Last of the Monster Kids

Last of the Monster Kids
"LAST OF THE MONSTER KIDS" - Available Now on the Amazon Kindle Marketplace!

Sunday, December 15, 2024

Director Report Card: Alexandre Aja (2024)



Somehow, it has been more than twenty years since the term “The Splat Pack” was coined. It referred to a loosely connected group of filmmakers making gory horror movies around the turn of the millennium. The likes of James Wan and James Gunn have become immensely successful, both within the genre and outside. Others, like Eli Roth and Rob Zombie, still put out a new movie every once in a while. Most of them never quite broke through with the mainstream and have largely stuck to the indie scene, like Neil Marshall and Greg McLean. Alexandre Aja, being European, has always been slightly apart from the others. He has obviously done very well for himself, with "Crawl" being his last big hit, even if his later work has perhaps not lived up to the promise of "Haute Tension" and "The Hills Have Eyes." A lot of his work continues to slip through the cracks though Aja came back this year with “Never Let Go,” which was mostly lost in the constant shuffle of new movies coming and going from theaters. I'm the thorough type so it's time to see if this one is a hidden gem or rightfully overlooked. 

Deep in the forest, young brothers Samuel and Nolan live with their mother. Their entire lives, Momma has told them that the world was destroyed by a great Evil. That this force worms its way into your body and possesses you with a single touch. The family, and their dog, live in a cabin made of blessed wood. The only way they can protect themselves when outside the cabin is by holding onto a rope that connects them to the house. As their food supplies run out and their mother announced they'll have to eat the family dog to survive, Nolan becomes increasingly skeptical about the existence of the Evil. Sam remains a true believer, however. The brothers' disagreement over the beliefs they grew up with will only grow more intense as their situation gets increasingly desperate. 

The world of fiction has presented us with a thousand different takes on the premise of people forced to survive in a post-apocalyptic world. Too often, the genre is worn down to survivalist fantasies about being free to run amok in a world without society's rules or getting to rebuild a "better" world than the one that exists now. "Never Let Go," at the very least, defies either of these trite set-ups. Instead, this is a film very clearly about how surviving in the world after the fall of polite society would definitely suck. The family survives on a meager garden. When a rough winter renders that useless, they turn to eating bugs and tree bark. When mom threatens to kill and cook their dog, she is planning to cannibalize only the fourth other living thing these boys have other known. The actors look emaciated and sunken eyed, a good depiction of individuals on the brink of starvation. "Never Let Go" is not a doomsday prepper's wish fulfilment fantasy. This is a harsh existence for these characters and not one to envy. 

As we've seen a thousand stories about surviving after the end of the world, that means we've seen a thousand different ways to end the world. "Never Let Go" does manage to find a somewhat novel approach to this idea as well. Zombies, disease, environmental or economic collapse, nuclear war or alien invasions are all avoided. Instead, the outside threat that has seemingly ended society as we know it is supernatural. The nature of this Evil is kept vague throughout. It can manifest hallucinations of dead loved ones and strangers in order to belittle or tempt the survivors. (It reminds me a lot of the First Evil from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," though slightly more offensive.) This brings a clear religious connotation to mind, of demonic forces luring the righteous off the blessed path, though this idea also isn't expanded on too much. It's something different, I'll say. "Contagion-like demonic force" is a new one I can add to my list of possible ways the world can end.

The real reason why "Never Let Go" doesn't expand more on the origins of its demonic force is simple: That movie isn't truly about that. Instead, the film represents Alexandre Aja trying his hand at another well-worn, if less popular these days, style: The Southern Gothic story. It is never specified where this story takes place. Judging from the accent Halle Berry adapts at Momma, we can assume it's somewhere in the American South. The thick trees of the surrounding forest, with its willowy branches and entangling vines, suggests rural Alabama or the less swampy parts of Louisiana. (The movie, of course, like so many low budget genre films, was shot in Canada.) Wherever the story takes place, the isolation the characters live with clearly connect it to the Southern Gothic tradition. The sins of the past, regrets, familial anxiety, religious fanaticism, all out in a dilapidated country home besieged by outside forces and colored by distinct accents: Yes, we are for sure in Tennessee Williams country here. 

Whether "Never Let Go" is a good example of a Southern Gothic story is much more debatable. It makes good use of its desolate, isolated setting. However, the more blatant attempts to capture a particularly "Southern" feel comes off as a bit campy. The modern horror cliché of an old song, played on a rickety viola, eventually being subverted for creepy ambiance is used. The song this time is "Big Rock Candy Mountain," another choice that feels more goofy than scary to me while also overemphasizing the deep south setting. The film is structured like a novel, with on-screen chapter breaks, which gives the impression that this is an adaptation of regional novel. It's not. Kevin Coughlin and Ryan Grassby wrote the script on-spec, under the title "Mother Land." Mostly, the accents the actor adopt – Halle Berry especially – feel very put-on and cartoonish to me. In other words, this does not feel like a story influenced by actually living in the American South but more movies and books set in that region. 

Despite some flaws, "Never Let Go" does do some things well. Like the best science fiction or horror stories, it roots its fantastical premise in an emotion all of us can understand. Nolan and Samuel are growing up. Nolan is at the age where he's beginning to question whether his mother truly does know everything about the world. He's testing boundaries, developing an independent mind, and setting out on his own. Which is made especially dangerous thanks to the very specific circumstances he lives in. Forced to hold onto a rope that always connects you back to your mother, and the womb-like home you share, is some not so subtle umbilical cord symbolism. When Nolan cuts the rope, he frees himself but also terrified a mother that believes she must cling to her babies to protect them. It's not a bad metaphor for trying to break free of a smothering parent, and make your own life. 

The boys' mother is, from any perspective, abusive. She makes her sons prayer to the house and its holy wood every night. She often tossed them into an underground cellar and forces them to stay there, until they've pushed any influence the Evil might have on their minds out. Despite these extreme methods, the simple fact remains that the boys still love their mother. Samuel, on the other hand, begins to hear the Evil whispering in his ear too. Divorced of its fantastical content, this is the story of a mentally ill parent that has passed her condition onto one child, while the other struggles to correlate how someone he loves, who genuinely loves him, has treated him so badly. Its climax is one of acceptance and love, in spite of these flaws. In a genre landscape where "elevated" horror films foreground their metaphors to the point of practically excluding the scary stuff, "Never Let Go" must be commended for being the slightest bit subtle about this. 

Unlike a lot of the would-be Jordan Peeles or Robert Eggers out there, Alexandre Aja is definitely not afraid of making a horror movie. In some ways, "Never Let Go" harkens back to the kind of films the director got his start with: Gory throwbacks to seventies and eighties horror. The film's cabin setting, story of demonic possession, and central role for a trap door brings a clear influence to mind. This is Aja paying homage to "The Evil Dead." When the rotting, bile spewing spectre of the boy's grandmother appears and begins to bleat like a goat, you definitely feel the Raimi influence. Sometimes, this works well too. The finale features some stylized camera angles and brutally edited attack scenes, recalling Aja's best work. A scene where a little girl becomes a contorting, multi-limbed human centipede is, ya know, a clever visual. There's some good spurting blood too. Unfortunately, "Never Let Go" does not maintain those frantic thrills throughout. In fact, quite a lot of scenes involving screeching, twitching undead visions strike me as more silly than scary. Sometimes a horror director makes a swing and it ends up on the wrong end of the absurd/unsettling chasm. 

The moment Nolan begins to doubt his mother's version of events, "Never Let Go" presents a clear question to the audience: Was the Earth genuinely brought to its knees by a malevolent, supernatural force or is Momma simply insane, imagining it all and wrapping her sons up in her delusions? That nearly the entire movie is set within the cabin and the surrounding wood certainly leaves things open to interpretation, as we never see the rest of the world. Narrative structures like this can be tricky. On one hand, if you can weave ambiguity like this into the themes of your story, it can make for a very rich experience. Alternatively, if you fumble it, the result is a script that tries way too hard to deceive and mislead the viewer to almost always underwhelming results. There's one moment in "Never Let Go" that keeps the audience guessing in the best way. The boys are alone at the house and a hiker approaches them, asking if they need help. Nolan wants to accept the man's offer and get out of there. Sam is convinced he's a manifestation of the Evil, pointing a crossbow at him. This is a genuinely tense moment, the viewer uncertain which of the brothers is right, either decision having dire consequences.

A better film could have kept that question lingering in the air longer, leaving us increasingly unsure of what is actually happening in such ways as to up the suspense. Instead, the script spoils its own ambiguity by showing us what is actually happening here. In the ever-more frustrating last third, the script then repeatedly backtracks on what exactly the truth is. "Never Let Go" wants its cake and to eat it too. Or, rather, wants to add some psychological complexity to its setting while still providing the monster movie thrills the audience wants. The film continues this flip-flopping right up to the final second, making me roll my eyes hard right before the credits roll. Put some convictions behind your premise and respect the audience's intelligence rather than tying your own story in knots to prove how clever you are. 

Tempting as it is to dismiss "Never Let Go" as another disappointing half-assed measure from a once promising director, I do think Alexandre Aja and his team were working very hard to make a good movie here. Aja's regular cinematographer, Maxime Alexandre, does handsome work. He makes the forest look properly foreboding. Fog and the extremely green foliage adds a lot of depth to each frame, presenting the idea that anything could be out there nicely. French electric artist rob also collaborates with Aja again, creating a decent score that knows when to ramp up the ominous strings and doesn't lean too hard on the increasingly worn-out synthwave sound. The cast does decent work. Despite that wavering, unsure accent, I do think Halle Berry adds some complexity to the role of the mother, showing her fear and uncertainty but also a warmth and love. Percy Daggs IV and Anthony B. Jenkins, as Nolan and Samuel, give sturdy performance. Daggs does especially well, more-or-less carrying the movie on his own in the second half, allowing the boy to come off as both brave and frightened. Jenkins doesn't get to express quite as much depth but he, at least, avoids the obnoxious clichés of the creepy kid subgenre. There's also a neat looking monster in the finale, which appears to have been made entirely through practical make-up. 

This makes a certain conclusion unavoidable: "Never Let Go" is most let down by its script and its willingness to find one version of the truth and stick with it. Aja probably could've made the movie scarier and a number of other aesthetic choices might have been improved but, with a stronger script, other flaws would have been more easily overlooked. Still, this is a better movie than the similarly divided "Horns" and "The 9th Life of Louis Drax," while also probably proving more memorable than "Oxygen" was. I don't know if Aja will ever make pulp as gloriously messed-up and beautifully engineered as his best movies but he's clearly still has some fight in him. If only he could select better screenplays to work on... "Never Let Go" is well done in many respects and has intriguing ideas but its unwillingness to be genuinely ambiguous, instead of keeping back and forth between different conclusions, keeps it from being a lot stronger. [Grade: B-]

Thursday, December 12, 2024

Series Report Card: Disney Animated Features (2024)



The Disney Corporation's quest for absolute cultural dominance has been on-going for a long time now. When I was a kid, the studio sought to extend the awareness and popularity of their hit films through spin-offs on other platforms. This took the form of mountains of merchandise, direct-to-video sequels of mostly unremarkable quality but also television shows. "The Little Mermaid: The Series," "Aladdin," "Hercules" and a few others are recalled with some degree of fondness. Getting to see the characters you loved in the movies every week on TV is, admittedly, a fun idea. Even if these shows never quite lived up to the source material. That kind of continuation has mostly fallen out of favor lately, as Disney has shifted focus to big-budget, theatrically released sequels and remakes... At least until they launched their own streaming services a few years back, eager to attract subscribers with programs set in their beloved Marvel, "Star Wars," and animated universes. 

That was the form a follow-up to "Moana" was initially planned to take. The original film's storyboard artist, David Derrick Jr., would direct "Moana: The Series" with most of the cast from the movie coming back. Notably absent was songwriter Lin Manual-Miranda, replaced with a duo whose previous successes include an unofficial "Bridgerton" musical, a gag musical for Taco Bell, and popular TikTok videos. Not to devalue the talent of any of the above artisans, nor certainly the animators and designers who would work on the series, but it seemed like the kind of step-down in talent you would expect from a straight-to-streaming spin-off. That "Moana: The Series" managed to secure the involvement of Dwayne Johnson – also starring in the inexplicable live action remake of "Moana," entering development at the exact same time – was honestly surprising and, perhaps, a reflection of his own dwindling box office cred. But if a TV continuation didn't quite live up to the movie it spawned from, that would not be a massive shock, right? Film and TV are different mediums with different expectations. 

Maybe the Disney producers don't realize that though. Back in February, it was announced that the already well underway "Moana: The Series" would instead be coming to theaters as "Moana 2," the streaming series shifting into a movie. CEO Bob Iger explained that this decision was made after execs were supposedly impressed with the footage they had seen for the show. That Disney has had several high-profile flops recently, like "The Marvels" and "Wish," surely had nothing to do with this seemingly last minute decision to rush a sequel to a previous success into theaters. Jason Hand and Dana Ledoux Miller would join the directing team, presumably to further along this change in direction. Only ten months after the announcement of its existence, "Moana 2" is in theaters and viewers everywhere can judge whether it measures up to the original or if its origins as a TV show are all-too-evident. 

A few years after leaving her island home Motunui, meeting the demi-god Maui, and restoring balance to the ocean, young adventurer Moana has turned her attention towards another goal: Exploring near-by island systems in hopes of discovering other cultures and communities, out of a fear that her village is too isolated. When she finds a relic on such an island, it's proof to her that such a quest isn't fruitless. This is when Moana receives a vision from an ancestor. Centuries ago, storm god Nalo separated the different cultures by sinking the island Motufetu to the bottom of the sea. Moana assembles a team – mechanic Loto, artist Moni, and farmer Keke – as she sets out on this perilous new journey to Motufetu and raise it back to the surface, opening the cultures back up to each other. Along the way, she will encounter Maui again plus new faces that seek to help and hinder her.

Many of the Disney Animated Features have become generational classics because they tell fundamentally simple stories. This is why the company has so often returned to fairy tales, mythology, and classic literature for source material. The ideas communicated in these tales are universal and will resonate with anyone, despite contexts as far flung as medieval China or African pridelands. Simplicity, however, does not always lend itself to the kind of long-form storytelling and world-building that entertainment conglomerates like Disney are now obsessed with. The sequels that Disney is increasingly focused on these days – as well as films like "Wish," which attempt to establish some sort of shared universe between the classic films – have all suffered from the same problem: This feeling of desperation to build an expansive lore, not dissimilar to what "Star Wars" or Marvel already has, around characters meant to carry much more universal themes. Thus, Wreck-It Ralph is now connected to the entire internet, Elsa is now part of an elemental quartet of magical deities, and the wishing star from "Pinocchio" is at the center of a tapestry of connected back stories.

Being set in the world of Polynesian and Māori mythology, “Moana 2” ostensibly has a rich source of characters and stories to pull from. Which it sort of does. A period of time in Polynesian history known as the Long Pause, wherein no seafaring discoveries took place for two centuries, inspired the premise. The antagonistic storm god Nalo and his sidekick, flying fox goddess Matangi, are loosely inspired by figures from actual myths. However, the other concepts in the sequel appear to be the invention of Disney writers. And they are underwhelming. Far too much of “Moana 2's” plot hinges on magical visions with the spirits of ancestors, glowing vortexes that take our heroes to other dimensions, and magical plot devices with loosely defined rules. Coming shortly after “Wish's” plot full of similarly fantasy novel nonsense like this, it's hard to avoid the suspicion that Disney is using A.I. writing programs. Your story being a mishmash of plagiarized bullshit randomly spit out by a robot is not a feeling you want your big budget sequel to have. 

“Moana 2's” underwhelming story may be a result of it being originally intended as a streaming series. There are other signs that a story meant to be much longer was cut down to 100 minutes. Namely, the primary villain of Nola never actually appears on-screen throughout the film proper, existing only as an angry face within a giant storm. This leaves the sequel entirely without a proper antagonist, making the plot feel increasingly shapeless as it goes on. Other elements of the god's scheme, such as the reason he resents humanity so much, are never elaborated on. The climax depends on a sloppy deus ex machina, with many story elements being explained through bloated expositionary dialogue. A Marvel-style, mid-credit teaser – something else we'd expect to see leading into a second season – does more to expand on the villains than anything in the actual movie. It feels like connecting scenes and episodes, that would've filled out a streaming season, got left on the cutting room floor.

Another sign that “Moana 2” hastily cut together a set of scripts intended for serialized television into a feature film is the lack of development for tis new characters. Moana gets a whole host of sidekicks for this journey. She has a little sister, which stays back on the island. Moni is an enthusiastic Maui fanboy – leading to the first utterance of the word “fanfic” in a Disney cartoon – that mostly exists to provide comic relief. This is the same purpose Keke, the grumpy old farmer, brings. These are characters defined by single gimmicks and lacking actual personalities. Loto, the tomboy engineer that builds the raft, has more potential but there simply aren't enough scenes to truly expand on her. When the film already has enough characters, it introduces a speedy coconut friend. Matangi is introduced with a big musical number that contributes very little to the story, also not given any definition beyond her affinity for bats. A series would have provided a lot more screen time to develop this raft full of new characters, which a movie simply lacks.

That “Moana 2” loads its story down with so many new companions for its heroine is frustrating, as the first movie had entirely too many of those already. Any fans of Pua the pig or Heihei the chicken or little tattoo Maui or the anthromorphized ocean itself will be disappointed. All of them are reduced to a handful of scenes. Maui himself, despite the Rock's prominent placement in all the advertising, is only in about half the film. Part of what made the first movie work was watching the young heroine bounce off all these other characters. The chemistry between her and Maui, the vainglorious hero who learned a valuable lesson from his time with the girl, especially drove the first film. Maui is here to provide the muscle during the climatic action scenes, which inexplicably involve cutting lightning bolts in half. Having difficult finding anything else for him to do, the film throws in a pep talk between the demigod and the adventurer, a sweaty attempt to justify why this guy is in the story at all. When paired with repeating center jokes from the first movie and call-backs to previous events – such as those cocoanut guys showing up again - “Moana 2” increasingly feels like a sequel designed mostly to remind the viewer of what they liked about the first one.

Where does that leave Moana herself? Disney Princesses and pseudo-princesses like Moana – which is joked about here – are defined by a simple to understand purpose, usually laid out in their “I Want” Song. Moana got what she want in the first film, exploring past the reef and defining herself. In the sequel, she's given the goal of wanting to reach out to other cultures, while also juggling the responsibility of having far more to lose this time. That is the intended purpose of the little sister. (Aside from a new little girl Disney can sell baby dolls of, of course.) This weight of responsibility is never truly felt. With so many new characters to introduce and old elements to revisit, Moana's arc feels rushed through and half-finished. She is pushed around by the plot, not a protagonist that directs it.

While I've heard many reports that the animation in the sequel is a visible stepdown from the original, another consequence of being a Disney+ upgrade, I don't think “Moana 2” looks all that bad. The film does presents some decently engineered action sequences. A confrontation set inside an enormous clam, something that actually does have a basis in Oceania folklore, is one of sequel's highlights. While the finale is far too heavy on twirling storms and flashing lights, a chase involving the raft and a sail is well done. While “Moana 2” does a decent job on the spectacle side of things, it's seriously lacking in the chuckles. The sequel has a disappointing reliance on gross-out gags, attempting to draw laughs from characters being covered in slime, sneezed on, or even a fart joke. Such desperate comedy stylings does little to dissuade the notion that “Moana 2” exists more as an extensions of Disney's brand name than as a story that actually needs to be told.

You could have criticized the first “Moana” for being overly reliant on the Disney fairy tale formula. However, at least those songs were incredibly catchy and memorable. I have my own problems with Lin-Manuel Miranda's Broadway stylings, not yet having discovered what so many other people see in “Hamilton.” However, Miranda knows how to write an unforgettable hook and remembers that songs in a musical most always flesh out the characters or move the story forward. The new team of Abigail Barlow and Emily Bear do not give me the same impression. “Beyond” is the new ballad for Moana and it's okay. “Can I Get a Chee Hoo?” is Maui's new number, a clear attempt to repeat the success of “You're Welcome,” that never captures the same energy or catchy rhythm. “What Could be Better Than This?,” which helps establish Moana's new friends, has a similar stop-and-start fashion to it that keeps a clear melody from forming. “Get Lost,” Matangi's introductory song, is trying hard to be a break-out pop hit but is similarly forgettable. The sequel simply can't form many emotional melodies or a memorable lyrics, the songs mostly falling flat.

This is the sad case with much of “Moana 2.” The circumstances of its production, being a rush job conversion of a straight-to-streaming mini-series to a full-blown movie, are difficult to overlook. It lacks the songs, the jokes, and the memorable characters that made the first one good. While there's some decently executed animation or one or two clever idea, the sequel simply never comes to life in its own right. The unfortunate feeling, that Disney's animated features exist more to raise stock numbers and sell toys and theme park memberships, is getting increasingly difficult to dismiss. “Moana 2” has cleaned up at the box office, meaning Disney shareholders and executives got exactly what they wanted. I imagine that superfluous live action remake, which has even less of a reason to exist than this sequel, will pull in the dollars too. Will anyone remember them in a decade? Will their songs become standards sung by kids across the generations? It's hard to say but, in the case of “Moana 2,” I seriously doubt it. [Grade: C]