Time Machine Geek

I’m a dude with a YouTube channel who talks about movies and TV.

[timemachinegeek]

Hoppers — Zero Structure, Just Nonsense

There was a point in Hoppers where I just couldn’t be bothered anymore. Everything that was happening was just nonsense, and the only thing I felt while watching was exhaustion. The more the movie went on — because boy, does this movie feel long — the more that exhaustion grew to anger, and by the film’s climax, I was genuinely pissed in a way that I haven’t felt at an animated movie since 2015's Minions.

But at least Minions had the good sense not to be about anything thematically. It knew it had no obligation to have any real emotional weight. In addition to being ridiculous, Hoppers also wears a smug crown on its head, even though its messages about nature and the goodness in everyone are as tacked-on as they come.

Hoppers’s screenplay has no rules or narrative structure. It does whatever it wants and expects us to tag along for the ride, no questions asked. That wouldn’t be such a problem if the film were consistently funny, but Hoppers seems to think absurdity is all you need to create a working punchline.

There are no clever jokes here. It’s just wackiness for the sake of wackiness. The film is seemingly content with asking you to laugh at how random it all is and nothing else. The comedic scenes that don't rely on absurdity are low-effort, like one where the joke is just that the animals are making loud, annoying noises, and one that is a direct reference to an internet meme.

Without good jokes, this movie falls completely flat. It can’t work any other way. When your film is so outlandish and removed from reality, there ends up being no stakes. How can there be when ridiculous things happen left and right, and you just have to accept it? Deaths mean nothing in this world, and because there are no stakes, there are no reasons to care.

Unless you’ve got clever jokes to back it up, that is. Not only is this movie unable to give us that, but it’s also seemingly deluded that it’s about something deep and important, when really, this is a movie about nothing.

Don’t let the beginning fool you. This film isn’t about how beautiful nature can be. If it were, it would’ve actually shown us a beautiful secret world that animals live in, and not one filled with whatever “Wouldn’t this be crazy?” thought entered the writers’ heads.

Don’t let the dialogue fool you, either. This film isn’t about how there’s goodness in every creature. If it were, it wouldn’t have made these numerous characters do some morally reprehensible stuff, defended by the idea that it’s a wacky animated movie, and also, being vicious is just how the natural world works. It also would’ve bothered to redeem certain villains, and the villains that do get redemption happen so quickly, it’s nowhere close to convincing.

Most importantly, don’t let this movie fool you into believing that it’s about how we’re all one with nature and that we all share a home. Hoppers doesn’t make the world of animals look appealing at all. This world looks rowdy and absurd and vicious, and if anything, it makes me want to stay as far away from this forest as possible.

Moreso, this world doesn’t feel real in the slightest. I get that being crazily removed from reality was what they were going for, but the film's tone is actively at war with its own message. How does this movie plan on making me care about the Earth when it clearly does not take place on a recognizable version of it? How can such a preposterous portrayal of nature be beautiful and serene at the same time?

But I’ve liked preachy, unconvincing “Save the Rainforest” films before. What really bogs down this film is how much it fails in making us care about any of its elements. I don’t care about the protagonist, Mabel. She’s only eccentric because it’s convenient to the plot, and her emotional journey is barren. It's never explained why she cares about the environment so much other than it was her connection with her grandma. (The dead grandmother subplot was emotionally manipulative, too, right down to the excessive use of flashbacks.)

I don’t care about any of the other characters. Really, only the beaver is given any real character, and the rest are just there to enable the plot. I don’t care about this glade Mabel is so desperate to save, because unlike Avatar that showed me how beautiful Pandora can be, and unlike The Wild Robot that made me deeply care about several of its island’s inhabitants, this film does nothing to make me care about this glade other than some arrogant chin-lifting about how I should care about the planet more.

This film expects us to care about its animals simply because they are animals, and that is always the wrong route for any animal movie to take. In the same way we won't care about human characters simply because they are humans, why should animals be any different?

Hoppers is the equivalent of someone describing their “craziest dream last night” and expecting us to be as invested as they are. Even worse, it’s someone trying to add meaning and interpretation to what is very much just a nonsensical dream.

If this movie wasn’t so hell-bent on being so off-the-rails just to be off-the-rails, its emotional beats might’ve worked a lot better. If it didn’t bother so much with those beats, it might’ve been a lot funnier, maybe even on the same level as The Emperor’s New Groove. All I’m left with is a confused mess of what feels like a first or second draft. Pick a lane, movie.

[timemachinegeek]

Scream 7 — A Tired Exercise in Fan Service & Not Much More

The Scream movies were never meant to go on for this long. The franchise started out satirizing teen slasher films, many infamously known for going on for far too long. (Something the Scream movies have never really commented on.) The well arguably ran dry by the third film, and the fifth and sixth movies being as good as they were really only achieved that through the talents of Radio Silence.

Now, Kevin Williamson is in the director’s seat, but given that he’s only been a film director once before — and that film was a teen comedy and not a horror — following up Scream 6 feels out of his element here. After all, Scream 6 was set in New York City, and had arguably the most ambitious set pieces out of all the Scream films. How do you top a predecessor like that?

Well, by doubling down on nostalgia, apparently. From Sidney’s daughter being named Tatum to Matthew Lillard returning as Stu Macher, Scream 7 is probably the most nostalgia-heavy out of all the Scream films, straight-up to how it uses the first film’s font for its title screen and end credits. Not just that, but this film really expects you to have done your homework before watching. Unless you’ve seen every entry that came before (and remember them well), you aren’t going to get many of the references.

It reeks of desperation, of clinging onto fan service because they have nothing else to cling onto. As memorable as Stu Macher was in the first film, there was a reason why he wasn’t mentioned all that much in the sequels. He was Billy’s sidekick, and his only reason for being Ghostface was that he was bored.

The Scream films have always made decisions that tested your suspension of disbelief (Scream 3’s voice changer, anyone?), but making Stu possibly alive is seriously pushing it. You’re telling me, after 30 years of intermittent Ghostface attacks, this is the only time the possibility of Stu not being dead was ever brought up?

More than that, though, every unbelievable element of the previous Scream films were at least there to aid their stories and make for fun, if ridiculous, twists. They were inspired ideas. Stu’s presence in Scream 7 feels like it’s there because of Matthew Lillard’s recent internet fame, and every other nostalgic element feels like it's there for the purpose of fan service, for there to be something other than the return of Sidney to prevent this from being a throwaway entry.

Ironically enough, all the nostalgia baiting ends up being why Scream 7 is such a throwaway entry. This feels less like a cinematic release and more like a bonus epilogue for only diehard fans that should’ve been an hour long and released straight-to-DVD, or, I guess, straight-to-streaming these days.

After all, most of the new elements certainly don’t offer anything substantial. The new characters are hollow and forgettable, the new town setting just feels like Woodsboro 2.0 (as well as Haddonfield from Halloween), and the kills are so devoid of thrill and suspense, Williamson overcompensates by making them gory in ways Scream was never really known for. Was I watching a Scream film, or a toned-down version of Eli Roth’s Thanksgiving?

This movie really makes you appreciate how talented Matt Bettinelli-Olpin and Tyler Gillett are as directors. Whatever problems you may have with Scream 5 and 6, the two knew how to choreograph and make a chase and kill scene come alive. Williamson’s chase and kill scenes are as lifeless as they come. The camera is motionless, the shots are flat and claustrophobic, and the directing overall just comes across as amateur. I would’ve thought this was an indie film with a smaller budget had I not known better.

Of course, I did say most of the new elements instead of all. Though few and far between, there are some good ideas here. On paper, some of these scenes should work. Williamson is an iconic slasher writer, after all. One third-act scene, in particular, should’ve ranked among the highest points of the entire franchise. Whatever flavor these scenes should’ve had, though, is watered down because of the invisible atmosphere and lackluster direction. When it comes to film language, especially the language of horror films, Williamson seems disappointingly ineloquent.

The strangest thing, though, is that for a film so adamant about calling back 1996's Scream, a slasher film iconic for being one of the most meta titles in the genre, Scream 7 feels uncharacteristically uninterested in making meta commentary of any substance. The few that do exist are there out of obligation, as Mindy and Chad from the previous two films have truly nothing to do in this one other than to do their Randy schtick, a schtick so tacked on that they both start giving out Ghostface alibis for characters they’ve only met five seconds ago.

But the Scream films that do work do so because they’re also just great slasher films, even without the meta moments. Scream 7, however, feels so much smaller than any of the other films, so much less substantial, a serious step back from all the other entries. While I’ve yet to decide if it’s actually worse than Scream 3 or 4, it certainly feels lesser than either of them. The movie isn’t even all that funny, another uncharacteristic decision for a franchise known for being a horror comedy.

By the end, I was left with the feeling that I hadn’t really watched a real sequel, but rather, an optional entry that only exists for the joy of references.

[timemachinegeek]

Elio was a film that really got to me. It reminded me why I fell in love with movies in the first place, and I made an entire video explaining why. I'd really appreciate you guys taking the time to check out my video if you share my love for this wonderful film!

[timemachinegeek]

Freakier Friday Review: Fun but Not the Ultimate

RATING: ★★★ / ★★★★★

SUMMARY:

Anna is now a single mom raising her 15-year-old daughter, Harper, with the occasional help of her mother, Tess. However, when Anna meets Eric, the single dad of Harper’s classmate Lily whom she hates, the two start dating and get engaged six months later. A psychic at Anna’s bachelorette party causes Anna, Tess, Harper, and Lily to switch bodies, and the four must work together to switch back before the wedding.

THE GOOD:

For what is the ultimate definition of an unnecessary sequel, Freakier Friday was a surprisingly good time. Its second act, especially, is such a riot that my eyes were tearing up from how hard I was laughing. There’s just a radiance and energy emanating from the film that I found infectious, and while I found the first act rough, once the film gets going (i.e., when the four characters finally switch bodies), it really takes off.

It certainly helps that the cast, both main and side, is clearly having a great time, and the body-swapped characters spend most of the movie in pairs, meaning they can work off of each other in a way the 2003 movie didn’t have so much of. Julia Butters as Harper was a surprising cast standout, especially shining during the more heart-tugging scenes of the film.

Speaking of which, Freakier Friday tugs at the heartstrings pretty damn well, even if it doesn’t do so as naturally as its predecessor did. The third act, especially, has some very sweet moments, and anyone who cried during the original will most likely find this sequel touching as well. The themes of familial love and friendship are front and center in this film, and Baby — the love song Anna writes for her daughter Harper — is a fantastic song, one that I can’t stop listening to.

Finally, pretty much all of Freakier Friday’s callbacks to its predecessor worked for me, especially because they never feel as forced as you’d expect them to be. Admittedly, that’s most likely because Freakier Friday was always primarily conceived to appeal to the fondness many 2000s kids have for the original, but complaining about nostalgia baiting in movies just feels pointless nowadays. If you’re going to do it, I say do it well, do it smartly, and do it committedly.

THE BAD:

As funny as the body-swapping was in Freaky Friday, it also served a thematic purpose: Anna and Tess needed to walk in each other’s shoes in order to better understand each other and fix their relationship.

In Freakier Friday, however, the body swap really only occurs because the first film had a body swap. Lily swapping bodies with Tess doesn’t make much sense since the two didn’t have any real conflict, and while Harper and Anna’s mother-daughter swap makes more thematic sense on paper, the movie never takes advantage of it the way the original had. A lot of the two’s path to reconciliation feels like they could’ve happened in a different plot that had no body swap.

Keeping track of four different characters swapping bodies is also a rather heavy ask for audiences just wanting to watch a family comedy. For the first few moments, I had to constantly remind myself of who was supposed to be who, and even after those moments, remembering never came as naturally to me as it did with the first film.

That’s also because the characters of this sequel are pretty ill-defined. It’s an unfortunate consequence of how crowded this sequel is, what with it having to focus on the interrelationships of four different central characters, as well as their own lives outside of said relationships. Harper and Lily are pretty one-note teen characters, and there’s not enough contrast between the adult characters Anna and Tess, since Anna has pretty much grown up to be her own mother.

Because of that, while the jokes often work, they’re also a lot less specific to the film’s characters. Anna and Tess act less like Harper and Lily specifically and more like the general idea of a 15-year-old kid, and vice versa. Heck, many of the jokes are simply about being in a much older or much younger body, and the jokes that don’t work fail to do so because they’re overdone and hammy, like they were desperate to make you laugh for certain scenes.

The movie also suffers from a serious lack of a believable ticking time bomb. Never once did I feel like these characters were in any real rush to switch back bodies, especially because Freakier Friday takes place over two days rather than just one like the predecessor. That could've worked with smarter and tighter writing, but some dumb narrative decisions, as well as the third act's decision to focus so much on the heartfelt aspects, kill any momentum the film had going for it.

VERDICT:

If all you’re looking for is a sweet, light-hearted, fun time at the movies, Freakier Friday is a pretty great choice for that kind of afternoon. It’s far from a must-watch, but I still recommend it for anyone who grew up with the 2003 Lindsay Lohan classic.

[timemachinegeek]

Disney's Hexed logo, drawn with Posca markers. I'm pretty excited for this film!

[sophsun1]

The Simpsons – 18.07: Ice Cream of Margie (With the Light Blue Hair)

[timemachinegeek]

I made a retrospective on the different movies and stories that feature toys coming to life, and I'd really appreciate the watch! This was an incredibly fun video to make.

[timemachinegeek]

Weapons Review: Less Than the Sum of Its Parts

RATING: ★★ / ★★★★★

SUMMARY:

One night at 2:17 a.m., every kid in Ms. Gandy's third-grade class woke up, ran away from their homes, and disappeared. Every kid, that is, except for one boy named Alex. The film is told non-linearly through multiple POVs from different members of the city.

THE GOOD:

The premise of Weapons is certainly a novel idea, though one you have to reasonably suspend your disbelief for — after all, these children were damn lucky nobody in their suburbs was working a graveyard shift or wistfully looking out their bedroom window the night they all ran away. Still, no horror fan can deny themselves a mystery this interesting and intriguing.

Weapons is also a film that knows it’s weird and revels in it. It’s always refreshing to see a movie as gleefully odd and bonkers as this one, guaranteeing it a loyal cult following even if it hadn’t become the box office hit it is now.

The marketing team was also seriously doing something right, because virtually everything about this movie’s promotional materials — the teaser, the trailer, the poster — utterly convinces you that this is a film you need to see. A premise this great is like a beautifully gift-wrapped Christmas gift to any film marketing team, and boy, did the team for Weapons know what to do with it.

THE BAD:

I knew I was going to have a problem with Weapons the minute a scary scene was just a dream in the first act. More often than not, dream sequences in horror films feel like an admission from the filmmakers that their main concept isn’t strong enough to keep audiences on the edge of their seats throughout, so let’s add one or two nightmares to remind them that what they’re watching is meant to be scary.

That isn’t to say dream sequences in horror films can’t be used for thematic or narrative purposes, but for Weapons, its multiple dream sequences (we get one more later in the movie, with a touch more symbolism, though it ultimately amounts to nothing) feel like they’re there for the exact aforementioned reason. This is bolstered by how both dreams featured information that the characters sleeping should not have known yet.

It’s disappointing, too, because a film as sophisticated as this should not be using such cheap horror gimmicks. The first nightmare scene was my initial hint that this movie would not be as clever as it made itself out to be, and the more it went on, the more it kept confirming this theory.

Weapons also reveals itself to be very style over substance, as the entire film could’ve easily been told in a linear fashion. Its chapter-by-chapter storytelling could’ve given us important insight on all the different characters, but no real substance is gained from Weapons’s switching POVs, whether narratively or thematically, and it just feels like it’s there to add artificial intrigue and vagueness to the mystery.

Having to constantly restart from multiple beginnings kills much of the film’s momentum, too — every time the plot feels like it's really picking up, a new chapter starts and we’re back to what feels like a first act again.

Weapons also has a tough time balancing its serious and its silly side. The film just isn’t very scary, what with its premise relying so much on the mystery, and while I did find Weapons to be an occasionally amusing flick, there were moments where I wasn’t sure if the movie was making me laugh intentionally or unintentionally.

The film’s descent into campiness, too, ultimately took away from the strengths of its mostly serious first half. However, the bigger problem is that the ultimate reveal in Weapons is such an underwhelming one that by the time everything is revealed, you’re left with the feeling of, “Really? That was it?”

A mystery this great did not deserve a solution this bland and basic, and as much as the film wants to make that up by having the third act be as gleefully ridiculous as possible, this only made the plot holes more impossible to suspend your disbelief for. How, may I ask, did nobody in the city figure out what happened to the kids, given the simplicity of the twist? Why did nobody figure out this or that, given that the film takes place an entire month after the children disappear? How are the investigators this incompetent?

VERDICT:

The more I think about Weapons, the more confused I get. It's as if Zach Cregger had a brilliant idea for a premise for a horror film — kids running out of their house for seemingly no reason — but had no clue how to answer that mystery.

Weapons is a movie where the sum of its parts is ultimately greater than its whole. While I appreciate that it's at least an out-there film, one that's confident in its weirdness, its underwhelming lack of cohesion is what ultimately makes it a one-and-done for me. I'm far more likely to remember a safe but well-made horror film like The Boogeyman than I am to remember this film.

[timemachinegeek]

[timemachinegeek]

[timemachinegeek]

So, Wish. It’s no secret that Disney’s 100th anniversary movie is far from their most beloved title. However, I found myself the outlier for this opinion because I really, really loved Wish.

[timemachinegeek]

Now that Hilda is finally over, it’s time to look back on the series and dive into what made the fantasy show so special.

[timemachinegeek]

‘Wish’ Is an Utterly Magical Storybook in Motion

Rating: ★★★★★ / ★★★★★

I went into Wish one dubious adult and came out one overjoyed kid. Given how disappointing many of Disney’s recent titles have been, I didn’t exactly have high hopes for this one, but I still kept an open mind and I’m so so glad I did.

This is one of the most enchanting things I’ve seen on the big screen, and easily one of my favorite Disney titles.

Wish starts with the opening of a storybook. Unlike Shrek or Chicken Little, though, there is nothing sardonic about this beginning. If those films aim to satirize fairy tales, this one aims to celebrate them, and celebrate them this does. Wish feels very much like a picture book in motion from its visuals to its story, and many times, I felt like I was lying in bed with the lamp still on, flipping through the pages of a favorite fairy tale.

I'm incredibly glad I saw this one in theaters, because on a cinematic level, this was downright mesmerizing. Disney magic was practically flooding out of the screen.

The simplicity of the narrative definitely helps, too. It's a very straightforward story — an evil king, a determined protagonist, and several great helpings of magic dust — but this back-to-basics approach to the screenplay allows for some thoroughly transporting set pieces. I was there with the characters in that castle, that kingdom, that forest, I felt the same wonder they felt when they saw that blast of magic light suddenly shine through.

Wish's characters are utterly endearing and spending time with them is a joy. King Magnifico was a delightful villain who made me miss the days of a clear Disney villain, Valentino was a vibrant animal sidekick, and Star... Oh, Star. You won me over the minute you showed up on screen. It's impressive how much personality the film was able to give this non-talking character through visual means alone. Star is adorable, lovable, funny, and cute as all heck. Just look at his very marketable character design.

I also love the fact that Disney gave a protagonist friends, because a lot of their leads (Merida, Moana, Mirabel) seem to be completely friendless even if they've lived in their kingdom / island / town their whole lives. Asha's charming friend group adds a sense of familiarity and homeliness to the kingdom of Rosas, and unlike Strange World where the group appears for all of five seconds, Asha's friends actually help her out and push the story forward.

Of course, the most important character is Asha, and she's a terrific protagonist. The "adorkable" archetype can get seriously grating if done too heavily (ergo, The Princess Diaries) but Asha manages to be awkward and clumsy while still maintaining a great sense of sweetness, likability, and passion. All that makes her quick and easy to root for, and when she's singing her I Want song This Wish, you feel yourself pumping your fists with widened eyes and even mouthing along.

Ultimately, though, I think the very thing that makes Wish work so well is how wholly non-cynical it is. It's a Disney fairy tale about how our dreams and wishes make us human, and it's so unashamedly triumphant about all of it. There's no trace of sarcasm or mean-spiritedness in any of its bones, making it such an effervescent and exultant experience.

So I make this wish...

For Disney to make more films like this.

P.S. I made a video about Disney's 100 years — specifically, the years they released two films instead of just one! Check it out: tinyurl.com/DisneyTMG

[timemachinegeek]

‘Crater’ Is One of Disney’s Best Live-Action Films

Rating: ★★★★½ / ★★★★★

What a fantastic film.

I’m glad Disney now has the safety net of Disney+, because movies like this are allowed to exist again. Under different circumstances, I’d have said this deserved a theatrical release, but given how currently difficult it is for any movie to make a good box office return, straight-to-streaming was the smart move for this one.

I had no idea what to expect before I pressed the play button for this movie, but now that I’ve seen it, I think this is one of Disney’s best live-action films… well, ever. There isn’t a single boring moment and the cast is a joy to watch — the five main young actors all bolster this film with natural performances and the sense they’re all having fun.

Now that I mention it, this film doesn’t really have that big of a cast. Most of the screen time is dedicated to the five kids and their quest to make it to the crater. It’s a road trip movie, but not the usual kind where they meet various eccentric strangers along the way. Instead, it’s really just about these five kids and their coming-of-age, both individually and with each other.

John Griffin pens this screenplay with a lot of gentleness and intimacy, crafting an emotionally resonant and triumphant celebration of childhood friendship. There’s a lot of visual wonder, but Kyle Patrick Alvarez directs this film in a way that never loses focus on the small-scale nature of the story. This isn’t a big film, but that in itself makes this film feel even bigger, a sweet exploration on how much individual relationships and smaller moments matter.

Because there is a bigger story here — they could’ve focused on how this dystopian society came to be, or how politics between different planets function, or how the adults around the children run this society unjustly. Instead, by keeping the entire thing focused on these five young characters, the emotions all feel so superlative and the empathy you feel for these five is sky-high. You learn to love these kids, you understand how they’re feeling each and every step of the way.

I’d be amiss not to mention the many healthy male friendships present in this film. These young boys care for each other, tell each other they love each other, and even have a noteworthy amount of physical contact. I’m always here for stories that allow their male characters to unashamedly show their love for one another.

All in all, this film took my breath away when I wasn’t really expecting it to, and isn’t that a great thing? It’s always so magical when an original film grabs you like this, when you enter a film with zero expectations of what it’s going to be like and you come out with a brand new love. If streaming services are the way to get well-made big-budgeted original films again, I’ll all for it.

[timemachinegeek]

I made a video all about my favorite fictional treehouses! I’ve never had one, but my my, did movies and TV make me want one as a kid.

[timemachinegeek]

I Watched The Big Lebowski — Am I Part of the Cult?

HELL YES. (Spoilers ahead.)

I’m not entirely sure what I just watched. 

But it was fucking amazing.

The Big Lebowski. Where do I even begin? Well, why not with the fact that I finally watched the damn thing? You don’t need me to tell you how beloved this film is, how it’s one of the biggest cult classics out there. I was alive the year it came out, I had no excuse. Sure, I was in diapers, but that’s still no excuse. I’m kicking myself in the shins right now for not having watched it sooner.

Regardless, I watched it, and the minute I finished it, I knew this was going to be one of those movies for me. You know, the ones you constantly quote, the ones you have dozens upon dozens of conversations about with several different people, the ones you force every movie fan in your life to watch.

I’m not much of a Coen Brothers fan. Before The Big Lebowski, I had only seen one of their other films: True Grit. That was such a long time ago, though, and I don’t remember much — really, the thing I remember most about it is that it introduced most of us to Hailee Steinfeld. However, The Big Lebowski has got me seriously interested in watching more Coen Brothers films, particularly because of how fantastically funny the screenplay is.

Man, this movie is quotable. So, so quotable. I tried to keep note of all my favorite quotes while watching the film but after a certain point, there were just so many, I decided a rewatch would have to be necessary. I’m sure I missed out on a ton, but here are some of my favorite quotes from my first watch:

“I’m talking about the Dude here.”

“It’s down there somewhere. Let me take another look.”

“Yeah? Well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.”

“Her life is in your hands, Dude.”

“Careful, man! There’s a beverage here!”

“The goddamn plane has crashed into the mountain!”

“I dig your style too, man. Got a whole cowboy thing going.”

If you think these quotes are a lot, they’re not even half of all the great quotes present in this movie. According to IMDb, very few lines were improvised and virtually every line, every "man" and "dude," was scripted. That’s insane to me and a testament to just how talented the Coens are at screenplays — but it’s mostly insane to me because the acting in the film felt so natural, I was convinced some of these lines had to be improvised.

Jeff Bridges, especially, owns the role of The Dude. No other actor could’ve played him, which is pretty wild because according to Joel Coen, he and his brother did write for John Goodman and Steve Buscemi, but didn’t know who was going to play the lead role. Mel Gibson was even considered and thank God that didn’t happen, because The Dude was pretty much the role Jeff Bridges was born to play. The way he brings this character to life is absolutely top-notch.

The rest of the cast is a delight too — nearly all of them shine in their roles, delivering their lines with terrific comedic timing and a perfect understanding of their respective characters, but the two particular standouts to me were Philip Seymour Hoffman as Brandt and Julianne Moore as Maude Lebowski. The two aren’t on-screen a lot, but when they are, they’re irresistible — it’s near impossible to not pay attention when they’re talking.

Of course, given the spoiler warning above, you’ve probably already seen this movie, or you just don’t care much about spoilers. Let’s talk about this film’s ending then, where apart from the death of a friend, nothing in The Dude’s life really changes. Everything just kind of resolves itself and The Dude goes on living nearly the exact life he had at the beginning of the movie, presumably never interacting with the majority of the characters he met in this film ever again.

Does this make the whole thing pointless? I can see why one would think that. After all, if the protagonist doesn’t seem to have undergone any significant changes throughout the story, why bother telling the story at all? If, by the end, he’s almost the exact same person he was at the beginning, why was this specific period in his life the one the Coen brothers thought was worth making a movie about?

The way I see it, The Big Lebowski’s whole point is that it’s pointless. There have been plenty of times in my life when something big happens, only for everything to go back to the way it was right after. That’s just how life works sometimes — does that mean these stories aren’t worth telling or remembering?

Of course not. Maybe this film is just a blip in The Dude’s life, an interesting story he tells at parties but one that never really made a big impact in his timeline. (Again, apart from Donny’s death.) Still, he has fun telling this story, doesn’t he? Or at least the Coen brothers do. And we have fun listening to it. Maybe that’s just what life is sometimes — a series of events that don’t seem to add up to any discernible purpose, but we have fun living through them anyway.

But you know, that's just, like, my opinion, man.

P.S. Y’all know that stoner comedy cult classic called Dude, Where’s My Car? Apparently, that title is a reference to The Big Lebowski. I knew it the minute John Goodman said, “Dude, where’s your car?”

[timemachinegeek]

Cabinet of Curiosities — An Episode-By-Episode Review

Lot 36

RATING: ★★ / ★★★★★

There isn’t a lot to say about Lot 36 — of all the episodes, it has the least to offer in terms of scares because the horror elements don’t show up until the last five minutes. Yup, it’s one of those horror stories — the ones where the first 90% is just building up to the possibility of a demon or a ghost or a [insert scary creature here], and then the scary creature only shows up during the last 10%.

Luckily, it’s short, and Tim Blake Nelson does give a good performance — although hoo boy, does his character feel straight out of an after-school special. Did you know that racism is wrong? Because racism is wrong. If you didn’t know that, allow this episode to show you it’s wrong by having the protagonist Nick constantly commit racial microaggressions throughout its runtime.

It really does get ridiculous, especially when (you guessed it) his racism ultimately leads to his demise. Still, it doesn’t exaggerate its themes as much as it could have (see the later episode The Outside for how much worse it could’ve been) and the demon does have a really cool character design. It’s too bad it only shows up by the final few minutes — this episode ends too soon, right when it starts getting good.

Graveyard Rats

RATING: ★★½ / ★★★★★

If Lot 36’s biggest flaw was that it did too little, Graveyard Rats’s biggest flaw is that it tries to do too much. Without going too much into spoiler territory, this episode starts out with just rats as its main source of horror but then introduces a new supernatural creature during its third act. Really, the rats were enough.

As for its first and second acts, Graveyard Rats flaunts stellar costumes and set designs but is a little hard to take seriously given how unintentionally campy everything feels. Several moments of cheesy acting and dialogue, combined with the Harry Potter-esque look and score and admittedly silly plot about rats stealing bodies from buried coffins, make the episode feel like a children’s tale.

Which isn’t necessarily a bad thing — children’s tales can be scary — but this definitely wasn’t what director Vincenzo Natali was going for. (Otherwise, that scene with the neighbors having sex would be quite the decision.) Add to that a couple of predictable scares (Gee, that scary thing disappeared, I wonder if it’s going to show up in the next scene right beside him) and Graveyard Rats ends up being a disappointment all around.

The Autopsy

RATING: ★★★½ / ★★★★★

Now we’re talking. The Autopsy is Cabinet of Curiosities’s first real sign of greatness, but while it’s a great episode, it makes a few questionable decisions that stop it from being a fantastic one. But let’s start with the great — The Autopsy features some really creative cinematography, along with some likable characters and a strong and alluring “King meets Lovecraft” vibe.

This episode also features some delightfully stomach-turning scenes — if you don’t have the guts for it, I highly recommend you skip this one during your binge. It also ends with a pretty kick-ass ending, easily my favorite ending out of all the episodes in the season.

Unfortunately, The Autopsy is too long for its own good. At nearly one hour, the episode features scenes and storytelling decisions that feel like they’re there only to pad out the runtime. Even the stomach-turning scenes get tiresome after a while. Our protagonist Carl performs an autopsy on a dead body — and then he does so again, and again. After a while, you start to wonder, Are autopsies all this episode has to offer in terms of scares?

Luckily, this isn’t the case, but the episode could’ve easily been shorter with the proper editing in both screenplay and scenes. While it may be too lengthy, The Autopsy boasts inventive shots, great writing, and a dark and thrilling atmosphere.

The Outside

RATING: ★½ / ★★★★★

Lot 36 may have had one character straight out of an after-school special but The Outside has characters, dialogue, and a plot straight out of an after-school special. See if you can guess what the message of this episode is just from its summary: A bank teller named Stacey starts using a lotion called Alo Glo, a product that the TV quite literally promises will make her beautiful (the commercial stars actually talk to her through the TV), and doesn’t stop using it even if it irritates her skin and makes her itch all over.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to get what The Outside is trying to say, and yet, the episode seems obsessed with spelling out its themes, even going so far as to have Stacey give a speech to her husband about how men can be ugly and nobody cares but women aren’t allowed the same luxury. There is not a hint of subtlety throughout its runtime, it really does lay it on thick with its themes.

On top of all that, this episode is just repetitive and boring. The entire thing is just her using Alo Glo, the product making her skin itch, and her refusing to stop until she becomes beautiful. It’s exhausting to sit through, especially since the premise is just so unscary. (Is lotion supposed to be scary now?) Still, The Outside features a pretty fun Christmas setting and a great performance from Kate Micucci as Stacey.

Pickman’s Model

RATING: ★★ / ★★★★★

Beautifully shot but suffering from a serious lack of confidence, Pickman’s Model often feels like director Keith Thomas wasn’t sure if his scares would land, so he added loud screams and confusing video effects in order to make the viewer feel even more unsettled. It doesn’t work and instead feels desperate — If the director himself isn’t creeped out by his film’s own scares, why should we be?

Failure of scares aside, most of the episode feels aimless and meandering, not really knowing where it wants to go. A lot of plot points show up only to never get brought up again — were they only there for scary imagery? With no real explanation for some of the nightmares and visions, the entire thing feels directionless, a bunch of elements mashed together with no clear purpose or story to tell.

Still, Pickman’s Model looks beautiful — the costumes and sets all look on point — and there are some stellar performances here, particularly from Ben Barnes and Crispin Glover. It’s unfortunate that the episode feels too half-baked and underdeveloped to keep your attention.

Dreams in the Witch House

RATING: ★★★★ / ★★★★★

Deliciously gothic and dripping in atmosphere, Dreams in the Witch House is a scary fairytale for adults done right. This episode is a serious high point for Cabinet of Curiosities — all throughout its runtime, I couldn’t look away from the screen. I was in a serious trance.

The only hour-long episode in the season to really feel like it’s earned its length, Dreams in the Witch House doesn’t waste a single minute of its runtime. It has a tight story to tell and tells it well, with great build-up in its first and second acts and a third act filled with tension and thrill, all topped off with a really fun ending (my second favorite ending out of the season).

Really, this entire episode was fun.

Not to mention how gorgeous it all is. The forest scenes, especially, are mesmerizing to look at, and the witch has a fantastically creepy character design, what with her being made out of roots and branches and such. The only thing stopping me from giving this a higher rating is that the cast tends to overact at times (sorry, Rupert Grint) and the witch’s rat looks silly, an odd turnout considering how great the witch herself looks.

But those things are easy to forgive. Should Cabinet of Curiosities get a second season, this is the kind of episode I hope to see more of — tight plotting, strong directing, and creative visuals.

The Viewing

RATING: ★★★½ / ★★★★★

It might be set in 1979 but The Viewing is drenched in 1980s atmosphere — the neon lights, retro-futurism, and synthwave soundtrack all feel straight out of a movie from the aforementioned decade. Even the camera quality is decidedly low, with director Panos Cosmatos seemingly wanting to really capture the feeling of watching an old movie.

It works really, really well. If I didn’t know any of the people involved and you had told me this was an underrated film from 1982, I would’ve believed you. Unfortunately, all that atmosphere can’t disguise the fact that not a lot really happens in this episode. Similar to Lot 36, this is another one of those horror shorts where the scary thing only appears during the final act, but unlike Lot 36, it’s the last fifteen minutes and not just the last five.

It’s an effective ending but did we have to go through so much talking just to get there? Most of this episode is just the characters sitting in a circle and talking before the viewing finally begins. Half of what they say doesn’t even play anything into the climax, feeling like they’re only there for, you guessed it, padding. Despite that, The Viewing features a stellar cast — and I just can’t resist that 80s atmosphere.

The Murmuring

RATING: ★★★ / ★★★★★

While not all of them were successes, the last six episodes at least had creative and unique enough horror experiences, so it’s a little disappointing to have Cabinet of Curiosities end with an episode centering around a haunted house. Haunted house films are a dime a dozen in horror these days but that doesn’t mean they can’t be good, especially if they do something new with the setting.

The Murmuring, unfortunately, is not one of those films. Everything about it feels so familiar: a couple suffering from relationship problems moves into an old house (for a short while, anyway) and the wife starts seeing and hearing the ghosts of the previous family who lived there. There are no surprises here — every plot point feels like a box ticked off from a haunted house checklist.

Old letters? Check. Creepy little boy? Check. Husband explaining all odd occurrences away with “logical” explanations? Check.

All that said, The Murmuring still features some really gorgeous cinematography, along with superb performances from both Essie Davis and Andrew Lincoln as the wife and husband. There is some stellar atmosphere here but it’s too familiar to really impress as a finale.