TonyDood

The hate this film is receiving centers around two things: the style, and the characters. If you actually like films with a sharp, unique, vivid and eye-popping style (think Scott Pilgrim or Neon Demon) with a de-emphasis on traditional film and storytelling, you've already probably seen this and enjoyed it.

If you get that *the characters are supposed to be shallow and hateful, and that is the whole point of the movie and leads to a hilarious and satisfying denouement* you'll laugh along. If not, you'll be like a lot of "get off my lawn" reviewers who have completely missed the point, and too bad for them.

This is the cult-film-destined Netflix movie about a bunch of bratty, rich Gen-Z'ers who get involved with a ridiculously lo-fi machine that allows people to instantly transplant their minds into someone else's body and the complications that ensue. If you need that premise to be deeply explained and justified go back and watch "Oppenheimer" again, this film is pure eye candy and fun, it literally doesn't matter that none of this is remotely plausible or makes explicit sense. Guess what, "light sabers" aren't real either.

What, how and most importantly *who* happens next is the fun that fills out the movie as it takes a silly, but interesting, and very prescient premise (obsession with surfaces) and makes an increasingly feral mad-dash with it. Many viewers will be lost. This viewer was not, sorry. If anything the film seemed a little simplistic after a second thought, and that made it even more fun. And that's the key here: this movie is *fun*. I can see how it would be aggravating to some viewers who can't keep up with it (sigh) or fight the visual style (go back and watch another staid, blah true crime limited series if you can't handle it) or can't handle the characers and the way they talk and relate to one another (guess what, you're officially an "old," but METV still exists, have at it).

The acting is campy but above average, it looks great for a low budget film, moves like a house on fire and the director is definitely one to watch. It gets slow 3/4 in when it settles into traditional storytelling tropes, its low budget does show now and then, it could be smoothed out here and there, it won't change the world and in today's market may not be remembered 3 months from now...not everything has to be. This is a fun ride. Check your expectations at the door, buckle up and enjoy...or go sit on a park bench and feed the pigeons while the rest of us have fun. Recommended.

Ignore the naysayers; of course this isn't going to appeal to modern filmgoers (young mostly, but older too) with no interest in film history or much of anything else, and likely it will really only appeal to fans of stop motion creature animation and people who remember old-fashioned fantasy-monster movies fondly...part of the charm is the clunkiness of it. But this is something bold and fulfilling for those who are in on the conceit of it, a passion project from a gifted stop-motion animator who left us too soon. If you saw the poster or trailers and said, "Hey, that looks like--" you're right, that's exactly what it is, no more and no less.

It is, of course, an adventure film about explorers who uncover a hidden world in the Himalayas, and lots of weird alien frog people and big furry King Kong-esque beasties. Maybe it's a good idea to go in with low expectations...it is definitely a low budget, frequently clunky little 90s film about a silly topic. But again, those who "get it" will actually find that a bonus.

Meanwhile, you get some gorgeous location photography, beautiful (updated) effects and animation work, some fun, retro-fantasy-film tropes and the whole thing is brisk and easy to digest. Remember when movies were just fun, maybe even goofy, and not all meta and stuffed with irony? If so, then you might like this.

Do a little research, go in with an understanding of what this film actually is and be delighted; watch with attention deficit and expectations of seeing a bloated fx video-game shoot-to-kill franchise film and be disappointed.

Also interesting, this film contains a great, smart leading character played by a chipper Juliet Mills who just happens to be a mature female leader without being a Mary-sue, femme fatale, castrator or a girl boss. Characters are generally educated and well-spoken and revered for what they are (strong, intelligent, compassionate, even regional natives) not forced into reversals of their natural qualities and abilities. There are also no annoying extended "emo" moments that stop the show so everyone can scream and cry, suffer, bleed on camera and victim-virtue for 90 minutes.

Then again, to the naysayers who have no patience for a cool, fun little updated 90s movie that was clearly a passion project made with a lot of love, and updated for a modern release as a tribute to the legacy of both a beloved artist and his beloved art form, this one wasn't for you, sorry.

I don't generally watch things without a lot of research first and prefer the entertainment I "consume" (oh brother) to be far off the beaten path of mainstream, yet I was suspicious about this one. The word on the street about this show was intriguing enough I ultimately decided to gamble on it and don't regret it. It's certainly watchable, compelling and thought-provoking (but then, so is a car wreck, which this greatly resembles). But can I be one of the only reviewers to point out it's actually a clever black comedy in the spirit of the wonderful Todd Solondz ("Happiness," "Welcome to the Dollhouse"), "Wrinkle of Sadness" or "Saltburn?"

I can't honestly believe anyone would look at this as anything other than what it is--a compelling, very fictionalized account of some things that probably happened (and, unfortunately, happen a lot) whipped into a lurid, dry-witted entertainment inspired by the success of "Tiger King" and other geek shows (that happen to draw lots of viewers and water-cooler talk), but maybe that's the case? Maybe some really are taking this material seriously?

The clues that reveal this work as dark farce are sprinkled throughout. There are actual, obvious jokes that start the ball rolling of course, but the frumpy dresses and hair styles of the 2 main female characters consitute further clues. The scenes of "Donnie's" cringe-inducing failure as a comedian are actually part of a rich history in entertainment of this sort that has become something of a cliche over the years (and remind one of the similarly narcissist-focused old film "Punchline" starring Tom Hanks, or even the more recent narcissist-focused "Joker" or "I'm Still Here," films with Joaquin Phoenix).

As late as episode 6 there are scenes with the protagonist's ridiculous parents that are laugh-out-loud funny, and clearly intended to be, albeit in a way that defines black humor, something difficult to categorize. Even the notorious "4th episode" getting everyone all worked up (really, it was all that shocking? After we already had things like "The Crowded Room," "The Boys," or the dreadful, straight-forward, rape-fantasy film "Blonde" in 2022?) contains two legitimate laughs: "Don't puke in the cat dish!" and Tom Goodman-Hill's genius, giggle-inducing interprative dance. It's a very European sensibility, this kind of black humor but still...does no one "get" this, really?

It is, of course, the allegedly-truth-based story of a troubled young man who attracts an equally troubled female stalker and, in his quest to find himself, finds a lot more trouble, including the realization he's not so much above his stalker morally as he'd like to think. To the degree that it portrays the ins and outs of stalking, something I have a lot of experience with unfortunately, it overturns a big rock in a big way. One of the (several) problems with the show is that the stalking angle is what draws viewers in and it is, unfortunately, far more compelling than the concerns of our self-absorbed protagonist, who admittedly has a face you can't stop looking at but needs a re-write for his personal journey to be truly compelling.

Had the show kept on track as a stalking story, however, it would merely be an ugly retread of the 80s film version of "Fatal Attraction." The raison d'etre, and the element that has tongues wagging, is undoubtedly how the show sneaks in the protagonist's (or writer's, perhaps) sexual identity conflicts. Alas, the show is not brave enough (and mainstream audiences are still not ready enough) to tackle this material with the same energy the show embraces the wonderful love-hate it has with its limerent, dangerously psychotic female supporting character.

Really, if the show were to follow through on what it clearly wants to be about, it would have continued for a few more episodes and shown "Donnie" facing, and beginning to resolve, his demons in earnest...which might have--gasp--included no longer demonizing the man who abused him (it is a thing that happens, after all, even if it is tough to pull off narratively).

The show is careful to represent the actual abuse as despicably as possible so we're on the side of the victim of the abuse, but any thinking viewer (and the imdb reviews alone, it seems, after a quick perusal) will point out that the information around these scenes, and the aftermath, leave so much out as to render the validity of this being any kind of "truth" negligable. A deeper delve into this strange situation would have been equally riveting considering the way the show encourages a gut-level immediate reaction of revulsion, but may have made more sympathy (or at least understanding) for the lead character possible.

But it's just not where audiences are yet apparently. It's a start anyway.

And herein lies the genius of the show, if it has any: it is NOT based in reality, it is a fiction, an entertainment--even a p!ss-take.

No human on earth could be as hapless and hopeless as our protagonist, and un-self-aware, and end up working the material professionally enough to sell it as a series to Netflix.

Maudlin aspects aside (and another failing of the show is its reliance on extended periods of pathos that become redundent-unto-boredom, like many extended-length series of its kind), the show works as a brilliant satire, wickedly commenting on the place of the "new, castrated male" in society, the "cult of victim" society we live in overall, current pop-psychology methods ("I'm triggered!" "I'm traumatized!") and exploration of the millenial generation that many have accused of being lazy, un-focused, spoiled, over-indulged, emotionally trigger-happy and helpless in the face of even simple conflicts (whether that's valid or not is another story entirely). This show could actually be read as a manifesto used by conservatives to reaffirm all the dangers of liberal/progessive tolerance ("See? See? I told ya that's what would happen!")

I choose to think the work is sincere, but very black-humored, entertainment and very aware of its intended goal meant to "épater les bourgeois" (as entertainment, not reality or crime TV) at which it has succeeded marvelously it seems; I hope that's what this show is actually, in which case I heartily laughed out loud all along the way (something I rarely do)--AT the characters and situations and not with them (which is black humor in a nutshell) and respected it for "going there" and even farther at times.

If, in fact, this was staged as a heartfelt plea for understanding, compassion or exposure of social ills, intending to represent real-life issues in a realistic way, and the uneven tonal shifts, stilted, flat camera work, over-emotive-unto-grotesque acting (and all the close-ups), unpleasant characters and and lack of traditional narrative structures are not intentional, this would be considered merely sensationalist, and inept.