No thank you, Mr Blumhouse. I do not accept.

I vaguely remember Blumhouse being involved in the Craft "Reboot/Sequel". I was hoping it'd die the way the Heathers sequel was always destined to fail. I'll never watch the mess of the Heathers series reboot. And I highly doubt I'll stomach this piece of shit called The Craft: Legacy.

Slapping the word Legacy on a title doesn't make it cool by default. The trailer basically makes the girls look like hippy fairies waving their fingers around with flickers of light. And a picture of Nancy just looking like Nancy, which is basically a screenshot from the original printed on a fucking Polaroid, NOBODY TOOK A PICTURE OF HER LOOKING LIKE THAT. I LOVE how reboots use PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL for their "PHOTOS" of the old cast. And hoping for more Easter eggs will be a fucking waste of time. This is basically Blade Runner all over again, nods to the original few and far between. Giving the script to a woman would make sense if the idea of a girl getting picked on for getting her period in class wasn't a mess of a concept some teenage boy would write. Somehow the original writers being male didn't prevent the original movie from being heralded as a goddamn feminist masterpiece (I disagree) but they achieved this along with an actual practicing Wiccan in Fairuza Balk, who lent her knowledge and managed to give a degree of "authenticity" to the movie. We don't see magic fairy dust emanating from anyone's fingertips, Jesus even that piece of shit fluffy nonsense Practical Magic was more realistic and that had a shit story and shittier special effects. The illusions are supposed to look real, glamours are meant to look REAL. That fireball in the shop, yes it looks shit but at least it's supposed to be real fire.

Nobody asked for this monstrosity and again, here we are with nothing new or interesting to show for it. Blumhouse's business model of hits and misses obviously keeps the lights on and gets them accolades they probably don't deserve overall. But then one of the writer/directors of Dumb and Dumber has an Oscar. Get Out's a great movie, I can claim to have enjoyed Happy Death Day. But they've been around since 2006, way longer than I realised. They're doing a remake of the Thing. That'll be like the third one?? They were behind BlacKkKlansman, which was good but heavyhanded with its stereotyping. I just don't support them putting their grubby fingers on the Craft for any reason. Sorry.

If it is any good and gets good reviews, I still don't think I can watch it. Even with David Duchovny as the dad. Sorry, Sarah's dad was lovable and funny. There's nothing wrong with the movie. It's just another title, another cult you can cash in on for no good reason. Why couldn't COVID come in time to trash this production? It's trashed its release instead and that's possibly good enough, I guess. it not getting a theatrical release is fine they probably knew it wouldn't do well with concerned audiences in the middle of social distancing. I sure as shit wouldn't pay to see this in a theatre. I spend more time trashing this and the first film's shooting script here.

And I would've seen the original had I been older at the time, or more willing to sit in a theatre with a parent.

Cuties is the New Kids

You can be forgiven for thinking the current outrage over a French movie called Cuties is the first public debate we've had over child exploitation, particularly in relation to exploitation of a sexual nature. But it's a repeat of an argument I have very vague memories around concerning a little indie breakout called Kids.

I think I've been here before talking about it in relation to Ken Park, but at the time, without an internet to see this film, Kids held some kind of urban legend status. It was heavily derided as child pornography masquerading as social commentary, cashing in on the "It's 10pm, do you know where your kids are?" campaigns blasted across public TV back then. It was genuinely a commentary on that rhetoric, the parents in Kids, few as they are, remain oblivious and inactive. The first girl we meet is home alone while Telly has sex with her in the first scene, (which I believe was cut out of some versions). We meet Telly's mother, who's up to her neck in looking after a younger brother and does little to police Telly and Casper's movements. Aside from this, we spend more time with adults like the taxi driver who picks up Jennie and the nurses at the free clinic, one of whom drops the bomb on Jennie that starts the ticking clock of finding Telly before he sleeps with another underage girl and unknowingly infects her with HIV. If you want a premise to this movie, that's essentially the narrative. It's the depiction of kids boasting about sex acts and engaging in sex acts, violence and substance abuse that we're forced to exam through the lens of a teenager. It was an important film - but did we need to see a protracted rape scene in the finale? Did we need to see Telly aggressively having sex with two girls who plead with him to stop? Larry Clark and Harmony Korine believe we did. It's an exploitation film. It served a purpose and leaves and indelible mark on the viewer, it's a movie you cannot forget or unsee.

And there wasn't a massive gap between this and Cuties. Falling between and receiving higher praise than Kids was Thirteen, which probably owes a lot of its attention to Oprah interviewing the director (I can't find the clip sadly but I remember it). It convinced me to watch it, it's not a bad film, but it's also less insistent on showing graphic sex scenes. The self-abuse, drug use and shoplifting spend much more time in the spotlight. While Tracy and Evie are almost successful in seducing an older boy into a threesome, they fail and he throws them out, meaning the movie kind of threatens to go there but doesn't, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, pulling a punch or two is fine, you can derive tension from what is not seen. And we don't see anything particularly gratuitous in that regard, there's cutting away from the oral sex scene, and while Tracy tries to provoke her mother over the fact she wears no underwear, I didn't that to be overly shocking, it was oddly comical, but others would be shocked, of course. I'm probably desensitized to so much now, and I saw this before I saw two other Larry Clark films, Ken Park and Bully.

While Ken Park was banned in this country I don't think it's impossible to find. The commentary is hard-hitting, the message seems to be sincere, but it still begs the question: Did we need to see that amount of teens having sex? You could trim a lot of this out, to be honest. Did we also need to see one of the sickest scenes of elder abuse and murder in another scene? You'd think us discovering this would be impactful enough. No. Ken Park set out to shock audiences as Korine and Clark always do. And while Bully is based on a true story, Larry Clark lends his needless pervy-eye to the piece with a crotch shot of one girl. It's toned down compared to Kids, but it's still exploitative. Did we need that crotch shot, Larry? DID WE NEED IT? NO.

Cuties apparently exhibits questionable behaviour in the form of twerking and exposure. Netflix failing to market this piece as a thoughtful commentary on the effect of social media on young girls has landed the female director in hot water and I do feel for her now, but I still raise the same question to her. Did you maybe go too far with some of your shots? Can they be trimmed down? I know what you're trying to say but, sadly, people don't like the way you've chosen to say it.

Evan Rachel Wood, the star of Thirteen, agreed this director went too far, interestingly. Maybe implying instead of choosing to be overly explicit should've been done here. You don't want to be conflated with white male perverts at this point. If the director is signing off on this, is it because a producer insisted upon it? The director's word should be final. So this had to have been intentional. Intentional, but pointless. Creating controversy really doesn't help a film ultimately. If the medium is the message, you didn't use the medium properly. Hiding behind a cultural norm of sorts (it's French, they treat their children like miniature adults, however not all the French agree with it) is just as unacceptable. And hiding behind the left as a defense from being attacked by the right is also pretty bad. Because a lot of leftists also disagree with it. Now the right think the cultural elite genuinely are manufacturing child porn.

I don't believe in full censorship. I do believe in moderation. I can see why people get offended by these movies. I understand it's so confronting and unsettling, like real life. I get you see a movie to escape that. But if we don't learn anything from the film at all, if there's no real consequence, there's no point to your movie. If you haven't made a case for how to fix the problem, and yes I'm aware it's not a film-maker's sole responsibility to fix the issue they present, if you've just "examined it" and "presented it", it's going to fall remarkably flat. I don't know how this director can recover from this backlash now. I don't think she's made child porn, but she's made a name particular for herself, one she may not deserve. If Woody Allen had made this film, he would have been crucified. His intentions may have been identical, however his reputation will forever proceed him (and he's been defended by a lot of female actresses as well).

I don't think the right amount of consideration went into this movie. Which is sad because it's imploring its audience to consider the exploitation of children. While inadvertently exploiting them. I would like to see this but I don't think I could stomach the amount of twerking and crotch shots. I'll be persistently demanding the point of this angle and ask why I'm being beaten over the head with it.

Better Call the Emmys

I've decided while I like Breaking Bad, I love Better Call Saul. I almost passed this by from the bad promo I saw on Stan, which is a solely Australian based streaming service (which I just discovered is owned by Nine and Fairfax which sucks because they're harbingers of misinformation and borderline fake news) but we don't get this bad boy on Netflix. I got another account for the free month to watch this after lending someone else's account and passing it up for a while because I wasn't getting use out of it.

I feel like Better Call Saul had the better dish of characters. Okay, you've got crossover with Gus and Mike, a little Tuco thrown in (which initially felt like fan service when I first watched the pilot but I loved it second time around). But throw in Rhea Seehorn as Kim Wexler , who is so fucking stunning and nuanced, her zigs when you think she'll zag are beautiful. Plus Michael McKean as Jimmy's brother Charles, who's masterfully playing Jimmy's protector and clandestine saboteur by somehow being the most tragic and sinister character on television, you've got a pretty magical recipe for drama with a better helping of good comedy from Odenkirk. Because what fucking universe could you see this character portrayed by anyone but him? Breaking Bad brought the pain with its cast of misaligned good guys. You can't ignore the ground it broke, you can't find another show that really matched the tension and dark comedy.

Saul's just weirdly more entertaining. And it's going into its own dark territory, somehow making certain life or death scenes palpably tense and unbearable even when you know the characters ultimately survive. The stakes are still high. And not all of Jimmy's choices are central to the plot, Gus features more as a buildup to how he established and maintained his grip on the town's drug cartel, fleshing him out was a good choice too, there were so many breadcrumbs left in the original series that made him worthy of inclusion. And getting Mike's backstory brilliantly laid out, we're almost spoiled with amazing moments Breaking Bad couldn't deliver. Gilligan knew he had to deliver with this prequel and he certainly does, but to have it surpass Breaking Bad is remarkable. You may hate the phrase "defies expectation" but shit, least it actually did. I did enjoy El Camino but I haven't watched it again. Going through the motions with Breaking Bad is difficult and I don't do it regularly. I can't remember last time I sat through it, it takes a certain mood to want to go there. (I also haven't ever bothered to rewatch Six Feet Under, I think now I'm less depressed I don't identify with the self-destructiveness of every main character so Brenda and Nate would just shit me to tears, they're fucking hard to root for in the end, both individually and as a couple). 

I haven't rewatched Saul yet and since the last season isn't due until next year, I have plenty of time to reacquaint myself with the story, which is what I'm doing now I've exhausted all my YouTube channels (and I'm also avoiding content again for a while). But I have a pretty firm memory of most of the events, the characters are too memorable for you to really forget their actions. I had theories concerning the fate of Jimmy and Kim that are being blown out of the water and I'm so happy about that. She's not Skyler, I think they've been very careful about not having any analogous characters - Jimmy isn't Walt. Chuck isn't Hank. It's an entirely different show. Sure, selling it on its own without Breaking Bad would be difficult, if not impossible, but conception on this began very early on in Breaking Bad's production, it wasn't cooked up when things were winding down and they were looking for new material for another show. The point is, it holds its own. It has its own flourishes and quirks that differentiate it. The characters are fascinating, the production is just as brilliant. Casting's stupidly on point. My only criticism, which is no fault of the show, is that Odenkirk's starting to look much older than he should by this point in the original timeline, there's only so much you can do about that with makeup and wigs. The black and white forward flash intros compensate with this, we see Jimmy's thinning scalp, rimmed by his Cinnabon visor, before we see his face and thick mustache. I'm dying to know how this all turns out because I know I'm wrong about everything and I certainly want to be. You're better off not even speculating and just going along for the ride. I think the last season I'll anticipate with more excitement than most people had for Game of Thrones. And I don't think it's going to disappoint. They may not have had a conclusion in mind for Breaking Bad but I want to believe there's a set path for Saul even if we know the ultimate conclusion. There are still surprises in store, and I think we'll see it with Kim. I have a theory she's the key to Jimmy's exile to strip-mall lawyer life in a worse way than her just getting sick of his shit, like you're led to believe. I think there's a tragedy in store much bigger than her leaving him. The thrill of the grift has her more entangled than Jimmy. I don't have to expect brilliance, I know we'll get it. I don't think we have a disappointment in store at all.