I want to talk about the state of physical media right now. By physical media, I mean DVD/Blu-Ray/4K UHD. I also want to talk about why physical media isn’t dying. I’ve been seeing a lot of pundits on YouTube crying about the “death of physical media.” Here’s a statistic for you, and this comes from The NPD Group, a research company as of May of 2023: Physical media is still generating $1.34 billion dollars annually in the United States alone. You know what means? People are still buying physical media. Now, here’s another statistic: According to Media Play News, total disc sales dropped 22.72 percent from last year during the last week of September. So, why the discrepancy? Well, the fact of the matter is that the market has changed. With the dawn of the streaming age, people are subscribing more to streaming services which offers a massive ton of content for a steady price. Whereas, with physical media, people have to shell out for each copy of the film or TV show. As streaming has become more prevalent, physical media has begun seeing a decline. In fact, physical media has been seeing a decline of at least 25 percent each year, which is around 20-23 million. These are the facts.
What is also a fact is that streaming hasn’t been as profitable for major studios as they’d had hoped. There are only so many households on the planet that you can reach, and if you somehow reach them all, your revenue stream will hit a plateau, where you won’t be making anymore money. A lot of streamers now are offering tiers of service that include ads. But that’s not enough, and we’re seeing movie studios just drop content from their services if they don’t bring in enough subscriptions. That’s the only way these services make money. Netflix’s entire revenue structure is based around its streaming content. Companies like Amazon and Apple can afford to do streaming because that’s not their core service or industry. It’s just another revenue stream. The reason I bring all this up is because earlier this week, it was announced through Variety and other trades that Best Buy was going to pull all of its physical media out their stores next year. They’ll still be selling video games, though. Movies and TV show? Not so much. When this hit the interwebs, everybody was crying wolf, saying this heralded the end of physical media. No. If anything it’s heralding the end of Best Buy, which has become nothing more than a glorified phone kiosk which also happens to sell appliances, TVs, and computers. That’s it. If you’ve been in a Best Buy over the past 5 or so years, you have seen their movie selection shrink from AISLES of titles to one set of shelves and a couple of displays.
Best Buy really isn’t doing well. Their revenue has been decreasing year after year. I honestly don’t expect them to survive another decade. I really don’t. Target is also removing physical media from some of its store, because they aren’t generating enough to make it worth stocking and displaying them. The reason for that is that the audience is different. Younger audiences aren’t as interested in collecting physical media as the rest of us. BUT: There’s reason to hope. There are still brick and mortar stores like Walmart that will continue to stock physical media. Boutique labels like Shout Factory, Criterion and Kino Lorber are picking up the slack. There are also online retailers that specifically deal in physical media like DiabolikDVD and Gruv. I’ll post links at the end. Physical media isn’t dying. It’s shrinking. It’s going back to the niche market that it used to be in the 70s and 80s with VHS and Betamax. Physical media didn’t really explode until Tremors hit the shelves in 1990. Then it took off. When DVD entered the picture in 1997/98, it was all the rage. Same thing with Blu-Ray. The way audiences have consumed media has evolved over the last 40 years. But studios like Disney are starting to realize that they can’t just dismiss physical media out of hand, because the money they get from those sales is not insignificant.
That brings up another issue: What happens when optical disc players are no longer being manufactured? We’ve seen multiple companies exit the optical player industry. But there are still companies out there that still build these things, even if it is at a loss. Sony has their PlayStation 5 which is also a 4K player. Same deal with the Xbox Series X, although, Xbox just introduced a refreshed system that doesn’t have an optical drive. PS5 is also getting a “slimmer” version, but it does give the consumer the option of having the optical drive or not. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that all these companies decide not to build anymore of these players? What happens then? Well, someone on YouTube, I forget who, said that some of these boutique labels would be willing to pick up the slack, by manufacturing their own. Physical media is going to be around for quite a while. Yeah, most brick and mortar stores are getting out of that, but most people these days are buying stuff online anyway, whether it’s through Amazon or Walmart. THAT’S where physical media’s going. It’s going to be for those of us that really do care about preserving movies in any format. There’s a lot of us collectors out there that are willing to pay good money for quality products. It’s just good business. Make US happy, we make YOU happy. So, NO, physical media ISN’T dying. It’s slowing down, but if I’m being honest, there are more movies being announced for Blu-Ray/DVD/4K then there have been in the past year or so. There’s STILL a market for this stuff, you just have to look. You wanna know something that’s really funny? Of the three formats, basic DVD is outselling Blu-Ray AND 4K combined. I still buy some movies on standard DVD. So, don’t believe the hype that physical media’s going away anytime soon. It’s not. The market is simply changing as per the technology. Honestly, if these big-ass studios continue to erase content that people watch from their services, audiences will leave those services. If anything, I expect physical media to make a pretty big comeback in the next year or so. I’ve got no evidence on that, it’s just a gut feeling.
I almost forgot: Here are some links to various boutique labels and online retailers aside from Amazon and Walmart that you should check out:
With October in full swing, we can expect a large number of horror movies this month. Horror, as a genre, has been around for centuries in written or stage form. In the early 20th century, motion pictures took off with the advent of silent movies that used actual piano players in the theater to accompany the movie. Even at the earliest stages of cinema, film-makers have tried to scare the pants off their audiences. The genre wasn’t codified until 1931’s Dracula. The earlier films, which sometimes included German expressionism, were horror movies, but there wasn’t until a real term for that yet. The genre has evolved a great deal over the past century. Not only was there just straight horror movies, it evolved to include comedy, action, drama, science fiction, and romance. In fact, aside from comedy, horror is perhaps the most versatile of genres. The only real difference between horror and comedy is intent. They tend to follow the same beats and timing otherwise.
Horror has also changed to include various sub-genres that include specific kinds of horror: Vampires, werewolves, demons, ghosts, the supernatural, slashers, and rape-revenge films. You’ve also got body horror, folk horror, found footage, Gothic horror, natural horror, and psychological horror. We also can’t forget about the international contribution from countries like Japan, Italy, France, England, Germany, Spain, Mexico, and Canada. Horror is a genre that is both respected and reviled by audiences around the world. It’s truly glorious…or shall we say, gorious?
What I’m going to do with this post is pick the best horror film by decade. I’m going to allow TWO per decade, because each decade has a treasure trove of movies that one could pick from. I’m not going to include short films on this list. Too many to count, so nearly every horror movie from the 1890s up until 1920 is not going to be on this list. Full-length films only. So that means we start with:
1920s:
1922 – Nosferatu
What can I say about the first real adaptation of Bram Stoker’s infamous novel, Dracula? It’s an unofficial adaptation that got the studio sued by Stoker’s estate. They won and all copies of the film were supposed to be destroyed. Thankfully, some copies survived and we got this incredibly creepy 1920s silent film about Count Orlock, played to villainous perfection by the magnetic Max Schreck. It might not look like much today, but the atmosphere and the dread that it invokes is all too palpable. Look at Count Orlock. He’s creepy as fuck. My hair still stands on end when I see Orlock on screen. If you haven’t seen it yet, I highly recommend Nosferatu. Yeah, it’s a product of its time, but it was also ahead of its time on the same token. It would be one of the most influential movies the genre had ever seen.
1930s:
1931 – Dracula/Frankenstein
1931 was the year that the genre was finally codified and you can thank Universal Studios for that with Dracula starring Bela Lugosi. This was the first legitimate adaptation of Bram Stoker’s novel that got people into theaters. Bela Lugosi was simply magnetic as the dreaded Prince of Darkness. It was incredibly atmospheric. The black-and-white motif simply added to the spookiness. It’s legitimately considered one of the great monster movies of the 30s. In the same year, Boris Karloff would walk the screen as Mary Shelley’s infamous Frankenstein monster. The awesome thing about this movie, is that the creature wasn’t the monster of the film, but his creator, Dr. Victor Frankenstein, who defied the laws of nature to gain power over life and death. The creature didn’t know what to do with the emotion that he was suddenly experiencing, and it resulted in the death of an innocent child. It’s a huge morality play about the consequences of playing God. It’s a powerful and thrilling film.
1940s:
1940 – The Wolf Man
This is the only horror movie from the 40s that I’ve seen, but what a movie it is. Lon Chaney, Jr. stars as Larry Talbot, who gets bitten by a werewolf and transforms into a hideous beast during a full moon. At it’s core, this movie is actually a tragedy, because a man is inflicted by a condition that he has no control over and could end up killing people. Yeah, the make-up effects and transformation sequence don’t look like much these days, but in the 40s? It was mind-blowing. It’s well acted and the film also stars Bela Lugosi. Pretty cool, huh?
1950s:
1954 – Godzilla/Gojira
While some might consider 1933 King Kong to be the first of the giant monsters, Gojira a.k.a Godzilla is the first true Kaiju monster movie. The film was made as a direct response to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 9 years earlier. It was made as a warning about the dangers of nuclear power. Believe it or not, the creature only has about maybe 10 minutes of screen time, but his presence is felt throughout, which is an allegory for nuclear power. Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it’s not there and it can be devastating. This film is simply one of the most remarkable movies to come out of Japan and has since become such a cult classic that it spawned an entire genre of monster movies throughout the 60 and 70s. Godzilla is surprisingly still popular today with an actual brand new Japanese movie coming soon. I’m excited, actually.
1958 – The Blob
Look, the idea of Steve McQueen playing a teenager in this movie is ridiculous. He was almost 30 by the time this movie came out. Still, he was pretty effective in the film as a kid who sees a shapeless monster and tries to convince an entire town that they’re in danger. For a movie from 1958, it’s got a pretty high body count. It absorbs any living thing it touches and grows and grows to gargantuan proportions. It’s also indestructible. There are some genuinely creepy moments in the film, especially in a grocery store with the lights out. But it is kind of goofy in all the best ways. It’s such a cult classic that there’s a town in Pennsylvania that holds an annual “Blobfest,” which also features the theater that was used in the movie.
1960s:
1960 – Psycho
First up for the 60s is an Alfred Hitchcock classic, Psycho. What makes this movie so important is that it was really the first movie to actually show blood when someone was getting stabbed. The shower sequence is iconic. This is considered by many to be the godfather of the slasher movie, even though the body count is in the single digits. But it’s such an effective movie that people lined up for blocks to see it. Hitchcock was a true master of suspense, and the performances from both Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins were brilliant.
1963 – The Birds
Two Hitchcock movies? Really? Yes…really. It’s no surprise that I found Psycho and The Birds to be my favorite horror movies of the 60s. There were a lot of great movies during this decade, but again, if suspense is the name of the game, nobody did it quite like Alfred Hitchcock. In some ways, this is actually a disaster movie, but the disaster is completely unexplained. A woman visiting a town is besieged by entire flocks of birds. Soon, the entire town is under attack. What I love about this movie is the sound design. It’s creepy. It’s absolutely one of my favorite flicks and it’s a lot of fun.
1970s:
1973 – The Exorcist
Now, we come to what may be my favorite decade in movies in general, and we start with one of the greatest and most controversial horror movies of all time: The Exorcist. Truthfully, there’s not a whole lot that I can say about this movie that hasn’t been repeated a million times before by other people. It’s a really powerful film and incredibly shocking, especially for 1973. Now, 1972 gave us Wes Craven’s The Last House on the Left, which was controversial in its own right, but The Exorcist is a much better film in nearly every way. Based on William Peter Blatty’s book of the same name, it’s an intense story centered around the demonic possession of a young girl. Yet, the movie itself is not actually about the girl. It’s about Father Damien Karras, Father Merrin, and the girl’s mother. It focuses on the people that are affected by something so horrific. It’s brilliantly written, with outstanding performances from Jason Miller, Max Von Sydow, Ellen Burstyn, and then-newcomer Linda Blair as Regan. It’s haunting AND it’s tragic. It’s one of the few movies that I can honestly say is perfect in nearly every way. All subsequent movies about possession and exorcism owes their existence to THIS movie.
1979 – Alien
As I said in my intro, horror can be combined with other genres to make something completely different. Who knew that combining horror and science fiction would result in one of the greatest horror movies of all time? Ridley Scott’s Alien is an outstanding film that’s essentially Texas Chainsaw Massacre In Space. Except this time, the villain is a hideous creature literally born from a human host. It’s atmospheric, claustrophobic, isolated, and it constantly has you on the edge of your seat. I can honestly say that Alien is the best example of sci-fi horror. It’s not an easy combination to pull off, as so many movies have tried. But nobody told Ridley Scott that, and BOOM! Amazing movie.
1980s:
1982 – John Carpenter’s The Thing
Yeah, about film-makers not getting science fiction horror right? Well, John Carpenter managed to pull it off with a new adaptation of John W. Campbell’s Who Goes There? The story is set in Antarctica at a remote American science station when the people there see a helicopter chasing a dog. After the Norwegian pilots are killed, everything returns to business as usual until the dog begins to change. What makes The Thing so special was not just its amazing special effects, but it’s incredible atmosphere, outstanding chemistry between the actors, and the uneasy paranoia that builds because nobody knows who is human. Combined with Ennio Morricone’s excellent score, The Thing is a brilliant exercise in tension. The came out at the same time that Steven Spielberg’s E.T. did. Most people wanted to see a friendly alien, not a blood-thirsty shape-shifter.
1987 – Evil Dead II
Remember when I said the difference between horror and comedy was separated by intent? Well, we’ve got a movie here that’s both a horror AND a comedy. Guess what? It’s also a sequel. Yes, Evil Dead II is the sequel to the 1981 cult classic Evil Dead. Whereas THAT movie was more horror than comedy, Evil Dead II is equal parts funny and scary. It’s a delicate balance that only somebody like Sam Raimi could master. With the brilliant physical comedy that Bruce Campbell provides, Evil Dead II is a screaming great time. Absolutely recommended.
1990s:
1992 – Bram Stoker’s Dracula
Count Dracula. One of the most recognizable villains in both film AND literature. There have been countless adaptations. Obviously Nosferatu was…not official, but it’s iconic. What else is iconic? Gary Oldman’s performance as the title character in Francis Ford Coppola’s film. What makes this adaptation different than others is that Dracula’s origin was that of Vlad Tepes III, or Vlad The Impaler. The movie gives the character a more sympathetic and tragic quality that you usually don’t equate with vampires. It’s a great story with an outstanding cast that includes Richard E. Grant, Cary Elwes, Wynonna Ryder, Bill Campbell, and Anthony Hopkins. The less said about Keanu Reeve’s performance the better. He was the one bad spot about the film. It’s visually interesting with an amazing musical score.
1999 – The Blair Witch Project
The Blair Witch Project isn’t technically the first found-footage movie. That honor actually goes to Cannibal Holocaust. The Blair Witch Project WAS the first found footage movie to hit mainstream. The movie is about a group of college students who are making a documentary about the legendary Blair Witch who is said to haunt a nearby forest. It doesn’t look like there’s anything happening in the movie, but you get this sense of dread and foreboding throughout the entire picture. The acting’s good. What really made this movie stand out amongst its peers was its marketing. It was advertised as a film that was discovered by authorities that explained the disappearance of three students making a documentary. Over the course of several months, people convinced that the students that you see in the film actually disappeared. They didn’t, of course, but it was a marketing gimmick that got people into theaters, and it’s spooky as hell.
2000s:
2004 – Saw
Yeah, there are a number of movies in this list that kicked off major franchises, but nobody expects to make a franchise out of a low-budget horror movie. Saw is one of the best movies of its kind. Yeah, it kicked off the “torture-porn” genre, but it’s more of a detective thriller than a straight-up horror flick. It straddles the line incredibly well. It’s got a pretty solid cast with Cary Elwes and Danny Glover, but the real standout of the film is Tobin Bell as the serial killer Jigsaw. It’s an intense little thriller, but it ends with a twist that you never see coming. It’s definitely a violent movie for sure, which earns its R-rating and horror title. Not all of the sequels were that great, but Saw is an absolute fan favorite. It’s certainly one of mine.
2005: The Descent/Wolf Creek
The Descent is one of the best horror movies to come out in the last 20 years. Director Neil Marshall clearly had Alien on the mind when he made this movie. It’s about a group of women who go on cave diving trip only to end up trapped in an undiscovered cavern that also happens to be the home of carnivorous sub-human beasts. It’s wild. It’s brutal, and it’s absolutely worth watching the original British release, because the American release butchered the ending. It’s a constant white-knuckle thrill-ride. Wolf Creek is a slow-burn thriller that gives us one of the most vicious villains to ever grace the screen in Mick Taylor, who was played to perfection by John Jarrett. He’s incredibly terrifying. The isolation of the Australian Outback just adds to the atmosphere. It ended up getting a pretty good sequel, too. A third movie is apparently in the works, and is supposed to be released next year.
2010s:
2012 – The Cabin in the Woods
Horror movies are generally supposed to be a dark reflection of our fears and our society. It’s usually very subtle, hidden behind the scares and the gore, but for those that can see the signs, it’s kind of cool. But rarely do horror movies go full meta. The Cabin in the Woods is a prime example. It not only embraces the conventions of the slasher film, it pokes fun at them at the same time. There’s a character in the film who is a pothead, but he figures everything out, and the cabin they go to is part of an elaborate scheme to kill a group of teenagers. It’s all tongue-in-cheek, and if you know what to look for, it’s hilarious. This is a hell of a lot of fun.
2015 – The Witch
A lot has been about the kinds of horror movies that have been coming out in the last decade or so. “Elevated,” they’re called. It’s just a fancy way of saying “arthouse.” I’m still not entirely comprehending what these kinds of horror movies are supposed to be. Artistic use of horror? It just sounds really pretentious. That said, movies like Hereditary and The Lighthouse absolutely have a place among the best in the genre. Robert Eggers’ The Witch is probably the best among them. It’s incredibly atmospheric. It has more in common with The Exorcist than it does with something like A Nightmare on Elm Street. Anya Taylor-Joy is brilliant in one of her earliest roles, and the cast is well-rounded with the likes of Ralph Ineson.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is just about it. Now, before anybody comes at me about 2020-2023, let me remind you that there is a little over 6 years left in the decade. There are a lot of horror movies coming out between now and then. I’m not going to jump the gun until 2030 at the earliest. Also, this is MY list, and what you might think are the best movies per decade is going to wildly differ from mine…hopefully. I’ve got some posts planned about physical media this weekend, so come back to check those out when I get them up.
Cast:
Sylvester Stallone: Barney
Jason Statham: Christmas
Megan Fox: Gina
50 Cent: Easy Day
Dolph Lundgren: Gunner
Tony Jaa: Decha
Iko Uwais: Rahmat
Andy Garcia: Marsh
Randy Couture: Toll Road
Levy Tran: Lash
When it comes to action franchises, there’s usually a matter of timing involved when you want to do a sequel. The saying goes, you want to strike while the iron’s hot. You want to take advantage of an action film’s popularity to try and get a sequel made. There’s usually a 3-5 time limit when you can do that and still be relevant. Sometimes it’s usually best to put a franchise to bed for the final time than try and squeeze more blood from a stone. Hyperbole aside, you need to read the room and understand when and when NOT to try and revive a franchise that’s been dormant for years. Sylvester Stallone tried that with Rambo: Last Blood back in 2019. Ten years had passed since the previous film, and while I enjoyed the 5th movie, there was no reason for it to exist as a sequel. Rambo 4 had tightened up loose ends and brought the character full circle. Last Blood was excessive. That’s the feeling that I’m getting from the Expendables franchise. First two movies were outstanding, but the third was a considerable step down in terms of visual effects, violence, and narrative. It was weak. Well, Mr. Stallone wanted to try again with a new film. Let’s just say that the franchise should’ve been left behind a decade ago.
The fourth film in the franchise opens as a mercenary, Rahmat, and his group of terrorists invade a weapons depot in Libya. Word gets to Barnet, the head of the merc group, the Expendables, and they are tasked with hunting down Rahmat and recovering stolen nuclear detonators. Things go sideways and the Expendables lose their leader in a plane crash. CIA Agent Marsh blames Christmas for this and kicks him off the team, putting Christmas’ girlfriend Gina in charge. Narrative was never the strongest point of these moves, let’s be honest here. No, the reason people come to see these movies is because of the outrageous action and the chemistry between the characters. Honestly, this is the kind of movie that should’ve delivered in spades on both counts. It kind of doesn’t, really and that’s a HUGE problem here.
It’s clear from the outset that Stallone had intended for Jason Statham to take over the franchise. I think he could, but the problem is that the writing in this movie is dogshit. The dialogue is awful, and some of the characters are just lame card-board cut-outs. The relationship between Jason Statham’s Christmas and Stallone’s Barney is one of the biggest highlights of the entire series. They work so well off each other, it’s hard to see one without the other. Yet, Stallone is missing for most of the movie, leaving Statham in a lurch, having to deal with an ex-girlfriend and other irritating new faces. The only ones returning from previous adventures are Randy Couture as Toll Road and Dolph Lundgren as Gunner. If I’m being truthful, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I really like Megan Fox as Gina. Her character absolutely fits in with the boys. She gives as good as she gets, and Megan handles the physicality pretty well, so she’s not just another pretty face. I’ve never liked 50 Cent as an actor. He just doesn’t have a lot of charisma. Lundgren is under-utilized, which is a shame. Tony Jaa, who is a newcomer to the series, isn’t given a whole lot to do either with the exception of some action scenes. Iku Uwais plays the main villain…and he’s just there. It seems to me that most Western film-makers don’t know how to utilize Asian martial arts actors properly. Jaa and Uwais were both real strong breakouts in they first appeared on the scene.
I could forgive the lame narrative and weak characterizations if the action was up to snuff. It’s not. In fact, Expendables 4 falls back on real tired mid-2000s kind of action with severe shaky-cam and extreme close-ups. It’s ridiculous how far we’ve come with action movies lately, that something like Expendables 4 could exist. Look at John Wick 4. THAT’S how you do action. To be fair, the action in this film isn’t awful, and when you can see it, it’s actually pretty good. The fight between Iko Uwais and Jason Statham is a real highlight of the film and shows us what could’ve been. Also, the movie’s a hard R, which is a good thing as the previous film was PG-13, and suffered from it. The violence is brutal, but not as visceral as the original film. Aside from that, it’s your standard run-and-gun affair that doesn’t offer anything creative or new.
Thankfully, the movie’s not boring. It’s not original in any capacity, but the movie does hit the ground running and it rarely slows down, which is a HUGE plus for me. Also, it doesn’t overstay its welcome at barely over 100 minutes. It’s one of those “get in, get out” deals that I think COULD appeal to a lot of people. But here’s the problem: People really don’t care anymore. When the franchise began, it started with a movie that gave us some of the greatest action stars a vehicle to create havoc, and it was glorious. I love the first two movies. I think they are amazing and Expendables 2 is an example of how you craft an action sequel. That is a hill I will die on. Even Expendables 3 had a certain degree of fun with it, bringing in Mel Gibson as the villain. With movies like John Wick out there, there really isn’t a place for movies like Expendables anymore, at least not like this. I don’t hate this new movie, but it just doesn’t do enough to really stand out from the crowd, nor justify its own existence. It’s time to let this franchise go. Sorry, Sly: It’s time to move on, man.
Cast:
Nikolaj Coster-Waldau: Bob Hightower
Maika Monroe: Case Hardin
Karl Glusman: Cyrus
January Jones: Maureen Bacon
Jamie Foxx: The Ferryman
Paul Johansson: John Lee
Usually, when I review a movie, I tend to get on this here blog and just type, type, and type away. But every so often, I come across a movie that gives me pause, and I have to sit and think about what I saw. Sometimes it takes a day or two, others it takes a week. I think it took me a while to review Steven Spielberg’s Schindler’s List. That was a pretty heavy movie to tackle. But that was a historical drama, so there was some baggage that automatically came with it, for better or worse. Excellent film, but I won’t be seeing it again anytime soon. Historical drama’s aside, I also have an affinity with dark and gritty crime thrillers. I’ve seen some shit that’s super nihilistic and downbeat. The Korean thriller I Saw The Devil is a perfect example. Last weekend, I bought director Nick Cassavetes’ God Is A Bullet on Blu-Ray. Boy, I thought I’ve seen my fair share of nihilistic movies. This one might take the cake, but is it good? Let’s find out.
The story begins with police officer Bob Hightower coming home to find his ex-wife brutally murdered and his daughter missing. He learns that a Satanic cult called the Left-Handed Path may have been involved, and learns that a young woman had escaped 11 years after being kidnapped herself. Case decides to help Bob track down this cult and find his daughter if she’s still alive. He goes down a rabbit hole that will leave him shaken to his core. I love a good kidnap thriller, and the story in this film had the potential to be one of the better ones. But director Nick Cassavetes takes a real heavy-handed approach to the narrative. The story gets pretty mean at times, and it goes to some really dark territory. It’s not going to be for everyone. When I said the film is nihilistic, I’m not kidding. But I don’t necessarily think that it serves the story that well. I wasn’t expecting everything to be wrapped up in a neat little bow, but good lord, this movie leaves you wanting to take multiple showers.
Let’s talk about the acting first. Nic Cassavetes gets really strong performances out of his actors, even if they don’t have a whole lot to chew on. Karl Glusman is nuts as the insane Cyrus who is a totally unhinged psychopath. Karl’s great, but the character is so over-the-top, he comes across as almost cartoonish, and you don’t want that from villains that are supposed to be really threatening. In fact, a lot of the cult members come across as cartoonish, and that doesn’t serve the film very well at all. I get that Nick doesn’t want to hold back, but the scenery chewing from the bad guys is near legendary levels. Jamie Foxx is completely wasted as The Ferryman, a one-armed tattoo artist that works with the cult. He was in the film for maybe a total of 10 minutes. It was nothing more than a glorified cameo. He was great, but very under-used. No, the real stars of the show are Nicolaj Coster-Waldau and Maika Monroe as Bob and Case, respectively. Nicolaj is a wonderful actor. Most people recognize him as Jamie Lannister from Game of Thrones. Brilliant actor. His character is very naive about the world he’s entering and Nicolaj just embodies the character’s change from a naive police officer to an avenging angel over the course of the film. Maika’s Case on the other hand, is a tough-as-nails survivor who is trying to get Bob to understand what he’s up against, because Case knows first hand what these people are capable of. Essentially, the film is a road trip movie about these two characters that start to understand where each one is coming from and how they navigate the world. It’s one of the best-acted dynamics I’ve seen this year.
There have been a lot of reviews about this movie complaining about its pacing and length. It’s a long movie. 2.5 hours long for a kidnap thriller? That’s pushing it. Denis Villenueve’s Prisoners was also 2.5 hours long, but there was a purpose to it. He wanted the audience to feel the desperation that the characters were feeling. Here? It’s unnecessarily long. A huge part of the problem was the unnecessary subplot involving January Jones’ character. It didn’t need to be there whatsoever, especially since the film’s focus was on Bob, Case, and Bob’s daughter. When the movie shifts its focus from those characters and the cult, the movie grinds to a halt. It really does. You could take 20 minutes out of the film by making certain cuts here and there, and eliminating January Jones entirely, and you would have a much tighter run time at around 2 hours. This is an example of a director engaging in excess and it hurts the story and movie.
When you have a revenge thriller like this, a level of violence is necessary to truly understand both the antagonist and protagonist. The violence in this film is brutal and it comes fast. But that’s also where I have some issues. While there is definitely some CG used with guys getting shot, the practical stuff is fantastic. But my biggest issue with the violence in this movie is the stuff that’s levied against women. Oh, my god. The women in this movie are put through the ringer. It certainly doesn’t help that the movie practically opens with Bob’s wife being brutally raped and murdered, but I guess that was supposed to set the tone for the rest of the movie. It’s one thing to show how vicious this cult is, but it’s taken to extreme levels here and it didn’t need to. The audience didn’t need to have their faces rubbed in it. We get it: These bad guys are evil incarnate, but you didn’t need to take the opportunity to beat the shit of women on a regular basis. I understand what the director was trying to go for, but there’s something to be said for subtlety. I just don’t think Nick Cassavetes is capable of it, and God Is A Bullet is prime example. The final 30 minutes of the film are Rambo 4-levels of savagery. It’s absolutely nuts. Is it satisfying, though? It kind of is. Seeing the cult get what’s coming to them is one of the most satisfying things I’ve seen in a long time. But that tends to be par for the course for revenge thrillers.
As I said earlier, I usually go right out and review a movie after I’ve seen it, but in the case of God Is A Bullet, I had to take a step back and fully grasp what I saw. Is it a movie that I can easily recommend? No There’s a lot of issues with this movie, both structurally and narratively. Even if you could look past the film’s run time and the violence against women, it doesn’t really do enough to stand out among its peers in the genre. If you’re going to watch this movie, watch it for the two leads in Nicolaj and Maika. They keep the movie going. If it wasn’t for those two, this would end up being just another too-long generic kidnap thriller that wants to shock it’s audience. Also, there’s NO humor to be found in this movie. No laughs. It’s dead-serious all the time, and that can be a real issue. I’m not saying the film should’ve devolved into gallows humor, but this movie is dark as it gets. Usually, I’m all for that, but it’s a bit too much, even for me. I don’t think it’s a bad movie. There’s a really good movie underneath all of this. It just needed better editing. It’s way too long. It’s a rental at best.
