Statistical Sins: Gender and Movie Ratings

Though I try to feature my only content/analysis/thoughts in my statistics posts, occasionally, I encounter a really well-done analysis that I'd rather feature instead. So today, for my statistical sins post, I encourage you to check out this excellent analysis from FiveThirtyEight that uncovers what would qualify as a statistical sin. You see, when conducting opinion polling, it's important to correct for discrepancies between the characteristics of a sample versus population, characteristics like gender. But apparently, IMDb ratings also show discrepancies, where men often outnumber women in rating different movies, sometimes as much as 10-to-1. And if you want to put together definitive lists of best movies, you either need to caveat the drastic differences between population and raters, or make it clear that the results are heavily skewed by one gender.

The Academy Awards rightly get criticized for reflecting the preferences of a small, unrepresentative sample of the population, but online ratings have the same problem. Even the vaunted IMDb Top 250 — nominally the best-liked films ever — is worth taking with 250 grains of salt. Women accounted for 52 percent of moviegoers in the U.S. and Canada in 2016, according to the most recent annual study by the Motion Picture Association of America. But on the internet, and on ratings sites, they’re a much smaller percentage.

We’ll start with every film that’s eligible for IMDb’s Top 250 list. A film needs 25,000 ratings from regular IMDb voters to qualify for the list. As of Feb. 14, that was 4,377 titles. Of those movies, only 97 had more ratings from women than men. The other 4,280 films were mostly rated by men, and it wasn’t even close for all but a few films. In 3,942 cases (90 percent of all eligible films), the men outnumbered the women by at least 2-to-1. In 2,212 cases (51 percent), men outnumbered women more than 5-to-1. And in 513 cases (12 percent), the men outnumbered the women by at least 10-to-1.

Looking strictly at IMDb’s weighted average — IMDb adjusts the raw ratings it gets “in order to eliminate and reduce attempts at vote stuffing,” but it does not disclose how — the male skew of raters has a pretty significant effect. In 17 percent of cases, the weighted average of the male and female voters was equal, and in another 26 percent of cases, the votes of the men and women were within 0.1 points of one another. But when there was bigger disagreement — i.e. men and women rated a movie differently by 0.2 points or more, on average — the overall score overwhelmingly broke closer to the men’s rating than the women’s rating. The score was closer to the men’s rating more than 48 percent of the time and closer to the women’s rating less than 9 percent of the time, meaning that when there was disagreement, the male preference won out about 85 percent of the time.

In the article, a table of the top 500 movies (based on weighted data) demonstrates how gender information impacts these rankings - for each movie, the following are provided: what the movie is currently rated, how it would be rated based on women or men only, and how it would be rated when data are weighted to reflect discrepancies in the proportion of men and women. Movies like The Shawshank Redemption (#1) and The Silence of the Lambs (#23) would generally remain mostly unchanged. Movies like Django Unchained (#60) and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (#218) would move up to #34 and #50, respectively, while Seven Samurai (#19) and Braveheart (#75) would move down to #59 and #112, respectively. And finally, movies that never made it on to the top 250 list, like Slumdog Millionaire and The Nightmare Before Christmas, would have rankings of #186 and #199, respectively.

Reading and Viewing List

Two meetings this morning, so I haven't had a chance to read or watch some open tabs. Today's reading:

• Fallows writes about how actual smart people talk about themselves (and in my favorite response thus far to "stable genius," a friend shared a picture of a stable genius on Facebook - her daughter's horse)
• The Tribune gives us Impossible Tacos - I'll bite
• Also from the Tribune, Medieval Times finally has a queen

And on my watch list:

What the Wrath of Khan's trailer would look like today

Also on the subject of trailers, a recut that makes The Room look like a good movie:

Cracked discusses how 9/11 changed 90s sitcoms:

And Lessons from the Screenplay examines The Fault in our Star Wars:

Movie Review: The Disaster Artist

It's been a while since I've done a movie review and I just saw The Disaster Artist last night - so here we are! A movie review, and not even a superfluous one at that.

The Disaster Artist tells the story of Tommy Wiseau (played by James Franco) and his best friend/fellow actor Greg Sestero (Dave Franco), as they try to make it in the crazy world of show business. Tommy has a mysterious past: no one knows how old he is, where he's from (he claims to be from New Orleans despite an unidentified/unidentifiable Eastern European accent), or where his vast wealth comes from.

Tommy and Greg meet in Jean Shelton's acting class, where Jean (in a great cameo from Melanie Griffith) offers both actors feedback after poorly executed scenes. Despite the fact that Tommy's rendition of Tennessee Williams's A Streetcar Named Desire was simply him shouting, "Stella!" over and over again while climbing the walls and writhing on the floor, Greg is impressed with Tommy's fearlessness. He asks Tommy to do a scene with him. Tommy encourages Greg to overcome his stage fright, and their friendship is born.

Together they move to L.A., staying in an apartment Tommy owns but rarely visits. They go through the various steps of becoming professional actors: taking headshots, going to auditions, and (at least in Greg's case) finding an agent - the great Iris Burton (another great cameo, this one by Sharon Stone), who is famous for representing child actors like River Phoenix, Kirsten Dunst, Drew Barrymore, and Fred Savage.

But despite all that, Tommy and Greg both struggle to get cast. Greg laments that maybe they should just make their own movie. Tommy, with his "bottomless" bank account, thinks that's a great idea, and writes a screenplay for The Room. When Tommy makes the unbelievable decision to purchase, rather than rent, cameras and equipment, he is given access to a studio and some of the best technicians in show business to help him make his movie. And, as history has shown us, that awful, incoherent movie went on to become a cult film, playing to sold out crowds.

The Disaster Artist does for The Room what Ed Wood did for Plan 9 From Outer Space - the "so bad it's good" movie that was already loved by many gets elevated and understood at a new level. The story behind the movie helps you to appreciate, even admire, the movie, regardless of its inept writing and poor execution. In fact, I'm a fan in general of "making of" movies, like Shadow of a Vampire (portraying the making of Nosferatu) and RKO 281 (portraying the making of Citizen Kane); regardless of whether the movie they portray is a masterpiece (as Nosferatu and Kane are considered to be) or garbage (like The Room and Plan 9) these making-of films are like love letters to the original movies and to cinema in general.

I'm about halfway through the book on which The Disaster Artist is based, written by Greg Sestero and author Tom Bissell, both of whom have cameos in this movie. (Also, be sure to hang around after the credits for a great scene with the real Tommy Wiseau.) So it's difficult for me not to compare the book and the movie, and - as is so often the case - feel bummed that they cut out some great parts from the book. For the most part, I felt this was a good adaptation of the source material, and fit a lot of Greg's and Tom's insights into The Room and Tommy himself into the movie. The beginning, though, felt a bit rushed - I didn't feel like it established why Greg and Tommy became friends, and why Greg was willing to do and give up so much to make Tommy happy. But the actors in the film all did an excellent job at bringing the material to life. James Franco was incredible as Tommy, and Dave Franco perfectly captured Greg's sweet, naïve charm.

Probably the part I'm most bummed they cut out was Greg's story about the movie Home Alone. In the film version, Greg shares that he became interested in acting because Home Alone changed his life. It's a throwaway line that makes Greg look like a lovable idiot. But in the book, he explains what he means by that, and it's actually a really sweet story. After Greg saw Home Alone, he went home and wrote a screenplay for Home Alone 2. Greg, being a child at the time (he's about my age), probably didn't write a professional-quality screenplay, but nonetheless, he found the address for John Hughes's production company, and sent his screenplay in. Not long after, he got his screenplay back in the mail, along with a note from John Hughes, telling him: "Believe in yourself, have patience, and always follow your heart." He says after reading that note, he found his calling.

Having seen The Room helps to understand many of the funny moments in The Disaster Artist. I'm fairly certain the others in theatre with me had never seen The Room because I was often the only laughing. But regardless of whether you've seen The Room, I highly recommend checking The Disaster Artist out. And if you're a fan of The Room or just bad movies in general, I also highly recommend reading the book.

Statistics Sunday: Bayesian Inference in a Galaxy Far Far Away

I was recently rewatching Rogue One with a friend the other day. Since this is part of the Star Wars universe, it of course had to have some of the usual Star Wars elements: strange-looking aliens, someone uttering the line "I've got a bad feeling about this," and droids rambling off odds of different outcomes. Always bad outcomes - seriously, why don't the droids ever feel the need to say, "The odds are 50 to 1 that everything is going to turn out okay," or "There are puppies ahead; 200 to 1 odds of many puppy snuggles"?

But I digress. Because what I really want to talk about are those odds, and why they tell us something about the droids. True, they're sprinkled into the movies mainly as jokes. We don't really need to pay attention to the odds, other than to be impressed when the bad thing the droid was calculating on about doesn't end up happening. For instance, from The Empire Strikes Back:

Or this one, from Rogue One:

The information from the droid isn't actually that important. The point is that the line should make you laugh. But I was thinking about how this information is used in the Star Wars universe, and more importantly, where it could be derived from. And I came to an important realization:

These droids must be using Bayesian inference.

It's incredibly unlikely that these probabilities are empirically derived (BTW, this approach of using completely empirical data to derive probabilities is called Frequentism). C-3PO, for instance, says the odds of successfully navigating an asteroid field are 3,720 to 1. What that means is he has to have data on at least 3,721 attempts at navigating an asteroid field. And of course, you'd want more data than that. Just because 1 attempt out of the 3,721 was successful doesn't mean those are the true odds. It's possible the odds are actually 10,000 to 1. You need a lot of data to empirically derive the probability of something.

And what about K-2SO simply saying the probability that Jyn will use the weapon against Cassian is "very high"? It doesn't actually matter what the probability is, but where does that value come from? Sure, it's possible that K-2SO is simply using the probability that an escaped convict would use a weapon on another person, but still, it doesn't seem like there would be a lot of data just laying around. And if K-2SO prefers to use data specific to the situation, he'd need data on the outcome of a very specific situation, one that has likely never happened.

But it isn't unusual for people/droids/whatever to want to know the odds of something that might never have happened before - an event so rare it's impossible to observe it naturally but that you need to be prepared for in the unlikely event that it happens. Insurance companies need to know the potential risks of taking on a new account. Governments need to prepare for potential wars. And scientists need to be able to make causal inferences from their data, sometimes data not collected in such a way to infer cause. To a classical statistician, those puzzles would be difficult, maybe impossible. But to a Bayesian, it is completely possible to generate odds on a thing that has never happened before.

(If you need to refresh your memory on Bayes' Theorem, check out posts here, here, here, and here. And as soon as I learn how to invent more free time, I'm going to sit down and learn Bayesian statistics so I can stop Dunning-Kruger-ing my way through it.)

What K-2SO and C-3PO are generating are conditional probabilities - the probability of something happening given known probabilities about the present situation. These known probabilities are called "priors," and the droid could draw on whatever priors make sense. So C-3PO might be drawing on data about the maneuverability of the Millennium Falcon, the probability of crashes while being pursued, size and motion of the asteroids, and even observations about Hahn Solo himself. Using those conditions, C-3PO can calculate the probability that they'll make it out of the asteroid field alive.

(Side note: Successfully navigating an asteroid field actually wouldn't be that difficult. Check out this post from The Math Dude at Quick and Dirty Tips.)

And just as with the asteroids, K-2SO doesn't need to have the empirical odds that Jyn will use her "found" blaster on Cassian. Instead, he could use known information on Jyn's proclivity toward violence, rates at which convicted criminals use guns, and even probability of a weapon being fired in emotional situations or probability that Cassian will piss Jyn off somehow. K-2SO could use whatever priors make sense, and use that information to derive this "very high" probability.

Hopefully you're as excited as I am about seeing The Last Jedi!

May the Force be with you.

This is Pretty Grool

In the movie Mean Girls, Aaron (the love interest) asks Cady (the heroine) what day it is, and she responds October 3rd. Hence, October 3rd was dubbed "Mean Girls Day," and people celebrate by posting Mean Girls memes, watching the movie, and probably wearing pink.

This year, 4 members of the cast released this video, asking fans to help victims of the Las Vegas shooting. Here it is:

“On #October3rd, he asked me to help.” #MeanGirls

Please help the victims of the tragedy in Las Vegas at https://t.co/YMwEV1SDsL pic.twitter.com/OhXNSMvCYC

— Jonathan Bennett (@JonathanBennett) October 3, 2017

You've Been Terminated

It's sad when things go on much longer than they should. Terminator was a great movie, and Terminator 2 was a freaking awesome movie (though, admittedly an awful sequel):

But then the movies just kept getting worse and worse. At long last, Paramount has finally shelved the Terminator franchise:

"It is over for The Terminator and Arnold," the source stated. "The studio has taken the sequel off the production slate completely, meaning there is no pre-production or any plans for another sequel. The talent had been offered long-term deals, but this is not happening."

The source also stated there was a chance an independent production company could step in and pick up the project, but convincing Schwarzenegger back would be "a tough ask".

Women, Cannibals, and the Horror Movie Zeitgeist

It's always interesting to observe the different zeitgeists in horror. Though you'll see particular horror movie creatures come and go, it's interesting how one seems to catch on for a time and suddenly they're everywhere. In the late 90s/early 00s, it was vampires. Then it was zombies. Today, according to Kate Robertson of the Atlantic, it's female cannibals:

Having spent the last five years studying the female cannibal (an admittedly odd subject even in academic circles), I’ve been fascinated by how the subject has gained more mainstream visibility of late. While the female cannibal isn’t new to pop culture, she’s relevant in ways that go beyond shock value, by capturing ever-present social anxieties about gender, hunger, sex, and empowerment. These new works center on women who, in addition to eating humans, negotiate and subvert expectations for how women should look and behave. They’re motivated by physical hunger but also by sexual desire, making them an extension of the femme fatale—the beautiful woman who deceives and ensnares men. In eating flesh, characters like Justine simply redirect this fear from the metaphorical to the physical. There’s a persistent stereotype that women will “suck men dry”; well, these ones will literally devour you.

It’s significant that the grotesqueness of these women’s eating habits—their proclivity to gorge on human flesh—is rendered through beautiful bodies. Portrayals of female hunger in visual culture more broadly are tangled up in social expectations about how women manage their bodies, expectations shaped in part by fad diets, targeted advertising, and celebrity culture. Eating is thus not just about nourishment, but also about appearance. It’s why when celebrities admit that they like fast food, too, or that they don’t like dieting either, they seem relatable in a way that can feel carefully orchestrated. When these “rule-breaking” women happen to be gorgeous, their rebelliousness becomes that much more appealing.

Robertson discusses the portrayal of the female cannibal in two recent movies, Raw and The Lure, as well as a recent show Santa Clarita Diet (which is actually a zombie show, so it's not truly cannibalism, because zombies were once human but are now, well, zombies that feast on humans, but I digress). In these instances, the notion of hunger is explored as a metaphor for awakening and sex. It's not altogether different from the metaphor used by Joss Whedon in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, where the literal monsters she faced were stand-ins for the figurative monsters we encounter in a traditional coming of age story.

That's probably one reason why I find the genre of horror to be so fascinating - it can be straightforward, yes (because these movies make a lot of money), but it can also be nuanced and full of symbolism. It can be used to explore hard social issues, especially in climates where such commentary might not be possible. It can be a way to camouflage statements that might be at best frowned upon and at worst censored and attacked. Think of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein as less of a monster story and more of a commentary on scientific ethics and the thin line between breakthrough and playing god. Scratch below the surface of the some of the best horror, and you'll find many different messages underneath.

I'll admit, the gore/grossout subgenre of horror is one of my least favorite, though there are definitely movies in that subgenre I love (Evil Dead 2, The Thing). So I wasn't sure on first reading about it whether I was interested in seeing Raw. But it sounds to me like a thought-provoking work that gets to the heart of what I love about good horror - as symbolism and commentary.

Underrated Horror Books

Though I've professed a love of horror movies (many times), I also blog a lot about one of my other favorite forms of media: the novel. Just in time for Halloween, The Line Up posted a list of 9 underrated horror books to check out. I'm only familiar with one item on the list, but I have a great story to go with it that I've surprisingly never blogged about!

One of my favorite authors is Chuck Palahniuk, who is best known for writing Fight Club. He's written many great books that can be a little difficult to read at times, because of the graphic and unusual situations in which his characters find themselves. For instance, he was inspired to write one of his books after being asked to testify at the sentencing hearing of the man who killed Chuck's father. The death penalty was being sought, and Chuck found himself in a difficult place, wanting justice for his father but not wanting to feel that he had taken a life himself. He wrote Lullaby, in which the lead character discovers a story that will kill the listener. Not only does the protagonist struggle with (and misuse) his newfound power, the power falls into the hands of others who misuse with less struggle. In fact, they discover that just thinking through the story around someone can kill them. It gets weirder, of course.

But the book on the list linked above, Haunted, is probably one of his most graphic yet. The book is actually a series of short stories, that are connected because each character is sharing his/her story at a writers' retreat. I had the pleasure of meeting Chuck when I went to a reading of Haunted at Old Orchard Mall. Chuck has garnered a strong following thanks to Fight Club, and by the time my friend and I arrived, they had already passed out almost 150 numbers to people for the book signing after the reading. Yes, the number was our place in that line - the reading was at 7 or 8 pm, and we finally met Chuck around 1am. I had not expected him to stay until the end of the night, and I had immense respect for him as a fellow writer when they announced partway through the night that Chuck would not leave the building until everyone who wanted a book signed made it through the line. There were still others behind me, so I can't imagine how late he stayed.

The best part of the story, of course, is the reading itself, where Chuck read the short story referenced in the article, "Guts," a story so graphic there are urban legends about people fainting during the reading. I won't say much, except to say the character who told this story poured his guts out, figuratively and literally.

The reading had been advertised for many weeks, and one hopes that the people who scheduled the reading were familiar with the material, or at the very least, Chuck's writing. So, you can understand why Chuck was surprised when, as he was about to start the reading, he heard the sounds of children. He stopped, looked around, and said clearly into the microphone, "Hey, any parents in the store, you should probably know that this material is not appropriate for children. You may want to finish up your purchases and head out." He waited a moment, and read. A few minutes later, more sounds of children, and again, a pause and a strong warning from Chuck. He did that at least once more.

A few weeks later, I met the assistant manager of the store through a mutual friend, and he informed me that Chuck had been banned from Barnes & Noble, because, "You can't read that type of stuff there!"

I never did hear if he was banned from all Barnes & Nobles, or just that one.

Stranger Inspiration

Recently, I started watching Stranger Things, a Netflix series that you've probably heard of, unless you live under a rock - but if you're able to get internet under that rock in order to read my blog, I'm not sure you have an excuse even then. The show takes place in 1980s small-town Indiana, and begins with the disappearance of Will Byers. But then things get, well, stranger. As a big fan of horror movies (for more evidence, look here), I'm of course loving the series. And probably the biggest reason for that is how the series pays homage to 1980s horror and sci-fi. Even though I'm only about halfway through the series, I wanted to sit down and gather my thoughts on all the different references and homages I've seen in the episodes I've watched so far. I'm going to try to keep this as spoiler-lite as possible.

The Title and the Town

First, I'd say the biggest inspiration for Stranger Things comes from the work of Stephen King. Though the show takes place in Indiana, on multiple occasions I've felt like I was in Castle Rock, the Maine town in and around which King sets many of his stories. In fact, the title of the show reminds me of a particular story by King:

Many of the characters also remind me of the characters from King's work, particularly Police Chief Jim Hopper, who reminds me especially of Sheriff Alan Pangborn from Needful Things.

Then there's Eleven, a girl with psychokinetic abilities. I had her linked to one of King's characters, but when Will's friends (who discovered Eleven while trying to find Will) dress her up to sneak her into school, that clinched the link in my mind.

In fact, the storyline around Eleven draws a lot from Firestarter, including the government agency element and the nosebleeds Eleven experiences when using her powers.

The Disappearance of Will

Then there's the storyline around Will's disappearance, the creature who took him, and his mother's (Joyce, played brilliantly by Winona Ryder) efforts to find him and bring him home. This strongly reminds me of Poltergeist. In Poltergeist, Carol Anne is kidnapped from within her house and taken to another place that sits in a dimension parallel to our own; that is, she is essentially still in the house, just on a different plane. In Stranger Things, we are told by Eleven, and then shown later on, that Will is hiding in his own house. He's just over one dimension.

Just as Diane learns she can communicate with her daughter through the television, Joyce learns she can communicate with Will through lights.

The entrance to the creature's realm, which appears to be in the government lab (though there might be other doors), is also similar to the door opened in the children's closet in Poltergeist:

Nancy and her Friends

At the same time as the story around the disappearance of Will, we have the story of Nancy, older sibling of one of Will's friends. She starts dating a guy from a different crowd, and while Nancy is distracted by him, best friend Barb is taken by the creature. Nancy definitely reminds me of Nancy Thompson from A Nightmare on Elm Street, a normal teenager who is pulled into a terrifying mystery after the brutal murder of her best friend.

Just like Elm Street Nancy, Stranger Things Nancy is present while her friend is being attacked but unable to help, though the friend continues to call out to her.

Just like Elm Street Nancy, Stranger Things Nancy has a jockish boyfriend who really doesn't seem like Nancy's type.

And just like Elm Street Nancy, Stranger Things Nancy is unable to get any adults to believe her story and has to figure out the mystery on her own.

Will's Friends

Switching gears a little (that is, moving away from horror movies and on to different movies of the 80s), there's Will's group of friends, Mike, Dustin, and Lucas. Probably the biggest parallel is of the group of boys from the Goonies.

They're going to keep looking for Will. Because Goonies never say die.

I mean, the leader of the group who pushes his friends to find Will, is named Mike (Mikey, anyone?). Barb and Nancy, before the whole disappearance and mystery, could also be Andy and Stef from the Goonies. Of course, I can also see similarities to Explorers, especially when you factor in the boys' love of science and meddling with things a government agency isn't happy about.


There's definitely more, but I'm going to stop there for now. More when I finish watching the series!

TSMR Double-Feature: Evil Dead and The Thing

I've been informed that my recent TSMRs have been rather spoiler-heavy.  I'll admit, they've taken a play-by-play, MST3K approach - which is a style I really enjoy, because it reflects my thought process (and occasionally speech) while I'm watching movies.

I'm totally that guy.  I just need robots.

As much as I'd like to make my posts completely spoiler-free, I don't want my posts to become little more than a synopsis with commentary and overarching things that worked or did not work.  Instead, I'll attempt to make my posts spoiler-light.

Evil Dead
First up, Evil Dead, which I watched yesterday while I was home sick.  What better movie to watch when one is ill: when I'm really sick, I kind of feel like I'm possessed, so a movie about demonic possession is actually pretty fitting.

This movie is a prime example of the blood and gore subgenre of horror: constant bleeding, oozing, dismembering, and disintegrating.  Though there are funny moments in the movie, I think Sam Raimi was attempting to make a legitimately scary independent film.  Of course, after making this movie, he obviously figured out the concept could be better if they added humor and got rid of Bruce Campbell's unibrow.

Don't worry, Bruce - I still love you, unibrow and all

Five people: couple 1 (Ash & Linda), couple 2, and fifth wheel (Ash's sister), head up to an old cabin for a fun weekend of listening to demonic texts on a tape recorder.  That might not be what they originally intended to do, but they didn't really seem to have a plan otherwise, so when they found a strange book and tape recorder in the basement, they were thrilled to have a fun group activity.

And if that gets boring, here's another fun activity to try

On the recording, they learn that the strange book is apparently bound in human flesh and inked in human blood, and that it apparently has the power to raise demons.  Ash's sister gets pissed off and doesn't want to listen anymore.  But the male member of couple 2, who also enjoys scaring people and pointing guns at them for fun, decides to skip over all the exposition and go straight to the demon-raising.  Ash's sister stomps off to her room, couple 2 goes to their room, where they seem to spend the whole time just getting undressed by the window, and Ash & Linda have some cute exchanges over a necklace Ash bought for Linda.

But the action picks up again when Ash's sister decides to investigate a strange noise outside - because it's a horror movie, and that's what people do in horror movies - and instead gets attacked and assaulted by the trees.  Yes, that kind of assaulted.  That scene in particular is probably what resulted in this movie getting banned in multiple countries.

Of course, it could have been the aforementioned dismemberment.

Ash's sister decides it's time to leave, but she and Ash discover that the bridge (the only way to and from the cabin) has been destroyed.  They're stuck there for the night, and that's when the real fun begins.

I have two complaints about the film (and don't get me wrong, I do enjoy this movie, but not as much as Evil Dead 2): 1. In many shots, the camera is obviously in someone's hand, because it's shaky - not Blair Witch Project shaky, but enough to be distracting. 2. There's not a lot of story beyond group of kids, book, recording, crazy sh*t happens.

Evil Dead 2 doesn't have either of these issues - look for a blog post about Evil Dead 2 in the near future.

The Thing
I don't think I would ever be able to pick a favorite horror movie, but I could probably make a top 5 list.  And among those 5 would be The Thing.  I can seriously watch this movie again and again.

The film begins with a spaceship crashing to Earth.  Next, we see Antarctica 1982, and a lone dog running across the snow, a helicopter chasing it.  The dog happens upon a US research station and seeks refuge among the people there, but the two men in the helicopter seem to want nothing more than the dog dead, even firing at it while a group of US workers are standing around.  One man blows himself up while attempting to throw a grenade.  The other one accidentally shoots one of the men in the group, and another man from the US group shoots and kills the shooter.

With two dead Norwegians on their hands, Doctor Copper decides to do some investigating to determine what caused these men to go crazy.  He asks MacReady, helicopter pilot and most-trusted man in the whole group, to fly him to the Norwegian base.  In the meantime, Clark, the resident dog lover welcomes the dog in, allowing it to wander around for much of the day.  At the Norwegian camp, they find the rest of the Norwegians dead, some of which appear self-inflicted, and a body that appears human, except for the fact it has two heads.

And this isn't even the weirdest thing you'll see

The characters learn pretty quickly that the dog is no dog - it's a creature that is able to absorb and imitate other living creatures perfectly.  Which means, it could not only become a dog, it could easily become one of the people at the base.

The great thing about the movie is that, while the monster is important, what is more interesting is how quickly the characters begin to question and distrust each other.  And the viewer goes through the same thing.  Who is a "thing" and who is real?

The movie doesn't bother giving a lot of background on the group, other than establishing basic personalities and some job titles of the characters.  Mac, Copper, and Clark have already been mentioned above.  Other than them, we have:

Garry, the leader who seems to receive nothing but disdain from his subordinates
Bennings, the annoying guy who gets shot
Palmer, the pothead/least-trusted helicopter pilot ever
Windows, the radio guy
Blair, the biologist/closet computer programmer, who figures out the whole "Thing" thing
Childs, or Mr. "Voodoo Bullsh*t"
Norris, the geologist, who figures out the age of the ice the ship crashed into
Nauls, the cook and Stevie Wonder fan
Fuchs, a more junior biologist and Mac's biggest fan

Honestly, I don't think we ever learn what research they're doing, or what they spend their day doing besides drinking, getting high, and watching reruns of gameshows.  But somehow, the movie works and the only thing you wonder while watching is what the heck is going to happen next.  In fact, without knowing a lot about the characters, it makes it harder for you to figure out who is a "thing" and who is not.  You have no basis for comparison, no past experience with their behavior to determine what is normal for that character.

You'll walk away from the movie with lots of great one-liners.  And if you need an excuse to watch the movie again, there are some great drinking games out there.

Any recommendations for the next movie I should watch?  Let me know!

Doubly yours,
~Sara

Totally Superfluous Movie Review (Halloween Edition): Re-Animator

Next on my list: Re-Animator. One of the things I like about this movie is the cold open – it jumps right into the action. This tactic has been used in other horror movies and was perhaps most clearly spoofed in the opening for Ghostbusters. Dr. Gruber, an imminent researcher in brain death, is heard screaming in his office. When the police burst in, they find Dr. Gruber dying violently on the ground, as a young man in glasses hunches over him with a syringe. Dr. Gruber’s eyeballs explode and he dies, but the young man insists that he didn’t kill Dr. Gruber:

Flash to a young med student, Dan Cain, doing compressions on a woman in the ER. The doctor overseeing the case decides to use the defibrillator, which is unsuccessful at reviving the woman. As Dan tries to continue doing compressions, the doctor chastises the young man for not knowing when to give up, which “any good doctor should know.” BTW, any good doctor would also know that you don’t defibrillate someone in flat-line (or what the dumbass doc calls “straight line”).

As punishment for caring too much, Dan is told to take the woman down to the morgue. There, we observe Dan get a little jumpy around the dead bodies, and we once again see the young man from the first scene – who is introduced as Mr. Herbert West, a new 3rd year student. He speaks with a faux accent and calls another brain researcher, Dr. Carl Hill, a plagiarist. Nice guy.

Dan, who is not only a talented student, has also made the dean of the med school (Dean Halsey) like him, despite the fact that Dan is banging the dean’s daughter, Megan. Herbert interrupts their post-coital shenanigans to inquire about Dan’s need for a roommate. Though Megan immediately takes a disliking to Herbert, Dan accepts Herbert’s wad of cash and welcomes him.

During a lesson, Herbert takes his frustrations with Dr. Hill’s theories on brain death out on a couple of poor defenseless pencils.

Later, we see that Dr. Hill is about as creepy as Herbert, except the object of his creepiness is Megan. Megan runs off for a “study date” with Dan and during said date, they discover Dan’s beloved cat, Rufus, dead in Herbert’s fridge. Herbert blackmails Dan into dropping it by threatening to tell the dean that Dan and Megan are sleeping together. Um, I think the dean kind of already knows, but apparently that worked.

Later that night, Dan awakens to find Rufus alive and pissed. Dan helps Herbert kill Rufus, and Herbert brings him back to life (again) to show the effectiveness of the “elixir of life” Herbert has created.

Also helps turtles learn the way of the ninja

The howls of the cat were apparently so loud, Megan could hear it all the way at her house, because she inexplicably shows up and sees the Frankenstein-ian experiment.

The next day, when Dan tells the dean about the experiments, Dean Halsey expels Herbert, requests a written apology from Dan, and suggests that criminal charges may be filed. Nonetheless, Dan, the med student who cared too much, sneaks Herbert into the morgue to use the elixir on a human subject.

The experiment is a success, but the elixir turns the body into the Incredible Hulk, who attacks and kills Dean Halsey. Herbert decides that the body they used was dead too long and that they should use the elixir on a fresh body: Dean Halsey. Dean Halsey awakens, a little less hulk-y than the other guy, but still unable to speak and pretty pissed off. In a textbook case of medical conflict of interest, Dr. Hill takes Dean Halsey into his care, forces Megan to sign a consent form for exploratory brain surgery on the dean, and also tells her he is there if she’s ever feeling horny… er, lonely. ‘scuse me.

Dan confesses everything to Meg, while Herbert gets a taste of his own medicine (pun fully intended) when Dr. Hill blackmails him into telling him how we has been able to reanimate the dead. Herbert decapitates Dr. Hill and, not being satisfied with turning his head into a trophy with a nearby paper spike, decides to reanimate Dr. Hill’s head and body.

The pencil is totally a metaphor

But Hill once again gets the better of Herbert, by directing his body (somehow) to knock Herbert out, and steal Herbert’s notes and serum. Meanwhile, Dan discovers Hill’s creep file on Meg, which consists of newspaper clippings, photos, and a lock of her hair. I don’t even want to know how he got that last one.

Somehow, Hill is a perfect reanimation, despite the disconnect between his head and body. (Apparently decapitation was the missing ingredient.) Not a speechless hulk, he can speak (hiss is probably more accurate a word), coach his brainless/earless body to perform tasks, and control Dean Halsey into kidnapping Meg and bringing her to the morgue. Because, apparently that’s where sick MDs like get to lucky. When Herbert comes in to stop Hill, and Dan sneaks in to rescue Meg, Hill unleashes his own undead army of reanimated and lobotomized corpses. Hilarity ensues.

No really. If this movie were to create a new genre of horror, it would probably be called zombie slapstick. My favorite would have to be when Hill’s intestine decides to strangle Herbert.

Dean Halsey sacrifices himself to help Dan and Meg escape, but Meg is strangled in the elevator by one of the reanimated corpses. Dan tries to save her with CPR, then carries her to the ER, where they try to bring her back to no avail. No wonder there is an army’s worth of bodies in the morgue – the doctors in this hospital apparently suck as reviving people. What, they never heard of intubation?

Fortunately, Dan had the time to grab some of Herbert’s elixir, and he injects Meg as the screen goes black.

So the movie is definitely ridiculous, but totally entertaining. The score is pretty good, especially for a horror movie. If you enjoy horror movies with equal parts comedy, you’ll definitely want to put Re-Animator on your list.

Animatedly yours,
~Sara

Digital Recreation: Practical Movie-Making or Grave-Robbing?

It's been less than a week since Philip Seymour Hoffman was found dead in his apartment.  Like many people, I was in shock over the news.  Not only was he one of my favorite actors - and my frequent example of incredibly versatile actors who could take on pretty much any role - I was only vaguely aware of his drug problem.  I heard the news through a story posted by a friend on Facebook, and had to Google and check multiple news sites before I believed it wasn't a hoax.

I thought over some of my favorite movies in which he appeared, and had the urge to watch them, but thought that would be kind of morbid.  I also remembered seeing him in the latest Hunger Games movie and absent-mindedly thought, "Hmm, I wonder what they'll do about his character."

And then today I found out.  Hoffman had finished filming Mockingjay Part I, and had only a week left of filming on Mockingjay Part II.  To complete the one major scene Hoffman had left, the film-makers will use digital effects to recreate Hoffman.

The more I thought about this, the more I thought, "Wow, apparently Hollywood gets to decide when you're actually dead or not."  I was reminded of the Ed Wood film, Plan 9 from Outer Space, regarded as one of the worst movies ever made.  The movie starred Bela Lugosi, a man known for his portrayal of Dracula.  Lugosi and Wood became friends, and Lugosi appeared in many of Wood's movies.  When Lugosi died during filming of Plan 9, due to complications from methadone and morphine addiction, Wood was devasted… but also had a movie to finish.  They found a man (his wife's chiropractor) who looked like Lugosi from the eyes up, and had him cover his face with a cape for his scenes as the reanimated Lugosi (reanimated both in the sense of the character - who died and was brought back by aliens - and reanimated in the same sense Hoffman will be).

True, Hoffman's digital recreation for Mockingjay Part II will only be for one scene (or so the film-makers say), while Lugosi's double appeared in a large chunk of the movie.  So we may only be talking about 10 or so minutes.  And this certainly wouldn't be the first time a movie was released after one of its actors had died.  But where do we draw the line?  Now that computer effects have gotten so good that this kind of recreation is possible - and probably won't even be noticeable to the viewer - is this something we will see more of in the future?  Where do we say, "Okay, that amount of digital recreation is acceptable" and where do we say, "That's going to far"?

As always, please share your thoughts in the comments below!

Thoughtfully yours,
~Sara