One Movie Punch

Hi everyone! 

Passing on Film Buff Fridays again this week, to continue getting caught up on Netflix Original films this year. Today’s film comes from across the pond, and for a few other UK Netflix Originals, check out “The Ritual” (Episode #045), “The Kissing Booth” (Episode #132), “Calibre” (Episode #189), and “Malevolent” (Episode #299). And if you have any suggestions, let me know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Been So Long” (2018), the Netflix Original musical romantic drama, directed by Tinge Krishnan and written for the screen by Che Walker. The film follows Simone (Michaela Coel), a Camden single mother who meets Raymond (Arinzé Kene) while hanging out with her best friend. Now the two are getting to know each other, even as each deals with their own trials and tribulations. And ending up... somewhere. 

Spoilers ahead.

The last musical I saw in the theaters was “La La Land”, on its fourth run I think in Ventura County. The second-run showing after their post-Oscar second-run, and, of course, I loved it, and realized that I don’t really give musicals much of a chance, mostly because the vast majority of musicals I end up watching are Disney features or the golden age of musicals. I sang, and I use that verb very loosely, in two musicals in high school, before they made all the television shows and movies glorifying arts programs. Would have been nice for a drama/arts wannabe like myself. So, I was surprised when today’s film popped up on Netflix, I think their first musical this year, aside from the art piece “Paradox” (Episode #086). And it was... okay. 

“Been So Long” begins on a morning like any other in Camden, by which I mean an elevator that opens onto a lively market where everyone is singing and dancing, making sure that you know you are in a musical. The first number has a lot of duties, including setting the tone for the rest of the film and a measure of the playfulness we’ll see in the storytelling. If the entire film had been like this opening number, it would have been an epic slice of life musical, exploring the diversity of music in Camden. It runs the gambit of emotions, which is great, but also a variety of tones, and sometimes they clash, as with a weird subplot where a street addict with some form of serious mental illness is threatening Raymond while also doing some combination of jazz and breakdancing. A lot of distractions that take away from the textured and layered falling in love story, some of which are intentional and part of the plot, but also some which seem to be simply filling time.

Every individual performance is great, and the cast does a great job with the story as it was written, but sometimes they were failed by the sound mixing, especially when the vocals were drowned out, or when the music clashed with the tone. In fact, I would say the actors made their characters seem like they have a lot more story to tell, which is great for a slice of life film, but not for a falling in love story, at least where this film leaves off, anyway. The ending isn’t necessary abrupt, but unlike with a stage performance, you don’t want to leave the audience wanting more, at least for a feature film. I enjoyed every minute of the film, but still left it wanting more.

“Been So Long” (2018) is a fun, slice of life musical centered around a falling in love story, with the sights and sounds of Camden serving as a lively backdrop. While it can be confusing and can clash on more than a few levels, the performances are great as long as you are willing to leave your questions unanswered. Fans of musicals or romantic dramedies should definitely check out this film, but be advised it definitely deserves the TV-MA rating for more sensitive eyes and ears.

Rotten Tomatoes: 100%

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 7.0/10

“Been So Long” (2018) is rated TV-MA and is currently streaming on Netflix and playing in select theaters.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to Documentary Thursdays! We have another Netflix documentary this week, this time a weird reflection on Singapore in 1992. It quite unique, and while I can’t really think of a film from this year that matches it, I can recommend a few other Netflix documentaries. Check out “Remastered: Who Shot The Sheriff?” (Episode #298), “Feminists: What Were They Thinking?” (Episode #291), “Two Catalonias” (Episode #277), and “Quincy” (Episode #270). Actually, you know what, check out “Stories We Tell” (Episode #238) and “Crime + Punishment” (Episode #249) for a couple other personal documentaries about incredible stories. And if you have any suggestions, let me know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Shirkers” (2018), the Netflix Original documentary directed by Sandi Tan. The documentary follows Sandi, who made a film with her friends Jasmine Ng and Sophie Siddique in 1992 Singapore, then had the footage stolen by their mentor and director, Georges Cardona, never to hear from him again. After a few truly incredible turns of events, Sandi follows up with her friends to talk about making the film, and the events which happened afterwards.

Spoilers ahead.

I didn’t pay too much attention when this film was first announced, mostly because my particular well of film knowledge knew nothing about “Shirkers”. I won’t try and adopt a hipster attitude of recently researched regurgitation, because I think going into this film knowing nothing about the film only enhances the viewing experience. I went into this film with quite a few questions, after reading the premise in preparation for this review, questions that included whether the film was ever recovered, or whether the images in the trailer were from the original footage or a dramatization for the sake of telling the story, and whether we would ever find out what happened. And while we do indeed get answers to all the questions, they aren’t necessarily the answers we want, and sometimes, are not the answers we expect.

The film begins with a narrative-heavy first act, with Sandi introducing herself and how she came to know each of the individuals that would be involved in creating the original “Shirkers”. I generally don’t like too much narration in documentaries, but Sandi is very judicious with her narration, measuring out as much as you need to know for the story that is being told, and withholding some key pieces that factor into the story much later when she is making this documentary. The second act brings in the other surviving cast and crew members of “Shirkers”, transitioning the focus from Sandi to the making of the film itself, and introducing Georges Cardona as an unspecified danger. The final act starts after George absconds with the footage, and the weird strings of events that take place over the next couple of decades, and transitions the focus flawlessly back to Sandi, as she begins to try and track down what happened to George and if the film still exists.

The story itself is incredible, but the style with which it is told is also incredible. Sandi brings the same cut and paste aesthetic from her work with Jasmine on their early zines to composing this film, mashing bits and pieces of footage together with her narrative prose, and in such a way that sometimes it’s the narrative holding it together, and sometimes it’s the montages and interviews keeping the connections, and then one or two times, you’re just floating along as Sandi floated in a sea of questions looking for answers. It felt more like a moving collage than a documentary, and one that I think is probably infinitely rewatchable. And one, I might add, that leaves me wondering just what kind of cinematic gold would the original “Shirkers” have been, even if it means this documentary, and this story, would never have been told. And before we get to the wrap-up, let me say I’ve done my best to not include any spoilers in this review, even though I think knowing everything will not take away anything from the final product... just your initial viewing.

“Shirkers” (2018) is an incredibly personal and stylish documentary about a film that never was, during a poignant moment in time. Sandi Tan somehow translates that feeling into a well-crafted, well-told story, in a work that I think will be studied by aspiring film-makers and current scholars alike. Fans of great documentaries, or fans of independent film-making, should definitely check out this film, then watch it again and again because it’s that good.

Rotten Tomatoes: 100%

Metacritic: 88 (MUST SEE)

One Movie Punch: 10.0

“Shirkers” (2018) is rated TV-14 and is currently streaming on Netflix and in select theaters.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to Worldwide Wednesdays! Today, we have another live-action adaptation of a Japanese animation classic, but transplanted to the Korean peninsula in the near future. For a few other films from South Korea, check out “Forgotten” (Episode #062), “Steel Rain” (Episode #087), “The Handmaiden” (Episode #122), and “Psychokinesis” (Episode #124). For other live-action anime adaptations, check out “Bleach” (Episode #262), “FullMetal Alchemist” (Episode #058) and “Gintama” (Episode #206). And if you have any suggestions, let me know at onemoviepunch.com or reach out over social media.

Oh, and Happy Halloween!

And now...

Today’s movie is “Illang: The Wolf Brigade” (2018), the Netflix Original near-future Korean science-fiction epic, written and directed by Kim Jee-woon, based on the anime by Mamoru Oshii, the driving force behind “Ghost in the Shell”. The film is set on the Korean Peninsula in 2029, when a five-year plan to reunify the two Koreas is under threat by an anti-unification terrorist group. Now Im Joong-Kyung (Gang Dong-won), a conflicted member of The Wolf Brigade, must hunt down this group while also discovering another threat towards reunification.

Spoilers ahead. 

I can’t help but think of this film in the context of the recent efforts towards Korean reunification. The recent peace talks and photo opportunities have been a welcome step forward for the peninsula, and even a cursory look at politics will show us that the split between the Koreas has been opposed by nearly all Koreans, and actively supported by the superpowers in the region for whatever geopolitical reasons. It’s what I admired most about the introduction to “Illang: The Wolf Brigade”, describing the latest reunification efforts being at risk by the same superpowers. Seeing geopolitics from the point of view of a proxy country is not a perspective most folks in the United States have, and it was refreshing to see given recent events.

World-building is a key strength of this film. “Illang: The Wolf Brigade” opens with a riot between anti-reunification protestors and a surprisingly disciplined police force, which quickly turns chaotic and deadly for everyone involved, and forces our protagonist to question his service in the Brigade and the effects on the people. We learn quickly there is no clear definition of black and white, just an unstable and multifaceted political situation with players and pawns unsure of their positions. It was a key element of the Oshii’s original work in the Kerberos Saga, and I was impressed how well it transplanted into this time and place. The rest of the film is a wonderful exercise in further developing this world, which felt more and more real as it progressed, with great hand-to-hand and gun-fu choreography, awesome stunt work, and a great first-person shooter deathmatch towards the end.

If there’s any serious criticism of this film, it is the two hour and nineteen-minute running time, a daunting ask for anyone who isn’t a fan of near-future, dystopian political thrillers where no one really wins in the end, and the best we get is going back to a new form of the dismally oppressive normal. However, I do think it’s a great meditation on the powers and authority we give to the various levels of security forces within the United States, and the injustices that have occurred more frequently in the past few years. All that social privilege comes with a certain amount of power and influence that we need to make sure stays properly checked, before we end up in the same place in 2029. Or before.

“Illang: The Wolf Brigade” (2018) is a transplanted adaptation of Oshii’s Kerberos Saga, set on the Korean peninsula in the near-future, but maintaining the same level of politics and espionage coupled with great action. While slightly longer than most movie fans may be willing to invest, it does pay off in major ways, and does a great deal to increase my trust of future live-action anime adaptations. Fans of live-action anime adaptations, or fans of Oshii’s work, should definitely check out this film, along with any science-fiction fans looking for a new perspective on geopolitics.

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 8.0/10

“Illang: The Wolf Brigade” (2018) is rated TV-MA and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Hi everyone! 

Welcome back to Takeover Tuesday. Today’s review will be brought to you by the Moviedrone Podcast, two laidback, self-deprecating Brits who have the squelchiest, yet funkiest music in all of #FilmTwitter. When not doing film scene impressions and giving each other homework, they do in-depth movie reviews of currently playing and classic films, whether they think anyone is listening or not. If you want to check out their weekly podcast, head over to moviedrone.podbean.com, subscribe, and let them know we sent you.

And the best part of this guest review is that they only misspelled two words: “favorite” and “catalog”. F-A-V-O-U-R indeed! I mean, it’s just one letter, but... I’m sorry, I’m just been informed that’s the Queen English and something about bollocks... not sure. Anyway...

Here we go...

(Steve) Hi, I’m Steve

(Marc) And I’m Marc

(Steve) We are the Moviedrone podcast and I’m very excited to be guesting on One Movie Punch’s Takeover Tuesday. We are a weekly podcast with a main review.

(Marc) We also have features such as ‘Question Time’ and ‘Homework’ where we give each other a film to watch that the other has not seen in the hope of unearthing a hidden gem.

(Steve) And don’t forget my favourite part.

(Marc) The end?

(Steve) No, No, No... Marc’s Movie Impressions.

(Marc) Oh. DO we have to go there?

(Steve) Yes, do one.

(Marc) Really?

(Steve) DO ONE!

(Marc) I ain’t no bum, I ain’t no bum, I ain’t no bum, ADRIAN!

(Steve) Yeah, we should have left that, actually...

(Marc) Anyway, catch us every Sunday evening on iTunes, Pocketcast, Podbean and Stitcher.

(Steve) Today’s movie is the original “Halloween” (1978), the Columbia Pictures horror thriller directed by John Carpenter and written for the screen in collaboration with Debra Hill.

(Marc) This movie sees Jamie Lee Curtis in her debut film, battling to survive against a psychotic killer in a ground-breaking horror classic.

(Steve) The first of eleven movies in the franchise, this movie sets the bar in suspense horror films with a kick ass score to boot!

Spoilers ahead.

(Steve) This movie is set 15 years after Michael Myers murders his sister in one of the most iconic opening scenes from a movie, ever. 

(Marc) The fact Michael was only 6 at the time made the image of a child holding a bloodied knife all the more shocking.

(Steve) What follows is the rampage of the escaped Myers on Halloween night, butchering five innocent victims, and encountering Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis), a victim less easy to overcome.

(Marc) With John Carpenter’s score increasing tension at every opportune moment, this was a film that defined the slasher genre, following in the waves of Hitchcock’s Psycho.

(Steve) Although not as graphic as modern-day horrors, the suspense and kill scenes still hold their weight with the audience.

(Marc) Originally billed as ‘The Babysitter Murders’, the Halloween setting not only inspired a name change, but allows Myers to wander terrifyingly easily amongst scores of innocent children.

Watch out for the Boogie Man!

“Halloween” (1978) is a great horror classic that defined a movie genre. Fans of horror should not miss this and it should be in any true fan’s back catalogue.

Rotten Tomatoes: 93% (FRESH)

Metacritic: 78

One Movie Punch: 7.8/10

“Halloween” (1978) is rated R and is currently streaming on Shudder and available for rent or purchase wherever you enjoy movies!

Hi everyone! 

Welcome back to Matinee Monday! We’re back this week because, much like Michael Myers, the Halloween franchise has been resurrected, this time with another direct sequel to the original “Halloween” (1978) that retcons a great deal of the previous films. #FilmTwitter and the box office have already declared the film a success, but is it better than the original? Well, you’ll find out in this special two-part episode. Today, I’ll be reviewing the latest installment, and tomorrow, for Takeover Tuesday, the Moviedrone Podcast will be reviewing the original John Carpenter. If you dig either episode, let us know on social media, or reach out on onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Halloween” (2018), the Blumhouse Productions and Universal Pictures revival of the Halloween franchise, directed by David Gordon Green, and written for the screen in collaboration with Danny McBride and Jeff Fradley, based on the iconic characters created by John Carpenter and Debra Hill. Forty years after the original killing spree, a prison bus transporting Michael Myers (Nick Castle and James Jude Courtney) overturns, releasing him from the psychiatric prison he’s been trapped within for decades. Now Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis), having prepared for this moment her entire life, tries to protect her estranged daughter Karen (Judy Greer) and granddaughter Allyson (Andi Matichak), as Myers restarts the killings.

Spoilers ahead.

The original “Halloween” is often cited as the birth of the Golden Age of the slasher film. Although it wasn’t the first, and came four years after “The Texas Chain Saw Massacre” (Episode #035), it was easily the most popular, and by the time I was old enough to rent R-rated films (with written permission), there were racks on racks on racks of slasher films, launched primarily by the popularity of this one film. It has been years since binging on entire franchises in one caffeine-soaked evening with friends, laughing hysterically at the campier kills, and jumping at each background movement. So much comes back to the original “Halloween”, and much like the copycats and homages that followed, the franchise itself turned into its own self-hating movie machine, with multiple reboot attempts, even with Jamie Lee Curtis, and impossible to retcon. How can this possibly be different? And after seeing it, how can it possibly be this good?

You can tell that everyone involved with this production took a lot of care with doing it right, especially with the mixed results since the original. We’ve all seen plenty of reboots go wrong in our time, and one of the mistakes is generally not paying attention to the elements that made the original a hit. For the original “Halloween”, that’s Jamie Lee Curtis, that’s the first-person camera work, that’s Carpenter’s iconic score, and that’s the brutal realism of a murdering psychopath. Bringing those elements into the modern day also requires reexamining a lot of contemporary racism and sexism that existed in films at the time, especially in developing Laurie Strode after forty years of trauma, and two generations of family that have followed, each looking at Laurie’s trauma through a very different lens, and each only able to process from their own unique perspective, one that can never know the sheer terror that Laurie felt. It’s never explicitly said, just as many of Michael’s kills are never explicitly shown, and that “just enough” storytelling lets our imaginations do the walking.

Two more items in this love fest. First, Judy Greer absolutely nails a scene towards the end, during the final confrontations with Michael, one I don’t want to spoil for the two or three people who haven’t seen it yet. Second, thank goodness they brought back John Carpenter to advise on everything, but most especially the music. Combine that with all the classic camera angles and the awesome art direction in the title sequences and transitions, and you have a successful whatever you want to call it. And for those who wonder about more entries in the franchise, let me just say that while they might be monetarily successful, they may also be another string of flawed attempts to recapture what was done here. I’m willing to be proven wrong, but I suspect this is the last best attempt to close out the franchise, and maybe try something brand new with those that survive. Let’s evolve, and not repeat.

“Halloween” (2018) is the follow-up story that we deserved to the iconic John Carpenter classic, a film that respects the best of the source material, and evolves all of the elements for the modern day. It is an unexpected grace note to what has been a lackluster franchise, reminding us of the haunting realism of the original film. Horror fans have probably already seen this film, but even non-horror fans who want a small taste of the golden age of slasher films should definitely see this film in the theaters, preferably with a sizeable audience. My spouse is proof that you don’t need to have seen the original, or even like horror films, to enjoy this one.

Also, note to self. Show spouse original “Halloween”, right after tomorrow’s review.

Rotten Tomatoes: 79% (FRESH)

Metacritic: 67

One Movie Punch: 9.4/10

“Halloween” (2018) is rated R and is currently playing in theaters.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to another week of reviews. We’re working on some pretty major changes to the podcast that will debut early next year, taking in all the feedback from this first year worth of podcasts, and learning the great power of networking. One of those changes will potentially be breaking out the Netflix Original movies into their own podcast, an idea I’ve floated before, and I would love to hear your feedback on that idea.

Also, if you have a quick moment, please pause this podcast, then submit a review for the podcast at your podcatcher of choice. Every review helps us climb the charts. Reach out to me on social media or via onemoviepunch.com, and let me know what you think or if you submitted a review. Who knows? You might hear it read here!

And now...

Today’s movie is “How to Get Over A Breakup” (2018), the Netflix Original Peruvian comedy directed by Bruno Ascenzo and Joanna Lombardi, and written for the screen by María José Osorio. The film follows María Fé (Gisela Ponce de León), a woman whose life is turned upside down when her boyfriend Matías (Andrés Salas) leaves her. Now, as an outlet for coping with the change, she starts a blog, and begins to make other changes in her life, with the help of her friends Natalia (Karina Jordán) and Carolina (Jely Reátegui).

Spoilers ahead.

This is the first Peruvian film I’ve reviewed for the podcast, and as far as I can remember, the first Peruvian film I’ve ever seen. It’s a dangerous prospect watching a particular country or culture’s cinema for the first time, and incredibly unfair to the film-makers, who probably don’t seem themselves as cultural ambassadors, nor should they. And honestly, if I had my choice, I probably wouldn’t have picked today’s film as my introduction, a romantic comedy about an upper middle-class advertising worker going through a long-distance break-up. But then I would have missed a fun opportunity to compare and contrast a fairly reductive story of empowerment within another culture, one that is surprisingly familiar to fans of romantic comedies in general.

“How to Get Over a Breakup”, or “Soltera Codiciada”, is based on the real-life blog of the same name by writer María José Osorio. You can check out her actual blog at solteracodiciada.com if you want to see the source material. It’s important to understand the previous incarnations of the story, because it shows us the appeal of each medium. Blogs, although waning in popularity, have a serial intimacy that permits a certain kind of storytelling to work. It doesn’t have to be perfectly constructed, and often is written as spoken, rather than a more considered form of prose. The popular blog became a popular book, which requires putting more boundaries around the original content, making sure it all ties together, and making it work for someone sitting down for six or so hours to enjoy the work in a new way. And today’s film is a third version, rewritten to tell the story about how the blog, and book, came into existence, and reconfigures the story for an even shorter time, just over 100 minutes, and unfortunately, I feel this is where the story begins to have more than a few problems.

I certainly had fun watching the story of María Fé, but I also felt the story didn’t fit well to the movie medium, trying to have a standard empowerment story arc based on material that has anything but, which gives the entire movie a disconnected feeling, and with some trouble trying to understand how much time is passing between scenes. We can take time with the blog or the book to figure out where we might be, but with a movie, there’s no time to enjoy what’s happening. I honestly think a limited series format would have been a better choice, because this film has more than enough content to fill six to ten episodes, and it wouldn’t feel like a montage of highlights. It would also allow more time to explore modern-day Lima, and could work with more feelings and tones instead of the generally light-hearted path the story takes. More great locations to add to those used in the film. More great social media effects that can show the weird networked communication of today. It’s an okay film, but I feel there is so much more potential, which simply couldn’t be fulfilled in the running time.

“How to Get Over A Breakup” (2018) is a lighthearted, but heartwarming story of empowerment based upon the blog and book by María José Osorio. While it can feel confined within the film format, it does deliver a fun and watchable dramedy about upper middle-class life in Lima, and the potential for much more. Fans of dramedies, especially Spanish-language dramedies, should definitely check out this film, with your preferred form of indulgence, but beware that you may come away wanting more, probably from either the book or the blog.

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 7.2/10

“How to Get Over A Breakup” (2018) is rated TV-MA and is currently playing on Netflix.

Hi everyone!

WOW! 300 EPISODES! I honestly can’t believe I’ve kept this podcast going for 300 straight days of movie reviews. Thanks to each and everyone one of you for your support over these past ten months. Without your constant support, I don’t know if I could have kept going a few times, especially with the insane number of Netflix Original films being debuted this month. I’m starting to think I should have picked a more significant movie. Anyway, it’s been a blast, and if you have any favorite episodes, let me know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Gnome Alone” (2017), the Netflix Original animated film directed by Peter Lepeniotis and Shelley Shenoy, and written for the screen by Michael Schwartz and Zina Zafflow, based on a screen story by Robert Moreland, which was based on an original story by Jared Micah Herman and Kyle Newman. The film follows Chloe (Becky G), a young girl who has moved into a new house with a lawn full of garden gnomes. However, she quickly learns the gnomes are actually alive, and have a very serious mission, to protect the world from an invasion of Troggs, small eating machines that are never satisfied, with the unlikely help of her neighbor Liam (Josh Peck).

Spoilers ahead.

It’s been a good couple of years for Becky G, scoring roles in today’s film, “A.X.L.” from a few months ago, and becoming the Yellow Ranger for the 2017 “Power Rangers” reboot, not to mention her soundtrack work for “Hotel Transylvania” and “The Smurfs 2”. I’m not sure how she deals with all the success, but she has clearly made a name for herself in multiple industries. And if you like her music, then get ready to hear at least two tracks made for this film. But if you aren’t a fan of her music, or her career, then this film may not have a lot to offer anyone over the age of eighteen. Because while this film is great for Becky G’s career, it doesn’t actually offer anything new for the family animation genre.

“Gnome Alone” feels like a film based on an artist’s drawing, reverse engineering a picture of garden gnomes firing green ooze out of super soakers to take out tribbles in an old house. It’s almost the same way the story for “The Boss Baby” (Episode #012) was likely created, either inventing elements out of thin air, or creating loose connections between key scenes. Only in rare cases should you use lines like, “no one knows what it is or how it works” when making a film, and certainly not to explain why the green ooze works to send the Troggs back to their dimension. And let’s face it, you shouldn’t title a film based on one of the more popular Christmas films of all time, and fail to include any of those elements from that film. It’s been a while since I’ve felt a movie’s title was a bait and switch. I can’t help but feel the numbers of people involved in making the story also had a hand in limiting its cohesion. 

In addition to a lazy script, the film has a standard 90 minute, three act structure, including seeding conflicts to be resolved later, and the heavy use of montage to move between the second and third acts. Now, is this film all bad? Not at all. The animation is well done, with a great overall style to the film, but nothing revolutionary. The cast does the best they can do with the story and script as it is, and the voice cast includes Tara Strong, Olivia Holt, David Koechner, George Lopez, and Jeff Dunham. And while the message was very strong about the nature of friendship, and the difficulties of moving as an adolescent, it misses a huge metaphor for consumerism in the Troggs, admittedly difficult messaging in a capitalist economy. Perhaps I’m thinking too hard about it, but it wouldn’t be the first time.

“Gnome Alone” (2017) is a fun family film with great animation, and a great voice cast, but also a few noticeable flaws and a few more missed opportunities. Young viewers will forgive the more technical concerns, but older viewers might struggle with the reused and simplistic themes. Fans of family animation films should definitely check out this film, but folks looking for something more should maybe take a look for something else.

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 6.8/10

“Gnome Alone” (2017) is rated PG and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Hi everyone!

No Film Buff Friday this week as I’m still trying to catchup on Netflix Original films. Today we’re checking out a horror film from the United Kingdom, and for a few others, check out “A Dark Song” (Episode #033), “The Ritual” (Episode #045), “Calibre” (Episode #189), and “The City of the Dead” (Episode #250). And if you have any suggestions, let me know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Malevolent” (2018), the Netflix Original UK horror film directed by Olaf de Fleur Johannesson, and written for the screen by Ben Ketai and Eva Konstantopoulos, based on her novella “Hush”. The film follows Angela (Florence Pugh) and her brother Jackson (Ben Lloyd-Hughes), two scam artists that fake paranormal activity to prey on families who’ve lost a loved one. However, when working their latest mark, Mrs. Green (Celia Imrie), they begin having to deal with seemingly unexplainable phenomena, and what starts as a haunting film quickly takes a turn for the gritty.

Spoilers ahead.

I’m going to have a hard time critiquing this film without spoiling some key parts of the story, so here’s a second chance to bail before I get started. It’s actually not too bad of a film, but it left me with a lot of questions at the end.

Ok, good.

So, right away, people who fake paranormal investigations running into actual paranormal activity is a difficult premise to pull off. It comes with a built-in sense of justice for anyone that might not make it as part of the film, which is satisfying in some ways, but it also limits the number of directions you can go with the plot as a whole. Either they run into actual paranormal activity, or they run into something more sinister, and it appears the choice of both the novella and the film was “yes”. I’m sure reading this story would provide enough time to develop that uneasy feeling of gothic dread to sustain the mystery part of this tale, but making a film this short requires revealing information too fast to create the same feeling of dread. It’s not something that you can rush, and it definitely felt rushed.

“Malevolent” begins with the same team running a con on a family with a recently deceased mother. Angela plays her part well, but has a genuine paranormal encounter, which makes her start to question her life. Now, at this point we know little about her life, so what follows is almost a crash course in Angela’s life, from her collegiate career to her hospitalization for psychiatric treatment, to her mother who killed herself by suicide, and, oh yeah, her brother is in deep with the Scottish mob, likely for a drug addiction. And once you’re force fed all of that, it’s time to go to the remote mansion in the woods where the real fun begins. I’m actually impressed that Florence Pugh was able to pull off the transition, and remain as consistent of a character as she was throughout the entire film, given all the changes along the way. By contrast, I cared absolutely nothing for the rest of the team, not her brother who seemed like a total asshole, nor his girlfriend who was a stereotypical victim in waiting, nor the cameraman with a crush on her.

The hard left I teased? Well, that’s when we find out the ghosts in the house are the dead kids the owner and her son murdered, and now that the team found evidence of that, they have to die as well, and we descend into some pretty gnarly torture porn, something I’m generally not okay with, and definitely not in this instance. It was such a tone shift that it made me realize in order to make this film better, the story would have had to commit to one tone, not bounce between asking if what’s happening is real or fake. I felt that was the missing glue to make this film something much better. It’s all right, though, and I even liked the stinger at the end, as it opens up a few possibilities, if they can work up a story that fits the film format a lot better.

“Malevolent” (2018) is a decent horror film that struggles to find a consistent tone, built on a story that doesn’t have time to develop. Nevertheless, the film ends up being more than watchable, and has its well-done moments, particularly Florence Pugh’s performance, strong enough for a sequel. Fans of haunting horror films, or more than a little torture porn, should definitely check out this film, and perhaps you’ll end up being a little more forgiving than me.

Rotten Tomatoes: 50%

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 6.8/10

“Malevolent” (2018) is rated TV-MA and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to Documentary Thursdays! We’re continuing our Netflix Original catchup week with another music-related documentary about the legendary Bob Marley. For other musically-themed documentaries, check out “Grace Jones: Bloodlight and Bami” (Episode #284), “Quincy” (Episode #270), and “Stop Making Sense” (Episode #179). And if you have any suggestions, let me know at onemoviepunch.com.

And now... 

Today’s movie is “Remastered: Who Shot The Sheriff?” (2018), the Netflix Original documentary directed by Kief Davidson and written for the screen by Jeff Zimbalist and Michael Zimbalist. The documentary explores the assassination attempt on Bob Marley, the political atmosphere leading up to the attack, and the lingering effects on his life and career.

Spoilers ahead.

Man, I love Bob Marley. And I’m willing to admit my fascination with him began with the music which made him famous, although it was weirdly ironic that I heard his songs of black liberation and global unity from mostly suburban white kids who owned his albums. But it was a lot easier to find his albums than any documentaries, or even books, and he was just one of many musical influences at the time, growing up in the mid-1990s. Fast forward to college, and seeing the iconography everywhere, and the almost instant association with marijuana usage, and suddenly Bob Marley became a lot more fascinating to me. Not just the weed part, but why him? And when the Internet became a thing, I got to learn not just about Marley’s music, but reggae as a whole and its many sub-genres, about Rastafarianism, and about the complex history of Jamaica, from the indigenous people to the slave trade to colonization and only relatively recently, independence. All that available at my fingertips in college and after graduation, with the help of more than a few online friends. And now with all sorts of streaming services at my fingertips, I can learn even more from the many documentaries out there about the man and his music, and now enjoy many more documentaries to come as we continue to unpack his amazing legacy.

“Who Shot The Sheriff?” is divided into four parts. First, a primer about Jamaican politics after gaining independence in 1962, a split between two parties backed by various oligarchs and gang leaders. Second, a detailed look at the actual events surrounding the attack on Marley’s house. Third, the effects on Marley, in particular his self-imposed exile to London, and the political impacts back on the island. And finally, a return to Jamaica, widely celebrated as a unifying act. It may never definitively answer the question, but it does provide a few clues and reasoned suspicions as to who ordered the original attack and the potential reasons why. I suspect Marley scholars will find very little new here, but even fans like myself found a few new details, and for folks who know next to nothing, it will be an eye-opening look for someone who probably only knows the lyrics to a few songs.

The style of the entire documentary is very much like a television or news channel documentary, not just because of the fifty-seven minute length. It is an interview-driven documentary, leaning on Bob’s friends, family, and business partners, along with historians and former politicians. It keeps a certain cadence, rarely letting the footage speak for itself, even when the footage is actually quite insightful on its own. I found it more than a little ironic that the documentary always had someone telling us how Marley felt, with footage of him in the background dialed back. It felt very much like the way Marley was used by the political factions to support their messaging, telling the public what they thought Marley thought and felt, even while he was speaking pretty clearly on his own. But I only find it ironic in a wry sort of way, because that’s clearly not the intention of either Kief Davidson or Jeff and Michael Zimbalist. I look forward to more entries in this documentary series, but hopefully with a bit more content and letting the footage speak for itself whenever possible. I’d say they’re off to a great start, though. 

“Remastered: Who Shot The Sheriff?” (2018) is the first of Jeff and Michael Zimbalist’s investigative music documentaries, looking back on the assassination attempt on Bob Marley. While it feels very much like a television or news channel documentary, the interviewees and their insights, along with great footage, carry it beyond the formulaic structure into something new. Fans of Bob Marley should definitely check out this film, and share it with anyone who might enjoy learning just how massive and important he was to Jamaica.

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 7.8/10

“Remastered: Who Shot The Sheriff?” (2018) is rated TV-14 and is currently streaming on Netflix.

Hi everyone!

Welcome back to Worldwide Wednesdays! We’re continuing to catch up on Netflix Originals, but this one fits the theme. It’s another Indonesian film, like “The Night Comes For Us” (Episode #295) from earlier this week, and “The 3rdEye” (Episode #276) from earlier this month. It looks like Netflix is picking up quite a few Indonesian films, and I look forward to taking them all in. If you have any suggestions, however, let me know at onemoviepunch.com or reach out on social media.

And now...

Today’s movie is “Kuntilanak” (2018), the Netflix Original Indonesian comedy horror film directed by Rizal Mantovani and written for the screen by Alim Sudio. The film follows a group of five orphans, whose adopted mother is leaving on a trip, and has left them in the hands of their “aunt” Lydia (Aurélie Moenemans). However, when her boyfriend Glenn (Fero Walandouw) brings a haunted mirror into the house, the children learn it contains a Kuntilanak, a monster that snatches children into the supernatural realm. Now the children must fight against the spirit as it begins taking them one by one, before it’s too late to get them back.

Spoilers ahead.

Unless you’re a true horror or role-playing buff, you’ve probably never heard of a Kuntilanak. It’s a mythical monster from Malaysian folklore, also known as a Pontianak, and is a vampire-like creature that is said to come from either a woman who died giving birth or a stillborn child. It’s a pretty gruesome legend, and much like European vampires, has had more than one story or myth based on the same kind of legend. And much like European vampires in the Western film scene, the Kuntilanak as a creature has been in over 21 films between the Indonesian and Malaysian film scenes. Today’s film is the latest in the series of films with the same subject material, but from a new perspective.

“Kuntilanak”, today’s film, feels like two separate movies smashed together: one a well-crafted special effects horror film about a classic myth; the other a children’s film that reminds me of your average afterschool special from the 1980s and 1990s in the United States. The film opens with a scene involving the last family to be haunted by the spirit, where a young boy mistakes the vampire for his dead mother, and is pulled into the realm. It’s quite disturbing, with a huge smear of blood leading to the mirror. But then the film moves to introduce the five recently adopted orphans living with a rich matron, and the entire tone shifts to almost a guided morality tale, lighthearted, and with multiple instances of a particular dizzying tingling noise to punctuate when one of the children says something precocious. It’s not impossible to combine a children’s story with a horror film, and still have both tales be effective, as in “Super 8” or “Stranger Things”, which both somehow split the difference, but this film simply cannot do it, and by the fifth time I heard the accent noise for humor, I had simply lost faith in the film.

I’m not very encouraged by either Indonesian horror film that Netflix has picked up this year. I’m a huge fan of their action films, which bring a deadly seriousness and brutality, no doubt likely influenced by their generally violent history. I know I don’t have enough experience yet to make sweeping statements about the genre, but I sincerely hope Netflix is able to either fund or acquire better films from the film scene. I did feel, as with “The 3rdEye” (Episode #276), that most of the sets were too well lit for an effective horror film, but also felt the effects were still decent. In fact, the cast felt like the best part, with honest performances even when the story struggled with tone and more than a few plot holes.

“Kuntilanak” (2018) is a children’s horror film that lacks a consistent tone between the two major elements, more likely than not to frustrate horror fans. While the cast does well with what they were given, the other elements never seem to come together in a satisfying way. Fans of children’s horror films, who don’t mind putting the goofy next to the horrific, may enjoy this film, but consider this my most tentative recommendation yet.

Rotten Tomatoes: NR

Metacritic: NR

One Movie Punch: 5.2/10

“Kuntilanak” (2018) is rated TV-14 and is currently streaming on Netflix.