[Review] - Clerks III (2022)

Despite his many attempts to break into the mainstream, writer and director Kevin Smith has always worked best when he keeps his films small and personal. Maybe that’s why it pains me so much to say that ‘Clerks III’ is an astounding mess of a film. What should be his most personal film to date is actually a muddled mess of ideas that never fully pay off.

Thirteen years after the events of ‘Clerks II’, we find our listless slacker heroes, Dante (Brian O’Halloran) and Randal (Jeff Anderson), still working the counter at the Quick Stop convenience store. They’re older, greyer and more wrinkled, but the store itself looks like it’s been preserved in a time capsule straight out of 1994. The conversations, too, remain the same as the boys continue aimlessly dissecting pop-culture over the counter. After a casual bout of verbal sparring with Elias (Trevor Fehrmann), Randal collapses, suffering a near fatal heart attack mirroring Kevin Smith’s real life tragic near death experience from a few years back.

Having survived the operating table, Randal comes to a grim realization of just how little he has done with his life and begins to fret about whether he even had a life worth saving. He laments that all he has done with his life is sit around and watch movies. Dante casually remarks that he always thought that Randal could make a good movie. This sets off a light bulb in Randal’s head and becomes the impetus for him to make his very own movie recounting his life story working at the Quick Stop.

‘Clerks III’ spends most of its time having Dante and Randal remake ‘Clerks’ within the film. This is not necessarily new ground for Kevin Smith. This premise alone instantly recalls his ill-fated box office disappointment ‘Zack and Miri Make a Porno.’ Which itself was a riff on the excellent making-of ‘Clerks’ documentary, ‘The Snowball Effect.’ 

Much like ‘T2 Trainspotting’ from a few years back, ‘Clerks III’ relies heavily on playing into nostalgia. It is a film that is very much concerned with reliving Smith’s former glory days. Whereas ‘T2 Trainspotting’ had a certain bittersweet lament as it examined its own heavy sense of nostalgia through a critical lens. ‘Clerks III’ plays its nostalgia mostly for warmth and fondness. That would have been fine had the movie been funny, which, sadly, it isn’t.

Most of the second act is spent watching Dante and Randal as they go about making their own version of ‘Clerks’. These scenes go on for far too long and feel like constant reminders that the audience should be watching the actual ‘Clerks’ instead. It was cute at first to revisit the now aged faces that made up the small cast of the original movie, but it all wears thin very quickly as it never provides any greater insight.

It also further highlights one of the many problems with ‘Clerks III’ as nothing in this film seems to go anywhere. Dante’s old flame, Veronica (Marilyn Ghigliotti), shows up for a scene that could have hit the cutting room floor and wouldn't have been missed. As for Dante’s wife, Becky (Rosario Dawson), it seems that Smith went to the school of 'Alien 3' as it is revealed in the opening act that she died in a car crash straight after the events of ‘Clerks II.’ 

This becomes the thrust of Dante’s dilemma, as he struggles to deal with the untimely loss of both his wife and unborn child. Dawson does show up briefly in ghostly form, allowing for Dante and Becky to share a couple of what should be touching scenes on paper. Sadly, O’Halloran’s lack of range lets these scenes down as they border on being unintentionally comedic.

‘Clerks III’ struggles to find a good balance between sentiment and unfiltered blue comedy. Considering where this film goes in its final act, I should have been sobbing like a baby given the fate of Dante. Sure, it's a bold choice but it's completely unearned. Worse still, it all felt emotionally manipulative. The film struggles to find its footing dramatically speaking, but an even greater sin it commits is that it’s seemingly terrified of offending anyone. What made the original ‘Clerks’ memorable was its irreverence..

It was a film about blue-collar schlubs having lewd, crude and unfiltered conversations in an effort to kill time at a monotonous job. ‘Clerks’ was made by a kid in his twenties who didn’t know any better. Because of this, that unfiltered raw voice was what made it a staple of its generation. That unharnessed voice was what made ‘Clerks’ doggedly funny and refreshingly honest.

‘Clerks III’ brings nothing new to the table, further confirming that Smith is completely out of touch with these characters. The truth is, he is no longer that same guy he used to be. He’s older and far more sentimental, but he’s still trying to write for characters that he won't allow to grow up. As is evident by Dante's reset, it's almost like Smith is afraid to allow these characters to change with the times. Much the same problem he had writing for the slackers of ‘Zack and Miri’; it feels dishonest in its voice. Most notably with Randal.

As much as I’ve enjoyed Jeff Anderson’s portrayal of Randal in the past, the character is only as strong as Smith’s writing allows him to be. Even Anderson will himself confess to not being much of an actor. Despite the claim that this is a film about Randal getting his shit together, it never lets us get to know him any better. That is a real shame, as there is that beautiful moment in 'Clerks II' where he drops the armor and reveals a hint of vulnerability at the threat of losing Dante to Florida. Oh, what could have been if Smith had built on top of that?

Burdened with the same mullet that he has had since 1994, the script never allows Randal to grow as a person. Nor does he come into his own as the director of the film within the film. Despite the life-threatening ordeal he endured, he’s still the same one-note cynical asshole that he always was.

There are no new memorable conversations to speak of. Instead, the humor relies on a bunch of meta jokes and callbacks that only super-fans will get. I can take only so much of Smith’s prodding before I tire of it. All it did was confirm that Kevin has become that annoying, out-of-touch Uncle who constantly pokes you and reminds you how funny he used to be.

When ‘Clerks III’ was first announced, I had a lot of trepidation about revisiting these characters for the third time. ‘Clerks II’ did a great job of taking the angry young men and plunging them head first into adulthood as they became the masters of their destiny. I didn’t believe much more needed to be said about Dante and Randal. But I was still willing to give ‘Clerks III’ a shot, hoping it would be a return to form for Smith.

Instead, it’s every bit as bad as I feared and then some. The drama doesn’t work. The comedy is just lame and desperate. Its message regarding the nature of life and death is incredibly tone deaf. Worse still, it regresses these characters as it throws most of the progress made from the previous installment out the window.

Its visuals are flat and uninspired. Granted, Smith has never been the most dynamic of visual storytellers, but he wasn’t this bad in the past. Everything looks overlit and flat. It does feel like he has regressed in every possible way. And as for that ending? It is one of the most self-defeatist things I’ve seen on screen all year. So much so that it made me question whether or not Smith is still suffering from post-coronary depression.

The trouble with ‘Clerks III’ is that it feels like it has something it wants to say but never figures it out. It has death and nostalgia weighing heavily on the mind, but it’s almost like Smith is too afraid to confront that side of himself. Instead, he relies on lame callbacks and half-baked melodrama instead of facing and working through his fears on camera.

In trade interviews, Smith said that he wanted this film to help inspire people to take charge of their life. I can’t say I felt inspired; instead, I just felt a bitter sting of emptiness as the film ends on a dour note of loss and regret. I get that this is a personal story for Smith, given his near brush with death a few years back, but he survived that ordeal to live another day. He not only survived, but he also did exceptionally well changing his lifestyle for the better. So why is he so obsessed with having his characters succumb to a lifetime of failure? 

‘Clerks III’ is a muddled mess of ideas that never really come together in any meaningful way. It’s more in love with the idea of being a shrine to Smith’s past than finding what he wants to say regarding death and nostalgia. If I want to relive the past, I’ll stick to re-watching the original and far superior ‘Clerks’ instead.

-Daniel M

Read More

[Feature] - My Ten Favourite Films of 2022

10.) Jackass Forever

(Dir: Jeff Tremaine)

Even in their 50’s, these guys are still doing this shit and guess what? It’s still unapologetically funny as all hell. If you’re a fan of the ‘Jackass’ crew, then you’ll understand that the real charm of this crew is not the insanity of their antics, rather it's the sweet brotherly love they share for one another.

There is something utterly endearing about this ragtag group of misfits that is hard to deny.  For as much pain as they’ll put one another through, it’s all done with absolute love. And when I say pain, believe me, even in their 50’s, these guys are still willing to put themselves through the most unimaginable shit for our amusement.

Especially testicular pain. And you thought the scenes of testicle mutilation in Lars Von Trier’s ‘Anti Christ’ were fucked up beyond belief? Just wait until you see ‘Jackass Forever’ and the length of pain Danger Ehren goes through, testing the vitality of an abdominal guard. Mind you, this is all played for laughs and somehow it works! God help me, it’s lowbrow and crass to the core, but it’s still fucking hilarious to me! They say with age comes wisdom. May wisdom never come to these guys.

9.) RRR

(Dir: S.S. Rajamouli)

In a time where I feel a lot of films are becoming increasingly too bloated for their own good, along comes an epic like ‘RRR’ to remind me how you can get the most out of every last minute put on screen. At an epic 187 minutes, I was never bored or left to check my watch, as every minute feels completely earned in this film.

‘RRR’ is a tale about two legendary revolutionaries and their journey away from home before they started fighting for their country in the 1920s. In a word? Epic. Epic as all fuck. Featuring some of the craziest choreographed fights filmed this side of ‘The Raid’, a metric ton of romance and an abundance of humor; it crafts an age-old tale of right versus wrong, legend and friendship. Well worth the 187 minute investment.   

8.) Licorice Pizza

(Dir: P.T Anderson)

The simple charm of P.T Anderson’s ‘Licorice Pizza’ is that it’s a film where everyone is pretending to be an adult. The film is full of children who yearn to be treated as adults as they desperately try to act grown up. Meanwhile, the adults are children only pretending to be grown up. Basically confirming that everyone is just as lost as one another. That’s kind of comforting to this 30-something lost soul. ‘Licorice Pizza’ is all about that universal theme of trying to find one's place in the universe, telling an age-old story of finding love and self-discovery in California’s San Fernando Valley during the 70’s. 

7.) The Northman

(Dir: Robert Eggers)

‘The Northman’ is best described as an action film filled with thrilling and suspenseful moments.  It is also a gritty revenge tale filled with unsettling moments that will have viewers on the edge of their seats or perhaps even tensed up.  The action here is brutal, dark, gritty and violent.  Amleth decides revenge should be slow and toys with those who wronged him first, leading to many big reveals and showdowns along the way.

An epic film with a straightforward story and effective use of Norse mythology. Its intense rituals, powerful imagery, guttural and pounding music and display of culture in its authentic setting makes for an entertaining and memorable experience. Stunning scenery, brutal and bloody fight scenes and great acting performances, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

6.) Rageaholic

(Dir: Yoshiki Takahashi)

A lone, hard-boiled grizzled detective is pushed to the limits as he is faced with an all-too overbearing polite and fascist society. At first glance, you can’t help but notice the similarities to 'Demolition Man' in regards to the basic plot, but what really occupies ‘Rageaholic’s’ angry heart is a seething contempt for the overbearing politeness of Japanese society. First time Director Yoshiki Takahashi does well to satire a culture that is built on conformity and priority to the group over the individual. 'Rageaholic' is a gleefully violent, darkly hilarious and scathing satire. 

5.) Vortex

(Dir: Gaspar Noe)

‘Vortex’ is a surprisingly sober affair from enfant terrible, Gaspar Noe. At least in terms of style and presentation, that is to say. There are no wild drug-addled camera tricks on display. Just a simple story of an elderly couple in their final days as they succumb to dementia. Despite the lack of that distinct Noe visual style, don’t be confused into thinking that he has lost his ability to provoke. Vortex is still a deeply affecting film as it showcases the true horrors of facing death. It’s not the fear of losing one's body, rather it’s the fear of losing the mind and the memories that come attached.

It’s remarkably haunting and incredibly effective. In some ways, it’s Noe’s most mature film to date and perhaps his most personal given his own parents' experiences with dementia. Much like everything else Noe has done before, it’s a divisive film, but for those willing to take the journey, it’s a deeply moving and haunting film that will stick with you.

4.) The Menu

(Dir: Mark Mylod)

Have you ever found yourself as perplexed by foodie culture as I am? I’m talking about the types of people who photograph their meals for recognition or status on social media without ever really savoring the meal itself. If you’re as perplexed by this culture as I am, then 'The Menu' is probably going to be right up your alley. 'The Menu' is a deliciously wry skewering of foodie culture, social class and the excesses of entitlement.

It is a horror comedy that tells the story of a bunch of rich, obnoxious and fairly unlikable social elites who have been invited to eat at an exclusive high-class restaurant on a remote island where the chef has prepared a lavish menu, complete with some shocking surprises. I appreciated the claustrophobic nature of its setting. Ralph Fiennes delivers in spades as the deeply unhinged masterchef. Even though the satire isn’t always the most subtle, I still thoroughly enjoyed the film and its many jabs at those who take the service industry for granted. 

3.) The Whale

(Dir: Darren Aronofsky)

Winning the prize for the most divisive film of the year, 'The Whale' is a deeply affecting film that tells the tale of a 600 pound recluse in his last days of life as he attempts to reconcile with his estranged daughter. I guess audiences will either fall into the camp of being entirely moved by this or enraged by it as they label it misery porn. Myself? I fall into the former camp. I was incredibly moved by its humanity.

Brendan Fraser’s Charlie is a beacon of light in a tide of misery. Perhaps the most frustrating thing about 'The Whale' is that, as compassionate as Charlie is at heart, he unfortunately can’t show himself that same compassion. But that is the nature of depression for which I applaud this film for so openly elevating to the forefront. Fraser deserves the praise he has received for this role and it is perhaps Aronofsky’s most humane film since 2009’s 'The Wrestler'. It’s by no means an easy film to digest as it is refreshingly honest with its cracked mirror reflection, but it is an important and incredibly moving film that finds what it is to be human…even if you are trapped in a 600 pound shell. 

2.) Decision to Leave

(Dir: Park Chan-Wook)

Park Chan-Wook returns with a slightly different beat. This time out he gives us a Neo-Noir Romance. It's a slight change of pace for Park but I enjoyed the more low-key nature of this quite a bit. Tang Wei and Park Hae-ill are both incredible in this film. I found it to be an incredibly mesmerizing romantic murder mystery with an ending that lingered on my mind for days on end. It’s an intricate and emotional game of cat and mouse right up until the very end. While not quite as visceral as his earlier work, it is far more mature in its craftsmanship. For my money, it’s one of Park’s best works to date. 

1.) Beavis and Butt-head Do The Universe

(Dir: Albert Calleros and John Rice)

It’s kind of fitting that we started this list with Jackass Forever and ended it with Beavis and Butt-head. Just as I will never tire of the Jackass crew, the same could be said for Beavis and Butt-head. Between this and the equally hilarious new season that aired on Paramount Plus, it was actually a terrific year for the dynamic idiot duo.

Initially, I wasn’t sure whether ‘Do The Universe’ could live up to the excellent ‘Do America.’ But lo and behold, it’s not only a terrific sequel, but also the sharpest satire of the year. Transporting the boys from the 90’s into modern day via Time Travel was a stroke of brilliance which gave way to some hilarious moments. 

Be it the boys learning they can now pay for Nachos via phone or learning about the ills of white privilege on campus. Not to mention the surprisingly touching yet equally hilarious scene where Beavis pours his heart out to Siri as if she were a real person. And then you also have the addition of Smart Beavis and Butthead. Droll, very droll.

The world around them may have changed, but sadly, some things remain the same as Mike Judge and company continue to skewer the absurdities of society. At a time of increasing tension and unease, it’s good to have these guys back in form to remind us that it’s okay to laugh at the stupidity surrounding us.

Honorable Mentions -

- Smile (Dir: Parker Finn)
- Triangle of Sadness (Dir: Ruben Ostlund)
- Everything Everwhere All At Once (Dir: Daniels)
- X (Dir: Ti West)
- Belle (Dir: Mamoru Hosoda)
- Hustle (Dir: Jeremiah Zagar)
- Funny Pages  (Dir: Owen Kline)

- Daniel M

Read More

[Review] - Crackers (1998)

The Christmas season is once again upon us. A time for giving. A time for good cheer. A time for celebrating. A time for stuffing yourself with too much food and beer. It’s also that time of year when the family gets together to enjoy the company of one another. For some families out there, this may be bliss. But for most? Well, it’s usually an exercise in misery. Depending on the fragility of the family in question, of course. Christmas cards tend to opt for the image of the harmonious smiling family sitting by the Christmas tree in peace and harmony. Thank crap for the movies where we can at least get a slice of exaggeration regarding what Christmas is truly like for most of us.

Sure, the dysfunctional Christmas family get-together in film isn’t a new concept. I’m sure that we’ve all seen National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation countless times. But it’s rare to see an Australian slice of Christmas family dysfunction presented on film. Back in 1998, there was one such film that attempted to fill this niche. A relatively low-budget and raucous slice of Australian comedy known as Crackers.

Upon release, it was burdened with a lousy poster that did little to sell the movie. The poster contained a simple image of a ragtag family in front of a red background. Not exactly the most striking of poster images. The title of the film wasn’t exactly a stand-out either. But given my family's love for Christmas Vacation and the many comparisons made by the positive trade reviews, it resulted in a family trip to the cinema to see this slice of Australian Christmas.

I remember it vividly. We were the only four in the cinema at the time. I guess the underwhelming poster did little to spark interest in the majority. Maybe it was a case of bad marketing? Most Australian films tend to have terrible marketing as is. Despite a lackluster poster, the film hidden underneath was anything but rubbish.  I feel it’s an overlooked Australian gem just waiting to be rediscovered.

Crackers tells the tale of the Dredge family as they indulge in the misery of one another's company during the Christmas break. The film is told through the eyes of only child Joey (Daniel Kellie) as he struggles to come to terms with his mother dating again after the tragic loss of his father in an aircraft accident. Not coping with the loss of his father, Joey has developed a bit of a death wish as he keeps chucking himself off of school roofs in a desperate plea for help.

Realizing that they both need a break, his mother, Hilary (Susan Lyons), arranges for them to spend Christmas at her parents' house. Making matters worse, she’s also invited her new boyfriend, Bruno (Peter Rowsthorn), and his angry teenage son, Angus, by whom Joey is constantly antagonized.

The film wastes no time in setting up the stakes. The family packs the car and embarks when the first misfortunes strike. During the car ride, Joey is called a “dickhead” and beaten on by Angus, while the family station wagon is almost totaled in a head-on collision. If there was ever a foreshadow of the chaos to come.

Upon arrival, they’re treated to a meal that consists of charred grilled burnt sausages, lousy-looking potato salad, plenty of white bread covered with thick slabs of butter and a bottle or two of beer to go with it. Angry blow flies swarm about the table as the mean old cuss of a grandfather, Jack (Terry Hill), attempts to kill them with fly spray. Nothing has ever screamed Australian Christmas more so than this.

The stern and stubborn Jack quickly turns his attention to Bruno. Bruno and Jack couldn’t be more different if they tried. Bruno, a fashion photographer from the city, and Jack, a stubborn blue-collar worker from the ‘burbs. Worlds collide as Jack belittles Bruno’s manhood. Tensions further escalate with the arrival of Jack’s estranged father, Albert (Warren Mitchell), an old scoundrel Glaswegian fresh out of prison. With the house packed to the rafters, young Joey is forced into the tool-shed to sleep alongside Albert.

Much like Christmas Vacation before it, the film plays as a loose series of sketches during the days leading up to Christmas. Everyone in the family has their own drama of sorts. Jack still harbors a grudge against his cheating father for abandoning him and his mother when he was a kid. Bruno tries to make an impression on Jack but fails miserably at every turn. Aunt Dotty (Valerie Bader) is a frumpy, lonely woman whose best years are fading away. The grandmother, Violet (Maggie King), is ever-so cheerful and tries to keep the family together but is utterly oblivious to the fracturing seams.

Meanwhile, Joey is confronted with the devastating reality of Bruno potentially becoming his new stepfather as he learns that his mother is pregnant. As Joey navigates through the trials and tribulations of dysfunction, he finds solace in his kinship with Albert. Eventually, a through line develops as the pair strike up a deal to fix up an old weathered sailboat to give as a Christmas gift to Jack.

The comedy is mainly situational, but Director David Swann does well to keep escalating without ever going overboard. The jokes come quickly as it moves from day to day in the build to Christmas. As Murphy’s Law states: anything that can go wrong will go wrong. For what’s Christmas without the occasional fistfight at the local pub, mince pies spiked with dope or even the family dog being accidentally burnt to a crisp on the good old Aussie barbie?

It’s difficult not to compare Crackers to another popular 90’s Australian comedy, The Castle. Both films play a large chunk of their comedy at the expense of the quirks of the modern suburban Australian family. But whereas the Kerrigan family is a rather sweet-natured family with only a hint of dysfunction bubbling underneath, the Dredge family straight up wears its dysfunction on its sleeves for all to see. But for anyone who has endured the chaos of such a family, it’s still remarkably relatable, even if it is incredibly broad in stereotype.

How many times have we all heard that same story of the Christmas from hell spent with the dreaded in-laws recounted by our married friends? Or those days spent with family members you may not always like but have to love anyway? Or those dreaded Christmas lunch conversations where your elders judge your every decision through a thin lens of discontent and disappointment? Or worse still, the dreaded conversations where they compare you to someone else in the extended family as if you could never live up to their preferred golden child? We’ve all heard these stories time and time again. We’ve all undoubtedly lived these moments time and time again.

This is where Crackers scores many of its laughs for me, as it dials these situations up to 11. The big laugh-out-loud set pieces aside, the little cringe moments, such as Jack’s not-so-subtle critiques towards Bruno’s perceived lack of manhood, make Crackers excel the most in its relatability.

But even amidst this chaos, the film never forgets to remind us that the ties which shackle us together are what truly makes the Christmas spirit meaningful. As doomed as this family seemingly is on the surface, underneath still pumps a sincere beating heart as this gaggle of geese eventually learns the true meaning of Christmas through tragedy.

As such, it always baffled me why this film never caught on with a mainstream audience. Even here in Australia, it seems to be mostly forgotten. Maybe it was just too Australian for its own good? Perhaps it was a victim of a terrible marketing campaign? With a delightful ensemble cast of misfits, I would have thought this would have more legs than it did. Whatever the reason, it’s a shame it never got the attention it deserved.

Growing up Australian meant I couldn’t always relate to that picturesque White Christmas that American films love to showcase. But I could more than relate to the sting of a Dry Summer Christmas with a smoking barbecue out the back. Sure, perhaps it’s not the greatest film this country has ever produced, but it certainly has its charms that many Australians could easily relate to. In the tradition of the great Australian comedy, Crackers piles misery on top of self-deprecation but also manages to find a good heart underneath. In that sense, it’s very larrikin in spirit.


- Daniel M

Read More

[Feature] The Whale (2022) - Or a reflection on my own journey from the Brink of Death

 

What does it mean to be human? That's a loaded question for which there are numerous answers. For myself, the answer has always been the ability to show empathy, love and compassion for one another. But sometimes we are also guilty of neglecting our own well-being in pursuit of putting others before ourselves. Being human means we will make many mistakes along the way. Hopefully we will also learn from those mistakes. But what does it mean to be human when you're trapped in a 600 pound shell?

Recently, I had a chance to check out an early screening of The Whale. The new film by Darren Aronofsky, starring Brendan Fraser. As someone who has battled with weight issues and morbid obesity for practically his entire life, I was very intrigued by this film. I also happen to be a fan of both Aronofsky and Brendan Fraser.

There has been much talk about this film regarding the comeback performance of Fraser and all I can say is believe the hype. Brendan Fraser delivers an outstanding performance in this film. That goes without saying.

His depiction of the near 600 pound recluse Charlie is both a triumph of physical and emotional being. You feel the weight and burden both physically and mentally as Fraser disappears into the character. But more than that, his kindness and ability to find the good in others radiates the most.

I’m not going to lie. The film doesn’t pull punches in reminding us of Charlie’s hazardous physical being. His wheezing for air as his lungs collapse under his mass weight is audible throughout. You can feel the physical pain of his joints underneath. Those around him who do care for him don’t pull punches in their comments. Their words, at times, can be scathing but do not always come from a place of hate, but rather a place of distress.

It is a film that doesn’t pull punches as to just how life-threatening his condition is. Charlie is at the point of no return. He’s on his deathbed and those around him are left to watch as he deteriorates.
At first, this was admittedly frustrating for me. Seeing where I am now as I fight to change my life, I felt a strong desire to slap, hug and plead for this character to get help. But as I continued with the film, I started to put myself back into the mindset that I was under a year ago in order to better empathize with him.

At my heaviest, I weighed 225kg. Last year, I developed an ulcer on my leg due to both my weight and reduced circulation thanks to untreated swelling from a lower back operation. I had to undergo home nursing for about 6 months as they attended to my leg twice a week, applying compression therapy in order to heal the wound.

At the height of my depression, I was reduced to a mere shell of my former self. I had no will to fight. I was overeating like crazy. I was ordering from McDonalds almost every day through Uber Eats. I was eating up to 20 McNuggets per day. I was drinking close to 5 cans of Coke a day. My health was deteriorating like crazy. The most I would move in a day was from my bedroom to my PC, where I would sit for hours on end as the weight grew and grew. For all intents and purposes, I was ready to die last year.

My nurses would get frustrated with me to no end. They would try to motivate me to make a change. They would try to get me to walk down to the end of the street and back. Some days I would try. On those days, I was huffing and puffing half way down the street as my leg muscles were in pain from the lack of use. Most days I was kind to the nurses. They would tell me that I was a kind and sweet person in return.

But anytime the conversations got real, I would ultimately shut down and put up the wall as my own self-loathing came to the forefront. Anytime they tried to motivate me, I would enter full defeatist mode. They would try to encourage me to go out and walk. And I would fight them at every turn, telling them “it was all pointless.” I had no hope in my life and was truly ready for it to end, thinking that I had become a worthless burden to society. All of this eventually led to me attempting to take my own life.

 

 
Last year was the lowest point of my life. It got to where I was reaching the point of no return. I didn’t quite reach the level that Charlie did. I never quite reached the 500 pound mark, let alone over 600 pounds, but I dare say I was on my way to that point.

Today, I am not the same person I was a year ago. I've been making steady changes in my life for the better and I have lost some weight in the process. I have been fighting to make a change in my life. As I was watching the film, it slowly dawned on me that my frustration with this character was really the mirror reflecting right back at me showing me who I once was. 

Charlie is a man of great compassion. He is entirely selfless to a fault. He will put everyone before his own well-being. Here is a broken man who is suffering from chronic depression as he never dealt with the untimely death of his lover. Instead of facing his demons, he became addicted to binge eating in order to ease the pain. He is always apologizing for being a burden. He has a tendency to call himself “awful.”

He hides his existence from the world in his one bedroom apartment. His one friend - a home attending nurse - loves him to death but is left frustrated by his inability to fight the demons in his own head. Meanwhile, his teenage daughter is entirely spiteful towards him. She runs a hate blog dedicated to mocking her own mother amongst others in her life.

 

 
 

But she is not entirely without a reason for doing so, as she is the product of a broken home. Her father does indeed love her, but the family unit she once knew as a child was torn apart after Charlie came out of the closet and left his former home. She’s just as lonely and broken as he is and hatred is simply her outlet. And yet, despite her mean-spirited nature, Charlie still sees the good in her even when most others cannot. Charlie is a man who can see the good and beauty in others even if they can’t see it in themselves. But unfortunately, he will not allow himself that same sense of compassion and forgiveness.

The film is simply a tale of a man attempting to find some measure of redemption. In some ways, Charlie’s weight is actually the least important thing to Charlie himself. Even if that lack of concern is hazardous to the character's health, it goes to show that what is truly eating at him is his despair. Much like every film that Aronofsky has made, the film is just as concerned with Charlie’s mental well being as it is his physical being. 

The two factors are entirely linked and, as I have discovered in my own journey thus far, if the two aren’t in balance, then it’s a recipe for disaster. You simply can’t have a healthy body without a healthy presence of mind. The film doesn’t shy away from outwardly expressing this.

Addiction is a common theme in all of Aronofsky’s work and here is no different. His films have always dared to delve deeply into the human psyche. He is fearless in his willingness to explore the hearts and minds of the traumatized. In doing so, he is asking the audience to look more deeply into themselves to find the meaning.

Because of this, there has been some discourse online as to whether the film is “toxic” or “fat-phobic.” I personally don’t see it that way. I think such claims made by the fat acceptance movement are just absurd and are way too focused on the exterior without giving the film an inch of critical thought. One of the reviews I read stood out to me and I quote: “It reinforces the notion that fat people have brought their own suffering upon themselves through lack of coping skills.” Actually, this quote annoyed me to no end.

While I don’t speak for every overweight person out there, I will say that my weight issues have always stemmed from childhood trauma which resulted in an inability to cope with my own lack of self-worth. Ever since I was a kid, I have never had much in the way of self-worth and have always thought of myself as being a worthless burden that had nothing to offer. It was a cold, harsh truth I had to face in my own time. As too have many others who have shared a similar journey.

Again, I can only speak for myself, but to deny my personal experiences isn’t a means of coming to my aid and protecting me. Rather, it’s an ugly form of patronizing. That to me is more “fat-phobic” than anything I saw in this film as it denies anything I may have to say on the matter at hand. Let me speak for myself instead of trying to protect my feelings or explain away my situation in life. If anything, the film is far more compassionate to those facing such hardships than it is phobic.

 

The link between mental and physical health has indeed been proven time and time again and it shouldn’t be denied or ignored just because it potentially hurts feelings. If anything, that’s all the more of a reason to talk openly about these issues in order to remove the stigma around mental health. 

In a way, I see this film as a companion piece to The Wrestler. Another film by Aronofsky that also explores a fractured father-daughter relationship driven to collapse due to the father not being able to find balance in his own life. The common thread between both films is the need for balance and how balance is key in life. As someone important to me said recently: "The gut is like the second brain. Take care of it just as much as you would the brain."


As the final credits rolled and the tears stained my eyes, I further reflected on both the film and my own journey so far and as to why this film felt like a reflection.

I was once in that same position as Charlie. I was able to see the beauty in others but could not see that same beauty in myself due to my self-loathing. I was unable to give myself a break when I failed. I was unable to show myself compassion when others could. I was selfless to a fault as I would put others before my own well being. Much like Charlie, I too was hanging onto the demons of my past and letting that heartache define me.Charlie isn’t just dying of deteriorating physical health, he is dying due to his inability to deal with his own emotional heartache. 

But in the end, he does attempt to reconcile with his daughter. He does attempt to make something of a small change. Further reminding us that it’s never too late to make a change. It’s never too late to reach out. It’s never too late to find a sense of self-compassion. And that takes real strength of character to do.

Even when you are at the end of your rope physically, you can still attempt to make a change and find some measure of inner peace. Unlike Aronofsky’s other films, this isn’t just a film about watching a character's unhealthy obsessions lead to self-destruction; rather it’s a film about someone trying to find a measure of inner peace and reconciliation.

If you can look past the 600 pound exterior and gaze into Fraser’s eyes, you will find a fragile, frail and lonely human being yearning for connection. Instead of focusing on the exterior, try looking into the eyes of another to see the window to their humanity. You might find something much more and you never know what showing kindness might do for someone who is in great pain. And that will always mean more than anything in the long run.

The Whale is a film that is entirely human in nature. Flawed, ugly-at-times, frustrating, painful, sad, fragile, amusing-at-times and shabby. But also beautiful and compassionate at heart. Like the greatest artworks; it’s a story that finds what it is to be human…even if you are trapped in a 600 pound shell.

-Daniel M

Read More

[Review] - Violent Night (2022)

Take a cup of Die Hard, a tablespoon of Home Alone, a little drop of Bad Santa and even just a dash of the 1994 comedy Greedy; pour all of these into a script writing blender, turn it to max and what do you get? You get Violent Night. With a list of ingredients this good, you might expect a new Christmas classic in the making. Unfortunately though, that’s not entirely the case here, as a fun premise is ultimately let down by a lacking screenplay.

The film follows Jolly Saint Nick (David Harbour) as he goes about his Christmas Eve duties. However, he’s anything but jolly rather he’s a jaded, embittered drunk who has just about had enough of the job. As he sits at a bar sinking his misery with a cold one, he laments that the magic is entirely gone from Christmas. Replaced by consumerism as everyone just wants more and more without truly appreciating what they have. 

 

Meanwhile, on the other side of town, a wealthy family is enjoying the misery of one another's company. That is until a team of elite mercenaries, led by a Christmas-hating mastermind who goes by the codename Scrooge (John Leguizamo), invade the estate looking to steal a hefty 300 million dollars located in a massive vault on the premises.

Little do they know that Santa also just happens to have arrived on the premises. Unfortunately for Santa, he finds himself stuck unwillingly in the night from hell as his reindeer flee in fear. Armed with only his bare fists, Santa transforms into John McClane as he takes on the team of mercenaries in a bloody game of cat and mouse.

On paper, there is a lot going for Violent Night that, in the right hands, could have been elevated into a true Christmas classic. But as it is, it kind of just labors in the middle of the road. David Harbour does well enough to carry the film on his back as the completely jaded and worn out Santa, but he is let down by a screenplay that never quite elevates into anything truly remarkable.

At the beginning of the film, we see a montage of Santa going from house to house in his drunken stooper, growing increasingly frustrated by the lack of Christmas spirit as an overabundance of Amazon packages claim real estate under each Christmas tree. One can’t help but be reminded of Billy Bob Thornton’s Bad Santa in these opening scenes and one could be fooled into thinking it might deliver something close to that jaded masterpiece. But sadly, that’s about as far as the film ever goes with the satire.

As he roams the estate silently taking on the mercenaries, he finds himself earning the trust of the plucky young Trudy (Leah Brady), who is still young enough to believe in Santa. The two bond as the night goes on, leading the film to find a gushy heart instead of going all the way with the initial jaded premise. 

 

Even Bad Santa, with its alcohol and vomit-stained jadedness, still managed to find a delicate balance between obscenely crude and raw beating heart. Sadly, Violent Night opts for one over the other, with somewhat disappointing results. Leah Brady and David Harbour play well off one another, but it just never elevates to anything truly remarkable or noteworthy. It just feels like it’s going through the motions. It never dares to take any real risks with the material opting to play it incredibly safe all around. For a film that wants to have a razor sharp edge, it’s remarkably toothless.

From the offset, the film establishes the wealthy family as a bunch of kiss ass snobs. They could almost be cut from the same loins as the McTeague family of the 1994 comedy Greedy. They kiss the ass of the wealthy Matriarch (Beverly D’Angelo) in the hope that she will impart the family fortune to one of them. Now that sounds like a deviously fun setup for which a better screenplay could have had some fun with. But sadly, the screenplay does absolutely nothing with any of this giving everyone nothing to do but to sit around and wait as Santa kills the bad guys. 

 

John Leguizamo has fun hamming it up as the leader of the mercenaries. But he, too, isn’t given anything major to work with other than sneering it up to the max. It just further drives home that the major problem with this film is the blandness of the screenplay itself. It merely provides lip service instead of ever daring to take a real risk.

But it’s not all bad though. As the title suggests, Violent Night does indeed deliver plenty of violence. If there is one thing the film does well, it’s the violence. Coming from Dead Snow, Director Tommy Wirkola has plenty of experience with setting up physical gags using gore to full comedic effect.

There are some inspired gags in this film that made me wince. At one point, the film goes full Home Alone as Trudy sets up a couple of booby traps of her own. But unlike Home Alone, we see the full effect of what happens when a nail pierces the skin. There is no denying the effectiveness of the physical gags in the film and Tommy Wirkola does very well staging some impressive sight gags.

With a better screenplay, Violent Night may have truly elevated into a jaded Christmas classic. The elements are all there for something better as a whole, but the film never manages to bring it all home. I applaud the attempt and while there are things I like about the film, namely David Harbour and John Leguizimo, unfortunately, I never got the feeling that I would ever want to revisit this on an annual basis. 

 

To me, the mark of an enduring Christmas classic is its replay value. They’re the ones you want to revisit every year again and again during the festive season. Sadly, Violent Night is just entirely middle of the road. It could have and should have been more but is let down by an all too formulaic screenplay that lacks the razor sharp edge it desperately needed to really drive it home.

- Daniel M

Read More

[Review] - Rageaholic (2022)

 
Rageaholic marks the directorial debut of Yoshiki Takahashi. His most known former credit would be as the screenwriter of Sion Sono’s Cold Fish - a grizzly tale of murder between fish breeders which was actually based on a rather famous true crime story. With Rageaholic, Yoshiki trades in the intimate and claustrophobic tale of  murderous fish store owners in favour of something a little more ambitious in scope.

A lone hard boiled renegade detective (Yota Kawase) makes the grave mistake of letting his anger get the better of him as he inadvertently kills one of the main perpetrators in a hostage situation. As punishment, Fukama is sent to a medical facility in New York in order to rehabilitate his anger issues. Three years later, upon release, he returns to his small hometown of Fujimi in Japan, where he soon discovers that the town he once knew has changed rather drastically in his absence. As it turns out, a local Community Watch Dog group has taken advantage of Fukama’s mistake and used it to seize control of the neighborhood from the local police force.

With new found power going straight to their head, the Community Watch Dogs, led by a gleefully insane patriarch, seek to eradicate the so-called ‘dregs of society.’ At first, Fukama attempts to fit in and keep the peace as he resumes his role in the force. However, he is clearly perturbed by the overbearing surveillance state that has become Fujimi. In his former life, he sat on the fringes of what is considered legally and morally correct.
 

His former circle of friends consisted of the local strippers, bar flies and such types. But in this newly reformed Fujimi, Fukama can’t even light a cigarette in his own apartment without being chastised for it. The once thriving nightlife of the local bars is now dead and buried as loud speakers constantly blast overbearing messages of safety in a nauseatingly cheerful voice. The town is decorated with brightly colored yet entirely sinister propaganda posters reminding citizens of the watchful eye always looking over them. The world he once knew has gravely changed as his former circle of friends have been pushed to the outskirts of the city and forced to live in poverty.

At the outset, you could almost regard the film as something of a Japanese Demolition Man. The premise definitely rings familiar as Fukama is your typical grizzled hard-boiled cop pitted in a dystopian environment to which he clearly doesn’t belong. But on further thought, the film is a little bit more than just that. In fact, it’s actually a scathing satire aimed at the overly conformist nature of modern Japanese society.

An all too familiar and sad story in Japanese culture is the scrutiny of which anyone comes under if they even so much as display unsavory means publicly. For example, pop stars are treated as almost gods in Japanese pop culture. But if they put one foot out of line by the smallest of means, be it through recreational drug use or even just parading around a sexual liaison, they are almost instantly banished from the public eye without so much as a chance of redemption. This all feeds back into a strong sense of civic duty and conformity that is ingrained within Japanese culture.

Fukama and his friends are very much the outcasts of society. They live in the shadows. They live alternative lifestyles. They are the type of individuals which most in Japan would presumably just like to sweep under the rug and pretend they don't exist. In the eyes of the fascist Community Watch Dogs, they are nothing more than “the maggots of Japan.”

On the other hand, the Community Watch Dogs are the remnants of a very traditional Japan. They’re completely set in the old ways; unwilling to budge, sexist to the core and all too willing to violently punish anyone who steps out of line. Naturally, there is only so much of this that Fukama can take before he breaks and resorts to his old violent ways, leading to a remarkably entertaining and bloody climax.

Yota Kawase does very well here as Fukama. He’s an entirely likable and sympathetic Everyman. He’s far from perfect. At his core, he too is a product of traditional Japan and its savage ways. In some ways, he is no better than the fascists in charge, but unlike them, he still has some sense of right and wrong. Unlike them, he still has a strong sense of humanity at his core.

First time Director Yoshiki Takahashi shows a good sense of pacing. He does well to get to the meat of the bones at a brisk 100 minutes. Something I applaud him for, as most modern filmmakers seem to have lost all meaning of the word “pacing.” The film never drags and does very well to make its point without overstaying its welcome.

For a low budget film, it’s very well shot. It manages to find a good mid-ground between modern neon gloss and 70’s hard boiled grit without feeling overproduced. That being said, the low budget does occasionally rear its head. Especially during the violent climax, as it resorts to a mixture of both practical and CGi effects. Understandably so given the low budget. I can forgive the use of CGi blood, but some of the effects work did leave a little to be desired at times. Thankfully, it’s not all bad as the climax does work more than it doesn’t. There was one gag involving a fractured fist that was truly inspired and had me laughing with relish.

More than not though, Rageaholic serves as a very strong and all around well made satire. At its core, it has a genuine sense of boiling frustration regarding both the economic and social state of modern Japan. Much like Cold Fish before it, the social commentary is very strong and entirely condemning. Thankfully though, it never becomes too didactic with its viewpoint as it remembers to be entertaining first and foremost. All in all, Rageaholic is gleefully violent, darkly comedic and scathingly satirical as a whole.

- Daniel M 

 

-- Rageaholic is currently screening in Japan. There is still no word of an International Release as of this date. --

Read More