Freaky Tales

I can see why the reviews on this movie are mixed. It is a bit disjointed and has some gaps in the story. As an East Bay native who got into the punk scene around when the first chapter is set, I know this is based on real life events. The punk rockers running the nazi skinheads away from their club/community space, 100% happened. Creepy cops harassing young POC women, that happened (undoubtedly still does). I got a cassette tape of Too $hort's 'Freaky Tales' when I was 12 years old, and when my mom heard half a verse in that song she destroyed that cassette. This is a fictional version of Bay Area realness. Nothing but love for the Bay.

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.

"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.

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.

This movie is basically what you would get if you asked an A. I. social media algorithm to make a movie about 1987.

Nothing makes sense. There's no plot, obviously no research was done into any of the content, character development is non existent, its initial vehicle seems to be racial rage bait disguised as some elementary form of political commentary that comes off like a teenager being interviewed at a pot rally.

But seriously though, how old were the people who came up with this nonsense? It's pretty apparent they were never around in 1987, never mind California.

This could have been a 20 second Tik Tok video.