Perfect Blue (1997)

Sometimes there are just movies that really invade your brain. What was most surprising was that this film is an anime which the majority of western culture believes to be just cartoons for children. Anime though has very mature and adult themes in some of their shows/films but while getting ready to watch this I had no idea how depraved and intriguing it would be. Perfect Blue really just grabs a hold of you and refuses to let go until the credits start to roll.

I did not look up anything about this movie before watching it and I suggest viewing it that way. I will not include spoilers in this just because the ending is so crazy and following the story to the end is just so gratifying. The story is about a music idol Mima Kirigoe (Junko Iwao) who wants to give up on her part in a trio and become an actress instead. Her change in career catches the eye of an obsessed fan and he starts to stalk her, and as her career in acting starts to take momentum he becomes more and more dangerous. That isn't really a spoiler because the way the stalker is drawn is creepy and he appears in the first four minutes. The plot really starts to ramp up when she starts having to do things that go past her comfort zone, but with her feelings of pressure to succeed she is willing to put her feelings aside. What this movie entails though is this woman's breakthrough into her new career and the insanity she has to deal with as this stalker tries to kill her.

A lot of the scenes throughout it are very mature in nature so do not watch this if you have a weak stomach. But for how difficult it was to watch I could not look away. The animation throughout is spectacular and you become almost transfixed into the universe. One scene has her play a dancer/ stripper in a detective CSI sort of show. But as she is on stage, the crowd becomes savage and starts to sexually assault her. The animation does not shy away from the depravity of her acting in this scene. It gets worse when one of the other actors who is assaulting her says "I'm sorry" in between takes. This is a very difficult role and position to be in, especially for a new up and coming actress. With this scene though it really turns her into a character and I began to feel a wave of uneasiness as I was watching it.

The theme of the film is no surprise because it drops it pretty headhanded about the psychological problems that entertainers put themselves through. The nonstop trying to conform to others ideas of what to do and how the scene of popularity is killer (no pun intended). She puts herself through so many difficult and unfortunate hurdles that she almost loses who she is. She becomes damaged both mentally and eventually physically. Towards the end of the film you are almost unsure of what is real and what is part of her psyche. Although for her it really just pertains to her wanting to be liked by the public and her losing herself but the film puts it in such a ways that you could almost feel the pressure of living underneath such circumstances. By the third act of the film it really ramps up and it takes your breath away.

This film should be one of the great anime films that any cinephile should see and I feel like it is left behind. This could be up there with films like Princess Mononoke (1997) and Akira (1988) but I feel the subject matter and the fact that it was shown to a small audience in the United States played against it. Some of the shots throughout it are so influential that Darren Aronofsky bought the rights so he could use some of the images in his movies. Because of its release in 1999 in the United States, it was being overshadowed by what film could become with CGI. All I know is that this film is one of the most interesting and surreal films I have seen in awhile and it is a must watch if you have the stomach for it.

Grade: A

Genre: Horror, Mystery

Cast: Junko Iwao, Rica Matsumoto, Shinpachi Tsuji

Rated: R for animated sequences of violence and nudity, and for brief language.

Director: Satoshi Kon

Mulholland Drive (2001)

Mulholland Drive (2001) is a dreamscape rollercoaster. Just when you think you have a handle on it, it whips you around and you are left dumbfounded and gasping for air. Considering that this is a David Lynch movie that is to be expected after films like Eraserhead (1977) and Blue Velvet (1986) but Mulholland Drive takes the mysticism of Hollywood and a love story and throws it together. It received an Oscar nod nominating Lynch for best director but lost to Steven Soderbergh for Traffic (2001). But with this film, when the credits roll, you just have to ask yourself "What just happened?"

The film starts off with a bang, showing a limo going down Mulholland Drive. A dark haired woman who we find out is named Rita (Laura Harring) is sitting in the backseat when it pulls over. Confusion washes over her as she says "You can't park here." Intercut from this it shows a group of delinquents driving drunk up the same road in two seperate cars. It cuts back to Rita, where one of the gentlemen in the front seat gets out of the car and walks to the back, opening her car door. He points a gun at her and right at that moment one of the drunk drivers runs into the pulled over limo. It kills everyone except for Rita who finds herself walking down the hill toward Hollywood. Afterward we have Betty (Naomi Watts) who is flying into Hollywood to start a career as an actress. She is staying at her aunt's house, and is pretty naive to life. When she arrives Rita has broken in and is staying in Betty's aunts house. After discovering that Rita has amnesia, Betty decides to help figure out what happened to Rita. Pretty compelling story right?

Laura Harring and Naomi Watts

Throughout the whole film it has very much a noir type feel to it. Strange occurrences happen and just when you thought you had figured out what happened a new question comes into play. I would not be surprised if this was filmed in black and white and everyone was smoking. It is a long movie clocking in at 2 hours and 27 minutes but it never lags or feels like something is wasted. It just works. You are engaged throughout the film trying to find out what has happened. Now the first 2 hours are very upbeat and interesting and you have to pay attention. Every clue or item brought up will have a much more define and intriguing meaning to it, when the last thirty minutes starts. It really has a huge build up that makes sense at the end. It is really eerie how everything just ties together.

David Lynch

Now I can understand how this film was going to be a television show at first like Lynch's other project, Twin Peaks (1990-1991) but personally I think it works great as a feature length film. I was just mystified by what was going to happen next and could not look away from the screen afraid I would miss something. This film deserves a second watch, like most Lynch films need.

I think what I like most about this film is that it makes you think. It wants your help to figure out what has happened. Then right when you think you got it, it flips it on its ear and you were completely wrong the whole time. Lynch works that way and really wants to test his viewers. He still states no one has found his meaning for Eraserhead and it has been 40 years of wondering. All in all this film is a spectacle to behold and was masterpiece in its own right. I suggest if you are looking for a film that will make you think, this is just the place to go.

Grade: A

Genre: Drama, Mystery, Thriller

Cast: Naomi Watts, Laura Harring, Justin Theroux

Rated: R for violence, language and some strong sexuality

Director: David Lynch

Sorry To Bother You (2018) SPOILERS!

Sorry To Bother You is one of those movies that really caught me by surprise. I had first learned about it because someone had given me a sticker of it at SXSW that I put on my water bottle. I decided to check out the trailer because I might as well. The trailer didn't seem out of the ordinary. It mainly looked like a comedy about being a telemarketer. I could relate because at one point in my life I did work at a call center and I know how much it sucks. But, when I sat down to watch it I received a completely different film.

The plot is about Cassius Green (Lakeith Stanfield) in an alternate present day Oakland trying to make a difference in the world. But what is really making a difference in the world? His girlfriend Detroit (Tessa Thompson), who wears really ornate earrings, just tells him to get a job. After his friend Salvador convinces him to take a job at a telemarketing company, he starts to climb the corporate ladder. His trade secret is by putting on his "white" voice (David Cross) when selling. But, the company that he works for has more up its sleeve than he was led to believe.

Now the movie started off really funny. The obvious jabs at corporate America and the financial crisis are very apparent throughout the whole film. The selling your soul and turning on your friends for success is a huge theme. Everyone who has ever worked a job before knows of the possibility of this. Cassius gives up his values to achieve success because that is what he most strives for. He wants to make a difference in the world, even if it is for the negative. This includes selling weaponry, slaves etcetera etcetera. But the money he also receives is too good to pass up as well.

I AM GOING TO SPOIL THE FILM RIGHT NOW SO STOP READING THIS IF YOU WANT TO WATCH THE FILM AND BE SURPRISED.

But the last thirty minutes are where it goes completely off the rails. One of the companies that is shown throughout the film has secret plans to take all of it's workers and turn them into half horse/ half human to create a more efficient workforce. After creating so many of them the owner of the company Steve Lift (Armie Hammer) needs someone to keep and eye on them to make sure there isn't a uprising against the company. As he says he wants Cassius to become there "Martin Luther King Jr." to stop the uprising because he knows that eventually a social collapse will occur. Weird right? Also you get to see a lot of horse penis.

The rest of the film is Cassius and his friends trying to take down the corporation that are creating half-horse/ half people. Now the ending of the film did come quite quickly and I was really at a loss at the end. The film went from 15 miles per hour to 200 in 12 seconds. Now I understand what the film was trying to say and the dry humor behind the whole thing but the ending just was too out there for me. Don't get me wrong, it's a cool idea, it just belongs in a much different movie.

Rating: C+

Genre: Comedy, Fantasy, Sci-fi

Cast: Lakeith Stanfield, Tessa Thompson, Jermaine Fowler

Rated: R for pervasive language, some strong sexual content, graphic nudity, and drug use.

Director: Boots Riley

Dr Seuss' Cat In The Hat (2003)

Sometimes it's nice to sit down, shut off your brain and watch a movie. But sometimes that is not always the case. There are seldom times that I have to turn off a movie because it's so bad. Dr. Seuss' Cat In the Hat (2003) hurts your brain to watch. This took me three separate times to try and get through. This movie was the final nail in the coffin for Audrey Geisel (Dr. Seuss's wife) to not allow any more Dr. Seuss material to be made in live action. Ron Howard's How The Grinch Stole Christmas (2000) helped with that decision. But what really made this movie so horrific to watch?

The film does contain some of the same elements of the book but is very difficult to turn a 50 page book into a 88 minute film. The viewer follows siblings Sally (Dakota Fanning) and Conrad (Spencer Breslin) and the day they encountered a certain Cat in a Hat. The Cat is played by Mike Myers (Austin Powers, So I Married an Axe Murderer) who is really hamming it up in this film. But where the film took a few liberties is all of the subplots. The kids are supposed to keep the house clean while their Mom (Kelly Preston) gets called in for work. Yes, her characters name is just Mom. She is also having a work party and since her boss Mr. Humberfloob (Sean Hayes) is a germaphobe the kids have to keep the house clean. Just to add in even more story there is also Quinn (Alec Baldwin) who is courting  Mom. He wants to send Conrad to military school so he then can finally marry Mom or something...I don't know. So take all of that and combine in with a cat making a huge mess of the place and you get the convoluted story of The Cat in the Hat.

The biggest problem that I have with this movie is that none of the jokes land. All the characters throughout the film are annoying and there is no direction. I like Mike Myers. I think he is a really funny comedian and his characters he creates are amazing. Wayne's World (1992) is a hilarious movie. But, you can just tell that he does not want to be in this movie. The breaking of the fourth wall and the "Oh Yeahs!" just get old after awhile. Also, the adult jokes in this movie are just plain gross. You can only roll your eyes at how any of these made its way into a PG movie and didn't qualify it for a PG-13. The other biggest problem that I have with this film is the costumes. Thing 1 and Thing 2 are terrifying. It is difficult to look at them because they are literally something you have seen in your nightmares. The Cat also is weird to look at especially when you know that the suit was made with human hair.

The film ends with everyone realizing that they were terrible and now, through the torture that the Cat made them endure, they are better people. Alec Baldwin also spits up purple goop. What a cathartic ending.

But I know it is a film for children. Maybe the kids might take something from that but my money is that they won't. They won't think it's funny, they won't learn anything and they won't know what's going on.

I keep trying to find some sort of redeeming factor in this film but I just can't. All I can think about is the disgusting imagery and the Cat threatening to beat a child with a baseball bat after he was hit in the balls. I'm serious. That is actually in this film. Feel free to skip this movie. You aren't missing anything here.

Rating: F

Genre: Adventure, Comedy, Family

Cast: Mike Myers, Dakota Fanning, Spencer Breslin

Rated: PG for mild crude humor and some double entendres

Director: Bo Welch

The House That Jack Built (2018)

Lars Von Trier's latest film The House That Jack Built has been creating quite the stir amongst critics and audiences. Audiences at Cannes had left the theater after some of the more brutal scenes. Now the MPAA is upset over the unrated directors cut of the film that was shown. It has been five years since his latest film Nymphomaniac Volume 1 and 2 (2013) was released and The House That Jack Built was supposed to be his true retrospective on his life as a person and a director. Luckily I was able to see the unrated version in theaters and it is unlike any film I have ever seen. Both in creative style and sheer brutality.

The House That Jack Built is about a serial killer named Jack (Matt Dillon) and five different incidents that he has gone through in his twelve years of killing. As he goes through the different incidents, he is talking to a man named Verge (Bruno Ganz). Jack is telling him his personal thoughts on these different incidents and why he did these things. They bring up subjects of art in violence, wine making, the holocaust, and hunting, just to name a few. Each of the five incidents focus on a different crime that he has done and then builds on his personal thoughts of how that incident happened. In other words it is a two hour and thirty two minute dive into the mind of a killer and the senseless acts of violence he has committed against society. But where this movie stands out is that the whole movie is a metaphor for Von Trier.

The cinematography and art style are amazing. It is told in the same format as Nymphomaniac where there are voiceovers as Jack and Verge discuss what is going on in the scene. It feels as if someone was actually telling this story to a stranger which Von Trier does really well in his films. I find that the use of quick cuts to show examples of what they are talking about make the film very interesting to watch. It always keeps it new and helps you understand the characters and their thinking. I guess it is almost like a "dumbing down" for the viewer but it never feels that way. There is always a point to the images shown on the screen to help move the story along.

I can't speak for how violent the rated version is but the unrated version that I saw is really violent. I can understand why many wouldn't want to see this film. Just explaining some of the scenes make people cringe. The worst scene that got to me was the murder of a woman and her two children. It only makes it worse that when he is trying to kill them, he is having a conversation with Verge, comparing killing them to a hunter hunting deer. Basically you want to save the mother for last and should kill the young first. The way that Dillon's voice is when talking about this is very monotone, because he has no empathy which also makes the actions that much worse. Let's not forget that all the violence is shown and even after the killing, it gets a lot worse. I don't want to explain too much but be prepared to cover your eyes.

This is where is starts to get tricky. Von Trier is comparing himself to Jack throughout the film and is using the killings throughout the film as a metaphor for his films. Jack believes that murder is a version of art and although violent, destructive and sick should be viewed under a respectful manner. Von Trier has been under fire multiple times for his violence in movies especially against women. By comparing Jack to himself with this metaphor he is explaining that his films should still be considered art even if they are depraved.  Now this probably makes the film more interesting for someone who is familiar with Von Trier's works. For a newcomer, this would be lost on them unless they have done some research. Also within the film he makes notions towards one of his biggest fiascos that almost destroyed his entire reputation so that was intriguing to see his feelings towards that.

What it comes down to though is was it any good? I thought the movie was very well done. Is it for everyone? Absolutely not. Does it give an insight into Von Trier's mind? Absolutely. Do we really need that? No. I will mostly likely watch it again because there were certain parts of their talks that I couldn't quite make out over the packed theater. Also, I walked out of the theater curious and confused as to what I had just watched. The ending also needs a rewatch because it really comes from left field. So if you are okay with extreme violence in the name of art then you will enjoy this. If violence is not your thing then stay as far away as you can. Some scenes in this will give you nightmares.

Grade: A-

Genre: Drama, Horror

Cast: Matt Dillon, Bruno Ganz, Uma Thurman

Rated: Unrated

Director: Lars Von Trier

Dead Ringers (1988)

What does it mean to watch a Cronenberg film? When his name is said to most cinefiles they think of body horror. He was the master at creating creatures stemming out of people or awesome practical effects. The Fly (1986) and Scanners (1981) both dealt with type of changes within a body to create something more than just a human body. But in the late 80's he made a film that surprisingly doesn't have that many practical effects. Dead Ringers (1988) delves into something that we don't view as anything different. He decided to tackle the subject of twins and the possible effects that one could affect the other.

The plot of the film centers around a pair of identical twin brothers, Beverly and Elliot Mantel (both portrayed by Jeremy Irons) and their involvement with one of their patients Claire Niveau (Genevieve Bujold). They are brilliant gynecologists and have won awards based on their research and contribution to the field. Beverly is the more studious and lonely type while Elliot is the confident, outgoing type. Both brothers although identical in looks could not be more different in personality, which Irons brings his all to the table to show.  Elliot becomes entranced with Claire when she comes in for a check up, not only because she is a famous television star but also because she has three uteri. For the brothers this is something that is extremely unheard of and almost never seen. After Elliot has a one night stand with Claire he passes her off to his brother. Beverly pretends to be his brother throughout their relationship but when their rouge comes to an end, she breaks up with him. This is only the beginning of a downward spiral that envelops both brothers into a true Shakespearean type ending. 

Now as I said before this film has almost zero body horror compared to typical Cronenberg fashion. As for a few parts within the film, the characteristics of what we have come to expect aren't there. The film solely relies on the characters that he creates.  It's no question that Irons carries the film by his amazing work. But something about their interaction with both the outside world and their inner struggle makes the movie quite mesmerizing. But the only problem with that is that sometimes Cronenberg because so obsessed with explaining and fleshing out his characters that it feels to run on.

Although the movie is only 116 minutes, around the middle of the film it felt as nothing was happening. It wasn't until Beverly started to truly drift into madness that the film picked up again. Just wait until he makes the "mutant" gynecology  equipment and then you will understand. But I feel like the ending also abruptly happened as well. While the film felt like it was building up to this huge climactic ending, it was really only a murmur instead of an earthquake. The ending was quite predictable as well, but what came was not as extravagant as his earlier movies. It basically finished in a whisper compared to The Fly which ended with a shotgun blast to the head.

It was nice to see the versatility of what Cronenberg can do, but it felt like the film just ran on for a bit too long. Still Irons held the movie together and made it interesting enough that you won't be bored out of your mind. Still a entertaining watch but don't expect a happy ending while watching this.

Grade: B

Genre: Drama

Cast: Jeremy Irons, Genevieve Bujold

Rated R: Strong sexuality/ nudity, disturbing content, language and drug use

Directed by: David Cronenberg

I'm Your Friend Till' The Very End: 30 Years of CHILD'S PLAY

The earliest dolls were made of clay, stone, wood, ivory, leather or wax. Wooden dolls have been discovered in ancient Egyptian tombs dating back to the early 21st century B.C. Dolls are used in certain rituals like voodoo and have even been 'possessed', like the doll inspiring the Annabelle films. One thing they all have in common - is how creepy they are. The way that their lifeless black eyes look at you, never blinking, boring a hole straight into your soul, all with a terrifying grin. They have scared children and adults for many years - but it was in 1988 when a cultural icon in the form of a doll was built. His name was Chucky and we are, of course, talking about the 1988 classic: Child's Play.

In Child's Play, single mother Karen (Catherine Hicks) is looking to buy a very popular doll for her son Andy (Alex Vincent). Unable to locate one in any toy store, she buys one from a homeless man in a dark alley. Unbeknownst to her, the doll has been possessed by the soul of recently deceased serial killer Charles Lee Ray (Brad Dourif), also known as Chucky. Now, Chucky wants to get back into a human body before he's stuck in the doll's body forever. Since Andy was the first person he revealed his true identity to, his is the only body he can inhabit.

The Birth of Chucky

Child's Play started out as an entirely different film in the original drafts by writer Don Mancini. In the original draft, Andy Barclay was the antagonist. The film more resembled David Cronenberg's The Brood (1979). Andy was going to make a blood pact with "Buddy" the doll, and while Andy was asleep, the doll was going to come to life and take revenge on the people Andy's subconscious despised. Ultimately, If Andy was responsible for everyone's death, audiences would have had a different response to the film. People would have protested (more than they already did). Even though the finished product of Child's Play turned out different, it still maintains some of the original qualities of that idea. 

Mancini also wanted to delve further into the effects of advertising on children with Child's Play. Andy is shown in the beginning of the film watching a "Good Guys" television show filled with Good Guy marketing. Andy also wears "Good Guy" clothing in every scene. Before Karen buys the doll from the homeless man, she buys accessories for the doll, even though he doesn't even own the doll yet. Everyone in this universe is addicted to the consumerism of the eighties. Even though the film wasn't centered on this fact, like Mancini originally wanted, it is still heavily implied.

THEMES

Now, it's no surprise that one of the major themes throughout this film surrounds motherhood and family. Andy's father is hardly spoken about in the film, except for the fact that he has died. This is one of the main reasons why everyone believes that Andy has such an attachment to the doll. Just like in The Exorcist (1973), when the doctors blame Regan's behavior on a lack of a father figure in her life. Both films feature very strong mothers, who eventually start to believe their children. Child's Play shows how even a single parent still has the power to save and raise a child. She was willing to blow off the head, leg and arm of a killer doll for her son. That's love.

Throughout the rest of the film, Andy starts to mimic Chucky. Best example would be after Chucky kills Maggie. Karen asks what has Chucky been saying to Andy. His response is "Maggie was a real bitch and got what she deserved." Karen's horrified by his casual use of curse words but also by the lack of empathy for Maggie just being killed. In reality this young child is being corrupted by a
murderer.

RECEPTION

Child's Play started terrifying everyone on November 9th, 1988, just in times for the holidays. It made $44 million dollars worldwide at the box office off of a budget of only $9 million dollars. The film had good reviews with a total of 57 metascore and a 67% on rottentomatoes.com. Roger Ebert gave it three stars saying "A cheerfully energetic horror film of the slam-bang school, but slicker and more clever than most, about an evil doll named Charles Lee Ray, or Chucky." Of course a sequel was greenlit and came out two years later to the day. Since then there has been five more sequels for a total of seven in the total series.

ICON

Chucky's presence of being an actual animated doll doesn't even come to fruition until about the forty minute mark of a eighty-seven minute movie. But with a cultural icon such as Chucky, most people know who he is. He has now made appearances at many occasions over the years included the first annual Horror Hall of Fame, Saturday Night Live, USA Today, the Superbowl and his latest was in the Spielberg film Ready Player One (2018). With a reboot in the works, it seems that Chucky is really going to be our friend till' the end.

How old were you when you first saw Childs Play? Does it still scare you? Will Chucky forever haunt you? Let us know in the comments below!