TYTD Reviews

In tribute to the late Paul Reubens I decided to dust off my old copy of ‘Big Adventure’ for a bit of a nostalgia fest.

Honestly there’s not a lot that need be said about this film. We have an eccentric and manic script, a joint effort of Reuben and the late great Phil Heartman that’s bonkers, punchy, frighteningly fresh several decades on from its release and the perfect antidote to blow away the blues.

The direction is an early effort from Tim Burton and while lacking in his distinct style, there are early signs of it fermenting in the background of this picture.

We have studio grade cine present here which does a fine job of setting a standard. But the dream sequences and use of stop motion claymation in places really is what helps take this to the next level.

The edits tight with solid cuts and transitions that help keep things zipping along at a decent pace. I’d argue the film slows down a bit in the 3rd act. I could easily see 5-10 minutes being lopped out of that act to really help cement things further. But even the slacker moments of this production are still quite good fun to sit through.

That’s not even mentioning Reubens performance. A storm on a bicycle, Pee wee Herman arrives on screen fully formed and ready for action. With a supporting cast of kooky characters that should enthrall kids and mystify adults. A clean work of new wave cinema arriving right at the peak of the genre.

Throw in a killer Danny Elfman Score that REAKS of ‘peak of their game’ Oingo Boingo, and you have an at times mystifying, but certainly never full movie experience that I really need to rewatch more often quite honestly. Definitely worth checking out.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/pee-wees-big-adventure/

Watched on Friday August 4, 2023.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/hairspray/1/

Watched on Friday August 4, 2023.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/ed-wood/1/

I speak with sincerity when I say, ‘They just dont make movies like this anymore’.

Some kind of monsterous hybrid of those old 80’s ‘Journey’ movies (Pee Wee’s Big Adventure, The Wizard, Elvira: Mistress of the Dark) a self aware and acidic slash at ‘toy commercial’ movies, a self aware and acidic swipe at the dumbing down of cinema (and kids films in particular) and an acidic swipe at Incel culture, toxic masculinity and the pressures placed on women and young girls in our society, while ALSO acknowledging that acknowledging those cultures and pressures is in and of itself a stereotype at this point. I feel SO sorry for anyone who came to this movie expecting a slushy pink bimbocized picture. Because there is FAR more going on in this thing than even I expected going in.

I had to remind myself at multiple points through this thing that it was in fact *supposed* to be a kids film. Because, barring a somewhat faux setup in the first 10 minutes establishing ‘Barbieland’ as a magical and perfect place where yesterday was as amazing as today and tomorrow is set to be even better. The entire rest of the movie is about Barbie heading into the real world (with Ken in tow) to try and settle existential dread that has creapt into the ‘stereotypical’ Barbies subconcious; leading to a journey of self discovery, identity definition and not only a heavy discussion on what it takes to be a woman in the modern day, but also a vivid exploration of masculinity, patriarchy and the self (eid).

And somehow they juggle all of that while also throwing in slapstick comedy, stupid humour that doesnt go lowbrow and actually funny jokes.

I cant say this film holds together well. The act structuring itself is pretty solid, but the film acknowledges that the *exact* science between how Barbie and co get from Barbieland to the real world is one that shouldnt be thought on too heavily. If you can get over that hurdle, the rests a breeze.

Pacing is breakneck, but enjoyably so. the themes are fascinating and MORE than welcome in the age of ‘The Emoji Movie’ and ‘Trolls’. But there were times where the film felt a little *too* much like attending a lecture series than a movie, and equally times where the humour went even a little *too* dumb for me. Is it heavy handed? I’d say it is in places. and the film quite often seems to lose its own thread at times. But y’know what? Its enthusiasm about what it’s trying to do and say shines radiently resulting in an imperfect film thats charming, charismatic and…While the whiff of ‘Toy commercial’ is very much in the air with this thing… …. … The movies called ‘Barbie’ what did I THINK they were gonna do with it?

Visually this things nuts. part german expressionist inspired and part experimental cinema led. Barbieland rides the line of films like ‘Dr. Caligari’ (1989) and the works of Wes Anderson. But on a big budget. everything is visually stunning the decision to flick between all manner of different styles of layering (the paper and plastic craft transition scenes between the real world and Barbie land were my personal highlights) were wonderful. Its nice to see a film not be afraid to go garish and glam with HYPER vivid colours turning what could have been a fairly generic production into something altogether ‘Extra’.

The real world sequences are a little bit of a letdown by contrast, coming across as a bit bland and muted. I get what they were trying to do, but it never quite hits in the same way as the more surreal moments. but Greta Gerwig has delivered here a production that, while inconsistent. IS unique, IS interesting and I sincerely hope is a launchpad rather than a ‘one off’.

The cine is solidly composed. Theres maybe a bit too much of an overreliance on CG for my liking. I’d have preferred a return to matte paintings and realising the more surreal ideas practically personally. But, it’s a studio picture. it wasnt going to be horrendous. I wouldnt have expected it to be, it’s maybe not *quite* as interesting compositionally as I’d personally have liked. But it holds up well enough.

As for the performances, both Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling DELIGHT as Barbie and as Ken, bringing a rock solid range across the runtime that showcases some of Robbies best work i’ve seen to date, Gosling by contrast is a delight playing a Ken who’s golden retriever energy and later dedication to the patriarchy (I never thought in a million years i’d write THAT in a Barbie review) is lunk headed, but clearly carefully coordinated and equally wonderful.

Special kudos has to go to Michael Cera as ‘Allan’ who’s the real sleeper of this picture. I honestly dont think i’ve seen Cera give a bad performance and his own eccentric energy pours into this thing perfectly leading to honestly rock solid results.

In fact, bizarrely; it’s Will Ferral who feels the odd one out here. the script doesnt really develop his character all that much, he turns up incrementally throughout and doesnt…really…do a lot…other than his usual ‘Step Brothers’/’Elf’ routine. Which was a bit dissapointing…I actually found the business men he surrounds himself with to be more entertaining at times than him.

The supporting cast do a damn fine job completing this bizarre ensamble. creating ultimately a movie that, with a lesser cast, would have almost certainly fallen apart.

All of this is tied together with a decent soundtrack mixing more modern tracks with remixes of 80’s dittys (Babies peak generally) to create a strangely textured work.

It very much is a ‘planets have aligned’/’Just the right people in just the right place, at just the right time’ movie. Is it perfect? absolutley not. While the script is charming and endearing, it is ultimately a tad flawed and its hard to tell whether the blame is on corporate interference or directoral oversight. A touch heavy handed in places and a little bit all over the place plot wise, it’s the characters, tone, energy and vision for ‘Barbie’ that shines through and ultimately saves the day for me.

Is this a good kids film? I honestly dont know. the themes discussed are quite complex and I think even adults would struggle to really truely process everything thats laid down here. But what I will say is if you have an older daughter (8-10+) and your down for some in depth disucssions on femenism and the patriarchy. Go for it. I think you’ll have a time and a half! If you have a son. Take him to see this movie as soon as possible.

And dont be fooled by the faux glam. Bubbling just below the surface of this thing is a witty, dark, sardonic work that will absolutely appeal to anyone who ever hated barbie growing up. I honestly cant wait to grab this on home release.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/barbie/

Not my favourite Nick Cage film, but it’s in the upper half entertainment wise. The stories fun, it looks great and has at least a few moments that made me laugh out loud.

It’s a bit overlong for my taste, I think it could have easily been 20 minutes shorter and had another draft or two in it to really nail the premise. But it was fun enough. One I may revisit in future. But not without its faults.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-unbearable-weight-of-massive-talent/

I kind of feel bad about ‘Rabid’ because it just didnt quite set my world alight in the same way that a lot of Cronenberg films do. Part of me feels though that this is because it’s a little *too* close to ‘Shivers’ in terms of what its trying to do. and realistically, im sure theres more than enough evidence here to lay claim that this could be seen as a bigger budgeted broader remake of ‘Shivers’ only replacing a killer sexy leech organism with a skin graft that causes mega rabies.

Thats not to say the film is a complete wash out however. I really liked ‘Shivers’ as an idea and while im a little dismayed to see the basic concept kind of regurgitated so soon after ‘Shivers’ was made. I do have to admit however that on a technical level, this thing blows ‘Shivers’ clean out of the water.

Its a much more refined and nuanced production that feels like Cronenberg learnt a LOT from his first foray into feature film production, and its clear here that some of his more signature directing style is really starting to fruit quite wonderfully. we have the clear beginnings of a keen eye for direction. The script keeps a decent pace, is pretty well structured and while it does lose a little momentum at the start of the 3rd act, its still an enjoyable and thouroughly grim time that I enjoyed.

The cine is a vast step up from his previous work, as is his direction of the cast and his soundtrack choices.

Honestly; I just dont really have a whole lot to say about this one. It feels like a director on the grow, but I was a little dissapointed that his second ever feature was kind of a retooling of his first feature. Thats not to say I didnt enjoy it, I absolutely did. I just feel this is a case of being more comfortable with ‘Shivers’ having seen it half a dozen times, makes liking this film (even though it IS technically superior) a bit harder because im not as familiar or in tune with its beats.

One I liked, but didnt love. I could see myself being won over by this one with rewatches. as its stands, it’s an obvious recommended movie from me. And if you havent seen any Cronenberg, I’d recommend this one as a solid starting point.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/rabid/

Pretty much everything about 1976’s ‘Bloodsucking Freaks’ should repulse me. In an era when exploitation cinema was really coming into its own as a boundary pusher for cinema in terms of taste and decency. ‘Freaks’ is an entry that even the most ardant exploitation booze hound would say was a bit near the knuckle.

And yet, its the execution within ‘Freaks’ that flips this thing on it’s head for me, from an unwatchable piece of torture porn garbage to something I could actually see myself watching again in future (this’ll mark the 3rd time i’ve put this on voluntarily).

At its core the plot is a bit deranged, but simple. A mad theater performer called ‘Sardu’ is staging experimental stage art in a SOHO warehouse/theater to members of the public featuring the mutilation and graphic torturing of women with a helping hand from his dwarf assistant ‘Ralphus’. The audience love the ‘realness’ of the piece. But the reality is, these women are ACTUALLY being tortured live on stage. But the theatrical setting makes the audience think it’s staged.

The reality is Sardu and Ralphus are kidnapping large numbers of women from across the city and are using torture and conditioning in an attempt to ‘break’ them, turning them into willing and compliant slaves who’ll gladly get their legs chopped off if it pleases their ‘master’, Sardu himself has a furious temper, but is also a submissive and regularly recieves beatings from some of the girls he’s conditioned to be dominant to him on command.

When a theater critic visits the show, he refuses to review the piece for the local paper on the grounds that, even if he wrote a bad review it might tempt the public to come down anyway and see the show to see HOW bad it actully was. Sardu isnt happy with this and concocts a scheme for ultimate revenge which includes kidnapping the critic, a celebrated ballarina and extensive scenes of EVEN MORE graphic mutilation and torture. All leading to a showstopping ‘performance’ that’ll more than leave your jaw on the floor.

And I suppose I should add a bit of context here, a genre of film making that I absolutely detest is the ‘Women getting stalking, mutilated and killed for 90 minutes’ subgenre. Think your ‘Night train murders’ or ‘The New York Rippers’ of the world. I take no pleasure or enjoyment in seeing a film makers excuse to explore their mysoginistic fetishes on camera. With only very few notable exceptions.

‘Bloodsucking Freaks’ is one of them, and for a good reason (at least in my mind) and it’s the same reason that got ‘The Evil Dead’ taken off the ‘Video Nasties’ list all the way back in 1984. And thats that this film is too over the top, campy and rediculous to EVER be considered malicious.

There isnt an OUNCE of this film that could even be taken remotely seriously as a work. Its almost a parody of ‘mondo’ and exploitation cinema of the day. Its absolutely a nasty piece of work; gory, violent and aggressive in it’s construction. But malicious? absolutley not. If anything it’s basically a subtle lampooning of exploitation cinema by my reckoning.

The scripts a little on the slow side, clocking in at just shy of 90 minutes I could easily see this thing lose 15 minutes and be a lot better for it. It has a solid act structuring, keeps a pretty solid pace and has it’s tongue planted FIRMLY in it’s cheek across the entirity of it’s runtime. Everyone involved in this seems to understand the tone and humour thats embedded in this thing and it’s nice to see a cast be so receptive to dark humour of this kind of quality.

Thats not to say its without its faults, the torture scenes are hammy, over the top and overly dramatic, which I appreciated. But I do think it focusses on the torture aspect a bit too much and i’d have preferred more oddnes with Sardu and Ralphus honestly. It gets a little bit repetative after a time and that coupled with a little bit of a slow down in the pacing between the 2nd and 3rd acts does kind of disrupt what was otherwise a pretty electric work that really does stand out for this point in time.

Directions a little sloppy too, but that does kind of work in the films favour. We have low quality heavy grain film stock used for this one (presumably to keep costs down) Which for any other genre of film making would have made the film look cheap, seedy and lower rent. But for horror; it really gives it a ‘rough and ready’ stylistic feel that was the vogue of most grindhouse pictures of the day. and thats pretty much the base that this film works off of really.

Theres a lot of very vivid colour choices used throughout which play against the seedy stock quality quite nicely. Blood is basically poster paint/Hammer red, everything has a flat lighting profile, with most shots leading off into a seeming void of nothingness (again likely a budget decision…but effective) more ‘comfortable’ locations like Sardus living quarters are filled with rich Greens, reds, blues and oranges. And I personally found the stylistic contrast of having all these vivid and royal colours clashing with the blackness and bleakness of the fringes of the sets to be really quite powerful. Especially when contrasted with exterior shots which are almost entirely muted greys and browns.

It really makes you feel like, when your inside the theater with Sardu, your entering another world, removed from the hustle and bustle of society. You’re in Sardu’s domain.

Direction of the cast iiiiis…interesting, our core players are decently managed, they use the set space well and it’s clear a lot of work was put in to nail the exact tone this thing was going for…the extras? Well they’re all ‘broken’ women ranting and raving like lunatics and acting like dogs…I mean; if thats what they’re supposed to be going for, they nailed the brief…but it would have maybe have been a bit nicer to just see a bit more variety in terms of what someone who’s been fundamentally ‘broken’ acts like, because the impression given here is that when someones brain is bent, they start barking and turn into cannibals…and thats about it.

Cine wise, its again a little rough and ready, but the aforementioned colour and styalisation really help pull this thing up, the flat lighting is both a help and a hinderance, giving further illusion to the roughness of the production (a charitable interpretation) while also feeling just a bit uninspiring. that being said compositions are largely handheld wides or mids, compositions a bit sketchy, but theres definitely some shots to love, but it is lacking when it comes to its sequence construction through a mix of akward cuts and lack of b-roll…Which was a bit of a shame.

Performance wise? Seamus O’Brien as Sardu is astounding, giving a wonderfully electric, unpredictable and campy performance that managed to genuinely enthrall me across the runtime, I had no idea what was coming up next with him and even on rewatches, he gives me vibes that I STILL shouldnt get too comfortable in terms of what to expect. Hes fantastic.

Credit also has to go to Luis De Jesus as Sardu’s assistant Ralphus, a VERY malicious and equally campy foil to O’Briens performance with maybe just a hint more relish in the joy he gets torturing. Theres not a dull moment when he’s on screen and his work with Viju Krem who plays the dancer Natasha who’s abducted by Ralphus and slowly broken (herself a fantastic performance that has a nice complexity to it where it could have just been very one note) was a delight.

‘Bloodsucking freaks’ is one of those films that I dont think really could be done justice nowadays, modern film makers are too clued up on styalisation choices and the horror genre now is geared WAY too heavily towards unpleasentness for the sake of unpleasentness. This film came about at the perfect time for a film like this to come about, it isnt afraid to embrace campness while mixing in VERY controversial themes, but it also isnt snobby about what it’s trying to achieve. We have here a film that acknowledges the dark, perverted and gory world the exploitation subgenre was creating and laughs openly at it.

It isnt trying to be ‘Salo’ it’s not trying to make ‘art’ it’s trying to get the job done and put across the absurdness of the genre that birthed it. And even though I cant say I outright LOVE this for that…I can at least appreciate it.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/bloodsucking-freaks/

After a string of some of the strangest and cheesiest movies to ever grace the 80’s, peaking with ‘Hobgoblins’ in 1988. Vice Academy is a definite change of pace in the career of Rick Sloane. A much more toned down picture that dials back the ‘zany’ otherworldly humour of the likes of ‘The Visitants’ and ‘Blood Theater’ in exchange for a much more muted and sexually driven experience that I personally felt wasnt particularly confident in it’s execution.

Quite literally the plot follows a group of ‘hoping to be’ cops as they work through their training to get into the Vice squad. This translates to a few scenes of ‘Police Academy-esq’ slapstick gags about how inexperienced cops can get up to shenanigans while training. But the main focus follows our group of trainees attempting to bust an illegal prostituation and pornography racket. Which has the potential to be quite good fun, but it never quite breaks above ‘tolerable’ for me.

The scripts more groanworthy than anything else, it’s cheesy, but lacking a clear vision as to exactly what this thing wants to be. It definitely has a tongue in cheek attitude to its subject, but the comedy is incredibly basic and really quite groanworthy for the most part, theres some serious elements that get played on (sexual assault, drug abuse etc) but those elements, for me at least, landed incredibly tone deaf in the face of the comedy, and made the comedy itself feel incredibly glib as a result.

We dont really get a lead aggressor in this till the final 20 minutes. which means a lot of the script is just our cast kind of bumbling in and out of CER-AZY situations that dont really add up to a coherent narrative.

The act structures a bit of a mess, the opening act is inconsistent and doesnt really introduce our characters in a memorable or notable way, the 2nd act is really more a series of situations than a developing of the opening, and the 3rd act is probably the most coherent part of the movie. But by this point it’s hard to be enthused by a movie thats wasted over an hour of my time on women running around in lengerie and bland (and sometimes quite questionable) humour that at best didnt make me want to turn it off.

The dialogues quite poor quality, the tone and pacing are off, theres no real payoff worth the time put in and VERY mild spoilers here but [The film ends basically admitting they’re already working on a sequel, which feels like a very lazy way to tell your audience that you couldnt be bothered to end your movie properly, so come back and see if things get better…I will struggle to do that]

Outside of a lacklustre script, the rest of the films actually not too bad, the directions pretty decent for the most part, it has a pretty clear vision on a technical level, though outside of a few shots with coloured gel lighting I wouldnt have linked Rick Sloane to this picture as a director. I really get the feeling he was doing this film for the paycheck and tape quite honestly. its technically sound enough, but a HUGE departure from Sloanes other work and a quite drab affair when all is said and done.

Direction of the cast is kind of flat too, Theres a few animated turns here and there which DOES help sell *some* of the gags a bit more than they might have in lesser hands. But theres just not a whole lot going on here in terms of getting the best out of the cast. a lot of the shots are just locked off scenes of 2-3 actors stood in place on a street or warehouse reeling out dialogue in such a way that borders on ‘softcore’ level standards…it’s not a great experience.

The cine again is fine enough, there a few shots that do experiment a bit more than others, colour is used fairly effectively on the night shots, The continuity is awful in the best way imaginable (my particular highlight being some shots having a smoke machine pumping smoke into the shot for ‘atmosphere’ but its done in situations that smoke being present simply wouldnt exist…like in a warehouse or someones living room.

Compositions are largely fine, theres a couple of wobbly bits here and there, but again it just about does the job. Being honest its the cine and moments where the tone work thats made up the bulk of my score for this thing.

Performances are pretty dire, but at least they’re somewhat tolerable. lines are delivered in the most unbelievable way with a hearty dose of cheese and very little else endearing the performances. You get the feeling from most of the cast that they’re basically there to collect their paycheck and goof about for a couple of months and thats about it. But for the most part the acting here comes across as forced, awkward and just plain weird.

The soundtracks probably the only other thing going for this film, with ‘severe tyre damage’ providing some tracks alongside a rocky and 80s poppy scoring. its solid. Not what i’d have expected for a film like this, but definitely better for it.

All in all?…Ughhhh…I’ve seen far worse, but i’ve absolutely seen better. I think had the film had a bit of a cleaner storyline and clearer vision on how it wanted to present itself tonally, i’d have probably got on with it better. As it stands, it has its moments here and there. But this is absolutely not an essential watch, and probably not one I’ll be back to for a while.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/vice-academy/

Watched on Wednesday June 21, 2023.

source https://letterboxd.com/tytdreviews/film/the-wicker-man/1/