Freaky Tales

Only first heard about the film a day or two before it opened in Toronto. Didn't have very high expectations, but honestly of everything playing right now, this was the only film that interested me. I couldn't have been more surprised.

"Freaky Tales" is part "Pulp Fiction" (1994), part "Heavy Metal" (1981), and at times reminiscent of another 80s-inspired film, "Mandy" (2018). Four wacky (freaky) tales set in Oakland California, weaving together a diverse and fun cast of characters.

Aspect ratio's are changed between segments, animated characters burst onto screen, blood is spilt, punk music blares through the speakers - there's just a lot of fun being had on screen, and I felt it. I can only imagine feeling the response from a large audience during certain moments of the film; unfortunately there were less than 10 people at my screening.

Without giving anything else away, if you want to have a fun time at the theatre go support this movie. It's rare to see a movie like this get a theatrical release anymore, but it was the best theatrical experience I've had so far this year.

"Freaky Tales" is one of those anthology films that feels like it's almost onto something - but never quite gets there. It's visually engaging and has a certain nostalgic flair, and I did find myself enjoying a few segments, but overall, most of the stories rely heavily on well-worn tropes without offering much that feels fresh.

The third tale, featuring Pedro Pascal, stands out as the one with the most potential. There's some emotional weight and intriguing character dynamics, but just as it starts to build momentum, it's over - underdeveloped and leaving more questions than satisfaction.

While "Freaky Tales" has energy and style, the majority of the narratives feel like sketches rather than fully realized stories. They're loud, flashy, sometimes fun, but ultimately forgettable. It's not a bad watch, but it's also not particularly memorable. A 6/10 feels fair: some fun to be had, but not enough depth to leave a lasting impression.

The opening episodes are tired clichés that nearly put me to sleep. The background becomes the main source of narrative, while the flashy, hyperactive style induces genuine yawns. The only interesting segment features Pedro Pascal - everything else is bland, tedious chaos. The film can't focus on anything, trying to be everything for everyone and ending up as nothing. It's a hollow citation of 1980s cinema - all pop, no substance. Good luck falling for this "love letter" to the era. If you want actual storytelling, look elsewhere.

First 40 minutes? Chewed-up tropes: punks vs neo-Nazis, rappers vs the system, blah-blah-blah... The neon aesthetic and soundtrack are just crutches for narrative lameness. Only Pascal's revenge storyline breaks through - mercifully free of postmodern smirk.

No depth. No originality. Just soulless set dressing - style as empty calories. Every episode is vapid posturing without compelling characters or drama. Essentially - a kaleidoscope of colorful shards with zero meaning. Pascal's classical vengeance arc works precisely because it's not another "experiment". This isn't homage - it's nostalgia plagiarism without vision. At festivals it might pass as "bold"; at home it's reheated leftovers. Without Pascal, this mess would vanish among a thousand forgettable flicks. Visual fast food - strip away the 80s neon and synthwave, and you're left with... nothing.

Now you might argue: "Don't all genre films rely on clichés?" "Isn't 80s nostalgia the whole point?" "What if chaos IS the intention?" "Maybe you're obsessing over Pascal?"

Sure! And you're right! But for real 80s kicks, I'll rewatch:

• RoboCop ('87)
• Die Hard ('88)
• Pulp Fiction ('94)
• The Terminator ('84)

...while this one's already fading from memory.

Freaky Tales is like neon wall art: bright but disposable. Hang it up to flex your taste, but stare too long and you'll spot the emptiness.

The filmmakers couldn't decide between parody, drama, or straight action - so we get a lukewarm reference salad. Pascal's the only frame-worthy element. The rest? Pulp fiction in every bad sense.

These are the tales of four strangers whose lives were unknowingly intertwined and changed on a freaky night in Oakland in 1987 when NBA history was made.

This movie is hard to describe or even summarize without spoiling it. The story is told through four chapters, each from the perspective of one of the four individuals. The movie has violence, drama, cameos, and a smidge of history. The story becomes clearer over the one-hour and forty-six-minute runtime, but it is a wild ride throughout. It is an interesting and unique watch, especially when going blind. Stream it when available, if you are intrigued.

It's probably one of those 'you're either gonna like/love it or hate it' situations. It's definitely not a movie to be taken seriously but i think that's pretty obvious before you're even ten minutes into it.

What I'M wondering is how they got some of the people in it to BE in it...i know one of them grew up in Piedmont(Oakland), but still...he's one of THE most popular actors from the last 45 or so years...i think he did it as a favor. A salute to, 'cool that you're doing a movie in Oakland'.

As far as story elements go, the movie is all over the place...but, overall, it was FUN. Of course, having lived in Berkeley for 20+ years helped me to enjoy it. And i liked seeing Angus Cloud again.