There are plenty of good films/TV shows coming out, so I don’t want to sound like some crotchety, old nostalgia hound. Still, sometimes it pays to watch ’70s-90s films, as they often carried a gritty realism. For example, check out Martin Scorsese’s Taxi Driver some time, if you haven’t already. You might quickly think,”Woah, this is definitely from another era!” It sure is, and that’s part of what makes it great. Frankly, none of the characters are likable. The main character, Travis Bickle (Robert De Niro) is a deranged, misanthropic ex-soldier who becomes obsessed with a girl (Cybill Shepherd), gets rejected by her, then plans violent revenge.
Yet, at the same time, Travis Bickle is not particularly evil. In fact, there are signs that he’s just an average guy. He may have a few bad (or terrible) ideas in his head, but the tide can easily shift and make him look like a public hero. He’s a complex character, not tailor-made for modern pop culture’s preening sensibilities.
Ironically, Taxi Driver is a great film precisely because it’s offensive, unsettling. The moral ambiguity is what makes it impactful, and real. There are still films and TV shows like Taxi Driver around today, but it seems like a lot of these story approaches will go away, in favor of safe, predictable outcomes and clear boundaries between good and evil. In other words, moral ambiguity will be increasingly frowned upon, because the ideas will simply be too complex for some viewers to understand.
Reality
But is Taxi Driver really that offensive, or is it merely realistic? To me it merely seeks to elaborate the world of its main character, to approximate explaining it. You are essentially there with Travis, to see what he sees, know what he knows, and why. You might not agree with all of it (in fact, you definitely shouldn’t), but you’ll come shockingly close to understanding it. That is the power of Taxi Driver. Sure, one can talk about the strengths of De Niro’s performance, but even a lesser actor could have still worked, as the story’s realism is precisely the main driving force.
Advertisement
Want to know how realistic this film is? Even the guy (Harvey Keitel) who pimps out an underaged girl, Iris (Jodie Foster), comes off looking less villainous than Travis, who exacts justice on him through brutal violence. Yes, Keitel’s character is a scumbag, and it would be difficult to defend him. However, in the process of exacting justice on the pimp, Travis clearly traumatizes Iris further, and sets a media standard for accepting brutal violence as a form of instant justice!
The story is not so simple as “He’s a bad guy! Get him, Travis!” At the same time, we likely understand why Travis did what he did, and the complex reasons why. Whether a burgeoning political assassin or the savior of a child prostitute, Travis Bickle is both a villain and a hero (or an “anti-hero,” to use a common expression). His idea of justice is not entirely just.
What if Every Man Acted Like Travis Bickle?
After watching Taxi Driver, this is perhaps an important question, especially if you read comments on true crime videos on Youtube. There are tons of people out there who advocate for retaliatory violence, whether for serial killers, one-off murders or child molesters. Much like with Travis Bickle, one can understand these views.
However, what if everyone got their wish? What if every drug dealer was executed, or everyone got the maximum sentence for a violent crime? What if everyone who ever did something creepy was incarcerated or simply killed? Would the world suddenly become a peaceful paradise? Personally, it sounds more like a never-ending hellscape to me. These aren’t questions for any single person to answer. However, Taxi Driver ought to inspire such questions as a long-lingering afterthought, at least to viewers who really get the layered dimensions of Mr. Bickle. Still, one could understand Taxi Driver coming equipped with a “Do not try this at home” warning.
What are your thoughts on Travis Bickle and Taxi Driver? Let us know in the comments!
Smile 2, a psychological supernatural horror, released in October 2024 just in time for Halloween, sees director Parker Finn (Smile, Laura Hasn’t Slept) return with a sequel starring Naomi Scott (Aladdin) as pop star and recovering addict Skye Riley. While Smile 2 boasts a talented cast, it ultimately falls short of its predecessor, offering a familiar storyline with minor variations and a predictable finale. The film attempts to introduce a new method to combat the parasitic ‘Smile Entity’, but this addition fails to elevate the sequel beyond a pale imitation of its chilling predecessor.
The Plot.
Smile 2 begins shortly after the end of the original; just six days after Rose Cotter’s death. During a short interlude scene, we watch as the now cursed Joel attempts to pass the Smile Entity on by killing one criminal in front of another. The plan backfires spectacularly, inadvertently passing the curse onto an innocent bystander named Lewis Fregoli.
The film then shifts gears, introducing Skye Riley, a singer and performer making a triumphant return to the spotlight with a comeback tour after a tumultuous past. During a candid interview on the Drew Barrymore Show, Skye opens up about her struggles with addiction and the devastating loss of her boyfriend in a car accident. Her sobriety journey, however, faces a severe setback when she seeks pain relief from her old high school friend, the unwitting Lewis Fregoli. In a chilling turn of events, Lewis takes his own life while Skye watches, passing the Smile Entity onto her. Unaware of her new cursed existence Skye gets on with rehearsing for her tour, but she begins to notice that strange things are happening. People are smiling at her in an unnatural way and she becomes the target of anonymous attacks and aggressions. When text messages begin to arrive from an unknown number, Skye decides to get some answers.
Highlights.
Let’s not beat about the bush. I found Smile 2 difficult to finish and was struggling at about the hour-and-a-half mark to stay awake. That being said it’s worth watching because everyone needs to see the 3-minute scene of the ‘smilers’ chasing Skye through her apartment. This was possibly the creepiest thing I’ve seen on a screen. The buildup, the synchronicity of the movement of the actors and their positioning, the camera work, and the lighting. I have rewatched it several times and it doesn’t get old. If you are only interested in watching this, fast forward to the 123-minute mark and get ready to be impressed.
Drawbacks.
Where do I start?
My primary concern with Smile 2 is its striking resemblance to its predecessor. The narrative follows a familiar pattern: an attractive woman fleeing a supernatural force, grappling with hallucinations, experiencing a mental health decline, and culminating in the revelation someone close to Skye was the Smiling Entity after all. This repetitive structure diminishes the film’s impact.
Advertisement
While the introduction of a new method for shedding the entity initially offered a glimmer of hope this concept wasn’t fully realized. It just served to add names to the line of people that the entity has infected in the past.
Furthermore, the film’s pacing suffers from excessive focus on Skye’s musical career. Scenes showcasing her stage rehearsals and music videos, while intended to establish her identity as a performer, feel unnecessary and detract from the narrative momentum. Yes, we understand she’s a performer, you told us, you don’t need to prove it. These scenes appear to artificially inflate the film’s runtime, suggesting a lack of confidence in the core story.
The Final Take.
Ultimately, Smile 2 fails to expand upon the established lore of the franchise. The film’s conclusion feels contrived, with a blatant setup for a third installment. Hopefully, if a ‘Smile 3’ is inevitable, the creative team will bring fresh ideas and avoid simply retreading familiar ground.
We’re back again with Goosebumps The Vanishing, episode two. A story too big for one episode, apparently.
Or, maybe this is just a nod to the fact that Stay Out Of The Basement was a two-part episode in the original 1995 show. Either way, after seeing this episode, we could have kept it to one.
The story
We begin this second episode with Anthony investigating the parasitic plant taking over his body. Rather than, I don’t know, going to the hospital, he’s decided to phone a colleague and send her some samples from the bulb he pulls out of his arm with a handheld garden trowel.
Meanwhile, Devin is having his own worries. He’s haunted by what he saw in the sewers. So, he gets CJ to go with him to investigate. What they find is more of the tendrils of the plant that dragged him down through the manhole last episode.
Advertisement
I sure would have liked to see more about that.
Instead, we see Devin pivot to flirting with a newly single Frankie. Because teenage hormones I guess.
Meanwhile, Trey is having a terrible day. First, his girlfriend leaves him. Then, Anthony breaks his car window.
Needing a way to deal with his frustration, Trey decides to break into the Brewers’ basement. There, he starts wrecking up the place. Until he meets the plant creature and has an unfortunate accident.
What worked
The big difference between this episode and the last is the increased gross-out factor. This episode had some straight-up cringy moments. From the tendrils waiving from Anthony’s arm to the whole goat he brings home to feed his new pet, this episode was skin-crawling gross in the best way possible.
Advertisement
The series is called Goosebumps, after all.
What didn’t work
Unfortunately, that’s where my praise ends. This episode, unlike the last, just wasn’t that great.
To start with, there was a lot of unnecessary drama between characters who are not in danger of being eaten by a plant from the inside out.
I especially disliked the focus on the Frankie/Trey/Devin love triangle.
Now, I don’t hate it. This part of the story adds extra emotional depth to the show. We can see why Trey would be especially incensed by his girlfriend falling for the son of the neighbor he’s feuding with. But it would be more enjoyable if it wasn’t so cliche and dramatic.
Advertisement
I hate the way Trey tried to gaslight Frankie. It makes me dislike him when he should be a sympathetic character. I hate how whiny Devin is every time he talks to Frankie. And I hated the impassioned speech Frankie gives after Devin asks her why she was with Trey.
Listen, I understand what we’re going for here. Devin and Cece are not struggling financially. They’re doing alright, and their new friends here in Gravesend are not. We kind of got that without Frankie claiming that her socioeconomic status is why she’s dating a bully and gaslighter. It felt out of place. It felt like pandering. It certainly didn’t feel like something an eighteen-year-old would say. I hated it.
Finally, there was a moment near the end of the episode that irritated me. I don’t want to give too much detail because I wouldn’t dare ruin an R.L. Stine cliffhanger. But, well, it doesn’t make a lot of sense.
I get that we’re watching a show about a carnivorous plant that is going to wreak havoc on this family and neighborhood. I understand the suspension of disbelief. Some might even say I am a little too generous with it. So I can buy into a teenager being absorbed by a plant and turned into a monstrous version of himself.
I can’t buy into what happens at the end of this episode. It doesn’t make sense with the rules established. It certainly doesn’t make any sort of scientific or logical sense. It is a lazy moment meant to further the storyline but threatens the structural integrity of the season.
Advertisement
All in all, this wasn’t the best episode of Goosebumps. But it’s only the second episode. Honestly, the season has plenty of time to go either way.
The movie monsters always approach so slowly. Their stiff joints arcing in jerky, erratic movements While the camera pans to a wide-eyed scream. It takes forever for them to catch their victims.
Their stiff joints arcing in jerky, erratic movements As they awkwardly shamble towards their quarry – It takes forever for them to catch their victims. And yet no one ever seems to get away.
As they awkwardly shamble towards their quarry – Scenes shift, plot thickens, minutes tick by endlessly… And yet no one ever seems to get away. Seriously, how long does it take to make a break for it?
Scenes shift, plot thickens, minutes tick by endlessly… While the camera pans to a wide-eyed scream. Seriously, how long does it take to make a break for it? The movie monsters always approach so slowly.
Robot Dance from Jennifer Weigel’s Reversals series
So my father used to enjoy telling the story of Thriller Nite and how he’d scare his little sister, my aunt. One time they were watching the old Universal Studios Monsters version of The Mummy, and he pursued her at a snail’s pace down the hallway in Boris Karloff fashion. Both of them had drastically different versions of this tale, but essentially it was a true Thriller Nite moment. And the inspiration for this poem.
Pingback: Lon Chaney. His Dedication Should Inspire Modern Horror - Haunted MTL