Tuesday, October 24, 2023

Warner Brothers! STOP!! We Beg You!! PLEASE!!

 

DEEP BLUE SEA 3

2020/R/100 min


Director: John Pogue

Writer: Dirk Blackman

Cast: Tania Raymonde, Nathaniel Buzolic, Emerson Brooks

 

Here is an open request to Warner Brothers: For the love of all that is decent, no more “Deep Blue Sea” sequels. Haven’t fans of the original been abused enough?

Once more, without being asked by anyone except for, maybe, investors, Warner Bros. have dished up a second sequel to the fairly entertaining original film. For those who may be worried, let me assure you that the third film IS better than the insultingly stupid “Deep Blue Sea 2”. Unfortunately, that is akin to saying having your finger crushed is better than having it cut off. In the end, you really don’t want either one.

Welcome to the mostly abandoned island village of Little Happy. It looks like a shanty town built on a floating trash pile, but that is probably due to the low-grade CGI. Who really cares as we only see a small handful of buildings being used by the 6 people still on the island? Oh, right, we have to show how global warming is slowly swallowing the island. Don’t forget that underlying theme of “Mankind is bad” as you will be slapped with it throughout the film, along with a few other progressive messages.

The place is home to a marine biologist, Dr. Emma Collins, and her crew. They are studying the effects of said global warming on marine life. They also host a video blog of their work. So hip and stylish. One character states that a post of Emma making nice with what seems to be a pet great white shark will net at least 5000 likes. Let’s hope their funding doesn’t come from clicks on their vlog.

Shortly after we are shown what an empowered person Emma is (I guess being rude to your employees is a sign of strength now), we meet a ship full of weightlifters – no, sorry, divers, who are tracking 3 bull sharks. The USS Beefcake is headed by Richard Lowell, Emma’s one-time flame who left a bad taste in her mouth after some questionable dealings when her father passed away.

Isn’t this all so wonderfully convenient?

These sharks are super predators due to global warming. At least, that is the initial story, and who is Emma to question any of this when her pet peeve may be the cause. If you saw “Deep Blue Sea 2”, you know what the real deal is, but, if you didn’t, there is a lengthy bout of exposition dumped in your lap later in the film to link all three movies together.

Ignore all of it because if you choose to watch this film, you don’t really care about the plot. You want that sweet shark-eating-people action. You get some of that, after you wade through endless dialogue that is unrealistic and delivered by smarmy and unlikable characters. A bit of red clouds in the water, a touch of entrails, and a severed limb or two. It feels almost like the scenes shark fans tune in for were added to keep folks from demanding refunds from the VOD providers.

I cannot really say anything too rough about the actors given the tedious and unappealing nature of most of the characters they had to play, though I will say that Bren Foster seemed to enjoy playing Lucas as total dick of a human being. Everyone else just hit their marks.

To be fair, I want to give proper credit to the real stars of this film. The underwater photography and the diving crew in this film deserve recognition for the extensive work they put into this utterly lackluster dose of predictability. Unlike the second film in this series, “Deep Blue Sea 3” features some truly beautiful shots of marine life as well as having the characters in the water on a regular basis. The people who did all the underwater work are often overlooked, along with the stunt people. Here, they make the film come together. Without them, this film would have been unwatchable.

There are those out there who cry foul when a movie like this is given a bad review. “What do you expect from a shark movie?” they say. I expect to be entertained as well expect to be given characters that somewhat feel like real people who work through a plot that does not telegraph its every “twist” in a heavy-handed fashion. “Deep Blue Sea 3” fails on every count.

Worth Watching For Jenna Ortega And The Weird Social Commentary

 

SCREAM

2022/R/114 min


Directors: Matt Bettinelli-Olpin     
                 Tyler Gillett

Writers: James Vanderbilt     
             Guy Busick

Cast: Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox, David Arquette

 

I miss the old days.

You went out, saw a movie in the theater, got jazzed up about it, read magazine articles, ranted to your like-minded friends about it, bought the posters/comics/action figures, and that was about it. You had your own little world of happy that you shared with people who had similar little worlds, and all was good in fandom.

Then Al Gore went and invented the damned Internet. (Yes, we know this isn’t true, but it’s nice to have a single person to blame, isn’t it?)

Now we have “toxic fandom”. With constant access to a stream of ever-evolving information, fans of anything that can be lumped into communities across sites that treat their objects of adoration with joy and wonder as well scorn and disdain. From major continuity errors in long-running franchises to problematic pronoun issues in conversations, fans scrutinize and shred every aspect of their chosen obsession.

“Scream”, from 1996, managed to create a film series that was not only self-aware of its own thematic trends, tropes, and clichés from the slasher genre, but it incorporated the viewers themselves and their expectations into the story, in an abstract fashion.

“Scream” pushed its way through 4 films, introducing a new killer in the same costume as the sequels bowed and scraped before the original. With each film, the layer of “wink wink, nudge nudge” between the viewers and the movies grew as did the “rules” for surviving not just any horror movie, but a “Scream” movie specifically, as represented by the “rules” set forth by the fictional film series Stab within the “Scream” films.

If all of that seems like too much baggage to schlep from one film to another, it is understandable. Who was related to whom, what motive caused this death, where does that branch of Scream/Stab lore originate, and so on.

If you gave up on the Scream franchise after the second or third film but have wondered about getting back in groove with your inner Ghostface, then the latest release in the series, simply titled (again) “Scream” (2022), should help if you want to touch base with this franchise again.

The illegitimate daughter of one of the original killers returns to Woodsboro when her younger sister is attacked by a person wearing the Ghostface outfit and mask.

You get a new cast to be used as knife blocks as murder after murder take place while they attempt to sort out the motive and discover the killer. Legacy characters, meaning characters from previous films in the series, return to keep the story grounded and provide some star power. Rules are restated and modified as needed. The Ghostface attacks are fairly brutal and gruesome. Pretty much every major character ends up injured or dead before the final credits scroll by.

“Scream” (2022), however, is not a horror film. Oh, it has the elements: masked killer, flashing knives, mutilated bodies, flowing blood, chase scenes, etc. Yet, if you show up for just those parts, you will find the film to be a bit dull. They are required bits, like a foundation and load-bearing walls in a house. Without those plot points, the rest of the film would be little more than an interesting podcast discussion of little import to anyone except those participating.

Without attempting to ruin the film, let’s just say that the real heart of the film is the endless self-examination of fans, fan reaction, fan anger – a meditation on fandom and how it affects and is affected by the subject of that fandom. Toxic fandom is front and center in the overall discussion the film dances around and through, while the characters provide visual fan service on the screen.

Ultimately, “Scream” (2022) doesn’t exactly make a hard decision on regular and toxic fandom, considering the whole movie uses “toxic fandom” to propel the on-screen actions, adding another twisted layer to what was a dying franchise. In fact, the film validates more points of what most would consider “toxic” as those elements provide the only real suspense in a tale that is, at face value, as unlikely as seeing gas sell for less that a dollar a gallon by the end of 2023.

As stated, “Scream” (2022) is less horror and more social commentary. The film works well as a demented meta-comedy as the endless bits of self-reference pile higher and higher. Not sure how a hardcore fans will view this entry, but casual “Scream” fans who gave up on the series might find something wonderfully philosophical about this film as it analyzes its own fanbase for better or worse.