Delayed Reaction: Tigers Are Not Afraid

Premise: A group of orphans in a cartel controlled evacuated city try to dodge men who are after them for something they stole.

 

I'm going to be really reductive and say that Tigers Are Not Afraid is what you get when you watch City of God and Pan's Labyrinth then decide to make a movie. It's an interesting fusion or magical realism with actual realism to make deeper statements on childhood trauma. Overall, I respect the movie, but I must say that I feel a little duped. I have a hard time agreeing with this as a horror movie. Having dark imagery doesn't necessarily make something horror. It's no more a horror movie than Pan's Labyrinth. This annoyed me a bit, because I did watch this when I was in the mood for horror. This is a dark fairy tale.

 

While I appreciate the attempt to mix the real with the fanciful, I think the balance was a bit off. I wish it would've committed more one way or the other. Preferably more into the fairy tale. I like the idea of using fantasy as an escape (even if that feels very pulled from Guillermo del Toro), because it would make up for how little of a sense of location this movie has. It sort of felt like the filmmakers shot anywhere they could find an abandoned building for a couple days. There wasn't a lot of character to the location.

 

I didn't dislike the movie. It just didn't do a lot to impress me.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: A Christmas Horror Story

Premise: An anthology horror movie of Christmas-themed segments.

 

I didn’t go into this movie seriously. It’s called “A Christmas Horror Story” which both reeks of being a temp title and sounds like a joke pitch title (a la “Dude, Where’s My Car” or “Honey, I Shrunk the Kids”). The cover art is Santa about to battle a Krampus. I watched this movie on a lark, hoping for a couple laughs and maybe one intriguing horror idea.

 

Perhaps it was a result of my lowered expectations, but I really enjoyed this movie. It all comes down to the consistency of tone. That’s my problem with most horror anthologies. One filmmaker takes the assignment seriously. The next treats it as a joke. The whole anthology feels incongruent and I wonder why they bothered to put them into the same movie in the first place. The best horror anthologies share similar marching orders. Either there’s a producer wrangling the assorted directors’ visions or it’s the same filmmakers working on each segment. A Christmas Horror Story is a very consistent movie. It’s a hair ridiculous. It opts for comic violence. The stories are all serious in how they are acted. The comedy is only in how absurd the stories are when you describe them. William Shatner as a radio DJ gives the movie just enough of a spine to hold together. And I like the decision to mix all the stories together rather than tell them individually. They all hit similar enough beats that it didn’t feel like I was leaving one story that’s getting good for another story that was still laying the groundwork.

 

Verdict: Strongly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: How to Survive a Plague

Premise: A documentary about the AIDS crisis and efforts to combat it.

 

On a technical level, this is a brilliantly constructed documentary. Sometimes, I watch a documentary where it feels like I’m just watching whenever the filmmaker wanted to turn on the camera or it’ll feels like I’m watching the first clip they found that kind of worked for something. How to Survive a Plague instead feels thoroughly exhaustive. They really poured over years of footage from all over. Talking heads, home video, news coverage. It is wonderfully cut together. More importantly, it feels seamless. I’m always amazed when a documentary can edit together two clips from completely different sources and make them feel like they are in discussion with each other. Topic aside, this was a pleasure to watch. I’m not sure if anyone out there awards documentary film editing, but if they do, this better have won that year.

 

Topically, I was very pleased by how this was covered. I know some about the ACT Up movement, but I’m far from an expert. This movie does a great job of capturing the temperature at different points over several years. I’m trying to figure out the best way to say this, but I was impressed that the movie was willing to admit where the movement was wrong or short-sighted. It admits that the drugs they were pushing for from the FDA early on ended up not being as useful as they seemed. Many documentaries are so slanted that they never admit to mistakes in the topic. Showing the moment when ACT Up and TAG were at odds went a long way for me. And it does a good job of pointing out that even if those early drugs weren’t actually worth the fuss, the delay in research led to millions of deaths. I don’t know what else to say. More should’ve been done and sooner. How to Survive a Plague tells the story as well as I’ve seen it.

 

Verdict: Strongly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Many Saints of Newark

Premise: A prequel of The Sopranos.

 

TV shows turned into movies have a dicey history. There are the resounding successes like Star Trek: a show with a clear premise, clearly defined character roles, and an adaptable "adventure of the week" structure that can be adapted and expanded easily. More commonly though, the films struggle to be more than "one for the fans". I remember watching the Downton Abbey movie before seeing the show. While I could mostly follow along with what was going on, I was aware of how much I was missing. When I went back and rewatched it after watching the series, it all fit much better.

 

I'd say The Many Saints of Newark is close to the Deadwood movie or maybe even the Sex and the City movie in terms of the approach. It'll feel slight and busy to anyone unfamiliar with the show. Like a copy of a copy of Goodfellas. But it can't hide its TV shows roots. David Chase is a TV writer. He thinks of this world in terms of TV. As a result, The Many Saints of Newark feels a lot like a season of TV compacted to 2 hours. And it certainly doesn't feel like an entry point. The shape of this movie is formed by fan expectations. Going in, we know the characters who need to be included and who has to be important. There's not much room to work in.

 

This is where I should admit that I'm a Sopranos agnostic. I've seen it once about a decade ago. I fully understand its place in TV history. It's fair to call it an essential text even. The show is foundational for how TV has evolved over the last 20 years. The writing, acting, and directing are all rich with skill, thought, and detail. I don't care for it much though. I have no desire to revisit it. I don't know why. It just doesn't interest me that much. That said, I hold nothing against it. I'm not annoyed that other people love the show. It's just like Buffy the Vampire Slayer to me. Let the fans love it and I'll love something else.

 

So, I came into The Many Saints of Newark with little investment and knowledge. I wasn't going to rewatch the show in preparation. I'm not even checking the Wikipedia page as a refresher. This movie is being pitched as a standalone movie, so it should be an entry point to The Sopranos the way that Serenity is an ambassador for Firefly. Sadly, I'd say this movie is only for the fans. Every other scene, I was pausing to remember if that's a reference to something later or that we already knew. Which characters were already dead by the start of the show? Who actually matters later? Are they telling me this because it matters for this movie or as foreshadowing for the series?

 

As a standalone film, this movie was pretty mediocre. The legacy of The Many Saints of Newark will be that thing people are on the fence about including in their Sopranos rewatches. It'll be like the Veronica Mars movie and sequel season or the Psych movies. Like The Sopranos, this is a movie I have little natural desire to reflect on more. I hope the fans have fun.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don't Recommend*

*If you haven't seen the show.

Delayed Reaction: Army of Thieves

Premise: Another heist movie in the world of Army of the Dead except no zombies.

 

I am so confused about this movie and series from top to bottom. Army of the Dead was an expensive film stuck in development hell for over a decade. The script was from the mid-2000s and not developed until Netflix overpaid for it. It came out in May of 2021 after reshoots to replace one of the actors. Nearly a year before that though, they greenlit a prequel to the movie, starring (and directed by) Matthias Scweighofer’s safecracking Ludwig Dieter – who is a side character in Army of the Dead. Oh, and the movie is a straight-up heist movie. The zombies that defined the genre the first movie is in are just hanging out in the background. That is such a weird move.

 

Netflix is desperate for meaningful film IP. Something I believe unequivocally is that Netflix has never released a blockbuster movie. Sure, they have hits on their service, but that doesn’t mean people would’ve paid to watch them in droves. Netflix popularity is a lot like Road House being the most popular movie on cable for years. That movie was a moderate hit in theaters that was easy to watch. It’s nowhere on great film lists and has little pop culture legacy. Now, look at the Netflix catalog of hits. The Irishman was made because no other studio would pay for it. Why would they? Scorsese’s last passion project, Silence, made $23 million worldwide. Netflix made hits out several RomComs: a genre that theaters have largely abandoned because they so rarely catch on. Does anyone think Set It Up or To All the Boys would’ve been hits had they not been easily available to throw on at home? Or let’s look at the big ones. Birdbox felt more like an accident than a real hit. I don’t see people paying to see that the way they did with A Quiet Place. Extraction at one point was their biggest hit ever in terms of views, and it’s a movie that doesn’t exists. They got the Adam Sandler and Michael Bay deals after their box office draws had faded. And point to one movie between them on Netflix that doesn’t feel like a B- effort. I think the closest argument for a legit blockbuster on Netflix you could make is The Old Guard. Even that feels more like an Atomic Blonde in terms of IP value. An Old Guard sequel won’t be an event film. It’ll be a movie people only remember when it shows up on the Netflix menu one Friday. Simply put, Netflix is still where filmmakers go to produce the screenplay at the bottom of their pile, not the top.

 

This all ties back to Army of Thieves in that this is such an odd show of confidence by Netflix. How many people even register this as an Army of the Dead prequel when they start it and how many are disappointed to learn that this is apparently a heist franchise, not a zombie franchise?

All that said, I did enjoy Army of Thieves decently. It’s a send-up of heist movies the way that Army of the Dead is a send-up of zombie movies. It has the similar feel of a movie that would’ve felt fresher around 2005. I wonder if this started from an original screenplay that was adapted to be a prequel. It sure feels like it. Ludwig Dieter is an odd choice to lead the movie as a character, but it does make a lot of sense for a heist movie. I like Nathalie Emmanuel in this. I’d probably prefer the movie centered around her, honestly. Ruby O. Fee is fun. I don’t recall seeing her in anything else before, but she fits right into a motley crew of criminals in a not very serious movie. Stuart Martin is a nice douchebag. He’s a bit on the generic side though. He’s more of a cast member on a long running procedural than an action movie leading man.

This is the exact kind of disposable, entertaining watch that Netflix specializes in releasing every week or two. I have no idea how they stay profitable this way. As long as they know, that’s all that matters:

 

[Another] Side Rant: Is Nathalie Emmanuel famous? Is she a star? To date, her resume outpaces her fame. She was in the biggest show in the world – Game of Thrones – and is still in arguably the biggest film franchise in the world – The Fast and the Furious. They are secondary roles in both though. This is only her 9^th film (her first being in 2012). Her most prominent role outside of GoT and FatF is the Hulu Four Weddings and a Funeral series, which made not dent. Like, I’ll see anything with her because I’ll see anything with an attractive Brit. I get the sense that she’s going to be one of those actresses who is always one role away from the A-list (whatever that even is these days).

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Paranormal Activity: Next of Kin

Premise: A woman who was abandoned as an infant tracks down her biological family in a creepy Amish community.

 

I need to make something clear immediately. This is not a Paranormal Activity movie. This is a found-footage horror movie that only shares the name as a branding move. I’m sure someone can find a couple small details that link the movies, but they are superficial at best.

 

The idea is pretty cool. Margot (Emily Bader) is a filmmaker who reluctantly decides to make a documentary about her search for her family. She was abandoned at a hospital as an infant. The footage of her mother leaving her is mysterious. Through 23 & Me, she finds a relative. He’s Amish and on his Rumspringa. He agrees to bring her and her small film crew back to his community for her to learn more. As you’d expect, the community are hiding something and it eventually leads to a lot of people dying.

 

As a found-footage movie, it is fine. They cast a bunch on unfamiliar but quality actors who pull off all the scares and verisimilitude. Dale Lippert in particular is a funny and weird sound guy who releases the tension just enough. Enough money went into this to make a lot of great looking locations. However, this is WAY too edited for a found footage movie. Look, I’m fine buying into the conceit that people are leaving cameras on in situations when they normally wouldn’t. I don’t need the film to throw that in my face though. Repeatedly, this film has shots and angles that I don’t believe any of their cameras actually caught. It broke the illusion, and that’s a line a found footage movie should never cross.

 

Why calling this Paranormal Activity bothers me is in the way it’s shot and earns its scares. PA has a specific style beyond just found footage. It relies on surveillance footage. There are a lot of static or mechanical shots. The power is in the stillness. Next of Kin gets rid of almost all of that. Calling this a Paranormal Activity movie is kind of like calling THX 1138 a Star Wars movie because it’s set in a Sci-Fi world and written by George Lucas.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don’t Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Red Notice

Premise: An FBI agent and a thief team up to thwart a bigger thief.

 

I guess the idea behind this is that Netflix was going to cast their way into a hit. I mean, this cast is almost algorithmically perfect. Dwayne Johnson is maybe the last real headlining star who has churned out box office successes almost single-handedly. Ryan Reynolds is quietly a huge box office draw. Few actors shill for their movies as hard as him. He made Deadpool a hit. Somehow, Free Guy turned into a success. I don’t think we appreciate how big of a star he actually is. Gal Godot is less proven. Her biggest claim is making Wonder Woman work where all the other DC films at the time had failed. The amount that she came out of the DC ordeal unscathed is remarkable. Putting those three stars together in a movie is the equivalent of earning base hits for an RBI rather that swinging for a home run.

 

I don’t know how to rate Red Notice. It reportedly cost $200 million. Regardless of whether it had been a theatrical release or not, this was never making that back. Director Rawson Marshall Thurber doesn’t make movies at that level. The spy comedy genre isn’t one that makes blockbusters. I can’t come up with a scenario where that would ever have worked. So, if Netflix thought this was going to become valuable IP for them, this is a failure. The movie is about as notable as Central Intelligence at 4x the budget.

 

Now, if I ignore any industry expectations or production history, then this movie is perfectly enjoyable. Johnson and Reynolds’ personas are well matched. Johnson is a good straight man who is able to be flummoxed. Reynolds works best when he can be a sarcastic irritant. Both move between high and low status pretty well. Godot is a slightly weak link. She’s not a versatile actress, and this movie doesn’t quite know how to use her specific kind of charisma. This movie might have too many alphas.

 

Nothing in the plot itself is especially clever or new. It falls in that category of movies where, while I didn’t predict the exact twists, I’ve seen all the possible variations before. It’s been only a couple days since I saw this movie and most of the specifics already escape me. Don’t get me wrong. I had a base level enjoyment of the movie. I don’t regret watching it. If Netflix makes a sequel, I’ll probably see it opening weekend. I’m not investing any more thought into this series though until then.

 

Verdict: Weakly Don’t Recommend

Delayed Reaction: V/H/S/94

Premise: Police raiding a warehouse find a series of disturbing VHS tapes.

 

It's hard for me to express my delight at finding out about this movie. I had no idea it was being made. I randomly stumbled onto it looking for something else the day after it was released and I practically squealed. V/H/S and V/H/S/2 are my two favorite horror movies. They are a mix of found footage style (which I'm a sucker for), horror filmmakers of talent, and incredible ambition that work so wonderfully. The anthology structure gives them variety and doesn't wear out any of the ideas. It's frustrating how much people dismiss them because of gripes about the found footage style, gimmicky structure, or lack of polish.

 

After the third movie, V/H/S Viral, was a complete whiff (not enough shorts and an awful bridging story) I thought the franchise was dead. It's hard to convince enough filmmakers to put time and effort into a low budget anthology. But I think the basic premise is malleable. There's a collective of people who basically collect and share tapes of people getting killed by malevolent forces. That's it. There's so much room to work in this. The main thing they need to avoid is overexplaining this collective idea.

 

(As I like to do with anthologies, let's break this down by each short)

 

Holy Hell

This short is the bridge between the other segments. I think it's also the weakest. It's the main time when the production values really hurt. And I'm just not a fan of when they try to develop the story behind this collective. As much as I adore the first two movies, I never have a desire to know more.

 

Storm Drain

This one also feels a little cheap. Found footage should avoid mimicking news programs. Local news feels cheap, but because it's produced daily over years, it's actually pretty hard to fake it convincingly. Trying to do a news program is a nice slant they haven't tried before though. Creativity of the footage source is the biggest problem as this series progresses, so I appreciate any attempt to find a new reason for this footage to exist. The Raatma stuff is fun. I don't care for the very end though. I don't like when they get jokey. The V/H/S tone works better when the segments are uniform in vision and leave out the camp.

 

The Empty Wake

This is one of the stronger segments due to its simplicity. No surprise it comes from prolific horror writer Simon Barrett who has been involved in previous V/H/S movies and has written some of the best horror of the last decade. He's a better writer than director though. I imagine he came back for the chance to direct, so I'll take too much Barrett over none. I think this does play a little fast and loose with the camera angles that are possible.

 

The Subject

Oh my. This was a treat. It came from Timo Tjahjanto, who codirected the insane death cult segment from V/H/S/2. This is a crazier idea but without the intensity. That makes sense. I think Gareth Evans brought most of that in the V/H/S/2 segment. This was still good though. Some really messed up visuals.

 

Terror

This was overall my favorite segment. Some of the white nationalist stuff was over the top, but the mix of elements in this is wholly unique. Exploding blood. What an idea.

 

The first three V/H/S movies were indie features that screened at Sundance. The group behind them had a lot of developing talent, eager to show off their skills. V/H/S/94 is a Shudder exclusive with a more modest budget and emerging talents don't have the same incentive to sign on. Expectedly, my response is a little more muted. Still, it was so damn refreshing to have one of the favorite franchises back and in good form. I'm hoping Shudder can keep these coming.

 

Verdict: Strongly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Love Hard

Premise: A woman surprises her internet boyfriend with a visit, only to discover she’s been catfished. But maybe that’s not a deal breaker.

 

There’s a nice level-setting line in this movie that really helps me talk about it. At one point, Nina Dobrev’s Natalia is talking to her friend on the phone who says something like “In L.A. you’re a 6, so in Lake Placid you’re a 10.” This is the kind of movie where Nina Dobrev is just a winsomely attractive woman. So, this is a fantasy world where all understanding of normal human behavior should be ignored.

 

With that understanding, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. The catfishing and convoluted place-setting I’ll ignore. That’s just the cost of doing business for getting into this movie. Nina Dobrev is RomCom delightful. She’s another actress that could’ve thrived in the RomCom-friendly 90s. I like seeing Jimmy O. Yang in a human-scale role. Normally he’s a scene-stealing side-character. In this, he’s a believable romantic protagonist. Sure, maybe he wouldn’t really end up with a Nina Dobrev, but it’s not unbelievable that he could. I also appreciate that Darren Barnet’s character isn’t being made fun off. He’s not an awful person. Dobrev isn’t pursuing him even though he sucks, despite being so handsome. He’s a nice dude who Dobrev doesn’t actually mesh with.

 

I did watch the movie too early. I didn’t realize how much of a Christmas movie it was. I normally like to save those for post-Thanksgiving. Although, at the rate I’m posting these, it might be after New Year’s before this get posted. So, nothing about this is right. Some of the Christmas touches were fun. It chimed in on the “Is Die Hard a Christmas movie?” debate*. I’m in the category of people who like Love, Actually despite its flaws, so I enjoy the homage to that movie in this. And, the reworking of the “Baby It’s Cold Outside” lyrics was charming as hell.

 

*My stance: I don’t think it is. I’m fine if you do. Unless you can define what a “Christmas movie” means to you, then I won’t engage in a debate about it.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Beanie Mania

Premise: A documentary about the rise and fall of Beanie Babies.

 

There isn’t a lot to say about this documentary. It’s pretty straight-forward. It seems that someone said, “Remember Beanie Babies? What was that?” then sought to find the answer. It can be hard to track a craze. It’s often the result of so many small occurrences snowballing at the same time. Tracking the Beanie Baby crazy reminded me a lot of when someone tries to find where a meme started. Generally, at some point, you just have to settle on an agreed source. This doc decides that the Beanie Baby craze started because of a group of moms in suburban Illinois, which, ok. Sure. I guess there’s some truth in that. Then again, one of those moms was a publicist for People magazine, so maybe they were just the highest profile or loudest early adopters. This aspect of the doc didn’t entirely sit well with me.

 

Once it gets past the origins, this does a pretty good job of documenting the phases of this craze. I was 10 at the peak of Beanie Babies. I was never a collector, but I remember the insanity. The Princess Diana bear and the Happy Meal Mini-Beanies were the benchmarks for me. I remember how nuts both were. I like how well the movie researches the mysterious Ty company and the savvy way the Beanies were marketed.

 

Obviously, the craziest thing is the secondary market that evolved. I think the movie could’ve found some more room to examine how it compared to the modern movements like crypto currency, NFTs, and “meme stocks”. Granted, Beanie Mania probably already pushed the limits of how much economics people want in their entertainment.

 

At only 80 minutes, this was an easy watch. For those too young to have experienced the craze, this somewhat captures that moment. For those who do remember it, it is a nice blast of nostalgia.

 

Verdict: Weakly Recommend