A few days ago, I posted a review of that cult classic of Christmas horror, Krampus, an exploitation of the recently popular Austrian Advent bogeyman. As I said before, I think the movie is a missed opportunity, a chance to delve into some intriguing lore that instead sticks to the familiar conventions of B-grade horror movies.
The ending of the film, however, is wonderfully ambiguous, so much so that it has led to some online arguments. I refrained from discussing the ending in my review, but I’d like to do so now. I will give the customary spoiler warning, though I will add that nothing I’m about to describe will surprise you.
Krampus, directed by Michael Dougherty. Written by Tod Casey and Michael Dougherty. Starring Adam Scott, Toni Collette, and David Koechner. Universal Pictures, . Rated PG-13.
The folklore character Krampus, who comes to us from Austria and Bavaria, has enjoyed increased international popularity in the last decade, both because of resurgent interest in his land of origin and because any number of artists have found him useful for creating Christmas horror, usually of an ironic variety that thumbs its nose at what has become a materialistic and commercialized holiday divorced from its religious roots.
The Krampus aesthetic.
Several B movies about Krampus exist, most having received largely negative responses from viewers. Two more positively received middling-high budget films about this monster do exist, however. One is the William Shatner vehicle Christmas Horror Story, and the other is the film before us now, a cult classic out of Hollywood.
Krampus is a movie hard to categorize. Some call it horror and some call it comedy. It’s a bit of both, a movie with a fair amount of goofy humor as well as some genuinely scary parts. I would argue that it fills the same genre niche as that great classic, Poltergeist: a family-centered horror film peppered with equal amounts of laughter and fear, in which children are frequently menaced but, ultimately, no one gets hurt.
It’s June 30th, the official birthday of Sailor Moon. As this is the third or possibly the second most important holiday in the magical girl calendar, we cannot allow it to pass unnoticed. All are commanded to rejoice and make merry under penalty of death.
This is a traditional date for releasing news about the Sailor Moon franchise, and this year is no exception. According to CBR, there is now an official release date for Sailor Moon Eternal, the film that will form the sequel to the Sailor Moon Crystal anime series and interpret the manga’s fourth arc.
Here’s a teaser for the film:
This fourth arc is the one with Chibi Moon’s magic pony unicorn boyfriend. It just happens, coincidentally, to be where I’m at in the original ’90s anime … but it’s taking me a while to get through it because it’s really a downgrade after the show’s magnificent third season.
This film features yet another total character redesign, making the third for Sailor Moon Crystal. This time, the designs are by franchise veteran Kazuko Tadano, as reported by Anime News Network. The new, teased designs, as shown in the video above, look sort of like a hybrid cross between the original series and the new.
Some fans are excited, as I know from my Twitter feed, but my opinion is more mild, though that’s partly because I’ve gotten too old to geek out with wild abandon about this stuff. But what this all says to me is that Sailor Moon Crystal has been mostly a disaster. The first two seasons were poorly animated and poorly received, and the third, which revamped the character designs and brought on a new director, was only a slight improvement.
Each change in Crystal has been an attempt to bring it closer to the original ’90s anime: The third season reintroduced upgraded versions of the original’s poses, transformations, and hammy dialogue—but without the comedic timing or charm.
Getting the original character designer back on board appears to me just another acknowledgement that the new series failed to capture the magic of the original. This movie might end up being decent, but I doubt it will relieve this new incarnation of its reputation of being Sailor Moon: Also-Ran.
Holy horse, it’s like someone at Hasbro read my mind.
I don’t know what it is about me and movies and TV, but sometimes I think someone in Hollywood is spying me. I’ll be all like, “You know what the world needs? A Battlestar Galactica remake.” And then it happens. Or I’ll be all, “A new King Kong, but still set in the 1930s, would be awesome.” I had cause to regret that one.
A few years ago, I was all, like, “You know what this My Little Pony franchise needs? A movie that has elaborately detailed fantasy environments instead of the minimalist Flash animation of the cartoon show, where maybe Equestria gets invaded by some bad guys with airships, and the ponies have to go to Aquastria to get aid from the seaponies or something.”
I wish I had actually written that online somewhere so I could show you a link to prove it, but I didn’t. But still … holy crap.
I wet my pants when I saw this preview. Only a little bit, though. And it only happened once.
This and my novel is getting published. Best. Week. Ever.
Like many magical girl fans, I have sometimes daydreamed about what a live-action Sailor Moon movie might look like. My imaginary version would probably piss off most of the fans, because it’s a gritty Kung fu film directed by the same guy who did The Raid. No, I’m serious.
For some fans, daydreaming is not enough. They take it to the next level and actually make the movie. There have been several such projects, and even though they’re not-for-profit, they have a habit of disappearing because of copyright claims. In fact, when I stumbled across Sailor Moon: The Movie on YouTube, I mistakenly believed it was the 2011 short film starring Avery Danielle, but I was wrong. That one, sadly, is gone from the interwebs. No, this is the 2015 loooong film starring MaryBeth Schroeder, and it clocks in at a whopping two hours and twenty-two minutes. That’s the size of an epic-length feature film. Continue reading “Watch ‘Sailor Moon: The Movie’ Before It’s Gone!”
The remake of Ghostbusters has certainly stirred the pot. Its trailer has the dubious honor of being the most disliked movie trailer in YouTube history. At the time of writing, the dislike count is 839,395. That last dislike on there is mine. I don’t normally hit dislike buttons and, in fact, generally dislike them, but I wanted my own piece of YouTube history.
Recently, the popular Cinemassacre released a video in which reviewer James Rolfe says, calmly and reasonably, that he is not going to see the film because the trailer looks terrible and the new movie pays obvious disrespect to the franchise. His reasoning, given the subject matter, is sound: Continue reading “Why the New ‘Ghostbusters’ Looks Like Suck”
I get the impression from the hand-wringing that there are people on the internet who think Hollywood’s casting directors can create actors and actresses ex nihilo. They have to work with what they have, people.
Are you upset about Scarlett Johansson starring in a Hollywood adaptation of a Japanese anime? Okay, then name me an A-list Japanese actress in Hollywood. I mean that seriously; I don’t keep tabs on Hollywood and I am aware that there exist a lot of allegedly A-list actors whose names I don’t know.
Oh, excuse me, it seems most of the internet isn’t complaining that Johansson is not Japanese, but that she’s not Asian. But surely you don’t think Asian people are interchangeable and all alike, do you … do you? If the role of the Major were being played by a Pakistani or White Russian, that is, someone Asian, would you be satisfied?
Tell me: exactly when did Hollywood get Ahnenpass rules? Since when are actors and actresses supposed to be judged on melanin content or genetic heritage rather than, say, talent? It must be quite recent: I don’t remember anyone whinging about white actors in Speed Racer, which was also an American movie based on a Japanese cartoon. Oddly enough, I do remember the internet whinging a great deal about white actors in The Last Airbender, which was an American movie based on … um … an American cartoon.
“But the cartoon characters are Asian!” the internet cried. No they weren’t. They came from magical element land, spoke American slang, and behaved like American teens. They were about as Asian as a pan-Asian cuisine fast food stall, but that didn’t stop busybodies and scolds from tarring M. Night Shyamalan as a racist, which no doubt completely blindsided him: no one has any hope of accurately predicting what will offend the Twitterati and Tumblrinas.
And because the rage and offense of Twitter cannot be predicted, there is no point in trying to avoid giving that offense. The executives at the studio making the Ghost in the Shell movie should answer the self-appointed internet moral guardians with a giant middle finger. If they do, I will see the movie. If they kiss butt instead, I’ll skip it.
It’s not “whitewashing.” It’s just practicality. Movies made in a place cast actors from that place. In Bollywood, it’s customary to depict characters of European descent by slapping a wig on an Indian actor. And I can’t tell you how many anime I’ve seen with allegedly foreign characters who speak Japanese fluently and with a flawless accent. Sometimes they speak their “native” language (usually English) with such a thick Japanese accent I can’t understand them. For example, check out the “English” girl from Kinmoza. It’s pretty funny. But does it offend me that a Japanese woman is playing an English girl? No, because I’m not that petty.
People claiming to be offended by this are trying to introduce a moral principle they cannot possibly apply consistently. The inevitable result will be hypocrisy such as we see in people condemning Johansson playing the Major while insisting we need a non-English James Bond. No casting director could possibly obey such a harsh rule, and historically, casting directors have not. Remember Scotty from Star Trek? Not actually Scottish. How about Sean Connery in Hunt for Red October? Not Russian.
When a person acts, he plays someone he’s not, someone with a different life and different history, and yes, possibly a different race, from his own. That’s why it’s called acting.
And just to be clear here, this is the character we’re talking about:
She actually kinda does look like Scarlett Johansson in a wig.
