If you remember during my first few
days run with the 100 Day Video challenge, you would know that a lot of them
were vlogs of films that I had either seen a while back, or had just gotten out
of. And among them, was “Alien: Covenant.” As you could probably tell from
those first few vlogs, I didn’t exactly have enough time to let the film
properly soak in and come to a proper conclusion to it, but now that we’ve
entered the month of Halloween, it’s high time that I give the devil his due
and give a proper review to “Alien: Covenant.”
Now going back to 2012, you might
recall that I wasn’t a particular fan of the movie “Prometheus.” And from my
updated Worst of 2012 video, you could see that my opinion hasn’t really
changed much. I had hated just about every character, a lot of important plot
points were cut, making the film make less sense than it already did, and I
just found it unquestionably stupid, especially when it came to the fetus
scene. People have given out their defense for this movie, including Ridley
Scott, who had said that studio interference had messed with his vision, and
that his sequel to the film would have less studio control. As someone who
isn’t a fan of most of Scott’s work, I decided to be a little optimistic on
this one, but what we ended up with…well, let’s get to the plot.
In the 11 years since the events of
“Prometheus,” the colonization ship, the Covenant, sets a course for a planet
to expand humanity. When members of the crew awake prematurely, due to a
neutrino burst that signals to another planet nearby, the awakened crew decide
to investigate, but lead into some drastic trouble with another life form.
So with this being a sequel to
“Prometheus,” does it improve upon the last installment? Does it answer any
questions? Do the Xenomorphs serve a good purpose in this film? The answer:
none of the above. Granted, I wasn’t as mad with this film as I was with
“Prometheus,” but it is a technically worse movie. And despite having the
android, David (once again, played by Michael Fassbender), nothing is really
answered except what were he and Shaw doing the past many years.
Now from the first 20-30 minutes of
this film, I was actually kind of invested. Despite the little time we got to
know these characters, I found myself enjoying the setting and scenario quite
fine. I found myself especially enjoying Danny McBride’s character, despite the
fact that I normally don’t like him in other films…however, that doesn’t last
long enough to establish more than half of the cast, and by the time they
arrive on the planet, it loses my interest fast.
And
soon enough, “Alien: Covenant” turns this once beloved franchise, that had its
first two installments be praised as two of the best films ever made, ends up
becoming a slasher movie. One by one, people are killed off, and we barely know
a damn thing about them, except who their lover was…but even then, you forget
who used to be with who fairly quickly. The only characters that actually stand
out are Katherine Waterson, Danny McBride, and Michael Fassbender, with
everyone else just being a red-shirt or someone who we don’t give a shit about.
Even with some names like Damien Bichar and Billy Crudup, we hardly find
anything investing with them. Hell, even the cameo appearances by James Franco,
Guy Pearce, and Noomi Rapace as Dr. Shaw in “Prometheus,” they’re just there
for the sake of being there. Even with Michael Fassbender reprising the android
David, and playing the dual role as Walter the android, it doesn’t really
amount to anything. It’s just an excuse to go “Hey look what we can do with
this big time actor, in this sci-fi blockbuster, that used to have dignity.” Also,
don’t try to say you didn’t see that really obvious twist coming when you saw
David cutting his hair.
What
about the Xenomorphs? Are they at least fun to watch? No, not really. Even when
we are dealing with the albino ones, the Neomorphs, it just felt boring to
watch, especially when you have it going up against a bunch of bumbling idiots
that slip on blood like a “Tom & Jerry” cartoon. They don’t even explain
how they come into play, or how each variant is made. For a film that claims to
be made by one of sci-fi’s smartest filmmakers, he seems to leave a lot of
unanswered questions, opting to instead show Michael Fassbender playing with
himself (tell me, how could you not laugh at how dumb and pointless that scene
was).
Despite
this film getting praise from critics, garnering a 72% approval rating from
critics on Rotten Tomatoes, a lot of people have been incredibly upset about
this movie. Some have even put that the people who didn’t like “Prometheus”
were responsible for Ridley Scott giving us this tripe, because we wanted more
Xenomorphs…bullshit! I didn’t hate “Prometheus” because it didn’t have
Xenomorphs, I hated it because it had shitty characters, lackluster direction,
and an attitude that actually gave a shit about itself. Ridley Scott blamed
that movie on the studio interfering, but after this train wreck, I can now see
it’s because of him. Hell, I didn’t even WANT another “Alien” film! This series
hasn’t had a good film since 1986, and every film that has come after it has
been understandably worse than the last! Sure, “Alien: Resurrection” and the
first “Alien vs. Predator” were stupid fun, but that’s beside the point! There
was even a supposed “Alien” sequel that Neil Blomkamp was working on, that was
immediately shut down by Ridley Scott, in favor of this crap. Just let this
franchise die in peace!
Overall,
“Alien: Covenant,” aside from the first half hour of it, doesn’t have anything
worth revisiting again. The action’s boring, the characters are stock and
useless, the story is predictable beyond belief, and is just another kick in
the face to the franchise, as brought to us by the director who started it all.
If you think this is worse than “Prometheus,” I completely support that. But because
it had that half hour in the beginning, I give it that slight edge over
“Prometheus.”
Today, we’ll be talking about a
remake of a Joel Schumacher horror film that starred Kiefer
Sutherland, “Flatliners.” Now, I’ve never seen the original “Flatliners,” so I
have no perception of how that film is, and I’m only going to be judging this
remake on its own. And Yes, I said remake, not a sequel like they’re trying to
cover up.
“Flatliners” tells of a group of
medical students, doing an experiment called “flatlining,” where they’re
brought back after their heart stops for a minute or so. However, after they
each go through with the process, something spoopy this way comes.
So far from what I’ve seen, nobody
online seems to like this movie at all. And after seeing it for myself, I
completely understand why. “Flatliners” is one of the dullest, cheapest, and
most unnecessary remakes I have ever seen. And considering this was from the
director of the original Swedish version of “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,”
that’s really sad. For one, this film doesn’t feel like a movie; it feels more
like a “Flatliners” tv show on Fox…IN 2003!! Seriously, they have literal
scenes where you can tell it was rushed through production, especially with
Kiefer Sutherland’s scenes. By the way, he’s not reprising this character from
the first movie, these people lied to you. And a lot of the cinematography and
production value looks so basic that it feels like the film ITSELF was made by
college students, but even they would put more effort than this tripe.
This brings us into the writing,
which is some of the stalest and broken dialogue that I have ever heard. Granted,
I like the concept, and I do think there could have been some good potential
with it. Make it seem like what the trailers were advertising, making flatlining
a drug to them, and soon start going crazy, which gets Kiefer Sutherland
involved to connect both movies…but we don’t get that. Instead, we get scenes
that have dialogue such as “Why didn't you tell me there was a downside to
flatlining?” Maybe it’s because it’s called DYING, you stupid jackass!
Seriously, this was a script by Ben Ripley, who gave us “Source Code,” which
was brilliant…what…what happened here? Did they just use the first draft as the
main script? How desperate was Sony to shovel this out to theaters?
Okay, how are the performances?
Everyone looks so bored to be there, with the exception of Ellen Page who seems
to be doing her best to carry this train wreck. She does have the best
development and motivation for the experiment, she’s confident with proving her
discoveries true, and she does have some genuine laughs as well. It’s just a
shame they kill her off halfway through…no bullshit here, people. And after
Page is axed off, we’re left with Diego Luna and Nina Dobrev to try and find
something else worth of a story for the rest of the film. The only problem, is
that neither of them have interesting enough story to them, nor are they even
giving a shit about what kind of performance they give. Same for everyone else,
even Kiefer Sutherland who looks like he really wanted to go home in his scenes.
Now with this being a horror film,
or attempting to be one, how’s the direction? Uninspired. The jump scares in
this film are so by the numbers and formulaic that it’s not surprising when
they actually do pop up. There’s a scene in a boat home where one of the
characters is haunted by his past, and just he comes to, behind him is a
super-imposed image of what’s haunting him. How is that scary?! The editing
also feels very unorganized, because there’s a moment where that same guy is
stabbed in the hand on the docks, and then it cuts to him with the others with
a bandage on his hand. What?! Did the editor himself put this together
flatlining, because it looks like it!
Now, here’s where I’m going to talk about
the biggest complaint I have with this film, and it contains spoilers, so be
warned:
So
the trailers allude to some entity haunting the characters and kill them one by
one right? Well, it turns out it’s brain hallucinations, that tap into what you’re
the most guilty of in life, and the only way to get rid of them is to beg them
for forgiveness…and they’re never consistent on if they’re real or not…okay,
was this in the original film? Because if it was, then it’s at fault for that,
but…WHAT?! What world…?! Reality…?! Drugs…?! What was this supposed to signify?!
Okay, I’m wrapping up. Overall, “Flatliners”
is not only a horrible remake, but it’s a horrible remake that COULD have been
excellent. It had a great director, a talented writer, and a strong powerful
lead, that could have made this film work. And when you make a worse film than
Joel Schumacher, that’s not dignifying. Aside from the first act and Ellen Page
trying her best to carry it with little screen time she has, it just completely
flatlines on the audience; pun intended. And I’m not the only one; as I’m
writing this, Rotten Tomatoes has a 3% approval rating, based on 37 reviews, a
lower score than “The Emoji Movie.” Yikes. Is it the worst film of the year for
me? No. I’ve seen far worse this year alone…doesn’t excuse that this film is
shit though.
Rating: 2/10 (mostly for Ellen Page and the
first act being kind of interesting)
If there’s anyone that comes close to be considered our
modern day Edgar Allen Poe, it would be Stephen King. While throughout his time
he’s done dramatic novellas and others, most people know Stephen King for his
horror novels, some of which are not only some of the best horror stories ever
written, but some of the most influential works of literature known to man.
Last Halloween, I talked about my favorite of his books, “Carrie,” as well as
both adaptations that I love equally, but have expressed that the remake was
actually a lot better, despite what others tell me. And now that we’ve arrived
to this special occasion, it’s time for us to discuss one of the more infamous
of King’s work, “IT.”
For those who don’t know, the original 1986 novel, “IT,” told
the story of the Losers Club, who back during childhood, fought against a
creature that comes about every 27 to 30 years, to eat the children of Derry,
Maine. When IT appears once again when they’re adults, they must do what they
can to make sure IT stays dead.
Now
while it does have the book to adapt its story from, just about everybody who
has heard of “IT,” is mostly through the ABC 1990 miniseries. I took the time
to revisit this, since it was released last year on blu ray, and…well, it has
its charm to it, but I would never call it a good movie. For one, the parts
where they focus on the Losers Club as adults is very melodramatic and slow,
the pacing is unfocused and all over the place, and the whole second part of
the mini-series is very uninteresting. That being said, I will admit the parts
that focus on the Losers Club as kids is fairly charming, especially
considering the kids themselves are pretty good actors. Although, it should be
expected, considering they have Seth Green and the tragically late Jonathan
Brandis part of them. Of course, the one thing that keeps just about everyone
coming back to the mini-series with good memories, is Tim Curry as Pennywise
the Dancing Clown, one of IT’s forms. I know he’s intended to be scary, but
Curry’s performance is just so delightfully entertaining, that even in moments
where he tries to be scary, it just comes off as funny to me. I mean, watch the
library scene from part 2 of the miniseries, and try not to laugh at it. So
yeah, while the mini-series isn’t the best, I do have some sort of fun
revisiting it for at least the kids and Curry.
Around
2009, Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema had acquired the rights to the book, and
had announced that a feature film re-imagining would be in development soon. Originally,
David Kajganich had submitted a script to Warner Bros, but he was sadly turned
down, and the script would be tasked to Chase Palmer and Cary Fukunaga, the
latter of which was also attached to direct. Around that time, there was word
of mouth on who New Line was considering to play Pennywise; names like Mark
Rylance, Hugo Weaving, Ben Mendelsohn, and even Tilda Swinton were among the
choosing. Instead, Fukunaga had casted Will Poulter, fresh off of the first
“Maze Runner,” to play Pennywise. However, in 2015, both Fukunaga and Poulter
had to drop out of the film, but they had different reasons for doing so.
Fukunaga left the project, but only as director, because he and the studio were
clashing about what would be adapted from his script, as well as budget
concerns, so things got pretty messy. Poulter, however, dropped out because of
scheduling conflicts, as he was working on other films like “The Revenant” and
“The Maze Runner 3.” Could he have made a good Pennywise, had he stayed?
Personally, I would say definitely. Even if he didn’t have much to show at the
time, Poulter has proven later on that he is a damn good actor. Hell, he gave
one of the best performances in 2017, with his role as a racist hostile
cop in the Kathryn Bigalow movie, “Detroit.” He captures both a sinister and
mischievous tone in such an excellent manner, and I’m probably expecting him to
get an Oscar nod for it.
So
you would think the remake of “IT” would be dead from there, right? Wrong. That
same year, Andy Muschietti, the man who gave us “Mama” in 2013, was tasked with
helming the project, with his sister, Barbara, attached as a producer. From
there on, the rest is history, with the cast being assembled, Fukunaga and
Palmer’s script being re-written by Gary Dauberman, and the film being filmed
over the summer of 2016, with a release in 2017 set in stone. When the teaser
trailer was first released, it didn’t seem like much. Hell, every time I watch
the part where Georgie runs into a blockade post, I always end up laughing my
ass off, no matter how many times I’ve seen it. However, by the time the
official trailer was released, something about it had me captured in such a
familiar and hypnotizing spell, that I couldn’t keep myself from looking at
whatever promotional material they had to offer. I even watched the trailer
first hand online, which is something I almost NEVER do anymore, unless I’ve
already seen it or I’m not interested. But this was different. I kept coming
back over and over again, and by the time “Annabelle: Creation” came out, I
purely saw it, just so I could see the exclusive scene that they were promoting
“IT” in front of. Somehow, this ended up becoming my most anticipated film of
2017, and I was really excited to see it.
Now,
it’s been about a month; the film has garnered much acclaim from
critics, and it’s broken box office records beyond expectations. Example? Well,
as I’m typing this, “IT” has not only become the highest grossing Stephen King
adaptation, it has become the highest grossing R rated horror film of all time,
beating out “The Exorcist.” I’ve seen the movie twice now, and does it deserve
it? Well, let’s take a look at it.
While
the timeline from the book has shifted, going from 1989 to 2016 as opposed to
1959 to 1986, the story is still the same. A group of kids: Billy, Ben,
Beverly, Richie, Eddie, Stan, and Mike. They’re part of a gang called the
Losers Club, living in the town of Derry, Maine. However, during the summer,
they encounter a supernatural entity that every 27 years, comes back and eats
the Children of Derry. They address the being as IT, that mostly appears in the
form of Pennywise the Dancing Clown, and now it’s up to them to defeat IT so no
other child will have to live in fear of the terrifying foe.
Not
only is Andy Muschietti’s “IT” a damn good horror film, as well as a true and
faithful adaptation of the book, I would go as far as to say that I would put it side by side with John Carpenter’s “The Thing” and
Fede Alvarez’s “Evil Dead.” Yeah, this film impressed me, even after having
such high expectations. First off, they changed the book’s format to be more
linear, so the entire film focuses on the kids during their summer. This was an
excellent decision, as it puts all of its efforts on adapting that first half
of the book, something that would have been hard to do back then, since studios
didn’t exactly have the kind of confidence to give the go-ahead on a sequel
that quickly. But now that we’re at that point, it makes it easier to follow, watching
a film about kids in the summer fighting a monster. It works as a callback to
both the Spielberg films of the 1980’s about kids and adventures and another
one of King’s stories, “Stand By Me,” mostly because of the friendship that
these kids share with each other.
And
for those of you who want to know, the opening scene alone illustrates that
this film is embracing its R rating, and that this was only a taste of what it
could bring. It is violent, it’s unsettling, it’s got cursing up the ass, and
every scary scene that they hinted at in the trailers still gets to me, no
matter how many times I prepare myself for it. While I do prefer horror that’s
more subjective than visual, this film manages to have a perfect balance of
both. I think the scenes that are more subjective, such as Beverly and her
father, and Patrick Hockstetter’s death scene, might have been from Fukunaga’s
original script, after Muschietti toned it back enough to stomach. So with this
being an R rated movie, how does it handle some of the book’s more
controversial scenes? Well, if you don’t know what I’m talking about, read the
book. Second, they don’t particularly adapt it, and for the record, I think
that’s a good thing. While I do enjoy the book, there were times that felt like
it was going WAY too far, so for them to work around it was probably for the
best.
Of
course, we can’t forget our cast, which I was really impressed with. Most of
the cast consists of young child actors, and much to my delight, they’re all
fantastic. The Losers Club actors are all fantastic, because much like “Stand
By Me,” they all act like kids. They curse, they joke about their moms, they
ride their bikes, they go on adventures, play video games, build stuff. While
most of them are newcomers or recent up comers, they really sell it as if
they’ve been acting for five or ten films. Jaeden Lieberher, who you may
remember as the kid from “St. Vincent” and “The Book of Henry,” plays Bill, and
he really manages to carry this film strongly. He not only gives the stutter
that Bill struggles with throughout the story, but he also has the determination to
lead his friends into stopping this chaos. If Jonathan Brandis were alive
today, I’m sure he would have been proud of Lieberher’s performance. Jeremy Ray
Taylor and Sophia Lillis as Ben and Beverly are also fantastic, and Finn
Wolfhard from “Stranger Things” and Jack Dylan Grazer are hilarious as Richie
and Eddie. The only two who I felt like didn’t get much to do were Stan and
Mike, played by Wyatt Oleff and Chosen Jacobs. The two weren’t bad, but I just
felt they didn’t get as much interesting things to do as some of the others.
The
kids playing Henry Bowers and his gang are an especially big improvement from the
mini-series. Instead of just being a raging psychopath, they actually take the
time to establish Henry having a bad relationship with his dad, who’s a cop,
and that he takes his anger out on the Losers club to get away from that. It’s
still a little overboard, but they do establish a motive behind it, as well as
having Pennywise influence him later on in the film.
Speaking
of which, let’s talk about the main attraction of this thrill ride, and that is
Pennywise the Dancing Clown. Prior to the release of this film, I had only seen
Bill Skarsgard in two movies (“The Divergent Series: Allegiant” and “Atomic
Blonde”), so I didn’t know much of his range as an actor. Much to my delight,
he managed to succeed. The design of Pennywise has a more timeless feel to it,
as opposed to the loud colors that Curry’s clown had, signifying that this
creature has been around for a long time. And Skarsgard manages to be both
funny and frightening all at once. That scene when Georgie meets the clown, it
is unsettling, but it does make me laugh at Skarsgard’s silly Scooby-Doo voice,
only to let my guard down as he moves in for the kill. And that’s the most
important thing that I loved about this movie, is that Pennywise is really
scary. You can tell that Heath Ledger’s Joker had an influence on
him, as he does have that sort of approach, but not to where it feels like he’s
copying him…unlike OTHER actors playing clowns. I also loved how they managed
to use CGI very sparingly and in a convincing manner. The basement scene and
the projector scene, the parts that were advertised the most, are easily the
scariest parts of the movie, especially with how different they turned out in
the film AND with how well the film builds the tension. Skarsgard is a
fantastic Pennywise, and even both Stephen King and Tim Curry give their
approval.
Andy
Muschietti also makes the film look really nice looking. While the film takes
place in Derry, Maine, it actually filmed in Riverdale, and I just love how it
looks. “IT” really manages to capture the feeling of small town kids on a big
adventure, like a mix between “The Goonies” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street,”
the latter of which, you can tell had a really big influence on this movie in a
few places. That, and the cinematography by Chung-hoon Chung is really
stunning. Not a bad shot from what I saw.
Overall,
“IT” is easily my favorite horror film of the year, as well as among my Top 5
Stephen King movies. Now with the kind of rapid success that this film has,
there is of course going to be a sequel coming out in September of 2019, and
Muschietti wants to get pre-production going as soon as January. He says that
he wants to do flashback scenes with the kids while they’re still young, and
that he was going to have the sequel focus on the origins of Pennywise. The
real question remains, who will play the kids as adults? Well, while we’re
talking about this, I’ll give my little fan casting for you:
