Five Nights at Freddy's (2023)

Score: 2 / 5

Did you ever visit "Chuck E. Cheese" as a kid? In the '90s, it was a pretty cool place, with ball pits and climbing pipes and Skee-ball; they had a few interactive video games like a Jurassic Park jeep you drove to escape dinosaurs, but it was mostly arcade-style games. My family went for several years to celebrate my birthday, and it was always a blast, cheap toy prizes and all. I won a pair of fuzzy dice once and I still have them along with the memories. The only icky thing I remember -- well, "icky" is relative, because of course the pizza grease-smeared ball pits were icky by today's standards -- was the band of animatronic characters. They always played fun music, but they were kind of creepy due to their massive size, jerky movements, and general oddness. Maybe it's a "me" thing, but I don't generally like large, loud anthropomorphic animals, whether they are costumes or robots.

So I was about as hopeful for this movie as I was for M3gan and Child's Play, which is to say, not particularly excited but curious enough to get a ticket. After all, with Josh Hutcherson starring, Matthew Lillard in the cast, and a trailer that looked much darker than it had any right to, Five Nights at Freddy's looked to be a fun time! I've not played the games -- didn't even know they existed until this year -- but based on a few YouTube clips I watched in preparation, they seem to be first-person survival games where you can't fight or even really run so much as watch and react (such as watch security monitors and close doors) to try and protect yourself. So, given a cinematic adaptation, the franchise would surely do well with suspense in the Hitchcockian manner: a sort of creeping voyeuristic dread when things at Freddy Fazbear's Pizza start going bump in the night.

Unfortunately, that's not the movie presented to us just in time for Halloween. Instead, the film tries to straddle the line between tragic character drama and something like a PG-13 version of Saw, succeeding at neither genre and only marginally succeeding at much in the way of entertainment. For its horror elements, I was surprised by the amount of blood actually shown, but very little in the film was effectively scary. A few jump scares were nice, but they were mostly the result of clever editing and musical stings. The animatronic characters are lumbering and dull; apart from eye-catching design elements (apparently they were brought to life by Jim Henson's Creature Shop), they're more akin to Boris Karloff's Frankenstein monster in terms of pitiful awkwardness. Unless, that is, you have an innate discomfort around puppets and robots, in which case you'll mutter constantly to yourself "nope, nope, nope" throughout the movie.

A few additional horror elements also failed to resonate with me. Namely, (SPOILER ALERT) the ghostly children feel shoehorned in and completely out of left field. They're not scary, they're not given time or reason to evoke sadness, and their presence frankly didn't make full sense to me. The friend who joined me for the screening had to try and explain to me afterward exactly what had happened and why these kids were even there, because while the basic plot was easy enough to grasp, there is a lot of story and a lot of characters packed in to this film. While also trying to balance tragic psychodrama with flaccid scares, it's clear the screenwriters (three of them, no less) were doing far too much for their own good. In a film like this, and the first of what is surely a wannabe franchise, simplicity and a certain minimalism would have served the material much better.

As a drama, however, I didn't totally hate it. Josh Hutcherson gives a somber, committed performance, and it was refreshing to see him in a suitably complex role. He plays Mike, a security guard looking for work in order to support his much younger sister; he's haunted by the memory of his younger brother being abducted from under his watch many years prior. Then he gets hired as the night watch at the now-defunct Freddy's family entertainment restaurant. Elizabeth Lail gives a somewhat confounding performance (or, rather, a solid performance in a confoundingly written role) that was clearly intentionally underbaked by the writers; so much of the mystery hinges on her sharing what she knows, and she infuriatingly doesn't share information until the finale. Matthew Lillard only shows up in a couple scenes, but he's utterly delightful, naturally.

But the movie is squarely Hutcherson's, and he carries it admirably despite the lackluster material he tries to elevate. His recurring nightmares about his brother's abduction are a bit harrowing, especially when the ghost kids inexplicably show up, but by the third one it's boring, and they just keep happening. Mike's waking life is far more interesting, particularly as he struggles to balance brotherhood and parenthood to his young sister Abby (Piper Rubio). Their Aunt Jane (Mary Stuart Masterson) is angling to get full custody, but Mike knows it's only to collect child support money. His dreams get worse once he is hired at Freddy's, no doubt due to the child disappearances there in the '80s. So when the animatronic band comes to life at night, it feels a bit too busy, despite their annoyingly not-so-scary antics.

I've faulted the writers enough, but I think director Emma Tammi does some pretty cool things with the material as well. It's all much more atmospheric than the material calls for, so her pacing and control of tone feels horribly mismatched. But her keen attention to evocative imagery and color grading is occasionally really beautiful, and I'd have liked to spend more time in the world of the film. She harnesses a sense of nostalgia that has become popular (think Stranger Things) but voids it of much sentiment, turning the accoutrements of childhood materialism into hollow --and dangerous -- waste.

All in all, this movie is just weird. From what I gather, it doesn't do much to appease fans of the games in new or exciting ways, but it also tries to pack in too many obscure plot points and characters to make much sense for the uninitiated. It features some solid suspense and dread, then fumbles in moments that should be earned scares; in fact, the only emotion I felt in this movie was sadness, which actively dampens the frisson we should be feeling. For being almost two hours long, it bounces off too many ideas and plot threads to feel substantial or consequential. For being PG-13, it's both bloodier than it has a right to be and less scary than it deserves (there are some truly terrifying PG-13 movies out there, including Insidious, The Ring, A Quiet Place, so do your homework and stop complaining about that). I just wanted something more original, more thematically satisfying, and more fun.

The Disaster Artist (2017)

Score: 4.5 / 5

This is the validation his fans have been waiting for the last few years.

Star and director James Franco has crafted one of the biggest Oscar-bait movies this season in The Disaster Artist, a re-creation of the making of The Room, widely regarded as one of the worst movies ever made. Having never seen that film, I wasn't entirely sure what I was walking into. Thankfully, Franco and his filmmaking team make it totally accessible, and by the end I felt that I had seen all of The Room that I will ever need to see. Franco himself plays that film's actor and director Tommy Wiseau, and his performance is one for the ages. A masterful blending of movement and vocal work, mystery, and stunningly perfect comedic delivery, Franco as Wiseau will surely be in the race for an Oscar.

The Disaster Artist chronicles the development and production of the cult film while it also recounts the affectionate friendship between Wiseau and Greg Sestero (played to perfection by Dave Franco), his line producer and fellow actor. The film is far more than a buddy bromance or situational comedy about failed moviemaking. It's a consummate work of art, a film about the artistic process and the toll it takes on his craftsmen. Not unlike Birdman and other films, it has both side-splitting humor and deeply moving pathos, asking the audience to consider our own perspective on celebrity life and movie culture, and ultimately what we would do in pursuit of our dreams. Like this film's depiction of Wiseau, is it so bad to "fail" when we managed to chase and achieve our own goals?

As a movie about movies, this flick is also a meta-commentary on filmmaking, and in that regard Franco shines still more bright. He has loaded the film with stars and cameos, from Bryan Cranston playing himself to Jacki Weaver (who always deserves more screen time) as a supporting actress. Josh Hutcherson and Zac Efron pop in as newbie actors, Alison Brie and Sharon Stone and Megan Mullally play some of the women in Sestero's life. Really, the whole thing sounds like an ensemble piece. But it's not, and though it could have easily been an old fashioned madcap comedy, Franco -- I think rightly -- keeps everything realistic. Bizarre, certainly, but grounded in honest hopes and fears that resonate in an age when art and freedom of expression are being assailed by our government.

And, of course, it's just fabulous entertainment.

IMDb: The Disaster Artist

Mockingjay: Part Two (2015)

Score: 4.5 / 5

I find these films -- probably the only series about which I'll say such things -- to be far more enjoyable than the simple prose of the novels on which they are based. And while the two parts of Mockingjay may not be have the fastest pace or the most daring action sequences of most modern young adult dystopian fiction, I find them to be fiercely intelligent and resourceful in mining the source material and in delivering satisfying results to their audience. The split also allows more time for us to focus on the great character developments that happen during the otherwise high speed, plot-driven events of the story. So I'm not really sure why people keep complaining about that.

As for Part Two specifically, it's brilliant. Not as breakneck as Catching Fire, not as meditative as Mockingjay Part One, it allows the various elements of the series to simmer together in a harsh treatment of escalating warfare. Its topical relevance shines through perhaps best in the moment when the rebels bomb a mountain, effectively burying the enemy soldiers and civilians inside together. The following scene between the escaping survivors and the rebel army led by Katniss. It's hard and it's complicated and it's wonderful. There's also a few beautiful moments as Coin leads her people to victory, and Katniss watches and suspects that her aim is less noble than she had first imagined.

Nothing in this movie quite matches the fierce brilliance of the scene in Part One of Gale and the rebels sneaking into the Capitol to save Peeta while Donald Sutherland drones in voiceover. However, Part Two skillfully avoids overdoing the special effects and getting caught up in its own exciting energy. In fact, there is really only one particularly violent sequence in this film that I can recall. It's also probably the most violent scene in the series, and one that I had some trouble watching. It happens in the sewers, where our team of heroes is attacked by monstrous white lizard-men in a terrifying melee that had me covering my eyes. Mad props to director Francis Lawrence, because it's got to be one of the most stunning fight sequences I've seen in a film since The Return of the King. Not because it's particularly intelligent, but rather because it's so fast, surprising, and long; it's an extended sequence that has absolutely no moments of relief. Even when they climb up the ladder and escape the lizards, seemingly in peace to mourn the deaths of their friends, sharp metal drills start popping up from the exploding floor beneath them.

Perhaps part of the reason I so loved the sequence is because the film until then is pretty tame. It's not slow, exactly, but more meditative and emotional like in Part One. Even when Katniss and her team get into the Capitol and maneuver its booby-traps, it's not a particularly action-y movie. Which, by the way, is great. It makes the climax that much more effective.

And speaking of the climax, I'm not exactly sure where it was in this movie. Which is also great. Because, as the finale to the series, the whole damn thing is a bit of a climax. Rather like the eighth Harry Potter film, this picture more or less begins with the climax and ends up with an extended resolution. Actually, in a sense, it feels like The Return of the King, with several denouement scenes that let the story end with a nice little flourish. Maybe the epilogue scene was a bit much, but it's a sweet little nod to the book. I noticed several people in the theater squirming to leave after the "climax" (I say that's the execution scene, because Donald Sutherland's face and laughter is devastating), because it's hard for some people to stay seated when there's nothing "exciting" left. It's sad, but the film manages those squirmers gracefully.

What else can I say? J-Law is fantastic. I'm glad we saw more of Josh Hutcherson in this one. I'd have liked to see Elizabeth Banks and Woody Harrelson more, but the story isn't really about them any more. Julianne Moore is great and we can always use more of her, and the moments with Philip Seymour Hoffman gave me all of the feelings. The camerawork is strong, the editing stronger, and I have no big complaints. It's a fine film, and a fine ending to the series.

**
I should probably qualify my earlier claim that I prefer these movies to their source material. I like the books fine, and I'm not saying they're bad. The prose is simple, straightforward, and first person. These fit the concept Collins was going for, and I can't fault them, except to say that I don't like that style in prose. I'm also conflicted with the fact that the intense and violent story is clearly marketed for young people; sure, the protagonist is also that age, but ultimately The Hunger Games is an extended Lord of the Flies, and Mockingjay is nothing short of a war novel (I'm thinking of a Tim O'Brien novel or two). I'm just not sure parents and teachers should be letting middle schoolers loose on this kind of material without accompanying conversations and context.

That said, I also have a little bit of misgivings about the films being PG-13. Much like the books being marketed for kids (I assume this might be why they are not particularly descriptive), the films are being marketed for kids. The MPAA rating stops the films from going into really dynamic territory (the moment in Mockingjay when Katniss randomly shoots a Capitol woman before she can speak; the bloody murder of a random girl in the streets by a shower of bullets). Ultimately these films take on a hue of polished Hollywood young adult sci-fi fiction rather than a raw, brutal war film.

I don't really have a coherent opinion on this franchise, obviously. But these are my main considerations.

IMDb: Mockingjay: Part Two

Mockingjay: Part One (2014)

Score: 4.5 / 5

Okay, I've never really been on the whole Hunger Games wagon. Don't get me wrong, I like them quite a lot. But the aggressive, vocal fanbase has often put me off. I finally got to read the first two books, and they're fine, and I thoroughly liked the previous two films. This one feels different, though, and I very much enjoyed it. Director Francis Lawrence (I Am Legend, Water for Elephants, Catching Fire) slowly builds up to its climax, which for me is the last, I don't know, ten minutes, and I eagerly anticipate the final film as a result. I'm glad Lawrence is directing both parts of Mockingjay, because it lets me hope that he will balance out a doubtlessly thrilling conclusion to this series.

In case you, like me, were wondering where this franchise was going, be prepared for a surprise. Because suddenly the dystopian world of Panem isn't divided into an evil empire and righteous rebels (yes, I am thinking about Star Wars), but a chaotic, war-torn country with virtues and vices all around. With Mockingjay, we are thrust headfirst into a gray area (and no, I'm not just talking about their jumpsuits) where plans and actions and intentions are all dangerous gambles with dire consequences. This film explores themes of the influential (and misleading) power of media, suggests ideas of guerrilla warfare and terrorism, and the ultimate costs of war. It's a powerful meditation on these things, even more so than The Hunger Games or Catching Fire due to its slower pace.

This film is nowhere near as action-centric as the previous films. Moody and broody, we get a lot of closeups on Katniss to see the effects that war horrors have on her. We see her desolate homeland, her hopeless countrymen, and her tortured love Peeta, but more importantly, we see the effects they have on her. She isn't just the firebrand the rebels want her to be, because she also feels the burn from that flame. I was a little upset, at first, that this film isn't remotely as exciting as Catching Fire, but I think that's because we need a little break to cement and explore our relationships to these characters before letting all hell break loose in the final installment. And that's not to say Mockingjay is without its tense scenes: The Capitol bombs a hospital at one point, and near the end of the film a small team infiltrates the Capitol to rescue Peeta.

I don't think that Jennifer Lawrence quite rocked this performance as she has before, but I also don't think she was given much chance. The Mockingjay Katniss isn't the same one who can own a battle arena. This Katniss is buried -- literally -- in a mine of secrecy, expectations, and fear. She isn't allowed to shine as she would prefer. She can't help Peeta, she can't go home, she can't reconcile the effects of war with the people she loves. Instead, she has to become a figurehead, filmed and protected, and watch as the people around her go to fight or cower under attack. As far as her emotional center and conflicted passions, Lawrence nails it here. But I expect Part Two to bring a dynamic change to her character.

Sadly, we don't get much of the charming and skilled Josh Hutcherson (Peeta) in this one, though his few moments are dramatic highlights. With him, and so horribly briefly, we see Stanley Tucci rocking his fabulous costumes as television host Caesar. We do, however, get to see a bit more of Liam Hemsworth as Katniss's other romantic interest, which is good because up till now he hasn't had much onscreen time, and Sam Claflin supports as fellow victor and rebel Finnick. Natalie Dormer (The Tudors, Game of Thrones) shows up as leader of the film crew, and we see a bit of Woody Harrelson again as a now-sober Haymitch. Elizabeth Banks rocks a jumpsuited Effie with sweet charm, though her time onscreen is also sadly short.

The real stars of this film, however, are the people in power. Donald Sutherland maintains his icy, terrifying hold on President Snow, and Philip Seymour Hoffman returns as ex-Gamemaker Plutarch Heavensbee with typical intelligence and fervor. But newcomer Julianne Moore gave a weird edge to this movie for me, as the rebel President Coin. She shows strength and smarts in leading the war effort, but something feels wrong to me. Besides her striking visage and crazy eyes, President Coin has cultivated a rigid, militaristic atmosphere among her people. I predict that her true colors have not been entirely shown. At one point, to defend her strategy, she claims "We are not the Capitol," before glancing directly at Katniss and then quickly away. Other characters mention in passing her strict control over rebel life. I wonder if her methods are not so very different from those of her avowed enemy, President Snow. But I suppose we'll have to wait and see.

IMDb: Mockingjay: Part One