Parasite (2019) ****1/2

 

This is one that everyone was talking about in 2019, but I never got around to watching. I have no excuse for missing it. The film won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, then went on to sweep the 2020 Oscars, winning Best Foreign Language Film, Best Director, Best Screenplay, and becoming the first foreign-language film to win Best Picture. Fortunately, it came back around to streaming, just in time for spooky season, and I'm sure glad it did! “Parasite” is a riveting, creepy, violent exploration of class and economic desperation.

The Kim family live hand to mouth in a grubby, basement apartment. The son, Ki-Woo gets a job tutoring the daughter of a wealthy family, and he sets out to get employment for the rest of his family. Soon, the entire Kim clan have cleverly installed themselves in good jobs with the Park family. They are feeling pretty pleased with themselves, but they learn that they aren't the only ones who have secrets.

You really want to watch this without any more spoilers than that. The film's twists and turns are too delicious to ruin them. It's a story about class, economics, and, ultimately, desperation. The Kims, obviously, are desperate for a lift into the middle class. The Parks, however, are desperate in their own way. They are well-off, but not so rich that they could not slide back down the social ladder. Thus, they hire a tutor to help their daughter excel in school and an art therapist for the younger son, about whom Mrs. Park is very concerned. Who is the “parasite” of the title? It's up for debate. One of the great strengths of the film is its nuance. It does not hit you over the head (a-la “Squid Game”) with a preachy message about economic inequality, nor does it provide simple heroes and villains. Writer-director Bong Joon-ho (“Snowpiercer”) intended the title to be a double-entendre. Like parasites, the Kims insinuate themselves into the home, the body, of the Park family. The Parks, meanwhile, cannot even use their own dishwasher, and they could be said to feed off the cheap labor of people like the Kims.

Bong Joon-ho supposedly got the idea for “Parasite” from his early days working as a tutor. He started out writing the story as a play years ago, and it eventually evolved into this. If my description makes the movie sound at all like a downer, rest assured it is actually quite funny, and a joy to watch. Bong has crafted a perfectly-balanced, dark dramedy that well-deserves all its accolades and, even a couple years later, is a must-watch!

4.5 stars out of 5

Don't Worry Darling (2022) **

 

The movie everyone is talking about this year is not great. It's not even very good. “Don't Worry Darling” is a mix of a hackneyed plot, some excellent acting, some poor acting, and a lot of controversy. (Also, the title is missing a comma.)

Florence Pugh plays Alice, a 50's housewife living what seems to be an idyllic life with her husband, Jack (Harry Styles). Jack works on a secretive project run by the charismatic Frank (Chris Pine). All the men on the project live in a desert subdivision with their families, and they aren't allowed to tell anyone, including their wives, what it is they are working on. Florence isn't bothered by the secrecy. She keeps a clean house, hangs out at the country club, and loves her husband. Events transpire, however, to make her believe there is something off about their community.

It's a fine story setup, but the script is unoriginal and full of holes. Director Olivia Wilde also throws in a lot of lame, artistic flourishes, with irises dilating and chorus girls kicking their legs in a circle. These do have the effect of distracting you from the nonsensical plot twists, so that while watching the movie, I was mainly annoyed by the out-of-place, artistic crap. Later, I started thinking about all the elements of the story that didn't make sense. So, basically, “Don't Worry Darling” is annoying to watch and annoying to think about afterwards.

The saving grace of the film is Florence Pugh, who is an outstanding actress and almost manages to pull this movie off. She is also a stone fox; you cannot take your eyes off her. The only other actor worth his salt in this movie is Chris Pine. The scenes between him and Florence Pugh sizzle. Harry Styles, on the other hand, is a good singer but not much of an actor, and Olivia Wilde doesn't make any great acting accomplishments here, either.

Far more interesting than the film itself is all the hubbub surrounding its making. The role of Jack was originally slated for Shia LaBoeuf, who has had his share of controversy, but is a decent actor. At some point, he left the cast. Olivia Wilde claimed she had fired him for being too combative, but LaBoeuf claimed he had quit, and he later produced a recorded call with Wilde in which she does seem to be begging him to stay on the film. Wilde also reportedly clashed with Florence Pugh on-set, and Pugh was notably absent from the promotion of the film, including its premiere. The truth of all these claims is known only to the people involved, but it does seem to me that Olivia Wilde is building a reputation for herself as being prickly and entitled. (I recall her expressing irritation a few years ago that people were referring to her movie “Booksmart” as a 'female “Superbad.”' Newsflash: They are practically the same movie. One of the main “Booksmart” characters is even the sister of Jonah Hill, from “Superbad.”)

All of this is really just gossip, but it at least adds some interest to a movie that cannot really stand on its on merits. The sad thing is that there is a decent, Stepford-wives-esque movie in there, somewhere. Dakota Johnson was attached at one point to play Frank's wife, and with her and Shia LaBoeuf in the cast along with Pugh and Pine, and with some tweaks to the script (including a shorter run-time), this could have been a decent movie.

I had somehow got it into my head that this was Olivia Wilde's directing debut, but of course it isn't. As mentioned above, she directed 2019's “Booksmart,” which, aside from being a female version of “Superbad,” was a reasonably-entertaining teen comedy. So, what's her excuse for this indulgent mess?

2 stars out of 5

Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988) *

 

--Spoiler Alert --

This contains spoilers for the first film in the Hellraiser series. The film will also spoil your dinner.

Based on the novella “The Hellbound Heart,” by Clive Barker, who also screen-wrote and directed, 1987's “Hellraiser” was visually interesting, but narratively under-cooked. It plays today like a soft-filtered piece of 80's camp, with bad acting and an intriguing premise that deteriorates into a hot mess of an ending. Whatever else you can say about the film, it at least offered something original.

The story involves a magic puzzle box. A world traveler and hedonist named Frank Cotton has been told that the box is the key to otherworldly pleasures, but solving it unleashes demons called Cenobites, who rip Frank apart and drag his soul into another dimension. Some time later, Frank is accidentally partly-resurrected. His former lover, Julia, who is still obsessed with him, helps with his revival by sacrificing a series of men to him, ultimately including her husband, Larry, who is Frank's brother. Larry's daughter, Kirsty, finds Frank's puzzle box and solves it, summoning the Cenobites, whom Kirsty convinces to take the escaped Frank's soul instead of her own.

“Hellbound: Hellraiser II” picks up where the first film left off. Kirsty finds herself in a mental hospital where the head psychiatrist, coincidentally, is a student of the occult. He has his own collection of puzzle boxes and esoteric literature regarding the Cenobites. Hearing Kirsty's story, he sets out to resurrect Julia. Driven more by an insatiable curiosity than carnal desires, he then seeks to summon the Cenobites.

As I said, the first film wasn't great, but it at least offered concepts and visuals that were unique. “Hellraiser II” attempts to further the story of the Cenobites a little bit, but it does not take us very far. Basically it just recycles everything from the first film, and with the novelty gone, we are just left with non-stop gore. The movie is, ultimately, a combination of body horror and cosmic horror, but it's rather thin gruel. The film relies on a numbing barrage of nightmarish images of the sort that a disturbed middle-schooler with unsupervised internet access might draw in their notebooks.

The “Hellraiser” movies remind me a bit of the “Phantasm” franchise. Both involve a unique vision, a hand-sized MacGuffin, and terrible writing, and neither, at the end of the day, is really worth your time.

1 star out of 5

The Shining (1980) *****

Stephen King's 1977 novel The Shining is among his best, and the film adaptation is, for my money, THE best adaptation of a King novel, ever. Stanley Kubrick is a famous director, but not a particularly prolific one. I was surprised to find that his IMDB.com entry for films he has directed only contains 13 feature films, over a 46-year career. The story goes that Kubrick passed on the chance to direct “The Exorcist,” which, of course, went on to become a financial success and one the greatest horror films ever. Smarting from that mistake, Kubrick was eager to do his own horror movie. After separating the wheat from the chaff, he finally settled on “The Shining.”

It's a tale of a family falling apart. Jack Torrance takes a job as the winter caretaker of a mountain resort, the Overlook Hotel. He and his family will be snowed in and stuck there for the winter, but that is just fine with Jack. A recovering alcoholic, he hopes to restart his life and get back to his writing. 5-year-old Danny gets glimpses of the future, which have told him to be afraid of the Overlook, while his mom, Wendy, is just trying to hold the family together. As winter sets in at the hotel, Danny begins seeing horrifying visions, while Jack is losing his mind.

Stephen King has created a lot of monsters over the years, and most of them are human. He explores the supernatural, but central to most of his stories is the idea that the greatest evil in this world lives in the human heart. Even in stories like “It,” where there is clearly a supernatural being, they usually recruit human helpers, who are only too easy to enlist in evil deeds. This is never more true than in “The Shining.” As Danny sees ghosts, and Jack becomes increasingly irritable, we are left wondering if they are under a supernatural influence, or if we are simply seeing the horror of mental illness.

It almost feels silly to try to list the virtues of “The Shining.” The film is visually arresting, including beautiful views of the snow-covered Rockies, the hotel's hedge maze, and, of course, the hotel itself. The interior is a character in itself, including some very snazzy-looking carpet. An example of the outstanding cinematography occurs in the notorious room 237. We have been led to expect there will be someone (or something) there. As Jack approaches the bathroom, we can see that the translucent shower curtain is partly drawn, and there is just the hint (or is there?) of a shape behind that curtain. While your eyes are feasting on all this, the film's score keeps you on the edge of your seat, without resorting to the use of jump scares.

I would hold that the performances are excellent, although there has always been debate on that topic. Stephen King was not pleased with the casting of Jack Nicholson. The Jack Torrance of the novel is an ordinary person with a drinking problem and a little bit of a temper. His impending psychosis is a very gradual and shocking process. With Jack Nicholson's manic persona, we are just waiting for Jack Torrance to start going nuts. It's a memorable performance, and I think a good one, but I can see why King wanted someone more restrained, like Martin Sheen.

I was not bullish on Shelley Duvall the first time I saw the film. She spends a lot of time screaming in terror, and I found her character weak and annoying. Also, her lank hair and sexless clothing make her hard to look at. (The Wendy of the novel is a stronger and more attractive character.) On a second viewing, however, I feel I judged the actress and the character too harshly. Wendy is a sweet girl just trying to keep her family happy. In the end, the fact that she keeps fighting to protect Danny despite being absolutely scared out of her mind should be viewed as a sign of strength.

Other casting choices are less controversial. Scatman Crothers is so charming you just want to take him home! He plays the hotel chef, who explains to Danny that his ability to see the future is called “the shine,” and warns Danny away from room 237. As for Danny, child actor Danny Lloyd is stellar. Oddly enough, he did not go on to have much of an acting career, but his performance in “The Shining” could not be improved upon.

There are lots of movies that run well over 2 hours, and most of them, even the good ones, could stand to be about 30 minutes shorter. Not “The Shining.” Stanley Kubrick makes good use of every minute, building the dread and the horror slowly. This is after all, a story of a regular guy losing his mind, and it just isn't believable if it happens all at once. Most horror films are in a rush to get to the nasty stuff, like a porno where the bored housewife answers the door for the UPS guy, and next thing you know, everybody is naked. “The Shining” is not in a rush. It wines you and dines you and introduces you to its parents, so when the horror comes, you are good and ready for it. If the film feels long at all, it is not because of excess scenes, but because of the exhausting level of dread and slowly-building horror. You can simply feel the stress hormones pumping while you are sitting on your couch, but then, that's what horror movies are for!

5 stars out of 5