hilarymp

[hilarymp]

BOOKSMART (2019) Review

   While I watched Booksmart, one thought kept running through my head - “I wish this movie existed when I was in high school.” I identified with Amy and Molly, our two main characters, in more ways than almost every teen comedy character I’ve ever seen before combined. Amy’s queerness, Molly’s curves, both of their brains, both of their flaws. Booksmart was the epitome of hashtag relatable. For those who may be unfamiliar, Booksmart tells the story of two best friends on the night before their high school graduation. Having spent their entire high school careers being perfectly well behaved and focused on their grades and ambitions, the two set out to make up for lost time by attending a huge party but are met with several obstacles along the way. It’s a familiar premise but presented in a whole new way.

   What really sets Booksmart apart from other teen films isn’t the fact that one protagonist is gay or that the other is probably considered “plus size” (which is another conversation altogether as Beanie Feldstein is only “plus sized” by hollywood standards. In reality she’s basically the size of most average American women, but I digress.) Such underdog archetypes aren’t entirely foreign to the cinematic landscape, but unlike other similar characters, Amy’s sexuality or Molly’s physique in no way fuel or inform the story being told. Amy has never kissed a girl, not because she’s closeted (the character has been out of the closet two years by the time the movie takes place) or because she encounters any homophobia (in a school with unisex bathrooms it’s safe to say that isn’t an issue), but because Amy’s main character flaw is her inability to put herself out there and challenge herself socially. Meanwhile Molly is mocked by her classmates, not for her bookishness (her intelligence and responsibility must be somewhat appreciated, as Molly is elected class president) or because of her appearance (in fact when Molly overhears her classmates make fun of her they make a point to say that she’s in fact very attractive.) Molly is the butt of their jokes because her hyper fixation on academic success has made her judgmental and standoffish. A typical teen comedy would be about the virgin or the geek overcoming the bullies and their misconceptions. But in Booksmart, our heroines only need to overcome themselves.

   Though I saw myself reflected in these characters, one moment I identified with the most actually came from the girls’ favorite teacher, Miss Fine. She tells the girls that she is glad to see them finally let their hair down and have some fun, because she was much like them when she was younger. In fact she said her uptight teen years lead to her acting out so much in her 20s that shit took a dark turn there for a while. In that moment I had to fight the urge to scream “ME!” to the screen. Had Booksmart existed in the early aughts while I was still in high school, not only would I have been thrilled to see myself reflected in these characters, the film could also have functioned as a cautionary tale.

   Growing up I was super uptight. I was a straight A student, active in clubs, honor society, volunteer work, the works. I let my entire self worth be dictated by my academic accomplishments, and it was exhausting. I even let these high standards dictate who I befriended, and I found out way too late that just because someone was popular or well behaved or top of their class didn’t necessarily mean they were good people.  By graduation I was so burnt out on trying to be perfect that by college I had lost my goddamn mind, and ultimately I have no doubt that my whole life would be better today if I hadn’t been so hard on myself back then. I relate to Amy and Molly but I also envy them. I wish I had had that one big crazy night that put everything in perspective. But I found so much joy in seeing these characters experience it instead, and relief that the next generation isn’t completely doomed, as long as more films like Booksmart come along.

   With all that said, I can reassure you, reader, that Booksmart is super entertaining even if you don’t necessarily relate to it. As a matter of fact, when I saw the film in the middle of a weekday, one of the only 3 other people in attendance was a single older gentleman, who, though he had resting bitch face, I was thrilled to see there. There’s a lot to love in Booksmart; the dialogue is quippy and hilarious, kind of like Diablo Cody meets John Hughes. And in contrast to our relatable protagonists there are also amazing over the top characters who are absolutely hypnotizing, namely Billie Lourde as the enigmatic (and possibly insane) Gigi. I’m always a sucker for physical comedy and there’s plenty on display here. The marriage of topical, smart dialogue and the occasional pratfall is *chef kiss* exquisite.

   Booksmart isn’t perfect but it’s damn near, especially if you’re in the need of some unbridled fun. Even moments that I didn’t care for at the time, upon reflection, were fully redeemable. I’m trying to avoid spoilers here, but a good example is the romantic pairing of a character with someone who had up until that point been kind of an asshole to them. At the time I was totally turned off by the implication, but later thought back to moments like Claire kissing Bender in The Breakfast Club. He was a huge dickhead to her the entire movie, and yet their hooking up still made sense. If I can accept such a dichotomy in this 80’s heteronormative example, I could definitely excuse it here.

   Over all Booksmart is an utter delight. We don’t see female stories like this very often, especially not ones directed by women as well. (Sidebar: A huge congratulations to Olivia Wilde for her first outing as a director by the way. Needless to say, she slayed it.) One could write an entire essay just about the myriad of shitty reasons why movies like this are so rare, but that’s a conversation for another day. In the meantime I can only pray to see more in the near future. So go see Booksmart asap, and maybe the powers that be will answer all our prayers.

[hilarymp]

PET SEMATARY (2019) REVIEW

SPOILER WARNING! This review contains spoilers for Pet Sematary (2019), Pet Sematary (1989) and the novel.

    I’ll admit straight out of the gate that I went into Pet Sematary (2019) with a negative attitude. For whatever reason (one that I am still struggling to comprehend) the studio decided not only to make a rather large divergence from the source material’s plot, but to also spoil this “twist” in the trailer and promotional material. That alone was enough to convince me that this remake/reboot/reimagining/whatever the fuck you want to call it probably wasn’t going to win me over. So let’s discuss that first and foremost.

    I am not at all opposed to film adaptations making changes. Case in point, 2017’s new IT. IT and it’s miniseries predecessor are among some of my favorite horror films of all time, despite the fact that they were not 100% faithful to the novel, especially the more recent installment. For me changes are totally fine as long as they a.) maintain the spirit, themes, and tone of the original story and b.) make the film more frightening.

    With those rules in mind the change prominently displayed in the trailer for 2019’s Pet Sematary, the fact the Creed’s eldest child Ellie is the one who is killed and brought back from the dead instead of toddler Gage, already failed at rule b. Don’t get me wrong, any reanimated evil corpse is going to be scary, but why on earth would you deny us an evil murderous baby just to give us yet another creepy little girl. The ‘creepy little girl’ trope in horror is so tired and overused it makes my head hurt. The Ring, Orphan, The Exorcist, Silent Hill, The Shining, Alice Sweet Alice, The Bad Seed, Let the Right One In, Hereditary, Sinister, I could go on and on and on. The use of the trope isn’t inherently terrible, but why would you go out of your way to use it when something less used and much scarier (a straight up homicidal TODDLER) is an option? The simplest and most likely reason, in my opinion, was for convenience. Is directing a 2 year old more difficult to direct than an 11 year old? Yes, of course, obviously. But it’s definitely possible, as Mary Lambert proved while directing Miko Hughes as Gage in 1989. (Honestly, to this day I can not believe the performance she got out of that little boy.) So to me the change is not only a disservice to the film, but also an indication that the filmmakers were unabashedly lazy.

    So now that you know why I had set myself up for disappointment to begin with, let’s break down what the film succeeded at and how it failed.

    Whatever problems I have with the film, at least I can say that I loved the cast. John Lithgow was extremely endearing and likable. His performance as Jud was a refreshingly grounded and heartfelt departure from Fred Gwynne’s high camp in ‘89. Jason Clarke was as engrossing as ever. I always enjoy Clarke’s performances, and he often brings extra depth to characters that would have otherwise fallen flat (Dr. Price in ‘Winchester’ being a prime example). And Jete Laurance was nothing short of incredible. You would never expect that this little girl could transform into something to sinister so effortlessly. Her performance in the first half of the film is filled with such sweet sincerity, that her turn into undead Ellie is all the more frightening. Not as frightening as being terrorized by a little ankle biting toddler, mind you, but enjoyable nonetheless. ESPECIALLY compared to Ellie in the 89 film. Do you remember her? My God, she was so annoying. 

    Speaking of annoying, Amy Seimetz as Rachel was the only weak link in the cast. Instead of being deeply troubled and complex as Stephen King wrote her, Seimetz’s Rachel is so one dimensional that by the third or fourth time we see her crying, I wasn’t just unmoved, I was borderline irritated. ‘The weepy mother’ role in horror films are never especially fulfilling, but in this instance Rachel was meant to be much more than that. And the cheapening of the Zelda subplot doesn’t help matters either. 

    To me Zelda, Rachel’s late sister who suffered from spinal meningitis, was hands down the scariest part of the book and original film, so I was extra disappointed here. I’m fully aware that the character of Zelda is extremely problematic and portraying her as a monster is ableist as fuck. (Let’s be real, 99% of all Stephen King’s works are problematic but if we pull on that thread we’ll be here all day.) But the in the new film she is completely under utilized. Her appearances have been shrunk down to generic Conjuring-like jumpscares. Like most horror movies these days, the film relies on quick cuts, loud bangs, and obnoxious music cues to startle us instead of showing us anything particularly alarming. There is one prolonged sequence of incredible suspense, as Louis slowly walks through his basement in search of his daughters reanimated corpse, that filled me with so much dread that I was finally genuinely scared. Alas, *sad trombone*, it was undercut with a cheap jumpscare just like all the rest.

    On top of uninspired jumpscares, the filmmaking as a whole was ‘meh’ at best, especially the production design. The houses nearly hidden among the picturesque dense woods are definitely more visually interesting than the ones presented to us in ‘89. It also makes the danger of the nearby highway much more palpable, with the road being both closer to the house and more believably prone to accidents, with the thick foliage hindering the drivers’ ability to see. And the ‘pet sematary’ itself is serviceable enough, not much different from what we’ve seen before. But once we are taken beyond the dead fall to the cursed burial ground, the scope of the film shrinks drastically, making everything feel cramped and cheap like a paper mache Haunted house, even with cheap smoke machine effects to match.

    There are a lot of loose ends in the film as well, though it’s hard to tell if they were caused by the script or the editing. For instance, when Jud is explaining the burial ground to Louis, he mentions the wendigo that is suspected to be the source of the land’s power. But… that’s all he says about it. He doesn’t explain what a Wendigo is, what it does, or why it does it. If you’ve never read the book, or have never heard of a wendigo before, the word means nothing. Why bring up the Wendigo at all if you’re not even going to tie it into the lore properly. They could just have easily just said ‘cursed Indian burial ground’ (it in and of itself a tired trope, but still) and we would have just went with it. Another example is when undead Ellie is terrorizing Jud, she turns herself into Jud’s dead wife, and mentions that says something along the lines of “Your wife is “n hell for what you did to her before she died”. What? What the hell did he do? Why the fuck would you even put that out there with zero follow up?!

    Oh and let’s talk about Pascow. His role in the film is minimized so much, they might as well have left him out entirely. If I’m remembering correctly, late in the novel Pascow appears to Rachel urging her to come home. In the first film he appears to Rachel instead, who tells Rachel they need to come home. But in this film he appears to Gage. A toddler. Who can barely speak. Now as disturbing of a notion it is to have a very small child being haunted by such a gruesome image (and you all know how much I love disturbing shit), it’s also kind of pointless and dumb. If Pascow wanted to get Rachel to come home, why would he appear to Gage who, again, can’t talk, instead of just appearing to Rachel? One could argue that Gage’s crying and saying the name Pascow freaks Rachel out so much that it makes her want to go back, but you could just as easily say she left to get away from her memories of Zelda in her parents house, or the fact that Louis wouldn’t answer his goddamn phone

    We’re also missing out on some crucial motivations to explain Louis’ terrible decision making. No scene of Louis and the grandfather fighting at the funeral, no Louis being blamed for his child’s death, no knocking over of the casket. I might be biased since, for me, that sequence is one of the most upsetting moments of the 89 film. But on top of a missed opportunity to shock, it also takes away the debilitating guilt that motivates Louis to resurrect his child, despite knowing it won’t go well. The guilt is still vaguely implicit, but sometimes horror films need to explicitly illustrate cause and effect, if for no other reason than to keep the audience from screaming “Why the fuck would you do that!?” at the screen for 2 hours.

    Speaking of motivations, what are Ellie’s? What even is Ellie for that matter? The film can’t seem to make up its mind. Undead Ellie has Ellie’s memories, remembers how she died, and holds grudges against her parents for both her death and her resurrection. So there must be some part of the real Ellie in there, right? But when Rachel says “You’re not my daughter” undead Ellie agrees with her! So if it’s not really Ellie why does she keep trying to guilt and punish her parents? If she’s just an evil demon or spirit possessing Ellie’s corpse, you’d think it’d be glad that Louis was stupid enough to bury her up there. Free meat suit, hurray! The spirit clearly wants more bodies buried up there, seeing as it takes out the entire family just to bring them back like she was. Surely she just wanted to kill them all for funsies, right? Who the fuck knows. The screenwriter sure doesn’t appear to.

    Another super obnoxious thing about this film is it’s cheap fake-outs. It’s one thing to change iconic moments from the first adaptation, but constantly calling attention to it is another. Like the ominous close ups of Jud’s heel and him kicking the bed before Ellie gets him on the stairs. Yeah we get it. ‘The old movie had Gage under the bed, but watch out, we’re mixing stuff up in this one!’ Yup. Got it. Thanks for the reminder. Or the whole ‘Gage almost being hit by the truck’ fake out before Ellie is actually hit. This one is especially stupid since you already fucking showed us in the trailer that Gage isn’t going to die. Why even try to fake us out like that when we already know you’ve changed that too? You have successfully irritated and underwhelmed me, movie, no reason to draw more attention to it.

Here’s a quick list of some other petty little things that bugged me. These aren’t even necessarily the movie’s fault, some just come from the book itself.

If Rachel is so traumatized and adverse to talking about death, why the fuck did she marry an ER doctor?

You expect me to believe that Louis, pragmatic Louis who doesn’t even believe in an afterlife, would just follow Jud over the deadfall, through the woods, across a swamp and up a bunch of mysterious stone stairs, with zero explanation? No questions asked? I’d be asking “What the fuck are we doing?” about every couple of yards.

Why in god’s name would Rachel’s parents not only still live in the house where their daughter suffered and died, but also KEEP THE DUMB WAITER SHE DIED IN?

Why don’t movies ever address the fact that when you’re buried your eyes and lips are sewn or glued shut beforehand? And the scene where Louis is bathing Ellie and he sees the staples in her head and is all freaked out - wouldn’t she have huge fucking staples all across her chest and down her abdomen from the funeral home too??

    Despite my complaints, Pet Sematary isn’t completely devoid of entertainment value, not by a long shot. It’s not bad, it just could have been so so much better. Pet Sematary is riddled with missed opportunities,  and if you‘re an overly analytical jaded horror fan with a devotion to Stephen King like I am, they are much more obvious. I’m not mad, Pet Sematary, I’m just disappointed. To quote Tyra Banks, we were rooting for you, we were all rooting for you! You had so much potential, you just dropped the ball. Just like losing a loved one, there’s a mourning period that must be observed. Time to cope with the loss of what could have been. But rest assured, by the time you come out on blu-ray, I’ll be ready to try again.