#another good example might be Nick getting all of his memories of Glenn back | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

weird-unlimited-ramblings · 1 year

Text

I feel like what hurts me most about Sparrow being all “I’m not proud of you” isn’t that he said it, cause I could already kinda guess that from the first scene.

It’s just that normal doesn’t seem to have had any inclination of it prior. Like, to him that’s just his dad being his dad. Not his dad trying to nudge him into being more normal.

And that’s exactly why Normal believes his dad hates him (at least in my mind). Cause as humans we are built to remember the bad as a way of survival, and normal probably can only think about the times he’s seen his dad cringe and how he’s so stupid for just thinking his dad was worried (even if he was worried and not in fact cringing.) like every memory gets corrupted with this new realization. When Teeny won the mascot contest was your dad actually smiling at how happy you were or was he just avoiding a scene, Did he actually enjoy watching those anime movies with you and hero when you were little or are you misremembering, was your uncle trying to warn you that you shouldn’t trust when your dad says he loves you, and so on and so on.

#dungeons and daddies #dndads #dndaddies #normal oak swallows garcia #normal oak #sparrow oak swallows garcia #sparrow oak garcia #I mentioned lark and hero but I’m not gonna tag them cause it’s more father son focused #this is also coming from someone who overthinks everything #if this is confusing I’m sorry #like when Lincoln places together all the little sniper stuff his dad did #honestly that’s probably why part of me doesn’t like sparrow #y’know I love sparrow but I don’t want to show him off to people #I don’t even dislike him though #you think my therapist would let me figure out what I feel about sparrow in a session #another good example might be Nick getting all of his memories of Glenn back #you love your dad but you have an example of a father that is at least from what we know so much better #Honestly Nick and Normal might need to talk about looking back at memories with new knowledge

128 notes · View notes

iamcinema · 4 years

Text

IAC Reviews #015: R.S.V.P (2002)

Well, I suppose it’s safe to say that leaving the city isn’t going to do us much good with avoiding trouble. I guess if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em I suppose. I heard there’s a crazy party going on and we’re invited to join in on the fun. Let’s see what they’re up to and if it’s worth it. Just be sure to practice your social distancing and keep your masks on, and I’m sure we’ll be just fine.

_______________________________________

For this, we’re going to go back a-ways to the mid 2000s when FearNet was still around and if you were like me, you’d find yourself turning to it for a quick fix of the flavor of the week - which was typically lesser known or underrated slasher films or B to Z-grade horror films; like that from Troma. It was around here that I’d soak up what I could on long, boring summer nights and I was usually in for something halfway decent if I not only never heard of it before, but it appeared that a lot of people on IMDb didn’t either judging from the sparse reviews and next to no posts on the message boards. Along with today’s feature, this would include others like The Curve (1998), Cherry Falls (2000), My Little Eye (2002), Taboo (2002), Zombie Nation (2004), and S&Man (2006).

R.S.V.P is a 2002 dark comedy / suspense film, depending on who you ask, written and directed by Mark Anthony Galluzzo, who didn’t go on to do a whole lot in his career. Our story centers on a psychology student, Nick, with a obsession with true crime who invites his old friends and professor over for a fun night at his apartment where the only party game they’ll be playing is murder. It stars some familiar faces, like that of Jason Mewes, Reno Wilson, Rick Otto, Jonathan Banks, and the late Glenn Quinn. If you have a weakness for slasher oriented films from 90s to the early 2000s, then you might already be on board from the trailer alone; both with it’s general concept and how, even in 2002, the 90s are still carrying on in spirit. It’s almost nostalgic in a way, conjuring up memories at the movie theater with the black light carpeting, the smell of overpriced buttered popcorn, and the deafening THX logo opener. But, the question now is if that sweet nostalgia comes with a bitter aftertaste that’s hard to swallow.

R.S.V.P In One Gif:

Okay, so maybe this is going to be a bit harsh given what I have to say next. But, bear with me for a moment.

________________________________________

Watching RSVP is a lot like sinking in lava. You think you’d abruptly catch on fire, but instead you sink slowly as you burn up due to the density of it. After all, we’re talking about molten rock here. This is the definition of a slow burner film if I’ve ever seen one and I know for some, that’s a hard pitch to sell because it can feel like scenes drag on and on for too long. I’ve griped about this in the past with films like Las Vegas Bloodbath (1989) with all the filler content and how the third act is like pulling teeth to blow through because it feels like nothing is happening. Well, in this case nothing of importance is happening.

So, what’s the deal with this then? The bulk of the film surrounds our protagonist, well antihero is probably a better title for him, Nick and his obsession with serial killers as a psychology student and how one would orchestrate the perfect crime. This discussion and obsession comes to ahead with two others early on; his professor Hal Evans and friend Jimmy, alongside a reoccurring theme of referencing and discussing true crime - with the 1924 Leopold and Loeb case being a subject of interest for Nick specifically due to the nature and legacy of the murder. Oh, and holy hell does this movie show how much it aged since the film was likely in production just as Gary Ridgeway was identified as the Green River Killer.

From here, we get a taste of who we’ll be stuck with for the next 90 minutes and I can’t say for sure if this is a party I’d stick around for, as it becomes almost another drunk/stoner college kid flick. I won’t say a ton about who is who and their relationships to each other to avoid straying too far into spoiler territory because just about all of it is strung together by foreshadowing. While there’s no surprise who our killer is, the suspense and mystery comes in the form of the motivation and when or if Nick will get caught while on his killing spree. The film has been compared to Hitchcock’s style of suspense in a few ways, and it reminds me of an example he made about suspense vs surprise with a bomb under a table;

“...In the first case we have given the public fifteen seconds of surprise at the moment of the explosion. In the second we have provided them with fifteen minutes of suspense. The conclusion is that whenever possible the public must be informed. Except when the surprise is a twist, that is, when the unexpected ending is, in itself, the highlight of the story.“

Unfortunately from here on out, there doesn’t feel like a whole lot to comment on beyond some minor exposition that links everyone together; such as three of the friends being in a band and there being some tension between some bitter ex-lovers. It’s more so just scene after scene of things happening and it feels like a drag, even if the metaphorical bomb is lurking just around the corner, which can have you just barely holding out for what the next murder will be and even then it’s hard to say if it was well worth the wait. The acting is a somewhat mixed bag and many of the characters are forgettable. It’s not the absolute worst I’ve ever seen, but not many of them did much to hold my interest enough to care if they lived or died.

Also, did I mention how strange the music choice is? We have moments where we have 90s electronic style beats, and then we cut to what I think is “Habanera” from Carmen and “Dance of the Sugar Plum Fairy” from The Nutcracker. I don’t get it. It’s kind of weird and a bit goofy if I’m being honest for the general tone it’s going for - unless that just plays into the dark, satirical comedy aspect. Speaking of which, some moments (especially the murders) are like a fine grilled ham and cheese sandwich with the payoff that I’m sure Patrick Bateman himself would recognize.

If I had to give one decent thing to say about it, it’s that the final act is probably the film’s strongest suit since the first ten minutes with our final chase and a further look into Nick’s psychology with understanding his methods of madness. I will say that while doing some research on this, I came across information about an alternate version of the film where we learn that Nick wasn’t the only person with blood on his hands. However, these scenes were removed due to confusing test audiences, but they can be found on the DVD. According to IMDb, this given more significance in a scene that plays during the credits, but I’m sure you could fit those pieces together on your own with how the final act plays out as a whole. But, I will say I wonder what I’m missing out on and if it parallels the Leopold and Loeb case; especially with how certain film adaptations were a bit heavy handed with focusing on LGBTQ themes, and given what we see unfold, it did pique my interest a bit.

________________________________________

So, now we’re here. The party is over and the dead are waiting to be picked up. Where do I stand on this one? I recall when I saw this years ago that I didn’t exactly care for it and I rated it 3/10. I thought the characters were bland and uninteresting, it was too hammy for my general liking for being classified as a dark comedy, and I didn’t really care for the pay off. It was a major blur, and I suppose that’s telling to how invested I was in it. But, now we’re here close to 15 years later and something had to change, right?

Well, sort of. I guess it’s just more so telling that my own niche hobbies and interests are bleeding into things and why I have a guilty enjoyment for things like The Curve (1998) and the August Underground trilogy (2001-2007) and it’s focus on true crime, murder, and the concept of the true perfect crime. It was neat to look back on, even if it was just brief glimpses of the criminal psychology discussions. I still don’t particularly care too much for most of the characters, mostly the members of Whiskey Dick. The kills themselves are okay when they’re done well, but a good portion of them are cut to white so you miss all the action. The film is relatively bloodless as well, which is something I felt let down by, as the goriest scene happens in the opening and it’s downhill from there for the most part as far as that’s concerned.

Overall, this is just meh to me. I wouldn’t call it atrocious, but it’s not good either, not even by Saturday night popcorn flick standards. It’s a okay watch if you’re bored and don’t have much else going on, just don’t expect anything worthwhile even for the times. There’s better films from the era out there, but there’s also worse...so much worse.

RATING: 4/10

0 notes