Movie Screencaps: The Babadook (2015)

This is how you make a scary movie. The Babadook (2015) is one of the most effective, stunning horror films I've ever seen. In these five screencaps I've tried to capture the essence of the film. It's dark, grey and very subtle. There are very few jump scares, the complete film relies on its chilling atmosphere, amazing performance of Essie Davis and the lingering shadows. If you haven't seen this one, please do. 

Movie Reviews: The Conjuring 2 ★★★☆☆

The Conjuring 2 (2016) 

Director: James Wan

Genre: Horror, Mystery

Running Time: 136 minutes

Starring: Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson and Frances O'Connor

Did I like it? Yes. Was it scary? Hell yes. Was it as good as the first one? No. I don't think this sequel is one of the few that exceeds its predecessor. I do however think that it's an outstanding sequel in comparison to other horror sequels like Sinister 2 (2015) and  Insidious: Chapter 2 (2013). But the subtlety of part one is far scarier than tables flying constantly through the rooms. It's the big mistake that basically all horror directors make. Nobody seems to realize that less is more. And I mean this quite literally. The less you see, the less you know, the more scarier a scene is. 

Why is it that these films are not only effective horror films, but also good films? I think it is because of Vera Farmiga. This is an actress who has such screen presence. When she's around your eye immediately goes to her. She's an asset of the film, but also a sort of liability. Because whenever she's not around, the film flattens out. But I can't imagine these films without her. Her chemistry with Patrick Wilson was good in the first one and it continues in the sequel with a sweet little emotional storyline. I quite liked that, between the dozens of jump scares. Although I couldn't really enjoy those moments, because I was constantly preparing for a face of an old man to appear behind somebody.

I have to admit that this was my very first horror film I watched in the cinema. So I was watching at times with my eyes closed. That is, I think, a good sign, because the film had some inventive and effective scares. I liked the voice of the old man coming from the young girl, I liked the disturbing painting of the nun and I liked the reference to Amityville. Various scenes (for example the scene with Janet in the chair) were visually stunning. James Wan has proven himself the last few years that he really knows the art of making a horror film. 

The ending I found really disappointing (as always). It was, quite literally, lightning and thunder all over the place. The extreme visual 'demon' wasn't scary anymore, now it's true form came out. And it all felt quite rushed. Wan probably thought 136 minutes was long enough (and rightly so!). In conclusion, I liked it, but I didn't love it. I missed the build-up I loved from the first one. And I'm still waiting on a sequel that goes for far less, instead of way more.

★★★☆☆

Movie Actors: Rising Stars (Men)

There are a whole bunch of young actors who have proven over past few years that they will have promising careers in the future. Every week I will post a list of certain kind of actors or actresses who will have promising careers / who have had a great career / who didn't live up to their potential / etc.. This week I'll post five male Rising Stars. Five actors under the age of 25 to make it big in the film industry. So memorize these names, because I'm sure they're all future Oscar winners. 

1. Kodi Smit-McPhee (21)

This Australian actor has made such interesting choices over the last couple of years. After a brilliant start of his career in thrillers like The Road (2009) and Let Me In (2010), he went on to play in a quality big budget film Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014). Before appearing as Nightcrawler in X-men: Apocalypse (2016) he did the brilliant western Slow West (2015) with Michael Fassbender.

Best Performance yet: The Road (2009)

2. Jack O'Connell (25)

Jack O'Connell has some raw talent. In Starred Up (2013) he showed the world that despite his young age, he's more than capable of carrying a film. He's been garnering fame and respect with Unbroken (2014) and Money Monster (2016). Unfortunately, most of his films aren't great as a whole. But is's a matter of time before he can show his marvelous acting ability in a brilliant movie. 

Best Performance yet: Starred Up (2013)

3. Freddie Highmore (24)

It's a bold move, to take on a character like Norman Bates when you've played sweet young boys. Luckily for Freddie Highmore, he did make this decision. His image of child actor in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005) and August Rush (2007) has been flushed down the toilet. The last few years, he's only played the serial killer in Bates Motel and to great success! 

 Best Performance yet: Bates Motel (2013 - 2017)

4. Ezra Miller (23)

The diversity of Miller's choices is impressive. From a coming-of-age film like Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012), to a costume drama like Madame Bovary (2014). And from a comedy like Trainwreck (2015) to a superhero movie like The Flash (2018). And don't forget: He's going to be in Fantastic Beast and Where to Find Them (2016)!

Best Performance yet: We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011)

5. Tye Sheridan (21)

The first three films of Tye Sheridan were The Tree of Life (2011), Mud (2012) and Joe (2013). It's an impressive start of an impressive career so far. He's done some serious drama films, but can also do comedy in Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse (2015) and Science Fiction like X-Men: Apocalypse (2016). 

Best Performance yet: Joe (2013)

Honorable mentions of actors just over 25: Taron Egerton (26 - Kingman: The Secret Servive), Emory Cohen (26 - Brooklyn) and Nicholas Hoult (26 - About a Boy).

Movie History: Week 1 - 12 Angry Men (1957)

A few months ago, two friends and myself participated in a film quiz. Unfortunately, half of the question were about films before 1970. This is an area of cinema of which we all knew basically nothing. I've seen a Hitchcock film or two, but we've never taken the time to watch all classic movies everyone always keeps raving about. So what to do about that? We started a little club and aim to watch one old/classic/vintage film a week. 

Week 1: 12 Angry Men (1957) ★★★☆☆

This film is number 6 in the IMDB Top 250. So we has very high expectation. It's not like we didn't know the story, because of the many parodies (for example in Inside Amy Shumer (2013 - ) and Family Guy (1999 - ), but we did feel like we had to have watched it sometime. To make a very long story short: it's all right. I liked it, but I (definitely) didn't love it. Personally, I don't think it's the sixth best movie I've ever seen. I liked Henry Fonda (who is indeed the father of Jane Fonda), but that's basically the only character. Probably because he's quite rational. And he would have been a democrat, for sure. There are handful of memorable men and a bunch of guys that didn't necessarily have to be there. 

In short, 12 Angry Men is about twelve men who have to decide if a young man is guilty or not. Everyone is convinced of the evidence, except for Henry Fonda. He questions his guilt and tries to convince the others not to judge too quickly and impulsively. I guess that the actors are good, but I always have trouble reviewing performances in older films. Their acting is, in their time, fine, but if they would be in a contemporary film they would be totally over-the-top bad actors (much like Nicolas Cage). I also hear a lot that these actors, like Henry Fonda, like Humphry Boogaart have such amazing screen presence. Again, back in the 50's these with middle-aged men would be a joy to watch, but these men wouldn't have quite their charm in a much more diverse (well, at least more diverse than 60 years ago) group of famous actors nowadays. Being born in the 90's and used to such a different era of cinema, it's very difficult to review these older movies. 

12 Angry Men is quite short, which was a good think. It's a little over 90 minutes. Some moments the film are really slow, but the majority kept us entertained. The ending is, though it's fun to watch, a little much. When all pieces of the puzzle fall perfectly into place. It's not really realistic, but I do like the concept of thinking rationally about justice (I still cannot believe America's system in which a group of men actually can send a man to jail. The electric chair in 50's (and in 2016 when Trump would be elected)). There are some other minor details which I didn't like. For example the gigantic bathroom, that was at least as big as 'room' itself. Also, there are a few disturbing close-ups of Joseph Sweeney. But these were all minor parts.

I think it was a good film. Not amazing, but good. It didn't put us off and it did encourage us to watch more 'classics'. But we did (secretly) hope that there would be better films out there. Or at least films that (somehow) wouldn't feel so dated.

Movie Essays: The Misogynistic Ghostbusters Fanbase

In January 2015 it was announced that Ghostbusters (1984) would get a reboot. In the following seventeen months people went from exciting to borderline aggressive.

"Cannot believe what they've done to one of my favorite films of all time! Even the shitty sequel is better than this poorly thought out cash-cow" (June 21, 2016)

This is a random 'review' from a user on Rottentomatoes. A review for a film that will be out on July 15, 2016 (which is quite an achievement I must admit). This is just one of thousands of hate messages for Ghostbusters. It's unbelievable to see or read how angry people are. Fans from all over the world just can't grasp the fact that the original will get a female-driven reboot. If I'm honest, I didn't like the trailer. As a fan of Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy I expected more, but that doesn't mean I get all the anger. I simply don't get it at all.

There are many men who claim that the story appeals to men, and men only. That's why a female cast wouldn't work (someone gave as an argument the comparison of female ghostbusters and a male version of The Other Woman (2015) with three men extracting their revenge on a woman. It would be called The Other Man and it would 'certainly' never work. Hence, female ghostbusters won't work. If that's not strong evidence, I don't know what is...). I think that Star Wars VII The Force Awakens (2015) has proved that a female lead characters can still be very interesting for a fanbase dominated by men. Rey was a huge hit and J.J. Abrams proved that gender doesn't matter for the story, as long as the characters are well written. It's my theory that the male fans would be all right with a woman, but only if it's a 'pretty' actress. Daisy Ridley has become a wet dream over the last few months for many Star Wars fans. Though I think they are beautiful, the four women of the remake of Ghostbusters don't quite fit in the category of 'pretty girls'. 

So, it's a remake. Although, it's not even a remake, it's a reboot. It's one of the hundreds of remakes/reboots that have been made in the last ten years. Isn't Jurassic World (2015) a reboot of a beloved film? Isn't Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) a reboot? Weren't The Hobbit (2012 - 2014) films unnecessary prequels? Yes, Yes, Yes. Almost all recent films that the Science Fiction fanbase love are reboots, remakes and unnecessary sequels or prequels. For that reason it is beyond me why this one gets so much hate for being a reboot. The best analogy I think, is the one with Jurassic Park (1993). The first film was a hit and is still widely loved. The two sequels were not as good and a little boring. Ghostbusters (1984) was also a hit and is also still widely loved. The sequel was not as good and a little boring. Why is it that Ghostbusters is the one that is getting way more hate than Jurassic World ever got. In my opinion it circles back to the female cast and the misogyny of the Ghostbusters fanbase. The makers of Jurassic World took the safe route with a tough, handsome leading man and a one-dimensional female side character (running constantly in high heels). The makers of Ghostbusters tried to think outside the box and cast some unconventional lead characters.

It's not that women don't have a place as a lead in big budget films (Jennifer Lawrence in The Hunger Games (2012 -2015), Shailene Woodley in Divergent (2014 - 2017) and Charlise Theron in Mad Max Fury Road (2015)). It' is however very uncommon that there's not a male as a very important secondary character. The amount of (big) films with four women in leading roles is very limited. Besides Bridesmaids (2011) and Pitch Perfect (2012) there aren't many more. The main audiences of these films were women. Apparently, the majority of male audiences can only enjoy a film when they see a male leading character on screen (and possibly a hot girl as a one-dimensional love interest). Unfortunately, this isn't a problem that can be solved in on day and it's a problem caused by all of us, both man and women. Dr. Martha Lauzen leads the Center for the Study of Women in Television & Film. She's done a lot of research on the representation of women. She says:

“People tend to create what they know and having lived their lives as females, women tend to be drawn to female characters. We need to have greater diversity behind the scenes if this is going to change.”

The position of men towards female characters/actors is rooted in our society. We first have to tackle gender inequality in our culture before these problems of misogyny in modern cinema could be taken care of. Still, fighting for gender equality should not be a task for women alone and that's why I think campaigns like HeForShe is important. HeForShe encourages men to take action, because women can't win the fight alone.

But back to Ghostbusters, because I'm probably way out of my league talking about gender issues on this film blog. I thought Melissa McCarthy said a clever thing on The Graham Norton Show when she, Kristen Wiig, Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon were guests a week ago:

"It's like the announcement came out: 'We're gonna burn every version of the original two. Never to be seen again'. It's not an either/or-thing! It's all still remaining!" (June 17, 2016)

This is just spot-on. No one is going to force anyone to watch the new version. Did anybody force you to watch Jaws 4: The Revenge (1987)? Did anybody force you to watch Indiana Jones 4: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)? Nope. You have the right to not see a remake and rewatch the original hundreds of times. I'm certainly no going to judge you for that. I will, however, judge you if you keep sending hateful messages to a new film whose only crime is that it's thought outside of the box. Ghostbusters might not be Oscar material, but I like that they're not going with conventions. The negative hype will certainly be an influence on the box office and reception. And I believe very strongly that every film should get the same, fair chance to do well with critics and audiences.

Movie Reviews: Alice Through the Looking Glass ★☆☆☆☆

Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016)

Director: James Bobin

Genre: Adventure, Family, Fantasy
Running Time: 113 minutes

Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter

Did anybody ask for a sequel? Did anyone wanted to see more of Depp's Mad Hatter? I seriously doubt it. The first film (Alice in Wonderland (2010)) was overstuffed and predictable, but it looked pretty. The sequel is nothing more than that: very overstuffed, very predictable and very pretty. 

Let's (try and) start with the good stuff. Mia Wasikowska is always a joy to watch. She's proven herself to be a diverse actress during the last few years with Track (2013), Maps to the Stars (2014) and Crimson Peak (2015). It's unfortunate she's stuck in such a poorly written role. I liked the creative visual effect (well, some visual effect: because Tweedledee and Tweedledum are truly horrifying). The 'sea of time' was a nice idea and it was generally well thought out. I am, however, not willing to call a movie 'good' because it looks good. Every movie that has come out the last ten years looked good, but special effects are no indication of quality.

The main problem of the film (besides a sloppy script and unnecessary side characters) is Johnny Depp. His Hatter is even more annoying than it was in the first film. Depp acts like he is a 10-year-old. Helena Bonham Carter's Queen of Harts is also nothing more than a big head yelling and screaming. These characters (plus basically everyone else) were (kind of) intersting and original in the first movie, but now it's just repetition, repetition, repetition. Also, I get that it's family film so it's not going to a serious, dramatic film. But when I was in the theatre no child laughed. Neither did I. Okay, it's not as unfunny as the Mad-Hatter-dance from Alice in Wonderland (that truly was one of the worst moments in the history of film), but the jokes are, just like the rest of the film, unoriginal. The film needed a much better script and is in dire need of new (interesting characters).

★☆☆☆☆

Movie Suggestions: Horror

It's quite difficult to give a clear definition of horror, because the genre is so diverse. There the gory slasher, the chilling ghost tale, the disturbing torture story and the gigantic-monster apocalypse: there is so much variety within the genre. I'm always disappointed by the lack of interest of people and movie critics in these kind of films, because "their only goal is to scare someone to death". Okay, scares are a big part of (most) horror flicks, but there are dozens of classy, subtle and emotional scary movies. That's why I decided to dedicate my first movie suggestions to horror films. 

1. The Others (2001) - Alejandro Amenábar
One of my favorite films of all time is this ghost story with Nicole Kidman. There are a handful of characters in it and the whole films takes place in and around a gorgeous old mansion. It is beautifully shot, it's got frightening moment without big cheap scares and most important of all: the ending is to date the most chilling ending I've ever seen. I don't want to say too much about this one. But if you want to watch a horror: please watch this one. (on a side note: all three recommendations are extremely strong. So just watch all four of them if you have the time)

If you liked this you should definitely watch: El Orfanato (2007),It Follows (2015) and The Babadook (2015)

2. The Crazies (2010) - Breck Eisner

For some reason, zombie films (or series) tend to focus on the 'survivors' way more than other monster films. It's about how they handle their situation (In The Walking Dead (2010 - ) men are way more dangerous than 'walkers'). It's probably because the bad guys can't do much more than growl and walk. The Crazies from Breck Eisner is a remake of 1973's horror film, but in my opinion it's much better. It has a stellar cast, a great premise and cool action sequences. 

If you liked this you should definitely watch: 28 Days Later (2002) and Carriers (2009)

3. You're Next (2011) - Adam Wingard
Slasher films don't come more amusing/more exciting than this one. It has enough twist to keep the viewer guessing, but not enough to make the story unbelievable. It's a very creative film with lots of interesting deaths (spoiler: sticking a food processor in someone's head). The lead is the Australian Sharni Vinson who does a marvelous job of kicking ass. I might write something in the near future about women in horror films. Because the amount of female leads in slashers is just insane.

If you liked this you should definitely watch: The Descent (2005) and The Strangers (2008)

4. Eden Lake (2008) - James Watkins

I feel like I should add a gory, sadistic film. Because they are just so popular (The Purge, Saw, Hostel). This one sets itself apart because of its cast. Michael Fassbender and Kelly Reilly are established actors and there is even a very young Jack O'Connell (Unbroken) as one of the bad guys. The plot is, as most of these so called 'torture porn'- films very thin: couple goes to the woods, get into trouble, are hunted, and killed (or will they?).

If you liked this you should definitely watch: Friday the 13th (2010) and The Hills Have Eyes (2006)

5. Alien (1979) - Ridley Scott

It's amazing how this film is still absolutely brilliant after almost 40 years. You might have noticed that most my suggestions are relatively recent. Many horror films are based on 'classics' of the 70's and 80's. And though these original movies are good, many viewers from today would think they are quite boring. But not Alien. It's one of the best films ever in my humble opinion. Sigourney Weaver is still one of the greatest action heroes and the constant threatening atmosphere is phenomenal.

If you liked this you should definitely watch: Aliens (1986) and The Thing (1982)