Connect with us

Reviews

Ay, Mis Ojos: A Spoiler-Free ‘Bird Box Barcelona’ Review

Published

on

Despite 2018’s Bird Box (based on the Josh Malerman novel of the same name) becoming the most-watched movie in the history of Netflix at the time it premiered (according to Netflix, anyway), it took five years to even hear a peep of a potential franchise. Well, that egg has finally hatched and what has come out is the spinoff Bird Box Barcelona, which shares a premise, some producers, and exactly one stunt performer with the original Bird Box and nothing else.

The movie takes place in Spain (the home of the hit series Money Heist and Elite, so Netflix knows they can score some international crossover points; presumably, if Spain has said no, this movie would have been shot in South Korea and nowhere else). Just like the America of Bird Box, Spain has been ravaged by the arrival of unseen creatures who, when gazed upon, drive humans into a self-destructive fugue state. This time we’re following grief-stricken Barcelona local Sebastián (Mario Casas) as he meets up with a band of survivors including English psychiatrist Claire (Barbarian’s Georgina Campbell), immigrant physicist/pizza boy Octavio (Babylon’s Diego Calva), and a young German girl named Sofia (Naila Schuberth).

How Does Bird Box Barcelona Compare to the Original?

Right off the bat, we learn that Bird Box Barcelona has very different intentions than Bird Box. While the original movie was a Romero-esque “humans are the real monsters” post-apocalypse story with an “elevated” motherhood angle, Barcelona swaps out motherhood for grief and is mostly interested in being a Catholic crisis of faith picture. This is more fitting than it sounds, considering the way that the monsters occupy a liminal space that allows humans to apply their own understanding to them. So, if you’re a Spanish Catholic, then, well, there you go.

Unfortunately, the other main thing Bird Box Barcelona takes from the original is its out-of-order storytelling. This one relies on flashbacks rather than flashforwards, which get in the way of the tension of the main narrative less, but they get so far out of the way that they are finished delivering any sort of useful information about a third of the way through the movie.

Advertisement

Other than that, Barcelona is ever so slightly gorier (one death in particular is a doozy) and quite a bit less scary than Bird Box. In fact, genuine horror doesn’t even seem to be one of the major tones the movie is going for most of the time. There is also a very different tenor to the main character’s journey this time around that does add texture to the first two acts, even if at the end of the day it’s still pretty much taking the shape of the arc we already saw Sandra Bullock’s Malorie play out in Bird Box.

Should You Watch Bird Box Barcelona?

Because of its overall disinterest in horror, Bird Box Barcelona does veer dangerously close to not actually being interesting to watch whatsoever. It loses even more of its potency by conspicuously ditching most of the parallels to the COVID-19 pandemic that the original movie had in spades (entirely by accident, of course, but it worked because of its universal sense of apocalyptic dread). It only pays lip service to certain COVID-y aspects in very brief moments. It makes sense why Barcelona would want to avoid reminding viewers of the 2020 lockdowns, but in doing so it sands off almost every edge it could have had.

However, the movie does have its moments. A setpiece in a subway tunnel is superbly directed and one particular sequence in the third act climax will have you gnawing your fingernails down to the bone. The acting is all perfectly serviceable without any particular standouts. And there is at least a sense that somebodywanted the movie to be pleasant to look at, with recurring eyeball motifs, the introduction of cool-looking blacked-out goggles in addition to blindfolds, and a strong sense of when to highlight a space with strips of golden light or huge swaths of inky shadow.

Ultimately, Bird Box Barcelona is the platonic ideal of a Netflix movie. It’s never going to knock your socks off, but it delivers a story you can hang onto just enough that you won’t click back to your home page and waste 30 minutes trying to figure out what streaming service Jury Duty is on.

Score: 6/10

Advertisement

Brennan Klein is a millennial who knows way more about 80's slasher movies than he has any right to. He's a former host of the  Attack of the Queerwolf podcast and a current senior movie/TV news writer at Screen Rant. You can also find his full-length movie reviews on Alternate Ending and his personal blog Popcorn Culture. Follow him on Twitter or Letterboxd, if you feel like it.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Reviews

[REVIEW] ‘The Strangers: Chapter One’ Buys Some Time For Its Trilogy, But If The Next Two Suck We Riot’

Published

on

Boy meets girl. Boy and girl go to a remote cabin. Boy and girl are terrorized by three masked murderers. It’s a tale as old as time.

But there was a time about 16 years ago when The Strangers hit audiences with this tried-and-true premise in a way that felt fresh and terrifying. It was bleak without being exhausting and frightening without being cheap (barring a few jumpscares). The franchise’s newest entry, The Strangers: Chapter One, attempts to take us back to those days with a reboot, but its execution shows that the time has passed for dwelling on the original’s successes. Now is the time for the series to outgrow the expectations set by the franchise.

‘The Strangers: Chapter One’ Revisits the Formula That Wowed Audiences, But Needs to Outgrow Its Legacy

Directed by genre film veteran Renny Harlin (Deep Blue Sea), the film is exactly what you’d expect: a return to basics, with a new couple slowly being tortured by a trio of masked killers who play a nasty game of cat and mouse. This time, Madelaine Petsch and Froy Guiterrez lead the film as couple Maya and Ryan, who run into roughly the same problems James and Kristen had in the first film; bog standard relationship troubles, and the occasional axe through the front door. Performance-wise, it’s nice to see Petsch adopting the mannerisms of a tried-and-true scream queen on her first go-around with a horror film, and even if the following two films aren’t knockouts, I’m interested to see how she approaches the character again. 

The above might seem like a massive spoiler if you haven’t been following the publicity around this film, so let me elaborate: Chapter One’s titling is a bit more literal to its planned trilogy. Harlin himself describes the three movies as really being one massive 4-and-a-half-hour-long movie that will have its last two parts released later in the year. This is only the beginning, which is usually said as a threat, but this time feels more complicated.  

The choice to shoot the trilogy altogether explains a lot of the film’s pacing problems: the last third of the film reaches the steady speed of a molasses drip, with an ending that felt more like the closer to the pilot of a Strangers TV series. The atmosphere is a cold dark forest, but the story moves with the languid motions of a heatwave-struck summer camp when we’re not in the thick of being attacked by cowled killers. 

Advertisement

We’re Hopeful for a More Imaginative Future

I have a bit more faith that Harlin plans on doing something very out there with his mega-film ambitions; after all, tripling the length of your film demands something that will keep your audience hooked across three screenings over multiple months, like giving Madelaine Petsch a grenade launcher or having the Man in the Mask turn the town of Venus, Oregon into a Twisted Metal arena with his Ford Ranger. But I’m left wondering if the ending Part One drops us off at will sour audiences on the concept.

In terms of what the film has to offer visually, Harlin and cinematographer José David Montero do interesting work. Chapter One’s aesthetics are at the center of a tug-of-war between the original Strangers film and its sequel Prey At Night, fighting to be both gritty and cleaner looking at the same time. The lighting and coloring are absolutely a step up from Prey at Night, but the mumbly darkness of the original only really makes itself known in shots and scenes that are direct homages. The scares land semi-regularly, but genuine fear is out of the office in favor of more thrilling chase sequences. There are a few moments that really get you, and others that I think will mainly work best in a packed theatre where audience reactions feed off each other. 

Though Chapter One feels like a more fun Strangers film at points, it doesn’t keep the energy up, and ultimately feels betrayed by its legacy. I’m under the impression that Prey at Night’s bold decisions and less-than-shining success at the box office might have just scared Lionsgate into taking the safe route, at least as far as opening the trilogy goes. It’s easy to backslide into comfort. But The Strangers: Chapter 2 and 3 have a great opportunity to dive into the deep end and take its audience into the unknown. In a year packed with exciting new movie prospects and original IPs popping up all over the place, Strangers has to go big or go home. Let’s hope the next two can make the hard-and-fast change of pace to do so.  

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Reviews

Revisiting ‘Pulgasari’ (1985), or “Remember That Time Kim Jong Il Made A Monster Movie?”

Published

on

Did you know Kim Jong Il was a big fan of movies? 

It’s recorded that the second Supreme Leader of North Korea often said he wanted to be a film critic or a film producer as a young man. He even ended up writing the handbook that would shape North Korean movie making (titled On The Art of Cinema), and according to some sources he aided in the production of as many as 100 movies in his life. Among his best-known works are 1969’s Sea of Blood and 1972’s Flower Girl, both about the Korean independence movement of the 1930s and Korea’s conflicts with the Japanese occupation of the country. 

His best-known film is a kaiju movie about a giant monster that eats metal.

A MYTH, A REMAKE, AND A DREAM OF MONSTERS

We are of course talking about 1985’s Pulgasari, a movie based on the Korean myth of the Bulgasari, or Bulgasal. It’s also loosely a remake of the 1962 movie Bulgasari, a lost South Korean film that, to my understanding, only a singular surviving copy of which is known to exist is in the custody of the Korean Film Archive. Despite its lackluster reception at the time, Bulgasari was the first piece of South Korean film to have proper special effects in it, making it an artistic watershed moment in Korean film history.

The Bulgasari myth that the film is based on goes as follows: an innocent blacksmith (or his daughter in some versions) is killed by an unjust regime, and an effigy of a monster is created and imbued with life by his wish, becoming the Bulgasari. The creature is then sent to destroy the oppressors by eating the metal from their weapons. The creature becomes gradually stronger and larger with each conflict, until it runs out of control. Seeking more metal to satisfy its hunger, it ironically conquers the people it was supposed to protect.

Advertisement

When a deep sense of love for filmmaking collided with an even deeper sense of nationalistic pride in the idea that North Korea could become a filmmaking powerhouse, Il’s efforts to make a film about this story turned towards the talents of South Korean filmmaker Shin Sang-ok, and his ex-wife Choi Eun-hee. Sang-ok was undoubtedly an odd choice for a medieval movie about a raging monster, since his experience and claim to fame was primarily in war dramas about the exploitation of women. A plan to get ahold of Sang-ok, combined with the revival of Godzilla in 1984 as the Heisei-era was set in motion, solidified Il’s plot. 

As the story goes, a would-be dictator then kidnapped the South Korean national treasure’s ex-wife, using Eun-hee as bait to lure Sang-ok into his clutches. It was hard for outsiders to verify that the two hadn’t defected due to the country’s insularity, and that was the story that Il planned to keep running with. These weren’t the only crew brought on either, as Il managed to deceive a whole crew of former Toho employees to join in by faking a shooting schedule in China and bringing them to North Korea instead

THE FLIGHT OF THE FILMMAKERS

And make Pulgasari they did, with Sang-ok residing in a labor camp for the majority of his time in the country. So, what did Kim Jong Il think of the end product of their captivity? 

He loved it. 

After all, it was very popular among the DPRK’s citizens and in the eyes of Il, a technical marvel. The only problem was North Korea’s film industry needed a serious infusion of cash flow after Sang-ok had made several other films at Il’s behest following Pulgasari. Il’s new plan to amend this was the opposite of his original: he would actually cut Sang-ok and Eun-hee loose and allow them to travel (under the watch of armed guard) to promote the film. He’d even send them to Vienna in hopes of securing foreign investors to fund another film, this time about Genghis Khan rather than a giant steel-munching monster. 

Advertisement

Not looking a gift horse in the mouth, the couple fled at the first opening they got, and made it into the protective arms of the U.S. via the Venetian embassy; they even ended up remarrying after the fact. Kim Jong Il supposedly struck all record of Sang-ok’s work from the public eye as a response, expunging his name from the creation, and the rest is history.

PULGASARI AND THE SOUL OF THE MONSTER

There’s been, for good reason, a lot of reevaluations of Pulgasari and its artistic merits in recent years. Its creation was the perfect storm of cultural fears turned truth, fact stranger than fiction, and urban legend turned verifiably real event. It’s just too good of a story to ignore. 

The film’s themes and narrative are dynamic in this context, reignited under the shining lens of new knowledge about how the film was made and the impact it had on North Korean culture. Some find it to be an unbelievably well-made piece of counterculture, secretly weaponized against the man who wanted it made in the first place. Others find it an unwatchable and disturbing relic of film history. And some even treat it as a cult classic that lives up in quality to its reputation as a real-life production. 

Ultimately, I was somewhat underwhelmed with what I found when it came to the meat of Pulgasari. It isn’t boring, certainly, so it hasn’t committed the worst sin a movie can. But as much as I can talk about liking the sentiment of the original myth, its perennial idea of the power of the collective and the dangers of centralizing a movement around one person, and the performances being surprisingly good, there’s just one big glaring problem with this monster movie: the monster is the least interesting part in the entire runtime.  

In my recent conversations of kaiju films as of late, I’ve talked about the presence of a well-made monster suit; the way the mise en scene of tokusatsu can reach through the screen and immerse you, add a new layer of life to the film. But when the Pulgasari becomes the monster he’s supposed to be, he doesn’t have any of that. Design-wise, it’s a fine suit with its vaguely-reptilian-vaguely-mammalian style. But there’s a distinct lifelessness that you’ll have to reckon with when watching it; it’s stiff in motion, and plastic in the most unappealing of ways. Its scale against the buildings and people around it feels weak, which is hard to ignore in a movie where the creature’s gimmick is that it’s constantly growing. 

Advertisement

There are just so few expressive moments outside the time in its miniaturized form where the titular creature gets to live. It stomps around and destroys, but the stage-play sort of presentation in how it’s framed feels more strange than enjoyable. The Pulgasari has an uncanny evocation of fear in its glassy and bestial eyes, but it’s a one-trick pony as far as practical monsters go. Vaguely unsettling, with little else to offer. 

WHAT WENT WRONG WITH PULGASARI?

I don’t blame the craft of the Toho employees or the performance of Kenpachiro Satsuma, a Showa-era Godzilla actor who had been taken along with them to play the Pulgasari. I think what happened with Pulgasari is, ironically, the same thing that happens with many horror movies. Making a monster movie is always a gamble, and not every kaiju film will be a Godzilla vs Hedorah, or Kaneko’s Gamera. Even beyond the unimaginable pressure of being kidnapped and forced to make a film, you can have a perfect storm of talent, and still end up producing something less than the sum of its parts thanks to the unending storm of circumstances and technical issues that plague film crews.

As always, I encourage you to see Pulgasari for yourself, if not for the entertainment value you might find in it, then for the mythos that have been unveiled about its making. It’s a doozy unpacking the film knowing the truth of its birth, and more importantly not that hard to get ahold of: there are more than a few uploads online that make the film free to watch. 

For the first time looking for media for an article, the rip I’ve found is on YouTube is surprisingly high quality in its remastered state. 

We’re far from the time when Pulgasari was a rarity that was hard to view, so if you take anything from this, take that as a small victory and take advantage. Seize the day, and happy watching horror fans!

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Horror Press Mailing List

Fangoria
Advertisement
Advertisement