October 2021 - Ian Thomas Malone

Sunday

24

October 2021

0

COMMENTS

With Dune, Denis Villeneuve struggles in the sands of Arrakis

Written by Ian Thomas Malone, Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

Dune is a challenging book to adapt to screen for a few big reasons. Frank Herbert includes practically no filler in his 1965 epic, a densely packed narrative built to naturally resist any efforts to parse it down. A feature-length movie can’t be twenty hours long.

It’s easy to explain the appeal of the planet Arrakis or the feud between Houses Atreides and Harkonnen, but concepts like the Muad’Dib or the Bene Gesserit represent ideas that Herbert spent much of his life exploring through the five sequels he wrote before his 1986 death. Director Denis Villeneuve is tasked not only with portraying the events of the story, but also to bring to life the headier parts of Herbert’s world that even hardcore fans can struggle to understand.

Villeneuve does not necessarily try to tame the beast that is Dune, instead choosing to emulate the Fremen approach to wormriding. He sinks his hooks into his work’s massive scale and spends the 156-minute runtime desperately trying to hang on. The results are a bit more of a mixed bag than with his previous film Blade Runner 2049, a similar journey into well-trodden, narratively challenging terrain.

As a film, Dune is absolutely beautiful. The cinematography conveys its spectacle in every single frame. Having been previously adapted for screen in David Lynch’s 1984 disaster and the solid yet decidedly smaller-scale 2000 Sci Fi Channel miniseries, Villeneuve finally gives the source material the blockbuster adaptation it deserves.

The story falls a bit short in ways that help validate the two previous adaption’s efforts. Dune deserves the big screen, but its material is far better suited for television, a far more forgiving medium to the amount of exposition required. Villeneuve does a pretty good job giving his audience what they need to know, but he’s less successful in harnessing the emotional weight of the stakes at hand.

Timothee Chalamet looks a bit lost as the young Paul Atreides. It’s hard to blame him. Dune is really Dune part one, covering roughly the book’s first half. Chalamet is forced to be the star of a coming-of-age story where his character doesn’t get the chance to actually come of age. It’s an awkward dynamic, undoubtedly made more awkward by the film’s handling of the white savior trope at the core of its narrative. Dune is largely about destiny, but it can’t do much to overcome the privileged, mildly tedious nature of its star character.

As Lady Jessica, Rebecca Ferguson largely carries the emotional weight of the narrative. Caught between the world of the Bene Gesserit and her loyalties to her family, Jessica is by the most intriguing of the characters in Villeneuve’s orbit that’s forced to operate without much of Herbert’s backstory. The politics of the film’s universe are way too overly simplified, leaving Duke Leto (Oscar Isaac) with little to do but stare at things and express love for his kid.

Villeneuve has a firm grasp on Arrakis’ awe and wonder, but he never gives the audience a reason to invest in the narrative. The worldbuilding struggles without a strong emotional core. It’s hard to blame him for too much, having put forth stellar cinematography and a first-rate cast.

Dune isn’t as satisfying as it should have been considering all the talent involved. Villeneuve makes sure that supporting players like Duncan Idaho (Jason Momoa), Gurney Halleck (Josh Brolin), and Thufir Hawat (Stephen McKinley Henderson) get their moments to shine, but House Atreides as a whole never really feels like the power center it’s presented to be. There’s too much going on.

While part two is practically a foregone conclusion, it’s a fair question whether Villeneuve invested enough in the Fremen during part one. He treats Chani (Zendaya) as an object of fantasy more than a character, a notion that will sit in the audience’s mind for however long it takes to craft the sequel. Javier Bardem and Sharon Duncan-Brewster put forth two the film’s best performances in very limited appearances. Villeneuve may have been better off using Arrakis’ own people to explore the planet rather than mostly through the eyes of its under-developed colonizers.

Dune’s action sequences leave plenty to be desired, an oddly refreshing dynamic. Studios were leery of Herbert’s work for years largely due to the fact that it’s not a franchise that relies on battles. Villeneuve makes one of the book’s few epic conflicts look pretty small, an irony that Herbert himself might appreciate.

Arrakis has not been kind to those who venture to its world, a notion that applies both to its characters and those who have sought to adapt the material. Villeneuve crafted a beautiful film full of obvious love for Dune’s lore. It’s just too hard to walk away from the epic feeling a little underwhelmed with the final presentation. Maybe that’s inevitable to some extent, but maybe Villeneuve simply got lost in the desert, failing to fully grasp the magic of the spice.

Wednesday

20

October 2021

0

COMMENTS

Classic Film: Halloween

Written by Ian Thomas Malone, Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

Horror movies, particularly those in the slasher genre, exude an aura of indifference with regard to their characters, many of whom exist simply to be killed by the film’s big scary villain. The audience is trained not to get too attached to anyone whose name wasn’t near the beginning of the credits, just as most narratives have plenty of secondary and tertiary characters who don’t play a role in the climax. Gruesome death is largely just a way to pass the time, some warm-up thrills before the big main event.

Many slasher films forget the importance of giving their audiences some morsel of a reason to care about the secondary characters designed to serve as cannon fodder, spending large portions of their runtimes treading water in between murders. Halloween had different intentions. Carpenter’s meticulously crafted film doesn’t waste a single second, the gold standard of the slasher genre with its most effective score.

Halloween is an intimate film with few characters. Carpenter doesn’t spend much time exploring the backstories for Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis), Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasance), or Michael Myers (Nick Castle), understanding the inherent relatability of the stakes at hand. It’s not that there’s no time for frivolous backstory, but there’s no real need for it either. The gruesome nature of Myers’ villainy more than speaks for itself.

Carpenter can raise his audience’s heartbeat with a simple piano riff. Night or day, the sound of that melody takes hold of the senses, presenting the idea that anything could happen at any moment. Pleasance and Curtis, the latter making her cinematic debut, are top-notch, but Halloween is the rare film that could’ve coasted solely on the strength of its score.

Michael Myers is the very definition of evil, but Carpenter is careful not to saddle his villain with the bulk of the audience’s contempt. There is much reserved for the institutions that failed to safeguard the world from the boogeyman, including the hospital that failed to contain him and the police who didn’t take him seriously. Myers is not exactly a great example of the cover-up being worse than the crime, but Carpenter manages to spread the blame around.

What’s particularly refreshing about Halloween is the way that Carpenter’s fairly narrow scope feels simultaneously conclusive and open-ended. The bogeyman cannot be killed, not when Myers’ services are required for a dozen sequels. There should be no relief at the end of the narrative, yet Carpenter masterfully eases up on the pressure valve, providing a sense of closure where none should exist. For a genre often defined by low-budget direct-to-video releases, Halloween is a shining example of the power of the form when a master of the craft is behind the wheel.

Monday

18

October 2021

0

COMMENTS

Storm‘s End

Written by Ian Thomas Malone, Posted in Blog, Podcast

We are back in Westeros! Jim McGeehin returns to the show for a wide-ranging discussion on Storm’s End, the Stormlands, and the region’s significance within ASOIAF. George R.R. Martin’s worldbuilding is so rich that we can do an entire podcast episode about a mundane topic with relatively little bearing on the overall narrative. Lots of talk on Robert’s Rebellion, The War of the Five Kings, and (f)Aegon’s upcoming plans.

You can follow Jim on Twitter @JM_SLAL, on Tumblr, and on his YouTube page

Jim’s last appearance on the show: https://ianthomasmalone.podbean.com/e/stannis-baratheon-in-the-north/

Be sure to check out all of our other ASOIAF/Game of Thrones episodes.

Map of the Stormlands courtesy of HBO.

Sunday

17

October 2021

0

COMMENTS

New article for Little White Lies

Written by Ian Thomas Malone, Posted in Blog, Pop Culture

Ian wrote a personal essay on The Penguin, one of her favorite comic book characters, for Little White Lies. You can read the piece here: https://lwlies.com/articles/the-penguin-batman-danny-devito-trans/

Thursday

14

October 2021

0

COMMENTS

Classic Film: Scream 2

Written by Ian Thomas Malone, Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

Sequels are not particularly well equipped to surpass their predecessors. Films are constantly forced to balance their narratives and characters within the confines of a feature-length runtime. Sequels have to do all of that, on top of introducing new characters and a narrative that appeals to fans of the original while also not feeling too derivative or too long in the process.

The existence of Scream 2 was a foregone conclusion, a natural progression for the slasher genre that loves nothing more than sequels. The biggest challenge for director Wes Craven and writer Kevin Williamson is a simple fact that Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy) puts so eloquently within the film itself. Sequels suck.

The original Scream took care to lay down the framework for a sequel effort, particularly with regard to Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber), who Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) appeared to have wrongly implicated in her mother’s death. With Sidney, Randy, Cotton, Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox), and Dewey Riley (David Arquette) returning, Scream 2 stood apart from practically all its slasher contemporaries as one of the few sequels to actually try and build off its predecessor’s story rather than simply cash in on its fame.

Craven almost surpasses the original Scream, a top-notch narrative that’s just a bit too overstuffed for its runtime. Scream 2 does a fabulous job building on Sidney, Dewey, and Gale, a return effort that never feels obligatory. The writing and acting are just as good as the first.

The confines of the slasher genre itself may have held back Scream 2 from being able to surpass Scream. Successful sequels such as The Empire Strikes Back, The Godfather Part II, and Aliens all strongly deviated from the story structure of their predecessors. Aliens switched genres entirely, substituting out Ridley Scott’s suspense horror for Cameron’s action-heavy sequences. Scream 2 still fully belongs to the slasher genre, blunting its ability to top that which had already been done before.

While sequels are often derided as cash-grabs, Campbell, Cox, and Arquette each bring their A-game, approaching their characters with obvious love. The narrative does an excellent job showcasing the ramifications of the events of the first film, aside from some mild erasure of Dewey’s sister Tatum (Rose McGowan). Perpetually confronted by circumstances beyond her control, Sidney remains an awe-inspiring badass reluctant to cede agency over her life.

There is, maybe inevitably, a bit too much going on. Newcomers Derek Feldman (Jerry O’Connell) and Mickey Altieri (Timothy Olyphant) never really get a chance to make their mark. The narrative naturally can’t recreate the group dynamic of the first film, but even a rather long 120 minute runtime leaves too many strands of plot feeling unexplored.

Reported to have near-daily script rewrites, the whodunit is practically impossible to deduce. Repeat viewings only reveal morsels of clues, a stark departure from the first’s well-crafted mystery. The identity of the Ghostface is less important the second time around, the character growth of the core group serving as a much meatier core.

As Randy notes in one scene, sequels come with a higher body count, ostensibly doubling down on what the people want. Scream 2 features more deaths than its predecessor, but Craven isn’t simply playing for shock value. Ghostface’s spree is hardwired into the film’s pacing, a narrative that rarely lets up on its audience. Few horror films have managed to hit the two-hour mark without a single lull, a quite impressive feat given the production troubles and internet leaks.

Scream 2 is not as good as Scream, but easily stands above any other direct sequel in the horror genre. The death of a certain beloved character serves as the film’s biggest mistake, a poorly executed sequence designed clearly for shock value that’s beneath the quality of the talent involved. It’s easy to see how Scream 2 could’ve been a complete mess, but the cast and crew come together for another first-rate effort that almost succeeds in its most gargantuan task.

Thursday

14

October 2021

0

COMMENTS

Classic Film: Scream

Written by Ian Thomas Malone, Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

The legacy of a film like Scream (1996) could be defined by the way it resurrected public interest in the slasher genre. Such a truth obfuscates the rawer achievement of Wes Craven’s genius. The film industry’s obsession with remakes and reboots all but ensure that the slasher genre will never truly die, like the monsters that populate its franchises.

Scream’s crowning triumph is the way the film subverted the slasher genre from inside its own walls. Craven crafts an homage to his earlier work that stands above it, a singular feat in filmmaking. There’s so much joy in Kevin Williamson’s screenplay, but Scream doesn’t aspire to be a satire, but rather a continuation of the work started by the genre’s forefathers, with one of its most celebrated icons at the helm.

Reinventing the slasher genre by the 90s hardly required a reinvention of the wheel. Craven himself had played around with the confines of the genre two years prior with the extremely meta Wes Craven’s New Nightmare, which brought original A Nightmare on Elm Street star Heather Langenkamp back into the fold, breaking from the longstanding slasher sequel model of relying on unknown actors to keep costs down. New Nightmare’s most radical notion was that invested in its product, striving for more than the low-hanging fruit of the direct-to-video market.

The world of Scream is inhabited by top-notch performers who strive to bring out the most in their characters. Casey Becker is only on the screen for a few minutes, but Drew Barrymore makes every second count, taking such delight in the mechanics of the genre that her character’s death resonates for the rest of the film. Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) faces a never-ending cascade of nonsense, yet Campbell’s powerful performance ensures that the audience never pities her or reduces her to a damsel in distress. Sidney’s right hook delivered to the face of Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) plays out like a broader indictment of horror’s misogynistic tendenc2ies, an environment where women rarely have agency.

Craven and Williamson give the narrative such a sense of intimacy that it feels crafted for the stage. The investments in Scream’s characters leave a legacy that’s worth revisiting after the audience knows the answer to its core whodunit. Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy) brushes up against the fourth wall in explaining the “rules” of horror, but it’s not delivered like a sly in-joke, but rather as a vessel for Craven to deconstruct the audience’s expectations.

Scream could’ve succeeded simply as a fun love letter to horror made by one of the godfathers of the genre. Instead, Craven aimed for a far more ambitious target. The slasher market was in a rut for little reason other than that its output was pretty terrible. Craven displayed the sheer power of quality filmmaking, a legacy that extends far beyond the film’s value as a meta-comedy.

Wednesday

13

October 2021

0

COMMENTS

Classic Film: The Mummy

Written by Ian Thomas Malone, Posted in Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

A film like The Mummy (1932) confronts modern audiences with the very nature of what it means to be “genre-defining.” The Mummy is one of the most iconic horror films in history, without actually being all that scary. Even putting aside the cultural differences of the past 90 years, it’s hard to really imagine a packed screening full of people in the 1930s clinging together in abject terror. Director Karl Freund’s work isn’t that kind of film.

Instead, the narrative largely relies on its villain’s innate ability to get under the audience’s skin. The film starts off at the site of an archeology dig lead by Sir Joseph Whemple (Arthur Byron) and Dr. Muller (Edward Van Sloan) searching for the tomb of Imhotep (Boris Karloff). Sir Joseph’s assistant Ralph Norton (Bramwell Fletcher), an archaeologist assistant, reads a scroll which awakens the mummy, driving him insane in the process, instilling a heightened baseline suspense that continues for the rest of the film, set ten years later.

Imhotep, now living as the historian Ardeth Bay, isn’t really looking for revenge on a world that buried him alive. Sir Joseph’s son Frank (David Manners) takes over for his father as the ostensible protagonist, though predictably the mummy remains the real star of The Mummy. Karloff delivers the kind of singular performance that carries the entire film. The indomitably cool Ardeth Bay remains one of the genre’s defining achievements.

Ardeth Bay shares some DNA with Frankenstein’s Monster in the sense that both aren’t really villains in the traditional sense, but rather victims of unfortunate circumstances trying to find some meaning in a world that has no real place for them. Bay is a much smoother operator, quickly seizing the means of production for his own goals, namely the resurrection of his long-dead lover to inhabit the body of Helen Grosvenor (Zita Johann). While certainly self-serving in his murderous intentions, the film is careful not to turn Bay into a figure of cartoonish villainy.

The film’s brisk 73-minute runtime hardly has much room for substantive character development. Johann and Manners put in solid work toward giving the audience someone to root for, but nothing really works without Karloff anchoring the narrative. The Mummy lets you empathize with a tragic figure who’s traversed thousands of years without the woman he loves. There’s no grey area in the film’s morality, but it’s a mature sense of conflict that considers everyone’s individual stakes.

Few films in the horror genre have delivered such fascinating character studies. Blood and gore might shock a viewer, but The Mummy finds chills that cut much deeper. The humanity of Ardeth Bay still resonates nearly a hundred years later. The film likely won’t make you jump out of your seat, but Karloff’s performance gives the mind so much to chew on long after the credits have stopped rolling.

Tuesday

12

October 2021

0

COMMENTS

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers (Season 1)

Written by Ian Thomas Malone, Posted in Blog, Podcast

It’s morphin time! Grab your spandex and your zord, it’s time for an in-depth look at one at a pivotal piece of 90s popular culture. Ian and special guest Colin George-Babb explore the first season, full of iconic monsters and the tropes that have come to define the series in the decades since its premiere. Ian and Colin discuss the origins of the series and what they love about this fabulous first season.

No putties were hurt in the making of this episode!

You can follow Colin at gokaiburakku

Monday

11

October 2021

0

COMMENTS

‘You’ Season Three Review: The Suburbs Are a Welcome Change of Pace

Written by Ian Thomas Malone, Posted in Blog, Pop Culture, TV Reviews

The more things change, the more things stay the same. You centers its narrative around a deeply damaged man, unable to completely wrestle control of his life from the trauma that’s acted like an anchor throughout his existence. Joe Goldberg is not a good person, but Penn Badgley plays him with such a purposeful sense of glee that it’s hard not to be captivated by his world.

Season three presents an opportunity for Joe and Love Quinn (Victoria Pedretti) to move on from their murderous ways. Happily married with a baby and a nice house in Madre Linda, a quiet generic suburb full of athleisure-adorned people constantly checking their gluten intake, the two have a seemingly picturesque life, one that makes it easy to forget how close one of them was to murdering the other last season. You makes a welcome pivot away from Joe’s stalkerish inclinations, but the delectable psychological thriller wouldn’t be the same without some fresh bodies to hide.

The change in scenery works wonders for the show. Gone are the cliched publishing characters and the unintentionally realistic predatory comedians who dragged down the show’s strong writing. Madre Linda is hardly a bastion of originality as a location, ripped straight from a Lululemon fever dream, but the town is populated with grounded, three-dimensional characters. Season three has by far the show’s strongest supporting cast.

As local librarian Marienne, Tati Gabrielle delivers the strongest performance of all the newcomers, one of the few characters who actually feels like a real person and not a walking cliché. The more superficial characters work pretty well too. Neighbors Sherry (Shalita Grant), Cary (Travis Van Winkle) and Matthew (Scott Speedman) break through their superficial introductions. Madre Linda often feels like a Foucaldian panopticon, the depth of the characters giving the town a lived-in quality that conveys its suffocating nature.

Season three works best when Joe and Love are on the same page. Badgley and Pedretti have wonderful chemistry, making it so easy to root for a relationship that should not exist. Even putting the attempted murder aside, the two are not a good fit, but the show sells it so well that you believe in them.

Of course, You is not the story of balanced people looking to put in the hard work toward building a happy future together. Conflict is inevitable for couples, especially within the confines of a television season that needs drama to fuel the narrative. The show has a lot of fun exploring the pitfalls of picturesque lives, demonstrating the challenges of engineering a happy life even when all the pieces seemingly fit together.

The ten-episode season does hit some pacing snags, particularly in the back half, at least two episodes longer than it needs to be. Few shows do a better job answering any plot questions their audience might have. There are several times across the season where the story takes a head-scratching turn, only for the show to confront this dynamic an episode later. You might be the most self-aware show on television, perpetually nimble in addressing its own narrative shortcomings.

There’s a lot of natural goodwill that stems from the show’s ability to gauge its own perception. You may not always agree with the way You structures itself, but it’s the kind of production that clearly values the intelligence of its audience, with a few exceptions. Joe and Love’s marriage in particular is a vulnerable dynamic, relying a bit too hard on the confines of the traditional family structure when there are bumps in the road.

There is another point where Love vents about the burdens placed on young mothers to remain sexually desirable for her husband while also juggling a career and a newborn child. Trouble is, the baby is little more than a prop for either Love or Joe. The bakery that Love opens early on the season is an outlandishly low priority, a new business with few customers and seemingly no overhead. Money is only a problem when You wants it to be, which is to say, rarely.

You occasionally struggles with putting forth a case for why Joe and Love should be together, a lie that countless people have told themselves while in unhappy marriages. The show doesn’t want them to be blissfully in love, for obvious reasons. “Stay together for the kids” isn’t widely regarded as good advice, but it might be for Joe and Love as murderous parents. Season three doesn’t spend enough time exploring this reality, too much else on its mind.

While other shows have avoided mentions of the pandemic, You plots an interesting course. Covid isn’t completely outside the show’s peripheral vision, a forgivably moving target that a massive television production would naturally struggle to adapt. There are some puzzling moments, but it’s admirable to see the show attempt to provide some commentary on this peculiar moment in our collective history.

Backed by strong writing and excellent performances, You isn’t showing any signs of aging in its third season. The story isn’t a perfect fit for the confines of a ten-episode season, but the cast makes up for any lulls along the way. The suburbs are a place where people go to settle down, a calmer form of life than what’s offered in big cities. You finds some of its most creative work smack dab in the environment where creativity is thought to die, where the young go to grow old. This show still has plenty of life left.

The entire ten-episode season was screened for review. Season three drops on Netflix October 15th.

Saturday

9

October 2021

0

COMMENTS

Muppets Haunted Mansion is a solid, unspectacular holiday special

Written by Ian Thomas Malone, Posted in Blog, Movie Reviews, Pop Culture

The Muppets have a pretty strong track record when it comes to holiday specials. A Muppet Family Christmas (1987) served as a rare convergence of the Muppet/Fraggle Rock/Sesame Street orbit, giving it far more staying power than your average made-for-tv effort. A Muppet Christmas: Letters to Santa (2008) demonstrated a strong balance between comedy and celebrity cameos, the latter of which pose the greatest risk to any special’s longevity. It’s hard to watch A Very Muppet Christmas Movie (2002) without cringing at the ample product placement by NBC Universal, including cameos from the cast of Scrubs. Remember Scrubs?

There is an obvious sense of horizontal integration at play for Muppets Haunted Mansion in the pairing of the iconic troupe and one of Disneyland’s most popular attractions. The Muppets are no strangers to being used in Disney theme park infomercials, starring in The Muppets at Walt Disney World (1990), best remembered as the last Muppets production Jim Henson worked on before his death. Capitalism dictates that no one is immune from shilling for their corporate overlords, including Kermit the Frog.

The special follows The Great Gonzo (Dave Goelz, Gonzo’s original performer dating back to the 70s) and Pepe the King Prawn (Bill Barretta) as they ditch the Muppets’ Halloween party to venture to The Haunted Mansion for a chilling challenge. The plot is ostensibly for Gonzo and Pepe to survive the night, a narrative the 49-minute runtime doesn’t spend too much time establishing. The story mostly serves as a pretense for some songs, celebrity cameos, and the assurance that every child watching would want to visit a Disney park.

The human cast, including Will Arnett, Yvette Nicole Brown, Darren Criss, and Taraji P. Henson, all do fine work in supporting roles. A brief cameo from the late Ed Asner, to whose memory the film is dedicated, is bound to bring a smile to any adult’s face watching. As always, The Muppets supply ample humor both for kids watching and for the young at heart.

The decision to pair Gonzo and Pepe is a peculiar one. Gonzo is perhaps the Muppets’ most versatile character, taking the lead in many of their most popular 90s works including The Muppet Christmas Carol and Muppet Treasure Island. Somewhere along the way, Gonzo’s seminal sidekick Rizzo the Rat was unceremoniously kicked to the curb, a reality parodied by The Muppets in Muppets Most Wanted (2014).

Pepe, the most memorable creation from the decidedly unmemorable 90s series Muppets Tonight, is best enjoyed in small doses. He’s a bit tedious in such a lead role, especially one without most of the principal Muppets. Several character cameos reference their meager screen time, making Rizzo’s absence even odder in an era with ample love for his prior leading work.

A dismaying observation is that the special leans a bit too heavily on Haunted Mansion references that would be lost on anyone who hadn’t experienced the ride. Disney also passed on any references to the abomination that was the 2003 Haunted Mansion film adaptation starring Eddie Murphy. Specials don’t hinge on single jokes, but it’s weird to see so many easy lay-ups passed over in an hour full of inside jokes.

Muppets Haunted Mansion is a passable effort that should have left more of an impression. The script feels like a rough draft in desperate need of editing. The Muppets are well-equipped for streaming, able to perform in any medium with any kind of runtime. In a world light on regular Muppet content, this hour of entertainment should have been more than a glorified infomercial.