Saturday coffee: 'Scream,' 'Home Alone' and 'Ghostbusters' return
Why won't Hollywood let my childhood die?
As I settle into what feels like a more sustainable routine with this newsletter, I feel a renewed burst of energy and a desire to write more regularly. It helps that I’ve been able to get ahead of my editorial calendar, but I think the actual act of writing also motivates me to do more writing. Once that muscle starts working, I remember how enjoyable this all is. When it sits, it atrophies.
All that to say, I’m sorry if your email is inundated with posts lately. Hopefully you like what you’ve been reading, and I have a feeling at a certain point there will be a paid component for some of these posts, but we’re still a long way from that. Right now, I want to just thank you for reading; don’t feel you have to read everything, but I appreciate every click, subscription and share.
If you’re enjoying this newsletter, can I ask a favor? Share it with a movie-loving friend of yours. I want to broaden this conversation and bring more people aboard, and would love to welcome new subscribers.
This is a new feature I want to try out called Saturday Coffee. It’s basically quick thoughts on some film-related subjects that I’ve had throughout the week, and it’s designed to be a nice easy read you can have with your coffee and a donut on Saturday morning (but feel free to read it whenever). It probably won’t be a weekly feature, but will hit whenever there’s a week where I’ve had a lot on my mind. So, let’s get into a few things I’ve been thinking about.
Horror on the brain
This newsletter’s been pretty horror heavy lately, but that’s just the time of the year. If scary movies aren’t your thing, I get it, and in November the balance will shift again. But I’ve been thinking a lot about film criticism in recent years, and it struck me recently that aspiring film critics might not want to consider the genre as dismissible as many often do.
I think writing about horror is an ideal way for fledgling critics to hone their craft. One obvious reason for this is that there’s no shortage of scary movies available to write about; due to its popularity and the ability to produce these movies on the cheap, there are always horror films available. But horror is also one of the best genres for understanding some basic concepts behind what makes a film work. When you really consider what makes for an effective scare, you begin to consider the impact of proper cinematography, editing, sound design, lighting and pacing. Many of the things that are subtly used in more mainstream fare are cranked up in horror, providing a great opportunity for those new to dissecting cinema. There’s a reason why so many of the film writers I respect got their start reviewing horror movies online.
Plus, horror’s a great way to find your particular niche as a filmgoer. Not everyone loves the genre, but I think most people have a certain brand of scary movie that works best for them. For instance, I’m not really a ghost story guy and, aside from The Exorcist, movies about possession don’t do much for me. But as my Slasher Series has shown this month, I have a fondness for that subgenre, and I love a good old fashioned monster movie or zombie flick. And I think horror comedy, when tackled well, is a particular delight.
So, when October’s over, don’t automatically knock horror, especially if you’re trying to start writing about film. It’s a great way to gain experience and sharpen your skills.
Scream returns...again
Two trailers hit this week for reboots of movies I grew up loving. And both of them have me wondering “why won’t they just let my childhood die”?
To be fair, I’m curious about what next directions the Scream franchise might take. Seeing Wes Craven’s 1996 slasher-comedy in theaters was a defining moment as a teenager, and I’m fond of Scream 2 as well as parts of the fourth entry. It would seem inadvisable to return to the well after Wes Craven’s death, both because his hand was so essential in crafting all four entries and because audiences didn’t exactly turn out in droves Scream 4. But I know that directors Matt Bettinelli-Opin and Tyler Gillett earned high praise for Ready or Not (which I still need to get around to), and I was hopeful that they might find an intriguing twist for this fifth time around the track.
Maybe that’s still the case and there will be plenty of surprises when Scream (yup, that’s the title) arrives next January. If so, they’re doing a great job hiding it in this trailer, which basically looks like...well, exactly what we’d expect from a fifth Scream movie. Teenagers are dying in Woodsboro and Sidney (Neve Campbell), Dewey (David Arquette) and Gail (Courtney Cox) are called back to solve the mystery...again. There’s a lot of screaming, what appears to be an homage to the first film’s cold open, and intimations that “this time, it’s different.” But really, it all feels very much of a piece with what Scream 4 did.
What’s curious is that the meta aspect of Scream appears to be downplayed, at least in the trailer. There’s no “there are rules for surviving a horror remake” on display here, and the tone is definitely darker than the tongue-in-cheek vibe that the sequels wore. If Bettinelli-Opin and Gillett are making a no-nonsense slasher flick, that might be interesting, but still seems odd to once again go to the “original gang comes back to save the day” well.
For a slasher franchise, Scream has traditionally played it safe. I can’t think of another horror ensemble in which so many of the main characters are still alive five entries in, and if this latest stab (sorry) at the series really wants to surprise me, I think it’s time for one or more of the main three to be dispatched along the way. It’s possible the trailer is playing things close to the vest and that there’s a wildly different take on the film than what’s being sold, and I hope that’s the case. This doesn’t look bad, but it definitely looks way too familiar.
Also, this is the film nerd in me talking, but it just doesn’t feel right for a Scream trailer to open without a Dimension logo.
Why are they still making Home Alone movies?
Every Christmas, I ask myself whether Home Alone is really a good movie or whether it’s just a heavy dose of nostalgia clouding my critical faculties.
I don’t have an answer; maybe we’ll look into it more as Christmas approaches. After decades of annual viewings, though, I don’t know that I can be trusted. But my hunch is that Home Alone is a bad movie elevated by performances that are better than it deserves, a John Williams score that helps paper over the sadism, and production design that enhances the warmth of the Christmas season. I like Home Alone, but I’m also well aware that I saw it first as a 10-year-old boy and at some point it became part of my cinematic DNA.
I have no illusions, however, about any of its sequels. Home Alone 2: Lost in New York is an ugly, brutal and cheap cash grab, and its three (!!) sequels have gone unseen by me but are generally accepted to be varying degrees of wretched. Even so, Disney has decided that no previously existing intellectual property can go unexploited, and next month we’ll have Home Sweet Home Alone dropping like a lump of digital coal on Disney+.
I knew this was coming, and I held out a modicum of hope simply because there are cast members that I really like in this one. I’m a fan of Ellie Kemper and Rob Delaney, and thought them being cast as the bumbling burglars could be fun. Pete Holmes is a funny dude; maybe he’d elevate the role of the put-upon Dad. And maybe Disney would find a way to do something a bit more interesting and fun than rehash the first film.
Nope. This looks like a straight-down-the-middle remake, featuring a wealthy family scrambling to get ready for an overseas holiday trip and leaving their young son (JoJo Rabbit’s Archie Yates) at home to fend off burglars in a house booby-trapped with potentially fatal (but supposedly hilarious) obstacles. The only thing that keeps it from being a remake is the appearance of Devin Ratray as Buzz, the bullying older brother from the first film, who appears to be a police officer now.
I did not crack a smile once during this trailer. Despite its Christmas setting, it lacks the warmth and charm of the original. And while Yates made me laugh in JoJo Rabbit, the glimpses of him here seem to lack that smartass-behind-his-years persona that Macaulay Culkin had. None of the banter between Kemper or Delaney is particularly funny, and there seems to be an attempt to make them sympathetic, which I feel would take some of the glee out of the slapstick.
I know, I know. I’m not the target audience for this. Disney has a streamer they need to provide content for. When they bought 20th Century Fox a few years back, they gained the rights to Home Alone. I imagine holiday content is a big draw for streamers. It all makes financial sense, even if it’s creatively bankrupt.
But here’s the thing I’ve noticed. Disney has a habit of remaking its iconic properties, but my kids don’t really care for them. When they fire up Disney+, they’re much more likely to go for the animated versions of Lion King, Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast instead of the live action remakes. And they already love Home Alone. I’m sure they’ll watch this out of curiosity, but I highly doubt it’s going to replace the original in their estimation. Maybe Disney should have just spent the millions that went toward making this into hyping up the fact that they own the original and it’s just sitting right there at Christmastime.
When is a Ghostbusters movie not a Ghostbusters movie?
Let’s talk about things that are made for me. Ghostbusters: Afterlife will hit theaters in about a month. But word out of screenings that have already occurred confirms my suspicions that this seems to be fan service for people who like the IP rather than people who enjoy the movies as the comedies they are.
That seemed to be the case when the trailer dropped, featuring a tone that was more akin to Stranger Things or an Amblin production than a Ghostbusters movie. There are sweeping shots of corn fields, emotional push-ins, meaningful looks between family members. It all looks very epic, and very sweet.
Which is very much not Ghostbusters.
Before anyone clucks their tongue that I just don’t understand the franchise, here are my bona fides. It’s quite possible I have seen Ghostbusters more than any other movie. A friend showed me it in first grade, and I watched it endlessly. I made my mom take me to Ghostbusters II on opening weekend; yes, I owned the soundtrack featuring Bobby Brown and Run-DMC. I loved The Real Ghostbusters Saturday morning cartoon and had several of the toys, including the firehouse. Not only that, I had a plastic proton pack, ghost trap and slime, and I know there are video tapes that exist of my siblings and I making our own Ghostbusters home movies. One of the greatest moments of my professional life was having the opportunity to talk with Ernie Hudson about the movie a few years back prior to a screening he was hosting in the area; halfway through, I realized that I was talking to a Ghostbuster about Ghostbusters and I felt my inner child say “well done.”
Ghostbusters is a comedy. I find it unfathomable that I have to debate that. It’s not a “ horror-comedy.” It’s not a “supernatural adventure.” It’s a comedy fronted by three comedic actors, directed by one of the titans of 1980s film comedy. Yes, there are elaborate special effects and ghoulish entities; but the joy of the movie comes from the way the characters wink at all of that. Bill Murray’s Peter Venkman is not a hero; he’s a walking smirk, and the movie’s biggest laughs come from the way a man who uses science as a way to pick up girls finds himself in the thick of a potential supernatural takeover.
As Patrick Willems once said, Ghostbusters isn’t really a movie about anything. There are threads of a theme of ‘80s capitalism versus government overreach, but really it’s just a slicker version of the slobs-versus-snobs comedies that made these actors famous. It’s a big special effects movie propped up by quotable dialogue. That’s not a dig, it’s just a reminder that Ghostbusters is a movie that works despite the fact that it absolutely should not. Some special alchemy was at work on that set and in the editing room, and it resulted in a one-of-a-kind studio comedy. And it’s why I’d argue a good sequel has yet to be made (I don’t think the 2016 reboot is bad, but I think it’s too in love with the original to do anything interesting).
From the looks of it, Ghostbusters: Afterlife appears to directly contradict the tone of the original. The trailers seem not to be winking at the supernatural aspects but in awe of them. There are a few half-hearted jokes, but nothing that makes this look to be like an out-and-out comedy. The one comedic scene we’ve seen, of miniature Stay-Puft marshmallow men running amok in a WalMart, seems more in line with Gremlins than Ghostbusters. And the sincere tone seems to be at odds with a franchise that opened with its main protagonist shocking a man for fun so he could impress a girl.
This looks less like anyone saw Ghostbusters and said “let’s recapture that” and more like someone at Columbia Pictures realized they could still sell some ghost traps and proton packs if only they found a way to get this 40-year-old IP in front of kids. And then they realized they had a group of grown men who’d been irrationally angered by the 2016 remake, and what those men loved more than Ghostbusters was the feeling of being a 10 years old. Bill Murray and Dan Aykroyd are getting up in years, which isn’t ideal for relaunching a franchise, but stapling it the tone of Stranger Things might be a great way to attract both kids who like spooky things and adults drunk on nostalgia
And maybe that results in something fun. I realize I’m hypocritical; I’m complaining, but I’m still curious about this. I’d like to believe maybe Jason Reitman can pull this off (although I’d argue that the Jason Reitman who made Thank You for Smoking could have pulled off a film with the wit of the first instead of something that appears this saccharine). Maybe it will be fun and I’ll leave with a smile on my face. But right now, something about making “sad Ghostbusters” just seems to go against the spirit of the enterprise.
The Digest
Where you can find me online this week
We’re Watching Here - The Deer Hunter: Perry and I finished our series on movies of the 1970s with a discussion about Michael Cimino’s The Deer Hunter. Listen to us talk about Vietnam, Russian Roulette, and the fantastic performances of Robert De Niro and Christopher Walken.
‘Amazing Grace’ and the hard work of worship: One of my favorite films of the last few years is Sydney Pollack’s documentary of the recording of Aretha Franklin’s hit gospel album. The film itself has a fantastic making-of story, as technical errors made it seem to be lost forever. But a few years back, it was restored and released and the result is a dynamite concert film and look at the collaborative work of worship. I wrote about it for the Jesus Junkyard.