BassLightyear Reviews

Joker (I) (2019)

The best DC-related movie since... ever.

[8/10 · 26 November 2019]

Joker is a breath of fresh air; a perfect hybrid between a classic action and a morbidly invigorating psychological drama. We are taken on a journey together with a mentally unstable person that really makes us question what it means to be mentally ill. And Todd Phillips does this beautifully without crossing any line into the worlds of pretentiousness and overcompensation. Although some of the scenes are slight variations of storytelling that's been told in countless movies for the last 50 years, they didn't bother me too much because of the originality of the story telling that was truly captivating.

The film speaks on social issues and it does it perfectly in relation to the shaping and transformation of Arthur Fleck into the Joker. And what I really loved about the film was that it really established empathy for the main character; we felt for him in his struggle to survive in a society that did nothing for him, only beat him down. By telling the story of the Joker in that way they've really separated this joker from all of the previous ones - for the first time the Joker is our hero. We see ourselves in him and that's why we root for him.

The great Joaquin Phoenix does one of his best performances ever. This will definitely trigger some people out there, but Phoenix is the best cinematic joker to date. Comparing Jared Leto to Jack Nicholson is like comparing Jack Nicholson to Heath Ledger, and comparing Jack Nicholson to Heath Ledger is like comparing Heath Ledger to Joaquin Phoenix.

Over all, a GREAT film, almost 9 worthy.

8/10

Would You Rather (2012)

What an utterly worthless movie.

[2/10 · 9 November 2019]

Nothing in this film carries with it any substance of any kind. Major events and turning points are not built up to but rather rushed into action in a highly unnatural manner - people don't act like that. There is no real reason why anything in this movie needs to happen and the whole premiss is off by default.

It's packed with cliches and one dimensional characters. The few characters that have more dimensions to them have them turned in a typical cliché and over-the-top fashion. And their motivations simply don't justify their actions.

It's just a really bad film.

M (1931)

Nietzsche's ideas about morals embodied in a timeless German masterpiece.

[8/10 · 9 September 2019]

"Ich kann nicht! Ich kann nicht! Ich kann nicht!".

Fritz Lang is back with another great film, but this time with a peculiar tone of multi-influential opposites of societal voices. He tells a very raw story about how we, as moral human beings, come to trip our selves up in pursuit of justice; how we let morals guide our behaviour through a tortuous road of unnecessary difficulties, that seem to serve no other function than merely to keep our integrity intact. It explores a fundamental side of human desire and behaviour: "What does it mean to do the right thing?".

The film takes a while to build momentum, and it seems as if the story isn't fully initiated until 40 minutes in. Maybe the emphasis on the police's struggle to get any closer to solving the mystery at hand is a little too stressed in the first half of the film, resulting in repeated beats (exchanges in action/reaction) and redundant scenes.

Nonetheless, this is one of the most suspenseful films of the 20th century. It carries with it the groundbreaking psychological influences, even if only presented to the audience in subtext, that undoubtedly put its' mark on psycho-thrillers to come throughout the rest of the century; even today we se "M"-inspired screenwriters trying to express themselves through the artistic practises of Fritz Lang and Thea von Harbou.

All in all, it's a superb film! 8/10!

Faust (1926)

A huge mistake to include the second part of Goethe's epic.

[5/10 · 2 September 2019]

Goethe's "Faust" is so heavily dialogue-oriented, that adapting it onto the silent screen with title cards is just not a good idea. And it shows - F.W. Murnau's "Faust" is a flitting mess of story relay. While the first part translates beautifully onto the screen - which this film showcases brilliantly - the second part begins with a 50 minute drag (that's half the film!) before it picks up again, and should have been re-written for the screen - or simply cut.

There's no clear spine to carry the protagonist from the beginning to the end. What is the film about? A bet between an angel and the devil? Faust's struggle with the plague? Or his struggle with his god? Or his struggle with the girl he falls in love with? It seems as if the film is about the latter, which makes very little sense in the big picture. I mean why deviate from the plague/god story? Especially when the only sensible storyline then becomes the bet between the angel and the devil. Which would have been fine... except that it's also inconsistent. And it doesn't even mean anything since the angel just made up a rule to end the story on... which is also cheap. I mean there's little to no foreshadowing; no secrets; no mystery; no increasing risks (except during the last minutes of the film). Just to mention a few of the flaws in the structural integrity of the story. (I mean what's the deal with reaching the story climax within the first 30 minutes of the film (getting Faust to give up his heavenly allegiance)? Ok, so the story changes and it becomes a Redemption Plot, but Faust never really redeem himself, he just falls in love. So the controlling idea of the story is "Our protagonist redeemed himself and saved the whole world from damnation... by falling in love." I don't buy it.)

This film is half-saved by F.W. Murnau's skillful directing and Carl Hoffmann's beautiful cinematography. And the visuals in this film is actually quite remarkable for the era. But unfortunately, when the story suffers as much as it does here, no directing and cinematography can save it - no matter how brilliantly executed.

A beautiful, but boring, film. 5/10

Blow Out (1981)

Wow. Just wow.

[8/10 · 27 August 2019]

Films like these make the trip to the cinema worth while... too bad they don't make 'em like this anymore. Obviously inspired by the great Antonioni's film "Blow-Up", De Palma makes his own mark on the (neo-)genre, simply by doing his own thing.

The film is beautifully plotted, though some of the exposition seem redundant to me (I'm not going to spoil anything in this review, though). But by plotting the story the way he does, De Palma creates a natural, but terrifying, tension-building crescendo, that will have you burning with curiosity - guessing and dreading the inevitable story climax.

De Palma is great, but setting the ironic tone of the film from the get-go, (quite literarily), is Pino Donaggio with his breathtaking score. An absolute marvel in cinematic music history. The only other cinematic score, with primary focus on the theme, that I can even begin to compare with Donaggio's, is John William's work on "Schindler's List".

The reason I deprived this neo-noir masterpiece of a 9/10, besides what's already been mentioned above, was because of some questions that popped up in my head during the film, and was left unanswered by the end of it, but also because of some minor, but ever noticeable, dialogue problems; at one point it felt forced, like a desperate attempt to glue the story together, and it wasn't satisfying to me, not at all, and that particular conversation actually raised questions that were not to be answered, ever. But nonetheless, it's still an 8/10!

The Blues Brothers (1980)

There's a lot to say about this picture, but it's not good. Not good at all.

[6/10 · 27 August 2019]

First off, from my point of view, the film is about the reunion of two brothers, separated by incarceration, and their struggle to not end up back in prison. At the beginning of the film we witness Jake (John Belushi), getting released from prison and picked up by his brother, Elwood (Dan Aykroyd). This opening sequence climaxes in the reunion of the brothers - a feeling of "the boys are back" - inciting a curious itch in the mind of the audience; who are these two? Why was one of them in prison? Are they hardcore criminals? and if not, will they be able to stay clean on the outside or will they screw up and end up back on the inside? But from there, the story structure crumbles.

Three inciting incidents in rapid succession; within the span of a few minutes we have been experiencing three major turning points in the story, and my question is: "why?". It deprives us off the satisfaction we feel after something has been truly earned by the protagonists, and it makes us numb when scene after scene is yelling meaningful change in our faces. A story needs pacing, build-ups, foreshadowing and THEN rewards, when we at least expect it. And I'm sad to say that this film fell flat on that aspect of story telling.

Another problem with several inciting incidents is that we, as an audience, will most likely get confused over what the central story is really about. Is it about staying out of jail? Is it about saving the catholic home they grew up in? Is it abound the band? What is it about? "The Blues Brothers" flitter all over the place, which is merely saved by the filmmakers' conscious choice to amplify that flitter - creating a satirical compound of excess action-packed meaninglessness.

Just a few more pointers...

In all great films, nothing progresses if not through conflict. Whereas in "The Blues Brothers", the story progresses through cute little dance numbers, posing no real risk to the protagonists, which, again, gives us no sense of satisfaction, simply because the protagonists were rewarded too easily.

And lastly, the one rule for creating dual-protagonists is that their actions and reactions must be in direct conflict with each other, or display contrasting counterpoints, in order to add substance to the story and make their lives more complex, deepening their dilemma. But the Blues Brothers behave basically as if they were the same person, meaning that one of them is painfully redundant to the story.

As you can understand, I've got many issues with this film. So many, in fact, that I'd have to re-watch it if I want to disclose them all... but I'm not to keen on seeing "The Blues Brothers" again anytime soon. The film was funny though, from time to time, and the star-packed cameos were nothing short spectacular, which is why I gave it 6/10.

I, Tonya (2017)

A very interesting approach to an otherwise no go story.

[8/10 · 16 August 2019]

When I first found out about this film, a question instantly popped into my head: How do you make a film about one of the most hated persons in America, and make it work? I mean there must be some artistic choices going into the equation here, just telling it "as it is" would've been impossible. And I was right. "I, Tonya" is a funny, snappy, fourth wall breaking dramatic comedy (or "tragicomedy", if I can say that without getting lectured by the stage fanatics).

They solved the problem of not necessarily telling the truth, by making a variation of a multi-plot; having the actual, character-based, living and breathing people tell their own versions of what happened. They have different stories about the same story, which is the outset for a multi-plot. The only anomaly here is that all stories have the same protagonist - Tonya. Another way of looking at it, a more conventional way for sure, is to regard the "ice skating story" as the central storyline, the a-plot; their "mother-daughter-relationship" (incited by Tonya's father leaving her as a young child) is b-plot and "romantic relationship with stash-guy" is c-plot. Both subplots serves the dramatic purpose of complicating the central story line, making our protagonist's life more difficult.

The film is about her, Tonya Harding's, ice skating career, but her intense desire (overwhelming at some points) to be loved and accepted for who she is drives the telling. This dynamic relationship between action and desire results in troubled personal relationships when she can't skate to her satisfactory standard of perfection. This is a key ingredient in creating any interesting, empathetic and multidimensional character - by giving the protagonist an unconscious desire and letting the audience sense that it is there, contradicting the flitting conscious choices of the protagonist. In this film for example - her unconscious desire is to be loved for who she is and not for what she can do, but her conscious desire contradicts this idea, as she wants to be the best at what she does, so that she can be loved. And we, as the audience, can sense this contradiction in how Tonya always seeks her mother's approval and always goes back to stash-guy, hopelessly seeking that fulfilment, which is to love and be loved as a human being and not as an ice skater.

I believe this approach to making the film was necessary, as everybody already knew about the "incident". And Steven Rogers (screenwriter) did a great job directing the attention and focal points of the story elsewhere. The theme of the film isn't "the protagonist failed in her career, because she physically whacked her rival before a competition". No, it goes much deeper than that. This story is more about what we do to ourselves and others in pursue of our shallow, soul-corrupting desires - fame, money, a celebrity's kind of love - and what consequences we suffer as a result. At least, that's what I took away from the story.

To wrap this up, I just want to give the remarkable Margot Robbie (Tonya Harding) a solid 9/10 for an outstanding performance; a beautifully portrayed protagonist!

Overall, it's a great film! 8/10

Kung Fury (2015)

It's Chuck Norris... it's Jean-Claude Van Damme... it's Kung Fury!

[7/10 · 10 August 2019]

A bashful compilation of knocking out cheesy, yet super rad, 80's clichés in an uninterrupted flow of awesomeness. These filmmakers know how to make a satirical tribute to the tee. In fact, it reflects our actual perception of the 80's, how something can be so cheesy and awesome at the same time - a paradoxical wonder of nature!

The majority of the film's elements are nonsensical. The story progresses, not on the premiss of action/reaction in conflict, creating meaningful change, but instead on the premiss that "the 80's did it", no matter how aimlessly the story progresses and events occur. That's the beauty of the film; just sit back, relax and be prepared to laugh.

I think the real reason this film works is thanks to it's own self-awareness. The filmmakers knew exactly what they were doing. That's the reason why they could go berserk with everything 80's, with the confidence that they were creating something interesting, some might even say "something great".

I do not want to disclose the plot for you who haven't watched it yet. It's better to be surprised by all the random and ridiculously flamboyant elements of the story. And I really do recommend this film to all of the 80's lovers out there.

All in all, "Kung Fury" was an amazingly rad film, in my opinion.

Great job! 7/10

En værdig mand (2018)

An emotional short.

[6/10 · 10 August 2019]

The story centers around "Erik" (Troels Lyby), who, just like many others, lead a life of quiet desperation. The film delineates the dynamics between him as a caregiver by praxis and his loved ones - an archetypical story that demands skill and craftsmanship inorder to get a satisfying and structural progression through the story, exploring the different depts and qualities of substance. And I think this film pretty much succeeds in that.

I would've personally wanted to see a bit more saturation within the scenes, but the emotions of the main character were nonetheless portrayed to a satisfying degree.

Good job! 6/10

Glömskans brev (2004)

A funny little short, with questionable substance.

[6/10 · 9 August 2019]

This film had some good elements to it; easygoing, loving and funny. It also brought more of a unique storyline onto the screen than you'd expect, which was very nice.

My problem with the film was that the climax was kind of ambiguous and didn't have the proper buildup inorder for the audience to have the proper emotional response; it didn't quite work, if you ask me. The climax brought the two lead characters together, which would've been fine if they hadn't been together basically the whole film. There was never a question about them having a falling-out at any point during the film, therefore the climax changed nothing. A huge blunder, in my opinion. Also, the forces of antagonism were almost none-present; our protagonists was never, at any point during the film, at risk of loosing what they had gained.

This is my opinion of the film. Maybe I missed something essential to the story that would've justified the story climax... which is why I'd love to discuss this film with someone with a different point of view.

All in all, it was a good film. Even though it had the flaws mentioned above, the comedic elements made me give it a 6/10 (which without it, it would probably have suffered a three or a four).

Aldrig nudda mark (2011)

If Argento made drama shorts.

[7/10 · 9 August 2019]

"Aldrig nudda mark" is a pretty film to look at; aesthetically constructed to satisfy our hunger for all that is beautiful. It has got a vintage look that shines through everything from the choice of actors and props to the edit and color correction. But because shooting on actual film is expensive and the budget for this film only 100,000 sek, I'm guessing that it was shot digitally and then made to look like it was shot on super 8 or super 16 film in post.

The score is without a doubt hugely inspired by Argento and his cinematic houseband "Goblin". Especially a few tunes in there that resembles the score from Argento's "Deep Red", as well as the "Suspiria" theme. Not very original, but I love it!

The main storyline evolves around "Petra" (Tove Edfeldt) who has an existentially difficult situation to navigate. If there is a b-plot it is "Elena"s (Nadja Mirmiran) broken relationship whit her previous family. But that whole part of the story feels unnecessary to me. It kind of interrupts the flow of story that we've been subjected to up until that point, only to take us on a side-story that basically begins and ends within the same scene. The film would've been better off without that part of the story, in my opinion.

All in all, it's a good film. And to wrap things up I just want to express how beautiful the climax/resolution was; it almost qualifies as a masterpiece, if you ask me.

Good job! 7/10

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)

"Meal Ticket" alone makes the whole anthology worth watching.

[8/10 · 8 August 2019]

I'm not going to review plot; just touch a little bit on the characterisation of story substance.

Anthologies are always a bit tricky to review; maybe one of the stories is kind of bad while another one is the best storytelling you've ever witnessed. So, how do you rate and review them together as one? The thing is - you can't. I mean you can try, but you are most likely going do glorify one tale while you do another no justice at all. The same goes for "The Ballad of Buster Scruggs"; I had to give it an eight, because while "Meal Ticket" was a nine, "The Gal Who Got Rattled" was a seven, in my opinion.

So, I'm just going to focus on my favourite tale of the six, and the most emotionally striking tale of them all was "Meal Ticket". First of all, brilliantly casting Harry Melling as the "Artist", an absolutely marvellously fitting character. Second, what an exceptionally eerie atmosphere we are subjected to! The very existence of the "Artist" and his companion, "Impresario" (Liam Neeson), is drenched in the contrast between the first one's silent optimism and the other one's increasing, although also silent, dejection. It's what's not being said that tells us everything we need to know inorder to have a full emotional response to the story-climax.

"Meal Ticket" alone makes the whole anthology worth watching. The other tales were great as well, but my personal favourite, without a doubt, was "Meal Ticket". 8/10

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

A brief analysis from two different perspectives.

[9/10 · 8 June 2019]

This is the only film I've ever watched back to back. After watching it the first time all I knew was that I loved it. I knew I loved the way the characters expressed themselves, the cinematography, the artful display of everything infront of the camera; it was as if Kubrick was painting a picture with every shot... But to go deeper than that, I had to rewatch it right away.

I kind of anticipated the ending but still wasn't ready for it. I knew it made sense, but I couldn't really understand it. It wasn't until I watched the film for the third time, a bit later on, that I managed to uncover a couple of the films' major truths.

I will now talk very shortly about those truths.

First of all, the film carries a very strong political satirical message: The same minister of the same government is using our protagonist, Alex, at two different times, in two drastically different and radically opposing and paradoxical ways. But still manages to strengthen his position as a politician and his government's position as a ruler of society in both cases. So I guess the film shows that politicians in a government, or the political system overall, are capable of manipulating events, circumstances and the people affected by such for their own political and personal gain. The care for the people only goes as far as to how useful they can be to "the cause".

The second, and more profound truth in my opinion, is an ethical one, which resonates deep within the moral quarries of the human mind. You see, Alex served his sentence, endured his punishment and was cured. Everything the society asked for, right? But still, his family was against him, everybody he had wronged wanted to punish him and even his old friends (or droogs), who already punished him by the way, by betraying him and turning him in to the police, felt the need to punish him even further. So my question is - what did he go to prison for? What was the point of society sending him to prison to be punished only to continue the punishment after he got out? And what's the point of being cured if everybody treats you as if you were not? As if you were the same person as you were before? You could say that society re-shaped the new Alex back into his old self by treating him the way they did; they brought that upon themselves. But when you think about it, Alex was still the same person after his treatment as he was before the treatment - he had the same impulses and desires as he did before, the only difference now was that he was physically unable to act on them. The treatment had trapped him and made him a slave to it; that became his decease; hence (when he at last could indulge in his desires again) "I was cured, all right".

The Perfection (2018)

Netflix actually delivers.

[8/10 · 27 May 2019]

So I've just watched another film after just watching three seconds of the trailer and boy am I glad I did. For once, Netflix actually puts out a good film and its name is "The Perfection".

The way this film is plotted is ambitiously beautiful. You learn from the very beginning of the film that the main character, Charlotte, is damaged. This broken human is portrayed through and by her emotions, exquisitely executed by Allison Williams' great neurotic acting together with the writers' and the director's composing of the scenes.

The way the story progresses is playing on your willingness to believe that what they are showing and telling you is the truth - which is great, because then they can fool you and I haven't been this fooled since "The Handmaiden".

The rest of the film is just an amazing story well told. It uncovers and tells us about passion, jealousy, lies, truth, revenge, hate, freedom and many other powerful driving forces in human behaviour.

There's two things I really didn't like about this film. One: they are explaining a little bit too much to the audience. I think that the viewers could have gotten by without some of the, in my opinion, redundant explanations about why the characters did what they did in certain situations. Two: the ending is a disaster compared to the elegant story telling the film had shown up until that point. It kind of went against the amazing craftsmanship in story telling and substance that had been beautifully and carefully put together and displayed throughout the film. It felt like it all just came falling down, that the writers and the director had gotten tired and just needed an ending for the endings sake. These two things are the reason why I gave it an eight, instead of a nine.

All in all it was a great film. It had you interested, involved and constantly wondering what was going to happen next.

Good job, Netflix!

Rim of the World (2019)

You've got to take it for what it is.

[6/10 · 26 May 2019]

"Rim of the World" is, in my opinion, a good film. Not great, but good. The thing that I think is important to understand while watching any film is that they're all different and have different intentions. Let's take this film for example - is it believable? Meaning that do I believe that what is happening in this film is true to the laws of the universe in which the film is taking place? And the answer is - yes, I do. But that's about it. As far as unraveling the human condition goes, this movie comes up with nothing, but I don't think it's meant to do that either, therefore this film shouldn't be taken too seriously.

This is not a realistic film with realistic characters. Not at all. And to be truthful here, it doesn't have to be - as long as they stay true to that throughout the film, then it's ok. And you'll learn this in the first few minutes of the film. The characters are over-the-top and they all have extreme personalities - stereotypes if you will - and they do almost nothing but clichés (cracking jokes in life-threatening situations, having the standard reoccurring "deep" conversation when things have quiet down a bit etc) which, again, forces you to not take the film so seriously.

The story is very much a run-down story that have been made into different films thousands (if not millions) of times. On top of that, the film is not realistic - the characters react to events unnaturally, e.g. where a real person would have had a life-changing experience leading to a powerful show of emotions, this films' characters act almost nonchalant, joking or otherwise behaving in an unnatural manner. It all seems to be on the surface, nothing goes deep, except for one strain of the story which bizarrely shines through the rest of the film as an actual relatable emotional driving force.

But why do I like this film then? Well, I wouldn't watch it again (I almost never re-watch rated sixes), but it's not a bad film. The director makes use of the camera and the actors in quite a nice fashion, and some of the jokes actually made me laugh. It's a feel good film with no deeper uncovering of human truths than what is being spoken about on the surface. Again - don't take it too seriously.

I gave it a six.

Green Book (2018)

A review as a respons to other (negative) reviews.

[7/10 · 26 February 2019]

I understand why a lot of critics don't like this film, but at the same time I feel like they're making up their minds about what they think the movie is - or should - be about. They (who disagree with the film) will say that it diminishes the horrors that the black community faced in America during the 50's - and because of that they think it's a bad film. But I thought it was a good film; in my opinion it's not a movie about Shirley and his struggles facing ruthless racism - it's about Tony Lip's psychologically reforming journey changing his mind about black people through the witnessing of Shirley's experiences. And it's that central story line the critics are disagreeing with and eschews the whole film on the premiss that it should've been about something else (Shirley journey - not Tony's).

There are thousands - if not millions - of films about racism towards black people and their culture, and Green Book had a different perspective than the rest of them - by not focusing on the racism but on how the racism changed a man who wasn't a target of it. But that's obviously a big no-no according to these critics.

To me Green Book is about a white man thoroughly changing his whole mindset about something that he'd been conditioned to abide to his whole life.

The Nun (2018)

It had every possibility to succeed - what happened?

[5/10 · 4 October 2018]

As I'm writing this, The Nun lies still very fresh in my memory from watching it in theaters just about an hour ago. Unfortunately, I have very little nice things to say about this film, but nonetheless (or should I say nuntheless) I think it's important to bring up all aspects of a film in a review - both good and bad. With that said - let's dive into it!

First off, as a fan of both "The Conjuring" films, I - like many others - was very hyped to go see this very much anticipated film. I wish I could say that maybe it was because of the hype that was building up towards it's release that made it disappointing, that it was still good, but just not able to live up to it's hype, but I'm afraid that's just part of it.

Ever heard the expression "show don't tell"? Well, this film is the opposite of that. From the very beginning the writers feels the need to tell everything and show very little, meaning that I, as a viewer, have very little room to build my own interpretation and guesses about where the plot is heading.

From the very beginning we are entering a scene with this demon - Valak - and the only two nuns left at a Romanian convent, or abbey. And right off the bat I can't help but question the film maker's choice here - why, for the love of authenticity, are the Romanian nuns, in a Romanian convent, in Romania speaking English to each other?? It doesn't make any sense! The film actually loses a lot of it's credibility because of that; I can't possibly believe that the film is telling me the truth when presented with such a contradiction. The story, sadly, becomes unbelievable before it even starts.

Next, the nun who ends up biting the dust in the beginning is explicitly telling the other nun that the demon needs to possess a human soul to free itself. Upon receiving this information from the dying nun, the other nun proceeds to commit suicide before the demon can get to and possess her. Why the demon does not possess the first nun, but instead kills her and goes after the second nun remains unclear throughout the rest of the film.

What follows are 1 hour and 36 minutes sets of three's: explanatory conversation; dragging; jump scare; repeat! It's very tiring to be subjected to the same scene in different settings over and over again. "Searching with a light in the forest, music stops, jump scare". "Searching with a light in the halls of the convent, music stops, jumps scare". "Walking around with a light in the supply cellar, music stops, jump scare". That's basically how the movie is structured. There's no room to wonder about the solving of the mysteries of the plot (I'm not even sure there is a mystery or anything to solve since the one nun in the beginning already explained everything to us (in English too, may I remind you of)).

Now, if you remember from the second film in the franchise, "The Conjuring 2", you can control the demon by knowing it's name, right? "Valak" that is. Well, they figure out the demons name within (what I believe to be) the first 30 minutes of the film, but of course that has no effect whatsoever. And neither do they adress why it has no effect (they don't even mention anything about the controlling of the demon by the use of it's name. I tell you, if I had been working as a writer on the franchise I would've killed off Lorraine and Ed in the "Conjuring 2" as a result of they never finding out the demon's name and then making "The Nun" about finding out it's name and not finding the ridiculous "Blood of Christ" (that's never really explained either)). This inconsistency can be found throughout the film. They just jump (scare) right over plot-holes without even trying to fill them with substantial story structure.

Next I'd like to discuss the actual atmosphere that surrounds the film, the overarching mood that serves to capture it's essence. Is it a horror or a comedy? Because they seem to not be able to make up their minds about this. The scariest parts of the film are instantly followed by a cheeky comment from one of the characters; not just once, not twice, but a lot! Sometimes it works, but equal amount of the time it doesn't. And why do this? To lighten the mood for us, the audience? We don't need mood-lightening in horror films - what we need is suspense! But "The Nun" fails to do this. Horror films are supposed to keep you on the edge of your seat with your hands covering your eyes! They are supposed to make your heart beat faster and maybe even force your body to produce a little bit of adrenaline. Instead "The Nun" follows it's darkest bits with it's lightest; to serve what purpose? It's just serves to further create an unbelievable and contradictory story. In my opinion it works against the core purpose of any horror film - to inflict horror in the audience.

A couple more things before I move on to what I think is good about the film. The hallucinations: It turns out that Irene is just hallucinating about the nuns in the convent during the first hour and twenty minutes of the film. Okey? So... what does the film makers want me to do with that information? It's not like it changes the story or anything - no wait! That's right - it leads to the realisation that the nun who commits suicide in the beginning of the film does it as a sacrifice so that the demon can't possess her and set itself free. That's why! But wait... if that's the great turning-point realisation of the film - why is it explained by the dying nun in the very first godforsaken five minutes of the film!? We already know that's why the other nun killed herself! How could the film makers make such a huge blunder??

Second to last (before I get into the good aspects of the film): Why does Father Burke have to tell Irene about the Mother Mary statue that's reflecting this absolutely ridiculous stream of light off of it's finger? And he points it out to her within less than 10 seconds of entering the room. I'm going to recall the films "tell don't show" policy here. Why can't we, the audience, get a chance to discover it for ourselves through Irene's perspective before Father Burke decides to point it out? After the disappointing revelation about (the already known to us) nun's death, this feels like it is supposed to be the pinnacle turning-point of the film and instead it is eschewed by a mere impatient "hey look!". I feel like because it's her visions - it's her discovery to make. It would at least serve the story better, in my opinion.

Last thing before getting into the good bits of the film. The showdown: why is a mighty demon using it's mere hands to strangle a girl? Earlier in the film the demon showcases it's supernatural talents by burying Father Burke and filling the grave with 12 cubic feet of hard packed dirt instantaneously without even touching him. So why use it's hands now? Wouldn't it be easier to just put the girl seven feet under the surface (they were in a pool of water for some reason) and drop a stone on-top of her or something? Once again, the story is not believable.

Now, finally, I can talk about what I actually like about the film. First off - the actors. The actors are actually quite remarkable in this film, especially Taissa Farmiga who portrays Sister Irene. I've said this before in this review (if you remember) that the story is not believable in the slightest, which I still hold to be true, however - the actors did a very believable job with an unbelievable script. It sounds paradoxical, I know, but I can't possibly attribute the films unbelievability to the actors - they actually made the movie semi-watchable! Second, I enjoyed how they tied it all together at the end with the lecture from the first film "The Conjuring". It almost gave me goosebumps. With that said it is still a poor consolation for what is simply a bad film.

I can't possibly cover all my thoughts in one review - I could go on for days. But to sum it all up: there's no substance to the story whatsoever. It's simply not believable. The jump scares from dead nuns, snakes and various dead, tangible things are just empty threats - they never cause any real harm and only serves as time-fillers in a story that's lacking just that - story. After a while (sooner than after a while really) you get used to them and you anticipate them. The story was the one factor that broke this film. It had every possibility to succeed, but unfortunately the writers made bad decision after bad decision and the film suffered as result. Without taking anything away from the actors' performances, I'd like to conclude this review by saying that this film could have been a hell of a lot better.

The Abominable Dr. Phibes (1971)

An outstanding piece of timeless humor and morbidity.

[8/10 · 10 January 2017]

Much like many evenings before, I felt the lacking of a great feature film to engage my prefrontal cortex. And since my go-to tends to be horror and horror only, I decided to change things up a little bit with a Horror/Comedy. Usually I try to stay away from this rather ambiguous mix of genres, but since I've got a weak spot for 70's horror, I gave it a shot. And boy, am I glad I did.

From the very beginning there is something about the setting of the scene and the tension clouding up the room in its own silent way that reminded me of "The Holy Mountain", by the great Alejandro Jodorowsky. A somewhat strange comparison you might think, but it doesn't strike me as strange at all; maybe it was a favorable way for directors to approach the arts in the 70's. Whatever the common denominator might be, the opening scene presented, in my opinion, an undertone of similar vibes as that of "The Holy Mountain"; which is a good thing, of course.

Overall, the film isn't all that scary, I must say. But that doesn't take away the fact that it is a great film. And also I wonder how scary a horror/comedy can get without it being a straight up horror film. Anyhow, even if it doesn't make my hair stand up on end it is still a great horror story. The film is an impeccable mix of the two genres; it's predominantly horror, with the occasional (and well placed) joke making an entrance when you least expect it.

The comic elements sneak up from behind and grab you by surprise. At times, the jokes enter on such uninvited note that it really catches you off guard and make you burst into laughter. It is really my type of humor - black comedy. Compared to today's black comedy, it might appear somewhat modest, naturally; although how modest it might seem today, I'm sure that it was all but in the 70's.

Overall, "The Abominable Dr. Phibes" is a film worth your while. If you enjoy a solid 1970's horror flick and at the same time don't mind the occasional laughter, you can't go wrong with this one. Even if you tend to avoid horror/comedy films, like me, I recommend that you give this one a go - it's timeless.