Review: 2015’s “Maggie” is a Midwestern Drama with Zombies
I think that one of the reasons that people find the zombie genre is so popular is because it’s so relatable. In every point of history, there has been a very legitimate fear of infection, and of becoming part of a huge mass of the unidentified/unnamed/unclaimed waste left in its aftermath. It’s a terrifying thought to have to watch your body rot and decay into something inhuman before your own eyed. Just as there’s a complex horror of being swallowed into an unmarked mass grave, full of other rotting husks of unknown strangers.
And of course, the more bureaucratic nightmare of quarantine – the loss of control over one’s freedom, autonomy and body. The isolation of being a number in a system, a statistic to be glossed over in news reports, or worse, totally neglected by the system built to serve and protect you as a citizen.
At the time of this review, the world is rocked by the Corona virus. Clips of videos and pictures on the internet show people being removed in hazmat protection, portions of cities blocked off for quarantine, and countless people reacting to fake or real bouts of public sickness. Borders have been closed. PPE has been sold out completely online.
Before that was Ebola, H1N1, SARS, Bird Flu, Hantavirus, The Spanish Flu, Tuberculosis, Rabies, Leprosy, The Black Death…
And, something more akin to this movie – the HIV/AIDS epidemic. But before we get into all that…
The Plot:
Maggie, played by Abigail Breslin, has just been given a death sentence – she’s been bitten by an infected person and is now positive for a disease that’s been ravaging the entire US. After trying to run away, she is picked up by her father and taken back to their house in the quiet countryside to await her fate. She’s given only a few weeks to spend with her family before being forced to suffer her final days isolated in quarantine.
During her time at home, she must come to accept her mother’s past death, learn to forgive, and face her mortality while losing her agency and body in the process as she becomes sicker. She experiences the fear and ignorance of even her closest loved ones as she becomes less and less of Maggie and more of something else entirely…
The non-spoiler reveal:
There’s no way around this: Arnold Schwarzenegger plays her dad.
It’s…unfortunate and, frankly, jarring to see older Arnold play a Midwestern farmer and father to a young twenty-something (and father to even younger children). And it’s not to say that he doesn’t try in this film, because he does.
And he does a good job at acting, but what probably drew a lot of people to watch this movie (me included) was what ended up hurting it – it’s an Arnold Schwarzenegger zombie movie at the end of the day. No matter how it’s packaged, that’s what’s going to stick in people’s minds and when this slow-burn drama starts unfolding, it’s…well…
(snob glasses affixed) In “Genre And The Invention Of The Writer”, especially when examining Foucault’s “author-function”, Anis S. Bawarshi said:
“The author-function does not refer to the ‘real’ writer, the individual with the proper name who precedes and exists independently of the work. Instead, it refers to the author’s name, which, in addition to being a proper name, is also a literary name, a name that exists only in relation to the work associated with it. The author-function, then, endows a work with a certain cultural status and value. At the same time, the author-function also endows the idea of ‘author’ with a certain cultural status and value.” https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46nxp6.5
“The author-function delimits what works we recognize as valuable and how we interpret them at the same time as it accords the status of author to certain writers” https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46nxp6.5
I know, you’re thinking, ‘But Brannyk, doesn’t that work in favor of the movie? The reason that we’re talking about the movie right now is because of Arnold “Put That Cookie Down” Schwarzenegger? And also, what happened with the HIV/AIDS talk?’
We’ll get to HIV/AIDS in a minute. First, yes, Arnold and Abigail Breslin’s (but we know it’s Arnold) capital is what drew people in. In fact, that reliance on his capital was incredibly faulty direction that the marketing took – relying on (and exaggerating) the scarce action scenes of the movie. They even went as far as to hype the movie with the most ridiculous tagline: “Don’t Get Bitten” as a way to sell Action-Arnold, and not Midwestern old-dad Arnold.
It’s no wonder that, while it fared well with critics, it bombed hard, not even making back its budget (which probably mostly went to the salaries for the actors, as there was limited effects and locations).
And it’s a shame because “Maggie” is a fresh take on an old trope. And so, patient reader, we get to HIV/AIDS.
Brain Roll Juice:
“Maggie” is not the total chaos and calamity of most zombie outbreak movies. It’s an epidemic, yes, but as we see government-issued brochures given to Maggie, as we hear NPR news reports, and boring, routine doctor visits – this is not a collapsing society situation. Yet, there’s fear and prejudice against those infected. There’s ignorance. Some of it is rational – they are living in the country, where everyone knows everyone and resources are reserved for the larger cities. Maggie is seen as a victim, a carrier, a ticking time-bomb, a troublemaker, and an innocent child.
During her own time of accepting her virus and fate, friends and loved ones try understand how this change will affect them – some say goodbye, some turn away, and some give into prejudice and ignorance.
Throughout the movie (whether intentional or not) the interactions with the community, the government’s awkward involvements, and the sickness itself (not the cannibalistic part, though, duh) is reminiscent of the HIV/AIDS epidemic of the 80’s-90’s. Maggie as a “carrier” of a deadly and mysteriously disease that is clumsily handled by government officials and little understood by the general public pulls a lot from history. We see Maggie losing agency, little by little, with her choices and her own body as she is slowly succumbing to the virus. We see more government intervention by way of law enforcement and medical staff, even when trying to help her. We see her own friends misunderstand her and the community at the brink of hysteria.
In fact, when questioned about the school re-opening and asked whether he would send his child to school with a child with the disease, the mayor of the town had this to say,
“I’m glad I’m not faced with that problem today, and I can well understand the plight of the parents and how they feel about it. I also have compassion, as I think we all do, for the child that has this and doesn’t know and can’t have it explained to him why somehow he is now an outcast and can no longer associate with his playmates and schoolmates. On the other hand, I can understand the problem of the parents. It is true that some medical sources had said that this cannot be communicated in any way other than the ones we already know and which would not involve a child being in the school. And yet medicine has not come forth unequivocally and said, ‘This we know for a fact, that it is safe.’ And until they do, I think we just have to do the best we can with this problem. I can understand both sides of it.”
Just kidding. That was Reagan in ’85. A full two years before forming the President’s Commission on the HIV Epidemic in ’87. And that was after AIDS was named in ’82 and HIV identified in ’82.
Any who, what I’m getting at is that there are similarities that make this a familiar ride in an old trope that I found refreshing, surprisingly rewarding and genuine. While I hope this nod was deliberate, the zombie virus itself pays homage to very real and very deadly diseases in our world as I stated before and while the scary zombie move is fun, this was a good stroll into what other facets the zombie genre could tell. Familiar stories. Heartbreaking stories. Vulnerable stories of communities trying to recover and survive; families learning how to deal with loss and say goodbye; and victims finding agency (in small or big ways) within their suffering and their final moments.
Bottom-line:
A slow drama with Arnold Schwarzenegger and zombies. If you feel like you’re up to that, give it a go.
(3 / 5)
Movies n TV
Returning to the Soothing World of Evil with “The Demon of Death”
“The Demon of Death” is the season 3 premiere of the supernatural drama Evil, created by Michelle King and Robert King.
“The Demon of Death” is the season 3 premiere of the supernatural drama Evil, created by Michelle King and Robert King. The central cast includes Katja Herbers, Mike Colter, Aasif Mandvi, Michael Emerson, Christine Lahti, and Andrea Martin. As of this review, it’s available through Netflix and Paramount+ and its add-ons.
The assessors investigate the weight of a soul. Father Frank Ignatius (Wallace Shawn) agrees to participate in this test despite his growing disillusionment. David (Mike Colter) and Kristen (Katja Herbers) deal with the ramifications of their confessions. Kristen’s girls go on the warpath with Leland (Michael Emerson). Andy (Patrick Brammall) signs his death warrant.
What I Like about “The Demon of Death”
As season 2 ended with a cliffhanger, “The Demon of Death” picks back up with an interesting addition. The episode provides a more obvious stopping point that Season 2 should have taken advantage of. It dumbfounds me because this addition makes for a more interesting and darker cliffhanger. The added context would have made the cliffhanger more palatable. However, it’s a nice twist for the episode.
Dr. Boggs (Kurt Fuller) and Sister Andrea (Andrea Martin) make an interesting pair that adds complexity to both. We even explore some of Sister Andrea’s character flaws, best displayed by her interaction with Kristen in the next scene. Few wise sage characters that display flaws, making this addition appreciated.
Father Ignatius’ introduction adds layers of interest for a character who will play a recurring role, tying into Monsignor Korecki directly. The yet-to-be-explored relationship between Father Ignatius and Monsignor Korecki (Boris McGiver) evokes an interest.
While “The Demon of Death” isn’t a haunting episode, but explores the mysteries and terror of death through science to provide an interesting environment for an episode. It introduces a new character that adds to the cast.
Tired Tropes and Triggers
There’s not much to report here that particularly crosses the line and what teeters on the line holds a dark comedic tone.
Perhaps Sister Andrea’s flaw might rub some the wrong way, as it deals with her overwhelming faith. However, it’s a minor point at the moment. Again, I lean on liking some complexity for the wise sage archetype.
What I Dislike about “The Demon of Death”
“The Demon of Death” still plays it safe with its supernatural elements, but that does seem to be Evil’s standard. At this point of the series, it seems a strange restraint. However, the new normal remains functionally paranormal.
While the premiere starts with an interesting procedural plot, it doesn’t direct the season like prior premieres. This episode doesn’t deliver a massive refocus as season 2’s premiere, but that’s because its conclusion doesn’t deliver as focused of a direction. Regardless, “The Demon of Death” is still an episode that slips away despite its premiere status.
Ben (Aasif Mandvi) seems needlessly hostile as they investigate a soul’s potential weight. The study delivers a thorough scientific process, which makes his resistance linger on the “angry atheist” archetype.
The demon shown on screen certainly isn’t the demon of death the title suggests. While the plot revolves around the mystery of death, there is a demon with a more carnal domain. As future episodes dive into their respective demons, it does seem to be an inaccurate title. However, the demon of the episode will get further focus in a different episode.
Final Thoughts
“The Demon of Death” doesn’t stand out as a premiere but provides an interesting procedural episode. As Father Ignatius will become another key character in the series, giving him an entire episode to introduce him is a nice strategy. While it’s not a haunting episode, it still provides a level of camp with interesting characters to pull it off. (3 / 5)
Released in 2010, Rare Exports asks an important holiday question. One that no one else has dared to ask.
What if Santa was a ten-story-tall monster buried under the ice for centuries?
The story
Rare Exports is the story of a little boy named Pietari. After doing what is frankly too much research for a little boy, he realizes that Santa is not the jolly old elf we all think of. He is, in fact, a monster who eats bad children. And it turns out that Santa was trapped in the ice near Pietari’s little town. All this would be well and good if a Russian mining team weren’t in the process of cutting him out of the ice. So it’s up to Pietari to convince everyone of the dark, horrific truth.
Santa Claus is coming to town.
What worked
Some movies need to make sense. Some don’t. Rare Exports is one of the latter.
Why were the Russians digging in the snow to find Santa? What was the plan there? What happened to Pietari’s mom? And who did they sell the elves to? Do the elves need air or water to live?
We don’t get answers to any of those questions. And frankly, we don’t need them to enjoy Rare Exports.
This is a wild story about a little boy who discovers that Santa is a mythical monster with a bunch of scrawny old men with big white beards to do his evil bidding and eats bad children who haven’t been beaten by their parents enough. What sort of explanation would help this story in any way?
I mean, we could pick apart why it’s suddenly legal to sell people, or at least mythical creatures that look like naked old men, or why this all happened right next to the only little kid who had the exact knowledge needed. But in the end, wouldn’t that be like asking how Santa gets into people’s homes when they don’t have fireplaces? Doesn’t that objective reasoning just piss on the Christmas magic?
What didn’t work
While Rare Exports was fun, there were parts that I did not appreciate. For one thing, there wasn’t a single woman or person of any color in this film. Literally not one. Not an extra, not in the background. This little Finnish town is populated entirely by white men. And yes, it is Finland and there isn’t a hugely diverse population. But it’s also 2010. People move. Also, women exist.
On the subject of seeing too many white men, we also saw too much of the white men. Specifically, we saw far too many old white male actors entirely nude. There was just no reason for this. These men were portraying elves. They didn’t have to be naked. If they were naked, they didn’t have to have, um, yule logs. Maybe elves are like Ken dolls. There were so many options that didn’t include so much old man wang.
Finally, I wish we’d seen Santa Claus. Not to spoil the ending, but he never actually emerges to attack anyone. And that feels like a cop-out. If we’re going to be teased the whole movie with this depiction of monster Santa, we should at least get to see monster Santa.
Though, after what they did with the elves, maybe it’s a blessing we didn’t see him.
In the end, Rare Exports was well worth watching. It was hilarious, creepy and bloody. And while it wasn’t perfect, it was a delightful holiday horror comedy.
(4 / 5)
Released in 2016, Christmas Crime Story is about a disastrous robbery on Christmas Eve, and all the many lives impacted by the selfish decisions of one person.
And then, suddenly, it isn’t. But we’ll get to that part.
The story
Christmas Crime Story is the tale of a Christmas Eve holdup gone wrong. We see the story from several points of view, starting with Chris, the detective first on the scene.
Chris is having a hard Christmas Eve. So, on his lunch break, he visits his mom at her diner. It appears that they have a contentious relationship. But nothing is solved in this quick visit.
Chris goes on to pull over a man speeding. When the man, named David, pulls over, Chris discovers something in the trunk. That something must have been pretty damn incriminating, because rather than open the trunk, David shoots him dead.
We then switch to David’s pov for the night. Then his girlfriend’s pov. Then, the man his girlfriend has been cheating on him with. And on and on we go, until we see how all of these different stories and people come together for a dark, sordid Christmas Eve.
What worked
The first thing I want to say about Christmas Crime Story is that it’s heartwarming. Like, to a fault, which we will be talking about.
The ending is very sweet, in a Christmasy sort of way. Families come together, people are filled with joy, and all is right in the world for almost everyone. Except for Lena, who deserves to have a bad Christmas, everyone gets a happy ending.
That brings me to my next point. The characters, mostly, are all deeply sympathetic. Even when David or James are killing people, you feel bad for them.
You don’t agree with what they’re doing, but you do feel bad.
You have to feel sympathetic for the man whose girlfriend hired a killer to merk him. Or the woman whose daughter has cancer. Or the guy who just can’t find work, even though he’s trying to make good decisions. You want things to work out for them. You want them to be okay. Even when they do terrible things.
Finally, I always love stories told from so many different points of view. It’s always fun to see a story unfold in a nonlinear way, but in a way that makes more and more sense as we get more points of view. It’s a hard thing to pull off, and I think Christmas Crime Story did it very well.
What didn’t work
Unfortunately, all of the sympathetic characters and clever storytelling methods in the world won’t save a story that doesn’t work. And Christmas Crime Story just does not work.
Let’s begin with the ending. The big twist near the end of the movie. I won’t spoil it, but you will for sure know it if you’ve seen the film. Or, if you waste your time watching the film.
As a rule, twists work when they make sense. Not when it feels like the writers threw up their hands and said, “Okay, but what if everything we just did for the last hour and fifteen minutes didn’t happen, and instead…”
This wasn’t clever. It wasn’t fun. It felt like the writers didn’t know how to end their movie and just decided to cheat.
Finally, I mentioned earlier that Christmas Crime Story was heartwarming. And yes, that is nice.
But is it maybe a little too heartwarming?
I mean, we have an adorable angel of a child with cancer. Her parents don’t have enough money for her treatment. We have two poor guys who are in love with a black-hearted woman. And we have a detective so sweet and kind that he makes you rethink ACAB. And, he’s about to get married to his pregnant girlfriend. And they’re naming the baby after his mom. And his name is literally Chris DeJesus. His mom’s name is Maggie DeJesus. I tried to think of a sillier less subtle name to use as a joke, and I literally couldn’t think of one.
They could have at least named him De La Cruz. That would be more subtle, and I still would have complained.
In the end, Christmas Crime Story just missed the mark. It came very close to being a good movie. But it focused too much on how it wanted you to feel, rather than telling a satisfying story that made sense. Much like that third glass of eggnog, it’s fun in the moment and regretful after. If you’re looking for a satisfying Christmas horror, I’d suggest looking elsewhere.
(2 / 5)
-
Movies n TV6 days agoFreak Out, a Rocky Horror Memoir by Jennifer Weigel
-
Movies n TV5 days agoDexter lives in Original Sin, And In the Beginning
-
Book Reviews6 days agoDepression + Apocalype = ?: This Is Not a Test Book Review
-
Movies n TV4 days ago
Christmas Crime Story, A Nonsensical Holiday Romp
