1. Obsession - I liked this a lot, but I also think that a lot of the underlying themes and depth that exists are...accidental. And I'm not trying to knock the director because he is a young, privileged, male - I fully admit he made an excellent film. And a film that resonated with a lot of people. It's obviously a box office success, but it's also a film that people wanted to TALK about in depth, and I find that really rare nowadays. So, kudos to him! I'm excited to see what he does next! But I'm also a little skeptical because I just don't think a 26 year old has this much insight into the world. But, we'll see! Because I waited until it was streaming, there was SO much written about it - I had a plethora of opinions waiting for me to read. It's incredibly interesting to read how people have interpreted the film, some of it is WILD ("she was already in love with him" is the craziest take I've seen about a film in a while - BY A WOMAN no less!). But here is how I see it: I think Curry Barker made a very surface level horror movie (again, a good one!) that's kind of (almost assuredly unintentionally) misogynistic, about a man wishing for a woman to fall in love with him only for that wish to backfire on him because she's a psychopath. The tagline is literally "Be careful who you wish for" - which literally means "careful because some bitches be CRAZY". I've come to this conclusion for one simple reason: his wish is "
I wish Nikki Freeman loved me more than anyone in the fucking world" and suddenly Nikki becomes an possessive, jealous, murderous psychopath because that's how the concept of "love" is being interpreted here. It's an all-consuming
obsession. And it's an excuse for men to keep their distance, to cut themselves off emotionally, to avoid commitment, etc., and still blame it on women. But the real (almost assuredly unintentional) "depth" of the film is that it is actually men who are to blame! The reality of it is that it is a big, fat, giant fucking circle (men are distant because women are clingy, so women become clingy because men are distant). There is also some great commentary (actually maybe intentional) about how difficult it is for men to just...fucking TALK to a woman they have feelings for and possibly face heartbreak/confrontation/sadness, and will opt for literally
any other option. I mean, if this "wish" option actually existed, women would just lose their romantic/sexual freedom all together, because men would choose it every time (I don't know...maybe the "good" men would realize that this is, in fact, rape. But I also think that a very scarily large percentage of men would be ok with that). Anyway, the discussion
around the movie is probably more interesting than the actual movie if you really think about it (there's also this theory going around that the soul of his dead cat is brought back into Nikki's body because his cat "
loved him more than anyone in the fucking world", which is an interesting thought - but I don't think fully works). As far as the actual film, the acting is the highlight - Inde Navarrette is a FIND! Just an incredible debut performance. But I also think Michael Johnston does a great job of straddling this fine line of making you still care about what happens to him even if you don't necessarily like him. The super weak link is the guy who plays his friend/co-worker (also speaking of co-worker - there are WAY too many employees for an independent music shop??!! The only way they could afford that many workers is if it's a drug front). That guy can
not act (I looked him up and it looks like he's friends with Barker, so that makes sense. There's no way he auditioned for this role and was the best person for it. LOL). I think the way Nikki is pushed into the shadows for a lot of the film works really well, but I hate a lot of the lighting and color choices -some of it looks like those fake western photos you take at a fair with the sepia toned saturation. And a lot of the story is just dumb - anyone would just instantly call 911 as soon as someone started smashing their own face in (and then she goes to sleep with dried blood all over her face??). I mean, I probably would have contacted a doctor well before this, but that would have definitely been my tipping point. Also, nothing
actually scary happens until like 90 minutes into the film and there's only another 20 minutes left after that. But overall, I think it's a really strong, interesting film and will likely be in my Top 10 of the year (it's currently #4).
2. Undertone - I saw extremely varying opinions on this and usually that means I will rate it 3 stars. It's always so jarring to see someone I trust rate a film 1 star and then someone else I trust rate it 5 stars though - which is what happened with this. So, just like I thought, I think it's a solid 3 star film - although I think I can understand why someone has an extreme dislike for it more than someone who thinks it's a masterpiece. It is an ok horror movie - it's very quiet and subtle, and I think that gets overlooked when it comes to horror, but it's also lacking the intensity needed to pull this off. There are strong themes of guilt, motherhood, PPD, etc. Nina Kiri is terrific (I recognize her from
The Handmaid's Tale, but I think that's it?). It's a big year for horror films (and horror performances, specifically)! But I hate the whole idea of podcasts (sorry, not sorry) and the fact that they don't just turn these tapes over to the police immediately is a good indication of where we are as a society. I recently read an article about how this new age of true crime podcasters has had a severely negative impact on solving crimes because too many people are getting involved and have their own "theories" and it's actually overwhelming for detectives to narrow down
actual evidence and realistic explanations. I think everyone wants to be the next Michelle McNamara (who
did help find the Golden State Killer, even though police will never admit that BECAUSE they don't want to encourage average citizens to get involved!), which is crazy because that woman DIED because of her own obsession with that case. Anyway, I've gone on a tangent, but it's related because my point is that these podcasters should not have continued this "case" just to gain listeners and the idea of this is actually scarier than the film itself. Also, do they think that the fact that old children's songs are about death and disease is a
new idea? They kind of act like they've discovered something here and I find it eye-rolling.
3. Heartstopper Forever - Okay, so I rated this fairly low - 2.5 stars, compared to the series. I don't rate tv because Letterboxd doesn't have a tv section yet....I read that it's coming? I never really rated stuff until I got Letterboxd and I really don't want to use another site so I'm just waiting for Lb to separate the tv and movie stuff because I hate that it's mixed right now so I just don't add tv for now. But if I did rate the series, I would rate it 3.5? Maybe even 4 stars?? It's a very good show. I actually wrote about the first season on this blog somewhere. The main reason that I love it so much is because of its representation of queer joy - it's about teenagers finding JOY and I think this is not often the case with shows depicting LGBTQ+ themes (just like how rare it is to find media representation of black joy - it's always about racism, slavery, hate crimes, which are all IMPORTANT, but it shouldn't be the ONLY representation). I also appreciate that it doesn't have the "shock" factor of other teenage shows (like
Euphoria) - there is very little sex, alcohol, or drug use. I think reality lives somewhere in the middle of this. But I think this movie tries to push the envelope a little bit (there's drinking and sex), but it also only focuses on the two main characters and
everyone else is completely sidelined. That's my biggest complaint - Nick and Charlie are adorable and I love them, but I also love Elle and Tara and Darcy and Isaac (I'm a little meh on Tao - he's a little too whiny and entitled). I'm glad that the show was given a proper end, but I would have preferred like a 4 episode series ending that focused on ALL of the characters instead of a 2 hour film. Also, they RECAST Nick's mom aka Olivia Colman?! And you CAN'T recast Olivia Colman. It's just never going to work. I just think it was missing all of the genuine heartfelt moments of the show and kind of feels unnecessary and pointless. And most of the good reviews on LB are from gen Zers who discuss the movie along with the word "nostalgia" because a show that came out 4 years ago is apparently ancient (words have no meaning anymore).
4. Cold Storage - *spoilers ahead* I enjoyed this while I watched it but it is highly forgettable. It's another film that partly takes place in Australia (AGAIN!). I didn't know anything about this movie beforehand (husband picked it), so I was excited to see Sosie Bacon but....SHE DIES! LIKE RIGHT AWAY?! What the fuck?! So she's not even part of the cast - which is more based around the guy everyone loves from
Stranger Things (Steve. I can't remember his real name. Sorry!) and the girl from
Barbarian (who I really, really like). They have GREAT chemistry together and I enjoyed watching their banter. There's also Liam Neeson and Lesley Manville in smaller roles, which feels weird because, like, why are these two established actors in this movie?? It makes no sense. And THEN VANESSA REDGRAVE appears in a small role and I was like "how the FUCK did they get Vanessa Redgrave for this movie?? So that's when I had to do some digging - because as much as I enjoyed it, it's also a dumb action/sci-fi
nothing of a movie. And I still can't really figure it out - other than Liam Neeson does a lot of dumb action movies and this one is written by David Koepp - who obviously has clout in the industry (probably one of the best action screenwriters there is -
Jurassic Park,
Mission: Impossible,
War of the Worlds etc., and also one of my favorite (not action) film:
Death Becomes Her!), and then I also remembered that Vanessa Redgrave is technically Neeson's Mother-in-Law (she is the late Natasha Richardson's mom), so maybe he convinced her to do this?? Anyway, it's certainly not a bad movie - it just doesn't warrant a cast of
this caliber. There are some funny parts (the "He's got Covid" part made me choke on a mild dud), and the dialogue is written really well. And it's gory and campy and overall a good time.
5. Normal - This definitely exceeded my expectations. It's a ton of fun and completely unexpected. It's like
Hot Fuzz but with the Yakuza so...way more violence. I'm usually a big fan of Ben Wheatley films though (
Sightseers is probably my favorite) - even the films I don't love have some really great moments of brilliance (except maybe his most recent one...
Meg 2: The Trench because why the fuck did Ben Wheatley direct that movie??? It doesn't even make sense). This
feels more old-school Wheatley and I just think it's a really good watch. The plot goes in unexpected directions, some characters get gruesomely killed, and once the action starts...it does not stop! And I love that Bob Odenkirk is in his 60s now and pretty much exclusively makes action films with him just being a "normal" guy thrust into this world. I think it's actually best if you don't know much about it and just expect a dumb action movie, so the only other thing I'll say is that the "Physics, bitch!" line had to be a nod to
Breaking Bad's magnet moment
and I love it! Oh also, I was very concerned about the dog the WHOLE TIME, but the dog ends up fine.
