McConnaughay's Reviews

[McConnaughay]

Longtime member of Movie Forums, I have decided to bite the bullet and make a thread dedicated to the movie reviews I have written over the years (I have ones dating back to 2013). Since I am in-between blogsites and have to move things by hand anyways, I will add reviews here as I do that.

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7a/The_Rental_poster.jpg/220px-The_Rental_poster.jpg
The Rental (2022)
Like many of you, I find my available time to watch movies becoming scarcer and scarcer the older I become and the more responsibilities I take on. Another factor that keeps me from writing and reviewing as often as I may like is the scarcity of movies that catch my eye. I will always go out of my way to watch the next Scream film released, or a film from a specific director I am interested in, but it can be hard for me to make the leap of faith into a film I know nothing about. So too can it be difficult for a story to grab your attention from a brief trailer or a short summary – a lot of movies follow the same structure, and it is how the filmmakers decide to handle the finer details that so often decide whether a film is worthwhile or not.

My watching of The Rental can be chalked up to doing something on a whim. I hadn’t spare time and I decided to use it. Rather than do what I normally do, which is browse Netflix, Shudder, HBO Max, Tubi TV, and the dozens of other streaming services available, I made the distinct, deliberate decision to not be so damn picky for a change.

Overall, I could have done a lot worse than The Rental with my decision.

Directed by Dave Franco in his directorial debut, The Rental was co-written by Franco, Joe Swanberg, and Mike Demski. The film stars Dan Stevens, Allison Brie, Sheila Vand, and Jeremy Allen White.

It’s a basic film formula, really – The Rental tells the story of two couples who decide to share a seaside rental together in a vacation getaway. And, as you might surmise, given the genre, they’re not alone.

This isn’t a film that tries to reinvent the wheel, and, in that respect, feels very much like what you would expect from someone’s directorial debut. It uses ingredients we’ve tasted before, and, all in all, doesn’t deviate from the recipe in any major fashion. It primarily focuses on two specific traits – that of a slasher film and that of a relationship drama.

It isn’t uncommon at all for filmmakers to try and bring a guest over to the dark-side for a film, the genre can be a haven for psychological study, allegories, and even comedy. However, it can be a double-edged sword. In this instance, I couldn’t help but feel like neither trait was explored to its fullest. They aren’t at odds with one another, but neither feels like they reach their potential. The dramas veers away as its reaching its climax whereas the horror enters too little, too late. The villain feels like it relies less on the villain itself and more on the concept of the villain, but it simply isn’t clever or unique enough to do that. None of it is bad, most of it is engrossing, but all of it feels a little short-changed.

I believe this can be seen with how fast certain things happen, how they’re trying to checkoff things as swift as they can. Characters exposit information, and everything is set-up neat-and-tidy, all of it easy to telegraph. The drama can be seen from a mile away and doesn’t have any particular wrinkles to speak of, whereas the horror itself is also familiar and holds little beyond its basic premise. It spends all of its time planting seeds, be it of the looming threat in the background or the dysfunctional relationships, but they’re never watered and given enough sunshine to sprout anything.

As a film, it is pretty nicely made. Everything’s capably, inoffensively created. It’s a modest, but solid freshman effort for Dave Franco, and one I’d, in turn, recommend with what I’ve said in mind.

rating_2

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a7/When_Marnie_Was_There.png/220px-When_Marnie_Was_There.png
When Marnie Was There
Studio Ghibli is a film company I have a lot of respect and admiration for. Sometimes regarded as the “Japanese Disney”, the animation studio has released classic films for nearly 40 years now. The Disney comparison is both and overt simplification of Studio Ghibli – the more you think about it, the more demeaning it starts to feel. The company has its own distinct personality and has braved trenches Disney hasn’t, i.e. its harrowing film Grave of the Fireflies or the epic-scale fantasy film Princess Mononoke. It is easy and, perhaps, palatable to use the description to entice newcomers, but, it is unfitting of how unique Studio Ghibli truly is. It doesn’t feel like anime per se, not anymore than it feels like a 2-D Disney film, and it feels like Western animation, but yet with its own flavor to it – it’s Studio Ghibli.

And yet, I have never reviewed a single film by Studio Ghibli.

In an effort to remedy that, I decided to sit down, watch, and now, share with you, my thoughts on the 2014 film When Marnie Was There.

The psychological drama film was co-written and directed by Hiromasa Yonebayashi, whose directorial credentials include The Secret World of Arrietty and Mary and the Witch’s Flower (a Studio Ghibli – esque film from animation newcomer Studio Ponoc). The film, which is based on the 1967 novel of the same name, is about a young girl named Anna who suffers from low self-esteem and self-doubt (and asthma). In-order to help, her foster mother sends her to spend summer break with her relatives, at a rural seaside town. There, she becomes acquainted with a young woman named Marnie, discovering more about herself and tackling some of the emotional turmoil stewing inside of her.

The English voice-cast, if you’re a dubber and not a subber, comprises itself of Hailee Steinfeld and Kiernan Shipka, and, for me, they make for a fairly likable duo in the film. Of course, you will have some naysayers on this particular topic, but I will sound-off by saying I believe there are talented Japanese voice-actors and English voice-actors, and they all need work (maybe not so much Steinfeld and Shipka specifically) and they were all contracted for this film. The story retains itself, as does the animation, and I believe it sometimes allows a story to shine through better when you can better interpret the cadence and context of each scenario. You do you though.

The story is, uh, fairly unique, I’d say. Specifically, I have one aspect that doesn’t sit well with me about it. When Marnie Was There isn’t a romantic film, but it’s kind of a romantic film. Marnie and Anna have a romantic component to their arrangement, and if you slice the last fifteen minutes or so out from this film (and honestly, even if you don’t), it’s a romantic film about a young, troubled girl who falls for another girl. And that part’s fine! How progressive! Clap, clap! But, uh, yeah. It’s weird in the context of this film, and I can’t articulate how without delving too deep into the plot points it hits on.

As you would expect, the animation is top-notch. Everything Studio Ghibli animates feels like a labor of love, and this film is no different. The greenery in the background really pops, and it makes you realize how beautiful (and timely) 2-D animation can still feel in modern cinema. As much as I love the animation of something like the new Puss in Boots film or many Pixar films, I wish this style was more commonplace than it is – thank you, Japanese animation, you’ve helped keep the torch lit.

The story is modest, I will admit. The conflict is standard and easily remedied, and even feels a little like they pulled their punches a little too much when it came to saying something that could have deeply resonated. It feels a lot like Studio Ghibli’s classic hits in some respects, but, perhaps, lacking both the edge and the wonderment you’d want from a film with this type of concept.

It doesn’t have the teeth to bite down on the deeper aspects of depression nor does it develop the relationship between the characters much beyond surface-level. Early on, it appears like When Marnie Was Here may try and say something new or profound about depression, but it doesn’t, really. Instead, it feels more classical and superficial, amounting to, more or less, what you think it will. It’s the classic “Sad Girl goes to Distant Family and discovers new lease on life” trope, and even Studio Ghibli knows it’s so old hat they don’t even bother to expand on it. Okay, maybe it isn’t exactly what you’d think, but, thematically, at least, the beats are all to a very familiar tune, offering a straightforward, simple fantasy film.

When Marnie Was There was alright. It isn’t the most enthusiastic review to write about my first foray into Studio Ghibli films (or Japanese animation), but it isn’t a negative review either, by any stretch. The animation is attractive, the voice-acting was on-point, and the storyline itself is decent. It may not set the world ablaze, but it is a nice, easygoing film. As a romance, it’s a nice coming-of-age queer classic – if you turn it off about three quarters the way through.

rating_3

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e8/Glorious_%28film%29.jpg/220px-Glorious_%28film%29.jpg
Glorious

In 2014, I often frequented a video rental store called Family Video. A lot of you may not have heard of it, but it was a chain of stores throughout the Midwest, like Wisconsin or Illinois where I reside. The newest season of Stranger Things actually featured the video store as one of its settings, much to my amusement. Most Family Videos’ have since closed-down, with ours closing down midway through the Covid-19 shutdown. It was a sad moment, in part because my hometown has lost establishments left and right in recent years, but also because it was a significant part of my childhood.

I’ll miss seeing those sun-damaged DVD cases and circling the store over and over, in search of something I haven’t seen yet. One such film I discovered was a film called .found, directed by Scott Schirmer, who I interviewed six years later on the Nightmare Shift website. It was an interesting film, rough-around-the-edges, but with enough interesting ideas to outweigh any faults it may have had. The writer of this story was a man named Todd Rigney, a person I’ve since become well-acquainted with.

I’ve talked about it briefly on the Nightmare Shift Podcast, but I am a writer and a lot of what I write is horror stories (along with fantasy and crime/mystery). He and I bonded over our shared passion, and, this month, Todd and I collaborated to release Readers Digested, Vol. 1, available on Amazon for Kindle and Paperback, as well as on Mishmashers.com. Not only him, a lot of writers like my brother Scott Moore, Bradley Walker, Matt Schorr, Ashley Grant, and Tim Babbitt also participated. We’re very proud of it, and I hope if you can spare a minute, you might consider checking it out. Our hope to release a new installment annually for the Halloween season.

Todd has always been a very nice guy in my experience, and so, I was excited when I found out another one of his short stories was being adapted into a film. I was even more head-over-heels when I found out the film would be a Shudder Exclusive starring Ryan Kwanten and J.K. Simmons. From what he told me, the short story was optioned years and years ago, and sat, untouched, until, one day, out-of-the-blue, he was told of Simmons’ involvement, then came non-disclosure agreements, etcetera, etcetera.

Directed by Rebekah McKendry in her feature length debut, (her lone credit is for a short segment included in the well-received Tales of Halloween anthology, Glorious is an oddball film. Adapted to film by Rigney, Joshua Hull, and David Ian McKendry, I’d have it no other way. Whether you’ve seen .found, or you’ve read the stories by Rigney, like what’s in Readers Digested, Vol. 1, for instance, he brings the type of story that makes you tilt your head and look on in confusion – and I mean that in the best of ways.

Of course, in general, I am always excited to find out about a colleagues’ newfound successes, whether it be in success found from a newly released novel, or something as special as ones’ novel being adapted into film – I will admit I am always a little leery talking about them. A small voice in the back of my head whispers the phrase, “what if it sucks”. Even if a film isn’t outright bad, there is also the chance it may not agree with me, personally. It can be awkward to write and talk about, and, in general, I try to be sensitive about what I say on my own behalf. It is why I adopted the theology when writing reviews that I only write what I would say to the ones who made it. A simple philosophy of – say what you got to say but don’t be a dick about it.

Thankfully, Glorious is a pretty decent film.

The feature runs at around eighty minutes and has a goofy, ridiculous premise to marvel at. Glorious’ story centers around a man named Wes who is suffering major symptoms of a hangover – vomiting, vomiting, and more vomiting. He seeks refuge in a public restroom and but is surprised to discover he is by himself. A voice speaks to him from the stall next door, with only what can be seen through a gloryhole lent to him. The voice belongs to a strange creature that asks for his aid, embarking him on a maddening, surrealist trip like none before it.

The film’s cinematography is vibrant, using an array of purple’s in-order to accomplish that H.P. Lovecraft style aesthetic, whereas its production-value is well contained by its own restraint. Whereas it could have gone completely balls-to-the-wall with its depiction of the creature, it went for a less is more approach, only depicting the creature in the shadows or at a distance. Thus, the film isn’t exactly as gooey or slimy as the Stuart Gordon film From Beyond, however, it also doesn’t have the cheaply made look of something like The Resonator: Miskatonic U. It is a choice I think is likely for the best as I assume it didn’t have too large of a budget, especially after J.K. Simmons was paid.

The acting is solid across the board, although the whole film largely hinges on only two performances – Simmons and Kwanten’s performances.

Glorious doesn’t try to be anything too audacious in what it is beyond its central premise.

I’m not chastising that; I’m merely suggesting its scope is relatively small. It consists of a couple characters, mostly a single location, and mostly conversation.

That in mind, it does keep you engaged. J.K. Simmons’ omniscient voice is cool, calming, yet commanding, and his straight man approach brings some of the films’ most funny moments. They’re funny moments too, I should add. Although the film’s premise is certainly campy, I found the times it actually made me laugh weren’t the reasons I would laugh from a film like Gingerdead Man or Sharknado, this is a film that doesn’t blink with its subject-matter which I appreciate.

It is a film about a godly creature in a bathroom stall that threatens to destroy the world and it plays it straight on that.

The worst that can be said about the film, other than that it didn’t have the production budget to go completely wild, is that I feel like it maybe doesn’t have enough ideas to justify itself as a feature length film. I’d compare it to something like Benson and Moorhead’s film Resolution, which mostly runs in a single location and features an unseen force as well. The difference is that that film leaned more heavily into its characters and their relationship to carry the runtime. This film does that as well, looking into the human character Wes, his backstory and who he is as a person, but even with everything that happened, I couldn’t escape the feeling this could’ve been a more neat and tidy short film, running about half an hour in an anthology.

When Glorious is good, I really like it, but sometimes, too, I feel like there are things that happen that feel like they only happen to justify a feature length.

It is worth mentioning that the film itself is based on a short story called Old Glory and, although I haven’t read it, I wouldn’t be surprised to find it likely works better as a short story.

All in all, I liked Glorious as a film. It was a fun diversion and a nice addition to the Shudder streaming services’ catalogue. It does suffer from some limitations brought on by the budget, and I do feel like it would have been better suited for a short film packaged inside an anthology film (this would be a great story for a Mortuary Collection style film), but it’s still an entertaining, unique flick I’d recommend.
rating_3

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b2/Final_Destination_3.jpg
Final Destination 3

In some ways, the Final Destination series can feel like a little bit of a fever dream. It almost doesn’t feel like they even happened at all, really. This held opinion can be attributed to a number of different explanations.

First and foremost, it isn’t exactly like Final Destination itself is a memorable franchise in and of itself. For certain, Final Destination decides props for making everyone uncomfortable every time we drive behind a truck loaded with a bunch of logs, but as far as performances are concerned and the characters, Final Destination is a bit of a lightweight.

It feels like the relic of a bygone era, with a playfulness reminiscent of eighties slasher flicks, and yet, at the same time, feels very much like a product of the 2000s. The 2000s? When I think about mainstream horror franchises that broke out in the turn of the millennium, all my mind ever thinks about is the Saw films. You had Rob Zombie‘s Halloween and a slew of other slasher remakes as well, and, in late 2007, we were introduced to Paranormal Activity, but as far as big time horror that rocked through most of the decade – it’s gotta be Saw. However, Final Destination had four films that decade (five in total), and they all did well at the box office, with the fifth film out-grossing any of the Saw films.

But, at the same time, that is part of Final Destination’s allure, isn’t it? It is the definition of fun horror, filled to the brim with stupid fun Rube Goldberg – like occurrences, happening from a force of nature comparable to Death himself. Although having a faceless antagonist likely hurt Final Destination’s merchandise sales, it was a genuinely neat and different way to go about it, and I appreciate that.

Final Destination 3, as you’d assume, is the third installment in the series. It may seem obvious and redundant to mention, but I am prepping you for the fourth.

I am reviewing the series out of order as you can tell (so, don’t worry if you can’t find a review of the original or second film just yet), simply because when I re-watched them, I never wrote my review and too much time has went by for them to be fresh in my mind.

The film was directed by James Wong, who also directed the original film. Since this film, Wong’s feature film career has largely went out with a whimper (last directed Dragonball Evolution), however, his writing can also be seen in successful series’ like American Horror Story and The X-Files.

The film stars the wonderful Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Ryan Merriman, who worked together previously in The Ring Two.

Similar to previous Final Destinations, 3 is about a character’s premonition of their death, that character intervening, saving themselves and others, and then, the ramifications of that. Basically, it is the idea that Death has a set path in place for everyone, and that by breaking from its set path, Death restarts the cycle and tries to remedy the mistake. This can mean anything from falling into a manhole, or something much more elaborate – Death loves Mouse Trap or setting up dominoes to watch them fall down.

It is a very straightforward, simple film, but I found it actually very watchable. It does, for better and for worse, call back to eighties horror cinema, with a junk food style horror that is a lot of fun.

Some aspects I could’ve done without, like the sleazy, horny man who constantly harasses women, and that general odor that sometimes radiates throughout the film. At the same time, I do appreciate that the film understands that it is bad behavior and that the audience sees it as bad behavior, wanting you to root for that character’s demise. It is one more way Final Destination plays into so many old-school slasher tropes.

The cast and characters are decent, if, still, nothing to write home about. Mary Elizabeth Winstead does a lot of the heavy lifting in the film, in terms of performance. The film is mostly about the concept, not about the characters, so it isn’t at all like she is in a position to deliver an Oscar-worthy performance, but she does well. For these B-movie horrors, the most you can ask for is that they find a leading lady or man, and have that actor be likable enough. Winstead is likable and does actively succeed at bringing a little bit of notability to her performance.

Final Destination 3 received mixed-to-negative reviews from critics when it was released.

As far as receptions are concerned, that’s par for the course for Final Destination in-general. Truth is, it also makes a lot of sense and I can’t really chalk it up to pretentious, pompous film critics becoming too riled up about a stupid fun film. If you pick it apart, you’ll ruin it, like most popcorn flicks. It is guilty of using a lot of the same ingredients I’ve certainly bashed before in other horrors.

All the same, I unabashedly liked Final Destination 3. The death scenes are fun and creative, and although the characters can vary (we have a Mean Girl style duo and a sleazy pervert, for instance), everything is kept afloat by Winstead, and Ryan Merriman, for that matter.

It is a decent supernatural horror film and a fun feather in the cap of everyone involved.

rating_3

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e5/Knock_at_the_cabin.jpg
Knock at the Cabin
I will be honest – Knock at the Cabin wasn’t on my radar at all. Ever since the Covid-19 outbreak, I have had to be a lot more selective with my moviegoing (because my nearest theater closed down and now my commute to the nearest plaza has doubled). For that reason, and because I am busier, often whatever film I watch has to clear a certain threshold of anticipation. Knock at the Cabin wouldn’t clear that threshold. Instead, I left my house to watch Infinity Pool, the new film from Brandon Cronenberg. That didn’t happen, and for that reason alone, I watched Knock at the Cabin and am now telling you about that (groundbreaking, I know).

I didn’t know anything about the film. I am not even certain I had watched a single trailer for it. All I knew was that Dave Bautista was in it and M. Night Shyamalan was at the helm. Sometimes that is all you need. I fully endorse watching movies as blind as you possibly can, especially because how often advertisements and promotional material will overexpose scenes and even outright spoil moments best experienced in the context of the film.

As a director, I have a mixed reaction to M. Night Shyamalan overall. Like many of you, I enjoyed his earlier films like Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, and was deterred by his later films like The Last Airbender and The Happening, which I carry a strong dislike for. In 2015, after a string of films I had no particular interest in, the director had a return-to-form of sorts with The Visit.

The film was rough-around-the-edges, but it had a unique premise and was able to keep me modestly invested. I have watched a lot of bad films and a lot of good films, and for me, The Visit landed at the exact cutoff point of falling from decent to below average overall. That is, for the most part, a fair microcosm of how I see the average M. Night Shyamalan film.

After The Visit, he directed Split, which was an above-average film, and Glass, which was a step-down, but I still enjoyed.

Like The Visit, Old was a film with a unique premise and was able to keep me modestly invested, in spite ultimately never reaching the potential I thought it had.

The reason I have broken all of this down is because it adequately describes my thoughts on M. Night Shyamalan.

Lately, M. Night Shyamalan rarely misses at all. However, he almost misses every time.

In Knock at the Cabin, a married couple and their adopted daughter are paid visit by four unexpected visitors claiming they are there to stop the end of the world.

That’s about all I want to tell you about it. This isn’t because underneath the surface of Knock at the Cabin is some deep, complex payoff you can’t afford to spoil for yourself, but I believe M. Night very much subscribes to the J.J. Abrams mystery box style of filmmaking, so to speak. Once you know what is inside of it, like a car off the lot, the film immediately loses a little bit of its value to you.

The cinematography is decent, if at times, a little jarring to watch, owed to some of the stylistic choices implanted, but, for the most part, is largely unnoteworthy. Nowadays, the cinematography in a M. Night film is straightforward – not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that. He is more high-concept and situational than stylistic, and in its own way, most M. Night films do feel distinctly like he did them.

The dialogue is a weak point. Often, M. Night movies have a habit of taking good actors and making them slum it – like with Old, which sees actors I’d seen in great films like Jo Jo Rabbit and Hereditary years prior, ham it up to admittedly hilarious effect. This film isn’t as blatant as that, but it remains an M. Night Shyamalan film. Dave Bautista steals the show in the film with a performance that shows he is currently, miles away, the best professional wrestler turned actor ever (as prestigious as that is). He comes off disarming and more than a little weird. There are other talented actors involved in this film as well, including Jonathan Groff from Mind Hunter fame, and they’re largely undeterred by him, however. Unfortunately, M. Night has never been the best at directing children or writing their dialogue, which I believe shows through in Cabin.

The story is the meat of Knock at the Cabin, and is, unfortunately, very humdrum and ordinary. Although it is a silly expression, the best way I can describe A Knock at the Cabin is to call it one great big nothing-burger of a film. The apocalyptic themes are been there, done that, and have little new to say at all. There simply isn’t much to this film. It unfolds, and that’s that. Everything plays out in the most paint-by-the-numbers way imaginable.

A Knock at the Cabin keeps itself from a negative critical rating on the basis that it doesn’t shoot very high at all. It’s an ordinary, plain film, and that might be worse than if it were a miss.

rating_2

[chawhee]

Looking forward to reading! I am agreeable with about everything you said regarding Knock at the Cabin. Very plain indeed.

[Yoda]

I’ll miss seeing those sun-damaged DVD cases
Not the most substantive comment on my part, but I just wanted to say I really enjoyed this line. Nice little bit of hypercompact nostalgia that conveys a lot in very few words.

[McConnaughay]

Not the most substantive comment on my part, but I just wanted to say I really enjoyed this line. Nice little bit of hypercompact nostalgia that conveys a lot in very few words.
I don't know you're from, and whether or not you had a Family Video, a Blockbuster, or anything else like that, ... but why didn't they put curtains up!? Or, ... or I don't know ... position the shelves away from the sun!?

This is also a little nugget, but my rental store Family Video was literally a baseball throw away from another, smaller rental store called Video Time. Something I always thought was unique about them is they didn't have the discs or even the cases on shelves, instead it was like they took the box art out from the disc sleeve and punched small holes in them and put them on little peg hooks, when you were ready for checkout you'd bring that crude little piece of paper to the counter.

[Yoda]

I don't know you're from, and whether or not you had a Family Video, a Blockbuster, or anything else like that, ... but why didn't they put curtains up!? Or, ... or I don't know ... position the shelves away from the sun!?
Blockbuster and Hollywood Video, mostly. The only thing that stopped the line from being perfect for me is that I'm in my late 30s, so it was more VHS than DVD. And yeah, it always bugged me, too!

This is also a little nugget, but my rental store Family Video was literally a baseball throw away from another, smaller rental store called Video Time. Something I always thought was unique about them is they didn't have the discs or even the cases on shelves, instead it was like they took the box art out from the disc sleeve and punched small holes in them and put them on little peg hooks, when you were ready for checkout you'd bring that crude little piece of paper to the counter.
This is nice. I love hearing weird little memories and details like this. Very evocative, for some reason.

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7d/House_of_1000_Corpses_poster.JPG/220px-House_of_1000_Corpses_poster.JPG
House of 1,000 Corpses
Review originally written in 2019
Although I’ve written a lot of reviews over the span of the last five years, many films fall beneath the cracks and don’t receive my acknowledgment. This isn’t so much about them getting the shaft as it is several different things. Sometimes I watch a lot of films and, because of that, I fail at imparting my opinion before said film falls so deep in the backlog, I couldn’t imagine trying to share my thoughts on it so far after I last watched it. Recently, I’m begun preparation for several novel releases (I intend to publish six novels in 2020, for instance), and that has left a lot of films ignored.

I re-watched House of 1,000 Corpses recently and with the eventual release of “Three From Hell”, I’ve decided it is as right a time as ever to crack my knuckles and share my thoughts. There has always been a lot of naysayers when it comes to Rob Zombie and his work in the film-industry. Personally, I always stood in vague support of Rob Zombie, particularly his film The Devil’s Rejects, and even if they had their issues, I enjoyed a lot of the ideas had in his Halloween reboot series, particularly Halloween II, which I found messily intriguing, a theme for many of Zombie’s films. Does Rob Zombie’s debut directorial effort speak well of the career soon to come? Here are my thoughts …

When I was younger, I first saw “Corpses” without even knowing who directed the film or who Rob Zombie was. All I remembered about the film was a scene involving Dwight Shrute being turned into a mermaid (I didn’t know who Raine Wilson was back then either), which was the stuff of nightmares in my youth. In the film, two young couples are traveling across the backwoods of Texas in search for urban legends of murder. An appropriate description of what happens next would be a direct line from the film, “The boogeyman is real, and you’ve found him.”

If you’ve watched Rob Zombie films before, you’re likely to recognize many of the actors featured in the film. There’s his wife Sherri Moon Zombie, the clown-faced Sid Haig, and Bill Moseley, for instance.

House of 1,000 Corpses hails some of Rob Zombie’s signature quirks and many of critics’ most vocal criticisms. The film is comprised of very unlikable characters and excess. Regardless, something positive I can say about the film is that it’s visually on-point and is brimming with interesting, unique ideas. Where it circles back to though, is that, while it shows a lot of ideas, it tries to wedge too many of them into the film.

The film carries a fever-dream method of storytelling that finds it strangely alluring, even in its most nonsensical shots. Corpses could have been amounted to a tauter, more cohesive film had its ideas been delivered in a more disciplined, mature light. Perhaps the fault is ambition and excitement, but as interesting as some of the ideas were, many were given too little chance to breathe. Characters like Dr. Satan carried presence and mystique, but the way they’re presented feels so disheveled and unkempt I feel like they aren’t allowed to spread their wings, so to speak.

House of 1,000 Corpses expresses Rob’s love for the macabre, as well as his many influences, whether it be Hammer or old-school Universal Monster movies, or the clear inspiration taken from Tobe Hooper’s Texas Chainsaw Massacre and its sequel. Something that occurred to me while watching for this review is how much Otis’ character reminds me of “Chop Top” from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (which I hadn’t seen when I first watched Corpses), only to discover he’s even played by the same actor. As much as I can appreciate and respect how passionate he is about these, I can’t help but feel the countless scenes dedicated to them and all the clear influences, ultimately take away time that could have further fleshed out the characters and discredit the film’s individuality.

Some things I want to single-out about the film are the score and makeup-effects, which I thoroughly enjoyed. Certain scenes standout in how they show Rob Zombie’s potential, I believe: one in-particular sees a policeman murdered as “I Remember You” by Slim Whitman plays in the background. The hanging shot before the handgun goes off is, I think, an appropriate way to describe some of what I felt of this film. I can see where his mind is at, he has an idea for what he wants to do, but he doesn’t yet have the technique or concision to bring the most out of his ideas; he doesn’t know when to pull the trigger or kill a scene. House of 1,000 Corpses isn’t the worst debut film from a director by any stretch. It’s wonderful to see how enthused every scene feels and if you approach it with that learning curve, you’ll find a lot of gems hidden in the rubble. It remains, however, that the film is faulted by bad dialogue and frivolous scenes that feel at war with one another, never truly committed to a final product.

rating_2

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/Avengers_Endgame_poster.jpg
Avengers: Endgame

Avengers: Endgame follows the course set after Infinity Wars, which saw Thanos use the Infinity Gauntlet to end half of all living life-forms in the universe. This leaves the original Avengers cast, alongside other surviving characters like Rocket as the only heroes left to try and bring things back to the way they were. It isn’t an overnight endeavor, however. It takes five-years before Antman can escape from the Quantum Realm and offer a sliver of hope for them, wondering if they might be able to manipulate the realm in some way to set things back to how they were. As you’d expect, Endgame caps off a lot of what proceeding films built toward, but it also acts as a celebration of all the films that came before it.

This film is different from Avengers and Avengers: Age of Ultron, Endgame feels heavily indebted to the events of Infinity War, feeling more like a second and final increment in one over-arching storyline. This shouldn’t bother anyone who has been along for the ride so far, but casual moviegoers will find Endgame is not a casual-viewing popcorn film. Most of the actors feel like they’ve lived their characters, a benefit reserved mostly for television series’, now given to a lot of the Marvel cast. Robert Downey Jr.’s namesake dissipates in-favor of Iron Man and the same can be said for Chris Evans with Captain America, and they remain up to the task.

Some moviegoers were concerned about the three-hour runtime for the film, but I can’t say I ever had that fear. This is different from a solo superhero film where a lot will hinge on one or two key characters to carry the film from start to conclusion. Endgame has an abundant cast, and that helps keep things from becoming tiresome in its progression. This isn’t to say I don’t think Endgame could have and should have been shorter than what it was. Personally, although I wouldn’t say the first hour was bad, I found a couple of things I could have done without. This includes scenes involving a downtrodden Thor and a Hulk with a cheesier aesthetic than I would have liked. Like I said, none of it is stab out my eyes bad, but it does feel like a scene or two could have been left on the cutting-room floor for a tauter more cohesive final cut.

The Russo directors have been a godsend to the Marvel Cinematic Universe since Winter Soldier, producing the best films of the series, but I didn’t think it had the same Midas touch early on. Most of the jokes during this didn’t land with me, and maybe that’s in-part because it wasn’t what I wanted out-of-the-gate. Nevertheless, as how I began, it feels like the whole film really blew by. Even films I’ve thoroughly enjoyed like War for the Planet of the Apes, which only barely exceeds the two-hour mark, make me squirm around in my theater chair, trying and failing to find some level of comfort. That wasn’t how I felt during Endgame, and I think that’s a testament to how watchable most Marvel films are, despite the criticisms we may have of them.

Thereafter, however, is very entertaining and more focused, in my opinion. It feels very akin to Avengers: Infinity War, but something I think benefits this film is that it has less characters to juggle. This allows it to focus on unique character plights and have self-contained subplots with substance beyond the grandiose spectacle. As has been the case with most of the series, Captain America and Iron Man receive the bulk of the attention. This film highlights their growth as characters and the relationships they’ve built with other characters in the Universe. Although it isn’t written-in-stone per se that certain characters may not show up again. Most of us thought of this as the blow-off for more-or-less every character who was around early-on. This film allows a lot of its characters a suitable, satiable sendoff, and really does feel like a nice way for them to bid adieu to the series. The final hour of the film in-particular is the most emotionally substantive for the whole brand, and it doesn’t feel unearned or unwarranted, but like a seamless, natural progression.

The action-scenes and special-effects are very good, which has been usual for the series. I had some comments at the dismay of Hulk, but, otherwise, the film looks nice and about what we’ve come to expect from the series. Perhaps saying so little about them discredits how much merit and worth they have to the series. It’s all very state-of-the-art and expensive, and it is a testament to how far we’ve come digitally. Characters like Thanos are given enough time and attention in how they’re presented (lighting, etc.) that they feel like actual characters and never like props. The fighting remains fun and high scale, which is what we’ve also come to expect. Personally, I prefer the personal choreographed fare as seen in Winter Soldier and Marvel’s Daredevil series, which we receive some of, but it’s mostly about that controlled chaos in this film, like Infinity War.

​ Endgame will stand as a benchmark for the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This isn’t because it’s the best the series has to offer (for example, I did prefer Captain America: Civil War and Avengers: Infinity War as far as large-ensemble films are concerned), but because it concludes the Infinity Saga and does so very well. It has some of the most substantive scenes in the Marvel Universe and it makes for a very good film. Some might discredit superhero films, and sometimes, that might be justified, but the way Marvel has juggled its characters and spun such an interesting web is truly unprecedented and miraculous. I think sometimes it’s easy to take what Marvel has done for granted. Sometimes when I look at the first novel I ever wrote, I can’t help but cringe because of some of the decisions I made or didn’t make. I feel I’ve improved so much that it has become as evident as the difference between night-and-day. In a lot of ways, the same thing can be said about what Marvel has accomplished. They’ve developed such a strong understanding of what they want to accomplish and what their audiences want to see. If, in ten years, I cringe at my fifth book, I can’t imagine the great state the Marvel Cinematic Universe will be in.

rating_4

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9e/Unbreakableposterwillis.jpg
Unbreakable

M. Night Shyamalan is a polarizing director, oftentimes burdened by his breakout success with The Sixth Sense, a film nominated for six Academy Awards and for grossing well-over half a billion-dollars at the worldwide box office. The director is also infamous for his “twist endings,” which have garnered him scrutiny over the years. Personally, the director’s a mixed-bag in my opinion, which is something I think makes him curious to critics and moviegoers alike. Someone who can make something as competent and efficient as The Sixth Sense, then make a film as awful as The Last Airbender or The Happening, is a unique spectacle. If nothing else, his willingness to go out on a limb, writing and directing his films, many of which are based on his own original concepts, shows a creator who’s willing to reap the benefits of his success and is willing to accept the consequences if a project goes belly-up. The film Unbreakable has the misfortune of following The Sixth Sense and the heightened expectations that came with it. Does the superhero thriller rise to the occasion, or is it an unfortunate “X” on the director’s resume? Here are my thoughts ...

Unbreakable features a cast that includes Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson, alongside a supporting cast of actors like Robin Writer, Spencer Treat Clark, and Charlayne Woodard. The film starts by introducing us to Elijah Price, a man who has Type 1 osteogenesis impefecta. This condition causes bones to be fragile and more delicate, which results in them being more susceptible to breaks. Elijah has a milder form of the condition, but certainly finds himself on the receiving end of more than a few injuries, so much so that he was called Mr. Glass as a child. On the other-side of the spectrum, a man named David Dunn manages to survive a train-wreck. Accompanying him on the train were one-hundred and thirty-one other passengers, all of which died as a result of the accident. David, however, was able to survive without attaining a single scratch. This spectacular event makes David wonder about himself, and with some nudging by Elijah Price, he starts to wonder if maybe there’s something he doesn’t know about himself. Quentin Taratino appropriately described Unbreakable as a film about a Superman that doesn’t know he’s Superman.

When I read about the criticisms M. Night Shyamalan had in-regards to how the film was marketed, I couldn’t help but think contrary to his belief. He criticized how the film was marketed as a thriller akin to Sixth Sense, when he feels it should have been marketed as a straight-up comic book film. To me, this shows a dissonance between what I perceived and what M. Night evidently intended. This film feels as though it clutches the Superman mythos and re-works them into a psychological thriller. For the most part, Unbreakable feels like a very small, personal affair with Elijah Price and David Dunn both searching for a sense of purpose and identity. Elijah feels weak and brittle, whereas David feels he should be doing something more. The film is slow-burn and careful.

This is something that isn’t for everyone, but, at a time when superhero films feel so abundant, I can’t help but appreciate Unbreakable for trying to create something self-contained and not for what will come after. Similar to how The Dark Knight applied elements of a crime-drama and blended it with the superhero genre, I feel Unbreakable does something similar as a superhero-thriller, a hodgepodge approach I’d like to see pursued more often. The cinematography by Eduardo Serra and the music by James Newton Howard all help this feel like a film with a vision and high-production. I love the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and often, I am happy with what I receive from them, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t without their faults. Something I think Unbreakable does, and it’s a testament to M. Night Shyamalan and how capable he really is, is how well-shot it is and how thematic it seems. It is grounded, but in a way that feels deserved and not like a forced marketing-decision. It feels like it has something on its mind.

Bruce Willis’ performance can best be described as understated, which is something I heard praised about him in this film. Personally, although I don’t think it was too detrimental overall, I can’t help but escape the sentiment that he seemed a little too humdrum in certain scenes. Meanwhile, Samuel L. Jackson, on the other-hand, can go the distance with his performance, sounding expired and articulate one minute and utterly delusional the next, spouting theories about superheroes and the secret truth buried inside comic-books.

Some comparisons made to The Sixth Sense were bound to arise, and they have, with a lot of conversation about the film’s ending and the “twists and turns” it has. In my opinion, I didn’t really think of Unbreakable as having a twist. This is both a defense against a criticism and the birth of a new one, I’m afraid. At no point did I have any doubts about the relationship between the characters, with it seeming like a very natural and easy-to-follow progression. This still makes Unbreakable’s pay-off a little underwhelming, in-retrospect.
It makes sense from a narrative-perspective, but it certainly doesn’t pack a wallop, instead, once again, it feels like the clearest line of trajectory. It isn’t a swerve, it’s a film that stayed its course.

I think the best word I could use to describe Unbreakable is solid. Unbreakable is brimming with style and technique, and although it may not stand to answer the ambitious questions it asks itself and its audience, it makes for a good film. Perhaps some of its ideas could have been fine-tuned or tightened, and perhaps more scenes could have ended on the chopping-room floor in-favor of something better, but I think it makes for a good film.

3.5

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/GeraldsGameFilm.jpg
Gerald's Game

Stephen King is a writer I have a lot of admiration for. As a devout horror fan and horror-writer myself, I have a certain respect for any writer who shares that infatuation. In King’s case, I also respect him for ambition, range, and talent. Certain “academics” might chastise him, comparing him negatively to other mainstream writers, but I am happy to call myself a fan, with The Green Mile (a non-horror, who’d have thought?) serving as my personal favorite. Obviously, with successful books comes the intent for successful movies, and with the IT film grossing over seven-hundred million dollars, I would suspect King adaptations will continue to be all the rage (in-fact, in the time it took me to write this, a Children of the Corn trilogy has been released, they’ve remade Carrie again, and a Sleeping Beauties film has been greenlit). Although I’m sure some anticipated it more, for me, Gerald’s Game came out of nowhere. Arriving on the Netflix streaming service, Gerald’s Game brings director Mike Flanagan back to the platform. He’s a talented genre director. Oculus was decent, Hush was decent, Ouija: Origin of Evil was decent, and … Before I Wake was … well, three is enough. Does Gerald’s Game amount to another solid outing, how does it stack with other King adaptations, does it flounder in my Search for the Best Horror film or does it flourish? Here are my thoughts …

In a catalogue comprised of crazed clown entities and telekinetic teenagers, Gerald’s Game offers a simpler, more straightforward story to follow. A husband and wife arrive at an isolated lake-house, hoping that by changing the scenery and trying new things in the bedroom, they will breathe air into their dissipating love-life. Nothing too out of the ordinary, until the husband Gerald, played by Bruce Greenwood, decides to succumb his wife Jessie, played by Carla Gugino, to his rape fantasy, which involves handcuffing her to the bed. Understandably, Jessie isn’t completely on-board with joining Gerald on the sexual escapade and demands she be uncuffed from the bed. Gerald doesn’t comply and it’s left ambiguous whether he would have freed her, suffering a heart-attack and falls on the floor. This leaves Jessie handcuffed to the bed; trapped.

Smack-dab in the middle of nowhere, she isn’t left with many solutions to her predicament. Her screams for help fall on deaf-ears and the bed-posts are too sturdy and solid to break. Trapped on the bed, Jessie reflects on life (repressed childhood trauma and her marriage) and does whatever she can to survive, using her limited environment to stall her impending death, be it from starvation, fear, or something worse. Gerald’s Game finds a lot of mileage in its minimalist approach.

In-fact, such praise is an understatement to what the film is truly able to accomplish, finding a level of significant on such a low-scale that higher-caliber horror fare never even provide a whiff of. Carla Gugino is an actress I’ve seen a lot of over the years. I’ve always liked her to an extent, but from what I’d seen of her, I’ve never seen her given anything substantive to sink her teeth into. I’ve seen her into Robert Rodriguez’s Spy Kids and Sin City, but until Gerald’s Game, I don’t think I ever truly appreciated how talented and capable she is. Her committed performance is a central-key to what allows Gerald’s Game to succeed the way it does, tackling contrasting emotions ranging from declarative frustration and cynicism to emotional vulnerability and grief. Backed, as well, by the commendable performance of Bruce Greenwood, who brings the layered character of Gerald to life, relaying a character with qualities worthy of disdain and affection, particularly when projected from Jessie’s psyche.

This isn’t only one for the career highlight reel of Gugino, as director Mike Flanagan delivers his strongest feature film yet, providing a simple, but immensely effective execution. The cinematography and music also make commendable contributions, providing a hypnotic film that draws empathy and emotion from its audience. It’s attention-to-detail and the way it carries its run-time without lulling is a testament to everyone involved.

For me, I no longer look at horror as a vessel simply to instill fright. Most films don’t scare me, but, instead, I marvel at and appreciate their ideas and delivery. This film boasts ideas and delivery to spare, but it comes with an emotional-depth I believe accomplishes an attachment to the lead-protagonist and a sense of genuine dread for what awaits her. Her festering thoughts and emotions could have easily amounted to an archetype and a cliché, but with the writing and lead-actress rising to the occasion, it can express the very real horror of what can be tucked away in a person’s mind.

Gerald’s Game is not only a great horror film, but it’s a great film in-general, and is amongst the best Stephen King stories ever put to film, if not atop the list.

4.5

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/13/Toy_Story.jpg/220px-Toy_Story.jpg
Toy Story

In doing my “Search for the Best Animation and Best Animators,” I knew I would have to eventually dabble into the Toy Story franchise. In a weird way, talking about John Lasseter’s directorial debut feels overwhelming to me. I have reviewed over 200 films on Mishmashers and yet I’ve only talked about two Pixar animated films in the five years’ worth of reviews I’ve archived (those being Coco and Incredibles 2). And, as watchable as those films might have been, the amount of deeply embedded nostalgia I have with the Toy Story series is only rivaled by my infatuation with the horror series’ like A Nightmare on Elm Street I was brought up on. The difference between Toy Story and, say, A Nightmare on Elm Street, however, is in my expectations for it. Although I love the Elm Street series, I’ve never been coy about sharing my criticisms with it. I love it, but I know it isn’t without its mistakes, and sometimes there’s even a lot of them. Toy Story, on the other-hand, is simply one of the most beloved film series’ ever, and one that has had ever film receive critical-acclaim. This review commemorates the first time I’ve watched Toy Story from start to finish since the release of Toy Story 3, has the film aged like fine wine or like milk? Here are my thoughts…

Toy Story brings a robust cast of voice-actors including Tim Allen and Tom Hanks, and, features a screenplay written by Joss Whedon, Andrew Santon, Joel Cohen, and Alec Sokolow derived from a story by Lasseter, Stanton, Pete Doctor, and Joe Ranft, respectively. I don’t always run through all the names either, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t single out the music featured in the film by Randy Newman, which has stood the test of time as the distinct trademark sound of the series. The story is set in a world where toys come to life when humans are not present, except for when they are present. I’ll be the first to admit the Toy Story series is not very consistent with exactly how the rules work. Set inside the bedroom of a young-boy named Andy, lives Woody, a pull-string cowboy doll, Mr. Potato Head, Rex, Slinky, and many other toys. Everything is well and everything one gets along with one another for a smooth operation, all til Andy’s birthday arrives and Buzz Lightyear comes with it. An advanced astronaut figure with wings, lasers, and a glow-in-the-dark body, Buzz Lightyear is the coolest toy on the market. Unfortunately for him, however, Woody is the most insecure toy on the market. As Woody finds himself feeling no longer like Andy’s favorite, his anger gets the best of him and, because of it, Woody and Buzz are both lost from Andy’s bedroom. The film focuses, mostly, on them trying to find their way back and find some common-ground.

Something I was a little leery about with revisiting Toy Story was talking about the animation. If I think about the best-looking animations, I would think of either Pixar, or, maybe even, more specifically Toy Story itself. However, by Toy Story 3’s release, the first film was already fifteen years old, and by now, it’s been around for almost a quarter of a century. Toy Story is the first computer-animated feature-length film, and because of that fact alone, it is revolutionary. However, when talking about films the way I do, although I have a devout appreciation for the technical aspects and commend films that are ahead of their time, I know I must talk about how their aesthetic has aged after its release. To my surprise, I’ve found that unlike, Antz, Dreamworks’ first computer-animated film, which I felt hadn’t aged well and didn’t look very appeasing visually from the start, despite being an alright film, Toy Story still looks very good. If you put it up-front with its successors, you’ll certainly be able to see how much more detailed the sequels are and some character-models might occasionally look choppier than ideal, but I didn’t find it off-putting at all. Even if it may not look like the ground-breaking film it was any more, it didn’t damage my overall enjoyment. It’s a colorful, realized visual world that feels energetic, creative, and distinct.

The voice-action is performed admirably on all accounts, which is to be expected given the high-rate talent involved.

The storyline is multifaceted and easy to become invested it, with characters like Sid, the unsupervised child who blows up toys in his backyard, serving as a minor antagonist. In-retrospect, asides the fact that it’s dangerous for a child to play with explosives without knowing what they’re doing, what Sid’s doing isn’t hurting anyone. But, in this fantastical world where toys are anthropomorphized, he seems like the absolute scum of the Earth. It’s in this fantastical absurdity that the characters draw their emotional depth. Woody feeling threatened because Andy doesn’t want to play with him and Buzz more-or-less having an existential crisis when he discovers he’s a toy. A shot in the film exemplifies this, when Buzz tries and fails to fly, leaving the camera to gradually pull back, showing how small he is in the grander scheme of things. This is also complimented by Randy Newman’s singing in the background which directly correlates with the situation.

Meanwhile, Woody drew egotism while knowing what he was, staking claim as Andy’s favorite. Through this, and its witty sense-of-humor, which has more visual-gags than I ever noticed as a child, it’s able to juggle being substantial enough to appease adults and simple enough to entertain its more-central demographic.

The film is considered revolutionary for a reason, because it has thematic and cinematic depth that hadn’t been seen by an animated film on this level. It’s entertaining and fast-moving, with well-constructed characters and strong, inspired animation, alongside a thoughtful story, backed by talented people behind the scenes. When the short-film Tin Toy, the short-film of which Toy Story is based, drew attention, Walt Disney tried what they could to bring back the director. John Lasseter declined, showing his gratitude, but saying, “I can go to Disney and be a director, or I can stay here and make history.” I think that exemplifies the amount what type of effort and dedication went into this film. This great film...

4.5

[McConnaughay]

Ten added. If anyone's at all curious, there is about 300 left (I intend to keep it to about 15-20 a week, haha). :eek:

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ef/Antz-Poster.jpg/220px-Antz-Poster.jpg
Antz is an animated film in DreamWorks Pictures’ early catalog of films but have actively ignored all opportunities to watch. I was aware of the star-studded cast comprised of names like Christopher Walkin, Sylvester Stallone, Jennifer Lopez, Sharon Stone, and, of course, our morally ambiguous lead-voice Woody Allen. Dreamworks’ first animated film was directed by Eric Darnell and Tim Johnson. The film is notorious in some respects because its similarities with Pixar’s A Bug’s Life, and these similarities amounted to a public feud between Dreamworks and Disney as a result. Considering this film came out in 1998, I was oblivious to most of the actual conflict, because I was a toddler. However, even as a child, it was easy to find the parallels between each film. I loved A Bug’s Life as a kid, but I avoided Antz like the plague, a prejudice that has kept me from watching the film until now.

Although both films received very positive critical reception, A Bug’s Life hit far higher numbers at the worldwide box-office, whereas, Antz was, at best, a modest box-office success, depending on where the actual production budget lands, with estimates as low as forty-million and as high as one-hundred million, the discrepancy is very large. Looking back, now that I can say I’ve given it a chance, had I been mistreating Antz all these years? Here are my thoughts …

Clearing the air right off the bat, the reason I avoided Antz the way I did was because how cringey I found the animation to be. Animation entered an awkward period in the late-nineties, with Pixar and Dreamworks only now first dabbling with computer-animation. Obviously, the only reason Dreamworks is able to create gorgeous productions like the How To Train Your Dragons films is because of the risks and baby-steps they made in early-development, but that doesn’t change the fact that Antz looks like an animated film I’d come across and then ignore on YouTube.

This isn’t a completely fair statement, after watching the film. I think it summarizes certain shots in the film, particularly of the character models, but the film’s background and scenery can oftentimes look very nice, it’s simply when the ants come marching into the shot that it ruins things. Suffice to say, I thought the animation was bad in my youth, not having the timeless aesthetic of a 2-D animation production like Tarzan, not on-par with Pixar’s fare of that time, and I think its dated visuals have only worsened.

In Antz, the story follows a worker ant named Z who has become cynical about the tedium in his assigned tasks. Z meets ant-Princess Bala at a bar and is smitten with her, thereafter, convincing his friend Weaver to swap places with him so that Z can assume the role of an army ant and try and contact Princess Bala again. Instead, he finds himself accidentally kidnapping the Princess in search of a utopia that may or may not exist. Meanwhile, an evil General has intents to kill the entire worker population. The film focuses primarily on individualism and carries subject-matter with a darker tilt to it than conventional mainstream animation, along with humor and language that was surprisingly able to avoid a PG-13 rating from the Motion Picture Association of America.

Even if the film abides by conventional formula, I appreciated its willingness to incorporate darker elements into the formula. Regardless of what I’ve said about the animation, it’s worth acknowledging the voice-work and storyline making for an enjoyable film. The themes of individualism, the antagonists innate desire to massacre inferior beings, and its scenes depicting war are substantial, and even if it might not capitalize on the subject-matter fully, it does so with a competent and satiable tale of going against the grain and embarking on your own journey.

Antz is a solid debut effort for Dreamworks, and I commend them for their ambition both in pursuing themes unique for mainstream animation and their initial strides in computer-animation. It may not deserve to stand alongside the classics of the medium, but I was certainly wrong to have avoided it all these years.

3

[Thief]

Something I always thought was unique about them is they didn't have the discs or even the cases on shelves, instead it was like they took the box art out from the disc sleeve and punched small holes in them and put them on little peg hooks, when you were ready for checkout you'd bring that crude little piece of paper to the counter.

That's more or less how most mom-and-pop video rental stores worked back in the day; at least where I'm from. They put the empty boxes in the walls which you then brought to the counter for them to fish the actual tape for you. I suppose that just the box art slip or whatever helped them with space, I guess?

[McConnaughay]

That's more or less how most mom-and-pop video rental stores worked back in the day; at least where I'm from. They put the empty boxes in the walls which you then brought to the counter for them to fish the actual tape for you. I suppose that just the box art slip or whatever helped them with space, I guess?
Nay, nay.

You're right that most rental stores would put empty boxes on the walls. That's common. That's normal.

These were box art slips on little hooks (https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51oSOpB4o3L.jpg). I remember all the times I'd see little kids at rental stores, knocking things over (innocently, usually). Keep in mind, these weren't laminated sleeves or reinforced someway. It was like somebody just took a hole puncher to them. How many times you think a child, or a careless adult grabbed at one of those covers and tore it up? Just makes ya think.

I knew of another store that did something similar to that. They would have the box-art normal, and then, under it, they would have a little string tied in a knot, hanging from a hook. It'd have a number attached to it, and you'd take the string you brought up to the front counter at checkout.

At Family Video, they would have the DVD on a shelf, and then, behind that, they'd have a plastic silver case with the actual movie in it you brought to the front at checkout (it would have a lock of some kind that had to be taken off to prevent theft).

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fd/How_to_Train_Your_Dragon_3_poster.png
How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World

The How to Train Your Dragon series has been a beacon of light for Dreamworks Animation and has become one of my all-time favorite animated series’. In the early 2000s, Dreamworks Animation started the millennium my introducing us to Shrek, an enjoyable and creative animation that showed what Dreamworks was capable of with the right idea. I believe the 2004 sequel even improved on its predecessor, both in-terms of quality and definitely in-terms of box-office reception, grossing nearly a billion dollars. Unfortunately, the decade thereafter wasn’t as kind to the Shrek franchise, dulling the shine from Dreamworks’ most consistent money-maker. Shrek the Third and Shrek Forever After damaged the brand and the ogre has seemed reclused to his swamp since then, which might be for the best. Fortunately, the How to Train Your Dragon series has really taken the torch from Shrek in this decade, showing Dreamsworks operating at all cylinders. How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World marks the third and (allegedly) final installment in the near decade old series, and while I had no doubt that I would enjoy it on some level, I was a little leery on whether it would be able to provide a send-off as strong as its predecessors. Here are my thoughts …

Written and directed by Dean Deblois, the final installment in the Trilogy brings back the original cast of characters, including Jay Baruchel, America Ferrera, Cate Blanchett, Craig Fergus, and Kristen Wig, while introducing new characters like our antagonist, played by F. Murray Abraham. In a summarization of the essentials, How to Train Your Dragon 3 follows a year after the previous installment and focuses on Berk being challenged by their strongest opposition yet, one that wishes to capture and slay their dragons. This leaves Hiccup with no other choice than to search for a land called “The Hidden World,” yearning to find somewhere for the civilization of Berk to live in peace with their dragons. As well as this, Hiccup and Toothless discover a female Light Fury who Toothless swiftly establishes a bond with. A black cloud looms over much of the film, threatening to rain down the series’ end, which this film suggests is an inevitability.

Something I thought pertinent to say about this film and its relationship with other animated series’, is that it doesn’t feel like a rehash. Dean Deblois has stuck true to his intent at the series being comprised of three films and each one actively builds on the other in a way that feels organic and ambitious. Whereas other animated sequels can feel workman-like or, perhaps, like they’re forced to bend old ideas to make them resemble something unique, it feels real and necessary that How to Train your Dragon carried on to its third film. For instance, although I very much enjoyed The Lego Movie and I also enjoyed The Lego Movie 2, my night out at the theater always saw How to Train Your Dragon 3 as the main-course and Lego Movie 2 as the appetizer. Although that series is fun and energetic, “How To” simply hits harder and higher, accomplishing that little something special that only happens once in a great while. That “Harry Potter” or “Toy Story” sentiment where I’ve spent so long with these characters and it has elevated itself to an “epic-scale,” an “event film,” if you will.

“The Hidden World” turns on all cylinders, benefiting and fully capitalizing on the goodwill established by its predecessors. The visuals are the best they’ve ever been (an especially impressive feat when you consider how the production budget is more than thirty-million less than where we started) and the production-value on display with its attention to detail on lighting and music is slick and at a high-standard.

One thing I was trepidatious about was the inclusion of the Light Fury, which suggested a romantic subplot for Toothless. I wasn’t bothered by it for some of the reasons I’ve seen thrown around, which seem like they’re fishing for controversy where there isn’t. I was afraid that it would be a very conventional and simplified story-line about Toothless finding a female Light Fury and that it would be inconsequential. Suffice to say, I was fearful it was meant only as a way for Toothless to have something to do. However, what I found instead was the film deciding to use this sub-plot as a way to further develop the dynamic between Hiccup and Toothless, their relationship, and the overall tone of the film.

The story is aware of the journey its audience has taken with it and makes certain to deliver an emotional epic pay-off, carrying a grandiose spectacle at times that walks the fine-line of never forgetting the smallness and sincerity between the relationships it has cultivated. I’m always skeptical about “final” chapters and series cappers. At the end of the day, Dreamworks is a business and, artistic integrity be damned, they will decide whether it’s really the end. The same way Pixar decided to do Toy Story 4, regardless of the third film’s finality. However, as it stands, I really respect the film’s end and hope they hold true to it. I wouldn’t be against spin-offs or new characters, but I would love if they let the cards fall where they land on the current story-arc. If they did, How To Train Your Dragon would be able to do what Dreamworks didn’t let Shrek do as a series, and that is, to say goodbye and mean it, forever after.

Although the film is certainly amongst the high-ranking animations (its predecessors included) that transcend the conventions of what mainstream animation is, carrying substantial stakes and dramatics, while also combining humor and sentiment in a way that makes it an enjoyable experience for moviegoers of all age-groups. (even if I found the humor with the siblings more hit than miss)

How to Train Your Dragon 3: The Hidden World officials caps off the Trilogy on the high-note, amounting to what I always want from animation, but so rarely get. The film doesn’t coast off cheap gags and instead, respects its audience with a thrilling conclusion to a fantastic series of films. The film is brimming with production-value, some of the best animation on the market, and top-of-the-line voice-acting, especially from the main-cast. It's a great film and I highly recommend it.

4

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/78/Puss_in_Boots_The_Last_Wish_poster.jpg/220px-Puss_in_Boots_The_Last_Wish_poster.jpg
Puss in Boots: The Last Wish

If I am upright and honest about it, I had mostly moved on from Puss in Boots and the Shrek franchise altogether far before the original 2011 film arrived. Although 2001‘s Shrek was a breath of fresh air that helped DreamWorks Animation become one of the leading studios in animated cinema and 2004‘s Shrek 2 only improved on that, by 2007‘s Shrek the Third, I couldn’t help but feel like most of the air had been let out from the balloon. The series still had moments to entertain, but it felt like the foundation had settled. The same way I looked forward to and watched Fantastic Beasts because of how much I loved Harry Potter, I knew with Fantastic Beasts what I knew with the Shrek franchise – it had peaked, all I could expect now was safe and satiable celebrations of what had come before it (look at Pirates of the Caribbean for another example of series’ that kind of rest on their laurels).

As a spin-off prequel film, the 2011 film Puss in Boots was alright. I believe that is about the extent of what I’d say about it – maybe, even, very alright. I enjoy the Puss in Boots character enough and I like how it is basically a tongue-in-cheek extension to Antonio Banderas’ portrayal of Zorro. The animation is fun and the world itself has always been a sandbox for creative, goofy moments – I liked it, but I can’t say it left much of an impression on me looking back a decade after the fact.

This film though, man, Puss in Boots: The Last Wish, completely changed what I thought about the Shrek franchise’s future and, more so, Puss in Boots’ future as a character.

As you might surmise, Puss in Boots 2 is set after the events of the original film and after the events of the Shrek series (so, it isn’t a prequel series anymore, we’re all caught up), and follows Puss’ in the afterglow of an illustrious career and his many lifetime’s spent adventuring and exploring the world. This is not his choice, but because he has used up all but one of his nine lives and knows his next life lost will be his last. In spite his disdain for the mundane, Puss decides to hang up his cape and resign himself to a simpler life. That is, until he finds out about a magical Wishing Star that can undo it all and bring his lives back. The film sees Puss align himself with his former love interest Kitty Softpaws and new friend, a kind, but naïve therapy dog, as they try to reach the Wishing Star.

Of course, the film would not be complete without a villain or two who also wish to lay claim to the Star’s powers. For this, we have reimagined versions of “Big” Jack Horner and the Three Bears Crime Family (led by Goldilocks) with unique motives for why they want the wish.

Another antagonist in this film, and certainly, the most formidable, is the Wolf, a wolf in a black hooded cloak that serves as the embodiment of Death himself.

In the film, Puss in Boots is tasked, not only with the physical task of attaining The Wishing Star, but in a plight against himself, including his fears of death and of not being remembered.

What can I say about this film?

Like many of you, I had seen the reviews that had referred to Puss in Boots as DreamWorks’ answer to Logan, a peculiar comparison that I understood on a surface level, but didn’t know the specifics on yet. I understood the idea of why it would be the answer to Logan. Logan was a film about a superhero who was on his last legs and now, with adventure in his rearview, yearned for the deep personal connections that had always eluded him. That’s something we have seen long before Logan, but is also something that is very difficult to earn.

Nowadays, it is more popular than ever, which you better believe is why the same director who did Logan is helming the newest Indiana Jones film.

This film earns that. It endears you to a character you’ve always loved, but also elevates him and, thus, the film itself. The film is filled to the brim with the same type of humor we’ve come to expect from the Shrek series, but injects it with a newfound dramatic depth that hasn’t been captured in a DreamWorks film, perhaps ever (barring, maybe, the height of the How to Train Your Dragon series).

The way the film is shot, with a stylized storybook animation (shades of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse or DreamWorks’ more recent and solid caper film The Bad Guys), how it incorporates fear and intimidation, and the emotions Puss feels, is top-shelf.

I like DreamWorks, I think (I love How to Train Your Dragon).

When I watch The Croods, Trolls, and The Boss Baby, I can’t say I am incredibly impressed – but I am alright with them. I’m charmed by them in the same way I am charmed by any other average cartoon.

This though, this made me feel like how I did in the early 2000s when Pixar felt indestructible. Do this more.

The main cast of characters are endearing and easy to get behind. The film manages to overcome certain clichés in spite itself, like, for instance, the naïve dog character whose comic-relief existence feels like it has already existed in a million other films. You know the type, the laughy, goofy Dory or Donkey, or that one kid from Up – I’ll be honest, nowadays, I am tired of this character trope and it’s a turnoff. That in mind, I found myself so behind the characters in this film that I found myself rooting for them anyways.

The main-antagonist, which I’m saying is Death himself, is a very memorable and surprisingly intimidating presence throughout the film – I actually had goosebumps when I saw him and I believe history will smile down on him for years to come.

As a fan of animation, I loved Puss in Boots: The Last Wish. Although I feel like I am still coming down from the ‘high’ I felt from seeing the film and so, I can’t necessarily exclaim whether it is the best DreamWorks film ever made yet (for me, its only competition is the Dragons’ trilogy), it easily makes the shortlist. The film is smart, fun, and ambitious, with a small sprinkling of macabre, and that’s just about best case scenario for me.

4.5

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/52/Watcher_poster.jpeg/220px-Watcher_poster.jpeg
Watcher

I was excited to write about Watcher in spite of the fact I knew nothing about the film. This is for a few reasons.

I’m always interested in seeing the feature debut of a new director, this one being Chloe Okuno.

I’ve been wanting to see more from actress Maika Monroe. She had breakthrough success in the critically acclaimed film It Follows, and I’ve wanted to see more of her in the genre ever since (I will be writing about her film Significant Other as soon as I can).

Lastly, I’ve built a respect up for the Shudder brand, specifically the films it releases exclusively. Say what you will about the streaming service, but I, for one, consider it worth the price of admission. Whether it be Lucky, The Boy Behind the Door, Random Acts of Violence, or another film in their catalog, a lot of worthwhile horror has come from their niche service.

The film itself is relatively straightforward – our main protagonist Julia, played by Maika Monroe, has relocated to Romania with her husband and encounters the usual problems that can come from moving to a new country.

This is, perhaps, a small component of the film, but is actually important in setting the mood and atmosphere of the film, as well as understanding our lead character’s plight. She can’t speak the language and finds herself left alone while her husband works long hours at a time. It’s lonely and overwhelming, and can also make filling the hours of day to day life tedious and feed ones’ paranoia or insecurities.

Everything changes for her when she finds herself being watched out the window by a neighbor from across the street.

The film does about everything you would expect from such a premise, which makes for a familiar retread of other psychological thrillers we’ve seen. The usual red herrings of “Am I imagining it?” and no one believing you, for example. Watcher will no doubt have you thinking about Alfred Hitchcock‘s Rear Window, or any other film that sees a lead character looking out the window and finding something awful outside it. Unfortunately, as a result, it doesn’t leave room for a lot of excitement or surprises in the film.

On the bright side though, everything it does do, it does very well. Maika Monroe delivers a solid performance as a woman becoming unhinged by her own anxieties (again, in a largely unknown country, largely on her own), and Burn Gorman carries a quiet intensity as the type of man who would enjoy having that power over somebody.

The film does toy around with the idea of it all being in Julia’s head, although it isn’t ever enough to make that a believable truth.

The description on the subscription service itself says as much, that someone is in fact watching her from the window, in spite how no one else can ever spot him looking out. The only loose thread is whether or not that person is a serial killer who is mentioned as being at large – which the answer to anyone who has ever seen a movie before will be, “Yeah, probably.”

I believe this film would have benefited from keeping its cards closer to its chest early on. They even left little logical plot threads available for it. The antagonist explicitly says he takes care of his sick father, but this isn’t until much later in the film. Why couldn’t it have been suggested that the sick father was the one watching from across the room, perhaps in a wheelchair?

It would have made other moments more interesting, like when our character becomes so invested in her watcher that she begins following him and trying to find information about him. The idea that she was inadvertently becoming the watcher is an interesting idea left malnourished.

I will say that, despite itself, Watcher is an entertaining film I enjoyed watching from start to finish. Once you know the premise, it doesn’t subvert expectations in any way, but it does meet them. It doesn’t do anything outlandish that will have you scratching your head in confusion, and simply plays out well from beginning, middle, to end. It doesn’t have the charm and energy of other Rear Window inspired films like Disturbia, for example, but it does have a more atmospheric, dark style that help make it feel like the other side to the same coin.

I recommend Watcher as an alright psychological thriller and a nice feather in the cap of each person involved.

2.5

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Smile_%282022_film%29.jpg
Smile

I was excited about the film Smile, and I was excited to both watch and write about the film. I will admit, a lot of my anticipation had to do less with the film itself and more with the success it has received at the box office. Most of you don’t care about how much dough a film rakes in at the theater, and I respect that, but it does matter. It matters more than a statistic, as it can help us understand why some things are the way they are. It can explain why studios fixate on certain niche genres (Paranormal Activity brought a new craze in found footage horror and, now, the Halloween reboot has brought new life to the slasher genre) and it can tell you the likelihood of your favorite horror flick receiving a sequel.

Smile is a lot of fun to write about because it is a new film. It isn’t a sequel or a spin-off, or a remake, but a new intellectual property altogether. As much as I did enjoy the new Scream film and appreciated the attempts on Halloween Ends and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, I absolutely love that Smile is the highest grossing horror film for 2022 (second is Jordan Peele‘s original film Nope, third is Scott Derrickson‘s original film The Black Phone). That’s what we need to keep the genre moving forward.

Smile is a psychological / supernatural horror film directed by Parker Finn in his feature length directorial debut (his other prior effort Laura Hasn’t Slept was the base of this film). The film, roughly speaking, is about a psychiatrist named Rose who witnesses a patient commit suicide in front of her. Beforehand, the patient spoke of an “entity” of some kind that tormented her, often donning a haunting faux smile as it did. Afterward, Rose finds herself succumbing to a similar fate, followed by a human-like figure that seems intent on her demise.

Daughter of Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick, Sosie Bacon (who I last wrote about in the film Charlie Says) stars as the lead with a cast of familiar faces like Kal Penn, Jessie T. Usher, and Kyle Gallner (who was a real frequenter of the horror genre in the late 2000s).

Although Smile is an original film, like its antagonist, it wears a lot of other peoples’ faces. As you might surmise from the premise itself, Smile looks to offer a commentary on trauma and mental illness, akin to what a lot of horror films have done in recent years. The way this film is laid out is a very mainstream approach, akin more to Lights Out than Hereditary, both of which dealt with mental illness in an indirect way, with Hereditary ending up on the weirder (but fantastic) side of things and Lights Out being a more conventional ghost horror film. The way this film is paced and how the story unfolds, it also reminds me vaguely of Leigh Whannell’s The Invisible Man, with how the film calls the protagonists’ sanity into question, when we already know the answer.

As a unique take on mental illness, the themes of Smile have already been done and, frankly, done better, but that doesn’t mean I didn’t appreciate some of what it had to say on the subject.

The concept itself is very similar to It Follows and almost even results in an “aha!” moment because of it. Both films deal with an entity that pursues them and tries to kill them. Both films also deal with how to counteract the cyclical presence in a similar way. All of that in mind, while I would say it was highly influenced, Smile handles the subject in a very different way. Whereas It Follows felt almost like a relic of a bygone era, from a director who felt like a student of eighties horror, this film feels more epic and grandiose, I’ve heard a comparison to The Ring thrown around, and I think that’s appropriate to how the film is paced.

As a film, I liked Smile. In fact, I want to make certain to illustrate that fact. It isn’t as good as It Follows or The Invisible Man, and isn’t original enough to surpass The Ring, but it is a damn solid horror film.

The story, while familiar, is well paced and thoughtful, and doesn’t have any instances in it where I felt it particularly fumbled the material. The film shows how to do a jump scare and how to do it well, and housed a handful of genuinely inspired and creepy moments sprinkled in. The sound work is decent, offering peculiar, not-quite right loops to decent effect. Sosie Bacon also makes for a charismatic lead that helps to elevate the film. Considering the sheer amount of horror films that muck around, one shouldn’t overlook a film of Smile’s standard.

All in all, I would recommend Smile as a good entry in the horror genre, one that borrows a lot, but makes very good use of the ingredients it takes to create something of its own.

3

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Orphanposter.jpg
Orphan

Orphan is a film I hadn’t thought about since its release back in 2009. The initial reaction I had was neither here nor there, regarding it as a relatively unremarkable horror film. It wasn’t anything I could’ve seen myself bashing back when it was first released, but it wasn’t a film I would’ve recommend either. That in mind, I was thirteen years old when I first saw the film, and although I still had my unwavering affection for the genre even then, I believe my opinion has matured and refined itself since then.

Directed by Jaume Collet-Serra, a director whose handiwork can be seen in other horror fare like House of Wax and The Shallows, Orphan was written by David Leslie Johnson from a story by Alex Mace. David Leslie Johnson’s writing credentials include horror fare such as a personal favorite of mine, The Conjuring 2, and the 2011 horror film Red Riding Hood. Amongst the titles, House of Wax stuck out. Before I knew the directors were one in the same, my mind had already established a thin connective-tissue between them – they both have that weird cinematography that I only saw shortly after the turn of the millennium.

Calling it a ‘weird’ cinematography is a little too nondescript, but it’s difficult to explain. Something about horror in the 2000s felt hyper-produced in some way that I feel found its way in nearly every film released in that period. It isn’t a bad thing, mind you. Not always. You can see it in films like the A Nightmare on Elm Street and Friday the 13th remakes, or My Bloody Valentine, and other than the Elm Street remake, I don’t largely dislike any of them.

Orphan comprises itself of a cast including Vera Farmiga, Peter Sarsgaard, and Isabelle Fuhrman. Of whom, I would largely single-out Vera Farmiga, not only because she often is called upon to carry many aspects of this film, but because she is amongst my favorite horror actresses, with solid performances in series like Bates Motel and The Conjuring franchise.

The film centers around a couple who, after the death of their unborn child, adopt a mysterious nine-year-old girl. In On the Clock segments of the Nightmare Shift Podcast, I have opted to dissect summaries beyond that. However, since this is an On the Pulse segment, I have decided I will stay spoiler free on the major reveal of the film. With the newfound convenience of streaming services and the new Orphan: First Kill film, I’m certain many may choose to experience the original film and I feel a lot of its enjoyment hinges on the eventual twist. If you haven’t already read up on it, I’d try to go in as blind as you can.

Orphan had a substantial budget, in-retrospect. The film cost a reported 20 million, which is an awful lot when you think about it. Jordan Peele’s film Us had the same production budget and was released more than a decade afterward – likewise, too, this was a starring role for Vera Farmiga prior to Conjuring or Bates Motel success. As a film though, it is shot well and that’s all that matters, small, tidbit attention to details – including one shot which has you squint your eyes to see what’s ominously happening from the reflection of a doorknob.

The film opens with a grotesque scene involving Vera Farmiga’s character having a still-birth, and it’s really maddening and surrealistic, showing the trauma it has left on the character. She is now a recovering alcoholic, whose “Moment of Clarity” came at the expense of her young daughter nearly breaking through the icy lake near their home and drowning while she was intoxicated. All of this may sound frivolous, but it actually isn’t.

A lot of Orphan can feel very goofy and everything about it is compounded by its goofy premise, and I believe the filmmakers understood that, but, at the same time, it has an exquisite attention-to-detail. The icy lake, the alcoholism, and her child’s near-death event all play an important part in the film, as do many other small character traits throughout. It’s very clever and yet campy at the same time, and I found myself fairly endeared by that.

Something it does do that I absolutely did not care for, however, were fake-out jump scares. Scenes early on that were neither horrorific nor suspenseful, yet the director felt the need to have a sudden jolt or sound-effect rock your eardrums – maddening, and another thing that was all too common in 2000s horror.

The characters are as enjoyable as they’re meant to be, and, also, in turn, as unlikeable as they’re wanted to be. Obviously, as you can tell, something is afoot with the adopted orphan Ethel, and it finds a way to pit the mother and father against one another, manipulating them and weaponizing their own prior traumas and transgressions to its gain. Thus, a lot of time’s spent with each one of them piecing things together at their own pace, and that pace is not at all synchronized.

The acting is satiable at worst, and, at times, borders on being outright good, with Vera Farmiga being both likable and a strong sympathetic lead, whereas Isabelle Fuhrman delivers a solid performance that she deserves a lot of credit for.

One criticism levied about this film had to do with the supposes cliches and prejudices it had about adoption. The belief that it further fueled bigotries about adoption – roughly speaking, it encouraged the worry you might adopt a normal and sweet girl, only to find she is violent and cruel. I understand the criticism, but I also find it flimsy and superfluous. Director Eli Roth had a defense about something similar – his film Hostel, and how critics claimed it encourages xenophobia. His defense was, basically, “There’s Leatherface, but people still go to Texas.” I think that applies aptly here. Horror in-general is about the fear of the unknown. The fear of the mysterious country you’ve never been to, your fear of country roads in the South, and the fear you carry about a child you adopt of mysterious origins. You may not like what it says about the sum of all parts, but the film isn’t making a statement about the whole, but, rather, one isolated example of something. I’d recommend the documentary film The Imposter after you’ve finished this film, honest and truly, it’s captivating from beginning to end.

As a film, my opinion about Orphan hasn’t changed dramatically. I still don’t think of it as a great film by any means. It, however, is decent and enjoyable, largely from start to finish. It is a campy, goofy premise that requires a suspension of disbelief, but it is also wittily written and entertaining. I do believe about 20 to 30 minutes could have been trimmed from its overall runtime, which runs at a whopping 2 hours and 3 minutes, when I feel the concept is more suited for a taut 90-minute length, however, that aside, I consider it a real solid feather in the cap for everyone involved.

3

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b4/OrphanFirstKillPoster.jpg/220px-OrphanFirstKillPoster.jpg
Orphan: First Kill
The horror genre is ripe with sequels to films that, in-retrospect, feel like open-and-shut stories. Series that don’t in-fact feel like they should be series at all, with films that feel like they have a proper beginning, middle, and end for their main protagonist. Orphan is one such film. It’s a simple, decent horror film that offers everything it needed to about her backstory, lets the horror unfold, and culminates with the classic payoff of good over evil. Regardless of that, Orphan: First Kill exists anyways.

What’s even more remarkable about that fact is that the original Orphan was released back in 2009, becoming only a modest box office success, all things considered. If you look at a film like Sinister 2, which had half the budget of Orphan, and made 54 million at the box office, compared to Orphan’s 78 million, and consider how that disappointing return was enough to put the kibosh on any plans for a third Sinister, it’s a real head scratcher that this film was greenlit.

That is the interesting thing about the film industry and how truly nuanced it can be – there are a lot of variables to factor in. Home-video and streaming sales can move the needle in major ways, especially with smaller, low-budget fare. Likewise, too, you have to think about the production company involved. A production company like Blumhouse may look at the returns of Sinister and not being able to justify sequels when they could instead produce sequels to more lucrative fare like Insidious or Halloween, but a company like Twisted Pictures, with no other major intellectual properties to pull from, will mine a franchise like Saw again and again. Such is the case with Dark Castle Entertainment, a company with some notable horror fare in their backlog like Thirteen Ghosts, the House of Wax remake, and Splice.

For them, a low-risk, high-reward film like Orphan: First Kill is a no-brainer. Why they decided they needed to wait thirteen years after the fact instead of striking while the iron is hot is unclear, but it is better late than never.

Orphan: First Kill was directed by William Brent Bell. If the name doesn’t ring any (Brent) bells to you, I understand. He isn’t a coveted name in the horror genre like Mike Flanagan, Jordan Peele, or James Wan, for instance, but he has directed a handful of films you’ve likely heard of. In 2006, he co-wrote and directed the horror film Stay Alive, a box office misfire and horribly bashed supernatural horror film about a videogame that can kill you. For me, although I haven’t seen Stay Alive since it was released and am certain I’d be disappointed if I went back and looked, I remember my ten-year-old self having fun with the film. He rode the found-footage craze with the forgettable but largely successful Devil Inside, and even directed both The Boy and its sequel Brahm’s: The Boy II. Thus, he is a director many of us may have heard of, one who has found financial success but never once had a film with critical success. For that reason, I can imagine the response to Orphan: First Kill has been a pleasant surprise for him.

The film was released in theaters as well as on Paramount Plus (which is where I watched the film), and although it is set to make a fraction of what its predecessor did – currently on-pace to make 10 million dollars off an unconfirmed budget I would imagine as somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 to 10 million – I imagine that, coupled with the consistent trending status for both it and its predecessor, is enough to make everyone mostly satisfied with the film’s outcome. As far as reviews are concerned, not only is it by far William Brent Bell’s most well-received film, coming just shy of a Certified Fresh rating from Rotten Tomatoes, but many critics have gone as far as to claim it is better than the original film.

The film sees Isabelle Fuhrman reprising her role from the previous film, an interesting yet welcome decision in the end. In the original, she is, of course, actually a young girl, whereas now, some years later, is a twenty-five-year-old woman, not with Dwarfism. This meant they had to do a lot of camera trickery and manipulation in-order for her to reprise the role, which I was a little concerned about heading in. Thankfully, I’m happy to report my concerns were largely unfounded.

Series newcomers include Rossif Sutherland, Hiro Kanagawa, and the always welcome, Julia Stiles.

Although the film is a prequel and, as a prequel, has a linear trajectory you’re aware of heading into it, Orphan: First Kill does try to add its own twists and turns to its execution. In other words, it doesn’t feel like a generic origin story, per se. In a lot of ways, I feel it is even better taken as its own original, standalone thing as much as your mind can allow.

In the film, Leena Klammer escapes from the Saarne institution and begins her ploy to find passage out from Estonia. While swinging at a playground, she convinces a police officer she is an American named Esther Albright, a name she discovered amongst a longlist of unsolved missing person’s cases, and claims she was kidnapped. She is then introduced to her new family, a husband and wife and their rebellious teenage son. A lot of what you might imagine next ensues, but, at the same time, like I said, the film is certain to throw some curveballs in to keep things different.

When I talked about the original Orphan, I mentioned the documentary The Impostor, and I did so on a whim. The documentary is one of my absolute favorites and is one I absolutely recommend. Having now seen First Kill, I realize that a wonderful coincidence has happened. By that, I mean Orphan: First Kill is, in fact, pretty much The Impostor. It isn’t directly attributed as so, but the amount of glaring similarities are too large and apparent to claim otherwise. In that true story, a Frenchman convinces a police officer in Spain that he is a missing person from the United States, and, from that, he is introduced into that family and plays them all for fools.

The consequence of having seen that documentary, however, and making the connection as early as I did, also means I had this vague feeling like I had already seen the Orphan 2. In The Impostor, an unsubstantiated, unproven claim is made, and that claim serves as the foundation for the twist in this film.

As a film, Orphan: First Kill is decent, similar to its predecessor. The acting is decent, and like Vera Farmiga before her, Julia Stiles finds herself tasked with carrying a lot of the film – alongside Isabelle Fuhrman, of course.

The cinematography has improved, shedding away a lot of the melodrama and very 2000s nature of the original film, opting for a more conventional, understated approach. There aren’t as many jumpscares or jolts peppered in, and, in total, I would argue it is a better made film.

Meanwhile, an older Isabelle Fuhrman is more able to convey humor and the sense it is an adult beneath the façade.

The storytelling is simpler and leans further into the campier nature of the subject matter, which is for the best. It feels more playful this time around, and by chopping off 24 minutes from the runtime this go around, it feels leaner and more appropriate in its restraint.

As far as whether Orphan 2 is better than Orphan 1 is debatable, however. Personally, although I would attest that the original film did suffer from certain decisions, it did feel wittily written and had an actual emotional weight behind it. It felt like it was everything it needed to be, offering each character a proper story arc. Vera Farmiga’s character had depth, and, in general, the characters felt more lived-in. It may’ve not always stuck the landing, but it at least made the leap, something I think can’t be said as much for this film.

Likewise, too, Orphan: First Kill does suffer from that thing prequels do, where it tries to ham-fist a lot of connections to small tidbits of the original film. For instance, now we know backstory on the black-light paintings she does, and other little things we didn’t really need explanations for.

Did I like Orphan: First Kill more than the 2009 film? Personally, I largely preferred the original. Orphan simply had weightier ambitions than its sequel. Orphan did okay with heavy subject-matter, whereas Orphan: First Kill stays in its lane. The original film always had an unintentional campiness behind it, a certain so close, yet so far away grasp at hitting the mark, Orphan: First Kill turns into the skid, delivering intentional campiness and making an okay film as a result.

Orphan: First Kill is a decent film and a serviceable sequel to the 2009 sleeper hit, which is about everything you could ask for.

2.5

[McConnaughay]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYzhhMDU1M2ItOWVhNi00MGE4LTgxY2EtYjU3ZTk0ZjVhODg4XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODY5NzkyMjA@._V1_FMjpg_UX1000_.j pg
Beyond the Resonator

Although Full Moon Features is, to be frank, not what it once was – I find myself coming back to it every now and again. I have a lot of films in Full Moon Features’ archives I want to write more about (including Puppet Master, Trancers, and Subspecies, to name a few), but not many of them are from the modern era.

I will confess – I have watched more of the Evil Bong films than I am proud to admit (they are at nine of them now, if you didn’t know), but I don’t see myself ever sitting down and writing about them at length. Instead, I write about a new Full Moon Feature when I feel it warrants being written about.

Making movies is difficult.

However, … if Patrick Brice can make Creep for a sack of potatoes and Justin Benson and Aaron Moorhead can make The Endless and Resolution with a smaller budget than what Full Moon Features procured from their Indiegogo campaign for Killjoy’s Psycho Circus (which I backed, by the way), then Full Moon Features can be tried as an adult like everybody else.

I long for the early days of From Beyond or Re-Animator, or even the later years of Head of the Family and The Creeps, back when it was still fun.

When Miskatonic U: The Resonator was released, I offered a mostly unimpressed review of the film. However, I did remark that it was one of the best films Full Moon Features had released in somewhere around a decade, taken as a modest and mostly generic throwback to the good old days of when Stuart Gordon was alive and adapted Lovecraft.

Although Miskatonic U: The Resonator may not have set the world ablaze (and, really, that isn’t what I expect out of a Full Moon Features these days, or ever, actually), the last moments of the film suggested an interesting future for the new series (meeting Herbert West, a la Re-Animator).

Beyond the Resonator is the name of the sequel and it is a fairly short and tidy film – clocking out at 48:25 in total (with six minutes shared on a recap of the last film, an introduction that vaguely reminded me of the introductions from Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man Trilogy, and credits). In other words, Beyond the Resonator is just over 40 minutes – so barely feature length, depending on who you ask.

I’m cool with that.

I won’t act like I am the most in the know these days when it comes to the latest outings of Full Moon Features, but I would think I am among the key demographic of each film. That in mind, I wrote a review of the first film and thought I kept an eye out for anything about a sequel, only to one day notice a second (and third) film had not only entered production but were now available on the Tubi streaming service.

That’s likely for the best, as, unfortunately, Beyond the Resonator is a bit of a mess overall.

At the end of the first film, students at Miskatonic University build “The Resonator”, and are now dealt consequences for that decision. Meanwhile, however, Herbert West has entered the fray. Herbert’s story is the most entertaining and noteworthy aspect about the film.

The actor Josh Cole is faced with the tall order of trying to match the performance of Jeffrey Combs from Re-Animator, and while he can’t and doesn’t, he is satiable overall. At first, he feels a little more like a cosplay of Herbert West, with a wardrobe that doesn’t feel lived in and a portrayal that feels like an impression, but he grew on me as the film progressed.

The scenes with Herbert West, however, leave a lot to be desired. The film has a more modern twist to it, but it is essentially a remake of the first half or so of Re-Animator, with the only difference being that it comes off more like a fan film with ambition.

Every scene that doesn’t involve Herbert West, I struggled to care about, and I can’t say I was made to care much about West’s story either – again, it’s a rehash that adds nothing new to the character or classic story.

The score by Richard Band is decent. I usually like Richard’s contribution to Full Moon Features and consider it among the biggest highlights of the entire catalog. They’re simple, classical, and feel fun.

Unfortunately, the cinematography has taken a real nosedive since the early days of Full Moon Features, with visuals so bright they look uncanny and fake, like everything was shot under the heat of a million light bulbs (or at a popular YouTubers’ house). Aesthetics are very important. Imagine a scene in a morgue: darkly lit, the only light shown is from the stab of a flashlight or the bleeding in of moonlight from a nearby window. Or downstairs in a basement? The classic flicker of a light bulb about to die out? In this film, everything looks clean and sanitized.

The acting is mostly mediocre. I say that with the understanding that it will have less to do with the actors involved and more to do with what is asked of them and what they’re allowed to do.

Character developments are under cooked and frivolous, and they’re forgotten about as soon as they are introduced. Attempts at drama fall flat because of this. This is the reason why the scenes carrying the plot from the last film fail – they expect me to care about something they haven’t made me care about.

Scenes that could’ve been fun (in the same Re-Animator rehashed kind of way as the rest) are reduced to clips in a montage. Anyone remember Herbert stealing a body out from a morgue? That’s in here, but only as a brief summary. Likewise, there is a character’s death wedged into the montage that left me scratching my head in confusion.

Sloppy is a good word for Beyond the Resonator.

I respect the idea of wanting to pay homage to Stuart Gordon, but it doesn’t at all feel like it came from the same company that helped make the actual films some forty years prior (and it isn’t, technically, that was Empire, this is Full Moon, but I digress).

It irks me a bit, really. I want to like the film. I like the general idea. The same way I like the general idea of Full Moon Features in general. I can imagine this film as good. I can see a scenario where they combine the elements of From Beyond and Re-Animator and make a fun, enjoyable film. I can imagine how Full Moon Features manages to finally create a cohesive Full Moon Universe out of it. Imagine one day a great, great grandson of Toulon arrives with a trunk of Puppet Master characters? You think Herbert West might be at all interested in the serum that brings them to life? There are possibilities for a lot of fun to be had and I’m all for it.

This though, this isn’t it.

1

[McConnaughay]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/810cSJlsdpL._AC_UF894,1000_QL80_.jpg
Subspecies

I can’t say Subspecies made a large impression on me as a kid discovering Full Moon Features for the first time.

In retrospect, I’d argue that the best of Full Moon Features’ catalog usually comes from original, standalone features, rather than their various different franchises. Re-Animator (which I know did have sequels, but they weren’t from Full Moon or Empire) is one of them. Dolls, Head of the Family, or The Creeps are ones I would also single out.

All the same, Full Moon wouldn’t be Full Moon without series’ like Puppet Master, Demonic Toys, Killjoy, Trancers, Evil Bong, Subspecies and Gingerdead Man (for better and for worse).

For me, Subspecies and Trancers always felt like they were the black sheep of the Full Moon franchises.

They aren’t that different, if taken as standalone movies, but it’s the fact they become enduring franchises that did it. In the early days, Full Moon Features went into some weird places. It is actually one of the most endearing qualities of their filmography. Trancers by itself, or Subspecies by itself, would feel at home with the rest of the catalog. The fact that both received half a dozen entries (if pairing the four Subspecies films with their spin-offs Vampire Journal and both Decadent Evils), however, is enough to raise a few eyebrows though.

I can wrap my head around a dozen Evil Bong movies, simply because I know Charles Band uses it as a vehicle to peddle stoner-themed merchandise, and that same train of thought applies to other brands he keeps on with.

But what’s the appeal of Subspecies?

I revisited Subspecies with an open mind.

The film was directed by Ted Nicolaou, a director whose handiwork can be seen throughout Full Moon Features’ filmography – beyond the rest of the Subspecies main series, Ted still directs movies for Full Moon today, with a background that dates all the way back to Charles Band’s former company Empire.

There are a lot of little things to love about the film – it was shot on location in Romania and utilized stop motion and rod puppet techniques as a way to achieve the unique look and feel desired for the titular creatures.

The idea of a Gothic, old fashioned vampire film plays to the wheelhouse of Full Moon as well. The aesthetic of films like The Pit and the Pendulum and Castle Freak feels like it can seamlessly be applied to such a concept.

Ironically, Charles Band actually owns a castle in Italy that was used for them but not Subspecies.

In Subspecies, a vampire named Radu Vladislas murders his father in order to claim possession of the Bloodstone, a stone that claims to drip the blood of the saints. On the human side, three college women come to Romania to gather research on a study they’re conducting on the city of Prejmer and the superstition surrounding it. As the women find themselves in Radu’s cross-hairs, his brother Stefan seeks to stop him.

Straightaway, I will say that Subspecies may be a little bit of an acquired taste as a film.

The film is ripe, and I do mean ripe, with cliches. They are absolutely spilling out of this film. The cinematography is chilly and glib, filled with all the classic parlor tricks, and the score is ghastly and melancholic, amounting to what I can only describe as “very Dracula-y”. If you are buying what they’re selling, which is neither unique nor wholly original, it’s a charming throwback. I personally particularly liked the score of the film and would consider it among the best parts of the film, even if I recognize it as cliched and derivative.

The special effects leave a little to be desired. I am always happy when I am able to write that a film uses puppetry and stop-motion effects, but it isn’t always as good in theory as it is in practice. The creatures, which are more or less minions for Radu to lead, unfortunately, add little to nothing to the film, and, in fact, I’d argue their execution even sullies the film because of how off they look in certain scenes in the film (the opening scene when they’re introduced being a prime example).

The acting isn’t the best. The delivery is stilted at the best of times and the dialogue, too, can feel self-important or melodramatic. In its own way, this does fit the tone of the film – reminding me a little of an old Hammer horror.

It isn’t without its Full Moon sensibilities, also. The brother Stefan strikes a romance with one of the lead women in the film, but it is unearned and under cooked. After one conversation, acquaintances of Stefan are claiming how he has ‘fallen in love with a mortal’ and all this, and it comes off like we’re missing crucial bits of why they feel that way. Full Moon likes doing this a lot, but usually it isn’t as noticeable because the film is campier. Something else Full Moon likes is full-frontal nudity. This film has it, and it does so in a way that feels so arbitrary that it actually lends a bit of unintentional humor to the film.

By the end, I would summarize my thoughts on the first Subspecies film by saying I appreciate it, but I don’t particularly care for it. The music is thematic and atmospheric, as is the actual cinematography (there are some actual good shots in the film), but somewhere between the acting and the story itself, it makes for a humdrum, even tedious experience. It is over in an hour and a half, but it does not fly by. Still, it is competently made and I appreciate Full Moon Features trying to make something, maybe, a little more grandiose.

2

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/66/Speak_No_Evil_Official_Poster.jpg/220px-Speak_No_Evil_Official_Poster.jpg
Speak No Evil

Speak No Evil is a film I had on my radar, but one I was apprehensive to pursue for a simple reason – that is an awful title for a horror film in 2022. Speak No Evil? Really? It might as well forego any and all streaming services and ship copies directly to the dump bin of your nearest supermarket, or maybe shove it someplace really deep in the archives of Tubi TV‘s horror movie section.

That’s an awful name, but it isn’t an awful film. And, in its defense, after having seen the film, I can at least say the name is appropriate to the film’s subject matter.

I stumbled upon Speak No Evil on the Shudder streaming service, a service I am very fond of and would highly recommend. The film was directed by Danish director Christian Tafdrup, whose prior credentials include an interesting-sounding drama film called Parents but no other genre films yet. The film was shot in Denmark and the Netherlands, but is mostly shot in English. The script was co-written between Christian and his brother Mads. As far as cast goes, the film didn’t have anybody I recognized, with most of the cast primarily relegated to dramas in Denmark, a niche I’m not exactly privy to.

As a film, Speak No Evil is relatively straightforward. A Danish couple and their daughter are invited to a Dutch couples’ house for a weekend holiday, and decide to take them up on it. They arrive, and, well, whether you know what happens or not, what you do know is that it is a horror film called Speak No Evil, and so, chances are, a happy holiday weekend isn’t what awaits them.

This is a slow burn psychological thriller film, which I feel might be important in keeping your expectations about the film in check. Prior to watching, I hadn’t seen even as much as a trailer for the film, but I had seen comparisons of the film to one other film and short, sentence-long reviews of the film.

The film I had seen compared to was The Strangers, an alright slasher film that has since developed a cult-following among many of you. In my findings, the comparison itself has less to do with the actual film and how the story unfolds, and more to do with the feeling it tries to leave you with. One of the best quotes from The Strangers is the classic line – “Because you were home.” The statement resonates as terrifying because it suggests a pointless cruelty to what is happening on-screen. It creates the sentiment that, if you didn’t answer the door, they would’ve simply went down the block and conducted business as usual over there instead. It’s the same appeal John Carpenter‘s original Halloween film had, where Laurie Strode is only some other victim to Michael Myers, not his sister, nothing special at all. That’s the feeling Speak No Evil has – an unnecessary meanness that happens simply because the world is unnecessarily mean.

As a film though, it isn’t like The Strangers, particularly. Instead, it is more comparable, I think, to something like Mark Duplass‘ film Creep. In Creep, a man is filming for another person, and you know that other person is dangerous. You don’t know for sure, but you pretty much know. And so, you spend the whole film waiting for the other shoe to drop and for crazy dangerous people to do what crazy dangerous people do. That’s, more or less, what Speak No Evil is.

For better and for worse, the cat is already out of the bag for Speak No Evil in that respect. Thus, it is more about being perturbed by the ride itself and having the curtain peeled back on exactly what evil is being tucked away.

The criticism I have seen thrown around most about this film is this – our protagonists are pushovers. I had heard this criticism a lot, and I kept telling myself I wouldn’t allow myself to be bothered by it as I watched or that the criticism was off-base and unwarranted. I will be damned though – our protagonists are pushovers!

Of course though, that’s really a major idea of the whole film. In a way, Speak No Evil is a satirical work, a social-commentary on the way we accommodate others or go to great lengths to avoid confrontation. It’s realistic, too, isn’t it? We can all imagine a person in our lives that’d eat expensive, burnt steak instead of sending it back. No one wants to be that guy! Or, staying someplace you don’t want to be, because you don’t want to offend. Or, … or, … lots of things. It’s realistic, but this film will have you yelling at your screen every now and again, pleading with the characters to grow a backbone.

By the time Speak No Evil ends, it leaves you with a melancholy feeling of dread more so than any other emotion. It isn’t a gratuitously violent film. All of the particularly violent acts are brief, but it’s the way they’re contextualized and the tone of the film that make them feel especially cold and depraved (Michael Haneke did this really well in the film Funny Games).

Pound for pound, Speak No Evil doesn’t have a whole lot we haven’t already seen. The film’s acting is solid, whereas the scenes early on, while standard, are immersive enough. A lot of it’s watching the couples’ interact, and it’s mostly all about building to the close, without anything particularly remarkable happening beforehand. In terms of characterization and story, it’s all familiar ingredients, but done in a squirmy, melancholic way that makes it feel a little like you’re tasting it on an airplane (and I mean that in a good way, I think). It’s an icy, squirmy film that shows a very different way of looking at the horror genre than what’s most usually spotlighted.

3.5

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/20/Shiver_%282012_film%29.jpg/220px-Shiver_%282012_film%29.jpg
Shiver

Shiver is a film I went into blindly, stumbling on it while browsing the free Tubi streaming service. It is a tactic I don’t deploy often, because it so often leads to a negative review here on the Nightmare Shift. The fact is, a lot of films are made and not all of them are created equal. I believe I am very in touch with the horror genre, and so, it isn’t very often I stumble across a good film I hadn’t had at least heard some prior mention of. In spite of that, while I don’t always do it, I try to make sure to do it as often as I can. Sometimes you will discover a new gem amidst the rubble, and if I can spotlight that film, I consider it a privilege.

Another reason I wanted to watch it is because of the involvement of Danielle Harris and my desire to sift through her horror filmography for the Nightmare Shift. I like Danielle Harris and, in a lot of ways, I believe the Halloween franchise doesn’t always appreciate her for helping to keep the torch lit with the sequels (no disrespect to Judy Greer, but I would have loved her to have played Laurie Strode’s daughter in the reboot series).

Julian Richards directs a script written by Robert Weinbach based on a novel of the same name by Brian Harper.

Richards is a lesser known director, but he has a handful of horror movies you might have heard of – The Last Horror Movie, for example. His 1997 film Darklands was apparently the first homegrown Welsh horror film. Pretty cool.

This thriller film about a low self-esteemed woman who finds herself the target of a heinous serial killer.

As a film, Shiver is not your usual run-of-the-mill dumpster dive into the archives of obscurity. I know I’ve seen a lot of them, and I’m certain many of you have too. I’ve seen the mutated hillbillies that run around cornfields, chainsaws in-hand, cease and desist letter in the mail. I’ve seen a hundred-dozen ripoffs of Friday the 13th, which in itself was a cash-in on Halloween, and I know I will see many more before it is all said and finished.

Shiver isn’t that, but, instead, it is kind of just absolutely bonkers altogether. At first, I thought I knew what to expect from it. Our antagonist is one of those artsy serial killers, you know the kind. We’ve seen them a lot in films, and other than in special circumstances like, say, Hannibal, they usually play out about the same way each time. This character is fairly familiar in that respect, but what happens in the film is all kinds of absurdity. This is the type of film that doesn’t ask you for suspension of disbelief, it demands it lest you want your fragile mind to shatter before its goofy plot.

I didn’t immediately recognize in the film, but John Jarratt is the serial killer. You may have seen him in the Wolf Creek films. His character in this film is similar to that.

The character is animated, for lack of a better word for it. I can never exactly say for certain whether I believe he is doing a good job in the role or if he is doing a bad job, and it’s peculiar for the line between the two to feel as thin as it does. I can never tell whether I feel he is going all in on the role or if it feels a performance, it is definitely campy, however. It’s a little like he goes so over the top that he came back around again.

Shiver feels like it has a lot to say, but doesn’t actually seem to know how to say it in a real, organic way. For instance, you know how I briefed earlier how Danielle Harris’ character had low self-esteem? This is a reoccurring theme in the film. Whether it be when she is verbally cut down by her mother, or when she struggles to ask her boss for a raise.

However, the film doesn’t handle it smoothly, and when it wants to highlight that aspect of the character, it does so in a way that always feels abrupt and ham-fist. This can be seen really noticeably during a phone-call conversation between her and her mother where it feels like the whole purpose is to wedge as much exposition and backstory into the conversation as possible.

This all calls back to the antagonist – our serial killer is a misogynistic, power-hungry murderer, desperate for the type of control that has never afforded to him in his normal life.

There’s a yin-and-yang here, of one controlling person with an ego and one person who has been beaten down and needs to claim control. It makes sense and I can see what they’re going for, but they never seem to present it in a way that feels cohesive or coherent.

I want to make you understand how absurd this film is, but I can’t do so without outright saying a lot of what happens. This is a film with car chases and the type of police shenanigans you would expect out of a corny comic book film. Again, suspension of disbelief. You will need it.

The third-quarter of the film is the best of the film. This is when all the other white noise quiets down. There is no shenanigans or police procedural subplots happening in the background, it’s simply the protagonist and the antagonist. It isn’t exactly anything we haven’t seen, but this is when both characters are allowed to do the legwork in their development. John Jarratt is allowed to be horror movie crazy and Danielle Harris’ character survives, looking for an opportunity to arise. There are some little flashes that show the perverse thoughts in the antagonists’ mind, and he is allowed to become fifty shades of awful. This is, for the most part, what I think the whole film should’ve been. This could’ve worked.

Unfortunately, that isn’t what the film is, and after that brief quarter is over, the film goes ahead and finds a way to double-up on its own absurdity.

In the end, Shiver doesn’t pay dividends for my blind foray into the unknown. I wanted to like it. I can imagine a film with Jarratt and Harris that I would have liked. There are even scenes in the film I could imagine elongated and making a better film. However, that wasn’t the film we received. This film is chalk full of head scratching moments and I can’t recommend it.

2

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Crow_ver2.jpg/220px-Crow_ver2.jpg
The Crow

On December 28th, 1997, the WCW World Heavyweight Champion “Hollywood” Hulk Hogan went head-to-head with “The Icon” Sting at Starrcade.

For those of you that aren’t wrestling fans, this match was a big deal. Hulk Hogan had turned heel (became a bad guy) for the first major stint in his career, forming the New World Order and wreaking havoc throughout World Championship Wrestling. The company man Sting who once dawned bleach blond hair and a excitable “surfer” gimmick had changed. For an entire year, Sting didn’t speak a word, hanging out in the rafters in a dark getup, white face paint and a leather trench coat. Now, at Starrcade, it was time for the dark avenger Sting to save WCW – a battle of good versus evil.

What I remember most about that encounter (which wasn’t exactly the best match) were the entrances each wrestler made for it (wrestling fan or not, look up Sting’s entrance at 1997’s Starrcade – the opening monologue, the music, the atmosphere). It is one of my favorite moments as a wrestling fan.

What does this have to do with The Crow film?

In a lot of ways, that moment at Starrcade helped bolster the legacy of The Crow film (at least for me). In Sting’s pursuit of becoming an icon (from borrowing more than a few things from James O’Barr), The Crow became iconic as well.

Obviously, that isn’t all that made The Crow such a storied moment in cinema history – during production, Brandon Lee was fatally wounded during a scene involving a firearm.

This was a tragic moment.

The outcome was a lot more than changing perception about a mere film. Brandon Lee’s fiancée Eliza Hutton lost her future husband, and his friends and family found themselves without him.

That in mind, The Crow now had a certain mystique to it. A new wrinkle, if you will. I would compare it, perhaps, to Heath Ledger‘s death shortly before the release of The Dark Knight. It became less about The Crow as a film and more about it as a moment or even a memoriam for Brandon Lee.

What about the film? All of this chatter about The Crow’s legacy, what about the actual film?

Directed by Alex Proyas in his sophomore effort (he went onto direct Dark City, an apt successor, I think), The Crow is, roughly speaking, a classic story of revenge.

A musician named Eric Draven and his fiancée Shelly are murdered by a group of thugs on Devil’s Night (a night in Detroit associated with serious vandalism and arson). After, Eric Draven returns from death and seeks revenge on the men responsible, guided by a black crow.

I was worried about revisiting The Crow again. As a child, I loved the film. Then, in my later years, I reflected on it as a decent, but dated superhero film. I was worried it wouldn’t meet the expectation I had of it. Thankfully, I believe The Crow is a great film.

The cinematography is dark and gritty in a way that feels unkempt and filthy. “Gritty” superhero cinema isn’t exactly out of the ordinary these days, what, with Nolan’s The Dark Knight trilogy (which I enjoyed a lot), but, as a consequence of Nolan’s films, I feel a lot of films haven’t been able to capture what The Crow does. Whether it is the newer Fantastic Four or the Snyder films (which I also enjoy), a lot of films feel like they try to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak. They look like a super-expensive high-production, but also try to have that edgy, unkemptness to them. What comes from it is something less gritty and more dreary.

The Crow is not that. Although certain scenes do show their age, I would argue it has so much style and kinetic energy behind every shot that I honestly wouldn’t even acknowledge it if I hadn’t had the preconceived notion about it. In some ways, I would equate it less to the newer Batman’s and more to Tim Burton’s Batman Returns meets David Fincher – specifically Fight Club or Seven.

As a film, The Crow is more about style than substance, I believe. The villains aren’t particularly layered – they’re baddies that need stopped. However, the story is romantic and infectious, the atmosphere is lurid yet Gothically beautiful, and it truly flies by.

Brandon Lee’s performance is the most bittersweet aspect of the film. If I had even a inkling of doubt about him – it went away revisiting this film. The man was charismatic as all hell and blew me away with his performance throughout. Every scene he is in, not only is he commanding, but he feels fun, fun-ny even, without ever feeling tonally dissonant from the subject matter. This is a feat that the later sequels showed is a difficult task (and is exactly the reason why Bill Skarsgard is, at least in theory, the best candidate to don the face paint). I loved his performance and it is so sad to think of what he could have done next. Likewise, too, the lightning and how he is shown, and his makeup is ace (compare it to the next film and see what I mean).

This is Brandon Lee’s show, through and through, but I will also say everyone across the board plays their part well. Rochelle Davis as the young girl Sarah who had a father-daughter relationship almost with Eric, and the Detective played by Ernie Hudson, who helps ground the film.

If I had any criticism at all about the film – the last half hour is a little messy. Ernie Hudson’s character’s involvement feels brushed aside and undercooked, whereas the end with Eric confronting Top Dollar is a little anticlimactic / underwhelming. I have never looked to see for certain, but I could see this partly explained away by the circumstances surrounding the film’s production.

Overall though, still love The Crow. The film is nicely shot with a terrific atmosphere, and it is heightened by a fantastic leading man and a classic, complete (no sequels, spin-offs, follow-ups, truly necessary) story. I highly recommend it.

4

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/15/The_Crow_2.jpg/220px-The_Crow_2.jpg
The Crow: City of Angels

In 1994, The Crow set the world ablaze in the outline of a blackbird, raking in a lot of dough and a lot of series potential. Thus, it was only natural that a sequel would be commissioned in a timely fashion. In 1996, The Crow: City of Angels was released.

The film is mostly a standalone film that can be seen without prior knowledge of the original, but it is also a sequel if you squint hard enough. The film is set a billion years after the first film, or however long it took the little girl from the original film to become the adult actress Mia Kirshner – and, uh, other than that and the basic premise, that’s really it.

In this, Ashe Corven (Corven, get it?) and his son Danny are murdered by a drug kingpin named Judah Earl. Ashe comes back, and through the guidance of Sarah and The Crow, begins to pursuit of vengeance.

I really wanted to like this film. I can’t write this review under the guise of ignorance, however. I don’t write this review after my first time watching The Crow: City of Angels. I had already seen the film. However, it had been awhile. When I last watched the film, I remembered it modestly. I didn’t love it, but I didn’t hold a lot of resentment for it either. I remembered it as a decent, unmemorable sequel to a real classic.

However, upon watching it as an adult, and as someone who likes to think he has become more skilled at articulating whether he liked or disliked something and why he felt that way, The Crow: City of Angels is a lot worse than I remembered.

The cinematography and aesthetic of this film is a real disappointment. I can almost see what they had in mind, I think. They didn’t want to copy-and-paste the visuals of the original film, and instead, they went for a more yellowish tint. Unfortunately, not only does it look very unappealing to the eye, it makes a lot of the film itself appear dated as a result. An example can be seen merely by watching the crow itself fly around the city. In the original film, it didn’t look exactly perfect, but, because of the dark-colored backdrop, it didn’t stand out as much. In this film, every shortcoming is propped up against an ugly almost-sepia color, and not only does it turn a bright light on the finer details or lack thereof, it does a disservice to the film overall.

In some ways, I believe it could be argued that the original film looked like a music video. I made a comparison to David Fincher’s Fight Club and Seven, but I also thought of the grimy music videos he directed for bands like Perfect Circle. When I say that though, I mean that in the best of ways. Shots aren’t wasted. The camerawork is inspired and stylistic. I feel the same can be applied to this film, but in the worst of ways. Everything feels sloppy and disheveled, messy and nonsensical. Unsurprisingly, this was Tim Pope‘s first and final film, but he has had a very successful career making music videos. (In his defense, Tim Pope also claims the studio hurt the finished product. This makes sense when you consider this was the studio that not only helped introduce us to Brandon Lee, but also played a not insignificant part in taking him away.)

It doesn’t help that Vincent Perez is not up to the task to replace Brandon Lee as The Crow. A lot of this isn’t his fault, however. There are certain scenes I could have imagined as cool or being straight out of the original film. In one scene at a peep show, the curtain raises, unveiling a scantily clad woman, and a paying customer watching from behind a thin layer of glass. As his time runs out and the curtain lowers, he scrambles for coins and buys more time. The curtain raises – The Crow looks back at him. It is an obvious scene, but a fun idea for certain! And yet, it doesn’t land. There’s something off about it.

Sometimes, too, scenes can feel like an impression of the original, attempting humor but falling flat, feeling out-of-character or inconsistent with the rest of the film. It took a specific method for humor to show through in the first film, it took Brandon Lee‘s charisma, and the right way of framing it all. This film doesn’t have that.

In fact, a lot of this film feels that way – off. The Crow’s face paint looks unfinished, the dynamic between Ashe and Sarah feels weird, the emotional trauma feels under cooked, and the final moments (which is admittedly a lot like the first film’s) feel corny and more than a little absurd.

All in all, The Crow: City of Angels was the last theatrical release of The Crow series and, that makes a lot of sense to me. It’s a drastically inferior sequel in every way imaginable, and where the original film flew by, this film feels like a plodding slog to sit through. I, unfortunately, do not recommend it.

1.5

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/38/Grimcutty_Poster.jpg/220px-Grimcutty_Poster.jpg
Grimcutty

It is October 10th and, this year, horror fans find themselves treated to one of the best holiday seasons we’ve ever had. Original horror film Smile is number one at the box office, experiencing fantastic holds and nearing 100 million worldwide (a feat we’ve been lucky enough to experience more than a couple times this year), and Damien Leone’s indie horror sequel Terrifier 2 is receiving a little love as well. Hellraiser is receiving the most well received film in its long-running franchise since the original 1987 film. The second season of Chucky is underway and Laurie Strode is about to duke it out with Michael Myers one last time for Halloween Ends. And, with all that, here I am, watching Grimcutty.

I don’t fault myself – reviewing original, lesser known films is good. This is a belief I have always harbored and something I try to embrace on everyday Nickelbib‘ing. Although I don’t have a huge following, I would like to use whatever platform I do have to spotlight as many lesser known, creative people as I can.

This, as any horror fanatic knows, can be a double-edged sword in the horror genre. Every time you find a good film, that film is oftentimes followed by half a dozen bad ones. They can be made quick and cheap, hence why so many horror films flood the market (and why horror helped carry the theater industry during the Covid-19 pandemic, thank you very much).

Grimcutty arrived today on Hulu, dropped unceremoniously on a Monday, days after the Hellraiser reboots grand premiere. The film is about an internet meme gone awry and the conflict that arises from it Think Slenderman or Momo, right? This creepy image has went viral and, now, apparently, children are cutting themselves for clout (or something).

The character’s appearance is a little on the goofier side, but I’d argue is authentic to what a lot of the characters from Creepypastas, etc., that take the internet by storm.

With that, we are all set. The film, directed by John Ross, engrosses us in the life of a married couple and their two children. The film unfolds in a way that makes me think Kirk Cameron is vaguely involved. What I mean is, it feels vaguely like a propaganda film, presenting the irrational fears certain groups of people have about internet and technology. The film sees its out-of-touch adult characters trying to protect their children from the evils hiding in the dark underbellies of social media.

I’m not saying there aren’t evils hiding in the dark underbellies of social media. Things like the dark web and strange kidnappings, all that, they’ve been touched upon in films like The Den, for instance. The internet houses some real horrors and I believe they offer some real fodder for the genre to work with. This though, this feels more like in the seventies when parents would keep their kids from listening to Led Zeppelin because they thought you could hear the devil when you played it in reverse.

Hysteria is real though. Sometimes, too, it doesn’t make a lot of sense when it is put under the microscope or in hindsight. When I was eleven, my mom and I watched Eli Roth’s film Hostel. She made me cover my eyes when they showed a woman’s breasts, but had no problem letting me see a woman’s eye melted down with a blow torch.

The issue with this film, however, is that it doesn’t feel aware of how out of touch it is (even if events in the film suggest it is). Instead, it feels like a cringe-inducing exercise in the horrors of Lifetime cinema.

The film is finely acted and finely shot (certain actors felt like they were doing an over-the-top, again, Lifetime-y performance – but it does appear that’s at least somewhat on purpose).

Scares are far and in-between, largely kept to seeing Grimcutty at a distance and nothing more, and like his name, Grimcutty is fairly goofy looking. The camerawork is satiable though. This is a film that had a budget (albeit small) and could look to things like a proper camera setup, lighting, and production value. As far as scenes are concerned, there isn’t a whole lot to write about.

The character aren’t interesting, but I could have imagined actresses Sarah Wolfkind and Tate Moore making for believable, enjoyable leads in a film where they had more time to show their chemistry and develop their characters. The mystery surrounding the antagonist is under-cooked and means behind how he came to exist / what he is are practically nonexistent.

The most interesting wrinkle in the film is a twist that is revealed about midway through (however, if you read the description provided by Hulu, that twist is completely spoiled), which I liked and thought was an interesting bait-and-switch. Unfortunately, I believe the film failed to stick the landing for the idea.

Overall, as much as I want to focus on the positive for this film – Grimcutty is ripe with cliches and makes for a fairly antiquated, even at times goofy watch from start to finish. May everyone involved learn from it and find something more becoming of their own capabilities in the next go around.

1

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9d/Disney_The_Lion_King_2019.jpg
The Lion King (remake)

Whether a remake or re-imagining is necessary often boils down to one or two key variables, whether such a film is in demand and whether that film can be improved on. I talked about it with my review of Aladdin recently, but I’ve had a mixed reaction to Disney’s newfound interest in “live-action/hyper-realistic animated” reinterpretations of the many classics in their library. I thoroughly enjoyed The Jungle Book and I believe it checked both of those boxes well, whereas, while I found enjoyment in Aladdin, I don’t believe it earned its keep in the same fashion. Like that film, the 2019 film The Lion King had no trouble checking off the first box. The film was able to procure over 1.6 billion dollars at the worldwide box-office and surpassed Frozen as (technically) the highest-grossing animated film of all-time and the second highest-grossing film of 2019 (the release of Frozen 2 and Star Wars: Episode 8 pending). However, judging by the mixed-reception from critics, it’s clear there’s a disparity that needs resolving in-order to answer whether The Lion King checks off the second box.

The musical film sees Jon Favreau (director of The Jungle Book) in the director’s chair with a screenplay written by Jeff Nathanson, which is curious considering how little differences can be seen from the original’s screenplay and his, but I digress. I was excited when I saw Jon Favreau‘s name attached to the film, and I was excited when I heard the cast was comprised of names like Donald Glover, John Oliver, Seth Rogen, Chiwetel Ejiofo, and James Earl Jones (reprising his role as Mufasa), among others, and was optimistic heading into the film itself. The visuals while epic-scale and majestic, admittedly, had me uneasy from the trailers. One consequence from such hyper-realism is that it risks absolving characters of their facial features and other ways of instilling personality, and personality was one of the key ingredients to what made the original film so beloved.

The Lion King tells the tale in about the same way as you’d heard it in the original – Mufasa is the strong and respected King and Scar is his frailer and jealous brother. Scar devises a plan to rid himself of Mufasa and take the throne for himself. The wrench in that plan is Mufasa’s son Simba who manages to survive Scar’s heinous attack and seeks refuge outside the Pride where he meets a bubbly warthog and a colorful meerkat, and so on and so fourth. Some Hamlet there, a little White Lion here, and presto! It’s Disney‘s first completely original animated film brought back to the screen like you’ve never seen it before! And, make no mistake, I’m happy about that. I loved The Lion King as a kid and have no doubt I’ll be reviewing the original film on Mashers Club before you know it.

This film changes very little from the source material, which can either be to its benefit or detriment, depending on how you decide to look at it. I understand the appeal of remaking classic films and don’t think it’s nearly as egregious as some do. Much like how people like to see their favorite play on stage with a new cast of actors and actresses, I can understand the appeal of wanting to see a new interpretation of The Lion King on the big-screen. This isn’t to say I wouldn’t prefer a new idea brought on the screen, but that I can understand the logic of both the producer who creates it and the theatergoer who supports it.

This isn’t a new interpretation, however, with every scene feeling copy-and-pasted from the original, and what’s not from the original, simply put, feels like unneeded flack. As a compromise, everything can’t help but feel a little watered down and diluted, with every scene feeling like a lesser recreation. The film does manage to capture a sense of epic scale that might’ve been missing from the original, but, yet, even that has me longing for how effortless the classic felt. The film has a very sassy, flamboyant Timon played by Billy Eichner, which I’m neither here nor there on, and it does offer slight spins on classic songs and new, forgettable songs of its own. The fear I had about a loss of emotional depth in favor of realism was realized, and, in-fact, the whole film has a certain disconnect I could never shake-off. What I’m seeing isn’t bad, and, in-fact, had the original film not existed, might even be really good. But, since that film does exist, I can’t help but feel the workman-like execution at work.

The difference between this film and that film is that the original feels like it’s made from scratch and this film feels store-bought. They might’ve followed the same recipe, but something was lost in translation. It could have been the energy or the brisk nature, or it could’ve been something more abstract, like the loss of heart (I couldn’t feel the love tonight). Whatever the reason, while Disney doesn’t fail with The Lion King and, thereby, doesn’t fail by the way of The List, The Lion King probably succeeds. At the end though, it changes so very little, and yet takes a great animated film and makes it into a good one.

3

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ee/Alita_Battle_Angel_%282019_poster%29.png/220px-Alita_Battle_Angel_%282019_poster%29.png
Alita: Battle Angel

It has become a tale as old as time in Hollywood, studio bigwigs stumble across an untapped prospect that was successful in a different country or, perhaps, in a different medium, and decide they want to adapt it on the big-screen. This isn’t inherently a bad idea and it isn’t something I think should be discouraged, instead, it’s an idea that makes a lot of sense. The world is filled with talented storytellers and not only will this bring attention and new awareness to the source material, it allows the narrative to unravel in new perspectives and in-front of eyes that other-wise might never have experienced something like Alita: Battle Angel.

It isn’t a perfect marriage and where a lot of lingering issues arise is from consolidating what a mainstream studio wants and what a film actually is. The Ghost in the Shell drew criticism of racism and white-washing for casting Scarlett Johansson. Whether it, in-fact, was racism and white-washing is a subject for debate. Personally, I think a lot of reason why it was ever green-lit and brought to the big-screen is because of Scarlett’s involvement in-general. They brought Scarlett on because they thought her established popularity in films like Lucy and the Marvel Cinematic Universe would help sell a property that was otherwise unknown stateside. As many of you know, that didn’t work. Similar to adaptations of your favorite video-games, it appears the United States (and Japan, to be fair) haven’t cracked the code on the right formula to approach adapting manga and anime for the mainstream moviegoers.

Alita: Battle Angel was a different beast. The 2019 cyberpunk action film adapts the 1990s manga series Battle Angel Alita by Yukito Kishiro in a high-budget film directed by Robert Rodriguez with a screenplay written by James Cameron and Laeta Kalogridis. The film was also produced by Cameron, a name that I wouldn’t be surprised to find was very important for how this film was able to be made with its price-tag and the lesser known Rosa Salazar in the lead role. The film was originally announced in 2003, but had been in development hell since 2003, especially with James Cameron striking gold with Avatar, and in a way, it’s no small miracle the film came to exist at all.

The film was released early 2019 to mixed reviews from critics and a positive and vocal acclaim from genre fans and casual-viewers alike. Unfortunately, calling the film a successful undertaking is more a story of the almost was, than a reflection of what actually happened. The film brought in 400 dollars at the worldwide box-office, which, on first glance, is good. Damn good, in-fact. The film had a warm reaction on both fronts, especially from moviegoers, and for an adaptation of a 20-something year old manga to make nearly half-a-billion dollars is certainly a cause for celebration. That is, until you realize the production budget for Alita: Battle Angel was a whopping 170 million dollars (accounting for the 30 million they received in tax-incentive) and the marketing budget would have no doubt ballooned costs closer to 250 million.

The film brought in about 85 million in the United States, a total that isn’t ideal for such an expensive film. Although the foreign market is no doubt more present than ever in the industry, the domestic market remains the most lucrative among them. The film went onto make over 130 million in China (the second biggest market), a healthy return that comes with an asterisk when you consider the studio will only receive about 30 million of that (or 25% of the market share), an enormous difference from what it would have been if they would have made that money in the United States. A lot of analysts and publications have thrown around numbers for what Alita needed to be considered a success, but all of them have a wide-margin for error because of how each different territory reacts. The only certainty we do know is that Alita: Battle Angel did not make enough from its worldwide box-office to break-even and justify a sequel.

This isn’t the end of the world, and, in-fact, there’s an important lesson we can take from this if we want to see it. Alita more than doubled what Ghost in the Shell wanted, all while achieving something genre fans actually enjoyed. It shows there is a market for these films that will show up in droves if they feel the film is worth their time of day. Maybe Disney (Fox) will look at these numbers, look at the home-video sales and streaming sales and so on, and decide there’s a future for Alita, after all. Albeit, without such a hefty price-tag attached. I think the lesson to learn is that there’s mileage here if companies are willing to do it right, but, maybe, that mileage begins by learning to walk before you run.

The story is set 300 years after the Earth was nearly decimated by an interplanetary war, as scientist Dr. Dyson Ido uncovers a disembodied female cyborg with a brain still intact. Dr. Ido equips the brain to a new cyborg body and names her after his deceased daughter “Alita,” establishing a fatherly bond with her. Soon, Alita discovers the ugly-side of the world around her, where cyborgs are stripped for parts and the dreary, desolate city corrupts even the best of them. This can be seen front-and-center with Hugo, a boy Alita befriends and becomes smitten with, that is desperate to ascend to the wealthy sky city of Zalem no matter the cost. This includes selling stolen parts to a man named Vector, owner of a tournament where winners can procure entry into the city of Zalem by laying Motorball, a battle royale racing sport played by cyborg gladiators. When Alita follows Dr. Ido, she discovers his involvement as a bounty hunter and comes face-to-face with a cyborg serial-killer named Grewishka. The film sees her doing anything she can to stop him and uncovering the darker inner-workings that happen within their world.

It’s definitely a busy film to say the least, jam-packed with lore and world-building action. Although the characters can vary between over-the-top archetypes or can sometimes feel as though they’re meant as fodder for Alita, the ones that matter deliver most. Christoph Waltz delivers as a protective man in-search of what was lost in a broken world and Rosa Salazar is charming and likable as the bad-ass warrior.

The action-scenes are fun and kinetic, making for a special-effects extravaganza with “blink and you miss it” attention to detail.

If you were to break it down to the basic meat and potatoes of Alita: Battle Angel, I won’t deny there are complaints to be made about the film. It suffers from certain aspects often found in origin stories, where it has, as said, archetype characters meant mostly to be conquered by the unproven protagonist. Ed Skrein’s character in the film fits the bill in that respect. Many might interpret Alita’s story as muddied, as well, merely because of how much is wedged in the film. It isn’t an unfair opinion to have. There’s so much stuffed into this film that the breezy, speedy pace was more a necessity than a style choice, with the film still clocking out beyond the two-hour mark. It’s easy to say this film glosses over certain developments or feel as though it isn’t as self-contained as ideal.

However, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s a two-hour film that never drags and is never dull, opting instead to engorge itself with as much as it can, having to fight to keep it from bursting out the seams. It might make the argument of why Alita isn’t necessarily a great film, but the fact that it’s bleak, yet colorful visuals and engrossing world are entertaining from start to finish make it a film that’s difficult to resist.

It’s a film that leaves you wanting more, direct and transparent about its intentions at launching a string of films, and that is a lot of the reason why I spent so much of this review talking about its box-office prospects (that, and you know, my pointless obsession). This feels like the first chapter in the Battle Angel, and it’s unfortunate we won’t be able to see where she goes next. As far as whether this is the first “good” live-action adaptation of a manga or animated, I won’t be so bold as to dismiss every film I haven’t seen. What I will say though, is that Alita: Battle Angel is a fast-paced action science-fiction film I recommend and would love to see followed up on.

3.5

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9a/Happiest_Season_poster.png/220px-Happiest_Season_poster.png
Happiest Season

The holiday season is upon us, and, per tradition, that means, so too, are our favorite features of the season. So, dust off that one Rudolph film where everyone’s creepy looking and ready that Hanukkah flick where Adam Sandler is even more animated but no less juvenile, because it is that time of the year!

I used to love Christmas as a kid, so much so I even dressed as Santa Claus one Halloween year, but in my adult life, disdain has been a more apt description. It is wonderful as a kid, but, in adulthood, how commercial and manufactured it is starts to feel more prevalent and more apparent.

No more is it waiting for Christmas day to unwrap presents, and, now, it’s more about checking off an arbitrary list of names, making certain no one feels you don’t like them. It’s a thoughtful idea, coupled in with society’s worst materialistic impulses. Seeing your extended family again can be either good or bad, dependent on your relationship with them. Hoping that racist family member won’t show up that year, or that uncle does not drink too much. For some people, it can be a great time to see loved ones, other times, it is not.

Sometimes though, you feel each year is an introduction to the new developments in your life that they had not been a part of, and whether they approve or disapprove, well, that could make or break your holiday season – or have even further reach.

Happiest Season arrived at the Hulu streaming service on November 25th of this year, foregoing a theatrical release on-account of the current Covid-19 pandemic. Helmed by Clea DuVall, the film comprises itself of familiar faces like Kristen Stewart, Makenzie Davis, Allison Brie, Aubrey Plaza, and Dan Levy, among others, with a script written Duvall and Mary Holland respectively.

The romantic comedy has a straightforward concept, although it is a stone left oft unturned by yuletide fables – a woman named Harper heads to Pittsburgh in order to be with her family for the holidays, bringing her girlfriend Abby for the occasion. Problem is, Harper has not yet “come out” to her family members, uncertain of how to tell them and worried what they might think. As they arrive, we are treated to a more in depth look at the deceptively innocent dysfunctions plaguing the family members.

The father hopes to run for mayor, which means he tries to steer them away from controversy, trying to fit them into a neat Christmas gift packaging in spite of whether it is right for them or not. The mother encourages this behavior, strengthening it through her own compulsions and fixations as well. Meanwhile, Harper’s sister feels like she is used as a chess-piece, posed a traditional mother with upright family values, and shows resentment toward Harper because of it. Their third sister, well, no one cares about the third sister (and that’s the problem for her).

The film sees Abby do her best to adjust to the predicament she is in. She is not the girlfriend, but is, instead, the friend who needs someplace to spend the holidays. As she struggles to play the role Harper has cast for her, she finds more out about Harper and her past, and seeds of doubt sprout for their relationship together.

I did not know whether I would enjoy this film when I first started it on Hulu. As prefaced, it bolstered familiar names and faces which were to its benefit. Kristen Stewart is a charming actress who has had impressive turns in dramas like Clouds of Sils Maria and Camp X-Ray, and I believe is at the precipice of becoming a great actress, whereas I enjoyed Allison Brie in Community and Makenzie Davis more recently in the Shudder horror film Always Shine. Of course, it is a Christmas romantic-comedy, which is hardly the place where dramatic range gets stretched, that said, I was thoroughly charmed by the film.

Kristen Stewart is incredibly charming in the film, and alongside Dan Levy’s performance as her “gay friend,” a trope I have always disliked in features because of how over-the-top it comes off, they offer a fun enthusiasm and surprisingly dramatic depth to the film. Dan Levy’s character offers tongue-in-cheek commentary, at first, merely as a framing device, then, evolving into a proper wraparound subplot.

The film is not an emotional juggernaut, which I think is to its benefit. Depending on certain variables, this could have been an entirely different film. There is weight to it, for certain, but it does have a glossy, whimsy backing it, as well. Harper’s mother and father are both conservative in nature, but they aren’t exactly devout church members ready to condemn the homosexuals to a fiery damnation either, which could have made this a far less good-natured film. Instances where Harper and Abby show affection to each other and duck for cover when a family member comes by feels playful and fun, but only because we know that the consequences won’t likely be too harsh. I like that, honestly.

Happiest Season is aware of other, more serious aftermaths, as well, as established through Dan Levy’s character explaining what happened when he revealed his sexuality to his father. However, that’s not the story they told.

Instead, what’s received is a pleasantly sweet, playful comedy about two individuals who love each other and have to navigate the Grinch’s that may have a problem with that.

The film overall may be a little too sugary in retrospect, with answers arriving too easily and predicaments resolving themselves in a fashion too neat and tidy, which is a plight had by most seasonal films. Some subplots feel like I could have taken or left them, like how they’re all mean to the third sister for no reason, and the payoff to that feels like mostly unnecessary comedic relief.

All in all though, it is a warm and fuzzy, light heart film, that’s even capable of a handful of chuckles. Plus, as a bonus, it offers a playful, fun lesbian romantic comedy, and you don’t see those very often. Diversity is good. It is even better when it amounts to an entertaining film. I’d recommend it.

3.5

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fa/Spider-Man_Into_the_Spider-Verse_poster.png/220px-Spider-Man_Into_the_Spider-Verse_poster.png
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse

Although many moviegoers are likely still riding the high that is being able to see our favorite web-crawler in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, whether it be his most recent showing in Avengers: Infinity War or awaiting Spider-Man: Far From Home, however, with that said, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is a film worth seeing for all true believers, as well as fans of animation alike. Even if it may not be blowing up the box-office the same way as its live-action counterpart, a better way to look at the film is to compare it with the rest of the Sony Pictures Animation catalog, which includes the highly successful Hotel Transylvania and Smurf franchises.

Say what you will about those films, Hotel Transylvania has managed to improve on itself with each installment, starting out with a 358 million worldwide gross for its first film, and surpassing half a billion-dollars in its third. A 350 million worldwide total appears to be in reach for Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, and with that, I have no doubt we’ll be seeing more animated superhero fare in the near future. This also builds credibility for the Sony Pictures Animation, which hasn’t had a truly well-received film since Arthur Christmas, usually appealing strictly to a young-audience and adhering to a very conventional formula. Critics have raved about Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, I’ve even heard some refer to it as the best Spider-Man film ever made. Is this an example of overzealous enthusiasm (which isn’t a bad thing!), for instance, I heard the same thing about Spider-Man: Homecoming, and while it was a fun film, I didn’t think it was better than the first couple of Sam Raimi films, or is Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse truly up to snuff?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is a 2018 computer-animated superhero film following Miles Morales, a young-boy in New York City that finds himself bit by a radioactive spider and given superpowers. The kicker here, however, is that he is one of many different Spider-Men, and together, they team up to thwart the dastardly deeds of Kingpin. If that summary oozed bombastic comic-book vibrancy, then the film will as well. Directed by Bob Persichetti, Peter Ramsey, and Rodney Rothman from a screenplay by Phil Lord and Rothman respectively, the film’s animation fully embraces the comic-book aesthetic and the heritage of the character.

In the early-days of the superhero genre, it was customary for the films to try and pay homage to their comic-book counterparts, whether it be the original Spider-Man Trilogy, or, for instance, Ang Lee’s Hulk. Although certain films ended up regarded as classics, I think it can be argued they never implemented their source-material’s visual-appeal as seamlessly as accomplished in this film. Although the film has a budget on the lighter side of animation affair, it has enough creativity and pzazz to showcase its own unique identity, embracing a frenetic and even striking look that adds a lot to the overall film. Granted, I will admit that background characters and certain scenery might potentially be dizzying to some viewers, a comparison I made at the theater is that some of the background animation reminded me of watching a 3-D film without the glasses on. I read after the fact the directors held the believe that seeing the film in 3-D was imperative to the viewing experience, but I didn’t get the memo.

The story-line is fun and filled with humor, referencing Sam Raimi’s Trilogy, and showing us an array of different characters, like Noir Spider-Man or Spider Gwen. Shameik Moore brings Miles Morales to life as a likable lead, walking the fine-line between mimicking the classic Peter Parker tropes and adding an extra flavor to it, meanwhile, Jake Johnson does well as the worn-down Spider-Man we all know. Kingpin doesn’t do anything very noteworthy, more-or-less acting as a thread in the film’s conflict that’s punchable, but the dynamic of the alternative universes’ is enough to carry the story alone.

I think film critics and moviegoers alike oftentimes have the ability to be overzealous with their acclaim. For the most part, I appreciate this. I appreciate it and think it’s wonderful when anyone finds something to be passionate about and, more importantly, positive about. That’s why I wouldn’t say Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is overrated or that those individuals are wrong about the film. I simply think my recommendation for those heading into this film is that they should expect a fun and zany film, and not, perhaps, the best Spider-Man film ever brought to film. Although this film is brimming with charm and loveable characters, and although this film has sentiment and heart to spare, I don’t think it carries nearly the narrative, dramatic or cinematic merit of the character at its height. This film is more comparable, not only because it’s an animated film, but in thematic tone to Big Hero 6 than a live-action counterpart.

Although the twists and turns are familiar tropes and nothing you wouldn’t expect (like Big Hero 6), Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse consistently keeps you entertained and oblivious to its faults, amounting to a fun culmination to any comic-book fan’s movie-night.

3.5

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/c2/Halloween4poster.jpg/220px-Halloween4poster.jpg
Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers

I was looking forward to writing my thoughts about Halloween 4 on Nickelbib. I have talked about some of the Halloween films over the years, but I have barely scratched the surface overall.

I’ve talked about how much I enjoyed the Rob Zombie remake as a flawed, but enjoyable reinterpretation of the source material, and how satiable I thought the 2018 Halloween reboot was, in spite retreading largely familiar territory. Although I found both Halloween Kills and Halloween Ends largely disappointing, I still am grateful to have had a new trilogy to the fabled franchise that helped entice a new era of slasher films. With that in mind, it will likely be awhile until we receive a new Halloween film (although, nothing stays dead forever in horror), and so, I thought I would start playing catch up and share my thoughts on other films in the series.

Released in 1988, Halloween 4 is a return to form (shape?) for the series in some respects. Or, at least, a return to form in the sense that it sees the return of its main-antagonist Michael Myers. The original plan for the Halloween series was for it to be an anthology. Michael was dead come Halloween II, which is why Halloween III saw the infamous Silver Shamrock story. Since then, Halloween III has been reappraised by many and even has a small cult following, but, at the time, it was seen a little like shooting the golden William Shatner mask-wearing goose. Thus, six years later, Michael Myers has hereby been resurrected.

Unfortunately, the same couldn’t be said for Jamie Lee Curtis or director John Carpenter. Instead, Dwight Little is at the reins (director of that Phantom of the Opera flick with Robert Englund) and actor Danielle Harris portrays Jamie Lloyd, daughter of the deceased (in this timeline) Laurie Strode. As you might surmise, Halloween 4 sees Michael Myers return, having evidently survived the aftermath of Halloween II, and target Laurie’s daughter Jamie. It is a simple, straightforward slasher film, and, at the end of the day, that’s likely what the Halloween series is best at (the waters muddy when they become too concerned in the specifics and finer details behind it all).

As a budding horror fan, once upon a time, I loved this fourth film. In fact, I would even say I had a deeper nostalgic attachment to it than the original Carpenter film, simply because I had seen it as many times as I had.

As an adult, I don’t think about it the same way I once did. For starters, I realize now that Danielle Harris’ Jamie Lloyd character isn’t the main character of the film. I mean, she is, but she isn’t. She certainly doesn’t have the most character development or the largest on-screen presence of the film. The character is more like the object of Michael Myers’ obsession, but, not, in fact, a new Laurie Strode. The film is more like what would have happened if, in the original Halloween, Michael Myers was after Tommy Doyle and Laurie Strode was trying to keep him from being killed.

Ellie Cornell, as Rachel Carruthers, is more appropriately the final girl of this film. She is Jamie’s watchful protector, meanwhile Donald Pleasance is back once again as Dr. Sam Loomis.

In retrospect, Halloween 4 is decent enough as a film.

A lot of what I recalled fondly about the film before, as an adult, I no longer appreciate in the same way I did. Every now and again, Jamie will make callbacks to the original film, like donning a clown outfit, or feeling Michael’s presence over her, but, as an adult, it comes off less nuanced or subtle than I remembered. It is less an intelligent depiction of the circle of violence and more a fan-serviced, cheesy way of reminding us of a better film.

The editing is peculiar, like how you’ll have children teasing Jamie for having a dead mother (I know children can be cruel, but the scene feels inauthentic), and then, immediately after, having a flashback of that moment we’d only just witnessed. (Oh, and blond Michael Myers….)

Donald Pleasance is good in the film. In fact, as far as I am concerned, everyone is good in the film, acting-wise. Harris’ portrayal is decent for a child actor and Carruthers makes for a solid enough female lead. However, the film itself simply doesn’t have a lot to say for itself. Pleasance remains good as Dr. Loomis, but, even he feels like he has lost some a lot of his shine since the original duology. He feels more cartoony, like a caricature of what he was. The type of person who wants to keep away bloodshed – but, then, will incite a mob in spite knowing full well that teenagers are roaming the streets donning Michael Myers getups.

I think a lot of ones’ enjoyment of Halloween 4 depends on your suspension of disbelief and your willingness to check your brain at the door. In ways, it can feel like a direct-to-video sequel of the original film. A high-quality direct-to-video sequel, but a direct-to-video sequel, nonetheless. Oh, this one’s her daughter! Oh, she wearing the … just like Michael wore that! Oh, they have the doctor in it! And, it feels like it plays the hits, but doesn’t really offer anything else beyond that.

All that in mind, it isn’t all bad and I don’t want to harp on it too much as I do retain a special place in my heart for the film. It is Halloween, for all intents and purposes, benefited by its distinct sound and the allure the series had (especially up to 1988).

Still, as a film, pound for pound, Halloween 4 is only an alright slasher film with alright slasher film moments in it. And sometimes that’s enough.

2.0

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ae/Allegoria.jpeg/220px-Allegoria.jpeg
Allegoria

Released on August 1st, 2022, I had no prior information or expectation of Allegoria. In the spirit of dumpster diving, I hadn’t even bothered watching a trailer for the film. All I knew about the film was that it was released on the Shudder streaming service, a safe haven for worthwhile horror films like Lucky, Random Acts of Violence, and The Boy Behind the Door, to name a few.

The opening credits offer personality, abrasive yet stylish. I always like it when a film doesn’t skimp out on some kind of first impression. Scout Compton is in this film. She’s the actress who played Laurie Strode in Rob Zombie’s Halloween duology. I haven’t seen her in a while.

The film begins by introduces us to a theater coach who’s more than a little theatrical. He monologues for a times, the amount of spit I watched him divulge is only matched by his spewing of self-indulgent garble at his students.

His speech carries a level of self-seriousness that nearly cycles back and becomes campy as a result – he asks for them to him their monster, to allow the hot breath of a thousand rapists and murderers to embody them. Everything changes when he calls upon a woman from amongst his onlookers and asks her to take the stage.

Something I hadn’t known about Allegoria prior, and something that also isn’t readily apparent in a lot of the descriptions I’d read about the film, is that it isn’t a story in the conventional sense. Instead, it is an anthology of sorts – a series of horror short stories with a theme around art. The tortured artist gone mad shtick has been done to death but is one I approached with an open mind.

Although I made comments in jest about the first segment, I didn’t mind it overall. The cinematography is of a decent production and the acting itself, although pretentious, was amicable and even gripping in its execution. By the end, it was a modest short film, a straightforward concept with a predictable, but enjoyable aftermath. The monologuing may have gone a little longer than it needed, but, in the end, it feels like a basic horror flash fiction brought to life on the screen, and I don’t mind that at all.

The second segment is okay. The basic premise is that it is a short horror segment about a painter, and I don’t feel the need to break it down any more than that. This is a segment I think you can likely predict early on. And, I don’t mean that you can predict the segment early into watching it, I mean that, in an anthology about artists, I bet you would predict this story is included. This is because you’ve read this story before. You’ve watched films with this story already. Hell, you’ve even played videogames with this story in it. This a story you already know the beginning, middle, and conclusion of. As a short film, it doesn’t offer anything new to the concept and doesn’t head anywhere you wouldn’t expect. It just is, take it or leave it. But, I will say the creature that appears in this is a neat visual.

This film was directed by a director who goes by the name Spider One. As it turns out, he is the younger brother of Rob Zombie (which makes me wonder if he may’ve met Scout Compton through him, which I think’s a neat, little tidbit), and more notably, is the lead-singer of Powerman 5000. I dug deeper, what I had assumed was a small-time, indie rock-band was actually fairly successful, you might know them! I know I have heard their song When Worlds Collide about a million times in my life from playing WWE: SmackDown vs. RAW as a kid. When I went to look at his directorial credits on IMDB, I found out that Allegoria is actually his feature length debut – but that comes with an asterisk. I noticed at least one of the short films from Allegoria was filmed in 2020, so this is actually less a single film and more like a compilation of prior works from him.

As a fan of short films, I am absolutely all for it. All Hallows’ Eve was the film that introduced me to Damien Leone, the director who went onto direct Terrifier, and I know The Mortuary Collection made me excited to see what was instore for Ryan Spindell. At the same time, when you have a compilation of otherwise unrelated short films, it can sometimes make the whole feel disjointed or uneven. This especially happens when you try to make a wraparound narrative that connects them all. Allegoria doesn’t do that. Instead, it merely heads from one short film to the next, with only a black screen and a pause in-between. Personally, as I find wraparounds often feel forced or unnecessary, I’m in favor of that as well.

The third segment is an interesting idea and an okay execution. Basically, an author births a slasher villain into existence through his writings and the villain stops by to make a few edits to the draft. It isn’t anything to go out of your way for, but, like the rest of them, it isn’t anything egregious or bad.

The fourth segment is the one with Scout Compton. I’ve singled her out a couple times now, which is solely based on her being the only actor I recognize amongst them all, so you might argue this is the segment I was looking forward to. During the segment, the characters make a small remark about a film they saw in the theaters, making a clear direct reference to the third segment’s villain, which I thought was a nice touch. Incidentally, it is my favorite amongst the ones we’ve seen. In this segment, a woman and a man meet in the man’s apartment after a night out, and, well, really, there isn’t a way to describe this one without spoiling it. Like the rest of them, it isn’t anything we haven’t already seen in some way, somewhere else. The outcome is easy to predict, and it can be argued that, even at only about ten minutes, the dialogue drags a little longer than it should, but returning to the comparison I made early about a basic horror flash fiction brought to life, I enjoyed it. It has a memorable, satisfying payoff.

The fifth and final segment is, in a lot of ways, the lynchpin that brings all the stories together into a more cohesive, final product. Whereas I said earlier several of the short films were filmed separately and then, retroactively, grouped together, that doesn’t adequately describe Allegoria. This short film effectively loops back around and connects with both the first and second segment, albeit in rather superficial ways. The segment is the longest amongst the series and is, honestly, my least favorite amongst them. The story is all about a special string of keys that can bring about a certain, drastic reaction. The dialogue is long-winded and largely uninteresting, one of the characters sings a song about how if she was an insect, she’d be a spider, ignoring that spiders are arachnids, not insect, which is a useless nitpick, but I couldn’t leave it. Like the whole lot of them, the outcome of events are largely predictable and rather familiar, the only difference though is that it feels more drawn out and like it doubles-down on the worst qualities of each of them – that being too much dialogue, a predictable story, and coming off a wee bit too pretentious.

As far as Allegoria is concerned altogether as an anthology film – it’s okay. Spider One is satisfactory as a director and the acting, execution, and all that, is satisfactory, but mostly not very gripping or unique. The best way I could describe it is to say – think of a great anthology film series and think of each great story of that anthology, usually every one of them has at least one short film that feels passable, but unnoteworthy. Like a stocking stuffer on Christmas morning, they’re appreciated, but there is a reason they’re in the stocking and not under the tree, so to speak. All of Allegoria’s stories feel like that. None of them are outright bad, but none of them standout in a way that’ll make you revisit the film or remember it. They’re a series of appetizers, which ultimately, could be filling, aren’t something I’d particularly recommend.

1.5

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/eb/Barbarian_2022_film_poster.png/220px-Barbarian_2022_film_poster.png
Barbarian

Barbarian is a film I was excited for, in spite of not knowing anything about it. The film was directed by Zach Cregger in his sophomore directorial effort. His last film, a stupid fun comedy film called Miss March, received a single digit Rotten Tomatoes percentage, but this horror film received nearly perfect marks across the board. Ironically, it’s the prior film (and his involvement with Trevor Moore and friends) that made me excited for him.

As a teenager, I always loved Whitest Kids U’ Know, a sketch comedy series that may have been a little more miss than hit (but that didn’t stop me from loving it) and I was excited for what’d happen next with them.

It isn’t unheard of in the realm of horror for a comedian to hit pay dirt. Jordan Peele directed the fantastic horror thrillers Get Out and Us, respectively, and David Gordon Green did the new Halloween trilogy (which I didn’t care for much, personally).

Barbarian has an interesting premise for a film, but it is also a film I would recommend heading into as blindly as you can. I am at a point now that I don’t watch trailers for anything anymore if I can help it. My philosophy is that I will most likely watch it anyways, especially when it is a film as hyped as Barbarian was, so why delude the experience? The best description I can provide for Barbarian is to say that it is about a young woman who arrives at a rental house and discovers she was double-booked with somebody else. They agree to stay with each other for the night, and hereafter, the film Barbarian happens.

Your immediate impression is one of anxiety for the woman. When Zach Cregger wrote the film, he claimed one of his inspirations was a book that encouraged women to trust their intuition in scenarios involving red-flags and suspicious characters. Obviously and unfortunately, if a man arrives at a rental building and realizes he double-booked with a woman, the scenario is largely different. The first question for any woman is whether the man is dangerous or has ill intent.

As the film progresses and you become acquainted with the male character, you are left to your imagination. The film knows you are suspicious of him. We’ve seen this film. And you’re left waiting for the other shoe to drop and how. Is it a bait-and-switch? What if she’s the bad guy!? Barbarian happens.

The film largely follows Georgina Campbell, an actress who is largely new to the genre, but has a bright future should she decide to pursue it further. She is likable, charismatic, and is, in my opinion, one of the main highlights of the film. The other cast members involved are more associated with horror and may draw your attention. Bill Skarsgard (of IT fame) and Justin Long (from Sam Raimi‘s Drag Me To Hell and a lesser known horror flick I’d recommend called After.Life) are both heavily featured as well.

As a film, Barbarian goes down smoothly. The premise itself is deceptively simple, allowing oneself to easily insert themselves in the scenario, and then, it unravels in an entertaining, enigmatic fashion.

Like I said, I believe the film is best served with as little context as you can have for it. However, what I can tell you is that it is smartly written and detail-oriented. Although the film is very different from Get Out and Us (and yet, also of a similar wheelhouse), the director finds himself able to blend comedy with his horror without detracting from either element, much like Jordan Peele. Whereas Peele called to mind John Carpenter, Cregger feels like he makes good use of pages from Wes Craven‘s playbook.

It’s a simple film – mostly. It is a lot of what makes Barbarian an easy recommendation. Although there are political and social elements to be found in the film (and horror in itself has always been political), they are largely complimentary to the film itself. Justin Long’s sleazy character certainly feels timely with the #MeToo movement and you’ll find small commentaries on gentrification as well, but they’re all sprinkled in and feel in service to the story and its characters and not unwarranted or wedged in in a way that feels like a sloppy Ted Talk. It is a straight-up horror film and, as I said, it goes down easy because of it. I would absolutely recommend it.

3.5

[McConnaughay]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZWNjMGFkNzEtYmI0Yy00ZjY5LWE2OGUtYTE2NTczMmRhNGViXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyODY5NzkyMjA@._V1_.jpg
Puppet Master: Doktor Death

After the eleventh film in the Puppet Master mainline series, Full Moon Features has begun applying itself to making spin-off sequels – first seen with 2020‘s Blade: The Iron Cross.

In theory, I can see where they are coming from. Although the obvious would be to simply stop making Puppet Master movies and recognize that the well ran dry in the nineties, separating oneself from the main series makes sense. The budget restraints Full Moon now faces likely makes it difficult to animate the puppets every go around, especially Six Shooter, so it must be nice to narrow in on one puppet instead. Plus, it makes it so they aren’t beholden to a strict lore (not that Puppet Master exactly follows its own continuity).

This time around, we have Puppet Master: Doktor Death.

For many who have seen at least a couple Puppet Master films (or those brave enough to have seen all of them, like myself), you’d be forgiven for not really remembering Dr. Death. The character was only seen in one prior film – Retro Puppet Master (Puppet Master 7), where he was introduced as a puppet carrying the soul of a medical student who once helped Andre Toulon.

The film is directed by Dave Parker, whose directorial resume, you might be familiar with. He directed The Hills Run Red, a slasher that rocked a budget of 4.5 million and a screenplay written by the co-writer of The Crow film (I’ve seen the film, but I could not tell you a single thing about it). In terms of Full Moon fare, Parker also directed The Dead Hate the Living.

Story wise, the newest Puppet Master follows a young woman who begins her job as one of the caregivers of a nursing home called Shady Oaks. On her first day, they are cleaning out the rooms of one of the deceased patients and stumble on an old trunk housing the Dr. Death puppet. As you might surmise, havoc ensues once he is unleashed.

Something I appreciated about the film was that it wasn’t as complicated as more recent Puppet Master films. In the early days, Puppet Master was more-or-less a slasher film, but by Puppet Master III (my favorite Puppet Master), our antagonists became protagonists – at times, abiding by whoever controlled them, at others, outright having consciences and seeking out their own sense of vigilante justice. ‘Pint-sized heroes,” that was what I remember them called in one of the summaries from their box-art over a decade ago. I appreciated that they tried something new, and, at times, it worked, but, nowadays, they’ve really lost the plot, so to speak.

All the backtracking and muddying, the idea of a simple film with Dr. Death wreaking havoc was a breath of fresh air in my book.

For that reason, I would argue that Puppet Master: Doktor Death is the most palatable mainline Puppet Master film since the turn of the millennium.

The music feels classical and like that of a bygone era, and you know what, the final parts of the film feel like the culmination of a genuinely decent stupid fun slasher film. It feels like a genuine effort was made to create something creepy and memorable at the end.

There is a scene toward the end of Doctor Death inside a person, puppeteering them by yanking at their insides. I liked that. We’ve had more than a dozen Puppet Master films ham-fisting exposition, just do weird things like that for an hour and we’ll all be better for it.

Unfortunately, as a film, it doesn’t do that.

Puppet Master: Doktor Death is short, even by Full Moon standards. The average Full Moon feature usually clocks out shy of an hour and a half, but Doktor Death’s house call only takes fifty nine minutes (and that’s including the usual two minute opening credits).

The characters are sleazy, which is par for the course for a Full Moon film, but they never align in that fun, B-movie way. They bare the clothes, but not the soul (… kidding). One of the worst offenses these types of films can have with me is when it feels like they’re struggling to find something for the characters to do. Why is that? It’s only an hour and you’re making a film! Do something! I know movie has to movie, introduce the characters and dynamic, but make it fun while you do it! Instead, everything only feels off and disconnected, like an hour long film that still feels the need to pad itself out. The characters never align or feel the organic chemistry the film wants them to have, and certain choices keeps the production feeling of a low-quality.

For instance, if you have a film that isn’t an hour long, you do not need to have flashbacks to pat yourself on the back for a twist. Trust the viewer to pick up on your subtle cues.

Overall, there is fun to be had with Puppet Master: Doktor Death. I say that, trying to look at the positives as much as I can. That last fifteen or so minutes could’ve belonged to one of the better Puppet Master’s, the rest of it though doesn’t clear even the lowest bar needed to warrant a recommendation.

1.5

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Winnie_the_Pooh%2C_Blood_and_Honey_Film_Poster.jpg
Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey

In some respects, I was excited for Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey. In most respects I wasn’t, but, in some respects, I was. This isn’t a film I will be talking about for inclusion in the Nickelbib Nightmare Deck nor is a film I will be nominating soon for the Dustjacket Hall of Fame. It was never a film I had considered as in contention for either accolade either. This is a film a friend and I chose to watch while we shot the breeze and reminisced, one that we ourselves weren’t too heavily invested in. At the same time, I can’t say I wasn’t enthusiastic for the film.

In the same way I will most certainly watch The Mean One when I can, I found myself drawn to Blood & Honey. It felt like a relic of a bygone era, like something back from the eighties, a decade where I am still finding unheard of slasher films like it is a bottomless well. They aren’t usually very good (although sometimes you will find something to appreciate from them – for example, The Burning isn’t what I’d call a good film, but Tom Savini is what I would call a good make-up artist in horror), but I appreciate them. If there was ever a time to use the phrase ‘schlock,’ I believe that would apply to my expectation of this film.

In total, I found Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey both better and worse than what I expected.

The film was directed by Rhys Frake-Waterfield.

His prior work includes a film called Firenado, and I believe that is inline with what I expected him to have previously directed (and who knows? Maybe Firenado is fantastic!), a low-budget, exploitative horror flick, cashing in on the absurdity of its own existence more than its merit. This isn’t always a bad thing, per se. It seldom leads to high-art exactly, but it sometimes leads to a fun film. For example, a film like Head of the Family or Chopping Mall is completely worthwhile and more than watchable. Sometimes though, it leads to “so bad, it’s good” cinema, which doesn’t really appeal to me, personally.

Some people like that. The Asylum films or mockbusters, and films like Sharknado, but I am not among them. It is a fine line and some moviegoers may not be able to differentiate them, but it is an important separation in my opinion. Something like Chopping Mall isn’t entertaining me with how absurdly bad it is, but by how well it is able to portray an absurd concept. Enjoyable performances. Fun, likable characters. Good makeup. Clever camerawork. They are all variables that factor in, and if you succeed at those variables or others, you will make an enjoyable film – no matter what, if you enjoy a film, that implies it has some kind of good-quality, not a bad one.

The camerawork in Blood & Honey is better than expected.

This is, for the most part, the extent of the praise I will ultimately afford the film. I had an image in my head before I watched the film of what I feared it may look like. I imagined two different possibilities – cheap, grainy-looking footage and a shaky cam, or that heavy digital aesthetic that has become more prevalent, where it looks deceptively high-quality yet very fake and unappealing to the eye.

This film doesn’t have a high-production value by any means, but it was better than I expected (which was truly bottom of the barrel). By the end, it did skirt awfully close to bottom of the barrel, but, early on, it had a couple shots here and there that suggested a cinematic prowess I hadn’t expected. It isn’t anything that will blow your hair back, but it is still better aesthetically than some of what’s out there. Some critics singled out its bad camerawork as a main point of criticism. They’re not wrong. They’re simply not succumbing themselves to what I am.

This is a film that wasn’t meant to find the amount of eyeballs it has – akin to something like Pinocchio’s Revenge or The Curse of Humpty Dumpty. This is something no one was meant to care about (something I wasn’t even supposed to be writing about!), that managed to ride a meme-like “for the lulz” popularity and the prior theatrical success of Terrifier 2 (and other horror films post-Covid) into becoming a successful film.

The costumes look bad. Early on, we are treated to a brief animated introduction meant to set the stage for the film itself. It isn’t anything too crazy, but I liked it. The costumes, however, leave a lot to be desired. It isn’t even that they look bad, it’s that they’re made to look bad. They look on par with the film they are in. The issue is that they aren’t shot in the best ways (here I am contradicting the single praise I offered the film, but I digress). If you have a costume that looks like a costume, the best thing you can do is use your lighting and visuals to try and disguise that fact. It’s a basic, evergreen strategy in horror – if you have a shoestring budget, less can be more. Obviously, this type of film is more about excess and in your face absurdity, but, for a film that plays it straight, I believe it would have done itself a favor to not have shown shots that made it so blatantly apparent that a human’s face was behind the Pooh mask. Just keep it darkly lit or be selective about how you frame him. This film does neither.

The story doesn’t exist. Well, I mean, it does, but it doesn’t. It is an incoherent mess that only further unravels the longer you think about it or try to dissect it (so don’t). As prefaced, I wasn’t horribly invested in Blood & Honey, but I did pay attention to it. And, you know what? I couldn’t tell you what was happening / anything about the characters in the film. I mean, you did have Christopher Robin and Pooh, but the rest of the cast? I couldn’t tell you a single character trait about them. They are empty characters, void of any and all traits (like Piglets lined up for the slaughter).

The concept of Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey actually seems like an alright idea for a slasher film. Christopher Robin left Hundred Acre Woods and all the animals behind, and while he was absent from them, they either starved to death or went mad. It’s both dark and a perfectly fine idea for a slasher film.

I can imagine a lot of different angles for it.

It is such an easy idea, after all. Have Christopher Robin show up with a bunch of friends, and then, let a slasher film be a slasher film. It is an easy foundation to build upon, but the film feels like it never develops its ideas beyond their infancy. (We could even have it be that a group of hunters murdered and made pelts out of Winnie and friends, justifying why it was clearly men in costumes!)

The deaths are largely uneventful. They’re neither grotesquely gory (a la Hatchet or Terrifier) or particularly clever, they simply are.

The acting is subpar and the dialogue is one-dimensional.

I don’t usually write reviews like this on Nickelbib.com, and it is for a reason. I write to create a “Best of” list, never a “Worst of”. I don’t like to punch down on a film that tries in good faith and I don’t like to play the “woe is me” reviewer who suffers through a film that supplies low-effort entertainment. For that reason, I will simply say that I hope they look at this as an opportunity for improvement.

1

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cd/Terrifier_2_Poster.jpg/220px-Terrifier_2_Poster.jpg
Terrifier 2

In 2015, I discovered a low-budget anthology film called All Hallows’ Eve. This was the first feature length appearance of Damien Leone’s character Art the Clown – an eccentric, peculiar, and very violent murderous clown. The film was rough-around-the-edges, but I was taken by the Art the Clown character. Three years after the anthology (which was composed of much older short films), the director released Terrifier, an all-out standalone film starring horror’s newest slasher villain. Like its predecessor, Terrifier was more than a little rough. It was a below-average film, but an above average slasher film.

The struggles the original film had largely dealt with its lack of cohesion / story development and a few choice moments I felt worked against it. I didn’t hate it though, and, in fact, I found myself still rooting for Damien Leone and Art the Clown. As a lifetime fan of the slasher genre, we honestly need a character like Art the Clown to make some noise and wreak havoc.

2022 has been prolific for the slasher genre. As a matter of fact, I would argue it might be one of the most significant years for the genre in a few decades. Our headliners were Halloween Kills, Scream, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which didn’t all exactly deliver (I liked Scream, I didn’t care too much for the latter two), but they kept the torch lit. Meanwhile, Don Mancini continues to have fun with Chucky on television, and we’ve had well-received under card slashers in the form of X (and its prequel film Pearl) and Orphan: First Kill.

For me, as much as I am a fan of Scream, I found myself most excited for Terrifier 2.

I wanted the film to succeed.

At the box office, the film already has – raking in $8 million off a small budget (reportedly $250,000) and achieving mainstream attention. The film will likely do a lot in helping Bloody Disgusting‘s new streaming service Screambox be taken seriously as well.

Set after the events of the original film, Art the Clown has risen from the dead and once more begins to brutalize anyone he can find. This sounds simple, but it is actually far more fleshed out and expansive than the original film (or slashers, in general, for that matter).

The main character is a young woman named Sienna Shaw who is intended as the series’ official final girl character moving forward (their Nancy, Sydney, or Laurie Strode, if you will). Her character is likable enough, whereas her situation is easy to place oneself in – she lives with her mother and younger brother, and has been experiencing tough times since her father’s death. Her brother Jonathan is experiencing troubled times at school and it seems like she can’t stop butting heads with her mother, meanwhile she finds herself haunted by nightmares that appear to hold deeper meanings within them.

The characterizations and story for Terrifier 2 are a drastic improvement on the original film. Although I had moments where I felt like the acting didn’t always land exactly as intended, I mostly found it satiable overall (most of the criticism has to do with certain characters like Sienna’s mother feeling one-note or archetypal). The story itself, especially what involves Sienna and her brother, lands rather well, and I found myself invested in them as characters.

Art the Clown is a lot in this film.

I mean that in more ways than one. He’s a lot, but there’s also a lot of him. Terrifier 2 is a long film. Clocking out at 138 minutes, I can confidently say it is likely the longest slasher film I have ever watched. The director argues that every scene was integral and he couldn’t imagine any of them ending up on the chop block. I respect the sentiment, but I would, however, disagree, saying that more than half an hour of this film could have been edited out of the official runtime and it would have been a more concise, superior film. It wouldn’t even be a matter of deleting scenes, but shortening moments that overstayed their welcome – of which, I feel there were a few.

Thankfully though, a perceived lack of restraint aside, the film is a highlight reel of goofy, absurd moments that make it a lot of fun to watch.

I have read all the articles about “vomiting” and the film’s ultra violence, and while I can understand it, I don’t believe Terrifier 2 is that offensive of a film. There is a lot of bloodshed, for certain. Art the Clown is mean and has a thirst for cruelty unlike nearly any other slasher villain put on film. He’s the type of slasher villain that will rip your arms off and mutilate you, then, come back with a container of salt to dab on the wounds.

However, it is difficult to take seriously, and that’s the charm of a slasher villain. Terrifier 2 is fun in how it celebrates the macabre. The blood looks like corn syrup and the severed limbs look like they are made of foam (or something like that), and the film is better for it. It allows you to disconnect and take it as a goofy, crazy-ass film, rather than how you’d feel watching Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.

Everything from the score and sound design, to Art the Clown‘s tongue-in-cheek portrayal, make Terrifier 2 feel like a relic of a bygone era – like he would feel right at home tormenting his victims in the eighties.

By the end, I ended up pretty head over heels for Terrifier 2.

The film is not perfect at all, nor are most of my favorite slashers films, for that matter. The more you pick it apart, the more you will find wrong with it. However, taken for what it is, a throwback to old-school slashers with a more balls-to-the-wall sensibility, it has a feast made up of some of the very same ingredients that made me love A Nightmare on Elm Street and what made these films so infectious to watch. Itis a superior sequel (in every way) and perhaps the best slasher film I’ve seen from a franchise that didn’t start before the turn of the millennium.

Congratulations, Damien Leone, you have yourself a slasher classic.

3.5

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/Captain_clegg_poster.jpg
Captain Clegg

Since it feels like my biggest criticism on The Brides of Dracula film dealt mostly with its lack of originality, I decided the next Hammer Horror picture I should review should be south of the border, so-to-speak. If offered a choice, I always single-out Dracula, whether I’m looking for a Hammer Horror film or a Universal Monster movie, Dracula is the character I am most interested in. I believe this has most-to-do with my perception of each of the characters through the years and not necessarily the quality I attach to each individual film. In this latest film Night Creatures, however, I will find no caped vampires, no howling wolf’s, and no mummies. Night Creatures, other-wise known as Captain Clegg, is a film of a different breed.

The 1962 British adventure horror film was directed by Peter Graham Scott, drawing inspiration from Doctor Syn, a book series written by Russell Thorndike. The film stars Peter Cushing, Yvonne Romain and Patrick Allen.

The feature begins in 1776 as a sailor is left on an island to death after assaulting the wife of pirate captain Nathaniel Clegg. By 1792, our pirate captain Clegg has allegedly been captured and hanged by the Royal Navy. The countryside surrounding his resting place is home to a group of masked figures called the Marsh Phantoms who ride on horseback in the night and terrorize the villagers. All of this, as interesting as it may sound, does not prepare you for a lot of the film that awaits, however.

I found myself taken by the Marsh Phantoms; a visual presence that I believe serves as the single-most striking image in this film. They aren’t an unheard of visual. The Marsh Phantoms don skeleton glow-in-the-dark skeletal costumes as they wreak havoc, offering a bright-white contrast against the nighttime backdrop.

Everything takes a turn in the film as Captain Collier and his band of sailors arrive in Dymchurch to investigate reports that the locals have been involved in the smuggling of alcohol from France. Remember that sailor who was left to die on the island? That sailor now accompanies the sailors as a slave, apparently with a heightened sense of smell that allows him to seek out wine from a great ways. Despite the sailors’ inability to find any of the sought after wine, the village is, in-fact, housing smugglers led by the village parson Dr. Blyss, played by Peter Cushing. That’s what this film is about, for lack of revealing more sensitive information on its behalf.

I have conflicting thoughts about this film.

Straightaway I’ll say that, for a film that’s less than an hour and a half, Night Creatures feels like it takes forever to end. Also, having watched the film, I can say the title Night Creatures is far more misleading than the original Captain Clegg title.

The film is not a horror film and not an action film either, not by standard definition. While the film does see glowing skeletons on horseback for a short period and Peter Cushing does, in-fact, swing across a chandelier, I would not say either of those fulfills the necessary requirements to be called either action or horror. You could, at best, call it horror-adjacent, but I think it would be more appropriate to call it a period-drama. After all, the film’s primary concern is finding all this unaccounted for alcohol! Spooky stuff.

The acting is straightforward and plain, with certain characterizations that can best be described as hammy or over-the-top, like our death-sentenced sailor turned servant, affectionately named “Mulatto” in this film (an offensive phrase meant to describe someone who is mixed-race). The character, played by professional wrestler Milton Reid (or The Mighty Chang), feels akin to a feral child with animal-like behaviors. I would say Peter Cushing’s performance is the highlight of the film, carrying a certain stoic wit in his banter that I enjoyed. He’s an actor I believe would benefit from other, more light-heart characters bouncing off of him, and yet, I find so many of his films have the balance beam shifted in such a way that doesn’t compliment his natural and frank acting-style.

The photography and visuals of this film, through cinematography conducted by Arthur Grant, are worthy of recognition. I mentioned the black-and-white contrast during the Marsh Phantoms’ presence, but the photography, complimented by the film’s settings are on-point.

I believe the story-line in this film had potential, but is bogged down by its inability to engage through enticing dialogue or enthusiastic ideas. I feel that the film’s closing moments bring things together to a satisfactory conclusion. Now, since disclosing the finer details would be obtrusive to your own viewing experience, I’ll keep a lid on exactly what I mean by that. However, the problem is, it feels like the film has such trouble in the mean time of its payoff, as though it’s suspended in limbo until the eventual reveal. The moments beforehand feel ho-hum and arduous, with the run-time feeling padded and wasteful. I’d call myself a big stickler when it comes to wasting time, and, for a film that’s so short as it is, for its scenes to plod on like they do, it highlights the feebleness of its script.

I liked Captain Clegg (that’s the name I’ve decided I like best) more than I liked The Brides of Dracula, but, for its pitfalls and tedium, I can’t help but consider it another tally in the loss column as far as my experience with Hammer films. It’s disappointing and not what I’d like to be writing, but it’s the opinion I’m left with. It isn’t that I dislike Captain Clegg as a film, but, rather, it’s like I was left no particular reaction to it whatsoever.

2

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/LastHousePoster.jpg
The Last House on the Left
Wes Craven’s career begins in 1972, with a film called The Last House on the Left. An exploitation film, The House on the Left is a real meat-and-potatoes debut. Not only was the film directed by Wes, but it was written and edited by him, from a budget of less than ninety thousand (Sam Raimi’s Evil Dead cost quadruple that). This is a film where a lot of variables come into play that factor in. How capable is Wes Craven as a screenwriter and editor, and what is he able to do with the resources available to him?

Produced by Sean S. Cunningham, the co-creator of Friday the 13th, The Last House on the Left was released to a mixed reaction by critics but did fairly well at the box office (grossing $3 million). As an exploitation film, that response was exactly what was to be expected. “Can a movie go too far?” That was the tagline of the film, and the mission statement was clearly to shock audiences and capture the zeitgeist, not through its quality, but its audacity. Critics would be appalled, whereas curious eyes would wander in to see what all the fuss was about.

Like many films of the same type, The Last House on the Left begins with a disclaimer falsely claiming the events on-screen are based on real-life, actual events. It is an old trope that occurs often in 70s horror, with the most notable instance being, perhaps, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which, incidentally, came out two years after. At least that film could claim it was loosely based on Ed Gein, even if the real events weren’t a massacre, didn’t involve a chainsaw, and happened in Wisconsin.

Straightaway, I was caught off-guard by both the choice of music and the cinematography of the film.

I will be honest with all of you, even though I have seen every Elm Street half-a-dozen times, all the Scream films, and many more from Wes Craven’s filmography, I hadn’t ever seen The Last House on the Left. The only thing I had to go on for what to expect was my prior experiences with exploitation films and the cover artwork, which features a black-and-white photograph of a dead woman.

Where I had expected a gritty, more edited, low-quality aesthetic, I was instead met by what feels remarkably like I am watching an old-fashioned sitcom. The music doesn’t fit the initial expectations I had of, nor does it feel thematically inline with the subject-matter. The dialogue, too, feels playful, even goofy. I am not certain what to make of it yet. Is it a deliberate decision? The idea of leaning in the wrong direction so that when you swerve the other way it feels like more of a kick in the teeth?

The initial premise is straightforward and simple enough. “Two girls are tortured and left to die after they become captives of four prison escapees who end up facing off with one of the girls’ mothers,” that’s the description provided by Tubi TV, where the film is available to watch, free of charge.

The way it is edited and shown, however, is a real marvel. In one shot, you have two young women led into a rundown building, a knife is pulled on them, and it’s clear they’re now held captive by rapists and child molesters. In the next shot, the music and aesthetic make it feel like I’m watching Happy Days.

Something about it though is, as goofy as it does come off, I’m not actually against it as a stylistic decision. It isn’t the subtlest, and, in fact, it’s very much in your face, but that’s part of why it works as well as it does. Since having looked at other viewer’s reaction to the soundtrack, I’ve heard more than a few criticize it, saying that it was distasteful and disturbing to accompany such gratuitous, uncomfortable scenes by such an unfitting soundtrack. However, I feel like that’s kind of the idea.

The film is meant to be distasteful and, if that decision disturbed you, that was the idea. In terms of horror, The Last House on the Left certainly falls into the “that’s ****ed” category, acting as a black comedy that deals with murder and rape with a wink and a nod. The film is audacious in its approach. Not only is its presentation tonal dissonance, but it makes the bold decision to include both slap-stick comedy and a couple knucklehead police officers, neither of which belongs in such a film, and that’s why it is such an interesting inclusion.

It isn’t something that wholeheartedly succeeds, but I can’t deny that, when the other shoe does drop for a quieter, more intimate moment, and the music stops, backed only by birds chirping and the sound of a victim’s cries of torment, it isn’t effective. Without it, the whole film would have been dramatically different and less unique, measuring up as a run-of-the-mill rape-revenge flick.

As much as I defend the horror genre, I will admit I have a lot of unresolved emotions about certain aspects of it. One such aspect is the portrayal and treatment of women in film. Horror isn’t any one thing, and, as much as I believe the genre can be a source of empowerment for women, like the portrayal of Ripley in Alien or Laurie Strode in Halloween, I know that those are exceptions and not the rule. Sometimes horror can be very misogynistic.

At the same time, as I find myself asking why there are so many rape-revenge films or horror films that focus on a masked man stalking and murdering women, I find myself met by the answer that it’s a reflection of the real-world. In my youth, I felt it was insulting the way women were portrayed in scantily clad clothes or lack thereof as a masked man chased them. Now, I realize the real ones who should leave the theater ashamed on behalf of their gender are men. After all, if asked to name a female serial-killer and a male serial-killer, I’ll have rattled off thirty men by the time you’ve finished Googling whether Lizzie Borden counts.

This isn’t my way of explaining away real, valid criticisms about horror, but to suggest there are a lot of layers to why things are the way they are, and how I hope we can continue to improve them.

It’s everything after with this film that I feel suffers both narratively and visually.

Once the trio of killers leave their victims for dead, they visit a house nearby to where their car broke down that just so happens to be the parents of one of the young girls. Hereafter, as you expect, is where they begin to receive their comeuppance for their crimes. I feel this second-half is the lynchpin for a large part of making the film successful. We’ve spent an hour of the hour and twenty-minute runtime establishing our antagonists, and really making them feel like the worst of the worst, meanwhile, in contrast, we’ve kept the mother and father relatively wholesome.

This is where I feel the film would have benefited from a simpler, more concise conclusion. A quick, sudden barrel shotgun or even going full Hostel on them. The music drops. The credits roll. And scene!

Instead, it feels messy, too complicated, and like it works against itself. Incidentally, it actually reminds me of the end of A Nightmare on Elm Street when Nancy does full Home Alone on Freddy with nonsense traps. I never realized until now that this is something Wes Craven just does.

Although I can certainly understand the criticisms levied against The Last House on the Left in-terms of how it chooses to present its dark subject-matter and I believe the argument of its thematic dissonance is valid, I believe it does work taken as a black-comedy and if it were focused more on the violence-violence of the film and not the sexual violence of them, a lot more might be open to its approach. The film does begin to fall apart by the end, and I think it does so enough that it keeps it from being what I’d call a knockout-punch for Wes Craven’s filmography, but it’s an interesting, unique film that I don’t regret watching.

3

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/82/The_Perfection_film_poster.jpg
The Perfection

The Perfection is an example of a film I knew nothing about heading in, had modest expectations of, and was ultimately surprised by.

After her breakthrough performance in Jordan Peele's film Get Out, I became interested in actor Allison Williams. She's talented enough she could be a solid hand in about any role she is in, and she's attractive enough that she will likely be cast in a lot of them (it's a vain industry, after all). To my surprise, when I searched through her filmography, I discovered her resume was bereft of very many options to choose from. As far as horror fare was concerned, it more-or-less came down to M3gan, Get Out, and this film.

I had stumbled across this film at least a dozen times while searching through Netflix, always intrigued by her appearance in the film, always deterred by my own disinterest when I read the film's description.

I looked at it as a throwaway, cheap film released without any fanfare to it. It happens a lot. Instances where you will find a more known actor released in a lesser known film, with the film unceremoniously dropped someplace to bank off their newfound success (the leading lady of the new Scream movies has a new film on Tubi, for example). I am a fairly devout horror fan, and I would like to think I do a fairly good job at keeping my finger on the pulse of what is relevant. I trust myself, and so, that means if I didn't know about it, it was likely for a reason. Outliers are undiscovered gems and are an always welcome thing to happen.

Directed by Richard Shepard (who I had never heard of until now, but do, technically, own a copy of his film Oxygen on DVD), The Perfection also stars Logan Browning and Steven Weber.

The concept of The Perfection is interesting to say the least. It is interesting enough that I almost don't want to tell you anything about it as a way to keep you in the dark about it. Let's say that it is a dark psychological thriller that sees Allison Williams reenter the lives of her school's headmaster and meet a young cellist with a bright future in music ahead of her. Anything else beyond that, I feel would unveil too much about the film.

The Perfection is a topsy-turvy type of film.

Early on, I was brought in by a certain elegance the film had. The cinematography was on-point, the dynamic between Allison Williams and Logan Browning was good and, dare I say, sexy. Then, at about half an hour in, it derails and becomes an entirely different film than what I originally expected. The thing is though, it was a good surprise - it caught my attention and was enough to make me stop the film and wait until my wife came home to watch it with her.

To my surprise, the abrupt twist of fate that occurs early on the film isn't the only instance where the film is turned on its head. In fact, it's kind of The Perfection's thing, so to speak.

By the end, I am not certain whether I feel it is one too many or not, but I will say I was gripped from start to finish by the finish, and that matters a lot.

The performances are compelling through and through, but, after a point, we do find ourselves making a tonally uneven shift from being a conventional thriller film to an over-the-top (camp, even) melodrama that requires a large suspension of disbelief from whoever's watching it. It's a film that will at first grip you, shock you, then, make you laugh a little bit at its absurdity - and I was here for that.

The eccentricity of The Perfection is a double-edged sword. It both muddles the waters too much for the capable cast of characters to reach their fullest potential, but it also made the film a memorable outing for everybody involved. It isn't what I feared it'd be (a competent, forgettable film), but, rather, what I hoped, a modest, undiscovered gem that I find myself recommending to you.

It isn't without its faults and frivolity, but it kept me engaged by its audaciousness, and was bolstered by skillful performances and an admirable visual flare (I particularly liked the closing shot of the film, which I felt was very distinct).

3

[Wyldesyde19]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/74/Winnie_the_Pooh%2C_Blood_and_Honey_Film_Poster.jpg
Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey

In some respects, I was excited for Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey. In most respects I wasn’t, but, in some respects, I was. This isn’t a film I will be talking about for inclusion in the Nickelbib Nightmare Deck nor is a film I will be nominating soon for the Dustjacket Hall of Fame. It was never a film I had considered as in contention for either accolade either. This is a film a friend and I chose to watch while we shot the breeze and reminisced, one that we ourselves weren’t too heavily invested in. At the same time, I can’t say I wasn’t enthusiastic for the film.

In the same way I will most certainly watch The Mean One when I can, I found myself drawn to Blood & Honey. It felt like a relic of a bygone era, like something back from the eighties, a decade where I am still finding unheard of slasher films like it is a bottomless well. They aren’t usually very good (although sometimes you will find something to appreciate from them – for example, The Burning isn’t what I’d call a good film, but Tom Savini is what I would call a good make-up artist in horror), but I appreciate them. If there was ever a time to use the phrase ‘schlock,’ I believe that would apply to my expectation of this film.

In total, I found Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey both better and worse than what I expected.

The film was directed by Rhys Frake-Waterfield.

His prior work includes a film called Firenado, and I believe that is inline with what I expected him to have previously directed (and who knows? Maybe Firenado is fantastic!), a low-budget, exploitative horror flick, cashing in on the absurdity of its own existence more than its merit. This isn’t always a bad thing, per se. It seldom leads to high-art exactly, but it sometimes leads to a fun film. For example, a film like Head of the Family or Chopping Mall is completely worthwhile and more than watchable. Sometimes though, it leads to “so bad, it’s good” cinema, which doesn’t really appeal to me, personally.

Some people like that. The Asylum films or mockbusters, and films like Sharknado, but I am not among them. It is a fine line and some moviegoers may not be able to differentiate them, but it is an important separation in my opinion. Something like Chopping Mall isn’t entertaining me with how absurdly bad it is, but by how well it is able to portray an absurd concept. Enjoyable performances. Fun, likable characters. Good makeup. Clever camerawork. They are all variables that factor in, and if you succeed at those variables or others, you will make an enjoyable film – no matter what, if you enjoy a film, that implies it has some kind of good-quality, not a bad one.

The camerawork in Blood & Honey is better than expected.

This is, for the most part, the extent of the praise I will ultimately afford the film. I had an image in my head before I watched the film of what I feared it may look like. I imagined two different possibilities – cheap, grainy-looking footage and a shaky cam, or that heavy digital aesthetic that has become more prevalent, where it looks deceptively high-quality yet very fake and unappealing to the eye.

This film doesn’t have a high-production value by any means, but it was better than I expected (which was truly bottom of the barrel). By the end, it did skirt awfully close to bottom of the barrel, but, early on, it had a couple shots here and there that suggested a cinematic prowess I hadn’t expected. It isn’t anything that will blow your hair back, but it is still better aesthetically than some of what’s out there. Some critics singled out its bad camerawork as a main point of criticism. They’re not wrong. They’re simply not succumbing themselves to what I am.

This is a film that wasn’t meant to find the amount of eyeballs it has – akin to something like Pinocchio’s Revenge or The Curse of Humpty Dumpty. This is something no one was meant to care about (something I wasn’t even supposed to be writing about!), that managed to ride a meme-like “for the lulz” popularity and the prior theatrical success of Terrifier 2 (and other horror films post-Covid) into becoming a successful film.

The costumes look bad. Early on, we are treated to a brief animated introduction meant to set the stage for the film itself. It isn’t anything too crazy, but I liked it. The costumes, however, leave a lot to be desired. It isn’t even that they look bad, it’s that they’re made to look bad. They look on par with the film they are in. The issue is that they aren’t shot in the best ways (here I am contradicting the single praise I offered the film, but I digress). If you have a costume that looks like a costume, the best thing you can do is use your lighting and visuals to try and disguise that fact. It’s a basic, evergreen strategy in horror – if you have a shoestring budget, less can be more. Obviously, this type of film is more about excess and in your face absurdity, but, for a film that plays it straight, I believe it would have done itself a favor to not have shown shots that made it so blatantly apparent that a human’s face was behind the Pooh mask. Just keep it darkly lit or be selective about how you frame him. This film does neither.

The story doesn’t exist. Well, I mean, it does, but it doesn’t. It is an incoherent mess that only further unravels the longer you think about it or try to dissect it (so don’t). As prefaced, I wasn’t horribly invested in Blood & Honey, but I did pay attention to it. And, you know what? I couldn’t tell you what was happening / anything about the characters in the film. I mean, you did have Christopher Robin and Pooh, but the rest of the cast? I couldn’t tell you a single character trait about them. They are empty characters, void of any and all traits (like Piglets lined up for the slaughter).

The concept of Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey actually seems like an alright idea for a slasher film. Christopher Robin left Hundred Acre Woods and all the animals behind, and while he was absent from them, they either starved to death or went mad. It’s both dark and a perfectly fine idea for a slasher film.

I can imagine a lot of different angles for it.

It is such an easy idea, after all. Have Christopher Robin show up with a bunch of friends, and then, let a slasher film be a slasher film. It is an easy foundation to build upon, but the film feels like it never develops its ideas beyond their infancy. (We could even have it be that a group of hunters murdered and made pelts out of Winnie and friends, justifying why it was clearly men in costumes!)

The deaths are largely uneventful. They’re neither grotesquely gory (a la Hatchet or Terrifier) or particularly clever, they simply are.

The acting is subpar and the dialogue is one-dimensional.

I don’t usually write reviews like this on Nickelbib.com, and it is for a reason. I write to create a “Best of” list, never a “Worst of”. I don’t like to punch down on a film that tries in good faith and I don’t like to play the “woe is me” reviewer who suffers through a film that supplies low-effort entertainment. For that reason, I will simply say that I hope they look at this as an opportunity for improvement.

1

My brother and I saw this in a packed (!) theater. Interesting film, but doesn’t quite work for me.

[McConnaughay]

My brother and I saw this in a packed (!) theater. Interesting film, but doesn’t quite work for me.

This is the type of film that definitely rode the momentum of its own absurdity akin almost to like a meme that goes viral, and I wouldn't imagine a lot of real time, effort, and resources went into its production. For that reason, I am at least modestly curious about what they can do with a sequel now that that has changed a little bit.

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/00/Meridian_Kiss_of_the_Beast.jpg/220px-Meridian_Kiss_of_the_Beast.jpg
Meridian: Kiss of the Beast
Directed by Charles Band of Full Moon Features, Meridian: Kiss of the Beast is a film I knew I would talk about one of these days on Nickelbib.com. Quality aside, it was one of the first Full Moon films I ever watched, discovering it blindly from a cheap movie collection from Walmart over a decade ago. It left an impression, a foggy impression, to where, I couldn’t even remember what it was about, but it was a film in the catalog I knew I would one day talk about.

It is a film I don’t believe many moviegoers will necessarily be drawn to, and it is certainly not a film I have heard mentioned around anyplace anywhere, but I do feel compelled to log my opinion on the film. The reason I was apprehensive all these years has to do with two things in-particular, (a) because I have seen it listed sometimes as an erotic thriller or even cataloged with Charles Band’s dirty-birdie soft-core film company Torchlight Entertainment and (b) because, while I remember teenager me not thinking twice about the film’s subject-matter, I believe that adult-me will have a couple things to talk about. Erotic thrillers are a genre I don’t talk about very often on The Bib (although I did write a review of 50 Shades of Grey way back when it came out). Mostly, because I don’t seek them out / have a particularly interest in them.

The film was released in 1990, and is, thus, one of the first films released under the Full Moon Feature umbrella (which proceeding Empire, known for Re-Animator, Dolls, and arguably the best films in Bands-produced catalog). Likewise, it has that early Full Moon-ness to it.

Over the years, I have sometimes wondered if that’s a compliment or not.

I am nostalgic for it, however. It reminds me a little bit of the nostalgia a person holds for Christmas and seeing their family. It’s familiar to them, and that might make them feel warm, fuzzy feelings, but then you realize your grandparents were a lot more racist than you remembered.

The film has the old-school musical styling of Full Moon Features and a lot of the cinematography as well – I like the cinematography, which has an old-school style charm about it. I am usually pretty into Full Moon’s simple, atmospheric scores and this one is no different (this one isn’t composed by Richard Band though, instead we have Pino Donaggio, a fairly accomplished artist, known for his collaborates with Brian de Palma). I have heard some say this is far from his best work, which may be true, but it’s more than par for the course in a Full Moon film.

The can of worms that is Meridian: Kiss of the Beast springs out when we start to talk about the story itself. Catherine and her best friend Gina arrive at Catherine’s family castle in Italy after her father’s death.

They attend a local carnival, where they become acquainted with the participants, which includes head magician Lawrence and his crew – they invite them to the castle for dinner. Everything is all well and good, until Lawrence drugs and rapes both of them.

This might make you imagine a very different film than what I watched. If you read me that summary and asked me to come up with what happens next, I would have surmised we were watching a Last House on the Left or I Spit On Your Grave style film. Surely, Catherine and Gina are about to murder the head magician and his crew in spaghetti western style? As you can imagine, this isn’t the ideal circumstances for a romantic film. Personally, I would dare say this isn’t ideal for an erotic film either.

The scene itself is about what you would expect from a soft-core film. It’s overly-produced, and it’s framed in a peculiar way. Charles Band made it not feel like I was watching an assault, like what I was feeling was meant to be sexy. I find that to be an odd decision and, in general, I find it all to be an odd concept for a romantic film. Afterward, the characters and their reaction feels diluted and understated, given what occurred.

Soon, it is revealed that the head-magician has a twin brother (he’s the nice rapist), and that both are stricken with a curse that turns them into werewolf-like monsters. One brother’s an awful person, and the other brother’s an awful person too (on-account of being a rapist) but is meant to be seen as a sympathetic, cursed soul who is under the thumb of his brother and longs for his own death (something I can get behind – his death, I mean). The issue is though, that he knowingly raped somebody and didn’t have to. The character wasn’t forced to by his brother, wasn’t blackmailed, didn’t have any type of hidden mind-control making him do bad things. He just raped somebody. That’s an ambitious hurdle for Full Moon Features to think it can overcome – it can’t, by the way.

The film culminates in about the fashion any person would expect, clocking out just shy of an hour and a half. What Meridian is, at its core, is a romantic fantasy with an aesthetic that vaguely calls to mind Beauty and the Beast and the classic evil brother / good brother clash. At its core, that is what Meridian is. If taken only as that, it is a modest, generic film. Nothing special, but nothing so egregious it’d find its way on any Worst Of list, I don’t think. The acting is melodramatic, with Malcolm Jamieson having the campy assignment of playing the sensitive brother and the evil twin. Of which, I think he is decent. He can pull off the visuals of the cocky brother versus the sensitive brother pretty well, but the performances, like the film itself, falls victim to the stylized, old soap-opera quality of itself.

I did find Sheirilyn Fenn to be a likable presence, hopefully I run into he again under better circumstances (I know she’s in Twin Peaks, which I’ve needed to watch for ages).

However, the sloppily handled way the film portrays sexual assault, and the messy, muddied execution makes it among my least favorite of the Full Moon Feature catalog. I realize Band and friends can be a little careless at times and likely didn’t realize the implications, but they should have.

I wouldn’t recommend it in the least.

1

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ed/Aquaman_%28film%29_poster.jpg
Aquaman
-note- review written 2019

The DC Extended Universe has been ripe with debate and disillusion. Whether it be the stigma it has as badly trying to imitate what was established with Nolans' Dark Knight Trilogy or the sentiment that it's high-scale, low-logic. In my opinion, while I don't necessarily hate the DC Extended Universe altogether, nor do I necessarily want it to approach all of its subject-matter with a light-heart nature akin to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I definitely think it has a lot of flaws that keep it from being as good of a representation for DC Comics as the Marvel Cinematic Universe is for Marvel Comics. Unless it's a rendition of Adam West's Batman, I think the Caped Crusader is best-suited with a more mature, jaw-clenched approach, whereas I think The Flash is better off with a more light-heart, vibrantly enthused approach. Instead of having every film carry an inherent tone, I think each film should play it out in whichever way best plays to the strength of their characters. As far as what the approach should be for a film like AquaMan, I would say, what I wanted from the film was a charming, action film, that would focus less on exposition and being a high-stake, grandiose epic, and more on energetic, ludicrous fun. That said, here are my thoughts on DC's splashing new fish-into-water story Aquaman.
Aquaman is a 2018 American superhero film based on the character of the same name, acting as the sixth installment in the DC Extended Universe, and, already, the highest-grossing film of the series worldwide.

The DC Extended Universe has oftentimes been dubbed as a failed project by Warner Bros., after all, when you compare Justice League to The Avengers' box-office performance, or even compare Justice League to The Dark Knight's box-office performance, it's obvious Warner Bros hasn't recouped on their investment as strongly as they likely had hoped. Other-wise though, calling DC's foray into shared-universes a failure, at least from a financial perspective, has always been unfounded, oftentimes calling it a failure merely because its returns appeared anemic compared to the Marvel Cinematic Universe. However, at the end of the day, Batman v. Superman and Man of Steel were both modest box-office successes, recouping their budget and enjoying successful returns on the home-market. According to The Numbers (dot) com, Batman v Superman has made nearly 80 million on the home-market in domestic markets alone. Meanwhile, although loathed by many, including myself, Suicide Squad was a box-office hit. Many covet Wonder Woman as the first real feather in DC's new series of films, and while it came up short worldwide compared to Batman v. Superman, it did so with a much smaller budget and succeeded more on a domestic level. The reason I mention all of this is because it's still so outrageous to me that we left 2018 with Aquaman being the front-man of the franchise.

Directed by James Wan, with a screenplay written by David Leslir Johnson-McGoldrick and Will Beall, from a story by Geoff Johns, Wan and Beal, respectively, I was curious for what this film would amount to. Although Wan has made strides in action before, like with the Fast and the Furious series, I mostly think of him as untapped as an action-director, and I'm more likely to associate him with his horror films like The Conjuring or SAW. The film stars Jason Momoa as the title character, along with Amber Heard, Nicole Kidman, William Dafoe, and Patrick Wilson. Also, while it's always nice to see Patrick Wilson, and it's cool to see him working with Wan in another genre, I found it very awkward watching him a role other than the everyman in a horror film.

In the film, Arthur Curry is the heir to the underwater kingdom of Atlantic, and is pressed to step forward and lead against his half-brother, Orm, who seeks to unite control the seven underwater kingdoms and pit them against the surface world.

As I think most of you would expect, this is a silly and outrageous film. I don't think anybody doubted that heading into the film, but the question I think most had is whether or not they'd try to play the silly and outrageous concept with a straight face or if they'd loosen up and have fun with it. The answer is somewhere in the middle.

Jason Momoa is very likable in the role as Aquaman, which was something I was on the fence about when he was first announced to play the character, but, having now seen him, he oozes a likability, walking the fine line between being a brooding character and one that's easygoing. I've had issues with how Superman doesn't have the contrast with Batman as I'd like, feeling very dark and serious, and it's to my surprise that Aquaman is portrayed the way I'd like to have seen Superman portrayed. The humor isn't what I'd call “laugh out loud” funny, but it's charming, with Amber Heard and Momoa keep it light when everyone else tightens their stares. Unfortunately, some of the more serious moments are, in-fact, “laugh out loud” funny, with an over-the-top, ridiculously cheesy to them that doesn't feel intention. I remember a scene in-particular where Orm is threatening people in Atlantis and he says, “Don't call me the King, call me the Ocean Master,” and it has to be one of the most cringe-worthy lines I've seen in a superhero film in years. This film is brimming with groan-inducing dialogue, and, although some might laugh at the audacity it has, I found these moments particularly ho-hum and dull.

The special-effects and set-design are a mixed-bag in my opinion, slanted more toward the positive side of the spectrum albeit. On one-hand, depictions of Atlantis feel imaginative, so much so I wish more of the film's plodding run-time was spent showing the aesthetically appeasing aspects, either that, or I simply wish half an hour of this film would've ended up on the cutting-room floor. Many of the characters and their wardrobes missed with me, which isn't something I necessarily felt about every character, but is something I felt about many of the characters in this film, with some of them feeling like they were copied-and-pasted from a cheesy science-fiction film (which is what this film is, in some respects).

Although there's definitely the foundation for an Aquaman 2 that I think could be a lot of fun, I struggled to care about anything happening on the screen. Although I enjoyed the Aquaman character and his interactions with Mera, as well as the special-effects for some of the scenery and set-pieces, that's really about all I leave with having to say as praise for this film. I never felt like I was made to care about the central conflict, no matter how many long-winded, contrived speeches or forced dialogue I endured, I never cared about the antagonist, I never cared about Arthur's mother, and, ultimately, I never cared about the film. I think the biggest issue with the film is it suffers from many of the same pitfalls as the rest of the Extended Universe. It tried so hard to make an epic, and, for what it's worth, I actually enjoyed Batman v. Superman for the most part, but, I don't care with this film. It tries so hard to make an epic, but the moments that work best are when it's after a smaller, more contained narrative, focusing on Aquaman and the individuals he interacts with, and not the conflicts he's dealt. It isn't the worst of the DC Extended Universe, but it definitely isn't something I'd recommend, amounting to what I think was an ambitious, but, unfortunately, below-average film.

2

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b1/Halloween_%282018%29_poster.jpg/220px-Halloween_%282018%29_poster.jpg
Halloween (reboot)

As a devout fan of the slasher genre, I was looking forward to the eleventh installment in the Halloween film series, aptly titled Halloween, acting as a direct-sequel to 1978's classic, also titled Halloween. Although the series' story-lines and continuity are muddied and confusing to the uninitiated, I was excited when I found out this film would build from the original and disregard the rest of the series.

After Carpenter's first film, the series went in a different direction. In Halloween 2, Laurie Strode was revealed as Michael Myers' sister, a fact I always felt undermined the mystique and aura of the character. Halloween 3, notably, went in an entirely different direction, focusing on the Silver Shamrock organization, whereas Halloween 4 revealed Laurie Strode died in a car accident, with that film and Halloween 5 focusing on Laurie's daughter Jamie Lloyd. Halloween 6 took a wild turn, focusing on Myers and a mysterious cult, and, by the next film, Halloween H20, it was revealed Laurie Strode faked her death and Jamie's character was thereby retconned (but, she did have a son). In Halloween: Resurrection, Laurie Strode was killed by Michael Myers, then, Rob Zombie rebooted the series. Now, here we are, forty years later, Laurie Strode has been “un-remade,” brought back from the dead twice, and is no-longer related to Michael Myers.

Halloween is a 2018 American slasher film directed by David Gordon Green, with writing credits given to Green, Jeff Fradley, and Danny McBridge, respectively. As suggested, the film focuses on Laurie Strode and her “final” showdown with Michael Myers on Halloween night, forty years after she last escaped his killing spree. Nick Castle also reprises the role of Myers in this film, with occasional assist from stuntman James Jude Courtney. Other film stars featured in this film include Judy Greer, Andi Matichak, Will Patton, and Virgina Gardner.

I went into this film modestly excited. I was excited because I think the slasher genre has always left a lot of stones unturned, whether because of rushed productions or never having the right people involved. With that in mind, I wasn't very excited about seeing Jamie Lee Curtis reprise her classic role and was fearful it'd be a disappointment akin to Halloween H20, where she also fought Michael Myers for a “final” showdown. Something I'm very excited to say is that the new Halloween film is definitely a part of the series worth highlighting, and is, not only the second film to receive a positive reception from critics and audience-members alike, but a massive success at the worldwide box-office. As of this writing, Halloween is at 253 million worldwide, with a domestic total of more than both Halloween remakes and Halloween: Resurrection combined, and that's while adjusting for inflation. Without adjusting for inflation, the new Halloween's worldwide total is about as much as the eight original Halloween films made combined. Needless to say, theatergoers and horror-fans have spoken and affirmed the genre's demand.

One merit bestowed in the new film's marketing was John Carpenter's involvement on the musical score, a fact I wasn't at all excited about. Honestly, as talented as Carpenter is, I had my doubts that they'd shy away from the series' iconic sound enough to warrant the excitement. In-retrospect, I was right about that initial assessment, but I do think it was more than a recycling job, and I thought they breathed some life into it, adding a pulse during the suspenseful moments and adding more dimensions and layers to the score.

As a sequel, Halloween benefits from building solely from the original film, Michael Myers' mystique has returned, and he feels more like evil incarnate, a human shrouded by his desires for violence, than he does a supernatural monster, although aspects of that still remain.

Laurie Strode is traumatized in this film, and although there are new characters featured, front-and-center, the core of the narrative is Laurie and Michael Myers' relationship with each-other, their history, and what Myers has meant to Laurie. Jamie Lee Curtis does well in the role, and, although I wouldn't call it a criticism about the film itself, but, rather, a personal preference, I felt like her “fortress of solitude” was a little more over-the-top than it could have been. Certain hiccups plagued the film, certain decisions I feel could have been excluded for a tighter, more effective experience. Scrapping the godawful scenes with Dr. Ranbir Sartain would be a good start, and I'm also a stickler for tonally inconsistent comedic relief. The cinematography and the approach yearn for a darker, unflinching tone, and I wish it would have played it straight and not have sabotaged itself as often as it did.

Like the first Halloween, with the 2018 film, I think a lot of what I like about this new film is in-retrospect, rather than what I feel from my experience with it as a film. With the original, I think about the mystery shrouding Michael Myers and how it's difficult to know what goes on behind ones' eyes. The idea someone could madly go on a killing spree without rhyme or reason isn't a hypothetical, but something that often occurs. Laurie Strode wasn't targeted for any reason (til Halloween II), and that intrigued me, the idea that if no one would've been home that night, Laurie Strode would've never met the “William Shatner” masked madman, and he would've simply found someone else. In this film, it builds from that train-of-thought. Michael Myers is back on a killing spree and although Laurie's physical wounds have long healed, the trauma and inner turmoil remains. However, Michael Myers doesn't look like he is harboring any grudges, it feels like business as usual, a one-sided relationship where Laurie is tormented by Myers and Myers is unaffected. This isn't necessarily what I think was always portrayed in the film, but what I left the theater thinking about.

In the end, is 2018's iteration of Halloween a return-to-form for the series? I think I'd call that a fair assessment. It doesn't break any major molds as a slasher film, purposing trodden paths and through technique and execution, making them feel like walks worth taking again. Where it ranks with the rest of the series is something I'll need to investigate before I make any declarative statements, but, if nothing else, I can't think of a better slasher film in the current decade.

3

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f0/BloodRayne_%28film%29.png/220px-BloodRayne_%28film%29.png
Bloodrayne
-note- review written in 2014

Books have been adapted into some of the finest films we've ever seen, and so, why is it so difficult for video-games to bring about the same? You can bet your ass that the creativity is there, as well as the structure, there is definitely enough available to create a worthwhile screenplay depending on what it is that you are adapting. In the end, it matters what the director or the company involved wants to accomplish. I hope this is something that will be demonstrated in the eventual adaptations for Sly Cooper, Ratchet & Clank, Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, Twisted Metal, and The Last of Us, but those are all far away and there isn't really any reason to become bent out of shape or worry about any of them. Why are there so many bad video-game movie adaptations? A lot of that has to do with how they tackle it. If you are attempting to make a film about something that already has a well-respected following, you have to be able to embrace the finer parts about it while at the same time enabling it to embrace the cinematic aspects that the movie-industry beckons.

Also, a skilled director will be the difference between something worthwhile and something that is most-obviously meant as a cash-in. Ladies and gentleman, have you met Uwe Boll?

If you haven't, some others have, in-fact, some have even referred to him as a modern-day Ed Wood. That is, in other words, calling him one of the worst directors ever. Say what you will, Boll's existence is actually a stroke of genius. By manipulating German laws about filmmaking, Boll has successfully made tons of high-budget films that have been enormous box-office failures. He bought the movie rights to various different video-games, notably Far Cry, Postal, House of the Dead, and Alone in the Dark. He bought the rights quick before everybody realizes how bad he is or by buying them before the video-game is even released, which is what he did with FarCry. I decided to review this film, not because I wanted to bash it but because I reviewed the first video-game and found it for two bucks, so why not?

BloodRayne is a 2005 German fantasy action horror film set in 18th century Romania, directed by Academy Award nominee Uwe Boll, the film stars Kristanna Loken, Michael Madsen, Billy Zane, Meat Loaf, Michelle Rodriguez, and legitimate Academy Award winner Ben Kingsley. Like established, the film is based on the video game of the same name from Majesco. A few known names in this flick, Michelle Rodriguez might not have the most critically acclaimed filmography but she has become one of the most famous female action stars, whereas Ben Kingsley is beloved.

The film's budget was around $25 million and was only able to draw about $4 million at the box-office. A box-office failure indeed but it was critically disclaimed as well. Loosely based on the video-game series of the same name, it tells the tale of a character named Rayne, a Dhampir and the daughter of the Vampire King Kagan. She was conceived after her mother was raped and also witnessed Kagan killing her mother later on. King Kagan has gathered an army of thralls in an effort to annihilate the human race, meanwhile, Rayne is after him seeking revenge.

Let's look at the scenery first ... the setting depicts the time-period well enough,or at least, I think it looks fine enough to keep it from looking completely horrid. I will say that some of the characters look bad. Ben Kingsley looks hilarious to me, and some of the wigs look especially fake. That is a little bit difficult to forgive considering that the film had enough of a budget where things like that should have been taken care of. As far as the acting is concerned, there is a lot of capable actors in this film. While I can't really pinpoint one actor as being the one that ruined it for the rest, I can say that none of them ever felt too inspired throughout it all. The scenes with Meatloaf admittedly come across as the stupidest aspects of the film. Ben Kingsley actually said before that the only reason he did this film is because he wanted an excuse to dress up like a vampire. He did do that, albeit poorly. Kingsley eventually did do a role in a much better video-game adaptation for Prince of Persia by the way...

The directing and cinematography doesn't really do any favors for the actors either. I remember a couple of times where I could only faintly hear what the actors were saying, or I felt like I wasn't seeing what I was meant to be seeing. The dialogue is absolutely atrocious, I remember toward the beginning of the film there was a scene where Rayne is given a necklace with some 'sentimental' value and it just comes off cheesy as hell. Scoring for this one is also kind-of ridiculous. I never really mention score all that much, some films have it so well that they are worth the mention but other-wise they are done averagely and don't leave enough of an impression on me to talk about in a review. This film, however, I distinctively remember stopping and thinking, this music really adds absolutely nothing to the scene, in-fact, this music actually makes it worse.

BloodRayne makes certain to include an ample amount of nudity to work with, all of which doesn't come off very organic or nature, Uwe Boll actually hired prostitutes for a scene with Meatloaf in an effort to save production costs. There's a sex-scene with Rayne as well, which is neither here nor there. I can't really say anything about them somehow 'demeaning' the character since the makers of the second BloodRayne video-game actually took out a spread in PlayBoy for the character but I will say that the scene seemed awkward and unnecessary. The scene didn't establish much of an underlying romantic storyline, in-fact, after that scene, the whole thing is sort-of dropped without any notice at all whatsoever. The action-scenes suck as well. There aren't a whole lot of them, but for an action-movie, every one of the scenes felt slowed down or too improvised to appreciate.

I feel like one of the most expected criticisms to offer about a video-game movie is whether or not the characters and the story take enough from the source material. Rayne's character absolutely nothing like how she is in the video-game and of course, most of these themes are completely allover but I suppose that there's some certain elements that can be seen throughout it. The film doesn't really develop any of the characters though, by the end of it, I don't believe I really learned anything at all about the characters. Rayne's a vampire-human ... thing, but who are all of these fellas. They establish titles, like what this character does, but they never actually tell us who the character is, and that's the type of development that needs to be seen for a film like this to work.

By the end of it all, BloodRayne seems adamantly intent on accomplishing absolutely nothing. The film doesn't have the action-scenes to make itself an action-movie, the acting isn't inspired and the storytelling is even worse, there are about a million-and-one parts that didn't need to be in there, and the movie simply comes off as terrible. What's funny is that it was better than what I expected, which is one of the worst movies of all-time, this film is bad and lazily slopped together but it doesn't at all meet those standards. BloodRayne is just a bad movie and there is nothing really to take from it besides that.

1

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Venom_%282018_film%29_poster.png
Venom

I don't think it'd be an understatement to say I set my bar of expectations very low for Venom. The 2018 superhero film is based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name, but is from a production company that is still very much estranged from the Marvel Cinematic Universe that has thus far built a reputation for entertaining, well-produced superhero adventures. They aren't all classics, with some very so-so films on their resume, but, for the most part, I'd say I've enjoyed what the MCU has brought to the table, accomplishing the unprecedented feat of creating story-arches that have unfolded across around twenty films now. I think it's appropriate to say Sony might not be learning the best lesson from all of this in-terms of what will make the best films, however.

Before Sony, at last, bit the bullet and worked out a deal for Spider-Man to appear in the MCU, it's easy to forget what came before it and what was considered. While the first two Sam Raimi films for Spider-Man were fantastic, Marc Webb's Spider-Man series was a little too disheveled and uneven to really breakout. While The Amazing Spider-Man 2 made the promise of The Sinister Six, rumblings about a Black Cat film, a Kraven the Hunter film, and even, at one point, an Aunt May film, circulated. Although many of them fell by the wayside, Venom is one of the films from Sony's own Spider-Man cinematic universe that has come to fruition. As interesting of an idea as I think a Venom film could make, I was uneasy about the Ruben Fleischer directed flick, especially when I heard about studio interference and that it had been wedged into a PG-13 rating as a way to perform better financially.

With a screenplay by Scott Rosenberg, Jeff Pinkner, and Kelly Marcel, the film brings Tom Hardy into the fray, alongside others like Michelle Williams, Riz Ahmed, Scott Haze, and Reid Scott. On it ways to 600 million (as of this writing) from a production budget around 100 million, Sony can be at ease knowing their Marvel adjunct Cinematic Universe is able to tread water. The film follows journalist Eddie Brock as he finds himself latched onto by an alien parasite or symbiote, giving him superhuman abilities as a result. The kicker being that the parasite and its species as a whole have the intent to invade Earth.

Tom Hardy is a very accomplished actor, and one I believe is able to elevate a lot of what he's involved in. For instance, although I've reviewed well-over 200 films on Out of Frame, and of them, only two have received a “Perfect” 10 out of 10 score, one of them being the Tom Hardy fronted Mad Max: Fury Road. It isn't necessarily Hardy's performance itself in that film, but the way he is presented as an everyman, making it easy to put yourself in his shoes, no matter how chaotic what's happening on the screen actually is. In this, Eddie Brock has a lot more visible personality than, say, Mad Max, but I wouldn't single it out as anything that moves the needle in the positive or negative column.

In the film, Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock competently and gets the job done, whereas the high-concept and the novelty of his relationship with the symbiote are what make the film. Something I feel has plagued a lot of the superhero-genre involves messily strewn together subplots or character-developments. While I definitely liked Venom more than Suicide Squad, it does occasionally feel workman-like in a similar fashion. In Suicide Squad, one of the biggest problems I had was how it felt like the relationships between the characters weren't developed organically, so when one of the characters tried to claim his teammates had become family, it felt cheap and unearned. Like that, I feel like the relationship between the symbiote and Eddie Brock felt like it didn't have enough time to properly develop. Likewise, while I wouldn't necessarily say it was messily strewn together, the antagonist in this film is very much reminiscent of the type of generic bad-guy we'd seen in a superhero film from fifteen-years ago. Riz Ahmed says nothing new as Carlton Drake that we haven't heard before from other villains, and although the actor brings natural charisma and personality to the role, it doesn't make him any less generic.

Something benefiting Venom is that, in the sum of its parts, it's an entertaining film. The action-scenes are entertaining, even if they're nothing we haven't seen before and even if it feels like the subject-matter called for sharper fangs. Once again, this is most likely based on financial interest with Sony not wanting to detriment crossovers with Spider-Man later on, but even if it makes sense for them, that doesn't mean it doesn't take away from the film. Even the edgiest scenes in the film feel neutered and tame when it's understood the production doesn't even have the gumption to spill a drop of blood. Obviously, a film doesn't need gratuitous violence or gore in-order to succeed, but when symbiote's are shown already chomping off people's heads, its absence feels difficult to overlook. As said, Tom Hardy does his part, but, more-than-that, it's entertaining to see the Venom character on the big-screen in a brighter light than his presence in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3. It isn't ideal, it's more of a straightforward, conventional superhero film from a different era than what I think myself and most fans of the character wanted, which was more of a monster movie about an antihero, but it still has its moments.

The humor mostly falls flat in my opinion, but it wasn't as cringe-worthy as it could very well have been. Although it might contradict what I said earlier, I don't actual have an issue with Venom in a PG-13 film or, even, a Venom film with comedic elements. Growing up with the Spider-Man video-game on the PlayStation, I always associated Venom as having comedic traits and I didn't need to see him destroy everyone in-sight. But it feels like this film wants both worlds and that adds up to a tonally inconsistent execution, self-sabotaging and undermining itself at every turn.

I remember when I left the theater, I remember telling everyone it wasn't nearly as bad as what I feared. It wasn't the most enthusiastic of compliments, mind you (and maybe I've become jaded or cynical), but I still left it pleasantly surprised. Venom has capable actors delivering competent performances of a flawed, uneven script with a generic antagonist and under-cooked development and story resolution. The action-scenes and special-effects help with a lot of the heavy-lifting, as does the spectacle itself. Is it a film that can tussle with Black Panther or Avengers: Infinity War? Absolutely not, but it at least avoids the Mendoza line, a step above Fantastic Four, Suicide Squad, or the Ninja Turtles. I didn't mind it.

2

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/59/Goosebumps_2_Haunted_Halloween_%282018%29_poster.jpg/220px-Goosebumps_2_Haunted_Halloween_%282018%29_poster.jpg
Goosebumps: Haunted Halloween

Nostalgia is very powerful in the entertainment-industry, as film companies try to appeal to the youth, they simultaneously try to appeal to adults in-search of that child-like wonder they felt in their youth. In 2015, a big-screen feature-film for the Goosebumps was released, and I was on-board. I enjoyed the R. L. Stine novels when I was a kid. A lot of them were derivative and hastily rushed onto book shelves, but, I did have an appreciation and respect for the way R.L. Stine brought old-school monster stories and made them relevant and engaging to a younger audience. It was for that reason a Goosebumps film made a lot sense to me, like the television series that also adapted Stine’s work. I wrote a review of the film on Out of Frame when it was released, and I more-or-less said it was everything it needed to be and would be fun for its core audience, eventually rating it a score of “Decent” or a “5 out of 10”. I was hopeful they would create a sequel, but I didn’t know the likelihood of that. The first film made 150 million worldwide with a production budget estimated of around 60 to 80 million dollars, and when you factor in the amount of the profit that’s divvied up to the theater-chains, then, calculate the amount also invested into marketing the film, there’s no way Goosebumps could’ve broken even on theater sales alone. That said, it seems the film must’ve found a second-life on the home-market and through streaming services, as, the new film Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween did get greenlit and released, this time with a production budget of about half its first film. Does the film flounder the potential of a Goosebumps franchise or does it rise to the occasion to deliver something that can be fun for a new era of fans?

Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween is directed by Ari Sandel and written by Rob Lieber. The director is also known for the Netflix film When We First Met, which I wasn’t a fan of, and The Duff. Acting as a direct-sequel to the first film, it spins a familiar yarn, two young boys are outcasted, bullied and targeted by other classmates, and they like to go “treasure hunting,” a euphemism for going through old-houses and other junk, scrapping it for whatever they can get. They find themselves asked to look through an old abandoned house that happens to have once belonged to R.L. Stine. Looking through the house, they find an old-book that ends up with them releasing Slappy the Dummy who brings to life many Goosebumps monsters to wreak havoc and cause trouble on Halloween night.

The story holds a lot of similarities to the previous film, which is a complaint I heard a lot of critics make. I do think it retreads a lot of familiar-territory, specifically when the cogs are set in-motion and the creatures begin to run roughshod over the town, but I don’t think it’s enough to really condemn the film for. The two young boys may not offer a wholly unique spin to the film, but they likeable enough, and I think they do offer a different angle than the original trio of characters did in the original film. The film does seem to have some self-awareness to certain retreads, particularly with Jack Black’s scenes as R.L. Stine, but being aware to something doesn’t absolve from the act.

The scenes and the film’s allocation of time are less than stellar at its worst. A run-time of 90 minutes is about what a Goosebumps film warrants until it becomes stretched beyond its means, but this film still manages to feel like it’s padding the run-time and that a lot of scenes could have ended up on the cutting-room floor. In one scene, the young boys and their babysitter (one of the boy’s sister, actually), are in a moment where time is of the essence, they decide to dress-up as monsters to blend in. The scene thereafter is a nonsensical, tonally inconsistent opportunities for our characters to accessorize, including incorporating forced, unnecessary plot-threads to be used for the final half of the film. Along with that, it feels like all of R. L. Stine’s scenes could’ve and should’ve never happened. Although the film is aware of how unimportant he is to the film’s conflict, that doesn’t change the fact that the scenes could’ve been exorcised or re-worked in a way that either tightened the central story or shortened the film’s length. I’m of the assumption that the reason Jack Black wasn’t featured heavily in this film has to do with the budget being cut-in-half. The expenditure of having him in the first place feels even stranger when you consider he was barely featured at all in the promotional content. Perhaps that’s because they wanted to avoid appearing similar the recently released The House with a Clock in Its Walls film? Either way, it seems like they would’ve been better off simply making an in-world Goosebumps film without R.L. Stine. But, I suppose hindsight is 20/20.

Instead of having Jack Black do the voice-work for Slappy the Dummy in this film, they, instead, opted for Mick Wingert to take the reins of the character. This decision makes a lot of sense when you consider Mick Wingert is also known for his uncanny imitation of Jack Black from the Kung Fu Panda cartoon series on Nickelodeon. Unfortunately, I found that Mick hammed it up more than I would’ve liked, with his repetitive laughter coming off as overbearing.

I enjoyed some of the special-effects in this film, and in-fact, even more than my personal enjoyment of the film, I find my stake in the success of Goosebumps has to do with its willingness to celebrate the horror genre with a younger audience. Although, like its predecessor, the film is very heavy on CGI (which can be fantastic if done well) that adds a glossy, inauthentic quality to some of its characters, some of them I thought seemed inspired and true to the Halloween spirit.

A lot of my criticisms won’t apply to its target-demographic, but I feel its still relevant to point out complaints and praise quality in the entertainment provided to younger moviegoers. In some ways, I like Goosebumps: Haunted Halloween more than the original Goosebumps simply because it has a more ghoulish nature to it. Unfortunately, because its lacking story-line, misuse of its own potential and run-time, I feel compelled to leave it as a below-average, 4 out of 10 film.

2

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/91/The_First_Purge_poster.png
The First Purge

The Purge first arrived in 2013, bolstering the brilliant premise of an event in time where all crime would be considered as legal. In-general, I think we can all admit that a lot of horror franchises tend to milk themselves for all their worth or overstay their welcome, but every now and again, a concept like The Purge arrives that makes sense for the long-haul. The possibilities and angles you could take The Purge are virtually limitless. It could implement elements of a home-invasion horror, which is something we saw in the original film, or incorporate traits of a slasher flick, something seen on some level in the fourth film. It has a lot of ways you could tackle it, but one way, from what we’ve seen so far, it can’t be tackled, is very well. When the first film arrived, it squandered the potential its concept had, and, as I wrote in my review on Mishmashers at the time of its release, it amounted to a Below-Average film.

In 2014, I believe they righted their wrongs on a lot of levels. Although The Purge: Anarchy opted for a more action-oriented approach, it at least was able to capture a liveliness and did attempt to realize its concept. My favorite scene from that film involved a swinging pendulum that nearly kills the main-character, and when it doesn’t, it’s met with disappointed reactions from the perpetrators. The reason I liked it is because that’s what I wanted from Purge as a series, a depraved world that doesn’t understand the extent of its misdeeds and allows for a day of uncontrolled chaos. Not only that, but I believed the aesthetic and the amount of people involved would have made fodder for some intense and inspired horror. Imagine a scene where the main-protagonist is being chased around by a madman, and the camera pans out far enough to show several people are experiencing the same thing at the same time. Or escaping one madman only to find another.

The concept really made sense and even if I only rated Purge: Anarchy as an Above-Average horror film in my review on Mishmashers, I was very invested and excited about what it could possibly pave the way for. It was then, however, in 2016 that The Purge: Election Year officially ended any level of excitement or expectation I had of the series. The characters participating in The Purge were ridiculously over-the-top and cheesy, and not only that, but it simply wasn’t a very fun film. If I had to narrow it down to one singular issue I have with the series, it’s that it has such a surrealist concept and yet, instead of exploiting that concept as a means to make bone-shattering, self-contained and unique horror, it opts to spend most of its time explaining itself, trying to make sense of something when the answer is so ham-fisted and uninteresting. Regardless, I always knew The Purge series would carry on. While The Purge fell only a small amount shy of 90 million at the box-office, Anarchy was able to cross the 100 million threshold, and Election Year was able to barely surpass Anarchy, grossing nearly 120 million worldwide. Each year the series surpasses itself, and with The First Purge making nearly 140 million worldwide, I don’t anticipate this will be the last we see of the franchise in theaters.

The First Purge is liberating in some respect. Theoretically speaking, it allows the franchise to free itself from the shackles of its convoluted and political narrative, opting instead to focus on the audacity of the concept as it’s implemented. Unfortunately, that doesn’t really happen. Once more, like what plagues much of the series, The First Purge is very heavy-handed with its political undertones, unable to really conceal itself through nuance, it’d much rather beat you over the head with its themes and agenda. I think what I would prefer to see from the series at any point, is a random year of the Purge, not focusing on anything except the survival of its characters. Then again, I understand the series’ marketing campaign has often directly exploited its political themes, and that might very well be why the series is the only horror that has had its films improve on themselves from a box-office perspective three consecutive times. After watching The First Purge, I can say, with the fullest certainty, that I believe it is an improvement over Election Year, but is it a good film?

The film once more focuses a lot more on why it chooses to legalize the purge and the scrutiny that ensues thereafter in its regards. I will say that I like the way the film tries to provide answers and present a plausible explanation for itself. The concept of overpopulation and finite resources is a conversation relevant in today’s age and the film continues to double-down on the idea that the New Founding Fathers of America are targeting the lower middle-class. The First Purge is an experiment on Staten Island, and although many citizens decide to leave before the purge ensues, the NFFA convinces many people to stay by offering a financial reward of $5,000, as well as further compensation for active participation in the experiment. I think this was a clever touch, although, I will mention the film does have some screwball dialogue that leaves some to be desired. It isn’t anything as bad as the “candy bar” nonsense from the last film, but I do remember one of the activists spouting that they wouldn’t be coaxed into the purge and that the NFFA knew full well poor people would stay if they were offered financial compensation. ... Yeah, that’s kind-of why they did it. They offered money so people would stay knowing that people who’d need money would stay, and while saying you won’t be coaxed into it, you are, in-fact, playing right into their hand.

There’s four stories at-play worth acknowledging when talking about the film’s plot. There’s the bigwigs monitoring The Purge, who need it to be a success and are willing to exert themselves to make that happen. There’s Isaiah, an angry teenager who is desperate for financial gain to free himself and his sister from their shoddy living conditions, that is actively trying to target a person named Skeletor. That person Skeletor is a crazed drug-addict who is actively partaking in the purge in-order to engage in a killing spree, which is the third central story in the film’s plot. And, finally, we have our main-protagonist, Dimitri, a gang-leader, who finds himself in a position to protect the civilians of Staten Island.

The intermingling storylines, while, although nothing to write home about, are mostly fine. Isaiah being angry and, at the same time, having too much of a moral conscience to kill, is a familiar, but finely executed theme, and it’s expected, but fine as well, that the NFFA would be involved in tampering with the result of the purge experiment. As for Skeletor, that character borders in the same unlikeable territory as what was seen in Election Year, seeming over-the-top and cartoonish. Dimitri’s character, or, more specifically, Y’lan Noel, the actor who played him, is actually my favorite part about the film, because I feel he had a very likable and charismatic personality to him that elevated the film. Whether or not a gang-leader would have the altruism or loyalty to his city to protect them and expend his gang-members to do so is neither here nor there, but the portrayal to character did feel consistent and authentic.

The film doesn’t offer much in the way of enticing visuals or memorable, distinguishable moments worthy of being singled out. A lot of that is because the film tries more at being an action-film than it does a horror. That said, it doesn’t offer a lot of action worth singling out either. I would call it a very conventional and standard in that regard akin to the rest of the series.

In conclusion, The First Purge isn’t to The Purge: Election Year the knee-jerk reaction that The Purge: Anarchy was after the awful first film in the series, but it is a considerable improvement in-terms of sheer functionality. It still makes a lot of the same mistakes that plague the series, but I think it amounts to an average film overall. Below The Purge: Anarchy and above the first film. I never actually wrote a review of Election Year, but, with that film being my least favorite, you can imagine that this film is considerably better. ​

2.5

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/TheNunPoster.jpg
The Nun

The Conjuring series arrived unexpectedly in 2013, although, in-retrospect, it seemed like we should have anticipated it. James Wan had already flourished and found success with the SAW franchise, the Insidious series, and had more than a handful of horror productions on his resume, it was only a matter-of-time before he had such a financially and critically lucrative break-through. In the 2000s, very few horror films have managed to cross the 300 million thresholds. Even less if you omit series’ that only share strands of the genre’s DNA like The Meg or World War Z. It only leaves The Conjuring and The Conjuring 2, the more-recent adaptation of Stephen Kings’ IT, Annabelle: Creation, and now, The Nun. A film series managing to outdo itself in the horror genre so many times is unheard-of, and while the series may have peaked with the original film from a critical standpoint, although, my favorite of the series remains The Conjuring 2, The Conjuring Universe really is the first time we’ve ever seen an established horror world since the loose-threads that connected the Universal Monster films of yesteryear.

Similar to the Annabelle films, which spun off from the first Conjuring film, The Nun is a film adapted after its introduction in The Conjuring 2. The Nun is a gothic supernatural horror film directed by Corin Hardy and written by Gary Dauberman. Dauberman is a screenwriter I feel like I’ve talked a lot about on Mishmashers.com, as he also received a credit for the new It film and Annabelle: Creation. Corin Hardy is other-wise known for his directorial work on The Hallow, a film I have seen, but, for the life of me, and recall anything about. Set in Romania, the film follows a Roman Catholic priest and a nun-in-training as they look to inquire information about a nun that has committed suicide. The film is a period-piece set in 1952 and stars Demian Bichir, Taissa Farmiga, and Jonas Bloquet. Something interesting of note is that Taissa Farmiga is the daughter of Vanessa Farmiga, star actress from The Conjuring film series.

Something worth mentioning is that prior to this review, I also did a half-hour discussion with Beccah Grace on The Mc’s & Mash Podcast, where we shared our opinion on The Nun. Our opinions on the film still had to be digested, although, I do think what I said about the film on that Podcast aligns well with what I will say on Out of Frame. Keep in mind that the discussion isn’t spoiler free, whereas this review will hold-back on pertinent details.

I’ve never been the biggest fan of supernatural films related to exorcisms or ghost-related subject-matter. I think this goes back to the Paranormal Activity films and films like Annabelle which arguably depend too heavily on cheap scares and dated parlor tricks. In the horror genre, it’s commonly accepted that what goes unseen in a film can often be scarier than what is shown. This is a method of thinking I believe has been exploited over the years. If you have a good idea for a film and have enough talent to bring that idea to fruition, it will usually amount to a good film, but what I think is done a lot with the horror genre is the recycling of old, dated horror tropes and ideas. If a film has a low-budget, it usually exploits this mind-set, however, there’s a fine-line between slow-burn and having a gun that’s firing blanks.

The Nun isn’t absolved of sin, but, something worth commending about the film is that it does deliver some imagery and ideas I think are worthy of acknowledgement. The scares aren’t that of a horror maestro, but I did walk away from the film thinking that some unique ideas and creative uses of the environment made their way into the film, and that can often be a rarity in mainstream horror. The film has received fair-criticism on account of its use of jump-scares, but I found them tamer than the worst of the genre and am thankful they at least had some ideas hand-in-hand with the jump-scares. Some of the ideas can be easy to telegraph. In one scene, it shows bells dangling by strings near tombstones, a feature added for when persons are mistakenly pronounced dead. Just mentioning the fact they acknowledge such a detail is enough to predict what’s likely to happen next. Even if you can predict its best moments beat-by-beat, I will say they’re cool ideas and the film does try and add some unique flavor to them.

The actors in this film are commendable and solid through and through. Whereas The Conjuring’s premiere spin-off Annabelle featured actors that, in my opinion, could be referred to as cookie-cutter, this film has actors more on-par with the main-series. Demian Bichir delivers strongly as the front-and-center everyman and Taissa Farmiga isn’t a slouch either. One or more of the lines in the film might have been hokier than I would’ve liked, especially as a line of dialogue from Jonas Bloquet later in the film, where I feel like they undermined The Nun with a tonally inconsistent comedic line, but I would consider it decent overall. They are complimented, as well, by nicely created set-pieces, which depict familiar imagery, but do so very well. The music, lighting, and cinematography, through and through, I would say are all very solid technique from individuals very skilled and knowledgeable of the craft. The film doesn’t feel like it held-out and felt like it had an actual vision for what it wanted to accomplish. Granted, what it wanted to accomplish wasn’t fully unique or innovate, but it does capture an atmosphere and identity. And even if that identity isn’t necessarily distinguishable, at least we can say that it was realized. Cemeteries with large, white wooden crosses may always look beautiful in the night. But you can only see a preacher spouting jargons to vanquish the evil so many times before it starts to feel played out (I’m thinking sometime in the 80s).

The most unfortunate aspect about The Nun, however, and why I think it has received the negative reviews it has, is because it never really develops a strong-narrative for its central conflict, failing to lure us in through its antagonist. Not only that, but it fails to provide any biting development for its ready-to-go cast. The film succeeds more as a treatment of a horror film than it does as an actual horror film. It has the talented cast, and they even deliver solid performances, but they’re not given engaging dialogue to work with. They have the atmosphere and the set-pieces, but The Nun isn’t able to engage as the antagonist. I don’t think The Nun necessarily deserves the damning response it has received, and I do think it’s head-and-shoulders better than the first Annabelle, in-fact, I think it’s on-par with Annabelle: Creation, but I think it has problems that keep it far-short from sainthood. It’s an above-average 6 out of 10 horror film, but doesn’t particularly warrant a recommendation.

3

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3c/Fantastic_Beasts_-_The_Crimes_of_Grindelwald_Poster.png/220px-Fantastic_Beasts_-_The_Crimes_of_Grindelwald_Poster.png
Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

I was excited when Fantastic Beasts & Where to Find Them first arrived in 2016. Like many of you, I am an avid-fan of the Harry Potter franchise and have a nostalgic affliction with it. Whereas the Harry Potter series felt fun and unique, however, I found the opposite could be said about Fantastic Beasts, which boasted a story-line and performances that simply didn't mesh well with what I wanted out of the film. Many others seemed to believe the “magic” was still there, but I didn't share the sentiment, citing it as an average 5-out-of-10 film in a series where the standard is usually higher. Nevertheless, I was excited for Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, perhaps that's out of loyalty to the J. K. Rowling Wizard World, but it's also because I've found that with long-form storytelling, once the initial groundwork is laid, the meatier, more realized drama can come to fruition. The tenth film in the Wizarding World franchise, it follows Newt Scamander and Albus Dumbledore and their efforts to defeat the dark wizard Gellert Grindelwald.

Johnny Depp returns to the role of Grindelwald, although, this time in a more prominent capacity, a fact shrouding the film in controversy and conflicting emotions. Depp's alleged misbehavior is unfortunate, especially when posed the question of what type of person you're supporting when you buy a movie-ticket. Ultimately, however, in the confines of this review, that doesn't change the fact his performance is by leaps and bounds my favorite part about this film. Whether or not Fantastic Beast 2's lighter than expected box-office performance (expected to be about two-hundred million shy of its predecessor) can be attributed to him or the mixed-to-negative reviews, is a topic for debate.Fantastic Beasts 2 is a lot more complicated than Harry Potter. A lot more complicated than the first Fantastic Beasts, in-fact. This might be appealing if we were discussing a jigsaw puzzle, but one of the most appealing aspects of Harry Potter, I think, had to do with its simplicity and how it evolved with the series. Fantastic Beasts 2 feels overstuffed with sub-plots and sentimentality, and like many modern-day franchises, feels completely subservient to the will of its eventual successors, struggling to earn its keep as a stand-alone film. This is different than what I thought about the Harry Potter series, except for, maybe, the first half of the Deathly Hallows, which I always thought was self-contained enough for each film to stand on their own. I could skip Sorcerer's Stone and comfortably watch and enjoy Chamber of Secrets, whereas Fantastic Beasts is far more dependent on the sum of its parts.

The characters struggle, in-particular our lead of Newt Scamander, who is plain, like a video-game character left on his default-settings. One could continue the comparison to Harry Potter, if they wanted, but unlike Harry, who had Ronald, Hermione, and some truly wonderful supporting-characters to liven things up while Harry acted as the relateable everyman, Newt's dry character is side-by-side with equally ho-hum character-roles. It isn't all disagreeable, as I found some scenes with Jude Law as Albus Dumbledore to be enjoyable, and I liked the proposed dynamic between him and Grindelwald. However, that doesn't change the fact I fundamentally don't care or feel made to care about anything at all in this film. I don't care about the Queenie and Jacob subplot, and I feel like their characters could be discarded for a tighter, more streamlined film. I'm never made to care about Credence as a character, and thereby, feel no reason to care about his origins. They don't feel like characters in a world, they feel like cogs in a machine. Like the film is going through the motions, checking off bullet-points, too busy getting geared up for Fantastic Beasts. It's a phrase everyone will use if they criticize Beasts, but it really does feel like it has lost all magic.

A speech given by Gellert Grindelwald at the film's home-stretch is what I enjoyed most about the film. His ideologies aren't anything very innovative or insightful. Usually any time someone's presented as a dictator, they throw out a few lines that vaguely resemble Hitler's, and their followers slap on arm-bands that resemble the Nazis. Grindelwald doesn't offer new subtleties or intricacies, but Depp delivers considerably on his execution. It's my favorite part of the film, and I'm still criticizing it more than praising it.

The special-effects are large and expensive, but I can't say that's what ever had this film-franchise on my radar. Wands shooting out magical light-beams and large, “fantastic” beasts brought down in anticlimactic, light-heart ways.

In the end, maybe some others will enjoy Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald. I hope they do. I don't claim to be an arbitrator on whether a film is good or bad, but someone who watches films and walks out of the theater with thoughts I'd like to share. From my perspective though, Fantastic Beasts 2 is a busy, overly-complicated film, too focused on the series' endgame than itself, bloated with unnecessary, dull subplots, and woven-together with a sentimentality that depends on familiarity to the characters of its superior series predecessor.

2

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/PosterFunnyPeople.jpg
Funny People

Last week, I made the off-kilter decision to purchase a large movie lot. As a consequence of my decision, I now find myself 137 movies richer. I had a wide-range of films included in the batch, which if you're at all curious in, you can read me talk about here (https://dustjacket.net/index.php?threads/i-bought-a-movie-lot-120-mystery-films.297/post-1711). All in all, I was satisfied with the purchase and I do see myself doing it again someday soon. The only caveat is, in-order to justify such an expenditure, I need to actually watch and review the films I have bought.

Funny People is a film I have wanted to talk about for years on Nickelbib.com, but I have never been able to make the stars align well enough to do it.

Even now, as I write about the film, I am way behind on a lot of other films I need to review and I risk having them fall to the wayside until I can re-watch them again and recollect what I thought of them.

Neither Judd Apatow nor Adam Sandler are artists who will appear very much amongst my favorites - neither are mainstays for the Black Deck exactly.

Apatow, for the most part, is a capable comedic director. I may not identify him as a heavy-hitter exactly, but with films like The 40-Year-Old Virgin, The King of Staten Island, Knocked Up, and This is 40, Apatow has made a name for himself as a solid hand for the genre.

Adam Sandler is an actor I have been exposed to a lot. I have seen dozens of the man's movies and, frankly, still hold a lot of nostalgia for him. In retrospect, his films usually weren't very good. In fact, a lot of them were godawful. However, I still watched them and found enjoyment in his late-90s, early-2000s fare.

For awhile, I lost a lot of faith in him - films like Grown Ups and Jack and Jill show exactly the worst of what the Sandman is capable of.

It was through more dramatic turns, like the fantastic Uncut Gems, that audiences were shown that Adam Sandler is capable of being a great actor when he tries to be.

What makes Funny People so special though, and what makes me love it as much as I do, is that it isn't an Uncut Gems or a Reign Over Me film. It isn't Adam Sandler stepping out of his comfort-zone, at least, not exactly.

This is one of the most Adam Sandler-iest films around. In some ways, I think you could even call Funny People the ultimate Adam Sandler film.

In Funny People, Adam Sandler plays a comedian who is now face-to-face with his own mortality, staring down the business end of his own demise. After being diagnosed with a rare blood disease, Adam Sandler's character George Simmons recruits a young comedian played by Seth Rogen as his assistant, and begins to perform standup comedy again and start putting his affairs in-order.

Through the creative use of archival footage (of which, Adam Sandler has a lot), the film is able to flesh out who George Simmons was, repurposing home-video and making mock-trailers for fictional movies one could very much imagine Adam Sandler playing in during his heyday. It's a simple idea, but it works wonders in this film, offering both hilarity and a unique sense of immersion. We've seen filmmakers do this before, but I believe this might be my favorite instance of it.

The story is heavier than the average Adam Sandler film, but it plays directly into one of Sandler's greatest strengths - the sad clown / the cynical funnyman. Although Uncut Gems blew me away with how different Adam Sandler seemed from himself, in some ways, it feels like this was the role all of Adam Sandler's career was building toward.

The character George Simmons has more money than he will ever spend and is cherished by his fans, but he has found that his fame is an empty consolation prize for a lack of personal connection.

To quote BoJack Horseman, "One day, you're gonna look around and you're going to realize that everybody loves you, but nobody likes you. And that is the loneliest feeling in the world."

George Simmons is a lot like Adam Sandler is. This is a near one to one recreation of him, in fact. He does the goofy voices and has a filmography filled to the brim of absurd comedies, a lot of them looking corny and more than a little stupid. However, it's from that foundation the film builds wrinkles to who he is, what he is searching for, and what he wants out of life. The character is complicated. Nuanced, even. He isn't necessarily good nor bad.

The character has become desensitized to his life, having sex with anyone and everyone he can, and living a fairly selfish lifestyle that sees others thrown to the wayside. Now, knowing it might all come to an end, he is able to make the first steps toward changing himself and making amends for the bad things he has done to others. It's noble and relatable, but, at the same time, life usually doesn't wrap up with a neat, orderly bow like that. He is still arrogant, and still entitled, and still unready to make the changes needed to really improve himself. As he casts himself out in new situations, or tries to rekindle old flames, you root for him to achieve that, but you also realize that he hasn't earned it.

The film is intelligent in how it portrays his character and makes you appreciate the small victories it leaves you with.

This is Adam Sandler's film through and through, but, it does allow room for Seth Rogen's character as well, who has his own entanglements to work out as well, but largely serves as an onlooker to George Simmons' lifestyle - initially enamored, eventually disappointed, like everyone that meets him.

Funny People is a very ambitious film, which can be a double-edged sword in some ways. The comedy-drama has a runtime of nearly two and a half hours, like some type of Martin Scorsese gangster film. I don't fault it, per se, but I could understand the argument that it could have been considerably shorter. The many different undercooked subplots, like Seth Rogen's character and a love-interest, the conflicts with his friends, etc., likely could have ended up on the cutting-room floor and resulted in a tighter, more concise finished product. The best moments always happen when Adam Sandler's character is on the screen, and I think that they could have leaned into that.

At the same time, I do appreciate how they tried to let things breathe the way they did and, in some ways, it helped elevate the film to an epic-scale. It feels a little like two mid-sized films squished together, one being the relationship between Sandler and Rogen's character, the other being Sandler's character and the character portrayed by Leslie Mann.

Could the film have been shorter? Certainly. Is the film self-serving or indulgent? Maybe a little bit.

I choose to look at the film as a celebration of Adam Sandler's career, filled to the brim with familiar faces from the 2000s comedy scene (and ones we hadn't fully met yet like Bo Burnham), and a thoughtful character portrayal with George Simmons, rediscovering his enjoyment of things and learning to cultivate relationships that aren't simply one-sided.

This is the Adam Sandler-iest film there is, but is, in the truest sense, the first time it has wholly been for the better and not for the worst.

4

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fc/Sweet_Home_Alabama_film.jpg

Sweet Home Alabama

Sweet Home Alabama is not a film I would normally watch. Like my previous review of Funny People, this review largely exists because I bought a 120-film (actually ended up being just shy of 140) mystery movie pack on eBay. Unlike Funny People though, which I loved a lot, Sweet Home Alabama is not.

Directed by Andy Tennant and written by C. Jay Cox, Sweet Home Alabama is a comedy film starring Reese Whitherspoon, Josh Lucas, and Patrick Dempsey. The film has a straightforward premise - following a young woman who has left her small 'hick' town in favor of the bright lights of New York City. Everything changes, however, when her boyfriend proposes to her, and she now must return home to Alabama to force her husband to finally sign the divorce papers he had been ignoring for all these years. Her husband is reluctant, and makes her jump through hoops in-order to convince him, helping her rediscover the hometown she left behind.

I am not left with a lot to say about this film. I think, maybe, first, I should reiterate that it isn't a film I would normally watch. In the title Sweet Home Alabama, "Sweet" is as prevalent to the story-line as Alabama is. The film is overtly sentimental and completely saccharine in its approach.

In the real world, a person wouldn't have to jump through these types of hoops for a divorce and, if they did, their husband wouldn't be seen as anything other than the antagonist of the film. Instead, the film romanticizes his unruly behavior, framing it as though Reese Whitherspoon's character is in need of a reality. And, maybe she is. Her character makes rude comments directed at her hometown, as well as unwarranted, rude comments (but only after she has been harassed by her husband) toward certain townspeople.

However, who is her husband to appoint himself the moderator on who needs a "reality check"? If she doesn't want to be married to you, leave her the hell alone and let her be on with her life!

In fact, the only character in this whole film that I feel should be absolved of all criticism is the fiancee, who is understanding throughout the whole film, in spite of being lied to and, frankly, mistreated.

Maybe I am overthinking it? And, maybe that is what it comes down to for a film like Sweet Home Alabama. The story is generic, embroidered with vague, under-cooked subplots (the fiances' mother has an issue with Alabama, but they don't really do a whole lot with it), and goofy sentiment. You don't need to think for this film.

The humor is squeaky-clean and sanitized, and about what you would see on a television movie - the characters aren't notable and the camera's only pointed at them to document what's in-front of it.

I review a lot of films, and a lot of them are probably worse than Sweet Home Alabama, all things considered. I review films like Winnie the Pooh: Blood & Honey and I can tell you this film is better all around than that film. That in mind, it has been awhile since I felt so much "nothing" about a film like I did this film.

1

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/01/Don%27tTortureaDuckling.jpg/220px-Don%27tTortureaDuckling.jpg
Don't Torture a Duckling

Italian for yellow, 'giallo' is a genre of Italian filmmaking that blends elements of a murder mystery or whodunnit with other flavors of horror such as slashers, thrillers, or even terror of the psychological persuasion.

For me, I have always been on the outside looking in for giallo filmmaking, largely skeptical, yet still admittedly interested.

It can be difficult to engross oneself in a new medium of storytelling, even in good faith. Chances are, if I were to recommend somebody my favorite Full Moon Feature film, like Head of the Family, they wouldn't have the same reaction to it that I did. I embarked on Full Moon's particular flavor at an early age and, even though I harp on a lot of them (and for good reason), the ones I don't harp on are because I have an acquired taste for them. I recognize their charm and their intention, the same way I am able to recognize why a "slasher" film isn't always meant to be scary, but can also be meant to be fun and goofy.

In turn, I realize there is bound to be some facets of giallo films I won't immediately understand or appreciate until I have had exposure to them.

Likewise, cinema and art in-general are tricky and complicated. It is part of the reason I advise a reader not to take it too personally whatever I may rate a film by the end. In-order to fully appreciate a film, not only do you have to be able to understand its intention, but you have to be able to understand its surroundings (a fact I will delve into deeper shortly).

Directed by Lucio Fulci, Don't Torture a Duckling is widely seen as a highlight in the director's filmography. Set in a small insular village someplace in Southern Italy, the film follows a detective investigating a series of child murders that are committed throughout the town.

The name "Don't Torture a Duckling" is derived from a Donald Duck doll that appears in the film and plays a part in solving the murders.

Early on, the film features a scene where a young-boy sees a naked woman sprawled out near a pool. The young boy is, maybe, like thirteen or fourteen, or fifty (I'm not good with ages). The woman walks over to him and seductively flirts with him. There isn't a whole lot of reason for me mentioning it, but I found it an odd inclusion, even if it makes some sense in hindsight why they did it. At some point in the film, you are called on and expected to like this character, and I think that is a tall-order by today's standards.

The acting is decent, although I wouldn't single-out anybody in-particular as a standout amongst them.

I will say straightaway the version I had was, unfortunately, a dubbed version on the Tubi streaming service (I normally prefer the subbed versions when it comes to live-action films, and I think this film embodies a lot of why that is). The voice-actors are mostly satisfactory, but it'd certainly have been preferable to hear the actual voices coming from each person's mouths.

The storyline is interesting, if, perhaps, a little basic in construction. The themes involved are more potent than the actual narrative itself, which, stripped to its bare bones, is a rather predictable murder-mystery with an easy to telegraph outcome. The film's themes include a commentary on sexuality and of the Catholic Church, as well as the consequences of superstition and paranoia (a particularly gruesome scene about midway through highlights this pretty well).

Of course, elements that I call predictable might not have been seen as such fifty years ago in Italy.

Also, too, its themes which are recognizable now, would have only been even more potent back then. The criticism of churches and their predatory nature also ends up feeling awful ahead of its time in hindsight.

Personally, as a citizen of the United States, who was raised in a small village with cornfields in-front of his house and behind his house, and more crazy religious fanatics than I care to remember, the uncertainty runs thick. When I was a kid and found out certain people accused J.K. Rowling of witchcraft or anti-Christian propaganda because she wrote Harry Potter, I thought it was absurd. However, the reality is, now, and especially back then, a lot of that nonsensical hysteria existed and sometimes when enough uneducated people become scared and paranoid, they can do a lot of damage left unchecked.

The themes are relevant, even today, but, admittedly, are fairly scattered and messy in how they're laid out in the film. The characters, as well, I feel could have been integrated better than they were. There are a lot of ideas here. A lot of them pretty good. Most of them though, I feel like they could have been handled with a little more care than they were.

The visuals are nice to look at, offering nice shots at a small village in Italy, brimming with greenery and nature, which is always an upside. Back then, the special effects and violence was singled out and praised - and, uh, I can't particularly bring myself to do that, per se. I can acknowledge that it is a low-budget film from the seventies, and that, by those standards, it looks good. However, by current day standards, or even standards set only a decade later, Don't Torture a Duckling drew a couple chuckles from me. Unfortunately, they're because the climactic death scene at the end involves an obvious-looking dummy. (In its defense, a death scene earlier in the film looked much more impressive.)

I have to commend the dark subject-matter shown in the film. Although the death scenes can be fairly comedic at times, I'll mention another scene of a child dying from the friendliest, softest strangling ever captured on film as an example, the subject-matter is harsh. A lot of children's skeletons and a lot of dark implications are involved in this film.

My favorite scene of the film is when a woman's car breaks down and she receives assistance from a small boy. She offers him a kiss as restitution, and then, barely a second later, it shows the kid facedown in a puddle. The suddenness of it surprised me.

In total, I can't say that Don't Torture a Duckling kept me immersed from beginning to finish nor can I truly offer a recommendation of it to a casual viewer. That in mind, I do have a respect for what it did with what it had available to it, I commend its boldness, and believe it was a decent first film to start my foray into the genre.

2

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/Toy_Story_4_poster.jpg
Toy Story 4

Like many of you, the Toy Story series is one I’ve coveted for as long as I can remember. As well as this, like many others, I couldn’t entirely say I was on-board with Pixar’s decision to create a fourth film. It wasn’t a belief I held out of disdain or dislike, but out of contentment. After the credits rolled on Toy Story 3, I felt Pixar had completed a nearly perfect trilogy of films, closing the storybook in as satisfying of fashion as I could have imagined. Andy had grown-up with so many of us, and now, he tipped his hat to his beloved toys, allowing them to continue serving their purpose with a new child. The story felt very taut and tidy, and completed itself in a satisfactory fashion. I didn’t feel like there was need for a new film. I loved Finding Nemo, for instance, but I also believed it had said everything it needed, whereas Finding Dory, made me recall the direct-to-DVD sequels Disney would make, albeit with a much, much higher production budget. Sometimes I believe when a story runs its course, no matter how much it might leave viewers yearning for more, there’s admirability and strength in allowing characters and a story to have a proper farewell.

Toy Story, I believe, had that.

Regardless, when Toy Story 4 was announced, despite my concerns, I allowed myself to become excited. When the reviews came crashing in, boasting Toy Story 4 as another immaculate feather in the series’ cap, I arrived at the movie-theater ready to be swept away. After all, the toys were back in town. Does Toy Story 4 warrant its stay and breathe new life in the series or does it amount to a retread, coasting on its familiarity? Here are my thoughts …

Toy Story 4 begins with a flashback that shares the fate of Bo Peep, a character who had a significant role in the original film but was unaccounted for in proceeding sequels. Given away by Molly, none of the original gang had seen her since then; to the distraught of Woody, most of all. Since then, Woody, Buzz, and the rest have found a new owner: a young girl named Bonnie. Things seem like they’re going well, but Woody finds himself discontent and bothered by a lack of purpose. Where Andy celebrate Woody as his favorite, Bonnie, on the other hand, prefers to play with her other toys. While Woody has matured a lot since the early days of the series, it’s still difficult for him to cope with not feeling needed.

During her first day of school, Bonnie is upset and scared, which causes Woody to sneak into her backpack to accompany her. On her first-day, Bonnie creates her very own toy, a strewn together creation, aptly named Forkie. Bonnie loves the toy, letting it console her, but Forkie is hesitant about being a child’s plaything, to say the least. Seeing how important Forkie is to Bonnie, Woody tasks himself with protecting Forkie, who seems eager to return to the trash-bin he was found. In a journey that sees Woody and Forkie lost, trying to return to Bonnie, Woody sees himself targeted by other toys and reached out to by old acquaintances. He’s also forced to tackle his struggle with self-worth head-on.

The film has a lot of different storylines, but most of Toy Story 4 is rooted around Woody and his journey. As expected, the animation remains top-notch and the voicework from the talent involved is admirable, especially from Tom Hanks in the main role. Something Pixar has managed to walk the balance-beam on as far as the Toy Story series is concerned, is the way nothing ever seems to feel like a retread. Whereas other franchises would resort to rehashing old plot-threads or coasting off novelty, the Toy Story series is the rare pull-string toy that always has something new and different to say.

This doesn’t mean everything is said with careful consideration or every step taken is with the best foot forward, however. Although other familiar faces from the series are afforded subplots, their contribution can often feel arbitrary or workman-like. They often feel like they’re allowed screen-time for who they were and what they once meant to the series, and not because they mean anything or contribute anything to this film. One of the biggest examples of that is through Buzz Lightyear’s character, who receives a considerable amount of screen-time, but is given so little unique or interesting to say. Instead, he handles comic-relief for a film that already had a lot of comic-relief, worse yet, however, is how rarely the humor hits its mark.

The same can be said about Forkie, an intriguing character – he asks the question of what it means to be a toy and shows the answer to that is through the eyes of the child. His character isn’t fleshed out enough to really go the distance, with his character reduced to cracking jokes with diminishing returns. Or Duke Caboom, for that matter, a character voiced by Keanu Reeves, that strikes various poses, and not much else.

Toy Story 4 has several interesting questions but doesn’t supply enough consideration to what it’s trying to ask. Bo Peep has found a life without a kid to play with her, and although it had been such a taboo in the series, she has found fulfillment and liberation. Gabby Gabby is a 1950s pull-string doll that has never had the chance to be loved by a child and is desperately looking for that affection. Meanwhile, Woody is somewhere smackdab in the middle of them; uncertain and befuddled. Those ideas never feel as though they’re allowed to mature and blossom to anything beyond their initial concepts. I honestly feel like they could have drawn both storylines out in a Toy Story 4 and 5, respectively.

Gabby Gabby roams a creepily animated antique shop, backed by creepy ventriloquist dummies, and while I think the idea had a lot of potential, I found her development and eventual resolution unfulfilling and rushed. I could envision an entire film with Woody and Gabby Gabby’s dynamic, but with the idea allowed the chance to breathe. The same could be said about Woody and Bo Peep’s relationship. I would have loved to see a film solely about Woody and Bo Peep roaming cities, rekindling their own friendship, and Woody tackling his emotional struggles in a more complete manner.

Instead, what Toy Story 4 feels like is a lot of ideas wedged together and, in spite of how good they may have been at first, they end up for a bland experience as a result.

There we have it – the unfortunate reality of how I felt about Toy Story 4. I wouldn’t say it was a thoughtless cash-in by any stretch. I believe the film had a lot of inspiration and a lot of unique things to say for itself, but, perhaps in its own ambition, I believe it stretched itself across its means. As many good scenes as there were, I’m left saddened by how many of those scenes I believe could have been great. I found the humor frenetic and ultimately too over-the-top, trying harder to be funny than any Toy Story before it, and yet having far more jokes that fall flat.

I don’t usually see movies with many others, most times, I see them with my fiancée. I watched Toy Story 4 with my fiancée, my mother, my aunt, and three of my nephews. As I stepped out of the theater, the very first thing my fiancée said to me was that it “didn’t have the charm of the previous ones”. When I stepped into the car, my nephew who used to watch the Toy Story movies on repeat everyday when he was littler, told me he didn’t remember the other ones being so “boring”. My mother, quite bluntly said, “that movie sucked.” Personally, I neither thought Toy Story 4 sucked nor did I find that it bored me, but I was disappointed.

3

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/19/Batman_Ninja_Turtles_Cover.png/220px-Batman_Ninja_Turtles_Cover.png
Batman vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

I can’t say I had high expectations for Batman vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. I’d call myself a fan of both, but it’s very rare when crossovers succeed beyond achieving a mild level of enjoyment. DC Animated fare is often hit and miss, as well, with every Batman: Under the Red Hood followed by a Son of Batman or The Killing Joke. I was curious about how Nickelodeon’s involvement would change things, and whether it’s because of them or not, I can say the film has a higher production-value and attention to detail than the average DC fare, which is usually aesthetically appealing but has limitations with certain aspects like character movement and often has trouble with how stilted or stiff characters come off. That, and the warm critical reception from critics and audiences alike helped my enthusiasm. I always intended to watch it, but I soon let myself actively become interested. Does Batman vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles provide the cross-over fans deserve, or is it a cash-in with little to say for itself? Here are my thoughts …

As I think everyone would anticipate, the animated film has a simple, straightforward narrative that mixes up characters from Batman and the Turtles’ rogues-gallery. Shredder and the Foot Clan align with Ra’s Al Ghul and the League of Assassins to bringdown Gotham City, other notable villains who appear include Two-Face, Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy, Bane, Mr. Freeze and The Joker. In other words, they don’t shy away from stuffing the film with as many baddies as they can. The Turtles arrive in Gotham City and shortly find themselves thrown into the mix. Likewise, the film sees a lot of heroes brought in for the occasion, including Damien Wayne’s Robin, Barbara Gordon’s Batgirl, and, of course, our caped crusader. Troy Baker has become a mainstay for the Batman series, in Arkham City, he voiced Two-Face, in Arkham Origins, he voiced The Joker, then, in Batman: The Telltale Series, he took up the voice-role of Batman, in this film, Troy Baker does his best impression of Kevin Conroy’s Batman and Mark Hamill’s The Joker, and, although it might feel like an insult to call it an impression, he does both of them very well; it’s uncanny, really. Other familiar voice-actors include John DiMaggio (Gears of War, Bender from Futurama), Tom Kenny (SpongeBob), and Tara Strong (everything), and together, all of them deliver admirable contributions.

Something I hadn’t expected early-on is how many times I smiled or even laughed while I watched. I mean, if I had to absolutely be a stickler, I’d say Michelangelo jumps-the-shark once or twice, but, for the most part, I enjoyed the zaniness and how humorous he was. I don’t think I can think of any other film in DC’s animated catalogue I’d describe as a “successful comedy,” instead, I usually find enjoyment through the animation and narrative depth. This film, however, blends it well throughout.

The fight-scenes are enjoyable as well. I think the film feels consistent to its own world, which has been a difficult task for a lot of films when they try to blend comedy and any level of dramatic depth. One scene involving Scarecrow and one of the Turtles in-particular stuck out as having a certain depth I hadn’t anticipated. Batman vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles might have involvement from Nickelodeon, but it isn’t the type of film you’d ever see shown on their channel. If you’ve watched DC’s later movies like Batman: The Killing Joke or Batman: Assault on Arkham, you’ve seen how they’ve begun allowing darker, more mature themes to bleed into their animated features (often, literally). This film sees a certain uptick in violence and word-choice, but it isn’t as gratuitous as what we’ve seen. I don’t have an issue with either violence or profanity, but I find that it can often be used as a crutch or the fact the movie-company is trying to be “hip, cool, and edgy,” becomes transparent. This film, it feels more natural than that, and, like I said, feels consistent with what the film is.

Batman vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles isn’t a high-brow film by anyone’s imagination, nor does it reinvent the wheel. Instead, it’s exactly what you (or, “I,” at least) would want from a film seeing the Turtles and Batman cross-over. It’s a film that doesn’t attempt grandiose, epic-scale depth, but also doesn’t coast off fan-service and its own novelty, willing to deliver a film that’s fun and adventurous for its own sake. It’s one of my favorite DC animated features, and I’d recommend it.

3.5

[Act III]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7d/House_of_1000_Corpses_poster.JPG/220px-House_of_1000_Corpses_poster.JPG
House of 1,000 Corpses
Review originally written in 2019

rating_2

I haven't seen this since about 2006/2007, I think that it was in my DVD collection, can't be sure. Pretty good horror, I also recommend The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, equally as good. Back then the "captain spauldings death ride" was the baddest trip ever.

I'd have rated it higher than you but I guess maybe I should re-watch it sometime.

[Act III]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Crow_ver2.jpg/220px-Crow_ver2.jpg
The Crow
4

When I was a kid this movie marked that big turning point in popculture and the transition from 80s/90s. It was the Crow, The X-Files, Alien Autopsy, goth culture, Mallrats. This weird post grunge goth stuff and in the beginning there this movie was sort of the unspoken center of it and with the death of Brandon Lee that sort added to the legend. Personally, I didnt really get it. I saw it in theaters and then many times on video. There was a dark mysteriousness about it but at the time I would much rather watch a comedy or action film. And truthfully, the soundtrack became more popular than the movie in the following years. It was like everyone had the soundtrack in their collection but nobody had the movie.

[Act III]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/LastHousePoster.jpg
The Last House on the Left
3

A friend of mine mentioned this movie numerous times when we discussed horror and then one day it happened to be on TV at his house, so we watched it, but I wasn't that impressed and thought meh another gratuitous sex/violence thrillscare and it seemed to be more about shock value and pushing boundaries.

[KeyserCorleone]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/19/Batman_Ninja_Turtles_Cover.png/220px-Batman_Ninja_Turtles_Cover.png
Batman vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles





Oh yeah, the one where Leo is played by Bugs Bunny.

[McConnaughay]

I haven't seen this since about 2006/2007, I think that it was in my DVD collection, can't be sure. Pretty good horror, I also recommend The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, equally as good. Back then the "captain spauldings death ride" was the baddest trip ever.

I'd have rated it higher than you but I guess maybe I should re-watch it sometime.
I prefer The Devil's Rejects over it, personally.

[McConnaughay]

When I was a kid this movie marked that big turning point in popculture and the transition from 80s/90s. It was the Crow, The X-Files, Alien Autopsy, goth culture, Mallrats. This weird post grunge goth stuff and in the beginning there this movie was sort of the unspoken center of it and with the death of Brandon Lee that sort added to the legend. Personally, I didnt really get it. I saw it in theaters and then many times on video. There was a dark mysteriousness about it but at the time I would much rather watch a comedy or action film. And truthfully, the soundtrack became more popular than the movie in the following years. It was like everyone had the soundtrack in their collection but nobody had the movie.

Don't feel that way at all. I know a lot of guys who love The Crow, don't hear a lot about the soundtrack. But, to each their own. I'm also a wrestling fan, which meant The Crow (via Sting) was always a prevalent part of my social circle.

[McConnaughay]

A friend of mine mentioned this movie numerous times when we discussed horror and then one day it happened to be on TV at his house, so we watched it, but I wasn't that impressed and thought meh another gratuitous sex/violence thrillscare and it seemed to be more about shock value and pushing boundaries.

It isn't without its faults (I hardly gave it a glowing review), but I liked it more than his follow-up film The Hills Have Eyes and I admired what I thought was a unique approach.:cool:

[Act III]

I prefer The Devil's Rejects over it, personally.
Oh yeah, forgot about that one. I will need to re-watch all of them.

[Act III]

Don't feel that way at all. I know a lot of guys who love The Crow, don't hear a lot about the soundtrack. But, to each their own. I'm also a wrestling fan, which meant The Crow (via Sting) was always a prevalent part of my social circle.

I found this fun fact on Google search.93188

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a6/Influencer_Poster.png/220px-Influencer_Poster.png
Influencer

On the outside looking in, I felt confident that I knew what to expect from Influencer. Directed by the capable hands of Kurtis David Harder, with a script he co-wrote alongside Tesh Guttikonda, Influencer struck me as another of the Shudder streaming services’ more modest, but solid horror offerings.

That isn’t meant as a knock, but, rather, how I adjusted my expectations and prepared myself for what I was signing up for. For the most part, I really like Shudder and I consider myself mostly satisfied with the context they put out. The strongest works I can think of, off the top of my head, being Unlucky, The Boy Behind the Door, and Spiral, respectively. As fate would have it, the director of this film also just so happened to have directed Spiral, hence why I said this film was made by his ‘capable’ hands.

The most significant comparison I made to this film, and the one I think holds the strongest, is Shudder’s film Shook. Both film’s content and subject matter parallel in numerous ways, offering a twisty, fun handling of social media influencers and the culture it evokes (compared to a film like Spree, which was a found-footage horror with a more harsh, almost American Psycho-esque approach).

Influencer follows a social influencer named Madison who has been staying at a luxury hotel in Thailand. Her life seems perfect for all intents and purposes, but when the camera is off, we are let in on the deeper emptiness she feels, brought on largely by her boyfriend not accompanying her to the resort. She befriends a young woman named CW and, from there, the horrors of our story truly start to unfold. The description for Shudder reads that “CW’s interest in Madison takes a darker turn.”, thus, I wouldn’t consider it a spoiler to say she is largely the main-antagonist of the film.

Although, by closing, I wasn’t left with a whole lot to say about Influencer overall, it is an enjoyable, and, even, solid film. That is my closing summation I have for it. The story itself doesn’t have anything particularly profound or original to say about social media or the influencers who bank off of it, other than reasserting the phoniness of it all, which is more fitting as the foundation of any real commentary than it is the single thought.

The film is nicely shot and aesthetical appeasing, carrying an efficient production-value that may or may not seem a little rudimentary to single out, but whose absence would be sorely missed were the film to be without it.

The acting is decent throughout, with Cassandra Naud receiving the most screen time and doing what she can with it. None of the characters have a whole lot of depth or substance to work with, and so it really comes down to the basics of memorizing your lines and making it seem like you’re not reciting them from memory. Everyone pretty much does. The characters are decent as well, with the biggest ailment being that none of them are propped up or developed enough to be invested into them.

The film feels a little like a busybody in how it is conducted. Although it is contained in a brisk, concise 92 minutes, I can’t help but feel like it had one too many subplots packed snugly inside itself. I believe this could have been a film solely about the relationship between Madison and CW, with little else in-between, and yet, that isn’t even the main course of the film.

The film’s main course is, effectively, CW and everybody else, and, while fine, means you find yourself a main conflict without a strong combatant.

Likewise, too, they make the boyfriend seem unlikable, yet try to elevate his role to someplace where he’d be expected to be likable, and he isn’t.

It is neither a scary film nor a gory film, nor is it a lot of other things, rather it is a more-mechanized, old-school helping of terror. It isn’t a whodunnit, but it stills right at home with something you would dust off from the bookshelf and read. It calls for you to enjoy the ride, and I think it does appropriately well at that.

Influencer is a film I would recommend, but I would keep expectations reasonably in-check. It has some neat ideas, but it doesn’t explore them beyond a surface-level. I would have been on-board with certain threads being strung along further, as I was genuinely curious where they could lead, but the film simply had different aspirations. Taken for what it is, it’s a decent film and I don’t walk away with a whole lot of criticisms, only what-if’s and wish-it’s.

3

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Phantasm.jpg/220px-Phantasm.jpg
Phantasm

Phantasm is a film I felt like I would never watch. For all intents and purposes, it lands exactly in my ballpark. I love goofy, absurd horror films (they are a majority of what I review on Nickelbib.com, after all). I am even more interested when I know the film is a part of a franchise, which Phantasm just so happens to be (for better or for worse, the jury is still out). And yet, in spite of having known about the series for as long as I can remember, it has always precluded the archives of the ‘Bib. Well, no more!

Directed, written, photographed, and edited by Don Coscarelli, Phantasm is a 1979 science fantasy horror film. The film stars the late-Angus Scrimm as the Tall Man, a supernatural and malevolent undertaker who gathers up the deceased from Earth to be turned into dwarf zombies meant to be used as slaves on his home-planet. If you’re like me, that description was enough to make me do a Michael Myers head tilt.

I was aware of Phantasm, but I didn’t actually know much about it heading in. All I knew was to keep my expectations in check (as I always try to do for some of the lesser known cult horror), and prepare for an unorthodox, peculiar film.

Attempting to thwart the Tall Man, we have a young boy named Mike, played by Michael Baldwin, who attempts to convince everyone that the threat is real.

Straightaway, I am taken in by how aesthetically pleasing Phantasm is to look at. This is because I am watching Phantasm: Remastered, a neat-and-tidy restoration of the film done by Bad Robot, J.J. Abrams’ production company. Good on them for bringing the film up to code as it were.

Something else I am relieved to see is how narratively coherent the film actually is. I will be honest, although I always knew I needed to watch the Phantasm series as a horror fan, a lot of what made me apprehensive was how fearful I was of its quality. Frankly, when a film has so much riding on one man (the director, writer, photographer, and editor), I usually expect a surrealist, experimental, and perhaps, incohesive final product.

Although Phantasm is certainly surreal and weird, it is also conventional and easy to follow along with. A young boy sees something weird, he goes looking for answers about that something weird, and weirdly enough, he finds them. It is a classic story formula and I was happy to see that. This isn’t to say the film won’t leave you scratching your head in its closing minutes, however, because it absolutely will.

The acting admittedly leaves a little to be desired. It isn’t putrid or godawful, but it is clear we are dealing with a cast still honing their craft. I would call it par for the course. The actors range from over-acting to a more stilted, underplayed approach, creating a certain thematic dissonance. Both approaches can be a little off-putting throughout the film, but neither ultimately damages the film beyond repair. Our lead protagonist is satiable, especially for a young-actor, and while the Tall Man is over-the-top and cartoony, I believe it is suitably so.

The violence is mostly scarce, and when it does happen, it’s bloody and absurd. The film didn’t strike me as so much scary as it was shrouded in mystique (although I am desensitized enough I haven’t the faintest idea what affects the average person these days).

The antagonist and the film’s conflict are unique and a welcome change of pace from a lot of the horror we often get. I equate it as similar to Hellraiser, where we don’t have a slasher villain, but a character close enough to a slasher villain that it scratches a similar itch.

I wasn’t sold on the end of the film. I can see what it means to say on grief and mourning, and I am all for a film that is up for interpretation, but the end opens up a whole can of worms for a payoff that is a little more nonsensical than it is profound. There are too many cogs in motion for the payoff to land, and I believe the film would’ve ultimately benefited from a conventional, normal end, I’d say.

The film has a “dream-like” quality to it, and it was something I appreciated more in-retrospect than I did as I watched the film. It has a bit of a ‘fractured dream logic’ throughout, with characters drawing conclusions and making sense out of things they shouldn’t. According to my research, this was halfway intentional and halfway an outcome of a lot of post-production decisions and backstory ending up on the cutting room floor.

My favorite aspect of this film is, ironically, one of the only aspects the director didn’t create himself. The score is mesmeric and was a real highlight for me. It has a familiar, classical late-seventies / early-eighties horror vibe to it, akin to a lot of what was released in the time-period. It has a fairly thematic and distinct core sound, but, pleasantly, they modify it and diversify it throughout, adding new instruments and tone, rather than pasting the same loop over each scene ad nauseum.*

In summation, I liked Phantasm a lot more than I thought I would. It isn’t without its warts, mind you. The acting is a mixed-bag and I really could have done without its ending (of which, the film had multiple made), but I loved the score and I enjoyed the oddball premise, which I think was executed well. Considering its limited resources, it’s a real feather in the cap of everyone involved, especially Coscarelli. It’s an old-school horror gem and I recommend it to anybody who hasn’t seen it - don’t wait as long as I did!

3

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/ea/Last_Night_in_Soho_%282021%29_poster.jpg
It is appropriate I am writing my review of Last Night in Soho immediately after writing my review of The Menu, not only because I watched them back-to-back, and not only because they both feature Anya Taylor-Klaus, but because I had a similar attitude about both of them prior to.

Despite the names and talent attached to Last Night in Soho, which includes the talented Thomasin McKenzie (who I last saw in the very good film Jojo Rabbit) and director Edgar Wright (who directed Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, a film I positively reviewed, amongst other well-received features) at the helm, I have spent the better part of two years actively ignoring this film like the plague.

This film received a positive reception from audiences, but failed to light up the box office the way I am certain Universal Studios would have hoped, with Edgar hot off the success of his film Baby Driver.

Last Night in Soho is a peculiar film, which is something I am always enthusiastic about. Anytime a filmmaker tries to do something different than what is expected, especially a made-man like Edgar Wright, it is something I fully commend.

The film follows an aspiring fashion designer named Eloise as she moves to London to begin her pursuit at a fashion career. The film portrays the character as having a romanticized perception of what it was like in 1960s London, visualizing it with a glitz and glammed tinted lens, glamorizing what the film reveals wasn’t actually a great time for everyone involved. This bodes true particularly for a dazzling singer named Sandie, and the many hardships she faces in pursuit of fame and notoriety. As Eloise discovers herself able to mysteriously enter the 1960s, or, at least, immerse herself into Sandie’s perspective, she discovers the dark underbelly lying beneath.

I went into this film mildly intrigued and walked away from it very impressed. If nothing beyond what I am about to go in depth on, it is very unique from what is usually released, especially at a mainstream level.

Last Night in Soho plays out as an old-fashioned, twisty-turvy ghost story. If stripped to the bare essentials, I could almost imagine this type of film marketed toward a younger crowd. It feels sweet and sentimental, and yet vicious and mean-spirited. As a film, it has a sort of tonal mishmash that feels like it shouldn’t work and yet, it does. Thomasin McKenzie’s portrayal of Eloise has a child-like naivety to it that feels like it radiates through the entire film, a hopeful radiance that always feels present in the darkest of times. Even when the film goes off its rocker and starts to deal with much darker subject matter, like rape and murder, or features drug use and profanity, it never fully shakes off that radiance. I believe a lot of credit goes to McKenzie for helping instill that feeling of enchantment.


It captures a nostalgic depiction of the 60s nightlife district, that sours into ugly hard truths, making for a spellbinding, unique blend of elements. The cinematography in this film is fantastic, and enough credit can not be afforded to Edgar Write and cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung for the sheer about of flash and style the film carries from start to finish. There is an argument to be able made style and substance in this film, whether it tries to do ‘too’ much in a ‘man of all trades, master of none’ type way, but I would commend it as managing to knock many of what it does out of the park. The film is a highlight reel of genuinely neat visuals and creative camerawork.

On the subject of substance, neither Eloise nor Sandie has a whole lot of depth. Whether it be the relationships they cultivate, their pasts (Eloise has a deceased mother that is vaguely touched on, but never really developed beyond the initial fact – there is also a history of mental illness that could likely have been expanded on), or some of the other character smaller characters that are established but don’t ultimately play as big a part as one might expected. This is a film where the style is heavy and the emotion is there, but the smarts and heavy-lifting to earn that emotion isn’t always apparent. The storyline is simple, in retrospect, but can feel a little unnecessarily convoluted and messy in its execution, verging a little on absurdity.

I believe all of what I said is a fair and reasonable criticism to levy against the film. Regardless, I will say I found myself enthralled with the film from start to finish. McKenzie dazzles as the “new in town”, doughy-eyed girl whose hopes and dreams are brutally stomped out, whereas Anya Taylor-Klaus delivers a strong performance as the starlet met by misogyny and hatefulness, feeling both effectively glamorous and larger than life and sympathetic when bad people make her feel small. They aren’t necessarily fleshed out characters, but they are both characters that Klaus and McKenzie are natural fits for.

Last Night in Soho is an absolute feast, bolstered by strong actors and a thematically powerful narrative. Even when it may not be ‘earned’, per se, it’s so damn-good it is hard to tell the difference. It is so refreshing to see a film with so much vision behind it, and I think in this instance, that was enough to carry the film. If you step back and look at it, a lot of it may start to feel disproportionate or uneven narratively, but I found the film so fun and watchable that I never felt compelled to do that.

4

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/db/The_Menu_%282022_film%29.jpg
The Menu is a film I had heard a lot about, but couldn’t say I was particularly interested in. I knew the reviews were positive, and I recognized the pedigree of those involved, the largest standout amongst them being Anya Taylor-Joy, whose resume includes notable horror fare like The Witch (which I saw in theaters and enjoyed, although unfortunately not nearly as much of some of you may have), Split (which I enjoyed a fair amount), and superhero horror film The New Mutants (which I didn’t particularly enjoy). Yes, every time my wife and I browsed the Max streaming service, we would briefly consider the film, and then, subsequently decide on a different film, leaving The Menu forever in the dreaded queue.

If I am honest with myself, I believe the reason I kept second-guessing myself about the film was to do with its trailer – a lot of artsy-fartsy food aficionados preparing themselves for an exquisitely prepared feast. How, oh how, would this become a horror film? In retrospect, I believe the trailer may, in fact, be intentionally deceptive about the film’s actual story, meant to surprise the viewer when it doesn’t head in the obvious direction. What I expected from the film – that it would be an artsy-fartsy film that eventually ends up with them all partaking in cannibalism, isn’t actually what the film is about.

Instead, the film heads in a different, fairly unique direction, and I believe it is best I leave it at that. I could try to unravel its tangled web for you and offer you a proper summary of what it is actually about, but I believe The Menu’s mystery meat is best enjoyed as such.

Directed by Mark Mylod (a director whose prior credentials might surprise you – a lot of goofy, light-heart comedies that didn’t do very well critically) and written by Seth Reiss and Will Tracy, The Menu doesn’t reinvent the wheel, per se. Although it doesn’t ultimately become what my preconceived notions envisioned, it does work with a lot of the same ingredients (aha, see what I did there? Ingredients? ‘Cause it’s about food! Haha, professional film critic.) that I originally expected. A lot of the film is, in fact, spent with pretentious people gawking over fancy food, either worshipping the head chef as a God or trying to find ways to criticize every dish. This means that a large part of the film is spent waiting for the other shoe to drop, so to speak – waiting for the horror component of it all to factor in.

Thankfully, this isn’t as dull as it could have been, benefited by a largely entertaining performance by Nicholas Hoult, whose character plays the snooty food smarty-pants to sometimes hilarious effect (in which case, maybe it does make sense that the director’s previous efforts were in comedy). This leaves Anya Taylor-Klaus to play an everyman type, reacting to the absurdity of everyone around her.


The cinematography is stylish, benefited by its luscious cuisines that help set the table in a Hannibal Lecter kind of way (still not about cannibalism though!), along with some other comedic choices that play well into its concept.

When the horror comes, although it subverted my initial prediction, its largely conventional fare, building off simple, rather superficial social commentary and outcomes that are easy to predict.

Thankfully though, The Menu benefits from its cast and the charming, witty absurdity of itself. Ironically, I came here to see Anya Taylor-Klaus (who does very well, mind you), but it is Nicholas Hoult and, especially, Ralph Fiennes, as the proud and obsessive chef, that really work to sell the film. The film is filled to the brim with sassy quips and one-liners, and although they may not make the film add up to anything wholly substantial, their dedication to their roles and the general charm of the film makes the 107 minute runtime go down easy.

I would identify The Menu as a black comedy first and foremost, that leans heavily on its concept more than it does the depth of its characters or any particular horror component. The horror is there, absolutely, but it isn’t the main course being served (no pun intended). It wants you to take everything it throws at you with a wink and a nod, stuffing itself full of gags and goofy moments, but never quite going beyond the point of no return with them.


I would recommend The Menu as a solid film, and a solid feather in the cap of everybody involved.

3.5

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ea/Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_-_Mutant_Mayhem.jpg/220px-Teenage_Mutant_Ninja_Turtles_-_Mutant_Mayhem.jpg

It might sound peculiar, but I feel like I may actually like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles even more as an adult than I did as a kid. Back then, I certainly liked the Ninja Turtles, in fact, I liked them a fair amount. I missed the cutoff age for the original animated series and Turtles in Time (but I did experience and enjoy the SNES classic later on in life), but I thoroughly enjoyed the 2003 cartoon (which is personally my favorite representation of the Turtles aesthetically) and I watched the original 1990 film more times than I can count.

I believe my appreciation for the series has deepened the more I started to realize the audacity of its existence and the sheer fun of its absurdity. All of us know the story by now.

Four turtles were altered by a radioactive chemical that spilled into the sewer, they were then adopted by a rat who trained them in the ways of ninjutsu.

That in itself is a concept so beautifully goofy that you can’t help but smile at it.

As I have gotten older, I can appreciate even more how absurd their backstory is. The Ooze was (kind of) officially (but unofficially) the same chemical that blinded Marvel’s superhero Daredevil. Not only that, but the series is filled to the brim with references and parodies of Daredevil. The main bad-guys are the Foot Clan (instead of the Hand) and they were trained by a rat named Splinter (instead of Stick). If you take a step back, it can really be seen how ludicrously bonkers everything about the series is. Similar to Deadpool, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles really feels like a series that was never meant to break into mainstream culture the way it has. That, in and of itself, makes the joke only that much more enjoyable.

They skateboard in the sewer. They love pizza. They’re named after famous painters. It’s a wacky time and I am all for it. Cowabunga!

Adaptations beyond the animated series’ and Turtles in Time have left a lot to be desired, however.

I loved the original 1990s film as a kid, but when I went back and re-watched it, I couldn’t help but believe it left a lot to be desired. I still enjoyed it. I still largely prefer the cheesy-looking rubber suits over the ugly CGI-laden representations shown in the more recent duology. However, I will admit that the characters and how they are developed, and how certain things were portrayed, weren’t as realized as they could have been. What I think it comes down to, for me, is that they simply didn’t capture the sense of personality for the Turtles and the world they were in as well as best case scenario. The best case scenario being the animated series’, which I may talk about one of these days on Nickelbib.

After the 1990s film, I can more or less take or leave everything afterward. I didn’t care for Secret of the Ooze or Ninja Turtles III, and although I firmly believe the characters are best suited in the animated medium, the 2007 film was a swing and a miss. The Michael Bay produced Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles was a beautiful disaster. It was a disaster in the sense that I thought it was a terrible film, but it was beautiful in the sense that it managed to make nearly half a billion dollars at the worldwide box office. Meanwhile, while its sequel Out of the Shadows, while a considerable improvement over its predecessor, was too little too late in my opinion. As strange as it may sound, in spite the hundreds of millions of dollars being thrown at it, the best film to be made about the Ninja Turtles since the 90s original is actually the Batman vs. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film that was released a few years ago.

What I am trying to say in a meandering, dithering kind of way is that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as a whole, across all mediums has a lot of untapped potential. It is one of the things that makes me love the series as much as I do. Before watching the latest film Mutant Mayhem, I was excited about two projects on the horizon for Ninja Turtles. This film and an adaptation of The Last Ronan graphic novel. Both could land either way, and I have no misconceptions about THQ Nordic and its shoddy track record, but what also excites me is out completely, utterly different both are. The Last Ronan is a story of dark subject matter, looking like a white-knuckle, gritty story for the Turtles, akin to Samurai Jack or a classic revenge-story. The comparisons to God of War: Ragnarok are a little too ambitious for a company like Nordic, but I still think it could a lot of fun. Likewise, it could lead to further developments for the characters. Sometimes, unexpected properties can be the source of new, groundbreaking developments in established intellectual properties. In 2010, Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions was released and helped to lay the groundwork for Spider-Man: Into the Spider-verse, which helped lay the groundwork for Spider-Man: No Way Home, with the most recent Across the Spider-Verse seeing some of the most ambitious developments to the Spider-Man canon in ages.

To me, it is always exciting when old series’ can find facelifts or fresh developments, so I am exciting and hopeful The Last Ronan videogame will be able to usher new developments into popular canon, the new Turtles, for instance, would be very cool.

With Mutant Mayhem, we find ourselves on the complete opposite side of the spectrum. This isn’t uncharted territory for the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in the least, instead, it is a new reimagining of the characters. Although some of us may have to shake off the initial cynicism of having to turn the clock on yet another interpretation of TMNT, I was very excited about it.

I believe that Spider-Man: Across the Spider-verse may have changed the game for animated superhero in a dramatic fashion, as you can clearly see the heavy inspiration and influence with Mutant Mayhem. The blend of different styles and that sense of kinetic, frantic animation Across the Spider-Verse had bleeds into Mutant Mayhem and sticks the landing with flying colors.

I know I heard some mixed responses about the Turtles re-design, with some purists criticizing new developments to the characters and some simply not liking the approach. For me though, I had a fairly unanimous affection for the new approach and I would call it the best visual depiction I have seen on film, but not overtaking my affection for the 2003 series. I am all for the different ways the artists went about making each Turtles have his own personality and identity to them. The only thing I am a little mixed on is certain ones having braces, but I might retroactively warm up to it if the film receives sequels showing the characters age and grow out of them.

As a film, I was excited at the prospect of being able to bring things back to the basics for the Ninja Turtles. As a personal observation, after watching Mutant Mayhem shortly after seeing Across the Spider-Verse, I feel they provide a compelling argument that superhero films were always better suited for animation. The medium simply allows the characters and their personality to pop off the screen in a way live-action is usually incapable. For a long time, it always felt like there was this stigma about animation, this perception that something isn’t real or mature enough when it is an animated film. It is a stigma we should have bucked off a long time ago. These films work great as animated films and I find it so weird that we have allowed ourselves to ever believe it is some kind of handicap or detractor when the opposite is true.

Mutant Mayhem has style to spare. The soundtrack is composed by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross and the art style is fun and filled with personality. It feels like a labor of love, at a time when, for as long as I can remember, Ninja Turtles movies have let like they are made on a conveyor belt.

The approach to make the characters actual teenagers was an inspired decision. It certainly creates a unique effect for the film overall. At the same time, I do believe the film has a rapid-fire, million-words-a-minute feeling to it, with character development sometimes left by the way side in favor of overstuffing the film with as many name-drops and cultural references as its runtime can contain.

I’m not criticizing it. Not really. I can appreciate it. I can appreciate the fact that, for the first time, the Turtles act and talk like actual teenagers (and, by teenager, I mean thirteen), but, perhaps, I wasn’t ready for what that entailed. The film doesn’t go for a grandiose or big-time villain for the Turtles first go-around, which is both a common sense decision, given the prospect of many sequels, and a logical decision.

For me, this is a simple, straightforward film, largely benefited by the technique and behind-the-scene talent hard at work. As a story, as a portrayal of its characters, and as a film overall, however, I can’t help but believe it is only a good film. Which isn’t anything to be ashamed of. This is, in my opinion, the best portrayal of the Turtles ever brought to film, simply because of how it accomplishes having the charm and lovability of a good, fun superhero film. However, I did leave the film thinking to myself that the best, in theory, is what comes afterward.

As much as I am interested in the journey to the Turtles becoming the characters they eventually become, of establishing its rogues’ gallery, and the fun that will ensue, the biggest steps toward that are what will come after this film. We can only hope that Mutant Mayhem has a healthy run at the box office and is allowed to lay the foundation for the series to come.

I would recommend it.

3.5

[McConnaughay]

https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BZWFlN2ZiYjItMWU3OC00MDg2LTg0MGYtZTkwM2ZmZGFjMTY2XkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMTk1NzUwMA@@._V1_QL75_UY562_CR6, 0,380,562_.jpg
Terror Train

In 1978, Jamie Lee Curtis became a horror mainstay after her breakthrough performance in John Carpenter‘s slasher film Halloween. Jamie Lee Curtis has become so synonymous with her portrayal of Laurie Strode that it can sometimes be forgotten her legacy goes far beyond that. In 1980 alone, she starred in both Carpenter’s The Fog and a new horror franchise in the shape of Paul Lynch‘s slasher film Prom Night. She also starred in another slasher film – an independently produced film called Terror Train.

Terror Train isn’t as revered as Halloween or even Prom Night, but it was a modest, appreciated addition to Jamie Lee Curtis’ filmography, boasting middling reviews and a subpar return at the box office. In the grander scheme, the film was mostly forgotten by the average horror casual. It wasn’t revered a classic like Halloween nor did it attain a cult like following on the order of, say, Chopping Mall. The film fell someplace, somewhere with Tourist Trap, as a film released in that same period, with familiar young talent involved, but not a lot else to say about it.

This is the reason it might be a surprise to many of you that Terror Train actually received a remake this year – released exclusively on the Tubi streaming service. I have championed the Tubi streaming service a lot in the last few years. It may not have the more intimate touch of a more horror centered service like Shudder, but, pound for pound, it is a platform rich in lesser known, low-budget horror cinema – I’d highly recommend it.

As for whether Tubi has a future as a connoisseur in the fine art of original horror, that is something I am less sold on.

Early on, 2022’s Terror Train can feel a little jarring to look at.

Although I haven’t seen the original Terror Train in ages, I have seen enough eighties horror to understand the playbook – the concept is one we’ve seen a lot. In a hazing prank gone wrong, a man is seriously traumatized and now finds himself donning a mask to seek revenge (if not him, then somebody else – like his mother or a close friend). It’s a classic middleweight slasher film premise and I’m open to it.

Terror Train’s characters often come off as sleazy in a way that is insincere, a little like they are trying too hard to capture an edgy, party vibe to them. Chances are, you know what I mean by that. It’s a difficult needle to thread. How do you succeed at displaying something that’s, ultimately, obnoxious, without it feeling obnoxious on-screen? If you were to equate it to a camp slasher film, like, say Friday the 13th or The Burning, a similar plight would be how to capture the camp vibe without it feeling like you’re watching an hour of counselors tying knots or rowing canoes? You don’t want to feel like you’re merely padding the runtime out til your masked antagonist can wreak havoc.

This film struggles with that key obstacle, tackling it not through interesting character development or witty banter, but, instead, through what feels like a double edged sword. It’s sensory overload and yet it feels like nothing happens – it calls to mind the age old refrain of having so much that you have less as a result.

Observe that I said Terror Train lacks interesting character development. Given its due, the film does have a story line at play and characters that are at least somewhat fleshed out and work off each other. Primarily, this is two characters – you see, one character is the voice of reason (that is, the one who feels most guilty about the prank gone awry), the other is the instigator (the one who takes no responsibility and shows no guilt). These characters play off each other throughout the film, butting heads and spearheading all the conflicts that arise in the film. It exists, but it isn’t interesting to watch.

You’ll notice on Nightmare Shift, I don’t scrape from the bottom of the barrel very often. When I seek out a film, it is because, ideally, I want to like that film. Any time I highlight a lesser seen film, I’d rather it be a recommendation. Thus, when I can’t finish a movie, I don’t review the movie. I finished Terror Train, but, I have to say, it was a bit of a slog to get through.

Terror Train feels both predictable and melodramatic, like watching a cheaply made-for-TV (made-for-Tubi) impersonation of better, more fun horror fare. The film houses no interesting deaths to speak of, all straightforward and basic, and the cinematography does nothing to heighten the suspense or intrigue. The score, early on, harks back to the glory days of old eighties fare, with scenes backed by a string of notes, but it is superficial and forgotten before it is even a quarter of the way through.

I always try to be considerate when I write reviews for any film. Even if a film is ‘bad’ (in my opinion), I often can find merit (even films everyone hates – if I find a sense of ambition / a desire to do something unique, I’ll write about it). However, Terror Train doesn’t feel like a love letter shy a proper editor, or an ambitious idea stretched beyond the means of its creator.

Have you ever bought a cheap t-shirt on Amazon? Let’s say you find a shirt with a cool looking image and buy it on a whim. A few days later, the shirt arrives and you take a look at it. The image looks blurry and faded, just a low-quality t-shirt. This is because what happened was, there is a factory that has all these shirts for print-on-demand. What the seller did was, he took a photo he ripped off Shutterstock and pasted a stretched out image over that black shirt. All of that aside, you’re not that mad about it. You didn’t pay a lot, you didn’t expect a lot. Take it for what you will, but that’s 2022’s Terror Train.

1

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/48/Prison1988film.jpg/220px-Prison1988film.jpg
“Prison”

Our journey with director Renny Harlin begins in 1987 when he directed the film Prison. Incidentally, although I wouldn’t be surprised if many of you haven’t heard of or aren’t familiar with this film, horror aficionados will be familiar with a lot of the talent involved.

The film was produced by Charles Band and distributed by his Empire Pictures brand. As of now, we haven’t put together a series for Full Moon Features, but you can bet that it will be regularly mentioned and will be a subject of praise and ire for more than a handful of series’ before it is all said and over with. For now, I will simply say that a lot of my formative years as a horror fan were spent experiencing some of Charles Bands’ movies, and while I don’t revere many of them as necessarily great films, I do have several I hold of high regard, and, for the most part, I find Bands’ work in the eighties and nineties to carry a certain charm that I look back on fondly.

The film was written by C. Courtney Joyner, which doesn’t at all surprise me. He has been involved in a lot of the writing for Full Moon Features, including Puppet Master III, which I consider to be, not only the best Puppet Master film, but one of the best Full Moon Features ever made. The film also written by Irwin Yablans, a producer who had a very prolific part in the creation of John Carpenter’s Halloween film.

The film stars Viggo Mortensen, an actor either associated with the Lord of the Rings or a few of Cronenberg’s later directorial efforts, as well as horror legend Kane Hodder as our antagonist – a role that predates his debut as Jason Voorhees by about a year.

After the first fifteen minutes of the film, I am already a little perplexed. As I prefaced earlier, I am very familiar with Empire Pictures and Full Moon Features, and if I had to wager a guess, I would say I have seen close to one-hundred movies from the company by now. That in mind, after watching their more recent fare like Evil Bong vs. Gingerdeadman, it is easy to forget that Empire Pictures once used to be capable of making a real, honest effort. I am also perplexed because I had watched the trailer for Prison before watching the film, and what I saw there was a much hammier, blatantly campy experience than what I am witnessing early on. As said, I know the production company I am dealing with here and I can hear the hum of Richard Band’s musical score in the background, and so I am waiting for the other shoe to drop. Thus far, it’s much more subdued and patient than I would have previously expected.

I am a half hour in, and I can’t believe how competently made this film is, and how it still has managed to play things on the straight and narrow. I am actually flabbergasted to tell you the truth. Again, this has nothing to do with any preconceived notion I have about director Renny Harlin and has everything to do with what I have come to expect from Empire Pictures and what I was led to believe by the trailers. I like Empire Pictures, and I like them especially when they have a good director at the helm. For me, and I think a lot of other people, when I think of the best director Empire or Full Moon has to offer, I think of Stuart Gordon for his efforts on films like Dolls and Re-Animator. Even he, however, never clashed with the flavor of what they were though. He was good, but he did a lot of camp and a lot of goofy humor, and he did it usually right out of the gate.

This film feels different. It feels more restrained and is allowing the story and the characters to breathe a little bit more. It is building the general vibe of the prison, establishing it as an unruly, unkempt, and ultimately harsh place. The lighting is atmospheric, the score and sound are both thematic and being put to good use, and it almost feels like I could be watching a pretty alright rendition of The Green Mile. Color me surprised, but I am actually a little bit impressed by that.

The story is straightforward enough.

Basically, the warden, a hard-ass named Ethan Sharpe stood by while an inmate named Charlie Forsythe was killed in the electric chair for a crime that he did not commit. Now, thirty years later, the prison is being reopened and Charlie Forsythe has returned from the afterlife to exact revenge against those who wronged him. Sharpe’s character is a little jumpy in the first half hour, which is the only aspect thus far that I would actually describe as a little over-the-top – he is startled by an officer and literally points his handgun at him and threatens to blow his head off. It makes sense within the context of the film. Ethan is haunted by nightmares about Charlie coming after him. Still though, that’s a little much and I don’t think the average person would shrug off their boss nearly blowing their head off with a handgun.

All in all, it is going well so far – I am buying what they are selling.

The depiction of prison feels realized, although I can’t say for sure how accurate it is. I could see everyone being able to smuggle in cigarettes, and, of course, we all know about the creative ways inmates find ways to make things like toilet wine and tattooing equipment. In fact, if we can take a step back, aside from all the bad things, prison provides a neat little microcosm of how improvisational and resourceful a person can be under certain circumstances. With that said, I haven’t the faintest idea how someone managed to smuggle a guitar in that jail cell. Surely, you wouldn’t be allowed to just have that on the cell block. Imagine what you could do with that? Think of the possibilities! You’d be able to use that as a garrote and strangle somebody if you wanted.

By about the half hour mark, they begin to roll out the supernatural elements of the film. It is important to observe that, for all intents and purposes, New Line Cinema must have seen this film and observed that Renny Harlin would be capable of directing a larger property like A Nightmare on Elm Street. Frankly, it doesn’t take very long once the horror starts to break in that I found myself nodding my head and thinking, “I can see it.” The special effects certainly show their age and their budget. The biggest technical snafu this film commits are the zippy zaps it incorporates, little thunderbolts that very much look like they were overlain over the film. I feel like a lot of films from the eighties have zippy zaps in them that haven’t aged well, even A Nightmare on Elm Street III, for that matter. This is the eighties and this Empire, and the weight of their ambition often outweighs their resources or technical prowess. Certain scenes feel exactly like something I would expect from A Nightmare on Elm Street, with inanimate objects personifying themselves and inflicting themselves on unsuspecting victims. There is a scene where a prison guard is massacred by, like, Rebar, electricals, and then, his brutalized corpse spills out from the ceiling into the cafeteria, and it feels exactly like the kind of thing I would expect to see in A Nightmare on Elm Street. It is also just a distinct, memorable scene in its own right. Kudos to the practical work here by William Butler.

All in all, what does 1987’s Prison add up to? First and foremost, I want to say that I like the concept of the film. I can’t name a lot of horror movies that happen inside of a prison. Also, I did a little research for the film, and it was actually filmed inside of a real life penitentiary that had been vacated, and the filmmakers more or less had free rein to ransack the place if it meant for a cool shot. The acting is alright. I wouldn’t say anyone had a star making performance in this film, but I did, honestly and truly, like Viggo Mortensen’s subdued, quiet portrayal of the lead protagonist Burke. Likewise, Lane Smith delivers a solid, Nixon-esque performance as the prison’s warden. He does a lot of the narrative’s heavy-lifting and acts as a polar opposite to the more quiet Burke. The special effects, at times, are a little hokey, but there were a couple cool and creative scenes like the one I mentioned. I also appreciated the approach, which I thought was fairly restrained and disciplined. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop and, while it does have its hokier moments, a lot of them can be chalked up to cheesy special effects and not because the film itself lost its game of chicken.

At the same time, I will admit that the ghost story itself was fairly unimaginative on a narrative front, and for a film with this thin of a story, it is difficult to justify its runtime of an hour and forty-two minutes. That isn’t an ungodly amount of time for a film, but it’s a good length for a horror film, and an incredibly long length for an Empire film, and I’ll be frank, I felt it pretty hard by the end. A lot of my appreciation for the film’s more slow burned approach comes because of how antithetical it is to the approach usually implored by Empire, and that appreciation may not lend itself to you.

In summation though, I was genuinely surprised by how much I came away appreciating Prison. It succeeds as both a halfway decent horror film and a halfway decent prison movie, and feels very much like Renny Harlin’s audition for his next film.
2.5

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/26/A_Nightmare_on_Elm_Street_4_-_The_Dream_Master_%281988%29_theatrical_poster.jpg
A Nightmare on Elm Street IV: The Dream Master

With his 1987’s film Prison behind him, Renny Harlin’s directorial career advances forward with the 1988 film A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, released only a year after his freshman horror effort. Renny Harlin had the honors of following A Nightmare on Elm Street III, a film that is largely considered as the best in the series since Wes Craven’s original classic, and some even outright prefer it. This is with good reason – the third film was a highlight reel of memorable, visually arresting and creative scenes of Freddy Krueger wreaking havoc on the children of Springwood. Granted, I do have some hang ups that I will one day tackle directly in a review later on, but I do agree it is imaginatively one of the strongest entries in the Elm Street series up to that point and overall. The film was a strong sequel and a worthy follow-up to the original.

There is an immediate charm to the early A Nightmare on Elm Street films. After all these years, I am still drawn to the opening credits, the stylized logo, and the overall look and sound that is A Nightmare on Elm Street. The twinkly score and the classic nursery rhymes are obviously hand-me-downs from the original classic, but it is a testament to the value that the A Nightmare on Elm Street brand has. Although I think there is an argument to be made about the quality of the sequels in the horror franchise, they all inherently add something to the franchises’ tapestry. This is for better and for worse, as it can argued whether certain increments are an example of addition by subtraction, or, put better, whether they ultimately cause the series to lose integrity or if they feel like worthy additions.

Thus, I suppose the argument can be made that if ever a director was offered a major opportunity to make a splash in the horror genre and score points with a horror fan like myself, they would never be presented with more an opportunity to do so than with the opportunity to direct the fourth A Nightmare on Elm Street. At the same time, there is a heavy lies the crown expectation to a director offered the chance to helm such a beloved franchise.

Something I wanted to touch on before we dig into the nitty-gritty is the production of this film and the concept of the The ‘Bib and the series’ I do. In an interview, director Tom McLoughlin said that he was offered the opportunity to direct Elm Street 4, but turned it down. Why did he turn it down? Well, he wanted full creative control, similar to what he had when he directed the sixth Friday the 13th film. The producers declined, saying they couldn’t adhere to that. As a matter of fact, they had already begun filming – shooting specific special-effect scenes without a director, citing that they basically knew what they wanted from the films by then. Thus, in some respects, I would equate Renny Harlin’s participation to the film as, perhaps, akin to a director’s participation in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. This is obviously at a much smaller scale comparatively, but, what I mean is, a film director isn’t really allotted a whole, whole lot of wiggle room. Quentin Tarantino equates directing Marvel films as being a hired hand, which I think is appropriate to how I imagine directing The Dream Child must’ve been. This isn’t inherently an issue, but, rather, I wanted to specify that with the The Bib, I choose to use a director’s filmography as a framing device for the series’, and that the series isn’t inherently all about them.

Brian Helgeland and Scott Pierce wrote the script for this film, Steven Fierberg did the cinematography, and so on and so forth. As with every film, it is a team effort. This, I think is important, because of how much of what works with The Dream Child hinges on things like the special effects and the murder sequences portrayed.

Here, for example, are some of what I would single-out – the waterbed scene was creative, taking the core concept of them dying in their sleep and a unique visual aesthetic of the blood of his victim pooling in. I will admit it does show an early indication of how the franchise can play fast and loose with the rules of Freddy Krueger’s abilities, given how the body mysteriously found itself submerged inside the water bed, but I believe Elm Street is a series that is liberating enough to play fast and loose with its concepts, especially if it makes for a cool visual. The scene with Debby’s missed bench press was an amazing, gruesome scene, and the insect bit that followed was both very inspired and very weird. There is a scene set on a beach, likely most recognized for the meme-before-meme’s shot of Freddy Krueger in sunglasses, but, before that, we see Freddy’s claws surfing through the waves like shark fins, in what I thought was a really cool moment. By A Nightmare on Elm Street III, the approach to how these films were made really became less about the whole overall product, and more about making a visually arresting and fun film.

I know there is a lot of debate about where the series went, whether there was a sharp decline in quality and whether Freddy Krueger would have been better off sticking to a more serious presentation. Personally, my opinion has changed over the years. There have been times where I have honestly and truly been on both sides of the argument. Nowadays though, I have really come to love it all. It would be different if I felt the series became reduced to nothing more than lazy, uninspired cash-ins, but that isn’t what I think. If you want to see an uninspired, lazy cash-in, I would look no further than the Elm Street remake in 2010, but, right now, at this point, the films are still churning out creative, unique scenes like no other franchise before it or since. The mentality has certainly changed – the approach to Freddy as a dark antagonist has changed, and now, he has become the series front man. You see the film because you want to see Freddy Krueger do what he does and not inherently because you want to see a horror film. Do I think this film or its approach is as good as the original film? No, I do not, but I do like it.

The story line carries on from the aftermath of A Nightmare on Elm Street 3, which is a smart way to keep horror fans invested year to year as they keep cranking the films out at a rapid speed, but does do a level of damage to how the film is able to stand on its own as a self-contained film. Likewise, too, although the main actress does an amicable job in her role as Alice, the character herself doesn’t have a whole lot of depth beyond a couple of the standard cookie-cutter traits expected for a horror final girl. She isn’t problematic, and she is likable enough that she is par for the course for what the film is asking for, but there isn’t a lot of depth to pull the characters from scene to scene. I think, in some ways, that is likely the biggest criticism that I can levy at this film is that, no matter how many times I have seen it, by the end of the film, it feels like most of what happens spilled out of my head like a turned over cup. I remember the special-effects and I remember the cool scenes, like the visual of all of Freddy Krueger’s victims’ souls pressing up from against his burnt stomach, trying to break free, but I don’t remember very much of happens in between although those moments.

Not all of the special effects and dream sequences have aged well, for instance, one scene of a robotic arm coming out from a classroom desk is corny above all else.

The explanation for how Freddy Krueger is defeated in this film is ultimately plot convenient and feels a little unearned in how it is implemented. At the same time though, it is a fantastic visual, a very neat idea, and among the best shots in the series, even if it is a little cheesy looking back nowadays. I also appreciate that the series obviously found new ways to thwart Freddy, rather than always falling back on one specific idea or method.

I like the film. I know that much, I knew that, as I was watching it, if I wrote anything, I had to say, specifically, that I like this movie. At first, I was thinking that if I took the film and I separated it from the A Nightmare on Elm Street franchise as a whole, I would be more critical of it. I actually think the opposite could just as well be true, however. If I took A Nightmare on Elm Street IV’s scenes and thought of it as, perhaps, a re-worked sequel to, say, the Wishmasher series, for instance, I am certain it would be my favorite Wishmaster film. At the same time, I can recognize that it has certain faults in terms of characterization, storytelling, and pacing, and what tone it exactly is. Comparing Renny Harlin’s film Prison to A Nightmare on Elm Street 4, I believe you can make the argument that his prior film shows more of his directorial chops. It also has a stronger narrative structure than this film. At the same time, this film is just so much more fun than that film, benefited by the special-effects and nightmare sequences, and a consistently fantastic performance by Robert Englund in the role of Freddy Krueger.

As it stands, Renny Harlin has maybe not had what I would call a breakout horror film, or a film that I would single-out as particularly great, but what I will say is that he is two-for-two on modestly decent, and solid horror fare. The story isn’t great, and that is putting it generously, but there is enough finesse and pedigree to every “kill scene” or “nightmare sequence” that it amounts to a respectable increment in the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise.

3.0

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/73/Deep_Blue_Sea_%281999_film%29_poster.jpg/220px-Deep_Blue_Sea_%281999_film%29_poster.jpg
Deep Blue Sea
Before talking about our next film, let’s reflect a little bit on Renny Harlin’s directorial career thus far up to this moment. Although Prison was the first film I talked about from his filmography, it was not his actual directorial debut. Rather, his directorial debut was a Finnish film called Born American. Likewise, too, after A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, Renny Harlin went in a different direction with his career than what I choose to talk about on the Nightmare Shift. This isn’t because he didn’t have a lot of success, because he did.

In 1990, he directed Die Hard 2, which was not only largely well received and financially successful, but is arguably the film he is most known for. Frankly, I don’t want to watch Die Hard 2, and so, I am not going to. I haven’t seen it and, in fact, I can barely remember anything about the first Die Hard. That in mind, maybe there is a chance I will one day go off track and talk about all the Die Hard movies on The ‘Bib. It wouldn’t fit the general vibe of a series, but I do intend to divert off the set path every now and again if I have enough interest in the subject matter involved.

The reason I mention it is because I wanted to preface that I am only talking about the horror or horror adjacent films on Renny Harlin’s filmography, but I wanted to be forthcoming about some of the other noteworthy films he has been a part of. Something I will mention about Die Hard II is that it had a rather interesting development that I think fits the overall narrative forming about Renny Harlin. Die Hard II took a repurposed script based on a thriller novel called 58 Minutes, and did so because it wanted to strike while the iron was hot with their new fledgling Die Hard franchise. That, coupled with his experience with Elm Street, sort-of creates this feeling that Renny Harlin is seen as a capable director, capable of rolling up his sleeves and doing workman-like directorial duties. That, in and of itself, may not sound like the most flattering thing to say about a filmmaker, and we usually like to think of directors as visionaries who helm films and blaze a unique trail, but, stepping in like he did with Elm Street 4 (which went onto become the most financially successful film of the series to that point) and Die Hard 2, which had the tall order of following one of the most critically revered action movies of all time, and not only did that, but made over one-hundred million more at the box office than the original, that’s commendable and shows a level of competence that shouldn’t be overlooked.

Renny Harlin didn’t return to horror again until 1999 with the science fiction horror film Deep Blue Sea. This is a shark film, for all intents and purposes. I can’t really say I am a particular fan of shark films, per se, but that has more to do with my lack of exposure to them than it does my actual dislike of them. I don’t have the nostalgia for Jaws, still haven’t seen The Meg or The Shallows, and I don’t think I will ever be caught dead watching the low-effort, low-budget shark movies that can be found strewn around the SyFy channel. When stripped away of any preconceived notion, I can understand the concept of a shark movie and while it might make for an appealing horror film. The ocean is a largely unexplored explored body of water and, above the surface, who knows of the unknowns that hide beneath? It’s a novel concept and I am open to it, and, if nothing else, for this exercise, Renny Harlin is two-for-two in his horror filmography, so who’s to say his body of work shouldn’t lend trust to the story he can tell with a body of water?

The film was written by Duncan Kennedy, whose resume includes this and the 2012 shark film Bait, so clearly he is a writer that has taken a liking to aquatic horror. It was also written by Donna and Wayne Powers, whose names can also be seen attached to the 2001 slasher film Valentine. This film sparked something of a film series, receiving two sequels, granted both were released direct-to-video. Curiously, both films were released long after the original, coming out in 2018 and 2020, respectively, so they didn’t particularly strike while the iron was hot with either of them. Deep Blue Sea was a decent box office success story. We talked about how A Nightmare on Elm Street IV: The Dream Child was the highest-grossing film of the Elm Street franchise at the time of its release, whereas Empire Pictures isn’t particularly known for its theatrical releases, so it shouldn’t surprise you I have little to write home about our first film Prison and its theatrical fortune. Deep Blue Sea made 165 million worldwide off a reported budget ranging from 60 to 82 million. How successful a film is can be complicated. A production budget doesn’t account for the amount of money spent on marketing and promotion which can sometimes be considerably high. Likewise, theaters do receive a healthy cut of the ticket sales, and although some will say otherwise, it isn’t a set in stone, cut in dry amount. Domestic profit is more lucrative than foreign sum, for example. Territories such as China can take as much as seventy-five percent of a film’s box office gross from studios. At any rate, and not to bore you too much with technicalities and homework, I would surmise that Deep Blue Sea was at least a modest success for those involved.

At first, I wasn’t certain about exactly what kind of film this would be. Would this be like Piranha 3-D, where it feels like a spin-off of American Pie with a horror twist, would it feel like a slasher that swaps Michael Myers for a shark, or would it feel like something more grounded and subdued? The opening scenes of the film bring us on a boat with young, pretty people drinking and having sex, and I feel like my question is pretty well answered. This will be a stupid fun movie, and I am okay with that! A straightforward, cold open that brings us into the fray with nameless characters so we can unabashedly watch them be torn to shreds. It is simple, but it is almost always a winner in the fun-horror genre. As it ends, however, I am not met by hot people torn limb from limb, and I am confused. Less than five minutes into the film, I am met by scientists giving heart felt speeches about the agonizing struggles of Alzheimer’s and I am once more on the hunt for what exactly this film will be.

About twenty minutes in, and I have a deeper understanding – the humor is playful, but isn’t sharp or pointed, with a lot of the character development being based on charm. The sentimentality of their goal being to end Alzheimer’s is an easy way to pull at the heart strings without having to do a lot of heavy lifting – like cancer, Alzheimer’s is just something we immediately know to wince at and feel sympathetic about. This is not a slasher film at all. This is an action monster movie for a mainstream audience, like Kong: Skull Island or the American Godzilla movies.

Fortunately, they have Samuel L. Jackson in the film, an actor who was incidentally in Kong: Skull Island, and he is the type of naturally charismatic and likable actor who can do this type of film in their sleep if he wanted to.

So, basically, there is this testing facility that is trying to learn more about sharks, specifically about how their brains function and whether that information can be applied to our own brains – like, for example, whether it can stop us from being stricken by things like Alzheimer’s or dementia. The way they explain it walks the fine line of sounding logical enough to seem plausible and being vague enough that my stupid brain doesn’t try to poke holes in it.

Samuel L. Jackson’s character is this rich executive who is sent down to the testing facility after a shark is able to escape the compound and nearly kill a group of people – those hot young people that we talked about earlier. Meanwhile, we have him, but we also have the doctor Susan McAlester who is willing to risk anything if it means moving forward with her work, and Carter Blake, an ex-con who helps take care of and train the sharks. All three have a dynamic that both makes them likable and unlikable. Carter is more of an every man, a person who made a mistake and will judgment and persecution for that mistake, but he’s also cocky and has a chip on his shoulder. Samuel L. Jackson’s character Russell seems like a sweetheart as far as I am concerned, but he is an executive with a lot of money, and so, he’s also inherently a little unlikable. Meanwhile, Susan’s unlikable versus likable trait comes from her noble desire to help people clashing with her disregard for what it takes to get there.

This is, in some ways, the fullest movie I have talked about of Renny Harlin’s so far, but that in itself brings on a mixed-bag of emotions. The characters are decent enough. Like I said, this is an action blockbuster-y kind of film, and a lot of the time with those you see actors coasting on charm and charisma. This isn’t a knock on him, but this is the exactly the reason you see Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson in so many of these movies. He is good in them! The man is naturally likable and has a kinetic energy that makes it so you can effectively copy-and-paste him into about any action scenario and you will come away with a halfway decent action film every time. This film has that same sensibility, but there is this feeling that they wanted to wedge in as many tropes and sentimentalism as they could in the film’s runtime.

LL Cool J is in this film. He’s a rapper and sometimes, apparently, an actor. He will be in the next film I talk about on this Podcast, so we might as well accept it. For what it’s worth, he himself isn’t awful. Rather, it’s what the film has him doing that makes him feel superfluous and unnecessary. Real quick, what’s your least performance by an actor who isn’t traditionally known for their acting? Got it? Good. Mine’s Chris Tucker from The Fifth Element. LL Cool J isn’t that. He’s, for the most part, pretty basic and inoffensive. At first, it seems they have the character for comedic brevity with his pet parrot, then he has a bad-ass action hero moment that came off as unintentionally comedic, then, they try to have him be serious. He himself isn’t particularly bad in any of it, it itself is just kind of bad. This is a ridiculous comparison, but it reminds me of Tom Green’s role in that movie Road Trip, where there is this entirely different movie happening, and then, every now and again, it just randomly shows Tom Green ****ing with a snake. All of LL Cool J’s scenes before he joins the main-group, feel tacked on and unwarranted, and like the film could have shaved off a bunch from its budget and runtime without them.

I wanted to like this film. I can see myself liking a film like it (and, in fact, I do like other films like it). I like Samuel L. Jackson. Early on, the film carries a kind of light-heart charm that made me feel like I would at least have a fun time with it. Unfortunately, I found myself bored by it more often than not. This might have something to do with the fact I am not particularly a fan of shark movies. The film has a lot of yada yada in it before it is time for the shark movie to shark movie, and I found that it took away from my overall enjoyment. I can appreciate a slow burn. I can appreciate buildup and suspense, and how less can sometimes be more. But hearing a bunch of busywork dialogue with scientific gibberish that I know will ultimately not play a key role in the film – along with the tonal mishmash of hearing them talk about curing brain degenerative diseases, then, saying “The sharks are smart now!” doesn’t do a whole lot for me. When the time finally does come for the movie to unwind, the payoff is pretty uninteresting. A lot of water swishing and swashing in places, a lot of moving from one room to the other, but not a whole lot of interesting scenes with the shark. That’s what I want. This doesn’t have that.

I will say – right after the first hour ends – there is a scene with Samuel L. Jackson’s character that involves him doing a rah rah speech, trying to rally everyone up against the opposition, and it’s hilarious and, by far, my favorite part about the film. If you don’t see this film, I would recommend you at least take a few minutes out of your time to seek out that scene.

I found myself unable to become invested in this film. Part of that, you might say, is on me. As prefaced, shark movies have never been my cup of tea, but, also, the film definitely plays more as a mainstream blockbuster than it does a sci-fi horror film. The other part, however, is the one I am willing to fight for. The film has some elements of better films, like Alien, has a couple of moments that brought out a laugh or two, but is a fairly standard popcorn movie you’d expect around the turn of the millennium. The movie is so indistinct that it blurs together with other movies, to where, even though I was mighty confident this was my first-time viewing of Deep Blue Sea about half an hour in, by the end, I was fairly certain I had seen it well over a decade ago and completely forgot about it. It isn’t horrible. It functions, for what it is, but it personally did little to nothing for me.

1.5

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b6/Mindhunters_poster.jpg/220px-Mindhunters_poster.jpg
Mindhunters

Our fourth and final film for this edition of the series is the 2004 film Mindhunters. This is not the Hannibal Lecter film Manhunter nor is this the fantastic crime series from director David Fincher called Mind Hunter, this is Mindhunters. Mindhunters is a crime slasher film. I am not entirely certain what to expect from this film, but I am interested. I know what a crime film is. I know what a slasher film is. I do not know exactly what to imagine from a crime slasher, however. The closest thing I can think of to that is, perhaps, maybe, the Saw franchise, kind-of, maybe, I mean, I know it is a stretch to call Jigsaw a slasher villain, so you can understand my plight. Is it a whodunnit akin to Scream but with detectives? I am uncertain, but I am intrigued. The film received negative reviews from critics and was a box office failure, receiving a 24% on Rotten Tomatoes and a box office return of 21.1 million off a budget of 27 million, which means you can likely assume it still hasn’t broken even yet. This is a bit of a droll way to end the series, isn’t it? Did I mention it stars LL Cool J? I was looking forward to it from the moment I decided I was talking about Renny Harlin, personally.

Written by Wayne Kramer, who has writing credentials in several other lesser known crime films, and Kevin Brodbin, who wrote the screenplay for that Constantine with Keanu Reeves.

Not to enter a tangent, but I have to say that going through Renny Harlin’s filmography for this series was a real reminder of how much I hate the film industries shift from physical media to streaming services and how much of a burden something that was once unbroken, if, at times, inconvenient has since become. Before Netflix, we went to our local video store like Family Video or Blockbuster, but, nowadays, all those companies have gone out of business. I can accept that. Personally, I had a vested, emotional attachment to Family Video and was sad when I watched my local store close down, but I understood why it had to happen. Things are expensive, and when you have the opportunity to stream things for a much cheaper cost, I would still make the same mistake twice if I could do it all over again. As much as I like the idea of a physical building for renting movies, the cost and return on investment as a consumer simply wasn’t there. Even now, I had the option to rent a digital copy of Deep Blue Sea for $3.99 and I laughed, instead buying a combo pack of the first three movies for $7.99 on DVD. It would have been easier could I have simply watched it on the Max streaming service, but, as of today, it isn’t in rotation. It was a few months ago, not this month. Same with Mindhunters, I could have watched it on Paramount Plus a few months ago, can’t watch it now. Used to be on Tubi TV! Isn’t anymore. Fortunately, I found Prison for free on YouTube and I already own four different A Nightmare on Elm Street box sets.

I don’t know what the point to what I am yammering on about is, maybe this is my old man screaming at clouds moment, I just wish digital rentals were $0.99 or that I didn’t currently have five or six different streaming services being charged to my debit card every month.

Anyways, I found Mindhunters streaming on the Brown Sugar streaming service (one week free trial!).

If you are director Renny Harlin, what is Mindhunters for you? He is about five years removed from Deep Blue Sea, and things aren’t particularly going all that well. Whereas, we came to an understanding that Deep Blue Sea was at least a modest success, his 2001 film Driven making 55 million from a budget of almost one-hundred million was absolutely not. History serves to remind us that sometimes even the best filmmakers fizzle out. We all love John Carpenter, but his only contributions to cinema since the turn of the millennium were The Ward and Ghosts of Mars, both critically hated and ultimately forgotten. Tobe Hooper broke out strongly with The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Poltergeist, but the Toolbox Murders remake or Djinn didn’t exactly receive a lot of love. I don’t know if it’s what happens when a filmmaker gets washed up or has too many expensive misfires to warrant second-chances, or gets given the short-end, but sometimes filmmakers get dug into a hole that is hard to dig ones’ way out of.

For all intents and purposes, Renny Harlin is doing fine. He has since directed some modest hits in China, his home-country of Finland, and has, of course, a trilogy for The Strangers series coming out. For all we know, Harlin may even be in for a career renaissance.

However, for this exercise, where I only focus on the horror and horror adjacent films, things may look a little bleak. Every film leading up to The Strangers will either be a horror film I had never heard of, or, in the case of the Exorcist: The Beginning, a retooled version of someone else’s film already completed film. As crazy as it sounds, I am actually looking forward to it.

Whereas Deep Blue Sea feels like it did not play to my particular wheelhouse, Mindhunters, on the other hand, is exactly that. If there is anything at all I love, it is a moody, melancholic crime-thriller, a glib, gritty film about serial-killers? Sign me up!

Early on, I am met by some familiar faces. Christian Slater is in this, so is Val Kilmer. The guy who played Jordan Chase in Dexter? He’s in this. So, this isn’t some kind of no-budget film. The film cost $27 million to make, adjusted for inflation, that is about what they spent on making It Chapter One.

The cinematography in the opening scene is on point, if a little stylized. The music is moody, the sky is gray, and everything feels thematic. Turns out, this is on purpose! As we now discover that the events unfolding, which include a shootout, are actually a part of mock crime scene, with dry ice and moody music actually playing in the background. The film follows a group of FBI profilers in training that are tasked with tracking a serial killer in-order to pass their exams. As you can likely surmise, things become a little too real for them by the end.

After the first half hour, I am buying what the film’s selling. The initial scene was fun and different, and although, nothing of what’s come so far has been groundbreaking, all of it has been enjoyable. Val Kilmer plays the grizzled, cynical teacher really well, and I can appreciate all the effort going into the score and cinematography. This is a movie’s movie, so to speak, and I don’t mean that in a derogatory fashion. It feels like what you’d expect when you put in a detective film, albeit, with the added twist of it happening under the guise of an exam. It feels glossy and polished, with a high-production, manufactured ‘grit,’ and although that doesn’t sound good when I say it like that, I’m enjoying it.

The setup of having the characters intermingling on a deserted island filled with props and mannequins is a horror film’s wet dream, and it does nice to accomplish this House of Wax meets Seven style vibe to it.

Thirty-two minutes in, the film offers what is, frankly, one of the most ridiculous death scenes I have seen in a serious film in a long time. Two minutes later, it offers a ridiculous slow-motion explosion. For me, these back-to-back moments were like the film’s promise depleting out of it like air from a balloon. They were so sudden and so cheesy looking that I had whiplash. So, okay, the execution in those moments wasn’t ideal, but the buildup to them and the ramifications of what happened are good. Basically, this is the film’s way of thrusting us into the main story conflict. They went from investigating a faux serial killer and, now, they are on an island with a serial killer wreaking havoc. I’m good, we’re good, it’s good, we’re back.

The dialogue is, at its best, decent, and, at worst, when LL Cool J says “Eenie, Meanie, Minie, Moe, who’s the next mother****er to go?” Sometimes the reactions from characters feel too understated, sometimes they feel too unhinged and over-the-top for a group that you’d think would have more ability at staying composed under high pressure situations.

Something I have come to learn, now fifty minutes into the film, is that it is once again starting to feel like an action film. At its core, this is a junk food interpretation of serial killers. Although, in some form, presented as such, this isn’t meant as a realistic depiction. Mindhunters isn’t David Fincher’s Mind Hunter, looking at real-life serial killers. I compared it to Seven earlier, but I’d actually say a better comparison would be to say that it is comparable to a film comparable to Seven, as in the Saw films. That’s what Saw, and frankly, Seven, ultimately are, is junk food serial killers. They aren’t depictions of what serial killers actually are, but, rather, what we’d like serial killers to be for cinematic purposes. If you want realistic serial killers, I’d recommend Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, The House that Jack Built, or The Golden Glove. This is more your super genius madman style of cinematic killer. The ones’ who can turn everything into a Rube Goldberg machine or are always thinking eleven steps ahead. Couple that in with the guy who made Die Hard 2 or Twelve Rounds (which is, incidentally, a film this reminds me a lot of), and you have an idea of what to expect. This isn’t a crime slasher horror film. This isn’t a slasher film anymore than the Saw films are. Although it is bloody and grotesque, it shares as much DNA with an action-thriller as it does the average film out of the horror genre.

As the credits roll for Mindhunters, I will concede that it wasn’t without more than a handful of problems, in-terms of dialogue and certain less than stellar special effects. Likewise, the story is a little self-indulgent, predictable, and thinks it is smarter than it actually is. That in mind, I did enjoy it a fair bit. The cinematography is decent, the setting is a cool idea for a horror film, and it has a couple of entertaining moments to boot. This feels, honestly and truly, like it came from the Book of Saw, for better and for worse, and I would argue that, pound for pound, it is likely the best overall film that I have talked about across this entire Podcast in my opinion.

I still definitely liked and will remember the fourth A Nightmare on Elm Street more than I will this film, but a lot of that is because it happens to have a character I am already enamored with. This tried to do something twisty, fun, and a little different, and I enjoyed that.

So, where does that leave us on The ‘Bib?

Renny Harlin started his career by directing the modest, but enjoyable film Prison, a film that deservedly earned him the opportunity to direct A Nightmare on Elm Street 4, a box-office success and a worthy entry in the Elm Street franchise. After, he went onto direct a rather middling shark movie called Deep Blue Sea, one that I may not have enjoyed, but was successful enough to warrant a couple sequels and a certain level of reverence. In 2004, he directed Mindhunters, a box-office misfire and critical failure that I would actually wager is his best horror or horror adjacent film so far. Obviously, I still like the fourth Elm Street more, but, in this exercise, knowing that a large portion of the death scenes in Elm Street were filmed before Harlin was hired on, how can I not argue that Mindhunters is a better display of ability? Although I wouldn’t call any of these films great or necessarily above average, I did legitimately like three of the four and that isn’t too shabby.

3.0

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Sympathy_for_the_Devil_poster.png
Sympathy for the Devil
There is a sitcom I am a large fan of that you may have heard of. Before Rick and Morty, writer Dan Harmon cut his teeth with a sitcom called Community. During an episode, a character named Abed was tasked with answering an impossible question in his film study class about Nicholas Cage, the question that he was posed with was whether or not Nicholas Cage was a good actor. This was a question that ultimately led to him having a mental breakdown. It was a question too difficult for a devoted cinephile to wrap their head around.

In my opinion, Nicholas Cage isn’t a good actor. Instead, I would make the argument that he is a great actor with an impressive resume that I have still yet to dig into on The ‘Bib. Make no mistake about it, I have reviewed a handful of them, once or twice, here and there, little films like Willy’s Wonderland, for instance, but I have yet to scratch the surface on answering that question affirmatively for myself. Although it is a question I have tasked myself with full confidence for the answer, I can’t help but feel sympathy for Abed when he tried to tackle the same question. It would be easy to rattle off a half dozen good performances from Nicholas Cage I have seen over the years, but it would also be easy to rattle off a few dozen bad movies I have experienced of his over the years as well.

Consider Nicholas Cage effectively on my radar as a topic of conversation from here on out, and it will begin with this new film Sympathy for the Devil.

Directed by Yuval Adler and written by Luke Paradise, Sympathy for the Devil works with a lot of filmmakers I am not very familiar with. For this film, in terms of star power, the film is really propped up by Nicholas Cage’s presence, his and actor Joel Kinnaman, who I am familiar with from the 2014 remake of Robocop and his performance as Rick Flag in Suicide Squad. Heading into this film, I had a modest expectation for it. The concept itself seemed straightforward and fun, and the trailers indicated this film would add up to one more wacky, hammer performance from Cage, seeming particularly unhinged.

True to its word, Sympathy for the Devil delivers what is written on the tin. That is, the film sees Nicholas Cage appear on the screen with a domineering, exclamatory presence from the get go, donning a red suit and an unhinged expression. Joel Kinnaman, in turn, is tasked with playing the straightman in the film. During a family emergency, Cage’s character enters the film and the main-protagonists’ car, pointing a gun at his head and telling him to drive. Reluctantly, the man obliges, leaving his pregnant wife alone at the hospital. The pace is breakneck fast and direct, pulling us directly into its high-concept without a second to breathe, wasting no time for build or development. This is fine, because the build and development can always come later. For now, we are whisked away into a high-tension situation, forced to watch as the situation unfolds.

Nicholas Cage chews the scenery like it is chewing gum, offering his famously over the top and predictably unpredictable delivery, the very type of performance that makes people think twice about where Mr. Cage might land in their “Best of” list. Personally though, this is what I wanted for this film and Cage’s cagey performance plays directly into the character of this film. The best part of a presence like Cage is how malleable even his most typecast portrayal can be. Similar to how Adam Sandler can go from a glorified man-child to a cynical curmudgeon, Cage can easily go from laughably hammy, a la Jim Carrey, to an unhinged psychopath without it feeling like too large of a departure for either. He can make you laugh, but he can also be more than a little entertaining all at once.

Everything about this film is perfectly adequate and satisfactory across the board. Unfortunately, that is about the extent of it with this film. The cinematography is an alright production, if a little indistinct, but, ultimately, everything mostly feels kind of there with it. Although they try to spin this yarn with the two lead actors – one seeming unhinged, one seeming like an ordinary, everyday citizen finding himself to be the perpetual deer in the headlights, the questions it asks aren’t satisfying answered or particularly interesting to begin with. Either Cage’s character is completely off his rocker and is targeting this man for no reason, or there is a reason. The question never feels particularly built up or instilled importance in, and the payoff that does eventually happen feels like it’s met with humdrum indifference.

I wish I could say more about Sympathy for the Devil, but, honestly, it feels like it just meets the boxes of alright in every category. For what it is worth, there are certainly worse outcomes that could have happened. The film clocks out at 90 minutes, and does, admittedly, feel a little like a short story that was padded out to feature length. That said, it isn’t at all not enjoyable, it simply feels like it comes and goes without doing anything affirmative to weigh by opinion one way or the other. It is the exact definition of a film that is fine if you see it, fine if you don’t.

2.5

[McConnaughay]

https://play-lh.googleusercontent.com/-EF3N7gghl8VDr3sMLI9EIFGmHg9143YNoqAGsLLtaUspdIf2pzCjPKI_52b7fJFURLt0jLVws5MZe9HEBM
Love Lies Bleeding

Kristen Stewart is an actor who can sometimes sway me on a film if I know she is in it. I know that anyone who was around during the height of the Twilight franchise may still hold a lot of pent up resentment toward her and that franchise, and, uh, I dunno, man, I think you have to let it go. I still find comments bolstering the tired claim that she doesn’t smile or show outward emotion, and I think it tells me that those people haven’t watched anything she has done in the last ten years. Robert Pattinson was great in The Batman, and, likewise, Kristen Stewart is a capable, talented actor. I will concede – Hollywood hasn’t been particularly nice to her over the years. She is a very subdued, understated performer, which only makes it even more of a thinker why anyone thought she would be a good fit for a more action heavy version of Snow White, but I digress.

I liked her in Camp X-Ray, I liked her in Clouds of Sils Maria, and I liked her in Happiest Season, which goes to show that she did eventually find her niche in mainstream cinema.

For that reason, I decided to watch Love Lies Bleeding. That, and because sometimes I like to prove to myself that I am capable of watching and reviewing a film that doesn’t have both its feet squarely in the horror genre (this film only has maybe a few toes in the black waters of the macabre). I didn’t know what this film was about before I watched it. I didn’t know who directed it. I didn’t even know the name of a second actor. I was as blind to this film as I could possibly be.

Now that I can come up again for air, I know Love Lies Bleeding is a neo-noir romantic thriller directed by Rose Glass from a screenplay she co-wrote with Weronika Tofilska. I wasn’t familiar with this director, but I now know I definitely look forward to watching her freshman film Saint Maud when I have the opportunity to. The film has received very positive reviews from critics, and seemed to be at least a modest success at the box office (provided that they kept the budget in check – as of now, it is unreported, but I can’t imagine it being too much).

The opening scene is Kristen Stewart’s character trying to pry free a particularly clogged toilet. Evident by her shirt with the words ‘staff’ on it, I can infer that she works for the gym and isn’t just rifling through other peoples’ shit for love of the sport. This is a particularly clogged toilet for a gym, at least, by my assessment. I could understand a gas station toilet, but who leaves a gym in such a shoddy state of disarray? “You’d be surprised!” is what I am assuming a very small, but vocal niche of my readership is saying right now. These readers being ones who have worked at a gym and have also found themselves elbows’ deep in someone’s fecal matter. Michelle Rodriguez once did an interview about the Fast & the Furious movies, saying something about having to huff protein powered farts all the time on set, maybe there is a connection there. A couple of scenes later, we see our other leading lady Katy O’Brian being given the business by Dave Franco’s character, presumably in exchange for a job opportunity (so, in this moment, Dave Franco is actually more like James Franco than himself).

Long story short, Kristen Stewart plays a reclusive gym manager named Lou, who not only manages to manage a gym, but also manages to not be fired in spite of treating all of its patrons horribly. Meanwhile, O’Brian’s character Jackie is a hitchhiker who struggles to make ends meet, but doesn’t struggle to have six-pack abs. The woman is a brick shit-house bodybuilder who hopes to win this competition. Lou, being a lesbian with working eyes, is quickly smitten. Lou shebangs Jackie, and is nice enough to make her breakfast afterward (this is also after giving her steroids that she apparently has a surplus of). As we learn more about the gotten characters, we discover that Lou’s father is the leader of this drug-smuggling ring, which also has a front at a shooting range. Jackie works there, having gotten a job after sleeping with Dave Franco’s character, who, coincidentally, is Lou’s brother-in-law, married to Lou’s sister (played by Jena Malone). Lou’s father is played by Ed Harris, and can best be described as an unhinged, ruthless gangster type.

As it turns out, Love Lies Bleeding is a pretty steamy film. It is a lot more outward and explicit with its lesbian scenes than what you would otherwise see in a mainstream film. I am not complaining, of course. I have never really called a film ‘sexy’ on The ‘Bib, but I imagine there are more than a handful of scenes that will fit the bill for you in that way. Then again, I would also preface by saying it will depend on your reaction to close-ups zooms on some very vein-y, vein-y arms. This part of the film is pretty fun. Kristen Stewart can play the down beaten, tired-of-this-shit character in her sleep, and O’Brian has a lot of likable, kinetic energy.

Something else this film has on its mind is much darker, however. It is a very angry film, narrowing in on that emotion (anger), as well as obsession. When it goes dark, it is like flipping a switch. It switches from a romantic thriller to a dark horror with shades of black comedy mixed in. I would be remiss if I dared to peel back the onion a layer too far for you with this film. I will say that it is a film that feels vaguely familiar in some respects, offering a pulpy black-comedy with shades of David Lynch, and it was a real wild and surrealist ride.

I would recommend Love Lies Bleeding as a fun, surrealist kind of film. Ironically, the only aspect I am a little on the fence about is, in fact, some of the surrealist elements that remind me of David Lynch. I am absolutely onboard when filmmakers want to go weird with their film, so long as I think it serves a real purpose and benefits the film. Some of the surrealism incorporated toward the end of the film felt less purposeful and more like the filmmakers didn’t have a satisfying resolution for the story and went toward surrealism as a crutch instead. It’s fun, for certain, but I do wish it would have wrapped up more definitively and more coherently. It’s a solid film and a decent feather in the cap of everyone involved.

3.0

[McConnaughay]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4c/Deadpool_%26_Wolverine_poster.jpg/220px-Deadpool_%26_Wolverine_poster.jpg
Deadpool & Wolverine
I haven’t said very much about Deadpool on The ‘Bib.

It wasn’t intentional. Sometimes, without meaning to, I allow a film or film series to fall between the cracks and never end up sharing my opinion on them (for example, Life of Pi and The Nice Guys are two of my favorite films ever made, and I have never written a review for either of them). When it comes to Deadpool and Deadpool 2, I would describe myself as positive with an asterisk. I was excited when I went to theaters to see them, I am a fan of the character, and I was mostly satisfied with what I got out of each film. I wouldn’t describe them as great films, however. I wouldn’t even describe them as upper tier Marvel movies, to be honest with you. They mostly fulfill what is asked of them and struggle to do anything beyond that.

Deadpool & Wolverine is a film I was excited for. I was so interested in it that instead of going to the closest theater (which is still over half an hour out of my way), I went two hours out to treat myself to the best viewing experience I possibly could.

As far as Marvel is concerned, like many of you (and like this film, for that matter), I can feel the winds of change blowing in a new direction. The air has been let out from the balloon and the Marvel Cinematic Universe isn’t what it once was. I still enjoy them. I thoroughly enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 and Spider-Man: No Way Home, for example. However, the sense of devout commitment is no longer what it was. I had seen every film leading up to Avengers: Endgame, but, as of now, the ratio has dramatically shifted.

Deadpool & Wolverine is a celebration of a bygone era. If you have seen the trailers, you have certainly seen the wrecked 20th Century Fox statue in the background. It is the strongest indication the trailers ultimately gives you for what this film is about. It is a celebration of what came before. It is a celebration of the Marvel movies that Fox created – which includes X-Men movies and the Fantastic Four. Thus, more of your enjoyment of this film will hinge on your appreciation of those movies and Fox’s Marvel than it will any movie from the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I will keep my summary of the story brief, along with the cast list, as, if you haven’t seen this film, I would imagine you wouldn’t want me to shed too much light on either of them. In the film, Deadpool is yanked out from his quiet life by the Time Variance Authority and must partner with a reluctant Wolverine in hopes of trying to save his universe.

In a lot of ways, Deadpool & Wolverine feels very, very different from the prior Deadpool movies. The setting is wholly different from either of them, and the characters featured in the previous films aren’t as prevalent. This isn’t to say it feels like more like a Marvel Cinematic Universe film, because that isn’t exactly it either. If you are familiar enough, I would say that Deadpool & Wolverine feels like a Deadpool sequel multiplied by the Disney Plus series Loki.

This, of course, shouldn’t surprise you, given that they both see their protagonists pitted against the TVA.

If you haven’t seen Loki, I can assure you that you won’t be required to do any MCU homework ahead of watching Deadpool & Wolverine. Yes, seeing Loki will better help you contextualize the concept of the TVA, but it doesn’t get too complicated. All you need to know is that there is a Sacred Timeline, which is basically the timeline for the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and a whole, whole lot of other timelines. Deadpool and Wolverine both exist on a timeline other than the Sacred Timeline and Deadpool needs Wolverine’s help to keep his timeline from ending. As for the TVA, they are basically the morally ambiguous policeman tasked with regulating everything.


Some homework you might wish you had done will come with understanding some of the jokes that are made in the film. It is a criticism I have heard levied against this film once or twice already, and I think it is a valid one. Deadpool & Wolverine’s humor is filled to the brim with references to earlier X-Men movies. I don’t mind that. In fact, I would have been a little disappointed if this film didn’t have more than a couple deep cuts to find. As a celebration of the Fox Marvel movies, it is not unreasonable to have a film that has more than a handful of nods to them. That in mind, certain jokes are less references to earlier films and more insider baseball. Imagine if this were a DC movie and Nicholas Cage appeared as Superman in the film as a joke. We’d still laugh, because it is Nicholas Cage as Superman, but the joke largely benefits from knowing that Nicholas Cage was originally meant to play Superman in a canceled Tim Burton film. In other words, it isn’t a deal breaker to not have it, but certain things might fly over a person’s head even if they have seen literally every other Marvel movie.

Something else you might worry about heading into this film is that Deadpool and his sense of humor may not have the same jagged edge it once did underneath Fox’s umbrella now that he resides at the House of Mouse – thankfully, that isn’t the case. The humor is, for all intents and purposes, the same as it was in Deadpool and its sequel.

The comedy is fun and as over-the-top as you can ask for, offering the brisk escapism from the sometimes too stoic and bleak dramatization that can be found in superhero fare you’d expect. The action is fun, even if it doesn’t offer a whole lot of memorable moments I will find myself thinking back to. By now, most of us are accustomed to the hyper-edited, paint-by-the-numbers action scenes from Marvel (Disney, or otherwise). The inclusion of a more parodic based foundation helps inadvertently elevate it (since they are tasked with incorporating physical comedy into the scenes), but it feels only like a sweeter version of an established recipe and not a new dish. In other words, if you’ve enjoyed it so far, you still will, but, understand this isn’t exactly Raid: Redemption, where a lot of careful, thoughtful attention was put in to the choreography department.

The story is okay. I say it is okay to keep myself from using the word “fun,” over and over again. Wolverine is back, but there isn’t much meat to the reason why he is back. It’s okay, but, after witnessing the character’s tragic end with Logan, all I want for the character is buddy-comedy shenanigans. When we get that, it works. When they try to do any type of serious moment with him or serious character development, I can’t escape the belief that it is retreading ground that has been done once before far better. In other words, I’m happy to see Hugh Jackman back is Wolverine and it is fun to see him, but if you are looking for a reason why he is back beyond just because, the answer given is pretty weak.

In fact, any type of emotional weight has always been a struggle for the Deadpool series. There is a natural cognitive dissonance that comes with the territory. Deadpool breaks the fourth wall and when a character plays so fast and loose with the rules, it can, in turn, be difficult for the films to have any semblance of stakes. In the original Deadpool, I can remember being so damn bored every time the Deadpool mask came off and they tried to ground the character. It was a little better in Deadpool 2, but the formula still wasn’t perfected. In Deadpool & Wolverine, I fear that the mixture is a step backwards.

The villain is, at best, interesting, and, at worst, generic and half baked. There is some interesting imagery to the character and I think that might be enough for some people, but, ultimately, I found that there simply wasn’t very much to them. The story progression is repetitive as well. I feel like the concept of Deadpool & Wolverine is a great concept for a film, and that the setting gives way to have an almost pseudo-superhero Mad Max style story (almost comparable to DC’s Elseworld stories), but it is too unpolished and undisciplined to reach its full potential. A lot of the time, it can feel like the story is progressed less by circumstance and more by the necessity of moving forward to the next fight sequence or gag.

I wouldn’t mention this or any other type of movie I review on The ‘Bib, but I will do it here – I didn’t enjoy the Multiverse characters as much as I would have liked. Mostly, the Multiverse is a giant dispenser for fan service. In Spider-Man: No Way Home, I feel that it was the perfect marriage of that concept. Andrew Garfield’s Spider-Man was allowed to have a bookend for his story arc (the parallel between him being able to save Mary Jane when he had failed to save Gwen Stacy), Willem Dafoe was allowed to kill it one last time as the Green Goblin, and it all worked without cannibalizing the central character’s journey. That, to me, was a perfect marriage of fan-service and movie. The Flash is another film that brought something meaningful from the dispenser (even if a lot of people don’t like Flash), where Michael Keaton’s Batman was allowed to deliver fun action scenes and portray an actual character. The Multiverse “Cameos” in Deadpool & Wolverine were less like Spider-Man: No Way Home and more like Doctor Strange 2, where they were cool to see, but they added nothing to the legacy of those characters (I also admittedly had a bit of a “Where’s everybody at?” reaction).

Deadpool & Wolverine is a decent superhero film. As much as I feel like I harped on it, I do want you to take away that I had a good time with it the same way I had fun with Deadpool and Deadpool 2. I laughed, I enjoyed it, and I would show up for a fourth outing if one should come to fruition. At the same time, I only considered Deadpool and Deadpool 2 as average films at best, and I consider Deadpool & Wolverine to be behind Deadpool 2. It is a fun celebration of the X-Men movies and a great night out at the cinema, and, for that, you won’t be disappointed!

3.0