Screen Squinty's Reviews

→ in
Tools    





Friday the 13th (1980 version): A Review.




This is a 1980 American Slasher film, made on a budget of an estimated $550,000 grossing $37,465,200. It is considered by some to be one of the pioneers of the more contemporary gore-fest slashers that we recognize of the past few decades and has pawned a large franchise of sequels, crossovers and parodies up the wazoo .

It is about a group of teenagers (“good-looking kids who you might see in a Pepsi commercial.”-Cunningham) helping in the re-opening a camp at Chrystal Lake, widely regarded by the local townsfolk as Camp Blood (which was part of the original working title of the film before it was changed) for its gruesome history, who are being murdered one by one by a mysterious stranger.

Before getting into the meat of this nostalgic review, a bit of History:

Friday the 13th was produced and directed by Sean S. Cunningham, who worked with filmmaker Wes Craven beforehand on the film The Last House on the Left (1972), though Cunningham strived to distance his film from his previous work on the film as much as possible. The Film was inspired by the success of John Carpenter’s Halloween (1978) but you can also see influences from other horror films such as Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960), particularly within the construction of the killer.

After viewing this is a film, I can see why it was both a hit in the box office, maintaining a cult following, but at the same time why many critics during that time gave it negative reviews, despite the more retrospective positive ones it garnered later.

The biggest strengths of the film lie in the technicals:

The camera work to start with, was very well done. In most of the movie, interactions with the killer are kept from the visual point of view of the killer, a cinematic style obviously taken from the opening of Halloween, yet in this movie’s carrying it on throughout most of the film.

The Make-up work, done by Tom Savini was deliciously gruesome, reflecting his earlier work in Dawn of the Dead, with some creative uses of the mise-en-scene of the camp to provide the means of most of the murders. With the Arrow being shoved upwards through the neck of one of the victims from below, one of the most effective and strongest of Savini’s work here (though I understand the bubbles were unintentional, merely a result of the tubing used as Savini blew into the tube to encourage the fake blood to flow up and out).

Then there is the film score.

The recognizable “Chi, chi, chi; ha, ha, ha” was created by Composer Harry Manfredini, which was actually “Ki, ki, ki; ma, ma, ma” to reflect the “Kill, Kill, Kill; Mom, Mom, mom” rendition that Manfredini imagined was going through the killer’s mind during one of the best scenes in the film when the killers madness is fully revealed. The simple use of this device of Manfredini uttering the syllables on a microphone through a delayed effect was excellent at establishing the creep factor, and heightened the tension with the other music, particularly the discordant violins, and the camera work, aiding the story well.

Outside of the technicals, there is some decent moments where you see that the attention to audience reaction was very much taken into consideration, such as the scene in which two of the teenagers are making love, and you think to yourself that they are about to be murdered within that moment, but no, the film instead goes against that expectation and instead reveals that they are making love on the bunk below the murdered body of one of their friends, completely unaware. The fact that none of the teenagers, with the exception of Alice, the lead, sees the other bodies was actually a really good, and somewhat original, touch.

Finally, while there are some flaws in the set-up of the killer, Betsey Palmer as the killer was just delightful to watch. Despite the fact that her fans didn’t like seeing her in this role, and she was mainly doing it to help her buy a car, retrospectively you can’t help but see only her in this role, hugging hysterical teenagers one minute, then swinging a machete at heads next in that tasteful sweater. Her part is one of the few good solid performances in the film.

Now let’s get on to the weak points, because boy howdy does it have them.

There is a really stupid character in this film, and I mean the queen of stupid, the crown of which is held by Annie, who enters a town on its last legs filled with people that stare at her when she asks about Chrystal Lake, in a clear creepy vibe of “wtf girl, do you want to die?”, then Crazy Ralph pops up and tells her Chrystal Lake is cursed, soon followed by a creepy and awkwardly pervy middle aged man (though to be fair, most of the male characters are have a strong pervy vibe) who gives her a ride and tells her exactly why its jinxed, stating she should, then for that added cherry on top, drops her off outside a freakin’ cemetery, all of this in the space of 3-5 minutes. She tra la-la-la’s her way through out her sequences without an ounce of trepidation.

What makes her character even more painful to watch is the wasted time on her point in the plot, when in the end, she was utterly pointless to the overall story, she didn’t need to be there, and in the end, adding insult to injury, was supposed to be the cook for the camp, a spot that could have been used to establish the killer much more solidly into the film.

This leads us into the next issue, which is, despite the great acting, the killer itself.

The thing is the killer itself, when revealed is actually not so bad. In all aspects, they come across as completely harmless in presentation, more like an old aunty who invites you to tea or something, even dressing in that very non-threatening lavender blue sweater. Then when the killer shows its reverse Norman Bates routine, it does come across as legitimately creepy. As I said earlier, there is nothing wrong with the killer’s scenes themselves, the problem is that I felt that the killer needed to be established early into the film to connect her to the victims, the protagonist, and the setting more solidly and coherently. This is perhaps where some early critics likely might have had an issue with film.

There is no excuse as to why it couldn’t have happened. the killer itself was an employee of the Camp owner’s family, and could have been continuing on in that employ in the camp, that way when the big reveal happens, it actually makes sense within the context of the plot, instead of going “Who the fudge is that?” no matter how awesome the killer is, instead of rushed exposition in some vague attempt to establish her in the story.

Her grandmotherly appearance could have been carried through the story, and it would have come as a great twist; hell even having her with the teenagers for a brief moment in the beginning before going off to do her own thing would have helped establish the killer better. Both ways would not have infringed on the first person POV scenes, and actually might have been strengthened even more so.

Finally, the (possibly fake?) ending, one of the weakest points of all.

Because neither the killer nor Jason was established throughout the film concretely enough, Jason’s sudden attack on the main character in the end made no sense, even if it did spawn later films. In fact, the idea of bringing Jason in on the end was suggested by Salvini. Jason was originally supposed to stay dead, a plot device in the original script, centering the antagonist spotlight on the mother only, which was the preference of Victor Miller, the script writer, who did not approve of Jason’s presence at the end, and didn’t approve of Jason as the killer in the subsequent sequels. It was there solely for the benefit of the audience as a jump scare, and while I get that, it gave the ending an overall WTF experience, and not in a good way, coming across as a bit slap dashed and definitely superfluous.

Overall, despite its inherent weaknesses, I can still say I don’t regret watching it. The film has a certain charm to it, moments where I was legitimately creeped out and surprised, where it did give me the sense that I was on a carnival ride, and you do sort of become invested in seeing it through to the end, if just for the experience of it. Hell, there were times when I laughed, particularly when Crazy Ralph popped up at the camp. I can understand after watching it why it has a cult following, despite its flaws, and I would still recommend watching it, if just for the experience of doing so.

Film Clip:


Film Trailer:


Film Franchise Parody Example “Robot Chicken: Jason’s Deceiving Speed”:








Little Witch Academia 1 & 2: A Review.


“Little Witch Academia”, Promotional Artwork, Retrieved from Wikipedia.org, Property of Trigger.

Film Shorts: Little Witch Academia and Little Witch Academia: Enchanted Parade.
Directed and Created by: Yoh Yoshinari.
Released: 2013, 2015.
Running Time: 26 min and 53 min.

The first installment Little Witch Academia (2013), was a short animation that was produced by Trigger for the 2013 Anime Mirai (a funding project for young animators) about a somewhat inept but enthusiastic girl named Akko who is inspired into becoming a witch by a magical performer called Shiny Chariot, whom she idolizes, and hangs out at her magic school with her friends, Sucy and Lotte.

The second installment, Little Witch Academia: Enchanted Parade (2015) was a longer sequel partially funded through Kickstarter after the initial release of the first one garnered some modest fanbase. In this one the main character in conflict with her friends as they struggle to create the best parade (a punishment) so they can avoid expulsion.

First off, if you are a viewer who is seriously picky about the quality of their anime, then these shorts are definitely up your ally visually. The animation here is just spectacular! Fluid, malleable, colourful, enduring, and the character designs are unique to each character to aide in strengthening each individual identity.

The animation of the opening of the first installment especially was a real visual treat!

The characters outside their design, are rather likable, and some even funny, though Akko can come across as a little to bratty at times, particularly in the second installment, but in the end she realizes the character flaw, so she works well enough as a main lead, though definite props go to to the sidekicks and background characters.

Sucy is one of the best characters in both of the films, sort of like a cross between Severus Snape from Harry Potter franchise, Raven from Teen Titans. Everything she does and says is almost always funny, her utilization of potions is always fun to watch, with much of the best humour coming from her quarter, and her almost cartoon Dracula-like design is the best of the lot by far!

One of the draw backs of the films is that the pacing of the story of the first one doesn’t match the short time frame, feeling a little rushed. The second film seemed to be trying to rectify that, and it was an improvement in pacing. Despite that though, it did present some interesting elements that I wished could have been flushed out bit more, such as the relationship between the witches and the non-magicals, the hints of gentrification among witch culture, the history behind the Sorcerer’s stone (and yes, if your harry Potter fan you roll your eyes, but to be fair, it wasn’t the first to use that magical prop.)

There are some problems with the characters such as a few of them coming across as a bit to stereotypic such as Diana, the condescending overachiever aristocrat who comes across like a less dickish Draco Malfoy (also from Harry Potter) for example, and the under utilization of the 3 new characters Amanda, Constanze, and Jasminka from the second movie, who each had something very interesting about them, but wasn’t fully explored or utilized, though with time constraints and the focus being the friendship of the main cast, it was likely not a concern.

This is why while they work alright as short films (with the second treading that line very finely I might add)I feel they would be great to watch as both a full length TV series to really flesh out the characters, history, and the story, or even a feature length film, perhaps.

The only other nitpick would be the English dub which was also not overly well done, and can distract from the film, though the actresses for the Japanese version are pretty good, with the exception of Diana, whose voice sounds a little too mature for the age she is supposed to be.

Overall these were very well done anime with its strengths resting in its animation and characters, and felt like a nice little homage to Harry Potter while still maintaining its own identity. I would recommend giving it a watch.

Both films are also on Netflix.



"Felidae": A Review.


("Felidae." Screen Shot, Property of Senator Film Distribution)

Film: Felidae.
Directed by: Michael Schaack.
Running time: 82 min.
Released: 1994.

Felidae is a fascinating 1994 German Adult animation based off of a 1989 novel and series of the same name by Akif Pirinçci. It is about a house cat named Francis who recently moves into a new neighborhood and gets caught up in investigating the murders of other felines.

This is not the kind of animated feature that you would stick the kiddies in front of unless they have a great deal of maturity to understand graphic (violent) imagery. This is a story that takes talking animals to a whole different, nitty-gritty level.

The first thing to note is the differences between the original German voice acting and the English dub later developed. You can tell right off when doing a comparison between the two, that the voice acting and the lines is definitely better in the German one, the voice actors matching their characters personalities quite well, with Ulrich Tukar as the voice of Francis and Mario Adorf as Blaubart. The English version cleaned up a lot of the language which actually felt part in setting the tone, particularly of Blaubart, and did have some noticeable differences to wording outside of that which was not to the film’s advantage.

So like with anything else that is done in a language different from your own, if your English, stick to the subtitled version if you want the full effect of the film.

The animation was a rather fascinating mix of the standard, though good, quality of animation during that period, but then you get these moments where it takes a step above itself, particularly in Francis' dream sequences, and one in particular whose contents won’t be given away, but its style works well with the disturbing and potent imagery you’re not likely to forget.

There is also a sense of environment with this, an idea of the sort of old run down once lofty urban district which is established through the movements of the cats, done particularly well through a really well animated and detailed chase scene between Francis and the cult followers.

The story itself is another highlight, appropriate given the popularity of the books, the narrative flows from one sequence to another well enough, though there are moments that do feel a little rushed, it does weave its mystery in a very engaging way with equally engaging characters, Blaubart being a nice humorously crass counterpoint when it gets a little too heavy at the right times. It actually reads almost like a film noir, with some of the tropes of the genre, but not dominantly so.

One of the things going against it is that there are certain things that do make it dated, and a product of its times, such as a scene or two of less than PC use of homosexuality in a negative connotation, particularly exemplified in the scene between Kong and his crew and Francis and Blaubart in the first half, but that is very brief thankfully, and doesn't impact with the rest of the film, so it can be skipped.

The other negative perhaps is that while the climatic ending was really well done, the "bad humans and there corruption" message did feel a little forced here, almost shoe horned in with those last words of the antagonist, and then Francis before he passes out. It felt already established and stated by the antagonist’s backstory already, but then again, it is a product of its time, and it didn't take away from the overall enjoyment of the film.

This was a great film that has a really compelling narrative and tone that sucks you in, a great set of characters in Francis and Blaubart, great animation, particularly in the dream sequences, and a gripping action-filled ending, if a little preachy here and there. Definitely a recommended watch for those who enjoy a good horror/mystery, are not squeamish, and like good quality adult animation.

Felidae Trailer (sound is not the best quality but its the best of the lot):



#WTFU

I know this isn't a film review, but it does tie into those who review or comment on films and other media.

If you believe in the rights of the creator and on improving YouTube, or just want to be informed please share on whatever available social media you have

#WTFU Where's the Fair Use?



Screen Squinty’s “Zootopia” Review.

Zootopia
Trailer:


Film: Zootopia.
Directed by: Byron Howard and Rich Moore.
Running time: 108 min.
Released: 2016.

Zootopia is a Disney computer animation feature that centers on the story of Judy Hopps in a classic underbunny story of a small town nobody with big dreams of making it in the big city as a cop, yet finds that she still has to deal with being a prey animal in a predator dominated field.

While the story at its core is something that has been done many times before, a discrimination story, though a Furry version, Zootopia does at least present it in an interesting, engaging, and fresh manner by combining it with the premise of an entire world of evolved anthropomorphic mammals with an actual somewhat explained back history, and combines it with a really great bit of intrigue, well balanced humor, and great characters.

The animation, particularly on Zootopia and all its various environments are cleverly designed and gorgeously rendered giving a very real, very present feel to the setting, particularly combined with the really great character designs have its own unique charm.

The plot flows really well, playing with events and expectations a little, and not afraid to really build up the reveals, while taking time out to focus on the little moments, which gives it a more relaitable engagement and feel for the spectators instead of smashing from one scene to the next with nary a breath in-between, which has been a common problem with many films nowadays and outside of animated shorts and Steven Universe, has a presentation so smartly and wisely utilized its flow of time so perfectly.

The narrative meanwhile is really good! it is very much a serious series of events in which an overarching conspiracy/mystery is going on, and during the times when it is in focus, they treat it in a serious manner with surprising little humor, which they save for interactions between the various characters and background gags.

The film also utilizes its moral lesson smartly (though rather bluntly), but doesn’t tread that fine line in to rehash preaching that often turns off the viewer from a rather important lesson. No one here has the moral high ground, everyone has both obvious and subtle faults and points of view that are both conscious and subtle, and is used as a device for character development, adding a layer to the dynamic between Judy and Nick.

Speaking of Judy, voiced by Ginnifer Goodwin (Snow White from Once Upon a Time), and Nick voiced by Jason Bateman (Michael Bluth in Arrested Development)- and did a stellar job with the voice acting- brought character dynamic that was just brilliant! Their growing relationship provided not only some of the best dialogue,and the way they worked off each other in action scenes, humorous scenes, and the final confrontation felt very natural and between them carried the overall tone of the movie all the way through (also unrelievedly this was a non-romantic pair for once, kudos for going against an overused trope, particularly for something from Disney).

Overall this was a feature that super-seceded expectations by presenting an all-around great film by taking a common sometimes overused concept and made it interesting with some creative and well thought out animation, narrative flow, and some great characters.

A definite recommend for viewers of all ages.



Screen Squnity's "Mr. Bean The Ultimate Disaster Movie" Review.



Film: Mr. Bean The Ultimate Disaster Movie.
Directed by: Mel Smith.
Running time: 90 min.
Released: 1997.

Recently, over on the Canadian Netflix, I found the pleasure of finding the recent addition of an old nostalgic favorite of mine from back in the day of ye olde 1990’s, that classic comedian Rowan Atkinson’s first Mr. Bean movie, The Ultimate Disaster that was very much a success for veteran fans of our favorite British star.

The highlights of course, are the comedy, in particular Mr. Bean and his interactions with various characters during his trip to the states when he is mistaken (on purpose) as an fine art scholar.
You see the classic gags from the Mr. Bean series worked out within the film, but at the same time they do combine it with newer gags, many of which work, such as the brilliant scene where Bean breaks into the art gallery in the climax of the film to right a mistake, which was one long gag intermingled with the resolution of narrative with some epic music that gave it a rather surreal amusing feel, particularly when the aggrieved security guard manages to valiantly make it to the toilet…I’m sure more than a few buttocks clenched in sympathetic relief at that scene.

Meanwhile, the strongest feature of the film was the dynamic between Bean and David Langley (Peter MacNicol), which provided some natural comedic buddy moments, David working well with a character like Bean who had never before been depicted with a single character nearly exclusively ] with such a close prolonged interaction. MacNicol and Atkinson had great chemistry on the screen and worked well with each other.

The other amusing moments were those surrounding Bean who somewhat suffered for the interactions, as brief as they were, and Detective Brutus (Richard Grant) was the best of the lot. Though he was a straight-faced minor character, he did what many other characters usually do in an original Mr. Bean episode would do, he would directly/indirectly suffer as comedic foil to Beans mishaps, which made the scene in the hospital, in which Bean is his unwitting surgeon, particularly good as it was closer to the type of humour likely to be found in the original show when it comes to those who populated Bean’s immediate environment.

The only drawback of course was the MacNicol family…ugh.
They felt somewhat superfluous to the overall film, and hindered more then helped the story, coming across for the most part unintentionally cruel to the main characters without any real reason behind their behavior, particularly the wife. The film would have been just as strong if it were just Langley without the family.

This was the 1990’s though, and there was a thing about that back in the day for flicks geared towards the all ages bracket, so it is likely a product of the times, just handled very clunky.

Despite some of the inherent 90’s drawbacks of the film, it has always been an enjoyable film to watch when one wants to enjoy some good laughs, but of course the best of Bean, is always to go right back to the source, and that is the original series if singularly Bean humour is your thing. The original material provides the complete, uniquely Bean experience that could not be carried over in this film. There is this unique element of slice of life quietude co-existing with the physical humour that worked so amazingly well with the original, and so uniquely Bean. It would have been nice to see this film have a bit more focus on that style of humour within the story without the Americanization it went through, even if this film is enjoyable, and worth a watch for an artifact of the 90’s and some epic scenes in and of itself.




Screen Squinty's "Finding Dory" Review.


Trailer:


Film: Finding Dory.
Directed by: Andrew Stanton.
Released: 2016.
Running Time: 103 minutes.

There is nothing like the sight of colorful sparkly fish with great voice overs to experience the majesty of the ocean and your local Signorney Weaver narrated Fish hospital/park.

Finding Dory is the much anticipated sequel to Finding Nemo (2003) that had been in the works for the past 13 years. Unsurprising as the first installment was such a hit that it’s a surprise that Hollywood isn’t already on its fourth installment instead of its second. In this installment, it concentrates on the popular character, Dory, in a collection of present moment and flash backs telling an origin story/present adventure story of Dory’s search for her family.

The film is that a lot of the old crew that made Finding Nemo such a success returned to the making of the film. Andrew Stanton, who directed the first film returned as director (paired up with relative feature film newcomer co-director Angus Macleane), and many of the voice actors returned, such as Albert Brooks the famous writer and comedian reprising his role as Marlen, and of course the queen of talk shows herself Ellen DeGeneres as Dory.

Having Stanton manning the helm of its development has kept this film on an even keel where many films that have tread the choppy waters of long term development waters to break apart (The Good Dinosaur for Example), this film has made it into the dock with a solidly made film in which you can easily believe that it has earned the $287 million worldwide gross since it premiered June 8th.

The animation had the same high quality as the first film, with some really beautiful breathtaking imagery that shows the animation teams love of the watery kingdom. Though there was less variety of colorful settings like the first film, it did utilize what was presented in the best possible way, making an ordinary public Aquarium comically (and sometimes dangerously) fantastical .



Pixar “Dory” from Finding Dory, 2016. Promotional Image.

The character designs with child Dory being the precious little fish bit adorkable without quite falling into Pwecious territory fortunately, and the designs of the other inhabitants of the exhibits was enjoyably done.

The strongest design tentacles down though would have to be Hank, the cranky red octopus, with the excellent voice talent of Ed O’Niell, whose design has the smart decision of using his eyes as the dominant feature of body language communication.

Some of the strongest animations recognize the importance of the expression of the eyes.


In computer animation, though there has certainly been improvements over the years, a big flaw was the phenomenon known as “dead eyes” (The Polar Express is an excellent example of this), which accents the artificiality of the world being portrayed and generally comes across as a little unsettling. This is in part because the eyes are a common body language facet of communication among humans almost to a subconscious level.

A creative team that recognizes this important facet of human relation and communication, make it the most prominent feature of a character (particularly in a computer animation) tend to be the most successful in character design, as it helps foster greater empathy with a character, as well as puts a stamp of a high quality animation for the production company, which Pixar has in spades and is not afraid to show.

It doesn’t hurt that Hank, out side of his design, was a likable character as well, and his dynamic with Dory was easily the strongest feature of the film with dialogue that felt natural, entertaining, and engaging all at once, and definitely is one of the strongest factors in carrying the film, and a character who i can see getting his own movie if there is a third installment.



Pixar, Hank and Dory from “finding Dory, 2016, promotional Image.

The story itself outside of the characters and animation, does holdup well. The present day and flash back transitions were clever in revealing not only Dory’s origins, but also in her psyche, as well as a plot of character development and resolution.

Granted it didn’t have the grand feel of the first film, but that’s as it should be. The first film was a heroic journey film, this one was a personal revelation story at a very internal and personal level on part of Dory, which the story does.It doesn’t need the grand oceanic delights and dangers to be what it is, with the first film about finding someone, and the second about finding one’s self.

If there were any weak points in the film, perhaps Nemo’s character didn’t feel particularly essential to the film. In fact his presence highlighted why you shouldn’t bring children into potentially dangerous or unknown situations. It weakens Marlen’s parental characterization, particularly after the first film going through the trouble of developing him in that quarter. Still, the focus was on Dory, so the draw backs are minor annoyances at best.

This film swims to the top and over he expectations going into this film, with its great animation, characters, and story it is a high recommendation for your summer viewing.




Screen Squinty's "The BFG" Review.




Film: The BFG.
Directed and Produced by: Steven Spielberg.
Released: 2016.
Running Time: 117 min.

The BFG is an Disney American fantasy film based of of the classic children’s book of the same title by Ronald Dahl centering on the adventure of an Orphan named Sophie who is kidnapped by a friendly dream catching giant when she witnesses his presence and soon befriends him.

This is a film that centers exactly on what the title says: a Big Friendly Giant.

The strength of this movie lies in this simplicity. By maintaining the focus primarily on the relationship of BFG (Mark Rylance) with the other main character Sophie (Ruby Barnhill), the side characters and the antagonists, you get a very solid and somewhat focused film, and the character interactions, especially the dynamic between BFG and Sophie was the strongest yet so far in this year’s family film fair, which is particularly impressive when you consider the fact that Barnhill is interacting with a green screen figment of digital animation imagination.

Kudos goes to the voice acting of Rylance who really brought this character to life and was the perfect choice for BFG with his Shakespearean theatrical chops shining thorough especially well here.

The computer animation (through motion capture) done on BFG and the other giants was particularly good. He looked younger in the face then his cover art from the Dahl book and his depiction in the 1989 animated version, but it oddly works here when combined with the balding grayness as it somewhat helps pull across that sort of ageless quality inherent in the character (and remarked upon in the film).

Weta Digital did a good job with the the film’s special effects, particularly with the dream tree scene as well.

The plot meanwhile was fairly faithful to the book, if not quite capturing some of the couched darker tones of Dahl, with a pace that worked surprisingly swiftly for its run time in part carried by the relativity fluid transitions from one moment to the next carried on the back of the character byplay.

The only drawback to the film is that the less darker tone from the source material took away from the unique experience that comes from a Dahl work, and if your a Dahl fan, this will likely annoy you.

That being said it is a Disney film under the control of Spielberg which means that the “Family film” aspect will remain strictly traditional. Though its worth pointing out that with the increasing maturity of family television out there, the traditional notion is going to find a harder branch to perch on with young audiences.

Overall, while it isn’t exactly an epic film, it is a good film nonetheless that delivers on the promise of its premise with stellar acting, character designs on part of the giants, and visual effects and worth watching for all age groups.




Screen Squinty’s “Vivziepop’s Silhouette (Owl City)” Review





Film Short: Silhouette (Fan Animated).
Animated by: Vivziepop.
Released: 2016.
Running Time: 2 min.

This is the second review I have done for one of Vivziepop’s amazing fan-animations. This time around from among her material is an homage featuring a lonesome fox singing to the stars with Owl City’s "Silhouette."

Over the years Vivziepop has continued to impress me in the growth, imagination, and talent that she has utilized in their creations, both in her animations and in her comic series Zoophobia, and this short is no different.

While it doesn’t have the speed and energy of her homage to Kiesha’s “Die Young”, there is greater attention to visual detail in Silhouette, with really good syncing of the Fox’s mouth to the singer’s voice, and a flow of movement that is smooth and fluid, and an over all tighter production.

The emotion of the song was well captured in the visuals with the excellent use of transition from full character to silhouette and back, with the facial expressions and body movements of the Fox himself with just the right emotion of identity in the moment.

Despite the softer pace of the short, she is still able to utilize that amazing flair for color that Vivzie’s stuff is well known for which pops at the seams with chromatic vibrancy, enriching without working against.

Overall, Vivziepop has put forward another excellent fan animation (that I am sure wont hurt the sales for the band’s album), and I look forward to every future endeavor.




Screen Squinty's "Lights Out" Review.



Film: Light’s Out.
Directed by: David F. Sandberg
Released: 2016.
Running Time: 81 min.

This is an American Horror film written by Eric Heisserer about a family haunted by a supernatural being. The film was based on the original 2013 short film of the same name created by the director and pretty much took the same premise from the short and applied it to a feature length running time.



So how does Sandberg’s debut stack up?

The cinematography was decent, with some great little transitions between shots and scenes here and there, and the lighting, with some particularly clever attention to detail with shadows to highlight the tension and sinisterisim of the darkness (even if it wasn’t the big baddy) was particularly clever.

The acting gets a bit of a nod for a few, such as Gabriel Bateman as Martin who pulled off what he could for his character with his child stoicism and terrified out of his little gourd combo without being annoying. And there was also Maria Bello as Sophie, who did a decent job of coming across as pitiable and mildly creepy at the same time.

Then of course there is the strongest element of the film, the scare.

Practically every 5 minutes there was a jump-scare (escalating in the end), and unlike many other movies or television shows out there, they weren’t all predominantly fake-outs. In fact, there was perhaps only one fake-out out in the entire film.

Each scare fulfilled on its promise of something outright scary or occasionally mildly creepy. It was its complete and utter focus on jump scare and lighting combination that carried the film, and made it surprisingly fun to watch.

This movie does unfortunately have a bushel of weak points that stick out regardless of the fun experience, weak points that popular sites like Rotten Tomatoes dubs as strong attributes: The Characters and the Story.

First are the characters:

This is not exactly a strong pool of dynamic personalities.

Most of the small pool of characters isn’t given enough of an identity, interaction or development in this film that you actually forget the name of most of them from time to time.

They rely on a few handful of moments in the film that could be attributed to the action or mood of a particular scene as needed, such as the boyfriend’s entertaining confrontation with the creature, the opening scene with minor characters Ester (Lotta Losten, who was from the original short) flicking the light switch, and Paul (Billy Burke) trying (and failing) to not be killed, and Martin’s apropos responses to Diane.

Speaking of Diane, she was creepy (when not under a blue light) and her movements were just the right amount tension building, but the antagonist suffers as a weak point as well as her backstory was half-arsed, a little implausible in parts even for a horror film, and the connection between her and Sophie was not given enough development.

The story itself was of course the other major weak point.

There was no overarching mystery or any other narrative hook to keep you gripped, with everything about the creature was summed up early on and floating undeveloped relationships such as the mother and daughter falling out never being expanded upon, and there was hardly enough chances for breath in the film for the necessary character developments.

When there were attempts at the actual story it read like the amateur writing found in the dollar digital bin at your local Amazon site.

What could have helped the story was a better written history between Sophie and Diane. In fact, it might have gone stronger if Diane was actually a mental projection of Sophie’s depression, or perhaps something she created to deal with the death of her friend, or a combination of both. The possibility to utilize this example was there in the vaguely explained connection between them.

You can tell the film’s origins from its short counterpart, as the elements that worked here were what made the short strong, and pretty much was the entirety of the short. But unfortunately, the attempt to translate the short into a feature, you do need a decent combination of story and characters outside of the scare element.

Though this could be read as utilizing the formula of the slasher film, which in the case of those films was very much about the present experience of the audience, appealing to the squirm, blood thirst, and gross-out with a lack of much story and purposeful blank slate characters to better facilitate the audience overlaying themselves into the experience.

In this case, if you replace the element of “Slasher” with jump scare, you would have something very similar, though whether this was the purpose of the film’s construction it’s hard to say.

Overall this was a movie that you watch in the dark with your friends once or twice and enjoy it for the scare, with a few decent character moments here and there and not much else.




The Celluloid Closet: A Review.

Film:The Celluloid Closet
Written by: Rob Epstein and Jeffrey Friedman.
Released: 1995.
Running Time: 107 min.

This is a traditional style documentary about the portrayal of homosexuality in Hollywood Cinema leading up to the time of the documentary’s release, utilizing a combination of Film clips from all parts of Hollywood cinematic history and interviews with guest speakers. It was based off the book of the same name by Vito Russo.
For the longest time, I thought I was the only person on the planet who had seen this documentary. When I did a review of it my thread, I got a lot of responses saying people had never even heard of it.




Screen Squinty's "Batman The Killing Joke" Review.

*Warning! There are Spoilers!


Film: Batman The Killing Joke.
Directed by: Sam Liu.
Released: 2016.
Running Time: 76 min.

Based off of the acclaimed graphic Novel of the same name, with animation design by famous Bruce Timm and the returning acting talents of Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill; Batman The Killing Joke tells a Joker origin story in concert with present day Joker’s final extreme.

This was a film that many fans of both the graphic novel and of DC Animation had been looking forward to for months. Particularly with the knowledge that before the DVD release the following week, spectators would get a chance to enjoy it screened in theaters, something that hasn’t been seen for a DC Animated feature since Batman Mask of the Phantasm (though Batman Killing Joke was viewed in only a few select theaters).

DC Animation has had some hit and misses over the years with their animated films, with Batman Mask of the Phantasm (1993), Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker (2000), Batman Under the Hood (2010), The Dark Knight Returns Part 1 and 2 (2013), Justice League: Flashpoint Paradox (2013), Wonder Woman (2009), Justice League: Gods and Monsters (2015) etc. being a sampling of perhaps some of the most popular examples.

What all these films had in common was great animation/visuals, voice acting, and story in varying degrees of excellence that have earned them their little golden slots on the shelves of fans, bridging the cap between comic book fans and the movie fans alike.

The question then lies in whether Batman The Killing Joke can be counted among the pantheon of the DC Animation Golden.

Of the animation, this film did a fascinating job in combining the style inherent in the famous Bruce Timm animations with the gorgeous character styles of the graphic novel illustrated by Brian Bolland. The highlight having to be The Bolland’s Joker translated into animation.



(Above) “Joker Cracks” From Batman Killing Joke DC Animation(2016), (Below) “Joker Cracks” from Batman Killing Joke Deluxe Edition, Moore & Bolland (2008).

The scenes, particularly the carnival were they had a decent balance of bright color saturation and creepy imagery, the throne of heads being an excellent example of this.

The only drawback in the visuals might be the transitions between present moment and flashback. In the graphic novel, the transitions between moments were relatively smooth (seen below), with the instant visual moment of the very first and the very last thing seen was utilized in pose of the character and what he was doing in the drawn mise-en-scene to tie the present frame with the flashback frame.

Certainly there was some of it, but the instant final and first sight between time shifts was not as utilized and thus the lack of this key visual made the transitions between scenes less seamless.



DC Comics, “Joker Time transition” Batman The Killing Joke Deluxe Edition. Moore & Bolland (2008).

Some could argue that there is a difference in the mediums, but this is a technique that has been utilized quite successfully in other films. This is especially odd considering how much else they were relatively faithful with in regards to the source material.

Also, there was that lack of nods in the mise-en-scene to the previous history of the Joker that the graphic novel had. It would have been interesting to see a few nods to previous animated Jokers perhaps, but of course this could be more of trying to play safe with maintaining a sense of visual continuity perhaps.

As far as animation goes, despite some hiccoughs with transitions, the animation team did a decent job in providing just the right amount of atmosphere to the film and faithfulness to the source material, a visual treat for spectators and fans alike.

Voice Acting was another strong plus for the film.

Mark Hamill as usual blew the waters out from anyone’s expectations in continuing to prove his status as the number one Joker. He vitalized the lines he was given, seamlessly blending his various incarnations into Alan Moore’s Joker and coming out the other end with something altogether different and so deliciously a joy to watch.

Kevin Conroy brought his amazingly stoically deadpan Batman to the screen, but when the emotions where there, like other Batman he’s played, it was perfect. With the nostalgia surrounding his voice as well -because make no mistake, Conroy owns Batman almost as much as Hamill owns Joker- there was a certain added surrealism induced by nostalgia of Conroy voice induced memories of Batman Hey-days with Moore written Batman, particularly in the ending of the film that was particularly entertaining.

Tara Strong’s voice acting chops was also given some time to shine, and she did well in making Batgirl something of her own. Strong utilizes a unique ability of hers to not somehow induce the brain to think of her other characters when in other material, more as their own identities. When you hear her, you don’t hear Twilight Sparkle (My Little Pony) or Raven (Teen Titans franchise), you hear Batgirl.

Finally, does the story compete with previous DC Animated films?

The story is where some of the strongest and weakest points can be found. The original source material was determined to be to short by the filmmakers, so within the first quarter we see entirely original material from the production staff unrelated to the source material.

This original material, lets call this section the Batgirl Arc, was centered on the final days of her being Batgirl before the events of the graphic novel.

Within the canon of Batman the Animated series, Batman: Mystery of the Batwoman (2003), and Batman Beyond (more so here) the fact that Batgirl had a romantic relationship with Batman was well known by this point, though the reason for her separation was only briefly explained, mostly in exposition, and never went really in-depth. After watching this Batgirl Arc, you could say that this story was that missing portion, if it just stood on its own and wasn’t attached to the rest of the film.

If it were just this on its own, a lost episode or something from that part of the Animated Series franchise such as a flashback episode in Batman Beyond, or even a short film tie in, then it serves its purpose as a mode of clarification on their relationship (if perhaps not a good one) from that quarter, then at least it held some sort of purpose.

Here it does not, and not only does it feel entirely random, but the story of this arc in and of itself was poorly handled, particularly in Barbra’s reasons for giving up fighting crime being colored because she was a “distraction” for Batman was definitely insulting to many spectators, and not complimentary to either Batman or Batgirl. It was an aggravating attempt perhaps to elicit more of an investment emotionally with Barbra after the events of the second quarter, but it failed spectacularly.

In the rest of the film, let’s call it the Getting-What-You-Actually-Paid-For Arc, is of course where the film shined.

The faithfulness to the source material’s story was almost exact, with a few additions here and there that didn’t take away from anything and fit somewhat seamlessly with the rest. It had all the dark iconic moments from the comic, (even Joker’s song number!) with an enhanced final scene that climaxed much as the graphic novel did.

Unfortunately, what keeps this film from becoming excellent story-wise, was the fact that these two arcs are not isolated single stories and are supposed to be read as all one film, which just frankly doesn’t work, and the insulting nature of the first arc soured some of the experience.

The connection between the two is much too tenuous, and the obvious fact that the Batgirl arc was so upfront filler, was a disconnected from the rest of the story and early the film if the second arc hadn’t been so good. The small ending credit scene of Barbra doesn’t help anything for the sake of the film and felt just as unnecessary as the first quarter, particularly as it takes away from the impact of the final image of Batman and Joker.

We know that DC Animation is capable of producing both really good original material, such as with Justice League: Gods and Monsters (2015), or comic source material such as demonstrated with the second arc here and previous films. So if they had to go this route of combination of the two, surely they could have done a better job?

Overall the answer of whether this film is worthy of the DC Animation pantheon is something of a question mark. If it weren’t for the focus on Batgirl, then the answer would likely be “yes”. It did have faithfulness to the material in the rest of the film, the voice acting was superb and the animation was spectacular, but with the first arc, especially with how badly it was handled, the answer would be “no.” Perhaps the answer would be that it straddles the edge.

The recommendation to fans would be to only watch the Getting-What-You-Actually-Paid-For Arc. Certainly it would be a shorter experience, but much more satisfying, and likely not to enrage you if you are a fan of Batman and Batgirl in particular.




For the longest time, I thought I was the only person on the planet who had seen this documentary. When I did a review of it my thread, I got a lot of responses saying people had never even heard of it.
Yeah, i came across the same comments whenever i mentioned it to others. I watched it as part of my Introduction to Queer Cinema Class in University, and have loved it since. I often go back to it for other classes or essays.