2017 has been an exceptional year for horror. Between the incredible box office success of Stephen King’s It , to the near universal critical praise of Get Out , with more divisive but inarguably daring films such as It Comes at Night and mother! thrown in along the way, we appear to be in somewhat of a golden age of modern horror. But this trend is not entirely new, with the past few years delivering on a wide range of fresh and inventive thrillers that push the boundaries of horror, but may have unfortunately been missed by wider audiences. Karyn Kusama’s The Invitation is an example of such films. While it missed the mark at the box office, The Invitation is a master class of horror through its expert use of tension and release. The film utilizes themes of grief, corrupted nostalgia and desperation, to create a story that gradually raises every hair on the viewer’s body before devastating them with its tragic conclusion. The Invitation is simple in its premise: Will (Logan Marshall-Green) and his girlfriend Keira (Emayatzy Corinealdi), attend a dinner party after receiving an invitation from Will’s several years estranged ex-wife, Eden (Tammy Blanchard). What follows is a simmering pot of tension that slowly builds and builds until it boils over into a messy and violent finale. For those who have not seen it, the film is best enjoyed with little to no foreknowledge of this dinner party’s dark secrets. Kusama doles out her mysteries with patience and reserve, and questioning each of the character’s true intentions and motivations is half the fun. The film is immediately evocative of the type of party you would have rather not attended but did so anyway, either out of politeness or obligation. The very premise of attending an ex’s party would make most sensible people run for the hills. Will himself seems unsure about what draws him to attend, be it a desire to mend a relationship broken by tragedy, or to revisit an emotional wound that won’t seem to heal. The awkward party’s setting serves as an effective way to establish immediate discomfort. Furthermore, the use of a tried and true horror movie trope during the early minutes of the film, also establishes a sense of unease that prevents the viewer from ever becoming comfortable, and also serves as a foreboding warning of what’s to come. The party’s setting is at once familiar and strange to Will. The house was once his own home, one he shared with Eden but left after the sudden and tragic death of their son tore their marriage apart. Now the home is host to haunting and painful memories. Visions of a happier life taunt him as he explores the once familiar space. The entirety of the film takes place here and is gorgeously shot. The candlelit setting is soaked in shadow, giving this spacious and decadent home a sense of claustrophobia as though the walls are closing in. Terse violins lead the score that punctates quiet moments to build a mounting sense of dread. Each aspect of the film’s setting deftly contributes to the foreboding sense that something here is terribly wrong. The party’s guests likewise, are comprised of both the familiar and the strange. The majority of attendees are old friends of Will and Eden, with the night’s celebration serving in part as a welcome catch-up. In her quest to manage her grief however, Eden has made several new friends who crash the reunion. Michiel Huisman plays Eden’s new husband, David, who’s forwardly friendly charm is simultaneously disarming and suspicious. Joining them are the immediately imposing Pruitt and manic pixie Sadie, (John Carroll Lynch and Lindsay Burdge), who’s unusual behavior only serves to raise more questions on the nature of this get-together. What follows is a slow and steady ramp up of paranoia and tension as the film progresses. While the other guests drink wine and socialize, Will wrestles with unease. Kusama deftly communicates tension to the viewer through Will’s growing paranoia, stemming from his discomfort at returning to his old home, and exasperated by these new people in Eden’s life. His friends and girlfriend insist that his mistrust is unearned, assuming that his discomfort likely stems from a turbulent history with Eden, and his hesitation to reopen the relationship. But a series of mysterious actions by the party’s hosts only lead to Will’s mounting suspicions. Why are all the doors locked and the windows barred? Where is the party’s missing guest, Choy? And why does Eden have a stash of powerful sedatives? The slow accumulation of these mounting suspicions lead Will to the brink of snapping, and cause the viewer a growing sense of dread. By the time The Invitation reaches its violent release during the third act, both the party attendees and viewers alike, are on a hair trigger. The film’s patience in slowly establishing an escalating fear and paranoia makes its shocking finale all the more effective. The success of The Invitation , is achieved not only by its effective use of tension, but also in part, by its mindful meditation on coping with grief. Will and Eden are both struggling to deal with their son’s death, but each take opposite approaches. Will wallows in his grief. He spends much of the party isolating himself from the others, constantly dazed and distant. In his son’s old bedroom, he visualizes memories of times of happiness before his family was broken. Will choses to embrace his pain, but suffers dearly for it. Eden conversely, has found an alternative way to cope. She has found comfort in a spiritual cult that embraces death as a mercy, as a communion, and at least outwardly, she seems like she has finally found peace. That peace quickly seems unearned and short lived. The conflict between Will’s unflinching decision to confront the truth of his son’s death, and Eden’s decision to obfuscate her feelings through faith, is one of the most powerful aspects of the film. It parallels Will’s constant pursuit of answers to the party’s mysteries as the other guests attempt to dull their suspicions with wine and politeness. This is a personal tale within a horror film that lends an extra layer of emotional depth. Ultimately, Kusama seems to warn of the extreme lengths some will go to to overcome grief, and shows the vulnerability that can lead someone there. This graceful pairing of expertly crafted tension and emotional storytelling, makes The Invitation an experience that resonates long after the film’s final moments. Jack Kolodziejski Jack makes drugs for a living, but not necessarily the fun kind. He enjoys international travel and discussing music, movies, and games in excruciating detail. #Review #Newsletter #TheInvitation #Horror #BeaconHorrorShow3 #JackKolodziejski #KarynKusama

Universal Pictures is one of my personal favorite distribution and production studios of all time. Their logo: the spinning earth with the giant UNIVERSAL text spinning across it is as iconic to cinema as it can possibly get. The studio’s lineup of horror monsters remains timeless, and I believe it will continue to be recognizable for centuries. The Creature from The Black Lagoon, or as he has been commonly nicknamed, “The Gill Man,” is the last character introduced into the menagerie of Universal’s Horror Icons. When presented in pop culture – either through Universal’s own advertising or the 1987 cult classic, The Monster Squad , – the Gill Man is presented standing tall and slimy, right next to horror icons such as Dracula, Frankenstein’s Monster and his bride, the Invisible Man, the Mummy and the Wolf Man. One might say though, that he’s the odd Gill Man out of that bunch. The Creature from the Black Lagoon was introduced in 1954, almost 20 years after the rest of the monsters received their horror debuts. Because of this late entry, he was never seen in any of the countless monster mash up’s Universal produced during the 1940’s. There were only two sequels produced in the 1950’s: Revenge of the Creature , and The Creature Walks Among Us . Unlike Dracula and The Mummy , which have been remade multiple times, Creature has never been recreated. Outside of appearing in the previously mentioned Monster Squad , along with the Gill Man’s striking resemblance to the creature in the upcoming Guillermo Del Toro film, The Shape of Water , his appearance in contemporary films are quite seldom, but the image of his razor sharp webbed hands, as well as the dead and wide look in his eyes, are still instantly recognizable to the masses. What made the monster in director Jack Arnold’s original film stand out in cinematic history? I believe the Gill Man is so iconic because he is the perfect representation of the time during which he was created. In the 1950’s, the American people were experiencing a common paranoia. They were afraid that one day, they would look out of their windows and bear witness to a flag with a hammer and sickle rising above a flagpole, or even worse, a mushroom cloud. They weren’t as scared of magical curses or the supernatural. Instead, it was the threat of nuclear annihilation, as well as men tampering with the laws of nature and facing dire consequences that was much more plausible and became the looming fears of the people. These fears were reflected in much of Science Fiction and horror films at the time, especially by Universal with radioactivity and nuclear power being the cause of giant bugs and arachnids ( Them! and Tarantula ), the hubris of man harnessing the power of science and creating horrific results ( The Fly ), and Alien invaders arriving to exterminate us all ( It Came from Outer Space ). The Creature from the Black Lagoon exemplifies this era because it is the classic cautionary tale of man’s hubris: reaching far outside his grasp and facing dire consequences. The ill-fated crew of the Rita learn this lesson the hard way when they explore The Black Lagoon itself, a place where no man belongs, and their curiosity gets the best of them as the Gill Man kills them one by one, not by malicious intent, but simply protecting his home. The Gill Man represents what happens when we go too far in over our heads. I’m not personally against scientific discovery and further exploring and understanding the planet we occupy, but Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park put it best: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Jeremy Kolodziejski Jeremy is younger than he looks, and has passionately studied the art and craft of filmmaking for as long as he can remember. He is currently a freelance wedding videographer, and is also heavily involved in Competitive Fighting Games. IG: jeremyko95 #Newsletter #Review #CreaturefromtheBlackLagoon #JeremyKolodziejski #BeaconHorrorShow3 #UniversalMonsters #GillMan

Roger Deakins is highly considered one of the most talented cinematographers of all time, and he still has years and years of work ahead of him. He's been nominated for an Academy Award in Cinematography 13 times, from 1995 to today. If you're doing your math, that's more than one nomination every two years. To date, he has never won an Academy Award for his work. The 90th Academy Awards marks his 14th nomination for Cinematography, for his masterful work on Denis Villeneuve's, Blade Runner 2049 . Could this be the year the legend takes home the shiny gold statuette? Or more importantly, is this the year the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences rightfully praises the man who has basically created the way movies have looked for the past 20 years? I mean, just about everybody tries to copy this guy’s style. Don't get me wrong! My man has walked away with over 100 award wins through various institutions with varying degrees of authority, it's just that Oscar probably looks so damn good on a desk. And I think he really deserves it this year. I thought I'd share with you guys a little visual guide for this special artist, who has had the clout in Hollywood to work with some of the most talented filmmakers in the field, like Sam Mendes, Joel and Ethan Cohen, Ron Howard, Denis Villeneuve and more! Oh, so much more. But just what is cinematography you may ask, (or maybe you don't)? Sometimes referred to as the Director of Photography (or DP/DOP), it is the cinematographer’s job to work in tandem with the film's director on camera placement, lens use, color grading, lighting, framing and various other techniques, to essentially create the “feel” and "look" of the film. Noted cinematographers are Vittorio Storaro , Janusz Kaminski , G.W. "Billy" Bitzer, Conrad Hall , James Wong Howe , Maryse Alberti , Karl Struss , Kazuo Miyagawa , Robert Burks and John Bailey , (who was just named the new President of Hollywood’s Film Academy). Famous directors Ingmar Bergman, Quentin Tarantino, Orson Welles and Stanley Kubrick are also known for heavily photographing many of their own films. Now who exactly is Deakins up against this year? Let's run down the competition real quick before we dive into this master's insane gallery of achievements… THE NOMINEES FOR BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY 2018: Bruno Delbonnel (Nominated for Darkest Hour ) 4 previous nominations for: Amelie (2001) A Very Long Engagement (2004) Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009) Inside Llewyn Davis (2013) Hoyte van Hoytema (Nominated for Dunkirk ) 1st nomination. Known for: Let the Right One In (2008) Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011) Her (2013) Interstellar (2014) Spectre (2015) Rachel Morrison (Nominated for Mudbound ) The first woman EVER nominated in the category. 1st nomination. Known for: Tim and Eric's Billion Dollar Movie ( 2012) Fruitvale Station (2013) Dope (2015) Black Panther (2018) Dan Laustsen (Nominated for The Shape of Water) 1st nomination. Known for: Mimic (1997) Silent Hill (2006) Crimson Peak (2015) John Wick Chapter 2 (2017) Proud Mary (2018) And now, some highlights of ya boi Roger's jaw-dropping filmography.... 1984 (1984) Sid and Nancy (1986) Mountains of the Moon (1990) Barton Fink (1991) Passion Fish (1992) The Secret Garden (1993) The Hudsucker Proxy (1994) The Shawshank Redemption (1994) 1st Nomination – Lost to John Toll for Legends of the Fall Dead Man Walking (1995) Fargo (1996) 2nd Nomination – Lost to John Seale for The English Patient Kundun (1997) 3rd Nomination – Lost to Russell Carpenter for Titanic The Big Lebowski (1998) O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000) 4th Nomination – Lost to Peter Pau for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon A Beautiful Mind (2001) The Man Who Wasn't There (2001) 5th Nomination – Lost to Andrew Lesnie for The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring House of Sand and Fog (2003) The Village (2004) Jarhead (2005) *Two Nominations in One Year* The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007) 6th Nomination No Country for Old Men (2007) 7th Nomination – Lost to Robert Elswit for There Will Be Blood Doubt (2008) The Reader (2008) 8th Nomination – Lost to Anthony Dod Mantle and Ravi K. Chandran for Slumdog Millionaire Revolutionary Road (2008) A Serious Man (2009) True Grit (2010) 9th Nomination – Lost to Wally Pfister for Inception In Time (2011) Skyfall (2012) 10th Nomination – Lost to Claudio Miranda for Life of Pi Prisoners (2013) 11th Nomination – Lost to Emmanuel Lubezki for Gravity Unbroken (2014) 12th Nomination – Lost to Emmanuel Lubezki for Birdman Sicario (2015) 13th Nomination – Lost to Emmanuel Lubezki for The Revenant Hail, Caesar! (2016) Blade Runner 2049 (2017) 14th Nomination With a history as rich and full of variety as his, one would hope Deakins could pull in a win at some point in his career from the Academy. Does he care? Probably, not very much. Do I care? Oh, I care. And Blade Runner 2049 seems as good a chance as he may have (and it really is one of the most visually pleasing films you will ever see), although the competition against him this year is a little unnerving. We'll just have to wait and see on March 4th at the 90th Academy Awards ceremony. I'll be watching with a shot of whiskey set aside for the maverick's category, just in case he finally pulls off a much deserved win, or if he loses. I'm taking it either way. Good luck, Roger!!! Mike Burdge Editor-in-Chief Founder of and programmer for Story Screen. Lover of stories and pizza in the dark. When he isn't watching movies, you can find him reading things about people watching movies. He lives in Beacon, NY with his cat who is named after Kevin Bacon's character from Friday the 13th. #Newsletter #Article #RogerDeakins #MikeBurdge #Oscars #AcademyAwards #BladeRunner2049 #March2018

Nos-tal-gia (noun) : a sentimental longing or wistful affection for the past, typically for a period or place with happy personal associations. From the Greek words: nostos (homecoming) and algos (pain). Memory is a beautiful thing. I can remember times of such enriching happiness and times of immensely crushing loneliness, times when life was doing exactly what it was meant to do, whether I liked it or not. I think back on my past friendships, the first time I heard my favorite song, driving all the different cars I called “my car” throughout various stages of my life. I remember watching my favorite movies with my family and friends, engulfed in the greatest personal pleasure I would ever experience: sharing a good story with good people, people who I knew would like this thing I had discovered, because they liked what I liked. As a film lover, and now professional film curator and exhibitor, I've discovered running themes and emotions in my choices of favorite films. Escapism has never been a solely cinematic venture, but boy howdy do movies pull it off swimmingly. My memories of these films, as well as my anticipation of future works, will always rely on my nostalgic nature as a viewer, because a film is equally about what the viewer brings to the table, as is the story and how it is executed. Thus is reality. It simply is. And nostalgia is no different. The effects of nostalgia are inherently bittersweet, which is why the capitalization and over-production of films and other works of art utilizing this emotion are being met with such backlash. There's a certain sense of ownership to some of these things, and while some forms of this may be conducive to experiencing art, others can make you completely misunderstand The Last Jedi , which means you lose. You lose a good movie because it wasn't what you wanted it to be, because in your mind you love Star Wars and this ain't why you love Star Wars . It's completely understandable, but not necessarily the healthiest of outlooks. Putting it more tenderly, it can seem as though these things are making a very personal and private feeling become less special, practically ripping the soul out of an emotion you hold very dear. The existential functions of nostalgia are what allow us as individuals to feel connected to the world and others around us, leading to a better representation of our view of the world and how we would like to be seen as a part of it; a mutual acceptance of what is and what is loved, what has been, what can be and what will never be again. Before going on, yes, I will admit that there are negative attributes to the excessive use of nostalgia in film and television. The list can go on and on, and many people are very quick to write that list in their war for what they perceive as originality in the arts. While I understand this point of view, (and do quite much agree with many of the points), I think the truth of nostalgia, and its impact on cinema and pop culture, run quite a bit deeper than examples garnering the proverbial cold shoulder. Reboots. Remakes. Prequels. Adaptations. Reboot-quels. We're drowning in them. But I won't explain the needed product-monetization of business (which is very much where these types of nostalgic driven works are coming from). For the people in charge with all the money get to dictate what gets made, how and when, and for whom. That's just the way it has always been, and presumably always will be. In the world of big budget filmmaking, new is a risk. But this is an entirely specific platform in a gigantic world of various levels of cinema production. Just because it's louder, bigger and more present than others doesn't mean it's the definition of what movies are today. That would be silly. And recently, however slowly, the scales seem to be tilting toward the favor of original artists getting to take a crack at mostly sure-fire hits reinterpreting older characters and models (you need look no further than Blade Runner 2049, Thor: Ragnarok and, again, The Last Jedi for evidence of this). People have been using nostalgia (or complaining about its use) in art for what seems like practically forever. A nostalgic culture backlash is something every generation goes through at a certain point or certain age. In a world built on social media, Netflix algorithms and pop culture references, it's no surprise that the things we like will be used to sell products being created specifically for the sole purpose of selling as many of them as possible. That's how making money works. Ironically, these very things that act as fuel for the now, will eventually be the things that bring the trend to a head, much like clothing, books and other forms of art have in past generations dealing with nostalgic culture overkill. Memories are a very easy product to market and sell, as your investment in them is already sewn in; they barely have to try and sell you this stuff. You already like it, sort of! In the present period example, geek culture became such a fundamental influence on artistic culture, because it was the one place people who didn't feel like they belonged could feel just that, surrounded by peers who “got them.” In this landscape of over-connectivity and the saturation (or bastardization, depending on how you look at it) of self-worth, it's no real surprise that more and more people would find solace in these sorts of ideals and hobbies, such as video games, comic books, movies, etc. Products of pure escapism, endless fantasy, however brief. And you'd be fighting a silly battle to try and argue how this would be a bad thing for society. The connective tissue of a social interaction that is predicated on a common love for something is not false, but communication and understanding at its most transparent: “Hey! You're interested in the same things I am. Let's be friends and learn from one another!” The same can be said for experiencing different things and engaging with people of different interests, but that fact doesn't negate the former. It's not an ultimatum until an individual decides to make it one for themselves. Now of course, this is skirting the issue that seems to have American culture in an uproar, in that the excessive use of nostalgia-based branding is diminishing the value of both the past and present, which I wholeheartedly agree with. Excessive use of anything can do that, but with nostalgia, this overkill level of production actually turns what is perceived as nostalgia as a selling tool into something else entirely: pandering. Nostalgia is meant to give rise to an emotional connection between artist and consumer, the art itself being the canvas on which this connection can be heightened and explored. Sometimes an artist will use traditional motifs and themes, as opposed to reinterpreted characters and stories, to communicate a sense of ease and familiarity. These are the things in stories which some would call cliché or cheesy, but I would argue this is a miserable soulless outlook on what is meant to be a communicative approach to making the emotion of the story land. Reinterpretations of foundational traditions can lead to an original story feeling warmer and more articulate in its execution, and is sometimes the best way to form something entirely new that feels old. It's weird, but true. Nostalgia used in a traditional sense is meant to strengthen the forced wonder of memories and retained information being tickled and glorified. And there's nothing wrong with that; it is just another brush on the artist's tray, a stroke designed to be a connective understanding of a thing/time/place/idea and its relationship to you. Though nostalgia can easily blind experiences and fuzz memories of film and art, this is arguably its very purpose. There are countless films (and very good ones, at that!) that have used nostalgia as a selling point, not through the use of recognizable characters and scenarios, but through a specific place in time. Happy Days and The Wonder Years both romanticized different periods of time from when the production of those television shows took place. The same can be said throughout the decades of cinema: American Graffiti, Grease, A Christmas Story, Back to the Future, The Sandlot, Forrest Gump and The Iron Giant , just to name a few. These films take the reflective route of nostalgia, cashing in on wide audiences’ longing for a period in time that is no more (the counter of which would be restorative nostalgia, which tends to attempt to redefine a specific period by removing unwanted faults inherent with the time. These can be fairly innocent, like Titanic , or wholly monstrous, like The Birth of a Nation ). While these films do their own individual levels of “sanitizing” certain aspects of the 1940's through the 1980's, their main objective is to connect the present (which always seems grim) with the romanticized past, where the grass is always greener because no one can play there anymore. Being aware of what films you consume, and understanding what their purpose is, affects how you yourself are changed by the film, which is arguably the goal of most art. Nostalgia is an easy target in a world where the internet is filled with people both willing to speak honestly, or simply gripe contrarian opinions in an attempt to seem superior than what they perceive as the status quo, both of which are healthy means for discussing film and art as a whole. An understanding of both the self and the world, how art is produced and the things it is produced for, is key to differentiating honest discourse from the cynical, pessimistic nature of anti-nostalgia temperament. (As a rule, people who don't seem open to learning more about a subject they disapprove of are usually full of poo. Write that down.) The time when we are young is the time we come to define who we are, so naturally the things we like begin to form as a part of our identity. Art that we admire in our youth is neurologically embedded in our mind to be enjoyable. As our tastes grow and become more honed, we may discover the enjoyment of these works might have been uninformed and, sometimes, flat-out wrong from an educated mindset. That doesn't mean they can't be enjoyable. That would just be lying to ourselves for some reason, usually as a means to self-ascribe to our wanted perception of belonging to a chosen social group. There are loads of reasons to not like nostalgia, but claiming you are never nostalgic is an exercise in stupidity; trust me, when you and your ex's song from years ago comes on the radio, you feel it, and there's no controlling or arguing with that. And then there's the fandom variety of nostalgia, which I think is the specific form that most people today seem to have a problem with. And I get it. Totally. I would much rather have a never ending slew of risky, original content (which, there already is a load of, just sayin') than be beaten over the head again and again with rehashes of this, and sequels to that, but this arguably misses the point of being mindful of what types of films you choose to consume. For example, I do not watch the Marvel movies over and over again (or go to see each new one in the theater when it's released) because I used to love the characters and the comic books. I go because I love THESE versions of the characters and the movies are GOOD. Alternatively, I loved Transformers and GI Joe when I was younger, and I've only seen 1½ of all those movies because I think they are trash and they don't make me care. Simple. I still have the original cartoons and my memories of playing with toys to satiate my own personal need for those particular franchises. The thing that existed then still exists after the introduction of the new reinterpretation. And though it's true that some franchises can become shrouded in shit due to the continued returning-to-the-well Hollywood finds so fun, I'd say most works worth their salt are untouched by the attempts of rebranding; if Indiana Jones can survive Temple of Doom (which I love) AND Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (which hates me and you), anything else worth anything should be in the clear. And then there's this year’s Easter Egg of all Easter Eggs: Steven Spielberg's Ready Player One , a competent enough movie which I'm starting to feel more and more may have been in on a joke that it wasn't particularly interested in communicating with the audience. While the virtual-reality retelling of Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is movie escapism in its most apparent form, the film also serves as a love letter to fandom, and a cheery exploration of what it represents and how it affects different people. For one, the villain in the movie is the capitalization of nostalgia through media personified: a man whose only goal is to be able to turn as much of a profit as possible off of a believably attainable product, not by increasing the fun and wonder of the product, but by sealing off aspects of it for private, more expensive use, and layering its template with spam advertising, a notion which was firmly kept at bay by its previous owner. This is what big budget Hollywood movies, just like this one, are doing more and more these days. Ready Player One read to me more like a commentary on these tropes and references than another installment in the “pat-yourself-on-the-back-ya-nerd” category. There are clear examples of Spielberg (not so sure about the writers) pushing this question of reality and nostalgia throughout the thrilling set pieces and even more so in the quieter moments. Halliday, the VR's original creator, is a very odd proxy for not just one specific man or idea, but a culmination of years and years of knowledge and art; something I would think Spielberg would relate to, even on the most humblest of levels. By using the very mold they have come to see bastardized (and let's not forget, Spielberg birthed the very first ”blockbuster” of today's standards with 1975's Jaws ) to communicate the flaws and follies of relying on these things too heavily, whether for personal growth or financial gain. The film is explaining the intricacies of these money-making taboos by reminding us why this easily exploited human feeling is so important and relatable, both in actuality and something bigger: its purpose, the influence these things have on the young and how they teach lessons to people who are growing up to become their own heroes of their own story. How well the movie communicates these ideas will vary from viewer to viewer, mindset to mindset, but that’s just the lens I was seeing this story projected through. There's a reason our current nostalgic climate tends to focus on the 1970’s-90's, as opposed to the 1930's-50's. We yearn for the feeling we once had, when an idea that we love was exciting and fresh, and no amount of new and original content will ever be able to fill that mysterious void, just as new relationships never completely fill the void of past ones. These two things are very different concepts, and as far as connective storytelling goes, both are needed, effective and have their place. Don't worry, there will be nostalgia for this present time, and no matter how bad you think it might be, you'll have to understand that it's probably not being made for you. But that doesn't mean you can't still enjoy it if it makes you remember a time when you let yourself enjoy things. Mike Burdge Editor-in-chief Founder of and programmer for Story Screen. Lover of stories and pizza in the dark. When he isn't watching movies, you can find him reading things about people watching movies. He lives in Beacon, NY with his cat who is named after Kevin Bacon's character from Friday the 13th. #Newsletter #Articles #Nostalgia #Film #Education #MikeBurdge #ReadyPlayerOne #StarWars

The whole world seems to be sick and getting sicker. News of violence, tragedy, and political unrest runs at a pace of daily bombardment. Modern media allows instant and constant communication, but in the cacophony of millions of voices screaming at once, meaning is lost. Something fundamental feels missing, and in that void hatred grows. That ever-spreading sense of anger and hatred is contagious, and people are beginning to completely refuse to acknowledge others as fellow human beings. But there was a voice, once, whose singular purpose in life was to use media as a tool to spread a message of love and compassion. The documentary Won’t You Be My Neighbor? remembers the life of Fred Rogers, and tells the story of how his scrappy low-budget children’s program became a beacon of positivity for several generations. This reminder of Rogers’ message comes at a time when it feels like we need it most. The story of Fred Rogers is one of humble beginnings. Won’t You Be My Neighbor? begins with the tale of how Rogers initially began his career as a minister for the Presbyterian Church. During a vacation from ministry school, Rogers discovered the newly budding medium of home television. He immediately recognized it as a tool that could be used to educate children. The offering of programming at the time disheartened him, as most shows were crude and slapstick. Rogers felt that he could do better. But rather than use television as a way to evangelize children with gospel, he broke the principles of Christianity down to their most fundamental core: love thy neighbor just as you love thyself. He conveyed this message to children by demonstrating empathy towards others of all shapes and sizes. He showed tolerance during an era where civil rights movements were raging in the streets. He sang a message of, “I like you as you are.” Even more importantly, he strove to show kindness and compassion towards those who are different from you. Won’t You Be My Neighbor? gracefully demonstrates Rogers’ message through a personal and heartfelt reflection on the man himself, and the dedication he had towards teaching children emotional intelligence. In a sea of programming that used increasingly bombastic imagery to compete for children’s attention (often with the intent to market a product), Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood was rare in its patience and deliberation. The show was purposefully slowly paced, often meditating on long periods of silence. In that way, Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood was uniquely personal. Won’t You Be My Neighbor? conveys Rogers’ powerful ability to present on camera as though he were speaking to each and every child watching individually. In this way, he was able to communicate difficult messages to very young children. His program often discussed war, death, divorce, anger and insecurity, in a manner that was honest and never demeaning towards a child’s ability to process complex emotions. It was his goal to teach children that understanding, processing, and communicating their emotions is strong, healthy, and worthwhile. In this way, he was a champion of early development and mental health. In what may have been the turning point of his career, Rogers testified to a 1969 senate hearing on the importance of the education of emotional intelligence for young children, and secured 20 million dollars in state funding for PBS. Won’t You Be My Neighbor? recalls this famous moment with powerful effect, and demonstrates Rogers’ inarguable importance in the history of modern education. What began as a micro-budget production for local Pittsburgh broadcast quickly became a national phenomenon for PBS. With national attention, however, came opposition and mockery. Even in his prime, Rogers’ unflinching idealism was met with skepticism. He was parodied by comedians, many portraying him with a secret violent or pedophilic dark side. His message was accused of polluting young minds by teaching them that they do not need to try to be special. Rumors even spread that Rogers’ had served in the military as a Navy Seal or that he was secretly gay. The tragedy of this reception is that such a pure message of love and compassion is met with skepticism and cynicism. Rogers presented himself as so humble and modest, that a number of his opponents immediately assumed he had something to hide. Won’t You Be My Neighbor? confronts this reaction through interviews with friends, family, and members of the Neighborhood cast and crew. No, he was never in the military. No, as far as they knew, he wasn’t gay. And he certainly would never do anything to hurt a child. But these interviews do reveal a more human side to Rogers, one of insecurity and anger. They show how much of Rogers’ vulnerabilities were actually written directly into the show, as he used the puppet character of Daniel Striped Tiger to discuss his own doubts and weaknesses. Through animation, Won’t You Be My Neighbor? personifies Rogers as Daniel, and shows the human side of a man that was often at times presented as near Christ-like in his purity. These moments are deeply touching, and reveal Rogers’ quiet humility to be much more than a character he played on television. Moreover, these moments are a stark reflection on a heartbreaking national trend, one where irony and cynicism are so deeply ingrained in society, that the natural reaction to any message of love or peace is met with mistrust. A society where survivors of tragedy are labeled as “crisis actors,” with an agenda, or where refugees of foreign conflicts are treated as potential threats or as leeches looking for handouts. This reaction comes from a place that has missed all of the fundamental teachings that Rogers worked so hard to convey. It feels like we could all use a reminder of the kind of emotional intelligence and empathy that Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood was able to communicate to even the youngest of minds. In that way the timeliness of Won’t You Be My Neighbor? cannot be overstated. This documentary is a powerful and solemn reminder of a man who, more than anything, just wanted people to understand and treat one another with compassion. It is a reminder that we need now more than ever. Jack Kolodziejski Co-Head of Podcasting Jack makes drugs for a living, but not necessarily the fun kind. He enjoys international travel and discussing music, movies, and games in excruciating detail. #Newsletter #Review #JackKolodziejski #WontYouBeMyNeighbor #MrRogers #FredRogers #Documentary #Kindness

Welcome to Frights Unknown, Story Screen’s new (hopefully) semi-regular column on underrated, under the radar, or otherwise underappreciated horror flicks! The intention of this column is to provide a quick, spoiler free look at a worthwhile horror film that you may have missed. We’ll hit on what it’s about, why it’s worth watching, and where you can watch it. In this inaugural edition, we’ll take a look at Starry Eyes. As contradictory as putting this at the top of an article may be, I’d always recommend anyone interested in watching a horror movie to go in as blind as possible. However, if you’re looking for a little more information, please read on! If anyone has ever tried to describe Starry Eyes to you, they most likely described it along the lines as one of the most uncomfortable to watch movies ever made. If you’ve never heard of Starry Eyes , I’m here to tell you: that’s a pretty accurate description. The film is a deeply disturbing look at the seedy underbelly of Hollywood stardom. It melds together genre tropes like paranormal occultism and skin-peeling body horror with a social commentary on the film industry that was starkly ahead of its time. Starry Eyes is the tale of young actress Sara, (played by relatively unknown but undoubtedly talented Alex Essoe) who is desperate to find her big break as a Hollywood star. A dead end job at a pervy burger joint and a handful of friends with big dreams but little ambition have left her at wit’s end. Her inability to find a leading role has brought her to masochistic tendencies. When a call back from an unnerving production company promises her a chance at a starring role, Sara becomes determined to get the part no matter what the cost. Under the sun-bleached streets of LA, Starry Eyes reveals the rotten core of Hollywood. Through a nightmarish and gory horror trip, the film portrays the destructive nature of the industry through the intoxicating promise of stardom and the devious nature of those who hold the keys. The film works in a similar manner to other body horror classics such as Videodrome or The Fly , in which the protagonist undergoes a gruesome transformation before the eyes of the viewer. This metamorphosis is the physical manifestation of Sara’s blind ambition. It’s also the result of the destructive nature of the industry itself, one well known for chewing up and spitting out enthusiastic young talent. Starry Eyes is a cautionary tale for those who will do anything to get to the top, and a condemnation of predators that prey upon them. The truly gross out effects help this message really hit home. What’s most striking about Starry Eyes is its relevance to the current #MeToo and #TimesUp movements in Hollywood. But Starry Eyes is not a new film. It was released in 2014, long before public accusations of Harvey Weinstein’s abusive behavior led to a massive upheaval within the industry. Starry Eyes may be a cautionary tale of unchecked ambition, but it is also harshly critical of the manipulative nature of powerful Hollywood figures. If the disgusting body horror isn’t enough to make you flinch, the reminder of decades of unchecked corruption and sexual abuse probably will. A talented cast, gruesome practical effects, and a compelling modern story make Starry Eyes a worthwhile watch. It’s probably not for the faint of heart, as the oppressive tone and startling gore may leave some more squeamish viewers flinching. However, anyone looking for a shocking exploration of ambition and abuse is in for a modern treat. Starry Eyes is free to stream on Amazon if you’re a prime member and is available to rent on iTunes, YouTube, Google Play, and Vudu. Jack Kolodziejski Co-Head of Podcasting Jack makes drugs for a living, but not necessarily the fun kind. He enjoys international travel and discussing music, movies, and games in excruciating detail. #Newsletter #Review #JackKolodziejski #FrightsUnknown #Horror #October2018 #StarryEyes

It's been three weeks since Disney fired James Gunn from Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3, after some (despicable) past tweets by the writer/director reemerged, which have been heavily criticized for showcasing a lackadaisical attitude towards such taboo subjects as pedophilia, AIDS, the Holocaust, and rape. The backlash to these tweets has been, on both sides of the argument, insanely strong, repeatedly bringing into question the very validity of the tweets, as well as the reactions the world is having to them. It seems in recent days, however, that Disney may be reconsidering its decision to terminate Gunn's employ, be it in the form of utilizing Gunn's script, or fully reinstating him as director altogether. The door sits ajar, waiting for anyone from either side to open or close it. Now, I am not going to sit here and defend the tweets (from almost ten years ago) that led to James Gunn's firing, nor am I going to tell you exactly how to feel about them. If you haven't heard about this yet, bonus for you, ‘cause you're about to get a real rundown on everything that has happened up until this point. If you are aware of this current predicament, I hope you'll join me in trying to feel this one out, as many of its layers are soaked in half-truths, regret, undeniably disgusting behavior, and those bad guys for the ages: the Nazis. A warning: This will not be an article strictly about that. This will be an article about how this happened, why I think this is wrong, and it'll be a little hard. There's a lot to cover. So for the sake of working this out, let's assume that you know nothing about the topic, and that I need to convince you that Disney’s decision to fire James Gunn, and subsequently NOT rehire him, is wrong for a multitude of reasons. And more importantly, that it shows a divisive turning point in how digital, disingenuous, agenda-driven behavior is beginning to take hold of the real world, for the worse. 1/ How Did We Get Here? Let's start at the beginning. Disney hired James Gunn back in 2011 to kick some ass on the recently announced Guardians of the Galaxy movie they'd been planning, a surefire departure in tone from what Marvel Studios had been producing with its comic book adaption series since 2008. Now, GotG was not that well known at the time, but arguably, neither was just about every single other character that had been cast as the central hero of their big budget film series. It's hard to believe, but there was a time that the names Tony Stark, Steve Rogers and Thor, didn't necessarily crack the social zeitgeist. These were B-list heroes as far as the mainstream audience was concerned, and when they were finally propelled into the cultural conscious, I think they were all the better for it. The "unknowability" of these characters' origins allowed for the films’ creative teams around them to truly work that movie magic, crafting arcs and villains that were only mere reflections of their comic book counterparts. Sure, most people had heard the names “Iron Man” and “Captain America” before, but prior to 2008, could anybody really tell you that much about them, other than “He's got a metal suit,” or “He’s the guy that has an American Flag shield?” This was always Marvel's biggest gamble at the beginning: their biggest names (Spider-Man, X-Men, etc.) were already licensed to other big head studios. So could they create a series of films centering on some of the more obscure characters in their ranks to a profitable success? Their tactic for this was another gamble: hire directors with specific visions. It may seem redundant these days to point out how experimental Marvel has been with its directorial choices, what with its recent influx of indie and non-white directors helming their biggest releases. But initially, hiring Jon Favreau, Joe Johnston, Kenneth Branagh and Joss Whedon to oversee these films back when they were being developed was a VERY big deal. Favreau was a Hollywood darling who didn't seem like he was really going to be able to make it in the big circus that is top budget filmmaking. His previous film, 2005's Zathura , was a critical bore and didn't make any money. But they gave him a shot at Iron Man (and eventually Iron Man 2 ), and now he's directing Disney live action movies faster than you can say, “Hakuna Matata.” Joe Johnston was an even weirder case. This is the guy who shot to fame for directing films like, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, The Rocketeer, The Pagemaster , and Jumanji , only to brutally fall from grace between 2001's Jurassic Park III and 2004's Hidalgo . And yet, this guy delivered what might be the BEST origin movie of Marvel's Phase 1 with Captain America: The First Avenger . And what about Kenneth Branagh? My goodness, this guy's track record before Thor reads like your 7th grade English teacher's Netflix queue (Good or bad? You be the judge...). A huge Shakespeare Nut, Branagh was the dream director for these guys to bring a mythological Norse God into our world, complete with some zany fish-out-of-water antics. And then there's Joss Whedon. I vividly remember the day it was announced that the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer , Angel, Firefly, and Dollhouse was chosen as the one to bring all of these big supes together in the long anticipated The Avengers . Talk about a roll of the dice. This guy had directed one movie ( Serenity ), which performed AIGHT, and at the time he was currently doing NOTHING, (said for writing a few comics in his off time and holding Shakespeare live-reading parties with his friends). And yet, this dude delivered (in this writer's opinion) the quintessential superhero movie of the 21st century, closing out a four year run of ups-and-downs that landed Marvel one of the biggest and most successful movies of all time. Marvel's gamble had totally paid off, and now they looked towards the future, in a slice of advertising they called “Phase 2,” a new slate of films set to be released for the next three years. And with this came the time to find the people that would fill the creative chairs for those stories. But let's go back to the beginning. Since you're reading this, I'd wager you have a decent understanding of what the Internet is. Thank you for that, because I'd probably have had a very hard time explaining it to you, since I am not smart when it come to ‘Big Boy Tech’, as I like to call it. As you know, the internet is a place where everyone can share their thoughts on everything, whether it be cuddly puppy videos, Aunt Beth's fishing catastrophe, that dance your younger cousin keeps showing you, or the Charlottesville protests. Ah Internet, what a slippery slope you set before us each day. I annoyingly joke upfront because this is the sub-topic of the evening: Trolling and Cyberbullying; i.e.: spineless people acting like over-privileged dips on the Internet. "Trolling" is a term ascribed to the actions certain individuals take by introducing themselves into specific discourses, with the intention of not really caring what the discourse is about, but rather bringing that discourse to an aggressive (and ultimately) pointless end. It's a very schoolyard way of communicating with people, and everyone partakes in the process in one way or another, whether they realize it or not. These days, using social media is the method many of us use to interact with those we know, or those we wish to communicate with, and in this digital conversation there always lies the chance of miscommunication, or worse, directly hateful distraction. Speaking with someone in person allows for a multitude of advantages when compared with corresponding with someone online. To that end, the most important weapon an individual online seeking to disable a conversation has is anonymity; they can say whatever they want to try and break the person they are speaking to down to the level that they are seeking. Getting psychological, this was something that John Suler commented on back in 2004 with what he coined “The Online Disinhibition Effect,” which roughly states that people are willing to behave differently online than in real life, due to the anonymity inherent with online discourse. This can range from the idea of your "online self" not being a true representation of your "real self," and thereby allowing you to reinvent who you are, to the allowance of the "disengage/reengage" rule, which pins down the idea that not having to immediately respond or react to any given comment or point-of-view allows time for the responder to perfectly articulate their response. This all leads to a very important, however temporary, psychological state known as "solipsistic introjection." This works on both ends of the strictly online communicative discourse, where the disconnect of not knowing or seeing one another leads to each person constructing their own (usually false) versions of the other within the conversation. This is where we start to get into very bad territory, because when you treat other human beings as fabrications within your head, you start to lose sight of any fallout that may occur from your correspondence. This is not okay, but more importantly: there are no guidelines and zero authority to point out when this crossing of the line may occur. And this is where we venture into the world of individuals governing themselves, which is rarely good. I could go on and on about this (and I'm sure I'll make more remarks on this subject as we move forward), but I know this should all be quite known to anyone reading this (again, you ARE on the Internet). I only mean to stress the understanding, not only of the foundations, but also the psychological origins, of this practice, to truly communicate the general point I'm trying to make in this article. Now, not all trolls are bad! Hell, trolling technically started back in the ol' Usernet days, where certain account holders would post odd and pretty obvious questions to get responses from new users, thereby creating a "hardee-har-har" situation for anyone outside who was "in the know." And that not only is the origin of this method, but really the entire point of trolling altogether: to be sort of amoral to a subject, while appearing to care; to poke fun at the sincerity held by some, towards a certain topic, regardless of either party's dedication to it, while holding no real stance of your own. This is fine! Almost all observational comedy is rooted in this very concept. But then you have comments and actions that are clearly using narcissistic, sadist, and good old-fashioned antisocial personality disorder traits to function. Is this to say that anybody who suffers from these traits is an asshole? No, not at all. I'm saying assholes are pretending to be these things. Maybe not necessarily to get away with anything, but because it makes them feel powerful in a world they deem controlled by the powerless. Again, a thought that on the surface, seems commendable. But it's what they do with that power that really shines a light on what their true intentions are. And when that poking fun at themselves or an idea turns into hate-fueled transgressions, directly or indirectly targeted at a group, that's when trolling becomes bullying (or worse). And as childish as it may seem, bullying is not a child-only threat. Bullying is a very real, ever-present part of every person's life. We all have things about ourselves that we are nervous someone will exploit: whether it be our looks, our tastes, our family, or any unfathomable amount of other things. You can bully someone about anything, but you can also bully someone for a wide array of reasons. It's the choice we make to bully, that defines who we are. Are we gonna be the Biff Tannens of this scenario, or are we going to be the George McFlys? Some would separate those two as the choice between strong and weak. Others would make the distinction as that of villain and hero. 2/ The Best Decisions Disney Ever Made When the time came to start filling out Phase 2's ranks, Marvel continued to up their game. They grabbed the buddy-cop auteur (and X-mas aficionado) Shane Black, to helm Iron Man 3 , a move that would've made the loosest of movie producers turn their heads 90 degrees too many. Black has been (and continues to be) notorious for being difficult to work with, a true mofo when it comes to putting an idea on film, and unrelenting in his inability to bend to studio mandates to the point of becoming a legend for it. When the time came for Thor: The Dark World , they hired Patty Jenkins, their first female director, whose only real claim to fame was her directorial debut, 2003's Monster , a film as far away from a Marvel joint as you can get. Alas, it was not meant to be, and Jenkins departed the film only two months into production to be replaced by HBO golden boy, Alan Taylor. But then Captain America: The Winter Soldier arrived, helmed by the Russo Brothers, Anthony and Joe. These little bastards had nay a notch in their belt (a few episodes of Arrested Development and Community , as well as a flunk of an Owen Wilson vehicle in the form of You, Me, and Dupree ), but that didn't stop Marvel from giving them the keys to the Cap-verse (and eventually the whole damn thing, as they went on to direct Civil War and both Avengers: Infinity War and its sequel, Avengers 4 ). For God's sake, they even gave Edgar Wright, quite arguably the best director working at the time ( Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, The World's End ), a crack at Ant-Man , only to cut ties after creative differences, a fate similar to the aforementioned Jenkins/ Thor project. These guys were hiring top dollar, based on creativity and ingenuity alone, a sight rarely seen in recent big budget blockbustin'. And then we have September 18th, 2012: James Gunn was announced and confirmed as the director (and given rewriting duties) for Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy . As a huge Buffy fan, when I read Joss Whedon would be directing The Avengers , I said to myself, “Don't die until you see this. You must live. LIVE to see this movie!” When James Gunn was announced for GotG, I thought, “You're dead. You died. And this is heaven. Behold!!” I had been a fan of Gunn's for quite some time, even considering myself a diehard fan of his, mainly due to my knowledge of his roots within Troma Entertainment. Although I definitely wasn't at the appropriate age to really have access to his work with Troma while he was active, I was nonetheless eventually swept up by this dastardly disturbing production company's particular brand of cringe. The company is mostly known for its Toxic Avenger films, as well as some other oddball releases, such as Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D. and Troma's War . But few among us are also aware of its insanely underrated 1997 gem, Tromeo and Juliet , for which a bright and green 30-year-old James Gunn rewrote a screenplay from director Lloyd Kaufman's original script. The movie is trash-art to its core, with equal parts 90's romance and gratuitous decapitation. The movie is a real find for anyone who digs obscure, off-the-wall independent filmmaking, and I'd personally recommend catching it on glorious VHS if you can find it. Tromeo was a launching pad for the young Gunn, who would go on to write the screenplays for a few more Troma shorts, as well as bigger movies like Thir13en Ghosts , Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake, and both of the live-action Scooby-Doo films. The stage was set, if rather oddly, for someone to take a chance on this guy, gifting him with a sizable production budget, a good cast, and the ability to go wherever he wanted with a film of his choosing. This is when Gunn's directorial debut, 2006's Slither , came into the world. Slither , is something of a household treasure over here at Story Screen. We showcased the dark comedy in our Beacon HorrorShow Part II series to a crowd of unsuspecting horror lovers, who were all blown away by the film's humor and tenacity for over-the-top gore (which is minimal in relation to the things Troma Entertainment had been pumping out since the 70's). But regardless of its toned down violence and sexuality, it's hard to be unimpressed by the Slither’s original and innovative decisions when it came to showcasing the homage of B-horror movie filmmaking, much in the vain of films like Night of the Creeps and The Return of the Living Dead . It remains to this day one of the most solid entries into comedy-horror because, like others that garner that title, it equally balances both genres, stitching them together by having just about too much heart for its own good. From here, Gunn continued making some more trash-comedy projects, including the highly recommended PG Porn series, which is an absolute stroke of genius on just about every level you could discuss about it. And then we get to 2011, Gunn unleashed his sophomore film: Super . Much like M. Night Shyamalan's 2000 film, Unbreakable , this is a movie that does well enough for itself on its own, but had it been released only a few years later, would've acted as an interesting social commentary on the state of superheroes in modern pop culture. Shyamalan's deconstruction of the comic book hero/villain origin and dynamic, came only two months after Marvel changed the game with 2000's X-Men , and a full year and half before Sam Raimi's Spider-Man would set the new standard for superhero fare in 2002. Alternatively, Super landed right when Marvel's new age of cinematic adventures was just barely getting started. At the point of its April 2011 release, moviegoers had only been exposed to the likes of Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk , and Iron Man 2 . It would be another month before another "let down" in the franchise would be released in the form of the first Thor (Shush. I like Thor . And so do you. Come to terms with it already.) In Super , Gunn's dark, cynical take on a man, whose mental instability and male ego leads him to think he has the right to beat people within an inch of their lives as some form of vigilante justice, is precisely the sort of dark take that would've been hailed by members of the Superhero Fatigue Club (established in 2012 after The Avengers) , even though it was more directly comparing its main character to the likes of the Batman from 2008's The Dark Knight . Super still rocks; it’s a delightful and challenging watch for any viewer for a multitude of reasons, the least of which is a scene that upends the act of rape and the concept of consent in a (I shit you not) pretty funny way. The movie has its haters, and some for very good reasons. Where Slither jauntily danced in and out of Gunn's early nastier tendencies, Super bathes in the cringe-inducing moments it ingeniously builds towards, and this is a brand of storytelling and dark humor that is not readily accessible for just anyone. So, after all this, Gunn plays around with a few more nasty shorts, including a brief chapter in the dreadful Movie 43 (*shudder*), and in 2012, he is suddenly tapped by Marvel (who had, as recently as 2009, been acquired by They-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named: The Disney Company), to head its newest franchise. Gunn was the choice that few would've even considered. I mean, holy shit, Guardians of the Galaxy was a film few would've even considered! This was directly taking the idea of B-list properties to another level. Where your odds of finding someone who knew anything remotely specific about Iron Man or Captain America back in 2008 were few and far between, NO ONE knew about the freakin' Guardians of the Galaxy. A rag tag group of wannabes and scoundrels, heavily updated (or forgotten) every decade for the past forty or so years? You make a movie out of that?! That's what I like to see!! That's the same guts and forward thinking that Marvel is finally being acclaimed for these days, what with the hiring of Fruitvale Station and Creed director, Ryan Coogler, for Black Panther (a fucking GREAT movie), and the co-writing/directing team behind Half Nelson , Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck, for Captain Marvel . I mean, c'mon! You read the previous paragraph. That guy?!?! He even had a miniature scandal pop up after he was announced, which dealt with some, AHEM, rather stupid and gross blog posts he had made a few years earlier, pertaining to comic book culture, women, and sex. But we'll get to that in just a moment. Because before we jump into the main topic of this article, we need to redirect our gaze briefly, from Marvel and Disney's decision-making, back towards that rascally thing called the Internet. 3/ Broken Windows The Broken Windows Theory: an observational foundation of identifying possible threats and motivations, this theory supports the idea that where there are already signs of vandalism or harassment, more will likely follow, due to its alleged acceptability by the proof of past vandalism or harassment. This crude theory is a pretty good summation of "trolling culture." I've already dipped into where trolling comes from, and slightly impressed my thoughts on the whys and how’s. But let's get into the who’s a little more specifically, allowing the previously mentioned whys and how's to perhaps become a bit little clearer. Amorality is always going to play a big part in the culture of trolling individuals or ideas, but the more dangerous part of these online backlashes are the people who have something to gain – individuals of a group that have a specific agenda, who can hide behind the self-prescribed silver-lining that can be manipulated out of just about any viewpoint. These include: freedom of speech, protecting innocents, or any virtuous act that you could somehow (however vaguely) connect to the reasoning behind inflicting a full-scale assault on something. It's the mantra of “the bad guy doesn't know he's the bad guy, he's just doing what he thinks is right.” This is all well and fine when being attributed to the fictional actions of emotionally layered characters in stories we read or watch on the big screen, but this type of logic doesn't fare too well when linked to real-world actions or individuals. You see, in a story, every character plays a part in the thematic narrative of what the story is really saying. The villains of these stories must REPRESENT something to us, our heroes, and the world of the narrative; giving them understandable motivations towards an evil goal is a crucial part of having an interesting antagonist. The real world doesn't have antagonists. The real world version of that is called assholes. An example: I mentioned freedom of speech only a moment ago as a virtuous sentiment one could use to argue why someone would say or do something that some might consider rude, disrespectful, wrong, or just plain ol' evil. But here's the thing about free speech: you're allowed to say what you want. That's the whole point of it. You GET to say it. To that extent, you should be allowed to be heard. That's what it is. But considered? That's heavily different from heard. So we have all of these people who know that if they say something, it will be heard (the Internet and social media pretty much guarantee that). And they are also very much aware that if they start to disagree with massively accepted truths, such as Global Warming, the Holocaust, or (for fucks sake) the Earth being round, they will get more attention. And that's what they want. Attention. Because having the world's attention gives them power. It's not real power mind you, because you really can't do anything with it. Your average troller simply gets a rush out of pissing a of couple strangers off, just by saying whatever they think will piss others off. It's not rocket science, and while some have elevated the trolling scene into an art form (let me be very clear here, they are few and far between, and they normally rely on surrealist inspiration as opposed to harassment or threats) most meander in socially pathetic lives, their brand of humor and toxicity seeping into their daily routine. This normally leads to the loss of healthy relationships, and a detachment from the reality of the world (the “Online Disinhibition Effect” made physical). That's not me throwing fists at the wind. I know more than a few people that this has actually happened to. Some of them are reading this right now and probably started to feel angry about 5 minutes ago. Now they know why. But, as I was saying, this is not the worst part of this culture. The worst parts are the ones that have the means to reach the world-at-large with their trolling, masked under the (transparent) guise of professional journalism. These are the people with followers, connections, and self-righteous empty-hearts that are needed to bully their way towards a victory that doesn't really exist. They treat every battle won as if it's actually part of the war they've made up in their heads. And they don't care how many people's lives they destroy to do it. No, I'm wrong. They do care. They want to ruin as many lives as they can. They consider those to be the flag markers of a victory. While the foot soldiers of this army will be easily visible by their false statements, off-topic comparisons, ad hominem defenses, or the use of any of the following terms: snowflake, libtard, cuck, shill, south paw, glass jaw, white knight, triggered, mangina, muh representation, neoliberal, etc., it is not these individuals that we should blame (although, they do suck, and they probably won't be getting any better at this rate). It is the so-called "generals" of these movements that should be holding our attention; the ones with the means to spark the fires that oh so many bigots like to claim are rising. Now to be fair, I do not know these people, nor have I even seen one of them in person. So what I am about to say is based solely on the research I've done on each individual, from their own confirmed social media accounts, their own blogs or websites, or journalistic accounts written by and about them, from multiple sources. Any of these links you click will lead to some serious shit, so be warned: pretty much anything that even rubs up against these fools is toxic. Fools like Mike Peinovich of The Right Stuff (TRS) , Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer , Tara McCarthy of Reality Calls , Andy Nowicki and Colin Liddell of Alternative Right , Lana Lokteff of Red Ice TV , Brad Griffin of the Occidental Dissent , Christopher Cantwell of Radical Agenda , and, of course, Daniel Friberg , Jason Reza Jorjani and Richard Spencer of Altright.com . These are people heavily involved in the so-called Alt Right Initiative's agenda to plaster hate speech, endorse distasteful discourse, and ultimately tear down any established order of respect, decency, and love that has somehow been able to work its way into our justice and societal systems in the past half-century. These people have the money, brands, exposure, and followers to be able to pull off any number of viral campaigns, for or against, whomever they choose. But that's just it, isn't it? These are VIRAL attacks; attacks that occur online, throughout social media and over various websites. Attacks that can legally falsify evidence, dissuade discourse, and outright lie, whether about facts, opinions, or whatever helps their main objective of the one thing that they are truly after: to piss people off. Go ahead. Google just one of those names I listed. They're not even major players, they're just the ones egotistical enough to throw their own names down on the game they're playing. And this leads us to our main point of discussion. 4/ Controlling the Conversation After James Gunn brutalized the studio system with Guardians of the Galaxy and its sequel, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2 , earning over $750 million each, he began going to work on the next (possibly final) installment to the galactic adventure he had created, penning the first draft for the script that we know simply as, Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol. 3 . Reportedly completed on June 25, 2018 (as per Gunn's own Instagram post ) the screenplay was most likely being utilized by producers and crew members in typical pre-production fashion, getting a head start on the film that was slated to begin filming by early 2019, all for its theoretically scheduled release in early 2020. But then on July 20, 2018, a large amount of previously deleted tweets by Gunn "resurfaced," and in the kneejerk reaction of the decade (I mean, probably, right?) Disney immediately fired Gunn from the GotG3 project; entirely cutting ties with the newly shamed director. Gunn's tweets, as previously mentioned, dealt with an assortment of taboo topics, treated with immense insensitivity and downright disgusting bravado, all written nearly a decade ago. I am not going to sit here and defend James Gunn's tweets. I'd either be a lunatic or despicable human being for even trying to do so. The tweets were vile, inappropriate, disturbing, and wicked. But I will point out the very obvious elephant in the room: the tweets were meant to be those things. AGAIN, I am not defending what Gunn previously said. I am merely exaggerating the point that many of you have probably already come to realize, if you have spent even the slightest time looking into the specifics of this case: that James Gunn was a self-inflicted-sick-minded artist who made his money by making provocative pictures within and without the Hollywood system. The dude had a brand of humor that was heavily utilized in his films, and that brand became his personality's brand. Should he have made those jokes on Twitter? I don't think so. But he was for sure allowed to make them just as much as anybody else is allowed to write whatever they want, as long as they don't break the law, which is quite hard to actually do on the Internet (you either need to be very stupid, or very, very stupid). How this whole thing went down can be summarized into these events, which all happened rather quickly: Gunn had been a known criticizer of Donald Trump, repeatedly tweeting and commenting on the acting President's poor performance and general bad behavior; for this, he was targeted by alt-right conservative journalist, conspiracy theorist, and all around quisquilian, Mike Cernovich . Cernovich was as one of the central dudes in the “Pizzagate” conspiracy, which revolved around the false accusation that Hillary Clinton, along with members of her campaign, were running a child sex ring in the basement of a pizzeria. Or you may remember him as the dude that likes to tweet about date rape not being a real thing (even though he was **SURPRISE** charged with rape himself back in 2003). Cernovich unearthed the old, deleted, already apologized for tweets of James Gunn, and distributed them through the likes of social media, The Daily Caller , the One America News Network , and Fox News . Oh, I forgot! Cernovich also tweeted this as recently as 2012: “Have you guys ever tried 'raping' a girl without using force? Try it. It’s basically impossible.” Ah, journalistic integrity. I tip my hat to you, m'lady. While some quickly point to this being an exaggerated reaction to the current #MeToo movement, that is, shall I say, a little uninspired? The #MeToo movement has led to some of the best social and political changes that I can think of in recent times, and while I'm no expert, I can tell you as a person with a decent heart and even the tiniest sliver of empathy, that the movement is very good for everyone. If you need to question that, I'd suggest looking into the good it's actually done. It's inarguable. But, as with any major change to the status quo, those who fear change will attack it, or worse, they will actively seek to upend the very idea of progress. There's most likely at least 10 dudes that just read this and got very upset, but they still haven't figured out why they're upset. But don't worry. Check Facebook in an hour. You'll find em pretty quick. And that's exactly the type of nonsense that we have at play here. Mike Cernovich obviously does not give a damn about what James Gunn joked about a decade ago, which is evident in the fact that he has made way worse jokes more recently. What he does give a damn about is James Gunn having the platform to communicate ideals that are the opposite of his own. You can tell Cernovich doesn't really dig that too much. His Twitter feed reads like a tech-villain that a five year-old made up, and pretty unimaginative five year old at that! And he's not alone in his indignation towards Gunn, which should go without saying. The other people that are outraged by these old tweets can be categorized into three separate modes of thought: 1) they don't care about what he said, they care that he disagrees with them politically, 2) they care about the things he said, and want him to be punished for them, or 3) they don't care about any of this, just that spreading it and fighting for Gunn to be fired is a way for them to feel powerful, by helping in an effort to take down someone they consider to be “an elite.” Now, two of these don't matter, and you can probably figure out which two. The one that does matter – people who are truly disturbed by what Gunn tweeted and want to see some accountability on Disney's part – is the one I'm most interested in discussing. Because making these jokes, however distasteful they might have been, does not necessarily mean that Gunn should be fired from his job for them. This is a man who has repeatedly apologized for these statements, and others. Remember earlier when I mentioned Gunn was caught up in some scandalous shit back when he was hired to helm the first GotG movie? He had made a blog post that was titled, “15 Superheroes I Most Want to Have Sex With,” which included this particularly gross statement about Stephanie Brown (AKA Batgirl): “Being a teen mom and all, you know she's easy.” YUCK. That's a very weird joke, dude. But you know what he didn't do in there? “Try it.” In Mike Cernovich's oh-so-elegant and thoughtful tweet on rape, he not only commented on the idea of rape, he actually wrote the words, “Try it.” Is that to mean that Cernovich is endorsing the idea of his followers trying out rape? Sure seems like it! Am I being unfair? You're damn right I am. You know what else is unfair? Firing a person for making jokes ten years ago for comments that he repeatedly apologized for at the time, which you were aware of, and still hired. Yes, Disney knew all about this. The scandal with his blog post was heavily circulated back in 2012, and it was reportedly around this time that the post, as well as all the tweets in question, were both deleted and apologized for by James Gunn himself. We all know why these alt-right trolls attacked Gunn's character and career. Character assassination is nothing new. But what IS confusing is Disney's aggressive reaction to dealing with the public situation, both in the extreme measures they chose to take, as well as the whiplash-inducing speed they chose to do it in. Why such a strong reaction after these tweets resurfaced? Well, There's the whole thing about Roseanne Barr being fired from her own recently renewed show, which definitely played a part in the cultural viewpoint of the dilemma. And you know what? I don't think Barr should've been fired. Sure, her tweet specifically pointed at a real individual in the public eye, and mocked her for her race, in an astoundingly bigoted way that just almost shakes off any idea of being a joke in the first place. It's not a joke. It's hate speech. Made by an idiot. Who understands that being thought of as a racist is not good. Especially for a career in the film industry. Her tweet proves one of two things, and it's actually quite engaging how little middle ground there is: Barr is either an idiot or a racist. There's NOWHERE else to go in the conversation, but of course, those that can will try. And with the followers that Barr has, that hate speech (which it 100% is) turns to the dark side of social media: normalizing hateful rhetoric. Is that bad? Uhh, yeah. That bad. Is she a bad person because of it? I mean, yes? It's definitely not a nice thing to say. However, I think that she IS a bad person for trying to blame it on drugs and not her own despicable nature. But did she deserve to get fired for that? No. No, I don't think so. A good friend of mine put it thusly: “They (ABC) hired Roseanne, whose Internet history already was worse than what she tweeted. And her mental health is completely up in the air. To fire her over that tweet creates a certain precedent: that you are only as great as your worst tweet, which is a blip of language without context, or verbal intonation. I'm not saying it was right, but it was on brand. So fire her, fine. But now you've set your standards. You, as a company, have set a line of censorship that you stand for. And that goes for both sides.” He's not wrong. Roseanne Barr's Twitter feed is loaded with racist and bigoted remarks, dating back well before her rehiring for her now canceled show. It's like a scavenger hunt for deplorable, ignorant nonsense, only anyone who clicks on her username is an instant winner within fifteen seconds. But my friend is also right in that, yes, there is a precedent that not only must be made, but also upheld. But at what level are we willing to set that precedent? Let's not mix words here: Barr's firing is disturbing on its own level. But, for what it's worth, Barr and Gunn's separate firings have two very distinct differences: Barr made her "joke" while she was currently in the employ of ABC, while Gunn's "jokes" were made well before he had joined the Disney hierarchy. This is very important point to be acknowledged when comparing these two. And more importantly, Barr chose to defend herself by blaming prescription drugs (which is probably a lie), and creating a visage of herself as a victim of circumstance, even going so low as to claim that this was a premeditated strike on her character, designed by those who were angered by her support of Donald Trump. Crazy, right? Well, that's exactly what DID happen to Gunn, and it can be proven. That is what happened. But while Barr attempted to push the blame of her situation on those who don't agree with her personal views, Gunn, who knew exactly who and where his attackers were and came from, chose to accept full responsibility for his horrendous tweets, eloquently stating: “My words of nearly a decade ago were, at the time, totally failed and unfortunate efforts to be provocative. I have regretted them for many years since — not just because they were stupid, not at all funny, wildly insensitive, and certainly not provocative like I had hoped, but also because they don’t reflect the person I am today or have been for some time.” “Regardless of how much time has passed, I understand and accept the business decisions taken today. Even these many years later, I take full responsibility for the way I conducted myself then. All I can do now, beyond offering my sincere and heartfelt regret, is to be the best human being I can be: accepting, understanding, committed to equality, and far more thoughtful about my public statements and my obligations to our public discourse. To everyone inside my industry and beyond, I again offer my deepest apologies. Love to all.” Here's what Barr said: “Guys I did something unforgiveable so do not defend me. It was 2 in the morning and I was Ambien tweeting- it was memorial day too- i went 2 far & do not want it defended- it was egregious Indefensible. I made a mistake I wish I hadn’t but…don’t defend it please,” “hey guys, don’t defend me, it’s sweet of you 2 try, but…losing my show is 0 compared 2 being labeled a racist over one tweet-that I regret even more.” “Don’t feel sorry for me, guys!!-I just want to apologize to the hundreds of people, and wonderful writers (all liberal) and talented actors who lost their jobs on my show due to my stupid tweet. I will be on Joe Rogan’s podcast Friday.” To be glib, as Frances Dolarhyde would say, “Do you see?” Beyond the casual (and easy) comparisons between their firings because of tweet(s) by ABC for Roseanne Barr, and James Gunn by Disney, there lies what this article has been getting at. Back in July, when Gunn's tweets resurfaced, other individuals came under fire, all by the collective effort of people who hide anonymously behind that sheen of a bright screen. Dan Harmon, registered fuck-up and proprietor of such genius works as Community, Rick and Morty , and Harmontown , was suddenly, once again, awash with scandal as a video leaked of an old comedy sketch that featured him, umm (checks notes), being sexual with a baby doll. Honestly, this doesn't surprise me. Harmon is a freak, and I like to think he'd thank me for saying so. The video originated from 4chan (where nothing bad ever happens), and subsequently went viral. Dan Harmon has spoken out – both verbally and on social media – against President Trump's actions and methods. While it might be meaningless to some, sharing a specific post of an anonymous user from 4chan I think succinctly exemplifies what is going on here, and the major mentality many of these users share: “Think of Roseanne Barr and all the other much less rich, much less famous people who have had their lives destroyed. We must use these tactics against them as effectively as they've used them against us. It is the only way to win.” We. Them. They. Us. 5/ Shut the Door. Have a Seat. Look, let's bring this to a wrap and have ourselves a final heart to heart. While I've spewed opinions, facts, history, and the occasional cuss word, at the end of the day, my fascination on this subject boils down a very simple sentiment: I like James Gunn. Not just as an artist, but as a person. I've never met him, and while I am positive that anybody would be lucky to, I don't have to. His personality is so communicative that anyone with the most basic good-human-being-radar would be able to inform you of just that. I've casually followed this guy through the span of his career, eagerly awaiting his next project, ever confident that this dude can deliver the goods. And he always does. I may not have been as technologically inclined in the social media atmosphere back in 2009 when these tweets were made (honestly, I never even really got into Twitter and Instagram until only a couple of years ago) but I can tell you that one of my favorite things about these platforms is not connecting with friends, or even sorta kinda communicating with artists whom I adore (Hi, Evan! Poster's in the mail, I promise?), but getting to see how some celebrities chose to express themselves through the medium of social media. Some are bland, obvious shades of ego and forced deprecation to appeal to a certain brand. That's cool! Do you, celebrity! But I always found Gunn's pictures and comments (in the time that I followed him) to be immensely enjoyable and truly honest. Here was a dude who openly and repeatedly, referred to his older days as a trash-art enthusiast as something that he simultaneously regrets but is proud to have walked, however many trips and tumbles may have happened along the way. A guy whose fight with addiction and depression is probably the closest that I can compare with my own, whether or not that's just me stargazing. And, most importantly, my man got me into Halo ice cream, which if you haven't tried: GET. ON. THAT. Does James Gunn deserve our forgiveness? Well, that's really up to the individual to decide. Disney's point of view seems to have been made very quickly, based on the idea that any negative attention towards their brand would lead to another mega-social downfall. You really can't blame them for pulling the trigger so fast on Gunn, wanting to come out on top as the good guy. Hell, even Gunn admitted that he gets it. It's a business, and they all need to act like professionals in service of what they deem to be the best option for the business. That's the other aspect of this: the weird way Disney handled (and continues to handle) their decision to fire Gunn straight away. It was head spinning fast. Sure, they wanted to get out from under the bus before it even got anywhere near them. I can respect that. They've got a lot riding on their franchises, and even more riding on the perception that they want us to have of their company (which, look, Disney, we get it. You're fucked up. We're fucked up. Don't try too hard. Give us good movies. Let's be cool). They're also not stupid; they understand the fact that, if this is indeed a coordinated character assassination (which it obviously is), then these people have more ammo than just these tweets, meaning any leniency on Disney's part will be met with even more "proof" of James Gunn's un-Disney-Like character. From my own point of view, I think Gunn’s apology and acknowledgment that whatever his bosses decide is going to be the decision that he himself, as a professional, has to respect, is more than enough for me to go, “Alright, you didn't ACTUALLY DO anything wrong, and it certainly seems like you've matured A LOT since you wrote those humiliatingly bad and heinous jokes, so yeah, I forgive ya.” But that doesn't really matter. Self-forgiveness is what it's all about. Both of the GotG films are all about a group of ne'er-do-well A-holes that slowly grow into decent human beings/aliens/raccoons. They’re about characters that start out at their worst, but ultimately get the chance to show that they can be kind, decent and heroic. I mean, consider the fact that James Gunn created these interpretations of these old Marvel characters. Rocket, whose main characteristics (besides being a raccoon with a very, very big gun) are that he is crude, foul-mouthed, and kind of nasty, especially when it comes to making inappropriate jokes, which are used to mask his own insecurities on how the world perceives him. There's no arguing where this character comes from on an artistic level. Does it mean his jokes are okay? Hell to the no. But does it mean we should fire Rocket; especially because he's a central figure in a Disney owned property, which has always prided itself on being a family-friendly entity? That's the big question here. Was Disney right in firing Gunn, and are they right in continuing to cut ties with him in the aftermath of this ongoing scandal? I'll let totally not disgraced in any sense of the word Disney sweetheart, Johnny Depp, in the words of his world beloved character, Jack Sparrow, put it plainly: “The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Do you understand?” We are Groot. Mike Burdge Editor-in-chief Founder of and programmer for Story Screen. Lover of stories and pizza in the dark. When he isn't watching movies, you can find him reading things about people watching movies. He lives in Beacon, NY with his cat who is named after Kevin Bacon's character from Friday the 13th . #Newsletter #Article #MikeBurdge #JamesGunn #Trolling #Disney #Marvel #MCU #ThinkPiece #Raccoon #GuardiansoftheGalaxy #GotG2 #GotG3 #Director #Psychology #Philosophy #Nazis

Anybody who has the distasteful privilege of knowing me would tell you that I kinda dig movies. Old movies. New movies. Classic movies. Underground movies. Heck, I'll even dip my toes into a pool of movies that some would consider downright unpalatable, all off the easiest of nudges, whether they be recommendations or from personal curiosity. Being forced to consider, if even only for a moment, how I operate from a day-to-day basis reveals an image of someone who I'm not even sure is me. Right, I continually build the Story Screen brand from within and without all aspects of my life, that will allow such an act to go about with meaning and (I hope) grace. I also regularly concoct immensely stressful events that put myself into highly enjoyable situations in an effort to further build said brand's standing, not just in the local community, but again I hope, in the world. I have a very disturbing view of myself: I can do anything if I really put my shoulder into it, riding on the collective wave of confidence, morality, luck, and above all, more than a few really good friends who want the same thing that I've proudly made my life's work. Humble brag officially over, I promise. Look, I'm just gonna get right down to it: I love movies. Duh. But, also, I'm a huge fan of story, in all its multi-media forms. (I can hear you now: "We get it! You're into story! The name is Story Screen! WE GET IT!" I apologize.) I ingest about six movies a week, consistently keep up with (and catch up on) a multitude of television shows, average reading about one book a month (when I can), and take in music whenever and wherever I get the chance. This steady diet of story intake knows no bounds, stretching to a point that isn't just alarming, but at times of self-reflection, becomes downright all consuming. The term, “entertainment omnivore” comes to mind. Okay, okay. Humble brag now very much over. Totally. Super promise. The fun part of all of this is that I end up watching a lot of movies that aren't necessarily on everyone's radar. This year has already seen the releases of some seriously top-notch films, from massively released smashes like Black Panther and Incredibles 2 , to little surprises that gained wider audiences due to word of mouth, such as Won't You Be My Neighbor? and Annihilation . But these bad boys aren't the only new options being served up at the cinema buffet. There is a slew of under-releases, VOD's, and original streaming service content that always contain the possibility of unearthing that sweetest of movie watching experiences: “the Hidden Gem.” I always love searching through newly released films that look interesting (and this isn't to say that I single-handedly found these flicks, just more of a declaration that I put the time in to not only discover them, but to also watch them and see what they're up to). So, here are a few little movies I've found that have been released this year that you may be curious about, or haven't even heard of. THE STRANGE ONES (dir. Lauren Wolkstein/Christopher Radcliff) The first movie I watched in 2018, I was pretty excited to check out this early release, which deals with two brothers in the midst of a camping road trip. A thriller by every possible stretch of the word, The Strange Ones starts out predictable, takes a hard turn into existential, and ultimately ends up delivering a surprisingly hypnotic look into the mind of a young boy who is grappling with the quintessential question: Why? CHECK OUT THE TRAILER THE PARTY (dir. Sally Potter) A goddamn treat of a quick watch, this little black-and-white diddy is loaded to the brim with charm, humor, charm, mystery, charm, betrayal, and, above all else, an insanely talented cast reaching for the sky. Where the twisty plot falters, the very appropriately heavy-handed dialogue soars, making for a deliciously hilarious and poignant look into the mechanisms of society, philosophy, religion, trust, and good old-fashioned baking. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER ANON (dir. Andrew Niccol) The most positive thing I can say about Anon is that it is slick, sleek and kinda cool. The use of aspect ratio integrated POV is alluring, but never really pays off in any thematic (or interesting) way. The sci-fi noir ends up attempting to comment on social media and technology, as well as humanity and its morals, only to crudely dig its way up its own ass to simply say, “Crazy, right??” CHECK OUT THE TRAILER CARGO (dir. Yolanda Ramke/Ben Howling) Cargo is a pretty neat wreck. It starts out so great, traverses into thematic gold, stumbles for a bit, and ends on a moment that, were there a tighter movie behind it, would hold a fantastic example of catharsis. Unfortunately, however awesome all of its parts may be, the final product is one of remorse, and not in the way the directors had intended. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER MOM AND DAD (dir. Brian Taylor) A demented blast of on-the-nose-B-movie horror, this is one that you definitely want to see. The trailer, which depicts the basic premise of parents trying to kill their children in their own house (due to some sort of viral outbreak), sells this bad boy all the way. Come for the best Selma Blair performance in years, stay for the mid-life crisis metaphors, and dine upon the dessert that is Nic Cage destroying a pool table with a sledge hammer while singing, “The Hokey Pokey.” If that's not enough to get you to watch, I'm afraid you're reading the wrong list, bub. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER HOSTILES (dir. Scott Cooper) This movie both wants and deserves to be great. However, its pacing and length thoroughly tasks the average viewer, and they would not be blamed for it. I loved this movie, finding it to be a surprising addition to an already overflowing reservoir of go-to westerns. The action, as well as some finely placed contemplation on certainty and self-worth, makes for a hell of a time for any die-hard, old school western lover. For everyone else? Probably not. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER KODACHROME (dir. Mark Raso) Bland. Sterile. Predictable. This movie is precisely what you get from the trailer (which is a mess to begin with). The promise of any actual emotion or sliver of humanity should be doubted immediately. We are given three A-class actors; motherfuckers who know what they are doing, and they end up pissing what gold they can muster across a sea of, for lack of a more suitable word, stupid dialogue. Ed Harris, the beast that he is, is the sole survivor of this monotonous journey into the very heart of cliché daddy issues. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER MUTE (dir. Duncan Jones) A movie of personal anticipation, Mute strives for transcendence but very unceremoniously lands in the valley of the meandering. While I don't hate on the film as rough as many others, I will admit that in its ambition and scope Mute does itself very little favors. Now, I like the movie. And to be fair, it will definitely be a very interesting piece to consider in the early filmography of Duncan Jones, a director who is only mere moments away from exploding into the stars. This passion project of his design has experienced many behind-the-scenes drawbacks and catastrophes, and I am saddened to admit that it shows. But on the positive side, I think it has a precise attitude that I'm into, talented actors portraying characters that I like, and a heightened neo-noir aesthetic that is right up my alley. I just think these things don't necessarily work well in tandem with one another, leaving us with a mélange of entertaining but hollow proceedings. Still would highly recommend to the curious. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER REVENGE (dir. Coralie Fargeat) As previously stated, in all this fishing to be "blown away," sometimes you land a whopper, and oh boy, is Revenge is a doozy. It’s a drug-fueled, high-octane, horrific hallucination of some of the darkest and deadliest manners. It’s a true-blue feminist battle cry that thankfully washes the bad taste of last year's The Bad Batch right out of my mouth. Not only is it good representation horror (very much in the vein of Get Out ), Revenge also happens to have my favorite ending of a film this year. The last 15 minutes are some of the most fist-pumping, breath-catching, eye-squinting sequences I've seen in years. I will say, however, due to its subject matter (which you can heavily infer from the trailer linked below), I would warn viewers that this movie has some rather dastardly and sadly believable evils taking place in its first act, and that this, as well as the vengeful blood fest that ensues, should be highly considered when choosing when or if to catch this one. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER SPINNING MAN (dir. Simon Kaijser) I love me a good mystery, and I really love me some Guy Pierce, so Spinning Man was a gamble I took hoping for blind luck. It is not good. It offers a very interesting conversation around the nature of morality, language, and the philosophies that tie these things together, but at the end of the day, it is ultimately forgettable, mainly due to its lack of a mystery's key ingredient: suspense. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER 10X10 (dir. Suzi Ewing) Another huge gamble. Luke Evans attracted me to this film’s trailer, and I took the plunge based on female director Suzi Ewing. I will simply say, while what is promised is delivered, there is unfortunately not much else to this short trip. Granted, it does have an ending that just really does not give a fuck about what the rest of the movie has been doing up until that point, and for that, I'll commend it. But it bad. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER MOHAWK (dir. Ted Geoghegan) An excellent watch, but it is a film (mainly due to its very minimal budget) which must be met on its own grounds to truly be enjoyed as intended. A horror-esque retelling of a classic Native American tale, Mohawk makes some damn fine decisions along its path to revenge story, introducing more and more intriguing elements that never distract, but wholly never connect with the larger narrative. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER MARROWBONE (dir. Sergio G. Sanchez) While definitely nothing exciting (or even very fresh), Marrowbone is a movie I thoroughly enjoyed in the moment, with a cast that really ends up selling its core mystery and plot. Sanchez has a very unique eye that takes all of the things your standard ghost story offers and presents them in suitably compelling frames that entice just enough. How this movie looks far exceeds its narrative and themes, and had these two crucial important parts of the film even come close to its cinematography, we would of had ourselves a classic on our hands. Ah, c'est la vie... For more on this flick, check out Diana DiMuro’s review here . CHECK OUT THE TRAILER GAME NIGHT (dir. Jonathan Goldstein/John Francis Daley) This is a very good movie. (I know. I know!!) The trailer kind of got me equal parts excited, and also fairly hesitant, as it seems that perhaps all of the funny moments in the film had just been squished into a 3-minute trailer, and that the rest of the film would be dreadful. But that cast! The ENERGY of that trailer! I took the dive and found it to be one of my favorite movies of the year. Not only because it shows a damn fine eye from newcomers Goldstein and Daley, but because it's a comedy where the jokes never beget themselves, always ending up operating on a much more structural beat than simply making the audience laugh. The jokes almost always land, the cast's chemistry is ELECTRIC, and the music (by Drive's Cliff Martinez) is a must own. Get on this one. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER MIDNIGHTERS (dir. Julius Ramsay) This is a pretty great thriller, where the less you know the better. It's a bit cheesy, while also mostly unpredictable, and ultimately it is an exciting watch, making me very enthusiastic to see what the writer/director Ramsay brothers will come up with next. It would also probably be really cool to see it performed live on a stage, if that type of stuff gets ya feelin' crunchy. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER PASS OVER (dir. Spike Lee/Danya Taymor) Speaking of dat crunch, Spike Lee's latest puts the retelling of Waiting for Godot on the big screen, all filmed in front of live audiences (with some tricky editing). To be frank, Spike Lee and me... We tend to not get along. I won't get into it, but the roundabout point is that I find many of the films he's made in the past decade to be definitively unwatchable (and to be fair, he hasn't always been the heaviest of hitters, and I have not seen every movie he's made since 2006's Inside Man , which I consider the last “watchable” Lee joint. I still need to check out Chi-Raq, which looks pretty good). But I'll tell you this: movies in 2018 are gonna have to try real hard to beat out Pass Over , a movie that is truly transportive. It's one of my favorites of the year, and I really can't think of a (decent) soul who wouldn't enjoy watching it. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER DUCK BUTTER (dir. Miguel Artera) You might have heard of this one, and if the trailer charms you, I'd say more or less that this movie is for you. It is really interesting and entertaining, anchored by two young stars that are putting in some of their best work to date, but it will definitely not connect with everyone. I found it really engaging (when it wanted to be), but I can't help but shake the idea that there is 10% of this movie that I just really dislike, which is a shame, because there's a lot of wildly wonderful moments splashed throughout its runtime. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER THE RITUAL (dir. David Bruckner) There's nothing like a well-executed genre movie, and The Ritual is that in spades. Clever, insightful, mean, skillfully competent, *slaps roof of movie* “This bad boy can fit so much metaphor in it.” It's also got something (which I will dare not ruin) that will keep watchers of film, if not mostly lovers of horror, talking about for years. You'll know it when you see it. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER A FUTILE AND STUPID GESTURE (dir. David Wain) The story of the National Lampoon's origins gets an amusing enough adaptation, but one can't help but feel cheated by the lack of depth both the creators and performers seem willing to go. This problem occurs not just with the darker aspects of Doug Keeney's life (which are practically glazed over), but also with the comedy itself, never letting the raunchiness the Lampoon was so well-known for seep into the film’s own humor. You do get a heavily underutilized Domhnall Gleeson firing on all cylinders, so that's a plus. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER THE ENDLESS (dir. Aaron Moorhead/Justin Benson) Believe the hype. This is one awesome movie. I had the pleasure of watching this with two of my closest friendos in one of our living rooms, and it was one of those purely cinematic experiences that you sometimes wait months and months for. It’s just absolutely intoxicating and top notch in just about every way. Even on a relatively small af budget, The Endless is a stone-cold, instant classic in the surreal-horror genre, a movie that will for sure get better every time you watch it for the rest of your life. No joke. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER SMALL TOWN CRIME (dir. Ian Nelms/Eshom Nelms) This movie is goddamn noir all the way down to its whiskey soaked bones. You can update the classic film genre with new inventions while still keeping those same old tropes that always make it a fun ride, like Brick, Memento, Lone Star , or Drive . That's entertaining stuff. Yet the same can be said about futuristic-noir fare, like Blade Runner, Altered Carbon , or Dark City . The genre is just built to be stretched. But Small Town Crime foregoes all the cleverness of injecting new energy into an already perfected genre, and just goes for the classic taste of a good mystery, a fuck-up gumshoe, a dead body, and a whole lot of bullets. To bring it all home, the film also has one of the best ensemble casts of 2018 in my opinion, and it is a damn good way to spend 1 hour and 31 minutes laughing and biting your nails. I really hope they give me another Mike Kendall case in a couple years, cause I'd be there faster than you could refill my glass. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER FLOWER (dir. Max Winkler) Flower starts strong, but steadily runs out of steam rather quickly, culminating in an ending that is meant to provoke far more than it intends to inspire. While I wouldn't really recommend it, I'd be lying if I didn't say there's definitely something there. It's got a great performance from lead Zoey Deutch. And it is really pulled into a higher state of entertainment (relatively) with support from Katheryn Hahn, Adam Scott, and a surprisingly scene-stealing Tim Heidecker, doing his slouchy, normy routine to great effect. The film never reaches into the darker comedy its premise seems to guarantee, leaving you feeling a bit cheated at the end. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER UNSANE (dir. Steven Soderbergh) Unsane really surprised me. I'm a big lover of Soderbergh as a director, and while I may not have been blown away by his last few entries, he always finds very interesting ways to at least make his films just that: interesting. But Unsane ? Ho boy. I want to go on and on about this movie, but I also feel like there's a good future article in me, once I let the film settle for a bit longer (and probably watch it three more times). I'd never want to spoil some of the splendid turns and thought-provoking moments this little gem of a thriller delivers, but I will say that it not only acts as a great story about paranoia, repression, and control, it also delivers a very heady experimental take on the oppressive nature of film as medium. By now, you've probably heard that this movie was shot entirely on an iPhone 7 plus, with the accompaniment of only three different lenses. However much of a marketing strategy as this may seem, I can assure you, this was done with deliberate intent, elevating the film’s explicit themes of normalcy and male dominance. It also adds a sort of 70's exploitation horror feel, as the iPhone's aspect ratio and general limitations give the movie a posture familiar to that of the guerrilla documentary style of pieces like John Carpenter's The Last House on the Left . It's a psychological and palpable work of art, and probably my most highly recommended on this list. CHECK OUT THE TRAILER While these are only the films I decided to comment on, there are others I've seen, as well as many others I'm still trying to get to. Let me know in the comments below if you've stumbled upon any movie gold this year (or things I should probably stay away from AND WHY), and I'll be sure to check it out! Watch more movies! Mike Burdge Editor-in-chief Founder of and programmer for Story Screen. Lover of stories and pizza in the dark. When he isn't watching movies, you can find him reading things about people watching movies. He lives in Beacon, NY with his cat who is named after Kevin Bacon's character from Friday the 13th . #Newsletter #Articles #Bestof #Bestof2018 #HiddenGem #DullRock #MikeBurdge #Unsane #Flower #SmallTownCrime #TheEndless #AFutileandStupidGesture #TheRitual #DuckButter #PassOver #Midnighters #Marrowbone #GameNight #10x10 #Mohawk #Revenge #SpinningMan #Mute #Kodachrome #Hostiles #MomandDad #Cargo #Anon #TheParty #TheStrangeOnes #Trailers #Lists

In the past few years, Yorgos Lanthimos has made a name for himself as an auteur. His films dwell in the realm of the absurd, layering distinct and matter-of-fact dialogue over ridiculous scenarios. The Lobster , Lanthimos’ first English language film, parodied modern romance by imagining a world where single people are transformed into animals if they are unable to find a partner. His follow-up, 2017’s The Killing of a Sacred Deer, is a terse thriller in which a father’s regrets threaten his family with illness and death. To say Lanthimos’ work is weird would be to put it lightly. With The Favourite , Lanthimos steps away from the outright absurdity of his previous films in favor of a historical drama while maintaining his sharp and distinct directing style. The Favourite is a deeply personal and darkly funny period piece centered around Queen Anne of England. Anne, expertly played by Olivia Colman, is in failing health and in the midst of The War of the Spanish Succession. Her lifelong friend and advisor Lady Sarah, played with bitingly cold grace by Rachel Weisz, is ever loyal to the Queen, if not constantly preoccupied with running the country. Emma Stone takes the third lead as Abigail, a peasant girl fallen from ladyship and desperate to find a place within the Queen’s favor. The interplay between these three women is the driving force of the film. Their complex relationship is a dance of romance, power, and politics. The dialogue, written by Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara, strays from Lanthimos’ typically direct and deadpan cadence. Instead, each sharp and clever line is delivered in flowery Victorian English. Regardless, the screenplay is ever as witty and darkly funny as any of the director’s previous work. All three women own their respective characters completely, and their performances are each a joy to watch. Colman’s Anne is a fragile, tentative ruler who more than anything desires affection from her people and her court. Weisz’s Lady Sarah is an austere, imposing and no-nonsense woman. She’s direct and forward with her Queen, and openly critical with her. Nevertheless, she shows a deep care and consideration for Anne. Conversely, Stone’s Abigail showers the Queen with kindness and warmth, driving a wrench between her and Lady Sarah as she attempts to regain her title and overcome her position as a servant. The push-pull relationship of these three women is terse and gripping throughout. The Favourite is a complex story of class, romance, and power. It unfolds with nuance and balance as its characters develop. There are equal measures here of drama, pathos, and humor that demonstrate Lanthimos’ talent in a way that exceeds his previous works. The strength of lead performances is matched and elevated by the film’s costume and production design. The monarchy’s excess is expertly realized in Queen Anne’s utterly lavish palace, and perfectly framed in natural light by Lanthimos’ precise directing and Robbie Ryan’s keen cinematography. Special attention to detail was executed in each of the sets, with Anne’s personal bedchamber being a notable standout. The intricate floor to ceiling decorations are beautifully created, surrounding Anne in affluence. Likewise, the lavish dresses and costumes worn by the cast are sure to get costume designer Sandy Powell attention at the Academy Awards. In a way, the absurdity of Lanthimos’ previous films has found its outlet in the flagrant wealth of the film’s subjects. Nicholas Hoult’s Harley, one of the prominent members of Queen Anne’s court, is a notable standout here. His over the top make-up and wigs consistently surprise and delight. By all accounts, The Favourite is Yorgos Lanthimos’ best film. It’s perfectly written and acted. It’s gorgeous to listen to and look at. It tells a story with resonance and staying power. In this way, it is also his most accessible film, and is sure to attract much more favorable attention from critics and audiences alike than his more divisive previous work. However, those who were charmed by the distinct weirdness of those previous films may find something missing here. The period dialogue is sharp to be sure, but it does not have the distinctiveness so unique to The Lobster and The Killing of a Sacred Deer. In that way, for some, The Favourite may be Lanthimos’ best work, but ultimately not their favorite. Jack Kolodziejski Co-Head of Podcasting Jack makes drugs for a living, but not necessarily the fun kind. He enjoys international travel and discussing music, movies, and games in excruciating detail. #Newsletter #Article #JackKolodziejski #YorgosLanthimos #TheLobster #TheKillingofaSacredDeer #TheFavourite #2018

Another year of new movies done. I personally attempted to tackle this enormous year of film at an almost frightful level of precision and speed: I started taking note of all the movies slated to drop throughout the year only days after completing my Top 17 of 2017, and hit the ground running hard to never feel like I was falling behind. Alas, as always, time moves faster than my own wits, and I found myself once again scrambling to track down the late releases of the year, as well as smaller movies that had evaded me earlier. I watched exactly 150 movies released in 2018, from all over the world and through a seemingly endless array of late night triple features and early morning viewings (you can check out an article I wrote up on some them here ). How in the world I possibly had the time to crush all these titles, you and I will never truly know; as Arthur Conan Doyle once noted, “My mind rebels at stagnation. Give me problems, give me work, give me the most abstruse cryptogram or the most intricate analysis, and I am in my own proper atmosphere. I can dispense then with artificial stimulants. But I abhor the dull routine of existence. I crave for mental exaltation.” Crass as it may be to compare myself to the professions of a noted genius, I've always found my mind more at ease and my time well spent when working on something that leads to a larger purpose, whether it be a wealthier knowledge of movies and stories, or to stay on topic, creating a list of my favorite movies of the year. And it wasn't easy. I probably saw 40 movies this year that I really, really dug, and while I'd love to generate a list that honors each and every one of them, I doubt anyone would read it all, and besides, 18 is already a larger number than what most would deem satisfactory. I look forward to another year of genuinely splendid movies, and I hope I can still pull it off with all this coming year has in store for me. So... Let's punch it. 18. The Guilty This bottled thriller explodes with tension and a honed craft for minimalism the likes of which completely blew me away only minutes into my first viewing. The film is tight, textured, and evocative of all the simple points it sets out to make. For what it's doing in the genre wheelhouse it embodies, The Guilty is arguably a perfect movie. (TRAILER) 17. Mission: Impossible – Fallout Fallout is a meticulously executed action marvel. You just simply don't get a movie like this often, and while the action genre certainly has its share of motifs and go-to's that can sour an audience after having seen the same things for decades, Fallout delivers on these expectations, sometimes even blasting through them into new ground. The film not only overflows with quippy one liners, showstopping set pieces, marvelous, over-the-top cinematography and Tom Cruise running like a god, it also happens to be an incredible movie and an even more incredible time. Oh, and let's not forget: It has the best trailer dropped in 2018. Facts. (TRAILER) 16. Summer 1993 How would you portray the trauma of losing everything and being forced to start over? Would it be an aggressive picture? Or maybe an image that gently comforts? Summer 1993 does both of these and more, with performances that genuinely feel real and most importantly, sensitive and empathetic. The movie is magic. Brilliant, beautiful magic. (TRAILER) 15. The Favourite Accessibility be damned, The Favourite is a fantastic achievement in the career of director Yorgos Lanthimos, whose style seems to only be maturing in the annual output he has started generating these past three years (referring to 2016's The Lobster and 2017's The Killing of a Sacred Deer) . While his latest may not measure up for some to his more absurdist films, it's worth noting that a director is never done redefining their craft until they retire or (more than likely) die. Lanthimos is an ever-intriguing talent whose name should be on the tongues of every person who claims to give a damn about modern cinema, and this period piece of art is no exception, charming its way off the screen with amazing performances (Holla at my gurl, Olivia Colman!) and beautiful set designs that would make 1975 Kubrick blush. (TRAILER) 14. First Reformed A quiet, sometimes uncomfortable meditation on guilt and the trauma we inflict on ourselves, those around us and the literal world, Paul Schrader's latest endeavor is a must watch for anyone who owns a screen. A masterfully designed requiem of faith and dignity, First Reformed pulls no punches in its multi-tiered exploration of the things we allow to pass, and those we can never move beyond. (TRAILER) 13. Suspiria Unique. Gorgeous. Crazy. Deadly. Overwhelming. Dreamlike. Nightmarish. Luca Guadagnino's latest is a devilishly exciting piece of art. I could not get enough of this movie, which acts as not only a horrific dissent into darkness but also as a testament to the beauty and strength (and horrors) of the female body. The level of precision and care taken with the entire movie (which has a very strong history with many horror lovers) is palpable, a true movie-lover's type of movie. Gone are the dreamy colors of 1983 Northern Italy and the youthful hopes of young love that Guadagnino and cinematographer, Sayombhu Mukdeeprom, cemented into the modernistic dominion of cinema with 2017's Call Me By Your Name (my second favorite film of that year). Here, replaced with a level of saturation and color isolation that looks the way goosebumps feel, the style is sometimes subtle, and often egregious, but always hits its mark in the context of the story it is telling, creating a penetrating mood piece that is going to age just as well as its predecessor. (TRAILER) 12. Sorry to Bother You A wild movie in every sense of the word, it is quite simply, a very, very special film. I'd say it maaaaayyyyyy be my funnest movie-going experience (or that could be my #3). A revolution of satire and a battle cry for originality and individualism, Boots Riley's flick is at all times entertaining, provoking and absolutely impressive. This is the type of movie people will be shamelessly ripping off for years, allowing those in the know to constantly bring it up in discussion on contemporary film and its use in cultural conversation. Very cool. (TRAILER) 11. Madeline's Madeline I caught this one a little late, at a time where I thought I had pretty much solidified the main contenders on my list. Nope. Madeline's Madeline is an absorbing experience, from its amazing lead performance by newcomer Helena Howard, to its exquisite delivery of the movie’s key themes, all told through the tiniest of metaphors or the most blatant of exclamations. I'll leave it at that, as I would hate to ruin any part of this delicate story. Go in cold, (the less you know the better) and be prepared to strap in, because this one has elegance and nuance to spare. 10. Widows When you get one of the most talented auteur directors to make a throwback 90's-stylized heist movie written by the dangerously talented mind behind Gone Girl and Sharp Objects , you sit down and pay attention. And when you do, boy doggy, does Widows deliver the goods. Man, just writing about it makes me drool over the thought of standing in line at the local video depot with a Blu-ray copy under my arm. Packed with so much style and SO MUCH clever twists on classic heist motifs, Widows is a reminder of how fortunate we can be when highly skilled individuals get together to make something that's just as much fun to consider as it is to eat a whole bucket of popcorn to. (TRAILER) 9. A Star is Born Melodrama so often fails to connect with major audiences when it acts as the tentpole piece of a bombastic, awards season endeavor. Some people like their cheese reserved for the smaller screen, and that would push any rational viewer away from such tiresome genres as biopics, coming-of-age tales, mid-life romances, and the King of Celluloid Cheese itself: the musical genre. While A Star is Born is for sure a fictional take on the traditional biopic, it is most assuredly a realistic/diegetic musical, producing a soundtrack that has so many interesting and noteworthy songs, it's challenging to consider which one (if not more than one?) will be chosen to be performed this awards season. Bradley Cooper's directorial debut is commanding, having assembled a crew of some of the most talented people working behind the camera today, making it apparent that a fully-formed, bonafide, empathetic master of the lens has stepped into the spotlight. I would very much be doing a disservice to the power of the film if I didn't, at least for a moment, mention Lady Gaga's complete transformation into one of the most engaging characters of the year, creating a meta whirlpool in my mind of falling in love with Ally and watching Gaga pull off scenes with charm and talent I never would have assumed she naturally had. The movie is a musical about music; it is about the power of songs and the specific type of communication the words in the lyrics can convey. It's one of five new, modern masterpieces on this list ( Mission: Impossible – Fallout and First Reformed were the previous two, #4 and #2 are the others to follow) and you would be really missing out on something special and caring if you didn't give yourself the chance to catch it. (TRAILER) 8. Hereditary Hereditary is the Muhammad Ali of 2018 horror movies, at least as far as butterfly and bee references go. The year was inarguably packed with horror releases that were of a higher tier of worth and execution than many in recent years, even with heavy-hitting bangers like It Comes at Night, Green Room, The Invitation, Get Out and The Babadook . I'll more than likely be writing something up on the many, many fantastic horror films of 2018 sooner rather than later, but for now I would like to say that with the exception of a few more to go on this list, (which are technically horror movies, but for which I adore for very different reasons outside of the genre and its trappings) Hereditary is a stone cold masterpiece. Full stop. This is the type of movie that gets under your skin and makes you like it. That's a very hard thing to do, even for the genre of film that is supposed to be doing that every time. The film also has the best performance of the year in Toni Colette's portrayal of the struggling, ever-crumbling mother figure/protagonist of the familial terror-show, with a cast of frighteningly reserved performances from her co-stars, and the fantastic, mind-blowing cinematography, as her super-powered support system. Director Ari Aster has made a friend in me, and I'm a friend to the end kinda guy. (TRAILER) 7. The Rider The Rider is not only one of the most mesmerizingly enjoyable films of the year, it is a perfect example of the very specific power that movies hold over all other forms of artistic expression. A film that allows its story to grow and evolve through what is shown, told, thought and questioned. No one will watch this movie without being moved or inspired, even in the slightest, and I dare them to even try to argue the opposite. And beyond all this, it’s a great story, one with such vigor you can’t help but cry and laugh at the exact times you are meant to, a sign of the truly skilled operation of the empathy machine. This is the type of movie that you reserve the term “a revelation” for. (TRAILER) 6. Foxtrot Grief, fear and the fighting of the unknown are all common colors an artist can choose to paint their portrait with, and Israeli writer/director Samuel Maoz utilizes every moving gear of film (visual, audible, emotional, conscious or subconscious, etc.) to create a sweeping three act tale of moving in circles. Foxtrot hit most major film festivals in 2017, which garnered its inclusion on many a critics favorite of the year list twelve months ago, finally landing on US screens just this past June. Much like A Fantastic Woman and Phantom Thread , (both movies that garnered much praise during the end of 2017, but were not fully released until January and February of 2018) I fought with myself about whether to include the film, as technically it could be attributed to last year, and I was already running out of space on my already large enough list for 2018. And while I love (really, really love) both aforementioned films, Foxtrot is the one that will stay with me for a very, very long time. I've been sharing it with friends for months, ever since I was finally able to catch it myself, and I highly recommend going in as cold as possible if you're interested, (and for the love of everything, DO NOT watch any trailers for this thing; some of the greatest moments of the movie are not only spoiled but seem to be intentionally downright ruined by the film's marketing). 5. Blindspotting A fresh and intense new pillar into the figurative backbone of American Cinema, Blindspotting is almost too exciting and inspirational for its own good. Sporting an exquisitely honed in and tonally relevant/required soundtrack, the film exists on a constant high of utilizing the medium of film to communicate anything and everything it has on its mind. It's also really fucking funny. Not since the likes of Spike Lee's heyday in the 90's have we received such contemporary and bold think pieces on race and culture in the American landscape, at least not as unique as the director's first line-up of his filmography. Blindspotting is one of those movies it is very easy to throw the term “necessary” and “must see” onto, and nobody would be judged wrongly for doing so. It is exactly that: a solid piece of attitude driven filmmaking with a theme of despair and a lesson on empathy and understanding the world and your place in it, and just how might one come about changing both. “Don't be who you isn't.” (TRAILER) 4. Annihilation You just don't get much better than this, baby. Visually wonderful, psychologically engaging, and a genuinely “gets better every time” repeat-viewing triumph. Alex Garland (of 2 8 Days Later, Sunshine and Ex Machina fame, just to name a few) has crafted a beautifully bleak reflection (pun intended) on trauma, depression and how we all destroy ourselves in one way or another. It ultimately leads to that most painful of predicaments: being alone, isolated and at the mercy of the path behind you, forging so few ways forward, if any. A cinematic sensation, Annihilation will go down in the pantheon of film as one of the truly unapologetic and divisive films of the early 21st century, and it's phenomenal the conversations that have grown out of this little indie flick that could. Make no mistake, ambiguity is the name of the game Garland is playing, filling his movie's dialogue with as many “I don't know's” as “What does this mean's?”. The concept of turning the lens of criticism and understanding on oneself leaps from the screen, plunging the confusion and bewilderment (or sometimes fear) our characters are experiencing directly into the audience’s subconscious, disorienting the mind and tantalizing the senses, exploding with one of the most unique and rewarding third acts ever committed to film. Rewarding is a very fine choice of word to attach to Annihilation , its philosophies open and its merits indecisive, welcoming the theoretical musings of millions for years, while also delivering some of the best mix of both practical and digital effects in horror, period. (TRAILER) 3. Mandy There's just no denying it: Mandy is an all-timer; it is a brand-spanking new, blood-drenched heavy metal roar into the eternities of the cult film B movie-making ethos. A true gem of gems, this wild ride is anchored by three phenomenally over-the-top performances, all tiptoeing the line of trash cinema in completely different ways. This is just what cameras were made for, man. Director Panos Cosmatos once anecdotally stated that in gaining funding for the film, he said, “I just want to go into the woods with Nicolas Cage and a smoke machine - is that too much to ask??” It's sort of nerve-racking to consider just how well Mandy will age over time; it's one of those movies that instantly feels like a classic even before you've finished watching your first viewing. Something about this tale of love, religion, drugs and chainsaws just feels so collectively endearing, yet also astonishingly original, that one can't help but feel like they are in the presence of something that will soon be a part of them; it's like the notion of love at first sight, but for movies. The late Jóhann Jóhannsson's final score could not be attributed to a better marker in the legend of the auteur composer, an equal distribution of film and artist both deserving each other in the wake of a terrible and unfortunate tragedy. Not to get too specific, but there is a moment in the middle of Mandy , where the story begins to take a turn, that Jóhannsson's score almost seems to break through the camera, covering every event afterwards in a glow of hyper-realized, 80's sensation, yet still grounded with the sadness and terror our heroes have garnered from the events of the film; you feel like you've been listening to this score your entire life, when in actuality, you've been waiting for it. Get some drinks, a couple friends and a few bowls of mac n' cheese, and get a viewing on. I really cannot recommend it enough. (TRAILER) 2. Roma To put it plainly, Alfonso Cuarón, the maker of multiple great movies, has done the unthinkable: he has made his masterpiece. Now, I'd imagine the director feels he has much, much more in him to deliver over the course of his remaining career, and I also know that some may believe his works, Children of Men or Y Tu Mamá También , to be superior to his latest work, Roma . They would be entitled to that opinion, but I would have to aggressively disagree. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who is as infatuated with Children of Men more than yours truly; I've seen it roughly 50 times, and have the entirety of its nearly two hour runtime pretty much committed to memory due to several back-to-back viewings during my time in the military, (where in what few off hours I had in the middle of the ocean there wasn't really a lot of options besides working out or sleeping, neither of which has ever really interesting to me). Regardless, the point is I love Children of Men . It's perfect. And Roma is a better film. A different type of film, to be sure, but I also believe it to be a harder film to execute, making its masterful final product something really deserving of our awe. Tearing apart the established, preconceived notions of language and culture in film, Cuarón meditates on oh-so-many queries about life and love, and the importance of the ones who teach us the importance of both. An outright delight and a bone-shaking piece of dramatic high art, Roma is another movie that, at the risk of sounding pejorative (a little late, I know), will be played on my living room screen over and over again for the rest of my life. (TRAILER) 1. Thunder Road I'm really going to try and reign it in here, because when you get me talking about this movie...fuck, it's just sooooooooo good. What do I do? Call it a masterpiece? An instant classic? A testament to how a good story perfectly executed doesn't need all the money in the world to be an authentic, original film? The best comedy in years? These all, while completely earnest opinions on the movie, fall short of really delivering just how special it is. This is another one to avoid trailers at all cost, (so I won't include it below), it does however stem from a short film made only a few years ago, which acts as the soft open to the final version of the film itself. (It was reshot and slightly altered, but the differences are very small and more procedural than artistic in nature, so I'll include the OG short film below in lieu of the spoiler-filled trailer). A human story first and foremost, Thunder Road is everything I personally want from a film: engagement, a rich theme, a devoted tone, great performances, set-up’s and pay-off’s, that not only work, but astound time and time again; it is exhilarating and bold, emotional and joyous. Go watch it, and if you're not 100% in love with this movie, I will personally apologize for recommending this beautiful and life-fulfilling, cinematic equivalent of a poem, to be experienced by a soulless monster. (SHORT) Honorable Mentions: The Endless, Thoroughbreds, If Beale Street Could Talk, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, The Night Eats the World, Unsane, Five Fingers for Marseilles, Racer and the Jailbird, Revenge, Black Panther, Game Night, The Death of Stalin, Upgrade, The Ritual, Mohawk, Small Town Crime, Pass Over, Hannah Gadsby: Nanette, Like Me, Lowlife, November, Halloween, First Man, Searching, Calibre, Love, Gilda, Hold the Dark, Border, At Eternity's Gate, The Other Side of the Wind, The Night Comes for Us, The House that Jack Built, Terrified, Minding the Gap, Let the Sunshine In, Wildlife, Bodied, Mid90's, Cam, The Clovehitch Killer, Creed II, You Were Never Really Here, A Fantastic Woman, Phantom Thread, Double Lover, Eighth Grade, Midnighters. Did not get to see: Anna and the Apocalypse, Let the Corpses Tan, Blaze, The Wild Boys, The Wife, Bad Times at the El Royale, Chained for Life, Burning, Shoplifters, Destroyer, Vox Lux, Cold War, Hale County This Morning, This Evening, Downrange. That's all folks. Mike Burdge Editor-in-chief Founder of and programmer for Story Screen. Lover of stories and pizza in the dark. When he isn't watching movies, you can find him reading things about people watching movies. He lives in Beacon, NY with his cat who is named after Kevin Bacon's character from Friday the 13th . #Newsletter #Article #Bestof2018 #MikeBurdge #TheGuilty #MissionImpossible #Fallout #Summer93 #TheFavourite #TheRider #FirstReformed #Suspiria #SorrytoBotherYou #Widows #MadelinesMadeline #AStarisBorn #Hereditary #Foxtrot #Blindspotting #Annihilation #Mandy #Roma #ThunderRoad

(This review will be SPOILER-FREE for the first portion; I’ll warn ya before I start talking about who dies) In Shazam! , young Billy Batson receives the same powers that Tom Hanks gets in Big , and ushers in one of the more fun entries into Warner Brothers’ dark and mostly serious DCEU (Detective Comics Expanded Universe). Well maybe not exactly the same; Tom Hanks couldn’t fly, shoot lightning, or return back to his boyhood self after uttering the name SHAZAM! (At least not in the version of Big that I saw). Back in 2013, Warner Brothers’ sought to replicate what Disney had done with the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) with its own freshman entry, Zack Snyder’s, Man of Steel . Steel was met with middling to not so great reviews, setting the unfortunate norm for many entries into the DCEU cinematic universe. Some stand-out entries have shown signs of a ship slowly being steered towards a better course: 2017’s Wonder Woman , featuring a plot that makes sense, a powerful performance from Gal Gadot, and a mediocre final villain showdown (can’t win ‘em all). Then there’s 2018’s Aquaman , featuring a plot that makes sense enough, but regardless is a VERY entertaining spectacle. So now onto 2019’s Shazam!, which is (in my opinion) the strongest film in DC’s cinematic universe thus far. Shazam! brings the fun. Zachary Levi’s performance as an adult who is (literally) a child at heart is a joy to watch. He carries this film on his red and white caped shoulders. His chemistry with his foster brother and plucky young sidekick, Freddy Freeman, played by Jack Dylan Grazer, is great and sells this bizarre superhero origin story. That’s what the plot of this movie is at the end of the day, an origin story, although it doesn’t feel too bogged down by that fact. Batman and Superman are mentioned often in this film; we see action figures, apparel, and “real world” memorabilia from the Caped Crusader’s escapades. This helps sell the casual nature of the film. Billy/Shazam isn’t the first of his kind. He has other examples in the world to emulate and with Freddy as his superhero aficionado, the otherwise mundane origin tropes become self-aware and fun to watch. It was nice to laugh during a DC adventure. The moment-to-moment gags are great. Asher Angel’s performance as the young, non-superpowered Billy Batson has a lot of heart; he does a good job playing the troubled foster kid with a good head on his shoulders. On the surface, the movie is a fun journey, filled with some great jokes and solid action throughout, but not all of the elements of this film gel together perfectly. The MCU took many years to solve its ‘bad guy problem’ and unfortunately, the DCEU hasn’t quite cracked the code on creating great bad guys. Mark Strong as Dr. Sivana, brings forth the best performance that he can with what he’s working with. Overall, the villain falls flat, but that being said, there are faint echoes of redeeming thematic qualities baked into this antagonist that I just wish were explored a bit more thoroughly. I’m saving the bulk of my critiques for the spoiler section of this review, but at the end of the day, I recommend this movie for the general superhero flick lover. It’s a fun romp with a lot of heart and a lot of laughs. The film delivers on what it’s trying to do and doesn’t feel like it’s trying too hard to be connected to its adjacent DC film buddies. An audience member can come into this flick without needing to watch any of the previous films in the DC universe. As an introduction to the big man with a young heart, I’m ready to see what else this hero can do. (WARNING: SPOILERS FOR SHAZAM! FOLLOW) While I left Shazam! having enjoyed most of my time with it, later on I did start to accumulate some issues (mostly surrounding our big bad, Dr. Sivana). The film opens with a young Dr. Sivana on a car ride with his garbage brother and father, where he is playing with a magic eight ball. The young doctor is summoned to the cave where the Wizard named Shazam (Djimon Hounsou) resides. The Wizard spends his life looking to pass on the powers of the champion: summoning those he deems pure of heart and testing them to see if they are worthy. This test includes making the summoned one resist the temptations of an orb containing the spirits of the seven deadly sins (generic looking gargoyle monsters who are mostly lame and frozen in stone). Dr. Sivana fails the test and returns to reality throwing a temper tantrum, during which his dad dramatically crashes the family Buick and loses the use of his legs. This opening sequence sets up our villain fairly well, but more importantly, it sets up the rules of Shazam! in a solid, coherent fashion. My gripes with the film concern Dr. Sivana’s search for the cave and Wizard, along with his motivations for doing so. We later learn that Dr. Sivana screens patients experiencing hysteria, (as a part of an experiment that I think is run by actual mental health physicians) so that he can eventually find someone who can give him the right order of magic symbols, with the hope that he can return to the Wizard’s cave and then take the power of the seven deadly sins. This makes almost NO SENSE. Step by step, sure, that’s one way to find a magic cave, but it’s such a strange way, (even in the world of superheroes) to achieve this task. Once Sivana gets this power, he goes on to murder his papa and his brother, because they didn’t initially believe that he went to the Wizard’s cave growing up. Which, to be fair, I wouldn’t believe four eyes either. Am I missing anything? (If I am, don’t be afraid to let me know). Once he gains this power what does he want to do? Get the power of the champion, also known as Shazam, but if he were to get that then what? World domination? To put an end to a world where papas and brothers don’t believe their sons or siblings? Despite my logical conclusion that the film’s villain is not all that logical, I really enjoyed what Dr. Sivana represented to Billy, and how these two characters compare and contrast in the movie. Both Billy and Dr. Sivana reject the idea of family in the film, but in different ways. Dr. Sivana grew up resenting his family, and once he is endowed with powers, he uses them to kill them. Billy rejects his new foster family because he knows that his “real” family is still out there, so he doesn’t need what he deems a “fake” family. Both characters are given power, Billy, (now Shazam) treats it with childlike wonder. When he is Shazam, he smiles, he is happy, he is free to be (ironically) a kid having fun while he’s in this powerful adult form. Dr. Sivana on the other hand, is given the power of the seven deadly sins (fitting for a bad guy, no?). Perhaps it’s a narcissistic way to look at growing up and growing old: that we all eventually carry these sins at some point in our adult lives. Dr. Sivana’s power of the seven sins represents the dark side of adulthood, while Billy/Shazam represents the hope and wonder of childhood. We have an exciting battle of philosophy in the film. I wish the film hugged a little tighter to some of the bigger thematic questions it raises, because for me, it’s those questions that kept me invested in the film; although, we ended up with a third act that slogs and doesn’t culminate in much. Like I said, Dr. Sivana is my biggest gripe with the film; his weak motivations, along with the poor design of the seven deadly sins (they are just gray matter gargoyles) did not impress me. Because of this, I didn’t find the film’s ultimate conclusion all that satisfying. It was just a fantasy free-for-all brawl, with Shazam battling more uninteresting monsters that did not do much for me. By that point in the movie I felt the fun had run dry, and I just wanted the flick to wrap up. Negativity aside, I really enjoyed so much of this movie, once Zachery Levi hits the scene, the film explodes at the seams with fun. I could watch hours of Shazam and Freddy figuring out our new hero’s superpowers, and watch some goofy superhero fun. Also, let’s talk about the final shot before the film’s credits: Headless Superman. While in the moment, the shock value of “OH MAN it's Superman!” is great! But once I started to mull it over, it just doesn’t really match the overall tone of the film. This film isn’t grounded in reality, but given the rules of the film, I don’t think Shazam would be able to pull Superman away from Metropolis to come get lunch in Philly. I don’t mean to suck all of the fun out of the scene, (because it is fun) but it makes for an even more unsatisfying conclusion to the movie. But hey, that one might just be me. My final thoughts on Shazam! are that it’s very much a step in the right direction for the DCEU. It’s a movie that is fun and not too concerned with trying to connect itself to all of the other movies in the DC franchise. Instead Shazam! just gets to marinate in this world, absorbing all of those DC-heros’ juices (ew?). I think it’s safe to say we’re getting a Shazam! 2 , and with it, I just hope we get a more motivated villain, more fun, and a ton more Shazam! Robert Anderson Co-Head of Podcasting Robert has a degree in Screenwriting and Playwriting and works in multiple genres. He's just your typical man-child who enjoys most things nerd culture. You can follow him on Twitter @RoBaeBae #Newsletter #Shazam #Review #DC #Superheroes #Co #Comics #RobertAnderson #DCEU #Batman #Superman

Fans of writer and director S. Craig Zahler’s work have likely come to expect several common elements: startling hyper-violence, witty and wordy scripts, and breathtakingly exciting finales. While Zahler’s latest, Dragged Across Concrete , maintains most of these key ingredients, it’s missing a crucial one. Zahler’s previous works featured charismatic leads that were both memorable and likeable, if not prone to questionable behavior. These empathetic characters made scenes of impending danger that much more thrilling. Dragged Across Concrete , unfortunately, features almost none of this charm, which results in a messy drama where the rest of Zahler’s otherwise winning elements fall apart completely. Dragged Across Concrete is a noir tale of desperate men who turn to crime to solve their problems. Mel Gibson and Vince Vaughn star as Brett Ridgeman and Anthony Lurasetti, partner cops who get caught on video using excessive force during a bust and land themselves a six week unpaid suspension. Feeling the pressures of a wife with failing health, and a teen daughter who is routinely harassed on the street, Ridgeman turns to crime in hopes of earning his family a better life. Lurasetti, also finding himself in a pinch for money, hoping to propose to his girlfriend, reluctantly gets swept along with Ridgeman’s plan. Tony Kittles plays Henry Johns, an apparent foil to Lurasetti and Ridgeman, who returns from a stint in prison to find his mother turning tricks to fund a drug addiction and care for his disabled teenage brother. Similar to the suspended cops, Johns turns to crime in pursuit of a better life for his brother and mother. The intersection of these three characters is the driving force of the film’s plot. The problem with the story is that this creates a “both sides” narrative that feels both disingenuous and forced. Dragged Across Concrete seems interested in drawing parallels between men at opposite ends of the social spectrum that find themselves in similar positions of desperation. But when one end is a racist cop and the other an ex-convict minority, the comparison feels dishonest. Gibson’s character reads like the embodiment of “anti-PC” culture, mourning the days before the watchful eye of social media prevented him from brutalizing minorities in order to “get results.” Zahler’s choice to cast Gibson, well known for his history of racist and anti-Semitic remarks, feels designed to provoke viewers. Kittles’ character is easier to empathize with, but is given disproportionately less screen time. There is a story here, about how very different people can find themselves in similar circumstances through desperation, but it plays out weighed heavily through the perspective of a racist, crooked cop. Regardless of its political implications, Dragged Across Concrete’s characters are simply not as interesting to watch as most of the individuals found in Zahler’s previous films. Gibson’s hard-boiled no-nonsense gruff demeanor is mostly flat and boring. Even Vaughn, whose stellar performance in Brawl in Cell Block 99 was simultaneously intimidating and charming, seems relatively uninspired in Concrete. Concrete features a stacked supporting cast, including small roles played by Don Johnson, Udo Keir, Fred Melamed, and Jennifer Carpenter, most of whom Zahler has employed in his previous films. Their brief cameos are more compelling than Gibson and Vaughn’s performances combined, but unfortunately, they are way too fleeting to compensate. After establishing its major characters during the first act, Dragged Across Concrete becomes the kind of crime thriller similar to Zahler’s previous works. Without central characters that are worth caring about, however, the thick tension so key to his previous films isn’t present. This is worsened by Concrete’s punishingly long run-time of two hours and forty three minutes. Zahler is no stranger to pacing his movies deliberately. Often his methodical pace gives his characters room to spew snappy dialogue and for tension to percolate. Concrete , however, moves glacially. There is a complete lack of urgency here, as characters lazily reload weapons mid-firefight, or remove their victims’ organs at a leisurely pace. With such a hefty length, this slow pacing makes Concrete mostly a chore to watch. Dragged Across Concrete is not completely without merit, but these glaring flaws prevent the positives from shining through. Sound design has always been a strength in Zahler’s films and Concrete is no different. Every gunshot, bone breaking, and the crunch of a sandwich is incredibly loud and punchy, lending weight and tactility to the film’s violent visuals. Zahler employs grindhouse levels of gore here: limbs are blown off, heads explode and bones are snapped with almost sickening veracity. The practical effects occasionally dip into the realm of cheesy, but the over-the-top violence lends itself to a tangible sense of danger in every action scene. The soundtrack is likewise great - featuring music largely written by Zahler, and performed by The O’Jays and Butch Tavares - weaving its way into the film diegetically. Though these familiar elements are present, Dragged Across Concrete doesn’t quite add up to the same level of quality as Zahler’s previous work. Bone Tomahawk and Brawl in Cell Block 99 are some of my personal favorites, so that comparison may be unfair. But it’s difficult to avoid, and ultimately leaves Dragged Across Concrete especially disappointing. Unfortunately, flat leads and a brutally slow pace make “Dragged Across Concrete” a better description of the audience’s experience than the content of the film. Jack Kolodziejski Co-Head of Podcasting Jack makes drugs for a living, but not necessarily the fun kind. He enjoys international travel and discussing music, movies, and games in excruciating detail. #Newsletter #JackKolodziejski #Review #DraggedAcrossConcrete #CraigSZahler #VinceVaughn #MelGibson #Crime