[Into the Dark Review with Joe Lipsett] "I'm Just F*cking with You" Isn't as Clever as it Thinks it is.

In between reviewing season two of Hulu’s Into the Dark, Joe and Terry tackle the first season’s episodes since we are relatively new to the series. As a companion piece to “Pooka Lives!” here is the Season 1 April Fools episode “I’m Just F*cking With You.”

JOE

How many of these Into The Dark reviews are we going to use the word “Oof” in, Terry? Because OOF on “I’m Just F*cking With You”, the April 2019 entry in the franchise which might as well be re-titled “Shitty Characters Being Shitty To Each Other.”

The premise is so straightforward it’s practically streamlined. Larry Adams (Keir O’Donnell) is a meek, bespectacled man en route to his cousin’s wedding, but because said cousin is marrying Larry’s ex-girlfriend Cindy, Larry skips out on the pre-wedding festivities. Instead he hunkers down at the Pink Motel & Lounge, a dingy establishment run by Chester Conklin (Hayes MacArthur) who takes sociopathic pleasure in playing cruel pranks on Larry that - naturally - escalate into murder territory over the course of the film. 

Of course Larry isn’t just some put-upon dweeb; he’s also a deeply bitter online troll who takes pleasure in posting insults, slurs and vulgarities under the username ProgrammingFlaw3489. And so “I’m Just F**cking With You” offers audiences the opportunity to watch not just one, but two horrible personalities interact, as though there is something enjoyable to be made of seeing Larry’s comeuppance when he’s forced to reconcile his bad behaviour with someone who is even worse than him.

There’s a kernel of something interesting in this first of Adam Mason’s two entries we’ll see in the series (he also helms the June entry “They Come Knocking”). Coming hot off of the fairly simplistic critique of social media trolling in “Pooka Lives!” (which of course came long after this entry) is interesting, if only because none of them are willing to do much more than a surface-level pass. In “Pooka Lives!” there was a stubborn resistance to unpacking how Derrick’s desire for fame mirrors the inane, moronic antics of his online nemesis Jax. 

In “I’m Just F*cking With You” the premise and the punchline are one and the same: what happens when a (cyber)bully runs into an even bigger (homicidal) bully? The film has nothing else to hang its hat on, which - as usual - wouldn’t be as much of an issue if this were a 25 minute morality tale in the vein of Tales From The Crypt, but it certainly doesn’t earn or justify a nearly 90 minute runtime. The complaint is particularly applicable here, with what essentially boils down to a two person play for 75% of the time, which could work if either character was remotely interesting or there were variances in the film’s tone or the characters’ exchanges. 

Hell, even director Mason in on record about the film’s overly simplistic narrative:

“I’m not really saying there’s any greater message behind that because clearly, Chester is an awful human being doing awful things. I just liked the idea of making an amusing parable about why people should be more careful with the way they bully and belittle, because once in a while it’s going to really blow up in their faces.”

I’ve gathered from interviews that Mason did some pretty significant rewrites of Gregg Zehentner and Scott Barkan’s original script, so I’m curious to see how Mason’s next instalment of the franchise will come together; if “I’m Just F*king With You” is what we can expect when Mason takes control, I’m very wary.

Terry, what are your initial impressions of “I’m Just F*cking With You?” Is there a silver lining to be found in the film’s neon lighting scheme, or is it just empty aesthetics? And can we at least praise Jessica McNamee’s performance as Rachel, Larry’s sister?

TERRY

Wow, Joe. I have to wonder if we even watched the same episode. Larry is obviously a very likable character who has had years and years of abuse thrown at him that by the time the love of his life is marrying some other guy, who let’s face it is probably an asshole, he’s turned into such a sad sack that he’s willing to debase himself online. He was once a smiling, happy kid. We know this because Rachel tells us so and says, “That Larry’s still there. I’m just the only one who gets to see it sometimes.” 

Hit me right in the gut. This isn’t just some poor online troll, pillaging the internet to hurt other people. It’s a man, hurting so much he’s willing to face that abyss and as we know that abyss always looks back. It bothers me so much that you don’t see this, Joe, that I’m starting to rethink our writing partnership. 

Naw, I’m just fucking with you.

This episode was painful for the reasons you mentioned. I think there’s something interesting and funny to be examined in the idea of an online troll--full of machismo, ego and anonymity--being forced to reckon with a real life troll who doesn’t care about the anonymity Larry hides behind. While reality plays the ego to Lar-Bear’s id so that he remains meek and “nice,” Chester has no such view of the real world and is simply the id, unrestrained. I think there’s something meaty in that dynamic...it’s just not explored here. 

Truthfully, I was bored out of my mind through most of this movie. It was only with the introduction of Rachel that I actually started paying attention. I thought Jessica McNamee was one of the more interesting actors in the not-ridiculous-enough The Meg, even though she wasn’t used enough. Here, it’s more of the same. A fantastic breath of fresh air between two characters who are just so incredibly dull in their unlikability. She brings agency and direction to what was otherwise a very directionless opening. So, of course, she has to be killed so that we end where we began: directionless and boring. 

I did like the aesthetics. Pink Motel and Lounge looked like a neon-drenched Bates Motel that felt completely detached from reality. When Larry first goes into the lounge in search of the front desk attendant, I loved the Riverdale-esqe neon diner and the way it was lit. But unlike so many indie films that are leaning into that aesthetic, I don’t think “I’m Just F*cking With You” really does anything with the color scheme. This isn’t a neo-noir. It’s not evoking a specific time. 

Oof, Joe. Oof. I think the biggest problem is that it didn’t lean hard enough in one direction. The jokes didn’t have that mean-spirited escalation to make what was happening uncomfortable. But it also wasn’t very funny, outside of Chester describing the owner’s of the hotel intertwined in an embrace of death and his comment: “it was the most honest expression of marriage I’ve ever seen.” 

But what about you, Joe? Did you find anything to enjoy in this 82 minute exercise in unlikability? What did you think about Gerry (Charles Halford), the “fight or fuck” biker who wanted to give Lar-Bear a *checks notes* “ass pounding”? There’s an air of homoeroticism in this episode that made me feel vaguely uncomfortable so I’m curious what you thought.

JOE

Ugh, don’t remind me about Gerry, the obvious biker cliché. Between him and the most obtuse Sheriff (John Marshall Jones) I’ve seen on screen in quite some time, that’s just two more (too many?) characters in this film that I just couldn’t give two shits about.

Now, onto far more interesting topics: yes, you’re spot on that there’s definitely homoeroticism lurking around the fringes, but alas nothing *quite* substantial enough. 

I’m sure that you’ve found that texts that feature man-children characters, texts that finds conflict in the manly interactions, texts that feature escalating pranks, often have a homoerotic subtext. We’ve talked before about “dick swinging contests” and the first act of “I’m Just F*cking With You” definitely leans into those ideas: why is Chester so obsessed with Larry? In particular, there’s the moment when Chester deliberately locks Larry in the bathroom and then encourages him to fall flat on his face...all while nothing else than a towel. Hell, even the opening of the third act reveals that Chester deliberately undressed Larry to put him into different clothes!

So there’s definitely a homoerotic current at work here - one that, had Mason chosen to explore it, would have taken this episode in a far more interesting direction. Consider how drastically the final encounter in the car would have played if Larry were trying to do more than simply kill Chester? A proper queer subtext would have leant that crash a gay Thelma & Louise-vibe. Ohhh the possibilities! 

Unfortunately, just like everything else in this episode, there’s simply not enough interesting content here. This is a brutal 1 out of 5 entry for me.

Terry, I’ll kick it back to you to wrap up: did you get any The Strangers: Prey At Night vibes from the pool party scenes of the last act? Did you like the kaleidoscopic visuals when Chester gets Larry high? And do you have any final thoughts on the over-the-credits sequence in which Larry is blamed for all of the murders and goes on the lam? 

TERRY

Joe, it was hard not to see them trying to evoke Prey At Night with the pool scene mixed with neons. I wrote in my notes that I would rather be watching that movie at this point. As for the acid-trip-visuals, I felt about them the same way I’ve felt about any of the stylish flourishes used here: they’re just there. Finally, the credits...by that point I didn’t really care. It makes sense that he’d be blamed for everything, but I’m not sure if there was any greater point to it. I’m kind of over chatting about this one, Joe. So I’ll echo your 1 out of 5 and hope our future is filled with better episodes.

I guess we’ll find out over at QueerHorrorMovies where we’ll discuss the May episodes “Delivered” for Season 2 and “All That We Destroy” for Season 1.