IT Chapter Two (2019)

It Chapter Two (2019)

Director: Andy Muschietti 

Cast: Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy, Bill Hader, Bill Skarsgard, Finn Wolfhard, Sophia Lillis

The rule of thumb for sequels to a highly successful film is that the second one will be bigger, louder and more ‘in your face’ than the first film and trust me, It Chapter Two definitely does this. This sequel to Andy Muschietti’s adaptation of Stephen Kings IT is all that and then some. It certainly is longer! Strap yourself tight because this carnival of horrors is 11 minutes shy of being a three hour movie! A little too much for some viewers, I know. I saw a couple of people leaving the theater even before the film was totally over. But for those of you who want their movies to go on forever, because you just LOVE a good movie, well, you’re in for a treat. 

It Chapter Two picks up 27 years after the first one, with ‘The Losers’ all grown up, each living their own separate lives. One is a writer, one is an entrepreneur, one is a comedian and so forth and they’ve all forgotten the horrifying events they lived through together when they were kids. And that’s the way they want to keep the past, forgotten. But when the evil clown known as ‘Pennywise’ begins to kill again, it’s up to ‘The Losers’ to reunite and take on the monster, one final time. Will they have the guts to face their fears and slay the beast? 

 I thought I’d get a bit bored with this movie, because I’d seen the original one a million times, but as it turns out this remake has so many new elements to it, I was actually thoroughly entertained. The good part about this is that you can watch both versions of ‘It’ and you’ll have original moments occur in each. Basically, every major scare sequence has been altered, replaced or enhanced in one way or another by new monsters and nightmares, which is great. In my opinion, that’s what makes a good remake. A film that retains the essence of the original, while still giving us enough new material so that we won’t get bored. So don’t expect that creepy shower sequence you love so much from the original, it’s been replaced with some new creepiness. Yet not all is changed, the film successfully retained that feeling of true friendship and love that is such an essential part of IT and of many of Stephen King’s novels. King loves to tell stories that have that ‘gee whiz aint it fun to be a kid’ vibe to them. The clubhouse, the riding the bikes through the woods, the blood pact and the idea that our childhood friends will remain our friends forever and ever. It Chapter Two felt a lot like King’s Stand by Me…if you mashed it up with A Nightmare on Elm Street. Doesn’t that sound enticing? 

Andy Muschietti makes the film very much his own by adding those creepy cartoony creatures he infused into his horror film, Mama (2013). Remember that one? The one about the creepy entity who decides to raise a couple of orphaned girls? Creepy visuals indeed, but on IT he takes those creepy visuals up to a thousand. Loved the creatures on this one! Don’t expect anything “realistic”, after all, this film is filled with dark fantastic elements like aliens, evil clowns and giant soul sucking spiders. So, if you like your creepy, EC comics style creatures and monsters, you should have tons of fun with this one. A note about the effects, I personally really dug the visual effects aspect of the whole thing, while some people seem to be bothered by the cartoony nature of some of the effects, I personally thought they were effective when taking in consideration the tone of the film. 

Another thing I loved about It Chapter Two was the huge homage it is to the 80’s. I know going back to the 80’s has always been cool (tell me about it I LIVED through them) and some might feel that doing this on any film is old hat, but honestly, I loved the homages to the decadent era. A Thundercats t-shirt, a poster for The Lost Boys, a Street Fighter Arcade machine and A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: The Dream Child (1989) on a cinema marquee were some of the homages I caught. But trust me, there are many more little homages spread through-out the entire film, one amazing one goes to John Carpenter’s The Thing (1982), but I won’t tell you how that one unfolds. So be on the lookout for those!

The film does have a lot of levity to it, this has bothered some hardcore horror fans. But we have to remember that horror and comedy have always gone hand in hand. Remember An American Werewolf in London (1981)? How about Ghostbusters (1984)? Fright Night (1985)? Creepshow (1982)? All scary/fun movies. Remember, with the exception of hardcore horror fans who love true blue hardcore horror, the general population probably can’t take too much of the gory red stuff. Plus, this is a big budget horror film, producers want to make their money back and one way of doing this is by having the general population have a little fun with their scares. I mean, it’s not in every movie that three children get slaughtered in graphic ways. Producers know this, so they alleviate the tension with a little levity. Case in point, Bill Hader as Richie. Though if we get right down to it, the character of Richie was always the funny one in the novel as well as the original film. So, we can’t really complain that Richie is always saying jokes, that’s just the way the character was written. On top of all that, Hader is hilarious on It: Chapter Two, a very welcome addition to the film if you ask me. Hader, as far as I can tell, is a comedic star in the making. I got a feeling Hader is gonna be way bigger in the near future. 

Word of advice, go to the bathroom before the movie starts and don’t order the large soft drink or else you’ll be getting up half way through the movie and miss something. I say Muschietti will be making lots of movies in the near future, It Chapter Two has already made close to 100 million domestically, so it is a surefire hit. I’m just hoping that the Thundercats t-shirt in the film means that Muschietti is actually considering bringing the Thundercats to the big screen. Wouldn’t that be something? A Thundercats film is a surefire hit waiting to happen. I just can’t believe some producer hasn’t picked this one up yet! Everybody and their mother is waiting for that movie to get made. Well, at least those of us who grew up during the 80’s! So anyhow, bottom line with IT Chapter Two is that it’s a long film, sure, but a scary, creepy ride worth taking. 

Rating: 5 out of 5 

The BFG (2016)

The BFG (2016)

Director: Steven Spielberg

Cast: Mark Rylance, Ruby Barnhill, Penelope Wilton, Rebecca Hall, Bill Hader

The BFG is Steven Spielberg’s first official box office flop, which is a rare thing because ever since he kicked off Summer Blockbusters back in 1975 with the creation of Jaws (1975), he’s been on the good side of box office success for most of his career. Even his bad ones make money, just look at the disastrous Indiana Jones sequel, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) or Spielberg’s failed attempt at a war comedy, 1941 (1979) both made their money back even though they stunk. So The BFG (2016) is a landmark movie for Spielberg, but only because its his biggest failure. Yet, did it deserve to fail? Is it a stinker? We’ve seen Spielberg half-ass a movie haven’t we? Just the other day I was watching The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) and realized how truly lame it actually is. Sure it’s got gee whiz special effects, double the dinosaurs (oh wow, two T-REX’s!) and lot’s of action, but at its core, the tepid script doesn’t even compare to Jurassic Park (1993) in terms of overall quality, there was no meat with those potatoes, dare I say no heart! But we forgive Spielberg because then he turns around and makes another great film and well, we forget all about his last bad one. But is The BFG one of his bad ones? Was Spielberg half-assing it with The BFG? Why did it tank so spectacularly at the box office?

The BFG is all about this little girl called Sophie who resides at an orphanage in London. She likes to stay up late at night reading, organizing the mail and doing all sorts of things while everybody is sound asleep. She’s a night owl. On one of these late nights, she sees a giant walking through the fog filled streets of her sleepy London town. Realizing he’s been seen, the giant snatches Sophie and takes her with him to the “Land of the Giants”. While at first Sophie is scared, she soon befriends the big friendly giant. Together they go on dream catching adventures. Sadly, there are other giants who are bullies and want to eat Sophies and all the little boys and girls in London. Sophie and The BFG must devise a way to stop their cannibal ways. Can Sophie and her Giant find a way to stop them?

The BFG is based on Roald Dahl’s book of the same name. Dahl was also the author behind such children’s classics as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, James and the Giant Peach, Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Witches and Matilda, all of which have also been adapted to films. So just to make thinks clear here, this film is based on the book of a beloved author, directed by one of the greatest directors of all time and produced by Disney the most successful movie studio at the moment. So why did it flop? I was curious about this myself, the trailers made the film look magical, and truth be told it is. It’s a fairy tale that involves giants, the origin of dreams and true friendship. It felt like a mix between Peter Pan and  Jack and the Beanstalk. So, with all these good things going for it, why the failure? I guess the only true reason I can think of is that it’s not all that exciting. Sure not every movie has to be action packed. In my book, there’s also space for films that are quieter in nature, films that slow things down, that feel like someone is whispering a story under the covers of your bed in the middle of the night. The problem is that today’s audiences are so jaded, so used to superheroes smashing buildings in half, that when a film comes along about a gentle, friendly giant, an old man who weaves our dreams together, then it’s considered too slow. Then the films target audience tunes out. And it’s true, this is a slow paced film, but it’s my opinion that this is exactly what Spielberg was aiming for, a sleepy sort of fairy tale. So be ready for that kind of film.

What took me by surprise where the themes of the film. I had no idea that this movie was going to be all about belief, faith and God. Oh wait could the letters B.F.G. stand for the words belief, faith and God? Could I be stretching it? I don’t think so, the films themes are fairly obvious. This movie is quite similar to the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe books, they address issues of faith, they push the idea of believing in a magical, eternal being that’s watching over all of us, taking care of us, wishing goodness upon our lives. That this magical being is there even though we can’t see him, that all we have to do is “feel him” in our hearts. That all we have to do is take that magical leap of faith, blindly believing the notion and that if we do, then he will be there when we need him the most, when we are in pain, lonely or sad. Thankfully, Sophie is inquisitive. After all her name is Sophie, an allusion to philosophy which in itself means the search for knowledge which explains why Sophie likes to ask lots of questions to the giant, like how old he is. The giant tells her he’s an eternal, that he’s always existed, the biggest allusion to God in the entire film, which is why there’s no doubt in my  mind the giant in The BFG represents ‘God’.

I’ve always found the idea of God a fascinating one. Every society, every culture has their idea of God and to me that’s fascinating on its own. How no matter what country we are from or what society we grow up in, we all end up thinking that there’s something bigger than us, something more powerful. The idea that there’s an eternal, magical being watching over all of us is a comforting one and I understand why a lot of people choose to believe in it. I personally can’t blindly believe in something I’ve never seen. I can be open to the idea of it, or the possibility, but I can’t say ‘God’ exists because there’s no way of proving it. Which is why it rubs me the wrong way when this type of idea is reinforced, especially in children’s films, as if they’re trying to incept these notions early in childhood.  At one point Sophie jumps of a balcony because she “feels” the giant and “knows” he will be there to rescue her. Of course the giant appears and saves her, but in real life, it would be another story. No magical giant is going to come out of nowhere and save you, in real life you have to save yourself. In real life you jump of a balcony, you’ll end up as a big grease spot on the pavement. The point the movie is trying to make is you have to take that leap of faith and believe in God. You have to believe he’ll be there to save you.  “I do believe in fairies, I do, I do” comes to mind for some reason, yet fairies are a fantasy, same as this movie. The reason I dissect these themes is not because I’m nitpicking, it’s because movies are about us. Same as books or songs, they always have something to say about human nature.

But anyway, theological themes aside, I still managed to enjoy the film because it can be interpreted in other ways as well. Maybe that magical being watching over Sophie represents an adult, your father, your mother, or whoever chooses to take care you and guide you through life. I chose to see the film this way. Sophie is an orphan, and The BFG chooses to bring some goodness into her life, he felt her loneliness and her need and chose to be a friend to her, the father that she never had, a step father of sorts and though step fathers and mothers are often times vilified in films and books, a lot of times they can be more of a father and a mother then the biological one. So that’s another way to see the film. Ultimately, I think this movie was actually rather sweet. Basically, an old man and a little girl find a way to connect, to become friends in spite of generational barriers. They learn to appreciate each other past  generational gaps. The old have a lot to learn from the old, and vice versa, so that’s another level on which the film works.

Technically speaking, the film is amazing, the special effects flawless. The giants look truly gigantic. Spielberg here once again demonstrates his uncanny ability to work with children. Ruby Barnhill does an amazing job here playing Sophie, she comes off as an intelligent child, who likes to read and use her head to come up with solutions for any given situation. The problem with the film is that though Spielberg works great with children and has made some wonderful children’s movies like Hook (1991) and E.T. The Extraterrestrial (1982), I think The BFG is a tough pill for kids to swallow in terms of pacing; many children will undoubtedly find it “boring”. I was watching it in a theater filled with about 10 people and this woman kept telling her boyfriend she wanted to leave because she couldn’t understand what was happening on screen. That she was bored and this was a grown woman! She was pleading to her boyfriend to leave the theater! They did about half way through. I guess your enjoyment of this film will depend on your attention span. If it has a short fuse, you’ll probably walk. If on the other hand you have patience and can take a shorter paced film, you’ll probably stay and enjoy it. 

Rating: 4 out of  5

Paul (2011)

Title: Paul (2011)

Director: Greg Mottola

Cast: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Seth Rogen (voice), Kristen Wiig, Sigourney Weaver, Jason Bateman, Bill Hader

Writers: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost

Review:

Paul is a film that has its main characters running away from religious fanatics and the government through out the whole film; so right from the start the film got off on a good foot for me. It is a film that comes to us from the mind of Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, two British comedians whom we’ve seen working together before in films like Shaun of the Dead (2004) and Hot Fuzz (2007), hell, if we go even further back in their careers, they’ve been working together since ‘Spaced’ their British sci-fi sitcom. The success of their collaborations has assured us that we will be seeing a lot more of this comedic duo in the future. Up to now, the films that Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have appeared on had all been directed by Edgar Right (Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World) but Paul marks a departure from that norm, it was directed by one Greg Mottola, a director who is better known as the guy who brought us Superbad (2007) and the nostalgic homage to the 80’s Adventureland (2009). Paul is also a homage, but it’s a homage to science fiction films and geeks in general. It’s that kind of movie that attempts to capture what it is to be a man child/geekazoid. But aside from that, it also addresses one of the most controversial themes in history: religion, and what a bunch of baloney it is.

The film starts out with its two main characters Graeme (Pegg) and Clive (Frost). These two British guys have come to the United States to attend their beloved Comic Con, the world renowned comic book convention of legendary proportions. For those of you not in the know, Comic Con is the grand hoo ha for comic book geeks. It’s a gathering of science fiction and fantasy fans from around the world. It’s the one place where its 100% okay to let your geek flag fly high and proud. It’s the kind of place where you are liable to see Bruce Campbell and pay 20$ for a picture with him. So anyhow, as part of their trip, Graeme and Clive also plan on visiting a couple of sites that are considered important amongst UFO enthusiasts. One of these sites being the ever mysterious AREA 51. On their way there they stumble upon Paul, an actual alien who’s been imprisoned in AREA 51 ever since he crash landed on earth many years ago. But now, Paul has escaped AREA 51 and wants to go back to his home planet, and he wants Graeme and Clive to take him to the rendezvous point where he will be picked up by his alien buddies. Unfortunately, everyone is after Paul; even the F.B.I.!

What I loved the most about this movie was how blatantly anti-religious it is. It is not afraid to speak its mind and say its piece when it comes to its views on religion. In one scene, Paul the Alien reveals himself to Ruth a Christian girl. A girl who’s been raised by her religious fanatic of a dad her whole life. She starts the film out by saying things like “The world is 4,000 years old and can only be the product of intelligent design”, but as the film progresses Paul, Clive and Graeme make her see the light. You see, Paul has this ability to get into your mind and show you the “truths of the universe”. All he has to do is touch your forehead with his hand and in a flash of light it becomes clear that everything you believed to be true suddenly isn’t. It was all a bunch of horseshit. Religion isn’t even close to the truth of how things really are and sin was never a real thing. So suddenly, Ruth starts cursing like a sailor and wants to fornicate as much as she can and she even partakes in a bit of weed smoking. In other words, she’s finally learning to cut loose. After her ‘enlightenment’ when the guys ask Ruth if she’s hungry she replies with “You bet your big fat cock I am!” That whole angle of turning a Christian into a non-believer was interesting and made for some funny moments, made all the funnier because that’s exactly what happens when a Christian stops being a Christian. Suddenly, it’s a whole new world out there and it takes a while to get used to it.

The symbolisms in the film where interesting, for example when we first meet her, Ruth the Christian girl is blind from one eye. This is a symbol for her limited view of life due to her religious fanatism, but when Paul literally cures/restores her eyesight and shows her the truths about life, it is then that she is no longer blind in more ways then one. Now she is seeing the world with both of her eyes, religion and it’s often times unrealistic views of the world no longer blind her. She is free from the chains that held her. But as we soon discover her fanatical dad won’t let her be, and so she is chased through the whole movie by her dad who thinks that Paul is a demon that has kidnapped his daughter. This whole thing with her father bringing her up in religion and basically forcing her to see things the way he does is a comment on how many times, what we end up believing comes as a direct result of what our parents believe in. And sometimes, what our parents believe in isn’t necessarily the truth. Think about it, would you believe what you believe if your parents had not taught you those believes from childhood? So these are the themes this film plays with. Heavy stuff for a sci-fi comedy, but hey I applaud it for that, its not every day that a commercial film dares to address religious themes. Hell, this movie is so ballsy that it turns Paul into a Christ figure that can heal wounds, and bring back the dead. Kind of like E.T. did back in the day, when he had a penchant for resuscitating dead flowers.

But aside from the films anti-religious views it is also an extremely fun science fiction comedy. I would include it along side films like Galaxy Quest (1999), a comedy that totally got what Geeks are all about and what makes them laugh. Same can be said about Paul. The dialog is constantly referencing sci-fi movies, mainly films by Spielberg and George Lucas. When Paul asks Clive about the last time he got laid Clive replies “Collectormania, London ’08. Ewok chick. She was ‘Furry’ Nice!” Ha! Hilarious! This is the kind of comedy that Fanboys (2008) tried to be but failed for some reason, not so with Paul. It makes jokes of all those cliché’s we expect from alien movies, like aliens performing anal probes on humans, to which Paul replies “Why does everyone always assume that? What am I doing? Harvesting Farts? How much can I learn from an ass?” As I said, if you are a geek, you will most certainly laugh.

The film also visually references E.T. and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. You’ll see some scenes in Paul that will bring back scenes from both of these films, I mean, literally copy pasted certain moments from both of these films. Basically, they are kissing Spielbergs ass with this movie. So much so that the man himself makes a cameo in a flashback in which Paul is giving him the plot outline for E.T! I’d say that Paul is a funny dirtier version of E.T. It plays with the same basic storyline about an alien crashlanding on earth and how the government will stop at nothing to capture the fugitive alien in order to study and dissect its brain. Not surprisingly, the film ends with the proverbial aliens coming to pick up their stranded buddy. Nothing groundbreaking there in terms of plot, the only difference between the two films is all the dirty jokes, the foul mouthed dialog and the anti-religious themes. Imagine E.T. smoking weed and making anal probe jokes and you’ll get an idea of what to expect from Paul. So anyways, this was a fun time at the movies, laughed all the way.

Rating: 4 out of 5