Review: M3GAN

M3GAN
Cert: 15 / 102 mins / Dir. Gerard Johnston / Trailer

Gerard Johnston's cyber-chiller is the story of a software engineer, Gemma (Allison Williams), who masterminds a next-level interactive toy; a life-sized android of a little girl named M3GAN (Model 3 Generative ANdroid) complete with an artificial intelligence which exponentially grows and adapts to its owner/subject. When Gemma's niece Cady (Violet McGraw) is orphaned in an horrendous traffic collision, she is awarded interim custody of the child whilst trying to juggle a modern, independent life and her demanding career. When M3GAN appears to be the perfect companion for the grieving Cady, Gemma sees this as indicative of the projects success, while her boss David (Ronny Chieng) sees this as indicative of a product which needs to be hurried through production to maximise profits. But no one seems quite prepared for how M3GAN attaches herself to Cady, and the lengths to which the surrogate babysitter will go to protect the pair of them from outside harm...

Now, narrative cinema requires a suspension of disbelief from its audience; the ability to forget they're sitting in a room with a bunch of strangers watching a series of rapidly projected images created by hundreds of people thousands of miles away for millions of dollars, and a willingness to buy into the in-universe reality and emotion of the story they're being told. Science fiction and horror need this above all else, because of the logical unbelievability of their content.

Director Johnston, along with screenwriter Akela Cooper and story-lead James Wan, require what can only be described as several gargantuan leaps of faith from the media-savvy viewer in 2023. They are asked (indeed, expected) to believe that a) a doll of this technological and mechanical complexity can be fully developed and then produced to retail at $10k, b) that there will be enough takers in the domestic, suburban market to make this a viable business model, rather than using the same tech to create workers for hazardous environments (ie the replicants in Blade Runner), and c) that aunt Gemma is in any remote or meaningful way equipped to be the legal and moral guardian of a traumatised child, despite her not being sure and every single other character in the film (including the robot) confirming this doubt repeatedly. The last of these challenges is where reality just hangs up its gloves for the rest of the movie...

HAMMER

So this write-up feels like it's peaked already, but there's no way to skirt around the elephant in the room. M3GAN isn't awful, but it's a long, long way from being great. Oddly slow to start (given that it's a movie which is perfectly encapsulated by its 2½ minute trailer), this is a social satire implemented with a hammer rather than a scalpel, practically winking at the camera every time one of the vacuous adult characters makes a pointed comment about technology being loud, confusing or unstable, like it's been script-edited by a committee of Daily Mail readers.

It's not that the film is stupid - it's really not - but in order for this to be smart it needs nuance, and that's something to which the budget would not stretch. In producing this film it apparently took twelve million dollars to create a screen-realistic synthetic human that looks deliberately false for story reasons, but authentic enough to be perfect as the film's uncanny antagonist. And yet Hollywood™ still can't find anyone who can convincingly Photoshop together a mantlepiece photo of three actors who are supposed to be on family vacation together...

Weirdly, while the central performance of the eponymous android is every bit as believable as the story requires, the whole thing is repeatedly hamstrung by the surrounding humans making the simplest mistakes, dumbest assumptions and most tonally myopic oversights that the genre has ever witnessed. It's not that you're rooting for the robot exactly, but M3GAN certainly seems like the most level-headed character.

ESCHER

To be fair, there are positives in all this. The film holds a very respectable number of female characters, not just the story-leads but in supporting positions too. It never overplays this or makes it a thing (so forgive me for making it a thing), but this really works in M3GAN's favour as not feeling too much like a standard studio-horror. There are also a handful of scenes where Johnston and the cast finally embrace the silliness of the situation and effectively turn it into an eighties slasher movie. These are very welcome, but they're too few and far between to be a defining feature.

The cast give it their all as far as they're able; of my varying problems with the film, acting isn't among them (although it's worth noting that young Violet McGraw is great at playing 'emotionally scarred' to the point of absolute unlikability; as previously noted, zero nuance). Allison Williams carries the lead well, completely aware that her character's flaws are integral to the plot mechanics. First and foremost though, the combination of Amie Donald's physical performance, Jenna Davis' vocalisations, and the model-making, animatronic and digital artistry which completes M3GAN herself is, if anything, beautifully understated. Because the audience is told the character is artificial, the need to find flaws in the presentation immediately evaporates, focusing attention on the story. That the story isn't particularly great*¹ is by the by, but yeah...

M3GAN isn't trashy enough to be fun, and it's not clever enough to be provocative. Passable Friday-night fare, what this wants is to mix philosophical morality with self-aware satire and cutting edge visuals, like a 21st century take on Shelley's Frankenstein by way of Ex Machina. Instead, this is Lawnmower Man for the TikTok generation*², desperately hoping the 'what if' will be loud enough to drown out the 'yeah but how?...

It'll make money though, so at least Blumhouse's largest box is ticked, right?

*¹ Spoilers, highlight-to-read: At the climax of Act III it turns out that the robot isn't remotely waterproof, which feels like the shittest thus-far-ignored plot progression since H.G. Wells painted himself into a corner and made all the Martians catch a cold so that his story could end without everybody just dying. That isn't the clincher, though: in an actually-telegraphed move, it's shown that anyone could have just stabbed M3GAN in the face at literally any point to stop things getting out of hand. [/end]
^{[ BACK ]}

*² Yeah it's easy for me to be that snarky, but it's also easy for the film to try and be better. ^{[ BACK ]}

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: The Conjuring 2

The Conjuring 2
Cert: 15 / 134 mins / Dir. James Wan / Trailer



"I don't know what's worse," Franka Potente's sceptical parapsychologist Anita opines in a moment of second-act downtime, "the demons, or the people who prey on our willingness to believe in them". It's a brief moment when James Wan's horror threequel lays itself bare, and the more cynical viewers in the audience will raise an eyebrow and mouth a silent "...well, quite". Like so many other movies in its genre, The Conjuring 2's dramatic impact relies almost entirely on the unwavering belief of its audience; not least because the opening titles feature those dreaded words 'based on the true story'*¹...

So, based on the already well-documented case of The Enfield Poltergeist, psychic investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren cross the Atlantic at the request of the church to try and uncover the truth (if any) about mysterious happenings in north London*² (represented in its 1977 era by a wardrobe of man-made fibres, a desaturated colour palette and afternoon showings of The Goodies*³).

On the plus side, the film works in a purely nuts-and-bolts way, aided massively by the performances of Vera Farmiga and the younger members of the cast. James Wan makes a solid job of expanding the relationship between Ed and Lorraine Warren, and there are some nicely un-nerving moments in the first half hour. But these are all achieved by actual acting, rather than the jump-scares and general silliness which the screenplay then autopilots into. Because if there's any real tension at all, it only comes when the soundtrack drops to the point where you can hear the faint hiss of the auditorium speakers, and you involuntarily start counting the heartbeats to the inevitable BANG.

As much as Wan clearly enjoys playing in Seventies London, he can't resist the urge to fall back on his tried and tested tricks. With its multi-layered possession, haunting of people (rather than places, exclusively) and a box-ticking goodie-bag of spectral tropes, the film is arguably more a spiritual sequel to Insidious 2 than it is The Conjuring (and certainly feels more in keeping than Insidious 3).

The Conjuring 2 has some interesting facets and is far from a bad movie, but it's still a worryingly generic addition from someone who can and should give us better. In much the same way as the upcoming Independence Day and Central Intelligence flicks will contribute to sci-fi and comedy respectively, this film is fine for a mainstream audience, but there'll be little here for the hardened genre-fiend…

Oh, the others.
Not The Others, I just mean other films like this.
Basically anything with James Wan's name on the front, for a start.



Only if you want your jump-shot especially loud.



I suppose it probably does, to be fair.



Not particularly.
(although again, massive props to the younger members of the cast for taking the silliness so seriously)



Probably not.



Definitely not.



Level 1: The Conjuring 2 features the voice-work of Robin Atkin Downes, who's also worked on Star Wars Rebels, Clone Wars, Star Tours, Empire At War, KOTOR, KOTOR 2, The Old Republic, Rogue Squadron 3, Bounty Hunter… oh he's connected, alright.





*¹ Which, as in the majority of these cases, appears to mean "it's true that someone once told this story". Although this retelling even takes artistic licence with that.

*² And it's good to see that the Warrens spring into action a full minute and a half after people start screaming immediately outside of the room they're sleeping in, ostensibly to be 'on hand' should anything go awry in the night...

*³ UK TV historians, please help me out on this one. I was only four in 1977, but I don't remember The Goodies being repeated in the afternoon. There were only three channels back then, and broadcast 'real estate' was a bit more precious at least. I don't even know why this slightly anachronistic point should bother me so much when the rest of the film is clearly ficitious, then again I'm not the one plastering the words "true story" over the top of it to put bums on seats. To be honest, the most alarming thing I noticed was the apparently TARDIS-like disparity between the external and internal shots of the house.


DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Insidious Chapter 2

Insidious Chapter 2 (spoiler-free)
Cert: 15 / 105 mins / Dir. James Wan



So after the surprisingly pleasant nostalgia of the first installment, with neither a break nor a trailer in sight, the lights stayed down and Insidious Chapter 2 began. Not a midnight showing, but a double-bill is every bit as good.

Buoyed up by its predecessor I think that, again, I was in the right mood for this. It's just as campy as the first movie, with the same knowing title-card, and while the slapstick of Specs and Tucker has been turned up slightly, it still serves as a welcome counterpoint to some pretty intense filmmaking. Now that's not to say that there's anything "new" in here; after a flashback to 1986, the first half-hour of the film continues directly from Insidious, and at times feels like it's grasping at straws for a reason to have been made. The situation that arises from Josh's return from 'the further' is blithely pushed to one side until even his wife Renai questions why no-one else is freaking-the-hell-out about a dead body and an eyebrow-raising police investigation.

Then the beauty of the film kicks in: the writing. James Wan and Leigh Whannell have taken a by-the-numbers sequel and given it a murder-mystery sub-plot and even sprinkled a bit of time-travel over the top (yes). And the best part? It works. When you remember that you're meant to be having fun watching this, it all combines to make something far greater than most horror-sequels. It's still not going to set the world on fire, but it expands on the original, deftly replaying scenes from that film using the 'open doors' if left, but it also manages to have its own thread running alongside. Both the time-travel aspect and the plot about Mother Mortis are used just enough to be neatly tied up without feeling overdone, and the movie spins its plates rather well.

And as I'm not spoiling in this review, all I can say is that The Old Lady Ghost from Insidious is given a backstory that truly bold. Fucking nuts, but bold. There's something deeply satisfying about Insidious 2 that I can't quite put my finger on, especially as Rose Byrne and Ty Simpkins*¹ seem to have less to do this time, but Patrick Wilson has more and he's clearly enjoying himself. It's a good thing when a sequel is as engaging as the original film, and a better one when it enhances it.

On a down-note, the younger iterations of the characters in the 1986 flashbacks are well cast, but they seem to have dubbed Lin Shaye's voice onto Lindsay Seim's acting, as the young spiritualist, Elise. While the synching's spot on, it's obviously not the voice of a twenty five year old, and pulls you right out of the scenes. A particularly odd choice as no-one else seems to get this treatment?

Bottom line: If you enjoyed Insidious, you'll get a lot out of Chapter 2. If you didn't, don't bother. I enjoyed it more than I thought I would, even if it holds the door open for a (frankly needless) threequel.

For best effect, watch immediately after Insidious; that's how it's intended.

The film is better than the trailer.



Mainly laughing, but yes.



Absolutelu.



For the horror buff, cinema; the rest of you will lose nothing by watching it at home.



No.



Yes, but probably only with its predecessor in prep for Chapter 3.



Not that I heard.

Can James Wan stretch it to a third though? I mean he will, obviously, but should he?

*¹ It's only in recent weeks I worked out that he's the kid from Iron Man 3. Y'know, one of the few child-actors that hasn't grated on me, ever. Bizarre.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: Insidious (second-pass)

Insidious (second-pass)
Cert: 15 / 102 mins / Dir. James Wan



Now... I originally reviewed Insidious back at its time of release, and not particularly favourably. While I stand by my criticisms of how the film was made, I do have to admit that it's stayed with me. If anything, it's become the benchmark by which I measure haunted-family-horror movies; not because it's necessarily great, but because it sits squarely in the middle ground, gliding in some areas and grating in others. The sad fact*¹ is that most horror movies which hit have hit the cinema since, have been crap in comparison to Insidious.

Anyway, my local showed a double-bill of the movie and its new sequel, and it seemed a bit rude not to, frankly.

In hindsight, I think I took this movie too seriously last (ie: first) time round. The title-card alone; bold red gothic letters in a flickering light, with a single shrill discord laid over the top, pretty much spells out what a campy-horror this is meant to be. Although the plot itself lapses into morose tension every so often, there's far more fun to be had once you know where everything's going, and the (apparently) derided Specs & Tucker are way funnier when you embrace that fun. I say 'apparently' because the audience I was with tonight loved them, too.

As a straight-out horror, Insidious is every bit as clockwork as I first judged it to be. But many of the jumps still work (if anything, prior knowledge of the film improves them), and the fleeting backstories of the myriad ghosts are told more effectively than in more recent films of the genre. But I still think Barbara Hershey is inherently terrifying in herself, and I still think that the director's input on the blackboard is cack-handed.

Better than I remembered, and worth the re-watch.
Next up: Insidious Chapter 2.

Pretty much.



More this time round, yes.



Watching it again, yes.



Get it on DVD, if only to watch back to back with the sequel.



Nah.



Most likely.



Not that I heard. And there's ample opporunity.

Which films have you returned to at a later date and enjoyed more?

*¹ By which I mean opinion, obviously.

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.

Review: The Conjuring (Spoilers)

The Conjuring (SPOILERS)
Cert: 15 / 112 mins / Dir. James Wan

So, from what I can gather after the very final altercation in Insidious, Patrick Wilson's character Josh got hit by a car, or something, and lost consciousness.
When he comes around, he's in 1971 and has a job as a paranormal investigator. Is he mad? In a coma? …or back in time? If he can use his paranormal knowledge to crack the case of a local family who've moved into the area and are experiencing ghostly visitations, then maybe he can figure out why he's here… and find a way home.

Not really. I wish my interpretation of events had been the case, because it would have been a damn sight more entertaining than the film I saw tonight. The problem is that it never lives up to its promise. It's a very slow start for not-enough-payoff, and while the cast do an admirable job of playing things straight, they're working with a dud, frankly. The film draws from the well of recent horror movies as deeply as it does from 'the old staples', but seems to add nothing of its own. Everything from slaughtered pets, stopping clocks and a boarded-up cellar, all the way through to a creepy doll, a creepy music box and whispering voices on a tape is ruthlessly mined for shocks which arrive with thudding, clockwork regularity.

Whether it's the child-murdering-possession of The Woman In Black, the multiple-ghosts-appearing of Insidious, or just the birds-crashing-into-the-house of Dark Skies, you've seen it all before, and you've seen it all better. The final act plays out like a mashup between The Evil Dead and Ghostbusters, and is every bit as funny as the image that evokes, sadly. The screen I saw the film in was five seats short of selling out. I thought this would make for a great atmosphere, as any tension and resulting release would be exaggerated throughout audience. We jumped once, and that was in the first half hour.

So, usually in this sort of thing an expository section between acts two and three fleshes out why the main victim is being harassed/haunted/possessed, and details the horrific events which have led up to the present case. In this story, we get Vera Farmiga sifting through some photos and pointing at a map. Any ghost aside from the main bad-girl, Bathsheba, is given half a line of dialogue to justify their presence, and then never seen again. As for bad-mamma herself, she's disposed of so easily (and with so little fallout or consequence) as to be laughable. But the film does end with a twist, in that when you're watching the family step out into the sunlight, hugging and relieved that it's all over; you're expecting the demon to resurge one last time before the credits… and it doesn't.

And while I'm on the subject, what the hell has Bathsheba got to do with Annabelle The Possessed Doll™? The film explicitly states that the possessions and murders only take place on the original plot of farmland, so unless The Warren Ghostbusters live on that land, it doesn't matter how many sentimental lockets Lorraine leaves in the basement, The Ghost™ shouldn't be able to just text The Demon™ and ask for a favour, surely? I imagine the Warren's Indiana Jones' Warehouse of haunted artefacts will be exploited in the sequel. Can't wait.

Despite all my pissing and moaning, it's not a "bad" horror movie, but it's so on-par with everything else that's being released these days that it's robbed of the very thing it needs to succeed: horror.

If anything, it oversells it.



Not really. And neither did the sold-out audience I watched it with.



Nope.



DVD, at best.



Yes. Yes, I will..



Nope.



Nope.

So does "true story" mean "it's true that someone told this story"?

DISCLAIMERS:
• ^^^ That's dry, British humour, and most likely sarcasm or facetiousness.
• Yen's blog contains harsh language and even harsher notions of propriety. Reader discretion is advised.
• This is a personal blog. The views and opinions expressed here represent my own thoughts (at the time of writing) and not those of the people, institutions or organisations that I may or may not be related with unless stated explicitly.