Discussions in Darkness

As mentioned in Ep #9 - the origin of the plural usage of the word ‘pants’… grok.com/share/c2hhcmQt…

Ep #9 - Darkness Walk: G. Brown (Archive) youtu.be/iwIlPPwZod0?si… via @YouTube And for one last bonus episode…I went back into the archives to bring you another early attempt at one of our ‘Darkness Walks’…this time - a guest from an early iteration of an overnight investigation decided to accept the challenge and brave the dark as well…what did she find? - you decide

Ep #8 - Darkness Walk: W. McQuaig (Archive) youtu.be/fVvYSg-Hn0w?si… via @YouTube For this episode - since the first offering wasn’t as on point as I had hoped…I decided to go into the archives to find a better example of what a ‘darkness walk’ was intended to be…Enjoy!!

Ep #7 - Darkness Walk: W. McQuaig (Overnight #2) youtu.be/APlpiXws_OI?si… via @YouTube And - here is part 2… Enjoy!

Ep #6 - Experiment: Paranormal Music Box (w/Guest: B. Dizzle) youtu.be/N_ehHXrveBQ?si… via @YouTube Since I missed sharing last week’s video due to the holiday…I decided to do a little bit of a ‘two-fer’ this week… So - here is part 1…

@stfuesh High Tension

As mentioned in Episode #5 - here is a quick Grok explanation for some of the potential causes of our experience with one of our devices… grok.com/share/c2hhcmQt…

Ep #5 - Investigation w/ Guest: B. Dizzle youtu.be/JPOwFvXPcoM?si… via @YouTube Check out this weeks episode as myself and my guest - @BobbyDizzleCast - conduct our walkthrough investigation of the hospital…did we find anything? - you be the judge…

Ep #4 - Discussion w/ Guest: B. Dizzle youtu.be/AHuRd0yzA_Q?si… via @YouTube This weeks episode is here!!!…check out my discussion with friend of the show - @BobbyDizzleCast

Ep #3 - Experiment: Spirit Box (w/Guest: R. Raley) youtu.be/0OdX6h6CfUw?si… via @YouTube Our Newest Episode is out!! We ran the first of our many ‘scientific experiments’ (or as close as we could get - remember we aren’t scientists) on the Spirit Box…check out the video to see what we found!

Ep #2 - Investigation w/ Guest: R. Raley youtu.be/rhj_CufGpFA?si… via @YouTube Wait - another episode already? That’s right…this week we are doing our first investigation of the hospital…did we catch anything? - you be the judge

@CinemaOfScreams I did a review of this film a while back on my feed…so if you want my full thoughts on it…go read that on: @DarkDiscussions But since this is a response to your post…in a nutshell - 1st half was decent…2nd half WTF?!?

What are your thoughts on Ghost Ship?👻🍿

Ep #1 - Discussion w/ Guest: R. Raley youtu.be/W_iNr6Xo8nA?si… via @YouTube I give you: ‘Discussions in Darkness v2.0’

7 Days... youtu.be/d7jzMrGKgWo?si… via @YouTube

'Poltergeist 2' (1986) - A Review Want to know an interesting fun fact about these reviews? - I never know how to start one…usually, I want to try to give my initial thoughts and reactions immediately after the film has finished…but this in and of itself often proves to be more of a challenge than anything else…how do I process a film - while I also attempt to write a review for the film I’m attempting to process?…feels sort of like a weird mental loop…admittedly sometimes it’s easier to write when the film itself was interesting - but as I feel like I’m finding out with each of these reviews (especially when it comes to ‘sequels’) is that most ‘ghost’ films are either - a) not that good (narratively speaking) - or b) blending so many different elements (be them production or narrative) that it overshadows the ‘ghost’ aspect of the film all together…which adds yet another layer of difficulty - how do I explain my thoughts on one aspect of a film (be it good or not) - when another aspect of the same film is completely at odds with the first element?…in some ways it really makes me wonder about Hollywood (at large)…am I reading too much into these films (due to my being self taught)? - or has Hollywood cast some sort of weird spell over America so we never notice these issues?…my gut says it’s prolly a mix of both - but either way I’m sure for most this is all too esoteric for a film review…I swear this all plays a role in my thoughts for this film though… Speaking of which - I guess now is as good a time as any to get to the film itself… To start with some positives…we have all of the original cast members back for this sequel…JoBeth Williams, Craig T. Nelson, Heather O’Rourke & Oliver Robins - all reprise their original roles from the first film…the only notable character missing is the older sister - Dominique Dunne - but narratively speaking her absence is fairly reasonable…so it never really proves to be a noticeable loss (no disrespect intended of course)…in addition, this film did employ a fair amount of production ‘special effects’ - similar to the first - and although they may not have been particularly groundbreaking (like the first one was - for the time) - these elements were still done in a fairly decent and organic way…so much so that it never felt like the production was trying to compare itself to the first film or even emulate it for that matter - as much as it was trying to be a respectable continuation of what the first film created…whether they succeeded at this or not is a different question - which I’ll get to shortly…sticking with the production element though - I feel like the film really captured that ’80’s vibe’ like the first one did…although it wasn’t a ‘Spielberg 80’s’ film - it was still a solid 80’s film…which for me gives it that little bit of nostalgia needed to make it feel nice and vintage - which I can appreciate (even if the narrative isn’t great) So I’ve tiptoed around it enough - time to move on to the narrative… As I’ve said in many reviews in the past…If I had to describe the narrative in a single word - that word would be ‘messy’…I think the best way I can explain my thoughts here is by comparing and contrasting them to what I would describe as a ‘clean’ narrative…in a ‘clean’ narrative - things would be fairly well organized…the audience would have a clear sense of what’s going on (initially), why the characters are acting the way they are, where things are going, how it might end, etc…so - by contrast - it would seem that a ‘messy’ narrative would be less organized and less clear - basically the exact opposite of this right?…in my view, the answer to this question would be - ‘not exactly’…although this would be a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw here - the simple truth of the matter is that a ‘messy’ narrative is more accurately described as a narrative that falls ‘somewhere in between’…it’s not fully clear - but its not fully unclear either…this is where breaking down a films narrative can get difficult and mind numbingly convoluted Think about it kinda like a ‘mud puddle’ (side note: just to show how convoluted it can become trying to understand film narrative - don’t confuse a ‘messy’ narrative with a ‘muddy’ narrative - they are different)…back to my example though - in the context of a ‘mud puddle’…although some of the more solid soil elements will quickly settle to the bottom - the water that sits on top of those elements still has the cloudy tinge left behind by the soil…it never fully clears itself out naturally…sure - over a long enough period of time it could clear those elements out naturally (at least to a degree anyway)…but the moment the puddle is disturbed again - the bulk of those elements are going to be stirred up and make everything cloudy again… How does this example relate to a film?…films are supposed to be finite - or ‘fixed in time’…well - to me - when you watch a film for the first time its almost like jumping in to the deep end of a pool - or a mud puddle in this case…when you jump in the deep end - you’re looking for those things to help you get back to the surface…be them ‘skillsets’ (like swimming) or ‘literal objects’ (like lifejackets) to help you achieve this…a well organized film narrative - or a ‘clean’ narrative - will help you do this in such an efficient manner that it can actually make the process of watching a film fun and enjoyable…by contrast - a ‘messy’ narrative - will have some of those elements but not all of them…some of which will eventually help you get back to the surface - while some will simply lead to dead ends…it may take a while and may do it by simply leading you to the shallower end of the pool - but you will inevitably find the ‘surface’ again…it just might take a while…to put an even finer point on it here too - a ‘muddy’ narrative - is where nothing is really defined or clean…its like jumping into the deep end of a pool and having no clear way to get back to the surface…in the end - you simply regret jumping in in the first place How does this long winded explanation relate back to this film? Here’s how…at the outset of this film - with the exception of the opening scene in the desert - it’s fairly well established that the events of the first film are in the immediate past for these characters (like within months - if not weeks)…thus inferring that what we are seeing is part of the aftermath of the first film…as we progress into the film a little more - it becomes relatively clear that in a lot of ways what we are being given is effectively an ‘extension’ of the narrative created in the first film…this is done when a character from the first film (ie - the medium) connects with a new character introduced in the opening desert scene…but here’s where it starts to take a strange turn - after this we are introduced to a 'new element’ of the original story…without giving it away as best I can - it seems that something was ‘buried underneath’ what was already ‘buried’ in the first film…none of which was even alluded to in the first film…for me, although this is frustrating - its not a deal breaker (meaning: I’m not gonna turn it off) - this wouldn’t be as big of an issue though if they simply stuck to the parameters of this new situation…unfortunately - this film didn’t do that…as the film progressed the understanding of what this element actually meant continued to change…now you could make the argument here that maybe it wasn’t that clear to begin with - which is fair - but if memory serves correctly ‘an understanding’ of what was meant - was established…so what we effectively got as the film progressed wasn’t any sort of ‘further explanation’ of what we saw - it was a ‘redefining’ of what we saw…and that’s where the real problem comes in… As the film progressed through its subsequent acts…this constant redefinition made it difficult - if not impossible - for myself (or an audience) to figure out where it was all going in the long run…not to mention, it made each ‘narrative revelation’ difficult to even figure out what it actually meant at any given moment…so - how can anybody keep track of what is going on in the narrative when everything is constantly shifting on you?…the simple answer here is that you can’t…now to be fair to this particular film - some of the ‘narrative revelations’ given actually did make sense within the context of how they were presented…but it was achieved at somewhat of a cost - the ‘cost’ being the previous understanding you had prior to that scene/revelation…so in a lot of ways the film that the audience was left with (in hindsight) - was not the same film they were presented with at the films outset…thus making the viewing experience somewhat confusing - if only for me anyway So - now the important questions… As a ‘ghost’ film - the vast majority of the ‘creeps and chills’ in this film came from two specific elements: ’jump scares’ [which I’ve already established I’m not a fan of] & ‘body horror’ (think David Cronenberg)…although I’m not specifically a fan of this style of horror - I do recognize it has it’s place in film history…and the fact that the first film utilized this element as well - makes it a fairly reasonable element to include as part of the ‘horror’ element of this film…but here’s my issue with it - ‘body horror’ is not ‘ghostly’…in my mind - these are two distinctly different elements…with this in mind, if you take the body horror element out of this film - you don’t really have much left in terms of ‘chilling’ or ‘creepy’ sequences Would I recommend it? Let me put it this way - there’s a reason it has a 5.7 rating on IMDb…in addition - at the risk of splitting hairs - I do think it would really depend on why you would watch it in the first place…if you’re watching it more as a learning experience - it’s not terrible…It is a watchable film…but if you’re watching it for literally any other reason - I think it would have to be a pass…there are interesting ideas here that in different films - in different narrative scenarios - could be decent and fun…but with the way it’s all presented in this film - it just misses the mark…which is unfortunate I think

Special Note before tonight’s feature Due to recent changes in my work schedule and just life in general…in an attempt to get back to a more regular review schedule…I will be changing up how I do these reviews and how I post…so be on the lookout for that…for the time being though - I sincerely ask for your patience and hopefully I can get everything ironed out in a relatively timely fashion…that way this project can get back to moving forward with furthering production plans and other topics of discussion moving forward into the new year… Ohhh 😮…also important - this is a very special week…on Wednesday @ 7 pm (central time) you’ll see why…

Tonight’s Movie Night Feature ‘Poltergeist 2’ (1986) For tonight’s feature - I thought I’d continue with the series the last film I reviewed started and check out this sequel…I know nothing about this film - except that it’s a sequel…aside from that though everything I’m reading is just what online reviews are saying about this film…I’ve never been one to be particularly fond of critics reviews though - so we’ll see how it plays out

'Poltergeist' (1982) - A Review So - what are my initial thoughts? Well - I finished the movie almost two hours ago and I wanted to take a little time to really process my thoughts before starting this review…mainly because I wanted to make sure I didn’t unnecessarily rip on something without at least giving it my proper due diligence…mostly in regards to (and out of respect for) the simple fact that this film is older than I am (barely - but still)…and as a byproduct of that - I felt that I needed to take into account another simple fact that the audience difference between when it first came out versus a modern audience is quite dramatic and very noticeable…so much so that if I’m being honest with you reading this and myself - I can’t pretend this fact doesn’t play a big factor in this review…part of the reason I’m trying extra hard to be careful here is because it does appear to me as if nostalgia plays a big role in this film (and it’s subsequent viewing experience) as well With this being stated - I do feel confident enough to say that the film isn’t bad…I did enjoy it (for what it was) which in my view isn’t a bad thing in this particular instance…at the same time - I do think that some of the sequences haven’t aged particularly well…mostly in the sense that looking back on the film from a modern perspective - is almost like looking back at old pictures of yourself from high school or from your adolescence (ie - mildly cringy but also somewhat fun)…I’m probably dating myself with this comparison but it’s not inaccurate Anyway - let’s move on to some of the more nitty gritty points…starting with the positives… Directed by Tobe Hooper - Written by Steven Spielberg [who also produced], Michael Grais, & Mark Victor - Starring Jobeth Williams, Heather O’Rourke, and Craig T. Nelson…the film follows a ‘run of the mill’ family as they discover a very disturbing aspect of their home - it is haunted - by rather aggressive spirits - ones who love to move things around - and kidnap children…now as I mentioned above - Steven Spielberg also worked in a ‘producer’ capacity and it shows…as much as I do love Spielberg as a storyteller - there were several points throughout the film where I felt like I could easily describe it as ‘[insert ghost show] meets The Goonies’…which for me - isn’t meant to be an insult (although I can see how some might interpret it that way)…like I said - the film isn’t bad & I did enjoy it…I love pretty much all the ghost shows I’ve seen & I love The Goonies - so what’s not to like here?…well, in a nutshell - it’s not so much that there is something ‘not to like’ here as much as it is the audience for this type of film has changed - as have the expectations for such a film… Here’s what I mean… In my view - you can almost break the narrative down into three distinct phases ‘on top of’ the traditional 3-act story structure (which I’ll expand on shortly)…there’s the first phase (roughly the first 30 mins or so) - where things are being introduced and established and alluded to (some subtle - some not so subtle)…then you have the second phase (roughly the next hour) - where things go from ‘zero to 100’ almost instantly…then a third phase (roughly the last 30 mins of the film) where it goes back to being relatively subtle - albeit only for a scare or two As I said - it felt like ‘three phases on top of the traditional 3-act story structure’…TBH - as I write this I realize this is actually a point of awe for me…I will probably watch this film again (for my own sake) so I can better understand how they achieved this…in many ways it showcases Spielberg’s natural storytelling ability, his brilliance and his uniqueness - and he’s not even directing it…in my mind - this type of narrative structure is not easy to pull off…especially with so few plot holes…so as I’ve stated several times - credit where credit is due - well done…in my view - this aspect of the film is something to be truly admired and studied for both filmmakers and the viewing audience…and although that’s where the more nerdy ‘film guy’ side of me wants to dwell and learn - the more practical, ‘ghost enthusiast’ side of me goes: ‘but it’s supposed to be a ghost story - not a learning experience’ Setting aside my love for Spielberg though - I can absolutely see some flaws with this film…it’s by no means perfect…on top of all this - prior to watching the film I’d always heard it referred to as a ‘terrifying movie’…after watching it though - I feel the vast majority of those descriptions are clearly based on nostalgia…not necessarily an ‘objective assessment’ of the film…which is what I am trying to provide with these reviews…this isn’t to say that ‘nothing scared me’ though…some of the more subtle sequences were quite effective…where the issue for me comes in though is when the film moves from the ‘subtle phases’ to the more ‘overt - not so subtle - phases’ As a case and point…when the ‘paranormal investigators’ are brought into the story - roughly at the beginning of what I’m calling the ‘second phase’ - the ghostly activity takes on a more comedic effect…I’m thinking of one particular scene where they are sitting at the dinner table and the coffee pot slides across the table right in front of them - as they are talking about ‘ghostly movement’ taking hours…it wasn’t only the comedic timing here that didn’t land for me - it was their complete lack of reaction…now to be fair here - I did read one review that saw this portion of the film and the ‘ghostly activity’ as being more ‘playful’ (which objectively it is)…but in my mind - seeing this and always hearing the film described as a ‘terrifying movie’ created a weird sort of dissonance…I wasn’t sure if I should laugh or be scared - and in my mind ghost movies aren’t meant to be funny…unless of course the overall production of the film is meant to be more comical - ‘The Frighteners’ comes to mind here as an example of a ‘comedic ghost movie’ (which I have always enjoyed - might need to add that as a future review) Anyway - this dissonance was so distracting for me that it pretty much required my immediate attention to resolve it (if I was gonna enjoy this film at all)…and solving it - took me out of the film for a little bit…but as I was processing - I kept landing on the idea of ‘nostalgia’ as being the thing that made a lot of this so ‘terrifying’ for people…specifically the ‘nostalgia’ for those who saw it when it first came out…when it came out - the audience wasn’t as saturated with this type of content as it is today…sure there were ‘ghost films’ out - and from what I understand this film was rather groundbreaking for the time (in regards to the visual effects)…so for the audience at the time - it probably was rather terrifying…but this was in the 1980’s - and as much I kinda hate to admit it (cause I am a fan of older films) a modern audience simply isn’t impressed (or ‘terrified’) by this type of thing anymore…sure there are some (mostly in the older generations)…but to the younger generations ‘en masse’ - I just don’t think this type of appreciation is common…maybe I’m wrong - maybe I’m being too cynical - I do feel like there could be somewhat of a ‘creative renaissance’ on the horizon where this type of storytelling/filmmaking might be more appreciated again (fingers crossed)…but at the current moment in our culture - I just don’t see it…especially if AI is going to have the kind of impact people think it will (I’m a skeptic on this topic btw - but that’s a different discussion) The only other gripe I had with this movie - which admittedly isn’t even this movies fault - is the fact that many of the more ‘terrifying’ scenes and sequences have already been ‘meme-ified’ by pop culture throughout the years to a point of being almost a ‘caricature’ of itself…while I was watching the film - I could almost ‘guess the line’ or would ‘recognize a creature’ because I’d already seen it in another film or tv show somewhere before…which definitely ruined the moment for me…it’s hard to be creeped out by something (be it a line or a shot or a monster) when you see it coming…this isn’t to say that nothing scared me though…there were a couple points that were rather unnerving and unsettling…but admittedly - those spots were in the more subtle phases of the film…and they were few and far between So - the important questions… As a ‘ghost film’…it definitely has its place in film & cultural history - and that is something worthy of respect…although I personally have seen what I would describe as ‘scarier’ ghost films throughout the years…watching this as a ‘ghost film’ - will not leave you disappointed…sure - some of the sequences might be a little dated and the plot has a couple holes in it (yes - I totally see the question of ‘the other houses’ as a plot hole)…but in the end - it is still a Spielberg film…on top of that - it is a ‘ghost film’ as only Steven Spielberg could make (even though he didn’t direct it)…and if you’re a fan of films and the filmmaking process - this film should totally be on your viewing list…if only to say you’ve seen it Would I recommend it? Absolutely - but with a few caveats…the first would definitely be the fact that you need to keep in mind when it was originally made…it was a different time - a different audience - and that absolutely shows through…and the second (playing off the first point) - would be that although this film might not be the ‘scariest’ out there…for a younger audience (possibly ‘adolescent’ or ‘pre-teen’)…one at that point where they are starting to be introduced to ‘ghost films’…this could be a good film to really give that more ‘intense experience’ and could serve as a good bridge to ‘darker’ and ‘more intense’ ghost movies…if you’re already pretty well versed in ‘ghost films’ though - you might need to find a reason to watch it (although you won’t be disappointed if you do)

Tonight’s Movie Night Feature ‘Poltergeist’ (1982) Decided to go ahead and get this one done a little early today - since I’ve got the time…but for this weeks review - I thought I’d go back to another quick series of films I’ve never seen before…I know very little about this film - outside of what I’ve seen referenced in pop culture throughout the years - so I’m definitely interested in watching this one…I do know based on the reviews I’ve seen that this one is supposed to be particularly scary…so we’ll see how well it holds up and if any of that rings true in the end