‘Freaky Tales' Review: In the Footsteps of ‘Pulp Fiction'
Ryan Fleck and Anna Boden, who made soulful indies ('Half Nelson,' 'It's Kind of a Funny Story') before they took a detour into franchise filmmaking with the billion-dollar earner 'Captain Marvel,' have returned to their roots after a six-year absence from cinemas. They serve as both writers and directors of this 'Pulp Fiction'-style four-chapter tale that finally coheres with a thumper of a final act that is awash in righteous gore served up with an arch sensibility.
That conclusion both supplies an alternative fantasy ending to a highly publicized real-life occurrence (à la 'Once Upon a Time . . . in Hollywood') and centers on a vengeance-minded figure with an East Asian outlook dispatching baddies with a sword while wearing a snazzy tracksuit like the Bride in 'Kill Bill.' Mr. Fleck (who grew up in Oakland and neighboring Berkeley) and Ms. Boden might have been credited with some inventiveness if they had dug up a more obscure artist to whom to pay homage, but given Mr. Tarantino's status as perhaps the single most imitated filmmaker of his generation, 'Freaky Tales' can hardly avoid being stamped as derivative.
Which is not to say it isn't fun, at least intermittently. Did you know the guy who was in 'Splash' used to sell hot dogs at Oakland A's games? Characters keep bringing this up, sometimes referring to the actor in question as the guy from 'Bachelor Party' or 'The Money Pit.' Though these are perhaps not the three projects he is today most proud of, Tom Hanks is ever the good sport, and obligingly appears in the film. He plays Hank, the impressively, and annoyingly, well-informed owner of a video store. From the checkout counter he slings unsolicited film commentary along with VHS rentals (and is hence yet another reminder of Mr. Tarantino, famously a chatty video-store clerk around the same time).
Mr. Hanks joins a sprawling cast of characters who wander in and out of each other's stories in the four chapters, which strike different tones as if alluding to different types of '80s movies. In the first, a multicultural group of youngsters led by Tina (Ji-young Yoo) and Lucid (Jack Champion) who dance at the Berkeley punk club 924 Gilman Street take up arms against a gang of skinhead thugs who have been terrorizing them. In chapter two, a pair of aspiring hip-hop singers, Barbie (Dominique Thorne) and Entice (Normani), are invited to perform at a club where they get into a comical rap battle with an established, real-life master of the form, Too Short (DeMario Symba Driver). The artist, an early avatar of West Coast hip-hop, also narrates the film and has a cameo as a cop; his 1987 track 'Freaky Tales' gave the movie its title. In the third section, a disillusioned loan-shark enforcer, Clint (Pedro Pascal), tries to exit the game after losing his pregnant wife. In the climactic fourth act, the corrupt cop (Ben Mendelsohn) for whom Clint works organizes a string of robberies at the homes of Golden State Warriors players while they're participating in a playoff game against the Los Angeles Lakers.
Stretching across all of the segments is much excited discussion of 'Psytopics,' a New Age psychological inquiry, or self-improvement method, or cult that sounds a bit woo-woo in the California way but turns out to be highly useful in a crisis. One of its practitioners is the movie's hero, real-life basketball star Eric 'Sleepy' Floyd (Jay Ellis), who has a record-setting night on the court and (at least in the movie) an even more memorable one away from it.
That over-the-top climax, despite its borrowed elements, partially redeems 'Freaky Tales,' which until then follows a zigzag path that is paved with clichés. Unlike Mr. Tarantino, who has few peers when it comes to dialogue and characterization, Mr. Fleck and Ms. Boden fail to keep the narrative energy consistently high. Still, with its love for trashy genre conventions and its referential humor ('The Shining' and 'Scanners' are among the non-Tarantino features that earn an amusing shout-out), 'Freaky Tales' contains a bit more mojo than the average indie.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
7 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
‘The Bad Guys 2' review: Sequel serves up another round of good times for all ages
Three years ago, DreamWorks Animation struck gold with 'The Bad Guys,' a zippy, genre-savvy romp that ran Aaron Blabey's hit kids' books through a Tarantino-meets-'Looney Tunes' filter. With its painterly animation, jazzy energy and ensemble of charming anthropomorphic rogues, it absconded with a cool $250 million worldwide and, more importantly, carved out its own identity in a sea of CGI sameness. In other words, a sequel was inevitable. Enter: 'The Bad Guys 2.' Out Friday, Aug. 1, the second installment doesn't so much reinvent the wheel as give it a few extra spins. While it doesn't quite recapture the spark of surprise that made the first outing such a pleasant detour from franchise fatigue, it still delivers where it counts: the chemistry of its cast, the frenetic pacing and the kind of anarchic spirit that makes it easy to watch (and rewatch, if your kids have anything to say about it). Sam Rockwell is back as the voice of suavely scruffy Wolf, still trying to steer his crew of reformed criminals — Snake (Marc Maron), Piranha (Anthony Ramos), Tarantula (Awkwafina), and Shark (Craig Robinson) — toward the straight and narrow. Their last adventure ended with them saving Los Angeles and putting the kibosh on the evil machinations of a guinea pig gone rogue (voiced with madcap glee by Richard Ayoade). Complicating matters is the arrival of a daring new thief (or, perhaps, thieves?) known only as 'The Phantom Bandit,' whose M.O. feels suspiciously familiar. Suddenly, Wolf and company are back under suspicion, forced to prove (again) that they're the good guys now (or at least, trying to be). Pierre Perifel returns to the director's chair for 'The Bad Guys 2,' and he again leans into the first film's distinctive visual style with a sketchbook-meets-storyboard aesthetic marrying Blabey's book illustrations with a heavy dose of Saturday morning mayhem. It's slick without being sterile, lending the action scenes an undeniable sense of snap. What helps all of this land, as before, is the voice cast, who seem as dialed-in as ever. Rockwell remains a rock star. Still channeling his inner Clooney, the Oscar winner mixes effortless cool with just enough comic exasperation to keep the proceedings grounded. Meanwhile, Maron's Snake finds fresh notes of curmudgeonly charm while playing off his unlikely love interest, a bird voiced by Natasha Lyonne (who's having a busy few weeks between this, 'Smurfs' and 'The Fantastic Four: First Steps'). Zazie Beetz also returns as reformed thief turned governor Diane Foxington, whose complicated history with Wolf gives the film a bit of rom-com sizzle. It's somewhat of a bitter irony that in a movie overflowing with talking animals and high-tech heists, the most implausible element may be a politician worried about the optics of their criminal past catching up with them. The plot threatens to collapse in the third act as the gadgets, double-crosses and giant space magnets start to pile up, and the film sometimes feels content to coast where it could've soared, leaning on formula when it might have pushed further. That said, screenwriters Yoni Brenner and Etan Cohen know how to balance stakes and humor, maintaining a winking self-awareness (the precious substance the various characters are pursuing is called 'McGuffinite') while maintaining sincere themes of redemption, identity and second chances. Much like 'Shrek' or 'Puss in Boots,' 'The Bad Guys' has quietly become a dependable franchise for DreamWorks: funny, fast-moving and just edgy enough to keep both kids and their folks invested. With Blabey's 'Bad Guys' books now pushing past 20 volumes, there's no shortage of material left to mine. And if future installments stick to the same high-energy blueprint, this series could be stealing hearts for years to come. Let the bad times roll. Zaki Hasan is a freelance writer.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Michael Madsen's Best Acting May Have Been In This Quiet Moment from ‘Kill Bill Vol. 2'
Some actors pass on without a satisfying farewell performance. Others seem to have one locked and loaded for years, even decades, before they actually leave us. The latter was the case with the late Michael Madsen, an in-demand character actor probably best known for his roles in Quentin Tarantino films. He appeared in half of Tarantino's features, including a memorable role as the ear-slicing Mr. Blonde in Tarantino's debut, Reservoir Dogs. At the time, Madsen was more of a known quantity than his soon-to-be-famous writer/director pal. He appeared in WarGames and The Natural early on, and just before Reservoir Dogs in 1992, he had a pretty big 1991 with roles in The Doors and Thelma & Louise. Those combined with Dogs seemed to boost his career to the next level, particularly when a movie called for someone with similar vibes to Tom Sizemore but perhaps less likely to spontaneously stab you (the ear-slicing notwithstanding). He is definitely the only guy to have a major role in both the Species and Free Willy franchises. By the 2000s, he was a staple of direct-to-video movies but still a recognizable character actor, meaning his filmography is dotted both with stuff as mainstream as a James Bond movie and titles that sound like something Troy McClure might have boasted about on The Simpsons, like Vampires Anonymous. These titles overtook his bigger-studio work in the past decade-plus. The constant was his work for Tarantino, never in as big a part as Mr. Blonde, but still evocative – particularly his role in the Kill Bill saga. He played Budd, the only male member of the Deadly Vipers Assassination Squad besides their leader, his brother Bill. It's Bill who orders them to go after The Bride (Uma Thurman) when she leaves the group to have a child, earning her post-coma ire and a 'roaring rampage of revenge.' Split into two parts for its theatrical release (and yet to be reunited on home video, though it sometimes screens as a full film at Tarantino's theater in Los Angeles), Kill Bill saves Budd's confrontation with The Bride for its second volume. Madsen's Budd is not going to present the same formidable challenge to The Bride as characters played by Lucy Liu or Vivaca Fox. Both Madsen and Tarantino understand this from the outset, and so the Budd/Bride standoff has a craftier bent: When she comes for him, Budd (who has been tipped off by Bill) shotgun-blasts her with rock salt, knocks her out, and buries her alive. The glimpse we get of Budd's post-Viper life shows why he would need to go about this more methodically than his high-living fellow Vipers. He's working as a bouncer at a poorly attended strip club, and in a scene that doesn't further the plot but tells us plenty about Budd and his life, he's chewed out by his boss for showing up 20 minutes late – despite, as Budd laconically protests, a lack of customers ('there ain't no one out there to bounce'). He's then spitefully removed from the work schedule and somehow also assigned to clean up a mess in the bathroom before he goes. Madsen doesn't have a lot of lines in this scene, but he doesn't need them. The way that Budd stands his ground physically offers hints at his past as a brutal assassin, while his quiet, almost invisible frustration indicates that he has been forced this particular lot in life – taking orders from a malcontent, coke-sniffing jackass. The way he touches his cowboy hat when his boss dresses him down for wearing a 'shitkicker' hat to work, the way he keeps it off even after he's out of the boss's sight… it's all perfectly played by Madsen, drawing upon expectations based on his past roles as tough guys and heavies. Budd is also the most philosophical of the Vipers so far as The Bride's mission to kill them all, albeit in a shruggy fashion: 'That woman deserves her revenge, and we deserve to die,' he says to Bill, before pausing and laughing it off: 'Then again, so does she.' In his desiccated way, he's the character in the entire saga most accepting of what a bad person he's been. Yet he still has more than a glimmer of malice when he does rouse himself to trap The Bride in a horrific fate, more than enough to mitigate the sympathy Madsen generates for him. For all that acceptance, The Bride doesn't wind up actually killing Budd; he's offed by fellow Viper Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah), which almost feels worse; she sets a poisonous snake upon him to avoid paying him money for The Bride's sword, not out of any particular vendetta. He's beneath her contempt. Madsen never just sticks to Budd's contemptible side, however. He holds on to the most threadbare shreds of dignity, and in the process, makes him one of the most memorable characters in a sprawling, colorful film. It's no wonder Tarantino kept coming back to him. Jesse Hassenger (@rockmarooned) is a writer living in Brooklyn, podcasting at and contributing at Patse, The A.V. Club, Polygon, and The Guardian, among others. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why Are There Such Bad Vibes Surrounding ‘The Adventures Of Cliff Booth,' The Upcoming Brad Pitt / David Fincher / Quentin Tarantino Movie?
Has another dream of the '90s finally up and died? 25 years ago, the news of a movie written by Quentin Tarantino and directed by David Fincher would have been greeted with a flood of film-geek (and, OK, maybe also film-bro) delight, as if thousands of dorm-room posters had spontaneously sprung to life and thrown a kegger together. But with the commencement of shooting on The Adventures of Cliff Booth, which is indeed a Tarantino-penned, Fincher-directed, Brad Pitt-starring companion piece to Tarantino's beloved Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, much of the internet reacted more like their beloved dorm posters had been mashed up into a horrible A.I.-generated, Facebook-posted fake project. Why is this project being treated (at least in some corners) like an announcement of Morbius 2: More-bius? Why are the vibes so off? Are people afraid that Cliff will somehow cross paths with an alt-universe Mank? Some point to an incongruity between the styles of Fincher and Tarantino, to which I say: So?! If anything, Tarantino has become overly precious with his own work over the years – not in the work itself, which is often terrific (Once Upon a Time is one of his best; plenty of legendary filmmakers could not say the same about their most recent films), but in his obsession with making just ten movies (Kill Bill counts as one, but so does Death Proof, his half of Grindhouse) as a writer-director, to address his highly outdated idea of what happens to directors as they age. Tarantino came of age at a time when filmmakers did often limp into retirement past their prime, so he has it in his head that old guys don't make great movies. This seems patently absurd living in the era of Martin Scorsese, Steven Spielberg, Michael Mann, and so on, but Tarantino is a weird guy and maybe he has weird opinions about Spielberg's last great movie being The Terminal or something. Anyway, the idea of Tarantino mitigating his fussiness by giving a script he liked, but wouldn't want to make his ceremonious final film ever, to another filmmaker is actually a pretty exciting development, as is Fincher working with a strong writer. The fact that Fincher's meticulous, clinical, immaculately composed sleekness feels at odds with Tarantino's equally fussed-over but more rambling, loquacious, and playful style is half the point! Tarantino making a Cliff Booth sequel about the later life of the laconic stunt man would be kind of boring. Fincher making a Tarantino screenplay is inherently interesting, even if it turns out to be a disaster. One common ground the two filmmakers share is Pitt, who has collaborated repeatedly with both of them; maybe he's the problem. (Admittedly, his shaggy wig doesn't necessarily inspire confidence.) This might seem counterintuitive: Pitt won an Oscar for playing Cliff Booth, and F1 represents his biggest hit in a decade. But is it possible that the golden light emanating from Pitt has faded over the years in light of abuse allegations and the kind of self-flattering star-maintenance projects that F1 represents? His previous Tarantino films came amidst work with Terrence Malick, Andrew Dominik, Steve McQueen, Robert Zemeckis, and the Coen Brothers. Bullet Train, F1, and an upcoming David Ayer movie aren't exactly on that level. He hasn't reached Johnny Depp levels of over-ness, but there is a strange parallel between two long-beloved actors with alcohol problems, accused of spousal abuse, who may finally be seeing their age catch up with them after years of defying the clock. Maybe that bad wig is the telltale hairpiece, serving as a grim reminder of the hubris involved with revisiting an Oscar-winning character in a Netflix movie. And that last bit may actually be the heart of the disdain toward the Cliff Booth project. When I tweeted a sarcastic response to my feed full of movie-critic types turning up their noses at a Fincher/Tarantino project, I was repeatedly and witheringly informed that this was a Netflix movie, which doesn't count; that Fincher has been 'washed' since he started working with the streamer; and that everyone was right, actually, to dismiss it sight unseen. This strikes me as borderline delusional. Netflix does seem like a strange place for a project that would almost assuredly attract a lot of attention upon release (which was part of my original point; scoff now, but you'll watch this movie as soon as it comes out!), and the company is inarguably bad for the movie business as a whole. But does that purity test really disqualify movies like The Irishman, Marriage Story, or Roma from worthiness? Fincher's The Killer isn't any Netflixier than his pre-Netflix projects, and it's a hell of a lot better than many of them. I did not spend my two hours with that movie seething about Netflix. (Granted, I was lucky enough to see it in a theater, and will almost certainly make that happen for Cliff Booth.) Maybe a lack of universally sky-high expectations can only help this Tarantino/Fincher movie. It certainly fits the post-'60s hangover that the movie itself might indulge, given that it takes place well into the decade following Once Upon a Time's fabricated Hollywood ending. (How alternate will this timeline where Sharon Tate lived actually be?) And strange as the antipathy toward this project might seem, maybe that free-floating Netflix hostility is a good thing. Tarantino's earlier film is a starry-eyed look at a shifting Hollywood, and now here comes a vulgar example of what's become of that '90s boomer crop of American auteurs: a mix-and-match sequel going that will go straight to streaming for most of the country because the corporation funding it sees movie theaters as an 'outmoded' form of competition. Maybe this unlikely collaboration between three Hollywood titans is just giving the industry the bad vibes it deserves. Jesse Hassenger (@rockmarooned) is a writer living in Brooklyn. He's a regular contributor to The A.V. Club, Polygon, and The Week, among others. He podcasts at too. Solve the daily Crossword
