It Comes at Night: Punishing Horror

 

    It Comes at Night left me with an upsetting feeling left behind by its disquieting atmosphere and punishingly bleak ending. The disquiet was compounded by the execution of the film's narrative as well. This was through a combination of what I believe the intent to be as well as not meeting my own expectations.

    I've been struggling the past few years with worrying about wasting my time. As many of you probably know, there is often a concern over what you should spend your time doing. I've found myself really trying to avoid movies I don't have any interest in or that I don't think I'll enjoy. I'm trying to optimize my time. However, sometimes you do get that standard viewing experience where you are interested in a film and it ends up disappointing you. Such is the case with It Comes at Night. 

    This is not to say that the movie is bad by any means. I'm not comfortable with that statement. In some ways, it's pretty much what I expected. We find a family struggling in the wilderness during a global epidemic which has apparently affected much of the world, though this is mostly just alluded to. That's fine though, as that has been covered in many stories in various mediums. The focus here is on a small group dealing with very basic struggles for survival within such a scenario. I'm pretty sure this has also been covered before but perhaps not in such a deliberately quiet manner.

    I struggle to think of another way to describe this but it seems the plot, characters and general atmosphere is generally understated. That was my main issue with the movie, as I got the film I pretty much expected but with everything dialed down just slightly, including the atmosphere. 

   I watched this right around Halloween and was hoping for some of that arthouse/avant-garde/slightly surreal horror we've typically gotten from groups like A24. Other than hanging on some haunting imagery, such as the inserted dream sequences that are sometimes hard to distinguish from the main narrative, and shots of ambiguous concern in well framed shots, the movie is mostly straightforward in the general situation.  However, it's in the understated forming of the characters where the movie may become most frustrating or intriguing depending on the viewer.

    In a movie like this, where it's really a snapshot of a situation (which I tend to like), this is usually a way to really explore the humanity of the situation through the characters. While I do think the narrative manages to convey a great deal without us learning too much, I believe it could have beneficial with more dialogue or at least a slightly longer runtime to flesh things out. Yet the story is served well by the minimalism, suggesting the character dynamics and inner struggles through the previously stated haunting imagery, actors' body language and the use of the little dialogue there is. 

    As a writer, I've always admired Ernest Hemingway greatly, as I'm sure others do. Though traditional "literary fiction" isn't generally what I've been drawn to read or write, something about Hemingway's minimalist style always spoke to me. In terms of writing style this economical efficiency has always greatly impressed me, being able to express so much with so little. Or at the very least, it allows the reader to add so much of their own experiences into the story while still keeping the main structure of the characters intact.

    I believe some screenwriters and directors use similar techniques, whether through the dialogue or simple visual language. Sometimes the intent versus the audience's input can get blurry when things aren't so clear, but perhaps that's part of the fun of the artistic exchange. It Comes at Night utilizes this approach to convey big ideas of family struggles and interpersonal conflict when survival becomes the key priority. Prioritization of keeping oneself going as well as the lives of loved ones becomes paramount, even when there doesn't seem to be a shred of hope. 

    One must ask what drives these people to continue, when they are essentially cut off from civilization, if there even is any. What happens when bigger ambitions of the human race as a whole disappear and we are stripped down to more primitive, almost pre-tribal ways of being? Then, when two families meet and dare to dwell together, a civilization begins again and inevitably tears itself apart due to a fear of the other and a need to preserve one's own. Mankind seems to become so divided, even when we lean into the better part of our nature. Maybe the paranoia and self-focused need to survive was ultimately correct in this case, as opposed to learning to work in harmony with another group.

    I realize I sort of rambled with that last paragraph but I just wanted convey how many thoughts the movie did awaken in me, even though none of them were really pleasant ones. Much of movie also seems to be about the idea of fatherhood and exploring the resentment children have against their parents. We often don't appreciate our parents early in life, especially when they give us strict boundaries and rules. In the best circumstances, this is done with the child's well-being in mind, but it's hard for a younger person (in this case the adolescent son) to understand this. There is also the exploration of the idea that there is no complete guide to being a parent and parent may in retrospect may not have made the right/best choice. At the very least, even in this rather extreme setting, we hope the parent cares and is trying the best they believe they can do. 

    So, as you can see, there seems to be much we can extrapolate from the narrative, but does the film have any answers? No, not really. At least none that will satisfy the average audience member. I found the film bleak and upsetting and it continued this course until the final punch at the end. There is strong thematic foreshadowing, as the film begins with the stricken grandfather having to be put down brutally by the father (in front of the son). This action, like all the rest, is driven by the desire to protect the family, yet equally building more distrust and resentment from the son. 

    Was it all worth it? Well, not really, according to the whole vibe of the film. Yet, what choice did anyone have? While I found myself disturbed, unsettled, horrified and ultimately greatly saddened by the events of the film, I was struck by another idea. In this scenario, everyone is trying to save the one they love most and it seems is almost forced to make horrible decisions where there are no other choices. Characters are punished for trying to go beyond the animalist need for survive. Compassion and trust in outsiders is a weakness. In the end though, all the worst choices are resorted to and yet it cannot correct that mistake of kindness. The damage is done.

    So, are there such scenarios where we cannot risk ever giving more compassion to the outsider? Perhaps this speaks to some deeply embedded survival instinct we still have and the film may be suggesting could display itself with ugly necessity in such a situation. As much as I hope for a world where everyone can love, agree and get along easily, that is not the current truth. We have a strong tendency to be tribal and we keep are closest emotional circles very small. There is a combative and defensive nature we all have that perhaps serves some purpose but I hope we all can overcome.

    Unfortunately, I think It Comes at Night suggests that when the chips are down, are greatest ideas and conceptions about compassion, community and civilization will not be as important as our animalistic and cold pragmatism for pure survival for its own sake. I will admit that while I hope that is not the case, perhaps there is some truth in it, at least very much in our current time. In this film, there are no heroes and there are no winners. That is the feeling of what comes at night, when there is no light and the ambiguous darkness of what's beyond seems most frightening. That, I will admit, is pretty effective horror.

The Best Superhero Movies in Years? (Superman vs Fantastic Four)

     I've been hearing about superhero fatigue for a long time now. I'll admit that even I, someone who loves superhero comics, have certainly been feeling it. The MCU hasn't really been bringing out as many big hits since Endgame, but most people reading this probably know that. While I don't get to the theater as often as I'd like to in recent years, I did make an exception for two films. As the title suggests, these were indeed James Gunn's Superman and the newest take on The Fantastic Four. Could 2025 be the best year for superhero movies since the 2010s? Yes, I would think so. 

    Obviously, this doesn't necessarily mean I would consider either film to be among the greatest superhero movies ever made or anything, or does it? No, probably not, but I tend to be reflective in most aspects of my life, including movies. The impact and longevity of any piece of art are most evident over time. Ah, but am I saying these films have true artistry? Well, of course, I'm being silly. (I've had a long day, so I apologize for the stream of consciousness format)

    I've given some time to consider these films, let them leave my mind, and then revisit them, because that's how I roll. I like to detach myself from the initial hype, gripes, and buzz to give my most well-rounded opinion, hence why this might seem to be a less optimum time to transcribe this, but here we are. In short, I really liked both movies. I'm tempted to say I loved them or at least aspects of them, but I will resist stating this upon giving both movies an eventual rewatch at some point. If you don't wish to read further, my recommendation is this: If you like either property, they are both probably worth a watch.

    Ah, but what did you really think, Joe? Don't dance around it. Um, well, let's start with Superman, since I saw that one first. 

    For quite some time, I have been hoping for a Superman movie that is bright, colorful, and fun. It seems like we haven't really had one since the Christopher Reeve era. Well, I got what I wanted. I had a feeling, like many people, that James Gunn would be a good choice for director. He created one of my favorite Marvel films, Guardians of the Galaxy, turning a pretty obscure group of characters into some of the medium's most popular and recognizable. It's funny, I used to say how amazing it was to me that Iron Man became an A-list, but back in 2008 I had never even heard of Star-Lord or Groot. I still think it was an amazing feat. Hats off to all on the project. 

    The same thing can be said for Suicide Squad (the Gunn version, of course), which honestly could be my go-to example of a perfect superhero movie. It retained much of the silliness of the source material (the comic aka fun stuff) while still maintaining a serious enough story with solid characters. It got the balance right.

    I don't think Superman pulled this off to the same extent, but I also believe it was trying to handle some heavier material while juggling several other major plot elements. Really, it succeeded, just not in the same way as Suicide Squad or Guardians. Oddly, it might be Gunn's penchant for ensembles or the continuous need to shoehorn in other characters to expand the franchise, but it was funny that in the Superman movie, Mr. Terrific had the coolest moments. I mean, he was terrific, so I'm not complaining. It is still Big Blue's movie for sure, but it was almost distracting. Almost. Nathan Fillion as Guy Gardner, what's not to like there?

    Superman himself was great, bringing with him some of the themes of the Snyderverse but at his most wholesome and Golden Agey self.  I found it refreshing in that this film, more than any other, really leans into the quintessential salt-of-the-earth nature of Clark Kent. It reminded me of the Jeph Loeb/Tim Sale story, Superman for All Seasons, harkening back to these classic roots of the man who grew up on a midwestern farm with a simple and honest view of things. I found the charm worked, not feeling too nostalgic, and functioned as a great anthesis to the high-tech corporate cynicism of Luthor's company. 

    That was also something new the movie brought to the table, Lex Luthor's hate and mistrust isn't enough. He has a whole company of people united in taking down Superman. You kind of respect it. They aren't really evil, just doing what they think is right in a situation they don't fully understand. On the surface, it seemed simple, but it's actually rather nuanced and realistic. It also presents Luthor as charismatic enough to lead people without fear, something I don't think I've seen before. Fundamentally, though, he is still classic Luthor. 

    It was a really good viewing experience, with the runtime not on my mind at all. I think the twist of sorts with Kal El's parents might rub some people the wrong way. I can certainly understand it if it does, but the core of the character has always been his human parents anyway, so I don't see any irreparable damage. Even so, it probably wasn't necessary, but at least it was bold and fit with the theme of the narrative. I would watch it again!

    Oh man, Stan Lee's first superhero team has not had a great movie run. I can't really say that I've ever been a big fan of these characters inside or outside of the comics, but I've always appreciated them. So I guess that's why I have been hoping (ever since they were acquired from Fox) that this team would reignite the spark of the MCU, which has been waning since the departure of Downey Jr.'s Iron Man. While I can safely say my hope hasn't been fully restored in the MCU, I found this movie, much like Superman, to be very, very refreshing.

    What do I mean by that? Honestly, it's all about style with this one. It went all retrofuturist classic sci-fi and I was here for it. I loved the whole 1960s newsreel origin aspect. The whole way the world-building and exposition were often delivered just really worked for me. That's not all, though. You know how I said it was all about style? Well, okay, maybe it's not all about style. It's also about my other favorite thing, characters.

    The key aspect of what has made this group endure (well, besides Dr. Doom and few other characters I'll mention later) is the family dynamic. Despite being superheroes, the element that sets this family apart is, naturally, the family dynamic itself. This movie really leaned into it, making it the main focus. Now, is it odd that in a superhero movie there isn't a ton of superheroing going on? Is this an issue? Hmm. Maybe, but since it was done pretty darn well, and it actually breaks the tired formula that's been established over the last two decades, so I didn't really mind at all. 

    That's not to say there is no adventure or super science. There certainly is, but that stuff is mostly there to elevate the meaty character elements. This cast had great chemistry and really brought it all to life. 

    What about Galactus? 

    It's pretty tough to top how well they handled Thanos (another character I didn't much care about before the MCU), but the filmmakers did a commendable job. While he might not seem quite as all-encompassing and epic a threat as he may have otherwise, by sticking to the classic era the movie is rooted in, he fits pretty darn well. Personally, I wanted more Silver Surfer, but she also sufficed.

    So there you have it. Superman is better than he's been in years on the big screen and Fantastic Four is...well, good. That's pretty amazing from my perspective. While neither movie is perfect, and I'm sure some people gripe about one thing or another, I think you'd have to be looking pretty hard to twist either movie as "bad". Personally, I'm tired of all the negativity. Both these movies had heart-warming elements and added something new to the table. That seems like as good goal for a film as any other.

    On that note, as we were walking out of Superman, my wife and I heard a young person exclaim, "That's the best movie I've seen in my life." I'm pretty sure this young person was a teen, probably no older than fifteen or so. While I can't say I had that experience, it was truly wonderful that is film had such a positive impact. I'm fine with it being someone's favorite movie. I think that's pretty cool. 

I Watched All the Shrek Movies or The Surprising Beauty of Puss in Boots

 

What makes a movie endure? That's a really good question to start an article and yet I'm not sure I have an answer. It was question that came up as Amanda and I decided to go through all the Shrek movies. There was no particular reason for this, just a whim. While I sometimes have a desire to rewatch an old film I'm very familiar with or one I have missed that I've finally felt like getting around to, the Shrek films don't really fall into either category. 

That's not to say that I have any animosity towards the franchise, in fact I really liked the first two films growing up. I've been told recently that I throw the term "favorites" around too much, especially when it comes to movies. I guess there must be hundreds of films that I might have called that at one time or another, but that doesn't always mean they rank highly in some essential list for any great length of time.

My point is that while I may have probably considered the first Shrek films among my favorites for some brief time in preteen/early teen years (as I know my sister and I rewatched them frequently for a bit), they never made it onto any list currently or retroactively. So, no, I guess they were never REALLY among my favorites per say, but I enjoyed them and I wouldn't dispute the classic nature of the tale combined with the weird time capsule and memeability (is that a term?) the franchise has sparked with many people.

However, since I've never been a huge Shrek fan, I never watched anything past the second film. It was just one of the instances where interest waned between the second and third and I never had a desire to watch the remaining sequels. It's possibly I grew out of it, although I think it was a just simple matter of kind of forgetting about it and then (right around my high school years) I started to consider myself a "serious" film connoisseur and critic. Maybe my inclination towards believing more sequels generally equated to a downward trend in quality. Or may I just felt to mature for it. In any case, I don't think there was a conscious reason, Shrek just wasn't something I connected with enough to keep up with.

Amanda enjoys occasionally watching kids films. I feel like she suggests than more regularly than I do. So this prompted us to borrow the Shrek films from the local library. After watching all the films, something kind of unexpected happened that I honestly would have never guessed. My opinion on these films radically shifted, partially due to the simple input of new information. 

As is often the case when we get behind on what's current, my new perspective may or may not provide new revelations to Shrek fans far more diehard than I.  In fact, I find this franchise just one of many examples that I find interesting in regards to such an adoring fanbase. It's not necessarily that I can't see some appeal, I just never would have thought this franchise would result in yearly festivals. 

Having seen all the films at this point, I can still appreciate the fandom being what it is, even though it's not one of those things that resonates at the same frequency. Then again, I guess you could say that about any fandom you aren't are part of (perhaps with a few exceptions, like if you really don't GET something at all). I think I'm starting to stall, so here are my thoughts briefly on each film:

Shrek (2001)- This is of course the classic I grew up with. I can still appreciate how it's a clever jab at fairy tales and Disney's corporate nature in particular. All the while it does have a good message for kids with some spicy yet subtle adult humor in there. It's hard to deny how truly unique a film it is, which is a big part of what helps it endure, even if I don't love it as much as I did as a young viewer.

Shrek 2 (2004)- For about twenty years, this was where my knowledge of the franchise basically ended. I remembered for the longest time thinking this was the superior movie, with a good continuation of the themes of the story. I was surprised how many movie references of the time where thrown in. These stood out much more prominently and I may potentially damage the timelessness even more so than the pop songs.

Shrek 3 (2007)- Entering new territory, this was definitely the funniest of the movies for me. There were some very strong visual gags and some darker/slightly more sophisticated humor that I think the adult viewer would appreciate more. I was surprised to see how much they managed to push boundaries while still remaining fairly accessible to younger audiences. This movie was very much a direct sequel to the previous movie, following up Prince Charming's story as a villain in a natural way while actually providing some layers that make his perspective the sympathetic of franchise villains.

Shrek 4 (2010)- This one is kind of a mixed bag for me, as I loved the scale and scope of the concept (alternate reality a la It's A Wonderful Life). However, I must admit that this sort of scenario has been done before and does retread extensions of the same message we've been hearing since the first movie. Personally, I still think it stands out as unique, with perhaps the movie evil villain and the darkest tone. Yet, my biggest issue isn't really any of the formula, just that I feel we could have gone deeper into Shrek's internal plight or at least created a grander scale of events that the movie seems to suggest it wants to build on. Ultimately,  the movie kind of peters out rather than going out with a strong conclusive note. It's flawed, and certainly not as balanced, but I still liked it overall.

Now we come to what this article is really about. The secret of this series is not in the Shrek films themselves (at least for me). No, the biggest delight is in the spinoff, the Puss and Boots movies.

I'll admit to always liking the character in Shrek 2. I like cats. I like Antonio Banderas. I like swashbuckling adventures and fantasy in general. Someone must have really noticed the potential and ran with it. 

While the feline's first outing is pretty good, acting as sort of an origin story to the character, it's in the sequel that he really shines. Honestly, what surprised the most about these two movies is just how fundamentally different they are from the main movies.

Perhaps one reason I wasn't drawn from them was due to expecting more of the same satire but without the titular ogre. I had heard in passing the first movie was good, but with no ringing endorsements that I should rush out and watch it. No, it slipped under my radar as many good movies do. It's a shame because (and I'm not sure if this is a hot take or not) I think I enjoy these movies more than the Shrek films. 

This might be just do to the initial surprise they were actually pretty good movies, but that the tone was just not what I was expecting. Unlike the satire of Shrek, while there is some humor, these are much more straightforward, serious and fun adventure/fantasy stories. They took advantage of the melded fairy tale setting with an expanded world with set pieces. I particularly loved the ascent to the clouds to find the golden eggs. 

While the first movie is good, with the exception of an aspect of the ending that doesn't make much sense (even within the logic of the film), the second film truly blew me away.

I'm sure most people reading this probably know already, but in case you haven't seen it, just go for it. If you like fantasy or just good quality movies, I highly recommend it. While it benefits from the previous movie, you don't really need to see it or the main series to appreciate the story. The animation was wonderful, the humor was great and the themes were very poignant and complex. It may in fact be one of my favorite movies now. Time will tell.

So basically, the Shrek franchise didn't go as downhill as I feel I was led to believe over the years. Nice.