7 stars

dir: Richard Linklater

2022

What a movie. As in, how is this even a movie?

Nah, that’s unkind. This animated movie is, as far as I can guess, a version of Richard Linklater’s idealised childhood growing up in the burbs of Houston, Texas in what I like to call the button down Plastic Fantastic era during a time when America thought it could do no wrong, and the space race was going to mean everyone would be living on Venus by 1975 and everything would soon look like the Jetsons.

It was a childhood, based on this flick, typified by being safe, bland and pleasant. The main family as presented and animated here would not have been out of place on the tv itself, perhaps as the neighbours to the Brady Bunch or as the family down the road from the witch in Bewitched or the genie from I Dream of Jeannie. Is it a case of “that’s how it actually was back then?” versus “memory and television combine to transform all experiences into stuff that looks like it came out of a sitcom”?

It’s hard to say. I mean, it would be easy for often great, sometimes not so great director Richard Linklater to say, and he probably has in several interviews, but I hardly want to taint my reviews with actual knowledge from the people that would actually know why something is how it is in a movie they’ve made.

Instead I’ll take the far lazier but much more profitable path of just imagining people’s intentions and motivations, and run with that. That way I can be 400 per cent more opinionated.

This childhood that Stanley (voiced by Milo Coy as the actual boy, but with Jack Black doing the constant narration of a grown up Stanley looking back on his tedious childhood) has, I would guess, was a childhood that many white Americans had during that era, as long as they were of a certain socioeconomic status and background. Culturally, it’s the absence of culture that exemplifies this time and place – everything from where they live to how they live is all about that place as being a tabula rasa – a blank space which was filled in with shiny and new hopes and dreams. The family live in a new development where brand new houses go up in a place outside of Houston.

Who and what was there before these brand new houses?

dir: Fletcher Moules

2022

Entergalactic is an entirely animated movie, and a Netflix exclusive one at that. This is not one for the kids, definitely. Not because it’s beyond them, because the story is a very simple one, but there are some sex scenes, surprisingly enough.

But, this isn’t a flick that would satisfy weirdos or perverts, because that’s not its purpose(?) It’s probably more like a longform accompaniment to Kid Cudi’s album of the same name that came out this year. And he also voices one of the main characters, being Jabari.

Jabari has recently moved into a loft apartment in Manhattan because he’s started a new job with Cosmic Comics, which I’m guessing is like Marvel or something. To date his claim to fame has been spraypainting a character he calls Mr Rager wherever he can on the walls of New York. The task before him is converting Mr Rager into some kind of comic book character.

This sounds fantastical, but, I assure you, it’s not imaginary within the dreamy context of the animated movie. Jabari is a dreamer, but he’s also drunk and stoned a lot of the time, so I guess there’s a fair bit of overlap between the actual and the imagined.

Jabari is a young African-American man in New York, but, thankfully, within the confines of this story, there’s only a small amount of racism he has to deal with, so he isn’t shot by cops for no reason or excluded from too many aspects of contemporary society. He has no money issues either, so he’s doing better than most of us. Also, with his group of friends, life is a constant drug and booze fueled exciting time for which there are no repercussions other than a mild hangover that one time.

He does sometimes have the Mr Rager character appear and seem like he wants to kill him, but this is less a psychotic break and more an opportunity to let an aspect of Jabari’s personality shine through (which kinda seems like self-doubt, or anger) along with the animation.

As for the animation, well, it’s unfair to the animators to say this, but they do a fairly good job aping / ripping off / homaging / appropriating the animation style from recent masterpiece Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, New York never looked this great in animated form, except, um, for the last time it looked this great.

dir: Ninja Thyberg

2021

This flick is a lot to handle.

A lot of painful stuff to handle.

Pleasure, despite its name, you’ll be amazed to find out, is really about its opposite. It’s about capitalism. It’s especially about the kind of capitalism that takes people, in this case women, and finds a way to profit from their sexual abuse on camera, in this, the glorious digital age in which we live.

This is no Boogie Nights, delighting us with outlandishly dated hairstyles and funky basslines and the sense that we juuuuust missed out on a really wicked party, while it lasted, before things got too dark and everyone sold out. This film has no illusions about this wretched “adult” business into which people often voluntarily launch themselves into.

I mean, low rent scumbags have been treating women terribly for millennia solely for their own gratification as abusers, but it takes true entrepreneurs to monetise that abuse and turn a profit from it. It’s a process that sees a woman transform from being a person to being a commodity, a malleable object to be contorted and consumed, until she’s got nothing left, and then…

Well, I don’t know. Are we talking about a person, or their image? When their abuse is “captured” on film, either as a photo or a movie, is it “done” at the end of the scene, or is it something that’s reignited every time it’s viewed or played? Is it not as bad if it gets lots of likes?

And what does it mean that abject misogyny is an in demand product?

And before it seems like I’m ignoring the obvious, yes, our main character Bella (Sofia Kappel) actively seeks out this industry by moving from Sweden to LA, specifically to work. There isn’t an abusive suitcase pimp boyfriend forcing her to work to fuel his coke addiction. There’s no reason per se that we’re privy to other than that she wants to make money and get an elevated profile in order to make more money, but other than that…

I think if the film shows anything it’s that even people who think they know what they’re getting into often have no fucking idea what they’re getting into, and that the viewers / consumers have no idea what these people go through behind the scenes and even on camera, and how saying “well, these people consented, we’ve got it on paper” doesn’t really convey the half of it.

Bella wants to make money, and fast, and isn’t naïve about what that would entail, as in, having to be naked on camera, and do things and have things done to her, with the usual kind of finish at the end. As awkward as the initial sex scene is, if anything, it’s just boring and gross. Bella only pretends to come alive right at the end when she’s faking enthusiasm for her own selfies which she posts online in order to get more followers. More followers and hearts means more demand for work, I guess, or better money?

dir: Sean Ellis

2022

When this was initially going to come out, probably pre-covid, it was going to be called Eight for Silver. When it played festivals and such it was still called that. But then someone had the brainstorm, the lightbulb moment, the epiphany, and thought "fuck that, that’s too complicated; let's just call it The Cursed".

I think they could have gone one better and called it "How's that Curse I Cursed You With, Cursedy?"

I have lines when it comes to horror flicks, that I am uncomfortable about when they get crossed. It's important to have boundaries, I feel. And while I am generally okay with all sorts of damage and dismemberment, I'm not at all comfortable with having kids as protagonists upon whom carnage is visited. Sure, kids are threatened all the time in action flicks and other horror flicks.

Rarely do they make good on that threat. I think that's partly why I felt a bit aggrieved watching this flick, because they "broke" the social contract of horror flicks that it's okay to put them in peril, but not to actually follow through.

Another of this flick's crimes is that a central part of its story depends on a massacre of a Roma clan, who have the temerity to be on some land that some landlord jerk believes is his. Of course, beyond the supernatural, it is right and proper to make landgrabbing murderers the true villains in anything, whether it's a film or a documentary, but haven't the Roma suffered enough? Such massacres happened for centuries prior to the main "last" time they were slaughtered en masse by the Nazis, but using such a scene - for mass entertainment - worries me a bit, especially with the rise in nationalism / fascism worldwide lately.

Just this week in Britain the Tories brought in legislation targeting the travelers / Roma communities, so can we stop giving them persecution ideas?

Not that I think a fuckwit of Boris Johnstonian proportions would have the time to sit through a deftly-made horror flick like this one.

Even though everyone except the so-called “gypsies” speaks in English and they’re all English (or in the lead’s case, American, I think this is set in France. No-one speaks French, though, which is a relief.