Skip to main content

Freaky Fails to Exceed its’ Novelty

 
The basic premise for Freaky is dumb, and if it had to exist it should have been fifteen years ago. And that’s not just because that would put it closer in time to the 2003 Freaky Friday remake, still the most popular version of the body-switch narrative on film in defiance of all odds and the existence of Your Name; but because the movie is to its core an early 2000s comedy, with all the same conventions in the script and direction, the comedy and plot contrivances, as well as character archetypes that may have even been outdated then -or are American schools really that cartoonishly cliquey?. In any case, as much as Freaky distinctly belongs to another time, it’s not chasing a relevant trend of body-switching movies or nostalgia, but rather a particular kind of gimmick-based horror comedy most obviously epitomized in the surprisingly successful time loop flick Happy Death Day. That films’ director, Christopher Landon, is behind Freaky as well, and it too is very much a “what if this one goofy sci-fi trope was in a slasher film” concept -not an idea that requires much creativity.
And that is reflected on screen as the movie throughout its’ plot adheres pretty closely to exactly the kind of scenes and points you’d expect from spilling a batch of Freaky Friday into your Friday the 13th recipe. From the teenage girl in the killers’ body having to adjust to his build, brute force, and appearance through a series of wacky shenanigans to the killer in the girls’ body using the relative inconspicuousness it brings him to his advantage, to a ticking clock and a maguffin to switch them back which is less racist than in Freaky Friday, but still kind of racist –it’s all there. Mixed in with this is a lot of really formulaic personal conflict of high school movies, such as a parent not understanding the protagonist and a flustered attitude towards a crush who she’s oblivious to the reciprocated feelings of. The only twist on these plot threads that Freaky can offer is the joke that lumbering, masculine fifty-year old Vince Vaughn is playing them.
Vaughn, who incidentally has actually played a horror movie killer before, is very much treading in the same water as his fellow Frat Packer Jack Black did in the two recent Jumanji movies, and like Black there he seems to be playing a different character to the one established by the age appropriate actress -though to a greater degree. It’s no secret why of course, Vaughn playing up a more stereotypical insecure teenage girl works better for laughs, but the consistency is not really there with the introverted, unassuming (even around her friends) version of Millie Kessler played by Kathryn Newton. More was needed to establish Millie’s personality, her sense of humour, and even her immaturity for the two parts to be compatible.
This is not on Newton though, who is maybe the movies’ strange saving grace, and who seems more comfortable as the killer, called the Blissfield Butcher, inside Millie’s body than Millie herself -not surprising given how much more fun this variation is. She delights in the sinister smirks and unsettling stares, as well as the more confident body language of this temporary inhabitant. And while the inconsistencies go both ways in her physical dexterity and her fashion choices (the Butcher just wears shabby thrift store clothes that smell, yet adopts a keen sense of style in Millie’s body), they work much better in this context because Newton isn’t performing it as schtick. In fact Freaky is kind of two gimmicky premises: apart from the body switching thing, it’s an exercise in ‘what if a slasher movie villain was a teenage girl’. And this side is done better, or at least more interestingly, partly due to the films’ commitment to the slasher aesthetic and its’ relative fearlessness when it comes to gore -there are at least a couple satisfyingly brutal kills, as obvious as they may be.
Of course they’re satisfying in part because the Butcher quite considerately only murders people who are terrible to Millie. And among at least a few of these targets there’s a common denominator of masculine power or sexual harassment. A team of jocks are especially obscene. And clearly Landon is trying to use this to turn the film into a kind of feminist power fantasy -as a girl viscerally gets revenge on the worst avatars of toxic machismo one could conjure up. But this theme is significantly undercut by the fact it’s not really Millie doing this, it’s the Butcher -someone who has never had that firsthand experience with systemic misogyny and is really only executing these terrible people on behalf of the women they would abuse.
On some level the movie may be aware of this, considering there’s a very awkward anticlimax once the main conflict has been resolved that seems purely there to allow Millie a vestige of this catharsis on her own -that and to echo the 2018 Halloween reboot weirdly enough. But it very noticeably doesn’t fit.
There are sides to Freaky that are entertaining. A comedy beat or sequence here and there that lands, or on occasion a performance. In addition to Newton, Misha Osherovich is also a highlight as Millies’ friend Josh. The jokes they’re called on to deliver aren’t always good (and in more than a few instances just play up to Josh’s gayness), but they have a lot of charisma and are impressively attuned to the comic sensibility, more so than it deserves. In the end though the movie falls short; not creative, engaging, or provocative enough to outshine the novelty of its concept, if just competent and loud enough to not be boring -that early 2000s trademark if ever there was one.

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more