Tag Archives: review

WICKED movie musical review

Posted on by
Reply

By Kurt Feigelis

“A true cinematic spectacle!”

Dear Journal,

It’s been so long since we talked it honestly feels like the first time. Well it happened the Wicked movie finally came out–well partly. I was lucky enough to attend the Press Screening in Tampa. The beloved musical from Broadway has been turned into a film (or more correctly two film installments), and everything leading up to this movie makes you think it wouldn’t work. But surprisingly it did.

I know you know the show, but just in case you forgot. This is the story of the Witches of Oz, of The Wizard of Oz, and boy did a lot happen before Dorothy dropped in. It follows Elphaba (Cynthia Erivo), while at Shiz University and her inevitable journey in becoming the Wicked Witch of the West. Alongside her roommate Glinda (Ariana Grande), an unlikely friendship grows. The themes of being an outsider and yearning to belong rings true in this adaptation. 

Everything leading up to this release makes you think that it should not have worked. Split into two films, Part 1 is too long, the cast has “too many stars”, and has been in development hell for over a decade. Rumors of a movie have been online for about as long as the musical has been on Broadway. Cast rumors include everyone from the original Broadway Cast, to Lea Michele and Amy Adams. But the core of the team was the producers, some of the same names you will find from the original Broadway show, and I think that is why the film works. The rare exception where the producing team delaying the movie for the right cast and director worked. Maybe development hell isn’t always a bad thing.

Wicked Part 1 sings with the feel of classic cinema. I think that came down to the Direction of Jon M. Chu (Crazy Rich Asians, In the Heights). With a focus on real and large 360° sets, practical FX, live singing, and stunts. There is this feeling of realism to this fantastical world. The attention to detail and to do as much on camera as possible captures a live energy most movie musicals do not. Chu has a history of work in music videos, musical films, and large ensemble casts. This properly prepared him for this piece. 

Erivo is just wonderful as Elphaba. This roll is so well known with productions of the show playing all over the world in six different languages. But this is what the magic of what film does. In the theatre you got to play big, to the back of the house. Here, she is able to play it small, the little moments and movements play big for the screen. You get a closer connection to Elphaba you cannot get from the stage.  

Grande shines as well, and you know me, this was the role I was most concerned about. Grande is a very talented performer but many times it is Ariana Grande singing, when she is acting it’s always Ariana, not her character. I am happy to say she truly disappears into Glinda, the (very) Good Witch of the North. This is a testament to her work with vocal and acting coaches she started using even before she auditioned for the part. The comedic role is so often overlooked, but Grande brings something deep to Glinda in this adaptation. Erivo and Grande together, their friendship, is the heart of the movie. The rest of the supporting cast are as wonderful as you would expect with the names listed. There honestly wasn’t a surprise there. 

The musical numbers are pure entertainment. Usually in a movie musical the song and dance just doesn’t seem natural but Wicked does it right. The songs are already well know but they are modified and changed just enough to make them truly cinematic. The Wizard and I, Popular, Dancing Through Life, and the film’s finale Defying Gravity are highlights for sure. 

If you want to nitpick some issues, the sound mixing was unbalanced throughout the movie. Between some of the musical numbers and dialogue scenes, there is an inconsistency. I don’t know if it was the theatre I was in, or the film itself. But, I feel it was the film. There are times when the score is overpowering the vocals. A film this long is always a bit intimidating, especially when trying to bring in a new audience.   But somehow the pacing works. The film doesn’t feel long while watching it. The extra moments with the characters and being brought into this world is much needed. There was not much added into this half of the story. But when transitioning from the stage to the screen. We need extra time for the camera to bring us into the world, to sit and connect to the characters. That is the reason for the additional time. Like Kill Bill, it feels more organic than forced or a money grab like other movies that get split into two.

Live musicals and Broadway adaptations are still a hard sell for audiences, even more so after Joker 2. I think the movie will do well, but with Gladiator II and Moana 2, there is stiff competition, Universal knows this which is why they upped the release date. It feels as though if a movie doesn’t make $1 Billion, it’s not a success to producers or the zeitgeist. Wicked Part 1 will do well with those who love the musical already, but I don’t know if new audiences will be pulled into this one. Which is a shame because it is a good film on its own. I’m curious what newcomers will say about the story and its quirkiness. 

The fandom of Wicked have been talking rumors for over ten years for this film. Then picking apart every visual and audio clip, still, and poster leading up to the premier. Sometimes the fandom does a disservice to what they love. Because of this I think the studio is nervous about the movie, releasing multiple interviews, behind the scenes and clips of the movie online leading up the premier. But out of context these clips are splitting its audience already familiar with the show. The reality is, the film does work. But remember this an adaptation not a remake or recreation of the stage show. Cinema has the power to expand the storytelling and that is what Wicked Part 1 is doing here.

Journal, in the end we need to remember what this movie is. It is the long awaited film adaption of a beloved Broadway Musical. To those that have seen the show I think they will love this movie without taking anything away from what they can see on stage. For a new audience, I think like Chicago, this will breathe new life into an existing phenomenon. People familiar with the show and The Wizard of Oz will see homages to both throughout the film. 

Part 2 comes out sometime in 2025, probably in November as well. We don’t know the run time of the follow up, or any details at all really, but until then we have this film to enjoy. What comes next is all the speculation, rumors and judgments for Part 2 that we had with Part 1. There is something about judging something or someone before getting to know it (or see it) that is unsettling given the story we are all here for. I think Elphaba might have something to say to us about this, but she wouldn’t be surprised.

You’re Movie Buddy,
Kurt Feigelis
R.L. Terry ReelView contributor

THE BEST CHRISTMAS PAGEANT EVER movie review

Posted on by
Reply

A heartwarming reminder of the importance of community. The movie also delivers a thoughtful critique of misplaced values. Based on the beloved 1971 children’s novel by Barbara Robinson, this big screen adaptation is a solid way to kick off the holiday season with a Christmas movie that is sure to fall into the annual movie rotations for many. Although the screenwriting demonstrably lacks refinement, there is still much to like about the movie. After a rocky first act, the movie finds its tone, despite the rough dialogue and poor pacing. Over all, it is an enjoyable movie that I will likely watch again before the Christmas season is over.

The Herdmans are six siblings who have a reputation for being the worst kids in the world. However, when they take over the local church Christmas pageant, they just might teach a shocked community the true meaning of Christmas.

Tonally, this movie falls somewhere between A Charlie Brown Christmas and A Christmas Story. While this movie may not have the same degree of memorable scenes that will find their way into the cultural zeitgeist, there are moments of hilarity and thoughtful poignancy. The movie shies not away from spotlighting the various prejudices and classism that permeate every town, particularly small towns and even amongst the imperfect people that makeup a church, but also uses the various social dynamics, at play, in the film to show how we can change for the better–after all, this is a redemption story. But it’s not a redemption story in the way we have seen in the past, with characters like Scrooge; rather, this is a redemption story about characters that talk the talk, but struggle to walk the walk. Moreover, this redemption story also follows those that are angry with the world and take out that anger and resentment on those around them. All around, this movie is full of imperfect people across the spectrum that need a wakeup call.

The movie works best when it leans into naturalism, but occasionally falters or feels uneven when it tries to strike a balance between typical faith-based movies and more mainstream ones. Some of the characters and conflicts feel like relatable albeit exaggerated versions of real life, while others feel incredibly forced and unnatural. From what I can remember, the Herdmans are more–how shall I say–earthy and raw in the book than in this film adaptation. And while we get glimpses of this, it would’ve been nice to have witnessed more of their behavioral aberrations to drive home how different they were perceived to be from their community. It’s here where we witness that Dallas Jenkins may be a better producer than director.

Bringing her trademark blend of strength, vulnerability, and sense of humor is Judy Greer as Grace, our house mom that unwittingly takes on the biggest event in her small town. All around, the principle cast is solid with a few standout performances. Some of those standout performances are from Knylee Heiman as the manic and terrifying Gladys, Beatrice Schneider as the crass Imogene, and Lorelei Olivia Mote as the self-centered diva Alice. The characters that work best are those that demonstrate stylistic differences compared to the rest of the cast. In other words, it’s the character actors that stand out in this film–and for good reason–they are both funny and act as an exaggerated reflection of real life people. We each know of people in our own lives that feel like these move people. I feel that if more characters were given something to do by the screenplay or director, that the performative dimension would’ve been above average.

Thematically, the movie reminds us that family and community traditions (particularly at Christmastime) are an important part of the human experience; however, the movie continues the conversation by its provocative reminder that traditions devoid of love and flexibility can become a trap or even a monster. It’s not the tradition itself that is important; it’s the love and community building that is most important. The tradition is merely a vessel through which we can extend love to one another. Just like Charlie Brown and his friends are reminded that Christmas is about the birth of baby King in a nondescript manger in a lowly town and, by extension, the radical changes He will bring to the world through His birth, life, death, and resurrection, the townsfolk in Emmanuel (the town in the movie) are reminded that Jesus was born for everyone, including the Herdmans, “the worst kids in the world.” And that we should care more about one another than we do keeping traditions the same simply for the sake of tradition.

After watching the movie, I am inspired to go back a reread the book. I remember reading it as a kid, and I imagine perhaps other kids of the 70s, 80s, and 90s remember reading the book as well.

Ryan taught Film Studies and Screenwriting at the University of Tampa for over eight years and has a book releasing next year titled Monsters, Madness, and Mayhem: Why People Love Horror. Recently, he has taken over 90.7 WKGC NPR in Panama City, and will be launching a film talk show soon. Additionally, he is a member of the Critics Association of Central Florida and Indie Film Critics of America. If you like this article, check out the others and FOLLOW this blog! Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

THE WILD ROBOT movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Wildly heartfelt and uplifting! Universal and DreamWorks Animation’s The Wild Robot is among the best films of the year, period. Director Chris Sanders delivers a truly compelling and smartly written fish-out-of-water story about found family and being more than the sum of our parts–or programming. Easily on track to make my Top 10 Films of the Year list. Based on the book by the same name, DreamWorks Animation hits a homerun with this outstanding animated motion picture that will challenge you, thrill you, and tug at your heartstrings.

Shipwrecked on a deserted island, a robot named Roz must learn to adapt to its new surroundings. Building relationships with the native animals, Roz soon develops a parental bond with an orphaned gosling.

I’ll admit it up front, I cried. It really is such a beautiful animated motion picture that likely rocketed its way into my best films of the year list. Not since The Iron Giant have we had an animated motion picture with such gravitas. While I still feel that 2016’s Kubo and the Two Strings remains the best animated motion picture in the last ten years, I must say that The Wild Robot is solidly my No.2 pick. The strength of this picture is in the compelling story, relatable characters, and efficient plotting (sometimes a little too efficient). My only real negative criticism of the film is the pacing in the first act; while refreshingly lean, some scenes and sequences needed a little more room to develop and breathe. Even though The Wild Robot shares little in common with The Iron Giant‘s plot, it shares Iron Giant‘s heart and soul.

Fish-out-of-water premises have been a staple of cinema for nearly as long as films have been around. So the real challenge for writers and directors is to find original ways of expressing these foundational ideas. And what is precisely what we have in this film. There are actually three fish-out-of-water narratives within the film, and the film is better for them because each of these layers adds personal and interpersonal complexities to character relationships with the world in which they finds themselves and amongst each other. The films provides thoughtful commentary on what it is like to both be in a world that is unfamiliar and have unfamiliar tasks thrust upon oneself.

Furthermore, this film depicts the importance of adapting to one’s environment and overcoming obstacles, even those that are innate. I also appreciate what the film has to say about self-determination and taking personal responsibility for one’s circumstances and one’s mistakes. Fish-out-of-water stories are some of the most relatable, because we have all been placed in an unfamiliar environment, and know how that can feel. It’s a terrifying prospect to be dropped into a world that is alien to us, and the film does not shy away from the challenges, joys, and even the tragedies that can befall us.

Another narrative area of strength in the film is challenging us not to quickly pass judgment on that fish-out-of-water when they find themselves in your world. Or to presume that one’s past behavior is always an indication of how that person (or animal, as it were) will always behave. Yes, past behavior can indicate predisposition to moral and ethical aberrations, but that does not mean that redemption is not to be considered a possibility. I love how the film paints a portrait that we can change, if we have the will and support to do so. It rarely comes naturally, we have to work at it. We have to work at overcoming natural behaviors that may not be constructive and ultimately selfish. We are more than the sum of our parts–or our programming.

To a lesser extent, there is come social commentary on the relationships between the work place and the employee and even cultures that decry the individual in exchange for group think. Without getting into spoilers, the film depicts imagery of how some, if not many, companies treat and feel about their employees. How a company does not view the employee as an individual; rather, as a means to an end, just another cog in the machine that will be disciplined for any individuality or unique expression. But not before the company assimilates the knowledge of that employee, particularly those that do think outside the box. Difference will not be tolerated. That is the feeling of many companies and even governmental systems. The film challenges these ideas by showing cooperation between diverse groups, even groups that are naturally enemies. Furthermore, the film demonstrates how differences can be overcome or even set to the side in order to serve, protect, and survive.

Lastly I’d be remiss not to touch on the global idea of the film, which is the concept of found family. Throughout the entire film there are images of the important role one’s found family fills in life. Found family is that family-like unit that may not be blood-related, but very much fill the same role as a more traditional family in one’s life. It’s a group of friends that have a relationship that goes beyond typical friendship, and includes family-like dynamics. Sometimes these are formed because someone feels rejected or neglected by their real family, and find family with a close group of friends. Other times, and I’d venture say most of the time, a found family can be formed out of the significant distance between you and your family of origin. So when in a new place because of school, work, or even military transfer, it’s important to form a strong bond with friends (or a friend’s family) to fill that important role even when separated from one’s family of origin. We are creatures that have an innate need for connection and companionship.

I cannot recommend The Wild Robot enough! Don’t miss seeing this incredible animated motion picture on the big screen.

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

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

SPEAK NO EVIL horror movie review

Posted on by
Reply

An entertaining and terrifying thrill ride. Blumhouse and Universal’s Speak No Evil, starring James McAvoy, excels in plotting and atmosphere but falters in character building and development. Based on the Danish film by the same name, director James Watkins’ version is a methodical and spellbinding descent from dream to nightmare. The highlight of the film is McAvoy’s completely manic performance that is simultaneously comedic and unsettling. Whilst Watkins attempts to bestow upon the high concept narrative thoughtful social commentary on image, isolation, and identity, the commentary is inconsistent and lacks the gravitas to truly be compelling or provocative.

A dream holiday turns into a living nightmare when an American couple and their daughter spend the weekend at a British family’s idyllic country estate.

That which is most personal is most relatable, and can be the most terrifying. And what can be more personal and relatable than the need for a relaxing vacation in the peaceful countryside? That is precisely where this decent into a nightmare begins. Speak No Evil may take its time (albeit justified) in setting up the conflict, but once that second act kicks into gear, it is a nonstop thrill ride into isolation and violation. Keep the cast small, the film is able to spend sufficient time in developing the plot and keeping with proper pacing for the tight storytelling. From the very beginning, the piping is laid for everything that audiences will encounter in the second and third acts, with every shot, scene, and sequence pointing towards the shocking conclusion.

Violence on screen is minimal; however, when it hits, it HITS. But that hit isn’t always visual; many times it is psychological in nature, which in many ways, is even more terrifying. Throughout this film, the terror on screen is transferred into the minds of the audience. Part of that is because of the degree of relatability in this story. Many of us have been on vacation in a new place or even moved to a new place unfamiliar to us–perhaps in or to another country–and we are often desperate for friendship or companionship of any kind in order to begin to feel more at home. Therefore, the setup of this film is one to which many of us can relate–and that’s what makes it particularly terrifying. The thought that we could unwittingly befriend a monster.

While the social commentary on isolation, identity, and image is inconsistent and weak, I appreciate what Watkins was trying to do; although, there is one aspect of the film that was screaming for a redemption arc that was so obviously squandered (and actually hurt the quality of the film). Speak No Evil depicts many expressions of isolation. Isolation from friends and family, isolation from the urban core, isolation within one’s family. And it’s this isolation that greatly heightens the level of suspense and terror.

Additionally, the film depicts the identities (or facades) that we project to the world when we are hiding something or feel insecure because we wield it like a sort of armor. Moreover, this identity can also harbor inconsistencies that lead to a lack of authenticity and meaningful motivation. Perhaps this identity is merely a facade that is intended to make others feel uncomfortable or to project an image that sets one apart simply out of fear of being found out as little more than keeping up with what’s trending on social media. Furthermore, the attempted commentary on image is depicted in a variety of ways throughout the film.

The weakness in the film is found in the character building and development. Not with all the characters, but enough that it mitigates the potential of the film to deliver a compelling story. Without getting into spoilers, I want to discuss where the film had an opportunity an an effective character redemption arc, but pandered to what’s presently trending in movies instead of providing a constructive character arc that would’ve benefitted the film by adding a since of compelling meaning. Strong characters are not strong because those around them are weak; to craft a strong character through that methodology makes for a weakened (and less compelling) character because ostensibly standards have been lowered.

Strong characters are at their strongest when other characters are strong, complete with dimension as well. There is a character in the movie that lost their job, and have been personally struggling with feelings of anger, inadequacy, and failure–that is completely relatable as it is very much a human response to losing ones income and livelihood. Where the film fails is setting this character up to overcome the feeling of failing their family and at life, but never doing anything with it, and merely reinforce weakness. I imagine this was done to make their counterpart appear stronger. But it amounts to lazy storytelling that reinforces negative imagery.

The character that is the most entertaining is James McAvoy’s Paddy. I cannot think of any other actor working today that could’ve brought this character to life nearly as well as McAvoy. In an otherwise par for the course performative dimension in the film, he brings a kinetic energy that draws audiences into the macabre, twisted tale. From the very beginning, we can tell that there is something a little off about his character, but never enough to know precisely where he stands. When he goes full-on manic mode, we are in for the ride because he makes us laugh and gasp in horror all at the same time.

Everything about this movie would make for a fantastic house at next year’s Halloween Horror Nights at Universal Orlando and Hollywood. The farmhouse at the center of the movie is a labyrinth and hints at a variation of the hillbilly horror aesthetic. I can see how this film’s characters and setting could adapt well to an HHN house, so I would not be surprised if we see this intellectual property featured at next year’s HHN.

Speak No Evil may lack dimension that could’ve made it a more compelling narrative than what we received; however, it’s still an entertaining thrill ride that will have you laughing and screaming. A solid popcorn horror movie that has some degree of rewatchability.

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

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry

BEETLEJUICE BEETLEJUICE movie review

Posted on by
Reply

Forgettable and messy. The long awaited and much anticipated sequel to the campy cult classic Beetlejuice is unfortunately an underwhelming return to the fantastical, whimsical universe of colorful and dynamic characters. I’m left asking myself, this is the story for which Burton has been waiting???

Three generations of the Deetz family return home to Winter River after an unexpected family tragedy. Still haunted by Beetlejuice, Lydia’s life soon gets turned upside down when her rebellious teenage daughter discovers a mysterious portal to the afterlife. When someone says Beetlejuice’s name three times, the mischievous demon gleefully returns to unleash his very own brand of mayhem.

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice is a disjoined mess of setup after setup, with little development or meaningful resolution. Even though it successfully channels some of the charm and macabre whimsy of the original, this one is missing something vital–heart. What is most painful to witness is that there is actually a good and even compelling story in there, but its’ buried beneath a garbage heap of subplots and characters that are little more than the equivalent of an NPC (video game-speak for non player character). While the screenplay is abysmal, the bright spots in the movie are Michael Keaton’s delightful reprisal of Beetlejuice, despite his reveal appearing too early in the story. Other highlights of the movie are the quintessentially Burton special makeup and practical effects, including miniatures and puppetry. And composer Danny Elfman lends his distinctive authorship to the score. For fans of the original, this one is likely going to disappoint, but perhaps for those that may be getting introduced to the world of Beetlejuice for the first time, will seek out the original campy classic. At the end of the day, it’s not all bad, but it’s far from good. At best, it’s sufficiently entertaining.

Before getting into what didn’t work, which is substantive, I’d be remiss not to spotlight what the movie did right. The big question, did Burton and Keaton revive ol’ Beetlejuice? And the answer is, yes. The character of Beetlejuice himself is the reason the movie has enjoyable moments and will keep you moderately entertained. Keaton delivers a Beetlejuice that makes you forget that he hasn’t played this character in nearly 40 years. For the most part, he captures the energy, wit, sarcasm, and offbeat charm of his original incarnation. Unfortunately, that cannot be said for the rest of the performative dimension. But more on that later.

Over all, the design of the movie harkens back to the Burton’s golden age in the 80s and 90s, except when he lays practical effects over CGI backgrounds or oscillates between both mechanical and digital in jarring ways. From beginning to end, movie magic is witnessed everywhere. Burton was committed to capturing the imagery of the original in both the costumes and set design, and by in large, he accomplished just that. This movie is a reminder that computers cannot replace the way real light bounces off real objects into the camera lens. The magic of motion pictures is a combination of tactile, chemical, performative, and lighting elements. Despite the Afterlife lacking true camp value, it was a successful return to the imaginative world created by Burton in the original movie.

Regrettably, the movie fails to deliver a compelling or even coherent story. It’s a disjoined mess of ideas that couldn’t have possibly made sense on paper, let alone on the screen. The first act moves along sluggishly, but picks up pacing in the second and third; however, very little (if anything of meaningful value) is developed or resolved that is setup in the first and second acts. There are literally entire characters that serve little to no purpose in the story. And, without getting into spoilers, there is a compelling plot that is excellently setup, but the development and resolution is so sloppy it just hurts the narrative all the more. Even a notable cameo is completely wasted as it bears little importance to the story. It’s hard to even call it a story because it’s lacking a plot, a central character, and a character of opposition; there isn’t even a real goal to be achieved. While the character of Beetlejuice is known for his chaotic behavior, the narrative need’t exhibited the same level of randomness and chaos as exhibited by our title character.

Speaking of characters, the reason that the performative dimension is sorely lacking any modicum of substance is because the characters are given nothing to do. There is little reason for anyone to be doing anything. Furthermore, the Delia and Lydia we get in the original are not the Delia and Lydia we witness in this movie, and Lydia’s daughter Astrid is simply not believable as an angsty teenager. With a little motivation and dimension, the characters would’ve likely been highly entertaining and compelling; but, they are lacking any dimension whatsoever.

Tonally, the movie is all over the place. All over the place except for the one place it needed to be. And that is camp. For a movie that should’ve eat, slept, breathed camp, it plays it too seriously and tonally inconsistent. Yes, there are what we would usually refer to as campy costumes and characters in the movie, but the context is lacking that camp aesthetic and sensibility, for which Burton is (or used to be) known. Contributing to the tone of the movie is the Elfman score that only feels like Elfman sometimes. It’s like a composer imitating Elfman. Yes, we get the classic Beetlejuice theme music, but other than that, I’d be hard -pressed to identify any other musical moments that felt like Elfman.

The movie does deliver some entertaining moments, but sadly they are few in number. When the movie works, it works! But it simply does not work sufficiently enough. Also, the lines “…strange and unusual” and “it’s showtime” are nowhere to be found. There was also a setup for a much-needed scathing critique on influencers and influencer culture, but that setup too wasn’t developed. So many great ideas that are completely disconnected.

Watch if you simply want to enjoy some movie magic and familiar characters, but don’t expect to be quoting this sequel like you do the original. I’ll leave you with this, the fact that Lydia’s TV show is titled “Ghost House” is a nice nod to the original title of Beetlejuice.

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

Follow him on Twitter: RLTerry1 and LetterBoxd: RLTerry