative lyrics to a show-stopping accompaniment. Furthermore, there was strong character development in the central characters. The character arcs of George and the kids were measurable. Even Mr. Dawes Sr. demonstrated measurable change. There are the elements of substance that make the original a timeless classic that transcends the decades and generations to remain a beloved film. Mary Poppins Returns fails to deliver any of these elements to the audience. Instead, chooses to get lost in the nostalgia of the original. Relying on the abstract of nostalgia to carry this remake-sequel.

While Michael’s lesson is clearly to learn to be a child again, his children learn the lesson to be quasi adults by teaching their father and working to solve the family’s financial crisis. Those two idea are in direct contradiction. Mary Poppins is no longer acting like a teacher but she seems more concerned with being an actual nanny moreso than the governess that was the original. If the lesson to be learned was to have the imagination or hope of a child, then that should have been taught, not two different lessons in direct contrast. George Banks may have been had his priorities in the wrong place, but he was not evil, nor was Mr. Dawes Sr. evil–he too had his priorities all askew. In Mary Poppins Returns, Colin Firth’s Mr. Wilkins is downright cruel for no reason other than simplistic greed. Simple motivators are a good place to start but should be developed to be more complex to add to the conflict. Firth’s character is completely uninteresting.

Talk about memorable songs in the original; I imagine you can recite most lyrics by memory, unlike this version with lyrics so convoluted and complex that they are largely forgettable. At the time of listening, the lyrics are poignant and work at the given emotional or plot beat, but then they are mostly forgotten. The songs in this one seem to exist only for the amusement of the audience. And the vaudeville number. Let’s talk about that for a moment. For starters, I love Mary’s wig that she borrowed from Catherine Zeta Jone’s Chicago costume. The music and lyrics in that number were incredibly entertaining–but–these same lyrics are quite risque in places. I was shocked that they were in a movie aimed at kids (despite the PG rating). And comparing the songs from the original to the ones in this version, each and every song in Mary Poppins Returns sounds similar AND comes at precisely the same beat as they did in the original. Each and every song in this one is an answer to the counterpart in the original. With one conspicuous exception, there is no equivalent for the Sister Suffragette. With Jane’s heavy involvement in workers’ rights (much like her mother’s women’s rights), it seems odd that she was not given a song since were were giving everyone else songs equivalent to the original. Yes, I am aware that Sister Suffragette is not in the Broadway musical, but it should have had a place in Mary Poppins Returns.

Structurally, the first two acts are all over the place. Fortunately, the film finishes with a strong third act. Everything seems so forced, rushed. Pacing matched the original. It’s as if the emotional beats and plot points from the original were mapped out and a “new” story was conformed to fit the old diegesis. There are even moments that can be completely removed from the story and not effect the outcome. For example, the entire Meryl Street scene has no impact on the realization of the narrative. Screenwriting 101 teaches us that each and every scene should point the audience toward the end–each scene should culminate in something important. Think of each scene as a paragraph in a larger story and each line of dialogue as a sentence in a larger paragraph. Each paragraph has a beginning, middle, and end; just like a story has a beginning, middle, and end. If a scene does not advance the plot, then it should be reworked or removed. We never revisit the cracked pot or truly embrace the idea of giving oneself a new perspective from which to view life. The song is fun, but that is all I can say about that scene. And there are other scenes in the movie that do little to advance the plot, but this is the most obvious one.

The movie is not without its entertainment value. If you are looking to escape reality for a couple of hours, then you are in the right place. You will be delighted with the whimsy and magic of this story. Perhaps the screenplay is poorly conceived, but everything else (from a technical perspective and performance perspective) works very well. If you enter the film with a heavy heart or some degree of sadness, the movie will help you forget your troubles for a moment and put a smile on your face and maybe even a tear or two in your eyes. Emily Blunt may not be a perfect Mary Poppins but she is practically perfect as the beloved nanny.

Ryan is a screenwriting professor at the University of Tampa. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

Thrillz (theme parks): Thrillz.co

“Instant Family” brief movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Surprisingly good! You’ll want to adopt this movie into your heart. Have you ever seen a trailer for a new theatrical release and just assumed it was another generic Hallmark or Lifetime movie making its debut on the big screen? That is precisely what I thought of Mark Wahlberg’s Instant Family. In fact, the only reason I watched it last night was because there wasn’t anything else (and I didn’t want to see the neutered Deadpool cash grab). But, I am glad that I decided to watch it! Not for reasons that it’s a “great film,” but because it was a heartwarming, inspirational story told effectively! There is a refreshing unapologetic approach to familial conflict that holds nothing back. It’s a no-holds-barred dramedy that addresses the mountains and valleys of fostering/adoption, specifically sibling fostering/adoption. If I was to liken this movie to one that we are largely familiar with, I would compare it to Parenthood, but one that is for the 21st century and concerns itself with the foster system. The movie, through the trailers, sets itself up to be an over-the-top comedy, but it was far from being a farce or slapstick comedy. When Instant Family comes from the same director of Daddy’s Home and Daddy’s Home 2, you already have preconceived notions of what the experience of this movie is going to be. Fortunately for audiences, this movie is far from the former two. And why is that? The short answer is that there is a sort of flawed humanity underscoring everything. No pretense about any of the characters. If you’re looking for authenticity, a realness about true-to-life characters, situations, and conflict, then you will definitely want to catch Instant Family.

When Pete and Ellie decide to start a family, they stumble into the world of foster care adoption. They hope to take in one small child, but when they meet three siblings, including a rebellious 15-year-old girl, they find themselves speeding from zero to three kids overnight. Now, Pete and Ellie must try to learn the ropes of instant parenthood in the hope of becoming a family. (IMDb)

While there is a lot of satire in the movie, there is never a moment that you lose your empathy for Pete and Ellie. They come from families that could very well be your own, with all the jabs, competition, and patronization that comes along with them. Even the adoption center and fair scenes, there are elements of the conversations and experiences that may be exaggerated for comedic purposes, but they are all still very much grounded in reality. Pete and Ellie are extremely eager to do a good job, and even employ some of the same approaches they use for flipping houses, but in stead use them to flip people. Some of the irreverent jokes are hilarious! There is one about rebranding foster children as rescue children like the pound for animals was rebranded rescue. The movie also takes audiences behind the faces at the adoption center to reveal the tragic, hard lives that the children and teens come from. Truly highlights the importance of looking at becoming a foster or adoptive family in order to give a child a nice home. Beyond the social commentary on the adoption and foster system, there is also a lesson to be learned that can apply to any number of areas of our lives. Such as knowing precisely why you want to do something, not just the fact you feel it’s what is supposed to be done. The movie will hit you with thought-provoking moments that will force you to face what you think of foster kids and the foster system. I also appreciate the movie for depicting difference kinds of parents–quite the modern bunch! So much diversity is represented, and each prospective parent(s) is inspired by ones encountered by the writer-director Sean Anders’ own journey as he and his wife adopted three siblings.

This is a shorter review because I am getting busy with the end of the semester, but I wanted to provide some brief thoughts on it anyhow. After this week, I’ll be back to my regular article entries.

Ryan is a screenwriting professor at the University of Tampa. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog!

Follow him!

Twitter: RLTerry1

Instagram: RL_Terry

Thrillz (theme parks): Thrillz.co