Skip to main content

What, you're going to walk in there like it's the commie Disneyland or something?

Stranger Things 3
(2019)

(SPOILERS) It’s very clear by this point that Stranger Things isn’t going to serve up any surprises. It’s operating according to a strict formula, one requiring the opening of the portal to the Upside Down every season and an attendant demagorgon derivative threat to leak through, only to be stymied at the last moment by our valorous team. It’s an ‘80s sequel cycle through and through, and if you’re happy with it functioning exclusively on that level, complete with a sometimes overpowering (over)dose of nostalgia references, this latest season will likely strike you as just the ticket.

I do tend to wonder, though, what might have been, had the model been harder-edged ‘70s fare – think The Exorcist rather than The Goonies – so mirroring the Montauk Project origins of the premise and focussing more on obscene government experimental programmes than fantastic CGI beasts.

That said, if the beats of the supernatural invader plot are by-and-large rote, Stranger Things 3 undoubtedly scores in terms of structure. I have to assume the Duffers took that extra year between seasons to ensure this side was up to snuff, as each individual thread is finely honed, and the threads build in pleasing parallel fashion episode by episode. The core chapters 3-7 are as good as this show has been, and it only really stumbles when, as in the first two chapters, it’s failing to balance the threat plotting with the nostalgia thing; I was a defender of the first season for not being as in thrall to ‘80s referencing as some suggested, but that wholly fell by the wayside with the Ghostbusters fancy dress in Stranger Things 2. It’s even more pervasive this time out.

The first two episodes largely discard the Stephen King spook-stuff-happens-to-youngsters side in favour of out-and-out teen movie plotting, but with all the requisite period music and movie (Day of the Dead) nods 1985 entails… and a curious willingness to revel in really gross fates befalling rats. Are the Duffers assuming everyone hates the rodents and so don’t have a problem with their being unceremoniously mutilated? I guess so. I wasn’t overly impressed by the protracted carnage, though.

3 is so littered with references, sometimes I just wished they’d cease and desist and take a breath – let’s not forget the brothers were only a year old in 1985, so none of this is even first hand. This time, the major elements are the mall, an underground Soviet base, the public pool, and a fairground. So you’ve got The Terminator (Andrey Ivchenko’s unstoppable Soviet), Red Dawn (crudely-drawn, faceless baddies, apart from the inevitable singular nice one), The Thing/ The Stuff/ Invasion of the Body Snatchers (creature taking over townsfolk who eventually dissolve into the gargantuan CGI monster and prior to that can be tested for other-ness), The Evil Dead II (creature’s maw attempting to guzzle a protagonist), Back to the Future (er, Back to the Future, basically) and perhaps most egregiously, the use of Danny Elfman’s Midnight Run theme throughout the extended road trip with Alexei (Alec Utgoff). Oh, and The Neverending Story.

Splitting the kids and adults up for very defined missions is a smart move, but as usual with these things, all plotlines aren’t created equal. The need to manufacture conflict means Hopper’s being an irascible arse and Mike (looking increasingly like Emo Phillips) a jealous dick or a just a straightforward prick. Something isn’t quite working with the Hopper/Joyce relationship as you should want them to get together, yet the closer they get, the less you care (I was much more invested in them during the first season). And I don’t know if it’s the exposure going to her head, but Millie Bobby Brown’s performance this season much more self-conscious; it doesn’t help that Eleven is required to deliver “hero” Jedi mind control moments to the point of nausea (it’s a lazy writer’s device that needs to be used sparingly for maximum impact, rather than every time a tentacle breaks into frame).

Elsewhere, there’s a subplot involving Nancy and Jonathan working for the local paper that ends up going nowhere once their co-workers are possessed, meaning the workplace sexism theme has no payoff (and I seriously have no idea why they cast Jake Busey and waste him on a nothing jerk role, even by the standards of nothing jerk roles). On the other hand, as per Season Two, everything involving Dustin and or Steve is pure gold. Steve’s relationship with co-worker Robin (Ethan and Uma’s daughter Maya Hawke) is a particular boon, built up as a sure-thing romance only to be undercut by her late-stage revelation (although I’m not sure about the suggestion that Robin’s the show’s first gay character; we also have the hanging “It’s not my fault you don’t like girls” directed at Will). The chemistry between Hawke and Joe Keery, wandering around a Russian base on drugs in Scoops Ahoy uniforms, is a delight to behold, with the characters’ enduring bond sealed in their post-puke toilet floor chat, Steve’s response on being let down reflecting how far he’s come from the jerk he once was. As for Dustin, Gaten Matarazzo continues to be the MVP of his teen co-stars, although even he can’t help but have his thunder stolen by junior, nerd-antagonising Erica (Priah Ferguson).

The season’s other standout relationship comes via the bromance between caustic conspiracist Murray Bauman and ill-fated friendly Soviet Alexei (Alec Utgoff). Murray’s a misanthrope you love to love (“I hate children”) and Brett Gelman rises to the challenge of whoever is next on the list to antagonise him (Erica, Dustin giving him the codename Bald Eagle). Elsewhere, Max, Lucas and Will don’t make an awful lot of impact, while Billy, formerly a bad seed, is now the straight-up bad guy. He’s offered a hero’s exit via El’s empathic mining of his damaged childhood but the lack of strong prior character work rather undermines that choice. There’s also Cary Elwes, enjoying himself as an ethics-deprived mayor and the briefest of Paul Reiser cameos.

Once Chapter Eight’s largely functional monster-mash dust has settled – albeit, the reveal of the reality of Suzie (Gabriella Pizzolo), providing the correct Planck’s Constant is cutely done – the Duffer’s opt for a twenty-minute epilogue. Which is a beyond-the-pale indulgence, it has to be said, whatever merits the rest of the show undoubtedly has. And while there are some nice touches during this sequence (Satanic Panic) there are also slightly tiresome ones (Kevin Smith-esque video store nerd-dom). Oh, and if you don’t show a character die, they clearly haven’t; you don’t need to compound this by immediately referring to an American prisoner in a Russian gulag.

Stranger Things 3 might be Netflix’s best-packaged junk food. It knows not to outstay its welcome, doesn’t cause bloat and is disposable in mostly good ways. What it doesn’t do, and clearly won’t, post-Barb, is stray from its essentially cosy identity. Not now it has found it and repeated it to popular effect. I’m sure Stranger Things 4 and 5 will be equally entertaining, but once all is said and done, the whole series will probably merge together in the memory, into one indistinguishable and amorphous CGI blob.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.