Showing posts with label nightbitch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nightbitch. Show all posts

Monday, February 10, 2025

2024 creature feature regrets weekend

Three weeks is about the amount of clearance I need from the previous year before I start watching movies from that year again, and sure enough, it was exactly three weeks between watching the last 2024 movie I ranked for 2024, A Complete Unknown, and the first 2024 movie I watched during the post-2024 era, which will last from now until the end of time.

And then the next day, I watched my second 2024 film of the post-2024 era.

Both of these were films I had been meaning to see in time to rank them, but missed them for one reason or another. And both feature human beings who might not be quite human.

The first was Marielle Heller's Nightbitch, and there's one of these every year. Well, maybe not every year -- the last one I remember for sure was CODA in 2021. And by "one of these" I mean a movie I wanted to see before my ranking deadline but did not realize was actually easily accessible to me until it was too late.

You may remember I was trying to work our TV at our Air BnB in Los Angeles so that I could get into Hulu and watch this. You may also remember that I was unsuccessful in that endeavor. 

Even more unsuccessfully, I failed to realize that a lot of Hulu content is actually available to us on Disney+ here, due to some agreement I don't properly understand and needn't bother to properly understand. Anyway, I could have watched it before my deadline, but only noticed this a few days later when it was too late.

The first thing I want to tell you about Nightbitch is that it does not star Sandra Bullock. "Why would I think it starred Sandra Bullock, Vance?" I just think the picture in that poster above looks a lot more like Sandra Bullock than it looks like Amy Adams, which is funny because I have never for a moment thought they resembled each other.

Actually, this isn't at all what Adams looks like in the movie. I think that's quite a beautiful picture above, but Adams never looks as beautiful as she actually is in this movie, which was a choice by both Heller and Adams to underscore how much she has been physically reduced by being a stay-at-home mother to a two-year-old. When Adams was younger I thought of her as an actress who would always take roles in which she was clearly very pretty, but the last ten years of her career have changed that impression significantly. She's really in touch with her feral side here, even beyond what is required by the story itself. (Which, if you did not know, is either a real story about some part of her that is turning canine, or just a metaphor for the transformation she wants to undergo to get her old self back.)

I really liked Heller's approach to this script, which consistently breaks out of the ordinary scenes involving Adams' Mother (I only just realized, looking at IMDB, that the character doesn't have a name) in her communications with friends, former classmates and her husband, delivering some sort of soliloquy about her true thoughts -- scenes that really allow Adams to go the extra mile in finding the miserable center of a woman whose life has become only taking care of other people. Heller also intentionally blurs the line between "Is this real?" or "Is this in her head?" as there are some moments where no disinterested observer can confirm what's happening, and some where what's happening does poke its head out into other people's reality. (Though, I suppose, their reactions could still be in her head.)

Obviously in its thematic preoccupations, but also in a certain lacerating quality, the movie reminded me a lot of Jason Reitman's Tully, written by Diablo Cody and starring Charlize Theron. The way Theron eschewed all vanity in that movie to give us a specimen of exhausted motherhood (one who was also currently pregnant in that case) was very reminiscent of how Adams does the same thing here. And in both movies, a well-meaning but lazy husband/father gets called out for the way he passively shirks duties he knows his wife will do if he just shows himself to be even marginally disinclined toward them. Here it's Scoot McNairy, and I have to say, I could see in him a lot of my own failings to do more than 30% of the household tasks in our house -- though Scoot (also nameless, only "Husband" on IMDB) is probably closer to 10%. I'm not as bad as he is ... right? (Or in any case, my kids are now 14 and 11 so it's all long since been forgiven.) I especially liked clever observations in Heller's script such as when she reminds him that she's going into the city that night so he has to be the parent present, and he says "I know, I know, I'm babysitting." And she shoots back "It's not babysitting if it's your own child." Too right.

I might like Tully a smidge better, but I like them both a lot and I think this would have made my top 40 of last year if I'd seen it in time.

I didn't know anything but the title of Zelda Williams' Lisa Frankenstein. In fact, that means I did not know it was written by Diablo Cody, making my referencing of her in relation to Tully quite the coincidence. (Yes, I wrote the Nightbitch half of this post before I watched Lisa Frankenstein, already knowing that was my plan for Saturday night so also knowing in advance the concept for this post.)

If you had asked me to guess what it was about, I would have told you that Lisa was the daughter of either the mad scientist himself, or of Frankenstein's monster, depending on how this particular film wanted to interpret the identity of "Frankenstein." But just from having seen the poster, I could have told you it was not set in the 18th century. 

Making assumptions about this film was the reason it didn't quite make it off my Letterboxd watchlist during the 2024 ranking season, even though I had (paid) access to it for most of the year. It was seeing it pop up on Netflix -- which also may or may not have happened while I was still ranking -- that allowed me to belatedly catch up with it this past weekend. 

It turns out the movie was not what I thought it was about, textually, but was similar to what I thought it was about in spirit, and also a little better than I would have thought it might be. Lisa here is actually Lisa Swallows (the charming and very capable Kathryn Newton), it's just the movie thinks of her as "Lisa Frankenstein" because she ends up inadvertently raising a man from the dead by visiting an old graveyard in her town and dreaming herself away into the statue of him next to where he's buried. Yes, the statue looks a bit dreamy, but Lisa's wish was actually to be dead like him, not to have him alive again with her. See, her mother was killed by an axe murderer the year before, protecting Lisa from said axe murderer at that, and though I called Newton the actress charming, Lisa the character is more mopey and goth adjacent, as you might expect from someone whose mother recently died and whose ineffectual father (Joe Chrest) has since taken up with the town bitch (Carla Gugino) and her kind but vacuous cheerleader daughter (Liza Soberano). Oh yeah, it's also 1989.

Lisa Frankenstein humorously reminded me, in its inciting incident, of a movie I did see and rank in 2024, which was Hot Frosty. In that holiday romance for the Hallmark crowd, Lacey Chabert wishes a handsome snowman (Dustin Milligan) into existence in a similar fashion, and indeed does begin her own romance with that snowman, just as Lisa becomes involved with Cole Sprouse's initially wordless exhumed corpse, who steadily regains his complexion as he regains missing body parts through means not entirely savory. This is surely a better movie than Hot Frosty, though I did like that one too, in spite of my better critical instincts.  

As a leftover from Juno, we still think of Cody as a bit of a try-hard as a screenwriter (she probably rolls her eyes every time someone confronts her with the phrase "home skillet"). However, I have not found that to be Cody's dominant mode of writing in most of her movies since then (including Tully) and I continued to find her work more positive than negative here. I didn't embrace it as much as Nightbitch but it still gets a solid 3.5 stars from me.

And now back onward to non-2024 movies ... again. 

Friday, January 3, 2025

Nabbing novelties left and right

I'm trying to fulfill that perfect happy spot between movies that are on my Letterboxd watchlist but also not equally available to me in the U.S. as they will be when I get back home on Monday the 6th. That initiative led to killing more than half the day on The Brutalist on New Year's Eve, the sort of activity I don't intend to repeat unless the movie is a lot shorter than that one was.  

Streaming presents its own interesting challenges and opportunities in that regard. The TV in our AirBnB has some accounts that are logged in either to the homeowner or a past guest -- which reminds me, I think we left our Netflix logged in at the AirBnB back in Maine -- that might get me access to some things I can't access equally back in Melbourne. 

I say "challenges" in addition to opportunities because there is something weird going on with the remote control for this big TV in the living room. No back buttons on it seem to work, and there are certain apps where the TV allows you to get in to a certain point, but then not to retrace your steps. Turning the TV off and back on again seems to get you to a main menu again, but once you go back into the app, it remembers the place you left off, and the cycle starts all over again.

And so it is that I'm not sure if I actually have access to Marielle Heller's Nightbitch on the Hulu logged into our TV. Within the actual Hulu app, I have progressed to a point where I can't seem to get out of a certain screen of options and the search function isn't accessible. I did search for Nightbitch elsewhere, but I'm not sure it was actually checking Hulu when it did that search so it showed as unavailable. But Nightbitch is available on Hulu, which we don't have in Australia, isn't it? I have a few more days to figure this out.

I eventually abandoned Nightbitch for a different sort of American novelty, which is Max. The Max account was fully logged in and I could go through all the choices. We don't have Max in Australia, as the things that play on Max are on a streamer called Binge, which my wife can get on her laptop but I can't get on our TV. (A boring topic that it is not worth getting into today.)

In a moment of desperation, I almost started watching Joker: Folie a Deux. However, I had resolved not to watch it out of some vague protest of Todd Phillips and his vaguely right-wing rhetoric, and I didn't want desperation alone to cause me to crumble. (Plus the movie is available on the plane if I do get to that point.)

Instead I found something that is not actually accessible to me in any other way, but is on my watchlist: Gary Dauberman's Salem's Lot. As far as I am aware, this is fully a Max exclusive and it may not even be available for rental via iTunes, though I have not checked that. 

For context, Salem's Lot is one of my favorite Stephen King novels. The 1979 movie version of it is terrible, and on IMDB I am noticing there is also a 2004 version that I haven't seen. For being one of my favorites, though, I remember very little of the actual plot, only that I loved King's execution of it and that I cherished the book at the time I read it. Catching it before I finalize my 2024 rankings seemed like the best possible outcome of a night in America with my different viewing options, even though I would have preferred Nightbitch. And it was also not too mentally taxing a way to wind down from a day at Universal Studios for my younger son's 11th birthday. 

I didn't end up loving the movie, though I didn't end up hating it either. I'd heard it was pretty mid, and it was.

Though it's hard to tell if a second novelty played a significant role in my assessment of the movie or not. Allow me to elaborate.

As many TVs are out there in this world, this TV is on the high-def setting that does not make movies look very good. Actually, I should clarify. It makes them look extremely "good" if your idea of "good" is to see lines so crisp and details so defined that it almost creates the impression you are watching something on video, like the high-frame rate of Peter Jackson's Hobbit movies. I've discussed this before so I think you know what I'm talking about even though at this moment I am lacking the technical language to describe it more accurately.

I don't ever like to watch movies on this TV setting and rarely would be in a position to do so because my own TV is set up on cinema mode (or whatever it's called), which makes movies look like they are supposed to look. But given the challenges this remote control was already presenting me, I decided not to try to change the picture mode, in part because I am going to assume the guy who owns this place actually wants it to look like it does. (He's got surf movie posters up around the house and I think he might be involved in movie production in some way, so I am having to assume he made this choice intentionally.)

So I decided a second novelty would be to watch Salem's Lot on this setting that I never use on my own TV, and see if I could quantify any impact it had on my impression of the movie. Which turned out to be a tall task.

People talk about an uncanny valley when they discuss Robert Zemeckis' films -- boy do they talk about that, I really wish they would come up with a new perspective. For me this is more like the uncanny valley, watching these actors in high-def, feeling like the sets and (in this case) the monsters are hyper-real in some way that bothers me, rather than cinematic creations that are of a piece with the rest of the attractive looking environment we get when we watch films in the theater or on the right TV setting. It also gave me the impression they were making a television show, not a movie, but also not a television show from the prestige TV era. In the past I've likened it to something shot for the BBC in the 1980s and I stand by that description.

So that feeling alone takes me out of the idea that I am watching something that I should consider on par with all the other movies I'm watching in a particular year -- a consideration especially at a time of year that I am comparing those movies for the purposes of my list. And it dulls my ability to properly rate all the other elements of a typical movie, like script and performance and special effects. Once I've lost my like with like comparison, I'm lost for sure.

As I was watching Salem's Lot, I found myself wondering how I would fare with a movie I thought I had good reason to like -- Nightbitch, for example. There was never a great likelihood Salem's Lot would contend for even my top 100 of 2024, let alone my top 20. Heller, on the other hand, has already made one movie that landed in my top 20 (Diary of a Teenage Girl was my #19 of 2015) and one other that probably would have contended for the top 20 if I'd seen it in time to rank it (A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood). 

The question, of course, is whether I want to subject a movie I have a good chance of liking to this setting. What if I would have really liked the movie but watching it this way ruins it?

It remains to be seen whether that question will be answered with Nightbitch. If I do manage to pull it up on this TV, then I can decide whether I want to make my way into the TV settings and find the proper mode on which to view it.