hannah

more important than a review: if you stream this and after a few episodes it goes from very normal subtitles to incomprehensible ones, let me save you some trouble:

• "vomit" i'm pretty sure means "confess/admit", "are you sane" is "are you crazy"
• "ulam" is just another way to romanize the more commonly written "wooram" (the other name romanizations are easy to keep up with)
• "chikusho" is the japanese semi-equivalent of the korean "shibal" at least in terms of usage and comes up every time a character says "shibal" or even "aish" or "jinjja" which is ridiculous (but also, why is there a japanese romaji word in english subs?? maybe the odd english subtitles were made by the same person who made the japanese subs for the show)
• the show very clearly uses the konglish for "mafia" but when the weird subtitles come on suddenly it's "werewolves" (which is fine i mean the games werewolf and mafia are the same but SERIOUSLY, they SAY mafia??? come on?????)
• which reminds me "chairperson" is "student president"
• worst part: the pronoun use is ALL OFF. just WILDLY wrong. nearly every time you see i/we pronouns that don't make sense with what you understand from the rest of the contextual clues, it's meant to be he/she/they pronouns. they also switch he/she pronouns a lot when talking about female characters (see: jungwon in the last ep). it's not too difficult once you know what's going on but there's definitely some moments in the last few episodes that i just don't think i fully grasped because of the pronoun mistakes.

i have no clue why the subs were normal for a few episodes only, but MAN. sometimes i understood the korean more than the subtitles and that's saying something since the last time i really spoke any coherent korean was maybe 2017

anyway onto the series itself, it's imperfect and plenty goes unanswered but it's an entertaining guilty pleasure kdrama that i happily binged over a few days. if you like this subgenre like i do it'll be very easy to enjoy and suspend disbelief for. acting's pretty solid as a bonus!

i get why the movie's pg-13; even if the game wasn't geared at a younger audience, it still became massively popular with them. i've never played the games but i really like watching letsplays by content creators i follow and this movie was entertaining and fun by those standards. it definitely wasn't at all scary and was very light on jump scares, but it was decently acted (unsure why anyone says it wasn't, matthew lillard's in it come ON) and the story kept me engaged. i liked the cameos and man the best choice they made was having the animatronics be real puppets and not cgi. i wish more movies would use practical effects tbh.

the sticking points for me are really small and probably dumb to the average viewer but i've always resented the way that people treat prescription medication in movies and tv. it's reckless and maliciously ignorant sometimes and perpetuates a lot of stupid misinformation about mental health. and it's happened in this movie (a character just throwing someone's sleeping pills into a lake - but whatever maybe in 2000 it was easier to get an early refill on an rx) and another one in 2022 (portraying a daily antidepressant as something you can pop casually whenever you need it) so it's clearly a problem that's still alive and well. also that pharmacist should be fired

i don't think this movie ripped anything off; it uses some tropes very well done in the past but at the end of the day it's as inventive as anything can be in 2023, aka when we've done literally every idea to death and all that's left is to adapt other media that hasn't been made into tv or movies yet. it's not a groundbreaking movie but in terms of sci-fi thriller it's engaging and entertaining. the twists are fun minus the mid-credits scene—it feels like it's setting up for a sequel that no one wants or needs and i thought we'd done away with that kind of thing after horror movies beat it to death.

tl;dr: it's a fun watch for its genre. comparisons are fine but don't discount a movie because it shares some tropes with blockbusters.

another movie i'm loosely reminded of is the first dr. strange given the whole time-and-space reality bending thing the big bad could do. yes, inception had a similar "construct" concept but that took place in dreams, in the subconscious—not in physical space after resetting someone's brain. do i think inception did the construct thing more innovatively? absolutely. do i think christopher nolan owns the entire concept of constructed scenarios to alter human perception? no. also, christopher nolan is doing great and has a fuck ton of money, he doesn't need anyone to white knight him.

my main reaction: no matter your opinion of the movie, read the book this was based on if you haven't yet. it was far more frightening (and gory! so gory!!!) and the storytelling decisions made were well-executed, if much more traumatic.

rest of my thoughts below:

this was acted well and looked beautiful. that's actually what's kind of annoying. like, i even liked dave bautista's performance, and his acting is hit-or-miss for me (and i think the rest of the world probably). everyone else was amazing too, and jonathan groff was especially reminiscent of the book eric.

and i get that movies can't always be faithful to the books they adapt. i think adaptations can coexist with their source material, too, regardless of how closely they stick to it. (the last of us is a good example; it generally replicates the original video game while still making major changes that make sense and play out authentically.)

i guess the issue for me is that the changes here took away what made the cabin at the end of the world the story that it was. paul tremblay wrote things in that book that i honestly never expected an author to write. he made decisions that are taboo in fiction and they worked. and to be fair, one of the coolest things in the book is how he changes the perspective near the end from third to first, to a bizarre amalgamation of both that actually worked. that's not something a movie can replicate, so i wasn't expecting that to be portrayed. but i was expecting the same terror the book gave, because the movie was marketed as a horror. i hadn't seen the trailer, but i had friends say it was scary. the movie wasn't. it just—was what it was. maybe it was kind of a thriller? kind of a drama? it didn't manage to give me the same fear response the book did, and i think that is at minimum something it should have achieved.

some of the changes were also just confusing. for example, it wasn't clear until one of the final scenes why on earth andrew's occupation needed to be changed to human rights attorney. and the ending. oh, the ending was disappointing. i understand why certain decisions weren't kept; it would've been a hard movie to stomach. but even so, man, i don't know why we couldn't have kept the open-ended part of the conclusion. i normally hate when stories do that (as someone with severe anxiety, that shit used to be rumination bait) but it worked for this story. god. so many things were confirmed that should've been left up to interpretation.

also: not nearly gory enough. i've read some reviews that the violence in this movie is intense—maybe it's just because i'm comparing it to tremblay's VERY vivid descriptions of gore, but this was tame. it cuts away from every act of violence and relies on sound alone to give you the knowledge that someone has been injured.

was it worth watching? sure, it was fine. but it's not worth a rewatch and it told a lesser version of the story the cabin at the end of the world told. if you hate reading, that probably boosts its value, but if you like reading, go read the book.

spoiler tags for my opinions on some unanswered plot points. i didn't want to watch this following all the nonsense about the production, but it's a decent movie that would've felt more original about six years ago. i read the spec script 2 years ago and i like this interpretation of it. florence pugh is incredible to watch, it's worth it for her alone. she brought a lot of the same agony and terror to this role that she did her role in midsommar. honestly, solid acting across the board; the only real thing leaving a bad taste in my mouth is what came out about the production and olivia wilde's behavior.

there's plenty left unanswered and i'm pretty disappointed by the ending but it's faithful to the screenplay. some of the things i answered for myself:

why do people die irl when they die in the virtual reality: it's a sci-fi film involving technology far more advanced than any VR we have today. if a person has to be hooked into the system to be able to interact within it, and involves a significant degree of neurological function being either integrated into or controlled by said system, it stands to reason that a traumatic event in the system (i.e., dying) could lead to similar events in real life. this is easily explained away given that it's a trope in other sci-fi films with tech that involves hooking your consciousness up to something else.

why does frank's wife stab him: given what she said, and the "vision" alice has before waking up of jack asking her to stay with him, after he's dead, i suspect frank's wife was also involved in the project and was essentially saying he fucked up, and now she was going to try and keep alice from escaping. her attempt was definitely then a little more nuanced than just sending everyone after alice, but then alice makes her decision regardless.

why do they never revisit the remark about frank's bedroom: pretty sure he's talking about catching them having sex in his bedroom; it's a surprise to jack and one that he looks suspicious about because he didn't see frank, but alice did, hence her generally disgusted look and refusal to linger on it; it was meant to sound like something it wasn't and to me, it just read as alice being like "lmaoo so ANYWAY".

why did margaret's kid disappear: i think this was just an attempt at scaring the general female populace into not going out into the desert near headquarters, and to punish margaret. alternatively, margaret just had no investment in the child anymore because she realized nothing was real and so they... stopped expending technical power on an entire npc.

what was the plane: tbh this one i'm gonna be googling theories about bc i still have no clue. it might be like the earthquakes/lights shattering and just be the system's way of displaying an error or other issue?

what was the point: lmao if you have to ask you haven't seen the bullshit sad little men say on the internet with complete sincerity. anyone who believes that no one out there is deeply into the idea of shit like this or the handmaid's tale is living in a really nice bubble and i'm frankly jealous

as the boys on last podcast on the left said in one of my favorite episodes: it's RAPE. it's VERY EASY TO SAY. he's a RAPIST.

saving the rest for the read more.

anyway, this was good but also infuriating. early on you see footage of krombach's television interview after getting probation for drugging and raping a minor in his clinic and the things he says are fucking revolting. the footage from an entire auditorium of men holding political office just straight up laughing at spousal rape is disgusting. and then you have lawyers try to whine about due process for a man who said if a woman is silent she must want it, about a woman who again, WAS DRUGGED. and o h m Y g O d i thought finally, by the end the mom is seeing the truth, and then

AND THEN

she says she wishes krombach would've told her it was an accident and he panicked and accidentally killed her daughter, because she might have been able to understand and forgive him.

I JUST. WHAT.

and ffs i don't understand how in 2022 we're still calling rape "sex acts", or how rapists are just referred to as "perverts". i get that these were older people discussing a 40 year old case but also that doesn't get to be an excuse anymore, we're all too old and i'm too tired for this shit

when it comes to the gray areas that svu explores i usually see both sides and lean one way or another. this isn't one where i can see the 'it's rape' side. in the case barba mentioned about the twin brother, that i can see—it's a clear misrepresentation of an intimate partner that the victim would plausibly have no way of predicting. in this situation, yeah, i see it as a violation of someone's (tenuous) trust, but bribing university officials is as much a crime as identity fraud is, so if anything this was a case of two people trying to commit a crime. for once i kind of think a grumpy judge was actually right—this wasn't something to grandstand on. i get that a lot of new legislation comes about due to the way landmark court cases go, but this was hardly a landmark type of case.

also: a quick google search tells me that identity theft is considered a felony punishable up to 15 years in prison under the federal definition of the crime. prosecute the man for identity fraud, and his partner in crime for nonconsensual taping of a sexual encounter, both of them hopefully get convicted and serve some time for being human garbage.

but ultimately i think the moral of the story is don't try to get your kid into college using your sex appeal or your money, it's shady and your kid is the one that suffers your bad life choices? right??

i hate unresolved endings for any form of entertainment, but it did work well for this case. i do wish they'd reminded the audience of the trial prep that olivia did with casey regarding the false accusation against stabler, since i think that the way the glimpses of the trial were presented relied a little too much on the back and forth of what happened according to each side and not enough on the actual facts and science of the case.

either way i'd love to see a poll done now, so many years later. i remember my mother blaming my sexual assault by a stranger on my decision to go to a concert at night when i was 15, the same year this season aired, and she was a huge fan of the series. sexual violence is easily still one of the most difficult things to prosecute but i'd like to think that both the laws and society have come far enough to recognize that no matter what, this man abused a position of authority and by his own admission forcibly held a woman down during sex "to get it over with". maybe that isn't rape 1, but it's certainly sexual assault.

first, since the show never gives any kind of message in this way: for anyone who's ambivalent to or already has negative opinions or therapy, please know that finding a safe, ethical therapist who knows just how important the doctor-patient relationship truly is can be difficult but is also highly rewarding. i've been in therapy a number of years and during stressful times i may go once a week, while most of the time i'm happy to go every month or two months. i take medication for anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder but therapy is what gave me the ability to actually live and thrive—medication was also necessary, but simply allows me to function. the shrink next door and the real events behind it are horrifying, but trust me when i say that they are not representative of all therapy, and that if you ever think you might need to talk to a professional, to please look into your options. it's not just for people who have mental illnesses and it's not just for people with trauma. everyone, truly, can benefit from it.

onto the review:

not a terrible watch, but i do think the investigative podcast into the story was the right format for this kind of thing. it wasn't enjoyable to watch as a piece of entertainment. it's very sad and disappointing, much like the real story is.

i will say that the end, with the epilogue text, was my least favorite aspect of the series. ending on the note "marty has never returned to therapy" is troubling—i don't expect the man to ever feel safe doing so. but the message isn't a clear one. you can't tell whether they're saying this because they want you to be mistrustful of therapeutic processes or because they want to illustrate the damage that can be done by an unethical therapist. that lack of clarity is irresponsible, as people can be put off of the idea of therapy very easily, despite it being an incredibly valuable and important tool. it seems a little silly to say, but i think that this show would have benefited from the pre or post credit call to action that a lot of netflix shows have implemented regarding traumatic subject matter. even as someone who has a very positive relationship with therapy, watching this (and listening to the podcast) was difficult.

1. full disclosure, i haven't read the source material
2. if like me you haven't read it just know the dog dies
3. worth watching for tom holland and daisy ridley's performances tbh

for a dystopian film (of which i have watched entirely too many) this is pretty solid and its massive budget makes it a very beautiful watch. i agree about a lot of the complaints about it being what must be a very dumbed down version of the book but like... as someone who grew up with books like the giver, i really feel like there's no way to do some sci-fi cinematic justice. like the recent dune adaptation definitely did its source material justice, but it was also extremely fucking long and my friends who aren't familiar with the source material thought it was boring as fuck, SO. trade offs, i think. and since i haven't seen the source material for this movie, i do think i was able to enjoy it more than a fan of the books might, since it was cut down under 2 hours and told an abridged version of what must be some substantial world building. i love sci-fi so i have no problem filling in the gaps left in the storytelling, personally.

i took some time to watch this episode given the other comments but i'm bothered by the fact that a number hide the comments behind spoiler warnings. if you genuinely want a trigger warning on a scene in this episode, then provide it to other viewers independent of spoilers: there is a scene that, depending on your understanding and opinion of consent in this particular period, can qualify as sexual assault.

i personally do not qualify it as rape, though it may be considered coercion to some degree. i would however consider the book's scene to be rape as consent is not provided. i do agree that the writers of the show, in changing the circumstances but not taking the time to have the characters fully discuss the issues of betrayal and consent in the context of sex rather than conception, did a disservice to all viewers.

i think a very important point WAS made by daphne, however briefly in the greater context of her wanting children—the assumption on simon's part that she understood how children were conceived, when he had earlier in the series been the one to tell daphne that she was able to pleasure herself, was not an acceptable argument. she was right in saying that he took advantage of her lack of knowledge. that doesn't make her behavior any more appropriate, but it also contextualizes the scene enough for me, personally, as a viewer. if the final sex scene makes you uncomfortable due to the issue of consent, i strongly encourage you to re-examine the other sex scenes earlier on, as well; after all, daphne not fully comprehending intercourse puts her at an inherently different level of consent than simon.

i liked this quite a lot for how it fits into the existing mcu. i think it's difficult to expect a lot of the comic canon to come through when the cinematic universe has always chosen to explore characters differently. plus, if you're a die-hard fan of any of these heroes or villains, you should have firsthand awareness that the story gets changed from artist to artist, writer to writer. the movies aren't going to be any different.

plus alexei makes a very good point about his own character arc (even if he's talking about gaining weight)—he's just been broken out of prison. i really don't think he's about to be even remotely badass.

also, the mcu black widow has had a great deal of vulnerability and attachment disorder built into the character over the phases, so if this not being about her being a heartless spy the entire time is a downer, like... the movie definitely isn't for you?

ANYWAY

florence pugh hands down was my favorite part of the film, with david harbour a close second. i already loved both of them in other work, and it's a solid cast overall, but they really brought it with these two characters.

"this is a much less cool way to die."

absolutely most important thing of note: the content warnings for the rating (at least on hbo max) include rape. not sexual assault, rape. while i admittedly lost interest in the movie once or twice, i feel confidently able to say that there were no scenes of what rape encompasses. what does rape mean? glad you asked, here you go:

“The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

that said: anyone who has issues with scenes of sexual assault, there is a scene where a female character's chest is groped to a possibly painful degree, and not at all with any kind of consent.

there are also a number of scenes involving the threat of sexual violence, and one where a male character physically (but not sexually) manhandles a female character without explanation or consent in order to prevent another male character from acting on a threat of sexual violence. this is explained after, but the behavior is not excused at any point by the female character. there are also sexual situations with consent established, none of which are exceptionally graphic considering it's pg-13.

now, i've said all of that because i feel like it's important to know what kind of movie you're going into. however, if you see the warning for rape and decide you don't want to watch the movie, i mean... you're not missing out? so does it really matter? probably not. but i wrote it out, so there you go.

actual review:

best scene: colin farrell tucking dozens of toddlers in goodnight.

it was watchable, but that's about it. colin farrell was the best part (will he ever be anything less than beautiful, no) and tye sheridan and lily-rose depp did what they could with the plot they were given.

the other commenter calling it a poor man's lord of the flies is fair. what messages did i get from the movie?

well, first, the writers have a very rosy mental image of how it feels to be bodyslammed by puberty and growth hormones. everyone was still super cgi smooth while going through it and i have an issue with that because i'm 32 and the slightest change in my hormones gives me a chin breakout.

and second, all the "science" is garbage. literally none of it can be accepted even with the strongest suspension of disbelief i can muster.

lastly, the only real lesson to take away: there are ethical guidelines in place regarding human subjects for a reason, this is one of those reasons.

highly recommend this episode. as someone whose mom let me watch this show at an entirely too young age who's seen a lot of these characters and flashbacks years ago, it was such a wonderful experience. the way it tied together old scenes with present day was amazing, the writers on svu are honestly really great at that. long-time viewers and people who stopped watching ages ago alike will enjoy the episode, i think. it also articulates incredibly well the issue of power imbalances, and touches on olivia's past with her mother in a great way. amaro's appearance was so fun, and honestly olivia saying cold case work suits him was SO CUTE. no idea if it was a cheeky nod to the actor's time on the show cold case but either way, god i love reunions on long-running shows. AND CRAGEN ON FACETIME. GOD.

biggest takeaway though: the acting in this episode, top notch. that scene in benson's hallway with the cassette, bye, i needed a minute even knowing what was coming. and like, i don't really watch svu beyond my nostalgia and love of mariska hargitay and procedurals. in procedurals, where the crime of the week is the focus, the acting is usually solid, if occasionally stiff and forgettable. there are obvious exceptions, particularly with special guest stars and unknowns who later go on to be famous in their own right. but man, mariska? shining throughout the entire episode, understated and raw. danny pino embodied a grown version of his character that straddled the line between maturity and hotheaded, and i love it. (as an aside: i remember so much criticism being lobbed at amaro's character being a pseudo-substitute for the "angry cop role", and this episode feels like a great illustration of the nuances between the two characters. amaro was always aggressive in every sense of the word, and continues to be with time; stabler's aggression has always been set off by specific situations and stressors, and has been tempered significantly over the years. there's a self-righteousness and passion to displays of anger when it comes to amaro, and stabler often seems almost ashamed of his own outbursts, even in the earlier years when police aggression wasn't being talked about so seriously in the media and he felt compelled to defend his actions.)

anyway, like the topic of stabler's ptsd in the organized crime spinoff, the stuff explored in this episode was so great, and highly memorable. they really did make episode 500 something special.

according to my trakt history, i've seen this before. i don't know that i have, because i didn't recognize any of it, aside from the relatively similar events as the real life likens case. that said, i have a hard time watching this without comparing it directly to the movie an american crime. both are upsetting, but an american crime's acting is more intensely so (and that honestly may just be due to elliot page's acting skills?) and the changes made from the original book's plot (jack ketchum's) lessened the movie's impact. the decision to have the police officer come in prior to meg's passing was a directorial disaster; i don't care if it was the 50s, i do not see how his decision to take susan upstairs and out of the house and leave david behind with a dying girl was at all realistic.

i will say that this movie benefits from having a relatively decent protagonist. as in, there is a character that clearly does not condone what's happening and is young enough that his silence makes sense; his attempts to speak to his parents seem minor, but given what he's witnessed and the fact that there's an adult involved in what's happening, it does make sense. the sad thing is that there were entirely too many people who weren't too young to do something and intervene, both in this fictionalized version of the story and the actual likens case. so it's a very, very tiny bandaid on a very depressing look into humanity.

neither are enjoyable movies, obviously. the likens case is deeply disturbing, and one i heard about entirely too early on in my life thanks to having a mother obsessed with true crime and incapable of parenting. i have always had an uncomfortable fascination-and-revulsion over it and i don't feel any less unsettled having watched this adaptation than i did prior to watching it. i would suggest to anyone interested in the likens case that you go read the court documents. the real testimony about what sylvia went through is truly difficult to stomach, but it's ultimately what made me stop being preoccupied by the case.

acting, direction and handling of different mental issues and themes of violence were all spot on. you will root for everyone at some points, even people you don't want to root for. and then you will be disappointed by everyone at some points, even people you don't want to judge. it's a painfully raw, upsetting series, and if you can stomach it, do watch it.

most importantly i'd suggest taking all the comments and reviews floating around the internet seriously. it is triggering, and not in the pop culture sense of the word. the only other time i've experienced this amount of visceral, physical distress over something otherwise harmless was the sound of a particular type of voice triggering a traumatic event. i went in believing wholeheartedly that it might be intense like everyone warned squid game would be (and it was), but that the triggers wouldn't be things i needed to be concerned about: i don't have my own child, and i'm not a victim of domestic partner violence.

but there are scenes of panic, anxiety, dissociation and dread. there are scenes with perspective views that are jarring, and scenes which act as unreliable narrative tools. there are characters who relapse into alcoholism, and there are extremely authentic and distressing manic episodes that play out on screen when alex's mother is concerned. there is homelessness, depicted in a number of ways and in the ways that most people don't think about, like sleeping in your car and having no safety net between various, fleeting types of temporary housing. there are courthouse scenes, and courtroom scenes (particularly stressful for me, having experienced them), and there are sensations of claustrophobia, loss of time and helplessness that the camerawork and acting convey in a way that translates outside of the actual show and into your own reactions, if you have ever felt any of those sensations yourself.

there are people who try to do the right thing, for the wrong reasons. there are people characterized as good, who are not good. there are people who keep doing the wrong thing. there are no straightforward villains because everyone is realistic, and that makes it worse. and there is a lead character in alex, with an innocent child, who consistently encounters obstacle after obstacle and does not get to breathe—not really—until the very last episode.

if you don't have any experience with the issues tackled by this show or you're watching it for maid confessions like the book, you will likely not get everything out of this experience that the show has to offer. if you are prone to dissociation, intense worry, or have firsthand experience with any of the things i've mentioned here, you're going to have a tough time. i regularly attend therapy and i'm doing quite well, but it was still not the kind of show i could binge-watch and it did come up a couple of times in therapy—for the better, honestly.

the last thing i want to say regarding the content is that, if you were a parentified child, or had insecure attachments growing up due to neglect, abuse or addiction—this is scary. unless you are completely cut off from your experiences with insecure attachment? this will remind you of things that aren't actually happening on screen, from different times and of different natures. i was a parentified child, and i still to this day struggle with not worrying about people who aren't my responsibility. that theme is present throughout the show, and it does not let up, not until the very end.

unlike some of the other netflix docs on similarly "mysterious" topics, this one is respectful and shows clear care for the victims and their loved ones. the content warning at the start is one worth heeding, though i will say that the photography of the scene is shown only in part and never involves the victims' faces.

(a cultural note: if you aren't familiar with funeral rituals in india, cremation is quite common in sikhism and especially so in hinduism (though not necessarily required) as the physical body only houses the soul and thus upon death the soul leaves it behind. i cannot speak to whether this family was hindu or sikh given that both religions seemed present and absent in different settings, but part of my immediate family was raised hindu. to my knowledge, cremation is done within a day of death whenever possible.

so while the speed with which the autopsies are done, the families are provided the bodies and the funeral rites are done may seem strange to an outsider, it's likely part of normal practice for deaths involving law enforcement. the extent the police department reportedly went in ensuring that the family had the necessary pyres, space and preparations for the cremation rituals is significant. the final episode goes into the consequences of this incident on the funeral rites and grieving process for the surviving family and friends, so please know that the "mystery" being solved in the second episode is far from the end of the story. the filmmaker did an excellent job of shedding light on the many facets and layers to this story without sensationalizing any of it, 100% recommended.)

and as someone with a history of mental illness myself and a family history to go with it, i appreciate the time this documentary takes to talk about the mental health stigma in india. it's a global stigma, no doubt about that, but the fear of losing face or shaming your family or lowering your status in east and south asian cultures in particular has led to so much preventable tragedy for so many people. it's an important lesson: try to talk openly about mental health in your daily life. it makes a real difference, trust me.

i'm still on the fence about velasco and i don't see how tamin couldn't have continued to be on the team even with his addition, but i think i understand the reason for garland's exit now. svu has covered the spectrum of real world issues in terms of sex crimes and law enforcement, but one thing they do admittedly shy away from at times is the realism of an entrenched police department and the bureaucratic nonsense that good law enforcement officers and district attorneys come up against. i like benson being in charge of the unit and being able to push for the agenda that all victims should matter equally, but the fact of the matter is that to this day, inequality and marginalization are massive stains on the effort to combat sex crimes in this country. having someone more concerned with optics and how "good" a witness a victim makes is entirely realistic and authentic, and as much as i hate mcgrath's character, people like him do exist, especially in established positions of power. him acting as an overarching antagonist to the goals of benson's unit makes complete sense.

that said, it won't make for good television in the long term. i imagine that he'll serve as a plot device for part of the season, maybe a large majority of it at the absolute most? otherwise the tension and distress will quickly sour for a viewing audience.

most importantly i think this is setting up olivia to become the svu chief, which prior to these last two seasons i would have said does not suit her character or personality at all—however, given her injury, the fact that she has a son, and the added stressor of an intensely intimate relationship back in her life in the form of stabler, it does have legitimacy. and i can see olivia considering it since it would be significantly less active duty, without removing her from a position of authority within the department. and as a teacher who has seen the benefit of getting involved at a legislative level, i recognize the appeal of having a character whose career trajectory follows the path where they can make changes to policies, and where their decisions are broad strokes instead of small, localized details. i do think THAT makes sense for olivia's character and history, and i think the story arc with mcgrath will likely set her up to see the role she could have within the department after so many obstacles and hurdles these last few seasons.

or she convinces garland to come back bc tbh i love him and miss him already

some things of note because i've made it a habit to point out things that half-assed critiques get wrong before saying what i actually think about a film:

1. this was not directed by jordan peele. he produced it. nia da costa directed it, and it has very much the same feel as her overall body of work. comparing this to get out and us is unfair to both peele and da costa.

2. the original candyman was a social commentary as well. a lot of slasher flicks are social commentaries with regard to topics aside from historical racism like disabilities, socioeconomic disparity, and mental illness. if you don't like social commentary in your horror? your horror options are pretty limited.

3. my advice is always this: if you can't enjoy a movie because it tackles subjects of inequality and oppression, then that's a you problem. it's a problem worth working through, all the same.

anyway, i loved this. so glad it was my first movie in theaters again since the pandemic started, it was highly worth it. the score was unsettling and stressful in just the right way, and fuck if the progression of the bee sting wasn't the most disgusting thing i'd ever seen. also: those of you who get really grossed out by trypophobia might want to avert your eyes a little in the church scene. the pattern is uniform, not irregular, but it's still real fucking weird.

having watched the original before this -- sequel's better, man. i don't know what the outrage over product placement is, unless product placement = all the intellectual property that wb owns? which again, capitalism. but they advertised nike about as much as the original did, and aside from something like e3 game camp being given lip service and the occasional electronics, the product placement was just acknowledgement of other wb owned franchises. and that's CUTE, not annoying. i love that they visited mad max world and lebron being a hufflepuff for a hot second was really endearing.

and is he the greatest actor? absolutely not. he's an incredible basketball player though so who cares? plus the other acting is solid, and i think both space jams highlight a big thing about acting: it's easier when you're working with other tangible people. when there's a lot of special effects to interact with, it takes a specific kind of person to make that believable. good actors aren't necessarily going to be just as good when everything is a green screen. michael jordan and lebron james both were a lot more convincing in their roles when they were interacting with other human beings -- and lebron also did better voice acting than a hell of a lot of other athletes have for video games, for that matter.

this was true feel good nostalgia for a kid who grew up with the original space jam. and it had a more cohesive story, more complete follow through on its jokes, and it was such a colorful delight to experience. if you were wowed by into the spiderverse, this gets kind of close (but obviously nowhere near) to that feeling.

this is a movie for kids so the rewatch as an adult was a little less delightful than the nostalgia of it is. still, it's cute. i will say the number of times that r kelly's i believe i can fly played didn't age well.

also, for 1996 the way that the movie's effects were rendered was really enjoyable! it's nowhere near what cgi does now, but it was never that hard to suspend disbelief about the real characters interacting with cartoons.

one major con—the pacing of the movie is much worse than i remembered. granted, i was 7 when i saw it. but there are a lot of jarring moments where scenes cut out and jokes occur without any lead up or even context.

i watched this ahead of the sequel just for a refresher and i've already read that a major point of contention for the new one is the amount of product placement, but like... first of all, this is what capitalism is, it's the commodification of literally everything and that includes entertainment. but more importantly, i have a feeling there are a lot more applicable products to give advertising rights to in 2020 than there were in 1996? like, they definitely advertised themselves (wb) and namedropped things like nike and gatorade plenty, and the nba got a lot of exposure in terms of non sports fans. i also had the world's cutest space jam chuck taylors as a kid so even if they didn't rely heavily on the product placement in 96 they more than made up for it in merchandising.

i can't really say i enjoyed this film, because it was really uncomfortable. like, the feeling of dread about how things were developing was hard to set aside, even knowing this was a piece of fiction. i finished high school long after columbine but well before the age of school shootings happening every week, or more, and the most traumatic thing that happened at my school was a lockdown because an armed gunman from a nearby robbery cut through our campus in an attempted escape. and that time we had a bomb threat, that was kind of scary.

anyway, even being pretty removed compared to the generation after me, this was hard to be able to find comedic value in. there are funny moments, but it's not a funny film. the high schoolers are believable, and so are the teachers. i'm glad owen was able to come out of his shell, i guess? and matt is a truly convincing character—in that he's kind of a shell of a person, whose personality is wholly constructed around the movies that he enjoys. i love kevin smith and he doesn't usually steer me wrong but idk i could've lived my life easily without ever seeing this.

do you like video games but kind of suck at them if there's anything more than quick time events or turn based strategy? this movie is for you. it has all the excitement and thrill of a video game without you having to die a thousand times or restart at a save point another dozen. the acting was great, and the cgi done on the aliens was chefs kiss. seriously. kudos to all the actors making it feel like the aliens were actually, physically interacting with them. and best of all, the whitespikes were such a memorable and vivid design. i'd love to see the concept art by the art team, i think the last time i was this charmed by a monster it was clovie.

on the other hand: do you want total believability with no unexplained phenomena? this is not the movie for you. it's sci fi, it has aliens and time travel and not everything is completely plausible because let's be real here, time travel and contact with aliens haven't happened in reality and there's no telling how either of those things will occur, if they ever do. also, everything we know about how our universe works is theoretical, so if you struggle to enjoy sci fi because it doesn't feel realistic, just keep that in mind and maybe you'll have fun on the ride.

i watched this as a preteen in theaters and it set the tone for all horror films after—as in, if it was something my undiagnosed gad/ocd ravaged brain couldn't rationalize after three hours, then it was terrifying. i made the mistake of covering my eyes more than once, which i now know as an adult is far more scary than anything that someone else manages to put on film. so sufficed to say, my first experience was a memorable one, and also, my friend had someone prank me and call my (lil blue nokia brick) cell phone as we walked out of the theater, so like, i have trust issues with movies, what about it?

anyway i've put off rewatching it for years because i just felt like it wasn't going to be any less scary, despite such wonderful additions to my daily routine like zoloft, and therapy. netflix having it available to stream ended up being enough temptation and here i am on the other side. i regret covering my eyes so much; i missed a lot of great storytelling that i probably would've appreciated, and the jump scares were honestly not that bad. i did still startle at that fucking centipede, man. millipede?? who cares. naomi watts is so pretty to look at, the movie does a great homage to the japanese horror genre (unlike a lot of remakes that followed in its footsteps) and the acting is all around solid. i think for any other millennials who watched this before or during puberty, the second watch is worth it—it wasn't exactly the terrifying suspense that preteen me thought it was, but it was fun to revisit it and actually experience the movie.

i'll give jim cummings the benefit of the doubt for his acting, especially because i've never seen his other roles and plus, his daughter's behavior mimicked his a lot in those last scenes - i think it was a purposeful choice and it worked. after all, his character isn't meant to be likable or sympathetic, he's a classic antihero. and if you haven't had the misfortune of meeting someone like that in real life, i'm sorry to tell you that they do actually exist to be that intolerable and inept. his characterization was distinct enough to feel intentional and therefore sincere, rather than generically bad acting, and i loved the character, in an "i have never wanted to duct tape a human being's mouth this badly before" kind of way.

the story was good, plot was fun and easy to follow. it's very fargo and twin peaks in mood, and i think a lot of the tag lines and info on the movie does it a disservice by characterizing it as a serious, dark kind of horror. if you do that to a movie that's comedic in nature, it ruins what everyone is expecting from the movie. it primes people to take things seriously instead of catching onto the joke, and that leaves a disappointing taste in a persons mouth even if the movie is legitimately great. and i think this movie is that! it's definitely not 100% original, but i think it fits its genre well and i enjoyed every bit of it.

no clue if it's the movie itself but the audio isn't always synced and it's really irritating.

the cinematography is nice, but as apple likes to point out, you can film some really nice shit on your phone these days so i can't say i'm THAT impressed. the score has terrible timing, there's no clear transition between scenes (even with the found footage aspect it feels bizarre, especially since it's only partially found footage). the acting isn't the worst (trust me go watch some of the other falsely inflated horrors on imdb then this feels oscar worthy) but having two of the three leads being hit or miss with their acting makes it hard to suspend disbelief for very long. einar has a few good moments when he's yelling at mark, but otherwise his emotions feel insincere, helen is operating at a solid mediocre and mark was the only one who was convincing throughout the film. he is exactly what a neurotic friendzoned cameraman nerd would act like in this situation and frankly i only finished the movie for him.

a few funny quotes and not so awful that i couldn't finish it, but overall it just misses the mark. the director probably needs to work on how they interact with their actors because i have a feeling from einar's performance that he's likely a good actor when given good direction. and the screenwriter needs to figure out what the fuck they were even writing and get an editor to help them with transitions and plot points.

first the tldr: good for a stream on hbo max just wear headphones or have a good sound system for maximum fun. as always the conjuring movies' greatest departure from the truth is always gonna be that ed and lorraine weren't just shitty con artists.

now the rest: have you ever noticed how once a man's played a sexual predator he continues to give those vibes no matter what role he gets afterward? except for patrick wilson. patrick wilson somehow ascended beyond that hard candy creep factor and it always amazes me.

if you like the conjuring series you'll probably enjoy this installment! it's got fewer scares and effects compared to the other two but it works for it, honestly. if you take out all the scenes where there was only one witness to something supernatural occurring, it sets it up well for the verdict in the movie; there's very little in the way of "real" proof for those not involved. i will say there are a few liberties taken to make the movie work the way they wanted to tell it, but like. it's a supernatural horror based on a real life pair of flim flammers. they're gonna have to take liberties to tell a good story.

onto the things that really mattered to me: patrick wilson lookin real fine for an early 80s man who suffered a heart attack and limps around a lot; vera farmiga looking very emotional even when it's a whole lotta bullshit; john noble being british and heartbreaking (rip fringe), and lastly the sound is So Good on hbo max. i have a samsung smart tv but no other speakers, so i used my headphones. they're a bluetooth pair off of amazon, they're not super expensive and i still managed to get creeped out more than once by how well the sound traveled from ear to ear and how much clarity there was for every single whisper and creak.

i find it strange that the director of this film reportedly claimed that though this was intended to be based on the manson murders that it wasn't actually being directly named.

because i could see there being a decent horror about a home invasion loosely inspired by the real life manson cult story. i mean, something in the vein of the strangers but make it ari aster would be something i'd watch. and while no ones claiming ryan murphy is a moral compass for the ages, he's done a fairly decent job of balancing the exploitation of true crime for entertainment with original content and twists (i mean i think i wrote a group therapy session among different fictional villains once and the serial killer dinner party in ahs hotel was basically the grownup version of that but STILL). so there's space for horror based in truth.

this was not loosely inspired by the tate murders. this took an entirely real, terrible tragedy with awful consequences and pasted it into a film with pretty people. having a mid credits roll that shows the actual photos of the people and reviews the aftermath isn't "loosely" following reality. this movie took everything down to the type of restaurant that the friends ate at prior to the murders and put it in their film, and then they tried to spin it for entertainment with a former scream queen lead and a scene basically making light of the fact that the groundskeeper didn't hear a single sound because he was listening to music. i don't understand who does that and thinks it's not exploitative.

don't watch this. i watched for the leads, expecting a very loose manson connection and a campy horror. instead i got a weird 4k hd reenactment of the tate murders wikipedia entry that left me unhappy and vaguely wanting a shower. i don't honestly know how two women with successful television careers would agree to a film as shitty as this, it's not like they're in desperate need for work.